of 134

Supreme Court STRIPS DISABLED AMERICAN of CIVIL and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! Allows federal criminal law violations by corrupt attorneys and 3rd branch public servants while invalidating the ADA, the Magistrate Act, the Crime Victims Act and the 1st and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Types, Business/Law, Court Filings | Downloads: 25 | Comments: 0
705 views

DENIED Case No. 11-1180 NO COURT FOR YOU!! (I do not have INC. following my name) The Supreme Court of the United States apparently finds it acceptable that defendants, who have their main source of income coming from the Medicare and Medicaid funds, hired corrupt attorneys who then ran pretense litigation by engaging multiple tax paid public servants in the commission of multiple Title 18 Criminal Law violations. The evidence is unquestionable and the Supreme Court chose to shut the eyes of justice. Further the Supreme Court let the court of appeals rip of my filing fee twice and the USDC bar me (when they knew the evidence had them without question) from filing with absolutely no hearing and ALL request for judicial notice IGNORED by both lower courts. Petition to SCOTUS showed corruption by attorneys, court staff and judges in the United States District Court of Massachusetts and in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit where "Elite" meaning corrupt attorneys are allowed and assisted with fraud upon the court. "Elite" attorneys and taxed paid corrupt public servants are exempt from law!!!! Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons.The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter;or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power; https://twitter.com/rebelready/status/245272308493717504/photo/1/large https://twitter.com/rebelready/status/231837045344059392/photo/1/largeThere was no erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law; there was BLATANT CORRUPTION by corrupt attorneys, court staff and judges and the Supreme Court of the United States did not find criminal law violations by corrupt attorneys and the 3rd Branch compelling and decided to continue the denial of a disabled litigant's right to bring a grievance before a court; SCOTUS allowed theft thru dishonest service fraud of filing fees paid to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. YOU SUPPORT THESE CORRUPT PEOPLE WITH YOUR TAXES. Cost was not even addressed on the Mandates--apparently the corrupt attorneys with their false appearances get to use the system for free and pay off only corrupt court staff!!!

Comments

Content

No. _________ ================================================================

In The

Supreme Court of the United States
---------------------------------♦--------------------------------LAURA J. MCGARRY, Petitioner, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., d/b/a Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, d/b/a Pleasant Bay Nursing Center LP, d/b/a Pleasant Bay Health & Living Centers; JOSHUA ZUCKERMAN, individually and in his capacity as Administrator for Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center; RENEE MIKITA, individually and in her capacity as Director of Nursing for Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center; ROXANNE WEBSTER, individually and in her capacity as Director of Operations for Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Respondents. ---------------------------------♦--------------------------------On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The First Circuit ---------------------------------♦--------------------------------PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ---------------------------------♦--------------------------------LAURA J. MCGARRY 1717 Sheridan Road Apt. A-50 Bremerton, WA 98310 413-214-1750 late_linda@yahoo.com Pro Se March 26, 2012 ================================================================

i QUESTIONS PRESENTED Did the court of appeals render void, not voidable, but void Judgments by failing to acknowledge Petitioner’s motion for Judicial Notice of an Extraordinary Writ and verified docketing statement under the provisions of Title 18 U.S.C. § 3771 Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004 (“CVRA”) and FRCP 60? Does the lower court’s pro bono plan described in general court order (09-04) which excludes pro se plaintiffs who assert employment related claims against current or former employers single out an entire class of litigants, promote retaliation and ensure high priced employment law attorneys and their clients unrepresented opposition? Is the tax payer supporting oppression and tyranny when public servants working for our federal judiciary decide who is entitled to justice and then devise a concerted effort to ensure no legitimate court process or Article III oversight and is the resulting pretense litigation which invalidates multiple Acts of Congress as well as OUR Rights Provided by the Constitution of the United States leaving a majority of the unfortunate select victims beaten down without recourse because they lack the resources or skill to break the barrier of corruption?

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Questions Presented ............................................... Opinions Below ....................................................... Jurisdiction ............................................................. Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved ..... Statement ............................................................... Reason for Granting the Petition ........................... Conclusion............................................................... APPENDIX In Re: Laura J. McGarry, 11-1668 (1st Cir. December 27, 2011), order of court Laura J. McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc., et al., 11-2292 (1st Cir. December 27, 2011), order of court Denied ............................ App. 1 Laura J. McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc., et al., 11-2292 (1st Cir. December 27, 2011), judgment affirmed summarily ............................................................... App. 3 In Re: Laura J. McGarry, 11-1668 (1st Cir. January 12, 2012), order of court Laura J. McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc., et al., 11-2292 (1st Cir. January 12, 2012), order of court denied ............................. App. 4 USDC Dkt. #101 order Sept. 12, 2011, All post dismissal motions denied ................................. App. 6 i 1 3 4 4 33 33 Table of Authorities ................................................ viii

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page USDC Dkt. #86 order June 28, 2011, adopting report and recommendations......................... App. 14 In Re: Laura J. McGarry, 11-1668 (1st Cir. June 20, 2011), judgment denied summarily ......... App. 26 In Re: Laura J. McGarry, 11-1668 (1st Cir. February 7, 2012), order of court Laura J. McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc., et al., 11-2292 (1st Cir. February 7, 2012), order of court denied ........................... App. 27 USDC Dkt. # 61 Feb 1, 2011, Magistrate ORDER on contempt motion............................... App. 29 USDC Dkt. # 57 order January 28, 2011 .......... App. 33 Defense Attorney Childs June 28, 2011 appearance (no notice to Petitioner of filing) eight days after USCA entered judgment on Extraordinary Writ ............................................. App. 38 USDC CLERK’S CERTIFICATE AND APPEALS COVER SHEET Abbreviated record No Court of Appeals Number Assigned ......................... App. 40 USDC Docket Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-11343; absent appeals case number .......................... App. 42 Attorney Childs’ November 9, 2011 USCA Laura J. McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc., et al., 11-2292 notice of appearance no Defendants named .................... App. 44

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page Attorney Tully’s November 9, 2011 USCA Laura J. McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc., et al., 11-2292 notice of appearance no Defendants named .................... App. 46 Attorney Childs November 10, 2011 USCA Laura J. McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc., et al., 11-2292 SECOND notice of appearance made after Petitioner’s 11/10/2011 Motion for Judicial Notice and request for immediate relief via Duty Judge under provisions (CVRA) NOW NAMES Defendants .......................................................... App. 48 Attorney Tully November 10, 2011 USCA Laura J. McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc., et al., 11-2292 SECOND notice of appearance .......................................... App. 50 September 22, 2011 PACER search Appellate Party/case no./First Cir. no records found for In Re: Laura J. McGarry, 11-1668 ................ App. 52 September 27, 2011 PACER search Appellate Party/First Cir. no records found for In Re: Laura J. McGarry, 11-1668 ........................... App. 53 September 27, 2011 PACER search Appellate case no./First Cir. No. 11-1668 In Re: McGarry retrieved ......................................................... App. 54 June 13, 2011 USCA docket In Re: Laura J. McGarry, 11-1668 Ordering Judge Leo. T. Sorokin – the US District Judge is absent on this docket ...................................................... App. 55

v TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page June 20, 2011 USCA In Re: Laura J. McGarry, 11-1668 docket US District Judge now added text shows Tully’s appearance 6/15/2011 and 6/20/2011 Judgment ....................................... App. 59 September 22, 2011 USCA In Re: Laura J. McGarry, 11-1668 docket text dated 6/13/2011 has been added – case submitted – panel judges named. Petitioner received no notice of docket activity; the 6/13/2011 text was not present on 6/20/2011 judgment enter ............ App. 63 Attorney Childs 6/28/2011 notice of appearance In Re: Laura J. McGarry, 11-1668 [Extraordinary Writ] denied without an opinion 6/20/2011; Petitioner was not served Attorney Childs’ notice DELETE also 38-39 ............................ App. 66 Attorney Tully’s 6/15/2011 notice of appearance In Re: Laura J. McGarry, 11-1668 ................ App. 68 Attorney Tully 6/15/2011 served notice of appearance In Re: Laura J. McGarry, 111668 via US Mail and he also served via emailed because Writ indicated Petitioner was in MA....................................................... App. 70 PACER CASE QUERY for In Re: Laura J. McGarry, 11-1668: note the 6/13/2011 date next to Attorney Childs’ name ....................... App. 71

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page July 23, 2010 letter in response to Petitioner’s letter to compromise from Attorney Egan who handled the EEOC defense. Attorney Egan sent mail to Petitioner’s MA address in July 2009 and called Petitioner’s MA land line in March 2010 ......................................... App. 73 Email July 6, 2011 from Attorney Tully in response to Petitioner’s certified mail requesting a statement on the record that he was engaged as Attorney of Record in Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-11343; Tully states Petitioner’s accusations of wrongdoing are baseless and harassing – uses threatening language .......... App. 75 Deadlines docket No. 1:10-cv-11343 shows motion to reassign both judicial officers dkt. #69 and vacate void orders dkt. #70 terminated on 3/2/2011 & 3/3/2011 the same dates as denied with docket text by Magistrate; these motions were blocked from US District Judge dkt. #70 captioned: please address immediately UPON REASSIGNMENT OF A NEW US DISTRICT JUDGE .................................. App. 77 Certified mail from the US Marshal, presumed to be at the direction of the clerk of the US District Court, threatens federal and state criminal harassment charges if communicates with clerk’s office via email .................. App. 79

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page Notice of electronic filing No. 1:10-cv-11343 Document 20 memorandum and order to a motion for injunctive relief that had absolutely zero judicial oversight where the Pro Se Staff Attorney manipulated filing date from 9/26/2010 back to 9/24/2010: the PDF was not even created until 9/26/2010, which was a Sunday ................................................. App. 81 Notice of electronic filing No. 1:10-cv-11343 Document 53 where the Pro Se Staff Attorney, Barbara Morse, manipulated the filing date from 1/20/2011 back to 1/19/2011: the PDF was not even created until 1/20/2011 and the author in the properties is Morse; this document was written on 1/20/2011 after PSSA read a motion for injunctive relief of which she was the subject and a third motion to disqualify defense counsel filed 1/19/2011 by Petitioner ................................................... App. 84 USDC written opinions report Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-11343; absent documents 9, 20, 53, and 57 the documents are void including #57 .................................................................. App. 86

viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115 (1st Cir. 1989) .................................................................32 Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998) ..............................................................23 Chambers v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 207 U.S. 142 (1907) ................................................................31 Delong v. Hennessy, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1993) ..........................................................................6 Farm Credit Bank v. Ferrera-Goitia, 316 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2003) .....................................................31 Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998) .......................................................................23 Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 (1914) ....................31 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 997, 88 L. Ed. 1250 (1944) .......................................................................32 In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1988)..................6 Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn., 389 U.S. 217 (1967) ..................................................................6 Nightingale v. Oregon Cent. Ry. Co., 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,264 .......................................................14 Nordgren v. Milliken, 762 F.2d 851 (10th Cir. 1985) ........................................................................32 Ortiz-Gonzalez v. Fonovisa, 277 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2002) .................................................................33

ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 (1900) ...........................31 Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964) ..............8 United States v. Boch Oldsmobile Inc., 909 F.2d 661 (1st Cir. 1990) ...................................................31 United States v. Bolivar-Munoz, 313 F.3d 255 (5th Cir. 2002) ...................................................12, 13 United States v. BP Prods. North Am. Inc., No. H-07-434, 2008 WL 501321 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2008) .................................................................. 11 United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) .........................................................................6 United States v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1985) ...................................................................8 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED U.S. Const. art. III ........................................................5 U.S. Const. am. I ......................................................4, 5 U.S. Const. am. V .........................................................4 18 U.S.C. § 4 ...............................................................26 18 U.S.C. § 3771 ................................................. passim 28 U.S.C. § 1915 .........................................................19 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364 (“Act”) .......................................28 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ............................................21 M.G.L. c. 149 §187 ......................................................21 28 U.S.C. § 636 ............................................... 12, 13, 27

x TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page 18 U.S.C. § 241 .......................................................7, 22 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ................................4 18 U.S.C. § 1503 obstruction of judicial proceedings .....................................................................4 18 U.S.C. § 872 ...........................................................27 18 U.S.C. § 876 ...........................................................27 OTHER Model Rules of Professional Conduct ..................23, 29 United States District Court [for the District of] Massachusetts Court General Order 10-1 ..........................................18 United States District Court [for the District of] Massachusetts Court General Order 09-4 ..........................................19 United States District Court [for the District of] Massachusetts L R RULE 83.5.2 Appearances...................................18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 ............................................... 3, 15, 16 Breyer Committee Report, 239 F.R.D. at 216 ............28

xi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page (Senate – November 02, 2011) http://thomas.loc. gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:S02NO1-0019....................... 11 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure 1327 (1958) ............................................17

1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner, Laura J. McGarry, respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in this case.
---------------------------------♦---------------------------------

OPINIONS BELOW LAURA J. MCGARRY, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., d/b/a Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, d/b/a Pleasant Bay Health & Living Centers, et al., No. 11-2292. IN RE: LAURA J. MCGARRY, No. 11-1668. Order of Court (1st Circ. December 27, 2011) (App. 1, 2) LAURA J. MCGARRY, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., d/b/a Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, d/b/a Pleasant Bay Health & Living Centers, et al., No. 11-2292. Judgment (1st Circ. December 27, 2011) (App. 3) LAURA J. MCGARRY, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., d/b/a Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, d/b/a Pleasant Bay Health & Living Centers, et al., No. 11-2292. IN RE: LAURA J. MCGARRY, No. 11-1668. Order of Court (1st Circ. January 12, 2012) (App. 4, 5) LAURA J. MCGARRY, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., d/b/a Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, d/b/a Pleasant Bay Health & Living Centers, et al., No. 11-2292. IN RE:

