THE CORRUPT AND/OR INCOMPETENT FORMER JUDGE MARGARET MCVEIGH CONSPIRED TO VIOLATE HOMEOWNER'S POSSESSORY RIGHTS; ALTHOUGH NO EJECTMENT ACTION WAS FILED BY THE ANTI-TRUST CONSPIRATORS, SHE FORCED A HOMEOWNER OUT OF HIS HOME
|
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Plaintiff,
v.
BASILIS N. STEPHANATOS,
Defendant
|
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION - BERGEN COUNTY
Indictment No. 11-09-00810-I
Criminal Action
ILLEGAL REMOVAL BY THE PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF BECAUSE
NO EJECTMENT ACTION WAS FILED
|
TO: Passaic
County Prosecutor’s Office
401 Grand Street
Paterson, New
Jersey 07505
Attn: Assistant
Prosecutor Stephen Bollenbach
Hon. James J. Guida, J.S.C.
Bergen County Courthouse
10 Main Street, 4th Floor
Hackensack, NJ 07601
THE HON. ARNOLD L. NATALI, JR., P.J.CH. THE PRESIDING
JUDGE IN MIDDLESEX COUNTY SAYS THAT TO
REMOVE DR. STEPHANATOS FROM HIS RESIDENCE, THE PLAINTIFF MUST HAVE FILED AN
EJECTMENT ACTION
Dear Judge Guida:
This letter is not pertaining to the Judgment of
Foreclosure. The attack on the Judgment
of Foreclosure is for the Appellate and Supreme Court to review. In addition, the Office of Foreclosure has
re-opened the case F-9241-09 and the Hon. Judge Thomas Laconte will be ruling
on the Motion to Vacate the Final Judgment Based on Fraud on the Court.
This letter pertains to the most important issue in this
case, i.e., the illegal ex-parte judgment of possession and the ex-parte writ
of possession. In New Jersey and in all
other states, the person that has possession of a property, also has at least
95 percent of the legal rights. This is
the law of property.
REQUEST
TO CORRECT THE COURT WRITINGS/OPINIONS/RECORDS
First I want for the Court to correct its writings,
rulings and the record to reflect that the reference to “eviction” in this case
is not appropriate, as this was not a landlord/tenant case. This was an ejectment action. This is a very critical clerical error that
must be corrected, as it could result in unfair trial or mistrial.
UNDISPUTABLE
FACT
As you know from the facts of this case, Dr. Stephanatos was
refusing to leave his residency until he exhausted the appeals. This is the undeniable fact.
AN
ORDER FROM A LAW DIVISION JUDGE FOLLOWING AN EJECTMENT ACTION WAS REQUIRED TO
REMOVE DR. STEPHANATOS FROM HIS RESIDENCE
I have been trying to tell you through my briefs that New
Jersey law required that American Tax Funding, LLC (ATF) and their lawyer,
Robert Del Vecchio, Esq. obtain an order of removal from a Law Division. You have been refusing to listen. To that effect, I have been talking to lawyers
here in New Jersey for assistance with this very, very, very critical
issue. The lawyers (Wilentz, Goldman, et
al and Greenbaum, Rowe, et al) unequivocally stated that this Court is dead
wrong. They provided me with the following
document, entitled “Practice Manual, 2017
Edition, Middlesex County Chancery Division, General Equity Part.” They said that the Practice Manual has been
co-authored by the Hon. Arnold L. Natali, Jr., P.J.Ch. the presiding judge in
that county and the Hon. Arthur Bergan, JSC.
Page 28, of that manual says the following regarding
actions commonly misfiled in the Chancery Division, like what ATF and Robert
Del Vecchio did in my case:
Actions
Commonly Misfiled in the Chancery Division
1.
Ejectment
Ejectment
actions, though similar to eviction actions, are intended to remove an occupant
from your property when that occupant is not technically a "tenant." An example is where a property owner has a
live-in significant other or family member who refuses to move out of the
property when asked to do so. In these
cases, there was never a true landlord-tenant relationship, so to remove the
occupant, the plaintiff must file an ejectment action pursuant to N.J.S.A.
2A:35-1 et seq. These are
usually heard by the sitting landlord-tenant division judge; however, they are
technically a Special Civil Division matter under R. 6:1-2 because monetary
damages can be awarded against the occupant.
See Exhibit A. (Note: Rule 6:1-2 (a)(4) was introduced by
the Supreme Court in 2012, after the events of June 28, 2011; so, a summary
proceeding could not have been filed in 2011, but a full-blown plenary
proceeding – which the Sheriff and ATF/Del Vecchio avoided. This was a huge mistake on their part, as an
ejectment action must have been filed).
Exhibit B includes the May 2017
instructions from the Law Division, Special Civil Part entitled: “How to apply
for a writ of possession (order to remove an illegal occupier from your
property)”.
Under the instructions on “Who should use
this packet”, the Law Division states:
You may use this packet if you are the owner
or proper legal resident of real property and you are being denied the rightful
uninterrupted use of the property by person(s) who never had or no longer has
permission to remain in the subject premises AND a landlord/tenant
relationship DOES NOT exist between you and the person(s) you are
seeking to remove.
As you know from the facts of this case,
Dr. Stephanatos was refusing to leave his residency until he exhausted the
appeals. This is the undeniable
fact. Therefore, according to the
Practice Manual (Exhibit A) and the Law Division packet of instructions (see
Exhibit B), to remove him from his residence, ATF, LLC/Robert Del Vecchio, Esq.
should have filed an ejectment action
with the Passaic County Law Division, Special Civil Part. But they did not. Instead, they obtained an ex-parte Writ of
Possession FOR UNCONTESTED CASES, WHILE THIS WAS A CONTESTED OCCUPIED PROPERTY
WHERE DR. STEPHANATOS WAS REFUSING TO LEAVE.
Even a blind mouse can see the difference between what is required by
law and what the sheriff/ATF, LLC/Robert Del Vecchio did.
The ex-parte judgment of possession and writ
of possession obtained through a self-certification by Robert Del Vecchio, Esq.
has no language that says to remove Dr. Stephanatos from his residence. Therefore, the Sheriff did not have the
authority to remove him by force from his home.
By contrast, the writ documents included in Exhibit B, do include the “removal”
language:
If the defendant(s) fail to
vacate the premises on or before the date specified herein, the plaintiff may
seek the issuance of a Writ of Possession from the Special Civil Part Office no
more than ------ days thereafter, directing the County Sheriff to subsequently
remove the defendant(s) within 14 days of the issuance of the Writ of
Possession.
In conclusion, Dr. Stephanatos could have been removed
only through an ejectment action and only after proper notice and court hearing
took place before a Law Division judge.
None of these statutory procedures were followed here.
I also include below a brief prepared attorney MICHAEL D.
MIRNE, Esq. He also states that an
ejectment action must be filed in order to remove an occupant who is not a
tenant.
BRIEF OF THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. MIRNE,
L.L.C.
Ejectments - In order to remove an occupant who
is not a tenant, we must file an Ejectment action
We are
frequently asked about the rules regarding Evictions and Ejectments. Both types
of actions are used to remove occupants from properties. But eviction actions are only appropriate in
cases where the occupants are tenants. Generally, an occupant will be
considered a tenant in any case where there is an agreement (whether written or
oral) that the occupant will pay rent for the use of the premises. In
order to remove an occupant who is not a tenant, we must file an Ejectment
action. As Ejectment Actions near their lockout dates, some Defendants have
resorted to extreme means to remain in their foreclosed houses. In today’s
article, we will discuss some of those efforts.
