P. 1
COMPLAINT SUPREME 2013

COMPLAINT SUPREME 2013

|Views: 202|Likes:
Published by SLAVEFATHER
STILL LOOKING WHICH JUDGE WILL SERVE JUSTICE - JUSTICE ON TRIAL
STILL LOOKING WHICH JUDGE WILL SERVE JUSTICE - JUSTICE ON TRIAL

More info:

Published by: SLAVEFATHER on Apr 11, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

05/17/2014

pdf

text

original

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS INDEX NO.

19478/13 MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT -againstYONATAN LEVORITZ, VICTOR KATKALO V, JOHN FASONE, PAULA HEFNER, ROBERT RATANSKY, unknown clerk of JOHN FASONE, ELENA SVENSON, Defendants.

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED The Plaintiff Michael Krichevsky (Krichevsky), Pro Se, under penalty of perjury for his Verified Complaint, respectfully avers: INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Ronald Reagan At all relevant times mentioned herein, I was and still maliciously prosecuted, financially ruined and personally injured by all defendants for 'refusal' to pay the child support which I never refused to pay. In fact, I paid more and offered to pay more in the future, than I was otherwise lawfully obligated to pay, but defendants did not want me to pay for reasons stated in this lawsuit below. Before defendants' actions causing this lawsuit, I was not knowledgeable in Family Court litigation and was illusioned that in Family Court all of the defendants are driven to serve Justice and protect the best interests of my child, family, and therefore, unconsciously participated in the court proceedings. Later on, I learned that these proceedings and defendants drive to serve Justice

were nothing short of a swindle. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it. " Upton Sinclair

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. The plaintiff, Michael Krichevsky (Krichevsky, I, me, my), at all tunes mentioned herein

was and still is a resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York. 2. The defendant, Elena Svenson (Svenson), at all times mentioned herein was and still is a

resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York. 3. At all relevant times mentioned herein, all defendants did and are conducting a trade,

business or commerce in the County of Kings and the State of New York. 4. At all relevant times mentioned herein all defendants committed torts and crimes against

Krichevsky and his property in the County of Kings and the State of New York. 5. The amount in controversy exceeds $1,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. PARTIES 6. Krichevsky - self-governed law-abiding man - taxpayer. He was gainfully employed from

1988 until 2010. He lost his federally protected job due to corruption, conspiracy, criminal acts and torts committed by all defendants in concert. 7. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Krichevsky was and still is a resident of the County

of Kings and the State of New York. 8. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Krichevsky was conducting a trade, business or

commerce as paralegal and real estate developer in the County of Kings and the State of New York.

9.

At all relevant times mentioned herein, Krichevsky derived his revenue from the County of

Kings and the State of New York. 10. The defendant, YONATAN LEVORITZ, Esq. (Levoritz), at all relevant times mentioned

herein was and still is a resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York. 11. Levoritz, at all times mentioned herein was and still is conducting a trade, business or

commerce, and 12. 13. bonded by Zurich Insurance Company in the County of Kings and the State of New York. 63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees

63 C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247 "As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised on behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts.. [2] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. [4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. [5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official who tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against

public policy. Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit-and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute. See United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163,168 (7th Girl985) includes the deliberate conceahnent of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, hi the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. McNally v United States 483 U.S. 350 (1987) 14. Officer of the Court

"any person who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system, including judges, the attorneys who appear hi court, bailiffs, clerks, and other personnel. As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth, including avoiding dishonesty or evasion about reasons the attorney or his/her client is not appearing, the location of documents and other matters related to conduct of the courts." 15. As attorney, Levoritz must swear the Oath of Attorney and/or the Oath of Office 'to uphold

and protect Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York' as condition precedent to be admitted to practice law in the courts of the State of New York. 16. For Levoritz taking the oath 'to uphold and protect Constitution' and 'assist the court with

administration of Justice' are just words with no apparent legal, contractual and moral obligation just a bureaucratic obstacle or formality on the way to obtain Public Office and profit from it which is nothing short of a swindle. 17. The defendant, VIKTOR KATKALOV (Katkalov), at all tunes mentioned herein was and

still is a resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York.

18.

Upon circumstantial evidence and information gathered by Krichevsky, Katkalov at all

times mentioned herein was and still is non-attorney business partner of Levoritz, Esq. and should be bonded by Zurich Insurance Company. 19. Alternatively, Law office of Yonatan S. Levoritz P.C. is a 'front' for Katkalov's organized

crime and illegal activity. 20. Levoritz revealed the concept of 'front' by acting as an expert witness during the child

support proceedings in Kings County Family Court against Krichevsky. 21. In that court, Levoritz was unlawfully permitted by defendant JOHN FAS ONE to testify as

