CASE SUMMARY PRIOR TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 57) BY, BARBARA MORSE, THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE

US DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. COURT STAFF COLLUSION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL OF JACKSON LEWIS (Guy Tully, Brian Childs and Patrick Egan). Defenses’ Oppositions (Documents 55 & 56) are not included herein. COMMENTS FOLLOWED BY … SEE EXPANSION ON COMMENT BY NUMBERED ITEM BELOW.

Doc. No.

Dates 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/20/2011 01/03/2011 12/31/2010 12/27/2010 12/13/2010 11/29/2010 01/19/2011 11/15/2010 11/11/2010 01/19/2011 11/11/2010 11/09/2010 11/09/2010 11/05/2010 11/05/2010 11/05/2010 11/05/2010 01/19/2011 11/05/2010 11/05/2010 01/19/2011 11/05/2010 11/04/2010 11/04/2010 10/31/2010 10/25/2010 01/19/2011

Description Motion for Injunctive Relief Motion to Disqualify Counsel Order on Motion to Strike Redacted Document Response to Motion Motion to Expedite Opposition to Motion Motion for Sanctions Memorandum in Support of Motion Motion for Default Judgment Opposition to Motion Opposition to Motion Opposition to Motion Amended Answer to Complaint Opposition to Motion Opposition to Motion Motion to Strike Memorandum in Support of Motion Motion to Strike Memorandum in Support of Motion Addendum to Motion/Memorandum Addendum to Motion/Memorandum Addendum to Motion/Memorandum Motion to Disqualify Counsel

Comment [LJM1]: ENJOIN BARBARAA MORSE PSSA AND ANY OTHER PSSA FROM THIS ACTION— SEE MOTION Document 51 Comment [LJM2]: DISQUALIFY DEFENSE COUNSEL-FRAUD, COLLUSION, MERITLESS DEFENSE and the course of this action does constitute harassment as well as violation of TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241. SEE MOTION Document 52 Comment [LJM3]: INVALID Document Created: by MORSE 1/20/2011 @ 11:41:26 am file date manipulated Comment [LJM4]: THIS MOTION HAS BEEN IGNORED: PLAINTIFF MADE THIS REQUEST PRIOR TO MORSE’S LATEST INAPPROPRIATE MANEUVER. PLAINTIFF REQUESTED NOTICE FOR A SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND A PHONE CONFERENCE WITH JUDGE O’TOOLE. Comment [LJM5]: This motion NO. 46 is not terminated it has never been addressed by a Magistrate or US District Court Judge—Addresses fraud, meritless defense, and baseless motions unsupported by authority or rule. Comment [LJM6]: This motion NO. 43 is not terminated it has never been addressed by a Magistrate or US District Court Judge ... Comment [LJM7]: Plaintiff’s opposition NO.42 has never been addressed by a Magistrate or US ... Comment [LJM8]: Plaintiff’s opposition NO.41 has never been addressed by a Magistrate or US ... Comment [LJM9]: Defense attempted to conceal an adverse authority in a foot note by ...

51 Filed & Entered: 52 Filed & Entered: 53 Filed: Entered: 50 Filed & Entered: 49 Filed & Entered: 48 Filed & Entered: 47 Filed & Entered: 46 Filed & Entered: Terminated: 45 Filed & Entered: 43 Filed & Entered: Terminated: 44 Filed & Entered: 41 Filed & Entered: 42 Filed & Entered: 34 Filed & Entered: 35 Filed & Entered: 36 Filed & Entered: 37 Filed & Entered: Terminated: 38 Filed & Entered: 39 Filed & Entered: Terminated: 40 Filed & Entered: 32 Filed & Entered: 33 Filed & Entered: 31 Filed & Entered: 27 Filed & Entered: Terminated:

Comment [LJM10]: Defense writes in a foot note “this motion addendum is of no moment----it... Comment [LJM11]: Defense attempted to rewrite rule 15 with authority that correctly states ... Comment [LJM12]: Morse also ordered this stricken from the record; this contains strong case ... Comment [LJM13]: Morse also ordered this stricken from the record; this contains strong case ... Comment [LJM14]: This motion NO. 27 is not terminated it has never been addressed by a ...

