NEWARK — He looks like an attorney in his crisp gray suit, white shirt and red patterned tie.

Not only does he dress the part, Mark Newton knows the law. In fact, an exhaustive Star-Ledger review of his court filings shows that for at least 19 years he has made Superior, chancery, federal and municipal courtrooms his virtual offices, representing himself in hundreds of court battles — though he has no license to practice law.

His specialty? Avoiding eviction. And he is relentlessly effective.

Interviews with landlords and neighbors and an examination of court documents provide a portrait of a man waging an almost continual war of attrition, fighting one eviction after another for years on end, filing lawsuits, complaints, subpoenas, asking for judge recusals and seeking postponements. He sometimes has multiple cases going simultaneously in different courts, always acting pro se, meaning he is his own "lawyer."

Neighbors, judges, landlord’s family members and attorneys all have found themselves in Newton’s crosshairs. If there is a more active pro se litigant in New Jersey, no one has heard of it. Mark Newton is the pro se king.

"He learned to work the system in such a way that he could take me to several different courts,’’ said Karyn Stewart, who claims she spent $5,000 in attorney fees trying to evict Newton. "There’s probably not a landlord in Essex County who doesn’t know Mark Newton. Somebody has got to put a stop to him.’’

The Newton system, according to court documents and dozens of interviews with adversaries, goes something like this: The 51-year old Newark man moves his family into an apartment or house, and soon stops paying rent. He then complains about unsavory living conditions that, landlords say, he created. At some point, his attack escalates and conditions in the rented apartment or house

worsen, lawyers and landlords say. Newton continues to complain. Next, lawyers and landlords say, he calls code enforcement and accuses landlords of renting substandard housing.

From there, the legal battle is on.

It starts in municipal court, where landlords must answer Newton’s alleged code violations. Eventually, the fight moves to eviction proceedings in the Landlord/Tenant Section of state Superior Court.

Newton, in a brief interview — the only one he would grant for this story — said he has done nothing wrong and that the fault lies with landlords who rent substandard apartments. He also said judges and lawyers are against him.

"I’m not liked by a lot of lawyers and judges," Newton said. "Judges don’t like it when you’re pro se."

THE RECUSAL

It is a late January morning in Superior Court, Judge Mahlon Fast presiding.

The day’s proceedings involve an attempt by Wells Fargo to evict Newton from 80 St. Paul Ave. in Newark where he has lived rent-free for nearly two years, according to testimony. To the lay observer, this might seem like a routine eviction from a foreclosed Newark house. Wells Fargo was assigned by the owner of the house, U.S. Bank National Association, to service the property, and it filed eviction papers when Newton stopped paying rent.

But Newton is about to use one of his many strategies. If he were writing a book, this one might get its own chapter.

The tenant asks to address the bench.

"It’s not a pleasant thing to do," he tells Judge Fast, making the observer think he’s almost embarrassed when he asks the judge to step aside because he doesn’t think he can get a fair hearing.

Judge Fast does so reluctantly, so a new judge will have to be appointed. It’s not the only time this has worked for Newton. Court records show he got Judge Fast to recuse himself nine years ago, and he also won a request for Judge Francine Schott to step aside in 2003.

Not that challenging judges is the only tactic in his bag of tricks.

Newton files motions to transfer cases. He files appeals, many of which have gone to the state Appellate Division. He seeks adjournments.

Subpoenas are also an effective legal weapon, and so is arguing he has not been properly served with court papers. Sometimes he just doesn’t appear, sending word he and his wife, Andrea, are sick or have a family trip, court records show. In many eviction battles, Newton also files harassment complaints and other actions against landlords, keeping them tangled up in court.

In tracing Newton's history, The Star-Ledger found a man who, for at least the past 19 years, doesn't seem to do much that doesn't involve a courthouse. Records from landlord- tenant court show he and his wife have fought at least seven evictions, filing 113 complaints against landlords, neighbors and others in Newark municipal court — some of them multiple complaints against the same person. Most, if not all, were either dismissed or the person they complained about was found not guilty.

That’s not to say Newton always comes away empty-handed.

In 2007, he received a $14,000 settlement from Rosa Velarde, a real estate agent from Elizabeth. In his complaint, according to Superior Court records, he said Velarde agreed to rent him an apartment on Oakland Terrace in Newark, then backed out after taking Newton’s damage deposit. Newton sued and accepted a cash settlement. In other eviction struggles, Newton has received some rental abatements for repairs he said he has made, but he was still evicted when he didn’t pay rent.

