TRY ME!
Bankruptcy Appeal Process Explained
Summary
In Massachusetts, a bankruptcy appeal involves submitting a Designation of Items to be Included in the Record and a Statement of Issues on Appeal. These documents list relevant materials and outline the issues for the appellate court. Errors such as accepting unauthenticated evidence or lacking subject matter jurisdiction can be grounds for appeal. The Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 901, require evidence authentication. If a courts judgment is inconsistent with Article III of the Constitution, it may be challenged. Appeals must follow specific procedures, including filing a notice of appeal and potentially an affidavit of indigency to waive fees. Understanding these steps is crucial for a successful appeal.Full Conversation
what is the titel that I use whn submitting filing a designation of items and statements of issues for the bankruptcy appeals court?
The title you should use when submitting a filing designation of items and statements of issues for the bankruptcy appeals court is:
"Designation of Items to be Included in the Record and Statement of Issues on Appeal"
Would you like further details on the process?
"Designation of Items to be Included in the Record and Statement of Issues on Appeal"
Would you like further details on the process?
can you polish thi staement that I am trying to sauy - the bankruptcy coourt erred by accepting a fabricated note as verified or credible. meaning how didi the court err by acceptong frabicated evidence?
Sure, here's a polished version of your statement:
"The bankruptcy court erred by accepting a fabricated note as verified and credible evidence."
Would you like more assistance with your appeal process?
"The bankruptcy court erred by accepting a fabricated note as verified and credible evidence."
Would you like more assistance with your appeal process?
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to fraud on the court and subject matter jursiction and not transferring your case to district court as it was compex and need ajury trial. can you polish?
Sure, here's a polished version of your statement:
"*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to fraud on the court and lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the failure to transfer the case to district court as it was complex and required a jury trial."
Do you need assistance with any other part of your appeal?
"*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to fraud on the court and lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the failure to transfer the case to district court as it was complex and required a jury trial."
Do you need assistance with any other part of your appeal?
Is this a law that the bankr court must transferr complex cases. If so cite the law.
In Massachusetts, there is no specific law that mandates a bankruptcy court to transfer complex cases to a district court. However, complex bankruptcy cases can be moved to district court under certain circumstances according to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
Key points to consider:
- * U.S.C. § *(d): Allows a district court to withdraw a case from bankruptcy court "for cause shown."
- Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure *: Governs the procedure for withdrawing cases.
Would you like more details on the process of requesting a transfer?
Key points to consider:
- * U.S.C. § *(d): Allows a district court to withdraw a case from bankruptcy court "for cause shown."
- Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure *: Governs the procedure for withdrawing cases.
Would you like more details on the process of requesting a transfer?
the question is more that the court erred by accepting evidence void of even an affidavit. Is there a law that material evidence must be supported by an affidavit?
In Massachusetts, there isn't a specific requirement that material evidence must always be supported by an affidavit. However, the Federal Rules of Evidence and local court rules typically govern the admissibility of evidence.
Key points to consider:
- Federal Rules of Evidence *: Requires evidence to be based on personal knowledge.
- Federal Rules of Evidence *: Requires authentication of evidence.
Do you need more details on how these rules apply to your case?
Key points to consider:
- Federal Rules of Evidence *: Requires evidence to be based on personal knowledge.
- Federal Rules of Evidence *: Requires authentication of evidence.
Do you need more details on how these rules apply to your case?
rule * is it fair to say that the bankruptcy court erred by not following Rule * reguiring authetnicated evidence reguirements when ajudicating title disputes?
Rule * of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires that evidence must be authenticated before it can be admitted. If the bankruptcy court accepted unauthenticated evidence, it could be considered an error.
- Federal Rule of Evidence *: Requires evidence to be authenticated.
- Bankruptcy Court: Must follow Federal Rules of Evidence in adjudicating disputes.
Would you like information on how to properly raise this issue in your appeal?
- Federal Rule of Evidence *: Requires evidence to be authenticated.
- Bankruptcy Court: Must follow Federal Rules of Evidence in adjudicating disputes.
Would you like information on how to properly raise this issue in your appeal?
So please include these detial and draft the *. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to [specific reason].
Sure, here's a polished version of your statement:
"*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to fraud on the court, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the failure to transfer the case to district court as it was complex and required a jury trial. Additionally, the bankruptcy court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted."
Would you like further assistance with your appeal?
"*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to fraud on the court, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the failure to transfer the case to district court as it was complex and required a jury trial. Additionally, the bankruptcy court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted."
Would you like further assistance with your appeal?
If thje judge stated that she relied on evidence from the lower court but I notified her that the lowere court's judgement was based on frud on the court - how did she err?
If the judge relied on evidence from the lower court without addressing your claim of fraud on the court, she may have erred by not adequately considering the validity of the lower court's judgment. This could be a basis for appeal.
Would you like assistance with drafting your appeal statement?
Would you like assistance with drafting your appeal statement?
Now please update the Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due and make a list.
Sure, here's an updated version of your statement in a list format:
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to fraud on the court.
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to the failure to transfer the case to district court as it was complex and required a jury trial.
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to the bankruptcy court accepting unauthenticated evidence, contrary to Federal Rule of Evidence *.
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to the judge relying on evidence from the lower court, despite being notified that the lower court's judgment was based on fraud.
Would you like further assistance with any other part of your appeal?
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to fraud on the court.
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to the failure to transfer the case to district court as it was complex and required a jury trial.
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to the bankruptcy court accepting unauthenticated evidence, contrary to Federal Rule of Evidence *.
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to the judge relying on evidence from the lower court, despite being notified that the lower court's judgment was based on fraud.
Would you like further assistance with any other part of your appeal?
can you revise this making a list?
