Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Court Colluding Attorneys Who Carried Simulated Litigation to Defeat Disabled Litigant add to their GAME- Oppose RECONSIDERATION & JUDICIAL NOTICE Claiming Abuse of the Judicial Process Ongoing Harassment of Counsel and Defendants and NO LEGAL FOUNDATION!

    Uploaded by

    tired_of_corruption
    219 views31 pages
    The American People Are Expected to Support Domestic Terrorism With Their Tax Dollars! http://t.co/h3NE37y Ivy Racket in US District Court MA conspiracy to Deprive Rights through Simulated Litigation http://t.co/fzzHglA Dr. Zernik Files with the US Congress for Impeachment of Judge O’Toole and Clerk of Court Thornton, US District Court, Massachusetts http://t.co/UUq1h1o Day Planner for Massachusetts FBI on Scribd http://scr.bi/oUVzZo Extraordinary Writ (Mandamus) DENIED WITHOUT AN OPINION 1ST Circuit ignores law it established! … http://scr.bi/rkT4QT Is the Chief Judge of the First Circuit, Incompetent, A Criminal or Has Her Signature Been Forged http://goo.gl/ybhC3 Magistrate without statutory authority rules on contempt--fraud OK with court http://goo.gl/moluM Fraud Upon the US District Court Of Massachusetts http://goo.gl/qJXiD Notice of intent to file Mandamus ignored; it describes plan for simulated litigation http://goo.gl/Q36ug Objection to Magistrate's R & R ---DEFENDANTS are in DEFAULT--they never filed a "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE"-- no filing by the Defense Counsel has any legal validity--the Magistrate had no legal jurisdiction--the reference to the Magistrate did not come from a US District Judge--the reference was an order written by the domestic terrorist pro se staff attorney who wrote memorandum and orders addressing a motion that requested she be removed from the case due to evidence of collusion with the defense counsel--she answered a motion of which she was the subject and signed a US District Judge's name - she actually wrote an order prohibiting the Pro Se Plaintiff from referencing the docket which is a first amendment violation that renders her order void never mind that she had no authority to rule on a motion for injunctive relief in the first place. The Plaintiff then filed a contempt motion and the domestic terrorist answered that motion signing the Magistrate's name and ordered a restriction on the Plaintiff's filing- no Magistrate has authority to write orders in regards to contempt unless there was consent to the Magistrate's jurisdiction--there was not--therefore the order is void because he was limited to only a report and recommendation (R & R) and the Magistrate would not allow the Plaintiff to file an appeal of HIS order to the US District Judge. Plaintiff filed intent to file Mandamus before any actual action by the Magistrate; it went to the Magistrate's docket & the US District Judge was also served the language of the Mandamus which was accepted on his behalf by, Dianne Croke, his assistant. After violation of her Constitutional Right to appeal Magistrate orders to the US District Judge, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting judge reassignment and vacate void orders. Defense then filed a motion for contempt against the Plaintiff; this time a R & R that the US District Judge should allow the Defenses' Motion for contempt came from the Magistrate. Plaintiff filed a 25 page Mandamus over at the appeals court requesting the US District court be ordered to schedule a hearing since she was in the State of MA from WA due to her father's death; it was denied without an opinion. Contempt was allowed and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice; there was no hearing. The memorandum and order for the case dismissal was a scanned document & came from the Magistrate's computer; Plaintiff knows the properties of PDF's that come from the US District Judge's computer & this is why the bogus document was scanned. see objection to R & R http://goo.gl/o9XMz ALL THIS IN THE HOUSE OF JUSTICE AS THE RECORD ITSELF SHOWS EVIDENCE OF MULTIPLE INCIDENTS OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY GUY TULLY & BRIAN CHILDS (JACKSON LEWIS LAW FIRM) AND COURT STAFF WHICH INCLUDES DOCKET MANIPULATION, SWITCHING FILES IN THE ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM AND REMOVING FROM THE FILING SYSTEM A MOTION FOR CONTEMPT BY THE PLAINTIFF SERVED TO CHIEF JUDGE WOLF. Plaintiff's reconsideration motion is pending. Will the crime in the court

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The American People Are Expected to Support Domestic Terrorism With Their Tax Dollars! http://t.co/h3NE37y Ivy Racket in US District Court MA conspiracy to Deprive Rights through Simulated Litigation http://t.co/fzzHglA Dr. Zernik Files with the US Congress for Impeachment of Judge O’Toole and Clerk of Court Thornton, US District Court, Massachusetts http://t.co/UUq1h1o Day Planner for Massachusetts FBI on Scribd http://scr.bi/oUVzZo Extraordinary Writ (Mandamus) DENIED WITHOUT AN OPINION 1ST Circuit ignores law it established! … http://scr.bi/rkT4QT Is the Chief Judge of the First Circuit, Incompetent, A Criminal or Has Her Signature Been Forged http://goo.gl/ybhC3 Magistrate without statutory authority rules on contempt--fraud OK with court http://goo.gl/moluM Fraud Upon the US District Court Of Massachusetts http://goo.gl/qJXiD Notice of intent to file Mandamus ignored; it describes plan for simulated litigation http://goo.gl/Q36ug Objection to Magistrate's R & R ---DEFENDANTS are in DEFAULT--they never filed a "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE"-- no filing by the Defense Counsel has any legal validity--the Magistrate had no legal jurisdiction--the reference to the Magistrate did not come from a US District Judge--the reference was an order written by the domestic terrorist pro se staff attorney who wrote memorandum and orders addressing a motion that requested she be removed from the case due to evidence of collusion with the defense counsel--she answered a motion of which she was the subject and signed a US District Judge's name - she actually wrote an order prohibiting the Pro Se Plaintiff from referencing the docket which is a first amendment violation that renders her order void never mind that she had no authority to rule on a motion for injunctive relief in the first place. The Plaintiff then filed a contempt motion and the domestic terrorist answered that motion signing the Magistrate's name and ordered a restriction on the Plaintiff's filing- no Magistrate has authority to write orders in regards to contempt unless there was consent to the Magistrate's jurisdiction--there was not--therefore the order is void because he was limited to only a report and recommendation (R & R) and the Magistrate would not allow the Plaintiff to file an appeal of HIS order to the US District Judge. Plaintiff filed intent to file Mandamus before any actual action by the Magistrate; it went to the Magistrate's docket & the US District Judge was also served the language of the Mandamus which was accepted on his behalf by, Dianne Croke, his assistant. After violation of her Constitutional Right to appeal Magistrate orders to the US District Judge, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting judge reassignment and vacate void orders. Defense then filed a motion for contempt against the Plaintiff; this time a R & R that the US District Judge should allow the Defenses' Motion for contempt came from the Magistrate. Plaintiff filed a 25 page Mandamus over at the appeals court requesting the US District court be ordered to schedule a hearing since she was in the State of MA from WA due to her father's death; it was denied without an opinion. Contempt was allowed and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice; there was no hearing. The memorandum and order for the case dismissal was a scanned document & came from the Magistrate's computer; Plaintiff knows the properties of PDF's that come from the US District Judge's computer & this is why the bogus document was scanned. see objection to R & R http://goo.gl/o9XMz ALL THIS IN THE HOUSE OF JUSTICE AS THE RECORD ITSELF SHOWS EVIDENCE OF MULTIPLE INCIDENTS OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY GUY TULLY & BRIAN CHILDS (JACKSON LEWIS LAW FIRM) AND COURT STAFF WHICH INCLUDES DOCKET MANIPULATION, SWITCHING FILES IN THE ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM AND REMOVING FROM THE FILING SYSTEM A MOTION FOR CONTEMPT BY THE PLAINTIFF SERVED TO CHIEF JUDGE WOLF. Plaintiff's reconsideration motion is pending. Will the crime in the court

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    219 views31 pages

    Court Colluding Attorneys Who Carried Simulated Litigation to Defeat Disabled Litigant add to their GAME- Oppose RECONSIDERATION & JUDICIAL NOTICE Claiming Abuse of the Judicial Process Ongoing Harassment of Counsel and Defendants and NO LEGAL FOUNDATION!

    Uploaded by

    tired_of_corruption
    The American People Are Expected to Support Domestic Terrorism With Their Tax Dollars! http://t.co/h3NE37y Ivy Racket in US District Court MA conspiracy to Deprive Rights through Simulated Litigation http://t.co/fzzHglA Dr. Zernik Files with the US Congress for Impeachment of Judge O’Toole and Clerk of Court Thornton, US District Court, Massachusetts http://t.co/UUq1h1o Day Planner for Massachusetts FBI on Scribd http://scr.bi/oUVzZo Extraordinary Writ (Mandamus) DENIED WITHOUT AN OPINION 1ST Circuit ignores law it established! … http://scr.bi/rkT4QT Is the Chief Judge of the First Circuit, Incompetent, A Criminal or Has Her Signature Been Forged http://goo.gl/ybhC3 Magistrate without statutory authority rules on contempt--fraud OK with court http://goo.gl/moluM Fraud Upon the US District Court Of Massachusetts http://goo.gl/qJXiD Notice of intent to file Mandamus ignored; it describes plan for simulated litigation http://goo.gl/Q36ug Objection to Magistrate's R & R ---DEFENDANTS are in DEFAULT--they never filed a "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE"-- no filing by the Defense Counsel has any legal validity--the Magistrate had no legal jurisdiction--the reference to the Magistrate did not come from a US District Judge--the reference was an order written by the domestic terrorist pro se staff attorney who wrote memorandum and orders addressing a motion that requested she be removed from the case due to evidence of collusion with the defense counsel--she answered a motion of which she was the subject and signed a US District Judge's name - she actually wrote an order prohibiting the Pro Se Plaintiff from referencing the docket which is a first amendment violation that renders her order void never mind that she had no authority to rule on a motion for injunctive relief in the first place. The Plaintiff then filed a contempt motion and the domestic terrorist answered that motion signing the Magistrate's name and ordered a restriction on the Plaintiff's filing- no Magistrate has authority to write orders in regards to contempt unless there was consent to the Magistrate's jurisdiction--there was not--therefore the order is void because he was limited to only a report and recommendation (R & R) and the Magistrate would not allow the Plaintiff to file an appeal of HIS order to the US District Judge. Plaintiff filed intent to file Mandamus before any actual action by the Magistrate; it went to the Magistrate's docket & the US District Judge was also served the language of the Mandamus which was accepted on his behalf by, Dianne Croke, his assistant. After violation of her Constitutional Right to appeal Magistrate orders to the US District Judge, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting judge reassignment and vacate void orders. Defense then filed a motion for contempt against the Plaintiff; this time a R & R that the US District Judge should allow the Defenses' Motion for contempt came from the Magistrate. Plaintiff filed a 25 page Mandamus over at the appeals court requesting the US District court be ordered to schedule a hearing since she was in the State of MA from WA due to her father's death; it was denied without an opinion. Contempt was allowed and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice; there was no hearing. The memorandum and order for the case dismissal was a scanned document & came from the Magistrate's computer; Plaintiff knows the properties of PDF's that come from the US District Judge's computer & this is why the bogus document was scanned. see objection to R & R http://goo.gl/o9XMz ALL THIS IN THE HOUSE OF JUSTICE AS THE RECORD ITSELF SHOWS EVIDENCE OF MULTIPLE INCIDENTS OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY GUY TULLY & BRIAN CHILDS (JACKSON LEWIS LAW FIRM) AND COURT STAFF WHICH INCLUDES DOCKET MANIPULATION, SWITCHING FILES IN THE ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM AND REMOVING FROM THE FILING SYSTEM A MOTION FOR CONTEMPT BY THE PLAINTIFF SERVED TO CHIEF JUDGE WOLF. Plaintiff's reconsideration motion is pending. Will the crime in the court

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 31

    Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 7/9/2011 at 12:16 PM EDT and filed on 7/9/2011 McGarry

    v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Name: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Case Number: Laura J. McGarry Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 06/28/2011 Document Number: 92 Docket Text: Second ADDENDUM re [90] First MOTION for Order to Judge Order on the Clerk of the Court to file a Statement on the Record to explain the legal foundation for disappearance of the Motion for Contempt Dkt. #85. that was referred to Judge O'Toole by Chief Judge Wolf Document 85 exparte motion for contempt noted as received by Chief Judge Wolf and referred to Judge O'Toole ruled on as (DENIED) now filed per RULE 7.1(c) Dkt./Document 88s language in the last paragraph page 8 through beginning of page 9 now validated by most recent dockets-see exhibits to this addendum showing the disappearance, reappearance and, again, disappearance of document 85. filed by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Document 85 missing 07_09_2011 time 08_19_52 Docket Activity Report, # (2) Exhibit Document 85 present 07_08_2011 time 17_00_52 Docket Activity Report, # (3) Exhibit Document 85 missing 07_08_2011 time 05_40_23 Docket Activity Report)(McGarry, Laura)

    LOCAL RULES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS RULE 83.5.2 APPEARANCES (a) Generally. The filing of the complaint shall constitute an appearance by the attorney who signs it. All other appearances in a case shall be made by filing a notice of appearance containing the docket number of the case, name, address and telephone number of the person entering an appearance, in compliance with Rule 5.1(a)(1). (b) Appearance Pro Se. A party who appears pro se shall so state in the initial pleading or other paper filed by him or in his notice of appearance. The words "pro se" shall follow his signature on all papers subsequently filed by him in the same case. (c) Withdrawal of Appearance. An attorney may withdraw from a case by serving notice of his withdrawal on his client and all other parties and filing the notice, provided that (1) such notice is preceded or accompanied by notice of the appearance of other counsel; (2) there are no motions pending before the court; (3) no trial date has been set; and (4) no hearings or conferences are scheduled, and no reports, oral or written, are due. Unless these conditions are met, an attorney (including one whose services have been terminated by his client) may withdraw from a case only by leave of court. (d) Firms and Corporations. The court will not recognize the appearance of a firm or professional corporation unless it is accompanied by the appearance of at least one (1) attorney. In the event that a party is represented by more than one (1) attorney, whether or not from the same firm, the clerk shall not be required to send notice of orders, judgments, trial settings, etc., to more than one (1) attorney for any party, unless the attorneys represent different interests and this fact is noted on the record.

    You might also like