UNDISCLOSED EXPERT AND FACT WITNESS ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT Svenson that, "in Russian communities it happens that a lawyer used as a 'front' for the non-lawyer owner's illegal activity." "The days when an attorney's word or even a handshake were good are long gone. The practice of law has become a childish game of who can fool the court the longest based on fabricating facts and misrepresenting the law. Now attorneys' stooping so low to testify for the very clients they represent by their own conclusory hearsay makes the practice of law just junk." "There is no evidence ... except for the attorney trying to win the case for his ... client saying so because,...ummm, embarrassingly, because he is an attorney so we should believe whatever he says to the events that he never was present at, was never a party to and he has absolutely no personal knowledge about." Susan Ghana Lask, Esq. 22. Said allegations prompted Krichevsky to do own due diligence and verify Levoritz'

firsthand knowledge and qualification as expert witness. Krichevsky's due diligence revealed that Katkalov is Russian-speaking non-lawyer and that their office located in the Russian community. Further, Katkalov is acting as 'runner' and brings Russian-speaking clients to English-speaking Levoritz who they both 'introduce' to their organized Family Court child support racketeering scheme described further below. Upon information and belief, this is the way Svenson found her

road to that office. 23. Fact, in 2013 Krichevsky conducted EBT of defendant S VENS ON represented by attorney

Lorna LaMotte in bankruptcy court adversary proceeding. During EBT, Svenson refused to answer Krichevsky's questions as to how she found her English-speaking attorneys and whether their job was to harm Krichevsky in Family Court - and pleaded Fifth Amendment defense. 24. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Law office of Yonatan S. Levoritz P.C. derived

most of its revenue from trade or commerce derived from Russian community in the City of New York and particularly in the County of Kings, the State of New York. 25. Levoritz had a duty to know and comply with New York Rules of Civility (NYRC), New

York Rules of Professional Conduct (NYRPC), New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), New York Penal Law (NYPL) and other State and Federal Laws, rules and regulations (thereinafter LAW) - and uphold them during proceedings. 26. Katkalov had a duty to know and comply with New York Rules of Civility (NYRC), New

York Rules of Professional Conduct (NYRPC), New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), New York Penal Law (NYPL) and other State and Federal Laws, rules and regulations, (thereinafter LAW). 27. The defendant, JOHN FASONE (Fasone), at all relevant times mentioned herein was and

still is New York State licensed attorney admitted to practice law in the courts of the State of New York. 28. At all relevant times mentioned herein Fasone was and still is conducting a trade, business

or commerce as New York State Public Administrative Hearing Officer 29. presumably serving Justice to public, and particularly to families - as evidenced by slogan

in the Entrance Hall of Kings County Family Court - 'Justice to the family is Justice to the community'. 30. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Fasone had and still has his principal place of

business located in County of Kings and the State of New York. 31. At all times mentioned herein, Fasone derived most of his revenue from County of Kings

and the State of New York. 32. 33. As attorney, Fasone must swear the Oath of Attorney, and the Oath of Office 'to uphold and protect Constitutions of the United States and the State of

New York' as condition precedent to be admitted to practice law in the courts of the State of New York. 34. 35. After precedent is met, Fasone becomes 'Officer of The Court'. As officer of the court and public officer of the State of New York, Fasone must swear the

Oath of Office to uphold and protect Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York as condition precedent to obtain this public office in Family Court of The State of New York. 36. As Officer of the Court and Public Hearing Officer of the State of New York, Fasone has a

duty to know and comply with New York Rules of Civility (NYRC), New York Rules of Professional Conduct (NYRPC), New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), New York Penal Law (NYPL), New York Rules of Judicial Conduct (NYRJC), New York Judiciary Law (NYJL), and other applicable State and Federal Laws, Rules and regulations (thereinafter LAW) and uphold them during proceedings. 37. For Fasone taking the oath 'to uphold and protect Constitution' are just words with no

apparent legal, contractual and moral obligation —just a bureaucratic obstacle or formality on the

way to obtain Public Office and profit from it - which is nothing short of a swindle. 3 8. Alternatively, Fasone never took the oath, or never filed it with the state and OCA.

Therefore, he was disqualified from occupying Public Office in Kings County Family Court thereby impersonating Public Officer of the State of New York —, which he never disclosed to Krichevsky. 39. 40. As officer of the court, Fasone should be bonded by State of New York or personally. The defendant, PAULA HEPNER (Hepner), at all times mentioned herein was Supervising

Administrative Judge of Kings County Family Court. 41. At all relevant times mentioned herein Hepner was New York State licensed attorney

admitted to practice law in the courts of the State of New York. 42. At all relevant times mentioned herein Hepner was conducting a trade, business or

commerce as New York State Public Administrative Hearing Officer 43. presumably serving Justice to public, and particularly to families - as evidenced by slogan

in the Entrance Hall of Kings County Family Court - 'Justice to the family is Justice to the community'. 44. At all times mentioned herein, Hepner had her principal place of business located in

County of Kings and the State of New York. 45. At all times mentioned herein, Hepner derived most of her revenue from County of Kings

and the State of New York. 46. 47. As attorney, Hepner must swear the Oath of Attorney, and the Oath of Office 'to uphold and protect Constitutions of the United States and the State of

New York' as condition precedent to be admitted to practice law in the courts of State of New

York. 48. 49. After precedent is met, Hepner becomes 'Officer of The Court'. As officer of the court and public officer of the State of New York, Hepner must swear the

