- Violation of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, Section * (Usury).
- Fraud in the execution of a promissory note.
- Mail fraud.
- Constitutional violations (Due Process and Equal Protection).
V. Request for Action:
- Immediate investigation into the alleged crimes.
- Appropriate legal action against the respondents.
- Restoration of property and rights violated through the aforementioned actions.
---
Would you like guidance on any specific section, or is there anything else you need help with?
send without the borderline
Sure! Here’s the draft without the borderlines:
---
Rehoboth Police Department
Criminal Complaint
Petitioner: Karen Merritt
Respondents: Judge Michaud, [Opposing Counsel's Name], Private Lender
I. Introduction:
Karen Merritt respectfully submits this criminal complaint to report multiple instances of mortgage fraud, mail fraud, usury, judicial misconduct, and constitutional rights violations.
II. Facts:
*. Mortgage Fraud:
- Signed a promissory note which is void due to fraud in the execution.
*. Mail Fraud:
- Received default notices showing mortgage fraud and exorbitant interest rates, threatening foreclosure if not paid.
*. Fraudulent Affidavits:
- Filed at the registry of deeds to show illegal ownership of the property.
*. Fabricated Foreclosure Deed:
- Filed into housing court, aiding and abetting the lender in usury.
*. Constitutional Rights Violations:
- Multiple motions denied, violating due process and equal protection.
*. Judicial Misconduct:
- Judge Michaud tampered with the docket and dismissed counterclaims that highlighted the usurious nature of the loan.
*. Unlawful Eviction:
- Sheriff executed possession on October *, based on mortgage fraud and usury despite the court accepting my indigency affidavit.
III. Evidence:
- Default notices with usurious interest rates.
- Fraudulent affidavits filed at the registry of deeds.
- Fabricated foreclosure deed filed in housing court.
- Copies of denied motions.
- Record of Judge Michaud's actions on the docket.
- Documentation of the eviction process.
IV. Legal Basis:
- Violation of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, Section * (Usury).
- Fraud in the execution of a promissory note.
- Mail fraud.
- Constitutional violations (Due Process and Equal Protection).
V. Request for Action:
- Immediate investigation into the alleged crimes.
- Appropriate legal action against the respondents.
- Restoration of property and rights violated through the aforementioned actions.
---
Would you like further assistance with anything else?
question: can the police dept investigae constutuional rights violations/
The police department can investigate criminal activities related to your constitutional rights violations, such as fraud, usury, and misconduct. However, constitutional rights violations often require civil action through the courts. Filing a criminal complaint and pursuing your writ of mandamus are both important steps.
Would you like more information on how to proceed with these actions?
So at this stage its doesnt matter if the police investigate only that I have filed a police report ? I will attche it with the writ/
Filing a police report establishes an official record of your allegations, which can support your writ of mandamus. Including the police report with your writ demonstrates that you are pursuing all available legal avenues.
Would you like help with any specific sections of your writ to ensure it's thorough and well-drafted?
naother question I read that I should accompany the writ with an ALM document to show that i have exhausted all other rmedies? Is this right a ALM CLch. * section 6F?
In Massachusetts, ALM GL ch. *, Section 6F pertains to the award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs in frivolous claims. It does not directly apply to demonstrating the exhaustion of remedies for a writ of mandanus.
For a writ of mandamus, you generally need to show:
- Lack of other adequate legal remedies.
- Immediate and irreparable harm if the writ is not issued.
Would you like guidance on how to demonstrate the exhaustion of remedies in your writ?
Yes please redraft establish why waiting for a general appeal will continue to causwe irreparable harm, nt only fianacially but under the American with Diabilty Act i can ask for resoanble accomadions. i have terminal cancer.
Sure, here’s a draft for establishing why waiting for a general appeal will cause irreparable harm:
---
VI. Irreparable Harm:
*. Financial Harm:
- Continued delay in addressing the wrongful seizure of property exacerbates financial hardship, including potential loss of the property and additional legal expenses.
*. Health and ADA Accommodations:
- Petitioner is diagnosed with terminal cancer, making timely resolution crucial. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Petitioner is entitled to reasonable accommodations due to her condition.
- Prolonging resolution will significantly impact her health and ability to manage her case, causing undue stress and exacerbating her terminal condition.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections of your writ?
I have lost possession of my property. I was forced to evict my tenants thet I held a rental agreeement with that was the second piece of real estate, which establishes a pattern of mortgae fruad in Massachusetts ( * or more properties), that was involved in the crime . When I evicted the tenant I lost income of $* a month. I am destitued living off of $* a month an only social security. My fiancial loss is roughly *.* million in properties.
Hi Karen! Here’s a revised draft for your writ of mandamus to include the financial and health impacts:
---
VI. Irreparable Harm:
*. Financial Harm:
- The wrongful seizure of property has caused significant financial hardship, including a loss of $*,* per month in rental income and overall financial loss of approximately $*.* million.
