Revised Section:
-
Title Theft and Securities Fraud: On March *, *, Pensco Trust Company filed a false claim in Superior Court under the Sailors' Civil Relief Act of * to authorize the foreclosure of the property by entry and possession and exercise the Power of Sale. The foreclosure and possession were contingent upon compliance with the Power of Sale in the mortgages and the terms of the mortgage itself. By charging Merritt a compound interest rate far exceeding the maximum legal rate allowed in Massachusetts without notifying the Attorney General, Pensco violated the criminal usury statute under MGL Chapter *, Section *.
-
Bankruptcy Fraud: On May *, *, Merritt, with attorney Constance Poholek, filed a Chapter * petition, triggering her automatic stay.
-
Property Seizure: On September *, *, the “Rehoboth Property” was seized by the Town of Rehoboth pursuant to a tax-taking judgment entered by the Massachusetts Land Court. This was affirmed in Judge Stearns' finding of facts after a bench trial in the United States District Court of Massachusetts (See Exhibit *, pg. *, section
Revised Section:
- Title Theft and Securities Fraud: On March *, *, Pensco Trust Company filed a false claim in Superior Court under the Sailors' Civil Relief Act of * to authorize the foreclosure of the property by entry and possession and exercise the Power of Sale. The foreclosure and possession were contingent upon compliance with the Power of Sale in the mortgages and the terms of the mortgage itself. By charging Merritt a compound interest rate far exceeding the maximum legal rate allowed in Massachusetts without notifying the Attorney General, Pensco violated the criminal usury statute under MGL Chapter *, Section *.
- Property Seizure: On September *, *, the “Rehoboth Property” was seized by the Town of Rehoboth pursuant to a tax-taking judgment entered by the Massachusetts Land Court. This was affirmed in Judge Stearns' finding of facts after a bench trial in the United States District Court of Massachusetts (See Exhibit *, pg. *, section *).
- Bankruptcy Fraud: On May *, *, Merritt, with attorney Constance Poholek, filed a Chapter * petition, triggering her automatic
see above
Sure, here is the revised section with a focus on title theft, securities fraud, and bankruptcy fraud:
March *, *, Pensco Trust Company filed a false claim in Superior Court under the Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of * to authorize the foreclosure of the property by entry and possession and exercise the Power Of Sale. The foreclosure and possession were contingent upon compliance with the Power Of Sale contained within the mortgages, which was further contingent upon compliance with the terms of the mortgage. By charging Merritt a compound interest rate that exceeded the maximum legal rate allowed in Massachusetts without notifying the Attorney General, Pensco Trust Company triggered the statute of criminal usury under MGL Chapter *, Section *.
September *, *, the “Rehoboth Property” was seized by the Town of Rehoboth pursuant to a tax-taking judgment entered by the Massachusetts Land Court. This was affirmed in Judge Stearns’ finding of facts after a bench trial in the United States District Court of Massachusetts (See Exhibit * pg. *, section *).
May *, *, Merritt, with attorney Constance Poholek, filed a Chapter * petition, triggering an automatic stay.
Would you like to proceedwith the next section?
question should i even be citing chapter * or any laws to invalidate the note and mortgae as its even more importantly that they stole yhe deed to get the note. I want to continually support the orginal theft and remind the judge. If You agee can you change the abve?
Sure! Here is the revised section to emphasize the original theft and avoid citing Chapter * or any specific laws for invalidating the note and mortgage:
---
March *, *, Pensco Trust Company filed a false claim in Superior Court under the Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of * to authorize the foreclosure of the property by entry and possession and exercise the Power Of Sale. The foreclosure and possession were contingent upon compliance with the Power Of Sale contained within the mortgages, which was further contingent upon compliance with the terms of the mortgage. This action was part of a broader scheme to steal the deed, thereby invalidating the note and mortgage.
September *, *, the “Rehoboth Property” was seized by the Town of Rehoboth pursuant to a tax-taking judgment entered by the Massachusetts Land Court. This was affirmed in Judge Stearns’ finding of facts after a bench trial in the United States District Court of Massachusetts (See Exhibit * pg. *, section *).
May *, *, Merritt, with attorney Constance Poholek, filed a Chapter * petition, triggering an automatic stay. This filing was a necessary response to the ongoing fraudulent actions and theftof the property.
Would you like to proceed with the next section or make any further adjustments?
July *, * Plaintiffs, James Tiernan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company and Richard
Fagan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company filed Two False Proof of Claims in the Bankruptcy being represented by attorney Baker.
