Douglas has worked tirelessly for a very long time to get the powers that be to address these problems with resulting critical frustration. I have pasted the document here, as I could not get it to attach correctly. The formatting is not correct. My apologies for that. I hope you will be able to read it. If not, there is a working link over at my other blog: http://whistleblowersupporter.typepad.com
GFS
—————————
From: Douglas Kinan [mailto:dougkinan@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: Today’s press release: Judicial Corruption must be stopped!
All: I’m rooting for all of you, but after 13 years of trying, I’m convinced you will not succeed. The court process for whistleblowers is rigged. According to the published April 2008 boast by the Department of Defense, none have gone to trial yet Lawbreaking for cash is standard operating procedure in the courts. Based on my firsthand knowledge, corruption and crime in the courts is the norm and all of you have evidence to prove it. For more evidence, see the attached pleadings. Questions, comments and criticisms are welcome.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
DOUGLAS K. KINAN
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 08-10477-WGY
ROBERT M. GATES
Judge William G. Young
Defendant
MOTION FOR THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE MARK L. WOLF TO INTERVENE
AND FOR JUDICIAL/ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW CONCERNING JUDGE WILLIAM
G. YOUNG’S DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS BASED ON SPECIAL AND
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES PURSUANT TO THE RULE OF LAW, THE
EQUAL JUSTICE STANDARD, DUE PROCESS, THE “CLEAN HANDS” DOCTRINE,
ATTORNEY INTIMIDATION, FRAUD ON THE COURT AND THE CODE OF
CONDUCT FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES ADOPTED BY THE JUDICIAL
CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES’
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, pro se, in
CA No. 08-10477-WGY
cross
referenced with
CA No. 99-11855-WGY and CA No. 99-11465-WGY
and
moves the Honorable Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf to intervene and
conduct a judicial/administrative review of Judge William G.
Young’s discretionary decisions on the grounds that Judge Young
gave every benefit of the doubt to the Defense Contract
Management Agency’s (“DCMA”)extensive pattern and practice of
verified criminal activity and deliberate acts of continuing
retaliation.
“The Code of Conduct provides guidance for judges on issues ofjudicial integrity and independence, judicial
diligence and impartiality, and the avoidance of impropriety or even its appearance. Judges may not hear cases in
which they have either personal knowledge of the disputed facts, a personal bias concerning a party to the case… :’
I
On September
28, 2009,
Judge Young denied Plaintiff’s Verified
Motion and Memorandum dated September
24, 2009,
without explanation.
Judge Young’s decisions preempts the DCMA and the Department of
Justice from responding to Plaintiff’s “First Amended Complaint”
and “Combined Verified Motion and Memorandum” filed with the
Court on or about June
14, 2008 and September
24, 2009
respectively2.
Judge Young’s denial of Plaintiff’s pleadings bends the law to
protect crime, including the Department of Justice’s
participation in the willful and deliberate frame ups of many
innocent citizens (even one is too many) .
Judge Young’s decision ignores relevant and material facts,
defends the case for the Defendant, allows the DOJ to remain
silent concerning their participation in criminal activity and,
for a second time, demonstrates a bias toward Plaintiff’s pro se
status, which deprives Plaintiff of equal justice, due process
and an evidentiary hearing on the merits. Judge Young has
absolute and unequivocal evidence
to prove a fraud on
the court, which is contained in court records.
2 Neither AUSA Christine
1. Wichers or the DOl
offered counterarguments or a defense to the verified criminal
activity outlined in Plaintiff’s pleadings except to characterize Plaintiff’s lawful reporting and pleadings as being
“irrelevant, repetitive, conclusory, inflammatory, prolix, disjointed, unintelligible, impenetrable, swollen with irrelevant
rhetorical flourishes, muddled, personal and vindictive.”
Judge Young never bothered to ask AUSA Wichers to explain in open court why Plaintiffs reporting of the DCMA’s
continuing violations to include, heinous and violent acts against women (and their children), sexual harassment, well
planned discrimination, intentional exclusion of black candidates from working in the Equal Employment Office, quid
pro quo promotions in exchange for false and/or tainted testimony or silence, suborning
fabricating documents
and reports to pretend complaints were investigated when they were not, frame ups, and widespread public corruption
and criminal activity subsidized by millions of tax dollars is “irrelevant, repetitive, conclusory. inflammatory, prolix.
disjointed, unintelligible, impenetrable, swollen with irrelevant rhetorical flourishes, muddled, personal and
vindictive. “
2
Judge Young’s treatment toward overwhelming evidence of a rigged
promotion and a verified fraud on the court coupled with the
direct threat and intimidation of US Marshal Frank Dawson
3
during
a court proceeding should not be cavalierly overlooked by denying
Plaintiff’s motion. (See Attachment #1, Affidavit prepared for
Judge Young, which was withheld and/or concealed and Attachment
#2, Dawson’s email dated March 27, 2009
4
.)
Judge Young’s decision embraces the Defendants’ verified criminal
activity, subsidized by millions of taxpayer dollars and ensures
the pattern and practices as outlined in my 30-page affidavitS and
verified complaints shall continue.
The truth, facts and evidence in the pleadings and the official
government record are undisputed and self-evident. Judge Young
ignored the weight of the evidence, which is violative of
Plaintiff’s vested legal right. (See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.
6
)
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas K.
34 Glenburnie Road
Boston, MA 02132
617-323-6171
October 10, 2009
3
Dawson told Plaintiff that the [violations in
Judge Wolfs court] was “none of Judge Wolfs business.” PlaintifT
disagreed with Dawson.
4
Dawson’s told Plaintiff that ifhe reported public corruption to the Public Corruption Officer, Brian Kelly,
that he would prosecute Plaintiff as a “stalker.” Dawson stated that Kelly thinks that Plaintiffs reporting is
“bothersome.”
5
Plaintiffs required government participation in the Gerard Francis investigation. See also Plaintiffs
affidavit in the Harrison complaint and the contemporaneous emails in the VireJla frame up.
6
“Marbury v. Madison is a landmark case in United States law. This landmark decision helped define the
‘checks and balances’ ofthe American form of government.” “One ofthe key legal principles on which
Marbury relies is the notion that for every violation of a vested legal right, there must be a legal remedy.”
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Douglas K. Kinan, hereby certify I
request, by First Class Mail, prepaid
served the
to:
within
Honorable Chief Judge Mark
John J. Moakley Courthouse
1 Courthouse Way
Boston, MA 02210
L. Wolf
Christine J. Wichers
Assistant United States Attorney
John J. Moakley Courthouse
1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200
Boston, MA 02210
Cornelius J.P. Sullivan
51 Ellison Street
Mattapan, MA 02126
L>-.
{L-.
Douglas K.
34 Glenburnie Road
Boston, MA 02132
617-323-6171
October 10, 2009
4
ATTACHMENT
#1
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF MASSACHUSETIS
COUN1Y OF SUFFOLI<
I, Douglas K. Kinan, of Suffolk County provide this affidavit to the Honorable Judge William G.
Young, as a result of a March 25, 2009 effort to retaliate, harass, intimidate, humiliate and
embarrass me, place my job
in
jeopardy and silence me concerning my reporting of public
corruption, verified felony conduct and fraud on the court, condoned by United States Attorney
Michael
J. Sullivan’s office, knowing that this sworn statement is
not confidential.
In the interest of substantial and equal justice and
in
accordance with the United States Marshals
Service, Judicial Security Division
aSD),
which “is committed to the protection of the judicial
process – by ensuring the safe and secure conduct of judicial proceedings and protecting federal
judges, jurors and other members of the federal judiciary,” I askJudge Young to inqUire as to
who sent US Marshal Francis P. Dawson, Jr. (“Dawson”) and why and whether or not Dawson’s
visit was meant to interfere with the judicial process
in
my federal civil complaint before Judge
Young’s court (08-1047? – WGY.)
There is no doubt in my mind that Dawson’s visit was intended to scare, embarrass and silence
me and interfere with my civil complaint. Dawson’s visit was a disturbing and menacing act.
Dawson had no
coming to my job at the court and he had no business acting contrary
to JSD responsibilities and his job. No judge or no judge’s clerk in his or her right mind would
have sent Dawson to see me. Dawson’s visit demonstrates that someone in the US Attorney’s
office, once again, has no difficulty
in
destroying my livelihood and my reputation in the court.
I hereby solemnly swear and affirm:
DAWSON’S VISIT TO SUFFOLK PROBATE COURT -10:30 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.
Upon my arrival to work on March 25, 2009, I was informed by employee, Tina Cole that at
approximately
8:15
a.m. a US Marshall called, “looking for you.” The call was forwarded to
Peter Solomon who operates the switchboard.
Mr.
Solomon informed me that he asked this US Marshall if he would like to be connected to my
voicemail and leave a message. Dawson said, no, that he would come to my job and visit me.
At approximately
10:40
a.m., an individual walked into my office, which is open and public. In
public view and earshot and approximately four feet from the line of attorneys who fue court
pleadings with me, Dawson showed a badge and credentials, introduced himself as US Marshal
Frank Dawson. (Dawson’s business card is: “U.S. Department ofJustice, United States Marshals
Service, Francis P. Dawson,]r., “Frank,” Deputy U.S. Marshal.”)
2
Dawson told me that his visit to my job was prompted by a letter that I had faxed to Judge
Gertner on February 26,2009
(Attachment
#1) dated February 24,2009, and that he “should
have been here on the 27
th
.”
The timing of Dawson’s visit, coupled with his comments corresponds more to my letter of
March 24, 2009
(Attachment
#2).
I asked Dawson who sent
him
to see me. His first version (Dawson gave three versions) was
that Judge Gertner sent
him
and, “The judge don’t want anymore letters.” I informed Dawson
that I admiredJudge Gertner, I would not do anything to offend her or any judge in any way, I
was complying with the federal statute and I had sent Judge Gertner and other members of the
federal bench letters in the past, without consequence. Dawson then changed his story and said
Judge Gertner’s clerk sent him. In the afternoon during Dawson’s follow up phone conversation
he emphatically stated, “I’m doing this on my own.”
I informed Dawson that I would not and did not send any threatening letters to anyone, I am not
a violent person and essentially I have always had my daughters’ reputation to anchor my conduct
to
all
ethical, moral, legal and civic standards. Dawson said, “Neither was I(acynski” (referring to
Una-Bomber, Ted Kaczynski.
Dawson told me that I was
in
violation of a federal law and that I am not supposed to send
letters to judges. I informed Dawson that I work for the court, that his information was a
surprise to me and that judges get letters here everyday. Dawson said that a “2007 federal law
(“1521
or something”) supported his claim but that he did not remember the cite. Dawson later
changed his story and said he was recendy in trairiing and learned of
this
new law.
I informed Dawson that I was lawfully required to report felony conduct to a “judge” and asked
him
if he wanted to see the statute confirming such reporting. He said he did. I left my
operations office to get the cite and returned with the letter to AUSA and Public Corruption
Chief Brian Kelly dated December 24,2007 (Attachment #3) showing the cite
(18 USC 4
&
2(il), which was also footnoted
in
my February 24, 2009; letter, which Dawson claimed had
prompted his visit. .
Upon my return I closed the door because there was a line of attorneys approximately four feet
away listening to our discussion, which was embarrassing. I asked Dawson to read the Kelly
letter and that I(elly had never notified me that my letters offended
him
or anyone else. Dawson
said he did not want to read the letter, folded it and placed it in his book. We both agreed that he
should check with I(elly to see
if
I was “bothersome” and get back to me.
After Dawson read the footnote requiring reporting to a “judge” he said, it was not the “whole
law,” that the law has changed and proceeded to tell me that he was recendy in training
in
which
he learned of a new law, which prohibits letters being sent to judges. I informed Dawson that I
had no knowledge of the new law, informed
him
that I would respect any law and asked him if
he would send me that cite. He said he would.
We continued our discussion and I informed Dawson that I was reporting the frame ups of
innocent individuals, other crime and public corruption, to include the current retaliatory frame
3
up of whisdeblower Ken Pedeleose and that Kelly of the DOJ and Foley of the FBI refuse to
investigate.
I also informed Dawson that Foley thinks the frame-ups are amusing. I
informed
Dawson that unless there is a law that supercedes
18 USC 4,
my lawfully required reporting
needed to be recognized to prevent more harm to innocent individuals. Dawson again repeated
that
I
should not be sending letters to judges.
Dawson then inquired as to how
I got Judge Gertner’s fax number. I
informed Dawson that it
was public information, contained
in the Massachusetts Lawyers Diary (“Redbook”) and/or
I
may have called Judge Gertner’s office, using the “Redbook” to obtain her fax number. I asked
Dawson if he wanted to see the Directory. He said he did.
I gave him
a copy of the “Redbook”
pointing out the Federal District Court Directory on Page
19. He said it was a “2006″
book. I
offered
him the 2008
version of the Redbook to my right and asked if he wanted to see that
version. He said
Cl
no.” .
The
timing
and comments surrounding Dawson’s visit corresponds, not to my letter of February
24, 2009
but to my letter of March 24, 2009;
because during our discussion Dawson brought up
the ”Jeffrey Auerhahn” matter, which was previously before Honorable Judge Mark Wolf and
told me that Auerhahn’s conduct was “none ofJudge Wolf’s business.”
I
disagreed with Dawson
and informed
him
that Auerhahn’s conduct was Judge Wolfs business and that Judge Wolf acted
appropriately.
Dawson then informed. me that his job requires
him
to check on people who are “bothersome”
to the judiciary and to the United States attomey’s office. I informed Dawsonif that were the
case then why haven’t I received notice during the approximately
10
years that I have been
notifying I<elly and others at the US Attorney’s office. I asked Dawson if he would be sure to
check with I<elly and with Foley to find out ifmy lawfully requited reporting was “bothersome
7
‘
and to let me know.
During the course of our discussion Dawson asked if
I had a complaint in court. I told him
I
did. He also asked for my date of birth, twice, but not in succession.
I
informed Dawson there
was no reason for
him
to have that information.
Dawson told me that I was “consumed” by this and to “get on with my life.” Dawson said,
”You have a good thing going here (meaning my job at the court), don’t
ruin
it.”
Dawson restated many times that I should not be sending letters to judges and that if there was
no remedy from the US Attorney’s office or the FBI that I should
talk
to the press. Dawson
suggested that I
talk
with Shelly Murphy or Dave Abel at the Boston Globe.
AF!ERNOON PHONE DISCUSSION WITH DAWSON -12:50 -1:08 p.m.
Walking into my administrative office for lunch, my phone indicated that
I
had a message
waiting. It was from Dawson.
I
returned the call and left Dawson a voice message. He returned
my call.
Dawson’s tone was menacing and tough. He began by telling me that he was “extending my
message to include no more letters to anyone at the US attorney’s office.” Dawson said that if I
sent any more letters that he would, “come and talk to you again and open up a case against you,
4
then you’ll
go
into a [national] database as an “inappropriate communicator.” Dawson told me
that [Kelly] said I was an “annoyance.” “They don’t want to hear from you. Don’t even send
them a Christmas card. They are not your friends.”
I informed Dawson that
all of my reporting to the Chief of Public Corruption, Kelly, was in
the
context of reporting crime, public corruption and verified felony conduct-and reminded Dawson
of the frame-ups, including the current frame up of whistleblower, Ken Pedeleose.
Dawson told me that lam “fmding out too much” that I have the “propensity to stalk them.”
Dawson said, “I’m doing you a favor. I’m trying to nip it
in
the bud.” I informed Dawson that I
wouldn’t threaten or stalk anyone.
Dawson told me that my reporting is nothing but “rumor, speculation, conjecture and hearsay.”
I informed Dawson that if the firsthand information
in
my thirty-page affidavit were false that I
would not be talking to
him
from a courthouse. I informed Dawson that my affidavit was paid
off to conceal the DCMAE’s verified criminal activity, as were other cases; .
I informed Dawson that my letters did not threaten anyone, there was no name-calling and no
defamatory statements in my lawfully requited reporting. Dawson told me, “It’s how they
perceive it.” Each time I provided a fact to Dawson, he rebutted my facts with a comment about
no more letters. Dawson repeated his belief that
I
was “consumed” by this.
I informed Dawson that his visit to my job was improper. He said he was just “doing his job.” I
informed Dawson that I would
think
about everything he said. Dawson said I could file a
complaint, that he did not care.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury
this 26th
day of March, 2009.
March 26, 2009
Douglas 1<. I<i.nan
———————————-
ATTACHMENT
#2
.”.b..x!iOO._
MAIL …….tI: .. It,:!,
Cbsslt
: Inappropriate Communication(s)
Friday, March 27, 20099:51 AM
j
hom:
“Dawson, Frank (USMS)” <Frank.Dawson2@usdoj.gov>
To: dougkinan@yahoo.com, douglas.kinan@jud.state.ma.us
Mr. Kinan,
I would like to reiterate what we discussed the other day, in person and on the phone. The U.S. Marshals
attention was drawn towards you because you
had originally sent an Inappropriate Communication (a fax) to JUdge Gertner. But during our meeting you
admitted sending letters to other Federal Judges, and
also to several Assistant U.S. Attorney’s.
As an agency that is responsible for the safety and security of the Federal JUdiciary, as well as the U.S.
Attorney’s, the U.S. Marshal Service (USMS) is
advising you that you should immediately cease from any further attempts to communicate with any Federal
Judges or Federal Prosecutors.
If you do communicate with them in any fashion it will be construed as an Inappropriate Communication, and
will be investigated by the USMS..
No Judge or Prosecutor seeks to have any communication with you at all.
Therefore the U. S. Marshals Service is politely advising you to not contact anyone mentioned above by
any form ‘of writing, e-mail, phone call or in any
other manner. If you partake in any Inappropriate Communication(s) the U.S. Marshals Service will be calling
on you to conduct an in-depth
interview, so please comply with this advisory.
Remember I know we specifically discussed Judge Gertner and Assistant U.S. Atto’rney Brian Ke’l1y, but
you are prohibited from trying to communicate
with
any.
Judge or Prosecutor, with the exception of through a motion filed with the Court, and only in regards
to a specific case you may have at the D/Mass U.S.
District Court.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Frank Dawson
United States Marshals Service
Protective Intelligence Investigator
(617)-748-2575
office
(617)-594-7008 Cell
(617)-748-2579 FAX
