Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 1 of 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

ATTACHMENT 81

_______________________________
) Article III Judicial Notice Requested
LAURA J. MCGARRY, ) OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOROKIN’S
Plaintiff, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Dkt.# 80
) REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
v. ) CONTEMPT Dkt. #71
)
GERIATRIC FACILITIES )
Of CAPE COD INC., et al )
)
Defendants. ) CIVIL ACTION
_____________________________) NO. 10 CA 11343 GAO

Laura J. McGarry, the Plaintiff in this action, hereby OBJECTS (Dkt. #81) to the REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Dkt. #80) filed by Magistrate Judge Sorokin regarding the Defendants,

Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc., et al, Motion for Contempt(Dkt. #71) against this Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s OPPOSITION Dkt. #78 to the contempt clearly stated that she be allowed a “hearing

before US District Judge after fact finding by any Judge other than Judge Sorokin and her right

to appeal the results of CERTIFIED facts before they are presented to a US District Judge”.

This OBJECTION is based on the violation of multiple statutory provisions including Magistrate

Judge Sorokin’s lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and intentional violation of this

Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights. This Plaintiff was never provided with the COURT'S GENERAL

ORDER (10-1) or form for designating the parties' consent or refusal to the Magistrate Judge's

jurisdiction upon her filing of this civil action. This Plaintiff has never consented to the

Magistrate's jurisdiction and strongly objected to the sudden reference when on January 28,

2011 PSSA Morse wrote the order for reference (Dkt. #57) in her fit of usurpation as she
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 2 of 20

"RULED" on Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. #51) for injunctive relief of which she was the subject;

multiple indicators that this PSSA was in collusion with the Defense Counsel with an ongoing

concerted effort to deprive this Plaintiff access to the court and a fair litigation process that

played by the rules triggered said motion. Then on January 30, 2011 Plaintiff filed a Motion

(Dkt. # 58) CONTEMPT-PSSA & Defense Counsel demanding that the case go immediately

before the US District Judge. The reference was forced over Plaintiff's objection. Magistrate

Judge Sorokin is the undersigned on the February 1, 2011 ORDERS (Dkt. #61) [“Plaintiff is

prohibited from filing any further pleadings or documents in this action until directed to do so

by a judicial officer.”] Magistrate Judge Sorokin stated he approved of Dkt. #61 and accepted

the draft be undersigned in his name; Magistrate Judge Sorokin is under no constitutional

authority to make a ruling regarding contempt. Plaintiff, under duress and fearful that if she

did not attend that her case would be illegally dismissed, attended a February 14, 2011

Scheduling Conference. The order was verbally reinforced by Magistrate Judge Sorokin at a

February 14, 2011 scheduling conference that this Plaintiff attended by phone from

Washington State and Plaintiff’s son, who lives in Massachusetts, was physically present in the

court room. This Plaintiff asked Magistrate Judge Sorokin directly during this conference if she

could file to appeal his orders to the US District Judge O’Toole and request, also,

reconsideration of orders administered under usurpation (Dkt. #53 and Dkt. #57). Plaintiff was

told directly by Magistrate Judge Sorokin that she could not appeal his orders to the US District

Judge or request reconsideration of the orders on Dkt. #53 & # 57. Plaintiff asked, “Then what

am I suppose to do?” and Magistrate Judge Sorokin’s response was “get a lawyer”. Plaintiff is a

pro se in forma pauperis disabled litigant who lives on SSDI. These orders were also reinforced
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 3 of 20

on February 15, 2011 ORDERS [(Dkt. #67 & #68) same document docketed twice on the ECF

System and also sent to this Plaintiff via US Mail] “The Plaintiff shall not make any filings with

this Court without the prior approval of a District or Magistrate Judge”. Magistrate Judge

Sorokin assumed assignment of this action knowing full well that he had no jurisdiction and

ignored documented objections to the order of reference noted on January 30, 2011 with (Dkt.

# 58) Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt – PSSA & Defense Counsel which was captioned CASE

MANAGEMENT BY ARTICLE III JUDGE and the relief requested in Dkt.#58 *“(1) Immediately put

this action before Judge O’Toole…”+ Plaintiff also sent an email to Judge O’Toole’s Docket Clerk

on January 31, 2011 when in spite of the caption and relief requested in Dkt.#58 he

electronically entered the reference from the January 28, 2011 order (Dkt. #57) onto the docket

and then ignored this Plaintiff’s email to remove the reference from the docket (see Dkt. #64

exhibit 2---email to the docket clerk is at the end of exhibit)). See (attachment 1) to this

document for an excerpt of rules. Dkt. #58 was followed by (Dkt. #59) Plaintiff’s Letter to the

Clerk of the Court and then the electronic order of reference was entered on the Docket; the

docket at Document 58 above the electronic reference order and Dkt. #59 shows text stating;

“oppression and intimidation of Plaintiff-deliberate deprivation of constitutional rights and

blocking disabled in forma pauperis pro se litigant's access to the court-- this case has had no
legitimate court procedure beyond complaint filing and service of process for six
months…requesting immediate relief and case management by Article III Judge--O'Toole”.