Oath of Office to uphold and protect Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York as condition precedent to obtain this public office in Family Court of The State of New York. 50. As Officer of the Court and Public Hearing Officer of the State of New York, Hepner had a

duty to know and comply with New York Rules of Civility (NYRC), New York Rules of Professional Conduct (NYRPC), New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), New York Penal Law (NYPL), New York Rules of Judicial Conduct (NYRJC), New York Judiciary Law (NYJL), and other applicable State and Federal Laws, Rules and regulations (hereinafter LAW) and uphold them during proceedings. 51. For Hepner taking the oath 'to uphold and protect Constitution' are just words with no

apparent legal, contractual and moral obligation -just a bureaucratic obstacle or formality on the way to obtain Public Office and profit from it - which is nothing short of a swindle. 52. Alternatively, Hepner never took the oath, or never filed it with the state and OCA.

Therefore, she was disqualified from occupying Public Office in Kings County Family Court thereby impersonating Public Officer of the State of New York -, which she never disclosed to Krichevsky. 53. 54. As officer of the court, Hepner should be bonded by State of New York or personally. The defendant, ROBERT RATANSKY (Ratansky), at all relevant times mentioned herein

was and still is Clerk of Kings County Family Court. 55. At all relevant tunes mentioned herein Ratansky was New York State licensed attorney

admitted to practice law in the courts of the State of New York. 56. At all relevant times mentioned herein Ratansky was conducting a trade, business or

commerce as New York State Public Officer of the Court 57. presumably serving Justice to public, and particularly to families - as evidenced by slogan

in the Entrance Hall of Kings County Family Court - 'Justice to the family is Justice to the community'. 58. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Ratansky had his principal place of business

located in County of Kings and the State of New York. 59. At all times mentioned herein, Ratansky derived most of his revenue from County of Kings

and the State of New York. 60. 61. As attorney, Ratansky must swear the Oath of Attorney, and the Oath of Office 'to uphold and protect Constitutions of the United States and the State of

New York' as condition precedent to be admitted to practice law in the courts of State of New York. 62. 63. After precedent is met, Ratansky becomes 'Officer of The Court'. For Ratansky taking the oath 'to uphold and protect Constitution' are just words with no

apparent legal, contractual and moral obligation -just a bureaucratic obstacle or formality on the way to obtain Public Office and profit from it - which is nothing short of a swindle. 64. Alternatively, Ratansky never took the oath, or never filed it with the state and OCA.

Therefore, he was disqualified from occupying Public Office in Kings County Family Court thereby impersonating Public Officer of the State of New York -, which he never disclosed to Krichevsky.

10

65.

Ratansky had a duty to know and comply with New York Rules of Civility (NYRC), New

York Rules of Professional Conduct (NYRPC), New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), New York Penal Law (NYPL) and other State and Federal Laws, rules and regulations (hereinafter LAW) - and uphold them during proceedings. 66. 67. As officer of the court, Ratansky should be bonded by State of New York or personally. Defendant "unknown clerk of John Fasone' presumably 'law clerk' of Fasone, who at all

relevant times mentioned herein conspired and participated with all the defendants in the wrongdoings mentioned in this lawsuit. Her name will be discovered and Krichevsky reserve the right to amend his complaint to add her name. 68. 69. Svenson - was not gainfully employed between 1986 and present. Svenson became Krichevsky's business partner and fiduciary when they in 1991 entered

into confidential relationship and started raising a child together. In 2000, they entered into contract to buy a condominium unit and borrow money from a bank. 70. Since Svenson was in confidential and partnership relationship with Krichevsky, she owed

Krichevsky a fiduciary duty of: 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. care, loyalty, duty to disclose; and duty to act fairly; and duty to account, and duty of good faith and fair dealings. During that whole length of relationship with Svenson, Krichevsky faithfully performed

11

his duties and justifiably relied and depended on performance of these duties on Svenson's part. However, she individually committed, hired and conspired with all other defendants to commit several criminal acts and torts against Krichevsky, his property and interests. 78. All the defendants herein had contractual or fiduciary, or both duties to and relationship

with Krichevsky as to partner and/or taxpayer, member of public and member of family. 79. All Court Officers herein are sued in their official and individual capacity. It is unknown

without discovery which official and judicial acts, if any, were performed by those defendants. THE SCHEME OF FRAUDS AND SWINDLES USED ON KRICHEVSKY CAUSING THIS LAWSUIT 80. We live in the age of scandals, frauds and swindles, which caused today's unprecedented

economical crisis since the beginning history of America. New York State is broke, needs money and billions of it. hi the search for money, public servants find very lucrative way to obtain it — by pegging the State to the federal government's Social Security title IV-D finding - taxpayer's money. The official goal of funding is to enforce and collect child support from fathers and mothers that do not want to pay it. 81. As every tree has a few bad apples, there are bad fathers and mothers too — but not most of

them, contrary to defendants' intentional false presumptions. These presumptions needed to obtain billions of dollars from collection business against all of the people. Accordingly, New York State public servants decide to sacrifice lives of all families for 'the sake of greater good and to protect women and children' - a doublethink, which term defined below. 82. Statistics show that in America, we have 50% divorce rate because public servants, whose

duties are to protect peace and harmony in families become predators by forcing parents into

