Free Motion for Sanctions - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :08-cv—00295-GIVIS Document 39 Filed 08/20/2008 Page 1 of 3
'N°I'NA‘ 5=H·A°H·I'N, (LPA', MAS, MST
I0} 5=H·I‘I‘('N,7F.C£·0d·‘l<· KD. DOVER DZ l?‘I04·
Tel. (502.) L7?-{X0}
Fax (50z)é7K~0.Z1‘I
Ec_mgj|L ;snamn!z1.‘comcast.net
August 19, 2008
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet, Chief Judge kg;
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building {5% Y`-
844 N. King Street, Lockbox 19 V; 1
Wilmington, DE 19801 gc
cc: Norman H. Brooks, Jr.
Marks, O’Neal, O’Brian & Courtney, P.C.
913 North Market St., Suite 800 0
Wilmington, DE 19801
Theodore John Segletes, III
Marks, O’Neal, O’Brian & Courtney, P.C.
913 North Market St., Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Kevin R. Slattery
Deputy Attorney General
Carvel State Office Building
829 North French Street/ 6th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Richard H. Morse
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP
The Brandywine Building
1000 West Street, 17th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19899-0391
RE: Shahin v. Liguori, Morris & Yiengst, et al.
C.A. N0. 08-295-GMS
PLAINTIF F ’S MOTION FOR SAN CTION

Case 1:08-cv—00295-G|\/IS Document 39 Filed 08/20/2008 Page 2 of 3
Dear Chief Judge Sleet:
This letter is presented by the Plaintiff to address the points raised in the
Attorneys’ representing the firm of Liguori, Morris and Yiengst response dated August
15, 2008.
• Although the attorneys acknowledged the falsification of fact presented in their Brief
in Support of the Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff s Complaint their explanation of
Rule 90 of the Superior Court of Rules of Civil Procedure is inaccurate. Although
subsection (c) does cover agreements between attorneys that section does not cover
withdrawals of attorney. Withdrawal of attorney is covered by subsection (b) and can
be affected only with the order ofthe court. Both forms: withdrawal of attorney and
the substitution of attorney presented in the Plaintiffs Exhibits C and E that had been
filed by the attomeys have wordings for the order of the court to approve such an
action and there was no order of the court for the substitution. Moreover, the Plaintiff
would like to note that every subsequent subsection letter in the Rule which is
arranged in descending order has affect only on the sections below but not above; this
is the general logical order of all legal doctunents in the US that have legal
importance including laws, regulations, rules and procedures. This means that section
(b) covers all the subsections below but not above. Subsection (c) is valid for all
subsections below but above. As a result, the attorney, Monté T. Squire, has never
become a legitimate representative of the Defendant.
• In their letter to the Plaintiff the attorneys tried to assure that the falsification of this
fact was ‘inadvertent and not intended to mislead the Court in any inappropriate way’.
The Plaintiff does not buy it. Their client, Gregory Morris, made his way through the
entire Delaware Court system from the Court of Common Pleas to the Supreme Court
by lying, falsifying facts, concealing the Plaintiffs right to statutory damages under
12 CFR 226.2l(a), misrepresentation of Plaintiffs claims and alike; violations that
the judges did not want to notice or sanction. So, just simple verbal assurances when
the deeds speak differently have no value to the Plaintiff.
• The Plaintiff also would question the value of the attorneys’ annotations by ‘sic’ all
through their section of ‘Statement of Facts’ because they obviously invalidated that
annotation by using it in the falsified section.
• Although the attomeys claim that they mailed the Plaintiff their letter of
representation, the Plaintiff has never received it. The only letter of representation
the Plaintiff received is from the firm of Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP.
She has not received such a letter from the State Deputy Attomey General either.
The only explanation she can provide is that the letter has never been sent. This has
already happened on numerous occasions in the past: Mr. Morris did not send the
Notice of his Motion for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiff learnt of the hearing
only after receiving the letter from the court. Mr. Morris has mailed his response to
2

Case 1:08-cv—00295-G|\/IS Document 39 Filed 08/20/2008 Page 3 of 3
the Supreme Court of the US only after the Plaintiff complained to the Court that the
special form that was supposed to be mailed to the court and to the Petitioner had
never been received. And the last but not least the falsified Notice of Motion for a
Decision on Pleadings in two version by the Monté T. Squire.
• And the final note on the case of Bivens that all the attorneys try to interpret very
narrowly as including only the federal agents as a necessary party to a lawsuit. This
is not correct and the attorneys were supposed to know it. If they do not know it the
Plaintiff would question their qualifications. Mr. Morse who, in his Motion to
Dismiss, made a reference to the case of Lerch v. Boyer, 929 F. Supp (N.D. Ind.
1996) was supposed to note that the case involved bankruptcy debtors who brought
civil rights action against bankruptcy trustees with no any ‘federal agents’ involved
and yet the judge specifically noted that "(2) allegations in debtors’ complaint were
not sufficient to state constitutional tort claim under Bivens; " Lerch v. Boyer, 929 F.
Supp (N .D. Ind. 1996). So, the standard under Bivens provides for a private cause of
action under constitutional tort claim regardless of who are the parties that conspired
to violate the civil rights under the criminal statutes. I would urge the attorneys to
open the case and read it carefully before diminishing their qualification by making
invalid legal argument.
The Plaintiff, therefore, does not want to withdraw her Motion for Sanctions and leave it
for the presiding judge to decide on the applicability (if any) sanctions against the
attorneys, because the attorneys were supposed to act with utmost professional integrity
and they act with utmost lack of it.
Respectfully,
Nina Shahin, CPA, MAS, MST
3

Case 1:08-cv-00295-GMS

Document 39

Filed 08/20/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00295-GMS

Document 39

Filed 08/20/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00295-GMS

Document 39

Filed 08/20/2008

Page 3 of 3