Court Colluding Attorneys Who Carried Simulated Litigation to Defeat Disabled Litigant add to their GAME- Oppose RECONSIDERATION & JUDICIAL NOTICE Claiming Abuse of the Judicial Process

8/6/2019 Court Colluding Attorneys Who Carried Simulated Litigation to Defeat Disabled Litigant add to their GAME- Oppose

1/31


2/31


3/31


4/31


5/31


6/31


7/31


8/31


9/31


10/31


11/31


12/31


13/31


14/31


15/31


16/31


17/31


18/31


19/31


20/31


21/31


22/31


23/31


24/31


25/31


26/31

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 7/9/2011 at 12:16 PM EDT and filed on 7/9/2011

Case Name: McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod Inc. et al

Case Number: 1:10-cv-11343-GAO

Filer: Laura J. McGarryWARNING: CASE CLOSED on 06/28/2011

Document Number:92

Docket Text:

Second ADDENDUM re [90] First MOTION for Order to Judge Order on the Clerkof the Court to file a Statement on the Record to explain the legal foundation fordisappearance of the Motion for Contempt Dkt. #85. that was referred to JudgeO'Toole by Chief Judge Wolf Document 85 exparte motion for contempt noted asreceived by Chief Judge Wolf and referred to Judge O'Toole ruled on as (DENIED)now filed per RULE 7.1(c) Dkt./Document 88s language in the last paragraph page

8 through beginning of page 9 now validated by most recent dockets-see exhibitsto this addendum showing the disappearance, reappearance and, again,disappearance of document 85. filed by Laura J. McGarry. (Attachments: # (1)Exhibit Document 85 missing 07_09_2011 time 08_19_52 Docket Activity Report, #(2) Exhibit Document 85 present 07_08_2011 time 17_00_52 Docket ActivityReport, # (3) Exhibit Document 85 missing 07_08_2011 time 05_40_23 DocketActivity Report)(McGarry, Laura)
https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?130747https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?130747https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/doc1/09504383460?caseid=130747&de_seq_num=293&magic_num=64895997https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/doc1/09504383460?caseid=130747&de_seq_num=293&magic_num=64895997https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/doc1/09504383460?caseid=130747&de_seq_num=293&magic_num=64895997https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/doc1/09504383460?caseid=130747&de_seq_num=293&magic_num=64895997https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?130747


27/31


28/31


29/31


30/31

LOCAL RULES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF

MASSACHUSETTS

RULE 83.5.2 APPEARANCES(a) Generally. The filing of the complaint shall constitute an appearance by the attorney who signs

it. All other appearances in a case shall be made by filing a notice of appearance containing the docket

number of the case, name, address and telephone number of the person entering an appearance, incompliance

with Rule 5.1(a)(1).

(b) Appearance Pro Se. A party who appears pro se shall so state in the initial pleading or other

paper filed by him or in his notice of appearance. The words "pro se" shall follow his signature on allpapers

subsequently filed by him in the same case.

(c) Withdrawal of Appearance. An attorney may withdraw from a case by serving notice of his

withdrawal on his client and all other parties and filing the notice, provided that (1) such notice is

preceded

or accompanied by notice of the appearance of other counsel; (2) there are no motions pending before the

court; (3) no trial date has been set; and (4) no hearings or conferences are scheduled, and no reports, oralor

written, are due. Unless these conditions are met, an attorney (including one whose services have been

terminated by his client) may withdraw from a case only by leave of court.

(d) Firms and Corporations. The court will not recognize the appearance of a firm or professional

corporation unless it is accompanied by the appearance of at least one (1) attorney. In the event that aparty

is represented by more than one (1) attorney, whether or not from the same firm, the clerk shall not be

required to send notice of orders, judgments, trial settings, etc., to more than one (1) attorney for any

party,

unless the attorneys represent different interests and this fact is noted on the record.


31/31

Documents

Court Colluding Attorneys Who Carried Simulated Litigation to Defeat Disabled Litigant add to their GAME- Oppose RECONSIDERATION & JUDICIAL NOTICE Claiming Abuse of the Judicial Process