Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • 2011-06-30 RE: McGarry V Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc Et Al (1:10-cv-11343) - Racketeering Through Simulated Litigation in The US District Court, Massachusetts

    Diunggah oleh

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    655 tayangan239 halaman
    In McGarry v Geriatric Facilities of Cape Code, Inc et al, Laura McGarry, filed complaint pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC §1218(2), claiming discrimination bases of disability, related to the refusal of Defendants to interview her for an open position of full time Assistant Director of Nursing. See Table of Contents of attached records, page 4, below. The Author Joseph Zernik, PhD, Human Rights Alert (NGO) Dr Zernik has gained substantial experience in recent years in analyzing fraud in the electronic records of the state and US courts. His opinions on these matters were supported by official report of the UN Human Rights Council, by the opinions of highly-reputed law enforcement and computer science experts, and by peer-review in international computer and criminology journals and conferences. Submission he authored on behalf of Human Rights Alert (NGO) for the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations was incorporated into the official 2010 UPR report with reference to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession.” [ ] General The evidence, detailed below, documents that Plaintiff Laura McGarry, a disabled American, who attempted to protect her rights under the law of the United States, was denied access to an honest court. Instead, through collusion of judges, court personnel, and attorneys for Defendants she was subjected to simulated litigation: [ ] · The case as a whole is opined Simulated Litigation, with a number of Simulated Minutes, Orders, as detailed below. · Judge O’Tool appeared in the case with no valid Assignment Order (no Dkt #). Of note, Judge O’Tool presided in cases pertaining to corruption of the Boston justice system, and entered harsh sentences on those convicted. Judge O’Tool is also advertised as an expert on electronic court technology (see below). · Magistrate Sorokin appeared in the case with no valid Referral Order (no Dkt #, simulated NEF). · Pro Se Plaintiff McGarry in part realized that the litigation was simulated, and approached Chief Judge Mark L Wolf in this regard (see letter, below). There is no evidence of corrective actions by the Chief Judge. Of note, Chief Judge Wolf served as Deputy U.S. Attorney and was chief of the Public Corruption Unit from 1981 to 1985. · Authority of the attorneys for Defendants (Jackson Lewis LLP, a large national law firm, specializing in labor/employment law) as Attorneys of Record is yet to be established. Most likely they falsely appeared with no authority at all: No record appears in the docket where they signed as Attorneys of Record, they never filed any declaration by any of the Defendants, and the Answer (Dkt #21) is not verified. [ ] · Of particular concern is the disappearance from the PACER docket with no evidence of due process procedure of the record of Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt (Dkt #85), which was duly filed and docketed. · Due authority of court personnel, who issued summons and “entered” minutes and orders, as Deputy Clerks, remains to be established. Electronic Records of the US Courts: PACER and CM/ECF Conduct of simulated litigation is a common practice in the state and US court, often to benefit financial institutions, corporations and government officials, and to deprive individuals of their lawful rights. [ ] The conduct is enabled through implementation of invalid electronic record systems in the US courts, PACER (for public access to electronic court records) and CM/ECF (for case management and electronic filing) by the Administrative Office of the US Court, with no public oversight. The essence of the fraud is in the publication of online PACER dockets, which appear to a naïve reader as valid court records. However, the PACER dockets, as seen in this case, include numerous records that are unauthenticated, and are deemed by the US courts themselves as void. The public, and most often pro se

    Judul Asli

    2011-06-30 RE: McGarry v Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc et al (1:10-cv-11343) - Racketeering through Simulated Litigation in the US District Court, Massachusetts

    Hak Cipta

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Format Tersedia

    PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

    Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

    Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

    Laporkan Dokumen Ini
    In McGarry v Geriatric Facilities of Cape Code, Inc et al, Laura McGarry, filed complaint pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC §1218(2), claiming discrimination bases of disability, related to the refusal of Defendants to interview her for an open position of full time Assistant Director of Nursing. See Table of Contents of attached records, page 4, below. The Author Joseph Zernik, PhD, Human Rights Alert (NGO) Dr Zernik has gained substantial experience in recent years in analyzing fraud in the electronic records of the state and US courts. His opinions on these matters were supported by official report of the UN Human Rights Council, by the opinions of highly-reputed law enforcement and computer science experts, and by peer-review in international computer and criminology journals and conferences. Submission he authored on behalf of Human Rights Alert (NGO) for the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations was incorporated into the official 2010 UPR report with reference to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession.” [ ] General The evidence, detailed below, documents that Plaintiff Laura McGarry, a disabled American, who attempted to protect her rights under the law of the United States, was denied access to an honest court. Instead, through collusion of judges, court personnel, and attorneys for Defendants she was subjected to simulated litigation: [ ] · The case as a whole is opined Simulated Litigation, with a number of Simulated Minutes, Orders, as detailed below. · Judge O’Tool appeared in the case with no valid Assignment Order (no Dkt #). Of note, Judge O’Tool presided in cases pertaining to corruption of the Boston justice system, and entered harsh sentences on those convicted. Judge O’Tool is also advertised as an expert on electronic court technology (see below). · Magistrate Sorokin appeared in the case with no valid Referral Order (no Dkt #, simulated NEF). · Pro Se Plaintiff McGarry in part realized that the litigation was simulated, and approached Chief Judge Mark L Wolf in this regard (see letter, below). There is no evidence of corrective actions by the Chief Judge. Of note, Chief Judge Wolf served as Deputy U.S. Attorney and was chief of the Public Corruption Unit from 1981 to 1985. · Authority of the attorneys for Defendants (Jackson Lewis LLP, a large national law firm, specializing in labor/employment law) as Attorneys of Record is yet to be established. Most likely they falsely appeared with no authority at all: No record appears in the docket where they signed as Attorneys of Record, they never filed any declaration by any of the Defendants, and the Answer (Dkt #21) is not verified. [ ] · Of particular concern is the disappearance from the PACER docket with no evidence of due process procedure of the record of Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt (Dkt #85), which was duly filed and docketed. · Due authority of court personnel, who issued summons and “entered” minutes and orders, as Deputy Clerks, remains to be established. Electronic Records of the US Courts: PACER and CM/ECF Conduct of simulated litigation is a common practice in the state and US court, often to benefit financial institutions, corporations and government officials, and to deprive individuals of their lawful rights. [ ] The conduct is enabled through implementation of invalid electronic record systems in the US courts, PACER (for public access to electronic court records) and CM/ECF (for case management and electronic filing) by the Administrative Office of the US Court, with no public oversight. The essence of the fraud is in the publication of online PACER dockets, which appear to a naïve reader as valid court records. However, the PACER dockets, as seen in this case, include numerous records that are unauthenticated, and are deemed by the US courts themselves as void. The public, and most often pro se

    Hak Cipta:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    655 tayangan239 halaman

    2011-06-30 RE: McGarry V Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc Et Al (1:10-cv-11343) - Racketeering Through Simulated Litigation in The US District Court, Massachusetts

    Diunggah oleh

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    In McGarry v Geriatric Facilities of Cape Code, Inc et al, Laura McGarry, filed complaint pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC §1218(2), claiming discrimination bases of disability, related to the refusal of Defendants to interview her for an open position of full time Assistant Director of Nursing. See Table of Contents of attached records, page 4, below. The Author Joseph Zernik, PhD, Human Rights Alert (NGO) Dr Zernik has gained substantial experience in recent years in analyzing fraud in the electronic records of the state and US courts. His opinions on these matters were supported by official report of the UN Human Rights Council, by the opinions of highly-reputed law enforcement and computer science experts, and by peer-review in international computer and criminology journals and conferences. Submission he authored on behalf of Human Rights Alert (NGO) for the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations was incorporated into the official 2010 UPR report with reference to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession.” [ ] General The evidence, detailed below, documents that Plaintiff Laura McGarry, a disabled American, who attempted to protect her rights under the law of the United States, was denied access to an honest court. Instead, through collusion of judges, court personnel, and attorneys for Defendants she was subjected to simulated litigation: [ ] · The case as a whole is opined Simulated Litigation, with a number of Simulated Minutes, Orders, as detailed below. · Judge O’Tool appeared in the case with no valid Assignment Order (no Dkt #). Of note, Judge O’Tool presided in cases pertaining to corruption of the Boston justice system, and entered harsh sentences on those convicted. Judge O’Tool is also advertised as an expert on electronic court technology (see below). · Magistrate Sorokin appeared in the case with no valid Referral Order (no Dkt #, simulated NEF). · Pro Se Plaintiff McGarry in part realized that the litigation was simulated, and approached Chief Judge Mark L Wolf in this regard (see letter, below). There is no evidence of corrective actions by the Chief Judge. Of note, Chief Judge Wolf served as Deputy U.S. Attorney and was chief of the Public Corruption Unit from 1981 to 1985. · Authority of the attorneys for Defendants (Jackson Lewis LLP, a large national law firm, specializing in labor/employment law) as Attorneys of Record is yet to be established. Most likely they falsely appeared with no authority at all: No record appears in the docket where they signed as Attorneys of Record, they never filed any declaration by any of the Defendants, and the Answer (Dkt #21) is not verified. [ ] · Of particular concern is the disappearance from the PACER docket with no evidence of due process procedure of the record of Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt (Dkt #85), which was duly filed and docketed. · Due authority of court personnel, who issued summons and “entered” minutes and orders, as Deputy Clerks, remains to be established. Electronic Records of the US Courts: PACER and CM/ECF Conduct of simulated litigation is a common practice in the state and US court, often to benefit financial institutions, corporations and government officials, and to deprive individuals of their lawful rights. [ ] The conduct is enabled through implementation of invalid electronic record systems in the US courts, PACER (for public access to electronic court records) and CM/ECF (for case management and electronic filing) by the Administrative Office of the US Court, with no public oversight. The essence of the fraud is in the publication of online PACER dockets, which appear to a naïve reader as valid court records. However, the PACER dockets, as seen in this case, include numerous records that are unauthenticated, and are deemed by the US courts themselves as void. The public, and most often pro se

    Hak Cipta:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    dari 239

    PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.

    com/Human_Rights_Alert

    Human Rights Alert

    Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@e arthlink.net, c=US Date: 2011.07.01 16:37:07 +03'00'

    11-06-30 RE: McGarry v Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc et al (1:10-cv-11343) Racketeering through Simulated Litigation in the US District Court, Massachusetts
    In McGarry v Geriatric Facilities of Cape Code, Inc et al, Laura McGarry, filed complaint pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC 1218(2), claiming discrimination bases of disability, related to the refusal of Defendants to interview her for an open position of full time Assistant Director of Nursing.
    See Table of Contents of attached records, page 4, below.

    The Author Joseph Zernik, PhD, Human Rights Alert (NGO) Dr Zernik has gained substantial experience in recent years in analyzing fraud in the electronic records of the state and US courts. His opinions on these matters were supported by official report of the UN Human Rights Council, by the opinions of highly-reputed law enforcement and computer science experts, and by peerreview in international computer and criminology journals and conferences. Submission he authored on behalf of Human Rights Alert (NGO) for the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations was incorporated into the official 2010 UPR report with reference to corruption of the courts and the legal profession. [i ] General The evidence, detailed below, documents that Plaintiff Laura McGarry, a disabled American, who attempted to protect her rights under the law of the United States, was denied access to an honest court. Instead, through collusion of judges, court personnel, and attorneys for Defendants she was subjected to simulated litigation: [ii ]

    The case as a whole is opined Simulated Litigation, with a number of Simulated Minutes, Orders, as detailed below. Judge OTool appeared in the case with no valid Assignment Order (no Dkt #). Of note, Judge OTool presided in cases pertaining to corruption of the Boston justice system, and entered harsh sentences on those convicted. Judge OTool is also advertised as an expert on electronic court technology (see below). Magistrate Sorokin appeared in the case with no valid Referral Order (no Dkt #, simulated NEF). Pro Se Plaintiff McGarry in part realized that the litigation was simulated, and approached Chief Judge Mark L Wolf in this regard (see letter, below). There is no evidence of corrective actions by the Chief Judge. Of note, Chief Judge Wolf served as Deputy U.S. Attorney and was chief of the Public Corruption Unit from 1981 to 1985. Authority of the attorneys for Defendants (Jackson Lewis LLP, a large national law firm, specializing in labor/employment law) as Attorneys of Record is yet to be established. Most likely they falsely appeared with no authority at all: No record appears in the docket where they signed as Attorneys of Record, they never filed any declaration by any of the Defendants, and the Answer (Dkt #21) is not verified. [iii ]

    Page 2/9

    July 1, 2011

    Of particular concern is the disappearance from the PACER docket with no evidence of due process procedure of the record of Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt (Dkt #85), which was duly filed and docketed. Due authority of court personnel, who issued summons and entered minutes and orders, as Deputy Clerks, remains to be established.

    Electronic Records of the US Courts: PACER and CM/ECF Conduct of simulated litigation is a common practice in the state and US court, often to benefit financial institutions, corporations and government officials, and to deprive individuals of their lawful rights. [iv ] The conduct is enabled through implementation of invalid electronic record systems in the US courts, PACER (for public access to electronic court records) and CM/ECF (for case management and electronic filing) by the Administrative Office of the US Court, with no public oversight. The essence of the fraud is in the publication of online PACER dockets, which appear to a nave reader as valid court records. However, the PACER dockets, as seen in this case, include numerous records that are unauthenticated, and are deemed by the US courts themselves as void. The public, and most often pro se litigants as well, cannot distinguish between valid and void court records, since public access to the clerks electronic authentication records (NEFs Notices of Electronic Filing) is denied. The case at hand is unique. Pro Se Plaintiff Laura McGarry was permitted access to CM/ECF, and therefore, most of the NEFs of judicial and clerical record in this case are included among the records, attached below. The electronic record systems of the US courts, PACER and CM/ECF, are therefore opined by Dr Zernik as large-scale fraud, which undermines the integrity of the US courts and the Human Rights of the People. [v ,vi ,vii ,viii ] The conduct of simulated litigation in cases before the US courts is opined by Dr Zernik as racketeering. The US District Court, District of Massachusetts The oldest US District Court in the United States, as proudly stated on the Courts web site:
    United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, organized by the Judiciary Act of 1789

    Chief Judge Mark L Wolf


    Mark Lawrence Wolf (born 1946) is a United States federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Wolf was born in Boston, Massachusetts. He received a B.A. from Yale University in 1968 and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1971. He was in the United States Army Reserve from 1969 to 1975. Wolf was in private practice in Washington, DC from 1971 to 1974. He was a Special Assistant to U.S. Deputy Attorney General Laurence Silberman from 1974 to 1975, and a Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General Edward Levi from 1975 to 1977. He was again in private practice, this time in Boston, Massachusetts, from 1977 to 1981. He was appointed a Deputy U.S. Attorney and was chief of the Public Corruption Unit from 1981 to 1985. Wolf was a lecturer at Harvard Law School from 1989 to 1990, and a lecturer at Boston College Law School in 1992. Wolf was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on March 8, 1985, to a new seat created by 98 Stat. 333. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on April 3, 1985, and received his commission on April 4, 1985. Wolf has served as chief judge for the District Court for the District of Massachusetts since 2006.

    Page 3/9 [From Wikipedia]

    July 1, 2011

    US Judge George A OTool The case is listed as assigned to US Judge George A OTool.
    George A. O'Toole, Jr. (born 1947) is a United States federal judge. Born in Worcester, Massachusetts, O'Toole received an A.B. from Boston College in 1969 and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1972. He was in private practice in Boston, Massachusetts from 1972 to 1982. He was an Associate justice, Boston Municipal Court, Massachusetts from 1982 to 1990. He was an Associate justice, Superior Court of Massachusetts from 1990 to 1995. O'Toole is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. O'Toole was nominated by President Bill Clinton on April 4, 1995, to a new seat created by 104 Stat. 5089. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on May 25, 1995, and received his commission on May 26, 1995. [From Wikipedia]

    US Magistrate Leo T Sorokin The case is listed as referred to US Magistrate Leo T Sorokin.
    Sorokin, Leo T. Born 1961 in Hartford, CT Federal Judicial Service Magistrate Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Massachusetts First appointed to the Court April 11, 2005. Education Yale College, B.A., 1983 Columbia Law School, J.D., 1991 [From the Courts web site]

    Court Personnel The names of the following individuals appear in the court records in the case: James Chernetsky Christopher Danieli Listed as Docket Clerk in Judge OTools Court, signed the summons as Deupty Clerk Cathy Gawlik Paul Lyness Listed as Courtroom Clerk in Judge OTools court Jeanette Ramos Maria Simeone Listed as Listed as Courtroom/Docket Clerk in Magistrate Sorotins court

    Attorneys Guy P. Tully, Partner, Jackson Lewis LLP, 75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor, Boston, MA 02116 The docket states: Defendant[s] represented by Guy P. Tully LEAD ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Brian M. Childs, Associate, Jackson Lewis LLP, 75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor, Boston, MA 02116

    Page 4/9

    July 1, 2011

    The docket states: Defendant[s] represented by Brian M. Childs ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED The Law Firm Jackson Lewis LLP is a large national law firm, specializing in labor and employment law.
    Over 650 attorneys, in 46 offices nationwide, all we do is workplace law overview For more than 50 years, Jackson Lewis has placed a high premium on preventive strategies and positive solutions in the practice of workplace law. We partner with employers to devise policies and procedures promoting constructive employee relations and limiting disputes. When complaints arise, we work with clients to take incisive action to effect solutions that minimize costs and maximize results. Whether we are counseling on legal compliance or litigating a complex case, we help our clients achieve their business goals and promote an issue-free work environment. With offices in major cities throughout the U.S., Jackson Lewis combines a national perspective with an awareness of local business environments. Our clients represent a wide range of public and private businesses and non-profit institutions. [from the firms web site]

    Andrew C. Pickett - Managing Partner, Boston office


    education Cornell University, J.D., 1986, cum laude Princeton University, B.A., 1983, magna cum laude admitted to practice U.S. Supreme Court; 1st Circuit Court of Appeals; Massachusetts, 1987; Massachusetts D. Mass.; Vermont, 1987; Vermont - D. Vt. bar & professional association memberships American Bar Association, Boston Bar Association, Massachusetts Bar Association, Vermont Bar Association [from the firms web site]

    Table of Contents
    # Record Page #

    PACER DOCKET
    1.

    11-06-30 PACER docket, missing McGarrys Ex Parte Motion for Contempt (Dkt 085) PACER AND CM/ECF RECORDS

    10

    2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

    10-09-10 Dkt 014 Summons as to Geriatric Facilities issued 10-09-10 Dkt 014 NEF, Summons as to Geriatric Facilities 10-09-16 Dkt 016 summons as to Mikita executed, no seal 10-09-26 Dkt 020 NEF 10-10-04 Dkt 021 Answer 10-10-04 Dkt 022 corporate disclosure, invalid signature box tully 10-10-05 Dkt 024 summons executed 11-01-19 Dkt 053 Memorandum Order 11-01-20 Dkt 053 NEF 11-01-28 Dkt 057 NEF 11-01-31 Dkt none NEF simulated referral

    13 27 29 31 33 54 56 58 66 68 70

    Page 5/9
    13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

    July 1, 2011
    74 72 78 82 84 88 86 90 92 94 96 98 100 123 131 133 142 143

    11-02-01 Dkt 061 Order 11-02-01 Dkt 061 NEF 11-02-14 Dkt 066 Certification of defendant re alternative resolution 11-02-15 Dkt 067 Electronic Order 11-02-15 Dkt 067 NEF 11-02-15 Dkt 068 Order 11-02-15 Dkt 068 NEF 11-02-15 Dkt none NEF simulated scheduling conference 11-03-02 Dkt none NEF denying disqualification 11-03-03 Dkt none NEF simulated denying motion to vacate 11-03-06 Dkt 075 NEF 11-03-23 Dkt 080 NEF 11-04-05 Dkt 081 McGarry Objection to R & R 11-06-21 Dkt 085 McGarry Motion on Contempt, missing now from the PACER docket 11-06-21 Dkt 085 NEF 11-06-28 Dkt 086 Order Adopting R & R 11-06-28 Dkt 087 Order of Dismissal 11-06-28 Dkt none NEF, simulated case closed ADMINISTRATIVE PACER RECORDS 11-06-30 Docket Activity Report, with reference to missing Motion (Dkt 085) 11-06-30 Related Transactions Report, with reference to missing Motion (Dkt 085) 11-06-30 Judgment Index Report 11-06-30 Pending Statuses Report BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION, ETC

    31. 32. 33. 34.

    144 173 171 187

    35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

    11-06-30 Bio, Chief Judge Wolf, Mark L, and list of courtroom staff 11-01-21 Pro Se Plaintiff McGarry Letter to Chief Judge Wolf 11-06-30 Bio Judge O'Toole, George A. Jr, and list of courtroom staff 11-07-21 Judge OTool Seminar: Technology enhanced trial advocacy 10-01-22 Judge OTool News: Boston Federal Prosecutor Faces Disciplinary Hearing_National Law Journal 10-04-14 Judge OTool News: Judge rejects plea deal for former clerk magistrate - The Boston Globe 11-01-20 Judge OTool News: FBI Suspended Attorney Sentenced to 12 Years for Leading LargeScale Mortgage Fraud Ring 11-06-30 Bio, Magistrate Sorokin, Leo T, and list of courtroom staff 11-06-30 Jackson Lewis LLP _ The Firm 11-06-30 Managing Partner Andrew Pickett, Jackson Lewis LLP _ People 11-06-30 Partner Guy Tully, Jackson Lewis LLP _ People 11-06-30 Associate Brian Childs, Jackson Lewis LLP _ People

    189 190 219 220 222 225 228 229 231 233 236 238

    Page 6/9

    July 1, 2011

    Notes on Records

    08/02/2010 (No Dkt # ) ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge George A. OToole Simulated assignment; the case was initiated as a simulated litigation. 08/10/2010 (No Dkt # ) Online access to documents in this case are limited to counsel of record only. All documents are available for review in the Office of the Clerk. Counsel of record: please note that you will need to log into CM/ECF to access any documents in this case. (Gawlik, Cathy) (Entered: 08/10/2010) 08/19/2010 (No Dkt # ) Summons Issued as to Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., etc Simulated Order (no Dkt #) of effective sealing, with no legal foundation (was not enforced, either) 08/19/2010 (No Dkt # ) Summons Issued as to Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. Simulated issuance of Summonses. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the docketing of summonses. The summonses were not docketed, again a sign of Simulated Litigation.

    09/10/2010 14 Summons Reissued as to Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc.. The summons on Geriatric Facilities was signed by Deputy Clerk Christopher Daneli with seal of the clerk. Mr Daneli is listed in the courts web site as Docket Clerk in Judge OTools Court. Typo appears in the name of Defendant Geriatric Facilitities, hand corrected by an unknown person. NEF received, valid.

    09/13/2010 15 NOTICE by Laura J. McGarry re 11 Amended Document I see that this is the first time you used CM/ECF in person. 09/16/2010 16 USM SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Mikita. The summons as to Mikita, is missing the seal of the court, is therefore invalid summons. The US law requires that summons be issued with seal of the court. Signature is typed s/ Paul Lyness, listed as Courtroom Clerk in Judge OTools court

    09/24/2010 20 Judge George A. OToole, Jr: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying without prejudice 17 Motion to Enjoin Defendants from Initiating Bankruptcy. NEF received, valid. 10/04/2010 21 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. First appearance by Attorney Tully, with no Notice of Appearance, signature box does not list Attorney Tully as Attorney of Record for Defendants. The Answer includes no declaration, and is not verified, either, therefore, insufficient pleading. Attorneys Tully and Childs are most likely not Attorneys of Record.

    10/04/2010 22 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Geriatric Facilities 10/05/2010 24 USM SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Geriatric Facilities. 01/28/2011 (No Dkt # ) Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin Referred for: all Pretrial Proceedings. A simulated Referral Order to the Magistrate, since no Dkt # was assigned. The NEF, accordingly, is a simulated NEF, missing the Electronic Document Stamp.

    Page 7/9

    July 1, 2011

    01/19/2011 53 Judge George A. OToole, Jr: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NEF received, valid. 01/28/2011 57 Judge George A. OToole, Jr: Plaintiff's Motion 51 to Enjoin PSSA is DENIED. NEF received, valid. 01/30/2011 58 McGarrys Emergency MOTION for Contempt against Barbara Morse PSSA and Defense counsel Guy Tully & Brian Childs--collusion with PSSA 02/01/2011 61 Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (not to file) NEF received, valid. 02/14/2011 (No Dkt # ) ELECTRONIC Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: Scheduling Conference held on 2/14/2011; A simulated record of minutes with no dkt #. The NEF, accordingly, is a simulated NEF, missing the Electronic Document Stamp. The minutes are listed as entered by Simeone, Maria, listed in the Courts web site as Courtroom/Docket Clerk in Magistrate Sorotins court

    02/15/2011 67 Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. NEF received, valid. 02/15/2011 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; NEF received, valid. 03/02/2011 (No Dkt # ) Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 69 Motion to Disqualify Judge; This is a simulated Order, no Dkt #, entered by "Simeone, Maria". NEF received - Simulated NEF, missing the Electronic Document Stamp.

    03/03/2011 (No Dkt # ) Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 70 Motion to Vacate; A simulated Order, with no Dkt #, entered by Simeone, Maria. NEF received - Simulated NEF, missing the Electronic Document Stamp.

    03/03/2011 (No Dkt # ) Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered, re: Proposed Discovery Plan. A simulated Order, with no Dkt #, entered by Simeone, Maria. 03/07/2011 75 Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STAY; The Motion to Stay (Docket # 74) is DENIED. NEF received, valid. 03/10/2011 (No Dkt # ) Set Deadlines: Simulated Order, with no Dkt # 03/16/2011 77 Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. 03/23/2011 80 Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; I RECOMMEND that, prior to ruling on the pending motion for contempt,

    Page 8/9

    July 1, 2011

    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. NEF received, valid.

    04/05/2011 81 McGarrys OBJECTION to 80 Report and Recommendations. 06/28/2011 85 McGarry's Motion for Contempt The record is missing from the PACER docket, with no notation of any due process procedure for its removal. Record of the Motion was received from McGarry, bearing the PACER header. NEF received, valid.

    06/28/2011 86 Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered. ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 85 Motion for Contempt filed by Laura J. McGarry 06/28/2011 87 Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE 06/28/2011 (No Dkt # ) Civil Case Terminated A simulated docket notation, no Dkt #. The NEF, accordingly, is a simulated NEF, missing the Electronic Document Stamp.

    Notes on Administrative PACER Records 1) Related Transactions Report


    Dkt #01 Complaint - is not listed as terminated, although the case is noted as terminated. Dkt #16 Invalid Summons Returned executed - is not listed as related to the summons Dkt #25 Valid Summons returned executed - is falsely encoded as "Notice Other" Dkt #86 purported to rule on Dkt #85 McGarry Motion for Contempt. In fact, no Motion was opened for Dkt #85, and the Motion was never terminated. Therefore, it is simulated Order. Dkt #87 Order Dismissing Case, is not listed as related to the complaint

    2) Pending Statuses Report "There Are No Pending Status Records For This Case. No statuses have been terminated for this case." 3) Judgment Index "Sorry - no data for the chosen selection criteria" LINKS
    i

    11-05-08 Joseph Zernik, PhD, Biographical Sketch Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46421113/

    ii

    Simulated Litigation here refers to cases, where the evidence shows conduct defined in the Texas Criminal Code as follows: Texas Penal Code 32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to: (1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or (2) cause another to: (A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or (B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.

