AFFIDAVIT OF LAURA J. MCGARRY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE VACATING OF THE VOID ORDER & JUDGMENT THAT DISMISSED THIS CASE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 I, Laura J. McGarry, declare under penalty of perjury the following facts are true and correct to the best of my information and belief. This Plaintiff placed a call to Paul Lyness, Deputy Clerk, on August 30, 2011 @1:57pm which lasted 6 minutes 57 seconds to discuss the fact that she had already made multiple follow up calls to him reminding that she had emergency motions pending since July 8, 2011 with repeated emergency motions because she needed to take her chronically ill son, who was hospitalized at the time Dkt. 88 was filed, home to Washington with her. This Plaintiff reiterated to Lyness that her case had been in the US District Court of Massachusetts for over a year with no legitimate adjudication and that the document that dismissed her case with prejudice was a ScanSnap document that did not come from Judge O’Toole’s computer and was not scanned by him or Danieli. This Plaintiff ended the conversation informing Lyness that she was aware that her action was being purposefully stalled. Plaintiff stated, “I am a stroke victim and you people have been torturing me for over a year”. This Plaintiff informed Lyness that she needed to go home to Washington and needed a decision on her case; this Plaintiff reminded Lyness that she lived in Washington and had jurisdiction to file a complaint for violation of rights and obstruction of justice against all involved court staff in the US District Court of Western Washington. Plaintiff went on to say that she did not care if she did not receive even one penny because her main request for relief would be that each and every one of the involved staff lose their job and that by the course of their actions per law no immunity existed for any of them. This Plaintiff on August 30, 2011 called Florence Pagano, Circuit Executive Office, at 3:43 PM and the conversation lasted 8 minutes 8 seconds; Plaintiff informed Pagano that she had spoken with the Circuit Executive office of the 9th Circuit and that she was told that she could make a request to the 1st Circuit Executive Office to move her Judicial Misconduct Complaint (complaint March 7th answered with a bogus order May 18th and now with a stalled petition was also discussed) and requested information on what process was required to take this action. Pagano informed this Plaintiff that she didn’t think moving the complaint to a different circuit was possible. Prior to calling Pagano this Plaintiff called Circuit Executive, Gary Wente. After this Plaintiff identified herself and voiced that she had a concern, Wente asked this Plaintiff if she had contacted Pagano. Plaintiff stated she needed to go above Pagano for her concern. Wente stated, “I am not going to continue with this conversation; have a good afternoon” and hung up. This Plaintiff has been denied her request to speak to Chief Judge Wolf by Daniel Hohler, Deputy Clerk, and denied her request to speak to Judge O’Toole by Paul Lyness, Deputy Clerk. Chief Judge Wolf’s deputy clerk took information from this Plaintiff and her phone number stating he would give the information to the Clerk of the Court on or about July 22, 2011; Plaintiff informed him that she has been violated by the Clerk of the Court via a certified letter from the US Marshal prohibiting her from further emails to the Clerk of the Court or other clerks with a threat of criminal charges; this Plaintiff had sent emails to the Clerk of the Court requesting corrective action regarding the usurpation of this action and the only

response she received was the aforementioned letter from the US Marshal. Hohler still insisted that the only way to address a complaint was through the Clerk of the Court or a letter to Chief Judge Wolf. This Plaintiff informed him that letters had been mailed to the Chief Judge through the court’s general email (designated for complaints) and the US Mail as well as entered in the ECF System with no response and that Chief Judge Wolf was even served a motion describing the situation and no corrective action took place beyond referring the motion to Judge O’Toole three months after the motion was served see Dkt. #85. The Contempt Motion (Dkt. #85) was then either ignored by Judge O’Toole or effectively blocked from him by the clerk staff. In spite of the fact that this Plaintiff specified on the document of Dkt. #85 that it would be filed in the ECF System when the document was known to be the Chief Judge’s hands, Judge O’Toole’s docket clerk filed the document as ex parte and never noted on the docket that the motion was referred to Judge O’Toole by Chief Judge Wolf who received it ex parte (referral to Judge O’Toole was noted and initialed by the Chief Judge on the document); this maneuver left the motion without opposition by the unauthorized defense counsel and did not alert Judge O’Toole to the fact that the Contempt Motion was already three months old (this was now the second motion for contempt filed by this Plaintiff that would receive no due process see Dkt. #58). Plaintiff also stated to Hohler that it was peculiar that the motion finally reappeared after being brought to the court three months previous and timed to this Plaintiff’s previous call to him questioning if Chief Judge Wolf had received the certified mail that contained Plaintiff’s Extraordinary Writ. This Plaintiff verbally expressed her frustration with the fact that all communications to the Judges went through the clerk staff with no guarantee that the communication would make it to the intended recipient and asked why certified mail sent to the Judge was not delivered to the Judge directly by the agent who accepted the certified mail. No acceptable answer came forth. This Plaintiff informed Hohler that the Clerk of the Court, Chief Judge Wolf and Judge O’Toole were also served this Plaintiff’s Extraordinary Writ (Dkt. #83) via certified mail. Hohler, at his request, was given the docket number to the letter addressed to Chief Judge Wolf in the ECF System. It appears the certified mail was blocked and the Chief Judge never received the Writ or else he is complicit in this continuing violation of this Plaintiff’s rights; no response to letters addressed to Chief Judge Wolf, Judge O’Toole or the Clerk of the Court addressed to them through the ECF System came forth (see Dkt. #54 & #59) and giving Hohler the docket number regarding the ECF System letter to the Chief Judge also proved futile. Plaintiff placed a subsequent call to Chief Judge Wolf’s Deputy Clerk on August 25, 2011 at 11:48 AM and spoke with him a little over eight minutes where she informed him that she never received any communication from the Clerk of the Court and that her problem was still not resolved; he refused to put this Plaintiff through to the Chief Judge and was informed that by not doing so he too was participating in obstructing justice. Both Hohler and Lyness were made aware that there were no defense attorneys legally on the record when this Plaintiff made request to speak to the Judges.

