Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Suffolk, SS Superior Court
Civil Action No 13-3459
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Plaintiff
V
Gailon Arthur Joy, Et al
Defendants
Defendant Gailon Arthur Joy's Answer to Complaint
1. Denied
2. Plaintiff is left to their proof and otherwise denied:
a.Denied;
b.Denied;
c.Denied;
d.Denied;
e. Denied.
3.Plaintiff's assertion as to the deposition content of GailonArthur Joy is grossly misrepresented and the conclusion is without basis in fact and therefore denied.
4. Plaintiff has not produced, nor would they find, any bank records of Gailon Arthur Joy to support this allegation and therefore denied.
5. Plaintiff is left ot it's proof and therefore denied.
6. Plaintiff is left ot it's proof and therefore denied.
7. Plaintiff is left to it's proof and therefore denied.
8. Plaintiff is left to it's proof and therefore denied.
9. Plaintiff is left to it's roof and therefore denied.
10. Plaintiff is left to it's proof and therefore denied.
11:The Directors of Alliance for Hope, Inc., at a special meeting requested from the Defendant, Gailon Arthur Joy, Ordered an Audit in June 2011 and then adopted a Motion of Dissolution in July of 2011 and the assets of the 501 C-4 corporation were ordered to be distributed to the Tax Exempt 501-c-3 “Center for Social and Economic Justice, Inc,” but, upon information and belief, were absconded by a for profit Lawfirm formed by Attorneys' Jonathan Babcock, Rebecca Lawlor and former AHN director and clerk, Washington Carvalho, spouse of Defendant Paula Carvalho, a/k/a Advocates for Hope, LLC, and therefore the Plaintiff is left to it's proof and otherwise denied.
12. Defendant is not certain as to the current status of the Alliance for Affordable Housing, Inc having ended his voluntary service status in early May, 2012 and resigned as an officer and director on August 18, 2012 to defend the allegations of the US Trustee as to Gailon Arthur Joy, personally, and therefore the Plaintiff is left to it's proof.
13. Plaintiff is left to it's proof, otherwise, as to Defendant Gailon Arthur Joy, denied.
14. Plaintiff's allegation is in conflict with it's press release on the subject matter, and the Defendant reasserts that directors of Alliance of Hope Network, Inc ordered a dissolution in 2011, therefore Defendant Gailon Arthur Joy would assert that the Public Record does not accurately reflect the corporate record, therefore, there should be no officers or directors of the Alliance for Hope Network, Inc; and as to Gailon Arthur Joy, the public record does not accurately reflect the close of voluntary employment at AFAH in 2012 nor the written and accepted resignation of Gailon Arthur Joy in August 2011, therefore, Plaintiff's are left to their proof and otherwise denied.
15. Plaintiff's allegation notwithstanding, the public record does not accurately reflect the status of Ms Transcosa as she served as an officer and director in form only and was, to the best of the knowledge of the Defendant, Gailon Arthur Joy, never given access to the books and records, despite several requests, until the Board specifically ordered that Paula Carvalho of AHN turn over a copy of the books for audit in June, 2011, and asked Ms Trancosa to complete an audit and report, whereupon AHN was ordered dissolved; And, Defendant Trancosa was not a signatory to any accounts at AHN until the defendant Joy discovered AHN was “out of trust” upon complaint of Defendant Matos and specifically requested the Treasurer establish a separate trust account for the Everett office in the summer of 2011; Upon recollection and belief, when AFAH was formed to assume the responsibility of the old Global clients she briefly served as treasurer and resigned about six months later; Therefore, Plaintiff is left to it's proof and otherwise denied.
16. Plaintiff is left to it's proof, however, upon recollection and belief, Mr Schumacher served in form only, had no access to books and records as Treasurer, did preserve Directors Meeting Minutes, did perform some very insignificant part-time clerical work but also resigned upon the order of dissolution by the AHN Board, therefore the Plaintiff is left to their proof and otherwise denied.
17. Plaintiff is left to it's proof and otherwise admitted in part.
18. Plaintiff is left to it's proof, otherwise admitted.
19. Plaintiff's allegation is not supported by the public record as the only entity formed in 2009 was Global Advocates Foundation, Inc, a community legal services entity, and Defendant Gailon Arthur Joy was neither an officer or Director until the merger of AHN with Global in December, 2011; and the Plaintiff has noticeably not named essential parties to the formation and directorate of the foundation, who were in fact essential parties to this litigation, and the Plaintiff has deliberately ignored the fact the the entity was in fact a non-profit with staff and/or contract attorneys, therefore, Plaintiff is left to their proof and otherwise denied.
