Fee Waiver Appeal:
Vincent Michael Marino Awaiting Court’s Rulings on Fee Waiver. If successful, then the Defendants/United States Department of Justice will have 30 days to hand over the crucial exculpatory and impeachment documents that may lead to my actual innocence of the Francis “Cadillac Frank” Salemme attempt and Count One: RICO and Count Two: RICO conspiracy, and lead to egregious governmental misconduct that may also be categorized as criminal. Marino left the door open for a prompt diligent out of court settlement, in the event the government with rather not hand over the documents, which the defendant/ Department of Justice would have to dismiss the Marino indictment #97-CR-40009-NMG. (District of Massachusetts/Boston/Worcester) with prejudice and for Marino‘s immediate unconditional release within 72 hours.This is possible under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26(f), the courts encourages a prompt, diligent out of court settlements to save scarce and precious judicial and governmental resources.
See Marino v. Department of Justice, et al., civil action #12-cv-865-RMC. (District of Colombia) PENDING, Marino’s Fee Waiver Request and For The Defendants/Department of Justice to correct the December 22, 1999 inaccurate Record/Verdict Sheet, via: USA v. Marino, CR-97-40009-NMG. (District of Massachusetts).
See recently dated: March 10th, 2014, filed in United States District Court District of Columbia
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Action #12-cv-865-RMC.
Honorable: Rosemary M. Collyer
United States District Judge.
Vincent Michael Marino
Department of Justice , et al.,
(Assistant United States Attorney: Rhonda Lisa Campbell)
March 10th, 2014
PLAINTIFF: MARINO’S MOTION/AFFIDAVIT VIA: FED.R.CIV.P. RULES 56(F)-(c)(4), l.cV.r. 7(H), Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453, 456-57 (D.C.Cir.1992) REFUTING DEFENDANTS/DEP’T OF JUSTICE’S EOUSA’S DECLARATION DATED: MARCH 5TH, 2014, OF TRICIA FRANCIS AND THE DEFENDANTS FAILURE TO ANSWER MARINO’S FEE WAIVER REQUESTS AT THE OFFICE OF INFORMATION POLICY LEVEL AND DOCUMENT 29 WHICH THIS COURT ORDERED: ON FEBRUARY 12TH, 2014, GRANTING MARINO’S MOTION TO COMPEL FACILITATING DEFAULT UNDER FED.R.CIV.P. RULE 55(e), 16(F), 37(B)(2)(C), 54(C), 60(B); FRAP 4(a)(4)(A)(vi); 50 U.S.C. App. Section 521
 On 12-23-2013, Marino filed a Motion for a “Fee Waiver Request” with his Honorable Court. See Document 29.
 On 12-30-2013, this Honorable Court Ordered directing Defendants to treat Plaintiff’s 29 motion for Fee Waiver as a request made directly to Defendants.
 Thereafter the Defendants/ Department of Justice‘s ignored this 12-30-2013’s Court Order, for over 1 month and a half.
 On 2-12-2014, this Court granted Marino‘s Document 30, Motion to Compel defendants/ Department of Justice to respond to Marino‘s Document 29, Motion for a Fee Waiver, by March 5th, 2014.As of this date the Defendants/ Department of Justice failed to respond.
 Instead, the Defendants/ Department of Justice‘s counsel, sidestepped Marino‘s Document 29, Motion for a Fee Waiver and for the defendants to correct the inaccurate record VERDICT SHEET dated December 22, 1999, by precluding Act-B/Count 30 cocaine conspiracy from Count One: RICO and Count Two: RICO conspiracy, via: USA v. Marino, CR-97-40009-NMG. (District of Massachusetts), under the Privacy Act’s Title 5 U.S.C> Section 552a(d)(1)-(3), Henke v. Dep’t of Commerce, 83 F.3d 1453, 1456 (D.C.Cir.1996) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The defendants intentional ignored this Court’s 2-12-2014’s ORDER, as a unlawful tactuical advantage against Marino and this Court’s integrity and authority.
 This Court’s ruling/Memorandum ORDER, found also that the Defendants never answered Marino‘s Fee Waiver Requests and Privacy Act Requests to correct the above specific inaccurate record. See Document 24, filed 11-12-2013, pages 6, 8, specifically “On January 17, 2013, and February 10, 2013, Mr. Marino appealed the denial of his fee waiver request. Brandon Decla., Ex.P. [Dkt. 15-4].
He (Marino), sent one letter directly to OIP, the DOJ component that handles FOIA administrative appeals, see 28 CFR Section 16.9(a), and another to EOUSA, which forwarded it to OIP, Defs.’ Statement of Facts paragraph 57; Brandon Decl.paragraph 20.”The Record is unclear as to the outcome of Mr. Marino‘s appeal.”
 Moreover, this Court.
 Moreover, Marino filed additional Fee Waiver Requests with the EOUSA (Defendants) and Appealed its denial to Defendant: Office of Information Policy (OIP).
Please note as of this date March 10th, 2014, the Defendants: Office of Information Policy DID NOT answer Marino‘s “Fee Waiver Request APPEAL” appearing to violate Marino‘s Due Process and a meaningful access to the courts intentionally by the defendants, as the Public Records so supports herein, supra and herewith via: Exhibits attached.
 In any event, now it appears that the Defendant’s/ Department of Justice and its components are in clear default under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 55(e) and other rules described specifically supra.
THE PURPOSE: When a party (Defendant’s/Department of Justice defaults, the District Court may enter a final judgment without the necessity of trial on liability Rule 55).
The threat of Default Judgment encourages parties to timely file responsive pleadings specifically concerning this Court’s Order(s) on 12-30-2013 to answer Marino‘s DOCUMENT 29, Motion for a Fee Waiver Request and again on 2-12-2014, this Court’s ORDER, granting Marino‘s Motion to Compel under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 37, for the Defendants/Department of Justice to answer Marino‘s DOCUMENT 29, Motion for a Fee Waiver.
See DOCUMENT 30. Which this Court Ordered the Defendants to answer Marino‘s DOCUMENT 29, by March 5th, 2014.
The Defendants intentionally sidestepped this Court’s Order(s) on 12-30-2013 and again on 2-12-2014, as the Public Records so supports.
Additionally the defendants/Department of Justice are in Contempt of Court and also violates: Fed.R.Civ.P. Rules 56(f)-(C)(4), L.Cv.R. 7(h), Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453, 456-57 (D.C.Cir.1992) failing to refute Marino‘s Specific Fee Waiver Requests at the OIP LEVEL and this Court’s DOCUMENT 29, (Marino‘s Motion for a Fee Waiver Request) level.
In any event, Marino submits this instant DOCUMENT with two other DOCUMENTS with supportive Exhibits, requesting this Court’s intervention to allow Marino his requested “Fee Waiver Request” as Marino has independently corroborated that the DOCUMENTS he seeks serves as a “Significant Public Interest” and may also lead to egregious governmental misconduct, because it is likely to contribute significantly to PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE OPERATIONS AND ACTIVATES OF THE DEFENDANTS/Department of Justice AND IS NOT PRIMARILY IN THE COMMERCIAL INTEREST OF THE REQUESTER (Marino).
See 5 U.S.C. Section 552(a)(4)(A)(iii).
Marino has met ALL SIX FACTORS set forth in 28 CFR Section 16.11(k). As Seen supra, and within all three motions/affidavits with supportive exhibits, herein.
WHEREFORE, for all of the above stated reasons Plaintiff: Marino, requests this Honorable Court, to ALLOW, Marino‘s requested “Fee Waiver” which serves as a “Significant Public Interest” and Order the Defendants/ Department of Justice to produce the records specifically and continuously described within 30 days to Marino, or for the defendants to consider a prompt diligent out of court settlement for Marino‘s immediate release from custody, the dismissal of indictment number: CR-97-40009-NMG. (District of Massachusetts) with prejudice, to further the administration of justice, under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26(f) calls for a prompt and diligent out of Court settlement to save both the Judicial and Governmental scarce and precious resources and because of the above proven governmental egregious misconduct, as the Public Records so supports.
Signed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1746, under the penalties of perjury the above and the following to be true, correct and complete. Pro-Se.
14431-038 FCI McDowell Welch, West Virginia
P.O. Box 1009 24801
Certificate of Service
I, Plaintiff: Marino , hereby certify that this Motion/Affidavit was sent via: United States mail/Postage Prepaid on this 10th, day of March, 2014, to the following:
Ms. Latanau Scott Clerk of Courts Clerk’s Office:
Room 1225 Civil DivisionU.S. District Court 555 4th Street N.W.
United States Courthouse Washington, D.C. District of Columbia 20001 333 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
Assistant United States Attorney : Rhonda Lisa Campbell
U.S. Attorneys Office:
District of Columbia Room 1225 Civil Division U.S. District Court 5554th Street N.W. United States Courthouse Washington, D.C. District of Columbia 20001 333 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001