It now appears that the staff of this court are attempting to cover up the fact that by their concerted effort this Plaintiff’s action has been blocked from Article III oversight violating First, Fifth and Fourteenth Constitutional Amendment Rights to ensure that this Plaintiff be prevented from bringing her grievance before the court and denied any legitimate due process in the prosecution of her complaint. Civil Action No. 10-11343-GAO has been under unquestionable usurpation. Alleged corrupt tax paid public servants and alleged corrupt attorneys by their actions during this attempted litigation have demonstrated that they have absolutely no fear of consequence as they freely and blatantly violate multiple federal statutes, including but not limited to, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to violate rights. Interestingly a document using the same Scansnap has come from Magistrate Judge Sorokin but is undersigned by Judge O’Toole. Plaintiff alleges this is an attempt by corrupt public servants at covering up the corruption in this court that is more than evident in the documents this Plaintiff has filed with his court. The court records are the evidence. CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 04-10029-GAO ORDER September 1, 2011 PDF Properties Created: 9/1/2011 12:22:40 PM Author: George O’Toole (this is the first time this Plaintiff has seen “George O’Toole” noted in the PDF properties “Author”) Application: Microsoft®Office Word 2007 PDF Producer: Microsoft®Office Word 2007 PDF Version: 1.5 (Acrobat 6.x) This is a 1 page word processed PDF ***NOTE THE SIGNATURE INDENTATION to ABOVE (n) of United*** USUAL SIGNATURE for Judge O’Toole This document did not post under “All Recent Opinions” on the court’s web site

As noted in Dkt. #51 paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s action documents known to be by Judge O'Toole using PDF Application: Microsoft®Office Word 2007 the properties of the PDF leave the [Author:] blank. Administrative Secretary, Elizabeth DiPardo, did note herself as [Author:] when she drafted documents for Judge O’Toole with the [PDF Application: Microsoft®Office Word 2007] (example below). Ms. DiPardo has subsequently left her position as Judge O'Toole's administrative secretary with Dianne Croke now in that position (Dkt. #70 exhibit 1). No, [PDF Application: Microsoft®Office Word 2007], document undersigned by Judge O'Toole with Croke noted as the [Author:] has been noted by this Plaintiff. This September 1, 2011 document is the first time this Plaintiff has seen [Author: George O’Toole] in any Microsoft®Office Word 2007

document undersigned by Judge O'Toole. As a note of interest Guy Tully and Brian Childs of Jackson Lewis use the application Microsoft®Office Word 2007 for their PDF documents as does this Plaintiff. Author: Elizabeth DiPardo ORDER 3/17/2010 CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-10587-GAO Signature variant below (no indentation)


CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 04-10029-GAO OPINION AND ORDER September 1, 2011 PDF Properties Created: 9/1/2011 12:59:48 PM Application: PFU ScanSnap Manager 4.1.12 PDF Producer: Adobe PDF Scan Library 2.2 PDF Version: 1.3 (Acrobat 4.x) This is a 33 page scanned PDF believed to be created on Magistrate Judge Sorokin’s computer by Magistrate Judge Sorokin and then scanned by his Judicial Assistant; the document was created ~37 minutes after the above document (same case) and, also, undersigned George A. O’Toole, Jr. ***NOTE THE SIGNATURE INDENTATION to ABOVE (t) of United***

USUAL SIGNATURE for Magistrate Judge Sorokin


This Plaintiff admits she does not fully understand law but still finds it peculiar that these decisions required two documents undersigned by the same US District Judge on the same date when the second 33 page document addressed multiple motions; Plaintiff only wishes that all decisions in her case had had such careful consideration and legitimate legal argument to ensure that there would be no miscarriage of justice in her case. This Plaintiff has been completely denied justice. The 33 page document that has the signature of Judge O’Toole is a variant and was entered into the ECF System as a scanned PDF on Thursday, September1, 2011; there is no valid reason to explain why the 33 page document was scanned prior to entry in the ECF System As previously stated “George O’Toole” entered in the properties of the 1 page word processed PDF is, also, a variant. Judge O’Toole’s docket clerk entered the word processed document created at 12:22:40 PM at 13:15:16 PM and the scanned document created at 12:59:48 PM at 13:32:21 PM. These were the only documents filed undersigned by Judge O’Toole for the week of August 29th through September 2nd; any other entries on the recent orders docket were electronic orders entered by his clerks. Judge O’Toole did not appear on the court calendar for any day of the aforementioned week. The 33 page document was entered on the court’s web site “All Recent Opinions” on Tuesday, September 6, 2011, with Publisher Information. It is quite odd that a scanned PDF that is unsearchable would be submitted with Publisher Information. It’s also interesting to note that Deputy Clerk Paul Lyness was not available at the court the week of August 22nd per his phone message and that Chief Judge Wolf was making Magistrate reassignments for one of Judge O’Toole’s cases on August 26th and August 29th (see docket for CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11-cv-11099-GAO). It appears that Judge O’Toole was not present at the court when these orders of September 1, 2011 were drafted. It is also note worthy that the court calendar on Wednesday August 31, 2011 had Magistrate Judge Sorokin initially as scheduled for the Court Assisted Recovery session with his name then removed from that block of the calendar as the day progressed. No orders on the recent orders docket of 9/1/2011 were noted by this Plaintiff to be by Magistrate Judge Sorokin; not even electronic orders were entered but Magistrate Judge Sorokin was most likely busy drafting the 33 page document. It appears the staff of this court are attempting to generate the appearance that Judge O’Toole was present for the date at issue and that Magistrate Judge Sorokin was absent. THIS Plaintiff’s case is C.A. No. 10-11343-GAO ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Dkt. #86 June 28, 2011 PDF Properties Created: 6/28/2011 11:46:53 AM Application: PFU ScanSnap Manager 4.1.12 PDF Producer: Adobe PDF Scan Library 2.2

