Motion Vacate U & O

8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O

1/81

NO. SNSP-037013 : SUPERIOR COURTHon. SHERIDAN L. MOORE : HOUSING SESSION

:R.K.D. VENTURES II :

Plaintiff : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

V. : STAMFORD / NORWALK : AT NORWALK DELMO ZANETTE :

Defendant : JANURARY 29, 2010

DEFENDANTS MOTION SEEKING RELIEF OF :

VACATING USE & OCCUPNANCY ORDER ;

TRANSFERANCE OF VENUE OR CONTINUANCE TO APRIL;

DISCHARGING OF COUNCIL;

AND SUMMARY DISMISSAL

1. Defendant, DELMO L. ZANNETTE, moves the Court for a summary dismissal, as is

pursuant to:

a) U&O was secured by an intentionally false statement: we

100% own the subject property in dispute.

b) The Doctrine of Unclean Hands,

c) Fraud Upon the Court, by council to both parties.

d) Plaintiffs breaking into the subject premises to change the

locks during the course of this proceeding to illegally lock out defendant is

constructive eviction. And our law considers those who break the law to violate

anothers legal right, are denied standing in a court of law to pursue the one whose

rights you violated. In effect, jurisprudence dictates that you cant expect the courts

to enforce your legal rights when you are simultaneously breaking the law (exh ).

1


2/81

2. Defendant seeks TRANSFERANCE OF VENUE.to pending action FST-CV-09-

5009789-S(X09) in Superior Court in Stamford, where the cause of action is to decide the matter

of ownership. Since this is far from being a simple and uncomplicated action for possession

between an owner and his tenant, as the summary process is deemed applicable.

3. Rather this is an action between a non-disputed owner of 50% and those whose 50%

ownership is a product of statutory forgery and tile is a constructive trust. Since plaintiff never

paid a cent to buy the property, but looted over a million dollars of its equity already. As this

very court has turned a blind eye; by accepting and not challenging bizarre documentation

affirming legal right of possession; by being hostile to defendant; and by showing favoritism

towards plaintiff made possible their criminal enterprise of over five years.

The Appellate Court in Southland Corp. v. Vernon, 1 Conn. App. 439, 4711 A.2d

318 (1984), states: if the judge determines that by the criteria set forth in Sigros

the action is of sufficient complexity, it will be transferred to the docket of the

appropriate judicial district court.

4. Essentially, plaintiffs action is with the misuse of the Summary Process Action in a

manner that the legislators had not intended as:

The purpose of summary process proceedings is to permit the landlord to recover

possession without suffering the delay, loss and expense to which he would besubjected in a common law action. (Prevedini v. Mobil Oil Corp., 164 Conn.287,

320 A.2d 797 (1973). The process is a creature of statute and is (aligned to

provide an expeditious remedy to the landlord seeking possession. Mayron's Bake

2


3/81

Shops, Inc. v. Arrow Stores, Inc., 149 Conn. 149, 176 A.2d 574 1961). See, also,

Zitomer v. Palmer, 38 Conn.Sup. 341, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982).

5. The action of summary process has historically been limited to cases where (lie issue ofthe expiration of the lease presents itself as a simple issue of fact and is not complicated by

questions as to the proper legal construction of the lease. Sigros v. Hygenic Restaurant, Inc.,

38 Conn.Sup. 518, 452 A.2d 943 (1982). In Sigros, the court set forth several criteria to be used

in defining this standard:

a) the complexity of the issues raised;

b) the length and terms of the lease;

c) the circumstances existing when the parties entered into the lease;

d) likely time requirement for trial;

e) the existence of buy and sell agreements or options to renew or buy concomitant

with the lease;

f) installment payments; and

g) the creation of equity property rights in the tenant.

6. It is now permissible to interpose an equitable defense in summary process actions.

C.G.S.A. 47a-33a. See alsoFellows v. Martin, 217 Conn. 57, 584 A.2d 458 (1991), appeal

after remand 223 Conn. 152, 611 A.2d 412 (1992). See also S.H.V.C.,Inc. v. Roy, 37 Conn.

Sup. 579, A.2d 806 (1981), no error found 188 Conn. 503, 450 A.2d 351 (1982); Mark I

Enterprises, Inc. v. Sendele, 37 Conn.Sup. 569, 427 A.2d 1352 (1981); Steinegger v Kields, 37

Conn.Sup. 534, 425 A.2d 597 (1980).

7. Defendant seeks continuance, as this is with cause, considering:

a) defendant has been deprived of the required discovery to prove

his position and impeach the oppositions bogus declarations;

3


4/81

b) defendants doctors strictly prohibit his traveling from Florida

until spring;

c) defendant is very ill at this time and in intense physical therapy.

8. Finally, defendant seeks to discharge Mark Katz (Katz) as council of record, and in lieu,

to allow defendant to precedepro-se, and through papers for the next two months. Insomuch as

defendants lawyer, Katz is in collusion with council for the opposition, Martha Cullina LLP,

through their lawyers of record, Stephan Phillips and Robert E. Kaelin.

9. Whereby, on December 15, 2009, hearing for U&O, plaintiff through council, Robert E.

Kaelin stated on record pleading to Judge Moore, upon opening oral argument said:

MY CLIENT IS 100% OWNEROF THE PROPERTY THAT DEFENDANT

BROKE THE WINDOW TO ENTER, while defendant is 50% owner of the adjoining

property that he was eventually evicted from.

This is a blatant bold face lie by Kaelin, to perpetrate a hoax on the court. In effect, it is

an artifice to scheme to achieve the misuse of the Courts authority to force defendant to pay his

client $1,675 a month. Even though Kaelin has been pleading through all the prior housing

actions that his client own 50% of BOTH properties to justify that his clients are entitled to share

half of the equity produced after the sale of both properties with defendant. Moreover, Kaelin

knows his client has no legitimate right to demand under the color of defendant being a statutory

tenant. Essentially, this constitutes an indictable predicate act of a conspiracy in violation of

RICO as a racketeering element to further an ongoing enterprise.

4


5/81

10, Clearly, this is a verifiable act of abusing the judicial process and the courts, as a devise

to extort money in violation of 53a-156 Perjury. This wasdone byKaelins intentional false

declaration of material facts, corresponding to the central issue in dispute to dupe the Court.

Specifically, to the disposition of legal right ownership; as in accordance to:

53a-156 Perjury: (Class D felony) (a) A person is guilty of perjury if, in any

official proceeding, he intentionally, under oath, makes a false statement, swears, affirms

or testifies falsely, to a material statement which he does not believe to be true.

11. The objective accomplished by the Use & Occupancy Order, serves a far greater

objective to plaintiffs interests than the right to be paid rent. Rather, it is a catalyst to affect

constructive eviction through the mechanism of the judicial process. Specifically, plaintiff is

privileged with the knowledge that defendant is completely broke, has no credit and is deeply in

debt.

12. Thus, as established by the order schedule rulings of Judge Grogins (exh ) defendant

will be in contempt of the courts ruling of paying the $1,675 by February 1 st, since he has no

funds to allow him to be in compliance. Now with considering that according to Mark Katz,

Judge Grogin ruled that Dr. Michael Marlino of Greenwich Hospital of his medical condition is

admissible. This is where he reports that the cold weather cant be tolerated by defendant. As a

result, judge Grogins insists on scheduling the trial on a date in February 25, since the tierwill

not recognize that defendant is unable to appear in mid-winter. Albeit, defendant traveling to

Connecticut against medical determinations, he would willfully be putting his health in serious

5


6/81

jeopardy. In effect, this is an unreasonable hardship and cant be justified as a timely issue of

need.

Further, Kaelin said that plaintiff reported to the Police that defendant broke in through the

window to enter the home and the police refused to do anything, saying it was a civil matter.

13. However, if plaintiff could demonstrate 100% ownership the police would have no other

choice but to perform their duty. Since even if the police decided that due to defendants senility

he is not responsible for the crazy things he does, still their duty would be to have the actor even

if he is not consciously responsible for the breaking and entering removed, because his

occupancy constitutes criminal trespass and police have a duty to protect the public when they

are injured by an actor in the midst of perpetrating a criminal act. 53a-180c Falsely

reporting an incident in the second degree: (Class A misdemeanor)

14. Clearly, due to profound special circumstances surrounding this eviction action,

defendant must be provided with his day in court for the sake of justice. Since defendant is being

evicted by someone who never brought his property. Thus, plaintiff is not able to substantiate

legitimate right of tile, because deed showing 50% ownership is a product of statutory forgery.

