Ruth Baumann Commits Perjury at TRIAL (Tenant from Hell)

May 9th, 2015 Comments off
Ruth Baumann

Ruth Baumann



Posted by B. David Mehmet – May 9, 2015

Ruth Baumann is a tenant in UNIT 1F at 26 Bond Street in Manhattan. She has not paid rent since 2012 (Baumann’s rent for the 1,200 sq ft unit is only $576.98, which she refuses to pay while running her business in it and demanding the landlord do repairs in the unit). While she holds onto this rent controlled apartment, she admitted under sworn testimony that she has been PRIMARILY residing with her boyfriend uptown for the last 5 years. She only uses the rent control apartment to run her business, Baumann Resource Group, where she shows up in the AM and departs in the PM Monday through Friday. And she rarely ever visits the apartment on the weekend. And in doing so, Baumann has been intentionally violating the Multiple Dwelling Law (MDL) that has provided her with rent control protection (Baumann’s holdover deposition transcripts dated July 2, 2014 will be uploaded here shortly. A motion for Summary Judgement for her eviction is pending).

Thomas  J. Hillgardner

Thomas J. Hillgardner, Esq

To keep her free rent status, Baumann, with the help of her ex-boyfriend attorney, Thomas J. Hillgardner, who was arrested twice for harassing behavior, has filed multiple Loft Board applications falsely accusing the Landlord of failing to perform repairs in the building among other false accusations. For example, Hillgardner, on behalf of Ruth Baumann, filed an application in June 2014 with the NYC Loft Board FALSELY informing that agency that 26 Bond St. was NOT registered in 2013 and the landlord should be sanctioned. The building was registered in 2013. Thus, Thomas Hillgardner filed that FALSE application for the sole purpose to aid and abet Ruth Baumann in harassing the Landlord (Baumann’s Loft Board application will be uploaded here shortly).

Furthermore, at a trial held within the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) in May 2015, Baumann intentionally and maliciously committed PERJURY after she swore to tell the truth and nothing but the truth and then she falsely testified that quote: “The building is basically neglected and abandoned“.  Buamann made that intentional false statement about 26 Bond Street AFTER she was involved with the Loft Board Narrative process filed by the Landlord in 2014 to legalize the building and after she witnessed the entire hallway of the building being renovated among many other repairs, which included buying a new $6,000 boiler and a new $800 oven for the tenant in unit 1R who Baumann calls “My sister” (What makes her FALSE testimony worse is that Baumann told a handyman, Sean Fowler, who was working in 26 Bond St. in May 2015 that quote “This is the best the building has looked in years.“). See for more malicious behavior by Thomas J. Hillgardner:

THEREFORE, my opinion is that RUTH BAUMANN IS A TENANT FROM HELL and I caution ALL landlords to heed this warning and our experience with this woman and her ex-boy friend attorney, Thomas J. Hillgardner, or you too will find yourself in and out of Court in your attempts to rid yourself of this tenant from hell who intentionally and maliciously breaks the law and lies to harm others while her ex-boyfriend attorney gives her free to low cost attorney services and aids and abets her intentional and malicious acts. FURTHERMORE, due to Baumann’s many years of being a nuisance to numerous landlords of 26 Bond St., I am placing her on the Nationwide Landlord blacklist to warn ALL Landlords about her bad conduct as a tenant and to provide them with documented evidence against her  See Notice of 30 Day Termination served on Baumann:

NOTE: The only defense Ruth Buamann would have to the allegations above are those she lies about. Ask her why is she not suing me for making defamatory statements about her above. The the reason is because they are TRUE statements (I will be posting the trial and Loft Board evidence proving the above statements here shortly).

26 Bond St. Hallway BEFORE photos witnessed by Ruth Baumann in 2013.
























Renovated Hallway in 2013-2014 witnessed by Ruth Baumann. The APARTMENT DOOR  you see by the entrance door is Unit 1F that Ruth Baumann occupies.


























Before photos of Unit 2F in 2014





















Renovated Unit 2F in 2014 witnessed by Ruth Baumann as she repeatedly walked by the unit
















In 2014 Built a public bench in front of 26 Bond St. for all to enjoy witnessed by Baumann



















Updated the bench design in 2015









Proposed renovation of 26 Bond St. facade, which photo was posted outside Bumann’s door in 2014













Youtube video animation of an addition to 26 Bond St to add a Penthouse and rooftop garden.

Categories: General Topics Tags:

Ruth Baumann – Nuisance

August 16th, 2014 Comments off




Ruth Baumann

Joshua Eichenbaum

26 Bond Street, Apt 1F

New York, NY  10012               August 11, 2014


Attn: Ruth Baumann,


PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this 30 day notice of termination is being sent to you pursuant to RCNY Title 29 § 2-08.1(a)(1) and in accordance with Mazda Realty Associates v. Green 723 N.Y.S.2d 812 (2000) to terminate your month-to-month tenancy on the grounds that you have been a continuing nuisance within 26 Bond Street over the years, which has substantially affected the use and enjoyment of the property by the landlord and the owner. And your repeated failure to provide access constitutes a breach of a substantial obligation of your lease and the Multiple Dwelling Law.


On or about August 1, 2014, you also violated Judge Rakower’s Order dated September 4, 2012 when you failed to provide the landlord with reasonable access to perform legalization work within Unit 1F as required under the Loft Board approved narrative statement, the Dept. of Building’s approved plans and the DOB work permit dated July 3, 2014 and No. 1000499925-01-AL. And pursuant to 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law (MDL). In Judge Rakower’s order, the Judge determined from the facts that you had “refused Plaintiff’s request for access to [your] apartment on multiple occasions”. The Judge further determined that documents provided against you proved that the Department of Buildings attempted to access Unit 1F on two (2) separate occassions when “they attempted to enter [your] apartment on July 27, 2010 and August 2, 2010 for inspection, and were unable to gain access either time” and that you did “not dispute that [you] had denied access to [your] apartment for all of these requests”. And despite Judge Rakower’s clear Order against you to provide the landlord reasonable access to complete the legalization of Unit 1F, you have again refused the landlord reasonable access to Unit 1F. Your refusal to provide reasonable access has prevented the landlord from obtaining its Certificate of Occupancy and it has financially damaged the landlord by its failure to collect rent from you for the last two (2) years and via the expenditure of attorney fees and costs to gain access.


