Return Of Seized Property

Summary

The Southeast Housing Court typically lacks jurisdiction over motions under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 15(d), which pertains to criminal matters. For property return motions, the appropriate venue is usually the District or Superior Court. Ongoing civil cases in Superior and Federal Court, such as breach of fiduciary duty and illegal foreclosure, can support your claims. Consider requesting a stay of possession while litigating these cases. Waiting for adjudication in these courts may strengthen your motion for property return. Ensure your appeals brief is comprehensive, addressing fraud, illegal foreclosure, and usury. Continue pursuing civil cases for potential positive outcomes that bolster your claims.

Full Conversation

hi Id like to complete this can we take it one section at a time? MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY UNDER MASSACHUSETTS RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE *(d) Introduction: Plaintiff Karen Merritt respectfully submits this Motion for Return of Property pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure *(d), seeking the return of her property wrongfully seized by the Southeast Housing Court on October *, *. Background:

Sure, let's proceed step-by-step. You've provided the Introduction and part of the Background. What specific help do you need with the Background section? Are you looking to refine the details, or do you need assistance with the legal arguments?

I am lloking for assistance to include the following information into the motion to strengthen it. *. Bankruptcy Filing: - Plaintiff filed an emergency Chapter * petition on August *, *, to stop the execution of possession and money judgment by the lower court. - Godbout Law Inc. filed an emergency motion for relief from stay on August *, *, with fraudulent foreclosure deed and state court judgment copies procured by fraud. - On September *, *, the Court lifted the stay based on fraudulent claims, despite Plaintiff’s notice providing clear evidence of fraud.

Sure, here’s how you can structure and strengthen the information in your motion:

Motion for Return of Property Under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure *(d)
Introduction:
Plaintiff Karen Merritt respectfully submits this Motion for Return of Property pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure *(d), seeking the return of her property wrongfully seized by the Southeast Housing Court on October *, *.
Background:
*. Bankruptcy Filing:
- Plaintiff filed an emergency Chapter * petition on August *, *, to stop the execution of possession and money judgment by the lower court.
- Godbout Law Inc. filed an emergency motion for relief from stay on August *, *, with fraudulent foreclosure deed and state court judgment copies procured by fraud.
- On September *, *, the Court lifted the stay based on fraudulent claims, despite Plaintiff’s notice providing clear evidence of fraud.
*. Dismissal and Jurisdiction:
- On October *, *, the court dismissed the Chapter * case without prejudice and advised Plaintiff to return to State court.
- This dismissal was in error, as the case involves property rights violations and bankruptcyfraud, which should be transferred to the District Court of Massachusetts under * U.S.C. § *(d) and * U.S.C. § *.
*. Wrongful Seizure:
- The Plaintiff’s case was wrongly returned to the Southeast Housing Court, which lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate.
- As a result, the Housing Court issued an order on October *, *, leading to the wrongful seizure of Plaintiff’s property.
Is there any other specific information or section that you need help with?

send me the motion without the background. *. Dismissal and Jurisdiction: - On October *, *, the court dismissed the Chapter * case without prejudice and advised Plaintiff to return to State court. - This dismissal was in error, as the case involves property rights violations and bankruptcy fraud, which should be transferred to the District Court of Massachusetts under * U.S.C. § *(d) and * U.S.C. § *. *. Wrongful Seizure: - The Plaintiff’s case was wrongly returned to the Southeast Housing Court, which lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate. - As a result, the Housing Court issued an order on October *, *, leading to the wrongful seizure of Plaintiff’s property.

Sure, here’s the motion without the background:
MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY UNDER MASSACHUSETTS RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE *(d)
Introduction:
Plaintiff Karen Merritt respectfully submits this Motion for Return of Property pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure *(d), seeking the return of her property wrongfully seized by the Southeast Housing Court on October *, *.
*. Dismissal and Jurisdiction:
- On October *, *, the court dismissed the Chapter * case without prejudice and advised Plaintiff to return to State court.
- This dismissal was in error, as the case involves property rights violations and bankruptcy fraud, which should be transferred to the District Court of Massachusetts under * U.S.C. § *(d) and * U.S.C. § *.
*. Wrongful Seizure:
- The Plaintiff’s case was wrongly returned to the Southeast Housing Court, which lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate.
- As a result, the Housing Court issued an order on October *, *, leading to the wrongful seizure of Plaintiff’s property.
Do you need any additional sections or details included?Here’s the motion without the background:
MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY UNDER MASSACHUSETTS RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE *(d)
Introduction:
Plaintiff Karen Merritt respectfully submits this Motion for Return of Property pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure *(d), seeking the return of her property wrongfully seized by the Southeast Housing Court on October *, *.
*. Dismissal and Jurisdiction:
- On October *, *, the court dismissed the Chapter * case without prejudice and advised Plaintiff to return to State court.
- This dismissal was in error, as the case involves property rights violations and bankruptcy fraud, which should be transferred to the District Court of Massachusetts under * U.S.C. § *(d) and * U.S.C. § *.
*. Wrongful Seizure:
- The Plaintiff’s case was wrongly returned to the Southeast Housing Court, which lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate.
- As a result, the Housing Court issued an order on October *, *, leading to the wrongful seizure of Plaintiff’s property.
Need any further assistance or additional sections?

Now i will send you section *. Only send me what you believe I need to support this motion and then only send me from section * onward without the borderline please. - In *-*, Plaintiff was deceived into signing documents by her long-term advisor and three other parties: James Tiernan, Richard Fagan, and Pensco Trust Company (custodian in an IRA). The terms and conditions were misrepresented. - In *, Plaintiff’s divorce decree awarded her the property free from mortgage payments for four years, making it unreasonable for her to sign for a debt in * that she did not owe.

Here’s the relevant part of Section * to support your motion:
*. Fraudulent Misrepresentation:
- In *-*, Plaintiff was deceived into signing documents by her long-term advisor and three other parties: James Tiernan, Richard Fagan, and Pensco Trust Company (custodian in an IRA). The terms and conditions were misrepresented.
- In *, Plaintiff’s divorce decree awarded her the property free from mortgage payments for four years, making it unreasonable for her to sign for a debt in * that she did not owe.
Do you need any further assistance with this section?

- Plaintiff was coerced by her advisor, who claimed she was in a heated emergency and would lose the property to foreclosure if she did not sign the documents, despite Plaintiff having $*,* in equity in the property. She could have paid the original creditor $*,*, the amount owed by James. *. Advisor’s Charges: - Plaintiff’s advisor charged her a $*,* invoice, which was financed into the loan for services never received. *. Usury and Other Violations: - The loan, a hard money loan due in 18 months, had an *% interest rate that increased to *% after including the $*,* broker fee, violating Massachusetts usury laws. - Truth in Lending and RESPA violations further underscore the contract's invalidity. - Similar to *Kight v. Miller*, where the court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding fraud in the execution, Plaintiff presents evidence of being tricked into signing documents she did not intend to sign and were not in her best interest to do so.

~MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY UNDER MASSACHUSETTS RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE *(d)

*. Fraudulent Transfer of Title: - Under U.C.C. Sections *-* and *-*, a transfer of title is fraudulent if made without the rightful owner's consent. Merritt received no money and signed the document under false pretenses to stop an emergency foreclosure, which was merely delayed. He was the partner of her advisor. In addition, she was never given the opportunity to sell the property. Moving forward, you will learn further along in this filing that these lenders violated state usury laws and skimmed over one million dollars in equity from this fraudulent transfer. *. Mortgage Fraud: - It is illegal to use IRA funds for an illegal purpose such as mortgage fraud. Tiernan used money from his IRA to buy James Cronan’ debt from Bristol County Savings Bank in default and had Merritt sign a note and mortgage as the borrower. This constitutes mortgage fraud.

- Massachusetts General Laws Chapter *, Section * defines mortgage fraud and includes knowingly misrepresenting or omitting information in mortgage-related transactions. *. Self-Dealing: - Self-dealing involves a fiduciary acting in their own best interest rather than in the best interest of their client. Tiernan engaged in self-dealing by using his IRA funds to purchase the debt and have Merritt sign a note under false pretenses. - Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), self-dealing by fiduciaries of an IRA is prohibited and can lead to liability for any resulting losses to the IRA.

