 |
| Former corrupt judge Margaret McVeigh steals property valued at $475,000 for $20,000 in undue taxes in Wayne Township, New Jersey. She was forced to resign in 2016 after complaints regarding her criminal acts |
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION AND ABUSE OF LAWS IN NEW JERSEY
I have been reading your stories regarding local
courts that must stop shaking N.J. residents down for cash.
I must inform you that these practices are not limited
to the municipal courts. They are widespread in the superior courts, the
Chancery (or general equity) divisions that handle tax sale foreclosures.
They threaten people with forfeiting their homes and with eviction if they fail
to pay taxes that may not even owe.
In my case, they stole my homestead property and place
of business that was valued at $475,000 for a property tax of $20,000.
The property was over-assessed by more than 40 percent in violation of N.J.S.A. 54:4-23 and the Uniformity Clause
of the NJ Constitution (Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 1(a)), and they knew it, but
they confiscated my home, anyway. Tragic, tragic, situation.
The corrupt former Chancery judge Margaret McVeigh never
issued an application of the law to the facts in violation of court Rule 1:7-4(a). Furthermore, court rule R. 4:64-6 states that in foreclosure of tax sale
certificates, if the defendant's answer sets up the defense of the
invalidity of the tax or other lien, or the invalidity of the proceedings to
sell, or the invalidity of the sale, those questions shall be tried in the
action. However, here there is neither
fact finding nor a trial on any of the issues raised by Dr. Stephanatos. The corrupt former Chancery judge Margaret McVeigh failed to consider the equities that were in favor of Dr. Stephanatos or
that a windfall will result. See M&D
Assocs. v. Mandara, 366 N.J. Super. 341 (App. Div.) certif. denied, 180 N.J.
151 (2004) for its rationale that chancery courts "in such foreclosure cases should be alerted
. . . that a significant windfall might result if adequate scrutiny . . . is
not undertaken[,] In view of our decision, the operation of the tax sale law
requires that the entire judgment must be vacated as void based upon equitable
considerations.”
Dr.
Stephanatos was also targeted by the government due to the filing of several
lawsuits, both federal and state; he was penalized by the judges for that. What the government did was unlawful, unfair
and unreasonable.
The Passaic County sheriff then filed criminal charges
against me for refusing to leave my home and they claimed they were
assaulted. The criminal case is pending for 7 years and 1 month
now. It has not gone to trial because of the massive corruption in the
judicial system and because the sheriff employees (Ronald A. Lucas and Vincent D'Agostino) committed perjury, i.e. they lied that they were assaulted. Although an assault case must be brought to trial within 1
to 2 years, it has been more than 7 years now. A defendant has a
fundamental constitutional right to a speedy trial. U.S. Const.,
amend.VI; N.J. Const. Art. I, ¶ 10. But the state judiciary
violated that right.
They also violated my constitutional rights guaranteed
by the Fifth Amendment and Article I, par. 20 of the state constitution that
prohibit private takings; no state court had jurisdiction or authority to
take a $475,000 homestead property belonging in full to Dr. Stephanatos and
deliver it to a third party (American Tax Funding, LLC). But these
corrupt judges did it anyway.
What has really shocked our conscience is that ATF, LLC/Wayne Township knowingly charged unlawful and/excessive taxes in violation of the Uniformity Clause (Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 1(a)). They also charged him 18 percent interest and 6 percent penalties on top of these excessive and illegal taxes. Thus, a tax dispute of less than $20K (the overassessment amount) became $60K. We found that Dr. Stephanatos offered to pay the $20K overassessment amount, but refused to pay the $60K amount. Then the antitrust conspirators (See the U.S. District Court in Newark Antitrust Litigation that found that ATF, LLC conspired to defraud homeowners of their properties and money) confiscated his residential real estate property, along with his business, Metropolitan Environmental Services.
What has really shocked our conscience is that ATF, LLC/Wayne Township knowingly charged unlawful and/excessive taxes in violation of the Uniformity Clause (Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 1(a)). They also charged him 18 percent interest and 6 percent penalties on top of these excessive and illegal taxes. Thus, a tax dispute of less than $20K (the overassessment amount) became $60K. We found that Dr. Stephanatos offered to pay the $20K overassessment amount, but refused to pay the $60K amount. Then the antitrust conspirators (See the U.S. District Court in Newark Antitrust Litigation that found that ATF, LLC conspired to defraud homeowners of their properties and money) confiscated his residential real estate property, along with his business, Metropolitan Environmental Services.
PRIVATE
TAKINGS ARE PROHIBITED BY BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS; AS A RESULT,
THE CHANCERY COURT EXCEEDED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND ITS JUDGMENT WAS
VOID AB INITIO
We provide the following two precedential
New Jersey cases where the courts have ruled that an act of the legislature
cannot confer any right upon an individual to deprive persons of the ordinary
enjoyment of their property without just compensation. Here are the two seminal cases:
An act of the
legislature cannot confer any right upon an individual to deprive persons of
the ordinary enjoyment of their property without just compensation.
Oechsle v. Ruhl, 140 N.J. Eq. 355, 54 A.2d 462 (Ch.1947). Constitutional Law.
An act of the
legislature cannot confer upon individuals or private corporations, acting
primarily for their own profit, although for public benefit as well, any right
to deprive persons of the ordinary enjoyment of their property, except upon
condition that just compensation be first made to the owners. Pennsylvania
R. Co. v. Angel, 41 N.J. Eq. 316, 7 A. 432, 56 Am.Rep. 1 (1886).
See also the following federal law,
prohibiting private takings:
The
Public Use Clause provides that “one person's property may not be taken for the
benefit of another private person without a justifying public purpose, even
though compensation is paid.” Hawaii
Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 241 (1984) (quoting Thompson v. Consol. Gas Corp., 300 U.S.
55, 80 (1937). Because a private taking cannot be constitutional even if
compensated, “[a] plaintiff that proves
that a government entity has taken its property for a private, not a public,
use is entitled to an injunction against the unconstitutional taking, not
simply compensation.” Carole Media
LLC v. N.J. Transit Corp., 550 F.3d 302, 308 (3d Cir. 2008).
UNREASONABLE SEIZURES ARE PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE I, PAR. 7 OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION
They
also violated the Fourth Amendment right to be
free from unreasonable searches and seizures (see also Article I,
Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution). They seized and
confiscated a residential property valued at $475,000 (plus his business
as well) for a small amount of disputed taxes. These are truly
criminal acts.
If you can listen and publish my story, you will be
shocked of what these judges have been doing to shake people up for
money. They essentially blackmailing them: you either pay, or you lose
your home; you either pay or we put you to jail; you either pay or we
take your license away, and so on.
Here is a link, if you want to learn more about this
case. You will be really-really-really shocked regarding what they
have done to me.
See also the corruption tip regarding Ronald Lucas who
defrauded the police and firemen fund by claiming on the job disability.
We have evidence that Dr. Stephanatos was targeted by the government employees because he had filed lawsuits asking for equal protection regarding his excessive property taxes. That is why they violated the constitution and confiscated his property for taxes that he did not even owe. These are absolutely unethical and even criminal acts.
===================================
Report: Local courts reap $400M in fines, fees in 2017
By By MIKE CATALINI
Associated Press
July 17, 2018
New Jersey's municipal courts made $400 million in fines and fees in 2017, sometimes imposing "never-ending" and "overwhelming" financial obligations on people, a Supreme Court report said Tuesday.
The Supreme Court Committee on Municipal Court Operations, Fines and Fees unveiled the report including a list of 49 recommendations for changes to the state's municipal courts, which frequently serve as the judiciary's face in communities across the state.
Among the changes recommended are mandated hearings to determine defendants' ability to pay, as well as monitoring the use of contempt of court fees that go directly into municipal coffers.
"The committee was deeply concerned about what can be a never-ending imposition of mandatory financial obligations that have little to do with the fair administration of justice," Judge Julio Mendez, who chaired the committee, said in a statement. "They can be financially overwhelming, can disproportionately impact the poor, and often become the starting point for an ongoing cycle of court involvement for individuals with limited resources."
The report also found that penalties can vary greatly from judge to judge and court to court.
The document, which follows a 2016 Asbury Park Press investigation into municipal court fees and fines, cautions against courts becoming pressured by towns' concerns for greater revenues. The newspaper found, among other things, that residents faced nearly $200 fines for failing to renew a dog license in time. The judiciary cited the newspaper report in its findings.
New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner commissioned the panel in 2017. He says these courts handle millions of cases a year and called on them to adhere to high standards of independence and fairness.
The report said that New Jersey's local courts compared favorably to other states' and pointed in particular to mandatory training that judges and staff are required to participate in.
But it also sketched a number of concerns, including "excessive use" of discretionary contempt assessments.
"The Committee identifies that these practices at times have more to do with generating revenue than the fair administration of justice," the report said.
New Jersey has 515 such courts. Judges are appointed for three-year terms and can be re-appointed. In most cases the appointment process is set by towns' governing bodies.