|
For
a perfect and outrageous example of the tricks described below, click on this
link,
Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell,
which renders an
unpublished opinion. Additionally, for
a really egregious example, see how Eleventh Circuit Case No. 00-16512,
an unpublished decision, and Eleventh Circuit Case No. No. 02-16019, a published
decision, Martinez v.
Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir., 2004), involving
the same pertinent facts yielded two very different outcomes. In a
free society, this type of jurisprudence simply can not be tolerated.
See
Eleventh Circuit Uses Same Set of Facts To Reverse One Florida Judge While
Affirming Another Florida Judge .
Same Set of Facts
Yield Different Outcomes-Unpublished v. Published Decisions
The system is often unfair to other federal judges in that an unpublished
opinion can be used to undermine binding precedent and affirm a judge for
the very same thing that another judge was reversed and excoriated for.
As a benefit of the appellate court's largess, the favored judge lacks a
paper trial of reversal should a Senate Confirmation be held for circuit
nomination. See Blog,
mcneilmason.wordpress.com and postings:
·
Eleventh Circuit Uses Same Set of Facts To Reverse One Florida Judge While
Affirming Another Florida Judge
·
"Teflon Don" Avoids Reversal While Colleague Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages
Suffers Reversal
·
U.S. Dist. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas Reversed While Colleague Judge
Donald L. Graham Affirmed by Killing The Appeal
·
Eleventh Circuit Uses Unpublished Opinion and Omission(Deception) To Invoke
Res Judicata
·
Judge Graham Disagrees With The Fifth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals
TABLE
OF TRICKS (CONTENTS)
The Old "Do Not
Publish" trick
The Old "rehearing denied" trick
The old "gotcha" trick".
The "beyond the scope of appeal" trick
The old "ignore issue" trick
The old "mischaracterize trick"
If
all else fails, then lie.
The
old "arbitrarily deny IFP" trick
The
Old "you failed to file an appeal" trick
The old "dog chasing tail" or
"wrong remedy" trick.
LEGAL STANDARD ON IFP APPLICATIONS
TRICKERY, TREACHERY, AND CHICANERY
The Eleventh Circuit employs all the above methods to crush appeals and
hide blatant misconduct of Judges like Donald L. Graham. It is widely
rumored that the Eleventh Circuit does not treat pro se appeals with the legal respect
they require. This author was well aware of this rumor and prepared for
it by scanning official court documents and publishing them to the
Internet. None of the decisions referenced here can be found by searching
the Eleventh Circuit's website for they reside on the scrap-heap of
justice, however, all is not lost because I have published all their
"DO NOT PUBLISH" opinions. The stories you are about
read are incredible and seemingly delusional, however, these incredible
stories are fully documented with RECORD
facts. Incidentally, the government tried to jail me for a mass
emailing campaign that told members of the legal community of these
incredible stories. See Government's
Motion
To Amend Bond. Why are these people fighting so hard to
conceal their "good law".
The Old "Do
Not Publish" trick.
This is a widely used trick. The Eleventh Circuit has total, 100%
discretion about the cases it publishes and does not publish. The
people do not have the right to demand their federal judges publish their
decisions and state the reasons for making them. As a matter of fact,
if you go the Eleventh Circuit's website, you can't even find these
"unpublished cases" that I and the Defendants were involved
in. Consequently, if you don't know these" unpublished
cases" exist, they will be placed on the scrap heap of
justice. Seeing is believing, go to the Eleventh
Circuit's website (choose "Search the Opinions Database" )
and enter "MARCELLUS Mason" or "mason" or
"Heartland Library", or "Highlands County"; and you
won't find a single case involving Marcellus Mason and Heartland Library Cooperative
or Highlands County. However, there are quite a few cases involving these
parties. See Unpublished.
Why all these unpublished cases?
The Old "rehearing denied "trick.
THE NO REHEARING SLIGHT OF HAND
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT CASE NO. 01-15754
Federal Rules Appellate Procedure 40
(2) Contents. The petition must state with particularity each point of law
or fact that the petitioner believes the court has overlooked or misapprehended
and must argue in support of the petition. Oral argument is not permitted.