PDF Version: 1.3 (Acrobat 4.x) The above properties are the same properties in the 33 page document noted above. This Plaintiff alleged in RECONSIDERATION (Dkt. #88) that the June 28, 2011 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dk. #86) was a scanned document from the Magistrate’s computer; in the alternative to continue violating this Plaintiff’s rights Dkt. #86 under the direction of Magistrate Judge Sorokin could have been constructed by, James Chernetsky, Judicial Assistant to Magistrate Judge Sorokin, who most likely also scanned the 33 page document of the above criminal action at Magistrate Judge Sorokin’s direction and scanned Dkt. #86 of this Plaintiff’s action at Magistrate Judge Sorokin’s direction. This Plaintiff’s case from its inception has been under clear and unquestionable usurpation and has never had any consideration by a US District Judge. There is significant fraud, obstruction of justice and an active conspiracy to violate this Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The signature of Dkt. #86 with Judge O’Toole’s usual indentation was accomplished through careful planning as the alleged corrupt court staff and unauthorized attorneys who have usurped this action are well aware that this Plaintiff visually scrubs every document that comes from this court. Plaintiff has noted in documentation to this court that Magistrate Judge Sorokin’s clerk and assistant do an excellent job in mimicking his style with their drafts and Chernetsky would have done the same noting Judge O’Toole as the undersigned in Dkt. #86. However, the signature noted September 1, 2011, OPINION AND ORDER of CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 04-10029-GAO is a variant from Judge O’Toole’s usual indentation style and is, in fact, the usual indentation style of Magistrate Judge Sorokin; obviously a slip up in carrying the ruse after the time involved in his drafting of the 33 page document. Civil Action No. 09-11161-LTS March 4, 2011 OPINION for Publication PDF Properties Created: 3/7/2011 Application: PDF Producer: Acrobat Distiller 8.2.6 (Windows) PDF Version: 1.3 (Acrobat 4.x) Signature Block variant related to block style

NO OPINIONS FOR PUBLICATION BY JUDGE O’TOOLE HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE INTERNET BY THIS PLAINTIFF. ______________________________________________________________________________

Civil Action No. 10-11279-LTS Document Dated January 31, 2011 PDF Properties Created: 2/3/2011 PDF Producer: Acrobat Distiller 8.2.5 (Windows) PDF Version: 1.3 (Acrobat 4.x) Signature Block variant related to block style

______________________________________________________________________________ Civil Action No. 09-11122-LTS December 29, 2010 PDF Properties Created: 12/29/2010 Application: PDF Producer: Acrobat Distiller 8.2.5 (Windows) PDF Version: 1.3 (Acrobat 4.x) Routine signature block of Magistrate Judge Sorokin ***NOTE THE SIGNATURE INDENTATION to ABOVE (t) of United***

______________________________________________________________________________ Civil Action No. 08-11589-LTS December 3, 2010 PDF Properties Created: 12/7/2010 Application: PDF Producer: Acrobat Distiller 8.2.5 (Windows) PDF Version: 1.3 (Acrobat 4.x) Routine signature block of Magistrate Judge Sorokin ***NOTE THE SIGNATURE INDENTATION to ABOVE (t) of United***


Civil Action No. 08-10342-LTS March 5, 2010 PDF Properties Created: 3/8/2010 Application: PDF Producer: Acrobat Distiller 8.1.0 (Windows) PDF Version: 1.3 (Acrobat 4.x) Routine signature block ***NOTE THE SIGNATURE INDENTATION to ABOVE (t) of United***

THE ABOVE SIGNATURE HAS NO INDENTATION The above signature block is from C.A. No. 11-11510-LTS a PROCEDURAL ORDER drafted, entered and filed by Barbara Morse, (PSSA, 4). See C.A. No. 11-11510-LTS @Dkt. #3.(THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN APPROPRIATE DRAFT) PDF Dkt. # 3 C.A. No. 11-11510-LTS PDF Properties Created: 8/26/2011 5:21:23 PM Application: PDF Producer: Acrobat Distiller 8.2.6 (Windows) PDF Version: 1.4 (Acrobat 5.x) ______________________________________________________________________________

Docket Entry by Docket Clerk Danieli and signed by Docket Clerk Danieli in Deputy Clerk Block see PDF Properties of Dkt. #87 C.A. No. 10-11343-GAO (Plaintiff’s case) Application: PDF Producer: Acrobat Distiller 8.2.6 (Windows) PDF Version: 1.4 (Acrobat 5.x) ______________________________________________________________________________ Docket Entry by Deputy Clerk Lyness and signed by Deputy Clerk Lyness see PDF Properties Dkt. #6 of C.A. No.11-10752-GAO Application: PDF Producer: Acrobat Distiller 8.2.6 (Windows) PDF Version: 1.4 (Acrobat 5.x) ______________________________________________________________________________

