Experts have raised alarms about an increase in professional squatters in Los Angeles, who are leveraging counterfeit leases, falsified documents, and exploiting loopholes in the legal system. This situation is forcing some homeowners into expensive legal disputes, with investigators and former law enforcement officials warning that this trend poses a growing threat to public safety.

Moses Castillo, a former lieutenant of the Los Angeles Police Department, alongside seasoned private investigator Michael Youssef, informed News Media that these squatter issues frequently transcend ordinary landlord-tenant disagreements. They often involve serious allegations such as fraud, identity theft, fake property documents, and sometimes more severe concerns like gang involvement, drug-related activities, and extortion for money.

Both Castillo and Youssef suggest that Los Angeles should contemplate establishing a special anti-squatter task force. This unit would assist law enforcement in differentiating legitimate tenant disputes from those cases that involve criminal elements.

Castillo emphasized that the formation of a task force focused on squatting is “long overdue.” He criticized California’s legal framework, indicating that it often appears to support illegal occupants rather than the rightful property owners.

“These professional squatters know how to work the system,” Castillo said. “They know how to cause the worst nightmare for a property owner.”

Castillo said many homeowners are forced to endure months of financial losses, legal expenses and emotional stress while attempting to regain possession of their own properties.

“It impacts their health, their stress levels, and their finances,” he said. “They’re literally losing money while somebody else is taking over their property.”

🚨 Know something about crime or public safety in your area?

📩 Email: stepheny.price@fox.com

📸 Instagram: @fndstephprice

🎥 X: @StephenyPrice

According to Castillo, one of the most significant failures has been the tendency to treat many squatter complaints as civil disputes rather than criminal investigations.

“When somebody breaks locks, breaks windows, gains access to a vacant property and then claims residency, that’s not a housing dispute,” Castillo said. “That’s a burglary. You’re breaking and entering to commit a crime. It should be investigated as a crime from the very beginning.”

Castillo said responding officers are often left trying to determine whether they are dealing with a legitimate tenancy dispute or criminal conduct, but argued that obvious cases of unlawful entry should not automatically be pushed into the civil court system.

“But they’re not doing that,” Castillo said. “They’re saying it’s a civil matter, go to the courts and get an eviction. They wash their hands of it and leave the victims, the clients and the landlords hung out to dry.”

Youssef, chief investigator for Blue Systems International and a licensed private investigator with more than three decades of experience investigating property fraud, unlawful occupancy and real estate-related crimes, said many squatter cases involve far more than a disagreement between a property owner and a tenant.

“They basically hijack the property and they hold it hostage until you pay them off,” Youssef said. “Most landowners describe it as hijacking. Their houses get hijacked.”

“They’re basically holding the house hostage,” he added. “It’s almost like the property is being held for ransom.”

Youssef said many squatters have become increasingly sophisticated, using online forums, social media groups and what he described as “criminal consultants” who provide step-by-step instructions on exploiting tenant-protection laws.

“They have forums and I call them criminal consultants that actually teach these people how to squat and what to do and how to deal with law enforcement,” Youssef said. “They give you step-by-step what to do and what laws to invoke.”

According to Youssef, many occupants learn how to exploit procedural delays, create documentation designed to support false residency claims and remain in properties for extended periods of time.

“They’ll make fake leases. They’ll try to get mail to them so they can prove their residency to law enforcement,” Youssef said. “It’s crazy.”

Castillo said professional squatters are often unconcerned by the prospect of police involvement because they understand how the system works.

“They’re not afraid of the police. They’re not afraid of attorneys,” Castillo said. “What they do fear is when a private investigator gets involved because they know somebody is going to start digging into their background and exposing what they’ve been doing.”

One investigation in particular, Youssef said, illustrates how quickly an unlawful occupancy complaint can evolve into a serious public safety threat.

According to Youssef, individuals associated with documented gang activity allegedly occupied a Long Beach residence, attempted to transfer ownership through a fraudulent quitclaim deed and demanded approximately $500,000 in exchange for vacating the property.

