Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Corrupt Jackson Lewis Attorneys Respond to Appellant's Docketing Statement that clearly demonstrates their collusion with court staff and fraud upon the court. These attorneys should not even be allowed to stand bar for a cocktail.

Corrupt Jackson Lewis Attorneys Respond to Appellant's Docketing Statement that clearly demonstrates their collusion with court staff and fraud upon the court. These attorneys should not even be allowed to stand bar for a cocktail.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 125 |Likes:
Published by tired_of_corruption
Fraud upon the court prevailed for the Defendants as corrupt court staff and corrupt attorneys carried a pretense litigation denying an in forma pauperis pro se disabled litigant her right to bring a grievance before the court. These corrupt attorneys were allowed multiple Title 18 criminal law violations and the court staff of the USDC and USCA1 have no problem violating criminal law while they sustain absolutely no fear of consequence. If you are an honest attorney and you do not act to correct the wrongs committed against the American people by the "MOB Families" of the US Courts you, too, will have abandoned the principles of your profession and your part in the fall of America will weigh on the shoulders of your descendants. The USDC rendered a fraudulent document naming me a vexatious litigant (only law suit I have ever filed); they stated any appeal would be certified as in bad faith and I would have to go through them to file an appeal which they intended to deny and a week later the corrupt attorney heads to DC to block any filing with the SCOTUS assuming I would not have money to pay the 1st Circuit and would file directly with SCOTUS https://twitter.com/rebelready/status/231837045344059392/photo/1/large I paid for the appeal at the first circuit and a corrupt law clerk blocked me from a judge https://twitter.com/rebelready/status/245272308493717504/photo/1/large The trip to DC kicked in when I did file with SCOTUS and my petition showing fraud and denial of access to the courts was DENIED http://scr.bi/L1h9yQ Clearly the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States is also corrupt http://t.co/BhuLuwX6
Fraud upon the court prevailed for the Defendants as corrupt court staff and corrupt attorneys carried a pretense litigation denying an in forma pauperis pro se disabled litigant her right to bring a grievance before the court. These corrupt attorneys were allowed multiple Title 18 criminal law violations and the court staff of the USDC and USCA1 have no problem violating criminal law while they sustain absolutely no fear of consequence. If you are an honest attorney and you do not act to correct the wrongs committed against the American people by the "MOB Families" of the US Courts you, too, will have abandoned the principles of your profession and your part in the fall of America will weigh on the shoulders of your descendants. The USDC rendered a fraudulent document naming me a vexatious litigant (only law suit I have ever filed); they stated any appeal would be certified as in bad faith and I would have to go through them to file an appeal which they intended to deny and a week later the corrupt attorney heads to DC to block any filing with the SCOTUS assuming I would not have money to pay the 1st Circuit and would file directly with SCOTUS https://twitter.com/rebelready/status/231837045344059392/photo/1/large I paid for the appeal at the first circuit and a corrupt law clerk blocked me from a judge https://twitter.com/rebelready/status/245272308493717504/photo/1/large The trip to DC kicked in when I did file with SCOTUS and my petition showing fraud and denial of access to the courts was DENIED http://scr.bi/L1h9yQ Clearly the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States is also corrupt http://t.co/BhuLuwX6

More info:

Published by: tired_of_corruption on Nov 19, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