20. Plaintiff is left to it's proof, denied as to “ informally” merged and in fact the proposal was adopted by both Boards in December of 2010, otherwise, admitted in substance.
21. Plaintiff is left to their proof, for as far as this defendant is aware, AHN aka Alliance, referred credit repair, did not do “credit counseling” in the conventional definition, referred out loan modifications to other entities, referred out “short-sales” to licensed realtors of the client's choosing, did maintain several staff and/or contract attorney's to provide “competent legal representation”, otherwise denied.
22. Plaintiff is left to their proof, otherwise denied as to substance and fact.
23. Plaintiff is left to their proof, however, Defendant Gailon Arthur Joy asserts that upon information and belief the legal teams at AFAH did, in fact, succeed and reverse several post foreclosures, has referred some cases for appeals, coordinated several litigation casework with home modification professionals for a final resolution, have obtained injunctive relief, have “stopped foreclosure sales”, and have utilized housing courts as a foundation to “fight eviction” and reverse invalid foreclosures, therefore denied as to “purported”.
24. Plaintiff is left to their proof, however, Defendant Gailon Arthur Joy would assert, based upon information and belief, that the public corporate records are not accurately reflective of actual status and the Plaintiff's “chart” is insufficient in breadth and accuracy, clearly fails to identify several key officers and directors (including founders), noticeably and very specifically the attorney's that served in several capacities, including Directors and General Counsel as well as staff attorney positions, and therefore represents a fraud upon the honorable court, therefore denied.
25. Plaintiff is left to their proof, otherwise denied.
26. Plaintiff's “investigation” is woefully incomplete and upon information and belief AFAH held a 501-c-3 status with it's “informal” merger with the Center for Social and Economic Justice in August of 2010, had applied for a separate 501-c-4 with the IRS Cleveland office, AFAH has also applied for it's own 501-c-3 status with the IRS Cleveland Office, therefore denied.
27. Plaintiff is left to their proof, otherwise admitted.
28. Plaintiff is left to their proof, otherwise admitted.
29. Plaintiff's are left to their proof, otherwise denied.
30. Denied as to context of the statement asserted by Matos.
31. Plaintiff is left to their proof and otherwise denied.
32. Plaintiff's out of context reference is to payment caps established and based upon current tax returns that rarely accurately reflected “real total income” [many banking victims worked in an underground economy based upon immigration status receiving “under the table income”] and was clearly designed to specifically cap and limit litigation expenses to affordable levels (note that the housing ratios nearly always exceeded 50% of real income, resulting in default in a collapsing income economy, and the loan had been based upon “stated income” all too frequently inserted in the application without the affirmation or permission of the borrower, best defined as “consumer fraud” committed by banking organizations. to expand loan production irrationaly. Therefore, denied as to context and motive.
33. Plaintiff is left to their proof, however, upon information and belief, defendant asserts that many clients were served without any payment requirement or were granted minimal payments for various reasons; many developed or had exigency issues that precluded payments and legal services continued; some clients were required to pay use and occupancy and payments were suspended pending pursuit of various alternative options; many were paid back by order of the US Bankruptcy Trustee because of bankrupt estate issues; but all clients received services regardless of ability to pay; Defendant is not aware of any clients that maintained a sufficient payment history to utilize as “alternative payment history” for use in financing options, including Boston Community Capital purchase buyback programs. And, some clients were paid back excess funds where resolutions were achieved via modification or other agreements. Therefore denied as to context and motive.
34. Plaintiff is left to their proof to identify specific statements to support this general allegation and Defendant Gailon Arthur Joy denies as to context, motive and substance.
35. Plaintiff is left to their proof and otherwise denied.
36. Plaintiff is left to it's proof and Defendant, Gailon Arthur Joy, is not aware of any transfers from any “non-profit” to any corporation, business or other entity owned by this defendant, Gailon Arthur Joy, and therefore denied.
37. Denied.
38. Plaintiff is left to their proof as to how this allegation applies to Defendant Gailon Arthur Joy, therefore, denied.
39. Plaintiff is left to their proof as to how this allegation applies to Defendant Gailon Arthur Joy, therefore, denied.
40. Plaintiff is left to their proof, but in fact Defendant Gailon Arthur Joy ended his employment in late April, 2011 and continued as a director until the dissolution by the board at AHN aka Alliance in July. Defendant Gailon Arthur Joy became aware of the escrow issue when Defendant Matos complained the escrow account was too low in April and asked why the books had still not been made available to the Treasurer, Pricila Trancosa in April, 2011. Defendant Joy followed specific corporate governance, first taking the issues to a special meeting of officers, which included corporate General Counsel, attorney Jonathan Babcock ( member of the Mass Bar), an essential party to this action, whereupon Defendant Joy specifically called for the resignation of the President, and included remedially the trimming of staff (including Defendant Joy), and then called for a special board meeting to address a number of issues;
Defendant Joy identified specific issues to the directorate that included three Attorneys to the Mass Bar, all essential parties to this complaint, one having been the first Asst Atty General to the Consumer Fraud Division under AG Quinn in the 1970's; It became clear the chair and General Counsel had determined to support the president, despite a clear set of issues and Defendants proposal ran into significant resistance, however the board did agree that an audit was appropriate and asked the treasurer, heretofore having no access to corporate records, to do an internal audit and report to the directors. The directors made it clear they wanted to handle the issues internally and resolve the issues with the premise that the officers were compelled “to all get along together” and see this through. Deft Joy wrote a preliminary report to the directors in July and the directors decided it best to dissolve AHN, send the Global clients not in litigation with the AHN legal team back to Everett and upon motion adopted to return Global Advocates Foundation back to Everett while the assets of the AHN were to be given to the Center for Social and Economic Justice, Inc with a new President and CEO, Jason Wheeler.
If anyone was incumbent to report any issues to “law enforcement” it would have been the three members of the Mass Bar on the board, but in fact, to the amazement of the Defendant, President Jason Wheeler reported to Defendant Joy that former General Counsel Jonathan Babcock and staff Attorney Rebecca Lawlor, in concert with the Carvalho Family, had transferred all the assets of AHN to a new lawfirm identified as Advocates for Hope, LLC and asked for Joy's intervention. At that point I informed Mr Wheeler they could file a complaint with the AG and sent a warning e-mail to Atty Babcock that the transfer to the for-profit lawfirm was problematic; I have no recollection of a response from Mr Wheeler or Mr. Babcock and reasonably assumed they had resolved the issue. Therefore, denied.
41. The Plaintiff is left to their proof, however, Defendant Joy's purported “conduct” at AFAH is presumptuous and unsupported from the record and draws conclusions that are unsupported by any documentation or investigative inquiry and therefore denied in context, substance and motive and therefore Denied.
42. Plaintiff is left to their proof and asserts this is a mis-application of CMR 940 25.02(2) and questions the constitutional basis for misapplication of this regulation, particularly a non-profit specifically exempted, therefore denied.
43. See Answer to 42, therefore denied.
44. See Answer to 42, therefore denied.
45. The non-profits had members of the Mass Bar available at all times either on staff and/or contracted, and conduct was in fact compliant, therefore denied.
46. Denied.
47. Defendant asserts that the several attorneys not enjoined are essential parties and clearly not so enjoined to deliberately mislead the honorable Court on substance and motive and represents a significant effort to subvert justice, therefore defendant asserts it represents an abuse of process, per se.
48. Plaintiff is left to their proof as ALL documents, which Counsel for the AG can plainly determine, having access to PACER and having attended Bankruptcy Court hearings, that were submitted to any court, were drawn and submitted by members of the Mass Bar and therefore allegation is Denied. FURTHER, the deliberate misuse and mis-charaterization of the data input by Mr Schumacher
on behalf of Atty Sam Rodriguez were known or should have been known to be delivered to Mr Rodriguez for review, completion, and submission and represents a proper and legal support role and again deliberately mis-characterized and represents a fraud upon the court as well as further abuse of process.
49. Denied
50. Plaintiff is left to it's proof and therefore denied.
51. Plaintiff is left to it's proof and therefore denied.
52. Denied.
Prayer for Relief: To find the Plaintiff's Claims as Without Merit and Deny Relief or other judgment as the Honorable Court shall conclude from the evidence.
Affirmative Defenses:
Defendant Gailon Arthur Joy prays the court to allow the Defendant to amend answers pursuant to the Mass Rules of Civil Procedure on Motion as appropriate.
Counter-claims:
Defendant Joy Prays the Honorable Court to preserve the defendants right to counterclaims pursuant to the Mass Rules of Civil Procedure as appropriate.
Defendant Gailon Arthur Joy demands a trial by a jury of his peers.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gailon Arthur Joy,
Defendant, Pro Se
Author
Topic: A new lawsuit filed against Gailon (Read 35179 times)