Entered: 1/31/2011 10:43:19 Filed: 01/28/2011 Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr: ELECTRONIC
ORDER entered. REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin Referred for: all Pretrial
Proceedings. Motions referred: 58 Emergency MOTION for Contempt against Barbara Morse
PSSA and Defense counsel Guy Tully & Brian Childs--collusion with PSSA---oppression and
intimidation of Plaintiff-deliberate deprivation of constitutional rights and blocking disabled in
forma paupe. (Danieli, Chris) Motions referred to Leo T. Sorokin.
The order for Plaintiff’s Contempt Motion (Dkt. # 58) was purposefully entered incorrectly on
the docket and does not specify FACT FINDING or Report and Recommendations (rr).
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 4 of 20

The PSSA “RULED” on Plaintiff’s Contempt Motion see DKT. # 61 and noted the undersigned as
Magistrate Judge Sorokin. The memorandum includes [“The Court will not require Defendants’
to respond to Plaintiff’s most recent motion, which is denied.”]
There was no notation anywhere in Dkt.# 61 informing this Plaintiff of her right to object

A pro se staff attorney and a Magistrate Judge do not have the authority to “RULE” on a
motion of contempt, excuse the parties allegedly in contempt from submitting oppositions to
the contempt motion or distribute orders in regards to the contempt motion (Dkt. #61).
Therefore the order is not only invalid it is void, not voidable, but simply void and there is no
order that restricts this Plaintiff’s filing with the court.

Federal magistrate judges are creatures of statute, and so is their jurisdiction. Unlike district
judges, they are not Article III judicial officers, and they have only the jurisdiction or authority
granted to them by Congress, which is set out in 28 U.S.C. § 636. As applicable here where the
parties did not consent to proceeding before the magistrate judge, see § 636(c)(1), the district
court may designate a magistrate judge to consider various matters. See § 636(b). These
matters are generally categorized as `dispositive' or `non-dispositive,' and a magistrate judge's
authority with respect to each category is different: Magistrates may issue orders as to non-
dispositive pretrial matters, and district courts review such orders under a clearly erroneous or
contrary to law standard of review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). While magistrates may hear
dispositive motions, they may only make proposed findings of fact and recommendations, and
district courts must make de novo determinations as to those matters if a party objects to the
magistrate's recommendations. Id. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). First Union Mortgage Corp., v. Smith, 229
F.3d 992, 995 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal citations, quotations, and brackets omitted).

“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).

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). Save for a specific statutory exception, this
rule is iron-clad: a magistrate's order is not a 'final' order which can be reviewed directly by a
court of appeals. The reasons for the rule are salutary: "[N]ot only will review at the district
court level save parties the expense and difficulty of appeal, but it will also give the appellate
court the benefit of the district court's reasoned consideration." Sick v. Buffalo, 574 F.2d 689,
693 (2d Cir.1978).
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 5 of 20

The Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636, "details magistrates' functions regarding
pretrial and post-trial matters, specifying two levels of review depending on the scope and
significance of the magistrate's decision." Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 109 S.Ct. 2237,
2245, 104 L.Ed.2d 923 (1989). We have designated the two categories of magistrates' orders as
"self-operating" and "non-self-operating." United States v. Flaherty, 668 F.2d 566, 585 (1st
Cir.1981). "Self-operating" orders, which cover most pretrial and discovery matters, are valid
when made and can be "appealed" by a motion for reconsideration directed to the district
court. See Sec. 636(b)(1)(A); Local Magistrates Rule 2(b). The "non-self-operating" orders are
specified in section 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), see also Local Magistrates Rule 3; they are not valid
until after the district court accepts the magistrate's report and recommendation and enters an
order or judgment. United States v. Flaherty, 668 F.2d at 585.

In a civil contempt proceeding, the party seeking an order of contempt need only establish (1)
that a court order was in effect, and (2) that the order required certain conduct by the
respondent, and (3) that the respondent failed to comply with the court's order. Martin v.
Trinity Industries, Inc., 959 F.2d 45, 47 (5th Cir.1992).

Defendants fail because there are no legitimate orders —any orders that Defendants’ allege

this Plaintiff has disobeyed are the result of unquestionable usurpation of which Defense

Counsel is fully aware. This Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights have been deprived by a concerted

effort as she has been constantly intimidated with threats of sanctions and complaint dismissal

by people who exercise power they do not legally possess while intentionally depriving a citizen

of these United States her Constitutional Rights as they ignored Supreme Court Law, First

Circuit authority and authorities established in this very court; Defendants’ with multiple

instances of documented fraud in the record remain untouchable which has only validated this

Plaintiff’s allegations of collusion. Further each and every filing this Plaintiff has made with the

court since the void orders that restricted her filing has been to assert deprivation of her

Constitutional Rights and she has filed said documents in an effort to reach an honest authority

to restore her Constitutional Rights.