One of
tricks the Eleventh Circuit uses is to deny a petition or appeal and offer
no reason. For example in Case No. 15754, a mandamus petition, in denying
the mandamus petition the court simply stated:
The "petition for writ of mandamus
and petition for writ of prohibition" is DENIED.”
See "Order".
Consequently, when you file your motion
for rehearing the Eleventh Circuit can simply say:
“Petitioner has offered no reason
sufficient to warrant either reconsideration or clarification of this
Court's Order.”
See Rehearing
Denied.
You can
not “state with particularity each point of law or fact that the
petitioner believes the court has overlooked or misapprehended”, if
the court never states its reason in the first place.
GREAT
TRICK, ISN’T IT?
Coming in the near future as my webmaster needs
time!!!
The old "gotcha" trick".
D.C. Case No.
00-14201-CV-Graham/Lynch, 11th Circuit Case No. 01-16512
A judge can deny an IFP application for two reasons
only. See below
LEGAL
STANDARD ON IFP
APPLICATIONS. First, the obligation of poverty has to be
untrue. Secondly, the complaint must be frivolous and frivolous
means almost delusional, a very high standard indeed. In
Summary, Judge Donald L. Graham denied me in forma pauperis status and provided no reason at
all. Judge Graham provided nothing that even looked like a reason for
denial of my IFP application. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit, who
allowed me to proceed on appeal
in forma pauperis, affirmed
Judge Graham's arbitrary denial because I "refused" Judge
Graham's order to pay the filing fee. Incredible, but true. See
this incredible story in a section called AN EXTREME EXAMPLE OF JUDICIAL
ABUSE OF IFP STATUTES-
D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham/Lynch, 11th
Circuit Case No. 01-11305,01-13664
Gotcha coup de grace
The first example of
"gotcha" jurisprudence was small potatoes. The gotcha coup de grace occurred in D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham/Lynch, 11th Circuit Case No. 01-11305and
01-13664.. This gotcha coup
de grace is attributed to /s/ Ed Carnes,
United States Circuit Court Judge. In summary the Eleventh Circuit
told me that I could not seek review of an injunction via appeal or
mandamus and that I must either wait until the case closes or violate the
injunction and get cited for contempt and then I could appeal.
Incredible ! Consequently, when I allegedly violated the injunction,
Judge Graham dismissed my case and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed?
What happened to my right to appellate review of an injunction? Have
you seen it? Here is the full documented story:
The
Defendant(s) in this case and all other related cases, the Highlands
County Board County Commissioners, is a GOVERNMENT. Highlands County is located
Sebring, Florida which is South Central Florida. Judge Graham's office
is in Miami, Florida, or approximately 160 miles from where I reside in
Sebring, Florida. Maria Sorolis and Brian Koji of Allen, Norton &
Blue reside and work in Tampa, Florida, or some 90 miles away from Sebring,
Florida. Court papers are filed in Fort Pierce, Florida, or
some 75 miles away from Sebring, Florida.
On June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000, a Magistrate Judge, Lynch, issued
the following directives:
“Plaintiff shall be prohibited
from contacting any of the Defendants,
including
their supervisory employees and/or the individual
Defendants,
regarding any matter related to this case.” (DE#201),
page 2
of 2 pages.
“Plaintiff
shall correspond only with Defendants' counsel including
any
requests for public records.” (DE #246), page 2 of 2 pages.
“Plaintiff
shall be prohibited from contacting any of the Defendants,
including
their supervisory employees and/or the individual
Defendants,
regarding any matter related to this case.” (DE#246),
page2
of 2 pages.
Judge Graham and his Magistrate, Frank Jr., (Frank Lynch
Jr), decided they had the authority to prohibit me from speaking to my government
out of court unless I had the permission of Allen, Norton, & Blue, a
private lawfirm. Judge Graham and his Magistrate, Frank Jr., ( Frank
Lynch Jr) have never stated where they got this authority from.
On June 20, 2001,
Judge Graham decided to dismiss my lawsuit because he alleged that I
communicated with my government, Highlands County Board County
Commissioners, without the permission of private for profit
attorneys. See (DE
#766), page 2,
page
3, page 4,
and page
5; Pdf
format (DE
#791), page 2.