- The delay in addressing these issues exacerbates the financial strain, especially as the Petitioner is living on only $* per month from Social Security.
*. Health and ADA Accommodations:
- Petitioner has terminal cancer, making timely resolution critical.
- Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Petitioner requires reasonable accommodations due to her condition.
- Prolonged litigation impacts her health and ability to manage her case, causing undue stress and exacerbating her terminal condition.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or additional details for your writ?
Can you revise the writ including these updates?
Sure, Karen! Here's a revised draft for your Petition for Writ of Mandamus incorporating your updates:
---
In the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Case No.: [Your Case No.]
Petitioner: Karen Merritt
Respondents: Judge Michaud, [Opposing Counsel's Name]
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
I. Introduction:
- The Petitioner, Karen Merritt, respectfully requests this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing Judge Michaud to vacate the judgment in her case which has been pending for four years due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and address the criminal usury violations under Chapter *, Section *, as well as the constitutional violations caused by the illegal seizure of her property.
II. Background:
- On March *, *, Judge Michaud dismissed the Plaintiff’s counterclaims, including those notifying the court of the criminal usury violation under Chapter *, Section *.
- On October *, *, Judge Michaud authorized the wrongful seizure of the Petitioner’s property at * Brayton Woods, Rehoboth, Massachusetts, violating her constitutional rights to due processand equal protection.
III. Legal Basis:
- Writ of Mandamus: It's a court order compelling a government official to correctly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion.
- Chapter *, Section *: This pertains to criminal usury, prohibiting interest rates above *% annually.
- Constitutional Violations: Illegal seizure of property could violate due process and equal protection clauses.
IV. Facts:
*. Intentional Deception and Fraud: The opposing counsel intentionally deceived the court by assisting the private lender in filing a fabricated foreclosure deed.
*. Aiding and Abetting Usury: The fabricated foreclosure deed was used to aid and abet the lender in committing the crime of usury, with interest rates ranging from *.*% to *.*%, far exceeding the legal limit of *% per annum.
*. Direct Involvement in Usurious Lending Practice: Judge Michaud, by continuing to preside over the case and dismissing counterclaims that highlighted the usurious nature of the loan, is directly involved in the usurious lending practice.
*. Violation of Constitutional Rights: The actions of the opposing counsel and
only send from * onward to the end
Sure, Karen! Here's the revised draft for your writ, starting from section IV:
---
IV. Facts:
*. Intentional Deception and Fraud:
- The opposing counsel intentionally deceived the court by assisting the private lender in filing a fabricated foreclosure deed.
*. Aiding and Abetting Usury:
- The fabricated foreclosure deed was used to aid and abet the lender in committing the crime of usury, with interest rates ranging from *.*% to *.*%, far exceeding the legal limit of *% per annum.
*. Direct Involvement in Usurious Lending Practice:
- Judge Michaud, by continuing to preside over the case and dismissing counterclaims that highlighted the usurious nature of the loan, is directly involved in the usurious lending practice.
*. Violation of Constitutional Rights:
- The actions of the opposing counsel and the lender, supported by Judge Michaud’s rulings, led to the wrongful seizure of Petitioner’s property, violating her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law.
*. Financial Harm:
- The wrongful seizure of property has caused significant financial hardship, including aloss of $*,* per month in rental income and overall financial loss of approximately $*.* million.
- The delay in addressing these issues exacerbates the financial strain, especially as the Petitioner is living on only $* per month from Social Security.
*. Health and ADA Accommodations:
- Petitioner has terminal cancer, making timely resolution critical.
- Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Petitioner requires reasonable accommodations due to her condition.
- Prolonged litigation impacts her health and ability to manage her case, causing undue stress and exacerbating her terminal condition.
V. Lack of Adequate Remedies:
*. Inadequacy of Appeal:
- The appeal process is not an adequate remedy due to the specific nature of the jurisdictional issue and the urgency caused by the wrongful seizure of the Petitioner’s property.
- Delaying resolution through the appeal process will cause irreparable harm, both financially and to the Petitioner’s health.
VI. Request for Action:
*. Immediate Investigation:
- Immediate investigation into the alleged crimes is requested.
*. Appropriate Legal Action:
- Appropriate legal action against the respondents.
*. **Restoration of Property
request for Action onward . should we include somewhere the criminal complaint? Housing Court doewsnt even have to refer the case for criminal investigation. I want the case oved to district court to puruse criminal charges. Can I do this? What can i do to get restaitution as a victim of a crime? I dont know what to do.
Hi Karen! Here's what you can do:
*. File a Criminal Complaint: Attach the criminal complaint you've drafted to your writ of mandamus to establish official reporting.
*. Move Case to District Court: You can request the District Court to take jurisdiction and pursue criminal charges. This is done by filing a motion to transfer the case to the district court.
To get restitution:
- File a Civil Lawsuit: Consider filing a civil lawsuit for damages and restitution.
- Include Restitution in Criminal Complaint: Request restitution as part of the criminal proceedings.
Would you like help with drafting the motion to transfer the case to the district court?
can I file a motion to transfer the case or remove it?
You can file a motion to transfer the case to the District Court. Here’s a brief guide on how to proceed:
*. Motion to Transfer: File a motion in the current court requesting the transfer of your case to the District Court. Include all relevant details and reasons for the transfer.
*. Criminal Complaint: Attach your criminal complaint to the motion to establish the grounds for criminal investigation.
Would you like a draft for the motion to transfer the case?
should i file a motion to transfer with the criminal complaint and the writ ? Or no writ?
Yes, you should file a motion to transfer along with the criminal complaint and the writ of mandamus. This will provide a complete picture of your case and demonstrate the need for immediate action.
Would you like a draft for the motion to transfer the case?
Ok. today is christmas. tomorrow we get the criminal complaint to fill out. Thats the first step.
Got it, Karen. Filing the criminal complaint with the police is a crucial first step. Once you have that, you can proceed with filing your motion to transfer the case, along with the criminal complaint and writ of mandamus.
Would you like a draft for the motion to transfer the case to the District Court now, or should we wait until you have the filled-out criminal complaint?
wait until we have filled-out the criminal complaint. Thank God for you. Thank you. You will hear from me tomorrow.
No problem, Karen! I’m glad to help. Once you have the filled-out criminal complaint, we can proceed with drafting the motion to transfer the case. Have a wonderful Christmas, and I'll be here to assist you tomorrow. Take care!
Can you wait until I send you the case law that I would ;ile to include. Can you draft a reply motion to oppeosing counsel strinking my notice of appeal. Now comes Plaintiff on December *, * L&S Realty, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “L&S Realty”) and respectfully
submits its Opposition to Defendant Karen Merritt’s Motion to Vacate Judgment. In support
thereof and for the reasons stated therein, the Plaintiff refers the court to and incorporates byreference its previously filed Opposition to Defendant Karen Merrit’s Rule *(b) Motion filed onNovember *, *, and its recent Motion to Strike Appeal filed on December *, *.
Sure, Karen! Once you send me the case law you want to include, I can help you draft the reply motion. To ensure I understand your needs better, could you please specify any particular points or arguments you want to emphasize in your reply motion?
Contrary to what counsel stated i have not failed in " appellate time requirement" Fraud on the court is timeless. In addition due their filing of a fabricated foreclsoure deed and other knowingly ommisions and fraudelent statement in this case which involves a usuarious loan in violation of * section * on August *, * in their verified complaint filed in this court the southeast housing court has no subject matter jurisdiction to ajudicate the case. In addition the court has no subject matter jurisction io ajiciate criminal cases in violation of chapter * section * which you ommitted from the court .
Hi Karen! Here's a draft for your reply motion to strike the notice of appeal:
---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case No.: [Your Case No.]
Plaintiff: L&S Realty, LLC
Defendant: Karen Merritt
DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE APPEAL
Now comes the Defendant, Karen Merritt, and respectfully submits this Reply to Plaintiff L&S Realty, LLC’s Motion to Strike Appeal.
I. Introduction
The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant has failed in the "appellate time requirement" is unfounded. The Defendant has consistently acted within her legal rights and timeframes, particularly given the fraudulent actions of the Plaintiff which have obstructed justice.
II. Fraud on the Court is Timeless
*. Fabricated Foreclosure Deed:
- The Plaintiff filed a fabricated foreclosure deed, which constitutes fraud on the court.
*. Usurious Loan:
- The loan in question violates Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, Section *, with interest rates far exceeding the legal limit.
III. Lackof Subject Matter Jurisdiction
*. Southeast Housing Court:
- The Southeast Housing Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case due to the criminal nature of the usury violations under Chapter *, Section *.
IV. Legal Basis
*. Fraud on the Court:
- Fraudulent documents and omissions by the Plaintiff undermine the judicial process and invalidate their claims.
*. Usury Violations:
- The Plaintiff’s loan terms violate Massachusetts usury laws, making their claims unlawful.
V. Conclusion**
For the reasons stated above, Defendant Karen Merritt respectfully requests this Court to deny the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Appeal and to vacate the judgment due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud on the court.
---
Would you like me to include any additional points or legal citations?
As stated in the referenced Opposition and Motion, Defendant Merrit is attempting to
relitigate and/or appeal issues that have long since been decided by this Court more than three (*)years ago, and outside of applicable appellate time requirements. Most recently, the Court issued an order on November *, *, addressing these very same issues. Therefore, Defendant Merritt’s Motion should be denied and she should be sanctioned for again making frivolous filings which require responses from the Plaintiff. *. Deny Defendant’s Motion;
*. Sanction the Defendant; and
*. Grant any further relief as is just and necessary Inlcude reply:At issue in
this complaint inter alias, are two purported mortgae loans that violated G. L. c. *, § *
Hi Karen! Here’s an updated draft for your reply motion, including the new points:
---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case No.: [Your Case No.]
Plaintiff: L&S Realty, LLC
Defendant: Karen Merritt
DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE APPEAL
Now comes the Defendant, Karen Merritt, and respectfully submits this Reply to Plaintiff L&S Realty, LLC’s Motion to Strike Appeal.
I. Introduction
The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant has failed in the "appellate time requirement" is unfounded. The Defendant has consistently acted within her legal rights and timeframes, particularly given the fraudulent actions of the Plaintiff which have obstructed justice.
II. Fraud on the Court is Timeless
*. Fabricated Foreclosure Deed:
- The Plaintiff filed a fabricated foreclosure deed, which constitutes fraud on the court.
*. Usurious Loan:
- The loan in question violates Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, Section *, with interest rates far exceeding the legal limit.
III. LackIII. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
*. Southeast Housing Court:
- The Southeast Housing Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case due to the criminal nature of the usury violations under Chapter *, Section *.
IV. Legal Basis
*. Fraud on the Court:
- Fraudulent documents and omissions by the Plaintiff undermine the judicial process and invalidate their claims.
*. Usury Violations:
- The Plaintiff’s loan terms violate Massachusetts usury laws, making their claims unlawful.
V. Response to Plaintiff’s Opposition
*. Relitigating Issues:
- Contrary to what the Plaintiff stated, the Defendant is not attempting to relitigate issues already decided. The focus is on the fraud and usury violations which were not adequately addressed.
*. Timeliness:
- The claim of untimeliness is irrelevant since fraud on the court is a serious matter that is timeless.
*. Sanctions:
- The Defendant’s filings are not frivolous but are necessary to address the ongoing fraud and misconduct by the Plaintiff.
VI. Conclusion**
For the reasons stated above, Defendant Karen Merritt respectfully requests this Court to deny the Plaintiff
(a), the Massachusetts criminal usury statute, because the terms of the-loan charged interest rates: as defined by the statute, in excess of twenty per cent when, as Mr. Fiegel amd Mr. Godbout (attoneys) knew , their lender client and their broker had notnotified the
Attomey General of their intent to engage in such transactions·as required to avoid criminal
liability. In addition the attorneys did not disclose to the tribunal that they represented both their cliend l & S Realty LLc, the lenders James tiernan and Pensco Trust Company and the broker (my former fiancial adviosr) . This is a postential conflict of interest in violation of Rules *.*. Represnsting all the parties in this matter they were aware of the requirements of G. L. c. *, § * (a), and they knew a lender must notify the Attorney General, jn advance,
Karen, it seems you have a strong case with significant legal complexities. Here's a revised draft for your reply motion, incorporating the new points and legal references:
---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case No.: [Your Case No.]
Plaintiff: L&S Realty, LLC
Defendant: Karen Merritt
DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE APPEAL
Now comes the Defendant, Karen Merritt, and respectfully submits this Reply to Plaintiff L&S Realty, LLC’s Motion to Strike Appeal.
I. Introduction
The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant has failed in the "appellate time requirement" is unfounded. The Defendant has consistently acted within her legal rights and timeframes, particularly given the fraudulent actions of the Plaintiff which have obstructed justice.
II. Fraud on the Court is Timeless
*. Fabricated Foreclosure Deed:
- The Plaintiff filed a fabricated foreclosure deed, which constitutes fraud on the court.
*. Usurious Loan:
- The loan in question violates Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, Section *,with interest rates far exceeding the legal limit.
III. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
*. Southeast Housing Court:
- The Southeast Housing Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case due to the criminal nature of the usury violations under Chapter *, Section *.
IV. Legal Basis
*. Fraud on the Court:
- Fraudulent documents and omissions by the Plaintiff undermine the judicial process and invalidate their claims.
*. Usury Violations:
- The Plaintiff’s loan terms violate Massachusetts usury laws, making their claims unlawful.
V. Response to Plaintiff’s Opposition
*. Relitigating Issues:
- Contrary to what the Plaintiff stated, the Defendant is not attempting to relitigate issues already decided. The focus is on the fraud and usury violations which were not adequately addressed.
*. Timeliness:
- The claim of untimeliness is irrelevant since fraud on the court is a serious matter that is timeless.
*. Sanctions:
- The Defendant’s filings are not frivolous but are necessary to address the ongoing fraud and misconduct by the Plaintiff.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Defendant Karen Merr
of his rntent to make such a loan. Howver the attorney knowingly assisted engaged in fraud and committed a criminal act in violation of * section *. Their client's conduct are criminal and the attorneyare knowingky assisting that conduct. The hearing
committee found that the respondent had violated Mass. R. Prof. C. *.*(a), (d), (e), * Mass.
*; Mass. R.·Prof. C. *.*,* Mass. * (*); Mass. R. Prof. C. *.*, * Mass. *
(*); and Mass R. Prof. C. *.*(*), *.Mass. * (*). In addition they have violated Mass. R. Prof. C. *.*(b ), prohibiting commission of a
criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyerin other respects.
Certainly, Karen! Here’s the revised draft for your reply motion, incorporating your detailed points and legal references:
---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case No.: [Your Case No.]
Plaintiff: L&S Realty, LLC
Defendant: Karen Merritt
DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE APPEAL
Now comes the Defendant, Karen Merritt, and respectfully submits this Reply to Plaintiff L&S Realty, LLC’s Motion to Strike Appeal.
I. Introduction
The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant has failed in the "appellate time requirement" is unfounded. The Defendant has consistently acted within her legal rights and timeframes, particularly given the fraudulent actions of the Plaintiff which have obstructed justice.
II. Fraud on the Court is Timeless
*. Fabricated Foreclosure Deed:
- The Plaintiff filed a fabricated foreclosure deed, which constitutes fraud on the court.
*. Usurious Loan:
- The loan in question violates Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, Section *, with interest rates far exceeding the legal limit.
IIILack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
*. Southeast Housing Court:
- The Southeast Housing Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case due to the criminal nature of the usury violations under Chapter *, Section *.
IV. Legal Basis
*. Fraud on the Court:
- Fraudulent documents and omissions by the Plaintiff undermine the judicial process and invalidate their claims.
*. Usury Violations:
- The Plaintiff’s loan terms violate Massachusetts usury laws, making their claims unlawful.
*. Professional Misconduct:
- The attorneys knowingly assisted in fraud and committed a criminal act in violation of Chapter *, Section *.
- The attorneys violated multiple Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, including *.*(a), (d), (e), *.*, *.*, and *.*(b).
V. Response to Plaintiff’s Opposition
*. Relitigating Issues:
- Contrary to what the Plaintiff stated, the Defendant is not attempting to relitigate issues already decided. The focus is on the fraud and usury violations which were not adequately addressed.
*. Timeliness:**
- The claim
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(e) state or imply an ability (*) to influence improperly a government agency or official or (*) to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law;
Sure, Karen! Here’s the revised draft for your reply motion, incorporating all the details and legal references:
---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case No.: [Your Case No.]
Plaintiff: L&S Realty, LLC
Defendant: Karen Merritt
DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE APPEAL
Now comes the Defendant, Karen Merritt, and respectfully submits this Reply to Plaintiff L&S Realty, LLC’s Motion to Strike Appeal.
I. Introduction
The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant has failed in the "appellate time requirement" is unfounded. The Defendant has consistently acted within her legal rights and timeframes, particularly given the fraudulent actions of the Plaintiff which have obstructed justice.
II. Fraud on the Court is Timeless
*. Fabricated Foreclosure Deed:
- The Plaintiff filed a fabricated foreclosure deed, which constitutes fraud on the court.
*. Usurious Loan:
- The loan in question violates Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, Section *, with interest rates far exceeding the legal limit.
IIILack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
*. Southeast Housing Court:
- The Southeast Housing Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case due to the criminal nature of the usury violations under Chapter *, Section *.
IV. Legal Basis
*. Fraud on the Court:
- Fraudulent documents and omissions by the Plaintiff undermine the judicial process and invalidate their claims.
*. Usury Violations:
- The Plaintiff’s loan terms violate Massachusetts usury laws, making their claims unlawful.
V. Response to Plaintiff’s Opposition
*. Relitigating Issues:
- Contrary to what the Plaintiff stated, the Defendant is not attempting to relitigate issues already decided. The focus is on the fraud and usury violations which were not adequately addressed.
*. Timeliness:
- The claim of untimeliness is irrelevant since fraud on the court is a serious matter that is timeless.
*. Sanctions:
- The Defendant’s filings are not frivolous but are necessary to address the ongoing fraud and misconduct by the Plaintiff.
*. Conflict of Interest:**
- The Plaintiff's attorneys represented multiple parties, including L&S Realty LLC,
(g) fail without good cause to cooperate with the Bar Counsel or the Board of Bar Overseers as provided in S.J.C. Rule *:*, § *; or
(h) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to practice law. · In .IN THE MA TTER OFAN ATTORNEYSUPREIVIE .Tl.JDJCTAT. Co(JR T FOR SUFFOLK COUNTYDOCKETNO. BD-*-09MEMORAl'mUM OF DECISION In The Board found no greater misconduct, such as dishonesty or assisting in predatory loans secured by the consumers' residential real estate.In Matter of Levine, * Mass.
