Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
de246

de246

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3 |Likes:
Published by mmason
June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000 marks the date
that the first prior restraints on pure speech
were ever implemented. These orders were issued
in US Dist. CT. Case No. 99-14027-Graham Lynch by
a mere Magistrate Judge, Frank Lynch, Jr.. These
documents were assigned Docket Nos. 201 and 246. The second of these two orders are really
expansive that the federal Magistrate asserts
jurisdiction over the administration of Florida
Public Records. In over two hundred years, the
U.S. Supreme Court compose of nine Article III
Judges, has never done this, however, a mere
Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr, issues this
injunction. Incidentally a Magistrate 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). For more information on this matter see
http://mmason.freeshell.org. This order prohibits
direct communication with the government by a

non-lawyer. It requires 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 Board of County

Commissioners. U.S. Dist Judge Donald L.

Graham,S.D.Fla., in a secrect opinion has that

this injunction is not clear error. This prior

restraint is discussed more fully at

donaldlgraham.blogspot.com. U.S. Dist Judge

Donald L. Graham's misconduct and hubris is

documented at mcneilmason.wordpress.com.
June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000 marks the date
that the first prior restraints on pure speech
were ever implemented. These orders were issued
in US Dist. CT. Case No. 99-14027-Graham Lynch by
a mere Magistrate Judge, Frank Lynch, Jr.. These
documents were assigned Docket Nos. 201 and 246. The second of these two orders are really
expansive that the federal Magistrate asserts
jurisdiction over the administration of Florida
Public Records. In over two hundred years, the
U.S. Supreme Court compose of nine Article III
Judges, has never done this, however, a mere
Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr, issues this
injunction. Incidentally a Magistrate 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). For more information on this matter see
http://mmason.freeshell.org. This order prohibits
direct communication with the government by a

non-lawyer. It requires 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 Board of County

Commissioners. U.S. Dist Judge Donald L.

Graham,S.D.Fla., in a secrect opinion has that

this injunction is not clear error. This prior

restraint is discussed more fully at

donaldlgraham.blogspot.com. U.S. Dist Judge

Donald L. Graham's misconduct and hubris is

documented at mcneilmason.wordpress.com.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: mmason on Apr 21, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/16/2009

pdf

text

original

 
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 
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 
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.
ie
.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 
section entitled
“Appellate Odyssey and Gauntlet”.
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR
T
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORID
AGR
AHAM
MARCELLUS M
. MASON, JR
.,
CASE NO
.99-14027-CIV-DIM25vs
Plaintiff
,
vs
.
HEARTLAND LIBRARY COOPERATIVE
,
HIGHLANDS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNT
Y
COMMISSIONERS, HARDEE COUNTY BOAR
D
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CAROLY
N
HESSELINK, DIANE HUNT, FRED CARINO
,
FRED MYERS, MARY MYERS, LESLIE WOOD
,
Defendants
.
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINAR
Y
INJUNCTION (Motion filed July 12, 2000) AND DEFENDANTS
'
MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS (DE ##23'
j
THIS CAUSEhaving come on to be heard upon the aforementione
d
Motions, and this Court having reviewed the
Motions and
Plaintiff'
s
response, and noting that this Court is considering this issue a
s
a pretrial discovery issue and not an injunction issue per se, an
d
further noting thatthis
Court issued an order on June 19, 2000
,
prohibiting the
Plaintiff
from contacting any Defendants includin
g
their
supervisory employees, and further noting that
Plaintif
f
continues to contact various supervisors
and individual Defendants
,
and being otherwise advised in the premises,
it
is
hereb
y
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
that Defendants' Renewed Motion fo
r
Preliminary Injunction is
GRANTED
in that the
Plaintiff
shall b
e
prohibited from contacting any of the Defendants, includingthei
r
supervisory employees and/or the individual Defendants, regardin
g
any matter related to this case,
it
is
further

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->