Objection & Motion to Reconsider — No. 1:21-cv-00748 (Dkt. 79)

Summary

The plaintiff's objection and motion to reconsider the partial dismissal, filed by Natasha Athens in Natasha Athens d/b/a Favorite Things v. Bank of America and Megan Scholz, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00748-SM (D.N.H.), on January 22, 2022 as Document 79. The motion accuses the judge of bias, argues that the defendants filed but never served their response, and states that the loan was being forgiven before Scholz pulled it out of forgiveness. It asks the court to require sworn affidavits from Scholz, defense counsel Thomas Pappas and the judges, cites 28 U.S. Code § 144, and seeks reinstatement of the emotional distress claim or recusal. The 7-page filing is signed /s/ by 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 79 Filed 01/22/22 Page 1 of 7




                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                        Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00748-SM

                     NATASHA ATHENS d/b/a Favorite Things,
                                  Plaintiff,
                                      v.
                     BANK OF AMERICA and MEGAN SCHOLZ,
                                Defendants.

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION & MOTION TO RECONSIDER BIAS DISMISSAL
OF BANK FRAUD CASE

Now comes the Plaintiff and does object and seek that this bias judge and court
reconsider their manipulation of facts and failure to institute their own legal duty
to uphold the Constitution, and use it FOR the Defendant's and NOT apply it to
the Plaintiff

Bias and corrupt Judge McAuliffe is right about 1 thing. The Defendant's did FILE
a response, however they failed to SERVE it to the Plaintiff, and there are no
exceptions, it's FILE AND SERVE.

When those that swore to protect and serve, and uphold justice and fail to do
this, and use their power to reverse the process as has happened in this case, this
is the result.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/K0gGttszOP0w/

Finally the crimes are so bad that parties are called out for their treason,
complicity, and in this case aiding and abetting in bank fraud, theft of CARE funds,
and letting the Secret Service KNOW their own roles.

The Plaintiff's loan WAS being forgiven on its way to the SBA, and the Judge has
seen this exhibit. The Defendant's want this judge to cover their behinds for the
        Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 79 Filed 01/22/22 Page 2 of 7




crimes they committed WHEN the Plaintiff got her 100% loan put through for 2.5
weeks of payroll in over 500 days of "crisis" - Stated in other pleadings.

His reliance on a false pleading to the court to COVER for Bank fraud, is comical,
since he clearly knows that no one can undo a loan, including the PPP loans.

The Judge needs to POSE the following (as is his/her sworn duty) to the
Defendants:

1      Ask Megan Scholz to write a sworn affidavit that the Plaintiff was NOT
entitled to her PPP loan.

2     Ask Megan Sholz to write a Sworn Affidavit then how she proceeded to
REPORT the Plaintiff to the DOJ and AG for "misspending" her allotted funds
and how that investigation is going. And she needs to give the DATES that she
reported this, after the loan was obtained, approved, used property for her
business, and submitted for Forgiveness.

3     Ask Megan Scholz to write a sworn affidavit on how she obtained stolen tax
records from the Appellant's account.

4     Ask Thomas Pappas to write a sworn affidavit that he took stolen tax
records from 2 different applications and submitted them as a felony to this court
and had to have them sealed.

Also stated PREVIOUSLY, the Plaintiff was offered a reduced forgiveness amount,
and said no. Then to set up the Defendant's to PROVE the bank fraud, she put it
through, and still fought for the corrected amount to be adjusted and it was. All
done by the PPP staff at Bank of America. And the full amount was then put into
process. Defendant Megan Pulled it out of Forgiveness.

5      The court needs a sworn affidavit from Megan Scholz as to why she pulled
it out of forgiveness and how many times she reduced loans on other small
business customers.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2020/07/10/banks-made-billions-on-ppp-
loans-learn-what-theyre-doing-with-the-cash/?sh=5bd3b3837f2f
         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 79 Filed 01/22/22 Page 3 of 7




6    The court needs to ask Megan Scholz how much BOA proffited from the
CARES act and small businesses loans - in a sworn affidavit.

7.    Judges McAuliffe and Magistate Judge Johnstone need to write sworn
affidavits on their connection to the Defendant's, who holds their bank accounts,
investments, home loans.

8.     Judges McAuliffe and Magistrate Judge Johnstone needs to write sworn
affidavits on why they believe a document from one VP at Bank of America but
not another, the one that appoved the loan. Are they racist? Or connected? Why
would anyone discount evidence that validated a loan based on PAYROLL, not
taxes that was approved?

9.     Judge McAuliffe should write a sworn affidavit that he rewrote the rules for
electronic filng all by himself, without Congress nor the Senate nor any President
signing off on such a law, and that because he entitled himself to do this FOR A
DEFENDANT, he wrote that up himself in order to NOT issue a default ruling.

The PLAINTIFF/Appellant does not have to prove herself at all, her actual loan
proves itself.

Even under subpoena, the IRS does not give out tax records and the court
knows this, The Plaintiff tried once to subpoena tax records of another corrupt
fraud, and the she spoke with the IRS, not only did they state that they don't
have to appear under subpoena for sought after records, they are not legal to
seek at all for anyone. No one can even request or order them to be shown.

This Judge is trying now to break the law for the Defendant's, use his bias and a
fake order to try to thwart all banking laws, and use "sharia law" (made up rulings
and orders) but fail to apply those same standards on the Defendant's.

Judicial harassment is the entire bullying tactic of this order, the question is why?
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/m
odel_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_2/rule2
_3biasprejudiceandharassment/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/144
         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 79 Filed 01/22/22 Page 4 of 7




28 U.S. Code § 144 is the entire nature of this order and tu boot the JUDGE is
trying to derail the Plaintiff's knowledge of the law.

It is a LAWFUL Plaintiff vs a Criminal Judge who has attempted here to use the
Constitition only for the Defendant's and Sharia law for the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is actually entited to LARGE damages for infliction of emotional
distress, her blood pressure records alone, show this clearly, heart attack levels of
numbers that she has to fight to keep safe within her stress level and her age.

This court is NOT in charge of those damages, parties seek juries of their piers that
determine those figures. Anyone who thinks that this nature of a case done so
publicly is not injured is unfit to rule and should be forced to retire. There comes
a point when a judge can no longer render legal rulings due to compromise it has
NOTHING to do with case validity.

https://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1234&context=
clr

TORT law on this type of distress is over 100 years old, not a NEW injury.

Erin Andrews was awarded $55 Million for a peeping Tom and while the Plaintiff
was not spied on in that sense, the damages for the distress play in when a vicious
VP of a bank, an unfit creep of a skanky attorney, and 2 courts do a lyinching on a
Plaintiff female business owner over her own right to her privacy, but have
instead splattered it on the internet to hide their own crimes.

ANYONE is injured by public scrutiny, anyone is injured by published lies. And no
judge has the lawful power to stand in for the jury, vs allow for all Plaintiff's to
seek their legal right to be heard in front of a jury and let them decide.

In this illicit dismissal, the judge is trying to cover his boom boom and thinks that
he can impose sharia law on the Plaintiff (making up his own right to override
federal law on protection of taxes) and write an illicit order that he expects
himself and courts above him to uphold, even though only their own obstruction
of justice would ever agree with such an illegal order.
         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 79 Filed 01/22/22 Page 5 of 7




The interlockatory appeal was filed, and Thomas Pappas defaulted BOA and
Megan Scholz by failure to serve, as she knew he would do. Thomas Pappas is not
above the law.

It only takes one person to start putting things back into the right direction, and it
should be this case, why? To save own self.

WHEREFORE, this is the court's last chance to use the Constitution on both sides
and try to keep parties out of prison.

The Plaintiff seeks that this court Rewrite this order, and reconsider their illicit
dismissal of denial of compensation for infliction of emotional distress

It's ironic that the Plaintiff has gone up against Seyfarth Shaw, and won, Google
attorney's Perkin Coie, and this court is trying to tell her to "get better advice".

Anyone that has denied her justice committed crimes to do so, and she has
beaten every attorney across her path, why? She uses the rule of law.

There is an attorney that helped her in MA, and they are one of the best law firms
there is, they only take cases worth MILLIONS.

The amount of time in 6 months on a case under $20K for starters without
compensation is laughable and exposing how deeply the lined pockets are.

The court can either use sharia law to deny forgiveness, which truly makes the
court PARTY to bank fraud, and theft of CARES funds, and the loan then falls back
onto Bank of America and won't be able to be put through the SBA

This court can only do 2 lawful things, they can hold a hearing on Megan to aid in
the wherabouts of billions of unforgiven funds, or they can rule that the Plaintiff
can and should be compensated for her lawful loan, and her right to additional
damages.
         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 79 Filed 01/22/22 Page 6 of 7




If the court issues an illicit dismissal based on theft of records to which they do
not need, are not privy, and cannot seek, they will be in violation of their oath,
banking laws, tax laws, and federal loan theft.

NO Party - Plaintiff nor Defendant has to succum to illicit orders. This court can
continue to expose their bias, but prior to that decision, try to grasp this.

The Plaintiff has close to 3Million deleted files, she just had to try to recover a
document accidentally deleted, it took the sotfware over 14 hours to download
this data, and in the process recovered her total amount of deleted files.

These files that are deleted mean they have been sent in emails to the lawful
parties and served or put into court cases, etc.

What this also means is that the investigators HAVE these files and are keeping
their eyes on what this court is doing to a 100% forgivable loan.

HENCE, people should take this opportunity to CORRECT their previous rulings
and errors because criminal charges against the parties are peding.

Other attorney's asked the Plaintiff, "I wonder how long they colluded to think
this one up" that's how ridiculous this is to Constitutional parties and how bad
this court is appearing.

If the court does not reissue a Constitutional ruling, in which the lawful questions
and sworn statements could be put onto the record and were suggested above,
not only can the Plaintiff/Appellant appeal this, but she will continue to turn over
evidence to the investigators on this.

The Plaintiff seeks this court to rewrite this order, remove the illicit dismissal of
lawful tort damages and either recuse themselves for bias, or put the same set of
demands on the Defendant's that they have illegally done on the Plaintiff.

/s/ Natasha Athens

January 22, 2022
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 79 Filed 01/22/22 Page 7 of 7


File and source

File

79-objection-motion-to-reconsider-re-78-order-granting-in-part.pdf

Size

1,557,963 bytes

SHA-256

eb5553e6a8bcc05cdcfd2841ffd4025a9d2ed1a08f8856739b4268ee972b986f

Our copy

79-objection-motion-to-reconsider-re-78-order-granting-in-part.pdf

Original

archive.org