["There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of
constitutional rights." Sherer v Cullen, 481 F 946]
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 6 of 20

Further the objections herein, particularly to Dkt. 80 where there is not only No Certification of

facts but outside of the word “facts” in a couple of sentences that have been copied and pasted

to the document from Dkt. # 57 the word fact is absent and the documented content of Dkt. #

80 by the “Undersigned” Magistrate Judge Sorokin consist of continued fabrication with

intentional omission of the actual facts. Plaintiff specifically objected in her Opposition (Dkt.

#78) to Magistrate Judge Sorokin submitting any report in regards to the Contempt Motion

(Dkt. #71). Plaintiff captioned “Hearing Requested” yet there was no hearing.

Where a magistrate judge believes that a person has committed contemptible behavior, the
magistrate judge shall: forthwith certify the facts to a district judge and may serve or cause to
be served, upon any person whose behavior is brought into question under this paragraph, an
order requiring such person to appear before a district judge upon a day certain to show cause
why that person should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts so certified. 28
U.S.C. 636(e)(6)(B)(iii); Ivie, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13592 at *4 - *5.

Section 636(e) requires the district judge to conduct a de novo hearing.” Taberer v. Armstrong
World Industries, Inc., 954 F.2d 888, 904 (3rd Cir. 1992) See also Bingman v. Ward, 100 F.3d
653, 657 (9th Cir. 1996)(Federal magistrates have no power of contempt themselves but must
certify the facts to a judge of the district court.”).
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

This plaintiff demands a hearing before a US District Judge to not only show cause as to why she

should not be adjudged in contempt by the reason of the facts but to show cause as to why the

Dkt. # 58 Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt remains valid. The Magistrate’s Report is contrary to

multiple laws and should be rejected.

Due process may require a district court to hold a hearing, and allow relevant discovery, on civil
contempt sanctions where there are disputed issues of material fact. See Tranzact Techs., Inc. v.
1Source Worldsite, 406 F.3d 851, 855 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Due process requires a district court to
resolve relevant factual disputes — allowing discovery and holding an evidentiary hearing if
necessary— in a civil contempt proceeding.”); Ayres, 166 F.3d at 996; N.L.R.B. v. Cincinnati
Bronze, Inc., 829 F.2d 585, 589 (6th Cir. 1987). The Court need only permit discovery and
conduct a hearing where such procedures are necessary “to resolve relevant factual disputes.”
Tranzact Techs., 406 F.3d at 855.
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 7 of 20

On March 2, 2011 Magistrate Judge Sorokin DENIED with docket text Plaintiff’s February 23,

2011 Motion (Dkt. # 69) IMMEDIATE REASSIGNMENT TO A DIFFERENT US DISTRICT COURT

JUDGE AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE and terminated the motion on the docket yet no response had

come from Judge O’Toole to the (Dkt. #69) motion. Plaintiff also Moved (Dkt. #70) on February

23, 2011 to vacate void orders and captioned this Motion “please address immediately UPON

REASSIGNMENT OF A NEW US DISTRICT JUDGE”; On March 3, 2011 Judge Sorokin DENIED Dkt.

#70 with Docket Text [“Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying

70 Motion to Vacate; This Motion is DENIED. The Court cautions Plaintiff that she has been

ordered not to file any documents with the Court without prior permission of the Court”] and

terminated the motion on the Docket. Magistrate Judge Sorokin had no authority to deny the

Motion (Dkt. # 70) Vacate Void Orders or administer orders to that motion; even if the specific

request in the caption had not been noted his authority to address this motion did not extend

beyond fact finding with a report and recommendations 925 F.2d 853 (5th Cir. 1991) footnote

5. First this case was under the total control of PSSA Morse and there remains a strong

appearance that the Honorable Judge George A. O’Toole has no idea that this action exist.

When motions were filed by this Plaintiff to set this action back on a legal tract Judge Sorokin

was engaged by the PSSA and he is now, in effect, holding this case hostage with no Article III

oversight and continued blocking of this Plaintiff to Article III access.

