Objection to 75 Motion to Strike 73 Exhibit, 70 Notice — No. 1:21-cv-00748 (Dkt. 77)

Summary

A rewritten objection to the motion to strike, filed by plaintiff 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 77. The objection argues that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to both sides and that the plaintiff is entitled to hearings, default rulings and an impartial judge, noting that the court has not scheduled a hearing even on the motion to dismiss. It objects to striking the plaintiff's pleadings unless the defendants' pleadings on leaked tax records and their brief are also struck. The 2-page filing states that settlement offers have drawn no interest 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 77 Filed 01/05/22 Page 1 of 2




                         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 TO JUDICIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (Rewrite)

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Apply to BOTH SIDES

Now comes the Plaintiff who objects to the reverse of court rules that ONLY apply
to the Defendant's, and not the Plaintiff.

Under "federal rules" the Plaintiff is entitled to hearings, and rulings that are
federal law, including an impartial judge, use of ALL court rules, including default
rulings for non-compliance, and failure to serve the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is
entitled to use of court rules as they apply to the Defendant's.

No hearing has been scheduled - no lawful ruling has ever been made, no
mediation ordered or suggested, unheard of, and in truth, no one wants to stop
their own embarassment, (hypocricy) . Parties seem to have 0 other cases, and
have put 100% attention on a forgivable loan. When hours are calcuated, they
have put more than 50 hours into a case that has an unchangeable outcome = for
them.

The court has not held a hearing even on the Motion to Dismiss, which is part of
federal rules. The Plaintiff seeks her rights to be PUT into this case, as the court
has only used "federal court rules" upon their own part, not for the Plaintiff.
         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 77 Filed 01/05/22 Page 2 of 2




WHEREFORE, she objects to the manipulation of STRIKING pleadings that are one
sided, when illicit content, and false pleadings, would also have to be stricken.

The Defendant's and their attorney are finally seeking almost the entire case to be
"stricken" indicating that they are effected by this case and their own actions.

The Court needs to be impartial, and rule for both sides with the same rules,
therefore they would strike pleadings of illicit taxes being leaked, and a brief
written with lies to the judge.

The Plaintiff wants to RESOLVE this matter and leave the state of New Hampshire.
This should be an enticement to get the case closed. She has made offers to the
Defendant's to settle, there is 0 interest.



/s/ Natasha Athens

January 5, 2022


File and source

File

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

Size

786,423 bytes

SHA-256

bdf317fd875b83fe7b7f0315df6f87babeb22ede485e06353d52ef7c6396fff1

Our copy

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

Original

archive.org