is the chief judge of the first circuit incompetent, a criminal or has her signature been forged?
DESCRIPTION
THE CORRUPTION IN THE MASSACHUSETTS FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM EXTENDS TO THE FIRST CIRCUIT EXECUTIVE OFFICE AND THE US MARSHALTRANSCRIPT
Be sure to see my other documents in relation to this case. I am doing my best to save you PACER fees
but if you really want a close look at corruption log on to PACER and review this case. Our country is in
danger—our justice system is a fraud!!!!
At Scribd http://goo.gl/o9XMz http://goo.gl/moluM http://goo.gl/qJXiD http://goo.gl/Q36ug
I have not yet uploaded Dkt. # 78 my opposition to the contempt but I will.
Following are my email communications to Florence Pagano of the circuit executive office who was investigating the complaint of judicial misconduct; I also forwarded to Pagano the emails I sent Sarah Allison Thornton the Clerk of the Court. The circuit court clearly indicates that it does not investigate or handle matters of misconduct other than judicial misconduct. The Clerk of the Court has authority over the pro se staff attorney. The emails are in reverse order. At first Ms. Pagano appeared to be a very honest attorney; at one point during a Skype conversation I had with Pagano she stated “I will talk to them” indicating she would speak with Morse and Sorokin regarding the improprieties I had relayed to her and how this continued fraud was making me physically ill; I stated, “You need to inform Judge O’Toole not talk to them” she was then silent on the matter. See http://goo.gl/qJXiD which includes the language of both Dkt. # 51 and #52 which are the motions to enjoin Morse and my third motion to disqualify defense counsel. Pagano then had a sudden change of attitude stating my case was “handled no different than any other case”. I received a certified letter from the US Marshal, Deputy Marshal Dumas (hmmm! could he be related to Michelle Dumas that works in the circuit executive office), stating that if I emailed the clerk again I would be facing federal and state criminal harassment charges. Following the emails will be the papers I submitted to the circuit executive office regarding my complaint of misconduct. Following those papers will be several signatures from other misconduct rulings with the signature of Sandra L. Lynch. I will be requesting an analysis on the signature. There are discrepancies in style and the signature of 5-18-2011 has less of a slant than the other signatures of this same signature style and I find it hard to believe that a Chief Judge of a US Court of Appeal actually wrote the May 18, 2011 order that is so devoid of fact and law; if Chief Judge Lynch did write the order our federal justice system is a complete fraud; faux justice conducted by criminals renders America dead as control by corrupt court staff and dirty attorneys along with corrupt employees at our federal agencies destroy life and liberty in America as we once knew it!!!
Thu, May 19, 2011 10:37:31 AM
Judicial Misconduct Complaints Nos. 01-11-90007/08 From: "[email protected]"
View Contact
To: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]>
01-11-90007.O.pdf (210KB)
Dear Ms. McGarry,
Attached below, please find a copy of Chief Judge Lynch's order dismissing your misconduct
complaints. Pursuant to Rule 11(g)(3) of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability
Proceedings (Rules of Judicial-Conduct), I hereby notify you of your right to petition the Judicial
Council for review of the enclosed disposition. Pursuant to Rule 18(b) of the Rules of Judicial-
Conduct, you have thirty-five (35) days from the date of this letter to file a petition for review.
Sincerely,
Florence Pagano Assistant Circuit Executive for Legal Affairs 617-748-9376
Fri, April 8, 2011 3:05:14 PM
Fw: This requires your attention!! From: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]>
Add to Contacts
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Dear Ms. Thornton,
The simple matter of fact is that your court staff have violated federal law and I have to sit here day after day wondering if my action filed in your court has been redirected to an appropriate constitutional and legal process of adjudication. I need reassurance that the staff involved have been instructed that they are to in no way or fashion access, enter, or document on my case. This has been an ongoing unrelenting process of intimidation with purposeful false documentation to prevent me from accessing the court with the deliberate fraudulent signature of a US District Judge. I will not tolerate this continued abuse of power and require an immediate response that my case has been re-assigned to a different US District Judge (Judge O'Toole's clerks are involved and I want my case away from them) and I need to know that Magistrate Judge Sorokin and Barbara Morse have been restricted from my case. I am quite sure that had there been any legitimate process by Judge O'Toole that those Judgments would show as the Judgments below show. Those posted are also quite illegitimate but most likely the staff that entered them were unaware of the illegitimate origin of these rulings where Barbara Morse and Judge O'Toole's clerks were fully aware and therefore held the postings. We are now past eight months with absolutely no legitimate court process and a known deliberate conspiracy to deprive me of access to the court which cannot be denied because of the record itself. This matter is now known by people in a position to correct this wrong; please inform me of your actions taken to set this
matter on the right tract so that I may enjoy at least piece of mind that a corrective process has been initiated. Please verify that you have received this email. I am concerned that this pending government shutdown is just going to cause more delay. Title 18 violations by law must be reported to a US District Judge by anyone who has knowledge of such violation. Title 18 U.S.C. 4 and I believe it states as soon as possible. I find this entire
situation totally unbelievable. Again, thank you for your attention to this matter and I am quite aware that you don't want to send any written communication that may implicate or validate any of my allegations. I am simply asking for a US District Judge---please expedite restoration of my constitutional rights.
Respectfully, Laura McGarry
United States v. Blixt, __ F.3d __, 2008 WL 5003239 (9th Cir. Nov. 26, 2008) Held: “Whether the use of another’s signature constitutes a ‘means of identification’ for purposes of the Aggravated Identity Theft statute has not yet been resolved by this or any other circuit. Finding no prior authority on the issue, we hold as a matter of first impression that forging another's signature constitutes the use of that person's name and thus qualifies as a “means of identification” under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.” Id. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1028A(c)(4) Prev | Next § 1028A. Aggravated identity theft How Current is This? (a) Offenses.— (1) In general.— Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years. (b) Consecutive Sentence.— Notwithstanding any other provision of law— (1) a court shall not place on probation any person convicted of a violation of this section; (2) except as provided in paragraph (4), no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this section shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person under any other provision of law, including any term of imprisonment imposed for the felony during which the means of identification was transferred, possessed, or used; (3) in determining any term of imprisonment to be imposed for the felony during which the means of identification was transferred, possessed, or used, a court shall not in any way reduce the term to be imposed for such crime so as to compensate for, or otherwise take into account, any separate term of imprisonment imposed or to be imposed for a violation of this section; and
(4) a term of imprisonment imposed on a person for a violation of this section may, in the discretion of the court, run concurrently, in whole or in part, only with another term of imprisonment that is imposed by the court at the same time on that person for an additional violation of this section, provided that such discretion shall be exercised in accordance with any applicable guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 of title 28. (c) Definition.— For purposes of this section, the term “felony violation enumerated in subsection (c)” means any offense that is a felony violation of— (4) any provision contained in this chapter (relating to fraud and false statements), other than this section or section 1028 (a)(7); TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1018
§ 1018. Official certificates or writings
Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or writing, containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not elsewhere expressly provided by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
…§ 505's plain language only requires that a defendant charged under the statute knowingly forge the signature of a federal judge "for the purpose of authenticating any proceeding or document." Although Congress did not define the term "forge" as used in § 505, the term generally is defined as "[t]o fabricate, construct, or prepare one thing in imitation of another thing, with the intention of substituting the false for the genuine...." Black's Law Dictionary 650 (6th ed.1990). In this case, Defendant prepared a court document knowing it to be false, and placed the district judge's signature thereon for the purpose of making the document appear authentic…
In Levinson v. United States, 47 F.2d 470, 471 (6th Cir.1931), the Sixth Circuit opined that "Congress, regardless of its intent, by the use of the verb 'forge,' limited the application of the statute, in so far as cases of intended authentication are concerned, to those in which the elements of common-law forgery enter." Because the common law crime of forgery required an intent to defraud, see generally Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103, 121-128, 111 S.Ct. 461, 472-76, 112 L.Ed.2d 449 (1990) (Scalia, J., dissenting), so did § 505. The subsequent decisions in United States v. Bertrand, 596 F.2d 150 (6th Cir.1979), and United States v. London, 714 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir.1983), followed Levinson 's rationale.2
The purpose of § 505 is to protect the reputation and integrity of the federal courts, their official documents and proceedings, rather than simply to outlaw a narrow category of fraud. The statute applies whenever someone attempts to impugn this integrity by forging a federal judge's signature onto a document in order to make that document appear authentic. A forged signature on a document which the forger intends to appear authentic is the only intent requirement of § 505.3 Our construction of § 505 is true to both its text and purpose.
Footnote 3---Contrary to Defendant's assertions, the Government does not take the position that
the act of drawing a federal judge's signature onto a document alone is a criminal act. Such a
reading of the statute would eliminate the express requirement that the forgery be made "for the
purpose of authenticating" the document
Congress has used the term "forges" together with the phrase "with intent to defraud." E.g., 18 U.S.C. § 471 (prohibiting forgery of federal obligations "with intent to defraud");
We are satisfied that if Congress had intended to make the intent to defraud an element of the crime of forging a federal judge's signature under 18 U.S.C. § 505, it would have done so expressly.
Defendant also contends that the district court erred in sentencing him under the obstruction of
justice guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2, rather than the fraud guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1. To locate
the guidelines that apply to a criminal charge, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2(a) directs the district court to
"[d]etermine the offense guideline section in Chapter Two (Offense Conduct) most applicable to
the offense of conviction." Application Note 1 to § 1B1.2 refers to the Statutory Index. The
Statutory Index for 18 U.S.C. § 505 refers to both § 2J1.2 and § 2F1.1. Where the index refers
the court to more than one guideline section, Application Note 1 to § 1B1.2 directs the court to
determine the applicable guidelines based upon the nature of the offense of conviction. In this
case, the district court properly rejected application of the fraud guidelines because Defendant's
conduct was not designed to defraud Hostetter of any property. Rather, Defendant's deceit in
forging Judge Johnson's signature jeopardized Hostetter's right to have his legal claims heard,
and thus is more properly akin to an obstruction of justice TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 25 > § 471 Prev | Next
§ 471. Obligations or securities of United States Whoever, with intent to defraud, falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, or alters any obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 505 : US Code - Section 505: Seals of courts; signatures of judges or court officers
Whoever forges the signature of any judge, register, or other officer of any court of the United States, or of any Territory thereof, or forges or counterfeits the seal of any such court, or knowingly concurs in using any such forged or counterfeit signature or seal, for the purpose of authenticating any proceeding or document, or tenders in evidence any such proceeding or document with a false or counterfeit signature of any such judge, register, or other officer, or a false or counterfeit seal of the court, subscribed or attached thereto, knowing such signature or seal to be false or counterfeit, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both
obstructing a judicial proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2)
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 73 > § 1512
§ 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to— (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; (2) cause or induce any person to— (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; (B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; (C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or (D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or (3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation
[1] supervised release,,
[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (c) Whoever corruptly— (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from— (1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding; (2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation
[1] supervised release,,
[1] parole, or release pending
judicial proceedings; (3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or (4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both. (e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully. (f) For the purposes of this section— (1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and (2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege. (g) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance— (1) that the official proceeding before a judge, court, magistrate judge, grand jury, or government agency is before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a Federal grand jury, or a Federal Government agency; or (2) that the judge is a judge of the United States or that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant. (h) There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section. (i) A prosecution under this section or section 1503 may be brought in the district in which the official proceeding (whether or not pending or about to be instituted) was intended to be affected or in the district in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred.
(j) If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case. (k) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
Laura J. McGarry
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Sent: Wed, April 6, 2011 8:27:57 AM Subject: This requires your attention!!
Dear Ms. Thornton,
As you can see this is my second email to you. I did speak with your assistant after the first
email and requested that your receipt of the email be verified. I have not received that
verification and would deeply appreciate you verifying receipt of this second email. Please
ensure that my action and the evaluation of the contempt motion, recommendations, and my
objection along with the entirety of this action goes before a US District Judge.
I filed an objection Dkt. #81 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO to the Magistrate Judge's procedurally
deficient report and recommendations that I be found in contempt. This objection will circle
back to the Docket of the Honorable Judge George A. O'Toole. I have absolutely no confidence
that the processing of this objection will be performed by Judge O'Toole and believe that Barbara
Morse will continue with her previous usurpation and that justice will be denied. I believe that
she will either set this case stagnant by leaving the follow up to this objection lingering or she
will rule and dismiss my case. I understand fully that the PSSA drafts opinions and offers
recommendations for orders; this has not been the case. There has been unarguable usurpation
and I demand that Barbara Morse be instructed to stay away from my case. The collusion
between her and the Defense Counsel of this action is well supported. I have noted that report
and recommendations have been adopted or rejected by the US District Judges within a matter of
days after the 14 day period that allows for objection passes. Lingering will be perceived as
continued usurpation. The recommendations direct Judge O'Toole to consider Dkt. #69 which is
my motion for reassignment to a different US District Judge. It is the appearance that Judge
O'Toole gives full reign to the PSSA without any oversight including rulings on Motions that
request injunctive relief that triggered this request; however, I believe that appearance is just that
"appearance" and that Judge O'Toole actually had no idea that this case existed or required his
attention. Morse did not send the consent for Magistrate Jurisdiction papers to me and therefore
the case was docketed to the US District Judge. She freely and inappropriately "RULED" on
motions that should have been referenced to the Magistrate and did not order the reference until
she was aware I was onto her and only after she sabotaged my action and projected Defense
Counsels inappropriate litigation tactics onto me in court documents. My documentation filed
with this court has been appropriate with only fair comment to well support allegations. A US
District Judge would never order a litigant to relinquish their constitutional rights and Morse did
just that because of my discovery that files had been switched in the ECF system; she does not
want a US District Judge to see this case. The unethical behavior of the Defense Counsel is also
being protected along with the fact that there is obvious collusion. If you want a full
understanding of what I am trying to express to you I recommend that you read the
OBJECTION.
Excerpt from Dkt. #81
"ORDERED, Plaintiff is prohibited from making personal comments or attacks upon defense
counsel or court staff, intimidating, harassing, or warning defense counsel or court staff in any
way as to make a direct or indirect threat, or making reference to docketing information;... "
Docketing information is in the public domain (PACER) and Morse cannot restrict this Plaintiff
from referencing it. This would be ordering Plaintiff to relinquish her First Amendment rights
and such an order would have never been approved by any US District Judge which clearly
indicated Morse had drafted and filed another memorandum and order that was not under the
approval of an Article III Judge and clear and unarguable usurpation continued. Morse has a duty
to draft credible, dignified, and impartial judicial opinion. These orders of Dkt. #53 and Dkt. #57
are beyond invalid; they are void, not voidable, but simply void. The orders are an insult to the
Honorable Judge George A, O’Toole.
There is at common law "a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents."
Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). The Court of Appeals reversed.
United States v. Mitchell, 179 U.S.App.D.C. 293, 551 F.2d 1252 (1976). It stressed the
importance of the common law privilege to inspect and copy judicial records...It is clear that the
courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and document,
including judicial records and documents. See, e.g., McCoy v. Providence Journal
Co., 190 F.2d 760, 765-766 (CA1), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 894 (1951); Fayette County v. Martin,
279 Ky. 387, 395-396, 130 S.W.2d 838, 843 (1939); Nowack v. Auditor General, 243 Mich. 200,
203-205, 219 N.W. 749, 750 (1928); In re Egan, 205 N.Y. 147, 154-155, 98 N.E. 467, 469
(1912); State ex rel. Nevada Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Grimes, 29 Nev. 50, 82-86, 84 P.
1061, 1072-1074 (1906); Brewer v. Watson, 71 Ala. 299, 303-306 (1882); People ex rel. Gibson
v. Peller, 34 Ill.App.2d 372, 374-375, 181 N.E.2d 376, 378 (1962). In many jurisdictions this
right has been recognized or expanded by statute. See, e.g., Ill.Rev.Stat., ch 116, § 43.7 (1975)
...American decisions generally do not condition enforcement of this right on a proprietary
interest in the document or upon a need for it as evidence in a lawsuit. The interest necessary to
support the issuance of a writ compelling access has been found, for example, in the citizen's
desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies, see, e.g., State ex rel. Colscott
v. King, 154 Ind. 621, 621-627, 57 N.E. 535, 536-538 (1900); State ex rel. Ferry v. Williams, 41
N.J.L. 332, 336-339 (1879), and in a newspaper publisher's intention to publish information
concerning the operation of government, see, e.g., State ex rel. Youmans v. Owens, 28 Wis.2d
672, 677, 137 N.W.2d 470, 472 (1965), modified on other grounds, 28 Wis.2d 685a, 139 N.W.2d
241 (1966).
Apparently Morse and Defense Counsel did not want this Plaintiff referring to the random docket
entry of 12/3/2010 where scanned PDF’s were switched with word processed PDF’s four days
after this Plaintiff motioned for Sanctions. See Docket text at 10/25/2010 Document 29 and
Docket text at 11/5/2010 Document 34.
Respectfully,
Laura J. McGarry
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]> To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 11:44:01 AM Subject: This situation needs resolved immediately
Dear Ms. Thornton,
I filed a Complaint Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO on August 2, 2010. There have been beyond serious improprieties with the processing of my complaint. It did not even go on the Docket until August 10, 2010 and at that time it was assigned to the Honorable Judge George A. O'Toole. There has been a clear and unarguable usurpation of this case by Pro Se Staff Attorney, Barbara Morse, who by clear evidence, in the record itself, is in collusion with the Defense Counsel. There has been no legitimate processing of this case and it remains held hostage in pretense litigation mode by the Honorable Judge Leo T. Sorokin. I would certainly hope that pro se in forma pauperis status does not mean an automatic denial of justice in the US District Court of Massachusetts but unfortunately by the documented record and lack of legitimate constitutional court action and deliberate ignoring of legislative statute by court staff it appears that the aforementioned is indeed the case. Barbara Morse has intentionally kept my case from the legitimate process it should be undergoing. There were multiple signs that this was not progressing as it should and my looking into the matter revealed solid evidence that Barbara Morse "ruled" on a motion for injunctive relief that I filed back in September. She made this "ruling" on a Sunday and manipulated the file date back to the previous Friday. The ‘’ruling” did not reflect the facts in the record and raised my concern. Subsequent motions that I filed sat for months. I then filed a motion to enjoin her from the case and communicating with defense. Morse then sabotaged my case by “ruling” on all the outstanding motions and oppositions with no judicial oversight and no consideration of fact or actual law including Supreme Court and First Circuit law. She then "ruled" on the motion to enjoin her. I followed with a motion for contempt against her and the defense counsel of whom she was in more than obvious collusion. Morse then ruled on the contempt motion. She without authority referenced the case to Judge Sorokin in spite of my strong insistence that the case go directly before the US District Judge and Judge Sorokin accepted the reference with no valid order and against the objection of this litigant; he claimed at a scheduling conference that the order on Dkt. # 61 was by his approval and then clearly indicated during that conference that he was not being honest. The document itself indicates he was not being honest. There was no certification of the facts to the US District Judge and the document has orders not recommendation of orders. The memorandums and orders that followed Dkt. # 51 (injunctive motion against Morse) project all of the inappropriate behavior by this defense counsel onto me. There was a
scheduling conference and the orders from that conference were MAILED to me which continued an unjust restriction on filing. This case never belonged in the US District Court to begin with because there is absolutely no defense to the situation. These attorneys brought false evidence before the EEOC with whom, by strong evidence, there was also collusion. The determination letter does not even have a legal signature. I tried settlement offers and received from the attorney an antagonistic letter that he knew would surely move me forward into filing and pursuing litigation. Each and every filing defense has made with the court is fraudulent and includes hiding adverse authority in footnotes, misspelling parties, changing lexis numbers and scanning documents to make authority search a daunting task as they used erroneous authorities and changed the wording of the FRCP. They then engaged a docket clerk on Dec. 3rd to switch the files that were scanned to word processed files four days after I filed for sanctions. By Supreme Court law these defendants have no right to any affirmative defense yet this has been ignored. Judge Sorokin with his further restriction of my filing denied me the right to appeal his decision to the US District Judge---this in itself takes away his jurisdiction; he has no authority without legitimate Article III oversight and my legal right to US District Judge review --- knowing this case was a clear and unarguable usurpation I filed motions to disqualify both Judges and vacate void orders. Judge Sorokin answered these motions with only docket text and never presented the motions to Judge O'Toole. I also spent my food money to send Judge O’Toole a notice of intent to file a mandamus Dkt. # 64 because I was sure he had no idea the case existed. Unfortunately, as instructed the process server did not put the documents directly in Judge O’Toole’s hand and Dianne Croke accepted them. Whether he actually received these papers I do not know. Your clerks make it almost impossible to pursue pro se litigation; I find this deplorable and it gives a strong appearance that they decide who is and who is not entitled to justice in the US District Court of Massachusetts. This case has strong RICO violation implications and it appears the Law Firm encourages the defendants they are representing before the EEOC to break law as they defend a meritless case with absolutely zero material evidence to support the Defendants’ position and continue onto litigation with a meritless defense, baseless motions and oppositions, pretense litigation and continued billing of their clients. They know I have documented these implications and these unlawful and extremely unethical attorneys along with Barbara Morse and the EEOC are being protected over legitimate justice. I filed for a default judgment back in November because of their blatant fraud upon the court and instead of the motion getting a legitimate ruling it sat as subsequent fraud occurred with the file switching. I have been blocked from every authority I have tried to contact including you. I want my case before a US District Judge and both Judge Sorokin and Judge O'Toole to disqualify themselves with reassignment today. This is a horrendous situation that has defiled the US District Court f Massachusetts. Your assistance in directing my case to legitimate court action would be deeply appreciated. Judge Sorokin has clerked for Judge Zobel and she would be the only Judge that I would object my case going before for obvious reasons.
