NOT GUILTY!
ON
FEBRUARY 4, 2019, DR. BASILIS N. STEPHANATOS, PHD, PE, JD WAS FOUND NOT
GUILTY BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS IN BERGEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
RE: STATE V. BASILIS STEPHANATOS
DOCKET NUMBER 17-1723
INDICTMENT NUMBER 11-09-810-2
JURY FOUND DR. STEPHANATOS NOT-GUILTY OF FOUR VERY SERIOUS CHARGES
This was a not-guilty verdict on all four (4)
very serious charges on the indictment obtained in September 2011.
Importantly, the sheriff officers
testified under oath that they failed to “knock and announce” prior to
performing a search of Stephanatos' home.
The
numerous contradicting statements
of the sheriff officers provided further proof that they fabricated
their
charges against Dr. Stephanatos. The events occurred during an eviction
where they used a void ab initio writ of possession obtained by the
antitrust conspirators Robert Del Vecchio, Jr., Esq., American Tax
Funding, LLC, Matthew Marini, Keith Bonchi, et al on June 28, 2011.
THE PASSAIC COUNTY
PROSECUTOR PROVIDED “SMOKING GUN” EVIDENCE AGAINST ROBERT DEL VECCHIO
On January 23, 2019, as part of the
pre-trial discovery, the Passaic County prosecutor, Mr. Stephen Bollenbach,
provided Dr. Stephanatos with several handwritten pages prepared by Defendant Robert Del
Vecchio, Jr., Esq. in May 2011. The newly
discovered pages show that Defendant Del Vecchio faxed letters to the Passaic
County Sheriff stating that Stephanatos was a “dangerous Deft” and that Stephanatos had threatened him on May 24,
2011. All these written statements by
Defendant Del Vecchio were fabricated by him to prejudice the Passaic County
Sheriff against Stephanatos and to force Stephanatos out of his home using the
void ab initio ex-parte writ of possession.
A MALICIOUS
PROSECUTION CLAIM WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THIS COURT
Dr. Stephanatos will be filing a claim of malicious
prosecution claim.
This claim is timely, as the criminal proceedings ended in Dr. Stephanatos' favor on
February 4, 2019. The malicious
prosecution claim is a tort action brought in civil court to recover money
damages for the harm suffered from the malicious claim. Dr. Stephanatos will seek to recover money from the
Defendants for the various costs associated with having to defend against the
baseless and vexatious charges. The
damages will include the cost of making a $300,000 cash bond, attorney
fees,
and economic harm from being wrongfully incarcerated and not being able
to find
employment or pursue his law license as a result of the pending charges
for the
last 8 years. Dr. Stephanatos will also seek to recover money for the
emotional distress
associated with being jailed and wrongfully prosecuted for the last 8
years and for the malicious
statements made by Defendant Robert Del Vecchio to the sheriff, damaging
his good standing and reputation in the community for the last 8 years.
