“Stop the Steal” Is Not Limited to Elections in Maricopa County-
Your HOME Could Be Next

Goodyear, AZ— In Arizona, they are known to “shoot first and ask questions later.” Is this what has happened in Maricopa County Family and Civil Courts where Teresa Mangus is fighting desperately to prevent the only home her four teenagers have ever known from being stolen out from under them.

And then there is Teresa’s 72-year-old mother, Patricia Netherton, who now stands to have the majority of her life savings taken from her because of the property being sold. She paid off the mortgage so her daughter and grandchildren could stay in the family home. Despite being on record as the titleholder of the property, that did not prevent Maricopa County sheriffs from evicting her family, as she lay handcuffed on the ground outside her front door. (See photos & video).

How It Happened

The eviction was court ordered after Mrs. Netherton's title to the home was nullified, a decision she is appealing. In an effort to protect her family and property, Mrs. Netherton was arrested. While objecting to the forced entry and drilling of the locks on her front door, she tried to access her home. She was reportedly blocked, and chest bumped by the sheriffs at the door. When the disabled grandmother took a photo, her phone was seized, she was handcuffed, and left on the sidewalk in the scorching Arizona sun, as her family was removed from the home.

Mrs. Netherton was cited for disorderly conduct and fighting, but who was the victim of the crime? None of the sheriffs were listed as the plaintiff, only the State of Arizona. So, the State has been victimized by a senior citizen protecting her property? Is this how they justified treating her like a dangerous criminal, or worse like a hog-tied animal left on the ground for about 20 minutes while they rendered her family homeless? Even animals are treated with more compassion than was Mrs. Netherton.(See shocking video).

The prosecutor has yet to provide the body camera footage of the incident that Patricia requested to use to defend against the criminal charges she now faces. And that’s on top of all the other stresses in her life at a time when she should be enjoying her golden years. Both women believe they have endured a string of what they deem to be bogus intimidation tactics by the opposing parties, all of whom stand to benefit from the forced sale of the home.

What to do?

With financial resources depleted trying to preserve stability for the four children, Teresa, a single stay at home mom, also took on the Herculean feat of learning law and court procedure to defend the family home.

“Unless you have unlimited finances to pay legal fees, the reality is that it’s highly likely that you will be victimized by the court system,” warns John Thaler a 35-year Family Court litigator and author who is investigating court corruption in Arizona and elsewhere. “It has become obvious that the courts have proven to be an unworkable system that enables cases such as this one to go off the rails." Apparently, this is the case for Patricia and Teresa.

For the six years since Randy Mangus left to go to work and didn’t come home to his family, Teresa claims she has been working around the clock battling realtors, law enforcement, and the court system in a desperate attempt to keep her family home intact. After a year and a half without support from her estranged husband, whose address remains unknown, Teresa initiated divorce from her verbally and physically abusive husband. Randy’s post office box is the only consistent “address” that he has provided since he left, through which Teresa has had to have three protective orders issued against him.

By the time the divorce was final, Teresa was in debt for $100K in legal fees and had no means to pay more. She had no choice but to represent herself in proceedings going forward. Teresa works hard caring for the needs of four teens. She is the primary driver to get them to school classes and activities in the beat-up van she got in the divorce, while her ex took the two better vehicles. She can't afford driving lessons or insurance for her boys. She also cares for her mother who has health challenges, as do a couple of her children. It’s full-time work long before the time required to navigate the legal system is added in, all of which is of course unpaid. So, her mother has continued to help her daughter and grandchildren by paying the mortgage.

A self-described agreeable and rather reserved woman, the divorce brought out the Mama Bear in Teresa. “I was never an assertive person, but now I have to be out of necessity,” she admits. “It’s as if I am trying to keep away the vultures that are always circling waiting for me to drop. But I will keep going.”