CASE SUMMARY PRIOR TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 57) BY, BARBARA MORSE, THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE US DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. COURT STAFF COLLUSION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL OF JACKSON LEWIS (Guy Tully, Brian Childs and Patrick Egan). Defenses’ Oppositions (Documents 55 & 56) are not included herein. COMMENTS FOLLOWED BY … SEE EXPANSION ON COMMENT BY NUMBERED ITEM BELOW.

28 Filed & Entered: Terminated: 29 Filed & Entered: 30 Filed & Entered: 26 Filed & Entered: 23 Filed & Entered: 24 Filed & Entered: 25 Filed & Entered: 21 Filed & Entered: 22 Filed & Entered: 19 Filed & Entered: 20 Filed: Entered: 17 Filed & Entered: Terminated: 18 Filed & Entered: 16 Filed & Entered: 15 Filed & Entered: 14 Filed & Entered: 13 Filed: Entered: 10 Filed & Entered: 11 Filed & Entered: 12 Filed & Entered: 9 Filed: Entered: 8 Filed & Entered: 5 Filed: Entered: 6 Filed: Entered: 7 Filed:

10/25/2010 01/19/2011 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 10/06/2010 10/05/2010 10/05/2010 10/05/2010 10/04/2010 10/04/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/26/2010 09/20/2010 09/24/2010 09/20/2010 09/16/2010 09/13/2010 09/10/2010 09/07/2010 09/10/2010 09/02/2010 09/02/2010 09/02/2010 08/18/2010 08/19/2010 08/12/2010 08/11/2010 08/12/2010 08/11/2010 08/12/2010 08/11/2010

Motion to Strike Answer to Complaint Amended Document Notice (Other) Summons Returned Executed Summons Returned Executed Summons Returned Executed Answer to Complaint Corporate Disclosure Statement Amended Document Order on Motion to Intervene Motion to Intervene Exhibit Summons Returned Executed Notice (Other) Summons Reissued Amended Document Amended Document Amended Document Amended Document Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis Notice (Other) Notice of Change of Address or Firm Name Amended Document Amended Document

Comment [LJM15]: This motion NO. 28 is not terminated it has never been addressed by a Magistrate or US District Court Judge Comment [LJM16]: This NO. 29 is Plaintiff’s Response to the Defendants’ Answer to the Complaint—It is supported by RULE 9 with pleadings of particularity to address fraud and is an Attachment to Motions 27 & 28 supported by: 562 F.3d 784; 2009 U.S. App. 58 LEXIS 6072; 186 L.R.R.M. 2019 *“The Federal Rules themselves instruct us to construe and administer their provisions to do substantial justice and to secure the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”+ Fed.R.Civ.P. 1, 8(e). Rules 7(a) and (b) do not limit the methods by which a pleading may be filed. See, e.g., Hamm v. DeKalb County, 774 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir.1985) (affirming district court ruling recognizing an answer and response attached to a motion for leave to file defensive pleadings); In re World Access, Inc., 301 B.R. 217, 220 n. 1 (N.D.Ill.2003) (recognizing an ... Comment [LJM17]: This amendment adding Count X is the only amendment made to the complaint after service of process to any and all Defendants. A Plaintiff may amend the complaint “as a matter of course” within 21 days after serving ... Comment [LJM18]: Contains only unsupported denials and false statements. The Plaintiff’s 47 exhibits that support here allegations and available to defense in hard copy form and through the ECF system were ignored Comment [LJM19]: Document Created: by MORSE 9/26/2010 @ 1:59:15 PM on a Sunday file date manipulated—Injunctive relief requestedMorse has no authority to respond to this motion Comment [LJM20]: This motion is not terminated it has never been addressed by a Magistrate or US District Court Judge. Comment [LJM21]: Important exhibits were “Lost” per Morse “I copied them myself” Comment [LJM22]: Document Created: by MORSE 8/19/2010 @ 4:34:12 PM file date manipulated. Plaintiff spoke with Paul Lyness on 8/19/2010 @ 3:21 PM; Lyness reported to Plaintiff that there was no action as of ...