2 LAURA J. MCGARRY, No. 11-1668. Order of Court (1st Cir. February 7, 2012) (App. 27-28) LAURA J. MCGARRY, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., et al., Civil Action No. 10-11343-GAO docket no. 101 Reconsideration Denied (United States District Court [for the District of ] Massachusetts September 12, 2011) (App. 6-13) IN RE: LAURA J. MCGARRY, No. 11-1668. Judgment (1st Cir. June 20, 2011) (App. 26) LAURA J. MCGARRY, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., et al., Civil Action No. 10-11343-GAO docket no. 86 order adopting report and recommendations (United States District Court [for the District of ] Massachusetts June 28, 2011) (App. 14-25) LAURA J. MCGARRY, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., et al., Civil Action No. 10-11343-GAO docket no. 61 memorandum and order (United States District Court [for the District of ] Massachusetts February 1, 2011) (App. 29-32) LAURA J. MCGARRY, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., et al., Civil Action No. 10-11343-GAO docket no. 57 memorandum and order (United States District Court [for the District of ] Massachusetts January 28, 2011) (App. 33-37)
---------------------------------♦---------------------------------

3 JURISDICTION Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). The decision IN RE: LAURA J. MCGARRY, No. 11-1668 of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit was rendered June 20, 2011. Petitioner moved November 8, 2011 to vacate the void judgment No. 11-1668 under the provisions of FRCP 60(b)(3)(4)(6) and to consolidate No. 11-1668 with appeal LAURA J. MCGARRY, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., et al., Civil Action No. 10-11343-GAO No. 11-2292. Petitioner moved November 10, 2011 for Emergent Judicial Notice of the Verified Docketing Statement No. 11-2292 and to vacate void judgment rendered IN RE: LAURA J. MCGARRY, No. 11-1668 under the provisions of FRCP 60 and 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit were rendered December 27, 2011 No. 11-1668 No. 11-2292 (App. 1-3) Petitioner moved to vacate the December 27, 2011 void order and judgment on January 3, 2012. The motion was denied on January 12, 2012. (App. 4, 5) January 12, 2012 Petitioner moved requesting Formal Certification of Judgments rendered June 20, 2011 No. 111668 and December 27, 2011 No. 11-2292. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the motion on February 7, 2012. (App. 27, 28)
---------------------------------♦---------------------------------

4 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 18 U.S.C. § 3771 Crime Victims’ Rights Act First Amendment We have recognized this right to petition as one of “the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights,” Fifth Amendment We have a right to due process and equal protection under the law
---------------------------------♦---------------------------------

STATEMENT Petitioner seeks this Court’s review of void judgments achieved through fraud and a treble default judgment against all Defendants in this action based on the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq. Certiorari review in this case is warranted because in the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and the US District Court of Massachusetts officers of the court and public servants have put a Disabled American through an abusive process of pretense litigation that this Petitioner alleges has been nothing less than deliberate planned obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. 18 U.S.C. § 3771 Crime Victims’ Rights (a)(1) Petitioner has the right to be reasonably protected from the accused.

5 The appeal was a collateral attack on the void orders and fraud upon the court and the same occurred in the court of appeals; there have been no final orders by an Article III Court at any time during this faux litigation process. The allegations, evidence and supporting authorities are documented thoroughly in the case records of the lower courts. There are two affidavits in the US District court record at doc. no. 97 attachment-1 (false appearance by Defense Counsel) and at doc. No. 100 attachment-1 (fraudulent dismissal of the US District Court action where scanning the documents before entry into the system allows for the identity theft of a US District Judge because scanning mask the properties of the PDF and the origin of the document from within the court). There is also language of a Mandamus at doc. 64 attachment-1 that is a verified statement (method of set up for pretense litigation); a hard copy of the notice of intent and the language of the Mandamus was served by process server to the US District Judge and accepted on his behalf by his judicial assistant (the month on the document is an error it should state February 7, 2011). The Docketing Statement for the appeal no. 11-2292 is verified as is the Extraordinary Writ no. 11-1668. Petitioner’s motion requests for judicial notice and hearings were left unrecognized in decisions rendered by the lower courts. The First Amendment provides, in relevant part, that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” We have recognized this

6 right to petition as one of “the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights,” Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn., 389 U.S. 217, 222 (1967), and have explained that the right is implied by “[t]he very idea of a government, republican in form,” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876). The last void order from the US District Court unjustly stripped this Petitioner of rights and named her a vexatious litigant (App. 6-13); knowing Petitioner suffered disabilities and was in Massachusetts without a car her ECF System privileges were terminated in these void orders. The order certified that any appeal would be frivolous; again, this Disabled American with SSDI as her only income had to pay the filing fee at the court of appeals to only have the usurpation continue. Petitioner respectfully requests that void documents by the US District Court of Massachusetts be vacated and removed from the system and the label of vexatious litigant be remedied. Delong v. Hennessy, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1993) a court is without authority to issue a pre-filling injunction “without notice and an opportunity to be heard.” In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427, 431 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (reversing and holding If a pro se litigant is to be deprived of such a vital constitutional right as access to the courts, he should, at least, be provided with an opportunity to oppose the entry of an order restricting him before it is entered.) Defense Counsel and court staff blocked an Extraordinary Writ filed by this Petitioner June 10,

7 2011 from any legitimate adjudication and then blocked the appeal. Mandamus from this honorable court to the US Court of Appeals would simply put this Petitioner at risk of further violation of her rights and Petitioner has a right to be reasonably protected from the accused. The case in the US District Court was filed August 2, 2010; there has been no legitimate court action and the delay of justice has had a significant negative impact on this Petitioner and her family. The summary denial of an Emergent Extraordinary Writ filed with the court of appeals June 10, 2010 where the Writ described unquestionable usurpation and alleged violations under 18 U.S.C. § 241 [Conspiracy against rights] received Judgment ten days after it was filed and the denial without an opinion does not even indicate that the Writ was read (App. 26). The request to the court of appeals was made while this Petitioner was in Massachusetts stating she was present in Massachusetts due to her father’s death and that she would not be able to afford another trip to Massachusetts from Washington State. Petitioner requested that the court of appeals order the US District Court to schedule Petitioner a hearing before a US District Judge so she could be heard, as per her right, regarding a recommendation that she be found in contempt by a Magistrate Judge who under fraudulent reference was holding Petitioner’s case hostage on his docket; Petitioner informed the court of appeals that moving for

8 a hearing directly with the District Court would be an act in futility because the case was under usurpation. Considering the emergent nature and the language of the Writ where there was unquestionable usurpation Petitioner had anticipated an answer in 72 hours with a stay at most five days but all that came forth on the fifth day was Attorney Tully’s notice of appearance. The Docket initially only had the Magistrate Judge’s name (App. 55-58) and with Tully’s appearance the US District Judge’s name was added to the docket (App. 59-62). On June 15th Attorney Tully served the notice to this Petitioner by both Certified US Mail to her home in Washington and by email (App. 68-70). Petitioner paid the $450.00 filing fee. In Schlagenhauf v. Holder, [379 U.S. 104 (1964)] the Supreme Court “departed in some degree” from the traditional mandamus standards to countenance the use of the writ for such advisory purposes. There, the Court indicated that mandamus may be used to settle important questions of first impression where there is a “substantial allegation of usurpation of power” by the district court. United States v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720, 724 (9th Cir. 1985) (a plain misinterpretation of statutorily delegated power is “blatant usurpation”). Attorneys Childs made his notice of appearance eight days after the Writ was denied (App. 66, 67). Petitioner did not discover this attorney’s appearance notice until late September; Attorney Childs did not

9 serve Petitioner his appearance notice. On or about September 22 Petitioner also noted docket text had been entered for June 13th on the 11-1668 docket that indicated an assignment of a judicial panel that was not present on the docket when the judgment rendered June 20, 2011 (App. 63-65) (App. 59-62). Case query directly to the first circuit brought up a docket with attorney listings; Attorney Childs’ name was listed twice with a June 13th date stating representation ended (App. 71-72). The June 13th date next to Attorney Childs name, the June 13th docket text indicating a panel assignment that was not present when the judgment was rendered, and the bizarre notice of appearance eight days after judgment concluded that the attorney’s notice of appearance was made to have an appearance of legitimate docket entry so court staff could fraudulently add the June 13th text indicating a panel assignment. Conclusion: the Extraordinary Writ has never passed before the eyes of any judge and once again during this litigation Petitioner is a victim of fraud. Petitioner’s case in the USDC was also dismissed with prejudice on June 28, 2011. The dismissal was a scanned document with the USDC order above the report and recommendation of the Magistrate (App. 14-25). It was deficient in de novo review and patently false; the report and recommendation was a replay of text from previous bogus void court orders with no certification of facts not to mention Petitioner requested in her opposition that the assigned Magistrate Judge not be assigned duty for the report and recommendation.

10 The US Court of Appeals failure to acknowledge Petitioner’s motion for judicial notice of the Writ filed on November 10, 2011 under the crimes victims act with requested emergent adjudication after this Petitioner presented evidence that the Writ had fallen to usurpation not only violated the “written opinion” requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) but invalidated an Act of Congress. Although Petitioner was requesting that the Writ be consolidated with the appeal had a Circuit Judge actually read the Writ there would have been no need for appeal because the Magistrate Judge took reference of the case knowing full well that the referral was under a fraudulent order by the Pro Se Staff Attorney who signed the US District Judge’s name after she wrote memorandum and orders to Petitioner’s motion for injunctive relief; the Pro Se Staff Attorney was the subject of the relief (App. 33-37). The ORDER undersigned with the name of the Magistrate Judge that DENIED this Petitioner’s motion for contempt, restricted Petitioner’s filing with court and excused Defense Counsel from Opposition was attached to the Writ. The memorandum and order in response to Petitioner’s contempt motion was also written by the Pro Se Staff attorney who undersigned with the Magistrate Judge’s name; the Pro Se Staff Attorney was part subject of the alleged contempt (App. 29-32). It was a set up from the start USDC CLERK’S CERTIFICATE AND APPEALS COVER SHEET had no Court of Appeals Number Assigned (App. 40, 41). USDC Docket Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-11343 is absent appeals case number (App. 42, 43).

11 Pursuant to the mechanism set forth in the CVRA, the crime victim, the crime victim’s lawful representative, and the Government “may assert the rights described in [§ 3771(a)].” Id. at § 3771(d)(1). These rights must first be “asserted in the district court in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred.” Id. at § 3771(d)(3). The district court “shall take up and decide any motion asserting a victim’s right forthwith.” Id. If the court denies relief, “the movant may petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus.” Id. The court of appeals shall, in turn, “take up and decide” the petition “within 72 hours after the petition has been filed.” Id. The courts have ruled that the law applies to victims of uncharged offenses in some instances and not in others, based on the circumstances of individual cases. United States v. BP Prods. North Am. Inc., No. H-07-434, 2008 WL 501321, at *11-16 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2008) (finding certain CVRA rights to apply pre-charge but construing them narrowly so as not to interfere with prosecutorial discretion). CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS ACT – (Senate – November 02, 2011) Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to Attorney General Holder. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

12 Excerpt: I am writing to ask why the Justice Department persists in taking the view that the CVRA does not extend rights to crime victims until the formal filing of criminal charges. Congress intended the CVRA to broadly protect crime victims throughout the criminal justice process – from the investigative phases to the final conclusion of a case. Congress could not have been clearer in its direction that using “best efforts” to enforce the CVRA was an obligation of “[o]fficers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime. . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) (emphasis added). Congress also permitted crime victims to assert their rights either in the court in which formal charges had already been filed “or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred.’’ 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (emphasis added). In United States v. Bolivar-Munoz, 313 F.3d 255 (5th Cir. 2001), the Fifth Circuit applied 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), which like section 3401(i), does not involve “magistrate judges . . . enter[ing] judgment . . . but simply fil[ing] . . . reports and recommendations.”. There, the district court did not formally refer the matters to the magistrate judges until after the magistrate judges conducted the defendants’ plea hearings, accepted their guilty pleas, and issued reports and recommendations. Id. at 254-55. Then, the district

13 court adopted the magistrate judges’ reports and recommendations, accepted pleas, and sentenced defendants. Id. For the first time on appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the defendants challenged the magistrate judges’ authority to conduct their respective guilty plea hearings, citing the lack of formal referral orders at the time the magistrate judges conduct their plea hearings. Id. at 254. The Fifth Circuit agreed that it was error for the magistrate judges to do so when “the district judge had not entered a proper referral order” but went on to consider whether, pursuant to section 636(b)(3), this was a jurisdictional or procedural error. Id. at 256. 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.” No notice of appearance by any attorney was filed on the docket of the USDC Case No. 1:10-cv-11343 and the entire time this Petitioner thought she was before a court she was being subjected to simulated/pretense litigation. Prior to a motion for reconsideration of the dismissed action Petitioner requested via certified letter that the Defense Counsel and/or the Defendants make a statement on the record that the Jackson Lewis attorneys were in fact engaged as attorney

14 of record. (App. 75-77) See Nightingale v. Oregon Cent. Ry. Co., 18 Fed. Cas. 239, No. 10,264. “Were it possible for corporations to prosecute or defend actions in person, through their own officers, men unfit by character and training, men, whose credo is that the end justifies the means, disbarred lawyers or lawyers of other jurisdictions would soon create opportunities for themselves as officers of certain classes of corporations and then freely appear in our courts as a matter of pure business not subject to the ethics of our profession or the supervision of our bar associations and the discipline of our courts.” Thursday, November 10, 2011, 11:03 AM Petitioner filed with the appeals court an EMERGENCY MOTION to take judicial notice of the Extraordinary Writ and verified Docketing Statement with a request to vacate the void orders and remand the case to the District Court for a default judgment; Petitioner requested that the Duty Judge be engaged. Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 11:54 AM Attorney Tully filed a NOTICE OF APPEARANCE (Corrected Notice) No. 11-2292 (App. 50, 51). At 5:18 PM Attorney Tully filed a motion No. 11-1668 requesting [An Order Precluding Petitioner From Filing Further Papers In This Matter Altogether, Or, In The Alternative, Without Leave Of Court]. At 5:24 PM Attorney Tully filed the CORPORATE disclosure statement In Re: McGarry 11-1668; no CORPORATE disclosure statement was filed for 11-1668 when Attorney Tully filed his notice of appearance in No. 11-1668 on June 15, 2011 or when Attorney Childs filed his NOTICE

15 OF APPEARANCE in No. 11-1668 on June 28, 2011 which was eight days after the judgment had already been rendered. On 11/10/2011 at 6:48 PM Attorney Childs filed a notice of appearance No. 11-2292 (App. 48, 49). Both attorneys had already filed their notices of appearance for the appeal No. 11-2292 on November 9, 2011. The second notices had the Defendants names typed in where the first notices had the section for all parties represented left blank (App. 44, 45) (App. 46, 47) . When a bogus response was filed by the Defense Counsel on November 14th and again stating “corrected copy” on November 15th this Petitioner knew they achieved another successful blocking of Petitioner’s action from any legitimate adjudication. Defendants were requesting that the court deny Petitioner’s motion to correct the dockets in both cases in the court of appeals to reflect the actual judicial officer and that the court deny Petitioner’s motion to have the entire case record transmitted from the US District Court as per the appeals court’s local rule 11.0 for pro se cases. The attorneys insisted, in spite of documentation clearly stating Petitioner’s motion was under FRCP 60, that Petitioner’s request [regarding the Extraordinary Writ] for “rehearing” was untimely. Defense counsel did a copy and paste of past void bogus documents that had been rendered by the US District Court and gave their bogus opposition some bulk. Defendants moved to deny this Appellant’s Verified Docketing Statement and for Summary

16 Disposition claiming there has been no substantive basis for the appeal stated. They initiated their response to the appeal with another false appearance and managed to interfere with the emergency motion which received no response until December 27, 2011; the request for judicial notice under the provisions of the crimes victims act was not even acknowledged. Rule 60. Relief from Judgment or Order (b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void;

(5) it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; (6) (c) (1) any other reason that justifies relief. Timing and Effect of the Motion. Timing.

