Friday August 1 2014 Camden, New Jersey Superior Court of New Jersey
Judge Millenky: Remain seated please, let me just get some papers organized here, this is,…… the matter of Rodney Kelly v. Wade Hale, Timothy Tyler, Kathy Mehrer etc., al and I believe the et.al., covers the County and then the uh County Clerk’s Office as well
Mr. Crook: That’s correct your honor
Judge Millenky: Everyone may be seated……………. as I said this is docket L-827-14 and appearances please
PAG Kelly: uh…Rodney Kelly et.al. State of New Jersey and other indigenous African American descents denied recording ministerial recording duties,
Judge Millenky: so Mr. Kelly the only way that you can appear here today is representing yourself, your not someone who is authorized to practice law and I can only have you appear on behalf of yourself and that’s how the court will accept your appearance here today, I know that you may assert other positions, but the court understands the following, that attorney’s represent other individuals in our state and with respect to an individual they absolutely have the right to represent themselves in court proceedings but they don’t have the authority to represent others, so Sir. I’m gonna take your appearance and I’m gonna accept your appearance on behalf of yourself, lets continue, Sir?
PAG Kelly: I object
Judge Millenky: I understand
Mr. Owens: Yes, Clarence Owens owner of 9 Spindletop Lane by way of Deed from Mr. Kelly to myself…
Judge Millenky: Sir are you a party to this action
Owens: Yes I am, I also have a cross complaint on this particular docket, along with the dockets of El Mujaddid and also in regarding Taqwaamani.
Judge Millenky: Sir…I’m not sure that I understand when you say you have a cross complaint, sir, you, have you filed any pleadings in this case?
Owens: yes I do, I actually have a docket number right now, uh, I also filed a action in lieu, along with a hybrid complaint regarding the same defendants but in addition to that if..,
Judge Millenky: an under what docket number is that sir?
Owens: that docket number I believe I want to say off top of my head is 2710-14
Judge Millenky: so that’s a different one than those
Owens: that’s a different one but there is a cross complaint for this particular…
Judge Millenky: and by cross complaint what do you mean?
Owens: an actual cross complaint pursuant to the court rules because…
Judge Millenky: we have cross claims, we have counter claims, we have third party claims, so when you say cross complaint that doesn’t help me,
Owen: actually under the court rules, and I can dig them up for you allowed to come on board as a cross complainant and furthermore if you look at the defendants writings, that they have given to you your honor they actually brought me up because of a deed, where Mr. Kelly and I..
Judge Millenky: I seen your name mention that’s certain
Owens: Yes, that’s me Clarence Owens
Judge Millenky: So I’, still just understand this cross complaint what is it that you allege in that?
Owens: Well within my cross complaint I’m alleging similar allegations in regards to the defendant’s failure to perform their ministerial duties to record and furthermore their undue preference given to other documents…
Judge Millenky: so did you intervene in this action, is that what you did?
Owen: yes I did with my cross complaint and I’m also now an interested party by way of the deed that was denied recording
Judge Millenky: ok and right now did you file any pleadings in connection with the motions that are pending here?
Owens: Yes I did, actually the defendants actually have the cross complaint that I filed on all three dockets again for Mr. Kelly, Taqwaamani, and also El Muji, Mujaddid and last but not least my action in lieu individually for myself
Judge Millenky: Counsel?
Mr. Crook: Thank you your honor, Evan Crook Capehart & Scatchard on behalf of the defendants in this case
Corea: umm Michelle Corea your honor on behalf of the defendants….capehart & scatchard
Mr. Crook: uh your honor in terms of the status of Mr. Owens, uh he has served on our office, what he purports to designate as a cross complaint but there’s been no motion to intervene, there’s been nothing whatsoever, he hasn’t been third parties in by use, he hasn’t been brought in by plaintiff Mr. Kelly uh so in terms of the underlying action with Mr. Kelly, uh it’s our position that Mr. Owens is not a party, has not standing to argue here today, uh at least in terms of the motion to dismiss, in terms of the separate motion having to do with this Deed that was filed he is the person who is designated as having a 1% interest, I will acknowledge that..Umm I’m not sure again that procedurally he’s part of this case, an can properly argue here today, I will leave that up to your honor
Judge Millenky: So let me understand something Mr. Owens, you said you filed a cross complaint in this case, did you get leave of court to file that?
Mr. Owens: No I didn’t actually get leave of Court,
Judge Millenky: so how did you do it?
Owens: well I just took it upon myself to do it pursuant to the court rules that allow me to do so your honor.
