- Marino v. Department of Justice , et al., civil action #12-cv-865-RMC. (District of Colombia) PENDING
According to: In re Grand Jury, 417 F.3d 18, 23, 77 CrL 465 (1st Cir.2005), The government’s protection afforded by the Attorney (United States Department of Justice’s lawyers) client (Department of Justice’s agencies and employee(s) attorney-client privilege is not absolute under the “CRIME-FRAUD-EXCEPTION” communications lose the protection if the lawyer (Assistant United States Attorney: Rhonda Lisa Campbell) of the United States Department of Justice, is consoled in furtherance of a continuing or contemplated crime or fraud upon Marino.
- See specifically, the Lawyer:Assistant United States Attorney : Campbell’s continuous cover-ups for the defendant agencies failure to correct the December 22, 1999 JURY VERDICT SHEET via: USA v. Marino, CR-97-40009-NMG. (District of Massachusetts) by precluding the dismissed on September 28, 1998, by the government predicate racketeering Act-B/Count 30 cocaine conspiracy depicted in Count One RICO and Count Two: RICO conspiracy against Marino , see DOCUMENT 581, and that motion DOCUMENT 581, was allowed by the Court: Judge: Nathaniel M. Gorton, on October 22, 1998, also during Marino’s first JURY TRIAL see DOCUMENT Date: October 22, 1998.
However, in December 22, 1999 during Marino’s SECOND RICO JURY TRIAL, the government/ United States Department of Justice and its components./Assistant United States Attorney’s: Auerhahn and Young, placed the dismissed Count 30/Act-B cocaine conspiracy back on the December 22, 1999 VERDICT SHEET even-though that charged was dismissed by both the Court and Government during Marino’s first JURY TRIAL, which the Jury marked “PROVEN” on predicate racketeering Act-B cocaine conspiracy in both Counts One: RICO and Count Two: RICO conspiracy, which caused Marino to receive an extra 30 years to serve in federal prison.According to Statutory Law 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(5), the jury needs two or more predicate racketeering acts to be found PROVEN to convict Marino on Count One: RICO and Count Two: RICO conspiracy.
The Jury also marked PROVEN on predicate racketeering Act A-1 conspiracy to murder and NOT PROVEN on racketeering act A-2 (June 16th, 1989 Salemme attempted murder) depicted in Count One: RICO and Count Two: RICO conspiracy against Marino.Thus, with the preclusion of the already dismissed during Marino’s first JURY TRIAL DOCUMENT 581 and DOCUMENT date: October 22, 1998 of Count 30/Act-B cocaine conspiracy depicted in counts 1 and 2 supra, would essentially invalidate Count One: RICO conviction and sentence of 20 years and Count Two: RICO conspiracy conviction and sentence of 10 years totally of 30 extra years Marino would have to serve in prison knowingly by the government United States Department of Justice’s employee(s): Assistant United States Attorney’s: Rhonda Lisa Campbell, Jeffrey Auerhahn, Cynthia Ann Young, and United States District Court Judge: Nathaniel M. Gorton, District of Massachusetts Boston without any transparent corresponding accountability and Due Process of Law.
- This factual event and other events described in Marino v. CIA, et al., civil action #11-cv-813-RMC. (District of Columbia) on appeal at Marino v. CIA, et al., United States Court of Appeals For The District of Columbia Circuit #12-5325 (D.C.Cir.2013) Petition For Rehearing and or Suggesting for Rehearing En Banc was recently denied as the government and the court accepted TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ANSWERS WHY MARINO should not receive documents supporting egregious gross governmental misconduct by the NSA, CIA, et al., United States Government’s super secret Intelligence Agencies the Court responded and affirmed the government’s response in their declarations that “the documents Marino requests are in-fact CLASSIFIED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER AS “TOP SECRET” and if the documents Marino requests (showing that the NSA, CIA, et al., are historically and currently conducting (MK-ULTRA/PROJECT MARINO) human experiments on natural born United States Citizens since at-least 1996 without their valid consent and without a valid court warrant) triggered PROJECT MARINO’s Mission.
Hence, Assistant United States Attorney: Rhonda Lisa Campbell cannot legally protect the defendant/agencies concerning their historic and current egregious governmental agencies and employee(s) Assistant United States Attorney Lawyers from a continuous and on-going conspiracy, fraud and thus the client-attorney communications lose the protections as Assistant United States Attorney: Rhonda Lisa Campbell’s is consoled in furtherance of a historic and current continuous contemplated crime and fraud.
