Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 40

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDUCIAL DEPARTMENT

In the Matter of Michael Krichevsky, INDEX No. F-28901-


Falsely Accused, Claimant. 08/13F

-against- Appellate Division Docket


No 2015-01323
Judge Dean Kusakabe
Judge William Frank Perry NOTICE OF APPEAL BY
Judge Maria Arias VERIFIED PETITION
Judge Jeanette Ruiz
Judge Edwina Richardson-Mendelson
Support magistrate Michael Milsap
Support magistrate John Fasone
Clerk of court Robert Ratansky
Unknown clerks ofcourt
Elena Svenson
Respondents.

COUNSELORS:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE,that upon the annexed Petition of Michael Krichevsky, sui
juris, dated the 2"** day of December, 2016, and upon all the pleadings and proceedings
heretofore had herein, the undersigned will move this Court at a term thereof to be held at 45
Monroe Place, Brooklyn, New York, 11201,on the 20 day of March, 2016, at 9:30 o'clock in the
forenoon ofthat date, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard:
For an order and ajudgment pursuant to C.P.L.R. Article 78 for reliefs requested as
follows:
1 That the body or officer proceeded, is proceeding, or is about to proceed without or in
excess ofjurisdiction (prohibition).
2) Annulling the determination of Hearing Officers, John Fasone and fiction oflaw
MICHAEL MILSAP ofthe Kings County Family Court; on the ground that the body or officer
failed to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law (mandamus to compel)to determine jurisdiction,
and declaring this determination to be without jurisdiction, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion due to bribery and covering up ofcorruption.
3)That a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an
error in law, contrary to established law and procedure, or was arbitrary and capricious or an
abuse of discretion, including an abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or
discipline imposed (mandamus to review).
4) Whether determination made as a result ofa hearing held, and at which evidence was
taken, pursuant to direction by law is, on the entire record, supported by substantial evidence.
5)Declaratory relief pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3001 that Svenson does not deserve any
money from Krichevsky due to unclean hands; thatjudgments that she has are coram
nonjudice, and therefore she must return all payments as she did not suffer any loss, including
removing all judgments from Krichevsky's record.
6)And for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper
including referral to District Attorney for prosecution of Svenson's perjury, harassment, false
arrest and imprisonment.
This action is not on the trial calendar.
TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that all answering papers, if any, shall be served at least 20
days before the return date ofthis Petition. In case you failed to appear, the Judgment by default
will be taken against you for the relief demanded.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
December 2,2016
V
Michael Krichcvsky,sui juris
4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, New York 11224
(718)687-2300
Judge Dean Kusakabe
Judge William Frank Perry
Judge Maria Arias
Judge Jeanette Ruiz
Judge Edwina Richardson-Mendelson
Support magistrate Michael Milsap
Support magistrate John Fasone
Clerk of court Robert Ratansky
Unknown clerks ofcourt
Kings County Family court
330 Jay Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Elena Svenson
2620 Ocean Pkwy, Apt. 3K
Brooklyn, NY 11224
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDUCIAL DEPARTMENT

In the Matter of Michael Krichevsky, INDEX No. F-28901-


Falsely Accused, Claimant, 08/13F

-against- Appellate Division Docket


No 2015-01323
Judge Dean Kusakabe
Judge William Frank Perry APPEAL AND ARTICLE
Judge Maria Arias 78 VERIFIED PETITION
Judge Jeanette Ruiz UNDER DURESS
Judge Edwina Richardson-Mendelson
Support magistrate Michael Milsap
Support magistrate John Fasone
Clerk ofcourt Robert Ratansky
Unknown clerks ofcourt
Elena Svenson
Respondents.

Michael Krichevsky, sui juris, self-governed alive man under protest and duress; by

special appearance to challenge jurisdiction and authority of the State's run Family Court,

Attorney General, Judges and clerks; and acting under doctrine of necessity for self-defense says:

1. I am a live, physically disabled man,the Falsely Accused Claimant in the Appeal and

Article 78 action.

2. I make this affidavit in support of my petition under duress and no presumption exists

that I voluntarily submitted and consented to corporate jurisdiction ofTHE SATE OF NEW

YORK -corporation, which employs all public officers.

3. The facts stated in this affidavit are within my first-hand knowledge, and if called on as a

witness, I could competently testify as follows below.

INTRODUCTION

4. There is no other way to accuse a law-abiding man and caring father of wrongdoing, but
through creation of Theater of Absurdity, fabricating evidence and violating lawful procedure.

5. I challenge falsely presumed, unlawful continuous jurisdiction offamily court due to

bribery, corruption, bias, and harassment; and without consent to any of its administrative

proceedings against me.

6. I am 61 years old, and per Federal ADA,disabled man. 1 became disabled in 2010 due to

stroke respondents caused me during harassment and their first failed attempt to jail me.

7. I am Falsely Accused victim in the within family court simulated, fictitious actions of

Barratry, Personage and Human Trafficking; and demand the STATE and its actors cease and

decease its criminal practice.

8. This Petition is another of my numerous,ignored by respondents attempts to report

Federal Crimes of Treason and Misprision of Treason to the judge, as well as violations of Code

of Judicial Conduct and New York Rules of Professional Conduct to New York Tribunal per

Rule 8.3 - Reporting Professional Misconduct.

"When an honest man, honestly mistaken,comes face-to-face with undeniable and


irrefutable truth, he is faced with one oftwo choices, he must either cease heen
mistaking or cease being honest." Amicus Solo

9. Starting from 2008, until present I was/am continuously, maliciously persecuted by

numerous public fiduciaries, calling themselves court officers -support magistrates, court clerks,

judges and lawyers. It did not take me a long to realize that Svenson through her attorneys,

Yoram Nachimovsky(Nachimovsky)and Yonatan Levoritz(Levoritz), bribed clerk(s) and

support magistrate John Fasone (Fasone)to extort money and railroad me for their profit.

10. What happened to me is systemic public corruption. The following events have happened

to others before in Brooklyn Supreme Court. Form Wikipedia:

Gerald Garson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gerald Phillip "Gerry" Garson (born August 3, 1932)is a former New York Supreme Court
Justice who heard matrimonial divorce and child custody cases in Brooklyn.[5] He was
convicted in 2007 of accepting bribes to manipulate the outcomes of divorce
proceedings.[l][6][7] Garson was imprisoned from June 2007 until December 2009.[8] In the
bribery scheme, a "fixer" told people divorcing in Brooklyn that for a price he could steer their
case to a sympathetic judge.[9] After the fixer received a payment, he would refer the person to a
lawyer contact of his, who had given Garson drinks, meals, cigars, and cashaccepting(and
receiving) preferential treatment in retum.[9][10] The fixer and the lawyer would then bribe
court employees to override the court's computer system, which was programmed to ensure that
cases were assigned to judges randomly. Instead, they would have the case assigned to
Garson.[9][11] Garson, in turn, would then privately coach the lawyer. He would tell him
questions the lawyer should ask of witnesses in the case before Garson, and arguments that the
lawyer should make to Garson in court.[12][13] Garson would then rule in favor ofthe
lawyer.[12][13] Garson was indicted in 2003, on the basis of video surveillance of his judicial
chambers, and recordings made on a body wire worn by his "favored" lawyer. At his four week
trial in 2007, he was acquitted on four counts, but found guilty on one count of accepting bribes,
and on two lesser charges ofreceiving rewards for official misconduct.[6] He was sentenced in
June 2007 to three to ten years in prison. In December 2009, after 30 months in prison, he was
released for good behavior at the age of 77.[14]
The New York Times,commenting on Garson's conviction, observed:"It was news that
confirmed every sneaking suspicion, every paranoid fantasy of anyone who had ever felt
wronged in a divorce court."[15]

II. A year later, in Brooklyn Family Court, clerk(s) steered my case to magistrate John

Fasone, who in turn conspired with Yoram Nachimovsky, Esq. and Yonatan Levoritz, Esq. and

together repeated said crime ofcase fixing against me. I am too, not only feeling wronged by

family court actors, but was in 2010 and presently continue be systematically, physically

harassed and injured in this court and this state. In addition to the scheme described above, the

scheme that Respondents operated under and against me described in detail in the book "The

Importance of Being Honest" by Law Professor Steven Lubet(available at AMAZON).In

Chapter 31 on page 174 Professor relates,"In California, Judge Gregory Caskey was publicly

admonished for sending the following e-mail to an attorney:

"I am considering summarily rejecting [opposing counsel's] requests. Do you want me to let

[opposing counsel] have a hearing on this, or do we cut[opposing counsel] offsummarily and

nm the risk [of] the [Court of Appeals] reversing? ... I say screw [the other party] and let's cut
[opposing counsel] off without hearing. O.K.? By the way, this message will self-destruct in five

seconds."

