No.

In The
Supreme Court of the United States
John F. Marchisotto,
Petitioner,
_________

v.

Debra E. Canova, Louis P. Lepore, Louis Lepore, Esq.,

The Law Offices of Louis Lepore, P.C., Louis Lepore,
Esq., L.L.C., and LPL885 L.L.C.
Respondents.
________________

In The Matter Of The Irrevocable Trust Of

John L. Marchisotto, deceased
________________

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The

Superior Court Of New Jersey Appellate Division
________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

________________

Submitted by:

John F. Marchisotto
(“Pro se Petitioner”)
15 Topaz Dr
Jackson, NJ 08527
(732) 526-7732
mr300cclass@yahoo.com
________________

January 6, 2023
 John F. Marchisotto
(“Pro se Petitioner”)
15 Topaz Dr
Jackson, NJ 08527
(732) 526-7732

January 6, 2023

Supreme Court of the United States

Office Of The Clerk
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Dear Clerk’s,

I am fling a petition for a writ of certiorari in booklet format pursuant to

Rule 33.1 and paying the docket fee required by Rule 38(a). I have attached a
personal check for the amount of $300 made payable to “Clerk, U. S. Supreme
Court.”.

I have attached certificate of service pursuant to Rule 29.5, serving three

copies of the petition upon the Respondents. I have also attached a Certificate Of
Compliance pursuant to Rule 33.1(h).

I have attached FORTY copies of 6 1/8 inch by 9 1/4-inch booklet format as

required for United States Supreme Court Rule 33.1.(a), and ONE 8 ½ copy for
electronic filing.

I am respectfully asking for the Clerk’s office to accept the filing of a Pro se
who numerous printing companies denied to work with him because he is not an
attorney., or from a law practice. I have also tried my very best to comply with all
of the Supreme Court of the United States rules to create, and file these booklets
submitted to the court.

The United State Supreme Court justices should consider protections being
ordered against the discrimination practice that regularly goes on within the courts
towards pro se litigants. You will see all my cases, and other peoples cases
continuously show judges enjoy abusing non-attorneys, and denying them justice.

1
 What is very ironic here is that there happens to be many more of us pro se’s
nationally throughout the United States than attorneys, and judges who created a
very bias, and discriminatory monopoly against anyone who proceeds pro se.

Clerks I did find a local printing company to work with me to help me create
these required booklets. I have also spent a lot of money in trying my best to comply
with this courts stringent requirements, but don’t believe they are perfect.

Thank you for taking to the time to read my letter, and to consider filing my
Petition for Certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,
Sincerely yours,

____________________
John F. Marchisotto
(“Pro se Petitioner”)
15 Topaz Dr
Jackson, NJ 08527
(732) 526-7732

2
 No.

In The
Supreme Court of the United States
John F. Marchisotto,
Petitioner,
_________
v.
Debra E. Canova, Louis P. Lepore, Louis Lepore, Esq.,
The Law Offices of Louis Lepore, P.C., Louis Lepore,
Esq., L.L.C., and LPL885 L.L.C.
Respondents.
________________
In The Matter Of The Irrevocable Trust Of
John L. Marchisotto, deceased
________________
On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The
Superior Court Of New Jersey Appellate Division
________________
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on or about January 6, 2023, I will deposit for
mailing at the USPS, Three (3) copies of the Petition For Writ Of Certiorari in
the above captioned case to be served via Certified, Return Receipt Requested
mail, and as required by U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.5(c), on the following
Respondents:

Debra E. Canova Louis P. Lepore Louis Lepore, Esq.

46 Meagan Loop 46 Gaynor Street 885 Huguenot Avenue
Staten Island, NY 10307 Staten Island, NY 10309 Staten Island, NY 10312
(718) 608-0838. c/o: Louis Lepore, Esq. (718) 354-8646
(718) 608-0835 885 Huguenot Avenue
(347) 728-8074 Staten Island, NY 10312
c/o: Louis Lepore, Esq. (718) 354-8646
885 Huguenot Avenue
Staten Island, NY 10312
(718) 354-8646

1
The Law Offices of Louis Lepore, P.C. Louis Lepore, Esq., L.L.C.
NYS DOS ID: 4268814 NYS DOS ID: 3278376
885 Huguenot Avenue 885 Huguenot Avenue
Staten Island, NY 10312 Staten Island, NY 10312
c/o: Louis Lepore, Esq. c/o: Louis Lepore, Esq.
885 Huguenot Avenue 885 Huguenot Avenue
Staten Island, NY 10312 Staten Island, NY 10312
(718) 354-8646

LPL885 L.L.C.
NYS DOS ID: 4209505
46 Gaynor Street
Staten Island, NY 10309
c/o: Louis Lepore, Esq.
885 Huguenot Avenue
Staten Island, NY 10312

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct,
and in compliance with 28 U. S. C. § 1746. Rule 29.5(c).
________________

Executed on January 6, 2023.

______________________________
John F. Marchisotto
(“Pro se Petitioner”)
15 Topaz Dr
Jackson, NJ 08527
(732) 526-7732
mr300cclass@yahoo.com

2
 No.

In The
Supreme Court of the United States
John F. Marchisotto,
Petitioner,
_________
v.
Debra E. Canova, Louis P. Lepore, Louis Lepore, Esq.,
The Law Offices of Louis Lepore, P.C., Louis Lepore,
Esq., L.L.C., and LPL885 L.L.C.
Respondents.
________________
In The Matter Of The Irrevocable Trust Of
John L. Marchisotto, deceased
________________
On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The
Superior Court Of New Jersey Appellate Division
________________
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
________________
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the Petition
For Writ Of Certiorari contains 6,926 words, excluding the parts of the
document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.l(d).
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct,
and in compliance with 28 U. S. C. § 1746.
________________
Executed on January 6, 2023.

_______________________________
John F. Marchisotto
(“Pro se Petitioner”)
15 Topaz Dr
Jackson, NJ 08527
(732) 526-7732
mr300cclass@yahoo.com
 i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The Supreme Court of New Jersey denied Petitioners, Petition for

Certification, from a decision of the Superior Court Of New Jersey
Appellate Division. That opinion includes contradicting conclusions of
law, ignores all evidences presented on the finding of the same facts.
Petitioner's Constitutional Rights to due process; (fair treatment
through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement)
has raised questions as follows:

1. Whether the Superior Court Of New Jersey Appellate

Division, and Supreme Court of New Jersey, denial opinion, and orders
violate the civil rights of the petitioner as protected by The Civil Rights
Act of 1871 a federal statute—numbered 42 U.S.C. § 1983- Civil action
for deprivation of rights?

2. Whether the lower trial courts Somerset, and Middlesex

Superior courts violated Petitioners, of his Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendment Constitutional Rights and “deprived him of life, liberty or
property without due process of law" in reaching its decision, opinion,
and orders in this case, or is the conduct outside the scope of the law?

3. Whether the Superior Court Of New Jersey Appellate Division

decision, opinion, and order be overturned because it conflicts with
precedent from this court or other courts?

4. Whether the lower Somerset, and Middlesex Superior court’s

decision be overturned because it creates a circuit split with other courts
on this issue raised by petitioner?

5. Whether the issues presented in this case of sufficient

importance to warrant review by this court?

6. Whether the judges in question engaged in misconduct as

alleged in the petition?

7. Whether if the judges engaged in misconduct, did it rise to the

level of a due process violation?

8. Whether the lower court’s decision on the issue of judicial

misconduct be overturned because it conflicts with precedent from this
Court or other courts?

9. Whether the issues of judicial misconduct in this case of

sufficient importance to warrant review by this court?
 ii
10. Whether the petitioners petition, raised a novel or unsettled
question of law that would benefit from the Court’s review?

11. Whether the judges in question be disqualified from the

proceedings in this case, and their orders entered be set aside?

12. Whether the judges in question be subject to disciplinary

action for their alleged misconduct?

13. Whether the lower court’s interpretation of the provisions of

the estate, and irrevocable trust agreement regarding John L.
Marchisotto, deceased correct?

14. Whether the lower court’s correctly applied applicable state,

and federal laws in its determination of the estate, and irrevocable trust
agreement regarding John L. Marchisotto, deceased?

15. Whether the lower court’s decision be overturned because it

conflicts with precedent from this Court or other courts on the issues of
estate, and irrevocable trust cases?

16. Whether the lower court’s determination of order

sanctioning the Pro se plaintiff to pay $81,841.72 and the additional
$3,000 in expenses and costs to respondents an abuse of discretion?

17. Whether the Superior Court Of New Jersey Appellate

Division, Supreme Court of New Jersey, and Somerset / Middlesex
Superior lower courts failed to properly consider relevant evidence in its
determination of Petitioners case, and appeal of: In the Matter of the
Irrevocable Trust of John L. Marchisotto, deceased?
 iii
LIST OF PARTIES, AND RELATED CASES

Petitioner, John F. Marchisotto is a citizen of the United States of

American, and resides in Jackson, New Jersey.

Respondent Debra E. Canova, is a citizen of the United States of

American, and resides in Tottenville, Richmond County, Staten Island,
New York.

Respondent Louis P. Lepore, Louis Lepore, Esq., The Law Offices of

Louis Lepore, P.C., Louis Lepore, Esq., L.L.C., and LPL885 L.L.C. is a citizen
of the United State of America, and resides in Pleasant Plains, Richmond
County, Staten Island, New York. Louis Lepore Esq., has numerous
Professional Corporations, Limited Liability Corporations, registered to
him in New York State connected with his law offices located at 885
Huguenot Ave., Staten Island New York 10312. Louis Lepore, Esq., also
has listed a virtual satellite office located at 331 Newman Spring Road
Bldg. 14th Floor Suite 143 Red Bank, NJ 07701. Louis Lepore, Esq., law
license in New Jersey is Out of State, and connected to his New York law
offices. Louis Lepore, Esq., also has an Out of State Florida law license.

Louis Lepore, Esq., has continuously perjured himself to every court

in the State of New Jersey, State of New York, U.S. District Court of New
Jersey, that he operates his law business offices (in three states) ONLY as
a Sole Proprietorship, and does not need to maintain the required
mandatory Professional Liability Insurance as required by NJ Courts for
the Practice of Law; Rule 1:21; Practice of Law, N.J. Ct. R. 1:21. This
attorney continues to commit business, attorney, and tax fraud to date,
and the New Jersey State, and Federal Judges continue to look the other
way to this attorneys’ perjury, and fraud.

There are no other participating parties involved in any of these

proceedings.

Related Cases, arising from the same initial trial court case;

Currently Active, – In the Matter of the Irrevocable Trust of John L.

Marchisotto, deceased, Docket No. A-001889-21 (res judicata appeal
of same lower court docket number) due to Judicial Misconduct by
Middlesex County, Recalled Judge, Roger W. Daley, and Appellant
Division Judges Accurso, and Enright, who have allowed Louis Lepore,
Esq.., to backfile back to the lower trial court on an already disposed of
case since April 1, 2020, that had an already pending appeal, desperately
trying to get his accountings, and supplemental accountings approved
(never were approved in lower courts by Judge Goodzeit or Judge Rivas
 iv
before the case was disposed of), and was desperately trying to get an
order by another Middlesex County dirty judge, to withdraw
approximately $612,541.94 of monies that were being held for
safekeeping in the New Jersey State Trust Fund Unit, by falsifying a
proposed order document with a false statement attached, and allegedly
bribing Judge Roger W. Daley to sign the false document that states: “No
other person is entered to any of those monies being held”. Middlesex
County Judge Roger W. Daley has committed fraud. This case created
Marchisotto v. Daley et al; Case No.: 3:22-cv-01276-MAS-TJB, and Judicial
Misconduct complaints have already been filed against the two prior
federal judges to this matter.

Currently Active, - Appellate Division, 2nd Judicial Dept JPMORGAN

Chase Bank, N.A. v. Debra E. Canova et al; Docket No. 2020-06261,
Petitioner has filed this appeal in 5/2021, to date his appeal still has not
been calendared. It appears to petitioner that the Appellee Division 2nd
Judicial Dept is purposely trying to avoid hearing his appeal from lower
New York Supreme Court Docket No: 152396/2019 (JPMORGAN Chase
Bank, N.A. v. Debra E. Canova et al).

Currently Active, - Marchisotto v. Daley et al; Case No.: 3:22-cv-

01276-MAS-TJB; This federal lawsuit stems from the res judicata appeal
of – In the Matter of the Irrevocable Trust of John L. Marchisotto,
deceased, Docket No. A-001889-21. Please note this is the same exact
lower court trial docket number 18-00394 being brought by Petitioner
here to the United States Supreme Court. The New Jersey Courts judges
continuously engage in judicial misconduct, fraud, and coverup for one
another’s criminal behaviors.

Currently Active, Marchisotto v. Malik et al; 3:20-cv-20426-MAS-

TJB; Judicial Misconduct complaints have also already been filed against
the four prior federal judges to this matter.

Currently Active, In the Matter of J.M; DOCKET NO. A-001026-20;

awaiting for a decision from New Jersey Appellate Division, on appeal
from Ocean County Superior Court; Re: Illegal Weaponized Red Flag,
Illegal entry of Petitioners home without a valid search warrant order,
and illegal gun removal with a valid order. This case created Marchisotto
v. Malik et al; 3:20-cv-20426-MAS-TJB.

Non-Active (Disposed of) – U.S. Supreme Ct. Docket No.:19A1066;

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito failed to recuse himself from
hearing another petition, petitioner had escalated from New Jersey State
Court to the U.S. Supreme Court against Justice Alito former colleague,
corrupt state judge buddy, “Dirty Judge Alberto Rivas”. Judge Rivas also
 v
served as a federal prosecutor, becoming Deputy Chief of the Criminal
Division under then-U.S. Attorney Samuel Alito, who is now associate
justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and also the Circuit Justice For The
Third Circuit. Judge Rivas worked directly for Alito in the New Jersey U.S.
Attorney’s Office when he was a Chief Prosecutor of the Criminal
Division. Justice Alito was the former boss of Judge Rivas who was
continuously criminally harassing both myself, and my family.

Non-Active (Disposed of) - Marchisotto v. Goodzeit et al; U.S.

District Court of New Jersey; 3:19-cv-12540-BRM-DEA.

Non-Active (Disposed of) – Marchisotto v. Rivas et al; U.S. District

Court of New Jersey; 3:19-cv-21440-BRM-DEA.

Non-Active (Disposed of) - USCA For The Third Circuit; In re: John
Marchisotto; Case No.: 20-2271; Petition For Writ Of Mandamus Against
Defendant Judge Alberto Rivas, JSC, Middlesex County. Appellant and his
family want Defendant Judge Rivas, Arrested. Certificate of Service dated
08/02/2020.

Non-Active (Disposed of) – USCA For The Third Circuit; John

Marchisotto v. Margaret Goodzeit, et al; Case No.; 20-1870.

Non-Active (Disposed of) – USCA For The Third Circuit;

Marchisotto v. Margaret Goodzeit, et al; Case No.; 20-2134.

Other: New Jersey State Tort Liability

Title 59, Re: 12/12/2019, State Risk file No.: 19-7704

Title 59, Re: 01/05/2020, State Risk file No.: 20-762

Title 59, Re: 02/07/2020, State Risk file No. 20-762

Judge Alberto Rivas False Judiciary Gun Threat Incident report: I-

8121.

Judge Alberto Rivas, Respondents / Defendant’s Debra E. Canova,

and Louis Lepore, Esq., False TERPO Gun Threats: In the Matter of
John Marchisotto Petition No.: 1511 XTR 2020 000002. U.S. Supreme
Court please take note of the judicial criminals at Superior Court of New
Jersey Ocean County; who backdated, and created a new court matter on
06/29/20, called; In The Matter of J.M. to coverup the illegal search, of
petitioners home, and weaponized false Red Flag gun removal without
any legal authority, or any valid search warrant orders on 02/07/20.
 vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED…………………………..i

LIST OF PARTIES, AND RELATED CASES…..iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………..viii

OPINIONS BELOW……………………………………...1

JURISDICTION …………………………………………..1

NATURE OF SUPREME COURT REVIEW……...2

REQUESTING JUSTICE ALITO RECUSAL……...3

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED……………………………..4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE………………………...7

A. Factual Background………………………….7
B. Procedural History…………………………...9

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION…11

CONCLUSION……………………………………….......18

INDEX OF APPENDICES……………………………19

Appendix A……………………………………………...1a
Decision New Jersey Superior Court
Appellate Division; Docket No. A-3453-19

Appendix B………………………………………..…..25a
Decision New Jersey Superior Court,
Middlesex County Trial; Docket No. 18-00394

Appendix C…………………………………...............51a
Supreme Court of New Jersey Order
Denying Review; Docket No. 087075
 vii
Appendix D………………………………………….....53a
History Of The Trial Court Various Filings
Order(s), Decision(s) Docket No. 18-00394

Appendix E…………………………………………......56a
Petitioners Appeal Brief New Jersey Appellate
Division; Docket No. A-3453-19

Appendix F……………………………………………148a
Petitioners Notice of Petition for Certification
Supreme Court New Jersey; Docket No. 087075

Appendix G……………………………………………151a
Justice Samuel Alito Misconduct One Justice
DENIAL Stay Order about his former colleague
Supreme Court of the U.S. Docket No. 19A1066
 viii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Abtrax Pharm. V. Elkins-Sinn, Inc., 139 N.J. 499, 517 (1995).

Adedoyin v. Arc of Morris Cty. Chapter, Inc., 325 N.J. Super.173, 181
(App. Div. 1999).

Arizona v. Fulmanante, 499 U.S. 279, 306 (1991).

Atalesa v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014).

Borough of Jamesburg v. Hubbs 6 N.J. 578 (1951)80 A.2d 100

Battle v. State, 298 Ga. 661, 784 S.E.2d 381 (Ga. 2016)

Belfer v. Merling, 322 N.J. Super. 124, 144 (App. Div.), certif. denied,
162 N.J. 196 (1999).

Brett v. Great Am. Recreation, 144 N.J. 479, 503 (1996).

Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2000).

Capital Health System, Inc. v. Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc., 230

N.J. 73, 79-80 (2017).

Carey v. Lovett, 132 N.J. 44, 64 (1993) Pressler & Verniero,

Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 4.7(b) on R. 2:10-2 (2019)).

State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 167-68 (1997)).

Center for Molecular Medicine and Immunology v. Twp. of

Belleville, 357 N.J. Super. 41, 48 (App. Div. 2003).

Central R.R. v. Neeld, 26 N.J. 172, 177 (1958).

Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967).

Clark v. Pomponio, 397 N.J. Super. 630, 645 (App. Div.),

certif.denied, 195 N.J. 420 (2008); accord Pressler & Verniero,
supra,comment 1.1 on R. 4:23-5 (quoting 1990 Report on the
Committee on Civil Practice.)
 ix
Cooper v. Leatherman Tool Group, 532 U.S. 424, 431 (2001).

Crews v. Garmoney, 141 N.J. Super. 93, 96 (App.Div. 1976).

Eatough v. Bd of Med. Exam’rs 191 N.J. Super 166, 173 [465 A2d
934] (App Div, 1983) Constant v Pac. Nat’l Ins Co, 84 N.J. Super 211,
216 [201 A2d 405] (App [Law]Div.1964).

Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)

Estate of Hanges v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 202 N.J. 369, 384-85
(2010).

Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound Security, 185 N.J. 100, 115 (2005).

Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1305 (10th Cir. 1997)

Hillig v. Commissioner, 916 F. 2d 171, 174 (4th Cir. 1990).

In re Appeal of Howard D. Johnson Co., 36 N.J. 443, 446 (1962).

In re Itel Sec. Litig., 791 F.2d 672, 675 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied,
479 U.S. 1033 91987.

Jadlowski v. Owens-Corning, 283 N.J. Super. 199, 221 (App.

Div.1995).

Kavanaugh v. Quigley, 63 N.J. Super. 153, 158 (App. Div. 1960).

Kreager v. Solomon & Flanagan, P.A. 775 F.2d 1541, 1542-43 (11th
Cir. 1985).

Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 859-60, 108 S.Ct. 2194,
2202-03, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988).

Link v. Walbash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962).

Lipsig v. Nation Student Mktg. Corp., 663 F.2d 178, 180-81 (D.C. Cir.
1980).

Manalapan Realty v. Manalapan Tp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378

(1995).

Maul v. Kirkman, 270 N.J. Super. 596, 619-20 (App. Div. 1994).
 x
Molecular Medicine and Immunology v. Twp. of Belleville, 357 N.J.
Super. 41, 48 (App. Div. 2003).

Musto v. Vidas, 333 N.J. Super. 52, 74 (App. Div. 2000)

(prejudgment interest).

N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328, 340 (2010).

Navarro v. Cohan, 856 F. 2d 141, 142 (11th Cir. 1988).

Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 7 (1999).

Packard-Bamberger & Co. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427, 443-44 (2001)

(attorneys' fees).

Packard-Bamberger & Co. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427, 443-44 (2001).

PANITCH V. PANITCH, 339 New Jersey Superior Court at 63, Pages

66 to 67, Appellate Division 2001 In STATE V. BILAL (phonetic),
221 New Jersey 608 (2018)

Peterson v. U.S. Wallin v. Miller Ex Parte James 713 So. 2d 869 (Ala.
1997)

Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746

(1989).

Serenity Contracting v. Fort Lee, 306 N.J. Super. 151, 159 (App.Div.
1997).

St. James AME Dev. Corp., supra, 403 N.J. Super. At 484.

State v. Camacho, 218 N.J. 533, 554 (2014),

State v. Erazo, 126 N.J. 112, 131 (1991); State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J.
123, 266 (1987).

State v. Gillispie, 208 N.J. 59, 93 (2011).

State v. Harper, 128 N.J. Super. 270, 276-77 (App. Div. 1974).

State v. Lykes, 192 N.J. 519, 534 (2007).

State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 333 (1971).

 xi
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 338 (1971); State v. Slobodian, 57 N.J.
18, 23 (1970).

State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 186-87 (1997).

State v. Nantambu, 221 N.J. 390, 402 (2015), (quoting State v.

Harris, 209 N.J. 431, 439 (2012)).

State v. Pomianik, 221 N.J. 66, 80 (2015).

State v. Prall, 231 N.J. 567, 581, 587-88(2018).

State v. Riordan, 146 N.M. 281, 209 P.3d 773, 776 (2009)

State v. Scherzer, 301 N.J. Super. 363, 441 (App. Div. 1997).

State v. Steele, 92 N.J. Super. 498, 507 (App. Div. 1966).

State v. Thomas, 362 N.J. Super. 229, 244 (App. Div. 2003).

State v. Wilson, 57 N.J. 39, 50-51 (1970).

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) Haworth v.

Superior Court, 235 P.3d 152, 50 Cal.4th 372, 112 Cal. Rptr. 3d 853
(Cal. 2010)

Tagayun v. AmeriChoice of New Jersey, 2016 N.J. Super. LEXIS 127

(App. Div. Sept. 20, 2016).

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct.
1683, 1687 (1974).

Toll Bros. v. Township of West Windsor, 190 N.J. 61, 67 (2007).

McKeown-Brand v. Trump Castle Hotel & Casino, 132 N.J. 546

(1993).

See Belfer v. Merling, 322 N.J. Super. 124, 144 (App. Div.), certif.
denied, 162 N.J. 196 (1999).

Supreme Court's holding in McKeown-Brand v. Trump Castle Hotel &

Casino, 132 N.J. 546 (1993),
 xii
Toll Bros. v. Township of West Windsor, 190 N. J. 61, 67 (2007); Toll
Bros., 190 N.J. at 67-68.

United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993)

United States v. Greenspan, 26 F.3d 1001, 1005 (10th Cir. 1994)

Universal Folding Box Co., supra, 351 N.J. Super. At 233

(quoting Zimmerman v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 260 N.J. Super.
368, 374 (App. Div. 1992)).

Wolosoff v. CSI Liquidating Trust, 205 N.J. Super. 349, 306 (App. Div.
1985).

U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406
(1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257
(1821) (TREASON BY A JUDGE)

Zimmerman v. United Services Auto., 616 A.2d

957 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1992)
 1
OPINIONS BELOW

The trial court, Superior Court New Jersey Chancery Division

Probate decided verified complaint on 1st day of April 2020, and
dismissed the verified complaint of the petitioner (Appendix (''Pet. App.
B" 25a; 32a). On the 7th day of May 2020, the trial court denied
Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration (''Pet. App. B" 42a).

On the 2nd day of June 2020, the trial court sanctioned the Pro se
Petitioner for over $85,000.00 in retaliatory sanctions (Appendix (“Pet.
App. B” 2 a 26a), and ORDERED that the plaintiff, John F. Marchisotto,
pro se shall pay $81,848.70 in legal fees and an additional $3,976.33 in
expenses and costs, for a total of $85,825.03, to the defendant, Debra
Canova, from the same judge who was a defendant in numerous federal
district court lawsuits for criminally harassing, and threatening the
petitioner in his court room violating his constitutional rights. On the 5th
day of June 2020, trial court denied Petitioner a Stay (Appendix (“Pet.
App. B” 28a).

On the 21st day of April 2022, The Superior Court New Jersey
Appellate Division; Docket No.: A-3453-19 (Accurso, and Enright,
Appellate Judges) decided (Appendix (“Pet. App. A” 1a; 2a) against
petitioners 11/11/20 appeal against the decision of the trial court
(Appendix (“Pet. App. E” 56a; 57a). Petitioners appeal was very detailed,
and lengthy, which also included a five-volume appendix attached.

The petitioner also filed the petition for certification in the Supreme
Court of New Jersey (Docket No. 087075) which was also denied. On the
9th day of May 2022, petitioner filed his Notice of Petition for
Certification (Appendix (“Pet. App. F” 148a; 149a), and on July 5, 2022,
filed his petition brief (petitioner was granted 2 motions for an
extension to file his brief). On the 19th day of October 2022, with a filed
date of 21st day of October 2022, the Supreme Court Of New Jersey
Ordered the Petition for Certification is Denied (Appendix (“Pet. App. C”
51a; 52a).

JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court of New Jersey filed its order on 21st day of
October 2022, and ordered Petitioners, Petition for Certification is
Denied (Appendix (“Pet. App. C” 51a; 52a). Petitioner invokes this
Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§1257.
 2
NATURE OF SUPREME COURT REVIEW

Petitioner, John F. Marchisotto, respectfully petitions for a writ of

certiorari to review a federal question that has been properly presented
to the highest state court in the State of New Jersey, the Supreme Court
of New Jersey in this case, which issued a final order that denied the
petition for certification (Appendix (''Pet. App. C" 51a), to certify the
decision of the Superior Court Of New Jersey Appellate Division (“Pet.
App. A” 1a) denying petitioners appeal of trial court Judge Alberto Rivas,
who was criminally harassing both he Petitioner, and his family, who
filed both federal lawsuits, and federal applications for an temporary
restraining order against him. Judge Rivas is a public’s safety danger, and
should not be sitting on any courts bench.

The Superior Court Of New Jersey Appellate Division ERRED and

should have found that Judge Rivas should have recused himself from
this entire matter. Judge Rivas was partial, bias, abusive, threatening
petitioner, criminally harassing him, and interested in the events of such
trial court actions, before him; Haworth v. Superior Court, 235 P.3d 152,
50 Cal.4th 372, 112 Cal. Rptr. 3d 853 (Cal. 2010). In interpreting a
comparable provision of the federal law requiring recusal of a judge
when his or her “impartiality U.S.C. 4 (a)) …

The Superior Court Of New Jersey Appellate Division ERRED that on

December 9, 2019, Judge Rivas “threatened” Petitioner, and made him
afraid to speak before his court, and said “-- dire consequences . ou’re
not a child. Last warning, because I have a time out room for you, where
you can cool your heels.” (4T 9).”

A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary, N.J. Ct. R.2.1. Judge Rivas clearly acted
outside the scope of his judicial duties, and violated NJ Ct. R. 2.1(2).

The Superior Court Of New Jersey Appellate Division ERRED

Referring to case law that was cited by Judge Rivas (4T), In State v.
Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 186-87 (1997), which is factually deficient to
Petitioners matter: “In State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 186-87 (1997), says
a judge cannot be considered partial or biased merely because of rulings
that are unfavorable toward the party seeking recusal. Here Judge
Alberto Rivas, was a defendant in a Federal U.S. District Court of New
Jersey lawsuit, directly pertaining to; In The Matter Of The Irrevocable
Trust Of John L. Marchisotto, deceased, before him, and rigged the court
hearings, dismissal with prejudice, and unjust.”
 3
The Superior Court Of New Jersey Appellate Division ERRED Judge
Rivas false gun threat, caused a serious public alarm, and placed
Appellant, and his family, in serious risk of imminent harm. The filing
false Police Reports, by anyone, is a very serious matter. A judge is not
above the law, to criminally harass, terrorized, and intimidate the family,
of a federal court plaintiff. The Petitioner, and his family could have been
seriously harmed, believing he threatened a judge in his chambers with
a gun, having an immediate response of heavily armed police to
surround his home. The Supreme Court should be extremely disturbed,
at the PIGHEADEDNESS by the Appellate Division judges Accurso, and
Enright.

Chief Justice Stuart J. Rabner, and the entire Supreme Court of New
Jersey (highest court in State of New Jersey) are also defendants in
numerous active, and deposed of federal lawsuits. Therefore, it was the
final judgment of the highest state court in New Jersey that the federal
question was properly raised by petitioner and was expressly passed
upon in the state court proceedings, due to their continuous criminal
harassment, and biased outrageous treatment of the Petitions from the
very start of his litigations before a very corrupt, and bias New Jersey
State Court System.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey ERRED, Rule 2:12-4. Grounds for
Certification, should have granted. Judge Alberto Rivas, “harmful error”
entered for April 1, 2020, (Pa7; Pa11), and June 2, 2020, (Pa1), by a judge,
in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned". “Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting
under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege
protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

The Honorable Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court should note the
consideration of this case is the importance to the public of the issue.
lower State, and Federal trial court judges, and State, and Federal
Appellate courts regularly ignore evidences, the law, and enjoy abusing
Pro se litigants who frequently file for help with limited monies in these
courts nationwide, vs those persons, and entities who are in power with
unlimited money’s. Both the State, and Federal courts are bias, and don’t
level the playing field as they are required to do for someone like
petitioner who has been abused by both State, and Federal judges to this
matter respectfully being brought to this honorable elite court for
review.

REQUESTING JUSTICE ALITO RECUSAL

Petitioner is respectfully requesting for Justice Samuel Alito to

 4
recuse himself from participating for the consideration in hearing or
ruling upon hearing this Writ of Certiorari. Justice Alito failed to recuse
himself from hearing another petition, petitioner had escalated to the
U.S. Supreme Court against his former colleague corrupt State judge
buddy, “Dirty Judge Alberto Rivas” (See U.S. Supreme Ct. Docket No.
19A1066). Justice Alito was the former boss of Middlesex County Judge
Alberto Rivas who was continuously criminally harassing both
petitioners, and his family. Judge Rivas filed a FALSE judiciary incident
report falsely reported being threatened with a GUN in his chambers,
when no such occurrence had ever taken place; See Marchisotto v. Malik,
et al; January 17, 2020, Judge Alberto Rivas False Judiciary Incident
Report, Gun Threat Chambers, Incident No.: I-8121. Judge Rivas should
have been arrested, and criminally charged with this very serious crime.
The New Jersey State Attorney General’s office is corrupt, and have
continuously defended this criminal from petitioners federal lawsuits.

Justice Samuel Alito denied petitioner for a one justice stay on over
$85,000.00 in retaliatory sanctions (re: state estate / trust appeal) he
had escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court through the State Courts, that
Dirty Judge Rivas would not recuse himself from, and rigged the
dismissal, and all the court trial court proceedings before him.

Justice Alito should have recused himself hearing petitioners one

justice appeal against his former colleague because “Dirty Judge Rivas”
uses Justice Alito as his “superpower” whereas Rivas mostly enjoys
abusing women litigants, women attorneys, and Pro ses; (See In The
Matter Of Alberto Rivas Assignment Judge of the Superior Court Docket
No.: ACJC 2019-215; See links / cases of importance below:

https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/acjc/RivasPresentment.
pdf,

https://www.njcourts.gov/advisory-committee-on-judicial-
conduct/rivas-alberto

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Constitutional Provisions

1. 28U.S.C.§1257.

2. U.S. Constitution; XIV,§ Section 1, 14th Amendment

Constitutional Rights, of the Federal Constitution; (The Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment U.S. Const.
amend. XIV, § 1, provides:
 5
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law.

3. Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting

under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right
or privilege protected by Constitution or laws of the United
States.

4. Fourteenth Amendment Rights Guaranteed Privileges and

Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection.

5. The Civil Rights Act of 1871 is a federal statute—numbered

42 U.S.C. § 1983

6. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no

one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in
1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process
Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states.

