Motion to Force Withdrawal of Attorney — Athens (D.N.H.)

Summary

The plaintiff's motion to force withdrawal of attorney under Rule 1.7, filed October 26, 2021 as Document 26 in Favorite Things, a DBA of Natasha Athens, v. Bank of America et al, Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM, a filing captioned Concord, NH, District of Merrimack NH. The motion asks that any attorney filing to represent either defendant be removed under conflict of interest if there is one, and states that no one has yet served the plaintiff. It asserts that parties with business derived from bankruptcy cases could never be the attorney on this matter, and states that the plaintiff is running background checks on all parties. The motion is signed /s/ by Natasha Athens with a certificate of service by email to the defendants.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Motion to Force Withdrawal of Attorney — Athens (D.N.H.).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-1-21-cv-00748-dkt-26-4f838beae2/, SHA-256 58bcf351dfc8a0c35b3fdd6963fce2607f0958230d0f2659899beba145342796.

Full text

        Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 26 Filed 10/26/21 Page 1 of 2




                                 Concord, NH
              District of Merrimack NH Docket # CV-00748-SM
                                Favorite Things
                                    a DBA
                                Natasha Athens
                                       v.
                             Bank of America et al
                                 Megan Scholz
                                  Defendants

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FORCE WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY
UNDER RULE 1.7 CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Now comes the Plaintiff who seeks that any and all attorney's that file to
represent either Defendant be removed under conflict of interest is there is
one.

SO far, no one has served the Plaintiff at all, therefore is not actually
representing either Defendant.

Under Rule 1.7, parties that have busisness derived from Bankruptcy cases
could NEVER be the attorney on this matter.

There are multiple other factors that prohibit attorneys in this matter from
representing either client. As stated previously, the Plaintiff is running
background checks on all parties that enter this matter.

WHEREFORE, the court would have to demand the withdrawal of any
party that fails to serve the Plaintiff, and also has a conflicted interest in this
case.

All parties that are engaging in this case, regardless of conflict or not are
also involved in the ongoing crimes of Bank fraud, a separate case.


/s/ Natasha Athens
       Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 26 Filed 10/26/21 Page 2 of 2




CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

TO Megan Sholz and Bank of America at their emails on record

File and source

File: 26-emergency-motion-to-disqualify-conflicted-party-s-under-rule.pdf
Size: 791,598 bytes
SHA-256: 58bcf351dfc8a0c35b3fdd6963fce2607f0958230d0f2659899beba145342796
Our copy: 26-emergency-motion-to-disqualify-conflicted-party-s-under-rule.pdf
Original: archive.org