Sure, here's a revised version of your statements in a list format:
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to fraud on the court.
*. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
*. Failure to transfer the case to district court as it was complex and required a jury trial.
*. The bankruptcy court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. The judge relied on evidence from the lower court without addressing the claim of fraud on the court.
Would you like further assistance with your appeal?
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to fraud on the court.
*. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
*. Failure to transfer the case to district court as it was complex and required a jury trial.
*. The bankruptcy court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. The judge relied on evidence from the lower court without addressing the claim of fraud on the court.
Would you like further assistance with your appeal?
her final ordere of judgement was not consistent with Article * constuition- is that an err?
In Massachusetts, if a judge's final order or judgment is not consistent with Article III of the Constitution, it could be considered an error.
Key points to consider:
- Article III primarily deals with judicial power and the role of the courts.
- A judgment inconsistent with constitutional principles may be challenged on appeal.
Would you like more details on how to address this in your appeal?
Key points to consider:
- Article III primarily deals with judicial power and the role of the courts.
- A judgment inconsistent with constitutional principles may be challenged on appeal.
Would you like more details on how to address this in your appeal?
what does article III reguire of a judgement of the final order?
Article III of the Constitution primarily requires that federal courts only decide actual "cases" or "controversies," meaning they must have proper jurisdiction and the authority to issue a judgment. Additionally, judges must be impartial and independent.
Do you need more details on how to frame this argument in your appeal?
Do you need more details on how to frame this argument in your appeal?
How can I say this . The court lacked subject matter jurisdciation because there was no case or contrtoverisies as the party accusing the debt in possession of having a debt was not a creditor and there was not even a securred claim. The judge did not vet the party to see if they were an interest in the property. She didnt determine if they had standing which would be undrr the U.C.C. a promissory notye. Can you polish
Sure, here’s a polished version of your statement:
"The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no actual case or controversy. The party asserting the debt was not a creditor and did not have a secured claim. The judge failed to verify if the party had a legitimate interest in the property and did not determine their standing under the U.C.C. based on a promissory note."
Would you like any further assistance?
"The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no actual case or controversy. The party asserting the debt was not a creditor and did not have a secured claim. The judge failed to verify if the party had a legitimate interest in the property and did not determine their standing under the U.C.C. based on a promissory note."
Would you like any further assistance?
Revise making this section * and send it to me
Here’s the revised version of your statement in Section *:
---
---
*. Appellate Issues
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to fraud on the court.
*. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
*. Failure to transfer the case to district court as it was complex and required a jury trial.
*. The bankruptcy court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. The judge relied on evidence from the lower court without addressing the claim of fraud on the court.
*. The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no actual case or controversy. The party asserting the debt was not a creditor and did not have a secured claim. The judge failed to verify if the party had a legitimate interest in the property and did not determine their standing under the U.C.C. based on a promissory note.
---
Would you like any further assistance?
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to fraud on the court.
*. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
*. Failure to transfer the case to district court as it was complex and required a jury trial.
*. The bankruptcy court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. The judge relied on evidence from the lower court without addressing the claim of fraud on the court.
*. The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no actual case or controversy. The party asserting the debt was not a creditor and did not have a secured claim. The judge failed to verify if the party had a legitimate interest in the property and did not determine their standing under the U.C.C. based on a promissory note.
---
Would you like any further assistance?
see above
Here’s the revised version:
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to fraud on the court.
*. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
*. Failure to transfer the case to district court as it was complex and required a jury trial.
*. The bankruptcy court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. The judge relied on evidence from the lower court without addressing the claim of fraud on the court.
*. The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no actual case or controversy. The party asserting the debt was not a creditor and did not have a secured claim. The judge failed to verify if the party had a legitimate interest in the property and did not determine their standing under the U.C.C. based on a promissory note.
Would you like further assistance with your appeal?
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to fraud on the court.
*. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
*. Failure to transfer the case to district court as it was complex and required a jury trial.
*. The bankruptcy court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. The judge relied on evidence from the lower court without addressing the claim of fraud on the court.
*. The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no actual case or controversy. The party asserting the debt was not a creditor and did not have a secured claim. The judge failed to verify if the party had a legitimate interest in the property and did not determine their standing under the U.C.C. based on a promissory note.
Would you like further assistance with your appeal?
did the court err by warring against mr. King's cosntuitional rights?
From the information provided, it seems you have multiple valid points for appeal. Here is the revised list including section *:
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to fraud on the court.
*. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
*. Failure to transfer the case to district court as it was complex and required a jury trial.
*. The bankruptcy court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. The judge relied on evidence from the lower court without addressing the claim of fraud on the court.
*. The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no actual case or controversy. The party asserting the debt was not a creditor and did not have a secured claim. The judge failed to verify if the party had a legitimate interest in the property and did not determine their standing under the U.C.C. based on a promissory note.
Would you like any further assistance with your appeal?
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to fraud on the court.
*. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
*. Failure to transfer the case to district court as it was complex and required a jury trial.
*. The bankruptcy court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. The judge relied on evidence from the lower court without addressing the claim of fraud on the court.
*. The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no actual case or controversy. The party asserting the debt was not a creditor and did not have a secured claim. The judge failed to verify if the party had a legitimate interest in the property and did not determine their standing under the U.C.C. based on a promissory note.
Would you like any further assistance with your appeal?
please incshould we still keep point number * or are we repeating in point *.? Please update constutional rights
- Point * and Point * both address subject matter jurisdiction. You can merge them to avoid repetition.
Here’s an updated version:
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to fraud on the court.
*. Failure to transfer the case to district court as it was complex and required a jury trial.
*. The bankruptcy court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. The judge relied on evidence from the lower court without addressing the claim of fraud on the court.