CASE SUMMARY PRIOR TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 57) BY, BARBARA MORSE, THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE US DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. COURT STAFF COLLUSION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL OF JACKSON LEWIS (Guy Tully, Brian Childs and Patrick Egan). Defenses’ Oppositions (Documents 55 & 56) are not included herein. COMMENTS FOLLOWED BY … SEE EXPANSION ON COMMENT BY NUMBERED ITEM BELOW.

Entered: 1 Filed: Entered: 2 Filed: Entered: Terminated: 3 Filed: Entered: Terminated: 4 Filed: Entered: Terminated:

08/12/2010 08/02/2010 08/10/2010 08/02/2010 08/10/2010 08/18/2010 08/02/2010 08/10/2010 08/18/2010 08/02/2010 08/10/2010 08/18/2010

Complaint Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis

Motion to Appoint Counsel

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Barbara Morse Pro Se Staff Attorney (PSSA4) has inappropriately signed off memorandums and orders without fully informing Judge O'Toole the facts of this case. She has exhibited significant behaviors that indicate she is in collusion with the defense and has purposefully neglected or unlawfully made rulings on this case that are void of law, rule, and facts. She has deprived this Plaintiff of her Constitutional Rights, increased time and cost of litigation, and she has actively oppressed and intimidated this disabled Plaintiff. Plaintiff has presented credible evidence in her complaint and subsequent documents to the Court indicating Title 18 violations by the Defendants, Defense attorneys and now Barbara Morse. Morse's diligent efforts to avoid documentation of these allegations in her unauthorized memorandums and orders along with her very diligent efforts in keeping this case from the view of Judge is a strong indicator that she is trying to conceal this information. … indicates see complete comment [LJM#] below

6. This motion NO. 43 is not terminated it has never been addressed by a Magistrate or US District Court Judge. THIS INCLUDES A SECOND
REQUEST TO DISQUALIFY OPPOSING COUNSEL----NOW ADDRESSED AS AN EMERGENCY related to FRAUD UPON THE COURT.

7. Plaintiff’s opposition NO.42 has never been addressed by a Magistrate or US District Court Judge. 8. Plaintiff’s opposition NO.41 has never been addressed by a Magistrate or US District Court Judge.

CASE SUMMARY PRIOR TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 57) BY, BARBARA MORSE, THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE US DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. COURT STAFF COLLUSION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL OF JACKSON LEWIS (Guy Tully, Brian Childs and Patrick Egan). Defenses’ Oppositions (Documents 55 & 56) are not included herein. COMMENTS FOLLOWED BY … SEE EXPANSION ON COMMENT BY NUMBERED ITEM BELOW.

9. Defense attempted to conceal an adverse authority in a foot note by misspelling the party and incorrectly documenting the Lexis number. They
also submitted Documents 35-40 as scanned PDF's to make searching erroneous case law, purportedly in support of their position, more difficult. On December 3rd they had the scanned PDF's removed from the ECF system and replaced them with word processed PDF's. There are no 8C supported defenses and not one affirmative defense stands.

10. Instead of arguing Circuit 7 Appeals Court authority Defense wrote in a foot note “this motion addendum is of no moment----it offers no legal
basis whatever to support the Response—and should by no means affect the striking of Plaintiff’s Response”. Defense were under the impression Plaintiff was unaware the authority was from appeals court. This authority thwarting foot note was addressed to the addendum of the first Motion to disqualify counsel (Document 27); it supports attaching Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Answer to the Complaint (Document 29) as a pleading to the Motion. Pleadings that further address fraud.

11. Defense attempted to re-write rule 15 with authority that correctly states rule 15 before and after the 2009 amendment. “…from the time she
41 filed her complaint until the twenty-second day after defendants filed their answer” per defense. Per rule "may amend the complaint “as a matter of course” within 21 days after serving it, or “21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).

12. Morse also ordered this stricken from the record; this contains strong case law that supports Document 29 and attaches Document 29 to
Motions (Document 27 and 28).

