CASE SUMMARY PRIOR TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 57) BY, BARBARA MORSE, THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY

FOR THE US DISTRICT COURT OF

MASSACHUSETTS. COURT STAFF COLLUSION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL OF JACKSON LEWIS (Guy Tully, Brian Childs and Patrick Egan). Defenses’ Oppositions
(Documents 55 & 56) are not included herein. COMMENTS FOLLOWED BY … SEE EXPANSION ON COMMENT BY NUMBERED ITEM BELOW.

Doc. Comment [LJM1]: ENJOIN BARBARAA MORSE

Dates Description PSSA AND ANY OTHER PSSA FROM THIS ACTION—
No. SEE MOTION Document 51
51 Filed & Entered: 01/19/2011 Motion for Injunctive Relief Comment [LJM2]: DISQUALIFY DEFENSE
COUNSEL-FRAUD, COLLUSION, MERITLESS DEFENSE
52 Filed & Entered: 01/19/2011 Motion to Disqualify Counsel and the course of this action does constitute
53 Filed: 01/19/2011 Order on Motion to Strike harassment as well as violation of TITLE 18, U.S.C.,
SECTION 241. SEE MOTION Document 52
Entered: 01/20/2011
Comment [LJM3]: INVALID Document Created:
50 Filed & Entered: 01/03/2011 Redacted Document by MORSE 1/20/2011 @ 11:41:26 am file date
49 Filed & Entered: 12/31/2010 Response to Motion manipulated

48 Filed & Entered: 12/27/2010 Motion to Expedite Comment [LJM4]: THIS MOTION HAS BEEN
IGNORED: PLAINTIFF MADE THIS REQUEST PRIOR
47 Filed & Entered: 12/13/2010 Opposition to Motion TO MORSE’S LATEST INAPPROPRIATE MANEUVER.
46 Filed & Entered: 11/29/2010 Motion for Sanctions PLAINTIFF REQUESTED NOTICE FOR A SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE AND A PHONE CONFERENCE WITH
Terminated: 01/19/2011 JUDGE O’TOOLE.
45 Filed & Entered: 11/15/2010 Memorandum in Support of Motion Comment [LJM5]: This motion NO. 46 is not
43 Filed & Entered: 11/11/2010 Motion for Default Judgment terminated it has never been addressed by a
Magistrate or US District Court Judge—Addresses
Terminated: 01/19/2011 fraud, meritless defense, and baseless motions
44 Filed & Entered: 11/11/2010 Opposition to Motion unsupported by authority or rule.

41 Filed & Entered: 11/09/2010 Opposition to Motion

Comment [LJM6]: This motion NO. 43 is not
42 Filed & Entered: 11/09/2010 Opposition to Motion terminated it has never been addressed by a
34 Filed & Entered: 11/05/2010 Amended Answer to Complaint Magistrate or US District Court Judge ...
35 Filed & Entered: 11/05/2010 Opposition to Motion Comment [LJM7]: Plaintiff’s opposition NO.42
has never been addressed by a Magistrate or US ...
36 Filed & Entered: 11/05/2010 Opposition to Motion
Comment [LJM8]: Plaintiff’s opposition NO.41
37 Filed & Entered: 11/05/2010 Motion to Strike has never been addressed by a Magistrate or US ...
Terminated: 01/19/2011 Comment [LJM9]: Defense attempted to
38 Filed & Entered: 11/05/2010 Memorandum in Support of Motion conceal an adverse authority in a foot note by ...
39 Filed & Entered: 11/05/2010 Motion to Strike Comment [LJM10]: Defense writes in a foot
note “this motion addendum is of no moment----it...
Terminated: 01/19/2011
Comment [LJM11]: Defense attempted to re-
40 Filed & Entered: 11/05/2010 Memorandum in Support of Motion write rule 15 with authority that correctly states ...
32 Filed & Entered: 11/04/2010 Addendum to Motion/Memorandum Comment [LJM12]: Morse also ordered this
33 Filed & Entered: 11/04/2010 Addendum to Motion/Memorandum stricken from the record; this contains strong case ...
31 Filed & Entered: 10/31/2010 Addendum to Motion/Memorandum Comment [LJM13]: Morse also ordered this
stricken from the record; this contains strong case ...
27 Filed & Entered: 10/25/2010 Motion to Disqualify Counsel
Terminated: 01/19/2011 Comment [LJM14]: This motion NO. 27 is not
terminated it has never been addressed by a ...
CASE SUMMARY PRIOR TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 57) BY, BARBARA MORSE, THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE US DISTRICT COURT OF
MASSACHUSETTS. COURT STAFF COLLUSION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL OF JACKSON LEWIS (Guy Tully, Brian Childs and Patrick Egan). Defenses’ Oppositions
(Documents 55 & 56) are not included herein. COMMENTS FOLLOWED BY … SEE EXPANSION ON COMMENT BY NUMBERED ITEM BELOW.

Comment [LJM15]: This motion NO. 28 is not

28 Filed & Entered: 10/25/2010 Motion to Strike terminated it has never been addressed by a
Terminated: 01/19/2011 Magistrate or US District Court Judge
29 Filed & Entered: 10/25/2010 Answer to Complaint
30 Filed & Entered: 10/25/2010 Amended Document Comment [LJM16]: This NO. 29 is Plaintiff’s
Response to the Defendants’ Answer to the
26 Filed & Entered: 10/06/2010 Notice (Other) Complaint—It is supported by RULE 9 with
pleadings of particularity to address fraud and is an
23 Filed & Entered: 10/05/2010 Summons Returned Executed Attachment to Motions 27 & 28 supported by: 562
24 Filed & Entered: 10/05/2010 Summons Returned Executed F.3d 784; 2009 U.S. App. 58 LEXIS 6072; 186
L.R.R.M. 2019 *“The Federal Rules themselves
25 Filed & Entered: 10/05/2010 Summons Returned Executed instruct us to construe and administer their
21 Filed & Entered: 10/04/2010 Answer to Complaint provisions to do substantial justice and to secure
the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of
22 Filed & Entered: 10/04/2010 Corporate Disclosure Statement every action.”+ Fed.R.Civ.P. 1, 8(e). Rules 7(a) and
19 Filed & Entered: 09/24/2010 Amended Document (b) do not limit the methods by which a pleading
may be filed. See, e.g., Hamm v. DeKalb County,
20 Filed: 09/24/2010 Order on Motion to Intervene 774 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir.1985) (affirming
Entered: 09/26/2010 district court ruling recognizing an answer and
response attached to a motion for leave to file
17 Filed & Entered: 09/20/2010 Motion to Intervene defensive pleadings); In re World Access, Inc., 301
Terminated: 09/24/2010 B.R. 217, 220 n. 1 (N.D.Ill.2003) (recognizing an ...

18 Filed & Entered: 09/20/2010 Exhibit Comment [LJM17]: This amendment adding
Count X is the only amendment made to the
16 Filed & Entered: 09/16/2010 Summons Returned Executed complaint after service of process to any and all
15 Filed & Entered: 09/13/2010 Notice (Other) Defendants. A Plaintiff may amend the complaint
“as a matter of course” within 21 days after serving
...
14 Filed & Entered: 09/10/2010 Summons Reissued
Comment [LJM18]: Contains only unsupported
13 Filed: 09/07/2010 Amended Document denials and false statements. The Plaintiff’s 47
Entered: 09/10/2010 exhibits that support here allegations and available
to defense in hard copy form and through the ECF
10 Filed & Entered: 09/02/2010 Amended Document system were ignored
11 Filed & Entered: 09/02/2010 Amended Document Comment [LJM19]: Document Created: by
MORSE 9/26/2010 @ 1:59:15 PM on a Sunday file
12 Filed & Entered: 09/02/2010 Amended Document date manipulated—Injunctive relief requested-
9 Filed: 08/18/2010 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis Morse has no authority to respond to this motion
Entered: 08/19/2010 Comment [LJM20]: This motion is not
8 Filed & Entered: 08/12/2010 Notice (Other) terminated it has never been addressed by a
Magistrate or US District Court Judge.
5 Filed: 08/11/2010 Notice of Change of Address or Firm Name
Comment [LJM21]: Important exhibits were
Entered: 08/12/2010 “Lost” per Morse “I copied them myself”
6 Filed: 08/11/2010 Amended Document Comment [LJM22]:
Entered: 08/12/2010 Document Created: by MORSE 8/19/2010 @
4:34:12 PM file date manipulated. Plaintiff spoke
7 Filed: 08/11/2010 Amended Document with Paul Lyness on 8/19/2010 @ 3:21 PM; Lyness
reported to Plaintiff that there was no action as of ...
CASE SUMMARY PRIOR TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 57) BY, BARBARA MORSE, THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE US DISTRICT COURT OF
MASSACHUSETTS. COURT STAFF COLLUSION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL OF JACKSON LEWIS (Guy Tully, Brian Childs and Patrick Egan). Defenses’ Oppositions
(Documents 55 & 56) are not included herein. COMMENTS FOLLOWED BY … SEE EXPANSION ON COMMENT BY NUMBERED ITEM BELOW.

Entered: 08/12/2010
1 Filed: 08/02/2010 Complaint
Entered: 08/10/2010
2 Filed: 08/02/2010 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
Entered: 08/10/2010
Terminated: 08/18/2010
3 Filed: 08/02/2010 Motion to Appoint Counsel
Entered: 08/10/2010
Terminated: 08/18/2010
4 Filed: 08/02/2010 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
Entered: 08/10/2010
Terminated: 08/18/2010

Barbara Morse Pro Se Staff Attorney (PSSA4) has inappropriately signed off memorandums and orders without fully informing Judge O'Toole the facts of this case. She has
exhibited significant behaviors that indicate she is in collusion with the defense and has purposefully neglected or unlawfully made rulings on this case that are void of law, rule,
and facts. She has deprived this Plaintiff of her Constitutional Rights, increased time and cost of litigation, and she has actively oppressed and intimidated this disabled Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has presented credible evidence in her complaint and subsequent documents to the Court indicating Title 18 violations by the Defendants, Defense attorneys and now
Barbara Morse. Morse's diligent efforts to avoid documentation of these allegations in her unauthorized memorandums and orders along with her very diligent efforts in keeping
this case from the view of Judge is a strong indicator that she is trying to conceal this information. … indicates see complete comment [LJM#] below

6. This motion NO. 43 is not terminated it has never been addressed by a Magistrate or US District Court Judge. THIS INCLUDES A SECOND
REQUEST TO DISQUALIFY OPPOSING COUNSEL----NOW ADDRESSED AS AN EMERGENCY related to FRAUD UPON THE COURT.

7. Plaintiff’s opposition NO.42 has never been addressed by a Magistrate or US District Court Judge.

8. Plaintiff’s opposition NO.41 has never been addressed by a Magistrate or US District Court Judge.
CASE SUMMARY PRIOR TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 57) BY, BARBARA MORSE, THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE US DISTRICT COURT OF
MASSACHUSETTS. COURT STAFF COLLUSION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL OF JACKSON LEWIS (Guy Tully, Brian Childs and Patrick Egan). Defenses’ Oppositions
(Documents 55 & 56) are not included herein. COMMENTS FOLLOWED BY … SEE EXPANSION ON COMMENT BY NUMBERED ITEM BELOW.

9. Defense attempted to conceal an adverse authority in a foot note by misspelling the party and incorrectly documenting the Lexis number. They
also submitted Documents 35-40 as scanned PDF's to make searching erroneous case law, purportedly in support of their position, more difficult.
On December 3rd they had the scanned PDF's removed from the ECF system and replaced them with word processed PDF's. There are no 8C
supported defenses and not one affirmative defense stands.

10. Instead of arguing Circuit 7 Appeals Court authority Defense wrote in a foot note “this motion addendum is of no moment----it offers no legal
basis whatever to support the Response—and should by no means affect the striking of Plaintiff’s Response”. Defense were under the impression
Plaintiff was unaware the authority was from appeals court. This authority thwarting foot note was addressed to the addendum of the first Motion
to disqualify counsel (Document 27); it supports attaching Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Answer to the Complaint (Document 29) as a
pleading to the Motion. Pleadings that further address fraud.

11. Defense attempted to re-write rule 15 with authority that correctly states rule 15 before and after the 2009 amendment. “…from the time she
41 filed her complaint until the twenty-second day after defendants filed their answer” per defense. Per rule "may amend the complaint “as a
matter of course” within 21 days after serving it, or “21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule
12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).

12. Morse also ordered this stricken from the record; this contains strong case law that supports Document 29 and attaches Document 29 to
Motions (Document 27 and 28).