The recipient of Caskey's message replied as follows:

"Your Honor, I don't feel comfortable responding ex-parte [sic] on how you should rule on a

pending case."

By return e-mail the judge sent a one-word response, stating,'chicken'."

JURISDICTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON JURISDICTION

12. I timely filed this Appeal and Petition in this court by RADl. Several clerks ofthis court

checked it on two occasions for any defects, filed it and therefore this appeal is timely.

13. Any respondent's claim ofstatute oflimitation run is false due to doctrine ofcontinuous

crime and injury and doctrine ofequitable tolling, since they are the ones who obstructed justice

and should not profit from their own felonies.

14. This appeal is the direct attack on void judgments and orders, which every respondent

either illegally created, enforced or refused to review for validity, as 1 demanded from 2010-all

in violation oftheir job description and/or authority.

15. This court hasjurisdiction to determine validity of family court order of child support

dated February 3, 2010 ab initio.

16. 1 contend that this order was void as absurd and impossible to comply since it ordered me

to pay more than I was earning at that time or had available in cash - all without a hearing and

taking of evidence. It essentially ordered me 'to squeeze blood from the stone.'

17. It is also void due to the bribery and case fixing by magistrate John Fasone and attorney

Yonatan Levoritz.

18. This void order was set aside by Supervising judge Paula Hepner with orders to John
Fasone clearly telling what to do before starting a new trial. Since John Fasone in contempt of

Hepner's order refused to follow it, Fasone did not have authority to conduct a new trial,

especially without my voluntary presence and participation.

19. 1 make this petition under duress, in self-defense and in fear for my life as my blood

pressure averages 95/150 after respondents overtly harassed me and collectively initiated false

arrest and imprisonment. These felonies continue until present by jailing me two times, by

preventing me to participate in any activity to make a living requiring a license and by

unlawfully restricting my driver license, which in turn prevents me from leaving this state and

make a living somewhere else. As to the driver's license, I contend that I applied for it due to

fraud and deceit. I was led to believe that driver license is a safety issue challenging peoples'

mental and physical ability to navigate an automobile in order to protect public health and avoid

property damage. This state and its laws never disclosed to me that driver license is a trap, which

actually used to control and/or deny my inalienable rights to travel, make a living and pursue

happiness. As such, it is null and void for fraud in the inception and DMV laws unconstitutional

for this reason as well. I contend that no informed and voluntary nexus with this corporation

THE STATE OF NEW YORK ever existed.

20. 1 contend that no jurisdiction existed, exists over me without due process, my voluntary

waiver or consent to participate infamily court's unlawful, kangaroo court procedure, which I

never made. To prove me wrong, 1 demand that the STATE finally enters evidence of

jurisdictional facts and elements on the record ofthis court or any other court.

Rebuttal ofPresumptions of Public Service and my Guilt

21. Litigation Is War! Even though Svenson's lawyers had every stolen document they

needed for the child support proceedings, they failed to exhaust administrative remedy by failing
to verify by me Svenson's allegations and failing or attempting to settle with me out of court

whatever controversy they claimed 1 created.

22. Family Court Act(EGA)has a provision called 'Probation' to require meeting with me in

family court to settle or verify alleged controversy before letting a woman to start child support

litigation. Probation, as I discovered later, is akin to mandatory settlement conference in

foreclosure and condition precedent to litigation. In my case, probation never happened and

family court did not acquire jurisdiction according to its own statute by failing to meet condition

precedent as part ofthe statutory due process.

23. Instead, Nachimovsky and Svenson was allowed by the court's clerks to immediately file

false, frivolous actions and engage me in the harassment and abuse of process through vexatious

litigation, which consisted ofsimultaneously filing petitions for filiation, child support and order

of protection. Needles to say, that Nachimovsky, as attorney, knew about Probation and his duty

to follow family court's laws and procedures. Therefore, Nachimovsky and Svenson both knew

that Svenson's money given to him was actually bribe by Svenson for Nachimovsky to become a

mercenary to conduct a war against me. The evidence ofthis contention is the fact that they both

rejected my offer to mediate; and no attempt to resolve alleged controversies peacefully (out of

court) and/or lawfully was ever made and no court record of such attempt anywhere exists. This

refusal to attempt settle out ofcourt is acquiescence of their Guilt - not mine.

Family court started war against me per following legal maxim!"A mixed war is one which
is made on one side by public authority, and the other by mere private persons." Black's
Law Dictionary 5th Ed., page 1420

24. Let the State Attorney General Show Cause how and why this, fiction of law,corporation

THE STATE OF NEW YORK legally treats me,a live man with inalienable rights, as its chattel

and property. Why 1 have no rights and do not need to be treated with respect and due process.
unless Attorney General admits that family court actors commit felonies and admits to self-

dealings with bribery for their personal gain.

25. Why Office of Attorney General systemically covers up family court's corruption instead

of prosecuting employees' felonies and removing them from the office? Are Attorney General's

employees too interested and personally involved in corruption?

26. Why acts of Office of Attorney General cover up corruption and are in conflict with

federal and constitutional law such as this eloquent explanation from United States v. Stewart,

234 F. Supp.94(D.D.C. 1964);

"The officer may be sued only if he acts in excess of his statutory authority or in
violation ofthe Constitution for then he ceases to represent the Government."

Respondents-State actors had/have no subject matter and personal jurisdiction in my


case due to felonies and intentional torts planed and committed by them against me under
color of law and color of office

27. Are felonies and intentional torts by state court actors are not acts in excess of their

statutory authority or in violation ofthe Constitution? I do not think so.

28. This court has inherent jurisdiction over respondents in the interest of Justice to do Right

and to stop their harassment,felonies and malicious prosecution against me.

29. This court has inherent jurisdiction over respondents as a body admitting attomeys to

practice law in Second Department and as body policing attorney's misconduct that they

committed against me. As such, this court should revoke all respondents' licenses and

admissions to practice law in this state - or this court is failing to protect the public and joins

wrongdoers itself.

30. My legal research points to this court's Fiduciary Duties to provide remedy to the injured,

and by doing so, ability to convert any pleadings into any other form of pleading sua sponte in

the Interest ofJustice and under doctrine that substance trumps theform.
31. Family court's judiciary lost their integrity, obstructed justice and do not even pretend to

be in public service, which is evidenced by my experiences of obstruction ofjustice by numerous

court employees with whom 1 had to deal within last 8 years of my Self Defense and Pursuit of

Justice. Obstruction ofjustice particularly in my case demonstrated in this affidavit even further

below.

32. I have a clear legal right to be left alone, to make a living and not be harassed by the

state; and to the relief requested as interested injured party whose rights violated and who is

prisoner ofthis state under color oflaw and color of office since 2008.

