Athens v. Bank of America — Moot Notice of Appeal on Dismissal of Right to Seek Indigent Status (Document 97)

Summary

A notice of appeal by Natasha Marie Athens in Natasha Marie Athens v. Bank of America, N.A., and Meghan Scholz, Case No. 21-cv-748-SM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, filed February 5, 2022 as Document 97. It appeals the order denying the appellant's requests to proceed with indigent status, which the notice calls moot and illicit. The notice asserts that the defendants defaulted by failing to file a notice of appearance or serve pleadings, and states defaults of $5Million dollars and $25 Million dollars. It links to a Forbes article, Facebook posts and other online items about PPP loan forgiveness, and it is signed /s/ Natasha Athens.

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

         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 97 Filed 02/05/22 Page 1 of 4




                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
                             Natasha Marie Athens
                                      V
                             Bank of America, N.A.,
                        and Meghan Scholz Defendants

                            v. Case No. 21-cv-748-SM

Ex-Party MOOT Notice of Appeal on Judge's Illicit Dismissal of Appellant's RIGHT
to SEEK Indigent Status on Case Already in Default & Lost from Failure to File
Notice of Appearance OR SERVE ANY PLEADINGS

Now comes the Appellant and does appeal the order to deny access to the use of
the Justice Sytem and is indigent, and has attempted in good faith to get her loan
forgiven. And every part of her case has already been LOST by the Defendant and
is stricken as a matter of law.

An action this vindicive and in bad faith is how the Defendant's lost the entire
case. The Plaintiff appealed and WON all parts of the above case.
She is allowed to appeal rulings that failed to be issued by an unbias judge.

WHEREFORE, this judgement is appealed and the order is moot, this judge cannot
continue to issue a single order, nor try to retreive a case long out of his hands.

The Judge's arguement is fake, false and bias, and does not stand up when any
party has a forgivable loan and NO LONGER IN HIS COURT.

Dan Rodricks - loan NOT forgiven
https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/columnists/dan-rodricks/bs-ed-rodricks-
1126-ppp-loan-20211126-lqtporsmhzbtnoelblzubxyzfy-story.html

Small businesses complain on Facebook
         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 97 Filed 02/05/22 Page 2 of 4




https://www.facebook.com/BankofAmerica/posts/the-ppp-loan-forgiveness-
process-is-getting-an-update-on-feb-16-were-launching-a/3695482043839338/

Another victim of bank loan fraud
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UoNT2bzDL0qV8bSke_Q4VtWmrYAteP-
k/view?usp=sharing

Forbes calling out Bank of America Forgiveness fraud
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2021/08/05/bank-of-americas-
malfeasant-treatment-of-small-businesses---brian-moynihan-pick-up-the-damn-
phone-and-call-ember/?sh=126827f85779

The judge acted in bad faith, obstructed justice and is still trying to - no part of the
case exists with him.

After 8 months of bullying on the part of the court, and the defaulted
Defendants, here is what remains,

The Plaintiff has a forgivable loan,
A Judge cannot "unwrite" a loan
Thomas Pappas defaulted his client for $5Million dollars
Thomas Pappas defaulted himself for $25 Million dollars after stealing
taxes and publishing them

The court was obligated to hold hearings, to find out why a loan amount was
altered, and failed in the basic duty, and acted in bad faith.

WHEREFORE, Indigent status means one cannot afford to pay the costs to their
RIGHTFUL and Constitutional use of the legal system, and her case has merit
(everyone has a right to sue for those above cases that are due 100% forgiveness)

The Judge here tried to reverse what was lawfully allowed.

The Judge has no jurisdiction any longer.

The judge issued this MOOT RULING, after the defaults, after the case has been
WON on appeal by default
         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 97 Filed 02/05/22 Page 3 of 4




The judge retaliated against the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike all pleadings that the
non-party Thomas Pappas filed, and cannot file without serving the pleadings.
The Pleadings have to be stricken on appeal as well. Non-party's cannot file
pleadings anywhere.

This court does not have jurisdiction to alter one single part of the federal laws
pertaining to FILING AND SERVICE and then try to rig a default.

WHEREFORE THE PLAINTIFF APPEALS THIS ORDER
Indigent status is CLEAR, and no one can deny anyone a right to appear in court.
This illegal ruling is a scary place - a judge that is too bias to sit on a bench and
handle a case for under $20,000 in a 100% forgivable loan.

The 2 defaults combined = $30 Million in damages, and they all could have been
resolved with a lawful judge. And even the suggestion of artbitration, or a
meeting between the parties - that's his job.

It's beyond fathom that this case shows crime after crime on the Defendant's,
their attorney and 2 federal judges.

February 5, 2022

/s/ Natasha Athens
Favorite Things
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 97 Filed 02/05/22 Page 4 of 4


File and source

File

97-notice-of-appeal-as-to-95-order-on-motion-to-proceed-in-form.pdf

Size

1,563,177 bytes

SHA-256

c66a089b6bb8d408dc52e89a152697c74cb62bd85e62874c687343eafb1b89c3

Our copy

97-notice-of-appeal-as-to-95-order-on-motion-to-proceed-in-form.pdf

Original

archive.org