The situation escalated far beyond a property dispute, he said.

“They were asking for half a million bucks,” Youssef said. “They fraudulently transferred title to the house.”

Youssef said the homeowner’s wife had died and the homeowner was hospitalized when the alleged scheme unfolded, allowing the occupants to establish themselves at the property.

Youssef alleged the property later became associated with gang activity, narcotics activity, prostitution and violence.

“We had a very aggressive case in Long Beach where a gang was squatting in a house and there was prostitution, selling drugs,” Youssef said. “This nice neighborhood in Long Beach was completely ruined. It went as far as a shooting.”

Youssef said investigators assisted in exposing the allegedly fraudulent ownership claims and helped the owners regain possession of the property without paying the $500,000 demand.

The case, he said, demonstrates why squatting can create risks not only for homeowners but also for entire communities.

“It’s very dangerous, not just for the homeowners and landlords, but also dangerous for the communities,” Youssef said. “All of a sudden, your neighbors are criminals.”

Both men argue that cases like the Long Beach incident demonstrate why squatting should not automatically be viewed as a landlord-tenant issue.

“These are simply criminals,” Youssef said. “They go from one property to another property and continue doing it because they know nobody is going to stop them.”

Castillo said the impact on homeowners can be deeply personal.

“I’ve heard this described when a victim of a sexual assault gets violated — it’s a huge violation,” Castillo said. “These squatters, it’s like a house rape. It’s horrible to even say that, but that’s what it’s like for these homeowners. Their castle has been taken over.”

Castillo said many owners are left feeling as though they can no longer enjoy their own homes after unlawful occupants have damaged the property, engaged in criminal activity or left behind significant destruction.

The financial burden can also be staggering.

Castillo said some homeowners are forced to hire attorneys, private investigators and eventually pay so-called “cash for keys” settlements simply to persuade unlawful occupants to leave.

“You want me out? Then pay me $20,000. Pay me $40,000,” Castillo said. “That’s what’s happening.”

Youssef said he has seen even larger demands.

“In the Long Beach case, they were asking for half a million dollars,” he said.

Youssef added that one of the biggest shortcomings in many squatter investigations is the lack of follow-up fact gathering.

“A simple investigation could reveal who these people are and how they got into the property,” Youssef said.

He argued that investigators who identify occupants, verify documents, interview neighbors and conduct background checks can often uncover evidence that fundamentally changes how a case should be viewed.

Youssef said investigators conducting background checks during the Long Beach investigation discovered that one occupant allegedly had an outstanding warrant for battery and assault.

“If they had simply identified him and ran his name, they would have found the warrant,” Youssef said.

Youssef said responding officers are often required to make immediate decisions based on limited information and frequently classify complaints as civil matters before additional facts can be developed through investigation.

“A lot of times law enforcement is going to ask a couple of questions and tell the property owner to evict the person,” Youssef said. “A thorough investigation can reveal what’s really going on.”

Castillo said he hopes Los Angeles officials will consider creating a dedicated anti-squatter task force that would provide property owners and investigators with direct access to officials who can quickly assess complaints and intervene when criminal activity is suspected.

“I want to know how people can connect with these detectives or police officers or officials if a task force is created,” Castillo said. “How can we have access to them so they can get some justice and hopefully minimize the harm they’ve already suffered?”

He also argued Los Angeles should serve as a model for other jurisdictions facing similar problems.

“I think Los Angeles should create a task force, and other cities throughout this country should follow that lead,” Castillo said. “Property owners are being held hostage in their own homes, and that’s not acceptable.”

News Media reached out to the LAPD, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’ office, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and the Long Beach Police Department for comment. The LAPD and Long Beach police said they could not confirm the alleged Long Beach case based on the limited information provided. The mayor’s office and the district attorney’s office did not immediately respond.

For Youssef, the issue has grown beyond a housing dispute and into a broader public safety concern.

“This is a growing crime,” he said. “A task force is really needed right now more than ever.”

