Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Judicial Notice to the Court addressed to John Fasone. He ignored it.

Judicial Notice to the Court addressed to John Fasone. He ignored it.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 145|Likes:
Published by SLAVEFATHER
Judicial Notice to the Court addressed to John Fasone. He ignored it.
Judicial Notice to the Court addressed to John Fasone. He ignored it.

More info:

Published by: SLAVEFATHER on Sep 23, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

12/28/2013

pdf

text

original

 
FAMILY
COURT OF THE STATE
OF
NEW YORKCOUNTY OF KINGSINDEX NO.
F-28901-08/10/A/B/C
Elena
Svenson,
Petitioner,
JUDICIAL NOTICE TO
v.
THE
COURTMichael
Krichevsky,
Respondent.
Notice
to
the
court under
the
authority
of the
constitutions
of the
United States
and the
State
of
New York; authority of the United States Supreme Court and Demand for this court tofollow
the
Supreme
Law of the
Land.
1.
Michael
Krichevsky,
Pro Se,(KRICHEVSKY)byspecial appearance UNDER DURESS
and
without
submitting to the jurisdiction of this court hereby puts this court on judicial notice to
cease
and desist any
further
unlawful
assault against him.2. KRICHEVSKY hereby challenges the jurisdiction of John Fasone and hereby puts himon judicial notice that
theU.S.
Supreme Court
has
clearly established that once jurisdiction
has
been
challenged,
it is presumed that the court lacks jurisdiction unless or until the evidentiary
sufficiency
is provided and submitted to the record.
3.
The
presumption
is
that
a
court lacks jurisdiction
on a
particular issue until
it has
beendemonstrated that jurisdiction over
the
subject matter exists.
The
facts showing
the
existence
of
jurisdiction must be
affirmatively
in the record.
4. If
jurisdiction
is
challenged,
the
burden
is on the
party claiming jurisdiction
to
demonstrate that
the
court
has
jurisdiction over
the
subject matter.
The
limits upon jurisdiction
 
must be
neither
disregarded nor evaded. The requirement to submit admissible evidence upon the
record
proving jurisdiction once jurisdiction is challenged is mandatory.
5.
The Supreme Court of the United States as well as lower courts have consistently
reaffirmed
the requirement
that
once jurisdiction is challenged those who claim jurisdiction mustsubmittheevidencetoprovethevalidity
o/the
claim.See
Twining v.
New
Jersey,
211
U.S.
78,
29
S.Ct
14, 24
(1908),
Old
Wayne
Mutual
Life
Associationv.
McDonough,
204
U.S.
8,
27 S. Ct.
236
(1907),
Scott
v.
McNeai,
154 U.S. 34, 14, S.Ct. 1 108
(1894),
Pennoyer
v.Neff,
95
U.S. 714,733
(1877),
Hagen
v. Lavine,
415 U.S. 528, at
535,
39 L.ed. 577, 94
S.Ct/
1372 (N.Y.
March
28,
1974),
United
States
v.
Ruger,
23 F. 658
(W.D.
Ark. (1885), State
of
Maine v.
Thiboutot,
448
U.S.
1, 900 S. Ct.
2502
(1980),Mc/Yw#
v.Geneml
Motors Acceptance
Corp.
of
Indiana, Inc.
,
298
U.S. 178,
80
LJBd.
1135,
56
S.Ct
780
(9136),
(jurisdiction may
never
be
presumed),
Special
Indemnify
Fund
v.Pruitt,
225
R2d.
308,
201Okl.308,
(jurisdiction
mustbe
affirmativelyshown),
United
States
v.Chairito,
69
F.
Supp.
3 17
(D.
Or.
1946) (jurisdiction cannot
be
presumed),
Standard
v.Olesen,
98 L. Ed. 1151, 74 S.Ct 768 (1954),
Garcia
v. Dail,
586 S.W.2d. 524, at 528, (Tex. C.A. 1980) (lack of jurisdiction requires dismissal),
Burks v.Laskar,
441U.S.471 (1979)andTitle5U.S.C.
§§55tf
&558(b).
6.
Generally, there is no requirement for one subjected to a
"void"
judgment to do anythingmore than call
the
trial
court's
attention
to the
mistake
or fraud
with
a
request
to
correct
its
record and order.7. CPLR 5015(a) provides grounds and procedure for relief in this action. John Fasone had
fiduciary
duty to provide
justice
and relief.
8.
John Fasone has failed and refused to provide
relief
or dispute KMCHEVSKY
3
s claims.
 
9. Child support hearing was a sham hearing where every attempt by respondent and hisattorney to establish admissible evidence on the
record,
which would prove Fraud Upon theCourt
and
perjury
by
petitioner
and her
attorney, Yonatan
Levoritz,
was not
allowed
by
JohnFasone.
10.
All ofrespondent'sand his
attorney's
pleadings have been
ignored.
This courtisherebyordered to cease and desist
this
unlawful
attack in this proceeding and rebut with particularityanything in the judicial notice
that
you disagree with which is your
duty.
11.
In
United
States v. Prudden,
424 F. 2d 1021 (1970) judge stated:
"silence
can only beequated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry
left
unanswered would be intentionally misleading".12. This court must take mandatory judicial notice of legal maxim: "Silence isAcquiescence."
13.
This court must take mandatory judicial notice of Exhibit A (Judge Paula
Hepner'
sorder).14. This court must
take
mandatory judicial notice of hearing
officer's
JohnFasonecontemptof the higher court by continuous
refusal
to comply with this order.15. John Fasone is deprived of
subj
ect
matter and personam jurisdiction to hear
this
casebecause of the fraudulent and contemptuous behavior exhibited by John Fasone in
these
proceedings.16. Supervising Judge Paula Hepner in her order
dated
October 24,
2011
(Exhibit A), interalia,put the child support order aside, and ordered John Fasone to issue written denial withexplanationto
KPJCFIEVSKY's
motiontoRecuse John Fasone. Becausehe did notcomply
with

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->