See PDF properties of Dkt. #57 C.A. No. 10-11343-GAO (Plaintiff’s case) entered by (PSSA,4) Application: PDF Producer: Acrobat Distiller 8.2.5. (Windows) PDF Version: 1.4 (Acrobat 5.x) Document #57 from this action was also drafted, entered and filed by Morse (see Dkt. #70 exhibit 1 and Dkt. #58 exhibit 2). The computer used to draft document #57 of this action and court computers since January 28, 2011 date have been upgraded. The content of Dkt. #57 if written by a US District Judge or undersigned by his/her approval would be unquestionable perjury (“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 Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s first two attempts to disqualify counse.”) DKt. # 53 was created on January 20, 2011 and entered on January 20, 2011 and the file date was manipulated to January 19, 2011 by Morse; Dkt. # 53 properties cite Morse as the author. See case docket activity report @ #53, bring up the document, hover over the document right clicking your mouse. Morse used a different computer for Dkt. #57 because she was aware that this Plaintiff was onto her. The orders in Dkt. #57 violate this Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and no honest US District Judge would order or approve a draft with orders that prohibit the Plaintiff from making reference to docketing information; docketing information is public record and there well established Supreme Court Law that accessing, referencing, coping, and publishing court documents of public record is a first amendment right. The reference to the Magistrate Judge must come from the orders of a US District Judge and as incorporated by reference in the affidavit of Dkt. 97 exhibit 1 the Extraordinary Writ filed with the First Circuit Court of Appeals and entered in this case as a notice at Dkt. #83 is hereby incorporated by reference into this affidavit including all cited law, rule, and authority. A US District Judge undersigning the patently false content of Dkt. #86 that is contrary to fact and law is perjury. (“The referral to the Magistrate Judge was proper, and he

properly considered the factual record established by the docket in his case.”) Further the fabricated and patently dishonest content in Dkt. # 53 and Dkt. #57 of this action that ignores fact, rule, established authority and law undersigned by a US District Judge is also perjury. ** This Plaintiff also alleges that USCA1 that “DENIED” her Extraordinary Writ never went before a three Judge Panel. The bogus first order regarding judicial misconduct that was patently false and contrary to fact and legislative authority was signed by Chief Judge Lynch. Chief Judge Lynch was also on the three Judge Panel named in the “DENIED” without an opinion decision. This Plaintiff alleges that the usurpation continued over at USCA1; this Plaintiff paid the $450.00 filing fee and considers this to be extortion. This Plaintiff finds it hard to believe three judges ignored evidence, established law, legislative authority and the fact that this Plaintiff was requesting an order to the US District Court to schedule her a hearing before a US District Judge while she was present here in Massachusetts from Washington State because of her father’s death. A hearing never occurred because of this “DENIED” writ and a bogus contempt motion by defense, followed by a bogus Magistrate R & R, followed by a bogus Adopting of the Magistrate’s bogus R & R dismissed this Plaintiff’s very valid and well supported complaint with prejudice to the victory of defendants that presented no defense to the allegations against them carrying only patently false statements, unwarranted denials, misrepresentation and blatant fraud upon the court with unauthorized defense attorneys in collusion with court staff. The Extraordinary Writ had a memorandum and order(Dkt. #61) attached to it undersigned by a Magistrate in response to a Contempt Motion filed by this Plaintiff against the pro se staff attorney and defense counsel. It had no notation that informed this Plaintiff she was allowed to appeal the decision that denied her motion and restricted her filing with the court. There was no consent to the Magistrate’s jurisdiction and by legislative authority a Magistrate is not authorized to write any orders but only a report and recommendation to the US District Judge. The Writ also informed the USCA1 that the Magistrate denied Plaintiff’s direct request at a bogus scheduling conference when this Plaintiff asked the Magistrate Judge for permission to file in order to appeal his order to a US District Judge and that this blatant violation of this Plaintiff’s right was witnessed by her son. CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 02-10343-GAO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER August 11, 2011 ***NOTE THE SIGNATURE INDENTATION to ABOVE (n) of United***



______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-11375-GAO OPINION AND ORDER August 10, 2011 ***NOTE THE SIGNATURE INDENTATION to ABOVE (n) of United***

______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-11117-GAO OPINION AND ORDER July 22, 2011 ***NOTE THE SIGNATURE INDENTATION to ABOVE (n) of United***

______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-11360-GAO ORDER July 18, 2011 ***NOTE THE SIGNATURE INDENTATION to ABOVE (n) of United***

Did not post under “All Recent Opinions” on the court’s web site ______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-11099 ORDER August 17, 2011 ***NOTE THE SIGNATURE INDENTATION to ABOVE (n) of United***

______________________________________________________________________________ CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 04-10029-GAO ORDER September 1, 2011 ***NOTE THE SIGNATURE INDENTATION to ABOVE (n) of United***

Did not post under “All Recent Opinions” on the court’s web site ______________________________________________________________________________ DOCUMENTS KNOWN TO BE SCANNED BY CLERK STAFF Case 1:08-cv-10730-GAO Document 159 Filed 09/06/11 Deputy Clerk Paul Lyness computer scanning Application: FUJITSU fi-4750Cdm PDF Producer: PDFScanLib v1.2.2 in Adobe Acrobat 8.2.6 PDF Version: 1.4 (Acrobat 5.x) Case 1:11-cv-10563-GAO Document 37 Filed 08/04/11 Docket Clerk Christopher Danieli computer scanning Application: FUJITSU fi-4750Cdm PDF Producer: PDFScanLib v1.2.2 in Adobe Acrobat 8.2.6 PDF Version: 1.4 (Acrobat 5.x) ^ WINDOWS UPGRADED ^ Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 11 Filed 09/02/10 Docket Clerk Christopher Danieli computer scanning Docket Clerk Danieli's computer Application: FUJITSU fi-4750Cdm PDF Producer: PDFScanLib v1.2.2 in Adobe Acrobat 8.2.2 PDF Version: 1.4 (Acrobat 5.x) Magistrate Sorokin’s Court Room/Docket Clerk, Maria Simeone, recently scanned and filed a hand signed document for Judge Sorokin; Case 1:11-mj-06025-LTS Document 5 Filed 08/25/11. The PDF properties of the scanner she uses are as follows:

Application: PFU ScanSnap Manager 5.0.11 PDF Producer: Adobe PDF Scan Library 3.1 PDF Version: 1.3 (Acrobat 4.x) Magistrate Sorokin’s Court Room/Docket Clerk, Maria Simeone PDF Documents drafted by Maria Simeone Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Dkt. NUMBERS 61, 62, 67 & 68 (same document docketed twice), 75 & 80 PDF Properties Application: PrintServer130 PDF Producer: Corel PDF Engine Version PDF Verison: 1.4 (Acrobat 5.x) James Chernetsky Judicial Assistant Chambers of Mag. Judge Sorokin PDF Documents drafted by James Chernetsky Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 77 Filed 03/16/11 PDF Properties Title: Q:\2010civil\10cv11343McGarry Order re discovery.wpd Author: 9226 (last four digits of his phone number verified by call and voice mail message) Created: 3/16/2011 9:14:41 Application: PScript5.dll Version 5.2 PDF Producer: Acrobat Distiller 8.2.6 (Windows) PDF Version: 1.4 (Acrobat 5.x) (Note Dkt. #77 unjustly wiped out Plaintiff's proposed discovery request intending no due process for this Plaintiff) CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-11853-GAO (ANOTHER)ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Magistrate Judge Dein & Judge O’Toole) September 25, 2008 Signature Variant --It appears that the document was drafted in its entirety and signed with Judge O’Toole’s name by the by the Magistrate. PDF properties for legitimate opinions/orders from 2008 by Judge O’Toole and Magistrate Judge Dein have not been verified by this Plaintiff. The R & R followed the order and the entire document was a word processed document that contained legal argument to at least appear as legitimate justice . It was NOT SCANNED!

US District Court of Massachusetts ELECTRONIC CASE FILING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES January 1, 2006 (No other updated version is available on the court's web site) N. Orders and Judgments 1. The assigned judge, chambers staff or deputy clerk shall electronically file all signed orders. Any order signed electronically has the same force and effect as if the judge had affixed his/her signature to a paper copy of the order and it had been entered on the docket conventionally. 3. A judge, or deputy clerk, if appropriate, may grant routine orders by a text-only entry upon the docket entitled ―Electronic Order. In such cases, no PDF document will issue; the text-only entry shall constitute the court's only order on the matter and counsel will receive a system generated NEF. NO WHERE DOES IT STATE THAT THE DOCKET CLERK MAY ENTER ELECTRONIC ORDERS
US DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS Job Description for a Docket Clerk – Careerbuilder 12/17/2010 Representative Duties The Docket Clerk is assigned to a busy session of a District Judge and is responsible for the Judge’s case dockets: enters/reviews/identifies/researches/ensures the accuracy, timeliness, and quality of data entered into the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) database; prepares/analyzes various case management reports; scans and converts documents into image files; creates/reviews/ensures the accuracy of entries on the docket, documents and proceedings; ensures entries are appropriately linked and that the image matches the docketed event; assists customers with electronic case filing inquiries; tests new procedures and processes to provide necessary feedback; audits cases for closing and checks the docket to ensure all necessary documents are entered and deadlines are met; prepares notification of deficiencies regarding documents; processes orders in a timely manner; addresses inquiries regarding case information; generates notices related to case events; manages and maintains case records; and performs other duties as assigned.

Not once has any docket clerk notified this Plaintiff of a deficiency in her filing nor have docket entries been corrected to reflect the caption; this Plaintiff has noted text on dockets indicating changes made to the name of the docket entry to reflect the caption in the document by the docket clerk for other cases in this court. Multiple requests for Judicial Notice Captioned in filings with this court by this Plaintiff have been ignored. There is nothing in the FRCP or the local rules regarding Judicial Notice or any requirement for filing the same. Some courts allow it to be as a motion; the Plaintiff subsequently discovered that Judicial Notice was under notices in the ECF system. It is the docket clerk’s job to inform the filer if they took a misstep with their filing. J. Signature The user log-in and password required to submit documents to the ECF system shall serve as that user's signature for purposes of Fed.R.Civ.P.11 and for all other purposes under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this court. The name of the ECF user

under whose log-in and password the document is submitted must be preceded by a "/s/" and typed in the space where the signature would otherwise appear. [/s/ Judge Whoever] is typed onto the documents; it is in no way, state or fashion an electronic signature and any corrupt court staff who has access to the court computers can type a Judge’s name and then enter the document which renders it filed. The user login and password required to submit documents to the electronic filing system serve as the ECF Filer’s signature on all electronic documents filed with the court; therefore, it is virtually impossible to consider documents entered into the system by the staff of the court to legally validate that the TYPED NAME ON THE DOCUMENT is the electronic signature of a judge. Each and every document filed by the staff of the court is a forgery if it does not have their name as the typed signature; further Deputy Clerks take an oath swearing to the validity of documents that they file with the court. Plaintiff’s filings have been entered into the system by docket clerks or the pro se staff attorney. The NEF simply represents that the document was entered and filed by unsworn court staff; it does not represent that the signature was by an actual judge. Further by the court’s OWN POLICY there is not one valid document in this case. They have all been created, forged, entered and filed by the alleged corrupt staff of this court. Corruption is intrinsically prevalent in the Massachusetts Federal Court System. US District Court of Massachusetts ELECTRONIC CASE FILING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES January 1, 2006 (No other updated version is available on the court's web site) ELECTRONIC FILING and PDF Although there are two types of PDF documents, electronically converted PDF’s and scanned PDF’s, electronically converted PDF’s are preferable for filing with the court using the ECF System. A. General Information 4. All documents filed by electronic means must comply with technical standards, if any, established by the Judicial Conference of the United States or by this court. USCA1 Administrative Order Regarding Case Management /Electronic Case Files System (“CM/ECF”) 2011 Documents must be formatted for electronic filing by converting the original word processing document into Portable Document Format (“PDF”) (resulting in what is referred to as a “native PDF” or “text PDF”). PDF images created by scanning paper documents do not comply with this order. However, exhibits which are submitted as attachments to an electronically filed pleading may be scanned and attached if the filer does not possess a word-processing file version of the document.