Pdf
format. I repeatedly and incessantly challenged the
jurisdiction of the court with respect to these illegal injunctions, (DE #201),
page 2,
(DE #246),
page 2
, however, Judge Graham absolutely refused to state where he got the
legal authority to issue the orders in question. Judge Graham has NEVER at any time cited legal
authorities for these patently illegal orders even though there have been
relentless requests. See for example, and note that this list
is not collectively exhausted, Case No. 99-14027 see
Plaintiff’s motions and responses, (Doc.#200);(Doc. #239); (Doc.
#262);(Doc. #264);(Doc. #284);(Doc.#334);(Doc. #509);(Doc.
#515);(Doc. #526);(Doc. 554);(Doc. 632, pg.5);(Doc.#633);(Doc. 652);(Doc.
663); (Doc. 735); (Doc. 736); (Doc.738); (Doc. 783); (Doc. 787, pgs 2-3);
(Doc. 810); (Doc. 812); (Doc.813); (Doc. 817); (Doc. 829), (Doc. 845);and the court's orders: (DE #201), page 2,(DE #246), page 2,;(Doc.
#279);(Doc.
281);(Doc.
#407, pg. 2
);(Doc.
#524);(Doc. #528);(Doc. #634);(Doc.
673);(Doc.
744);(Doc.
745);(Doc.
766);(Doc. 791);(Doc.
874, pg.
2);(Doc. 882,
pgs. 1-2), (DE-890),
(DE-928),(DE-931).
I filed a mandamus petition seeking to have these patently
illegal "injunctions" reversed, however the Eleventh Circuit and
Judge Carnes stated:
"With
regard to his requests for relief from the order granting the defendants'
motions for preliminary injunction, which the court construed as a
preliminary discovery motion, Mason has an alternative remedy. He may
either comply with the district court's discovery order and challenge it on
appeal from the final judgment, or refuse to comply with the order and
challenge its validity if cited for contempt . See Rouse Constr. Int'l,
Inc. v. Rouse Constr. Corp ., 680 F.2d 743, 745(11th Cir . 1982)
."
When I filed an appeal, Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13364,
guess what the Eleventh Circuit did? Yes that right, gotcha. See
Unpublished
"Opinion". The Eleventh Circuit stated that I
violated the court orders, (DE
201), (DE246),
and communicated with my government without the permission of a private for
profit law firm. Essentially and factually, the Eleventh
Circuit ruled that a Magistrate may issue an injunction that violates my
rights under the First Amendment, Florida Public Records Act, and the
Florida Constitution so long as the Magistrate calls his injunction a
"discovery order" and not an injunction. Semantics is the
key here, not substance. Incredible, but true. e.g. "which the court construed as
a preliminary discovery motion", 11th Circuit Case
No. 01-11305; "the magistrate judge
issued a discovery order prohibiting Mason from contacting the defendants
or their employees http://mmason.freeshell.org" pg. 3, Unpublished
"Opinion"; " the magistrate judge and district court
attempted to clarify with Mason that the Orders were not injunctions, but
rather necessary for the orderly litigation of the case " pg. 12, Unpublished
"Opinion".
Legal
Problems Associated with these Patently Illegal Injunctions, (DE
201), (DE246).
1.
These orders, (DE
201), (DE246),
“preliminary injunctions” are invalid because this issue was
not referred to the Magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). Additionally, these orders invalid because the
Defendants failed to file a complaint and failed to meet the requirements
for a “temporaryrestraining order,” or “TRO,” or
injunction. See Ingram v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 900
(11th Cir. 1995). See also Hill v. Butterworth,
941 F. Supp. 1129,1136 (N.D.Fla. 1996)(“Plaintiff is not
entitled to issuance of a TRO because he has filed neither an affidavit
accompanying his petition, nor a verified complaint.”).
2.
A Magistrate does not have the legal authority to
issue an injunction. “A judge may designate a magistrate to hear
and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except
a motion for injunctive relief…” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). “[A] magistrate lacks power to enter an
injunction even in a case where the district court has jurisdiction.”
United Steelworkers Of America, v. Bishop,598 F.2d 408, 411 (5th
Cir. 1979). There is no difference between a “pretrial
discovery issue and not an injunction per se” and an injunction or
restraining order . A district
court’s characterization of a “restraining order” or
an“ injunction is not dispositive. Cuban American Bar Ass'n,
Inc. v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1412, 1421-2 (11th
Cir.1995) (“where the order has the effect of a preliminary
injunction this court has jurisdiction to review the order and is not bound
by the district court’s designation of the order”); Geneva
Assur. v. Medical Emergency Services, 964 F.2d 599, 600 (7th
Cir.1992) (citing Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 85-88,
94S.Ct. 937, 950-951, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974)) (“What is true, [i]s
that the name which the judge gives the order is not
determinative.”).
Restraining Order- An order in the
nature of an injunction. Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, West
Publishing Company, Copyright
@ 1968.
Injunction- A judicial process operating in personam,
and requiring person to whom it is directed to do or refrain from doing a
particular thing. See Blacks’
Law, supra.
“1. An enjoining; forbidding; command. Something enjoined; command;
order. 3. A writ or order from a court prohibiting a person group from
carrying out a given action, or ordering a given action to be
done.” Webster’s New World TM Collegiate Dictionary, Fourth Edition, MacMillan USA, Copyright @1999, Pg.
736.
3.
A federal judge has no authority to regulate how the
Plaintiff accesses public records under Florida law. Public records
under Florida law is not any of the federal government’s
business. “The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States, respectively, or to the people.” Tenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution. “Courts
created by statute only have such jurisdiction as the statute
confers.” Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.,486
U.S. 800, 820 (1988). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
create federal jurisdiction. In re Infant Formula Antitrust
Litigation, MDL 878 v. Abbott Laboratories, 72 F. 3d 842,843 (11th Cir.
1995)(citing Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S.
365, 368-370 & n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2400 &n. 7, 57 L.Ed.2d 274
(1978)). See also Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d
1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001) (“Lower federal courts can exercise this
power only over cases for which there has been a congressional grant of
jurisdiction”). Plaintiff challenged the subject matter
jurisdiction of the Court, but the Magistrate failed to respond.
(Doc. 738, pgs. 7-8). Assuming the Magistrate had jurisdiction to
direct that the Plaintiff shall correspond only with Defendants' counsel
including any requests for public records, the order would still be
improper because Florida Courts, Supreme Court and District Courts of
Appeals, don’t feel they do not have the right to take such
liberties. “We would be less than
candid if we did not acknowledge that, as the present case demonstrates
public agencies are placed at a disadvantage, compared to private
person’s, when faced with potential litigation claims. It
is also pertinent to observe that the wisdom of such a policy resides
exclusively within the province of the legislature.” Toberv.
Sanchez, 417 So 2d 1053, 1055 (App. Dist. 3 1982). "[P]ublic
officials must conduct public business in the open and . . .public records
must be made available to all members of the public." Henderson
vs. State Of Florida, 745 So. 2d 319,325 n.5; (Fla. 1999). "[W]e do not equate the acquisition of
public documents under chapter 119 with the rights of discovery afforded a
litigant by judicially-created rules of procedure” Id.
"Courts cannot judicially create any exceptions, or exclusions to
Florida's Public Records Act." Board of County Commissioners
of Palm Beach County v. D.B.,784 So. 2d 585, 591(Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
4.
The district court punished the Plaintiff for
exercising his right of “free speech” by dismissing this
meritorious lawsuit. Plaintiff has a clear right to communicate with
his government about the matters in this controversy, litigation notwithstanding.
“[T]here is nothing that prohibits one party to a litigation from
making direct contact with another party to the same litigation.
These rules are designed to regulate the conduct of nonlawyers, and simply
do not apply to the conduct of nonlawyers.” E.E.O.C. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 948 F.Supp. 54, 55 (E.D.Mo.
1996). See also Rule 4-4.2, R.Regulating Fla. Bar and § 99, Restatement Third The Law Governing Lawyers. See (Doc.
738,pgs. 3-6);(Doc. 783, pg. 3). Mason repeatedly attacked these
illegal orders and the district court has adamantly refused to cite legal
authority for its actions each time.
