KOZYRA & HARTZ, LLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert Edward Auctions, LLC

ROBERT EDWARD AUCTIONS, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LLC, LAW DIVISION
SOMERSET COUNTY
Plaintiff, DOCKET NO.

v. Civil Action

RAYMOND NASH, Individually and COMPLAINT

as President of both BISHOP FORD
CENTRAL CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL
and BISHOP FORD
DEVELOPMENT FUND, JOHN B.
CASEY, Individually and as Chief
Financial Officer of DEFENDANT
BISHOP FORD CENTRAL CATHOLIC
HIGH SCHOOL, BISHOP FORD
CENTRAL CATHOLIC HIGH
SCHOOL, BISHOP FORD
DEVELOPMENT FUND and JOHN
DOES 1-5

Defendant.

Plaintiff Robert Edward Auctions, LLC (hereinafter AREA@ or

APlaintiff@), by way of Complaint against Raymond Nash, Individually and as

President of both Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School and Bishop

Ford Development Fund, John B. Casey, Individually and as Chief Financial Officer of

Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Bishop Ford Central Catholic

High School, Bishop Ford Development Fund and John Does 1-5, says:

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

1. REA, doing business at __________has been in the auction service business

since 2003 and specializes in baseball collectibles, as well as other sport, non-sport, and

American collectibles including political and campaign memorabilia, autographs and

manuscripts, and original illustration art. REA accepts items on consignment from owners,

offers the items through auction, and collects commissions upon sale for the services

rendered.

2. Robert Lifson (hereinafter ALifson@), is the President of REA.

3. Defendant Raymond Nash is an individual residing at____ at all times

referenced herein as President of Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School. Defendant

Raymond Nash is also believed to have been President of Bishop Ford Development Fund.

Defendant Raymond Nash is the father of Peter Nash.

4. Peter Nash is an individual presently residing at ________ and is the President

and sole owner of defendant Cooperstown Monument Company, Inc. (hereinafter

ACooperstown@). Peter Nash is the son of Defendant Raymond Nash.

5. Defendant John B. Casey, is an individual and has at all times referenced

herein acted as Chief Financial Officer of Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High

School with an office at 500 Nineteenth Street, Brooklyn, New York.

6. Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School is upon information and

belief a non-profit, charitable institution and/or a 501(c)(3) corporation operating as a Roman

Catholic high school on a tax-exempt basis at 500 Nineteenth Street, Brooklyn, New York.

7. Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund is upon information and belief a

non-profit, charitable institution and/or a 501(c)(3) corporation or a separate dedicated

subsidiary account operating on a tax-exempt basis for the benefit of Bishop Ford Central

Catholic High School and located at 500 Nineteenth Street, Brooklyn, New York.

8. Defendants John Does 1-5 are fictitious names for individuals, legal entities,

attorneys, agents, or representatives of Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and

Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School whose present identities are unknown.
 9. Peter Nash and Cooperstown have used REA’s auction service on a number of

occasions since 2005 to sell collectible items which Peter Nash and Cooperstown claimed to

own as confirmed in writing by Peter Nash and Cooperstown.

10. On several occasions since 2005, Peter Nash and Cooperstown have requested

cash advances and/or loans against items given to and held on consignment by REA until the

items were to be sold in REA’s major annual auction. All cash advances and/or loans given

by REA were acknowledged by Peter Nash and Cooperstown in writing and repayment plus

interest was guaranteed by Peter Nash and Cooperstown whether or not the consigned items

were sold. Under such agreements, REA advanced monies to Peter Nash and Cooperstown

totaling over $1,000,000 against future auction consignment proceeds and/or loans with

baseball memorabilia as collateral.

11. On or about November 29, 2005, REA entered into a Consignment Agreement

with Peter Nash and Cooperstown whereby REA accepted inter alia a baseball which Peter

Nash and Cooperstown alleged was the First Pitched Ball at the Grand Opening of Fenway

Park in 1912 (Athe 1912 Ball@). The 1912 Ball was to be held by REA, along with other

items submitted by Peter Nash and Cooperstown to be placed by REA in the Spring 2007

auction, against approximately $800,000.00 in cash advanced by REA to Peter Nash and

Cooperstown at that time.

