NOTICE TIMELY NEED FOR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION 5 YEAR STATUES ABOUT TO EXPIRE IN 20 DAYS

Criminal Complaint of Real Estate Fraud

Dated: Slightly revised from October 20th on November 6, 2009

Info compiled by Robert Hutchins, 914-202-9464, agent to victim.

Re: Subject -victim: Delmo Zanette (Del), 914-844-0224, 1357 King St, Greenwich, CT: is 79

years young, and has owned and farmed the land in dispute for the last 44 years. This is where he

was blessed by the good will of many strangers who became his good friends. This life long

experience spoiled Del to have innocent expectations that kindness to others begets kindness in

return. That is until he struck a deal with two used car salesman from Mercedes Benz of

Greenwich who redounded the trust Del extended to them into his living nightmare.

To whom it may concern:

The office of the States Attorney in Stamford referred this case to John Dimattia, supervising

A.S.A head for “elder abuse crimes” in Connecticut (860) 258-5800. Yet, he has refused to hear

anything about the case. Neither have any of the law enforcement agencies called the victim and

his witness to investigate all the primate causes of misconduct. Such that is dedicated to harm

Dale with enthusiastic anticipation that he would be so upset he has a fatal pulmonary attack .

In addition, the FBI in Bridgeport, agent John McKenna is now reviewing this case with agent

Shawn Kahanec of the mortgage/securities fraud division (203) 777-6311. Unfortunately, it will

take a number of days for the FBI to decide to act, since they were first contacted Oct 28 and

have a reviewing process.

1

Accordingly, as advised by Michael Panza of the State Attorney’s Office, Del filed a criminal

complaint with the Greenwich Police on the 31st of October. However, the matter was

determined best to be handled by John Matteria from attorney’s office for elder abuse.

Unfortunately, John Matteria stated he was being replaced with another individual on November

7th assigned to elder abuse and the case would be refer to him.

Yet, an indictment of fraudulent conveyance against the perpetrators needs to be done before the

5 year time restriction has expired on the 14th on November. Insomuch, as the fraudulent

conveyance on the first parcel has already lapsed and jurisdiction to prosecute the filing of a

fraudulent transference of title on the second parcel will expire in seven days. Hence, a timely

indictment will allow Del to have his day in a court that his own lawyers deprived him obtaining

where he would have prevailed. Whereby, the criminal court has the jurisdiction to order the

restitution of his fraudulently misappropriated property back into the rightful legal hands of its

true owner.

However, on the two approximately 2 acre parcels Del as a defrauded victim has no standing

anymore in civil court. Since in tort court, fraudulent conveyance only has a three year statue-of

–limitations. It is most disturbing that Del relied on his lawyers to vigorously pursue his legal

options yet they egregiously violated his trust. Since his legal options for being granted relief

were clearly and readily identifiable upon a glance of the corresponding laws.

2

Thus, the lawyers Del employed over the first four years neglected to do what they promised

with litigating the available options for judicial relief. Thus, the causation of their dereliction of

duty is directly contributed to his inability now to regain control over his property through the

courts. Surely his lawyers had to have know all during the time of their representation as to what

his legal options were. Yet, they intentionally sat on their hands to deprive Del from his window

period to take civil action where he absolutely would have succeeded. As the opposition had not

one element of law they could stand upon to justify a matter of legal right of entitlement.

Rather the facts and circumstances of record support the conclusion that Del’s lawyers were not

working on his behalf, but in fact were double agents. This is where Brown collaborated with the

opposition to list the first parcel upon Brown’s direction with his father’s real estate firm on May

2009. On the other hand, due to the profound animosity Del has for Brown if he had regained

control the property would never had been listing with his Browns father.

The May 2009 listing of the disputed property was exactly after five years lapsed on the May

2004 fraudulent transference obtained through trickery. Until the other day, Del thought the

wrongdoers only had rights to his property based on a sales/management contract. Consequently,

it was only after a deed search at the end of October 2009 did he first know he signed over the

title. Considering that no papers about the new mortgage or any other document or information

of the LCC’s activities were provided to Del the fact all his lawyers never searched the deed

records speaks for itself.