Furthermore, on December 2, 2011, you had physically assaulted the manager of the building that resulted in a criminal complaint and a lawsuit being filed against you. On or about February 17, 2012, you caused a letter to be sent on your behalf to the NYC Loft Board that falsely accused the manager of the building of “fraud” and which was immaterial and irrelevant to any pending Loft Board application. On or about August 11, 2012, you caused another letter to be sent to the NY Supreme Court that falsely accused the manager of the building of “fraud” and which was immaterial and irrelevant to the pending action. In and around January 2014, you intentionally and malicously slandered an owner of the building to his contractor for the purpose of causing that contractor to cease the legalization work within the building. On or about July 3, 2014, you caused papers to be filed with the NY Civil Court that faslely accused an owner of the building of “fraud” and it falsely accused the same owner of taking NO steps to legalize Unit 1F when you were intentionally and maliciously refusing access to Unit 1F for the legalization work, and which legalization work was immaterial and irrelevant to the pending assault action against you that you settled on May 6, 2013. In and around April 2014, you filed an Answer with a Counter-Claim in the Supreme Court Slander action against you that requested the Court to uphold your assault settlement agreement dated May 6, 2013 due to your false allegation that one of the owner’s of the building violated its confidentiality clause. And at the same time you filed a motion in the Civil Court requesting that Court to “vacate” your assault settlement agreement dated May 6, 2013 on the false allegation that an owner violated the confidentiality clause. Then on or around July 3, 2014, you filed a frivolus motion for sanctions against an owner of the building on your false claim of “fraud” and you violated the confidentiality clause of the settlement agreement dated May 13, 2013 by attaching the settlement agreement as an exhibit to your motion.


In and around August 6, 2008, you did flood Unit 1F. On September 15, 2011, you did flood Unit 1F again above the commercial tenant who filed a complaint. And you flooded Unit 1F again thereafter, which required the assistance of the NYC Fire Department who threatened to break down the door to Unit 1F because you refused to provide access (Fire Dept response records for 26 Bond Street can be examined by serving the NYC Fire Dept. with a foil request). In addition, you had FALSELY represented to the landlord, owner and manager of the building that you have been utilizing Unit 1F as your primary residence. You then ADMITTED on July 2, 2014 under your sworn testimony that you are only utlizing Unit 1F as a place of convenance to run your business, store your personal items, receive mail and to do your laundry that you bring in an “overnight bag” from your residence in Coop 16PE located at 11 Riverside Dr. where you have been residing at for the last four (4) years. And you ADMITTED to NOT sleeping in Unit 1F for over three and a half (3½) years between the periods of January 2010 to July 2014.


On or about April, 7, 1988, you caused a lawsuit to be filed against you by an owner of the building within the Supreme Court under caption Nunn v. Baumann Index No. 007009/88. On or about December 9, 1994, you caused a lawsuit to be filed against you by the owner of the building within the Supreme Court under caption Chambi v. Baumann Index No. 410011/94. On or about January 1, 2010, you caused a lawsuit to be filed against you by the owner of the building within the Supreme Court under caption Chambi v. Baumann Index No. 111569/10 (Access). On or about December 5, 2011, you caused a lawsuit to be filed against you by the manager of the building within the Civil Court under caption Mehmet v. Baumann Index No. 64682/11 (Assault). On May 10, 2012, you caused a lawsuit to be filed against you by an owner of the building within the Civil Court under the caption 26 Bond Street Management, LLC v. Baumann Index No. 065389/12 (Non-Primary Residence). On or about April 1, 2014, you caused a lawsuit to be filed against you by an owner of the building within the Supreme Court under caption Mehmet v. Baumann Index No. 100370/14(Defamation). In addition to the above lawsuits, multiple access applications were filed against you within the NYC Loft Board and a hearing was scheduled with the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH). The OATH hearings would rarely conclude with a final Order because you would always settle the matter by agreeing to provide access. Thereafter, you would refuse additional access, which resulted in another access application being filed with the NYC Loft Board and another hearing would be scheduled at OATH where you would again agree to allow access (The multiple Loft Board access applications can be examined by serving the Loft Board with a foil request).

THEREFORE, based on your continuous and multiple acts of egregious bad behavior within 26 Bond Street over the years against the landlord, owner and employees of the building, which has substantially affected the use and enjoyment of the building by the landlord and the owner and which also constitutes a breach of a substantial obligation of your lease warrants your removal from Unit 1F on the grounds of your continuing nuisance.


PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that your tenancy will expire in 30 days from the date you receive this notice. Upon your failure to vacate Unit 1F after the 30 days has expired, a legal action will be filed against you within a Court of Law on or after September 20, 2014 to remove you and any other occupants from apartment 1F on the grounds that your bad behaivor has been a continuing nusiance as defined under New York law.

Categories: General Topics Tags:

Mehmet v. Thomas J. Hillgardner and Ruth Buamann

July 17th, 2014 Comments off

An Attorney and his Ex-Girlfriend

B. David Mehmet,  July 17, 2014

I am going to leave it up to you to decide whether the attorney Thomas Hillgardner and his Ex-Girlfriend, Ruth Baumann, are bad people.

To start you off, let me tell you the following about these two individuals and how Mr. Hillgardner’s legal career started. He was admitted as an attorney in 1994 and in 1995 he and his girlfriend, Ruth Bauman, did the following:

More Evidence of Hillgardner’s and Ruth Buamann’s BAD CHARACTER

In 1995, hillgardner was representing the Defendant in a hold-over action under H.E.G. v. Melvin L&T Index 87335/95. He uncovered that the Plaintiff landlord’s corporate filing had dissolved. He then got his girlfriend, Ruth Baumann, to incorporate the same name as the Plaintiff landlord, H.E.G.. He then represented his girlfriend under the H.E.G name in Supreme Court and sued the Plaintiff landlord claiming it was using the name of his girlfriend’s company and he asked for an injunction to stop the landlord from suing Melvin in the L&T Court.  Hillgardner LOST because he could NOT understand the legal concept and rights of a “de facto corporation”. HOWEVER, this further uncovers the disgusting bad character of Hillgardner besides the fact that he is a bad lawyer who has trouble understanding fundamental legal concepts as in a de facto corporation. A good lawyer would have understood the legal rights of a de facto corporation and the lawyer would have NEVER sued for an injunction because the lawsuit would have failed as it did with Hillgardner.