12

gladiator like fights for children and money - so the families become their prey. 83. It is axiomatic that there is no money in peace and harmony for bureaucrats and lawyers

who thrive only on conflicts. Further, attorneys and Family courts together with Child Support Collection Units (CSCU) create 'customers' who judges would adjudicate and CSCU employees would persecute to justify their offices, jobs and pensions. Krichevsky's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were shattered by mixed civil war started by corrupt defendants, who took the oath of office to uphold and protect people's rights in accordance with Constitutions of United States and State of New York. Here is how the whole scheme of frauds and swindles works: when a woman goes to Family Court, she drags the whole family into the twilight zone described by George Orwell in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). Here is the definition of dystopia taken from Wikipedia http ://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Dystopia: "A dystopia is a community or society that is in some important way undesirable or frightening. It is the opposite of a Utopia. Such societies appear in many artistic works, particularly in stories set in a future. Dystopias are often characterized by dehumanization, totalitarian governments, environmental disaster, or other characteristics associated with a cataclysmic decline in society. Dystopian societies appear in many sub-genres of fiction and are often used to draw attention to real-world issues regarding society, environment, politics, economics, religion, psychology, ethics, science, and/or technology, which if unaddressed could potentially lead to such a dystopia-like condition." In his novel, George Orwell coined the word doublethink (excerpts taken from

13

http://en.wiMpedia.org/wiki/Doublethink), which described as: "The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink, it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth." "Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language" "Some schools of psychotherapy such as cognitive therapy encourage people to alter their own thoughts as a way of treating different psychological maladies (see cognitive distortions)." Here are Orwellian doublethinks: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and

14

Ignorance is Strength. By the same token, here is doublethink created by Family Court judges and lawyers - Indigence is Wealth - that practiced on me in addition to doublethinks mentioned above. Using Orwellian doublethink "to deny the existence of objective reality," the public servants created the following unjust, intentionally false and undisclosed to men legal presumptions, which used against men in Family Courts: all men are bad fathers and violent; all women are good mothers and victims of men men always have money women are always poor men are liars women are truth tellers Additionally, doublethink permits judges to become dictators and suspend Constitutions, New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, Rules of Evidence, ethics rules, the rules of professional conduct for attorneys, as well as the rules of judicial conduct - and legislate their own rules at will without notifying parties during the court proceedings. 84. However, women not only maintain their rights, but also are granted a privilege to perjure

themselves without worry of punishment and directed by courts and attorneys to participate hi sharing the benefits of denying rights to overwhelmingly fathers. 85. For majority of women taking the oath hi court or before the notary 'to tell the truth and

nothing, but the truth so help me God' are empty words and promises with no apparent legal,

15

contractual and moral implication -just a bureaucratic obstacle or formality on the way to obtain a price from perjury contest — which is nothing short of a swindle. 86. Above stated in If 82 and ^f 83 is statistically evident by the fact that majority of Levoritz'

and Katkalov's clients are overwhelmingly women, who usually 'win' these gladiator-like perjury contests. 87. During the Family Court hearings, Fasone uses presumption that attorneys are always

telling him truth and did the due diligence in verifying facts of the case before appearing in court per NYRPC. 88. Armed with this 'inside information,' Katkalov's job is to systematically ensure that

parents have enough turmoil and conflicts to drain them out of assets. Katkalov coached Svenson to perjure herself. 89. court, 90. Alternatively, Levoritz or Katkalov, or both pretended that they believed in lies Svenson Armed with this 'inside information,' Levoritz coached Svenson to commit perjury in

told them, and did not verify them before the court appearance, and when I impeached her, Levoritz protected her and refused to correct the record, in violation of NYRPC. 91. During the Family Court hearings Fasone pretended that he believed in lies Levoritz and

Svenson told him, and when Krichevsky started impeachment of those lies on the record - Fasone sabotaged my attorney and me in doing so, thereby protecting Svenson and Levoritz. 92. Judiciary is the third branch of government, of which lawyers is part,. However, there are

no checks and balances, and because of this, New York State Judiciary and especially Family Courts are in a state of anarchy, disdain and disrepute. This is self-evidenced by the fact that New

16

York State Governor Cuomo created commission to investigate public corruption in government and restore public trust. It is done under the "Moreland Act and Executive Law Section 63(8) to probe systemic corruption and the appearance of such corruption hi state government, political campaigns and elections hi New York State" (details at http://publiccorruption.moreland.ny.gov). Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge PART 100. Judicial Conduct Preamble: The rules governingjudicial conduct are rules of reason. They should be applied consistently with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules and decisional law and in the context of all relevant circumstances. 93. In violation of above said rules of judicial conduct, Kings County Family Court and CS CU

are hi the state of anarchy and act in the capacity of Privateers to impoverish parents of the State. Fasone's profit driven decisions and conduct, adversary to me and my son during the course of litigation between Svenson and me, legislated me out of my constitutional and statutory rights, to wit: 94. right to meaningful time and opportunity to be heard; 95. right to face my accusers and cross-examine them; 96. right to impeach my accusers; 97. right to bring a witness in my defense; 98. right not to be ambushed during a trial;

99. right not to be rushed to judgment; 100. right to conduct discovery and produce evidence;

17

101. 102. 103.

right to an appeal; right to petition government for redress of grievances; right to competent and unbiased tribunal. "The America once extolled as the voice of liberty heard around the world no longer is cast in the image which Jefferson and Madison designed, but more in the Russian image." Chief Justice Douglas in Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972)

104.

