This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
____________________________________ ) Leisha Tringali, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) vs. ) ) ) Department of Transitional Assistance, et al., ) ) Defendants ) ____________________________________ ) Civil Action No.: 12-CV-124-PB
Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Fact
My name is Leisha Tringali. I am thirty-eight years old. I currently reside at 11 Indian Valley Road, Pelham, New Hampshire, 03076. Plaintiff is aggrieved by the defendant's final determination regarding actions taken in collecting and disbursing child support or, regarding the plaintiff's failure to comply with a subpoena, summons, or orders in which the plaintiff was never named as a party. Complaint at 14. In this case, the Department of Revenue – Child Enforcement Agency ( hereinafter the “DOR/CSE” ) failed to afford either of these aspects of due process to plaintiff when deciding the amount of her child support obligation. Id. 16. Plaintiff alleges the defendant's final determination was in error and without just cause for the following reason(s): Id. 18. On September 29, 1998, the Middlesex Probate and Family Court ( Dilday, J. ) modified the Judgment of Divorce dated August 20, 1996. Judgment was entered in accordance with a stipulation dated September 29, 1998 that Matthew Tringali ( biological Father ) and Leisha Tringali ( biological Mother ) shall have joint legal and physical custody under case docket 96D 1305. Id. 19. On April 12, 2000 the Paternal Grandfather Peter Tringali filed an emergency affidavit against Matthew Tringali, petitioning the Middlesex Probate and Family Court ( Sahagain, J. ) for temporary guardianship under case docket 99P 5181GM. Id. 21.
Judge Sahagain granted temporary guardianship for a period expiring on July 11, 2000. Id. 22. The plaintiff claims that her due process rights were violated by the Middlesex Probate and Family Court for failure to follow procedural due process law, more specifically M.G.L. 215 s. 6 ( c ) which requires “notice to both parents”. Whereas a citation was issued to return on July 5, 2000 on an emergency basis clearly shows that this order exceeded the five days required under M.G.L 215 s. 6 ( c ). Id. 23. Plaintiff hereby alleges that the custody of the minor child was removed from her illegally. Id. 26. A. ) Plaintiff alleges the minor child was illegally removed from her physical custody. B. ) lack of evidence in case file to prove plaintiff unfit. C. ) proper notice wasn‟t given On August 9, 2001 the Paternal Grandfather, Peter Tringali filed a motion for child support. A hearing was scheduled for September 10, 2001 under docket number 99P 5181GM. Id. 27. On September 10, 2001 the Paternal Grandfather, Peter Tringali withdrew his motion for child support. Id. 28. On September 20, 2001 Lucia Miller for the DOR/CSE filed a complaint for modification of Judgment dated August 29,1996 on behalf of the Department of Transitional Assistance ( hereinafter the “DTA” ) against Leisha Eshbach under docket number 96D 1305. Id. 29. On October 18, 2001 a summons was issued to Leisha Eshbach. Id. 30. Plaintiff asserts that her legal name is Leisha Tringali. Plaintiff further asserts that her legal name is not now nor ever was her name Leisha Eshbach. Id. 31. Plaintiff declares any order that names Leisha Eshbach can not be enforceable upon plaintiff without violating her due process rights. Id. 32. On or about April 18, 2002 the DTA motioned for temporary orders for support against Leisha Eshbach. The DTA further requested for financial statement against Leisha Eshbach. Id. 33. The DTA motioned for Child Support against Leisha Eshbach. Id. 34. Plaintiff asserts that her legal name is Leisha Tringali. Plaintiff further asserts that her legal name is not now nor ever was her name Leisha Eshbach. Id. 35. Plaintiff declares any order that names Leisha Eshbach can not be enforceable upon plaintiff without violating her due process rights. Id. 36. On June 25, 2002 Hannah Attuso filed notice of appearance for DOR/CSE as counsel for DTA with the Middlesex Probate and Family Court ( Donnnelly, J. ) The DTA motioned the Middlesex Probate and Family Court to request for financial statement against Leisha Eshbach. Id. 39.
Judge Edward Donnelly, Jr. issued a temporary order for support and assignment of income against Leisha Eshbach under docket number 96D 1305. Id. 40. Plaintiff asserts that her legal name is Leisha Tringali. Plaintiff further asserts that her legal name is not now nor ever was her name Leisha Eshbach. Id. 41. Again plaintiff declares any order that names Leisha Eshbach can not be enforceable upon plaintiff without violating her due process rights. Id. 42. The DOR/CSE without the express authorization of the plaintiff transferred her personal identifying information ( Social Security Number ) to obtain child support payments under a synthetic identity created by the DTA. Id. 43. On or about March 24, 2003 The DOR levied $475.98 from Citizens Bank of Massachusetts from Leisha Tringali, the plaintiff‟s account. Account number 110998-XXX-X. Id. 44. On or about April 26, 2003 The DOR intercepted an insurance claim payment from the plaintiff in the amount of $1327.50. Id. 44. On or about September 13, 2003 The DOR levied $1906.00 from Citizens Bank of Massachusetts from the plaintiff„s account. Account Number 110998-XXX-X. Id. 45. Sometime in 2006 The DOR intercepted an insurance claim settlement payment from the plaintiff in the amount of $10,000.00. Id. 46. The plaintiff requested an administrative review with the DOR/CSE and was never given proper notice of the outcome. Id. 47. On or about November 3, 2004 the DOR/CSE denied the ability to conduct an administrative review as they could not modify a court order. Id. 48. Plaintiff asserts The DOR/CSE without the express authorization of the plaintiff transferred her personal identifying information ( Social Security Number ) to obtain child support payments under a synthetic identity created by the DTA therefore modifying an order without a modification from the court. Id. 50. 52. On December 5, 2003 the Middlesex Probate and Family Court ( McSweeny, J. ) appointed Peter Tringali permanent guardianship with custody of the minor child ZT under docket number 99P 5181GM. Id. 52. Judge McSweeny did not order child support regarding of the minor child ZT in the Decree. Id. 53. Plaintiff asserts any temporary order of support against the plaintiff would not be enforceable after the entry of a final judgment and or decree. Id. 54.
On June 13, 2011 Plaintiff was denied the renewal of her license / operating privileges. The New Hampshire Registry of Motor Vehicles declared that plaintiff‟s right to operate was under suspension by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in a National Database Registry. Id. 55. On June 13, 2011 plaintiff was denied her application for renewal of her driver‟s license in the State of New Hampshire where plaintiff resides. Id. 56. On June 13, 2011 plaintiff contacted the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles ( hereinafter the “RMV” ) call center in Quincy, Massachusetts. Plaintiff spoke with an employee named “Derek” to find out why her renewal was denied. Id. 57. “Derek” explained that on June 23, 2010 the RMV received a computer generated notice of suspension by the DOR/CSE. “ Derek” further stated that on July 3, 2010 plaintiff‟s license went under suspension due to child support obligations. Id. 58. Plaintiff explained to “Derek” that there is no legal order for her to pay child support. The child support order was fraudulent and asked if they had a copy of said order. “Derek” put plaintiff through to his supervisor Mr. Anilton. Id. 59. Plaintiff again explained to Mr. Anilton that there is no legal order for her to pay child support. The child support order was fraudulent. Plaintiff asked if the RMV had a copy of said order. Mr. Anilton stated the RMV did not have the order only a computer generated notice from the DOR/CSE. Id. 60. Mr. Anilton did not lift the suspension of the plaintiff‟s license and quoted MGL 119 s.16 (b) as his authority. Id. 61. The RMV stated “Once you have cleared your outstanding obligation, you must present the Registry of Motor Vehicles with an official notice from the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, stating that you are in compliance with the payment plan and are eligible or reinstatement”. Id. 63 The RMV insinuated that plaintiff owed child-support with no proof from the DOR/CSE. Id. 64. Plaintiff asserts that for the DOR/CSE and the RMV to implicate and enforce M.G.L. c 119A, § 16, in the manner in which they chose against plaintiff, would with no doubt have to violate her rights under the 5th, 7th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. Id. 66. Plaintiff hereby asserts and declares that application of M.G.L c. 119A, § 16 is unconstitutional for the following reasons; Id. 68. A. B. C. D. Plaintiff, Leisha Tringali was never afforded a hearing for a child support order. Plaintiff was never afforded a hearing regarding the suspension of her driver‟s license. Plaintiff was not given notification that her driving privilege‟s had been suspended. Plaintiff was not given notification that she would not be able to renew her driver license.
On October 13, 2011 the plaintiff mailed a certified demand letter to Doug Comfort. The plaintiff raised the issue of due process declaring proper service to her has never been served or ordered. Id. 84. The plaintiff asserted that the DTA created a synthetic identity of Leisha Eshbach and the DOR/CSE attached the Social Security Number of the plaintiff to the name of Leisha Eshbach. The plaintiff asserted that this was Identity Theft. Id. 85. The plaintiff made the following demands and that they be met within 10 business day. Id. 86. A. A copy of the signed child support judgment used by the Department of Revenue against Leisha Tringali. B. A copy of the signed order for the Financial Statement against Leisha Tringali. C. An accurate accounting of all moneys taken from her by use of her Social Security Number ***-**-0125. D. All money that was taken from her to pay child support of Leisha Eshbach be returned immediately. E. The Plaintiff demanded the Department of Revenue lift the suspension of her driving privileges immediately. Id. The certified letters were received on October 14, 2011. The plaintiff‟s demands were not met. Id. 87. On January 19, 2011 the Register of Probate‟s office mailed plaintiff a copy of the temporary child support order. Id. 88. On January 27, 2011 the plaintiff filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission for Identity Fraud. Reference Case # 34668457. Id. 89. On January 27, 2011 the plaintiff filed a criminal complaint with Matthew A. Kulesz from the Pelham Police Department. Incident Report Id # 12-101-OF. Id. 90. I declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information herein is true, correct and complete. ______________________________ Leisha Tringali _________________________ Date
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, COUNTY OF __________________________, ss
______________________________ Notary Public
______________________________ Title ( Rank )
______________________________ My commission expires
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.