Samuel Adam


763 Montgomery Road
Hillsborough, NJ 08844-1304
United States

Certification of Samuel Adam

Casco Bay Finance Company LLC v. Certifound LLC (ESX–F–1900–08)

By Samuel Adam

June 1, 2010

[Editor’s note:  This is an example of what I can produce in 1 hour.  As I had no substantial time to lawyer-proof the wording, all literary flourishes were cut; and I spent more time lawyer-proofing than simply proofing.  The result, ugly duckling that it is, does however serve its purpose.

See also the Notice of Motion and Proposed Form of Order.]

Pursuant to R. 1:4-4(b), I, Samuel Adam, do certify the following:

  1. I claim interests relating to the properties and transactions which are subject to the instant litigation.  My claim of interests as such is well known by all parties to this litigation; and any party denies those interests is free to rest on their proofs at trial, rather than trying to sweep those interests beneath the rug at a motion hearing.  Parenthetically, I also have extensive first-hand knowledge of the matter as to fact; the Frelinghuysen building is the place where I used to sit in my father’s office, and listen to him tell me stories about his business years; I typed up with my own two hands the March 13, 2005 joint venture contract which was outrageously misrepresented by Hon. Kenneth S. Levy on the record at an ex parte proceeding on February 13, 2009.  Thus I both have material interests at stake, and know from A to Z from my own personal witness knowledge that my cause as to those interests is right, and that the claims and denials by the plaintiff and third-party defendants are flatly wrong.

  2. This is a foreclosure action, whereby the plaintiff seeks directly to alienate two several real estate properties as to which I claim interests as stated in the preceding subparagraph.  I believe that it cannot reasonably be argued that the disposition of the instant action may impair my ability to protect those interests.

  3. My interests in this matter are at present represented only by my adoptive father, Mr. Samuel Schwartz.  My father is totally disabled and of ill health, and has so been since the passing away of his natural son Jacob Schwartz in 1995.  I have the greatest respect for my father, who taught me every useful thing I know; indeed, my successes are to his credit, while my failures are but failures on my part to diligently learn from him.  However, he is disabled; and opposing counsel has consistently taken unconscionable advantage of his health condition to aid them in stonewalling of discovery, the imposition of prejudicial interlocutory measures, and frivolous offensive and defensive maneuvering on their parts.  Brilliant ’though he is, a man of my father’s health cannot be reasonably expected to keep pace with litigants who are prepared to flout both fact and law to strategically overwhelm his ability.

    At the bottom line, my interests are currently being represented by a disabled pro se party.  By any measure of the law, my interests are represented inadequately as such.  And if the plaintiff in particular wishes to steal my properties, they ought well try litigating against someone who has two working eyes, isn’t hopped up constantly on steroids and painkillers, and can stand up in the morning without crippling physical pain.  Both Thomas G. Rantas, Esq. and Carol Ann Slocum, Esq. deserves [sic] personal opprobrium, indeed, for the outrageous and unethical means by which they first ensured that only a disabled individual was actually defending the matter, and then systematically applied bad-faith litigation tactics to ruthlessly ply the situation as such.

  4. I moved two years ago to be able to protect my interests, through an application to substitute; my motion as such was denied.  As New Jersey has no interlocutory appeal as of right, and as a rule only grants leave for interlocutory appeal if there is a risk of irreparable harm, I have been forced to sit by and watch, pending a judgment or order disposing all matters as to all parties.  Evidence has come to my attention, however, that the plaintiff is engaged in a mid-litigation fraud which seems engineered to prejudice the whole matter in their favor; opposing counsel for both the plaintiff and for third-party defendant Moses David Breuer has furthermore increased with a vengeance its aforesaid coldly calculated pattern of plying my father’s illness to their tactical advantage.  Irreparable harm to me and to my interests seems therefore imminent if I do not act immediately.  Furthermore as to the timing of my instant motion, the court cannot very well throw me out of the proceeding, force me wait while the imminent potential for harm accrues, and then hold the timing of my application against me when I thereupon move anew to intervene.