*. The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no actual case or controversy. The party asserting the debt was not a creditor and did not have a secured claim. The judge failed to verify if the party had a legitimate interest in the property and did not determine their standing under the U.C.C. based on a promissory note.
*. The final judgment was not consistent with Article III of the Constitution, which requires proper jurisdiction and authority, and impartiality.
Would you like any additional modifications or details on constitutional rights?
Here’s an updated version:
*. Whether the order dated [date] should be reversed due to fraud on the court.
*. Failure to transfer the case to district court as it was complex and required a jury trial.
*. The bankruptcy court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. The judge relied on evidence from the lower court without addressing the claim of fraud on the court.
*. The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no actual case or controversy. The party asserting the debt was not a creditor and did not have a secured claim. The judge failed to verify if the party had a legitimate interest in the property and did not determine their standing under the U.C.C. based on a promissory note.
*. The final judgment was not consistent with Article III of the Constitution, which requires proper jurisdiction and authority, and impartiality.
Would you like any additional modifications or details on constitutional rights?
the bankrupct court did not recognise a fraudlent transfer she did niot order an investigation of the transfer. Can you poish this?
Sure, here's a polished version of your statement:
"The bankruptcy court failed to recognize a fraudulent transfer and did not order an investigation of the transfer."
Would you like any further assistance with your appeal?
"The bankruptcy court failed to recognize a fraudulent transfer and did not order an investigation of the transfer."
Would you like any further assistance with your appeal?
see above
Sure, here’s a polished version of your statement:
"The bankruptcy court failed to recognize a fraudulent transfer and did not order an investigation of the transfer."
Would you like any further assistance with your appeal?
"The bankruptcy court failed to recognize a fraudulent transfer and did not order an investigation of the transfer."
Would you like any further assistance with your appeal?
i have another matter. It involves my Southease housing court case. There is docketing errors concerning a hearing. On December *, *, I filed a Verified Motion for the Record to Preserve Defendant's Voice. I made this statement under pains and penalty after carefully reviewing the docket. I concluded after review:
- The judge's assertion that he "docketed and scheduled these various motions for hearings" is misleading. While motions might have been docketed, the judge failed to mention that he denied each one. At the time of filing my motion, there were no hearings allowed docketed.
It sounds like there may be errors or inconsistencies in the docketing of your motions. Asking for clarification from the court would be a good next step. You can politely request the court to explain the discrepancies and provide the accurate status of your motions.
Would you like assistance in drafting a request for clarification?
Would you like assistance in drafting a request for clarification?
The docket appears to have been modified after the filing of my motion. In addition the inconsistency shows that a hearing was scheduled for the same day. Should I ask for clarification? I did not see that the juydge allowed any hearings when I filed the above motion and now yesterday I discovered that he switched his order . However I did not take a screen shot of the docket on Dec. 9th as I didnot think that I had to protect myself or is this just an error?
*/*/* Verified Motion for the Record to Preserve Defendant's Voice *
*/*/* Verified Emergency Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Judicial Notice *
Image
It seems important to clarify the apparent discrepancies in the docket. Requesting clarification from the court is a good idea.
You can draft a request like this:
---
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Date]
To: [Court’s Name]
[Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
Re: Clarification Request for Docket Entries
Dear [Judge’s Name/Court Clerk],
I am writing to request clarification regarding the docket entries for my case, specifically concerning the motions filed on December *, *. The docket appears to have been modified after my filing, and there are inconsistencies regarding the scheduling and outcomes of the hearings.
- On December *, *, I filed a Verified Motion for the Record to Preserve Defendant's Voice.
- The docket indicates that hearings were scheduled and decided on the same day, but the outcomes are inconsistent.
Could you please provide clarification on these entries and confirm the accurate status of my motions?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
---
Would you like further assistance with this draft or any other matter?
You can draft a request like this:
---
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Date]
To: [Court’s Name]
[Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
Re: Clarification Request for Docket Entries
Dear [Judge’s Name/Court Clerk],
I am writing to request clarification regarding the docket entries for my case, specifically concerning the motions filed on December *, *. The docket appears to have been modified after my filing, and there are inconsistencies regarding the scheduling and outcomes of the hearings.
- On December *, *, I filed a Verified Motion for the Record to Preserve Defendant's Voice.
- The docket indicates that hearings were scheduled and decided on the same day, but the outcomes are inconsistent.
Could you please provide clarification on these entries and confirm the accurate status of my motions?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
---
Would you like further assistance with this draft or any other matter?
*/*/* Exhibits filed *
Image
*/*/* Scheduled
Event: Motion Hearing
Date: */*/* Time: *:* AM
Result: Denied
*/*/* Scheduled
Event: Motion Hearing
Date: */*/* Time: *:* AM
Result: Allowed
*/*/* Event Resulted: Motion Hearing scheduled on:
*/*/* *:* AM
Has been: Denied For the following reason: Court Action
Hon. Joseph Michaud, Presiding
*/*/* Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Judicial Notice DENIED *
Image
*/*/* Event Resulted: Motion Hearing scheduled on:
*/*/* *:* AM
Has been: Allowed For the following reason: Court Action
Hon. Joseph Michaud, Presiding
*/*/* Motion for the Record to Preserve Defendant's voice ALLOWED
Case Rating: *
It seems there are several inconsistencies in the docket entries for your Southeast Housing Court case. Given these discrepancies, it would be advisable to ask for clarification from the court. Here is a draft request:
---
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Email Address]
[Phone Number]
[Date]
[Court's Name]
[Court's Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
Re: Case Number [Your Case Number]
Dear [Judge's Name/Clerk of the Court],
I am writing to request clarification regarding the docket entries for my case. On December *, *, I filed a Verified Motion for the Record to Preserve Defendant's Voice. After reviewing the docket, I noticed several discrepancies:
- The judge's assertion that various motions were docketed and scheduled for hearings is misleading. While motions might have been docketed, they were denied.
