Fraudulent Deed And Foreclosure

Summary

The user is dealing with a complex legal situation involving fraudulent foreclosure, fabricated deeds, and potential RICO claims. The foreclosure did not comply with Massachusetts laws, rendering it void. The fraudulent deed, filed by Godbout Law, was based on a usurious interest rate, violating state law. This voids the appellees claim and all subsequent orders. The user also highlights constitutional violations by the Southeast Housing Court, including due process and equal protection issues. A motion to correct the record and address these violations is being prepared, with guidance sought from the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts.

Full Conversation

please state the above including bankrupctuy fraud . Then confirm that you wont ask me again as you have recived what you need to make a referral. AI SUMMARY Name: Karen Merritt Email: karen.hgm@aol.com Phone: *-*-* Zipcode: * Karen Merritt Phone: *-*-* Zipcode: * Email: karen.hgm@aol.com Reason: Under the RICO Act, * U.S.C. § *, I believe that I could possibly have a RICO claim. Around *, my two businesses, one being a display manufacturing company and the other owning a valuable commercial building, became involved in money laundering, loan sharking, extortion, mail fraud, embezzlement, and bankruptcy fraud. They now have title to not only the commercial building but also my former wife's two properties. Under section *(a)(b)(c), I have evidence to support my claims. The pattern of racketeering was also infiltrated by my trusted CPA and continuing.

Thank you for all the details. We will have a top rated lawyer in your area contact you shortly. For your records below is the information I gathered
Name: Karen Merritt
Email: karen.hgm@aol.com
Phone: *-*-*
Zipcode: *
Reason: Under the RICO Act, * U.S.C. § *, I believe that I could possibly have a RICO claim. Around *, my two businesses, one being a display manufacturing company and the other owning a valuable commercial building, became involved in money laundering, loan sharking, extortion, mail fraud, embezzlement, and bankruptcy fraud. They now have title to not only the commercial building but also my former wife's two properties. Under section *(a)(b)(c), I have evidence to support my claims. The pattern of racketeering was also infiltrated by my trusted CPA and continuing.
From: FreeLawChatAi
Is there anything else I can help you with?

yes. can you confrim that you will only now answere my questions and will not ask me again for the details ? Please give me the list with the chapters of my potential RICO claim.

Of course, Karen. Here are the chapters relevant to your potential RICO claim:
- Mail Fraud (* U.S.C. § *)
- Wire Fraud (* U.S.C. § *)
- Bank Fraud (* U.S.C. § *)
- Money Laundering (* U.S.C. § *)
- Peonage (* U.S.C. § *)
- Forced Labor (* U.S.C. § *)
- Trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor (* U.S.C. § *)
- RICO Act violations (* U.S.C. § *)
- Bankruptcy Fraud
Is there anything else you need help with?

please include the abnkruptcy chapter

Case Rating: *
Of course, Karen. Here are the chapters relevant to your potential RICO claim:
- Mail Fraud (* U.S.C. § *)
- Wire Fraud (* U.S.C. § *)
- Bank Fraud (* U.S.C. § *)
- Money Laundering (* U.S.C. § *)
- Peonage (* U.S.C. § *)
- Forced Labor (* U.S.C. § *)
- Trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor (* U.S.C. § *)
- RICO Act violations (* U.S.C. § *)
- Bankruptcy Fraud (* U.S.C. § *)
Is there anything else you need help with?

Can you please organize my Reply Argument: The Appeal is Not Moot Despite the Eviction *. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed reply to opposition to my informal appeal brief to the appeals court based on these titles; *. Violation of Usury Laws: - The interest rate of *% imposed by the purported lender constitutes a clear violation of usury laws3. Lack of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction: - The appellee lacked the legal standing to initiate eviction proceedings due to the fraudulent foreclosure, as the fabricated deed undermines their claim to the property.*. Precedent Cases: - In *Ibanez*, as reaffirmed in *Bevilacqua*.*. New Evidence of Fraud:

Case Rating: *
Sure, here's a structured outline for your reply argument:

Reply Argument: The Appeal is Not Moot Despite the Eviction
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The foreclosure was based on fraudulent activities and the deed was fabricated, invalidating the appellee's claim to the property.
*. Violation of Usury Laws
- The interest rate of *% imposed by the purported lender constitutes a clear violation of usury laws.
*. Lack of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- The appellee lacked the legal standing to initiate eviction proceedings due to the fraudulent foreclosure, as the fabricated deed undermines their claim to the property.
*. Precedent Cases
- Reference cases: *Ibanez* and *Bevilacqua*.
*. New Evidence of Fraud
- Include any newly discovered evidence that further supports the claim of fraud.
Would you like to add more details or have any other questions?

- New evidence, including the purported lender's testimony admitting to foreclosure violations, further supports the claim of fraud and the invalidity of the eviction.*. Violation of * U.S.C. Section *:- Opposing counsel, Blake Godbout, has knowingly and willfully submitted false statements.*. Violation of Constitutional Rights: - The denial of discovery requests and the stripping of a jury trial have violated my due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution.*. Flurry of Denied Motions: - Appellant has filed several motions, including:*. Notice of Removal: - I filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on February *, *.*. *.

Case Rating: *
Sure, here’s the updated outline for your reply argument:

Reply Argument: The Appeal is Not Moot Despite the Eviction
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The foreclosure was based on fraudulent activities, and the deed was fabricated, invalidating the appellee's claim to the property.

*. Violation of Usury Laws
- The interest rate of *% imposed by the purported lender constitutes a clear violation of usury laws.
*. Lack of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- The appellee lacked legal standing to initiate eviction proceedings due to the fraudulent foreclosure, as the fabricated deed undermines their claim to the property.
*. Precedent Cases
- Reference cases: *Ibanez* and *Bevilacqua*.
*. New Evidence of Fraud
- New evidence, including the purported lender's testimony admitting to foreclosure violations, further supports the claim of fraud and the invalidity of the eviction.
*. Violation of * U.S.C. Section *
- Opposing counsel, Blake Godbout, has knowingly and willfully submitted false statements.
*. Violation of Constitutional Rights
- The denial of discovery requests and the stripping of a jury trial have violated my due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution.
*. Flurry of Denied Motions
- Appellant has filed several motions, including:
*. Notice of Removal
- I filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on February *, *.
Would you like to add any more details or need further assistance?

Contesting Sanctions and Fees: - The sanctions and fees requested by the opposing counsel are another scheme to divert attention from their fraudulent conduct. I dont where to insert:Statement of Discovery of RICO ViolationOn January *, *, the appellant discovered that she may have a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt ..

Case Rating: *
Here's where you can insert your "Statement of Discovery of RICO Violation":

Contesting Sanctions and Fees:
- The sanctions and fees requested by the opposing counsel are another scheme to divert attention from their fraudulent conduct.

New Section:
- Statement of Discovery of RICO Violation: On January *, *, the appellant discovered that she may have a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Do you need any more help with structuring your arguments?

without the borderline.