3

Unfortunately because the May 27 2004 agreement expired over three years ago and the quit

claims were in 2004, Del has no standing to seek judicial relief anymore. This was the result of

Del’s lawyers intentionally deceiving him by intentionally misleading him to believe that he had

signed away the rights of controlling his property. Yet in actuality the agreement always has

been unenforceable in any court of the land. Since on face, the agreement is subject to summary

dissolution through rescission, due to its unconscionable nature.

Consequently, with considering the fact history and the notorious character of the perpetrators, it

would be of no surprise if they have no intention of giving Del anything from the properties sale.

Then when Del asks, perhaps the trustee of the trust, Philips will again tell Del to “drop dead.”

Ironically when Phillips tricked Del to sign the second quit claim he also had him assign him

limited power of attorney over his business affairs (exh. )

Witness: Joanne Gramacy (Joanne), (845)-590-4094, a current tenant on the disputed property

(now leaving after being ordered to vacate ) witnessed fraudulent conveyance on April/May,

2004 and again on November 2004. This was when lawyer Steven Philipps (Philipps) tricked Del

into signing papers without giving him a chance to read the papers, which included signing onto

two quit claim deeds under the color of being his legal representation.

Whereby, at both of the times Delmo Zanette signed the quit claims, Steven Phillips, the attorney

for both sides, willfully tricked him by presenting it as being additional paperwork for a loan.

This was simultaneously misrepresented to Joanne at the time she signed as a witness under the

color it was an additional document corresponding to the paperwork to the first $20,000.00 loan.

4

Then at Del’s signing of the second quit claim for the second 2 acre parcel she was a witness to

how Philips tricked him by being present when he met with Del at his property. This is when

Phillips rushed Del to sign without reading what he was signing. At that time Phillips said: “I am

late getting to the mortgage closing, just sign these papers, here, here, and here. This is when Del

asked Phillips if he could go with him to the closing. To wit, Philips said: “no, it is not

necessary.”

Further, Joanne is a witness to everything that was discussed in business meetings between the

plaintiff and the perpetrators. Since, due to plaintiff’s physical disability, she drove him to most

of the meetings in the spring of 2004 and then sat in with plaintiff. This is where she heard what

the perpetrators discussed and proposed of their business intentions with plaintiff and the various

arrangements corresponding to the purchase of his property. Consequently, Joanne always told

Delmo at all the times she witnessed the perpetrators pushing documents in front of him to sign

that he shouldn’t sign at that time, but Del would respond that he has confidence in them.

Witness : Robert Hutchins

I have never met a more naïve and vulnerable person for exploitation with his legal matters. It is

shocking that after Brown ran roughshod over Del, he relied on his associate Heisler to represent

his legal interests, but didn’t considering they were cut from the same cloth. It doesn’t seem odd

to Del that his current lawyer Katz whom he gave his last $7,500.00 never gave him one piece of

paper of work. Moreover, he convinced Del that he needs to wait to November 2010 for the

matter to be heard, at which time the property would likely have been sold.

5

After Del complained to Blumenthal and no action was taken, Del came to accept that he had

signed away everything he owned. Consequently, when I first spoke to Del just over a week ago

the best legal relief he was hoping for was to continue occupancy as a rent paying tenant to offset

being evicted. This is where he lived most his life and wanted to spend the rest of it selling

produce to his customers at his farm stand on the property.

Whereby, on October 29, 2009, I was told by Demetrois Adamis, the first lawyer hired by Del

the legal matters in dispute were beyond the area of law that he was familiar with. He explained

the legal issues corresponding to Del’s case were very complex. As it involved an agreement Del

made when he was in jeopardy of losing his property and needed the help from those he entered

into the contract with. Subsequently, Del benefited from their money and credit, but was not able

to get out of the contract. (In effect he propagated the lie entered on the record by the

perpetrators as an effort to create a façade of some basis of legitimacy).

