For the Record

The district court Judge: Gorton’s & the government’s Assistant U.S. Attorney’s: Jeffrey Auerhahn, Cynthia Ann Young, Michael, James Herbert’s failure to respond or to perform his judicial & governmental fiduciary duties, facilitating governmental & judicial interference, conflict of interests & the government’s failure to hand over core exculpatory material Brady, Giles & Giglio evidence & documents that supports egregious historic & current governmental misconduct CANNOT be palmed off as mere inadvertence (or even as slipshod performance).

Given the presumption that the Court & Government can be relied on to perform their official fiduciary duties properly, see Ramirez v. Sanchez Ramos, 438 F.3d 92, 99 (1st Cir.2006), Marino should have been able to trust both the Court: Judge Gorton & Government: AUSA’S: Auerhahn, Young, Tabak, Herbert; FBI agents: Connolly, Ring & Buckley to turn square corners & fulfill its judicial, prosecutorial & governmental duties & discovery obligations & NOT present false & misleading information to the United States District Court, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, to Marino & the PUBLIC.

See United States v. Jimenez, 512 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.2007); Established that Marino’s substantial rights were adversely impacted & that error had an effect on the integrity of the Court & the PUBLIC CONFIDENCE concerning the Marino proceedings.

Requiring the District Court Judge: Gorton’s recusal, & for the government to have transparent corresponding accountability & hand over all of the recently discovered concealed over 200,000 pages concerning Marino’s Actual, Factual & Legal Innocence of the June 16, 1989 Salemme attempted murder depicted as predicate racketeering act A-2 in Count One RICO & Count Two RICO conspiracy also Marino is actually, factually & legally innocent of Count One RICO & Count Two RICO conspiracy, as predicate racketeering Act-B cocaine conspiracy & Count 30 cocaine conspiracy was DISMISSED BY THE GOVERNMENT DURING TRIAL WHILE THE JURY WAS ALREADY EMPANELLED, see Document 581. The government’s motion to dismiss Count 30, was allowed by the Court on October 22, 1998. See DOCUMENT DATE: October 22, 1998.

However the government unlawfully placed Count 30/Act-B back on the December 22, 1999 VERDICT SHEET as predicate racketeering ACT-B cocaine conspiracy in Count One RICO & Count Two RICO conspiracy INTENTIONALLY,  unconstitutionally, knowing that it was already dismissed by both the Court & Government. In violations of the 5th Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause &  Due Process of law.

AUSA: Jeffrey Auerhahn, has a historic & current pattern of egregious misconduct in the Marino case as well as in the Barone & Ferrara cases.

See United States v. Ferrara, 384 F.Supp.2d 384 (D.Mass.2005); United States v. Ferrara, 456 F.3d 278, 291, 293 (1st Cir.2006). Which both court’s found that AUSA: Auerhahn INTENTIONALLY withheld important core exculpatory material Brady, Giles, & Giglio evidence from Barone, Ferrara. Which is a Felony.

FOR THE RECORD, on trial DAY 5, Marino requested that the government produce all exculpatory material evidence & statements made by FBI TOP ECHELON informant (PUBLICLY KNOWN) Mercurio as to Marino & the June 16, 1989 Salemme Shooting & the 1989 Grasso murder.

See United States v. Marino, CR-97-40009-NMG. (District of Massachusetts),

Trial Transcript DAY 5, page 6.

Trial Transcript DAY 7, Marino’s counsel objection on pages 88 & 98, attorney Robert Sheketoff attempted to bring in the names of Mercurio, Bulger & Flemmi, page 102, Court/ Judge Gorton, rules NO SPECIFIC NAMES during cross-examination of witnesses, PAGE 104.

Trial Transcript DAY 8, Marino’s attorney Sheketoff, attempts to ascertain Mercurio’s involvement in Salemme’s attempted murder, but the Government/AUSA: Auerhahn OBJECTS, Court Judge Gorton sustains. Trial Transcript DAY 8, pages 38-39.

Court/Judge Gorton, won’t allow Marino’s attorney to ask FBI agent Buckley about informants violating law while on FBI payrolls. Trial Transcript DAY 8, PAGES 71-72.

Marino, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the sentencing Judge: Gorton, improperly acted, also the jury would have reached a different verdict much more favorable to Marino had the above governmental & judicial misconduct been presented.