A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding. (2) Effect on Finality.

17 The motion does not affect the judgment’s finality or suspend its operation. (d) Other Powers to Grant Relief. This rule does not limit a court’s power to: (3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court. Under subsection (4) above, the only question for the court is whether the judgment is void; if it is, relief from it should be granted. Similarly, under subsection (5), if the underlying judgment is void, the judgment based upon it is also void. Moreover, the Rule places no time limit on an attack upon a void judgment, nor can such a judgment acquire validity because of laches on the part of him who applies for relief from it. 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure 1327 (1958). Petitioner had already called the US District Court twice and requested the entire case record be transmitted per the court of appeals local rule but she was ignored. The US District court docket never had the appeals case no. entered and the certification of documents to the appeals court was only the void documents in the case where documents by the Pro Se Staff Attorney 9, 20, 53, & 57 are absent from the case’s written opinions report (App. 86-89); surely if not included on the written opinions report the documents are considered void by the court itself. Doc. no. 57 is the document with the fraudulent reference to

18 the Magistrate which leaves all the documents on the written opinions report void as well. (App. 86-89) United States District Court [for the District of ] Massachusetts L R RULE 83.5.2 Appearances (a) Generally. The filing of the complaint shall constitute an appearance by the attorney who signs it. All other appearances in a case shall be made by filing a notice of appearance containing the docket number of the case, name, address and telephone number of the person entering an appearance, in compliance with Rule 5.1(a)(1). (d) Firms and Corporations. 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. General Court Order 10-1 US District Court of Massachusetts Procedures And Other Information For Completing The Form For Consent Or Refusal Of Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction were never sent to this Petitioner as per the policy; Petitioner believes this was intentional. If the forms in General Court Order 10-1 are not filed with the court the court assigns the case to a US District Judge; the Pro Se Staff Attorney and clerks of the US District Judge managed the case so that no filing by this Petitioner would be seen by the US District Judge. Petitioner was denied pro bono counsel in spite of the fact that she was flat broke, had a complaint

19 strong in merit and had just relocated 3,000 miles from Massachusetts. Petitioner submitted her hospital discharge paper with her motions to proceed in forma pauperis and request for appointed counsel which clearly indicated deficits including medication that would make pro se status a very difficult challenge. Although the motion for pro bono counsel was denied without prejudice in the initiating orders by the pro se staff attorney Petitioner later discovered the courts general order; litigants in employment cases, at best, receive pro bono counsel only if the case goes to ADR and then for ADR only. Title 28 § 1915. Proceedings in forma pauperis (e)(1) The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel. The statute does not stipulate on how one may have fallen to indigent status and retaliation by an employer is a short road to indigent status. General Order 09-4 District Court of Massachusetts 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. . . .

20 During a bogus scheduling conference, the Magistrate had no authority to convene, Petitioner was told “No” by the Magistrate Judge when she made a direct verbal request for permission to file in order to appeal “ORDERS” undersigned by the Magistrate Judge that restricted Petitioner from filing with the court. When Petitioner filed requesting reassignment of judicial officers and to vacate void orders the motions were denied with electronic orders and immediately terminated on the Docket (App. 77-78). The request for reassignment to a new US District Judge was never seen by the Judge. Petitioner only attended this status conference because she knew they would illegally dismiss the case if she did not. The Magistrate made an assignment for discovery plan submission. Petitioner’s son became very ill and was hospitalized the days before this was due; Petitioner requested a stay which was denied. The filing was made as instructed and all but two items were stricken with absolutely no chance to present the evidence of the massive retaliation. The contempt motion against Petitioner came from the unauthorized Defense Counsel at this time, and Petitioner’s exhausted state related to an ill family member was seen as no excuse to request a stay in a court action that had no authorized attorneys on the record and no legitimate orders. The bizarre order where Petitioner was prohibited from referencing docketing information was written because Petitioner had pointed out that her docket was entered for no reason other than to appear

21 as a legitimate docket entry so that the Defense attorneys could switch scanned files they had entered into the ECF System on November 5, 2010 with word process files; the switch occurred four days after this Petitioner had moved for sanctions. Upon determination that a pro se staff attorney just wrote orders to a motion for injunctive relief of which she was the subject with no judicial oversight Petitioner filed a motion for Contempt. All orders in the US District case are void with the exception of doc. no. 9. 18 U.S.C. § 3771 Crime Victims’ Rights does not stipulate that you must name the statute to assert a right. Multiple times in the US District this Petitioner claimed she was a crime victim and requested help to halt the conspiracy. This case results from Petitioner’s suit filed August 2, 2010 in the US District Court alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and violation of M.G.L. c. 149 § 187 protection from retaliation by health care facilities; § 187(d) [all remedies available in common law tort actions shall be available to prevailing plaintiffs]. One of the Respondents is on the Massachusetts Board of Nursing Home Administrators; Petitioner alleged that Respondent’s position on that Board to be a direct avenue for significant retaliation. The Respondents were represented by the Law Firm Jackson Lewis out of Boston during the EEOC investigation. Petitioner being a qualified individual under the ADA was never in dispute during the EEOC

22 investigation. Petitioner asserted in her filings to the US District Court that she was a crime victim and that the conspiracy to violate rights that had initiated in the work place had carried to the EEOC and that it had advanced to criminal conspiracy under a veil of fraud; further, it was asserted that based on the Respondents’ deficient Answer to a 41 page Complaint supported by 47 exhibits where false statements, denials and not enough information prevailed that the fraud which defined the EEOC investigation had been carried to the court. Petitioner alleged significant attorney misconduct and moved to Disqualify the Defense Counsel. Doc. no. 29 of the US District Court record was Petitioner’s response to the Respondents’ Answer and was filed in support of Petitioner’s motions to Disqualify Defense Counsel and Strike Affirmative Defenses. Doc. no. 29 Paragraph 186 sub paragraph 23 last line states “Plaintiff asserts she is a crime victim and the circumstances of this action are well beyond civil.” Doc. No 28 starting at line 317 Petitioner states “The zealous representation of a client(s) by an attorney needs to be within the bounds of the law. Laura J. McGarry believes that she has been the victim of crime: 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy against rights [If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised

23 the same.]” Doc. No 27 cites multiple Model Rules of Professional Conduct alleged to have been violated by Defense Counsel during the EEOC investigation with an apparent intent to continue the same during court proceedings. Allegations of misconduct were supported in the filings to the US District Court by this Petitioner and multiple times in the court record this Petitioner was documenting that she needed protection from further conspiracy; no relief came forth because the court staff had been part of the conspiracy to violate this Petitioner’s rights from the initiation of the case; they chose to put a stroke victim through an abusive process and an insurmountable amount of very time consuming and difficult work where this Honorable Court had already determined that no affirmative defense existed for these Respondents in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257, 2270 (1998) (“[n]o affirmative defense is available . . . when the supervisor’s harassment culminates in a 154 tangible employment action . . . ”); Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S. Ct. 2275, 2293 (1998)) and where Petitioner was set up for defeat from the start because the merits of the case would never be considered and the goal was dismissal with no legitimate adjudication. The Extraordinary Writ and the Verified Docketing Statement to the appeal more than support the aforementioned and are signed under the pangs of perjury which the lower courts ignored in favor of Defense Counsels’ bogus filings.

24 Rule 8.4 Misconduct It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law . . . Petitioner alleged Defense Counsel to be in collusion with the EEOC in her filings to the US District Court based on the fact that the charge was dismissed without a shred of material evidence submitted to support the Respondents’ position during the sham investigation. Defense Counsel used deceptive tactics, made false statements, withheld records and submitted a false record to the EEOC. A $638,800.00 second home was purchased by one of the Respondents on July 9, 2009 where only $260,000.00 was taken in mortgage; Respondents’ attorney hand delivered their

25 fraudulent position to the EEOC on July 15, 2009. Thereafter the EEOC strayed from all proper procedure and even declined to see Petitioner when she presented to the Boston office in person to report retaliation. It took Petitioner eight months to reestablish communication with the EEOC; the EEOC sent the retaliation charge to the Respondents at that time which was never replied to and the charge itself was absent from the FOIA record. The EEOC initiated Petitioner’s FOIA request to New York recording the charge number incorrectly on the request document. The EEOC charge was dismissed during May of 2010. Petitioner was hospitalized in Massachusetts during June 2010 and after discharge from the hospital Petitioner relocated to Washington State. Petitioner sent Respondents an offer to compromise from Washington State and made no indication that she had permanently relocated in the letter. Petitioner received a letter from the Respondents’ attorney that stated his clients took no discriminatory action toward this Petitioner and that this Petitioner had resigned her position to relocate to Washington State. Petitioner’s last day working for the Respondents was September 30, 2008; Petitioner relocated to Washington the last week of June 2010. (App. 73-74) Allegations of criminal law violations under Title 18 during the EEOC investigation were supported by exhibits submitted with the Complaint. What followed was a concerted effort to ensure that this Petitioner’s action never passed before the eyes of a

26 Senate Confirmed US District or Circuit Judge. Only by circumstance did the Magistrate Judge become involved who instead of correction joined the effort to block this Petitioner from the US District Judge where protection of corrupt attorneys and rogue court staff took precedence over this Petitioner’s Constitutional Right to bring a grievance before an Article III Court; due process and equal protection under the law have been nonexistent in violation of Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment Constitutional Rights. One would think that under the provisions of Title 18 § 4 (“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both”) someone who worked for the federal judiciary would have halted the usurpation and continual obstruction of justice but no one did; each and every public servant of the federal judiciary made aware of the circumstances simply aided and abetted the alleged criminal behavior of their colleagues. When this Petitioner emailed the Clerk of the District Court to request that the case be put on a legitimate tract and requested a response no response came forth until after a third email; the response was a certified letter from the US Marshal warning of criminal state and federal harassment charges if Petitioner communicated via email with any member of the clerk’s office again

27 (App. 79-80). Under 18 U.S.C. § 872 this is considered extortion and mailing threatening communications falls under 18 U.S.C. § 876. The Circuit Executive Office of the First Circuit rendered a bogus first order regarding this Petitioner’s judicial misconduct complaint; there were no attorneys on the record, there was more than obvious docket manipulation (App. 81-85), there were antagonistic bizarre orders that were unjustly threatening sanctions and complaint dismissal, and there were multiple FRCP 11 violations in the filings by Defense counsel but it all was turned on this Petitioner and this Petitioner alleges that it is the ACE/Legal affairs person that writes these bogus misconduct orders and not the Chief Judge of the Circuit. A petition for panel review was just as futile because the Assistant Circuit Executive controls what information the panel judges receive and I believe they must have been led to believe that the action was under the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The Petition to the Circuit Executive office specifically requested that since the Extraordinary Writ contained a consolidated view of all the materials Petitioner had been presenting regarding the allegations of misconduct that the panel be sent the petition. The Circuit Executive Office was informed that my Writ never saw a judge; they did nothing. Petitioner relayed to the ACE that these Defendants had stolen her purpose and that this Petitioner would not submit to corruption. The reply was, “You should just forget about this; you still have your children.” Suddenly at

28 the time the Circuit Executive Office was arranging the panel assignment the Writ could no longer be accessed in PACER without knowledge of the case number. The Writ no. 11-1668 had come up every time with all-party search in PACER ever since it was filed but on or about September 22nd it did not nor did it come with appellate party search (App. 52, 53). Only case number would retrieve the case. (App. 54) The Office of General Counsel then ignored 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364 (“Act”) Article I 2(b) Exception apparently finding a judicial misconduct complaint where a Disabled American was being denied access to the courts with unquestionable usurpation at all levels to not qualify as exceptional circumstances where rendering application of the rule that no panel member had dissented manifestly unjust and contrary to the purposes of the Act would have solved the problem because at least then a Senate Confirmed Judge would have been alerted to the circumstances. The usurpation was documented right in the judicial misconduct orders themselves and again no justice. 771 pages of evidence times seven copies not even presented to the committee where the first paragraph clearly indicated the misconduct process had also fallen to usurpation. 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.”.

