UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

ATTACHMENT 58

_______________________________
Plaintiff, )
) MOTION CONTEMPT-PSSA & Defense Counsel
) REQUESTING REMOVAL OF
v. ) DOCKET NO. 20, 53, and 57
) CASE MANAGEMENT BY ARTICLE III JUDGE
) DECLARATION THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO
) LEGITIMATE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
GERIATRIC FACILITIES ) PROCEDURE SINCE THE FILING OF THIS CASE
Of CAPE COD INC., et al ) CIVIL ACTION
_______________________________) NO. 10 CA 11343 GAO

See attached exhibits

Laura J. McGarry, the Plaintiff in this action, filed her valid, well supported Complaint

{Document 1) on August 2, 2010 as a pro se litigant and received approval to file In Forma

Pauperis. Plaintiff’s income is SSDI. Plaintiff is asserting her constitutional rights with a request

to the court for an order that Documents 20, 53, & 57 be removed from the docket; Plaintiff

also request that the notice of “terminated” on the Docket for DOCUMENTS 17, 27, 28, 43, 46,

48, 51, and 52 be removed. The pleadings, motions, addendums and oppositions of this action

have not been ruled on by an Article III Judge or a Magistrate Judge; essentially this case has

not legally progressed passed being filed and Defendants served. This case is out of control; see

exhibit 1 to this document for a consolidated look at the reality of the situation.

Barbara Morse, PSSA has had charge over this action. 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 (10-1) because Barbara Morse, did not send

Plaintiff the order or form see Docket 8/19/2010. Barbara Morse has intentionally kept this
action from the oversight of a Judge. Please read Plaintiff’s Motion (Document 51) REQUEST

THAT BARBARA MORSE BE ENJOINED FROM DUTY ON THIS ACTION incorporated by reference

herein. Barbara Morse has filed a memorandum and order (Document 57) that she wrote and

signed off with a US District Court Judge’s name addressing the Motion (Document 51) to

enjoin her from this action. The bizarre content of that document speaks for itself; Morse is

attempting to further deprive this Plaintiff of her Constitutional Rights and access to the court;

emails to the clerk and Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice of Scheduling Conference (Document 48

incorporated by reference herein) were ignored as the scheduling order due date of January 11,

2011 approached and passed. Morse is most certainly does not want any part of this case or

her actions as documented to be viewed by a U S District Court Judge.

Memorandum and Order (Document 53) was written by Barbara Morse PSSA after she saw

the Motion to enjoin her from any involvement in this action (Document 51). The fraudulent

orders Barbara Morse wrote signing off by typing the /s/ of a U S District Court Judge is beyond

egregious. Defense Counsel has submitted an unsupported meritless defense and followed with

baseless motions with erroneous authorities, purportedly in support of their position. See

DISQUALIFY DEFENSE COUNSEL THIRD REQUEST (Document 52) incorporated by

reference herein. Morse is in collusion with the defense; Morse’s inappropriate actions and

bizarre memorandums that are void of fact and law with unwarranted threats of sanctions against

Plaintiff and a case that has had no legitimate court action since filed six months ago validates

this allegation. Morse’s last two filings with the court (Document 53 & 57) have essentially

took what Plaintiff has been saying regarding Defendants’ meritless defense and baseless

unsupported motions submitted to the court by the Defendants’ Counsel and projected this

egregious behavior by the defense onto the Plaintiff with absolutely nothing to support her
statements in said documents. Her (Document 53 & 57) are patently dishonest regarding what

Plaintiff has presented to this court. The fact that for the past six months Plaintiff has had to stay

on top of fraud by the defense, write multiple documents to combat said fraud to only now be

threatened with unwarranted sanctions and dismissal of the case, a case that has had no

legitimate court action since filed is harassment and abuse of this disabled litigant. This is the

same treatment Plaintiff received from the EEOC when they finally took action. Morse’s actions

have deprived this litigant of her Constitutional right to access to the courts and she has been in

concert with the Defendants and their Counsel in further depriving this Plaintiff of her First and

Fourteenth amendment rights. There has been significant active oppression of this Plaintiff ever

since she met the Defendants and now they have resorted to intimidation. Plaintiff is a stroke

victim and her having to continually make submissions to the court to combat fraudulent and

deceptive documents by the defense is extremely burdensome and exhausting. This case should

have been decided on the merits with the answer from defense after they presented a meritless

defense and ignored 47 exhibits that were submitted with a 41 page complaint; Defendants have

carried the fraud that they presented to the EEOC to the Court. There was a Title 18 Sec 1001

violation and a high probability of inappropriate money exchange which is why great effort has

been made to keep this action from the view of a judge (see paragraph 186 of document 29)

Plaintiff wrote a Response to Defenses’ Answer to the Complaint that continued with rule 9

pleadings of particularity to demonstrate the fraud. Plaintiff’s exhibits have been presented in a

form that meet rules of evidence and support all factual statements and allegations.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff, Laura J. McGarry, respectfully request that the Court:
(1) Immediately put this action before Judge O’Toole including the Motion from September 20,
2010 (Document 17 and 18) excluding now moot factors on service of process. The defendants
were served (Document 17 and 18) with attachments to (Document 26). The motion was
initially ex parte because Defense purposefully declined making an appearance until they
entered their fraudulent answer and meritless defense (Document 21) and could not be served
through the ECF.

(2) Enjoin Barbara Morse or any other PSSA from any participation in or access to this action
including communication with the Defense.

(3) relief as requested in Documents 1, 17, 18, 27, 28, 29, 30, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48, 51,and 52
(All documents Plaintiff has filed with this Court thus far are hereby incorporated herein)

(4) other relief as the Court deems appropriate and just.

Denied constitutional rights in corrupt MA federal court http://goo.gl/gzOeA &
http://goo.gl/8nxV8 & http://goo.gl/TCBXY

See the above documents which show what has actually been going on!!!!!!!!!

The memorandum and order above is not written by the judge. You will just have to trust this
assessment; no sharing of the secret just yet. Judge Sorokin is known to be quite a fair judge
and he would have looked at all the related documentation and assessed the facts first. The
PSSA wrote the memorandum and order for a motion of contempt where she was named in
contempt just as she wrote orders to a motion of injunctive relief of which she was who the
Plaintiff had requested relief. Previous to this order is one where she impersonates a judge
denying all Plaintiff’s motions including an emergency motion to disqualify counsel that had
been standing since October 25, 2010 and ordered Plaintiff’s documents well supported by law
stricken from the record.

The defense had submitted scanned files and hid adverse authority in foot notes misspelled
names and changed lexis numbers so Plaintiff would have difficulty researching. They were
called on this by Plaintiff with a second emergency motion to disqualify on November 11---that
had still not been ruled on. Then on December third after Plaintiff had just motioned for
sanctions because of a defense that has zero merit, baseless motions with erroneous case law,
an attempt to rewrite the rules of federal civil procedure to strike an amendment that adds
another count, and several actions that constitute fraud upon the court the files were switched
in the electronic filing system.

The “undersigned” who is signing judge’s names with their electronic signature denied all of
Plaintiff’s motions.

The scheduling conference, now scheduled with the above order, came with 13 days notice in
which the mandatory conferencing with the defense must occur no later than 21 days before
the conference date. The order written by the judge impersonator denied Plaintiff’s motion for
a notice of scheduling conference on January 28 that was written December 24th with emails to
the Judge’s clerk prior to the motion reminding him that the mandatory scheduling order was
soon due—Due January 11---no response until the order just previous where all was denied but
the conference. Plaintiff had moved for a notice of conference and orders for the mandatory
requirements because it was already too late to meet these requirements. Now the scheduling
order itself is vacant outside of date, time and place and the basic pre printed order that state
the rules which must be followed unless otherwise ordered. The order says [The clerk shall
make the necessary arrangements for this conference.] Those arrangements are on docketing
text which Plaintiff is not allowed to reference. Let’s just say they have arranged a bogus
scheduling conference in which Plaintiff will be found noncompliant with, only God knows
what, and they will dismiss her case. Oh yes the scheduled conference is 35 days past the
mandatory date for a scheduling order by federal rules. A real judge might have looked at this
mess a little closer. The scheduling conference is by phone and they will call Plaintiff---Chances
of an actual judge being on their end is quite remote or they will say they called and were
unable to reach Plaintiff. ONLY IN AMERICA!!!
Oh yes just so your aware most litigants have this conference scheduled as soon as the
Defendants are served with greater than one month notice.
Plaintiff is also quite sure that Judge Sorokin is a fair and impartial Judge and certainly would
not have minded him looking at the merits of this case from the beginning which is how this
should have gone. The court neglected to send those papers to consent of a Magistrate and
Plaintiff clearly states in the above motion that she has been denied her constitutional right to
be heard before an Article lll Judge and subjected to pretense litigation and wanted her rights
restored. This clearly does not spell MAGISTRATE.

Finally Plaintiff does not have a phone or a car!!!