See Marino v. Department of Justice, et al., civil action #12-cv-865-RMC. (District of Columbia)
Marino v. Department of Justice (DOC)
Newly Discovered Evidence
Office of Government Information Services
Specific Documents which may lead to Marino’s actual, factual and legal innocence of the June 16th, 1989, Salemme attempted murder, depicted as predicate racketeering act A-2 in Count One RICO and Count Two RICO conspiracy against Marino.
1. The June 16th, 1989 Francis “Cadillac Frank” Salemme attempted murder;
2. Government misconduct, in Marino’s case;
3. Inaccurate VERDICT SHEET of December 22, 1999;
4. FBI agents: John Connolly Jr and Michael J Buckley cash payoffs from James “Whitey” Bulger and Stephen “The Rifleman” Flemmi, in the 1980s through the 1990s;
5. Concealed John “Smiley” Mele and Augustus “Gus” LaFace June and July 1989 Four audio tapes which (NOW PUBLICLY KNOWN Witnesses: John “Smiley” Mele and Laface are conspiring to kill Francis “Cadillac Frank” Salemme in June and July 1989;
6. The John “Smiley” Mele/Attorney Costello audio tapes in 1988 or 1989, which supports Mele feared Francis “Cadillac Frank” Salemme and Salemme Jr., and was in fear of his life, before Salemme was shot;
7. Witness Perjury of John “Smiley” Mele, et al.,
8. Government’s violating Brady, Giles and Giglio evidence;
DOCUMENT 24 Filed 11-12-2013 Pages 1-18 in support. Also see Court order dated November 22, 2013. Granting in part denying in part governments/defendants motion to extend time for 60 days to file a proposed scheduling order in search for documents responsive to Marino’s FOIA/PA requests.
- On November 12, 2013, Court ORDERS Documents: 22, 24, 25, 26 via: Marino v. Department of Justice, et al., civil action #12-cv-865-RMC. (District of Columbia) the Court ORDERED the government to Search for documents that may lead to Marino’s actual, factual and legal innocence:
- Government/Defendants must file a proposed scheduling ORDER no later than December 6, 2013.
Judge Rosemary Collyer (Official photo)
Signed by Judge: Rosemary M. Collyer, U.S. District Judge District of Columbia).
According to document 24, filed 11-12-2013 page 12 states in relevant part that:
Motion to Dismiss
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
When a Plaintiff (Marino) pleads factual content that allows the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant/United States Department of Justice is liable for the misconduct alleged, then the claim has facial plausibility. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
A Court must treat (Marino’s) complaint’s factual allegations as true, ‘even if doubtful in fact.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Even though pro se complaints are construed liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); United States v. Byfield, 391 F.3d 277, 281 (D.C.Cir.2004), the complaint must still be sufficient to “give the defendant/United States Department of Justice fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Plaintiff (Marino) need not plead detailed factual allegations. But his grounds for relief must be more than “labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action,” and the facts alleged “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. (As Marino,has clearly and concededly met).
Government’s/Defendants/Department of Justice‘s motion for summary judgment did NOT meet the required and proper criteria’s to dismiss Marino’s civil action against the defendants/United States Department of Justice and its components.
Summary judgment is properly granted against a party who “after adequate time for discovery and upon motion…fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court must draw all justifiable inferences in the nonmoving party’s (Marino’s) favor and accept the nonmoving party’s evidence as true. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
A nonmoving party (Marino), however, must (and has) established more that “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Id. at 252.
Marino has clearly and concededly shown controverted facts by showing contrary evidence in the record and evidence of bad faith by the defendants/United States Department of Justice. See Military Audit project, 656 F.2d at 738; see also Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826-28 (D.C.Cir.1973) (requiring agencies to prepare an itemized index correlating each withheld document, or portion thereof, with a specific FOIA exemption and the relevant part of the agency’s nondisclosure justification).
An agency must demonstrate that “each document that falls within the class requested either has been produced, is unidentifiable, or is wholly [or partially] exempt” from FOIA’s requirements. Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C.Cir.1978) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
- Marino v. United States Attorneys Office District of Massachusetts, et al., civil action #12-cv-872-RMC.
Have just been consolidated and you can find both under Marino v. Department of Justice , et al., #12-cv-865-RMC. (District of Columbia),
at Marino’s request to save both the government and judicial precious and scarce resources.
See DOCUMENT date: November 22, 2013 COURT ORDER
MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants (United States Department of Justice‘s) DOCUMENT 27 Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Briefing Schedule.
Defendants (Department of Justice‘s) request an additional sixty days to submit a briefing schedule in a FOIA case on REMAND.
Since only a schedule is required, the request is excessive. Defendants ( Department of Justice) instead shall file their proposed briefing schedule no later than DECEMBER 6, 2013.
Signed by Judge: Rosemary M. Collyer on November 22, 2013.
12-cv-865-RMC. Notice has been electronically mailed to: Rhonda Lisa Campbell firstname.lastname@example.org
12-cv-865-RMC. Notice will be delivered by other means to:
Vincent Michael Marino
Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 1009
Welch, West Virginia
See previous COURT ORDERS and Memorandum and Opinions at DOCUMENTS: 22, 23, 24, 25, 26.
- See in support PUBLIC DOCUMENTS in: Salemme, 91 F.Supp.2d page 263 (D.Mass.1999); Marino v. Dep’t of Justice, et al., civil action #12-cv-865-RMC. (District of Columbia); Marino v. United States Attorneys Office District of Massachusetts, et al., civil action #12-872-RMC. (District of Columbia) PENDING.
The documents Marino also seeks will show egregious governmental misconduct, Intentional Due Process Violations by Assistant United States Attorneys: Jefferey Auerhahn (Found to have committed perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering filing false reports, knowingly, willfully and intentionally withholding core exculpatory and impeachment Brady, Giles and Giglio evidence from Vincent Ferrara.
- See U.S. v. Ferrara, 384 F.Supp.2d 384 (D.Mass.2005); Ferrara, 456 F.3d ___(1st Cir.2006), the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has found that AUSA: Jefferey Auerhahn intentionally withheld core exculpatory material evidence from Ferrara and Barone etc.
- See specifically the June 16th, 1989 Salemme Attempted Murder described as predicate racketeering act A-2 charged against Vincent M. Marino and Enrico “RICO” Ponzo , which Marino was found beyond a reasonable doubt NOT PROVEN in Counts One RICO and Count Two RICO conspiracy on December 22, 1999.
- See United States v. Marino, CR-97-40009-NMG. (District of Massachusetts).
AUSA’s: Jefferey Auerhahn and Cynthia Ann Young (Deputy Chief of the New England Organized Crime Strike Force and NOW the Chief of the New England Criminal Division.Cynthia Ann Young whom head 97 Assistant United States Attorneys in New England also withheld exculpatory material Brady, Giles and Giglio evidence from Marino , contained in over 200,000 to 1 million pages held in 72,000 electronic files and 35 boxes containing over 4,000 pages each.
The documents contain evidence concealed and UNDER SEAL that independently corroborates that Marino is actually, factually and legally innocent of the June 16th, 1989 Salemme attempted murder, and event though Marino was FOUND NOT PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT of the June 16th, 1989 Salemme attempted murder depicted as predicate racketeering Act A-2 in Count One RICO and Count Two RICO conspiracy, the Court: Judge: Nathaniel M. Gorton, with urging of the government representatives: AUSA: Auerhahn and Young substantially enhanced Marino sentence an extra 25 years by the preponderance of the evidence.
Denial of Defendants/ Department of Justice‘s Motion as to the Privacy Act Claims
Defendants/United States Department of Justice‘s briefing also fails to address Mr. Marino’s Privacy Act claims. This error appears to have resulted from Defendants/ Department of Justice conflating Mr. Marino’s Privacy Act claims with his FOIA claims.
Such briefing, nonetheless, is insufficient. Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Defendants/Department of Justice‘s Motion insofar as it seeks dismissal or summary judgment on Mr. Marino’s Privacy Act claims.
C. Denial of Defendants/ Department of Justice‘s Motion as to the FOIA Claims
As for Mr. Marino’s FOIA claims, the Court also will DENY Defendants/ Department of Justice‘s Motion albeit for differing reasons. The affidavits submitted with Defendant’s/Department of Justice‘s motion DO NOT STATE that the Department of Justice components to whom the FOIA requests were directed conducted adequate and reasonable searches calculated to discover the records Mr. Marino’s requested. SafeCard, 926 F.2d at 1201; Meeropol, 790 F.2d at 950-51.
1. OIP (Office of Information Policy), OGA (Office of the Attorney General), OEO (Office of Enforcement Operations) and USAO-DC (Office of the United States Attorneys Office District of Columbia
As far as the record shows, OIP, OGA, and OEO FAILED to conduct ANY search in response to Mr. Marino’s requests.
Defendants/Department of Justice contend that OIP “was not a direct recipient” of a FOIA request and therefore should be dismissed pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). Mot. to Dismiss or Summ.J. at 1 n.4
Similarly, Defendants/ Department of Justice argue that OAG never received a FOIA request from Mr. Marino, and therefore no search was necessary as Mr. Marino failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Id. at 12-13.
Defendant’s/ Department of Justice briefing omits any argument concerning OEO’s obligations. See Ex. F at 10.
Defendants’ exhibits, however, directly contradict these arguments. Attached to the Brandon Declaration are numerous FOIA requests from Mr. Marino to these components of the United States Department of Justice. See Exs. D, E, G, H, I, and J.
Defendants do not contend that Mr. Marino mailed his letters only to some of the recipients listed in his letters, nor do they claim that the letters were somehow insufficient for purposes of triggering a response from the recipient agencies.