US DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

PROMOTES HUMAN AND

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATOR

MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEO T. SOROKIN TO

CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CORRUPT JUDGE DENIED A DISABLED LITIGANT ACCESS TO THE COURT

SOROKIN PROTECTED CORRUPT STAFF WHO FILED FALSE DOCUMENTS AND

REPRESENTED THE DOCUMENTS TO BE TRUE AND VALID DOCUMENTS OF THE

COURT AND ASSISTED THE CORRUPT DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN SWITCHING FILES IN

THE ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM

SOROKIN ALLOWED CORRUPT CIVIL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TO CONTINUE WITH A

FALSE APPEARANCE AND PRETENSE LITIGATION AND COVERED THEIR MULTIPLE

ACTS OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AND FRAUD UPON THE COURT

WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR LEGITIMATE CAUSE SOROKIN RECOMMENDED THAT

THE DISABLED PLAINTIFF BE FOUND IN CONTEMPT

SOROKIN FALSIFIED RECORDS WITH A US DISTRICT JUDGE'S NAME ADOPTING HIS

RECOMMENDATION FOR CONTEMPT AND FRAUDULENTLY DISMISSED THE

PLAINTIFF'S ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

WHEN CONFRONTED WITH AN AFFIDAVIT THAT PROVED THE DISMISSAL

DOCUMENT WAS NOT BY THE US DISTRICT JUDGE SOROKIN ATTEMPTED A

COVER-UP BY WRITING AN OPINION AND ORDERS ALLOWING A CONVICTED

CRIMINAL A NEW TRIAL, SIGNED A US DISTRICT JUDGE'S NAME AND SCANNED

THE DOCUMENT ON THE SAME COMPUTER THAT SCANNED THE FRAUDULENT

DOCUMENT THAT DISMISSED THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE

THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE CONVICTED CRIMINAL IS ONE MINUTE

WALKING DISTANCE FROM THE CORRUPT CIVIL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS’ OFFICE;

THE CRIMINAL CASE HAD BEEN STAGNANT SINCE MAY 2010. EXTRA EFFORT WAS

TAKEN TO MAKE THE SCANNED DOCUMENT APPEAR AS THOUGH IT WAS

DRAFTED BY THE US DISTRICT JUDGE AND IT WAS SET WITH PUBLISHER

INFORMATION. THE SCANNED JUDICIAL OPINION SET WITH PUBLISHER

INFORMATION HAS THE LAST PAGE OF THE OPINION 33 FOLLOWED BY THE

PUBLISHER INFORMATION PAGE 41 WITH THE PUBLISHER INFORMATION.

WHEN AN AFFIDAVIT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THAT PROVED SOROKIN

WROTE THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT IN AN ATTEMPT TO COVER-UP THE

FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE DISMISSAL WAS FRAUDULENT AND NOT

DRAFTED BY THE US DISTRICT JUDGE ANOTHER STAGNANT CASE ROSE TO THE

TOP OF THE DOCKET; AN ASSISTANT US ATTORNEY UNDER ALLEGATIONS OF

SIGNIFICANT MISCONDUCT WAS QUIETLY EXONERATED BY A THREE JUDGE

PANEL. THE DOCUMENT SIGNED BY THREE US DISTRICT JUDGES WHICH

REQUIRED SCANNING BECAUSE OF THE HAND SIGNATURES WAS SCANNED ON

THE SAME COMPUTER THAT SCANNED THE FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT THAT

DISMISSED THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE AND THE OPINION THAT ALLOWED THE

CONVICTED CONVICT A NEW TRIAL. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE SCANNED BY

CORRUPT MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEO T. SOROKIN’S JUDICIAL ASSISTANT BUT

ENTERED ON THE DOCKET BY THE US DISTRICT JUDGE’S CORRUPT DOCKET CLERK.

THE CIRCUIT EXECUTIVE OFFICE COVERED SOROKIN FINDING NO MISCONDUCT BY

MISREPRESENTING THE CASE RECORD, MISREPRESENTING THE DOCKET,

IGNORING MISCONDUCT BY THE CIVIL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND IGNORING

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY THAT SHOWED UNQUESTIONABLE USURPATION; IT

APPEARS THE CHIEF JUDGE’S SIGNATURE WAS FORGED.

THE US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT STOLE THE PLAINTIFF'S FILING

FEE WHEN SHE FILED AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT AND BLOCKED THE WRIT FROM

THE JUDGES; THE CIRCUIT EXECUTIVE OFFICE IGNORED EVIDENCE THAT THE WRIT

WAS BLOCKED.

ON APPEAL THE US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT THEN IGNORED

THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF THE WRIT AND THE APPEAL

WITH JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE CASE RECORD AND TO NOW HEAR THE WRIT

UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CRIMES VICTIMS ACT AND DISMISSED THE

PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL; THEY CONTINUED TO BLOCK THE CASE FROM A JUDGE.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE US COURTS IS CORRUPT

THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL THEN IGNORED THE PROVISION OF THE

LEGISLATIVE ACT THAT GUIDES ASSESSMENT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AND THE

RULES THAT GOVERN THE SAME. EVIDENCE OF FRAUDULENT ORDERS

REGARDING THE MISCONDUCT WAS IGNORED.

THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL IS NOW AIDING AND ABETTING THE CRIMINAL

ACTIONS BY THE CIRCUIT EXECUTIVE OFFICE AND DENIED THE PLAINTIFF’S

PETITION REQUESTING THE MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT GO BEFORE THE JUDICIAL

CONFERENCE; THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL WAS PROVIDED SOLID

EVIDENCE THAT NO LEGITIMATE REVIEW OF THE JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT BY THE

CHIEF JUDGE OR THE JUDICIAL PANEL OCCURRED WITH BOTH MISCONDUCT

ORDERS SHOWING THE USURPATION BY STATING IN THE ORDERS THEMSELVES

THAT THERE WERE ORDERS BY THE MAGISTRATE. A MAGISTRATE HAS NO

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO WRITE ORDERS UNLESS CONSENT JURISDICTION OF

THE MAGISTRATE WAS GIVEN BY THE PARTIES.

ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS 2. Effect and Construction

(b) Exception. A Rule will not apply if, when performing duties authorized by the Act, a chief judge, a special committee, a judicial council, the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, or the Judicial Conference of the United States expressly finds that exceptional circumstances render application of that Rule in a particular proceeding manifestly unjust or contrary to the purposes of the Act or these Rules.

REMEMBER FOLKS YOU PAY THESE

CORRUPT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Office General Counsel Aiding & Abetting violation fed criminal law<-corrupt Circuit Executive Office

http://www.scribd.com/tired_of_corruption/d/79609023-Administrative-Office-of-US-Courts-CORRUPT-

No-Matter-the-Evidence-There-is-No-Such-Thing-as-Judicial-Misconduct

THE BEST COURTS MONEY CAN BUY. Corrupt Jackson Lewis Attorneys block WRIT http://scr.bi/zC29QR

See objection to REPORT & RECOMMENDATION http://goo.gl/o9XMz

Magistrate without statutory authority rules on contempt--fraud OK with court http://goo.gl/moluM

Dishonest Service fraud w/obstruction of justice-US District Court of MA-law & Constitution mean

nothing!! Names Named http://t.co/WEefP8i

Cover-Up Corruption & Violation Constitutional Rights US District Court of MA-Magistrate drafts & scans http://www.scribd.com/doc/64299428/Cover-Up-of-Corruption-and-Violation-of-Constitutional-Rights-in-the-US-District-Court-of-Massachusetts-With-Published-Opinion-Drafted-by-and-Submitte