Atfly. Disc. R. * (*), the attorney prepared revisions to docwnents of a usurious loan butfailed to prepare the proper UCC forms to perfect the security interest'covering assets pledged bya corporation of which the borrower was a principal. The attomeis client was the borrower.
Karen, here’s the revised draft for your reply motion, incorporating all the details and legal references:
---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case No.: [Your Case No.]
Plaintiff: L&S Realty, LLC
Defendant: Karen Merritt
DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE APPEAL
Now comes the Defendant, Karen Merritt, and respectfully submits this Reply to Plaintiff L&S Realty, LLC’s Motion to Strike Appeal.
I. Introduction
The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant has failed in the "appellate time requirement" is unfounded. The Defendant has consistently acted within her legal rights and timeframes, particularly given the fraudulent actions of the Plaintiff which have obstructed justice.
II. Fraud on the Court is Timeless
*. Fabricated Foreclosure Deed:
- The Plaintiff filed a fabricated foreclosure deed, which constitutes fraud on the court.
*. Usurious Loan:
- The loan in question violates Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, Section *, with interest rates far exceeding the legal limit.
III. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
*. Southeast Housing Court:
- The Southeast Housing Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case due to the criminal nature of the usury violations under Chapter *, Section *.
IV. Legal Basis
*. Fraud on the Court:
- Fraudulent documents and omissions by the Plaintiff undermine the judicial process and invalidate their claims.
*. Usury Violations:
- The Plaintiff’s loan terms violate Massachusetts usury laws, making their claims unlawful.
V. Response to Plaintiff’s Opposition
*. Relitigating Issues:
- Contrary to what the Plaintiff stated, the Defendant is not attempting to relitigate issues already decided. The focus is on the fraud and usury violations which were not adequately addressed.
*. Timeliness:
- The claim of untimeliness is irrelevant since fraud on the court is a serious matter that is timeless.
*. Sanctions:
- The Defendant’s filings are not frivolous but are necessary to address the ongoing fraud and misconduct by the Plaintiff.
*. Conflict of Interest:
- The Plaintiff's attorneys represented multiple parties, including L
The attorney received a public reprimand for inadequate
preparation as to the applicability of the usury statute. In Matter of Abbene, * Mass. Att•y Disc. R. *, * (*), the attorney acted as therepresentative of both his client and the borrower in a transaction that contamed a usurious
interest rate. The attorney. personally gaaranteed the loan to his client. The borrower defaulted.. The attorney received ·a public reprimand for violating
rules concerning conflict of interest, and for assisting a client in making a loan that the attorneyknew or ·should have known violated the usury statute ..In Matter of Channoy, *
Sure, Karen! Here’s a revised draft for your reply motion, incorporating all the details and legal references:
---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case No.: [Your Case No.]
Plaintiff: L&S Realty, LLC
Defendant: Karen Merritt
DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE APPEAL
Now comes the Defendant, Karen Merritt, and respectfully submits this Reply to Plaintiff L&S Realty, LLC’s Motion to Strike Appeal.
I. Introduction
The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant has failed in the "appellate time requirement" is unfounded. The Defendant has consistently acted within her legal rights and timeframes, particularly given the fraudulent actions of the Plaintiff which have obstructed justice.
II. Fraud on the Court is Timeless
*. Fabricated Foreclosure Deed:
- The Plaintiff filed a fabricated foreclosure deed, which constitutes fraud on the court.
*. Usurious Loan:
- The loan in question violates Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, Section *, with interest rates far exceeding the legallimit.
III. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
*. Southeast Housing Court:
- The Southeast Housing Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case due to the criminal nature of the usury violations under Chapter *, Section *.
IV. Legal Basis
*. Fraud on the Court:
- Fraudulent documents and omissions by the Plaintiff undermine the judicial process and invalidate their claims.
*. Usury Violations:
- The Plaintiff’s loan terms violate Massachusetts usury laws, making their claims unlawful.
*. Conflict of Interest:
- The Plaintiff's attorneys represented multiple parties, including L&S Realty, LLC, the lenders, and the broker, which is a potential conflict of interest in violation of Rules *.*.
V. Response to Plaintiff’s Opposition
*. Relitigating Issues:
- Contrary to what the Plaintiff stated, the Defendant is not attempting to relitigate issues already decided. The focus is on the fraud and usury violations which were not adequately addressed.