A co-founder of a prestigious $8 billion asset management firm has alleged his dismissal occurred after he failed to adhere to a return-to-office requirement, a policy he had a hand in crafting.

William Nieporte, aged 57, partnered with high school companions Art DeGaetano and Stephen Selver to helm Bramshill Investments for nearly ten years before his ousting in 2022.

According to a termination letter revealed by the Wall Street Journal report, the company claimed Nieporte “willfully and deliberately refused to attend in-person work.”

The three founders had initiated the return-to-office directive just months prior, mandating that all “at-will” employees resume working in one of their three U.S. offices on a full-time, five-day-a-week schedule.

However, in a federal lawsuit accessed by the Daily Mail, Nieporte contends that as a co-owner, the directive should not have pertained to him.

Instead, Nieporte claimed, DeGaetano and Selver simply used the policy as an excuse to push him out of the company and ‘usurp’ his 12 percent stake. 

A provision in the operating agreement for Bramshill’s parent company, Ironmen, required shareholders to sell their interest in the company if they are fired for cause, according to the lawsuit. 

The lawsuit claimed that the human resources company Bramshill partnered with, ADP Total Source, helped DeGaetano and Selver make his ousting seem more legitimate by sending him the termination letter. 

Nieporte and DeGaetano founded Bramshill Investments back in 2012.

When Selver then joined the board two years later as a chief executive, he took a 40 percent stake in the company, while DeGaetano, who served as the chief investment officer, held a 48 percent stake in the company.

Nieporte, who served as the chief operating officer and chief compliance officer, held the remaining 12 percent stake.

For the first five years, it seems, the three men did not have any issues – and Nieporte was able to move from New Jersey to San Ramon, California in 2017 with his friends’ blessing.

But the problems started as the company grew more successful during the pandemic – from having approximately $3 billion under management to having over $4.5 billion in assets under management by 2022.

In 2021, the lawsuit states, DeGaetano and Selver sought to argue Nieporte’s wife’s efforts to divorce him triggered a clause in the Ironmen Operating Agreement known as the Divorce Clause.

Under the clause, the two other co-owners would be able to strip Nieporte of his rights as a manager, eliminate his voting rights and buyout his interests in the company if he were to get a divorce. 

However, Nieporte’s lawyers argue ‘the mere commencement of a divorce proceeding does not trigger the Divorce Clause,’ and that his wife never obtained legal title to any of his Membership Interests. 

Still, Nieporte received a letter on April 26, 2021 from his two high school friends who informed him: ‘Your Membership Interests in Ironmen… have been automatically converted into non-voting Membership Interests and your status as an active board member has now been suspended.

‘In addition, as a result of the Divorce, your Membership Interests are subject to being sold to the Company.’

Tensions then escalated again the following year, when the three men agreed to order employees back to one of the firm’s offices starting in April.

The executives gave the employees a deadline to report to one of its offices – in either New York City, Naples, Florida or Newport Beach, California – by July 5, though about half of the employees were granted additional flexibility.

‘You are all employees at will and can choose to abide by this mandate in the terms laid out above or not, read the memo signed by Nieporte, DeGaetano and Selver.

‘If you choose to not abide by the mandate, we will be offering severance packages.’ 

But Nieporte never believed the mandate applied to him, as he was a co-owner and not an ‘at-will’ employee.

‘In discussions they had in connection with the Company’s adoption of the employee policy, neither Art nor [Stephen] ever suggested that it might apply to Bill and Bill made clear he approved it only as to “employees,”‘ the lawsuit states. 

Soon, though, Selver and DeGaetano started arguing Nieporte had to move from the San Francisco Bay Area to southern California, where the Newport Beach office was located.

Then, after the deadline passed, DeGaetano wrote to Nieporte: ‘We have both junior and senior employees commuting over one hour each way to work, and yet you feel this policy doesn’t apply to you.’

DeGaetano then warned Nieporte had just 30 days to avoid further action. 

In a filing, Nieporte claims the notice was not delivered via fax, hand delivery, courier or certified mail and therefore was not valid.