==========================================
MAJOR BOMBSHELL UNCOVERED BY METROFORENSICS: New Jersey's Office of Foreclosure has either negligently or intentionally violated a number of state tenancy laws and coersed the Superior Court Clerk into issuing illegal eviction orders
SenVanDrew@njleg.org; AsmAndrzejczak@njleg.org; AsmLand@njleg.org; SenBrown@njleg.org; AsmMazzeo@njleg.org; AsmArmato@njleg.org; SenSweeney@njleg.org; AsmBurzichelli@njleg.org; AsmTaliaferro@njleg.org; SenMadden@njleg.org; AsmMoriarty@njleg.org; AswMosquera@njleg.org; SenCruzPerez@njleg.org; AswEganJones@njleg.org; AsmSpearman@njleg.org; SenBeach@njleg.org; AsmGreenwald@njleg.org;
AswLampitt@njleg.org; SenSingleton@njleg.org; AsmConaway@njleg.org; AswMurphy@njleg.org; SenAddiego@njleg.org; AsmHowarth@njleg.org; AsmPeters@njleg.org; SenConnors@njleg.org; AsmRumpf@njleg.org; AswGove@njleg.org; SenHolzapfel@njleg.org; AsmWolfe@njleg.org; AsmMcGuckin@njleg.org; SenGopal@njleg.org; AswDowney@njleg.org; AsmHoughtaling@njleg.org; SenThompson@njleg.org
AsmClifton@njleg.org; AsmDancer@njleg.org; SenOscanlon@njleg.org; AswHandlin@njleg.org; AswDiMaso@njleg.org; SenGreenstein@njleg.org; AsmDeAngelo@njleg.org; AsmBenson@njleg.org; SenTurner@njleg.org; AswReynoldsJackson@njleg.org; SenBateman@njleg.org; AsmFreiman@njleg.org; AsmZwicker@njleg.org; SenBSmith@njleg.org; AsmDanielsen@njleg.org; AsmEgan@njleg.org; SenDiegnan@njleg.org; AsmKarabinchak@njleg.org; AswPinkin@njleg.org; SenVitale@njleg.org; AsmCoughlin@njleg.org; AswLopez@njleg.org; SenCryan@njleg.org; AswQuijano@njleg.org; AsmHolley@njleg.org;
SenKean@njleg.org; AsmBramnick@njleg.org; jaynee.lavecchia@judiciary.state.nj.us; barry.albin@judiciary.state.nj.us; lee.solomon@judiciary.state.nj.us; walter.timpone@judiciary.state.nj.us; anne.paterson@judiciary.state.nj.us; fj.fernandez-vina@judiciary.state.nj.us; stuart.rabner@judiciary.state.nj.us; stuart.rabner@njcourts.gov; 'Sven Pfahlert' <sven.pfahlert@judiciary.state.nj.us>; 'Sven Pfahlert' <sven.pfahlert@njcourts.gov>; 'Michelle Smith' <Michelle.Smith@njcourts.gov>; 'Irene Komandis' <irene.komandis@njcourts.gov>; kathryn.shabel@njcourts.gov; mary.jacobson@njcourts.gov; Thomas.Laconte@njcourts.gov; paul.innes@njcourts.gov
AswMunoz@njleg.org; SenScutari@njleg.org; AswCarter@njleg.org; AsmKennedy@njleg.org; SenDoherty@njleg.org; AsmDiMaio@njleg.org; AsmPeterson@njleg.org; SenOroho@njleg.org; AsmSpace@njleg.org; AsmWirths@njleg.org; SenBucco@njleg.org; AsmCarroll@njleg.org; AsmBucco@njleg.org; SenPennacchio@njleg.org; AsmWebber@njleg.org
AswDecroce@njleg.org; SenCodey@njleg.org; AswJasey@njleg.org; AsmMcKeon@njleg.org; SenRice@njleg.org; AsmCaputo@njleg.org; AswTucker@njleg.org; SenRuiz@njleg.org; AswPintorMarin@njleg.org; AswSpeight@njleg.org; SenSinger@njleg.org
AsmSKean@njleg.org; AsmThomson@njleg.org; SenCunningham@njleg.org; AswMcKnight@njleg.org; AsmChiaravallotti@njleg.org; SenSacco@njleg.org; AswJimenez@njleg.org; AsmMejia@njleg.org; SenStack@njleg.org; AsmMukherji@njleg.org; AswChaparro@njleg.org; SenGill@njleg.org; AsmGiblin@njleg.org; AswTimberlake@njleg.org; SenPou@njleg.org; AswSumter@njleg.org; AsmWimberly@njleg.org;
SenSarlo@njleg.org; AsmSchaer@njleg.org; AsmCalabrese@njleg.org; SenWeinberg@njleg.org; AsmJohnson@njleg.org; AswVainieriHuttle@njleg.org; SenLagana@njleg.org; AswSwain@njleg.org; AsmTully@njleg.org; SenCardinale@njleg.org; AswSchepisi@njleg.org; AsmAuth@njleg.org; SenCorrado@njleg.org; AsmRooney@njleg.org;