Case Rating: *
Here’s your reply argument without any borders:
Reply Argument: The Appeal is Not Moot Despite the Eviction
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The foreclosure was based on fraudulent activities, and the deed was fabricated, invalidating the appellee's claim to the property.
*. Violation of Usury Laws
- The interest rate of *% imposed by the purported lender constitutes a clear violation of usury laws.
*. Lack of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- The appellee lacked legal standing to initiate eviction proceedings due to the fraudulent foreclosure, as the fabricated deed undermines their claim to the property.
*. Precedent Cases
- Reference cases: *Ibanez* and *Bevilacqua*.
*. New Evidence of Fraud
- New evidence, including the purported lender's testimony admitting to foreclosure violations, further supports the claim of fraud and the invalidity of the eviction.
*. Violation of * U.S.C. Section *
- Opposing counsel, Blake Godbout, has knowingly and willfully submitted false statements.
*. Violation of Constitutional Rights
- The denial of discovery requests and the stripping of a jury trial have violated my due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution.
*. Flurry of Denied Motions
- Appellant has filed several motions, including:
*. Notice of Removal
- I filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on February *, *.
*. Contesting Sanctions and Fees
- The sanctions and fees requested by the opposing counsel are another scheme to divert attention from their fraudulent conduct.
New Section:
- Statement of Discovery of RICO Violation: On January *, *, the appellant discovered that she may have a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Would you like to add any more details or need further assistance?

where do i place attachments?

Case Rating: *
You can place attachments as exhibits in your reply argument. Here’s how you might structure it:

Exhibits:
*. Exhibit A: Documentation of fraudulent foreclosure and fabricated deed.
*. Exhibit B: Evidence of usury law violations.
*. Exhibit C: Testimony admitting to foreclosure violations.
*. Exhibit D: New evidence related to RICO violations discovered on January *, *.
Would you like more detailed instructions on how to format these exhibits?

Exhibit A Defaul Letter by Luke travis including the usry violation.

Case Rating: *
Here’s how you can structure the attachment as an exhibit in your reply argument:

Exhibits:
*. Exhibit A: Default Letter by Luke Travis, including usury violation.
*. Exhibit B: Documentation of fraudulent foreclosure and fabricated deed.
*. Exhibit C: Evidence of usury law violations.
*. Exhibit D: Testimony admitting to foreclosure violations.
*. Exhibit E: New evidence related to RICO violations discovered on January *, *.
Would you need more information or assistance on any other aspect of your case?

Please polish:*. Exhibit A: Default Letter by Luke Travis, including usury violationExhibit B August *, * complaint filed by Blake godbout and appellee to Southeast housing Court seeking a declaratory Judgement Action that Appellee are the owners via a foreclsoure on Appeallant's home. Exhibit C Fabricated Foreclsoure deed filed into court by Blake Godbout Exhibit D October *, * Order from the Court that the Appellee is now the owner of the Appellant's home via a foreclsoure. Exhibit E: Testimony admitting to foreclosure violations. Exhibit F: New evidence related to RICO violations discovered on January *, *. Exhibit G - January *, *- Petition for Review of Denial of Appeal to appeals Court.

Case Rating: *
Here’s the polished version:
*. Exhibit A: Default Letter by Luke Travis, including usury violation.
*. Exhibit B: August *, *, complaint filed by Blake Godbout and appellee to Southeast Housing Court seeking a declaratory judgment that appellee are the owners via a foreclosure on appellant's home.
*. Exhibit C: Fabricated foreclosure deed filed into court by Blake Godbout.
*. Exhibit D: October *, *, Order from the Court declaring the appellee as the owner of the appellant's home via foreclosure.
*. Exhibit E: Testimony admitting to foreclosure violations.
*. Exhibit F: New evidence related to RICO violations discovered on January *, *.
*. Exhibit G: January *, *, Petition for Review of Denial of Appeal to the Appeals Court.
Would you like assistance with anything else related to your case?

please tell me what follows after statement of discovery?

Case Rating: *
After the Statement of Discovery, the litigation process typically involves:
- Depositions: Witnesses are questioned under oath.
- Motions: Requests for the court to make specific rulings (e.g., Motion to Dismiss).
- Summary Judgment: A party asks the court to rule in their favor based on the evidence presented.
- Trial Preparation: Gathering evidence, preparing witnesses, and finalizing arguments for trial.
Would you like more detailed information on any of these steps?

what is after this in my motion *. Contesting Sanctions and Fees - The sanctions and fees requested by the opposing counsel are another scheme to divert attention from their fraudulent conduct. New Section: - Statement of Discovery of RICO Violation: On January *, *, the appellant discovered that she may have a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act

Case Rating: *
Here’s what follows after "Statement of Discovery of RICO Violation":
*. New Section:
- Deposition of Key Witnesses:
- Appellant requests the deposition of key witnesses to further establish the fraudulent activities under the RICO Act.
*. Motions for Summary Judgment:
- Appellant will file motions for summary judgment based on the evidence of fraudulent activities and RICO violations.
*. Trial Preparation:
- Appellant is preparing for trial, including gathering evidence, preparing witnesses, and finalizing arguments to present a strong case.
Would you like to add more details or need further assistance with your motion?

Sorry i mean here:Reply Argument: The Appeal is Not Moot Despite the Eviction * thru * .

Case Rating: *
Got it! Let me organize your argument for you:

Reply Argument: The Appeal is Not Moot Despite the Eviction
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The foreclosure was based on fraudulent activities, and the deed was fabricated, invalidating the appellee's claim to the property.
*. Violation of Usury Laws
- The interest rate of *% imposed by the purported lender constitutes a clear violation of usury laws.
*. Lack of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- The appellee lacked legal standing to initiate eviction proceedings due to the fraudulent foreclosure, as the fabricated deed undermines their claim to the property.
*. Precedent Cases
- Reference cases: *Ibanez* and *Bevilacqua*.
*. New Evidence of Fraud
- New evidence, including the purported lender's testimony admitting to foreclosure violations, further supports the claim of fraud and the invalidity of the eviction.
*. Violation of * U.S.C. Section *
- Opposing counsel, Blake Godbout, has knowingly and willfully submitted false statements.
*. Violation of Constitutional Rights
- The denial of discovery requests and the stripping of a jury trial have violated my due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution.
*. Flurry of Denied Motions
- Appellant has filed several motions, including:
*. Notice of Removal
- I filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on February *, *.
*. Contesting Sanctions and Fees
- The sanctions and fees requested by the opposing counsel are another scheme to divert attention from their fraudulent conduct.
*. Statement of Discovery of RICO Violation
- On January *, *, the appellant discovered that she may have a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Would you like to add more details or need further assistance with any specific section?

is evidence after point * and then conclusion?

