Was it really an Opposition filed by Attorney Cindy A. Nuzzolo in Torres v. Torres?

Was it really an Opposition filed by Attorney Cindy A. Nuzzolo in Torres v. Torres?When Judge Christopher J. Muse, we would hope unknowingly, placed the lives of the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Adams and Jesse Torres III, at risk, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration with supporting Memorandum of Facts.

Reprinted with permission from uswatchdogs.net.

Attorney Cindy A. Nuzzolo of the law firm Wilkins, DeYoung & Carter, filed an Opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Motion and supporting Memorandum in the case of Torres v. Torres. The motion in a nutshell, was to prevent Attorneys Jeremy M. Carter and Cindy A. Nuzzolo, as well as the law firm of Wilkins, DeYoung & Carter, from being provided the address of the Plaintiffs who justifiably feared for their lives after death-threats from an alleged criminal organization were made against them. Judge Christopher J. Muse and/or the Barnstable Superior Court Clerks Office never scheduled a hearing for the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order.

Of note: Judge Christopher J. Muse was overturned by the Massachusetts Court of Appeals in the case of Torres v. Torres.

The Bottom line is, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, after reviewing the facts supporting the seriousness of the death threats, did not disclose the Plaintiffs’ whereabouts to the Defendants, their Attorneys on file, Cindy A. Nuzzolo or Jeremy M. Carter or their law firm, Wilkins, DeYoung & Carter and did not require that the Plaintiffs disclose their location.

The Plaintiff’s Memorandum sets out numerous facts showing questionable statements and filings, all supported by the transcripts and documents of the case. They argue, and we concur, that these make Attorney Jeremy M. Carter unfit to receive information that if leaked, could get the Plaintiffs killed. The sloppy handling of privileged documents by Wilkins, DeYoung & Carter, documented by their sending copies of their clients’ privileged documents to the Plaintiffs, further make it clear to us that the firm is also unqualified to handle such important information.

It is hard to figure out who the biggest clown in the whole catastrophe of the Torres v. Torres case was. The Judges made numerous errors as to service and law, the Plaintiffs’ motions to protect them from death threats went unheard, eight of the Plaintiffs’ Motions were not marked up for hearing, pleadings and exhibits were not produced during hearings because the Clerk didn’t know the difference in the rules in filing pleadings in response to an Emergency Motion and a Rule 9A package, and the list goes on. And we are just skimming the surface of the complete incompetence by the Barnstable Superior Courts Clerk’s Office and Judges, all well supported in the transcripts.

  • Setting aside the antics of what we have affectionately come to refer to as the “Keystone Cops” (Barnstable Superior Court), we will examine the Opposition filed by Attorney Cindy A. Nuzzolo. It becomes understandable how Appellant Torres was referred as “counsel”  by one of  the Appellate Justices when he was arguing against Attorney Cindy A. Nuzzolo during that Appeal. Once again, we find ourselves trying to find some kind of factual argument in Defendants’ Counsel’s words, in this case, Ms. Nuzzolo’s.
  • She apparently now considers herself the Judge in this matter and has determined that there is only one Defendant left in this case. The Court of Appeals did limit the case to the monies “clearly owed him (the Plaintiff) for monies loaned and services rendered Quantum Meruit” (as much as is deserved). However, the Court of Appeals did not limit the “Defendant” to just one of the four named Defendants. The scheduled Rule 16 Conference that this motion is part of, will determine that fact after hearing the arguments of the parties.
  • One of our favorite arguments made by Attorney Cindy A. Nuzzolo was when she stated that, “There is no electronic filing system in place this Honorable Court…”  We’re guessing Mr. Torres will have to make an audio file and speak very slowly to make himself understood by Defendants’ Counsel, as he clearly stated in the Plaintiffs’ Motion:

THE PLAINTIFFS PROPOSE that the litigants and their Attorneys will provide documents to each other in the same PDF format as required by the Massachusetts Court of Appeals. The filing party will print out the documents and mail them to the Court as required.

  • It is very, very clear to us that the Court gets a printed copy for filing. Further, there is no mention anywhere in the Plaintiffs’ pleadings of filing any pleadings on a website, as Ms. Nuzzolo also stated. It would seem that Ms. Nuzzolo is using President Obama as her yardstick for what the truth is.
  • Now we would argue that even Attorney Cindy A. Nuzzolo could not keep a straight face when she actually stated in her Opposition:

Defendant Sophie J. Torres is concerned that documents served electronically may not be received by the appropriate party due to computer spam issues, loss of internet access, and other problems beyond the control of the parties hereto.