July *,*, Plaintiffs, James Tiernan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company and Richard
Fagan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company, filed a Motion for relief to lift ny automatic stay despite having been informed that Pensoc and the IRAs no longer owned the property. because the Town of Rehoboth owned the property ‘outright in fee absolute’ plaintiffs did not have the legal authority to have standing to file a proof of claim in the
Court. Mr. Baker and the plaintiffs instead chose not to dismiss the claim in bankruptcy Court. rather recieved the judgement August *, * Merritt filed a Motion to dismiss having learned about the tax taking.
.
July *, *: Plaintiffs, James Tiernan and Richard Fagan, f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company, filed two false proofs of claims in the Bankruptcy Court, represented by attorney Baker.
July *, *: Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief to lift the automatic stay, despite being informed that Pensco and the IRAs no longer owned the property because the Town of Rehoboth owned it outright. Plaintiffs did not have the legal authority to file a proof of claim in the Court. Instead of dismissing the claim, Mr. Baker and the plaintiffs received a judgment.
August *, *: Merritt filed a motion to dismiss upon learning about the tax taking.
August *, *: The Bankruptcy Court allowed the plaintiffs' motion for relief from stay, ruling that plaintiffs could proceed to foreclose or accept a deed in lieu of foreclosure. Mr. Baker committed bankruptcy fraud by filing a fraudulent proof of claim.
After Merritt dismissed the case, Mr. Baker used the bankruptcy judgment to support the next state court action, falsely stating that the bankruptcy judgment allowed foreclosure.
Would you like to proceed with the next section, or make any further adjustments?
August *, * The bankruptcy Court allowed the plaintiffs motion for relief from stay ruling
that the plaintiff could proceed to foreclose or accept a deed in lieu of foreclosure . Mr. baker committed abnruptcy fraud filing a fraudlent proof of claim. Whhat do you think of this series of events. I dismiss the case and Mr. baker usues the judgement on the next state court action staing that the bankruptcy judgement siad we could foreclsoe. Copuld you fis this scenerio.
July *, *, Plaintiffs, James Tiernan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company and Richard Fagan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company, filed two false Proof of Claims in the Bankruptcy being represented by attorney Baker.
July *, *, Plaintiffs, James Tiernan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company and Richard Fagan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company, filed a Motion for relief to lift the automatic stay despite being informed that Pensco and the IRAs no longer owned the property. The Town of Rehoboth owned the property ‘outright in fee absolute,’ so the plaintiffs did not have the legal authority or standing to file a proof of claim in the Court. Mr. Baker and the plaintiffs chose not to dismiss the claim in Bankruptcy Court and instead received the judgment.
August *, *, Merritt filed a Motion to dismiss after learning about the tax taking.
August *, *, The Bankruptcy Court allowed the plaintiffs' motion for relief from stay, ruling that the plaintiffs could proceed to foreclose or accept a deed in lieu of foreclosure. Mr. Baker committed bankruptcy fraud by filing a fraudulent proof of claim. Subsequently, I dismissed the case,and Mr. Baker used the judgment in the next state court action, stating that the bankruptcy judgment allowed them to foreclose.
Would you like assistance with the next section?
see above
July *, *: Plaintiffs, James Tiernan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company and Richard Fagan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company, filed two false proofs of claim in bankruptcy, represented by attorney Baker.
July *, *: Plaintiffs, James Tiernan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company and Richard Fagan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company, filed a motion for relief to lift the automatic stay despite being informed that Pensco and the IRAs no longer owned the property, as the Town of Rehoboth owned the property ‘outright in fee absolute’. Plaintiffs did not have the legal standing to file a proof of claim in the Court.
August *, *: Merritt filed a motion to dismiss after learning about the tax taking.
August *, *: The bankruptcy court allowed the plaintiffs' motion for relief from stay, ruling that the plaintiffs could proceed to foreclose or accept a deed in lieu of foreclosure. This ruling was based on fraudulent claims, as Mr. Baker and the plaintiffs chose not to dismiss the claim in bankruptcy court despite knowing they lacked standing. This constitutes bankruptcy fraud.
Subsequently,the plaintiffs used the bankruptcy court's judgment in a state court action, falsely stating that the bankruptcy judgment authorized them to foreclose. This manipulation of the court system further supports the claims of title theft, securities fraud, and bankruptcy fraud.
Would you like to proceed with the next section or make any further adjustments?