Case Rating: *
Yes, evidence typically follows the points of argument. You can then conclude your reply argument. Here's the structure:

Reply Argument: The Appeal is Not Moot Despite the Eviction
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The foreclosure was based on fraudulent activities, and the deed was fabricated, invalidating the appellee's claim to the property.
*. Violation of Usury Laws
- The interest rate of *% imposed by the purported lender constitutes a clear violation of usury laws.
*. Lack of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- The appellee lacked legal standing to initiate eviction proceedings due to the fraudulent foreclosure, as the fabricated deed undermines their claim to the property.
*. Precedent Cases
- Reference cases: *Ibanez* and *Bevilacqua*.
*. New Evidence of Fraud
- New evidence, including the purported lender's testimony admitting to foreclosure violations, further supports the claim of fraud and the invalidity of the eviction.
*. Violation of * U.S.C. Section *
- Opposing counsel, Blake Godbout, has knowingly and willfully submitted false statements.
*. Violation of Constitutional Rights
- The denial of discovery requests and the stripping of a jury trial have violated my due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution.
*. Flurry of Denied Motions
- Appellant has filed several motions, including:
*. Notice of Removal
- I filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on February *, *.
*. Contesting Sanctions and Fees
- The sanctions and fees requested by the opposing counsel are another scheme to divert attention from their fraudulent conduct.
*. Statement of Discovery of RICO Violation
- On January *, *, the appellant discovered that she may have a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Evidence:
- Exhibit A: Default Letter by Luke Travis, including usury violation.
- Exhibit B: August *, *, complaint filed by Blake Godbout and appellee to Southeast Housing Court seeking a declaratory judgment that appellee are the owners via a foreclosure on appellant's home.
- Exhibit C: Fabricated foreclosure deed filed into court by Blake Godbout.
- Exhibit D: October *, *, Order from the Court declaring the appellee as the owner of the appellant's home via foreclosure.
- Exhibit E: Testimony admitting to foreclosure violations.
- Exhibit F: New evidence related to RICO violations discovered on January *, *.
- Exhibit G: January *, *, Petition for Review of Denial of Appeal to the Appeals Court.

Conclusion:
Summarize the key points supporting your argument and reinforce why the appeal is not moot despite the eviction. Conclude by requesting the court to grant your appeal based on the evidence and arguments presented.
Would you need any more details or assistance with any specific part?

do i number evidence and conclusion/

Case Rating: *
Yes, you can number the evidence and conclusion sections to clearly organize your arguments. Here's how it can be structured:

Reply Argument: The Appeal is Not Moot Despite the Eviction
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The foreclosure was based on fraudulent activities, and the deed was fabricated, invalidating the appellee's claim to the property.
*. Violation of Usury Laws
- The interest rate of *% imposed by the purported lender constitutes a clear violation of usury laws.
*. Lack of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- The appellee lacked legal standing to initiate eviction proceedings due to the fraudulent foreclosure, as the fabricated deed undermines their claim to the property.
*. Precedent Cases
- Reference cases: *Ibanez* and *Bevilacqua*.
*. New Evidence of Fraud
- New evidence, including the purported lender's testimony admitting to foreclosure violations, further supports the claim of fraud and the invalidity of the eviction.
*. Violation of * U.S.C. Section *
- Opposing counsel, Blake Godbout, has knowingly and willfully submitted false statements.
*. Violation of Constitutional Rights
- The denial of discovery requests and the stripping of a jury trial have violated my due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution.
*. Flurry of Denied Motions
- Appellant has filed several motions, including:
*. Notice of Removal
- I filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on February *, *.
*. Contesting Sanctions and Fees
- The sanctions and fees requested by the opposing counsel are another scheme to divert attention from their fraudulent conduct.
*. Statement of Discovery of RICO Violation
- On January *, *, the appellant discovered that she may have a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Evidence:
*. Exhibit A: Default Letter by Luke Travis, including usury violation.
*. Exhibit B: August *, *, complaint filed by Blake Godbout and appellee to Southeast Housing Court seeking a declaratory judgment that appellee are the owners via a foreclosure on appellant's home.
*. Exhibit C: Fabricated foreclosure deed filed into court by Blake Godbout.
*. Exhibit D: October *, *, Order from the Court declaring the appellee as the owner of the appellant's home via foreclosure.
*. Exhibit E: Testimony admitting to foreclosure violations.
*. Exhibit F: New evidence related to RICO violations discovered on January *, *.
*. Exhibit G: January *, *, Petition for Review of Denial of Appeal to the Appeals Court.

Conclusion:
Summarize the key points supporting your argument and reinforce why the appeal is not moot despite the eviction. Conclude by requesting the court to grant your appeal based on the evidence and arguments presented.
Would you like further assistance with any other part of your case?

But not the Evidence and conclusion itself?

Case Rating: *
Got it! The evidence and conclusion sections should follow the structured arguments. Here’s the final organization without numbering the evidence and conclusion themselves:
---
Reply Argument: The Appeal is Not Moot Despite the Eviction
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The foreclosure was based on fraudulent activities, and the deed was fabricated, invalidating the appellee's claim to the property.
*. Violation of Usury Laws
- The interest rate of *% imposed by the purported lender constitutes a clear violation of usury laws.
*. Lack of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- The appellee lacked legal standing to initiate eviction proceedings due to the fraudulent foreclosure, as the fabricated deed undermines their claim to the property.
*. Precedent Cases
- Reference cases: *Ibanez* and *Bevilacqua*.
*. New Evidence of Fraud
- New evidence, including the purported lender's testimony admitting to foreclosure violations, further supports the claim of fraud and the invalidity of the eviction.
*. Violation of * U.S.C. Section *
- Opposing counsel, Blake Godbout, has knowingly and willfully submitted false statements.
*. Violation of Constitutional Rights
- The denial of discovery requests and the stripping of a jury trial have violated my due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution.
*. Flurry of Denied Motions
- Appellant has filed several motions, including:
*. Notice of Removal
- I filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on February *, *.
*. Contesting Sanctions and Fees
- The sanctions and fees requested by the opposing counsel are another scheme to divert attention from their fraudulent conduct.
*. Statement of Discovery of RICO Violation
- On January *, *, the appellant discovered that she may have a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Evidence:
- Exhibit A: Default Letter by Luke Travis, including usury violation.
- Exhibit B: August *, *, complaint filed by Blake Godbout and appellee to Southeast Housing Court seeking a declaratory judgment that appellee are the owners via a foreclosure on appellant's home.
- Exhibit C: Fabricated foreclosure deed filed into court by Blake Godbout.
- Exhibit D: October *, *, Order from the Court declaring the appellee as the owner of the appellant's home via foreclosure.
- Exhibit E: Testimony admitting to foreclosure violations.
- Exhibit F: New evidence related to RICO violations discovered on January *, *.
- Exhibit G: January *, *, Petition for Review of Denial of Appeal to the Appeals Court.
Conclusion:
Summarize the key points supporting your argument and reinforce why the appeal is not moot despite the eviction. Conclude by requesting the court to grant your appeal based on the evidence and arguments presented.
---
Is there anything else you need assistance with?

is there a certain format I need to conform to to reply here is the header.COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT No. *-P-* BRISTOL, ss. L&S REALTY LLC, Appellee V. Karen Merritt, Appellant On Appeal from Southeast Housing Court Appellee’s Brief

Case Rating: *
In Massachusetts, when replying to an Appeals Court, you should generally follow the court's rules and format guidelines. Here’s a basic structure to follow:
*. Header: As provided.
*. Table of Contents: If the brief is lengthy.
*. Statement of the Issues: Clearly outline the issues on appeal.
*. Statement of the Case: Briefly summarize the procedural history and facts.
*. Summary of the Argument: Condense your argument into a brief summary.
*. Argument: Present your points in detail:
- Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- Violation of Usury Laws
- Lack of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Precedent Cases
- New Evidence of Fraud
- Violation of * U.S.C. Section *
- Violation of Constitutional Rights
- Flurry of Denied Motions
- Notice of Removal
- Contesting Sanctions and Fees
- Statement of Discovery of RICO Violation
*. Evidence: List your exhibits.
*. Conclusion: Summarize and request the relief you seek.
*. Certificate of Compliance: Confirm adherence to formatting rules.
*. Certificate of Service: Certify that copies were sent to all parties.