It is most noteworthy, that although Robert Hutchins made it absolutely clear that the entire file

was to be released to him, as it was agreed to by Adamis, yet crucial documents were withheld.

Specifically the prior signed original agreements of March and April 2004, which showed how

the last agreement of May 2004 was egregiously more favorable to the other side’s business

interests. Whereby, he only surrendered the signed original of May 27, an undisputed agreement

and record of the court. In effect, by not returning the original signed documents, constituted a

willful tampering of legal instruments. Since, this effectively deprived Del of the evidence that

would support his cause of action of being defrauded.

6

Essentially, Adamis’s, representation of Del during its entire course was with acts of deception,

where he worked on speculation on prevailing with misfeasance and malfeasance. Thereby, to

ensure he was not compensated for his legal services. As this result, through Adamis’s willful

interference, and incredible practice of professional ineptness deprived Del from obtaining

justice in equity and his ability to compensate Adamis.

In effect, Adamis wantonly perverted Del’s trust and authority as his legal representation into a

criminal enterprise in a conspiracy to defraud. Consequently, after two years of extremely

incompetent representation, Dell eventually fired Adamis, only after it evolved to the point he

was absolutely convinced of his ineptness, to thereafter heir Brown whose mistreatment

eventually was with terrorizing him with threats and harassment. Brown was hired based upon

the enthusiastic raving of a stranger at his farm stand, Donald Brown senior of Weichert

Realtors, proclaiming all the excellent legal work he could have his son perform for Del., yet

Brown and his partner Heisler just performed with more of the same extreme incompetence as

Adamis and acted diametrically averse to Dell’s expressed legal agenda. Essentially, all their

representation was clearly dedicated to inflict devastating harm on to Dell’s legal positions of

opportunities and to consummate the evil intent of his opposition.

Complaint is against :

-Ronald E. Pecunies, ss # 062-24-9286, 220 Central Park So, NY, NY 10019

-Author K Watson Jr. (Watson Enterprise), ss # 047-38-4190, 718 North St, Greenwich,

CT 06831. Both can be found at Mercedes Benz of Greenwich. This is where Pecunies owns

25% registered as Mercedes Benz of Greenwich and Watson owns 75% under Watson

Enterprises.

7

- Joe Cotraneo - witness to the April 21, 2004 mortgage deed as Johanna was and for no

reasonable explanation was included after the fact as legally entitled to receive 1%, or $30,000

from the revenue generated by the LCC’s upon its completed sale of property. In addition, and

most incriminating as evidence confirming his participation is his signature upon the instrument

testifying to Dels agreement on May 27th . Signing his name as a witness to assigning Philips

power of attorney with Dells business matters (ex. ) the other time Phillips got Del to sign the

same instrument when two of the women who worked in his office signed as witnesess.

-Donald Brown Sr. - Weihart Realtors- Front man set up Del now has listing

-Elsie Perone - manager of Weihart Realtors -perjured testimony stating that Del

maliciously interfered with a sale of property at in her office to drive away a party wanting to

purchase his property. This fabricated claim was alleged to have occurred after the public auction

held in ?. However in truth, only one party was interested to bid at $1,000,000, which was

immediately rejected by Weichart as being to low. Thus it is a material fact that not even one

person was a prospect.

Whereby, she willfully fabricated testimonial evidence to empower the wrongdoers to prove in a

court of law that Del perpetrated misconduct constituting being a nuisance during his occupancy.

Her bogus claim was that as a causation of Del’s misconduct against his landlord (the LLC’s) he

drove a party ready to buy the property to maliciously interfere with their business expectancy.

On the other hand in truth, Del was fully cooperative with letting the prospective buyers to see

the apartments whenever she or her agent wanted to show the property. Insomuch as Del never

presented his issues when the realtor showed the property as he was hopeful of receiving the

$1,900,00 promised in the agreement.