October *, * The foreclosing attorney, Luke Travis, sent Merritt a letter with the attached as of September *, * the outstanding balance was $*,*,* .The IRA and pensco were using the mail sysytem threatening toi take legal action that they knew they did not have the lega right to take. This was the first time that they provided proof that they were charging compound interest on overdue interest rather than simple annual interest as provided in the purported promissory notes. Therefore they were not only attempting or have stolen the deed now they want possession claiming all the properties equity from the orginal title theft in *.
October *, *: The foreclosing attorney, Luke Travis, sent Merritt a letter stating that as of September *, *, the outstanding balance was $*,*,*. The IRA and Pensco were using the mail system to threaten legal action they knew they did not have the legal right to take. This was the first time they provided proof that they were charging compound interest on overdue interest rather than simple annual interest as provided in the purported promissory notes. Therefore, they were not only attempting to steal the deed but also seeking possession, claiming all the property's equity from the original title theft in *.
Would you like to proceed with the next section or make any further adjustments?
“Rhode Island Action”).The Rhode Island Action is important because the IRA owner, Tiernan was the lender in this matter and Grieco was the fiduciary in this matter, and both held control of the day to day finances of Cronan and indirectly to Merritt’s. On February *, *, State of Rhode Island Superior Court C.A. NO.: PC-*-* the
Lorraine Horton, Certified Fraud Examiner, Rhode island, testified to the following:
“I've seen the books and records, and I've seen what a mess they are, and I've seen things on the tax returns that frankly seem to be a sham.” In addition she would later testify to extensive commingling of funds and tax evasion.
Tiernan and Grieco denied the existence of any partnership between them and
Cronan in the the “Rhode Island Action”.
October *, *: The foreclosing attorney, Luke Travis, sent Merritt a letter with the outstanding balance as of September *, *, amounting to $*,*,*. The IRA and Pensco were using the mail system to threaten legal action they knew they did not have the legal right to take. This was the first time they provided proof that they were charging compound interest on overdue interest rather than simple annual interest as provided in the purported promissory notes. Therefore, they were not only attempting or have already stolen the deed, but now they also want possession, claiming all the property’s equity from the original title theft in *.
May *, *: In the Massachusetts Land Court, the Honorable Keith Long ruled from a petition filed by Merritt against Pensco seeking quiet title on the advice of her then-attorney, Josef Culik. Judge Long ruled that although the note was past the statute of limitations to collect on the so-called indebtedness, the mortgages were enforceable. However, his decision was grounded in fraud.
March *, *: Cronan (Merritt’s former husband) filed a lawsuit in Rhode Island state court,James M. Cronan v. Ralph M. Grieco, et al., C.A. No. PC-*-*, against Grieco, Tiernan, The Classic Group, Inc., and * Fountain Street, LLC, alleging that Grieco and Tiernan wrongly ousted Cronan from a partnership between them dating back to * (the “Rhode Island Action”). The Rhode Island Action is important because the IRA owner, Tiernan, was the lender in this matter and Grieco was the fiduciary in this matter, and both held control of the day-to-day finances of Cronan and indirectly of Merritt’s.
February *, *: State of Rhode Island Superior Court C.A. NO.: PC-*-*, Lorraine Horton, Certified Fraud Examiner, Rhode Island, testified to the following: “I've seen the books and records, and I've seen what a mess they are, and I've seen things on the tax returns that frankly seem to be a sham.” In addition, she later testified to extensive commingling of funds and tax evasion. Tiernan and Grieco denied the existence of any partnership between them and Cronan in the “Rhode Island Action”.
Would you like to proceed with the
May *, * In the Massachusetts Land Court, the Honorable Keith Long ruled from a petition filed by Merrit against Pensco seeking quiet title on the advice of her then attorney Josef Culik. Judge Long ruled that although the note was past the statute of limitations to collect on the so-called indebtedness, the mortgages were enforceable. However his decision was grounded in fraud.
On March *, *, Cronan ( Merritt’s former husband) filed a lawsuit in Rhode Island state court, James M. Cronan v. Ralph M. Grieco, et al., C.A. No. PC-*-*, against Grieco, Tiernan, The Classic Group, Inc. and * Fountain Street, LLC, alleging that Grieco and Tiernan wrongly ousted Cronan from a partnership between them dating back to * (the
October *, *: The foreclosing attorney, Luke Travis, sent Merritt a letter stating that as of September *, *, the outstanding balance was $*,*,*. The IRA and Pensco were using the mail system to threaten legal action they knew they did not have the legal right to take. This was the first time they provided proof that they were charging compound interest on overdue interest rather than simple annual interest as provided in the purported promissory notes. This act further supports the claim of title theft and their attempt to gain possession of the property, claiming all the equity from the original title theft in *.
