The Latest Motions in the Case of Torres v. Torres are finally available
We finally seem to have our new security system working as planned, and now have the motions promised with our story: Judge Christopher J. Muse: Are the wagons circling at Barnstable Superior Court? available now.
The Motions were filed in what has become a firestorm around a case in Massachusetts Barnstable Superior Court. The case, Torres v. Torres, involves the Barnstable County Superior Court Clerk’s Office, Judge Christopher J. Muse and an Unknown Judge, many of whom have been accused of bias and whose actions have violated not only the Plaintiffs’ Civil Rights, but also purport to defy the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, which overturned the decision from the lower court made by Judge Christopher J. Muse.
The Massachusetts Court of Appeals took the unusual step of allowing the Appellants to argue their Appeal by telephone, after the Appellants argued that the very order issued by the Barnstable Court was a major factor in their being wrongfully evicted and the reason they were now thousands of miles away and without the funds to return to Massachusetts. A valid argument when you consider that the order was overturned by the Appellate Court.
- Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for change of venue (here)
- Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for the recusal of Judge Christopher J. Muse (here)
- Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for rule 16 conference to be heard by telephone (here)
- Plaintiffs’ memorandum of facts surrounding the actions of the Barnstable Superior Court Clerk’s Office in the above entitled matter (here)
- Plaintiffs’ emergency motion to serve the defendants electronically in the same manner and conditions as used by the Massachusetts Court of Appeals for motions, or as they are better known, emotions (here)
- Plaintiffs’ emergency motion to seal Plaintiffs’ address (here)
- Plaintiffs’ emergency motion to set aside MSCR 9A requirements for this and the motions contained herein, as notice of a scheduled rule 16 conference was not received by the plaintiffs until December 31, 2013 at 3:41 pm est, making it impossible to comply with superior court rule 9a service regarding the scheduled rule 16 hearing (here)
- Attachments (here)