14th Amendment of Constitution gives equal protection of the law to all people - only in

theory - but not in Kings County Family Court's reality. Nearly to be a man is punishable by slavery or peonage. If this lawlessness continuous unchecked somebody in America someday will repeat the following: "Kill three million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands." President Yahya Khan. FAMILY COURT'S PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS CAUSING THIS LAWSUIT 105. The procedural history is bazaar, long, complex and should shock conscience and insult

intelligence of the reader. It spans as Saga from 2008 until present. I will mention the key facts, which when I demanded rebuttal in court - were never rebutted by Levoritz, Fasone or Svenson, and therefore admitted by them as per CPLR, New York Rules of Evidence and common law legal maxim - Silence Is Acquiescence. 106. On August 6, 2009, all the above-mentioned officers of the court converted Kings County

Family Court into KANGAROO COURT or PRICE COURT striping Family court of subject matter jurisdiction (see Black's Law dictionary 8th, page 382, 383):

18

kangaroo court. 1. A self-appointed tribunal or mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded, perverted, or parodied. 2. A court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular proceedings, esp. so as to render a fair proceedings impossible. 3. A sham legal proceeding. "Kangaroo" might refer to the illogical leaps between "facts" and conclusions, or to the hapless defendant's quick bounce from court to gallows. Price court. A court having jurisdiction to adjudicate the captures made at sea in times of war. 107. 108. During these court proceedings, Levoritz was leading Fasone, while Fasone led Levoritz. Whereas, on January 6, 2010 Fasone and Levoritz pretended that all discovery issues

necessary to resolve before starting a trial per CPLR are already resolved, and they are conducting a trial. At the same time, I sought that they are conducting an evidentiary hearings because my discovery motion was still pending, I did not get any disclosure from Svenson, did not have a chance to do my own disclosure, and court-scheduled depositions did not yet start. 109. • Whereas, on February 3 2010 Fasone held a Star Chamber hearing without parties notified and present. On that day, Fasone, postfactwn, after pretended trial denied my discovery motion filed by my attorney in September of 2009 - 5 months prior to Fasone's pretended trial on January 6,2010. 110. Whereas, on February 32010, while discovery was not complete and said discovery

motion was pending, Fasone held a Star Chamber hearing without parties notified and present with deliberate indifference to and in violation of LAW. Said Star Chamber Hearing and final order of the child support as a result of said hearing constitutes — 'a court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular proceedings, esp. so as to render a fair proceedings impossible' and 'a sham legal proceeding. "Kangaroo" might refer to the illogical leaps between "facts" and conclusions, or to the hapless defendant's quick bounce from court to gallows.' 111. Because Levoritz was falsely claiming, with no factual basis, that I have a lot of money,

19

Fasone ordered me to pay more child support than I could earn - in disregard of LAW, contrary to maxims of law and the evidence in the court record of my ability to pay. In fact, he ordered me to pay not less than 65% of my gross income instead of statutory 17% of my disposable income in addition to arrears, Levoritz' attorney fees and health insurance. According to Constitution of USA, such order constitutes cruel and unusual punishment - and therefore void. 112. Whereas, contrary to Levoritz slandered, perjured, unsworn, hearsay testimony, the

evidence consisting of my 2009 pay stubs, 2009 W-2 form and affidavit from my employer shows that I was earning gross income of $56,000 per year. 113. The evidence also shows that my loan payments were more than my gross income in 2009

and I was depleting my lifelong savings. 114. The evidence also shows that additionally to approximately $2800 monthly child support

ordered, Fasone ordered me to pay approximately $20,000 in petitioner's attorney fees and about $30,000 in arrears, while my financial disclosure affidavit stated that I had only $1700 available in cash. 115. Whereas, it was foreseeable or intended, or both by Fasone and Levoritz that I will not be

able to comply with above said order. 116. Whereas, Fasone or his law clerk, or both sabotaged my appeal of said unjust, wrongful

and void order by not mailing this order to me as per Family Court's Hepner and Ratansky policy or practice. 117. Whereas, CSCU were notified by some defendant(s) that I would not be able to comply,

and therefore CSCU immediately sent the garnishment order to my employer before giving me time to fail on my own. CSCU immediately confiscated my pay and left me with no money to pay