AsmDePhillips@njleg.org; jaynee.lavecchia@judiciary.state.nj.us; barry.albin@judiciary.state.nj.us; lee.solomon@judiciary.state.nj.us; walter.timpone@judiciary.state.nj.us; anne.paterson@judiciary.state.nj.us; fj.fernandez-vina@judiciary.state.nj.us; stuart.rabner@judiciary.state.nj.us; stuart.rabner@njcourts.gov; 'Sven Pfahlert' <sven.pfahlert@judiciary.state.nj.us>; 'Sven Pfahlert' <sven.pfahlert@njcourts.gov>; 'Michelle Smith' <Michelle.Smith@njcourts.gov>; 'Irene Komandis' <irene.komandis@njcourts.gov>; kathryn.shabel@njcourts.gov; mary.jacobson@njcourts.gov; Thomas.Laconte@njcourts.gov; paul.innes@njcourts.gov
December 19, 2018
RE: MAJOR SCANDAL REGARDING THE VIOLATION OF THE STATE’S TENANCY LAWS BY THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY AND THE OFFICE OF FORECLOSURE.
DID SVEN PFAHLERT COLLUDE WITH CREDITOR LAWYERS TO VIOLATE PEOPLE’S POSSESSORY RIGHTS?
Dear Legislators and Justices:
It has been reported in the media that the Office of Foreclosure has either negligently or intentionally violated a number of state tenancy laws by:
1. Entering ex-parte writs of possession the same day as a judgment for possession in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:18-57;
2. Entering ex parte writs of possession without the requisite notice for demand to quit in violation of 2A:18-61.2 and/or NJSA 2A:18-53 (addressing the removal of tenant at sufferance)
3. Entering an ex-parte judgment for possession without receiving a proof of notice to quit that is prerequisite to judgment (See N.J.S.A. 2A:18-56);
4. Accepting as true the self-certifications of bank attorneys that a residential property occupier had no possessory rights when according to state case law these people are tenant-at-sufferance, protected by the Summary Dispossess Act, N.J.S. 2A:18-53 (See the definition of tenant found in NJSA 46A:14-1, stating that a tenant-at-sufferance is included in the definition of a tenant)
THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT EX-PARTE JUDGMENTS OF POSSESSION ISSUED WITHOUT A STATE STATUTE-REQUIRED DEMAND TO QUIT AND NOTICE OF AN EVICTION HEARING ARE ILLEGAL AND VOID. EVEN IF THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN ENTERED LAWFULLY (IT WAS NOT), THE CLERK HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE WARRANT OF REMOVAL THE SAME DAY THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED.
On June 15 the Housing Authority's counsel wrote to the court clerk, ex parte, and enclosed an affidavit which stated that the tenants had failed and neglected to comply with the terms of the settlement. He requested that a judgment for possession be entered and a warrant of removal issued. On June 16, without notice to the tenants, a judgment for possession was entered and that same day a warrant of removal issued.
It is clear that the judgment for possession entered on June 16 was invalid. The court's order dated April 28 which memorialized the terms of the settlement did not fix a time within which the back rent had to be paid. Obviously a reasonable time was intended. However, the Housing Authority, although it concluded that there had been a failure to comply with the terms of the settlement, should not have applied ex parte for entry of a judgment for possession on that ground, and the clerk should not have entered judgment without giving the tenants an opportunity to be heard. R. 6:6-3(b). Even if the judgment had been entered lawfully (we hold it was not), the clerk had no *316 jurisdiction to issue the warrant of removal the same day the judgment was entered. N.J.S.A. 2A:18-57 provides that in summary dispossess proceedings "[n]o warrant of removal shall issue until the expiration of 3 days after entry of judgment for possession."