I live in Washington State and stalling may again occur because of the opposition Dkt. #78 that I just filed on Friday where these fools had the nerve to Motion for Contempt. I would not put it past the Defendants initiating bankruptcy and if they manage to continue no legitimate adjudication where delay has occurred since August. I will then be forced to bring this matter before the US District Court of Washington under a violation of my constitutional rights and seek restitution from court staff and these less than savory attorneys. All I want is my case before a legitimate honest US District Court Judge so that I can move on with life. The destruction to my life has been unbearable and it was at the hands of these Defendants who followed guidance from these attorneys. They blacklisted to the point where I was so distressed I required hospitalization and eventually moved out of Massachusetts. I want this done and I never want to hear the word Massachusetts again. I am in every sense of the word entitled to a default judgment. You can start by looking at Dkt #51, # 52, exhibit 1 to #64 and #78 and follow the chain of usurpation and the horrific stain these people have put on the Court. Morse's usurped documents are 20, 53, 57, 61 and I have more than adequate evidence that she wrote these without judicial oversight by the nature of the motions themselves and that she is not an honest public servant. Respectfully, Laura J. McGarry
McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod
Inc. et al
Share |
Plaintiff: Laura J. McGarry
Defendants: Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. , Joshua Zuckerman , Renee Mikita
and Roxanne Webster
Case Number: 1:2010cv11343
Filed: August 2, 2010
Court: Massachusetts District Court
Office: Boston Office
County: XX US, Outside State
: George A. OToole
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause: 42:1218
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded
By: Plaintiff
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download.
Date Filed # Document Text
March 7, 2011 75 Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS
MOTION TO STAY; The Motion to Stay (Docket # 74) is DENIED.
There is no basis to stay litigation of this matter. The Plaintiff was
ordered by the Court to file her discovery information by March 1,
2011. She has failed to do so. It is ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall file
the discovery information by no later than the close of business on
Friday, March 11, 2011. A further failure to comply with this Order, or
with any of the Courts other Orde rs (including its Order prohibiting the
Plaintiff from making any filing without prior permission of a district or
magistrate judge and its Order prohibiting the Plaintiff from making
personal comments or attacks upon the staff of the Clerks office) will
lead to the imposition of sanctions, including fines and/or dismissal of
the Plaintiffs case. re 74 Motion to Stay (Simeone, Maria)
February 15, 2011 68 Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. The Plaintiff
shall not make any filings with this Court without the prior approval of
a District or Magistrate Judge; By March 1, 2011, the Plaintiff shall file
with the Court one document listing: (a) the name and, if known, the
employer of each person she wishes to depose, along with up to four
sentences per person explaining the reason she wishes to take the
deposition; (b) the documents or categories of documents she seeks, if
any, from the Defendants; and (c) the interrogatory questions, if any,
she wishes to ask of the Defendants. By March 4, 2011, the Defendants
shall file with the Court the equivalent document.(Simeone, Maria)
February 1, 2011 61 Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER;
The undersigned will hold a Rule 16(b) conference by telephone on
February 14, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. The clerk shall make the necessary
arrangements for this conference. Accordingly, it is hereby OR DERED
Plaintiffs Motion (Docket Entry #58) for Contempt is Denied; Plaintiff
is prohibited from filing any further pleadings or documents in this
action until directed to do so by a judicial officer.SO ORDERED.re 58
Motion for Contempt (Simeone, Maria)
Last Document Downloaded: March 8, 2011 06:32:32 PST
Wed, April 6, 2011 8:54:01 AM
Re: D.MA. No. 10-11343 From: Laura J. McGarry
Add to Contacts
Doc_81.pdf (626KB)
Good Morning Florence,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding Ms. Morse. I filed my Objection Dkt. #81
to the Contempt "R & R" yesterday. I sent the following to the "Clerk of the Court" a few
moments ago. I think if you read through the email and my attached "filed" objection you will
have a better understanding of my perspective. There is also documentation in this objection that
is pertinent to my allegations regarding Magistrate Judge Sorokin.
Thank you,
Laura McGarry
Dear Ms. Thorton,
As you can see this is my second email to you. I did speak with your assistant after the first
email and requested that your receipt of the email be verified. I have not received that
verification and would deeply appreciate you verifying receipt of this second email. Please
ensure that my action and the evaluation of the contempt motion, recommendations, and my
objection along with the entirety of this action goes before a US District Judge.
I filed an objection Dkt. #81 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO to the Magistrate Judge's procedurally
deficient report and recommendations that I be found in contempt. This objection will circle
back to the Docket of the Honorable Judge George A. O'Toole. I have absolutely no confidence
that the processing of this objection will be performed by Judge O'Toole and believe that Barbara
Morse will continue with her previous usurpation and that justice will be denied. I believe that
she will either set this case stagnant by leaving the follow up to this objection lingering or she
will rule and dismiss my case. I understand fully that the PSSA drafts opinions and offers
recommendations for orders; this has not been the case. There has been unarguable usurpation
and I demand that Barbara Morse be instructed to stay away from my case. The collusion
between her and the Defense Counsel of this action is well supported. I have noted that report
and recommendations have been adopted or rejected by the US District Judges within a matter of
days after the 14 day period that allows for objection passes. Lingering will be perceived as
continued usurpation. The recommendations direct Judge O'Toole to consider Dkt. #69 which is
my motion for reassignment to a different US District Judge. It is the appearance that Judge
O'Toole gives full reign to the PSSA without any oversight including rulings on Motions that
request injunctive relief that triggered this request; however, I believe that appearance is just that
"appearance" and that Judge O'Toole actually had no idea that this case existed or required his
attention. Morse did not send the consent for Magistrate Jurisdiction papers to me and therefore
the case was docketed to the US District Judge. She freely and inappropriately "RULED" on
motions that should have been referenced to the Magistrate and did not order the reference until
she was aware I was onto her and only after she sabotaged my action and projected Defense
Counsel's inappropriate litigation tactics onto me in court documents. My documentation filed
with this court has been appropriate with only fair comment to well supported allegations. A US
District Judge would never order a litigant to relinquish their constitutional rights and Morse did
just that because of my discovery that files had been switched in the ECF system; she does not
want a US District Judge to see this case. The unethical behavior of the Defense Counsel is also
being protected along with the fact that there is obvious collusion. If you want a full
understanding of what I am trying to express to you I recommend that you read the
OBJECTION.
Excerpt from Dkt. #81
"ORDERED, Plaintiff is prohibited from making personal comments or attacks upon defense
counsel or court staff, intimidating, harassing, or warning defense counsel or court staff in any
way as to make a direct or indirect threat, or making reference to docketing information;... "
Docketing information is in the public domain (PACER) and Morse cannot restrict this Plaintiff
from referencing it. This would be ordering Plaintiff to relinquish her First Amendment Rights
and such an order would have never been approved by any US District Judge which clearly
indicated Morse had drafted and filed another memorandum and order that was not under the
approval of an Article III Judge; clear and unarguable usurpation continued. Morse has a duty to
draft credible, dignified, and impartial judicial opinion. These orders of Dkt. #53 and Dkt. #57
are beyond invalid; they are void, not voidable, but simply void. The orders are an insult to the
Honorable Judge George A, O’Toole.
There is at common law "a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents."
Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). The Court of Appeals reversed.
United States v. Mitchell, 179 U.S.App.D.C. 293, 551 F.2d 1252 (1976). It stressed the
importance of the common law privilege to inspect and copy judicial records...It is clear that the
courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and document,
including judicial records and documents. See, e.g., McCoy v. Providence Journal
Co., 190 F.2d 760, 765-766 (CA1), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 894 (1951); Fayette County v. Martin,
279 Ky. 387, 395-396, 130 S.W.2d 838, 843 (1939); Nowack v. Auditor General, 243 Mich. 200,
203-205, 219 N.W. 749, 750 (1928); In re Egan, 205 N.Y. 147, 154-155, 98 N.E. 467, 469
(1912); State ex rel. Nevada Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Grimes, 29 Nev. 50, 82-86, 84 P.
1061, 1072-1074 (1906); Brewer v. Watson, 71 Ala. 299, 303-306 (1882); People ex rel. Gibson
v. Peller, 34 Ill.App.2d 372, 374-375, 181 N.E.2d 376, 378 (1962). In many jurisdictions this
right has been recognized or expanded by statute. See, e.g., Ill.Rev.Stat., ch 116, § 43.7 (1975)
...American decisions generally do not condition enforcement of this right on a proprietary
interest in the document or upon a need for it as evidence in a lawsuit. The interest necessary to
support the issuance of a writ compelling access has been found, for example, in the citizen's
desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies, see, e.g., State ex rel. Colscott
v. King, 154 Ind. 621, 621-627, 57 N.E. 535, 536-538 (1900); State ex rel. Ferry v. Williams, 41
N.J.L. 332, 336-339 (1879), and in a newspaper publisher's intention to publish information
concerning the operation of government, see, e.g., State ex rel. Youmans v. Owens, 28 Wis.2d
672, 677, 137 N.W.2d 470, 472 (1965), modified on other grounds, 28 Wis.2d 685a, 139 N.W.2d
241 (1966).
Apparently Morse and Defense Counsel did not want this Plaintiff referring to the random docket
entry of 12/3/2010 where scanned PDF’s were switched with word processed PDF’s four days
after this Plaintiff motioned for Sanctions. See Docket text at 10/25/2010 Document 29 and
Docket text at 11/5/2010 Document 34.
Respectfully,
Laura J. McGarry
Laura J. McGarry
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, March 31, 2011 2:32:58 PM
Subject: D.MA. No. 10-11343
Ms. McGarry, As I have previously stated, your judicial misconduct complaints are pending and you will be notified when an order is issued. In response to the concerns raised below, I can assure you that Attorney Morse has acted in full compliance with court practice and procedure in connection with your case. Florence
"Laura J. McGarry" <[email protected]> To [email protected]
03/30/2011 10:00 AM cc Subject please inform me of progress if any
I did not receive an email from you yesterday. I do look at the court calendar and noted that
yesterday was a busy day however Judge O'Toole was writing his opinion on his last jury trial
case until 2:10 PM and then he had some conferences hearings scheduled. Were you able to
notify him of the problem? I am more than entitled to default and I would like my default
judgment from all 4 defendants. I would like sanctions against the defense attorneys. I would
like to see appropriate action taken as far as court staff involved but more than anything I would
like Barbara Morse dismissed from her duty with the court and disciplined as far as whatever the
BBO does and the same for defense counsel. I submitted to the court with the forms to apply for
in forma pauperis status my hospital discharge paper from my forced hospitalization last June
where my daughter flew in from Seattle to get me out of the hospital and took me home with her;
it states right at the top-- stroke, major depression, anxiety and Barbara Morse had that paper in
hand to approve in forma pauperis. The one time I spoke to her last September I told her how
difficult it was for me to write these papers because of my short term memory problems and how
it takes me ten times longer than for anyone else because of how complicated law is when you’re
constantly reading something that gives referral to read something else every two sentences and I
told how it was causing me anxiety. This woman has had no problem continuing my torture and
unrelenting anxiety. This woman is on the ethics board. This woman has no business in public
service; she is self serving and in collusion with outside attorneys---how many others have been
denied justice because of this woman? I know the major news papers never report on actual
news that is of major importance and by all rights should be known to the public. I know that to
pacify the public they report to us the wrongs of other countries and what the latest screw up is
by any given celebrity, however I have nothing better to do than tweet. I have given this a rest as
far as my reporting to the public and allowed for proper court follow up and procedure for this
situation. I don't intend to wait any longer. I would like to leave the house again. I would like
to go to the dentist. I would like to have a haircut. I would like to shave my legs, get dressed,
put make up on and go out to dinner. I currently maybe take a bath at some point, put the same
dirty cloths back on, and then spend every moment of the day and night pursuing justice. I am a
prisoner and I did nothing wrong. These people are screwing me, protecting their careers when
they are nothing less than common criminals. I practiced my profession with integrity; it is me
that should be protected. This world is sick!
Laura J. McGarry
Tue, March 29, 2011 12:01:56 AM
I give up; I think the process server scammed me From: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]>
Add to Contacts
9 Files View Slideshow Download All GENERAL ORDER - 10-01.pdf (39KB); General Order-09-03.pdf (101KB); doc_58_2_Barbara Morse's unauthorized documents.pdf (914KB); CM-ECF - USDC Massachusetts - Version 4_1_1 as of 03-20-2010-.mht (630KB); untitled5.2 (3KB); untitled5.3 (2KB); untitled5.6 (498KB); untitled5.7 (4KB); Doc_61_morse wrote sorkokin order.pdf
(39KB)
Florence,
I am pretty sure that I am dead and in hell. The process server was a great talker but I have yet to receive my proof of service so who knows if it went into the sewer or to Judge Wolf. I guess serving judges is the new way to diet as your money gets spent and nothing happens. I will pray the signed copy comes in the mail
First and foremost any filing this Plaintiff made with this court was to reestablish her constitutional rights which should not have been necessary in a US District Court. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights. [Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.] Judge Sorokin of all people should know this and he is railroading this pro se in forma pauperis litigant because the pro se staff attorney and defense counsel have had their scheme to deprive me of my rights exposed and if a US District Judge learns of their behavior they will be probably be in trouble. This is not my problem; they depriving me of my rights is my problem.
My filing with the court cannot be a rule 11 violation when each filing was to reestablish my constitutional rights whether appropriate jurisdiction existed or not; however appropriate jurisdiction does not exist.
This evaluation of the misconduct allegations against Judge Sorokin and Judge O'Toole is without legal basis and in no way demonstrates that the information I provided to assess this situation was looked at or included in the evaluation. It also takes a very shallow look at the statute 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636. I understand that 636 (c) requires consent but you are allowed to object to matters delegated under 636(b) as well; I objected loud and clear. Please read through this entire email. Judge Sorokin has no jurisdiction over me and he is holding my case hostage. Please make this stop. As I indicated on the telephone this morning, I have reviewed your case, McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc., et. al., No. 10-11343. While I understand that you are frustrated with the proceeding, this office does not have authority to modify orders issued in pending litigation. Please note, however, that the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Sorokin in accordance with federal law. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636. It is also consistent with the applicable rules of practice and procedure for a court to utilize the services of the pro se staff attorneys and to require litigants to adhere to the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. --- I received the aforementioned assessment of the situation via email from Florence on 3/23/2011 at 11:55 AM and then at 3:46 PM on that very day I received my newest bogus document with the undersigned as Judge Sorokin; with Judge Sorokin's obvious approval, Maria (his clerk) constructed document #80 on her computer and it appears, sadly, that Maria has also joined this conspiracy to violate my rights because she knows very well nothing she wrote in Dkt. #80 is accurate or reflects the actual situation.
THE AFORMENTIONED ASSESSMENT IS INCORRECT AND DOES NOT COMPLY WITH LAW, CONTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS OR LOCAL RULES. Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of jurisdiction in the Court or judicial officer, of collusion between the parties, or of fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. I have all the certified records of this action where defense counsel and other officers of the court have distorted the record beyond belief to promote their cause of abusing and violating the rights of a 56 year old stroke victim; not pretty!!! As at the record stands the appeals court has no Jurisdiction for appeal of this mess; there are no actual Article III Judge orders. I will be forced to sue these government workers and the defense attorneys for violation of my rights at the US District Court here in Washington.
I DID NOT CONSENT TO THE MAGISTRATE REFERENCE___I BEGGED FOR MY CASE TO GO BEFORE JUDGE O'TOOLE. The conspirators have plans in action to further violate my rights.--the report and recommendations Dkt. # 80 appears nowhere on the recent order docket of the court (ATTACHED)!!! (CM-ECF - USDC Massachusetts - is the recent orders docket) Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 3/23/2011 at 3:46 PM EDT and filed on 3/23/2011
Case Name: McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al
Case Number: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO
Filer:
Document Number: 80
Docket Text: Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; I RECOMMEND that, prior to ruling on the pending motion for contempt, the district judge assigned to this case render his own ruling on that portion of the Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify (Docket # 69) directed at him. In addition, for the foregoing reasons, I RECOMMEND that the district judge assigned to this case ALLOW the Motion for Contempt (Docket # 71) and DISMISS this action. Discovery and proceedings in this matter are STAYED pending the ruling by the district judge on this Report and Recommendation; re [71] MOTION for Contempt filed by Joshua Zuckerman, Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Roxanne Webster, Renee Mikita;(Simeone, Maria)
FRCP 16
(1) Scheduling Order. Except in categories of actions exempted by local rule, the district judge—or a magistrate judge when authorized by local rule—must issue a scheduling order:
Local RULE 16.1 EARLY ASSESSMENT OF CASES
(h) Definition of Judge. As used in this rule, “judge” refers to the United States District Judge to whom the case is assigned or to the United States Magistrate Judge who has been assigned the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), if the Magistrate Judge has been assigned the case prior to the convening of the scheduling conference mandated by this rule.
I DID NOT CONSENT TO THE MAGISTRATE REFERENCE. JUDGE SOROKIN HAS ABSOLUTELY NO JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE THAT CAME TO HIS DOCKET THROUGH USURPATION BY A PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY WHO THIS PLAINTIFF HAS ALLEGED IS IN COLLUSION WITH THE DEFENSE COUNSEL. FURTHER JUDGE SOROKIN IS FULLY AWARE OF THE EVENTS THAT BROUGHT THIS CASE TO HIS DOCKET AND HE DENIED THIS PLAINTIFF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN HE ANSWERED “NO” TO A DIRECT QUESTION BY THIS PLAINTIFF WHEN SHE ASKED IF SHE COULD FILE AN APPEAL TO JUDGE O’TOOLE REGARDING HIS VERBAL ORDER THAT CONTINUED THE FILING RESTRICTION THAT MORSE WROTE WHEN SHE “RULED’ ON A CONTEMPT MOTION AND SIGNED JUDGE SOROKIN’S NAME; JUDGE SOROKIN HAD NO JURISDICTIONAL OR LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THESE ORDERS IN THE FIRST PLACE---VERBAL OR WRITTEN AND CLAIMING THAT HE APPROVED OF THE ORDERS OF DKT #61 DOES NOT HELP IN ANY DEFENSE OF THESE MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS. HE DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY AND HE IS HOLDING THIS CASE HOSTAGE. They do not want a US District Judge to see this mess they have created and I am paying for their criminal behavior.
Rule 3
DISPOSITIVE PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS AND
PRISONER CASES
(a) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), a magistrate judge upon a specific referral by the district judge assigned to the case may conduct such evidentiary hearings as are necessary or appropriate, and submit to a district judge proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of: (3) motions for injunctive relief (4) motions for judgment on the pleadings; (11) motions for judicial review of administrative determinations; (13) motions to dismiss or for judgment by default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b); U.S. Magistrate Rules for The District of Massachusetts (January 2003)
Rule 8
CIVIL CASES
(b) Manner of Referral (1) The following civil matters may be automatically referred to the magistrate judges by the Clerk, if and when timely opposition is filed or the time for opposition has expired, for hearing and decision by a magistrate judge in accordance with Rule 2, unless the district judge orders otherwise in a particular case: (3) Unopposed non-dispositive motions as defined in 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A) may be decided on the merits by the magistrate judge if referred to the magistrate judge by the Clerk. (4) All other civil matters may be referred to the magistrate judges only by order of a district judge. The order must specify the matters to be considered and the action to be taken by the magistrate judge. Rule 17
TIMING OF REFERRAL OF CIVIL MOTION
The rule stated here does not apply to those motions referred to in Rule 8(b) of these Rules. In the absence of any extraordinary circumstances warranting prompt referral, no civil motion can be referred to a magistrate judge until such time as the nonmoving parties are required to file an opposition under Rule 7.1(B)(2) of the Local Rules of this Court. The order of reference must state whether or not an opposition to the motion or motions has been filed. Rule 16
CONTEMPT OF COURT
Magistrate judges in the District of Massachusetts have all powers granted to magistrate judges by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(e) with respect to contempt of court, and all proceedings they conduct pursuant to these powers must be in conformity with these statutory provisions. 28 U.S.C. Section 636
(e) Contempt Authority. –
(6) Certification of other contempts to the district court. - Upon the commission of any such act - (B) in any other case or proceeding under subsection (a) or (b) of this section
(iii) the act constitutes a civil contempt, the magistrate judge shall forthwith certify the facts to a district judge and may serve or cause to be served, upon any person whose behavior is
brought into question under this paragraph, an order requiring such person to appear before a district judge upon a day certain to show cause why that person should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts so certified. The district judge shall thereupon hear the evidence as to the act or conduct complained of and, if it is such as to warrant punishment, punish such person in the same manner and to the same extent as for a contempt committed before a district judge. NOTE: Subsection 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 (c) does not apply to this case; I did not consent to the Magistrate
Had Judge O’Toole actually given the Order on 1/28/2011 that was entered on 1/31/2011 the ORDER would have looked like the green highlighted order below; it did not. Judge O’Toole was not going to write for: [all Pretrial Proceedings] without a signed consent for reference to the Magistrate Judge [this would have been in violation of the constitution, legislative authority, the Court’s general order 10-01 which put into continued effect general order 09-03 (both attached+, and multiple authorities found in the case law. Judge O’Toole would have at minimum stipulated No Dispositive motions. Judge O'Toole would have waited for the Defendants' opposition. The Magistrate has no authority beyond fact finding with a report of recommendations to the US District Judge on a contempt motion. No such document existed because an appropriate referral for the contempt motion does not exist. Morse wrote document 61 just as she wrote document 57 where she “ruled” on motions for contempt and injunctive relief respectively, both, of which she was the subject. The order she wrote at the end of Dkt. # 57 is proof that this order did not come from or under any approval of a US District Court Judge. Document #57 is a “ruling” to an injunctive motion and Morse has absolutely no authority to draft that document and sign a US Judge’s name; this is against the Article III provisions of the constitution and her maneuver denied me the right of review by the Article III Judge. She also denied me that very right when she signed Judge Sorokin’s name to Dkt. # 61 and when she “ruled” on another injunctive relief motion back in September 2010 (Dkt. #20)—she wrote dkt. # 20 on a Sunday and then manipulated the filing date back to the previous Friday. Dkt. # 61 signed with Judge Sorokin’s name did not include certified fact finding or report and recommendations but contained illegal actual orders. It did not contain the required documentation at the end of the document:
1 The parties are hereby advised that under the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, any party
who objects to these proposed findings and recommendations must file specific written
objections thereto with the Clerk of this Court within 14 days of the party’s receipt of this Report and Recommendation. The written objections must specifically identify the portion of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The parties are further advised that the United States Court of Appeals for this Circuit has repeatedly indicated that failure to comply with Rule 72(b) will preclude further appellate review of the District Court’s order based on this Report and Recommendation. See Keating v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 848 F.2d 271 (1st Cir.1988); United States v. Emiliano Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir.1986); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir.1980); United States v. Vega, 678 F.2d 376, 378-379 (1st Cir.1982); Scott v.
Schweiker, 702 F.2d 13, 14 (1st Cir.1983); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466
(1985).
…"the recommendation of a magistrate judge is not a final decision and does not in any way `dispose of' a party's claims." United States v. Cooper, 135 F.3d 960, 963 (5th Cir.1998) (discussing the general grant of authority to magistrate judges when a case is referred under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). A party dissatisfied with a magistrate judge's decision may instead obtain relief by objecting to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, thereby compelling the district court to review his objections de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Cooper, 135 F.3d at 962; cf. FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b).
Congress has created a limited exception to this rule: "Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), a district court, with the voluntary consent of the parties, may authorize a magistrate [judge] to conduct proceedings and enter final judgment in a case; such judgment is then appealable to the circuit court directly." Trufant, 729 F.2d at 309. Because this process requires the parties to waive their constitutional rights to an Article III judge, we have held that a case does not fall within the jurisdictional ambit of § 636(c) unless the parties' consent to proceed before a magistrate judge is "clear and unambiguous." Caprera, 790 F.2d at 444.1
Certainly my caption in Dkt. # 58 clearly does not consent in any way shape or form to the reference which was forced by Morse and entered on the docket 1/31/2011 after my Contempt Motion Dkt. # 58 which was filed on 1/30/2011. The caption I placed on Dkt # 58 is the following:
CASE MANAGEMENT BY ARTICLE III JUDGE DECLARATION THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO LEGITIMATE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT PROCEDURE SINCE THE FILING OF THIS CASE
THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN DKT. #58 INCLUDED
(1) Immediately put this action before Judge O’Toole
I CLEARLY AND WITHOUT QUESTION OBJECTED TO THE REFERENCE TO THE MAGISTRATE; FURTHER, AS SOON AS THE DOCKET CLERK IGNORED WHAT I REQUESTED IN DKT. #58 I SENT HIM AN EMAIL WHICH WAS IGNORED---STOP VIOLATING MY RIGHTS!!! From: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Mon, January 31, 2011 11:28:08 AM Subject: My rights have been denied for six months the case is to be seen by Judge O'Toole Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO What I just received is an order from the bogus memorandum and order that Morse wrote herself against the motion to enjoin her from this action. I would have been perfectly fine with a magistrate Judge from the beginning. I will not allow the staff of a US District Court to deprive me of my rights for six months and then throw this action to the magistrate. I will agree to that after Judge O'Toole rules on the motion of document 58. You have no current orders they are
fraudulent and contempt on the court. The order is to come from Judge O'Toole---cancel what you just sent me immediately. I am not playing this game anymore. You people are making me physically ill. Laura J. McGarry Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document #57 did not come from Judge O’Toole’s computer and no clerk has authority to ”rule” on an injunctive relief motion---nor does the Magistrate Judge beyond fact finding with a report and recommendations to the US District Judge; if the case was not being held hostage by Morse the US District Judge would have written the ruling himself especially since it alleged court staff collusion with the Defense Counsel. At minimum Judge O’Toole would have referenced the motion of Dkt. #51 to the Magistrate for fact finding and recommendations; he was not going to have Morse draft a document when she was the subject of the relief requested in the injunctive motion. Morse jumped the gun and “Ruled” on Dkt. #51 a motion for injunctive relief of which she was the subject because she did not expect that I would file the contempt motion Dkt. #58 after she made her illegal “Ruling” Dkt. # 57. Her mistake was making the reference to the Magistrate in orders of Dkt. #57; that order of reference to the Magistrate which is also a bogus order does not follow the courts general order that the Magistrate cannot hold the 16B conference unless the consent to the magistrate reference has been signed. Morse as the PSSA assigned to this case did not send me the Magistrate reference policy and procedure when she mailed out the courtesy copy of the complaint, courtesy copy of the complaint exhibits (with key exhibits missing) and the summonses because she wanted to control the case as she was in collusion with the defense from the start. The case did not make it onto the docket until 8/10/2010 when it was filed 8/2/2010. She also interfered with service of process. See what his Plaintiff has documented in Dkt. # 51 AND #64 EXHIBIT 1.
PROCEDURES AND OTHER INFORMATION FOR COMPLETING THE FORM FOR CONSENT OR REFUSAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION (updated 07/16/2010) I. AUTHORITY The Court has entered a General Order (10-1), dated February 2, 2010, amending the General Order (09-3) of March 3, 2009, authorizing the assignment of civil cases to the Magistrate Judges sitting in Boston. Those Orders may be found on the Court’s web page at www.mad.uscourts.gov. IV. REFUSAL OF CONSENT AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS Should any party not consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction, or should the parties fail to submit the document at all, the courtroom deputy clerk will transmit the case file to the Clerk to have the case randomly assigned to a District Judge of this Court. If the District Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to the previously assigned Magistrate Judge.
Court’s general order 10-01 which put into continued effect the general order 09-03 where the last paragraph states:
Until the Court receives for filing either a consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial assignment of a civil case to the Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. section 636(b) for all pretrial non-dispositive matters other than the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference.
Dkt. #57 Barbara Morse “RULED” without authority to do so:
ORDERED, Plaintiff’s Motion (Docket No. 48) for Rule 16(b) conference is granted in part by directing the clerk to refer this matter to Magistrate Judge Sorokin for all pretrial proceedings and the motion is denied in all other respects; and it is further ORDERED, the Clerk shall refer this case to Magistrate Judge Sorokin for all pretrial proceedings.
THE ORDER BELOW DOES NOT EXIST AND IS HOW A LEGITIMATE LEGAL ORDER WOULD HAVE APPEARED ON THE DOCKET
1:10-cv-11343-GAO
McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al
2011-01-31 10:43:19
Judge George A. O’Toole: ORDER entered. REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin Referred for: Certification of Facts and Report and Recommendations (rr). Motion referred: [58] MOTION for contempt
INSTEAD THIS PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS FORCED TO THE MAGISTRATE WHERE ILLEGAL RULINGS ON CONTEMPT TOOK PLACE AND WERE FOLLOWED WITH ILLEGAL ORDERS
Entered: 01/31/2011 10:43:19 Filed: 01/28/2011
Category: order Event: Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge
C. Danieli Type: crt
Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin Referred for: all Pretrial Proceedings. Motions referred: 58 Emergency MOTION for Contempt against Barbara Morse PSSA and Defense counsel Guy Tully & Brian Childs--collusion with PSSA---oppression and intimidation of Plaintiff-deliberate deprivation of constitutional rights and blocking disabled in forma paupe. (Danieli, Chris) Motions referred to Leo T. Sorokin.
Further the case would not have been referred until the opposition to Dkt. #58 was filed by Defense Council. Judge Sorokin does not have the authority to tell Defense Counsel that they do not have to file an opposition. See Magistrate rule 17.
The order from the US District Judge regarding Defendant’s Contempt Motion Dkt. # 71 would not have been written until my opposition was filed and would have appeared on the court’s recent orders the day when it was ordered by the US District Judge and would have been sent to me via ECF notice; it was never ordered. The following order appears nowhere on any docket and does not exist!!!!.
1:10-cv-11343-GAO
McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al
2011-03-18
10:43:19
Judge George A. O’Toole: ORDER entered. REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin Referred for: Certification of Facts and Report and Recommendations (rr). Motion referred: [71] MOTION for contempt
I now have a report and recommendation by the Magistrate Judge that is also a ruse because it did not appear on the recent orders docket on 3/23/2011 or 3/24/2011 and they plan to further conspiracy by answering my objection to the given recommendations when I file said objections; they will in fact illegally dismiss my case or set it stagnant. STOP THIS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR NOW BEFORE THEY CAUSE MORE UNECESSARY HASSEL!!
I have sent an email to the “clerk of the court” using her direct email address regarding these matters and although I requested that I be notified that she received the email when I spoke to her assistant I was not. This tells me because of the nature of the content of the email that she did in fact receive it but chose not to verify this fact. I use Skype to make my calls and all numbers I call are recorded on my computer with the time noted for how long the call took place. I tried to informed the “clerk of the court” of these problems back when I wrote DKT. #59 and #60 on 1/31/2011. My call was blocked by Clerk McLaughlin [1/31/2011 9:40:58 AM] [*** Call to +16177489165 +16177489165 , duration 07:19 ***] as she refused to put me through to the clerk of the court and redirected my call back to Judge O’Toole’s docket clerk who I asked to copy the letter I entered in the ECF system that was addressed to the Clerk of the Court and I requested that he bring the letter to the Clerk of the Court; no resolution to these problems tells me that he did not or that the clerk of the court chose to not take action. The clerk of the court has supervisory authority over Barbara Morse and other clerks; I would also assume that the Magistrate Judge also has some supervisory authority over the clerks.
A supervisor may be held liable if he formulates a policy or engages in a practice that leads to a subordinate’s constitutional violation. Maldonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 576, 582 (1st Cir. 1994). To sustain a cause of action based on a theory of supervisory liability, a plaintiff must establish that “(1) the behavior of *the supervisor’s+ subordinates in a constitutional violation and (2) the *supervisor’s+ action or inaction was, affirmative*ly+ link*ed+‟ to the behavior in the sense that it could be characterized as, supervisory encouragement, condonation or acquiescence‟ or, gross negligence *of the supervisor] amounting to deliberate
indifference.‟” Hegarty v. Somerset Cnty., 53 F.3d 1367, 1379-80 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting Lipsett v. Univ. of P.R., 864 F.2d 881, 902-03 (1st Cir. 1988) (emphasis omitted)). To prove deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must show “(1) a grave risk of harm, (2) the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of that risk, and (3) his failure to take easily available measures to address the risk.” Camilo-Robles v. Hoyos, 151 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1998). Although a supervisor need not have actual knowledge of the offending behavior, he may be held liable if he “formulates a policy or engages in a practice that leads to a civil rights violation committed by another.” Id.
EXAMPLES OF HOW ACTUAL ORDERS LOOK WHEN THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE RIGHTS AND BLOCK A PRO SE IN FORMA PAUPERIS LITIGANT FROM ACCESS TO THE COURT AS FEDERAL CRIMES GO UNTOUCHED BY THE PAYING DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL WHO WERE COMPLICIT IN THE COMMITTING THE VIOLATIONS!
3:10-cv-30002-MAP
Alicea et al v Raymond Ayala, et al.
2011-03-22 08:45:43
Judge Michael A. Ponsor: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman Referred for: Report and Recommendations (rr). Motions referred: [87] MOTION for Hearing, [69] MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint MO
1:08-cv-10666-RWZ
Tomaselli et al v. Beaulieu et al
2011-03-22 09:57:24
Judge Rya W. Zobel: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. REFERRING MOTION [143] MOTION for transcripts at Government expense filed by Joyce Tomaselli, Gracemarie Tomaselli to Chief Magistrate Judge Dein(Urso, Lisa) Motions referred to Judith G. Dein.
1:10-cv-11711-JLT
DeMarco v. Astrue
2011-03-22 10:55:35
Judge Joseph L. Tauro: ORDER entered. REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin Referred for: Report and Recommendations (rr). Motions referred: [9] Assented to MOTION approval of proposed briefing schedule; plaintiff to file her brief by May
3:11-cv-30017-MAP
Gargiulo v. Baystate Health, Inc. et al
2011-03-22 12:10:49
Judge Michael A. Ponsor: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman Referred for: Full Pretrial, No Dispositive Motions (ptn). (Healy, Bethaney)
The following acts or omissions in respect to a court of justice, or proceedings therein, are contempts of the authority of the court:
Misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty by an attorney, counsel, clerk, sheriff, coroner, or other person, appointed or elected to perform a judicial or ministerial service;
Abuse of the process or proceedings of the court, or falsely pretending to act under authority of an order or process of the court;
Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court;
Any other unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of a court;…
It is in fact Judge Sorokin , Defense Counsel and Barbara Morse who are in contempt of this court.
Contempt may be applied to "Misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty by an attorney, counsel, clerk, sheriff, coroner, or other person, appointed or elected to perform a judicial or ministerial service;" The magistrate, is an "other person, appointed or elected to perform a ... ministerial service".
Depriving anyone of the right to have his day in court is very serious.
A statute such as that involved in this case, providing that no judge shall be liable to civil action for official acts done in good faith, will not be construed as rendering such judges liable to civil action for acts done in bad faith by implication. Alzua v. Johnson, 231 U.S. 106 (1913). There is no immunity when you break the law.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit No. 95-36291;100 F.3d 653(1996) Bingham v. Ward, et al: I am sure I cited this incorrectly but hopefully you can figure it out.
We hold that 636(e) means what it says. When a magistrate Judge is faced with ... contempt, he must certify the facts to a district Judge for decision. The magistrate Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the question himself. We need not decide whether Congress could constitutionally provide otherwise. It has not done so.
Second, and more fundamentally, "it is well-established that litigants cannot confer [subject matter] jurisdiction by consent where none exists." United States v. Judge, 944 F.2d 523, 525 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 927, 112 S. Ct. 1988, 118 L. Ed. 2d 585 (1991). To be blunt about it, Congress has explicitly provided that these ... contempt proceedings must be conducted by district Judges upon certifications from magistrate Judges. Congress has not given magistrate Judges that jurisdiction and no one - not the parties, not the district court, not this court - can confer that jurisdiction upon them. We think that is apodictic.
[Nor are we dissuaded from this Conclusion by the fact that pursuant to 636(a)(3)-(4) magistrate Judges can hear misdemeanor cases by consent. That authority is pursuant to an
express grant of power from Congress, whereas Congress expressly withdrew the power to hear ... contempt matters from magistrate Judges.]
[Neither are we dissuaded by the fact that district Judges can, with the consent of the parties, designate magistrate Judges to hear voir dire in felony criminal trials. See Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 935, 111 S. Ct. 2661, 2668, 115 L. Ed. 2d 808 (1991). That is based upon an interpretation of 636(b)(3) and does not undercut the district Judge's "'total control and jurisdiction'" over the process. Id. at 937, 111 S. Ct. at 2669-70 (citation omitted); see also Judge, 944 F.2d at 525. Again, that is a far cry from holding that a magistrate Judge can undertake the exercise of an authority which Congress has expressly withheld.]
[Moreover, criminal contempt proceedings are not the same as simple misdemeanor prosecutions or the conduct of voir dire in felony trials. Contempt proceedings implicate the authority, the discretion, and the dignity of Article III courts. They constitute "the ultimate exercise of judicial power . . . ." Geras, 742 F.2d at 1044. Congress has carefully avoided conferring that power upon magistrate Judges. The mere fact that some analogies can be drawn between contempt proceedings and criminal proceedings does not mean that we should guard use of the contempt power any less jealously than Congress did.]
Judge Sorokin allowed this bogus “ruling” Dkt. # 61 by Morse regarding this Plaintiff’s contempt motion Dkt. #58 yet constructed (after Plaintiff’s opposition to the Defendant’s Contempt motion pointed out how no such document would have ever existed) an on the surface appearing partially appropriate document with report and recommendations Dkt. # 80 in regards to Defendants' Dkt. #71 contempt motion; however, the document is still significantly lacking as far as certification of facts and contains nothing but the replay of the previous usurpation and distortion of the facts in the record. Not one court document gives an example of any inappropriate behavior by this litigant; they simply state this behavior exist without examples and take my words with showing what my words have described. Fair comment is allowed and the record supports any fair comment made.
