Dear Chief Judge Wolf,

I, xxxxnamexxxx, a disabled individual forced to proceed as a Pro Se In Forma Pauperis

litigant by the alleged actions of the Defendants in this action before the U S District Court of

Massachusetts am being denied equal access to the court in violation of my first and fourteenth

constitutional rights. This grievance to you involves substantive due process deprivation and

also a procedural due process deprivation. I had no idea that self-representation under the

provisions of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, § 1654 would actually be an act in futility with

subsequent denial of having my day in court. Meaningful and effective right of access to the

court means more than being permitted to file papers with the clerk.

It seems I have the enormous challenge of getting my observations and evidence to an

actual judge regarding FRAUD UPON THE COURT in the U S District Court of Massachusetts that

involves collusion by the defense of this action and court staff themselves. This grievance

includes strong evidence of files being switched in the ECF system by a docket clerk. I have

attempted communication with you on the ECF compromise matter through the general court

email on or about December 16th & 17th, US Mail that was sent to you by a Massachusetts

resident, and with a call to your Deputy Clerk on 1/20/2011. Outside of the ECF being shut

down two Saturdays in January “for repair” I have no indicators that you are actually getting my

communications as all communication is intercepted by the clerks of the court and there is no

process established to ensure the citizens of these United States can actually get their valid

concerns to the Chief Judge. Interception of documents by the clerks and pro se staff attorney

that are entered into the ECF system of which this letter will, also, be entered has my action

filed on August 2, 2010 as of 1/19/2011 showing entries into the electronic system 52 times
1
none of which have been seen by a Senate appointed US District Judge or Magistrate Judge for

that matter.

The pro se staff attorney, Barbara Morse, is blocking this action from a judge and is in

violation of multiple Title 18 criminal federal offensives herself by keeping the complaint and

subsequent filings by this Pro Se In Forma Pauperis litigant from a Senate confirmed U S Judge.

Barbara Morse took it upon herself to further block judicial assessment of this action

writing a memorandum and order yesterday (Document 53) after she saw my Documents 51

and 52 entered on 1/19/2010 requesting that she be enjoined from any duty associated with

this action and my third motion to disqualify counsel due to their continued fraud with strong

evidence of compromise to the ECF system. She is not only inept in her service to the public

she is inept in her attempt to carry the appearance that the document she entered was by an

actual judge. The criterion established in law that determines RICCO violations is becoming

quite evident. Document 53 has Jackson Lewis’ usual intentional misinterpretation of law and is

written with the style of the attorney Guy Tully; his assistance to Morse in forming this latest

fraudulent document cannot be ruled out.

Certainly your known diligence in the promotion of ferreting out and taking to prosecution

those involved in white collar crime and corruption in government will have your attention to

the strong evidence of improprieties and collusion I am addressing to you in this letter. The

Jackson Lewis law firm and Defendants have federal crime violations addressed in this litigants

complaint with substantial evidence to back said violations not one of which have been

addressed by the claimed undersigned on opinions for this action that Morse fraudulently signs

with a judges signature and enters into the ECF system. Should this not be promptly resolved
2
and my case put before The Honorable Judge O’Toole I will have to carry an array of actions

that will be an insult to the judicial economy and insult to well known fair and Honorable Judges

of the U S District Court of Massachusetts.

I will have to bring action against Barbara Morse, as an officer of the Court, pursuant to

Title 28 U.S. Code § 1331, in claims arising from violations of federal constitutional rights

guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution and redressable pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Narcotics Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971) in her individual capacity and under the FTCA in her

professional capacity as certainly Title 18 violations and fraud qualify as acts that would not be

tolerated by law of anyone in the general public.

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she

is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir.

1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial

machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false

statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or

influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus

where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."

"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace

that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated

by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its

impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d

689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a

3
decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never

becomes final."

I will also have to disqualify the Honorable Judge O'Toole because as the undersigned of

bizarre opinions that are so devoid of law and rule as well as fact it would appear that he has

some obvious impartiality. U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an

objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a

judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial

hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct.

1147, 1162 (1994). Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is

not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition

Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice

but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is

directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.")

("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from

actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the

judicial process."). Sadly I will then have to start the same process over and over until I reach a

Judge who is aware of the pro se staff attorney's activity and intolerant of its resulting denial of

access to justice for the pro se litigant. I will reach to higher courts as needed. All the time this

unethical law firm will continue profit.

I may even have to file for judicial misconduct against you and Judge O'Toole without your

knowledge of any circumstance that brought suit until served with papers as the court staff

continue to block my communications. Perhaps upon service of the complaint of such a suit my
4
complaint will finally get read and acted on in a fair impartial judicial manner in accord with law

and fact.

This certainly looks like an enormous amount of work coming my way in the future of

which I lack skill and takes me many hours and days to complete because of my related

disabilities. I will also be pursuing criminal charges through federal resources here in

Washington under Title 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy against rights as I can no longer physically

and emotionally tolerate the oppression I have been subjected to that initiated as a conspiracy

in the employment environment carried to a federal agency and now to the courts.

