Natasha Athens v. Bank of America — Plaintiff's Response to Judge's Order on Summons (Document 18)

Summary

The plaintiff's response to the judge's order on summons, filed October 14, 2021 as Document 18 in Favorite Things, a DBA of Natasha Athens, v. Bank of America et al, Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM, a filing captioned Concord, NH, District of Merrimack NH. The response raises the question of recusal, citing 28 U.S.C. 455 by link, and objects to the 30-day response period in the October 4 order, stating that a summons allows 21 days. It states that the plaintiff used addresses from the defendant's letterhead and obtained other addresses through a private investigator, and that the plaintiff will not accept $1.00 forgiveness. It asks any judge with a connection to Bank of America to recuse. The response is signed /s/ by Natasha Athens with a certificate of service by email on October 14, 2021.

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 18 Filed 10/14/21 Page 1 of 4




                                     Concord, NH
District of Merrimack NH                              Docket # CV-00748-SM

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


PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JUDGE'S ORDER ON SUMMONS
QUESTION OF NEED FOR RECUSAL,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

The Plaintiff put the addressses of Defendant Megan's letterhead, and it's even a
fraudulent act on herself if she is not working at that location and that branch and
sending out letterhead to customers with false information.

Through a private investigator, the Plaintiff obtained enough addresses and
private data on Defendant Megan, and Brian to figure out their assets since they
are changing loan amounts on their customers.

The PLAINTIFF is obtaining this same Private Investigator data on everyone that is
part of this case, from judges to Defendants and their lawyers.

The bais on the court so far is blatant, and the court is treating the Plaintiff as
though she is a criminal Defendant, when actually it's the reverse.

Since the court has stalled the filing and service of this case, failed to read the
complaint with accuracy, given the "Defendant's" additional time to respond,
which are NO WHERE in court rules, and the court is stalling on return of unserved
notice and then putting in the 90 day time clock on being served, when they
absorbed 40 days of that clock, the Plaintiff has to ascertain the reasons for the
court bias and failure to lawfully act upon notice of country wide bank fraud.
         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 18 Filed 10/14/21 Page 2 of 4




The Plaintiff gets to present to the court, the character of a lawyer that thinks
she's above the law, has criminal and potential criminal issues on her record,
simply indicating that she thinks laws don't apply to her, even while driving on the
road, and that she can use title and position to do things like change loan
amounts perhaps because Bank of America holds her home loan, and she feels
beholden to do things based on that conflict of interest.

All of the records obtained on every single party that disregards the rule of law in
this matter becomes a party to the crime spree from these Defendants.

Megan's Auto is listed as one of the addresses in the Summons, and if she dodges
service at her place of employment, the Sheriff's have additional data to serve
her. If the Sheriff's fail to serve both parties, then the Plaintiff is having the
parties served by private detective.

The Sheriff's failed to give the required addresses for service to the Plaintiff, even
though they knew them and have been serving Bank of America lawsuits due to
these crimes of bank fraud.

A Defendant only gets 21 days written right on the Summons to respond to a
lawsuit, the prior judical order allowed for 30 days, again, stalling the urgency of
this case.

The Plaintiff is allowed to have a hearing prior to service, especially since the
court was not doing their jobs to proceed with this case, and Judge Johnstone has
0 impartiality when it comes to the Plaintiff.

Since the court failed to allow the Plaintiff her right to a hearing on status, and
other issues in the case, the Plaintiff put them in public videos and will be hoping
that in the future, the court will hold hearings as required by law.

If anyone wants to recuse themselves, or is in conflict with their own status
because they are a Bank of America customer, or their paycheck comes from Bank
of America, they are required to recuse themselves from this matter.

The Plaintiff is obtaining data on every party for the bias that has been shown
already, and for the failure to protect the Plaintiff and her right to a 100%
         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 18 Filed 10/14/21 Page 3 of 4




forgiven loan. Since Judge Johnstone failed to list in her extended 30 day
assessment of the case and failed to act upon request for an urgent hearing, but
has instead added time that is based on no law, and cut into the 90 day
timeframe for service of the summons, her partisan stance comes into a question
of recusal.

Response to Judge Johnstone order
https://www.bitchute.com/video/EdO7kuy23WU3/

Bank of America dodging Summons
https://www.bitchute.com/video/45ktAzWafQan/

The Plaintiff has a right to this loan being forgiven as does every other business
owner. There is no "appeal" to the SBA and Judge Johnstone knows this, that's
part of the fraud, but she failed to call out the Defendant for lying and trying to
set up the Plaintiff and unsuspecting business owners with a liar (Defendant
Megan Scholz) on Bank Letterhead.

The court will have to hold a hearing with the Defendant who will have to answer
to her alterting the Plaintiff's loan forgiveness application and explain where the
criminal indictment of the Plaintiff is for not being entitled to a loan and or mis-
spending the funds. Since that did not happen, and the Defendant was stupid
enough, on Bank of America letterhead, to "call it a Bank" error, this should have
been stated in the review of Judge Johnstone, and clearly seeking answers as to
why.

The Plaintiff has the right to make sure that all parties in this case are not involved
in covering up this crime, or failing at their duties. The reason that the Plaintiff
filed so many criminal reports, as well as civil, and the BAR, is that too much dirty
money changes hands to prevent the truth from surfacing.

The Defendant's can still submit the corrected forgiveness application, as there is
not a chance that the Plaintiff is accepting $1.00 forgiveness, and Megan herself
owns more than 1 property, and will have to come up with the damages due the
Plaintiff for failing to put her loan through to forgiveness. The Defendant Megan
Scholz, will also be billed for every single fee to the private investigators, and she
         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 18 Filed 10/14/21 Page 4 of 4




should hope that don't have to go and serve her, since that bill starts at $600. per
person.

The court needs to be a non-party to this case, including family that has any
accounts at Bank of America, since when the data comes from the private
investigator, it will list all relatives, and associates, and the Plaintiff can then
obtain their data and their investments, and their bank accounts or loans.

The Plaintiff formally requests lawful recusal of any party that has a connection to
the Defendant or a bias held for any other reason, and that they make this recusal
prior to the money is spent on a private investigator.

/s/ Natasha Athens
Favorite Things

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE TO Brian Moynihan, and Megan Scholz
on October 14, 2021 via their emails on record already.


File and source

File

18-response-re-16-order-set-deadlines-order-for-summons-address.pdf

Size

793,549 bytes

SHA-256

72257fc68eec7ac59d25832c41852bae1fc3e5a157d2ab532838cf214aad3e79

Our copy

18-response-re-16-order-set-deadlines-order-for-summons-address.pdf

Original

archive.org