*. Contract Invalidity: - The contract is void ab initio due to lack of a meeting of the minds and misrepresentationof the document's nature. - The contract violates public policy under the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires private mortgage loans to be qualified by a HUD counselor. Plaintiff was unqualified as she was unemployed. Under the MassachusettsUniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Plaintiff establishes that the transfer was made with the intent to defraud, hinder, or delay creditors, causing significant financial harm

Sure, here's the rest of the motion:

~MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY UNDER MASSACHUSETTS RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE *(d)
*. Fraudulent Transfer of Title:
- Under U.C.C. Sections *-* and *-*, a transfer of title is fraudulent if made without the rightful owner's consent. Merritt received no money and signed the document under false pretenses to stop an emergency foreclosure, which was merely delayed. The advisor’s partner was involved, and Merritt was never given the opportunity to sell the property. These lenders violated state usury laws and skimmed over one million dollars in equity from this fraudulent transfer.
*. Mortgage Fraud:
- It is illegal to use IRA funds for an illegal purpose such as mortgage fraud. Tiernan used money from his IRA to buy James Cronan’s debt from Bristol County Savings Bank in default and had Merritt sign a note and mortgage as the borrower. This constitutes mortgage fraud.
*. Self-Dealing:
- Self-dealing involves a fiduciary acting in their own best interest rather than in the best interest of their client. Tiernan engaged in self-dealing by using his IRA funds topurchase the debt and have Merritt sign a note under false pretenses. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), self-dealing by fiduciaries of an IRA is prohibited and can lead to liability for any resulting losses to the IRA.
*. Contract Invalidity:
- The contract is void ab initio due to lack of a meeting of the minds and misrepresentation of the document's nature.
- The contract violates public policy under the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires private mortgage loans to be qualified by a HUD counselor. Plaintiff was unqualified as she was unemployed.
- Under the Massachusetts Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Plaintiff establishes that the transfer was made with the intent to defraud, hinder, or delay creditors, causing significant financial harm.
Would you need assistance with any other sections or details?

Revise section *-* adding details where needed then include this next section editing and revising Forensic accountant . Taj=ke NOTE! Only send me from section * onward. - Defendants James Tiernan and Richard Fagan, debt buyers under the FDCPA, borrowed $*,* from Pensco Trust Company to purchase Plaintiff's ex-husband's debt for $*,*, indebting Plaintiff an additional $*,*. - Tiernan and Fagan made Plaintiff sign a Note and Mortgage as the debtor for funds she never received . - This fraudulent self-dealing was likely unknown to Pensco Trust Company at the time. - Tiernan and Fagan committed deed theft by tricking Plaintiff into signing documents under false pretenses.

~MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY UNDER MASSACHUSETTS RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE *(d)
*. Fraudulent Transfer of Title:
- Under U.C.C. Sections *-* and *-*, a transfer of title is fraudulent if made without the rightful owner's consent. Merritt received no money and signed the document under false pretenses to stop an emergency foreclosure, which was merely delayed.
- The advisor’s partner was involved, and Merritt was never given the opportunity to sell the property. These lenders violated state usury laws and skimmed over one million dollars in equity from this fraudulent transfer.
- Defendants James Tiernan and Richard Fagan, debt buyers under the FDCPA, borrowed $*,* from Pensco Trust Company to purchase Plaintiff's ex-husband's debt for $*,*, indebting Plaintiff an additional $*,*.
- Tiernan and Fagan made Plaintiff sign a Note and Mortgage as the debtor for funds she never received. This fraudulent self-dealing was likely unknown to Pensco Trust Company at the time.
*. Mortgage Fraud:
- It is illegal to use IRA funds for an illegal purpose such as mortgage fraud. TierTiernan used money from his IRA to buy James Cronan’s debt from Bristol County Savings Bank in default and had Merritt sign a note and mortgage as the borrower. This constitutes mortgage fraud.
- Massachusetts General Laws Chapter *, Section * defines mortgage fraud and includes knowingly misrepresenting or omitting information in mortgage-related transactions.
- Tiernan and Fagan committed deed theft by tricking Plaintiff into signing documents under false pretenses.
*. Self-Dealing:
- Self-dealing involves a fiduciary acting in their own best interest rather than in the best interest of their client. Tiernan engaged in self-dealing by using his IRA funds to purchase the debt and have Merritt sign a note under false pretenses.
- Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), self-dealing by fiduciaries of an IRA is prohibited and can lead to liability for any resulting losses to the IRA.
*. Contract Invalidity:
- The contract is void ab initio due to lack of a meeting of the minds and misrepresentation of the document's nature.
- The contract violates public policy under the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires private mortgage loans to be qualified by a HUD counselor. Plaintiff was unqualified as she was unemployed.
-

- Plaintiff had another property with a small mortgage payment held by her father, who was coerced into signing a forbearance agreement. Today, Plaintiff has lost all equity in both properties as they foreclosure using wildly inflated numbers. FORENSIC ACCOUNTANT REPORT CONFIRMS CONSPIRACY AND FRAUD CLAIM - A forensic accountant, Lori Horton, conducted an extensive analysis and reported significant commingling of funds, tax evasion, and embezzlement involving Classic Group Inc. and * Fountain Street LLC, companies formed by Plaintiff's advisor, Ralph Grieco. - Plaintiff was not an owner of these companies; they were used by Grieco to mislead Plaintiff into believing they would cover mortgage payments as part of a partnership with her ex-husband.

~MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY UNDER MASSACHUSETTS RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE *(d)
*. Fraudulent Transfer of Title:
- Under U.C.C. Sections *-* and *-*, a transfer of title is fraudulent if made without the rightful owner's consent. Merritt received no money and signed the document under false pretenses to stop an emergency foreclosure, which was merely delayed.
- The advisor’s partner was involved, and Merritt was never given the opportunity to sell the property. These lenders violated state usury laws and skimmed over one million dollars in equity from this fraudulent transfer.
- Defendants James Tiernan and Richard Fagan, debt buyers under the FDCPA, borrowed $*,* from Pensco Trust Company to purchase Plaintiff's ex-husband's debt for $*,*, indebting Plaintiff an additional $*,*.
- Tiernan and Fagan made Plaintiff sign a Note and Mortgage as the debtor for funds she never received. This fraudulent self-dealing was likely unknown to Pensco Trust Company at the time.
*. Mortgage Fraud:
- It is illegal to use IRA funds for an illegal purpose such as mortgage fraud. Tiernan used money from his IRA to buy James Cronan’s debt from Bristol County Savings Bank in default and had Merritt sign a note and mortgage as the borrower. This constitutes mortgage fraud.
- Massachusetts General Laws Chapter *, Section * defines mortgage fraud and includes knowingly misrepresenting or omitting information in mortgage-related transactions.
- Tiernan and Fagan committed deed theft by tricking Plaintiff into signing documents under false pretenses.
*. Self-Dealing:
- Self-dealing involves a fiduciary acting in their own best interest rather than in the best interest of their client. Tiernan engaged in self-dealing by using his IRA funds to purchase the debt and have Merritt sign a note under false pretenses.
- Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), self-dealing by fiduciaries of an IRA is prohibited and can lead to liability for any resulting losses to the IRA.
*. Contract Invalidity:
- The contract is void ab initio due to lack of a meeting of the minds and misrepresentation of the document's nature.
- The contract violates public policy under the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires private mortgage loans to be qualified by a HUD counselor. Plaintiff was unqualified as she was unemployed.
- Under

- This report substantiates Plaintiff's claims that Grieco tricked her into signing documents under false pretenses, promising that new business ventures would cover the debt payments, which were never allocated.

---

MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY UNDER MASSACHUSETTS RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE *(d)
*. Fraudulent Transfer of Title:
- Under U.C.C. Sections *-* and *-*, a transfer of title is fraudulent if made without the rightful owner's consent. Merritt received no money and signed the document under false pretenses to stop an emergency foreclosure, which was merely delayed.
- The advisor’s partner was involved, and Merritt was never given the opportunity to sell the property. These lenders violated state usury laws and skimmed over one million dollars in equity from this fraudulent transfer.
- Defendants James Tiernan and Richard Fagan, debt buyers under the FDCPA, borrowed $*,* from Pensco Trust Company to purchase Plaintiff's ex-husband's debt for $*,*, indebting Plaintiff an additional $*,*.
- Tiernan and Fagan made Plaintiff sign a Note and Mortgage as the debtor for funds she never received. This fraudulent self-dealing was likely unknown to Pensco Trust Company at the time.
*. Mortgage Fraud:
- It is illegal to use IRA funds for an illegal purpose such as mortgage fraud. Tiernanused money from his IRA to buy James Cronan’s debt from Bristol County Savings Bank in default and had Merritt sign a note and mortgage as the borrower. This constitutes mortgage fraud.
- Massachusetts General Laws Chapter *, Section * defines mortgage fraud and includes knowingly misrepresenting or omitting information in mortgage-related transactions.
- Tiernan and Fagan committed deed theft by tricking Plaintiff into signing documents under false pretenses.
*. Self-Dealing:
- Self-dealing involves a fiduciary acting in their own best interest rather than in the best interest of their client. Tiernan engaged in self-dealing by using his IRA funds to purchase the debt and have Merritt sign a note under false pretenses.
- Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), self-dealing by fiduciaries of an IRA is prohibited and can lead to liability for any resulting losses to the IRA.
*. Contract Invalidity:
- The contract is void ab initio due to lack of a meeting of the minds and misrepresentation of the document's nature.
- The contract violates public policy under the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires private mortgage loans to be qualified by a HUD counselor. Plaintiff was unqualified as she was unemployed.
- Under the

Now only send me from, " The contract violates public policy under the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires private mortgage loans to be qualified by a HUD counselor. Plaintiff was unqualified as she was unemployed. - Under the" onward without the borderline

The contract violates public policy under the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires private mortgage loans to be qualified by a HUD counselor. Plaintiff was unqualified as she was unemployed.
- Under the Massachusetts Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Plaintiff establishes that the transfer was made with the intent to defraud, hinder, or delay creditors, causing significant financial harm.
Is there any other section or detail you need assistance with?