Below I have copied and pasted excerpts of the general content of my last two motions that

deal with the improprieties if not all out federal crime within the court. The extent, alone, of

how Jackson Lewis and Morse are trying to thwart my action from the eyes of a judge should be

adequate in having these improprieties looked at more closely by the appropriate process of

the court and / or authorities. My 8/19/2011 motions (Documents 51 & 52) were followed by

a memorandum and order 8/20/2011 from the court striking all of my previous motions and

documents subsequent to the complaint; I then received an email from opposing counsel

threatening me with sanctions if I did not withdraw my last two Motions which alert Judge

O’Toole to this situation (hopefully with action on your part he will actually see 51 & 52).

Supporting exhibits have been entered in the ECF -the case is 1:10-cv-11343.

Judge O’Toole is not going to send someone to prison for five years for fraud one day and

ignore what I have documented regarding fraud with well documented evidence the next. The

former would make no sense. He is clearly not seeing the documents from my action or writing

opinion and orders therefore no terminations placed on the docket and dated 1/19/2011(a
5
manipulated filing date) are terminated. The fraud of this action is extensive and required

pleadings of particularity therefore there are lengthy documents.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. (I hope) Judge O’Toole requires your

alerting him to this action and the improprieties I have described herein. I have become sadly

aware that any grievance of actions by court staff goes through court staff and the chances of

you reading this letter are also remote so I have sent a copy to Senator Brown, the DOJ, and

several news media sources and posted on multiple message boards on the WEB.

1. Plaintiff’s Motions to disqualify opposing counsel have been ignored by the court; as of

January 19, 2011, the word emergency appears on the docket no less than ten times

regarding the motions to disqualify defense counsel. It appears the court’s front line staff

before and after Defense’s latest fraud maneuver have ensured a blockade so that a U. S.

District Judge does not see the action this Plaintiff has brought before the U S District

Court. Well aware of highly probable criminal federal charges and sanctions should the

merits of this action go before a U S district Judge, Defendants and their Counsel

continue their efforts to defraud.

2. A PSSA writing an opinion and court order and then fraudulently signing a U S district

Judge’s name to the denied motion that requested injunctive relief led Plaintiff to

believe that the decision was that of a U S District Judge. An injunctive relief denial by a

Magistrate Judge has provisions in the law that notice to the litigant of the procedures

set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) be written in the denial which include the right to have

the Motion reviewed by the US District Judge; the fraudulent signature of a U S District

6
 Court Judge with Morse’s subsequent patently false statement denying the same,

without question, is a purposeful denial of access to the court for this Pro Se In Forma

Pauperis Litigant. Morse had clear direction that she could have sought an order of

reference and put the motion before Magistrate Judge Sorokin which she chose not to

do. See docket 8/10/2010 and notice of case assignment.

3. Morse is defrauding this disabled pro se litigant. Plaintiff perceives Morse’s actions as

discriminatory and they bear a strong indication that Morse believes that a disabled

litigant with a poor economic status determine the litigant to also be intellectually

challenged. See Burgdorf & Burgdorf, A History of Unequal Treatment: The

Qualifications of Handicapped Persons as a "Suspect Class" Under the Equal Protection

Clause, 15 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 855 (1975) (handicapped persons merit special judicial

attention within the equal protection clause).

4. On 8/19/2010 Plaintiff first emailed at 2:22:28 PM (Exhibit 2) and after no immediate

response at 3:21 PM placed a Skype 07:55 minute call to Paul Lyness. He politely stated

that he had received the email and proceeded to address Plaintiff’s inquiry as to the

status of the case that Plaintiff filed on 8/2/2010 which the docket shows as entered on

8/10/2010. He was doing an apparent computer inquiry and with a puzzled tone asked,

“Did you have motions?” Plaintiff replied, “Yes” and he told her there was no action to

report on the case. Plaintiff asked him if he knew when action would occur and he

stated, “No.” Plaintiff assumed her complaint was still awaiting this Judicial Review she

had read about on the Court web site because of her request to precede without fee.

7
5. Plaintiff now reviews the initiating order and finds (Document 9) of this action was

created in a file 8/19/2010 at 4:34:12 PM the author was Morse; File: Document

9_09513855826 was Titled; [Q:\Morse\2010 cases\10cv11343-GAO

(xxxxnamexxxx)\10cv11343 Order granting IFP deny counsel allow electronic filing issue

sum] with the signature /s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr. The orders of [document 9] consist of

four sentences. The font used in this document was CourierNewPSMT. Plaintiff’s

Complaint (Document 1) was 41 pages with 47 exhibits because it was necessary to be

particular regarding the conspiracy, collusion and fraud Plaintiff has alleged in this

action. Plaintiff was not aware of Rule 9 at the time. Plaintiff asserts that

communication from Lyness to Morse occurred and then Morse wrote the order after

no evaluation of the Complaint beyond a brief glance where she determined the

complaint to be comprehendible and then addressed the motions; Morse manipulated

the filing to show 8/18/2010.