Judge Millenky: I don’t understand what you’re referring to
Owens: Well what I’m referring to is, again, uh this is an Action in lieu and it is a matter of public interest and furthermore, I Just want to state for the record, I’m not acting as if I am licensed attorney, a Licensed bar member, I’m just an interested party because of the dynamics of what we’re here for today in the interest of pub..The public
Judge Millenky: ok, so it’s the same as I just said to Mr. Kelly in New Jersey individuals absolutely can represent themselves in any action, umm they don’t have the capacity however to represent others, to the extent that you maybe in this action, sir I’ve heard some references to a cross complaint we have a number of rules that provide for different types of pleadings we have cross claims, we have counter claims, we have third party claims and depending on the timing of the filing of these motions, sometimes for purposes of filing a complaint, somebody needs leave of court, sometimes they don’t, right now I’m dealing with the motion, umm to dismiss the plaintiffs amended complaint for failure to state a claim, sir you’ve submitted no pleadings, I’m referring that of Mr. Owens, you’ve submitted no pleadings in that matter, and I’ve received nothing from you on that case, and I don’t have any submissions that have been accepted by the court, and moreover there is no party, who I see on the caption that I have in front me that includes you, that means to this court you’re not a party at least as of yet, you may be in the future, I don’t know, but right now, sir you’re not someone whose here to argue the case, if you want to sit next to Mr. Kelly, because he’s your friend, we ordinarily don’t permit that, but I will permit it, I’ll let you sit here next to him, umm but you’re not representing any party,
Owens: okay and your honor, just for the record and I appreciate that time you’ve given, I would just like to state for the record our U.S. Supreme Court in Brotherhood v. Trainmen Virginia,
Judge Millenky: Counsel, uh sir I’m not gonna here argument
Owens: no it’s not an argument your honor
Judge Millenky: Sir I’m not gonna here argument
Owens: it’s not an argument, I respect that
Judge Millenky: Sir I’m not gonna here argument at this time
Owen: I respect that,
Judge Millenky: I’m not gonna here argument
Owens: and I would just also like to say that I do have ownership interest in this property
Judge Millenky: that may well be
Owens: it is
Judge Millenky: that may well be
Owens: it is
Judge Millenky: ok but if you want to intervene in this case you’re going to have to make a motion to intervene,
Owens: which I did, but that’s ok,
Judge Millenky: and I’ll have to treat it and I’ll have to deal with it, and we’ll go from there, ok
Judge Millenky: ok, so now Mr. Kelly this is the defense motion to dismiss your complaint for failure to state a claim,
PAG Kelly: Your honor the defendants is in default, that has to be dealt with first
Judge Millenky: Sir I’m, I’m gonna handle these in the order that I deem appropriate
PAG Kelly: Your honor….
Judge Millenky: and what I deem to be appropriate is this, that there is a motion to dismiss your complaint for failure to state a claim, I find based upon the review of the papers that it is timely filed that the court will consider it, that there is not a necessity of only filing an answer, instead under Rule 4:6 an individual may file a motion instead to dismiss the complaint, I am going to hear that in the first instance, now with respect to this motion to dismiss the complaint, the argument that the defendants make, is you’re your complaint essentially describes in a series of counts, a complaint that sounds in this factual or is grounded in this factual scenario that there are, if I’ve counted them correctly I think one, two…that there are nine different documents which you sought to file at the Burlington County Clerk’s office and which were rejected for filing and you seek relief in connection with the fact that the clerk’s office and certain individuals within that office rejected those filings, the position of the clerk’s office, of the individuals and of the county of Burlington is that the documents that you prepared for filing are not documents that are within the filing statute that fall within the parameters of the uhh, filing statute, that controls filings and therefore the clerk acted correctly in not filing them, and that sir you can’t no expressions just I’m were I’m gonna here from Mr. Kelly
Owens: that’s okay
Judge Millenky: I know its okay
Judge Millenky: So don’t nod your head or you know, approve or disapprove, I’m just gonna talk to Mr. Kelly,
Judge Millenky: so Mr. Kelly with respect to the analysis that is set forth by the defendants under N.J.S.A 46:26A-2, tell me why the nine documents that you proposed to file should have been accepted
PAG Kelly : Your honor, the documents were in plain English, they were uh, recordable under New Jersey uh SA 46:26A-2, it says documents may be recorded, documents effecting real in title to recording, uh deeds, or other, other conveyances, releases, declarations of trust, any interest, interest is concern, and and, and, uh, interest in concern, and effect is influence, my property is under attack, I’m under attack, the United States Congress, 50 united states attorney generals, all made findings of fraud and forgeries, and even you mentioned mortgage irregularities, uh, certifications, uh, false certifications, and stuff, all this stuff was done to me and I been trying since 2011, to, to, to get justice, I filed a notice of uh, revocation of uh my signature because in May 24th 2011 Carrington sent a person to my house that had me sign a fraudulent mortgage
Judge Millenky: Who sent it?
PAG Kelly: uh modification, Carrington Mortgage Services
Judge Millenky: Ohh I see
PAG Kelly : they sent a person to my house to have me sign a modification, the modification I sign and dated, they was upset when I dated that modification, and after that, they did not register this modification, they did not attest it, they did not notarize it, and they left it in black, in blank with just my signature and date, now they took me to court on that same modification saying I failed to pay, because cause I tried to file a notification with the defendants, they denied me tried to give public constructive notice that there’s fraud and forgeries on my mortgage, and they got me trapped in an unlawful debt, making me pay debt peonage, these people not the ones that I owe, its five different entities saying that I owe them on my house, now If I did pay these people off, I still have four more that I know of and its plus more out there because of the fraud in factum….
Judge Millenky: Sir, are you saying that, is what you’re saying, is that there are 5 entities…
PAG Kelly: Yes…
Judge Millenky: who are all trying to collect from you on the same debt?