May *, *: In the Massachusetts Land Court, the Honorable Keith Long ruled from a petition filed by Merritt against Pensco seeking quiet title on the advice of her then attorney Josef Culik. Judge Long ruled that although the note was past the statute of limitations to collect on the so-called indebtedness, the mortgages were enforceable. However, his decision was grounded in fraud.
March *, *: Cronan (Merritt’s former husband) filed a lawsuit in Rhode Island state court, James M. Cronan v.Ralph M. Grieco, et al., C.A. No. PC-*-*, against Grieco, Tiernan, The Classic Group, Inc., and * Fountain Street, LLC, alleging that Grieco and Tiernan wrongly ousted Cronan from a partnership between them dating back to *.
Would you like to proceed with the next section or make any further adjustments?
On June *, *, Godbout Law filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts State Court - Grieco and Apponaug,Ralph M. Grieco et al. v. James M. Cronan et al, C.A. No. 1973CV00649, against Cronan and Merrittseeking several declarations concerning his liability under the MPHLPA in relation to the loantransactions (the “Grieco Action”) in response to a Massachusetts Consumer 93A law.
In December *, Cronan and Merritt asserted counterclaims against Grieco and
Apponaug in the Grieco Action alleging inter alia that, unbeknownst to them, Grieco and
Apponaug violated the Massachusetts criminal usury statute, G.L. c. *, § *, and aided andabetted Tiernan and Fagan’s tortious and fraudulent conduct and usury in connection with thecalculation of interest on the subject promissory notes and the wrongful foreclosure sale of theRehoboth Property in violation of G. L. c. 93A and their fiduciary duties.
On June *, *, Godbout Law filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts State Court - Grieco and Apponaug, Ralph M. Grieco et al. v. James M. Cronan et al, C.A. No. 1973CV00649, against Cronan and Merritt seeking several declarations concerning his liability under the MPHLPA in relation to the loan transactions (the “Grieco Action”) in response to a Massachusetts Consumer 93A law.
In December *, Cronan and Merritt asserted counterclaims against Grieco and Apponaug in the Grieco Action alleging that Grieco and Apponaug violated the Massachusetts criminal usury statute, G.L. c. *, § *, and aided and abetted Tiernan and Fagan’s tortious and fraudulent conduct and usury in connection with the calculation of interest on the subject promissory notes and the wrongful foreclosure sale of the Rehoboth Property in violation of G. L. c. 93A and their fiduciary duties.
On September *, *, Fagan filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts state court, which was then removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,PENSCO Trust Company Custodian FBO Richard J. Fagan v. Constant S. Poholek, Jr., Esq., C.A. No.*:*-cv-*-RGS, against Merritt’s former bankruptcy attorney, Constant S. Poholek, Jr., alleging various claims.
Would you like to proceed with the next section or make any further adjustments?
see above
On June *, *, Godbout Law filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts State Court - Grieco and Apponaug, Ralph M. Grieco et al. v. James M. Cronan et al., C.A. No. 1973CV00649, against Cronan and Merritt, seeking several declarations concerning his liability under the MPHLPA in relation to the loan transactions (the “Grieco Action”) in response to a Massachusetts Consumer 93A law.
In December *, Cronan and Merritt asserted counterclaims against Grieco and Apponaug in the Grieco Action, alleging that, unbeknownst to them, Grieco and Apponaug violated the Massachusetts criminal usury statute, G.L. c. *, § *, and aided and abetted Tiernan and Fagan’s tortious and fraudulent conduct and usury in connection with the calculation of interest on the subject promissory notes and the wrongful foreclosure sale of the Rehoboth Property in violation of G.L. c. 93A and their fiduciary duties.
On September *, *, Fagan filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts state court, which was then removed to the United States District Court for the District ofMassachusetts, PENSCO Trust Company Custodian FBO Richard J. Fagan v. Constant S. Poholek, Jr., Esq., C.A. No. *:*-cv-*-RGS, against Merritt’s former bankruptcy attorney, Constant S. Poholek, Jr.
I have a question. I want you to please return your attention to the complain as upon the first section banruptcy filing she we now include the second bankruptcy frad which I have provided you including attorney abker and the false proof of claims should we now draft another overt act of bankruptcy fraud and place it in the bankruptcy filing section. Is so please send me the update from bankruptcy filing onward without the the borderline.