Plaintiff Landlord
#1 H.E.G. Development & Management Corp. v. Patricia Melvin L&T Index 87335/95

Ruth Baumann (Hillgardner’s girlfriend at that time
#2 H.E.G Development & Management Corp. v. Naomi Blumberg 656 N.Y.S.2d 127

NOTE: Naomi Blumberg was the original owner of H.E.G who was suing Hillgardner’s client, Melvin. After Hillgardner’s girlfriend, Ruth Buamann, incorporated an identical name as H.E.G., Hillgardner then sued Naomi Blumberg with Ruth Baumann acting as the Plaintiff in that case. Hillgardner then tried to get an injunction to stop Naomi from suing his client, Melvin in the L&T action. Talk about a despicable attorney and his cohort. This is the type of bad character Hillgardner has. His conduct defines him as a “bad person. In a deposition on July 2, 2014, Ruth Baumann stated on the record that she does NOT remember this case. Hillgardner, who was representing her in that depositon, stated he remembered this case; but Baumann does NOT remember this case.

Hillgardner Abused his own Client and Violated Ethical Rules

Here is a letter I received from one of his clients that he wrongly solicited in Court:


Hillgardner has Been Arrested Twice for Harassing Behavior

Not only has Hillgardner been arrested twice for harassing behavior; but when he sued the State of New York for his arrest after his harassing behavior toward a Court officer, he made the following statement at his deposition quote “I know how to push peoples’ buttons and I felt there was NO down side to pushing a button or two at that point” uquote (Hillgardner has been approached multiple times by Court Officers in Court for his misconduct in front of a Judge).


Mehmet v. Ruth Buamann Index No. 64682/14

Here is a Notice of Cross-Motion dated July 15, 2014 for sanctions against Thomas Hillgardner and Ruth Baumann for making INTENTIONAL FALSE STATEMENTS to a Court of law. How Hillgardner is still  allowed to practice law is beyond me. However, it appears that immediate action should be taken against him to have him suspended or disbarred. No attorney should be allowed to continue practicing law when they have made intentional false statements to the Court and conducted themselves in such a bad manner (A complaint is being filed with the Disciplinary Committee and other political parties are being contacted to have Hillgardner suspended or disbarred).







Ruth Baumann,





Index No.: 64682/11






PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the attached affidavit of the Plaintiff, sworn to on the 15th day of July 2014, and the exhibits attached thereto, and upon all the proceedings in his case to date, Plaintiff will move this Court at 9:30AM. on the 1st day of August 2014, Part 34, Room 419 at the Civil Courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, New York, NY, or soon thereafter for the parties or their counsels to be heard, for an Order granting the Plaintiff’s request for SANCTIONS on the grounds of the Defendant’s and her attorney’s filing of a frivolous motion supported by the intentional and malicous false statements of Thomas Hillgardner, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Date: New York, NY

July 15, 2014 ________________________

B. David Mehmet


319 Lafatette Street, Ste 161

New York, NY 10012

(646) 942-1420

To: Thomas J. Hillgardner

for Defendant Baumann

82-63 170th Street

Jamaica, NY 11432

(718) 657-0606


B. David Mehmet,



Ruth Baumann,



Index No. L&T: 64682/11 





} ss:



B. DAVID MEHMET, sworn under the penalty of perjury, deposes and says:

1. That I am the Plaintiff in the above captioned matter and I have personal knowledge of the statements made herein. I am submitting this affidavit in opposition to the Defendant’s Motion for attorney fees and costs and in support of my Cross-Motion for sanctions on the grounds that the Defendant and her Ex-boyfriend attorney, Thomas Hillgardner, have filed a clearly frivolous motion supported by intentional and malicous false statements that has NO legitimate purpose except to harass the Plaintiff.

Defendant and her Ex-boyfriend Attorney, Thomas

Hillgardner, FALSELY Accused the Plaintiff of FRAUD

2. In paragraph 8 of the Defendant’s Attorney Affirmation, it states “8. Thirdly, upon information and belief, Mr. Mehmet’s claim that he was at a closing, made by his employee on his behalf in his absence on May 15, 2014, is a falsehood…..Contributing to my belief that Mr. Mehmet perpetrated a fraud upon the court with regard to his whereabouts on May 15, 2014 is the fact that it appears he has done this before.

3. NYC County Clerk Records found on the ACRIS website CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that the Plaintiff was at a mortgage closing on May 15, 2014. The NYC County Clerk records also conclusively priove that the mortgage documents were recorded and made available for public viewing on the ACRIS website on June 2, 2014, which was over one (1) month before the Defendant and her attorney filed and served their current frivolous motion dated July 3, 2014, which FALSELY accused the Plaintiff of FRAUD (i.e. the Defendant and her attorney NEVER reviewed the ACRIS public files before filing their frivolous motion). See copy of ACRIS records conclusively proving the Plaintiff’s attendance at a mortgage closing on May 15, 2014 attached hereto as Exhibit “A”1

4. THEREFORE, the Defendant and her Ex-boyfriend attorney, Thomas Hillgardner, with intentional reckless disregard and malice did FASLELY accuse the Plaintiff of FRAUD for the purpose of filing a frivolous motion that had NO legitimate purpse except to HARASS the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff was FALSELY Accused of

Making “no efforts” to Perform Legalization

Work within the Apartment Occupied by the Defendant

5. In paragraph 12 of the Defendant’s attorney affirmation, it states “owner has made no efforts whatsoever to perform the work required in Ms. Baumann’s unit, choosing instead to conduct this present harassment campaign against her

6. The statements in paragrpah 12 of the Defendant’s attorney affirmation are contradicted by the architect, landlord, Dept. of Building and Court records which show that the Defendant had repeatedly REFUSED ACCESS to the Plaintiff to perform the required legalization work within the apartment she is solely utilizes as her principal place of business for Baumann Resource Group, Inc. The Defendant is continuing to refuse access to the apartment to complete the legalization work on the false grounds that she utilizes the apartment for “actual living purposes”. In fact, the Defendant has NOT slept in the apartment for the last four (4) years, which she admitted in her deposition held on July 2, 2014 within the office of the Plaintiff’s attorney, Rosenthal and Estis. See NY Suprme Court Order from Judge Rakower witnessing the Defendant’s multiple refusals to allow access to the landlord and the Dept. of Buildings attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.2