29 The aforementioned means nothing if the orders are fraudulent with false statements and misrepresentation of the actual record! Petitioner initially filed two well supported motions and a well-supported complaint Amendment with an additional count 21 days after receiving the bogus Answer from the Defendants. The Defense counsel responded with motions and oppositions. They used erroneous authorities to support the Defendants’ position. In their opposition to a motion that requested their affirmative defenses be stricken they placed adverse authority in a foot note and changed the spelling of the party’s name and changed the LEXIS number; defense counsel claimed that this authority established in the very court where they stood bar supported their position. They insisted that FRCP 15 determined that any complaint Amendment as a right had to be filed 21 days after filing and not within 21 days after service as the rule actually states. Defense Counsels’ last two documents filed on November 5, 2010 used authorities that discussed the provisions of rule 15 before and after the 2009 amendment. Defense Counsel argued USCA authority in a foot note. The motion filed by this Petitioner requesting that Defense counsel be disqualified was supported by evidence from the EEOC investigation that determined multiple Model Rules of Professional Conduct had been violated and there were well supported allegations that Title 18 criminal law had been violated. Defense Counsel entered their documents into the ECF System SCANNED. They attached their

30 first opposition to their second opposition as support for that opposition and stamped it with copy. They scanned to make authority search a daunting task and because no hyperlink would establish with a misspelled party and changed LEXIS Number. Petitioner caught each of Defense Counsels’ fraudulent maneuvers and filed a second motion to disqualify. A request for sanctions was filed on November 30, 2011. December 31, 2011 still no responses had come from the court but Defendants’ opposition to Petitioner’s motion for sanctions arrived via the ECF System. Petitioner on this occasion utilized PACER to get the documents. With previous NEF, Petitioner had been printing or doing a copy and paste of the documents because the free look would not download the documents. Downloading from PACER was not a problem. Petitioner decided to get the scanned documents from PACER filed on November 5, 2011. The documents were now all word processed files. This Petitioner discovered that the case docket had been entered for no reason what so ever with two docket entries made on earlier dates that indicated modifications that were neither needed nor taken. Petitioner determined that since these text entries were entered four days after a filing requested sanctions that their purpose was simply for an appearance of legitimate docket entry and that the scanned files had been switched with word processed files at that time. Petitioner then did an intense evaluation to determine the legitimacy of the litigation. Petitioner studied PDF files and learned that by the properties

31 of the files a determination if documents coming from the court were by staff, Magistrate Judge or US District Judge could be made. Collusion between the pro se staff attorney and defense counsel was more than evident. Motions to enjoin the pro se staff attorney from the case and a third motion to disqualify defense counsel were filed. Documents started coming from the court drafted by the pro se staff attorney. The first was doc. no. 53 that wiped out this Petitioner’s prosecution of her case with bogus memorandum and orders where rule, law and fact were ignored. The threats of sanctions and Complaint dismissal started with doc. no 53. “There are only two sets of circumstances in which a judgment is void (as opposed to voidable). The first is when the rendering court lacked either subject matter jurisdiction or jurisdiction over the defendant’s person. The second is when the rendering court’s actions so far exceeded a proper exercise of judicial power that a violation of the Due Process Clause results.” Farm Credit Bank v. Ferrera-Goitia, 316 F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Boch Oldsmobile Inc., 909 F.2d 661 (1st Cir. 1990)). Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398, 409 (1990), in which the court said: “The right of a citizen to due process of law must rest upon a basis more substantial than favor or discretion.” Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914) (“The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.”). The “right” of access to the courts is a “right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government.” Chambers v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 207

32 U.S. 142, 148 (1907); see also Nordgren v. Milliken, 762 F.2d 851, 853 (10th Cir. 1985). In Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S. Ct. 997, 1000, 88 L. Ed. 1250 (1994) addresses the issue of injury caused by Fraud on the Court by stating: “Furthermore, tampering with the administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown here involves far more than injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistent with the good order of society. Surely it cannot be that preservation of the integrity of the judicial process must always wait upon the diligence of litigants. The public welfare demands that the agencies of public justice be not so impotent that they must always be mute and helpless victims of deception and fraud.” Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989). A fraud on the court occurs “where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.” Id. At bottom, the court retains the inherent power to take such steps as are necessary to deter abuse of the judicial process, including dismissal of

33 the action and levying of appropriate monetary sanction.
---------------------------------♦---------------------------------

REASON FOR GRANTING THE PETITION Because defendants have defaulted for failure to plead or otherwise defend, they are “taken to have conceded the truth of the factual allegations in the complaint as establishing the grounds for liability as to which the damages will be calculated.” OrtizGonzalez v. Fonovisa, 277 F.3d 59, 62-63 (1st Cir. 2002) (quoting Franco v. Selective Ins. Co., 184 F.3d 4, 9 n.3 (1st Cir. 1999)). Void orders must be vacated per the law. Remedial action will follow and improve our justice system.
---------------------------------♦---------------------------------

CONCLUSION The petition for writ of certiorari should be granted. Respectfully submitted, LAURA J. MCGARRY 1717 Sheridan Road Apt. A-50 Bremerton, WA 98310 413-214-1750 late_linda@yahoo.com Pro Se

App. 1 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 11-1668 IN RE: LAURA J. MCGARRY, Petitioner. No. 11-2292 LAURA J. MCGARRY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., d/b/a Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, d/b/a Pleasant Bay Health & Living Centers, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Before Lynch, Chief Judge, Lipez and Howard, Circuit Judges.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER OF COURT Entered: December 27, 2011 Plaintiff-appellant Laura J. McGarry brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. After filing her complaint, she inundated the court with various motions. Prominent among her contentions was the notion that defense counsel and court staff were somehow colluding to

App. 2 process the case without actual judicial involvement. Ultimately, McGarry was sanctioned for filing abusive motions in violation of court orders with dismissal of her case and a bar on making any further filings without leave of court. This appeal followed. The district court’s conclusion that McGarry was filing motions abusively was justified, and the sanctions imposed after the abusive motion practice continued were within the district court’s discretion. The judgment of the district court is affirmed summarily pursuant to our Local Rule 27.0(c). McGarry’ motion to consolidate this appeal with a closed mandamus petition is denied. All other pending motions are denied. By the Court: /s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk. cc: Laura J. McGarry Brian M. Childs Guy Paul Tully

App. 3 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 11-2292 LAURA J. MCGARRY, Petitioner, Appellant, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., d/b/a Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, d/b/a Pleasant Bay Health & Living Centers, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT Entered: December 27, 2011 Pursuant to 1st Cir. R. 27.0(d) In light of the court’s order entered on this date, the judgment of the district court is affirmed summarily pursuant to our Local Rule 27.0(c). By the Court: /s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk. cc: Laura J. McGarry Brian M. Childs Guy Paul Tully

App. 4 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 11-1668 IN RE: LAURA J. MCGARRY, Petitioner. No. 11-2292 LAURA J. MCGARRY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., d/b/a Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, d/b/a Pleasant Bay Health & Living Centers, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Before Lynch, Chief Judge, Lipez and Howard, Circuit Judges.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER OF COURT Entered: January 12, 2012 Plaintiff-appellant’s motion to vacate a “void order,” vacate a “void judgment,” and “disqualify defense counsel” is denied.

App. 5 By the Court: /s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk. cc: Brian M. Childs, Guy Paul Tully, Laura J. McGarry

App. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-11343-GAO LAURA J. McGARRY, Plaintiff, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., et al. Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER September 12, 2011 O’TOOLE, D.J. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff ’s pending motions are denied, this action remains dismissed, the Court certifies that any appeal would not taken in good faith, the Clerk shall terminate Plaintiff ’s cm/ecf account, and Plaintiff McGarry is enjoined from filing any further pleadings in this action and from filing any additional or new claims, cases, complaints, or other documents in this Court, except to effect an appeal by regular mail, without first obtaining leave of Court. I. Background

On June 28, 2011, this Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Sorokin that this action be dismissed with prejudice because of Plaintiff ’s persistence in ignoring lawful and reasonable orders and rules of this Court. Since that

App. 7 time, Plaintiff has filed a motion (#88) for reconsideration; a motion (#90) for court order concerning the alleged disappearance of a motion, two motions (#93, 97) for default judgment, an emergency motion (#98) to remove defense counsel, and an emergency motion (#100) to vacate this Court’s June 28th Order. Defendants’ filed a consolidated opposition to Plaintiff ’s third motion for default and to her motion to remove defense counsel. See Docket No. 95. II. Plaintiff ’s Motion for Reconsideration

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides six grounds for relief from final judgments, including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect or any other reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b) is considered a “vehicle for extraordinary relief,” and motions attempting to utilize such a tool should be allowed only under “extraordinary circumstances.” Davila-Alvarez v. Escuela de Medicina Universidad Central del Caribe, 257 F.3d 58, 64 (1st Cir. 2001). A Rule 60(b) motion will only be granted when the trial court is persuaded that the “motion is timely; that exceptional circumstances exist, favoring extraordinary relief . . . and that no unfair prejudice will accrue to the opposing parties should the motion be granted.” Karak v. Bursaw Oil Corp., 288 F.3d 15, 19 (1st Cir. 2002) (citing Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local No. 59 v. Superline Transp. Co., 953 F.2d 17, 19-20 (1st cir. 1992); Leopore v. Vidockler, 792 F.2d 272, 274 (1st Cir. 1986)).

App. 8 Here, Plaintiff seeks to have the dismissal set aside pursuant to subsection three (fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party) and/or subsection four (the judgment is void). To the extent Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to subsections three and four, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. Although Plaintiff clearly questions whether the undersigned actually issued the order of dismissal, she has not demonstrated any fraud and the Order dismissing this case is not void. As noted by Defendants in their opposition, Plaintiff ’s request for reconsideration is nothing more than yet another rehashing of her various attacks on the integrity of the Court, Court personnel, and defense counsel. See Docket No. 95. Plaintiff has been previously warned several times that this type of pleading would not be permitted and that she would be subject to sanctions for abusive or vexatious filings. III. Injunction as to CM/ECF and Future Filings It is clear that Plaintiff does not accept the finality of the rulings by this Court. Despite the dismissal of this action as a sanction, Plaintiff continues to file motions seeking relief that has already been denied. See Docket Nos. 93, 97, 98. The Court finds that Plaintiff ’s motions seeking the entry of default and removal of defense counsel to be in knowing violation of earlier orders warning Plaintiff that baseless attacks on court staff and defense counsel is abusive and vexatious. Plaintiff ’s most recent filings evidence not only an unwillingness to accept the

App. 9 dismissal of this action, but an unwillingness to curb her behavior and abide by this Court’s Orders. I also find that Plaintiff has abused this Court’s judicial resources by conducting litigation in a sanctionable manner. Serious measures must be taken in order to make clear to the Plaintiff that her repetitive misconduct will be curbed. See Vasile v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 20 F. Supp. 2d 465, 506 (E.D.N.Y. 1998), aff ’d 205 F.3d 1327 (2d Cir. 2000) (“a substantial sanction is needed to send a message that this litigation must be set to rest”). Cf. In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., 187 F.R.D. 124, 131 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (holding that “[t]he continued assertion of a factual or legal argument long after that argument has proven to be completely baseless is sanctionable conduct, as is ‘the waste of judicial resources and resulting inefficiencies and delays that affect all actual and potential litigants in the federal courts.’ ”) (internal citations omitted). The repeated filings by Plaintiff of vexatious motions is an abuse of the processes of this Court for the administration of justice.1 It is the cessation of
Vexatious conduct occurs where a party’s actions are “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” Local 285 Serv. Employees Int’l v. Nontuck Res. Assoc., Inc., 64 F.3d 735, 737 (1st Cir. 1995) (internal citations omitted); accord Alexander v. United States, 121 F.3d 312, 315-16 (7th Cir. 1997) (sanction appropriate when “objectively unreasonable litigation-multiplying conduct continues despite a warning to desist”). Vexatious (Continued on following page)
1

App. 10 this behavior that the Court seeks to achieve through the imposition of a sanction and the most effective means of accomplishing this goal is to enjoin Plaintiff from making any additional filings in this court without first obtaining leave of court. See Castro v. United States, 775 F.2d 399, 408 (1st Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“[I]n extreme circumstances involving groundless encroachment upon the limited time and resources of the court and other parties, an injunction barring a party from filing and processing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits may be appropriate.”). The Clerk will be directed to terminate Plaintiff ’s cm/ecf account so that she can no longer electronically file documents. Moreover, Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any further pleadings in this action and from filing any additional or new claims, cases, complaints, or other documents in this Court, in any manner, way or form, without first obtaining the prior written approval of a judge of this Court. This prohibition will not preclude Plaintiff from exercising any appeal rights she may have in this matter, nor from filing a timely Notice of Appeal, by regular mail. Plaintiff is further warned that any violation of this prohibition will result in the imposition of sanctions, including a monetary sanction to reimburse the Defendants for their costs and fees incurred in
conduct may be found even in the absence of subjective bad intent, Local 285 Serv. Employees Int’l, 64 F.3d at 737.

App. 11 connection with responding to Plaintiff ’s postjudgment motions IV. No Good Faith Ground for Appeal Exists

Because the Plaintiff previously received leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(3) would ordinarily permit Plaintiff to continue in forma pauperis status for an appeal. However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) states: “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” If the district court concludes that such an appeal is not taken in good faith, it shall, pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, “state in writing the reasons for the denial.” Having considered the record in this action, I certify that any appeal would not taken in good faith. ORDER Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED 1. 2. Plaintiff ’s motion (#88) for reconsideration is DENIED: Plaintiff ’s motion (#90) for court order concerning the alleged disappearance of a motion is DENIED; Plaintiff ’s two motions (#93, 97) for default judgment are DENIED; Plaintiff ’s emergency motion (#98) to remove defense counsel is DENIED;

3. 4.

App. 12 5. Plaintiff ’s emergency motion (#100) to vacate this Court’s June 28th Order is DENIED; The Clerk shall terminate Plaintiff ’s cm/ecf account so that she can no longer electronically file documents; Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any further pleadings in this action and from filing any additional or new claims, cases, complaints, or other documents in this Court, except to effect an appeal by regular mail, without first obtaining the prior written approval of a judge of this Court by filing a written petition seeking leave of Court to do so. The petition must be accompanied by a copy of this Order, together with the papers sought to be filed, and a certification under oath that there is a good-faith basis for their filing. The Clerk of Court shall accept the documents, mark them received, and forward them for action on the petition to a judge of this Court authorized to act on matters on the Miscellaneous Business Docket of the Court. Any documents which are submitted for filing by the Plaintiff in violation of this Order shall not be filed or docketed by the Clerk’s Office, but shall be returned by the Clerk’s Office to the Plaintiff; and The Court certifies that any appeal would not taken in good faith.

6.

7.

8.

