Related Background Information

This document is part of a series in which gross misconduct by U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L.Graham and Magistrate Frank Lynch Jr. is documented at http://mmason.freeshell.org, http://mcneilmason.wordpress.com,http://donaldlgraham.blogspot.com,and http://geocities.com/mcneilmason. These websites allege and

document

gross misconduct whichwould otherwise be incredulous and beyond belief. These websites demonstrate that federal judges will lie to protect themselves and each other and conceal their misconduct through the useof unpublished decisions. A long list of misconduct and abusive behavior by U.S. Dist. JudgeDonald L. Graham is fully documented at: http://mmason.freeshell.org/CoreAllegations.htm. Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson, Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal, has stated thatintentionally usurping legal authority is not misconduct. See

Judge J.L. Edmondson Mocks theJudicial

Misconduct

and Disability Act

atmmason.freeshell.org/372c/

FIRST PRIOR RESTRAINTS ON PURE SPEECH WERE EVERIMPLEMENTED

U.S. Magistrate Judge Frank Lynch, Jr. issues two orders on

June 19, 2000

, (D.E. # 201) and

July 25, 2000

, (D.E. # 246), that mark the dates that the first prior restraints on pure speech wereever implemented in the entire history of the United States. These orders were issued by a mereMagistrate Judge, Frank Lynch, Jr., in US Dist. Ct. Case No. 99-14027-Graham/Lynch, U.S.Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham, presiding. These documents were assigned Docket Nos. 201 and246. The second of these two orders, (D.E. # 246) is even more expansive because the federalMagistrate asserts jurisdiction over the administration of Florida Public Records. Incidentally aMagistrate may not 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).“

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

”Amendment I, U.S. Const.For more information on this matter see http://mmason.freeshell.org.These orders prohibit direct communication with the government bya non-lawyer. These orders required Marcellus M. Mason to seek the permission of Allen,Norton &Blue, a law firm in Tampa, Fl to talk to his local government, Highlands County Boardof County Commissioners. Tampa, Florida is approximately 90 miles from Sebring, Florida, thecounty seat of Highlands County and residency of Marcellus Mason. U.S. Dist Judge Donald L.Graham, S.D.Fla., in a secret opinion has that this injunction is not clear error. Judge Graham hasexpressly stated that the issuance of the injunctions by Magistrate Judge Frank Lynch, Jr. wasnot"clearly erroneous nor is it contrary to law." See Docket Entry No. 407.This prior restraint is discussed more fully at donaldlgraham.blogspot.com. These orders clearly implicate the FirstAmendment and the "Petition Clause".

The attached order prohibits direct communication with the government by a mere pro selitigant, Marcellus M. Mason and states: “

[T]he Plaintiff shall be prohibited from contacting anyof the Defendants, including their supervisory employees and/or the individual Defendants,regarding any matter related to this case. Plaintiff shall correspond only with Defendants' counsel.

” The Defendants being referred to are government entities and their employees.

.Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, Heartland Library Cooperative,

et.al.

“Theterm "prior restraint" describes orders

forbidding

certain communications that are issued beforethe communications occur. “ . Temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions -- i. e.,court orders that actually forbid speech activities -- are classic examples of prior restraints.”Alexander v. United States 509 U.S. 544,550 (1993).“Prior restraint has traditionally beendefined as a "predetermined judicial prohibition restraining specified expression…”Bernard v.Gulf-Oil Co., 619 F.2d 459, 476 (5th Cir. 1980) According to the United States Supreme Court,a prior restraint comes to the Court with a

heavy presumption against its validity

.New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971).This presumption is so strong it has beendescribed a virtually insurmountable.In re Providence Journal Company, 820 F.2d 1342 (1

Cir.1986)(“pure speech--speech not connected with any conduct--the presumption of unconstitutionality is virtually insurmountable.”). In over two hundred years, the U.S. SupremeCourt composed of nine Article III Judges, has never upheld a prior restraint on pure speech, Inre Providence Journal Company,

supra

, however, a mere Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr, issuesthese injunctions with ease.

Eleventh Circuit Refuses To Review These Orders For Validity

The Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal has refused to review these orders for validity onmultiple occasions. The Eleventh Circuit has used trickery and unpublished opinions to avoidreviewing these orders for validity:

•

U. S. Circuit Judge Ed Carnes stated that he could not review these order s for validitybecause a mere Magistrate deemed them “not injunctions per se” but discovery orders”.See US Circuit Judge Ed Carnes Undermines U.S. Supreme Court By Imposing Hobson’sChoice.

•

A colleague, U.S. Dist. Judge Vanessa D Gilmore, of Judge Donald L. Graham wasoverruled on appeal for entering a similar order. See Judge Graham Disagrees With TheFifth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals.

•

Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664-A, a direct appeal, the Eleventh Circuit refused toreview the validity of these injunctions; however, they spend 14 pages talking aboutMarcellus Mason’s violations of these clearly illegal injunctions. This appeal has beencalled the appeal from hell. See Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The AppealFrom Hell.

•

The Eleventh Circuit has long history of refusing to review these orders for validity.See

A Federal Magistrate May Issue An Injunction So Long As He Does Not Call itAn Injunction

section entitled

“Appellate Odyssey and Gauntlet”.