Docket entry 8/10/2010 *“Case Assignment. Judge George A. O’Toole, Jr. assigned to case. If the

trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the

matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin.”] yet PSSA Morse freely ignored

this instruction as she without Judicial oversight “Ruled” (Dkt. #53) on 1/20/2010 on six
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 8 of 20

outstanding motions and the associated oppositions and manipulated the file date back to

1/19/2011. Morse actually filed her Document #53 on 1/20/2011 at 12:01:25 PM. The

properties of Dkt. # 53 are as follows: [Title: Q:\Morse\2010 cases\10cv11343-GAO (Mcgarry,

Laura)\10cv11343 Order denying pending motions for sanctions to strike.wpd Author: Morse

Created: 1/20/2011 11:41:26 AM]. Morse took action on 1/20/2011 on motions that had been

left lingering after she read Plaintiff’s Injunctive Relief Motion Dkt. #51 filed 1/19/2011 at

17:37:42 PM that was pled with particularity; this Motion alleged collusion between Morse and

Defense Counsel and requested that Morse be enjoined from duty on this case and

communicating with Defense Counsel. Plaintiff’s Motions from 10/25/2010 (Dkt. #27) to

Disqualify Defense Counsel (Emergency Motion) and (Dkt. #28) Strike Defendants’ Affirmative

Defenses were DENIED. Defendants’ Motions from 11/5/2010 (Dkt. # 37) to Strike Plaintiff’s

Response to the Defendants’ Answer and (Dkt.# 39) to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint Amendment

were ALLOWED. Plaintiff’s Motion from 11/11/2010 (Dkt. #43) for Default Judgment that

included a second emergency request to disqualify defense counsel with a description of

deliberate planned fraud upon the court was DENIED. Plaintiff’s 11/29/2010 (Dkt. #46)Motion

for well deserved Sanctions was DENIED. Captions on Plaintiff’s Motions that included Judicial

Review and Judicial Notice were ignored. Supreme Court law, First Circuit authorities and all

supporting authorities cited in Plaintiff’s Motions and Oppositions were ignored. Plaintiff’s

opposition (Dkt. # 42) which clearly indicated absolutely no amendments to the Complaint were

made after service of process to any Defendant and that significant harassment was directed at

this Plaintiff by Defense Counsel regarding her Complaint Amendment and additional Count X

against Defendant Mikita was ignored. Defense Counsel relentlessly insisted that Rule 15
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 9 of 20

regarding Complaint Amendments indicated that “as a matter of course” included the time

since the Complaint was filed even after citing authority in both their Motions that thoroughly

discussed rule 15 before and after the 2009 amendment yet Defense Counsel submitted their

frivolous motion to strike knowing very well the language of the rule was after service.

Plaintiff’s Complaint Amendment was stricken and the relief requested which was a default

judgment was ignored. Morse’s documentation:

*“…motion (No. 39) to strike plaintiff’s attempt to file an amendment to her complaint without
leave of court… To the extent defendants seek to strike plaintiff’s response to the answer as
well as plaintiff’s attempt to file two amendments to her complaint, such requests are granted.
McGarry’s pro se status doesn't insulate her from complying with substantive and procedural
law.”+
The Answer (Dkt. #21) in footnote 1 Defendants’ indicated Plaintiff’s amendments had occurred

since service of process to Defendant Mikita; they chose to purposely misstate the rule in their

Motion to achieve striking the amendment. Defendants referred to Appeals Court authority in

Plaintiff’s motion addendum (Dkt. #32) in a footnote (Dkt. # 37) [“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”+ absolutely no professional argument with

“only” used to embellish rule and erroneous authority to support their frivolous motion to

strike. Defense Counsel halted a conference after this Plaintiff cited the authority she would use

to support her document and promptly filed a motion to strike. Plaintiff’s Opposition (Dkt. #41)

where Plaintiff reinforced the Appeals Court authority as well as Rule 9 in support of the

Response was ignored. Complaint exhibits that offered evidentiary support to allegations were

ignored. The actual language of the FRCP was ignored as outright intentional violation of the

FRCP by Defense Counsel was more than evident. The violation by Defense Counsel of the

Court’s local rules was ignored which started with RULE 83.5.2 APPEARANCES. Evidentiary
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 10 of 20

support that this law firm violated the Model Rules of Professional Conduct during a federal

agency investigation with continued and additional violations of these rules as they initiated

their defense with this court was ignored; more than apparent inappropriate litigation tactics

were ignored as they carried a known fraudulent defense to the court with unsupported denials

and outright false statements in their Answer to a 41 page Complaint pled with particularity

supported by 47 exhibits. The Addamax case Defendants cite in their Opposition (Dkt. #35) does

not support their fabricated innocent position. Prompt disqualification would have not only

been prudent to ensure a fair litigation process but would have significantly cut the time this

case remained in court. Ignoring Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Defense Counsel and allowing

them to proceed on erroneous authority is why we are now at this point in which a stain has

been casted on the court and reputations of court staff. They are unethical attorneys who

freely break the law and are an embarrassment to anyone who legitimately practices law; any a

US District Judge would agree which is why they created this sham of pretense litigation and

engaged court staff to assist them in avoiding Article III oversight.

The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the
appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt
v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).

