LOESCHE General Counsel
January 24, 2012

Dear Mr. Loesche, I sent the office of general council a very valid, evidence supported complaint of judicial misconduct and well documented proof that no legitimate judicial misconduct complaint process took place due to extensive corruption in the circuit executive office of the first circuit; the package was received on December 14, 2011. I am a Disabled American and my government has apparently determined me to be a worthless human being who should be denied all rights—civil and constitutional. I spent well over $800.00 getting what I sent to your office printed and delivered by UPS yet I don’t even rate a formal response that the material has been received or what action will be taken regarding the corruption in the First Circuit and USDC. I know for a fact that my box of papers was received and opened by Bret Saxe. Mr. Saxe does not answer his phone and my messages for a return call are ignored. Magistrate Leo T. Sorokin denied me my constitutional rights, blocked me from a US District Judge and usurped judicial authority beyond any allowed legislative authority, ignored attorney misconduct and ignored multiple Title 18 federal crimes by the attorneys, Defendants and the staff at the USDC. The First Circuit court staff have continued with the crimes and now my appeal has been dismissed with fraudulent court records and no part of my record has EVER passed before the eyes of a Senate appointed judge. The USCA1 staff have stolen my filing fee twice and all this is happening to protect a corrupt Magistrate, corrupt court staff and corrupt attorneys; it appears at this point that the protection of corrupt taxed paid public servants will continue and that my petition and evidence that backs every word (771 pages x 7 copies) will be ignored by your office and the corruption cover-up will take priority over the rights of this Disabled American. Rule 22(e) Action on Receipt of Petition for Review. The Administrative Office must acknowledge receipt of a petition for review submitted under this Rule, notify the chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, and distribute the petition to the members of the Committee for their deliberation. Why is my requesting that AO discharge its legal duty to provide an acknowledgment of receipt of a petition for review concerning a judicial misconduct complaint not happening and all my phone calls requesting the same being ignored? This failure to provide such acknowledgment flies in the face of the fundamental basis set forth in the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. §351(a). All responsibility for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is vested in the Director. JUDGE THOMAS F. HOGAN is

the chief administrative officer for the federal courts; most peculiarly Judge Hogan’s office tells me he has nothing to do with this process as the Director and can be of no assistance to me. The Breyer Committee Report further emphasized that "[p]osting such orders on the judicial branch's public website would not only benefit judges directly, it would also encourage scholarly commentary and analysis of the orders." Breyer Committee Report, 239 F.R.D. at 216. The aforementioned means nothing if the orders are fraudulent with false statements and misrepresentation of the actual record! Surely when corruption in the circuit executive office prevents any legitimate review by the Chief Judge or an assigned panel the following applies. ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS 2. Effect and Construction (a) Generally. These Rules are mandatory; they supersede any conflicting judicial council rules. Judicial councils may promulgate additional rules to implement the Act as long as those rules do not conflict with these Rules. (b) Exception. A Rule will not apply if, when performing duties authorized by the Act, a chief judge, a special committee, a judicial council, the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, or the Judicial Conference of the United States expressly finds that exceptional circumstances render application of that Rule in a particular proceeding manifestly unjust or contrary to the purposes of the Act or these Rules. If your office disagrees with my allegation that no legitimate review of a judicial misconduct complaint occurred then I suggest you deliver the material I sent your office to the House Judiciary Committee and add the names of Judge Howard, Judge Lipez, Judge Boudin, Judge Saris, Judge LaPlante, and Judge Woodcock to my request for investigation and impeachment proceedings if warranted as combined with the supposed valid court documents from the first circuit regarding my—Extraordinary Writ, Appeal, Misconduct order---all of these judges appear to freely misrepresent the law, facts, evidence, rules, and established court process as well as freely violate the constitutional right of a Disabled American to due process in prosecuting a grievance before a court while ignoring well documented fraud upon the court by corrupt attorneys including a false appearance, strong circumstantial evidence of paying off a federal agency, submitting false records to a federal agency during an investigation and engaging court staff to switch files in the federal court’s electronic filing system not to mention all their frivolous filings because they have no defense for their clients where adverse authority was presented to support their position in a foot note with the party name misspelled and Lexis number changed a small part of all their other fraudulent maneuvers including engaging more than willing court staff.

Reduction of the size of the federal workforce by 10% through attrition – Legislation has been introduced by Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Representative Mick Mulvancy (R-SC) to reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent through 2015. The legislation is called “Reducing the Size of the Federal Government Through Attrition Act,” S.1611, H.R. 3029. Other congressmen have made similar suggestions to the super committee, including Representative Issa. I believe all Americans would be elated if our government would just STOP paying the corrupt with their tax dollars. I am being kept in a state of constant stress by a corrupt government which keeps me constantly sick. I am angry. I will be posting this letter to you and the one I sent our President yesterday regarding this matter and Tweeting the language in these letters to my fellow Americans along with the two attachments I have included with this email during the State of the Union. WE THE PEOPLE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN SUPPORTING THE CORRUPT WITH THE TAX POOL MONIES!!!! Respectfully, Laura McGarry 1717 Sheridan Road Apt. A- 50 Bremerton, WA 98310 413-214-1750 The misconduct is already public because the corruption involved forced me to go public therefore I have no problem emailing. My material to you is on a PDF—I need to get the printer to redact the medical record and then I will be posting the entire content and Tweeting this horrendous wrong to America. Nothing I have stated is not supported by the case record itself and I have been in a FAKE very stressful litigation since August 2, 2010.

Clearly WE the PEOPLE of these UNITED STATES need to take action that will halt federal funding of the corrupt Federal Judiciary including the Administrative Office of the United States. There are too many crooks and liars working for the 3rd branch of our government who take the stance that they are exempt from federal law.
Docketing Statement showing criminal contempt, violation of rights and false appearance by Jackson Lewis Attorneys ignored by 1st Circuit Corrupt Attorneys respond to docketing statement My response to the filing by defense council where they asked the court to ignore its own rule, not correct my docket, and ignore the fact that my Extraordinary Writ never saw a judge as they deny the documented record including their own documentation The best courts money can buy!! Corrupt Jackson Lewis Attorneys Respond to Appellant’s Request That Court Provide a Mandate Regarding Judgments and Engage the Advisory Committee Regarding Intrinsic Corruption

Put these corrupt public servants in front of a grand jury now

Petition Follows

Petition for review requested under 28 U.S.C. §357of Judicial Panel order regarding Judicial Misconduct complaints 01-11-90007 and 01-11-90008 against Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin and US District Judge George A. O’Toole, Jr. where the language of the order is a purposeful blatant misrepresentation of the actual case record and a purposeful plain misinterpretation of established court rules, multiple authorities and statutorily delegated power [United States v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720,724 (9th Cir. 1985) (a plain misinterpretation of statutorily delegated power is "blatant usurpation ")] This Petitioner is the victim of a planned conspiracy and fraud that has subjected this Disabled American to Pretense Litigation in order to ensure a continued cover up of ongoing public corruption which has deprived this in forma pauperis pro se Disabled American of her Constitutional Right to bring a grievance before a court. This Petition is lengthy related to the particularity required in describing fraud. [Magistrate Judge Sorokin instead of
correction joined the conspiracy which is unquestionable conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts see exhibit section four #15 which is a letter written January 21, 2011in which I attempted to resolve the situation nearly a year ago
(exhibit paragraph 11 lines 11 & 12 dates should be 1/19/2011 & 1/20/2011) and this Petitioner is still, now nearly a year later, being denied access to the courts].

Dear Committee Members, In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 357 and the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings and in the best interest of justice I, Laura J. McGarry, am requesting a review of the October 19, 2011 Judicial Panel order regarding Judicial Misconduct Complaints 01-11-90007 and 01-11-90008 (please see the attached extensive exhibit list sections one – five and all exhibits provided with this petition exhibit #1 in section one is the October 19, 2011 Judicial Panel order). This petition to the standing committee clearly demonstrates that there is no justifiable basis to the Judicial Panel “Ruling” that affirmed Chief Judge Lynch’s dismissal of the judicial misconduct complaint—the judicial misconduct memorandum in both orders states a plain misinterpretation of the Magistrate Judge’s statutorily delegated power as per 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636; the Magistrate Judge had no authority to deny my contempt motion and then deny de novo review by the US District Judge. The actual case record and docket support my position that the language of both orders is patently false and contrary to the record. Case No. 10 CA 11343 GAO in the US District Court of Massachusetts was clearly under usurpation and my complaint of Judicial Misconduct has also fallen to unquestionable usurpation. There has been no legitimate review of my Judicial Misconduct Complaint. (May 18th order section one exhibit #7) Without question Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. Bad faith decision-making is where a judge knowingly and deliberately disregards the facts and law of a case; any court orders undersigned by the Honorable Judge George A. O’Toole, Jr. were either drafted by the

pro se staff attorney or Magistrate Leo T. Sorokin’s clerk or judicial assistant and all orders in Case No. 10 CA 11343 GAO have been dispensed, without question, with a knowing and deliberate disregard of the facts and law of the case with no Article III Judicial oversight in violation of well-established legislative authority; should the US District Court maintain that Article III Judicial oversight occurred, the Honorable Judge George A. O’Toole, Jr. should, without question, undergo a disciplinary review. This is properly the subject of disciplinary review irrespective of whether it is correctable on appeal and established case law of the First Circuit Appeals Court clearly states the court of appeals has no jurisdiction over matters that have had no de nova review by the US District Judge. The egregious error constitutes misconduct since its nature and magnitude without question presupposes that the Magistrate Judge acted willfully; the egregious error of Dkt. #53 is without a doubt an antagonistic ruling as are all rulings that come from this court after this Petitioner exposed corruption in filings at Dkt. #51 and #52 (section one exhibits 24 & 25). The aforementioned is compounded by the fact that all Magistrate Judge Sorokin’s actions were carried without jurisdiction as he willfully joined a conspiracy to obstruct justice and violate this Petitioner’s Constitutional Right to bring a grievance before a court; Magistrate Judge Sorokin willfully and deliberately deprived me of any due process. Magistrate Judge Sorokin has favored corrupt defense attorneys who have committed criminal contempt with their goal to achieve complaint dismissal absent actual adjudication of the case merits; the plan clearly involved these attorneys colluding with Barbara Morse, Pro Se Staff Attorney, and Judge O’Toole’s clerks who are also corrupt. The Defendants’ ultimate goal of complaint dismissal with prejudice absent Article III Judicial oversight was achieved. To make matters worse the Circuit Executive Office of the First Circuit willingly and deliberately misrepresented the material facts on which this disabled in forma pauperis pro se Plaintiff’s complaint of judicial misconduct pivots; no legitimate review of judicial misconduct has taken place. Unfortunately the case is now in the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit where that court has absolutely zero jurisdiction over any matter related to the US District Court action with the exception of the Extraordinary Writ filed on June 10, 2011 because no final order in the case has come from the US District Judge; the staff of USCA1 have ignored all filings by this Petitioner/Appellant and all filings with the court of appeals have also fallen to usurpation including the Extraordinary Writ filed in June. Motions based on the Crimes Victims Act and request for Judicial Notice of the US District Court record have been ignored by USCA1; allegations of multiple Title 18 violations that are well supported in the US District Court record are the basis of the requested Judicial Notice. I allege that Chief Judge Lynch and Judge O’Toole were never transmitted the initial complaint of judicial misconduct submitted to the Circuit Executive Office of the First Circuit by this Petitioner back in March 2011 (section one exhibits 12-15); I believe the facts ignored in the judicial misconduct order of October 19, 2011 are purposefully distorted at presentation to the judges on the panel by the staff of the Circuit Executive office; I believe the law, rules and authorities that have been distorted in the order itself is language by the ACE and not the judges of the panel. I believe that the staff of the Circuit Executive office of the First Circuit have abandoned their fiduciary duty to the tax payer and are, in fact, corrupt.