App. 13 It is SO ORDERED. /s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr. United States District Judge

App. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-11343-GAO LAURA J. McGARRY, Plaintiff, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION June 28, 2011 O’TOOLE, D.J. To the extent that the plaintiff ’s motion to disqualify (dkt. no. 69) is directed at me, it is DENIED. After review of the defendants’ motion for contempt (dkt. no. 71) and related papers, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (dkt. no. 80), and the plaintiff ’s objection to the Report (dkt. no. 81), I approve and adopt the Report, which recommends that this action be dismissed with prejudice because of the plaintiff ’s persistence in ignoring lawful and reasonable orders and rules of this Court. The referral to the Magistrate Judge was proper, and he properly considered the factual record established by the docket in this case. I agree with his conclusion that the plaintiff has persisted in disregarding court orders, despite clear warnings of potential sanctions. I therefore find her in contempt of

App. 15 those orders. I further agree with the Magistrate Judge’s assessment that, in light of the plaintiff ’s willful disobedience of the court orders, dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate sanction. The plaintiff ’s recently filed motion for contempt, addressed to Chief Judge Wolf but by him referred to me (dkt. no. 85), is DENIED. The defendants’ motion for contempt (dkt. no. 71) is GRANTED, and the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is SO ORDERED. /s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr. United States District Judge

App. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF ) ) CAPE COD, INC., et al., ) Defendants. ) LAURA J. McGARRY,

Civil Action No. 10-11343-GAO

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION FOR CONTEMPT March 23, 2011 SOROKIN, M.J. The Defendant moves for dismissal of this action due to the pro se Plaintiff ’s allegedly contemptuous conduct. Docket # 71. The Plaintiff opposes. Docket # 78. On January 28, 2011, Judge O’Toole made findings regarding the Plaintiff ’s behavior to that point, entered orders regarding future conduct of this litigation and referred the matter to the undersigned. Docket # 57 and Electronic Order of January 28, 2011. While the full text of Judge O’Toole’s Order is found at Docket # 57, I reproduce a substantial portion here. However, what began as an employment discrimination lawsuit has been lost and

App. 17 stalled amidst Plaintiff’s relentless and baseless motions. The allegations and averments in the now pending motions filed by Plaintiff again demonstrate her heightened level of suspicion and hostility directed toward defense counsel as well as one of the Court’s Pro Se Staff Attorneys (“PSSA”). Plaintiff continues her earlier speculation that defense counsel and court staff are acting to thwart her case. Plaintiff seeks immediate action to have defense counsel disqualified and the PSSA enjoined from duties relating to this action. Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy to prevent Plaintiff from litigating her claim. The Court has been advised that Plaintiff has been sending lengthy email messages to clerk’s office staff concerning this action. In the alleged conspiracy scheme, the undersigned is initially described as being fooled; first by defense counsel, and subsequently by the PSSA. 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.

App. 18 Plaintiff ’s conduct in making false allegations against defense counsel and Ms. Morse is in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rule 11(b). Plaintiff ’s allegations arc ungrounded in fact, totally meaningless as a matter of law, and interposed for an improper purpose, to wit, to harass without cause and to demand immediate attention from the undersigned for motions that, in her mind, require immediate adjudication. This is a civil action, and plaintiff is expected to conduct herself in a civil manner. The Court will not permit Plaintiff to continue with the personal attacks, derogatory commentary and baseless motions. Such behavior is unwarranted and completely irrelevant to the merits of this case. Plaintiff does not have the right to file pleadings for an improper purpose and in bad faith. For this, and for engaging in behavior that no reasonable person in like circumstances would have engaged in, 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. If Plaintiff violates this order, the court will impose sanctions, which may include fines, dismissal of this civil action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or

App. 19 any other sanction the court deems appropriate to correct the violation of its orders. Docket # 57 at 1-3. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff has failed to heed Judge O’Toole’s Order. The undersigned held a lengthy scheduling conference on February 14, 2011, at which the Plaintiff made some of the same allegations that led to Judge O’Toole’s Order. At and after the Conference, the Court: prohibited the Plaintiff from making further filings without the prior permission of a district or magistrate judge; directed the Plaintiff to file by March 1, 2011, a list identifying the discovery (documents, interrogatories and depositions she sought) with an equivalent list to be filed by the defendants on March 4, 2011. Docket # 67 and Electronic Order of February 14, 2011. On February 23, 2011, without prior permission from a district or magistrate judge, the Plaintiff filed two motions: a motion to disqualify both Judge O’Toole and Magistrate Judge Sorokin (Docket # 69) and a Motion to Vacate various orders entered by the Court (Docket # 70). These motions continued the Plaintiffs baseless attack on the Pro Se Staff Attorney and continued the pattern of utterly unfounded allegations. See, e.g. Docket # 70 at 2 (“the court’s pro se staff attorney’s clear usurpation of power and continued deliberate trespassing on the law,” . . . “[I]n the absence of judicial oversight this court employee seized this case to ensure intentional neglect of case management, ensure that established law and rule be

App. 20 ignored and grossly distorted fact to cover her documentation” . . . the “pro se staff attorney colluded with defense counsel” . . . and “Barbara Morse and Defense Counsel are in indirect contempt of this court and their latest inappropriate maneuver continues to leave this Plaintiff without a judge”). Moreover, these motions, like the Plaintiff ’s earlier motions, arc motivated by an improper purpose – to wit, as she has in the past, to harass without cause and to seek immediate attention for motions she believes require immediate attention. In addition, the baseless allegations, harassing attacks and personal derogatory remarks are in direct violation of both Judge O’Toole’s Order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Plaintiff failed to file her discovery requests with the Court on March 1, 2011 as earlier ordered. The undersigned denied both of the Plaintiff ’s Motions. Electronic Orders of March 2 and March 3, 2011. On March 4, 2011, the Defendants filed the instant motion for contempt. Docket # 71. The Plaintiff next filed her First Motion to Stay, in which she sought a stay of discovery pending reassignment of her case to another district judge. Docket # 74. On March 7, 2011, the undersigned denied this motion, extended the Plaintiff ’s deadline for making her discovery filing to March 11, 2011 and warned Plaintiff that: A further failure to comply with this Order [to make her discovery filing], or with any of the Court’s other Orders (including its Order prohibiting the Plaintiff from making any filing without prior permission of a district or

App. 21 magistrate judge and its Order prohibiting the Plaintiff from making personal comments or attacks upon the staff of the Clerk’s office) will lead to the imposition of sanctions, including fines and/or dismissal of the Plaintiff ’s cases. Docket # 75. On March 11, 2011, the Plaintiff made her discovery filing. On March 16, 2011, the Court ruled and directed the Defendants to make their discovery filing by March 21, 2011. Docket # 77. In that order, the Court also established a procedure for the Plaintiff to make filings by permitting her, once per week, to file a one-page document stating briefly any motions she wished to file and a brief basis for the motion. Id. Finally, the Court also again reminded the Plaintiff that a failure to comply with Court Orders, including Judge O’Toole’s order quoted above, may lead to the dismissal of her action. Id. Two days after this latest reminder, the Plaintiff filed her opposition, Docket # 78, to the Defendant’s motion for contempt in which she has continued her pattern of making false allegations that “are ungrounded in fact, totally meaningless as a matter of law, and interposed for an improper purpose.” Docket # 57 at 2-3. Moreover, in this filing the Plaintiff continues her pattern of “personal attacks [and] derogatory commentary.” For example, in this latest filing, the Plaintiff asserts;

App. 22 – “usurpation by a pro se staff attorney with whom they [defense counsel and defendants] were colluding; – “Defendants through their Defense counsel continue to conspire by a pattern of deliberate misrepresentation and deceit” – “the reference order [was] written by the pro se staff attorney as she ‘ruled’ on the injunctive relief motion; – “multiple improprieties that indicated the pro se staff attorney and defense counsel to be in collusion”; – “pro se staff attorney [ ] was blatantly violating her rights . . . and manipulating the file date . . . along with other noted improprieties . . . she also usurped with rulings on January 20th sabotaging this plaintiff ’s case. Docket # 78 at 1, 2, 5 & 6. Notwithstanding these allegations, Plaintiff also denies that she has violated the Court’s Orders or attacked, improperly, the pro se staff attorney: This Plaintiff has made no personal comments or personal attacks in any filing to this court; she has made only fair comment in relation to documented behavior and actions supported by the record itself. Docket # 78 at 10.

App. 23 The Court takes a different view. The Plaintiff ’s persistent and relentless focus on the alleged misconduct of the pro se staff attorney and/or defense counsel are in direct violation of the Court’s Orders, are utterly without merit or basis and substantially interfere with the conduct and management of this litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) provides in relevant part that “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “Dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute is appropriate in the face of ‘extremely protracted inaction (measured in years), disobedience of court orders, ignorance of warnings, contumacious conduct, or some other aggravating circumstance.’ ” Id., citing Cosme Nieves v. Deshler, 826 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1987); 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2369 (2d ed.1995). Where a noncompliant litigant has manifested a disregard for orders of the court and been suitably forewarned of the consequences of continued intransigence, a trial judge need not first exhaust milder sanctions before resorting to dismissal. HMG Property Investors, Inc. v. Parque Indus. Rio Canas, Inc., 847 F.2d 908, 918 (1st Cir.1988). In this case, the Plaintiff has repeatedly ignored Orders of the Court that she cease violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 by making false allegations against defense counsel and Ms. Morse, and has sought to needlessly

App. 24 delay the litigation and resolution of this matter by the filing of meritless motions to stay the case or recuse the assigned judicial officers. She has been warned on numerous occasions that her continued misconduct could lead to dismissal of her case. Moreover, her denial that she has engaged in personal comments or personal attacks at all suggests that she is unable to appreciate the nature of her conduct and will be unable to conform her conduct to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the future. CONCLUSION I RECOMMEND that, prior to ruling on the pending motion for contempt, the district judge assigned to this case render his own ruling on that portion of the Plaintiff ’s Motion to Disqualify (Docket # 69) directed at him. In addition, for the foregoing reasons, I RECOMMEND that the district judge assigned to this case ALLOW the Motion for Contempt (Docket # 71) and DISMISS this action.1 Discovery
The parties are hereby advised that under the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, any party who objects to these proposed findings and recommendations must file specific written objections thereto with the Clerk of this Court within 14 days of the party’s receipt of this Report and Recommendation. The written objections must specifically identify the portion of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The parties are further advised that the United States Court of Appeals for this Circuit has repeatedly indicated that failure to comply with Rule 72(b) will preclude further appellate review of the District Court’s order based on this Report and Recommendation. See Keating v. (Continued on following page)
1

App. 25 and proceedings in this matter are STAYED pending the ruling by the district judge on this Report and Recommendation. /s/ Leo T. Sorokin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Secretary of Health and Human Services, 848 F.2d 271 (1st Cir.1988); United States v. Emiliano Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir.1986); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir.1980); United States v. Vega, 678 F.2d 376, 378-379 (1st Cir.1982); Scott v. Schweiker, 702 F.2d 13, 14 (1st Cir.1983); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466 (1985).

App. 26 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 11-1668
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

IN RE: LAURA J. MCGARRY, Petitioner.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Before Lynch, Chief Judge, Lipez and Howard, Circuit Judges.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT Entered: June 20, 2011 The Petition for an Emergent Extraordinary Writ to the United States District Court [for the District of] Massachusetts is denied. By the Court: /s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk. cc: Laura J. McGarry Brian M. Childs Guy Paul Tully

App. 27 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 11-1668 IN RE: LAURA J. MCGARRY, Petitioner.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 11-2292 LAURA J. MCGARRY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., d/b/a Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, d/b/a Pleasant Bay Health & Living Centers, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Before Lynch, Chief Judge, Lipez and Howard, Circuit Judges.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER OF COURT Entered: February 7, 2012 Plaintiff-appellant has filed a post-judgment motion demanding remedial action in connection with purported “misconduct” and “corruption.” With respect to

App. 28 appellant’s mandate-related requests, soon after this motion was filed, a mandate was docketed in No. 112292. No mandate is appropriate in No. 11-1668 since mandamus is an original proceeding in the circuit court, and, when mandamus is denied, there is no need to communicate a judgment to a district court. To the extent that the motion requests further attention to any mandate beyond what has already been rendered, it is denied. All other requests in the motion are denied. By the Court: /s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk. cc: Laura J. McGarry Brian M. Childs Guy Paul Tully

App. 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS LAURA J. MCGARRY, Plaintiff, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On January 28, 2011, this case was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings. Now before the Court is Plaintiff ’s Motion for Contempt against PSSA & Defense Counsel. See Docket Entry #58. Plaintiff also filed a letter and notice; both addressed to the Clerk of Court. See Docket Entries #59, #60. The January 28, 2011 Memorandum and Order referred this case to my docket for all pretrial proceedings. See Docket Entry # 58. The Order also denied several of Plaintiff ’s Motions and prohibited Plaintiff 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.” The Court’s records indicate that Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion, letter and notice, each of which violates the Court’s 1/28/11 Order. C.A. No. 10-11343-GAO

App. 30 Plaintiff has already been advised that Under Rule 11, the Court may impose sanctions on an unrepresented party if he or she submits a pleading for an improper purpose or if the claims within it are frivolous or malicious. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1), (2); Eagle Eye Fishing Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 20 F.3d 503, 506 (1st Cir. 1994) (pro se parties, like all parties and counsel, are required to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Pronav Charter II, Inc. v. Nolan, 206 F. Supp. 2d 46, 53 (D. Mass. 2002) (Rule 11 applies to pro se litigants) (citation omitted). Rule 11 exists, in part, to protect defendants and the Court from wasteful, frivolous and harassing lawsuits, and provides for sanctions as a deterrent. See Navarro-Ayala v. Nunez, 968 F.2d 1421, 1426 (1st Cir. 1992). In addition to Rule 11, section 1927 of Title 28 provides for the imposition of costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, against a person for unreasonable and vexatious litigation. Section 1927 states: 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

App. 31 Apart from authority under Rule 11 and section 1927, a district court has the inherent power to manage its own proceedings and to control the conduct of litigants who appear before it through orders or the issuance of monetary sanctions for bad-faith, vexatious, wanton or oppressive behavior. See Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46-50 (1991); accord United States v. Kouri-Perez, 187 F.3d 1, 6-8 (1st Cir. 1999) (same); John’s Insulation, Inc. v. L. Addison & Assocs., 156 F.3d 101, 109 (1st Cir. 1998) (district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering dismissal of complaint and default judgment as a sanction for plaintiff ’s protracted delay and repeated violation of court’s order under inherent powers rather than Rule 41). As noted above, Plaintiff is continuing to engage in a pattern of filing baseless documents that harass defense counsel and court staff and that also make reference to docketing information. She has already been warned that the Court will impose sanctions. The Court will not require Defendants’ to respond to Plaintiff ’s most recent motion, which is denied. Because Plaintiff failed to heed the warning contained in the 1/28/11 Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any further pleadings or documents in this action until directed to do so by a judicial officer. The undersigned will hold a Rule 16(b) conference by telephone on February 14, 2011 at

App. 32 4:00 p.m. The clerk shall make the necessary arrangements for this conference. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED Plaintiff ’s Motion (Docket Entry #58) for Contempt is Denied; Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any further pleadings or documents in this action until directed to do so by a judicial officer. SO ORDERED. February 1, 2011 DATE /s/ Leo T. Sorokin LEO T. SOROKIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

App. 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-11343-GAO LAURA McGARRY, Plaintiff, v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD, INC., et al. Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTIONS NOS. 48, 51, and 52 January 28, 2011 O’TOOLE, D.J. Now before the Court are Plaintiff ’s Motion (Docket No. 48) for Rule 16(b) conference, Plaintiff ’s Motion (Docket No. 51) to Enjoin PSSA; and Plaintiff ’s Motion (Docket No. 52) to Disqualify Counsel. On January 21, 2011, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff ’s Third Motion to Disqualify Counsel and Plaintiff ’s Motion to Enjoin PSSA. See Docket Nos. 55, 56. 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.