8

Complaint is against, Lawyers in Collusion :

-Stephen G Phillips of Murtha Cullina LLP (203) 653409, 177 Broad St. Stamford CT.

(representing Pecunies & Watson, worked hand in hand with them to defraud Del) Phillips was

appointed to be the trustee of the LCC where he is entitled to a percentage of its revenue.

-Demetrois Adamis 2900 Westchester Av, 914-696-3800

First lawyer Del hired, who took the case on speculation and represented him during the first

stage of the eviction proceeding, never charged for his services, no letter of engagement. He

Tricked Del into signing the stipulation, by telling him it was prudent to sign--since it didn’t

matter because he was immediately going to file an action for dissolution of the contract

thereafter.

To wit, he subsequently outright refused to file the action by explaining to Del was that since the

two year term to purchase the property had subsequently lapsed this did not matter. However, he

explained “it is a grey area” that can’t be forced in a court of law, since dissolution of an

agreement requires that both parties need to be in agreement.

Whereby, this stipulation has a contingency of staying the eviction provided Del does not

interfere with the property being sold by being a nuisance to prospective buyers. This gave the

opposition the ability to falsely claim that he was maliciously interfering with prospective buyers

viewing the property. Thus they fraudulently claimed this as being in violation of the stipulation

to bring him back into court to manufacture more false claims on record and get Del to sign the

second stipulation by having his lawyer coerce his compliance.

-Donald M. Brown,esq 203-359-3771, 1200 Summers St, #107, Stamford, Ct

9

Brown related to Del with palpable bullying with coercion and intimidation to overpower Del

from being able to act upon his own volition. This is by imposing mental dominance over Del’s

frail persona to deprive Del from having the ability to control his own pleadings in court.

Thereby, to be substituting with the stifling of Del’s desire and guaranteed right to be heard by

pleading and affirming his defense on why he should not be evicted from his own property. This

was achieved by coercing compliance by imposing his will to dominate over Del so he could not

act upon his own volition in court. As a result of pressuring and deception, Del needlessly agreed

to settle by a stipulation for accepting final judgment for eviction.

Del prepared with performing all possible measures to protect himself from being

evicted, even with borrowing from someone with high interest to pay back $24.000. Del was

behind in the rent because of the mysterious flood that occurred when he was in Florida. This is

when he was told not to pay rent and apply the money to restore what was damaged. Then the

wrongdoers took him to court and ignored that he spent $15,000 out of his own pocket that the

insurance was supposed to cover in lieu of paying rent. Yet, even though he had receipts he

created an escrow account of the $24,000 that Brown would not introduce into the court. Del was

subsequently surprised when the judge knew nothing about the money, However even though the

$24 was created upon his ability to borrow from someone at a high rate of payback. Yet, Brown

refused to apply it satisfy the court’s consideration of delinquency or being up to date with the

rent used the money as leverage to tell Del after both council met in chambers that the only way

he could get the money back is when he shows the court a lease to new place to live after he has

vacated. Del at that time was in a horrible position where he only had revenue of $613 from his

social security check and had borrowed many tens of thousands from friends and maxed out his

credit cards. borrowed from Injunction lease was never filed by Brown neither did he tell the

10

court about the $24,000 only being known when Del asked the judge who did not know about it.

This is when attorney Highland for the opposition said “we don’t want the money released we

want to hold it as a hammer over his head. To wit, Del said when I woke up this morning and

looked in the mirror I did not look like a nail.

-Abrim Heisler, esq.16 River St., #2, Norwalk Ct 06850 Brown referred Del to Heisler

his associate, the court records verifies that they were working for the other side.

Heisler told Del that if he didn’t sign the stipulation that he would lose everything and Del

complied out of fear. At the time Heisler wrote up the stipulation with the other side, Del

overheard the two attorney’s describing it as a gag order. To wit, Del told Heisler that he did not

want a gag order included. Subsequently, under duress, Del signed it not realizing that almost

every element composing the stipulation is about agreeing not to talk about the property in one

manner or the other.