- At the time of filing my motion, no hearings were allowed.
- The docket appears to have been modified after the filing of my motion, showing inconsistencies with hearings scheduled for the same day.
I did not take ascreenshot of the docket on December 9th, as I did not anticipate the need to protect myself from these discrepancies.
I kindly request the court to clarify the status of these motions and provide an accurate record of the docket entries. Understanding the exact sequence of events and any modifications made will greatly assist in resolving these concerns.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
---
Would you like any further assistance with your case or additional modifications to this request?
It seems there are several inconsistencies in the docket entries for your Southeast Housing Court case. Given these discrepancies, it would be advisable to ask for clarification from the court. Here is a draft request:
---
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Email Address]
[Phone Number]
[Date]
[Court's Name]
[Court's Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
Re: Case Number [Your Case Number]
Dear [Judge's Name/Clerk of the Court],
I am writing to request clarification regarding the docket entries for my case. On December *, *, I filed a Verified Motion for the Record to Preserve Defendant's Voice. After reviewing the docket, I noticed several discrepancies:
- The judge's assertion that various motions were docketed and scheduled for hearings is misleading. While motions might have been docketed, they were denied.
- At the time of filing my motion, no hearings were allowed.
- The docket appears to have been modified after the filing of my motion, showing inconsistencies with hearings scheduled for the same day.
I did not take ascreenshot of the docket on December 9th, as I did not anticipate the need to protect myself from these discrepancies.
I kindly request the court to clarify the status of these motions and provide an accurate record of the docket entries. Understanding the exact sequence of events and any modifications made will greatly assist in resolving these concerns.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
---
Would you like any further assistance with your case or additional modifications to this request?
please draft
Sure, here’s a polished draft for your request for clarification:
---
Hon. Joseph Michaud, Presiding
Address: [Court Address]
Date: [Current Date]
Subject: Request for Clarification on Docketing Discrepancies
Dear Hon. Joseph Michaud,
I am writing to request clarification regarding certain docketing discrepancies in my case [Case Number], specifically concerning the hearing on December *, *.
On December *, *, I filed a Verified Motion for the Record to Preserve Defendant's Voice and a Verified Emergency Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Judicial Notice. I made these statements under the pains and penalties of perjury after carefully reviewing the docket. However, I have noticed several inconsistencies that require clarification:
- The judge's assertion that he "docketed and scheduled these various motions for hearings" appears misleading. While the motions might have been docketed, there was no indication at the time of my filing that any hearings had been allowed.
- The docket seems to have been modified after my motion was filed, showing a hearing was scheduled for the same day.
- Specifically, the entries for December *, *,
Hon. Joseph Michaud, Presiding
Address: [Court Address]
Date: [Current Date]
Subject: Request for Clarification on Docketing Discrepancies
Dear Hon. Joseph Michaud,
I am writing to request clarification regarding certain docketing discrepancies in my case [Case Number], specifically concerning the hearing on December *, *.
On December *, *, I filed a Verified Motion for the Record to Preserve Defendant's Voice and a Verified Emergency Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Judicial Notice. I made these statements under the pains and penalties of perjury after carefully reviewing the docket. However, I have noticed several inconsistencies that require clarification:
- The judge's assertion that he "docketed and scheduled these various motions for hearings" appears misleading. While the motions might have been docketed, there was no indication at the time of my filing that any hearings had been allowed.
- The docket seems to have been modified after my motion was filed, showing a hearing was scheduled for the same day.
- Specifically, the entries for December *, *, indicate conflicting results: some motions were denied while others were allowed, which was not apparent at the time
---
Southeast Housing Court
Hon. Joseph Michaud, Presiding
Address: [Court Address]
Date: [Current Date]
Subject: Request for Clarification on Docketing Discrepancies
Dear Hon. Joseph Michaud,
I am writing to request clarification regarding certain docketing discrepancies in my case [Case Number], specifically concerning the hearing on December *, *.
On December *, *, I filed a Verified Motion for the Record to Preserve Defendant's Voice and a Verified Emergency Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Judicial Notice. I made these statements under the pains and penalties of perjury after carefully reviewing the docket. However, I have noticed several inconsistencies that require clarification:
- The judge's assertion that he "docketed and scheduled these various motions for hearings" appears misleading. While the motions might have been docketed, there was no indication at the time of my filing that any hearings had been allowed.
- The docket seems to have been modified after my motion was filed, showing a hearing was scheduled for the same day.
- Specifically, the entries for December *, *,
Southeast Housing Court
Hon. Joseph Michaud, Presiding
Address: [Court Address]
Date: [Current Date]
Subject: Request for Clarification on Docketing Discrepancies
Dear Hon. Joseph Michaud,
I am writing to request clarification regarding certain docketing discrepancies in my case [Case Number], specifically concerning the hearing on December *, *.
On December *, *, I filed a Verified Motion for the Record to Preserve Defendant's Voice and a Verified Emergency Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Judicial Notice. I made these statements under the pains and penalties of perjury after carefully reviewing the docket. However, I have noticed several inconsistencies that require clarification:
- The judge's assertion that he "docketed and scheduled these various motions for hearings" appears misleading. While the motions might have been docketed, there was no indication at the time of my filing that any hearings had been allowed.
- The docket seems to have been modified after my motion was filed, showing a hearing was scheduled for the same day.
