Karen Bass re Hyundai
to Sale of Property
Los Angeles Rent Control
LA Civil Rights Lawsuit re Hi Point Apts
in America
the Law Firm
EDD Corruption

In the Matter of the Guardianship of
Robert Johnson,
an incapacitated person



Superior Court of New Jersey

Essex County: Chancery Division

Probate Part

Docket No. CP-0136-2009

The Hon. Judge Walter Koprowski, JSC




I, [next of kin] , do declare:

1. I am the oldest child, beneficiary and interested party in this action. The Feb 3 2010 order appointing Guardian named me as a recipient who must be served written notice of all actions in this matter.

2. I make this statement willingly and if called to testify would do so from personal knowledge. For those matters not personally known to me, I make those statements based on information and belief.

    3. Attorney James Boutillier, attorney for my father Robert Johnson, opposes my submitted Motion for Stay.  Government appointed Vanessa D. Taylor, guardian for my father Robert Johnson, opposes the Motion for Stay, thru her attorney Shawnda N. Floyd.

Taylor has failed to provide full disclosure

4. Vanessa Taylor has a duty to full disclosure to me; she has repeatedly failed in that duty and especially as regards the hearings December 23 and January 13.

5. This declaration is my reply to the oppositions of Taylor and Boutillier.

6. Granting of the Motion for Stay will not harm any party or attorney or the ward.

7. The court has ordered Taylor to submit her opposition by Feb. 6. 

8. The court ordered me to submit a reply by Feb. 8. This is not a reasonable, fair and full or adequate time for me to respond to the opposition of Vanessa D. Taylor. I did not receive the Taylor document until after hours February 6 2012. That leaves me part of the next business day to digest the document and get a reply into the mail and to the court by February 8. This is impossible.

9. The normal amount of time allowed to reply to a opposition is 4 days if I am in the state of New Jersey which I am not.

10. Nothing contained herein is a waiver of the fact due to time constraints the court has denied me full and fair opportunity to be heard in my reply papers.

11. Taylor claims she did not receive the motion papers. An FYI copy was received by Taylor and Floyd and others January 16, 2012. This has been forwarded to the Judge and incorporated by reference. On January 16 2012 a service copy was mailed by US mail.

12. Around Jan 28 I received from the court the file stamped first page of the Motion for Stay. It had been filed stamped January 20. On this document the court marked the return date of February 10.

13. An FYI copy of the first page showing the return date was received by Taylor and Floyd and others January 31 2012. Such copy by email has been emailed to the Judge and is incorporated herein by reference.

14. On Jan 31 I also served by mail a copy of the first page of the Motion for Stay showing the return date. The first page showing the return date was the only document received back by me from the Surrogateís office.

the court has failed 

to be faithful to case law

15. Throughout this action the court has failed to be faithful to case law requiring that guardian Taylor afford me full disclosure of all documentation regarding my Dadís medical care, residence, and sale of property.

16. The court has neglected its duty to confront false statements of material fact by the guardian and attorneys at the December 23 and Jan 13 hearings on this matter and their documents submitted to the court.

17. The court, attorneys, and guardian have not complied with the requirements that affidavits of attorney fees be presented with the latest Complaint to sell the property.

18 There was no authenticated documents presented with the Complaint to sell the property, or subsequent affidavits.

19. There was no authentication presented after my requests for such at the December 23 and Jan 13 2012 hearings.

20. In this Complaint to sell the property by the Guardian, the Judge in his ruling has not obeyed his oath, the law, or the constitution.

21. The court has refused to compel the guardian to protect my interests as a beneficiary of the estate and ward.

22. I do not consent to service by email of any court documents, or documents intended for filing with the court.

23. In summary actions local rule requires reply papers be afforded ten days before the return date if service is in New Jersey. Reply to those papers would be due four days before the return date. I am not in New Jersey therefore I am to be afforded more time to reply. R 4:67-3. In this instance the court ordered Taylor to present her papers four days before the return date and my papers two days (not three) before the return date. That is an unfair reduction of about seven days to me as pro se acting on his own behalf.

Above from Order November 4 2010, Judge Walter Koprowski, Jr.