Only send me the next section from section * onward without the background.FORENSIC ACCOUNTANT REPORT CONFIRMS CONSPIRACY AND FRAUD CLAIM - A forensic accountant, Lori Horton, conducted an extensive analysis and reported significant commingling of funds, tax evasion, and embezzlement involving Classic Group Inc. and * Fountain Street LLC, companies formed by Plaintiff's advisor, Ralph Grieco. - Plaintiff was not an owner of these companies; they were used by Grieco to mislead Plaintiff into believing they would cover mortgage payments as part of a partnership with her ex-husband. - This report substantiates Plaintiff's claims that Grieco tricked her into signing documents under false pretenses, promising that new business ventures would cover the debt payments, which were never allocated.

Only send this next section onward continuing without the borderline. - On November *, *, in response to a detailed complaint submitted to the CFPB, Nick Motter from Pacific Premier Trust (PPT), which managed the IRAs, stated that PPT did not act as a lender and was merely the custodian of the IRAs. - Despite not being directly involved in the terms of the notes and mortgages, PPT had an obligation to investigate once there was suspicion of self-dealing or prohibited actions by the IRA owner. - Conspiracy to Commit Securities Fraud: - Once Pensco Trust Company had notice of potential self-dealing by James Tiernan, it failed to investigate and prevent further fraudulent activities.

- Pensco Trust Company's negligence in investigating the suspicious activities contributed to the fraudulent transfer and illegal foreclosure, thereby rising to the level of conspiracy to commit securities fraud. - Pensco Trust Company knowingly participated in the conspiracy by filing false affidavits and facilitating the illegal foreclosure. Actions Taken by Pensco Trust Company: - On June *, *, Attorney Luke Travis, representing Pensco Trust Company, as the custodian for James Tiernan and Richard Fagan, filed the pre-foreclosure 35B and 35C affidavits into the registry of deeds. - These affidavits are crucial pre-foreclosure documents that affirm the mortgage holder's compliance with Massachusetts foreclosure laws.

*. Forensic Accountant Report Confirms Conspiracy and Fraud Claim:
- A forensic accountant, Lori Horton, conducted an extensive analysis and reported significant commingling of funds, tax evasion, and embezzlement involving Classic Group Inc. and * Fountain Street LLC, companies formed by Plaintiff's advisor, Ralph Grieco.
- Plaintiff was not an owner of these companies; they were used by Grieco to mislead Plaintiff into believing they would cover mortgage payments as part of a partnership with her ex-husband.
- This report substantiates Plaintiff's claims that Grieco tricked her into signing documents under false pretenses, promising that new business ventures would cover the debt payments, which were never allocated.
*. Conspiracy to Commit Securities Fraud:
- On November *, *, in response to a detailed complaint submitted to the CFPB, Nick Motter from Pacific Premier Trust (PPT), which managed the IRAs, stated that PPT did not act as a lender and was merely the custodian of the IRAs.
- Despite not being directly involved in the terms of the notes and mortgages, PPT had an obligation to investigate once there was suspicion of self-dealing or prohibited actions by the IRA owner.
- Pensco Trust Company's negligence in investigating the suspicious activities contributed to the fraudulent transfer and illegal foreclosure, thereby rising to the level of conspiracy to commit securities fraud.
- Pensco Trust Company knowingly participated in the conspiracy by filing false affidavits and facilitating the illegal foreclosure.
Actions Taken by Pensco Trust Company:
- On June *, *, Attorney Luke Travis, representing Pensco Trust Company, as the custodian for James Tiernan and Richard Fagan, filed the pre-foreclosure 35B and 35C affidavits into the registry of deeds.
- These affidavits are crucial pre-foreclosure documents that affirm the mortgage holder's compliance with Massachusetts foreclosure laws.
Is there any other specific section or detail you need assistance with?

- On November *, *, Luke Travis signed under power of attorney as an attorney-in-fact for Pensco, stating that they complied with Chapter *, Section *, and Chapter *, Section 35A by mailing the required notices, which include the *-day right to cure. - Pursuant to said notices, Pensco sold the mortgaged premises at public auction to L & S Realty LLC. An Affidavit was signed by Pensco, making an oath that the principal and interest obligations were not paid and that notices were published on the 1st, 8th, and 15th days of November * in the Taunton Daily Gazette. This false compliance enabled the illegal foreclosure. The next steps after recording the pre-foreclosure affidavits include: *. Advertisement: The property must be advertised in a local newspaper as per the required legal notices. *. Public Auction: The property is then sold at a public auction. *. Recording of Deed: The foreclosure deed is recorded, transferring the property to the highest bidder at the auction.

*. Forensic Accountant Report Confirms Conspiracy and Fraud Claim:
- A forensic accountant, Lori Horton, conducted an extensive analysis and reported significant commingling of funds, tax evasion, and embezzlement involving Classic Group Inc. and * Fountain Street LLC, companies formed by Plaintiff's advisor, Ralph Grieco.
- Plaintiff was not an owner of these companies; they were used by Grieco to mislead Plaintiff into believing they would cover mortgage payments as part of a partnership with her ex-husband.
- This report substantiates Plaintiff's claims that Grieco tricked her into signing documents under false pretenses, promising that new business ventures would cover the debt payments, which were never allocated.
- On November *, *, in response to a detailed complaint submitted to the CFPB, Nick Motter from Pacific Premier Trust (PPT), which managed the IRAs, stated that PPT did not act as a lender and was merely the custodian of the IRAs.
- Despite not being directly involved in the terms of the notes and mortgages, PPT had an obligation to investigate once there was suspicion of self-dealing or prohibited actions by the IRA owner.
- Pensco Trust Company's negligence in investigating the suspicious activitiescontributed to the fraudulent transfer and illegal foreclosure, thereby rising to the level of conspiracy to commit securities fraud.
- Pensco Trust Company knowingly participated in the conspiracy by filing false affidavits and facilitating the illegal foreclosure.
Actions Taken by Pensco Trust Company:
- On June *, *, Attorney Luke Travis, representing Pensco Trust Company, as the custodian for James Tiernan and Richard Fagan, filed the pre-foreclosure 35B and 35C affidavits into the registry of deeds.
- These affidavits are crucial pre-foreclosure documents that affirm the mortgage holder's compliance with Massachusetts foreclosure laws.
- On November *, *, Luke Travis signed under power of attorney as an attorney-in-fact for Pensco, stating that they complied with Chapter *, Section *, and Chapter *, Section 35A by mailing the required notices, which include the *-day right to cure.
- Pursuant to said notices, Pensco sold the mortgaged premises at public auction to L & S Realty LLC.
- An Affidavit was signed by Pensco, making an oath that the principal and interest obligations were not paid and that notices were published on the 1st,

from, " An Affidavit was signed by Pensco, making an oath that the principal and interest obligations were not paid and that notices were published on the 1st' onward

- An Affidavit was signed by Pensco, making an oath that the principal and interest obligations were not paid and that notices were published on the 1st, 8th, and 15th days of November * in the Taunton Daily Gazette. This false compliance enabled the illegal foreclosure. The next steps after recording the pre-foreclosure affidavits include:
*. Advertisement: The property must be advertised in a local newspaper as per the required legal notices.
*. Public Auction: The property is then sold at a public auction.
*. Recording of Deed: The foreclosure deed is recorded, transferring the property to the highest bidder at the auction.
Is there any other specific section or detail you need assistance with?

