New Jersey's Farmland Preservation Program-FRAUD & SWINDLE

Misty Brook Meadow Farm, property of Shya Beth.

The “Racketeering-Conspiracy” to steal by “Fraud and Swindle” the Farmer’s non- agricultural development rights and credits using “Land Preservation” non-profits, State Agencies, State Programs and State Agricultural Committees is grotesque injustice that irreparably harms all the State of New Jersey and America.

Maxim of Law –
“The main objective of government is the protection and preservation of personal property, private rights, public liberties and upholding the law of God.” All aspects of “government” at all levels must be fully transparent and fully accountable to the people they swore to protect and serve.

AFFIDAVIT: STATEMENT OF TRUTH
Shya Beth

What I have presented within this Counterclaim and Bill of Complaint shows the truth hidden in plan sight of the New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program’s true intent and purpose. All the evidence of the negligent misrepresentation, and outright deception of supposedly “preserving New Jersey Farmland” within this document is found within the pages of the fraudulent Declaration of Covenants, Assignment of Easement, and the Deed of Easement itself. The scheme of taking control of farmland development rights, hiding their ability and plan (down to the percentage of the profits) to resell the development rights when the time suits them flies in the face of all of what the New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program publicly stands for: Preserving New Jersey farmland, and supporting the next generation of farmers.

As a third-generation farmer on this land, horsewoman, and artist, it is appalling and frankly shocking to see how I, my family, and the rest of the landowners within the Farmland Preservation Program, have been betrayed by the parties named in this Counterclaim and Bill of Complaints. Sold the promise that this land would never be developed and farms like mine would be supported, I have in turn been forced to fight for my property and against these adversaries at every turn, causing unsurmountable wasted time, effort and resources that I could have instead invested into my farm and business, not to mention the stress and lost opportunities caused by this lawsuit. A lawsuit brought forward by a party that has no claim or harm done to them by me, but have undeniably caused harm against me, the landowners within the program, and “the People” of New Jersey.

The “Deceptive Business Practices”, “Fraud & Swindle”, and “Racketeering-Conspiracy” executed and disguised as a noble cause of saving our farmland and open space is diabolical.

Complicit State of New Jersey Judges engaged in “SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY” (Title 18 US Code 2384) as an “ENEMY” (Title 50 U.S. Code 2204) execute and enable “DOMESTIC TERRORISM” (Title 18 U.S. Code 2331) and TREASON (Title 18 U.S.
Code 2381) against the Petitioner, the Farmers of New Jersey, and “the People” of America by weaponizing judicial authority which requires strict adjudication in an Article III Court with Trial by Jury.

It is upon “the People” to ensure justice prevails when those in positions of power reveal themselves to be an enemy of those who put their trust in them.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Sui Juris Defendant, Shya Beth 120 Warbasse Junction, Lafayette, Sussex County, New Jersey 07848
DATE: June 19, 2025

More Information:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JUNE 19, 2025
Writ of Habeas Corpus

[Sui Juris Petitioner, Shya Beth, living American] vs.
[Judge Frank J. DeAngelis (in his individual capacity); Judge James M. DeMarzo (in his individual capacity); THE COUNTY OF SUSSEX and SUSSEX COUNTY AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD; SUSSEX COUNTY AGRICULTURE
DEVELOPMENT BOARD Chairman, Peter Southway (in his individual capacity); SUSSEX COUNTY AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vice Chairman, Brian
Hautau (in his individual capacity); Joseph D. Greer, Esq. (433302023) of Lavery Selvaggi & Cohen, a Professional Corporation; James F. Moscagiuri, Esq. (029222001) of Lavery Selvaggi & Cohen, a Professional Corporation; Dennis R. McConnell, Attorney at Law; Senior Planning Aide of the Sussex Country Division of Planning and Farmland Preservation Program, Rudy Dragan; and the other Complicit Participants]

Petitioner, Sui Juris, living American Shya Beth
120 Warbasse Junction, Lafayette Sussex County, New Jersey

Writ of Habeas Corpus served by Sui Juris Petitioner, Shya Beth, living American, 120 Warbasse Junction, Lafayette, Sussex County, New Jersey, pursuant to TITLE 28 US CODE 2254 as all legal remedies are exhausted because Complicit State of New Jersey Judges engage in “SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY” (Title 18 US Code 2384) as an “ENEMY” (Title 50 U.S. Code 2204) executing “DOMESTIC TERRORISM” (Title 18 U.S. Code 2331) and TREASON (Title 18 U.S. Code 2381) against the Petitioner, the Farmers of New Jersey, and “the People” of America by weaponizing judicial authority which requires strict adjudication in an Article III Court with Trial by Jury.
The “Racketeering-Conspiracy” to steal by “Fraud and Swindle” the Farmer’s non- agricultural development rights and credits using “Land Preservation” non-profits, State Agencies, State Programs and State Agricultural Committees is grotesque injustice that irreparably harms all the State of New Jersey and America.
I, Sui Juris Petitioner Shya Beth, demand my “Liberty”.

“LIBERTY”… In Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923),
“While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring
up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)

Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The
U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19
U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, (1803)

"The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law."

Sui Juris Petitioner, Shya Beth, demands a Trial by Jury as this is an Adversary Hearing in which the Complicit Judges and the Defendants are both employed by the State of New Jersey with obvious bias.

FACTUAL DECLARATIONS

11. Deed of Easement, State of New Jersey Agriculture Retention and Development Program was made February 4, 2008, between Annette M. Fritz (Grantor) and Morris Land Conservancy, a non-profit of the State of New Jersey (Grantee) for the consideration of $179,844.50.

12. Deed of Easement, State of New Jersey Agriculture Retention and Development Program states on the front page “WHEREAS, the Grantee believes that the retention and preservation of agricultural lands is beneficial to the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the State of New Jersey.”

13. Deed of Easement, State of New Jersey Agriculture Retention and Development Program part 1 states “Any development for nonagricultural purposes is expressly prohibited”.

14. Deed of Easement, State of New Jersey Agriculture Retention and Development Program part 22 states “Grantor, Grantor’s heirs, executors, administrators, personal or legal representatives, successors, and assigns further transfers and conveys to Grantee all of the nonagricultural development rights and development credits appurtenant to the lands and Premises described herein. Nothing herein shall preclude the conveyance or retention of said rights by the Grantee as may be permitted by the laws of the State of New Jersey in the future. If the Grantee sells or donates the development rights, it shall pay to the Committee 30 percent of the net proceeds. Net proceeds means the amount of compensation received by Grantee in excess of any unreimbursed costs.”

COMPLAINTS
The Deed of Easement, State of New Jersey Agriculture Retention and Development Program was made February 4, 2008, between Annette M. Fritz (Grantor) and Morris Land Conservancy, a non-profit of the State of New Jersey (Grantee) that in the future
“Any development of the Premises for nonagricultural purposes is expressly prohibited.”
However, the “Misrepresented” boilerplate Deed of Easement later states the following:
“Grantor, Grantor’s heirs, executors, administrators, personal or legal representatives, successors, and assigns further transfers and conveys to Grantee all of the nonagricultural development rights and development credits appurtenant to the lands and Premises described herein. Nothing herein shall preclude the conveyance or retention of said rights by the Grantee as may be permitted by the laws of the State of New Jersey in the future. If the Grantee sells or donates the development rights, it shall pay to the Committee 30 percent of the net proceeds. Net proceeds means the amount of compensation received by Grantee in excess of any unreimbursed costs.”
It is obvious that the goal of the complicit participants is to acquire all the nonagricultural development rights and credits of New Jersey farmland for future profit as described in the clause above. This contradicts the “NO DEVELOPMENT” purpose of the Deed of Easement.
Are State of New Jersey farmers aware of this subtle but significant deception?
Please Note: The State of New Jersey can execute “eminent domain” if land is required for the public good.
This is a bill of complaint of “Deceptive Business Practices”, “Fraud & Swindle”, and “Racketeering-Conspiracy” involving many complicit participants.
1. Morris Land Conservancy, a non-profit organization, was a “Straw Man” participant to steal nonagricultural development rights and credits by others. It is designed to make the farmer believe he is securing his land forever from being developed for non-agricultural use. The name itself says that. All the complicit participants constructed this deception way before February 4, 2008, Deed of Easement to Annette M. Fritz.
2. The “Fraud & Swindle” by the Parties named is a grotesque injustice that harms the Sui Juris Petitioner, Shya Beth, the other farmers in the program, and the General Public.
3. The obvious “Racketeering-Conspiracy” to steal the non-agricultural development rights and credits by the use of non-profits, State Agencies, State Programs and State Agricultural Committees is grotesque injustice that irreparably harms all of the State of New Jersey. This Adversary Hearing requires a Trial by Jury due to complicit State parties.
4. Complicit State of New Jersey Judges engage in “SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY” (Title 18 US Code 2384) as an “ENEMY” (Title 50 U.S. Code 2204) executing “DOMESTIC TERRORISM” (Title 18 U.S. Code 2331) and TREASON (Title 18 U.S. Code 2381) against the Petitioner, the Farmers of New Jersey, and “the People” of America by weaponizing judicial authority for profit and rogue power.

Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52,
Conspiracy "A conspiracy may exist even if a conspirator does not agree to commit or facilitate each and every part of the substantive offense." Salinas v. United States, 522
U.S. 52, 63 (1997). It is "the common-law principle that, so long as they share a common purpose, conspirators are liable for the acts of their co-conspirators." Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 64 (1997). "A conspirator must intend to further an endeavor which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements of a substantive criminal offense, but it suffices that he adopt the goal of furthering or facilitating the criminal endeavor."

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."

BILL OF COMPLAINT

Wherefore, Sui Juris Defendant, Shya Beth, respectfully delivers the Bill of Complaint.
a) Demand a Trial by Jury of 12 to eliminate any judicial bias; and,
b) Pro Rata Restitution for the Theft of All Sussex County Farm Properties and Emotional Distress/ Deterioration of Health for Total Damages of
$68,310,609.66 are as follows:

2020 Preserved Farmland in Sussex County Value of Non-Agricultural Development Rights less Misty Brook Meadows Farm of 32.699 Acres… $68,080,765.16
Misty Brook Meadows Farm, Shya Beth,
Value of Non-Agricultural Development Rights… $ 179,844.50
Emotional Distress/ Deterioration of Health… $ 50,000.00

Total Damages $68,310,609.66

c) Award all costs and disbursements in this action such as Treble Damages, including reasonable costs, attorneys’ fees, and expert fees;

d) Grant such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, equitable, and proper.