NCFM Jerry Cox case update, Cox case taking new twist, money at issue

Mens Rights Alberta  > NCFM >  NCFM Jerry Cox case update, Cox case taking new twist, money at issue

jerry cox

NCFM NOTE: NCFM Vice President Marc Angelucci is now representing Mr. Cox. Basically, Jerry upset some powerful people in very provincial Mariposa County. We strongly believe there is a concerted effort to use legal means to steal his property and run him out of the county. Also, that the false sexual assault allegations brought against Jerry were used to facilitate the theft of his property. A lawsuit has been filed against the false accuser and a sheriff’s office is trying to locate her to serve her. Something is very rotten in Mariposa County…

Stay tuned. NCFM plans on filing more lawsuits against false filers of sexual assault allegations. They need to be held accountable.


October 04, 2018

By GREG LITTLE Editor, Mariposa Gazette

Although the case against Mariposa County resident Jerry Cox has been ongoing for two years, it appears that pace may pick up in the near future.

A hearing about the matter was held this week in Mariposa County Superior Court and it was clear money issues are about to surface — in a big way.

The case against Cox involves a receiver who was appointed by the court. The court ruled Cox was in violation of more than 101 code violations on his property, a charge Cox has vehemently denied.

So much so, it inspired him to run for county supervisor during the June primary. Cox came in last among the three candidates.

But his case remains alive and well in court, and on Monday of this week, Judge Dana Walton said issues involving money are likely to be surfacing quickly.

The receiver, Mark Adams of California Receivership Group, told the judge the lending companies are putting pressure on him to settle the matter. But what that could mean for Cox remains to be seen.

Adams has suggested a foreclosure on the property; something that cannot happen until Adams has completed the repairs of the property.

The cost of those repairs appears to be where the parties are going to come to loggerheads, especially given the fact it was Cox who arranged the company who eventually oversaw and completed the repairs.

Adams had contested the repairs could cost upwards of $300,000, which included the cost for security at the property since the land was seized by the state after the court’s ruling.

However, Adams was also unable to secure bidders on the project, citing a reluctance of companies to bid on a high-profile case. He also said he feared social media harassment by Cox and his allies.

Apparently, though, much of the money charged by Adams in the case has not been paid. All monies paid have to be approved by the court.

Adams told the judge this week he is getting pressure.

“My lenders have been pressing for payment,” said Adams.

Those lenders loan money to the receiver while cases are pending in court. The money is used for repairs as well as other costs associated with seized properties.

In many cases in California, property put into receivership continues to generate income; such as apartment complexes where tenants remain while the repairs are being made..

In this case, Cox has not been allowed to go back on his property, which has basically sat empty for quite some time. Cox says he is homeless as well as without a vehicle because of the action which has been taken against him.

During Monday’s court hearing, the receiver indicated he is wanting to complete the case in an apparent attempt to set in motion a foreclosure. One was filed previously in the case but had to be withdrawn because California law states there cannot be a foreclosure while the case is still in the hands of the receiver.

That was more than likely the reason Adams said on Monday there was just one outstanding issue remaining with the property — a barn.

Adams said as “far as I’m concerned,” he will be “done” with the matter once the barn issue is resolved.

“That’s where this is headed,” said Adams, adding it will “probably” be within 30 days.

Walton questioned Cox about the barn and what he thought should happen.

Cox said the barn is “basically a carport” and he felt it was functional. But Adams said the building does not have the proper snow load rating for its altitude.

Cox also told the court there were people “working on” the matter this week.

“I’m being pressed by the lenders to keep this moving,” said Adams.

Attorney Marc Angelucci was representing Cox during the hearing this week. Angelucci is an attorney for the National Coalition for Men, a San Diego-based organization which has been involved in the Cox case for quite some time.

When asked to comment by the judge, Angelucci said his “primary concern” was to “get Mr. Cox back on his property.”

It was at that point in the proceedings that Walton suggested to Adams he might consider the alternatives to foreclosure.

Walton asked if there were “other potential options” in the case “besides foreclosure.”

“The lender is going to want to be paid before Mr. Cox gets back on the property,” said Adams.

Adams did say “one option” would be the “sale of the property,” though he gave no specifics.

Walton said he thought “it is very important” for “those other potential options” to be discussed.

The judge also said he understands there are “folks expecting payment for what they incurred.”

Angelucci told the court he thinks it is unfair that Cox cannot go back to his property where there is income potential.

“This is not just his business, but it is his home,” said Angelucci. “It affects his finance.”

He also called it “unfair” to use the monies owed as “leverage” against Cox because he cannot get back on his property.

“I ask that he be allowed to get back now,” said Angelucci.

The judge told all of the parties involved they needed to meet about the issues within the next 14 days. He also scheduled another status update for Monday, Oct. 22 at 2 p.m. in superior court.

He said “all parties must meet in confer” within the two-week time period.

The judge then turned to Cox and asked him if there were any other issues “other than wanting to get back home because I’m going to try to my best as soon as possible.”

Cox thanked the judge for the statement and the hearing was closed.

The history of the Cox case has been controversial from the outset. Cox is the owner of JDC Land Co., which is a ranch located north of the airport in Mariposa County.

Cox was also the subject of a criminal investigation in which has was charged with 14 sex-related felonies that could have resulted in a life sentence in prison.

But those charges were dropped after almost two years. Cox contends the charges were specifically targeting him and were being pushed by county officials. He also contends county officials attempted to use those charges in the civil case to paint a bad picture of him in order to sway the court.

The county denies that is the case.

Cox was accused of sex crimes by a woman he met on the dating site, but he claims he was the target of a woman with a history of trying to extort men.

He was arrested for the crimes and the case hung over him for two years before it was dropped by the Mariposa County District Attorney. It is unusual for a case involving so many serious sex-related felonies to be dropped.

Cox claims the county didn’t investigate the claims of the woman properly and it caused the case to drag out for that length of time.

The district attorney has only said there was not enough evidence to bring the case to trial.

Since that case was dropped, the receivership case has been ongoing in the superior court.

national coalition for men


NCFM Jerry Cox case update, Cox case taking new twist, money at issue

Powered by WPeMatico