There has been nothing expeditious in the processing of this judicial misconduct complaint that should have been resolved back in March 2011; after the first bogus order regarding judicial misconduct issued on May 18, 2011, I was forced to file an Extraordinary Writ with USCA1 and subsequently due to continued corrupt activity forced to file an appeal. Misrepresentation with purposeful delay at the hand of corrupt public servants describes the course of the action in the US District Court and the process of the judicial misconduct investigation. The facts stated in the judicial misconduct complaint are plainly true and the evidence is the docket and case record itself where the Magistrate Judge has clearly, knowingly, and purposefully usurped the action in the US District Court by taking control beyond what is dictated in the legislative authority of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636. At the initiation of the misconduct complaint a complicated investigation was not even required; continued corruption and attempts at cover-up have complicated the issue and I am quite sure the mind set of those willfully violating my rights and obstructing justice is that the longer and more complicated their ruse the chance of my following up dwindles; they are wrong as I believe what we create is what we leave our children and I will not leave my children what these alleged criminals have created. Our country in order to stand strong must have a respected justice system that stands with unquestionable integrity; the players in this game have made a mockery of the federal court system. The bizarre rulings coming forth regarding the US District Court action when actually read with the filings made by this Petitioner clearly show abuse of a disabled litigant and are an insult to the Honorable US District Judges who sit for the US District Court of Massachusetts; the circuit executive office staff in their sabotage of this misconduct complaint have only self-interest and are benefitting in a manner yet to be determined. Unfortunately, the extent of the corruption in this federal court system cannot exclude the possibility that the US District Judges are involved. The defense attorneys purposely never filed a notice of appearance in the US District Court case that involves a corporation and there is no consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate; the case in whole is pretense litigation that would not be possible without collusion between corrupt attorneys and corrupt court staff which is evident in the case record. Docket manipulation, apparent ghost writing by the defense attorneys, bizarre transparently void orders that violate first amendment rights and due process and deliberate lingering of motions are FACTS that only begin to define the obstruction of justice that has occurred. The Magistrate became involved after the ruse to effectuate a pretense litigation was exposed by this Petitioner in a filing that requested the pro se staff attorney be enjoined from participation in the case and a third motion to disqualify the defense attorneys because of more than obvious collusion; a storm of usurpation promptly followed where the pro se staff attorney sabotaged my case with “Rulings” void of rule, fact and law without US District Judge oversight yet signed the orders with Judge O’Toole’s name. The pro se staff attorney then “Ruled” on the injunctive relief motion of which she was subject and signed off with Judge O’Toole’s name and when that maneuver was followed up by my filing contempt against her and defense counsel she “Ruled” on the contempt motion with “ORDERS” and signed Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin’s name. The pro se staff

attorney then engaged Magistrate Judge Sorokin and instead of corrective measures Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin joined the conspiracy to violate my Constitutional Rights and block me from a US District Judge so that I could not expose the corruption; the staff of the circuit executive office, also, are willfully complicit in the corruption over corrective measures. The case in the US District Court is under unquestionable usurpation. Knowing that the law and evidence left them with no affirmative defense to the allegations they are up against and that my court filings exposed Title 18 criminal law violations during the EEOC investigation, the Defendants (which includes a Defendant Corporation) have corrupt attorneys falsely appearing in the case to promote a pretense litigation. The term “shall” [US District Court of Massachusetts Local Rule 83.5.2 APPEARANCES-- (a)...appearances in a case shall be made by filing a notice of appearance (d)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.] applies. As we have previously recognized, “ ‘[s]hall’ is a term of legal significance, in that it is mandatory or imperative, not merely precatory.” Exportal Ltda. v. United States, 902 F.2d 45, 50 (D.C.Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).'Shall' is a term of legal significance, in that it is mandatory or imperative, not merely precatory." Conoco, Inc. v. Norwest Bank Mason City, 767 F.2d 470, 471 (8th Cir.1985); see, e.g., Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Department of Transp., 856 F.2d 209, 216 (D.C.Cir.1988) (mandatory time limits for agency action); Weil v. Markowitz, 829 F.2d 166, 171 (D.C.Cir.1987) (mandatory sanctions for attorney misconduct); Association of American R.R. v. Costle, 562 F.2d 1310, 1312 (D.C.Cir.1977) (mandatory rulemaking directive). (section four exhibit #41 affidavit). Case 1:11-cv-10807-RGS 10/07 2011 Judge Richard G. Stearns: Electronic Order The law in Massachusetts is clear. Corporations must appear and be represented in court, if at all, by attorneys. Driscoll v. T.R. White Co., Inc., 441 Mass. 1009, 1010 (2004), quoting Varney Enters, Inc. v. WMF, Inc., 402 Mass. 79, 82 (1998). With Judicial Cognizance, the judge is BOUND to act See Black's Law, 6th Ed, pg. 847. In protection of alleged corrupt court staff and alleged corrupt attorneys Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin willfully continued pretense litigation; whether covert or overt corrupt activity by the US District Judge also exists is the only aspect of this egregious activity that required and still requires investigation. Based on no response by the US District Judge to an electronically filed and hand served notice of intent to file Mandamus (Language of that Mandamus filed February 7, 2011 and served February 9, 2011 (section one exhibit #23), I have maintained the mindset that Judge O’Toole is unaware of the case and that my action in the district court has been purposefully blocked from any Article III oversight. My thought process regarding Judge O’Toole’s involvement waivered after the opinion (exhibit section five) discussed in the affidavit of Dkt. # 100 (exhibit section four #44) appeared on the court’s “All Recent Opinions” web page on September 5, 2011 when I was quite sure Judge O’Toole, who by all indicators had been

absent from the court the previous week, was present in court on September 5th when the opinion was posted. I have since pondered who had the idea to set the aforementioned opinion with publishing information; most peculiarly the opinion is a scanned document where the last page of the opinion is 33 which then jumps to page 41 with publisher information indicating that posting of the opinion with publisher information was an afterthought with the word processed file already deleted; who expressed and carried the afterthought?? Further discussion of the aforementioned and the relation to the instant matter is addressed later in this Petition. I also, quite foolishly, believed that Judge O’Toole would rescue me as soon as he read the judicial misconduct complaint that the Circuit Executive Office was supposed to provide him; did he actually receive a copy of the complaint?? Instead of being rescued and protected from these alleged criminals I have been continually subjected to the violation of my constitutional rights, forced to forgo groceries and spend money I do not have in my pursuit to attain justice and forced, as a victim, to have continual dealings with these alleged criminals who have devised a conspiracy to violate my rights as they continue to take every step they can think of that will obstruct justice in favor of their own self-preservation with absolutely no concern of what their actions have done to my health or my family; the amount of work I have had to do to stay on top of these alleged criminals and preserve any chance of justice is insurmountable and very difficult and time consuming because of my disabilities. Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin, not only acted corruptly, he has taken measures to cover up his corrupt actions. The material evidence supports my allegations. The question that needs to be asked is are the public servants including Magistrate Judge Sorokin discussed in this petition the extent of the corruption in the Massachusetts federal court system or are these public servants simply doing the dirty work for the US District and Circuit Judges. Florence Pagano ACE/Legal Affairs of the Circuit Executive Office was sent multiple emails during the initial investigation and subsequent emails post the bogus first misconduct order with a request that the information in the emails and email attachments be included with any material that went before the judicial panel (the exhibits in section two are all the emails which, also, show all the attachments Pagano was provided). It is without a doubt that subsequent evidence that I provided to the Circuit Executive Office was not provided to the judicial panel which included evidence showing Magistrate Judge Sorokin’s direct involvement in a cover-up of the illegal dismissal of my action where scanned PDF files created on Judge Sorokin’s Judicial Assistant’s computer were making an unusual frequent appearance on the all recent orders docket. I directly asked Pagano to be sure that my affidavits filed with motions at Dkt. #97 and #100 went before the judicial panel. This Petitioner noted the October 19, 2011 order by the judicial panel only because she went to the USCA1 web site where the misconduct orders are posted on that very date. The Circuit

Executive office in violation of § 354 (B)(4) never mailed the order to my home address nor did they email me the order knowing I was still in Massachusetts; no notice on the policy of review after the October 19, 2011 decision has been provided. Florence Pagano did email me the May 18, 2011 first bogus order and my right to petition after I informed her that I was in Massachusetts; she was more than aware that I was still in Massachusetts on October 19, 2011. She also thru the US Mail sent the first bogus misconduct order to my home in Washington State. My petition to the Circuit Executive Office June 21, 2011 specifically requested email communication (section one exhibit #6). I also received an email from Pagano on July 6, 2011 approving my petition for review (section one exhibit #5). Interestingly Pagano emailed me the notice of petition approval after I emailed her a press release by human rights activist Dr. Joseph Zernik regarding my case in the US District Court (section two July 1, 2011 email). Ms. Pagano is rarely in the office on Fridays (July 1 was a Friday which was followed by the holiday weekend). The subject stated in the email I sent Pagano stated; “Please give the Honorable Judges of the First Circuit a heads up on this press release. The press release went to a very large distribution worldwide, including law professors in top law schools worldwide, US court judges and staff, attorneys, US congress, US DOJ, etc.” My petition specifically noted: [“I will let the court know if I have any plan to return to Washington—at the moment I do not plan to leave until I have attained justice. Please scan and email any communications you have for me while I am in the State of Massachusetts.”] [“The total text of the Extraordinary Writ contains a consolidated view of all the evidence and law that was presented to Florence Pagano during the processing of this misconduct complaint including the context of the initial complaint and the context of multiple subsequent emails in which the filings on record of the “RULINGS”, submissions by the Plaintiff and by the defense were directly provided as well as multiple exhibits (the index provided in the Writ will be helpful to you over going through the multiple emails I sent to Ms. Pagano but I will provide you copies of any and emails upon request).”] The October 19, 2011 order, by the judicial panel per the circuit executive office, cites Advisory Opinion No. 66 which is totally irrelevant (section one exhibit #2). There was no judicial misconduct complaint against Chief Judge Lynch and had she actually participated in the first order of judicial misconduct she would have recused herself from assignment on a panel assigned to the Extraordinary Writ per CANON 3C (1) & (3); Advisory Opinion No. 66 does not in any way apply. The panel assigned to review the first order of judicial misconduct included Judge Howard who was also named as a judge on the panel that supposedly decided the Extraordinary Writ filed June 10, 2011 with USCA1; he, too, would have recused himself from the panel that reviewed the first order of misconduct per CANON 3C (1) & (3).