Courts will reconsider an issue only “when there has been an intervening change in the
controlling law, when new evidence has become available, or when there is a need to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” NL Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 65
F.3d 314, 324 n. 8 (3d Cir. 1995); Smith v. City of Chester, 155 F.R.D. 95, 96-97 (E.D. Pa. 1994).

While broad, the trial court's discretion is not unlimited. The [trial] judge must consider the
proper mix of factors and juxtapose them reasonably. "Abuse occurs when a material factor
deserving significant weight is ignored, when an improper factor is relied upon, or when all
proper and no improper factors are assessed, but the court makes a serious mistake in
weighing them." Independent Oil and Chemical Workers of Quincy, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble
Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 927, 929 (1st Cir. 1988); see also Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 862 F.2d 910, 923
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 11 of 20

(1st Cir. 1988) (to warrant reversal for abuse of discretion, it must "plainly appear[] that the
court below committed a meaningful error in judgment").

Morse promptly sabotaged Plaintiff’s prosecution of her action and projected inappropriate

litigation practices by the Defense Counsel onto this Plaintiff in her memorandum. Alleging

dishonesty when the evidence shows dishonesty is not a personal insult; it is fair comment.

Alleging fraud when there is evidence of fraud is fair comment. Count IX of this action is

conspiracy and the fraud and dishonesty that is stated in the allegations of the Complaint are

supported by exhibits and pleadings of particularity; the conspiracy started in the work

environment and it was carried through and post the EEOC investigation and now it has

infected this Court; these defense attorneys with their known tactics were hired by the

Defendants who were fully aware that there was sufficient incriminating evidence to pursue a

discrimination charge against them. The unprofessional, unethical and illegal actions of the

Defense Counsel are imputed to these Defendants. One does not bring suit because of

another’s appropriate behavior; fair comment to documented behavior is allowed. In order to

be fair, it must be shown that the facts upon which the comment is based are truly stated and

that the comment is an honest expression of the publisher’s opinion relating to those facts.

Where a comment imputes evil, base or corrupt motives to a person, it must be shown that

such imputations are warranted by, and could reasonably be drawn from those facts. Plaintiff

through her pleadings to this court in response to the frivolous pleadings by the Defendants has

more than met the criteria required to make her fair comments. Defendants have offered no

defense beyond trickery, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation because they have brought a

meritless defense to this court. Their only hope is Complaint dismissal which they are

attempting to achieve through the fairy tale memorandums written by Morse that are now
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 12 of 20

being approved by a Judicial Officer who is without legal jurisdiction of this action; this can be

construed as nothing less than active assistance in continued usurpation, blocking of Article III

Judicial authority and collusion. Excerpts from Dkt. #53 follow:

*“From her numerous motions and communications to the court, it is clear that McGarry is
dissatisfied with the way her employment discrimination case is proceeding. Plaintiff’s
pleadings, in conjunction with her communications to the Court, reveal a heightened level of
suspicion and hostility directed not only toward defense counsel, but to the defendants as well
as employees of the court. Because the level of suspicion and hostility is continuing, if not
escalating, the Court will take the opportunity to advise McGarry that her pro se status cannot
shield her from the consequences of frivolous litigation practices. The Court notes that, in
virtually every pleading filed by McGarry, she consistently makes a variety of personal insults
directed to the defendants and their counsel, to the point of harassment. In each of the
pending motions, McGarry accuses defense counsel of committing fraud. She has also
speculated that court staff are colluding with defense counsel to thwart her case.”+

Morse then utilizes Dkt. #53 to spin a tale of how this Plaintiff’s was concerned because her Ex

Parte Motion appeared on the ECF System and that the ECF System may have been

compromised. The reality is that this Plaintiff noted on December 31, 2010 that the scanned

PDF’s Defense Counsel entered into the ECF System on November 5, 2010 had been changed to

word processed PDF’s. It was also noted by this Plaintiff that her case was randomly entered by

a Docket Clerk on December 3, 2010 with modifications noted in the docket text on two

previous docket dates; the stated modifications were just that, only stated, and not taken

because this Plaintiff had already taken the stated actions when she filed on the given dates.

Plaintiff filed her Motion Dkt. 46 for SANCTIONS on November 29, 2010 which is hereby

incorporated herein. Defense Counsel had initially entered the PDF’s scanned to make authority

search more daunting since they only used erroneous authorities that offered zero legal

support in regards to their frivolous oppositions and motions. The scanned documents were

also helpful to Defense Counsel since they chose sneak adverse authority into a footnote with a
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 13 of 20

misspelled party and changed lexis number where no hyperlink could be established. Morse

freely allowed these unprofessional tactics over justice as she “Ruled” on those six motions on

January 20, 2011 with memorandum that set the stage for the next step in their scheme.