PAG Kelly : yes, and and the modification was unregistered, and I tried to let the, give constructive notice to the, to the world, and to other persons that I own the place, and I have rights to it, and I have possessory of it, and and they messed up my paperwork, and I have a forensic mortgage audit telling me this, and I see NJSA 46:2-2 it’s fraud and forgeries upon the court, fraud and forgeries upon the Burlington County Records as john Obrien says that place is a crime scene, as the sister states Article IV which New Jersey is not taking action to find out the criminal aspects of this crime, because people are suffering losing their homes…
Judge Millenky: Mr. Kelly in terms of what you’re saying, just two responses if I might, first of all to the extent that your describing fraud by mortgagees,
PAG Kelly: Yes
Judge Millenky: or by various purchasers of an original mortgage and what you’re describing is that your mortgage was sold and resold and that you’re alleging that the same mortgage was resold to multiple individuals
PAG Kelly: Yes, By E-Note
Judge Millenky: essentially at the same time
PAG Kelly: Yes, by E-Note
Judge Millenky: so that there are multiple people attempting to collect from you for the same single debt,
PAG Kelly: Yes and the same house,
Judge Millenky: and I understand, I understand,
PAG Kelly: that’s against the law
Judge Millenky: you know what Mr. Kelly if that were the case, no one would dispute that there ought to be redress for someone in your position, a homeowner in your position
PAG Kelly: and other indigenous African Americans plus other people that’s white
Judge Millenky: but sir, sir anyone in your position it doesn’t have to do with race or ethnicity, it has to do with as you described it a fraud upon the homeowner, but here’s the concern that I have sir, where fraud is alleged,
PAG Kelly: It was proven your honor, 50 United States and Congress, FBI, FDIC,
Judge Millenky: but where fraud is alleged, let me back up a minute sir, if fraud was alleged, where you say not only was there some big scheme out there that was wrong but here I am a particular individual Mr. Kelly who was a Victim, what our system contemplates, the way were set up, is we have a lawsuit where an individual such as yourself files an action against the individual who has asserted to have wrongfully taken a mortgage, wrongfully collected on a mortgage, whatever the wrong is, where an individual has fraudulent misrepresented someone, and individual files a lawsuit alleging that fraud, but Mr. Kelly, my concern is this that you have very legitimate concerns yourself as to what has happen to your home, I’m not here to make a determination, as to whether what you told me is factual, I haven’t heard the facts, I can’t make that assessment
PAG Kelly: your honor
Judge Millenky: but just hold on for one second it seems to me what your trying to do, is to go about seeking a remedy by following a course of action that doesn’t fit within the avenues that are open to people such as yourself for obtaining a remedy, obtaining redress, so, I can tell you sir, I’ve had lawsuits where’s and individual who is a homeowner, comes into court and says here’s what the mortgage company did incorrectly, here is if this was the case, how a fraud was perpetrated on me and I’m entitled to relief, and we here that case, we deal with that case, and indeed someone such as yourself a plaintiff, may well prove in such a case, that the defendant mortgage company, but that’s a lawsuit, it’s not a filing of what you assert to be a claim in a clerk’s office, the place to file a claim having to do with this wrong is in the court of law, and it’s a complaint that spells out, what has happened and it’s directed against the individuals who you say have perpetrated the wrongs, it’s not a filing in a clerk’s office, that’s designed to record various instruments, having to do in this case with property, that’s not the place where you assert claims, claims are asserted here in court,
PAG Kelly: Your honor
Judge Millenky: Yes
PAG Kelly : I object, your construing the story, you talking about one situation of the mortgage, I filed in foreclosure, that’s one thing, but one thing, they denied me the right to file a public notice, that’s what I’m talking about, they have a duty, a ministerial duty to record and that’s it, and they do not have the right to Judge the instruments, and say what’s in the instruments about how I do what, with what, and with who, they have a ministerial right to record, period..
Judge Millenky: So sir, what you wanna do then is and I’ve looked at the notices, and I’ll just pull the first one out…
PAG Kelly: and also your honor,
Judge Millenky: So Sir here…
PAG Kelly : they omitted the notice; you sent me a letter April the first, saying that this revocation, you didn’t know where it goes, I sent you a letter back telling where it go and they omitted it..
Judge Millenky: what do you mean, by telling me where it goes?
PAG Kelly : okay your honor this uh, you sent me a letter, April 1st, that you received an attachment exhibit document CAM L-827-14 was, was not attached to any document, okay, that’s your letter to me with your signature, I was glad to see that, cause you, I see well 1: 6-17 you was read, reading the respondents, okay now, I sent it back to you, the exhibit, with this cover letter, uh, it says uh, the exhibit reference the purpose of the proposed amendment to demonstrate the clouding and corruption of the plaintiffs title because on the May 24th, 2011 loan modification from the debt collector Carrington Mortgage Services LLC of the first fraud in factum March 17th, Mortgage was never recorded with the defendants, further aforementioned unrecorded loan modification and returned exhibit which you returned to me and I returned it back to you, and it was proceeding that uh, it was uh two other modifications, that I had got, that’s three modifications I was denied uh, that they didn’t record also that they didn’t record also, and uh the modification of the first and the second fraud in factum mortgage constituting clouding and corruption of my title, title broken succession, that’s the letter i sent to you April the 3rd, now the plaintiff when they sent there uh there, there, there,… the response and they sent their response back to me stating that this response they sent to me and they did not they sent the other exhibits, but they did not send this exhibit that you sent to me and i sent back to you explaining it, they omitted it, and also that they saying the May 5th, they, they……, filed, uh, uh I sent them the document, May 2nd, I filed that document with them and the court, so that’s why they was in default which you easing out of it for them, but you eased out my, my default by, saying it was premature, but you, you giving me uh
Judge Millenky: I didn’t
PAG Kelly: undue preference
Judge Millenky: How is that?