09/10/2012

pdf

text

original

 
United States Court of Appeals
 
For the First Circuit
No. 11-2292LAURA J. MCGARRYPlaintiff - Appellantv.GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD INC., d/b/a Pleasant Bay Nursing &Rehabilitation Center, d/b/a Pleasant Bay Nursing Center LP, d/b/a Pleasant BayHealth & Living Centers; JOSHUA ZUCKERMAN; RENEE MIKITA;ROXANNE WEBSTERDefendants
 – 
Appellees
CORRECTED OMNIBUS RESPONSE TO: (1) DOCKETINGSTATEMENT; (2) EMERGENCY MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES;(3) MOTION TO TRANSMIT RECORD; (4) MOTION TO CORRECTDOCKETS; (5) EMERGENCY MOTION TO EXPEDITE RULINGVACATING DISMISSAL OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS; AND (6)EMERGENCY MOTION SEEKING IMMEDIATE RELIEF;AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION
Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc., Joshua Zuckerman, Renee Mikita, andRoxanne
Webster (collectively ―
Defendants
‖) file this omnibus
response to the sixpapers filed by appellant Laura J. McGarry
(―
Plaintiff 
‖)
in this matter, Docket No.11-2292, over the course of the previous week. Those filings are: (1) DocketingStatement, filed November 8, 2011; (2) Emergency Motion to Consolidate Cases,filed November 8, 2011; (3) Motion to Transmit Record, Filed November 9, 2011;
Case: 11-2292 Document: 00116291138 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/15/2011 Entry ID: 5595718
 
2(4) Motion to Correct Dockets, filed November 9, 2011; (5) Emergency Motion toExpedite Ruling Vacating Dismissal of Writ of Mandamus, filed November 9,2011; and (6) Emergency Motion Seeking Immediate Relief, filed November 10,2011. None of these motions has stated any basis for the relief requested therein,and they should all be denied.
1
 Defendants also cross-move for summary dismissal of this appeal, pursuantto Local Rule 27.0(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. No substantialquestion is presented by the orders from which Plaintiff takes her appeal, nor hasany of her recently-filed motions provided a basis to delay summary disposition.
I. DEFENDANTS
OMNIBUS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF
S FILINGS
As Defendants discuss more fully in their cross-motion for summarydisposition, below, Plaintiff has appealed six orders from the proceedings in thismatter before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(―District Court‖), the last of which confirmed the dismissal of her District Courtaction, with prejudice, as a sanction for Plaintiff‘s abuse of the litigation process
and for multiple acts in contempt of court orders. No substantial question ispresented by the appeal of these orders. Indeed, the District Court expressly ruled
that any appeal ―would not be taken in good faith.‖
See Order, dated September
1
 
Plaintiff has filed copies of the same motions in a mandamus action
 – 
Docket No.11-1668. Defendants have opposed those motions in that action and cross-movedfor an order precluding Plaintiff from filing additional papers in the action.
Case: 11-2292 Document: 00116291138 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/15/2011 Entry ID: 5595718
 
312, 2011
(―September 12
 
Order‖)
(Docket No. 101). For the reasons stated below,
Plaintiff‘s
multiple motions should be denied.
A.
 
Inasmuch As Plaintiff 
’s Motions Seek Relief In Connection With
Case No. 11-1668, They Should Be Denied Because That PetitionWas Dismissed, And The Time To Request Review Of TheDismissal Has Long Since Lapsed.
To the extent Plaintiff is asking the Court to vacate the denial of her Petitionfor a Writ of Mandamus
(―Petition‖)
and to consolidate that action with thisappeal, her request should be viewed as at most a request to rehear/ reconsider thedenial of that Petition. It is immaterial whether such request is considered arequest for rehearing or a request for rehearing
en banc
. In either case, the relief sought by Plaintiff is untimely. Indeed, Rule 35(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure makes clear that the time for requesting rehearing is governedby Rule 40. Rule 40 makes clear that in a civil case, a request for rehearing mustbe made within 14 days, or, where the United States or its officer or agency is aparty, within 45 days. Because Plaintiff 
‘s motion to vacate the judgment and to
consolidate was not filed until November 8, 2011
 — 
or over four months after thedenial entered
 — 
the request for relief should be denied.Plaintiff 
‘s e
ffort to consolidate this matter with Docket No. 11-1668 is,apparently, an improper ploy to avoid the fact that Plaintiff did not request
Case: 11-2292 Document: 00116291138 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/15/2011 Entry ID: 5595718

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
SLAVEFATHER liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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