Statutory Provisions

7. Section 2 of Article III, Title 42 US code 1983. (4T)

8. NJ Rev Stat § 3B:31-27 (2015)

a. NJ REV STAT § 2A:15-49 (2013)
b. UTC Trust Code, N.J.S.A. 3B:31-1 et seq.(Public law 2015,
chapter 276).

9. N.J.S.A. 14A:17-1 through 18

10. N.J.S.A. 4:4-3

11. N.J.S.A. 2C:28-4 (a)

12. Title 2A:15-49 (2013) No judge of any court shall sit on the
trial of or argument of any matter in controversy in a cause
pending in his court, when he: c. R. 1:12-1(d) has given his
opinion upon a matter in question in such action; d. R. 1:12-
1(e) is interested in the event of such action; g. R. 1:12-1(g)
when there is any other reason which might preclude a fair
and unbiased hearing and judgment, or which might
reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe so. (Judge
Rivas falsely claimed Petitioner threatened him with a GUN
 6
in his chambers how can this Judge possibly be fair and
impartial).

13. N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4

14. N.J.S.A. 2A:1549

15. Article VI. VI (4) N.J Const.

16. Article VII. Public Officers and Employees Section I Section III
(1) The Governor and all other State officers, while in office
and for two years thereafter, shall be liable to impeachment
for misdemeanor committed during their respective
continuance in office.

Cannons

RULE 1.1 Integrity and Impartiality of the Judiciary

RULE 1.2 A judge shall respect and comply with the law

RULE 2.1 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary

RULE 2.2 External Influences on Judicial Conduct

RULE 2.3 Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office

RULE 3.6 Bias and Prejudice RULE 3.7 Ensuring the Right to Be
Heard

RULE 3.8 Ex Parte Communications

Federal Court

Annis v. Cnty. of Westchester, 136 F.3d 239, 245 (2d Cir. 1998).

Cornejo v. Bell, 592 F.3d 121, 127 (2d Cir. 2010).

Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968) Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d

ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23.

Section 242 of Title 18 U.S.

Deprivation of Rights, under color of law, Section 2 of Article III, Title

42 US code 1983.
 7
U.S.C., Section 242, Title 42 US code 1983, U.S. Const.. XIV, § Section
1, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367.

18 U.S. Code $1621, and 18 U.S. Code $1623.

440 Civil Rights – Other Civil Rights, for the cause of 42:1983, Civil
Rights Act.

Section 2 of Article III, Title 42 US code 1983, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).

42 U.S. Code § 1985(2)(3).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a), and 65(b) 28 U.S.C. § 455

28 U.S.C. § 144 and 455(a).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Factual Background

On March 15, 2018, Petitioner filed civil action, In the Matter of the
Irrevocable Trust of John L. Marchisotto, deceased, before the Somerset
County, Superior Court Chancery Division, Probate Part, seeking relief by
way of summary action, based upon the facts set forth in OTSC, and
Verified Complaint Docket No. 18-00394.

Petitioner was requesting subpoenas for all of Decedent’s accounts,

to unveil all account number changes, and owner changes, and where
Decedent’s liquidated monies were moved to. Petitioner was requesting
subpoenas for Decedent’s entire signature signed financial account
changes, to unveil financial account signature tampering. Petitioner was
requesting subpoenas for all of Decedent’s medical, hospital, nursing
home records, and home health care records, for the last year of his life.
Petitioner was requesting the court to compel Respondents to provide a
full, and complete formal accounting, with certified copies of bank
statements, tax returns, with supporting 1099’s, to show were all the
numbers came from, for the last year of decedents life.

Petitioner was requesting for the court to compel Respondents for

a full formal accounting, of Decedent’s, Revocable trust assets, to
Irrevocable trust assets, that was used to fund; The June 2, 2016 newly
created Irrevocable Trust of John L. Marchisotto, deceased, prior to his
death, while Respondent Debra E. Canova was acting as his HealthCare
Proxy, Power of Attorney, in last year of his life.
 8
The June 2, 2016, Irrevocable Trust of John L. Marchisotto, deceased,
was created by Respondent Debra E. Canova in the last four months of
his life. The decedent died on October 2, 2016. The Respondent Canova
was already acting as Decedents HealthCare Proxy, Power of Attorney in
the last year of decedents life under his 11/03/2003 Revocable Trust
POA; (See Commonwealth Durable General Power of Attorney
11/03/2003 (New York Statutory Short Form (Pa976)).

In October 2015, John L. Marchisotto, deceased, sustained a

concussion to his head, after falling down hitting the pavement, at the
Bridgewater Diner, in Bridgewater New Jersey. In July 2015, months
prior, Decedent had prostate cancer, and went for a cycle of cyber knife
radiation treatments. In November 2015 Decedent was already very
weak, confused, and unable to stay alone. Decedent had the start of an
untreatable infection, causing his body to become septic, causing
numerous high fevers, bizarre hallucinations, confusion, and
vulnerability, medical and physical instability. Respondent Canova was
already acting (last year of his life) as Decedents HealthCare Proxy,
Power of Attorney, using the Commonwealth Durable General Power of
Attorney 11/03/2003 (New York Statutory Short Form (Pa976)).

In March 2016, and June 2016, John L. Marchisotto, deceased, had

major surgeries, at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in Manhattan New
York, by Dr. Steven Brandes, and Dr. Steven Lee-Kong, for a fistula in his
colon, causing reoccurring septic infection’s, hallucinations, high fevers,
congest heart failure, numerous emergencies, and repeat hospital
admissions, at the same time some of his assets were used to fund; The
June 2, 2016 Irrevocable Trust of John L. Marchisotto, deceased, four
months prior to his death, while Respondent Debra E. Canova was acting
as his HealthCare Proxy, Power of Attorney, in last year of his life.

Decedent was not making any of his own medical or financial

decisions. Decedent was physically impaired, and was dependent on
Respondent Canova for his healthcare, and wellbeing. Respondent
Canova was in total control of John L. Marchisotto, deceased, medication,
and in a position to apply undue pressure. Respondent Canova threat of
withholding medication, or food, or threaten to keep him living at the
Roosevelt nursing home, that she put him in, and he did want to stay at,
can be enough to force a victim to sign documents, or take actions, he
otherwise would never do. And these “threats” need not be expressed.
Just knowing that someone who controls your medicine and food,
medical care, hospital care, home health aide care, and that wants you to
do something, is enough of a “threat” to overcome the victim John L.
Marchisotto, deceased, free-will.
 9
Respondent Canova even forced Decedent, to break up with his
longtime girlfriend / fiancé for over 12 years (Elizabeth Rose Cofone),
because she saw her as a threat to her, and because she was being
continuously questioning her on, all the poor decisions she was making.
(Pa910). Respondent Canova was not providing, Decedent with
adequate, and proper care, and was waiting for him to die, so she could
get away with stealing all his Chase, Fidelity, Broker, IRA, Investments,
Bank Accounts, Liquid Monies, Personal Property, and his Home. (See
Commonwealth Durable General Power of Attorney 11/03/2003 (New
York Statutory Short Form (Pa976)).

Respondent Lepore, Unjustly Enriched himself, by lying to, and

defrauding Decedent, telling him, his 11/03/2003 revocable trust, and
prior will was not legal, because it had his Brooklyn, N.Y. address affixed
to it. The Supreme Court Of The United States should reverse, Petitioner
dismissal with prejudice, and revoke in it entity “in the interest of
justice”, the entire June 2, 2016, Irrevocable trust, and new will created,
because it’s a product of fraud, deceit, deception, undue influence, and
Petitioner believes it was not legal under the law. (Pa910).

2. Procedural History ( See Appendix (''Pet. App. D" 53a; 54a)

On March 15, 2018, Petitioner filed civil action, in the matter of the
Irrevocable Trust of John L. Marchisotto, deceased, before the Somerset
County, Superior Court Chancery Division, Probate Part, seeking relief by
way of summary action, based upon the facts set forth in an OTSC, and
Verified Complaint; Docket No. 18-00394.

On or about May 2019, this case was transferred to Middlesex

County after Petitioner filed a federal lawsuit against Judge Margaret
Goodzeit, and others in Marchisotto v. Goodzeit, et al; U.S. District Court
of New Jersey Case No.: 3:19-cv-12540-BRM-DEA, that Petitioner later
appealed by to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit;
John Marchisotto v. Margaret Goodzeit, et al; Case No. 0:20-cv-01870, for
440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights.

On December 9, 2019, Petitioner was subjected to a very abusive,

threatening court hearing before Middlesex County Judge Alberto Rivas,
On December 17, 2019, Petitioner thereafter filed a 2nd Federal lawsuit
in U.S. District Court of New Jersey; Marchisotto v. Rivas, et al; Case No.
3:19-cv-21440-BRM-DEA, due to the outrageous and threatening biased
behavior of trial judge Rivas (Pa248). Judge Rivas abused the Petitioner
in his courtroom and made him afraid to speak violating him of his
constitutional rights. On December 27, 2019, Petitioner served Judge
 10
Rivas civil division manager with a U.S. District Court Summons, and
Complaint, for violating his constitution rights (Pa440).

On April 1, 2020, Judge Rivas trial court’s orders of dismissal with

prejudice (Pa7; Pa11) in volume 1, without a trial, were in violation of
Petitioner’s Civil, and Constitutional Rights, guaranteed to us by the 14th
Amendment to the United States Constitution; Rights Guaranteed
Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal
Protection.

Whereas The Supreme Court Of The United States should reverse,

the Petitioners dismissal with prejudice, should reverse and dismiss
Judge Alberto Rivas retaliatory outrageous sanctions he imposed upon
the Pro se Petitioner, and Grant Petitioners Writ of Certiorari, for review,
further consideration, and “in the interest of justice”, before the highest
court in the land.

The Superior Court Of New Jersey Appellate Division dismissed

Petitioners appeal while giving the remarks for filing the petition for
certification in the Supreme Court of New Jersey Appendix (''Pet. App. 1"
1a; 2a) The petitioner filed the Petition for Certification in Supreme
Court of New Jersey; Appendix (''Pet. App. F" 148a; 149a) which was
denied by the said court; (Appendix (''Pet. App. C" 51a; 52a).

The Petitioner also filed an emergent application justice, pursuant

to U.S. Supreme Court Rule, 22, and 23, for an order for the immediate
Stay in case number (084541;S-120-19) against Defendant Judge
Alberto Rivas order, 06/02/2020, Orders for Harsh Sanctions of
$85000.00 against the Petitioner which was denied on July 14 2020
Application for stay (19A1066) was denied by Justice Alito; (Appendix
(''Pet. App. G" 151a; 152a)

Petitioner had fully complied with all discovery orders to the best of
his abilities, before both trial court judges; Rivas, and Goodzeit. It is the
Petitioner’s position, that the trial court judges denied him of his legal
rights, and prevented him the ability, to prove his legal matter before the
trial court. The court’s dismissal with prejudice was erroneous, legally
defective, retaliatory, and resulted in "harmful error", The Supreme
Court Of The United States should Grant Petitioners Writ of Certiorari,
for review, further consideration, and “in the interest of justice”, before
the highest court in the land.
 11
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The petition for writ of certiorari should be granted for the following
reasons:

1. Conflicts in the lower courts; If different federal or state

courts have issued conflicting decisions on the same legal issue, the
Supreme Court may choose to grant certiorari in order to resolve the
conflict.

2. National importance: If the case has significant implications

for the country as whole, the Supreme Court may choose to grant
certiorari in order to provide guidance on the issue at hand.

3. Overruling of precedent If the lower court’s decision is based

on an incorrect interpretation of a Supreme Court precedent, the Court
may choose to grant certiorari in order to correct the precedent, and
provide clarity on the law.

4. Requests from other parties: If a party other than the

petitioner (such as the United States government or a professional
association) files a “friend of the court” brief requesting that the court
grant certiorari, this may be a factor in the Court’s decision.

5. Public interest: If the case has attracted significant

public attention or media coverage, the Court may choose to grant
certiorari in order to provide clarity on the issue, and ensure that
the public has a clear understanding of the law.

6. The Court’s intervention is necessary to protect Petitioner,

and his minor children’s A.M. (19 now), J.M., and M.M. interests, and
rights for: In The Irrevocable Trust of John L. Marchisotto, deceased.
Petitioner’s OTSC, and Verified Complaint was only the method
petitioner was able to bring his complaint before the Somerset County/
Middlesex County Superior Court Chancery Division, Probate Part,
seeking relief.

7. The court must intervene; trial court judge Rivas, who

dismissed the Petitioner’s verified complaint without due process, and
against the rules, regulations and statutes of New Jersey State, by
adopting harmful error. This “harmful error” is properly raised by the
petitioner in the said court that produced an unjust result." and violated
the basic rule R.2:10-2. (Pa540; Pa614; Pa620; Pa625; Pa627; Pa632;
Pa644; Pa645; Pa657; Pa663).
 12
8. The court must intervene to the bias criminal behavior of the
trial court judge Rivas taken against the petitioner and his family. On
December 17, 2019, Petitioner filed a Federal Lawsuit against Judge
Rivas (Pa248) in U.S. District Court of New Jersey; Marchisotto v. Rivas et
al, pertaining to matter of threatening, abusing, and violating Petitioner
of his Constitutional rights. Trial Court Judge Rivas also was threatening
petitioner’s family. On December 2 , 2019, Petitioner served Judge Rivas
with a U.S. District Court Summons, and Complaint, for violating his
constitution rights (Pa440). The trial judge clearly violated basic rule,
regulations and statutes of the New Jersey State during the hearing of
this complaint.

9. The court must intervene, and should set aside the trial
court’s orders of dismissal with prejudice (Pa Pa11) in volume 1, April
1, 2020, which was without hearing properly, legally, or having a trial,
nor did he rule upon petitioners matter on the merits of the case. Judge
Rivas should have immedicably recused himself from this matter after a
federal lawsuit, and an TRO, and Preliminary Injunction was filed against
him in federal court. As it is clearly described in the NJ REV STAT § 2A:15-
49 (2013) that constitute “No judge of any court shall sit on the trial of
or argument of any matter in controversy in a cause pending in his court,
when he “Has given his opinion upon a matter in question in such action
or “Is interested in the event of such action”. Or “When there is any other
reason which might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing and judgment,
or which might reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe so”. A
federal lawsuit was filed against Rivas, and he thereafter files a false gun
threat in his chambers upon himself on a Judiciary Incident Report. Judge
Alberto Rivas should have been immediately arrested, and his license to
practice law should have been suspended / revoked indefinitely.

10. The court must intervene, set aside, and dismiss trial court
Judge Rivas outrageously harsh retaliatory sanctions order which is a
misapplication of the law, imposed upon the Pro se Petitioner, ordering
him pay $81,848.70 in legal fees and $3,976.33 in expenses and costs, for
a total of $85,825.03 to the Respondents, Debra Canova, and Louis
Lepore, Esq., All orders entered by Rivas in favor of Canova, and Lepore,
should be reversed, and dismissed in its entirety. The trial court judge
sanction orders was “harmful error”, R. 2 10-2, saying Petitioner solely
brought, The Irrevocable Trust of John L. Marchisotto, deceased, to court,
to harass, or subdue, an adversary, labeling him as a “vexatious litigant”,
and saying Petitioner Complaint and legal matter, was nothing but a
“junk suit” (Pa1). This act of the trial judge Rivas is clearly shows the
biased behavior against the petitioner. Judge Rivas is a criminal who
believes he is above the law, unremovable because his buddy is U.S.
 13
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who petitioner believes protects
him.

11. The court must intervene, should consider, and take the
appropriate actions against trial Judge Rivas, because he has purposely
made “harmful error”, in his December 9, 2019, orders (Pa19), violate
the res judicata doctrine. Judge Rivas, allowed Respondent Louis P.
Lepore, Esq., to relitigate, enumerated document requests discovery
(Pa56), tape recordings, he, and Respondent Canova, did not like, which
was already ruled upon, and was already accepted by Judge Margaret
Goodzeit, and was not a discovery requirement as per rules, as per April
26, 2019, orders (Pa24). Judge Rivas “harmful error” allowed
Respondent Lepore, and Respondent Canova, another bite at that apple.
(4T).

12. The court must see this act and opinion by Judge Rivas that
entire treatment of the Petitioner was totally retaliatory, outrageous”,
abusive”, “one-sided, judicial misconduct and “fraud upon the court” On
December 9, 2019. The trial Judge Rivas conducted an abusive,
retaliatory, and harassing, court proceeding during hearing against the
Petitioner, whom had pending litigation in U.S. District Court of New
Jersey, against Judge Margaret Goodzeit. On December 9, 2019, during
an abusive, retaliatory, and one-sided, bias, court hearing, Judge Rivas,
threatened the Petitioner, and made him afraid to speak freely in his
courtroom, and said “dire consequences. You’re not a child. Last
warning, because I have a time out room for you, where you can cool
your heels.” (4T59). The trial Judge Rivas entire “harmful”, “harassing”,
and “abusive”, treatment of Petitioner, was “threatening”, clearly outside
the scope of his judicial duties, and a clear deprivation of rights of the
petitioner, under Section 2 of Article III, Title 42 US code 1983. (4T).
Judge Rivas was required to recuse himself from further consideration
to the trial court matter after a federal lawsuit was personally filed
against him for his outrageous threatening courtroom antics,
behaviors outside the scope of his judicial, and judiciary duties.

13. The court must intervene, and see the acts committed by
Judge Rivas during the trial courts hearings, violating Petitioner’s
Constitutional rights, to hear his motion to disqualify, The Law Offices of
Louis Lepore, P.C., Louis Lepore, Esq., P.L.L.C., and Louis P. Lepore, Esq.,
for directly violating Rule 1:21., Practice of Law. Petitioner had filed his
motion properly, with the Middlesex County court, and R. 1:21. had
never been heard before, in any prior court proceedings. Judge Rivas
“harmful error”, “abuse of discretion”, “misapplication of law”, accepting
 14
Respondent Lepore, res-judicia doctrine, argument, was so erroneous.
Judge Goodzeit August 9, 2018, orders, had nothing to do with Rule 1:21.
Practice of law (Pa55).

14. The court should take action against trial Judge Rivas who on
April 1, 2020, had a conflict of interest stemming, from a December 17,
2019, Federal Lawsuit, Petitioner filed against him (Pa248). Judge Rivas
is a Respondent in U.S. District Court of New Jersey, pertaining to this
matter, and threatening, abusing, and violating Petitioner rights. (4T).
Petitioner claims “harmful error” was properly raised, clearly capable
of producing an unjust result." the standards that govern that type of
error were harmful and the Appellate Division should reverse but
adopted same biased behavior as trial court judge. Judge Rivas referred
to case law, State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 186-8 (199 ), was a “harmful
error” and is factually deficient, and would not apply to Petitioners
matter. State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 186-87 (1997), says a judge cannot
be considered partial or biased merely because of rulings that are
unfavorable toward the party seeking recusal. N.J. R. 1:12- 1(g)., say’s
recuse or be disqualified, When there is any other reason which might
preclude a fair and unbiased hearing, and judgment, or which might
reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe so. “No judge of any
court, shall sit on the trial of, or argument of, any matter in controversy,
in a cause, pending in his court, when he is interested in the events of the
action” N.J. Ct. R.1 12-1(e),(g), R.1:12-2, N.J.S.A. 2A:1549., and R. 2:10-2.
Canon 2A says a Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all activities. A judge should respect and comply with the
law, and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. (R. 1.2; R. 1.1;
R. 2.1; R. 2.2; R. 2.3; R. 3.6; R. 3.7; R. 3.8).

15. The court must intervene, and take appropriate action, and
disqualified from any consideration to this matter, because Judge Rivas
was partial, bias, abusive, threatening, harassing, and interested in the
events of such trial court actions, before him. Under § 455(a), "a judge
has a continuing duty to recuse before, during, or, in some
circumstances. The Superior Court Of New Jersey Appellate Division
ERRED, and ignored to specifically consider whether Judge Rivas,
violation of section 4 (a), is “harmful error”. In interpreting a
comparable provision of the federal law requiring recusal of a judge
when his or her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned”(28U.S.C.
§ 455(a). Judge Rivas is a Respondent in U.S. District Court, and U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, for violating Petitioners Constitutional
Rights pertaining to this matter before him. As the Supreme Court noted
in Liljeberg v. Health servs. Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 859-60, 108 s.ct. 2194
 15
2202-03, 100 1.ed.2d 855(1988), the purpose of section 455(a) is "to
promote public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.

16. The court must intervene to protect the petitioner rights as

guaranteed by the United States constitution. Judge Rivas, violated
Petitioner’s Constitutional rights, to hear his motion to disqualify, The
Law Offices of Louis Lepore, P.C., Louis Lepore, Esq., P.L.L.C., and Louis P.
Lepore, Esq., for directly violating Rule 1:21., Practice of Law. Petitioner
had filed his motion properly, with the Middlesex County court, and R.
1:21., had never been heard before, in any prior court proceedings. Judge
Rivas “harmful error”, “abuse of discretion”, “misapplication of law”,
accepting Respondent Lepore, res-judicia doctrine, argument, was so
erroneous. Judge Goodzeit August 9, 2018, orders, had nothing to do
with Rule 1:21., Practice of Law. (Pa55).

17. The court must intervene, and should take cognizance of

misconduct trial court judge Rivas who was purposely committing
“harmful erred” in granting order on 06/02/2020 by making biased and
illegal opinion without taking any evidence into consideration during
the hearing, The Judge was extremely bias, was personally being sued in
federal court, and said the following about the petitioner; “he filed
numerous actions in new york and new jersey making baseless
allegations causing the financial institutions not to cooperate with the
respondent/defendant (indiscernible) dismiss the claims against
(indiscernible)”. “the court found Marchisotto’s (indiscernible) to be
incomprehensible in an august, 2018, (indiscernible) have not improved.
This continues to be repetitive and (indiscernible) and is numerous. The
record is crystal clear that Mr. Marchisotto is a vexatious litigant. He
ignores court orders. He engages in (indiscernible) – therefore, the court
will grant (indiscernible) application and will order Marchisotto to pay
$81,841.72 and the additional 3,000 (indiscernible) in expenses and
costs. the court reviewed the plaintiff’s affidavit (indiscernible)
consistent with the rates customarily charged in new jersey. The hours
spent were not excessive. Considering Marchisotto’s (indiscernible)
(indiscernible) specifically, the arguments he has made are not
warranted either by the facts or the law. an order will be entered upon
(indiscernible)”. “The record is crystal clear that Mr. Marchisotto is a
vexatious litigant. He ignores court orders, he engages in”. The trial judge
said: “you petitioner have filed federal cases against judge Goodzeit.
you/petitioner have filed federal cases against me, and there is other
proceedings that you have filed, and you have done so in an attempt
to(indiscernible) this litigation under State v. Bilal (phonetic), 221 new
jersey 608 (2018), the court stated, a petitioner is seeking, cited the
united States v. Greenspan, 26 f. 3d (indiscernible). State v. Bilal cited case
 16
said, “when a plaintiff seeks to obtain another judge (indiscernible)
seeks to delay the proceedings, seeks to harass the litigants and has filed
(indiscernible), all of which the court finds have taken place in this case.
When he was specifically asked on the record, what is your basis for the
statement that was contained in his so-called answers? He goes, it is a
belief that he has. He has no factual background, no factual evidence or
anything to sustain that (indiscernible)”. “The court in December gave
him another opportunity to answer the interrogatories. He came back
with essentially the same answers, clearly cut and paste, clearly not
tailored specifically to what asked. Mr. Marchisotto/petitioner cites the
fact that he is self- represented. But he has been involved in this litigation
and it's been explained to him several times how he (indiscernible) the
particular matters and he refuses to do so. Instead, he goes and he files
other actions in an attempt to deflect, delay, and obstruct”.

18. The court must intervene, and grant the petition for a writ of
certiorari, Judge Rivas falsely reported Petitioner/Appellant threatened
him with a gun, in his chambers, after being served with a federal
summons, and complaint, to interfere with, and disrupt a federally
regulated activity. For these false implications in themselves this court
should also order criminal / judicial disciplinary proceedings be brought
against the trial judge Rivas in accordance with law, and recommend for
his license to practice law to be immediately suspended, and revoked
indefinitely. This trial judge has committed a very serious crime, and
because he is a judge with a connection to Justice Alito he has not been
properly prosecuted. Judge Alberto Rivas arrest, and prosecution would
be in the interest of justice, and in accordance with the law.

19. The court must intervene, and grant the petition for a writ of
certiorari, and should consider the Petitioner’s claims that Decedent’s
financial accounts were being liquated 5 months prior to his death, and
never transferred into the Irrevocable Trust of John L. Marchisotto,
deceased. Instead monies were moved to a joint account in the names of
Decedent, and Respondent/Defendant Canova. Respondent Canova
acted in an illegal manner without lawful authority. Canova, and Lepore,
Esq., both have engaged in fraud, and theft of numerous trusts, and
estate assets owned by the decedent that was covered up by the trial
courts below.

20. This court should grant this petition for writ of certiorari
because the trial court purposely created “harmful error”, and rulings
deprived Petitioner Due Process of law, and adjudication of this matter
on the merits.
 17
21. The court must intervene, see the good faith and good
intention of petitioner, that will knock on the door of all courts against
the biased behavior of judges.

22. This court should grant the petition for writ of certiorari
because, On March 9, 2022, Petitioner filed a Federal lawsuit against
Judge Allison E. Accurso; Marchisotto v. Daley et al; Case No.: 3:22-cv-
01276. Judge Accurso, April 21, 2022, Judgment of the Superior Court Of
New Jersey Appellate Division; Docket No. A-3453-19; was bias, and in
violation of Local Civil Rules 103.1, N.J. R.1.1, R.1.2, R.2.1, R.2.2, R.3.1,
R.3.2, R.3.3, R.3.6, R.3.7, R.3.8, R.3.15, R.3.17, and R.5.1(B); Rules
Governing The Courts Of The State Of New Jersey Code Of Judicial
Conduct; Canon 1, Canon 2, Canon 3, Canon 5, and 18 U.S.C. § 1503
defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or
force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences,
obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the
due administration of justice" and 42:1983 Civil Rights Act. The United
States Supreme Court should reverse, and set aside that decision,
opinion, and order because the Appellate Division judge who signed her
name to it was personally being sued in federal court prior to that
decision being filed.

23. This court should grant the petition for writ of certiorari
because, Superior Court Of New Jersey Appellate Division Judges
Accurso, and Lisa Rose violated petitioners due process rights allowing
Respondents Lepore, Esq., and Canova to file motions, and supplemental
spreadsheets back to the lower Middlesex court to get another corrupt,
and bias judge; Judge Roger W. Daley rig more proceedings in their
favor, and issue more adverse orders against petitioner. On November
16, 2021, judges Accurso, and Rose denied Petitioners 10/25/2021
motion to stay all filings in the trial court pending disposition of
11/11/20 Appeal; Docket No. A-003453-19T, Motion No: M-001161-21.

24. This court should grant the petition for writ of certiorari
because, Superior Court Of New Jersey Appellate Division judges
“harmful error” ignored that Judge Rivas made a false gun threat upon
himself after a federal lawsuit was filed against him, causing a very
serious public alarm, placing Petitioner and his family, in serious and
grave risk of imminent harm. The filing of false Police Reports, by
anyone, is a very serious matter. A judge is not above the law, to
criminally harass, terrorized, and intimidates the family, of a federal
court plaintiff. The Petitioner, and his family could have been seriously
harmed, and killed, believing he threatened a judge in his chambers with
a gun, having an immediate response of heavily armed police to
 18
surround his home. The United State Supreme Court should be
extremely disturbed, and appalled at the “PIGHEADEDNESS” by the
Superior Court Of New Jersey Appellate Division judges, Accurso, and
Enright.

25. This Court should grant the petition for writ of certiorari
because Judges Accurso, and Enright have both purposely failed to
address petitioners appeal on; In The Matter Of The Irrevocable Trust of
John L. Marchisotto, deceased; Docket No.: 18-00394, on the merits, and
on the law. Their entire decision, opinion, order entered on April 21,
2022, was bias, not in alignment with the law, and its precedent,
“harmful error” will create harm to other cases similar to petitioners in
the future.

CONCLUSION

Petitioner respectfully requests the court intervene, and grant

petition for a writ of certiorari. The lower courts opinions, orders,
judgments, and are not in alignment with the law, ignored all evidences
presented, and were not ruled upon on the merits. The precedent
without this courts intervention will do more harm than good to future
cases, and allow other courts to erroneously apply the law in the same
manner to cases with the same facts. Some judges have stated that
precedent ensures that individuals in similar situations are treated alike
instead of based on a particular judge's personal views.

Any other relief the honorable court deems fit be granted, and in the
interest of justice. Thank you, and pray for any consideration to hearing
my matter that in turn will become precedent, and help many others in
the future.

Respectfully submitted,

January 6, 2023

_______________________
John F. Marchisotto,
(“Pro se Petitioner”)
15 Topaz Dr
Jackson, NJ 08527
(732) 526-7732
mr300cclass@yahoo.com
 19
INDEX OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX – A

Appendix A…………………………………………….1a
Decision New Jersey Superior Court
Appellate Division; Docket No. A-3453-19

APPENDIX – B

Appendix B……………………………………………25a
Decision New Jersey Superior Court,
Middlesex County Trial; Docket No. 18-00394

APPENDIX – C

Appendix C…………………………………..............51a
Supreme Court of New Jersey Order
Denying Review; Docket No. 087075

APPENDIX – D

Appendix D…………………………………………...53a
History Of The Trial Court Various Filings
Order(s), Decision(s) Docket No. 18-00394

APPENDIX – E

Appendix E…………………………………………...56a
Petitioners Appeal Brief New Jersey Appellate
Division; Docket No. A-3453-19

APPENDIX – F

Appendix F………………………………………….148a
Petitioners Notice of Petition for Certification
Supreme Court New Jersey; Docket No. 087075

APPENDIX – G

Appendix G…………………………………………151a
Justice Samuel Alito Misconduct One Justice
DENIAL Stay Order about his former colleague
Supreme Court of the U.S. Docket No. 19A1066
 1a
APPENDIX – A

Decision New Jersey Superior Court

Appellate Division; Docket No. A-3453-19

 2a
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3453-19

IN THE MATTER OF THE

IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF
JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO,
DECEASED.

Submitted January 3, 2022 - Decided April 21, 2022

Before Judges Accurso and Enright.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Middlesex County, Docket No.
18-000394.

John F. Marchisotto, appellant pro se.

Respondents Debra E. Canova and JP Morgan Chase

Bank, N.A. have not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

In this one-sided, commonplace probate matter, petitioner John F.

Marchisotto appeals from the April 1, 2020 final order dismissing his

complaint with prejudice for failure to answer interrogatories pursuant to Rule

4:23-5(a)(2) and otherwise provide discovery or comply with court orders; the
 3a
May 7, 2020 order denying his motion for reconsideration; and the June 2,

2020 order for sanctions pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 and Rule 1:4-8

directing he pay his sister Debra Canova, executor of their father's estate and

administrator of his irrevocable trust, sanctions of $81,848.70 in fees and

$3,976.33 in costs. Marchisotto also appeals from a number of interlocutory

orders and the denial of several post-judgment applications, many of which he

has failed to address in his brief on appeal. Having reviewed the eleven

transcripts filed in this matter as well as Marchisotto's brief and five-volume

appendix, we are satisfied the order dismissing his accounting and fraud action

with prejudice, as well as the award of sanctions, are reasonably supported by

the record Marchisotto has put before us. Accordingly, we affirm.

Although Marchisotto's brief and 977-page appendix are stuffed with

matters extraneous to the issues on appeal, his failure to include certain basic

documents, including his verified complaint and order to show cause, the will

and irrevocable trust he challenges, the prior will and 2003 revocable trust, the

estate's answer or a full set of the interrogatories at issue and his answers —

with proof of filing with the court — make summarizing the facts or

procedural history a challenge. We draw most of what occurred from a series

A-3453-19
2
 4a
of careful and comprehensive orders and opinions by Judge Goodzeit when she

managed the case in Somerset.

As best we understand it, Marchisotto is one of three children of the

decedent, John L. Marchisotto. He has two sisters, Debra E. Canova and

Diane Cusack. Their mother apparently died in June 2003.1 The decedent was

treated for cancer in 2015 and hospitalized in 2016. In June 2016, he signed a

retainer agreement with Louis Lepore to prepare new estate planning

documents, including a will, an irrevocable trust instrument and a durable

power of attorney in favor of Canova. Canova was already the decedent's

attorney-in-fact pursuant to a durable power he executed over a dozen years

before.

Although we cannot state this with any certainty as we've not been

provided the pleadings, we gather the case may have started as an action to

compel an accounting and not a will challenge. Judge Goodzeit entered a case

management order in May 2018, two months into the case, noting

Marchisotto's "representation on the record that he is not seeking to invalidate

1
We know that seemingly irrelevant bit of information only because
Marchisotto advised in his answers to interrogatories that he wished to
question one of his sisters about "who signed plaintiff's deceased mom (sic)
signature to a public document in 8/2003, that [was] falsely notarized."
A-3453-19
3
 5a
the irrevocable trust, but, rather, he is seeking his and his children's

appropriate share thereunder." Although we've not been provided a copy of

the 2016 irrevocable trust, Marchisotto's three minor children are apparently

beneficiaries, as are Canova's three children and Cusack's daughter.