PAG Kelly: giving them preference, now that’s canon three violations, I see impropriety, Im, .Impartialness,
Judge Millenky: Okay
PAG Kelly : now, now they did not send me the modification uh revocation and the exhibit, they purposely left it out, that was my first denial in 2011, that they denied me the right to file a public notice, so they eliminating my first claim, and also telling the lies that these are not recordable, they are recordable, they in plain English, and they recorded signed with my name under it, now they are, they are circumventing the rules, now I don’t understand it, but I see, canon three in this court, also in Mujaddid and Taqwaamani’s cases, now it’s unfair justice, I’m here to seek justice, now this court, darkness is coming over this court coming from Burlington county, where can I go to get justice, because they are construing the laws, ain’t no way you can say this and that, and the law says this, they, I don’t understand it, it doesn’t make sense that they can omit stuff, and, and, then you can believe and deceive you with the laws,
Judge Millenky: okay anything further that you would,
PAG Kelly: Yes but I’ll give you a chance to say something
Judge Millenky: no, no, no, no I’m gonna listen what else?
PAG Kelly : ok, that’s the modification and, and, the notice that we talked about, now when I tried to file a deed in 2014, that deed I was given interest to this man, I have a right to, to do that, they are stopping me form recording that’s three times, this is 2014 ain’t no way I can go and not get something recorded in a public place, no way in 2014 and I’ve witness other people standing there and they denying them also, people also, and they all black people and senior citizen women, but white people can do it, MERS is a criminal defunct company, and operating for a defunct company Freemont, how can they come from Massachusetts, or wherever they from to come here in New Jersey and record and I can’t, I live here in New Jersey, I’m a Citizen, Aboriginal person, Native Indian, American, a Citizen, a Tax payer, I, I even be called for voting, and, and but yet I can’t even trust the justice, and when you said about filing papers in Trenton, I filed in Trenton and here for security, because the troubles I been having in Burlington, the Judge Suter, would not put my work on the JFYS, the motions I filed, until she read them, which they was pose to be on the uh JFYS, I had to go refill my papers in Trenton to get them on record, so that’s my purpose of double filing, for security, so what about the deed?
Judge Millenky: Well let’s talk about one thing at a time, were talking about, so what you’re saying t me is that, there is, there’s one additional filing, beyond, I think that uh 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9, that I, had referenced, correct?
PAG Kelly: pardon me… I don’t understand…
Judge Millenky: you’re talking about ten documents total that you sought to file, I’m just trying to get,
PAG Kelly: well…
Judge Millenky: make sure I’m looking at the right ones…
PAG Kelly: well…It seems some of those documents that, they, they copied to you are doubled…
Judge Millenky: You know what would be helpful if you would, uh, the letter where you send back to me, if you could just give me that with the attachment, I will give it back to you, I just want to look at it,
PAG Kelly: 1: 4-8 Frivolous litigation in violation of the R.P.C.’s
Judge Millenky: okay, Sir if you would just wait one moment let me read….. So I think I understand, your, your, indicating that in addition to the 9 umm
PAG Kelly: Other notices of Breach of Contract
Judge Millenky: Notices of corrupted chain of title and imperfect lien…
PAG Kelly: this is from a mortgage audit,
Judge Millenky: this is
PAG Kelly: forensic
Judge Millenky: okay hold on, this is a document dated June 7th, 2011
PAG Kelly: that’s’ my first denial
Judge Millenky: that Sir, we gotta talk one person at a time that’s entitled declaration of rescission of signature and that too, is a document that you say the clerk should have filed, but failed to file, and this was the first in the sequence…
PAG Kelly: Yes and the one they omitted
Judge Millenky: just, bear with me, bear with me, was the first in the sequence of documents that was failed to, failed to be filed, okay got it, let me hear from the uh..
PAG Kelly : Yes, I just want to mention that it’s uh, public uh,…. okay I just wanted to ask the court what about my first amendment right to publish, and the right to give constructive notice, and 42 U.S.C. 1981 that uh, the right to enjoy the same benefits of the law, like the law of the law to enforce force, make or terminate contracts like white men, first amendment right, that’s my freedom of speech, that’s constitutional, that’s a ministerial duty
Judge Millenky: Sir, I have no quorum with your assertion, that without any doubt in the world or the land that you and every other individual in this country must be treated equally,
PAG Kelly: and…
Judge Millenky: there is no quorum
PAG Kelly: I wasn’t your honor
Judge Millenky: and I understand that assertion
PAG Kelly: they messed up my due process and everything
Judge Millenky: I understand that
PAG Kelly: deprivation of civil rights
Judge Millenky: I understand that; let me hear from the defense
Mr. Crook : Your honor In terms of the nine documents, they were the documents submitted by the plaintiff, and I think he would even agree uhh, last July, to the county clerk’s office, which were rejected for the reasons that are set forth in our brief, etc, I believe, although, I don’t think I’ve seen that, If I have it wasn’t a part of this particular motion that I brought with me back in April, can I see that for a second sir,
Judge Millenky: well I think that it’s attached, I just handed it back, but it was attached to a letter that I first received and I return it to Mr. Kelly
Mr. Crook: back in April I believe?