Since the June 16 judgment was illegal and void, the tenants' motion to vacate that judgment and quash the warrant of removal, heard on October 6, should have been granted on jurisdictional grounds. Mrs. Hayward's appeal from that ruling was timely and should not have been dismissed by the Appellate Division.
*317 Accordingly, we set aside the dismissal, reinstate the appeal and, having considered the merits, reverse the October 6 ruling of the trial court and direct that court to vacate the judgment for possession and warrant of removal, and dismiss the complaint.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF WILDWOOD v. Hayward, et al., 406 A.2d 1318, 81 N.J. 311 (1979)
It is apparent that lawyers for the banks and other creditors have been colluding with the office of foreclosure lawyers to violate the tenancy laws of the state. THIS IS A MAJOR SCANDAL AND/OR CORRUPTION IN THE STATE'S JUDICIARY BRANCH.
The State’s own law revision commission states the following:
Since enactment of the Anti-Eviction Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 et seq., the Summary Dispossess Act has been understood to cover the eviction of nonresidential tenants and residential tenants not covered by the Anti-Eviction Act. Source: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NEW JERSEY LAW REVISION COMMISSION, Final Report Relating to Landlord and Tenant Law, February 10, 2012.
This tenancy at sufferance is included in the definition of tenant in the New Jersey statutes: "Tenant" includes, but is not limited to, a lessee or tenant at will or at sufferance or for any duration, or any subtenants, assigns, or legal representatives of the lessee or tenant. Title 46A – Landlord and tenant law. Article 5, eviction, chapter 14, eviction generally. 46A:14-1: Tenant, landlord, residential rental premises; what is included.
Here is some of the case law of New Jersey:
Under New Jersey law, "[a] purchaser at a mortgage foreclosure sale obtains the legal right to possession of land purchased as soon as he obtains a deed from the selling officer." 30 New Jersey Practice, Law of Mortgages § 373. The mortgagor's continued possession of the property after such time is that of a tenant at sufferance. See Caruso v. Hunt, 69 N.J.Super. 447, 452, 174 A.2d 381 (Ch.Div. 1961) (quoting 2 C.J.S. Adverse Possession § 105, page 659) ("The owner's continued possession after sale of the property at execution, judicial, or like sale is that of a tenant at sufferance of the purchaser”). In Re St. Clair, 251 B.R. 660 (D.N.J. 2000). We have found that a tenant at sufferance is "'one who comes into possession of land by lawful title, usually by virtue of a lease for a definite period, and after the expiration of the period of the lease holds over without any fresh leave from the owner.'" Xerox Corp. v. Listmark Computer Sys., 142 N.J. Super. 232, 240 (App. Div. 1976) (citing Standard Realty Co. v. Gates, 99 N.J. Eq. 271, 275 (Ch. 1926)). WA GOLF COMPANY, LLC v. ARMORED, INC, Appellate Division, August 6, 2014.
To remove a tenant at sufferance, the statutory procedures provided under the Summary Dispossess Act, N.J.S. 2A:18-53 et seq. must be followed. However, the lawyers for the creditors failed to follow these procedures and therefore, the tenants-at-sufferance due process rights established by the above state laws were violated.
The Office of Foreclosure and the Clerk have been refusing to respond; that is why we are asking for your intervention and investigation into these illegalities.
The Summary Dispossess Act, N.J.S. 2A:18-53 et seq. requires proof of notice to quit prior to entering a judgment for possession.
2A:18-56. Proof of notice to quit prerequisite to judgment
No judgment for possession in cases specified in paragraph "a." of section 2A:18-53 of this Title shall be ordered unless:
a. The tenancy, if a tenancy at will or from year to year, has been terminated by the giving of 3 months' notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; or
b. The tenancy, if a tenancy from month to month, has been terminated by the giving of 1 month's notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; or
c. The tenancy, if for a term other than at will, from year to year, or from month to month, has been terminated by the giving of one term's notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; and
d. It shall be shown to the satisfaction of the court by due proof that the notice herein required has been given.
