NO.

SNSP-037013 : SUPERIOR COURT

Hon. JACK L. GROGGINS : HOUSING SESSSION
:
R.K.D. VENTURES, LLC, ET AL : TRIAL BRIEF
Plaintiff :
V. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
DELMO ZANETTE : STAMFORD / NORWALK
: AT NORWALK
Defendant :
FEBUARY 25, 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The defendant, Delmo Zanette, at all times hereinafter has been the owner of 1353 and 1357

King St with buildings, thereon, k.a. the (properties). Whereby, he entered into a contract k.a. the

(agreement) with plaintiff to buy the properties (exh A.) This is where plaintiffs’ exploited this

agreement as a matter of their legal right to engage in a palpable and pervasive activity of

embezzlement and organized extortion. Essentially, is directed to extract the properties’ equity,

as has been achieved by statutory forgery of the deed to the property to construct a façade of

legal right. Along with constructive fraud of the agreement created with bad faith intent.

2. This is compounded by plaintiff fraudulently stating to the court that they were owners of

50% of the properties, or on other occasions declaring to have 100% ownership. Exactly, what

their lawyer, Robert Kaelin, stated the plaintiff’s have 100% ownership was a material fact. This

occurred recently on December 15, 2009 in Norwalk Housing Court, when Judge Moor heard the

oral arguments to decide on the issue of ‘Use and Occupancy’(residing at only this one hearing),

Whereas Kaelin declared his clients “own 100% of the property at 1353 King St.”; further

stating: plaintiff owns 50% of the other property he was evicted from, only to later break into the

1
adjoining property of 1357 that he at one time previously owned, to then illegally occupy its

building as a squatter.

3. However, since plaintiff’s representation at the time, Mark Katz, advocates the legal agenda

of the opposition, he voluntarily agreed. This is when Katz argued in rebuttal to Kaelin’s

pleading that plaintiff would pay ‘use and occupancy’ starting retroactive. Further, Katz said in

his argument to Kaelin’s pleadings that “there is the slightest taint of deception, but I would not

say there was anything fraudulent.” Whereas this hearing occurred during a ‘summary process

proceeding,’ which is a state action designed for an expedited eviction. Albeit, the ‘summary

process’ action is supposed to be used when the relationship between parties and their rights is

clear and unambiguous as landlord and tenant; and in the absence of when any complicated

matters contained in a lease are in dispute.

4. Defendant cause of this action is that “defendant has no right or privilege to stay in the

premises.” However, defendant can not only prove that he has a right and a privilege to stay in

the premises, but that plaintiff has no right or privilege to have standing in this action. Since, the

basis of plaintiff’s claim to ownership of the subject property is from having tricked defendant to

have signed under false pretenses an intentionally misrepresented agreement in May 2004. Albeit

this one sided unconscionable agreement was issued and breached with a massive degree of bad

faith.

5. However, plaintiff redounds this agreement into a ‘legal’ right of entitlement to conduct a

criminal enterprise. Such as where plaintiffs misuses the authority of this court to further their

2
racketeering activity. . .that is based on operating a conspiracy to injure defendant to achieve

their goal of extracting most of all of defendants wealth for their financial enrichment. As is now

pursued with the relief sought by plaintiff in this action to make defendant homeless. Thereby, to

then liquidate both of defendant’s properties to conclude plaintiff’s achievement of ill-gotten

gains at defendant’s expense.

6. Although, this sale would only just be plaintiff’s finishing act, to a ruthlessly cruel

campaign of intimidation they started 5 years ago to drive a now frail 79 year old into an early

grave. This has been through a chronic and extreme campaign of intimidating plaintiff through

threatening, harassment, criminal mischief, larceny, coercion, fraud, and extortion. Not to

mention, looting defendant’s real property for perhaps a million dollars to date.

7. Thus, if the current health problem defendant is suffering from with extremely high blood

pressure triggers a fatal attack, all the webs of lies defendant spun in court to assert their lawful

right of entitlement could be employed by them to achieve their strategic intent. Such as with

affirming defendant’s proof of entitlement and used as shield through collateral estoppel. Since,

surely the beneficiaries of defendant would want to challenge plaintiff’s claim of entitlement, but

without defendant to testify would be greatly impaired.

8. On the other hand, plaintiff did not even pay out one cent towards the property for such a

right and privilege that they claim in their complaint that they “legally own” the subject property.

Further, that defendant has no rights or privilege to enjoy the property he maintained for 44

years. This is from working from dawn to dusk tilling its land and operating its farm store seven

3
days a week for plaintiff to now sell both properties. Albeit, in return for giving defendant

$200,000. This is after they blocked a four million dollars sale from going through in 2006

because the one million dollars (net) defendant was prepared to appropriate to them, just was not

enough money to satisfy their greed.

9. In effect, this eviction action is an artifice to a scheme of extortion. Since, plaintiff’s intent is

to direct the power of this court to deprive defendant from being able to occupy his home of two

decades. Even though defendant acquired the subject property from the sweat of his brow,

working the adjoining farm complex, yet all plaintiff can show as their claim of right is the

expired agreement that they tricked defendant to sign on ‘false pretenses.’ In addition to the

transference of 50% of title that appears on face to be constructive fraud. But with the pending

foreclosure, defendant has been handed a choice, approve the sale and get a significant piece of

money, or you won’t get anything (exh ).

On the other hand, for most of defendant’s life he worked almost all of his wakened hours seven

days a week to live out his golden years with the quite enjoyment from the fruits of his labor.

Instead of being subjected to the constant emotional strive of agitated anxiety, annoyance, and

distress where he agonizes on how plaintiff has not only in the past victimized him, but with his

current activities. Especially, with plaintiff changing the outer lock and breaking interior locks to

help themselves to defendant’s personal items that are of great value

Now, before this Court’s consideration is to decide if defendants’ fundamental rights to justice in

equity matter. Or if plaintiff is of such ‘privilege’ that the court will ignore defendants basic

rights in order to accommodate the wants of plaintiff to steal what defendant owns. This would

4
be with this court’s continued participation of allowing plaintiff to misuse of, and interference

with the judicial machinery to perform its task of impartial adjudication. Such that plaintiff

executed through a massive degree of fraud to misuse the judicial process in conjunction with

this court’s pattern of denying defendant from having his day in court for his position to be

heard, and to be afforded an opportunity to present his side.

Whereby, plaintiffs enthusiastically perpetrated a hoax on the Norwalk and Stamford Superior

Court to achieve ill-gotten gains. As this agenda was streamlined by plaintiff’s own lawyers acts

of ‘fraud upon the court’ such as when Abrim Heisler, introduced onto the court record, in

conflict with what plaintiff told him, that the bargain of the agreement was that defendant would

be 50% owner of the properties and thereby share the revenue for its sale (exh ).

5. Not to mention, plaintiff’s playing fast and loose with the truth to be rebutted by plaintiff’s

and his council did not warrant any considerations or sanctions imposed by the judges; eg.

Philips stated his clients own 100% of the property to Judge Hickey and Admis this is not

strictly a landlord tenant situation corrected this saying plaintiff owns 100%.