Coming in the near future as my webmaster needs
time!!!
The "beyond
the scope of appeal" trick
This is the dirtiest and the most dishonest trick that the
Eleventh Circuit pulled, which is very dirty even for the Eleventh
Circuit. In D.C. Case No.99-14027-CV-Graham, Judge Graham wrote a
"pre-filing" screening injunction against me on September 20, 2001, (DE #878), Flash Document (de 878) . However,
the case was closed on June 20,
2001, and noticed for appeal on July3, 2001. See Appeal Docketing Letter , URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/docketappeal.pdf and docketed under Eleventh Circuit Case No.
01-13664.. Without addressing the merits of the injunction, which has
HUGE legal and factual problems, the facts are limited here to strictly the
"beyond the scope of appeal" trick or issue.
Keep the above dates in mind. In summary, the Eleventh Circuit struck
my Initial Brief for arguing the injunction described above, September20, 2001, (DE #878),because they said it was beyond the "beyond the
scope of appeal". In fact this order , (DE #878), September20,
2001, really was beyond the scope of appeal which was
docketed on July 3, 2001.
See Appeal Docketing Letter , URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/docketappeal.pdf.
However, the
Eleventh turned around and used the same order or injunction, September 20, 2001, (DE #878) that they struck my brief for arguing to
affirm the district judge's, Donald L. Graham, dismissal of a case on June 20, 2001, and noticed for
appeal on July 3, 2001,
See Appeal Docketing Letter , URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/docketappeal.pdf with an order rendered on September 20, 2001, (DE #878), The Eleventh Circuit badly need this order of
September 20, 2001,
(DE #878), in order to affirm a FRCP Rule 41(b) dismissal on June 20, 2001. Unbelievable
? Consider the following record facts along with the above:
As recently as May 20, 2004, The Eleventh Circuit
claimed that I did not appeal the injunction of September 20, 2001, (DE#878). On May 20, 2004 [Eleventh Circuit Case No.
No.04-11894-B], the Eleventh Circuit made the following bold, false, and inaccurate assertion:
Moreover, Mason had an adequate alternative remedy to
mandamus relief in that he could have timely appealed the September 20,
2001 order, but did not do so.
See Page 4,
Opinion, Eleventh Circuit Case No. No. 04-11894-B, URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/04-11894/04-11894.tif. A direct appeal was originally docketed for
Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664-A (D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV) on July3, 2001. See Appeal Docketing Letter , URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/docketappeal.pdf. Judge
Donald L. Graham, sua sponte,
and without due process notice, wrote an order restricting my filings on September 20,2001, or three
months after the case was noticed for appeal. See DE-878,URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/99-14027/de878.pdf. The
appeal briefs were not actually filed until February and March of
2002. Appeal Briefs: First Initial Brief (Stricken), URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/InitialBriefPending.pdf
Corrected Initial Brief,
URL:http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/CorrectedInitialBrief.PDF,
Appellees' Answer Brief, URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/AppelleeBrief.pdf, Reply Brief, URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/ReplyBrief.pdf, Appellant's Motion For Rehearing.URL: The
Eleventh Circuit struck my brief for arguing the order of September20, 2001
because they claimed it was "beyond the scope of appeal." See
attached 01-13664_Order_Striking_Appellant_Brief.pdf,URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/01-13664_Order_Striking_Appellant_Brief.pdf
. The really appalling and despicable act of dishonesty here is
that the Eleventh Circuit turned around and used the same order or
injunction of September 20,
2001 that they struck my brief for arguing to justify
affirming the dismissal of the case, 99-14027 pursuant to Rule 41(b),
Fed.R.Civ.P. which was closed on June 20, 2001.
Mason's continual filing of motions with the court
addressing matters previously settled prompted the district court to
prohibit Mason from further filings without explicit permission and
initiate criminal contempt proceedings. Therefore, the record supports
the district court's implicit finding that a sanction less than dismissal
of the action with prejudice would have had no effect.
See Opinion_OCR.htm, pg. 14, http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/Opinion-OCR.htm. On September 29, 2001, even
though the case was already on appeal [D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV], I filed
a Petition for Writ of Mandamus And Petition For Writ Of Prohibition.