I allege that my Extraordinary Writ (section one exhibit #17) was blocked from the panel reviewing the first bogus order regarding judicial misconduct; access to the Writ was changed in PACER at the time Florence Pagano claimed she was working on getting a panel together. The Writ could not be accessed unless the case number was known because party search was altered where placing [last name, first name] in the party box no longer accessed case no.11-1668. See the emails from PACER dated September 28 & 29. I contacted PACER because all of a sudden when doing an all courts party search case no. 11-1668 that had appeared in the search ever since the Writ was filed on June 10th no longer came up and access was a challenge. [correction on email to PACER—a June 22 date was inadvertently typed in these emails to PACER regarding my problem in accessing the case which should have stated on or about September 21-22] I allege that the panel never received the language of my petition to the First Circuit Executive Office and therefore did not know the case no. of the Writ (section one exhibit #6). The language of the panel order is essentially the same as the first order (section one exhibit #7). Further, I believe Florence Pagano of the Circuit Executive office is drafting judicial decisions with an inactive law license; see the BBO notice from their web (section one exhibit #2). I also believe Pagano is forging the Chief Judge’s signature; there are multiple signatures by the Chief Judge I believe to be legitimate that have a significant slant to the right and the signature on the first order of judicial misconduct dated May 18, 2011 just does not have the obvious slant (section one exhibit #8). You can review multiple signatures of Chief Judge Lynch on the USCA1 web site’s misconduct page where the signatures of recently posted first orders appear to be forgeries with an even more aberrant style from the Chief’s usual signature than on the order I received. Chief Judge Lynch is known to be a stickler in following law even when the outcome may be disfavored by the public; it is highly unlikely that she signed the bogus May 18th order that not only contains false statements regarding the context of my misconduct complaint and what actually appears in the record and on the docket but the order is a plain misinterpretation of legislative authority. U.S. Magistrate Rules for The District of Massachusetts and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 (e) Contempt Authority would not have been ignored and distorted by Chief Judge Lynch who would have been more than aware that the Magistrate had no authority beyond a report and recommendation to the US District Judge. Chief Judge Lynch would have noted the improper reference of my Contempt Motion and she would have noted there was no reference to the Magistrate regarding Defendants Contempt Motion by their unauthorized attorneys (section one exhibit #4). I believe she may have even picked up on the FACT that these fool attorneys with their bizarre filings to the court had not even made an appearance in the case. Which brings discussion of the Extraordinary Writ which I asked be presented to the Judicial Panel. The “Judgment” on the Extraordinary Writ also disregarded the facts and law including authority established in USCA1. The Judgment does not even state that the Writ was read it simply states “Denied” without an opinion in spite of authority supported well documented unquestionable usurpation. If the misconduct complaint was honestly processed I would not

have had to file the Writ; if the Writ was not, also, under usurpation I would not have had to file an appeal. Please restore my Constitutional Rights!!
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 923 F.2d 7 Decided Jan. 14, 1991 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction over appeals "from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." As the Third Circuit has said: "To be a 'final' order of the district court within the meaning of section 1291, the magistrate's decision must have been reviewed by the district court, which retains ultimate decision-making power." Siers v. Morrash, 700 F.2d 113, 115 (3d Cir.1983), and cases cited therein. See also Horton v. State Street Bank & Trust Company, 590 F.2d 403, 404 (1st Cir.1979). I allege that the Extraordinary Writ case no 11-1668 filed with the US Court of Appeals of the First Circuit on June 10, 2010 never went before the panel named on the June 20, 2011 Judgment; the Writ also fell to usurpation by court staff. The June 13th docket text was not present on June 20, 2011when the judgment was filed; there is no notation on the docket indicating an entry into the docket to effectuate an edit and this Petitioner received no notice of docket activity from the court of appeals at any time past the June 20th “Judgment” (section one exhibits 18-22). The attorney appearance on June 28, 2011 was eight days after the judgment; no notice of this attorney’s appearance was served to this Petitioner. There was no valid reason for the defense attorney’s appearance on June 28th and the said appearance would have been an unjustified cost to the defendants; the appearance simply allowed for docket entry and manipulation. (SBT) has more than apparently illegally entered June 13th docket text to effectuate an appearance that there was a panel assignment; I had posted the Judgment/Writ and all the authority the decision ignored on my Scribd site and publically stated that I was more than aware that the Writ never saw a judge even before I discovered the June 13th docket text. Susannah Barton Tobin is credited for her proof reading of a publication by retired Judge Campbell in May 2011; Tobin used to clerk for Judge Campbell and (SBT) are the initials frequently posted next to ERRATA on dockets of the USCA1. Ms. Tobin currently teaches at Harvard. The staff of USCA1 refuse to connect me to the clerk of the court; the clerk I spoke with denied knowledge as to who the person is with the initials (SBT) and claimed he did not know of a Susannah Barton Tobin.

Florence Pagano and Leslee Nelson of the Circuit Executive office, both, ignored my concern regarding the Writ never receiving a legitimate judgment and the altered dockets and eight day post judgment attorney appearance were provided to both these public servants (see emails). My call to Mr. Wente regarding the processing of the misconduct complaint was cut short by him when I told him I had concerns and needed to speak with someone above Pagano; he stated, “Then I am going to end this conversation, have a good afternoon” and hung up. Susan Goldberg is unresponsive as well. Contacting and being put through to an honest authority in the federal court system of Massachusetts is impossible; verification that an honest authority actually exists has not yet been established. The defense attorneys had sufficient reason to believe that I was still in Massachusetts on June 28th when the eight day post judgment notice of appearance was filed. The notice of appearance on June 15th not only certifies service to my home in Washington but the attorney emailed me his notice of appearance. I find it interesting that the first defense attorney to make a notice of appearance did so on the fifth day after the Writ was filed; showing unquestionable usurpation

and filed as emergent the Writ should have been decided in 72 hours with a stay of at most five days. The “Judgment” was not in accord with legislative authority and came on the tenth day post filing; after I looked at the docket on the morning of the June 20th, I called the case manager because there had still been no movement on the Writ and I wanted the decision expedited. The June 13 Docket text was not there in the morning or when the Judgment came forth a few hours after my call. The circumstances stated in the writ determine the “Denied” with no opinion to be abusive beyond abuse of discretion and a flat out denial of my right to bring a grievance before an Article III judge and due process. Please read the Extraordinary Writ that I am quite sure the judicial panel never read in spite of my direct request that the Writ go before the judicial panel in my petition to the Circuit Executive; I also made multiple subsequent request that my Writ go before the panel of judges to Pagano during phone conversations and in emails to her and Leslee Nelson. These alleged corrupt public servants including the Magistrate have taken every step possible to ensure that no part of this case passes before the eyes of a District or Circuit Judge because of their own criminal activity. This is without question a violation of Title18 § 241 Conspiracy against rights and multiple other Title 18 violations that involve obstruction of justice; as previously stated, further investigation would be required to determine the extent, if any, by the US District Judge. This petition cannot leave absent the other staff involved because without question there is a conspiracy at the root of this judicial misconduct complaint and the purpose has evolved from Defendants getting the case dismissed with no actual adjudication on the merits to ensuring this Petitioner has no opportunity to expose more than obvious public corruption; any judge actively involved in this conspiracy by either overt or covert means is corrupt. I have searched multiple other US District Court sites and have yet to find general court orders where the signing off of a general court order is simply a typed signature of all the judges sitting for the court. Most general court orders of other US courts have the hand signature of the Chief Judge. A few courts use /s/ Judge Name which is meaningless but the US District Court of Massachusetts has general court orders noted by simply typing the names of the sitting judges at the bottom of the orders and this, once again, begs the question - Are the lower court staff simply doing the dirty work so no signature by any US District or Circuit Judge can be traced to bizarre orders that would constitute misconduct? Pagano forging the Chief Judge’s signature on bogus misconduct orders, the bizarre rulings of the pro se staff attorney, the Magistrate Judge (former clerk) involvement only after the pro se staff attorney is exposed and the incredible effort they have taken to keep my case record from the view of a District or Circuit Judge has the appearance that they are running a racketeering enterprise with these corrupt employment attorneys. There was misconduct during the EEOC investigation as well as a huge money transaction by one of the Defendants six days before their attorney hand delivered a fraudulent position statement to the EEOC. The general court order where the pro bono program excludes indigent plaintiff’s in actions against current or former employers which is in violation of Title 28 section 1915 (e) and singles out a complete class of litigants appears to be crux of the corrupt activity described in this complaint (section one exhibit 29). This Plaintiff alleges that the US District Court’s general court order 09-4 May 1, 2009 [{In order 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, the Judges of the United States