6. Yet, judge Hickey’s response was instead of dismissing the eviction proceeding as frivolous

action, said that now that he knows the property is jointly owned he must order the eviction

proceeding to go to trial. In effect, plaintiffs’ scurrilous efforts of outrageous abuse of the courts

was made possible by the judges, Hickey and Grogins ‘turning a blind eye.’ This was by their

gross neglect to perform their official duty of administering justice in their court. Rather, these

5
judges extended favoritism towards defendants and simultaneously treated plaintiff with ill-will.

(exh, )

7. Hence, by your granting the sought relief would be analogous to pulling the brakes on a

runaway train destined to cause damages of devastating proportions. Such as where the

inevitable exists of the pending financial ruin that defendant will endure if plaintiffs’

ongoing scheme is not expediently halted. This scheme is based on plaintiff leveraging pressure

on defendant to coerce his compliance of agreeing to their demands. Since plaintiffs are

imposing on plaintiff a dilemma of where if he doesn’t abide by their wants, he will lose

everything (See exh. ).

8. However, this predicament of circumstance can be corrected through the authority of this

court by your ordering plaintiff to quit their hard core racketeering tactics of terrorization. Since

plaintiffs’ activities are essentially a felonious enterprise of looting equity, larceny and extortion,

dedicated to effect defendant’s compliance through strong arm tactics of intimidation.

9. Moreover, plaintiffs’ other method of intimidation is by instilling fear in defendant

of them doing harm to his personal property. . .that is currently being carried out through

defendants’ employees’ and agents by the criminal acts listed below. Yet, defendant

has no adequate remedy at law to have his rights to own property guaranteed under the

constitution upheld, since after over a half dozen reports to the Greenwich Police of plaintiffs’

conduct, plaintiff’s criminal victimization of defendant not only continues, but they have

ratcheted up the intensity of their wrongdoings. This is with acts constituting, larceny, burglary,

theft of legal documents, threatening and harassment. In fact the attached reports detailing
6
plaintiffs’ wrongdoings under RICO were given on or about October 20, 2004 through the

beginning of November to the Greenwich police, and after a meeting with the State attorney

around that time a decision was made that it is a civil matter (See Exh. )

10. Defendant made complaints to the available law enforcement entities within the state in

hope that an indictment would eventually lead to restitution for his financial injuries. However,

they declared it was only a civil matter, rather than a criminal matter. In addition when

defendant’s agent, Robert Hutchins, asked why an indictment on the $360,000 could not readily

be obtained on the embezzlement verified by the filed mortgage, he was told by

it would take about a year of investigation before an indictment would be possible. Thus,

this would place it well beyond the five year ‘statue of limitations’ that was expiring in a matter

of three weeks ( exh. ).

11. Yet what is most shocking, and the greatest offense to societies’ confidence in our legal

system, is the State Court’s profound advocacy of the legal rights of entitlement of defendant.

Albeit at the expense of defendant’s legal rights of entitlement to the quite enjoyment of the

property he owns. Consequently, defendant now turns to this Court for relief, because no

adequate remedy of law is available to protect him from being victimized by defendants’

criminal activities. Since law enforcement after examination of hundreds of pages of the

documents believes plaintiffs’ activities are within the parameters of the law. Thus, plaintiffs

thereafter continued with even greater frequency and intensity of wrongdoings with the

following malicious conduct:

7
(a) 10-2?-2009 Anthony Carmardello threatened plaintiff he was going to

break the window because plaintiff refused to allow him to go into his home.

Although his threat was thwarted after defendant called the police.

(b) was threatened by Kaelin that if I did not immediately move out all of his

property in three days that six men and garbage truck will dispose of

everything he owns.

(c) 11- Camadelo said he was bringing a container on the property to trash

plaintiff’s property

(d) 12-16-09 defendants

(e) broke into plaintiff’s

(f) home to break open the locks inside to take his personal property and deny

plaintiffs agent of having access.

(g) Camadello or another agent took thousands of dollars of plaintiff’s property

and simultaneously stole or trashed $1,500.00 of property belonging to

plaintiff’s tenant Ian McMillin who rented the garage for storage. In addition

plaintiff had stopped defendant’s other tenant of M.F.A., who used the

property to store masonry supplies to stop pay the $500 rent to defendant. Yet,

before plaintiff sent to them in March 2009 the letter for defendant’s last

group of his tenants to redirect their rental payments to them, they were

paying defendant $1,850.00. However after plaintiff locked illegally them out

8
 by locking the gate to intimidate them, they agreed to continue to pay rent to

defendant on the condition it was reduced to $500.

(h) Broke the locks to the 40’ containers on the property belonging to plaintiff to

then replace defendant’s lock with their own.

(i) Camdaelo asked one of plaintiff’s tenants Marious Moiesj if his dog was

friendly, and then opened his jacket to show off his gun. In addition to saying

“didn’t I at one time arrest you?

12. All the incidents above have been reported to the Greenwich police. As is in the case

when Ion McMillin sought to file a criminal complaint of the $1,500 of his property that the

plaintiffs acknowledged they took during the course of trashing defendant’s property. Yet after

Ion spent two hours at the station, the police finally told him that plaintiff owns the property and

can do what they want. Even though defendant last October gave the police copies of the deed of

record which showed that they never paid defendant any money, and complained that the tile he

submitted showing that each owned 50% was fraudulently obtained.

13. Plaintiffs’ activity for the extortion of defendant is to coerce him to capitulate to their

demands that he authorizes them to sell his property as if it was their own. This objective is

designed to be achieved through installing in defendant a fear of economic loss. Specifically, this

is with defendant not getting anything if he doesn’t comply with plaintiffs’ demands that they

sell his property for an equally divided share of the revenue created after its sale. Thus, plaintiff

can capitalize on defendant’s current state of being impoverished and in debt (the result of their

9
malicious interference to deprive plaintiff of receiving the revenue he was entitled to receive). As

this is verified by the agreement signed by Pecunies that they would receive $6,700 of the rental

revenue and defendant would receive 3,600.00

14. Along with the fact defendant’s note is due in two months on a $179,000.00 loan that he

leveraged on his land in Maine has placed him in a precariously vulnerable position. Since he

needs the money created from the properties’ sale to build the required roads. As this is the

prerequisite for defendant to then be able to sell parcels of his 67 acre land divided in lots. (exh. )

Thus, he would divert the loss of control to all his Maine land to the lending bank, which would

be financially disastrous.

15. Defendant has since the onset of the ‘agreement’ in May 2004 to sell his property to

defendants has always owned 100% of his property; since plaintiff never paid him anything in

consideration for their claim of being 50% owners. Yet through the misuse of the Housing Court

they were wrongfully given the legal right to quiet title. Consequently, through the authority of

the state courts plaintiffs have for years collected almost all of the properties’ rents; evicted

defendant from his produce store and the apartment above; and are now in the process of evicting

him from his home that he has lived in for 23 years on the adjoining property, so they can sell the

properties as if they were the legitimate owners.