"A trustee, as a fiduciary, is under a duty to make full and complete

disclosure of all transactions in relation to his trust. He is permitted

neither to conceal nor to misrepresent, and if he fails in his duty to

disclose the true facts so as to give notice to interested parties of

He is permitted

neither to conceal nor to misrepresent

any illegal or improper investments, it amounts to fraud such as will

permit a decree approving his account to be opened. 'If the trustee has

been guilty of fraud by way of concealment or misrepresentation in

presenting his account and procuring the approval of the court, the

settlement may be opened.' 4 Bogert, Trusts and Trustees (1935) 2844."

(at page 39) 14 N.J. 96.

25. "But the fact is that there has been a misrepresentation as to what Medicaid said about the property. In addition, Medicaid said to me, and I note here that they would not talk to me specifically about Robert Johnson's case, but they said to me that the estate would have to present a spend down plan of liquidation . Neither the estate or the guardian has presented  a plan of liquidation to the court or to the heirs of the property for their approval. " Jan 13 2012 hearing comments by me.

26. This is what Vanessa Taylor wrote in part to Judge Walter Koprowski Jr. December 27 2011:


27.Medicaid said it never told Taylor this. This is another reason why the Motion for Stay should be granted.

28. Concealment of evidence is against the law. Taylor, Boutillier, Floyd have concealed the authenticated documentation requested by me. Their oppositions to the Motion for Stay are a continuance of that unlawful concealment. Taylor owes me "full disclosure".

29. The court has refused to address its duty to ascertain the wishes of my father regarding the sale of property.

30. The court has refused to address its duty to ascertain the gifts entitled to be given to heirs as a result of the sale of property.


31. If the court grants the stay, it will be an efficient use of the courtís time, and avoid me having to file another motion for stay with the appellate department.

32. I have read the opposition papers of James Boutillier dated Feb 1 which are six pages and exhibits added. His paragraphs are not numbered.


Taylor, Boutillier, Floyd have concealed the authenticated documentation requested by me

33. Boutillier claims "the Guardian filed renewed proceedings on short notice seeking

approval." I deny that on the grounds I have no information and belief that such document was filed; Taylor served the same document twice but on different days and different titles; the Judge in his ruling and court hearings did not mention the document that was "on short notice." I have asked the court to clarify. Such statement, if true by Boutillier, voids the action as the Complaint to sell property can only be heard by OTSC.

34. As regards rule 4:52-6 the complete rule states: 4:52-6. Stay of Action in Superior Court

"No injunction or restraint shall be granted in one action to stay proceedings in another pending action in the Superior Court, but such relief may be sought on counterclaim or otherwise in the pending action." Such relief may be sought otherwise; I object and deny that such request is "unreasonable, unfounded, indeed, ludicrous" as Mr. Boutillier alleges for the simple reasons that the practices of the entire Chancery Probate Court are indeed very much at issue as well documented on the record, and as such wrongful conduct by the court has effected the rights of every United States citizen, and litigant, to fair treatment by the court and officers of the court.

35. The court has the authority to relax the rule 4:52-6 and I ask that the court do so in order to avoid an "injustice" to my father and me, and to grant the Motion for Stay,  in accordance with Rule 1:1-2. "Construction and Relaxation; References to Marriage, Spouse and Related Terms (a) The rules in Part I through Part VIII, inclusive, shall be construed to secure a just determination, simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay. Unless otherwise stated, any rule may be relaxed or dispensed with by the court in which the action is pending if adherence to it would result in an injustice. In the absence of rule, the court may proceed in any manner compatible with these purposes and, in civil cases, consistent with the case management/trial management guidelines set forth in Appendix XX of these rules."

36. Mr. Boutillier alleges the court "reached a well warranted conclusion" but rather than speak from the record on appeal, he speaks from his own interpretation, which has been proven to be biased. Based on the fact the Jan 18 ruling does not comply with case law as stated below regarding the spend down plan, the wishes of the ward, and gifts to the heirs, the ruling is indeed "palpably unreasonable". 


the court engages in racial discrimination

37. The ruling is also "palpably unreasonable" because the court engages in racial discrimination against me by selling the property to (white) Figaro at one price and listing it to me at a different increased price. Housing discrimination by court is against public policy and against the wishes of any and all citizens who come before the Probate Court; such practice against public policy is grounds to stay all proceedings until this matter of discrimination can go before the appellate court.

