Notice of Appeal of Judge MacLiffe's denial of Motion ot Quash 3 — No. 1:21-cv-00748 (Dkt. 53)

Summary

A notice of appeal filed November 22, 2021 as Document 53 by plaintiff Natasha Athens, doing business as Favorite Things, in Athens v. Bank of America et al, Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM, captioned Concord, NH. It appeals Judge Steven J. McAuliffe's denial of her Motion to Quash the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiff contends that defense counsel Thomas Pappas never served his appearance or pleadings on her, that service through the court's electronic filing system is not lawful service, and that the defendants are in default. The notice accuses Judge McAuliffe and Magistrate Judge Johnstone of bias and states that any non-party filing on the appeal will prompt further claims for damages. 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 53 Filed 11/22/21 Page 1 of 4




                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                Concord, NH
                    District of Merrimack NH Docket #
                               Favorite Things
                                   a DBA
                              Natasha Athens
                                      v.
                           Bank of America et al
                                Megan Scholz
                                 Defendants

PLAINTIFF'S EX-PARTY NOTICE OF APPEAL ON Judge Steven J.
McAuliffe's DENIAL of a Motion to Quash Non-Party Motion to Dismiss

The Plaintiff - the only party in this matter due to default and negligence of
Thomas Pappas who cannot use anyone in a court to act as "service" failed
to ever serve notice of his appearance, nor any pleadings.

Magistrate Judge Johnstone tried to operate as a Defendant and defy
judical oath, and so has Judge McAuliffe. The Motion to Quash was an
added "Motion" , another layer of Protection on a defaulted case. There
was never any legal way to not serve the Plaintiff, court clerk's do not have
service in their duties. Judges are supposed to uphold their oaths, be bi-
partisan and rule under the Constitution, a fact that this court does not do -
at all. Especially with the Plaintiff, the bias is shown throughout every
movement of the Plaintiff's ability to retain lawful forgiveness on an 100%
forgivable loan.

Judge McAuliffe is just as compromised as Judge Johnstone, and now has
evidence of 3 different amounts on a single loan, and documents that were
sealed. The fact that he issued this ruling, after what Judge Johnstone did
last week, is beyond fathom, and the question is why are they in "bed" with
the bank. It will come out eventually, as now Judge McAuliffe just put his
own self on the list of those involved in bank crimes and it's unclear if
Judge Johnstone had to "remove herself now" due to pending
investigations or the 2nd lawsuit against Thomas Pappas was received this
am.
        Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 53 Filed 11/22/21 Page 2 of 4




Judge McAuliffe would actually Have ALLOWED a Motion to be quashed
when a defaulted party contines to file pleadings and cannot.

This FIX was in, but sadly the parties who never could have prevailed in
this case, continue to sit uncomfortably as the Plaintiff is allowed to appeal
as an Ex-Party. Should Thomas Pappas continue, even though he
defaulted, he will add evidence to his new criminal record, and reasons he
needs to lose his bar card.

The court in NH is a deeply rooted cabal, and one can only imagine the
frightening skeletons they all have in their judical chambers.

WHEREFORE, The Plaintiff is serving Notice to the Court that she has
appealed this illicit order, the Motion would have to allow for anyone not
operating within the electonic filing rules - to not be able to use the system,
and for the crime of leaked documents, This judge should have done
something to the Defenant attorney, yet nothing for the Plaintiff, despite this
crime.

The fact that this motion was denied is moot, since the case is on appeal,
and the judge seems to have had to replace Judge Johnstone's ruling.
When victims have to appear before these corrupt judges, who defy the
rule of law for them, they need to be held to their inability to carry out their
duties and be removed.

Also, the Judge did not even explain his illicit ruling, another problem with
our justice system, they have to be held to their rulings and when they
ignore the law, it's not a Plaintiff that "does not agree" with a ruling, it's that
they are too biest to even appear impartial. They display without being
called to answer for it.

The CASE is on appeal = ex party, and multiple outlets have the data that
this court has allowed for bank fraud, exposure of illicit records, criminal
harrassment of Thomas Pappas, failure to serve and use the electonic
system, and the court trying to change the laws and rules for that, and they
must be flipping out over the next lawsuit, which they have to abide by the
electronic rules of filing and the Plaintiff had to write it into case language
on her motion for electronic filing, since the court wants to pretend that
somehow they can allow for a one party filing/service system that does not
        Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 53 Filed 11/22/21 Page 3 of 4




exist, and never will. Any lawful judge would DEMAND 2 part service as
the law requires to assure that every single document is served.

They are too corrupt to ever see how this could backfire on someone, and
sadly, NH Federal Court uses Sharia law, and has ditched the Constitution
long ago, way before the Plaintiff moved to NH.

They "make up rules" as they go along, and change it per case, per Plaintiff
and per back door deal. They consider themselves so far above the law
that now they forget what is Constitutional and what is legal. It is NOT
legal for the court to even attempt to alter the rules of filing and service
without legislation. There has never been a document filed so far since
electonic service began that tried to make it a one party service, where the
court becomes the server, the US Marshall.

It's unclear why moronic Thomas Pappas was stubborn to a fault, the day
he signed on, this issue was addressed, and he failed to respond, he failed
to file a single document that allowed him to create his own set of rules,
and it's only his incredibly twisted connection to judges here that enabled
him to continue and file in his pleadings that he was using the court as
service and cannot.

Appealed this day, November 22, 2021

FILED WITH THE COURT

THERE is no reqirement to serve a non-party and the Plaintiff is not going
to enable this continue. Should any non-party try to file pleadings on the
appeal, the Plaintiff is seeking additional damages and criminal charges.
(already in place, this will just be additional)

Since the Appellate court KNOWS that it's 2 party system - filing and
service, they cannot engage or cover for this bank fraud case, and the
negligence of Thomas Pappas.

/s/ Natasha Athens
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 53 Filed 11/22/21 Page 4 of 4


File and source

File

53-notice-of-appeal-of-judge-macliffe-s-denial-of-motion-ot-qua.pdf

Size

800,754 bytes

SHA-256

18d5314475582b9c2bc6666d0e04a81b65376171189ed78f87a83297cc13d732

Our copy

53-notice-of-appeal-of-judge-macliffe-s-denial-of-motion-ot-qua.pdf

Original

archive.org