Only send me this next section onward keeping without the borderline. On November *, *, Peter Fallon signed a Certificate of Organization to form L & S Realty, LLC in Massachusetts. On May *, *, Pensco Trust Company recorded a fraudulent deed at the Bristol North County Registry of Deeds. On August *, *, Godbout Law Inc. and L&S Realty LLC filed a declaratory judgment action in the Massachusetts Housing Court, L&S Realty, LLC v. James M Cronan et al., C.A. No. 20H83CV00167TA, seeking to declare that L&S Realty held title and had a superior right to possession of the Rehoboth Property as a result of the foreclosure sale.Godbout Law Inc. established an attorney-client relationship with L&S Realty.-Conspiracy:

On November *, *, Peter Fallon signed a Certificate of Organization to form L & S Realty, LLC in Massachusetts. On May *, *, Pensco Trust Company recorded a fraudulent deed at the Bristol North County Registry of Deeds. On August *, *, Godbout Law Inc. and L&S Realty LLC filed a declaratory judgment action in the Massachusetts Housing Court, L&S Realty, LLC v. James M Cronan et al., C.A. No. 20H83CV00167TA, seeking to declare that L&S Realty held title and had a superior right to possession of the Rehoboth Property as a result of the foreclosure sale. Godbout Law Inc. established an attorney-client relationship with L&S Realty.
- Conspiracy:

- Defendants Godbout Law Inc., Pensco Trust Company, Law Office of Luke Travis, Attorney Luke Travis, L&S Realty LLC, Blake Godbout, John Fiegel, John Etner, James Tiernan, and Richard Fagan conspired together to commit fraudulent activities. - The defendants worked in concert to deceive Plaintiff, misrepresenting terms and conditions, and orchestrating the fraudulent transfer of the property. - Under Massachusetts law, the knowledge of an attorney is imputed to their client. This means each client of Godbout Law Inc. is considered to have full knowledge of the deceit and fraudulent actions taken by the firm. - Evidence shows coordinated efforts among the defendants, including communication and actions that demonstrate a common plan to defraud Plaintiff.*. Conspiracy and Conflict of Interest:

- Godbout Law Inc. has an attorney-client relationship with James Tiernan, Richard Fagan, Pensco Trust Company, L & S Realty LLC, and Ralph Grieco (Plaintiff’s advisor).
- This creates a significant conflict of interest as Godbout Law Inc. attempts to protect Tiernan, Fagan, and Grieco while representing Pensco Trust Company.
- The conflict of interest may prevent full disclosure and fair representation of facts, further complicating the case.
- Richard Fagan testified at a deposition that Godbout Law provided the inflated and usurious interest rates to Luke Travis Esq. After the deposition, Godbout Law Inc. ceased its client-attorney relationship with Richard Fagan.
- Massachusetts imputes knowledge from an attorney to his client as receiving notice. Therefore, the group is aware of what James Tiernan testified before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, Bench Trial Day EXCERPT: Testimony of James M. Tiernan, October *, *:
- Q: Now, you have a degree in finance, correct?
- A: I do.
- Q: And you were a commercial banker for 20 years?
Is there any other information or section you needhelp with?

MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY UNDER MASSACHUSETTS RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE *(d)

*. Fraudulent Transfer of Title:
- Under U.C.C. Sections *-* and *-*, a transfer of title is fraudulent if made without the rightful owner's consent. Merritt received no money and signed the document under false pretenses to stop an emergency foreclosure, which was merely delayed.
- The advisor’s partner was involved, and Merritt was never given the opportunity to sell the property. These lenders violated state usury laws and skimmed over one million dollars in equity from this fraudulent transfer.
- Defendants James Tiernan and Richard Fagan, debt buyers under the FDCPA, borrowed $*,* from Pensco Trust Company to purchase Plaintiff's ex-husband's debt for $*,*, indebting Plaintiff an additional $*,*.
- Tiernan and Fagan made Plaintiff sign a Note and Mortgage as the debtor for funds she never received. This fraudulent self-dealing was likely unknown to Pensco Trust Company at the time.

*. Mortgage Fraud:
- It is illegal to use IRA funds for an illegal purpose such as mortgage fraud. Tiernan usedmoney from his IRA to buy James Cronan’s debt from Bristol County Savings Bank in default and had Merritt sign a note and mortgage as the borrower. This constitutes mortgage fraud.
- Massachusetts General Laws Chapter *, Section * defines mortgage fraud and includes knowingly misrepresenting or omitting information in mortgage-related transactions.
- Tiernan and Fagan committed deed theft by tricking Plaintiff into signing documents under false pretenses.

*. Self-Dealing:
- Self-dealing involves a fiduciary acting in their own best interest rather than in the best interest of their client. Tiernan engaged in self-dealing by using his IRA funds to purchase the debt and have Merritt sign a note under false pretenses.
- Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), self-dealing by fiduciaries of an IRA is prohibited and can lead to liability for any resulting losses to the IRA.

- Massachusetts imputes knowledge from an attorney to his client as receiving notice. Therefore, the group is aware of what James Tiernan testified before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, Bench Trial Day EXCERPT: Testimony of James M. Tiernan, October *, *: - Q: Now, you have a degree in finance, correct? - A: I do. - Q: And you were a commercial banker for 20 years? - A: I was. - Q: And you worked in commercial lending during that period of time? - A: Yes.

Do you need any further sections or details revised or any legal arguments added to support your motion?

- Q: Now, the notes that we have been talking about, and your counsel showed you Exhibits * and *, they don't provide for the compounding of interest, correct? - A: Correct. - Q: And they were designed to provide for the payment of simple interest? - A: I believe so. - Q: And just for context, when interest compounds at the end of every calculation period, the interest gets added to the principal, right? - A: Yes. - Q: And over time a borrower is assessed more and more interest each year, right? - A: Yes. - Q: You would agree with me that PENSCO was charging Ms. Merritt interest that was not allowed under the note, right? - A: Yes

It looks like you want to include details from a forensic accountant's report and other arguments to strengthen your motion. Here’s the continuation from Section * onward without the borderlines:
---

*. Conspiracy to Commit Securities Fraud:
- On June *, *, Attorney Luke Travis, representing Pensco Trust Company, as the custodian for James Tiernan and Richard Fagan, filed the pre-foreclosure 35B and 35C affidavits into the registry of deeds.
- These affidavits are crucial pre-foreclosure documents that affirm the mortgage holder's compliance with Massachusetts foreclosure laws.
- On November *, *, Luke Travis signed under power of attorney as an attorney-in-fact for Pensco, stating that they complied with Chapter *, Section *, and Chapter *, Section 35A by mailing the required notices, which include the *-day right to cure.
- Pursuant to said notices, Pensco sold the mortgaged premises at public auction to

Can you send me the timeline from On November *, * onward with the details without the borderline.

Sure, here's the timeline from November *, *, onward:
- On November *, *, Luke Travis signed under power of attorney as an attorney-in-fact for Pensco, stating compliance with Chapter *, Section *, and Chapter *, Section 35A by mailing the required notices.
- An affidavit was signed by Pensco, asserting that the principal and interest obligations were unpaid and that notices were published on the 1st, 8th, and 15th days of November * in the Taunton Daily Gazette.
- This false compliance enabled the illegal foreclosure.
- On November *, *, Peter Fallon signed a Certificate of Organization to form L & S Realty, LLC in Massachusetts.
- On May *, *, Pensco Trust Company recorded a fraudulent deed at the Bristol North County Registry of Deeds.
- On August *, *, Godbout Law Inc. and L&S Realty LLC filed a declaratory judgment action in the Massachusetts Housing Court, L&S Realty, LLC v. James M Cronan et al., C.A. No. 20H83CV00167TA, seeking to declare that L&S Realty held title and had a superior right to possession of the Rehoboth Property as a result of the foreclosure sale. Godbout Law Inc. established an attorney-client relationship with L&S Realty.
- The defendants conspired to commit fraudulent activities and misrepresented terms and conditions, orchestrating the fraudulent transfer of the property.
- Evidence shows coordinated efforts among the defendants, demonstrating a common plan to defraud the Plaintiff.
- Massachusetts imputes knowledge from an attorney to their client, meaning each client of Godbout Law Inc. is considered to have full knowledge of the deceit and fraudulent actions taken by the firm.
Is there anything else you need assistance with?