Plaintiff’s “Numerous” motions began with two well supported motions that were followed by

the Defendants’ frivolous motions and oppositions which, at minimum, contained

unprofessional litigation tactics and advanced to outright acts of fraud; the noted

aforementioned required further movement by this Plaintiff. This Plaintiff has not found any

case in this court on any docket that has a motion for default judgment that has lingered for

three months. The time motions lingered allowed for further fraud that required further

movement by this Plaintiff and she filed Dkt. #51 & #52. The Defendants then file their

oppositions Dkt. #55 & #56 on 1/21/2011 to Plaintiff's Motion Dkt. #51 to enjoin Morse and

third EMERGENCY Motion #52 to Disqualify Defense Counsel. Both Dkt. #51 & #52 are hereby

incorporated by reference herein.

["...the document in fact contains many false statements and scurrilous accusations against
Defendants and their counsel, in addition to containing many similar allegations against Court
personne"..."Instead, unless deterred, she will persist in personal attacks against Defendants,
their counsel, and Court personnel, all the while driving up defense costs."]

["Defendants oppose the Motion on the ground that Plaintiff has not identified any factual or
legal basis in support of it. Defendants also rely on their oppositions to Plaintiff’s prior motions
to disqualify their counsel. See Doc. Nos. 35 and 47. Further still, Defendants contend that the
Motion is mooted by this Court’s order of January 20, 2011 (the “January 20 Order”). See Doc.
No. 53."]
The Defendants raise the issues of Dkt. #53 again in their memorandum to support their motion
for contempt against this Plaintiff Dkt. #72.
["After the entry of the January 19 Order, Defendants requested that Plaintiff withdraw her
disqualification motion and the motion to enjoin the PSSA, a request that this Court later
acknowledged flowed necessarily from the Court’s January 19 Order.'+
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 14 of 20

There seems to be some difficulty on Defense Counsels’ end in getting the January date

consistent. Plaintiff assures the court January 20, 2011 was the filing Date of Dkt. #53 and that

Dkt #53 was an antagonistic filing that lacked fact, law and rule and was a panic response

because of Plaintiff’s allegations of Dkt. # 51 and #52 filed on January 19, 2011. The concerted

effort to stall the case now required a concerted effort to deprive this Plaintiff of her

Constitutional Right to Article III adjudication to ensure that no US District Judge would see the

supported allegations of Dkt. #51 & #52. After a reasonable delay on January 28, 2010 Morse

then “Ruled” (Dkt. # 57) on the Plaintiff Motions #48, #51 & #52; Morse constructed this

document to look more like one written by Judge O’Toole as she “Ruled” on an injunctive

motion of which she was the subject of relief. She was not successful on several levels but the

one level that stood out the most is that no competent honest US District Court Judge was

going to order a litigant to relinquish her Constitutional Right.

*“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.’+

*“In the alleged conspiracy scheme, the undersigned is initially described as being fooled; first
by defense counsel, and subsequently by the PSSA.”+

Plaintiff has searched and searched and she does not see the word “fooled” in any of her

documentation.

*“Rather than litigate her case, and not content to repeat her baseless allegations solely against
defense counsel, Plaintiff has taken the occasion of her most recent filings to make an
unwarranted, immaterial and unfair attack on the professional character of one of the Court’s
Pro Se Staff Attorneys, Barbara Morse. Needless to say, the record does not reflect any such
conduct by Ms. Morse. Although McGarry believes that she has discovered a “smoking gun” by
way of computer data, it reveals nothing more than the internal clerical and docketing system
of the court.”+
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 15 of 20

Morse has moved on from her previous fairy tale that Plaintiff’s concern over compromise to

the ECF System was related to her Ex Parte Motion showing in the ECF system and makes a light

touch regarding the docketing system.

*“ORDERED, 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;
ORDERED, Plaintiff’s Motion (Docket No. 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; and it is further
ORDERED, the Clerk shall refer this case to Magistrate Judge Sorokin for all pretrial
proceedings.”+

Plaintiff has research her documentation and no threats or warnings have ever been expressed

in her filings to this court. Apparently Plaintiff’s fair comment is perceived as intimidating and

harassing; however, it is, in fact, merely fair comment. Docketing information is in the public

domain (PACER)and Morse cannot restrict this Plaintiff from referencing it. This would be

ordering Plaintiff to relinquish her First Amendment rights and such an order would have never

been approved by any US District Judge which clearly indicated Morse had drafted and filed

another memorandum and order that was not under the approval of an Article III Judge and

clear and unarguable usurpation continued. Morse has a duty to draft credible, dignified, and

impartial judicial opinion. These orders of Dkt. #53 and Dkt. #57 are beyond invalid; they are

void, not voidable, but simply void. The orders are an insult to the Honorable Judge George A,

O’Toole.