Heisler introduced into the record that the bargain of Del’s agreement with the wrongdoers was

that they were legally entitled to 50% of the profits. (see transcript exh D) At the time Del heard

this he was shocked because he never told his lawyers anything remotely related to what Heisler

declared was a material fact. Although, I did not know that my pleadings could be estopped in

the future from making any claim in contradiction to my being in agreement with the

opposition’s bogus claim. Since, this opened the door for them to bar me from contradicting this

by raising judicial estoppel. Specifically, if I was to thereafter say in a court of law I was duped

to sign on the agreement by it being misrepresented as only a sales agreement. Not surprising the

11

opposition in their papers raises collateral estoppels to block Del from contesting to their

wrongdoings.

Rather, what Del told Heisler and gave him the signed contracts in support that all his

agreements with the wrongdoers revolved around their promise to buy most of the property for

$3,000,00.00 within an expired two year period. This is with leaving me ownership of the parcel

that I was operating my farm stand that was my incentive to go with them because the other

buyers wanted all of the land. (Instead of having a farm stand adjoining a residential

development that would be devalued).

Currently, Del’s lawyers Heisler and Brown outright refused to release to him his files, or will

only on the condition he get a notarized statement from Brown. (Consequently, Del decided he

will not get his file from them, so as not to bother Katz).

Consequently, in the oppositions cause of action to evict Del consisted of totally outrageous bold

faced lies that were readily impeachable. Such as saying he never paid any rent and the

agreement has become a bottomless pit, by sucking away their money and I am driving away

prospects interested in buying the property. Yet, in actuality, not only a couple of cents they paid

for the papers they duped me to sign. While, Del on the other hand to date have appropriated

well over $50,000 sponsoring their adventure as a byproduct of signing in good faith. In fact in

total, they collected upwards of $300,000.00 from rents and in actuality, Del managed the

property overseeing its maintenance, and even with collecting rents to hand over to them.

12

Not to mention, the extra $400, 000, 00 they obtained through excessive mortgaging, as an act of

conversion under the color of refinancing. This liberty of helping themselves is refuted by our

agreement, which only authorizes them to get a better rate of mortgage, not transforming a one

million lean on my property into being two million. Thus, they shed crocodile tears by implying

they are the aggrieved party from our agreement. Further implying I responded to their extending

good faith with my ill-intent in return. Yet when shone in the light of truth is extrinsic fraud of

Herculean proportions, and the perpetration of a hoax on the court for the record books.

Not surprising that in their actions they sought Del from being precluded from entering evidence

outside of the occupancy issue and needed his lawyers to coerce him to sign the stipulations.

Outright act of Conversion

Unlawful acquisition of over $400,000.00 by Pecunies and Watson from an unauthorized

excessive mortgage loan from Manufactures and Traders Trust Company (MTC); (The office of

General Counsel of MTC is located at One M&T Plaza, Buffalo, NY, 14240)

Fraudulent Conveyance

Delmo Zanette (Del), was duped into believing by a scheme of deception and foul play to sign

over his rights of possession on two quit-claim deeds. This was on the basis of an artifice he was

receiving a $40,000 loan. Essentially he was tricked into signing the quit claim under color it

was the paperwork for him to receive each of the two $20,000.00 loans that was actually paid

from mortgaging his own property with exclusive title. The unauthorized excessive mortgaging

was for $1,480,000.00 in November 14, 2004, when maybe about $1, 050,000.00 (or less) was

13

owed on the note. This was under the pretext that the wrongdoers were only getting a new

mortgage on the property to get a better rate than the current 8.5% rate, although the new

mortgage was actually only ½ % below the maximum legal rate. This leaves over $400,000.00

that the wrongdoers received as unaccounted for as to whatever happened to this money.

