Victim of ( Judicial ) Greed

Saturday, January 26, 2008

YES, BERGEN COUNTY HAS SEVERAL TAPES...ALL OF YOUR HUSBAND...I STILL HAVE THE COPIES...yes for the right time....

HOW MUCH WAS BEING PAID FOR THIS FAVOR?

WHY WAS I LEFT OUT OF THIS EMAIL? BECAUSE IF I HAD KNOWN, I WOULD HAVE REPORTED IT, BUT ACCORDING TO THIS EMAIL, BOB PERPETUATED IT......LET'S TALK ABOUT BERGEN COUNTY.....

THERE'S MORE TAPES OF YOUR HUSBAND THAN WATERGATE HAD....

Friday, January 25, 2008

OH NO! RANDI WITH AN I, YES, I'VE SEEN THAT SIGNATURE BEFORE

RANDI KERN FRANCO, ESQ.

Attached to this email are two documents;
1. Larry Goldspeil's sworn statement to your office about how he became aware of Robert Franco, Esq. Goldspeil was stating that Bob Franco did some closings for him and he needed legal advice. Paperwork obtained through OPRA

2. Stationery letterhead stating that Randi Franco is licensed in New York and Robert Franco is licensed in New Jersey. Mr. Franco is not licensed in New York yet he represented and gave legal advice to Larry Goldspeil, a New York resident. The house closing was in New York, it was attended by Norman Tauger and Tauger will attest that Robert Franco was there representing
Goldspeil, not Randi Franco.

Cindy Jampel.

Yes, my family's home..... yes 6 Bayer Lane, yes as proven today, January 25, 2008...120 days MORTGAGE IN THE AREARS....YES, MY HOUSE....YES I OWE NORMAN TAUGER OVER $100,000 YES MY HOUSE!

BY THE WAY...WHY DON'T YOU DO A BLOG ABOUT ME?

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS COUNCIL IS?

THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS COUNCIL AFFORDED ME TO SEE HOW YOU FRIENDS REPORTED YOUR PILFERING AND CORRUPT ACTIVITIES..... PREYING ON THE VULNERABLE, USING OTHER'S CREDIT CARDS, TAMPERING WITH THE ATTORNEY ESCROW ACCOUNT, ILLEGAL WIRE TAPPING, PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT A LICENSE.... FORGETTING TO NOTIFYING THE STATE ABOUT A TORT CLAIM...... RUNNING TO JUDGE DILT'S SECRETARY.... FILING FALSE POLICE REPORTS, COERCING FRIENDS TO FILE STALKING COMPLAINTS WHILE I WAS SAFELY PUNCHED IN AT MY JOB... REMEMBER WHEN I LOANED YOU $10,000....THERE ARE NO WORDS FOR YOU........ COLITIS PERSONIFIED.....

HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT OPRA HELPED ME GARNER

Saturday, January 19, 2008

THE INTERVENERS, ROBERT AND RANDI FRANCO, ESQS.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

FILED WITH SOMERSET COUNTY COURTHOUSE

Cynthia Jampel
3308 French Drive
Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807

Norman Tauger
XXXXSxxxxx Way Superior Court Of New Jersey
XXXXXXX, New Jersey Somerset County Superior Court
070XX Law Division
Telephone: (XXX) XXX xx00
Docket No:L-481-07

Civil Action
Cynthia Jampel
Plaintiff, pro se
Certification
v. In Support to Remove the
Norman Tauger Stay and Enforce the Original
Defendant, pro se Judgment and to return the
Money that was Improperly
Converted by the Interveners
v.

The Interveners;
Robert A. Franco, Esq.
And Randi Kern Franco,Esq.

I, Cynthia Jampel, of full age, certify and state to the following:

1. I am the Plaintiff in the matter of Jampel v. Tauger and a Co-Defendant in the matter captioned, an Order to Show Cause, seeking emergent relief filed on behalf of Robert A. Franco, Esq. and Randi K. Franco, Esq. otherwise known as the Interveners.

1.On October 12th, 2007, the plaintiff Jampel, the Defendant Tauger and the Interveners Mr. and Mrs. Franco, Esq. appeared before the Honorable Judge Allison Accurso. Judge Accurso asked the Interveners to state what they can offer to convince the Court, that they have a vested interest in the property of 6 Bayer Lane Boonton Township, New Jersey, 07005; they could not state a valid or supportive proof as to their financial investment in the home, separate from ordinary or rental purposes. Mr. Franco stated the following, along with other vacuous claims;

Franco stated,
“I open, close and pay the maintenance on the pool”.

The truth is; The Francos owe Tauger approximately $130,000, most of which, was used to pay the exorbitant mortgage payments, that are habitually in the arrears. Tauger owes Jampel $115,000 plus interest, therefore any equity the Francos claim, is what they had deceptively borrowed from Tauger and pilfered from Jampel.

Franco also stated,
“The mortgage was originated with a “CREDIT” given as a down payment by the sellers.”

