Motion Under Rule 65 to Freeze the Assets of the Defendant Megan — No. 1:21-cv-00748 (Dkt. 4)

Summary

The plaintiff's motion under Rule 65 to freeze the assets of defendant Megan Scholz, filed September 3, 2021 as Document 4 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 the court to order that Scholz not transfer, sell, withdraw or liquidate personal assets as of September 1, 2021, and requests oral argument. It alleges that Scholz, as an employee of Bank of America, canceled forgiveness of the plaintiff's PPP loan and cost the plaintiff a second loan. The motion is signed /s/ by Natasha Athens as owner and dated September 1, 2021.

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

Full text

FILED - USDC -NH   Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 4 Filed 09/03/21 Page 1 of 3
202iSEP3AMll:-10




                                            Concord, NH
            District of Merrimack NH                            Docket #


                                          Favorite Things
                                               a DBA
                                          Natasha Athens
                                                 V.
                                        Bank of America et al
                                           Megan Scholz
                                            Defendants


            Demand for Jury Trial

            PLAINTIFF'S MOTION UNDER RULE 65 TO FREEZE THE ASSETS OF THE
            DEFENDANT MEGAN SCHOLZ

            ORAL ARGUEMENT REQUESTED

            Now comes the Plaintiff in the above enttitled matter, and seeks that the
            court order the personal asssets of Megan Scholz and her husband be
            frozen, not sold, transferred or put in anyone else's name.

            Megan is solely responsible for canceling forgiveness loans at least of the
            Plaintiff, and according to the SBA,she has been vile to deal with and
            caused distress to other customers.

            No one is allowed to "cancel loans" and prohibit their forgiveness, but as an
            employee of Bank of America, she is targeting small businesses, demeaning
            their owners, and calling them frauds, when it is she herself that is the
            fraud.

            A criminal complaint is underway to revoke her law licence.

            A criminal complaint is underway to get her fired and arrested.

            The Plaintiff does not have a way to pay back loan offered to her by the
            SBA, through her bank, and then to have the forgiveness "revoked" for the
            profit of BOA.

                                                  1
      Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 4 Filed 09/03/21 Page 2 of 3




Megan has cost the Plaintiff her right to her 2nd loan, and forgivenss of her
first loan, and is liable 100% for the fraud and her actions, and she does
failed to issue the forgiveness application, making it her responsibility to
pay back the loaned funds.

This fraud has civil and criminal penalties and as a salaried employee of
BOA,the Defendant must have means to pay for the injustices she is
causing, the only means being her personal property, assets, paycheck, and
or those of her husband.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff seeks that the court order that the Defendant
must not transfer, hide, withdraw, sell off, put in someone else's name, or
liquidate any of her current asssets as of this day, September 1, 2021.

The case is of such a serious nature, and so massive, that this must be done
immediately, and ruled in favor of this protection to pay back the victims of
this fraud.

ANY ATTORNEY, PARTY, JUDGE, OR participant of this fraud on behalf of the
bank will be put under investigation, and consequences that fall upon those
willing to be bought off, or aid and abet in this matter.

The case before the court is civil, but the criminal actions that are the result
of civil misconduct are beyond what anyone could envision during this
global crisis. The greed and sickness in which Megan and BOA have
operated are unfathomable. The Plaintiff is the pioneer to put a cease fire
shot on the largest bank heist in the world history, that of the most
vulnerable population in order to wipe them out completely, and soley
create monopolies in their place, while bankrupting the backbone of
America - small busineses.

In order to do this, Megan had to call the Plaintiff a fraud, when she is the
fraud, and criminal. There are other parties in BOA that are doing this to
their intended base - small business survival.

The Court must protect the only means of payback for this voluntary action
of greed, sickness, victimization, and theft of people's rights to loan
forgiveness. Megan is under investigation for her role in generous
donations, while robbing her customers at the bank.

This motion needs to be granted, since her salary cannot pay back the
                                       2
          Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 4 Filed 09/03/21 Page 3 of 3
%



    Plaintiff for her role in theft of her forgiveness.



    /s/ Favorite Things

    Natasha Athens, - Owner

    Septmember 1, 2021




                              r
                                                 - f


                            //




                                            3


File and source

File

4-motion-under-rule-65-to-freeze-the-assets-of-the-defendant-m.pdf

Size

135,232 bytes

SHA-256

158fbc5b36b0d5be6d98d27407f2c3516d02f931615f72e9c5cacb21cb159da9

Our copy

4-motion-under-rule-65-to-freeze-the-assets-of-the-defendant-m.pdf

Original

archive.org