Update these * last sections to the time line and then start a new section with an appropriate title to continue with the motion. Only send me these sections onward "- On February *, *, L&S Realty and Godbout Law Inc. filed a summary process complaint in a consolidated case action in the Massachusetts Housing Court, L&S Realty, LLC v. James M Cronan et al., C.A. No. 21H83SP00443TA, seeking to evict Plaintiffs based on its alleged title and right to possession (consolidated with C.A. No. 20H83CV00167TA, the “Housing Court Action”). - In September *, in a bench trial without an evidentiary hearing or jury trial, and denial of discovery requests, the court issued its judgment and decision in the Housing Court Action, granting L&S Realty summary judgment on its claim for possession of the Rehoboth Property. This judgment was based on the fraudulent foreclosure deed filed by Godbout

- On February *, *, L&S Realty and Godbout Law Inc. filed a summary process complaint in a consolidated case action in the Massachusetts Housing Court, L&S Realty, LLC v. James M Cronan et al., C.A. No. 21H83SP00443TA, seeking to evict Plaintiffs based on its alleged title and right to possession (consolidated with C.A. No. 20H83CV00167TA, the “Housing Court Action”).
- In September *, in a bench trial without an evidentiary hearing or jury trial, and the denial of discovery requests, the court issued its judgment and decision in the Housing Court Action, granting L&S Realty summary judgment on its claim for possession of the Rehoboth Property. This judgment was based on the fraudulent foreclosure deed filed by Godbout and co-conspirators, as Judge Michaud stated in his initial order that L&S Realty LLC is the title owner of the Rehoboth property based on the foreclosure deed. However, Judge Michaud did not have sufficient grounds to make this judgment.
- In the Southeastern Housing Court, Merritt’s constitutional due process rights were violated, and she was subjected to maliciousprosecution by Blake Godbout and other attorneys. The Housing Court case involves multiple filings, including the denial of Plaintiff’s counterclaims based on fraud, striking of jury and discovery requests, and the summary judgment action granting possession to the opposing party. The docket contains over * filings spanning four years, demonstrating the prolonged legal battles and procedural errors. Consequently, the court ordered an execution for possession and monies on October *, *. Merritt has been a victim of wrongful asset forfeiture due to court proceedings that violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution.
Merritt has been a victim of wrongful asset forfeiture due to court proceedings that violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Pensco Trust Company, Godbout Law Inc., and their co-conspirators have used the court system to steal property and line their own pockets. Pensco and co-conspirators have used the lower courts to obtain judgments to present in other courts, claiming that the case has been adjudicated. However, their false documents create a paper trail that meets the elements of securities fraud, bankruptcy fraud, and title theft.

CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY HOUSING COURT

and co-conspirators, as Judge Michaud stated in his initial order that L&S Realty LLC is the title owner of the Rehoboth property based on the foreclosure deed. However, Judge Michaud did not have sufficient grounds to make this judgment. - In the Southeastern Housing Court, Merritt’s constitutional due process rights were violated, and she was subjected to malicious prosecution by Blake Godbout and other attorneys. The Housing Court case involves multiple filings, including the denial of Plaintiff’s counterclaims based on fraud, striking of jury and discovery requests, and the summary

CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY HOUSING COURT
- The Housing Court violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights to private property by ordering the seizure of her property without due process and equal protection under the law, ignoring fraud presented by Godbout Law Inc., Pensco Trust Company, James Tiernan, and Richard Fagan.
- Plaintiff was denied a jury trial, and her discovery requests were struck, depriving her of a fair opportunity to present her case.
- These actions constitute a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process and equal protection.
Do you need assistance with any additional sections or details for your motion?

judgment action granting possession to the opposing party. The docket contains over * filings spanning four years, demonstrating the prolonged legal battles and procedural errors. Consequently, the court ordered an execution for possession and monies on October *, *. Merritt has been a victim of wrongful asset forfeiture due to court proceedings that violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S Merritt has been a victim of wrongful asset forfeiture due to court proceedings that violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Pensco Trust Company, Godbout Law Inc., and their co-conspirators have used the court system to steal property and line their own pockets. Pensco and co-conspirators have used the lower courts to obtain judgments to present in

CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY HOUSING COURT
- The Housing Court violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights to private property by ordering the seizure of her property without due process and equal protection under the law, ignoring fraud presented by Godbout Law Inc., Pensco Trust Company, James Tiernan, and Richard Fagan.
- Plaintiff was denied a jury trial, and her discovery requests were struck, depriving her of a fair opportunity to present her case.
- These actions constitute a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process and equal protection.
Is there any other specific section or additional details you need assistance with?

other courts, claiming that the case has been adjudicated. However, their false documents create a paper trail that meets the elements of securities fraud, bankruptcy fraud, and title theft. CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY HOUSING COURT - The Housing Court violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights to private property by ordering the seizure of her property without due process and equal protection under the law, ignoring fraud presented by Godbout Law Inc., Pensco Trust Company, James Tiernan, and Richard Fagan. - Plaintiff was denied a jury trial, and her discovery requests were struck, depriving her of a fair opportunity to present her case. - These actions constitute a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process and equal protection.

Do you need any further sections or details revised or any legal arguments added to support your motion?

Please revise On October *, *, at *:* a.m., my property located at * Brayton Woods, Rehoboth, Massachusetts, was illegally seized by Deputy Sheriff Robert Brassard, acting under a court order issued by Judge Michaud of the Massachusetts Southeast Housing Court. This court order stemmed from an illegal judgment on Septemebr *, *, which ignored clear and convincing evidence of criminal activity, including The sequence of events leading to this unlawful seizure includes: - February *, *: Judge Michaud issued execution for possession and money based on criminal activity.

On October *, *, at *:* a.m., my property located at * Brayton Woods, Rehoboth, Massachusetts, was illegally seized by Deputy Sheriff Robert Brassard, acting under a court order issued by Judge Michaud of the Massachusetts Southeast Housing Court. This court order stemmed from an illegal judgment dated March *, *, which ignored clear and convincing evidence of criminal activity, including:
- Fraudulent foreclosure deed
- Criminal usury under Chapter * Section *
- Violations under * U.S.C. Section *
The sequence of events leading to this unlawful seizure includes:
- February *, *: Judge Michaud issued execution for possession and money based on criminal activity.
- February *, *: Appeals Court stayed the execution (Court No. *-J-*).
- June *, *: Godbout Law Inc. returned the execution.
- August *, *: I filed a Chapter * petition for bankruptcy in the District of Massachusetts (Case No. *-*-CJP).
- August *, *: Eviction was canceled.
-August *, *: Godbout Law Inc. filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, claiming ownership of my property in violation of * U.S.C. Section *, filing fraudulent foreclosure deeds, and making misrepresentations and omissions.
- September *, *: Judge Panos granted Godbout Law Inc.'s motion for relief from stay.
- October *, *: Execution for possession and money was issued.
- October *, *, at *:* a.m.: The sheriff took possession of my property and personal property.
This illegal seizure violated my Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, my Fifth Amendment rights to due process, and my Fourteenth Amendment rights to protect my property from illegal seizure. The seizure was carried out without probable cause, as the evidence supports criminal activity that Judge Michaud ignored. The illegal seizure resulted in significant financial loss, emotional distress, and other harms. I am seeking compensation for the wrongful seizure of my property and the damages incurred.
Would you like assistance with any further sections or details?

- February *, *: Appeals Court stayed the execution (Court No. *-J-*). On - June *, *: Godbout Law Inc. returned the execution. On May *, * Merritt's Affidavit of Indigency was approved. On April *, * the Appeal Court Decision: In Re L & S Realty LLC v. Karen Merritt , the panel stated: "To the extent that the judge [Southeastern Housing Court] based the dismissal of the defendants' appeal from the judgment on their failure to pay interim use and occupancy under the prejudgment order, dismissal of the appeal was not an appropriate remedy. That prejudgment order warned that failure to make interim use and occupancy payments 'may result in the [d]efendants[']

- August *, *: I filed a Chapter * petition for bankruptcy in the District of Massachusetts (Case No. *-*-CJP).
- August *, *: Eviction was canceled.
- August *, *: Godbout Law Inc. filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay.
- September *, *: Judge Panos granted Godbout Law Inc.'s motion for relief from stay.
- October *, *: Execution for possession and money was issued.
- October *, *, at *:* a.m.: The sheriff took possession of my property and personal property.
This sequence of events demonstrates significant constitutional violations, including the deprivation of my Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court ignored evidence of criminal activity and fraud, resulting in substantial harm and financial loss.
Would you like assistance with any other sections or details for your motion?

request for a jury trial being struck.' Nowhere did it state that the defendants' failure to pay interim use and occupancy could result in waiver of their right to appeal from any judgment. Cf. CMJ Mgt. Co. v. Wilkerson, * Mass. App. Ct. *, *, * N.E.3d * (*) (striking jury demand for failure to comply with pretrial order 'must be approached with caution'). Moreover, once judgment entered, the outstanding amounts the defendants owed for use and occupancy were incorporated into the final judgment and the appeal bond order. Therefore, the housing court's striking Merritt's jury trial was indeed a violation of her constitutional rights to due process. Merritt's counterclaims, discovery, and jury requests were all denied due to fraud on the court further substantiating the constitutional violations in this case.

- September *, *: Judge Panos granted Godbout Law Inc.'s motion for relief from stay. - As previosly stated This dismissal was in error, as the case involves property rights violations and bankruptcy fraud, which should be transferred to the District Court of Massachusetts under * U.S.C. § *(d) and * U.S.C. § *.- October *, *: Execution for possession and money was issued. - October *, *, at *:* a.m.: The sheriff took possession of Merritt's property and personal property. This illegal seizure violated Merritt's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, her Fifth Amendment rights to due process, and her Fourteenth Amendment rights to protect my property from illegal seizure. The seizure was carried out without probable cause, as the evidence supports criminal activity that Judge Michaud ignored.The illegal seizure resulted in significant financial loss, emotional distress, and other harms.

It seems like you have a strong case with significant constitutional and procedural violations. The detailed timeline and supporting evidence strengthen your motion.
Is there any additional information or section you need help with or any other legal arguments you would like to add to your motion?

July *, * Godbout Law inc. filed an affidavit to certify to return the previos execution . July *, * Execution for Possession and money was ordered for $*,*.* - August *, *: I filed a Chapter * petition for bankruptcy in the District of Massachusetts (Case No. *-*-CJP). - August *, *: Eviction was canceled. - August *, *: Godbout Law Inc. filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, claiming ownership of my property in violation of * U.S.C. Section *, filing fraudulent foreclosure deeds, and making misrepresentations and omissions.

TIMELINE OF EVENTS LEADING TO ILLEGAL SEIZURE
- February *, *: Judge Michaud issued execution for possession and money based on criminal activity.
- February *, *: Appeals Court stayed the execution (Court No. *-J-*).
- June *, *: Godbout Law Inc. returned the execution. On May *, *, Merritt's Affidavit of Indigency was approved.
- April *, *: Appeal Court Decision stated that the housing court'sstriking of Merritt's jury trial was a violation of her constitutional rights to due process.
- July *, *: Godbout Law Inc. filed an affidavit to certify to return the previous execution.
- July *, *: Execution for possession and money was ordered for $*,*.*.
- August *, *: Filed a Chapter * petition for bankruptcy in the District of Massachusetts (Case No. *-*-CJP).
- August *, *: Eviction was canceled.
- August *, *: Godbout Law Inc. filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, claiming ownership of my property in violation of * U.S.C. Section *, filing fraudulent foreclosure deeds, and making misrepresentations and omissions.
- September *, *: Judge Panos granted Godbout Law Inc.'s motion for relief from stay.
- October *, *: Execution for possession and money was issued.
- October *, * at *:* a.m.: The sheriff took possession of my property and personal property

from " October *, * at *:* a.m.: The sheriff took possession of my property and personal property" onward

---
TIMELINE OF EVENTS LEADING TO ILLEGAL SEIZURE
- February *, *: Judge Michaud issued execution for possession and money based on criminal activity.
- February *, *: Appeals Court stayed the execution (Court No. *-J-*).
- June *, *: Godbout Law Inc. returned the execution. On May *, *, Merritt's Affidavit of Indigency was approved.
- April *, *: Appeal Court Decision stated that the housing court's striking of Merritt's jury trial was a violation of her constitutional rights to due process.
- July *, *: Godbout Law Inc. filed an affidavit to certify to return the previous execution.
- July *, *: Execution for possession and money was ordered for $*,*.*.
- August *, *: Filed a Chapter * petition for bankruptcy in the District of Massachusetts (Case No. *-*-CJP).
- August *, *: Eviction was canceled.
- August *, *: Godbout Law Inc. filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, claiming ownership of my property in violation of * U.S.C. Section *, filing fraudulent foreclosure deeds, and making misrepresentations and omissions.
- September *, *: Judge Panos granted Godbout Law Inc.'s motion for relief from stay.
- October *, *: Execution for possession and money was issued.
- October *, *, at *:* a.m.: The sheriff took possession of my property and personal property.
This illegal seizure violated my Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, my Fifth Amendment rights to due process, and my Fourteenth Amendment rights to protect my property from illegal seizure. The seizure was carried out without probable cause, despite evidence of criminal activity that Judge Michaud ignored. The illegal seizure resulted in significant financial loss, emotional distress, and other harms. I am seeking compensation for the wrongful seizure of my property and the damages incurred.

see above

October *, *, at *:* a.m.: The sheriff took possession of my property and personal property.
This illegal seizure violated my Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, my Fifth Amendment rights to due process, and my Fourteenth Amendment rights to protect my property from illegal seizure. The seizure was carried out without probable cause, as the evidence supports criminal activity that Judge Michaud ignored. The illegal seizure resulted in significant financial loss, emotional distress, and other harms. I am seeking compensation for the wrongful seizure of my property and the damages incurred.
Would you like assistance with any further legal arguments or additional sections to bolster your motion?

can we discuss the relief that i am requesting under MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY UNDER MASSACHUSETTS RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE *(d). Can southeast housing court have subject matter jurisction to rule on this motion?

The Southeast Housing Court typically does not have jurisdiction to rule on motions under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure *(d) as it pertains to criminal procedure, while Housing Court deals with residential housing issues such as landlord-tenant disputes.
For your situation:
- The appropriate court for a Motion for Return of Property under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure *(d) would generally be the court that has jurisdiction over criminal matters, which is typically the District Court or Superior Court in Massachusetts.
- The Bankruptcy Court may also have jurisdiction if your case involves bankruptcy issues.
Would you like to discuss other legal reliefs or explore further steps in your legal strategy?

If i have a superior court case breach of fiduciary duty against the advior and a federal case illegal foreclsoure and usury and 93a against the private lenders - these are civil cases so how would this affect these cases?

Given your situation, having ongoing civil cases in both Superior Court and Federal Court should not directly affect your Motion for Return of Property under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure *(d), as it pertains to criminal procedure. However, the outcomes of these civil cases could potentially support your criminal motion if they establish fraud or other illegal activities by the parties involved.
Here are a few points to consider:
- Superior Court Case (Breach of Fiduciary Duty):
- Evidence established in this case may support claims of fraudulent activity and self-dealing by your advisor, which could reinforce your claims in the motion for return of property.

- Federal Case (Illegal Foreclosure, Usury, and 93A):
- A favorable ruling in this case could provide substantial support for your claims of illegal foreclosure and usury, which would further substantiate your motion for the return of property.
- Federal cases often carry significant weight, and rulings in your favor could compel state courts to reconsider their positions.
Would you like to discuss specific aspects of these civil cases or the type of relief you should request in your motion?

see above

Since you have civil cases pending in Superior and Federal Court, the outcomes and evidence presented in these cases can significantly impact your Motion for Return of Property. Here’s how:
- Superior Court Case (Breach of Fiduciary Duty):
- Findings of fiduciary breaches can support claims of fraud and misrepresentation, strengthening your argument for property return.
- Evidence from this case could be used to demonstrate wrongful actions by advisors and lenders.
- Federal Court Case (Illegal Foreclosure, Usury, and Chapter 93A Violations):
- Positive rulings here can directly influence your property return motion by establishing illegal actions by lenders.
- Findings related to usury and Chapter 93A violations can build a stronger case for financial compensation and damages.

Relief Requested
- Return of Property: Immediate return of the seized property.
- Compensation for Damages: Financial compensation for losses incurred due to illegal seizure.
- Legal Costs: Reimbursement for legal fees and associated costs.
- Injunction Against Future Actions: Prevent future unlawful actions against your property.
Would you like to add any specific details to the reliefs requested or discuss further legal strategies?

could I request a stay for the possession of my property while litigating the cases in stae and federal court?

Yes, you can request a stay of possession of your property while litigating the cases in state and federal court. Here’s how you can proceed:
- State Court: File a motion to stay the execution of the judgment in the Superior Court, citing ongoing litigation and potential irreparable harm if the stay is not granted.
- Federal Court: File a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction to halt the seizure of your property, asserting that the ongoing federal case involves serious claims of illegal foreclosure and usury.
Would you like assistance drafting these motions or further clarification on the process?

well the seizure has already been done so maybe by filing a return is premature. I think its best to wait until my cases have been ajudicated. Does this strategy seem reasonable/

It seems reasonable to wait until your cases in state and federal court have been adjudicated. Here’s why:
- Evidence and Findings: Rulings in your favor could provide substantial support for your claims, making your motion for the return of property stronger.
- Legal Strategy: Waiting for the adjudication can ensure you have a solid foundation of proven facts and legal findings to support your motion.
Would you like to discuss any other aspects of your strategy or need help with any other legal documents?

