Appellate Division Docket No. A-3122-11T2

In the Matter of

the Guardianship of Robert Johnson

PROBATE PART CASE

CP-0136-2009

the HON. JUDGE

HON. JUDGE WALTER KOPROWSKI JR

My father wanted to live; my father wanted gifts of his property to go to his children before he passed away. Vanessa D. Johnson Taylor acted against Dad's expressed wishes. I fought to keep my Dad alive in good health; Vanessa D. Johnson Taylor, James Boutillier, Shawnda Navarro Floyd, Judge Walter Koprowski Jr, and others, did just the opposite and contributed to my Dad's death.

"My father wanted to live...Vanessa D. Johnson Taylor

contributed to my Dad's death."

In Taylor's own words to the Judge, she knew she would not get money from my father's estate if he was kept alive. Over $5,000 is missing from my Dad's estate and this money may have been improperly routed to Cathedral International Baptist Church of Perth Amboy.

The concern of the missing monies is still an issue as seen in Appellant Appendix 0035a, line 9-11, "and the unaccounted for approx. $3,000".

By filing December 16 2011, DA 0001a-0023a, I opposed Vanessa D. Taylor's Complaint to sell the property, declaration 0024a-0028a, and January 9 2012 filed Response to Affidavit at DA 0029a-0041a.

"Over $5,000 is missing from my Dad's estate and this

money may have been improperly routed to Cathedral

International Baptist Church of Perth Amboy."

At the January 13 2012 hearing the Judge Walter Koprowski said, "Mr. Johnson has submitted a lot of paper work objecting to this application and he continues to object on a basic level and opposing the performance of Ms. Taylor and the performance of Mr. Boutillier , what he has done and what he has not done, what Mr. Meyerson of APS has done and has not done, and (objecting to) the filings I have stricken because they are impertinent, and I have cautioned him in respect to some of his filings which he has made allegations of misconduct by attorneys, misconduct by the court where he accuses me and the court of partial unequal treatment, bribery, discrimination, unequal treatment, discrimination based on education, discrimination based on occupation, discrimination based on economics, and where he made accusations to the court and attorneys involved. I have cautioned Mr. Johnson on many occasions that these kind of comments are unacceptable and would result in the court taking action with respect to his accusations of fraud and bribery."

"misconduct by attorneys, misconduct by the court where he

accuses me and the court of partial unequal treatment,

bribery,discrimination, unequal treatment, discrimination

based on  education, discrimination based on occupation,

discrimination based on economics"

"I know Mr. Johnson [G.J. Johnson] indicates based on his visit [August 2011 for two days with the ward] that he [ward] needs Medical Care but he doesn't need to be in a nursing home but respectfully Mr. [G.J. Johnson is not a Doctor and his opinion is not something I can rely upon to make a determination.

"...he [the ward] has qualified for Medicaid and it seems to me if he didn't need to be in a nursing home  because of his medical condition he would not have been approved for Medicaid." [As told to the New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee.]

The Judges comments on the record are not based on fact law, or jurisdiction.

This is what was filed with the Appellate Court April 25 2012, under Motion M-005392-11, and quoting from the April 18 2012 Letter Brief to the New Jersey Supreme Court:

"Attorney James Boutillier on behalf of ROBERT JOHNSON filed with the appellate division opposition dated March 21 2012 to the motion for stay and other motions. Appellate Geary Juan Johnson disagrees with Mr. Boutillier’s document on the grounds it is merely a biased argument on behalf of client ROBERT JOHNSON; Mr. Boutillier’s document is not based on fact or law material to this guardianship matter. I ask that the court access Boutillier’s brief and Appendix as fraud on the court, unlawful concealment of evidence, mortgage fraud, violation of the due process rights of Robert Johnson and Geary Juan Johnson, malpractice, elderly financial abuse, and violation of the rules of professional conduct. His letter brief should have been rejected by the court as not in the required format. Some of Mr. Boutllier’s as well as Shawnda Navarro-Floyd and Lawrence E. Meyerson’s requested fees have been reduced due to their fraud and unreasonable conduct in the Chancery Court. Mr. Boutillier's brief and appendix admits his fraud and unjust enrichment in that March 30 2011 he requested fees of $3540.00 after a lynch mob March 28 2011 decision and order where the Judge unfairly and unlawfully without due process ordered sanctions against GEARY JOHNSON. Those fees as well as those of Shawnda Navarro-Floyd and Lawrence E. Meyerson were protested as fraudulent, unlawful, and unreasonable. All fees were reduced and Mr. Boutillier's was reduced from $3540 to $1500. Boutillier's fees should have been reduced to '0'. Other parties to this action are the Woodlands Nursing Home, Prudential Realty, Marlin Lakes Realty, and Savio Figaro.