For their part, Newton’s former landlords say they have spent anywhere from $5,000 to $60,000 in attorney fees and up to four years in court trying to get him evicted.

By now, a reader may wonder why people keep renting to Newton.

In two instances, adversaries say, Newton was already a tenant when landlords purchased rental property. One landlord said he didn’t trust his instincts and regrettably took the word of someone else. Another landlord said she just didn’t do any checks with previous landlords. Wells Fargo bank won’t comment. Nor will judges and other court officials.

Attorneys say once landlords have gone up against Newton, they don’t forget him.

"He’ll use every legal maneuver that he can possibly think of to try and tie up a case until the litigants that are against him give up," said attorney Vincent Sanzone, who faced Newton in a case involving a landlord. "He has a lot of time and resources to tie people up."

What’s more, according to Superior Court records, Newton defends himself at little or no cost because he applies for — and is granted — indigent status, meaning he doesn’t have to pay to file law complaints that cost $200 a pop and fees associated with his defense.

On recent fee-waiver applications, Newton says he has no income and his benefits from the Essex County Division of Welfare have been terminated. He says he owns a 1997 Plymouth mini-van that he drives to court. He also drives a white Ford Explorer. He says he has four dependents, and that his rent is $500, which he’s not paying because he’s in court with the bank.

The Newtons sometimes come to court as a team.

Newton’s wife, who, according to records is 42, sometimes represents herself and sometimes argues alongside him. An emergency assistance application shows the Newtons have two sons and a daughter. One son, Qadir, 19, sometimes accompanies his father in the current landlord tenant case, wearing a suit to court and Converse sneakers or shoes. He assists his dad, retrieving papers for him from a bag teeming with documents.

MASSEY VS. NEWTON

"It was just a mess," said Deletrice Massey, talking about how she inherited Newton and his wife as tenants in July 1994. "He took me through a lot."

Newton was already a tenant in the rental property she bought in 1994 across the street from her home on Montrose Terrace in Irvington. In Superior Court documents supplied by Massey, the previous owner testified that Newton owed him rent when he sold the house to Massey. She said Newton continued to be a deadbeat, taking her through municipal court in Irvington on code violations and harassment charges and then a maddening series of procedural delays in Superior Court.

"It was a good thing I had an understanding employer," she said.

Massey eventually obtained an order of eviction after nearly a year, but Newton and his wife were able to get it delayed on appeal repeatedly, court records show. When her attorney finally got the appeal lifted, Massey said Newton moved his stuff out in May 1995.

Several days later, on June 4, her house caught fire.

Superior Court records show Newton’s wife, who was Andrea Rutty at the time (she is now known as Andrea Newton), was charged with criminal mischief in connection with the fire.

Rutty told the court on April 17, 1997, that she was smoking a cigarette and dropped it on the back porch where there were papers and boxes. But according to the report from the Irvington Fire Department, a "poured accelerant" helped cause a deep burn between floorboards on the porch.

In addition to the criminal mischief charge, both Newtons were charged with endangering the welfare of their 2-year-old son, identified as "QR." On the same day she admitted to smoking the cigarette, Rutty and Newton entered into a plea bargain in which she told the court that she neglected "QR" by failing to seek medical attention when she noticed he wasn’t eating as he should have been. Newton also pleaded guilty to that charge, telling the court he, too, noticed his son wasn’t eating well, that the boy was small and bony and that he did not supervise him as he should have.

As part of the plea bargain, Rutty was sentenced to three years in prison for endangering the welfare of a child and criminal mischief. She served one year and was released in December 1998, according to the state Department of Corrections.

The deal also stipulated that child endangerment charges against Mark Newton would be dismissed at sentencing.

During his interview with The Star-Ledger in March, Newton said there are two sides to every story, but he's not comfortable talking to the press, adding that he doesn't think it's beneficial. He said he was very busy, explaining he had to prepare for several court cases.

And he is in court a lot. Consider this snippet of his schedule:

Newton was in Superior Court March 7 defending himself against a terroristic-threat complaint brought by a neighbor. The proceedings were adjourned because Newton requested additional discovery. He was back two days later, this time with Wells Fargo. Then, on March 11, he was in municipal court for a harassment charge he filed against the neighbor who had accused him of making a terroristic threat.