Therefore again, no money was contributed from the Franco’s pocket, albeit, had they put money down, it would void the mortgage commitment. A down payment cannot come from an outside source or be borrowed.

Do the Franco’s have a vested interest in this home ?
No, they do not.

The mortgage is an interest only libor. Interest only, no equity, particularly concerning the manner in which the Francos pay. The Francos have fallen grossly behind with the payments and are in imminent danger of foreclosure. The taxes and insurance are inclusive in the ordinary payment, but since the monthly installments are so far behind, this put the property and Tauger in further jeopardy. (Exhibit A).

The home is deeded solely to Mr. Tauger.
The mortgage is exclusively in his name.

It has been noted that nowhere on the formal mortgage papers does the Franco name appear, except for Randi Franco, Esq., as an representing attorney (Exhibit B). The Francos induced Tauger into taking a mortgage for them, they arranged for fraudulent certifications and official papers to misrepresent income and assets for Tauger. Mrs. Franco represented him in a deceptive and predatory manner, so that both Mr. and Mrs. Franco could benefit.

Together they destroyed Tauger’s credit. They borrowed money from him to maintain their life of luxury and now they are the cause of Tauger’s inability to live his life, without the jeopardy of arrests and his own finances to retain Counsel to represent him. (Exhibit C). Tauger actually had written an outline of the hurtful and damaging events that the Francos caused, and then ended it by saying “Incarceration is not enough”. This outline was written on the Franco’s professional stationery, then faxed to Jampel in evidence that Jampel had no persuasion or coercion over Tauger’s actions. The ultimate is that Tauger is willing to take a polygraph to show how victimized he really is from this rouge team. The mortgage was deceptively originated, masterminded by the Francos. Presently the mortgage is not being paid as agreed by Tauger in theory, this is theft by deception but nowhere, does Robert A. Franco, Esq.’s name appear. In Exhibit C, Tauger himself expressed,
“ I must now sell the house,
they cannot keep paying….”

The Francos have breeched their professional duty, by inducing Tauger to agree to a fraudulent mortgage. This is the same practice as Mr. Franco perpetrated, when he induced Jampel into loaning money to his New York client, [*1] Larry Goldspiel, knowing the client would pay her back through his law firm; and he would then have the opportunity to convert the money to himself or his wife for purposes to enrich their lifestyle. (Exhibit D, check Randi).

2.Upon appearing before this Court, Robert A. Franco, Esq. brought fraud upon the Court by deceptively stating the status of Tauger’s mortgage. The Francos were at the time late, and are consistently late with their payments, incurring over $3,200 in charges as interest and penalties, diminishing the equity of Tauger’s home. Furthermore, should the Francos pay in a timely way, (which they believe would give them ownership of the home), it is stated within the mortgage commitment papers, that the mortgage cannot be transferred (Exhibit E). Hence, Mr. Tauger has the control of the property, since the home is a direct connection to the mortgage. Tauger has stated, that he wishes to sell the property and settle his debt. This has been noted by Tauger and written by his Court appointed Attorney, Brian Cige. Letter, December 12th 2007. (Exhibit F).

3. On January 3, 2008, Tauger and Jampel tape-recorded a conversation with Customer Service of Countrywide Mortgage.
During the conversation Mr. Tauger became shocked and sickened by the news that,

*1Robert Franco is not licensed in NY

“The Francos had not paid the “first mortgage” since August of 2007, nor the “second mortgage” since July of 2007”. The payments are in the arrears and Tauger had been sent a Notice of Forclosure. The amont due is about $80,000.

4. Mr. Tauger was mortified but continued the conversation, giving an update of his present income and living expenses to Customer Service. This was very concerning, because the fraud department is already aware of the background of this mortgage. The Francos are presently and were under investigation with the Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office for Theft by Deception, primarily for converting $20,000 tended for Jampel and for other reasons as well. (Exhibit G Goldspiel and Tauger Cert.)

5. After speaking with Countrywide, Tauger called Mrs. Franco, she was most annoyed and curt with him. She kept repeating over and over, “Why would you call Countrywide and alert them?” As if Tauger had no right to discover that he could be arrested for defaulting on the defective mortgage; or at best, discovering that the Francos had forged Tauger’s signature many times, which would ultimately relieve him of his tragic involvement with this mortgage. (Exhibit H, postscripts).

Mrs. Franco also stated,

“Don’t worry we have a plan, there is a plan to the madness, I promise you.”

What Mrs. Franco didn’t know, Jampel also had a plan, she sent all the information to Law Enforcement. Tauger went on to suggest to Mrs. Franco that they could be saving money on the side to abscond.

6. During another phone call, Mrs. Franco said that she is aware that Brian Cige, Esq. at Tauger’s request, is going to prepare a motion to sell the home. Mrs. Franco started to gnaw at Tauger’s vulnerability when she said,

“Now I’ll have to look for an apartment for my kids and us, to live in”.

