BernsteinShurSUCKS.com

THIS IS THE WORST ABUSE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN MAINE HISTORY and the
Defendants has CRYSTAL CLEAR PROOF that Justice John O’Neil is intentionally depriving the Defendant of Due Process and Attorney Monteleone has blatantly disregarding the law.
The Petitioner’s attempts to obtain relief, on merits, have been exhausted and proven to be unobtainable in the lower courts, given the conflict of interest, fraud on the court and biased judicial process. (See Audio Exhibits) of 4/11/23 Hearing There is no other forum, recourse, other than this court, to seek justice. Petitioner simply wants the same rights as every other litigant and wants Justice to be served (EMPHASIS ADDED) Both lower courts, the Superior Court, and the Law Court have obstructed justice by shutting petitioner out, despite petitioner, doing everything necessary to obtain justice on the merits. Both courts summarily dismissed the claims, for no good cause, simply to avoid addressing them on its merits.

It’s been over 2.5 years and the Plaintiff’s haven’t presented a single piece of evidence to support their frivolous claims. Their only remaining witness is the Plaintiff and during a recent deposition they stated under oath that they don’t know why the closing fell through Ex BB at 35 ¶ 3-7 and answered “I don't remember” to the vast majority of questions. The Supreme Court has a Legal Obligation to take this serious. This Writ of Mandamus satisfies the requirements set out in Dennett v. Mfg. Co. Furthermore, the court has the authority to do as it wants if Justice so requires so it would be Unconscionable to not take this Writ serious given the NOTABLE FACTS below. (EMPHASIS ADDED)

NOTABLE FACTS

1. PLAINTIFFS ADMITTED THEIR ORIGINAL LAWSUIT IS ALL FALSE
99.9% of the time a party gets in big trouble if they are caught red handed intentionally lying and deceiving the court.

2. THE PLAINTIFFS AND ATTORNEY MONTELEONE HAVE TOLD OVER (30) LIES
(1) lies is too many so it's a disgrace to the legal system for Justice O'Neil to allow this conduct and for Unethical BernsteinShur Attorney James Monteleone to intentionally deceive the court.

3. JUSTICE JOHN O'NEIL HAS BLATANTLY DISREGARDED THE LAW AND DUE PROCESS Justice O'Neil has erred as a matter of law over (40) times, affirmed multiple boilerplate objections, deprived the Defendant's right to be heard, has threaten to unfairly default the Defendant and refuses to address the Plaintiffs egregious conduct. Justice O'Neil denied the Defendants request for a jury trial, isn't allowing oral opening and closing statements at trial and continues to threaten the Defendant with Default because he doesn't have an Attorney even though Sole Proprietors can represent themselves Pro Se. This case is a textbook example of what not to do as an Attorney or Judge

4. THE PLAINTIFFS DON'T HAVE A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THEIR CASE The Defendant presented a mountain of evidence during summary judgment and the Plaintiffs were unable to refute any of it, failed to present any evidence, failed to cite evidence, failed to submit an affidavit and failed to present a Prima Facie Case. The Defendant brought this to Justice O'Neil’s attention during a Motion Hearing on April 11th, 2023 but Justice O’Neil responded by stating, “Due to the Celotex Doctrine the Plaintiffs don’t need to do anything but Object, Deny and Cite Evidence” Justice O'Neil also stated that the Plaintiffs don't need to present Prima Facie evidence to survive summary judgment and that unclean hands and judicial estoppel are inappropriate during Summary Judgment. See Exhibit Audio Files

5. THE DEFENDANT'S STORY HASN'T CHANGED The Defendant has a mountain of evidence which proves without question exactly who breached the contract. This evidence is crystal clear and unambiguous!!

6. JUSTICE O'NEIL ALMOST ALWAYS RULES AGAINST PRO SE LITIGANTS

7. PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE:
(0) Texts or Emails supporting their position.
(0) Recordings
(0) Affidavits Submitted during Summary Judgment
(4) Perjurious Affidavits
(5) Different Stories told (All Lies)
**PLAINTIFFS ADMITTED ORIGINAL FILING IS ALL FALSE.

8. DEFENDANTS EVIDENCE:
• (20+) Text indicating that the Buyers Willfully Breached the Contract.
• (2) Recordings containing multiple statements by the Plaintiffs Star
Witness that indicate the Plaintiffs Willfully Breached the Contract.
• The Defendants story hasn't changed.             • The Defendant stated (4) times that he has the legal right to walk on the day of closing and nobody refuted him or gave any indication that he was wrong.
• The Plaintiffs have conceded that they mislead the Defendant into thinking he was LEGALLY terminating the contract based off their Repudiation but Attorney Monteleone believes that's ok.
• Evidence from text and recordings show that the Defendant and the Plaintiffs Star Witnesses all agreed regarding the interpretation of the paving.
• The Plaintiffs asked for $80,000 plus in upgrades and REFUSED TO PAY and is now suing because they want the proceeds from the upgrades.

9. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES:

• Judicial Estoppel

• Unclean Hands Doctrine

• Undue Influence

• Duress

• Failure of Consideration

• Anticipatory Repudiation

• No Evidence by Plaintiffs

• Fraud

• Failure to Mitigate

• Waiver

• Offset

• Material Misrepresentation