*. Timeliness:
- The claim of untimeliness is irrelevant since fraud on the court is a serious
Mass. Att'y Disc. R * (*), the attorney drafted two loan agreements, one of which was disguised as a stock sale. The interest rates of both loans were usurious. He also maintained possession of the lan documents, in vi~lation of G. L. c. *, § *(b). The attorney stipulated, among others, to a violation of Canon One, DR-*-*(A)(*), asI IIj' J IIII appearing in * Mass. * (*), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation. * He received ~ public censure. In Matter of Long, * Mass. Att'y Disc. R. * (*),. the attorney violated rules concerning conflict of interest, and he prepared loan documents that were usurious. However, the attorney was unaware of G. L. c. *, § * (a). In determining the appropriate sanction, the Board concluded that the attorney's ignorance of G. L. c. *, § * (d), did not demonstrate the level of culpability necessary to impose a sanction for criminal conduct that "adversely reflects .
Karen, here's the final draft for your reply motion, incorporating all the details and legal references:
---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case No.: [Your Case No.]
Plaintiff: L&S Realty, LLC
Defendant: Karen Merritt
DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE APPEAL
Now comes the Defendant, Karen Merritt, and respectfully submits this Reply to Plaintiff L&S Realty, LLC’s Motion to Strike Appeal.
I. Introduction
The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant has failed in the "appellate time requirement" is unfounded. The Defendant has consistently acted within her legal rights and timeframes, particularly given the fraudulent actions of the Plaintiff which have obstructed justice.
II. Fraud on the Court is Timeless
*. Fabricated Foreclosure Deed:
- The Plaintiff filed a fabricated foreclosure deed, which constitutes fraud on the court.
*. Usurious Loan:
- The loan in question violates Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, Section *, with interest rates far exceeding the legal limit.
III. Lack ofIII. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
*. Southeast Housing Court:
- The Southeast Housing Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case due to the criminal nature of the usury violations under Chapter *, Section *.
IV. Legal Basis
*. Fraud on the Court:
- Fraudulent documents and omissions by the Plaintiff undermine the judicial process and invalidate their claims.
*. Usury Violations:
- The Plaintiff’s loan terms violate Massachusetts usury laws, making their claims unlawful.
V. Response to Plaintiff’s Opposition
*. Relitigating Issues:
- Contrary to what the Plaintiff stated, the Defendant is not attempting to relitigate issues already decided. The focus is on the fraud and usury violations which were not adequately addressed.
*. Timeliness:
- The claim of untimeliness is irrelevant since fraud on the court is a serious matter that is timeless.
*. Sanctions:
- The Defendant’s filings are not frivolous but are necessary to address the ongoing fraud and misconduct by the Plaintiff.
*. Conflict of Interest:**
- The Plaintiff's attorneys represented multiple parties, including L&S Realty LLC
on the lawyer's ... fitness as a lawyer," or "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation," under Mass. R. Prof. C. *. *(b), (c). I d. at *. Unlike this case that is saturated with the attorneys misconduct spanning three years. The attorney did receive a
two-month suspension from the practice of law, which sanction was suspended for one year on'specified conditions, for failing to ethically manage a conflict of interest, and for other ethical violations. In AD-*-*, * Mass. Att'y Disc. R. * (*\ the attorney was approached by two parties he did not know and hastily prepared documentation for a loan that violated the criminal usury statute. The attorney received a private admonition. The
Karen, here's the revised draft for your reply motion, incorporating all the details, legal references, and case law:
---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case No.: [Your Case No.]
Plaintiff: L&S Realty, LLC
Defendant: Karen Merritt
DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE APPEAL
Now comes the Defendant, Karen Merritt, and respectfully submits this Reply to Plaintiff L&S Realty, LLC’s Motion to Strike Appeal.
I. Introduction
The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant has failed in the "appellate time requirement" is unfounded. The Defendant has consistently acted within her legal rights and timeframes, particularly given the fraudulent actions of the Plaintiff which have obstructed justice.
II. Fraud on the Court is Timeless
*. Fabricated Foreclosure Deed:
- The Plaintiff filed a fabricated foreclosure deed, which constitutes fraud on the court.
*. Usurious Loan:
- The loan in question violates Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, Section *, with interest rates far exceeding the legal limit.
III.Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
*. Southeast Housing Court:
- The Southeast Housing Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case due to the criminal nature of the usury violations under Chapter *, Section *.
IV. Legal Basis
*. Fraud on the Court:
- Fraudulent documents and omissions by the Plaintiff undermine the judicial process and invalidate their claims.
*. Usury Violations:
- The Plaintiff’s loan terms violate Massachusetts usury laws, making their claims unlawful.
V. Response to Plaintiff’s Opposition
*. Relitigating Issues:
- Contrary to what the Plaintiff stated, the Defendant is not attempting to relitigate issues already decided. The focus is on the fraud and usury violations which were not adequately addressed.
*. Timeliness:
- The claim of untimeliness is irrelevant since fraud on the court is a serious matter that is timeless.