TITLE 28—§ 1915. Proceedings in forma pauperis(e)(1) The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel. The US District Court of Massachusetts’ GENERAL COURT ORDER 09-4 is in violation of statutory authority; the qualifier is any person unable to afford counsel not the reason as to why one cannot afford counsel and certainly if an employer has black listed someone from employment that person would be unable to afford counsel because of an inability, despite diligent effort, to secure employment such as in the instant case which was, not only, alleged by this Plaintiff but admitted by the defendants through their default and fraud during this action. Further with the well documented fraud in this action and alleged corrupt activity by the court staff now no attorney will take this case. This is quite a set up and nothing less than racketeering by outside attorneys and court staff who have ignored their fiduciary obligation to the tax payer; public servants in a court of law have freely and without fear of consequence ignored established law and intentionally with concerted effort violated the rights of this Plaintiff and without a doubt the rights of others. ORDER 09-4 The objective of this Plan for the Appointment of Counsel for Indigent Parties in Certain Civil Cases (Plan) is to facilitate the appointment of pro bono counsel for indigent pro se parties in civil cases when such appointment has been authorized by a judicial officer. This Plan does not apply to the appointment of counsel for pro se plaintiffs who assert employment-related claims against current or former employers. Magistrate Leo T. Sorokin in a concerted effort with other court staff and unauthorized defense attorneys illegally dismissed this Plaintiff’s action from the US District Court of Massachusetts. There have been multiple alleged federal violations and beyond civil contempt this Plaintiff is alleging criminal contempt by court staff and outside attorneys, all, in an effort to deny this disabled in forma pauperis pro se litigant her Constitutional Rights. The court record adequately establishes perjury, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to violate rights and violation of multiple other federal and state statutes. This Plaintiff needs an Honest US District Judge to reestablish her rights and adjudicate this action!! **PURJURY I. Whoever having taken an oath II. before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, III. in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, IV. a. that he will i. testify,

ii. declare, iii. depose, or iv, certify truly If the rule is to be satisfied with corroborative evidence, the evidence must be trustworthy and support the account of the single witness upon which the perjury prosecution is based. Weiler v. United States, 323 U.S. 606, 610 (1945); United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 315 (2d Cir. 2206)(“The rule is satisfied by the direct testimony of a second witness or by other evidence of independent probative value, circumstantial or direct, which is of a quality to assure that a guilty verdict is solidly founded. The independent evidence must, by itself, be inconsistent with the innocence of the defendant. However, the corroborative evidence need not, it itself, be sufficient, if believed to support a conviction”).

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury the foregoing is true and correct to best of my knowledge and belief on this 8th day of September 2011. /s/ Laura J. McGarry



Apparently the Defendant CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 04-10029-GAO has requested a modification to his condition of release pending the new trial; there is an appeal by the USA regarding the vacated judgment yet the latest motions to the USDC (date of motions unknown) regarding the Defendant’s request for out of country travel and any opposition by the USA do not appear on the USDC docket with the docket jumping from #381 to #386. On 2/10/2012 an order undersigned by Judge O’Toole came forth allowing the Defendant’s motion but the order did not come from Judge O’Toole.
Properties of Document Author: Authorized User Created: 2/10/2012 9:43:25 AM Modified: 2/10/2012 9:43:25 AM Application: Microsoft® Office Word 2007 SIGNATURE VARIANT:

As of this writing it does not appear the court of appeals was notified of the modification of release order allowing the Defendant to apply for a new passport and out of country travel: no notice of the USDC order appears on the USCA1 docket for case no. 11-2131 appeal by USA or case no. 11-2131 appeal by Defendant re: denial of acquittal. Interesting that (GK) is the case manager for these appeals.

SEE pages 6-8 Crimes and Coverups Massachusetts Federal Court System with request for Grand Jury hearings Scribd

USDC Docket follows

NOTE BELOW THE MOTION SEQUENCE REGARDING THE DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF RELEASE IN 2010. This latest 2/10/12012 order did not make it onto the Written Opinions Report. Note Danieli entered the 2/10/2012 order and that there is no mention in the order that the motion was filed ex parte. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for the missing docket entries other than they were filed in a fashion so that Judge O’Toole would not see or appear to not see them on the docket and the order (Dkt. # 386) on

the motion came from the same person who wrote the order docket #376. Danieli managed to keep my motion for contempt Dkt. #85 from Judge O’Toole by filing it ex parte which allowed him to remove the docket entry from the public and court docket.




In 2003, Chief Judge Wolf found that a federal prosecutor for the U.S. attorney’s office in Boston, Jeffrey Auerhahn, intentionally withheld evidence that could have cleared two men charged in a murder case. The Chief Judge had to call for their release from prison and apparently they were considered to be dangerous criminals where society was better off if they remained in prison but the justice process called for their release (apparently dangerous criminals are entitled to the justice process but not an in forma pauperis disabled pro se litigant up against public servants committing federal crime after federal crime). The Department of Justice has never taken public action to discipline Auerhahn. The chief federal judge set local proceedings in motion to publicly punish him; a decision by a three judge panel has been pending for nine months where the expected outcome would be to at minimum suspend and quite possibly disbar Auerhahn. On 9/15/2011 at 2:31 PM I had a strong 15 minute conversation with Florence Pagano regarding the corruption in the federal court system; she is a staff attorney in the First Circuit Executive Office who processes judicial misconduct complaints. I had received a bogus order on judicial misconduct complaint from this office back in May; I believe they forged Chief Judge Lynch's name. I informed Pagano that she and the staff over at the US District Court were not even good at covering up their crimes and reminded her that she mailed me the bogus decision which caused a continued obstruction of justice as the conspiracy to violate my constitutional rights by those sworn to up the laws of this nation continued. I stated that this made her crime fall under RICO violations and added, "That's twenty years alone." On 9/15/2011 the three judge opinion regarding Jeffrey Auerhahn was quietly decided and signed by Judge O'Toole, Judge Zobel and Judge Young; apparently two of the Judges decided that there was not enough evidence to determine misconduct (Magistrate Judge Sorokin used to clerk for Judge Zobel) and the 46 page opinion exonerated the Assistant Attorney General.