  5. Having been denied my right to be a party to trial litigation, I absolutely would appeal any final judgment which I find adverse to my interests, on Constitutional due-process grounds i.a.; my intervention at this time therefore has a strong potential for elimination of subsequent litigation.

  6. I intend to request a certification from Mr. Samuel Schwartz himself as to facts material to several points of my instant motion.  However, he is currently on medical leave and is unavailable to provide his certification to me.  If and when I can procure the same from him, I will file and serve it with a request that it be annexed to my moving papers.

The Levy-Slocum Ex Parte Hearing

  1. On February 13, 2009, a hearing was held in the above-captioned matter before Hon. Kenneth S. Levy, P.J.Ch.  Appearing thereby was plaintiff’s counsel, Carol Ann Slocum, Esq.—and no one else.  Mr. Schwartz in particular was not present at the hearing.  I have spoken to him, and he expressed to me his shocked unawareness that there was an ex parte hearing with Ms. Slocum present on that day.

  2. There is much I find at that hearing to litigate.  Foremost and in particular, a gross misstatement of material fact was made at the hearing by Judge Levy:

    [THE COURT:]  Moreover, both the joint venture agreementand the mortgage document itself are clear that bothlots were encumbered by the mortgage given to GreenPoint Mortgage Funding.

    While Mr. Schwartz now alleges theuncertified statements in his answering brief that itwas never the intention of the parties that lot two beencumbered by this initial mortgage, the joint venturecontract signed by Friedman and Schwartz indicates thatthe parties understood that the entire property,including both lots, was to be mortgaged by Certifound.

    Tr. 2009-02-13 p. 11 l. 17 to p 12 l. 2.

  3. The referenced joint venture contract has been exhibited in court many times.  Anyone literate in the English language can readily see that there is no provision stating that “both lots were encumbered by the mortgage given to Green Point Mortgage Funding,” nor that “the parties understood that the entire property, including both lots, was to be mortgaged by Certifound”, nor anything even remotely similar—nor, as a matter of fact, anything which could possibly be interpreted as having that effect.  And there is a flatly contradictory provision at p. 5 thereof, under Art. III ¶ 4(i), which states, with emphasis added:

    The purchase price of LOT2 [defined as the Victoria Property at p. 3] shall be $250,000, all of which shall be payable by the purchaser executing a note and mortgage in favor of the seller.

    Furthermore, as Mr. Schwartz has pointed out in court many times with pinpoint contractual quotes and citations, the purchaser of the Victoria Property was not stated thereby to be Certifound LLC at all, but rather a different LLC referred to therein as “LLC2”.

  4. Judge Levy furthermore made the above-quoted statements for the purpose of justifying (or as I call it: rationalizing) his order which was favorable to opposing parties, disfavorable to Mr. Schwartz, and, pertinently hereby, disfavorable to me and to my interests.

  5. Judge Levy thusly made undeniably false statements of material fact in favor of opposing parties, at an ex parte proceeding where no one would contradict the same, with no less than three different points of material falsity thereby:

    1. Judge Levy’s statements to the effect that that the joint venture contract contained provisions stating that the Victoria Property was intended to be mortgaged by Certifound LLC; and,
    2. Judge Levy’s statements to the effect that that the joint venture contract contained provisions stating that the Victoria Property was intended to be mortgaged with the same mortgage as was allegedly intended to be secured against the Frelinghuysen Property; and,
    3. Judge Levy’s statements to the effect that that the joint venture contract contained provisions stating that the Victoria Property was intended to be mortgaged in favor of someone other than the seller.
  6. As the witness who typed up the joint venture contract at my father’s dictation, who took his dictation at the time of all written correspondence between him and Mr. Breuer, and who talked to my father extensively about the joint venture contract at the time, I furthermore certify that prior to the August 30, 2005 closing, there was absolutely no intention whatsoever on Mr. Schwartz’s part that Certifound LLC would mortgage both the Frelinghuysen and Victoria Properties; there was absolutely no intention on Mr. Schwartz’s part that the Victoria Property be sold to Certifound LLC; and there was a contradictory intention and understanding on Mr. Schwartz’s part, that the Victoria Property would be sold to another company (which was never formed) and would be mortgaged in favor of the seller (a company he wholly owned).