16. Whereby, plaintiffs to achieve their final goal are actively terrorizing defendant to coerce

him to willfully agree to authorize its sale for their pecuniary benefit. Consequently, defendant

10
is currently in serious jeopardy and is vulnerable to endure irrevocable injuries. Such that

requires this court’s immediate judicial intervention as the kind that can protect and affirm his

rights to the property he legitimately owns . . . that can be achieved by granting the requested

relief sought to make right an egregious wrong.

17. Beginning on or about November of 2004, and continuing to the present time, plaintiff

wrongfully and unlawfully, in violation of Federal and State Penal Laws acted with ‘adverse

domination’ to misuse the authority of the LLC’s. Clearly such obscene conduct of plaintiff that

constitutes such profound interference with a property right or interest of defendant can’t be

tolerated in a civilized society

18. On or about in 2006, and 2007, defendant has made attempts to settle with plaintiffs,

but they consistently declined on the basis that the offer was never enough.

a) Plaintiffs continues to refuse to cease the wrongful conduct

b) The breakdown of the accounting figures for these settlements is attached

(exh. ) .

19. The wrongful conduct of plaintiffs unless restrained and enjoined by an order of this court,

will cause great and irreparable harm to defendant, in that noncompensable injury will result

from plaintiffs continued conduct; such as with the current activities of plaintiffs. Specifically,

with plaintiffs activities of trashing personal properties and other intimidations to drive away the

last of defendant’s tenants, and the pending foreclosure that they created to pressure defendant’s

11
compliance. This foreclosure was achieved through the plaintiffs diverting the rental revenue for

their own use and benefit that they stipulated in the agreement would be going towards paying

off the properties debts. Whereas, although the property has a total potential revenue of about

$12,000.00 per month, no rental revenue is desired by plaintiffs, since they are now persevering

to sell the property unoccupied.

20. Defendant has no immediate adequate remedy at law for the injuries plaintiff has past

suffered and currently is being injured by, and will continue to suffer into the future. Unless

plaintiffs’ wrongful conduct is restrained by the authority and power of this court, an ongoing

criminal enterprise will consummate it final malicious agendas.

22. Over the last five years, plaintiffs treated defendant with sadistic abuse, to break down his

will to resist compliance to their demands through intimidation. Such abuse has been achieved

through petitioning defendant for eviction on false claims of his misconduct and recently with

taking his personal property. Now one of defendant’s properties has gone into foreclosure and

plaintiff tells him that if he doesn’t agree to the sale of both properties he will get nothing.

Consequently, defendant is currently in poor health and in an emotionally distressed state.

23. The declaratory relief is for an expedient determination on the parties’ right to possession is

defendant’s only option for a timely determination in the reasonable near future. This is with

considering the anticipated delaying tactics of plaintiffs to gain an unfair advantage by

prolonging the status quo granted by the housing court of ‘quiet’ and ‘paramount title.’ Since

without a determination of ownership according to Conn. Law, plaintiff this will force defendant

12
to agree to accept the $200,000.00, or whatever plaintiffs are willing to give him from the sale of

his property that they control.

24. Defendant seeks relief of an expedient DISMISSAL OF THE SUMMARY PROCESS

PROCEEDING in this court on papers, as clearly this is a different property then the one they

were able to execute eviction from; and even under the ownership of by a different LLC. Thus,

the court legally can’t agree with plaintiff that because the court evicted defendant from the

adjoining property it is a matter of resjudica. Consequently, this court does not have jurisdiction

to hear this matter according to Conn. Practice Book Sec. 17-53, ‘Summary Process Executions,’

that states is requested because of a violation of a term in a judgment with a stay of execution

beyond the statutory stay, that is not the case in this matter.

However, if the court does not believe the summary dismissal is justified considering the facts

and circumstances. The court will be reminded to refer to the papers filed in late January that

indicate that an illegal lockout occurred as attested to have occurred on December 16, one day

after the ‘Use and Occupancy’ was granted. However, in spite of defendant and his agent appeals

to Weichart Realtiy and his back stabbing prior lawyer Katz, they both out right refuse to provide

a key to defendant’s agent, Joe Tortelli. Consequently, according to Conecticut Law this

constutes an act of constructive eviction and plaintiff has no right to collect any rent, as in :

"constructive eviction" arises where a landlord, while not actually depriving the tenant of
possession of any part of the premises leased, has done or suffered some act by which the
premises are rendered untenantable, and has thereby caused a failure of consideration for
the tenant's promise to pay rent.—Heritage Square, LLC v. Eoanou, 764 A.2d 199, 61
Conn. App. 329 (2001).—Land & Ten 172(1).

13
Insomuch this Court’s rush to trial when evidence was brought to bear that defendant could not

appear was based on the non-compliance to pay the use and occupancy. However, since the

premises were deprived from defendant, such as for Joe Tortelli to go inside to review what

might have been stolen by plaintiffs, they have no lawful right to demand the ‘U&O.’

Consequently, defendant is currently in jeopardy if the status-quo continues and court continues

to deprive defendant his legal rights to accommodate the wants of his opposition. Since,

according to facts and circumstances with evidence submitted in support, the court should

accommodate defendant and allow him to plead his defense and subsequent counterclaim when

he is physically available. Insomuch as Connecticut housing law does provide for this

consideration of extending an appearance to a tenant that is away and cannot return when he is

able to show ‘just cause’ as defendant has done.

Whereas, defendants inability to travel until early spring due to his poor health is verified as a

material fact by the medical doctors that are treating him for the disorders causing him to be

physically handicapped. In fact, defendant is now in Florida because his fatal respiratory

condition requires by his doctor’s orders that he avoids dramatic exposure to the cold.

Accordingly, Judge Grogins declared final judgment on defendant’s default on the trial date he

set for 25th of February

27. Accordingly, in the instance of this matter the ‘extraordinary circumstance’ standard is

met. Insomuch as the title conveyance documents indicate plaintiff paid no money for the

property. Not to mention, with larcenous intent, plaintiffs have extracted many hundreds of

14
thousands out of the equity in defendant’s property and currently this is an ongoing activity.

Clearly this is in violation of the contract that the rental revenue would be applied to paying off

the properties expenses and that the property would be purchased by November 3, 2006.

28. Thus, with the LLCs which designated the 50% ownership was set up to achieve the

above stated promise became breached, it de facto determined that the 50% ownership can’t be

enforced in any court of equity. Since, the 50% ownership sprung out from the bargain of the

contract, as with considering it was agreed to be applicable for the performance of defendant

to pay defendant 1.9 million, or 2.4 million if an outsider purchased the property. Not only to

mention the intentional bad faith exercised by defendants, but that they have ‘unclean hands.’

This is in part by defendants embezzling many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Albeit on the

basis of the existence of the contract that created the LLCs. Consequently, since defendants

have unclean hands it deprives them of standing in a court of equity; such as to enforce the

contract that provided them with the 50% ownership in the LLCs, in the first place.

29. Moreover, as these conveyance documents indicate plaintiffs paid no money for the

property and misused the powers and the authority of the courts as a criminal enterprise In effect,

defendant’s extortionist activities violates the ‘Hobb’s Act’ and the ‘Sherman’s Act,’ by their

activity of controlling the sale of defendant’s property through the contractual ‘agreement.’