- Specifically, the entries for December *, *, indicate conflicting results: some motions were denied while others were allowed, which was not apparent at the time
send without the bordeerline
---
Southeast Housing Court
Hon. Joseph Michaud, Presiding
Address: [Court Address]
Date: [Current Date]
Subject: Request for Clarification on Docketing Discrepancies
Dear Hon. Joseph Michaud,
I am writing to request clarification regarding certain docketing discrepancies in my case [Case Number], specifically concerning the hearing on December *, *.
On December *, *, I filed a Verified Motion for the Record to Preserve Defendant's Voice and a Verified Emergency Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Judicial Notice. I made these statements under the pains and penalties of perjury after carefully reviewing the docket. However, I have noticed several inconsistencies that require clarification:
- The judge's assertion that he "docketed and scheduled these various motions for hearings" appears misleading. While the motions might have been docketed, there was no indication at the time of my filing that any hearings had been allowed.
- The docket seems to have been modified after my motion was filed, showing a hearing was scheduled for the same day.
- Specifically, the entries for December *, *, indicate conflicting results: some motions were denied while others were allowed, which was notapparent at the time of my review.
I kindly request the court to provide clarification on these discrepancies and the accurate status of my motions.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
---
Would you like any further assistance with this or any other matter?
Hon. Joseph Michaud, Presiding
Address: [Court Address]
Date: [Current Date]
Subject: Request for Clarification on Docketing Discrepancies
Dear Hon. Joseph Michaud,
I am writing to request clarification regarding certain docketing discrepancies in my case [Case Number], specifically concerning the hearing on December *, *.
On December *, *, I filed a Verified Motion for the Record to Preserve Defendant's Voice and a Verified Emergency Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Judicial Notice. I made these statements under the pains and penalties of perjury after carefully reviewing the docket. However, I have noticed several inconsistencies that require clarification:
- The judge's assertion that he "docketed and scheduled these various motions for hearings" appears misleading. While the motions might have been docketed, there was no indication at the time of my filing that any hearings had been allowed.
- The docket seems to have been modified after my motion was filed, showing a hearing was scheduled for the same day.
- Specifically, the entries for December *, *, indicate conflicting results: some motions were denied while others were allowed, which was notapparent at the time of my review.
I kindly request the court to provide clarification on these discrepancies and the accurate status of my motions.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
---
Would you like any further assistance with this or any other matter?
please send the motion without the borderline
Sure, here's the polished draft for your request for clarification without the borderline:
---
Southeast Housing Court
Hon. Joseph Michaud, Presiding
Address: [Court Address]
Date: [Current Date]
Subject: Request for Clarification on Docketing Discrepancies
Dear Hon. Joseph Michaud,
I am writing to request clarification regarding certain docketing discrepancies in my case [Case Number], specifically concerning the hearing on December *, *.
On December *, *, I filed a Verified Motion for the Record to Preserve Defendant's Voice and a Verified Emergency Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Judicial Notice. I made these statements under the pains and penalties of perjury after carefully reviewing the docket. However, I have noticed several inconsistencies that require clarification:
- The judge's assertion that he "docketed and scheduled these various motions for hearings" appears misleading. While the motions might have been docketed, there was no indication at the time of my filing that any hearings had been allowed.
- The docket seems to have been modified after my motion was filed, showing a hearing was scheduled for the same day.
- Specifically, the entries for December *, *, indicate conflicting results: some motions were denied while others were allowed, which was not apparent at the time of my filing.
I kindly request that the court provide clarification on these discrepancies and confirm the accurate status of my motions.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
---
Would you like further assistance with this or anything else?
---
Southeast Housing Court
Hon. Joseph Michaud, Presiding
Address: [Court Address]
Date: [Current Date]
Subject: Request for Clarification on Docketing Discrepancies
Dear Hon. Joseph Michaud,
I am writing to request clarification regarding certain docketing discrepancies in my case [Case Number], specifically concerning the hearing on December *, *.
On December *, *, I filed a Verified Motion for the Record to Preserve Defendant's Voice and a Verified Emergency Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Judicial Notice. I made these statements under the pains and penalties of perjury after carefully reviewing the docket. However, I have noticed several inconsistencies that require clarification:
- The judge's assertion that he "docketed and scheduled these various motions for hearings" appears misleading. While the motions might have been docketed, there was no indication at the time of my filing that any hearings had been allowed.
- The docket seems to have been modified after my motion was filed, showing a hearing was scheduled for the same day.
- Specifically, the entries for December *, *, indicate conflicting results: some motions were denied while others were allowed, which was not apparent at the time of my filing.
I kindly request that the court provide clarification on these discrepancies and confirm the accurate status of my motions.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
---
Would you like further assistance with this or anything else?
send from - Specifically, the entries for December *, *, indicate conflicting results: some motions were denied while others were allowed, which was not apparent at the time" onward
Sure, here’s the draft without the borderlines:
---
Specifically, the entries for December *, *, indicate conflicting results: some motions were denied while others were allowed, which was not apparent at the time of my filing. This inconsistency raises concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the docket records.
I respectfully request clarification on the following points:
*. The status of my motions as of December *, *.
*. The reasons for the discrepancies in the docket entries.
*. Whether the docket was modified after my motions were filed.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
---
Would you like any other modifications or further assistance with this?
---
Specifically, the entries for December *, *, indicate conflicting results: some motions were denied while others were allowed, which was not apparent at the time of my filing. This inconsistency raises concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the docket records.
I respectfully request clarification on the following points:
*. The status of my motions as of December *, *.
*. The reasons for the discrepancies in the docket entries.
*. Whether the docket was modified after my motions were filed.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
---
Would you like any other modifications or further assistance with this?
