Post on 30-May-2018
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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.html8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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
8/9/2019 Motion Vacate U & O
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