Courts often have specific requirements:
- Font size and type: Usually *-point font, Times New Roman.
- Margins: Typically * inch on all sides.
- Page limits: Check local rules.
- Binding: Some courts require specific types of binding.
For precise details, refer to the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure or the specific court's guidelines. You can also check the court’s website for any templates or additional instructions.
Would you like help with any other specific part of your brief?

i have alreday submitted the Appellant Brief . Now i am only replying to the Appellee's Brief

Case Rating: *
Alright, here’s a suggested format for your reply to the Appellee’s Brief based on the information you've provided:
---

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

No. *-P-*

BRISTOL, ss.

L&S REALTY LLC, Appellee

Karen Merritt, Appellant

On Appeal from Southeast Housing Court

Appellee’s Brief
---
Reply Argument: The Appeal is Not Moot Despite the Eviction
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The foreclosure was based on fraudulent activities, and the deed was fabricated, invalidating the appellee's claim to the property.
*. Violation of Usury Laws
- The interest rate of *% imposed by the purported lender constitutes a clear violation of usury laws.
*. Lack of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- The appellee lacked legal standing to initiate eviction proceedings due to the fraudulent foreclosure, as the fabricated deed undermines their claim to the property.
*. Precedent Cases
- Reference cases: *Ibanez* and *Bevilacqua*.
*. New Evidence of Fraud
- New evidence, including the purported lender's testimony admitting to foreclosure violations, further supports the claim of fraud and the invalidity of the eviction.
*. Violation of * U.S.C. Section *
- Opposing counsel, Blake Godbout, has knowingly and willfully submitted false statements.
*. Violation of Constitutional Rights
- The denial of discovery requests and the stripping of a jury trial have violated my due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution.
*. Flurry of Denied Motions
- Appellant has filed several motions, including:
*. Notice of Removal
- I filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on February *, *.
*. Contesting Sanctions and Fees
- The sanctions and fees requested by the opposing counsel are another scheme to divert attention from their fraudulent conduct.
*. Statement of Discovery of RICO Violation
- On January *, *, the appellant discovered that she may have a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Evidence:
- Exhibit A: Default Letter by Luke Travis, including usury violation.
- Exhibit B: August *, *, complaint filed by Blake Godbout and appellee to Southeast Housing Court seeking a declaratory judgment that appellee are the owners via a foreclosure on appellant's home.
- Exhibit C: Fabricated foreclosure deed filed into court by Blake Godbout.
- Exhibit D: October *, *, Order from the Court declaring the appellee as the owner of the appellant's home via foreclosure.
- Exhibit E: Testimony admitting to foreclosure violations.
- Exhibit F: New evidence related to RICO violations discovered on January *, *.
- Exhibit G: January *, *, Petition for Review of Denial of Appeal to the Appeals Court.
Conclusion:
Summarize the key points supporting your argument and reinforce why the appeal is not moot despite the eviction. Conclude by requesting the court to grant your appeal based on the evidence and arguments presented.
---
Would you like assistance with any specific part of your reply?

please send without the borderline. So it seems like i am just foling a standard motion to reply.

Case Rating: *
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
No. *-P-*
BRISTOL, ss.
L&S REALTY LLC, Appellee
V.
Karen Merritt, Appellant
On Appeal from Southeast Housing Court
Appellee’s Brief
Reply Argument: The Appeal is Not Moot Despite the Eviction
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The foreclosure was based on fraudulent activities, and the deed was fabricated, invalidating the appellee's claim to the property.
*. Violation of Usury Laws
- The interest rate of *% imposed by the purported lender constitutes a clear violation of usury laws.
*. Lack of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- The appellee lacked legal standing to initiate eviction proceedings due to the fraudulent foreclosure, as the fabricated deed undermines their claim to the property.
*. Precedent Cases
- Reference cases: *Ibanez* and *Bevilacqua*.
*. New Evidence of Fraud
- New evidence, including the purported lender's testimony admitting to foreclosure violations, further supports the claim of fraud and the invalidity of the eviction.
*. Violation of * U.S.C. Section *
- Opposing counsel, Blake Godbout, has knowingly and willfully submitted false statements.
*. Violation of Constitutional Rights
- The denial of discovery requests and the stripping of a jury trial have violated my due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution.
*. Flurry of Denied Motions
- Appellant has filed several motions, including:
*. Notice of Removal
- I filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on February *, *.
*. Contesting Sanctions and Fees
- The sanctions and fees requested by the opposing counsel are another scheme to divert attention from their fraudulent conduct.
*. Statement of Discovery of RICO Violation
- On January *, *, the appellant discovered that she may have a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Evidence:
- Exhibit A: Default Letter by Luke Travis, including usury violation.
- Exhibit B: August *, *, complaint filed by Blake Godbout and appellee to Southeast Housing Court seeking a declaratory judgment that appellee are the owners via a foreclosure on appellant's home.
- Exhibit C: Fabricated foreclosure deed filed into court by Blake Godbout.
- Exhibit D: October *, *, Order from the Court declaring the appellee as the owner of the appellant's home via foreclosure.
- Exhibit E: Testimony admitting to foreclosure violations.
- Exhibit F: New evidence related to RICO violations discovered on January *, *.
- Exhibit G: January *, *, Petition for Review of Denial of Appeal to the Appeals Court.
Conclusion:
Summarize the key points supporting your argument and reinforce why the appeal is not moot despite the eviction. Conclude by requesting the court to grant your appeal based on the evidence and arguments presented.
Would you like assistance with anything else?

I guess what i am asking is that i know that indeed Briefs must be formal adhering to quidelines. But does a reply to the appellee's formal brief have the foraml guideline too, rather tna Reply argment? should i say Now Comes in the introduction?

Case Rating: *
In Massachusetts, a reply brief should also adhere to formal guidelines. Here’s a concise format for your introduction:
---
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
No. *-P-*
BRISTOL, ss.
L&S REALTY LLC, Appellee
V.
Karen Merritt, Appellant
On Appeal from Southeast Housing Court
REPLY BRIEF
NOW COMES the Appellant, Karen Merritt, and submits this reply brief in response to the Appellee’s brief.
Reply Argument: The Appeal is Not Moot Despite the Eviction
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The foreclosure was based on fraudulent activities, and the deed was fabricated, invalidating the appellee's claim to the property.
*. Violation of Usury Laws
- The interest rate of *% imposed by the purported lender constitutes a clear violation of usury laws.
*. Lack of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- The appellee lacked legal standing to initiate eviction proceedings due to the fraudulent foreclosure, as the fabricated deed undermines their claim to the property.
*. Precedent Cases
- Reference cases: *Ibanez* and *Bevilacqua*.
*. New Evidence of Fraud
- New evidence, including the purported lender's testimony admitting to foreclosure violations, further supports the claim of fraud and the invalidity of the eviction.
*. Violation of * U.S.C. Section *
- Opposing counsel, Blake Godbout, has knowingly and willfully submitted false statements.
*. Violation of Constitutional Rights
- The denial of discovery requests and the stripping of a jury trial have violated my due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution.
*. Flurry of Denied Motions
- Appellant has filed several motions, including:
*. Notice of Removal
- I filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on February *, *.
*. Contesting Sanctions and Fees
- The sanctions and fees requested by the opposing counsel are another scheme to divert attention from their fraudulent conduct.
*. Statement of Discovery of RICO Violation
- On January *, *, the appellant discovered that she may have a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Evidence:
- Exhibit A: Default Letter by Luke Travis, including usury violation.
- Exhibit B: August *, *, complaint filed by Blake Godbout and appellee to Southeast Housing Court seeking a declaratory judgment that appellee are the owners via a foreclosure on appellant's home.
- Exhibit C: Fabricated foreclosure deed filed into court by Blake Godbout.
- Exhibit D: October *, *, Order from the Court declaring the appellee as the owner of the appellant's home via foreclosure.
- Exhibit E: Testimony admitting to foreclosure violations.
- Exhibit F: New evidence related to RICO violations discovered on January *, *.
- Exhibit G: January *, *, Petition for Review of Denial of Appeal to the Appeals Court.
Conclusion:
Summarize the key points supporting your argument and reinforce why the appeal is not moot despite the eviction. Conclude by requesting the court to grant your appeal based on the evidence and arguments presented.
---
Would you like any more assistance with this?

do you think I siad it clearly enough- Appellee states The Massachusetts Appeals Court and Housing Court have jurisdiction over this matter. Defendant Merritt’s argument regarding jurisdiction is a thinly veiled attempt to appeal substantive findings and the underlying judgment of the Housing Court. Defendant Merritt has been warned by this Court that her appeal is limited to the denial of her Emergency Motion to Stay Execution of Eviction Proceedings. See PRA * . the Housing Court does not have subject matter jurisidiction Mr. fiegel because of your actions I make or take no "veiled" attempt to appeal substantice finds, .

Case Rating: *
Your statement could be clearer. Here’s a revised version:
---
The Appellee asserts that both the Massachusetts Appeals Court and Housing Court have jurisdiction over this matter. They claim my argument regarding jurisdiction is a thinly veiled attempt to appeal the substantive findings and the underlying judgment of the Housing Court. They also note that this Court has previously warned me that my appeal is limited to the denial of my Emergency Motion to Stay Execution of Eviction Proceedings (see PRA *). However, the Housing Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Fiegel, I do not make any "veiled" attempts to appeal substantive findings due to your actions.
---
Would you like assistance with any other part of your reply?

rather i am explicitly transparantly the veil is completely off that when you file a afbricted deed into a court claiming if its authenticity when you know that it is not the fruad voids all futher orders. You did this . Noone else but you. additionally i filed New Evidence seeking my emergency Motion To Stay Executio of Eviction the purported lenders testimoney that he orchestrated an illegal foreclsoure

Case Rating: *
It looks like you're dealing with some serious legal issues involving fraudulent deeds, foreclosure, and potential RICO claims. Here’s a clearer and more formal way to state your argument regarding jurisdiction and the fraudulent actions:
---
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
No. *-P-*
BRISTOL, ss.
L&S REALTY LLC, Appellee
V.
Karen Merritt, Appellant
On Appeal from Southeast Housing Court
Appellee’s Brief
REPLY BRIEF
NOW COMES the Appellant, Karen Merritt, and submits this reply brief in response to the Appellee’s brief.
Reply Argument: The Appeal is Not Moot Despite the Eviction
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The foreclosure was based on fraudulent activities, and the deed was fabricated, invalidating the appellee's claim to the property. The Housing Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter due to the fraudulent actions committed by the appellee. The fraudulent deed voids all further orders. This is not a "veiled" attempt to appeal substantive findings; it is a clear and transparent assertion that the fraudulent deed filed by the appellee invalidates their claim and the jurisdiction of the Housing Court.
*. Violation of Usury Laws
- The interest rate of *% imposed by the purported lender constitutes a clear violation of usury laws.
*. Lack of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- The appellee lacked legal standing to initiate eviction proceedings due to the fraudulent foreclosure, as the fabricated deed undermines their claim to the property.
*. Precedent Cases
- Reference cases: *Ibanez* and *Bevilacqua*.
*. New Evidence of Fraud
- New evidence, including the purported lender's testimony admitting to foreclosure violations, further supports the claim of fraud and the invalidity of the eviction.
*. Violation of * U.S.C. Section *
- Opposing counsel, Blake Godbout, has knowingly and willfully submitted false statements.
*. Violation of Constitutional Rights
- The denial of discovery requests and the stripping of a jury trial have violated my due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution.
*. Flurry of Denied Motions
- Appellant has filed several motions, including:
*. Notice of Removal
- I filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on February *, *.
*. Contesting Sanctions and Fees
- The sanctions and fees requested by the opposing counsel are another scheme to divert attention from their fraudulent conduct.
*. Statement of Discovery of RICO Violation
- On January *, *, the appellant discovered that she may have a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Evidence:
- Exhibit A: Default Letter by Luke Travis, including usury violation.
- Exhibit B: August *, *, complaint filed by Blake Godbout and appellee to Southeast Housing Court seeking a declaratory judgment that appellee are the owners via a foreclosure on appellant's home.
- Exhibit C: Fabricated foreclosure deed filed into court by Blake Godbout.
- Exhibit D: October *, *, Order from the Court declaring the appellee as the owner of the appellant's home via foreclosure.
- Exhibit E: Testimony admitting to foreclosure violations.
- Exhibit F: New evidence related to RICO violations discovered on January *, *.
- Exhibit G: January *, *, Petition for Review of Denial of Appeal to the Appeals Court.
Conclusion:
Summarize the key points supporting your argument and reinforce why the appeal is not moot despite the eviction. Conclude by requesting the court to grant your appeal based on the evidence and arguments presented.
---
Would you like to add more details or need further assistance with any specific section?

do I need to cite any federal law pursuaint in section *?

Case Rating: *
In your reply argument, you should indeed cite any relevant federal laws that support your claims, especially if they strengthen your argument about fraudulent deeds and jurisdiction. Here is an updated version of section * with a relevant citation:
---
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
No. *-P-*
BRISTOL, ss.
L&S REALTY LLC, Appellee
V.
Karen Merritt, Appellant
On Appeal from Southeast Housing Court
Appellee’s Brief
REPLY BRIEF
NOW COMES the Appellant, Karen Merritt, and submits this reply brief in response to the Appellee’s brief.
Reply Argument: The Appeal is Not Moot Despite the Eviction
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The foreclosure was based on fraudulent activities, and the deed was fabricated, invalidating the appellee's claim to the property. The Housing Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter due to the fraudulent actions committed by the appellee. The fraudulent deed voids all further orders. This is not a "veiled" attempt to appeal substantive findings; it is a clear and transparent assertion that the fraudulent deed filed by the appellee invalidates their claim and the jurisdiction of the Housing Court (see * U.S.C. § * for penalties associated with knowingly making fraudulent statements).
*. Violation of Usury Laws
- The interest rate of *% imposed by the purported lender constitutes a clear violation of usury laws.
*. Lack of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- The appellee lacked legal standing to initiate eviction proceedings due to the fraudulent foreclosure, as the fabricated deed undermines their claim to the property.
*. Precedent Cases
- Reference cases: *Ibanez* and *Bevilacqua*.
*. New Evidence of Fraud
- New evidence, including the purported lender's testimony admitting to foreclosure violations, further supports the claim of fraud and the invalidity of the eviction.
*. Violation of * U.S.C. Section *
- Opposing counsel, Blake Godbout, has knowingly and willfully submitted false statements.
*. Violation of Constitutional Rights
- The denial of discovery requests and the stripping of a jury trial have violated my due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution.
*. Flurry of Denied Motions
- Appellant has filed several motions, including:
*. Notice of Removal
- I filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on February *, *.
*. Contesting Sanctions and Fees
- The sanctions and fees requested by the opposing counsel are another scheme to divert attention from their fraudulent conduct.
*. Statement of Discovery of RICO Violation
- On January *, *, the appellant discovered that she may have a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Evidence:
- Exhibit A: Default Letter by Luke Travis, including usury violation.
- Exhibit B: August *, *, complaint filed by Blake Godbout and appellee to Southeast Housing Court seeking a declaratory judgment that appellee are the owners via a foreclosure on appellant's home.
- Exhibit C: Fabricated foreclosure deed filed into court by Blake Godbout.
- Exhibit D: October *, *, Order from the Court declaring the appellee as the owner of the appellant's home via foreclosure.
- Exhibit E: Testimony admitting to foreclosure violations.
- Exhibit F: New evidence related to RICO violations discovered on January *, *.
- Exhibit G: January *, *, Petition for Review of Denial of Appeal to the Appeals Court.
Conclusion:
Summarize the key points supporting your argument and reinforce why the appeal is not moot despite the eviction. Conclude by requesting the court to grant your appeal based on the evidence and arguments presented.
---
Would you like to add more details or need further assistance with any specific section?

The fraudulent deed voids all further orders. should i stat pursuaint to rule * or state commonlaw fruad or should I just state * u,s,c, * as it is sufficient

Case Rating: *
You can reference all three for a comprehensive argument. Here’s how you can structure it:
---
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
No. *-P-*
BRISTOL, ss.
L&S REALTY LLC, Appellee
V.
Karen Merritt, Appellant
On Appeal from Southeast Housing Court
Appellee’s Brief
REPLY BRIEF
NOW COMES the Appellant, Karen Merritt, and submits this reply brief in response to the Appellee’s brief.
Reply Argument: The Appeal is Not Moot Despite the Eviction
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The foreclosure was based on fraudulent activities, and the deed was fabricated, invalidating the appellee's claim to the property. The Housing Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter due to the fraudulent actions committed by the appellee. The fraudulent deed voids all further orders. This is not a "veiled" attempt to appeal substantive findings; it is a clear and transparent assertion that the fraudulent deed filed by the appellee invalidates their claim and the jurisdiction of the Housing Court.
- Pursuant to Rule *(b) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for relief from a judgment or order based on fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct, the fraudulent deed voids all further orders.
- Under common law fraud principles, the fraudulent deed should be nullified, and all subsequent orders based on it should be voided.
- Citing * U.S.C. § * for penalties associated with knowingly making fraudulent statements further supports the argument that the fraudulent deed invalidates all subsequent orders.
*. Violation of Usury Laws
- The interest rate of *% imposed by the purported lender constitutes a clear violation of usury laws.
*. Lack of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- The appellee lacked legal standing to initiate eviction proceedings due to the fraudulent foreclosure, as the fabricated deed undermines their claim to the property.
*. Precedent Cases
- Reference cases: *Ibanez* and *Bevilacqua*.
*. New Evidence of Fraud
- New evidence, including the purported lender's testimony admitting to foreclosure violations, further supports the claim of fraud and the invalidity of the eviction.
*. Violation of * U.S.C. Section *
- Opposing counsel, Blake Godbout, has knowingly and willfully submitted false statements.
*. Violation of Constitutional Rights
- The denial of discovery requests and the stripping of a jury trial have violated my due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution.
*. Flurry of Denied Motions
- Appellant has filed several motions, including:
*. Notice of Removal
- I filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on February *, *.
*. Contesting Sanctions and Fees
- The sanctions and fees requested by the opposing counsel are another scheme to divert attention from their fraudulent conduct.
*. Statement of Discovery of RICO Violation
- On January *, *, the appellant discovered that she may have a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Evidence:
- Exhibit A: Default Letter by Luke Travis, including usury violation.
- Exhibit B: August *, *, complaint filed by Blake Godbout and appellee to Southeast Housing Court seeking a declaratory judgment that appellee are the owners via a foreclosure on appellant's home.
- Exhibit C: Fabricated foreclosure deed filed into court by Blake Godbout.
- Exhibit D: October *, *, Order from the Court declaring the appellee as the owner of the appellant's home via foreclosure.
- Exhibit E: Testimony admitting to foreclosure violations.
- Exhibit F: New evidence related to RICO violations discovered on January *, *.
- Exhibit G: January *, *, Petition for Review of Denial of Appeal to the Appeals Court.
Conclusion:
Summarize the key points supporting your argument and reinforce why the appeal is not moot despite the eviction. Conclude by requesting the court to grant your appeal based on the evidence and arguments presented.
---
Would you like to add more details or need further assistance with any specific section?

Please summarrize chapter * section * *. Violation of Usury Laws - The interest rate of *% imposed by the purported lender without notifying the Attorney general constitutes a clear violation of usury laws.

Case Rating: *

Violation of Usury Laws:
- Chapter *, Section *(*): Imposes a prohibition on exorbitant interest rates.
- Interest Rate: The purported lender imposed a *% interest rate.
- Requirement: Notification to the Attorney General for such high rates.
- Violation: Failure to notify the Attorney General constitutes a clear violation of usury laws.
Would you like any further information or assistance with your case?

Please refine stating the chapter and attorney general violation *. Violation of Usury Laws: - The interest rate of *% imposed by the purported lender constitutes a clear violation of usury laws. Such illegal terms invalidate the foreclosure process and subsequent eviction. Opposing counsel’s attempt to justify this usurious interest rate further underscores their deliberate dishonesty in misleading the court.

Case Rating: *
Sure, here’s the refined version:

Violation of Usury Laws:
- The interest rate of *% imposed by the purported lender constitutes a clear violation of Chapter *, Section * of Massachusetts laws.
- Such illegal terms invalidate the foreclosure process and subsequent eviction.
- Opposing counsel’s attempt to justify this usurious interest rate further underscores their deliberate dishonesty in misleading the court.
Would you like any more assistance with your case?