"Other parties to this action are the Woodlands Nursing

Home, Prudential Realty, Marlin Lakes Realty, and Savio

Figaro."

"Mr. Boutillier's March 21 2012 letter brief argues that attorney fee statement were previously submitted. No one disputes that fraudulent fee statements were submitted. But Boutillier omits that the order of January 5 2011 of the court VACATED the previous order to sell the property; the court ordered the guardian to resubmit the application; Boutillier and the Appellate court stated circa March 21 2011 that the sale of property was "moot". What is in question is the second contract of sale presented October 2011. Surely Mr. Boutillier cannot deny that there is no fee statements attached to that verified [Complaint] order to sell the property, and that local rules REQUIRE the fee statements be attached. No fee statement were attached; Mr. Boutillier has engaged in an unlawful act and misrepresentation to the court."

A prior motion for clerk's entry of default was timely received by the Chancery surrogate court clerk but the court refused to respond and file it. A request for copy of guardianship index and docket history has similarly been repeatedly denied by the court. The Superior Court Clerk Jennifer Perez has indicated by letter that the Surrogate Court indeed has the index; the Surrogate, Chancery Court, Essex County Freeholders still unfairly refuse to provide a clerk's entry of default and the guardianship docket index as required by local rule of court.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

The court has failed to state

Conclusions of fact and law

The Chancery court must supply its conclusions of fact and law. Rule 2:5-1(b). Such findings were requested as part of the notice of appeal. See a true and correct copy of the email to the Judge law clerk Feb 6 2012 at DA 0047a.

The Judge has not responded and supplied the conclusions of fact and law. Rule 1:7-4 requires a judge who issues a ruling to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rule 2:5-1(b) states: "If there is no such prior statement, opinion or memorandum, the trial judge, agency or officer shall within such time file with the Clerk of the Appellate Division and mail to the parties a written opinion stating findings of fact and conclusions of law."

New Jersey Appellate Division, State of New Jersey v. Alonzo Hill, A-2448-09T4, Essex County, states "fairness to the parties and effective appellate review required greater elucidation by the court of its reasons" and "consequently, we reverse and remand this matter to the trial court to determine whether an evidential hearing is required, and to state separately its findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rules 1:7-4 and 3:22-11".

The January 18 2012 Order must be overturned and vacated since there was no findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The order to sell the property does not properly address the payment of attorney fees

The guardian alleges the property must be sold to pay for attorney fees, thus the subject of the Jan 18 Order. No attorney fee statements is attached to the Complaint nor are any fee statements attached to the Order of Jan 18. I objected to this lack of documentation and verification at DA 0030a, line 12. "All bills alleged by Taylor are disputed due to lack of documentation and verification." Under rule 5:35(c) the information submitted must comply with rule 4:42-9 including reasonableness and good faith, the amount of fees previously awarded, etc. Under rule 4:42-9 (b) the Application of Vanessa D. Taylor to sell the property to pay the bills (sic) must include the affidavit of services of the attorneys. In addition, under rule 4:42-9(d) the court is prohibited from making a separate order for allowance of fees; the order must have been made Jan 18 2012 and the order was not made. Attorneys James Boutillier, Shawnda Navarro-Floyd, and Lawrence N. Meyerson cannot be paid their fees because no allowance is attached to the Jan 18 2012 Order.

The court has improperly engaged in mortgage fraud

Lack of authenticated documents

I objected to this lack of documentation and verification at DA 0030a, line 12: "All bills alleged by Taylor are disputed due to lack of documentation and verification."