13. Morse also ordered this stricken from the record; this contains strong case law that supports striking all of defenses’ affirmative defenses.
Plaintiff does use the Doctrine of Clean Hands in support of striking defenses based on the deceptive, fraudulent, and patently dishonest behavior of the defendants; an allegation that is supported by public record validating false statements made in state agencies of two state including the SOC and also a federal agency (see paragraph 186 of Document 29) during an investigative process. More important this addendum addresses the meritless defense presented; multiple authorities support all defenses should be stricken. They have no affirmative defense based on Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. at 2270 ("[n]o affirmative defense is available . . . when the supervisor's harassment culminates in a tangible employment action . . ."); Faragher, 118 S. Ct. at 2293 (same). See also Durham, 166 F.3d at 154 ("When harassment becomes adverse employment action, the employer loses the affirmative defense, even if it might have been available before."). Also see notation under defense document 36 regarding Kaufmann v. Prudential Insurance Company of America an authority from this court regarding affirmative defenses that defense attempted to conceal.

CASE SUMMARY PRIOR TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 57) BY, BARBARA MORSE, THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE US DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. COURT STAFF COLLUSION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL OF JACKSON LEWIS (Guy Tully, Brian Childs and Patrick Egan). Defenses’ Oppositions (Documents 55 & 56) are not included herein. COMMENTS FOLLOWED BY … SEE EXPANSION ON COMMENT BY NUMBERED ITEM BELOW.

16. This NO. 29 is Plaintiff’s Response to the Defendants’ Answer to the Complaint—It is supported by RULE 9 with pleadings of particularity to
address fraud and is an Attachment to Motions 27 & 28 supported by: 562 F.3d 784; 2009 U.S. App. 58 LEXIS 6072; 186 L.R.R.M. 2019 *“The Federal Rules themselves instruct us to construe and administer their provisions to do substantial justice and to secure the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”+ Fed.R.Civ.P. 1, 8(e). Rules 7(a) and (b) do not limit the methods by which a pleading may be filed. See, e.g., Hamm v. DeKalb County, 774 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir.1985) (affirming district court ruling recognizing an answer and response attached to a motion for leave to file defensive pleadings); In re World Access, Inc., 301 B.R. 217, 220 n. 1 (N.D.Ill.2003) (recognizing an amended complaint attached to a motion for leave to file an amended complaint instanter);  Andersen v. Roszkowski, 681 F.Supp. 1284, 1287-88 (N.D.Ill.1988) (same).

17. This amendment adding Count X is the only amendment made to the complaint after service of process to any and all Defendants. A Plaintiff
may amend the complaint “as a matter of course” within 21 days after serving it, or “21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). The Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Document 30) is in full compliance with Rule 15. The 2009 amendment to Rule 15 provides a "fixed, predictable, and reasonably short period" for amendments as a matter of right [3 James Wm. Moore, Moore's Fed. Practice § 15.12[3] (3d ed. 2009)] [matter of course -n.- an event or result that is natural or inevitable+. Plaintiff does not require opposing Counsel’s consent to assert her right.

18. Contains only unsupported denials and false statements. The Plaintiff’s 47 exhibits that support here allegations were available to defense and
ignored. Defense received the hard copy form with the Complaint and all exhibits were entered into the ECF system in accord with rules of evidence. Defense refused to make an appearance; they did not sign onto the ECF System until less than two hours before the answer was due.

22. Document Created: by MORSE 8/19/2010 @ 4:34:12 PM file date manipulated. Plaintiff spoke with Paul Lyness on 8/19/2010 @ 3:21 PM;
Lyness reported to Plaintiff that there was no action as of yet on the case. He asked Plaintiff if she had Motions? The complaint was 41 pages with 47 exhibits and pled with particularity.

CASE SUMMARY PRIOR TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 57) BY, BARBARA MORSE, THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE US DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. COURT STAFF COLLUSION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL OF JACKSON LEWIS (Guy Tully, Brian Childs and Patrick Egan). Defenses’ Oppositions (Documents 55 & 56) are not included herein. COMMENTS FOLLOWED BY … SEE EXPANSION ON COMMENT BY NUMBERED ITEM BELOW.