6. Plaintiff made an email inquiry to the Clerk on August 27th in regards to her application

to proceed without prepayment of fees which service of process instructions from the

court required be forwarded to the US Marshal with the complaint and summonses

(Exhibit 2). Plaintiff also informed the clerk in this email that she needed a copy of an

exhibit submitted to the court that was a nursing license printed from the nursing board

Web site with the Web site now showing a different license status and town than the

one submitted to the Court. Plaintiff received her court order, courtesy copy complaint

and summonses on August 25th and was preparing the copies of the exhibits for the

Defendants when she sent this email to the clerk.

the exhibits; the nursing license exhibit was not included. Having received no response

to the August 27th email, Plaintiff emailed (Exhibit 2) the clerk again on August 31st; still

with no response Plaintiff place a Skype call to the clerk. The clerk informed Plaintiff that

he had forwarded her emails on to the appropriate person but offered no information

as to who this person was or how Plaintiff could make contact. Plaintiff then received via

U S Mail correspondence from Barbara Morse (Dated August 31, 2010 received

September 7, 2010) (Exhibit 3). The docket indicates summonses, courtesy complaint

and exhibit documents were mailed from the court on August 19th; the envelopes are

post marked August 23, 2010.

8. On 09/27/2010 Plaintiff placed a Skype call to Barbara Morse, PSSA-4 which lasted a

little over 21 minutes. The first statement by Morse was, “How did you get my name?”

Plaintiff informed Morse from the letter she had sent Plaintiff on 8/31/2010. During this

call, Plaintiff directly asked Morse if she wrote the memorandum and order (document

20) to her Motion (Documents 17 and 19 incorporated herein) Morse replied, “No.”

Plaintiff then directly asked Morse if an actual Judge had read her complaint; Morse

replied, “Yes.” Plaintiff’s faith in the court led her to believe that any judge would have

had wide eyes and further interest after reading the improprieties with supporting

exhibits described in her complaint which led Plaintiff to believe that Morse was being

much less than honest.

9. Plaintiff was mortified by the memorandum in (Document 20) that stated this Plaintiff

*“has not shown that she is likely to prevail on the merits of this action”+ Plaintiff
9
 suffered an anxiety attack after Morse denied writing the document and affirmed that a

judge had read her complaint because well established law indicated a new realm of

deception was now coming Plaintiff’s way.

10. Plaintiff received (Document 20) memorandum and order thru the ECF system on

Sunday September 26, 2010 at 2:01:07 PM (Plaintiff’s computer is set for EST) denying a

Motion. The properties of the PDF indicate the document was created on Sunday

9/26/2010 1:59:15 PM and that the author was Morse; Document 20_09513909805 was

[Titled: Q:\Morse\2010 cases\10cv11343-GAO (xxxxnamexxx)\10cv11343 Order denying

emergency motion.wpd.] with the signature /s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr. The font used in

this document was CourierNewPSMT.

11. Plaintiff has reviewed multiple documents known to be written by Judge O’Toole and

the font he uses most is Times New Roman; no documents of his have been noted by

Plaintiff to use CourierNewPSMT. Judge O’Toole does not enter Titles or Author in the

properties of the PDF files he creates and submits into the ECF system. The docket was

manipulated to indicate (document 20) was filed on 9/24/2010 and, as stated was

entered on 9/26/2010.

12. Not only was the Title 18 violation by the Defendants documented in the motion by the

Plaintiff not addressed in the memorandum, the language of the memorandum

completely avoided the fact that a qualified individual was not even granted an

interview after being subjected to a hostile work environment and stated that Plaintiff

was hired as a part-time nursing unit manager which is incorrect; Plaintiff asserts that

10
 she has strong faith that a Judge would, at minimum, in an employment litigation cite

the position the Plaintiff held while working for the employer correctly in his or her

memorandum and order which leads Plaintiff to further assert that Barbara Morse has

never bothered to read Plaintiff’s complaint (Document 1). Whenever any officer of the

court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon

the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985).

13. Plaintiff has since researched multiple opinions of Judge O’Toole’s and noted that the

general script of the memorandum (Document 20) bears no resemblance to his literary

style and is missing the usual notation with his name before the body of his text

(O’TOOLE, D.J.). The ECF system does not allow Plaintiff to download documents from

the Court; the one free look has allowed only for printing and / or copying the

documents. Plaintiff began to utilize the PACER System to look at documents because of

obvious fraud by opposing counsel and indicators of serious improprieties by the court

staff have now led Plaintiff to do an analysis of (Documents 9 & 20). Plaintiff’s new role

as “Lounge Chair Laura -- Amateur Investigative Agent” undertaken to stay on top of the

Defendants’ fraud schemes has revealed that Plaintiff, a victim of crimes and

misdemeanors beyond disability discrimination and retaliation, is also being denied

justice and equal access to the court.