Good Cause for a Delay in Proposed Pleading

  1. On July 8, 2008, I personally handed to Ameerah Ahmad a request for copies of court records.  (N.b., the request is incorrectly stamped by the court as received/filed June 8, 2008, which was a Sunday.  It was made by me and received by the court on July 8, 2008.)  At the time I made the said request, I selected documents from the case file for copying by marking them with blue Post-It notes provided by Ms. Ahmad.  My request totalled 135 pages or $46.25, which I paid at the Finance Division window on the first floor of the court building.  Among the documents I selected for copying was the plaintiff’s complaint in the above-captioned matter, which upon information and belief was signed by John R. Edwards, Jr., Esq., and was filed on or about January 15, 2008.

  2. On July 10, 2008, following a phone call from Ms. Ahmad whereby she told me that my copies were ready, I personally went to the court to pick up my copies.  Ms. Ahmad handed me an unsealed manila envelope which seemed to hold copies of the documents I had requested.

  3. Upon my later inspection of the contents of the envelope referenced in the previous paragraph, the said envelope contained 103 pages of documents (not including the copy of my July 8 copy request).  There are therefore approximately 32 pages missing from the fulfillment of my copy request.  The envelope furthermore appears to contain some duplicate documents.

  4. Upon my later inspection of the contents of the envelope provided to me by Ms. Ahmad as aforesaid, it did not contain a copy of the plaintiff’s complaint as I had requested.

  5. I have maintained substantially intact the envelope and document packet as provided to me by Ms. Ahmad.  I have kept it separated as a single unit in my file.  I have thus far only unstapled one of the documents which were provided to me stapled—the May 5, 2008 order, which I removed for scanning on February 23, 2009, and then promptly replaced.  At this time, I still have the envelope and document packet as provided to me by Ms. Ahmad, substantially intact and with no more and no fewer pages therein than as provided to me by Ms. Ahmad.

  6. On May 25, 2010, I made a request for certified copies of court documents including the plaintiff’s complaint and three other documents.  My said request was received by Ms. Ahmad’s office on May 26, 2010, according to FedEx.

  7. On May 26, 2010, I received a voicemail message from Ms. Ahmad directing me to call her.  I so did forthwith, and spoke both to Ms. Ahmad and to her supervisor, “June”, in a telephone conversation which was audiorecorded by me.1  Ms. Ahmad substantially refused to fulfill my May 25 document copy request by telling me that before I could get the documents, I would need to schedule an appointment and travel to the courthouse in Newark to count the pages of my request (viz., to count the pages of 4 documents totalling a few dozen pages).  I followed up with a notice and demand to Judge Levy of even date herewith.  As of this time, I have not received the certified copies of court records which I requested, nor to my knowledge have the same been sent to me.

  8. The court’s refusal to provide to me the documents I requested May 25 has hindered, delayed, and obstructed the preparation of my pleading setting forth the claims and defenses as for which intervention is sought pursuant to R. 4:33-3.  If the court’s refusal as such results in delay or denial of my instant motion, and/or if the court’s said refusal substantially delays my plea of the claims and defenses I plan to raise on intervention, then I will have suffered actual prejudice therefrom.  I remind the court hereby that I, who am not a lawyer, am litigating against experienced lawyers; and it behooves me to ensure the correctness of my pleading by carefully reviewing certified copies of the documents such as I requested.

At the Bottom Line

  1. My instant motion is emergent in nature; and this certification hereby has been prepared under severe time constraints, at a time furthermore when new evidence is still coming into my possession and being analyzed by me.  I reserve the right to present an additional certification by me with further certifications by me of fact, with exhibits, and with authorities in law to support my arguments.  I believe however that I have herewith made a competent showing in both fact and law of a right and need for me to intervene.

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the each and every fact stated in the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.  If I have of will stated incorrectly or falsified any fact set forth herein, then I am subject to punishment.

At 763—June 1, 2010.


1 Telephone conversation in mp3 format: <>.