Consequently, this is an instance where a litigants right to discovery and to be heard by

personally pleading his position in a court of equity must be made available.

6


7/81

15. Insomuch as due to defendants handicap, he is unfairly prejudiced by this trial date and

would be irrevocably harmed, if it is not adjourned. Since defendant is unable to appear in court

for a scheduled date for trial, directly due to his disability. Insomuch as, defendant is in very poor

health and currently is quite frail. This makes him to ill travel. In fact exposure to the cold

weather at this time could cause catastrophic consequences to his health. In effect, defendant is

unable to appear and participate in court for trial at this time. However, it is our essential

guaranteed right to receive due process in State Courts, as this is granted by the 14th Amendment.

16. Moreover, Katzs dereliction of the professional duty he owed defendant, amounted to

such a pervasive pattern that is so extreme and chronic, it cant be explained by simply being

perceived as gross negligence or profound incompetence. Rather, it can only be explained as

validating the indication that Katz is working for the other side. Consequently, Katz is working

in consort with plaintiff to ensure the law of the land is misdirected to defendants detriment

and perverted to further plaintiffs scheme. In effect, plaintiff is misusing the courts and abusing

the judicial process to carry out unlawful conduct corresponding to a criminal enterprise.

Thereby, plaintiff is utilizing this court to further their scheme to defraud defendant by exploiting

the authority and powers of the courts as a device to obtain their goal of larcenous extortion.

17. Wherefore, a continuance is required for defendants ability to complete discovery in ten

weeks (of which to date, discovery has been totally neglected by Katzs intentional professional

negligence). Since time for defendants completion of discovery is required for him to bring

forth admissible hard evidence, which can refute the plaintiffs false declarations involving all

the central issues. Specifically, as to document as to who truly has legal right to possession.

7


8/81

18. Since, due to the particular nature of this case, the Court must decide as to which party

has legitimate right to ownership in this legal dispute. Thus a determination as to who legally

owns the property in dispute is central to know who has legal right to benefit and control the

property. Whereby, such a determination requires for both sides to be fully heard in this matter,

as this is not only necessary, but essential for a just determination. Since the tier of facts need to

know who legally owns the property, in order for it to make a determination as to legal right to

possession. Since, the question of which party has legal possession is the central matter to be

decided upon in all disputes in eviction proceedings.

19. Thereby, after discovery, defendants would be empowered with the ability to show to the

Court that plaintiff has no legitimate standing before the Court. Insomuch as verifying to the

veracity that plaintiffs claim of right is fraudulent and is totally based on constructive fraud.

Since, when evidence of material facts can be brought to bear, it will refute all of plaintiffs

claims of entitlement and ownership. In so dismissing this proceeding, would effectively serve to

place a bar on the progress to a scheme to defraud through plaintiffs misuse of the courts. In

fact, plaintiffs plan of extortion is right out in the open. This is where they know that plaintiff

has run out of money, maxed out his credit cards and his only source of income to survive is his

$618 social security check. At this time defendant is totally dependent on being supported by his

health aid and her husband whom he is now staying with in Florida. Since, defendant has $50

dollars a month to live on after paying off his car insurance.

20. Consequently, if this matter proceeds to trial when defendant is denied an opportunity to

plead his case would be a travesty of justice. Since defendant would be denied his day in court,

and this would unfairly favor plaintiff, since it would effectively shield him from being

8


9/81

challenged and whatever he may fabricate would be viewed by the tier as a statement of fact.

Thus, it would be a trial when only on sides position is effectively heard. Albeit to translate as

the court would have no alternative, but grant the relief that plaintiff seeks. Then with defendant

stranded in Florida for the next ten weeks, it would provide plaintiff with the window of

opportunity to carry out a threat he made to defendant on numerous times, but never carried out.

This was that if defendants did not move out all of his personal property from the buildings on

the property than, 6 men would come and throw it into garbage truck to take it away. Now, this

happening is more likely than ever before because all of the last three tenants on the property are

being evicted and Pecunies has a history of sadistically mistreating defendant with great

enthusiasm.

21. Thereby, with the court granting plaintiffs petition would accomplish defendants

eviction from his home of forty four years, which would make him homeless and destitute.

Moreover, with considering that defendants doctors have warned him that he must be very

diligent to avoid stress at all cost, this would inhumanly place him in serious jeopardy. Since

stress could trigger a major attack that could abruptly terminate his life. In fact, one of

defendants doctors told him that he has to realize: your life hangs on a thread.

In effect, plaintiff has finally manipulated defendants situation in his golden years of his life to

where his back is up against the wall and he is scared. Since defendant is struggling with major

physical discomfort all the time, as this is compounded by continuous struggling with his

inability to breathe without great difficulties. Consequently, defendants current continued ability

to survive is precarious and the last thing he needs is this constant worrying. Since he is now

9


10/81

entertaining now serious concerns that in April he would not be able to return to his home and all

his possessions will be trashed, when what he needs is quiet stability to heal.

12. Hence, before reading this brief, the author believes that the prior belief of plaintiff is that

they were on the threshold of finally closing their business dealings with defendant. Since they

must think that after the anticipated trial Tuesday, the facts and circumstances thereafter will

force defendants compliance. As with them considering that after the final judgment of eviction

is granted, defendant would be prevented from judicially dispute his eviction. Since, defendant is

without the ability to pay plaintiff the use and occupancy required to give him the standing to

contest. All contributed to waiting out defendant for the last 5 years, until the two year

contractual price lapsed after the first two years and through the last two years while property

prices in Greenwich plunged. Hence, plaintiff must of felt that their unrelenting campaign of

harassing and tormenting defendant was about to pay off.

13. Insomuch as, plaintiff must have believed that by sticking to their agenda of getting the

lions share if they agree to allow defendant to sell his property, he would eventually capitulate.

As a result, defendant would possess the money to have the roads built to his land in Maine to

finally have the land ready for the market. Insomuch as defendant was relying upon plaintiff to

live up to their purchase agreement of exclusivity to buy his land at the contractually stated

prices. That certainly could have accomplished over four years ago if defendants good faith was

not substituted by plaintiffs bad faith... And plaintiff knew that defendant had in the interim

spent more than $120,000.00 of a $240,000.00 loan with a lean on his land, to get started with

preparing the infrastructure of the land for sub-division. Pecunies applied this knowledge as

10


11/81

leverage over defendant. Since, apparently plaintiff believed that eventually defendant would

agree to what they were willing to give him, or face financial ruin.

14. The irony is that in 2007 when defendant offered for the contract to be consummated,

where plaintiff would walk away with a total of about a million dollars, yet, they said that it just

wasnt enough money. Although, defendant thought at the time when he offered to give plaintiff

$600,000.00 cash to tear up the contract, it included returning to them $250,000.00. Since, by

Phillips accounting it showed each of them listed with $125,000 each and himself receiving

$113,000 (exh ). This is where this money is listed to Phillips as the trustee of the LLCs and

identified as $125,000 as down flow for each plaintiffs. Since defendants lawyer Brown backed

up their lie that they each laid out $125,000 from their own funds to get the refinancing. Yet, the

truth of the matter was that at the time of the refinancing the money that was listed of $360,000

was the amount that they embezzled from the open ended loan of about $900,000.00 that is

now all used up, leaving a two million lean, plus a major debt now owed by the property. Since

he believed their cover-up story that the property was penalized $400,000 because plaintiff

neglected to pay the mortgage for the first six months that they delayed before getting the

refinancing, while for years they were pocketing $6,700.00 of the monthly rental checks that

defendant signed over to them.

15. Consequently, if plaintiffs allowed the four million sale to go through to the buyer

defendant produced, everything would have been considered above board and long forgotten.

Now the matter of how much one party will pay the other will be determined in a court of law.

Not to mention, plaintiff & co. is subject to prosecution by the Feds for racketeering violations.

Since plaintiff is indictable under the Hobbs Act for extortion, and Shermans Act for unfair and

11


12/81

unreasonable interference in commerce. Whereas, our society is set up with laws to protect the

innocent from being victimized by evil doers, and hold those who choose to break these laws

accountable for their actions.