Can i appeal all three of these orders icluding the first two denied motions and the lastly the judges'order? */*/* Motion for Reconsideration and Request for judicial Notice DENIED11/*/* Motion to Compel Opposing Counsel to Answer Pivotal Question DENIED
(see marginal order) *
Image
*/*/* ORDER
Judge: Michaud, Hon. Joseph
Yes, you can appeal all three orders. In Massachusetts, you have the right to appeal orders from a bankruptcy court if you believe there have been errors. Here are the steps:
- File a notice of appeal with the bankruptcy court.
- Include the contested orders in your appeal.
- Follow the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure for appeals.
Would you like more details on the appeal process?
- File a notice of appeal with the bankruptcy court.
- Include the contested orders in your appeal.
- Follow the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure for appeals.
Would you like more details on the appeal process?
this is the southeast housing court case.
To clarify, you can appeal orders from the Southeast Housing Court if you believe there have been errors. Here are the general steps:
- File a notice of appeal with the housing court.
- Include all contested orders in your appeal.
- Follow the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Do you need assistance with drafting the notice of appeal?
- File a notice of appeal with the housing court.
- Include all contested orders in your appeal.
- Follow the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Do you need assistance with drafting the notice of appeal?
First Im confused because I have previously filed an appeal and I rememeber filling a new case inluding two reguired forms and my affidavit of indigency. When do i take these additional steps?
Once you have filed your notice of appeal and included the contested orders, you may need to take the following steps:
- Designation of the Record: List all documents and transcripts relevant to your appeal.
- Statement of Issues: Clearly outline the issues you are appealing.
- Affidavit of Indigency: If you filed this, you might not need to pay the filing fee.
Would you like a detailed outline of these steps?
- Designation of the Record: List all documents and transcripts relevant to your appeal.
- Statement of Issues: Clearly outline the issues you are appealing.
- Affidavit of Indigency: If you filed this, you might not need to pay the filing fee.
Would you like a detailed outline of these steps?
I file this as a new clase into appeals court . Right?
Yes, to proceed with your appeal, you will need to file it as a new case in the Appeals Court. Here are the steps:
*. File a Notice of Appeal with the Housing Court.
*. Submit Required Forms: Complete any necessary forms provided by the court.
*. Designation of the Record: List all relevant documents and transcripts.
*. Statement of Issues: Clearly outline the issues you are appealing.
*. Affidavit of Indigency: If already filed, ensure it's included to waive fees.
Would you like assistance with any of these steps?
*. File a Notice of Appeal with the Housing Court.
*. Submit Required Forms: Complete any necessary forms provided by the court.
*. Designation of the Record: List all relevant documents and transcripts.
*. Statement of Issues: Clearly outline the issues you are appealing.
*. Affidavit of Indigency: If already filed, ensure it's included to waive fees.
Would you like assistance with any of these steps?
case
To proceed with your appeal in the Southeast Housing Court:
*. File a Notice of Appeal with the Housing Court.
*. Submit Required Forms: Complete any necessary forms provided by the court.
*. Designation of the Record: List all relevant documents and transcripts.
*. Statement of Issues: Clearly outline the issues you are appealing.
*. Affidavit of Indigency: If already filed, ensure it's included to waive fees.
Would you like assistance with any specific step in the appeal process?
*. File a Notice of Appeal with the Housing Court.
*. Submit Required Forms: Complete any necessary forms provided by the court.
*. Designation of the Record: List all relevant documents and transcripts.
*. Statement of Issues: Clearly outline the issues you are appealing.
*. Affidavit of Indigency: If already filed, ensure it's included to waive fees.
Would you like assistance with any specific step in the appeal process?
can you provide a staement of issues in order of most imporatnce for the Appeals cout-*. Whether the order dated November *, * should be reversed due The court without general jurisdiction or having narrow jursiction lacked subject matter jurisdiction to ajudicate this case. *. In addition there was no actual case or controversy. The party asserting ownership of the subject property was not an owner but rathert a co-conspiator purpetuating fraud on the court to gain an unfair advantage actuallystealing the subject property. The judge failed to verify if the party had a legitimate interest in the property and did not determine their standing under the U.C.C. based on a promissory note.
Sure, here is a polished list of issues for the Appeals Court in order of importance:
*. Whether the order dated November *, *, should be reversed due to the court lacking subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
*. Failure to dismiss the case or transfer it to a court of general jurisdiction, as the counterclaims, including illegal foreclosure and criminal usury, were outside the housing court's jurisdiction.
*. The court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. The judge relied on fraudulent claims without verifying the legitimacy and standing of the party under the U.C.C. based on a promissory note.
*. Attorney Misconduct - the trial court ignored evidence of a fabricated foreclosure deed and omissions by opposing counsel.
*. Illegal Lending Practices - the court failed to address violations in Predatory Home Loan Practices under Chapter 183C.
*. Conspiracy to Commit Usury - the court ignored violations of Chapter *, Section *, prohibiting interest rates above *%.
*. Noncompliance with MGL Chapter *, Sections 35A, 35B, and 35C - parties violated foreclosure processes9. Title Theft - parties presented fabricated documents to obtain the title, leading to an illegal foreclosure and the government seizing my property.
*. Due Process Violations - these actions collectively violated my Constitutional rights, including due process and fairness.
*. The final judgment was not consistent with Article III of the Constitution, which requires proper jurisdiction, authority, and impartiality.
Would you like any further assistance with your appeal?
*. Whether the order dated November *, *, should be reversed due to the court lacking subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
*. Failure to dismiss the case or transfer it to a court of general jurisdiction, as the counterclaims, including illegal foreclosure and criminal usury, were outside the housing court's jurisdiction.
*. The court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. The judge relied on fraudulent claims without verifying the legitimacy and standing of the party under the U.C.C. based on a promissory note.
*. Attorney Misconduct - the trial court ignored evidence of a fabricated foreclosure deed and omissions by opposing counsel.