12. There were also additional baseball memorabilia items which Peter Nash and

Cooperstown promised to consign to REA as further collateral, but which were ultimately

never delivered by Peter Nash and Cooperstown.

13. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Peter Nash’s home in Cooperstown, New York was

in foreclosure with a sale date of on or about March 6, 2007.

14. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Peter Nash told Defendant Raymond Nash, who was

then and is now President of Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School and the
Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund, of his foreclosure problem and one or both of

them decided to take and use charitable funds from Defendant Bishop Ford Development

Fund to prevent the foreclosure of the Cooperstown house.

15. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, on March 5, 2007, Defendant Raymond Nash and/or

Peter Nash secretly initiated a withdrawal of charitable funds in the sum of $52,551.60 from

the Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic

High School to make payment to Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C. on behalf of Peter Nash

and his wife, Roxanne Nash, which successfully prevented foreclosure of property in

Cooperstown, New York.

16. The withdrawal of $52,551.60 in charitable funds by Defendant Raymond

Nash and/or Peter Nash from Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant

Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School could not have been carried out but for Defendant

Raymond Nash’s position as President of Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and/or

Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School.

17. Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant Bishop Ford

Central Catholic High School had no written policy or banking restrictions in place to limit or

prevent Defendant Raymond Nash from taking the $52,551.60 in charitable funds to use for

personal purposes and/or for the personal benefit of Peter Nash.

18. Neither REA nor Lifson were told by any one of the actions of Peter Nash and

Defendant Raymond Nash in taking and using $52,551.60 in charitable funds from Defendant

Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School to

use for personal purposes and/or for the personal benefit of Peter Nash.

19. After receipt of the collectibles provided by Peter Nash and Cooperstown,

REA had some of the items inspected as to authenticity by several highly respected experts in

the field. After spending in excess of $10,000.00 in fees, REA was advised that, despite Peter
Nash’s and Cooperstown’s representations to the contrary, the experts were Aunable to

authenticate@ many items and/or declared some of them to be forgeries. Those items that

experts were Aunable to authenticate@ and/or were declared to be forgeries could not be sold

in the annual online auction and were therefore without value to REA. As a result, the total

legitimate inventory of collectibles given by Peter Nash and Cooperstown were deemed

insufficient collateral for the total monies then owed by Peter Nash and Cooperstown to REA.

20. While REA made repeated requests to Peter Nash and Cooperstown for

assistance in obtaining appropriate authentication for the items which the experts were

Aunable to authenticate@ and/or declared to be forgeries, Peter Nash and Cooperstown

refused or failed to render assistance.

21. During but before the close of the April 2007 auction, REA learned for the

first time that several of the legitimate items provided by Peter Nash and Cooperstown were

not owned by Peter Nash and Cooperstown at all. Rather, the items had been loaned by a

third party for Peter Nash’s and Cooperstown’s benefit in opening a museum and producing a

film documentary. Despite providing REA a written warranty of ownership of these very

same items, Peter Nash and Cooperstown in fact possessed no ownership in the property and

had fraudulently listed same for sale in REA’s April 2007 auction in exchange for additional

cash advances. Upon notice of the ownership dispute, REA immediately withdrew these items

from the online auction despite having already listed them in the printed Spring 2007 catalog.

22. By the time of the April 2007 auction, Peter Nash and Cooperstown owed

approximately $900,000.00 in cash advanced and/or loans plus interest to REA.

23. The remaining authentic items owned and provided by Peter Nash and

Cooperstown deemed worthy of auction were listed in REA’s Spring 2007 catalog for sale in

the April 2007 auction. These items resulted in total auction consignment proceeds of
$329,820.00, including proceeds from the 1912 Ball which was sold for $85,000.00 B the

highest bid offered for the item.