See Petition, URL: http://mmason.freeshell.org/15754/WritOfMandamusAndWritOfProhibition.pdf. A mandamus
petition filed with the court and the opposing party satisfies the requirement
for a "notice of appeal". It seems absurd to argue
otherwise, which indeed no one has. The Eleventh Circuit and the US
Supreme Court have held that a timely filed mandamus petition satisfies the
notice of appeal requirement. See YATES v. MOBILE COUNTY
PERSONNEL BD.,658 F.2d 298,299 (5th Cir. 1981) . SMITH v.
BARRY, 502 U.S. 244(1992). See also U.S. v.
GRANT, 256 F.3d1146 (11th Cir. 2001); STEVENS v. HEARD, 674 F.2d
320 (5th Cir.1982). Rather than rule on the merits of this petition,
the Eleventh Circuit simply ignored the petition on December 5,
2001. See URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-15754/P2185803.jpg. Additionally,
the Eleventh refused a subsequent motion for rehearing demanding to know
the reason for refusing to rule on the merits, however, the Eleventh
Circuit, simply ignored the request again. See URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-15754/RehearingDenial.tif
The Eleventh
Circuit and Judge Graham are dishonest and are involved in a conspiracy to
conceal Judge Donald L. Graham's misconduct and arrogance.
.
The old
"ignore issue" trick
CASE NO. 01-13664-A
If the Eleventh
Circuit doesn't like an issue and can not come up with a plausible and
spurious answer, the Eleventh Circuit will simply ignore the issue.
The ultimate appellate issue is that the Judge should have disqualified
himself. The issue of disqualification, a jurisdictional issue, must
be resolved before any other issue on appeal. This fact is
self-evident to everybody except the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal, and
specifically Judges, BIRCH, BLACK, and MARCUS. In Case No.
01-13664-A, I mount a scathing attack of Judge Graham and accuse him of the
following:
1.
Lying and intentionally misrepresenting the law
2.
Usurping legal authority
3.
Failing to rule on a motion for a preliminary
injunction
4.
Allowing scores of motions to go undecided
See Initial Brief, pgs. 30-33, and Court's Unpublished Opinion. This
garbage opinion makes no mention of disqualification issue on
appeal.
CASE NO. 01-15754-A
I filed a petition for mandamus and accused Judge
Donald L. Graham of the following, among other things:
1.
Lying and intentionally misrepresenting the law
2.
Usurping legal authority
3.
Failing to rule on a motion for a preliminary
injunction
4.
Allowing scores of motions to go undecided
The
Eleventh Circuit simply ignored the entire petition and refused to give an
explanation. See "Order".
The old "mischaracterize trick"
Coming in the near future as my
webmaster needs time!!!
If all else fails,
then lie.
CASE NO. 04-11894
Yes, you heard me
!! The Eleventh Circuit will tell an outright lie to conceal the behavior
of a Judge if they have to. Specifically, Judges CARNES and HULL were
willing to tell an outright lie in order to save Judge Graham from Judge
Graham's RECORD. Consider the following and follow the links and read
for yourself.
Judge Graham
stated in my lawsuit that I could not state a claim under 42U.S.C. § 1981
against a state actor while at the very same time Judge Graham allowed a
Plaintiff to state a claim under 42 U.S.C.§ 1981 against the very same
state actor. In my lawsuit, Judge Graham stated:
Counts Eight, Nineteen, Twenty-One, Twenty-Three and
Twenty-Five deal with §1981 claims. This Court believes that those
claims should likewise be dismissed pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit's
opinion in Butts v. County of Volusia, 222 F.3d 891(11th Cir. 2000).
In Butts, the Eleventh Circuit held that §1983 constituted the
exclusive remedy against state actors for violation of rights
contained in §1981. The Plaintiff has a valid §1983 count pending
concerning his termination of employment. He has two Title VII claims as
well as a disparate treatment claim pending. The Plaintiffs response does
not give sufficient reason why he is entitled to plead a §1981 claim in
light of the Butt's decision.