14. Plaintiff’s court orders (Document 9) initiating this action included an order stating *“The

Motion for Appointment of Counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal after the

defendants have replied to the complaint.”+ and was signed by Judge O’Toole. *“This

11
 Plan does not apply to the appointment of counsel for litigants who assert employment-

related claims against current or former employers.”+ GENERAL ORDER 09-4 Dated May

1, 2009 is signed by Judge O’Toole. Plaintiff, based on the former, is quite sure that

Morse is writing and fraudulently signing a US District Judge’s name to the opinions and

orders in this action and the complaint Plaintiff has brought before the U S District Court

of Massachusetts has not been read by a judge as Morse denied and affirmed

respectively when questioned.

15. During the 9/27/2010 Skype conversation, Morse tells Plaintiff “I copied them myself”

when Plaintiff brought up the missing hard copy exhibits ( which turned out to be two

very important exhibits in addition to the nursing license previously discussed)(see

Document 11) as though Morse being the handler of these documents was suppose to

offer Plaintiff security and confidence. The memorandum of (Document 20) states

Plaintiff *“expresses concern that certain documents appear to be missing from the

exhibits that were filed along with her complaint. However, the docket reveals that she

subsequently re-filed her exhibits.”+. The documents missing were crucial in showing

the fraud before the EEOC and suspiciously included the last page of the Defendants’

fraudulent Position Statement that had Patrick Egan’s of Jackson Lewis signature and

attachment 1 of the position statement (generic employment application) which

defense falsely claimed supported their position. The nursing license was crucial to the

discrimination, retaliation and count IV RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF MGL 149 Sec.187

(Document 11 incorporated herein). Plaintiff expressed to Morse that she should be

12
 concerned that exhibits disappeared from the U S District Court; a vague mention that

she would follow up ended the subject.

16. Plaintiff, also, noted an attempt to thwart service of process to the Defendants by

Barbara Morse. On September 3, 2010 Plaintiff sent a request (Document 13) to the

court for an amended summons by express mail (the initial summons for Geriatric

Facilities had no address for the Defendant) and required notation of the correct human

being (Zuckerman) to serve (Plaintiff had the initial summons set to serve Patrick Egan

which she discovered to be improper ); Plaintiff had already sent the Complaints and

summonses to the U S Marshal in Boston before she realized the summons for the

Defendant Corporation was not suitable for proper service. ECF access had not been

initiated as of the date of this request.

17. Seven days passed and Plaintiff had heard nothing from the Court; her access to the ECF

system became active on or about September 7th. On Friday September 10, 2010 at

8:39 AM Plaintiff placed a 09:38 minute long Skype call to the Docket Clerk to inquire as

to why such a slow processing of the amended summons was occurring. During this

inquiry, the Docket clerk stated that he would process the summon the next week;

Plaintiff reminded the Docket Clerk of Rule 4(a)(2)(b) and that the amended summons

was also required because the court had sent her the initial summons without an

address for the Defendant Corporation and not just Plaintiff’s error and voiced concern

regarding her perception of unnecessary delay. Plaintiff was put on hold and assumes

this was so the Docket Clerk could report to Morse that Plaintiff had just stated her

knowledge of the rule to him. Plaintiff had also sent the court a completed USM-285
13
 (single sheet computer downloaded form) to use with the amended summons hoping to

avoid further delay and cost but court staff would not transfer the information to the

five duplicate form and process the summons for delivery to the U S Marshal. Plaintiff

now lives in Washington State.

18. The summons finally arrived through the ECF system on the afternoon of the 10th but

Plaintiff did not receive the summons copy and new USM-285 sent thru the U S Mail

until September 13th. Plaintiff paid on the 3rd of September for U S Mail express delivery

to request an amended summons from the court and then again on the 14th to get the

amended summons and completed USM-285 form back to the U S Marshal. When all

actions to amend the summons were independently expedited by the Plaintiff there was

no need for Morse to call the US Marshall.

19. The motion (Documents 17 and 19) had also requested that service of process be

expedited due to evidence the Defendants may be evading service. Memorandum and

Order (Document 20) stated *“A deputy clerk of this court contacted the Boston Office

of the United States Marshals Service”+ so Plaintiff questioned Morse during the

9/27/2010 Skype conversation as to why a clerk had called the U S Marshal. Morse

admitted making the call and then denied memory of when she placed the call (tripping

over her words as she denied memory) but stated the context of the conversation was

to ensure that Plaintiff sent the amended summons to the US Marshal; Morse’s

statement regarding the context of that conversation made no sense considering the

effort Plaintiff had to take to get the amended summons in the first place as she tried to

expeditiously, in spite of the courts inaction, to get the amended summons back to the
14
 Boston US Marshall where they kindly, per the Plaintiff’s Skype call request clarified by

e-mail, had placed the Complaint service on hold until they received an amended

summons (Exhibit 4).

20. Plaintiff’s communications with the US Marshal after Morse had contacted them were

strained where previously all communication had been extremely helpful and friendly.

