Samuel Adam


763 Montgomery Road
Hillsborough, NJ 08844-1304
United States

In Answer to a Scam by 12 Lawyers

Redundant Chase Foreclosure Suit (SOM–F–04368–10)

By Samuel Adam

March 29, 2010

Editorial note:  This page is a section of a paper filed in the New Jersey Superior Court on March 30, 2010.  (Links to come; here is another piece for now.)

The plaintiff’s complaint was made and signed at p. 11 thereof, by and/or in the name of the following twelve (12) lawyers, listed thereby in the following order:

  • Lawyer # 1: Rosemarie Diamond, Esq. (Lead)
  • Lawyer # 2: Jaimie B. Finberg, Esq.
  • Lawyer # 3: Kristin L. Ritchings, Esq.
  • Lawyer # 4: Vladimir Palma, Esq.
  • Lawyer # 5: Jennifer Novick, Esq.
  • Lawyer # 6: Brian Blake, Esq.
  • Lawyer # 7: Shirley E. Pimm, Esq.
  • Lawyer # 8: Brian Yoder, Esq.
  • Lawyer # 9: Thomas M. Brodowski, Esq.
  • Lawyer # 10: Sharon L. McMahon, Esq.
  • Lawyer # 11: Kathryn Gilbertson Shabel, Esq.
  • Lawyer # 12: Regina Galan, Esq.

The foregoing named lawyers are employed by, and act on behalf of, the law firm of Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, P.C. <>.

At p. 10 of the plaintiff’s complaint, the following certification was made by the aforementioned lawyers, with italic emphasis added, all else as in original:


The matter in controversy in this Complaint is not the subject of any other action pending in any other Court nor is it the subject of a pending Arbitration proceeding, nor are any other actions or Arbitration proceedings contemplated, and further, to the best of my knowledge, all parties who should be joined in this action have been joined, plaintiff however reserves its right to institute a deficiency suit following the foreclosure consistent with the appropriate New Jersey Statutes.

By dint of the italicized word “other” in the phrase “any other Court”, the denial of other pending actions is perversely true—in the same sense that Bill Clinton (allegedly) “did not have sex[ual intercourse] with” Monica Lewinsky.  But in court and under penalty of law, people are expected to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”.  This is particularly so, when the matter being certified is expressly required to be elucidated without that extra word “other”—and all the more, when the subtraction of that one single word renders the entire statement most materially (and crucially) false and incorrect.

R. 4:5-1(b)(2) states:  “Each party shall include with the first pleading a certification as to whether the matter in controversy is the subject of any other action pending in any court…”  Note the lack of a word “other”.  Note then, that the “matter in controversy” is currently the subject of another pending action in the same court.

On March 11, 2008, the same plaintiff sued to foreclose the same properties.  The docket number of said action is SOM–F–9870–08, also captioned Chase Home Finance LLC v. Friedman.  That suit is still pending (although I might add that it should not be: It should of right have been dismissed with prejudice as of no later than December 19, 2008).  Just because the plaintiff is losing (and should long ago have resoundingly lost) that case, does not confer on them the privilege of starting a new one.  And just because the plaintiff’s new counsel team in the instant matter is a big gang of lawyers from a large and powerful firm, does not confer on them immunity for intentionally certifying a material lie.

I hereby accuse the 12 above-named lawyers of doing exactly that, and more:  (a) Intentionally making a false certification, for the purpose of (b) obstructing justice and obstructing the administration of the law, and (c) attempting maliciously to harass, intimidate, inflict prejudice upon, and illegally steal away the home and lands of innocent persons, by (d) ramming through a fraudulent and groundless foreclosure on behalf of a large and powerful client, (e) at all costs, one way or the other.

I’ll do more than accuse them hereby:  I reserve my right to sue them directly in an appropriate forum, as the subject matter of such a suit is not germane to a foreclosure pursuant to R. 4:64-5.

Meanwhile, I have a suggestion for the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Civil Practice Committee:  Add to the wording of R. 4:5-1(b)(2) so as to make it state expressly:  “Each party shall include with the first pleading a certification as to whether the matter in controversy is the subject of any other action pending in the same court and/or any other court…”  Evidently, lawyerly ethics are sufficiently lacking as to render the phrase “in any court” not quite clear enough; color me unsurprised.  While such revisions are being made, it may be well to add a new rule which defines what the meaning of the word “is” is.

The point must be suitably made, and with my rights reserved, I register my objections hereby as to the foregoing.

I furthermore register my objection to the statement that “to the best of my knowledge, all parties who should be joined in this action have been joined” (emphasis added).  The plaintiff is excruciatingly well aware that Abraham R. Eisner and GFI Mortgage, Inc. are parties whose joinder is quite indispensible to the ultimate adjudication of this matter.  The fact that their joinder and the reasons therefor would show the plaintiff’s foreclosure claims as the sham they are, does not excuse the plaintiff from telling the truth on certification.

I know that the plaintiff is so aware as I say, because I have repeatedly told them through means such as communications to (a) two of their other counsel teams,1 (b) their internal fraud investigators,2 and (ctheir entire board of directors.3  What I do not yet know beyond a reasonable doubt is whether Ms. Diamond & Co. deliberately excluded this issue from their certification, or the plaintiff called in a new counsel team and gave them only half the story.  Either way, the plaintiff itself is guilty as Hell’s own minions on this point.

One more small matter of note:  I am aware that a lawyer in my position would have immediately moved for dismissal of the complaint.  However, I am not a lawyer.  Although I have at least half a dozen grounds on which I could so move, and on which I could have so done within 24 hours of being served—grounds I reserve, and shall continue to reserve—I don’t want a brush-off dismissal of a nuisance lawsuit.  Rather do I want, deserve, and demand a final judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.  Justice itself requires no less, indeed.  And if the plaintiff wishes to give me the gift of a second avenue for seeking that end, I’d be a fool to reject it out of hand.

Thusly and thus, I thank Mses. Diamond, Finberg, Ritchings, Palma, Novick, Blake, Pimm, Yoder, Brodowski, McMahon, Shabel, and Galan for suing me.  The plaintiff could have done the right thing a very long time ago, and left me peaceably to enjoy quiet and unencumbered title to my home and lands; as they have in cretinous volition refused to so do, the next best thing is for them to handily shoot themselves in the foot.  Again, please.


1 Fein, Such, Kahn, & Shepard, P.C.; and, Shain, Schaffer, & Rafanello, P.C.

2 Letters by me from January 28, 2009 onward to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Global Security & Investigations.

3 Letter of January 28, 2010 by me.