“New Important Developments” Marino v. Department of Justice

• PROJECT MARINO  According to the PUBLIC RECORDS in Marino v. Department of Justice, et al., civil action #12-cv-865-RMC. (District of Columbia) PENDING:See DOCUMENT 24 Filed 11-12-2013 pages 1-18:  SYNOPSIS:LEGAL STANDARDS: The question is not whether other responsive records may exist, but whether the SEARCH itself was adequate. Steinberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 23 F.3d 548, 551 (D.C.Cir.1994).

  Thus, to rebut a challenge to the adequacy of a search, the agency must show that “the search was reasonably calculated to discover the requested documents, not whether it actually uncovered every document extant.” SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1201 (D.C.Cir.1991) (citing Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942, 950-51 (D.C.Cir.1986)).

  If a review of the record raises substantial doubt as to the reasonableness of a search, especially in light of “well-defined requests and positive indications of overlooked materials,” then summary judgment may be inappropriate. Founding Church of Scientology of Washington , D.C. v. NSA, 610 F.2d 824, 837 (D.C.Cir.1979).

  B. PRIVACY ACT

  The privacy Act “safeguards the PUBLIC from unwarranted collection, maintenance, use and dissemination of personal information contained in agency records by allowing an individual (Marino ) to participate in ensuring that his records are accurate and properly used.” Henke v. Dep’t of Commerce, 83 F.3d 1453, 1456 (D.C.Cir.1996) (internal quotations and citations omitted) “To that end, the Act requires any agency which maintains a ‘system of records’ to public at least annually a statement in the Federal Register describing that system.” Id.; 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(e)(4).

  The Privacy Act ensures that an individual (Marino ) can access his records and request amendment of those records to CORRECT ANY INACCURATE. 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(d)(1)-(3).

  A civil action is available to CORRECT AN INACCURATE RECORD that an agency has refused to amend or an individual request with an agency has NOT complied. 5 U.S.C> Section 552a(g)(1)(A)-(B).

  While the Privacy Act generally permits the CORRECTION OF FACTS, it does not allow for the “CORRECTION OF OPINIONS OR JUDGMENTS.”  Mc Cready v. Nicholson, 465 F.3d 1, 19 (D.C.Cir.2006).

  See USA v. Marino, CR-97-40009-NMG. (District of Massachusetts) December 22, 1999 VERDICT SHEET showing the dismissed Count 30/Act-B Cocaine Conspiracy charged in count One RICO and Count Two RICO conspiracy was dismissed by the government on Sept. 28, 1998 (DOCUMENT 581) & allowed by the Court (DOCUMENT Date: Oct. 22, 1998) DURING Marino‘S First Trial.

  However, unlawfully placed by the government on Marino ‘s December 22, 1999 VERDICT SHEET, which the jury marked “PROVEN” in both Counts one and two. Thus, inaccurate information was used to convict Marino under the Statute 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(5) which the government needs two or more predicate racketeering acts to convict Marino of count One : RICO 18 U,.S.C. Section 1962 (c) and Count Two: RICO conspiracy 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d).

  With the preclusion of the dismissed during trial by both the Court and Government see supra, would invalidate Marino‘s convictions of both Counts one and two supra. Because the jury would only have marked Proven on predicate racketeering act A-1 Conspiracy to murder, insufficient to convict Marino of both Counts one and two.

  Thus, Marino received 20 years on count One and 10 years on Count Two and 5 years on Count Three to run consecutively with each other for a total of 35 years to serve in prison.

  Thus, the only valid Count Three with a sentence of 5 years, serving 4 years with good time jail credits earned. Marino is unlawfully, held 13 years OVER his term of imprisonment on Count Three without Due Process of Law.