21. Plaintiff emailed the US Marshal September 14 and alerted them that the summons

would be arriving via express mail (attachment 5). Plaintiff called the US Marshal from

her daughter’s home phone on September 30, 2010 to check the status of service and

was told by the US Marshal that she did not know when they would get to serving the

Defendants, that she didn’t have the staff to go to the Cape, and she admonished

Plaintiff for putting the service on hold to only now call and question the service

progress stating and that they had court ordered priorities; the U S Marshal spoke with

an extremely irritated tone.

22. Plaintiff was baffled how this very friendly pre-arrangement was now perceived to be an

inconvenience by the same only now irritated U S Marshal. Plaintiff knew that her

summons was also a court ordered summons so she called the Docket Clerk and

informed him of the strained conversation she just had with the U S Marshall and that it

was Plaintiff’s impression that there had been interference by Morse and relayed that

there had been absolutely no legitimate reason for Morse to call the U S Marshall in

regards to the summons; Plaintiff informed the Docket Clerk that her perception was

inappropriate interference by Morse. The summonses were then served the following

Monday on October 4, 2010.

writes, and then take action that strongly appears to advocate for the Defendants; this

is unethical and appears to have strong indicators of collusion with the defense

considering Plaintiff’s September 20, 2010 Motion (Document 17 and addendum

Document 18) included a request to expedite service because there was evidence that

Defendants may attempt to evade service of process that Morse down played in her

memorandum.

24. The fraud scheme was initiated before the EEOC. An unquestionable Title 18 section

1001 violation has been documented in Plaintiff’s submissions to the court throughout

this action including within Plaintiff’s first motion (Document 17 and Document 19

incorporated herein). There is unquestionable evidence of collusion and a highly

probable inappropriate exchange of money between Patrick Egan of Jackson Lewis and

the EEOC [paragraph 186 of Document 29 incorporated herein excerpt (Exhibit 7)].

25. Morse’s position with the Boston Bar Association Ethics Committee, contributions to

literature that describes task force efforts to improve access to justice for

unrepresented litigants (Exhibit 7), and less than honest communications to those she

serves (as public servant you serve – you do not “deal with”) are of great concern to this

unrepresented litigant.

26. Plaintiff is a dedicated nurse whose high standard of work ethic had always been

acknowledged by not only supervisors and colleagues but by those whom she served.

Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Pro Se Litigant’s status was caused by the defendants and

now this Plaintiff is “Dealt With” by our public servants with intentional deception,
16
 dishonesty, and neglect of her action; her economic status forced her to request

qualification for a service provided by the court that originated as a service for the

incarcerated prisoner and grew to include all pro se paupers which has further elicited

Plaintiff’s feelings of shame and humiliation. The court site on the Web indicates that In

Forma Pauperis Pro Se complaints are subject to Judiciary Review which had provided

Plaintiff some solace regarding pauper status assuming her complaint would receive an

initial evaluation by a judge. Morse is not an honest public servant and she has been

entrusted with preliminary review of pro se complaints. Regardless of the court staff’s

individual feelings regarding the Pro Se litigant which apparently ranges from “Pro Se

Litigants have Mental Problems” to “Concern Pro Se Litigants are having their rights

violated” it is illegal to stomp on the rights of someone with a grievance and deny access

to the Court according to the United States Constitution First Amendment and the last

place constitutional rights should be trampled is in a United States District Court by the

court staff themselves.

27. Plaintiff’s observation presents a strong appearance that there is significant collusion

between the EEOC and the attorneys of Jackson Lewis which is then carried to collusion

between Jackson Lewis attorneys and the pro se staff attorney of this court. There

appears to be a scheme where the employment litigation attorney and government

employee profit (pay off or not –receiving a salary and benefits while having to do no

work is profit), Defendants, well aware they are guilty of discrimination as charged, pay

high priced attorney fees, and Plaintiffs that have suffered discrimination and retaliation

for the exercise of constitutional rights at the hands an employer are denied justice.
17
 Plaintiff makes the former statement on the fact that a meritless defense has been

allowed to delay justice as the players (by the evidence presented) whom profit seem to

believe that they have the game down to an art that will elude detection.

28. This case now has four motions and two oppositions by the Plaintiff addressing

documents from opposing counsel that contain fraud, a meritless defense, erroneous

argument and attempts to prolong the litigation; all this could have been avoided if

Document number 1 “The Complaint” had actually been read and legitimately

evaluated. Plaintiff also has a Motion requesting a notice of scheduling conference

(Document 48 incorporated herein) noting at minimum a telephone conference with

Judge O’Toole is needed to report facts that require the attention of a U S District Judge;

this motion has also been ignored. Not one of Plaintiff’s submissions to the court that

require the opinion of and orders by only a U S District Judge has been presented to

Judge O’Toole.