Furthermore, the plaintiffs acted with unlawful conduct to deprive defendant from receiving the

rental revenues that through the Norwalk Court’s assistance they directed to themselves. This is

15
in violation of a separate agreement that defendant Pecunies made with defendant that they

would receive $6,700.00 in monthly rents and defendant would collect $3,600.00.

Whereas was primarily applied for defendants own use and benefit, in violation of the

‘agreement’ that the court went by to advocate their right of entitlement. This was at the very

time in 2008 that defendants were hundreds of thousands of dollars in dereliction of applying the

rental revenue to the properties debts.

24. Yet, recently upon plaintiffs’ whim, they refused the February rents from plaintiff’ that

they were collecting, to start by legal notice, eviction proceedings on them. (exh. ). Essentially,

plaintiffs’ claim to title is the product of constructive fraud to establish through falsified

instruments that the LLCs own 50% of the property. This constitutes statutory forgery and the

fraudulent conveyance and foul play is evident to anyone who examines the filed instruments.

Therefore plaintiffs had to of benefited from the assistance of the agent for M&T bank and the

lawyer who signed onto binding the instrument, since as specialist in this area they know that a

legitimate transference of tile is not based on the granter being given a mortgage own his own

property by the grantee who is identified on the mortgage as the ‘lender.’(exh )

25. Since the terms on the mortgage states what it is, a conveyance of tile, constructed on the

defendants being named as the ‘lender’ of a $40,000.00 mortgage on the property he owns. This

is when through leveraging the property plaintiffs received $360,000, while they gave defendant

the $40,000.00 All at the expense of transforming an 8½ % rate into a11½ % rate. Yet, the

closing lawyer for some reason he is to explain in his defense, did not think it was his implied

professional duty of responsibility to consult with plaintiff. Thereby, to check with defendant

16
if this “refinancing” that he was shut out from participating, is in effect, what he wants, knows

of, or has verbally authorized.

26, These are the matters before the court that clearly constitute racketeering activities. Such as

the fact history indicates is driven through misuse of the judicial machinery through fraud and

deceit. Thereby, to avert the inevitable destruction from occurring, this court must grant the

immediate relief sought, in order to disrupt an ongoing organized criminal conspiracy. Such as it

is at this time with plaintiffs criminal activities of racketeering with extortionist tactics, criminal

mischief and with a pervasive pattern of threatening to dive out defendant’s occupancy, Such as

the recent incident where plaintiffs employee showed his gun to imply he might shoot the tenants

dog of defendants tenant that plaintiffs want to vacate out of intimidation

27. In addition, all of the past progress of this case’s has been corrupted by the professional

misconduct of defendant’s council to intentionally sabotage his ability to prevail. Such as starting

with Katz’s malicious act of amending the complaint to strip out its teeth; done under false

pretenses. Since Katz deceived defendant by claiming he had to withdraw allegations of fraud

and other misconduct on the original complaint, due to being barred by the statues of limitations.

Further, explaining to defendant that the relief available was restricted to the cause of action to

be confined to seeking breach of contract and the dissolution of the LLC’s. (This is a bold faced

lie, since time restrictions for matters of contract dispute are six years).

29. Yet, what is most outstanding upon face and is a testament that Katz kept defendant in the

dark by the very fact that the legal papers are all signed by Katz and not defendant. In addition,

the original complaint stating numerous strong causes of action in the Stamford Superior Court
17
has be amended with a current complaint diametrically adverse to defendants cause. Specifically

the complaint is based on a breach of contract from plaintiff neglecting to collect the rents from

the property. Even though for 5 years they collected 6,000.00 to 10,000.00 monthly and lied in

their past proceedings that defendant collected all the rents. Wherefore, insomuch as the

amended complaint of 9-29-09 is the product of a ‘fraud upon the court’ it must be vacated to

reestablish the 12-10-08 complaint over the matter. Since:

"a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all,
and never becomes final." according to Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968) ; 7
Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23.

30. Moreover, for no better purpose than to delay the case being heard, Katz elected to place

the case on the ‘complex litigation docket,’ which established the case to be tried in 1½ years.

Even though the cursory view to access the most basic legal options available for pursuit would

inform any lawyer during the course of shaping his/her legal plan of action that the relief now

sought is available; in addiction, to being obtainable on the ordinary docket action in this court.

31. Consequently, choosing the complex litigation forum gave plaintiffs’an unfair advantage,

considering the facts and circumstances of the status quo and timely need for adjudication.

Insomuch as that the issues corresponding to the matters in dispute are diametrically opposed to

what is offered, or required in a complex litigation matter. In view of the fact that the issues are

clearly defined, as black and white, and subject to expedient adjudication. Since the plaintiffs

have no defense, absolutely nothing that they can embrace to even suggest having any

entitlement under the law. Consequently, the only legal option available to defendant is to

attempt to delay the inevitable determinations and judgments leveled against them.

18
32. In effect, defendant’s hiring of Katz to pursue his legal options is analogous to hiring a

‘gremlin’ to fix the engine in your airplane. Insofar as Katz not only did not do any discovery,

but is now in default of time scheduling for its completion. Clearly, this constitutes activities of

intentional negligence. Consequently, Katz handed to defendants the standing to move for

plaintiff to be precluded from his right to do any discovery in this matter. In addition to

providing plaintiff’s with ‘cause’ to support their pending movant for nonsuit. Since

plaintiff can now justify that defendant is now in default in prosecuting his case to bring it ready

to trial, and has not complied with any of the scheduled orders of this court (exh. ).

33. In defendant’s pending action, “Application for Discharge of Notice of Lis Pendens,”

dated December 9, 2009, states in ¶ 10 : “Mr Zanette’s lawsuit is not to affect real property.” Yet

nothing could be further than the truth. Since the dissolution of the LLCs is to accomplish

defendant’s expressed intention of the action, which was to legally reinstate full ownership.

Whereas, defendant legitimate full ownership of the properties has been deprived by plaintiffs’

act of fraudulent conveyance of title. So, to be “voiding the conveyances of 1353 and 1357 King

St” is the opposite of what would be obvious of what defendant’s interests.

34 Consequently, any prior hearings before Judge Jennings on this case have been perverted

by ‘fraud upon the court’ from lawyers’ misconduct on both sides. Since circumstantial

evidence, such as attested to by Katz’s letters to defendant (exh ) supports the conclusion that

Katz and Kaelin are perpetrating a fraud on the court by working in consort to:

“… defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by ‘officers of the court’ so that the
judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging

19
 cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7
Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23.

35. Essentially, this case has been corrupted by the lawyers on both sides handling this matter

who have engaged in professional misconduct. Their wrongful conduct was with not only to

block defendant from having his rights affirmed in court, but to misuse the court as a platform to

conduct a criminal enterprise. Clearly, the past judicial proceedings were corrupted from the foul

play perpetrated by the ‘officers of the court.’ Such that the past submissions, oral arguments,

and other professional conduct corresponding to this case were with criminal intent to insure

defendant is denied justice in court. (See exh. b) Motion to Hon Sheridan L Moore of Jan 29,

2010, Affidavit in Support (exh, c), and Motion/Complaint to Hon. Taggart D. Adams (exh.d).

36. Most disturbing is the fact that the lawyers for both sides, Kaelin for the defendant, and

plaintiff’s own Lawyer, Katz have egregiously violated RPC, Rule 8.4 Misconduct, of the

Conn. Rules of Professional Conduct. The complained misconduct is applicable to violations 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 lawyer’s 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…”

20
37. Consequently, defendant is seeking equitable remedies through the sought injunctive relief

to place a ‘bar’ on defendants’ continuing criminal activities. . .that are threatening to cause

irrevocable damages. Moreover, defendant is entitled to relief because he can unequivocally

show the anticipated success on the merits and that allowing the continuation of the status quo

will cause him to endure irreparable injury.

From this point on plaintiffs are referred to as defendants and defendant is referred to as plaintiff

15. Insomuch as plaintiff has the ability to show through unimpeachable evidence the

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

Thereby, plaintiff can establish before trial the merits of his entitlement for injunctive relief; and

with considering the parties legitimate rights, can show the balance of hardships 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 Court’s 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.

16. Wherefore, the ‘et al.’ as identified on record in “RKD Ventures LLC, et. al” to being

Ronald Pecunies and Authur K. Watson is no. 1 of the relief sought. This corresponds to prior

pleadings in this matter and also to a pending eviction action in housing court where the

aforementioned established this distinction. Moreover, it has already been determined that the

LLC’s are adjoined as a party of with the defendants identified as Watson and Pecunies. Such as

21
it is that the LLCs’ does not include plaintiff as a member to pending matters in the housing

court. Even though, plaintiff is 50% owner of these LLC’s they exist as a ‘sham corporation’ and

a product of fraud, as an artifice to a scheme.

17. Consequently, any injunctive ruling against or granting relief to the LLC’s must not

simultaneously be directed against plaintiff by the current existence of the LLCs. Since, this

would be as if plaintiff would be petitioning against himself with Pecunies and Watson included.

On the other hand, the LLC’s exist as a constructive trust. Moreover, it has already been

determined in a court of law upon the action of Pecunies and Watson that the LLC’s exists as an

adversary entity to attack defendants interests. Consequently, Pecunies and Watson are

collaterally estopped from utilizing plaintiff’s willful membership in the LLCs as a defense to

deflect their liability of acting on the behalf of the LLCs.

18. 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 objects of sentimental value (November- December 2009). Such as when defendants sent

their “security guard” Anthony Camadello, without giving any prior notice to demand plaintiff

lets him into his home.

19. Yet, after plaintiff 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

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

22
defendant’s representation, Kaelin, threatening plaintiff over the phone by telling plaintiff’s

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 plaintiff’s home to change the lock on the outside and then breaking the lock on the

inside to change that also. (Although, defendant 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).

20. The last criminal act of harassing occurred on December 15, 2009 when defendant

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 façade of being justified, due to emergency

circumstances.(see exh. )

21. Consequently, from defendants pattern of harassment the granting of ‘no. 5’ relief is

required to bar defendants and their agents from entering plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff’s 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, defendants’ agents would deny that they did what they did, only

23
to do it again at another time because the police refuse to acknowledge any of these acts are

criminal conduct.

22. Yet, even after initial 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 plaintiff’s progress on a steep road to recovery towards becoming whole once

again to heal from his current chronic state of emotional distress. Since, after defendants have

ran roughshod over plaintiff’s property rights to steal the equity in his property he is without

funds and terribly anxious. Whereby, as a causation of defendants looting of the properties, it

now owes about 2.3 million and has gone into foreclosure. Yet, before defendants became

managers, the property owed less a Million in debts and was solvent. Not to mention the

properties’ devaluation of its market price is about a million, since the time parties entered into

the agreement. In addition, defendant was never able to have the roads built to his vacation lake

land. Since defendant was relying on the pending sale to achieve finishing the development of

his land, now expected to bring about 1.7 million less after its development.

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

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

defendants. . .that is 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 court’s intervention is required to affirm the legitimate rights of

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

24
24. Specifically, the injunction relief requested is of the greatest urgency to put a halt on

defendants’ usurpation of the rental revenues. Insomuch as, due to defendants’ stealing $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 ½ years, instead of applying these funds to

the property’s debts, plaintiff’s property has gone into foreclosure. However, defendants’

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

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

25. Whereas, now that foreclosure is pending, defendants are using this as a ploy to extort

more hundreds of thousands out of plaintiff. Currently, this is being attempted by coercing

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

revenue that the sale creates. Such as by having plaintiff’s last lawyer (who was just discharged

due to his apparent collusion with the defendants) write to plaintiff telling him that if he doesn’t

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).

25. 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 plaintiff’s right for the quite enjoyment of the property

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

25
26. Wherefore, pursuant to the ‘doctrine of unclean hands,’ defendant’s

past misconduct with misuse of the courts should be considered when they appeal for

consideration. This is because the sited conduct of the defendants is totally reprehensible to

constitute felonious activities of racketeering. Such as where defendant’s acted in egregious bad

faith by violating plaintiff’s trust with despicable behavior of being outrageously dishonest,

inequitable, unfair and deceitful.

27. Not to mention, defendants propped up 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 respondent’s 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 respondent’s 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. )

28. Consequently due to petitioner’s unclean hands, as this tenet of the law commands they

are not entitled to any consideration of relief in equity. Since, petitioners 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

26
29. Currently, defendants 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, defendants are now spinning a

web of lies to perpetrate a fraud upon the court for plaintiff’s rights to occupy his property to be

denied through his eviction by the LLC’s. Even though they have terrorized and defrauded

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

30. Not to mention, defendant can’t 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, plaintiff has the ability to bring forth evidence that could not

only validate defendant’s 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 or FBI.

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

issues in dispute between parties that shocks the conscience. Since, defendants’

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.

27
32. Moreover, all of the defendant’s palpable lies have until now been unchallenged by the

intentional extreme and chronic dereliction of duty by plaintiff’s

own councils; “e.g.’ Brown excluded plaintiff from being present at trial to hear opposition’s

perjuries and testify in rebuttal. Clearly, this is the result of the ineptness of plaintiff’s

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 plaintiff communicated what was the legal

position that he wanted presented. Consequently, plaintiff’s lawyers have clearly validated that

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

33. Thus, as a causation of the corrupt conduct of plaintiff lawyers, he consistently has been

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

Moreover, not only have plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff’s lawyer. As a result thereof defendants’ misconduct

and what is now a timely need to cure:

(a) King St property that has gone into foreclosure

(j) The note on plaintiff’s property in Maine comes due in April and plaintiff is to

be in default.

(k) Current tenants are being harassed to vacate

28
34. Plaintiff endured harm and is currently being threatened to be done by defendant

because the State Attorney General Blumenthal refused to assist him in any manner, and as the

Greenwich Police, State Attorney’s Office in Stamford, and the FBI of Bridgeport Connecticut,

determined after examining all the relevant evidence that any wrong doings done by defendants

were restricted to being a civil matter. In fact none of these agencies thought plaintiff’s

complaints was worthy to investigate and the state court always decides in favor of defendants.

