Athens v. Bank of America — Notice of Appeal of Judge McAuliffe's Order on Partial Dismissal (Document 81)

Summary

A notice of interlocutory appeal filed by plaintiff Natasha Athens in Favorite Things v. Bank of America et al, No. 1:21-cv-00748-SM (D.N.H.), on January 24, 2022 as Document 81, appealing Judge McAuliffe's order of partial dismissal. The notice accuses the judges of ties to the defendants and their counsel, argues that counsel Thomas Pappas never served a notice of appearance and is in default, and cites 18 U.S. Code § 1344. It seeks a default ruling against Pappas, an appeal on the entire case for the $5Million sought, and an order for a new forgiveness application in the loan amount of $18625.00. The 3-page notice is signed /s/ by Athens, who states that a fee waiver motion is attached.

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 81 Filed 01/24/22 Page 1 of 3




                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              Concord, NH
                        District of Merrimack NH
                       Docket # . 1:21-cv-00748-SM
                             Favorite Things
                                  a DBA
                            Natasha Athens
                                     v.
                          Bank of America et al
                              Megan Scholz
                               Defendants

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF INTERLOCATORY APPEAL OF JUDGE
McAuliffe's Order Partial Dismissal and Order for Illicit Taxes and Judicial
complicity in bank fraud 18 U.S. Code § 1344 - Bank fraud
Now comes the Plaintiff in the above entitled law suit and does file an
notice of appeal on this case.
Judge McAuliffe has illegal ties to both the Defendant and their attorney
and failed to issue a default ruling, despite the Plaintiff never being served,
and he furthered his illegal ties and dragged out a case for months on a
CARES act Bank Loan, to which he can not alter or nullify it's forgiveness.
Only a DOJ proving a fraudulent loan can seek recovery of the lawfully
obtained, and correctly spent funds, that were given either in error or by
fraud and that never happened.
Judge McAuliffe threatened the lawful forgiveness of the Plaintiff's loan by
trying to extort illegal documents and an affidavit, from HER, but not from
the people committing the crimes of bank fraud.
In the attached pleading, it's BLATANTLY clear that the judge has too
much compromise to do his job and use the Constitution.
Judge Johnstone and Judge McAuliffe failed to recuse themselves despite
blatant ties and bias, and they continued after default and failure to even
serve Notice of Appearance of their Attorney, Thomas Pappas.
There are no exceptions the the 2 part system of both filing and service, for
the exact reason that filings and even lottery winnings get posed in "spam"
folders, either by accident or on purpose.
        Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 81 Filed 01/24/22 Page 2 of 3




https://nypost.com/2022/01/24/woman-stumbled-on-winning-lottery-ticket-
in-spam-email-folder/
Court pleadings can be placed there w/ the intention of defaulting a party or
any other reason, thus 25 years ago, they approved 2 party filing and
service, just like filing and serving by 1st class mail, or a sheriff.
The judge was so bias and connected that he failed to issue a default
ruling, ever seek the Defendant to answer to why she pulled a loan out of
forgiveness, stole bank tax records, closed a business account, and did
this, and how many people she did this to.
Despite the court KNOWING that there are gatekeepers tracking the
borrowed money, vs, the money in forgiveness, and multiple investigators
overseeing the funds, this judge tried to become a "bank robber" with both
Thomas Pappas, and Megan Scholz, and try to set up the Plaintiff in a way
no Plaintiff can ever be ordered to answer to.
(see Exhibit one) The Judge's Order - it's not a legal order, and it FAILED
to allow for compensation to the Plaintiff who was lawfully allowed a second
loan under the program and BOA was cheating even on the 2nd round to
steal the funds for themselves and not let businesses obtain them.
In an UNLAWFUL dismissal for compensation, Judge McAuliffe cannot
legally deny damages when there was actual injury, and going on 2 years
of anguish, stress, high blood pressure, typing court paperwork on a 100%
forgivable loan.
WHEREFORE The Plaintiff, who wrote all of the above, plus the Default of
Thomas Pappas, show that this judge is into nefarious activitives with the
Defendant and that attorney, and refused to rule for the right of forgiveness
his only duty under the law.
No one has legal authority to touch a loan, or alter it's numbers once
received. This is something Bank of America has done to the SMALLEST
of businesses, in order to create new business in either stealing their
forgivable funds, or forcing them into bankruptcy. At which point, they
make a new set of income, with Thomas Pappas doing their cases.
The parties were offered a dozen offers to settle this matter, and redo the
loan, and failed, never responded and tried to set up very compromised
judges to do their dirty laundry, and mop up their mess and they both
obliged and cannot.
       Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 81 Filed 01/24/22 Page 3 of 3




The Plaintiff seeks a default ruling on Thomas Pappas, and an appeal
on the entire case for the $5Million she sought, and an order to issue
a new Forgiveness application in the amount of the loan, $18625.00 in
which the 1st Circuit Court must do under Bank Fraud law
18 U.S. Code § 1344 - Bank fraud
The Plaintiff is indigent, and filing a motion to waive the fee, see
attached.


/s/ Natasha Athens
FILED with the court on January 24, 2022
The other side never served his notice of appearance, defaulting him
under the rules for electronic filing. He has also defaulted on the
other parts of this case on appeal, thus this appeal is moot, and the
Plaintiff just needs a ruling.
Once any part of the case is lost, so is the rest of the case.


File and source

File

81-notice-of-interlocutory-appeal-as-to-78-order-on-motion-to-d.pdf

Size

1,554,152 bytes

SHA-256

e010129c23cffd72d375a8de7f5982e8605eeacff1727afa9c092e5b26d2b504

Our copy

81-notice-of-interlocutory-appeal-as-to-78-order-on-motion-to-d.pdf

Original

archive.org