The media coverage regarding Judge Wolf’s discovery and the general consensus that discipline was imminent but just how severe yet to be determined was extensive at the time the case was placed with the three judge panel; this current opinion did not even make it into either of the major Boston papers. Ever since the three judge panel was appointed all orders in this case were entered and filed by Judge Zobel's Deputy or Docket clerk. This current opinion was a hand signed so it did in fact require scanning before entered and filed into the ECF System. This Memorandum and Order that found no professional misconduct where witnesses had come forth stating otherwise which was the basis of the Chief Judge’s decision to pursue discipline was scanned then entered and filed into the ECF System by Judge O'Toole's Docket Clerk, Christopher Danieli, at 3:01:14PM on 9/15/2011. Quite clearly the scanning of this document was done on a computer other than Danieli’s usual work computer and the properties of the PDF are most favorable on first appearance for the corrupt court staff by anyone not up to the minute on the continual fraud schemes these public servants continually pull because the PDF properties just happen to be the same properties of the scanned document Dkt. #86 which dismissed with prejudice my action Case 1:10-cv-11343GAO in the US District Court of Massachusetts. My action was denied any due process and was effectively blocked by Pro Se Staff Attorney, Barbara Morse, the corrupt law firm Jackson Lewis through attorneys Guy P. Tully and Brian Childs who never made an appearance in the action and Magistrate Judge Sorokin who had zero Jurisdiction; they managed a total pretense litigation and I had to write document after document to stay on top of their fraud schemes. Knowing they had evidence against them with my multiple filings and validated by my two affidavits they illegally denied all my post dismissal motions, ignored my request for Judicial Notice, named me a vexatious litigant, discontinued my ECF Filing privileges, certified that any appeal would be frivolous and barred me from ever filing with the court. The properties of this most recent document filed by corrupt court staff also match the properties of the scanned opinion 1:04-cr-10029-GAO undersigned by Judge O’Toole with the /s/ signature indented to the (t) of United below the signature as routinely indented by Magistrate Judge Sorokin and not to the (n) as routinely indented by Judge O’Toole as shown in my affidavit. Again, a scanned published opinion cannot be searched and you cannot copy and paste any part of it. PDF Properties Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO document #86 PDF Properties Case 1:04-cr-10029-GAO document #377 PDF Properties Case 1:09-mc-10206-RWZ -WGY –GAO Document #89 (Auerhahn’s case) Application: PFU ScanSnap Manager 4.1.12 PDF Producer: Adobe PDF Scan Library 2.2 PDF Version: 1.3 (Acrobat 4.x)

In the affidavit attached to Dk. #100 I clearly pointed the properties that would appear in a PDF from a scanned document created on Danieli's computer with Case 1:11-cv-10563-GAO Document 37 Filed 08/04/11 which happens to be a ten page hand signed document. Christopher Daniel also scanned another Judge O'Toole hand signed document before entering and filing with his signature as well on 9/16/2011 from case 1:10-cr-10118-GAO; apparently if you are a criminal or an in forma pauperis pro se litigant Danieli is automatically promoted to Deputy Clerk because he keeps signing in the signature block for the Deputy Clerk in these types of cases. I hope he has proof of the oath he took so he can be charged with perjury for filing false documents as he did in my case along with all the other alleged criminal violations that will be coming forth as soon as a I can find a public servant somewhere in America that is not corrupt. Thank goodness this is federal; this gives me a wider range to search for the elusive honest public servant with power required to rid this infection from the court system. I also have documents in my case known to be scanned and filed by Danieli that have the following properties which are the same as the aforementioned documents known to be from his computer. Docket Clerk Christopher Danieli’s computer scanned documents PDF properties Application: FUJITSU fi-4750Cdm PDF Producer: PDFScanLib v1.2.2 in Adobe Acrobat 8.2.6 PDF Version: 1.4 (Acrobat 5.x) The US District Court of Massachusetts is in fact a criminal enterprise where attorneys and court staff are exempt from law, promotes corporate dictatorship over the entitled rights we are led to believe exist and ensures cushy tax payer supported jobs for public servants and profit for what are considered “elite” but actually corrupt law firms. Chief Judge Wolf’s description of public corruption and white collar crime during the DiMasi case has been that these types of crime are the bigger danger to society but the corrupt court systems are in fact the biggest danger faced by our society. The victims of the court criminal enterprise do not make the paper nor do the domestic terrorist who have delegitimized the judiciary branch of our government as they freely commit federal crimes and deny constitutional rights under the ruse of public service; there is no fear of consequence. EMAIL TO PAGANO REGARDING OUR CONVERSATION ON THE 15TH I HAD NOT SEEN THEIR LATEST SCHEME AS OF YET AND FINALLY HAD, ALTHOUGH, INADEQUATE AN INTERNET CONNECTION
From: Laura J. McGarry <> To: "" <>

Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 10:53 AM Subject: Fw: additional evidence regarding fraudulent Dkt.#86 and more