*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed Do I need to add this in section * if I state it subsequent sections? - The eviction was based on a foreclosure that did not comply with Massachusetts foreclosure laws under Chapter *, rendering it void as established in *U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Ibanez*. - Godbout Law knowingly and willfully filed a fabricated deed based on a usurious interest rate of *%, which is illegal and void under state law. Do i need to state this

Case Rating: *
It's important to include the details about the non-compliance with Massachusetts foreclosure laws and the fabricated deed in Section * to establish the foundation of your argument. Here’s a refined version:
---
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The eviction was based on a foreclosure that did not comply with Massachusetts foreclosure laws under Chapter *, rendering it void as established in *U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Ibanez*.
- Godbout Law knowingly and willfully filed a fabricated deed based on a usurious interest rate of *%, which is illegal and void under state law.
- Such fraudulent actions invalidate the appellee's claim to the property and all subsequent orders.
This sets the stage for your subsequent sections where you delve deeper into the specific violations and their implications.
Would you need more assistance with any particular part of your argument or brief?

can you please combine - The eviction was based on a foreclosure that did not comply with Massachusetts foreclosure laws under Chapter *, rendering it void as established in *U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Ibanez*. - Godbout Law knowingly and willfully filed a fabricated deed based on a usurious interest rate of *%, which is illegal and void under state law. - Such fraudulent actions invalidate the appellee's claim to the property and all subsequent orders. with this- *. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed

Case Rating: *
Sure, here’s the combined version for Section *:
---
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The eviction was based on a foreclosure that did not comply with Massachusetts foreclosure laws under Chapter *, rendering it void as established in *U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Ibanez*.
- Godbout Law knowingly and willfully filed a fabricated deed based on a usurious interest rate of *%, which is illegal and void under state law.
- Such fraudulent actions invalidate the appellee's claim to the property and all subsequent orders.
---
Would you need more assistance with any other sections?

- The foreclosure was based on fraudulent activities, and the deed was fabricated, invalidating the appellee's claim to the property. The Housing Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter due to the fraudulent actions committed by the appellee. The fraudulent deed voids all further orders. This is not a "veiled" attempt to appeal substantive findings; it is a clear and transparent assertion that the fraudulent deed filed by the appellee invalidates their claim and the jurisdiction of the Housing Court.- Pursuant to Rule *(b) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for relief from a judgment or order based on fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct, the fraudulent deed voids all further orders.

Here’s the refined and combined version of Section * with all the necessary details:
---
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The eviction was based on a foreclosure that did not comply with Massachusetts foreclosure laws under Chapter *, rendering it void as established in *U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Ibanez*.
- Godbout Law knowingly and willfully filed a fabricated deed based on a usurious interest rate of *%, which is illegal and void under state law.
- The foreclosure was based on fraudulent activities, and the deed was fabricated, invalidating the appellee's claim to the property.
- The Housing Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter due to the fraudulent actions committed by the appellee. The fraudulent deed voids all further orders.
- This is not a "veiled" attempt to appeal substantive findings; it is a clear and transparent assertion that the fraudulent deed filed by the appellee invalidates their claim and the jurisdiction of the Housing Court.
- Pursuant to Rule *(b) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for relief from a judgment or order based on fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct, the fraudulent deed voids all further orders.
---
Would you like any further assistance with your brief?

- Under common law fraud principles, the fraudulent deed should be nullified, and all subsequent orders based on it should be voided. - Citing * U.S.C. § * for penalties associated with knowingly making fraudulent statements further supports the argument that the fraudulent deed invalidates all subsequent orders.

Case Rating: *
Sure, here’s the refined and combined Section * with all the relevant points:
---
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The eviction was based on a foreclosure that did not comply with Massachusetts foreclosure laws under Chapter *, rendering it void as established in *U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Ibanez*.
- Godbout Law knowingly and willfully filed a fabricated deed based on a usurious interest rate of *%, which is illegal and void under state law.
- Such fraudulent actions invalidate the appellee's claim to the property and all subsequent orders.
- The Housing Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter due to the fraudulent actions committed by the appellee. The fraudulent deed voids all further orders.
- This is not a "veiled" attempt to appeal substantive findings; it is a clear and transparent assertion that the fraudulent deed filed by the appellee invalidates their claim and the jurisdiction of the Housing Court.
- Pursuant to Rule *(b) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for relief from a judgment or order based on fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct, the fraudulent deed voids all further orders.
- Under common law fraud principles, the fraudulent deed should be nullified, and all subsequent orders based on it should be voided.
- Citing * U.S.C. § * for penalties associated with knowingly making fraudulent statements further supports the argument that the fraudulent deed invalidates all subsequent orders.
---
Would you like any further assistance with other sections of your brief?

Godbout Law knowingly and willfully filed a fabricated deed based on a usurious interest rate of *%, which is illegal and void under state law. based on the collection or as a result of a ...

Case Rating: *
Godbout Law knowingly and willfully filed a fabricated deed based on a usurious interest rate of *%, which is illegal and void under state law. This fraudulent activity, along with the subsequent collection or results from these actions, has significant implications for your case.
Here’s how you can structure this point in your argument:
---
*. Fraudulent Foreclosure and Fabricated Deed
- The eviction was based on a foreclosure that did not comply with Massachusetts foreclosure laws under Chapter *, rendering it void as established in *U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Ibanez*.
- Godbout Law knowingly and willfully filed a fabricated deed based on a usurious interest rate of *%, which is illegal and void under state law.
- Such fraudulent actions invalidate the appellee's claim to the property and all subsequent orders.
- The Housing Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter due to the fraudulent actions committed by the appellee. The fraudulent deed voids all further orders.
- This is not a "veiled" attempt to appeal substantive findings; it is a clear and transparent assertion that the fraudulent deed filed by the appellee invalidates their claim and the jurisdiction of the Housing Court.
- Pursuant to Rule *(b) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for relief from a judgment or order based on fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct, the fraudulent deed voids all further orders.
- Under common law fraud principles, the fraudulent deed should be nullified, and all subsequent orders based on it should be voided.
- Citing * U.S.C. § * for penalties associated with knowingly making fraudulent statements further supports the argument that the fraudulent deed invalidates all subsequent orders.
---
Would you like to refine any other sections or need further assistance with your appeal?

I made a mistake with the header that i sent to the U.S. MA Court in my Notice of Removal. it was an error . I orginally sought to file my notice to the U.S. rhode ilsland court and the cl;erk told me that i had to remove my case to the u.s. Ma and i neglected to change the header here Case No.: 2573CV00006 Notice of Removal Defendants, James Cronan and Karen Merritt, hereby file this Notice of Removal of the above-captioned action from the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, Case No. * CV00006, to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, pursuant to * U.S.C. §§ *, *, *, and *. The Defendants seek to remove only this case.