"Crimes and Coverups Massachusetts Federal Court System an..." on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/68086679 Extraordinary Writ (Mandamus) DENIED WITHOUT AN OPINION 1ST Circuit ignores law it established! …

http://scr.bi/rkT4QT

Is the Chief Judge of the First Circuit, Incompetent, A Criminal or Has Her Signature Been Forged

http://goo.gl/ybhC3

Fraud Upon the US District Court Of Massachusetts http://goo.gl/qJXiD

Request to Congress for Investigation & Impeachment of MA Federal Judges including Chief Judge Wolf & Chief Judge Lynch http://www.scribd.com/doc/68924379

Ivy Racket in US District Court MA conspiracy to Deprive Rights through Simulated Litigation

http://t.co/fzzHglA

Dr. Zernik Files with the US Congress for Impeachment of Judge O’Toole and Clerk of Court Thornton, US

District Court, Massachusetts http://t.co/UUq1h1o

Excerpts first forged order on judicial misconduct

To Gary H. Wente, Circuit Executive, I, Laura J. McGarry, hereby petition the judicial council for review of the evidence, established law, and legislative authority that without question determines Judicial Misconduct by Magistrate Judge Sorokin and the Honorable Judge George A. O’Toole. The “ORDER” I received on May 18, 2011 regarding the complaints Nos. 01-11-90007 and 01-11-90007 with the undersigned as the Honorable Chief Judge Sandra Lynch is deficient. The case at hand is a civil

Action No. 1:10-cv-11343-GAO, captioned as Laura J. McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc., et al, In the United States District Court of Massachusetts. The deficient order of May 18, 2011 regarding this Plaintiff’s complaint of Judicial Misconduct has reached a conclusion that is not only contrary to the evidence but ignores established law, legislative authority, the model rules of professional conduct, and the fact that the Magistrate Judge has ignored blatant fraud upon the court by the Defense Counsel along with the inappropriate usurpation of the case by the pro se staff attorney. Judge O’Toole’s name as the undersigned on any document is not by his approval or knowledge. The “ORDER” took liberty to address the allegations that this Plaintiff has made in regards to the Pro Se Staff Attorney, Barbara Morse; therefore, Barbara Morse’s inappropriate and illegal conduct regarding her actions during this litigation are now officially a part of this complaint and all text regarding the actions of Barbara Morse was also deficient in the “ORDER” undersigned by the Honorable Chief Judge Sandra Lynch. This Plaintiff finds the signature on the “ORDER” to have some questionable markers that indicate the possibility that it is in fact a forgery. On June 20, 2011 Plaintiff was “DENIED” a Petition of Mandamus No. 11-1668 heard in the First District Court of Appeals and she finds that the Honorable Chief Sandra Lynch taking position on the panel for this ruling inappropriate since she supposedly wrote the “ORDER” for the judicial misconduct complaint discussed herein. The total text of the Extraordinary Writ contains a consolidated view of all the evidence and law that was presented to Florence Pagano during the processing of this misconduct complaint including the context of the initial complaint and the context of multiple subsequent emails in which the filings on record of the “RULINGS”, submissions by the Plaintiff and by the defense were directly provided as well as multiple exhibits (the index provided in the Writ will be helpful to you over going through the multiple emails I sent to Ms. Pagano but I will provide you copies of any and emails upon request). Direct evidence of fraud by the Defense counsel was shown to Florence Pagano including swapping PDF files that had been submitted into the ECF system as scanned with word processed PDF files with clerk assistance after Plaintiff filed for sanctions. All of the aforementioned was ignored by the Magistrate who also ignored Supreme Court Law with the limited involvement that he did have in the case. All the aforementioned was provided and presented with argument by this Plaintiff as well as the law and court rules regarding the authority of the Magistrate yet the “ORDER” ignored all. The “ORDER” made a blatant false statement and claimed there was no docket manipulation (see docket activity report for 9/26/2010 and 1/20/20011). The”ORDER” ignored not erroneous, but bizarre rulings such as Plaintiff was prohibited from referencing the docket. The “ORDER” ignored that there was absolutely no consent to the Magistrate and that he had no authority to “RULE” under 28 USC 636 (b) or deny this Plaintiff review by the US District Judge. The “ORDER” ignored that Barbara Morse “RULED” on both injunctive relief and contempt motions of which she was the subject and then signed the US District Judge and Magistrate Judge’s name respectively. The transcript from the bogus scheduling conference of 2/14/2011 where Plaintiff was directly denied her rights as witnessed by her son who was in the court room was not referenced for the decision

as Plaintiff requested. Nowhere in the complaint was it ever stated that the Magistrate improperly delegated to the pro se staff attorney. It does state that the pro se staff attorney did not provide the process to consent to the Magistrate’s jurisdiction so she could maintain the case on the US District judge’s docket and usurp the action. Reference to the Magistrate was written in an order by the pro se staff attorney as she “RULED” on the injunctive relief motion by this Plaintiff of which she was subject. Plaintiff then filed contempt against the pro se staff attorney and defense counsel for collusion. The order of reference was already written and the contempt motion “RULING” was written by the pro se staff attorney before the Magistrate was aware the case was on his docket and the events that followed are clearly the Magistrate covering for the pro se staff attorney and defense counsels’ inappropriate actions. I cannot in the context of this letter describe all the improprieties that have happened in this case. READ THE WRIT---it contains nothing that was not already alleged during the processing of this complaint including the fact that on February 23rd a motion for reassignment of both District and Magistrate Judges was filed by this plaintiff and the Magistrate denied with Docket text and terminated the motion. Not until March 23rd in the R & R for the contempt did the Magistrate make any reference to the fact that there was a motion for a reassignment to a different US District judge; an R & R that continues to linger with now a four full months passing since the request for reassignment that has not been answered by the US District Judge. I am being blocked from a US District Judge because not only has there been misconduct and unethical behavior but there has been criminal behavior and should I have contact with the US District Judge these illegal actions will be revealed. Plaintiff also questions the legitimacy of this Appeals Court “RULING” because it concluded that the Plaintiff should be denied a hearing before the US District Judge in an action filed on August 2, 2010 that has solid evidence of usurpation supported by established law, legislative authority, rules of the court and the record itself, as well as, a pending bogus contempt R & R to the US District Judge by the Magistrate from back in March that continues to linger. Plaintiff clearly stated that she was being blocked from the US District Judge and that filing to the Magistrate to schedule a hearing before the US District Judge or attempt to schedule through the US District Judge’s clerks would be an act in futility. This Plaintiff is currently present in the State of Massachusetts because her father has died and Plaintiff’s financial status will not allow for a return trip. It is interesting that this “RULING” has not been posted on the Appeals Court web site. There seems to be a problem in the First Circuit and justice for this Plaintiff has been set aside over favor to provide cover for the inappropriate and illegal actions of court staff, the Magistrate and Defense Counsel during the course of Plaintiff’s action. I truly hope that I have reached someone who finds this not only peculiar but an insult to the justice system itself as well as an insult to our Honorable Judges in Massachusetts where their own staff are tarnishing the perception of their quality and integrity. Please take action. Yours truly,

Laura J. McGarry June 21, 2011 Massachusetts Contact Phone 413-335-5258 (borrowed cell belongs to Lerryn). I will let the court

know if I have any plan to return to Washington—at the moment I do not plan to leave until I have

attained justice.

Please scan and email any communications you have for me while I am in the State of

Massachusetts.

Laura J. McGarry 1717 Sheridan Road Apt. A- 50 Bremerton, WA 98310 late_linda@yahoo.com (best contact) 360-516-8083 (daughter’s cell)

EXCERPTS FROM THE ORDER BY THE JUDICIAL

PANEL THAT AFFIRMED THE FIRST BOGUS ORDER

Access to writ disappears in PACER at the time Florence Pagano ACE/LEGAL AFFAIRS was arranging the

panel review. KEEP IN MIND SHE HAS AN INACTIVE LAW LICENSE.