16. Essentially, this eviction is sought by plaintiff to be accomplished as an element to

further a systematic scheme to defraud through criminal acts of interference, harassment and

extortion. This is compounded by the ongoing conspirator activities of plaintiffs counsel, Robert

E. Kailin (Kailin). As they act in consort with Katzs planned intent at the upcoming trial, this is

when he certainly will do more of the same. Specifically, with Katzs complicity with unlawful

furthering the oppositions legal agenda, albeit is to the profound detriment of defendant.

17. In effect, Katz has perverted his position of defendants trust when defendant gave him

$7,500 to engage his professional services (a significant portion of the last of his savings). This is

when defendant expected Katz in return, would affirm prudent and zealous representation,

through applying his training, knowledge, aptitude and skill. Thereby, to insure defendants

prospective legal opportunities could be exploited to receive justice in a court of equity.

Unfortunately, Katz misapplied defendants appointment to affirm his legal interests and exploit

judicial opportunities, to be redounded into a better business opportunity through foul play.

18. Specifically, the double dealing perpetrated by Katz was with joining onto what he knew

was an ongoing criminal enterprise in full bloom, carried out by his legal adversary. Since the

plaintiff has actively been swindling big money out of his client for years, right out in public

view. Even though Katzs knowledge of the law, according to the Code of Conduct, dictated that

12


13/81

he is duty bound to inform the authorities that a major criminal enterprise was amidst. Yet

instead, he chose to participate as a conspirator.

19. The fact is that, Katz, unlike the newspapers that reported defendant was entrapped in a

contractual agreement of sale he wanted out of, Katz on the other hand, was empowered with

knowing all the relevant facts. Since he viewed all the documents, corresponding to defendants

case, heard all of the fact history and certainly had read the filed mortgage instruments. As the

plaintiff had always claimed legal title to the property, viewing what is town records is the first

step every attorney would accomplish with handlings this case. Yet, all of defendants attorneys

hid from him all the legal facts of relevancy and deceived him to believe he was in a weak legal

position, and tried to encourage him to settle.

20. Whereby, any lawyer, who would examine the documents corresponding to my case,

would know upon the first glance view of the documents many hundreds of thousands of dollars

have already been siphoned from defendants assets and another million dollar payday is

dangling in abeyance. This is upon plaintiff completing their intended sale of defendants

property. As such larcenous intent of plaintiff to be achieved through defendants compliance

has been brought front and center to this courts attention. As where plaintiff in their pleadings

cry crocodile tears of being the aggrieved party

21. Whereas, with considering that just one of plaintiffs two racketeering acts of bank fraud,

carries a maximum sentencing of 30 years and up to a million dollar fine, says, they have allot to

loose, but also allot to gain. Essentially, a lot of money is not only at stake, but a lot of money is

available to go around, thereby to buy participation for those without scruples or a moral

13


14/81

compass. Those wanting to jump on board, to adjoin in a criminal conspiracy in violation of

RICO, who are committed to perform their role in support of furthering plaintiffs ability to

obtaining their common goals; of which are focused on injuring defendant to facilitate plaintiffs

ability to obtain unlawful financial enrichment at the expense of defendants loss of his financial

resources.

22. Consequently, plaintiff has an extensive group of individuals, like Katz, working on their

behalf to harass, deceive, and influence me to be manipulated to concede to their demands.

Particular, to achieving their final goal, this is where their activities are focused on intimidating

defendant to a point of desperation, due to being sign onto, a willful agreement that he wants

plaintiff to sell his property. This is where defendant agrees to accept half of whatever plaintiff

says is the net of whatever is left over after the debts of the LLCs are paid off.

23. Apparently, as constituted by their bold and brazen misconduct, plaintiff and those who

work in consort in their scheme to defraud defendant through extortion, view defendant as an

easy mark. Such as defendant being perceived as someone by plaintiffs and defendants past

attorneys as a vulnerable senior citizen, who is naive, gullible, passive, and easy to dominate and

control. (As such circumstantial evidence of collusion makes it absolutely evident had occurred

with defendants past lawyers, Demetrois Adamis, Donald Brown, Abrim Heisler, (whom

Donald Brown had recommended) and Mark Katz. Thereby, plaintiffs, and their council, Murtha

Cullina LLP, through professional misconduct have actively abused the judicial process. Albeit,

their legal agenda they unlawfully pursued, was to deprive defendant out of the quite enjoyment

of the property he owns and his right to its equity.

14


15/81

24. Essentially, defendant is complaining this case have been corrupted by all the lawyers

handling this matter who have engaged in outrageous conduct in violations of cannons. Such that

their past submissions, oral arguments, and other professional conduct corresponding to the case

has been executed with criminal intent. Specifically, the lawyers for both sides, the defendant,

Kailin and plaintiffs own Lawyer, Katz have egregiously violated RPC, Rule 8.4 Misconductof

the Conn. Rules of Professional Conduct. The complained misconduct is applicable to sections

1-5 of the rule:

(1) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly

assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;(2) Commit a

criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyers honesty, trustworthiness or

fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (3) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty,

fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (4) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the

administration of justice; (5) State or imply an ability to influence improperly a

government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules

of Professional Conduct or other law

25. However, by the Court granting this movant would foil plaintiffs goal of an illegitimate

eviction ruling that they are now seeking to accomplish through the deprivation of due process.

Albeit, achieved through eluding discovery, and defendants right to be heard in a court of law.

Since, the scheduled trial on Tuesday would be without the principal litigant affected by its

outcome, who is excluded due to his physical handicap; while his representation would be

working to further the legal agenda of the other side, and the oppositions pleadings routinely

consists of bold faced fabrications of Herculean lies, making a mockery of our sacred principals

of justice.

15


16/81

26. Historically, Katzs handling of this case has been with his turning a blind eye to expose

or challenge any of plaintiff pleadings and testimony before this court are totally bogus. Even

though Katz is aware plaintiffs presented position is propped up by constructive fraud. Yet, Katz

though his implied duty of responsibility was to prudently apply the facts and evidence at his

disposal to support the cause of his client to good effect. This was substituted with a situation

such a situation of Katz consistently providing defendant with ineffective representation. As such

malpractice is especially detrimental to defendant, since plaintiff is misusing this court as a

criminal enterprise to defraud him.

27. Consequently, plaintiffs pleadings are without legitimate standing. Since, they are

perpetrating a hoax on this court corresponding to all the central issues in dispute. This is where

all of their pleadings and testimonial evidence have existed as a palpable and tangential rantings

of outrageously false declarations, totally adverse to the truth. Consequently, the tier of facts is

so familiar with hearing up to this point, profound aberrations of the true facts that have not been

contested or refuted. This corresponds to just about all of plaintiffs past pleadings and

testimonies, with them saying they are the aggrieved party. Someone, who has been victimized

by plaintiff running roughshod over them by doing what he wants in disregard of contractual

agreements and the law to cause them devastating, hardships and losses as a result. This is

analogous to Hitler telling the Germans that the Jews are to blame for the Second World War.

28. Not to mention that plaintiff would endure no injury if this movant is granted. On the

other hand, defendant would endure irrevocable damages. Since he is subject to lose his right to

possession to his real and personal property if he is evicted, while he is stuck in Florida, due to

16


17/81

his disability. In fact, according to defendants doctors medical determinations, after extensive

testing and examinations, it not just a matter of the cold climate being bad for his health. Rather,

due to the severity and seriousness of defendants pulmonary disability the physical shock of an

exposure to cold weather could trigger a repertory attack that would be fatal.

29. Especially with considering that defendant has been traumatized by being cruelly treated

by plaintiffs. This is by their constant and continuous acts over the last five years of harassing,

threatening and intimidating him that affected his physiological state. Essentially, defendant is

suffering from perpetual posttraumatic stress disorder. Consequently confronting Robert

Pecunies (Pecunies) or Kailin in court is extremely stressful on its own as an experience, since it

reactivates the living nightmare they imposed upon him.

30. Whereas defendant is legally recognized as handicapped by this state by it granting him a

handicap drivers license. Thus, defendant is entitled to relief under the Americans with

Disabilities Act. . . that says special accommodations are to be extended to the handicapped

individual that are caused by his disability, beyond what may be offered the common class of

citizens. As the standards are the special accommodation is to be granted when extending such

accommodations are reasonable. Thus, allowing two months for discovery to be completed and

particularly when the cold weather is not imposing a threat on defendant. Thereby, defendant can

appear for trial when he will be back in ten weeks and proceed by papers in the interim.