29. Barbara Morse has become complicit in concealing the alleged Title 18 sec. 1001

violation committed by the Defendants and their attorney by ignoring what the Plaintiff

wrote in her motion of (Document 17) where it was clearly stated *“Not only does the

Movant’s Complaint address a federal question and violations of Movant's

Constitutional Rights which by law should keep any Bankruptcy proceedings in the

District Court but the Complaint articulates strong allegations of violation of other

Federal Laws; by this Movant’s limited knowledge of the law, Title 18 section 1001, at

minimum, has been violated and the violation as it stands demonstrates a cavalier

display of disrespect for the law with little fear of facing consequences by these
18
 Defendants; they submitted blatantly false statements, false documentation and

concealed records during the EEOC’s investigation. Certainly any known to be

competent Attorney is more than well aware of the content contained in attachments

placed to support a position. See the Exhibit to the Complaint showing the fraudulent

Position Statement submitted by the Defendants to the EEOC (Exhibits 45-47); its

associated attachments are in Document 11 of this action.”+

30. The Title 18 violation of which Plaintiff has presented to the Court with pleadings of

particularity to address the fraud with associated exhibits in hard copy form and entered

into the ECF system, in form complying with rules of evidence, have been submitted to

address the conspiracy count IX , collusion and fraud by these Defendants before the

EEOC in attempt to relay the information to the judge in compliance with 18 U.S.C. 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”)

of which Morse in dereliction of her duty declined to do.

31. Morse ignored the violation and signed a federal judge’s name to a memorandum and

order; she not reporting the allegations and associated evidence of this violation to a

judge is not only a dereliction of duty but an actual commission of a felony cognizable by

a court of the United States in its self. This Title 18 violation has been documented in

the complaint, the motion Morse fraudulently decided and multiple subsequent

documents submitted to the court by Plaintiff. Plaintiff understands the PSSA has duty
19
 to research authorities and draft documents; this duty does not include authority to

fraudulently sign a judge’s name after an incompetent evaluation of the litigant’s

submissions to the court whether intentional, as perceived by this Plaintiff, or not and

leave absent an evaluation of her drafts by a U S District judge.

32. Considering the number of times (much more than a few) this Plaintiff has called

Barbara Morse’s office phone which is answered by voice mail reporting that she is out

of the office for the day or left early in the day delegating the call if immediate

assistance is needed to her colleagues which is more often than not (Plaintiff has only

spoken with her once) she must consider her work load light enough to cut back on her

hours. Plaintiff had assumed the PSSA with the responsibilities charged had to meet the

challenge of time and work volume and admonished Defense for making authority

search more of a time consuming task with scanned documents; apparently the

daunting task of researching Defenses authorities purposefully made more daunting

with scanned documents was intended only for Plaintiff as the scanned documents

have been switched with word processed documents in the ECF System (Motion 52 to

follow will address the former) had court staff assistance.

33. There is something sinister going on. Barbara Morse is an ineffective public servant and

uses her position as the PSSA to purposely thwart the Plaintiff’s action, ensure no

judicial presence and has exhibited actions and behaviors that have the appearance of

collusion with the Defense which have denied this Plaintiff of her First Amendment

Right to bring and have her very legitimate grievance heard before the court. Plaintiff

prays that in the advent Barbara Morse or one she loves requires the care and
20
 monitoring of a nurse that a nurse who holds the highest respect for the integrity of the

profession and possesses the diligence to ensure skilled care from heart and hand be at

the bedside; Plaintiff would want nothing less for any patient experiencing a health

crisis.

34. There are Documents submitted to the Court by Plaintiff that clearly request Judicial

Notice and Judicial Review that have not been presented before a judge including two

motions to disqualify opposing counsel with evidence of fraud upon the court

presenting as the first motion to disqualify sat undecided; still no action has been taken.

The second motion to disqualify counsel was an emergency request and included a

request for default judgment which has been ignored; the fraud upon the court

continued with a file exchange in the ECF system as the second emergency motion to

disqualify counsel sat undecided. See the Next motion (Document 52) regarding files

switched in the ECF system which will be filed shortly. The intentional mismanagement

of this case has now caused a U S District Judge the daunting task of 52 pick up! Plaintiff

also made a request for a speedy trial per MGL 151 B section 9 and this request has also

been ignored. Plaintiff prays that a US District Court Judge is actually reading this

document and finds what has been reported here beyond unacceptable and a

significant barrier to justice that should not be happening in a U S District Court.

35. Plaintiff would have preferred verbal discussion with Judge O’Toole regarding what has

been presented in this motion but she was never given the opportunity; therefore, to

protect her right to raise these improprieties should this action move to a higher court

documentation herein of said improprieties is necessary and this document has been
21
 entered into the ECF system. Even if Plaintiff could get to the post office the chances of

a mailed ex parte motion making to a judge seem remote.

36. The PSSA program, in this citizen’s opinion, fails its stated objectives (see exhibit 6 on

task force). Plaintiff expected ethical and professional behavior from the staff of a U. S.

District Court and is sorely disappointed by what she has described herein and finds the

clerks’ of the court behavior particularly egregious considering their knowledge of law

and unquestionable duty to respect and thru example uphold the integrity of the court.