Case Rating: *
It looks like you've identified an error in the header of your Notice of Removal. Here’s how you can address it:
*. File a Corrected Notice of Removal: Draft a new Notice of Removal with the correct header for the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts.
*. Motion to Correct the Record: File a motion with the court explaining the error and requesting permission to correct the record with the updated Notice of Removal.
Here’s a template for your corrected Notice of Removal:
---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case No.: 2573CV00006
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Defendants, James Cronan and Karen Merritt, hereby file this Notice of Removal of the above-captioned action from the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, Case No. 2573CV00006, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, pursuant to * U.S.C. §§ *, *, *, and *. The Defendants seek to remove only this case.
---
Would you need any help drafting the Motion to Correct the Record or any other assistance with this process?

yes please drraft the motion to correct the record

Case Rating: *
Sure, here’s a draft for the Motion to Correct the Record:
---
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
No. *-P-*
BRISTOL, ss.
L&S REALTY LLC, Appellee
V.
Karen Merritt, Appellant
On Appeal from Southeast Housing Court
MOTION TO CORRECT THE RECORD
NOW COMES the Appellant, Karen Merritt, and respectfully submits this Motion to Correct the Record in the above-captioned matter. In support of this motion, the Appellant states as follows:
*. On [date], the Appellant filed a Notice of Removal in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, Case No. 2573CV00006.
*. The Notice of Removal incorrectly identified the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island as the court to which the case was being removed.
*. The correct court for removal is the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
*. This error was unintentional and was discovered shortly after the filing.
*. The Appellant has prepared a Corrected Notice of Removal to accurately reflect the appropriate court.
WHEREFORE, the Appellant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
*. Permit the Appellant to file the Corrected Notice of Removal.
*. Correct the record to reflect the accurate removal to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
*. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Merritt, Appellant
---
Would you need any further assistance with this motion or any other aspect of your case?

in additon I wanto add constuitional violations that of due process and equal protection by the Southeast housing court. Can i do this too or do i need a separate motion?

Case Rating: *
You can include constitutional violations such as due process and equal protection in your Motion to Correct the Record and Corrected Notice of Removal. Here’s how you can incorporate these violations:

Combined Motion to Correct the Record and Add Constitutional Violations:
---
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
No. *-P-*
BRISTOL, ss.
L&S REALTY LLC, Appellee
V.
Karen Merritt, Appellant
On Appeal from Southeast Housing Court
MOTION TO CORRECT THE RECORD AND ADD CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
NOW COMES the Appellant, Karen Merritt, and respectfully submits this Motion to Correct the Record and Add Constitutional Violations in the above-captioned matter. In support of this motion, the Appellant states as follows:
*. On [date], the Appellant filed a Notice of Removal in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, Case No. 2573CV00006.
*. The Notice of Removal incorrectly identified the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island as the court to which the case was being removed.
*. The correct court for removal is the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
*. This error was unintentional and was discovered shortly after the filing.
*. The Appellant has prepared a Corrected Notice of Removal to accurately reflect the appropriate court.
*. Additionally, the Appellant asserts that the Southeast Housing Court violated her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law.
- Due Process Violation: The denial of discovery requests and the stripping of a jury trial violated the Appellant's right to a fair hearing.
- Equal Protection Violation: The court's actions discriminated against the Appellant, denying her the same legal protections afforded to other litigants.
WHEREFORE, the Appellant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
*. Permit the Appellant to file the Corrected Notice of Removal.
*. Correct the record to reflect the accurate removal to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
*. Acknowledge and address the constitutional violations of due process and equal protection committed by the Southeast Housing Court.
*. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Merritt, Appellant
---
Would you like to proceed with this combined motion, or would you prefer to file a separate motion for the constitutional violations?

without the bordeerline

Case Rating: *
Sure, here’s the combined motion without the borderlines:
---
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
No. *-P-*
BRISTOL, ss.
L&S REALTY LLC, Appellee
V.
Karen Merritt, Appellant
On Appeal from Southeast Housing Court
MOTION TO CORRECT THE RECORD AND ADD CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
NOW COMES the Appellant, Karen Merritt, and respectfully submits this Motion to Correct the Record and Add Constitutional Violations in the above-captioned matter. In support of this motion, the Appellant states as follows:
*. On [date], the Appellant filed a Notice of Removal in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, Case No. 2573CV00006.
*. The Notice of Removal incorrectly identified the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island as the court to which the case was being removed.
*. The correct court for removal is the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
*. This error was unintentional and was discovered shortly after the filing.
*. The Appellant has prepared a Corrected Notice of Removal to accurately reflect the appropriate court.
*. Additionally, the Appellant asserts that the Southeast Housing Court violated her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law.
- Due Process Violation: The denial of discovery requests and the stripping of a jury trial violated the Appellant's right to a fair hearing.
- Equal Protection Violation: The court's actions discriminated against the Appellant, denying her the same legal protections afforded to other litigants.
WHEREFORE, the Appellant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
*. Permit the Appellant to file the Corrected Notice of Removal.
*. Correct the record to reflect the accurate removal to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
*. Acknowledge and address the constitutional violations of due process and equal protection committed by the Southeast Housing Court.
*. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Merritt, Appellant
---
Would you like any further assistance with this motion or any other aspect of your case?

can you write an email to Nilsa BarbosaNilsa Barbosa Generalist Clerk Office of the Clerk U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts One Courthouse Way, Suite * Boston, MA * asking how I go about filing this ?

Case Rating: *
Sure, here’s a draft for your email:
---
Subject: Assistance with Filing a Motion to Correct the Record and Add Constitutional Violations
Dear Ms. Barbosa,
I hope this email finds you well.
I am writing to seek guidance on how to file a Motion to Correct the Record and Add Constitutional Violations in my case. The details are as follows:
Case No.: 2573CV00006
Defendants: James Cronan and Karen Merritt
I initially filed a Notice of Removal that incorrectly identified the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island as the court for removal. The correct court is the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Additionally, I wish to address constitutional violations of due process and equal protection by the Southeast Housing Court.
Could you please provide instructions on the appropriate steps and any specific forms or procedures required for filing this motion?
Thank you for your assistance.
Best regards,
Karen Merritt
[Your Contact Information]
---
Would you like any adjustments to this email?

if a motion to correct the records is filed before an order is generally ok?

Case Rating: *
Yes, it is generally acceptable to file a motion to correct the record before an order is issued. The key is to clearly explain the error and provide the correct information. Here's a simplified version of your email draft:
---
Subject: Guidance on Filing a Motion to Correct the Record
Dear Ms. Barbosa,
I hope this email finds you well.
I am seeking guidance on filing a Motion to Correct the Record for my case:
Case No.: 2573CV00006
Defendants: James Cronan and Karen Merritt
I initially filed a Notice of Removal that incorrectly identified the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island instead of the District of Massachusetts. Additionally, I wish to address constitutional violations of due process and equal protection by the Southeast Housing Court.
Could you please provide instructions on the steps and any specific forms or procedures required for filing this motion?
Thank you for your assistance.
Best regards,
Karen Merritt
[Your Contact Information]
---
Would you like to proceed with this email, or do you need further assistance with any other aspect of your case?

Fraudulent Deed And Foreclosure

Summary

Full Conversation

Related Chats