Not to mention when a 92 page motion addressed to Judger Moor to vacate her use and

occupancy ruling, it was never acknowledged to have even been attempted to have been filed.

This stamped filing occurred on January 29, and its cause of action was based on fraud,

collusion, perjury and fraud upon the court.

35. Thus, this Court is plaintiff’s last hope of having his rights as a citizen to own property that

is not dominated by despicable individuals who feel they are above the law to do what they want.

Since it is clear to plaintiff that defendants not only believe that his rights don’t matter, but they

would be absolutely delighted if he dropped dead from an attack triggered by their campaign to

agitate his life for their financial enrichment. As it would become a short task for them to attach

to themselves every last bit of property he owns and exploit their bogus claims of court record.

Considering that defendants lawyer, Steven Phillips, has utilized and has at his disposal

defendant’s authorization that he has power of attorney over my property for just such an event

(exh )

5. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm, damage, and injury unless the acts and conduct of

defendant above complained of are brought to a halt.

29
 JURISDICTION
FOR RESTERATION OF DEPRIVED RIGHTS

Plaintiff embraces 42, U.S.C. § 1983 – Civil action for depravation of rights; In re:

(a) 18 U.S.C. § 241-247 – Offenses against civil rights of citizens.

(b) 18 U.S.C. § 1985 – Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights [civil

liberties].

(c) 18 U.S.C. § 1986 – Action for Neglect to Prevent Conspiracy.

(d) 18 U.S.C., ch. 21e, § 1871 – Deprivation of rights under Color of State

Law – Due Process in State Proceedings and State Created Rights

(e) 18 U.S.C., ch. F11,§ F11(01) (04) – Property and Contract Rights

FIRST CAUSE OF COUNTRCLAIM

‘CONVERSION’

15. Plaintiff as alleged above, as a direct and proximate result of the conduct described above,

plaintiff has lost millions that he would have had if not but for the malicious interference of

defendants as a result of their willful and wanton activity of the conversion

As a further direct and proximate result of the conversion by defendant Delmo L Zanette has

been damaged by the loss of his ability to carry out his intention to sell his land for four million

in 2007. Of which can be verified.

As a further direct and proximate result of the conversion by defendants

30
Pecunies and Watson has been damaged by him not being able to complete development of his

land in Main in 2006. Of which plaintiff is told and can be verified by forensic appraisal of the

contrasting market price of comparable land sales. As a result, plaintiff is entitled to injunctive

relief, as more particularly set forth in the SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:

SECOND CAUSE OF COUNTRCLAIM

‘TRESSPASS TO TRY TITLE’

As a further direct and proximate result of the conversion of the agreement by defendants’

unlawful interference with plaintiff’s property and rights thereto. This was achieved by

defendants’ willful and intentional unlawful acts to harm plaintiff by their usurpation of his

legally protected rights of ownership. This action is for plaintiff’s recovery of possession of his

real properties unlawfully withheld from him when he has an immediate right of possession.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges that the conduct of

defendants was willful, malicious, intentional, and done with intent to oppress [plaintiff]

and with a conscious disregard for plaintiff’s known rights as more particularly set forth in the
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:

THIRD CAUSE OF COUNTRCLAIM

TRESPASS TO CHATTEL

Against Defendants Pecunies, Watson and Camadello. Whereby, Plaintiff realleges and

incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to , as though set forth fully here.

As a direct and proximate result of the conduct described above, defendants Pecunies Watson

Camadello and Katz was able to deprive plaintiff of the following items of personal property.

31
As a direct and proximate result of the trespass to chattel by defendant Katz plaintiff has been

damaged by the lost value of thebaseball, in an amount subject to proof. Plaintiff will amend this

complaint once the amount is ascertained.

As a further direct and proximate result of the trespass to chattel by defendants, employee,

Camadello, plaintiff has been damaged by the loss of things that total in cost thousands of

dollars. The items stolen, misappropriated or trashed are as follows

As a further direct and proximate result of the trespass to chattel by Camadelo, which establishes

that plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief, as more particularly set forth in the FOURTH

CAUSE OF ACTION.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CAUASTIONAL INJURIES.

As a further direct and proximate result of the conversion of the agreement by defendants

Pecunies and Watson, plaintiff has been damaged by the following

1) loss of rental revenue;

2) dramatic depreciation of property value, where subject properties would have

been sold if not but for defendants’ interference;

3) dramatic depreciation of property value of Maine properties, where this properties

would have been able to have been placed on the market four years ago, if plaintiff

was not deprived of the funds. Albeit contributed to defendants’ intentional misfeasance by

breach of promise and malicious interference;

4) many hundreds of thousands of dollars of embezzled funds

32
 5) loss of revenue from forcibly being deprived from operating farm store operation

` 6) imposed burden of legal fees fighting malicious and fraudulent legal actions.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges that the conduct of

defendants was willful, malicious, intentional, to inflict emotional devastation on plaintiff. This

treatment has been with a palpable and pervasive pattern of beating down plaintiff through cruel

and abusive treatment. Clearly, such activities can be construed were done with the objective

intent to overpower his ability to resist defendants demands he except $200,000.00 for property

he was offered 4 million in 2006 by two different parties.

Although, defendants have been given the green light to continue victimize plaintiff to extract all

his wealth by any means, and with a conscious disregard for plaintiffs known rights. This has

been by not only the appropriate officers of the state, but also “officers of the federal

government.” Since in late October they were provided with a detailed and comprehensive

overview of the attached reports (exh ) and over a hundred pages of the documents in support

before the courts view. This was at a time that statues of limitations lapsed for law suits in State

Civil Court.

Yet, all the law enforcement agents were informed that an indictment was needed within three

weeks to a month as the only hope for restitution they neglected to even pretend that investigated

the case before they determined. Since, no one called plaintiffs witness who had attended all the

preliminary meeting, when she would routinely scold defendant for not reading what he was

signing. In fact’s Ms. Gramacy signed on as a witness to the first property transfer in April 21,

33
2004. Not, to mention: John Dimattia, supervising A.S.A head for “elder abuse crimes” in

Connecticut, Michael Panza of the State Attorney’s Office, FBI agent John McKenna and agent

Shawn Kahanec of the mortgage/securities fraud division of the Bridgeport office, did not even

call plaintiff before they closed their investigations. Hence, plaintiff fits the complained

activities of defendants to correspond to RICO violations and your court is of the last resort.

Since I do not believe the unbridled activities of defendants taking what I have worked all my

life at the detriment of making my live a living hell should be tolerated in a civilized society.

Since defendants intention is to give me $200,000 after both properties are sold, is only 5% of

what I could have received from a legitimate buyer at the time I agreed they could buy it. These

are the matters, along with the fact history, to be considered by the tier of facts of this court; as

where plaintiff prays your authority to enforce the rights of citizens to be respected, would

influence defendants to quit engaging in malfeasant conduct; such that is dedicated to drive me

into an early grave to achieve their optimum financial enrichment at my expense.