Still, he approached DeGaetano later that month to discuss a buyout – and following that meeting DeGaetano allegedly asserted in an email that ‘all pending actions on either side will be put on hold.’

It was just days after that meeting, however, that Nieporte was fired, according to the complaint.

He now claims that ADP helped make his ouster seem more legitimate, even though the company ‘knew or should have known that as a Self-Employed Individual, whose rights were derived from one or more limited liability operating agreements, Bill could not be terminated at will.’

He alleged that representatives for the HR software company advised Selver and DeGaetano on how to go about firing him from the company and ‘blessed their decisions and conduct.

‘ADP supplied the corporate apparatus and the official termination notice that Art and Stephen needed to make their sham termination of Bill appear legitimate to the Company’s employees, investors, business partners and regulators,’ the lawsuit says.

‘Without ADP’s active and knowing participation, Art and Stephen could not have affected the sham termination of Bill through ADP’s payroll and human resources system on the cover of an ostensibly routine “at-will” termination,’ it continues.

‘By lending the authority and formality of a professional employer organization’s termination notice for Art’s and Stephen’s scheme, ADP provided critical cover for the unlawful purported termination and enabled Art and Stephen to present it as a legitimate, arms-length employment action rather than the inside breach of fiduciary duty it in fact was.’

The lawsuit goes on to claim Selver and DeGaetano stopped paying Nieporte his portions of the firm’s profits and converted his interest in Bramshill. 

Nieporte, who is now working for a start-up company remotely from his home in Nevada, is seeking at least $30 million in lost earnings, profits and the value of his 12 percent stake.

In addition, he seeks to be renamed the company’s chief compliance officer. 

But Allyce Hackmann, a spokeswoman for ADP, told the Wall Street Journal it would defend itself against Nieporte’s allegations and that the company is in compliance with applicable laws.

She noted that once the company’s clients make separation decisions and enter them into the software, an automated letter is generated.

Meanwhile, a representative for Bramshill said Nieporte’s claims were built on fabricated accusations and that it expects the legal process to affirm that neither it nor the co-owners engaged in any wrongful conduct.

Nieporte was terminated because of a dereliction of duty and isn’t entitled to the money he is seeking, the representative said. 

His attorney, Matthew J Press of Press Karol LLP, said the only duty Bramshill claims he neglected was his failure to return to the office – and such a policy doesn’t amount to valid excuse for termination under the company’s operating agreement. 

The Daily Mail has reached out to ADP and Bramshill Investments for comment. 

A recent vote by New Jersey officials has stirred up a mix of reactions as it clears the way for the redevelopment of a once-beloved amusement park.

Gillian’s Wonderland Pier in Ocean City, a treasured destination on the Jersey Shore, was a family favorite for decades.

The park’s origins date back to around 1930, when David Gillian established Gillian’s Fun Deck. Later, in 1965, Roy Gillian took over operations, rebranding it as Gillian’s Wonderland Pier.

Known for its iconic attractions like the carousel, monorail, and the towering 144-foot Giant Wheel, the park closed its doors in October 2024. This decision came amid escalating financial challenges, which included surging inflation, higher insurance costs, and increased operational expenses.

The amusement park also faced setbacks due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of Superstorm Sandy, both of which reportedly worsened its financial difficulties.

“I tried my best to sustain Wonderland for as long as possible, through increasingly difficult challenges each year,” Ocean City mayor and one-time Wonderland Pier owner Jay Gillian wrote in a letter posted to Facebook.

“It’s been my life, my legacy and my family. But it’s no longer a viable business.”

“It’s not going to be like it was every year we come down, something is taken away,” 72-year-old Pennsylvania resident KR Watkin told FOX 29 at the time.

“It’s surreal actually,” said employee Andrew Boyland. “I can’t believe this is happening. I’m upset about it but at the same time the amount of people that have come here ever since we announced we are closing is amazing.”

Icona Resorts owner Eustace Mita acquired the property in 2021. After the park closed, he proposed building a 252-room hotel on the site.

In a 5-2 vote recently, Ocean City councilmembers approved rezoning the site as “in need of rehabilitation,” thereby allowing the city to begin the redevelopment process.

The vote does not approve construction of the hotel itself, however. The next step in the process involves the city drafting a redevelopment plan outlining development standards before holding public hearings and seeking additional approvals.

Some residents said they are in favor of the hotel, arguing it will bring more visitors to the city that is home to roughly 11,000 year-round residents and regularly attracts more than 100,000 tourists per day during the summer.

Others expressed concern that the development would alter the boardwalk’s character.

Community advocacy group Ocean City 2050 criticized the vote in a statement, calling the council’s decision a “strategic blunder” that results in “a stronger hand for the developer, and a worse outcome for residents.”

The group announced it plans to join other groups in filing suit against the city challenging the rehabilitation designation.

“The council’s failure to meet the statutory requirements for rehabilitation, its arbitrary decision-making, its willful disregard of known financial conflicts and its breach of fiduciary duty to the citizens it serves” are reasons the group cited for the lawsuit.

Ocean City 2050 said it supports a recent subcommittee report that called for “using traditional planning tools, not rehabilitation designation, to address this site.”

The group said it would support a redevelopment plan that “enhances entertainment, respects the neighborhoods and protects our boardwalk’s iconic look and feel.”

Travis Kelce’s close companions have been celebrating a truly unique wedding as he tied the knot with Taylor Swift, though the occasion was marked by some tension within the group of friends.

Ross Travis, a former Kansas City Chiefs tight end like Kelce, shared several photos on Saturday showcasing friends from their Cleveland circle preparing to make their way to Madison Square Garden for the ceremony, which took place on Friday.

Ross made a statement by donning a burgundy suit, while most of Kelce’s other friends sported sharp attire in shades of black and navy blue.

“A night to remember with all the people you love,” Ross captioned one of his posts, while another collection of photos shared on Instagram was simply described as: “What a night!”

Among the attendees was Vince Garcia, Kelce’s trusted barber from the west coast, who traveled to New York City to ensure the groom looked his best for the occasion.

Garcia shared a mirror selfie in his suit and wrote: ‘Congrats T&T’. Chandler Parsons, the former NBA player who is now one of Kelce’s golf buddies, was also there with his wife, Haylee.

She shared an array of snaps from before the couple entered Madison Square Garden, where guests were reportedly asked to hand over their phones to help protect privacy on the power couple’s big day.

Trent McDuffie, Kelce’s former Kansas City Chiefs teammate who was traded to the Los Angeles Rams earlier this year, made it to the big day with his fiancée, Gabby Esposito.

‘The best night celebrating a beautiful love story, congrats T&T,’ she wrote on Instagram.

McDuffie himself would have welcomed the chance for a reunion with most – but pointedly, not all – of his former Chiefs teammates at MSG.

One Chiefs star missing from the big day was controversial kicker Harrison Butker who was not in attendance, with an NFL source claiming to the Daily Mail that it was because he was not invited to begin with.

The popular NFL analyst Rich Eisen was there for Kelce’s big day and, without naming names, confirmed that not every Chiefs player was there.

Responding to a comment on his Instagram post claiming Kelce only invited ‘a handful’ of his Chiefs teammates, Eisen replied: ‘Beyond false. Most Chiefs were there.’

He added of the guests: ‘Both sides of the ball and coaching staff and front office and FORMER teammates of Travis Kelce.’

The celebratory posts come amid some unrest behind the scenes with Kelce’s friends before the big day.

As Daily Mail reported on Thursday before the hugely anticipated rehearsal dinner that Kelce and Swift hosted at MSG, some of Kelce’s friends were a bit unhappy at the differing levels of their involvement.

But the morning after the night before, it seemed everyone was grateful to be among the 1,000 guests who were handed an invite.

When they officially became husband and wife in a ceremony officiated by Adam Sandler, the screens outside MSG announced: ‘JUST&T MARRIED’.

The happy couple, as of early Sunday evening, have not spoken out on their big day just yet.