Beyond the Scope of Appeal: A
Despicable and Egregious Act of Dishonesty

Dist. Ct. Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham
Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664-A, Decided Oct. 16, 2002
Before: Judges Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Judge Stanley Marcus, and Judge Susan H. Black

Extracted from: mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm

In what can only be described as an act of blatant dishonesty and treachery, on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit struck Marcellus Mason's brief for arguing against an invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction because they claimed it was beyond the scope of appeal. However, the Eleventh Circuit then turned around and used the very same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction to affirm Judge Graham when it decided the appeal. What is even more incredible, the Eleventh Circuit accomplishes the impossible by justifying the dismissal of a case closed on June 20, 2001 with a sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction rendered on September 20, 2001. Additionally, the same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction has been declared invalid by more courts than you can shake a stick at. See mmason.freeshell.org/SuaSponte.htm. It is clear that the Eleventh Circuit will destroy its own integrity and legitimacy in order to conceal the misconduct and abuse by Judge Donald L. Graham. Do you want proof of these serious allegations? Consider the following and read the provided links to documents.

In Dist. Ct. Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham, a Notice of Appeal was filed on
June 25, 2001. (Docket Entry 795).

On September 20, 2001, Judge Graham issues a pre-filing injunction, sua sponte. See Docket Entry Number 878, (D.E. # 878).

On March 6, 2002, Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664, the Eleventh Circuit struck Mason’s brief for arguing against the September 20, 2001 sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit ordered Mason to file all new initial briefs less any mention of the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001. The Eleventh Circuit claimed the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction was “beyond the scope of appeal”. See
Order Striking Appellant's Brief.

On March 25, 2002,19 days after the Eleventh Circuit, struck Mason’s brief for arguing against the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction, Highlands County argued for the same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction in their Answer Brief on pages 18 and 19. However, the Eleventh Circuit, while granting Mason’s motion to strike Highlands County brief for arguing for the same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction, did not make Highlands County file

all new answer briefs as they had done Mason. The Eleventh Circuit claimed
that it would not consider the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction
in its decision. See Order Striking Appellees' Brief , which states:

("Appellant's motion to strike Appellees' brief is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that Appellees cite to the District Court's September 2001, Omnibus Order, as that order is outside the scope of this appeal. This Court will disregard any references in Appellees' brief to matters outside the scope of this appeal.").

As stated above,in its opinion of October 16, 2002,
Case No. 01-13664, pgs. 13-14, the Eleventh Circuit stated:

Moreover, despite the closure of the case by the district court, 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.

It is outrageous that the Eleventh Circuit would uses the same sua sponte
pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001 that it struck Mason's brief for
arguing in order to make a finding to support a Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.
dismissal. See "Implicit
finding Beyond the Scope.", pgs. 13, 14, Opinion.

Mockery and Meaningless Appeal

Eleventh Circuit, US Court of Appeal
Case No. 01-13664, Oct. 16, 2002, Direct Appeal
Case No. 01-15754, Dec. 5, 2001, Mandamus
Before: Judges Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Judge Stanley Marcus, and Judge Susan H. Black

Extracted from: mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm
.
If appeal briefs are filed and the appellant calls the district judge, Donald L. Graham, a liar; one would think that such an allegation would be vehemently denied if false, and remedied if true. See Direct Appeal Briefs, Mandamus Petition. However, one would be dead wrong. Judge Graham is excoriated for judicial misconduct and abuse; however, rather than confront these allegations, the Eleventh Circuit simply ignores them. Marcellus Mason filed appeal briefs asserting that Judge Graham should have recused or disqualified due to the following:

• Lying and intentionally misrepresenting law.


• Refusing to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction that had been pending for more than 17 months.


• Allowing scores of motions and filings to languish without being decided.
  


• Usurping legal authority. Allowing a Magistrate to issue an injunction prohibiting direct communication with the Highlands County Government.
  Additionally, prohibiting Marcellus Mason from making public
  records request under Florida Law directly to Highlands County.
  


• Violating clearly established law and the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court by issuing pre-filing injunctions.


• Abuse of the criminal contempt procedure. Judge Graham took a clearly invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction and made it the basis of a
  criminal contempt complaint and conviction.


• Lying and intentionally misrepresenting material facts.


• Ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court denying access to the courts by refusing to state any reason for denying IFP applications.
  

In the direct appeal, the Eleventh Circuit's "review" [a 14 page opinion] of these issues and allegations consisted of solely the following:

Mason also raises issues that relate to non-sanction matters, e.g., the denial of his motions to disqualify the district court and magistrate judges,

See the Unpublished Opinion, Case No. 01-13664-A. There is no suggestion that the above allegations are not true, they are simply ignored because they can not be denied.

The order denying Mandamus, Case No. 01-15754, a one page and one sentence "opinion", is even worse. "The "petition for writ of mandamus and petition for writ of prohibition" is DENIED" .

These are but two instances where the Eleventh Circuit has ignored allegations of misconduct against Judge Graham. There is a whole history of dishonesty set forth at mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm . This page documents that the futility of attempting to hold a federal judge accountable for misconduct and abuse.

The Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States and the Eleventh Circuit
in particular have developed the perfect mechanism for disposing of
complaints of judicial misconduct and avoiding public scrutiny.
Complaints of judicial misconduct can come in principally three forms:

• Judicial Misconduct Disability Act Complaint, 28 U.S.C.
  §§351


• Petition for Mandamus


• Direct Appeal

Nonpublished or Secret Opinions

The first hurdle to public scrutiny is that the results of the above are beyond public scrutiny because the results are not published and released. The Courts give themselves permission not to publish opinions with respect to mandamus and direct appeals. Judicial Misconduct Act Complaints are confidential by law. The public can not scrutinize what it does not knows exists.

Isolation

A litigant can initiate complaints through all three methods. The Eleventh Circuit will claim that the methods are mutually exclusive. This is a perfect strategy. Having made this claim of mutual exclusiveness, the Eleventh
Circuit is now free to dispose of valid complaints on this procedural
ground. There is no law that says the methods are mutually exclusive.

Valid complaints in the form of mandamus and the Judicial Misconduct Act
will be summarily dismissed on the "plausible" ground that they are properly
handled under the direct appeal. These summary dismissals, when viewed
in isolation can appear to be plausible.

Herding

Herding or Shepherding for the purpose of this website means guiding a
complaint of judicial misconduct towards a particular method. The
Eleventh Circuit guides the other forms of judicial complaints towards the
direct appeal method. Having guided the other forms of judicial
misconduct towards direct appeal, the Eleventh Circuit is now free to ignore
the complaint of judicial misconduct altogether by rendering unpublished opinion or by basing this opinion upon facts that are directly contradicted by the record. The reader must bear in mind that the only thing he or she knows is what the opinion says even if you could get your hands on the unpublished opinion.

This Blog is only a sample of the whole story, please see mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm It is impossible to overstate the level of dishonesty and lawlessness on the part of Judge Donald L. Graham and his enablers. What you will find is a cesspool of injustice in that Federal Judges use unpublished opinions to ignore facts, manufacture facts, lie, and all manner of other dishonest measures to achieve the desired outcome. mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm fully documents each and every assertion put forth here.

Judge Donald L. Graham is a Liar!

mmason.freeshell.org/liar.htm

If one assumes that the the personal integrity of Federal Judges is
important and essential to the rule of law, then one of the most pernicious
acts committed by Judge Graham and his enablers is outright lying. Firstly,
Judge Donald L. Graham lies by intentionally misrepresenting the law.
Secondly, Judge Graham's enablers at the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court
of Appeal, Judge Ed Carnes and Judge Frank Hull, realizing this lying is a problem, then lie to cover Judge Graham's lie, a truly remarkable story. Judge Graham told Marcellus Mason that he could not state a claim against a state actor, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners for violations 42 U.S.C. §1981. At the very moment Judge Graham told Mason
he could not state a claim against a state actor, Highlands County
Board of County Commissioners for violations 42 U.S.C. §1981, he was
allowing another Plaintiff in another case, Case No. 00-14094-CV-Graham, to
state a claim against the very same state actor, Highlands County
Board of County Commissioners for violations 42 U.S.C.
§1981. The Eleventh Circuit, Judge Ed Carnes and Judge Frank Hull,
then tried to cover for this lie by asserting that Marcellus Mason had not
sought claims under 42 U.S.C. §1981. It is difficult to imagine that anybody, much less a Federal Judge, would tell a lie that is easily proven with documents. For a complete discussion
and documentation of both lies, see mmason.freeshell.org/liar.htm