I did file amotions with the appeals court seeking a stay before the exection which they denied. I have until January * to file my brief. meanshile i have filed a motion to ammend to include sustantive claims and they denied . I am waiting for them to anser guestion motion for clarifiacation. Do you think howver that I dont really ned the appeals court to hear the substantive claims that given that I filed an mergency stay citing illegal foeclsoure and usry?

It seems you have a strong case with various legal arguments and evidence. Here are some steps you might consider:
- File the Brief: Ensure your brief filed by January 6th is comprehensive and includes all relevant arguments and evidence of fraud, illegal foreclosure, usury, and constitutional violations.
- Motion for Clarification: Wait for the response to your motion for clarification. This will help you understand the court's stance and prepare accordingly.
- Appeal Court: While it may feel unnecessary, having the Appeals Court hear the substantive claims could provide a broader legal perspective and potentially stronger grounds for your case.
- Stay Request: Given that the seizure has already occurred, requesting a return might be premature. However, if you can demonstrate significant harm and ongoing legal battles, a stay could still be worth pursuing.
- Parallel Cases: Continue to pursue your civil cases in state and federal court. Positive outcomes here can bolster your claims in the Motion for Return of Property and other related motions.
Would you like assistance in drafting your brief or further guidance on the next steps in your legal strategy?

Hi I have questions about a default judgement in this case. Can i ask next steps?

Sure, I can help with that. Did you receive a default judgment against you, or are you seeking to obtain a default judgment against someone else?

against me. Unbeknownst to me. I dont recall being served. When my advisor and Tiernan comitted mortgae fraud and I became a victim of their scheme to defraud me. James cronan was in bankruptcy court chapter * when they had him sign as a quarantor to a purported mortgae. Our advosir had been hired to represent James in the banruptcy petition being a CPA. In so doing the bankruptcu trustte filed an advisary pleading against

Given the complexity and multiple legal issues involved in your case, here's how you can proceed:
*. Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment:
- File a motion to set aside the default judgment under Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure Rule *(b), citing lack of service and fraud.
*. Statute of Limitations:
- Confirm that the judgment entered on November *, *, is past the statute of limitations for collection, which is typically 6 years in Massachusetts. This could be used as a defense.
*. Federal and State Cases:
- Continue pursuing your federal case for illegal foreclosure, usury, and 93A violations.
- Use evidence from these cases to support your motion to set aside the default judgment and any related proceedings.
*. Appeals Process:
- Ensure your appeal brief is comprehensive, addressing all legal arguments, including fraud and lack of service.
- Await the response to your motion for clarification to better understand the court's stance.
Would you like assistance drafting the motion to set aside the default judgment or further guidance on any of these steps?

James and me for stealing proceeds from his company. It was court appointed child custody payments that were in question. But the adviosr in the scheme pupetuated the problem and used thelawsuit as a reason why he could not keep his promises to returning Jame's name back on the valuable commercial building which he now has title to, along with Tiernan. Today Tiernan hust bought a $*,*.* against james and a $*,* money judgement against me to mitigate the damages that I am sueing him for in federal court for that illegal foreclsoure on my property, usuary and 93A. I understand that its past the staute of limitations to collect being that it was November *, * entered. Am I correct?

To address the default judgment against you, here are some steps and general information:

Steps to Address Default Judgment:
*. Verify Service:
- Check court records to see if there is proof of service. If you weren't properly served, you can file a motion to vacate the default judgment based on lack of service.
*. Motion to Vacate Default Judgment:
- File a motion to vacate the default judgment with the court that issued it. Include reasons such as not being served, fraud, or other relevant defenses.
*. Statute of Limitations:
- In Massachusetts, the statute of limitations for enforcing a judgment is 20 years from the date of entry. Since the judgment was entered on November *, *, it would still be within the enforceable period until *.
*. Legal Representation:
- Given the complexity of your case, consider consulting with an attorney who specializes in civil litigation and foreclosure defense.

General Legal Information:
- Service of Process:
- Proper service is essential for a court to have jurisdiction over you. If you were not served, the judgment could be invalid.
- Fraud and Misrepresentation:
- If you can prove that the judgment was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, you can use this as a basis to vacate the judgment.

Contact Information for Further Assistance:
If you need to contact the court for records or filing motions, you may consider reaching out to:

Massachusetts Superior Court

Phone: (*) *-*
Website: www.mass.gov/superior-court

Would you like more detailed guidance on filing a motion or any other specific legal assistance?

i read the staute of limitations for collecting it would be 6 years. Is enforcing and collecting to different leagel arguments?

Enforcing and collecting a judgment are related but distinct legal processes:
*. Enforcing a Judgment:
- This refers to the legal actions taken to ensure compliance with the court's judgment, such as garnishing wages or placing liens on property.
- In Massachusetts, the statute of limitations for enforcing a judgment is 20 years from the date of entry.
*. Collecting a Judgment:
- This involves the actual recovery of the money or property awarded by the judgment.
- The statute of limitations for initiating collection actions (such as garnishments or liens) can depend on the type of debt and specific circumstances.
Would you like assistance with any specific steps to address the judgment against you, or more details on how to differentiate between enforcement and collection actions?

could i file a motion under rule 60b fraud on the court and ask the court to reopen the case?

Yes, you can file a motion under Rule *(b) for fraud on the court and ask the court to reopen the case. Here are the steps and considerations:
- Grounds for Rule *(b) Motion:
- Lack of proper service.
- Fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.
- Newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial.
- Motion to Vacate Judgment:
- File the motion in the court where the judgment was entered.
- Provide evidence of fraud or lack of service.
- Include a request to vacate the default judgment and reopen the case.
- Statute of Limitations:
- In Massachusetts, the enforcement period for judgments is generally 20 years, but collection may be subject to a *-year statute of limitations for certain actions.
- Differentiate between enforcement (legal right to act on the judgment) and collection (actual process of obtaining the judgment amount).
Would you like assistance in drafting the Rule *(b) motion or further guidance on the next steps?

fist please confirm that this judgment for collection is time barred and since the attorney did not represent himsef as a debt collector trying to collect on a time barred debt he is in violation of the FDCPA. Could i first send him a cease and sist letter?

In Massachusetts, the statute of limitations for enforcing a judgment is 20 years from the date of entry. However, the statute of limitations for collecting on a judgment may be subject to different rules, generally up to 6 years for certain actions like initiating garnishment or liens.
Here's what you can do:
- Confirm Time-Barred Status: Verify if the judgment is indeed time-barred for collection based on your specific circumstances. Consulting with a local attorney can provide clarity on this.
- FDCPA Violation: If the attorney did not represent themselves as a debt collector and attempted to collect a time-barred debt, it may indeed be a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
- Cease and Desist Letter: Yes, you can send a cease and desist letter to the attorney, requesting them to stop collection attempts on the time-barred debt and citing the potential FDCPA violation.
Would you like help drafting the cease and desist letter or need further assistance on any specific part of your legal strategy?

see above

The enforcement period for judgments in Massachusetts is generally 20 years, but collection actions can be subject to a *-year statute of limitations under certain conditions. If the judgment for collection is indeed time-barred and the attorney did not represent themselves as a debt collector, they might be in violation of the FDCPA.

Steps to Address the Judgment:
*. Verify Statute of Limitations:
- Confirm that the *-year statute of limitations applies to the collection action of the judgment.
*. Cease and Desist Letter:
- Send a cease and desist letter to the attorney, stating that the debt is time-barred and requesting them to stop all collection activities.
*. Rule *(b) Motion:
- File a motion under Rule *(b) in the court where the judgment was entered, citing fraud on the court and lack of service. Include a request to vacate the default judgment and reopen the case.
Would you like assistance drafting the cease and desist letter or further guidance on filing the Rule *(b) motion?

see above

In Massachusetts, judgments are generally enforceable for 20 years from the date of entry. However, the collection of a debt may be subject to a *-year statute of limitations under certain circumstances.

Steps to Address the Judgment and Potential FDCPA Violation:
*. Confirmation of Statute of Limitations:
- Verify if the debt collection activity is time-barred by confirming the specific type of debt and applicable statute of limitations.
*. Cease and Desist Letter:
- You can send a cease and desist letter to the attorney or debt collector if the debt is time-barred and they are attempting to collect it without proper disclosure.
*. FDCPA Violation:
- If the attorney failed to disclose the time-barred status of the debt, they may be in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
*. Motion to Vacate Judgment:
- File a motion under Rule *(b) for fraud on the court in the court where the judgment was entered, citing lack of proper service, fraud, or other applicable grounds.
Would you like assistance drafting the cease and desist letter or the Rule *(b) motion?

fruad- my evidence. I can show the bill of sale from the bankruptcy couurt to the advisor Jame's business fixtures and him on a recording stating that he was goin into business with James. I have the the report from Lori horton forensic accountant that the business under the president and CPA of it showed extensive commingeling of funds, embezzelment, and tax evasion. I can show the sale of James cronan's shares in that busi9ness being transferred to Tiernan. Ja,es got * consideration. I can show under the banruptcy court the transfer of jame's commefrcial biulding from the promises of the advisor and James go * consideration . So I can show two frudlent transfers. I can show that none of the creditors got paid by the trusttee. Only the trusttee got mopney in Jame's pettition. Therefore once again Tierna is coming in bad faith trying to cause more harm to james and me.