7. Since the Plaintiff’s company took ownership of the building in August 2013, the Plaintiff (1) filed new buiding plans and obtained DOB approval on January 8, 2014, (2) obtained 7-B Compliance (fire and safety) in December 2013, (3) withdrew multiple DOB applications that were unnecessary for the building’s legalization, (4) obtained a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the storefront, (5) obtained a DOB sign-off for the hallway sprinkler system, (6) installed new flooring and painted the hallways and installed a new staircase treads and risers, (7) installed a new boiler and stove in apartment 1R, (8) completely renovated apartment 2F, (9) painted, installed new lights and bathroom sink in apartment 2R, (8) professionally inspected the roof and ceiling, (9) rust proof and painted the rear fire escape, (10) install a new building security camera system from front to back. See DOB and Architect records attached hereto as Exhibit “C” .3

8. NEVERTHELESS, due to the prior landlords failure to complete the legalization of the buiding due in part to the Dendant’s hinderance, the Plaintiff’s company was NOT allowed to extend the Multiple Dwelling Law (MDL) compliance deadlines because he was related to the prior owner. THUS, the Defendant took advantage of this fact by refusing to pay the Plaintiff rent for the past three (3) years. The Defendants Ex-boyfriend attorney, Thomas Hillgardner then began to collude with the Defendant to prevent the legalization of the building by intentionally and malicously making false statements to the Loft Board and the Courts in his legal documents as he has done in his present Motion for attorney fees and costs.

9. THEREFORE, the Defendant’s and her attorney’s claims that the Plaintiff has taken no effort to legalize the buiding or to perform work within the apartment occupied by the Defendant was made with NO legitimate purpose except to harass the Plaintiff and to file a frivolous Motion requesting attorney fees and costs.

DEFENDANT has Waived her Right to

the Confidentiality Clause in the Settlement

Agreement by Breaching the Confidentiality Clause

10. FIRST, the Plaintiff DENIES any violation of the Settlement Agreement dated May 6, 2013. The settlement agreement ALLOWED the Plaintiff to post a notice on the Internet that a settlement occurred, which he did. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s attachment of the Settlement Agreement to his legal documents was NECESSARY AND RELEVANT to that case, which permits such an attachment as a matter of law. See Osowski v. Amec ConstManagement, Inc. 69 A.D.3d 99,887 N.Y.S.2d 11 (1st Dept., 2009). SECOND, The Defendant has BREACHED THE CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE by attaching the Settlement Agreement to her pending motion as Exhibit “1”.

11. THEREFORE, the Defendant’s breach of the confidentiality clause acts as a WAIVER of her rights and the Defendant CANNOT now come into Court and hold the Plaintiff laible for a breach she committed herself. See Exhibit “1” of the Defendant’s Notice of Motion.

Thomas J. Hillgardner was

Arrested Twice for Harassing Behavior

12. Thomas Hillgardner is known for his harassing behavior towards others, which includes harassing Judges at hearings. The Plaintiff has personal knowledge, which includes the Plaintiff’s attendance at Court hearings where the Court officers had to approach Thomas Hillgardner to control his behavior. In a recent hearing in 2014 before Judge Spears within this Courthouse, two (2) Court officers had to literally escort Thomas Hillgardner out of the Courtroom and into the hallway because he began abusing the Judge when she rejected his argument.

13. In another incident involving a Court Office, Thomas Hillgardner abused a Court Officer, which resulted in his arrest. Mr. Hillgardner sued the City and the Court Officer for the arrest and his clams were DENIED after trial. HOWEVER, during a deposition in the case, Mr. Hillgardner made the following statement on the record about harassing the court officer quote “I know how to push peoples’ buttons and I felt there was NO down side to pushing a button or two at that point” uquote. The Judge in that case stated that Mr. Hillgardner’s arrest for harassing the Court Officer was “Justified”. Here, the button pushing engaged by Mr. Hillgardner is the filing of a frivolous motion supported by his intentional and malicous false statements that have NO legitimate purpose except to harass the Plaintiff. See Thomas Hillgardner v. The State of New York, 112978, NYLJ 1202466558451, at *1 (Ct. of Clms., Decided July 12, 2010)

14. In another incident, Mr. Hillgardner was arrested again for his harassing behavior. This time, Mr. Hillgardner for harassing a police officer near the Plaintiff’s building during the time he was dating the Defendant and living with her in the Plaintiff’s building. THUS, the Plaintiff needs this Court’s protection from one of its own attorneys who has been using his law license to harass the Plaintiff and who is known for his disregard for the law and others. See NYPD Desk Appearance Ticket attached hereto as Exhibit “E”.4

Thomas Hillgardner and the Defendant

Engaged in Past Bad Conduct in Court proceedings

15. Under a prior hold-over action captioned H.E.G. Development & Management Corp. v. Patricia Melvin, Index No. L&T 87335/95, Thomas Hillgardner represented the Tenant Patricia Melvin who was being sued in a Hold-Over action for eviction. Thomas Hillgardner uncovered that the corporate landlord’s corporate filing had expired so he went and incorporated a similar company name “H.E.G. Development Management Corp.”. Mr. Hillgardner then solicitated the Defendant, Ruth Baumann, to act as a CORPORATE WITNESS for his newly incorporated company. Mr. Hillgardner then sued the landlord under H.E.G. DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT CORP., PLAINTIFF, V NAOMI BLUMBERG, DEFENDANT 1997.NY.35282 , 656 N.Y.S.2d 127, 171 Misc. 2d 740 (Sup. NY, 1997). Mr. Hillgardner, in contravention of prevailing law, attempted to deprive the corporate landlord of its de facto corporation rights to continue litigating the Hold-Over case. This is the type of bad character Thomas Hillgardner and Ruth Baumann have and they continue to collude together in engaging in bad conduct against landlords to this day. (The Plaintiff’s attorneys, Rosenberg & Estis, who Defended the landlord in that Hold-Over matter brought the Defendant’s and her attorney’s prior bad conduct to the Plaintiff’s attention). See the case H.E.G. Development & Management Corp. v. Blumberg attached hereto as Exhibit “G”

16. THEREFORE, the Defendant and her Ex-boyfriend attorney, Thomas Hillgardner are BAD PEOPLE who have been using Mr. Hillgardner’s law license to harass the Plaintiff. And they are continuing their intentional and bad behavior by the filing of a clearly frivolous motion for attorney fees and costs based on their intentional and malicous false statements to this Court.