Historically,
ejectment actions were cognizable only as plenary hearings in Law Division or
in Chancery Division. However, it was clear that the procedural rules of both
Divisions, which allow for lengthy and comprehensive pretrial discovery, were
not very well suited for matters where there was no issue of title, and where
the Plaintiff was not seeking any monetary relief. Consequently, it was brought
to the attention of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Special Civil Part Rules
Committee, on which I serve, that there was no Court Rule or Statutory
provision that would permit Ejectment Actions to quickly proceed in a Summary
manner, while avoiding the usual pitfalls and delays of plenary proceedings.
The Committee
ironically turned its attention to a Statute, which was originally designed to
assist tenants who were illegally locked out. It was the Forcible Entry and
Detainer Act, found in N.J.S.A 2A:39-1, et. seq. However, since it was clear that actions
brought under this section could be used in any matter in which a property was
used “without the consent of the party in possession,” the Committee concluded
that N.J.S.A. 2A:39-5 was
applicable to all matters where an occupant remains in a property without
consent of the owner after a demand to vacate. (NOTE TO JUDGE GUIDA: I HAVE BEEN TELLING THE COURT THAT THIS IS
THE STATUTE TO USE TO REMOVE A PERSON FROM A PROPERTY, BUT YOU HAVE BEEN
REFUSING TO LISTEN. YOU STATED THAT
THESE STATUTES ARE APPLICABLE TO TENANTS ONLY.
JUDGE GUIDA YOU ARE WRONG, DEAD WRONG;
YOU MUST REVERSE YOUR ORDERS BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW
THE LAW).
Accordingly, in
2012, the Supreme Court of New Jersey introduced Court Rule 6:1-2 (a)(4)
to allow the filing of Ejectment Actions as a Summary proceeding before the
Special Civil Part of the Court, thus enabling a Plaintiff to secure a Court
date within just a few weeks of filing.
Following the
2012 Court Rule Amendment, it has been brought to our attention that some
attorneys are erroneously being told that their Ejectment actions must
be filed in the Foreclosure Docket. However, there is no such restriction in
the old rule or the amended Court Rule. In order to fully address this issue,
we must start by examining the treatment of Ejectment Complaints prior to the
Court Rule amendment. In the matter of Chase
Manhattan Bank v. Josephson, et. als. 135 N.J. 209 (1994), the New Jersey
Supreme Court noted that in order for a purchaser “to gain possession, [he or
she] must obtain an order for possession from the Superior Court.” The Court
further stated that the Order could be obtained “either in an action for
possession pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:35-1 or as part of the action
to foreclose the mortgage.” [Emphasis added]. Accordingly, while some
Ejectments were sought under the foreclosure docket, the vast majority of
Ejectment Actions continued as Law Division matters, even in cases where the
purpose of the Ejectment was to remove a former owner following a foreclosure
action. The use of the Ejectment Complaint to remove occupants following a
foreclosure, therefore, continued in Law Division, without much objection until
the recent Court Rule change.
However, since
the Court Rule change, our office has been asked to quash numerous Motions on
behalf of occupants, who have argued that the Ejectment Process following a
foreclosure must be conducted under the Foreclosure docket. In the matter of 206
Wynatt, L.L.C. v. Nixon and Lee, et. als., Ocean County Docket Number
DC-395-15, the Defendants filed multiple Motions with the Court, first claiming
that they were in the process of challenging the foreclosure action, and later
claiming (falsely) that an appeal in the New Jersey Appellate Division was
pending. When those Motions were not successful, the Sheriff’s office scheduled
a lockout date. The Defendants responded by filing an emergent application with
the Appellate Division to stay the lockout. The Appellate Court denied the
Defendants’ application and allowed the Ejectment to continue. Most
importantly, the two appellate judges who reviewed the Defendants’ appeal found
no significance in the fact that this Ejectment followed a foreclosure. It was
therefore clear that the prior foreclosure could not be used as a reason for
removing an Ejectment action from the Special Civil Part.
More recently,
in the matter of Revell v. Schmidt, Docket No. MRS-DC-1234-17, the
Defendant, who was previously foreclosed upon under Docket No. MRS-F-45240-09,
brought an emergent Motion before the Chancery Division, 2 days prior to
lockout, arguing that the Foreclosure Docket retains jurisdiction upon
foreclosure action, which extends not only to the lender who is the Plaintiff
in the Foreclosure action, but also to subsequent purchasers. The Defendant, through counsel, further argued
that the filing of the Ejectment matter in Special Civil Part violated New
Jersey’s Entire Controversy Doctrine. As counsel for the Plaintiff in
this matter, I noted that the action could have been brought under the original
Foreclosure docket, but there was absolutely no requirement that we should do
so. Reciting the Court’s logic in Josephson (supra), I pointed out that
the Ejectment could proceed as either part of the Foreclosure Docket, or as a
separate action in the Law Division (or in this case, the Special Civil Part).
After several hours of oral argument, Judge Brennan rendered a decision, in
which he ruled in favor of the Plaintiff and allowed the Ejectment action to
continue.
Law Office
of Michael D. Mirne, L.L.C.
3200 Sunset Ave
Ocean, NJ 07712
Phone: (732)
988-7200 Fax: (732) 776-7444
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, all the Chancery Court
Judges and the lawyers I consulted agree that an ejectment action should have
been filed to remove Dr. Stephanatos from his residence.
The requirement to apply for an ejectment action (with a full
notice, plenary hearing, etc.) fully vindicates Dr. Stephanatos who has been
telling this Court that the Law Division Judge decides the removal of persons
from residential properties, when the person refuses to leave. An ex-parte judgment of possession and
ex-parte writ did not authorize the sheriff to remove Dr. Stephanatos and were
in fact in violation of state criminal statutes: See NJ Rev Stat § 2C:33-11.1 (2013) - Certain
actions relevant to evictions, disorderly persons offense that deal
specifically with residential real properties.
That statute also states that a Warrant for Removal is required for
residential properties. The Passaic
County Sheriff committed a criminal offense in violation of that statute by
entering Defendant’s property without a warrant for removal and removing him
from his residential premises.
But due to your biases against Dr. Stephanatos, you have been
refusing to follow the law.
The conspirators knew that
Dr. Stephanatos “was not going anywhere” (as per the grand jury testimony of
Ronald Lucas), yet they failed to follow the clearly established New Jersey
Laws regarding Ejectment from a residential property.
See N.J.S.A. 2A:39-1 Unlawful entry prohibited.
This
mandatory procedure was circumvented by the Passaic County Sheriff and the
criminal conspirators to their detriment:
they were in fact acting as trespassers.
See Mushback v. Ryerson, 11 N.J.L.
346, 351 (Sup.Ct.1830); Borromeo v. Diflorio,
A-3979-07T2, decided August 9, 2009 “[I]n New Jersey it has been the established principle, ․ making lands liable to be sold for the payment of debts,
that the right of the sheriff to sell and convey lands, is a mere naked power,
so that to render a title under his deed available, every requisite of the law
must be shown to have been complied with[.]” Todd v. Philhower, 24 N.J.L. 796,
800 (E. & A. 1854). From these authorities, we conclude the requirements
in the statute are not merely directory but mandatory, such that the failure to
comply with a statutory provision affects subsequent actions.).
Hopefully, you will follow the Practice Manual and the Law
Division packet that instruct very clearly as to the applicable law and proper
procedures for removing a person from a residential property, i.e., the filing
of an ejectment action in the Law Division.
I expect that you will revise your ruling accordingly and state that Dr.
Stephanatos could only have been removed from his residence only after a Law
Division judge ordered him to do so and only after a proper notice and
hearing. This would have taken months to
complete and would have given the opportunity for Dr. Stephanatos to adjudicate
his appeals. No plenary proceeding ever
took place to adjudicate the issue of possession, due to the fraudulent and
criminal activities of Robert Del Vecchio, Esq.
See
NJ Rev Stat § 2C:33-11.1 (2013). What you did here is absolutely criminal,
unethical and unconscionable. The government’s
behavior raises issues of duress, outrageous government conduct, etc.
