Louann Larsen says New York's court file can be a weapon — that the fraud happens at the filing level, before any judge rules, at the one point where due process is supposed to begin. She's right. I can prove it, because it was done to me, and unlike most victims I kept every instrument and read every word.
I've spent about thirty years as a licensed real estate professional in appraisal and valuation work, and I founded REFER — Real Estate Forensic Examination and Research. I take foreclosure files apart for a living. I've also been the pro se defendant in one for seventeen years, FIGHTING A CASE WHERE MY DEAD MOTHER OWNED THE HOUSE, and put me on the deed as JRWOS. She died, and the plaintiff filed A COMPLAINT AGAINST HER IN HER LIVING NAME... THEY SUED THE DEAD, sole note signor, and wrote that "defendant estate of ".. must pay the deficiency after sale of the property... MY MOM HAS NEVER BEEN ABLE TO "REST IN PEACE".
SO NOT EVEN THE "DEAD" GET A FAIR HEARING IN THESE COURTS!!!
So when Larsen points to a missing affidavit of service as the "fatal flaw," I want to show her audience what the aggravated version looks like — not a missing affidavit, but a fabricated one.
I did not leave that to chance. I laid all of it — the fictitious license, the $16,000 penalty, Zucker's own recantation, the assailant sworn in as my co-tenant, and the Appellate Division's reversal of this same server's affidavit in Galiani — directly in front of Judge Thomas Zugibe AND Judge Sherri Eisenpress and . Neither tested it, held the hearing, or ruled on the fraud. They buried it and signed the plaintiff permission to sell my home. Bramwell even filed a lawsuit against Wells Fargo, HSBC and their counsel and the case was assigned to Judge Eisenpress- who still.. refused to rule on false service- lack of personal jurisidiction and MOCKED ME... FOR CONTINUING TO FILE MOTIONS TO VACATE!
My foreclosure was filed in Rockland County in December 2008. The plaintiff's proof that I was served is four affidavits sworn by a process server named Kevin Zucker. Start with the paper itself, before you even reach what it says.
The license number on that paper did not exist when he swore it. The affidavits display New York City process-server license number 0820996. Per the City's own Department of Consumer and Worker Protection portal, that number was not issued to anyone until February 16, 2012 — three years after Zucker swore my affidavits. When it was finally issued, it went to a different man entirely, whose license was terminated in 2014 after the City charged him with falsely claiming to have served people on seven occasions. The number printed on my service papers was fictitious the day it was sworn, and its only real owner in history was expelled from the trade for the exact fraud committed against me.
Zucker himself had no license at all in 2009. The same public portal — which retains surrendered and inactive licenses going back more than a decade — shows Zucker's only license in system history was issued in February 2020. There is no record of him before that. And here's the tell: process service in Rockland County requires no City license at all. He didn't need the credential. He printed a fake one anyway — the only reason to do that is to dress fabricated paper up as official.
The State later put its own verdict on this man in writing. In January 2022, DCWP penalized Kevin Zucker $16,000 for failure to comply with the process server law — one of the largest penalties on the agency's entire published enforcement board. He went inactive weeks later and never renewed. This is not my characterization. It is the government's, published under a City law that requires it to disclose exactly this.
Now read what the fabricated paper says, because it is worse than the man who signed it.
All four of my affidavits swear that the summons and complaint were left with a single "co-tenant" — a man named Sean Bramwell, whom the affidavits call my "co-tenant." Sean Bramwell is not my co-tenant- HE WAS A EX-EMPLOYEE WHO ATTACKED ME AND ALMOST STRANGLED ME TO DEATH . Sean Bramwell is the man who tried to kill me — my adjudicated assailant. The New York State Crime Victims Board found me an innocent victim of his assault. He is subject to a lifetime order of protection. The plaintiff took the name of the man I hold that order against and swore it onto the document used to take my home. In 2017 Bramwell himself swore under oath that he never lived there and never accepted anything.
And the fabrication is mechanical, not arguable. My home is a single-family house. Those same four affidavits swear that four unrelated people — me, a married couple named Zulinski, and Bramwell — all live there as co-tenants. Every affidavit carries the identical physical description, copied word for word: one brown-skinned man, six-foot-two, about 223 pounds. That single description of one man is sworn as the recipient for two women and another man. Observation of four different people cannot produce four identical descriptions. Copy-and-paste can. The Zulinskis are a white, naturalized couple; the plaintiff's paper describes them as a brown-skinned man. The description didn't come from any doorstep. It came from a packet, and the plaintiff's own counsel swore in the judgment roll that his firm determined the parties and forwarded the package to the server. The names originated in a law office, not at my door.