Lifelong Residents Removed

A post-divorce decree dispute resulted in Teresa and her four children being evicted at gunpoint by Maricopa County Sheriffs on June 4th, 2024. “You have 11 minutes to gather your things,” Detective Miller can be heard saying on the uncut footage that Teresa captured during the shocking eviction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=TootP6o_t414T7F7&v=XZ7NN6VDy7Y&feature=youtu.be

The video shows the distressed family being forced out while all their worldly possessions were about to be hauled off to storage units. Teresa reports many items were irreparably damaged. But still, she continues to fight.

According to Teresa, three years after Randy Mangus left his family, their divorce was granted in 2021. Six months later, in a family court clarification motion that he requested, Teresa was awarded the home. Randy had told Teresa at the time that she could keep the house, believing she wouldn’t be able to afford it. However, with the help of her mother, she managed to maintain the payments and keep a roof over their heads.

Randy eventually demanded that his name be removed from the mortgage. To do so, Teresa needed to refinance or pay off the home. Unemployed and unable to secure financing, Mrs. Netherton decided to pay off the mortgage on her daughter’s home entirely, putting a substantial portion of her savings into the previously “underwater” home.

During what could be described as a deliberately disorganized divorce, Randy purportedly received a larger portion of the 401K than did his ex-wife. He also received automobiles and other property that she did not. As in her failed marriage, Teresa’s positions, arguments, and concerns in court have for the most part gone unheard.

But she was awarded the house that Randy claimed he did not want in 2022, by Judge Joseph Keifer. She was then ordered to refinance the property, and pay out Randy’s share of the equity, if there was any. Teresa believes they had an understanding that he is not entitled to any of it, and that he just wanted his name off the mortgage. So why did he pursue it?

“A caring father would wait until his children were on their own, before trying to cash in on the only home they have known,” declares the 49-year-old mother. “He has already taken the lion’s share of everything. When we were married, it was the money he took out against the house. When he left, he got more property than we did, and before the divorce was final, he got a higher paying job, established two more 401K accounts where his increased earnings are protected from being factored into his support payments. And now the house is gone. This is all about continuing to hurt us. All I want is to be left alone in peace with my children in their family home.”

Just the Facts

The court requested proof that Teresa had the means to pay off the mortgage so the house could be removed from Randy’s name. Unable to secure refinancing from a bank, her mother offered to do it. The bank requested proof of funds and rather than getting involved with forms and bank records, Mrs. Netherton opted for the quicker and simpler solution of paying it off completely to prove she had the funds. At no point were either of the women told not to make payments on the home, and Teresa was already ordered to pay on it, with no limitations on how much she paid.

Teresa then transferred the title to her mother, the only person who had invested anything into the home in the past six years. Mrs. Netherton put the property into a trust, and the title was recorded in Maricopa County.

With the mortgage paid off providing an infusion of equity, Randy had a renewed interest in selling the property. He wanted his family out so he could try to stake a claim to the profits generated by Netherton’s six-year investment and pay-off of the family home.

Teresa’s mother was living in the home when Randy and his attorney, Michael Lincoln, moved to enjoin Patricia Netherton with Teresa in an eviction action. They sought approval from the Family Court, which purportedly puts the “best interest of children first,” to have all the occupants removed. Despite Family Court not having jurisdiction over the matter, in an unorthodox move, Judge Stasy Avelar granted Randy the ability to pursue it in Civil Court.

Avelar issued a handwritten note on the order to enjoin, granting Randy the ability to pursue something called a forcible detainer. This misstep in civil court where he was represented by Attorney Thomas Atkins, gave Randy standing as the “landlord” over the home.

Commissioner Richard Albrecht, relying on Avelar's order, approved the eviction of all the occupants— four of whom were Randy’s own children, a detail he neglected to mention in court. This series of actions was taken without considering Mrs. Netherton's stake in the property and raises significant concerns about ownership rights and the intersection of family law and property rights.