Tauger does not have the heart to be proactive so he therefore takes the passive role, such as having a lie detector test administered by law enforcement or police, or have his sister fight for him and seek a Court Appointed Attorney perform the “dirty work”. He is obviously afraid of the Francos, which was evident from his testimony on October 12, 2007. Tauger went so far as to show the Court that claimed he is demented, so he would not appear to be responsible for the outcome, yet Tauger is adamant about selling the property. After the Court appearance on the 12th, Jampel’s cell phone was connected to Tauger’s, the attacks from the Francos at Tauger, was overheard by five people.

7. In February of 2006, the Francos needed $7,000 urgently. Once again, they were falling behind with their mortgage payments. They took it from their Attorney Trust Account and demanded that Tauger give $7,000 to them, to replace the removed funds. Mr. Tauger gave the money to the Francos and was never repaid. Tauger felt the urgency to help out, because the attorney for the other party was threatening to sue his friend, Larry Goldspiel, for the return of his client’s money. Tauger filed a complaint with the Watchung Police Department, stating Franco deceptively converted $7,000 from him. (Exhibit I, Exhibit C)

8. In 2006 and 2007, I had learned from reading the testimony given at the Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office, how money that was owed to Jampel and others was embezzled and converted, while the Francos were circumventing paying income taxes. (Exhibit J).

9. To date, the Francos have intervened and stopped the collecting of Jampel’s Judgment. They have hampered Jampel from collecting a debt that is long overdue, and now, I am in jeopardy of losing my home and other possessions. The Francos have put Jampel in the arrears about $25,000 by converting $20,000 of her money, as repayment, and along with restricting Tauger from paying her, by both not paying Tauger and stopping the sale of his home.

They have frivolously caused a delay of listing and selling the property, possibly causing the equity and value to become greatly reduced. The Francos should be held responsible for their actions and be accountable to pay for all losses that the victim Jampel has suffered with, and from. They should be compelled to return the funds they had embezzled in order to perpetuate their life of fraud and titillating pleasures, while Jampel and Tauger are simply attempting to satisfy simple responsibilities and obligations.

Jampel is working excessive hours, attempting to recoup from the damages, brought upon her by the lush, yet deceptive lifestyle and dishonest professional practice of her former attorneys, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Franco, Esq. Jampel and her ill pets have been victimized by ruthless attorney predatory practices from the Francos, for self-enrichment purposes.

For the above stated reasons, the temporary stay on the lien and judgment: Judgment J 222045-07

JUDGMENT FOR MONIES OWED AND FOR SALE OF
PROPERY

must be lifted and removed. The lien on the property of 6 Bayer Lane Boonton New Jersey, 07005 must be enforced, and all money ($20,000), (plus applicable interest and sanctions, deemed by the Court), along with punitive damages, must be paid to the Plaintiff by the Interveners within thirty days of the signed Order.

I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements are false, I am subject to punishment.

Dated ________________ ___________________

Cynthia Jampel

Sunday, January 13, 2008

RANDI KERN FRANCO'S CERTIFICATION

IN THIS CASE, IT'S SPELLED "LIAR"

Wasting police time - section 5(2) Criminal Law Act 1967

(Archbold 28-224)

The offence of wasting police time is committed when a person

. causes any wasteful employment of the police by
. knowingly making to any person a false report orally or in writing tending to:
. show that an offence has been committed; or,
. give rise to apprehension for the safety of any persons or property; or,
. show that he has information material to any police inquiry.
It is a summary only offence carrying a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a level 4 fine.

Proceedings may only be instituted by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions: s.5(3). Consent may be granted after charge but must be before a plea of guilty is entered or summary trial. Consent must be obtained before proceedings are started by way of summons.

Examples of the type of conduct appropriate for a charge of wasting police time include:

. false reports that a crime has been committed, which initiates a police investigation;
. the giving of false information to the police during the course of an existing investigation.
The public interest will favour a prosecution in any one of the following circumstances:-

. police resources have been diverted for a significant period (for example 10 hours);
. a substantial cost is incurred, for example a police helicopter is used or an expensive scientific examination undertaken;
. when the false report is particularly grave or malicious;
. considerable distress is caused to a person by the report;
. the accused knew, or ought to have known, that police resources were under particular strain or diverted from a particularly serious inquiry;
. there is significant premeditation in the making of the report;
. the report is persisted in, particularly in the face of challenge.
There are statutory offences which involve wasting police time and which should be used instead of section 5(2) when there is sufficient evidence. For example:-

. perpetrating a bomb hoax - s51(2) Criminal Law Act 1977;
. false alarms of fire - s.49 Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;
. fraudulent insurance claims based on false reports of crime - deception.
There is an overlap between the offence of wasting police time and other, more serious offences. Regard must be had to the factors outlined in General Charging Principles, above in this chapter and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this chapter, which help to identify conduct too serious to charge as wasting police time, when consideration should be given to a charge of perverting the course of justice