He also has four civil lawsuits in play — three in Superior Court and one in chancery court, records show. A recent case in which PSE&G wanted to cut off his service was dismissed so the issue of his not paying a $2,263.30 bill could be taken up with the state Board of Public Utilities.

In the interview, Newton wouldn’t discuss such matters as his employment or education or how he gained his legal knowledge. But on one rental application, he said he was a paralegal and self-employed.

He said circumstances in past landlord-tenant cases do not always involve habitability. Landlords are against him, and their objective is to slander him, he said.

NEWTON vs. YOUNG

Eddie Young, who owns an insurance agency in Newark, tried to fight back when his problems with Newton began in August 1999. He gathered a list of landlords, including Stewart and Lori Williams, who rented an apartment on Brookdale Avenue to Newton in 1996 and said her stomach churns now just thinking about the Newton experience. Young wrote a letter pleading to the presiding judge of the civil division for help, arguing the tenant was abusing the landlords and the court system. His attorney wrote to the prosecutor’s office as well.

"I’ve never had a tenant like this in 40 years," said Young, who is now 71. "It was the worst mistake I ever made when I rented to him."

After Newton moved into Young’s four-family Newark apartment building at 77-79 Smith St., Young said Newton redefined the art of not paying rent. Young said he filed to evict in October 1999 and found himself in Newton’s legal web for more than three years.

Records from landlord-tenant court in Superior Court are kept at most for two years and are then destroyed, according to the judiciary’s record retention schedule.

But most landlords interviewed for this story — including Young — kept copies of their records. Letters from Newton to Young show he was complaining that his place was not fit to be lived in and needed repairs. After several months, Young said, Newton began destroying the unit, breaking windows, chiseling a hole in the bathroom floor, damaging the toilet and cutting the gas line to the stove.

"This guy knows the law better than a lawyer," Young said. "I was in court with this guy four to five times a month. This is what he does."

Young said he received less than half the rent he was due and was in court for nearly two years. His loss, however, was far greater, he said, because he coughed up a combined $60,000 for three lawyers — two for landlord-tenant court and one for an assault complaint when he alleged Newton attacked him during an inspection of his apartment.

"This guy is the Teflon tenant," said Sanzone, the attorney who represented Young on the criminal charge.

A settlement was reached for Newton to move out on Sept. 18, 2000, but Newton filed a motion to have the agreement dismissed. According to court documents supplied by Young, Newton contended Young had reneged on a promise to give him a positive reference for another landlord. But the court records show the tactics went nowhere, though they did consume several months of court time.

"I would die and go to hell before I give a good reference to him," Young said he told Judge Fast back then. "Look at what he did to me and the people before me. This guy is rotten to the core."

Newton was evicted in January 2001, according to court papers supplied by Young, but the legal battles did not end there. Young was trying to get back rent, and Newton filed a lawsuit against Young, Young’s wife and the insurance agency, claiming they rented him a shoddy apartment and wouldn’t repair it. Young eventually dropped his suit and, he says, Newton didn’t get damages either.

Since his experience with Newton, Young said he tells anyone wanting to rent as a landlord that they should remember Mark Newton’s name.

NEWTON VS. MIZELL

Brian Mizell said he found out about Newton too late: when he walked into Young’s office looking for homeowners insurance.

"I got him now," Mizell said he told Young somewhere around 2006.

Young welcomed Mizell to the club, then said: "I hope you’re not working, because you’re going to spend a lot of time in court."

Try four to five years, said Mizell, plus $40,000 for attorney fees.

Mizell said he didn’t own the home at 77 St. Paul Ave. in Newark. He said it belonged to his aunt, who rented to Newton in 2004. Mizell got involved when his aunt began to tell him her troubles. After Newton moved in, Mizell said the tenant did the same things to his aunt’s apartment as Young alleges Newton did to his. In a lawsuit against Mizell, Newton said the county welfare division inspected the apartment eight months after he moved in and found it uninhabitable. He said Newark officials came to the same conclusion in 2007.

"He’s the one that made it that way," Mizell said. "He was an outright nuisance. He had all day to do it."

Mizell alleged Newton changed locks, wrecked the place — putting holes in the wall and breaking windows — and then called the city’s code enforcement office. He also alleged Newton poured water into the oil tank for the boiler, caused flooding by clogging up the toilet with rags, and removed washers from pipes underneath the sink to create more leaks. Mizell found himself in municipal court, then in Superior Court trying to evict Newton. He wound up in appellate court, too.