Whereby, Del was defrauded by the wrongdoer’s exploitation of his extending trust in what they

told him about how they would do business was legitimate. However, through foul play, they

redounded his trust into a criminal enterprise. Specifically, he naively believed what he was told

by these perpetrators was truthful and legitimate, along with not scrutinizing the papers they

were having him sign.

Whereas, through egregious trickery, the various papers that the wrongdoers had Del sign were

all misrepresented to be meaning something else. This was by being associated to correspond to

another agreement or understanding to something different than what he was agreeing to with his

signature. This occurred because Del was always deprived from having the opportunity to

closely examine the accompanying documents to what he was signing. Clearly, this was done in

a deliberate and calculating manner to rush and pressure him to just sign his name on the line as

needed, to be signed at that moment without giving him a chance to read or have an attorney

review the agreements to advise him thereof. Instead, Del relied on the wrongdoer’s attorney

Stephan Phillips for legal support, but Phillips acted in concert with the wrongdoers to further

their scheme based on lies, deceptions and manipulations. Not surprising 30% of the

misappropriated to their pockets from the cash after the refinancing went to Philips.

14

The property value was established to be worth four million, yet the town records indicate that

conveyance of tile occurred in conjunction with a second $20,000.00 mortgage from Ronald E.

Pecunies (Pecunies). This transference of title was achieved as a fraudulent conveyance, by

Pecunies and his associate Authur Watson (Watson) who perpetrated fraud and deceit with a

scheme and artifice. This is where they duped Del to believe they were going to give him two

$20,000 loans, and later buy or sell his property for $1,900,000; with a provision he could still

retain possession of ownership of his farm stand located on the property and be given a nice

apartment on the property in return for only paying $1,000.00 towards taxes.

However, everything Pecunies and Watson told Del and promised him about their business

dealings with him turned out to be palpable lies, and egregiously violated. This is with

outrageous acts of bad faith that exploited the good faith he extended to them to be redounded

into a criminal enterprise. Albeit by their willful and wanton breaching of all their promises

contained in contracts, writings or verbal declarations of intent. Such as where the papers he

signed to receive what he was told were loans were in actuality mortgages and one of the

documents he signed that was misrepresented tricked him into signing away the title to his

property. Whereby, the wrongdoers were able to be in the position of control, as a result of

Delmo’s attorneys acting in collusion to allow them to achieve their criminal intent.

Harassment

On October 30, a security guard from Mercedes Benze came onto the property and demanded

Del let him into his home and after he refused said: “I’m just going to break the window and go

in through the window.” Del’s response was to call the police to have him told to leave his

15

property. As the law says that an owner must give his tenant notice of two days in advance if

access to ones dwelling is required for a legitimate purpose. Yet, clearly the purpose appears to

serve no other purpose, but to send a thug to terrorize an already severely traumatized senior

citizen to install fear of being harmed if he continues his occupancy. Such an act is to intimidate

compliance by installing fear of not being safe in one’s home and fear all of one’s personal

property is going to be trashed by the might of 6 men on a mission of intimidation and

destruction. The common tactic of threatening destruction of someone’s property to force

compliance from fear of what is threatened.

On November 3, 2009 Del was threatened by Phillips that if I did not immediately move out all

of his property in three days that six men and garbage truck will dispose of everything he owns.

Del’s lawyer Katz said their lawyer Phillips told him to tell Dale that he had 3 days to move out

all of his property from the current building and the three other buildings he owns on the first

parcel obtained by a signature on a quit claim of a 74 year old man. This signing away title

occurred at the same time he signed for a loan of $20,000 he did not ask for or need property in

side has unlawfully been misappropriated by locking me out from retrieving my property from

the three house on my other property that I left after receiving the martial’s notice to the

buildings to vacate when I left to go to the second parcel to live, but did not remove most of my

property. Unlawfully, the wrongdoers locked me out and refused to allow me access. In effect

my valuable possessions are confiscated and held as leverage to coerce and intimidate.

16