24. Having offset the $329,820.00 against the cash advances and/or loans given by

REA, Peter Nash and Cooperstown still owed nearly $600,000.00 to REA which continued to

accrue interest.

25. In order to recover the substantial amount of debt owed, REA and Lifson were

compelled on June 4, 2007 to pursue Peter Nash and Cooperstown by way of counterclaim in

litigation, Nash v. Robert Edward Auctions, LLC, Somerset County, Law Division (Docket

No. L-1039-07). The litigation was started under a pretext by Peter Nash and Cooperstown

that they had a right to retake the 1912 Ball from REA. (On December 2, 2008 an

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment was granted

dismissing all claims brought against REA and Lifson by Peter Nash and Cooperstown.)

26. On or about December 12, 2007, Peter Nash appeared for his deposition.

During the deposition, he was requested to produce copies of Aconfidentiality agreements@

that he claimed prevented him from answering certain questions as to the origin of the

collateral given to REA. Peter Nash contended that he had the documents associated with the

confidentiality agreements in a storage facility in New York state; he was to produce the

documents prior to his next scheduled deposition. Aside from one agreement, Peter Nash did

not produce the confidentiality agreements that he referenced at the earlier deposition. Peter

Nash promised to again obtain them for review prior to his next deposition. He did not

produce the documents.

27. On or about February 27, 2008, Peter Nash appeared for another deposition.

During the deposition Peter Nash asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-

incrimination dozens of times to avoid answering multiple questions regarding his

acquisition and the authenticity of many of the most potentially valuable and rare items

pledged as security to REA. The second Peter Nash deposition could not be completed

because inter alia he had again failed to produce requested documents. Another date for his

deposition was sought.

28. Peter Nash never scheduled nor appeared for the conclusion of his liability

deposition.

29. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and

Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and

Defendants John Doe 1-5 had discovered that Defendant Raymond Nash had taken the sum of

$52,551.60 in charitable funds from the Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and/or

Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School to make a payment to Fein, Such, Kahn

& Shepard, P.C. on behalf of Peter Nash and his wife, Roxanne Nash.

30. Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund, Defendant Bishop Ford Central

Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and Defendants John Doe 1-5 did not inform

the Diocese of Brooklyn, or the United States Attorney’s Office in New York or New Jersey,

or the Attorney General’s Office in New York or New Jersey, or the Brooklyn District

Attorney’s Office or the Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office, the Internal Revenue Service,

or The New York Division of Taxation, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the New

York State Police or the New Jersey State Police, or the local police or any insurance

companies of the unauthorized taking of $52,551.60 in charitable funds or the concealment of

same by or through Defendant Raymond Nash, Peter Nash or Cooperstown Monument.

31. Adopting a A don’t ask, don’t tell policy Defendant Bishop Ford

Development Fund, Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B.

Casey and Defendants John Doe 1-5, each of whom had knowledge of the wrongful taking of

$52,551.60 in charitable funds through illicit means decided to have Defendant Raymond
Nash and/or others replace an equal amount of money in the account from which it had been

taken without asking about the source or legitimacy of such monies and how or from whom

such funds might be obtained.

32. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund,

Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and

Defendants John Doe 1-5, advised that if the $52,551.60 in charitable funds was replaced the

jobs or other perquisites of office of Defendant Raymond Nash as either President of Bishop

Ford Central Catholic High School and/or Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant

John B. Casey as Chief Financial Officer of Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School would

not be affected.

33. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund,

Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and

Defendants John Doe 1-5 advised Defendant Raymond Nash that if the $52,551.60 in

charitable funds was replaced he and Peter Nash would not be referred to the Diocese of

Brooklyn or law enforcement authorities for prosecution for taking the $52,551.60 in

charitable funds from the Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant Bishop

Ford Central Catholic High School without permission.

34. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund,

Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and

Defendants John Doe 1-5 advised that if the money was replaced there would be no further

questions asked about the taking or replacement of the $52,551.60 in charitable funds by

Defendant Raymond Nash from the Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and/or

Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School without permission.

35. Following instructions and advice of Defendants Bishop Ford Development

Fund, Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, John B. Casey and John Does 1-5,
Defendant Raymond Nash contacted Peter Nash, the third element of the unholy trinity, to

tell him that the taking of the $52,551.60 in charitable funds from the Defendant Bishop Ford

Development Fund and/or Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School for a

payment to Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C. on behalf of Peter Nash and his wife, Roxanne

Nash, had been discovered by Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund, Defendant Bishop

Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and Defendant s John Doe 1-5.

36. Upon information and belief, Defendant Raymond Nash advised Peter Nash

that he, Raymond Nash, and Peter Nash could avoid referral to the Diocese of Brooklyn or

law enforcement authorities for prosecution for taking the $52,551.60 in charitable funds

(including the potential loss of the former’s job or other perquisites of office as either

President of Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School or Bishop Ford Development Fund

and that of Defendant John B. Casey as Chief Financial Officer of Defendant Bishop Ford

Central Catholic High School) if the $52,551.60 in charitable funds was returned.

37. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, in or about March 20, 2008, Defendant Raymond

Nash and Peter Nash sought and received a private loan of $53,000.00 from Alfred A.

Angelo, an individual residing in the State of New Jersey, to cover and replace the

$52,551.60 in charitable funds taken by them from Defendant Bishop Ford Development

Fund and/or Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School.

38. Upon information and belief, Peter Nash advised Alfred A. Angelo that

Defendant Raymond Nash had taken the $52,551.60 in charitable funds from Defendant

Bishop Ford Development Fund and/or Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High

School, that the taking had been discovered by Defendant John B. Casey and Defendant

Bishop Ford Development Fund and/or Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High

School, and that Defendant Raymond Nash would lose his job and/or go to jail unless the

$52,551.60 in charitable funds was repaid.

 39. Defendant Raymond Nash and Peter Nash provided Alfred A. Angelo

individual notarized Promissory Notes signed by Defendant Raymond Nash (or someone

purporting to be Defendant Raymond Nash) and Peter Nash in the amount of $55,000.00

(inclusive of $2,000 in prepaid interest) which were to be repaid on May 20, 2008, a Security

and Pledge Agreement dated March 20, 2008 in identified collateral (delivered, to be

delivered and/or held in escrow by Alfred A. Angelo’s attorney) which Peter Nash estimated

as having a value of between $100,000.00 and $167,000.00 (including one or more items

which had been pledged or promised to REA as security for the earlier loans given to Peter

Nash) and the promise of a letter of protection from Defendant John B. Casey, Chief

Financial Officer of Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School indicating as to the

$52,551.60 in charitable funds that Athe matter of the loan to Peter Nash is a closed issue

with Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School.@ 40. The loan from Alfred A. Angelo

was to be paid by May 20, 2008. No part of the principal or interest has ever been paid to

Alfred A. Angelo by either Defendant Raymond Nash or Peter Nash.

41. In or about March 20, 2008, Peter Nash delivered $53,000.00 to Defendant

Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School.

42. Consistent with the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy created to protect Defendant

Raymond Nash, Defendant John B. Casey, Peter Nash, Defendant Bishop Ford Development

Fund, Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and

Defendants John Doe 1-5 accepted the payment without reporting the unauthorized taking of

money to the Diocese of Brooklyn, or the United States Attorney’s Office in New York or

New Jersey, or the Attorney General’s Office in New York or New Jersey, or the Brooklyn

District Attorney’s Office or the Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office, the Internal Revenue

Service, or The New York Division of Taxation, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or
the New York State Police or the New Jersey State Police, or the local police or any

insurance companies.

43. In further carrying out the secret “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy concerning

the $52,551.60 in charitable funds, Defendant Raymond Nash, Defendant Bishop Ford

Development Fund, Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B.

