EXPOSING JUDICIAL AND LEGAL MISCONDUCT IN QASIM v. QASIM

Implications of Judicial and Legal Misconduct

The handling of Qasim v. Khan exposes profound failures within New Jersey’s judicial and legal systems. The case highlights how unchecked judicial bias and attorney misconduct can deprive litigants of fundamental rights. The involvement of Judge Rescinio’s law clerk in coordinating fraudulent actions raises alarming concerns about judicial integrity and impartiality.

Furthermore, the systematic denial of due process and failure to address Qasim’s financial hardship reflect broader issues of socioeconomic discrimination within the state’s family courts.

Why This Matters

Qasim’s case serves as a critical test for the integrity of the New Jersey judiciary. The Appellate Division’s decision will set a precedent for how courts handle cases involving fraudulent property transfers, judicial bias, and systemic misconduct. Failure to address these issues risks further erosion of public confidence in the legal system and could embolden future violations of due process and property rights.

Qasim’s fight for justice is not just about his property — it’s about holding the judiciary and legal profession accountable for ethical misconduct and ensuring that every litigant receives a fair and impartial hearing.

Closing Statement

Plaintiff-appellant Farhan Qasim’s legal battle reveals a deeply troubling pattern of misconduct and systemic failure. The Appellate Division must take swift and decisive action to rectify these injustices, uphold the rule of law, and restore faith in New Jersey’s legal system.

Qasim’s case is a stark reminder that judicial power without accountability is a threat to the foundations of justice.

For further information and legal inquiries, contact:
Farhan Qasim
Plaintiff-Appellant

EXPOSING JUDICIAL AND LEGAL MISCONDUCT IN QASIM v. QASIM: PLAINTIFF’S FIGHT AGAINST FRAUD AND INJUSTICE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

In a shocking legal battle that has rocked the Superior Court of New Jersey, plaintiff-appellant Farhan Qasim has filed a comprehensive appellate brief in Qasim v. Khan (Docket No. A-001566-24), exposing widespread judicial misconduct, fraudulent conveyance, and due process violations. The case has revealed a disturbing pattern of coordinated legal and judicial malfeasance involving Judge Albert Rescinio, his law clerk Christian Wagner, and opposing counsel Harvey Fruchter and Caitlyn Stark.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around a fraudulent Quitclaim Deed (QCD) executed on December 3, 2024 by defendant Nuzhat Khan, despite her limited authority as Attorney-In-Fact (AIF). The QCD improperly transferred ownership of 128 Heron Court, Manalapan, NJ — a property that Qasim lawfully retained under a July 18, 2023 QCD in compliance with a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA).

On October 18, 2024, the court designated Khan as AIF with explicitly limited authority to facilitate only the sale of the property. However, Khan and her attorney, Harvey Fruchter, conspired to exploit this designation to execute a second QCD without judicial approval, constituting fraudulent conveyance under N.J.S.A. 25:2-25.

This fraudulent action was facilitated through direct communication between Fruchter and Judge Rescinio's law clerk, Christian Wagner, raising serious concerns about judicial impartiality and ethical violations.

Legal Violations and Irregularities

1. Fraudulent Conveyance and Unauthorized Transfer

• Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 25:2-25, any property transfer executed without judicial authorization is void.
• The December 3, 2024 QCD was fraudulently executed and wrongfully accepted by the Monmouth County Clerk’s Office, violating N.J.S.A. 46:26A-2(a).

2. Judicial Bias and Misconduct

• Judge Rescinio issued a sua sponte order on December 3, 2024, facilitating the fraudulent QCD.
• Judge Rescinio’s alignment with opposing counsel's strategy creates a direct conflict of interest and raises ethical concerns under Rule 2:15-8 of the New Jersey Code of Judicial Conduct.

3. Violation of Due Process

• Judge Rescinio denied Qasim’s request for an adjournment, despite clear procedural irregularities and the need to present critical evidence.
• The eviction order issued on February 19, 2025, stemmed from the fraudulent QCD, depriving Qasim of his property rights without a fair hearing, violating Kosmowski v. Atlantic City Med. Ctr., 175 N.J. 568 (2003).

4. Misuse of Emergency Mortgage Assistance Funds

• Qasim lawfully applied NJHAF mortgage relief funds to cover forbearance payments.
• Judge Rescinio falsely accused Qasim of misappropriating funds despite documented proof of proper use, constituting defamation and judicial overreach.

5. Attorney Misconduct

• Attorney Harvey Fruchter breached RPC 3.3(a)(1), RPC 3.4(b), and RPC 8.4(c) through false statements, obstruction, and facilitating a fraudulent filing.
• Attorney Caitlyn Stark improperly used subpoenas from a separate civil matter (MON-L-1526-21) to access Qasim’s private financial records, violating Qasim’s privacy and due process rights.

6. Failure of Oversight Authorities

• Formal complaints against Judge Rescinio and Fruchter were ignored by the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) and the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC).
• This reflects systemic administrative negligence and a failure to uphold judicial accountability.