    Page 9/9

    July 1, 2011

    Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered. The practice is widespread in both the state and US courts at all levels. iii Regarding false appearances of counsel, who are not counsel of record, with no communications with client clause, see: 08-03-05 Case of Borrower William Parsley (05-90374), Dkt #248: Judge Jeff Bohm's Memorandum Opinion, rebuking Countrywide's litigation practices, Countrywide's false outside counsel scheme - appearances by counsel who are not Counsel of Record, with "no communications with clients" clause Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/25001966/H iv See examples of simulated litigation cases: [1] 11-01-10 Request No 1 for investigation/impeachment proceedings, in re: US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US District Court, Southern District of New York, Conduct of simulated litigation in Securities and Exchange Committee v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46616530/H [2] April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene and related papers in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court- habeas corpus of the former US prosecutor, held for 18 months in solitary confinement in Los Angeles with no valid arrest and booking records, after he protested widespread judicial corruption. April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene and related papers in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court i) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) Face pages of five filings by Dr Joseph Zernik with stamps showing receipt by the US Supreme Court s Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30304657/H ii) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 1 Amended Motion to Intervene s http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-1-Amended-Motion-to-Intervene-s iii) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 2 Amended Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/H iv) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 3 Amended Request for Corrections in US Supreme Court Records Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/H v) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 4 Amended Request for Incorporation by Reference Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/H vi) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 5 Amended Appendices Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34050423/H [3] 11-04-17 PRESS RELEASE: Lomas v Bank of America (KC059379) Fraud turns into Extortion in the Los Angeles Superior Court Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/53212710/H [4] 11-02-09 Press Release: Dont Ask, Dont Tell the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Insists on Conducting a Simulated Appeal from a Simulated Judgment of the US District Court Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/49070315/H v 10-08-18 Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010) Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/38328585/H vi 11-06-23 Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit, Accepts then Rejects Notice of Unprofessional Conduct Regarding Large-scale Fraud in Electronic Records of the Courts-s Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/58543472/H vii 11-04-14 PRESS RELEASE: Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler has been asked to review the evidence of large-scale computer fraud in the US courts Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/52993968/H viii 11-06-02 DRAFT Request for US Attorney General Eric Holder's investigation of Integrity, or lack thereof, of electronic record systems of the US courts Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/56893149/H

    (b)

    CASREF, CLOSED

    United States District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO

    McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Assigned to: Judge George A. OToole, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin Demand: $500,000 Cause: 42:1218(2) Americans with Disabilities Act

    Date Filed: 08/02/2010 Date Terminated: 06/28/2011 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 445 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities Employment Jurisdiction: Federal Question

    Plaintiff Pro Se Party Laura J. McGarry represented by Laura J. McGarry 1717 Sheridan Road Apt. A-50 Bremerton, WA 98310 no phone--use email to co Email: late_linda@yahoo.com PRO SE

    V. Defendant Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. doing business as Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center doing business as Pleasant Bay Nursing Center LP doing business as Pleasant Bay Health & Living Centers represented by Guy P. Tully Jackson Lewis LLP 75 Park Plaza 4th Floor Boston, MA 02116 617-367-0025 Fax: 617-367-2155 Email: tullyg@jacksonlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Brian M. Childs Jackson Lewis LLP 75 Park Plaza 4th Floor

    Boston, MA 02116 617-367-0025 Email: brian.childs@jacksonlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Joshua Zuckerman Individually and in His Capacity as Administrator for Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center represented by Guy P. Tully (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Brian M. Childs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Renee Mikita Individually, in in her capacity as Director of Nursing for Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center represented by Guy P. Tully (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Brian M. Childs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Roxanne Webster Individually and in her Capacity as Director of Operations for Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center represented by Guy P. Tully (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Brian M. Childs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

    Date Filed 08/02/2010

    Docket Text

    1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Gawlik, Cathy) (Entered: 08/10/2010) ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge George A. OToole,

    08/02/2010

    Jr assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin. (Gawlik, Cathy) (Entered: 08/10/2010) 08/02/2010 08/02/2010 08/02/2010 08/02/2010 08/10/2010 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Laura J. McGarry. (Gawlik, Cathy) (Entered: 08/10/2010) 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Laura J. McGarry.(Gawlik, Cathy) (Entered: 08/10/2010) 4 MOTION Electronic Filing by Laura J. McGarry.(Gawlik, Cathy) (Entered: 08/10/2010) Exhibits to complaint NOT SCANNED (numerous) (Gawlik, Cathy) (Entered: 08/10/2010) Online access to documents in this case are limited to counsel of record only. All documents are available for review in the Office of the Clerk. Counsel of record: please note that you will need to log into CM/ECF to access any documents in this case. (Gawlik, Cathy) (Entered: 08/10/2010) 5 NOTICE of Change of Address by Laura J. McGarry (Danieli, Chris) (Entered: 08/12/2010) 6 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Laura J. McGarry. Amendment to 1 Complaint. New Last Page of Complaint with Corrected Address. (Danieli, Chris) Modified on 8/12/2010 to correct the filing date(Danieli, Chris). (Entered: 08/12/2010) 7 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Laura J. McGarry. Amendment to 1 Complaint. Complaint Amendment Paragraphs 180 and 181. (Attachments: # 1 New Attachment Paragraph 181)(Danieli, Chris) (Entered: 08/12/2010) 8 NOTICE of Party Correction by Laura J. McGarry re 1 Complaint (Danieli, Chris) (Entered: 08/12/2010) 9 Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying without prejudice 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 4 Motion for electronic filing to the extent that McGarry can meet the requirements and gains approval from the Clerks Office for cm/ecf access. (PSSA, 4) (Entered: 08/19/2010) Summons Issued as to Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. Mailed to plaintiff with USM 285 forms, L.R. 4.1, notice for service by U.S. Marshal, and courtesy copy of the complaint.(PSSA, 4) (Entered: 08/19/2010) 10 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Laura J. McGarry. Amendment to

    08/11/2010 08/11/2010

    08/11/2010

    08/12/2010 08/18/2010

    08/19/2010

    09/02/2010

    Exhibits. (Danieli, Chris) (Entered: 09/02/2010) 09/02/2010 09/02/2010 09/07/2010 11 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Laura J. McGarry. Amendment to Exhibits. (Danieli, Chris) (Entered: 09/02/2010) 12 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Laura J. McGarry. Amendment to 1 Complaint. (Danieli, Chris) (Entered: 09/02/2010) 13 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Laura J. McGarry. Amendment to Exhibits. (Attachments: # 1 Addendum to Attachment 13, # 2 Annual Business Reports)(Danieli, Chris) (Entered: 09/10/2010) 14 Summons Reissued as to Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc.. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. Mailed to plaintiff with USM 285 forms and courtesy copy of complaint (Danieli, Chris) Modified on 9/10/2010 to indicate USM 285 and copy of complaint sent to plaintiff (Danieli, Chris). (Entered: 09/10/2010) 15 NOTICE by Laura J. McGarry re 11 Amended Document, 1 Complaint McGarry vs. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., et al (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Complaint, # 3 Exhibit Complaint, # 4 Exhibit Complaint, # 5 Exhibit Complaint, # 6 Exhibit Complaint, # 7 Exhibit Complaint, # 8 Exhibit Complaint, # 9 Exhibit Complaint, # 10 Exhibit Complaint, # 11 Exhibit Complaint, # 12 Exhibit Complaint, # 13 Exhibit Complaint, # 14 Exhibit Complaint, # 15 Exhibit Complaint, # 16 Exhibit Complaint, # 17 Exhibit Complaint, # 18 Exhibit Complaint, # 19 Exhibit Complaint, # 20 Exhibit Complaint, # 21 Exhibit Complaint, # 22 Exhibit Complaint, # 23 Exhibit Complaint, # 24 Exhibit Complaint, # 25 Exhibit Complaint, # 26 Exhibit Complaint, # 27 Exhibit Complaint, # 28 Exhibit Complaint, # 29 Exhibit Complaint, # 30 Exhibit Complaint, # 31 Exhibit Complaint, # 32 Exhibit Complaint, # 33 Exhibit Complaint, # 34 Exhibit Complaint, # 35 Exhibit Complaint, # 36 Exhibit Complaint, # 37 Exhibit Complaint, # 38 Exhibit Complaint, # 39 Exhibit Complaint, # 40 Exhibit Complaint, # 41 Exhibit Complaint, # 42 Exhibit Complaint, # 43 Exhibit Complaint, # 44 Exhibit Complaint, # 45 Exhibit Complaint, # 46 Exhibit Complaint, # 47 Exhibit Complaint, # 48 Supplement Guide for Exhibits)(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 09/13/2010) 16 USM Process Receipt and Return and SUMMONS Returned Executed. Renee Mikita served on 9/13/2010, answer due 10/4/2010. (Danieli, Chris) (Entered: 09/16/2010) 17 Emergency MOTION to Intervene enjoin Defendants from initiating bankruptcy/ expedite service of summons by Laura J. McGarry.

    09/10/2010

    09/13/2010

    09/16/2010

    09/20/2010

    bankruptcy/ expedite service of summons by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit webster's actual residence, # 2 Exhibit business annual report, # 3 Exhibit cape condo_Webster, # 4 Exhibit Lien solutions, # 5 Exhibit Webster_cape condo, # 6 Exhibit homestead vacant) (McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 09/20/2010) 09/20/2010 18 EXHIBIT New guide to exhibits--the guide in document 15 should not be used by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Guide to exhibits of Document #1-the Complaint, # 2 Exhibit paragraph 128 of the complaint and document 11)(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 09/20/2010) 19 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Laura J. McGarry. Amendment to 17 Emergency MOTION to Intervene enjoin Defendants from initiating bankruptcy/ expedite service of summons motion addendum/information correction. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit annual reports excerpts)(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 09/24/2010) 20 Judge George A. OToole, Jr: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying without prejudice 17 Motion to Enjoin Defendants from Initiating Bankruptcy. (PSSA, 4) (Entered: 09/26/2010) 21 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman.(Tully, Guy) (Entered: 10/04/2010) 22 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc.. (Tully, Guy) (Entered: 10/04/2010) 23 USM Process Receipt and Return and SUMMONS Returned Executed. Roxanne Webster served on 10/4/2010, answer due 10/25/2010. (Danieli, Chris) (Entered: 10/05/2010) 24 USM Process Receipt and Return and SUMMONS Returned Executed. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. served on 10/4/2010, answer due 10/25/2010. (Danieli, Chris) (Entered: 10/05/2010) 25 USM Process Receipt and Return and SUMMONS Returned Executed. Joshua Zuckerman served on 10/4/2010, answer due 10/25/2010. (Danieli, Chris) (Entered: 10/05/2010) 26 NOTICE by Laura J. McGarry re 16 Summons Returned Executed notice of asserted rule 15 compliance--notice of motion with exparte consideration document 17 & 19--notice of exhibit entry to ECFdocument 18 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Mikita's process receipt, # 2 Exhibit paragraph 12 complaint, # 3 Exhibit paragraph 22 complaint, # 4 Exhibit paragraph 24 complaint, # 5 Exhibit paragraph 42B complaint, # 6 Exhibit paragraph 105 complaint, # 7 Exhibit paragraph 153 complaint, # 8 Exhibit paragraph 177A complaint, # 9 Exhibit paragraph 181-182B

    09/24/2010

    09/24/2010

    10/04/2010

    10/04/2010 10/05/2010

    10/05/2010

    10/05/2010

    10/06/2010

    p g p p , p g p complaint, # 10 Exhibit paragraph 186C complaint, # 11 Exhibit paragraph 186D complaint, # 12 Exhibit paragraph 190 complaint, # 13 Exhibit Document 18, # 14 Supplement Exhibit guide for Complaint exhibits, # 15 Exhibit paragraph 128 complaint, # 16 Exhibit page 5 position statement, # 17 Exhibit Document 15, # 18 Exhibit Document 17 Motion, # 19 Exhibit vacant property-motion exhibit, # 20 Exhibit condo-motion exhibit, # 21 Exhibit restructure of business-motion exhibit, # 22 Exhibit residence--motion exhibit, # 23 Exhibit annual report --motion exhibit, # 24 Exhibit Document 19--addendum to motion, # 25 Exhibit report excerpts--exhibit to motion addendum)(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 10/06/2010) 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 27 Emergency MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis by Laura J. McGarry.(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 10/25/2010) 28 Proposed MOTION to Strike 21 Answer to Complaint, 27 Emergency MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis, 1 Complaint Defendant's affirmative defenses by Laura J. McGarry.(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 10/25/2010) 29 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: 10/25/2010) 30 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Laura J. McGarry. Amendment to 29 Answer to Complaint, 1 Complaint Amendment Count 10 added against Defendant Mikita. (McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 10/25/2010) 31 ADDENDUM re 27 Emergency MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis line 268 date correction filed by Laura J. McGarry. (McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 10/31/2010) 32 First ADDENDUM re 27 Emergency MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis associate this motion with document # 29,Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' answer to Complaint,as an attachment and Complaint, document #1and document #28, Motion to Strike Defendants' Affirmative defenses and Defendants' Answer to Complaint document #21 filed by Laura J. McGarry. (McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 11/04/2010) 33 First ADDENDUM re 28 Proposed MOTION to Strike 21 Answer to Complaint, 27 Emergency MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis, 1 Complaint Defendant's affirmative defenses associate this motion with document # 29,Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' answer

    10/25/2010

    10/25/2010

    10/31/2010

    11/04/2010

    11/04/2010

    11/05/2010

    to Complaint,as an attachment filed by Laura J. McGarry. (McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 11/04/2010) 34 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). (Entered: 11/05/2010) 35 Opposition re 27 Emergency MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Tully, Guy) (Entered: 11/05/2010) 36 Opposition re 28 Proposed MOTION to Strike 21 Answer to Complaint, 27 Emergency MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis, 1 Complaint Defendant's affirmative defenses filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tully, Guy) (Entered: 11/05/2010) 37 MOTION to Strike 29 Answer to Complaint, Plaintiff's Response To Defendants' Answer To Complaint by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman.(Tully, Guy) (Entered: 11/05/2010) 38 MEMORANDUM in Support re 37 MOTION to Strike 29 Answer to Complaint, Plaintiff's Response To Defendants' Answer To Complaint filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Tully, Guy) (Entered: 11/05/2010) 39 MOTION to Strike 30 Amended Document Plaintiff's Complaint Amendment by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman.(Tully, Guy) (Entered: 11/05/2010) 40 MEMORANDUM in Support re 39 MOTION to Strike 30 Amended Document Plaintiff's Complaint Amendment filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Tully, Guy) (Entered: 11/05/2010) 41 First Opposition re 37 MOTION to Strike 29 Answer to Complaint, Plaintiff's Response To Defendants' Answer To Complaint filed by Laura J. McGarry. (McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 11/09/2010) 42 First Opposition re 39 MOTION to Strike 30 Amended Document Plaintiff's Complaint Amendment filed by Laura J. McGarry. (McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 11/09/2010) 43 Ex Parte MOTION for Default Judgment THIS IS AN

    11/05/2010

    11/05/2010

    11/05/2010

    11/05/2010

    11/05/2010

    11/05/2010

    11/09/2010

    11/09/2010

    11/11/2010

    11/11/2010

    43 Ex Parte MOTION for Default Judgment THIS IS AN EMERGENCY!!!!!!! Document as to Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc. Roxanne Webster Renee Mikita and Joshua Zuckerman by Laura J. McGarry.(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 11/11/2010) 44 Opposition re 43 Ex Parte MOTION for Default Judgment THIS IS AN EMERGENCY!!!!!!! Document as to Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc. Roxanne Webster Renee Mikita and Joshua Zuckerman filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Tully, Guy) (Entered: 11/11/2010) 45 First MEMORANDUM in Support re 27 Emergency MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis, 43 Ex Parte MOTION for Default Judgment THIS IS AN EMERGENCY!!!!!!! Document as to Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc. Roxanne Webster Renee Mikita and Joshua Zuckerman filed by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit conferences)(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 11/15/2010) 46 First MOTION for Sanctions Rule 11 by Laura J. McGarry.(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 11/29/2010) 47 Opposition re 46 First MOTION for Sanctions Rule 11 filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tully, Guy) (Entered: 12/13/2010) 48 MOTION to Expedite notice of scheduling conference--scheduling order is due January 11, 2011 and the notice of this conference was not sent by the court--Plaintiff requesting that conference be by phone with Judge O'Toole and orders from the Judge regarding 16.1(a) (b) (c) &(d) PRIOR to the conference by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 email from defense counsel regarding rule 16.1)(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 12/27/2010) 49 RESPONSE to Motion re 48 MOTION to Expedite notice of scheduling conference--scheduling order is due January 11, 2011 and the notice of this conference was not sent by the court--Plaintiff requesting that conference be by phone with Judge O'Toole and orders from the J filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Tully, Guy) (Entered: 12/31/2010) 50 REDACTION to 15 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 11 Amended Document, 18 Exhibit, 1 Complaint please restrict document 11 and exhibit 27 of document 15-clarification on exhibits list attachment 1 of document 18 byLaura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EEOC discrimination charge Exhibit 1 to the complaint, # 2 Exhibit Employment application exhibit 27 to the complaint # 3 Exhibit generic employment application

    11/11/2010

    11/15/2010

    11/29/2010 12/13/2010

    12/27/2010

    12/31/2010

    01/03/2011

    exhibit 27 to the complaint, # 3 Exhibit generic employment application located in document 11)(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 01/03/2011) 01/19/2011 51 Emergency MOTION for Injunctive Relief Enjoin PSSA from this Action--Chief Judge Wolf has been notified of this filing by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement quick look summary of action, # 2 Exhibit emails to clerk, # 3 Exhibit letter from PSSA, # 4 Exhibit hold service email, # 5 Exhibit express mail sent email, # 6 Exhibit excerpt from document 29, # 7 Exhibit excerpt from task force article)(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 01/19/2011) 52 Third MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis--Chief Judge Wolf has been notified of this filing by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit letter, # 2 Exhibit docket, # 3 Exhibit exhibit)(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 01/19/2011) 53 Judge George A. OToole, Jr: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered granting 37 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to the Answer; granting 39 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's September and October Amendments to her Complaint; denying 43 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 46 First Motion for Sanctions; denying 27 Motion to Disqualify Counsel; denying 28 Plaintiff's Proposed Motion to Strike Answer. (PSSA, 4) (Entered: 01/20/2011) 54 To the Honorable Chief Judge Wolf and the Honorable Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. Letter/request (non-motion) from Laura J. McGarry FRAUD UPON THE COURT--Related Motions being blocked from judicial review. See motions (Documents 51 & 52). (McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 01/21/2011) 55 Opposition re 51 Emergency MOTION for Injunctive Relief Enjoin PSSA from this Action--Chief Judge Wolf has been notified of this filing filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E-Mail Exchange)(Childs, Brian) (Entered: 01/21/2011) 56 Opposition re 52 Third MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis-Chief Judge Wolf has been notified of this filing filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E-Mail Exchange)(Childs, Brian) (Entered: 01/21/2011) 57 Judge George A. OToole, Jr: Plaintiff's Motion 51 to Enjoin PSSA is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion 52 to disqualify defense counsel is DENIED. 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

    01/19/2011

    01/19/2011

    01/21/2011

    01/21/2011

    01/21/2011

    01/28/2011

    counsel or court staff in any way as to make a direct or indirect threat, or making reference to docketing information. Plaintiff's Motion 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. The Clerk shall refer this case to Magistrate Judge Sorokin for all pretrial proceedings. (PSSA, 4) (Entered: 01/28/2011) 01/28/2011 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. (Entered: 01/31/2011) 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 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 reference of PSSA position, # 7 Exhibit emails to clerks and general court email, # 8 Exhibit note via general email to Chief that doc.51 & 52 were being filed and blocking of action from judge, # 9 Exhibit Letter entered in the ECF to Chief and Judge O'Toole hoping for relief of deprivation of constitutional rights)(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 01/30/2011) 59 Sarah Allison Thornton, Clerk of Court Letter/request (non-motion) from Laura J. McGarry regarding B. Morse. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B. Morse Documents)(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 01/31/2011) 60 NOTICE by Laura J. McGarry re 59 Letter/request (non-motion), 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 clerk office

    01/30/2011

    01/31/2011

    01/31/2011

    02/01/2011

    notified of letter to clerk of the court in ECF-- (McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 01/31/2011) 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 ORDERED 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) (Entered: 02/01/2011) 62 NOTICE of Scheduling Conference; The Scheduling Conference has been set for 2/14/2011 04:00 PM in Courtroom 24 before Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin. The Plaintiff is to contact the clerk with a phone number where the plaintiff can be reached; The court will contact the plaintiff at the time scheduled for the hearing.(Simeone, Maria) (Entered: 02/01/2011) 63 Recommendations for Scheduling Order Defendants' Proposed Statement Pursuant To Local Rule 16.1(D). (Tully, Guy) (Entered: 02/07/2011) 64 NOTICE by Laura J. McGarry Plaintiff's Intent to file writ of Mandamus with the U S Court of Appeals of the First Circuit regarding deprivation of Constitutional Rights (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit writ of mandamus, # 2 Exhibit plaintiff's recent filings asserting need for Article lll Judge, # 3 Exhibit unwaranted intimidation threatening sanctions, # 4 Exhibit email via court general email and mailed to Chief Judge, # 5 Exhibit sudden reference to magistrate, # 6 Exhibit with email and US mail to Chief Judge)(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 02/07/2011) 65 Recommendations for Scheduling Order Defendants' Amended Proposed Statement Pursuant To Local Rule 16.1(D). (Tully, Guy) (Entered: 02/07/2011) 66 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 . (Childs, Brian) (Entered: 02/14/2011) ELECTRONIC Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: Scheduling Conference held on 2/14/2011; The Plaintiff appears by phone; Atty Tully; Court goes over the status of the case with the parties; Court addresses the importance of court procedures and compliance with court orders; Court goes over the discovery issues and schedule in the case; The court makes the following Orders; (1)The plaintiff is to comply with all orders of the court (2)The plaintiff will be allowed to file only one document, with a list naming all persons plaintiff wishes to depose, Where they live and or work; Plaintiff is allowed up to

    02/01/2011

    02/07/2011 02/07/2011

    02/07/2011

    02/14/2011 02/14/2011

    but no more than 4 sentences as to why their testimony/deposition is needed; Court orders this filed by 3/1/11; defense counsel will file their list on 3/4/11; (Court Reporter: Digital Recording.)(Attorneys present: Plaintiff McGarry; Atty Tully) (Simeone, Maria) Modified on 2/17/2011 (Simeone, Maria). (Entered: 02/15/2011) 02/15/2011 67 Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. It is ORDERED that: (1) The Plaintiff shall not make any filings with this Court without the prior approval of a District or Magistrate Judge; (2) 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; and (3) By March 4, 2011, the Defendants shall file with the Court the equivalent document See attached Order. (Chernetsky, James). (Entered: 02/15/2011) 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) (Entered: 02/15/2011) 69 First MOTION to Disqualify Judge O'Toole and Sorokin sua sponte --Plaintiff request that reassignment be by Judge Sorokin and his clerk by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit service of process receipt) (McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 02/23/2011) 70 First MOTION to Vacate 69 First MOTION to Disqualify Judge O'Toole and Sorokin sua sponte ---Plaintiff request that reassignment be by Judge Sorokin and his clerk vacate void orders--Plaintiff request that this motion be addressed after reassignment to a new Article lll Judge by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pdf recognition) (McGarry, Laura) Modified to remove the link to docket 69; linked in error by pltf; on 3/2/2011 (Simeone, Maria). (Entered: 02/23/2011) Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 69 Motion to Disqualify Judge; The Motion to Disqualify is

    02/15/2011

    02/23/2011

    02/23/2011

    03/02/2011

    y g 03/03/2011

    g;

    DENIED. (Simeone, Maria) (Entered: 03/02/2011) Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 70 Motion to Vacate; This Motion is DENIED. The Court cautions Plaintiff that she has been ordered not to file any documents with the Court without prior permission of the Court. (Simeone, Maria) (Entered: 03/03/2011) Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Plaintiff has asked by telephone of the Clerk's Office whether she may obtain more time to file her discovery proposal. If Plaintiff wishes to request more time she must do so in a written motion to the Court. Plaintiff has permission to file ONE such motion not to exceed five pages in length. (Simeone, Maria) (Entered: 03/03/2011) 71 MOTION for Contempt by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman.(Tully, Guy) (Entered: 03/04/2011) 72 MEMORANDUM in Support re 71 MOTION for Contempt filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Tully, Guy) (Entered: 03/04/2011) 73 AFFIDAVIT of Brian M. Childs in Support re 71 MOTION for Contempt filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Tully, Guy) (Entered: 03/04/2011) 74 First MOTION to Stay scheduling conference assignment by Laura J. McGarry.(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 03/04/2011) 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 Orders (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) (Entered: 03/07/2011) Set Deadlines: The Plaintiff shall file the discovery information by no later than the close of business on Friday 3/11/2011 (Danieli Chris) (Entered:

    03/03/2011

    03/04/2011

    03/04/2011

    03/04/2011

    03/04/2011 03/07/2011

    03/10/2011

    than the close of business on Friday, 3/11/2011. (Danieli, Chris) (Entered: 03/10/2011) 03/11/2011 76 Recommendations for Scheduling Order per court ordered submissions for document request from defendants, depositions and interrogatories. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Manning namrd as ADON)(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 03/11/2011) 77 Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. Order on Plaintiff's Requested Discovery. It is ORDERED that all of the requests listed in the Plaintiff's proposed discovery requests (other than those listed in this Order) are STRICKEN. See attached Order. (Chernetsky, James) (Entered: 03/16/2011) 78 First Opposition re 71 MOTION for Contempt filed by Laura J. McGarry. (McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 03/18/2011) 79 Response by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman to 77 Order, - Defendants' Initial Discovery Requests To Plaintiff. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed First Set Of Interrogatories To Plaintiff, # 2 Exhibit Proposed First Set Of Requests For Production Of Documents To Plaintiff)(Tully, Guy) (Entered: 03/21/2011) 80 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) (Entered: 03/23/2011) 81 OBJECTION to 80 Report and Recommendations contempt--Judicial Notice Requested filed by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Rules, # 2 Exhibit email to Magistrate's clerk)(McGarry, Laura) (Entered: 04/05/2011) 82 REPLY TO OBJECTION to 80 Report and Recommendations filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Tully, Guy) (Entered: 04/12/2011) 83 NOTICE of Petition for an Emergent Extraordinary Writ to the United States District Court of Massachusetts-Boston by Laura J. McGarry

    03/16/2011

    03/18/2011 03/21/2011

    03/23/2011

    04/05/2011

    04/12/2011

    06/10/2011

    (Attachments: # 1 exhibit)(Danieli, Chris) (Entered: 06/10/2011) 06/21/2011 84 The Petition for an Emergent Extraordinary Writ to the United States District Court [for the District of] Massachusetts is DENIED. Petition filed in the USCA 6/20,2011 (Ramos, Jeanette) (Entered: 06/21/2011) 86 Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered. ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 85 Motion for Contempt filed by Laura J. McGarry, 71 Motion for Contempt filed by Joshua Zuckerman, Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Roxanne Webster, Renee Mikita, 80 Report and Recommendations,, Action on motions: The Plaintiff's recently filed motion for contempt, addressed to Chief Judge Wolf but by him referred to me (dkt. no. 85) is DENIED. The Defendants' Motion for Contempt (dkt. no.71) is GRANTED, and the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is SO ORDERED.(Danieli, Chris) (Entered: 06/28/2011) 87 Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE(Danieli, Chris) (Entered: 06/28/2011) Civil Case Terminated. (Danieli, Chris) (Entered: 06/28/2011)

    06/28/2011

    06/28/2011 06/28/2011

    PACER Service Center


    Transaction Receipt
    06/30/2011 20:57:37 PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages: dr2600 Docket Report 11 Client Code: Search Criteria: Cost: 1:10-cv-11343GAO 0.88

    ----- Forwarded Message ---From: "ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov" <ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov> To: CourtCopy@mad.uscourts.gov Sent: Fri, September 10, 2010 10:17:47 AM Subject: Activity in Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al

    This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/10/2010 at 10:17 AM EDT and filed on 9/10/2010 McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Name: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Case Number: Filer: Document Number: 14

    Docket Text: Summons Reissued as to Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc.. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Danieli, Chris)

    1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice has been electronically mailed to: Laura J. McGarry late_linda@yahoo.com 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice will not be electronically mailed to:

    The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:yes Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1029851931 [Date=9/10/2010] [FileNumber=3515792-0 ] [a80a7445ed00253af494232bd4de8979ccaa5d92c15b08938b756ae8f8ca3a4bc0b 4ed87eaae792343c2b76bd5c863d3454b9780c90631eb99322b704f9287c1]]

    ----- Forwarded Message ---From: "ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov" <ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov> To: CourtCopy@mad.uscourts.gov Sent: Sun, September 26, 2010 2:01:07 PM Subject: Activity in Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Order on Motion to Intervene

    This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/26/2010 at 2:01 PM EDT and filed on 9/24/2010 McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Name: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Case Number: Filer: Document Number: 20

    Docket Text: Judge George A. OToole, Jr: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying without prejudice [17] Motion to Enjoin Defendants from Initiating Bankruptcy. (PSSA, 4)

    1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice has been electronically mailed to: Laura J. McGarry late_linda@yahoo.com 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice will not be electronically mailed to: The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

    Document description:Main Document Original filename:yes Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1029851931 [Date=9/26/2010] [FileNumber=3537230-0 ] [8d5430dd98d13a9af21a0a03dc2105acb670af952d305baa78c56001346c09588dc 8d945ac160ebc46a1e4e1ad5dc70e2965c6ae90c95ec98230e991cd65785e]]

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 53

    Filed 01/19/11 Page 1 of 8

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-11343-GAO

    LAURA McGARRY, Plaintiff, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., et al. Defendants.

    MEMORANDUM AND ORDER January 19, 2011 OTOOLE, D.J. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies plaintiffs Emergency Motion to Disqualify Counsel (No. 27); Proposed Motion to Strike Answer (No. 28); Motion for Default Judgment (No. 43) and First Motion for Sanctions(No. 46). The Court allows defendants motion (No. 37) to strike plaintiffs response to the answer and allows defendants motion (No. 39) to strike plaintiffs September and October amendments to her complaint. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Laura McGarry (McGarry or plaintiff), proceeding pro se, commenced this employment discrimination action on August 2, 2010, against defendants Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman and Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. (Geriatric Facilities or defendants). With her complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion for permission for electronic filing. By Order dated August 18, 2010, plaintiff was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. See Docket No. 9. Her motion for counsel was denied and her motion for electronic filing was

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 53

    Filed 01/19/11 Page 2 of 8

    granted to the extent that she could meet the requirements for such filing. Id. On September 20, 2010, McGarry filed an emergency motion seeking seeks to enjoin the defendants from taking any actions that would dissipate assets that might be required to satisfy a judgment. See Docket No. 17. The emergency motion sought expedited service by the United States Marshals Service and expressed plaintiffs concern that certain documents may be missing from the exhibits that she filed with her complaint. Id. By Order dated September 24, 2010, McGarrys emergency motion was denied without prejudice. See Docket No. 20. As to McGarrys concern about missing exhibits, the Court noted that McGarry re-filed her exhibits. Id. Although the Court declined to order expedited service, a deputy clerk informed the Court that the United States Marshals Service received corrected summonses from McGarry. Id. On October 4, 2010, defendants filed an answer to the complaint along with the requisite corporate disclosure statement. See Docket Nos. 21, 22. Since the filing of defendants Answer, McGarry has filed four motions with the Court, several of which are captioned as emergency motions. In many of her pleadings, McGarry emphasizes to the court that she is a disabled nurse who was doing fabulous on her road to recovery until she met the Defendants who destroyed her career by barring her from practice through retaliation after they discriminated against her; the stress that the FRAUD has caused Plaintiff in her action against these Defendants has debilitated her to the point where she now lives in housing for the disabled and elderly, never leaves the house unless her daughter forces her to and she is not at all well; Plaintiff cannot handle this stress that is continuous because of all this fraud that keeps blocking her from Justice. See Docket No. 43.