38. Mr. Boutillier claims a stay would cause irreparable harm to the wardís interests; what he neglects to say is that he has participated in denying the best interest of the ward because the best interests of the ward are only served if the Complaint to sell the property addresses the wardís intentions and expressed interests and addresses gifts to the heirs of the estate (while the ward is living). The children of the wardís interests cannot be lawfully separated from the wardís best interests as Boutillier continues to propose.

39. Mr. Boutillier alleges I mount "frivolous machinations" to "upset the workings of the court" and to "Ďwear outí his adversaries". I deny this because it is debatable that I have enough money to "wear out" the adversaries; I am acting in good faith throughout and the Boutillier, Floyd, and Taylors should admit their unclean hands in this matter; rather than upset the workings of the court, my intent is simply to get the court to work and fulfill its mandate to treat myself, and others, in a fair, prompt, and respectful manner. If Boutillier is so concerned about alleging I am "frivolous" why doesnít he mount the proper OTSC against me instead of continually crying about it.

40. The hearings on this matter show that any alleged harm to the estate cannot be ascertained by Boutillier, Taylor, Floyd because they are vague and lacking in specificity and could not even present to court authenticated proof of what bills are owed: the repairs alleged are uncertain, the nursing home bill is uncertain, the taxes alleged are uncertain, the child support alleged is uncertain and not authenticated, the Medicaid payments are uncertain, the attorney fees alleged are uncertain, the spend down plan to Medicaid is uncertain, etc. etc. Every alleged bill is uncertain and/or not authenticated. The court, for further example, alleges to approve a "streamlined loan" for over $58,000 in repairs when HUD only allows $35,000 for such repairs. If I am to be unjustly called "frivolous" to question such uncertainties, and to cry fraud (as permitted by New Jersey Rule 5:4-8), then it is my right to seek to protect the interests of my father and those interests of myself, as those interests are undermined and obstructed by Taylor, Boutillier, Floyd and others.


This is against HUD regulation

41. As for bond, I cannot post one because I am "unable to pay." Of course this brings up the question that the Jan 5 2011 order stated that Taylorís latest complaint would have to address the need for a bond; Taylor did not do, which is grounds for reversal on appeal.

42. If the court is inclined to grant the Motion for Stay, I ask that the rule on the bond towards me, if any, be relaxed under Rule Rule 1:1-2 (a).

43. It is now 10:06 pm and I just getting to Vanessa Taylor Opposition emailed by her attorney Shawnda Floyd.

44. I received Taylorís papers by email. Email service is not permitted in the state of New Jersey Chancery Court. I do not consent to service by email. Without waiving lack of required service, I respond below.

45. Taylorís papers are about nine pages long including exhibits.

46. Her papers are also unnumbered like Boutillierís; numbering is a requirement of local rules of court.

47. The same objections I have raised to Mr. Boutillierís papers are the same objections I raise to Taylorís papers.

48. I see no validity in Taylor and Boutillierís inclusion of orders from the appellate and Supreme Court as those orders have no bearing on the current sale of property as such sale represents new evidence not before those courts.

49. Floyd maintains she is presenting a "letter brief". I donít have adequate time to research but I object to her letter brief on the grounds local rule for the Superior Court and Chancery does not permit a "letter brief". Taylor has not complied with RULE 1:04. Form And Execution Of Papers 1:4-1. Caption: Name and Addresses of Party and Attorney; Format (a) and (b). Her papers should be stricken. In addition, herself as well as Boutillier have not complied with rule 1:4-2. Paragraphs which states each defense must be made in numbered paragraphs. Boutillier papers should also be stricken as they do not comply with rule 1:4-2. Neither has presented a proof of service that complies with local rule.

50. As for her claim the court heard the Taylor Complaint matter on short notice, I deny that based on information and belief, as stated previous. I am pretty sure the court heard it as a Verified Complaint and OTSC, as is required under local rule. If Taylor believes it was heard under short notice, then that would void the Jan 18 order.

discriminatory and unlawful they appear

51. Taylor notes a "streamlined loan of up to $106,536". I deny this based on the information and belief that the HUD streamlined cannot exceed $35,000 for repairs whereas the Guardian and others present a Complaint that alleges over $58,000 in repairs. This is against HUD regulation.