Documents must be properly authenticated in order to be used as evidence. The Jan 18 order does not state that Taylor's documents are "true and correct copies". The Order is silent as to Taylor's lack of affidavit and documents verified by the signers under oath. A New Jersey appeal court recently shot down a foreclosure over bad documents supplied by Wells Fargo Bank. Anything less amounts to mortgage fraud by Vanessa D. Johnson Taylor, James Boutillier, Shawnda Navarro Floyd and others.

The Complaint of Vanessa D. Taylor and Order fails to comply with Supreme Court case in re Keri

The Order of Jan 18 does not comply with the requirements set down in In re Mildred Keri.

I summarize Keri:

1. The spend down plan presented in the court hearing did not address my Dad's preferences.

2. The plan presented was not approved by Medicaid

3. The spend down plan cannot be approved and is not in the best interests of my Dad because it down not involves transfers to the natural objects of the person's bounty, [relatives like me]; and it did not address Dad's preferences

4. " the Trott criteria impliedly establish a presumption in favor of spend-down proposals by recognizing the benefit to an incompetent person's estate when increasing the amounts available to beneficiaries by reducing payments to the government out of the estate. "

5. "There is no reason why an individual, simply because he happens to be a ward, should be deprived of the privilege of making an intelligent commonsense decision in the area of estate planning, and in that way forced into favoring the taxing authorities over the best interests of his estate. "

6. Best interests means consideration of gifts to children of Dad

7. Counsel for my father did not file "a report with the court, "making recommendations concerning the . . . issue of incompetency," and "stat[ing] whether the alleged incompetent has expressed dispositional preferences."

Further:

"The Court held that When a Medicaid spend-down plan

does not interrupt or diminish an incompetent person's care,

involves transfers to the natural objects of the person's bounty, [relatives]

and does not contravene an expressed prior intent or interest, [wishes of the ward]

the plan clearly provides for the best interests of the incompetent person and satisfies the law's goal to effectuate decisions an incompetent would make if he or she were able to act." In the Matter of Mildred Keri 175 N.J. 549; 816 A.2d 1050; 2003.

Under New Jersey statute 3B:12-57 (f), guardian Vanessa D. Johnson Taylor had to "give due regard to the preferences of the ward." There is no indication from the January 18 order that Taylor complied with this statute. My opposition and response shows that Taylor did not give preference to her Dad's wishes, nor does she indicate she ever talked to Robert Johnson.

There is no indication from the Order that gifts will be made to the children of the ward upon the sale of the property.

Rule 4:18-2 requires that "a copy thereof shall be served on the adverse party within 5 days after service of the written demand therefor." I made thru my Opposition and Response demands for documentation referred to in Taylor's Complaint and her affidavit, but such documentation has been denied me as I am entitled to by rule 4:18-2. The Order of the court is silent on why the court has not required the guardian to comply with this rule.

I objected to this lack of documentation and verification at DA 0030a, line 12: "All bills alleged by Taylor are disputed due to lack of documentation and verification." At the Jan 13 2012 hearing I said in part,

"I have not received any documentation as to the medical care of Robert Johnson. I have received conflicting affidavits, excuse me, statements, from Vanessa D. Taylor and Mr. Boutillier....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. In addition, as to the statement about the offers on the property I believe the Mr. Figaro was offering I believe $144,400 and was the price the court set, I think he offered $144,400 and I guess Mr. Figaro's latest contract offer is a little over $110,000 but I like to note here for the court that I made an offer of $110,000 and I also made an offer of $144,000 and there was no counter offer requested of me.....I would like to get documentation, I think it is important to have documentation before the court, of the child support order, I think the income tax lien should be filed with the court, a copy of the property taxes alleged should be filed with the court, and I understand there is a conversation here that the court should approve the sale of the property without really having documentation of what the bills are and that this can occur after the fact, but I believe it should occur before the fact, and there should also be an indication of if there are alleged bills which bills are going to occur [be paid] first."

Neither the court nor Vanessa D. Taylor has supplied the authenticated copies of the bills requested.

CONCLUSION

Based on this brief and the Appendix and good cause appearing, the Jan 18 2012 Order of the Chancery Probate court was not based on the required fact or law. Defendant moves the court to vacate the January 18 2012 order.

Dated this 11^th day of June 2012

By

G.J. JOHNSON

[Heading Quotes added and do not appear in the original court document]