Laura J. McGarry
Fri, March 25, 2011 12:00:27 PM
Re: Chief Judge Wolf had papers regarding this situation handed to him on 3/24/2011 From: Laura J. McGarry
Add to Contacts
Sorry Florence this should have been captioned 3/24/2011---Chief Judge Wolf had papers
regarding this situation handed to him on 3/24/2011
Laura J. McGarry
From: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, March 25, 2011 11:03:10 AM
Subject: Chief Judge Wolf had papers regarding this situation handed to him on 1/24/2011
Chief Judge Wolf had papers regarding this situation handed to him on 1/24/2011
Full View From: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]>
Add to Contacts
3 Files Download All Doc_80.pdf (42KB); recent orders 3_23_2011.pdf (481KB); CM-ECF - USDC Massachusetts - Version 4_1_1 as of 03-20-2010-.pdf (524KB)
Good Morning Florence,
I received an order and memorandum that states Judge Sorokin recommends that I be found in
contempt. This order appeared nowhere on the recent orders where the court list every order of
the day. I did two days to verify. I also printed directly from the web site so my papers
identifying this scam meet rules of evidence. My ink is now gone---27 pages. I also spent my
food money once again and had a process server hand to Chief Judge Wolf Doc_81 and he has
now been informed of what is actually going on which is these defense attorneys intended to
deprive me of any legitimate court action and they engaged Barbara Morse to assist them in their
endeavor. When I caught them with evidence including engaging a docket clerk to switch files
in the ECF system the pro se staff attorney sabotaged my case and engaged Judge Sorokin’s
assistance in depriving me of my constitutional rights. This is beyond Judicial Misconduct and it
is blatant criminal activity from within the court itself. Every communication I have tried to get
to a US District Judge had been blocked including the notice of mandamus I had served to Judge
O'Toole. I have now made contact with and know for a fact that Chief Judge Wolf has Doc_81
which he ensured the process server he would be reading again after he read it right in front of
the process server. I am a disabled pro se informa pauperis litigant and I am being railroaded by
criminals from within the court assisting these attorneys who started with criminal activity at the
EEOC. Judge Sorokin is complicit in this activity. Judge O'Toole still does not have a clue but I
assume the Chief Judge will be enlightening him today. The Feb. 14th transcript should have
evidence of Judge Sorokin denying me my rights. If it does not than it has been illegally altered
but my son sat there right in the court room and heard him directly state "NO" when after he
restricted my filing with the court I asked directly can I file to appeal your decision and to get
reconsideration on the orders that I have proof the pro se staff attorney wrote with zero judicial
over site. If a magistrate cannot rule on an injunctive motion without placing the notice of your
right to appeal to the US District Judge certainly a pro se staff attorney has no business writing
injunctive motion rulings. If a magistrate cannot do anything with a contempt motion beyond
recommendations certainly a pro se staff attorney cannot rule on a contempt motion and sign the
Magistrates name. You will note that Dkt. # 61 which was typed and signed with Sorokin’s
name does not have the notice at the bottom or state recommendations as Dkt. #80 does. These
people are scamming me and I need assurance that this will be followed through and
appropriately handle. I spoke to you on March 23rd at 9:23 am for about two minutes and you
indicated in that conversation that you had not assessed the case as of yet but that you would and
get back to me; at 11:55 you emailed me that your assessment was complete; this needs further
looked into and there is obvious corruption going on of which I am a victim. Please send this
email Chief Judge Lynch and resolve this through your policy and procedures before other
citizens become victim to this unlawful behavior. You cannot force a Magistrate on a litigant
when a litigant has written that they want their contempt motion to go immediately before a
judge and Judge O'Toole was doing a bench trial on that morning 1/31/2011 and the Docket
clerk forced the reference from that was written from an injunctive motion ruling by a pro se
staff attorney who does not have authority to answer the motion and the relief requested in the
motion was to be relieved from her and then Sorokin denied me my constitutional rights. Please
don't make go through the hassle and expense of refiling to petition that this go forward. I can't
afford the ink or the taxi--it cost me over 80 dollars to mail what I already mailed to you. I do
not have a car and I had to call a cab to get to the store to buy ink which is now gone and then a
cab to the post office. This is just not right! I have provided adequate documentation that shows
this Magistrate has denied me my rights and my opposition to the contempt shows this in case
law.
Entered: 01/30/2011
22:47:53 Filed:
01/30/2011
Category: motion
Event: Contempt
Document: 58
L. McGarry Type: pty
Emergency MOTION for Contempt against Barbara Morse PSSA and
Defense counsel Guy Tully & Brian Childs--collusion with PSSA---
oppression and intimidation of Plaintiff-deliberate deprivation of
constitutional rights and blocking disabled in forma pauperis pro se
litigant's access to the court--this case has had no legitimate court
procedure beyond complaint filing and service of process for six months--
all terminated filings by the Plaintiff need notice of terminated removed
and Documents 20, 53, & 57 are illegitimate and need removed from the
docket--requesting immediate relief and case management by Article III
Judge--O'Toole by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit case
summary, # 2 Exhibit B. Morse Documents, # 3 Exhibit
doc.57_memorandum and order by Morse, # 4 Exhibit
doc.53_memorandum and order by Morse, # 5 Exhibit
doc.20_Memorandum and order by Morse, # 6 Exhibit used for general
Entered: 01/31/2011
10:43:19 Filed:
01/28/2011
Category: order Event:
Order Referring Case
to Magistrate Judge
C. Danieli Type: crt
Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.
REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin Referred for: all
Pretrial Proceedings. Motions referred: 58 Emergency MOTION for
Contempt against Barbara Morse PSSA and Defense counsel Guy Tully &
Brian Childs--collusion with PSSA---oppression and intimidation of
Plaintiff-deliberate deprivation of constitutional rights and blocking
disabled in forma paupe. (Danieli, Chris) Motions referred to Leo T.
Sorokin.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CALENDAR - JANUARY 31, 2011
***AMENDED January 28, 2011 (5:22 pm)
O’TOOLE, J. - COURTROOM #9 - 3RD FLOOR
9:00 am
BENCH TRIAL
I have the full PDF court calendar
Docket when files were switched indicates random entry with no action taken and then PDF's
were switch
Entered: 10/25/2010
17:44:27 Filed:
10/25/2010
Category: answer
Event: Answer to
Complaint Document:
29
L. McGarry Type: pty
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' 21 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with
Jury Demand Answer to Answer by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit mikita license A, # 2 Exhibit mikita license B, # 3 Exhibit mikita
license c, # 4 Exhibit health records notice to submit to eeoc)(McGarry,
Laura) Modified on 12/3/2010 to create a link to the answer(Danieli,
Chris)
Entered: 11/05/2010
03:05:39 Filed:
11/05/2010
Category: respoth
Event: Amended
Answer to Complaint
Document: 34
L. McGarry Type: pty
Addendum to 29 Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' 21 ANSWER to
Complaint (Document # 21) 1 Complaint Correction to Paragraph 186
sub paragraph #2-line #4 by Laura J. McGarry. (McGarry, Laura)
Modified on 12/3/2010 making the filing event an Addendum to the
Plaintiff's Response to the Defendants' Answer (Danieli, Chris).
Following is a paragraph from Dkt. #52 where I describe the filing switching in the ECF system.
The scanned PDF’s submitted to the court’s ECF system by opposing counsel Guy Tully of
Jackson Lewis as noted in Plaintiff’s (Documents 41, 42, 43 & 45 incorporated herein) were part
of a purposeful scheme to thwart, both, the Plaintiff’s and the court’s research of Defendants’
cited authorities including an adverse authority that had been concealed in a foot note. The
November 5th scanned PDF documents were noted on December 31st by Plaintiff to be changed
in the PACER system to word processed PDF’s. The docket clerk entered Plaintiff’s case through
the ECF system on Friday, December 3, 2010, and added text indicating a modification to link
documents on entries submitted by Plaintiff on 10/25/2010 and 11/5/2010; all documents had
already been clearly linked by Plaintiff when she entered her documents on the given dates.
*Modified on 12/3/2010 to create a link to the answer (clerk’s name)+ and *Modified on
12/3/2010 making the filing event an Addendum to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendants'
Answer (clerk’s name)+ respectively to the stated dates (Exhibit 2); no action beyond the typing
of the text indicating a modification to create links was taken by the clerk. (Exhibit 2)
Laura J. McGarry
Wed, March 23, 2011 12:49:31 PM
Re: Opposition attached--need resolved today From: Laura J. McGarry
Add to Contacts
You are telling me that if you certify this as no misconduct that it is perfectly acceptable for a
pro se staff attorney to write the memorandum and order on an injunctive relief motion of which
she is the subject of relief in the US District Court. After reading the injunctive relief motion she
is allowed to sabotage my case and manipulate file dates when the policy is when entered into
the ECF is the date filed; the document was not even created until the day after she listed as the
file date. No competent judge is going to let the subject of the relief requested write the
memorandum and order to the motion for relief--no pro se staff attorney has the authority to
address a motion for injunctive relief to begin with. Reference to the magistrate in that
document is an usurped order with absolutely no US District judge involvement. You are wrong
and need to further evaluate to make a fair decision. Further you need the transcript from the
recorded Feb 14th conference to hear this Magistrate deny me my right to appeal his orders to
the US District judge. This is not allowed. I should not be subjected to further delay of my
action that was filed in August that continues to be held hostage in pretense litigation mode. I
don't think I live in America anymore--this is unreal!!!! My last email to you will be this one
which clearly points to the points you missed. I would hope that you take the initiative to look
into them and thank you for your time if do. If you don't I guess I need to do the next step.
Delay delay delay when everything is so obviously wrong is not right.
Laura J. McGarry
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 11:55:23 AM
Subject: Re: Opposition attached--need resolved today
Ms. McGarry, As I indicated on the telephone this morning,I have reviewed your case, McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc., et. al., No. 10-11343. While I understand that you are frustrated with the proceeding, this office does not have authority to modify orders issued in pending litigation. Please note, however, that the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Sorokin in accordance with federal law. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636. It is also consistent with the applicable rules of practice and procedure for a court to utilize the services of the pro se staff attorneys and to require litigants to adhere to the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. You will be notified when a decision is issued in response to your complaint(s) of judicial misconduct, Nos. 01-11-90007 and 01-11-90008. Sincerely, Florence Pagano Assistant Circuit Executive for Legal Affairs 617-748-9376 617-748-9376
"Laura J. McGarry" <[email protected]> 03/21/2011 10:30 AM
To [email protected] cc
Subject Re: Opposition attached--need resolved today
It is filed I just emailed it for your easy access
Laura J. McGarry
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, March 21, 2011 8:45:55 AM Subject: Re: Opposition attached--need resolved today Ms. McGarry,
Please be advised that emailing me your opposition does not constitute filing it with the court. Please be sure to file
all pleadings with the clerk's office in accordane with the governing procedural rules.
Florence Pagano
From: "Laura J. McGarry" [[email protected]]
Sent: 03/21/2011 05:23 AM MST
To: Florence Pagano
Subject: Opposition attached--need resolved today Mon, March 21, 2011 8:23:39 AM
Opposition attached--need resolved today
Doc_78_opposition_contemt.pdf (607KB)
Good morning Florence,
I have attached my opposition to the Defendants' motion for contempt against me. My research
for my complaint that I will be filing in the Washington State US District Court tells me that
there is a serious problem for the court staff and the attorneys that have designed this conspiracy
to ensure my denial of access to the courts and my protection by an Article III Judge because
after the scheduling conference in which Judge Sorokin sat on the bench and claimed that he
gave approval of the bogus dkt. # 61, which was the "ruling" on the contempt motion dkt. #58
that I filed against defense counsel and the Barbara Morse PSSA, Judge Sorokin continued that
order and further denied my right to file with the court knowing very well that the order was
written by Morse with no judicial oversight. The court mailed me the orders from that
conference. It was at this conference Judge Sorokin verbally told me I was not allowed to appeal
his decision (my son is a witness to this February 14th conference because he was sitting in the
court room). Morse also wrote the dkt. #57 "ruling" to my request for injunctive relief of which
she was the subject dkt. # 51 and ordered reference to the magistrate with orders in that
document. In spite of my strong written and verbal objection to the reference with the caption in
my contempt motion stating to put this action before Judge O'Toole the reference was made by
the docket clerk and accepted by Judge Sorokin. Judge Sorokin does not in any legal way have
jurisdiction of this matter. Using the mail now makes this conspiracy a RICO violation. I
understand from the multiple emails that I receive from people that the system is corrupt and
only available to people with money and those who are well connected. Hopefully Washington
is less corrupt than Massachusetts and there will be no forum change should I have to initiate this
new action. Certainly the connection factor will be reduced. In any event I want this case
before a US District Judge today. I cannot suffer another day of this anguish; you may note that
it is only 4:30 in the morning here. I do not sleep and I do not eat; the corruption of the court
system is just intensifying and prolonging my miserable slow death that was initiated by the
Defendants. If the surgeons screwed up and had to go before a medical board I would not let my
patient lay in pain until a board made a decision. I filed on August 2, 2010 and this action has
never passed the eyes of a US District Judge. There have been multiple title 18 violations and
the most current is this conspiracy covered under the RICO laws. I need Judge Sorokin and
Judge O'Toole to recuse themselves and immediate reassignment to a US District Judge and the
new assigned Judge alerted to the improprieties that have occurred and an immediate ruling to
disqualify Defense counsel. This has to happen today because I will not be able to tolerate one
more bogus order and if Sorokin writes dismissal with prejudice I will collapse. They also want
to bar me from appeal. I know that I can challenge all this but when I get to appeals court the
appeals judge will not have jurisdiction because of no chain of legitimate order to a US District
Judge and it will just end up a time consuming circle of the same crap. I would not need legal
counsel if the justice system was not corrupt; I know how to read and my case is a clear violation
of the laws. I should not have had to write one document past my complaint. I am exhausted
after having to write 25 documents to stay on top of fraud and they know doing this from
Washington will make any appeal difficult. The appeals court does not help you with service of
process and I have no damn money. This has gone on long enough; please make it stop. The
Chief Judges of both courts need to know what is going on and it needs to stop.
The clerk staff of the "Court Family" as the clerk of the court and the chief judge like to make
reference in various articles I have found on the web need replaced--their tenure has turned the
place into a "mob family" not a "court family" The clerks of the US District Court of
Massachusetts decide who is and who is not entitled to justice (certainly not all are dishonest but
a serious look is needed). I find it quite curious that I filed on August 2nd but my case did not
make it to the docket until August 10th. There seems to be favor among attorneys who have no
defense in actions they are up against having strong merit make it to Judge O'Toole's docket.
This information is also on the web. Judge O'Toole needs to keep a better eye on his kids. I
would bet my bottom dollar that too has RICO implications but for now I prefer to worry at my
own level and want this situation resolved on this very day as soon as possible. My opposition
that is attached will be helpful and the entire record is the evidence.
Thank you for your help,
Laura J. McGarry
Thu, March 17, 2011 10:29:53 AM
Re: This points directly to no jurisdiction and that Contempt was improperly handled with no
input from Judge Sorokin From: "[email protected]"
View Contact
To: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]>
Ms. McGarry,
I understand that you are concerned about your proceeding. I am out of the office but you can reach me at 857-366-
2393. Susan Goldberg is in meetings the rest of the day.
Florence Pagano
From: "Laura J. McGarry" [[email protected]]
Sent: 03/14/2011 08:41 AM MST
To: Florence Pagano
Subject: This points directly to no jurisdiction and that Contempt was improperly handled with no input from
Judge Sorokin
5 Files Download All bogus rulings and authorities cited by plaintiff.pdf (641KB); Gucci%20Am_%20Certification.pdf (487KB); doc_51_6_Excerpt from Document 29_p_186.pdf (624KB); Doc_73.pdf (66KB); NursingHome Names Manning ADON.pdf (15KB)
Even if Judge Sorokin had decided to properly handle this matter and take his blinders off where he would have see things as they actually are and took the initiative to write appropriate orders he does this action no favor because it remains a pretense litigation
without a Judge. He does not have jurisdiction. Please see if the final results of this matter can be expedited and my assignment to an actual US District Judge can happen today. I cannot handle any more stress and although I managed to get what was due Friday I now have to answer to contempt by this Friday Dkt. # 73 attached. I have had to write more than 20 documents to protect myself from fraud and violation of my rights---I am tired and can NO LONGER handle the stress--this is a pretty shabby way to treat a disabled litigant with a valid action--if pleadings of particularity are required when there is fraud then a judge should be reading them.
There is absolutely nothing in my documentation to the court regarding anyone that reaches beyond fair comment.
I attached a color coded document that shows the authorities I used and Morse's documentation and some of mine with commentary by me for her Dkt. 53, 57, & 61 illegal "RULINGS".
JUDGE SOROKIN VIOLATED MY RIGHTS BY TELLING ME I COULD NOT APPEAL HIS ORDERS AND BY FURTHER TELLING ME I COULD NOT ASK FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE ILLEGAL RULINGS BY MORSE OF WHICH HE WAS MORE THAN AWARE HAD NEVER BEEN APROVED BY JUDGE O'TOOLE. Article III judicial officer and a magistrate is required. Such a line of distinction may be found in the allocation of the contempt power, because, under no aspect of the Magistrate Act, can a magistrate punish for contempt. 28 U.S.C. § 636(e). According to section 636(e), if an individual
commits an act constituting contempt of court, [**24] the magistrate must certify the facts of the incident to a district judge. The district judge, after holding a hearing and evaluating the allegedly contemptuous conduct, may determine the nature and severity of appropriate punishment, if indicated. I INCLUDED A SAMPLE FROM A RI MAGISTRATE OF WHAT WOULD HAVE GONE TO THE US DISTRICT JUDGE---IT STATES CERTIFICATION OF FACTS!!
Two preeminent values which the Article III protections are intended to safeguard. The right of the litigant to exercise of the federal judicial power by an independent federal judiciary and the preservation of the separation of powers among the three branches of government.
THIS ACTION NEEDS TO GO BEFORE A US DISTRICT JUDGE BECAUSE THE EEOC REQUIRES A JUDICIAL REVIEW--SEE PARAGRAPH 186 OF DKT.#29 (doc_51_6 attached) The fact that magistrates can exercise their authority only with the litigants' consent is a significant distinction from the nature of the authority exercised by the district judges. The statute attempts to ensure the voluntary character of this consent and [**10] specifically provides that the district court is authorized only to inform the parties of the alternative of a reference to a magistrate and is then forbidden to persuade or induce the parties to accept the reference. In addition, litigants retain the option of asking the district court, albeit only under
[*1041] extraordinary circumstances, to withdraw the reference. This may apply to 636(c) but they can not force a matter to be determined under 636(b) against my well document request to have the matter go before the US District Judge.
I BEGGED FOR A US DISTRICT JUDGE BUT THE CLERKS RUN JUDGE O'TOOLE'S COURT. THE ORDER OF REFERENCE WOULD HAVE STATED FOR FACT FINDING ON THE CONTEMPT IF IT WAS ACTUALLY BY A US DISTRICT JUDGE--CONTEMPT IS NOT A RUN OF THE MILL PRE TRIAL MATTER. I WOULD BET THAT DIANNE CROKE NEVER GAVE THE INTENT TO FILE MANDAMUS TO JUDGE O'TOOLE THAT I SPENT MY GROCERY MONEY ON IN ORDER TO GET IT SERVED TO JUDGE O'TOOLE. THERE ARE SOME SERIOUS PROBLEMS GOING ON IN THAT COURT AND I HOPE WHAT I HAVE RELAYED TO YOU IS ALSO GOING TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT. I AM SO TIRED THAT I FEEL LIKE I MAY DROP DEAD ANY MOMENT. I DID WHAT WAS REQUIRED OF ME AND FILED IT ON FRIDAY --IF YOU LOOK AT THE ATTACHMENT DKT. # 76 (nursing home names Manning as ADON attached) IT SHOWS THAT THE DEFENDANTS ARE DISHONEST AND WHO THEY ACTUALLY HIRED V. THE FALSIFIED RECORD THEY SUBMITTED TO THE EEOC OF WHICH THESE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE WELL AWARE AND PROBABLY INSTRUCTED THEM TO DO AND NOW THEY HAVE CARRIED THIS FRAUDULANT POSITION TO THE COURT.