Marchisotto changed his position at some point, however, and now

alleges, without any competent evidence as far as we can tell, that Canova

misused the power of attorney to swindle their father and improperly

influenced him to change his will — although apparently not in her favor —

four months prior to his death in October 2016, when he was allegedly ill and

infirm and dependent upon her for his care.2 While, again, we've not been

provided the will or the irrevocable trust, Marchisotto did not dispute the

2
The decedent did not live with Canova. She lived in Staten Island and he
lived alone in Franklin Township. Nevertheless, defendant asserts in his
preliminary statement in his appellate brief that

Canova['s] threat of withholding medication, or food,

or threat[] to keep him living at the Roosevelt nursing
home, that she put him in, and he did not want to stay
at, can be enough to force a victim to sign documents,
or take actions, he otherwise would never do. And
these "threats" need not be expressed. Just knowing
that someone who controls your medicine and food,
medical care, hospital care, home health aide care, and
that wants you to do something, is enough of a
"threat" to overcome the victim John L.
Marchisotto['s], deceased['s], free-will.
A-3453-19
4
 6a
representations made on the record by the executor's counsel in December

2018 that decedent's prior will divided his assets evenly among his three

children, and that the 2016 "pour over" will and irrevocable trust reduced each

of their shares from a third to a quarter, with the remaining quarter to be

divided among decedent's seven grandchildren. It was because Marchisotto's

minor children stand to benefit from their grandfather's 2016 irrevocable trust

that Judge Goodzeit appointed a guardian ad litem for them when Marchisotto

changed his position. A successful attack on the irrevocable trust would

disinherit Marchisotto's children, making their interest in the litigation adverse

to their father's. See R. 4:26-2(a); Matter of Will of Maxwell, 306 N.J. Super.

563, 580 (App. Div. 1997).

While Marchisotto complains about the manner in which the judges

handled this case, it's clear to us that Judge Goodzeit, who presided over most

of it, was appropriately concerned about the effects of the cost of Marchisotto's

quest on all the beneficiaries, including Marchisotto. Although Marchisotto

was self-represented, meaning he was not looking to the estate to fund his will

challenge, see Rule 4:42-9(a)(3); In re Reisdorf, 80 N.J. 319, 326 (1979), the

judge had ordered Canova to file a formal accounting in response to

Marchisotto's complaint, presumably pursuant to Rule 4:87-1(b), rarely an

A-3453-19
5
 7a
inexpensive undertaking, see In re Estate of Wharton, 47 N.J. Super. 42, 47

(App. Div. 1957) (noting trustee's entitlement to charge the trust for legal

services rendered in connection with the preparation and filing of the account,

responding to exceptions and other services necessary for its approval).

While Marchisotto has also not included that accounting in his appendix,

Canova's counsel stated on the record it ran to 875 pages with statements and

backup. Given the size of the estate, noted in some places in the record to be

in the vicinity of $800,000, and the costs of the litigation, which in December

2018 was apparently already approaching $150,000, Judge Goodzeit asked

Marchisotto on the record to consider whether "to go from twenty-five percent

to a third" under the prior will, with a no-contest clause, made economic sense.

She cautioned the parties that if they "continue[d] to litigate, we're going to

use up half of the money and no one's going to benefit."

Marchisotto, however, who had already been the recipient of several

safe-harbor notices from trustee's counsel pursuant to Rule 1:4-8, told the

judge he would never agree to Lepore getting "even one cent," and that he

should be sued for malpractice. When the judge explained that Lepore wasn't

his lawyer, and thus Marchisotto could not sue him for malpractice,

Marchisotto replied that he "should have been able to get Debra — defendant

A-3453-19
6
 8a
Canova removed as the executor and trustee and then [he] would have

proceeded with a malpractice lawsuit against" the lawyer. 3

Marchisotto's preoccupation with Lepore appears to be one of several

drivers causing what should have been a simple case to go off the rails. 4 As

best we can tell, Marchisotto never filed formal exceptions to the accounting.

See R. 4:87-8. That implies, although the record on appeal allows no

definitive conclusion, there was nothing about the accounting that appeared

3
Marchisotto had originally included Lepore as a defendant in the case,
allegedly for conspiring with Canova. Judge Goodzeit dismissed the claims
against Lepore as well as fraud and conspiracy claims against Canova in
August 2018.
4
In addition to reporting Lepore to several law enforcement agencies,
Marchisotto appears obsessed with establishing — in this action — that Lepore
is misrepresenting the corporate form of his practice and is without required
malpractice insurance, apparently believing it has some unspecified connection
to the veracity of the accounting at issue in this matter. Although we've not
been provided these documents, Marchisotto has admitted on the record that he
presented Lepore's full accounting and all attachments to the Office of
Attorney Ethics. Lepore claimed on the record that OAE audited the
accounting, producing its own 600-page report and 26-page opinion finding no
wrongdoing. We obviously make no findings in this regard. We note it only
because it appears emblematic of what the judges in the trial court found to be
Marchisotto's misuse of the judiciary's neutral forum to attack the estate's
counsel, the guardian ad litem and at least one witness, the doctor who
happened to examine the decedent to clear him for surgery the day before he
signed a new will and irrevocable trust, putting them all to great trouble and
expense, completely irrelevant and far afield from the simple issues presented
for resolution in the case.
A-3453-19
7
 9a
amiss. The only issue raised on the record appears to relate to the trustee's

error in depositing the proceeds of the sale of decedent's home into the estate

account instead of the trust, an error Lepore claimed was caught and accounted

for without loss to the trust. Instead of filing exceptions, Marchisotto

demanded Canova additionally account for several months prior to the creation

of the trust in June 2016, apparently concerned that funds may have been

diverted before reaching the trust's accounts. Judge Goodzeit accommodated

his concern by ordering the executor to provide Marchisotto an informal

accounting going back three months before the trust was created.

Marchisotto, however, was not satisfied, contending the copies attached

to the accounting and those pre-dating it had been "tampered with." He

claimed, "there's a lot of money that's been stolen," and charged, with no

evidence, that the bank and brokerage house statements Lepore had attached to

the accountings were fraudulent. The estate appears to have attempted to

assuage his concerns by producing original statements for his review in open

court. Marchisotto, however, wanted to subpoena decedent's banks and

brokerage houses for the original statements 5 and began his own

5
Judge Goodzeit had quashed Marchisotto's first subpoenas, including those
directed at Canova's personal accounts, because they were improperly drawn.

A-3453-19
8
 10a
investigations, contacting the institutions with his allegations of fraud, and

reporting the estate and Lepore, as well as Lepore's wife, an attorney with no

real involvement in this matter, to the Criminal Investigation Division of the

Internal Revenue Service and a host of law enforcement agencies, including

the Somerset Prosecutor's Office, the Attorney General, the United States

Attorney and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He also reported Lepore to

the attorney disciplinary authorities in New Jersey and New York and reported

a doctor, who had attested to the decedent's competence the day before he

changed his will, to the Board of Medical Examiners.

Although there's nothing in the record to suggest any of those agencies

uncovered any wrongdoing, Marchisotto's actions caused the estate difficulties

with its New York bank, which apparently froze the trust's account in response

to Marchisotto's allegations of fraud, and eventually filed an interpleader

action in New York. It also led to the estate propounding interrogatories to

The judge then spent an inordinate amount of time attempting to assist

Marchisotto in crafting subpoenas that could properly be served in accordance
with the court rules. Her months of effort, however, came to naught as
Marchisotto's failure to answer interrogatories resulted in the dismissal of his
complaint without prejudice before his subpoenas could be approved for
service.
A-3453-19
9
 11a
discover the basis of Marchisotto's claims and all those persons with

knowledge of any facts underpinning them.

Despite Judge Goodzeit's efforts to encourage Marchisotto to see the

litigation objectively and consider a cost/benefit approach to its prosecution,

Marchisotto continued to file innumerable rambling, nearly incomprehensible

motions and other submissions with the court, seemingly mindless of the cost

to the trust or the court rules governing his conduct. In December 2018, the

judge discussed the appointment of a discovery master to try and rein in

Marchisotto's abuse of the court and the deputy surrogate. The guardian ad

litem spoke in favor of the proposal, noting the amount of material he had

received when he came into the case was "ridiculous," that most of

Marchisotto's filings were "not comprehensible" and that "a discovery master

is essential because this is just — this is out of control." 6

6
The guardian ad litem was eventually relieved, at his request, after
Marchisotto filed a motion to have the lawyer disqualified, making what
Marchisotto later admitted, under oath, were scurrilous allegations the
guardian ad litem was "a fraudulent and frivolous party from an ex-parte list"
supplied by the trustee's counsel, that he failed to protect the minors' legal
rights and helped Lepore and Marchisotto's sisters "get away with their
financial crimes, fraud, theft, and elder abuse," all having absolutely no basis
in fact. This example is only one of dozens of Marchisotto treating his bald
assertions as undisputed facts.
A-3453-19
10
 12a
Because Marchisotto claimed he was without the funds for a discovery

master, the judge ordered him to submit certain personal financial information

for her in camera review to allow her to assess his ability to contribute to the

cost. Marchisotto failed to comply, seeking leave to file an interlocutory

appeal of that order as well as several others, including the judge's denial that

she recuse herself following his complaint about her to the Supreme Court's

Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct. All his applications and motions

were denied, both here and in the Supreme Court.

In March 2019, Judge Goodzeit dismissed Marchisotto's complaint

without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(a)(1), for his failure to answer

interrogatories. In April, she denied his application for a stay of her March

order and denied his motion to reinstate his pleadings, although ordering,

notwithstanding, that should Marchisotto provide the estate "comprehensible

responses" to specific interrogatories that she would reconsider her ruling.

Marchisotto thereafter sued Judge Goodzeit for civil rights violations in

federal court, and the matter was transferred to Middlesex County. 7

7
The Third Circuit has since affirmed the dismissal of Marchisotto's claims
against Judge Goodzeit. See Marchisotto v. Goodzeit, No. 20-1870, 2021 U.S.
App. LEXIS 23068, at *2-3 (3d Cir. Aug. 4, 2021).
A-3453-19
11
 13a
In December 2019, the parties appeared before Judge Rivas on

defendant's motion to dismiss Marchisotto's complaint with prejudice. After

conducting a lengthy hearing to review the questions and answers, Judge Rivas

did not grant the motion, instead allowing Marchisotto yet another opportunity

to provide responsive answers to the trustee's interrogatories. The judge

explained to Marchisotto his answers were not specific or direct as required by

the court rules, and that he could not "cut and paste the same answer over and

over." The judge entered a specific order detailing precisely what

interrogatories remained to be answered and warning Marchisotto he would

not be permitted to "cut and paste" responses. The order also advised the

answers "must be specific and germane to the issues of the case" and as to

persons with knowledge, that Marchisotto identify the "specific issue relevant

to the case" implicated by the anticipated testimony.

Marchisotto filed another application for emergent relief that was

likewise denied by this court and the Supreme Court. In a now familiar

pattern, Marchisotto thereafter sued Judge Rivas in federal court for civil

A-3453-19
12
 14a
rights violations and moved to recuse him from hearing defendant's renewed

motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. 8

Following receipt of Marchisotto's revised answers, the trustee moved

again to dismiss Marchisotto's complaint with prejudice. This time, Judge

Rivas granted the motion. Despite the judge's painstaking efforts to explain to

Marchisotto the abuse of the litigation process posed by listing individuals

with no connection to the issues in the case and the importance of the

requirement that he link an individual's knowledge or proposed testimony to an

actual contested issue, Marchisotto failed to comply with the court's order.

Although he has not provided us with a copy of the trustee's motion, nor any

file-stamped copy of his own response to it, what we do have is repetitive

material not responsive to the specific questions asked — particularly as it

relates to relevance. Marchisotto continued to persist in groundlessly

maligning his adversary and attacking witnesses about matters unrelated to the

simple issues we understand, based on the truncated record he has provided us,

were before the trial court, that is, the decedent's testamentary capacity;

8
Marchisotto has sued other judges and justices in federal court in connection
with the denial of his many interlocutory appeals and motions, including a
member of the panel deciding this appeal. Those actions do not prevent us
from fairly considering this matter. See R. 1:12-1; Comparato v. Schait, 180
N.J. 90, 101 (2004); Amoresano v. Laufgas, 171 N.J. 532, 555 (2002).
A-3453-19
13
 15a
whether the 2016 will and irrevocable trust were the product of undue

influence; and whether Marchisotto could identify any asset of the estate or

trust for which Canova did not faithfully account.

Marchisotto appeals, raising ten points of error, which we reprint

without alteration:

POINT 1
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING ORDER ON 06/02/2020
DURING THE HEARING, THE JUDGE SAID "HE FILED
NUMEROUS ACTIONS IN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY
MAKING BASELESS ALLEGATIONS (INDISCERNIBLE) AFTER
DEFENDANT (INDISCERNIBLE) CAUSING THE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS NOT TO COOPERATE WITH THE DEFENDANT
(INDISCERNIBLE) DISMISS THE CLAIMS AGAINST
(INDISCERNIBLE)."

POINT 2
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING ORDER ON 06/02/2020,
DURING THE HEARING THE JUDGE SAID "THE COURT FOUND
MARCHISOTTO'S (INDISCERNIBLE) TO BE
INCOMPREHENSIBLE IN AN AUGUST, 2018, (INDISCERNIBLE)
HAVE NOT IMPROVED. THE CONTINUE TO BE REPETITIVE
AND (INDISCERNIBLE) AND ARE NUMEROUS. THE RECORD IS
CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT MR. MARCHISOTTO IS A VEXATIOUS
LITIGANT. HE IGNORES COURT ORDERS. HE ENGAGES IN
(INDISCERNIBLE) – THEREFORE, THE COURT WILL GRANT
(INDISCERNIBLE) APPLICATION AND WILL ORDER
MARCHISOTTO TO PAY $81,841.72 AND THE ADDITIONAL 3,000
- (INDISCERNIBLE) IN EXPENSES AND COSTS. THE COURT
REVIEWED THE PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT (INDISCERNIBLE)
CONSISTENT WITH THE RATES CUSTOMARILY CHARGED IN
NEW JERSEY. THE HOURS SPENT WERE NOT EXCESSIVE.
CONSIDERING MR. MARCHISOTTO'S (INDISCERNIBLE)
(INDISCERNIBLE) SPECIFICALLY, THE ARGUMENTS HE HAS

A-3453-19
14
 16a
MADE ARE NOT WARRANTED BY THE FACTS OR THE LAW.
AND ORDER WILL BE ENTERED UPON (INDISCERNIBLE)."

POINT 3
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING ORDER ON 06/02/2020,
DURING THE HEARING SAID, "THE RECORD IS CRYSTAL
CLEAR THAT MR. MARCHISOTTO IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT.
HE IGNORES COURT ORDERS, HE ENGAGES IN
(INDISCERNIBLE)."

POINT 4
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING ORDER ON 06/02/2020,
SANCTION IS APPROPRIATE ONLY WHERE THE OFFENDER
HAS WILLFULLY ABUSED JUDICIAL PROCESS OR OTHERWISE
CONDUCTED LITIGATION IN BAID FAITH. IN RE ITEL SEC.
LITIG., 791 F.2D 672, 675 (9TH CIR. 1986); KREAGER V.
SOLOMON & FLANAGAN, P.A., 775 F.2D 1541, 1542-43 (11TH CIR.
1985); LIPSEIG V. NAT'L STUDENT MKTG. CORP., 663 F.2D 178,
180-81 (D.C. CIR. 1980); LINK V. WABASH R.R. CO., 370 U.S. 626,
632 (1962).

POINT 5
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED ON 05/07/2020, DENYING
APPELLANT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE JUDGE
SAID "TODAY IS MAY 7TH. THIS IS A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION WHERE THE COURT IS PUTTING ITS
DECISION ON THE RECORD. THIS MATTER COMES BEFORE
THE COURT ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDER
DISMISSAL OF HIS COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE FOR
REPEATED FAILURES TO ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO
DISCOVERY REQUESTS. THIS CAUSE OF ACTION REACHES
THIS COURT ON A TRANSCRIPT FROM SOMERSET VICINAGE;
A RELATED MATTER WAS REPORTED IN UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT IN THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY UNDER
CASE NUMBER 3:19CV12540. THE SELF-REPRESENTED
PLAINTIFF, JOHN F. MARCHISOTTO, HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS
A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT. PLAINTIFF HAS PREVIOUSLY FILED
MOTIONS SEEKING SANCTIONS TO THIS COURT BY COUNSEL

A-3453-19
15
 17a
IN THOSE MATTERS. ALL OF THOSE MOTIONS WERE DENIED.
IN ADDITION TO NAMING OPPOSING COUNSEL AS A
DEFENDANT IN THIS MATTER, PLAINTIFF HAS NAMED
MULTIPLE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES WHO HAVE PREVIOUSLY
PRESIDED OVER THIS MATTER AS DEFENDANTS IN A
FEDERAL LAWSUIT."

POINT 6
ON 04/01/2020, JUDGE RIVAS "HARMFUL ERROR," DISMISSING
APPELLANT COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. APPELLANT HAD
FULLY, RESPONSIVELY, AND PROPERLY ANSWERED
DEFENDANT INTERROGATORY QUESTIONS 13, AND 14, AS PER
THE 12/09/2020, ORDERS.

POINT 7
DURING THE HEARING, THE JUDGE SAID "IN ADDITION,
PLAINTIFF HAS CLAIMED THAT IN SITE OF THE JUDGE'S
ATTORNEYS, AND EXPERT WITNESSES, THE DEFENDANTS IN
(INDISCERNIBLE) OR GRIEVANCES IN THE DISTRICT COURT
WITH THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. PLAINTIFF
READILY ASSERTS UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS OF FRAUD AND
CIVIL CONSPIRACY. PLAINTIFF'S MOVING PAPERS HAVE
BEEN DESCRIBED BY ADVERSARIES AS BASELESS,
NONSENSICAL, RAMBLING, AND HARASSING PLAINTIFF'S
BEHAVIOR AS HARASSING."

POINT 8
DURING THE HEARING, THE JUDGE SAID "FURTHERMORE,
PLAINTIFF HAS CLAIMED WHETHER LEPORE PRACTICED LAW
IN A DEFUNCT PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AND HAS
FAILED TO CARRY MALPRACTICE INSURANCE AS REQUIRED
BY THE RULES OF COURT AND PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
AGAIN, THESE CLAIMS WERE CONSISTENTLY UNSUPPORTED
BY ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE BEYOND PLAINTIFF'S ORAL
ASSERTIONS."

A-3453-19
16
 18a
POINT 9
DURING THE HEARING, THE JUDGE SAID "ALL RIGHT. LET'S
FIRST ADDRESS MR. MARCHISOTTO'S MOTION TO RECUSE
THE COURT. THE COURT HAS CONSIDERED THAT MOTION
AND FINDS THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR RECUSAL. IN
PANITCH V. PANITCH, 339 NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT AT
63, PAGES 66 TO 67, APPELLATE DIVISION 2001 – MR.
MARCHISOTTO HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THESE
PROCEEDINGS ARE UNFAIR, ALTHOUGH A BELIEF THAT
THEY'RE UNFAIR IS NOT SUFFICIENT. THERE HAS TO BE
OBJECTIVE REASONABLE EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE IF THE
PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN UNFAIR. IT IS MR.
MARCHISOTTO'S M.O. THAT WHENEVER HE IS UNHAPPY WITH
A DECISION THAT A JUDICIAL OFFICER MAKES, HE FILES
OTHER LAWSUITS IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET THE CASE
REMOVED FROM THAT JUDGE AND HE'S DONE SO HERE,
WHICH IS WHAT I MEANT WHEN I SAID BACK ON DECEMBER
9TH, I KNOW YOU, MR. MARCHISOTTO, THAT HAS BEEN YOUR
M.O. SINCE 2019."

POINT 10
DURING THE HEARING, THE JUDGE SAID "YOU HAVE FILED
FEDERAL CASES AGAINST JUDGE GOODZEIT. YOU HAVE
FILED FEDERAL CASES AGAINST ME, AND THERE IS OTHER
PROCEEDINGS THAT YOU HAVE FILED, AND YOU HAVE DONE
SO IN AN ATTEMPT TO (INDISCERNIBLE) THIS LITIGATION.
UNDER STATE V. BILAL, (PHONETIC), 221 NEW JERSEY 608
(2018), THE COURT STATED, A PLAINTIFF IS SEEKING, CITED
THE UNITED STATES V. GREENSPAN, 26 F. 3D
(INDISCERNIBLE). BILAL CITED THAT CASE AND SAID, WHEN
A PLAINTIFF SEEKS TO OBTAIN ANOTHER JUDGE
(INDISCERNIBLE) SEEKS TO DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS, SEEKS
TO HARASS THE LITIGANTS AND HAS FILED (INDISCERNIBLE),
ALL OF WHICH THE COURT FINDS HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN
THIS CASE. WHEN HE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED ON THE
RECORD, WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE STATEMENT THAT
WAS CONTAINED IN HIS SO-CALLED ANSWERS? HE GOES, IT
IS A BELIEF THAT HE HAS. HE HAS NO FACTUAL

A-3453-19
17
 19a
BACKGROUND, NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE OR ANYTHING TO
SUSTAIN THAT (INDISCERNIBLE). THE COURT IN DECEMBER
GAVE HIM ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THE
INTERROGATORIES. HE CAME BACK WITH ESSENTIALLY THE
SAME ANSWERS, CLEARLY CUT AND PASTE, CLEARLY NOT
TAILORED SPECIFICALLY TO WHAT WAS BEING ASKED. MR.
MARCHISOTTO CITES THE FACT THAT HE IS SELF-
REPRESENTED. BUT HE HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS
LITIGATION AND IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED TO HIM SEVERAL
TIMES HOW HE (INDISCERNIBLE) THE PARTICULAR MATTERS
AND HE REFUSES TO DO SO. INSTEAD, HE GOES AND FILES
OTHER ACTIONS IN AN ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT, DELAY, AND
OBSTRUCT."

Our review of the record Marchisotto has provided us convinces us that

none of these arguments is of sufficient merit to warrant any extended

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

We review a trial court's discovery orders only for abuse of discretion, "a

standard that cautions appellate courts not to interfere unless an injustice

appears to have been done." Abtrax Pharm. v. Elkins-Sinn, 139 N.J. 499, 517

(1995). "We will not ordinarily reverse a trial court's disposition of a

discovery dispute 'absent an abuse of discretion or a judge's misunderstanding

or misapplication of the law.'" Brugaletta v. Garcia, 234 N.J. 225, 240 (2018)

(quoting Capital Health Sys., Inc. v. Horizon Healthcare Servs., Inc., 230 N.J.

73, 79-80 (2017)).

A-3453-19
18
 20a
Applying that standard here, Marchisotto has provided us no basis to

conclude Judge Rivas abused his discretion in finally dismissing this Probate

matter with prejudice. Marchisotto relies on Zimmerman v. United Services

Automobile Association, in arguing the court erred in dismissing his complaint

with prejudice because his was not a failure to answer but a bona fide dispute

over whether his answers were fully responsive. See 260 N.J. Super. 368, 378

(App. Div. 1992). Marchisotto's reliance on Zimmerman is misplaced.

Our courts generally follow Judge Pressler's admonition in Zimmerman

that if the discovery dispute is one over the responsiveness of the answers, the

trial court should resolve the dispute — not dismiss a plaintiff's complaint with

prejudice. Id. at 376-78. See Adedoyin v. Arc of Morris Cty. Chapter, Inc.,

325 N.J. Super. 173, 181 (App. Div. 1999). But there is an important caveat.

In Zimmerman, Judge Pressler wrote "that when the real discovery dispute is

not a failure to answer but rather an alleged failure to answer in a 'fully

responsive' manner, it is the dismissal with prejudice which is inappropriate

unless the answering party has been ordered to answer more fully and fails to

do so." Zimmerman, 260 N.J. Super. at 378 (emphasis added).

Marchisotto had been ordered to provided more fully responsive answers

to specific interrogatories — not once but several times. While our courts are

A-3453-19
19
 21a
understandably loathe to impose the draconian remedy of dismissal for a

party's failure to provide discovery, part of our reluctance is based on our

unwillingness to deprive a party of a potentially meritorious claim based on his

counsel's failure to comply with the court rules. See A&M Farm & Garden

Ctr. v. Am. Sprinkler Mech. L.L.C., 423 N.J. Super. 528, 539 (App. Div.

2012). Here, the flagrant and continuous failures to comply with the rules,

despite the repeated efforts of two trial judges to explain to Marchisotto what

he needed to do to move the case forward, rested with him and no one else.

The animating purpose of our rules is "the fair and efficient

administration of justice." A.T. v. Cohen, 231 N.J. 337, 351 (2017) (quoting

Shulas v. Estabrook, 385 N.J. Super. 91, 102 (App. Div. 2006)). That, of

course, implies fairness to all parties. Given the trustee's costs of defending

against a suit brought by a beneficiary are ordinarily borne by the trust, Mears

v. Addonizio, 336 N.J. Super. 474, 480 (App. Div. 2001), a Probate judge must

be mindful, as Judge Goodzeit obviously was, that the costs of the litigation

will deplete the corpus in which all the beneficiaries share. Thus, allowing a

beneficiary to run up litigation costs in unnecessary and wasteful motions

unfairly burdens beneficiaries not parties to the trust litigation.

A-3453-19
20
 22a
We think that cost calculus had to be weighed in determining whether

dismissal with prejudice was warranted for Marchisotto's persistent failures to

comply with discovery obligations, especially in light of his failure to ever

muster any support for his extravagant assertions of fraud. In the over two

years this matter was pending in the trial court, Marchisotto never filed

exceptions to the formal accounting he forced the trust to file and never

offered the slightest proof of his claim that funds had been misappropriated.

Marchisotto has continually asserted that he was without proof only

because he was not permitted to subpoena decedent's banks and brokerage

houses for the original statements on which the trustee's formal accounting was

based. Leaving aside that there was nothing to suggest the copies presented to

the court were "tampered with" as Marchisotto alleged, Judge Rivas noted

issuing a subpoena wasn't the exclusive mechanism for Marchisotto to bring

forth evidence of missing funds. Marchisotto claimed he had reviewed the

trustee's formal accounting, including all of its attachments, with the

decedent's long-time accountant, who Marchisotto asserted had ten years of the

decedent's tax returns in his possession. Yet Marchisotto never proffered a

certification from this allegedly knowledgeable accountant that there were

A-3453-19
21
 23a
other monies that should have gone into the trust, much less the $800,000

Marchisotto claimed was unaccounted for.

In sum, our review of the transcripts in this matter convinces us the trial

judges presided over this trying case fairly and impartially. We can find no

abuse of discretion in the decision to dismiss this matter with prejudice for

Marchisotto's failure to comply with discovery despite repeated orders. See

Abtrax Pharm., 139 N.J. at 515 (noting a party invites the drastic sanction of

dismissal "by deliberately pursuing a course that thwarts persistent efforts to

obtain the necessary facts").

As to the award of sanctions, we have only brief comment. Although

Marchisotto has provided us the transcript in which the court ruled the trustee

had established her entitlement to frivolous litigation sanctions pursuant to

N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 and Rule 1:4-8 and deemed the requested award of

attorneys' fees and costs reasonable, he has not provided us the trustee's

motion for sanctions, including Lepore's supporting certification on which the

court relied in determining both that sanctions were warranted and the

requested fees and costs were reasonable.

Marchisotto's decision to so truncate the record has deprived us of any

ability to assess his claim of error in the award of sanctions, leaving us no

A-3453-19
22
 24a
basis on which to disturb the court's ruling. See Noren v. Heartland Payment

Sys., 448 N.J. Super. 486, 500 (App. Div. 2017) (finding cross-appellant's

"selective inclusion of exhibits it considers relevant and exclusion of exhibits"

relied on by its adversary prohibited review of decision, requiring dismissal of

cross-appeal).

Our disposition makes it unnecessary to address Marchisotto's remaining

arguments, none of which is of sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a

written opinion in any event. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

A-3453-19
23
 25a
APPENDIX – B

Decision New Jersey Superior Court

i lese County rial; Docket No. 1 - 394

 26a

FILED
Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C.
Middlesex County Superior Court June 2, 2020
P.O. Box 964 Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C.
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0964

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

MIDDLESEX COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION – PROBATE
IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. PART
MARCHISOTTO
DOCKET NO.: 18-00394

CIVIL ACTION

ORDER
FOR SANCTIONS

THIS MATTER having been brought before the Court on a motion filed by attorney Louis

Lepore, Esq. on behalf of the defendant, Debra Canova, seeking sanctions in the form of legal fees

and cost against the plaintiff, John F. Marchisotto, pro se; and on the cross motion of the plaintiff,

John F. Marchisotto, pro se seeking sanctions in the form of punitive damages against the

defendant, Debra Canova, her attorney, Louis Lepore, Esq, and others; and the Court having

considered the written submissions of the parties, any certifications and exhibits filed therewith,

and oral arguments; and for good cause shown and the reasons set forth on the record;

IT IS, ON THIS 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2020;

1. ORDERED that the defendant, Debra Canova’s motion for sanctions against the

plaintiff, John F. Marchisotto, pro se, pursuant to R. 1:4-8, is hereby GRANTED; and

it is further

Pa1
 27a

2. ORDERED that the plaintiff, John F. Marchisotto’s, pro se, motion for sanctions

against the defendant, Debra Canova, her attorney, Louis Lepore, Esq., and others,

pursuant to R. 1:4-8, is hereby DENIED; and it is further

3. ORDERED that the plaintiff, John F. Marchisotto, pro se shall pay $81,848.70 in legal

fees and an additional $3,976.33 in expenses and costs, for a total of $85,825.03, to the

defendant, Debra Canova; and it is further

4. ORDERED that this Order shall be served upon the parties within 5 days of the date

herein and that email delivery of this Order upon the parties shall constitute service.

Pa2
 28a

FILED
Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C. June 5, 2020
Middlesex County Superior Court Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C.
P.O. Box 964
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0964

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

MIDDLESEX COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION – PROBATE
IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. PART
MARCHISOTTO, deceased.
DOCKET NO.: 18-00394

CIVIL ACTION

ORDER
TO DENY STAY

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the plaintiff’s Motion to Stay the June-2nd

Orders issued in this matter by the Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C.; the plaintiff, pro se, is John F.

Marchisotto (hereinafter “Plaintiff”); the defendant, represented by Louis Lepore, Esq, is Debra

Canova (hereinafter “Defendant”); the cross-defendant, represented by Bryan D. Leinbach, Esq.,

admitted pro hac vice, is J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; following a hearing on the 2nd day of

June, 2020, the Court issued an Order to impose sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of

$85,825.03, pursuant to Rule 1:4-8; the Court having reviewed the submissions of Plaintiff and

finding no legal basis to grant the relief, as requested by Plaintiff;

IT IS, ON THIS 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2020:

1. ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for a Stay of the Order, imposing sanctions against

Plaintiff, issued by the Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C. on the 2nd day of June, 2020 is hereby

DENIED; and it is further

1 of 2
Pa3
 29a

2. ORDERED that Plaintiff’s remedy is to seek appellate review, consistent with the rules

governing the Appellate Division; and it is further

3. ORDERED that a copy of this order shall be served upon the parties within 1 day of

the date herein.

2 of 2 Pa4
 30a

Superior Court of New Jersey

Appellate Division
Disposition on Application for Permission to File Emergent Motion
Case Name: I/M/O the Irrevocable Trust of John L. Marchisotto
Appellate Division Docket Number: (if available):
Trial Court or Agency Below: Middlesex County, Chancery Division, Probate Part
Trial Court or Agency Docket Number: 18-00394

DO NOT FILL IN THIS SECTION – FOR COURT USE ONLY

I. The application for leave to file an emergent motion on short notice is Denied for the following reasons:

The application on its face does not concern a threat of irreparable injury, or a situation in which the
interests of justice otherwise require adjudication on short notice. The applicant may file a motion with the
Clerk's Office in the ordinary course.

The threatened harm or event is not scheduled to occur prior to the time in which a motion could be filed in
the Clerk's Office and decided by the court. If the applicant promptly files a motion with the Clerk's Office
it shall be forwarded to a Panel for decision as soon as the opposition is filed.

The applicant did not apply to the trial court or agency for a stay, and obtain a signed court order, agency
decision or other evidence of the ruling before seeking a stay from the Appellate Division.

The application concerns an order entered during trial or on the eve of trial as to which there is no prima
facie showing that the proposed motion would satisfy the standards for granting leave to appeal.