Judge Millenky: I don’t recall the date
PAG Kelly: Yes
Mr. Crook: can I see that for a second sir, thank you
Judge Millenky: and then it looks like Mr. Kelly sent it again, this time sending it to you and copying the court,
Mr. Crook : okay and this was April 3rd, which was before uh, the court, had in fact allowed initiatives orders allowing the amended complaint and to the extent the amended complaint incorporates this, I quite frankly, I didn’t see in those specific allegations, I’m not saying it’s not there, But Let me just, my arguments uh, your honor to the extent that this document is now being attempted to being incorporated in this case, it’s back in 2011, this is an action in lieu of prerogative writ uh, if there was going to be any kind of action, brought in regard to an alleged failure by the county clerk to file that document pursuant to the rules it would have had to have been filed, clearly out of time to boot strap it now into this action, uh and the documents that are in question, I will say the gentlemen did attempt to I believe to file his complaint within the 45 days of the July 2013, when the original nine documents that are attached to our motion were filed so, our position would be that clearly to the extent that the plaintiff is now trying to bring an action in regards to the 2011 document, it’s out of time,
Judge Millenky: Okay
Mr. Crook: Umm, in terms of the other allegations, uh there were documents attached that were attached to the complaint aside the amended complaint which we dealt with in our initial motion brief, uhh, that were I think being relied upon by the plaintiff argued some sort of disparate treatment, and as we walked, the court through each of those documents, either the documents were properly recordable pursuant to statute, regulation or other law..or by
Judge Millenky: You’re talking about the examples of other documents,
Mr. Crook: right, that were
Judge Millenky: that were raised by Mr. Kelly for purposes of saying those were recorded by the clerk’s office,
Mr. Crook: correct
Judge Millenky Mr. Kelly’s documents were not and that represented unequal treatment
Mr. Crook: correct and…
Judge Millenky: okay, got it
Mr. Crook : and we pointed out either number one those documents are recordable authorized by new jersey statute, or by agreement of consent of the parties uhh or quite frankly just didn’t meet the requirements of 26A-2 uh for filing for example the, the single page that said Complaint on it, I think that might have been included for some other purpose not as a document that was recorded, so again whatever documents that were added to the amended complaint, uh we have dealt with them and we believe we have given the court a proper response demonstrating either that the documents are not to be recorded consistent with NJSA 4626A-2 and consistent with this court’s ruling in the Taqwaamani and Mujaddid cases, or that they uh, were properly recorded because they were authorized consistent by statute or by agreement of the parties or finally they just weren’t obvious on their face documents which could be filed, to the extent they’ve been incorporated I would raise a procedural issue, that because the plaintiff has incorporated those, you could potentially argue that this is a motion for summary judgment now, uh, at least a cross motion for summary judgment, but I would argue whether it is a motion to dismiss, which I thinks appropriate because these documents were attached to the amended complaint, or summary judgment, either under, either standard, either on the face of it, the amended complaint does not state a cause of action, or as a summary judgment even taken the light, facts and the light most favorable to this plaintiff there clearly is no cause of action the matter should be dismissed,
PAG Kelly: I object…
Mr. Crook: umm your honor has any other questions I will be glad to entertain them,
Judge Millenky: Alright, Ms. Corea anything further
Ms. Corea: no, no, your honor
Judge Millenky: Alright Uh Mr. Kelly you have something that you wanted to add…
PAG Kelly: yes I object the plaintiff has a ministerial duty to record; they do not have any ….to be judging documents and uh…
Judge Millenky: okay, I understand the arguments that have been advanced in this matter, this is a uh amended complaint that the court has before it, this amended complaint was filed by leave of the court and the amended complaint sets forth a cause of action against Timothy Tyler, Wade Hale, Kathy Mehrer, the Burlington County Clerk’s Office and Burlington County, it’s entitled or if not entitled references causes of action which fundamentally sound in actions in lieu of prerogative writs, and actions for declaratory judgment having said that as one goes through the 142 pages of the amended complaint, the 509 paragraphs of that complaint, the 27 counts of that complaint, one see’s allegations that fall well outside of these actions in lieu of prerogative writs, the actions are, and I’ll just list them for purposes of reference, a failure to perform duties, negligence and violations of the tort claims, act, deprivation of, rights to petition, freedom of press, civil conspiracy, civil conspiracy and interference with civil rights, that takes us through the first five counts, the sixth discrimination and deprivation of constitution and civil rights, seventh neglect to prevent conspiracy, eight crime of official deprivation of civil rights, count nine appears to duplicate that, count ten deprivation of rights under color of law, count eleven official misconduct, count twelve obstruction of administration of recording statutes, count thirteen mail fraud, deprivation of intangible rights to honest services, count fourteen appears to have been omitted, count fifteen unlawful interference of contractual relations, count sixteen false advertisement, count seventeen misprision of felony, count eighteen concealment removal or mutilation, count nineteen intentional refusal and cross and gross negligence and performance of ministerial duties, count twenty breach of fiduciary and honest loyal services obligation, count twenty one common law fraud, count twenty two conspiracy to commit fraud, umm pertaining to Indigenous Americans and African Americans county twenty three tortuous interference with contractual relations count twenty four unlawful interference with prospective economic advantage, county twenty five intentional infliction of emotional distress county twenty six constructive fraud and count twenty seven Slander of Title, all of these allegations are grounded however in a relatively constrained set of facts and the facts pertain to Mr. Kelly’s ownership of certain property in Willingboro new jersey and pertain to his steps in attempting to file certain documents at the Burlington county clerk’s office and in connection with the documents that he intended to file but which were rejected from the Clerk’s Office, he says that it’s that rejection of the filing that constitutes the factual basis for each one of the twenty seven causes of action that he list, initially if one reads the amended complaint, one would understand that it appears that there are fundamentally nine documents which are at issue, and the best way for me to refer to them is to refer to the attachments that were supplied by the defense, there blow ups of some of the documents and they make the documents more readable, and to list the documents is, I think helpful and I’ll do it by reference to umm, perhaps the date of the documents that’s helpful and as to the exhibits and I think there were exhibits to the defense brief,
Mr. Crook: that’s correct sir…
Judge Millenky: that’s how I received them, I don’t know if there referenced with similar numbers on the plaintiff side, but I’m going to use the defense exhibit reference numbers, umm because those are the exhibits that were blow up
Mr. Crook : maybe to be clear for the record the reason it starts at 35 is we were tracking the original letter that went from the solicitor’s office to the plaintiffs, the list of documents that included Mr. Taqwaamani’s documents, Mr. Mujaddid’s documents as well…..