However, the Greenwich police would not accept a complaint of the fraudulent conveyance and

the embezzled $360,000.00 determining it was a civil matter and no crimes were committed.

Such as it was with the numerous acts of threatening made to plaintiff by Camadelo. Then when

plaintiffs

33. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct described above, defen-

EXPIDICTED DISCOVERY.

34
Plaintiff requests EXPIDICTED DISCOVERY. This is due to a time need to have the matter

adjudicated as soon as possible, since the continuance of the status quo places plaintiff

in serious jeopardy. Insomuch as presently his properties not only in Connecticut are in

foreclosure, but his note on his 67 acres in Maine is coming due in April without his ability to be

incompliance. Furthermore, discovery is of great urgency for plaintiff to subpoena the business

bank accounts for the last five years of defendant Pecunies and Watson to show they have

deposited the rental checks into these own business accounts. This was achieved by having the

tenants write out their checks to the name of plaintiff and then having plaintiff sign over the

checks to the LLCs. Thereafter, these checks were deposited between Mercedes Benz of

Greenwich and Watson Enterprises; to benefit both Pecunies and Watson.

ARGUMENT

Defendants' behavior is clearly a willful course of conduct aimed at harassing and intimidating

plaintiff to effect extortion. Not to mention the Laws of the Land, guarantees the right of people

to be free from harassment, intimidation, criminal mischief, larceny. Plaintiff has been subjected

to defendants' conduct, such as: severe and extreme threats, coercion, intimidation, property theft

and damage, and terror as a result of coercing willful compliance of being egregiously cheated of

what he rightfully owns.

The actions of defendants constitute the very behavior the legislature sought to enjoin through

the provisions of RICO. The physical and emotional safety of plaintiffs can only be

accomplished by enjoining the hateful and violent acts of defendants.

35
Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of their action because the conduct of defendants

has been so profoundly outrageous and so clearly defines organized crime. Especially, since the

records contained in the courts and the filed deed and mortgage validates the alleged criminal

wrongdoings of bank fraud with embezzlement of $360,000,00 on November 17,2004. This was

under the pretense of securing refinancing. Whereby, defendants misrepresented to plaintiff

the refinancing was going to be in his name that was the motivation for him to sign the

documents that defendants lawyer put before him to sign. However the instruments on file

validate that the conveyance was a byproduct of constructive fraud

In addition, the defendants are currently continuing and escalating their acts of misconduct,

including the harassment, threats, property damage, and attempted extortion, are exactly the type

of conduct prohibited by the Laws of the Land that ensures every ones right to be free from

intimidation and criminal victimization. Defendants, conduct in conjunction with others in a

conspiracy, acted to loot the equity from his properties, thereby to extract millions from plaintiff

through fraud and deceit, and extortion. Whereby, there can be little doubt that defendants'

conduct is racketeering. It is inconceivable that defendants could articulate any legally justifiable

excuse for their actions. Since plaintiff will surely succeed on his claim of a violation of RICO

as his cause of action. Insomuch as RICO prohibits the use of fraud, threats, intimidation,

extortion and looting to interfere with a person's exercise of a statutory right to own property

without being molested. In the present case, defendants, and their employees and agents by their

use of threats, intimidation and destruction to his personal property, interfered with plaintiffs'

exercise of the rights guaranteed by both State Laws and Federal Laws.

36
No amount of money can compensate plaintiffs for the terror he experienced daily of the last five

years and the invasion of his guaranteed rights and personal civil liberties not to be molested.

Unless a preliminary injunction issues to prohibit any further threats, intimidation, theft and

criminal mischief constituted by willful disposal of plaintiff personal properties by defendants,

they are sure to continue. Insomuch as service upon why injunctive relief is required, for

instance: plaintiffs run a substantial risk of further emotional injury that can have a profound

detrimental effect on his frail physical condition, and even triggering an abrupt death.

By comparison defendants never paid a nickel to establish their claim of right of entitlement to

control and benefit from plaintiffs property, nor provided any real management services, which

was performed by plaintiff, only they harvested its rental revenue. Consequently, defendants

will bear no loss of anything invested as a result of not being granted this eviction

The proposed restraining order and injunction, primarily seeks to have defendants and their

agents stand down from demanding what belongs to plaintiff and cease their bigoted criminal

mischief, harassing and threatening conduct. In addition, defendants are to quit attaching

themselves to plaintiffs’ property through the LLCs, and to cease & desist their recent campaign

of harassing and terrorizing his tenants to drive them away. Thus, the balance of any hardships to

be considered weighs clearly in favor of plaintiffs right to prevail in court.

37
 CONCLUSION

6. A current controversy exists in that plaintiff asserts and defendants deny

that plaintiff is a bona fide 100% owner of the subject property. Insomuch as, defendants

in April and November 2004, clandestinely altered the title of subject property to name

them with collectively 50% ownership shared with plaintiff. Albeit achieved through the

commission of acts of trickery, statutory forgery, and constructive fraud. Thus,

defendants should have no right, title, or interest in the subject property adverse to

plaintiff. Plaintiff bases his contention on two distinct grounds:

(a) Defendants never paid any money to buy any interest in the subject

property and their claim is subject to the ‘Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act.’

Insomuch as this act requires a ‘reasonable consideration’ to establish a legitimate right

to conveyance of tile. Moreover, plaintiff did not have actual knowledge of the

instruments defendants filed in claim to the subject property until October 2009; and

(b) Defendants' are going by the RKD Venture and RKD Venture II LLCs, that

defendant agreed to designate to them a 50% share of the subject property. However the

setting up the LLCs sprung out of the attached agreement on the basis of being a

prelude to enable defendant’s performance of buying the property for 3 million or

selling it to an outsider for 4 million. Defendants’ promise of buying or selling the

properties by November 3, 2006 was not done by that time, or ever. Subsequently,

38
 declaratory relief listed below for the dissolution of the said LLCs is requested and is

expected will be granted.

7. A declaration of rights is necessary and appropriate in order to guide the parties in their

future course of conduct.

8. On May 27, 2004, plaintiff and defendant entered into a written agreement to purchase

his property within two years. A copy of the contract k.a. (agreement) is attached to this

complaint as Exh."A." The agreement was composed by defendants’ lawyer, Steven

Philips, yet the written terms stated were clearly different than what was verbally

promised to induce plaintiff to sign. Needless, plaintiff was prepared to honor the

agreement, in spite of the omitted and different terms that were significantly undesirable

to plaintiff’s interests in major proportions. Such as forfeiting a million dollar

differentiation of what the properties were known by plaintiff could fetch on the open

market, (previously established by an appraisal determination). Whereas in return for the

deduction, defendants promised plaintiff that he could continue to occupy his produce

store and live above it for the rest of his limited life span. In addition to the terms stating

plaintiff would only be receiving $200,000.00 at the time of the sale with a $100,000

each year until he was 103 years old was agreed by Pecunies would not be included. As

it had been introduced in prior proposed agreements, and was emphatically rejected by

plaintiff as being unacceptable. Thus, when plaintiff signed the agreement he was

unaware it would be included, but Phillips manipulated the signing by misrepresenting

39
 the terms to be different than they were. In addition to manipulating plaintiff so he

signed the agreement without reading it.