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 53

    Filed 01/19/11 Page 3 of 8

    McGarry has filed two emergency motions seeking to disqualify defendants counsel the law firm of Jackson Lewis. See Docket Nos. 27, 43. McGarry complains that because an attorney from Jackson Lewis represented the defendants during the administrative proceedings before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the firm should not be permitted to represent the defendants in this proceeding. See Docket No. 27. McGarry argues that counsel from Jackson Lewis (1) were complicit in the Defendants willful violation of the law; (2) will be called as a witness; and (3) have demonstrated their personal conflict of interest by their deficient answers to the Complaint. In their opposition to the first disqualification motion, the defendants note that (1) the motion is completely devoid of legal and factual support; (2) the motion represents little more than an unfounded, personal attack against counsel and the EEOC; and (3) the motion offers nothing more than defense argument with which McGarry simply disagrees. See Docket No. 35. In support of her second motion to disqualify defendants counsel, McGarry argues that, among other things, defendants counsel fraudulently cited a judicial opinion as supporting their position. See Docket No. 43. In their opposition, defendants contend that McGarrys arguments are unfounded and note that they should be spared the continued burden of footing bills for contesting such motions. See Docket No. 44. Two days later, McGarry filed a supporting memorandum in which, among other things, she questions why the memorandum appears on the public docket when she labeled it as ex parte. See Docket No. 45. In addition to seeking to disqualify defendants counsel, McGarry filed a motion seeking to strike all of the defendantss affirmative defenses. See Docket No. 28. She essentially argues that defendants have unclean hands. The defendants have opposed this request, noting that (1)

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 53

    Filed 01/19/11 Page 4 of 8

    there is no legal or factual foundation for plaintiffs request; and (2) McGarrys detailed response to every affirmative defense inappropriately seeks an early summary judgment ruling. See Docket No. 36. Most recently, McGarry filed a motion seeking to have this court sanction the defendants based upon actions which McGarry perceives to be harassing. See Docket No. 46. In their opposition, the defendants deny the allegations. See Docket No. 47. Defendants have filed a motion (No. 37) to strike plaintiffs response to the answer as well as a motion (No. 39) to strike plaintiffs attempt to file an amendment to her complaint without leave of court. DISCUSSION To the extent McGarry seeks to disqualify the law firm of Jackson Lewis from representing the defendants, such motions are denied. Although the Court does not question the sincerity of McGarrys concern over Jackson Lewis continued representation of the defendants, here, there is little, if any, indication that defendants counsel will be called as a witness, despite McGarrys apparent intention to attempt to do so. Because there is no significant concern that an attorney from Jackson Lewis would be required to testify in this action, and because McGarry failed to identify any other source of a potential conflict of interest affecting Jackson Lewis, her requests to have defense counsel removed from this action are denied. To the extent McGarry seeks to strike defendants Answer, such request must also be denied. As noted by the defendants in their opposition, there is no legal or factual foundation for plaintiffs request. Also denied is McGarrys motion to sanction the defendants based upon actions which McGarry perceives to be harassing. As noted by defendants, McGarry seems to

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 53

    Filed 01/19/11 Page 5 of 8

    object to counsels efforts to proceed with a defense in this case. To the extent defendants seek to strike plaintiffs response to the answer as well as plaintiffs attempt to file two amendments to her complaint, such requests are granted. McGarrys pro se status doesn't insulate her from complying with substantive and procedural law. Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886 (1st Cir. 1997). Because Rule 15(a)(1)(A) provides that a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course, the Court will permit McGarrys August 11th amendments to remain on the docket. See Docket No. 7. However, the Court agrees with defendants that McGarrys September 2nd and October 25th amendments can be filed only with the opposing partys written consent or the courts leave. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Because McGarry sought neither defendants' consent nor this court's leave to amend her complaint, the September and October amendments will be stricken from the record. The Court notes that McGarry has contacted the Chief Judge of this Court as well as clerks office staff regarding several concerns, the primary one being her belief that the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system has been compromised. McGarry speculates that court staff may be assisting defense counsel in their efforts to thwart her case. She also complains that her ex-parte motion appeared on the ECF system. Apparently McGarry, by captioning her November 11th motion as ex parte," assumed the motion would be seen by only the Court despite the fact that the motion was not accompanied by a motion to file under seal.1 Thus, McGarry is distressed that the ECF system alerted the defendants of her November 11th ex parte

    The requirements for filing impounded and confidential materials are set forth in this Court's Local Rule 7.2. See District of Massachusetts Local Rule 7.2. However, there is a presumption that a case filed in federal court, and the documents filed in the case, are to be public. See In re Providence Journal Co., Inc., 293 F.3d 1, 13-14 (1st Cir.2002); In re Auerhahn, 650 F.Supp.2d 107, 112 (D.Mass.2009).

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 53

    Filed 01/19/11 Page 6 of 8

    motion. The undersigned has considered the matter and finds that there has not been a compromise of the ECF system. McGarry is reminded that she has requested use of the ECF system and that it is her responsibility to ensure that she has the ability to utilize it. If not, she may wish to consider returning to paper filings. From her numerous motions and communications to the court, it is clear that McGarry is dissatisfied with the way her employment discrimination case is proceeding. Plaintiffs pleadings, in conjunction with her communications to the Court, reveal a heightened level of suspicion and hostility directed not only toward defense counsel, but to the defendants as well as employees of the court. Because the level of suspicion and hostility is continuing, if not escalating, the Court will take the opportunity to advise McGarry that her pro se status cannot shield her from the consequences of frivolous litigation practices. See Eagle Eye Fishing Corp. v. United States Dep't of Commerce, 20 F.3d 503, 506 (1st Cir. 1994) (explaining that "the right of self-representation is not a license not to comply with the relevant rules" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); FDIC v. Anchor Props., 13 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir. 1994) ("We have consistently held that a litigant's pro se status [does not] absolve him from compliance with [either] the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [or] a district court's procedural rules." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court notes that, in virtually every pleading filed by McGarry, she consistently
    makes a variety of personal insults directed to the defendants and their counsel, to the point of harassment. In each of the pending motions, McGarry accuses defense counsel of committing fraud. She has also speculated that court staff are colluding with defense counsel to thwart her

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 53

    Filed 01/19/11 Page 7 of 8

    case. The Court finds that defendants are prejudiced in having to respond to the vexatious allegations made in McGarrys motions. The defendants commented, see Docket No. 44, that

    they should be spared the continued burden of footing bills for contesting such motions from plaintiff. The Court advises McGarry that under Rule 11, the Court may impose sanctions on an unrepresented party if he or she submits a pleading for an improper purpose or if the claims within it are frivolous or malicious. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1),(2)2; Eagle Eye Fishing Corp., 20 F.3d at 506; Pronav Charter II, Inc. v. Nolan, 206 F. Supp. 2d 46, 53 (D. Mass. 2002) (Rule 11 applies to pro se litigants) (citation omitted). Rule 11 exists, in part, to protect defendants and the Court from wasteful, frivolous and harassing lawsuits, and provides for sanctions as a deterrent. See Navarro-Ayala v. Nunez, 968 F.2d 1421, 1426 (1st Cir. 1992). ORDER Accordingly, it is hereby

    Rule 11 provides in pertinent part:

    (b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper - whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase in the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 53

    Filed 01/19/11 Page 8 of 8

    ORDERED, Plaintiffs Emergency Motion to Disqualify Counsel (No. 27) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, Plaintiffs Proposed Motion to Strike Answer (No. 28) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment (No. 43) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, Plaintiffs First Motion for Sanctions(No. 46) is denied; and it is further ORDERED, Defendants Motion (No. 37) to Strike Plaintiffs Response to the Answer is ALLOWED; and it is further ORDERED, Defendants Motion (No. 39) to Strike Plaintiffs September and October Amendments to her Complaint is ALLOWED. SO ORDERED. January 19, 2011 DATE /s/ George A. OToole, Jr. GEORGE A. OTOOLE, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

    ----- Forwarded Message ---From: "ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov" <ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov> To: CourtCopy@mad.uscourts.gov Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 12:01:26 PM Subject: Activity in Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Order on Motion to Strike

    This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 1/20/2011 at 12:01 PM EST and filed on 1/19/2011 McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Name: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Case Number: Filer: Document Number: 53

    Docket Text: Judge George A. OToole, Jr: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered granting [37] Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to the Answer; granting [39] Motion to Strike Plaintiff's September and October Amendments to her Complaint; denying [43] Motion for Default Judgment; denying [46] First Motion for Sanctions; denying [27] Motion to Disqualify Counsel; denying [28] Plaintiff's Proposed Motion to Strike Answer. (PSSA, 4)

    1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice has been electronically mailed to: Guy P. Tully tullyg@jacksonlewis.com, BostonDocketing@JacksonLewis.com, gurleym@jacksonlewis.com

    Brian M. Childs brian.childs@jacksonlewis.com, bostondocketing@jacksonlewis.com, michelle.nevens@jacksonlewis.com Laura J. McGarry late_linda@yahoo.com 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice will not be electronically mailed to: The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:yes Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1029851931 [Date=1/20/2011] [FileNumber=3697258-0 ] [3c73c326b0a6ccafece14624bcd358fe9cc0121f3eae2d5428f4e1b42b1d50bd2af 7e6ed8f13a17c41b62b1c5bf91319c4922e018c1db485b010e3eb3cc4470e]]

    ----- Forwarded Message ---From: "ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov" <ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov> To: CourtCopy@mad.uscourts.gov Sent: Fri, January 28, 2011 4:20:02 PM Subject: Activity in Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Order on Motion to Expedite

    This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 1/28/2011 at 4:20 PM EST and filed on 1/28/2011 McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Name: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Case Number: Filer: Document Number: 57

    Docket Text: Judge George A. OToole, Jr: Plaintiff's Motion [51] to Enjoin PSSA is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion [52] to disqualify defense counsel is DENIED. 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. Plaintiff's Motion [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. The Clerk shall refer this case to Magistrate Judge Sorokin for all pretrial proceedings. (PSSA, 4)

    1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice has been electronically mailed to:

    Guy P. Tully tullyg@jacksonlewis.com, BostonDocketing@JacksonLewis.com, gurleym@jacksonlewis.com Brian M. Childs brian.childs@jacksonlewis.com, bostondocketing@jacksonlewis.com, michelle.nevens@jacksonlewis.com Laura J. McGarry late_linda@yahoo.com 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice will not be electronically mailed to: The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:yes Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1029851931 [Date=1/28/2011] [FileNumber=3711387-0 ] [b6f238a0e5288ebc524528ae6c9c881df9be70c4fe4c759fea85fc26b70fa0312d5 c902b36814e891ae675bf9eb5feab4f69e617becb38211e7ed2a232672353]]

    ----- Forwarded Message ---From: "ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov" <ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov> To: CourtCopy@mad.uscourts.gov Sent: Mon, January 31, 2011 10:43:19 AM Subject: Activity in Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge

    This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 1/31/2011 at 10:43 AM EST and filed on 1/28/2011 McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Name: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Case Number: Filer: Document Number: No document attached

    Docket Text: 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 Plaintiffdeliberate deprivation of constitutional rights and blocking disabled in forma paupe. (Danieli, Chris) Motions referred to Leo T. Sorokin.

    1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice has been electronically mailed to: Guy P. Tully tullyg@jacksonlewis.com, BostonDocketing@JacksonLewis.com, gurleym@jacksonlewis.com

    Brian M. Childs brian.childs@jacksonlewis.com, bostondocketing@jacksonlewis.com, michelle.nevens@jacksonlewis.com Laura J. McGarry late_linda@yahoo.com 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice will not be electronically mailed to:

    ----- Forwarded Message ---From: "ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov" <ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov> To: CourtCopy@mad.uscourts.gov Sent: Tue, February 1, 2011 1:05:06 PM Subject: Activity in Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Order on Motion for Contempt

    This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** There is no charge for viewing opinions. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 2/1/2011 at 1:05 PM EST and filed on 2/1/2011 McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Name: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Case Number: Filer: Document Number: 61

    Docket Text: 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 ORDERED 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)

    1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice has been electronically mailed to: Guy P. Tully tullyg@jacksonlewis.com, BostonDocketing@JacksonLewis.com, gurleym@jacksonlewis.com Brian M. Childs brian.childs@jacksonlewis.com, bostondocketing@jacksonlewis.com, michelle.nevens@jacksonlewis.com Laura J. McGarry late_linda@yahoo.com

    1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice will not be electronically mailed to: The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:yes Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1029851931 [Date=2/1/2011] [FileNumber=3715113-0] [d2a94be0600cffce35b818c3ee083ffeb2d6102fffad4d218670a7455d62be0fe4bd 8cae704eca0cff42e09f7a8386590324880f3088929459bafce137f3e1f7]]

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 61

    Filed 02/01/11 Page 1 of 4

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS LAURA J. MCGARRY, Plaintiff, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On January 28, 2011, this case was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings. Now before the Court C.A. No. 10-11343-GAO

    is Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt against PSSA & Defense Counsel. See Docket Entry #58. Plaintiff also filed a letter See Docket

    and notice; both addressed to the Clerk of Court. Entries #59, #60.

    The January 28, 2011 Memorandum and Order referred this case to my docket for all pretrial proceedings. 58. See Docket Entry #

    The Order also denied several of Plaintiffs Motions and

    prohibited Plaintiff 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. The Courts records indicate that Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion, letter and notice, each of which violates the Courts 1/28/11 Order. Plaintiff has already been advised that Under Rule 11, the Court may impose sanctions on an unrepresented party if he or she

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 61

    Filed 02/01/11 Page 2 of 4

    submits a pleading for an improper purpose or if the claims within it are frivolous or malicious. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

    11(b)(1), (2); Eagle Eye Fishing Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 20 F.3d 503, 506 (1st Cir. 1994) (pro se parties, like all parties and counsel, are required to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Pronav Charter II, Inc. v. Nolan, 206 F. Supp. 2d 46, 53 (D. Mass. 2002) (Rule 11 applies to pro se litigants) (citation omitted). Rule 11 exists, in part, to

    protect defendants and the Court from wasteful, frivolous and harassing lawsuits, and provides for sanctions as a deterrent. See Navarro-Ayala v. Nunez, 968 F.2d 1421, 1426 (1st Cir. 1992). In addition to Rule 11, section 1927 of Title 28 provides for the imposition of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, against a person for unreasonable and vexatious litigation. Section 1927 states: Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct. 28 U.S.C. 1927. Apart from authority under Rule 11 and section 1927, a district court has the inherent power to manage its own proceedings and to control the conduct of litigants who appear before it through orders or the issuance of monetary sanctions for bad-faith, vexatious, wanton or oppressive behavior. See

    Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46-50 (1991); accord United

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 61

    Filed 02/01/11 Page 3 of 4

    States v. Kouri-Perez, 187 F.3d 1, 6-8 (1st Cir. 1999) (same); John's Insulation, Inc. v. L. Addison & Assocs., 156 F.3d 101, 109 (1st Cir. 1998) (district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering dismissal of complaint and default judgment as a sanction for plaintiff's protracted delay and repeated violation of court's order under inherent powers rather than Rule 41). As noted above, Plaintiff is continuing to engage in a pattern of filing baseless documents that harass defense counsel and court staff and that also make reference to docketing information. She has already been warned that the Court will

    impose sanctions. The Court will not require Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs most recent motion, which is denied. Because

    Plaintiff failed to heed the warning contained in the 1/28/11 Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any further pleadings or documents in this action until directed to do so by a judicial officer. 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.

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 61

    Filed 02/01/11 Page 4 of 4

    Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED 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.

    February 1, 2011 DATE

    /s/ Leo T. Sorokin LEO T. SOROKIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

    ----- Forwarded Message ---From: "ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov" <ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov> To: CourtCopy@mad.uscourts.gov Sent: Tue, February 15, 2011 3:09:48 PM Subject: Activity in Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Order

    This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 2/15/2011 at 3:09 PM EST and filed on 2/15/2011 McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Name: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Case Number: Filer: Document Number: 67

    Docket Text: Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. It is ORDERED that: (1) The Plaintiff shall not make any filings with this Court without the prior approval of a District or Magistrate Judge; (2) 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; and (3) By March 4, 2011, the Defendants shall file with the Court the equivalent document See attached Order. (Chernetsky, James).

    1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice has been electronically mailed to: Guy P. Tully tullyg@jacksonlewis.com, BostonDocketing@JacksonLewis.com, gurleym@jacksonlewis.com Brian M. Childs brian.childs@jacksonlewis.com, bostondocketing@jacksonlewis.com, michelle.nevens@jacksonlewis.com Laura J. McGarry late_linda@yahoo.com 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice will not be electronically mailed to: The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:yes Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1029851931 [Date=2/15/2011] [FileNumber=3735934-0 ] [b714d315095531ac6f84452815377094985463fc79eb4d112cf0d53a230bd1623c6 b3f70d7738888c9fbc175a49cc4124a7593aeb24ed4a11ecbae2c9feb0fbd]]

    ----- Forwarded Message ---From: "ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov" <ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov> To: CourtCopy@mad.uscourts.gov Sent: Tue, February 15, 2011 3:46:38 PM Subject: Activity in Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Order

    This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** There is no charge for viewing opinions. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 2/15/2011 at 3:46 PM EST and filed on 2/15/2011 McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Name: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Case Number: Filer: Document Number: 68

    Docket Text: 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)

    1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice has been electronically mailed to: Guy P. Tully tullyg@jacksonlewis.com, BostonDocketing@JacksonLewis.com, gurleym@jacksonlewis.com Brian M. Childs brian.childs@jacksonlewis.com, bostondocketing@jacksonlewis.com,

    michelle.nevens@jacksonlewis.com Laura J. McGarry late_linda@yahoo.com 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice will not be electronically mailed to: The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:yes Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1029851931 [Date=2/15/2011] [FileNumber=3736059-0 ] [bb3f9dd0dd17acf3b2c284476bd4b55b9ef9aca6d39e935ab2a01346d39a6a8b937 db8ef9e8b265f2882cc03fb7c0821b922ec83994fab1f21ef3fe1e6d66d62]]

    ----- Forwarded Message ---From: "ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov" <ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov> To: CourtCopy@mad.uscourts.gov Sent: Tue, February 15, 2011 12:32:33 PM Subject: Activity in Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Scheduling Conference

    This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 2/15/2011 at 12:32 PM EST and filed on 2/14/2011 McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Name: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Case Number: Filer: Document Number: No document attached

    Docket Text: ELECTRONIC Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: Scheduling Conference held on 2/14/2011; The Plaintiff appears by phone; Atty Tully; Court goes over the status of the case with the parties; Court addresses the importance of court procedures and compliance with court orders; Court goes over the discovery issues and schedule in the case; The court makes the following Orders; (1)The plaintiff is to comply with all orders of the court (2)The plaintiff will be allowed to file only one document limited to 1 page, with a list naming all persons plaintiff wishes to depose, Where they live and or work; Deft is allowed up to but no more than 4 sentences as to why their testimony/deposition is needed; Court orders this filed by 3/1/11; defense counsel will file their list on 3/4/11; (Court Reporter: Digital Recording.)(Attorneys present: Plaintiff McGarry; Atty Tully) (Simeone, Maria)

    1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice has been electronically mailed to: Guy P. Tully tullyg@jacksonlewis.com, BostonDocketing@JacksonLewis.com, gurleym@jacksonlewis.com Brian M. Childs brian.childs@jacksonlewis.com, bostondocketing@jacksonlewis.com, michelle.nevens@jacksonlewis.com Laura J. McGarry late_linda@yahoo.com 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice will not be electronically mailed to:

    ----- Forwarded Message ---From: "ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov" <ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov> To: CourtCopy@mad.uscourts.gov Sent: Wed, March 2, 2011 4:14:28 PM Subject: Activity in Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Order on Motion to Disqualify Judge

    This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 3/2/2011 at 4:14 PM EST and filed on 3/2/2011 McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Name: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Case Number: Filer: Document Number: No document attached

    Docket Text: Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying [69] Motion to Disqualify Judge; The Motion to Disqualify is DENIED. (Simeone, Maria)

    1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice has been electronically mailed to: Guy P. Tully tullyg@jacksonlewis.com, BostonDocketing@JacksonLewis.com, gurleym@jacksonlewis.com Brian M. Childs brian.childs@jacksonlewis.com, bostondocketing@jacksonlewis.com, michelle.nevens@jacksonlewis.com Laura J. McGarry late_linda@yahoo.com

    1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice will not be electronically mailed to:

    ----- Forwarded Message ---From: "ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov" <ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov> To: CourtCopy@mad.uscourts.gov Sent: Thu, March 3, 2011 2:33:16 PM Subject: Activity in Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Order on Motion to Vacate

    This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 3/3/2011 at 2:33 PM EST and filed on 3/3/2011 McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Name: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Case Number: Filer: Document Number: No document attached

    Docket Text: Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying [70] Motion to Vacate; This Motion is DENIED. The Court cautions Plaintiff that she has been ordered not to file any documents with the Court without prior permission of the Court. (Simeone, Maria)

    1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice has been electronically mailed to: Guy P. Tully tullyg@jacksonlewis.com, BostonDocketing@JacksonLewis.com, gurleym@jacksonlewis.com Brian M. Childs brian.childs@jacksonlewis.com, bostondocketing@jacksonlewis.com, michelle.nevens@jacksonlewis.com

    Laura J. McGarry late_linda@yahoo.com 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice will not be electronically mailed to:

    ----- Forwarded Message ---From: "ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov" <ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov> To: CourtCopy@mad.uscourts.gov Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 4:28:37 PM Subject: Activity in Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Order on Motion to Stay

    This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** There is no charge for viewing opinions. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 3/7/2011 at 4:28 PM EST and filed on 3/7/2011 McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Name: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Case Number: Filer: Document Number: 75

    Docket Text: 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 Orders (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)

    1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice has been electronically mailed to: Guy P. Tully tullyg@jacksonlewis.com, BostonDocketing@JacksonLewis.com, gurleym@jacksonlewis.com

    Brian M. Childs brian.childs@jacksonlewis.com, bostondocketing@jacksonlewis.com, michelle.nevens@jacksonlewis.com Laura J. McGarry late_linda@yahoo.com 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice will not be electronically mailed to: The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:yes Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1029851931 [Date=3/7/2011] [FileNumber=3764913-0] [0d48b55ccf5a64e57d62323b1fdbfaaef56b0a14b21e4c79138067afc4ee8109f8ad e0dbf2bcd0a12309d728fbd0904ae6a3210b68a35eb89211b82718a3c5d1]]

    ----- Forwarded Message ---From: "ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov" <ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov> To: CourtCopy@mad.uscourts.gov Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 3:46:43 PM Subject: Activity in Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Report and Recommendations

    This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 3/23/2011 at 3:46 PM EDT and filed on 3/23/2011 McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Name: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Case Number: 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)

    1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice has been electronically mailed to: Guy P. Tully tullyg@jacksonlewis.com, BostonDocketing@JacksonLewis.com, gurleym@jacksonlewis.com Brian M. Childs brian.childs@jacksonlewis.com, bostondocketing@jacksonlewis.com, michelle.nevens@jacksonlewis.com Laura J. McGarry late_linda@yahoo.com 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice will not be electronically mailed to: The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:yes Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1029851931 [Date=3/23/2011] [FileNumber=3790571-0 ] [86dd3b49170a8da98be365865be4728faf03c5ea15cdbb9574d47886c84346389b7 8c3f5bdc20bf95f5d99637cdf32b8a492cfc56522cdfb1d66c55c0502de9a]]

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 1 of 20

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ATTACHMENT 81 _______________________________ ) LAURA J. MCGARRY, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) GERIATRIC FACILITIES ) Of CAPE COD INC., et al ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________)

    Article III Judicial Notice Requested


    OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOROKINS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Dkt.# 80 REGARDING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT Dkt. #71

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 10 CA 11343 GAO

    Laura J. McGarry, the Plaintiff in this action, hereby OBJECTS (Dkt. #81) to the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Dkt. #80) filed by Magistrate Judge Sorokin regarding the Defendants, Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc., et al, Motion for Contempt(Dkt. #71) against this Plaintiff. Plaintiffs OPPOSITION Dkt. #78 to the contempt clearly stated that she be allowed a hearing before US District Judge after fact finding by any Judge other than Judge Sorokin and her right to appeal the results of CERTIFIED facts before they are presented to a US District Judge. This OBJECTION is based on the violation of multiple statutory provisions including Magistrate Judge Sorokins lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and intentional violation of this Plaintiffs Constitutional Rights. This Plaintiff was never provided with the COURT'S GENERAL ORDER (10-1) or form for designating the parties' consent or refusal to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction upon her filing of this civil action. This Plaintiff has never consented to the Magistrate's jurisdiction and strongly objected to the sudden reference when on January 28, 2011 PSSA Morse wrote the order for reference (Dkt. #57) in her fit of usurpation as she

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 2 of 20

    "RULED" on Plaintiffs Motion (Dkt. #51) for injunctive relief of which she was the subject; multiple indicators that this PSSA was in collusion with the Defense Counsel with an ongoing concerted effort to deprive this Plaintiff access to the court and a fair litigation process that played by the rules triggered said motion. Then on January 30, 2011 Plaintiff filed a Motion (Dkt. # 58) CONTEMPT-PSSA & Defense Counsel demanding that the case go immediately before the US District Judge. The reference was forced over Plaintiff's objection. Magistrate Judge Sorokin is the undersigned on the February 1, 2011 ORDERS (Dkt. #61) [Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any further pleadings or documents in this action until directed to do so by a judicial officer.] Magistrate Judge Sorokin stated he approved of Dkt. #61 and accepted the draft be undersigned in his name; Magistrate Judge Sorokin is under no constitutional authority to make a ruling regarding contempt. Plaintiff, under duress and fearful that if she did not attend that her case would be illegally dismissed, attended a February 14, 2011 Scheduling Conference. The order was verbally reinforced by Magistrate Judge Sorokin at a February 14, 2011 scheduling conference that this Plaintiff attended by phone from Washington State and Plaintiffs son, who lives in Massachusetts, was physically present in the court room. This Plaintiff asked Magistrate Judge Sorokin directly during this conference if she could file to appeal his orders to the US District Judge OToole and request, also, reconsideration of orders administered under usurpation (Dkt. #53 and Dkt. #57). Plaintiff was told directly by Magistrate Judge Sorokin that she could not appeal his orders to the US District Judge or request reconsideration of the orders on Dkt. #53 & # 57. Plaintiff asked, Then what am I suppose to do? and Magistrate Judge Sorokins response was get a lawyer. Plaintiff is a pro se in forma pauperis disabled litigant who lives on SSDI. These orders were also reinforced

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 3 of 20

    on February 15, 2011 ORDERS [(Dkt. #67 & #68) same document docketed twice on the ECF System and also sent to this Plaintiff via US Mail] The Plaintiff shall not make any filings with this Court without the prior approval of a District or Magistrate Judge. Magistrate Judge Sorokin assumed assignment of this action knowing full well that he had no jurisdiction and ignored documented objections to the order of reference noted on January 30, 2011 with (Dkt. # 58) Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt PSSA & Defense Counsel which was captioned CASE MANAGEMENT BY ARTICLE III JUDGE and the relief requested in Dkt.#58 *(1) Immediately put this action before Judge OToole+ Plaintiff also sent an email to Judge OTooles Docket Clerk on January 31, 2011 when in spite of the caption and relief requested in Dkt.#58 he electronically entered the reference from the January 28, 2011 order (Dkt. #57) onto the docket and then ignored this Plaintiffs email to remove the reference from the docket (see Dkt. #64 exhibit 2---email to the docket clerk is at the end of exhibit)). See (attachment 1) to this document for an excerpt of rules. Dkt. #58 was followed by (Dkt. #59) Plaintiffs Letter to the Clerk of the Court and then the electronic order of reference was entered on the Docket; the docket at Document 58 above the electronic reference order and Dkt. #59 shows text stating; 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 monthsrequesting immediate relief and case management by Article III Judge--O'Toole. Entered: 1/31/2011 10:43:19 Filed: 01/28/2011 Judge George A. O'Toole, 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. The order for Plaintiffs Contempt Motion (Dkt. # 58) was purposefully entered incorrectly on the docket and does not specify FACT FINDING or Report and Recommendations (rr).

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 4 of 20

    The PSSA RULED on Plaintiffs Contempt Motion see DKT. # 61 and noted the undersigned as Magistrate Judge Sorokin. The memorandum includes [The Court will not require Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs most recent motion, which is denied.] There was no notation anywhere in Dkt.# 61 informing this Plaintiff of her right to object A pro se staff attorney and a Magistrate Judge do not have the authority to RULE on a motion of contempt, excuse the parties allegedly in contempt from submitting oppositions to the contempt motion or distribute orders in regards to the contempt motion (Dkt. #61). Therefore the order is not only invalid it is void, not voidable, but simply void and there is no order that restricts this Plaintiffs filing with the court. Federal magistrate judges are creatures of statute, and so is their jurisdiction. Unlike district judges, they are not Article III judicial officers, and they have only the jurisdiction or authority granted to them by Congress, which is set out in 28 U.S.C. 636. As applicable here where the parties did not consent to proceeding before the magistrate judge, see 636(c)(1), the district court may designate a magistrate judge to consider various matters. See 636(b). These matters are generally categorized as `dispositive' or `non-dispositive,' and a magistrate judge's authority with respect to each category is different: Magistrates may issue orders as to nondispositive pretrial matters, and district courts review such orders under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard of review. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). While magistrates may hear dispositive motions, they may only make proposed findings of fact and recommendations, and district courts must make de novo determinations as to those matters if a party objects to the magistrate's recommendations. Id. 636(b)(1)(B), (C). First Union Mortgage Corp., v. Smith, 229 F.3d 992, 995 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal citations, quotations, and brackets omitted). We need not decide whether there was a proper reference to the magistrate judge under 636(b) and the District of Colorado local rules because even if there was, the magistrate judge had no authority to enter a final order on the matter at issue here. Jonathan Guy, Et. Al. V. William T. Beierwaltes And Lynda L. Beierwaltes, United States Court Of Appeals Tenth Circuit (2006). United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 923 F.2d 7 Decided Jan. 14, 1991 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction over appeals "from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." As the Third Circuit has said: "To be a 'final' order of the district court within the meaning of section 1291, the magistrate's decision must have been reviewed by the district court, which retains ultimate decision-making power." Siers v. Morrash, 700 F.2d 113, 115 (3d Cir.1983), and cases cited therein. See also Horton v. State Street Bank & Trust Company, 590 F.2d 403, 404 (1st Cir.1979). Save for a specific statutory exception, this rule is iron-clad: a magistrate's order is not a 'final' order which can be reviewed directly by a court of appeals. The reasons for the rule are salutary: "[N]ot only will review at the district court level save parties the expense and difficulty of appeal, but it will also give the appellate court the benefit of the district court's reasoned consideration." Sick v. Buffalo, 574 F.2d 689, 693 (2d Cir.1978).

