PERTINENT BACKGROUND

The Players:

 Judge Donald Graham, U.S. District Court, SouthernDistrict

Maria Sorolis, Esquire extraordinaire, Tampa Office
                                  

* See Litigation Summary for More Information

1.  For the purpose of justifying this injunction Judge Graham counts the following lawsuits as being "filed": (1)Case No. 00-14202,(2)Case No. 00-14201, (3)Case No. 00-14116, (4)Case No. 01-14074, (5)01-14078,See pgs. 1-2, DE-878 ,URL: http://mmason.freeshell.org/DE-878/de878.pdf.  Judge Graham states, “ MarcellusM. Mason ("Mason") has filed eleven(11)cases and/or counterclaims in this District…” According to Judge Graham's own definition of “filing”, "A complaint is not considered filed until the filing fee is paid." See  (DE-10) Case No. 00-14201.  See also (DE-10)Case No. 00-14202.  No filing fee was paid in either of the above cases because Judge Graham arbitrarily denied me the benefit of the in forma pauperis statutes.  In fact, Judge Graham has a long history of arbitrary denials of IFP status. See Eleventh Circuit and Judge Graham make a mockery of the In Forma Pauperis Statutes , URL: http://mmason.freeshell.org/ifp.html. Using Judge Graham's own definition there were only 11minus 5 or 6 lawsuits “filed.”  Case No.00-14240 which Judge Graham also counts, was filed by Highlands County, not me.  Now Judge Graham has 5 lawsuits filed.  Case No.01-14230 was filed in state court and removed to the S.D. Fla. by Highlands County after Judge Graham crafted this injunction where they knew the case would be assigned to Judge Graham.  See Notice of Removal, URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-14230/NoticeOfRemoval.pdf. Judge Graham now has only four lawsuits that I filed, not the 11 JudgeGraham concocted.  These fourt lawsuits were consoliidated intoone lawsuit, Case No. 99-14027.  See Litigation Summary, URL:http://mmason.freeshell.org/LitigationSummary.doc.

2.  Highlands County specifically asked for the type injunction that Judge Graham concocted on September 20.2001.  However, on February 13, 2001 and January 16, 2001, Judge Graham and Judge Graham's Magistrate stated: “While there are other pending cases between these parties, there is nothing near the extent of the litigation which this Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals usually look to for justifying injunctive relief.”  See Case No.00-14240 (DE 27, pg. 3)(DE 33), URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/00-14240/de27.pdf,    http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/00-14240/de33.pdf. In the period between February 13, 2001 and September 20, 2001, I did not file any lawsuit in the S.D. FL.

3.  Judge Graham's so-called “bad faith” fails the MANDATORY due process requirement.  In a bit of hubris, Judge Graham stated; “THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte.” In the entirety of the document there is no mention of notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the issuance of this order. Did Judge Graham exercise “inherent authority” to ignore the “rule of law”?  At page 3 of this order Judge Graham claim Judge Graham have inherent authority to issue the order in question.   “A court should be cautious in exerting its inherent power and "must comply with the mandates of due process, both in determining that the requisite bad faith exists and in assessing fees.”  Byrne v. Nezhat,261 F.3d 1075 (11thCir. 2001)(quoting US Supreme Court Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,501 U.S.32, 50 (1991)).  “In addition, the accused must be given an opportunity to respond, orally or in writing, to the invocation of such sanctions and to justify his actions.”  In Re Mroz, 65 F.3d 1567,1575 (11thCir. 1995).

4.  An extensive history of filing frivolous litigation is MANDATORY before a filing injunction issued.  I don’t see where Judge Graham identified any frivolous actions.  The cases Judge Graham cited all specifically mentioned the number of frivolous lawsuits that were filed .  Procup v. Strickland, 792F.2d 1069(11th Cir. 1986)(176+ frivolous lawsuits); < span style="text-decoration: underline;">Martin Trigona v. Shaw, 986F.2d 1384 (plaintiff had filed at least 250 suits).  There is no law against filing meritorious lawsuits!