Section 636(b) provision at issue in United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 65 L. Ed. 2d 424, 100 S. Ct. 2406 (1980)---Section 636(b) requires a legitimate reference to the Magistrate by a US District Judge--not by a pro se staff attorney writing the order after she rules on an injunctive motion of which she has no legislative authority to do even if she were not the subject of the motion. The Constitution requires that the judicial power be exercised by Article III judges, and this is a requirement of subject matter jurisdiction which is not waivable by the court staff and to be forced on the litigant. Pro Se In Forma Pauperis status certainly is a joke!!! I never would have done all this work and just killed myself if I knew this would be the outcome. I now know why I never leave the house--it is not because I think people cannot be trusted--it is because they actually cannot be trusted.
If this email sounds grumpy--I whole heartedly apologize--you did not do this--if I could sleep longer than two hours maybe my outlook would improve!! I do truly hope you are well and
having a fabulous day---I would wish nothing less for any fellow human being. These attorneys and Morse should be subjected to the procedures of LR 86.3---I excelled at my career and helped patients and families through very difficult times. I did not send in the nursing assistant and tell them it was the doctor. I did not change their lab values so they would appear healthy on paper to lighten my work load. I worked my butt off to ensure the best possible outcome for every single patient under my charge and assisted my colleagues in doing the same for their patients. I was well respected. My purpose has been stolen at the hands of these defendants and everywhere I go for help and redress turns out to be bogus and more emotional torture that requires me to do massive amounts of useless work that is never even looked at or taken into consideration just as the Defendants had me do massive amounts of work off the clock with no intent of giving me a full time job and then took my work!! Yours truly,
Laura J. McGarry
Thu, March 10, 2011 3:17:47 PM
Florence Pagano/CA01/01/USCOURTS is out of the office. From: "[email protected]"
View Contact
To: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]>
I will be out of the office starting 03/10/2011 and will not return until 03/14/2011. If you need immediate assistance, please contact Michelle Dumas. Thank you.
Thu, March 10, 2011 2:20:22 PM
Re: Misconduct Complaint Nos. 01-11-90007 & 01-11-90008 From: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]>
Add to Contacts
5 Files Download All Doc_36_adverse authority in footnote misspelled with wrong LEXIS No..pdf (121KB); doc_58_2_Barbara Morse's unauthorized documents.pdf (914KB); doc_52-2.pdf (422KB); doc_70_1.pdf (349KB); doc_64_1.pdf (471KB)
The documents from defense were all scanned with erroneous authorities 35-40 so I would have
difficulty searching and see that everything was bogus--take a look at 36 where they put adverse
authority in a foot note. My memorandum on disqualify was ignored as all my case law was
ignored included supreme court law and Judge Sorokin is letting this go on instead of corrective
action. How many others have been denied justice because of this activity? The mandamus was
just a notice of intent to file--I spent my grocery money to have it served--and DKT 70 has the
proof of service--either Judge O'Toole does not care or his assistant did not give it to him. There
is something very wrong here. I am sorry if I repeat myself a lot but I did have a stroke and
organization of this mess is very difficult for me. What I have sent you is a good start and most
of the documents guide you where to look on the docket. If you look at #28 #33 #34 you will see
they have no defense and Sorokin is making me do all this work--it seems fraud on the court
from adverse authority concealed, misspelled, and wrong lexis numbers with scanned documents
then switched in the ECF after a sanction motion #46 it should have stopped. I feel like I am
being tortured. I'm so tired. Now I have to finish all this discovery stuff and battle a contempt
motion because I filed a mandamus notice and DKT 69 and 70 to fight for my rights. JUDGE
SOROKIN denied me a right to ask for reconsideration on these bogus rulings by the PSSA or
appeal his decisions---this is wrong--mean while the others make money from their clients as I
sit here with my face numb from exhaustion. Law is not easy when your memory has short term
impairment and everything takes me 10 times longer. They had 47 exhibits from the start that
showed they were very dishonest and if you look at paragraph 186 of Dkt. # 29 you will see that
they had control over at the EEOC as well with a huge money transaction before one of these
Jackson Lewis Attorneys hand delivered their position statement. Thank you so very, very
much!!
Laura J. McGarry
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]
Sent: Thu, March 10, 2011 12:18:56 PM
Subject: Fw: Misconduct Complaint Nos. 01-11-90007 & 01-11-90008
Ms. McGarry, As I indicated on the telephone today, I will look into your issues of concern with regard to your case, No. 10-11343, as soon as possible. In the mean time, feel free to e-mail me at this address with any additional information. I wish you the best with your son's health. Florence ACE, Legal Affairs First Circuit Court of Appeals 617-748-9376
Thu, March 10, 2011 1:51:57 PM
Re: Misconduct Complaint Nos. 01-11-90007 & 01-11-90008 From: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]>
Add to Contacts
5 Files Download All Doc_ 51__enjoin morse motion.pdf (573KB); Doc_ 52__fraud on the court disqualify defense counsel third request.pdf (465KB); Doc_58_contempt motion_Declaration by Plaintiff on oppression of constitutional rights.pdf (358KB); doc_64_2.pdf (441KB); doc_64_5.pdf (1585KB)
Hi Florence,
I am attaching the documents you find most helpful in seeing that Judge Sorokin is advocating
for this inappropriate PSSA who is in collusion with the defense. If you look at the case as a
whole reading document 1 (Complaint and document 29 together will be helpful because 29 puts
you right to the exhibits that show there has been no defense beyond deception, trickery and
fraud with an absolutely bogus answer--they had all the exhibits available to them both in hard
copy and on the system and have ignored them. They refused to make an appearance until just
before the answer. Barbara Morse is Helping. I wrote Doc_51 and then she went nuts and
sabotaged my case with Doc_53. Her memorandums have no law, fact or rule. Doc_52 shows
defenses fraud. Chris Danieli just entered my case again. You will see on the docket that he
entered it random on Dec. 3rd and this is when the scanned pdf's were changed to word process
PDF's. See dkt 53, 57 and 61---all written by Morse and Judge Sorokin is saying he approved
61---he didn't even know about it as my paper indicates that I have sent to you with the
complaint. He does not have jurisdiction--Judge O'Toole has no clue that this case even exist. I
will send a few more PDF's--this case has had no management is why it is so out of control--it is
not my fault and all the illegal unethical behavior by the defense has been projected on to me in
these bizarre rulings Judge Sorokin is letting her get away with. My career was my life and the
employer destroyed it and now I am suffering further while inappropriate people are having their
careers protected. This is not right. The only mistake I made was having a stroke and I don't
think that was my fault.
Laura J. McGarry
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, March 10, 2011 12:18:56 PM Subject: Fw: Misconduct Complaint Nos. 01-11-90007 & 01-11-90008
Ms. McGarry,
As I indicated on the telephone today, I will look into your issues of concern with regard to your case, No. 10-11343, as soon as possible. In the mean time, feel free to e-mail me at this address with any additional information. I wish you the best with your son's health. Florence ACE, Legal Affairs First Circuit Court of Appeals 617-748-9376
On March 7, 2011 the following was sent to the Circuit Executive Office to file my Complaint of Judicial Misconduct against Magistrate Judge Sorokin and US District Judge O’Toole. I have given the Circuit Executive Office every opportunity to process this complaint in accord with fact and law with complete, accurate and honest information; they have chosen to allow this criminal activity and ignore fact and law therefore the public has a right to know that our justice system is nothing more than a fraud ran by criminals who are supported by YOUR TAX DOLLARS. Motions that lingered for months were illegally ruled on as soon as I motioned to enjoin the Pro Staff attorney; these “rulings” were void of fact and law and forged with a US District Judge’s typed signature following a /s/; the contempt motion these unethical and federal law breaking defense attorneys filed against me has a report and recommendation to the US District Judge by the involved Magistrate that I be found in contempt. It is interesting that we now have a report and recommendation when defense files for contempt yet when I filed for contempt there was a ruling by the Magistrate. There still are no certified facts by this magistrate regarding any contempt motion Dkt. #58 (filed me) or #71 (filed by defense). My motion to disqualify the Judges was in fact answered with docket text regarding the magistrate and the Motion was in fact terminated on March 2, 2011 before referral to the US District Judge or defenses’ opposition that was due on March 9, 2011. Any filing I make goes to the magistrate’s docket and although the full filing restriction has been lifted I am not allowed to file without first sending a notice to the magistrate informing him of what I intend to file so any ECF system direct filing to the District judge is impossible. The Magistrate only brought this motion to disqualify to the attention of the US District Judge after I objected that he ruled with docket text on Dkt. # 69 & #70 and terminated the motions from the docket in my opposition to the contempt Dkt. # 78. The Magistrates report and recommendation Dkt. #80 states *“I RECOMMEND that, prior to ruling on the pending motion for contempt, the district judge assigned to this case render his own ruling on that portion of the Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify (Docket # 69) directed at him.”+ which was dated March 23rd yet Judge Lynch states:
The Contempt Motion against me still lingers and will continue to linger—Defense responded to
my objection to the report and recommendations on April 12, 2011. I have heard nothing
regarding the hearing I demanded. Interesting that when a contempt motion was against defense
it was answered in two days by a Pro Se Staff attorney’s draft that was approved by a Magistrate
with no authority to rule on contempt and never saw a US District Judge!!! By the way the
Magistrate had no idea of the content of this “Ruling” on contempt by the Pro Se Staff Attorney
as he slipped at a 2/14/2011 scheduling conference stating that I had to follow Judge O’Toole’s
orders and not make any filings with the court; I then stated, “Oh, I thought you said you wrote
those orders” he stated, “Thanks for reminding me” and per my son who was sitting in the court
room he then looked at the document. At this conference he denied my right to appeal his ruling
to the US District Judge or request reconsideration on orders that were written by the pro se staff
attorney that sabotaged my case. You will note that although Pagano was informed that this
violation of my rights was on the transcript of this hearing that this transcript was not included in
Lynch’s ruling.
Doc. No. Deadline/He
aring
Event Filed Due/Set Satisfied Terminated
69 Response
02/23/2011 03/09/2011 03/02/2011
COMPLAINT SUMMARY—SEE FURTHER ATTACHED DOCUMENTATION THAT ELABORATES ON
THE FACTS OF THIS COMPLAINT.
Misconduct. Cognizable misconduct:
(1) is conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. Misconduct includes, but is not limited to:
(A) using the judge's office to obtain special treatment for friends or relatives; This Plaintiff considers covering for rogue court staff to be in this category.
(D) treating litigants or attorneys in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner; This Plaintiff considers deliberate violation of her Constitutional Rights to be in this category. Plaintiff has been deprived of due process and procedure and access to the court with an ongoing conspiracy to ensure that she is not able to bring her grievance before the court. Both Judge O’Toole and Judge Sorokin are responsible for this continued egregious effort by not halting the collusion and fraud committed by the pro se staff attorney and defense counsel or correcting the damage this collusion has caused to Plaintiff’s action before
they became aware of this egregious activity. Judge Sorokin, knowing he is without Jurisdiction of this civil matter is holding this case hostage and DENIED Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify himself. Both Judge O’Toole and Judge Sorokin are “by law” disqualified from this case. See Dkt. #69 and #70. (C) having improper discussions with parties or counsel for one side in a case; Quite obviously Judge Sorokin has communicated with the pro se staff attorney who is
in collusion with the defense which makes this one in the same.
(2) is conduct occurring outside the performance of official duties if the conduct
might have a prejudicial effect on the administration of the business of the courts, including a
substantial and widespread lowering of public confidence in the courts among reasonable people.
The aforementioned is without question. SEE Dkt # 20 and all Dkt. Entries from #51 on
which include exhibits that prove these allegations of collusion and usurpation of power by
the pro se staff attorney that both these Judges have ignored!!
Any and all decisions in this case are void, not voidable, but void and were made with
improper motive by Judge Sorokin or are without Article lll authority by the pro se staff
attorney and her more than improper motive because she is in collusion with Defense
Counsel. Judge Sorokin has taken no measures to correct this and he continues to write
orders without jurisdiction of this civil matter and is purposely avoiding the bringing of
this matter to the attention of a US District Judge.
A pretense litigation can be nothing less than an improper motive for delay---Motions sat
for months, including three emergency motions to Disqualify Defense Counsel for fraud
upon the court that included switching files in the ECF System, until this Plaintiff filed a
motion to enjoin the pro se staff attorney from participation in this case and bar her from
communication with Defense Counsel with evidence presented proving pretense litigation,
fraud and collusion. Then unarguable usurpation of power by the pro se staff attorney took
place in order to effectuate a positive outcome for the Defendants. In collusion with the
Defense Counsel she sabotaged Plaintiff’s prosecution of this action by illegally ruling
without judicial oversight on motions and oppositions that had been sitting for months in
favor of the Defendants with bizarre rulings absent fact, law, rule and justice. The
documentation and supporting exhibits by this Plaintiff prove this conspiracy has been
designed to deprive this Plaintiff of her constitutional rights and effectuate a positive
outcome for the defendants. Judge Sorokin put blinders on and continued to violate this
Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights and carry the conspiracy. Plaintiff assumes this was to
cover for the pro se staff attorney and truly hopes that he is not personally benefiting and
also in collusion with the defense. Judge Sorokin is fully aware that this pro se staff
attorney was “Ruling” on Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief and contempt of which
she was included in the subject matter. Judge Sorokin is fully aware that the pro se staff
attorney “RULINGS” are void of fact, rule, law and justice. Judge Sorokin’s ruling that
this Plaintiff may not file for reconsideration of these bizarre rulings or appeal his rulings
to a US District Judge clearly speaks to the validity of these allegations. Judge Sorokin did
not write these directives but stated them at the scheduling conference and my son was
sitting in the court room and witnessed Judge Sorokin deny this Plaintiff her rights.
Plaintiff swears that all of the statements she has made in this complaint are true to the best of her knowledge and has signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 7th day of March 2011. /s/ Laura J. McGarry
US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
28 USC 636 - Sec. 636. Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment
(a) Each United States magistrate judge serving under this chapter shall have within the
territorial jurisdiction prescribed by his appointment –
(b)(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary –
(A) a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
(B) a judge may also designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary
hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion excepted in
subparagraph (A),…
(C) the magistrate judge shall file his proposed findings (NOT THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY)
and recommendations under subparagraph (B) with the court and a copy shall forthwith be
mailed to all parties.
Within ten (current time 14 days) days after being served with a copy, any party may serve
and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by
rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.
A judge may designate a magistrate judge to serve as a special master in any civil case, upon
consent of the parties, without regard to the provisions of rule 53(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for the United States district courts. (3) A magistrate judge may be assigned
such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United
States.
(c) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary –
(1) Upon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate judge or a part-time
United States magistrate judge who serves as a full-time judicial officer may conduct any or all
proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case, when
specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court
(2) If a magistrate judge is designated to exercise civil jurisdiction under paragraph (1) of this
subsection, the clerk of court shall, at the time the action is filed, notify the parties of the
availability of a magistrate judge to exercise such jurisdiction.
The decision of the parties shall be communicated to the clerk of court.
Thereafter, either the district court judge or the magistrate judge may again advise the parties
of the availability of the magistrate judge, but in so doing, shall also advise the parties that they
are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences.
Rules of court for the reference of civil matters to magistrate judges shall include procedures
to protect the voluntariness of the parties' consent.
The consent of the parties allows a magistrate judge designated to exercise civil jurisdiction
under paragraph (1) of this subsection to direct the entry of a judgment of the district court in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(4) The court may, for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances shown by any party, vacate a reference of a civil matter to a magistrate judge under this subsection.
(e) Contempt Authority. –
(1) In general. - A United States magistrate judge serving under this chapter shall have within the territorial jurisdiction prescribed by the appointment of such magistrate judge the power to exercise contempt authority as set forth in this subsection.
(3) Additional criminal contempt authority in civil consent and misdemeanor cases. - In any case in which a United States magistrate judge presides with the consent of the parties under subsection (c) of this section… the magistrate judge shall have the power to punish, by fine or imprisonment, or both, criminal contempt constituting disobedience or resistance to the magistrate judge's lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command. Disposition of such contempt shall be conducted upon notice and hearing under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
(4) Civil contempt authority in civil consent... - In any case in which a United States magistrate
judge presides with the consent of the parties under subsection (c) of this section, …the
magistrate judge may exercise the civil contempt authority of the district court.
(6) Certification of other contempts to the district court. - Upon the commission of any such
act - (A) in any case in which a United States magistrate judge presides with the consent of the
parties under subsection (c) of this section… in the opinion of the magistrate judge,… (B) in any
other case or proceeding under subsection (a) or (b) of this section, or any other statute,
where…(ii) the act that constitutes a criminal contempt occurs outside the presence of the
magistrate judge, or (iii) the act constitutes a civil contempt, the magistrate judge shall
forthwith certify the facts to a district judge and may serve or cause to be served, upon any
person whose behavior is brought into question under this paragraph, an order requiring
such person to appear before a district judge upon a day certain to show cause why that
person should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts so certified.
The district judge shall thereupon hear the evidence as to the act or conduct complained of
and, if it is such as to warrant punishment, punish such person in the same manner and to the
same extent as for a contempt committed before a district judge.
(7) Appeals of magistrate judge contempt orders. - The appeal of an order of contempt under this subsection shall be made to the court of appeals in cases proceeding under subsection (c) of this section. The appeal of any other order of contempt issued under this section shall be made to the district court.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Laura J. McGarry, Pro Se Laura J. McGarry, Pro Se
1717 Sheridan Road Apt. A- 50 Bremerton, WA 98310 No Phone 360-551-6773 (daughter’s cell phone but she is 50 minutes away from me by car) [email protected] (best contact) Plaintiff swears that all of the statements she has made in this complaint are true to the best of her knowledge and has signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 7th day of March 2011. /s/ Laura J. McGarry COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT A Magistrate Judge is not acting as "adjunct" to the District Court if he has taken jurisdiction of a civil action without a legitimate order from the US District Judge. An adjunct or inferior officer of a court would be one who is dependent on the Article III judges and does not have authority to independently exercise the judicial power. It is forbidden to persuade or induce the parties to accept the reference. In addition, litigants retain the option of asking the district court, albeit only under extraordinary circumstances, to withdraw the reference which this Plaintiff did by insisting that the matter go directly before Judge O’Toole in Dkt. # 58. Without a legitimate order from Judge O’Toole referencing this case to Judge Sorokin’s docket, Judge Sorokin enjoys no Article lll judicial protection and his acting as a judge is unconstitutional. Judge Sorokin is illegitimately exercising the federal judicial power denying this Plaintiff her constitutional right to have her grievance heard before the court and an Article lll Judge. Sec. 636(b)(1) confers broad discretion to the district judge to hear or dispense with further testimony, and to accept, reject or modify the magistrate's report. Second, by complying with Congress' directive that any portion of the report to which objection is made be determined de novo by the district court. The pro se staff attorney and this Magistrate are suppressing my right to due process by not allowing me to file with the court and further Judge Sorokin gave a negative response to my request to file reconsideration of his decisions and the illegal orders of the pro se staff attorney. There was no consent for reference to the Magistrate because the pro se staff attorney purposefully withheld the court’s consent policy and procedure from this Plaintiff when she filed; the pro se staff attorney’s usurpation of power was effectuated by keeping the case on Judge O’Toole’s docket. I did not ever waive my right to Article III protections, in fact I insisted on this provision in Dkt. #58, and then this action was forced to the magistrate by the Pro Se Staff Attorney after she learned that this Plaintiff was onto her and defense counsels’ scheme; they do not want this action before a US District Judge. There is no real preservation of option of trial by an Article III judge because it is defense counsels’ goal to get this case dismissed through fraud, trickery, deception and, now, by engaging the Magistrate; the Constitution has been violated. There is no district court supervisory authority over these proceedings of the Magistrate and there has never been
district court supervisory authority over the proceedings of this action during the pro se staff attorney’s usurpation of power. There is no ability to withdraw a reference that was never given in the first place. I have never had access to a US District Judge in spite of multiple attempts to communicate with the Chief Judge, Judge O’Toole, and the Clerk of the Court. . Judge Sorokin continues to write orders fully aware that he has no jurisdiction over this action; he has chosen to cover for a rogue pro se staff attorney and unethical defense counsel who are in violation of more statutes and rules than I could even begin to count. Judge Sorokin has chosen to ignore Supreme Court Law, take no action against attorneys engaged in fraud within the court and participate in the deprivation of rights to this litigant in order to facilitate a cover up of illegal and unethical actions by the pro se staff attorney and defense counsel; he has in effect joined the conspiracy. This conspiracy initiated at the EEOC with absolutely zero support for the position statement presented by the Defendants and a huge money transaction just days before the defense attorney hand delivered the Defendants’ Position Statement to the EEOC. Plaintiff’s case was then sabotaged as the EEOC ignored law, policy and procedure. The fraud has been carried to the court and these defense attorneys have engaged the pro se staff attorney. These Defendants and Defense attorneys are so deep in fraud with well supported evidence by this Plaintiff that they are engaging any means available to avoid the consequences and do not want an honest authority to take notice. Judge Sorokin is assisting them in achievement of their goal. This Plaintiff has been subjected to pretense litigation and all of her action has been blocked from the US District Judge. Whether Judge O’Toole has actually received Plaintiff’s notice of intent to file Mandamus (see Dkt. # 64) remains a mystery to this Plaintiff but he offered no relief or action in regards to the fraud described in the Mandamus after appropriate service to Dianne Croke (his assistant) who accepted the service on his behalf (Plaintiff had hoped this alone would have solved the problem). Judge Sorokin’s actions of late are strong indicators that Judge O’Toole may still be in the dark i.e., electronic orders with only docket text and no memorandum DENYING motions to disqualify Judge Sorokin and Judge O’Toole and the same for a motion to vacate void orders is suspicious; more suspicious is no answer from Judge O’Toole and that Judge Sorokin DENIED the vacate void order motion even though it was captioned to be addressed by the reassigned US District Judge. This blatant misconduct by Judge Sorokin is prejudice to this Plaintiff and continues to deprive this Plaintiff her Constitutional Rights which the pro se staff attorney and defense counsel had been achieving through collusion and conspiracy with multiple acts of fraud that are well documented and supported in the record. Reporting this judicial misconduct is a difficult but necessary step in Plaintiff’s pursuit for justice and at this point such action is necessary to ensure justice for future litigants who bring their grievances before the US District Court of Massachusetts.
On 1/28/2011 The pro se staff attorney wrote Dkt. #57 memorandum and orders to Plaintiff’s Motions 1/19/2011 (Dkt. # 51 and Dkt. #52) with no judicial approval or oversight because Dkt. #51 was a motion that requested she be enjoined from participation in this action as evidence revealed she was in significant collusion with the defense counsel and facilitating a pretense litigation. On 1/20/2011 this pro se staff attorney sabotaged Plaintiff’s action by “Ruling” to motions and oppositions that had been sitting as far back as October 25th including emergency motions to disqualify defense counsel for blatant fraud upon the court—she manipulated the file date back to 1/19/2011; there was no judicial oversight and she took this action after reading Dkt. #51. On 1/28/2011 Dkt. #57 the pro se staff attorney ORDERED, the Clerk shall refer this case to Magistrate Judge Sorokin for all pretrial proceedings as she “Ruled” on an injunctive motion of which she was the subject and Plaintiff’s third emergency Motion to disqualify defense counsel. The pro se staff attorney included inflammatory orders to ensure an appearance on the Docket that Plaintiff appear as a difficult and inappropriate litigant i.e., *“prohibited from making personal comments or attacks upon defense counsel or court staff, intimidating, harassing, or warning defense counsel or court staff in any way as to make a direct or indirect threat, or making reference to docketing information.”+; this Plaintiff has taken extra care to ensure only accurate and well supported documentation using only fair comment in relation to associated behavior and action by these conspirators. On 1/30/2011 Plaintiff moved for contempt Dkt. #58 against the pro se staff attorney and defense counsel and requested immediate relief and case management by Article III Judge O'Toole to restore her constitutional rights. On 1/31/2011 Judge O’Toole’s Docket Clerk (in spite of Plaintiff’s strong objection pre and post this entry) entered [REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin Referred for: all Pretrial Proceedings. Motions referred: 58 Emergency MOTION for Contempt.] On 2/1/2011 the pro se staff attorney wrote memorandum and order Dkt. # 61 “RULING” on Plaintiff’s contempt motion against her and defense counsel and signed Judge Sorokin’s name—all previous orders she was signing with Judge O’Toole’s name but not his oversight including a”Ruling” on an injunctive relief motion back in September that she wrote and entered on a SUNDAY and manipulated the file date back to the previous Friday. Judge Sorokin has chosen to support and cover up the inappropriate and illegal behavior by the pro se staff attorney and defense counsel.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 942 F.2d 562 Argued and Submitted March 12, 1991.Memorandum April 17, 1991.Order and Opinion Aug. 22, 1991
A district court may refer motions, such as the contempt motion, to a magistrate for
proposed findings of fact and recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). If a
party objects to the findings or recommendations, the district court: shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.
28 USC 636 does not give authority to draft memorandum and orders on a motion for contempt to a clerk or pro se staff attorney and certainly not to a pro se staff attorney named as a party in the contempt motion. The authority to answer Dkt. # 58 Plaintiff’s motion for contempt against defense counsel and the pro se staff attorney see Dkt. # 61 was not constructed by the Magistrate or US District Judge. See all the exhibits to Plaintiff’s filings from Dkt. # 51 through any current Dkt. Entry. See relief Plaintiff requested below:
RELIEF PLAINTIFF REQUESTED IN DKT. #58
(1) Immediately put this action before Judge O’Toole including the Motion from September 20, 2010 (Document 17 and 18) excluding now moot factors on service of process.
The pro se staff attorney “RULED” on a contempt motion Dkt. #61 and ordered
*“Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any further pleadings or documents in this action until directed to do so by a judicial officer.”+ Judge Sorokin carried the aforementioned order post the scheduling conference of February 14, 2011 knowing very well he did not construct the order and memorandum Dkt. #61 ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for contempt Dkt. #58. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)—Plaintiff received through the ECF system and in the mail the orders from the February 14th Scheduling Conference that was before Judge Sorokin and without a doubt if Judge Sorokin had received a reference from the US District Judge for proposed findings of fact and recommendations on Plaintiff’s contempt motion Dkt. #58 the same professional and legislative standard would have occurred but the memorandum and order was already written by the pro se staff attorney Dkt. #61 before he even knew about it and cover up for very unethical attorneys has and continues take precedent over justice for this Plaintiff.
Judge Sorokin carried this order post the scheduling conference knowing very well that Judge O’Toole did not construct the order and memorandum Dkt. # 57 that ruled on Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief Dkt. #51 and that no US District Judge has ordered reference of this case to his docket as the reference order was in Dkt. #57. Both of these motions (Dkt. # 51 & #58) were ruled on by the subject of the motions who was the rogue pro se staff attorney. Plaintiff has documented quite well her allegations with supporting exhibits that this pro se staff attorney was in collusion with Defense Counsel and facilitating pretense litigation. Judge Sorokin knows he does not have jurisdiction over this civil action and that Plaintiff had insisted that the contempt motion go immediately before the US District Judge. Plaintiff has never consented to jurisdiction by the Magistrate because she was never given the forms to follow the Court’s policy and procedure as they were withheld and not sent to Plaintiff when she filed as per the court’s policy; this was part of the pro se staff attorney’s scheme in order to facilitate a pretense litigation by keeping the case on the US District Judge’s Docket. The case was purposefully mislabeled on the docket appearing exempt from scheduling orders as the pro se staff attorney impersonated the US District Judge and carried the pretense
litigation in collusion with the defense. THERE HAS BEEN NO JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT OF THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY’S MEMORANDUMS AND ORDERS; JUDGE SOROKIN CAME ON BOARD AND NOW HE IS INAPPROPRIATELY COVERING THIS COLLUSION AND PRETENSE LITIGATION SCHEME. Further, after Judge Sorokin verbally continued the restriction on Plaintiff’s filings at the scheduling conference, this Plaintiff directly asked Judge Sorokin if she could file reconsiderations with the US District Judge for his orders and the orders of DKt. #53 which were also written without judicial oversight by the pro se staff attorney; the pro se staff attorney read the motion to enjoin Dkt. #51 and then constructed her antagonistic memorandum and order Dkt. #53 where she sabotaged Plaintiff’s case with unlawful, in more ways than one, rulings on motions and oppositions that had been sitting for months. Plaintiff was told by Judge Sorokin that she could not file reconsideration on these illegal “RULINGS”. Judge Sorokin is fully aware the pro se staff attorney constructed the documents and that the events that transferred reference of this case to his docket leave him without jurisdiction yet he is making rulings prejudice to this Plaintiff, denied Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify himself, and DENIED Plaintiff’s motion to vacate void orders which specifically captioned a request that this motion be ruled on when a new US District Judge took assignment. Both of the aforementioned orders were by electronic order with docket text only and no memorandum. Judge Sorokin at the time of this writing has not presented Plaintiff’s disqualify judge motion Dkt. #69 to Judge O’Toole and Plaintiff makes this assumption by the fact that Judge Sorokin ruled on vacate void orders motion Dkt. #70 even though he is fully aware that he has no jurisdiction over this civil matter and by law should have recused himself. If Judge Sorokin has actually read the filings Plaintiff has presented to the court he is fully aware of the multiple violations of the model rules by Defense Counsel. He would also be aware of their fraud schemes that have been assisted by the pro se staff attorney, Barbara Morse which include, but not limited to, switching files in the ECF system. He is perfectly aware Defendants have no defense by Supreme Court law and that the answer they presented to the Court was a bogus filing with denials and not enough information that ignored Plaintiff’s 47 exhibits attached to her 41 page complaint that was pled with particularity. He is perfectly aware that the egregious fraud schemes upon the court itself entitle this Plaintiff to a default judgment. Instead of ensuring justice for this Plaintiff and following the procedures of local rule #83.6 Judge Sorokin is protecting these people who have without fear of consequence defiled the US District Court of Massachusetts and the first rule of the FRCP. Judge Sorokin has taken no consideration of the deprivation of due process or procedural process and the continual oppression that has denied this Plaintiff her first amendment right to have her grievance heard before the court and instead is covering the actions by these rogue attorneys and avoiding proper adjudication of this action by holding this case hostage fully aware he has no jurisdiction. This fraud scheme that has been carried to the court was initiated during the EEOC investigation by Patrick Egan of Jackson Lewis and the fraud is now being continued by Guy
Tully and Brian Childs of Jackson Lewis; there is strong evidence of an inappropriate money exchange during the EEOC investigation (see paragraph 186 of Dkt. # 29). Defense Counsel have engaged the pro se staff attorney, Barbara Morse, to assist them in keeping this case from the view of a US District Court Judge and now Judge Sorokin has joined in this effort. Whether he is covering for just the pro se staff attorney or also covering for Defense Counsel I do not know; I do know that their crimes are why I am being denied justice. There are now too many Title 18 violations for Plaintiff in her novice pro se status to accurately list and Judge Sorokin knows the law and the appropriate action he should be taking. This misconduct needs to be addressed as soon as possible because the latest maneuver by defense, in all irony, is a contempt motion against this Plaintiff in which they have requested her case be dismissed with prejudice and barred from appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
and Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). The reason for the contempt is because I have filed with the court Motions to disqualify the judges and vacate the void orders after being, quite unjustly, told I was not allowed to file. Judge Sorokin has even taken this so far to tell me that I am not allowed to request reconsideration of the rogue pro se staff attorney’s “RULINGS” or appeal his decisions. This is blatant trespassing on the Constitution. See Dkt. # 69 and #70 which will provide further insight along with all previous filings back to Dkt. # 51 and watch the panic of these unethical defense attorneys and the pro se staff attorney in action. See Dkt. # 46 the motion for sanctions that the pro se staff attorney denied which when filed prompted further fraud that is being covered up. No filing in this action has had a legitimate “Ruling” and I am not making a merit based complaint regarding this misconduct. I am making a legitimate misconduct complaint and would like an US District Court Judge appointed to adjudicate this action on the merits as soon as possible. This fraud scheme has denied justice for this Plaintiff quite long enough. Local Rule #83.6 (4) Standards for Professional Conduct. (A) For misconduct defined in these rules, and for good cause shown, and after notice and opportunity to be heard, any attorney admitted to practice before this court may be disbarred, suspended from practice before this court, reprimanded or subjected to such other disciplinary action as the circumstances may warrant. (B) Acts or omissions by an attorney admitted to practice before this court pursuant to this Rule 83.6, or appearing and practicing before this court pursuant to Rule 83.7, individually or in concert with any other person or persons, that violate the ethical requirements and rules concerning the practice of law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, shall constitute misconduct and shall be grounds for discipline, whether or not the act or omission occurred in the course of an attorney-client relationship. The ethical requirements and rules concerning the practice of law mean those canons and rules adopted by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,
embodied in Rules 3:05, 3:07 and 3:08 of said court, as they may be amended from time to time by said court, except as otherwise provided by specific rule of this court after consideration of comments by representatives of bar associations within the Commonwealth. (11) Jurisdiction. (A) Nothing contained in these rules shall be construed to deny to the court such powers as are necessary for the court to maintain control over proceedings conducted before it, such as proceedings for contempt under Title 18 of the United States Code or under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. My concern of the moment is that Microsoft Office Word 2007 will be downloaded to one of the court computers so that these rogue court staff can further impersonate Judge O’Toole. I can trust nothing from the court and need immediate reassignment to another US District Judge so that the merits of my case can be determined without the present partiality and bias that I have been subjected to. The current forum has without a doubt stripped this plaintiff of a legitimate and fair forum in which she can pursue her claim. Judge O’Toole responds to nothing and this Plaintiff cannot get passed his clerks to tell him what is going on. He has given free reign over this pro se in forma pauperis disabled litigant’s action to a rogue pro se staff attorney who is in collusion with the defense. I had a process server send him a notice of intent to file a mandamus with the mandamus but it did not go directly into his hand so I have no idea if he is aware of these circumstances or the fact that his clerks not only run his court room but decide who should and should not be entitled to justice. I had to forego groceries to initiate this action that resolved nothing. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Laura J. McGarry, Pro Se Laura J. McGarry, Pro Se 1717 Sheridan Road Apt. A- 50 Bremerton, WA 98310 No Phone 360-551-6773 (daughter’s cell phone but she is 50 minutes away from me by car) [email protected] (best contact) Plaintiff swears that all of the statements she has made in this complaint are true to the best knowledge of this Plaintiff ; signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 7th day of March 2011. /s/ Laura J. McGarry NOTE: This Plaintiff apologizes if she repeats herself in these document but she is a stroke victim and organization of the volume this complaint has acquired has been difficult and extremely time consuming for her as has the multiple filings she has had to make to stay on top of the Defendants’ and Defense Counsels’ fraud schemes. Plaintiff has memory difficulties and she has done her best trying to manage this unfamiliar field with her short term memory
deficits. You can imagine the difficulty one with such impairment would have who is a member of the bar, educated and skilled in the practice of law and then multiply the difficulty one of that caliber by 10000 to determine the difficult nature this has been for me. I do not appreciate that I have had to spend all my time and do all this work to stay on top of fraud and then have Defense Counsels’ and the pro se staff attorney’s inappropriate behavior projected on to me with subsequent negative consequence by rulings supported by Judge Sorokin. This is making me an emotional and physical wreck. THIS NEEDS TO STOP!!
28 U.S.C. § 372(c) outlines means of protesting judicial misconduct. ______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s commentary is in bold. Inappropriate delegation of inherently judicial functions may erode the right of the litigants to an Article III adjudication. See Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic, Inc., 725 F.2d at 541-42; Saunders, 641 F.2d at 663; see generally Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 549, 82 S.Ct. 1459, 1472, 8 L.Ed.2d 671 (1962). Judge O’Toole has not participated in this action and all decisions have been usurpation of power by a rogue pro se staff attorney in collusion with defense counsel. JUDGE SOROKIN IS AWARE OF THE SITUATION AND HAS NO INTENTION OF CORRECTING IT. The gist of the crime of conspiracy is an agreement to commit unlawful acts. Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 53, 63 S.Ct. 99, 101, 87 L.Ed. 23 (1942). Referral of matters to a magistrate pursuant to this section does not offend the Constitution so long as de novo review is available in the district court. See Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 673-76, 100 S.Ct. at 2411-13; Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic, Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537, 546 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (alluding to de novo review of all referrals under section 636(b)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 100, 83 L.Ed.2d 45 (1984). PLAINTIFF WAS DENIED THIS RIGHT BY JUDGE SOROKIN WHO CONTINUES TO MAKE RULINGS WITHOUT JURISTICTON OVER THIS ACTION. JUDGE SOROKIN DENIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION “DISQUALIFY JUDGES” (DKT. #69). JUDGE SOROKIN DENIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION “VACATE VOID ORDERS” (DKT. #70). BOTH DENIED MOTIONS ARE ELECTRONIC ORDERS WITH ONLY DOCKET TEXT----NO MEMORANDUM [MOTION VACATE VOID ORDERS (DKT. #70) WAS ADDRESSED TO THE US DISTRICT JUDGE THAT WOULD TAKE REASIGNMENT UPON JUDGE O’TOOLE’S DISQUALIFICATION+. AS OF THIS WRITING, JUDGE SOROKIN HAS NOT PRESENTED
PLAINTIFF’S DISQUALIFY JUDGE MOTION TO JUDGE O’TOOLE AND IS ATTEMPTING TO HAVE HIS DENIAL ALSO DENY THE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE US DISTRICT JUDGE O’TOOLE. Plaintiff addressed the aforementioned on 3/4/2011 with a motion (Dkt. # 74) to stay orders from the scheduling conference until she receives a ruling on the motion to disqualify judge from Judge O’Toole and a ruling on Dkt. #70. Because Plaintiff filed Dkt. # 69 and Dkt. # 70, Defense Council have moved for contempt and are asking for dismissal of Plaintiff’s action with prejudice and to bar her from appeal. This conspiracy must be stopped!!! Plaintiff has great concern that one of these rogue players will be downloading Microsoft Office Word 2007 to a court computer so they can further impersonate Judge O’Toole. Nothing from the Court can be trusted as long as the pro se staff attorney, Judge Sorokin, and Judge O’Toole have this case. Judge O’Toole may still not have a clue as to what is going on because the notice of intent to file mandamus that Plaintiff had served through a process server to Judge O’Toole did not go directly into his hand. There is overwhelming evidence that the clerks and pro se staff attorney run the US District Court of Massachusetts and make the decision as to who is entitled to justice. Judge Sorokin has chosen to join the conspiracy over very much needed corrective action. This Plaintiff has cramped their style by reading properties of the PDF’S which give excellent information on which computer from the court the PDF originate. Plaintiff is also excellent at determining who writes what by style of the documentation; she has been deciphering doctors’ and other healthcare staffs’ documentation for many, many years and is quite skilled at knowing who wrote what before she even gets to the signature. Judge O’Toole’s PDF’s are unique because his are the only PDF’s that have been noted by this Plaintiff thus far to be from the program Microsoft Office Word 2007 and are easily recognized. This observation allowed Plaintiff discovery that Judge O’Toole was not writing the injunctive relief rulings or any rulings for that matter and that Judge Sorokin did not write the Contempt ruling Dkt. #61. See all the exhibits Plaintiff has included with her Dkt. Entries from #51 forward and you will see the PDF recognition codes as well as the documents by this pro se staff attorney compared to actual documents by these Judges. The observation that assisted Plaintiff in this determination is the bizarre content of the rulings and how they completely lack fact, rule, law and justice; before this rampant usurpation of power by the pro se staff attorney she had made only one ruling back in September which was also a Denial for injunctive relief. The PDF was made on a Sunday and entered into the ECF system on a Sunday. The pro se staff attorney manipulated the filing date to the previous Friday; clearly this was not approved by Judge O’Toole (see Dkt. # 51) which also describes the interference with service of process and other indicators of collusion with these Defense Attorneys. Until Plaintiff moved to have this pro se staff attorney removed from the case this case was deliberately stalled and then suddenly everything was ruled on to the prejudice of this plaintiff; Judge Sorokin knows the actual facts and truth and has done nothing to ensure justice for this Plaintiff. These rogue rulings also project all the inappropriate behavior by the defense and the pro se staff attorney onto this Plaintiff. Judge Sorokin has taken no corrective action and instead has chosen to further violate this Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights.
______________________________________________________________________________ Under no aspect of the Magistrate Act, can a magistrate punish for contempt. 28 U.S.C. § 636(e). According to section 636(e), if an individual commits an act constituting contempt of court, [**24] the magistrate must certify the facts of the incident to a district judge. The judge, after holding a hearing and evaluating the allegedly contemptuous conduct, may determine the nature and severity of appropriate punishment, if indicated. (Plaintiff’s Contempt Motion *(Dkt. #58) collusion and fraud+ that names the pro se staff attorney and defense counsel as parties to the alleged contempt cannot be written by the very pro se staff attorney named in the contempt who then types /s/ Magistrate signature. Judge Sorokin stated at the February 14th, scheduling conference that he approved (Dkt. #61) yet at one point during this conference Plaintiff had to re-verify what Judge Sorokin had claimed earlier in the conference when he stated he was in fact as the Judicial Officer behind this rogue pro se staff attorney’s “RULING”. Judge Sorokin had stated that Plaintiff could not file with the court as per Judge O’Toole’s ruling. Plaintiff then stated, “I thought you said that was your order” and Judge Sorokin stated, “Thanks for reminding me” and then, per Plaintiff’s son who was present in the court room, Judge Sorokin looked at the document. Judge Sorokin denied this Plaintiff the right to object to the findings in Dkt. #61 and restricted her filing even after he was directly asked by this Plaintiff if she could file a reconsideration on the filings that were made by the pro se staff attorney that had had no judicial oversight; this included “RULINGS” on two motions for injunctive relief (Dkt. # 20 & Dkt. #57) and an antagonistic “RULING” (Dkt. #53) that the pro se staff attorney wrote to sabotage Plaintiff’s action after the pro se staff attorney read the injunctive relief motion against her. Judge Sorokin also denied Plaintiff her right to appeal his decision that continued the order [written by the pro se staff attorney (Dkt. #61)] with orders restricting this Plaintiff from filing with the court post a memorandum of findings that were significantly lacking in fact (Dkt. #61) that “Ruled” on Plaintiff’s contempt motion (Dkt. #58). Judge Sorokin stated, “NO” when he was directly asked by this Plaintiff if she could file for reconsideration on documents that had Judge O’Toole’s signature and appeal the decision Judge Sorokin was claiming as his in Dkt. #61 as well as his current verbal order that continued Plaintiff’s restriction on filing. Judge Sorokin at the very end of the scheduling conference stated that only a Magistrate or a US District Judge could write memorandum and orders on an Injunctive Relief Motion---the order of reference that brought this case to his docket was an order that followed memorandum Dkt. #57 a “RULING” by the pro se staff attorney to Plaintiff’s injunctive relief motion Dkt. #51; the pro se staff attorney was the subject of the relief. No involvement at all by Judge O’Toole is evident because Plaintiff seriously doubts that these bizarre orders would have his approval not to mention that this pro se staff attorney took free reign of this case writing memorandum and orders to an injunctive relief motion back in September---ON A SUNDAY---and then manipulated the filing date to the previous Friday. Judge Sorokin was made fully aware of this fact at the scheduling conference and prior to the conference Judge Sorokin’s clerk received an email from this Plaintiff stating that because of the aforementioned Judge Sorokin did not have jurisdiction over this civil action; there was no
proper US District Judge order of reference. NOT ONLY WAS PLAINTIFF DENIED THE PROVISION THAT FOLLOWS SHE WAS VERBALLY TOLD BY JUDGE SOROKIN THAT SHE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO FILE AND APPEAL HIS DECISIONS (Plaintiff’s son was in the court room and witnessed this scheduling conference that Plaintiff attended by phone from Washington State on February 14, 2011). It appears that if Plaintiff files for reconsiderations of “RULINGS” that were written without judicial oversight by this pro se staff attorney including these injunctive relief and contempt motion “RULINGS” that Judge O’Toole may become alert to the situation and instead of ensuring justice for this Plaintiff Judge Sorokin is ensuring no consequence for the pro se staff attorney. Mean while this action filed on August 2, 2010 still has had no legitimate legal process. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 792 F.2d 4 Argued March 4, 1986. Decided May 29, 1986 "Any party may object to a Magistrate's proposed findings, recommendations or report ... within ten (10) days after being served with a copy thereof, unless a different period of time is prescribed by the Magistrate or a Judge. Such party shall file with the Clerk of the Court, and serve on the Magistrate and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the legal basis for such objections. Any party may respond to another party's objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy thereof, unless the time is shortened by the Magistrate or the Judge. A Judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate." Exercising our supervisory power, we deem that the fairer course, whether or not compelled by Thomas, is to give clear notice to litigants not only of the requirements that objections must be specific and be filed within ten days (see Rule 510.2, supra), but that failure to file within the time allowed waives the right to appeal the district court's order. In order to be sure that such notice is given to pro se litigants, these matters should not only be incorporated into a local rule but should be, as in Thomas v. Arn, incorporated into the text or a footnote of the magistrate's report and recommendation. We accordingly urge all district courts within the First Circuit to institute any needed rule changes as soon as feasible, but require all magistrates henceforth to include in their reports the kind of notice we have described. Plaintiff is advised that under the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) or Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b), any party who objects to these findings and recommendations must file a written objection with the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of his receipt of this Report and Recommendation. The written objection must specifically identify the portion of the proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for such objection. Plaintiff is further advised that failure to comply with this rule shall preclude further appellate review by the Court of Appeals of the District Court order entered pursuant to this Report and Recommendation. See Keating v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 848 F.2d 271, 275 (1st Cir.
1988); United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986); Scott v. Schweiker, 702 F.2d 13, 14 (1stCir. 1983); United States v. Vega, 678 F.2d 376, 378-79 (1st Cir. 1982); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603, 604 (1st Cir. 1980). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). The referral of matters to a magistrate is governed by the United States Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 631-639 (1982), which sets forth the matters properly referrable. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636. Subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, a district judge may designate a magistrate to hear and determine pretrial matters pending before the court. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(A). Matters so delegated may be reconsidered by the district court when the magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Id.; United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 2411, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980). A district judge may also designate a magistrate to conduct hearings and to submit to the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition of the matter. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(B). This procedure does not offend Article III of the Constitution so long as there is de novo review by the district court. Id.; Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 673-76, 100 S.Ct. at 2411-13. Finally, a magistrate may be assigned "such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(3). ARTICLE III of the CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN BEYOND OFFENDED IN THIS ACTION AS HAVE MULTIPLE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THIS PRO SE IN FORMA PAUPERIS DISABLED LITIGANT. There are multiple statutory and Supreme Court laws that are being ignored. There are multiple 1st Circuit authorities that are being ignored. There is even authority that was established in this very US District Court that defense concealed in a foot note spelling the party incorrectly and changing the LEXIS number because it was adverse to their position and to further make authority search daunting for this Plaintiff defense submitted scanned documents into the ECF system. This is being ignored by Judge Sorokin as is the fact that with assistance from Judge O’Toole’s Docket Clerk the files were switched in the ECF system to word processed files after Plaintiff filed for sanctions against Defense Counsel. There are also multiple title 18 violations by these rogue players. Again, instead of appropriate action Judge Sorokin has joined the conspiracy to the further delay of justice and promotion of prejudice to this Plaintiff. The Supreme Court also noted that "[t]he filing of objections to a magistrate's report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues--factual and legal--that are at the heart of the parties' dispute." Id. at 147, 106 S.Ct. at 471 (footnote omitted). United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. - 950 F.2d 656 Dec. 2, 1991 Although we plainly have jurisdiction over this appeal, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 2253, 2255, we have adopted a firm waiver rule when a party fails to object to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate. Niehaus v. Kansas Bar Ass'n, 793 F.2d 1159, 1164-65 (10th Cir.1986); Boyd Motors, Inc. v. Employers Ins., 880 F.2d 270, 271 (10th Cir.1989). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 146, 106 S.Ct. 466, 470, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Our waiver rule
provides that the failure to make timely objection to the magistrate's findings or recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions. The waiver rule as a procedural bar need not be applied when the interests of justice so dictate. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 155, 106 S.Ct. at 474. In this case, however, we need not decide whether the interests of justice exception applies. We join those circuits that have declined to apply the waiver rule to a pro se litigant's failure to object when the magistrate's order does not apprise the pro se litigant of the consequences of a failure to object to findings and recommendations. Small v. Secretary, HHS, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir.1989); United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 7 (1st Cir.1986); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir.1985). See also 7 James W. Moore, Jo D. Lucas & Kent Sinclair, Jr., Moore's Federal Practice p 72.04[9.--6] (1991) & Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1111 (10th Cir.1991) (district courts should provide notice to pro se litigants of certain complex procedural issues). In proceedings in which a party appears without benefit of counsel, we shall exercise our supervisory power and require magistrates within the circuit to inform a pro se litigant not only of the time period for filing objections, but also of the consequences of a failure to object, i.e. waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the district court based upon the findings and recommendations of the magistrate. See Arn, 474 U.S. at 144, 155, 106 S.Ct. at 469, 474. Cf. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir.1981). This notice should be included in the text of the document containing the magistrate's findings and recommendations. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d at 6. AFTER JUDGE SOROKIN DENIED THIS PLAINTIFF HER RIGHT TO FILE AN APPEAL OF HIS DECISION AND A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE OTHER “RULINGS”THIS PLAINTIFF DIRECTLY ASKED JUDGE SOROKIN, “THEN WHAT AM I SUPPOSE TO DO” HE REPLIED, “GET AN ATTORNEY. Plaintiff is a disabled pro se in form pauperis litigant who lives on SSDI. Plaintiff did receive in the mail a copy of the orders from the scheduling conference Dkt # 67 & # 68 (same document docketed twice). Plaintiff did not receive in the mail a copy of Judge Sorokin’s (claimed to be by Judge Sorokin) “findings of fact” (Dkt. #61) on Plaintiff’s Contempt Motion (Dkt. #58) that was actually written by the pro se staff attorney before Judge Sorokin even knew the case was referenced to his docket yet, as previously stated, he claimed in the scheduling conference that this was in fact his decision. It seems if Judge Sorokin followed the protocol of mailing his determination to this Plaintiff after the scheduling conference he would have followed the same protocol after his “”fact finding” regarding the contempt motion; Judge Sorokin is covering for this rogue pro se staff attorney over justice for this Plaintiff. There was no hearing before a US District Judge for Plaintiff’s well documented contempt motion against the pro se staff attorney and Defense counsel. Dkt. # 61 was the pro se staff attorney’s documentation that was written to cover up her and defense counsel unethical and illegal actions and the fact that they are and have been since the inception of this action in collusion. This is the memorandum and order that then restricted Plaintiff from further filing with the court without approval of a judicial officer. Judge Sorokin took no action to correct this injustice and instead chose to further violate this Plaintiff’s rights. ______________________________________________________________________________
" 'A party who desires to contest the propriety of a reference should move the trial court for revocation of the reference.' " Hayes v. Foodmaker, Inc., 634 F.2d 802, 803 (5th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (quoting 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 2606 (1971)). ORDER-1/28/2011The Clerk shall refer this case to Magistrate Judge Sorokin for all pretrial proceedings. (PSSA, 4) MOTION-1 /30/2011 PLAINTIFF’S CONTEMPT MOTION DKT. #58 HAD THE FOLLOWING CAPTION: MOTION CONTEMPT-PSSA & Defense Counsel REQUESTING REMOVAL OF DOCKET NO. 20, 53, and 57 CASE MANAGEMENT BY ARTICLE III JUDGE DECLARATION THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO LEGITIMATE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT PROCEDURE SINCE THE FILING OF THIS CASE THE ABOVE WAS FOLLOWED BY THE ENTRY BELOW IN SPITE OF PRE AND POST OBJECTION BY THIS PLAINTIFF INCLUDING A LETTER VIA THE ECF ADDRESSED TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT, FOLLOWED BY A CALL TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT OFFICE, A PHONE CALL TO THE DEPUTY CLERK OF JUDGE O’TOOLE WHERE A VOICE MESSAGE WAS LEFT INSISTING THAT JUDGE O’TOOLE HAVE THIS ACTION PUT BEFORE HIM AND AN EMAIL TO THE DOCKET CLERK OBJECTING TO THE ENTRY OF THE MAGISTRATE REFERENCE. ALL OF THE EFFORTS BY THIS PLAINTIFF TO GO BEFORE JUDGE O’TOOLE AND NOT THE MAGISTRATE BECAUSE OF EGREGIOUS IMPROPRITIES AND NOTHING BUT A PRETENSE LITIGATION THAT WAS FIRST STALLED AND THEN SABOTAGED BY THIS PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY WERE IGNORED!
Entered: 01/31/2011 10:43:19 Filed: 01/28/2011
Category: order Event: Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge
C. Danieli Type: crt
Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin Referred for: all Pretrial Proceedings. Motions referred: 58 Emergency MOTION for Contempt against Barbara Morse PSSA and Defense counsel Guy Tully & Brian Childs--collusion with PSSA---oppression and intimidation of Plaintiff-deliberate deprivation of constitutional rights and blocking disabled in forma paupe. (Danieli, Chris) Motions referred to Leo T. Sorokin.
See Instituto De Educacion Universal Corp. v. United States Dep’t of Educ., 209 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2000) (“The Supreme Court has long held that *pleadings+ drafted by non-lawyers are to be construed with some liberality.”) (citing cases).
Plaintiff’s pleadings that had requested Judicial Notice, Judicial REVIEW, DEFAULT JUDGEMENT, JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, EMERGENCY MOTIONS RELATED to FRAUD UPON THE COURT—ALL IGNORED. If the Docket Clerk who had no problem randomly entering Plaintiff’s case on December 3rd to make note in the docket text of a modification that was neither needed or happened to facilitate the switching of scanned PDF’s with word processed PDF’s for the defense four days after Plaintiff motioned for sanctions against Defense, certainly any electronic filings by Plaintiff that were deemed filed incorrectly could have been corrected by the Docket Clerk but this never happened and Plaintiff assumes she has filed satisfactorily . This was conspiracy and JUDGE SOROKIN HAS JOINED THIS CONPIRACY ALLOWING BLATANT FRAUD UPON THE COURT TO GO WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE WHILE FURTHER DEPRIVING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, PROMOTING DELAY AND THWARTING JUSTICE ALL PREJUDICE TO THIS PLAINTIFF. ______________________________________________________________________________ 742 F.2d 1037, *; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19254, ** DISSENT: POSNER, Circuit Judge, dissenting. A magistrate may be removed by the district judge or judges during his or her term only for incompetency, misconduct, neglect of duty or physical or mental disability. 28 U.S.C. § 631. Although Article III, section 1 does not say in so many words that the judicial power of the United States shall be exercised by judges rather than by bailiffs, criers, and other court employees, the implication is unmistakable. The judges can have assistants who are not themselves judges, but cannot just hand over their authority to those assistants. If they do, the assistants become judges -- judges whose conditions of employment violate Article III. A district judge cannot tell his law clerk, "You try this case -- I am busy with other matters -- and render judgment, and the losing party if he wants appeal to the court of appeals." The judge cannot do this even [**30] if the parties consent, and even though the statute authorizing federal district judges to appoint law clerks (28 U.S.C. § 752) does not specify the duties of law clerks. No American judge today believes that a law clerk becomes a judge by preparing an opinion draft. But there are limits to how far the line between nondelegable and delegable judicial work can be allowed to shift without making a mockery of Article III. The proper role of the judicial adjunct, who in the federal setting may be defined as anyone who helps with the work of Article III courts but whose conditions of employment are not as prescribed in Article III, is to advise and assist the real judge. It is not to be the real judge, [**33] only called something else. The only thing missing from the magistrate's repertory of judicial powers [**40] and responsibilities, in any case to which section 636(c) applies (which means any federal civil case
that the parties consent to have tried by a magistrate rather than a district judge), is the power to hold someone in contempt of court. The trial judge has other sanctions that usually are just as effective. He can dismiss the case if there is misconduct on the plaintiff's side or enter a default judgment if there is misconduct on the defendant's side; and to punish less serious misconduct he can bar a party from making a claim or defense or make that party pay the attorney's fees incurred by his adversary in opposing the claim or defense. The Defendants have a meritless defense and Plaintiff has a well documented and well supported Complaint; there should have been a halt to court action with the exception of settlement after the answer. This is out of control and it is out of control because of rogue court staff, dishonest defendants and their dishonest Defense Counsel combined with absolutely no Judicial oversight which was followed by assignment of the Magistrate by the pro se staff attorney because she had been caught with documented evidence that she was blocking this action from the US District judge and in collusion with the defense. With no legitimate transfer of the reference by a US District Judge to the Magistrate this Plaintiff now has a Judge who is without jurisdiction of this civil matter. To make things worse this judge without jurisdiction has joined the conspiracy to continue violation of this Plaintiff’s constitutional rights in order to cover for the rogue pro se staff attorney’s inappropriate usurpation of power and collusion. This is an all out assault on the first rule of FRCP and any continuing at the status quo is a waste of time because all action until reassignment is under void orders. This is not a merit based complaint because there has been absolutely no judicial adjudication on the merits of this action in this pretense litigation. This Plaintiff is respectfully requesting that prompt action take place in regards to this Judicial Misconduct so this nightmare can finally come to a close with a fair and impartial adjudication on the merits of this action that is bias free by an actual judge who has jurisdiction who is willing to provide his or her service to this pro se in forma pauperis disabled litigant!! Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Laura J. McGarry, Pro Se Laura J. McGarry, Pro Se 1717 Sheridan Road Apt. A- 50 Bremerton, WA 98310 No Phone 360-551-6773 (daughter’s cell phone but she is 50 minutes away from me by car) [email protected] (best contact)
Plaintiff swears that all of the statements she has made in this complaint are true to the best of her knowledge and has signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 7th day of March 2011. /s/ Laura J. McGarry
The certified letter from the US Marshal follows. I did call Deputy Dumas as he suggested in the letter. I informed him that I do not have a telephone and that I cannot leave a message to be called back when I use Skype to make calls. I informed him that email for the most part is how I communicate with the outside world. I also informed him that I have filed appropriately with the court but when I motioned to enjoin the pro se staff attorney from my case she sabotaged my case by answering motions that had lingered for months ignoring fact, rule and law and signed a US District Judge’s name and then answered the injunctive relief motion of which she was the subject and signed a US District Judge’s name. I asked Deputy Dumas if he really thought that Judge O’Toole was going to have the pro se staff attorney who was the subject of the injunctive relief draft the opinion and orders and sign his name with orders that prohibit me from referencing the docket (this order was written because I revealed how the docket showed that my case was entered randomly 4 days after I motioned for sanctions against the defendants and that a noted a modification on two different dates that was neither taken or needed as files that had been scanned before filing mysteriously turned into word processed files. The “Ruling” was not written on Judge O’Toole’s computer or with his style and had orders that were a clear violation of rights—so I wrote a motion for contempt against the pro se staff attorney and the pro se staff attorney “Ruled” on the contempt motion and signed the Magistrate’s name.
I explained that a Magistrate has no authority to rule on a motion for contempt, excuse the party from oppositions to the motion, or write anything beyond fact finding and recommendations and that this ruling had restricted my filing with the court. I explained that there had been fraud by the defense including switching files in the electronic filing system. I explained that my case was being kept from the view of US District Judge. Deputy Dumas said he would look into this and get back to me. I gave him my email. A week plus passed and I called him again because I received no email from him. I again discussed the situation and he said he would look into it. I told him I would send him an email with information to help his investigation. I prepared the email and sent it. Several minutes after I sent the email, which was sent approximately an hour after I spoke with him, I received an email back stating his investigation was complete and that everything was as it should be with the processing of my case.