33. As taxpayer, I have a clear contractual and legal rights for protection by the state from

intentional torts and felonies committed by its agents. As such, state breached contractual and

fiduciary's duty to protect me from felonies ofits agents. State's law enforcement agencies are in

cahoots with family court's corruption and covering it up. The evidence to this charge is the

FACT that my affidavit-complaint to the Moreland Commission to Investigate Public

Corruption, together with my public testimony taken under oath, all ignored and the Governor

shut down Commission later. This is one more reason that State has no nexus and jurisdiction in

my case as an interested party and wrongdoer itself.

Rebuttal of false presumptions of court's regular due process, presumed correctness of the
denials,judgments or orders with implied "hearing held, evidence taken" with implied
"findings offact and conclusions of law"- all in violation of all five subsections of CPLR
7803

34. Respondents, overtly in concert, systemically harassed me and denied me rehearing and

review from 2008 until present- all in violation of their job description and ministerial duties to

perform.

35. This harassment, inter alia, manifested by kangaroo court's set up where every time 1

appeared in their court rooms in self defense, under duress and threat of arrest, I was surrounded

10
by 4-6 armed men getting ready to jump me while respondents would intentionally interrupt me,

irritate, switch the subject, etc.- all to prevent me from making a record for appeal and

documenting corruption.

36. None ofthe hearings where 1 was not a moving party conducted lawfully.

37. None ofthe hearings on my several petitions to modify and motions for relief went

through any kind offair hearing where I had an opportunity fully present my case to impartial

tribunal and where substantial evidence taken.

38. There are no findings of fact and conclusions oflaw, which is/are not intentionally false,

misleading or absurd on the record ofthis case.

39. There is/are no findings of fact and conclusions of law, 1 could have taken on appeal and

in good faith and with straight face say,"the court erred ..." as I know it would be a perjury on

my part and I would be waiving liability of respondents.

40. As such, I do not anymore believe in New York Justice System, CPLR,FCA and file this

petition imder duress, as in hostage situation with no expectation of getting any due process and

remedy, but to create a record ofexhausting administrative remedy and establish evidence of

corruption cover-up. My expectation of remedy and justice is on the borderline with miracle,

and, as one attorney told me,"an exercise in futility." Accordingly, no presumption that I

voluntarily submitted to corporatejurisdiction ofthe state can be drawn.

Bribery and fraud upon the court by officers of the court entirely divests family court of
jurisdiction

41. Respondents falsely claimed that 1 did not timely appeal their void orders, and therefore

these orders are valid since 2010-contrary to established precedent in Kamp v. Kamp,59 NY

212(1874)stating:

11
" that when the court is entirely without jurisdiction, "the whole proceeding,
including the order or judgment, is coram nonjudicc and void. One is not bound to
appeal from a void order or judgment, but may resist it, and assert its invalidity at all
times"[emphasis mine]

42. In addition, all these years 1 was guided by case law in Ross v. Eveready Ins. Co., 156

AD 2d 657 - NY Appellate Div., 2"'' Dept.(1989) where this court explained:


Contrary to the determination ofthe Supreme Court, the defendant's motion to vacate
the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4)was not untimely. The judgment, which
was entered without acquiring personal jurisdiction over the defendant, was a nullity
and did not bind it (see, McMullen Arnone, 79 AD2d 496,499). Thus, the defendant
was free to "ignore the judgment, resist it or assert its invalidity al any and all times"
(McMullen v Arnone,supra, at 499; emphasis supplied); the defendant was not'"bound
to appeal from [the] void judgment'"(Hughes v Cuming, 165 N.Y. 91,94, quoting
Kamp V Kamp,59 N.Y. 212, 215).

43. I asserted Fasone's order invalidity to him and to others countless times and nobody

rebutted my assertion or set a hearing to review, thereby by operation of law acquiescing to

nullity by silence.

44. Facts and dociunentary evidence I filed in family court demonstrate that respondents

never served me with February 3,2010 order. When 1 learned about it, 1 was unable to timely file

Objection and filed it only one day late. Notwithstanding the absurdity of this child support

order, violation of due process and Interest of Justice, Supervising judge Paula Hepner denied

review 'on procedural grounds' falsely creating presumption that family court followed lawful

procedure while I was not. This denial was not review on the merit and was absurd too. It

ignored the fact that I would be able to comply with Fasone's absurd order and knowingly set me

up for harassment by contempt, which is foreseeably happen two times.

45. Thereafter, this court denied me poor person status on appeal where I planned to directly

attack validity ofthis order, while child support collection unit unlawfully seized my bank

account with my $150 in it- my last ditch of money to pay filing fees for an appeal.

12
46. During contempt proceeding against me,I claimed as my first line of defense against

harassment by contempt of court- the order is not lawful, and therefore void.

47. My second line of defense - the order was absurd and impossible to comply.

48. In reply, and to avoid my defenses and review on the merits, respondents falsely claimed

that I did not serve my Objection(s) or Opposition(s)on Respondent Svenson.

49. Respondents falsely claimed that my Administrative Complaint to Administrative and

Supervising judges about court's employees misconduct is ex-parte communication ethically

preventing those Judges from review of its own corruption.

50. The bottom line, for almost 8 years, each ofthe respondents skillfully and corruptly

would find or create false excuses and/or engaged in overt judicial misconduct including felonies

to conspire and fabricate false affidavit(s) of service offinal order ofchild support on me- all to

plausibly avoid and deny knowledge of each other's corruption in present and future litigation.

51. This court has inherentjurisdiction and duty to police lower court's misconduct and

felonies of Respondents and over the claims brought pursuant to C.P.L.R. Article 78 and,

specifically, exclusive jurisdiction per C.P.L.R. Article 7804(g)- Where the substantial evidence

issue specified.

52. This appeal and petition is timely filed in this court on advise of licensed and employed

by New York State attorney from company called LIFT located in Kings County Family Court

who advised me about the following C.P.L.R. 506(b)(1) that states:

"a proceeding against a justice ofthe Supreme Court or a judge of a county court...
shall be commenced in the appellate division of the judicial department where the
action, in the course of which the matter sought to be enforced or restrained originated,
is triable, unless the term ofthe appellate division in the department is not in session..."
[emphasis mine]

13
Can Petitioner trust the government who is in war with Petitioner?

53. On December 2,2016,1 came to this court to file instant petition and notarize my

affidavit supporting this petition. Upon looking up my case on the computer, clerk, Caterina

Madeffari, refused to notarize my affidavit and declared "1 am in the wrong court and should

have filed the instant petition in the Supreme Court."

54. When I asked why almost 2 years ago when I was filing my RADI and some supervising

clerk took considerable time for checking my filings, no one told me "I'm in the wrong court" so

that 1 could timely file this petition in the Supreme Court? She replied:"Now that you know

now, you cannot file it here"- admitting by acquiescence to obstruction ofJustice by this court's

clerks and State's employees from family court in the past.

55. Fact, this court's clerk(s) and attorney from LIFT are the state employees and actors.

They,therefore, are agents ofinterested in the negative for me outcome party to this case -THE

STATE OF NEW YORK. Now,it would appear that the attorney's advice and clerk's

acceptance of my RADI(if indeed erroneous), were intentionally calculated to deceive me out of

my right for an appeal and unbiased tribunal. Who is responsible for attorney's malpractice, IF

ANY, now that I may lose my remedy? The same interested in the negative for me outcome -

THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

56. There are numerous cases in New York and US Supreme Court holding that fraud and

deceit tolls the statute of limitation. If 1 indeed should have filed this petition in Kings County

Supreme Court, 1 was misled by intentionally, collective wrong state actors' advice and should

not be punished by withdrawal of remedy by appeal. Accordingly, if that is really the case, let

this court transfer or remand this appeal to Supreme Court with order tolling statute of limitation.

57. Alternatively arguing, even if, which is not admitted and stated only for the sake of

14
argument, I would have filed the instant petition in the Supreme Court in 2014-2015 - it would

have to be transferred back to Appellate Division per C.P.L.R. Article 7804(g):"Hearing and

determination; transfer to appellate division. Where the substantial evidence issue specified."