31. Insomuch as defendant has the ability to show through unimpeachable evidence the

existence of despicable wrongdoings by defendants that is an ongoing criminal enterprise.

Thereby, defendant can establish at trial by verifying to the veracity that plaintiffs claims of

17


18/81

right to the title is a product of fraudulent conveyance; perpetrated by constructive fraud and

exists as a constructive trust. In effect, with refuting all their fraudulent claims of right will be

achieved, by not only through unimpeachable evidence, but through anticipated injunctive

rulings in Superior Court. Since an application seeking injunctive relief is being filed this week,

as an application in the Superior Court with the dismissal of Katz and to precede prose. [this]

action corresponds to in some cases, injunctive relief may be awarded to a plaintiff; see e.g.

Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. v. Independent Stockholders Committee,354 F.

32. Thereby, defendant, in the pending action in Superior Court will show through an

injunctive relief movant that Pecunies, as director of the LLCs, has abused that privilege to act

with felonious intent. Consequently the law demands Pecunies must be removed as director of

the LLCs as they are also moved to be dissolved. Since his performance as manager of the

LLCs can be readily verified to exist as a palpable and pervasive pattern of outrageously

dishonest conduct. Whereby, such conduct is based on authority obtained by fraudulent methods

of deceit and where he exercises gross abuse of his discretionary authority that is extreme and

chronic. Whereas, Pecunies while acting under the authorization of Watson had perverted the

existence of the LLCs as a criminal enterprise under RICO. Moreover, that the equity in the

property linked to the LLCs has profoundly diminished as the causation of his intentional

misconduct through the perversion of his controlling authority.

34. Albeit, the LLCs are a sham corporation established and sustained by fraud and deceit

and the basis of a faade of legitimacy to racketeering activities. Specifically, with statutory

18


19/81

forgery of the deed and title to real properties; bank and mortgage fraud; embezzlement,

conversion, extortion, threating, harassment, criminal misuse of the courts,

35. Consequently, pursuant to 33-1090, defendant is entitled for Pecunies to be disqualified

as corporate director of the LLC's; and pursuant to 33-896, defendant is entitled to the

dissolution of the LLCs; and pursuant to 33-897(c), defendant is entitled to this relief as an

injunction. Since, such relief is urgently required and necessary to protect himself from enduring

any further injury to the property he owns or to his person. Since the existence of the LLCs

fraudulent claim to 50% of the properties defendant owns has linked him to be egregiously

abused by Pecunies and his powers and will to ruthlessly abuse him without exercising any

moral restraint.

36. Whereby, Pecunies activities during the course of being the executor manager of the

LLCs can not only be defined as being fraudulent, unlawful, and repressive; but can readily be

defined as tyrannical, unscrupulous, inequitable, underhanded, devious, and egregiously cruel.

Not to mention, Pecunies activities as manager are clearly in blatant violation of the terms set

forth in the contract; that defendant extended the right for Pecunies to be manager in the first

place; as in accordance to business law under contracts.

37. 33-896 Judicial Dissolution of Corporation

The superior court for the judicial district where the corporation's principal office or, if none in

this state, its registered office, is located may dissolve a corporation:

19


20/81

1) In a proceeding by a shareholder if it is established that (A) The directors or those in

control of the corporation have acted, are acting or will act in a manner that is illegal,

oppressive or fraudulent; or (B) the corporate assets are being misapplied or wasted;

38. 33-897 (c) Procedure for judicial dissolution.

(c) A court in a proceeding brought to dissolve a corporation may issue injunctions, appoint

a receiver or custodian pendente lite with all powers and duties the court directs, take other

action required to preserve the corporate assets wherever located and carry on the business of the

corporation until a full hearing can be held.

39. 33-1090 Removal of Corporate Director of Non-stock Corporation

1) If a corporate director engages in fraudulent or dishonest conduct, or gross abuse of

authority or discretion, with respect to the corporation; and

2) removal of that director would be in the best interest of the corporation;

3) then either the corporation, or a group consisting of at least 10 percent of the

corporate members;

4) may commence a judicial proceeding for the removal of that director.

40. 33-899 Decree of dissolution.

(a) If after a hearing the court determines that one or more grounds for judicial

dissolution described in section 33-896 exist, it may, in the case of the grounds specified

in subsection (a) of said section, and shall, in the case of grounds specified in subsection

(b) of said section, enter a decree dissolving the corporation and specifying the effective

date of the dissolution, and the clerk of the court shall deliver a certified copy of the

decree to the Secretary of the State, who shall file it.

20


21/81

41. 895, 903, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 93766 (D. Del. 1973). Whereas the following

relief is about to be sought:

1) Order pursuant to 53-398(a),(1) prohibiting the defendant from transferring,

depleting or otherwise alienating or diminishing the property; and (4) Any other

order, consistent with due process of law, that the court deems to be reasonable and

necessary to protect the rights of [plaintiff as] any innocent person.

2) Order defendants have no right to list properties for sale.

3) Order defendants have no right to sell properties.

4) Order defendants have no right to collect rents from the properties.

5) Order defendants, or their agents, have no right to manage properties.

6) Order defendants, or their agents, have no right to set foot onto the properties.

7) Order defendants or their agents to cease and desist from perpetrating any

act against plaintiff that can be construed as being coercing, threatening, or harassing.

(This can be as a Temporary Restraining Order if the court so determines).

42. Whereby, defendant will seek equitable remedies through these injunctions to place a

bar on the ongoing criminal activities of defendant threatening to cause irrevocable damages.

Moreover, plaintiff is entitled to relief because he can unequivocally show the anticipated

success on the merits and that the continuation of the status quo will cause him to endure

irreparable injury.

21


22/81

43. Consequently, the pivotal issue in this proceeding is on the threshold of being determined

in the higher court. As this is the court of jurisdiction to make a determination and subsequently

ruling as to who has legal right to tile and possession to the premises in dispute.

MERITS IN SUPPORT OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BEING GRANTED

44. Since defendant can prove his entitlement for preliminary injunctive relief; and can

show the balance of hardships with considering the parties legitimate rights, tips completely in

his favor. This is contributed to plaintiff bringing to bear, clear and convincing evidence

supporting his ability to prevail. Thus, with this Courts granting the injunctive relief sought, is

in accordance to where courts of equity have realized that extraordinary remedies are justified in

extraordinary cases. Thereby, this Court can prevent an obvious wrong from continuing and

protect a litigant who is being victimized by unlawful misconduct perpetrated by evil doers.

45. The cease and desist element of the relief sought (no. 6) would put the brakes on

defendants continuing with their campaign of perpetrating overt acts constituting harassment of

plaintiff. This is to intimidate plaintiff to move all his furnishings off the property that contain

many valuable antiques (November- December 2009). Such as by defendants sending their

security guard Anthony Camadello, without giving any prior notice to demand plaintiff lets

him into his home.

46. Yet, after defendant exercised his legal right to refuse to allow Camadello to enter his

apartment, as a response Camadello told him: Then I am just going to break the window to go

22


23/81

in through the window (expressed intent was stopped upon cell call to police); or by defendants

representation, Kaelin, threatening defendant over the phone by telling his lawyer, Katz, that if

he does not willfully move out his furniture in three days they are going to send six men over and

a garbage truck to trash it; or Camadello saying that a dumpster will be arriving on the property

to dispose of his furniture; or without any legitimate justification breaking into plaintiffs home

to change the lock on the outside and then breaking the lock on the inside to change that also.

(Although, plaintiffs may lie that they were justified to do so, the fact of the matter was that

defendant was not notified by his cell when he could have made arrangements to have his agent

give them access if they only asked).

47. The last criminal act of harassing occurred on December 15, 2009, when plaintiffs

forcibly broke in to the apartment to change the locks and take plaintiffs property. This was

under the color of spinning a web of lies to create a faade of being justified, due to emergency

circumstances.

48. Consequently, from plaintiffs pattern of harassment the granting the no. 5 relief is

required to bar defendants and their agents from entering plaintiffs property. Thereby, this will

help to mitigate the anxiety defendants wantonly imposed upon plaintiff to fear they will carry

out their threat of trashing his personal property. Even though, they have no legitimate right to be

on defendants property. Yet, they have made their intentions known of doing criminal mischief

on his property. Moreover, after each incident occurred when defendants agents would break

Connecticut laws of threatening, and when plaintiff would call the police for them to

investigate the matter. However, plaintiffs agents would deny that they did what they did, only

23


24/81

to do it again at another time because the police refuse to acknowledge any of these acts are

criminal conduct.

49. Yet, even after all the preliminary injunctive relief requested is granted, although it

would stop a great injustice in its tracks, and turn things around for plaintiff, but still it would

just be the initial step. This is with facilitating defendants progress on a steep road to recovery

towards becoming whole once again. Since, after plaintiffs have ran roughshod over defendants

property rights to steal the equity in his property he is without funds. Consequently, as a

causation of this looting the properties that owed only a Million in debts and was solvent when

defendants started, now owes 2.3 million and has gone into foreclosure.

50. Thus, it is of great urgency the restoring of the status quo ante; that is, to protect the

defendant from the continued victimization from the criminal evil doings perpetrated by the

plaintiffs. . .that through fraud, extortion and praying on the week and vulnerable mind of an

elderly person of 79 years, they have been actively extracting the potential equity created from

his property. Consequently, this courts intervention is required to affirm the legitimate rights of

defendant, and is essential to the concept of fairness, of which serves societal interests.

51. Specifically, the injunction relief requested is of the greatest urgency to put a halt on

plaintiffs usurpation of the rental revenues. Insomuch as, due to plaintiffs stealing about

$400,000 that they leveraged against the property and almost all of the rental revenue that they

misappropriated for their own use and benefit for 5 years, instead of applying these funds to

the propertys debts, defendant s property has gone into foreclosure. However, plaintiffs'

24


25/81

privilege to receive the rents to be applied to the properties debts was on the contractual basis

that defendant had authorized that right to ensure it was up to date with its debts. (exh. )

MERITS OF DEFENSE AND COUNTERCLAIM

52. Consequently, now that foreclosure is pending, plaintiffs are using this as a ploy to

extort another million out of plaintiff. Currently, this is being attempted by coercing defendant to

authorize for them to sell his property on the condition that they take half of the revenue the sale

creates. Such as by having plaintiffs last lawyer (who was just discharged due to his apparent

collusion with the plaintiffs) write to plaintiff telling him that if he doesnt capitulate to

defendants demands that he allows them to sell his property: you will lose everything (exh ).

This is after the revenue the sale creates pays off their conspirators who activity played a major

role in participating in their scheme to defraud plaintiff that is about $300,000 (real estate

agent and lawyers).

53. Essentially, the court must grant the relief requested to correct an obvious wrong,

which has been established by fraud and a brazen disregard of the law by defendants. Such as

where they imposed their dominance over plaintiffs right for the quite enjoyment of the property

he owns, through their misuse of the judicial process and use of extortionist tactics.

54. Wherefore, pursuant to the doctrine of unclean hands, plaintiffs continued

misconduct must not be tolerated by this court to continue until this case is adjudicated. This is

because the sited conduct of the defendants is totally reprehensible to constitute felonious

25


26/81

activities of racketeering. Such as where plaintiffs acted with exercising egregious bad faith by

violating plaintiffs trust with their despicable behavior of being outrageously dishonest,

inequitable, unfair and deceitful.

55. Not to mention, plaintiffs contrived all their litigation activity against plaintiff through

making outrageously false declarations of material fact before the courts. Such as where they

claim they put a major amount of their own money into respondents property, when in actuality

they not only contributed nothing, but embezzled over a half a million. While the truth of the

matter is when they acquired their authority on a contract to buy respondents property, they not

only perverted the contract as a devise for extortion, but redounded it into a criminal enterprise

involving activities of theft, fraud & deceit, and extortion. (see exh. )

56. Consequently due to plaintiffs unclean hands, as this tenet of the law commands they

are not entitled to any consideration of relief in equity. Since, plaintiffs defrauded respondent on

all major matters corresponding to his property, they are not entitled to assert any so-called legal

right for entitlement and relief in any legal action. Insomuch as, they are without standing to

have this court judicially enforce their alleged rights contested by plaintiff involving his property

57. Currently, plaintiffs have petitioned plaintiff to evict him from his domicile on the

property he legitimately fully owns from his home by misuse of the authority of this court to

misappropriate respondents right to continue occupancy. Yet, plaintiffs are now spinning a web

of lies to perpetrate a fraud upon the courtfor plaintiffs rights to occupy his property to be

denied through his eviction by the LLCs. Even though they have terrorized and defrauded

plaintiff for over five years to extort from him the equity in his property.

26


27/81

58. Not to mention, defendant cant substantiate the slightest claim of right by any

evidence that could create a facade of a taint of legitimacy, since their claim of entitlement is

based on fraud. On the other hand, respondent has the ability to bring forth evidence that could

not only validate defendants association to the properties is totally fraudulent, but the evidence

is of such weight to guarantee their felony convictions as violations under RICO could be

obtained under indictment by the Conn. District Attorney.

59. Whereas, petitioner will bring forth before this court the fact history corresponding to the

issues in dispute between parties that shocks the conscience. Since, plaintiffs wrong doings is of

such extraordinary circumstances of outrageous disregard of human decency. Yet, up to this

point in time, the authority of the courts has been egregiously misused by the defendants as a

scheme and artifice to further their activity of defrauding plaintiff. As all of defendants prior

litigation was essentially a palpable fraud upon the court, involving all the central matters of

issue in dispute.

60. Moreover, all of the plaintiffs palpable lies have until now been unchallenged by the

intentional extreme and chronic dereliction of duty by plaintiffs own councils; e.g. Aldamis

excluded plaintiff from being present at trial to hear oppositions perjuries and testify in rebuttal.

Clearly, this is the result of the ineptness of defendants lawyers to advocate and argue his

position constituted by their gross omissions to perform; yet ironically, whenever they were

assertive it was of great benefit to support the legal agenda of defendants. Albeit was always

totally averse to what defendant had communicated what was their legal plan of action and

27


28/81

position that he wanted presented. Consequently, defendants lawyers have clearly validated that

they are working for the other side; most certainly the result of bribery. (see exh. )

61. Thus, as a causation of the corrupt conduct of defendant lawyers, he consistently has been

deprived of exposing the major criminal activity and Herculean falsehoods of the opposition.

Moreover, not only have his own lawyers stifled him from refuting the fraudulent claims of the

other side, but also a judge denied him the right to testify and plead his case. As when the matter

was before the Superior Court of Norwalk to vacate a stipulation that was the product of coercion

and misrepresentation by defendants lawyer.

62. This was right after the Judge hearing the matter of the prior eviction action based on

falsehoods, allowed the defendants to testify to their fraudulent claims. Such as with the business

arrangement and fiduciary obligations, but blocked the defendant from presenting his position.

Even though plaintiffs testimony was essential for him to establish his cause of action to justify

vacating the stipulation, as to the state of his mind at the time when he signed the stipulation, . . .

as this was the pivotal issue to be decided upon. Since the matter before the court was whether

plaintiffs signing of the stipulation was through his own volition, or was the product of

misconduct and/or misrepresentations.

63. Specifically, defendant had no interest to sign the stipulation, but his lawyer Donald

Brown pressured him to sign out of fear, by telling him that: if you dont sign it theyre going to

suck out all the equity in your property and you will end up with nothing. Moreover, Brown

said it doesnt matter if you sign it because I am going to bring an action soon in Superior Court.

28


29/81

64. Consequently, what occurred is that defendant did not sign under his own volition, rather

he only agreed to sign the stipulation as byproduct of his lawyers coercion and fraudulent

statements. Thereby, such interference is in accordance to Court Practice and Procedure, title

52, ch. 900, 52-212 II. Grounds For Relief, in 52-212 58 Fruad and 52-212 59 Duress,

where statues say:

In making its factual determination whether stipulated judgment should be opened,

pursuant to C.G.S.A. 52-212a, trial court must inquire into whether decree itself was

obtained by fraud, duress, accident or mistake. (Jenks v. Jenks(1995) 657 A.2d 1107, 232

Conn. 750, on remand 663 A.2d 1123, 39 Conn. App. 139).

To conclude that stipulated judgment resulted from duress, finder of fact must

determine that misconduct of one party induced party seeking to avoid stipulated

judgment to manifest assent thereto, not as exercise of that party's free will, but

because that party had no reasonable alternative in light of circumstances as that party

perceived them to be. (Jenks v. Jenks (1995) 657 A.2d 1107, 232 Conn. 750, on remand

663 A.2d 1123, 39 Conn.App. 139).

65. Consequently, from defendant being denied the right to testify it ensured the status quo,

of acknowledgment of defendants fraudulent claims to be legitimate, by the records absence of

any rebuttal to contest the veracity of their fabrications to deceive the tier of facts.. This was after

all the past lost opportunities caused by defendants lawyers intentional neglect to expose the

criminal conduct of the adverse party. As where Brown told plaintiff he could not raise any issue

besides the lease and his rental payments in the eviction action, such as with fraud and other

misconduct.

29


30/81

66. Consequently up to now, plaintiff has never been able to contradict plaintiffs outrageous

falsehoods, which are the very antithesis of the truth; such as where defendants testify to being

the aggrieved party . . . that should have been identified as bold faced lies that could have readily

been refuted by evidence. Whereas, instead of defendants lawyers refuting the lies of the

opposition, they would explained to him that it was never the time or place; and other ridiculous

reasons to justify them being ineffective representation.

67. Plaintiffs claim of legitimate right of ownership to the property is totally fraudulent, as

is applicable to Connecticut Law of property wrongfully obtained through security fraud. This

is pursuant to C.G.S. 53-394 (a): Racketeering activity. . . (15) 36b-34: inclusive, relating to

securities fraud and related offenses.Specifically, defendants have established through entered

evidence of record (exh A ) that their title of 50% ownership, springs out from an agreement with

plaintiff, dated May 27, 2004 (the contract).

68. Yet, although the contract is by its nature is a purchase contract (restricted to two years),

it has been willfully egregiously breeched by plaintiffs (probably motivated by their

considering defendants advanced age of 79 years, makes him week minded and

vulnerable). Thus, the contract and any product of equity that came about from the

contract, such as the title of 50% ownership, is not only unenforceable in a court of law,

but exists as a construct trust. Since, the only payment that was fulfilled was identified on

the contract as a $40,000.00 loan from plaintiff to defendant. Of which on the contract

states is to be applied to a mortgage upon plaintiffs own property (which had an equity

valuation of about 2.5 million at the time).

30


31/81

69. Whereby, contained in the mortgage instrument, defendant is identified as Original

Borrower, under RECITALS for a 40,000.00 Open-End Mortgage Deed Loan.

Further, the LLCs as New Borrower lists its address on the property, and Pecunies and

Watson are collectively named as the Lender. Thus, the lender is assuming the

liability for the $40,000 note by mortgaging the property, while the instrument states:

original buyer desires to sell transfer, and new buyer desires to acquire all of the right

title, and interest of the original borrower in and to the original Borrowers fee interest in

the property, which sale, transfer, and conveyance requires the consent of the lender under

the Loan Documents. (exh. )

70. Here lies the mortgage as an artifice to plaintiffs scheme to defraud defendant through

extortion by manner of interfering with his ability to have control of his own property. Yet,

plaintiff was duped to believe that he was only signing papers for a $40,000.00 personal

loan from Pecunies and to authorize the refinancing to get a better rate. In effect, plaintiffs

cant claim their benefit from the contract is to be legally viewed as a matter of

inexcusable trustfulness of plaintiff. Such as where he may have entered into a contract

that compromises his business potential and interests, but this is due to the neglect of

affirming his duty to self. As this is where defendants may claim what matters is not if a

contract is a good or bad agreement, but that the signer is bound by what is agreed in a

contract. However, contract law states:

31


32/81

Economic inadequacy may constitute some circumstantial evidence of fraud, duress,

over-reaching, undue influence, mistake or that the detriment was not bargained for.

See J. Calamari & J. Petrillo, Contracts (4th Ed. 1998) 4.4, pp. 172-75.

71. Moreover, the contract on its face is unlawful. Insomuch as the performance terms of

plaintiffs bargain in the contract is in violation of the following:

Securities Exchange Act (Title 15, Chapter 2B, 78o1. Brokers deemed to be registered)

and Connecticut Real Estate Laws. Since, defendant Pecunies is not a licensed mortgage

broker or agent of a financial institution ;

neither did Pecunies have the authority to be contracted as a manger of the property without a

real estate license ;

or have exclusive right to be a middleman between plaintiff the seller and a prospective buyer, as

such a business venture is a violation of required real estate licensing requirement and

laws, (set forth in chapter 392, 20-312 (a) (b) and 20-325: Engaging in [real estate]

business without license).

72. In addition, defendants claim of right to title and subsequent 50% ownership of the

property is in violation of the CT Civil, Title 52, of Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act :

52-552(d)Value (a) Value is given for a transfer or an obligation if, in exchange for

the transfer or obligation, property is transferred or an antecedent debt is secured or

satisfied ; and 52-552(e)Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors (a) A transfer

made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, if the creditor's

claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred and if the debtor

made the transfer or incurred the obligation: (1) With actual intent to hinder, delay or

32
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15_10_2B.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15_10_2B.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15_10_2B.html


33/81

defraud any creditor of the debtor; or (2) without receiving a reasonably equivalent

value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor (A) was engaged or was

about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor

were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction, or (B) intended to

incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond

his ability to pay as they became due.

73. Whereby, not only was no fair consideration of cash given by plaintiffs as a

reasonable amount in exchange for the title conveyance, but they did not pay out even a cent.

Then, plaintiffs added insult to injury, by stealing from defendant about $400,000 in the process

of them filing a fraudulent conveyance. Since, the title transfer and open-end credit was done

without authorization or right given by the defendant as the owner, to do anything but obtain the

refinancing that was agreed in the contract. Yet, plaintiffs through trickery had transferred title

to the LLCs in April and November 2004 and imposed a debt upon the property to embezzle

$380,000 at that time and also impose about $17,000 in closing costs.

74. Thereafter, plaintiffs drew down from the $500,000 open end credit from the two

million lean on the property through more embezzlement and the rest was applied it to the

interest payments, and the harsh default penalties on the note they neglected. This was due to

plaintiffs pocketing the $5,000.00 to $10,000 in monthly rental revenue that they collected.

Whereas, these funds was agreed on the contract would be directed towards paying off the

propertys debts.

75. Not to mention, that the very basis of justification for refinancing presented by

defendants to plaintiff was for them to reduce plaintiffs 8.5% mortgage to 4.75%. Yet,

33


34/81

defendants transformed a note that was owed $960,000 at the time of the contract to be

substituted with 11 % usury rate, with a Two Million dollar lean. Of which from their reneging

on their obligation under the contract, the property that owed less than a million at the time

plaintiff signed the contract now owes well over two million and is going into foreclosure.

76. While plaintiffs have deprived the defendant from receiving about $400,000 in rental

revenue that plaintiffs stole and after evicting defendant. This forced him to live for off the

property for six months in miserable accommodations. In addition to plaintiffs forcing defendant

out of doing business in his store to have to resort to operating under a canopy far off the road,

on the driveway of his home. This is where he earned a small fraction of what his store

generated, which plaintiffs closed. Yet, due to defendants impoverished state, he had to work

under this canopy for the last half a year before the winter, every day for eight hours to make

about $50 per day.

77. Moreover, in spite of the afore-stated facts, plaintiffs in the Norwich Housing Court

received $24,000.00 from plaintiff (which he had to borrow at high interest), and thereafter

evicted him anyway after a few months; even though defendant was regularly paying his rent

and turning over $6,700.00 in monthly rents that he was collecting. Yet, they lied by saying he

was in default of paying his rent in time. The $24,000 check was abused as leverage to get

defendant to willfully move out or forfeit it as a penalty and be judiciously evicted anyway.

78. On the other hand, plaintiff collected the rents written out to his name that he then

signed over to the LLCs. Yet defendants didnt deposit the funds in the account of the LLCs,

34


35/81

which does not have a business account. Rather, Pecunies and Watson co-mingled these rent

checks by depositing them in their own personal business accounts (Mercedes Benz and Watson

Enterprises). Ironically, plaintiffs have falsely pleaded that plaintiff collected all the rents over

the years and that they were stuck paying off all the bills that the property accrued.

79. Wherefore, the complained wrongdoings that the plaintiffs perpetrated, is with their

unlawful taking over control of defendants property to steal its equity. This is with equity

skimming of over $700,000, which occurred from June 2004 until the present and their intended

act of grand larceny to fraudulently misappropriate for themselves about a million dollars upon

the sale of defendants property (that they unlawfully control). This ambition to extracting a

million dollars when defendant sells his property is verifiable as an unimpeachable material fact.

Such as where Pecunies established on record in his testimony, before the Norwalk CT Court, in

March of 2008, when Pecunies said :

And Mr. Zanette keeps saying the bills are paid by rents. Thats totally untrue.

Certain bills that hes talking about, he may pay and deduct them from the rents.

But were paying the mortgages. Were paying the notes. Were paying insurance.

We are paying the large bills.

80. Then, defendants own lawyer Heisler, asked Pecunies a question, totally averse to

what plaintiff told him, and verifies his collusion with the opposition, by asking:

since youve raised the question you are paying all these bills that your paying.

Wasnt that a consideration for this agreement that you signed with Mr. Zanette,

This LLC that you formed, that you would finance the property and in exchange

You would get fifty percent of the profits from the sale of the property?

Then, Pecunies said:

35


36/81

Thats true and thats exactly what we did. We took two defaulted mortgages

that Mr. Zanete was in foreclosure on which we have all the paperwork for.

We bailed him out of those two mortgages. We personally loaned him forty

thousand dollars to go buy his gardening supplies, and so on, and so forth,

and we took over all of the debt of the debt ridden property and we carried

it for almost four years. . .I believe the property will bring somewhere

between, even in this market, between three million two and three million

five. And after everything is paid off on the property, I believe Mr. Zannete

will walk away with approximately a million dollars for his interest.

81. Pecunies following testimony speaks of fraudulently putting his name on defendants

property and mortgages as the controlling principal; yet instead of funding it, he is extracting

its equity. Moreover, the properties loss of revenue is the product of defendants interference to

block defendants expressed intent and ability, to sell the property for 4 Million prior to his

testimony. Pecunies said:

I took out two mortgages on the property originally. That's about three years ago and they

were three year loans, and I took out two personal notes to fund the rest of the monies

required, and they are all past due on an extension now of sixty days, which that sixty days

is almost up, and the property presently cash flowing is losing about ten thousand five

hundred dollars per month, so its going in debt every month further, and at the same time,

the real estate market is changing, so I'm trying to put a deal together and keep a deal

together that makes sense for this piece of property. Delmo Zanette is a fifty percent owner.

He will come out the same as I will come out when its sold, and its crazy the way its going.

I'm the only one funding it.

82. However, the true facts are that plaintiff agreed to the three million sale of the

properties on the encouragement that he could still operate his farm store and reside above it. (As

36


37/81

Pecunies said in court testimony that when he first struck a deal with defendant he promised that

he could still continue with operating his farm stand. Yet, plaintiff knew his property was

appraised to be worth four million, so he had defendants write into the contract that if they

didnt buy the property, but it was sold to an outsider for what he knew it was worth, then they

would each get $500,000.00. This meant that instead of plaintiff receiving the 1.9 million net

equity payment promised in the contract, that he would get 2.4 million, while defendants would

receive $500,000. This $500,000 that plaintiff contractually promised to defendants was

essentially for just handling the paperwork for the refinancing.

83. Then in 2007, after plaintiff found two developers who were interested in paying $4

Million and he offered to pay defendants $600,000 as pure profit, yet they refused. This is when

they said that this was just not enough money for them to approve the sale. Further, plaintiff was

annoyed after the first year, when Pecunies insulted his intelligence. This is when Pecunies told

plaintiff that he had good news that he has a buyer for the properties. A buyer who offered to pay

more than what both properties were worth and plaintiff would receive $800,000.000. To wit,

plaintiff said that the contract stated he would get $1.9 million (net payment) and that amount

was what he was expected.

84. It appears the low payment by plaintiffs was because he knew defendant had just spent

S120,000.00 on preliminary engineering and needed at least $200,000.00 more to finish the

infrastructure work. This work was necessary to divide up a large parcel of vacation land into

smaller parcels to be placed on the market. Since, plaintiff had taken out a $240.000.00 mortgage

on the property and needed the revenue from the propertys sale to complete the required work.

37


38/81

Clearly, this is an example where defendant used the contracts existence for extortion.

Insomuch as, this is by defendants intimidating plaintiff to fear economic loss if he does not

capitulate to their demands he allows himself to be cheated by them.

85. Consequently, as the causational result of plaintiffs wanton acts of bad faith by

capriciously refusing to uphold the terms of the contract to allow the Four Million sale to go

through, defendant is out millions. Specifically, defendants vacation land that was appraised to

be worth 3.2 million in 2006 when he wanted to sell the land after making it ready for the market

is now worth about half. And the subject properties have gone down perhaps as much as 38%.

Not to mention, that plaintiff is now almost broke, deeply in debt and quite anxious about his

current financial disposition. In addition, plaintiff feels downtrodden and depressed, from being

egregiously abused by defendants outrageous mistreatment, in disregard of his frail health and

any sense of exercising ethical restraint.

86. Whereas, the plaintiffs exploited defendants unbridled trust, along with his gracious

concessions of profoundly compromising his business interests for their financial benefit. Since

the defendant had generously extended good will towards plaintiffs by accommodating them for

whatever they asked (except for a co-venture agreement, which he refused and stated he was

only interested in selling the property); such graciousness that only a father would extend

towards a son in a business arrangement.

87. Yet, plaintiffs abused the altruistic good will that defendant had extended to them, and

turned his belief in their trustworthiness to victimize him with outrageous acts of criminal

38


39/81

simulation. This is furthered through constructive fraud and conspiracy. Thereby, plaintiff

committed a breach of all the fiduciary duties that they contractually owed defendant, such as

being entrusted to be the manager of his property. Since defendants perverted their fiduciary

relationship with defendant; albeit was based on defendants confidence in their ability to

appreciate all the concessions he made that they redounded to perpetrate numerous acts of

conversion.

88. Insomuch as the plaintiffs had willfully and intentionally violated defendants

confidence in their professional integrity to consummate fraudulent transactions, which abused

their position of trust to the extreme detriment of defendant. This is where their claim of right of

ownership of defendants property exists as a constructive trust,which is the product of fraud

and deceit . . . that is furthered by misusing the state courts and apparent bribery of defendants

lawyers to perform in support of their legal agendas

.

89. The basis of plaintiffs scheme was built upon having deceived defendant to sign onto

documents corresponding to what the defendants placed before him. Whereas, all the documents

plaintiff signed were egregiously misrepresented . . . that was to such a degree that defendant

would never had signed them if not but for plaintiffs major verbal misrepresentations of what he

was signing. Since, the contract was actually the third contract that defendant signed

90. In addition these signed documents could have been later altered with addition text

added, or were the product of forgery. Since plaintiffs filed the transference of title of the deeds

from his name to defendants half ownership, yet this was never presented to defendant would

39


40/81

occur, and defendants witness to all the business meetings at the time would certainly have

taken notice.

91. On the other hand, defendant relied on plaintiffs verbal promises, intentionally made

in bad faith to induce defendant to sign the contract where what was verbally promised was not

stated. Yet, even the terms contained in this one sided contract, were intentionally not adhered

to by the plaintiffs although defendant was in full compliance. The agreement contract was

drawn up by defendants, lawyer, Stephan Phillips. This is where plaintiffs promised defendant

that they would still allow him to maintain possession and residential occupancy of the building

Purdys Farms building. (Later, defendant was told until the property was sold and he expected it

would fetch Four Million). This is where he could live above the Purdys farm store, in exchange

for paying $1,000.00 a month towards the taxes. While in the past defendant had refused all

those who asked if he wanted to sell because he did not want to abandon his way of life with

farming his land and interacting with the public in his farm store.

92. Whereby, the agreement reached by parties with a verbal promise of buying the land,

but keeping defendant on as a tenant. This type of creative arrangement had never been offered

before which deterred defendant from ever advertising his property, or seeking out those who

had approached him in the past. This is when before plaintiff had approached defendant with a

promise he could continue operating his farm store and live above it, he always said he was not

interested in selling. Thus, in effect, plaintiffs used the tactic of bait and switch to start the

contractual process of the sale of the property. Consequently, plaintiffs were the only entity that

40


41/81

defendant had ever considered, even though he was once offered 3.2 million in 2001 just for the

farm land to build a hotel.

93. Contributed to plaintiffs fraudulent misconduct, their acquisition of 50% ownership is

devoid of any consent or quid quo pro; but rather as shown by the contract, contained

phenomenally inappropriate accommodations. This is with terms clearly detrimental to

defendants reasonable business expectations readily obtainable in the free market place.

Essentially, the plaintiffs extended generous concessions compromising his self-interests in the

contract, because the plaintiffs made various verbal promises that they had no intention to

perform.

94. In addition, plaintiffs made numerous verbal promises that were not incorporated in the

contract or were intentionally promised would not be in the contract, yet were incorporated in

the contract. This is because the plaintiffs observed that with the prior contracts, defendant could

be manipulated to sign the contract at the time it was presented to him without reading it first.

Since contributed to defendants blind trust, he accepted whatever plaintiffs said as being

truthful. Consequently, due to defendant not reading the contract before signing it, terms that

were agreed would not be in the contract were incorporated, such as term he would only get

$200,000 at the time of the sale and a hundred thousand each year thereafter. This was in spite of

defendant having rejected that term as being totally unacceptable and Pecunies subsequently

promising it would not be in the contract.

41


42/81

95. In fact the loan was never a loan because the money was mortgaged from own property

a material misrepresentation of what Pecunies told defendant, of him to facilitate their business

interests for the property purchase to be the most profitable venture. However, they abused

defendants good faith accommodations as an opportunity to usurp his rights and powers of

owning his property to be substituted with their exclusive control.

96. In effect, the plaintiffs acted to defraud defendant by getting him to sign onto an

agreement to sell his property to them in the contract. This agreement was presented to

defendant by the plaintiffs as to allow them to manage his property in the interim while they

made preparations to buy his property within a two year period (exh. ). Yet without putting up

any money it gave them exclusivity to buy in a robust market that had increased all over the last

year period. While the consensus of the experts at the time was that this property appreciation

was expected to continue; as it did substantially by double digits over the next two years.

97. In effect, plaintiffs acted with evil intent to achieve their goal of looting the equity in

defendants property through criminal activity that 1962(c) defines as a pattern of racketeering.

Since they got control through fraud and deceit and then maintained their control through

coercion. Currently, the plaintiffs are pursuing a buyer for defendants property and established

their intention is to take half of the revenue its sale would create after the propertys debts of well

over a million that they created is deducted.

98. Essentially, through constructive fraud the plaintiffs coerced the defendant under duress

to accept their domination over controlling his property according to their will. The tortious

42


43/81

activities of plaintiffs are dedicated to intimidate defendant to fear he cant benefit from his

property if he does not cooperate with what they want. Since they convinced defendant to believe

he cant do anything with his property without their consent; and insist they have the right to do

whatever they want with his property without even giving him notification and can call the

police to have him removed as a trespasser.

99. Except with plaintiffs acknowledging the legally requirement of notification of plaintiff

for him to approve a sale of his property with their equal share after its sale. (Such as where

without consulting plaintiffs to have rewarded the father of plaintiffs double dealing attorney,

Donald Brown; being paid by both sides for the real estate listing to sell defendants property for

a three digit commission. Ironically, Donald Browns father, Donald Brown Sr. who was

unknown to defendant engaged him in a conversation about his legal dispute and gave him the

business card of his son and promised defendant that his son would provide excellent legal

support. This is received by Defendants broker Elsie Peorin who has produced totally false

testimonial evidence for the Newark Housing Court to further defendants scheme to deceive the

court. And Pecunies has the audacity to expect plaintiff to pay a triple digital payoff as an inside

seller of his property as the trusted broker.

100. Essentially, the defendants effectively imposed upon defendant that they will only

allow his authority to be restricted to where he is required to approve the sale of his property.

(This would be with signing away his last right associated to his possession corresponding to co-

owning the LLCs). Hence, plaintiffs only option to obtain revenue from his property is to allow

43


44/81

the sale that they want, since they have maliciously interfered with his ability to benefit from his

property.

101. Currently, the defendants have not applied the approximate $10,000.00 monthly

revenue the property was producing to pay the mortgage. (Since they had deprived defendant

from receiving these rents and directed it to themselves that they co-mingled with their own

funds). Rather, they conducted a scheme to manipulate defendants property to be going into

foreclosure as a circumstance to coerce his submission to their demands.

102. Clearly, these are willful and wanton acts of extortion to force defendant s compliance

to what defendants want by his capitulation to their self-dealing designs. This was achieved by

his signing an agreement on May 27 th, 2004 for Pecunies and Watson to manage his property.

Thereafter, Pecunies in 2005 or 2006 had the audacity to tell plaintiff that he would be able to

give him $800,000 for the bother properties instead of the $1.9 million promised in the

agreement or $2.4 if someone would be willing to buy the property for $4 million as what did

occur in 2006 from two different parties who approached plaintiff. This is when defendant

attempted to buy them out in 2006 for offers of $100,000.00 and thereafter for $600,000.00, they

refused. The $600,000.00 buyout was before the property was listed and plaintiff found two

parties who offered him $4,000,000.00 in 2006.

103. Yet, although defendants did nothing constructive, only pocketing many tens of

thousands in rental revenue in addition to$380,000.00 embezzlement, they still said $600,000.00

wasnt enough money for them to allow the sale to go through. (Noteworthy was that the

44


45/81

$380,000.00 was explained to plaintiff by his own lawyer Aldamis to correspond to penalties that

he accepted and did not consider in the buy-out equation. Specifically, plaintiff was duped to

believe the penalty occurred from the six months that the p-defendants waited to pay the

mortgage after taking over management in May 2004. Consequently, the buyout would have

been more around 1.2 million that they refused)

104. In effect, through fraudulent misrepresentation of material facts, defendants deceived

defendant into believing that he was helpless before their proclaimed power of legal right . . . that

was confirmed by defendants lawyers who were in collusion. While all the time was

unbeknownst to the defendant, until October 2009, that fraudulent conveyances of titles to the

LCCs they controlled were filed in November 10 th 2004. Since, the quit-claims were produced

without defendants consent or knowledge. Then with refinancing, instead of the p-defendants

securing a new fixed mortgage for 4.75% as promised they got an open-end mortgage in the

form of a deed trust for 11.5% and clandestinely transferred ownership of his property to the

LLCs through the bogus quit claims.

105. Defendants explanation to defendant for the setting up the LLCs was confined for the

only purpose to get refinancing before they purchased the property. Thereafter, defendant was

tricked and the good faith he extended was transformed into a criminal enterprise of extortion.

Thereby, from p-defendants pursuit to obtain ill-gotten gains at the expense of plaintiff, they

have acted to deprive him of receiving millions by selling his property on the open market.

TORTIOUS ACTS UNDER STATE CIVIL LAW

45


46/81

106. 52-577 Civil Conspiracy

The elements of a civil action for conspiracy are:

1) A combination between two or more persons;

2) to do a criminal or an unlawful act or a lawful act by criminal or unlawful means;

3) an act done by one or more of the conspirators pursuant to the scheme and in

furtherance of the object;

4) which act results in damage to the plaintiff. (American Diamond Exchange, Inc. v.

Alpert, 101 Conn. App. 83, 99-100 (2007).

Defendants conducted a Breech of Contract (dated May 27th 2004), in accordance to:

107. 52-576 Actions for account or on simple or implied contracts :

No action for an account, or on any simple or implied contract, or on any contract in

writing, shall be brought but within six years after the right of action accrues . . .

"[I]n analyzing whether a declaratory judgment action is barred by a particular statutory

period of limitations, a court must examine the underlying claim or right on which the

declaratory action is based." Wilson v. Kelley, 224 Conn. 110, 116 (1992).

As such, since the wrongful acts perpetrated by the defendants flowed out from the contract the

appropriate statue of limitations period is the six-year statute for written contracts.

108. Anticipatory Breach of Contract

An action for anticipatory breach of contract requires proof that:

1) One party to a contract has repudiated his d

Motion Vacate U & O

Documents

Transcript of Motion Vacate U & O