See also chapter 17 of the Landlord-Tenant Law Title 46A, requiring notice to vacate and demand for possession prior to entering a judgment:
CHAPTER 17. JUDGMENTS FOR POSSESSION AND WARRANT OF EVICTION; EXECUTION; JURISDICTION; REQUIREMENTS
46A:17‑1. Notice to vacate and demand for possession; due proof of sufficiency required before judgment entered. Unless a court is satisfied by due proof that any notice required by this article or any notice required by federal, State, or local law is sufficient and has been served in accordance with chapter 16 of this Title and, in the case of any other notice, in accordance with any other applicable law, the court may not enter a judgment for possession even if a ground for eviction has been proved.
In addition to the New Jersey, we also cite the law of the State of Virginia. All other states have identical procedures.
Evictions and Unlawful Detainers in VA
House Bill 311 codifies certain roles and procedures during unlawful detainer matters:
1. A former owner of a single-family residential dwelling unit who remains in the property after foreclosure is now defined as a tenant at sufferance.
2. A successor owner has the right to file an unlawful detainer action three days after giving the tenant written termination notice.
The Virginia law is identical to the one New Jersey has. Almost every other state has similar procedures. The Clerk and the Office of Foreclosure have been negligently or intentionally colluding with the lawyers for the creditors to violate the due process rights of tenants - and as is typical, the New Jersey Supreme Court is asleep at the wheel.
ALERT REGARDING MR. PFAHLERT
CONFLICT OF INTEREST OF SVEN PFAHLERT IN ISSUING OPINIONS ON FORECLOSURE MATTERS
What your Office of Foreclosure did was to then believe Mr. Sven Pfahlert’s (a former private law firm employee with Honig & Greenberg, L.L.C. – these are the people who have been attacking the homeowners and now he works for the State of New Jersey- THIS IS A HUGE RED FLAG) incorrect and illegal advice and enter an ex-parte judgment for possession without the prerequisite notices.
You then entered the very same day an ex-parte writ for possession again in violation of the state statutes requiring notice to quit or vacate. You also violated state law that says you cannot enter a writ the same day you entered a judgment. To make matters worse, the judgment was entered by judges in Mercer County who had neither personal nor subject matter jurisdiction over the homeowner or the property.
These deceptive and unlawful practices by these convicted Anti-Trust Conspirators have been criticized by the state of New Jersey and the Public Advocate Division. See for example the following excerpt from the “Toolkit for Tenants Living in Foreclosed Properties”, published by the Department of the Public Advocate, Trenton, NJ 08625, dated March 2010:
Courts and Sheriffs. In addition to owners and those who work for them, the courts and sheriff officers sometimes mistakenly target protected tenants during the foreclosure process. The writs of execution and final foreclosure judgments are drafted by the attorneys for the lenders. The attorneys sometimes use language in court papers that cause problems because it seems to cover tenants (for example, “and any and all persons occupying said premises”). Other times attorneys specifically name tenants and certify (swear to the court) that those tenants are not covered by the Anti-Eviction Act. This is especially problematic because tenants often do not have the opportunity to demonstrate that they are in fact legitimate tenants until after the removal has already been ordered by the court and scheduled by the sheriff. If a court order specifically names a tenant to be removed, the sheriff must evict that person. Sometimes, however, sheriffs read the language in the order and believe that they must evict everyone. Also, some notices that sheriffs create and post on property include language, such as “occupants” instead of “owners,” that appears to include tenants. The Attorney General distributed a memo to sheriffs regarding the rights of tenants living in foreclosed properties.
I LOOK FORWARD HEARING FROM YOU REGARDING THESE STATE LAW VIOLATIONS AND THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST REGARDING MR. PFAHLERT
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements made by me are true and correct. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. NJ Court Rule R. 1:4-4(b); 28 U.S.C. §1746.
Respectfully Submitted,
MARK KAPLAN, ESQ.
JOSHUA EPSTEIN, ESQ.