Judge Millenky: okay I’m just gonna reference these as the nine documents that the court understands are being dealt with, and ill use those exhibit numbers, just so that if anyone were to look at the pleadings they can see the cross references or excuse me not the pleadings in terms of the amended complaint, pleading submitted on this motion umm, so exhibit 35 is a document that Mr. Kelly sought to file, it’s titled notice of corrupted chain of title and imperfected lien and the allegations are, there are allegations contained within the docket or the document rather that was attempted to be filed and essentially the material outlines umm violations that Mr. Kelly says attached to steps taken by Mortgage Electronic Services otherwise known as MERS and setforths claims relating to what Mr. Kelly says were the violations and there’s a demand there for, for damages contained within these filings, Exhibit 36, is a Notice Of Breach Of Contract-Invalid Note, and it sets forth the same fundamental facts as to MERS, exhibit 37 is a Notice Of Breach Of Contract Invalid Note, again that Mr. Kelly sought to file and it again makes what I perceive to be essentially the same allegations, exhibit 38 is a Notice Of Breach Of Contract Invalid Notice, and again it sets forth allegations of alleged breach of contracts that pertain to Mortgage Electronic Systems, exhibit 39 actually seems to be a copy of one of the earlier exhibits umm, but even if it’s deemed to be something separate or distinct it makes no different claims or assertions or allegations than I’ve already described, exhibit 40 also appears to be a copy of one of the other documents, exhibit 41, exhibit 42, exhibit 43 all appear to be copies of earlier referenced documents, the assertion that Mr. Kelly is that each one of these documents is a document that the Burlington County Clerks’ Office should have filed, in the clerk’s recording records and that the failure of the Clerk to do so constituted one or more of the violations that are outlined in the twenty seven counts for purposes of understanding the requirements for recording, this court looks to the provisions of our recording statute, and the recording statute is found at NJSA 4626A-1 the definitional section here umm, is not something that is in play in connection with the analysis here, it just fundamentally outlines that both paper and the electronic documents may be the subject of filing and it describes how filing takes place, that there is an image produced an permanent record made, and moreover that there is an index produced as to documents, it seems to the court that the meat of the issues is embodied in NJSA 46:26A-2, entitled documents that may be recorded, that statute provides the following, documents effecting real property entitled to recording are and then it list those documents which maybe filed and goes A through Q it provides for the recording of deeds or conveyances, powers of attorney, leases or memoranda of leases, certain restrictions, I’m just summarizing here, mortgages, liens or encumbrances, assignments, discharges, cancellations, options and rights of first refusal, certified copies of judgments, reports of condemnation, notices of federal tax liens and the like, restrictions effecting the real property or its use, which the court would understand to be a reference to restrictive covenants, notices of settlement, maps, condominiums, master deeds, and unit deeds defined by law and then section P any other documents that affects title to any interest in real property in any way or contains any agreement in relation in real property, or grants any right or interest in real property, or grants any lien on real property and then finding section Q any other document that is directed to be recorded by any statute or court order, a review of the documents that Mr. Kelly sought to record, if one looks at what is contained within them and if one hears Mr. Kelly in his argument here today what he describes is that he sought to record the documents that would place the world if you will…
PAG Kelly: Yes on Notice
Judge Millenky: on notice, that he asserted,
PAG Kelly: Constructive Notice
Judge Millenky: that is that Mr. Kelly, asserted that there were a number of wrongful acts taken by MERS, in connection with the Mortgages recorded against his property and for example and I’ll just take the first document its document listed as exhibit 35 it says notice of corrupted chain of title and imperfect lien and it says beneath it pursuant to common law, Federal and State law, U.C.C. and then in paragraph one it states the records and lack therefore displayed by the Burlington County Clerk of New Jersey, Clerk of New Jersey reveals the, and I’m not sure of the word that follows I believe it’s chain of title 45 Spintop lane
PAG Kelly: Spindletop
Judge Millenky: Spindletop?
PAG Kelly: Yes
Judge Millenky: Spindletop Lane Willingboro New Jersey the zip code follows is corrupted and clouded resulting umm,
Mr. Crook: I think it’s from fraud, or forgeries,
Judge Millenky: from fraud, I couldn’t follow the form, from frauds and forgeries persisting in assignments’ and mortgages discharges along with none existing discharges and I can’t read the rest umm and then it goes on to say dating umm, before 2002 May 1st, 2013, as displayed by the and I can’t read the word, county Clerk of New Jersey, umm it then goes on to describe the mortgages in question and it does so umm, with some specificity, setting forth names, dates, times, umm and notes and the umm identification of the notes in question, and in the final paragraph it appears then, and..That’s on the first page of the two page document
PAG Kelly: which document is that your honor?