Given the evidence and complexity of your case, you have a strong position to challenge the default judgment and the actions taken against you. Here are the steps you can take:
*. Confirm Statute of Limitations:
- Verify the specific statute of limitations for collecting the debt in Massachusetts. While enforcement of a judgment can last 20 years, the collection practices might be subject to a *-year limitation.
*. Cease and Desist Letter:
- Send a cease and desist letter to the attorney or debt collector if they are attempting to collect on a time-barred debt. This letter should cite the FDCPA and request that they cease all collection activities.
*. Motion to Vacate Judgment:
- File a motion under Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure Rule *(b) to vacate the default judgment. Cite lack of proper service, fraud, and any newly discovered evidence.
- Include all the evidence you have, such as the forensic accountant's report, recordings, and documentation of fraudulent transfers.
*. FDCPA Violation:
- If the attorney did not disclose the time-barred status of the debt, you can file a complaint for violation of the FDCPA.
Would youlike assistance drafting the cease and desist letter or the Rule *(b) motion?

see above

Given the significant evidence of fraud and misconduct, you have strong grounds to challenge the default judgment and pursue further legal action.

Next Steps:
*. Confirm Statute of Limitations:
- Verify if the debt collection activity is time-barred, generally 6 years for collection actions in Massachusetts.
*. Cease and Desist Letter:
- Draft and send a cease and desist letter to the attorney or debt collector if the debt is time-barred, citing FDCPA violations.
*. Motion to Vacate Judgment:
- File a motion under Rule *(b) in the court where the judgment was entered, citing lack of proper service and fraud. Include your evidence of fraudulent transfers and misconduct.
*. Prepare for Appeals Court:
- Ensure your brief for the Appeals Court is comprehensive, addressing all legal arguments, including fraud, lack of service, and constitutional violations.
Would you like assistance drafting the cease and desist letter or the Rule *(b) motion?

see above

Is this strong evidence to reopen the case- fruad- my evidence. I can show the bill of sale from the bankruptcy couurt to the advisor, Grieco to buy Jame's business fixtures and Grieco on a recording/hearing stating that he was going into business with James and that he was his long term accountant. I have the the report from Lori horton forensic accountant that the business under Grieco as the president and CPA of it showed extensive commingeling of funds, embezzelment, and tax evasion. I can show the sale of James cronan's shares in that business being transferred to Tiernan. James got * consideration. I can show under the banruptcy court the transfer of jame's commercial biulding from the promises of Grieco and James got * consideration . So I can show two frudlent transfers. I can show that none of the creditors got paid by the trusttee. Only the trusttee got money in Jame's pettition. Therefore once again Tiernan is coming in bad faith trying to cause more harm to james and me.

You have substantial evidence to support your claims of fraud and misconduct. Here are steps to consider:
*. Motion to Vacate Default Judgment:
- File under Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure Rule *(b) for fraud on the court.
- Present your evidence of fraudulent transfers, commingling of funds, embezzlement, and tax evasion.
*. Cease and Desist Letter:
- Send to the attorney or debt collector if they are attempting to collect on a time-barred debt.
- Cite potential FDCPA violations for not disclosing the time-barred status.
*. Further Legal Actions:
- Continue with your Superior and Federal Court cases.
- Use evidence from these cases to support your motion to vacate the default judgment.
Would you like assistance in drafting any specific documents or further guidance on any of these steps?

I need time to collect and write the Motion to vacate judgement. Can I ask the court for this under the American with disbilty act or senoir financial exploitation act. You are right they have 20 years to collect.

You can request additional time to prepare and file your Motion to Vacate Judgment. Here are some steps to consider:

Steps to Request Additional Time:
*. File a Motion for Extension of Time:
- Cite reasons related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or Senior Financial Exploitation Act.
- Explain your need for additional time due to your disability or exploitation circumstances.
*. Include Relevant Documentation:
- Provide any medical documentation or evidence of financial exploitation to support your request.

Sample Language for Motion:
- Title: Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion to Vacate Judgment
- Introduction: State your name, the case number, and the reason for the request.
- Reason for Extension: Detail how your disability or financial exploitation impacts your ability to prepare the motion.
- Requested Extension: Specify the amount of additional time you are requesting (e.g., 60 days).
Would you like assistance in drafting this motion or any additional guidance on the process?

see above

Yes, you can request additional time to collect evidence and write your Motion to Vacate Judgment. Here’s how you can proceed:
*. File a Motion for Extension of Time:
- Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): If you have a disability that affects your ability to meet deadlines, you can request an extension citing the ADA.
- Senior Financial Exploitation Act: If applicable, you can also cite this act to request additional time, emphasizing your need to address financial exploitation.
*. Draft the Motion for Extension of Time:
- Explain your situation and the basis for requesting additional time.
- Provide any relevant documentation or evidence supporting your request.
Would you like assistance in drafting the Motion for Extension of Time or any other specific documents?

Id like to file a motion to vacate judgement under new evidence and fruad on the court and a motion for an extension of time. Defendant james cronan and Karen Merritt under the ADA I am a person with a disabilty and james is a person with a disablity. When you write your request you should: Identify yourself as a person with a disability. State that you are requesting an accommodation under the ADA. Plase drqaft these motions United stes Bankruptcy Court District of rhode island Case # *;*-bk-*. Classic display, Inc. Debtor Chapter *. ( The adviosr had james move from the protection of chapter * to chapter * to transfer his building, making promises. )

Motion for Extension of Time Under the ADA
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Case No. *:*-bk-*
Chapter *
In re:
Classic Display, Inc., Debtor
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
Plaintiff Karen Merritt respectfully requests an extension of time to collect evidence and file a Motion to Vacate Judgment under Rule *(b) for fraud on the court and newly discovered evidence. This request is made under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as both Plaintiff and co-defendant James Cronan are persons with disabilities.
*. Identification and Request for Accommodation:
- Plaintiff, Karen Merritt, and Defendant, James Cronan, are persons with disabilities.
- We are requesting an accommodation under the ADA to allow additional time to gather necessary evidence and prepare the Motion to Vacate Judgment.
*. Basis for Request:
- The complexity and extensive nature of the evidence require additional time for proper collection and preparation.
- Due to our disabilities, we need more time to effectively participate in thelegal process and ensure that our rights are protected.
*. Proposed New Deadline:
- We request an extension of 90 days from the court's order granting this motion to file the Motion to Vacate Judgment.
*. Supporting Documentation:
- Attached are medical records and other relevant documents supporting our claims of disability.
Conclusion:
We respectfully request that the court grant this motion for an extension of time under the ADA to allow us to adequately prepare our Motion to Vacate Judgment.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Merritt
[Signature]
[Date]
James Cronan
[Signature]
[Date]
---

Motion to Vacate Judgment Under Rule *(b) for Fraud on the Court and Newly Discovered Evidence
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Case No. *:*-bk-*
Chapter *
In re:
Classic Display, Inc., Debtor
MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT UNDER RULE *(b) FOR FRAUD ON THE COURT AND NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE
Plaintiff Karen Merritt respectfully submits this Motion to Vacate

What is my other option? When they start collection I can file a bankruptcy stay? Under the homestead exemption act I can wave it . At this time can I seek to reopen the case?

You have several options to consider:
*. Bankruptcy Stay:
- Automatic Stay: Filing for bankruptcy under Chapter * or Chapter * will automatically stay most collection actions.
- Motion to Stay: You can file a motion to extend the stay if you have previously filed for bankruptcy.
*. Homestead Exemption Act:
- Massachusetts Homestead Exemption: Protects up to $*,* of your home equity from creditors.
- Waiver: You may waive the homestead exemption, but it's generally advisable to keep it to protect your equity.
*. Reopen the Case:
- Motion to Reopen: Under Rule *(b) for fraud, newly discovered evidence, or other grounds. This can be filed in the original court where the judgment was entered.
Would you like assistance in drafting a specific motion or further guidance on any of these options?

Return Of Seized Property

Summary

Full Conversation

Massachusetts Superior Court

Related Chats