District Court for the District of Massachusetts have approved the Plan for the Appointment of Counsel for Indigent Parties in Certain Civil Cases in the form attached hereto.} {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…}] is in violation of legislative authority and promotes, as alleged in the instant case, retaliation as a defensive tactic which promoted this Plaintiff’s indigent status. Highly unethical high priced civil defense attorneys in collusion with court staff have been running planned pretense litigation where this unrepresented disabled Pro Se Plaintiff has been forced to do an insurmountable amount of legal work in an action she was set up to loose from the start. The docket, now with 103 entries, would not have required even one filing by this Plaintiff past the initial complaint where the bogus ANSWER submitted by unauthorized Defense Attorneys who intentionally did not file a Notice of Appearance would have raised the eyebrows of any honest judge. Title 28 § 1915. Proceedings in forma pauperis (e)(1) The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel. Even Disability Law Center in Massachusetts stated they could not assist disabled litigants in employment related litigation yet Disability Pro Bono entities in other states list available assistance in employment discrimination matters on their web sites. This Petitioner has researched multiple pro bono programs and sees, thus far, no other Pro Bono Program that excludes Plaintiff’s in employment related litigation in other US District Courts. The US District Court of Massachusetts’ Pro Bono Plan FAQs PDF added to a Pro Bono page on their web site reads, “However, it is not rare for the Court to seek pro bono counsel for non-prisoner litigants in a variety of cases, including housing and employment discrimination actions.” The FAQ PDF was first created on 4/27/11 and modified on 5/5/2011; the aforementioned allegations were first raised by this Petitioner in documentation to the District Court January 19, 2011[(Dkt. #51 and #52)(section one exhibits 24 &25)] and at that time lingering motions where the word emergency appeared on the docket no less than ten times turned to abusive court process with more than obvious extra measures taken to ensure this Plaintiff remained blocked from a US District Judge as purposeful violation of legislative authority and court established procedure occurred with even more bogus documentation coming from, both, the court and the unauthorized defense attorneys as these public servants put this disabled litigant through an unrelenting abusive process that still continues. The only Pro Bono assistance approved by the court in employment cases noted by this Petitioner has been short term for ADR only. CORRECTION Dkt. #51 paragraph 2 at line 3 should read [believe that the decision was not that of a U S District Judge.] The aforementioned is an open avenue to corruption where unethical high priced civil defense attorneys who handle employment cases for corporations, such as in the instant case involving these Jackson Lewis Attorneys, are clearly handed a free reign by court staff. Violation of multiple model rules of professional conduct while in more than obvious collusion with court staff which is clearly demonstrated by the fact that they cover each other with bogus documentation while ignoring fact, law, rule, constitutional rights and criminal federal law in a

process where there is no legitimate litigation. The unauthorized Defense Attorneys and staff involved in this usurpation deny the aforementioned allegation through their bogus documentation which they replay in subsequent filings with copy and paste; the actual court record, material evidence and the law support this Petitioner’s allegations. The US District Court has not transmitted the entire case record as required by USCA1 local rule 11.0 even after two requests over the phone by this Petitioner to do so; the USCA1 has ignored my motion to order the District Court to transmit the entire case record and my motion to correct the Docket to reflect the actual Judicial officer in the USCA1 cases has also been ignored. USCA1 has also ignored my motion to provide me with a legitimate ruling on the Extraordinary Writ based on FRCP 60 and under the provisions of the Crimes Victims Act. Motions were filed November 8, 9, & 10 in both case no 11-1668 (Writ) and 11-2292 (Appeal) that were followed by the Defense attorneys usual bogus response which is a clear indicator that the appeal case in the USCA1 is also under usurpation; their pathetic response would not have been written if they thought it was going to be read by a judge. Defense counsel are seeking denial of motions that the docket be corrected to reflect the actual judicial officer in the case and that the entire case record from the district court be transmitted as per USCA1 local rule 11.0 and Summary Disposition. Most interestingly as soon as I filed the motion for Judicial Notice of the US District case record alleging multiple Title 18 violations the defense attorneys, both, near immediately re-filed their notices of appearance for case no. 11-2292 (the appeal) and included the Defendants names on the notices which were absent on the first notices of appearance filed (section one exhibits 32-35). Their legally deficient bizarre response to the motions came on November 14th. I was told by the case manager on the tenth, “I think they are going over yours right now.” I then filed my motion for judicial notice and no orders from the court have yet come forth; this would make the USCA1 over five weeks delinquent in responding under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3771. This action in the US District Court of Massachusetts is not under the provisions of 28 U. S. C. 636 (c). Magistrate Judge Sorokin is not the trial judge as noted on the appeal docket and Magistrate Judge Sorokin was not the ordering judge as incorrectly noted on the docket for Case No. 11-1668 In re: McGarry. The law is clear regarding consent to the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. Without a signed consent to jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, the Magistrate Judge has no authority to write orders regarding contempt under 636(e) and the Magistrate Judge has no authority to write orders on referred matters under 636 (b). Dkt. #61 had “ORDERS” undersigned by the Magistrate Judge that “DENIED” and also excused the Defendants from responding to Plaintiff’s Contempt Motion (Dkt. #58). Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt (Dkt. #58) filed by this Plaintiff on January 30, 2011was written regarding contemptuous behavior by the pro se staff attorney and defense counsel who were noted to be in more than obvious collusion while the case was assigned to the US District Judge; the order of reference to the Magistrate Judge was not entered on the Docket until January 31, 2011 and noted as filed January 28th with the contempt motion never before the US District Judge slid into this same docket text order as also referenced to the Magistrate. Even if there had been a valid US District Judge order referring the case to the Magistrate for pre-trial proceedings and a valid order from the US District Judge referring the contempt motion (Dkt. #58) to the Magistrate in compliance with Magistrate Rules for The District of Massachusetts Rule 8, the Magistrate Judge had no authority beyond a report and recommendation to the US District Judge.

In making this determination, the Fifth Circuit observed, “[W]hen a district judge enters a judgment, defects in the order of referral are procedural matters that can be waived if not properly preserved” because “the duty assigned to a magistrate judge is ‘subject to meaningful review’ by a district judge.” Id. However, “when a magistrate judge enters judgment ․, the lack of a proper designation by the district judge renders the magistrate judge without jurisdiction.” Id. at 257 n. 3. “We need not decide whether there was a proper reference to the magistrate judge under § 636(b) and the District of Colorado local rules because even if there was, the magistrate judge had no authority to enter a final order on the matter at issue here”. Jonathan Guy, Et. Al. V. William T. Beierwaltes And Lynda L. Beierwaltes, United States Court Of Appeals Tenth Circuit (2006). A magistrate judge may exercise both civil and criminal contempt authority in certain circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(e). These include summary criminal contempt authority for “misbehavior in the magistrate judge’s presence so as to obstruct the administration of justice,” and criminal and civil contempt authority in misdemeanor cases and civil consent cases. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(2), (3), (4). In other circumstances, the Federal Magistrate’s Act provides for a procedure whereby the magistrate judge certifies facts pertaining to contempt to a district judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6); see also Hunter TBA, Inc. v. Triple V Sales, 250 F.R.D. 116, 117-18 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). The Magistrate Judge denied this Plaintiff her right to bring her contempt motion and the void orders of Dkt. #61 to the attention of a US District Judge; there was no final decision or orders by the US District Judge regarding Plaintiff’s Contempt Motion (Dkt. #58) and the Magistrate Judge denying this Plaintiff’s requested review of his orders in a case where he had no consent to jurisdiction or valid order to act on any matter by a US District Judge is a clear and unquestionable usurpation. The orders of Dkt. #61 are transparently void; there is no legal order that restricted this Plaintiff from filing with the US District Court. All subsequent orders to the aforementioned, more than obvious, void order are also void. The Magistrate Judge by denying this Plaintiff’s motions and refusing to recuse himself while actively blocking this Plaintiff from Article III oversight was essentially holding this Plaintiff’s action hostage on his docket as fictitious memorandum that without warrant continually intimidated and threatened this Plaintiff with sanctions and complaint dismissal along with bizarre and unjust orders that denied any form of due process; the aforementioned documents are the only part of the case record that has been transmitted to USCA1 and the merits of the action have been ignored. This Petitioners name is trashed in fraudulent court documents by unauthorized staff undersigned with, both, the US District Judge’s name and the Magistrate Judge’s name that state I have been in contempt and uncivil in a federal court while corrupt attorneys and court staff get away with what is defined by any honest observer and the law as criminal contempt. The Magistrate had no authority to write a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #80) under the provision of 28 U. S. C. 236 (e) because holding a case hostage while violating legislative

authority and constitutional rights when there was no legitimate reference of the case to the Magistrate Judge from a US District Judge to begin with leaves him without jurisdiction over the matter and this Plaintiff. The Magistrate Judge usurped this action from the time he was made aware that Dkt. #61existed knowing full well he never approved of the filing as he sat on the bench and made a blatant false statement by stating he did during a scheduling conference on February 14, 2011 that he had no authority to convene. Let this Petitioner not leave absent the fact that the unauthorized attorneys filing of the Contempt Motion (Dkt. #71) by local rule regarding appearances and Massachusetts law cannot and should not be a filing recognized by the court; so in actuality there was no motion that required a report and recommendation to the US District Judge. Further, there is no indicator that US District Judge had any idea the contempt motion (Dkt. #71) existed which is demonstrated by the fact that nowhere on the docket was the Contempt Motion (Dkt. #71) referenced to the Magistrate by order of the US District Judge as per Magistrate Rules for The District of Massachusetts –[Rule 8 states that the manner of referral to the magistrate judge of specific matters in a case shall be in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8(b); [8(b) Manner of Referral(4) All other civil matters may be referred to the magistrate judges only by order of a district judge. The order must specify the matters to be considered and the action to be taken by the magistrate judge.] This Plaintiff requested case management by an Article III Judge in Dkt. #48, # 51, #58, #64 attachment 1and Dkt. #78. In Plaintiff’s Motion [(Dkt. # 69) IMMEDIATE REASSIGNMENT TO A DIFFERENT US District Judge and Magistrate Judge] this Plaintiff requested reassignment to an Honorable Judge and protection from further conspiracy; Magistrate Judge Sorokin denied the motion with docket text and terminated the motion from the docket. There is no indication that the motion was ever seen by the US District Judge. See the Docket Activity Report at Dates 3/2/2011 and 3/3/2011 where motions for judicial reassignment and vacate void orders are denied by the Magistrate Judge with electronic orders and then the motions immediately terminated from the docket (section one exhibits 10 & 11 & section three Docket Activity Report for March 2nd and 3rd); the Magistrate, again, had no authority beyond a report and recommendation to the US District Judge regarding the vacate void orders motion and this, again, is unquestionable usurpation. Not only did the Magistrate refuse to disqualify himself after clear and unarguable violation of this in forma pauperis disabled Plaintiff’s constitutional rights to due process and Article III oversight he actively and willfully blocked the filings from the US District Judge. The bizarre orders of Dkt. #57 (section four exhibit 4) are also transparently void because no honest US District Judge would prohibit a pro se Plaintiff from making reference to docketing information which is a clear violation of the US Constitution’s First Amendment right; further, no honest US District Judge would have the same person from whom a pro se Plaintiff was seeking relief thru an injunctive motion draft the memorandum and orders to the said motion; partiality in any decision would be without question. The fact that this Plaintiff requested a hearing with a US District Judge in Dkt. #48 that was denied by the pro se staff attorney and that this Plaintiff requested a hearing again in Dkt. #78, #81 and #88 in regards to the bogus contempt the Defendants were unlawfully seeking where this Plaintiff’s hearing requests were never even

addressed in any document from the US District Court is without question a denial of due process and clearly a denial of actual legitimate access to the court; more than apparent the usurpers were blocking this Plaintiff from a hearing in front of a US District Judge knowing the usurpation would be revealed among multiple other improprieties that had occurred throughout the now16 months old case that has had zero legitimate court process. The order for dismissal (Dkt. # 86) was a scanned document to mask the properties of the PDF which if not masked would show the document’s origin was not from the computer of the Honorable Judge O’Toole. (Dkt. # 86) was entered into the ECF System by Judge O’Toole’s Docket clerk but it was scanned on the Computer used by Magistrates Judge Sorokin’s Judicial Assistant. See affidavit (section four exhibit 44). The document that dismissed the US District Court action with prejudice was not scanned on the computer used by either Judge O’Toole’s Deputy or Docket Clerk. The document had no hand signature. The dismissal was continued usurpation. This Plaintiff knows the PDF properties of scanned PDFs created on Judge O’Toole’s and Magistrate Sorokin’s clerk staff’s computers;
11-cv-10563 entered 8/05/2011 by Judge O’Toole’s Docket Clerk and scanned on Judge O’Toole’s Docket Clerk’s computer --signed by Judge O’Toole 10-cv-10443 entered by Judge O’Toole’s Deputy Clerk on 9/22/11 and scanned on Judge O’Toole’s Deputy Clerk‘s computer signed by both the Deputy Clerk and Judge O'Toole

The only legitimate reason any scanned Document should be coming from the US District Court of Massachusetts would be that the document has the hand signature of a Judge or Clerk.
01-cv-12257 order entered 9 19 2011 is an adopted R & R scanned but hand signed by Judge Young 09-cv-10237 order entered 1 05 2011 is an adopted R & R scanned but hand signed by Judge Tauro 10-cv-10699 order entered 9 28 2011 is an adopted R & R scanned but hand signed by Judge Tauro 10-cv-11009 order entered 9 28 2011 is an adopted R & R scanned but hand signed by Judge Gorton 11-cv-10092 order entered 9 20 2011 is an adopted R & R scanned but hand signed by Judge Gorton 10-cv-12143 order entered 9 27 2011 is an adopted R & R scanned but hand signed by Judge Gorton 08-cv-10051 order entered 9 27 2011 is an adopted R & R scanned but hand signed by Chief Judge Wolf

This case No. 10 CA 11343 GAO in the US District Court of Massachusetts is in whole pretense litigation. This action was brought after receiving a “Notice to Suit Rights” from the EEOC where a sham investigation also took place (section four exhibit 9) and the following supporting exhibits are available in PACER. Dkt. – Attachment No.
15-29 newly purchased home six days before position statement hand delivered to EEOC by attorney; the new home remained vacant 15-30 actual residence 17- 1 actual residence with 12/09 mortgage taken 15-33 Document re: retaliation submitted to EEOC 7/20/2009 no response from EEOC for eight months 15-34 EEOC Charge amended 3/5/2010->retaliation -> no response from the Defendants/ charge not in FOIA file 15- 35 EEOC Bogus Determination Letter signed by investigator not the Director as per legislative authority 15-36 letter to NY requesting FOIA File by EEOC Director with EEOC charge number recorded incorrectly 15-38 letter requesting section 83 from EEOC ignored / frustrated into asking for the FOIA file 15-44 EEOC July news letter excerpts that describe legitimate processing of charges and section 83 process 50-2 EEOC Charge-the EEOC Completely ignored the hostility described in this charge

The entire case record is not being transmitted to USCA1 as per that court’s local rule because these public servants are violating criminal law and the case record proves it!! Any and all memorandum and orders past document 9 from the US District Court of Massachusetts are bogus. This Petitioner was admonished in court documents because I requested a stay on submitting my discovery request by a specific date ordered during an unauthorized bogus scheduling conference; I notified Magistrate Judge Sorokin’s clerk through email and Skype that I was thoroughly exhausted having had to deal with the fact that my son was acutely ill with an undetermined cause and hospitalized which required my being in conference much of the recent days and nights with medical professionals and also I also believed I had a right to stay discovery pending a ruling by the US District Judge regarding motions #69 and #70 which still have never passed before the eyes of a District Judge (section four exhibit 30). The stay was denied (section four exhibit 25) and these unauthorized attorneys running pretense litigation Moved (section four exhibit 24) for Contempt that the Magistrate Judge Sorokin recommended be allowed and he dismissed the case by forging the US District Judge’s name on a scanned document.
“Plaintiff’s Case Should be Dismissed with Prejudice for her Repeated, Continuing, and Severe Violations of Multiple Orders of This Court.”

Bogus court documents were designed to reflect fictitious egregious conduct by this Petitioner because in the face of transparently void orders that restricted my filing I had filed to assert my constitutional rights; they were trying to beat this Petitioner down into a further state of exhaustion and when the discovery request was filed by the then ordered date most all request stated were stricken (section four exhibits 76 & 77). This Disabled American Petitioner has diligently prosecuted her action over the obstacle of continuous fraud and a veil of substantial abuse by corrupt attorneys and public servants that are being enabled by Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin. Dkt. # 64 is a Notice of Intent to file Mandamus with exhibit 1 the language of a Mandamus. The language of the Mandamus describes the method used to effectuate a pretense litigation which included placing on the docket “Notice for Social Security and Immigration Cases” (this will show on the docket activity report 8/10/2010 first entry) which by local rule are exempt from scheduling conferences and accessing in PACER (however the case is assessable thru PACER); the category sheet that this Plaintiff filed with her complaint was never entered on the docket. The pro se staff attorney intentionally did not comply with the courts General Order (09-3) authorizing the assignment of civil cases to the Magistrate Judges so that she could control the case from the US District Judge's docket. PROCEDURES AND OTHER INFORMATION FOR COMPLETING THE FORM FOR CONSENT OR REFUSAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION were never sent to this Plaintiff as per the court general order (section one exhibit 3). Dkt. #64 and attachment 1 were served by a process server who was instructed to put the documents in Judge O'Toole's hand back in February of 2011 but instead the documents were accepted by Judge O'Toole's assistant on his behalf (section four exhibit 21); no response from Judge O'Toole came forth and usurpation of this case continued. In spite of this Plaintiff’s strong objection, the reference to the Magistrate was forced (see docket text at #58) as well as this Plaintiff’s Request for Relief in Dkt. # 51 “(1) This entire action to

be put immediately before Judge O’Toole…” Dkt. #57 with the order referencing the case to the Magistrate included the pro se staff attorney’s ruling on Dkt. #51. Both Dkt. # 51 & #52 were captioned “REQUEST IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY RELIEF FROM JUDGE O’TOOLE”. This Petitioner submitted June 2010 hospital discharge papers (section one exhibit 30) that clearly indicated deficits including ordered medication that would make self-representation a significant challenge to the US District Court with the August 2, 2010 filing of the Complaint and motion requesting an appointment of an attorney; there is no record of any sealed document to the court of appeals from the US District Court and the hospital discharge paper is nowhere on the US District Court’s docket. In spite of a well pled 41 page Complaint (see section one exhibit 31 for a summary of the complaint submitted to the US District Court), supported by 47 exhibits that indicated clear and unquestionable violation of the ADA laws and a clear indigent status related to the alleged retaliation that was compounded by relocation expenses where relocation would not have occurred absent the allegations of the complaint, Pro Bono assistance was DENIED (Dkt. #9). Clearly the order’s further qualifier “The Motion for Appointment of Counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal after the defendants have replied to the complaint” by the course of this action was just for show. DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991). In order to qualify for appointment of counsel, a party must be indigent and exceptional circumstances must exist such that denial of counsel will result in fundamental unfairness impinging on the party's due process rights. Id. The Court must examine the total situation, focusing on the merits of the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and the litigant's ability to represent him or herself. Id. at 24. The bizarre memorandum and order of Dkt. # 20 undersigned by the US District Judge stated that this Petitioner had not shown that she was likely to prevail on the merits of the action in the US District Court and denied injunctive relief. This Petitioner’s Complaint supported by existing law was 41 pages with 47 exhibits in which the Defendants answered (Dkt. #21) with false statements, denials and not enough information. Dkt. #20 initiated this Petitioners investigation into the legitimacy of the litigation. Document #20 was created and entered on a Sunday and the filing date was manipulated back to the following Friday. The properties of Dkt. #20 indicated the Pro Se Staff attorney as the author of a memorandum and order regarding a motion for injunctive relief with zero US District Judge oversight (section four exhibit 12). Defendants submitted a false record to the EEOC in March of 2010 and falsely claimed a nonpracticing nurse who worked in their human resource department is whom they had hired into the full time open position. The nurse who was actually hired to fill the position terminated with the employer at the time the EEOC investigation became active in March of 2010. Dkt. #76 attachment 1 is a PDF that was posted on line by ELDER SERVICES OF CAPE COD AND THE ISLANDS, INC. names Dawn Manning as the ADON and interim DON (information that was provided to Elder Services by the Employer—Manning is listed twice in this document because the Employer had not updated the organization at the time of publication) not Diana Lawson as the record submitted to the EEOC by the Defendants falsely claimed.

Paragraph 187 of the Complaint (Dkt. #1) states, “Defendants submitted the employee record of a non-practicing nurse that worked in their human resource office as the applicant they chose to fill the Assistant Director position; Diana Lawson worked at Pleasant Bay in the office when Plaintiff was employed there and relayed to Plaintiff that she had no desire to practice nursing.” The Defendant’s Answer (Dkt. #21) to paragraph 187 states, “Admit that Defendant Pleasant Bay submitted to the EEOC the employee record of the person they hired to fill the Assistant Director of Nursing position, but deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 187.” [see Dkt. #15 attachments 39 & 40 in PACER] Paragraph 188 of the Complaint (Dkt. #1) states, “Plaintiff’s experience and qualifications were not inferior to the experience and qualifications of the actual chosen applicant or Diana Lawson; the actual ADON chosen was Dawn Manning and she terminated with Pleasant Bay when the EEOC charge investigation became active in March 2010. Defendants specifically stated in their position statement to the EEOC that they were not considering any of the Registered Nurses working at their facility for the ADON position (page 4 lines 1-3). The Defendant’s Answer (Dkt. #21) to paragraph 188 states, “Deny the allegations in paragraph 188.” (page 4 lines 1-3) of the Defendant’s position statement to the EEOC---"Complainant was one of about 40 nurses--15 to 20 of whom were registered nurses--and Webster and Mikita were not considering any of them for the position either." See Dkt. #15 attachments 45, 46, & 47 for the full text of the fraudulent position statement and Dkt. #15 attachment 26 page 3 where Diana Lawson’s name is submitted as the hired candidate in Defendant’s response to the EEOC’s request for information (RIF). See Dkt. #15 attachment 3 Plaintiff’s references, attachment 6 cover letter/ resume, attachment 11 facility policy regarding job descriptions that the employer refused to provide (also mandatory per 105CMR 150.002), attachment 13 off the clock work update & expressed interest in position to Webster, Dkt. #50 attachment #2 for the official facility employment application that was withheld when the position statement was submitted to the EEOC Dkt. #50 attachment 3 for Plaintiff’s generic employment application Defendants used as attachment 1 to their EEOC position statement which offered zero support to their position where Defendants falsely claim that this Plaintiff only wanted part time work and was not qualified for the position. Paragraph 189 of the Complaint (Dkt. #1) states, “Dawn Manning as the Assistant Director of Nursing [ADON] became the Acting Director of Nursing [DON] after Mikita terminated in November of 2009. Her experience is described in a news article July 1, 2010.” [see Dkt. #15 attachments 41 & 43] The Defendant’s Answer (Dkt. #21) to paragraph 189 states, “Admit the allegation that Dawn Manning became the acting Director of Nursing Services in November 2009, but deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 189.” Dkt. #77 which strikes just about the entire discovery plan submitted by this Plaintiff is a clear indicator that the players in this pretense litigation had no intent of allowing this Plaintiff her right to due process and prosecution of the retaliation portion of her complaint (section four