17. The Defendant and her Ex-boyfriend, Thomas Hillgardner, have repeatedly filed frivolous motions against the Plaintiff and supported them with intentional and malicous false statements in their colluded effort to continue the Defendant’s RENT FREE status within the Plaintiff’s building. Sanctions against them would surely send a strong message and protect the Plaintiff from their continued bad behavior because it is clear they have NO regard for the integrity of the Courts or the legal profession nor for honesty or the well-being of the Plaintiff. And their past history proves that they will continue this bad behavior until they are stopped by the Courts whom they are also perpetuating this wrong upon. Failure to take any action will ABSOLUTELYENCOURAGE them to continue their bad behavior against the Plaintiff, the Courts and others since they have been engaging in this bad behavior for years and there appears to be NO END to their bad behavior because the COURTS HAVE REPREATEDLY FAILED TO TAKE ACTION.5

18. THEREFORE, if there was any case that warranted sanctions as matter of law and upon a Judge’s discretion for the protection of others and the integrity of the legal profession, the Defendant’s pending Motion for attorney fees and costs supported by Mr. Hillgardner’s intentional and malicous false statements would clearly warrant those sanctions. See Patterson v. Balaqulot, 188 A.D.2d 275, 590 N.Y.S.2d 469(1st Dept., 1992) (In appropriate circumstances, baseless request for sanctions may constitutefrivolous conduct justifying imposition of sanctions on party requesting sanctions. N.Y.Ct.Rules, § 130–1.1).

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests an Order to (1) deny the Defendant’s motion, and (2) grant the Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for sanctions, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: New York, NY

July 15, 2014


B. David Mehmet


319 Lafayette Street, Ste 161

New York, NY 10012

(646) 942-1420

Sworn to before me this _____ day of 2014



Index No. 64682/11



__________________________________ ________________________




Ruth Baumann,





B. David Mehmet


319 Lafayette Street, Ste 161

New York, NY 10012

(646) 942-1420

______________________________________________ _

Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted.



Attorney(s) for

1The mortgage closing was scheduled prior to the filing and return date of the Defendant’s May 15, 2014 hearing and it was vital to obtain the funds to complete the legalization of the Plaintiff’s building. The adjournment was made upon the descretion of Judge Tanya R. Kennedy of this Court. THEREFORE, the Defendant should have APPEALED the adjournement NOT filed a frivolous motion for attorney fees and costs by making intentional and malicous false statements to this Court. FURTHERMORE, the termupon information and beliefadded to the Defendant’s papers do NOT save her or her attorney from being sanctioned because it was NOT made in good faith. Matter of Winston 243 A.D.2d 638, 663 N.Y.S.2d 255 (2nd Dept. 1997)(Attorney was properly sanctioned for making baseless accusations…without checking into accuracy of uderlying factual predicate supporting bias allegations…directed him to pay $7,500 to the Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection). See also Public Adm’r of County of NY v. Cohen 634 N.Y.S.2d 106 (1st Dept., 1995).

2In a Hold-Over deposition of the Defendant held on July 2, 2014, the Defendant testified on the record that she has NOT slept in the apartment for the past four (4) years (2010-Present). The Defendant testified that she has been living with her boyfriend at 11 Riverside Dr, Apt 16PE for the last four (4) years and her testimoney uncovered that she only goes to the apartment Monday-Friday between the hours of 7AM-7PM to conduct business under Baumann Resource Group, Inc. And she rarely comes to the apartment on the weekends. The Plaintiff’s attorney at Rosenthal & Estis has informed him that the Defendant’s deposition transcripts conclusively prove NON-PRIMARY RESIDENCE and he is currently preparing a Summary Motion for an Order granting the Plaintiff’s request for possession of the aparttment. See also Defendant’s Notice to Admit response where she ADMITS to NOT sleeping in the apartment for over 6 months in 2011 attached hereto as Exhibit “D” (Building security video evidence proves that the Defendant never slept in the apartment in 2011).


3A letter dated May 30, 2014 was mailed to the Defendant to allow access to complete the legalization work within the apartment she is occupying. She REFUSED ACCESS AGAIN. This time she refused access on the false grounds that she is utilizing the apartment for “actual living purposes” and that she wants the Plaintiff to provide her with other ACCOMMODATIONS before allowing access for the work. . However, the Defendant’s sworn desposition transcripts and her response to the Notice to Admit under the Hold-Over action prove that she has been residing with her boyfriend for the past four (4) years at 11 Riverside Dr. THUS, the Plaintiff is NOT legally required to provide her with other accommodations. And her refusal is nothing more then another attempt to hinder the legalization of the buiding and continue her RENT FREE status within the apartment she uses EXCLUSIVELY as her principal place of business. See letter dated May 30, 2014 and the Defendant’s response attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.

4In the case cited by Thomas Hillgardner captioned Mehmet v. Hillgardner Index No. 103282/2010, Judge Oing DENIED Thomas Hillgardner’s Motion to dismiss the defamation claim against him filed by the Plaintiff. Judge Oing stated that the letter he mailed to the NYC Loft Board accusing the Plaintiff of FRUAD established defamation and Mr. Hillgardner’s defense of “contemplation of litigation” was an issue of fact for the Jury. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff was scheduled for a mortgage closing on the return date of the preliminary conference hearing and his absence from that hearing caused the case to be pre-maturally dismissed. HOWEVER, Mr. Hillgardner RE-PUBLISHED the defamatory letter to another third party during the pendancy of that action. And pursuant to case law, the re-publishing did create a new statute of limitation deadline for defamation. THUS, a new pending Complaint under Index No. 100369/14 was filed against Mr. Hillgardner within the NY Supreme Court for the republishing of that defamatory letter to the NYC Loft Board which is currently awaiting a decisition from Judge Lucy Billings on the issue of tolling the Statute of Limitation for defamation. See Judge Oing’s Court Transcripts attached hereto as Exhibit “F”

5In another attempt to hinder the legalization of the Plaintiff’s building for the purpose of continuing to live RENT FREE, the Defendant was approaching the Plaintiff’s contractors and defaming him in the hopes of having his contractors cease the legalization work. And in a further effort to harass the Plaintiff, Thomas Hillgardner filed a Counter-Claim in the Defendant’s Answer that pertained to the Plaintiff’s alleged violation of the confidentiality clause within the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Hillgardner then filed a DUPLICATE claim within this Court that is currently pending before Judge Debra R. Samuels under this caption and index number. See pending NY Supreme court Complaint for slander attached hereto as Exhibit “H”  









Categories: General Topics Tags:


November 12th, 2013 Comments off

By B. David Mehmet, November 12, 2013

I will shortly update this post. I am working on an article dealing with printer ink extortion by the manufacturers. In 2009, I wrote an article about how the Banks were scamming consumers with their clever accounting scheme dealing with overdraft fees and I put together Plaintiffs for a class action lawsuit (See The banks are now settling for hundreds of millions of dollars for that scam (Chase Bank Settles for $110 Million and Bank of America Settles for $410 Million, and many other banks also settled in Overdraft Fee Scam).