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 5 of 20

    The Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636, "details magistrates' functions regarding pretrial and post-trial matters, specifying two levels of review depending on the scope and significance of the magistrate's decision." Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 109 S.Ct. 2237, 2245, 104 L.Ed.2d 923 (1989). We have designated the two categories of magistrates' orders as "self-operating" and "non-self-operating." United States v. Flaherty, 668 F.2d 566, 585 (1st Cir.1981). "Self-operating" orders, which cover most pretrial and discovery matters, are valid when made and can be "appealed" by a motion for reconsideration directed to the district court. See Sec. 636(b)(1)(A); Local Magistrates Rule 2(b). The "non-self-operating" orders are specified in section 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), see also Local Magistrates Rule 3; they are not valid until after the district court accepts the magistrate's report and recommendation and enters an order or judgment. United States v. Flaherty, 668 F.2d at 585. In a civil contempt proceeding, the party seeking an order of contempt need only establish (1) that a court order was in effect, and (2) that the order required certain conduct by the respondent, and (3) that the respondent failed to comply with the court's order. Martin v. Trinity Industries, Inc., 959 F.2d 45, 47 (5th Cir.1992). Defendants fail because there are no legitimate orders any orders that Defendants allege this Plaintiff has disobeyed are the result of unquestionable usurpation of which Defense Counsel is fully aware. This Plaintiffs Constitutional Rights have been deprived by a concerted effort as she has been constantly intimidated with threats of sanctions and complaint dismissal by people who exercise power they do not legally possess while intentionally depriving a citizen of these United States her Constitutional Rights as they ignored Supreme Court Law, First Circuit authority and authorities established in this very court; Defendants with multiple instances of documented fraud in the record remain untouchable which has only validated this Plaintiffs allegations of collusion. Further each and every filing this Plaintiff has made with the court since the void orders that restricted her filing has been to assert deprivation of her Constitutional Rights and she has filed said documents in an effort to reach an honest authority to restore her Constitutional Rights. ["There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v Cullen, 481 F 946]

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 6 of 20

    Further the objections herein, particularly to Dkt. 80 where there is not only No Certification of facts but outside of the word facts in a couple of sentences that have been copied and pasted to the document from Dkt. # 57 the word fact is absent and the documented content of Dkt. # 80 by the Undersigned Magistrate Judge Sorokin consist of continued fabrication with intentional omission of the actual facts. Plaintiff specifically objected in her Opposition (Dkt. #78) to Magistrate Judge Sorokin submitting any report in regards to the Contempt Motion (Dkt. #71). Plaintiff captioned Hearing Requested yet there was no hearing. Where a magistrate judge believes that a person has committed contemptible behavior, 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. 28 U.S.C. 636(e)(6)(B)(iii); Ivie, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13592 at *4 - *5. Section 636(e) requires the district judge to conduct a de novo hearing. Taberer v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 954 F.2d 888, 904 (3rd Cir. 1992) See also Bingman v. Ward, 100 F.3d 653, 657 (9th Cir. 1996)(Federal magistrates have no power of contempt themselves but must certify the facts to a judge of the district court.). REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT This plaintiff demands a hearing before a US District Judge to not only show cause as to why she should not be adjudged in contempt by the reason of the facts but to show cause as to why the Dkt. # 58 Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt remains valid. The Magistrates Report is contrary to multiple laws and should be rejected. Due process may require a district court to hold a hearing, and allow relevant discovery, on civil contempt sanctions where there are disputed issues of material fact. See Tranzact Techs., Inc. v. 1Source Worldsite, 406 F.3d 851, 855 (7th Cir. 2005) (Due process requires a district court to resolve relevant factual disputes allowing discovery and holding an evidentiary hearing if necessary in a civil contempt proceeding.); Ayres, 166 F.3d at 996; N.L.R.B. v. Cincinnati Bronze, Inc., 829 F.2d 585, 589 (6th Cir. 1987). The Court need only permit discovery and conduct a hearing where such procedures are necessary to resolve relevant factual disputes. Tranzact Techs., 406 F.3d at 855.

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 7 of 20

    On March 2, 2011 Magistrate Judge Sorokin DENIED with docket text Plaintiffs February 23, 2011 Motion (Dkt. # 69) IMMEDIATE REASSIGNMENT TO A DIFFERENT US DISTRICT COURT JUDGE AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE and terminated the motion on the docket yet no response had come from Judge OToole to the (Dkt. #69) motion. Plaintiff also Moved (Dkt. #70) on February 23, 2011 to vacate void orders and captioned this Motion please address immediately UPON REASSIGNMENT OF A NEW US DISTRICT JUDGE; On March 3, 2011 Judge Sorokin DENIED Dkt. #70 with Docket Text [Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 70 Motion to Vacate; This Motion is DENIED. The Court cautions Plaintiff that she has been ordered not to file any documents with the Court without prior permission of the Court] and terminated the motion on the Docket. Magistrate Judge Sorokin had no authority to deny the Motion (Dkt. # 70) Vacate Void Orders or administer orders to that motion; even if the specific request in the caption had not been noted his authority to address this motion did not extend beyond fact finding with a report and recommendations 925 F.2d 853 (5th Cir. 1991) footnote 5. First this case was under the total control of PSSA Morse and there remains a strong appearance that the Honorable Judge George A. OToole has no idea that this action exist. When motions were filed by this Plaintiff to set this action back on a legal tract Judge Sorokin was engaged by the PSSA and he is now, in effect, holding this case hostage with no Article III oversight and continued blocking of this Plaintiff to Article III access. Docket entry 8/10/2010 *Case Assignment. Judge George A. OToole, Jr. assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin.] yet PSSA Morse freely ignored this instruction as she without Judicial oversight Ruled (Dkt. #53) on 1/20/2010 on six

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 8 of 20

    outstanding motions and the associated oppositions and manipulated the file date back to 1/19/2011. Morse actually filed her Document #53 on 1/20/2011 at 12:01:25 PM. The properties of Dkt. # 53 are as follows: [Title: Q:\Morse\2010 cases\10cv11343-GAO (Mcgarry, Laura)\10cv11343 Order denying pending motions for sanctions to strike.wpd Author: Morse Created: 1/20/2011 11:41:26 AM]. Morse took action on 1/20/2011 on motions that had been left lingering after she read Plaintiffs Injunctive Relief Motion Dkt. #51 filed 1/19/2011 at 17:37:42 PM that was pled with particularity; this Motion alleged collusion between Morse and Defense Counsel and requested that Morse be enjoined from duty on this case and communicating with Defense Counsel. Plaintiffs Motions from 10/25/2010 (Dkt. #27) to Disqualify Defense Counsel (Emergency Motion) and (Dkt. #28) Strike Defendants Affirmative Defenses were DENIED. Defendants Motions from 11/5/2010 (Dkt. # 37) to Strike Plaintiffs Response to the Defendants Answer and (Dkt.# 39) to Strike Plaintiffs Complaint Amendment were ALLOWED. Plaintiffs Motion from 11/11/2010 (Dkt. #43) for Default Judgment that included a second emergency request to disqualify defense counsel with a description of deliberate planned fraud upon the court was DENIED. Plaintiffs 11/29/2010 (Dkt. #46)Motion for well deserved Sanctions was DENIED. Captions on Plaintiffs Motions that included Judicial Review and Judicial Notice were ignored. Supreme Court law, First Circuit authorities and all supporting authorities cited in Plaintiffs Motions and Oppositions were ignored. Plaintiffs opposition (Dkt. # 42) which clearly indicated absolutely no amendments to the Complaint were made after service of process to any Defendant and that significant harassment was directed at this Plaintiff by Defense Counsel regarding her Complaint Amendment and additional Count X against Defendant Mikita was ignored. Defense Counsel relentlessly insisted that Rule 15

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 9 of 20

    regarding Complaint Amendments indicated that as a matter of course included the time since the Complaint was filed even after citing authority in both their Motions that thoroughly discussed rule 15 before and after the 2009 amendment yet Defense Counsel submitted their frivolous motion to strike knowing very well the language of the rule was after service. Plaintiffs Complaint Amendment was stricken and the relief requested which was a default judgment was ignored. Morses documentation: *motion (No. 39) to strike plaintiffs attempt to file an amendment to her complaint without leave of court To the extent defendants seek to strike plaintiffs response to the answer as well as plaintiffs attempt to file two amendments to her complaint, such requests are granted. McGarrys pro se status doesn't insulate her from complying with substantive and procedural law.+ The Answer (Dkt. #21) in footnote 1 Defendants indicated Plaintiffs amendments had occurred since service of process to Defendant Mikita; they chose to purposely misstate the rule in their Motion to achieve striking the amendment. Defendants referred to Appeals Court authority in Plaintiffs motion addendum (Dkt. #32) in a footnote (Dkt. # 37) [This motion addendum is of no momentit offers no legal basis whatever to support the Responseand should by no means affect the striking of Plaintiffs Response+ absolutely no professional argument with only used to embellish rule and erroneous authority to support their frivolous motion to strike. Defense Counsel halted a conference after this Plaintiff cited the authority she would use to support her document and promptly filed a motion to strike. Plaintiffs Opposition (Dkt. #41) where Plaintiff reinforced the Appeals Court authority as well as Rule 9 in support of the Response was ignored. Complaint exhibits that offered evidentiary support to allegations were ignored. The actual language of the FRCP was ignored as outright intentional violation of the FRCP by Defense Counsel was more than evident. The violation by Defense Counsel of the Courts local rules was ignored which started with RULE 83.5.2 APPEARANCES. Evidentiary

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 10 of 20

    support that this law firm violated the Model Rules of Professional Conduct during a federal agency investigation with continued and additional violations of these rules as they initiated their defense with this court was ignored; more than apparent inappropriate litigation tactics were ignored as they carried a known fraudulent defense to the court with unsupported denials and outright false statements in their Answer to a 41 page Complaint pled with particularity supported by 47 exhibits. The Addamax case Defendants cite in their Opposition (Dkt. #35) does not support their fabricated innocent position. Prompt disqualification would have not only been prudent to ensure a fair litigation process but would have significantly cut the time this case remained in court. Ignoring Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify Defense Counsel and allowing them to proceed on erroneous authority is why we are now at this point in which a stain has been casted on the court and reputations of court staff. They are unethical attorneys who freely break the law and are an embarrassment to anyone who legitimately practices law; any a US District Judge would agree which is why they created this sham of pretense litigation and engaged court staff to assist them in avoiding Article III oversight. The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). Courts will reconsider an issue only when there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, when new evidence has become available, or when there is a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. NL Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 65 F.3d 314, 324 n. 8 (3d Cir. 1995); Smith v. City of Chester, 155 F.R.D. 95, 96-97 (E.D. Pa. 1994). While broad, the trial court's discretion is not unlimited. The [trial] judge must consider the proper mix of factors and juxtapose them reasonably. "Abuse occurs when a material factor deserving significant weight is ignored, when an improper factor is relied upon, or when all proper and no improper factors are assessed, but the court makes a serious mistake in weighing them." Independent Oil and Chemical Workers of Quincy, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 927, 929 (1st Cir. 1988); see also Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 862 F.2d 910, 923

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 11 of 20

    (1st Cir. 1988) (to warrant reversal for abuse of discretion, it must "plainly appear[] that the court below committed a meaningful error in judgment"). Morse promptly sabotaged Plaintiffs prosecution of her action and projected inappropriate litigation practices by the Defense Counsel onto this Plaintiff in her memorandum. Alleging dishonesty when the evidence shows dishonesty is not a personal insult; it is fair comment. Alleging fraud when there is evidence of fraud is fair comment. Count IX of this action is conspiracy and the fraud and dishonesty that is stated in the allegations of the Complaint are supported by exhibits and pleadings of particularity; the conspiracy started in the work environment and it was carried through and post the EEOC investigation and now it has infected this Court; these defense attorneys with their known tactics were hired by the Defendants who were fully aware that there was sufficient incriminating evidence to pursue a discrimination charge against them. The unprofessional, unethical and illegal actions of the Defense Counsel are imputed to these Defendants. One does not bring suit because of anothers appropriate behavior; fair comment to documented behavior is allowed. In order to be fair, it must be shown that the facts upon which the comment is based are truly stated and that the comment is an honest expression of the publishers opinion relating to those facts. Where a comment imputes evil, base or corrupt motives to a person, it must be shown that such imputations are warranted by, and could reasonably be drawn from those facts. Plaintiff through her pleadings to this court in response to the frivolous pleadings by the Defendants has more than met the criteria required to make her fair comments. Defendants have offered no defense beyond trickery, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation because they have brought a meritless defense to this court. Their only hope is Complaint dismissal which they are attempting to achieve through the fairy tale memorandums written by Morse that are now

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 12 of 20

    being approved by a Judicial Officer who is without legal jurisdiction of this action; this can be construed as nothing less than active assistance in continued usurpation, blocking of Article III Judicial authority and collusion. Excerpts from Dkt. #53 follow: *From her numerous motions and communications to the court, it is clear that McGarry is dissatisfied with the way her employment discrimination case is proceeding. Plaintiffs pleadings, in conjunction with her communications to the Court, reveal a heightened level of suspicion and hostility directed not only toward defense counsel, but to the defendants as well as employees of the court. Because the level of suspicion and hostility is continuing, if not escalating, the Court will take the opportunity to advise McGarry that her pro se status cannot shield her from the consequences of frivolous litigation practices. The Court notes that, in virtually every pleading filed by McGarry, she consistently makes a variety of personal insults directed to the defendants and their counsel, to the point of harassment. In each of the pending motions, McGarry accuses defense counsel of committing fraud. She has also speculated that court staff are colluding with defense counsel to thwart her case.+ Morse then utilizes Dkt. #53 to spin a tale of how this Plaintiffs was concerned because her Ex Parte Motion appeared on the ECF System and that the ECF System may have been compromised. The reality is that this Plaintiff noted on December 31, 2010 that the scanned PDFs Defense Counsel entered into the ECF System on November 5, 2010 had been changed to word processed PDFs. It was also noted by this Plaintiff that her case was randomly entered by a Docket Clerk on December 3, 2010 with modifications noted in the docket text on two previous docket dates; the stated modifications were just that, only stated, and not taken because this Plaintiff had already taken the stated actions when she filed on the given dates. Plaintiff filed her Motion Dkt. 46 for SANCTIONS on November 29, 2010 which is hereby incorporated herein. Defense Counsel had initially entered the PDFs scanned to make authority search more daunting since they only used erroneous authorities that offered zero legal support in regards to their frivolous oppositions and motions. The scanned documents were also helpful to Defense Counsel since they chose sneak adverse authority into a footnote with a

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 13 of 20

    misspelled party and changed lexis number where no hyperlink could be established. Morse freely allowed these unprofessional tactics over justice as she Ruled on those six motions on January 20, 2011 with memorandum that set the stage for the next step in their scheme. Plaintiffs Numerous motions began with two well supported motions that were followed by the Defendants frivolous motions and oppositions which, at minimum, contained unprofessional litigation tactics and advanced to outright acts of fraud; the noted aforementioned required further movement by this Plaintiff. This Plaintiff has not found any case in this court on any docket that has a motion for default judgment that has lingered for three months. The time motions lingered allowed for further fraud that required further movement by this Plaintiff and she filed Dkt. #51 & #52. The Defendants then file their oppositions Dkt. #55 & #56 on 1/21/2011 to Plaintiff's Motion Dkt. #51 to enjoin Morse and third EMERGENCY Motion #52 to Disqualify Defense Counsel. Both Dkt. #51 & #52 are hereby incorporated by reference herein. ["...the document in fact contains many false statements and scurrilous accusations against Defendants and their counsel, in addition to containing many similar allegations against Court personne"..."Instead, unless deterred, she will persist in personal attacks against Defendants, their counsel, and Court personnel, all the while driving up defense costs."] ["Defendants oppose the Motion on the ground that Plaintiff has not identified any factual or legal basis in support of it. Defendants also rely on their oppositions to Plaintiffs prior motions to disqualify their counsel. See Doc. Nos. 35 and 47. Further still, Defendants contend that the Motion is mooted by this Courts order of January 20, 2011 (the January 20 Order). See Doc. No. 53."] The Defendants raise the issues of Dkt. #53 again in their memorandum to support their motion for contempt against this Plaintiff Dkt. #72. ["After the entry of the January 19 Order, Defendants requested that Plaintiff withdraw her disqualification motion and the motion to enjoin the PSSA, a request that this Court later acknowledged flowed necessarily from the Courts January 19 Order.'+

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 14 of 20

    There seems to be some difficulty on Defense Counsels end in getting the January date consistent. Plaintiff assures the court January 20, 2011 was the filing Date of Dkt. #53 and that Dkt #53 was an antagonistic filing that lacked fact, law and rule and was a panic response because of Plaintiffs allegations of Dkt. # 51 and #52 filed on January 19, 2011. The concerted effort to stall the case now required a concerted effort to deprive this Plaintiff of her Constitutional Right to Article III adjudication to ensure that no US District Judge would see the supported allegations of Dkt. #51 & #52. After a reasonable delay on January 28, 2010 Morse then Ruled (Dkt. # 57) on the Plaintiff Motions #48, #51 & #52; Morse constructed this document to look more like one written by Judge OToole as she Ruled on an injunctive motion of which she was the subject of relief. She was not successful on several levels but the one level that stood out the most is that no competent honest US District Court Judge was going to order a litigant to relinquish her Constitutional Right. *On January 19, 2011, this Court issued a Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 53) that, among other things, denied Plaintiff's two motions to disqualify defense counsel. As aptly noted in Defendants opposition to Plaintiff's third attempt to disqualify Jackson Lewis' as defense counsel, such request is essentially mooted by this Courts order denying Plaintiffs first two attempts to disqualify counsel. See 1/19/11 Order, Docket No. 43.+ *In the alleged conspiracy scheme, the undersigned is initially described as being fooled; first by defense counsel, and subsequently by the PSSA.+ Plaintiff has searched and searched and she does not see the word fooled in any of her documentation. *Rather than litigate her case, and not content to repeat her baseless allegations solely against defense counsel, Plaintiff has taken the occasion of her most recent filings to make an unwarranted, immaterial and unfair attack on the professional character of one of the Courts Pro Se Staff Attorneys, Barbara Morse. Needless to say, the record does not reflect any such conduct by Ms. Morse. Although McGarry believes that she has discovered a smoking gun by way of computer data, it reveals nothing more than the internal clerical and docketing system of the court.+

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 15 of 20

    Morse has moved on from her previous fairy tale that Plaintiffs concern over compromise to the ECF System was related to her Ex Parte Motion showing in the ECF system and makes a light touch regarding the docketing system. *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; ORDERED, Plaintiffs 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.+ Plaintiff has research her documentation and no threats or warnings have ever been expressed in her filings to this court. Apparently Plaintiffs fair comment is perceived as intimidating and harassing; however, it is, in fact, merely fair comment. 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, OToole. 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

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 16 of 20

    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, 10721074 (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 PDFs were switched with word processed PDFs 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. Plaintiff found the continued usurpation beyond prejudice and that the multiple improprieties of this action required the immediate attention of a US District Judge; referencing the case to the Magistrate Judge where absolutely no consent had ever been given, continued projection of inappropriate behavior, orders that Plaintiff relinquish her Constitutional Rights, and the clear sabotage of Plaintiffs action required an immediate motion for contempt. Motion for Contempt against PSSA Morse and Defense Counsel (Dkt. # 58) hereby incorporated by reference herein and the Motion still requires a legitimate ruling. 28 U.S.C. 1927 Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 17 of 20

    Chambers v. Nasco, 501 U.S. 32, 35 (1991) (upholding sanction of district court made pursuant to inherent powers where defendants had practiced a fraud upon the court and used tactics of delay, oppression and harassment). Memorandum from this court thus far threatens, intimidates and oppresses this Plaintiff in a concerted effort to deprive her of her Constitutional Rights and access to the court. There can be no contemptuous behavior in a court by a party when the party has been intentionally deprived of establishing legitimate access to the court; it is these Defendants and their Counsel who are in contempt of this court and more than deserving of strong sanctions not this pro se in forma pauperis disabled litigant. This Plaintiff is being railroaded by court staff and Defense Counsel with their perceived power, illegal collusion, fabricated documentation and ability to write whatever they want in court documents regardless of truth. Certainly the maneuver of posting a decision regarding alleged contempt signed by the Magistrate Judge with absolutely no US District Judge involvement in violation of Constitutional provisions is proof enough that there has been usurpation with a deliberate effort to keep this case from the view of a US District Judge (justia.com). If by the slim chance a US District Judge is actually reading this document this Plaintiff is pleased to meet you; however, knowing that Dkt # 80 never came from an original US District Judge order that would have requested a certification of the facts along with a report and recommendations she doubts a notation of a pending (rr) regarding this contempt is noted on any US Districts Judges Docket or that a US District Judge is aware that a pending contempt motion exist; Plaintiff fears usurpation will continue. Plaintiff has had her rights deprived by a concerted effort where people ignored law, purposely strayed from established court process, violated local rule, and have made patently dishonest statements both verbally and in writing and she has suffered unnecessary stress that has exacerbated her

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 18 of 20

    disabilities. These people have made a mockery of court process and have shamed the concept of public service. *The Court finds that defendants are prejudiced in having to respond to the vexatious allegations made in McGarrys motions. The Defense Counsel commented, see Docket No. 44, that they should be spared the continued burden of footing bills for contesting such motions from plaintiff.+ The first time the Defense Counsel became concerned regarding the Defendants bill was when this Plaintiff motioned for sanctions (Dkt. #46) and they have now expressed concern for their clients financial status in every document they have filed since Plaintiff described and attached the antagonistic letter she received from their partner last July (Dkt. #52). July 19, 2010 Plaintiff sent Defendants and Patrick Egan of Jackson Lewis a letter to compromise. Plaintiff closed this letter to Defendants and Egan with *A current situation has me out of state and I have no personal phone number at this time.+ Egan returned correspondence to the address of Plaintiffs daughter stating *"Pleasant Bay took no discriminatory action toward you, and your employment ended when you voluntarily resigned to relocate to the State of Washington (Dkt. #52 exhibit 1). Egan's language was taunting this Plaintiff into litigation as he knew very well that this Plaintiff had not moved out of Massachusetts after she was constructively discharged from Pleasant Bay. In March of 2010 from a hotel in Florida Egan returned a call to this Plaintiff; he quite obviously dialed a Massachusetts area code to reach Plaintiff's Dedham home. Plaintiff was fed up with the retaliation and the conversation grew heated as Plaintiff admonished him for the Defendants' patently false statements and deceptive tactics during the EEOC investigation. Plaintiff alleged that he and the Defendants had violated Title 18 sec. 1001 and that is why he hand delivered the position statement to the EEOC. The only reference the Defendants make to attachment one of their position statement

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 19 of 20

    was in-- footnote one of page one-- and this addresses Plaintiffs referral source to Pleasant Bay which was irrelevant to the investigation. Nowhere in the position statement do the Defendants state see attachment one to verify their position that Plaintiff only wanted part time work. Nor do the Defendants make reference to Position Statement attachment one directing the EEOC to view Plaintiffs work history in support of their position regarding Plaintiff's lack of qualifications. The aforementioned neglected directives would have pointed out their false statements. Egan mailed Defendants Position Statement to Plaintiff's Hyannis address in July of 2009. This Plaintiff did not relocate to Washington State until June of 2010. This Plaintiffs last day of work for the Defendants was September 30, 2008. This EEOC sham and this pretense litigation where these Defense Council continually violate Model Rules of Professional Conduct has gone on long enough. The Defense Counsels' behavior is imputed to the Defendants and this Plaintiff is requesting a Treble Default Judgment as allowed with Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U. S. C. 1961 et seq. violations. The ongoing conspiracy to oppress, intimidate and deprive this Plaintiff of her rights must now promptly cease. Each and every opposition and motion by the Defendants thru their defense counsel has been a vexatious defense with absolutely zero support thru fact, law, or rule in regards to the substance of their documents starting with the Answer. The conspiracy to violate this Plaintiffs rights started in the work environment resulting in a constructive discharge and continued through a federal agency investigation and now the court. These people with their pretence litigation can let motions linger for months and when pseudo court process begins Plaintiff is admonished for a late submission to the court; an explanation that her son was seriously ill and hospitalized was found to be an unacceptable excuse and the fact that Plaintiff

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 20 of 20

    sent an email on 2/28/2011 (attachment 2) to Judge Sorokins Clerk alerting her to the situation which received no response seems to missing from the record. Plaintiff in her exhausted state prepared and submitted the required document where all but two items were then stricken from the record. However, Plaintiffs Discovery request DKt. #76 had an attached a file and attachment 1 of Dkt. #76 which is hereby incorporated by reference herein; Defendants record a denial in their answer Complaint paragraph 189. The career destruction through retaliation, significant change in this Plaintiffs quality of life, and ongoing depression and anxiety that has contributed to Plaintiffs failing physical health that these people seem to get a charge out of exacerbating and then mocking in bogus court documents that are of public record is so below civility that this Plaintiff is at a loss for words. REQUEST FOR RELIEF For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff, Laura J. McGarry, respectfully request that the Court: (1)order a Default Judgment and allow this Plaintiff to amend count IX of the complaint to include RICO violations (2)order the relief as requested in all Documents Plaintiff has filed with this court (3) reassign Plaintiff a New US District Judge and initiate legitimate court process (4) enjoin Barbara Morse and Judge Sorokin from participation in this action (5) charge misconduct against Defense Counsel and their law firm (6) schedule a hearing for this Plaintiff before a US District Judge Respectfully submitted, /s/ Laura J. McGarry, Pro Se Dated: April 5, 2011 Laura J. McGarry, Pro Se 1717 Sheridan Road Apt. A- 50 Bremerton, WA 98310 360-551-6773 (daughters cell phone but she is 50 minutes away from me by car) late_linda@yahoo.com (best contact) CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE--inappropriate I hereby certify that this document has been filed through the ECF system and will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the notice of electronic filing (NEF) on April 5, 2011. /s/ Laura J. McGarry, Pro Se

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81-1

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 1 of 2

    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. U.S. Magistrate Rules for The District of Massachusetts 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 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. U.S. Magistrate Rules for The District of Massachusetts 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. U.S. Magistrate Rules for The District of Massachusetts Rule 16 CONTEMPT OF COURT

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81-1

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 2 of 2

    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. Sec. 636 (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. (4) Civil 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, and in any misdemeanor case proceeding before a magistrate judge under section 3401 of title 18, the magistrate judge may exercise the civil contempt authority of the district court. (6) Certification of other contempts to the district court. (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 appeal of any other order of contempt issued under this section shall be made to the district court. ELECTRONIC CASE FILING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES D. Electronic Filing 1. Electronic transmission of a document to the ECF system, together with the transmission of a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) from the court, constitutes filing of the document for all purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and constitutes entry of the document on the docket maintained by the Clerk pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.58, Fed.R.Civ.P.79 and Fed.R.Crim.P.55. 2. A document filed electronically shall be deemed filed at the time and date stated on the Notice of Electronic Filing received from the court. 4....A document shall not be considered filed until the System generates an NEF.

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81-2

    Filed 04/05/11 Page 1 of 1

    Mon, February 28, 2011 4:48:39 PM Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO stay on recent order
    From: Laura J. McGarry <late_linda@yahoo.com> Add to Contacts To: maria_simeone@mad.uscourts.gov

    Hi Maria,

    My last three days have been a nightmare. My son is very ill and in the hospital. I have literally slept maybe 2 hours and have been on the skype with doctors continuous since Saturday morning. I hope rule 60 provides a stay for the documents I am suppose to have done and filed by tommorrow while I await recusal, reassignment, and the motion to vacate orders ruling. I just can't do them right now. My mind is focused on only Paul. I think I am now a social experment, that I did not volunteer for, to see just how much stress one can handle before they drop dead. Sorry, Laura J. McGarry Please let me know!!

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 85 (Ex Parte)

    Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 6

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 85 (Ex Parte)

    Filed 06/21/11 Page 2 of 6

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 85 (Ex Parte)

    Filed 06/21/11 Page 3 of 6

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 85 (Ex Parte)

    Filed 06/21/11 Page 4 of 6

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 85 (Ex Parte)

    Filed 06/21/11 Page 5 of 6

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 85 (Ex Parte)

    Filed 06/21/11 Page 6 of 6

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 85-1 (Ex Parte)

    Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 2

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 85-1 (Ex Parte)

    Filed 06/21/11 Page 2 of 2

    ----- Forwarded Message ----From: "ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov" <ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov> To: CourtCopy@mad.uscourts.gov Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:13 PM Subject: Activity in Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Motion for Contempt

    This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 6/21/2011 at 4:13 PM EDT and filed on 6/21/2011 McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Name: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Case Number: Laura J. McGarry Filer: Document Number: 85 Docket Text: MOTION for Contempt by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit)(Danieli, Chris) 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice has been electronically mailed to: Laura J. McGarry late_linda@yahoo.com1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice will not be electronically mailed to: The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:yes Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1029851931 [Date=6/21/2011] [FileNumber=3927485-0 ] [ccd7b63fe0f908bc89dafc1ecb34b1f5bd4e9011dee90d92f50e5af773dce4b9e28 342aee8cbed9d49d80b52045733ff7282b28246c465946b3d27a37b67f77f]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:yes Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1029851931 [Date=6/21/2011] [FileNumber=3927485-1 ] [71d66b10412e36b28c81eb416f8008d0553f89adcb3d4834f8db8b1113eec3a95c6 96938bb367587a1821701cf121ec1ec8ad4dacfa6066ae20b253a3e4c8906]]

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 86

    Filed 06/28/11 Page 1 of 9

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 86

    Filed 06/28/11 Page 2 of 9

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 86

    Filed 06/28/11 Page 3 of 9

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 86

    Filed 06/28/11 Page 4 of 9

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 86

    Filed 06/28/11 Page 5 of 9

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 86

    Filed 06/28/11 Page 6 of 9

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 86

    Filed 06/28/11 Page 7 of 9

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 86

    Filed 06/28/11 Page 8 of 9

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 86

    Filed 06/28/11 Page 9 of 9

    Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 87

    Filed 06/28/11 Page 1 of 1

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Laura J. McGarry Plaintiff


    v.