*. Sanctions:
- The Defendant’s filings are not frivolous but are necessary to address the ongoing fraud and misconduct by the Plaintiff.
*. Conflict of Interest:**
- The Plaintiff's attorneys represented multiple parties, including L&S Realty LLC,
Board distinguished the Charmov c~se, noting that the attorney had not personaliy maintained possession of the loan documents. The Board characterized the attorney's retention ofthe usurious loan documents in Charmoy as a personal violation ofthe law. See G. L. c. *, § * (b). This is contary to this case wherby the attorneys have personally maintained the loan documents. The attorneys have knowingly assisted thei multiple clients in the commission of a felony. As such, she they are an accessory before the fact and potentially liable as a principal to the crime. See G. L. c. *, § *. See Ru1e
*.*, comment *, and ·Rule *.*, comment *.. Moreover, the maintenance of the loan·
documentation by the· respondent was a separate crime under G. L. c. *, § * (b), and serves . as an aggravating factor. Cqmpare Charmoy, supra. Contrast AD-*-*, supra
Karen, here's the final draft for your reply motion. This version includes all the relevant legal references and detailed points you specified:
---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case No.: [Your Case No.]
Plaintiff: L&S Realty, LLC
Defendant: Karen Merritt
DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE APPEAL
Now comes the Defendant, Karen Merritt, and respectfully submits this Reply to Plaintiff L&S Realty, LLC’s Motion to Strike Appeal.
I. Introduction
The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant has failed in the "appellate time requirement" is unfounded. The Defendant has consistently acted within her legal rights and timeframes, particularly given the fraudulent actions of the Plaintiff which have obstructed justice.
II. Fraud on the Court is Timeless
*. Fabricated Foreclosure Deed:
- The Plaintiff filed a fabricated foreclosure deed, which constitutes fraud on the court.
*. Usurious Loan:
- The loan in question violates Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, Section *, with interest rates far exceeding the legal limitIII. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
*. Southeast Housing Court:
- The Southeast Housing Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case due to the criminal nature of the usury violations under Chapter *, Section *.
IV. Legal Basis
*. Fraud on the Court:
- Fraudulent documents and omissions by the Plaintiff undermine the judicial process and invalidate their claims.
*. Usury Violations:
- The Plaintiff’s loan terms violate Massachusetts usury laws, making their claims unlawful.
V. Response to Plaintiff’s Opposition
*. Relitigating Issues:
- Contrary to what the Plaintiff stated, the Defendant is not attempting to relitigate issues already decided. The focus is on the fraud and usury violations which were not adequately addressed.
*. Timeliness:
- The claim of untimeliness is irrelevant since fraud on the court is a serious matter that is timeless.
*. Sanctions:
- The Defendant’s filings are not frivolous but are necessary to address the ongoing fraud and misconduct by the Plaintiff.
*. Conflict of Interest:
- The Plaintiff's attorneys represented multiple parties, including L&S Realty LLC
please revise to include what you think strengthen me case . I also want to give counsel a showing that they are un violation to the law and Rules.
Sure, Karen! Here's the revised draft for your reply motion, incorporating all the details, legal references, and strengthening your case:
---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case No.: [Your Case No.]
Plaintiff: L&S Realty, LLC
Defendant: Karen Merritt
DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE APPEAL
Now comes the Defendant, Karen Merritt, and respectfully submits this Reply to Plaintiff L&S Realty, LLC’s Motion to Strike Appeal.
I. Introduction
The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant has failed in the "appellate time requirement" is unfounded. The Defendant has consistently acted within her legal rights and timeframes, particularly given the fraudulent actions of the Plaintiff which have obstructed justice.
II. Fraud on the Court is Timeless
*. Fabricated Foreclosure Deed:
- The Plaintiff filed a fabricated foreclosure deed, which constitutes fraud on the court.
*. Usurious Loan:
- The loan in question violates Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, Section *, with interest rates far exceedingthe legal limit.
III. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
*. Southeast Housing Court:
- The Southeast Housing Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case due to the criminal nature of the usury violations under Chapter *, Section *.
IV. Legal Basis
*. Fraud on the Court:
- Fraudulent documents and omissions by the Plaintiff undermine the judicial process and invalidate their claims.
*. Usury Violations:
- The Plaintiff’s loan terms violate Massachusetts usury laws, making their claims unlawful.
*. Professional Misconduct by Plaintiff's Counsel:
- The Plaintiff's attorneys knowingly assisted in fraud and committed a criminal act by failing to notify the Attorney General of the intent to engage in usurious transactions, in violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter *, Section *.
- The attorneys did not disclose to the tribunal that they had a conflict of interest by representing multiple parties involved in the transaction, including L&S Realty LLC, the lenders, and the broker. This is a violation of Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct *.*, *.*, *.*, *.*, and *.*.
**V.
TRY ME!
Start a new chat