*. Illegal Lending Practices - the court failed to address violations in Predatory Home Loan Practices under Chapter 183C.
*. Conspiracy to Commit Usury - the court ignored violations of Chapter *, Section *, prohibiting interest rates above *%.
*. Noncompliance with MGL Chapter *, Sections 35A, 35B, and 35C - parties violated foreclosure processes9. Title Theft - parties presented fabricated documents to obtain the title, leading to an illegal foreclosure and the government seizing my property.
*. Due Process Violations - these actions collectively violated my Constitutional rights, including due process and fairness.
*. The final judgment was not consistent with Article III of the Constitution, which requires proper jurisdiction, authority, and impartiality.
Would you like any further assistance with your appeal?
*. Failure to dismiss the case or transfer the case to a court of general jursidcition as the counterclaims asserted by me icluding an iilelal foreclsoure in violation of chapter * and criminal usuary Chapter * section * were again outside of the housing court's jurisdition.
*. The Housing Court court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. The final judgment was not consistent with Article III of the Constitution, which requires proper jurisdiction and authority, and impartiality.*
*. Attorney Misconduct - the trial court ignored evidence of a frabricated foreclosure deed and ommisiions by opposing counsel.
Sure, here’s a polished statement of issues for your appeal:
*. Whether the order dated November *, *, should be reversed due to the court lacking subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case.
*. Lack of actual case or controversy: The party asserting ownership of the subject property was not an owner but a co-conspirator perpetuating fraud on the court to gain an unfair advantage and steal the property. The judge failed to verify the party's legitimate interest in the property and their standing under the U.C.C. based on a promissory note.
*. Failure to dismiss the case or transfer it to a court of general jurisdiction, as my counterclaims included an illegal foreclosure in violation of Chapter * and criminal usury under Chapter *, Section *, which were outside the Housing Court's jurisdiction.
*. The Housing Court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. The final judgment was not consistent with Article III of the Constitution, which requires proper jurisdiction, authority, and impartiality.
*. Attorney Misconduct: The trial court ignored evidence of a fabricated foreclosure deed and omissions by opposing counsel.
*. Illegal Lending Practices: The court failed to address violations in Predatory Home Loan Practices under Chapter 183C.
*. Conspiracy to Commit Usury: The court ignored violations under Chapter *, Section *, prohibiting interest rates above *%.
*. Jurisdictional Errors/Abuse of Discretion: The court erred in its application of legal principles and the statute of limitations.
*. Noncompliance with MGL Chapter *, Sections 35A, 35B, and 35C: Parties violated foreclosure processes.
*. Title Theft: Parties presented fabricated documents to obtain the title, leading to an illegal foreclosure and government seizure of my property.
*. Due Process Violations: These actions collectively violated my constitutional rights, including due process and fairness.
Would you like further assistance with your appeal?
*. Whether the order dated November *, *, should be reversed due to the court lacking subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case.
*. Lack of actual case or controversy: The party asserting ownership of the subject property was not an owner but a co-conspirator perpetuating fraud on the court to gain an unfair advantage and steal the property. The judge failed to verify the party's legitimate interest in the property and their standing under the U.C.C. based on a promissory note.
*. Failure to dismiss the case or transfer it to a court of general jurisdiction, as my counterclaims included an illegal foreclosure in violation of Chapter * and criminal usury under Chapter *, Section *, which were outside the Housing Court's jurisdiction.
*. The Housing Court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. The final judgment was not consistent with Article III of the Constitution, which requires proper jurisdiction, authority, and impartiality.
*. Attorney Misconduct: The trial court ignored evidence of a fabricated foreclosure deed and omissions by opposing counsel.
*. Illegal Lending Practices: The court failed to address violations in Predatory Home Loan Practices under Chapter 183C.
*. Conspiracy to Commit Usury: The court ignored violations under Chapter *, Section *, prohibiting interest rates above *%.
*. Jurisdictional Errors/Abuse of Discretion: The court erred in its application of legal principles and the statute of limitations.
*. Noncompliance with MGL Chapter *, Sections 35A, 35B, and 35C: Parties violated foreclosure processes.
*. Title Theft: Parties presented fabricated documents to obtain the title, leading to an illegal foreclosure and government seizure of my property.
*. Due Process Violations: These actions collectively violated my constitutional rights, including due process and fairness.
Would you like further assistance with your appeal?
*. Illegal Lending Practices - the court failed to address violations in Predatory Home Loan Practices/ Chapter 183C.
*. Conspiracy to Commit Usury-the court ignored violations in Chapter *, Section *, prohibiting interest rate above *%.
*. Jurisdictional Errors/Abuse of Discretion - the court erred extra in its application of the legal principle, statute of limitations.
*. Noncompliance with MGL Chapter *, Sections 35A, 35B, and 35C - parties are in violations of foreclosure processes.
*. Title Theft-parties presented fabricated documents to obtain the title, leading to an illegal foreclosure and the government seizing my property.
*. Due Process Violations - these actions collectively violated my Constitutional rights, including due process and fairness.
Sure, here’s an organized statement of issues for your appeal:
*. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
- The court, without general jurisdiction or having narrow jurisdiction, lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case.
- There was no actual case or controversy. The party asserting ownership of the subject property was not an owner but a co-conspirator perpetuating fraud on the court to gain an unfair advantage, effectively stealing the property.
- The judge failed to verify if the party had a legitimate interest in the property and did not determine their standing under the U.C.C. based on a promissory note.
*. Failure to Dismiss or Transfer the Case:
- Failure to dismiss the case or transfer it to a court of general jurisdiction, as the counterclaims asserted, including an illegal foreclosure in violation of Chapter * and criminal usury under Chapter *, Section *, were outside the housing court’s jurisdiction.