The timing of the application suggests that the emergency is self-generated, given that no good explanation
has been offered for the delay in seeking appellate relief. Due to the delay, we cannot consider a short-
notice motion within the time frame the applicant seeks, without depriving the other party of a reasonable
time to submit opposition. And the magnitude of the threatened harm does not otherwise warrant
adjudicating this matter on short notice despite the delay. If the applicant promptly files a motion with the
Clerk's Office it shall be forwarded to a Panel for decision as soon as the opposition is filed.

Other reasons:
The trial court's June 2, 2020 order involves legal fees, expenses and costs. Plaintiff's allegations of
harm are monetary in nature and as such, do not require adjudication of a motion on short notice.

June 8, 2020
Carmen H. Alvarez, P.J.A.D. Date

Pa5
 31a

FILED, Clerk of the Supreme Court, 09 Jun 2020, 084541

Pa6
 32a

FILED
April 1, 2020
Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C. Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C.
Middlesex County Superior Court
P.O. Box 964
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0964

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

MIDDLESEX COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION – PROBATE
IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. PART
MARCHISOTTO, deceased.
DOCKET NO.: 18-00394

CIVIL ACTION

ORDER TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

THIS MATTER was brought before the Court on a motion to dismiss with prejudice by

Louis Lepore, Esq on behalf of the defendant, Debra Canova (hereinafter Defendan ). The

defendant, Debra Canova is seeking to dismiss the complaint filed against her by the plaintiff, John

F. Marchisotto, pro se, (he einaf e Plain iff ) with prejudice for failure to answer interrogatories.

Plaintiff and Defendant are brother and sister.

THIS MATTER was instituted by Plaintiff following the death of the a ie fa he in

2016. Plaintiff claims the will at issue in this case was the product of undue influence and that

Defendant, as the executrix of the estate, has violated her fiduciary duties with respect to the

accounting of the estate and its assets. While the allegations have been plentiful, the factual basis

in support of Plain iff claims have been meager to non-existing. Furthermore, the Court has

ided Plain iff m e han am le ni e nd Defendan in e ga ie .

Plain iff e ea ed fail e an e in e ga ie ha e been ih ea n e c e. The

defendant, JP Morgan Chase, an interested party litigating a related matter in the New York

Supreme Court, was later joined to the action as an interested party.

1 of 2
Pa7
 33a

A hearing was conducted on the 1st day of April, 2020, add e Defendan m i n

dismiss with prejudice and to determine the sufficiency of Plain iff e ne Defendan

interrogatories. Plaintiff, John F. Marchisotto appeared pro se; Louis Lepore, Esq. appeared on

behalf of the defendant, Debra Canova; and the defendant, JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. elected

not to appear. For the reasons set forth on the record and for good cause shown;

IT IS ON THIS 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2020:

1. ORDERED that he lain iff c m lain i he eb DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

and it is further

2. ORDERED that the defendant may proceed to begin the distribution process no earlier
than April 8, 2020; and it is further

3. ODRERED that this order shall be served electronically upon the parties within one
(1) day of the execution of this order; and it is further

4. ORDERED that, other than a Notice of Appeal, any subsequent filings in this matter
must be directed to the Appellate Division.

2 of 2

Pa8
 34a

FILED
April 1, 2020
Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C. Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C.
Middlesex County Superior Court
P.O. Box 964
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0964

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

MIDDLESEX COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION – PROBATE
IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. PART
MARCHISOTTO, deceased.
DOCKET NO.: 18-00394

CIVIL ACTION

ORDER TO JOIN DEFENDANT

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
PURSUANT TO RULE 4:29-1

THIS MATTER was instituted by the plaintiff, John F. Marchisotto, against the

defe da , Deb a Ca a, he lai iff i e , f ll i g he dea h f hei fa he , J h L.

Marchisotto in 2016. The plaintiff claims that the will at issue in this case was the product of undue

influence and that the defendant, as the executrix of the estate, has violated her fiduciary duties

with respect to the accounting of the estate and its assets. The corporate entity, JP Morgan Chase

Bank, N.A. is a party to a related interpleader action, which it commenced in the New York

Supreme Court, titled JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Debra Canova et al., Index No.

152396/2019. Finding good cause to join the corporate entity, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., to

the above captioned matter, pursuant to Rule 4:29-1;

IT IS ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2020:

1. ORDERED that the corporate entity, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is hereby joined

as a defendant to the above captioned matter; and it is further

1 of 2
Pa9
 35a

2. ORDERED that a copy of this order shall be electronically served upon the parties

within 7 days.

2 of 2

Pa10
 36a

FILED
Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C. April 1, 2020
Middlesex County Superior Court Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C.
P.O. Box 964
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0964

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

MIDDLESEX COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION – PROBATE
IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. PART
MARCHISOTTO, deceased.
DOCKET NO.: 18-00394

CIVIL ACTION

AMENDED ORDER
TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

THIS MATTER was brought before the Court on a motion to dismiss with prejudice by

Louis Lepore, Esq on behalf of the defendant, Debra Canova (he einaf e Defendan ). The

defendant, Debra Canova is seeking to dismiss the complaint filed against her by the plaintiff, John

F. Marchisotto, pro se, (he einaf e Plain iff ) with prejudice for failure to answer interrogatories.

Plaintiff and Defendant are brother and sister.

THIS MATTER was instituted by Plaintiff following the death of the a ie fa he in

2016. Plaintiff claims the will at issue in this case was the product of undue influence and that

Defendant, as the executrix of the estate, has violated her fiduciary duties with respect to the

accounting of the estate and its assets. While the allegations have been plentiful, the factual basis

in support of Plain iff claims have been meager to non-existing. Furthermore, the Court has

ided Plain iff m e han am le ni e nd Defendan in e ga ie .

Plain iff e ea ed fail e an e in e ga ie ha e been ih ea n e c e. The

defendant, JP Morgan Chase, an interested party litigating a related matter in the New York

Supreme Court, was later joined to the action as an interested party.

1 of 2

Pa11
 37a

A hearing was conducted on the 1st day of April, 2020, add e Defendan m i n

dismiss with prejudice and to determine the sufficienc f Plain iff e ne Defendan

interrogatories. Plaintiff, John F. Marchisotto appeared pro se; Louis Lepore, Esq. appeared on

behalf of the defendant, Debra Canova; and the defendant, JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. elected

not to appear. For the reasons set forth on the record and for good cause shown;

IT IS ON THIS 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2020:

1. ORDERED that he lain iff c m lain i he eb DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

and it is further

2. ORDERED that the defendant may proceed to begin the distribution process no earlier
than April 8, 2020; and it is further

3. ODRERED that this order shall be served electronically upon the parties within one
(1) day of the execution of this order; and it is further

4. ORDERED that any application, motion, or other filing regarding the dismissal of the
complaint must be directed to the Appellate Division.

2 of 2

Pa12
 38a

FILED
April 6, 2020
Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C.
Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C.
Middlesex County Superior Court
P.O. Box 964
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0964

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

MIDDLESEX COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION – PROBATE
IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. PART
MARCHISOTTO, deceased.
DOCKET NO.: 18-00394

CIVIL ACTION

ORDER
TO DENY STAY

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the plaintiff s Motion to Stay the April-1st

Orders issued in this matter by the Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C. The plaintiff, pro se, is John F.

Marchisotto (hereinafter “Plaintiff ). The defendant, represented by Louis Lepore, Esq, is Debra

Canova (hereinafter “Defendant ). Plaintiff and Defendant are brother and sister. Following a

hearing on the 1st day of April, 2020, the Court issued (1) an Order to join the corporate entity, JP

Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. as a defendant in the matter, pursuant to Rule 4:29-1 and (2) an

Amended Order to Dismiss the Plaintiff s Complaint with Prejudice for failure to answer

Defendant s interrogatories. For good cause shown;

IT IS ON THIS 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2020:

1. ORDERED that Plaintiff s request for a Stay pending appeal of the Orders issued by

the Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C. on the 1st day of April, 2020 is hereby DENIED; and it

is further

1 of 2

Pa13
 39a

2. ORDER that a copy of this order shall be served upon the parties with 1 day.

2 of 2

Pa14
 40a

Superior Court of New Jersey

Appellate Division
Disposition on Application for Permission to File Emergent Motion
Case Name: I/M/O the Irrevocable Trust of John F. Marchisotto
Appellate Division Docket Number: (if available):
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Trial Court or Agency Below: Middlesex County
Trial Court or Agency Docket Number: 18-00394

DO NOT FILL IN THIS SECTION – FOR COURT USE ONLY

The application for leave to file an emergent motion on short notice is Denied for the following reasons:

The application on its face does not concern a threat of irreparable injury, or a situation in which the
interests of justice otherwise require adjudication on short notice. The applicant may file a motion with the
Clerk's Office in the ordinary course.

The threatened harm or event is not scheduled to occur prior to the time in which a motion could be filed in
the Clerk's Office and decided by the court. If the applicant promptly files a motion with the Clerk's Office
it shall be forwarded to a Panel for decision as soon as the opposition is filed.

The applicant did not apply to the trial court or agency for a stay, and obtain a signed court order, agency
decision or other evidence of the ruling before seeking a stay from the Appellate Division.

The application concerns an order entered during trial or on the eve of trial as to which there is no prima
facie showing that the proposed motion would satisfy the standards for granting leave to appeal.

The timing of the application suggests that the emergency is self-generated, given that no good explanation
has been offered for the delay in seeking appellate relief. Due to the delay, we cannot consider a short-
notice motion within the time frame the applicant seeks, without depriving the other party of a reasonable
time to submit opposition. And the magnitude of the threatened harm does not otherwise warrant
adjudicating this matter on short notice despite the delay. If the applicant promptly files a motion with the
Clerk's Office it shall be forwarded to a Panel for decision as soon as the opposition is filed.

Other reasons:
Allegation of harm is purely financial.

April 7, 2020
Ellen L. Koblitz, P.J.A.D. Date

Pa15
41a

Pa16
 42a

FILED
Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C. May 7, 2020
Middlesex County Superior Court Hon. Alberto Rivas, J.S.C.
P.O. Box 964
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0964

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

MIDDLESEX COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION – PROBATE PART
IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L.
MARCHISOTTO, deceased. DOCKET NO.: 18-00394

CIVIL ACTION

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the

plaintiff, pro se, JOHN F. MARCHISOTTO, seeking to vacate he Co r April 1, 2020 Order o

Dismiss Plain iff Complain with Prejudice, pursuant to R. 4:49-2; and Louis Lepore, Esq. having

filed papers in opposition on behalf of the defendant, DEBRA CANOVA; and the Court having

considered the written submissions of the parties and the arguments raised therein; and for the

reason set forth on the record and for good cause having been shown;

IT IS, ON THIS 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2020:

1. ORDERED that the plain iff Mo ion for Recon idera ion of he Co r April 1, 2020

Order to Dismiss the plain iff Complain i h Prej dice i hereb DENIED; and it is

further

2. ORDERED that all other relief sought within the plain iff Mo ion, filed on April 17,

2020, is hereby DENIED; and it is further

3. ODRERED that this order shall be served electronically upon the parties within one

(1) day of the execution of this Order; and it is further

1 of 2

Pa17
 43a

4. ORDERED that any application, motion, or other filing regarding the dismissal of the

complaint or denial of reconsideration must be directed to the Appellate Division.

2 of 2
Pa18
44a

Pa19
45a

Pa20
46a

Pa21
47a

Pa22
48a

Pa23
49a

Pa23a
50a

Pa23b
 51a
APPENDIX – C

Supre e Court o New Jersey r er

Denyin eview; Docket No. 5

52a
 53a
APPENDIX – D

istory e rial Court arious ilin s

r er s Decision s Docket No. 1 - 394

 54a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF JUDGMENT(S), ORDER(S), RULING(S), AND

DECISION(S) ON APPEAL
Appendix Page
Number or
Document Name Date Transcript

ORDER SANCTIONS 06/02/2020 Pa1

ORDER TO DENY STAY. 06/05/2020 Pa3
Carmen H. Alvarez, P.J.A.D.
Appellate Emergent Motion 06/08/2020 Pa5
Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina.
Supreme Emergent Motion 06/09/2020 Pa6
ORDER TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE 04/01/2020 Pa7
ORDER TO JOIN DEFENDANT
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
PURSUANT TO RULE 4:29-1 04/01/2020 Pa9
AMENDED ORDER TO DISMISS
WITH PREJUDICE 04/01/2020 Pa11
ORDER TO DENY STAY (Trial Court) 04/06/2020 Pa13
Appellant Division,
Hon. Ellen L. Koblitz, P.J.A.D.,
Emergent Stay Order 04/07/2020 Pa15
Supreme Court
Hon. Justice Lee A. Solomon,
Emergent Stay Order 04/08/2020 Pa16

ORDER TO DENY MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION. 05/07/2020 Pa17
DEC 09 2019, COURT ORDER, 12/09/2019 Pa19
HONORABLE HANY A. MAWLA, J.A.D. 12/20/2019 Pa23a
APPELLATE DIVISION Emergent
Justice Anne M. Patterson
Supreme Court Emergent 12/23/2019 Pa23b
APR 26, 2019, COURT ORDER 04/26/2019 Pa24

MAR 15, 2019, COURT ORDER 03/15/2019 Pa25

MAR 04, 2019, COURT ORDER 03/04/2019 Pa27

JAN 17, 2019, COURT ORDER 01/27/2019 Pa28

Jan 15 2019 Court Order 01/15/2019 Pa30

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

v
 55a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF JUDGMENT(S), ORDER(S), RULING(S), AND

DECISION(S) ON APPEAL
Appendix Page
Number or
Document Name Date Transcript

Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr., P.J.A.D.

Appellant Division Emergent 01/14/2019 Pa43
Judge Goodzeit Vexatious Litigant
Letter to Appellant Division 01/14/2019 Pa45
Dec 17, 2018, Order 12/17/2018 Pa48
Dec 03, 2018, Letter Judge Goodzeit 12/03/2018 Pa51
Nov 15, 2018, Order 11/15/2018 Pa52
Oct 26, 2018, Order 10/26/2018 Pa53
Aug 09, 2018, Order 08/09/2018 Pa55
May 23, 2018, Order 05/23/2018 Pa58

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

vi
 56a
APPENDIX – E

etitioners Appeal rie New Jersey Appellate

Division; Docket No. A-3453-19

57a
 58a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................ i

TABLE OF JUDGMENT(S), ORDER(S), RULING(S) ................ v
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX VOLUME ONE .............. vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX VOLUME TWO ................ ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX VOLUME THREE ............... x
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX VOLUME FOUR .............. xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX VOLUME FIVE .............. xiv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................... xv
TABLE OF PARTIES ...................................... xxiv
TABLE OF TRANSCRIPT VOLUMES ............................ xxv

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................... 1

II. HISTORY/FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................. 19

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................... 23

IV. STATEMENT OF CASE....................................... 27

SUBPOENAS ............................................... 28

V. STANDARD FOR REVIEW..................................... 30

APPEALS AS OF RIGHT ..................................... 30
PLAIN ERROR AND HARMFUL ERROR ........................... 30
COROLLARIES TO PLAIN ERROR RULE ......................... 30
HARMFUL ERROR RULE ...................................... 30
CONCLUSION: PLAIN AND HARMFUL ERROR ..................... 30
R.2:10-2 ................................................ 30

VI. STANDARDS ON APPEAL GOVERNING ERROR ..................... 30

ERROR IN CERTAIN DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS ................ 30
INTERPRETATION OR MISAPPLICATIOIN OF THE LAW ............ 30
ATTORNEYS’ FEE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, (DECISION TO AWARD) ... 30
DISCOVERY ............................................... 31
EVIDENCE (EXCLUDING OR ADMITTING) ....................... 31
RECUSAL ................................................. 31
SANCTIONS ............................................... 31

VII. ARGUMENT ............................................... 31

POINT 1 ............................................................... 31
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING ORDER ON 06/02/2020, DURING THE
HEARING, THE JUDGE SAID “HE FILED NUMEROUS ACTIONS IN NEW YORK AND
NEW JERSEY MAKING BASELESS ALLEGATIONS (INDISCERNIBLE) AFTER
DEFENDANT (INDISCERNIBLE) CAUSING THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS NOT TO
COOPERATE WITH THE DEFENDANT (INDISCERNIBLE) DISMISS THE CLAIMS
AGAINST (INDISCERNIBLE)”. (1T50; PA81).

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

i
 59a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF CONTENTS
POINT 2 ...............................................................34
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING ORDER ON 06/02/2020, DURING THE
HEARING THE JUDGE SAID “THE COURT FOUND MARCHISOTTO’S (INDISCERNIBLE)
TO BE INCOMPREHENSIBLE IN AN AUGUST, 2018, (INDISCERNIBLE) HAVE NOT
IMPROVED. THE CONTINUE TO BE REPETITIVE AND (INDISCERNIBLE) AND ARE
NUMEROUS. THE RECORD IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT MR. MARCHISOTTO IS A
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT. HE IGNORES COURT ORDERS. HE ENGAGES IN
(INDISCERNIBLE) – THEREFORE, THE COURT WILL GRANT (INDISCERNIBLE)
APPLICATION AND WILL ORDER MARCHISOTTO TO PAY $81,841.72 AND THE
ADDITIONAL 3,000 --- (INDISCERNIBLE) IN EXPENSES AND COSTS. THE COURT
REVIEWED THE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT (INDISCERNIBLE) CONSISTENT WITH
THE RATES CUSTOMARILY CHARGED IN NEW JERSEY. THE HOURS SPENT WERE NOT
EXCESSIVE. CONSIDERING MR. MARCHISOTTO’S (INDISCERNIBLE)
(INDISCERNIBLE) SPECIFICALLY, THE ARGUMENTS HE HAS MADE ARE NOT
WARRANTED EITHER BY THE FACTS OR THE LAW. AN ORDER WILL BE ENTERED
UPON (INDISCERNIBLE)”. (1T51-1T52).
POINT 3 ................................................................36
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING ORDER ON 06/02/2020, DURING THE
HEARING THE JUDGE SAID, “THE RECORD IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT MR.
MARCHISOTTO IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT. HE IGNORES COURT ORDERS, HE
ENGAGES IN (INDISCERNIBLE)”. (1T51-1T52).
POINT 4 ................................................................38
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING ORDER ON 06/02/2020, SANCTION IS
APPROPRIATE ONLY WHERE THE OFFENDER HAS WILLFULLY ABUSED JUDICIAL
PROCESS OR OTHERWISE CONDUCTED LITIGATION IN BAD FAITH. IN RE ITEL
SEC. LITIG., 791 F.2D 672, 675, (9TH CIR. 1986), CERT. DENIED, 479
U.S. 1033 91987); KREAGER V. SOLOMON & FLANAGAN, P.A. 775 F.2D 1541,
1542-43 (11TH CIR. 1985); LIPSEIG V. NATION STUDENT MKTG. CORP., 663
F.2D 178, 180-81 (D.C. CIR. 1980); LINK V. WALBASH R.R., 370 U.S.
626, 632 (1962).
POINT 5 ............................................................... 40
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED ON 05/07/2020, DENYING APPELLANT MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, THE JUDGE SAID “TODAY IS MAY 7TH. THIS IS A MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION WHERE THE COURT IS PUTTING ITS DECISION ON THE
RECORD. THIS MATTER COMES BEFORE THE COURT ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDER DISMISSAL OF HIS COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE FOR REPEATED
FAILURES TO ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS. THIS CAUSE OF
ACTION REACHES THIS COURT ON A TRANSCRIPT FROM SOMERSET VICINAGE; A
RELATED MATTER WAS REPORTED IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE
DISTRICTS OF NEW JERSEY UNDER CASE NUMBER 3:19CV12540. THE SELF-
REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF, JOHN F. MARCHISOTTO HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS A
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT. PLAINTIFF HAS PREVIOUSLY FILED MOTIONS SEEKING
SANCTIONS TO THIS COURT BY COUNSEL IN THOSE MATTERS. ALL OF THOSE
MOTIONS WERE DENIED. IN ADDITION TO NAMING OPPOSING COUNSEL AS A
DEFENDANT IN THIS MATTER, PLAINTIFF HAS NAMED MULTIPLE SUPERIOR COURT
JUDGES WHO HAVE PREVIOUSLY PRESIDED OVER THIS MATTER AS DEFENDANTS IN
A FEDERAL LAWSUIT.” (2T03).
IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,
ii
 60a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF CONTENTS
POINT 6 ................................................................45
ON 04/01/2020, JUDGE RIVAS “HARMFUL ERROR”, DISMISSING APPELLANT
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. APPELLANT HAD FULLY, RESPONSIVELY, AND
PROPERLY ANSWERED DEFENDANT INTERROGATORY QUESTIONS 13, AND 14, AS
PER THE 12/09/2020, ORDERS. (PA7, PA11).

POINT 7 .................................................................49
DURING THE HEARING, THE JUDGE SAID “IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFF HAS
CLAIMED THAT IN SPITE OF THE JUDGE’S ATTORNEYS, AND EXPERT WITNESSES,
THE DEFENDANTS IN (INDISCERNIBLE) OR GRIEVANCES IN THE DISTRICT COURT
WITH THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. PLAINTIFF READILY ASSERTS
UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS OF FRAUD AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY. PLAINTIFF’S MOVING
PAPERS HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED BY ADVERSARIES AS BASELESS, NONSENSICAL,
RAMBLING, AND HARASSING PLAINTIFF’S BEHAVIOR AS HARASSING”. (2T04).

POINT 8 .................................................................57
DURING THE HEARING, THE JUDGE SAID “FURTHERMORE, PLAINTIFF HAS
CLAIMED WHETHER LEPORE PRACTICED LAW IN A DEFUNCT PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION AND HAS FAILED TO CARRY MALPRACTICE INSURANCE AS REQUIRED
BY THE RULES OF COURT AND PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. AGAIN, THESE CLAIMS
WERE CONSISTENTLY UNSUPPORTED BY ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE BEYOND
PLAINTIFF’S ORAL ASSERTIONS”. (2T05).

POINT 9 .................................................................59
DURING THE HEARING, THE JUDGE SAID “ALL RIGHT. LET'S FIRST ADDRESS
MR. MARCHISOTTO'S MOTION TO RECUSE THE COURT. THE COURT HAS
CONSIDERED THAT MOTION AND FINDS THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR RECUSAL.
IN PANITCH V. PANITCH, 339 NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT AT 63, PAGES 66
TO 67, APPELLATE DIVISION 2001 -- MR. MARCHISOTTO HAS TAKEN THE
POSITION THAT THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE UNFAIR, ALTHOUGH A BELIEF THAT
THEY'RE UNFAIR IS NOT SUFFICIENT. THERE HAS TO BE OBJECTIVE
REASONABLE EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE IF THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN UNFAIR.
IT IS MR. MARCHISOTTO'S M.O. THAT WHENEVER HE IS UNHAPPY WITH A
DECISION THAT A JUDICIAL OFFICER MAKES, HE FILES OTHER LAWSUITS IN AN
ATTEMPT TO GET THE CASE REMOVED FROM THAT JUDGE AND HE'S DONE SO
HERE, WHICH IS WHAT I MEANT WHEN I SAID BACK ON DECEMBER 9TH, I KNOW
YOU, MR. MARCHISOTTO, THAT HAS BEEN YOUR M.O. SINCE 2019”. (3T24 –
3T25).

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

iii
 61a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF CONTENTS

POINT 10 ................................................................61
DURING THE HEARING, THE JUDGE SAID “YOU HAVE FILED FEDERAL CASES
AGAINST JUDGE GOODZEIT. YOU HAVE FILED FEDERAL CASES AGAINST ME, AND
THERE IS OTHER PROCEEDINGS THAT YOU HAVE FILED, AND YOU HAVE DONE SO
IN AN ATTEMPT TO (INDISCERNIBLE) THIS LITIGATION. UNDER STATE V.
BILAL (PHONETIC), 221 NEW JERSEY 608 (2018), THE COURT STATED, A
PLAINTIFF IS SEEKING, CITED THE UNITED STATES V. GREENSPAN, 26 F. 3D
(INDISCERNIBLE). BILAL CITED THAT CASE AND SAID, WHEN A PLAINTIFF
SEEKS TO OBTAIN ANOTHER JUDGE (INDISCERNIBLE) SEEKS TO DELAY THE
PROCEEDINGS, SEEKS TO HARASS THE LITIGANTS AND HAS FILED
(INDISCERNIBLE), ALL OF WHICH THE COURT FINDS HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN
THIS CASE. WHEN HE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED ON THE RECORD, WHAT IS YOUR
BASIS FOR THE STATEMENT THAT WAS CONTAINED IN HIS SO-CALLED ANSWERS?
HE GOES, IT IS A BELIEF THAT HE HAS. HE HAS NO FACTUAL BACKGROUND, NO
FACTUAL EVIDENCE OR ANYTHING TO SUSTAIN THAT (INDISCERNIBLE). THE
COURT IN DECEMBER GAVE HIM ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THE
INTERROGATORIES. HE CAME BACK WITH ESSENTIALLY THE SAME ANSWERS,
CLEARLY CUT AND PASTE, CLEARLY NOT TAILORED SPECIFICALLY TO WHAT WAS
BEING ASKED. MR. MARCHISOTTO CITES THE FACT THAT HE IS SELF-
REPRESENTED. BUT HE HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS LITIGATION AND IT'S
BEEN EXPLAINED TO HIM SEVERAL TIMES HOW HE (INDISCERNIBLE) THE
PARTICULAR MATTERS AND HE REFUSES TO DO SO. INSTEAD, HE GOES AND HE
FILES OTHER ACTIONS IN AN ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT, DELAY, AND OBSTRUCT”.
(3T26).

VIII. LEGAL ................................................... 65

Disqualification Of Trial Court Judge ................... 65

IX. CONCLUSION ............................................. 65

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

iv
 62a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF JUDGMENT(S), ORDER(S), RULING(S), AND

DECISION(S) ON APPEAL
Appendix Page
Number or
Document Name Date Transcript

ORDER SANCTIONS 06/02/2020 Pa1

ORDER TO DENY STAY. 06/05/2020 Pa3
Carmen H. Alvarez, P.J.A.D.
Appellate Emergent Motion 06/08/2020 Pa5
Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina.
Supreme Emergent Motion 06/09/2020 Pa6
ORDER TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE 04/01/2020 Pa7
ORDER TO JOIN DEFENDANT
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
PURSUANT TO RULE 4:29-1 04/01/2020 Pa9
AMENDED ORDER TO DISMISS
WITH PREJUDICE 04/01/2020 Pa11
ORDER TO DENY STAY (Trial Court) 04/06/2020 Pa13
Appellant Division,
Hon. Ellen L. Koblitz, P.J.A.D.,
Emergent Stay Order 04/07/2020 Pa15
Supreme Court
Hon. Justice Lee A. Solomon,
Emergent Stay Order 04/08/2020 Pa16

ORDER TO DENY MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION. 05/07/2020 Pa17
DEC 09 2019, COURT ORDER, 12/09/2019 Pa19
HONORABLE HANY A. MAWLA, J.A.D. 12/20/2019 Pa23a
APPELLATE DIVISION Emergent
Justice Anne M. Patterson
Supreme Court Emergent 12/23/2019 Pa23b
APR 26, 2019, COURT ORDER 04/26/2019 Pa24

MAR 15, 2019, COURT ORDER 03/15/2019 Pa25

MAR 04, 2019, COURT ORDER 03/04/2019 Pa27

JAN 17, 2019, COURT ORDER 01/27/2019 Pa28

Jan 15 2019 Court Order 01/15/2019 Pa30

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

v
 63a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF JUDGMENT(S), ORDER(S), RULING(S), AND

DECISION(S) ON APPEAL
Appendix Page
Number or
Document Name Date Transcript

Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr., P.J.A.D.

Appellant Division Emergent 01/14/2019 Pa43
Judge Goodzeit Vexatious Litigant
Letter to Appellant Division 01/14/2019 Pa45
Dec 17, 2018, Order 12/17/2018 Pa48
Dec 03, 2018, Letter Judge Goodzeit 12/03/2018 Pa51
Nov 15, 2018, Order 11/15/2018 Pa52
Oct 26, 2018, Order 10/26/2018 Pa53
Aug 09, 2018, Order 08/09/2018 Pa55
May 23, 2018, Order 05/23/2018 Pa58

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

vi
 64a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX VOLUME ONE

Order Sanctions 06/02/2020 Pa1

Order To Deny Stay. 06/05/2020 Pa3
Carmen H. Alvarez, P.J.A.D.
Appellate Emergent Motion 06/08/2020 Pa5
Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina.
Supreme Emergent Motion 06/09/2020 Pa6
Order To Dismiss With Prejudice 04/01/2020 Pa7
Order To Join Defendant
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Pursuant To Rule 4:29-1 04/01/2020 Pa9
Amended Order To Dismiss
With Prejudice 04/01/2020 Pa11
Order To Deny Stay (Trial Court) 04/06/2020 Pa13
Appellant Division,
Hon. Ellen L. Koblitz, P.J.A.D.,
Emergent Stay Order 04/07/2020 Pa15
Supreme Court
Hon. Justice Lee A. Solomon,
Emergent Stay Order 04/08/2020 Pa16

Order To Deny Motion For

Reconsideration. 05/07/2020 Pa17
Dec 09 2019, Court Order 12/09/2019 Pa19
Honorable Hany A. Mawla, J.A.D. 12/20/2019 Pa23a
Appellate Division Emergent
Justice Anne M. Patterson
Supreme Court Emergent 12/23/2019 Pa23b
Apr 26, 2019, Court Order 04/26/2019 Pa24

Mar 15, 2019, Court Order 03/15/2019 Pa25

Mar 04, 2019, Court Order 03/04/2019 Pa27

Jan 17, 2019, Court Order 01/27/2019 Pa28

Jan 15 2019 Court Order 01/15/2019 Pa30

Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr., P.J.A.D.