App. 34 As to Plaintiff ’s motion for a Rule 16(b) scheduling conference, the motion 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. However, what began as an employment discrimination lawsuit has been lost and stalled amidst Plaintiff ’s relentless and baseless motions. The allegations and averments in the now pending motions filed by Plaintiff again demonstrate her heightened level of suspicion and hostility directed toward defense counsel as well as one of the Court’s Pro Se Staff Attorneys (“PSSA”). Plaintiff continues her earlier speculation that defense counsel and court staff are acting to thwart her case. Plaintiff seeks immediate action to have defense counsel disqualified and the PSSA enjoined from duties relating to this action. Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy to prevent Plaintiff from litigating her claim. The Court has been advised that Plaintiff has been sending lengthy email messages to clerk’s office staff concerning this action. In the alleged conspiracy scheme, the undersigned is initially described as being fooled; first by defense counsel, and subsequently by the PSSA. 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

App. 35 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. Plaintiff ’s conduct in making false allegations against defense counsel and Ms. Morse is in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 1 Rule 11(b). Plaintiff ’s allegations are ungrounded in
Rule 11 provides in pertinent part: (b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper – whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it – an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase in the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
1

App. 36 fact, totally meaningless as a matter of law, and interposed for an improper purpose, to wit, to harass without cause and to demand immediate attention from the undersigned for motions that, in her mind, require immediate adjudication. This is a civil action, and plaintiff is expected to conduct herself in a civil manner. The Court will not permit Plaintiff to continue with the personal attacks, derogatory commentary and baseless motions. Such behavior is unwarranted and completely irrelevant to the merits of this case. Plaintiff does not have the right to file pleadings for an improper purpose and in bad faith. For this, and for engaging in behavior that no reasonable person in like circumstances would have engaged in, 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. If Plaintiff violates this order, the court will impose sanctions, which may include fines, dismissal of this civil action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any other sanction the court deems appropriate to correct the violation of its orders.

App. 37 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, Plaintiff ’s Motion (Docket No. 51) to Enjoin PSSA is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, Plaintiff ’s Motion (Docket No. 52) to disqualify defense counsel is DENIED; and it is further 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; and it is further 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. SO ORDERED. 1/28/11 DATE /s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr. GEORGE A. O’TOOLE, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

App. 38 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE No. 11-1668 Short Title: In Re: Laura McGarry The Clerk will enter my appearance as counsel on behalf of (please list names of all parties represented, using additional sheet(s) if necessary): Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Joshua Zuckerman, Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster as the [ ] appellant(s) [ ] appellee(s) [ ] petitioner(s) /S/ Brian M. Childs Signature Brian M. Childs Name Jackson Lewis LLP Firm Name (if applicable) 75 Park Plaza Address 617-367-0025 Telephone Number 617-367-2155 Fax Number brian.childs@ jacksonlewis.com Email (required) [ ] amicus curiae

[ ] respondent(s) [ ] intervenor(s) 6/28/11 Date

Boston, MA 02116 City, State, Zip Code

Court of Appeals Bar Number: 119135

App. 39 Has this case or any related case previously been on appeal? [ ] No [ ] Yes Court of Appeals No.
================================================================

Attorneys for both appellant and appellee must file a notice of appearance within 14 days of case opening. New or additional counsel may enter an appearance outside the 14 day period; however, a notice of appearance may not be filed after the appellee/respondent brief has been filed without leave of court. 1st Cir. R. 12.0(a). Counsel must complete and file this notice of appearance in order to file pleadings in this court. Counsel not yet admitted to practice before this court must submit an application for admission with this form. 1st Cir. R. 46.0(a)(2). Effective January 1, 2010, use of the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system is mandatory for all attorneys filing in this court. Counsel may register at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/.

App. 40 CLERK’S CERTIFICATE AND APPEALS COVER SHEET ABBREVIATED ELECTRONIC RECORD Case Caption: District Court Number: Laura J. McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. 10-cv-11343 Government filer No No X

Fee: Paid? Yes X No In Forma Pauperis Yes X Motions Yes Pending If yes, document # No

Sealed Yes documents If yes, document # Transcripts Yes If yes, document #

Ex parte Yes X No documents If yes, document # 43, 85

No X

Notice of Appeal filed by: Plaintiff/Petitioner X Other: Defendant/Respondent Appeal from: #101, 87, 86, 61, 57, 53, Other information: I, Sarah Allison Thornton, Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, do hereby certify that the annexed electronic documents: Notice of Appeal, #101, 87, 86, 61, 57, 53

App. 41 with the electronic docket sheet, constitute the abbreviated record on appeal in the above entitled case for the Notice of Appeal, document # 102 , filed on . 10/12/2011 In testimony whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of this Court on 11/2/2011 . SARAH ALLISON THORNTON Clerk of Court /s/ Jeanette Ramos Deputy Clerk [SEAL]

COURT OF APPEALS DOCKET NUMBER ASSIGNED:

App. 42 United States District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Date Entered # Docket Text

10/12/2011 102 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 86 Order on Report and Recommendations,, 87 Order Dismissing Case, 57 Order on Motion to Expedite, Order on Motion for Injunctive Relief, Order on Motion to Disqualify Counsel,,,,,, Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge, 53 Order on Motion to Strike,, Order on Motion for Default Judgment, Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on Motion to Disqualify Counsel,,,,,,, 101 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion for Order, Order on Motion for Default Judgment,,, Order on Motion to Vacate,,,,,, 61 Order on Motion for Contempt,, by Laura J. McGarry NOTICE TO COUNSEL: A Transcript Report/Order Form, which can be downloaded from the First Circuit Court of Appeals web site at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov MUST be completed and submitted to the Court of Appeals. Counsel shall register for a First Circuit CM/ECF Appellate Filer Account at http://pacer. psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf. Counsel shall also review the First Circuit requirements for electronic filing by visiting the CM/ECF Information

App. 43 section at http://www.ca1.uscourts. gov/efiling.htm. US District Court Clerk to deliver official record to Court of Appeals by 11/1/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Electronic Filing, # 2 Exhibit) (Danieli, Chris) (Entered: 10/12/2011) 10/13/2011 Filing fee/payment: $ 455.00, receipt number 1BST026841 for 102 Notice of Appeal, (Russo, Patricia) (Entered: 10/13/2011)

11/02/2011 103 Certified and Transmitted Abbreviated Electronic Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 102 Notice of Appeal, (Ramos, Jeanette) (Entered: 11/02/2011) 12/28/2011 104 USCA Judgment as to 102 Notice of Appeal, filed by Laura J. McGarry. In light of the court’s order entered on this date, the judgment of the district court is affirmed summarily pursuant to our Local Rule 27.0(c). Judgment issued in the USCA 12/27/2011 (Ramos, Jeanette) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

App. 44 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE No. 11-2292 Short Title: McGarry V. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc., et al.

The Clerk will enter my appearance as counsel on behalf of (please list names of all parties represented, using additional sheet(s) if necessary): as the [ ] appellant(s) [ ] appellee(s) [ ] petitioner(s) /s/ Brian M. Childs Signature Brian M. Childs Name Jackson Lewis, LLP Firm Name (if applicable) 75 Park Plaza Address 617-367-0025 Telephone Number 617-367-2155 Fax Number brian.childs@ jacksonlewis.com Email (required) [ ] amicus curiae

[ ] respondent(s) [ ] intervenor(s) November 9, 2011 Date

Boston, MA 02116 City, State, Zip Code

Court of Appeals Bar Number: 119135

App. 45 Has this case or any related case previously been on appeal? [ ] No [ ] Yes Court of Appeals No. 11-1668 (Writ of Mandamus)

================================================================

Attorneys for both appellant and appellee must file a notice of appearance within 14 days of case opening. New or additional counsel may enter an appearance outside the 14 day period; however, a notice of appearance may not be filed after the appellee/respondent brief has been filed without leave of court. 1st Cir. R. 12.0(a). Counsel must complete and file this notice of appearance in order to file pleadings in this court. Counsel not yet admitted to practice before this court must submit an application for admission with this form. 1st Cir. R. 46.0(a)(2). Effective January 1, 2010, use of the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system is mandatory for all attorneys filing in this court. Counsel may register at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/.

App. 46 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE No. 11-2292 Short Title: McGarry V. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc., et al.

The Clerk will enter my appearance as counsel on behalf of (please list names of all parties represented, using additional sheet(s) if necessary): as the [ ] appellant(s) [ ] appellee(s) [ ] petitioner(s) /s/ Guy P. Tully Signature Guy P. Tully Name Jackson Lewis, LLP Firm Name (if applicable) 75 Park Plaza Address Boston, MA 02116 City, State, Zip Code 617-367-0025 Telephone Number 617-367-2155 Fax Number tullyg@jacksonlewis.com Email (required) [ ] amicus curiae

[ ] respondent(s) [ ] intervenor(s) November 9, 2011 Date

Court of Appeals Bar Number: 33114

App. 47 Has this case or any related case previously been on appeal? [ ] No [ ] Yes Court of Appeals No. 11-1668 (Writ of Mandamus)

================================================================

Attorneys for both appellant and appellee must file a notice of appearance within 14 days of case opening. New or additional counsel may enter an appearance outside the 14 day period; however, a notice of appearance may not be filed after the appellee/respondent brief has been filed without leave of court. 1st Cir. R. 12.0(a). Counsel must complete and file this notice of appearance in order to file pleadings in this court. Counsel not yet admitted to practice before this court must submit an application for admission with this form. 1st Cir. R. 46.0(a)(2). Effective January 1, 2010, use of the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system is mandatory for all attorneys filing in this court. Counsel may register at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/.

App. 48 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE No. 11-2292 Short Title: McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape C, et al

The Clerk will enter my appearance as counsel on behalf of (please list names of all parties represented, using additional sheet(s) if necessary): GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD INC, JOSHUA ZUCKERMAN, RENEE MIKITA, ROXANNE WEBSTER as the [ ] appellant(s) [ ] appellee(s) [ ] petitioner(s) /s/ Brian M. Childs Signature Brian M. Childs Name Jackson Lewis, LLP Firm Name (if applicable) 75 Park Plaza Address Boston, MA 02116 City, State, Zip Code 617-367-0025 Telephone Number 617-367-2155 Fax Number tullyg@jjacksonlewis.com Email (required) [ ] amicus curiae

[ ] respondent(s) [ ] intervenor(s) November 10, 2011 Date

Court of Appeals Bar Number: 119135

App. 49 Has this case or any related case previously been on appeal? [ ] No [ ] Yes Court of Appeals No. 11-1668 (Writ of Mandamus)

================================================================

Attorneys for both appellant and appellee must file a notice of appearance within 14 days of case opening. New or additional counsel may enter an appearance outside the 14 day period; however, a notice of appearance may not be filed after the appellee/respondent brief has been filed without leave of court. 1st Cir. R. 12.0(a). Counsel must complete and file this notice of appearance in order to file pleadings in this court. Counsel not yet admitted to practice before this court must submit an application for admission with this form. 1st Cir. R. 46.0(a)(2). Effective January 1, 2010, use of the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system is mandatory for all attorneys filing in this court. Counsel may register at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/.

App. 50 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE No. 11-2292 Short Title: McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape C, et al

The Clerk will enter my appearance as counsel on behalf of (please list names of all parties represented, using additional sheet(s) if necessary): GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD INC, JOSHUA ZUCKERMAN, RENEE MIKITA, ROXANNE WEBSTER as the [ ] appellant(s) [ ] appellee(s) [ ] petitioner(s) /s/ Guy P. Tully Signature Guy P. Tully Name Jackson Lewis, LLP Firm Name (if applicable) 75 Park Plaza Address Boston, MA 02116 City, State, Zip Code 617-367-0025 Telephone Number 617-367-2155 Fax Number tullyg@jjacksonlewis.com Email (required) [ ] amicus curiae

[ ] respondent(s) [ ] intervenor(s) November 10, 2011 Date

Court of Appeals Bar Number: 33114

App. 51 Has this case or any related case previously been on appeal? [ ] No [ ] Yes Court of Appeals No. 11-1668 (Writ of Mandamus)

================================================================

Attorneys for both appellant and appellee must file a notice of appearance within 14 days of case opening. New or additional counsel may enter an appearance outside the 14 day period; however, a notice of appearance may not be filed after the appellee/respondent brief has been filed without leave of court. 1st Cir. R. 12.0(a). Counsel must complete and file this notice of appearance in order to file pleadings in this court. Counsel not yet admitted to practice before this court must submit an application for admission with this form. 1st Cir. R. 46.0(a)(2). Effective January 1, 2010, use of the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system is mandatory for all attorneys filing in this court. Counsel may register at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/.

App. 52
Date Filed: 11/08/2011

Court Statistics My Account Information [LOGO] PACER Case Locator Change Client Billing Code History Appellate Party Search Thu Sep 22 20:43:47 2011 No Record Found

Logout

PACER Service Center

User: lm4201 Filter Results Download New Search Client: Search: Appellate Party Search Name McGarry, Laura 11-1668 First Circuit Page: 1 No records found Receipt 09/22/2001 20:43:47 67473526 User lm4201 Client Description Appellate Party Search Name McGarry, Laura 11-1668 First Circuit Page: 1 You have previously been filled for this page. Pages 1 ($0.00)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For information or comments, please contact: PACER Service Center

App. 53
Date Filed: 11/08/2011

Court Statistics My Account Information [LOGO] PACER Case Locator Change Client Billing Code History Appellate Party Search Tue Sep 27 10:41:19 2011 No Record Found

Logout

PACER Service Center

User: lm4201 Filter Results Download New Search Client: Search: Appellate Party Search Name McGarry, Laura First Circuit Page: 1 No records found Receipt 09/27/2011 10:41:20 68309578 User lm4201 Client Description Appellate Party Search Name McGarry, Laura First Circuit Page: 1 You have previously been billed for this page. Pages 1 ($0.00)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For information or comments, please contact: PACER Service Center

App. 54
Date Filed: 11/08/2011

Court Statistics My Account Information [LOGO] PACER Case Locator Change Client Billing Code History Appellate Case Search Thu Sep 27 10:43:35 2011 1 Record Found

Logout

PACER Service Center

User: lm4201 Filter Results Download New Search Client: Search: Appellate Case Search 11-1668 First Circuit Page: 1 Case Title 1. In Re: McGarry Court Date Date Case NOS ▼ Filed Closed 01cae 11-1668 1 06/10/201106/20/2011

Receipt 09/27/2011 10:43:35 68310803 User lm4201 Client Description Appellate Party Search 11-1668 First Circuit Page: 1 You have previously been billed for this page. Pages 1 ($0.00)

App. 55 Filed: 11/08/2011 Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Document 88-20 Filed 07/08/11 Page 1 of 3 Logout Help

General Docket United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Court of Appeals Docketed: 06/10/2011 Docket #: 11-1668 In Re: McGarry Appeal From: District of Massachusetts, Boston Fee Status: filing fee paid Case Type Information: 1) original proceeding 2) mandamus (fee paid) 3) – Originating Court Information: District: 0101-1 : 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Ordering Judge: Leo T. Sorokin, Magistrate Judge Date Filed: Date Rec’d COA: 06/10/2011 Prior Cases: None Current Cases: None Panel Assignment: Not available

App. 56 LAURA J. MCGARRY Petitioner Laura J. McGarry [NTC Pro Se] 1717 Sheridan Rd Apt A50 Bremerton, WA 98310 Brian M. Childs Direct: 617-367-0025 Fax: 617-367-2155 [NTC Retained] Nixon Peabody LLP 100 Summer St. Boston, MA 02110-0000 Guy Paul Tully Direct: 617-367-0025 Fax: 617-367-2155 [NTC Retained] Jackson Lewis LLP 75 Park Plaza 4th Floor Boston, MA 02116-0000 Brian M. Childs Direct: 617-367-0025 [NTC Retained] (see above) Guy Paul Tully Direct: 617-367-0025 [NTC Retained] (see above)

v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD INC., d/b/a Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, d/b/a Pleasant Bay Nursing Center LP, d/b/a Pleasant Bay Health & Living Centers Respondent.

RENEE MIKITA Respondent

App. 57 ROXANNE WEBSTER Respondent Brian M. Childs Direct: 617-367-0025 [NTC Retained] (see above) Guy Paul Tully Direct: 617-367-0025 [NTC Retained] (see above) JOSHUA ZUCKERMAN Respondent Brian M. Childs Direct: 617-367-0025 [NTC Retained] (see above) Guy Paul Tully Direct: 617-367-0025 [NTC Retained] (see above) IN RE: LAURA J. MCGARRY Petitioner 06/10/2011 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 35 pg. 1.77 MB docketed. Petition for a writ of mandamus filed by pro se Petitioner Laura McGarry. [11-1668] (GK) 06/10/2011 Filing fee was paid by Petitioner Laura McGarry. Amount: $450. Receipt number: #. [11-1668] (GK)

Documents and Docket Summary Documents Only Include Page Numbers Selected Pages: 00000 Selected Size: 00 KB0

App. 58 PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt PACER Login: 06/13/2011 12:11:49 Client lm4201 Code:

11-1668 Docket Search Filed Description: Report Criteria: 6/10/2011 – (filtered) 6/13/2011 Billable Pages:

App. 59 Filed: 11/08/2011 CM ECF Case Search Calendar Opinions Orders/Judgments XML TXT Logout Help

General Docket United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-1668 Docketed: 06/10/2011 Termed: 06/20/2011 In Re: McGarry Appeal From: District of Massachusetts, Boston Fee Status: filing fee paid Case Type Information: 1) original proceeding 2) mandamus (fee paid) 3) – Originating Court Information: District: 0101-1 : 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Trial Judge: George A. O’Toole, U.S. District Judge Ordering Judge: Leo T. Sorokin, Magistrate Judge Date Filed: Date Rec’d COA: 06/10/2011 Prior Cases: None Current Cases: None Panel Assignment: Not available

App. 60 LAURA J. MCGARRY Petitioner Laura J. McGarry [NTC Pro Se] 1717 Sheridan Rd Apt A50 Bremerton, WA 98310 Brian M. Childs Direct: 617-367-0025 [NTC Retained] Jackson Lewis LLP 75 Park Plaza 4th Floor Boston, MA 02116-0000 Guy Paul Tully Direct: 617-367-0025 Fax: 617-367-2155 [COR NTC Retained] Jackson Lewis LLP 75 Park Plaza 4th Floor Boston, MA 02116-0000 Brian M. Childs Direct: 617-367-0025 [NTC Retained] (see above) Guy Paul Tully Direct: 617-367-0025 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

v. GERIATRIC FACILITIES OF CAPE COD INC., d/b/a Pleasant Bay Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, d/b/a Pleasant Bay Nursing Center LP, d/b/a Pleasant Bay Health & Living Centers Respondent.

RENEE MIKITA Respondent

App. 61 ROXANNE WEBSTER Respondent Brian M. Childs Direct: 617-367-0025 [NTC Retained] (see above) Guy Paul Tully Direct: 617-367-0025 [COR NTC Retained] (see above) JOSHUA ZUCKERMAN Respondent Brian M. Childs Direct: 617-367-0025 [NTC Retained] (see above) Guy Paul Tully Direct: 617-367-0025 [COR NTC Retained] (see above) IN RE: LAURA J. MCGARRY Petitioner 06/10/2011 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 35 pg. 1.77 MB docketed. Petition for a writ of mandamus filed by pro se Petitioner Laura McGarry. [11-1668] (GK) 06/10/2011 Filing fee was paid by Petitioner Laura McGarry. Amount: $450. Receipt number: 019458. [11-1668] – [Edited 06/15/2011 by GK]. CLERK’S NOTE: Docket entry was edited to modify the docket text. (GK)

App. 62 06/15/2011 NOTICE of appearance on 2 pg. 46.58 KB behalf of Respondents Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster and Joshua Zuckerman filed by Attorney Guy P. Tully. Certificate of service dated 06/15/2011. [11-1668] (GPT) JUDGMENT entered by 1 pg. 33.49 KB Sandra L. Lynch, Chief Appellate Judge; Kermit V. Lipez, Appellate Judge and Jeffrey R. Howard, Appellate Judge. Denied. [11-1668] (GK)

06/20/2011

Documents and Docket Summary Documents Only Include Page Numbers Selected Pages: 00000 Selected Size: 00 KB0

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt 06/20/2011 12:40:40 PACER Client lm4201 Login: Code: Docket Search Description: Report 11-1668 Criteria: (full) Billable Pages:

App. 63 Filed: 11/08/2011 CM ECF Case Search Calendar Opinions Orders/Judgments XML TXT Logout If you view the Full Docket you will be charged for 1 Pages $0.08 General Docket United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-1668 Docketed: 06/10/2011 Termed: 06/20/2011 In Re: McGarry Appeal From: District of Massachusetts, Boston Fee Status: filing fee paid Case Type Information: 1) original proceeding 2) mandamus (fee paid) 3) – Originating Court Information: District: 0101-1 : 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Trial Judge: George A. O’Toole, U.S. District Judge Ordering Judge: Leo T. Sorokin, Magistrate Judge Date Filed: Date Rec’d COA: 06/10/2011 06/10/2011 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING docketed. Petition for a writ of mandamus filed by pro se Petitioner Laura McGarry. [11-1668] (GK) Help

App. 64 06/10/2011 Filing fee was paid by Petitioner Laura McGarry. Amount: $450. Receipt number: 019458. [11-1668] – [Edited 06/15/2011 by GK]. CLERK’S NOTE: Docket entry was edited to modify the docket text. (GK) CASE submitted. Panel: Sandra L. Lynch, Chief Appellate Judge; Kermit V. Lipez, Appellate Judge; Jeffrey R. Howard, Appellate Judge. [11-1668] (SBT) NOTICE of appearance on behalf of Respondents Geriatric Facilities of Cape Code Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster and Joshua Zuckerman filed by Attorney Guy P. Tully. Certificate of service dated 06/15/2011. [11-1668] (GPT) JUDGMENT entered by Sandra L. Lynch, Chief Appellate Judge; Kermit V. Lipez, Appellate Judge and Jeffrey R. Howard, Appellate Judge. Denied. [11-1668] (GK) NOTICE of appearance on behalf of Respondents Geriatric Facilities of Cape Code Inc., Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster and Joshua Zuckerman filed by Attorney Brian M. Childs. Certificate of service dated 06/28/2011. [11-1668] (BMC)

06/13/2011

06/15/2011

06/20/2011

06/28/2011

App. 65 PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt 09/22/2011 20:22:17 PACER Client lm4201 Login: Code: Case Search Description: 11-1668 Summary Criteria: Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08

Court Court PACER Change Billing Contact Information Home Service Client History Us Center

App. 66 Filed: 11/08/2011 Case: 11-1668 Document: 00116226245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2011 Entry ID: 5561353 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE No. 11-1668 Short Title: In Re: Laura McGarry The Clerk will enter my appearance as counsel on behalf of (please list names of all parties represented, using additional sheet(s) if necessary): Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Joshua Zuckerman, Renee Mikita, Roxanne Webster as the [ ] appellant(s) [ ] appellee(s) [ ] petitioner(s) /S/ Brian M. Childs Signature Brian M. Childs Name Jackson Lewis LLP Firm Name (if applicable) 75 Park Plaza Address Boston, MA 02116 City, State, Zip Code 617-367-0025 Telephone Number 617-367-2155 Fax Number brian.childs@ jacksonlewis.com Email (required) [ ] amicus curiae [ ] respondent(s) [ ] intervenor(s) 6/28/11 Date

Court of Appeals Bar Number: 119135

App. 67 Has this case or any related case previously been on appeal? [ ] No [ ] Yes Court of Appeals No.
================================================================

Attorneys for both appellant and appellee must file a notice of appearance within 14 days of case opening. New or additional counsel may enter an appearance outside the 14 day period; however, a notice of appearance may not be filed after the appellee/respondent brief has been filed without leave of court. 1st Cir. R. 12.0(a). Counsel must complete and file this notice of appearance in order to file pleadings in this court. Counsel not yet admitted to practice before this court must submit an application for admission with this form. 1st Cir. R. 46.0(a)(2). Effective January 1, 2010, use of the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system is mandatory for all attorneys filing in this court. Counsel may register at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/.

App. 68 Filed: 11/08/2011 Case: 11-1668 Document: 00116221133 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2011 Entry ID: 5558366 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE No. 11-1668 Short Title: In Re: Laura McGarry The Clerk will enter my appearance as counsel on behalf of (please list names of all parties represented, using additional sheet(s) if necessary): Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Joshua Zuckerman, Renee Mikita Roxanne Webster as the [ ] appellant(s) [ ] appellee(s) [ ] petitioner(s) /S/ Guy P. Tully Signature Guy P. Tully Name Jackson Lewis LLP Firm Name (if applicable) 75 Park Plaza Address Boston, MA 02116 City, State, Zip Code (617) 367-0025 Telephone Number (617) 367-2155 Fax Number tullyg@jacksonlewis.com Email (required) [ ] amicus curiae [ ] respondent(s) [ ] intervenor(s) 6/15/11 Date

Court of Appeals Bar Number: 33114

App. 69 Has this case or any related case previously been on appeal? [ ] No [ ] Yes Court of Appeals No.
================================================================

Attorneys for both appellant and appellee must file a notice of appearance within 14 days of case opening. New or additional counsel may enter an appearance outside the 14 day period; however, a notice of appearance may not be filed after the appellee/respondent brief has been filed without leave of court. 1st Cir. R. 12.0(a). Counsel must complete and file this notice of appearance in order to file pleadings in this court. Counsel not yet admitted to practice before this court must submit an application for admission with this form. 1st Cir. R. 46.0(a)(2). Effective January 1, 2010, use of the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system is mandatory for all attorneys filing in this court. Counsel may register at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/. I, Guy P. Tully, hereby certify that on June 15th, 2011 I electronically filed the foregoing Notice of Appearance with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit by using the CM/ECF system. I certify

App. 70 that on June 15th, 2011 I served a copy of the foregoing document on the following party by U.S. Mail: Laura J. McGarry 1717 Sheridan Rd Apt A50 Bremerton, WA 98310 /S/ Guy P. Tully Guy P. Tully Jackson Lewis LLP 75 Park Plaza 4th Floor Boston, MA 02116-0000

App. 71 Case: 11-2292 Document: 00116312086 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2012 Entry ID: 5607152 CM ECF Case Search XML Calendar Opinions TXT Logout Case Query 11-1668 In Re: McGarry Associated Short Type Start Case Title Originating Lead Case Case 1:10-cv-11343GAO Judgment NOA End Status Orders/ Judgments Help

Briefs

Filed Execution Date

Originating Court Judge Reporter O’Toole, George A. Terminated Attorney from Case

Party

Party Type

McGarry, --Petitioner Laura J. Geriatric --Respondent Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc. Zuckerman, --Respondent Joshua Mikita, Renee --Respondent

Tully,Guy Paul Childs,Brian M. Childs,Brian M. Tully,Guy Paul Childs,Brian M. Childs,Brian M. Childs,Brian M. Tully,Guy Paul Childs,Brian M.

App. 72 Webster, Roxanne --Respondent Childs,Brian M. Tully,Guy Paul Childs,Brian M. Representation End

Attorney Tully, Guy Paul Childs, Brian M. Childs, Brian M.

Party Type(s) Represented –Respondent –Respondent –Respondent

06/13/2011

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt 12/27/2011 11:39:38 PACER Login: lm4201 Client Code: Description:Case Query Search Criteria: 11-1668 Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08 Court Court PACER Change Billing Contact Infor- Home Service Client History Us mation Center

App. 73 Jackson Lewis LLP 75 Park Plaza Boston, Massachusetts 02116 jackson lewis Tel 617 367-0025 Attorneys at Law Fax 617 367-2155 www.jacksonlewis.com ALBANY, NY ALBUQUERQUE, NM ATLANTA, GA BALTIMORE, MD BIRMINGHAM, AL BOSTON, MA CHICAGO, IL CINCINNATI, OH CLEVELAND, OH DALLAS, TX MINNEAPOLIS, MN MORRISTOWN, NJ DENVER, CO DETROIT, MI GREENVILLE, SC HARTFORD, CT HOUSTON, TX JACKSONVILLE, FL LAS VEGAS, NV LONG ISLAND, NY LOS ANGELES, CA MEMPHIS, TN MIAMI, FL

PORTSMOUTH, NH PROVIDENCE, RI RALEIGH-DURHAM, NC NEW ORLEANS, LA RICHMOND, VA NEW YORK, NY SACRAMENTO, CA OMAHA, NE ORANGE COUNTY, CA SAN DIEGO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA ORLANDO, FL SEATTLE, WA PHILADELPHIA, PA STAMFORD, CT PHOENIX, AZ WASHINGTON, DC PITTSBURGH, PA REGION PORTLAND, OR WHITE PLAINS, NY July 23, 2010 Laura J. McGarry 772 N.E. Mesa Lane, F103 Bremerton, WA 98310

App. 74 Re: Pleasant Bay Nursing and Rehabilitation Center Dear Ms. McGarry: Pleasant Bay Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (“Pleasant Bay”) has reviewed the letter that you mailed to me. After giving it thorough consideration, and with a belief that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission properly issued a Notice of Dismissal on the claims you raised before it, Pleasant Bay declines to enter into settlement discussions with you. Pleasant Bay took no discriminatory action toward you, and your employment ended when you voluntarily resigned to relocate to the state of Washington. On behalf of Pleasant Bay, we wish you success in your future endeavors. Very truly yours, JACKSON LEWIS LLP /s/ Patrick L. Egan/dsv Patrick L. Egan PLE:dsv

App. 75 From: “Tully, Guy P. (Boston)” <TullyG@Jacksonlewis.com> To: Laura J. McGarry <late_linda@yahoo.com> Cc: “Childs, Brian M. (Boston)” <Brian.Childs@jacksonlewis.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 12:06 PM Subject: RE: request in certified letter Ms. McGarry: I received your letter dated July 1, 2011 yesterday afternoon. Mr. Childs (who did not receive such a letter) and I received your e-mail message this morning. Neither your letter nor your e-mail message indicates a reason for your request, despite the fact that you claim that time is of the essence for a response. Please do not assume in the future that either of us will be in a position to respond to inquiries by you on a moment’s notice, particularly where the inquiry does not appear to be related to any motion or pleading filed with the Court. Moreover, to the extent that you may have relocated, we trust that you will provide updated information to the Court so that there is no confusion about where to send anything that may need to be filed conventionally. We are also perplexed by your request that we provide statements to you “on the record,” particularly where you do not identify or otherwise describe the “record” to which you refer. There is no such record. Indeed, your request that we confirm that we have been counsel of record in case number 1:10-cv-11343GAO (McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc. et al.) is surprising. As you are unmistakably and

App. 76 fully aware from the Court docket, the notices of electronic filing, our prior attempts to confer with you about matters in the case, our previous electronic communications with you, and our appearance at the initial scheduling conference in which you participated, we are and have been counsel for the Defendants in the referenced case. We also understand that you contacted Joshua Zuckerman directly with a similar request. Please do not contact Mr. Zuckerman or the Pleasant Bay facility or Ms. Mikita or Ms. Webster about any issues relating to your lawsuit or any related legal matter. Any legitimate, good faith inquiries about the litigation should be directed to us as counsel for the Defendants. The current inquiries about our status directed to us and to Mr. Zuckerman, together with your repeated, baseless accusations of wrongdoing by us, are, frankly, harassing and unnecessary – particularly in light of the fact that you filed no less than three (3) motions to disqualify us as counsel, all of which were summarily denied. You have previously represented publicly that by letter dated April 11, 2011, the United States Marshals Service cautioned you about communications with Court personnel that could be considered harassing. In the same spirit, please be mindful that neither we, nor our clients, will tolerate any harassing behavior. Should you need to communicate with us about matters to be addressed or possibly addressed by the Court, we expect that you

App. 77 will do so in accordance with the Court’s various rules and procedures. Thank you. Guy P. Tully Guy P. Tully 37 Response 11/05/2010 Deadline 39 Response 11/05/2010 Deadline 43 Response 11/11/2010 Deadline 46 Response 11/29/2010 Deadline 48 Response 12/27/2010 Deadline 51 Response 01/19/2011 Deadline 52 Response 01/19/2011 Deadline 58 Response 01/30/2011 Deadline 69 Response 02/23/2011 Deadline 70 Response 02/23/2011 Deadline 71 Response 03/04/2011 Deadline 74 Response 03/04/2011 Deadline 62 Scheduling 02/01/2011 Conference Status Report 02/14/2011 Deadline 11/19/2010 11/19/2010 11/26/2010 01/20/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011

12/13/2010 01/20/2011 01/10/2011 02/02/2011 02/02/2011 02/14/2011 03/09/2011 03/09/2011 03/18/2011 03/18/2011 03/07/2011 01/28/2011 01/28/2011 01/28/2011 02/01/2011 03/02/2011 03/03/2011

02/14/2011 02/14/2011 at 04:00 PM 03/01/2011

App. 78 PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt 05/02/2011 10:50:44 PACER Login: lm4201 Client Code:

1:10-cvDeadline/ 11343Description: Hearings Search Criteria: GAO Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08

App. 79 U.S. Department of Justice [SEAL] United States Marshals Service District of Massachusetts Boston, MA 02210 April 11, 2011 Ms. Laura J. McGarry 1717 Sheridan Rd. Apt A-50 Bremerton, WA 98110 Dear Ms. McGarry, I am writing this letter to you in reference to your recent email correspondence to various members of the Clerk of Courts as well as Deputy Courtroom Clerks at the U.S. Federal District Court in Boston, Massachusetts. As you may or may not be aware, all motions and legal filings pertaining to cases must be filed electronically. There are specific procedures in place for the filings of these documents. Emailing Clerks, Deputy Clerks and other federal officials is not part of this process. Your email contact with these individuals is considered inappropriate. Please consider yourself advised that any further attempts to inappropriately correspond with the aforementioned officials may be considered harassing and could lead to Federal and/or State Criminal Charges being filed against you. You are cautioned: You have been formally advised by Certified Mail that you may not communicate with members of the U.S.

App. 80 District Court Clerk’s Office by email. All motions and documents that you file pertaining to your open cases must abide by proper procedure. I would be happy to discuss this with you by telephone at (617) 748-2564 if you so desire. Please govern yourself appropriately in regard to this matter. Regards, /s/ Matthew Dumas Matthew Dumas Deputy U.S. Marshal District of Massachusetts

App. 81 From: “ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov” <ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov> To: CourtCopy@mad.uscourts.gov Sent: Sun, September 26, 2010 2:01:07 PM Subject: Activity in Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Order on Motion to Intervene This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/26/2010 at 2:01 PM EDT and filed on 9/24/2010 Case Name: McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Number: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Filer:

App. 82 Document Number: 20 Docket Text: Judge George A. OToole, Jr: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying without prejudice [17] Motion to Enjoin Defendants from Initiating Bankruptcy. (PSSA, 4) 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice has been electronically mailed to: Laura J. McGarry late_linda@yahoo.com 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice will not be electronically mailed to: The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename: yes Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1029851931 [Date=9/26/2010] [FileNumber=3537230-0] [8d5430dd98d13a9af21a0a 03dc2105acb670af952d305baa78c56001346c09588dc8 d945ac160ebc46a1e4e1ad5dc70e2965c6ae90c95ec982 30e991cd65785e]]

App. 83 From: “ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov” <ECFnotice@mad.uscourts.gov> To: CourtCopy@mad.uscourts.gov Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 12:01:26 PM Subject: Activity in Case 1:10-cv-11343-GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Order on Motion to Strike This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 1/20/2011 at 12:01 PM EST and filed on 1/19/2011 Case Name: McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Case Number: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO

App. 84 Filer: Document Number: 53 Docket Text: 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) 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice has been electronically mailed to: Guy P. Tully tullyg@jacksonlewis.com, BostonDocketing@JacksonLewis.com, gurleym@jacksonlewis.com Brian M. Childs brian.childs@jacksonlewis.com, bostondocketing@jacksonlewis.com, michelle.nevens@jacksonlewis.com Laura J. McGarry late_linda@yahoo.com 1:10-cv-11343-GAO Notice will not be electronically mailed to: The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename: yes Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1029851931 [Date=1/20/2011]

App. 85 [FileNumber=3697258-0] [3c73c326b0a6ccafece14624 bcd358fe9cc0121f3eae2d5428f4e1b42b1d50bd2af7e6ed 8f13a17c41b62b1c5bf91319c4922e018c1db485b010e3eb 3cc4470e]]

Written Opinions Report United States District Court – District of Massachusetts Filed Report Period: 8/2/2010-9/14/2011 Case Number & Name: 1:10-cv-11343GAO McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al Date Filed: Doc. # 02/01/2011 61 Description: Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; The undersigned will hold a Rule 16(b) conference by telephone on February 14, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. The clerk shall make the necessary arrangements for this conference. Accordingly, it is hereby OR DERED Plaintiffs Motion (Docket Entry #58) for Contempt is Denied; Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any further pleadings or documents in this action until directed to do so by a judicial officer.SO ORDERED.re 58 Motion for Contempt (Simeone, Maria) Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. The Plaintiff shall not make any filings with this Court without the prior approval of a District or Magistrate Judge; By March 1, 2011, the Plaintiff shall file with the Court one document listing: (a) the name and, if known, the employer of each person she wishes to depose, along with up to four sentences per person explaining the reason she wishes to take the deposition; (b) the documents or categories of documents she seeks, if any, from the Defendants; and (c) the interrogatory questions, if any, she wishes to ask the Defendants. By March 4, 2011, the Defendants shall file with the Court the equivalent document.(Simeone, Maria) Notes: Office: Boston Case Flags: CLOSED NOS: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities – Employment Cause: 42:1218(2) Americans with Disabilities Act App. 86

02/15/2011

68

Office: Boston Case Flags: CLOSED NOS: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities – Employment Cause: 42:1218(2) Americans with Disabilities Act

03/07/2011

75

Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: Office: Boston ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOCase Flags: TION TO STAY; The Motion to CLOSED Stay (Docket # 74) is DENIED. NOS: Civil Rights: There is no basis to stay litigation Americans with of this matter. The Plaintiff was Disabilities – ordered by the Court to file her Employment discovery information by March 1, Cause: 42:1218(2) 2011. She has failed to do so. It is Americans with ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall Disabilities Act file the discovery information by no later than the close of business on Friday, March 11, 2011. A further failure to comply with this Order, or with any of the Courts other Orde rs (including its Order prohibiting the Plaintiff from making any filing without prior permission of a district or magistrate judge and its Order prohibiting the Plaintiff from making personal comments or attacks upon the staff of the Clerks office) will lead to the imposition of sanctions, including fines and/or dismissal of the Plaintiffs case. re 74 Motion to Stay (Simeone, Maria) Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: Office: Boston ORDER entered. REPORT AND Case Flags: RECOMMENDATIONS; I RECCLOSED OMMEND that, prior to ruling on NOS: Civil Rights: the pending motion for contempt, Americans with the district judge assigned to this Disabilities – case render his own ruling on that Employment portion of the Plaintiffs Motion to Cause: 42:1218(2) Disqualify (Docket # 69) directed at Americans with him. In addition, for the foregoing Disabilities Act reasons, I RECOMMEND that the district judge assigned to this case ALLOW the Motion for Contempt (Docket # 71) and DISMISS this action. Discovery and proceedings in this matter are STAYED pending the ruling by the district judge on this Report and Recommendation; re 71 MOTION for Contempt filed by Joshua Zuckerman, Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc., Roxanne Webster, Renee Mikita;(Simeone, Maria)

App. 87

03/23/2011

80

06/28/2011

86

Office: Boston Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered. ORDER ON REPORT Case Flags: AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 85 CLOSED Motion for Contempt filed by Laura NOS: Civil Rights: J. McGarry, 71 Motion for ConAmericans with tempt filed by Joshua Zuckerman, Disabilities – Employment Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Cause: 42:1218(2) Inc., Roxanne Webster, Renee M ikita, 80 Report and Recommenda- Americans with tions,, Action on motions: The Disabilities Act Plaintiff’s recently filed motion for contempt, addressed to Chief Judge Wolf but by him referred to me (dkt. no. 85) is DENIED. The Defendants’ Motion for Contempt (dkt. no.71) is GRANTED, and the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is SO ORDERED.(Danieli, Chris) Judge George A. OToole, Jr: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying 88 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 90 Motion for Order; denying 93 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 97 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 98 Motion for Order; denying 100 Motion to Vacate (Lyness, Paul) Office: Boston Case Flags: CLOSED NOS: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities – Employment Cause: 42:1218(2) Americans with Disabilities Act

App. 88

09/12/2011

101

App. 89 Selection Criteria for Report Case Number Office Case Type Case Flags Nature of Suit Cause Filed Date Sort by 1:10-cv-11343 Boston cv All All All 8/2/2010-9/14/2011 Case Number

Sponsor Documents


Recommended

No recommend documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close