  • Even we here at U.S. Watchdogs can’t stop laughing at that one. Is she saying that U.S. Mail is more reliable than email? Why didn’t she just argue the disaster of the ObamaCare website. (You know, the place where Americans have to go to get health insurance).
  • The Barnstable Superior Court has already proven its abilities to use email and PDF files when it sent the Plaintiffs its rulings on the seven motions that they filed. In fact, this current Motion by the Plaintiffs is about one of those rulings sent by email in a PDF document, which the Plaintiffs report, they received just fine. Imagine that.
  • Question: Why are the Defendants’ Attorneys working so hard to get the Plaintiffs’ address? Why would any person, even Attorneys, want to use snail-mail (U.S. Mail)?  Are they now billing their clients the extra time taken by snail-mail? Virtually the entire world uses email because it’s faster, more reliable and proven. So again, is this really an issue of email, or is this an issue of wanting the Plaintiffs’ address and for what means? We don’t think it has anything to do with email or PDF documents, do you?
  • Now another topic, that of character. Attorney Jeremy M. Carter, when attempting to make light of the Plaintiffs’ claims, stated:

 “he [Torres] describes cases such as the one before the Court as an ongoing international criminal conspiracy that was directed at the plaintiffs on or about May 11, 2001 and has been successful in threatening the live of the plaintiffs. It talks about his, I believe great uncle, another defendant who I don’t represent, as being a head of a drug cartel” – [Trans B, Pg 13, Lns 13-17]

  • Attorney Cindy A. Nuzzolo, regarding the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and supporting Memorandum, states that there no longer is a death threat against the Plaintiffs as, “James Torres is deceased”. So is she now agreeing that there was a death threat when he was alive? But now that he was shot in the head with a 50 Caliber Desert Eagle, is she really arguing that there is no longer a death threat?
  • Apparently, according to Attorney Nuzzolo’s Opposition, she didn’t have time to prepare an adequate response, so we guess she was saying she didn’t have time to read the Plaintiff’s memorandum, so we will repeat it here:

Conversations with the DEA left little doubt that, while unable to prove it, they were suspicious Donald Torres was the source of, or contact, or knew who, supplied the drugs for his son’s distribution network.

Further, it was discussed that Donald Torres was the beneficiary of numerous “toys” like Sea-Doos, three wheelers and quads stored at his house. These included those allegedly owned or gifted by James K. Torres and the Defendant Jesse E. Torres IV, also part of a small group that had bought the home across the street from Donald Torres, a house which was left vacant.

  • These are clearly dangerous people, one shot in the head, large caches of weapons, and a drug organization, implying more than one person Ms. Nuzzolo. An international organization that imports drugs into the United States where they are distributed from coast to coast. Perhaps Attorney Cindy A. Nuzzolo can explain how this would be done by a single person.The facts are clear and well documented in the Plaintiff’s Memorandum, in documents from the California DEA, the Mexican Federal Attorney’s Office and the California State Police.
  • Yet, Attorney Jeremy M. Carter, Attorney Cindy A. Nuzzolo and apparently the law firm of Wilkins, DeYoung & Carter did not have any problem making their argument. We would argue that they will continue making these same arguments, arguments which are the opposite of the record. Perhaps with the deep pockets of Jesse Stockwell, who pays their fees, this could be thought of as an annuity. What comes to our mind is a quote by Doc Holiday in the movie Tombstone: “My hypocrisy has no bounds”.
  • Another of our favorite arguments made by Attorney Cindy A. Nuzzolo is against a proposed alternative by the Plaintiffs that the Defendants pay for an attorney for the Plaintiffs. She, just like Attorneys Jeremy M. Carter and Seth G. Roman, also from Wilkins, DeYoung & Carter, argued the age of their client, as they apparently had no other argument. And her son tells us that Sophie J. Torres is now 93, not the 91 that Attorney Cindy A. Nuzzolo repeatedly states in her Opposition. Can’t they get one fact straight?

and to place such a financial burden on an elderly woman of limited financial resources would be overly burdensome…

  • Sometimes you just have to say it: cut the crap Ms. Nuzzolo. As anyone who has been following this story knows, you have never been paid by your elderly client Sophie J. Torres unless the funds were funneled through her by her grandson,  Jesse Stockwell. It is Jesse Stockwell, we would assert, who runs this case and does so directly with your firm, or through one of the numerous attorneys he employees full time in his businesses.
  • Ok, calming down now, but sometimes the “Obama Truths” just gets to you. Attorney Cindy A. Nuzzolo goes on to argue that they are “upstanding members of the Massachusetts Bar”. Now, that’s a statement that one could only claim in a document meant for other “Bar Members”.
  • Here is the story of one of those “upstanding bar members”, Attorney Lorraine Rosenfeld. Now to be fair, the upstanding bar member that we “caught” was a member of the California Bar. The Department of Real Estate in California is charging her with fraud and crimes against the elderly. The fact is, Attorney Rosenfeld used her upstanding bar association membership, (you know, “I’m an attorney, you can trust me”), like a neon sign to lure in elderly clients, then she stole from them, falsifying repair receipts, conspiring with repairman to kick back funds, even stealing their entire rent checks that the elderly clients depended on for their living.
  • The honorable California Bar Association responded to the complaint against Attorney Rosenfeld filed with them (which was factually identical to the one filed with the Department of Real Estate), by saying that they would not take action as the attorney was not acting as an attorney when she put up that neon sign. They claimed that Attorney Rosenfeld was acting as a real estate agent in the company she owned. Honor among thieves seems somehow appropriate here, don’t you agree?
  • Thank God the California Real Estate Association had ethics and is filing charges against Attorney Rosenfeld. The truth is, the vast majority of Americans have far more respect for their neighborhood bartender than for any member of the Bar Association. Full story: Attorney Rosenfeld.
  • Attorney Cindy A. Nuzzolo, attempting to turn lemons into lemonade, or perhaps from an attorney’s view, water into wine, then argues that sending her clients’ privileged documents to the other side was just a “simple error in forwarding an email to Plaintiff“. We think Ms. Nuzzolo is actually arguing that if one of her associates accidentally emails the Plaintiffs’ address to the drug distribution ring, or “cartel”, the death of the Plaintiffs would also be a “simple error in forwarding an email to drug dealers with BIG Guns”. As the Plaintiffs stated, would she then just say “oops!”