This article will identify a mega class action lawsuit against Printer & Ink manufacturers on the level of the Bank over draft fees. It is a truly despicable and illegal practice falling under “Extortion”:


I purchased this printer because it stated I was allowed to print with only black ink. I found out that even with black ink printing, it still uses a small amout of color for ….get this…keeping the heads clean. That is ABSOLUTELY Ridiculous! because the printer does NOT have to CONTINUOUSLY use color to clean or calibrate the heads. Clean and Calibration can occur on demand or periodically (e.g. once a week), or non at all if the consumer chooses. Thus, the manufacturers eliminate the consumers’ free will and FORCE the consumers to pay them more money under the pretense of cleaning and calibration. This is exactly what the banks were doing. The banks told consumers they were helping them out by causing them to suffer more overdraft fees. And now the manufacturers are telling consumers they are helping them out by preventing them from using remaining ink they purchased and by forcing them to pay more money. It is a SHAM to any intelligent person created for the sole purpose of puting more money in the manufacturers pockets and they know it. A closer study of the printers ability to clean and calibrate without using color will uncover their scam in a Court of law. This is clear UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AND EXTORTION BY MECHANICAL MEANS.


Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion….Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force


A consumer pays good money to buy EACH ink cartridge and they are legally entitled to use the ink in each cartridge until they all run out then the consumer can decide whether or not to buy more ink of one or more colors. HOWEVER, Epson intentionally and maliciously PREVENTS the consumer from using the ink they purchased by building in features in their printers that STOPS the consumer from using the remaining ink they purchased UNTIL the consumer pays Epson more money by way of buying more of their products. Epson is EXTORTING consumers by using mechanical means to eliminate a consumers’ FREE WILL and to put pressure on the consumers to FORCE them to pay Epson more money by way of BLOCKING a consumer from using the remaining cartridges they purchased that still contain ink.

A consumer had a reasonable expectation that when they purchased an ink cartridge, they would be allowed to use ALL the ink within the cartridge. HOWEVER, under the manufacturers scam, the manufacturers built in mechanical means that PREVENT the consumer from using the remaining ink UNTIL the consumer PAYS more money. THIS IS CLEAR UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AND EXTORTION BY MECHANICAL MEANS.

THIS IS CLEARLY ILLEGAL. IT IS UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AND EXTORTION BY MECHANICAL MEANS! It is shameful what the Printer/Ink manufacturers are doing out of greed. These manufacturers are truly doing EVIL to consumers (e.g. the small cartridges and preventing consumers from using the ink they purchased just to force them to pay them more money).

I am seeking Plaintiffs for a class action lawsuit against multiple top Printer Ink Manufacturers who are engaging in this illegal practice. THUS, if you purchased a printer and it prevented you from using the remaining ink you purchased UNTIL you bought more ink, you can join this class action lawsuit.


Categories: General Topics Tags:

The Gem of Bond Street

August 26th, 2013 Comments off

A labor of Love (26 Bond Street, NY, NY)

By B. David Mehmet, August 26, 2013

I do not think that anyone who has lived in a building like the one located at 26 Bond St., NY, NY could not fall in love with this 1832 building. It has so much character and every corner reminds you of the old look of Bond Street in the 19th Century when it was the era of the Napoleonic Wars and when the British Empire ruled.

As new modern buildings rise on Bond Street while the old fall into their graves, a few buildings from the 19 Century remain. However, no building on Bond Street possesses the beauty and possibly the age like the Federal Style row house located at 26 Bond St. The weekly tour guides that stand in front of the building each week viewing it with delight as they hear its history. The film companies, designers, photographers and models that continuously use the building as their background images. And the frequent famous actors that walk into the restaurant in the basement. 26 Bond St. is a building that is alive with its own energy. How could anyone think of taking down such a beautiful and spirit filled building like 26 Bond St. rather then bringing it back to its glory.

Currently, 26 Bond St. is being renovated and restored as much as possible to reflect its Federal Style row house glory of the 19th Century. The image on the left depicts the proposed look of the building once the renovation is completed. We are also adding a Penthouse with a private elevator entrance. As owners of 26 Bond Street, we hope that you will enjoy the building as we have for many years and that it will further bring up the prestige of Bond St.

The newest building being built on Bond Street between Broadway and Lafayette:


Categories: General Topics Tags:

Help Build a Community Pool in Taza, Algeria

July 8th, 2013 Comments off

Donation Goal $1.2 Million

Win the Hearts and Minds with Kindness and Generosity 

By Badisse Mehmet, July 8, 2013

The link below contains the price quote from Hohne Pools  (The project will take about 6 months):

Algeria Community Swimming Pool Project – July 2013





This is a mountain village in the Southern part of Algeria. A town where the temperature can hit over 90 degrees in the summer time and the average temperature during the year can reach 75 degrees. Thus, you would think that a pool was the logical choice. However, NO pool exists in this entire town. Many of the children NEVER swam in a pool from the time they were born nor have they even seen such a pool in person. This is a town with only 233 people per sq mile and with little to no employment for the residence. There are little to no activities for the youths and boredom and depression run among the youth who seek to escape to a better life.

My desire in partnership with one of the best pool builders in the Word,Hohne Pools, is to build the pool pictured above in TAZA for the community. Hohne Pools not only builds pools for major hotel chains around the World; but they are the pool builder for the U.S. Embassy Worldwide. They have accepted this project and have quoted a price of $800,000 to $1.2Million (not including the land, buildings and plumbing, which I will pay personally). It will take about 6 months to complete the pool.

The pool will bring the entire community near and far together like never before. It will be a beautiful pool that will bring more jobs to the community and taxes. It will help to promote additional construction and other new businesses. It will provide swimming lessons for the young and old, aqua-physical fitness classes, games and events. The pool will also bring TAZA some good recognition among the other communities and also attract new residence.

And the best thing about this project is that the people of TAZA will see a PLAQUE at the entrance of the Pool that will continuously remind them that the People of the United States helped to build that pool for them. Every time they enter that pool, they will think of the United States and they will be grateful. For this little community that has an incredible reach around the World via its youth and the Internet, thousands of family conversations around the dinner table each night will be had speaking of the generosity of the Amerian people.

NOTE: This project will NOT be funded unless we reach our goal. Also, I am personally investing $500,000 cash of my own money that my mother left me when she died in November 2012 in NYC to purchase the land from the Algerian government to build the pool on.

Here is an image of the land I will be negotiating to purchase in TAZA. It is beautiful and it will allow for expansion in the near future:



Categories: General Topics Tags:

Thomas J. Hillgardner, Esq. Violates DR 2-103 (Client Solicitation in Court)

April 17th, 2013 No comments

By B. David Mehmet April 17, 2013


THOMAS J. HILLGARDNER, ESQ. VIOLATES DR 2-103 under Porter vs. NYC Housing Authority Index No. 017424/11 (Queens) by soliciting the client/Plaintiff in Court. Plaintiff then claims Hillgardner abandoned her and mistreated her while she and her son were living in a family shelter.


A complaint has been filed with Tenant Protection Services against Mr. Hillgardner by a former client for his solicitation of the client in Court and for abandoning the client.


This homeless tenant who was kicked out of her house with her son without being served with a Notice of Eviction was wrongly solicited in court by Hillgardner. The tenant won a contempt order against the NYC housing authority for failing to place her back into her home; but Hillgardner caused her Supreme Court case to be dismissed by failing to TIMELY file the Note of Issue. He then failed to timely file a motion to vacate the dismissal.

The Disciplinary Committee is being informed and an attorney is being hired to remedy the damage.

Mr. Hillgardner knew that his former client and her son were living in a family shelter and her lawsuit was to get her and her son back into her house she lived in for the last 29 years and for damages.

**If Mr. Hillgardner has harmed you, contact for help.**


The Disciplinary rule reads as follows:

“DR 2-103 [1200.08] Solicitation and Recommendation of Professional Employment.A. A lawyer shall not engage in solicitation: in-person or telephone contact, or by real-time or interactive computer-accessed communication unless the recipient is a close friend, relative, former client or existing client

NY DR 7-101(A)(1) further states that a lawyer “shall not intentionally . . . fail to seek the lawful objectives of [his or her] client through reasonably available means permitted by law and the Disciplinary Rules. NY DR 7-101(A)(3) prohibits a lawyer from “intentionally . . . prejudic[ing] or damag[ing] [his or her] client during the course of the relationship.” Referring link:



15, 2013

Mr. Hillgardner


per our conversation on 4/10/13 when I emailed you about seeking
another lawyer, I am stating my case briefly to you so can help me.

June 14, 2010 I was in Civil Court for a Travis Hearing to be
reinstated back to my home of 29years, when I was called in for the
hearing was first when I came across Mr. Hillgardner. Before I went
into the hearing Mr. Hillgardner approached me and asked me could he
sit in on my hearing and that he was an Attorney. 
At the time I was
very distressed, confused and did not think twice about Mr.
Hillgardner sitting in on my hearing since he presented himself to me
as an Attorney. After the hearing I had to return after lunch for the
decision. After I won the decision he asked me could he represent me
as his client. 
I had agreed to him being my Attorney because I did
not know any better at the time.

June 14, 2010 he became my Attorney and I thought that he was going
to represent me in a professional manner. During the first year I had
many problems with getting in contact with him, and when I did he
seemed to be very disrespectful most of the time. He talked very
nasty to me and my son on numerous of occasion. I lived at the time
from one family relative to another until March 2011. Due to the
seriousness of me being homeless I was unable to deal with anyone
especially my Attorney that made me feel worse than I did. By May of
2011 he pushed me to the limit and I decided not to call him for
awhile. I stopped calling October 2011 up until December 2012 a
little over a year later. I have not heard anything from him for
nothing. The last time I heard from him was when I was waiting to
hear from an Appeal from Supreme Applet Courts.

I called him December 2012 he stated, “Ms. Porter I was just
thinking of you, I just got the decision for your Civil Court Case
and you won the decision.” He also stated, “That something
was wrong with his phone back in July of 20112 and he could not
contact me.” I did not understand because I still have the same
number and I never received a call from him nor did I get a missed
called neither. OK, I felt that all was water under the bridge
something good is about to happen with my case. Still his attitude
was rude and unbearable to deal with for me and my son. So when he
hung up the phone on me this time I decided to GOOGLE him to find out
what kind of Attorney record he has and only then I realized that I
made the biggest mistake by signing a retainer with him. I also found
out on March 28, 2013 that my Supreme Court case was removed of the
calendar because when I was called to appear in Court sometime in
July of 2012 he (when I decided because of his disrespectful manner
not to call him) never contact me until I called him in December

stated to me that he was putting a motion into the court and I was to
wait for his call the week of April 8. 2013 and he did not called me.
When I called him April 10, 2013 he was very disrespectful to me and
told me, “you are not paying me any money.” I stated, “Why
would you say that when I signed a retainer so you would get paid.”
He stated, “I can not call him when ever I wanted to and expect him
to talk to me, and if I do not like what he is saying then I can find
another Attorney. Besides you get more from a person being sweet as
honey bees, than sour like vinegar.” He then hung up the phone and
I have not heard anything from him since then. I only called him
because he never returned my call and it is important to speak with
him ASAP to get my case back on the calendar.

HELP me I have a case in Civil Court with Judge Badio for NYCH to
restore me back into a place. I am currently living in a family
shelter for 2 years and need to get out
….. I also have a Supreme
Court case for damages that I need to be restored back to the
calendar. I can be reached anytime at 347 617 1187. I look forward to
hearing from you soon.




Referring Link:

“Running Afoul of a Statute of Limitations: See In re Gajewski, 217 A.D.2d 90, 634 N.Y.S.2d 704 (1st Dept. 1995) (lawyer suspended for one year for, among other neglectful behavior, allowing the statute of limitations to expire on a case).

Ignoring Pleadings: See Gigliotti v. Morasco, 2 A.D.2d 653, 152 N.Y.S.2d 45 (4th Dept. 1956) (court opined that a lawyer who was so dilatory as to ignore a bill of particulars until a motion to preclude is made might subject himself to disciplinary proceedings.)

Duty of Diligence Continues Despite Non-Payment of Attorneys’ Costs: See, e.g.,In re Pines, 26 A.D.2d 424, 275 N.Y.S.2d 122 (1st Dept. 1966) (client’s failure to reimburse attorney for disbursements did not excuse attorney’s failure to prosecute personal injury action for over 3 years).

Delegation of Responsibility: Kleeman v. Rheingold, 81 N.Y.2d 270, 598 N.Y.S.2d 149 (1993): Under DR 6-101, an attorney cannot delegate the duty to exercise care in handling a client’s legal matter. Accordingly, an attorney cannot escape liability for negligent service of process by delegating that task to an independent process server.

Neglect: Matter of Sorid, 189 A.D.2d 377, 596 N.Y.S.2d 125 (2nd Dept. 1993): An attorney violated DR 6-101 by failing to forward a settlement check to a client for two months, failing to retrieve file in an estate matter after a former employee removed it from the attorney’s offices, and by failing to probate an estate within four years. See also In re Lowenthal, 132 A.D.2d 117, 521 N.Y.S.2d 721 (2d Dept. 1987), appeal dismissed, 71 N.Y.2d 888 (1988)(lawyer that violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by neglecting an estate matter for more than seven years was suspended for two years for this and various other rules violations).

Family Problems No Excuse For Neglect: Matter of Sexton, 231 A.D.2d 832, 647 N.Y.S.2d 587 (3d Dep’t 1996) (acknowledging that “attorneys must attend to their clients’ interest punctually and with vigor despite distracting and stressful intrusions from personal and family problems or advise their clients of their option to obtain other counsel” and suspending neglectful counsel for 6 months).

Illness Not an Excuse: Matter of Whitbread, 183 A.D.2d 347, 591 N.Y.S.2d 117 (4th Dept. 1992) (Under DR 6-101, an attorney’s illness and divorce do not justify the attorney’s neglect of legal matters and abandonment of clients. Sanction: Suspended for one year).”

Categories: General Topics Tags:

WIN! A $149 Nano Ipod – MYstockroom Stock Contest

February 20th, 2013 No comments

MYstockroom’s March 2013 Contest

By Badisse D. Mehmet  February 20, 2013

One of the best methods to utilize in learning how to trade stocks is to “paper trade” stocks. In other words, you would engage in stock trades based on real stocks and their market prices without utilizing any money.

As part of MYstockroom’s promotion of its website, we are offering a FREE Nano Ipod to the winner of the March 2013 MYstockroom stock contest valued at $149. Thus, we are providing you with some motivation to want to play and win. MYstockroom intends to increase the level of prizes and to add additional prizes in the coming months that will award prizes to the first three (3) winning places.


*The March 2013 stock contest will be loaded on February 28, 2013




Categories: General Topics Tags:

I Can Win the NJ Pick 3 Lotto Every Time

February 6th, 2013 No comments

When You Know How To Win, It’s Easy

By: B. David Mehmet, February 6, 2012

I am going to not only write more on this subject shortly; but I am going to prove to you how I can win the NJ Pick 3 Lotto every time I play it. And it does not involve selecting all the number combinations. Why am I doing this? Because I want to show you how a system you create or adopt after you education yourself can be a very affective tool in winning in the stock market. When I put up my videos of winning the NJ Pick3 Lotto on Youtube, they took them down because the reviewer was too ignorant to understand how I was doing it and they thought it must be a fraud. But it isn’t a fraud. It is the real deal.

Pick One Lowest Winning Digit and You Win

That is how wild my Pick3 system is. All you need to do is pick one digit that is the “lowest winning digit” in the next Pick3 Lotto game and you will win. Thus, you do NOT have to guess all 3 numbers (The great thing about the formula is that the concept can be applied to larger Lotto games….IT WORKS!).



1) Go grab my Pick 3 formula/chart at the following URL:

2) Go to the New Jersey Pick 3 website at the following URL and pick ANY winning lotto number and find it on my Pick 3 lotto chart (Remember, the Lotto numbers can be in ANY order to win):

RESULT: You will witness that (a) EVERY winning NJ Pick 3 number can be found in the numbers colored RED and BLACK, and (b) the winning number will be FOUND in the LOWEST winning digit box. In other words, “1″ is the lowest digit in winning number “215″. Thus, you will find the number “215″ in the  number “1″ betting box. THUS, you only need to  guess the lowest winning digit in the next lotto drawing and bet the RED and BLACK numbers in that box and you will WIN! THEREFORE, you do NOT need to guess all 3 numbers.

And this is the type of intelligence and logic I have used to build MYstockroom. I built the site with the logic and flow that will allow members to identify stocks that are about to breakout.  In other words, I am going to teach you how to pick stocks by first picking and using MYstockroom that contains a system that appears to be no more then a stock forum. But in the background is where all the magic happens, which produces the breakout stocks upfront for your review.

For example, when I want to win the stock games each time, how do I do it?  I do it by implementing a system for picking the stocks and I keep using it over and over again (Other players thought I was hacking the game):


As for you making money in the stock market, you will always make and lose money in the stock market. The key to be rich is to adopt a winning system that will cut your loses fast and let your wins ride. And I am going to show you how you do not need to do your own exhaustive research to find stocks. Let others shuffle through the thousands of stocks and you just do the Due Diligence on the ones brought to you by others. The key is to find those who know what they are doing. I will introduce you to a few of them. Just keep coming back and following my posts. And don’t forget to participate in the forums and investment groups on MYstockroom.

Here are some good stock picks to start:

I will soon post  video updates that will show you a 5 day run where I will win the NJ Pick3 Lotto game every time I play it. If I can win the Lotto every single day, what do you think I can do in the Stock Market…this is what I want to teach you. How to be a winner!

Read More:



Categories: General Topics Tags:


January 14th, 2013 No comments

FAZ $13.25

I will write more about FAZ  shortly. I just wanted to bring your attention to this incredible price level. FAZ is an ETF that plays on the market shorts. I have been following it for a number of years and it is a predictable stock that rides steady with high volume (Liquidity). It is guaranteed that the stock market will have a correction soon and FAZ will pop high and fast. You can bet on DOUBLING your money with this stock in the short term.

Thus, you should take a good look at this stock and consider investing. Because of the Christmas rally, the stock may fall more, which will allow you to grab more shares cheaper.

Categories: General Topics Tags: