Local Maine Contractor and coach Anthony Rinaldi is in the fight of his life against a group of powerful people whose corruption and influence know no bounds. While building a beautiful custom home Mr. Rinaldi found out that his own Realtor Matt Dibiase along with the buyers Realtor Andy Lord had directed Mr. Rinaldi’s bank to issue checks to contractors without his consent or knowledge. After the embezzlement was uncovered a series of events happened which lead to a fraudulent litigation involving the same group of men. Mr. Rinaldi provided the courts with undeniable proof that all the parties listed committed perjury and attempted fraud yet Justice John O’Neil Jr has done everything in his power to conceal the corruption and silence Mr. Rinaldi. 

Anthony Rinaldi has spent the past 2.5 years fighting the WORST ABUSE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN MAINE HISTORY and needs the publics help exposing these men!!! 

Links will be provided for a full explanation of the fraud with all the supporting evidence. 

BernsteinshurSUCKS.com (Recently Updated)

https://m.facebook.com/100953139414954/

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