C.P.L.R. Article 7804(g)states in pertinent part:

"When the proceeding comes before it [appellate division], whether by appeal or


transfer, the appellate division shall dispose all ofthe issues in the proceedings, or, if
the papers are insufficient, it may remit the proceeding."[emphasis mine]

58. In my particular case, this petition came to Appellate Division by appeal, which

evidenced by my RADl form accepted by this court. If 1 would have filed this petition in

Supreme Court, it would have to be transferred to Appellate Division due to the fact that I

specify 'substantial evidence issue' in this petition's notice ^ 4. On the other hand, this court may

remit this proceeding if papers are insufficient to Supreme Court, which 1 contend are

insufficient. It appears to me that this court's clerks practice law without a license and try to lock

me in 'catch 22' cituation and prevent me from appeal.

59. In conclusion, due to tolling of statute oflimitation, 1 would not care which court would

review this appeal as long as 1 would get unbiased, competent tribunal, which would not block

discovery and due process and in the end issue appealable findings of fact and conclusion oflaw,

which I can take higher for appeal.

60. This court hasjurisdiction over the claims for declaratory relief pursuant to C.P.L.R.

3001. Will this court declare right or wrong and do the right thing,thereby becoming

solution to the problem or cover up corruption and become a problem itself?

61. Will this court declare that orders and judgments offamily court are coram nonjudice ab

initio?

15
VENUE

62. This proceeding brought in the judiciary department where respondents' principal offices

are located and wrongdoings done.

PARTIES

63. Michael Krichevsky(Krichevsky)- self-governed law-abiding man - taxpayer. He was

gainfully employed while supporting his family from 1988 until 2010. He lost his federally

protected job due to bribery, corruption, conspiracy, criminal acts and torts committed by

STATE actors, officers ofthe court against his employer and him.

64. Judge Dean Kusakabe isjudge in part 16 of Kings County Family Court who conspired

with others to obstruct justice, refused and failed two times to perform a duty enjoined upon him

by law and issued fraudulent, void order (attached to RADI)to cover up corruption of his peers.

65. Judge William Frank Perry is judge in part 14 of Kings County Family Court who

conspired with others to obstructjustice, refused and failed two times to perform a duty enjoined

upon him by law and issued fraudulent, void order ofcommitment(attached to RADI)to cover

up corruption of his peers, harass and SLAP? Krichevsky for suing his peers.

66. Judge Maria Arias is judge in part 9 of Kings County Family Court who refused two

times perform her job, conspired with others to obstructjustice and failed to perform a duty

enjoined upon her by law and issued fraudulent, void order (attached to RADI)to cover up

corruption of her peers and to incarcerate me.

67. Judge Jeanette Ruiz is Supervising Judge of Kings County Family Court who covered up

corruption of her peers and obstructed justice and failed two times to perform a duty enjoined

upon her by law.

68. Support magistrate Michael Milsap is support magistrate in Kings County Family Court.

16
He was unlawfully appointed by Robert Ratansky to conspire with others to obstruct justice over

my petition to modify the child support amount and SLAPP me by contempt proceeding.

69. Support magistrate John Fasone is support magistrate in Kings County Family Court. He,

per circumstantial evidence, information and belief received a bribe from Nachimovsky and/or

Levoritz to fix the child support case against me,refused to recuse and refused to rule on my

motions and petitions. Thereafter, in contempt of higher court disobeyed LAWFULL ORDER

OF HIGHER COURT to issue findings offact and conclusions oflaw on my motions that he

ignored. He even disobeyed higher court's clear order to issue written denial on my motion to

recuse, which I would appeal to Supervising Judge of family court.

70. Noticeably, John Fasone was/Is a member of Grievance Committee-entity policing

attorney's misconduct and who is attorney committing own misconduct.

71. Robert Ratansky and/or unknown clerks are clerks of Kings County Family Court. He

and/or other clerks collected bribes and steered my petitions, motions and objections to

respondents, who in turn obstructed Justice, intimidated and harassed me.

72. Elena Svenson is other person whose action may be affected by a proceeding under this

article, CPLR 7802. She is ward of the Family Court, employee of THE STATE OF NEW

YORK and accomplice of all respondents who obstructed Justice to me and personally abused

her son along with all respondents.

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDURAL HISTORY AND AFFIDAVIT OF MATERIAL FACTS

73. This affidavit, if unrebutted point for point by each respondent will stand as Judgment

and admission of material facts."Assertions by affidavit... sufficient to make the prima facie

case" United States v. Kis,658 F. 2d 526(1981).

74. Above mentioned felonies and intentional torts started at the beginning of2008, when

17
while I was working 60- 80 hours a week at law office paralegal job, unemployed for life

Svenson,former girlfriend, was working hard at my home going through my personal tax

records, bank accounts and ownership records.

75. When she has stolen everything she needed to extort money from me,she, acting on

advice of her attorneys, quietly filed for an order of protection perjuriously claiming that she is

afraid of me. Immediately thereafter and before service oforder of protection, she attempted to

incarcerate me by 'pocking bear' to provoke some kind of violence on my part by bringing my

son to my employer to badmouth me.

76. Upon information and belief, court employees directed her to avoid contact with places

and me where I could meet her and violate the order of protection.

77. Provoking violence has failed, but 1 was financially damaged when had to abandon my

apartment in order to avoid arrest by police when police came to arrest me, but missed me.

Thereafter, Nachimovsky withdrew her petition for order of protection as perjury before the

judge had any opportunity to rule on it.

78. At the same time, Svenson brought stolen documents to her lawyers and filed for child

support.

79. Violating normal, court ordered discovery process where parties just exchange

documents and bills, having depositions, etc., another Svenson's attorney Yonatan Levoritz

refused to depose me and produce Svenson for deposition. Instead, he immediately started

broadcasting 16 non-party deposition subpoenas to every possible bank in New York and my

contractors who were doing renovation of my house - all in violation of Fasone's discovery

order to depose me first.

80. Because those were not information subpoenas, but deposition subpoenas, which my

18
attorney would have to attend - we knew that this was harassment and churning of Levoritz

attorney's fees- in contempt of Fasone's order to conduct normal discovery first.

81. Later on, I learned that order to conduct normal discovery was only made by Fasone to

bamboozle my attorney and me and 'to look pretty and unbiased' on the record as Levoritz, in

contempt, immediately started third-party discovery while refusing to depose me.

82. Additionally, Levoritz started demanding from me for the last 5 years the very same

documents that Svenson has stolen from me before litigation. Noticeably, Levoritz admitted on

the record that Svenson stole my documents. By demanding stolen documents and conveniently

'forgetting,' that they are stolen, Levoritz accused me in none-cooperation and hiding my assets.

If this is not attorney's misconduct and harassment in presence ofa member of Grievance

Committee,then 1 do not know what misconduct or harassment is. This boldness and fearless

behavior of Levoritz is an evidence ofcase fixing.

83. In reply, on September 8,2009 my attorney filed an Order to Show Cause with TRO to

Quash Deposition Subpoenas and for Sanctions.

84. However, Fasone dismissed my attorney's OSC on February 3,2010 without a scheduled

hearing and no audio record of said hearing exists. So much for Fasone enforcing by contempt

his own order to Levoritz directing him conduct normal discovery and depose me first.

85. In Fasone's order of dismissal ofOSC he falsely wrote that there was a hearing.

86. This order of dismissal was never mailed to my attorney or me.

87. 1 discovered it when I was checking the courts file in preparation for an appeal on or

about April - May 2010.

88. Meanwhile, Svenson attempted extortion by blackmail using documents that she has

stolen from me, which is self evident from her blackmail note in my possession.

19
89. Fasone never gave me a chance to enter it into the evidence as well as other relevant,

material documents. In this note, Svenson writes in rusty Russian that she went to lawyers and

they told her that my employer and I doing money-laundering using law office - a felony charge

warranting federal investigation of my employer.