9. However, in spite of this trickery plaintiff was willing to accept these misrepresented

terms as something he was stuck with any wanted the purchase to go through. Since,

plaintiff was in need of money to finish his land development project in Maine. In effect,

to sell the property to defendants for three million or give them $600,000.00 if they

allowed an outside buyer he brought in to buy the property for the agreed 4 million.

However, defendants refused to accept the $600,000.00 to allow the sale to go through

by saying it just was not enough money. In spite of the $500,000.00 payment was clearly

defined in the contract as the bargain upon a 4 million purchase to an outsider.

10. Consequently, currently an enormous controversy has arisen and now exists relating to

the rights and duties of the parties to this action and the validity of the agreement.

Whereas, defendant contends that the breeched agreement designates it as the

controlling owners of the property and plaintiff as being their tenant. Further, defendant

insists that the contract is valid and enforceable, not on its face, but through the

adjudications rendered in the Norwalk Housing Court. Since the said court determined

defendants have quite title as the owner. As the Norwalk Court through declaratory

decrees identifies the ‘agreement’ as a lease and determined plaintiff is the tenant of

defendants and must pay them $1,675 for his “Use & Occupancy.” This is court ordered

for plaintiff to retain possession of the home he owns for over the last forty years, while

the Norwalk court is currently hearing an eviction action against him by defendants.

40
11. However, plaintiff emphatically disputes defendant's contentions and asserts that the

reasons asserted by defendant and said court are the product of a ‘fraud upon the court.’

Moreover, plaintiff contends that whatever privilege and right that they had pursuant to

the agreement expired in 2006. Since the defendants did not purchase the property by

the end of 2006, or allow it to be sold to an outsider, and no quid-quo-pro occurred to

give them any claim of entitlement. Not to mention, defendants are not licensed real

estate brokers or bank lending agents, which makes defendants’ bargain of the

‘agreement’ illegal and unenforceable by them, in the first place.

12. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the circumstances

in order that plaintiff may ascertain his rights and duties under the written ‘agreement.’

In addition to this Court rendering a determination on the defendants’ rights, and duties,

under the ‘agreement.’ Since the agreement has been unlawfully defined, thereby to

cause plaintiff to endure tremendous financial hardships. In addition, due to the

malicious interference of defendants into my personal business matters they have forced

me into being in a precariously vulnerable financial predicament. This is where I have to

immediately deal with unsettled state of affairs that pose a serious threat on my financial

stability.

13. As a result of the intentional and willful misconduct of defendants to maliciously injure

plaintiff to suffer major damages sustained to date and restitution is sought. In effect for

five miserable years I endured a living nightmare from defendants pressing me on the

basis of the agreement I signed. Forcing me from my home, my farm store by having the

41
 sheriff take away plaintiff’s property to be appropriated to the sole possession of

defendants. However, now, as this case is before a Federal Court of equity, out of the

State Court’s jurisdiction, defendants can be held to be judged on the matter of their

performance with not fulfilling their end of the bargain.

14. Insomuch, as defendants may have collected about $400,000.00 in rents on the basis of

the agreement stating it was to go towards paying off the properties debts. Yet, even

though the taxes are only about $15,000 a year, due to defendants’ looting the equity of

my property it now owes well over a million dollars. Since, the defendants transformed a

one million note into a two million open-end line of credit that is exahausted. Albeit

with the consideration the 2 million lean, includes plaintiff’s $40,000.00 loan built into it

that names Pecunies as the “lender.” Whereas, the mortgage establishes this loan as the

‘fair consideration; for two million dollars *worth of real estate interest, that means the

‘lender’ pays nothing.

14. WHEREFORE. plaintiff desires a judicial determination of his rights and defendants’

duties, and a declaration as to judgment for:

(a) A declaration that its interest in the subject property is unencumbered by

any claim or right of defendants;

(b) Declaratory judgment on IF A LANDLORD/TENANT RELATIONSHIP

EXISTS between defendants as plaintiff’s landlord. This corresponds to a pending

controversy between parties where defendants and the Norwalk Housing Court believes

that defendants are the legal controlling owners of the subject property. Moreover, that

42
plaintiff’s current relationship to defendants is that plaintiff is their tenant, subject to the

authority of the said court to be evicted.

(c) Declaratory decree on the dispute as to which party has the LEGAL

RIGHT TO DEMAND AND COLLECT RENTS. Since the rental revenues have been

the source of all the equity that the properties produce. Yet, without legitimate right, the

defendants collected its rents for 5 years for mostly their personal financial benefit.

Thereby, defendants deprived plaintiff of all the properties’ revenue that rightfully

belongs to him. Moreover, defendants neglected to apply the rental revenue towards

paying off the properties’ debts as was agreed to give them the authority in the first place.

(d) Declaratory determination that ‘FRAUD UPON THE COURT

OCCURRED’ in the Norwalk Housing Court on this dispute.

(e) Declaratory determination that ‘FRAUD UPON THE COURT OCCURRED in the

Stamford Superior Court on this dispute.

(f) Declaratory determination that the judges hearing this dispute in Norwalk

Housing Court RULED WITHOUT HAVING JURISDICTION. This is where Judge

Grogins and Hickley acting under the color of state law ruled adversely to the laws of the

land. Since they exercised power possessed by virtue of state law, clothed with the

authority of state law to bootstrap themselves to rule without having legitimate authority.

In effect, these judges abused their position given to them by the state to harm plaintiff.

43
This was by their decreeing judgment without having jurisdiction and also egregiously

violating his constitutional rights to fair treatment in a court of law. 

(g) Declaratory judgment that the said judges DEPRIVED

PLAINTIFF OF DUE PROCESS by: “(1) that he possessed a constitutionally

protected property interest; and (2) that he was deprived of that interest without due
process of law.”. . . In that his protected property interests are created by "existing rules
and understandings that stem from state law--rules or understanding that secure certain
benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.” Consequently, he
endured "a deprivation of life, liberty, or property.” Yet it wasn’t “preceded by an
opportunity for… hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.”

(g) Declaratory judgment by the defendants’ lawyer KAELIN MADE A

FALSE DECLARATION TO THE COURT on the central issue in dispute. This is at

least one occasion by stating: “defendants own 100% of the property at 1357 King St.”

As a result Judge Moore granted ‘Use and Occupancy’ of $1,675 monthly to be imposed

upon plaintiff, as an ill-gotten gain for defendants, the fruit of Kaelin’s act of ‘fraud upon

the court.’

(h) Declaratory decree that the RKD LLCS ARE CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS

to the property as being essentially ‘sham corporations;’ devised with the intent for evil

purposes and to violate the law; as an artifice to a scheme. Consequently, the doctrine of

unclean hands prescribes that the existence of the LLCs does not protect defendants being

held liable for their activities under the name of the LLC’s. Since the very purpose of

establishing the LLC’s as an entity was to be inequitable, unfair, deceitful and to engage

44
in reprehensible conduct to defraud plaintiff. Thus, defendants are prohibited by the

tenets of law to cloak themselves in the LLC’s as a legal shield.

45