Attorney Jeremy M. Carter added himself to his Client’s Motion. Was it Illegal?
This article is part of our Pro Se Litigant series archives, case: Torres v. Torres – Police Cronyism The Plaintiffs [in the case Torres v. Torres] have notified the A.C.L.U. and requested assistance in the hearing of a motion that could affect every U.S. citizen. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike was filed with Barnstable Superior Court on August 29, 2011. This matter will be heard at 2:00 PM, August 30, 2011, in the same Court. The motion alleges that there were four (4) separate items that should be struck from the the Defendant’s Motion to prohibit public court documents from being available on the Internet, even though Massachusetts Courts are now doing the same. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike states that there are four areas that are untrue or should not be allowed:
a) any action concerning the New England Watchdogs, referred to in said motion as newatchdogs.com, b) any relief to, or made by, and/or for the benefit of, Attorney Jeremy M. Carter, c) any references to this Honorable Court’s non-existent “warning to discontinue all internet postings”, and d) any references to any Defendants in this action not represented by Mr. Carter.
The Plaintiffs claim as the grounds for their motion that the Defendant’s motion should be denied is as follows:
a) The New England Watchdogs are not a named party in this lawsuit, nor in any other lawsuit before this Court, b) Attorney Jeremy M. Carter is not a party to this lawsuit or any lawsuit against The New England Watchdogs on which he based his claims, c) this Court’s own records will show that there was never any warning or order to “discontinue all internet postings”, and d) Mr. Carter is on record in this action as the attorney of Defendants Sophie J. Torres and Debtmerica, LLC, and should not be allowed to now name and represent possible future clients he is attempting to solicit.
The Plaintiffs believe that the A.C.L.U. will assist them in this action, but only if the Court rules against them and the U.S. Constitution. The A.C.L.U. generally only intervenes if and when a Court makes a ruling that is considered to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Plaintiffs have stated that they will appeal any decision that violates their and other U.S. citizens their Constitutional Rights. Part one of this story can be viewed at 1st Amendment Challenge on Falmouth Police Cronyism.
Please visit us for updates to this story. The Plaintiffs Motion to Strike can be viewed at: http://plaintiff.jetiii.com/Documents/29Aug2011/.
- For true copies of the Court documents in this case visit:
- For all pleadings in this specific matter by the Plaintiffs:
- For the Barnstable Superior Court: http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/barnsupmain.htm