20

for appeal or to meet my everyday living expenses. 118. Said conduct of defendants constitutes violations of Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act, hereinafter "FDCPA" and Consumer Credit Protection Act, hereinafter "CCPA". CCPA restricts garnishment to no more than 65% from disposable - not gross earnings. 119. Whereas, Fasone immediately refused to review for errors his unjust wrongful order in

defiance of United States v. Agurs, 427 US 97 - Supreme Court (1976) where the court stated: "Court has consistently held that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.. .In those cases the Court has applied a strict standard of materiality, not just because they involve prosecutorial misconduct, but more importantly because they involve a corruption of the truth-seeking function of the trial process." 120. Whereas, Fasone and Levoritz "corrupted truth-seeking function of the trial process"

to wit: denied without notice above mentioned discovery and discovery motion, conspired with each other and Hepner to railroad me through defamation and held on February 3, 2010 final hearing without notice to me and me present. 121. Said acts constitute prohibited by LAW trial by ambush and rush to judgment in order to

prevent me from offering further evidence and/or filing interlocutory appeal. 122. Whereas, on February 3,2010 Fasone falsely and misleadingly created presumption for the

appellate court that the parties were notified but failed to appear for the hearing. The audio record of this Star Chamber hearing falsely and misleadingly states, "10 minutes to 5 and no one is appearing." The finder of fact now presumes that Fasone was tired of waiting for me to appear and started the hearing since I did not care to show up. 123. Whereas, afterwards Fasone or his law clerk, or both fabricated 2nd wrongful order with

21

false affidavit of service on me after I raised the issue of not receiving my first child support order by mail and demanded the proof of service from the court. 124. Because I was not notified about Fasone's final order and could not get it from the court's

1

record room due to barriers created by Hepner and Ratansky, I filed ASAP my "blind" objection one day late. In it, I requested acceptance of my objection hi the interest of Justice. 125. Whereas, using said fraudulent, perjurious, counterfeit second affidavit of service, Hepner,

with deliberate indifference to evidence, merits to my objection, my inability to comply with said order, and with deliberate indifference and disregard to my basic human rights and needs for food and shelter — legislated denial of Justice by denial of my objection on 'procedural grounds' — as if her denial would remedy my situation and put me hi compliance with Fasone's absurd void order. 126. As administrative judge with the law degree and statutory duty to serve Justice and

investigate wrongdoings of her colleagues, she was aware of the well-settled law that a void order can be attacked at any time directly or collaterally, even on appeal. Said legislated denial constitutes treason and official oppression — contrary to her fiduciary duty to serve Justice to me. 127. Above stated Levoritz', Fasone's and Hepner's acts and refusals to act constitutes official

misconduct: NYPL § 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 Mm by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office. Official misconduct is a class A misdemeanor. 128. Hepner condoned all Levoritz' and Fasone's above-stated offences, which constitutes

Rewarding official misconduct in the second degree:

22

NYPL § 200.20 Rewarding official misconduct in the second degree A person is guilty of rewarding official misconduct in the second degree when he knowingly confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon a public servant for having violated his duty as a public servant. Rewarding official misconduct in the second degree is a class E felony. 129. The above stated misconducts of Levoritz, Hepner and Fasone constitutes conspiracy and

Receiving reward for official misconduct in the first degree: NYPL § 200.27 Receiving reward for official misconduct in the first degree A public servant is guilty of receiving reward for official misconduct in the first degree when he solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit from another person for having violated his duty as a public servant in the investigation, arrest, detention, prosecution, or incarceration of any person for the commission or alleged commission of a class A felony defined in article two hundred twenty of the penal law or the attempt to commit any such class A felony. Receiving reward for official misconduct in the first degree is a class C felony. 130. Whereas, due to defamation and harassment of my employer by the Svenson, Levoritz,

Fasone and CSCU, I was fired from my job. 131. Whereas, I timely filed petition to modify said wrongful child support order due to a

change of circumstances prompted by loss of the job. 132. Whereas, Svenson and Levoritz, being notified of my job loss, failed to object by motion or

answer my modification petition per CPLR §402 and were in default. According to maxim of law — Silence is Acquiescence, Svenson and Levoritz agreed to downward modification of child support order, and as such, my petition should have been granted by default - but was denied by Fasone. 133. 134. Whereas, Fasone refused to read or decide my post trial motions - in violation of LAW. Whereas, a month or two after filing modification petition, I filed petition for custody and

visitation.

23

135.

Whereas, in reply to my custody and visitation petition, Levoritz served me in court with

petition for criminal contempt for violation of Fasone's void order and same day offered me settlement. The terms of settlement as follows: I sign consent judgment to arrears and withdraw my petition for custody and visitation in exchange for him not sending me to jail. 136. Whereas, New York Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits practice by attorney, which

threatens criminal prosecution of defendant in order to gain advantage in civil case - which is exactly what Levoritz, Fasone, Hepner and Svenson did - criminal extortion. NYPL § 155.05 Larceny; defined 1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof. 2. Larceny includes a wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of another's property, with the intent prescribed in subdivision one of this section, committed in any of the following ways: (e) By extortion. A person obtains property by extortion when he compels or induces another person to deliver such property to himself or to a third person by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the property is not so delivered, the actor or another will: (i) Cause physical injury to some person in the future; or (ii) Cause damage to property; or (iii) Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or (iv) Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him; or (v) Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or (vii) Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense; or (viii) Use or abuse his position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely; or (ix) Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.