Sure! Here's the updated section, including the new overt act of bankruptcy fraud:
---
BANKRUPTCY FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY
*. Bankruptcy Filing:
- Plaintiff filed an emergency Chapter * petition on August *, * (Karen Merritt vs. L & S Realty LLC, Case No. *-*) 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 that it procured by fraud on the court.
- On September *, *, the Court issued an order lifting the stay based on fraudulent claims, despite Plaintiff’s notice providing clear and convincing evidence of fraud.
- On October *, *, the court granted the trustee's motion to dismiss the Chapter * case without prejudice. Judge Panos advised Plaintiff to return to State court to litigate the claims, despite significant reasons on the merits of the underlying claims.
- This was an error, as contested matters involving property rights violations and bankruptcy fraud should be transferred to the District Courtof Massachusetts under * U.S.C. § *(d) and * U.S.C. § *.
- This error led to the Plaintiff's case being returned to the Southeast Housing Court, which lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate this case, resulting in the wrongful seizure of her property by the Housing Court’s order on October *, *.
*. Additional Overt Act of Bankruptcy Fraud:
- July *, *: Plaintiffs, James Tiernan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company and Richard Fagan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company, filed two false proofs of claim in bankruptcy, represented by attorney Baker.
- July *, *: Plaintiffs, James Tiernan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company and Richard Fagan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company, filed a motion for relief to lift the automatic stay despite being informed that Pensco and the IRAs no longer owned the property, as the Town of Rehoboth owned the property ‘outright in fee absolute’. Plaintiffs did not have the legal standing to file a proof of claim in the Court.
- August *, *: Merritt filed a
complaint should
Sure, here's the updated section from "Bankruptcy Filing" onwards:
BANKRUPTCY FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY
*. Bankruptcy Filing:
- Plaintiff filed an emergency Chapter * petition on August *, * (Karen Merritt vs. L & S Realty LLC, Case No. *-*) 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 obtained by fraud.
- On September *, *, the Court issued an order lifting the stay based on fraudulent claims, despite Plaintiff’s notice providing clear and convincing evidence of fraud.
- On October *, *, the court granted the trustee's motion to dismiss the Chapter * case without prejudice. Judge Panos advised Plaintiff to return to State court to litigate the claims.
- This was an error, as contested matters involving property rights violations and bankruptcy fraud should be transferred to the District Court of Massachusetts under * U.S.C. § *(d) and * U.S.C. § *.
- This error led to the Plaintiff's case being returned to the Southeast Housing Court, which lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate this case, resulting in the wrongful seizure of her property by the Housing Court’s order on October *, *.
*. Second Bankruptcy Fraud:
- July *, *: Plaintiffs, James Tiernan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company and Richard Fagan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company, filed two false proofs of claim in bankruptcy, represented by attorney Baker.
- July *, *: Plaintiffs, James Tiernan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company and Richard Fagan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company, filed a motion for relief to lift the automatic stay despite being informed that Pensco and the IRAs no longer owned the property, as the Town of Rehoboth owned the property ‘outright in fee absolute’. Plaintiffs did not have the legal standing to file a proof of claim in the Court.
- August *, *: Merritt filed a motion to dismiss after learning about the tax taking.
- August *, *: The bankruptcy court allowed the plaintiffs' motion for relief
see above
Certainly! Here's the updated section including the second instance of bankruptcy fraud:
---
BANKRUPTCY FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY
*. Bankruptcy Filing:
- Plaintiff filed an emergency Chapter * petition on August *, * (Karen Merritt vs. L & S Realty LLC, Case No. *-*) 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 that it procured by fraud on the court.
- On September *, *, the Court issued an order lifting the stay based on fraudulent claims, despite Plaintiff’s notice providing clear and convincing evidence of fraud.
- On October *, *, the court granted the trustee's motion to dismiss the Chapter * case without prejudice. Judge Panos advised Plaintiff to return to State court to litigate the claims, despite significant reasons on the merits of the underlying claims.
- This was an error, as contested matters involving property rights violations and bankruptcy fraud should be transferred to the District Court of Massachusetts under * U.S.C. § *(d) and * U.S.C. § *.
- This error led to the Plaintiff's case being returned to the Southeast Housing Court, which lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate this case, resulting in the wrongful seizure of her property by the Housing Court’s order on October *, *.
*. Second Bankruptcy Fraud:
- On July *, *, Plaintiffs James Tiernan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company and Richard Fagan f/b/o custodian Pensco Trust Company filed two false proofs of claim in bankruptcy, represented by attorney Baker.