Docket Activity Report
United States District Court -- District of Massachusetts Report Filed Period: 8/2/2010 - 1/28/2011

Entered: 10/25/2010 17:44:27 Filed: 10/25/2010

Category: answer Event: Answer to Complaint Document: 29

L. McGarry Type: pty

Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' 21 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand Answer to Answer by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit mikita license A, # 2 Exhibit mikita license B, # 3 Exhibit mikita license c, # 4 Exhibit health records notice to submit to eeoc)(McGarry, Laura) Modified on 12/3/2010 to create a link to the answer(Danieli, Chris).

Clerk entered case randomly on Friday, December 3, 2010, and stated modifications were made. No action was taken by the clerk and his stated modifications were not required. November 5th Defense Counsel entered scanned PDF’s into the ECF system to thwart authority search and conceal adverse authority. On December 31, 2010 Plaintiff found these PDF’s had changed to word processed PDF’s. Plaintiff had Motion for sanctions against defense on December 27, 2010. Plaintiff again Moved to disqualify defense counsel. (Document 52)

Entered: 11/05/2010 03:05:39 Filed: 11/05/2010

Category: respoth Event: Amended Answer to Complaint Document: 34

L. McGarry Type: pty

Addendum to 29 Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' 21 ANSWER to Complaint (Document # 21) 1 Complaint Correction to Paragraph 186 sub paragraph #2-line #4 by Laura J. McGarry. (McGarry, Laura) Modified on 12/3/2010 making the filing event an Addendum to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendants' Answer (Danieli, Chris).

CASE SUMMARY PRIOR TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 57) BY, BARBARA MORSE, THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE US DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. COURT STAFF COLLUSION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL OF JACKSON LEWIS (Guy Tully, Brian Childs and Patrick Egan). Defenses’ Oppositions (Documents 55 & 56) are not included herein. COMMENTS FOLLOWED BY … SEE EXPANSION ON COMMENT BY NUMBERED ITEM BELOW. Defendants document to PDF to ECF time line Time received in my email Time PDF created Color represents timeline document received and time of document creation

35-- Fri, November 5, 2010 2:58:23 PM-----2:33:39 PM---4 pages--opposition 4:72:20 minutes then entered 36 36-- Fri, November 5, 2010 3:05:45 PM-----2:35:13 PM---4 pages— 4:02:00 minutes then entered 37 37-- November 5, 2010 3:09:47 PM-----2:32:01 PM---2 pages--motion 1:46:00 minutes then entered 38 38-- Fri, November 5, 2010 3:11:11 PM-----2:32:50 PM---3 pages— memorandum 3:98:00 minutes then entered 39 39-- Fri, November 5, 2010 3:15:09 PM-----2:25:33 PM---2 pages--motion 17:14:00 minutes then entered 40 Scanning 4 pages takes time!!

1 ---39 2---40 3 ---37 4 --38 5---35 6 ---36

40-- November 5, 2010 3:32:23 PM-----2:31:03 PM---4 pages--memorandum

11:64:06 minutes to form the PDF’s 23:10:00 minutes of time passed from forming last PDF and beginning entry into ECF system 31:32:20 minutes to enter documents into the ECF Total task 1 hour 6 minutes and 8 seconds

CASE SUMMARY PRIOR TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 57) BY, BARBARA MORSE, THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE US DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. COURT STAFF COLLUSION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL OF JACKSON LEWIS (Guy Tully, Brian Childs and Patrick Egan). Defenses’ Oppositions (Documents 55 & 56) are not included herein. COMMENTS FOLLOWED BY … SEE EXPANSION ON COMMENT BY NUMBERED ITEM BELOW.

The Clerk shall provide this order and a form for designating the parties' consent or refusal to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction to counsel, or to a party appearing pro se, upon the filing of a new civil action. It will be the responsibility of that pro se litigant to serve this notice along with the summons and complaint. That person will also be responsible for obtaining the other parties' decisions concerning proceeding before the Magistrate Judge and for filing the document as soon as practicable, but in all cases within thirty days after service on the last party. Until the Court receives for filing either consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial assignment of a civil case to the Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. section 636(b) for all pretrial nondispositive matters other than the Rule 169b0 scheduling conference.

Having no knowledge of the court’s procedure regarding consent or refusal to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction, Plaintiff did not execute and complete a mandatory general order because the clerk (PSSA, 4), Barbara Morse, did not send Plaintiff the order or form see Docket 8/19/2010.