24

137.

Whereas, in reply to Svenson's said frivolous petition to hold me in criminal contempt, I

1

filed in court cross-motion for sanctions for frivolous litigation, to which Levoritz failed to object and reply. 138. Whereas, thereafter Fasone falsified court record by stating in bis dismissal of said motion

for sanctions that there was a hearing and Krichevsky was heard. 139. Said denial order was without findings of fact. To add more insult to the injury, this order

was never mailed to me - again sabotaging my constitutional right to an appeal. 140. Whereas, in reply to Svenson's said frivolous petition to hold me in criminal contempt, I

replied by answer to petition, counter-claim and discovery demands, which Levoritz ignored. 141. Whereas, New York CPLR proscribes that if averments are not rebutted - they deem

admitted and failure to object or rebut deems an agreement. 142. "In fact, to deprive the plaintiff of the opportunity to a hearing upon the relevant issues

"offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" Bryant v. Finnish Nat'l Airline, 22 AD 2d 16 - NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. (1964). Accordingly, Fasone lost his subject matter and personal jurisdiction over my case and me upon my prior uninformed consent because this court has shown on the record - it is not the court of "fair play and substantial justice," which is necessary jurisdictional element of any court in civilized society. To put it bluntly—fraud, forgery, tyranny and sadism practiced on me in that Spanish Inquisition-like 'family court3. 143. Whereas, Fasone, acting in the dual capacity as prosecutor and judge in violation of

Judiciary Law, attempted to incarcerate me for contempt of his void order by conspiring with. Levoritz and Svenson to prevent discovery. 144. Whereas, said persecution by Fasone, Levoritz and Svenson instilled in me a fear of losing

25

my liberty and shocked my conscience. As result of the foregoing, I suffered a stroke in November 2,2010. 145. Whereas, above said official misconduct of the defendants is now self evident upon the

PATTERN of egregious misconducts, derived from the entire record of procedural violations and conspiracy starting from 2008 - through present. The pattern shows that Levoritz, Fasone, Hepner, Ratansky and Svenson intended to violate the law and procedure, and intentionally denied my God given and constitutional rights by acting as tyrants and charlatans. 146. Whereas, when I discovered that Fasone is acting as tyrant and charlatan, in summer of

20101 filed a motion to recuse Fasone, which he refused to read and issue denial - more of tyranny and sadism by mental torture. 147. Whereas, after numerous other motions that I filed in court, which Fasone refused to

address, In 20111 filed yet another objection to such misconduct. In that objection, I exposed criminality of defendants' acts by attached exhibits - showing fraud upon the court. I discovered: 1) original order of Fasone dated February 3,2010, which was never served on me by unknown clerk of John Fasone, and 2) fabricated, counterfeit February 3, 2010 order with fraudulent affidavit of service on me by unknown clerk of John Fasone. 148. At that point, Hepner, finally, set aside Fasone's prior order of child support, ordered him

to address every motion that he ignored stating, "... Fasone attempted to curtail the motion practice" and "currently this case represents procedural quagmire." 149. Whereas, Fasone refused to comply with Hepner's "set aside" order - which put him in

criminal contempt of the higher court. Said contempt continues to present.

26

150.

Whereas, because of this contempt, Fasone was without jurisdiction to commence any

proceedings and issue any order or judgment over my objection to the breach of his fiduciary duty tome. 151. Whereas, I filed yet another objection, reporting to Hepner that Fasone in contempt of her

order in the hope that she would remove Fasone from my case. However, Hepner refused to serve Justice and denied my objection 'on procedural grounds'. 152. Whereas, on August 9, 2013, Fasone denied my jurisdictional challenge to him without

rebuttal of my affidavit in my motion filed on July 17,2013. In this denial without findings of fact, he consistently, deliberately misquoted my affidavits and requested relief. He accused me hi "refusal to participate in court proceedings in an appropriate manner..." Additionally, Fasone stated, "in as much as the undersigned may have inadvertently failed to enter a written decision on respondent-father's prior motion for recusal such matter is easily remedied..." That false, misleading statement, nonetheless, is an admission that he was in contempt of higher court's order when he knowingly conducted December 12,2011 hearing clearly without jurisdiction. 153. Whereas, because Fasone's contempt of higher court continues, he is without jurisdiction

on my case - and he should be adjudged in criminal contempt and go to jail. 154. Whereas, my motion and complaint on September 24, 2013, against Fasone to

Administrative Judge Edwina Richardson-Mendelson and request to remove Fasone from my case were ignored and no reply was sent to me. 155. Whereas, my motion and complaint against Fasone to Administrative Judge Jeanette Ruiz

and request to remove Fasone from my case were ignored and no reply was sent to me. 156. Whereas, my complaint against Fasone was under review by Court Attorney Michelle

27

Rubin, Esq. 157. 158. and request to remove Fasone from my case were ignored and no reply was sent to me. Whereas, the latest corrupt act of war against me was perpetrated by Judge Ann Elizabeth