- On July *, *, Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief to lift the automatic stay despite being informed that Pensco and the IRAs no longer owned the property, as the Town of Rehoboth owned the property outright in fee absolute. Plaintiffs did not have the legal standing to file a proof of claim in the Court.
- On August *, *, Merritt filed a motion to dismiss after learning about the tax taking.
- On August *, *, the bankruptcy court allowed the plaintiffs' motion for relief from stay, ruling that the plaintiffs could proceed to
From On August *, *, the bankruptcy court allowed the plaintiffs' motion for relief from stay, ruling that the plaintiffs could proceed to
foreclose or accept a deed in lieu of foreclosure. This ruling was based on fraudulent claims, as Mr. Baker and the plaintiffs chose not to dismiss the claim in bankruptcy court despite knowing they lacked standing. This constitutes bankruptcy fraud.
- Subsequently, the plaintiffs used the bankruptcy court's judgment in a state court action, falsely stating that the bankruptcy judgment authorized them to foreclose. This manipulation of the court system further supports the claims of title theft, securities fraud, and bankruptcy fraud.
Would you like to proceed with the next section or make any further adjustments?
I want to draft CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY HOUSING COURTOn May *, *, the Registrar for the Bristol Count (Northern Division) Registry of Deeds recorded Pensco's purported Foreclosure Deed conveying the Rehoboth Property to L&S Realty .
On August *, *, Godbout Law inc and L&S Realty LL ( Godbout and co-conspirator) filed a declaratory judgment action in the Massachusetts Housing Court, L&S Realty, LLC v. James M Cronan et al., C.A. No. Case *:*-cv-* Document * Filed */*/* Page * of * PageID #: * * 20H83CV00167TA, in which L&S Realty asked the Housing Court to declare that it held title had a superior right to possession of the Rehoboth Property as a result of
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY HOUSING COURT
*. On May *, *, the Registrar for the Bristol County (Northern Division) Registry of Deeds recorded Pensco's purported Foreclosure Deed conveying the Rehoboth Property to L&S Realty.
*. On August *, *, Godbout Law Inc. and L&S Realty LLC (Godbout and co-conspirator) filed a declaratory judgment action in the Massachusetts Housing Court, L&S Realty, LLC v. James M Cronan et al., C.A. No. 20H83CV00167TA. In this action, L&S Realty asked the Housing Court to declare that it held title and had a superior right to possession of the Rehoboth Property as a result of the foreclosure sale.
*. On February *, *, L&S Realty LLC 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”).
Key Points:
- The Housing Court violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by ordering the seizure of her property without due process and equal protection under the law.
- 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.
Relevant Case Law:
- Fuentes v. Shevin (*): Addresses due process rights in property seizure.
- Goldberg v. Kelly (*): Discusses due process required in welfare termination, analogous to property seizure.
- Connecticut v. Doehr (*): Examines due process required before prejudgment property seizures.
Would you like assistance with any further sections or questions?
the foreclosure sale.On February *, *, L&S Godbout and co-conspirator filed a summary process complaint in a Consolidated case action inthe 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 so-called bench trial, without an evidentiary hearing or jury trial, and denial ofdiscovery request, 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
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY HOUSING COURT
On May *, *, the Registrar for the Bristol County (Northern Division) Registry of Deeds recorded Pensco's purported Foreclosure Deed conveying the Rehoboth Property to L&S Realty.
On August *, *, Godbout Law Inc. and L&S Realty LLC (Godbout and co-conspirators) filed a declaratory judgment action in the Massachusetts Housing Court, L&S Realty, LLC v. James M Cronan et al., C.A. No. 20H83CV00167TA, in which L&S Realty asked the Housing Court to declare that it held title and had a superior right to possession of the Rehoboth Property as a result of the foreclosure sale.
On February *, *, L&S Godbout and co-conspirators filed a summary process complaint in a consolidated 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. 20H83CV00167TAthe “Housing Court Action”).
In September *, in a so-called 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. Although this result was inevitable the moment Godbout and co-conspirators filed their fraudulent foreclosure deed, 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 determination without addressing the underlying fraud and constitutional violations.
These actions by the Housing Court constitute a violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process and equal protection. The court's refusal to provide a jury trial, denial of discovery requests, and reliance on fraudulent documents deprived Plaintiffs of a fair opportunity to present their case.
Would you like to proceed with the next section or make any further adjustments?
Rehoboth Property. Although this feat was set the moment Godbout and co-conspirators filed their fraudlent foreclsoure deed as Judge Michaud stated in his first oder that he docketed in this case, " L & S realty LLC is the title owner of the Rehoboth property based on the foreclsoure deed.. However Judge michaud did not have sufficient grounds to to make this judgement.
