P. 1
de201

de201

|Views: 14|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 secret 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. These orders clearly implicate the First Amendment and the "Petition Clause".
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 secret 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. These orders clearly implicate the First Amendment and the "Petition Clause".

More info:

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 which would 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 use of unpublished decisions. A long list of misconduct and abusive behavior by U.S. Dist. Judge Donald 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 that intentionally usurping legal authority is not misconduct. See Judge J.L. Edmondson Mocks the Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act at mmason.freeshell.org/372c/.

FIRST PRIOR RESTRAINTS ON PURE SPEECH WERE EVER IMPLEMENTED
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 were ever implemented in the entire history of the United States. These orders were issued by a mere Magistrate 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 and 246. The second of these two orders, (D.E. # 246) is even more expansive because the federal Magistrate asserts jurisdiction over the administration of Florida Public Records. 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). “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 by a 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 Board of County Commissioners. Tampa, Florida is approximately 90 miles from Sebring, Florida, the county 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 has expressly stated that the issuance of the injunctions by Magistrate Judge Frank Lynch, Jr. was not "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 First Amendment and the "Petition Clause".

The attached order prohibits direct communication with the government by a mere pro se litigant, Marcellus M. Mason and states: “[T]he 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. 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. “The term "prior restraint" describes orders forbidding certain communications that are issued before the 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 been defined 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 been described a virtually insurmountable. In re Providence Journal Company, 820 F.2d 1342 (1st 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. Supreme Court composed of nine Article III Judges, has never upheld a prior restraint on pure speech, In re Providence Journal Company, supra, however, a mere Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr, issues these 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 on multiple occasions. The Eleventh Circuit has used trickery and unpublished opinions to avoid reviewing these orders for validity: • U. S. Circuit Judge Ed Carnes stated that he could not review these order s for validity because 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’s Choice . • A colleague, U.S. Dist. Judge Vanessa D Gilmore, of Judge Donald L. Graham was overruled on appeal for entering a similar order. See Judge Graham Disagrees With The Fifth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals. • Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664-A, a direct appeal, the Eleventh Circuit refused to review the validity of these injunctions; however, they spend 14 pages talking about Marcellus Mason’s violations of these clearly illegal injunctions. This appeal has been called the appeal from hell. See Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From 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 it An Injunction section entitled “Appellate Odyssey and Gauntlet”.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR T SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORID A

MARCELLUS M . MASON, JR ., Plaintiff , vs . HEARTLAND LIBRARY COOPERATIVE , HIGHLANDS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNT Y COMMISSIONERS, HARDEE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CAROLYN HESSELINK, DIANE HUNT, FRED CARINO , FRED MYERS, MARY MYERS, LESLIE WOOD , Defendants . /

CASE NO . 99-14027-CIV-DAVI S

F LED by
JUN 19 2000
CLARENCE MADDO X CLERK U. S . DIST . CT . S . D. OF FLA .

D.C.

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DE #199 )

THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard upon the aforementione d Motion, and this Court having reviewed the Motion, and noting tha t this Court is considering this Motion as a pretrial discovery issu e and not an injunction issue per se, and further noting that th e Defendants allege that the Plaintiff, pro se, has repeatedl y contacted Defendants' supervisory employees and the individua l Defendants regarding matters related to this case, and bein g otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

that Defendants' Motion for Preliminary

Injunction is GRANTED in that the Plaintiff shall be prohibite d from contacting any of the Defendants, including their supervisory employees and/or the individual Defendants, regarding any matte r

related to this case .
Defendants' counsel .

Plaintiff shall correspond only wit h

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, this

Florida ,

19th day

of June, 2000 .

cc :

Marcellus M . Mason, Jr ., Maria N . Sorolis, Esq . Summer Barranco, Esq .

Pro S e

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)//-->