- See: In re Grand Jury, 417 F.3d 18, 23, 77 CrL 465 (1st Cir.2005) in support. Also see Marino v. Department of Justice , et al., civil action #12-cv-865-RMC. (District of Columbia) PENDING.
For the Public Record the Defendants/United States Department of Justice and its components has admitted on PUBLIC RECORD that they concealed over 200,000 to 1 million pages from Marino’s 1997 Federal Grand Jury, 1998 Jury Trial and 1999 Jury Trial.The documents may lead to Marino’s actual, factual and *legal innocence of the June 16th, 1989 attempted murder of Francis “Cadillac Frank” Salemme, whom recently admitted to killing over 30 people and was partners with James “Whitey” Bulger (charged with killing over 19 people and was recently convicted of killing 11 served as a FBI TOP ECHELON Informant for now convicted of murder FBI agent John Connolly serving 10 years federal for being part of the Salemme , Flemmi and Bulger criminal organization and serving an extra 40 years for murder in the State of Florida and FBI agent Michael Buckley currently under investigation for murder and Stephen “The Rifleman” Flemmi (admitted to killing over 20 people and serving 20 life sentences as a star government witness) See United States v. John J. Connolly (FBI agent), 341 F.3d 16-29 (1st Cir.2003);
- United States v. Salemme, 91 F.Supp.2d pages 261-311 (exhibits: 188-246) in-part under seal (D.Mass.1999);
- United States v. Marino, CR-97-40009-NMG. (District of Massachusetts/Boston/Worcester);
- Marino v. United States Attorneys Office District of Massachusetts, et al., civil action #12-cv-872-RMC. and Marino v. Department of Justice , et al., civil action #12-cv-865-RMC. (District of Columbia) recently consolidated with Marino v. U.S. Attorneys Office District of Massachusetts, et al., now depicted under #12-cv-865-RMC. (District of Columbia) PENDING.
- The above is currently being contemplated to be presented to Boston natives: Mark Walberg, Matt Damon and Ben Afflect to be produced as a potential movie facilitating: Mystery, Governmental Misconduct, CIA, NSA human experiments, Murder, Intrigue, with supportive documents some of which are facilitated by NSA’s contractor: Edward Snowden’s documents imported from Russia’s Moscow through the News Media: New York Times, Washington Post, CNN News, USA Today Time Magazine, England’s news etc.
The documents will shock the World concerning the NSA, CIA’s and United States Military super secret human experiments using super advanced Billion Dollar Satellite Communications Intelligence ECHELON surveillance technologies sophisticated implanted devices in natural born United States Citizens and other foreign targets while the subject is placed under general anesthesia, via: Dentist cavities, TB shots, Flu Shots, and other ruse technological covers as the reports may show. Welcome to Nazi America , where the United States Government’s covert experiments on natural born United States Citizens will make NAZI GERMANY’S Adolph Hitler look like girl scouts. Putin’s Intelligence Agencies in complete control of the documents with Chinese Intelligence ready to disclose World-Wide.Russia, China is offering citizenship, to the victims of the United States Government’s Human Experiments which may cause the targets “irreparable harm” if the devices are not removed.
SHOW CAUSE ORDER:
Date: May 1, 2014.
Marino v. Department of Justice , et al., civil action #12-cv-865-RMC. (District of Columbia) DOCUMENT 36 Filed 05/01/2014 Pages 1-4.
On May 29, 2012, Vincent Michael Marino filed a pro-se action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 US>C. Section 552, Privacy Act, id. Section 552a, and Sunshine Act, id. Section 552b, against eight agencies within the Department of Justice:
The Office of the Attorney General;
The Criminal Division of the Department of Justice;
The Executive Office of the US. Attorneys;
The Office of Enforcement Operations;
The US. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia;
The Office of Information and Policy;
The US. Attorney’s Office District of Massachusetts
Currently incarcerated in federal prison on racketeering and drug-related convictions, Mr. Marino requests a variety of records that he believes will exonerate him.
Mr.Marino contends that the requested records will establish that assorted mobsters, aided and abetted by rogue federal agents and prosecutors, et him up to take the fall on the charges on which he has been convicted.
See Marino v. Department of Justice , Civ. No. 12-865, 2013 WL 5979753, at *1 (D.D.C.Nov. 12, 2013).
Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.
On November 12, 2013, the Court sue sponte dismissed with prejudice Mr. Marino‘s Sunshine Act claim but denied without prejudice Defendants’ Motion. Id. at *9.
The Court explained that Defendants’ briefing was insufficient with respect to Mr. Marino ‘s Privacy Act and FOIA claims for a variety of reasons.
With respect to the searches for responsive records that the Executive Office of the US. Attorneys and US. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts conducted, Defendants argued that they were not required to complete their searches because Mr. Marino failed to pay $8,960.00 in search fees and was ineligible for a fee waiver.
The Court noted, however, that Mr. Marino had asked that the search be capped at $1,000.00, Defendants IGNORED this request, and there was no indication in the record that Mr. Marino could not have made a $1,000.00 advance payment of that he would have sought a fee waiver limiting payment to this amount.
Accordingly, the Court found that Defendants had NOT established that Defendants had conducted an adequate or reasonable search for responsive records. Id..
Defendants then moved for renewed dispositive motions, which the Court granted.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Marino filed a Motion for Fee Waiver, Dkt. 29.
He asked the Court to permit him to pay $5,796.00 in search fees within sixty days of the Court issuing an order. Mot. for Fee Waiver at 15.
The Court directed Defendants to treat Mr. Marino’s Motion as a request made directly to them. See Dec. 30, 2013 Minute Order.
On February 10, 2014, Mr. Marino filed a Motion to Compel, Dkt. 30, asking the Court to direct Defendants to respond to his fee waiver request.
The Court GRANTED this Motion and ordered Defendants to respond no later than March 5 , 2014. See February 12 , 2014 Minute Order.
Defendants filed a timely response, in which an Attorney-Advisor to the Executive Office of the US. Attorneys charges with responding to FOIA requests stated in a declaration that the Executive Office of the US. Attorneys has denied Mr. Marino‘s fee waiver request and informed him of his appeal rights.Notice to the Court [Dkt.32] Francis Decl. [Dkt.32-1] Paragraphs 7-8.
On March 21, 2014, Mr. Marino filed a Reply, Dkt.33, and Supplemental Reply, Dkt.34, to Defendants’ Notice. Rather than directly address the declaration, Mr.Marino argues that the records he seeks will serve a significant public interest and, therefore, he is deserving of a fee waiver under the applicable regulations.
On March 26, 2014, the Court deemed the record complete on Mr. Marino‘s eligibility for a fee waiver and VACATED the schedule for dispositive motions until the Court could determine Mr. Marino‘s eligibility for a fee waiver.
However, on March 28, 2014, Mr. Marino filed a Supplemental Motion for Fee Waiver, Dkt.35, which indicates that Mr. Marino has administratively appealed the denial of his fee waiver to the Office of Information Policy.
Exhaustion of administrative remedies is required under FOIA before a party can seek judicial review. Stebbins v. Nationwide Mut.. Ins. Co., 757 F.2d 364, 366 (D.C.Cir.1985) (citing Hedley v. United States, 594 F.2d 1043 (5th Cir.1979);
see also Oglesby v. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 61-62 (D.C.Cir.1990).
This principle also applies to waiver of search fees. As the D.C. Circuit has explained, “[e]xhaustion does not occur until the required fees are paid or an appeal is taken from the refusal to waive fees.” Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 66 (citing Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. Griffin, 811 F.2d 644, 648 (D.C.Cir.1987); irons v. FBI, 571 F.Supp. 1241, 1243 (D.Mass.1983); Crooker v. U.S. Secret Serv., 577 F.Supp. 1218, 1219 (D.D.C.1983).
The record is unclear whether the Office of Information Policy has rendered a decision with respect to the denial of Mr. Marino’s fee waiver request.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants (Department of Justice) shall SHOW CAUSE no later than MAY 15, 2014, as to whether the Office of Information Policy has rendered a timely decision with respect to the denial of Mr.Marino ‘s Administrative Appeal of the Executive Office for the U.S. Attorneys’ DENIAL of his request for a Fee Waiver, or
whether the Office of Information Policy has failed to respond so that Mr. Marino’s administrative appeal regarding the requested FEE WAIVER should be deemed denied.
SO ORDERED _________________________
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER
United States District Judge
Date: May 1, 2014.