THE CORRUPT STATE OF NEW JERSEY LOST MAJOR CASE: 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. MASSIVE CONSPIRACY BY THE PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF EXPOSED

 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 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.

  =========================================================

Basilis N. Stephanatos, PhD, JD

____________________________________________________________

February 4, 2019

William T. Walsh

Clerk, United States District Court

District of New Jersey

M.L. King, Jr. Federal Building & U.S. Court House

50 Walnut Street

Room 4015

Newark, New Jersey 07101-0999

Tel.: 973-645-3730

THE HONORABLE JOHN MICHAEL VAZQUEZ

United States District Judge

Lautenberg U.S. Post Office & Courthouse

2 Federal Square, Room 417

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Tel.: 973-297-4851/973-645-2157(Deputy Clerk)

RE:     Civil Action No. 02:12-cv-01793 (JMV-JBC)

            JURY FOUND STEPHANATOS NOT-GUILTY

Dear Judge Vazquez:

I am writing to inform the Court that a Bergen County jury of my peers has found me not guilty of all the fabricated charges by Defendants Ronald A. Lucas, Victor D’Agostino that somehow I had pointed a gun at the officers on June 28, 2011.  This was a not-guilty verdict on all four (4) very serious charges on the fraudulently obtained indictment in September 2011. 

THE OFFICERS MADE NUMEROUS ADDITIONAL CONTRADICTING AND UNCORROBORATED STATEMENTS DURING THEIR TESTIMONY EVIDENCING FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSPIRACY TO PROSECUTE MALICIOUSLY

During their January 29, 2019 testimony (both direct and cross) Defendants Lucas and D’Agostino made a very significant number of additional contradicting and uncorroborated statements; this led to the non-guilty verdict.

Importantly, the sheriff officers testified under oath that they failed to “knock and announce” prior to performing a search of my home.

The numerous contradicting statements of the sheriff officers provide further proofs that they fabricated their charges against Dr. Stephanatos.

I will submit the additional evidence to this Court only if and when you order me to do so.

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 me with several handwritten pages prepared by Defendant Robert Del Vecchio 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.

Judge Guida, the presiding judge over the criminal proceedings ruled that Dr. Stephanatos did not threatened conspirator Del Vecchio with any physical violence and he only warned Del Vecchio of legal action.

I will submit the newly discovered additional evidence to this Court only if and when you order me to do so.

THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THIS COURT ONLY WHEN ORDERED TO DO SO

I am also writing to inform the Court that I will be filing a claim of malicious prosecution with this or another federal court.  This claim is based on the Fourth Amendment and it is timely, as the criminal proceedings ended in my favor on February 4, 2019.  The Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim is a tort action brought in civil court to recover money damages for the harm suffered from the malicious claim.  I 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 my law license as a result of the pending charges for the last 8 years. I will also seek to recover money for the emotional distress associated with being jailed and wrongfully prosecuted for the last 8 years by the Passaic County sheriff and the Defendant officers and for the malicious statements made by Defendant Robert Del Vecchio to the sheriff, damaging my good standing and reputation in the community for the last 8 years.

A FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE STAND-ALONE CLAIM ALSO EXISTS UNDER SECTION 1983 FOR FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE

Pursuant to Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2014), a court should not foreclose a Fourteenth Amendment stand-alone claim for fabrication of evidence even if a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim fails (for example) because of the existence of probable cause even without the fabricated evidence.  Such a claim is available even if the criminal defendant is acquitted, “if there is a reasonable likelihood that, absent the fabricated evidence, the defendant would not have been criminally charged.” Black v. Montgomery County, 835 F.3d 358, 370 (3d Cir. 2016).  In Michele Black v. County of Montgomery, No. 15-3399 (3d Cir. 2016) where the Third Circuit ruled that “an acquitted criminal defendant may have a stand-alone fabricated evidence claim against state actors under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if there is a reasonable likelihood that, absent that fabricated evidence, the defendant would not have been criminally charged.”  This fabrication of evidence claim has already been filed with the Court in October 2018.

Based on evidence discovered during the trial, Stephanatos has additional claims against the Passaic County Sheriff.

1.            A §1983 CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY TRAIN, SUPERVISE AND CONTROL OFFICERS (AGAINST THE PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT);

2.            A STATE LAW TORT CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY TRAIN, SUPERVISE AND CONTROL OFFICERS (AGAINST THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT);

3.            A §1983 CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE (AGAINST THE PASSAIC COUNTY DEFENDANTS)

I will submit the malicious prosecution claim and the failure to investigate, train and supervise the sheriff officers, including the newly-obtained discovery and trial testimonies, to this Court only if and when you order me to do so.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________

Basilis N. Stephanatos, PhD, JD

PS.:  I had the duty to report to this Court the results of the criminal proceedings and the availability of newly discovered evidence to correct manifest error of law or fact.  Please do not consider this letter as a violation of a standing court order regarding the submission of documents to the Court.

CERTIFICATION OF BASILIS N. STEPHANATOS

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.

DATE:  February 12, 2019

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Basilis N. Stephanatos, PhD, PE, JD

==========================================

MAJOR BOMBSHELL UNCOVERED BY METROFORENSICS: New Jersey's Office of Foreclosure has either negligently or intentionally violated a number of state tenancy laws and coerced 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

SenVanDrew@njleg.org; SenSweeney@njleg.org; SenMadden@njleg.org; SenSingleton@njleg.org; SenHolzapfel@njleg.org; SenThompson@njleg.org; SenOscanlon@njleg.org; SenTurner@njleg.org; SenVitale@njleg.org; SenKean@njleg.org; SenScutari@njleg.org; SenOroho@njleg.org; SenPennacchio@njleg.org; SenRice@njleg.org; SenRuiz@njleg.org; SenSinger@njleg.org; SenSacco@njleg.org; SenStack@njleg.org; SenPou@njleg.org; SenSarlo@njleg.org; SenWeinberg@njleg.org; SenLagana@njleg.org; stuart.rabner@judiciary.state.nj.us; stuart.rabner@njcourts.gov; 'Sven Pfahlert' <sven.pfahlert@judiciary.state.nj.us>; 'Sven Pfahlert' <sven.pfahlert@njcourts.gov>;

December 15, 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 (see excerpts below) 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.



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.