Judge Millenky: It’s Document 35, on, on the blow ups, the very first one, is the one I’m looking at, umm it goes on essentially to set forth an argument about why these mortgages umm are invalid, they exceeded umm certain rights and entitlements though the language is very, very difficult to read even in its slightly enlarged form, and it then goes on to list the names of current servicers and other information about the loans, what appears evident from this document is the following , it is a document that sets forth Mr. Kelly’s position as to why these various documents that would appear to attach to his property are invalid, are in essence something that ought not to effect the title to his property but do, and it’s understandable that what he then wants to say to the world is, here’s a notice…
PAG Kelly: Yes
Judge Millenky: that these are matters which I consider to be an issue and essentially he says here’s why and tells …why
PAG Kelly: not only I your honor, but the United States Congress
Judge Millenky: okay sir, let me, let me finish, so I understand all that, I understand the motivation of Mr. Kelly and I understand the contention but the question is whether or not such a document may be recorded in a clerk’s office, within the meaning of our statue, or whether alternatively what Mr. Kelly has done is set forth information about what he perceives to be the fraud and I use the word perceive just to indicate that, there has not yet been a finding as to this particular allegation that Mr. Kelly makes having to do with fraud by MERS..
PAG Kelly: object
Judge Millenky: Sir you don’t have to object I’m just putting findings on the record
PAG Kelly: the findings are…fin…are, are
Judge Millenky: you’ve setf forth, shhhh, shhh, sir you can’t interrupt now though, you just.., though I know you disagree some things I may say, what I’m doing is setting forth the decision that the court reaches on the record and the reasons the fact that you disagree, is something that I well understand but that’s not something that I’m gonna take account of right at this moment as I’m explaining why I reason as I do so any other words the court has to analyze this document as well the others under 26A-2 and the first question is which if any of these potential sections would applicable to these, this document 35 as well as the other documents, and if there was a place where these might fit that would be under sub section P because the others are very very specific and don’t describe this type of document so under P it’s any other document that affects title to any interest to real property in any way, here these notices are exactly what they say, they are the description of a position that Mr. Kelly has, with respection, with respect to the existing mortgages but I find no reference to any statute that would describe that a person’s objection, without a finding of law, or without a specific authorizing statute, but a person’s statement if you will that a particular filing or particular action by someone else is improper, as Mr. Kelly would describe improper, construes something that would effect, title to or interest in real property, such a filing does not affect title or interest in real property it may express a cause of action which might result in a document that might affect an interest in real property but in itself it’s just simply a notice of one’s position, notice of one’s position is not something that effects title or interest in real property, next the court would ask, does it contain any agreement in relation to real property clearly it does not contain a particularized agreement, and I’m referring now to exhibit 35 that pertains to real property, again what it does is set forth a position as to why certain alleged mortgage interest that have been the subjects of other filings by other parties are incorrect, the court finds that it doesn’t contain an agreement, the next question is does it grant any right or interest in real property on its face the document does not purport to do it, does it grant a lien on real property on its face it does not purport to do so, looking at the other documents 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42,and 43 the court finds that these documents albeit some are repetitious and some have some slight differences, because therefore example their entitled as opposed to notice of corrupted chain of title there entitled notice of breach of contract and what they again seek to do is describe a series of actions taken by a lender and certain actions taken by MERS that in various ways produced records of liens on property, that Mr. Kelly says were incorrectly asserted against the property, but what these are again, are each of them notices of Mr. Kelly’s position as to, a variety of documents that were in fact the subject apparently of some filings in relation to his file, in, in, excuse me in relation his property but none of these documents fall within some of the subparts that are listed in subsection P of NJSA 46:26A-2 they are not documents that affect the title ,…
PAG Kelly: they do, Object
Judge Millenky: to interest, shhhhhh… in real property in any way they do not contain agreements, they do not grant any rights or interest, they do not grant liens in consequence these documents are not, contrary to what Mr. Kelly says documents that may be recorded, with that in mind the court understands that the duty to record is set forth under NJSA 46:26A-6 and it provides in subparagraph A that the county recording officer shall record any document or map affecting the title to real property located in the county delivered for recording
PAG Kelly: affecting…
Judge Millenky: provided the document, then it list certain criteria, this court finds as I already described that these documents do not affect the title to real property I began my comments to Mr. Kelly by saying to you Mr. Kelly that in essence what you have described, are matters of grave concern to the courts of New Jersey and frankly to the Citizens In New Jersey, that is Abuse Of The Mortgage Process and potentially Abuse Of The Foreclosures Process and that has been something that has been a major concern of the court, that has been something that has been the subject of litigation by individual homes owners before this court and before other courts in the state and it’s been the subject matter of relief achieved by individual homeowners, it’s been also the subject matter of some overall steps taken in the administration of the foreclosure process by the courts of New Jersey for purposes of insuring that foreclosure process maintains the correct integrity but having said all of that Mr. Kelly, what you have done with these filings is tried to set forth in a filing that is in a recording office, a position that you have about wrong doing, a position which I well believe is asserted by you in good faith and based upon any number of facts which for any homeowner would present grave, grave, grave concerns, which ought to be the subject of relief if in fact there proven in a court of law, but having said all of that, the issue for the court is narrower, did you pick the correct the methodology for asserting, not only the concerns but your right to redress, and Mr. Kelly I have to tell you, you did not, you picked the wrong forum, you picked a forum that is intended to record certain types of documents what you are asserting are causes of action, against a variety of entities but these are not recording failures by the three individuals named here and by the Burlington County Clerk’s Office, I…
PAG Kelly: I object
Judge Millenky: Sir these are actions correctly taken by that office, by the clerks within the office
PAG Kelly: ministerial duty your honor
Judge Millenky: shhh, sir,
PAG Kelly: they have no right
Judge Millenky: shhh sir, I understand you disagree but were not arguing anymore I’m delivering an opinion so the court finds that the actions by these clerks and the actions taken by the Burlington County Clerk’s Office, and to the extent implicated the actions taken by Burlington County were proper, that they fairly and reasonably evaluated the documents presented to them for filing and made a determination not to file those documents, the fact Mr. Kelly that you as you’ve described it have found yourself to be a victim of some mortgage fraud as you’ve described it, is again a grave concern, but picking the wrong methodology does not give the court the avenue for addressing that concern, and I have to say to you, sir people regularly file complaints when they have complaints such as this and the court addresses them, the insistence that you address your concerns through a lien process doesn’t push you into a direction, that I think would lead to, some final resolution of the issues that are of such an important concern, it leaves you if you will instead fighting if you a battle that is really, off on the periphery of what appears to be your real agenda, which is obtaining relief in connection with your mortgage,
PAG Kelly: You’re Honor
Judge Millenky: I know Mr. Kelly that you disagree with the analysis that you believe that the clerk’s office should have filed these documents, for the reasons that I’ve set forth I find that there was not such a duty and for that reason the motion to dismiss is granted…
Owens: What about the deed your honor?
PAG Kelly: What about the deed?
Owens: What about the Deed your honor?
PAG Kelly: Object…
Judge Millenky: Now, Now, sshhhh, counsel or individuals First of all Mr. Owens you’re not here, I allowed you to sit there
Owens: emm, hmmm
Judge Millenky: for purposes of providing some if you will comfort level to Mr. Kelly…
Owens: Yes sir
Judge Millenky: but you’re not here to argue
Owens: I will respectively remove myself your honor
Judge Millenky: Okay
Owens: because this is a miss trial of justice
Judge Millenky: okay
Owens: I’ll do so
Judge Millenky: okay that’s your choice, now with respect to plaintiffs motion to compel discovery the court finds that, that’s moot, the discovery would not have been due until an answer had been provided, or alternatively until the court have adjudicated a filed motion to dismiss, therefore the motion to compel the discovery is denied,
Judge Millenky: the court understands the position
PAG Kelly: I Object
Judge Millenky: of the parties on the papers and makes it decisions for the reasons described, there’s a defendants motion for an order that the defendants declining to file the Deed submitted for filing by the plaintiff is in accordance with the law, the court will decline to hear that matter, this court has dismissed this matter, finds that there is nothing pending, and finds that there is no case within which it make any declaratory findings, this court makes absolutely no finding then concerning this Deed that has been raised and the court therefore denies any motion to umm bar the filing making no findings whatsoever..
Mr. Crook: and that’s understood your honor, just as a point of uh
PAG Kelly: Badge of Slavery
Judge Millenky: shissss both of you please, next there’s a motion by the plaintiff to enter default and I know that Mr. Kelly wanted to began with that issue, but the court declined to began there, but instead began with the motion to dismiss, it did so because it finds that the motion to, to fault, to enter default was premature, Mr. Kelly filed this case on August 26th, 2013, he filed it in Burlington county, the case was not transferred to Camden until February 2014, on March 25th, 20104 the plaintiff filed a motion to enter default, while the Motion For Default was pending on April 23rd, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint and it was technically non confirming as no leave had been granted for the filing of such a complaint, and he also however, filed proofs of service of the proposed amended complaint, and oral argument on April 30th, 2014, Mr. Kelly set forth his arguments for leave to file the amended complaint, and for the motion to enter default and by an order that this Court entered on May 2nd 2014, this court denied the application to enter default, granted leave to file the amended complaint and ordered that the plaintiff had 20 days to file that amended complaint with the court and in addition, the court ordered that if the plaintiff had not yet served this amended complaint on the defendants, then he must serve this amended complaint upon them and on May 2nd 2014 the plaintiff filed his amended complaint with the court their after on June 9th, 2014 the defendants filed this subject Motion To Dismiss and in response to that Mr. Kelly on June 12th filed a Motion For Entry Of Default and filed that other Motion Having To Do With Discovery under Rule 4:6, more specifically 4:6-1 and 6-2 in lieu and particularly 6-2 where there is a motion under 462e to dismiss the complaint for failure to Set forth a cause of action that type of position may be asserted by a defendant in lieu of filing an answer if he makes that motions in other words files it within the time allotted for the filing of an answer, the court finds that with the re-filed complaint on May 2nd, the motion to dismiss on June 9th was within the 35 days in which to answer and it’s for that reason that default was not granted so with that the motion to enter default is denied and these matters are disposed of
Mr. Crook: there was a motion filed which I think the court interpreted the courts taking no action in respect to that deed, the court having no open case with which it would consider that application both motions are there for denied.
Corea: Thank you your honor
PAG Kelly: Object