Appellant Division Emergent 01/14/2019 Pa43
IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED.
vii
 65a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX VOLUME ONE

Judge Goodzeit Vexatious Litigant

Letter To Appellant Division 01/14/2019 Pa45
Dec 17, 2018, Order 12/17/2018 Pa48
Dec 03, 2018, Letter Judge Goodzeit 12/03/2018 Pa51
Nov 15, 2018, Order 11/15/2018 Pa52
Oct 26, 2018, Order 10/26/2018 Pa53
Aug 09, 2018, Order 08/09/2018 Pa55
May 23, 2018, Order 05/23/2018 Pa58
Letter to Hon. Mathias E. Rodriguez 11/06/2019 Pa61
Def. Lepore, Nov. 4, 2019, Letter 11/04/2019 Pa65
JPMorgan Chase, Summons Complaint 10/11/2019 Pa81
Letter to Chief Justice Rabner 11/06/2019 Pa96
Nov 21, 2019, Letter To Judge Rivas 11/21/2019 Pa97
Def. Lepore, Nov 20, 2019, Letter 11/20/2019 Pa100
Notice Of Motion Disqualification
And Sanctions Against Def. Lepore 11/23/2019 Pa102
Nov 22, 2019, Letter Judge Rivas 11/22/2019 Pa149
Nov 21, 2019, Emergent Motion
Disqualification Def. Lepore 11/22/2019 Pa150
Nov 21, 2019, Letter To Judge Rivas 11/21/2019 Pa165
The Law Offices Of Louis Lepore P.C.
DOS ID NO# 4268814, Active P.C. 07/10/2012 Pa172
Letter To N.J. U.S. A.G. 09/26/2019 Pa174
Written Notice And Demand Letter 05/23/2019 Pa176
Letter To U.S. District Court Judge 11/23/2019 Pa186
Letter To Judge Rivas Law Clerk 11/27/2019 Pa187
Louis Lepore, Esq. P.L.L.C.
Dos ID No# 3278376, Active P.L.L.C. 11/08/2005 Pa189
The Law Offices Of Louis Lepore, P.C.
Experian Business Credit Report
Experian BIN: 985634664 12/08/2019 Pa194

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED.

viii
 66a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX VOLUME TWO

Appendix
Document/Exhibit Title or Description Date Page Number

Def. Lepore, Dec 2, 2019, Opposition

To Motion To Disqualification 12/02/2019 Pa200
Letter To U.S. District Court Judge 12/10/2019 Pa214
Supreme Court Emergent Matter 12/23/2019 Pa217
Appellate Division Emergent Matter 12/20/2019 Pa223
Letter To Judge Rivas Law Clerk 12/18/2019 Pa230
Letter To Middlesex Cty. Surrogate 12/19/2019 Pa232
Emergent Motion To Judge Alberto Rivas
For Disqualification 12/19/2019 Pa240
U.S. District Court Of New Jersey
Case 3:19-Cv-21440-BRM-DEA
Filed Against Judge Alberto Rivas 12/17/2019 Pa248
Notice Of Motion For
Disqualification Judge Rivas 12/21/2019 Pa308
Notice Of Motion For Reconsideration
Judge Rivas 12/09/2019, Orders 12/21/2019 Pa358

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED.

ix
 67a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX VOLUME THREE

Appendix
Document/Exhibit Title or Description Date Page Number
U.S. District Court, Summons/Complaint
The Law Offices Of Louis Lepore, P.C. 12/27/2019 Pa411
U.S. District Court, Summons/Complaint
Louis Lepore, Esq., L.L.C. 12/27/2019 Pa416
U.S. District Court, Summons/Complaint
Louis P. Lepore, 12/27/2019 Pa421
U.S. District Court, Summons/Complaint
Debra E. Canova, 12/27/2019 Pa424
U.S. District Court, Summons/Complaint
The Law Offices Of Louis Lepore, P.C. 12/27/2019 Pa411
January 5, 2020, To N.J. A.G. 01/05/2020 Pa428
Andrew C. Munger Deputy Attorney General
Letter To Hon. Douglas Arpert, U.S.M.J. 06/07/2019 Pa431
U.S. District Court, Affidavit Summons
Service Case 3:19-cv-21440-BRM-DEA 12/30/2019 Pa433
Summons Served On Judge Alberto Rivas
USDC Case No.: 3:19-Cv-21440-BRM-DEA 12/27/2019 Pa440
Letter To Judge Alberto Rivas, Summons
Re: NJSA 4:4-3, Fed.R.Civ.P.4(E)(1) 12/26/2019 Pa443
Summons Served On Justice Stuart Rabner
USDC Case No.: 3:19-Cv-21440-BRM-DEA 12/27/2019 Pa446
Letter To Justice Stuart Rabner, Summons
Re: NJSA 4:4-3, Fed.R.Civ.P.4(E)(1) 12/27/2019 Pa449
Summons Served On State Of New Jersey
USDC Case No.: 3:19-Cv-21440-BRM-DEA 12/30/2019 Pa453
Summons Served Middlesex County Surrogate
USDC Case No.: 3:19-cv-21440-BRM-DEA 12/27/2019 Pa454
Summons Law Offices Of Louis Lepore, P.C.
USDC Case No.: 3:19-Cv-21440-BRM-DEA 12/27/2019 Pa458
Summons Louis Lepore, Esq., L.L.C.
USDC Case No.: 3:19-cv-21440-BRM-DEA 12/27/2019 Pa463
Summons Served Debra E. Canova
USDC Case No.: 3:19-cv-21440-BRM-DEA 12/27/2019 Pa471
Letter To Hon. Michael A. Toto, A.J.S.C.
Middlesex County Courthouse 04/26/2020 Pa474
Michael J. Petrides Scholarship Fund Inc.
Dos ID #: 2068785
Lepore’s, Domestic Not-For-Profit Corp. 09/24/1996 Pa479
IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED.
x
 68a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX VOLUME THREE

Appendix
Document/Exhibit Title or Description Date Page Number

LPL 885 LLC, Dos ID #: 4209505

Louis Lepore, Home Address LLC Corp. 02/29/2012 Pa494
State Risk File No.: 19-7704 12/12/2019 Pa502
State Risk File No.: 20-762 02/26/2020 Pa507
State Risk File No.: 20-762 02/26/2020 Pa515
Louis Lepore, & Debra Canova
False Police Reports Against
Appellant, To Interfere With,
And Disturb, Fed. Reg. Activity
Case No.: 3:19-Cv-21440-Brm-Dea 12/31/2019 Pa525
Letter To Hon. Glenn A. Grant 01/03/2020 Pa537
Certified Answers To Interrogatories,
Questions 13, 14, AND Recordings,
Resubmitted Per Judge Rivas,
December 9, 2019, Orders,
While On Interlocutory Leave
To Appeal, Appellant Division 01/11/2020 Pa540

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED.

xi
 69a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX VOLUME FOUR

Appendix
Document/Exhibit Title or Description Date Page Number
Affidavit Resubmitted Certified
Answers To Interrogatories,
Questions 13, 14, And Tape Recordings,
Per The December 9, 2019, Order 01/11/2020 Pa614

Judge Alberto Rivas, 12/09/2019, Order 12/09/2019 Pa620

Letter To Hon. Brian Martinotti, U.S.D.J.

Appellant Fully Complied With Judge Rivas,
December 9, 2019, Order (Interrogatories) 01/13/2020 Pa625

Letter To Supreme Court Judge County Of

Richmond, City Of New York,
Appellant Fully Complied With Judge Rivas
December 9, 2019, Order (Interrogatories) 01/13/2020 Pa627

Email To: Hon. Stuart Rabner, Chief Justice

Re.: Notice Of Motion For Vacation Of
March 15, 2019 Dismissal Without Prejudice
Resubmitted As Per The April 26, 2019 Order 05/09/2019 Pa632

Judge Goodzeit April 25, 2019, Order 04/26/2019 Pa644

Vacation Of The Dismissal Without Prejudice

N.J. Ct. R. 4:23-5(A)(1); Resubmitted, As
Per The April 26, 2019, Order. 05/04/2019 Pa645

Affidavit Certified Answers To Interrogatories

Questions 13, 14 & Each Subpart Thereof
Resubmitted Per April 25, 2019 Order 05/04/2019 Pa657

Certified Answers To Interrogatories

Questions 13, 14, And Each Subpart,
Resubmitted Per April 26, 2019, Order 05/04/2019 Pa663

Middlesex County Sherriff’s Office

Operations Report 2020-000025
Appellant Falsely Accused
Threatening Judge Alberto Rivas 01/03/2020 Pa770

Further Criminal Harassment Of

Appellant By Judge Alberto Rivas
For Serving His Courthouse Federal
Summons And Complaint Upon Him 01/09/2020 Pa771

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED.

xii
 70a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX VOLUME FOUR

Appendix
Document/Exhibit Title or Description Date Page Number

Judge Alberto Rivas, False Gun Threat

Victim Judge Alberto Rivas 56 Paterson Street
Employee Type: County/Vicinage
Employee County: Middlesex
Judiciary Incident Report
Incident Number: I-8121
Incident Type: Judge Threat
Incident Sub Type: Vexatious Litigant
Where Did The Incident Occur? Chambers
Was A Weapon Involved? Yes
Were Weapons Used Or Threatened
To Be Used? Threatened
Weapons Involved: Gun. 01/17/2020 Pa772

Hon. Glen A. Grant, Appellant

Filed A Motion In U.S. District
Court Of New Jersey For A Temporary
Restraining Order Against Judge Rivas 01/09/2020 Pa774

Letter From Appellant To Gurbir S. Grewal

Office Of Attorney General 01/05/2020 Pa775

Office Of Internal Affairs Division

Middlesex County Sherriff’s Office 01/05/2020 Pa778

Jsmart/Sams Weekly Police Intelligence

Overview Report Re: Criminal Harassment
Of The Appellant False Gun Threats
Falsely Report By Judge Alberto Rivas 01/03/2020 Pa781

False Petition For Temporary Extreme

Risk Protective Order Filed Against
The Appellant 02/05/2020 Pa784

False Police Report Filed By

Defendant Louis P. Lepore, Esq.
& Defendant Debra E. Canova,
To Numerous Police Agencies
To Interfere And Disturb A
Federally Regulated Activity
Marchisotto Vs. Rivas,
Case No.: 3:19-Cv-21440-Brm-Dea,
And To Criminally Harass Appellant 01/03/2020 Pa786

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED.

xiii
 71a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX VOLUME FIVE

Appendix
Document/Exhibit Title or Description Date Page Number

Patricia Zippo
Forensic Document Examine
Expert Report 1 10/22/2018 Pa801

Forensic Document Examiner

Expert Report 2 11/13/2018 Pa858

John L. Marchisotto, Deceased Fiancé For 12 Years

Rose Cofone Notarized Letter 05/15/2018 Pa910

U.S. District Court Case; 3:19-cv-21440-BRM-DEA

Application For Restraining Order,
Preliminary Injunction Order,
Holding Judge Alberto Rivas, In Civil
/ Criminal Contempt Of Court. 01/05/2020 Pa920

Hon. Brian R. Martinotti U.S.D.J.

Case: 3:19-Cv-21440-Brm-Dea, Order 01/14/2020 Pa959

Hon. Brian R. Martinotti U.S.D.J.

Case: 3:19-Cv-12540-Brm-Dea, Order 01/14/2020 Pa962

Andrew C. Munger, Deputy A.G.

Attorney For Hon. Alberto Rivas,
And Hon. Justice Stuart Rabner 01/27/2020 Pa965

Emergency TRO Against Judge Rivas

And Justice Rabner. 02/07/2020 Pa967

False Petition For Temporary Extreme Risk

Protective Order (Unlawful Retaliation) 02/07/2020 Pa969

False Arrest Complaint & Summons

Unlawful Retaliation / Criminal Harass.
To Interfere With A Fed. Reg. Act. 02/07/2020 Pa971

Appellant Letter Hon. Brian Martinotti

Requesting An Emergency Hearing. 02/10/2020 Pa973

Commonwealth Durable General Power Of

Attorney (New York Statutory Short Form) 11/03/2003 Pa976

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED.

xiv
 72a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Rules
R. 2:2-3(a)
R. 2:10-2.
R. 1:21.
R. 1:21-1(c)
R. 4:23-5
R. 4:23-5(a)(2)
R. 4:5-1(b)(2).
R. 4:29-1(b).
R. 4:17
R. 1:4-8
N.J.R.E. 403
N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1,
R. 4:87
R. 1:9-2
R. 4:10-1
R. 4:14-7(c)
N.J.R.E. 401.
N.J.R.E. 402.
N.J.R.E. 403.
R. 4:6-2(e).
R. 4:49-2.
R. 4:50-1(c).
R. 4:17.

State Statutes / Other Legislative Authority

UTC Trust Code, N.J.S.A. 3B:31-1 et seq. (Public law 2015,

chapter 276).
N.J.S.A. 14A:17-1 through 18.
N.J.S.A. 4:4-3,
N.J.S.A. 2C:28-4(a)
N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.
N.J.S.A.2A:1549.

Cannons
RULE 1.1 Integrity and Impartiality of the Judiciary
RULE 1.2 A judge shall respect and comply with the law
RULE 2.1 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
RULE 2.2 External Influences on Judicial Conduct
RULE 2.3 Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office
RULE 3.6 Bias and Prejudice
RULE 3.7 Ensuring the Right to Be Heard
RULE 3.8 Ex Parte Communications

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

xv
 73a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Title 2A - ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NJ REV STAT § 2A:15-49 (2013)

What constitutes: No judge of any court shall sit on the trial

of or argument of any matter in controversy in a cause pending
in his court, when he:

c. Has given his opinion upon a matter in question in such

action; or
d. Is interested in the event of such action.
g. when there is any other reason which might preclude a fair
and unbiased hearing and judgment, or which might reasonably
lead counsel or the parties to believe so.

RULE 1:12. Disqualification And Disability Of Judges

R. 1:12-1. Cause for Disqualification; On the Court's Motion The

judge of any court shall be disqualified on the court's own
motion and shall not sit in any matter, if the judge

R. 1:12-1(d) has given an opinion upon a matter in question in

the action;

R. 1:12-1(e). is interested in the event of the action;

R. 1:12-1(g). when there is any other reason which might

preclude a fair and unbiased hearing and judgment, or which
might reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe so.

R. 1:12-2. Disqualification on Party's Motion

Any party, on motion made to the judge before trial or argument
and stating the reasons therefor, may seek that judge's
disqualification.

CONSTITUTION OF NEW JERSEY 1947

Article VI. Judicial Section, Section VI (4)

The Justices of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the Superior
Court and the Judges of the County Courts shall be subject to
impeachment, and any judicial officer impeached shall not
exercise his office until acquitted. The Judges of the Superior
Court and the Judges of the County Courts shall also be subject
to removal from office by the Supreme Court for such causes and
in such manner as shall be provided by law.

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

xvi
 74a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Article VII. Public Officers and Employees Section I Section III

(1) The Governor and all other State officers, while in office
and for two years thereafter, shall be liable to impeachment for
misdemeanor committed during their respective continuance in
office.

Cases

Molecular Medicine and Immunology v. Twp. of Belleville, 357

N.J. Super. 41, 48 (App. Div. 2003).

In re Appeal of Howard D. Johnson Co., 36 N.J. 443, 446 (1962).

State v. Steele, 92 N.J. Super. 498, 507 (App. Div. 1966).

Kavanaugh v. Quigley, 63 N.J. Super. 153, 158 (App. Div. 1960).

State v. Pomianik, 221 N.J. 66, 80 (2015).

Manalapan Realty v. Manalapan Tp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378

(1995).

Jadlowski v. Owens-Corning, 283 N.J. Super. 199, 221 (App. Div.

1995).

State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 186-87 (1997).

Packard-Bamberger & Co. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427, 443-44 (2001)

(attorneys' fees).

Musto v. Vidas, 333 N.J. Super. 52, 74 (App. Div. 2000)

(prejudgment interest).

Maul v. Kirkman, 270 N.J. Super. 596, 619-20 (App. Div. 1994).

Cooper v. Leatherman Tool Group, 532 U.S. 424, 431 (2001).

Central R.R. v. Neeld, 26 N.J. 172, 177 (1958).

Crews v. Garmoney, 141 N.J. Super. 93, 96 (App.Div. 1976).

Capital Health System, Inc. v. Horizon Healthcare Services,

Inc., 230 N.J. 73, 79-80 (2017).

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

xvii
 75a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases

Clark v. Pomponio, 397 N.J. Super. 630, 645 (App. Div.), certif.
denied, 195 N.J. 420 (2008); accord Pressler & Verniero, supra,
comment 1.1 on R. 4:23-5 (quoting 1990 Report on the Committee
on Civil Practice.)

Eatough v. Bd of Med. Exam’rs 191 N.J. Super 166, 173 [465 A2d
934] (App Div, 1983)
Constant v Pac. Nat’l Ins Co, 84 N.J. Super 211, 216 [201 A2d
405] (App [Law]Div.1964).

Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1305 (10th Cir. 1997)

United States v. Greenspan, 26 F.3d 1001, 1005 (10th Cir. 1994)

Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 859-60, 108

S.Ct. 2194, 2202-03, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988)

United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993)

Battle v. State, 298 Ga. 661, 784 S.E.2d 381 (Ga. 2016)

State v. Riordan, 146 N.M. 281, 209 P.3d 773, 776 (2009)

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)

Haworth v. Superior Court, 235 P.3d 152, 50 Cal.4th 372, 112

Cal. Rptr. 3d 853 (Cal. 2010)
Peterson v. U.S.
Wallin v. Miller
Ex Parte James 713 So. 2d 869 (Ala. 1997)

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

xviii
 76a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases

Hillig v. Commissioner, 916 F. 2d 171, 174 (4th Cir. 1990).

Navarro v. Cohan, 856 F. 2d 141, 142 (11th Cir. 1988).

State v. Lykes, 192 N.J. 519, 534 (2007).

In re Itel Sec. Litig., 791 F.2d 672, 675 (9th Cir. 1986), cert.
denied, 479 U.S. 1033 91987.
Kreager v. Solomon & Flanagan, P.A. 775 F.2d 1541, 1542-43 (11th
Cir. 1985).
Lipsig v. Nation Student Mktg. Corp., 663 F.2d 178, 180-81 (D.C.
Cir. 1980).

Link v. Walbash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962).

Toll Bros. v. Township of West Windsor, 190 N.J. 61, 67 (2007).

McKeown-Brand v. Trump Castle Hotel & Casino, 132 N.J. 546

(1993).

Toll Bros., 190 N.J. at 67-68.

Belfer v. Merling, 322 N.J. Super. 124, 144 (App. Div.), certif.
denied, 162 N.J. 196 (1999).

Tagayun v. AmeriChoice of New Jersey, 2016 N.J. Super. LEXIS 127

(App. Div. Sept. 20, 2016).

Atalesa v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014).

PANITCH V. PANITCH, 339 New Jersey Superior Court at 63, Pages

66 to 67, Appellate Division 2001

In STATE V. BILAL (phonetic), 221 New Jersey 608 (2018)

Abtrax Pharm. V. Elkins-Sinn, Inc., 139 N.J. 499, 517 (1995).

Universal Folding Box Co., supra, 351 N.J. Super. At 233

(quoting Zimmerman v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 260 N.J. Super.
368, 374 (App. Div. 1992)).

St. James AME Dev. Corp., supra, 403 N.J. Super. At 484.

Adedoyin v. Arc of Morris Cty. Chapter, Inc., 325 N.J. Super.

173, 181 (App. Div. 1999).

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

xix
 77a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases

Zimmerman, supra, 260 N.J. Super. at 378.

Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739,
746 (1989).
Center for Molecular Medicine and Immunology v. Twp. of
Belleville, 357 N.J. Super. 41, 48 (App. Div. 2003).
In re Appeal of Howard D. Johnson Co., 36 N.J. 443, 446 (1962).
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 333 (1971).
State v. Wilson, 57 N.J. 39, 50-51 (1970).
State v. Harper, 128 N.J. Super. 270, 276-77 (App. Div. 1974).
Brett v. Great Am. Recreation, 144 N.J. 479, 503 (1996).
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328,
340 (2010).
State v. Prall, 231 N.J. 567, 581, 587-88(2018).
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 338 (1971); State v. Slobodian, 57
N.J. 18, 23 (1970).
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967).
State v. Scherzer, 301 N.J. Super. 363, 441 (App. Div. 1997).
State v. Thomas, 362 N.J. Super. 229, 244 (App. Div. 2003).
State v. Camacho, 218 N.J. 533, 554 (2014),
Arizona v. Fulmanante, 499 U.S. 279, 306 (1991).
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 7 (1999).
State v. Gillispie, 208 N.J. 59, 93 (2011).
Serenity Contracting v. Fort Lee, 306 N.J. Super. 151, 159 (App.
Div. 1997).
State v. Steele, 92 N.J. Super. 498, 507 (App. Div. 1966).
Kavanaugh v. Quigley, 63 N.J. Super. 153, 158 (App. Div. 1960).
State v. Pomianik, 221 N.J. 66, 80 (2015).
Manalapan Realty v. Manalapan Tp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378
(1995).
Packard-Bamberger & Co. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427, 443-44 (2001).
Musto v. Vidas, 333 N.J. Super. 52, 74 (App. Div. 2000).
Maul v. Kirkman, 270 N.J. Super. 596, 619-20 (App. Div. 1994).
Cooper v. Leatherman Tool Group, 532 U.S. 424, 431 (2001).

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

xx
 78a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases

Capital Health System, Inc. v. Horizon Healthcare Services,

Inc., 230 N.J. 73, 79-80 (2017).
State v. Nantambu, 221 N.J. 390, 402 (2015), (quoting State v.
Harris, 209 N.J. 431, 439 (2012)).
State v. Erazo, 126 N.J. 112, 131 (1991); State v. Ramseur, 106
N.J. 123, 266 (1987).
Carey v. Lovett, 132 N.J. 44, 64 (1993) Pressler & Verniero,
Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 4.7(b) on R. 2:10-2 (2019)).
State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 167-68 (1997)).
Estate of Hanges v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 202 N.J. 369,
384-85 (2010).
State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 186-87 (1997).
Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound Security, 185 N.J. 100, 115 (2005).
Wolosoff v. CSI Liquidating Trust, 205 N.J. Super. 349, 306
(App. Div. 1985).
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94
S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974).

Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2000).

Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

xxi
 79a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Federal Court
Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal
Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23.
Section 242 of Title 18 U.S.
U.S. Constitution; XIV,§ Section 1, 14th Amendment Constitutional
Rights, of the federal constitution.
Deprivation of Rights, under color of law, Section 2 of Article
III, Title 42 US code 1983.
U.S.C., Section 242, Title 42 US code 1983, U.S. Const.. XIV, §
Section 1, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367.
18 U.S. Code $1621, and 18 U.S. Code $1623.

440 Civil Rights – Other Civil Rights, for the cause of 42:1983,
Civil Rights Act.
Section 2 of Article III, Title 42 US code 1983,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).

42 U.S. Code § 1985(2)(3).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a), and 65(b)

28 U.S.C. § 455

28 U.S.C. § 144 and 455(a).

TREASON BY A JUDGE

U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392,
406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5
L.Ed 257 (1821)

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

xxii
 80a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

USCA for the Third Circuit, Case No.: 20-1870

USCA for the Third Circuit, Case No.: 20-2271

USCA for the Third Circuit, Case No.: 20-2134

U.S. District Court of New Jersey

MARCHISOTTO v. RIVAS, et al, Docket No.: 3:19-cv-21440-BRM-DEA.

MARCHISOTTO v. GOODZEIT et al, Docket No.: 3:19-cv-12540-DEA

Supreme / Appellate Court New York

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. v. DEBRA E. CANOVA et al, Appellate

Division - 2nd Dept - Appeal #: 2020-06261
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. v. DEBRA E. CANOVA et al, Index
#: 152396/2019.

Other: New Jersey State Tort Liability

Title 59, Re: 12/12/2019, State Risk file No.: 19-7704

Title 59, Re: 01/05/2020 State Risk file No.: 20-762
Title 59, Re: 02/07/2020 State Risk file No.: 20-762

Judge Rivas, False Judiciary Gun Threat Incident Report

Judge Alberto Rivas, False Judiciary Incident Report: I-8121

Judge Rivas, Defendant’s Canova & Lepore, False Terpo – Gun

Threats
In the Matter of John Marchisotto Petition No.: 1511 XTR 2020
000002

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

xxiii
 81a
Appellate Division Docket No.: A-003453-19 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF PARTIES
Appellate Party Trial Court/ Trial Court/Agency
Party Name Designation Agency Party Role Party Status
John F.
Marchisotto Appellant Plaintiff Participated Below

Debra E. Canova Respondent Defendant Participated Below

Louis P. Lepore,
Esq. Respondent Defendant Participated Below
Mm

The Law Offices of

Louis Lepore, P.C. Respondent Defendant Participated Below

Louis Lepore, Esq.,

P.L.L.C. Respondent Defendant Participated Below

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

xxiv
 82a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

TABLE OF TRANSCRIPT VOLUMES

Transcript Proceeding
Number Date

1T = ................................................. 06/02/2020
2T = .................................................05/07/2020
3T = .................................................04/01/2020
4T = .................................................12/09/2019
5T = ................................................. 04/25/2019
6T = ................................................. 03/15/2019
7T = ................................................. 01/11/2019
8T = ................................................. 12/14/2018
9T = ................................................. 11/15/2018
10T = ................................................ 10/25/2018
11T = ................................................. 08/08/2018

Pa = plaintiff/appellant's appendix

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED,

xxv
 83a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On March 15, 2018, Appellant brought, In the Matter of the

Irrevocable Trust of John L. Marchisotto, deceased, before the

Somerset County, Superior Court Chancery Division, Probate Part,

seeking relief by way of summary action, based upon the facts

set forth in an order to show cause, and verified complaint;

Pursuant to R.4:83-1 and for good cause shown.

Appellant was requesting subpoenas for all of Decedent’s

accounts, to unveil all account number changes, and owner

changes, and where Decedent’s liquidated monies were moved to.

Appellant was requesting subpoenas for all of Decedent’s

signature signed financial account changes, to unveil financial

account signature tampering. Appellant was requesting subpoenas

for all of Decedent’s medical, hospital, nursing home records,

and home health care records, for the last year of his life.

Appellant was requesting the court to compel Defendants to

provide a full, and complete formal accounting, with certified

copies of bank statements, tax returns, with supporting 1099’s,

to show were all the numbers came from, for the last year of

decedents life.

Appellant was requesting for the court to compel Defendants

for a full formal accounting, of Decedent’s, Revocable trust

assets, to Irrevocable trust assets, that was used to fund; The

Irrevocable Trust of John L. Marchisotto, deceased, prior to his

death, while Defendant Debra E. Canova was acting as his

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 1 of 65
 84a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

HealthCare Proxy, Power of Attorney, in last year of his life.

The June 2, 2016, Irrevocable Trust of John L. Marchisotto,

deceased, was created by Defendant Debra E. Canova, while acting

as Decedents HealthCare Proxy, Power of Attorney, in the last

four months of his life. The decedent died on October 2, 2016.

(See Commonwealth Durable General Power of Attorney 11/03/2003

(New York Statutory Short Form (Pa976)).

In October 2015, John L. Marchisotto, deceased, sustained a

concussion to his head, after falling down hitting the pavement,

at the Bridgewater Diner, in Bridgewater New Jersey. In July

2015, months prior, Decedent had prostate cancer, and went for a

cycle of cyber knife radiation treatments. In November 2015

Decedent was already very weak, confused, and unable to stay

alone. Decedent had the start of an untreatable infection,

causing his body to become septic, causing numerous high fevers,

bizarre hallucinations, confusion, vulnerability, medical and

physical instability. Defendant Canova was acting as Decedents

HealthCare Proxy, Power of Attorney, using the Commonwealth

Durable General Power of Attorney 11/03/2003 (New York Statutory

Short Form (Pa976)).

In March 2016, and June 2016, John L. Marchisotto,

deceased, had major surgeries, at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital

in Manhattan New York, by Dr. Steven Brandes, and Dr. Steven

Lee-Kong, for a fistula in his colon, causing reoccurring septic

infection’s, hallucinations, high fevers, congest heart failure,

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 2 of 65
 85a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

numerous emergencies, and repeat hospital admissions, in the

last eight months of his life. Decedent was physically,

medically, psychologically, helpless, and very confused. The

Appellant who is the son of the Deceased, was very close to his

dad, and there by his side, through all of this.

The June 2, 2016, Irrevocable trust, and new will, was a

product of Fraud, Forgery, Elder Abuse, Theft by Deception,

Undue Influence, Breach of Power of Attorney, Breach of

Fiduciary Duty, and believed by the Appellant, not legal under

the law. (See Commonwealth Durable General Power of Attorney

11/03/2003 (New York Statutory Short Form (Pa976)). Appellant

Division, should reverse Appellants dismissal with Prejudice,

and REVOKE, The June 2, 2016, Irrevocable Trust of John L.

Marchisotto, deceased; “In the Interest of Justice”.

Deceased, John L. Marchisotto, was not mentally, medically,

or physically, able to retain an attorney from Staten Island,

N.Y., to change his long time 11/03/2003, Revocable trust, while

admitted to Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, in Manhattan N.Y.

On May 10, 2016. Defendant Canova, retained Defendant Louis

P. Lepore, Esq., by forging Decedent’s signature onto a $4,000

Chase Check. (Pa801). Defendant Canova, forged the Decedent’s

signature also onto the May 9, 2016, retainer agreement,

retaining, Defendant Lepore, to create the new Irrevocable trust

and will. (Pa858).

From May 4, 2016, to May 13, 2016, Decedent was admitted to

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 3 of 65
 86a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in Manhattan N.Y. On May 14,

2016, Decedent was readmitted back again to Roosevelt Nursing

Home in Edison N.J. On May 10, 2016, Decedent had an episode of

Congestive Heart Failure, at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, and

was worked on by a team of doctors, and lay close to dying.

Decedent was not making any of his own medical or financial

decisions. Decedent was physically impaired, and was dependent

on Defendant Canova for his healthcare, and wellbeing. Defendant

Canova was in total control of John L. Marchisotto, deceased,

medication, and in a position to apply undue pressure. Defendant

Canova threat of withholding medication, or food, or threaten to

keep him living at the Roosevelt nursing home, that she put him

in, and he did want to stay at, can be enough to force a victim

to sign documents, or take actions, he otherwise would never do.

And these “threats” need not be expressed. Just knowing that

someone who controls your medicine and food, medical care,

hospital care, home health aide care, and that wants you to do

something, is enough of a “threat” to overcome the victim John

L. Marchisotto, deceased, free-will.

Defendant Canova even forced Decedent, to break up with

his longtime girlfriend / fiancé for over 12 years, because she

saw her as a threat to her, and because she was being

continuously questioning her on, all the poor decisions she was

making. (Pa910). Defendant Canova was not providing, Decedent

with adequate, and proper care, and was waiting for him to die,
IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 4 of 65
 87a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

so she could get away with stealing all his Chase, Fidelity,

Broker, IRA, Investments, Bank Accounts, Liquid Monies, Personal

Property, and his Home. (See Commonwealth Durable General Power

of Attorney 11/03/2003 (New York Statutory Short Form (Pa976)).

Defendant Lepore, Unjustly Enriched himself, by lying to,

and defrauding Decedent, telling him, his 11/03/2003 Revocable

trust, and prior will was not legal, because it had his

Brooklyn, N.Y. address affixed to it. The Appellant Division

should reverse, Appellant dismissal with prejudice, and REVOKE,

“in the interest of justice”, the June 2, 2016, Irrevocable

trust, and new will, entirely, because it’s a product of fraud,

deceit, deception, undue influence, and Appellant believes, not

legal under the law. (Pa910).

On April 1, 2020, the trial court’s orders of dismissal

with prejudice (Pa7; Pa11), without a trial, was in violation of

Appellant’s Constitutional Rights. Appellate Division Judges,

should reverse, remand, this matter for rehearing before a new

trial court, judge, and jurisdiction, for further consideration;

“in the interest of justice”.

Appellant had fully complied with all discovery orders to

the best of his abilities, before both trial court judges. It is

the Appellant’s position, that the trial court judges denied him

of his legal rights, and prevented him the ability, to prove his

legal matter before the court. The court’s dismissal with

prejudice was erroneous, legally defective, retaliatory, and

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 5 of 65
 88a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

resulted in "harmful error", by trial court judge, who sought to

dispose of his legal matter without due process. This “harmful

error” is properly raised below, "clearly capable of producing

an unjust result." R.2:10-2. (Pa540; Pa614; Pa620; Pa625; Pa627;

Pa632; Pa644; Pa645; Pa657; Pa663).

Rule 2:10-2 provides that "the appellate court may, in the

interests of justice, notice plain error not brought to the

attention of the trial or appellate court." This means that even

when no party to the appeal raises a particular issue, the

appellate court may raise it "where upon the total scene it is

manifest that justice requires consideration of an issue central

to a correct resolution of the controversy and the lateness of

the hour is not itself a source of countervailing prejudice."

Center for Molecular Medicine and Immunology v. Twp. of

Belleville, 357 N.J. Super. 41, 48 (App. Div. 2003) (quoting In

re Appeal of Howard D. Johnson Co., 36 N.J. 443, 446 (1962)).

The interpretation or misapplication of the law, sanction

orders, imposed upon the Appellant, to pay $81,848.70 in legal

fees and $3,976.33 in expenses and costs, for a total of

$85,825.03 to the defendant, Debra Canova, should be reversed

and dismissed in its entirety. The trial court judge sanction

orders was “harmful error”, R. 2:10-2, saying Appellant solely

brought, I.T.M.O. The Irrevocable Trust of John L. Marchisotto,

deceased, to court, to harass, or subdue, an adversary, labeling

him as a “vexatious litigant”, and saying Appellant Complaint,

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 6 of 65
 89a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

and legal matter, was nothing but a “junk suit” (Pa1).

If a judge makes a discretionary decision but acts under a

misconception of the applicable law, the appellate court need

not give the usual deference but instead must adjudicate the

controversy in the light of the applicable law in order that a

manifest denial of justice be avoided. State v. Steele, 92 N.J.

Super. 498, 507 (App. Div. 1966); Kavanaugh v. Quigley, 63 N.J.

Super. 153, 158 (App. Div. 1960). In any case, a "trial court's

interpretation of the law and the consequences that flow from

established facts are not entitled to any special deference."

State v. Pomianik, 221 N.J. 66, 80 (2015) (quoting Manalapan

Realty v. Manalapan Tp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)).

Judge Rivas, has made “harmful error”, in his December 9,

2019, orders (Pa19), violate the res judicata doctrine. Judge

Rivas, allowed Defendant Louis P. Lepore, Esq., to relitigate,

enumerated document requests discovery (Pa56), tape recordings,

he, and Defendant Canova, did not like, which was already ruled

upon, and was already accepted by Judge Margaret Goodzeit, and

was not a discovery requirement, as per her April 26, 2019,

orders (Pa24). Judge Rivas “harmful error” allowed Defendant

Lepore, and Defendant Canova, another bite at that apple. (4T).

On December 9, 2019, Judge Rivas, entire treatment of

Appellant, was “totally outrageous”, “abusive”, “one-sided”,

“judicial misconduct”, and “fraud upon the court”.

Judge Rivas conducted an abusive, retaliatory, and

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 7 of 65
 90a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

harassing, court proceeding against the Appellant, whom had

pending litigation in U.S. District Court of New Jersey, against

Judge Margaret Goodzeit.

On December 9, 2019, during an abusive, retaliatory, and one-sided,

bias, court hearing, Judge Rivas, threatened the Appellant, and made
him afraid to speak freely in his courtroom, and said “-- dire
consequences. You’re not a child. Last warning, because I have a
time out room for you, where you can cool your heels.” (4T59).

Judge Rivas entire “harmful”, “harassing”, and “abusive”,

treatment of Appellant, was “threatening”, clearly outside the

scope of his judicial duties, and a clear deprivation of

Appellants rights, under Section 2 of Article III, Title 42 US

code 1983. (4T).

Judge Rivas, violated Appellant’s Constitutional rights, to

hear his motion to disqualify, The Law Offices of Louis Lepore,

P.C., Louis Lepore, Esq., P.L.L.C., and Louis P. Lepore, Esq.,

for directly violating Rule 1:21., Practice of Law. Appellant

had filed his motion properly, with the Middlesex County court,

and R. 1:21., had never been heard before, in any prior court

proceedings. Judge Rivas “harmful error”, “abuse of discretion”,

“misapplication of law”, accepting Defendant Lepore, res-judicia

doctrine, argument, was so erroneous. Judge Goodzeit August 9,

2018, orders, had nothing to do with Rule 1:21., Practice of

Law. (Pa55).

On April 1, 2020, Judge Alberto Rivas, had a conflict of

interest stemming, from a December 17, 2019, Federal Lawsuit,

Appellant filed against him (Pa248). Judge Rivas is a Defendant

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 8 of 65
 91a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

in U.S. District Court of New Jersey, pertaining to this matter,

and threatening, abusing, and violating Appellant rights. (4T).

Appellant claims “harmful error” was properly raised below,

"clearly capable of producing an unjust result." the standards

that govern that type of error were harmful and the Appellate

Division should reverse.

“No judge of any court, shall sit on the trial of, or argument of,
any matter in controversy, in a cause, pending in his court, when he
is interested in the events of the action”; N.J. Ct. R.1:12-1(e),(g),
R.1:12-2, N.J.S.A. 2A:1549., and R. 2:10-2.

Canon 2A. says a Judge should avoid impropriety and the

appearance of impropriety in all activities. A judge should

respect and comply with the law, and should act at all times in

a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and

impartiality of the judiciary. (R. 1.2; R. 1.1; R. 2.1; R. 2.2;

R. 2.3; R. 3.6; R. 3.7; R. 3.8).

Judge Rivas should be disqualified in this matter, because

Judge Rivas was partial, bias, abusive, threatening, harassing,

and interested in the events of such trial court actions, before

him. Under § 455(a), "a judge has a continuing duty to recuse

before, during, or, in some circumstances, … The Appellate

Division, must specifically consider whether Judge Rivas,

violation of section 455(a), is “harmful error”.

Haworth v. Superior Court, 235 P.3d 152, 50 Cal.4th 372,

112 Cal. Rptr. 3d 853 (Cal. 2010). In interpreting a comparable

provision of the federal law requiring recusal of a judge when

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 9 of 65

 92a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

his or her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (28

U.S.C. § 455(a)) …

Judge Rivas is a defendant in U.S. District Court, and U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, for violating Appellants

Constitutional Rights pertaining to this matter before him. As

the supreme court noted in Liljeberg v. Health servs. Corp., 486

U.S. 847, 859-60, 108 s.ct. 2194 2202-03, 100 1.ed.2d 855

(1988), the purpose of section 455(a) is "to promote public

confidence in the integrity of the judicial process." …

Judge Rivas referred to case law, State v. Marshall, 148

N.J. 89, 186-87 (1997), was a “harmful error” and is factually

deficient, and would not apply to Appellants matter. State v.

Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 186-87 (1997), says a judge cannot be

considered partial or biased merely because of rulings that are

unfavorable toward the party seeking recusal. N.J. R. 1:12-

1(g)., say’s recuse or be disqualified, When there is any other

reason which might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing, and

judgment, or which might reasonably lead counsel or the parties

to believe so.

"Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall

disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might
reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455 (a), as amended.

The trial court judges “harmful error” subjectively refused

to rule upon the merits of the case, in violation of the

Appellant’s constitutional legal rights. Canon 3A(6), a judge

should perform the duties of judicial office impartially and

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 10 of 65

 93a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

diligently. A judge should accord to every person who is legally

interested in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the full

right to be heard according to law, and, except as authorized by

law, neither initiate nor consider ex parte (continuous with

Defendant Lepore), or other communications concerning a pending

proceeding.

On December 27, 2019, Appellant served Judge Rivas with a

U.S. District Court Summons, and Complaint, for violating his

constitution rights (Pa440). Judge Rivas, thereafter, files a

false Middlesex County Judiciary Incident Report (I-8121), and

Sheriff’s Police report, claiming that Appellant threatened him

in his chambers, with a gun, which never happened (Pa772; Pa778;

Pa781; Pa784). Judge Rivas “criminally harassed”, “intimidated”,

Appellant and his family, to interfere with, and disturb, a

federally regulated activity that was brought against him;

Marchisotto v. Rivas et al, Docket No.: 3:19-cv-21440-BRM-DEA.

There is no evidence that Appellant’s actions were

willfully deceitful before the trial court to which harsh

sanctions could be legally applied. The Appellant believes

retaliatory sanctions were only imposed, because Appellant filed

a Federal lawsuit against Judge Rivas (Pa248).

The sanctions Judge Rivas imposed are legally defective,

retaliatory, and should be nullified. (Pa1). Further, the trial

Judge refused to recuse himself, or respond to Appellant’s

December 19, 2019, emergent motion, and December 21, 2019,

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 11 of 65

 94a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

motion for Judge’s Disqualification (Pa240; Pa308).

The Trial court’s “harmful error” “interpretation”, or

“misapplication” of the law, to include “discretionary sanction”

orders, imposed without any evidence, to show that, Appellant’s

actions was willfully, deceitful, or evasively litigious. Judge

Rivas “harmful error”, is inaccurate, and incomplete application

of the law. It is entirely premature at this juncture, that

discretionary harsh sanctions have been legally applied; U.S. v.

Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406

(1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed

257 (1821). (Pa1).

Judge Rivas, rigged Appellant’s dismissal with prejudice

out of sheer retaliation (Pa7; Pa11), and has engaged in an act,

or acts of treason.

Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act,
the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. Judge Rivas, acts
of treason, for the purpose to harass and intimidate the Appellant.

The supreme court has also held that if a judge Wars against the
constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in
treason to the constitution. If a judge acts after he has been
automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without
jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal
acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference
with interstate commerce. Courts have repeatedly ruled judges have no
immunity for their criminal acts. Both treason and the interference
with interstate commerce, are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to
engage in such acts.
The foregoing arguments must be reviewed through the lens

of an abuse of discretion standard. Packard-Bamberger & Co. v.

Collier, 167 N.J. 427, 443-44 (2001) (attorneys' fees); Musto v.

Vidas, 333 N.J. Super. 52, 74 (App. Div. 2000) (prejudgment

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 12 of 65
 95a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

interest); Maul v. Kirkman, 270 N.J. Super. 596, 619-20 (App.

Div. 1994) (punitive damages).

The punitive damages applied by the trial court are so

excessive as to violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the United

States Constitution. This necessarily mandates a de novo review.

Cooper v. Leatherman Tool Group, 532 U.S. 424, 431 (2001). The

Appellate Division Judges should reverse, dismiss in their

entirety, all sanctions imposed upon the Appellant, using this

standard. (Pa1; 28 U.S.C. § 455 (a), as amended).

A de novo review permits Appellate Court to take a fresh

look at the issues raised, as though the Appellate judges we’re

deciding those issues the first time. A de novo review applies

to pure legal issues, such as statutory interpretation. A de

novo review is a non-deferential standard of review, requiring

little consideration of the previous court’s finding and may

reverse the trial court’s ruling. The Appellate Court should

reverse, dismiss, all sanctions imposed using this standard.

On April 1, 2020, Judge Rivas, “harmful error”, “rigged”

dismissing Appellants complaint with prejudice to deprive him of

his rights, and to prevent him from moving forward to prove his

case before the court.

On August 9, 2018, orders (Pa55), Judge Goodzeit “harmful

error” dismissing Louis P. Lepore, Esq., as a defendant to this

matter. Appellant believes under N.J. Court Rule 4:6-2(e),

Defendant Lepore, fails to state the case standard, in order to

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 13 of 65

 96a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

dismiss. Defendant Lepore, was not entitled to dismiss, based on

his cause of actions to this matter. (11T).

Defendant Lepore, failed to state the case standard, nor had

articulated the legal standard in order to dismiss; R. 4:6-2(e),
“harmful error”. (11T).
Defendant Lepore, neither met the required standing upon which relief
may be granted in order to be dismissed from the appellants
complaint, “harmful error”. (11T).
A motion to dismiss should be granted where the allegations of the
complaint fail to state a viable Legal claim upon which remedy can be
granted, “harmful error”. Appellate had articulated “a legal basis
entitling him to relief,” Judge Goodzeit “harmful error”. (11T).
Pursuant to New Jersey Rule of Court 4:6-2(e), litigants

may move to dismiss an opponent’s complaint for “failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted” prior to filing

a responsive pleading. R. 4:6-2(e). Such a motion is decided by

“examining the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on the

face of the complaint.” Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs.

Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989).

During the August 8, 2018, hearing, Judge Goodzeit “harmful

error”, could not have possibly examined the legal sufficiency

of facts alleged on the fact of the complaint, prior to

Defendant Lepore furnishing his informal nor formal accountings,

to the court.

The reviewing court examines the complaint “in depth and

with liberality” to determine whether a possible cause of action

“may be gleaned even from an obscure statement of claim.” Ibid.

(quotations omitted). During such review, plaintiffs receive

“every reasonable inference of fact” alleged in the complaint.

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 14 of 65

 97a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

Judge Goodzeit “harmful error” Appellant complaint did not

receive, “every reasonable inference of fact” alleged in the

complaint.

Judge Margaret Goodzeit prematurely dismissal of Defendant

Lepore, was “harmful error”, raised below, and "clearly capable

of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2. The Appellate

Division, should reverse, remand, and order, Defendant Lepore,

Esq., back into this matter, as a Defendant.

On December 9, 2019, Judge Rivas “harmful error” refusing

to hear Appellant motions to disqualify, The Law Offices of

Louis Lepore, P.C., Louis Lepore Esq., P.L.L.C., and Louis P.

Lepore, Esq., as counsel for the Irrevocable Trust of John L.

Marchisotto, deceased, and for Defendant Debra E. Canova, was a

violation of his Constitutional rights, and should be heard here

now before the Appellate Division.

During the hearing, on December 9, 2019, the judge said “All right,
have a seat. Let’s -- I want to get a couple things straight. One,
Mr. Marchisotto, no more motions about the removal of Mr. Lepore.
That’s done, that’s been decided. Do not file anything else on that
issue, okay? Two, don’t send faxes to my chambers without the
express permission of my secretary” (4T04).
Defendant Lepore, “active paper corporations” are required

to file tax returns. Defendant Lepore falsely claims his

corporations only exist on paper, and he does not use them, is

legally untrue. Defendant Lepore has directly violated, R. 1:21.

Practice of Law, and should be disqualified from any further

attorney representation to this matter. The Appellant Court

should Sanction Defendant Lepore, Esq., on its own motion, for

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 15 of 65
 98a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

Defendant Lepore, Esq., continuous dishonesty, and fraud, here

before the court; R. 1:21. Practice of Law. (Pa102; Pa149;

Pa150; Pa165; Pa172; Pa189; Pa194; Pa200).

Defendant Lepore, Esq., appearing before, or filing any

papers here with, Appellate Division, directly violates R. 1:21.

Practice of Law. Defendant Lepore, Esq., law offices are

uninsured, and an active P.C., P.L.L.C., L.L.C., and Inc.

Defendant Lepore, Esq., does not maintain Professional

Liability Insurance, required by R. 1:21. Practice of law.

Defendant Lepore, Esq., is not a sole proprietorship, and his

“paper corporations”, exist, and required to file tax returns.

The law offices of louis Lepore P.C., DOS ID No# 4268814, Active P.C.
is uninsured, does not maintain professional liability insurance, and
has directly violated r 1:21, and entire appearance before the court
is fraud, and attorney misrepresentation. The new jersey supreme
court has no records of file for any professional liability insurance
maintains by louis Lepore, Active P.C.
Louis Lepore, Esq. P.L.L.C., DOS ID No# 3278376, Active P.L.L.C., is
uninsured, does not maintain Professional Liability Insurance, and
has directly violated R. 1:21, and entire appearance before the court
is fraud, and attorney misrepresentation. The new jersey supreme
court has no records on file for any professional liability insurance
maintains by Louis Lepore, Esq., Active P.L.L.C.

On 12/09/2019, Judge Rivas, court’s ruling was erroneous

“harmful error”, in applying Defendant Lepore, “res-judicata

doctrine", for a failure to hear the Appellant motion, to

disqualify Louis P. Lepore, Esq., for directly violated R. 1:21.

Practice of Law. “Harmful error” applying the res-judicata

doctrine for a motion for R. 1:21, that never was heard before

the trial court before.

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 16 of 65
 99a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

The trial court’s “harmful error” ruling deprived the

Appellant of a hearing on his emergent and non-emergent motions,

and further was deprived Appellant of an adjudication on the

merits. See Central R.R. v. Neeld, 26 N.J. 172, 177 (1958)

(holding that doctrine of res judicata does not normally come

into play where the parties have not had an adjudication on the

merits). Rule 1:21 has not been previously adjudicated or heard

before Judge Goodzeit, and Judge Rivas’ “harmful error” using

the doctrine of “res judicata” not hearing Appellate motions,

should be heard by the Appellate Division, and reversed.

On May 4, 2019, Appellant also had also moved to vacate

Judge Goodzeit, dismissal without prejudice (Pa645; Pa632;

Pa644; Pa657; Pa663). On December 9, 2019, the Judge Rivas

“harmful error” resulted in a failure to even hear, nor address,

Appellant’s Motion to vacate the dismissal without prejudice,

that was even filed prior to, Defendants Lepore and Defendant

Canova’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (See Appellant Written

Notice and Demand Letter (Pa176)). These two decisions are

logically independent, although the policy considerations behind

each decision are somewhat different. The defendant's right to

have the Appellant comply with procedural rules conflicts R.

4:23-5(a)(2), with the Appellant’s right to an adjudication of

the controversy on the merits. Crews v. Garmoney, 141 N.J.

Super. 93, 96 (App.Div. 1976).

On December 9, 2019, Judge Rivas, “harmful error” denying

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 17 of 65
 100a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

to hear the Appellant’s motion to vacate the dismissal without

prejudice, failing to provide Appellate a disposition on his

motion to vacate his dismissal without prejudice, conflicts with

the Appellant’s right to an adjudication of the controversy on

the merits. Crews v. Garmoney, 141 N.J. Super.93, 96 (App.Div.

1976). This “harmful error” was raised below, "clearly capable

of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2. (Pa645; Pa632; Pa644;

Pa657; Pa663). Appellant’s motion to vacate should be heard.

During the December 9, 2019, hearing, Judge Rivas

“threatened” Appellant, and made him afraid to speak before his

court, and said “-- dire consequences. You’re not a child. Last

warning, because I have a time out room for you, where you can

cool your heels.” (4T59).

The Appellate courts should reverse the trial court's

discovery rulings for abuse of discretion and the trial court's

“misunderstanding”, or “misapplication of the law”. Capital

Health System, Inc. v. Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc., 230

N.J. 73, 79-80 (2017). Appellant’s was denied the right to an

adjudication of the controversy on the merits. Crews v.

Garmoney, 141 N.J. Super.93, 96 (App.Div. 1976). Judge Rivas,

failed to hear, or adjudicate Appellant May 4, 2019, motion,

(Pa645; Pa632; Pa644; Pa657; Pa663), to vacate his dismissal

without prejudice. Judge Rivas “harmful error” only wanted to

hear Defendant Canova motion for a dismissal with prejudice.

Defendant Lepore, has had ex parte communications with judge.

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 18 of 65

 101a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

II. HISTORY/FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In May of 2019, this matter was transferred to Middlesex

County after Appellant filed a U.S. District Court federal

lawsuit against Judge Margaret Goodzeit, and Someset Surrogate

Frank Bruno, due to a conflict of interest. See Marchisotto vs.

Goodzeit; Case No.: 3:19-cv-12540 BRM DEA.

The Middlesex County matter was already assigned, to the

Honorable Mathias E. Rodriguez, and was not to be heard by Judge

Alberto Rivas. It is the Appellant’s position, Judge Rivas,

assigned it to himself, through ex parte communications, and

phone calls made to his chambers, by Defendant Lepore, Esq.,

that was in process, Ex Parte James 713 So. 2d 869 (Ala. 1997).

In the Appellant’s November 6, 2019 letter to Hon.

Mathias E. Rodriguez, the Appellant states that he:

“Strongly objects to Defendant Lepore, application of NJ Ct. R.4:29-

1(b), to join chase to Somerset County / Middlesex County Docket No.:
18-00394, and that Defendant Lepore, and Defendant Canova, claims
that the trust was properly formed is complete and total was fraud.”
(Pa61).

In the Appellant’s letter to the Honorable Rodriquez, also

wrote:

“Defendant Lepore, Esquire, and the Law Offices of Louis Lepore,

P.C., does not carry New Jersey Professional Libility Insurance,
which is required by N.J. Ct. R.1:21-1(c), for licensed attorney’s
and law firms that are P.A., P.C. or L.L.C. The NJ State Supreme
Court has no records for this information” (Pa102; Pa150; Pa165;
Pa172; Pa189; Pa194; Pa200).
On November 21, 2019, Appellant wrote a letter to the Judge

Rivas, in reponse to, and to request an adjourment, to the

expedited, December 2, 2019 hearing date, to hear Defendant

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 19 of 65
 102a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

Lepore’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. Appellant received no

notice about this hearing date from the Middlesex County Court

(Pa165). Rather, the Appellant only received a November 20,

2019, notice letter written by Defendant Lepore. (Pa100).

In the Appellant’s November 21, 2019 letter to Judge Rivas,

the Appellant also advised that :

“On may 4, 2019, I had filed a Notice of Motion to reinstate,

dismissal without prejudice, N.J. Ct. Rule 4:23-5(a)(1), and for the
court to consider such application anew, as per the April 26, 2019,
court order. Plaintiff Motion For Vacation of the Dismissal Order,
calendar, has never been heard, and should be heard prior to, any of
Defendant Lepore, desparate Motion’s to Dismiss, with Predjudice,
that he filed Afterwood, on or about, May 16, 2019” (Pa645; Pa657;
Pa663).
Further, in the Appellant’s November 21, 2019 letter to
Judge Rivas, Appellant states that:

“On May 4, 2019, I had also fully, responsively, comprehensibly, have

provided a separate responses, for each named individual, to
interrogatories 13 and 14, and each subpart thereof, under oath and
certification, based on all information reasonably available, and to
the best of my abilities, pursuant to N.J. Ct. R.4:17, within the
manner and time, prescribed by the rules governing the courts of the
State of New Jersey, and as per the April 26, 2019, court order”
(Pa645; Pa657; Pa663).
The Appellant had fully complied with all trial court

discovery orders dated April 26, 2019 (Pa24; Pa645; Pa657;

Pa663), and December 9, 2019, (Pa19; Pa540; Pa614; Pa620, Pa625;

Pa627; Pa632) to the best of the Appellant’s abilities, and

within the time allowed by the Rules of Court. There was nothing

erroneous, on its face, with Appellant’s interrogatory answers.

The Appellant was denied discretionary discovery, to obtain

certified financial documents, tax returns, medical records,

hospital records, nursing home records, through subpoenas.

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 20 of 65

 103a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

This “harmful error” was properly raised below, "clearly capable

of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2. If anyone was denied

their discovery, it was Appellant, not the Defendants.

Judge Rivas’ actions rise to impropriety, or the appearance

of impropriety, in conflict with Canon 2A: A judge should

respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a

manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and

impartiality of the judiciary, N.J. Ct. R.2.1. Judge Rivas

clearly acted outside the scope of his judicial duties, and

violated NJ Ct. R. 2.1(2).

On January 9, 2020, Judge Rivas, filed a false Middlesex

County Sheriff’s Report, with MCPO Detective Kelly, Captain Eric

M. Deprossimo, and Undersheriff Kevin B Harris. Judge Rivas

falsely reported to them, he was threatened by Appellant with a

GUN, in his chambers. (28 U.S.C. § 455 (a))

On January 17, 2020, Judge Rivas filed a false Middlesex

County Judiciary Incident Report, Incident Number: I-8121, that

he the judge, was a victim, and that the Appellant threatened

him with a GUN in his chambers. Judge Rivas should have been

disqualified him as to this matter because the judge was

partial, biased, and interested in the events of such actions

before him. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486

U.S. 847, 108 S. Ct. 2194 (1988), (28 U.S.C. § 455 (a)).

On December 17, 2019, Appellant filed a U.S. District Court

lawsuit, against Judge Rivas. On December 27, 2019, Appellant

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 21 of 65

 104a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

served Judge Rivas, a summons and complaint; Marchisotto v.

Rivas, et al, Docket No.: 3:19-cv-21440-BRM-DEA.

Referring to case law that was cited by Judge Rivas (4T),

In State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 186-87 (1997), which is

factually deficient to Appellant’s matter.

In state v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 186-87 (1997), says a judge

cannot be considered partial or biased merely because of rulings
that are unfavorable toward the party seeking recusal. Here Judge
Alberto Rivas, was a defendant in a Federal U.S. District Court of
New Jersey lawsuit, directly pertaining to; In The Matter Of The
Irrevocable Trust Of John L. Marchisotto, deceased, before him, and
rigged the court hearings, dismissal with prejudice, and unjust

Defendant Judge Alberto Rivas, “harmful error” entered for

April 1, 2020, (Pa7; Pa11), and June 2, 2020, (Pa1), by a judge,

in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be

questioned". 28 U.S.C. § 455 (a).
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under
color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or
privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Judge Rivas falsely reported Appellant threatened him with

a gun, in his chambers, after being served with a federal

summons, and complaint, to interfere with, and disrupt a

federally regulated activity.

Judge Rivas false gun threat, caused a serious public

alarm, and placed Appellant, and his family, in serious risk of

imminent harm. The filing false Police Reports, by anyone, is a

very serious matter. A judge is not above the law, to criminally

harass, terrorized, and intimidate the family, of a federal

court plaintiff.

The Appellant, and his family could have been seriously

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 22 of 65
 105a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

harmed, believing he threatened a judge in his chambers with a

gun, having an immediate response of heavily armed police to

surround his home. The Appellate Court should be extremely

disturbed, at the criminal behavior, by the trial judge.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On December 9, 2019, Judge Rivas, “abusive”, “threatening”

and “retaliatory” hearing was to only hear Defendant Lepore, and

Defendant Canova, motion to dismiss, and to poke holes in his

interrogatory answers. Judge Rivas was outrageously “abusive”,

“harrassing” and threatened Appellant continuously, making him

afraid to speak, outside scope of judicial duties. (4T; Pa19).

On December 12, 2019, Appellant filed a Notice of Claim

against State of New Jersey, and Judge Rivas, Under Title 59,

Re: State Risk file No.: 19-7704 (Pa502).

On December 12, 2020, Appellant filed a letter with the

Hon. Brian Martinotti, U.S. District Court of Judge, a Notice of

Claim was filed, and that Appellant will be filing a 2nd Federal

Lawsuit, for 440 Civil Rights – Other Civil Rights, for the

cause of 42:1983, Civil Rights Act. (Pa214).

On December 17, 2019, Appellant filed a 2nd U.S. District

Court of New Jersey, lawsuit, against Judge Rivas, for violating

certain protections, by the U.S. Constitution; XIV, § Section 1,

14th Amendment Constitutional Rights, Federal constitution, and

Deprivation of Rights, Under Color of Law, Section 2 of Article

III, Title 42 US code 1983 (Pa248).

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 23 of 65

 106a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

On, December 27, 2019, Plaintiff personally left a summons

and complaint, with Middlesex County Civil Division, Vicinage,

Manager, Mr. Ian Ratzloff, who had accepted service. Appellant

had made a good faith effort, at personal service, and can

describe with specificity, in his proof of service, as specified

in his Summons Return of Service declaration (Pa440).

On December 28, 2019, Appellant also deposited for mailing

2 copies of the summons and complaint, for judge Rivas, at the

Middlesex County Courthouse, to also qualify as a second service

of process (Pa440, Pa433).

On December 31, 2019, Louis P. Lepore, Esq. and Defendant

Canova wrote and circulated a false police threat letter about

the Appellant to numerous police agencies, falsely reporting

threats were made in Appellant’s letter written to Judge Rivas,

wanting to meet with the Judge to qualify his Federal Summons

Return of Service (Pa525). Defendant Lepore, and Defendant

Canova, have willfully, criminally harassed the Appellant, a

criminal offense governed by N.J.S.A. 2c:33-4.

Defendant Louis P. Lepore, Esq., and Debra E. Canova, have

engaged in unlawful retaliation, and criminal harassment, to

Appellant, who also filed that 2nd federal lawsuit against, The

Law Offices of Louis Lepore, P.C., and Louis Lepore, Esq.,

P.L.L.C. Harassment is a criminal offense. (N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4).

On January 3, 2020, Judge Rivas, used Middlesex County

Sherriff MCO Detective Kelly, to falsely report threats were

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 24 of 65

 107a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

made against the judge, and dispatch, Ocean County Psychiatric

Emergency Screening Services, to Appellant’s home; Elliot v.

Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) (Pa515; Pa772;

Pa778; Pa781).

On January 3, 2020, Judge Rivas, used Middlesex County Sherriff MCO

Detective Kelly, to make a false threat complaint against the judge,
to the Jackson Township Police, that never took place. Judge Rivas,
to make a false threat report, to the Jackson Township Police
Department. Judge Rivas, has clearly acting outside the scope of his
judicial duties, clearly outside of his jurisdiction, and clearly
from off of his judicial bench. Judge Rivas has violated 42 U.S.
code § 1985(2)(3) by conspiring to interfere with Appellant’s civil
rights lawsuit, interfering with Appellant federally regulated
activity, and by obstructing justice by intimidation. The U.S.
Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 s. Ct.
1683, 1687 (1974)(pa515; pa772; pa778; pa781).
Judge Alberto Rivas, acts as a trespasser of the law, and does not
follow the law, and loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s
orders are void, of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court,
in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 s. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner
violative of the Federal Constitution”, he "comes into conflict with
the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case
stripped of his official or representative character and is
subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual
conduct. The state has no power to impart to him any immunity from
responsibility to the supreme authority of the united states. State
officials may be sued as individuals in § 1983 actions. Brokaw v.
Mercer county, 235 f.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2000).
Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme
Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and
orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply
void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal
in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all
persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are
considered, in law, as trespassers.

On January 9, 2020, Mr. Andrew Munger, Deputy Attorney

General, sent Plaintiff an email, advising “At this time I will

be representing Judge Rivas, Chief Justice Rabner, and the

Middlesex County Judiciary in Matter 19-cv-21440. Please direct

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 25 of 65

 108a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

all correspondence to me and cease any contact with my clients”.

On February 7, 2020, Defendant Judge Rivas, again, used

New Jersey State Police Detective, Mudduser Malik, to criminally

harass, falsely arrest, unlawfully search, Appellant’s entire

home, using a “FALSELY” executed “TERPO”, for the sole purpose

to terrorize Appellant and his family (Pa507; Pa969; Pa971).

On April 1, 2020, Judge Rivas rigged the motion hearing and

falsely, entered a dismissal with prejudice. (Pa540; Pa614;

Pa620; Pa625; Pa627; Pa632). It was a serious conflict of

interest, and judicial misconduct, for Judge Rivas, to not

recuse himself in a proceeding which his impartiality might

reasonably be questioned." (28 U.S.C. § 455 (a); Pa7; Pa11).

On March 7, 2020, Defendant Lepore, Esq., motion papers to

dismiss for failure to comply with December 9, 2019, orders,

were frivolous, issued in bad faith, and for the sole purpose,

to harass. (Pa540; Pa614; Pa620; Pa625; Pa627; Pa632).

On January 11, 2020, Appellant fully complied with Judge

Rivas December 9, 2019, orders, and were no longer equitable.

Appellant also provided a separate response, for each named

individual, under oath, and certification based upon all

information reasonably available, and to the best of his

abilities, pursuant to N.J. Ct. R. 4:17, and within the manner

and time prescribed by the Rules Governing the Courts of the

State of New Jersey. Appellant answers were not copy and pasted.

“Harmful error”, (Pa540; Pa614; Pa620; Pa625; Pa627; Pa632).

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 26 of 65

 109a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

N.J. Ct. R. 4:23-5(a)(1), has been satisfied, and no longer

equitable. "It must be remembered that the main purpose of Rule

4:23-5 is to compel discovery, not to dismiss pleadings”; Clark

v. Pomponio, 397 N.J. Super. 630, 645 (App. Div.), certif.

denied, 195 N.J. 420 (2008).

IV. STATEMENT OF CASE

The trial court Judges erred, (harmful error raised below)

in allowing Defendant Lepore, Esq., to create, an unreliable,

formal accounting, using their uncertified copies of financial

documents. Judge Goodzeit put in her orders, only financial

documents are allowed to being produced by the Defendants to

this matter.(10T). Defendant Lepore, Esq., formal accounting,

does not comply to New Jersey UTC Trust Code, N.J.S.A. 3B:31-1

et seq.(Public law 2015, chapter 276), nor Rule 4:87 Actions for

Settlement of Accounts, and make up with selective documents.

Defendant Lepore, and Defendant Canova, Formal Accounting does not

comply to New Jersey UTC Trust Code, N.J.S.A. 3b:31-1 et seq. (Public
Law 2015, chapter 276), nor Rule 4:87 Actions for Settlement of
Accounts, nor are there any orders, in the courts record, approving
their Formal Accounting.

On August 8, 2018, Judge Goodzeit, granting Defendants

motion to quash all of Appellant subpoenas, was “harmful error”,

raised below, “clearly capable of causing an unjust result”.

Appellant subpoenas to decedents financial accounts, while

Defendant Canova was acting as P.O.A., prior to decedents death,

would have elicited relevant evidence, reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, to prove Appellant

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 27 of 65

 110a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

case before the trial Court. (11T).

N.J.R.E. 401. "Relevant Evidence" means evidence having a

tendency in reason to prove or disprove any fact of consequence

to the determination of the action. N.J.R.E. 402. Relevant

Evidence Generally Admissible.

Judge Goodzeit, “harmful error”, fails to apply the correct

test in analyzing the admissibility of evidence. The appellate

court's review of this entire matter is de novo. State v. Lykes,

192 N.J. 519, 534 (2007). The Appellant Division should reverse,

remand, and reinstate Appellant matter to the trial court, and

allow subpoena’s to this discretionary evidence.

SUBPOENAS ALLOWED UNDER R.1:92, R.4:10-1, AND R.4:14-7(C)

On August 8, 2018, Judge Margaret Goodzeit “harmful error”

denying Appellant to serve his Subpoenas, were allowed under NJ

Court R.1:9-2 and NJ Court R.4:10-1 for being reasonable, and

reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Subpoenas for pretrial production shall comply with

the requirements of NJ Court R.4:14-7(c). N.J.R.E. 401.

"Relevant Evidence" means evidence having a tendency in reason

to prove or disprove any fact of consequence ... (11T).

On August 8, 2018, Judge Goodzeit, quashed all Appellant’s

subpoenas, that were already sent out. Appellant believes the

trial judge abused her discretion and was “harmful error”. Judge

Goodzeit told, Appellant he was not allowed to send out

subpoenas, because he had no deposition dates. (11T).

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 28 of 65

 111a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

On August 8, 2018, Judge Goodzeit “harmful error” allowed

the Defendant Lepore, Esq. to quash all of Appellant subpoenas.

Judge Goodzeit told Appellant he had no deposition dates, and

they were improper to send out. Appellant believes the trial

judge abuse her discretion quashing all of Appellant’s subpoenas

were “harmful error”. (11T).

The trial judge orders, “harmful error” raised below, bars the
plaintiff subpoenas to any of decedents financial accounts. Appellant
families personal non-relevant tax returns was “harmful error”.

The trial court judge erred by forcing Appellant to

providing his and his families, personal financial information,

and tax returns, and denying him any relief, if he did not

comply with her unlawful order. (9T; 10T).

Judge Goodzeit (harmful error raised below), January 17, 2019, order,
“plaintiff continue to willfully violate the courts order December
17, 2018, and good cause ordered this 17 day of January 2019, no
motions filed by plaintiff will be scheduled for disposition.” (8T).
Judge Goodzeit (harmful error raised below), January 14, 2019 letter,
to the appellant division, that Appellant, “hands are unclean, and he
may not file any motion until he is in compliance of court order of
December 17, 2018.”. (8T).
Judge Goodzeit (harmful error raised below), January 14, 2019 letter,
to the Appellant Division, “Mr. Marchisotto is a vexatious litigant,
having filed numerous motions, many of which were incoherent and
failed to comply with the rules of court. I have warned him that if
he continued to file inappropriate discovery requests or responses I
might have to appoint a discovery master …”. (8T).
Judge Goodzeit (harmful error raised below), January 17, 2019, order
/ letter, the bias judge writes, appellant hands are unclean, and he
may not file any motions with the trial court. (8T).
Defendant Lepore Formal Accounting does not comply at all,

to New Jersey UTC Trust Code, N.J.S.A. 3B:31-1 et seq. (Public

law 2015, chapter 276), nor Rule 4:87, Actions for Settlement of

Accounts, and completely unacceptable. Appellant not obligated

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 29 of 65
 112a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

to accept anything less than a full and complete accounting,

meeting all of the requirements. (10T; 9T).

V. STANDARD FOR REVIEW

Appeals As Of Right:

R. 2:2-3(a) sets out appeals allowed as of right to the

Appellate Division: a) from final judgments of Superior Court

trial divisions.

R. 2:10-2 that provides that "the appellate court may, in

the interests of justice, notice plain error not brought to the

attention of the trial or appellate court."

VI. STANDARDS ON APPEAL GOVERNING ERROR

Error in Certain Discretionary Decisions:

Such exercises of discretion "are entitled to respectful

review under an abuse of discretion standard." Serenity
Contracting v. Fort Lee, 306 N.J. Super. 151, 159 (App. Div.
1997).
Certain decisions made by a court in the course of a trial are said
to be addressed to the court's discretion and will be reversed on
appeal only if an "abuse" or "mistaken exercise" of that discretion
is shown.
Interpretation or Misapplication of the Law:

If a judge makes a discretionary decision, but acts under a

misconception of the applicable law, the appellate court need
not give the usual deference. The court instead must adjudicate
the controversy in the light of the applicable law in order that
a manifest denial of justice be avoided.

Attorneys' Fees, Punitive Damages,(Decision to Award):

All of these decisions rest within the discretion of the

trial judge (attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest) or the
factfinder (punitive damages). All must be reviewed by using an
abuse of discretion standard.

Note, however, that the issue of whether punitive damages

are so excessive (Pa1), as to violate the Fourteenth Amendment
IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 30 of 65
 113a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

to the United States Constitution, is not reviewed under this

standard. That issue requires a de novo review. Cooper v.
Leatherman Tool Group, 532 U.S. 424, 431 (2001).

Discovery:

Appellate courts should "defer to the trial judge's

discovery rulings absent an abuse of discretion or a judge's
misunderstanding or misapplication of the law." Capital Health
System, Inc. v. Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc., 230 N.J. 73,
79-80 (2017).

Evidence (Excluding or Admitting):

N.J.R.E. 403 specifically allows a judge, in his or her
discretion, to exclude otherwise admissible evidence under
specified circumstances. "[A] trial court's evidentiary ruling
are entitled to deference absent a showing of an abuse of
discretion." State v. Nantambu, 221 N.J. 390, 402 (2015),
(quoting State v. Harris, 209 N.J. 431, 439 (2012)).

VII. ARGUMENT

POINT 1
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING ORDER ON 06/02/2020, DURING THE
HEARING, THE JUDGE SAID “HE FILED NUMEROUS ACTIONS IN NEW YORK AND NEW
JERSEY MAKING BASELESS ALLEGATIONS (INDISCERNIBLE) AFTER DEFENDANT
(INDISCERNIBLE) CAUSING THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS NOT TO COOPERATE WITH
THE DEFENDANT (INDISCERNIBLE) DISMISS THE CLAIMS AGAINST (INDISCERNIBLE)”.
(1T50; PA81).

Appellant is a Defendant in the New York interpleader

action, and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., is the Plaintiff.

Appellant has no control over causing financial institutions not

to cooperate with the defendant; JPMorgan Chase bank, N.A.,

against Debra E. Canova, et al., Supreme Court State of New

York, Index No.: 152396/2019 and JPMorgan Chase bank, N.A.,

against Debra E. Canova, et al., Appellate Division – 2nd Dept –

Appeal #:2020-06261. (1T50; Pa81).

Judge Rivas “harmful error” saying appellant caused

financial institutions not to cooperate with defendant. Judge

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 31 of 65
 114a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

Rivas abused his discretion making a clearly “unreasonable”,

“baseless”, “erroneous”, or “arbitrary decision”, not supported

by the “facts” or “the law” in the case. Judge Rivas, had not

cited anything within the courts record that appellant conduct

was in fact willful deceptive, or acted in bad faith. Appellant

had done nothing wrong, except for pursuing for the truth, and

for justice.

During the December 9, 2019, hearing, the judge said

“Yeah, but you can’t ask – just ask information that you
don’t have a basis, you got to have a good faith basis for
that information. Those are the rules and I know you know
the rules. I know you understand the law. I know you do.”

Appellant said

“I know Criminal Law, your Honor, I don’t know – “The judge

said “No, no, no, no, no, you’re --you’re a prolific
litigator. You got three actions currently pending, New
York State, Federal Court, here.”

Appellant said

“I didn’t -- I didn’t file --"

The judge said

“You’re more active than a lot of lawyers I know.” (4T73).

Appellant said

“I didn’t -- yeah, right. I didn’t file the New York State

action, your Honor.” The court said “But you caused it. So
you can’t come here and claim,

I know nothing.” Appellant said “I’m -- I’m not saying

that, your Honor. I’m not saying I know nothing. I’m just
trying my best here and -- and I’ve just provided whatever
information that I have -- you -- you said it’s cut and
paste, copy and paste, this is -- I’m --I’m --”

The judge said

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 32 of 65
 115a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

“Yeah, it is cut and paste. It’s the same answers to the

same -- you put a name in bold and you put the same answer
next to it. Joann Cavalla (phonetic) --“(4T74).

During the hearing, Defendant Lepore said “I mean, my

client does have an issue that you are the second judge now
trying to help him, where help can be given, but sometimes
help is not wanted or his -- he doesn’t believe what he’s
doing is inappropriate and he still, to this day does not
believe any of his answers are inappropriate. It’s the best
he can do. My answer to that is, his best isn’t good
enough. And Judge, you can keep asking the questions about
going through these people.”

The judge said

“Well I want to create a record.”

Defendant Lepore said

“That’s fine with me, your Honor”(4T79).

Judge Rivas, has committed “fraud upon the court”,

violating R. 1.1, R. 1.2, R. 2.1, R. 2.2, R. 2.3, R. 3.6, R.

3.7, R. 3.8, N.J. R. 1:12, N.J. R. 1:12-1, NJ R. 1:12-1(d), NJ

R. 1:12-1(e), NJ R. 1:12-1(g), NJ R. 1:12-2, NJ REV STAT §

2A:15-49(c)(d)(e)(2013) Constitution of New Jersey 1947; Article

VI. Judicial Section, Section VI, No. 4, Article VII. Public

Officers, and Employees Section I Section III, No. 1.

Fraud upon the court in obtaining a complaint, information, or
indictment invalidates all orders of the court and causes the case to
be null and void ab initio. “fraud upon the court” has been defined
by the 7th circuit court of appeals to “embrace that species of fraud
which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud
perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery
cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging
cases presented for adjudication.”
Judge Rivas does not have integrity, and impartiality of

the judiciary. Judge Rivas, does not respect and comply with the

law. Judge Rivas, does not promote confidence in the judiciary.

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 33 of 65

 116a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

Judge Rivas has had numerous criminal external influences of

judicial misconduct against the Appellant. Judge Rivas has

abused the prestige of judicial office. Judge Rivas, has been

bias, prejudice, and has “criminally harassed”, “terrorized”,

“intimidated”, and retaliated against the Appellant, outside the

scope of his judicial duties, and jurisdiction.

Judge Rivas, refused to hear, and denied Appellant the

right to be heard. Judge Rivas, has had continuous Ex Parte

communications with Defendant Louis P. Lepore, Esq. Judge Rivas

has sat on the trial of an argument in controversy in a cause

pending in his court, when there is any other reason which might

precluded a fair and unbiased hearing and judgement, or which

might reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe so.

POINT 2
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING ORDER ON 06/02/2020, DURING THE
HEARING THE JUDGE SAID “THE COURT FOUND MARCHISOTTO’S (INDISCERNIBLE) TO BE
INCOMPREHENSIBLE IN AN AUGUST, 2018, (INDISCERNIBLE) HAVE NOT IMPROVED. THE
CONTINUE TO BE REPETITIVE AND (INDISCERNIBLE) AND ARE NUMEROUS. THE RECORD
IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT MR. MARCHISOTTO IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT. HE IGNORES
COURT ORDERS. HE ENGAGES IN (INDISCERNIBLE) – THEREFORE, THE COURT WILL
GRANT (INDISCERNIBLE) APPLICATION AND WILL ORDER MARCHISOTTO TO PAY
$81,841.72 AND THE ADDITIONAL 3,000 --- (INDISCERNIBLE) IN EXPENSES AND
COSTS. THE COURT REVIEWED THE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT (INDISCERNIBLE)
CONSISTENT WITH THE RATES CUSTOMARILY CHARGED IN NEW JERSEY. THE HOURS
SPENT WERE NOT EXCESSIVE. CONSIDERING MR. MARCHISOTTO’S (INDISCERNIBLE)
(INDISCERNIBLE) SPECIFICALLY, THE ARGUMENTS HE HAS MADE ARE NOT WARRANTED
EITHER BY THE FACTS OR THE LAW. AN ORDER WILL BE ENTERED UPON
(INDISCERNIBLE)”. (1T51-1T52).

There is no credible evidence present in the record, to

support Defendant Canova, being awarded sanctions against the

Appellant, for $81,848.70 in legal fees, and an additional

$3,976.33 in expenses, and costs, for a total of $85,825.03.

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 34 of 65
 117a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

Pursuant to R. 1:4-8.

There is no credible evidence present in the courts record,

to support that Appellant actions were frivolous, warranting

harsh, or any sanctions at all being imposed. There is no

evidence that appellant complaint was filed for the purpose of

harassment, delay, or malicious injury. Rather, then the

defendants arguing that they were frivolous, because that say,

Appellant suit lagged a legal basis, and was filed for the sole

purpose of harassment. Defendants have provided no factual

evidence to the court, or any factual legal basis to support any

of their claims for sanctions, against the Appellant.

There is no proof whatsoever, that appellant was willfully

deceitful, and an evasive litigant. Code of judicial conduct

does require a judge to “respect and comply with the law, “be

faithful to the law”, and “maintain professional competence in

it,” and to “accord to every person who has a legal interest in

a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard

according to law”. “Ignorance of the law”, is not excuse”.

Appellate review of this matter “seeks to correct past prejudice

to a particular party”. (Pa248; Pa440; Pa920; Pa967; Pa973).

Harsh sanctions were clearly imposed against the appellant

out of sheer retaliation, because On 01/06/2020, appellant filed

a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order against Judge Rivas,

in federal court (Pa920).

Harsh sanctions were clearly imposed against the appellant

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 35 of 65

 118a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

out of sheer retaliation, because On 02/07/2020, and 02/10/2020,

Appellant filed another Temporary Restraining Order, against

Judge Rivas, in federal court (Pa967, Pa973).

The Appellate Division Judges, should reverse, Judge Rivas,

“harmful error”, “unjust”, “retaliatory”, “sanctions imposed”,

that have failed to provide any factual evidence, or proof, of

a frivolous lawsuit, against a pro se party.

The Appellate Division, should dismiss in its entirety, any

sanctions imposed upon the Appellant, “using an abuse of

discretion standard”, and a de novo Review; Cooper v. Leatherman

tool group, 532 U.S. 424, 431 (2001).

The Appellate Division, should not reward, Defendant Debra

E. Canova, Defendant Louis P. Lepore, Esq., The Law Offices of

Louis Lepore P.C., Louis Lepore, Esq., P.L.L.C., for violating

New Jersey Court R.1:21. Practice of law. Sanctions being

awarded to an attorney, who should have been disqualified from

practicing law in State of New Jersey, is “harmful error”, and a

“miscarriage of justice”. The Appellate Division, on their own

motion should sanction Defendant Lepore, for his dishonesty, and

deceit, R. 1:21., pertaining to the matter before the court.

POINT 3
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING ORDER ON 06/02/2020, DURING THE
HEARING THE JUDGE SAID, “THE RECORD IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT MR. MARCHISOTTO
IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT. HE IGNORES COURT ORDERS, HE ENGAGES
IN(INDISCERNIBLE)”. (1T51-1T52).
“Vexatious litigant” is a term used by lawyers and courts

to refer to a person who is repeatedly filing motions and

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 36 of 65

 119a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

lawsuits for the purpose of harassing or bullying another party.

This particularly refers to the type of litigant who is abusing

the court system just to “get back at” a former spouse or

partner. Appellant who is a person who is simply litigious, was

not going to let the Defendants to this matter, bully, or deter

him, from the truth, and from pursuing justice.

Judge Rivas “harmful error”, there is no factual evidence,

that Appellant conduct was willfully acted upon, in bad faith,

nor have the Defendants provided any factual proof within the

courts record. Appellant had done nothing wrong, except for

pursuing the truth, and for justice. Appellant fully complied

with the courts December 9, 2019, orders, to the best of his

abilities, and has not ignored any court orders.

Judge Rivas, “retaliatory” sanctions, against the Appellant

is disproportionate to the violation, absent proof of prejudice.

Prior to imposing harsh sanctions, such as dismissal (Pa7;

Pa11), many courts require a showing of prejudice. See Hillig v.

Commissioner, 916 F. 2d 171, 174 (4th Cir. 1990)(a showing of

prejudice is required before dismissal); Navarro v. Cohan, 856

F. 2d 141, 142 (11th Cir. 1988) (recognizing that dismissal is a

drastic sanction). (Pa7; Pa11). Judge Rivas, sanctions for

violations imposed against Appellant, would have been trivial in

nature. The no factual proof, within the courts record, that

Appellant was a willfully deceitful, and evasive litigant.

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 37 of 65

 120a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

POINT 4
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING ORDER ON 06/02/2020, SANCTION IS
APPROPRIATE ONLY WHERE THE OFFENDER HAS WILLFULLY ABUSED JUDICIAL PROCESS
OR OTHERWISE CONDUCTED LITIGATION IN BAD FAITH. IN RE ITEL SEC. LITIG., 791
F.2D 672, 675, (9TH CIR. 1986), CERT. DENIED, 479 U.S. 1033 91987); KREAGER
V. SOLOMON & FLANAGAN, P.A. 775 F.2D 1541, 1542-43 (11TH CIR. 1985); LIPSEIG
V. NATION STUDENT MKTG. CORP., 663 F.2D 178, 180-81 (D.C. CIR. 1980); LINK
V. WALBASH R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962).

Appellant did none of those things Judge Rivas, states in

the court record (1T), and Judge Rivas, retaliatory sanctions

should be reversed, and dismissed by Appellate Division, in its

entirety. Appellant did nothing wrong except searching for the

truth, and pursuing justice.

The law has a term for these cases: frivolous litigation

statute, N.J.S.A. 2a: 15-59.1, was enacted in 1988 to deter

litigants from filing frivolous claims and to compensate parties

defending against junk suits. Toll bros. V. Township of West

Windsor, 190 N.J. 61, 67 (2007).

Under new jersey law, fees may be obtained against

attorneys for the filing of a frivolous lawsuit based upon a

court rule, rule 1:4-8. Attorney’s fees for the filing of a

frivolous pleading may be obtained against a party based upon a

statute, N.J.S.A. 2a:15-59.1.

The trial court “harmful error” to award fees under

N.J.S.A. 2a:15-59.1, when both the Defendants and trial court

judge, must find that Appellant claim was pursued “in bad faith,

solely for the purpose of harassment, delay or malicious injury”

or that the non-prevailing party knew or should have known it

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 38 of 65

 121a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

“was without any reasonable basis in law or equity and could not
be supported by a good faith argument for an extension,

modification or reversal of existing law.”

There was no evidence Appellants complaints were filed for

the purpose of harassment, delay or malicious injury. Rather,

the Defendants argued that they were frivolous, because they say

appellant suit lacked a legal basis, and filed for the sole

purpose of harassment.

Defendant louis P. Lepore, Defendant Debra E. Canova, and

Judge Alberto Rivas, failed to provide any evidence to support,

to award them fees under N.J.S.A. 2a:15-59.1. Awarding attorney

fees “harmful error” have not been met, against the Appellant.

The court “harmful error”, was properly raised below,

“clearly capable of producing an unjust result.” R. 2:10-2.

Atalese v. U.S. legal Services Group, L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014).

The Appellate Division found that the complaint by Tagayun;

Tagayun v. Americhoice of New Jersey, 2016 N.J. super. Lexis

127 (app. Div. Sept. 20, 2016), was not frivolous, because of

the supreme court’s decision in Atalese v. U.S. legal services

group, L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014).

Just because a party lose their case, it does not mean that

sanctions for frivolous litigation should be imposed. The

Appellate division emphasized that “the term frivolous should

not be employed broadly or it could limit access to the court

system.”

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 39 of 65

 122a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

The frivolous lawsuit statue has a more stringent standard

to meet than pursuing fees against an attorney under the court,

Rule 1:4-8. If there is at least a colorable argument as to the

basis of the complaint filed by a pro se party, the court will

likely find that it was not filed in bad faith, and hence, no

award of fees would be merited.

Appellant, who is pro se, had every legal right to bring,

and pursue his complaint for; In the Matter of the Irrevocable

Trust of John L. Marchisotto, deceased. Appellant who is the son

and beneficiary of the decedent. A.M., J.M., and M.M., minors,

are the grandchildren, and beneficiaries of the decedent, have a

legal standing to pursue their legal matter, for the pursuit of

the truth, and for justice.

In The Matter Of The Irrevocable Trust Of John L.

Marchisotto, deceased, was not a “junk suit”. Appellant and his

minor children, are beneficiaries, had every legal right to

pursue their legal matter and complaint, to all of the deceased

assets, and against Defendant’s that caused harm to them.

POINT 5
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED ON 05/07/2020, DENYING APPELLANT MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, THE JUDGE SAID “TODAY IS MAY 7TH. THIS IS A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION WHERE THE COURT IS PUTTING ITS DECISION ON THE RECORD. THIS
MATTER COMES BEFORE THE COURT ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDER
DISMISSAL OF HIS COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE FOR REPEATED FAILURES TO
ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS. THIS CAUSE OF ACTION REACHES THIS
COURT ON A TRANSCRIPT FROM SOMERSET VICINAGE; A RELATED MATTER WAS REPORTED
IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE DISTRICTS OF NEW JERSEY UNDER CASE
NUMBER 3:19CV12540. THE SELF-REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF, JOHN F. MARCHISOTTO HAS
BEEN DESCRIBED AS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT. PLAINTIFF HAS PREVIOUSLY FILED
MOTIONS SEEKING SANCTIONS TO THIS COURT BY COUNSEL IN THOSE MATTERS. ALL OF
THOSE MOTIONS WERE DENIED. IN ADDITION TO NAMING OPPOSING COUNSEL AS A
IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 40 of 65
 123a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

DEFENDANT IN THIS MATTER, PLAINTIFF HAS NAMED MULTIPLE SUPERIOR COURT

JUDGES WHO HAVE PREVIOUSLY PRESIDED OVER THIS MATTER AS DEFENDANTS IN A
FEDERAL LAWSUIT.” (2T03).

Judge Alberto Rivas, should have recused himself, since he

even states on the court transcript, (2T03) “plaintiff has named

multiple superior court judges who have previously presided over

this matter as defendants in a federal lawsuit.” (See. N.J. R.

1:12, N.J. R. 1:12-1, NJ R. 1:12-1(d), NJ R. 1:12-1(e), NJ R.

1:12-1(g), NJ R. 1:12-2, NJ REV STAT § 2A:15-49(c)(d)(e)(2013),

Constitution of New Jersey 1947).

On 01/03/2020, Judge Alberto Rivas, and Middlesex county

Sherriff MCO Detective Kelly, made a false threat complaint,

about the Appellant, to the Jackson township Police Department,

and the Ocean County Psychiatric Emergency Screening Services,

having them abruptly respond to his home, for the sole purposes,

of “intimidation”, and interfere with, and disturb, a federally

regulated activity; Marchisotto v. Rivas et al, case no.: 3:19-

cv-21440-Brm-Dea. (Pa781; Pa775; Pa786; Pa920; Pa515).

This was in response to Appellant December 28, 2019,

Federal Summons Return of service, served upon Judge Rivas.

Appellant was legally allowed to serve Judge Rivas at his

courthouse a federal summons and complaint by both state, and

federal statutes. (Pa440; Pa443; Pa431; Pa248; N.J.S.A. 4:4-3;

Fed.R.Civ.P4(e)(1)).

Defendant judge Rivas, has clearly acted outside the scope

of his judicial duties, and outside of his jurisdiction, having

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 41 of 65

 124a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

Middlesex County MCO Detective Kelly, conduct an unlawful, and

retaliatory investigation upon him. (Pa431). Judge Rivas, has

engaged in an act or acts of treason. Judge Rivas, acts of

treason, for the purpose to harass and intimidate the Appellant.

Judge Rivas, and Middlesex County Sherriff MCO Detective

Kelly, conspired to commit those torts, in violation of 42

U.S.C. § 1985(3), and state common law. (Pa440; Pa507; Pa433).

On January 5, 2020, Appellant petitioned U.S. District

Court, for a Temporary Restraining Order, and Preliminary

Injunction order, holding Judge Alberto Rivas, in civil /

criminal contempt of court, Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a), &

65(b). (Pa920).

On January 17, 2020, Judge Rivas filed a False Judiciary

Incident report reporting he was a victim, and was threatened by

Appellant with a GUN, in his chambers, to interfere with and

disturb, a federally regulated activity. (Pa772).

Judge Alberto Rivas, falsely reported a serious gun threat,

to cause a public alarm, and placed Appellant, and his family at

serious risk of imminent physical harm. Judge Rivas falsely

reported being a victim at 56 Paterson Street, and a Judge at

the Middlesex County vicinage. Judge Rivas false Judiciary

Incident Report is No.: I-8121. Judge Rivas, had specifically

stated on his report (self-reporting), Incident type: Judge

Threat, Incident Sub Type: Vexatious Litigant, and that The

Incident Occurred, in the Judge’s Chambers, and a Weapon Was In

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 42 of 65

 125a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

Fact Used, and Was A Gun, and that The Judge Was In Fact

Threatened.

On February 7, 2020, and February 10, 2020, Appellant filed

another Petition in U.S. District Court for a Temporary

Restraining Order, and, for Preliminary Injunction Order, under

Fed. R. Civ. P.65(a)(b) against Judge Alberto Rivas. (Pa515;

Pa967; Pa973).

On February 5, 2020, Judge Rivas once again, used Middlesex

county Sherriff’s officers, MCO Detective Kelly, N.J.S.P.

Trooper Mudduser Malik, to apply to Ocean County Superior Court,

Judge Ryan, for a Petition for a FALSE TERPO (Pa784).

On February 7, 2020, Judge Rivas, again used Middlesex

county Sherriff’s MCO Detective Kelly, N.J.S.P. Police Trooper

Mudduser Malik, to criminally harass, and intimidate, Appellant,

and his family, by falsely arresting him, falsely serving him a

TERPO Petition, and conducting an illegal search of his entire

home. (Pa784).

Judge Rivas should have recused himself because "Any

justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall

disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality

might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455 (a). (Pa248).

The Appellate Division should reject Judge Rivas argument,

“harmful error” that his treatment of the Appellant, was an

exercise of judicial independence. The courts have held,

“judicial independence does not equate to unbridled discretion

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 43 of 65

 126a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

to “bully”, “threaten”, “criminally harass” and “intimidate” to

disregard the requirements of the law, or to ignore the

Constitutional Rights of the Appellant.

Judge Rivas saying “Mr. Marchisotto is a vexatious

litigant. He ignores court order. He engages in (indiscernible)”
(1T51-1T52).

On December 9, 2019, Judge Rivas, acted outside the scope

of his judicial authority, criminally abused, threatened,

intimidated, committed treason, and violated Appellant U.S.

constitutional rights, in his courtroom. Judge Rivas, “using

threats which exceed judicial authority is unacceptable, even if

judge believes such threats are only way to coerce compliance.

During the hearing, on December 9, 2019, the judge said

“All right, have a seat. Let’s -- I want to get a couple things
straight. One, Mr. Marchisotto, no more motions about the
removal of Mr. Lepore. That’s done, that’s been decided. Do
not file anything else on that issue, okay? Two, don’t send
faxes to my chambers without the express permission of my
secretary” (4T04).

During the hearing, the judge said “-- interrupting, Mr.

Marchisotto. You are going to show this Court the proper respect
and I know your background enough to know that you know how to
act in a courtroom”.

Appellant said “Yes Sir”.

The judge said “You may do this in your home, you may do
this with your family, you will not do that with me –”.

Appellant said “Yes Sir”.

The court said “because there will be consequences --".

“Appellant said “Yes Sir.”

The judge said “-- dire consequences. You’re not a child.

Last warning, because I have a time out room for you, where you
can cool your heels.” (4T59).

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 44 of 65

 127a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

On December 17, 2019, Appellant thereafter, filed a U.S.

District court of New Jersey federal lawsuit against Judge

Rivas, for deprivation of rights, under Color of law, section 2,

of Article III, Title 42 Code 1983. (Pa214; Pa248).

Judge Rivas saying that Appellant “repeated failures” to

adequately respond to “discovery requests”, is just not true,

and miscarriage of justice. (2T03). Appellant had fully complied

with all discovery orders. Appellant fully complied with Judge

Rivas, December 9, 2019, orders, for discovery to the best of

his abilities (Pa540; Pa614; Pa620, Pa625; Pa627; Pa632), and

Judge Goodzeit, March 15, 2019, order; (Pa644; Pa645; Pa657;

Pa663).

Appellant answered all his interrogatory questions to the

best of his abilities. Judge Rivas made an “incorrect finding of

fact”, “misapplied the law”, and “abused his discretion”. The

court “harmful error”, was properly raised below, clearly

capable of producing an unjust result. “R.2:10-2. The appellate

court’s review of this entire matter is de novo; State v. Lykes,

192 N.J. 519, 534 (2007).

POINT 6
ON 04/01/2020, JUDGE RIVAS “HARMFUL ERROR”, DISMISSING APPELLANT
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. APPELLANT HAD FULLY, RESPONSIVELY, AND PROPERLY
ANSWERED DEFENDANT INTERROGATORY QUESTIONS 13, AND 14, AS PER THE
12/09/2020, ORDERS. (PA7, PA11).

During the hearing, the judge said “In this case, Mr.
Marchisotto has been given seven opportunities to address these
deficiencies, starting with Judge Goodzeit and ending with me.
He has not complied. He has gone forward with his theory which,
again, he states on the record on December 9th was based on
IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 45 of 65
 128a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

belief. Senator Moynihan stated, we are all entitled to our

beliefs but we're not entitled to our own facts and Mr.
Marchisotto has not been able to cite any factual basis for his
assertions and has refused to comply with the Court's order”
(3T28).

During the December 9, 2019, hearing, Defendant Lepore,

said “Mr. Marchisotto, in not answering the interrogatories in
appropriate -- in an appropriate manner has caused this action
upon himself. Since June, Mr. Marchisotto has reported me to
more agencies, which would then put him into Rule 14 because,
let’s see, he -- we know for a fact he filed with the New York
Ethics Commission from myself, we found out, not through the
interrogatories, but because he filed an ethics complaint
against me with New Jersey, we found out he filed with Somerset
County and that we found -- that he filed with Richmond County -
- Somerset Prosecutor’s Office, the Richmond County District
Attorney’s Office and various other agencies that were never
disclosed in the first place” (4T04 – 4T05).

Defendants just kept asking that same interrogatory

question, in their sub parts, repeating the same question in

different ways, which would not change Appellant responded

answer. Defendants were trying to confuse the Appellant, asking

the same question, numerous different ways, in their sub parts,

to try and get a different response. Appellant answers were not

copy and pasted were appropriately answered.

In Judge Margaret Goodzeit, 08/09/2018, Interrogatory

Orders, (Pa56; No.5):
“Each party may serve the other with written discovery no later than
august 24, 2018, which shall be responded to by October 24, 2018.
Interrogatories shall be limited to thirty-five (35) in number, and
there shall be no more than fifteen (15) enumerated document
requests.”
Judge Rivas (harmful error), dismissing Appellant complaint

with prejudice, when Defendant Lepore, and Defendant Canova,

written discovery had thirty-five(35) interrogatories questions,

and fifteen(15) enumerated document requests, all of which

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 46 of 65
 129a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

Discovery Appellant had fully complied with.

On 12/09/2019, Judge Rivas, “harmful error”, Appellant

fifteen (15) enumerated document requests by the Defendants, had

all been fulfilled, as per Judge Goodzeit 04/25/2019, Orders.

Judge Goodzeit 04/26/2019, Orders state the following:

“Notwithstanding the determination in #3, above if petitioner
provides comprehensible responses for each named individual, and then
properly moves to reinstate, inclusive of payment of the
reinstatement fee, the court will consider such application anew.”
Judge Alberto Rivas December 9, 2019, orders violated the

res judicata doctrine, and allowed, Defendant Lepore, and

Defendant Canova, to relitigate their enumerated document

requests, (ex. tape recording, etc.) which were already accepted

already by Judge Goodzeit, and not a requirement, for Appellant

to produce again.

Res judicata doctrine is substantially similar or identical causes of

action, and issues, parties, and relief sought eatough v. Bd of med.
Exam’rs 191 n.j. super 166, 173 [465 a2d 934] (app div, 1983);
constant v pac. Nat’l ins co, 84 n.j. super 211, 216 [201 a2d 405]
(app [law]div.1964).

During the December 9, 2019, hearing, the court said “Any -

- have you turned over any of these recordings?” Appellant said
“I returned over all the recordings. I turned over –-“ The
court said “You got all these recordings that he allegedly
made?” (4T162)

Defendant Lepore said “I have some of them, your Honor, but

once again, we have Frank, we have a couple, like he has Rose
Cafone -- he dumped a whole bunch of recordings. I doubt that he
gave me the Alagar recording and a few other things –-“ The
court said “Well –-“ Defendant Lepore said “ -- of these mystery
people –-“ The court said “ -- you’re going to be ordered to do
that”.

Defendant Lepore said “ He -- he could be ordered to do it,

the problem is, once again, your Honor, when you-- if any --
from a lay person’s point of view, some of these -- some of

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 47 of 65

 130a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

these recordings are -- in my mind, have been tampered with”

(4T162).

Defendant Lepore said “I’d have to get an expert, but when

you have a pause and a stop and a pick up again, and all of a
sudden the conversation cuts out, I don’t think it’s due to the
taping equipment, especially he’s using an Mp3 recorder. It’s
something he’s doing with the recordings -he - not -“ (4T163).

The court said “Well if there’s any proof that”. Defendant

Lepore said “I’d have to –"The court said “-- doctored any of
these tapes”. Defendant Lepore said “ -- I’d have to –”
Appellant said “No, that’s not -- that’s –“

Defendant Lepore said “And the other thing is this your

Honor, I have to put this on the record. I know pro se litigants
are given a wide berth, but this isto the point of being ri --
and it’s not against you, but the -- the Rules -- my clients are
-- my clients are being tortured by him.”

The court said “I know they are.”

Defendant Lepore said “And he shouldn’t be allowed after a

year and a half -- okay, I understand he’s a pro se litigant,
but he’s submitted interrogatories --this will be his 8th and
9th -- 9th set. At what point does the Judiciary –“(4T164).
The court said “This is the point where it stops because
he’ll have 30 days to prepare these answers”.

Defendant Lepore said “Also your Honor, we never addressed

questions 14 and 13 -- he’s –”

The court said “Well I am going to address 14 and 13

because in my order, unless they’re specific factual
allegations, that’s what my order will say. So if you don’t have
facts, they’re not going to be accepted.” (4T164).

The court said “So you better cite chapter and verse of the
facts and if you don’t have facts, then you better drop that
person from your list and limit yourself to only people that you
believe that -- no, I better not use the word believe, that you
have actual facts for. I will spell out a very detailed order.
Any deviation from that order will result in a dismissal with
prejudice of this case and then you can go up and
file appeals” (4T164).

Appellant said “Yes your Honor.”

The court said “Facts, not beliefs, Mr. Marchisotto, facts.

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 48 of 65

 131a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

Absent facts, it’s going to get dismissed. We’re going to narrow

the scope of this case”(4T165).
The court said “You’re going to have 30 days from the
receipt of my order because I’m going to go through this list
and tell you what people you can and cannot list” (4T161).
Judge Rivas abuse of discretion, and misunderstanding or

misapplication of the law." The Appellant Division must

adjudicate the controversy in the light of the applicable law in

order that a manifest denial of justice be avoided. State v.

Steele, 92 N.J. Super. 498, 507 (App. Div. 1966); Kavanaugh v.

Quigley, 63 N.J. Super. 153, 158 (App. Div. 1960). (Pa7; Pa11;

Pa540; Pa614; Pa620, Pa625; Pa627; Pa632).

POINT 7
DURING THE HEARING, THE JUDGE SAID “IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFF HAS
CLAIMED THAT IN SPITE OF THE JUDGE’S ATTORNEYS, AND EXPERT WITNESSES, THE
DEFENDANTS IN (INDISCERNIBLE) OR GRIEVANCES IN THE DISTRICT COURT WITH THE
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. PLAINTIFF READILY ASSERTS UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS OF
FRAUD AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY. PLAINTIFF’S MOVING PAPERS HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED
BY ADVERSARIES AS BASELESS, NONSENSICAL, RAMBLING, AND HARASSING
PLAINTIFF’S BEHAVIOR AS HARASSING”. (2T04).

Judge Rivas “harmful error”, saying “appellant readily

asserts unsupported claims of fraud, and civil conspiracy.

Plaintiff’s moving papers have been described by adversaries as

baseless, nonsensical, rambling, and harassing Plaintiff’s

behavior as harassing” (2T04). There is no evidence within the

trial courts record, to support Judge Rivas, bias assessment or

perception of Appellant.

During the December 9, 2019, hearing, the judge said “MR.

MARCHISOTTO: Because the – the paperwork they submitted for the
-- for their – for the informal and formal accounting your
Honor, were – did not include any 1099’s, included no supporting
documentation whatsoever and -- and the numbers -- none of the
numbers -- all of the numbers are believed to be fraudulent.
IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 49 of 65
 132a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

The -- there -- there -- So in your view, everyone here is

lying, everybody” (4T16 – 4T17).
Defendant Lepore, said “a pattern of behavior. He - anybody
that opposes him must be a fraud, a crook, something’s going on.
So anyone who doesn’t agree with him” (4T19).

Defendant Lepore, said “He came back, he did a decent job

on a few of the questions, but his problem is 13 and 14. Because
he’s constantly reporting me or Debra, he doesn’t want to
disclose that information. He didn’t disclose about J.P. Morgan
Chase and that’s how we ended up now with an interpleader action
in New York, because he’s causing -- not – for the failure of
going forward and being – fully disclosing and being honest.
Furthermore -- he may have reported me to more agencies since --
that we don’t even know at. He’s under a duty under the Rules of
New Jersey, that if he makes another reporting, I’m not telling
him he can’t report, but in order to be compliant with the
interrogatories, he has to send out, I’m amending my
interrogatories, dear Mr. Lepore, I just -- I just reported you
to the New York Bar Association, here is my complaint in
reference to this case and here are the accusations I’m making
against you and Debra Canova” (4T24).

Appellant said “I just -- I just feel like I’m in another

unfair courtroom, your Honor. I – I apologize, but I just -- I
-- I don’t get a chance to speak, I -- I just -- I want –”.

The judge said “Stop, he is Counselor Lepore, not defendant

Lepore -- (4T25). “You’ve -- you’ve made that motion, you have
lost all the way up to the New Jersey Supreme Court.” Appellant
said “Well that was for an interlocutory appeal -- -- that’s –
very rarely they’re ever approved” (4T33).

During the hearing, the judge said “So why -- why do you
believe these 1041’s are false? (4T47).

Appellant said “Because they have no documentation to

support any of the numbers and also that there -- the -- the
numbers are -- the – the right, there’s no documentation to
support any of the numbers on them” (4T47). Because I got no --
I got no documentation to support any of the numbers that were
on them. He -- the -- Counsel Lepore provided me with 10 --
1040 -- 1041’s without any attachments that go with them,
without any 1099’s, without any – any documentation that
supports any of those numbers” (4T48).

During the hearing, the Appellant said “I never got any of

my subpoenas to go through. I originally had 27 subpoenas sent
out from the very, very beginning of this case, your Honor,
IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 50 of 65
 133a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

which would have -- which would have basically have ended this
case right from the beginning because Counsel Lepore submitted
documents that are - I - I strongly believe were --".

The judge said “Again, we go back to –”.

Appellant said “I mean, I was also in contact with -- I was

also in contact with Chase’s Fraud Department, I was also in
contact with Fidelity’s Fraud Department”.

The judge said “And they told you fraud was involved?”.
Appellant said “They -- they told me that I needed to -- the --
I needed to subpoena the correct documents –"

The judge said “Okay, so –” -- why didn’t you –"

Appellant said” I tried to, your Honor. I tried to. I

tried to. I kept trying to. I kept trying to. I kept writing
Goodzeit that -- that I was-- that Chase and Fidelity are
telling me that these documents are not -- what I’m telling them
over the phone is not the same as they’re seeing in their
computer system, that I need to subpoena the correct documents.
They can’t give me the documents without subpoenas” (4T54 –
4T55).

Appellant said “I submitted 27 subpoenas. I submitted

subpoenas and then I got 27 frivolous letter -- litigation
letters certified mail from Counsel Lepore in the mail and then
he kept jump -- your -- your Honor, I -- I -- I -- if I get my
subpoenas, if I get my subpoenas for Chase documents, Fidelity
documents and for getting the tax return stuff and all that
other stuff, you’re -- you’re going to see a completely
different thing -- different --completely different pitch” (4T55
– 4T56).

The judge said “Mr. Lepore, what happened with the

subpoenas?”

Defendant Lepore said “Let’s -- let’s have the true story.

So Mr. Marchisotto basically told you a half fiction. It’s
highly doubtful he can get on the phone with Fidelity, Chase
Manhattan Bank and they’re going to speak to him about a
decedent’s account. They may just -- he could be talking and
chatting. Get onto any financial institution – I had to make a
motion to quash”.

The court said “Okay”.

Defendant Lepore said “-- which was granted.” The court
said “All right”. (4T55 – 4T56).
IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 51 of 65
 134a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

During the hearing, the court said “Well, they got an

expert that says it’s real. You got an expert that says it’s not
real. At some point in the very distant future, some judge will
decide which one of your two experts is correct, assuming we get
to that point. Just saying it doesn’t make it true. So you have
no facts for that belief and you have no facts for the belief
that she knows anything about any of these documents, other than
the fact that she signed as a witness” (4T82).

The Appellant said “Because I believe there was missing

money.” The court said “But what do you base that on, again,
other than your gut. You got no base -- you have no evidence.
You have no evidence in the light of evidence” (4T108). The
Appellant said “I don’t have no evidence, your Honor, because I
never got my subpoenas, your Honor. That’s why I have no
evidence” (4T109).

The court said “But why haven’t you retained an attorney to

prepare your subpoenas for you?” (4T109).

Appellant said “There was nothing wrong with my subpoenas,

your Honor, they -- they –- keep saying that there was something
wrong with them, but I –-“(4T109).

The court said “Well, if -- if -- they were correct, you

would have been given –(4T109).

Appellant said “No matter what –-“(4T109).

The court said “If -- if they were correct, you would have
been given –-. So my advice to you is, you should retain an
attorney to prepare your subpoenas. I don’t do my own plumbing,
I hire a plumber. I may have an idea what a wrench is and what
a u-pipe is, but –"(4T109).

Appellant said “I don’t financially ---- have the money,

your Honor, to hire an attorney.

The court said “Huh?” Appellant said “I don’t financially

have the money to hire an attorney, your Honor. I’m trying my
best here. I’m -- I’m being honest with you --your -- with the
Court, your Honor” (4T109 – 4T110).

Judge Rivas “Harmful Error” Re: Expert Witnesses. On

01/15/2019, Judge Goodzeit Orders, that the Defendants, Dr. Lara

Von Berg “Affidavit of Competency Report” for Decedent, was ”to

be EXCLUDED, as an expert report”. (Pa31; Pa35).

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 52 of 65
 135a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

Appellant had filed a complaint with the New Jersey Board

of Medical Examiners against Dr. Lara Von Berg, because the

doctor made false statements, and Appellant believes was

compensated for signing, and notarizing, an obviously false, and

inaccurate, pre-written attorney’s affidavit of competency, form

for Decedent, that was prepared two years after his death.

Judge Rivas “harmful error”, “abuse of discretion”, and

“misunderstanding” or “misapplication of the law." Appellant is

the one who has the expert witnesses. The Appellant Division

should reverse "abuse" or "mistaken exercise" of that discretion

is shown as follows:

On 10/22/2018, Forensic Document Examine Expert Report 1

(Pa801), Patricia Zippo (FDE Expert) affidavit, and analysis

(Pa812), regarding the case of John L. Marchisotto, deceased,

opinion states:
“Examination, comparison and evaluation of the questioned documents
and the known writing samples resulted in the following opinion:”
“The questioned signatures appearing on Q1-Q6 were not written” by
the author of the known writing samples (John L. Marchisotto/K1-
K15).”
On 11/13/2018, Forensic Document Examine Expert Report 2

(Pa858), Patricia Zippo (FDE Expert) affidavit, and analysis

(Pa869), regarding the case of John L. Marchisotto, deceased,

opinion states:

“Examination, comparison and evaluation of the questioned documents

and the known writing samples resulted in the following opinion:”
“The questioned signatures appearing on Q8, Q9, were not written* by
the author of the known writing samples (John L. Marchisotto/K1-
K15).”

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 53 of 65

 136a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

Patricia Zippo, also works for the New York Police

Department Laboratory, Jamaica, N.Y., from December 2003 to

present as a criminalist, performing casework in all aspects of

questioned document examination, primarily in handwriting

analysis. A criminalist is a criminal justice professional who

has a background in science and who uses this background to

examine and analyze different pieces of evidence that are found

in a criminal case.

On 05/15/2018, Rose Elizabeth Cofone, 10-page notarized

letter (Pa910), who is a witness to numerous events, and changes

in Decedent both physically, and emotionally. Ms. Cofone and

Decedent spent 12 long, wonderful years together, sharing each

other’s most intimate moments and life experiences. Ms. Cofone,

notes the drastic changes in Decedent’s behavior, and health

during the last year of his life of John L. Marchisotto,

deceased, affidavit states:

Ms. Rose Cofone writes in her notarized letter: (Pa910).

“So she put him in dark and dirty Roosevelt. I didn’t like this place
even though it was convenient for me to travel to after work. I felt
it was dirty, they didn’t use care in washing hands, and his waste
basket was always full, and his sheets were stained with leaks from
his bag.”

“This place was close for Debra to travel to since she lived right
across the bridge in Staten Island. Also because John loved seeing
his friends and enjoyed people, I felt he was better off being closer
to home and being able to see people rather than being stuck in a
dark green, dingy room and not being able to see anyone unless
someone came to see him.”
Ms. Cofone also notates significant changes in the

relationship she had with Decedent’s children. Ms. Cofone was

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 54 of 65

 137a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

even pushed to leave Decedent during his various health scares

because for whatever reason, Defendant Canova saw her unfit to

be with Decedent. Defendant Canova began to isolate Decedent

from Ms. Cofone in more ways than one: accursing her of

trespassing if Ms. Cofone went to visit Decedent, not allowing

Ms. Cofone to have a say in any of Decedent’s medical choices or

rehab facilities, etc. It was quite unfortunate Ms. Cofone

wasn’t even invited to Decedent’s funeral.

Ms. Rose Cofone writes in her notarized letter: (Pa910).

“I called Debra but she didn’t answer her phone so I left her a
voicemail. She then left me such a nasty voicemail, which I still
have, that she was Making the decisions as she was the one with
medical experience, although don’t know what she meant by that.”
“Debra told me many times that she doesn’t take no for an answer.”

Defendant Canova was not signing financial documents as

Decedent’s power of attorney (Pa976). Defendant Canova was

signing as if she was the decedent, and he was making her

financial decisions, while he was living in a nursing home, and

unable to care for himself. Defendant Louis P. Lepore, Esq., and

his employees at the Law Offices Of Louis Lepore, P.C., Louis

Lepore, Esq., P.L.L.C., were notarizing falsely signed documents

bearing John L. Marchisotto, deceased, signature.

Ms. Rose Cofone writes in her notarized letter: (Pa910).

“When he was in rehab, I do remember Debra told John she signed his
name on some papers because she said they needed to be done right
away. John didn’t say anything at first. It seemed he didn’t like the
idea of her signing his name, but she explained that she needed to
get the paperwork in right away. The fact that Debra signed his
name may have bothered him because I remember when he was in the
hospital and coming out of anesthesia at one time, he told Diane that
IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 55 of 65
 138a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

Debra signed her name some of his finance papers. Diane became very
suspicious and started asking questions but I don’t know what she was
told to stop her questioning.”

Defendant Lepore was added as an interested party, due to

his role as Trust Protector. Irrevocable Trust Section 2.11

Provisions for Trust Protector: The function of the trust

protector is to direct my trustee in matters concerning the

trust… (a) I appoint Louis Lepore to serve as Trust Protector….

(f) after my death the trust protector may remove any trustee of

a trust created under this agreement… (g) the authority of the

trust protector is conferred in a nonfiduciary capacity… Unless

it is established that the act, omission, or forbearance was

motivated by an actual intent to harm the beneficiary of the

trust or an act of self-dealing for personal benefit.

Ms. Rose Cofone writes in her notarized letter: (Pa910).

“On day, while John was still in rehab, he told me that he had to see
a lawyer to change his will because Debra told him his old will
wasn’t legal because it had his Brooklyn address. He told me that it
cost him $5,000 to have his will changed. I was flabbergasted with
this amount. I was actually in the process of having my will changed
with my attorney and I told him these two things that John told me.
My bill for my will was $700 and it was complicated, but he said
$5,000 made no sense and he told me that your address would not make
your will null and void.”
Ms. Rose Cofone writes in her notarized letter: (Pa910).

“I miss John dearly every single day I do wish it could have turned
out so differently but at least I had a wonderful experience with a
truly loving person for 12 years in my life.”
“I am writing this because I know that Debra Canova is one of the
most selfish and controlling individuals I’ve ever met, as well as
being dishonest. With the selfish way she decided to end her
father’s life, I am sure there were things she did along the way to
protect her own interests. I would never trust an individual who
truly cares about nothing but her own desires. She is conniving.”

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 56 of 65

 139a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

“I’m just very sorry for the way she treated her father and for his
suffering because of her. And I know it was unfair for her not to
consult John’s only son about his condition, what was happening with
John’s death, and what has happened since he passed away.”

N.J.R.E. 403 specifically allows a judge, in his or her

discretion, to exclude otherwise admissible evidence under

specified circumstances. Judge Rivas, “harmful error”, fails to

apply the correct test in analyzing the admissibility of

evidence. The appellate court's review of this entire matter is

de novo. State v. Lykes, 192 N.J. 519, 534 (2007).

POINT 8
DURING THE HEARING, THE JUDGE SAID “FURTHERMORE, PLAINTIFF HAS
CLAIMED WHETHER LEPORE PRACTICED LAW IN A DEFUNCT PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
AND HAS FAILED TO CARRY MALPRACTICE INSURANCE AS REQUIRED BY THE RULES OF
COURT AND PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. AGAIN, THESE CLAIMS WERE CONSISTENTLY
UNSUPPORTED BY ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE BEYOND PLAINTIFF’S ORAL ASSERTIONS”.
(2T05).

During the December 9, 2019, hearing, Appellant said “Your

Honor, I -- I -- I’m-- I just want to just backtrack a little
bit. I’m sorry, but I -- I understand about that -- the motion
that we -- you said that was decided upon already and
everything. But the -- there’s something new in that motion
about -- about Mr. -- defendant Lepore regarding him saying he’s
a sole proprietor and
--” (4T07).
During the hearing, the judge said “Mr. Marchisotto –--
we’re not going to entertain any more attacks on Mr. Lepore.
You don’t have a basis --" Appellant said “I have -- I have
evidence, your Honor”(4T07).
Appellant said “-- I just -- I just -- the-- the thing is
that’s -- that’s troubling is that Louis Lepore, Esquire is an
LLC --" (4T08). The judge said “It doesn’t matter. He’s an
Officer of the Court, he’s a lawyer, he’s been admitted. What
his business situation is of no consequence” (4T08).
Appellant said “But he’s supposed to have New Jersey legal
malpractice insurance to appear before the Courts, isn’t that
the way the Court Rule is, Sir? (4T09).

The judge said “Mr. Marchisotto, this is the last time I’ll

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 57 of 65

 140a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

say it, no more on Mr. Lepore” (4T09). The judge said “You --
you got to stop your obsession with Mr. Lepore. That’s what
strikes me through all these papers” (4T13).

On December 2, 2019, Defendant Lepore wrote in his

Opposition to Appellate Motion for Disqualification of Louis

Lepore Esq., Louis Lepore, Esq., P.L.L.C., and The Law Offices

of Louis Lepore, P.C.:

“The only new wrinkly that is presented to this court is PLAINTIF’S
allegation that my Law Practice is operating as a “Louis Lepore, Esq,
PC”. Unfortunately for the PLAINTIFF, I operate as sole practitioner.
I freely admit, that Louis Lepore, Esq. PC does exist, however it is
an inactive PC.” “The PLAINTIFF’S allegations are baseless, and not
ground in reality. In the event that the court requires proof of
insurance of my sole practitioner practice, I am more than willing to
have the court conduct an in-camera review of malpractice insurance.”
See (Pa210; Pa211; Pa331-Pa342).

On December 2, 2019, Defendant Lepore wrote in his LEGAL

ARGUMENT; “RES JUDICATA PRECLUDES PLAINTIFFS CLAIM AGAINST LOUIS
LEPORE ESQ.:

“The PLAINTIF’S current allegations of this motion have already been

adjudicated on AUGUST 8, 2018, See Attached “Order dated August 9,
2019” “Transcripts dated August 8, 2018, page 16 lines 1-20.”
“The application of res judicata doctrine requires a substantially
similar or identical causes of action, and issues, parties, and
relief sought Eatough v. Bd of Med. Exam’rs 191 (Pa211) N.J. Super
166, 173 [465 A2d 934] (App Div, 1983); Constant v Pac. Nat’l Ins Co,
84 N.J. Super 211, 216 [201 A2d 405] (App [Law]Div.1964).”
“Plaintiff has already raised these issues in his many previous
motions as to NJ RPC Rules 3.4 and 8.4. The only new false allegation
that is presented to the court is PLAINTIFF’S allegation that my Law
Practice is operating as a “Louis Lepore, Esq., P.C.”. Unfortunately
for the PLAINTIFF, I operate as a sole practitioner and none of the
allegations in Plaintiff’s MOTION are applicable. Under the
principles of res judicata PLAINTIFFS MOTION should be dismissed with
prejudice.” See (Pa212; Pa331-Pa342).
Judge Rivas, “harmful error”, Appellant did prove with

supported claims, and concrete evidence, that Defendant Lepore

practice of law is not a defunct professional corporation, and

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 58 of 65

 141a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

active beyond oral assertions (2T05). Judge Rivas failed to

address or provide Appellant any dispositions on his concrete

evidence motions. Res judicata, doctrine, was “harmful error”

and did not apply to Appellant 12/09/2019, motion to disqualify

Defendant Lepore, under R.1:21: Practice of Law. Judge Goodzeit

08/09/2018, Orders (Pa55), for the disqualification of Defendant

Lepore, had nothing to do with R. 1:21, “Practice of Law”.

Judge Rivas abuse of discretion, and misunderstanding or

misapplication of the law." The Appellant Division must

adjudicate the controversy in the light of the applicable law in

order that a manifest denial of justice be avoided. State v.

Steele, 92 N.J. Super. 498, 507 (App. Div. 1966); Kavanaugh v.

Quigley, 63 N.J. Super. 153, 158 (App. Div. 1960). The Appellant

Division should reverse "abuse" or "mistaken exercise" of that

discretion is shown.

POINT 9
DURING THE HEARING, THE JUDGE SAID “ALL RIGHT. LET'S FIRST ADDRESS
MR. MARCHISOTTO'S MOTION TO RECUSE THE COURT. THE COURT HAS CONSIDERED
THAT MOTION AND FINDS THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR RECUSAL. IN PANITCH V.
PANITCH, 339 NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT AT 63, PAGES 66 TO 67, APPELLATE
DIVISION 2001 -- MR. MARCHISOTTO HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THESE
PROCEEDINGS ARE UNFAIR, ALTHOUGH A BELIEF THAT THEY'RE UNFAIR IS NOT
SUFFICIENT. THERE HAS TO BE OBJECTIVE REASONABLE EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE IF
THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN UNFAIR. IT IS MR. MARCHISOTTO'S M.O. THAT
WHENEVER HE IS UNHAPPY WITH A DECISION THAT A JUDICIAL OFFICER MAKES, HE
FILES OTHER LAWSUITS IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET THE CASE REMOVED FROM THAT JUDGE
AND HE'S DONE SO HERE, WHICH IS WHAT I MEANT WHEN I SAID BACK ON DECEMBER
9TH, I KNOW YOU, MR. MARCHISOTTO, THAT HAS BEEN YOUR M.O. SINCE 2019”.
(3T24 – 3T25).

On April 1, 2020, Judge Rivas, during the hearing said,

“The court his considered that motion and finds that there is no

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 59 of 65

 142a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

basis for recusal. In Panitch v. Panitch, 339 New Jersey

Superior Court at 63, pages 66 to 67, Appellate Division 2001 --

Mr. Marchisotto has taken the position that these proceedings

are unfair …” (3T24 – 3T25; 28 U.S.C. § 455 (a)).

In Panitch v. Panitch, 339 New Jersey Superior Court at 63,

Pages 66 to 67, Appellate Division 2001. An error occurred;

the error was harmful; the error, was brought to the judge’s

attention, there is insufficient weight of evidence, dismissing

Appellate complaint with prejudice; there was an abuse of

discretion, and, not correcting the error would seriously affect

Appellant’s substantial rights.

Judge Rivas improper rulings threats against the Appellant,

“harmful error” motivated by bias on the part of Judge; NJ REV

STAT § 2A:15-49 (2013), constitutes, No judge of any court shall

sit on the trial of or argument of any matter in controversy in

a cause pending in his court when he:

(C) has given his opinion upon a matter in question in such action;
(d) is interested in the event of such action. (g) when there is any
other reason which might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing and
judgment, or which might reasonably lead counsel or the parties to
believe so.
Rule 1:12. Disqualification and Disability of Judges R.

1:12-1. Cause for Disqualification; On the Court's Motion The

judge of any court shall be disqualified on the court's own

motion and shall not sit in any matter, if the judge:

R. 1:12-1(d) has given an opinion upon a matter in question in the
action; r. 1:12-1(e). Is interested in the event of the action; r.
1:12-1(g). When there is any other reason which might preclude a fair
and unbiased hearing and judgment, or which might reasonably lead

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 60 of 65

 143a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

counsel or the parties to believe so. R. 1:12-2. Disqualification on

party's motion. (28 U.S.C. § 455 (a).
Constitution of New Jersey 1947, Article VI. Judicial
Section, Section VI (4):
The justices of the supreme court and the judges of the superior
court and the judges of the county courts shall be subject to
impeachment, and any judicial officer impeached shall not exercise
his office until acquitted. The judges of the superior court and the
judges of the county courts shall also be subject to removal from
office by the supreme court for such causes and in such manner as
shall be provided by law.

The standards for impartiality under 28 U.S.C. § 455 is an

objective one, requiring recusal only if "a reasonable person,

knowing all the relevant facts, would harbor doubts about the

judge's impartiality." Appellant has clearly demonstrated that a

reasonable person would question Judge Rivas impartiality.

Appellant has articulated how Judge Rivas ruling causes, or has

caused, him sufficient harm. Judge Rivas has committed treason.

POINT 10
DURING THE HEARING, THE JUDGE SAID “YOU HAVE FILED FEDERAL CASES
AGAINST JUDGE GOODZEIT. YOU HAVE FILED FEDERAL CASES AGAINST ME, AND THERE
IS OTHER PROCEEDINGS THAT YOU HAVE FILED, AND YOU HAVE DONE SO IN AN
ATTEMPT TO (INDISCERNIBLE) THIS LITIGATION. UNDER STATE V. BILAL
(PHONETIC), 221 NEW JERSEY 608 (2018), THE COURT STATED, A PLAINTIFF IS
SEEKING, CITED THE UNITED STATES V. GREENSPAN, 26 F. 3D (INDISCERNIBLE).
BILAL CITED THAT CASE AND SAID, WHEN A PLAINTIFF SEEKS TO OBTAIN ANOTHER
JUDGE (INDISCERNIBLE) SEEKS TO DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS, SEEKS TO HARASS THE
LITIGANTS AND HAS FILED (INDISCERNIBLE), ALL OF WHICH THE COURT FINDS HAVE
TAKEN PLACE IN THIS CASE. WHEN HE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED ON THE RECORD,
WHAT IS YOUR BASIS FOR THE STATEMENT THAT WAS CONTAINED IN HIS SO-CALLED
ANSWERS? HE GOES, IT IS A BELIEF THAT HE HAS. HE HAS NO FACTUAL BACKGROUND,
NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE OR ANYTHING TO SUSTAIN THAT (INDISCERNIBLE). THE COURT
IN DECEMBER GAVE HIM ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THE INTERROGATORIES. HE
CAME BACK WITH ESSENTIALLY THE SAME ANSWERS, CLEARLY CUT AND PASTE, CLEARLY
NOT TAILORED SPECIFICALLY TO WHAT WAS BEING ASKED. MR. MARCHISOTTO CITES
THE FACT THAT HE IS SELF-REPRESENTED. BUT HE HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS
LITIGATION AND IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED TO HIM SEVERAL TIMES HOW HE
(INDISCERNIBLE) THE PARTICULAR MATTERS AND HE REFUSES TO DO SO. INSTEAD,
HE GOES AND HE FILES OTHER ACTIONS IN AN ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT, DELAY, AND
OBSTRUCT”. (3T26).
IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 61 of 65
 144a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

The court erred, Appellant interrogatories were prepared to

the best of his ability, were prepared properly, responsive, and

were not copy and pasted. Just because Defendant Lepore, and

Defendant Canova, did not like Appellant answers, and wanted to

relitigate over, and over again, asking the same exact question,

Appellant answers were not going to change, and answers would

have been similar, to other witness answers, he would call at

trial.

On December 9, 2019, The court said “If there’s any cut and
paste, I’m going to reject it.” Appellant said “Okay. Yes your
Honor Thank you.” (4T163).
Appellant answers were not copied and pasted, and were
accommodated with a “legal theory, or factual basis” prepared to
the best of his abilities. (Pa540; Pa614; Pa620, Pa625; Pa627;
Pa632).
Judge Rivas “Harmful Error” during the hearing incorrectly
cites “In STATE V. BILAL (phonetic), 221 New Jersey 608 (2018),
the Court stated, a plaintiff is seeking, cited the United
States v. Greenspan, 26 F. 3d (indiscernible). The court in
December gave him another opportunity to answer the
interrogatories. He came back with essentially the same answers,
clearly cut and paste, clearly not tailored specifically to what
was being asked …” (3T26).

Judge Rivas, incorrectly cites “United States v. Greenspan,

26 F. 3d (indiscernible)”… (3T26), as his reason to not recuse

himself. United States v. Greenspan, 26 F.3d 1001, 1005 (10th

Cir. 1994) "adverse rulings cannot in themselves form the form

the appropriate grounds for disqualification." (holding that a

judge has just as strong a duty to sit when there is no

legitimate reason to recuse as he does to recuse when the law

and facts require).

Greenspan is factually undistinguished, and contrary to,
IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 62 of 65
 145a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

Appellant matter. Greenspan is a clear outlier among cases

dealing with recusal based on threats against a judge by a

criminal defendant, and its approach has been questioned by

other courts. See State v. Riordan, 146 n.m. 281, 209 p.3d 773,

776 (2009); Basciano, 542 f.3d at 957 N.6. See also United

States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993–994 (10th cir.1993)

(recognizing that "threats or other attempts to intimidate the

judge" are matters that "will not ordinarily satisfy the

requirements for disqualification"). Greenspan argues that the

trial judge erred in failing to recuse himself in light of

circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to question

his impartiality. See 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 455(a).

Greenspan contends that because the trial judge was aware of this
alleged threat, a reasonable person might question the judge's
impartiality and the judge should have refused himself pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 455(a). He also argues that recusal is appropriate under 28
U.S.C. § 144, which provides for removal of a judge based on actual
bias or prejudice.
In united states v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985 993-94 (10th Cir. 1993), this
court noted that threats or attempts to intimidate a judge will not
ordinarily satisfy the requirement for disqualification under section
455(a).

To prevail on a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 144 to recuse a

judge, the litigant must file a timely, and sufficient affidavit

establishing that the judge has a personal bias or prejudice.

Similarly, to obtain disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455, a

movant must show that a reasonable person, knowing all the

circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge's

impartiality, Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana v. Laws Co., 690

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 63 of 65

 146a
Appellate Division Docket Number: A-003453-19 TEAM 01 Appellate Formal Brief

F.2d 1157, 1165 (5th Cir. 1982), and rumor, speculations,

opinions and the like do not suffice.

As the Supreme Court noted in Liljeberg v. Health Servs.

Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 859-60, Liljeberg v. Health Services

Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S. Ct. 2194 (1988), the

purpose of section 455(a) is "to promote public confidence in

the integrity of the judicial process." Judge Rivas should have

recused himself under this section 455(a) standard.

The Appellate Division, must specifically consider whether

Judge Rivas, violation of section 455(a), is “harmful error”;

Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 862, 108 S.Ct. at 2203-04. The false

alleged gun threat, against Appellant, as an "extrajudicial

source", for purposes of recusal under section 455(a). Judge

Rivas, making a false threat report, alone of a gun threat

against him, after Appellant served him a U.S. District Court,

summons, and complaint, provides sufficient insulation, so as to

avoid any necessary conclusion, Judge Rivas, impartiality could

be reasonably questioned. Judge Rivas has committed treason.

The federal cases on this issue typically apply 28 USC §

454(a), which requires federal judges to disqualify themselves

"in any proceeding in which [their] impartiality might

reasonably be questioned”. Judge Rivas has committed treason.

Let the record be clear appellant has shown, Judge Rivas improper
rulings, might have been motivated by bias on the part of judge. The
standards for impartiality under 28 U.S.C. § 455 is an objective one,
requiring recusal only if "a reasonable person, knowing all the
relevant facts, would harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality."

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED, page 64 of 65

147a
 148a
APPENDIX – F

Petitioners Notice of
Petition for Certification

Supreme Court New Jersey;

Docket No. 087075

 149a

John F. Marchisotto, (“Pro se Petitioner”)

15 Topaz Dr
Jackson, NJ 08527 Supreme Court of New Jersey
(732) 526-7732 Appellate Division Number
A-3453-19
mr300cclass@yahoo.com

IN THE MATTER OF THE Civil Action

IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF
JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED. Notice of Petition for Certification

To: Clerk of the Supreme Court Debra E. Canova, (“Respondent”)

Hughes Justice Complex The Law Offices Of Louis Lepore, P.C. (“UNINSURED P.C.”)
P.O. Box 970
Attn.: Louis Lepore, Esq., (“UNINSURED ATTORNEY”)
Trenton, NJ 08625-0970
885 Huguenot Avenue
Clerk of the Appellate Division Staten Island N.Y. 10312
Hughes Justice Complex
P.O. Box 006
Trenton, NJ 08625-0006
[Also list the attorneys for your adversaries or, if they are not represented by counsel, list your adversaries by their names and
addresses]

TAKE NOTICE that John F. Marchisotto, proceeding Pro se, shall petition the Supreme Court for
an Order certifying the entire judgment entered by the Appellate Division in the above matter on April
21, 2022, of the Appellate Division. The filing fee of $250 is enclosed herewith.

Dated: May 9, 2022

[Your Signature]

John F. Marchisotto, (“Pro se Petitioner”)

15 Topaz Dr
Jackson, NJ 08527
(732) 526-7732
mr300cclass@yahoo.com

IN THE MATTER OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, DECEASED.

 150a

087075

(Appellate Division Number: A-3453-19)

July 25, 2022

PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION BRIEF TO THE FOLLOWING VIA USPS PRIORTY & FIRST CLASS MAIL:
Clerk of the Supreme Court Clerk of the Appellate Division Debra E. Canova, (“Respondent”)
Hughes Justice Complex Hughes Justice Complex The Law Offices Of Louis Lepore, P.C. (“UNINSURED P.C.”)
P.O. Box 970 P.O. Box 006 Attn.: Louis Lepore, Esq., (“UNINSURED ATTORNEY”)
Trenton, NJ 08625-0970 Trenton, NJ 08625-0006 885 Huguenot Avenue
Staten Island N.Y. 10312

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

Dated: July 25, 2022

 151a
APPENDIX –

Justice Samuel Alito

One Justice DENIAL Stay Order

Supreme Court of the U.S. Docket No.

19A1066
12/30/22, 6:23 PM Search - Supreme Court of the United States

152a

Search documents in this case: Search

No. 19A1066

Title: John F. Marchisotto, Applicant

v.
Margaret Goodzeit, et al.

Docketed: July 2, 2020

Lower Ct: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Case Numbers: (084541; S-120-19)

DATE PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS

Jun 16 2020 Application (19A1066) for a stay, submitted to Justice Alito.

Main Document Main Document

Jul 14 2020 Application (19A1066) denied by Justice Alito.

NAME ADDRESS PHONE

Attorneys for Petitioner

John F. Marchisotto 15 Topaz Drive

Jackson, NJ 08527

Party name: Marchisotto, John F.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19a1066.html# 1/1