Casey and Defendants John Doe 1-5 caused the issuance of a letter of protection from

Defendant John B. Casey, Chief Financial Officer of Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic

High School indicating that Athe matter of the loan to Peter Nash is a closed issue with

Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School.@

44. The letter from Defendant John B. Casey could not have been issued but for

his

position as Chief Financial Officer of Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School.

45. On June 15, 2009, Peter Nash appeared for his deposition as part of

supplemental proceedings for REA to recover on the judgment against Peter Nash and

Cooperstown. During the course of that deposition Peter Nash sought to and did further

promote the secret “don’tt ask, don’t tell” policy concerning the improper taking of

$52,551.60 in charitable funds, and the artifice, plan and scheme to obtain $53,000 using

property against which REA had a superior and untainted equitable and legal claim, by

providing false, incomplete and misleading answers to questions and refusing to produce

documents involving the transaction with Alfred A. Angelo.

FIRST COUNT
(Unjust Enrichment)

46. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at

length herein.

47. Defendant Raymond Nash, Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and
Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School have been unjustly enriched by having

received the proceeds from collateral of Peter Nash which was used to secure a $53,000.00

loan from Alfred A. Angelo to cover up a theft or other wrongful conduct by Defendant

Raymond Nash involving Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant Bishop

Ford Central Catholic High School.

48. The collateral which was transferred and/or delivered to Alfred A. Angelo and

its cash equivalent value of between $100,000 and $167,000 is no longer available from Peter

Nash and Cooperstown as a source from which REA can recover its judgment against Peter

Nash and Cooperstown.

49. Had the Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund, Defendant Bishop Ford

Central Catholic High School and Defendant John B. Casey followed proper legal channels,

recovery of any loss would have been secured from Defendant Raymond Nash and/or others

with due regard for the legal and equitable rights of REA and others against Peter Nash and

Cooperstown or their property.

50. The Defendant Raymond Nash, Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund

and Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School have received and will

continue to receive the benefit of cash payments made to them or on

their behalf which properly belong to REA if not immediately ordered to

repay such sums of money to REA.

51. If the Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and/or Defendant Bishop

Ford Central Catholic High School are permitted to retain the benefit of the

monies received they will have been unjustly enriched by reason of their unclean hands or

those of their agents, servants, representatives or employees, Defendant Raymond Nash and

Defendant John B. Casey.

 52. As a result of the unjust enrichment as mentioned above, REA has suffered

and will suffer damages.

SECOND COUNT
(Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)

53. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at

length herein.

54. The acts and omissions of Defendant Raymond Nash, Defendant Bishop Ford

Development Fund, Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B.

Casey and Defendants John Doe 1-5 have interfered with REA’s collection on the judgment

and other claims against Peter Nash and Cooperstown which constitute interference with

prospective economic advantage.

THIRD COUNT
(Civil Conspiracy)

55. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at

length herein.

56. Defendant Raymond Nash, Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund,

Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and

Defendants John Doe 1-5 joined together with Peter Nash and wrongfully conspired to (1)

intentionally conceal the taking of $52,551.60 in charitable funds by Defendant Raymond

Nash, (2) have Defendant John B. Casey not report the taking to the proper authorities, (3)

secretly arrange for the repayment of $53,000 in charitable funds by Peter Nash to Defendant

Bishop Ford Development Fund and Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School

through the transfer to Alfred A. Angelo of personal property of Peter Nash estimated to be

worth between $100,000 and $169,000 which was subject to the equitable and legal claims of

REA, (4) arrange to use or transfer substantially all of Peter Nash’s assets so as to make
collection of a judgment from Peter Nash by REA more difficult or impossible, (5) issue one

or more false letters to Alfred A. Angelo by Defendant John B. Casey as to the wrongful

taking by Defendant Raymond Nash suggesting that the transaction had been a loan to Peter

Nash and stating it was a closed issue and (6) made material misrepresentations and/or

concealed facts concerning the taking of $52,551.60 in charitable funds which Defendant

John B. Casey and Defendant Raymond Nash had an affirmative duty to disclose to the

Diocese of Brooklyn and/or law enforcement authorities in order to prevent further

wrongdoing or damage to REA and others.

57. The foregoing schemes, artifices, acts and omissions and others unknown as a

result of the secret nature of the conspiracy among the named defendants and Peter Nash were

designed to conceal the wrongful taking of the $52,551.60 in charitable funds and obtain

repayment without regard for the rights of or potential injury to others including REA.

58. As a result of the schemes, artifices, acts and omissions of Defendant

Raymond Nash, Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund, Defendant Bishop Ford Central

Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and Defendants John Doe 1-5 as set forth

above, REA has suffered and will suffer damages.

FOURTH COUNT
(Fraudulent Conveyance)

59. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at

length herein.

60. Since in or about 2005, Peter Nash has been indebted to REA and others in an

amount exceeding his ability to satisfy all creditor claims and payments when due.

61. In or about March 2007 Peter Nash notified Defendant Raymond Nash that his

property in Cooperstown, New York was to be sold in a foreclosure proceeding further

demonstrating his likely insolvency.

 62. Defendant Raymond Nash exercised his authority as President of Defendant

Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School and/or President of Defendant Bishop Ford

Development Fund to transfer $52,551.60 in charitable funds to prevent the foreclosure sale.

63. In or about March 2008 Defendant John B. Casey exercised his authority as

Chief Financial Officer of Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School to not report

the transfer by Defendant Raymond Nash contrary to governing laws and by-laws applicable

to Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School and/or Defendant Bishop Ford

Development Fund including those applicable to 501(c)(3) charitable entities.

64. Defendant Raymond Nash, Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund,

Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and

Defendants John Doe 1-5 directly or indirectly demanded that Peter Nash arrange for the

repayment of the $52,551.60 in charitable funds.

65. Peter Nash did arrange for the payment of $53,000 to Defendant Bishop Ford

Development Fund or Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School on behalf of

Defendant Raymond Nash and Defendant John B. Casey who were insiders as to both Peter

Nash and Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund and/or Defendant Bishop Ford Central

Catholic High School.

66. Peter Nash was insolvent at the time of the transfer of the $53,000.

67. Defendant Raymond Nash, Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund,

Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School, Defendant John B. Casey and

Defendants John Doe 1-5 all knew or had reason to know that Peter Nash was insolvent at the

time.

68. Peter Nash does not have the available resources to satisfy the balance of the

judgment obtained by REA.

69. The transfer by Peter Nash as demanded by Defendant Raymond Nash,

Defendant Bishop Ford Development Fund, Defendant Bishop Ford Central Catholic High

School, Defendant John B. Casey and Defendants John Doe 1-5 has interfered with the ability

of REA to collect on and satisfy the judgment against Peter Nash.

70. As a result of the intentional and reckless bad acts as mentioned above, REA

has suffered and will suffer damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Robert Edward Auctions, LLC, demands Judgment as

follows:

(A) Damages;

(B) Punitive damages;

(C) Payment by Defendants of the costs and disbursements of this action,

including reasonable attorneys’ fees;

(D) Interest on all amounts to be paid to Plaintiff; and

(E) Such other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

KOZYRA & HARTZ, LLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Robert Edward Auctions, LLC

___________________________________
BARRY A. KOZYRA

DATED: June 3, 2010

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

Plaintiff, Robert Edward Auctions, LLC, hereby designates Barry A.

Kozyra, Esq., as trial counsel in this matter.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R. 4:5-1

 I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the

matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action or arbitration

proceeding, now or contemplated, except for Nash v. Robert Edward Auctions,

LLC. Peter Nash who was a Plaintiff in that mater is a non-party who may

be named by other parties to this action by reason of his potential

liability.

KOZYRA & HARTZ, LLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Robert Edward Auctions, LLC

___________________________________
BARRY A. KOZYRA

DATED: June 10, 2010