Summary of Legal Case Involving Plaintiff Jerome Pintaro

Background and Uncontroversial Facts

Jerome Pintaro, the plaintiff, has replied to attorney Catherine M. Levine's motion to dismiss, highlighting the removal of Levine as the defense attorney in a worker's compensation claim case. The plaintiff alleges a conspiracy involving various parties, including the intentional withholding of medical treatment and the sabotage of a surgery. Levine's defense is criticized for lacking legal basis and making irrelevant arguments.

Allegations of Deprivation of Civil Rights

The plaintiff accuses Catherine M. Levine of being part of a conspiracy to deprive him of his civil rights, acting as a government 'actor' engaged in criminal activities. Various fraudulent complaints were filed against Pintaro, leading to void judgements and attempts to extort money. The plaintiff contends that judges and government officials were complicit in these actions, violating the U.S. Constitution and laws.

Legal Proceedings and Misconduct

The legal arguments in the case involve the plausibility of claims under Section 1983, with the plaintiff asserting that Levine's actions denied him rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The filing of fraudulent complaints, lack of jurisdiction, and misconduct by attorneys and judges are central to the plaintiff's allegations. The case involves a complex web of legal violations and abuse of power.

LEVINE - Flipbook by Fleepit