13. Morse also ordered this stricken from the record; this contains strong case law that supports striking all of defenses’ affirmative defenses.
Plaintiff does use the Doctrine of Clean Hands in support of striking defenses based on the deceptive, fraudulent, and patently dishonest behavior
of the defendants; an allegation that is supported by public record validating false statements made in state agencies of two state including the
SOC and also a federal agency (see paragraph 186 of Document 29) during an investigative process. More important this addendum addresses the
meritless defense presented; multiple authorities support all defenses should be stricken. They have no affirmative defense based on Ellerth, 118
S. Ct. at 2270 ("[n]o affirmative defense is available . . . when the supervisor's harassment culminates in a tangible employment action . . .");
Faragher, 118 S. Ct. at 2293 (same). See also Durham, 166 F.3d at 154 ("When harassment becomes adverse employment action, the employer
loses the affirmative defense, even if it might have been available before."). Also see notation under defense document 36 regarding Kaufmann v.
Prudential Insurance Company of America an authority from this court regarding affirmative defenses that defense attempted to conceal.
CASE SUMMARY PRIOR TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 57) BY, BARBARA MORSE, THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE US DISTRICT COURT OF
MASSACHUSETTS. COURT STAFF COLLUSION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL OF JACKSON LEWIS (Guy Tully, Brian Childs and Patrick Egan). Defenses’ Oppositions
(Documents 55 & 56) are not included herein. COMMENTS FOLLOWED BY … SEE EXPANSION ON COMMENT BY NUMBERED ITEM BELOW.

16. This NO. 29 is Plaintiff’s Response to the Defendants’ Answer to the Complaint—It is supported by RULE 9 with pleadings of particularity to
address fraud and is an Attachment to Motions 27 & 28 supported by: 562 F.3d 784; 2009 U.S. App. 58 LEXIS 6072; 186 L.R.R.M. 2019 *“The
Federal Rules themselves instruct us to construe and administer their provisions to do substantial justice and to secure the “just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every action.”+ Fed.R.Civ.P. 1, 8(e). Rules 7(a) and (b) do not limit the methods by which a pleading may be filed.
See, e.g., Hamm v. DeKalb County, 774 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir.1985) (affirming district court ruling recognizing an answer and response attached
to a motion for leave to file defensive pleadings); In re World Access, Inc., 301 B.R. 217, 220 n. 1 (N.D.Ill.2003) (recognizing an amended complaint
attached to a motion for leave to file an amended complaint instanter);  Andersen v. Roszkowski, 681 F.Supp. 1284, 1287-88 (N.D.Ill.1988) (same).

17. This amendment adding Count X is the only amendment made to the complaint after service of process to any and all Defendants. A Plaintiff
may amend the complaint “as a matter of course” within 21 days after serving it, or “21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days
after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). The Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Document
30) is in full compliance with Rule 15. The 2009 amendment to Rule 15 provides a "fixed, predictable, and reasonably short period" for
amendments as a matter of right [3 James Wm. Moore, Moore's Fed. Practice § 15.12[3] (3d ed. 2009)] [matter of course -n.- an event or result
that is natural or inevitable+. Plaintiff does not require opposing Counsel’s consent to assert her right.

18. Contains only unsupported denials and false statements. The Plaintiff’s 47 exhibits that support here allegations were available to defense and
ignored. Defense received the hard copy form with the Complaint and all exhibits were entered into the ECF system in accord with rules of
evidence. Defense refused to make an appearance; they did not sign onto the ECF System until less than two hours before the answer was due.

22. Document Created: by MORSE 8/19/2010 @ 4:34:12 PM file date manipulated. Plaintiff spoke with Paul Lyness on 8/19/2010 @ 3:21 PM;
Lyness reported to Plaintiff that there was no action as of yet on the case. He asked Plaintiff if she had Motions? The complaint was 41 pages with
47 exhibits and pled with particularity.
CASE SUMMARY PRIOR TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 57) BY, BARBARA MORSE, THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE US DISTRICT COURT OF
MASSACHUSETTS. COURT STAFF COLLUSION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL OF JACKSON LEWIS (Guy Tully, Brian Childs and Patrick Egan). Defenses’ Oppositions
(Documents 55 & 56) are not included herein. COMMENTS FOLLOWED BY … SEE EXPANSION ON COMMENT BY NUMBERED ITEM BELOW.