The following are the facts from the Plaintiff’s Memorandum. You decide if there is a threat to the Plaintiffs:

II – The California DEA

Be that as it may, the following facts would have been made known to the Court over two years ago if our Motion For A Protective Order had been heard:

  1. After the death threats against the Plaintiffs, I called the California State Police from Baja Mexico to report the death threats as we feared for our lives.

  2. My call was transferred to the California DEA and I told them what I knew of James Kimberly Torres’ drug smuggling and U.S. distribution ring.

  3. Only after a second death threat did I testify to the California DEA as to my knowledge of those drug crimes, which included personal knowledge of how they were being distributed.

  4. When James Torres, my cousin, came to visit me, he observed at my workplace, how my company at the time, Corporate Computer Systems, Inc., shipped computers throughout the United States.

  5. James Torres started buying computer cases, removing their power supplies and stuffing them with drugs and baby powder.

  6. James Torres then shipped the “computers” through multiple package services like UPS and FedEx to locations and dealers throughout the United States.

  7. In anticipation of a DEA raid on James Torres’ house, I warned the DEA of the full-height safe James Torres kept in his bedroom closet which was filled with cash, sometimes drugs and always numerous automatic weapons and handguns, including a 50 Caliber Desert Eagle.

  8. When the DEA asked me how I had such personal knowledge of James Torres’ criminal activity, the answer was simple, “Jimmy loved to brag about it”, believing he was some kind of western cowboy, like the pictures that covered his walls.

  9. With the above facts in mind, the California DEA told me they could not protect me in Mexico and that I should leave, telling no one but them and close family members who could be trusted of our location. Instructions which we followed to the letter.

  10. I kept in contact with the DEA while I stayed in Big Bear California. I was told that James Torres was under surveillance and was asked particulars as to the surrounding neighborhood where James Torres lived and the nearby market where he shopped.

  11. The unanswered question of the DEA was, where was James Torres getting his drugs from within Mexico? We specifically discussed the Defendant, his father, Donald F. Torres as to what I had seen and how he lived so well on a union pension.

  12. While I had seen Donald Torres store only small amounts of drugs in his freezer, I did warn the DEA of the many guns he stored in his hall closet, bedroom closet and under his bed. He, like his son, liked to brag and show off his guns.

  13. Conversations with the DEA left little doubt that, while unable to prove it, they were suspicious Donald Torres was the source of, or contact, or knew who, supplied the drugs for his son’s distribution network.

  14. Further, it was discussed that Donald Torres was the beneficiary of numerous “toys” like Sea-Doos, three wheelers and quads stored at his house. These included those allegedly owned or gifted by James K. Torres and the Defendant Jesse E. Torres IV, also part of a small group that had bought the home across the street from Donald Torres, a house which was left vacant.

  15. I had catastrophic heart failure while in Big Bear, as it was discovered too late that I had built up fluids in my lungs which caused the Heart Failure. Fluids which would not have built up at our sea-level home in Mexico.

  16. While I lost touch with the criminal investigation after my heart failure and returning to Massachusetts, I was notified that James Torres was dead from a gun shot wound to the head from a 50 Caliber Desert Eagle.

  17. I cannot say whether or not the gun shot was self-inflicted. However, if it was self-inflicted, was it caused by the California DEA investigation which could have resulted in a third strike against him? It would be hard not to conclude that my actions, as described herein, were blamed by his father, my uncle, the Defendant Donald F. Torres and my sons, to be the cause of his death.

Do Attorneys Jeremy M. Carter and Cindy A. Nuzzolo hope to once again get a wink and a nod from Judge Christopher J. Muse with their claims?  Now that James Kimberly Torres is dead, they don’t argue that there is no threat, but that there is no longer a death threat. Ms. Nuzzolo, once again, a drug organization implies more than one person. Read the complaint. You know, the part where it was to be carried out by that “gang of one”, Hell’s Angles.

We’ll continue to follow this story and we’ll bring you updates as we receive them.

Be sure to visit the newest members of the Freedom Network, optimataxrelief.biz and jessestockwell.net.

Related Stories

More Information

The following websites also have information relevant to Debtmerica LLC, Optima Tax Relief LLC, LoanNow LLC, SuperMoney LLC and Jesse Stockwell.

Disclaimer: jessestockwell.net is not associated with jessestockwell.com, optimataxrelief.com or Debtmerica, LLC., their associated websites, or their Managing Partner, Jesse Stockwell.

Print Friendly

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *