of plaintiff. In fact, Katz neglected to provide any of the papers of the case and signed instead of defendant, who he kept in the dark about the case.A marker that can verify Katz¶a collusion with the opposition is that when plaintiff¶s lawyer Kaelin said they owned 100% of the property he did not contest. In addition to agreeing to theimmediate implication of the ³U&O´ as if it was matter of their legal right. Not to mention, Katzwas observed in a circle when Kaelin, Pecunies, and Elsie Peorinwhen Kaelin was discussing hislegal strategy; such as with discussing the pending foreclosure and telling Elsie Peorinhow hewanted her testimony to be. Noteworthy was Peorin¶s comment: ³I feel sorry for Del (defendant) I hope we get this squaredaway soon. Percunies told Peroin, ³you have really earned your commission.´As Peroin duringdefendants first eviction perjured herself by saying defendant drove away someone who came toher office to buy his properties. Thereby, to justify defendant being shut out from the sale process and not being allowed to continue to live on his property, due to his activity of drivingaway potential buyers."Actual conflict of interest" exists when aim or goal of trial counsel diverges from`interests of client.²Mercer v. Commissioner of Correction, 724 A.2d 1130, 51ConnApp. 638, certification denied 731 A.2d 309, 248 Conn. 907 (1999).³For purposes of obstruction of justice statute proscribing "corrupt" endeavors toobstruct justice, corrupt conduct is conduct that is motivated by improper purpose. 18U.S.C.A. § 1503(a) (
U.S. v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc
., 260 F.Supp.2d 470 Conn.(2003).