exhibits 26 & 27). By Supreme Court law these defendants have no affirmative defense see 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) yet these Defendants, unauthorized attorneys, and rogue court staff have obstructed justice and put this disabled litigant through, now,16 months of pretense litigation in violation of multiple constitutional rights and criminal federal law. Magistrate Judge Sorokin is actively and willfully participating in this conspiracy to violate my Constitutional Rights and block any documentation I have filed with the court from Article III oversight. The chilling fact that the players in this highly illegal scheme includes taxed paid public servants who appear to be absent fear of consequence as each act of their planned intentional conspiracy by the design of fraud that was exposed by this Petitioner in her filings to the court was simply followed up with more fraud. Multiple communication attempts to an honest authority to halt this usurpation and set this case back on a legal tract were sent via the ECF System, the Court’s general email, the US Mail, and by process server and all attempts are presumed by this Petitioner to be blocked from any honest authority as no relief followed. This Petitioner emailed the Clerk of the Court and requested a response; again, no response and no relief. Three attempts at email to the Clerk of the Court and a response finally came forth in the form of a Certified Letter from the US Marshal presumed to be at the direction of the Clerk of the Court warning this Petitioner that if she emailed any clerk in the court again she would be facing criminal federal and state harassment charges (section one exhibit16). The emails to the Clerk of the Court were also forwarded to Florence Pagano. The US Marshal who sent the certified letter is Matthew Dumas; the circuit executive office has a legal analyst name Michelle Dumas who has no law license listed with the BBO. This Petitioner lives in disabled housing and did not have a phone at the time; her communication was through Skype or email (section four exhibits 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 46) which are just a portion of the multiple attempts this Petitioner executed in an attempt to reach an honest authority which included having to hire a process server to serve a motion for contempt to Chief Judge Wolf; the contempt motion did not appear on the docket until three months after served. This Petitioner also believes that Chief Judge Wolf and Judge O’Toole never received their copy of the Extraordinary Writ that was served to them by certified mail. Considering the volume of people the court serves, it is peculiar that the clerk who signed the return receipts responded, “Laura McGarry from Washington” as soon as this Petitioner stated her name after placing a call to the court; the Clerk informed this Petitioner that after accepting certified mail addressed to the Judges he brings the mail to the clerk staff. This Plaintiff then spoke with Chief Judge Wolf’s Deputy Clerk who expressed no knowledge of the Writ. We discussed a document being served to the Judge and strangely enough the Motion (Dkt. #85) intended for Chief Judge Wolf that was brought to the court by a process server back in March made a sudden appearance on the docket on June 21, 2011; I had assumed I was taken by a dishonest process server since I never received validation from the process server that the motion went directly into Chief Judge Wolf’s hand as requested but apparently the process server served the motion to the clerk staff. This contempt motion was then put on the docket by Judge O’Toole’s docket clerk absent the notation that the motion was referred to Judge O’Toole by Chief Judge Wolf. It was denied in the scanned

document that dismissed this Plaintiff’s action with prejudice on June 28, 2011. Again deficient docketing occurred and neither contempt motions by this Plaintiff (Dkt. #58 or #85) received any due process. The faux defense has been nothing but misrepresentation, false statements and blatant fraud upon the court—the case record supports the former. Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin has ignored the aforementioned and the Circuit Executive Office Staff has lost sight of their mission which one would assume is to serve the public by ensuring that under the veil of judicial misconduct no miscarriage of justice continues with accurate communication to the Chief Judge and assigned judicial panels; they are only self-serving and complicit in corruption. The tax payer is supporting deliberate usurpers of law. An authority established by Judge Sterns was cited by the unauthorized attorneys as support for their position by placing the authority in a footnote, misspelling the party’s name, changing the Lexis number and leaving absent the adverse component of the authority and then scanning the documents before entry into the ECF System to cover the ruse since no hyperlink could be established yet the unauthorized Defense Counsel maintains in Dkt. # 47 [“Here, Defendants have submitted all papers in good faith, and the representations in those papers are all legally sound and factually accurate.”] Defendants’ Opposition (Dkt. # 36) to Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. #28) to Strike Affirmative Defenses footnote 1 follows:
Continuing her by-now all-too-well-documented habit of treating this case’s docket like a personal e-mail correspondent—and perfectly illustrating the harm created by the moving targets she never ceases to manipulate— Plaintiff has purported to amend her Motion to Strike, even as undersigned counsel has been preparing Defendants’ opposition to that motion. See Docket No. 33 (Plaintiff’s “Motion Addendum”). If the Court is inclined to consider Plaintiff’s “Motion Addendum” at all, the filing should not keep the Motion to Strike from being denied. First, the Motion Addendum advances an utterly implausible position, i.e., that “Plaintiff [lacks] fair notice of the affirmative defenses in question.” See Motion Addendum at 2. One need only consider Plaintiff’s granularly detailed, point-bypoint factual refutation of Defendants’ affirmative defenses to realize just how indefensible Plaintiff’s contention is. Moreover, Defendants owed Plaintiff Rule 8(c)-notice, not Rule 8(a)-notice. See Kaufman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 2009 US Dist. LEXIS 68880, *2 (D. Mass. 2009). Where Rule 8(a) applies to “claims for relief” and requires a plaintiff to provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Rule 8(c) governs affirmative defenses and requires only that a defendant “affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense.” Contrast Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (interpreting Rule 8(a)); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (interpreting Rule 8(a)). Defendants’ affirmative defenses have done at least as much as Rule 8(c) requires of them. Although Plaintiff’s Motion Addendum is nothing more than yet another attempted volley that misses its mark, it does point up the dire need for a net in this match.

Unauthorized Defense Attorneys Misspelled Party and Changed Lexis Number Kaufman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 2009 US Dist. LEXIS 68880, *2 (D. Mass. 2009).
Where Rule 8(a) applies to “claims for relief” and requires a plaintiff to provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Rule 8(c) governs affirmative defenses and requires only that a defendant “affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense.”

REALITY Kaufmann v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68800 at *2 (D. Mass. 2009) Kaufmann v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, No. 09-10239-RGS, 2009 WL 2449872 (D. Mass. Aug. 6, 2009).

Id. (holding that the defendant must amend its affirmative defenses, other than those listed in Rule 8(c)(1), to include a semblance of factual content). Remarking "that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" the court stated that it was inclined to hold that both plaintiffs and defendants have the same notice obligation under Rule 8. The court also observed, however, that due to the commonly recognized usage of the affirmative defenses listed in Rule 8(c)(1), these defenses intrinsically provide sufficient notice to satisfy the plausibility standard. The Defendants had not one 8(c)(1) affirmative defense that would stand. See Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. # 28), Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants Answer Dkt. # 29, Motion Addendums Dkt. #32 & #33. All submissions by Defense Counsel on November 5, 2010 were scanned prior to entry into the ECF System; (Dkt. #52) describes the unauthorized attorneys’ planned ruse to mask their submission of frivolous filings by scanning documents prior to ECF System entry and how when the same was exposed by this Plaintiff they switched the files with word processed PDFs. See Dkt. #52 attachment 3 which shows the timeline of creating the word processed PDF’s compared to entry into the ECF System; the one scanned PDF that remained a scanned PDF after they switch the other scanned files with word processed files was the bogus attachment 1 to document 36 which was document 35 scanned and stamped with the word copy –that scanned PDF was created at 2:54:26 and they began entering all scanned documents into the ECF System at 2:58:23. There were absolutely no hyperlinks or ability to search, copy or paste the documents these unauthorized attorneys filed in the ECF System on November 5, 2010 (section one exhibit 26 &27 and section four exhibit11). Defense filings on November 5, 2010 used erroneous authorities and argued the wording of the FRCP to suit their need of the moment. They insisted that rule 15 stated “as a matter of course” within 21 days after filing where the rule states after serving in order to strike this Plaintiff’s complaint amendment where minor corrections to the complaint had been mailed to the court because this Plaintiff ‘s decline in health that required hospitalization followed by a sudden move across the country had her functioning at far less than optimal; the Docket Clerk entered these corrections into the ECF System as Complaint Amendments. All corrections were before any service of process to any Defendant yet this Plaintiff’s Complaint amendment was Denied during the usurpation rampage by the pro se staff attorney as she wiped out this Plaintiff’s prosecution with Dkt. #53 and manipulated the filing date from January 20th to January 19th (you cannot create a PDF on the 20th and call it filed on the 19th and the orders regarding judicial misconduct make patently false statements regarding proven docket manipulation; please go to PACER and bring up the case & document at Dkt. #53 and right click your mouse to see the properties of the document). This Plaintiff’s well supported motions (Disqualify Defense Counsel Dkt. #27 & Strike All of Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses #28), Rule 15 compliant complaint amendment (Dkt. #30), US Appeals Court authority and Rule 9 supported response (Dkt. #29) to Defendant’s ANSWER (Dkt. #21) [the Defendant’s answer was essentially non responsive as it was full of denials, not enough information and false statement that ignored 47 exhibits and further pleading with particularity was duly warranted], and Plaintiff’s oppositions Dkt. #41 & #42 to unsupported frivolous defense motions were ignored,

denied or stricken by the pro se staff attorney with Dkt. #53. The authorities they used for Dkt #37 & #39 fully explained FRCP 15 before and after the 2009 amendment. They argued USCA authority in a foot note to ensure Plaintiff response to their bogus answer would be stricken; as soon as this Plaintiff emailed them the authority she would be using to support her Dkt #29 they halted the 7.1(A)(2) conference and filed their frivolous motion to strike. Unauthorized Defense Attorneys Dkt #37 & #38 footnote 1
1 Plaintiff

has attempted to avoid the effect of Rule 7(a)(7), after having been alerted to it by the parties’ Rule 7.1(A)(2) conference, through her Motion Addendum Coordinating Documents. See Docket No. 32. 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.

