Opposition by Next of Kin to
October 26 2011
Verified Complaint on Short Notice
This sale is estopped by [next of kin's Johnson's] previous opposition to the sale of property, and declaration, by Vanessa D. Taylor. Both opposition and declaration were received by the court and Judge Walter Koprowski as well as filed with the appellate division and New Jersey Supreme Court and served on all parties. The documents filed with the Appellate Division were also filed by the Chancery Division Probate Part. The opposition and declaration has thus been filed as a matter of record with the Chancery Court. [*]
The sale of property is also estopped by Shawnda Floyd's statement to the Appellate Division that Samuel Figaro was no longer interested in purchasing the property. Figaro is estopped from now purchasing the property.
The sale of property is estopped by fraud on the court by Judge Joseph P. Brennan, Judge Walter Koprowski, fraud and admitted fraud by Vanessa D. Taylor, James Boutillier, and Lawrence N. Meyerson. Bulloch v United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985).
II. THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF VANESSA D. TAYLOR DATED OCT 26 2011 IS VOID
All orders of the Judge regarding the sale of property are void due to breach of duty by the guardian and fraud on the court. Bulloch v United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985).
III. FAMILY MEMBERS REQUESTED TO SHOW SUPPORT
All family members are requested to show written support for this opposition. By accessing unfair, illegal, and unconstitutional fees against me, the Chancery Court has slave chained me in a "chilling" Auswitch move to keep me from objecting to Taylor et alís admitted elderly financial abuse and fraud on the estate of Robert Johnson. I ask that every family member, Johnson or otherwise, file an amicus brief.
IV. THE SALE OF PROPERTY HAS BEEN MARKED BY FRAUD
Judge Koprowski is aware that by not answering a motion and complaint by Johnson in this matter, Vanessa D. Taylor, et al admitted, among other unlawful acts, fraud, collusion, real estate fraud, attorney ethical violations and misconduct, and elderly financial abuse. By ignoring the admitted fraud and not taking action to punish the wrongdoers, the court has continued the fraud. That the court ordered Taylor to re-apply for the sale of property did not excuse the Judge from his duty to address Taylor's failure to obey the law and her duty not to commit fraud.
V. NEXT OF KIN JOHNSON AGREES TO APPEAR
As previously noted to the court, Johnson is willing to appear telephonically at any hearing on this matter and so that Vanessa D. Taylor can be subject to examination. Since Taylor owes Johnson over $5,000 in damages, Johnson requests payment of these monies so that $2500 can be used to make a personal appearance, and if the property is transferred to Johnson, the balance of the monies owed can be used for property repairs. In lieu of personal appearance, Johnson agrees to appear telephonically. Johnson requests advance written and phone notice of such hearing date. In the past the Judge issued at least two orders without holding a fair hearing: amended judgment appointing guardian Feb 3 2010 and the order issued March 28 2011.
VI. LETTERS AS FILED WITH THE COURT
This opposition is also forwarded by letter and fax. The past practice of the Chancery court was to allow fax filing in the case of IMO Alvahteen Anderson, an Incapacitated Person, Docket ESX-CP- 0105-2004. The practice of the court in this case was to allow letters to be filed as part of the record. But past orders of date also state the court made part of the record "letters" of Johnson in opposition, but the court has negligently and fraudulently refused to specific which letters it alleges were made part of the record.
VII. TAYLOR MISREPRESENTS THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY
The property was marketed as a "single family dwelling." This is misrepresentation. The property is a multi family dwelling. Taylor is aware of this from her original order to show cause where she mentions tenants in the building. The building is equipped with bathrooms, kitchens, water and electric meters, for four separate units, making it a multi family dwelling. Such misrepresentation voids her proposed sale of property.
VIII. TAYLOR FAILS TO MENTION DAD'S RESPONSE
New Jersey statute requires that Taylor make an effort to talk to the ward about his wishes about the sale of property. There is no indication in her motion that she talked to the ward. Such failure voids her proposed sale.
IX. THE SALE OF PROPERTY IS ESTOPPED BY THE FRAUD OF THE ANNUAL REPORT
It is well documented to the court and the guardian of the fraud of the annual report presented by Vanessa D. Taylor Jan 31 2011. The fraud is continuing and evidenced in the filing of the claim for damages against the state of New Jersey . The court was again notified of the fraud of the annual report as late as November 4 2011 by fax and voice mail. Such fraud is constructive trust of the guardian and court and prevents the sale of property.
X. ALL REMEDIES RESERVED
[Next of kin beneficiary] Johnson reserves all remedies including but not limited to federal action against any and all parties.
IX. THE SALE IS ESTOPPED BY PENDING MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT ENTRY AND JUDGMENT
Pending before the court is a motion for entry of default dated July 11 2011 and motion for vacating of judgment dated July 11 2011. The pendency of those motions stop the sale of the property.
XII. COURT MISCONDUCT VOIDS THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY
The court has in the past represented that letters as opposed to pleadings have been filed as a practice with the court. The court filed the letters of Vanessa D. Taylor, Shawnda Floyd, James Boutillier, and Lawrence Meyerson even though those documents were not pleadings; the letters of Lawrence Meyerson (Nov 9, 2010, Jan 20, 2011, Feb 8 2011), Vanessa D. Taylor and Shawnda Floyd (December 8 2010), and James Boutillier (Feb 2 2011 and March 21 2011). The court allowed fax filing from 2009 in the case of IMO Alvahteen Anderson, an Incapacitated Person, Docket ESX-CP- 0105-2004. . However, the court has represented to [next of kin] Johnson in an April 6, 2011 that his faxes and letters could not be filed with the court. The court also received Johnsonís original opposition to the sale of property but the court April 6 2011 fraudulently stated it only received a fax copy. The court did not address why it did not follow local rule and notify Johnson that his documents were deficient so he could make timely corrections. Such misrepresentations and unequal treatment by the court prohibits the Chancery court from selling the property. The property must be transferred to Johnson.
XIII. THE MARCH 28 ORDER OF THE COURT PROHIBITS THE SALE OF PROPERTY
In its March 28 2011 order the court alleged Johnson had been demanded numerous times to appear at the December 17 2010 hearing. Such allegations by the court were false. Such falsity and wrongful conduct prohibits the court from authorizing the sale of property. The court said in past orders that the opposition of Johnson has been considered by the court. But the April 6 2011 letter from the court indicates the opposition and declaration of Johnson were never filed and considered by the court before its ruling was made. Such false statements by the court prohibit the court from ordering the property to be sold. Alternatively the original opposition to the sale of property was filed with the appellate division and the New Jersey Supreme Court as the appeal and motions for leave and reconsideration.
VX. THE LETTERS OF FLOYD, TAYLOR, BOUTILLIER, MEYERSON ARE FRAUD ON THE COURT
Connected to the past proposed sale of the property, and parties efforts to stop Johnson from complaining of fraud on the estate, are the letters of Lawrence Meyerson (Nov 9, 2010, Jan 20, 2011, Feb 8 2011), Vanessa D. Taylor and Shawnda Floyd (December 8 2010), and James Boutillier (Feb 2 2011 and March 21 2011). These letters were filed with the appellate division and the NJ Supreme Court. These letters represent fraud on the court and such fraud prohibits the court from ordering the sale of the 146-148 Fabyan Place property. Bulloch v United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985).
XV. THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY TO SAVIO FIGARO IS ESTOPPED BY SHAWDA FLOYD LETTER
Shawnda Floyd represented to the appellate division that Savio Figaro was no longer interested in the property. Figaro is estopped from now trying to purchase it. Floydís letter was served with the appellate action and served on all parties.
XVI. THE JUDGE COMMITTED FRAUD IN THE PREVIOUS ORDER OF THE COURT
The Judge misrepresented the conditions of the original proposed sale of the property. The Judge engaged in bribery to get the property sold. The Judge did not obey his oath, the law, or the constitution. The Judgeís letters and orders as part of the record show his inability to follow local rules of court and case law. The court due to its misconduct is prohibited from selling the property. Bulloch v United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985). NJ rules of court 1:56 re Filing of Papers requires that filing is deemed filed as to when received by the clerk if notice is sent by the clerk that the filing is deficient due to format or lack of filing fee. In addition if papers are misfiled to the wrong department, the document will be filed with the same date it was received by the wrong department and the filer notified. Why weren't Johnsonís faxed documents handled in the matter required by local rule?
This local rule error on the part of the court to favor Vanessa D. Taylor, James Boutillier, Shawnda Floyd, and Lawrence N. Meyerson amounts to fraud on the court by the Surrogate office and Judge Walter Koprowski. Johnson believes the Judge has also engaged in extortion and bribery in order to sell the property. The assessment of attorney fees against Johnson is an example of the bribery, laws and rules the Judge will violate in repudiation of his oath. "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968).
"Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court. Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. ß455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process."). That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe or giving one from or to an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which further disqualifies the judge. Johnson again renews the request for Judge Walter Koprowski to disqualify himself.
XVII. THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE SOLD DUE TO THE BREACH OF DUTY OF THE GUARDIAN
Guardian Vanessa D. Taylor by her conduct, and her silence on many matters, proves her failure to treat Johnson with full disclosure and utmost fairness. Taylor is negligent. For example her failure to respond to the numerous questions on the annual report show her refusal to engage in utmost fairness and full disclosure concerning the property and real property of the ward. Such breach by Vanessa D. Taylor on behalf of Robert Johnson requires her to transfer the property to Johnson, beneficiary. Bulloch v United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985).
XVIII. FURTHER RESPONSE TO VANESSA D. TAYLOR COVER LETTER TO CLERK AND PROOF OF MAILING
1. The cover letter to the clerk by Vanessa D. Taylor does not have a date on it.
2. Taylorís "Proof of Mailing" is invalid because it does not have a date on it, does not say "true and correct" copies, does not say mailed to last known address. See declaration of Johnson attached.
3. Taylorís proof of mailing makes the Verified Complaint invalid because she alleges improper email service. Taylor attorney was notified that an email was received from Taylorís attorney but the email shows there was no attachment of any papers. See declaration of Johnson attached.
IX. TAYLOR GIVES NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COURT TO HEAR THE MATTER ON SHORT NOTICE
1. Such matter as Taylor alleges must be heard by Order to Show Cause and Verified Complaint. There is no order to show cause so her papers must be denied as they do not comply with local rules of court. The OTSC must be served by certified mail and such proof filed with the court; Taylor has done neither.
2. There is not one local rule or case statute stated by Taylor that would give the court authority to hear the papers on short notice. For this additional reason her papers should be denied.
3. Next of kin have not been provided with any reasons whatsoever to respond to why the matter should be heard on shortened notice. Taylor alleges, "buyer has secured funding" without specifying what that funding is.
4. Next of kin was emailed that there was a "motion" but the email did not say "shortened notice" so next of kin has not been provided with any of the required advance notice for such an essentially "exparte" motion. Johnson has only been served with a verified complaint. See declaration of Johnson attached.
5. Next of kin Johnson will fax the Judge a "courtesy copy" of this opposition with the "original" to be next day delivery to the court mailed on Monday November 7 so that next of kin will have a fair chance to respond.
6. Opportunity to give oral testimony is requested.
7. The contract presented by Taylor continues the fraud of the last proposed contract. There is no indication in the contract that it is subject to court approval; condition not in writing means contract is fraud. There is no explanation by Taylor how this fraud contract to the same fraud buyer Savio Figaro is different from the previous fraud contact to Savio Figaro which the court ordered Taylor to "re-apply" for.
8. The fraud of giving the buyer a $36,000 credit for an "as is" property is still in play.
9. Taylor does not indicate when the response to her verified complaint is due. See declaration of Johnson attached. Again next of kin has not been given proper notice.
Based on the foregoing papers, fraud on the court, and court approved commingling by Vanessa D. Taylor and the Taylor Insurance Group, is not in the best interests of Johnsonís father Robert Johnson. Johnson respectfully requests the Verified Complaint on Short Notice be denied.
Next of Kin Johnson- November 6 2011
[Notes from the author: This document has been redacted. Not included is the declaration in support and proof of service. This document has been faxed to the Judge November 6 and mailed to the court and all parties November 7 2011 in response to Vanessa D. Taylor's "Verified Complaint" dated Oct 26 2011. The original was received by the Surrogate Court Clerk November 8 2011. ] [* Vanessa D. Taylor's previous attempt to sell the property was dated July 29, 2010. After protests of fraud and misconduct of the guardian alleged by next of kin, the court ordered Taylor to "re-apply" for the sale of property. But the court did nothing to address the fraud conditions of the proposed sale. Witnessed by attorneys Shawnda Floyd, James Boutillier and Lawrence E. Meyerson. The court still refuses to address over $3,000 unaccounted for by the Guardian. Such elderly financial abuse by guardians and courts seems to be widespread across America.]
Why did they lie to the court?
This is about a guardianship case in the state of New Jersey. The Judge is Walter Koprowski Jr and the case is IMO Robert Johnson CP-0136-2009. The state appointed guardian is Vanessa D. Johnson Taylor of Manalapan NJ . Taylor claims to be the owner of thetaylorgroupinc. Taylor claims to be a real estate agent.
In court papers filed November 16 2011 Taylor claimed that she was attaching two appraisals to her Complaint to sell the property. She is trying to sell a $190,000 rental property to attorney Savio Figaro who is represented by broker Marlin Lakes Realty. Taylor's statement under penalty of perjury was signed and verified by her attorney Shawnda Navarro Floyd. Attorney James Boutillier, also under oath, attorney for the ward, represented that there were two appraisals. Did Taylor attach two appraisals? No. The first is an appraisal, the second document is a market analysis and clearly says it is not an appraisal.
Why did Taylor, Floyd, and Boutillier lie? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpH4UFPfsAY
So the Judge ordered Taylor to present a second appraisal since the rule requires two appraisals, not one. On December 31 2010 Taylor presents an affidavit again sworn under oath and signed by her attorney. She and her attorney state that she is attaching two appraisals. Are two appraisals attached? No, only one appraisal is attached, and one states it is a market analysis. Another set of lies. Then in her papers she quotes the Fox Briar documents and Latorraca documents and calls them both appraisals. But the Latarroca papers are only a market analysis.
Taylor has also been charged with improperly inflating the cost of repairs to spin down the sale of the property.
The court has been asked to find Taylor, Floyd, Boutillier in contempt of court.
Taylor and others should face
jail time for their lies to the court.
| Judge Conceal and Embezzle | The Appeal | Reply Stay Motion |
| Return Home | Rep Karen Bass re Hyundai | Opposition to Sale of Property | What's New | Inside Hyundai-Kia Fuel Class Action | Corrupt Los Angeles Rent Control | City LA Civil Rights Lawsuit re Hi Point Apts | Racism in America | Inside the Law Firm |