Then the server confessed. On May 20, 2009 — four months after he swore he served me — Kevin Zucker recanted under oath. He admitted he never went to my address; he'd been at a different house on a differently-numbered street. He wrote that the affidavits "would not have been filed." You do not un-file a real service over a small mistake. That sentence is an admission the event never happened. The plaintiff's counsel had that recantation in hand — and in November 2009 swore to the court that "all proceedings have been regular," and took the judgment anyway. THE ZULINKSKI'S FILED A CROSS-MOTION TO REMOVE THEMSELVES FROM THAT CASE DUE TO FALSE SERVICE IN JUNE 2009.
Larsen asks whether the public can trust a court file it cannot audit. In my case, someone already ran the audit — the Appellate Division. In Wachovia Mortgage v. Galiani, decided in 2023, the Second Department confronted an affidavit of service from this same process server, Kevin Zucker, found it could not be relied on to prove the defendant was served, and reversed the foreclosure judgment. My affidavit is a stronger case than the one the court already threw out: mine is internally impossible on its face, and the server recanted it himself. In seventeen years, no court has ever held the hearing that would test it.
That is what "the file is the weapon" means, stated in evidence instead of allegation. A fictitious license number. An unlicensed server the State later fined $16,000. A recanted affidavit. A crime victim's own assailant sworn in as her co-tenant. And a judgment marched to entry over a confession already sitting in the file. Strip out that one fabricated instrument and the court never acquired me at all — which means seventeen years of orders were built on nothing.
The plaintiff is still doing it. As recently as July 1, 2026, they mailed the current papers to all four "co-tenants" — including, again, the name of the man I hold a lifetime order of protection against, at my home.
Larsen is right that courts cannot demand blind trust while refusing scrutiny. I'd put it plainer, the way I put it to every client who walks into REFER: don't trust the file — read it. Every word, in order, and refuse to skim. When you do, the fabrications don't hide. They confess.
Louann Larsen says New York's court file can be a weapon — that the fraud happens at the filing level, before any judge rules, at the one point where due process is supposed to begin. She's right. I can prove it, because it was done to me, and unlike most victims I kept every instrument and read every word.
I've spent about thirty years as a licensed real estate professional in appraisal and valuation work, and I founded REFER — Real Estate Forensic Examination and Research. I take foreclosure files apart for a living. I've also been the pro se defendant in one for seventeen years, FIGHTING A CASE WHERE MY DEAD MOTHER OWNED THE HOUSE, and put me on the deed as JRWOS. She died, and the plaintiff filed A COMPLAINT AGAINST HER IN HER LIVING NAME... THEY SUED THE DEAD, sole note signor, and wrote that "defendant estate of ".. must pay the deficiency after sale of the property... MY MOM HAS NEVER BEEN ABLE TO "REST IN PEACE".
SO NOT EVEN THE "DEAD" GET A FAIR HEARING IN THESE COURTS!!!
So when Larsen points to a missing affidavit of service as the "fatal flaw," I want to show her audience what the aggravated version looks like — not a missing affidavit, but a fabricated one.
I did not leave that to chance. I laid all of it — the fictitious license, the $16,000 penalty, Zucker's own recantation, the assailant sworn in as my co-tenant, and the Appellate Division's reversal of this same server's affidavit in Galiani — directly in front of Judge Thomas Zugibe AND Judge Sherri Eisenpress and . Neither tested it, held the hearing, or ruled on the fraud. They buried it and signed the plaintiff permission to sell my home. Bramwell even filed a lawsuit against Wells Fargo, HSBC and their counsel and the case was assigned to Judge Eisenpress- who still.. refused to rule on false service- lack of personal jurisidiction and MOCKED ME... FOR CONTINUING TO FILE MOTIONS TO VACATE!
My foreclosure was filed in Rockland County in December 2008. The plaintiff's proof that I was served is four affidavits sworn by a process server named Kevin Zucker. Start with the paper itself, before you even reach what it says.
The license number on that paper did not exist when he swore it. The affidavits display New York City process-server license number 0820996. Per the City's own Department of Consumer and Worker Protection portal, that number was not issued to anyone until February 16, 2012 — three years after Zucker swore my affidavits. When it was finally issued, it went to a different man entirely, whose license was terminated in 2014 after the City charged him with falsely claiming to have served people on seven occasions. The number printed on my service papers was fictitious the day it was sworn, and its only real owner in history was expelled from the trade for the exact fraud committed against me.
Zucker himself had no license at all in 2009. The same public portal — which retains surrendered and inactive licenses going back more than a decade — shows Zucker's only license in system history was issued in February 2020. There is no record of him before that. And here's the tell: process service in Rockland County requires no City license at all. He didn't need the credential. He printed a fake one anyway — the only reason to do that is to dress fabricated paper up as official.
The State later put its own verdict on this man in writing. In January 2022, DCWP penalized Kevin Zucker $16,000 for failure to comply with the process server law — one of the largest penalties on the agency's entire published enforcement board. He went inactive weeks later and never renewed. This is not my characterization. It is the government's, published under a City law that requires it to disclose exactly this.
Now read what the fabricated paper says, because it is worse than the man who signed it.
All four of my affidavits swear that the summons and complaint were left with a single "co-tenant" — a man named Sean Bramwell, whom the affidavits call my "co-tenant." Sean Bramwell is not my co-tenant- HE WAS A EX-EMPLOYEE WHO ATTACKED ME AND ALMOST STRANGLED ME TO DEATH . Sean Bramwell is the man who tried to kill me — my adjudicated assailant. The New York State Crime Victims Board found me an innocent victim of his assault. He is subject to a lifetime order of protection. The plaintiff took the name of the man I hold that order against and swore it onto the document used to take my home. In 2017 Bramwell himself swore under oath that he never lived there and never accepted anything.
And the fabrication is mechanical, not arguable. My home is a single-family house. Those same four affidavits swear that four unrelated people — me, a married couple named Zulinski, and Bramwell — all live there as co-tenants. Every affidavit carries the identical physical description, copied word for word: one brown-skinned man, six-foot-two, about 223 pounds. That single description of one man is sworn as the recipient for two women and another man. Observation of four different people cannot produce four identical descriptions. Copy-and-paste can. The Zulinskis are a white, naturalized couple; the plaintiff's paper describes them as a brown-skinned man. The description didn't come from any doorstep. It came from a packet, and the plaintiff's own counsel swore in the judgment roll that his firm determined the parties and forwarded the package to the server. The names originated in a law office, not at my door.
Then the server confessed. On May 20, 2009 — four months after he swore he served me — Kevin Zucker recanted under oath. He admitted he never went to my address; he'd been at a different house on a differently-numbered street. He wrote that the affidavits "would not have been filed." You do not un-file a real service over a small mistake. That sentence is an admission the event never happened. The plaintiff's counsel had that recantation in hand — and in November 2009 swore to the court that "all proceedings have been regular," and took the judgment anyway. THE ZULINKSKI'S FILED A CROSS-MOTION TO REMOVE THEMSELVES FROM THAT CASE DUE TO FALSE SERVICE IN JUNE 2009.
Larsen asks whether the public can trust a court file it cannot audit. In my case, someone already ran the audit — the Appellate Division. In Wachovia Mortgage v. Galiani, decided in 2023, the Second Department confronted an affidavit of service from this same process server, Kevin Zucker, found it could not be relied on to prove the defendant was served, and reversed the foreclosure judgment. My affidavit is a stronger case than the one the court already threw out: mine is internally impossible on its face, and the server recanted it himself. In seventeen years, no court has ever held the hearing that would test it.
That is what "the file is the weapon" means, stated in evidence instead of allegation. A fictitious license number. An unlicensed server the State later fined $16,000. A recanted affidavit. A crime victim's own assailant sworn in as her co-tenant. And a judgment marched to entry over a confession already sitting in the file. Strip out that one fabricated instrument and the court never acquired me at all — which means seventeen years of orders were built on nothing.
The plaintiff is still doing it. As recently as July 1, 2026, they mailed the current papers to all four "co-tenants" — including, again, the name of the man I hold a lifetime order of protection against, at my home.
Larsen is right that courts cannot demand blind trust while refusing scrutiny. I'd put it plainer, the way I put it to every client who walks into REFER: don't trust the file — read it. Every word, in order, and refuse to skim. When you do, the fabrications don't hide. They confess.
I wish I could say unbelievable but I've seen too much while doing billing research and education to not believe it