    CIVIL ACTION NO.

    10-11343-GAO

    Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Joshua Zuckerman, Renee Mikita, and Roxanne Webster Defendant

    ORDER OF DISMISSAL OToole, D.J. In accordance with the Court's Order on Report and Recommendations dated June 28, 2011granting the Defendants Motion for Contempt (dkt. no. 71) it is hereby ORDERED that the above-entitled action be and is hereby is dismissed.

    By the Court,

    Dated:

    6/28/2011

    By

    /s/Christopher Danieli Deputy Clerk

    This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 6/28/2011 at 12:38 PM EDT and filed on 6/28/2011 McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Name: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Case Number: Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 06/28/2011 Document Number: No document attached Docket Text: Civil Case Terminated. (Danieli, Chris) 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice has been electronically mailed to: Guy P. Tully tullyg@jacksonlewis.com, BostonDocketing@JacksonLewis.com, gurleym@jacksonlewis.com Brian M. Childs brian.childs@jacksonlewis.com, bostondocketing@jacksonlewis.com, michelle.nevens@jacksonlewis.com Laura J. McGarry late_linda@yahoo.com 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice will not be electronically mailed to: _____________________________________________________________________________

    Civil Criminal Query Reports Utilities Search Logout

    Docket Activity Report


    United States District Court -- District of Massachusetts Report Filed Period: 8/2/2010 - 6/30/2011
    Case Number/Title 1:10-cv11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al
    CASE CLOSED on 06/28/2011

    Category/ Event Entered: Category: cmp 08/10/2010 Event: Complaint 09:15:17 Document: 1 Filed: 08/02/2010 Dates

    Docketed Notes by C. Gawlik Cause: Type: crt 42:1218(2) Americans with Disabilities Act NOS: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities Employment Office: Boston Presider: George A. OToole, Jr Referral: Leo T. Sorokin Jury demand: Plaintiff Case Flags:

    CASREF CLOSED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Gawlik, Cathy) Entered: Category: notice C. Gawlik 08/10/2010 Event: Notice of Case Assignment Type: crt 09:17:31 Filed: 08/02/2010 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge George A. OToole, Jr assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin. (Gawlik, Cathy) C. Gawlik Entered: Category: motion Type: crt 08/10/2010 Event: Proceed In Forma Pauperis 09:19:09 Document: 2 Filed: 08/02/2010 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Laura J. McGarry. (Gawlik, Cathy) C. Gawlik Entered: Category: motion Type: crt 08/10/2010 Event: Appoint Counsel 09:21:08 Document: 3 Filed: 08/02/2010 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Laura J. McGarry.(Gawlik, Cathy) C. Gawlik Entered: Category: motion Type: crt 08/10/2010 Event: Miscellaneous Relief 09:22:39 Document: 4 Filed: 08/02/2010 MOTION Electronic Filing by Laura J. McGarry.(Gawlik, Cathy) Entered: Category: utility C. Gawlik 08/10/2010 Event: Remark Type: crt 09:24:37 Filed: 08/02/2010 Exhibits to complaint NOT SCANNED (numerous) (Gawlik, Cathy) C. Gawlik Entered: Category: notice 08/10/2010 Event: Notice for Social Security and Type: crt

    yp

    09:25:15 Immigration Cases Filed: 08/10/2010 Online access to documents in this case are limited to counsel of record only. All documents are available for review in the Office of the Clerk. Counsel of record: please note that you will need to log into CM/ECF to access any documents in this case. (Gawlik, Cathy) C. Danieli Entered: Category: notice 08/12/2010 Event: Notice of Change of Address Type: crt 09:54:01 or Firm Name Filed: Document: 5 08/11/2010 NOTICE of Change of Address by Laura J. McGarry (Danieli, Chris) C. Danieli Entered: Category: misc Type: crt 08/12/2010 Event: Amended Document - NOT 10:32:02 Motion Filed: Document: 6 08/11/2010 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Laura J. McGarry. Amendment to 1 Complaint. New Last Page of Complaint with Corrected Address. (Danieli, Chris) Modified on 8/12/2010 to correct the filing date(Danieli, Chris). C. Danieli Entered: Category: misc Type: crt 08/12/2010 Event: Amended Document - NOT 10:35:14 Motion Filed: Document: 7 08/11/2010 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Laura J. McGarry. Amendment to 1 Complaint. Complaint Amendment Paragraphs 180 and 181. (Attachments: # 1 New Attachment Paragraph 181)(Danieli, Chris) Entered: Category: notice 08/12/2010 Event: Notice - Other 10:51:23 Document: 8 Filed: 08/12/2010 C. Danieli Type: crt

    NOTICE of Party Correction by Laura J. McGarry re 1 Complaint (Danieli, Chris) Entered: Category: order 4. PSSA 08/19/2010 Event: Order on Motion for Leave to Type: crt 16:36:22 Proceed In Forma Pauperis Order on Filed: Motion to Appoint Counsel Order on

    08/18/2010 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Document: 9 Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying without prejudice 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 4 Motion for electronic filing to the extent that McGarry can meet the requirements and gains approval from the Clerks Office for cm/ecf access. (PSSA, 4) Entered: Category: service 4. PSSA 08/19/2010 Event: Summons Issued Type: crt 16:37:28 Filed: 08/19/2010 Summons Issued as to Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. Mailed to plaintiff with USM 285 forms, L.R. 4.1, notice for service by U.S. Marshal, and courtesy copy of the complaint.(PSSA, 4) C. Danieli Entered: Category: misc Type: crt 09/02/2010 Event: Amended Document - NOT 14:47:56 Motion Filed: Document: 10 09/02/2010 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Laura J. McGarry. Amendment to Exhibits. (Danieli, Chris) C. Danieli Entered: Category: misc Type: crt 09/02/2010 Event: Amended Document - NOT 14:56:19 Motion Filed: Document: 11 09/02/2010 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Laura J. McGarry. Amendment to Exhibits. (Danieli, Chris) Entered: 09/02/2010 14:57:40 Filed: 09/02/2010 Category: misc Event: Amended Document - NOT Motion Document: 12 C. Danieli Type: crt

    AMENDED DOCUMENT by Laura J. McGarry. Amendment to 1 Complaint. (Danieli, Chris) C. Danieli Entered: Category: misc Type: crt 09/10/2010 Event: Amended Document - NOT 10:15:49 Motion Filed: Document: 13

    Filed: Document: 13 09/07/2010 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Laura J. McGarry. Amendment to Exhibits. (Attachments: # 1 Addendum to Attachment 13, # 2 Annual Business Reports)(Danieli, Chris) C. Danieli Entered: Category: service Type: crt 09/10/2010 Event: Summons Reissued 10:17:47 Document: 14 Filed: 09/10/2010 Summons Reissued as to Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc.. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. Mailed to plaintiff with USM 285 forms and courtesy copy of complaint (Danieli, Chris) Modified on 9/10/2010 to indicate USM 285 and copy of complaint sent to plaintiff (Danieli, Chris). L. Entered: Category: notice McGarry 09/13/2010 Event: Notice - Other Type: pty 05:40:43 Document: 15 Filed: 09/13/2010 NOTICE by Laura J. McGarry re 11 Amended Document, 1 Complaint McGarry vs. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., et al (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Complaint, # 3 Exhibit Complaint, # 4 Exhibit Complaint, # 5 Exhibit Complaint, # 6 Exhibit Complaint, # 7 Exhibit Complaint, # 8 Exhibit Complaint, # 9 Exhibit Complaint, # 10 Exhibit Complaint, # 11 Exhibit Complaint, # 12 Exhibit Complaint, # 13 Exhibit Complaint, # 14 Exhibit Complaint, # 15 Exhibit Complaint, # 16 Exhibit Complaint, # 17 Exhibit Complaint, # 18 Exhibit Complaint, # 19 Exhibit Complaint, # 20 Exhibit Complaint, # 21 Exhibit Complaint, # 22 Exhibit Complaint, # 23 Exhibit Complaint, # 24 Exhibit Complaint, # 25 Exhibit Complaint, # 26 Exhibit Complaint, # 27 Exhibit Complaint, # 28 Exhibit Complaint, # 29 Exhibit Complaint, # 30 Exhibit Complaint, # 31 Exhibit Complaint, # 32 Exhibit Complaint, # 33 Exhibit Complaint, # 34 Exhibit Complaint, # 35 Exhibit Complaint, # 36 Exhibit Complaint, # 37 Exhibit Complaint, # 38 Exhibit Complaint, # 39 Exhibit Complaint, # 40 Exhibit Complaint, # 41 Exhibit Complaint, # 42 Exhibit Complaint, # 43 Exhibit Complaint, # 44 Exhibit Complaint, # 45 Exhibit Complaint, # 46 Exhibit Complaint, # 47 Exhibit Complaint, # 48 Supplement Guide for Exhibits)(McGarry, Laura)

    Entered: Category: service C. Danieli 09/16/2010 Event: Summons Returned Executed Type: crt 16:42:56 Document: 16 Filed: 09/16/2010 USM Process Receipt and Return and SUMMONS Returned Executed. Renee Mikita served on 9/13/2010, answer due 10/4/2010. (Danieli, Chris) L. Entered: Category: motion McGarry 09/20/2010 Event: Intervene Type: pty 05:14:42 Document: 17 Filed: 09/20/2010 Emergency MOTION to Intervene enjoin Defendants from initiating bankruptcy/ expedite service of summons by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit webster's actual residence, # 2 Exhibit business annual report, # 3 Exhibit cape condo_Webster, # 4 Exhibit Lien solutions, # 5 Exhibit Webster_cape condo, # 6 Exhibit homestead vacant)(McGarry, Laura) L. Entered: Category: misc McGarry 09/20/2010 Event: Exhibit Type: pty 05:46:00 Document: 18 Filed: 09/20/2010 EXHIBIT New guide to exhibits--the guide in document 15 should not be used by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Guide to exhibits of Document #1-the Complaint, # 2 Exhibit paragraph 128 of the complaint and document 11)(McGarry, Laura) Entered: Category: misc L. 09/24/2010 Event: Amended Document - NOT McGarry 14:36:45 Motion Type: pty Filed: Document: 19 09/24/2010 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Laura J. McGarry. Amendment to 17 Emergency MOTION to Intervene enjoin Defendants from initiating bankruptcy/ expedite service of summons motion addendum/information correction. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit annual reports excerpts)(McGarry, Laura) 4. PSSA Entered: Category: order 09/26/2010 Event: Order on Motion to Intervene Type: crt 14:01:07 Document: 20 Filed:

    09/24/2010 Judge George A. OToole, Jr: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying without prejudice 17 Motion to Enjoin Defendants from Initiating Bankruptcy. (PSSA, 4) G. Tully Entered: Category: answer Type: aty 10/04/2010 Event: Answer to Complaint 16:42:14 Document: 21 Filed: 10/04/2010 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman.(Tully, Guy) G. Tully Entered: Category: misc Type: aty 10/04/2010 Event: Corporate Disclosure 16:43:43 Statement Filed: Document: 22 10/04/2010 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc.. (Tully, Guy) Entered: Category: service C. Danieli 10/05/2010 Event: Summons Returned Executed Type: crt 14:38:30 Document: 23 Filed: 10/05/2010 USM Process Receipt and Return and SUMMONS Returned Executed. Roxanne Webster served on 10/4/2010, answer due 10/25/2010. (Danieli, Chris) C. Danieli Entered: Category: service 10/05/2010 Event: Summons Returned Executed Type: crt 14:40:00 Document: 24 Filed: 10/05/2010 USM Process Receipt and Return and SUMMONS Returned Executed. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. served on 10/4/2010, answer due 10/25/2010. (Danieli, Chris) C. Danieli Entered: Category: service 10/05/2010 Event: Summons Returned Executed Type: crt 14:41:15 Document: 25 Filed: 10/05/2010 USM Process Receipt and Return and SUMMONS Returned Executed.

    Joshua Zuckerman served on 10/4/2010, answer due 10/25/2010. (Danieli, Chris) Entered: Category: notice L. 10/06/2010 Event: Notice - Other McGarry 14:47:02 Document: 26 Type: pty Filed: 10/06/2010 NOTICE by Laura J. McGarry re 16 Summons Returned Executed notice of asserted rule 15 compliance--notice of motion with exparte consideration document 17 & 19--notice of exhibit entry to ECFdocument 18 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Mikita's process receipt, # 2 Exhibit paragraph 12 complaint, # 3 Exhibit paragraph 22 complaint, # 4 Exhibit paragraph 24 complaint, # 5 Exhibit paragraph 42B complaint, # 6 Exhibit paragraph 105 complaint, # 7 Exhibit paragraph 153 complaint, # 8 Exhibit paragraph 177A complaint, # 9 Exhibit paragraph 181-182B complaint, # 10 Exhibit paragraph 186C complaint, # 11 Exhibit paragraph 186D complaint, # 12 Exhibit paragraph 190 complaint, # 13 Exhibit Document 18, # 14 Supplement Exhibit guide for Complaint exhibits, # 15 Exhibit paragraph 128 complaint, # 16 Exhibit page 5 position statement, # 17 Exhibit Document 15, # 18 Exhibit Document 17 Motion, # 19 Exhibit vacant property-motion exhibit, # 20 Exhibit condo-motion exhibit, # 21 Exhibit restructure of business-motion exhibit, # 22 Exhibit residence--motion exhibit, # 23 Exhibit annual report --motion exhibit, # 24 Exhibit Document 19--addendum to motion, # 25 Exhibit report excerpts--exhibit to motion addendum)(McGarry, Laura) L. Entered: Category: motion McGarry 10/25/2010 Event: Disqualify Counsel Type: pty 17:30:08 Document: 27 Filed: 10/25/2010 Emergency MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis by Laura J. McGarry.(McGarry, Laura) L. Entered: Category: motion McGarry 10/25/2010 Event: Strike Type: pty 17:35:50 Document: 28 Filed: 10/25/2010 Proposed MOTION to Strike 21 Answer to Complaint, 27 Emergency MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis, 1 Complaint Defendant's affirmative defenses by Laura J. McGarry.(McGarry, Laura) Entered: Category: answer L.

    10/25/2010 Event: Answer to Complaint McGarry 17:44:27 Document: 29 Type: pty Filed: 10/25/2010 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: Category: misc L. 10/25/2010 Event: Amended Document - NOT McGarry 17:47:36 Motion Type: pty Filed: Document: 30 10/25/2010 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Laura J. McGarry. Amendment to 29 Answer to Complaint, 1 Complaint Amendment Count 10 added against Defendant Mikita. (McGarry, Laura) L. Entered: Category: respm McGarry 10/31/2010 Event: Addendum to Type: pty 11:05:22 Motion/Memorandum Filed: Document: 31 10/31/2010 ADDENDUM re 27 Emergency MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis line 268 date correction filed by Laura J. McGarry. (McGarry, Laura) L. Entered: Category: respm McGarry 11/04/2010 Event: Addendum to Type: pty 03:00:11 Motion/Memorandum Filed: Document: 32 11/04/2010 First ADDENDUM re 27 Emergency MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis associate this motion with document # 29,Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' answer to Complaint,as an attachment and Complaint, document #1and document #28, Motion to Strike Defendants' Affirmative defenses and Defendants' Answer to Complaint document #21 filed by Laura J. McGarry. (McGarry, Laura) L. Entered: Category: respm McGarry 11/04/2010 Event: Addendum to Type: pty 03:07:31 Motion/Memorandum Document: 33 Filed:

    11/04/2010 First ADDENDUM re 28 Proposed MOTION to Strike 21 Answer to Complaint, 27 Emergency MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis, 1 Complaint Defendant's affirmative defenses associate this motion with document # 29,Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' answer to Complaint,as an attachment filed by Laura J. McGarry. (McGarry, Laura) L. Entered: Category: respoth 11/05/2010 Event: Amended Answer to Complaint McGarry Type: pty 03:05:39 Document: 34 Filed: 11/05/2010 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). G. Tully Entered: Category: respm Type: aty 11/05/2010 Event: Opposition to Motion 14:58:21 Document: 35 Filed: 11/05/2010 Opposition re 27 Emergency MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Tully, Guy) G. Tully Entered: Category: respm Type: aty 11/05/2010 Event: Opposition to Motion 15:05:44 Document: 36 Filed: 11/05/2010 Opposition re 28 Proposed MOTION to Strike 21 Answer to Complaint, 27 Emergency MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis, 1 Complaint Defendant's affirmative defenses filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tully, Guy) G. Tully Entered: Category: motion Type: aty 11/05/2010 Event: Strike 15:09:46 Document: 37 Filed: 11/05/2010 MOTION to Strike 29 Answer to Complaint, Plaintiff's Response To Defendants' Answer To Complaint by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc.,

    f Entered: 11/05/2010 15:11:10 Filed: 11/05/2010

    y G. Tully Type: aty

    Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman.(Tully, Guy) Category: respm Event: Memorandum in Support of Motion Document: 38

    MEMORANDUM in Support re 37 MOTION to Strike 29 Answer to Complaint, Plaintiff's Response To Defendants' Answer To Complaint filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Tully, Guy) G. Tully Entered: Category: motion Type: aty 11/05/2010 Event: Strike 15:15:08 Document: 39 Filed: 11/05/2010 MOTION to Strike 30 Amended Document Plaintiff's Complaint Amendment by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman.(Tully, Guy) G. Tully Entered: Category: respm Type: aty 11/05/2010 Event: Memorandum in Support of 15:32:23 Motion Filed: Document: 40 11/05/2010 MEMORANDUM in Support re 39 MOTION to Strike 30 Amended Document Plaintiff's Complaint Amendment filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Tully, Guy) L. Entered: Category: respm McGarry 11/09/2010 Event: Opposition to Motion Type: pty 03:26:23 Document: 41 Filed: 11/09/2010 First Opposition re 37 MOTION to Strike 29 Answer to Complaint, Plaintiff's Response To Defendants' Answer To Complaint filed by Laura J. McGarry. (McGarry, Laura) L. Entered: Category: respm McGarry 11/09/2010 Event: Opposition to Motion Type: pty 03:28:41 Document: 42 Filed: 11/09/2010

    First Opposition re 39 MOTION to Strike 30 Amended Document Plaintiff's Complaint Amendment filed by Laura J. McGarry. (McGarry, Laura) L. Entered: Category: motion McGarry 11/11/2010 Event: Default Judgment Type: pty 04:51:24 Document: 43 Filed: 11/11/2010 Ex Parte MOTION for Default Judgment THIS IS AN EMERGENCY!!!!!!! Document as to Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc. Roxanne Webster Renee Mikita and Joshua Zuckerman by Laura J. McGarry.(McGarry, Laura) G. Tully Entered: Category: respm Type: aty 11/11/2010 Event: Opposition to Motion 21:38:40 Document: 44 Filed: 11/11/2010 Opposition re 43 Ex Parte MOTION for Default Judgment THIS IS AN EMERGENCY!!!!!!! Document as to Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc. Roxanne Webster Renee Mikita and Joshua Zuckerman filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Tully, Guy) L. Entered: Category: respm McGarry 11/15/2010 Event: Memorandum in Support of Type: pty 03:29:59 Motion Document: 45 Filed: 11/15/2010 First MEMORANDUM in Support re 27 Emergency MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis, 43 Ex Parte MOTION for Default Judgment THIS IS AN EMERGENCY!!!!!!! Document as to Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc. Roxanne Webster Renee Mikita and Joshua Zuckerman filed by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit conferences)(McGarry, Laura) Entered: Category: motion 11/29/2010 Event: Sanctions 12:30:06 Document: 46 Filed: 11/29/2010 L. McGarry Type: pty

    First MOTION for Sanctions Rule 11 by Laura J. McGarry.(McGarry, Laura) E t d C t respm G T ll

    Entered: Category: respm 12/13/2010 Event: Opposition to Motion 11:39:08 Document: 47 Filed: 12/13/2010

    G. Tully Type: aty

    Opposition re 46 First MOTION for Sanctions Rule 11 filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tully, Guy) L. Entered: Category: motion McGarry 12/27/2010 Event: Expedite Type: pty 12:25:25 Document: 48 Filed: 12/27/2010 MOTION to Expedite notice of scheduling conference--scheduling order is due January 11, 2011 and the notice of this conference was not sent by the court--Plaintiff requesting that conference be by phone with Judge O'Toole and orders from the Judge regarding 16.1(a) (b) (c) &(d) PRIOR to the conference by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 email from defense counsel regarding rule 16.1)(McGarry, Laura) G. Tully Entered: Category: respm Type: aty 12/31/2010 Event: Response to Motion 11:42:57 Document: 49 Filed: 12/31/2010 RESPONSE to Motion re 48 MOTION to Expedite notice of scheduling conference--scheduling order is due January 11, 2011 and the notice of this conference was not sent by the court--Plaintiff requesting that conference be by phone with Judge O'Toole and orders from the J filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Tully, Guy) Entered: Category: misc 01/03/2011 Event: Redacted Document 03:34:26 Document: 50 Filed: 01/03/2011 L. McGarry Type: pty

    REDACTION to 15 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 11 Amended Document, 18 Exhibit, 1 Complaint please restrict document 11 and exhibit 27 of document 15-clarification on exhibits list attachment 1 of document 18 byLaura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EEOC discrimination charge Exhibit 1 to the complaint, # 2 Exhibit Employment application exhibit 27 to the complaint # 3 Exhibit generic employment application

    exhibit 27 to the complaint, # 3 Exhibit generic employment application located in document 11)(McGarry, Laura) Entered: Category: motion L. 01/19/2011 Event: Injunctive Relief McGarry 17:37:42 Document: 51 Type: pty Filed: 01/19/2011 Emergency MOTION for Injunctive Relief Enjoin PSSA from this Action-Chief Judge Wolf has been notified of this filing by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement quick look summary of action, # 2 Exhibit emails to clerk, # 3 Exhibit letter from PSSA, # 4 Exhibit hold service email, # 5 Exhibit express mail sent email, # 6 Exhibit excerpt from document 29, # 7 Exhibit excerpt from task force article)(McGarry, Laura) L. Entered: Category: motion McGarry 01/19/2011 Event: Disqualify Counsel Type: pty 17:45:31 Document: 52 Filed: 01/19/2011 Third MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis--Chief Judge Wolf has been notified of this filing by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit letter, # 2 Exhibit docket, # 3 Exhibit exhibit)(McGarry, Laura) 4. PSSA Entered: Category: order Type: crt 01/20/2011 Event: Order on Motion to Strike 12:01:25 Order on Motion for Default Filed: Judgment Order on Motion for 01/19/2011 Sanctions Order on Motion to Disqualify Counsel Document: 53 Judge George A. OToole, Jr: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered granting 37 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to the Answer; granting 39 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's September and October Amendments to her Complaint; denying 43 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 46 First Motion for Sanctions; denying 27 Motion to Disqualify Counsel; denying 28 Plaintiff's Proposed Motion to Strike Answer. (PSSA, 4) L. Entered: Category: misc McGarry 01/21/2011 Event: Letter/request - non-motion Type: pty 16:03:52 Document: 54 Filed: 01/21/2011 To the Honorable Chief Judge Wolf and the Honorable Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. Letter/request (non-motion) from Laura J. McGarry FRAUD UPON THE COURT R l t d M ti b i bl k d f j di i l

    UPON THE COURT--Related Motions being blocked from judicial review. See motions (Documents 51 & 52). (McGarry, Laura) B. Childs Entered: Category: respm Type: aty 01/21/2011 Event: Opposition to Motion 17:00:47 Document: 55 Filed: 01/21/2011 Opposition re 51 Emergency MOTION for Injunctive Relief Enjoin PSSA from this Action--Chief Judge Wolf has been notified of this filing filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E-Mail Exchange)(Childs, Brian) B. Childs Entered: Category: respm Type: aty 01/21/2011 Event: Opposition to Motion 17:04:19 Document: 56 Filed: 01/21/2011 Opposition re 52 Third MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Jackson Lewis-Chief Judge Wolf has been notified of this filing filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E-Mail Exchange)(Childs, Brian) Entered: 01/28/2011 16:20:00 Filed: 01/28/2011 Category: order Event: Order on Motion to Expedite Order on Motion for Injuctive Relief Order on Motion to Disqualify Counsel Document: 57 4. PSSA Type: crt

    Judge George A. OToole, Jr: Plaintiff's Motion 51 to Enjoin PSSA is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion 52 to disqualify defense counsel is DENIED. 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. Plaintiff's Motion 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. The Clerk shall refer this case to Magistrate Judge Sorokin for all pretrial proceedings. (PSSA, 4) Entered: Category: motion 01/30/2011 Event: Contempt 22:47:53 Document: 58 Filed: 01/30/2011 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 reference of PSSA position, # 7 Exhibit emails to clerks and general court email, # 8 Exhibit note via general email to Chief that doc.51 & 52 were being filed and blocking of action from judge, # 9 Exhibit Letter entered in the ECF to Chief and Judge O'Toole hoping for relief of deprivation of constitutional rights)(McGarry, Laura) Entered: Category: misc L. 01/31/2011 Event: Letter/request - non-motion McGarry 00:48:24 Document: 59 Type: pty Filed: 01/31/2011 Sarah Allison Thornton, Clerk of Court Letter/request (non-motion) from Laura J. McGarry regarding B. Morse. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B. Morse Documents)(McGarry, Laura) Entered: Category: order C. Danieli 01/31/2011 Event: Order Referring Case to Type: crt 10:43:19 Magistrate Judge Filed: 01/28/2011 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. Entered: Category: notice L.