See Page 3, Report and Recommendation, (DE #435),URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/99-14027/DE-435/de435.pdf. At the very same time that Judge Graham was
saying that I could not state a claim against a state actor under
§1981,Judge Graham was allowing another Plaintiff to state a claim under
§1981 against the very same state actor, Highlands County Board of County
Commissioners, in Case No. 00-14094-CIV-Graham, Fa Nina St. Germain v.
Highlands County Board of County Commissioners. Fa Nina St.
Germain's §1981 was disposed of on the facts, not the law and not Butts
v. County of Volusia,222 F.3d 891(11th Cir. 2000), in Case
No. 00-14094-CIV-Graham. See (Doc. 58, Pages 2) Order on
Summary Judgment, URL :http://mmason.freeshell.org/00-14094/de58.pdf. Clearly, somebody was lied to, either me or Fa
Nina St. Germain. On May 20, 2004 [Eleventh Circuit Case No. No.
04-11894-B], the Eleventh Circuit made the following bold, false, and inaccurate assertion:
Mason merely asserts that Judge Graham was not impartial
because … (2)would not let Mason file a § 1981 claim, but did let
another plaintiff with similar claims do so. As to the alleged languishing,
a review of the district court docket sheet shows that the court ruled upon
his motions in a timely manner. Moreover, a review of Mason’s
complaint and the other plaintiff’s complaint reveal that their
claims are not similar. Mason’s complaint alleges that county entities
and employees violated his First Amendment rights, which is actually a 42
U.S.C. § 1983 claim. The plaintiff to which Mason compares himself,
however, brought racial and national origin discrimination and retaliation
claims under 42 U.S.C. §2000e (Title VII) and § 1981. Both Title VII and §
1981 can be used to bring race discrimination claims.
See pgs. 2-3, Opinion,
EleventhCircuit Case No. No. 04-11894-B, URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/04-11894/04-11894.tif. Judge
Graham and the Eleventh Circuit knows full well that the Eleventh
Circuit’s assertion is false because my complaint specifically
alleges racial discrimination and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e
(Title VII) and § 1981. See (DE #321, pps. 1,2, 11; 63-64, 65, ¶¶1,
2, 3, 85, 459-462, 465-466, 473-474),URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/99-14027/ConsolidatedAmendedComplaint.doc. It is
difficult to imagine that judges would tell such an outright lie when they
know the RECORD fully contradicts them. This is example of extreme
hubris and nauseating dishonesty.
The old
"arbitrarily deny IFP" trick
CASE NO.01-13664-A
One of the other
tricks the Eleventh Circuit will pull to deny appellate relief is simply to
deny the indigent access to the courts for an arbitrary reason or make a
false assertion that the Eleventh Circuit can not prove. For example,
I filed a motion to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis. The Eleventh Circuit denied this motion
by saying I was being untruthful and offered no proof. See IFP Denial. On a motion for rehearing, I begged the
Eleventh Circuit for proof, and the Eleventh Circuit ruled that it does
need to have proof of its' assertions. See Denial of Motion To Clarify. As a matter
of fact, both the Eleventh Circuit and Judge Donald L. Graham have an
extensive history of denying in forma
pauperis motions for no reason at all. See Arbitrary Denials.
The
Old "you failed to
file an appeal" trick
D.C. Case No.
99-14027-CV
Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.-01-13664, 01-15754, 04-11894
This
is another example of extreme dishonesty and artifice. The Eleventh
Circuit is now claiming that I did not appeal an injunction rendered by
Judge Graham on September 20, 2001,
(DE #878). On May 20, 2004 [Eleventh Circuit Case No. No.
04-11894-B], the Eleventh Circuit made the following bold, false, and inaccurate assertion:
Moreover, Mason had an adequate alternative remedy to
mandamus relief in that he could have timely appealed the September 20,
2001 order, but did not do so.
See Page 4, Opinion,
Eleventh Circuit Case No. No. 04-11894-B,
URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/04-11894/04-11894.tif. A direct appeal was originally docketed for
Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664-A (D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV) on July3, 2001. See Appeal Docketing Letter , URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/docketappeal.pdf. Judge
Graham , sua sponte, and
without due process notice, wrote an order restricting my filings on
September 20,2001, or three
months after the case was
noticed for appeal. See
DE-878. The appeal briefs were not actually filed
until February and March of 2002.
Appeal
Briefs:
First Initial Brief
(Stricken),
Corrected Initial Brief
Appellees Answer Brief
Reply Brief
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing
.
The Eleventh
Circuit struck my brief for arguing the order of September 20, 2001 because
they claimed it was "beyond the scope of appeal. "
See attached
01-13664_Order_Striking_Appellant_Brief.pdf.The really appalling and despicable act of
dishonesty here is that the Eleventh Circuit turned around and used the
same order or injunction of September
20, 2001 that they struck my brief for arguing to
justify affirming the dismissal of the case,99-14027 pursuant to Rule
41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. which was closed on June20, 2001.
Mason's continual filing of motions with the court
addressing matters previously settled prompted the district court to
prohibit Mason from further filings without explicit permission and
initiate criminal contempt proceedings. Therefore, the record
supports the district court's implicit finding that a sanction less than
dismissal of the action with prejudice would have had no effect.
See Opinion_OCR.htm, pg. 14, http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/Opinion-OCR.htm. On September 29, 2001, even
though the case was already on appeal [D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV], I filed
aPetition for Writ of Mandamus And Petition For Writ Of Prohibition. See
Petition, URL: http://mmason.freeshell.org/15754/WritOfMandamusAndWritOfProhibition.pdf. A mandamus
petition filed with the court and the opposing party satisfies the
requirement for a "notice of appeal". It seems absurd to
argue otherwise, which indeed no one has. The Eleventh Circuit and the US
Supreme Court have held that a timely filed mandamus petition satisfies the
notice of appeal requirement. See YATES v. MOBILE COUNTY
PERSONNEL BD.,658 F.2d 298,299 (5th Cir. 1981) . SMITH
v. BARRY, 502 U.S. 244(1992). See also U.S. v.
GRANT, 256 F.3d1146 (11th Cir. 2001); STEVENS v. HEARD, 674 F.2d
320 (5th Cir.1982). Rather than rule on the merits of this petition,
the Eleventh Circuit simply ignored the petition on December 5,
2001. See URL:
http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-15754/P2185803.jpg. Additionally,
the Eleventh refused a subsequent motion for rehearing demanding to know
the reason for refusing to rule on the merits, however, the Eleventh
Circuit, simply ignored the request again. See URL:
http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-15754/RehearingDenial.tif
What happened to my appeal?? Have you seen my appeal?
Mamma, the Eleventh Circuit has my appeal right and won't give it to
me!
Coming in the near future as my
webmaster needs time!!!
The old "dog chasing tail" or "wrong
remedy" trick.
For example specific and documented
allegations of misconduct were leveled at Judge Graham in every conceivable
legal manner, but the Eleventh Circuit simply will not address these
issues.
LEGAL STANDARD
ON IFP APPLICATIONS
According to Congress
and the United States Supreme Court, an in forma pauperis (IFP) application
may only be denied if the allegation of poverty is untrue or the action is
totally frivolous and has no merit under any possible legal theory.
"
The federal in
forma pauperis 28 U.S.C. § 1915, allows an indigent litigant to commence a
civil or criminal action in federal court without paying the administrative
costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. The statute protects against abuses
of this privilege by allowing a district court to dismiss the case "if
the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is
frivolous or malicious." SEE DENTON
v. HERNANDEZ, 504U.S. 25, 27 (1992). "[A] court may
dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are
"clearly baseless,"490 U.S., at 327, a category encompassing
allegations that are "fanciful," id., at 325,
"fantastic," id., at 328, and "delusional," ibid. As
those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when
the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available
to contradict them. An in forma pauperis complaint may not
be dismissed, however, simply because the court finds the plaintiff's
allegations unlikely. Some improbable allegations might properly be
disposed of on summary judgment, but to dismiss them as frivolous without
any factual development is to disregard the age-old insight that many
allegations might be "strange, but true; for truth is always strange,
Stranger than fiction." SEE DENTON v.
HERNANDEZ, 504 U.S.25, 32-33 (1992).
|