In the Southeastern Housing Court, Merritt’s Constitutional due process rights were violated and she was subjected to malicious prosecution by Blake Godout 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, andthe summary judgment action
---
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY HOUSING COURT
On May *, *, the Registrar for the Bristol County (Northern Division) Registry of Deeds recorded Pensco's purported Foreclosure Deed conveying the Rehoboth Property to L&S Realty.
On August *, *, Godbout Law Inc. and L&S Realty LLC (Godbout and co-conspirator) filed a declaratory judgment action in the Massachusetts Housing Court, L&S Realty, LLC v. James M. Cronan et al., C.A. No. 20H83CV00167TA, in which L&S Realty asked the Housing Court to declare that it held title and had a superior right to possession of the Rehoboth Property as a result of the foreclosure sale.
On February *, *, L&S Realty, Godbout, and co-conspirators 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 withC.A. No. 20H83CV00167TA, the “Housing Court Action”).
In September *, in a so-called 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. Although this feat was set the moment Godbout and co-conspirators filed their fraudulent foreclosure deed, as Judge Michaud stated in his first order that he docketed in this case, "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 judgment action granting possession to the opposing party. The docket contains over * filings spanning four years, demonstrating the prolonged legal battles and procedural errors. By doing so, the court ordered an execution for possession and monies
granting possession to the opposing party. The docket contains over * filings spanning four years, demonstrating the prolonged legal battles and procedural errors. In so doing the City order an executuition for possession and monies on October *, *. I have been a victim of a wrongful asset forfeiture due to court proceedings that violaiated stemming from the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searchesd and seizures. Pensco and godbout and co-conspiartors have used the court to stael property to line theor own pockets.
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY HOUSING COURT
On May *, *, the Registrar for the Bristol County (Northern Division) Registry of Deeds recorded Pensco's purported Foreclosure Deed conveying the Rehoboth Property to L&S Realty.
On August *, *, Godbout Law Inc. and L&S Realty LLC (Godbout and co-conspirator) filed a declaratory judgment action in the Massachusetts Housing Court, L&S Realty, LLC v. James M Cronan et al., C.A. No. 20H83CV00167TA, asking the Housing Court to declare that it held title and had a superior right to possession of the Rehoboth Property as a result of the foreclosure sale.
On February *, *, L&S Realty and Godbout 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 with 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. Although this outcome was set in motion when Godbout and co-conspirators filed their fraudulent foreclosure deed, Judge Michaud stated in his first order that he docketed in this case, "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 judgment action granting possession to the opposing party. The docket contains over * filings spanning four years, demonstrating the prolonged legal battles and procedural errors. In so doing, the court ordered an execution for possession and monies on October *, *.
Merritt has been a victim of wrongful asset forfe
see above
~PENSCO TRUST COMPANY'S CONSPIRACY INVOLVEMENT
- 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.
- In addition, an Affidavit was signed by Pensco, making oath and saying that the principal and interest obligations were not paid and that the conversation is recorded, you can request it be deleted if needed.
send please without the borderline
PENSCO TRUST COMPANY'S CONSPIRACY INVOLVEMENT
- 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.
- In addition, an Affidavit was signed by Pensco, making oath and saying 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 afterrecording 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.
- On May *, *, the Foreclosure deed was recorded, stating "Pensco Trust Company Custodian FBO James Tiernan IRA Pensco Account # * and Pensco Trust Company Custodian FBO Richard Fagan IRA Pensco Account # * having a usual place of business at * Broadway, Suite *, Denver, Colorado, the current holder of a mortgage from James Cronan and Karen Cronan to it dated September *, *, and recorded in the Bristol County Northern Registry of Deeds, Bk *, Page *, by power conferred by said mortgage and every other power for Five Hundred Fifty Thousand and */* ($*,*) dollars paid, grants to L & S Realty LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company having an address at * Green Street, North
from "recorded in the Bristol County Northern Registry of Deeds, Bk *, Page *, by power conferred by said mortgage and every other power for Five Hundred Fifty Thousand and */* ($*,*) dollars paid, grants to L & S Realty LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company having an address at * Green Street, North" onward
recorded in the Bristol County Northern Registry of Deeds, Bk *, Page *, by power conferred by said mortgage and every other power for Five Hundred Fifty Thousand and */* ($*,*) dollars paid, grants to L & S Realty LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company having an address at * Green Street, Northboro, MA *, in witness whereof the Jessica Theisen, its authorized signatory hereto duly authorized this 9th day of December * by Pensco Trust Company, LLC.