90. While I was waiting for decision on that OSC to continue normal discovery and

evidentiary hearing, Fasone scheduled a trial without any notice to parties. On February 3,2010,

Fasone convened a kangaroo court without parties present. Using above described by Professor

Lubet Judge's Trick, Fasone "screwed me by summarily cutting off the hearing on said OSC,my

discovery, evidentiary hearing and trial." After he created his void for fraud upon the court child

support order, he falsified the court's audio record by denying above said OSC and falsely

stating that there was a hearing scheduled, but nobody appeared.

91. The audio record misleadingly created presumption that 1 was notified, but did not care to

show up. It stated,"...it's 10 minutes to five and no one is appearing..." Before 1 had a chance to

disobey Fasone's null and void order, on March 1,2010, child support collection unit seized all

my earnings, sabotaging my abilities to pay for appeal.

92. The child support collection unit issued garnishment of my paycheck in the amount of

$3000 per month, while my gross check was $4000 per month.

93. Thereafter, in same 2010, Fasone and Levoritz started malicious prosecution against me

by accusing me to be in contempt of Fasone's child support order with the intent to incarcerate

me.

94. That order made me a slave by ordering to pay the child support collection unit more than

1 was able to earn or had available in cash.

95. That order resulted in me being laid off due to harassment of my employer by the court

20
system and Svenson.

96. I was unable to comply with this order from day one, as it was absurd, and therefore null

and void on its face by operation of law. As such, I had perfect defense for non compliance and

Fasone knew it from my affidavits as well.

97. After I lost my job in 2010,1 filed for unemployment insurance, which gave me a right to

a new trial and modify or annul said void order because my monthly payments became

substantially less and amounted to about $1600 gross per month, which further exposed the

absurdity ofdemanding $3000 per month from me.

98. To SLAPP (sensor, intimidate and silence) me for petition to modify, Fasone and

Levoritz colluded and filed for contempt.

99. To avoid this obvious absurdity and lack of probable cause in my defenses, Fasone

falsely alleged on the audio record that petition for contempt states that I hide my assets.

100. Petition for contempt did not say anything about my hidden assets or that I "disobeyed

lawful order ofcourt" per Family Court Act(FCA),and therefore failed to state a claim because

the key phrase is 'lawful order.'

101. My numerous motions for new trial were either ignored or denied by Fasone without a

hearing, written findings of fact and conclusions of law, or orders explaining the reason why.

102. Levoritz' and Fasone' persecution of me for unlawful and void order resulted in stroke to

me due to stress oflosing thejob, family, foreclosures and harassment by state actors. As direct

result, I became physically disabled and depressed. Until present, there is no recovery from

disability. My disability was largely untreated due to the lack of medical insurance and

systematically continuing harassment.

103. That contempt petition was regretfully dismissed by Fasone due to the lack ofthe

21
evidence of hidden assets, which Levoritz never produced.

104. I conducted investigation of Levoritz' office and found by interviewing some people

that his paralegal and non-attorney partner, Viktor Katkalov, who is acting as runner and

steerer of cases, is spreading information in Russian community that they can fix cases in

their favor. I found that almost every case that they handled - handled by modus operandi

of attorney's misconduct, but they never prosecuted by Fasone or any member of

Grievance Committee.

Rebuttal of Presumption of Correctness of Order

105. I rebut presumption of correctness of Fasone's and other respondents' orders with

evidence oftheir conduct demonstrated by Exhibits and this affidavit that further demonstrate

collective Mens Ria below.

106. In all court appearances where I tried to get a new fair trial, I was not allowed to make

an audio record for an appeal because Fasone would constantly interrupt me,talk over me and

switch subjects, all while four- six armed court officers intimidated me and were waiting to

jump me when I was trying to talk over Fasone "for the record."

107. This is why big portions of transcripts unclear or missing, which would impair appellate

review in Fasone's favor with appellate presumption ofcorrectness of Fasone's order.

108. When I asked why Fasone is interrupting me all the time, he replied,"because I can."

109. My petition to modify was denied by Fasone without a hearing or order with findings of

fact.

110. In 2011, Supervising Judge offamily court Paula Hepner finally set aside Fasone's void

order after I produced evidence that I was not served with February 3,2010 Fasone's order.

Hepner ordered Fasone to reply in writing to all motions that he ignored before; and set up a new

22
trial thereafter. Fasone refused to comply with her order and in contempt of it started new

trial, again without me present, and restored his void order with the same absurd amount

of child support.'* Things invalid from the beginning cannot be made valid by subsequent

act.'* Trayner, Max.482. Maxims of Law,Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition, page 1862

111. In Truax v. Corrigan, 257 US 312(1921), the court held,"the due process clause requires

that every man shall have the protection of his day in court and the benefit ofthe general law, a

law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds not arbitrary or capriciously but upon

inquiry and rendersjudgment only after trial so that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty,

property and immunities under the protection ofthe general rules which govern society.

Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 535. It, of course, tends to secure equality of law in the

sense that it makes a required minimum of protection for every one's right of life, liberty and

property, which the Congress or the legislature may not withhold. Our whole system of law is

predicated on the general, fundamental principle ofequality of application of the law."All men

are equal before the law,""This is a government oflaws and not of men,""No man is above the

law," are all maxims showing the spirit in which legislatures, executives and courts are expected

to make,execute and apply laws. But the framers and adopters ofthis Amendment were not

content to depend on a mere minimum secured by the due process clause, or upon the spirit of

equality, which might not be insisted on by local public opinion. They therefore embodied that

spirit in a specific guaranty."

112. Accordingly, Fasone either did not have jurisdiction or have lost it due to the above-

described felony ofobstructing justice.

113. "When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the

judge ofthe municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity;

23
courts administrating or enforcing statutes do not actjudicially, but merely ministerially....but

merely act as an extension as an agent for the involved agencybut only in a "ministerial" and

not a "discretionary capacity..." Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 583; Keller v. P.E., 261 US

428;F.R.C. v. G.E., 281, U.S. 464.

114. When in 2012 Sandy disaster stroke, unemployment insurance terminated all payments to

me, which were $150 per week and kept me below federal poverty level. Before termination, my

favorite food store was "99c" at the corner of Avenue Z and Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn.

115. My house was flooded and I became FEMA's client. They gave me a money grant and I

was physically working to restore my house using my car to buy materials and tools from Home

Depot. Precisely at that moment,support collection unit started harassing me with my driver

license suspension if I do not sign consentjudgment. 1 treated this act as their admission of

knowledge of nullity ofFasone's order and as acts of extortion, harassment and refused to sign.

116. During this period, I was a client of different charities and never asked for a dime from

corporate STATE OF NEW YORK welfare programs since the state was/is an interested party

against me - my enemy. THE STATE OF NEW YORK continues to be my enemy to this day

with its systematic harassment of me by support collections unit and police.

117. To preserve my right to modify my child support down to 0 or $25 per month, in the

beginning of2013,1 filed yet another petition under duress to modify. That petition required

Ratansky assign a judge because petition had issues of newly discovered fraud, child

emancipation by working full time, lack of visitation and child alienation by the mother.

However, once again, this petition was assigned to Fasone, who did not have authority to hear

that petition per FCA.

118. In regards to fraud, I discovered from Svenson's bankruptcy court filings that she was

24
working in 2009, and therefore committed perjury in family court along with her attorney,

Levoritz, when they both testified on the record and by financial disclosure affidavit that

Svenson is unemployed and is looking for ajob. That alone gave me a right and Ratansky an

obligation to set a fair hearing by the Judge as per CPLR 5015 to void child support order on yet

another ground.

119. Once again, Ratansky assigned this case to Fasone, who SLAPP me on the audio record

by directing Svenson to go to family court clerk's office and file another petition for contempt.

120. Upon information and belief, some family court clerk(s) coached Svenson as to what to

allege in her contempt petition and concocted petition itself, which was not even notarized.