    01/31/2011 Event: Notice - Other McGarry 10:54:52 Document: 60 Type: pty Filed: 01/31/2011 NOTICE by Laura J. McGarry re 59 Letter/request (non-motion), 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 clerk office notified of letter to clerk of the court in ECF-- (McGarry, Laura) M. Entered: Category: order 02/01/2011 Event: Order on Motion for Contempt Simeone Type: crt 13:05:06 Document: 61 Filed: 02/01/2011 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 ORDERED 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) M. Entered: Category: notice Simeone 02/01/2011 Event: Notice of Scheduling Type: crt 13:11:20 Conference Filed: Document: 62 02/01/2011 NOTICE of Scheduling Conference; The Scheduling Conference has been set for 2/14/2011 04:00 PM in Courtroom 24 before Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin. The Plaintiff is to contact the clerk with a phone number where the plaintiff can be reached; The court will contact the plaintiff at the time scheduled for the hearing.(Simeone, Maria) G. Tully Entered: Category: misc Type: aty 02/07/2011 Event: Recommendations for 16:47:13 Scheduling Order Filed: Document: 63 02/07/2011 Recommendations for Scheduling Order Defendants' Proposed Statement Pursuant To Local Rule 16.1(D). (Tully, Guy) Entered: Category: notice L

    Entered:

    Category: notice

    L. McGarry Type: pty

    02/07/2011 Event: Notice - Other 17:52:53 Document: 64 Filed: 02/07/2011

    NOTICE by Laura J. McGarry Plaintiff's Intent to file writ of Mandamus with the U S Court of Appeals of the First Circuit regarding deprivation of Constitutional Rights (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit writ of mandamus, # 2 Exhibit plaintiff's recent filings asserting need for Article lll Judge, # 3 Exhibit unwaranted intimidation threatening sanctions, # 4 Exhibit email via court general email and mailed to Chief Judge, # 5 Exhibit sudden reference to magistrate, # 6 Exhibit with email and US mail to Chief Judge) (McGarry, Laura) G. Tully Entered: Category: misc Type: aty 02/07/2011 Event: Recommendations for 21:43:32 Scheduling Order Filed: Document: 65 02/07/2011 Recommendations for Scheduling Order Defendants' Amended Proposed Statement Pursuant To Local Rule 16.1(D). (Tully, Guy) B. Childs Entered: Category: discov 02/14/2011 Event: Certification pursuant to Rule Type: aty 08:47:00 16.1 Filed: Document: 66 02/14/2011 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 . (Childs, Brian) Entered: Category: minutes M. 02/15/2011 Event: Scheduling Conference ~Util - Simeone 12:32:33 Set Scheduling Order Deadlines Type: crt Filed: 02/14/2011 ELECTRONIC Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: Scheduling Conference held on 2/14/2011; The Plaintiff appears by phone; Atty Tully; Court goes over the status of the case with the parties; Court addresses the importance of court procedures and compliance with court orders; Court goes over the discovery issues and schedule in the case; The court makes the following Orders; (1)The plaintiff is to comply with all orders of the court (2)The plaintiff will be allowed to file only one document, with a list naming all persons plaintiff wishes to depose, Where they live and or work; Plaintiff is allowed up to but no more than 4 sentences as to why their testimony/deposition is needed; Court orders this filed by 3/1/11; defense counsel will file their list

    needed; Court orders this filed by 3/1/11; defense counsel will file their list on 3/4/11; (Court Reporter: Digital Recording.)(Attorneys present: Plaintiff McGarry; Atty Tully) (Simeone, Maria) Modified on 2/17/2011 (Simeone, Maria). l. LTS Entered: Category: order Type: crt 02/15/2011 Event: Order 15:09:46 Document: 67 Filed: 02/15/2011 Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. It is ORDERED that: (1) The Plaintiff shall not make any filings with this Court without the prior approval of a District or Magistrate Judge; (2) 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; and (3) By March 4, 2011, the Defendants shall file with the Court the equivalent document See attached Order. (Chernetsky, James). M. Entered: Category: order Simeone 02/15/2011 Event: Order Type: crt 15:46:38 Document: 68 Filed: 02/15/2011 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) L. Entered: Category: motion McGarry 02/23/2011 Event: Disqualify Judge Type: pty 17:32:15 Document: 69 Filed: 02/23/2011 First MOTION to Disqualify Judge O'Toole and Sorokin sua sponte --Plaintiff request that reassignment be by Judge Sorokin and his clerk by

    Plaintiff request that reassignment be by Judge Sorokin and his clerk by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit service of process receipt) (McGarry, Laura) Entered: Category: motion L. 02/23/2011 Event: Vacate McGarry 17:38:42 Document: 70 Type: pty Filed: 02/23/2011 First MOTION to Vacate 69 First MOTION to Disqualify Judge O'Toole and Sorokin sua sponte ---Plaintiff request that reassignment be by Judge Sorokin and his clerk vacate void orders--Plaintiff request that this motion be addressed after reassignment to a new Article lll Judge by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pdf recognition)(McGarry, Laura) Modified to remove the link to docket 69; linked in error by pltf; on 3/2/2011 (Simeone, Maria). Entered: Category: order M. 03/02/2011 Event: Order on Motion to Disqualify Simeone 16:14:28 Judge Type: crt Filed: 03/02/2011 Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 69 Motion to Disqualify Judge; The Motion to Disqualify is DENIED. (Simeone, Maria) Entered: Category: order M. 03/03/2011 Event: Order on Motion to Vacate Simeone 14:33:15 Type: crt Filed: 03/03/2011 Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 70 Motion to Vacate; This Motion is DENIED. The Court cautions Plaintiff that she has been ordered not to file any documents with the Court without prior permission of the Court. (Simeone, Maria) Entered: Category: order 03/03/2011 Event: Order 17:22:57 Filed: 03/03/2011 M. Simeone Type: crt

    Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Plaintiff has asked by telephone of the Clerk's Office whether she may obtain more time to file her discovery proposal. If Plaintiff wishes to request more time she must do so in a written motion to the Court. Plaintiff has permission to file ONE such motion not to exceed five pages in length

    has permission to file ONE such motion not to exceed five pages in length. (Simeone, Maria) G. Tully Entered: Category: motion Type: aty 03/04/2011 Event: Contempt 14:49:49 Document: 71 Filed: 03/04/2011 MOTION for Contempt by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman.(Tully, Guy) Entered: Category: respm G. Tully 03/04/2011 Event: Memorandum in Support of Type: aty 14:50:53 Motion Filed: Document: 72 03/04/2011 MEMORANDUM in Support re 71 MOTION for Contempt filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Tully, Guy) G. Tully Entered: Category: respm 03/04/2011 Event: Affidavit in Support of Motion Type: aty 14:53:53 Document: 73 Filed: 03/04/2011 AFFIDAVIT of Brian M. Childs in Support re 71 MOTION for Contempt filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Tully, Guy) L. Entered: Category: motion McGarry 03/04/2011 Event: Stay Type: pty 17:55:12 Document: 74 Filed: 03/04/2011 First MOTION to Stay scheduling conference assignment by Laura J. McGarry.(McGarry, Laura) M. Entered: Category: order Simeone 03/07/2011 Event: Order on Motion to Stay Type: crt 16:28:35 Document: 75 Filed: 03/07/2011 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 disco er information b no

    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 Orders (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) Entered: Category: utility C. Danieli 03/10/2011 Event: Set Deadlines/Hearings Type: crt 11:45:38 Filed: 03/10/2011 Set Deadlines: The Plaintiff shall file the discovery information by no later than the close of business on Friday, 3/11/2011. (Danieli, Chris) L. Entered: Category: misc McGarry 03/11/2011 Event: Recommendations for Type: pty 17:36:01 Scheduling Order Filed: Document: 76 03/11/2011 Recommendations for Scheduling Order per court ordered submissions for document request from defendants, depositions and interrogatories. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Manning namrd as ADON)(McGarry, Laura) Entered: Category: order 03/16/2011 Event: Order 09:21:43 Document: 77 Filed: 03/16/2011 l. LTS Type: crt

    Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. Order on Plaintiff's Requested Discovery. It is ORDERED that all of the requests listed in the Plaintiff's proposed discovery requests (other than those listed in this Order) are STRICKEN. See attached Order. (Chernetsky, James) L. Entered: Category: respm McGarry 03/18/2011 Event: Opposition to Motion Type: pty 17:52:18 Document: 78 Filed: 03/18/2011 First Opposition re 71 MOTION for Contempt filed by Laura J. McGarry. (McGarry, Laura) G. Tully Entered: Category: respoth 03/21/2011 E t R t l t dt T t

    03/21/2011 Event: Response - not related to a

    Type: aty

    14:13:34 motion Filed: Document: 79 03/21/2011 Response by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman to 77 Order, - Defendants' Initial Discovery Requests To Plaintiff. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed First Set Of Interrogatories To Plaintiff, # 2 Exhibit Proposed First Set Of Requests For Production Of Documents To Plaintiff)(Tully, Guy) M. Entered: Category: motion 03/23/2011 Event: Report and Recommendations Simeone Type: crt 15:46:43 Document: 80 Filed: 03/23/2011 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) L. Entered: Category: respoth McGarry 04/05/2011 Event: Objection to Report and Type: pty 17:49:22 Recommendations Filed: Document: 81 04/05/2011 OBJECTION to 80 Report and Recommendations contempt--Judicial Notice Requested filed by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Rules, # 2 Exhibit email to Magistrate's clerk)(McGarry, Laura) G. Tully Entered: Category: respoth 04/12/2011 Event: Reply to Objection to Report Type: aty 12:02:49 and Recommendations Filed: Document: 82 04/12/2011 REPLY TO OBJECTION to 80 Report and Recommendations filed by Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster, Joshua Zuckerman (Tully Guy)

    Joshua Zuckerman. (Tully, Guy) Entered: Category: notice C. Danieli 06/10/2011 Event: Notice - Other Type: crt 13:52:43 Document: 83 Filed: 06/10/2011 NOTICE of Petition for an Emergent Extraordinary Writ to the United States District Court of Massachusetts-Boston by Laura J. McGarry (Attachments: # 1 exhibit)(Danieli, Chris) Entered: Category: utility 06/21/2011 Event: Remark 12:41:05 Document: 84 Filed: 06/21/2011 J. Ramos Type: crt

    The Petition for an Emergent Extraordinary Writ to the United States District Court [for the District of] Massachusetts is DENIED. Petition filed in the USCA 6/20,2011 (Ramos, Jeanette) Entered: Category: motion C. Danieli 06/21/2011 Event: Contempt Type: crt 16:13:41 Document: 85 Filed: 06/21/2011 (Ex Parte) MOTION for Contempt by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Danieli, Chris) C. Danieli Entered: Category: order Type: crt 06/28/2011 Event: Order on Report and 12:08:23 Recommendations Filed: Document: 86 06/28/2011 Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered. ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 85 Motion for Contempt filed by Laura J. McGarry, 71 Motion for Contempt filed by Joshua Zuckerman, Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Roxanne Webster, Renee Mikita, 80 Report and Recommendations,, Action on motions: The Plaintiff's recently filed motion for contempt, addressed to Chief Judge Wolf but by him referred to me (dkt. no. 85) is DENIED. The Defendants' Motion for Contempt (dkt. no.71) is GRANTED, and the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is SO ORDERED.(Danieli, Chris) C. Danieli Entered: Category: order Type: crt 06/28/2011 Event: Order Dismissing Case 12:37:05 Document: 87 Fil d

    Filed: 06/28/2011 Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE(Danieli, Chris) Entered: Category: utility 06/28/2011 Event: Terminate Civil Case 12:38:43 Filed: 06/28/2011 Civil Case Terminated. (Danieli, Chris) C. Danieli Type: crt

    Selection Criteria for Report


    Case number Filed Date Entered Date Office Cause Case type 1:10-cv-11343 8/2/2010 - 6/30/2011 All Boston All cv APPEAL ASBCS AttyDisc BKAPP CASREF CLOSED CONSENT CONSENTPENDING CUSTODY ENE HABEAS INTERP MDL2193 MDL2208 MEDIATION MEDTRIBUNAL MOTREF MULTI-VICTIM

    Nature of Suit All

    Case flags

    SEALED SM STAYED VICTIM ZAD2241 Open Cases Closed Cases Yes Yes

    EXTEND adr answer appeal appeal-cr charge-cr cmp detention-cr discov discovery-cr minutes minutes-cr misc misc-cr misccs mot2255 motion Event Category notice notice-cr order order-cr plea-cr respm respm-cr respoth service service-cr transfer transfer-cr trial trial-cr utility utility-cr waiver-cr Docket Text full

    Docket Text

    full

    date entered Sort by Total Number of Docket Entries: 98

    PACER Service Center


    Transaction Receipt
    06/30/2011 18:51:05 PACER Login: lm4201 Client Code: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Filed Search From: 8/2/2010 Filed To: Criteria: 6/30/2011 Cost: 1.68

    Docket Description: Activity Report Billable Pages: 21

    Judgment Index Report


    United States District Court - - District of Massachusetts

    Report Period: 01/02/1970 - 06/30/2011 Sorry - no data for the chosen selection
    criteria Judgment Index Report Selection Criteria 1:10-cv-11343 Case number Case Number Sort by

    PACER Service Center


    Transaction Receipt
    06/30/2011 18:18:35 PACER Login: dr2600 Client Code:

    Judgment 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Filed Search From: 1/2/1970 Filed To: Description: Index Criteria: Report 6/30/2011 Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08

    1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al


    George A. OToole, Jr, presiding Leo T. Sorokin, referral Date filed: 08/02/2010 Date terminated: 06/28/2011 Date of last filing: 06/28/2011

    Related Transactions
    Note: Each selected transaction in this case is shown below in a box with any other transactions to which it is related. Doc. No. 1 6 7 8 12 15 21 28 29 30 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 50 53 53 Event Name Complaint Amended Document Amended Document Notice (Other) Amended Document Notice (Other) Answer to Complaint Motion to Strike Answer to Complaint Amended Document Addendum to Motion/Memorandum Amended Answer to Complaint Opposition to Motion Motion to Strike Memorandum in Support of Motion Motion to Strike Memorandum in Support of Motion Opposition to Motion Opposition to Motion Redacted Document Order on Motion to Strike Order on Motion to Strike Event Filed Event Terminated

    08/02/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/12/2010 09/02/2010 09/13/2010 10/04/2010 10/25/2010 01/19/2011 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 11/04/2010 11/05/2010 11/05/2010 11/05/2010 01/19/2011 11/05/2010 11/05/2010 01/19/2011 11/05/2010 11/09/2010 11/09/2010 01/03/2011 01/19/2011 01/19/2011

    53 2 9

    Order on Motion to Strike Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis Motion to Appoint Counsel Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Notice of Case Assignment Remark Amended Document Amended Document Amended Document Notice (Other) Redacted Document Notice for Social Security and Immigration Cases

    01/19/2011 08/02/2010 08/18/2010 08/18/2010

    3 9 4 9

    08/02/2010 08/18/2010 08/18/2010 08/02/2010 08/18/2010 08/18/2010 08/02/2010 08/02/2010 09/02/2010 09/02/2010 09/07/2010 09/13/2010 01/03/2011 08/10/2010

    10 11 13 15 50

    Notice of Change of Address or Firm Name Amended Document Complaint Amended Document Complaint Notice (Other)

    08/11/2010

    6 1 7 1 8

    08/11/2010 08/02/2010 08/11/2010 08/02/2010 08/12/2010

    1 9 2

    Complaint Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel Motion to Appoint Counsel Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Summons Issued

    08/02/2010 08/18/2010 08/02/2010 08/18/2010

    9 3 9 4

    08/18/2010 08/02/2010 08/18/2010 08/18/2010 08/02/2010 08/18/2010 08/19/2010 09/02/2010 08/02/2010 09/02/2010 08/02/2010 09/13/2010 01/03/2011 09/02/2010 08/02/2010 09/07/2010 08/02/2010 09/10/2010 09/13/2010 08/02/2010 08/02/2010

    10

    Amended Document Remark Amended Document Remark Notice (Other) Redacted Document Amended Document Complaint Amended Document Remark Summons Reissued Notice (Other) Complaint Remark

    11 15 50 12 1 13

    14 15 1

    11 50 16 26 17 19 20 18 50 19 17 20 17 21 1 28 33 36 53 22 23 24 25

    Amended Document Redacted Document Summons Returned Executed Notice (Other) Motion to Intervene Amended Document Order on Motion to Intervene Exhibit Redacted Document Amended Document Motion to Intervene Order on Motion to Intervene Motion to Intervene Answer to Complaint Complaint Motion to Strike Addendum to Motion/Memorandum Opposition to Motion Order on Motion to Strike Corporate Disclosure Statement Summons Returned Executed Summons Returned Executed Summons Returned Executed

    09/02/2010 01/03/2011 09/16/2010 10/06/2010 09/20/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/20/2010 01/03/2011 09/24/2010 09/20/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/20/2010 09/24/2010 10/04/2010 08/02/2010 10/25/2010 01/19/2011 11/04/2010 11/05/2010 01/19/2011 10/04/2010 10/05/2010 10/05/2010 10/05/2010

    26 16 27 28 31 32 33 35 36 45 53 53 28 1 21 27 33 36 53 29 1 30 37 38 39 40 41 42 53 53 30

    Notice (Other) Summons Returned Executed Motion to Disqualify Counsel Motion to Strike Addendum to Motion/Memorandum Addendum to Motion/Memorandum Addendum to Motion/Memorandum Opposition to Motion Opposition to Motion Memorandum in Support of Motion Order on Motion to Disqualify Counsel Order on Motion to Strike Motion to Strike Complaint Answer to Complaint Motion to Disqualify Counsel Addendum to Motion/Memorandum Opposition to Motion Order on Motion to Strike Answer to Complaint Complaint Amended Document Motion to Strike Memorandum in Support of Motion Motion to Strike Memorandum in Support of Motion Opposition to Motion Opposition to Motion Order on Motion to Strike Order on Motion to Strike Amended Document

    10/06/2010 09/16/2010 10/25/2010 01/19/2011 10/25/2010 01/19/2011 10/31/2010 11/04/2010 11/04/2010 11/05/2010 11/05/2010 11/15/2010 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 10/25/2010 01/19/2011 08/02/2010 10/04/2010 10/25/2010 01/19/2011 11/04/2010 11/05/2010 01/19/2011 10/25/2010 08/02/2010 10/25/2010 11/05/2010 01/19/2011 11/05/2010 11/05/2010 01/19/2011 11/05/2010 11/09/2010 11/09/2010 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 10/25/2010

    1 29 39 40 42 53 31 27 32 27 33 1 21 27 28 34 1 35 27 36 1 21 27 28 37 1 29 38

    Complaint Answer to Complaint Motion to Strike Memorandum in Support of Motion Opposition to Motion Order on Motion to Strike Addendum to Motion/Memorandum Motion to Disqualify Counsel Addendum to Motion/Memorandum Motion to Disqualify Counsel Addendum to Motion/Memorandum Complaint Answer to Complaint Motion to Disqualify Counsel Motion to Strike Amended Answer to Complaint Complaint Opposition to Motion Motion to Disqualify Counsel Opposition to Motion Complaint Answer to Complaint Motion to Disqualify Counsel Motion to Strike Motion to Strike Complaint Answer to Complaint Memorandum in Support of Motion

    08/02/2010 10/25/2010 11/05/2010 01/19/2011 11/05/2010 11/09/2010 01/19/2011 10/31/2010 10/25/2010 01/19/2011 11/04/2010 10/25/2010 01/19/2011 11/04/2010 08/02/2010 10/04/2010 10/25/2010 01/19/2011 10/25/2010 01/19/2011 11/05/2010 08/02/2010 11/05/2010 10/25/2010 01/19/2011 11/05/2010 08/02/2010 10/04/2010 10/25/2010 01/19/2011 10/25/2010 01/19/2011 11/05/2010 01/19/2011 08/02/2010 10/25/2010 11/05/2010

    41 53 38 1 29 37 39 1 29 30 40 42 53 40 1 29 30 39 41 1 29 37 42 1 29 30 39 43 44

    Opposition to Motion Order on Motion to Strike Memorandum in Support of Motion Complaint Answer to Complaint Motion to Strike Motion to Strike Complaint Answer to Complaint Amended Document Memorandum in Support of Motion Opposition to Motion Order on Motion to Strike Memorandum in Support of Motion Complaint Answer to Complaint Amended Document Motion to Strike Opposition to Motion Complaint Answer to Complaint Motion to Strike Opposition to Motion Complaint Answer to Complaint Amended Document Motion to Strike Motion for Default Judgment Opposition to Motion

    11/09/2010 01/19/2011 11/05/2010 08/02/2010 10/25/2010 11/05/2010 01/19/2011 11/05/2010 01/19/2011 08/02/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 11/05/2010 11/09/2010 01/19/2011 11/05/2010 08/02/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 11/05/2010 01/19/2011 11/09/2010 08/02/2010 10/25/2010 11/05/2010 01/19/2011 11/09/2010 08/02/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 11/05/2010 01/19/2011 11/11/2010 01/19/2011 11/11/2010

    45 53 44 43 45 27 43 46 47 53 47 46 48 49 57 49 48 50 1 11 15 18 51 55 57

    Memorandum in Support of Motion Order on Motion for Default Judgment Opposition to Motion Motion for Default Judgment Memorandum in Support of Motion Motion to Disqualify Counsel Motion for Default Judgment Motion for Sanctions Opposition to Motion Order on Motion for Sanctions Opposition to Motion Motion for Sanctions Motion to Expedite Response to Motion Order on Motion to Expedite Response to Motion Motion to Expedite Redacted Document Complaint Remark Amended Document Notice (Other) Exhibit Motion for Injunctive Relief Opposition to Motion Order on Motion for Injuctive Relief

    11/15/2010 01/19/2011 11/11/2010 11/11/2010 01/19/2011 11/15/2010 10/25/2010 01/19/2011 11/11/2010 01/19/2011 11/29/2010 01/19/2011 12/13/2010 01/19/2011 12/13/2010 11/29/2010 01/19/2011 12/27/2010 01/28/2011 12/31/2010 01/28/2011 12/31/2010 12/27/2010 01/28/2011 01/03/2011 08/02/2010 08/02/2010 09/02/2010 09/13/2010 09/20/2010 01/19/2011 01/28/2011 01/21/2011 01/28/2011

    52 56 57 53 1 29 37 53 1 29 30 39 53 43 53 46 53 27 53 1 21 27 28 54 55

    Motion to Disqualify Counsel Opposition to Motion Order on Motion to Disqualify Counsel Order on Motion to Strike Complaint Answer to Complaint Motion to Strike Order on Motion to Strike Complaint Answer to Complaint Amended Document Motion to Strike

    01/19/2011 01/28/2011 01/21/2011 01/28/2011 01/19/2011 08/02/2010 10/25/2010 11/05/2010 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 08/02/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 11/05/2010 01/19/2011

    Order on Motion for Default Judgment 01/19/2011 Motion for Default Judgment 11/11/2010 01/19/2011 Order on Motion for Sanctions Motion for Sanctions 01/19/2011 11/29/2010 01/19/2011

    Order on Motion to Disqualify Counsel 01/19/2011 Motion to Disqualify Counsel 10/25/2010 01/19/2011 Order on Motion to Strike Complaint Answer to Complaint Motion to Disqualify Counsel Motion to Strike Letter/request (non-motion) Opposition to Motion 01/19/2011 08/02/2010 10/04/2010 10/25/2010 01/19/2011 10/25/2010 01/19/2011 01/21/2011 01/21/2011

    51 56 52 57 48 57 51 57 52

    Motion for Injunctive Relief Opposition to Motion Motion to Disqualify Counsel Order on Motion to Expedite Motion to Expedite Order on Motion for Injuctive Relief Motion for Injunctive Relief

    01/19/2011 01/28/2011 01/21/2011 01/19/2011 01/28/2011 01/28/2011 12/27/2010 01/28/2011 01/28/2011 01/19/2011 01/28/2011

    Order on Motion to Disqualify Counsel 01/28/2011 Motion to Disqualify Counsel 01/19/2011 01/28/2011 Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge Motion for Contempt Motion for Contempt Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge Notice (Other) Order on Motion for Contempt Letter/request (non-motion) Notice (Other) Notice (Other) Motion for Contempt Letter/request (non-motion) Order on Motion for Contempt Motion for Contempt Notice of Scheduling Conference 01/28/2011 01/30/2011 02/01/2011 01/30/2011 02/01/2011 01/28/2011 01/31/2011 02/01/2011 01/31/2011 01/31/2011 01/31/2011 01/30/2011 02/01/2011 01/31/2011 02/01/2011 01/30/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011

    58 58 60 61 59 60 60 58 59 61 58 62

    63 64 65 66

    Recommendations for Scheduling Order Notice (Other) Recommendations for Scheduling Order

    02/07/2011 02/07/2011 02/07/2011

    Certification pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 02/14/2011 Scheduling Conference Set Scheduling Order Deadlines 02/14/2011 02/14/2011 02/15/2011 02/15/2011 02/23/2011 03/02/2011 03/02/2011 02/23/2011 03/03/2011 03/03/2011 03/02/2011 02/23/2011 03/02/2011 03/03/2011 02/23/2011 03/03/2011 03/03/2011 03/04/2011 06/28/2011 03/04/2011

    67 68 69

    Order Order Motion to Disqualify Judge Order on Motion to Disqualify Judge Motion to Vacate Order on Motion to Vacate Order on Motion to Disqualify Judge Motion to Disqualify Judge Order on Motion to Vacate Motion to Vacate Order

    70

    69

    70

    71 72

    Motion for Contempt Memorandum in Support of Motion

    73 78 80 81 82 86 72 71 73 71 74 75 75 74

    Affidavit in Support of Motion Opposition to Motion Report and Recommendations Objection to Report and Recommendations Reply to Objection to Report and Recommendations Order on Report and Recommendations Memorandum in Support of Motion Motion for Contempt Affidavit in Support of Motion Motion for Contempt Motion to Stay Order on Motion to Stay Order on Motion to Stay Motion to Stay Set Deadlines/Hearings:

    03/04/2011 03/18/2011 03/23/2011 06/28/2011 04/05/2011 04/12/2011 06/28/2011 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 06/28/2011 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 06/28/2011 03/04/2011 03/07/2011 03/07/2011 03/07/2011 03/04/2011 03/07/2011 03/10/2011 03/11/2011 03/16/2011 03/21/2011 03/18/2011 03/04/2011 06/28/2011 03/21/2011 03/16/2011 03/23/2011 06/28/2011 03/04/2011 06/28/2011

    76 77 79 78 71 79 77 80 71

    Recommendations for Scheduling Order Order Response Opposition to Motion Motion for Contempt Response Order Report and Recommendations Motion for Contempt

    71 81 82 86 81 71 80 82 71 80 83 84 86 71 80 87

    Motion for Contempt Objection to Report and Recommendations Reply to Objection to Report and Recommendations Order on Report and Recommendations Objection to Report and Recommendations Motion for Contempt Report and Recommendations Reply to Objection to Report and Recommendations Motion for Contempt Report and Recommendations Notice (Other) Remark

    03/04/2011 06/28/2011 04/05/2011 04/12/2011 06/28/2011 04/05/2011 03/04/2011 06/28/2011 03/23/2011 06/28/2011 04/12/2011 03/04/2011 06/28/2011 03/23/2011 06/28/2011 06/10/2011 06/21/2011

    Order on Report and Recommendations 06/28/2011 Motion for Contempt Report and Recommendations Order Dismissing Case Terminated Case 03/04/2011 06/28/2011 03/23/2011 06/28/2011 06/28/2011 06/28/2011

    Docket Report ...

    PACER Service Center


    Transaction Receipt
    06/30/2011 17:41:32 PACER

    Login: Description: Billable Pages:

    dr2600 Related Transactions 3

    Client Code: Search Criteria: Cost: 1:10-cv-11343GAO 0.24

    1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al


    George A. OToole, Jr, presiding Leo T. Sorokin, referral Date filed: 08/02/2010 Date terminated: 06/28/2011 Date of last filing: 06/28/2011

    Pending Statuses
    There Are No Pending Status Records For This Case.
    No statuses have been terminated for this case.

    PACER Service Center


    Transaction Receipt
    06/30/2011 18:16:18 PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages: dr2600 Client Code: Status 1 Search Criteria: Cost: 1:10-cv-11343GAO 0.08

    A tto r ne y s

    C a s e I nf o r m a tio n

    D iv is io ns

    G e ne r a l I nf o r m a tio n

    Jur o r s

    O utr e a c h

    R e s o ur c e s

    Search

    Home: Boston: Judge Information: C hief Judge Wolf, Mark L.


    text s ize

    Boston Overview Architecture & History C entral Violations Bureau (C VB) C ontact Information C ourt C alendar Hours & Directions Judge Information

    Chief Judge Wolf, Mark L.


    Born 1946 in Boston, MA

    Fe de ral Judicial Se rvice


    Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, Chief Judge, 2006 - present. Nominated by Ronald Reagan on March 8, 1985, to a new seat created by 98 Stat. 333; Confirmed by the Senate on April 3, 1985, and received commission on April 4, 1985.

    Education
    Yale University, B.A., 1968 Harvard Law School, J.D., 1971

    Staff
    Chambers Judicial Assistant Clerks Office Courtroom Clerk Daniel Hohler Docket Clerk Court Reporter Kathleen Boyce 617-748-9159 daniel_hohler@mad.uscourts.gov 617-748-9155 kathy_boyce@mad.uscourts.gov Margaret Priestly

    Richard Romanow 617-737-0370

    Courtroom Numbe r
    10, 5th Floor

    Courtroom Te chnology
    Contact the courtroom clerk regarding use of this equipment. The courtroom is equipped w ith a fully integrated evidence presentation system w ith 15" view ing monitors for each attorney table, the witness, the Judge and their staff, and a 40" plasma for the gallery. The jury box also has 15" monitors built into the front and back row s of the jury box, one for every tw o jurors. Evidence being displayed from any source can be annotated from the w itness and lectern monitors. Tw o attorney tables have the ability to connect both audio and video from a computer through a standard VGA port [laptop/desktop and even Mac/Apple if you have the VGA adapter]. In addition, there are tw o computer audio and video inputs located at the lectern location. Also at the lectern, is a document camera for displaying physical evidence that is not electronic and a VCR. Portable video conferencing equipment can be brought in upon request for remote appearances. Internet access is available upon request and w ith the consent of the presiding Judge. Click here for more information.

    Chambe rs Proce dure s /Standing Orde rs /Sample Orde rs


    N/A

    H ome

    Bos ton

    Springfield

    Worc es ter

    M is s ion Statement

    C areers

    P ro Se L itigants

    Rec ords Searc h

    Site M ap

    Brows eA loud

    Dear Chief Judge Wolf, I, Laura J. McGarry, a disabled individual forced to proceed as a Pro Se In Forma Pauperis litigant by the alleged actions of the Defendants in this action before the U S District Court of Massachusetts am being denied equal access to the court in violation of my first and fourteenth constitutional rights. This grievance to you involves substantive due process deprivation and also a procedural due process deprivation. I had no idea that self-representation under the provisions of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, 1654 would actually be an act in futility with subsequent denial of having my day in court. Meaningful and effective right of access to the court means more than being permitted to file papers with the clerk. It seems I have the enormous challenge of getting my observations and evidence to an actual judge regarding FRAUD UPON THE COURT in the U S District Court of Massachusetts that involves collusion by the defense of this action and court staff themselves. This grievance includes strong evidence of files being switched in the ECF system by a docket clerk. I have attempted communication with you on the ECF compromise matter through the general court email on or about December 16th & 17th, US Mail that was sent to you by a Massachusetts resident, and with a call to your Deputy Clerk on 1/20/2011. Outside of the ECF being shut down two Saturdays in January for repair I have no indicators that you are actually getting my communications as all communication is intercepted by the clerks of the court and there is no process established to ensure the citizens of these United States can actually get their valid concerns to the Chief Judge. Interception of documents by the clerks and pro se staff attorney that are entered into the ECF system of which this letter will, also, be entered has my action filed on August 2, 2010 as of 1/19/2011 showing entries into the electronic system 52 times
    1

    none of which have been seen by a Senate appointed US District Judge or Magistrate Judge for that matter. The pro se staff attorney, Barbara Morse, is blocking this action from a judge and is in violation of multiple Title 18 criminal federal offensives herself by keeping the complaint and subsequent filings by this Pro Se In Forma Pauperis litigant from a Senate confirmed U S Judge. Barbara Morse took it upon herself to further block judicial assessment of this action writing a memorandum and order yesterday (Document 53) after she saw my Documents 51 and 52 entered on 1/19/2010 requesting that she be enjoined from any duty associated with this action and my third motion to disqualify counsel due to their continued fraud with strong evidence of compromise to the ECF system. She is not only inept in her service to the public she is inept in her attempt to carry the appearance that the document she entered was by an actual judge. The criterion established in law that determines RICCO violations is becoming quite evident. Document 53 has Jackson Lewis usual intentional misinterpretation of law and is written with the style of the attorney Guy Tully; his assistance to Morse in forming this latest fraudulent document cannot be ruled out. Certainly your known diligence in the promotion of ferreting out and taking to prosecution those involved in white collar crime and corruption in government will have your attention to the strong evidence of improprieties and collusion I am addressing to you in this letter. The Jackson Lewis law firm and Defendants have federal crime violations addressed in this litigants complaint with substantial evidence to back said violations not one of which have been addressed by the claimed undersigned on opinions for this action that Morse fraudulently signs with a judges signature and enters into the ECF system. Should this not be promptly resolved
    2

    and my case put before The Honorable Judge OToole I will have to carry an array of actions that will be an insult to the judicial economy and insult to well known fair and Honorable Judges of the U S District Court of Massachusetts. I will have to bring action against Barbara Morse, as an officer of the Court, pursuant to Title 28 U.S. Code 1331, in claims arising from violations of federal constitutional rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution and redressable pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971) in her individual capacity and under the FTCA in her professional capacity as certainly Title 18 violations and fraud qualify as acts that would not be tolerated by law of anyone in the general public. Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted." "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a

    decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final." I will also have to disqualify the Honorable Judge O'Toole because as the undersigned of bizarre opinions that are so devoid of law and rule as well as fact it would appear that he has some obvious impartiality. U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process."). Sadly I will then have to start the same process over and over until I reach a Judge who is aware of the pro se staff attorney's activity and intolerant of its resulting denial of access to justice for the pro se litigant. I will reach to higher courts as needed. All the time this unethical law firm will continue profit. I may even have to file for judicial misconduct against you and Judge O'Toole without your knowledge of any circumstance that brought suit until served with papers as the court staff continue to block my communications. Perhaps upon service of the complaint of such a suit my
    4

    complaint will finally get read and acted on in a fair impartial judicial manner in accord with law and fact. This certainly looks like an enormous amount of work coming my way in the future of which I lack skill and takes me many hours and days to complete because of my related disabilities. I will also be pursuing criminal charges through federal resources here in Washington under Title 18 U.S.C. 241 Conspiracy against rights as I can no longer physically and emotionally tolerate the oppression I have been subjected to that initiated as a conspiracy in the employment environment carried to a federal agency and now to the courts. Below I have copied and pasted excerpts of the general content of my last two motions that deal with the improprieties if not all out federal crime within the court. The extent, alone, of how Jackson Lewis and Morse are trying to thwart my action from the eyes of a judge should be adequate in having these improprieties looked at more closely by the appropriate process of the court and / or authorities. My 8/19/2011 motions (Documents 51 & 52) were followed by a memorandum and order 8/20/2011 from the court striking all of my previous motions and documents subsequent to the complaint; I then received an email from opposing counsel threatening me with sanctions if I did not withdraw my last two Motions which alert Judge OToole to this situation (hopefully with action on your part he will actually see 51 & 52). Supporting exhibits have been entered in the ECF -the case is 1:10-cv-11343. Judge OToole is not going to send someone to prison for five years for fraud one day and ignore what I have documented regarding fraud with well documented evidence the next. The former would make no sense. He is clearly not seeing the documents from my action or writing opinion and orders therefore no terminations placed on the docket and dated 1/19/2011(a
    5

    manipulated filing date) are terminated. The fraud of this action is extensive and required pleadings of particularity therefore there are lengthy documents. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. (I hope) Judge OToole requires your alerting him to this action and the improprieties I have described herein. I have become sadly aware that any grievance of actions by court staff goes through court staff and the chances of you reading this letter are also remote so I have sent a copy to Senator Brown, the DOJ, and several news media sources and posted on multiple message boards on the WEB.