In yet another apparent gaff, a third party cannot be enjoined in a finalized divorce matter. The Mangus divorce decree granted on October 28th, 2021, states that the divorce was final and that there were no more pending actions. In this case Netherton was unlawfully enjoined, and swiftly evicted, both without due process.

Side Note: The Family Court Judge, Stasy Avelar, is married to Paul Avelar, the managing attorney for the Arizona Office for the Institute for Justice. He specializes in free speech, property rights, economic liberty and other Constitutional cases.

This unsettling scenario raises critical questions about property rights: If Teresa and Randy still owned the home jointly, could one partner truly wield such power over the other? By pursuing eviction, Randy seemingly undermined Teresa's ownership, leaving the legitimacy of their shared equity in doubt. At the same time, did he inadvertently confirm that Teresa no longer owns the home? Furthermore, if Teresa’s mother held no claim to the property as suggested in the minute entry of the civil court title action of October 11th, 2023, why was she enjoined in the first place, and how did Judge Avelar have jurisdiction to do so?

Teresa asserts that much of the information above and none of the information below was taken into consideration, or allowed on the record in Family or Civil court before the decision to sell the home was made.

Teresa Mangus confirms the following to be factual:
—That Randy Mangus failed to inform the court that he had not contributed financially to the cost of the home since 2018. He has no receipts to prove that he has paid anything toward the home since he left, while her mother has covered all the expenses and repairs.
— That he did not properly petition the court for division of the property. In doing so, he avoids having to prove that he has paid anything into the home since he left. Instead, the drastic and life altering decision to evict his family was rushed through the courts.
—That he has been underreporting his earnings for years, which means he owes much more child support than he has been paying.
— That he ignored Federal Tax requirements, falsely claiming tax deductions on his four children based on joint custody, when he has not cared for them a single day since he abandoned them.
— That he withheld from Teresa his 401K financial records needed for collateral to refinance, and that he refused to pay off his portion of their joint credit card negatively impacting her credit score. Both actions impeded Teresa’s ability to meet the deadline for the court ordered refinancing of the home. This ultimately led to the seizure of the property.
— That legal fees continue to be levied against Teresa and her mother, neither one of whom can afford to pay an attorney any longer.

Side note: Mrs. Netherton retained Attorney Lawrence Felder for $6500 for the civil court action to determine who holds the title of the home. Felder was conveniently on vacation prior to the hearing, failed to prepare a response and asked to be removed from the case without explanation. Was he pressured to do so? Consequently, the court entered a default ruling nullifying the title, which Mrs. Netherton immediately appealed. The Court of Appeals informed her that the partial summary judgment was a minute entry, not a final order, and it was unsigned, meaning it cannot be used to take lawful title away from Patricia. Opposing attorney Atkins chose to move forward with the sale anyway, ping ponging between the Family and Civil Courts. It is important to recognize that a home’s title must be held in judicial capacity, and it cannot be stripped away by administrative orders.

Buyer Beware

Patricia Netherton is officially listed as the titleholder on record as such in Maricopa County. And Teresa claims she is no longer an owner. Yet, the property is now being sold under Randy and Teresa’s names, even though they are divorced. Patricia Netherton’s name also appears on Real Estate documents, and she is listed as the owner on MLS. There are several documents in this transaction that have been executed without the consent or signature of either of the women involved.

Special court appointed Real Estate Commissioner Beth Jo Zeitzer of R.O.I. Properties has been allowed to “sign” documents for them alternately, Teresa’s name on one document and Patricia’s on another. The potential buyers of the home have been informed of the convoluted circumstances surrounding the sale and have chosen to “take their chances” and move forward with the purchase anyway. Mark Monty of Pioneer Title confirmed that due to the risk involved with this sale they are no longer insuring the title.

Working the System?