121. That petition contained peijurious statement that 1 willfully stopped child support

payments from 2013, when the record shows that I could never comply with this order due to

absurdity and did not make any payments myself. In addition, Svenson was on notice from my

petition to modify that unemployment insurance, and not me,terminated its payments to

Svenson.

122. Once again, contempt petition did not have FCA statutory prescribed statement that I

"disobeyed lawful order of court," and therefore was frivolous and did not state a claim.

123. By operation oflaw, absurd order cannot be lawful and every respondent knew it.

124. While Svenson's petition to hold me in contempt was pending, on July 17-18,2013,1

filed motion for Judicial notice and motion to hold Svenson in contempt ofcourt for perjury with

supervising Judge Jeanette Ruiz, which stamped by her chambers. Exhibit A.

125. Yet, everything ended up at Fasone's part on July 19,2013 and denied on the same date

without a hearing, but mailed to me on July 23,2013. Exhibit B.

126. In reply to Fasone's denial, 1 filed timely Objection on August 26,2013, Exhibit C.

25
127. Fact, no review from the Judge, once again, even though my Objection is equivalent to

appeal.

128. Sometime in 2014, Fasone finally recused and Michael Millsap was assigned to second

contempt case, which 1 believe was not randomly.

129. Right from the beginning, Milsap began interrupting me essentially repeating Fasone's

conduct of obstruction ofjustice. 1 planned to fill Milsap in about case fixing and corruption that

has taken place before his assignment and expected that Milsap would hear me out and act

neutrally. 1 quickly realized that his goal was to cover up corruption of his peers and prevent me

from making a record for appeal.

130. 1 demanded Milsap's recusal but he refused.

131. To protect myself from harassment by Milsap and Svenson, I filed family offense petition

in September 2014, which ended up at part 9 with Judge Maria Arias. There was an initial

hearing in October 30,2014 and trial scheduled in April of 2015.

132. In Svenson's last contempt proceedings, she perjured herself by testifying under oath to

Fasone that she spoke with condominium Management Company and its manager told her that 1

am collecting $3000 in rent.

133. The fact is, Svenson knew that 1 am suing that company for $3000 monthly loss ofrent,

while Svenson paid her lawyer to interfere against me. On another occasion, she testified under

oath that"I own two properties that could be sold to satisfy the child support obligation," thereby

trying to appear blissfully ignorant and taint a record for appeal while magistrate Michael Milsap

and she both knew that all my properties are in foreclosure and "under the water."

134. She also testified that her investigator or fnend saw me in numerous restaurants, which

shows that 1 have lavish lifestyle while the child is in dear need for money to treat severe

26
psychological disorder I caused him.

135. I had and have now a documentar>' evidence of her perjury and witnesses to impeach her,

but knew that Milsap will block me from making a record and presenting evidence or would

ignore altogether, as it happened before with Fasone. 1 knew that my attempt to argue before

Milsap would be treated by him and appellate court as my waiver and consent to participate in

kangaroo court contempt proceeding with presumption that 1 believed in Milsap's ability to be

unbiased and just.

136. In particular, I had evidence that 'child,' who at that time reached the age of majority is

working full time in company that required computer skills - contrary to Svenson's perjury that

'child' needs money to treat his psychological injuries caused by me. This evidence would show

the unbiased court criminality of Svenson's allegations against me and fraud upon the court by

the court itself.

137. In addition,I discovered that Svenson is not Svenson due to her false and/or stolen

identity through immigration marriage fraud to an alleged, non-existent, man named Sam

Svenson. This name is a fiction that never existed and her US citizenship is void for fraud

upon US Government. As such, ail her judgments against me from family court are void

due to fraud upon the court. My attorney and I raised this issue in 2009 on the record, but

were immediately bulldozed by Fasone and Levoritz through denial of discovery and rush

into judgment.

138. This fraud, upon the very willing court, resulted in about $140,000 in unlawful debt

and order finding me in willful violation ofthe court's order(never said "lawful"), which was

void to start with. In reply to my motion to dismiss contempt and motion to modify child support

amount, Milsap stated on the record,"I read your motion. Motion denied." Milsap issued no

27
written, appealable denial on my petition or motion to modify.

139. To get a fair trial and impeach perjury ofPetitioner, on or about November 17,2014,1

filed motion to consolidate contempt proceedings and motion to proceed as poor person. I

needed transcripts of Svenson's perjury to impeach her. 1 notified Judge Maria Arias of part 9 of

Family Court where order of protection against Svenson's harassment was pending that on

December 2,2014 there is hearing scheduled with support magistrate Milsap in part 24 at 11:00

AM and my motion to consolidate may become moot. Accordingly, on the record Arias

scheduled consolidation hearing for 9:30 AM for me to be able to attend both hearings and,

hopefully, notify Milsap about consolidation oftwo cases in part 9.

140. Due to my unemployment and disability, 1 was receiving Medicaid and $600 in rent for

one room of unfinished construction project where I lived as well. That $600 rent was disclosed

to Medicaid office and they still granted me status of poor person. 1 filed my proofof disability

and Medicaid as exhibits for my motion for poor person relief and expected this motion granted

per my prior experience working for attorney.

141. On December 2,2014,suddenly at 11 o'clock law clerk ofthe part 9 called me in her

office and told me that my case is adjourned until January without explanation. 1 objected and

explained that my motion to consolidate is an emergency motion and that the whole point of

order of protection proceeding may become moot as been late. 1 suspected that all cases are

rigged against me. 1 entered in a state of mental shock and anger. 1 was experiencing terrible

headache and do not remember details of what happened to me in that court. I did not understand

what 1 was doing and do not remember exactly what Milsap was charging me with. In part 24,

Milsap offered me adjournment to hire a lawyer. 1 replied that I have no money and requested

adjournment ofthe hearing based on my motion to consolidate cases oforder of protection in

28
part 9 and contempt proceedings suddenly adjourned until January 2015. Mr. Milsap told me,

"You can go to part 14 immediately and ask for consolidation there." In part 14, Judge William

Frank Perry's part, which is across the part 9,there was no people waiting for a hearing. 1

noticed that there were no people in part 9 either. 1 concluded that adjournment of motion to

consolidate was hoax. I asked a court officer of part 14 what this part is for and what is going to

happen at this proceeding. Court officer told me that someone would come out and explain it to

me. In about 30 minutes, that court officer called me inside the courtroom. 1 came in the

courtroom with an expectation that 1 am going to ask for fair hearing by the neutral judge, not

magistrate Milsap, whom I was trying to recuse to no avail. I was going to explain that I need to

consolidate order of protection with this contempt proceeding. However, Judge Perry started

reading to me something along the absurd lines of what magistrate Milsap accused me. I sought

that the judge wanted to get more details and factual history as well as my version ofthe case

directly from me when he gave me the floor. However, when 1 just started explanation of my

side ofthe case and Petitioner's perjury, the judge suddenly run out of the courtroom and 1 could

not make my record. Officers told me to leave and wait in the hallway to be called back. I

thought that the judge had some emergency.

142. Now I believe that Judge Perry was calling Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Sanders to

ask him whether he can go ahead and bulldoze me as Mr. Sanders presumably was investigating

Fasone and others from family court.

143. When 1 came back hoping to continue argument and impeachment of Svenson's perjury,

Judge Perry started reading his order of commitment(attached to RADl)into the record and

court officers jump me. What adds more insult to the injury is the fact that Svenson, starting

from 2010 never replied, denied or rebutted any of my numerous affidavits while magistrates and

29
judges been willfully blind, consciously, in deliberate disregard of my constitutional rights and

due process, continued harassment, obstruction ofJustice and perjury of their officer's oaths.

144. Upon information, belief and circumstantial, logical evidence, 1 aver that on December 2,

2014 morning "some wizard(s) behind the curtain" was/were coordinating conspiracy between

judge Arias and her clerk of part 9 to adjourn its hearing for Milsap and his clerk of part 24 to

bait, switch and lure me to judge Perry and clerk of part 14 where court security ambushed and

kidnapped me. I have spent about six hours without any food or water in family court's jail.

There, 1 was threatened to be shipped at Rikers Island if 1 do not sign some paper, which I later

signed under duress.

145. When at about 9 PM,same day, I entered emergency room of Coney Island Hospital, my

blood pressure was 158 per 100, whereas my usual documented readings were 120 per 80. As of

today I developed additional illnesses- hypertension and litigation abuse syndrome.

EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY JUDGES DEAN KUSAKABE,


WILLIAM FRANK PERRY AND JEANETTE RUIZ WHO REFUSED TO SCHEDULE
A FAIR HEARING

146. On December 15,2014,1 filed Emergency OSC to set aside Perry's order, which was

assigned to part 16, Judge Kusakabe, Exhibit D. After waiting for about four hours to be called

for a hearing, Kusakabe's court attorney came out of courtroom and told me thatjudge Kusakabe

refuses to hear that motion and that I should go at part 14 to Judge Perry. Perry, in turn denied

this OSC without a written order. Apparently, Judge Kusakabe decided to cover up Judge Perry's

corruption by turning a blind eye to it. Had Kusakabe signed that OSC,order would direct me to

serve it on Svenson and file a proof of service. That way, Kusakabe would be giving me a

remedy and fair trial, but he deliberately refiised to perform a duty to review enjoined upon him

by law.

30
147. My Objection to Milsap's final order was assigned to Judge Kusakabe as well after he

refused to schedule me a fair hearing on my OSC. My Objection had substantially similar issues

of pequry, corruption and denial ofdue process as in my OSC. This time, Kusakabe really

showed his intention to deny me a fair hearing by creating factually false denial of my Objection

(attached to RADl)calling it not revieM'ahle. In this denial, Kusakabe wrote that Svenson did not

reply to my objection, thereby creating silent presumption andfindingfact that I did not serve

my objection on Svenson and that she did not object due to lack of service. Further, he accuses

me of not filing a proofof service of my objection on Svenson. Exhibit E,clearly shows that 1

served my Objection on Svenson and filed proofofservice with the court on November 12,

2014. As such, Svenson continued her years' long (from 2010) pattern of default, which would

serve as circumstantial evidence that she was controlled and/or advised by some corrupt family

court actor of positive for her outcome in default. This time, she knowingly and strategically

failed to rebut my Objection to give Kusakabe convenient excuse of been blissfully ignorant of

my proofofservice on her. Had Svenson replied to my Objection, there would be no false issue

of me not filing a proofof service. In addition, Kusakabe's pattern of refusal to review clearly

shows that he did not want that outcome as he would be faced to deal with my Objection on the

merit, to wit:

i) Systemic perjury by Svenson impeached by my evidence attached as exhibits,

which Kusakabe saw attached.

ii) Systemic harassment, pattern of obstruction of Justice and denial of Due Process

by every court employee since 2009 making all orders void ab initio and

questioning bribery of Fasone as magistrate and a member of Grievance

Committee.

31
148. My Objection contained the following:"OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE MILSAP'S

FINAL ORDER-EXTORTION,HARASSMENT AND TORTURE;COMPLAINT FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW;PROTEST AND DISCLAMER. As to the Complaint for

Administrative review, on November 10,2014,1 timely filed this administrative complaint in

N.Y.C. Family Court administrative Judge Edwina Richardson-Mendelson, Exhibit F,and filed

a copy with supervising judge of Kings County Family Court Jeanette Ruiz,.

149. In reply, I received a letter from Ruiz' court attorney, Michele Rubin, Exhibit G. She

deliberately calls my officially filed complaint-'letter' and writes only about Fasone, falsely

and misleadingly not mentioning magistrate Milsap even though I complained on him and served

him with my complaint. I expected a reply from him and that my complaint would be handled by

administrativejudge with a fair hearing with Milsap and I present according to New York State

Administrative Procedure Act to discuss violation of lawful procedure.

If there is a will - there is a way.- Ancient wisdom

150. The will to obstruct justice overtly shown on the record as pattern and practice of

deliberate disregard ofcourt employees' corruption. Everyone to whom I appealed, operated by

said pattern and practice, which clearly emerges as evidence that they denied me relief by

pretended blissful ignorance of underling facts, exhibits and false, creative excuses like "where is

affidavit ofservice" totally ignoring averred facts and exhibited evidence - all together with their

duty to Administer Justice. Evidently, none of the judges and supervisors of Fasone and Milsap

ever ordered them to stop their criminal activity. Nobody contacted me to ask whether I served

my Objection on Svenson, but forgot to file affidavit ofservice in order to resolve my complaints

on the merit, if only affidavit of service was the issue. All of them would find some technicality

or false, creative excuse to avoid review on the merits and provide remedy.

32
151. There are few possibilities in regards to "where is affidavit of service," to wit;

i) My affidavit of service on Svenson was removed from court's jacket or never

made it there, as 1 caught court's personal before fabricating affidavit ofservice

on me in order to deny me my right for review in 2010.

ii) It is there, but Kusakabe pretended that it is not there.

iii) Kusakabe or his clerk removed it from jacket.

152. In any case, since 1 did serve Svenson,she knew that she must reply to Objection or she

would lose by default. Was she told by some 'wizard behind the curtain' that the case is fixed

and by not replying she would actually win, which is exactly what happened - contrary to what

should have happened? I say,"yes the case was fixed" and the pattern ofjudicial and attorney's

misconduct since 2008 is an admissible evidence together with intentionally false, fabricated by

Levoritz and Katkalov peijurious Svenson's 2009 financial disclosure affidavit,(Exhibit 5)and

absurd ruling like the one shown further below.

153. In Affidavit(Exhibit 5), Svenson avers that she is not working, has no income or cash,

yet she,for example, pays $2600 monthly in rent or mortgage and $10,000 for household repairs.

There, she also claims that I was buying herjewelry every month for years, but on cross-

examination by my attorney denies my averment that she has about $50,000 in jewelry in safe

deposit box. She claims having no cash and borrowing money for attorney's fees while Fasone is

interfering and interrupting. Then, Fasone suddenly adjourns the hearing, which never resumed

and impeachment of Svenson's perjury, as result, obstructed by Fasone. This is just one episode

of Fasone's Obstruction of Justice at the beginning ofthe case in 2009.

154. Here is unrebutted facts that show what family court respondents did to me collectively:

155. They deliberately brought up false charges that 1 refused to pay the child support in

33
violation of state and federal criminal laws.

156. They deliberately fabricated bogus orders.

157. These bogus orders were tossed in the courtjacket with deliberately created false

affidavits ofservice and presumptions that they were timely sent to me, but 1 did not appeal.

158. These bogus orders deliberately never sent to me.

159. In these bogus orders, they deliberately wrote about facts and evidence that never existed

or contrary to the evidence admitted or offered.