    1. Plaintiffs Motions to disqualify opposing counsel have been ignored by the court; as of January 19, 2011, the word emergency appears on the docket no less than ten times regarding the motions to disqualify defense counsel. It appears the courts front line staff before and after Defenses latest fraud maneuver have ensured a blockade so that a U. S. District Judge does not see the action this Plaintiff has brought before the U S District Court. Well aware of highly probable criminal federal charges and sanctions should the merits of this action go before a U S district Judge, Defendants and their Counsel continue their efforts to defraud.
    2. A PSSA writing an opinion and court order and then fraudulently signing a U S district

    Judges name to the denied motion that requested injunctive relief led Plaintiff to believe that the decision was that of a U S District Judge. An injunctive relief denial by a Magistrate Judge has provisions in the law that notice to the litigant of the procedures set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) be written in the denial which include the right to have the Motion reviewed by the US District Judge; the fraudulent signature of a U S District
    6

    Court Judge with Morses subsequent patently false statement denying the same, without question, is a purposeful denial of access to the court for this Pro Se In Forma Pauperis Litigant. Morse had clear direction that she could have sought an order of reference and put the motion before Magistrate Judge Sorokin which she chose not to do. See docket 8/10/2010 and notice of case assignment. 3. Morse is defrauding this disabled pro se litigant. Plaintiff perceives Morses actions as discriminatory and they bear a strong indication that Morse believes that a disabled litigant with a poor economic status determine the litigant to also be intellectually challenged. See Burgdorf & Burgdorf, A History of Unequal Treatment: The Qualifications of Handicapped Persons as a "Suspect Class" Under the Equal Protection Clause, 15 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 855 (1975) (handicapped persons merit special judicial attention within the equal protection clause). 4. On 8/19/2010 Plaintiff first emailed at 2:22:28 PM (Exhibit 2) and after no immediate response at 3:21 PM placed a Skype 07:55 minute call to Paul Lyness. He politely stated that he had received the email and proceeded to address Plaintiffs inquiry as to the status of the case that Plaintiff filed on 8/2/2010 which the docket shows as entered on 8/10/2010. He was doing an apparent computer inquiry and with a puzzled tone asked, Did you have motions? Plaintiff replied, Yes and he told her there was no action to report on the case. Plaintiff asked him if he knew when action would occur and he stated, No. Plaintiff assumed her complaint was still awaiting this Judicial Review she had read about on the Court web site because of her request to precede without fee.

    5. Plaintiff now reviews the initiating order and finds (Document 9) of this action was created in a file 8/19/2010 at 4:34:12 PM the author was Morse; File: Document 9_09513855826 was Titled; [Q:\Morse\2010 cases\10cv11343-GAO (Mcgarry, Laura)\10cv11343 Order granting IFP deny counsel allow electronic filing issue sum] with the signature /s/ George A. OToole, Jr. The orders of [document 9] consist of four sentences. The font used in this document was CourierNewPSMT. Plaintiffs Complaint (Document 1) was 41 pages with 47 exhibits because it was necessary to be particular regarding the conspiracy, collusion and fraud Plaintiff has alleged in this action. Plaintiff was not aware of Rule 9 at the time. Plaintiff asserts that communication from Lyness to Morse occurred and then Morse wrote the order after no evaluation of the Complaint beyond a brief glance where she determined the complaint to be comprehendible and then addressed the motions; Morse manipulated the filing to show 8/18/2010. 6. Plaintiff made an email inquiry to the Clerk on August 27th in regards to her application to proceed without prepayment of fees which service of process instructions from the court required be forwarded to the US Marshal with the complaint and summonses (Exhibit 2). Plaintiff also informed the clerk in this email that she needed a copy of an exhibit submitted to the court that was a nursing license printed from the nursing board Web site with the Web site now showing a different license status and town than the one submitted to the Court. Plaintiff received her court order, courtesy copy complaint and summonses on August 25th and was preparing the copies of the exhibits for the Defendants when she sent this email to the clerk.

    7.

    Then late afternoon August 27th another package arrived with the courtesy copies of the exhibits; the nursing license exhibit was not included. Having received no response to the August 27th email, Plaintiff emailed (Exhibit 2) the clerk again on August 31st; still with no response Plaintiff place a Skype call to the clerk. The clerk informed Plaintiff that he had forwarded her emails on to the appropriate person but offered no information as to who this person was or how Plaintiff could make contact. Plaintiff then received via U S Mail correspondence from Barbara Morse (Dated August 31, 2010 received September 7, 2010) (Exhibit 3). The docket indicates summonses, courtesy complaint and exhibit documents were mailed from the court on August 19th; the envelopes are post marked August 23, 2010.

    8. On 09/27/2010 Plaintiff placed a Skype call to Barbara Morse, PSSA-4 which lasted a little over 21 minutes. The first statement by Morse was, How did you get my name? Plaintiff informed Morse from the letter she had sent Plaintiff on 8/31/2010. During this call, Plaintiff directly asked Morse if she wrote the memorandum and order (document 20) to her Motion (Documents 17 and 19 incorporated herein) Morse replied, No. Plaintiff then directly asked Morse if an actual Judge had read her complaint; Morse replied, Yes. Plaintiffs faith in the court led her to believe that any judge would have had wide eyes and further interest after reading the improprieties with supporting exhibits described in her complaint which led Plaintiff to believe that Morse was being much less than honest. 9. Plaintiff was mortified by the memorandum in (Document 20) that stated this Plaintiff *has not shown that she is likely to prevail on the merits of this action+ Plaintiff
    9

    suffered an anxiety attack after Morse denied writing the document and affirmed that a judge had read her complaint because well established law indicated a new realm of deception was now coming Plaintiffs way. 10. Plaintiff received (Document 20) memorandum and order thru the ECF system on Sunday September 26, 2010 at 2:01:07 PM (Plaintiffs computer is set for EST) denying a Motion. The properties of the PDF indicate the document was created on Sunday 9/26/2010 1:59:15 PM and that the author was Morse; Document 20_09513909805 was [Titled: Q:\Morse\2010 cases\10cv11343-GAO (Mcgarry, Laura)\10cv11343 Order denying emergency motion.wpd.] with the signature /s/ George A. OToole, Jr. The font used in this document was CourierNewPSMT. 11. Plaintiff has reviewed multiple documents known to be written by Judge OToole and the font he uses most is Times New Roman; no documents of his have been noted by Plaintiff to use CourierNewPSMT. Judge OToole does not enter Titles or Author in the properties of the PDF files he creates and submits into the ECF system. The docket was manipulated to indicate (document 20) was filed on 9/24/2010 and, as stated was entered on 9/26/2010. 12. Not only was the Title 18 violation by the Defendants documented in the motion by the Plaintiff not addressed in the memorandum, the language of the memorandum completely avoided the fact that a qualified individual was not even granted an interview after being subjected to a hostile work environment and stated that Plaintiff was hired as a part-time nursing unit manager which is incorrect; Plaintiff asserts that
    10

    she has strong faith that a Judge would, at minimum, in an employment litigation cite the position the Plaintiff held while working for the employer correctly in his or her memorandum and order which leads Plaintiff to further assert that Barbara Morse has never bothered to read Plaintiffs complaint (Document 1). Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985). 13. Plaintiff has since researched multiple opinions of Judge OTooles and noted that the general script of the memorandum (Document 20) bears no resemblance to his literary style and is missing the usual notation with his name before the body of his text (OTOOLE, D.J.). The ECF system does not allow Plaintiff to download documents from the Court; the one free look has allowed only for printing and / or copying the documents. Plaintiff began to utilize the PACER System to look at documents because of obvious fraud by opposing counsel and indicators of serious improprieties by the court staff have now led Plaintiff to do an analysis of (Documents 9 & 20). Plaintiffs new role as Lounge Chair Laura -- Amateur Investigative Agent undertaken to stay on top of the Defendants fraud schemes has revealed that Plaintiff, a victim of crimes and misdemeanors beyond disability discrimination and retaliation, is also being denied justice and equal access to the court. 14. Plaintiffs court orders (Document 9) initiating this action included an order stating *The Motion for Appointment of Counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal after the defendants have replied to the complaint.+ and was signed by Judge OToole. *This
    11

    Plan does not apply to the appointment of counsel for litigants who assert employmentrelated claims against current or former employers.+ GENERAL ORDER 09-4 Dated May 1, 2009 is signed by Judge OToole. Plaintiff, based on the former, is quite sure that Morse is writing and fraudulently signing a US District Judges name to the opinions and orders in this action and the complaint Plaintiff has brought before the U S District Court of Massachusetts has not been read by a judge as Morse denied and affirmed respectively when questioned. 15. During the 9/27/2010 Skype conversation, Morse tells Plaintiff I copied them myself when Plaintiff brought up the missing hard copy exhibits ( which turned out to be two very important exhibits in addition to the nursing license previously discussed)(see Document 11) as though Morse being the handler of these documents was suppose to offer Plaintiff security and confidence. The memorandum of (Document 20) states Plaintiff *expresses concern that certain documents appear to be missing from the exhibits that were filed along with her complaint. However, the docket reveals that she subsequently re-filed her exhibits.+. The documents missing were crucial in showing the fraud before the EEOC and suspiciously included the last page of the Defendants fraudulent Position Statement that had Patrick Egans of Jackson Lewis signature and attachment 1 of the position statement (generic employment application) which defense falsely claimed supported their position. The nursing license was crucial to the discrimination, retaliation and count IV RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF MGL 149 Sec.187 (Document 11 incorporated herein). Plaintiff expressed to Morse that she should be

    12

    concerned that exhibits disappeared from the U S District Court; a vague mention that she would follow up ended the subject. 16. Plaintiff, also, noted an attempt to thwart service of process to the Defendants by Barbara Morse. On September 3, 2010 Plaintiff sent a request (Document 13) to the court for an amended summons by express mail (the initial summons for Geriatric Facilities had no address for the Defendant) and required notation of the correct human being (Zuckerman) to serve (Plaintiff had the initial summons set to serve Patrick Egan which she discovered to be improper ); Plaintiff had already sent the Complaints and summonses to the U S Marshal in Boston before she realized the summons for the Defendant Corporation was not suitable for proper service. ECF access had not been initiated as of the date of this request. 17. Seven days passed and Plaintiff had heard nothing from the Court; her access to the ECF system became active on or about September 7th. On Friday September 10, 2010 at 8:39 AM Plaintiff placed a 09:38 minute long Skype call to the Docket Clerk to inquire as to why such a slow processing of the amended summons was occurring. During this inquiry, the Docket clerk stated that he would process the summon the next week; Plaintiff reminded the Docket Clerk of Rule 4(a)(2)(b) and that the amended summons was also required because the court had sent her the initial summons without an address for the Defendant Corporation and not just Plaintiffs error and voiced concern regarding her perception of unnecessary delay. Plaintiff was put on hold and assumes this was so the Docket Clerk could report to Morse that Plaintiff had just stated her knowledge of the rule to him. Plaintiff had also sent the court a completed USM-285
    13

    (single sheet computer downloaded form) to use with the amended summons hoping to avoid further delay and cost but court staff would not transfer the information to the five duplicate form and process the summons for delivery to the U S Marshal. Plaintiff now lives in Washington State. 18. The summons finally arrived through the ECF system on the afternoon of the 10th but Plaintiff did not receive the summons copy and new USM-285 sent thru the U S Mail until September 13th. Plaintiff paid on the 3rd of September for U S Mail express delivery to request an amended summons from the court and then again on the 14th to get the amended summons and completed USM-285 form back to the U S Marshal. When all actions to amend the summons were independently expedited by the Plaintiff there was no need for Morse to call the US Marshall. 19. The motion (Documents 17 and 19) had also requested that service of process be expedited due to evidence the Defendants may be evading service. Memorandum and Order (Document 20) stated *A deputy clerk of this court contacted the Boston Office of the United States Marshals Service+ so Plaintiff questioned Morse during the 9/27/2010 Skype conversation as to why a clerk had called the U S Marshal. Morse admitted making the call and then denied memory of when she placed the call (tripping over her words as she denied memory) but stated the context of the conversation was to ensure that Plaintiff sent the amended summons to the US Marshal; Morses statement regarding the context of that conversation made no sense considering the effort Plaintiff had to take to get the amended summons in the first place as she tried to expeditiously, in spite of the courts inaction, to get the amended summons back to the
    14

    Boston US Marshall where they kindly, per the Plaintiffs Skype call request clarified by e-mail, had placed the Complaint service on hold until they received an amended summons (Exhibit 4). 20. Plaintiffs communications with the US Marshal after Morse had contacted them were strained where previously all communication had been extremely helpful and friendly. 21. Plaintiff emailed the US Marshal September 14 and alerted them that the summons would be arriving via express mail (attachment 5). Plaintiff called the US Marshal from her daughters home phone on September 30, 2010 to check the status of service and was told by the US Marshal that she did not know when they would get to serving the Defendants, that she didnt have the staff to go to the Cape, and she admonished Plaintiff for putting the service on hold to only now call and question the service progress stating and that they had court ordered priorities; the U S Marshal spoke with an extremely irritated tone. 22. Plaintiff was baffled how this very friendly pre-arrangement was now perceived to be an inconvenience by the same only now irritated U S Marshal. Plaintiff knew that her summons was also a court ordered summons so she called the Docket Clerk and informed him of the strained conversation she just had with the U S Marshall and that it was Plaintiffs impression that there had been interference by Morse and relayed that there had been absolutely no legitimate reason for Morse to call the U S Marshall in regards to the summons; Plaintiff informed the Docket Clerk that her perception was inappropriate interference by Morse. The summonses were then served the following Monday on October 4, 2010.
    15

    23. Morse, most certainly, should not be signing a judges name to opinions and orders she writes, and then take action that strongly appears to advocate for the Defendants; this is unethical and appears to have strong indicators of collusion with the defense considering Plaintiffs September 20, 2010 Motion (Document 17 and addendum Document 18) included a request to expedite service because there was evidence that Defendants may attempt to evade service of process that Morse down played in her memorandum.
    24.

    The fraud scheme was initiated before the EEOC. An unquestionable Title 18 section 1001 violation has been documented in Plaintiffs submissions to the court throughout this action including within Plaintiffs first motion (Document 17 and Document 19 incorporated herein). There is unquestionable evidence of collusion and a highly probable inappropriate exchange of money between Patrick Egan of Jackson Lewis and the EEOC [paragraph 186 of Document 29 incorporated herein excerpt (Exhibit 7)].

    25. Morses position with the Boston Bar Association Ethics Committee, contributions to literature that describes task force efforts to improve access to justice for unrepresented litigants (Exhibit 7), and less than honest communications to those she serves (as public servant you serve you do not deal with) are of great concern to this unrepresented litigant. 26. Plaintiff is a dedicated nurse whose high standard of work ethic had always been acknowledged by not only supervisors and colleagues but by those whom she served. Plaintiffs In Forma Pauperis Pro Se Litigants status was caused by the defendants and now this Plaintiff is Dealt With by our public servants with intentional deception,
    16

    dishonesty, and neglect of her action; her economic status forced her to request qualification for a service provided by the court that originated as a service for the incarcerated prisoner and grew to include all pro se paupers which has further elicited Plaintiffs feelings of shame and humiliation. The court site on the Web indicates that In Forma Pauperis Pro Se complaints are subject to Judiciary Review which had provided Plaintiff some solace regarding pauper status assuming her complaint would receive an initial evaluation by a judge. Morse is not an honest public servant and she has been entrusted with preliminary review of pro se complaints. Regardless of the court staffs individual feelings regarding the Pro Se litigant which apparently ranges from Pro Se Litigants have Mental Problems to Concern Pro Se Litigants are having their rights violated it is illegal to stomp on the rights of someone with a grievance and deny access to the Court according to the United States Constitution First Amendment and the last place constitutional rights should be trampled is in a United States District Court by the court staff themselves. 27. Plaintiffs observation presents a strong appearance that there is significant collusion between the EEOC and the attorneys of Jackson Lewis which is then carried to collusion between Jackson Lewis attorneys and the pro se staff attorney of this court. There appears to be a scheme where the employment litigation attorney and government employee profit (pay off or not receiving a salary and benefits while having to do no work is profit), Defendants, well aware they are guilty of discrimination as charged, pay high priced attorney fees, and Plaintiffs that have suffered discrimination and retaliation for the exercise of constitutional rights at the hands an employer are denied justice.
    17

    Plaintiff makes the former statement on the fact that a meritless defense has been allowed to delay justice as the players (by the evidence presented) whom profit seem to believe that they have the game down to an art that will elude detection. 28. This case now has four motions and two oppositions by the Plaintiff addressing documents from opposing counsel that contain fraud, a meritless defense, erroneous argument and attempts to prolong the litigation; all this could have been avoided if Document number 1 The Complaint had actually been read and legitimately evaluated. Plaintiff also has a Motion requesting a notice of scheduling conference (Document 48 incorporated herein) noting at minimum a telephone conference with Judge OToole is needed to report facts that require the attention of a U S District Judge; this motion has also been ignored. Not one of Plaintiffs submissions to the court that require the opinion of and orders by only a U S District Judge has been presented to Judge OToole. 29. Barbara Morse has become complicit in concealing the alleged Title 18 sec. 1001 violation committed by the Defendants and their attorney by ignoring what the Plaintiff wrote in her motion of (Document 17) where it was clearly stated *Not only does the Movants Complaint address a federal question and violations of Movant's Constitutional Rights which by law should keep any Bankruptcy proceedings in the District Court but the Complaint articulates strong allegations of violation of other Federal Laws; by this Movants limited knowledge of the law, Title 18 section 1001, at minimum, has been violated and the violation as it stands demonstrates a cavalier display of disrespect for the law with little fear of facing consequences by these
    18

    Defendants; they submitted blatantly false statements, false documentation and concealed records during the EEOCs investigation. Certainly any known to be competent Attorney is more than well aware of the content contained in attachments placed to support a position. See the Exhibit to the Complaint showing the fraudulent Position Statement submitted by the Defendants to the EEOC (Exhibits 45-47); its associated attachments are in Document 11 of this action.+ 30. The Title 18 violation of which Plaintiff has presented to the Court with pleadings of particularity to address the fraud with associated exhibits in hard copy form and entered into the ECF system, in form complying with rules of evidence, have been submitted to address the conspiracy count IX , collusion and fraud by these Defendants before the EEOC in attempt to relay the information to the judge in compliance with 18 U.S.C. 4 (Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both) of which Morse in dereliction of her duty declined to do. 31. Morse ignored the violation and signed a federal judges name to a memorandum and order; she not reporting the allegations and associated evidence of this violation to a judge is not only a dereliction of duty but an actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States in its self. This Title 18 violation has been documented in the complaint, the motion Morse fraudulently decided and multiple subsequent documents submitted to the court by Plaintiff. Plaintiff understands the PSSA has duty
    19

    to research authorities and draft documents; this duty does not include authority to fraudulently sign a judges name after an incompetent evaluation of the litigants submissions to the court whether intentional, as perceived by this Plaintiff, or not and leave absent an evaluation of her drafts by a U S District judge. 32. Considering the number of times (much more than a few) this Plaintiff has called Barbara Morses office phone which is answered by voice mail reporting that she is out of the office for the day or left early in the day delegating the call if immediate assistance is needed to her colleagues which is more often than not (Plaintiff has only spoken with her once) she must consider her work load light enough to cut back on her hours. Plaintiff had assumed the PSSA with the responsibilities charged had to meet the challenge of time and work volume and admonished Defense for making authority search more of a time consuming task with scanned documents; apparently the daunting task of researching Defenses authorities purposefully made more daunting with scanned documents was intended only for Plaintiff as the scanned documents have been switched with word processed documents in the ECF System (Motion 52 to follow will address the former) had court staff assistance. 33. There is something sinister going on. Barbara Morse is an ineffective public servant and uses her position as the PSSA to purposely thwart the Plaintiffs action, ensure no judicial presence and has exhibited actions and behaviors that have the appearance of collusion with the Defense which have denied this Plaintiff of her First Amendment Right to bring and have her very legitimate grievance heard before the court. Plaintiff prays that in the advent Barbara Morse or one she loves requires the care and
    20

    monitoring of a nurse that a nurse who holds the highest respect for the integrity of the profession and possesses the diligence to ensure skilled care from heart and hand be at the bedside; Plaintiff would want nothing less for any patient experiencing a health crisis. 34. There are Documents submitted to the Court by Plaintiff that clearly request Judicial Notice and Judicial Review that have not been presented before a judge including two motions to disqualify opposing counsel with evidence of fraud upon the court presenting as the first motion to disqualify sat undecided; still no action has been taken. The second motion to disqualify counsel was an emergency request and included a request for default judgment which has been ignored; the fraud upon the court continued with a file exchange in the ECF system as the second emergency motion to disqualify counsel sat undecided. See the Next motion (Document 52) regarding files switched in the ECF system which will be filed shortly. The intentional mismanagement of this case has now caused a U S District Judge the daunting task of 52 pick up! Plaintiff also made a request for a speedy trial per MGL 151 B section 9 and this request has also been ignored. Plaintiff prays that a US District Court Judge is actually reading this document and finds what has been reported here beyond unacceptable and a significant barrier to justice that should not be happening in a U S District Court. 35. Plaintiff would have preferred verbal discussion with Judge OToole regarding what has been presented in this motion but she was never given the opportunity; therefore, to protect her right to raise these improprieties should this action move to a higher court documentation herein of said improprieties is necessary and this document has been
    21

    entered into the ECF system. Even if Plaintiff could get to the post office the chances of a mailed ex parte motion making to a judge seem remote. 36. The PSSA program, in this citizens opinion, fails its stated objectives (see exhibit 6 on task force). Plaintiff expected ethical and professional behavior from the staff of a U. S. District Court and is sorely disappointed by what she has described herein and finds the clerks of the court behavior particularly egregious considering their knowledge of law and unquestionable duty to respect and thru example uphold the integrity of the court. 37. Plaintiff writes with hope that her candor toward the court raises alarm for those with authority to make change and prays a justice system that is not ethically challenged follows; Plaintiffs children and all future generations should not be deprived of justice for all. In Plaintiffs mind the deserving of respect and honor toward the court had never before fallen to question; at present, while sadly fearing for America, Plaintiff barely perceives any integrity within our justice system as a dark cloud hovers where those who have not are denied justice and those who have pay for its illusion. 38. The law firm of Jackson Lewis clear conflict of interest is ensuring continued profit and avoidance of criminal prosecution. Not only have they presented a meritless defense to ensure continued reimbursement for their legal work from the Defendants they have taken egregious steps to defraud the court. 39. Plaintiff believes the Rules of Evidence 408 regarding offers to compromise will allow disclosure of the fact that on July 19, 2010 Plaintiff sent Defendants and Patrick Egan of Jackson Lewis a letter to compromise. Plaintiff closed this letter to Defendants and Egan with *A current situation has me out of state and I have no personal phone number at
    22

    this time.+ Egan returned correspondence to the address of Plaintiffs daughter denying that the Defendants had discriminated and stated that Plaintiff resigned her position at Pleasant Bay because she moved back to Washington (exhibit 1). 40. Egan, hoping Plaintiff would pursue litigation, in a return correspondence informed Plaintiff that the Defendants had declined settlement negotiations and denied discrimination adding that Plaintiff had resigned her position to relocate to Washington (Plaintiffs last day of work for the Defendants was September 30, 2008). Egan had no indications from Plaintiff she had moved to or intended to stay in Washington and his language in the correspondence was purposeful and specific with intent to irritate Plaintiff ensuring she would pursue litigation. 41. Plaintiff did not relocate to the State of Washington until late June 2010. Egan mailed the Defendants EEOC Position Statement to her address in Hyannis in July of 2009 which was received by the Plaintiff who then submitted her response to Defenses position in person at the Boston EEOC five days later. Egan returned a phone call to Plaintiffs home in Dedham during (Plaintiff believes) the third week in March of 2010; the caller ID on Plaintiffs phone indicated an incoming call from Florida which Plaintiff verified with reverse look up. Egans call had come from a hotel in Florida. Quite obviously Egan had to dial a Massachusetts area code to place the call and was fully aware that Plaintiff had not moved out of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs correspondence regarding the letter to compromise was sent from Washington State, 42. Plaintiff filed her Complaint and Jackson Lewis attorneys then pursued a meritless defense for their clients with deliberate planned fraud upon the court.
    23

    43. The scanned PDFs submitted to the courts ECF system by opposing counsel Guy Tully of Jackson Lewis as noted in Plaintiffs (Documents 41, 42, 43 & 45 incorporated herein) were part of a purposeful scheme to thwart, both, the Plaintiffs and the courts 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 PDFs. The docket clerk entered Plaintiffs 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 (clerks name)+ and *Modified on 12/3/2010 making the filing event an Addendum to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendants' Answer (clerks 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) 44. Plaintiff had motioned for sanctions (Document 46 incorporated herein) on Nov. 29 th which was the Monday just prior to December 3rd. Plaintiff finds it quite peculiar that the Docket Clerk randomly entered her case through the ECF system on December 3rd to enter text indicating he linked documents and took no action; Plaintiffs documents submitted into the ECF on 11/4/2010 are addendums (Documents 32 and 33 incorporated herein) to the Motion to Disqualify Defense Counsel (Document 27 incorporated herein) and to the Motion to Strike Defendants Affirmative Defenses
    24

    (Document 28 incorporated herein) respectively to the stated addendums. These addendums explain that Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Answer to the Complaint (Document 29 and all pleading specific exhibits incorporated herein) should be attached to both of the former stated motions. Plaintiff was unsuccessful in establishing hyperlinks in the ECF system showing Documents 1, 21, 27, 28, and 29 as linked and for the most part had only typed text indicating their linkage with no hyperlink established between (Document 29) and the addendums. 45. Why didnt the Docket Clerk establish a hyperlink between (Document 29) and the addendums (Documents 32 and 33)? Defendants strongly objected to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Answer to the Complaint (Document 29) which describes fraud with particularity and have moved to strike the document with an opposition (Document 38). Footnote 1 of Defense (Document 38) in reference to Plaintiffs addendum (Document 32) states *this motion addendum is of no moment----it offers no legal basis whatever to support the Responseand should by no means affect the striking of Plaintiffs Response+ in attempt to thwart authority that supports (Document 29) which was copied and pasted by Plaintiff as Nos. 06-3936, 07-1650, 07-3427. - BAUER
    MECHANICAL INC v. JOINT into the addendum; after reading the Defenses footnote Plaintiff rechecked the authority which on a different Web page was cited as 562 F.3d 784; 2009 U.S. App. 58 LEXIS 6072; 186 L.R.R.M. 2019; Plaintiff noted the authority correctly in her opposition (Document 41). Defense appears to prefer a lazy authority thwarting footnote over professional argument knowing that Plaintiff cited the authority in the addendum without indicating that the authority was established in The UNITED STATES COURT OF
    25

    APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. Defense halted any further LR 7.1 conference communication after Plaintiff communicated this authority as support for her (document 29) in an email as Nos. 06-3936, 07-1650, 07-3427. - BAUER MECHANICAL INC v. JOINT to their previous threat of a motion to strike and Defense just went straight ahead and motioned to strike (document 29). Again, it is quite interesting that the Docket Clerk took

    no action to establish document linkage that was actually needed yet documented action taken that was not taken or needed. 46. The attachment to (Document 36) which was a scanned duplicate of Document 35 was part of the ruse. Why would someone scan a document that is already on their computer in word processed form; Defense would like the court to believe that this document that was just previously entered as a word processed PDF required scanning and stamped with copy to place it as an attachment for the very next document entered??? There is no logic in Tullys maneuver beyond deception and manipulation. The attachment to Document 36 appears doubled scanned to give a hint of lower quality. Other US district courts have stipulated [for example New Hampshire 2.3 Format and Quality Control] Attachments/Non-Trial Exhibits must also be filed in an electronically converted PDF text searchable format. Unless the Filing User possesses only a paper copy of the document to be submitted, in which case a scanned PDF that is not text searchable may be submitted. [http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/pdf/DCNH-ECFProcedural-Order.pdf]. It took the defense counsel 55 minutes to enter six documents into the ECF system. (Excluding time to create PDFs because conversion to PDF may have been done as the word process documents were completed). (Exhibit 3)
    26

    47. How this attorney of the firm Jackson Lewis thought engaging the court staff to switch the scanned files he submitted into the ECF system to word processed files would go undetected is beyond belief; the irony is that the maneuver was not going to solve evidence of his attempt to defraud the court. His hyperlinks in the word processed files are to erroneous authority that do not support the Defendants position, his attempt to conceal instead of argue adverse authority remains obvious placed in a foot note misspelled with a changed Lexis number and no hyperlink to the authority; Tullys facade of delusion that argument can change federal rule (see Plaintiffs opposition Document 42) are evident whether the PDFs were scanned to thwart search or word processed to enable search. Tully simply changed only one part of the initial scheme while validating his and Jackson Lewis intent to continue the promotion of their clients meritless already fraudulent defense and prolong the litigation process. 48. Defenses next fraudulent move is just around the corner. Tully has no fear of detection or consequence knowing there is a slim chance (the files were switched in the advent the slim chance prevails) that any of the action brought before the court by a Pro Se In Forma Pauperis Plaintiff will ever pass before the eyes of a U S District Judge or Magistrate Judge for that matter. See Motion REQUEST THAT BARBARA MORSE BE ENJOINED FROM DUTY ON THIS ACTION (Document 51). It is quite bizarre that this Document 53 written by Morse would address the concerns Plaintiff documented in the MOTION 52 yet not address Motion 51 or 52. Once late in the document she uses the term pending motions in an apparent reference to documents 51 & 52 after she addressed my mention of the ECF system compromise. A comment I made at the start of document 45 regarding how I thought a wonderful system like the ECF that gave an Ex Parte option should trigger hold to automatic emails to other parties as well and little concern in actuality regarding that it did not turn out to be ex parte as Tully dug a deeper
    27

    hole for himself with his opposition. She conveniently does not mention files exchanged in the ECF or her documents fraudulently signed with a Judges name----[The Court notes that McGarry has contacted the Chief Judge of this Court as well as clerks office staff regarding several concerns, the primary one being her belief that the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system has been compromised.] to clarify my primary concern is her unethical and illegal behavior and my denial of access to the court. Thank you for your time, respectfully, Laura McGarry

    Laura J. McGarry, Pro Se 1717 Sheridan Road Apt. A- 50 Bremerton, WA 98310 360-627-7386 (is no longer an active phone line) 360-551-6773 (daughters cell phone but she is 50 minutes away from me by car; Plaintiff does not have a car) late_linda@yahoo.com (best contact) Dated: January 21, 2011

    Barbara Morse changed the font she usually uses and did include Judge OTooles marking at the top of the document, (after she was clued as to these distinctions between her fraudulent submissions and documents actually composed by Judge OToole by her reading document 51 which was written to enjoin her from this case) the properties of the PDF again name her as the author (I checked the system this morning and the properties still name her as author; I am quite sure she will soon have her documents perfected to on appearance resemble those of Judge OToole only absent his knowledge of law and wisdom.

    Document 53----Click on the body of the document and then right click your mouse!!!! Title: Q:\Morse\2010 cases\10cv11343-GAO (Mcgarry, Laura)\10cv11343 Order denying pending motions for sanctions to strike.wpd Author: Morse File: 09514091786 Created : 1/20/2011 11:41:26 am She, again, manipulated the file date.

    DOCKET
    28

    Entered: 01/20/2011 12:01:25 Filed: 01/19/2011

    Category: order Event: Order on Motion to Strike Order on Motion for Default Judgment Order on Motion for Sanctions Order on Motion to Disqualify Counsel Document: 53

    4. PSSA Type: crt

    Judge George A. OToole, Jr: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered granting 37 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to the Answer; granting 39 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's September and October Amendments to her Complaint; denying 43 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 46 First Motion for Sanctions; denying 27 Motion to Disqualify Counsel; denying 28 Plaintiff's Proposed Motion to Strike Answer. (PSSA, 4)

    29

    A tto r ne y s

    C a s e I nf o r m a tio n

    D iv is io ns

    G e ne r a l I nf o r m a tio n

    Jur o r s

    O utr e a c h

    R e s o ur c e s

    Search

    Home: Boston: Judge Information: O'Toole, George A. Jr.


    text s ize

    Boston Overview Architecture & History C entral Violations Bureau (C VB) C ontact Information C ourt C alendar Hours & Directions Judge Information

    O'Toole, George A. Jr.


    Born 1947 in Worcester, MA

    Fe de ral Judicial Se rvice


    Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Massachusetts Nominated by William J. Clinton on April 4, 1995, to a new seat created by 104 Stat. 5089; Confirmed by the Senate on May 25, 1995, and received commission on May 26, 1995.

    Education
    Boston College, A.B., 1969 Harvard Law School, J.D., 1972

    Staff
    Chambers Judicial Assistant Clerk's Office Courtroom Clerk Paul Lyness Docket Clerk Court Reporter Chris Danieli 617-748-9181 paul_lyness@mad.uscourts.gov 617-748-9182 chris_danieli@mad.uscourts.gov Dianne Croke

    Marcia Patrisso 617-737-8728

    Courtroom Numbe r
    9, 3 rd Floor

    Courtroom Te chnology
    Contact the courtroom clerk regarding use of this equipment. The courtroom is equipped w ith a fully integrated evidence presentation system w ith 15" view ing monitors for each attorney table, the witness, the Judge and their staff, and a 40" plasma for the gallery. The jury box also has 15" monitors built into the front and back row s of the jury box, one for every tw o jurors. Evidence being displayed from any source can be annotated from the w itness and lectern monitors. Two attorney tables have the ability to connect both audio and video from a computer through a standard VGA port [laptop/desktop and even Mac/Apple if you have the VGA adapter]. In addition, there are tw o computer audio and video inputs located at the lectern location. Also at the lectern, is a document camera for displaying physical evidence that is not electronic and a VCR. Portable video conferencing equipment can be brought in upon request for remote appearances. Internet access is available upon request and w ith the consent of the presiding Judge. Click here for more information.

    Chambe rs Proce dure s /Standing Orde rs /Sample Orde rs


    N/A

    H ome

    Bos ton

    Springfield

    Worc es ter

    M is s ion Statement

    C areers

    P ro Se L itigants

    Rec ords Searc h

    Site M ap

    Brows eA loud

    ALM Properties, Inc. Page printed from: http://www.law.com Back to Article

    Boston Federal Prosecutor Faces Disciplinary Hearing


    A three-judge panel will hold a hearing Friday to determine whether Boston federal prosecutor Jeffrey Auerhahn should be disciplined for allegedly withholding exculpatory evidence, which forced another federal judge to release purported mobsters from prison. Auerhahn's alleged misconduct conduct occurred between 1991 and 1993 and was disclosed to the court in August 2002. Chief Judge Mark Wolf sparked the disciplinary case against Auerhahn by making a complaint to the Massachusetts Bar Counsel. Sheri Qualters 01-22-2010 A three-judge panel will hold a hearing Friday to determine whether Boston federal prosecutor Jeffrey Auerhahn should be disciplined for allegedly withholding exculpatory evidence, which forced another federal judge to release purported mobsters from prison. Judge Joseph Tauro of the District of Massachusetts tapped district court judges George O'Toole Jr., William Young and Rya Zobel for the panel. Chief Judge Mark Wolf sparked the disciplinary case against Auerhahn by making a complaint to the Massachusetts Bar Counsel, then handed off the federal court case to Tauro. Wolf's June 2007 letter to the bar counsel's office detailed Auerhahn's missteps while prosecuting alleged mobsters Vincent Ferrara and Pasquale Barone in two District of Massachusetts cases, Barone v. U.S. and Ferrara v. U.S. Auerhahn allegedly did not disclose that a government witness had recanted some statements about the defendants' involvement in a Boston murder. According to court papers, Auerhahn's alleged misconduct conduct occurred between 1991 and 1993 and was disclosed to the court in August 2002. In 2003, Michael Sullivan, then the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, asked Wolf to wait for the results of a U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility inquiry of the allegations "before making findings of misconduct or a referral" to the bar counsel's office.

    In January 2005, the Office of Professional Responsibility issued a 112-page report stating that Auerhahn acted in "reckless disregard of discovery obligations," but it found no intentional professional misconduct. Following the report, which also concluded that Auerhahn "exercised poor judgment," Sullivan privately disciplined Auerhahn with a written reprimand. Wolf wrote a letter to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey in January 2008, criticizing the Justice Department's discipline of Auerhahn. Last April, Wolf also wrote a letter asking Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. to review the Auerhahn matter. Massachusetts Bar Counsel Constance Vecchione did not return a call for comment. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts declined to comment, as did two of Auerhahn's lawyers in the Boston office of K&L Gates: of counsel Arnold Rosenfeld and partner Michael Ricciuti. Punishment for prosecutorial misconduct isn't rare, but courts are usually satisfied with the discipline imposed by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, said Denis King, a former federal prosecutor and a litigator at Boston-based Goulston & Storrs. King isn't representing anyone in the case and has no special knowledge about the allegations. "A lot of times it never gets to this point because the misconduct that is alleged is not as egregious as the allegations in this particular case," King said. The case is serious in part because it involves alleged violations of rules handed down by two U.S. Supreme Court cases, he said. The 1963 Brady v. Maryland ruling imposes "an absolute obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence," and the 1972 Giglio v. U.S. decision requires prosecutors to disclose a witnesses' inconsistent statements that can be used to cross-examine or discredit that witness. "Like everything else, it's kind of a scale of seriousness," King said. "There are Brady violations and then there are Brady violations." Auerhahn's failure to disclose the exculpatory evidence, which came to light when the informant contacted the Justice Department, "is serious stuff," King said. The context of Auerhahn's alleged actions, a racketeering case involving alleged mobsters who faced substantial jail terms as opposed to a misdemeanor, makes the misconduct more egregious, King said. It was almost unheard of a few years ago for prosecutors to face charges for alleged Brady violations but recent examples are starting to crop up, said James Moliterno, the Vincent Bradford professor of law at Washington and Lee University School of Law in Lexington, Va. Moliterno cited the case against former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. The Justice Department was forced to throw out the indictment in that case after it discovered that prosecutors withheld evidence from Stevens' defense attorneys.

    "The tide is turning in terms of the expectations of the bar authorities and courts in relation to U.S. Attorneys and prosecutors turning over exculpatory material," Moliterno said.

    Copyright 2011. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.

    Sign In | Register now

    Home Delivery

    Local Search

    Site Search GO

    HOME Local

    TODAY'S GLOBE National World

    NEWS Politics

    YOUR TOWN Business

    BUSINESS Education

    SPORTS Health

    LIFESTYLE Green

    A&E

    THINGS TO DO

    TRAVEL

    CARS

    JOBS Weather

    REAL ESTATE Lottery

    Science

    Obituaries

    Special reports

    Traffic

    HOME / NEWS / LOCAL / MASS.

    A DV E RT I SE M E N T

    Federal judge calls plea deal too lenient for exmagistrate


    Man allegedly sought sex favors
    By Brian R. Ballou Globe Staff / April 14, 2010 E-mail | Print | Reprints | | ShareThis Text size

    A federal judge rejected as too lenient yesterday a proposed plea agreement that would have sent a former Chelsea District Court clerk magistrate to jail for a year for allegedly using his position to seek sexual favors from two women facing prostitution charges. I reject it, US District Judge George OToole said just moments after listening to Robert Sheketoff, lawyer for defendant James M. Burke, argue in federal court that the proposed sentence of 12 months and a day was sufficient, given that Burke has lost his $84,000-a-year job, as well as his pension. The two women who brought allegations against Burke sat in the courtroom, and when OToole rejected the plea agreement, nodded their heads at the judges decision. Sheketoff said after the hearing that while he and Assistant US Attorney Eugenia Carris have the option of working out another plea agreement, he will not seek one. I was disappointed, but not surprised, Sheketoff said of OTooles decision. Burke had pleaded guilty to two counts of deprivation of civil rights under the code of law, but withdrew the guilty plea after the plea agreement was rejected. The two sides will return to court May 6 to begin planning for a trial; Burke faces up to 11 years in prison if convicted. Carris argued during the hearing that the proposed one-year sentence was appropriate. A year and a day is a long time to send anyone to jail who has never been in jail before, she said. Carris also said Burke should not have to serve more time because his offense was not as egregious as a person convicted of drug dealing, which would probably draw a longer sentence. But one of the alleged victims, who asked to be identified only by her initials, J.T., said outside the courtroom, How can those lawyers say that what he did wasnt all that bad, that he didnt deserve more punishment for what he did? Her lawyer, John Swomley, said, Its interesting that the government doesnt view the abuse of public trust more seriously, that the judge had to step in. Burke allegedly told J.T. he would take care of the prostitution charges against her if she agreed to have sex with him inside an empty courtroom in 2005. He removed the woman from the lockup area, took her to the room and received oral sex from her, according to an FBI affidavit. Three years later, J.T. was in the Chelsea court with her lawyer, trying to get an old prostitution charge dismissed, when she saw Burke again. She told her lawyer
    Which Red Sox players should get the nod this year?
    FROG POND OPENS

    CONNECT WITH BOSTON.COM

    Follow us on @BostonUpdate, other Twitter accounts


    CONTEST FOR NEW FANS Win

    circus tickets

    INSIDE BOSTON.COM
    NEW ENGLAND'S BEST ICE CREAM

    Check out picks for the top ice cream locales in the region
    SUMMER READS FOR KIDS

    Some reading options for the long, lazy days of summer


    RED SOX ALL-STAR CANDIDATES

    that Burke had approached her when she was in the lockup at the courthouse in 2005, asking her if she was a working girl and offering to get her case dismissed if she provided sex, according to an FBI affidavit filed in federal court. The woman said Burke, who has worked in the court since 1998, then took her into a courtroom, where she performed oral sex on him. After her lawyer alerted the FBI, the woman began cooperating with agents and secretly recorded conversations with Burke, who allegedly acknowledged their earlier sexual encounter and offered to help her get the new charges dismissed, the affidavit says. Burke is also accused of threatening last year to lock up another woman, identified in the affidavit by the initials A.C., if she did not agree to his demands for sex. She acquiesced in the courthouse, according to the affidavit. Brian Ballou can be reached at bballou@globe.com.
    Copyright 2010 Globe New spaper Company.

    The wading pool on the Boston Common offers a cool oasis


    PLUS...

    Blogs | Crossword | Comics | Horoscopes | Games | Lottery | Caption contest | Today in history

    Start your week off right with in-depth coverage. Subscribe now to the Globe.

    Ads by Google

    w hat's this?

    Is Jesus Really God? Scholars Examine the Facts About Jesus' Claims to be God Y-Jesus.com Movies Find Media & Entertainment Solutions For Your Business Now. www.business.com Budget Boutique Hotel 140 Charming discount hotel in Boston. Best location: Back Bay, South End. www.Hotel140.com

    MOST E-MAILED
    1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
    Newton police report 125 vehicle break-ins since Jan. 1 Bruins make good on promise, share Stanley Cup love Blueberry cake with streusel topping Bird's ties to Boston still strong Rose Art Museum will sell no art Traffic surge on Rte. 128 predicted The Age of the Digital Dinosaur

    RECOMMENDED SEARCHES

    Comics Weather Obituaries

    Sudoku Horoscope Crossword puzzle


    ABOUT THIS LIST

    Home | Today's Globe | News | Business | Sports | Lifestyle | A&E | Things to Do | Travel | Cars | Jobs | Real Estate | Local Search
    CONTACT BOSTON.COM | Help | Advertise | Work here | Updated Privacy Policy | Your Ad Choices | Newsletters | Mobile | RSS feeds | Sitemap CONTACT THE BOSTON GLOBE | Subscribe | Manage your subscription | Advertise | The Boston Globe Extras | The Boston Globe Gallery | 2011 NY Times Co.

    Get FBI Updates


    Home Boston Press Releases 2011 Suspended Attorney Sentenced to 12 Years for Leadering Large-Scale Mortgage Fraud Ring...

    Suspended Attorney Sentenced to 12 Years for Leadering Large-Scale Mortgage Fraud Ring
    U.S. Attorneys Office January 20, 2011
    District of Massachusett s (61 7 ) 7 48-3 1 00

    Boston Division Links


    Boston Home Contact Us Territory/Jurisdiction About Us - Our People & Capabilities - What We Investigate - Our Partnerships - Boston History Press Room | Stories Wanted by the FBI - Boston In Your Community FBI Jobs

    BOSTON, MAA Brookline man convicted of conspiracy, wire fraud and money laundering was sentenced today for his role as the leader of a mortgage fraud ring that involved 21 fraudulent property transactions and defrauded 10 mortgage lenders of more than $10.6 million in loan proceeds. ERIC L. LEVINE, 58, of Brookline, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge George A. OToole, Jr. to 12 years imprisonment, to be followed by two years of supervised release. The Court also entered an order of forfeiture in the amount of $1,912,000 as part of the sentence. In 2008, a total of 11 defendants were indicted in this case. Five defendants, including LEVINE, were convicted of conspiracy and wire fraud counts by a federal jury following a seven-week trial in June 2010. LEVINE and defendant J. DANIEL LINDLEY were also convicted of money laundering. Five defendants pleaded guilty before the trial, and one defendant is awaiting trial. Between May 2005 and June 2006, the defendants participated in a conspiracy to obtain $10.6 million in mortgage loan proceeds by fraud. The scheme involved the use straw buyers, inflated purchase prices and documents containing numerous false representations, such as false information about the purchase price, borrower income, employment, and intent to reside in the property. The difference between actual purchase prices negotiated with sellers and the inflated purchase prices submitted to lenders ranged as high as $255,000 on properties in South Boston, Dorchester, Jamaica Plain, Quincy, Hyde Park and Cohasset. These fraudulent "mark-ups" added up to over $1.9 million. From this $1.9 million, the defendants pocketed more than $1.7 million in illegal proceeds. The mortgages on all of the properties were defaulted upon and nearly all went into foreclosure. LEVINE, an attorney whose license to practice law was suspended at the time of the crimes, participated in the scheme by causing bogus HUD-1 Settlement Statements and deeds to be created and sent to mortgage lenders. LEVINE also caused nearly all of the illegal proceeds from the conspiracy to be deposited into accounts he controlled, kept some of the profits, and distributed the remainder to other co-conspirators. LEVINE is the tenth defendant sentenced to date. In October 2010, Judge OToole sentenced DANIEL APPOLON to 42 months in prison and ordered co-defendant SAMUEL JEAN-LOUIS to serve a prison term of 22 months; ERNST APPOLON was sentenced to prison for 120 months; JERMAINE BLAKE was ordered to serve a prison term of 30 months; WIDNER LAMARRE was sentenced to 60 months in prison; and LATOYA HALTIWANGER was sentenced to 30 months in prison. In November 2010, JEAN NORISCAT was sentenced to a prison term of 87 months. On November 10, 2011, attorney J. DANIEL LINDLEY was sentenced to 72 months and on January 14, 2011, ANDRE JUNIOR LAMERIQUE was sentenced to 60 months in prison. Defendant RALPH APPOLON is scheduled for trial on February 7, 2011. United States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz said, The sentences in this case reflect the seriousness of the crimes at issue. Sham transactions like these drive up prices for legitimate homeowners. The abandonment of the properties to foreclosure often further victimize the affected neighborhoods. These economic crimes have a profound and direct impact on the lives of innocent homeowners. United States Attorney Ortiz; Richard DesLauriers, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division; Robert Bethel, Inspector in Charge of the United States Postal Inspection Service; William P. Offord, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Services Criminal Investigation, Boston Field Division; Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino; and Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis, made the announcement today. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U. S. Attorneys Victor A. Wild and Ryan M. DiSantis of Ortizs Economic Crimes Unit and Mary B. Murrane, Chief of Ortizs Asset Forfeiture Unit. ************************** Mortgage fraud is a key focus of the Department of Justice who in November 2009 created the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. The task force works to improve

    efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

    A ccessibilit y | eRu lem a kin g | Fr eedom of In for m a t ion A ct | Leg a l Not ices | Leg a l Policies a n d Discla im er s | Lin k s | Pr iv a cy Policy | USA .g ov | W h it e Hou se FBI. g ov is a n officia l sit e of t h e U. S. Feder a l Gov er n m en t , U. S. Depa r t m en t of Ju st ice

    Close

    A tto r ne y s

    C a s e I nf o r m a tio n

    D iv is io ns

    G e ne r a l I nf o r m a tio n

    Jur o r s

    O utr e a c h

    R e s o ur c e s

    Search

    Home: Boston: Judge Information: Sorokin, Leo T.


    text s ize

    Boston Overview Architecture & History C entral Violations Bureau (C VB) C ontact Information C ourt C alendar Hours & Directions Judge Information

    Sorokin, Leo T.
    Born 1961 in Hartford, CT

    Fe de ral Judicial Se rvice


    Magistrate Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Massachusetts First appointed to the Court April 11, 2005.

    Education
    Yale College, B.A., 1983 Columbia Law School, J.D., 1991

    Staff
    Chambers Judicial Assistant Clerks Office Courtroom/ Maria Simeone 617-748-4231 maria_simeone@mad.uscourts.gov Docket Clerk Yvonne Franklin

    Courtroom Numbe r
    24, 7th Floor

    Courtroom Te chnology
    Contact the courtroom clerk regarding use of this equipment. The courtroom is equipped w ith a 50" plasma monitor cart that contains a VCR/DVD combo unit for video playback. In addition, there is a document camera in each courtroom that can connect to the same monitor for displaying physical evidence. If the evidence is electronic, the computer can either be chained into the system through the document camera, or connected directly by removing the document camera. Portable video conferencing equipment can be brought in upon request for remote appearances. Internet access is available upon request and w ith the consent of the presiding Judge. Click here for more information.

    Chambe rs Proce dure s /Standing Orde rs /Sample Orde rs


    N/A

    H ome

    Bos ton

    Springfield

    Worc es ter

    M is s ion Statement

    C areers

    P ro Se L itigants

    Rec ords Searc h

    Site M ap

    Brows eA loud

    overview
    For more than 50 years, Jackson Lewis has placed a high premium on preventive strategies and positive solutions in the practice of workplace law. We partner with employers to devise policies and procedures promoting constructive employee relations and limiting disputes. When complaints arise, we work with clients to take incisive action to effect solutions that minimize costs and maximize results. Whether we are counseling on legal compliance or litigating a complex case, we help our clients achieve their business goals and promote an issue-free work environment. With offices in major cities throughout the U.S., Jackson Lewis combines a national perspective with an awareness of local business environments. Our clients represent a wide range of public and private businesses and non-profit institutions. We are experienced in all aspects of workplace law: Employment Litigation Affirmative Action Race, Gender and Age Discrimination Sexual Harassment Preventive Labor Relations Union Avoidance Strikes Collective Bargaining Grievance Arbitration Employee Leaves Pension and Benefit Administration Immigration Wage and hour Independent Contractors and Contingent Workers Occupational Safety and Health Substance Abuse and Drug Testing Employee Privacy Disability Rights Workplace Violence Restrictive Covenants and Non-Compete Agreements

    Alternative Dispute Resolution Reductions in Force Litigation Avoidance Counseling, including Policy Review Class Action Litigation When a client seeks counsel in any of these areas, we assign an experienced attorney to deliver the most effective representation. For clients with more than one location, we develop a multi-office team, which provides the advantages of local, as well as national, counsel. Heading the team is the "primary contact attorney" who is responsible for the overall coordination of services.

    brochure
    Firm Brochure

    jackson lew is llp 2011

    ANDREW C. PICKETT Managing Partner

    75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor

    Boston, MA 02116 P: (617) 367-0025 F: (617) 367-2155

    Boston office
    Andrew C. Pickett is the Managing Partner of the Boston office of Jackson Lewis LLP, where he concentrates
    his practice exclusively in employment litigation and counseling on behalf of management. He advises clients regularly on employment law issues, including allegations of unlawful discrimination, reductions in force, FMLA leave, the Americans with Disabilities Act, non-competition agreements, and litigation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Mr. Pickett has substantial trial experience, and appears frequently in state and federal courts in employmentrelated litigation, including defending clients against the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in pattern and practice class action discrimination litigation. He also defends employers in administrative proceedings at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, and other state human rights agencies. Mr. Pickett lectures frequently on employment law and related issues. Mr. Pickett served as a Special Assistant District Attorney in the Middlesex County District Attorneys Office in 1990 and 1991 and also served as law clerk to the Honorable Albert W. Coffrin, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, during 1986 and 1987. Prior to joining Jackson Lewis, Mr. Pickett was with the prominent Boston firm Ropes & Gray. Mr. Pickett is a graduate of Princeton University (AB 1983, magna cum laude); and the Cornell Law School (JD 1986, cum laude). While at Cornell Law School, he was Chancellor of the Cornell Moot Court Board and was a semifinalist in the ABAs National Appellate Advocacy Competition. Mr. Pickett is a member of the Bar of the federal and state courts in both Massachusetts and Vermont, as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and the Untied States Supreme Court. Mr. Pickett was Co-Chair of the Labor and Employment Law Section of the Boston Bar Association from 2000 to 2002. He is a member of the Boston, Massachusetts, Vermont and American Bar Associations. He holds an A.V. rating from Martindale Hubbell. Chambers & Partners has repeatedly recognized Mr. Pickett as one of the leading

    employment law practitioners in Massachusetts in the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 editions of Chambers USA Americas Leading Lawyers For Business: The Clients Guide.

    Honors, Awards and Pro Bono Activity


    Selected for inclusion in 2010 Massachusetts Super Lawyers

    practices
    Alternative Dispute Resolution Benefits Litigation Litigation Reductions in Force, WARN Act Trade Secrets, Non-Competes and Workplace Technology

    education
    Cornell University J.D., 1986
    cum laude

    Princeton University B.A., 1983


    magna cum laude

    admitted to practice
    U.S. Supreme Court 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Massachusetts
    1987

    Massachusetts - D. Mass. Vermont


    1987

    Vermont - D. Vt.

    bar & professional association memberships

    American Bar Association Boston Bar Association Massachusetts Bar Association Vermont Bar Association

    languages
    French

    jackson lew is llp 2011

    GUY P. TULLY Partner

    75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor

    Boston, MA 02116 P: (617) 367-0025 F: (617) 367-2155

    Boston office
    Guy P. Tully is a Partner in the Boston Office of Jackson Lewis LLP, where he started his career in 1989.
    Mr. Tully concentrates his practice on employment litigation and counseling management on workplace issues. Mr. Tully regularly defends employers in state and federal courts, as well as administrative agencies such as the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, against claims of wrongful termination, unlawful discrimination, sexual harassment and noncompliance with state and federal wage and hour laws. He also has significant experience representing employers in non-competition and restrictive covenant matters and denial of benefits claims brought under ERISA. Mr. Tully regularly provides advice to management on employment law matters, including matters relating to FMLA leave, reductions in force, the Americans with Disabilities Act and whistleblower claims brought pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. He also advises employers on issues relating to employment policies and privacy issues. Mr. Tully is a graduate of Wabash College (AB 1986) and Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington, Indiana (JD 1989), where he was elected to the Order of Barristers. Mr. Tully is admitted to practice in Massachusetts. He is also admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Mr. Tully is a former President of the Massachusetts Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, and was named a Massachusetts Super Lawyer in Employment Litigation from 2004 - 2010 by Law & Politics Magazine.

    Honors, Awards and Pro Bono Activity


    Selected for inclusion in 2010 Massachusetts Super Lawyers

    practices
    Litigation Management Education, including e-Based Training Reductions in Force, WARN Act Wage and Hour Compliance

    education
    Indiana University J.D., 1989 Wabash College A.B., 1986

    admitted to practice
    1st Circuit Court of Appeals Massachusetts - D. Mass. Massachusetts
    1989

    bar & professional association memberships


    Federal Bar Association Massachusetts Bar Association

    jackson lew is llp 2011

    BRIAN M. CHILDS Associate

    75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor

    Boston, MA 02116 P: (617) 367-0025 F: (617) 367-2155

    Boston office
    Brian M. Childs is an Associate in the Boston office of Jackson Lewis LLP.
    He concentrates his practice on employment litigation and counseling, including class actions, restrictive covenant and trade secret litigation, and corporate governance issues. Mr. Childs graduated with honors from Princeton University and Suffolk University Law School. In law school, he was on Law Review and graduated with a Certificate of Concentration in Civil Litigation, with Distinction. He was also a judicial intern for the Honorable Cynthia J. Cohen of the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Before joining Jackson Lewis, Brian was associated with the Boston office of the international law firm Nixon Peabody LLP. Mr. Childs is a Director of the Princeton Association of New England (PANE) and the Chair of PANE's Careers Committee. He serves on the Massachusetts Advisory Council of the New England Legal Foundation. He is on the Board of Advisors of Artists for Humanity. And he is a Connector in Mayor Thomas Menino's Boston World Partnerships, an organization that promotes business in Boston.

    education
    Suffolk University Law School J.D., 2004
    cum laude

    Princeton University

    A.B., 1998
    cum laude

    admitted to practice
    1st Circuit Court of Appeals New Hampshire - D. N.H. Massachusetts - D. Mass. New Hampshire
    2006

    Massachusetts
    2005

    bar & professional association memberships


    American Bar Association Boston Bar Association

    jackson lew is llp 2011

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai