Nicoletti & Associates, Pio Masonry, Exquisite Homes, Prosecutor Margaret DeMuynck, Continental Title, Matina Construction Ripoff Nicoletti & Associates, Pio Masonry, Exquisite Homes, Prosecutor Margaret DeMuynck, Continental Titl EQUITY STRIPPING SCAM $$$$ MULTIPLE VICTIMS AT THE HANDS OF THE MACOMB COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT AND PROSECUTOR MARGARET DEMUYNCK MACOMB COUNTY, OAKLAND COUNTY AND Bloomfield Hills Michigan

Here is the evidence that Paul Nicoletti was also representing Sal Viviano aka PIO Masonry !.

Amazingly, this was HACKED  and removed from the report.  SO HERE IS THE LINK.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/d/2e1c5637-07b7-42f8-b1d4-2cdd48a0e1f7_thumb/NicolettiPIOStofMI0001.jpg

 See also these ripoffreports, where Nicoletti is representing the Dreilich’s in a case against Sal Viviano

271761 and 271667

And Nicoletti brags that the Attorney Grievance Commission won’t investigate him!

How do you know that Roland or Marie Dreilich made that particular report?  You don't.  That was my point.  So you outed someone that you can not be sure it is them.  Did you watch them post this report?  Do you have witnesses or proof?  Point being, your report is just as slanderous since you have made an affirmation when you justly cannot do so.

It just doesn't sound very ethical, coming from that of an attorney.  I don't know this particular judge or you but you sure act as if you have something to hide.  If I'm wrong, then I apologize.  All I know, is that Macomb County has been guilty of dishonesty numerous times in the past.  This all wouldn't surprise me.

This posting only bolsters my assertion that the writer is misinformed and lacks an understanding of the law.

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court struck the anti-indecency provisions of the Act.The Act was Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was introduced to the Senate Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation by Senators James Exon (D-NE) and Slade Gorton (R-WA) in 1995. The amendment that became the CDA was added to the Telecommunications Act in the Senate by an 8416 vote on June 14, 1995.

The CDA is not applicable in any manner.  

Sounds like a lot of mumbo-jumbo.  Someone made a report, you must have done something wrong. As for the Attorney Grievance Commission, who cares?  They take thousands of reports every day and very seldom do anything.  It's hardly anything to brag about because you didn't get nailed by the AGC.

This site is great to expose fraud attorneys, if you are one.  Finally, attorneys have to be accountable for their actions.  As for the judges, they are too busy and just don't care. Macomb County has a pretty poor reputation.  As for your allegations about the author, have you ever heard of something called the Communications Decency Act?  You don't know who the author is, you might suspect and you might even be right but you don't know.

I have to support the author.  This is his or her right to vent.  I find that the more an attorney tries to defend themselves, the more they are probably responsible for what they are being accused of; not always.  And I always laugh when I hear an attorney talk about someone having a criminal conviction.  Attorneys have no problem making the money off of these criminals but when the shoe is on the other foot, they cry that it's just another felon; quite convenient.

The posting by Roland from Shelby, is really from Marie Dreilich.  The posting was done under the name of Roland Dreilich, her husband.  The posting is false and baseless for the reasons set forth below:
1.  The Dreilichs were former clients of mine.  When they retained  me and my firm they had previously been through a series of lawyers, with whom they had fallouts with each one of them.  The case was entitled Viviano Construction, Inc. et al. vs. Roland and Marie Dreilich, Case No. 00-0171-CK, Macomb County Circuit Court.  Although the case was filed on 1/13/00, it was not until 1/7/02, that I became involved.  The court record that can be viewed online at http://macombcountymi.gov/pa/ indicates that prior to my involvement there were 7 pages of docket entries.  Less than 3 weeks later, on 1/28/02, I withdrew from representing the Dreilichs after i discovered they had lied to me and tried to hide crucial documents that revealed the true status of the case.  On 3/12/02 trial was held and a judgment of foreclosure was entered against the Dreilichs in the amount of $45,619.63.  
2.  On 11/21/03 Paul Nicoletti filed a request for issuance of a Personal Protection Order (PPO) against Marie Dreilich, Case No. 2003-686859-PH, Oakland County Circuit Court, following Dreilich's illegal entry into the residence of Paul Nicoletti, posing as a potential real estate broker. To view the docket entries see: http://www.oakgov.com/crts0004/main.  The PPO was issued by the court and entered into the lein system.  On 5/26/04 Dreilich was charged with violating the PPO and arrested and sent to jail.  Again on 6/30/04 Dreilich violated the PPO and was found in contempt and sentenced to jail.  Dreilich appealed her convictions to the Court of Appeals, where the appeals were denied.
3.  The Dreilichs placed blame for the way the foregoing case turned out upon their subsequent lawyer, Timothy Pierce.  The Dreilichs sued Mr. Pierce for legal malpractice on 3/1/04, Case No. 2004-000867-NM, Marie Dreilich v. Timothy Pierce, Macomb County Circuit Court.
4.  Again on 3/21/05, the Dreilichs tried to further delay the eviction proceedings by filing Case No. 2005-001136-CH, Dreilichs v. Viviano, Macomb County Circuit Court.  This case was ended by the entry of a consent judgment on 12/18/06.  The consent judgment provided that the Dreilichs would surrender the home and vacate the property.  After that the Dreilichs tried to renege on the settlement by filing a series of motions for rehearing and appeals, to no avail.  
5.  On 12/22/04, in Case No. 2004-702059-PH, Nicoletti v. Dreilich, Oakland County Circuit Court, the PPO entered against Dreilich was renewed and extended until 12/22/07.
6.  In a desperate attempt to keep possession of the home, despite the entry of a consent judgment, the Dreilichs filed what amount to liens upon the property in an attempt to cloud title.  With this illegal act, Dreilich was charged with not one, but six felonies under MCL 600.2907A2.  See People v. Dreilich, Case No. 2006-000512-FH.  On 6/9/06 Dreilich pled guilty as charged and officially became a convicted felon in the State of Michigan.  On 8/16/06 Dreilich tried to revoke her plea, which was denied.  A year later on 8/9/07, Dreilich was charged with violating her probation.  On 11/17/08 Dreilich's motion to overturn her criminal felony conviction was denied.
7.  The Dreilichs were divorced on 12/20/10, Case No. 2010-006069-DO.
8.  In an attempt to stall the eviction proceedings indicated above, the Dreilichs filed for bankruptcy in February of 2011, Case No. 11-42352-WSD.  
The time has come for Roland & Marie Dreilich, to take responsibility for their own actions.  The pattern of placing blame on their attorneys, judges, prosecutors, and others, evidences the deep seated mental disturbances from which they both suffer.  
In closing, although Paul Nicoletti was frivolously named as a party in Case No. 2005-070592-CZ, Fifth Third Bank v. Robert Hance, on 3/16/2009 the court entered an order dismissing Paul Nicoletti, his wife, his title company, and his Law Firm of Nicoletti & Associates.  Being named as a party was meaningless based upon the entry of the orders of dismissal, which evidence the fact that they were vindicated of all alleged wrong doings.
Paul Nicoletti has been licensed to practice law since 1991.  Since being licensed, Paul Nicoletti has never been disciplined by the Attorney Grievance Board nor has he ever had a grievance investigated.  If the Dreilichs had a valid complaint, it would have been investigated by the Attorney Grievance Board.  
If you have any questions or comments, I would welcome you to contact me at your convenience.  My number is (248) 203-7800 or feel free to email me at paul@nicoletti-associates.com.  Thank you for taking the time to read my response.

Another Italian lawyer, among all of the Italian judges.  Hmmmmmmm.   Sounds like another Macomb County scam to me. 

Marie Dreilich is a convicted criminal and has gone to jail no less than two times.  Her view of reality is distorted and she is mentally unstable. Ignore all of her postings.

This story was reported in the Metro Times parts 1 & 2, as
well as a follow up

 See LINKS below:


The case:  2001-005492-CK VIVIANO, SALVATORE; Viviano Construction vs.vDREILICH, ROLAND  was in the Hon. Edward Servitto Court even though Viviano Construction was an non-existent entity, and was unlicensed so it did not have the capacity to sue.  The State of Michigan then held disciplinary proceedings against Sal Viviano who was licensed in another capacity but not as Viviano Construction. Judge Edward Servitto ruled contrary to published COA  216334; Stokes v Millen Roofing.

2 The Construction Lien Act, MCL 570.1101 et seq.; MSA 26.316(101) et seq., prevents a contractor from asserting a construction lien on a residential property unless the contractor was licensed. MCL 570.1114(b); MSA 26.316(114)(b)

Nightmare on Highbury Court

Part 1 (12/12/07):

http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=12113

Nightmare on Highbury Court

Part 2 (12/26/07):

http://metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=12113

NOTE:  The unnamed Judge who gave Sal Viviano a 7411 which suppressed the drug offense file as an habitual offender and gave him probation instead of jail time is Judge Diane Druzinski of Macomb County Circuit Court. 

It was Judge Edward Servitto's son, Prosecutor Micheal Servitto who argued for the 7411 who appeared only for the sentencing even though he was neither the prosecutor assigned to the case, nor the prosecutor assigned to the Druzinski court.

Nightmares Twist  (6/25/08):

http://www2.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=13022

Macomb County Circuit Court assigned to Judge Diane Druzinski

[note the Canyon Construction case was still active until 9/03, but with appeals it was not completely closed for a few more years.]  This means while Paul Nicoletti was still representing Stephens, Nicoletti initiated a lawsuit and represented Sal Viviano!  The Attorney Grievance Commission turned a blind eye to the conflict of interest

2003-003492-CK
SUPERIOR CUT STONE INC vs. CARABELLI CONSTRUCTION INC DMD  

File Date
08/04/2003

   


Party
Information


Party Name

Party Alias(es)

Party Type

Attorney(s)


Paul Nicoletti is representing Superior Cut Stone which is also owned by Sal Viviano.

This case was assigned to Judge Diane Druzinski.

This was at least the 2nd Sal Viviano Case assigned to Judge Druzinski.

From the Metro Times article  "Nightmare on Highbury Court"

Judge Druzinski gave habitual drug offender gave Sal Viviano a 7411 which suppressed the case and he was given only probation which he violated.

 According to trial records, Viviano was again eligible to be charged as a habitual offender because of his earlier felonies. When it was proposed that he be offered what's known as a "7411," which allows the conviction of first-time drug offenders to be suppressed, one of the arresting officers initially objected and then subsequently withdrew his opposition.

4 months later, A complaint alleging one count of domestic violence and one count of
interfering with a crime report for allegedly ripping the phone out of the wall when an attempt was made to call the police was forwarded to the prosecutor's office, but apparently no charges were filed. It also seems that no action was taken regarding potential probation violations.

Some people, it seems, are luckier than others.

Paul Nicoletti represented the bricklayer, Sal Viviano as PIO Masonry in Judge Rudy Nichols court in Oakland County. 

On September 4, 2003, in another Oakland county case involving the same attorney Paul Nicoletti and  bricklayer , Viviano/PIO who exploits illegals, the Nicolettis client was put in a room with Judge Rudy Nichols.  Nicoletti said Hi Rudy, and then Rudy who in his robe exclaimed ANARCHY! and dont let a 3rd party (a jury) determine your fate.  Nicoletti then said I wont let this settlement fail.
 
See this Ripoffreport and photos of the brickwork

http://www.ripoffreport.com/lawyers/attorneys-paul-nicol/attorneys-paul-nicoletti-john-ae0b3.htm

Oakland Circuit Court

2004-061797-CK  PIO Masonry v JRH.

Judy Rudy Nichols

PIOs attorney, Paul Nicoletti filed State of MI documents on behalf of PIO/Sal Viviano. 

The posting by Roland from Shelby, is really from Marie Dreilich.  The posting was done under the name of Roland Dreilich, her husband.  The posting is false and baseless for the reasons set forth below:

1.  The Dreilichs were former clients of mine.  When they retained  me and my firm they had previously been through a series of lawyers, with whom they had fallouts with each one of them.  The case was entitled Viviano Construction, Inc. et al. vs. Roland and Marie Dreilich, Case No. 00-0171-CK, Macomb County Circuit Court.  Although the case was filed on 1/13/00, it was not until 1/7/02, that I became involved.  The court record that can be viewed online at http://macombcountymi.gov/pa/ indicates that prior to my involvement there were 7 pages of docket entries.  Less than 3 weeks later, on 1/28/02, I withdrew from representing the Dreilichs after i discovered they had lied to me and tried to hide crucial documents that revealed the true status of the case.  On 3/12/02 trial was held and a judgment of foreclosure was entered against the Dreilichs in the amount of $45,619.63.  

2.  On 11/21/03 Paul Nicoletti filed a request for issuance of a Personal Protection Order (PPO) against Marie Dreilich, Case No. 2003-686859-PH, Oakland County Circuit Court, following Dreilich's illegal entry into the residence of Paul Nicoletti, posing as a potential real estate broker. To view the docket entries see: http://www.oakgov.com/crts0004/main.  The PPO was issued by the court and entered into the lein system.  On 5/26/04 Dreilich was charged with violating the PPO and arrested and sent to jail.  Again on 6/30/04 Dreilich violated the PPO and was found in contempt and sentenced to jail.  Dreilich appealed her convictions to the Court of Appeals, where the appeals were denied.

3.  The Dreilichs placed blame for the way the foregoing case turned out upon their subsequent lawyer, Timothy Pierce.  The Dreilichs sued Mr. Pierce for legal malpractice on 3/1/04, Case No. 2004-000867-NM, Marie Dreilich v. Timothy Pierce, Macomb County Circuit Court.

4.  Again on 3/21/05, the Dreilichs tried to further delay the eviction proceedings by filing Case No. 2005-001136-CH, Dreilichs v. Viviano, Macomb County Circuit Court.  This case was ended by the entry of a consent judgment on 12/18/06.  The consent judgment provided that the Dreilichs would surrender the home and vacate the property.  After that the Dreilichs tried to renege on the settlement by filing a series of motions for rehearing and appeals, to no avail.  

5.  On 12/22/04, in Case No. 2004-702059-PH, Nicoletti v. Dreilich, Oakland County Circuit Court, the PPO entered against Dreilich was renewed and extended until 12/22/07.

6.  In a desperate attempt to keep possession of the home, despite the entry of a consent judgment, the Dreilichs filed what amount to liens upon the property in an attempt to cloud title.  With this illegal act, Dreilich was charged with not one, but six felonies under MCL 600.2907A2.  See People v. Dreilich, Case No. 2006-000512-FH.  On 6/9/06 Dreilich pled guilty as charged and officially became a convicted felon in the State of Michigan.  On 8/16/06 Dreilich tried to revoke her plea, which was denied.  A year later on 8/9/07, Dreilich was charged with violating her probation.  On 11/17/08 Dreilich's motion to overturn her criminal felony conviction was denied.

7.  The Dreilichs were divorced on 12/20/10, Case No. 2010-006069-DO.

8.  In an attempt to stall the eviction proceedings indicated above, the Dreilichs filed for bankruptcy in February of 2011, Case No. 11-42352-WSD.  

The time has come for Roland & Marie Dreilich, to take responsibility for their own actions.  The pattern of placing blame on their attorneys, judges, prosecutors, and others, evidences the deep seated mental disturbances from which they both suffer.  

In closing, although Paul Nicoletti was frivolously named as a party in Case No. 2005-070592-CZ, Fifth Third Bank v. Robert Hance, on 3/16/2009 the court entered an order dismissing Paul Nicoletti, his wife, his title company, and his Law Firm of Nicoletti & Associates.  Being named as a party was meaningless based upon the entry of the orders of dismissal, which evidence the fact that they were vindicated of all alleged wrong doings.

Paul Nicoletti has been licensed to practice law since 1991.  Since being licensed, Paul Nicoletti has never been disciplined by the Attorney Grievance Board nor has he ever had a grievance investigated.  If the Dreilichs had a valid complaint, it would have been investigated by the Attorney Grievance Board.  

If you have any questions or comments, I would welcome you to contact me at your convenience.  My number is (248) 203-7800 or feel free to email me at paul@nicoletti-associates.com.  Thank you for taking the time to read my response.