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.