Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se 4221 Atlantic Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11224 Phone: 718-687-2300 Email: tokrichevsky1@yahoo.

com October 4, 2013 Honorable Elizabeth Stong UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 271 Cadman Plaza, Courtroom 3585, Brooklyn, NY 11201 Re: KRICHEVSKY V. SVENSON Chapter 7 Case Number: 1-12-43050-ess Adv. Pro. Case Number: 1-12-01229-ess Dear Judge Stong: For the record, I object to the testimony and arguments by Ms. LaMotte and Mr. Margolis during the hearing on my motion to disqualify Ms. LaMotte and reargue motion to disqualify Mr. Losardo as moot. You correctly pointed out that in the motion I charge Ms. LaMotte with serious misconducts such as aiding and abating commission of perjury, obstruction of Justice, etc. I am serious about it. Blacks Law dictionary eighth edition describes Obstruction of Justice on page 1107 as follows: Interference with the orderly administration of law and justice, as by giving false information to or withholding evidence... Article 195 - NY Penal Law. OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT AND OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC SERVANTS GENERALLY: 195.00 Official misconduct. A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit: 1. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized; or 2. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty, which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office. 195.05 Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree. A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official functionby means of any independently unlawful act,[emphasis added]

18 U.S.C. 1505 : US Code - Section 1505: Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees: Whoever corruptly obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States [Emphasis added] 15th Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger made the following statement, which accurately describes my experiences with attorneys that SVENSON and I came across with starting from 2008, leading up to the bankruptcy court, and explains why I have no money to hire an attorney and as pro se seek a remedy for their conducts: "...ours is a sick profession marked by incompetence, lack of training, misconduct and bad manners. Ineptness, bungling, malpractice and bad ethics can be observed in courthouses all over this country every day..these incompetents have a seeming unawareness of the fundamental ethics of the profession." Ms. LaMotte was well aware that I challenge the legality of the lease between SVENSON, EDELSTEIN and KOTLYAR, as well as adequacy of 2800 per month rent consideration. These are material facts, which should be determined at trial. Ms. LaMotte can only argue law or facts in evidence. During her oral arguments, which are logical fallacy, Ms. LaMotte again testified as unsworn fact witness for SVENSON as follows (I do not remember her statements word for word, so I approximate just to make a point): well judge in my motion to dismiss I relied on the fact that the lease was negotiated by my clients former attorney, and therefore the consideration is fair. well judge I discussed my contentions with my client in regards to $2800 adequacy of consideration, and therefore consideration is fair My complaint states neither that this lease was negotiated by Svensons prior attorney for $2800 fair consideration, nor does it state that SVENSON ever worked in the real estate field and has any expertise on which Ms. LaMotte decided to rely. By these false statements she attempted to juggle out from the advocate-witness trap that she put herself in thinking that nave pro se KRICHEVSKY would not understand her plot. Regardless, is this all she had as basis to dismiss my complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted? Who made the judicial determination of fact that $2800 is fair consideration? Certainly neither the judge, nor the jury. Accordingly, the only person who is left to do the judicial determination of material fact is attorney Ms. LaMotte herself fraud upon the court. These hearsay and illogical, and therefore false, unsworn statements of fact facts not in evidence, which she entered into evidence through her unsworn testimony during the hearing on October 4, 2013. She addressed these statements to you, judge, and maybe to the appellate judge to be read from transcript of the hearing. She called such unsworn, unrebutted testimony ADVOCACY. I call such advocacy obstruction of justice, Official misconduct by officer of the court, fraud upon the court, attorneys misconduct for violation NYRPC Rules 3.1, 3.3, 3.7, and 4.1; misleading the court and harassment to me in violation of FRCP Rule 11. Instead of be silent for lack of real factual argument, she falsely testified as witness for SVENSON now I am forced to object and write this letter. I was very much surprised and prejudiced by these statements because Ms. LaMotte never mentioned these facts in her written opposition to my motion to disqualify. And, I never had a chance to rebut these statements in writing for the record. Central to requiring the pleading of affirmative

defenses is the prevention of unfair surprise. A defendant should not be permitted to "lie behind a log" and ambush a plaintiff with an unexpected defense. see Ingraham v. United States, 808 F. 2d 1075 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit (1987). I bet that those statements were intended by her to be made during oral argument so that the judge will not allow me to cross-examine and impeach attorney immediately. She did not err. This is exactly what happened to me when I attempted to cross-examine her because you, Judge, did not allow me to do it. Now, her statements of fact, unrebutted by me for the record, are part of the record and my motion is marked fully submitted without asking me if I am done with discovery. Denial of right to crossexamination of Ms. LaMotte put me in situation, which is essentially Catch-22 situation where I have a burden of proof, but not allowed by judge to carry that burden. If I had a chance to cross-examine Ms. LaMotte, I would ask her to provide the name of attorney out of three SVENSONs prior attorneys, who, allegedly by Ms. LaMotte, negotiated the fraudulent lease. Whether these are SVENSONs made-up perjurious contention. Or, whether Ms. LaMotte made them up during her oral argument. I would like to know whether Ms. LaMotte diligently interviewed that mentioned attorney under requirement of F.R.C.P. rule 11 prior to making her motion to dismiss, and whether after the interview she concluded that this attorney is a real estate expert when she allegedly relied on information in that lease. With that line of thinking, I could go on and be able to prove perjury and obstruction of Justice by Ms. LaMotte, but I was not allowed by you, judge. With all due respect, It is my contention, that I was rushed into judgment by the court because requested by me adjournment was not granted even though Ms. LaMotte did not object to that adjournment, and the court knew that I was not done with discovery on that motion. This hearing was, as every prior hearing trial by ambush which is prohibited in our legal system. I did not get a fair trial on disqualification issue. In Scott v. Greenville Housing Authority, 579 S.E.2d 151, 353 S.C. 639 (S.C. App. 2003) the appellate judge delivered this eloquent statement " Discovery is the quintessence of preparation for trial and, when discovery rights are trampled, prejudice must be presumed." [Emphasis added]. Even though you, judge, told the parties that the decision is reserved, I believe that you already prejudged in your mind to deny my motion to disqualify because you made the scheduling order for discovery and gave me 60 days to do it. That means that my motion will not be granted, otherwise SVENSON would need more time to hire a new attorney. Similarly, I was denied the right for cross-examination of Mr. Margolis, rushed into judgment and blamed for not meeting the burden of proof on my motion to reconsider disqualification as moot. I asked for adjournment and explained the reason incomplete discovery but adjournment was denied. I am also confused by courts decision denying my motion to compel as discovery motion. Failure to follow F.R.C.P. 7.1 corporate disclosure is the procedural court rule to let a judge know whether she owns the stock of this Public Corporation, and therefore should disqualify herself for conflict of interest by sitting on the case where she has a financial interest in the outcome. Similarly, contemptuous refusal to follow NYRPC rule 1.7 is a procedural and jurisdictional rule, which Mr. Losardo and Mr. Margolis refused to follow. Therefore, I request a continuance on my motions to disqualify and to reconsider disqualification as moot, so that I am allowed to finish discovery, impeach testimony of Ms. LaMotte and Mr. Margolis in order to meet my burdens of proof. Submitted with respect to Justice,

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Pro Se cc: Lorna J. LaMotte PLLC 65 Broadway, Suite 839 New York, NY 10006 Barry G Margolis ABRAMS GURFINKEL MARGOLIS GERSON, LLP 1430 Broadway, 17th floor New York New York, NY 10018