"It was years before I saw that apartment again," he said.

At least he had the satisfaction of seeing Newton leave. Mizell’s aunt, Christine, died while the case was in progress.

The case was heard by Judge Ned Rosenberg who ruled against Newton.

Newton appealed but Judge Susan L. Reisner of the Appellate Division of Superior Court denied the motion.

"According to the record provided to us, they (the Newtons) have lived in the apartment since 2005 without paying rent," Reisner said. "Further, in a written opinion dated Nov. 19, 2008, Judge Rosenberg determined, after an evidentiary hearing, that the Newtons were responsible for the uninhabitable conditions of the apartment.’’

When Newton vacated 77 St. Paul Ave., he and his family moved across the street to the home now owned by the bank at 80 St. Paul Ave.

The bank contends in court records that Newton has not paid rent since July 2009. His defense, court records show, is that the house is defective, uninhabitable. But this time the neighbors are opposing him, too.

SHABAZZ-HENRYS VS. NEWTONS

Andy and Kiewanda Shabazz-Henry make no apologies for their antagonism toward the Newtons, whom they call squatters. After Wells Fargo filed to foreclose on the home owned by Melvin Batts Jr. and Tara Glanton in March 2008, the Newtons, according to the Shabazz-Henrys, moved in next door to them in August or September of that year, at 80 St. Paul Ave.

The Shabazz-Henrys have complained to anybody and everybody who’d listen — the Newark Police Department, Newark City Hall, West Ward Councilman Ronald Rice Jr., PSE&G, Newark’s municipal court. They contend the Newtons have no right to be there.

"He knows we’re onto him," Andy Shabazz-Henry said. "Mark knows that we know what he’s doing. Mark knows nobody in the court system communicates with each other, and that’s why he’s able to get away with what he does."

It comes at a cost for the Shabazz-Henry family. Newton, they said, has filed harassment charges, causing the Shabazz-Henrys to miss work and appear in court 15 times since 2008.

In turn, the Shabazz-Henrys have filed counter claims. The complaints from both sides get dismissed as frivolous, according to the Shabazz-Henry family. Since May 2010, records show, Newark police have answered nearly 64 calls of service to both houses. Rice said residents fear the same retaliation the Shabazz-Henrys are experiencing and they are concerned about the look of the home. Black plastic bags cover the front windows. Rice and the Shabazz-Henrys say wooden boards are nailed on side windows and surveillance cameras monitor the front porch.

"These guys are potentially professional squatters," Councilman Rice said. "I wish I could throw these people out and I can’t. I’ve done everything that I can do legally regarding this property in trying to get rid of this guy."

In court papers, Newton said his family is not squatting. He said they are in the bank’s house legally, having signed a rental agreement for $500 a month with Batts and Glanton in January 2009.

A month later, on Feb. 17, the bank claimed the house at a sheriff’s sale, but the Shabazz-Henrys said they remember seeing the Newtons move into the house in 2008 when there was a "for sale" sign on the lawn. The bank will not comment.

Newton also wrote that he has withheld rent because he does not know whom to pay. He said that after the sheriff’s sale, the bank claimed it was the owner but, at the same time, Batts, the former owner, kept showing up asking for the rent money. Newton said he stopped paying when the bank would not improve living conditions at the house and tell him who owned it.

In interviews with Batts and Glanton, the two former owners said they never had a rental agreement with Newton and have never attempted to collect money from him after the house was foreclosed on. Glanton has submitted a notarized letter to Newark city officials stating as much.

She said the utilities were shut off when she moved out in August 2008, and she was surprised to see the Newtons in the house after she came back two months later to collect mail. At that time, she said there were lights on in the home. In her letter to the city, she requested the water department remove her name from the account. Batts, meanwhile, is in prison, convicted on a drug possession charge. Even though Newton says he has a rental agreement that began in 2009, Batts, Glanton and the Shabazz-Henrys are adamant that he moved into the house in 2008.

Newton’s right to be in the house is not clear, but one thing is: The bank had to deal with the same habitability defense Newton used with other landlords. Newton said the roof leaks, the furnace doesn’t work, and so on. He even called the city’s code enforcement division complaining there was no heat this past December, according to a letter Brian Blake, the bank attorney, sent to Newton that month. Prior to Newton moving into the house, records show there were no calls of service to code enforcement about the house, according to Karim Arnold, deputy director of Newark’s department of neighborhood services.

Blake said in the letter to Newton that he wouldn’t let the bank’s contractors into the house for two straight days to address his complaint about no heat in December. He also said the bank would ask the court to reject his habitability defense, because he has not allowed access to the property. In court records, the bank alleges Newton did not pay rent from July 2009 to October 2010 and owed $8,500 in back rent when the eviction complaint was filed on Oct. 28, 2010. The amount, however, is actually higher now because Newton still hasn’t paid.

Newton, however, wrote to the attorney in August 2010 that his family would need $7,500 to relocate. By November, the figure had increased to $25,000. He wrote that the figure covers losses from his home getting broken into by Newark police and time he spent preparing to defend against what he believes were frivolous complaints from the bank. If the bank was agreeable to his $25,000 offer, Newton wrote, he wanted half the money in advance so he could find suitable housing.

The bank has moved forward to evict him, but Newton isn’t budging. In fact, he sued Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, the law firm representing the bank. He also filed for injunctive relief against the bank to avoid eviction.

And the entanglements go on.

The Shabazz-Henrys have been arrested on allegations from Newton’s son, Qadir, that the married couple broke into the Newtons’ home in June 2010.

Richard Roberts, the Shabazz-Henrys’ attorney, called the burglary allegations ridiculous.

"I intend on presenting the entire history of Mr. Newton to the prosecutor’s office in the hopes that his actions or activities of the last 20 years can stop once and for all," Roberts said.

Newton, meanwhile, was arrested on allegations he made a terroristic threat against Kiewanda Shabazz-Henry on Mother’s Day last year and spent three months in jail. While he was locked up, Newark police, at the request of Councilman Rice, searched the home to see if the Newtons were squatters.

Newton, in a complaint, said the police department stole security monitors, surveillance cameras, video equipment and the rent money he owes the bank. All of this he blames on the bank because he said it has been conspiring with the Shabazz-Henry family, Rice and the police department to get him evicted. Newark police would not comment while the case was in litigation, said Sgt. Ron Glover, a Newark police spokesman.

LOSSES, AND A VICTORY

In February, all parties in Wells Fargo vs. Newton were back in court, this time before Superior Court Judge Rosenberg. Newton came before Rosenberg because Newton had asked Judge Fast to recuse himself.

But Rosenberg, who had already evicted Newton from the Mizell house three years earlier, may not have been the judge he wanted to see.

When Newton learned Rosenberg would preside on Feb. 28, he filed a lawsuit in federal court against the judge, claiming Rosenberg had ruled unfairly in past cases. His complaint, however, was swiftly dismissed as frivolous.

The dismissal still didn’t stop Newton. Back in Superior Court on Feb. 28, he asked Rosenberg to step down.

"Litigants can’t go judge shopping," Rosenberg said, rejecting Newton’s request. "That’s what’s been happening in this matter."

Newton, wearing a taupe pinstripe suit this time, began to pack up his papers.

"You should not be hearing this matter," he said several times, angrily. "You make your own rules against this family."

A bad day at the office for Mark Newton: Rosenberg also denied his request to transfer the landlord-tenant case to the law division.

But Newton wasn’t out of moves.

When he returned to Superior Court on March 9, he was able to stop the hearing from proceeding when he raised an issue about conflict of interest with the bank. Rosenberg took a short recess, then said Newton had an argument that needed review.

Newton lost that argument, too, but he prevailed against the bank on April 26 when the judge dismissed the eviction complaint. Rosenberg told Blake that his client, Wells Fargo, is not listed on documents to show that it has an interest in the home where Newton resides. He said every tenant has a right to know whom they are supposed to pay rent to and Wells Fargo’s name does not appear on city records.

"Wells Fargo is your client. Where are they?" Rosenberg asked. "You are familiar with the defendant (Newton)," he said, telling Blake that Newton is a "tenacious pro se" and this is the third time the bank has been in court trying to evict him. The case had been dismissed twice by different judges.

It is unclear what the bank will do next. They could go to mediation or try the case again.

In the meantime, Newton is still in the house.

In recent weeks, Newton added a new case to his files. On April 7, he was in chancery court seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the publication of this story.

The motion was denied.