Although Randy Mangus was contacted several times to give his side of the story, it was his civil attorney, Tom Atkins, who responded to the inquiry. Atkins, who has only been representing Randy for about a year, admitted that he isn’t fully aware of how the assets were divided in the divorce. but still argues his client is entitled to half of the home. While he claims that Randy doesn’t have to pay for Teresa’s property after the divorce, it has been her mother Patricia paying the mortgage to date since 2018 when Randy walked out and stopped paying. Previously, Mrs. Netherton had also helped the family by contributing to the mortgage while her daughter was still married to Mangus.

The court didn't order Teresa to pay the full mortgage until May 2020, prior to the divorce being finalized. After the divorce, Mrs. Netherton paid off the home entirely. Does that mean Randy is entitled to half of all the funds Patricia paid on the home, too, including the repairs?
Teresa confirmed that the home division was not included in the divorce decree. The title was awarded to Teresa in a post-divorce decree ruling six months after it was final. This distinction is crucial because the court loses jurisdiction over the property after signing off on the decree, indicating there would be no further action on the case. If Randy alleges he has a half-interest in the property, why has he not provided a complete breakdown with receipts proving it?

Atkins also said that Mrs. Netherton has been court-ordered not to even mention that she owns the home. It should be noted that contempt was filed against Patricia for exercising her First Amendment right to declare a property as hers. It is within her rights to do so.

In another rather concerning statement, Atkins confirmed that Netherton has been directed by court order to “undo” the recording of the title. Is that even legal? Atkins went on to explain that the money Netherton used to maintain the home and pay off the mortgage is considered a “gift” that is not a factor in the equity.

“It’s ridiculous to think that I would gift anything to Randy Mangus,” says his former Mother-in-law Patricia. “He left my daughter and my four grandchildren six years ago and didn’t look back, and now this horrible eviction! No way.” There is no proof that her payments were gifts to Randy or Teresa.

Atkins also followed up his comments with a very reactive threatening email filled with inaccuracies, and assumptions, confirming that in Arizona the way they do things is to "shoot first and ask questions later." This could be the crux of the problem with this entire case.

Chaos and Corruption

Is this case simply a dispute over marital property?
Or is the husband trying to steal the house from his ex-wife?
Or is the wife trying to steal his half from him?
Or is the state stealing the home from the grandmother?
OR is the house being “stolen” by a State that serves justice through a wild, wild, west court system.

Several confounding questions remain in this protracted case. Perhaps the most concerning is:
By what authority are the judges clearly denying due process and not following their own court procedures?
How did the court declare Teresa’s multiple affidavits of truth as void, despite the fact that they were all unrebutted and put on record as well? Maxim of law dictates that “An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in law” since a person has stated their truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. If the opposing party does not do the same, then the unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth.
How can the court refuse to put a judgement on record, and demand that the title to the property be “unrecorded” under threat of contempt charges?
If Randy Mangus is the lawful titleholder why doesn’t he simply provide the title and proof from the assessor's office?
If Teresa or Patricia Netherton had committed fraud or evaded court orders, were they charged with such crimes? If so, where is the ruling? Attorney Atkins cannot simply accuse them of fraud without evidence to support the claim.
Furthermore, how could Teresa convey the property if it wasn't solely in her name? The court already ordered it to be hers, allowing her to manage the title as she saw fit.

Courts Under Scrutiny

“Family courts are supposed to be a place of fairness. The case documents reveal several irregularities that raise questions about judicial overreach and competence as well as jurisdiction, and title and ownership issues,” says Attorney John Thaler who has firsthand knowledge of the Maricopa County Courts. "They didn't do the easy thing here. This case has dragged on for years with five different judges and the meter running on legal fees, when it could have been quickly resolved through a motion to determine equity. "

If possession is 9/10ths of the law, how has 1/10th prevailed over this mother and daughter? After three months of being without a home, during a September 5th Family Court hearing, of which Teresa contends she was not properly notified and did not appear, Judge David Garbarino, ordered the house to be sold.

Oddly, court records show that the judgement was entered at 8am, almost an hour before the hearing convened at 8:53 and concluded at two minutes before 9 am. The errors, omissions, conflicts of interest, as well as actions taken apparently without lawful authority, are too confusing and numerous to list. But collectively, they clearly defy due process, deny equal protection, and violate the 5th Amendment rights the courts are bound to uphold.

Are the courts serving the people—or themselves? These dubious actions could be the result of the chaos of a complex and dysfunctional court system— a simple case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Or it could be that one hand is knowingly greasing the palms of others for their own enrichment?

“All I am left with is heartbreak. I am without my home and broke, and they keep levying attorney’s fees against my mounting debt,” laments Teresa. “The lawyers confer with one another and then charge me. They want me to pay for their collusion.”

"It’s obvious that the father with his lawyers are working the system," says attorney and author John Thaler who continues to challenge the system. "Sanctioning Teresa for attorneys fees is an egregious abuse of discretion. And now she has been taken out of the home she has so valiantly fought to keep. It just goes to show how the system has failed her."

As he continues to examine systemic corruption in the judicial and political systems, Thaler's current investigation includes prominent Judges and court appointed Judge's Assistants, among others. His book, "Report to the Governor" chronicles Thaler's own experience in Arizona as it exposes bribery, racketeering, and fraud: https://reporttothegov-ernor.com/.

The Payout

Do the math on this equation and the sum total amounts to: a destitute, disabled grandmother who stalwartly supported her family, but is unlikely to ever see any of her life savings again; and a mother and four teenagers who are sleeping on the floor with minimal possessions, since they no longer have a home to live in, or a place for all their things that are now are jammed into storage units.

Sadly, once all the parties involved take their piece of the pie, it’s unlikely that Teresa will even have enough to pay to move their things out of storage, which is costing her $700 per month. But it won’t matter, since she also will not be able to afford a place big enough to house all of them anyway.

As for the man who turned the lives of his children upside down by taking the action that got them evicted? According to a September 27th, 2023 court order, when the house sells, all the proceeds will go into a trust account controlled by Randy Mangus’ attorney, Michael Lincoln. The money is earmarked for State funded reunification therapy for Randy and his children, none of whom are interested in participating.

The eldest Mangus child was asked why. “He was abusive, and he made no attempt to contact us for three years after he left us,” says 19-year-old Layne on behalf of his two brothers and sister. “So, we feel the same way.”

But the lawyers, courts, and realtors will collect their fees first, even if they are extracted from the hides of a fractured, displaced family. And when all is said and done, unless there is a change of heart with the parties or the court, the of State of Arizona may be the sole beneficiary from the sale of this house.

It’s long past time to demand that the courts protect fundamental rights and ensure that both justice and the people are served.

SPECIAL THANKS to the SATAT Research & Investigative Team who contributed to this story.

Have you been moved to action as is the mission of RePublic.us?

Here’s how you can help immediately:

1. Click on the Quill link or copy and paste this link: https://quill.jotform.com/Info/mangus, read and sign digitally in minutes. The Judge who enabled Teresa and her children to be evicted will receive this letter immediately.
2. Personalize a letter using this template by copying and pasting this link: https://www.wethepeople2.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Mangus-letter-to-Judge-Garbarino.docx to download a guide to express concerns about potential due process violations, and key concerns regarding fair hearings, proper handling of court records, and property rights. You can download, edit, and customize the letter to reflect your own voice and thoughts before sending it via regular mail to:

Judge David Garbarino
Maricopa County Superior Court Northwest Regional Center
14264 W. Tierra Buena Lane Surprise, AZ 85374

Or via email at: nwj03@jbazmc.maricopa.gov

Sending a letter advocates for transparency, fairness, due process, and helps to hold our public servants accountable.

3. Share this story everywhere you can to help this family hopefully get back into their home.

Learn how to empower yourself and take effective action here: wethepeople2.us/education

Eviction Exposé -Stop the Steal Not Only Elections in Maricopa County

Comments