37. Plaintiff writes with hope that her candor toward the court raises alarm for those with

authority to make change and prays a justice system that is not ethically challenged

follows; Plaintiff’s children and all future generations should not be deprived of justice

for all. In Plaintiff’s mind the deserving of respect and honor toward the court had

never before fallen to question; at present, while sadly fearing for America, Plaintiff

barely perceives any integrity within our justice system as a dark cloud hovers where

those who have not are denied justice and those who have pay for its illusion.

38. The law firm of Jackson Lewis’ clear conflict of interest is ensuring continued profit and

avoidance of criminal prosecution. Not only have they presented a meritless defense to

ensure continued reimbursement for their legal work from the Defendants they have

taken egregious steps to defraud the court.

39. Plaintiff believes the Rules of Evidence 408 regarding offers to compromise will allow

disclosure of the fact that on July 19, 2010 Plaintiff sent Defendants and Patrick Egan of

Jackson Lewis a letter to compromise. Plaintiff closed this letter to Defendants and Egan

with *“A current situation has me out of state and I have no personal phone number at
22
 this time.”+ Egan returned correspondence to the address of Plaintiff’s daughter denying

that the Defendants had discriminated and stated that Plaintiff resigned her position at

Pleasant Bay because she moved back to Washington (exhibit 1).

40. Egan, hoping Plaintiff would pursue litigation, in a return correspondence informed

Plaintiff that the Defendants had declined settlement negotiations and denied

discrimination adding that Plaintiff had resigned her position to relocate to Washington

(Plaintiff’s last day of work for the Defendants was September 30, 2008). Egan had no

indications from Plaintiff she had moved to or intended to stay in Washington and his

language in the correspondence was purposeful and specific with intent to irritate

Plaintiff ensuring she would pursue litigation.

41. Plaintiff did not relocate to the State of Washington until late June 2010. Egan mailed

the Defendants’ EEOC Position Statement to her address in Hyannis in July of 2009

which was received by the Plaintiff who then submitted her response to Defenses’

position in person at the Boston EEOC five days later. Egan returned a phone call to

Plaintiff’s home in Dedham during (Plaintiff believes) the third week in March of 2010;

the caller ID on Plaintiff’s phone indicated an incoming call from Florida which Plaintiff

verified with reverse look up. Egan’s call had come from a hotel in Florida. Quite

obviously Egan had to dial a Massachusetts area code to place the call and was fully

aware that Plaintiff had not moved out of Massachusetts. Plaintiff’s correspondence

regarding the letter to compromise was sent from Washington State,

42. Plaintiff filed her Complaint and Jackson Lewis attorneys then pursued a meritless

defense for their clients with deliberate planned fraud upon the court.
23
43. The scanned PDF’s submitted to the court’s ECF system by opposing counsel Guy Tully of

Jackson Lewis as noted in Plaintiff’s (Documents 41, 42, 43 & 45 incorporated herein)

were part of a purposeful scheme to thwart, both, the Plaintiff’s and the court’s

research of Defendants’ cited authorities including an adverse authority that had been

concealed in a foot note. The November 5th scanned PDF documents were noted on

December 31st by Plaintiff to be changed in the PACER system to word processed PDF’s.

The docket clerk entered Plaintiff’s case through the ECF system on Friday, December 3,

2010, and added text indicating a modification to link documents on entries submitted

by Plaintiff on 10/25/2010 and 11/5/2010; all documents had already been clearly

linked by Plaintiff when she entered her documents on the given dates. [Modified on

12/3/2010 to create a link to the answer (clerk’s name)+ and *Modified on 12/3/2010

making the filing event an Addendum to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendants'

Answer (clerk’s name)+ respectively to the stated dates (Exhibit 2); no action beyond the

typing of the text indicating a modification to create links was taken by the clerk.

(Exhibit 2)

44. Plaintiff had motioned for sanctions (Document 46 incorporated herein) on Nov. 29 th

which was the Monday just prior to December 3rd. Plaintiff finds it quite peculiar that

the Docket Clerk randomly entered her case through the ECF system on December 3 rd to

enter text indicating he linked documents and took no action; Plaintiff’s documents

submitted into the ECF on 11/4/2010 are addendums (Documents 32 and 33

incorporated herein) to the Motion to Disqualify Defense Counsel (Document 27

incorporated herein) and to the Motion to Strike Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses

addendums explain that Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Answer to the Complaint

(Document 29 and all pleading specific exhibits incorporated herein) should be attached

to both of the former stated motions. Plaintiff was unsuccessful in establishing

hyperlinks in the ECF system showing Documents 1, 21, 27, 28, and 29 as linked and for

the most part had only typed text indicating their linkage with no hyperlink established

between (Document 29) and the addendums.

45. Why didn’t the Docket Clerk establish a hyperlink between (Document 29) and the

addendums (Documents 32 and 33)? Defendants strongly objected to Plaintiff’s

Response to Defendants’ Answer to the Complaint (Document 29) which describes fraud

with particularity and have moved to strike the document with an opposition

(Document 38). Footnote 1 of Defense (Document 38) in reference to Plaintiff’s

addendum (Document 32) states *“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”+ in attempt to thwart authority that supports (Document

29) which was copied and pasted by Plaintiff as Nos. 06-3936, 07-1650, 07-3427. - BAUER

MECHANICAL INC v. JOINT into the addendum; after reading the Defense’s footnote Plaintiff

rechecked the authority which on a different Web page was cited as 562 F.3d 784; 2009 U.S.

App. 58 LEXIS 6072; 186 L.R.R.M. 2019; Plaintiff noted the authority correctly in her

opposition (Document 41). Defense appears to prefer a lazy authority thwarting footnote

over professional argument knowing that Plaintiff cited the authority in the addendum

without indicating that the authority was established in The UNITED STATES COURT OF

25
 APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. Defense halted any further LR 7.1 conference

communication after Plaintiff communicated this authority as support for her (document

29) in an email as Nos. 06-3936, 07-1650, 07-3427. - BAUER MECHANICAL INC v. JOINT to

their previous threat of a motion to strike and Defense just went straight ahead and

motioned to strike (document 29). Again, it is quite interesting that the Docket Clerk took

no action to establish document linkage that was actually needed yet documented

action taken that was not taken or needed.

46. The attachment to (Document 36) which was a scanned duplicate of Document 35 was

part of the ruse. Why would someone scan a document that is already on their

computer in word processed form; Defense would like the court to believe that this

document that was just previously entered as a word processed PDF required scanning

and stamped with copy to place it as an attachment for the very next document

entered??? There is no logic in Tully’s maneuver beyond deception and manipulation.

The attachment to Document 36 appears doubled scanned to give a hint of lower

quality. Other US district courts have stipulated [for example New Hampshire 2.3

Format and Quality Control] Attachments/Non-Trial Exhibits must also be filed in an

electronically converted PDF text searchable format. Unless the Filing User possesses

only a paper copy of the document to be submitted, in which case a scanned PDF that is

not text searchable may be submitted. [http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/pdf/DCNH-ECF-

Procedural-Order.pdf]. It took the defense counsel 55 minutes to enter six documents

into the ECF system. (Excluding time to create PDF’s because conversion to PDF may

have been done as the word process documents were completed). (Exhibit 3)
26
47. How this attorney of the firm Jackson Lewis thought engaging the court staff to switch

the scanned files he submitted into the ECF system to word processed files would go

undetected is beyond belief; the irony is that the maneuver was not going to solve

evidence of his attempt to defraud the court. His hyperlinks in the word processed files

are to erroneous authority that do not support the Defendants’ position, his attempt to

conceal instead of argue adverse authority remains obvious placed in a foot note

misspelled with a changed Lexis number and no hyperlink to the authority; Tully’s

facade of delusion that argument can change federal rule (see Plaintiff’s opposition

Document 42) are evident whether the PDF’s were scanned to thwart search or word

processed to enable search. Tully simply changed only one part of the initial scheme

while validating his and Jackson Lewis’ intent to continue the promotion of their client’s

meritless already fraudulent defense and prolong the litigation process.

48. Defense’s next fraudulent move is just around the corner. Tully has no fear of detection

or consequence knowing there is a slim chance (the files were switched in the advent the

slim chance prevails) that any of the action brought before the court by a Pro Se In Forma

Pauperis Plaintiff will ever pass before the eyes of a U S District Judge or Magistrate

Judge for that matter. See Motion REQUEST THAT BARBARA MORSE BE ENJOINED

FROM DUTY ON THIS ACTION (Document 51).

It is quite bizarre that this Document 53 written by Morse would address the concerns
Plaintiff documented in the MOTION 52 yet not address Motion 51 or 52. Once late in the
document she uses the term “pending motions” in an apparent reference to documents 51 &
52 after she addressed my mention of the ECF system compromise. A comment I made at the
start of document 45 regarding how I thought a wonderful system like the ECF that gave an
Ex Parte option should trigger hold to automatic emails to other parties as well and little
concern in actuality regarding that it did not turn out to be ex parte as Tully dug a deeper
27
 hole for himself with his opposition. She conveniently does not mention files exchanged in
the ECF or her documents fraudulently signed with a Judge’s name”----[The Court notes that
xxxxnamexxxx has contacted the Chief Judge of this Court as well as clerk’s office staff
regarding several concerns, the primary one being her belief that the Electronic Case Filing
(“ECF”) system has been compromised.] to clarify my primary concern is her unethical and
illegal behavior and my denial of access to the court.

Thank you for your time, respectfully,

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

Document 53----Click on the body of the document and then right click your mouse!!!!

Title: Q:\Morse\2010 cases\10cv11343-GAO (xxxxnamexxx)\10cv11343 Order denying pending motions

Author: Morse

File: 09514091786

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

DOCKET

Entered: Category: order 4.

28
29