Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

Barbara Morse, Pro Se Staff Attorney for the U S District Court of Massachusetts continues to

write memorandums and orders of which she has no legal authority; Morse is in violation of
multiple federal and state statutes. The law firm of Jackson Lewis is in collusion with Barbara
Morse in an attempt to keep this Plaintiff’s action from the view of a federal judge; beyond
being aware that the case at issue has no chance of the Defendants prevailing, these lawyers
are fully aware that submissions to the court by the Plaintiff include evidence of federal crimes.
These federal crimes are modus operand defense tactics for these lawyers. The lawyers from
Jackson Lewis participating in this action thus far are Patrick Egan (fraudulent submissions to a
federal agency and indicators of an inappropriate exchange of money) and Guy Tully along with
Brian Childs who chose to carry the fraudulent defense into the Court. While blocking the
action from the Judge they continue to file against well established case law and federal rule
bizarre documents in oppositions and motions to strike (incriminating) documents maintaining
a steady continued profit from their clients. In an attempt to prevail, they have engaged the
clerks of the court and blocked all of the action from a judge and are making fraudulent docket
entries. They have also switched files that were entered into the courts ECF system (electronic
filing). Barbara Morse writes the court documents; after evidence was produced that she was
patently dishonest in regards to writing the documents a motion to enjoin her from any
participation in the said action was put before the court. Now fully aware that her fraudulent
documents have specific indicators of said fraud, she has answered the motion to enjoin her
(along with other motions) from a different computer than her usual leaving absent the specific
indicators, i.e., (Author: Morse per document properties). The language in the fraudulent
documents by Morse also has the Guy Tully touch, i.e., absent rule, law, facts and offer nothing
beyond threats of sanctions including only rule 11 and authorities to rule 11 in their documents.

BELOW YOU WILL SEE TWO DOCUMENTS FROM THE US DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS.
THE FIRST IS WRITTEN BY MORSE AND GUY TULLY. THE SECOND IS WRITTEN BY JUDGE
O’TOOLE.

Red marks point to specific areas of language and structure difference between the documents.
A small preview of what to look for as you read is as follows:

Criminal attorney and clerk -- (Docket No. 48) v. --Honorable Judge

Criminal attorney and clerk --SO ORDERED. v. Honorable Judge

Criminal attorney and clerk-- this Court v. -- Honorable Judge

Let’s play “Find Waldow”!!! Did I miss any distinctive telling of criminal v. Honorable Judge?
1:10-cv- UMass v. 2011-01- Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ELECTRONIC ORDER
10615- Universal 28 entered granting [10] Motion to Approve Consent
GAO Sequence, Inc. 16:06:32 Judgment (Lyness, Paul)
et al
1:10-cv- UMass v. 2011-01- Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered.
10615- Universal 28 CONSENT JUDGMENT (Lyness, Paul)
GAO Sequence, Inc. 16:07:40
et al
1:10-cv- McGarry v. 2011-01- Judge George A. OToole, Jr: Plaintiff's Motion [51] to
11343- Geriatric 28 Enjoin PSSA is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion [52] to
GAO Facilities of 16:20:00 disqualify defense counsel is DENIED. Plaintiff is
Cape Cod Inc. et prohibited from making personal comments or attacks
al upon defense counsel or court
1:10-cv- Dempsey v. 2011-01- Judge George A. OToole, Jr: MEMORANDUM AND
12212- Gnandt 28 ORDER entered: Plaintiff's Motion for Immediate
GAO 16:30:45 Suspension of Proceeding Enemy Alien Status (Docket
No. 10) is DENIED; Plaintiff is CAUTIONED against
the continued filing of abusive, malicious, or vexat
1:10-cv- Dempsey v. 2011-01- Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered. ORDER
12212- Gnandt 28 DISMISSING CASE(PSSA, 1)
GAO 16:33:11

The docket shows no orders for Friday 1/28/2011 under GAO (George A. O’Toole) until 4:06
PM which was an electronic order by the Judge’s Deputy Clerk. Then, as you can see below
PSSA, 4 which is Barbara Morse (Pro Se Staff Attorney, 4) entered her fraudulent document.
The next order of the day was entered by another PSSA. Judge O’Toole was on the calendar as
day 4 of a criminal jury trial starting at 9 am.

The fraudulent Document by MORSE DID NOT APPEAR under recent opinions!

United States District Court


District of Massachusetts

Opinions Search
Search for: All Recent Opinions
Entered: Category: order 4. PSSA
01/28/2011 Event: Order on Motion to Expedite Order on Motion for Type: crt
16:20:00 Injuctive Relief Order on Motion to Disqualify Counsel
Filed: 01/28/2011 Document: 57
Judge George A. OToole, Jr: Plaintiff's Motion 51 to Enjoin PSSA is DENIED. Plaintiff's
Motion 52 to disqualify defense counsel is DENIED. Plaintiff is prohibited from making
personal comments or attacks upon defense counsel or court staff, intimidating, harassing, or
warning defense counsel or court staff in any way as to make a direct or indirect threat, or
making reference to docketing information. Plaintiff's Motion 48 for Rule 16(b) conference is
granted in part by directing the clerk to refer this matter to Magistrate Judge Sorokin for all
pretrial proceedings and the motion is denied in all other respects. The Clerk shall refer this
case to Magistrate Judge Sorokin for all pretrial proceedings. (PSSA, 4)
Morse created her fraudulent document 57 at 4:14:40 on 1/28/2011

Document 9 Created: by MORSE 8/19/2010 @ 4:34:12 PM


file date manipulated to state 8/18/2010 by Morse.
(Document 9) of this action was created in a file 8/19/2010 at 4:34:12 PM the author was
Morse; File: Document 9_09513855826 was Titled; [Q:\Morse\2010 cases\10cv11343-GAO
(Mcgarry, Laura)\10cv11343 Order granting IFP deny counsel allow electronic filing issue sum]
with the signature /s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.

INVALID Document 20 Created by Barbara MORSE 9/26/2010 @ 1:59:15 PM on a Sunday


file date manipulated by Morse to state 9/24/2010.
(Document 20) memorandum and order thru the ECF system on Sunday September 26, 2010 at
2:01:07 PM (Plaintiff’s computer is set for EST) denying a Motion. The properties of the PDF
indicate the document was created on Sunday 9/26/2010 1:59:15 PM and that the author was
Morse; Document 20_09513909805 was [Titled: Q:\Morse\2010 cases\10cv11343-GAO
(Mcgarry, Laura)\10cv11343 Order denying emergency motion.wpd.] with the signature /s/
George A. O’Toole, Jr.

Document 53---Morse created this document after she saw Plaintiff’s motion to enjoin her
from any duty or participation in the case.

INVALID Document 53 Created by BARBARA MORSE 1/20/2011 @ 11:41:26 am


file date manipulated by Morse to 1/19/2011: Morse then denied all legitimate supported by
legal authority motions and declared documents stricken from the record after ignoring and
blocking the case from a judge for the past four months.

Barbara Morse changed the font she usually uses and did include Judge O’Toole’s marking at
the top of the document, (after she was clued as to these distinctions between her fraudulent
submissions and documents actually composed by Judge O’Toole by her reading document 51
which was written to enjoin her from this case) the properties of the PDF again name her as the
author (I checked the system this morning and the properties still name her as author; I am
quite sure she will soon have her documents perfected to on appearance resemble those of
Judge O’Toole only absent his knowledge of law and wisdom. I WAS RIGHT THAT SHE
WOULD TRY AGAIN BUT SHE AGAIN FAILED WITH DOCUMENT 57!

Title: Q:\Morse\2010 cases\10cv11343-GAO (Mcgarry, Laura)\10cv11343 Order denying


pending motions for sanctions to strike.wpd

Author: Morse

File: 09514091786

Created: 1/20/2011 11:41:26 AM She, again, manipulated the file date.

DOCKET

Entered: Category: order 4.


01/20/2011 Event: Order on Motion to Strike Order on Motion for Default PSSA
12:01:25 Judgment Order on Motion for Sanctions Order on Motion to Type:
Filed: Disqualify Counsel crt
01/19/2011 Document: 53
Judge George A. OToole, Jr: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered granting 37 Motion
to Strike Plaintiff's Response to the Answer; granting 39 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's
September and October Amendments to her Complaint; denying 43 Motion for Default
Judgment; denying 46 First Motion for Sanctions; denying 27 Motion to Disqualify Counsel;
denying 28 Plaintiff's Proposed Motion to Strike Answer. (PSSA, 4)