Sorry Florence--you only received half of the email I wrote--this is the complete email--I had to go outside to get internet and the sun blocked my vision and I missed most of the writing on the document I copied for the email! Quality of my life sucks--can't even get internet unless I am lucky enough to get the neighbor's signal. Hello Florence, To reiterate our phone conversation yesterday your office is complicit in obstruction of justice and significant delay in the legitimate processing of my case. You are well aware that the initial order that came from your office is bogus; it ignores the statutory authority of the magistrate and it claims there was no docket manipulation. It ignores the fact that fraud upon the court by the defense counsel was ignored by a judge sworn to up hold the law. You ignored that there were orders in Dk. #57 that violated my constitutional rights by prohibiting me from making reference to docket information which even past the fact that Morse wrote the document voids the order. You ignored the fact that Dkt. #61 which restricted my filing with the court was a transparently void order as the magistrate had no such authority and that the docket clearly shows he continued to block me from the US District Judge. You ignored that this magistrate judge sat on a bench in a federal court with my son as a witness and denied my right to appeal his decisions to the US District Judge. You ignored that Judge O’Toole was never given the motion where I requested reassignment and that before the R & R the motions to vacate and reassign were terminated from the docket. You ignored that the magistrate had no authority to decide either of those motions. You ignored that files were switched in the ECF System and you ignored multiple other Title 18 violations of which you are by law with knowledge of the same obligated to report to the judge and/or law enforcement; instead you chose to become a part of a scheme that violated the rights of a hard working disabled American and the scheme devised has been a living hell for me of which on more than one occasion you were told and you chose to provide me with no relief. My Extraordinary Writ that by any lawful interpretation would have put me in a hearing before a US District Judge was blocked from a panel of judges and yet my $450.00 was taken. The country is aware of the activity that goes on in this court as is the Senate Judiciary committee. By your spoken words yesterday regarding the last fraudulent opinion (Dkt. 101) that came from the US District Court indicated to me that you have plans to continue with dishonesty and even though you know as an attorney that the document is bogus and continues to violate my right to due process and bring my grievance before the court not to mention continues to abuse this disabled litigant; no opinion from the court is valid and created by people with no authority to do so and with libel where my name was not only trashed by the defendants it has now been trashed by corrupt public servants in opinions they had no authority to write and those opinions are all over the internet. You have allowed destruction over corrective action of an honest citizen’s life beyond the destruction that occurred by actions of the defendants. I will pray that should you or a loved one need health

care for a serious problem that karma does not follow and that a nurse with my knowledge, skill and compassion be at the bedside. Because of all the aforementioned and your sudden decision to finally to initiate my petition I sense another bogus docket coming from your office. Paul Lyness is not an attorney, he is a Deputy Clerk and I assume that position is supposedly under a sworn oath; his filing of document #101 as a sworn public servant is perjury. The document is blatantly false-the opinion of Dkt. # 86 is a scanned document from Sorokin’s authority and the affidavits I submitted were ignored. The scanned published opinion I speak of in the affidavit is in fact an attempt to cover-up this fraud. Judge O’Toole did an opinion yesterday with publishing info and although same messy publishing information is there the sequence of numbers is correct. See the attached documents which show yesterday’s number pages and the pages from the fraud. I allege that the publisher idea was an afterthought and they already deleted the word processed document and could not find a 33 page opinion currently in a word process file to continue the ruse so they did the best they could with a higher page number opinion; as I stated yesterday all you folks have very poor criminal skills or are so arrogant that you truly believe you are exempt from law so minimal effort is taken. Sorokin also submitted opinions with publisher information and just as in my affidavit he does not indent with the signature block style he uses when he does opinions for publishing so yesterday’s latest opinions further validate my allegations in my affidavit. WHERE IS AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE ALLEGED CRIMINAL ATTORNEYS AND DEFENDANTS?? The federal court system is intrinsically corrupt including your office. I was denied judicial notice. See the docket where it was requested for reconsideration Dkt. 89 and Dkt. #94; my reconsideration with a request for judicial notice should have come from the US District Judge and I also requested that the last opinion be hand signed. There was no notice of appearance by the attorneys; they are illegally filing in this case and not one word in my motions was stated in the opinion. We have a federal court system here in Massachusetts that has been infiltrated by domestic terrorist who have delegitimized the judiciary who freely violate law and the constitution itself. The signature block of Dkt. 101 is not that of Judge O’Toole and the document was created with the properties of a PDF that would have been created on a computer used by Lyness or Danieli as noted in my last affidavit. You have sworn affidavits from me yet the only text referred to in the fraudulent opinion is Dkt. #95 by the corrupt defense attorney Guy Tully. My documentation to the court was appropriate and supported by evidence. Your job is to serve the people and ensure that no miscarriage of justice occurs; you have failed not only me but the public as a whole and your behavior along with the mass of problems in the judiciary has a very large group of citizens concerned. My motions politely spoke of how the US District Court of Massachusetts had an opportunity to turn this around; you chose to let the fraud and violation of my rights continue. I strongly urge you to make sure the panel of judges actually does occur and that they are given an accurate description of the record with the entire case record before them before any decision and show some integrity as a public servant. Laura J. McGarry

I corrected my spelling and other errors for this posting. You cannot see your computer screen when working outside to “borrow” internet signal from the neighbor and it makes for a sloppy writing. Oh well I made my point and forwarded the email to the FBI and the AG.

Reading "Dishonest Service Fraud With Obstruction of Justice in th..." on Scribd This leads to other reads. Reading "The Criminal Enterprise at the Us District Court of Massa..." on Scribd This shows the case docket and the corruption is written by me in red

UPDATE—there is no such thing as judicial misconduct/ the panel decision was just as
bogus as the first order-- the Administrative Offices of the US Courts and Office of General Counsel are just as corrupt as the Circuit Executive Offices and the Corrupt Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin has been promoted to Chief Magistrate. The USCA1 dismissed my appeal and managed to keep all filings from a judge even with proof that the Extraordinary Writ was blocked from any adjudication by corrupt USCA1 staff and corrupt civil defense attorneys. The USCA1 has usurped the power of three Acts of Congress-the magistrate act, judicial misconduct act and the crimes victims act—corrupt court staff ignored the provisions of all three Acts of Congress, violated my constitutional rights and blocked me from a judge. The new Director for the Administrative Offices of the US Courts, Judge Hogan, determined that the federal judiciary is exempt from the federal employee wage freeze. REMEMBER FOLKS YOU PAY THESE CORRUPT PUBLIC SERVANTS!!!!!

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful