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

Advertisements