160. In these bogus orders, they deliberately wrote about papers that were never filed.

161. They deliberately described hearings that never took place.

162. They knowingly listed statements that my opponent or 1 never made.

163. They deliberately made absurd and/or deliberately misleading conclusions from above-

stated false charges;

164. They deliberately created false findings of facts without conclusions oflaw as no law

permits to be misused by ajudge to arrive at absurd result in an order orjudgment. Here is a

latest example ofthe false, misleading findings of facts and deliberately absurd conclusion of

law with deliberately resulted recommendation to jail me. Below is excerpt from that kangaroo

proceeding started by Fasone in 2013 and continued in retaliation by Fasone's supervisor,

magistrate Michael Milsap's order in December 2, 2014. This contempt proceeding is in

violation ofFCA directing contempt proceeding to be done within 60 days without any

adjournments:

"Elena Svenson filed a petition in this Court on July 19,2013 seeking to modify an
order, dated July 6,2011, made by the Kings'County Family Court which granted
support for: David Svenson"
And there has been a change ofcircumstances since the entry ofthe order which makes
the modification ofthe order necessary and proper;
NOW,after examination and inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case, and

34
after hearing the proofs and testimony offered in relation thereto, the court finds that
Michael Krichevsky is responsible under this order for the support of: David Svenson
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent declines to avail himself of
representation by 18b. Willfulness found,[bold is in original]
Order of support is continued at $2,045.00 per month thru SCU. Next
payment is due 10/15/2014. Arrears are set and a money judgment is entered
for $124,079.38. Prior money judgment dated 07/06/2011 is vacated and
replaced by instant money judgment.
Respondent is to pay $10,000.00 thru SCU to purge himself of the Court's
finding of willfulness contempt to avoid a recommendation for incarceration:
said payment to be made by the adjourn date.

165. Fact, Svenson never ever filed petition to modify the child support order.

166. Fact, I filed petition to modify -on numerous occasions.

167. Accordingly, my "circumstances were changed which makes the modification ofthe

order necessary and proper," which is why I filed for modification, but hearing never took place.

168. After I filed my petition to modify under duress, in retaliation and harassment, Fasone

directed Svenson to cross-file contempt petition for the second time (first one was in 2010).

169. Essentially, Fasone converted civil matter where 1 was Plaintiff into criminal where I

became Defendant with presumption of guilt, thereby indicating that fair hearing and Justice

would be denied, which it was.

170. Fact, Svenson was in contempt of Fasone's order to file Financial Disclosure Affidavit

and serve it on me before hearing, but Svenson never complied.

171. Fact, Svenson never pleaded and showed the court how she was harmed by my inability

(since 2010)to comply with absurd order, which is necessary element to accuse me ofcontempt.

172. Besides the fact that Svenson in contempt ofcourt did not submit Financial Disclosure

Affidavit, she did not submit any proofofanything, as she had nothing negative, except the spite

against me.

173. Being under duress, and seen that Fasone and Milsap simultaneously acting as

35
prosecutors,judges and juries in conflict of interest and tyranny, I informed Fasone and later

Milsap that pursuant to my right to remain silent in criminal prosecutions, 1 was not answering

any questions and attended under threat and duress.

174. However, Milsap with a straight face writes,"NOW,after examination and inquiry into

the facts and circumstances ofthe case, and after hearing the proofs and testimony offered in

relation thereto, the courtfinds...'"

175. The court could notfind anything, even ordered by Fasone to Svenson production of

mandatory financial disclosure affidavit on the file. What they found in file is UNREBUTTED

by Svenson my Affidavits and Exhibits in support of petition to modify and motion to dismiss

contempt petition, charging her with peijury and fraud.

176. Other than that, the court file was empty and there was nothing for Fasone and Milsap to

find there, examine and inquire, except to figure out from my pounds of prior numerous ignored

petitions and motions that support order was void for absurdity, corruption and that this caused

them lose jurisdiction over this case.

177. The sentence,"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent declines to avail

himself of representation hy 18b. Willfulness found"-for the lack of better known to me

words, sounds as if it written by mentally retarded person in gibberish. As such, this order is void

as beyond comprehension and compliance.

178. 1 did not testify, objected to jurisdiction and attended kangaroo court hearing under

duress for the fear for my life due to threat to be assaulted and kidnapped if I do not show up.

Fasone and Milsap refused to recuse, thereby indicating their intention to prevent me from

getting any fair hearing from other disinterested tribunal.

36
Fasone's and Milsap's refusals to recuse is circumstantial evidence of bribery and
Obstruction of Justice.

179. This court's record is replete with evidence that Fasone gave me 'a hard time.' In self-

defense and fight for survival, I gave 'a hard time' to Fasone too. I demanded his recusal, but

he refused. I accused him of not having jurisdiction as impersonator of public officer and

demanded production of his constitutional oath of office. He told me that he filed it in the

Office of Court Administration(OCA). I discovered from OCA that he did not file his oath of

office and he later admitted this fact on the record. As such, he admitted that he lied to me

during the hearing of my motion to recuse him, which is fraud upon the court by officer ofthe

court. By operation of law, Fasone was not lawfully public officer, but in fact was

impersonator of public officer embezzling taxpayer's checks.

180. I forced Fasone to bend backwards in order to accommodate Levoritz and Svenson with

fi-aud and to cover up their perjury. I forced him to apply extra effort and do extra activities,

which were notjudicial in nature, and which any party would not expect a disinterested judge

to do. Upon information and belief, I forced Fasone and Levoritz to have ex parte

communication(s)in order to work out scenarios of actions to counter my defenses and

motions. I forced Fasone to fabricate false denials, etc. Finally, I forced Supervising Judge

Hepner to admit on the record that Fasone was not doing hisjob and ordered him to review

my motions that he refused to review and issue written appealable orders for me to bring them

to her. That order was actually admonitions from higher court.

181. Notwithstanding, Fasone refused to comply with Hepner's order. Now,the question is:

"Why after so many years of my resistance, would Fasone continue to 'string along and jump

through so many hoops' to obstruct justice and falsify court record knowing I would not be

bamboozled and would push back? Is he mentally ill and that is why he does not recognize

37
and tolerates a hard time from me for nothing?" The answer is simple- he was bribed to

Obstruct Justice and made a chose to continue 'having a hard time' from me.

182. Even if, which is not admitted and stated only for the sake of argument, I was difficult to

deal with pro se party who knows nothing about law, any disinterested magistrate would be

motivated by now to follow a human nature and go in the path of least resistance.

Disinterested magistrate would have recused and tossed my case as a hot potato with a stance

such as,"knock yourself out, Mr. Krichevsky, go away from me. Let's see how other

disinterested magistrate would act differently on your case." However, he knows that as any

contractual 'assassin' who fails to perform and quits, Fasone would have to return the money

to 'customer,' which his greed did not let him do. This is why he would not recuse! In

addition, Fasone was afraid that if he recused and I would have a neutral, disinterested judge

and survive 'assassination,' Fasone's corruption would become evident by contrast in

handling of my case. He was also afraid that if he recuses and his order set aside, that would

expose him to the world. He actually painted himself in the comer and likely split his bribe

with Milsap who continued 'assassination' and covered up Fasone with Milsap's void and

Theater of Absurd style order with gibberish findings of fact and conclusion of law 1 rebutted

and described in 154-176 above.

CONCLUSION

183. To stay alive and out ofjail, 1 had to borrow $10,000 from friends and family and give

check to collection unit. By operation of law, this is FELONY extortion and $10,000 is

ransom for my life as 1 still ended up in the hospital permanently injured by the state actors. Is

this how New York Judiciary serves Public? 1 think so. Is this how service should be done? 1

do not think this is service. In fact, I think this is treason, piracy and homegrown.

38
domestic terrorism.

184. One previous application has been made in 2010-2011 for the relief requested in this

court, but due to obstruction ofjustice, no review on the merits was ever made.

WHEREFORE,I move this court to review this Appeal and Petition on the merits in its entirety, and

for such other and further relief as to this Court seems Just and proper.

VERIFICATION ATTACHED ON NEXT PAGE BELOW

39
STATE OF NEW YORK)
)ss. VERIFICATION
COUNTY OF KINGS )

Michael Krichevsky, being duly sworn to God, deposes and says:


I am the Falsely Accused Claimant in the within action.
I have written the foregoing and know the contents thereof and the same is
true to the best of my knowledge, except as to those matters herein stated to be
alleged upon information and belief and that as to those matters, I believe them to
be true.

Under duress, Michael Krichevsky, sui juris

Sworn to before me this


19th day ofDecember 2016

MIRA ZYBINA
Notary Public - State of New York
Nr> ni7YR9Afi3P1