Fri, April 29, 2011 4:11:40 PM
Re: I can guide you more on where to look send any questions--TYVM--thank you very much From: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]>
Add to Contacts
To: "Dumas, Matthew (USMS)" <[email protected]>
I guess I need a lawyer and need to act from here because the law says different and the court is
simply covering up in which these unethical corrupt employees and attorneys will continue on
with their life and I will be ripped off. Hopefully the federal court here in Washington is not as
corrupt. This is shameful. No US District Judge is aware and even Florence has not brought this
to the attention of a US District Judge and avoided making an answer each time I asked her to
get the case in front of Judge O'Toole. A Magistrate can not rule on contempt and deny me my
right to appeal his decisions. The files were switched and I have the proof. No Judge is going to
order that I can not look at the docket and the rulings Morse made never would have come from
a judge. I was warned that America is gone; I guess it is true.
Laura J. McGarry
From: "Dumas, Matthew (USMS)" <[email protected]> To: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]>
Cc: "Lemay, Jonathan (USMS)" <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, April 29, 2011 3:50:08 PM Subject: RE: I can guide you more on where to look send any questions--TYVM--thank you very much
Ms. McGarry, I have made inquiry into the information that you provided me. I have been assured that Judge O'Toole and Magistrate Judge Sorokin have acted appropriately in this case. I have also been informed that it is they who are making the decisions and directing what is done - no one else. Please continue to follow the proper protocol when filing motions and correspondence. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns, Have a great weekend, Matt Dumas
From: Laura J. McGarry [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:34 PM To: Dumas, Matthew (USMS) Subject: I can guide you more on where to look send any questions--TYVM--thank you very much
From: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]>
Add to Contacts
6 Files Download All Doc_81.pdf (626KB); PARAGRAPH 186.pdf (813KB); NursingHome Names Manning ADON.pdf (15KB); doc_58_7_court clerks emails_ includes letter delivery to chief and O'Toole_sheduling order soon due_still without notice_disqu (250KB); doc_58_9_letter to chief judge-entered in ECF to O'Toole & Wolf.pdf (524KB); doc_64_1petition mandamus.pdf (471KB)
Hello Deputy Matthew,
Most of the documents you read lead you where to look on the docket but here is the main scoop
with key attachments!!
If you look at attachment doc_58_7 you will see all the emails I sent to the clerks--there is
nothing inappropriate or lengthy--the last emails were because I wanted the letter addressed to
Chief Judge Wolf to go to him and Judge O'Toole so I put it in the ECF system (Morse just
wrote memorandum and orders wiping out my case---docket 53---right click and see properties--
it says Morse--she wrote it on the 20th and entered it on the 20th but manipulated the file date to
the 19th)---they did not get this letter to either judge. If you look at Docket 64 the first exhibit is
a mandamus I wrote and had served as an intent to file in hopes of alerting Judge O'Toole to the
case but the server who was instructed to put it in the Judge's hand did not and gave it to his
assistant---Diane Croke accepted it from the process server--it was never given to Judge O'Toole
(it shows the scheme in detail). The letter to Chief Judge (attached) has the language I wrote to
enjoin Morse which is docket 51 and the third request to disqualify counsel which is docket
52. Dkt. 81 attached tells you which dates to look at on the Docket where Danieli stated
modifications that were neither needed or made--the entry was to switch files and the time was
late on a Friday afternoon most likely when there were fewer people around. Paragraph 186 is a
detailed look at the EEOC investigation that was a bunch of bunk. Morse had exhibits disappear
as you will read in the docket 51 part of the letter to the Chief--she had no idea that I would catch
this maneuver when she mailed me the courtesy copies and then enter all the exhibits into the
ECF System. Most interesting is the last page of the position to the EEOC with the the attorneys
signature was missing and the attachment that they claimed supported their position was
missing see docket 50 attachments; it did not. To see this case in the best light reading docket 29
with the complaint guides you well and includes the defendants answer which is a document they
really wanted to get rid of and Morse struck it from the record even though it was well
supported.
Paragraphs below from my COMPLAINT and then their answer---look at exhibit attached to this
email nursing home names Manning--she is on there twice because Pleasant Bay did not update
their information with the organization that posted this info--it clearly states Manning was
ADON interim DON next to Pleasant Bay (Geriatric Facilities of Cape Code) the EEOC
investigation was one lie after another with absolutely no evidence to support their position and
false records--this is why my first motion to disqualify counsel stated the defense would be more
of a cover up for their partner who broke the law and was starting out carrying the same
fraudulent position
187. Defendants submitted the employee record of a non-practicing nurse that worked in their
human resource office as the applicant they chose to fill the Assistant Director position; Diana
Lawson worked at Pleasant Bay in the office when Plaintiff was employed there and relayed to
Plaintiff that she had no desire to practice nursing.
188. Plaintiff‟s experience and qualifications were not inferior to the experience and
qualifications of the actual chosen applicant or Diana Lawson; the actual ADON chosen was
Dawn Manning and she terminated with Pleasant Bay when the EEOC charge investigation
became active in March. Defendants specifically stated in their position statement to the EEOC
that they were not considering any of the Registered Nurses working at their facility for the
ADON position (page 4 lines 1-3).
189. Dawn Manning as the Assistant Director became the Acting Director of Nursing after
Mikita terminated in November of 2009. Her experience is described in a news article July 1,
2010.
ANSWER FROM DEFENDANTS
187. Admit that Defendant Pleasant Bay submitted to the EEOC the employee record of the
person they hired to fill the Assistant Director of Nursing position, but deny knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph
187.
188. Deny the allegations in paragraph 188.
189. Admit the allegation that Dawn Manning became the acting Director of Nursing Services in
November 2009, but deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the remaining allegations in paragraph 189.
Open PDF's in the ECF and right click your mouse for properties on documents. Morse (PSSA) -------THIS PSSA HAS GONE ROGUE USING JUDGE’S ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES Q:\Morse\2010 cases\10cv11343-GAO (Mcgarry, Laura)\10cv11343 Order denying pending motions for sanctions to strike.wpd (Doc_53) Created 1/28/2011 4:28:41 PM PSSA Staff Documents come from this computer(s) as did (Doc_9) (Doc_20) (Doc_53) Application: PScripts5.dll Version 5.2
PDF Producer: Acrobat Distiller 8.2.5 (Windows)
PDF Version 1.4 (Acrobat 5.x)
Judge O’Toole's documents from his computer are as follows and he would be answering any motions for injunctive relief not Morse. After I filed and informed them that I knew where the PDF's were originating Morse wrote DOC 57 which answered the injunctive relief of which she was the subject. She used a different computer but certainly even if allowed to draft for the Judge he was not going to have the person who was the subject of relief draft the document on a motion for injunctive relief.
JUDGE O'TOOLE'S PDF'S (I have looked at many and when he writes them himself it is
always microsoft in the properties he is the only judge in the court that has these
properties--I know them all)
Application: Microsoft (R) Office Word 2007
PDF Producer: Microsoft (R) Office Word 2007
(Doc_57) came from a computer with the following properties: Unknown Computer Application:
PDF Producer: Acrobat Distiller 8.2.5. (Windows)
PDF Version: 1.4 (Acrobat 5.x)
NO JUDGE IS GOING TO PROHIBIT ME FROM REFERENCING DOCKET TEXT --
THEY KNEW THEY WERE CAUGHT!!
I then wrote a motion for contempt which was Docket 58
When Morse answered the contempt motion Docket 61 she wrote it on Maria's computer--
when Maria drafts for Judge Sorokin she uses his exact style and this document is not his
style and he would have never ruled on contempt --he can not by law!! She then wrote a
restriction on my filing and they engaged Judge Sorkokin in the scheme at this time. I
think Sorokin is protecting Morse and Planned to get the Defense attorneys to settle; he
had no idea that I am not an idiot which seems to be the general concensus of the
capabilities of a stroke victim--I am disabled but not stupid!! I feel bad for Judge Sorokin
because this does not look good for him but I am entitled to the same justice as everyone
else. Morse is corrupt and the attorneys for the defense are beyond corrupt. Thee FBI
needs to look at the EEOC; I am telling you that money exchanged hands and this is what
they are trying to hide beyond the multiple Title 18 sec. 101 violations with this agency.
Thank you for taking a look at this; there are no adequate words to express the depth of
my gratitude,
Laura J. McGarry
Docket when files were switched indicates random entry with no action taken and then
PDF's were switch
Entered: 10/25/2010
17:44:27 Filed:
10/25/2010
Category: answer
Event: Answer to
Complaint Document:
29
L. McGarry Type: pty
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' 21 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with
Jury Demand Answer to Answer by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit mikita license A, # 2 Exhibit mikita license B, # 3 Exhibit mikita
license c, # 4 Exhibit health records notice to submit to eeoc)(McGarry,
Laura) Modified on 12/3/2010 to create a link to the answer(Danieli,
Chris)
Entered: 11/05/2010
03:05:39 Filed:
11/05/2010
Category: respoth
Event: Amended
Answer to Complaint
Document: 34
L. McGarry Type: pty
Addendum to 29 Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' 21 ANSWER to
Complaint (Document # 21) 1 Complaint Correction to Paragraph 186
sub paragraph #2-line #4 by Laura J. McGarry. (McGarry, Laura)
Modified on 12/3/2010 making the filing event an Addendum to the
Plaintiff's Response to the Defendants' Answer (Danieli, Chris).
Following is a paragraph from Dkt. #52 where I describe the filing switching in the ECF
system.
The scanned PDF’s submitted to the court’s ECF system by opposing counsel
Guy Tully of Jackson Lewis as noted in Plaintiff’s (Documents 41, 42, 43 & 45
incorporated herein) were part of a purposeful scheme to thwart, both, the
Plaintiff’s and the court’s research of Defendants’ cited authorities including an
adverse authority that had been concealed in a foot note. The November 5th
scanned PDF documents were noted on December 31st by Plaintiff to be changed
in the PACER system to word processed PDF’s. The docket clerk entered
Plaintiff’s case through the ECF system on Friday, December 3, 2010, and added
text indicating a modification to link documents on entries submitted by Plaintiff
on 10/25/2010 and 11/5/2010; all documents had already been clearly linked by
Plaintiff when she entered her documents on the given dates. [Modified on
12/3/2010 to create a link to the answer (clerk’s name)] and [Modified on 12/3/2010
making the filing event an Addendum to the Plaintiff's Response to the
Defendants' Answer (clerk’s name)] respectively to the stated dates (Exhibit 2);
no action beyond the typing of the text indicating a modification to create links
was taken by the clerk. (Exhibit 2)
FOOTNOTE Dkt #36 Continuing her by-now all-too-well-documented habit of treating this case’s docket like a personal e-mail
correspondent—and perfectly illustrating the harm created by the moving targets she never ceases to
manipulate—Plaintiff has purported to amend her Motion to Strike, even as undersigned counsel has been
preparing Defendants’ opposition to that motion. See Docket No. 33 (Plaintiff’s "Motion Addendum"). If the
Court is inclined to consider Plaintiff’s "Motion Addendum" at all, the filing should not keep the Motion to
Strike from being denied. First, the Motion Addendum advances an utterly implausible position, i.e., that
"Plaintiff [lacks] fair notice of the affirmative defenses in question." See Motion Addendum at 2. One need
only consider Plaintiff’s granularly detailed, point-by-point factual refutation of Defendants’ affirmative
defenses to realize just how indefensible Plaintiff’s contention is. Moreover, Defendants owed Plaintiff Rule
8(c)-notice, not Rule 8(a)-notice. See Kaufman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 2009 US Dist. LEXIS 68880,
*2 (D. Mass. 2009). Where Rule 8(a) applies to "claims for relief" and requires a plaintiff to provide a "short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Rule 8(c) governs affirmative
defenses and requires only that a defendant "affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense."
Contrast Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (interpreting Rule 8(a)); Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (interpreting Rule 8(a)). Defendants’ affirmative defenses have done at
least as much as Rule 8(c) requires of them. Although Plaintiff’s Motion Addendum is nothing more than yet another attempted volley that misses its
mark, it does point up the dire need for a net in this match. Kaufmann v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68800 at *2 (D. Mass. --note the misspelled party and purposeful changed lexis number--not to mention that this is advers authority established in the very court this attorney stands bar that he chose to hide in a footnote. Footnote Dkt. #37 & #38 "This motion addendum is of no moment—it offers no legal basis whatever to support the Response—and
should by no means affect the striking of Plaintiff’s Response." The former statement was in a footnote and
this is how they argued appeals court authority. The UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT decision in the following
case quite adequately supports (Document 29) as argued in (Document 32), citing 562 F.3d 784; 2009 U.S.
App. LEXIS 6072; 186 L.R.R.M. 2019 [Nos. 06-3936, 07-1650, 07-3427. - BAUER MECHANICAL INC v.
JOINT]. Dkt. #38
Rule 7(a) contains an exhaustive list of permitted pleadings. Rule 7(a)(7) permits a reply to an answer only "if the court orders one." They reinforced their footnote
by embelishing rule with "only" not to mention rule 9 also supported my document.
Defendants received the same package of papers and any changes to the complaint were
sent to the court and the court filed them before any service of process. I found some
mistakes and made corrections before service of process--I just got out of the hospital and
moved 3,000 miles. I wrote a dkt. 26 and informed them of all this as they chose to also
break the rule of making an appearance until just before they filed the answer. Their
baseless motion to strike my rule 15 compliant amendment trys to state that the 21 days
starts when filed not when served as per the rule. Note Dkt. #21"The Answer" where they
clearly understand the rule in that document and were just hasseling me because my
amendment was quite viable.
*Dkt.# 40
Plaintiff could amend once from the time she filed her complaint until the twenty-second
day after Defendants filed their answer.
Dkt. #21 1 Plaintiff has attempted to amend her complaint no fewer than five times since she served the complaint on
Defendant Mikita, on September 13, 2010. Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a plaintiff
to amend a complaint once as of right within 21 days of service of the complaint. Defendants will address
Plaintiff’s purported amendments in successive footnotes that correspond with each such amendment. By
doing so, Defendants do not waive their right to object to such purported amendments, nor do Defendants in
any way concede that such attempted amendments were proper. These are the types of argument that defense presented where this pro se staff attorney wiped out my case
and ruled in defenses' favor after she read the motion to remove her from the case and then she forced the
case to the Magistrate in violation of rule and legislative authority in spite of my strong objection; the
Magistrate joined in and is actively violating my rights.
___________________________________________________________________________
CHECK OUT THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES
Notice the Slant to the 5/18/2011 signature compared to the others which begs the question is Sandra
Lynch incompetent, ignoring and covering criminal activity from within the court itself or has her
signature been forged. The signatures below are from the Circuits orders on Judicial misconduct.
BY THE WAY I DID TRY TO GET PERMISSION TO FILE
AND I WAS IGNORED!!!
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]> To: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, February 18, 2011 9:56:56 AM
Subject: Document filing request
Good morning Maria,
The attached document is #69 and appropriately numbered to turn things around.
It is constructed in a manner that without question determines all orders past the
orders of Document 9 as void. May I have permission to file.
Thank you,
Laura J. McGarry
It says in all this case law and rule that there is no discretion and the court must
set a void order aside so I see no need to confer with the opposition. They kind of
cause me to become sick so I hope I do not have to.
In Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828), the court stated that "without
authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but
simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to
them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such
judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers. This distinction runs
through all the cases on the subject; and it proves, that the jurisdiction of ANY COURT
exercising authority over a subject, may be inquired into IN EVERY COURT, when the
proceedings of the former are relied on and brought before the latter, by the party claiming
the benefit of such proceedings." [Emphasis added].
"When ... the motion is based on a void judgment under rule 60(b)(4),
the district court has no discretion — the judgment is either void or it is not." If the
judgment is void, "the district court must set it aside."" Jackson v. Fie Corp., 302 F.3d 515,
524 (5th Cir. 2002). (citations omitted) (emphasis in original)
A void judgment is a legal nullity. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1822 (3d ed. 1933); see also
id., at 1709 (9th ed. 2009). Although the term "void" describes a result, rather than the
conditions that render a judgment unenforceable, it suffices to say that a void judgment is
one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that the infirmity may be raised even after the
judgment becomes final. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments 22 (1980); see generally
id., §12. The list of such infirmities is exceedingly short; otherwise, Rule 60(b)(4)’s
exception to finality would swallow the rule.
One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal
efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever,
and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any
degree. Judgment is a "void judgment" if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction
of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.
Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901. Black's dictionary of Law, Sixth Edition.
Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the
subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed
Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const Amend. 5. Klugh v. U.S., 620
F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985), Millken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S. CT. 339, 85 L. Ed. 2d 278
(1940).
A void judgment is from its inception a legal nullity. With this principle in mind, we must
consider appellants' argument that the judgment entered was void, and that relief is proper
regardless of the time elapsed, because relief from a void judgment has no time limitations.
United States v. Berenguer, 821 F.2d at 22; Lubben v. Selective Service System Local
Board No. 27, 453 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir.1972).
Laura J. McGarry
I called Judge Sorokin’s clerk via Skype nine times in the
afternoon after I sent the above email because I received no
response to the email. The phone continually went to voice mail
and I received no response to the email requesting permission to
file.
----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Laura J. McGarry <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 2:51:24 AM Subject: NO. 10 CA 11343 GAO---Different approach--need permision
Good morning Maria,
I emailed you on Friday but am hoping you folks enjoyed a long holiday weekend
and took the day off. Please delete the email from Friday; it no longer applies and
would not solve my problem. I still have void orders that have been followed by
void orders so another order by Judge Sorokin would still be void. I would like to
file two motions. First--reassign this case to a different US District Judge in light
that Judge O'Toole has essentially disqualified himself and has never made any
decisions in this case. This would be of no prejudice to the defendants because the
case has never been seen by a US District Judge. I have a good deal of authority
and the documented record as well as a receipt for service of process of which
Judge O'Toole has not responded to back up this conclusion. Second--the US
District Judge who takes assignment can answer the second motion to vacate void
orders--this is also well backed. I am too tired to say more and my brain hurts so if
you could email me with the answer from the Honorable Judge Sorokin I will
perfect these documents and file and go back to bed.
Thank you so very much.
Laura J. McGarry
NO. 10 CA 11343 GAO
Laura J. McGarry
I received no response to this email and I called Judge Sorokin’s clerk via skype six times on
2/23/2011. The phone continually went to voice mail. I then filed to disqualify both Judges and
vacate void orders in the ECF system at aprox 5:30 PM on 2/23/2011.
I, again, called the Court on 2/24/2001 and spoke was finally able to speak to
Sorokin’s Clerk who still had not responded to my emails and informed her of the
filing. I was told that Judge Sorokin was not in that day. I requested that Judge
O’Toole be notified of the motion to disqualify and that he process the motion
himself; I requested that she not go through Judge O’Toole’s clerks. As noted
Sorokin denied both motions with Docket text and terminated the motions from the
docket on 3/2/2011 and 3/ 04/2011. The defendants did not file for contempt until
3/4/2011 so Sandra Lynch’s foot note regarding Sorokin’s referral of these motions
to the District Judge is a bunch of baloney and as I noted no such referral was ever
mentioned until 3/23/2011 with the report and recommendations in Docket #80
after I objected to denying the motions with docket text and terminating the
motions from the docket in my opposition to the contempt in Docket #78. Will I
ever be granted a hearing before a US District Judge? I seriously doubt it! I am
also sure petitioning Lynch’s decision on the Judges’ misconduct in this corrupt
system will be an act in futility; however, I will go through the motions. I quite
honestly attempted to keep the misconduct information within the circuit executive
office and not go public but the obvious corruption and purposeful delay have
forced this and previous postings!!!! This case should have been resolved in my
favor after the Defendants’ Answer back in October of 2010.