Despite Mr. Motter's statement that "at no time owned the promissory notes nor was PPT a direct beneficiary of the mortgage instruments referenced in your complaint," the company signed under pains and penalties and recorded as an affidavit that it was the current "Holder" of a mortgage from myself and James Cronan.
Under the Massachusetts U.C.C., the "holder" of a note is defined as the one in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is in possession. Therefore, let the evidence show that Pensco Trust Company's negligence has risen to meet the elements of conspiracy, defined under federal law as an agreement between two or more persons to commitan illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal.
*. An agreement existed between Pensco Trust Company and other parties to commit fraud.
*. Pensco Trust Company knowingly participated in the conspiracy.
*. Pensco Trust Company committed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, including filing false affidavits and facilitating the illegal foreclosure.
Would you like assistance with any other sections or questions?
see above
recorded in the Bristol County Northern Registry of Deeds, Bk *, Page *, by power conferred by said mortgage and every other power for Five Hundred Fifty Thousand and */* ($*,*) dollars paid, grants to L & S Realty LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company having an address at * Green Street, Northboro, MA *, in witness whereof the Jessica Theisen, its authorized signatory hereto duly authorized this 9th day of December * by Pensco Trust Company, LLC.
Despite Mr. Motter's statement that "at no time owned the promissory notes nor was PPT a direct beneficiary of the mortgage instruments referenced in your complaint," the company signed under pains and penalties and recorded as an affidavit that it was the current "Holder" of a mortgage from myself and James Cronan.
Under the Massachusetts U.C.C., the "holder" of a note is defined as the one in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is in possession. Therefore, let the evidence show that Pensco Trust Company's negligence has risen to meet the elements of conspiracy, defined under federal law as an agreement between two or more persons to commitan illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal.
*. An agreement existed between Pensco Trust Company and other parties to commit fraud.
*. Pensco Trust Company knowingly participated in the conspiracy.
*. Pensco Trust Company committed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, including filing false affidavits and facilitating the illegal foreclosure.
Would you like assistance with any other sections or questions?
could you only send me CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY HOUSING COURT with the new information i sent.
Could you only send me CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY HOUSING COURT section including the new information i sent
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY HOUSING COURT
- On May *, *, the Registrar for the Bristol County (Northern Division) Registry of Deeds recorded Pensco's purported Foreclosure Deed conveying the Rehoboth Property to L&S Realty.
- On August *, *, Godbout Law Inc. and L&S Realty LLC (Godbout and co-conspirator) filed a declaratory judgment action in the Massachusetts Housing Court, L&S Realty, LLC v. James M Cronan et al., C.A. No. 20H83CV00167TA, in which L&S Realty asked the Housing Court to declare that it held title and had a superior right to possession of the Rehoboth Property as a result of the foreclosure sale.
- On February *, *, L&S Realty LLC and Godbout 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. Although this outcome was set the moment Godbout and co-conspirators filed their fraudulent foreclosure deed, as Judge Michaud stated in his first order docketed in this case, "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 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 money on October *, *.
- Merritt has been a victim
revise to include the information that I just sent to you and then only send me this section with the revisions withou the borderline 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.
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY HOUSING COURT
- On May *, *, the Registrar for the Bristol County (Northern Division) Registry of Deeds recorded Pensco's purported Foreclosure Deed conveying the Rehoboth Property to L&S Realty.
- 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.
- 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 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 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
From "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" onward
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.
Can you conclude this section with Pensco and co-conspirators have used the lower courts to get judgements to bring into others courts staing that the case has been ajudicated. Howver thie false deocuments leave a paper trial to meet the elements of securtiites fraud bankruptcy fraud and title theft. Can you polish this and include revise the closing of thsi section
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY HOUSING COURT
- On May *, *, the Registrar for the Bristol County (Northern Division) Registry of Deeds recorded Pensco's purported Foreclosure Deed conveying the Rehoboth Property to L&S Realty.
- 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.
- 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 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 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
see above
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY HOUSING COURT
- On May *, *, the Registrar for the Bristol County (Northern Division) Registry of Deeds recorded Pensco's purported Foreclosure Deed conveying the Rehoboth Property to L&S Realty.
- 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.
- 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 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 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
from " 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' onward
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.
I have a question, are you ready?
Of course, I'm ready! Please go ahead with your question.
TRY ME!
Start a new chat