*. Authentication of Evidence:
- The Housing Court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. Final Judgment Inconsistency:
- The final judgment was not consistentwith Article III of the Constitution, which requires proper jurisdiction, authority, and impartiality.
*. Attorney Misconduct:
- The trial court ignored evidence of a fabricated foreclosure deed and omissions by opposing counsel.
*. Illegal Lending Practices:
- The court failed to address violations in Predatory Home Loan Practices under Chapter 183C.
*. Conspiracy to Commit Usury:
- The court ignored violations of Chapter *, Section *, which prohibits interest rates above *%.
*. Jurisdictional Errors/Abuse of Discretion:
- The court erred in its application of the statute of limitations and other legal principles.
*. Noncompliance with MGL Chapter *:
- Parties violated foreclosure processes outlined in Sections 35A, 35B, and 35C of MGL Chapter *.
*. Title Theft:
- Parties presented fabricated documents to obtain the title, leading to an illegal foreclosure and the government seizing my property.
*. Due Process Violations:
- These actions collectively violated my Constitutional rights, including due process and fairness.
Would you like any further assistance with drafting or organizing your appeal?
*. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
- The court, without general jurisdiction or having narrow jurisdiction, lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case.
- There was no actual case or controversy. The party asserting ownership of the subject property was not an owner but a co-conspirator perpetuating fraud on the court to gain an unfair advantage, effectively stealing the property.
- The judge failed to verify if the party had a legitimate interest in the property and did not determine their standing under the U.C.C. based on a promissory note.
*. Failure to Dismiss or Transfer the Case:
- Failure to dismiss the case or transfer it to a court of general jurisdiction, as the counterclaims asserted, including an illegal foreclosure in violation of Chapter * and criminal usury under Chapter *, Section *, were outside the housing court’s jurisdiction.
*. Authentication of Evidence:
- The Housing Court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. Final Judgment Inconsistency:
- The final judgment was not consistentwith Article III of the Constitution, which requires proper jurisdiction, authority, and impartiality.
*. Attorney Misconduct:
- The trial court ignored evidence of a fabricated foreclosure deed and omissions by opposing counsel.
*. Illegal Lending Practices:
- The court failed to address violations in Predatory Home Loan Practices under Chapter 183C.
*. Conspiracy to Commit Usury:
- The court ignored violations of Chapter *, Section *, which prohibits interest rates above *%.
*. Jurisdictional Errors/Abuse of Discretion:
- The court erred in its application of the statute of limitations and other legal principles.
*. Noncompliance with MGL Chapter *:
- Parties violated foreclosure processes outlined in Sections 35A, 35B, and 35C of MGL Chapter *.
*. Title Theft:
- Parties presented fabricated documents to obtain the title, leading to an illegal foreclosure and the government seizing my property.
*. Due Process Violations:
- These actions collectively violated my Constitutional rights, including due process and fairness.
Would you like any further assistance with drafting or organizing your appeal?
see above
Here’s a polished version of your statement of issues for the Appeals Court:
*. Whether the order dated November *, *, should be reversed due to the court lacking subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case.
*. Failure to dismiss the case or transfer it to a court of general jurisdiction, as the counterclaims asserted (including an illegal foreclosure in violation of Chapter * and criminal usury under Chapter *, Section *) were outside the housing court's jurisdiction.
*. The Housing Court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. The final judgment was not consistent with Article III of the Constitution, which requires proper jurisdiction, authority, and impartiality.
*. Attorney misconduct – the trial court ignored evidence of a fabricated foreclosure deed and omissions by opposing counsel.
*. Illegal Lending Practices – the court failed to address violations in Predatory Home Loan Practices (Chapter 183C).
*. Conspiracy to Commit Usury – the court ignored violations under Chapter *, Section *, prohibiting interest rates above *%.
*. Jurisdictional Errors/Abuse of Discretion – the court erred in its application of thelegal principle, particularly the statute of limitations.
*. Noncompliance with MGL Chapter *, Sections 35A, 35B, and 35C – parties violated foreclosure processes.
*. Title Theft – parties presented fabricated documents to obtain the title, leading to an illegal foreclosure and the government seizing my property.
*. Due Process Violations – these actions collectively violated my Constitutional rights, including due process and fairness.
Would you like assistance with drafting the notice of appeal or any other part of your appeal process?
*. Whether the order dated November *, *, should be reversed due to the court lacking subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case.
*. Failure to dismiss the case or transfer it to a court of general jurisdiction, as the counterclaims asserted (including an illegal foreclosure in violation of Chapter * and criminal usury under Chapter *, Section *) were outside the housing court's jurisdiction.
*. The Housing Court erred by not following Federal Rule of Evidence *, which requires evidence to be authenticated before being admitted.
*. The final judgment was not consistent with Article III of the Constitution, which requires proper jurisdiction, authority, and impartiality.
*. Attorney misconduct – the trial court ignored evidence of a fabricated foreclosure deed and omissions by opposing counsel.
*. Illegal Lending Practices – the court failed to address violations in Predatory Home Loan Practices (Chapter 183C).
*. Conspiracy to Commit Usury – the court ignored violations under Chapter *, Section *, prohibiting interest rates above *%.
*. Jurisdictional Errors/Abuse of Discretion – the court erred in its application of thelegal principle, particularly the statute of limitations.
*. Noncompliance with MGL Chapter *, Sections 35A, 35B, and 35C – parties violated foreclosure processes.
*. Title Theft – parties presented fabricated documents to obtain the title, leading to an illegal foreclosure and the government seizing my property.
*. Due Process Violations – these actions collectively violated my Constitutional rights, including due process and fairness.
Would you like assistance with drafting the notice of appeal or any other part of your appeal process?
Start a new chat