v. Civil Action No. 08-10477-WGY



ROBERT M. GATES Judge William G. Young



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


“TheCodeofConductprovidesguidancefor judgeson issues ofjudicialintegrityand 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 ofthe disputed facts, a personal bias concerning a party to the case…:’


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 ~tt~~~·d=-A9.G 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 pe~jury, 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.”


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 Dawson3 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, 20094 .)

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. lin~~

34 Glenburnie Road

Boston, MA 02132


October 10, 2009

3 Dawson told Plaintiffthat the [violations in Judge Wolfs court] was “none ofJudge Wolfs business.” PlaintifT disagreed with Dawson.

4 Dawson’s told Plaintiffthat ifhe reported public corruption to the Public Corruption Officer, Brian Kelly, that he would prosecute Plaintiffas 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 ‘checksandbalances’oftheAmerican formofgovernment.” “One ofthekeylegalprinciplesonwhich Marbury relies is the notion that for every violation ofa 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:


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-. rJ~~ Douglas K. ~nan 34 Glenburnie Road Boston, MA 02132 617-323-6171 October 10, 2009  









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 MichaelJ. 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 ofthe 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 ~uthoritycoming 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:


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 27th.”

The timing ofDawson’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

thatJudge 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 sentJudge 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 ofa 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 ifhe 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 ChiefBrian 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 ifI 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 ofwhisdeblower 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 gotJudge 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 Clno.” .

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 checkwith I<ellyandwithFoleyto find outifmylawfullyrequitedreportingwas “bothersome7‘ 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.


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 ofmy reporting to the Chief ofPublic 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 ofwhistleblower, 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





.”.b..x!iOO._ MAIL

…….tI: .. It,:!, Cbsslt

: Inappropriate Communication(s) Friday, March 27, 20099:51 AM

j hom: “Dawson, Frank (USMS)” <>


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