There is at common law "a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents."
Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). The Court of Appeals reversed.
United States v. Mitchell, 179 U.S.App.D.C. 293, 551 F.2d 1252 (1976). It stressed the
importance of the common law privilege to inspect and copy judicial records...It is clear that the
courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and
document, including judicial records and documents. See, e.g., McCoy v. Providence Journal
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 16 of 20

Co., 190 F.2d 760, 765-766 (CA1), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 894 (1951); Fayette County v. Martin,
279 Ky. 387, 395-396, 130 S.W.2d 838, 843 (1939); Nowack v. Auditor General, 243 Mich. 200,
203-205, 219 N.W. 749, 750 (1928); In re Egan, 205 N.Y. 147, 154-155, 98 N.E. 467, 469 (1912);
State ex rel. Nevada Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Grimes, 29 Nev. 50, 82-86, 84 P. 1061, 1072-
1074 (1906); Brewer v. Watson, 71 Ala. 299, 303-306 (1882); People ex rel. Gibson v. Peller, 34
Ill.App.2d 372, 374-375, 181 N.E.2d 376, 378 (1962). In many jurisdictions this right has been
recognized or expanded by statute. See, e.g., Ill.Rev.Stat., ch 116, § 43.7 (1975)
...American decisions generally do not condition enforcement of this right on a proprietary
interest in the document or upon a need for it as evidence in a lawsuit. The interest necessary
to support the issuance of a writ compelling access has been found, for example, in the citizen's
desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies, see, e.g., State ex rel. Colscott
v. King, 154 Ind. 621, 621-627, 57 N.E. 535, 536-538 (1900); State ex rel. Ferry v. Williams, 41
N.J.L. 332, 336-339 (1879), and in a newspaper publisher's intention to publish information
concerning the operation of government, see, e.g., State ex rel. Youmans v. Owens, 28 Wis.2d
672, 677, 137 N.W.2d 470, 472 (1965), modified on other grounds, 28 Wis.2d 685a, 139 N.W.2d
241 (1966).

Apparently Morse and Defense Counsel did not want this Plaintiff referring to the random

docket entry of 12/3/2010 where scanned PDF’s were switched with word processed PDF’s four

days after this Plaintiff motioned for Sanctions. See Docket text at 10/25/2010 Document 29

and Docket text at 11/5/2010 Document 34. Plaintiff found the continued usurpation beyond

prejudice and that the multiple improprieties of this action required the immediate attention of

a US District Judge; referencing the case to the Magistrate Judge where absolutely no consent

had ever been given, continued projection of inappropriate behavior, orders that Plaintiff

relinquish her Constitutional Rights, and the clear sabotage of Plaintiff’s action required an

immediate motion for contempt. Motion for Contempt against PSSA Morse and Defense

Counsel (Dkt. # 58) hereby incorporated by reference herein and the Motion still requires a

legitimate ruling.

28 U.S.C. § 1927
Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or
any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and
vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and
attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 17 of 20

Chambers v. Nasco, 501 U.S. 32, 35 (1991) (upholding sanction of district court made pursuant
to inherent powers where defendants had practiced a fraud upon the court and used tactics
of delay, oppression and harassment).

Memorandum from this court thus far threatens, intimidates and oppresses this Plaintiff in a

concerted effort to deprive her of her Constitutional Rights and access to the court. There can

be no contemptuous behavior in a court by a party when the party has been intentionally

deprived of establishing legitimate access to the court; it is these Defendants and their Counsel

who are in contempt of this court and more than deserving of strong sanctions not this pro se

in forma pauperis disabled litigant. This Plaintiff is being railroaded by court staff and Defense

Counsel with their perceived power, illegal collusion, fabricated documentation and ability to

write whatever they want in court documents regardless of truth. Certainly the maneuver of

posting a decision regarding alleged contempt signed by the Magistrate Judge with absolutely

no US District Judge involvement in violation of Constitutional provisions is proof enough that

there has been usurpation with a deliberate effort to keep this case from the view of a US

District Judge (justia.com). If by the slim chance a US District Judge is actually reading this

document this Plaintiff is pleased to meet you; however, knowing that Dkt # 80 never came

from an original US District Judge order that would have requested a certification of the facts

along with a report and recommendations she doubts a notation of a pending (rr) regarding this

contempt is noted on any US Districts Judge’s Docket or that a US District Judge is aware that a

pending contempt motion exist; Plaintiff fears usurpation will continue. Plaintiff has had her

rights deprived by a concerted effort where people ignored law, purposely strayed from

established court process, violated local rule, and have made patently dishonest statements

both verbally and in writing and she has suffered unnecessary stress that has exacerbated her
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 18 of 20

disabilities. These people have made a mockery of court process and have shamed the concept

of public service.

