U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham, "Teflon Don" was sent the following letter below. Let's see how long he take to answer. Apparently Teflon Don is of the belief that he can exercise power without explaining the source of this power. Let's see if Judge Graham can provide legal reasoning for his behavior.




Tuesday, May 3, 2008

214 Atterberry Drive
Sebring, FL 33870

Donald L. Graham
99 N.E. 4th Street, Room 1155
Miami, Florida 33132
RE: FYI: DC Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham/Lynch

Dear Mr. Graham:

Firstly, this is a legal document and I expect it to be a part of the record. In my opinion, you have shown a reckless disregard for the rule of law and binding precedent. Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno has said of you: “I assure you that any decision rendered by Judge Graham was made in good faith upon what he perceived to be the law.” I reject this notion as I believe you are trying to teach me the lesson that as a federal judge you can do whatever you damn well please. This is a notion I cannot and will not accept.

On June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000, your Magistrate Judge Frank Lynch, Jr. issued the following “commands”:
"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).

"Plaintiff shall correspond only with Defendants’ counsel including any requests for public records.” (DE #246).

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).
The U.S. Supreme Court has declared this type of injunction as unconstitutional.
I will need a legal memorandum as to the following:
• This court lacked jurisdiction to render these orders because the Defendant, Highlands was without standing to seek these orders. See Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found. Inc. v. Cox, 408 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. Ga. 2005). Secondly, no complaint was filed.
• Assuming arguendo, this court had jurisdiction, these orders were in violation of 28 U.S.C §636(b)(1)(a).
• Assuming arguendo, this court had jurisdiction, these orders were in violation of the First Amendment.
• Assuming arguendo, this court had jurisdiction, these orders were in violation of the Tenth Amendment.
For legal authority against these orders, see your docket or Google “June 19, 2000 (de #201)” or “99-14027 doc. 201”. As a matter of fact, you can Google any number of different phrases and get information regarding these orders and yourself as well.

On September 20, 2001, you issued a pre-filing injunction, sua sponte. (Doc. 878). It is black letter law pre-filing injunctions require due process or notice and opportunity to be heard prior to issuance. If you need case law authority, simply go to Google and type in “sua sponte prefiling injunction”. As of today, you will find that the first 10 items lead back to you and ample case law authority. I am going to have insist that my constitutional rights be respected. Please explain why this order is not void. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that due process is mandatory for a constitutionally protected right. Are you rejecting the authority of SCOTUS?

You are damaging the reputation not only of yourself, but of your colleagues as well. Can anything be worth all this? I implore you to comply with the rule of law even if you disagree with SCOTUS.


Marcellus M. Mason, Jr.