REALITY Plaintiff’s Motion addendum Dkt. #32 that supported Dkt. #27 & #28 as well as the complaint amendment Dkt. #30
BAUER MECHANICAL INC v. JOINT562 F.3d 784; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6072 [“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). FRCP Rule 9. Pleading Special Matters (b) Fraud or Mistake; Conditions of Mind. In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.

In a just Court a Plaintiff’s exposure of Defense Counsel’s unauthorized appearance followed by multiple misrepresentations, false statements and blatant fraud where the allegations of the Complaint are more than adequately supported by existing law and supporting evidence compared to a more than obvious bogus Answer, the determination would be a nonexistent defense followed by Judgment for the Plaintiff and sanctions against the attorneys and Defendants. Instead the staff of this court decided to put a stroke victim through pretense litigation which has left me in an unrelenting state of anxiety and beyond exhausted; Magistrate Judge Sorokin let the ruse continue and they appear hopeful that causing and promoting continual exhaustion of this disabled American will save their cause. Bad faith decision-making while knowing yet deliberately disregarding facts and law define this action in the US court and the processing of the judicial misconduct complaint. All the language of this Petition, including the cover attempts with files that supported the allegations, was relayed to the Circuit Executive Office; all of the aforementioned was purposefully disregarded in the orders of Judicial Misconduct. The Circuit Executive Office has done nothing to protect this Disabled American when the record clearly indicates that she is being put through an abusive process by public servants who have no authority to file the documents coming from the court. Florence Pagano stated to this Petitioner that she should just forget about her action in the US District Court and move on. I

explained to Pagano that the Defendants had stolen my purpose and destroyed the quality of my life and that I would not ever submit to corruption. Pagano then stated, “You still have your children.” See the follow up email I sent Pagano after this conversation dated July 19, 2011. Dkt. No. 9, 20, 53, & 57 are missing from the written opinions report (section one exhibit #9) and their absence indicates that the court considers them void as well; these documents are undersigned by US District Judge but were drafted and filed by the pro se staff attorney with zero US District Judge oversight while in collusion with corrupt attorneys running a pretense litigation. Orders on January 28, 2011 Dkt. #57 included prohibiting this Plaintiff from making reference to docketing information because the Plaintiff had noted in her third motion to disqualify defense counsel for fraud upon the court (Dkt. # 52) a random entry into the case docket where text was entered by the Docket Clerk on 12/3/2011 at Dkt. # 29 & #34 where he documented a modification that was not needed or taken to effectuate the appearance of legitimate docket entry; this Plaintiff alleges that the bogus scanned documents that had been filed on 11/5/2011 by the unauthorized defense counsel were switched at that time with word processed files. The aforementioned occurred four days after this Plaintiff filed for sanctions (see Dkt. #46). This was also ignored by the Magistrate Judge and denied in the misconduct orders. The pro se staff attorney ruled regarding Plaintiff’s Contempt Motion (Dkt. #58) of which she was part subject with orders (Dkt. #61) that restricted this Plaintiff’s filing with the court and signed the Magistrate Judge’s name. Magistrate Judge Sorokin at a bogus February 14, 2011 scheduling conference stated he had authorized these orders and continued a restriction on this Plaintiff’s filing with the court. This Plaintiff’s son was present in the court room for the scheduling conference that occurred on February 14, 2011; this Plaintiff attended the conference by phone from Washington State. This Plaintiff’s son witnessed the Magistrate violate his Mother’s constitutional right to Article III oversight when the Magistrate Judge denied my direct verbal request for permission to file so that I could appeal his orders to the US District Judge and he, also, denied my request for permission to file so I could request reconsideration of the bogus orders by the pro se staff attorney that were undersigned with the US District Judge’s name (Dkt. #20, #53 & #57). No misconduct order indicates that the transcript from this scheduling conference was accessed as requested by this Petitioner in documentation to the Circuit executive office in, either, the initial misconduct complaint or the petition requesting review of the first misconduct order. The pro se staff attorney entered an antagonistic memorandum and order (Dkt. #53) that wiped out the prosecution of this Plaintiff’s action on January 20, 2011 and she manipulated the filing date back to January 19, 2011. Dkt. #53 was drafted and entered after the pro se staff attorney was aware of Dkt. #51 and she was not aware of Dkt. #51 until January 20, 2011 because this Plaintiff did not file Dkt. #51 which requested that the pro se staff attorney be enjoined from duty on the case until 17:37 on January 19th (Please reference the Docket Activity Report as I requested in my Petition regarding the first misconduct order). There was absolutely no law, rule or fact in this unauthorized ruling by the pro se staff attorney. An example of the usurpation and purpose for the docket manipulation follows with an excerpt from Dkt. # 57.

“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 counsel. See 1/19/11 Order, Docket No. 43.” The dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. # 86) is an adoption of the Magistrates procedurally deficient Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #80) who had no legal jurisdiction over this Plaintiff or the matter and a request was made that that any R & R be by any judge other than Judge Sorokin (see Dkt. #78 & #81) who was actively violating this Petitioner’s constitutional rights; (Dkt. # 86) which is beyond bogus by the language alone is a scanned document and has no indications that a de novo review took place which I should not have to be addressing because the usurpation of this case should have been resolved in March of 2011. In making this determination, the Fifth Circuit observed, ―[W]hen a district judge enters a judgment, defects in the order of referral are procedural matters that can be waived if not properly preserved‖ because ―the duty assigned to a magistrate judge is ‗subject to meaningful review‘ by a district judge.‖ Id. However, ―when a magistrate judge enters judgment ․, the lack of a proper designation by the district judge renders the magistrate judge without jurisdiction.‖ Id. at 257 n. 3. Matters referred to a magistrate judge under both sections 636(b)(1) and 636(b)(3) must be reviewed de novo by the district court when a party objects to a magistrate judge's findings. See Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 939, 111 S.Ct. 2661, 115 L.Ed.2d 808 (1991); see also In re Griego, 64 F.3d 580, 584 n. 4 (10th Cir.1995) (―[D]e novo review is required in both 636(b)(1) and 636(b)(3) referrals.‖). Accordingly, it follows that, upon an objection to a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations pursuant to section 3401(i), a district court must undertake de novo review. We have previously held that the presumption that the district court conducted a de novo review is overcome where: 1) the hearing transcript was not available to the district court; 2) the district court gave no indication that it had listened to the tape of the hearing; and 3) the district court did not state that it had reviewed the file and records, but had only indicated review of the findings and rulings and the defendant's objections. Benitez, 244 Fed.Appx. at 66; see Jones, 47 F.3d at 253. The Jones Court remanded the case because the hearing transcript was available at the time of the district court's review and the district court stated only that it had reviewed the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation and the objections thereto. 47 F.3d at 253. The Benitez Court stated,

This case fall[s] squarely within Jones. The transcript was not available at the time of the district court's review, the district court did not state that it had listened to the tapes, and the district court did not state that it had reviewed the records or files. Under Jones, we cannot presume that the district court conducted the necessary review in light of these indications to the contrary. The document was scanned with the purpose of masking the properties of the document because it is not an opinion and order by Judge O'Toole; the staff of the US District Court are well aware that this Plaintiff is able to determine the origin of documents entered by the court, i.e. staff computer v. judicial officer computer, by looking at the PDF properties (section four exhibits 12, 23 & 44). Judge O’Toole’s Deputy Clerk was made fully aware that this Plaintiff knew the exact computer that scanned Dkt. #86 and that her objection to the R & R that the Magistrate had no authority to write never saw a US District Judge. The clerks then began scanning several legitimate appearing opinions by Judge O’Toole on the computer that scanned the dismissal of this Plaintiff’s action and this Petitioner has all those files but used the most peculiar scanned document for her affidavit. The affidavit attachment 1 to Dkt. #100 describes an attempt to produce a scanned legitimate appearing document that would have the same properties as Dkt. #86. As a note of interest, the scanned opinion set with publisher information regarding the criminal case discussed in the affidavit of Dkt. #100 was entered on the all recent opinions web page; the last page of the opinion is page 33 which is directly followed by page 41citing the publisher information. The case had been essentially stagnant with no court entries since May of 2010. (exhibit section five) Dkt. # 101 that denied reconsideration of the complaint dismissal and all post dismissal motions ignored Plaintiff’s requests for Judicial Notice. Plaintiff’s submitted Affidavits were ignored. Plaintiff’s request that the decision be hand signed by a US District Judge was ignored. Plaintiff’s multiple requests for a hearing were ignored. Usurpation continued after this Plaintiff filed her documented proof that her Objection (Dkt. #81) to the bogus R & R (Dkt. #80) never went before the US District Judge. Dkt. #100 with an affidavit at attachment 1was filed on September 8, 2011 and Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration and other post dismissal motions were denied under continued usurpation on September 13, 2011(the filing date was manipulated and recorded as 9/12/2011); apparently the exposure of the continued usurpation that was proven in this Plaintiff’s affidavit was determined to require prompt action by the usurpers of this action. Interestingly the criminal case was a conviction for RICO violations. The PDF properties of Dkt. #101 are the same properties of the computer the pro se staff attorney who usurped this action early in the case is now using to file documents in the US District Court; she now leaves her name out of the properties but still enters the documents with (PSSA, 4). The undersigned signature of Dkt. #101 and the PDF entered by PSSA4 have the same signature variant from Judge O’Toole’s signature which is absent his usual indentation.
C.A. No. 10-11019-GAO –entered 9/21/2011 by PSSA 4- file date is manipulated just as it was on Dkt. #101

1:11-cv-11510-LTS- entered 9/21/2011 by PSSA 4

Prior to September 13, my emergency motions had lingered for more than two months in spite of the fact that I had been informing the court that my son was hospitalized here in Massachusetts and that a prompt decision was needed so I could take my son back to Washington State to ensure his healthcare need were met; I had planned to return to Washington State directly after the hearing requested from the court of appeals was granted but the Extraordinary Writ was “DENIED” on June 20th and during this same time period my son became acutely ill and he was hospitalized for nearly a month. My son is again hospitalized in Massachusetts at the time of this writing. I had no idea that a catastrophic illness would render a hard working American, who dedicated her life to care of the frail and the sick as well as ensuring her children grew up to be good citizens, void of all rights; the public servants of the federal court system act like domestic terrorist. The staff of the US District Court knew that I was in Massachusetts because my father had died and that the usurpation of this action that had obstructed and delayed justice prevented me from being able to reciprocate support during my Dad’s time of need; my father generously provided support during my time of need and my need was caused by the massive retaliation that brought this suit which left my father with insufficient funds to meet his own needs and he ended up in a more than incompetent care setting that promoted his early death. The usurpers are getting away with the obstruction justice and it is impacting the needs of my chronically ill son. This Petitioner has noted emergency motions answered by Judge O’Toole in as short of time as two days. I am entitled to default judgment but am being denied access to the courts. There is something very wrong going on here in the State of Massachusetts and I cannot find one honest person in Government or law enforcement who will initiate correction.
11-cv-11099 emergency motion requested 8/15/2011oders by Judge O’Toole and entered 8/17/2011

It appears court staff have taken some extra insurance in making this Petitioner’s scanned dismissal appear legitimate even after Dkt. #101. This Petitioner’s reconsideration and post dismissal motions that were denied under continued usurpation (Dkt. #101) were entered into the ECF System by Judge O’Toole’s Deputy Clerk on (9/13/2011); all other docket entries in the case had been by PSSA 4 or Judge O’Toole’s Docket Clerk except while on the Magistrate’s docket where the Magistrate’s Judicial Assistant or Docket Clerk made court entries. On 9/15/2011 another case that had been stagnant since 12/10 was decided with a judicial panel. The decision was signed by three US District Court Judges so it required scanning. Judge O’Toole’s Docket Clerk entered the scanned PDF from his computer but the scanned PDF was not created from his computer; all other court orders in this case under the judicial panel have been entered by Judge Zobel’s clerk. The document was scanned on the computer that scanned this Petitioner’s dismissal. The staff now had a scanned PDF memorandum and order signed by three US District Judges with the same properties as the PDF file as the document that dismissed this Petitioner’s case with prejudice. The aforementioned case was the quietly decided case

finding that an Assistant US Attorney had not violated any rules of misconduct. Case 1:09-mc10206-RWZ -WGY –GAO decided, scanned and entered on 9/15/2011. This decision also made the all recent opinions web page. The allegations of misconduct were highly publicized; the opinion that exonerated this Assistant US Attorney did not even make it into any major news source or either of the major Boston newspapers. The criminal case and the Assistant US Attorney's case involved in the cover-up where the same computer was used to create scanned PDF’s that created the scanned PDF that dismissed my action with prejudice have an appearance of inappropriate deal making. Both of the cases had been lingering and then were suddenly brought to the top of the docket for action (exhibit section five). This Petitioner has filed one law suit in her entire life and it is well supported by established law and evidence. The players of this pretense litigation appear to be only interested in their own self- preservation and retaining their falsely perceived power that by law they do not possess. The usurpers of this action labeled this Petitioner a vexatious litigant and barred her from any future filings with the court and certified that any appeal of this action would be frivolous so in forma pauperis filing with the court of appeals was out of the question no matter any procedure required to challenge this type of order because this Petitioner is well aware that any challenge would have also fallen to usurpation. Unjustly stripped of rights, again, I again spent my grocery money to file an appeal just as I had in order to file my Extraordinary Writ that never saw a judge and just as I had in order to initiate service of process (twice) that never saw a judge; this Petitioner’s only income is SSDI. The latest filings to the District Court indicated that I was in Massachusetts with only my laptop and that I had no means to print or scan; Dkt. #101 also terminated my ECF System filing privileges noting that any appeal would have to be by mail. I arrived home in Washington on November 17th 2011 and weighed in at 105#; I am 5’ 8” tall and weighed 140# when this suit was initiated. I believe the corrupt are hoping I will just die and go away. For all the forgoing reasons in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 357 and the Rules for JudicialConduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings and in the interest of justice a review of October 19, 2011 judicial panel order by the Judicial Conference is respectfully requested and this Disabled American respectfully request that this standing committee grant this petition and promptly submit it to the Judicial Conference. The course of my action in the US District Court is beyond shameful. I fear that if what has been described in this document goes left unchecked other Americans will continue to have their Constitutional Rights violated and the denial of justice at the whim of corrupt public servants will continue; I fear more what then may follow as recent events in the national news show anarchy in America already apparent on the horizon. Healing does not begin until the problem is acknowledged and over shame covered by denial the correction process must begin. “If . . . constitutional rights are to function as operational limits on government rather than mere figures of rhetoric, there must be an adequate structure of enforcement.” John C. Jeffries, Reversing the Order of Battle in Constitutional Torts, 2009 Sup. Ct. Rev. 115, 117 (2009) (emphasis in original).

The words of Justice Louis Brandeis however, offer another view: "Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928). The tax payer is not the slave of these corrupt public servants and corruption appears to spread faster than disease caused by any pathogen; if not corrected corruption will in fact eventually kill this country. Respectfully submitted, Laura J. McGarry, Petitioner/Plaintiff

1717 Sheridan Road Apt. A- 50 Bremerton, WA 98310 413-214-1750 December _8____, 2011 God Bless America Certificate of Petitioner The undersigned declares under penalty of perjury that, to the best of her knowledge and belief, the statements in the above petition are true. Laura J. McGarry, Petitioner/Plaintiff

Bremerton, Washington this __8th______ day of December, 2011.

1. 11 19 2011 panel ruling 2. Advisory Opinion No. 66 ACE BBO Status 3. 09-3 Order magistrate jurisdiction

4. doc_81__magistrate rules and contempt authority 5. 7 6 2011 petition approved 6. 6 21 2011 petition to circuit executive 7. 5 18 2011 misconduct order 8. Chief Judge's signatures consider forgery 9. doc_88_31 WRITTEN OPINIONS REPORT 10. doc_88_7 deadlines docket 11. doc_88_8 deadlines hearings docket 12. 3 7 2011 complaint part 1 13. 3 7 2011 complaint part 2 14. 3 7 2011 complaint part 3 15. 3 7 2011 complaint part 4 16. doc-93_1 Certified letter from US Marshal 17. extraordinary writ 18. USCA1 Dockets for Writ 19. SBT & Judge Cambell's article 20. 1st circuit judges 2007-Campell SBT 21. pacer searches show access to writ changed 22. Writ not on USCA1 Opinions List 23. doc_64_1 notice of intent mandamus language 24. Doc_ 51__enjoin morse motion 25. Doc_ 52__ disqualify defense counsel third request 26. doc_36_1_scanned & stamped copy doc 35 27. doc_88_19 dkt text @ 29 & 34 28. doc_88_3 Tully's response when asked to validate representation of defendants 29. general court order appointment of counsel 30. SUBMITTED hospital discharge paper do

not include in in final PDF

31. doc_51_1_Summary of Complaint in US District Court 32. child's appearance 33. child's second notice of appearance 34. Tully's appearance

35. Tully's second notice of appearance

EMAILS to ACE/Clerk of Court/PACER 1. April 6 2nd to clerk of court 2. April 6, 2011 554 AM 3. April 8, 2011 3rd to clerk forward ACE 4. July 1, 2011 5. July 6, 2011 6. July 11 108 pm 7. July 19, 2011 733 AM 8. March 10 918 am 9. March 10, 2011 1051 am 10. March 10, 2011 1120 am 11. March 10, 2011 1217 pm 12. March 14 13. March 17 14. March 21 15. March 23, 901 am 16. March 23, 907 am 17. March 23, 949 am 18. March 23, 2011 1st to clerk of court 19. March 25 803 am 20. March 25 900 am 21. March 28 22. March 30 707 am 23. May 19, 2011 24. October 6 1120 am 2 25. October 6 1120 am 26. October 6 1207 pm 27. October 6, 2011 1120 AM

28. October 7, 2011 29. September 8, 2011 754 am 30. September 9 31. September 16 723 am 32. September 16 753 am 33. September 18, 2011 34. September 23 629am 35. September 23 723 am 36. September 23 754 am 37. September 28 to PACER 38. September 29 EMAIL from PACER


MULTIPLE US DISTRICT COURT FILINGS Doc_ =DOCUMENT Example Doc_27 is main document @ Docket #27 doc_ =attachment exhibit Example doc_53_3 is Docket 53 attachment 3 1. Doc_ 20_ruling on motion for injunctive relief written Barbara Morse 2. Doc_ 27_first motion disqualify defense 3. Doc_ 53_immediate ruling by morse 4. Doc_ 57_rulings by Morse 5. Doc_43 motion disqualify counsel default fraud 6. Doc_45_Plaintiff's memorandum disqualify defense 7. Doc_46_motion sanction defense

8. Doc_48_motion request scheduling conference 9. doc_51_6_ EEOC Excerpt Document 29_p_186 10. doc_52_1 false statement resign for move to WA
11. doc_52_3 defenses time line in creating 11-5 WP Docs NEEDS TO BE COLOR PRINT

12. doc_58_2_Barbara Morse's unauthorized documents 13. doc_58_7_emails to clerks 14. doc_58_8_notice to chief wolf of filings and fraud 15. doc_58_9_letter to chief judge & O'Toole in ECF @dkt. 54 16. Doc_59_letter_Thorton_clerk_of_court 17. Doc_58_contempt motion 18. Doc_61_morse wrote sorokin order 19. doc_64_4 letter mailed to chief judge wolf 20. Doc_69 motion reassign judges 21. doc_69_1proof of service notice of mandamus 22. Doc_70 motion to vacate void orders 23. doc_70_1 pdf recognition 24. Doc_72_defense memorandum contempt 25. Doc_75 order stay denied 26. Doc_76 discovery request 27. Doc_77_discovery request stricken 28. Doc_78_opposition_contempt 29. Doc_80 report and recommendation for contempt 30. doc_81_email to request stay on discovery submission son hospitalized 31. Doc_86 scanned dismissal with prejudice 32. Doc_88 reconsideration motion 33. doc_88_22 summons docketed with no court seal 34. doc_88_25 summons served had seal 35. doc_88_26 DOCKET CLERK SIGNS SUMMONS 36. Doc_89 judicial notice requested 37. Doc_90 motion EXPLAIN DISAPPEARANCE OF DKT. #85 38. Doc_93 motion default judgement

39. Doc_94 judicial notice requested 40. Doc_97 third motion for default 41. doc_97_1_affidavit in support of default 42. Doc_98 motion to stop unauthorized attorneys from filing 43. Doc_100 motion vacate void 44. doc_100_affidavit in support of motion 45. Doc_101 all post dismissal motions denied 46. Doc_Dkt. # 85 CONTEMPT MOTION DISAPPEARED

OPINION DISCUSSED IN AFFIDAVIT OF DKT. #100 AND AUSA’S ORDER scanned 04-cr-10029 scanned signed o'toole written by Sorokin scanned 109-mc-10206-RWZ -WGY -GAO scanned AUSA opinion

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful