Objection to 75 Motion to Strike 73 Exhibit, 70 Notice — No. 1:21-cv-00748 (Dkt. 76)

Summary

The plaintiff's objection and response to the defendants' motion to strike, filed by Natasha Athens in Favorite Things v. Bank of America et al, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00748-SM (D.N.H.), on January 5, 2022 as Document 76. The objection argues that the court cannot strike the brief it ordered, and accuses defense counsel Thomas Pappas of lying in the defendants' brief, exposing the plaintiff's tax records and failing to serve pleadings under Rule 25. It cites 18 U.S. Code § 1344, 26 U.S. Code § 6103 and 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and states that the case should end by settlement and restoration of the loan to forgiveness. It asks the court to deny the motion to strike, and 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 76 Filed 01/05/22 Page 1 of 7




                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                    Concord, NH
                             District of Merrimack NH
                       Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00748-SM

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

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION & REPSONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MULTIPLE MOTIONS TO
STRIKE - ALL BUT HIS OWN UNSERVED PLEADINGS

18 U.S. Code § 1344 - Bank fraud

26 U.S. Code § 6103 Tax records

18 U.S.C. § 1001, the Supreme Court stated: Our legal system provides methods
for challenging the Government's right to ask questions—lying is not one of
them. Even constitutionally explicit Fifth Amendment rights do not exonerate
affirmative false statements.

Rule 25. Filing and Service - FILING AND SERVICE, 2 parts

The truth hurts. This was all avoidable and yet we have out of control parties
breaking the law & ignoring court rules, but then seek them applied only to the
Plaintiff's content.

Here is a "comment" on how it looks outside of a corrupt circle. This comment
came from viewing one of the Plaintiff's videos on big tech.

"Sounds like that attorney and the judge are more than just attorney client. You
may have been digging and found something nefarious. LIke a routine traffic
stop for a head light and there is a body in the trunk."
         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 76 Filed 01/05/22 Page 2 of 7




Other than to yourselves, the Defedant's, their attorney, and the partisan judge,
everyone else knows that the attorney acting with his client, and a judge acting
with both parties is WRONG and ludicrous. They wonder why there has not been
a lawful ruling.

Thomas Pappas falsified his brief and Defendant Megan falsified in emails that the
Plaintiff was not entitled to this LOAN. She was. They don't have any leeway on
this loan. This was slander, defamation, and lying to a federal judge. 18 U.S.C. §
1001

Thomas Pappas LIED to the court in his BRIEF - this should be stricken as it has
misled the court and the judge.

Thomas Pappas tried to offer the Plaintiff LESS than the forgivable loan amount,
and hid his client's emails from the court. This made him an accomplis - to the
CRIME of bank fraud. 18 U.S. Code § 1344 - Bank fraud

Thomas Pappas exposed the Plaintiff's tax records, and the court did not STRIKE
that illicit pleading. 26 U.S. Code § 6103

Every party in this matter has created their own results, and the Plaintiff's right to
sue for defamation, leaked taxes, and lying, making false statements to the court
about her business and her business reputation and sales.

The correct remedy for this case was the intial request for an Emergency Hearing
in which the court should have set up, and gotten the Defendant Megan Sholz to
put the forgivable loan BACK into forgiveness and state that it was erroneously
pulled out of forgiveness. Then to compensate the Plaintiff for the stress this
brought on to her life.

Instead, all parties COMBINED forces and used a gavel, a bench, a robe, and 2
judges to target the Plaintiff, even when they have 0 control over altering terms
of a federal loan. These parties have expected to cheat and allow for partisan
connections for whatever reason to WIPE out a 100% forgivable loan. It does not
work that way, as the parties can finally see.
         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 76 Filed 01/05/22 Page 3 of 7




Their sworn duty was to uphold banking laws, federal laws, court procedures, the
RULES for electronic filing, yet the abusive, desperate, cringeworthy Thomas
Pappas harassed the Plaintiff at home, violated court procedures by refusing to
use an email address, but to bestow upon the court to consider him above the
very rules for electronic filing that were set uf 25 years ago, and basically put
himself into the judge's chambers and all parties BLUR the BOUNDARY lines,
unless it has brought their bad corruption to light. Rule 25. Filing and Service -
FILING AND SERVICE, 2 parts

There is 0 legality in the judicial rulings, orders, or even the Motion to Strike on a
one sided set of rules - rules for thee, but not for me.

The most powerful weapon is truth.

Thomas Pappas IS NOT a party, he has failed the rules for electonic filing and will
lose both cases on appeal with this method. No court can or should cover for
him, he is NOT above the law. Rule 25. Filing and Service

The Loaned money is under WORLD access and investigation. So is Thomas going
to ask FOX news, and other outlets to cease exposing that BILLIONS in loaned
money has not been forgiven? No, he cannot.

Is Thomas Pappas going to block big tech from showing on the SBA loan site the
loaned amount vs the loans lawfully forgiven? No he cannot.

The Plaintiff's brief, which the judge ordered for Christmas Eve exposes the crimes
on Megan, and her willful actions to decide she can empower herself to take a
loan out of forgiveness and change the amount to 0, without legally being able to
do that. No one can change loan amounts at all. This "BRIEF" cannot be stricken
just because it exposes the LIES in the Brief of Thomas Pappas.

The court should be asking Megan to restore this forgivable loan and since they
are not doing that, the PUBLIC has questions, as to why not.

The parties, although they want only THEIR part stricken, they want their lies to
stand, they want to defame the Plaintiff and they WANT to keep the case going
vs resolve it and close it down.
         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 76 Filed 01/05/22 Page 4 of 7




Oddly, in a Motion to Strike, a normal person, would not RECITE every part of
what they wish to be stricken, so if the pleadings were ever illicitly stricken, (and
then appealed) the issues shaming them are listed in the Motion to strike.

The Judge has no legal authority to "Strike" A Brief he requested, merely because
it contains the evidence to combat the lies written by the Attorney in his brief.

Defendant Megan slandered the Plaintiff, and has a problem with facts from her
FACEBOOK account, her own posts, revealing her way of life, and nature? She put
comments and drinking photos from 9:00 am to the Kentucky derby and chugging
a liter. The truth is not always flattering, and PEOPLE want to know what is wrong
with HER and why her own attorney and a judge are protecting her crimes. That
leads to all kinds of speculation and it cannot be contained since all parties want
this case to remain open. It's public reaction to normal people that would want
to protect their whole family and NOT be participting in bank robbery. The Public
states that they would find new friends and not associate with people that were
commiting crimes on others.

The PUBLIC knows that the duty of a judge is to RESOLVE matters, hold hearings
and bring cases to a jury, since that was reserved in this case during the filing.

The PUBLIC wants to know why neither judge Johnstone, nor McAuliffe RECUSED
themselves with thier biases and being under investigation and it being a conflict
of interest.

The PUBLIC wants to know why no hearing has been held, why isn't this case over
via hearing or trial?

The PUBLIC wants to know why Thomas Pappas lied in his brief and continues to
refuse to serve the Plaintiff?

A defaulted party cannot serve any pleadings, and Thomas, while humiliated
that he considers himself above court rules, and that he has the RIGHT and the
keys to the clerk's office to use their filing system as his personal US Marshall,
when no one else can do that is bothering hime and costing him, but he wants
the court to "cover that up" They cannot.
         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 76 Filed 01/05/22 Page 5 of 7




He has never served a single pleading, no one can fix this for him, court rules
are NOT changed for him, it's 2 parts, filing and SERVICE. He has never served a
pleading, including this one. It's simply stupid.

The court's dismissal of a VALID lawsuit for $25Million in damages for criminally
exposing stolen taxes, which the bank does not have the right to ever disclose to
anyone, was dismissed by this bias court in a week. This PROMPTs the public to
know why?

And of course, if Thomas does not reshape his own mind, he's going to lose both
cases in appellate court. He so far has FAILED to serve the Plaintiff his own notice
of appearance.

It's a sad reality for the parties here to grasp the public vision of this corruption,
and failure on the part of the court to use the same rules they seem to know for
themselves, but not to apply those rules for the protection of the Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, the court cannot strike the Plaintiff's pleadings and brief, it was
court ordered, and the responses contained therein, are a true depiction of reality
and corruption.

NO ONE can use a court system to UNFORGIVE a loan that was legally obtained
and utlilized.

IF anyone wants to "remedy" their own shame for their truth and reflection, then
there is only one remedy, and that is to close this case via settlement, and take
themselves out of the spotlight.

The scrutiny is self inflicted, normal people would NEVER want this to be their
resume, or even have the need to try to "Strike" it. It simply would not be their
story.

This case can reverse its course, but as anyone can see, the reality that Thomas
Pappas is bestowing upon the court to COVER for 2 parties, himself and his client
is cringeworthy, and causes speculation as to why.
         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 76 Filed 01/05/22 Page 6 of 7




"Sounds like that attorney and the judge are more than just attorney client. You
may have been digging and found something nefarious. LIke a routine traffic
stop for a head light and there is a body in the trunk."

Illegally striking pleadings without "striking" the lies in the Defendan'ts brief to a
federal judge, without striking the slander that the Plaintiff did not 'qualify" for a
loan that was approved by the SBA, and the Defendant BOA, is reprehensible.
While these parties have had the upper hand in abusing victims in the past, THIS
Plaintiff has not withstood it and used demo characters to bring the actions of the
parties into clarity. She was pushed to expose the hypocricy.

It's Thomas and the Judge, covering for a crime, so the PUBLIC asks why are they
covering for Megan? And how sinister is the reason.

THis is a reality that is in all parties reflection, whether they like it or not.

It's the Defendant's that have abused the system and are denying the Plaintiff
access to use this court as a means to END this case, and get her loan forgiven.

The Public is making up their own conclusions about why these parties are all
engaging together, abusing the power of "Striking Pleadings" that are not served,
from a non-party, and failing to hold a hearing so that the case ends and is
resolved is all on the parties.

Lastly, the parties are NOT willing to use a single aspect of federal law, already
listed in order to put this case to rest and remove themselves and their
complicity. Any move to "Strike" the Plaintiff's pleadings and Brief is obstructing
justice, and impeding justice, beyond what has transpired so far. Therefore the
court must leave the pleadings as they have been filed and DENY the NON-Party
Motion to Strike.

18 U.S. Code § 1344 - Bank fraud

26 U.S. Code § 6103

18 U.S.C. § 1001, the Supreme Court stated: Our legal system provides methods
for challenging the Government's right to ask questions—lying is not one of
         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 76 Filed 01/05/22 Page 7 of 7




them. Even constitutionally explicit Fifth Amendment rights do not exonerate
affirmative false statements.

It is ONLY the parties that turned this case from a civil case, into this crime
spree.

Initially this only had potential crimes, all parties and the court created actual
crimes in the process of the case, and Thomas Pappas had the lead role. His DUTY
was NOT to become a party, but to advise his client to restore the loan into
forgiveness, which he still has not done. He needs to be disbarred, and the
Plaintiff prays that the Chief judge does this.

If anyone truly cared about their own image, they would not be creating reasons
to have pleading stricken. They don't care, they are still giving themselves self
inflicted wounds. Thomas Pappas has recieved multiple emails trying to settle
this matter, and he had a chance before his crime spree to settle this for under 6
figures and he laughed. He made an offer for LESS than the forgivable amount,
which made him party to bank fraud and he has never made a counter offer, he
has chosen to spend his retainer, fail to serve the Plaintiff and continue as a non-
party.

There is supposed to be a separation in job title and roles here and the parties
have blurred the boundary lines, and don't care enough even now to protect their
own names and families, this is WHY the demo characters were used. They reveal
the most unhealthy toxic abuses of power, title, and reputation to date. Yet, no
party is sound minded enough to actually do what is right. There is "no bottom"
or end to what these parties would do together.

None of them care about the rest of their families, nor the law, nor what is right,
nor doing anything above board. This is a cabal, and they prey on small
businesses and people that want LEGAL loan forgiveness.



/s/ Natasha Athens

January 5, 2022


File and source

File

76-objection-to-75-motion-to-strike-73-exhibit-70-notice-other.pdf

Size

2,752,887 bytes

SHA-256

cfbbd464811d9377c9711e2a61277f707251488d706c0270e57bf098a235c70e

Our copy

76-objection-to-75-motion-to-strike-73-exhibit-70-notice-other.pdf

Original

archive.org