52. Taylor makes the same objection as Boutillier as regards rule 4:52-6 and I make the same argument as above in denying her statement.

53. Taylor alleges that my motion does not seem to address "the substance of the courtís order." I deny this on the grounds that the Jan 18 order does not have attached the courtís reasons, conclusions of fact and law, and as such I reserve such argument for the notice of appeal.

54. Taylor claims I did not state factual or legal arguments but admits my motion is based on all actions and all paperwork on file. I deny her statement on the grounds of res ipsa loquitur.

55. Taylor claims I am trying to "wear out the adversaries" [she does not have an original thought so she just repeats what Boutillier says]. As for "adversary", the so called adversaries are always free to agree with me. Taylor actually is not supposed to be adverse to me because such an adversity makes her disloyal to me and a conflict of interest. If she is my adversary she needs to removed as guardian immediately.

56. Why does Taylor maintain the price is reasonable? I donít think the "reasonableness" of the price was before the court. As for Taylor saying I should limit my argument to the terms of the contract, it is my right to argue against the terms of the contract, however discriminatory and unlawful they appear, as I have done.

57. I was denied full and fair opportunity to be heard at the Jan 13 2012 hearing as the court refused my request for more time to review the affidavit of Vanessa D. Taylor; I have been denied adequate time to review and respond to Shawnda Floydís statement of February 6 2012.

58. Vanessa D. Taylor and attorney did not serve the Jan 18 2012 order on me. I ask that the court on its own motion hold Shawnda Floyd in contempt of court for not serving the order upon me.

59. I do not waive the right to raise an affirmative action for damages based on the same set of facts and circumstances herein.

The fraud is proven without a doubt

60. Taylor maintains that I "think" I have been treated unfairly.  I deny and object as the unfair treatment by the court towards me, and wrongful conduct of the court, and unlawfulness is well documented. I have not received a docket history, a clerkís entry of default, etc. and these are facts, not fantasy, and these go to very core of the fraud on the court of the Complaint to sell the property. The fraud is proven without a doubt.

60. Grounds exist for this motion for stay to be granted based on the fact and law that Boutillier and Taylor and Floydís opposition, Complaint to sell property, supporting affidavits, and court appearances do not address to this court, as law enforcement agency, that:


(1) "the Supreme Court agreed with New York's presumption in favor of Medicaid planning, finding that "'a competent, reasonable individual ... would prefer that his property pass to his child rather than serve as a source of payment for Medicaid and nursing home care bills.'" 181 N.J. at 63 (quoting In re Daniels, 618 N.Y.S.2d 499, 504 (Sup. Ct. 1994)). " (2) such sale of property of the ward "involves transfers to the natural objects of a ward's bounty" and (3) such sale of property addresses the ward's  "expressed prior intent or interest".

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

Dated this 7th day of January , 2012

[oldest child]

[This document has been redacted from the original. It was received by the court and served on the following:]

Vanessa D. Taylor

35 Symmes Drive

Manalapan NJ 07726


Attorney James J. Boutillier

Bradley, Kleppe, OíConner & Boutillier

13 Smull Avenue

Caldwell New Jersey 07006

Attorney for Robert Johnson

Judge Walter Koproswki, JSC

Wilentz Center

8th Floor

212 Washington Street

Newark NJ 07102-2904

Trial Judge

Lawrence N. Meyerson

Rubenstein, Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli & Conte, P.A.

One Paragon Drive, Suite 240

Montvalle, NJ 07645

Attorney for APS Claiming Fees

Shawnda N. Floyd Esq.

5 Buchanan Blvd

Jackson NJ 08527

Attorney for Guardian


Surrogate Court

Hall of Records Room 206

465 Martin Luther King Blvd

Newark NJ 07102


| Judge Conceal and Embezzle | The Appeal | Reply Stay Motion |
| Return Home | Rep Karen Bass re Hyundai | Opposition to Sale of Property | What's New | Corrupt Los Angeles Rent Control | City LA Civil Rights Lawsuit re Hi Point Apts | Racism in America | Inside the Law Firm | California EDD Corruption |

Copyright © 2022, All rights reserved.