Docket Activity Report

United States District Court -- District of Massachusetts

Report Filed Period: 8/2/2010 - 1/28/2011

Entered: 10/25/2010 Category: answer L. McGarry

17:44:27 Event: Answer to Complaint Type: pty
Filed: 10/25/2010 Document: 29
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' 21 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand Answer to Answer by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit mikita license A, # 2 Exhibit mikita license B, # 3 Exhibit mikita license c, # 4 Exhibit health records notice to submit to eeoc)(McGarry,
Laura) Modified on 12/3/2010 to create a link to the answer(Danieli, Chris).

Clerk entered case randomly on Friday, December 3, 2010, and stated modifications were made. No action was taken by the clerk and his stated modifications
were not required. November 5th Defense Counsel entered scanned PDF’s into the ECF system to thwart authority search and conceal adverse authority. On
December 31, 2010 Plaintiff found these PDF’s had changed to word processed PDF’s. Plaintiff had Motion for sanctions against defense on December 27, 2010.
Plaintiff again Moved to disqualify defense counsel. (Document 52)

Entered: 11/05/2010 Category: respoth L. McGarry

03:05:39 Event: Amended Answer to Complaint Type: pty
Filed: 11/05/2010 Document: 34
Addendum to 29 Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' 21 ANSWER to Complaint (Document # 21) 1 Complaint Correction to Paragraph 186 sub
paragraph #2-line #4 by Laura J. McGarry. (McGarry, Laura) Modified on 12/3/2010 making the filing event an Addendum to the Plaintiff's
Response to the Defendants' Answer (Danieli, Chris).
CASE SUMMARY PRIOR TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 57) BY, BARBARA MORSE, THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE US DISTRICT COURT OF
MASSACHUSETTS. COURT STAFF COLLUSION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL OF JACKSON LEWIS (Guy Tully, Brian Childs and Patrick Egan). Defenses’ Oppositions
(Documents 55 & 56) are not included herein. COMMENTS FOLLOWED BY … SEE EXPANSION ON COMMENT BY NUMBERED ITEM BELOW.

Defendants document to PDF to ECF time line

Time received in my email Time PDF created

35-- Fri, November 5, 2010 2:58:23 PM-----2:33:39 PM---4 pages--opposition Color represents timeline document received and time of document
creation
4:72:20 minutes then entered 36

36-- Fri, November 5, 2010 3:05:45 PM-----2:35:13 PM---4 pages—

4:02:00 minutes then entered 37

1 ---39
37-- November 5, 2010 3:09:47 PM-----2:32:01 PM---2 pages--motion
2---40
1:46:00 minutes then entered 38
3 ---37
38-- Fri, November 5, 2010 3:11:11 PM-----2:32:50 PM---3 pages—
memorandum 4 --38

3:98:00 minutes then entered 39 5---35

39-- Fri, November 5, 2010 3:15:09 PM-----2:25:33 PM---2 pages--motion 6 ---36

17:14:00 minutes then entered 40 Scanning 4 pages takes time!!

40-- November 5, 2010 3:32:23 PM-----2:31:03 PM---4 pages--memorandum

11:64:06 minutes to form the PDF’s

23:10:00 minutes of time passed from forming last PDF and beginning entry into ECF system

31:32:20 minutes to enter documents into the ECF

Total task 1 hour 6 minutes and 8 seconds

CASE SUMMARY PRIOR TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 57) BY, BARBARA MORSE, THE PRO SE STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE US
DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. COURT STAFF COLLUSION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL OF JACKSON LEWIS (Guy Tully, Brian Childs and
Patrick Egan). Defenses’ Oppositions (Documents 55 & 56) are not included herein. COMMENTS FOLLOWED BY … SEE EXPANSION ON
COMMENT BY NUMBERED ITEM BELOW.

The Clerk shall provide this order and a form for designating the parties' consent or refusal to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction to counsel, or to
a party appearing pro se, upon the filing of a new civil action. It will be the responsibility of that pro se litigant to serve this notice along with the
summons and complaint. That person will also be responsible for obtaining the other parties' decisions concerning proceeding before the
Magistrate Judge and for filing the document as soon as practicable, but in all cases within thirty days after service on the last party. Until the
Court receives for filing either consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial
assignment of a civil case to the Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. section 636(b) for all pretrial non-
dispositive matters other than the Rule 169b0 scheduling conference.

Having no knowledge of the court’s procedure regarding consent or refusal to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction, Plaintiff did not execute
and complete a mandatory general order because the clerk (PSSA, 4), Barbara Morse, did not send Plaintiff the order or form see Docket
8/19/2010.