*“The Court finds that defendants are prejudiced in having to respond to the vexatious
allegations made in McGarry’s motions. The Defense Counsel commented, see Docket No. 44,
that they should be spared the continued burden of footing bills for contesting such motions
from plaintiff.”+

The first time the Defense Counsel became concerned regarding the Defendants’ “bill” was

when this Plaintiff motioned for sanctions (Dkt. #46) and they have now expressed concern for

their client’s financial status in every document they have filed since Plaintiff described and

attached the antagonistic letter she received from their partner last July (Dkt. #52). July 19,

2010 Plaintiff sent Defendants and Patrick Egan of Jackson Lewis a letter to compromise.

Plaintiff closed this letter to Defendants and Egan with *“A current situation has me out of state

and I have no personal phone number at this time.”+ Egan returned correspondence to the

address of Plaintiff’s daughter stating *"Pleasant Bay took no discriminatory action toward you,

and your employment ended when you voluntarily resigned to relocate to the State of

Washington (Dkt. #52 exhibit 1). Egan's language was taunting this Plaintiff into litigation as he

knew very well that this Plaintiff had not moved out of Massachusetts after she was

constructively discharged from Pleasant Bay. In March of 2010 from a hotel in Florida Egan

returned a call to this Plaintiff; he quite obviously dialed a Massachusetts area code to reach

Plaintiff's Dedham home. Plaintiff was fed up with the retaliation and the conversation grew

heated as Plaintiff admonished him for the Defendants' patently false statements and

deceptive tactics during the EEOC investigation. Plaintiff alleged that he and the Defendants

had violated Title 18 sec. 1001 and that is why he hand delivered the position statement to the

EEOC. The only reference the Defendants make to attachment one of their position statement
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 19 of 20

was in-- footnote one of page one-- and this addresses Plaintiff’s referral source to Pleasant Bay

which was irrelevant to the investigation. Nowhere in the position statement do the

Defendants state see attachment one to verify their position that Plaintiff only wanted part

time work. Nor do the Defendants make reference to Position Statement attachment one

directing the EEOC to view Plaintiff’s work history in support of their position regarding

Plaintiff's lack of qualifications. The aforementioned neglected directives would have pointed

out their false statements. Egan mailed Defendants’ Position Statement to Plaintiff's Hyannis

address in July of 2009. This Plaintiff did not relocate to Washington State until June of 2010.

This Plaintiff’s last day of work for the Defendants was September 30, 2008. This EEOC sham

and this pretense litigation where these Defense Council continually violate Model Rules of

Professional Conduct has gone on long enough. The Defense Counsels' behavior is imputed to

the Defendants and this Plaintiff is requesting a Treble Default Judgment as allowed with

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U. S. C. §1961 et seq. violations.

The ongoing conspiracy to oppress, intimidate and deprive this Plaintiff of her rights must now

promptly cease. Each and every opposition and motion by the Defendants thru their defense

counsel has been a vexatious defense with absolutely zero support thru fact, law, or rule in

regards to the substance of their documents starting with the Answer. The conspiracy to violate

this Plaintiff’s rights started in the work environment resulting in a constructive discharge and

continued through a federal agency investigation and now the court. These people with their

pretence litigation can let motions linger for months and when pseudo court process begins

Plaintiff is admonished for a late submission to the court; an explanation that her son was

seriously ill and hospitalized was found to be an unacceptable excuse and the fact that Plaintiff
 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 81 Filed 04/05/11 Page 20 of 20

sent an email on 2/28/2011 (attachment 2) to Judge Sorokin’s Clerk alerting her to the situation

which received no response seems to missing from the record. Plaintiff in her exhausted state

prepared and submitted the required document where all but two items were then stricken

from the record. However, Plaintiff’s Discovery request DKt. #76 had an attached a file and

attachment 1 of Dkt. #76 which is hereby incorporated by reference herein; Defendants record

a denial in their answer Complaint paragraph 189. The career destruction through retaliation,

significant change in this Plaintiff’s quality of life, and ongoing depression and anxiety that has

contributed to Plaintiff’s failing physical health that these people seem to get a charge out of

exacerbating and then mocking in bogus court documents that are of public record is so below

civility that this Plaintiff is at a loss for words.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff, Laura J. McGarry, respectfully request that the Court:

(1)order a Default Judgment and allow this Plaintiff to amend count IX of the complaint to
include RICO violations
(2)order the relief as requested in all Documents Plaintiff has filed with this court
(3) reassign Plaintiff a New US District Judge and initiate legitimate court process
(4) enjoin Barbara Morse and Judge Sorokin from participation in this action
(5) charge misconduct against Defense Counsel and their law firm
(6) schedule a hearing for this Plaintiff before a US District Judge

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Laura J. McGarry, Pro Se
Dated: April 5, 2011
Laura J. McGarry, Pro Se
1717 Sheridan Road Apt. A- 50
Bremerton, WA 98310
360-551-6773 (daughter’s cell phone but she is 50 minutes away from me by car)
late_linda@yahoo.com (best contact)
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE--inappropriate
I hereby certify that this document has been filed through the ECF system and will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the notice of electronic filing (NEF)
on April 5, 2011.
/s/ Laura J. McGarry, Pro Se