O'shea, who issued the following order to my objection to recusal refusal by John Fasone. 159. Whereas, FIRST, in her order, she falsified procedural history and facts of my case to wit:

"after petitioner refused to state his name for the record, claimed that the support magistrate had no jurisdiction over him, moved to the back of the courtroom and ultimately left the courtroom, thwarting the procedure judge Hepner proscribed" - shows fraud upon the court by officer of the court. 160. Judge Hepner, inter alia, proscribed: "ORDERED that support magistrate Fasone explain

the basis of his entry of a modification of the child support order on June 1, 2011 to $298 per month under supplemental "A," how he arrived at that amount, and whether it was a temporary modification;" and "ORDERED that in addition to deciding the respondent's application for leave to renew and reargue his motion to recuse, the support magistrate is to include a written decision on respondent's initial motion to recuse from July 26,2010 to complete the record so it will be clear why he did not grant the application" and "ORDERED ... Upon receipt of the final decision determining each of these outstanding issues, respondent might timely file an objection should he feel aggrieved by the result." 161. Whereas, because earlier, Fasone did not issue the written detailed explanation to my July

26, 2010 motion as to why he refused to recuse himself, Hepner declined to disqualify Fasone on that ground. This time, I was waiting for this written decision of recusal refusal to attach it to my appeal to Hepner because I did not trust Fasone with my life and considered him charlatan. I was

28

afraid that he would retaliate, do more of the same tyranny and fraud he did before, and restore his void order after December 12, 2011 hearing. Moreover, if I appeal thereafter, Fasone would say that I participated in a meaningful way, consented to his adjudication, and that after careful review Fasone's decision stays. As the saying goes "full me once, shame on you- full me twice, shame on me." 162. Because the record shows that Fasone never complied with Hepner's order and was in

contempt - it explains my December 12, 2011 objection to his jurisdiction over my case and non-consent to participate in his Dog and Pony Justice show - which is fraud upon the court hearing. Contrary to Judge 0'shea's misleading statement that I "ultimately left the room" - John Fasone ordered me to leave the courtroom, and I was surrounded by 6 men with guns — shows why our founding fathers invented the 2nd Amendment to Constitution to defend against rogue public servants or rogue government. Judge O'shea made procedural history and facts deliberately misleading in order to paint me as incompetent, uncooperative in order to arrive at her corruptly desired result, denial; 163. Whereas, SECOND, Judge O'shea consistently, deliberately misquoted my affidavits and

requested relief to wit: "on July 17, 2013, petitioner filed a motion seeking: (1) to reopen earlier proceedings in which he was denied relief based upon his failure to meaningfully participate" shows fraud upon the court by officer of the court - the opposite is true. I maintained throughout procedural history that Fasone prevented me from meaningful participation, which is why his order is void ab initio, and why I demanded his disqualification. Judge O'shea mislead the reader in order to allow her 'logical' arrival to now another VOID ORDER; 164. Whereas, THIRD, Judge O' shea refused and failed to take CPLR mandatory judicial notice

29

per my request of procedural facts and order of Judge Paula Hepner, which, inter alia, set aside Fasone's VOID final order of child support until he comply with Hepner's order - which Fasone never did. 165. Whereas, FOURTH, Judge 0' shea falsely stated in her order that I voluntarily submitted to

the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore consented to its jurisdiction - contrary to the fact that from day one in that court I was dragged in by false family offense petition and ensnared in the web of appeals and vexatious litigation by all defendants in concert. I entered appearance on my latest motions and objections "As Belligerent Claimant," "under duress," Special Appearance and Fifth Amendment defense due to contempt petition pending all the time. Judge O'shea with a law degree knows that objection to jurisdiction cannot be waived and can be raised 'at any time even on appeal.' 166. Whereas, FIFTH, even though I took the Fifth Amendment defense, Fasone did not need

my 'meaningful participation' by physical presence or oral argument to modify his order since he had all the necessary evidence of my assets from CSCU. They, in addition to plundering my unemployment benefits and leaving me with only $150 per week, with deliberate indifference to my basic Human Rights and needs for food and shelter, plundered my bank account with $150 in it. In fact, Fasone admitted on the record that I receive unemployment assistance - and sua sponte temporary modified the child support amount down to $298 per month. 167. Whereas, only after Fasone was served with this lawsuit, he recused himself falsely and

misleadingly stating in his findings of fact, inter alia, that 'I crossed the line and he can no longer guarantee objectivity' - impliedly insisting on the record that his absurd void order was objectively Just, thereby denying that he was in contempt of Hepner's order, which prompted this

30

lawsuit. The real reason he recused himself is Judiciary law §14 - conflict of interest, which proscribes mandatory self-disqualification. Because New York State is a party in any Family Court proceeding, Fasone was a party as corporation must be represented by attorney. Also he had personal interest in the outcome of the case—therefore was disqualified by law from the beginning. COUNT I: TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT 168. 169. Krichevsky incorporates averments above by reference herein. "Tortuous interference with contract requires the existence of a valid contract between the

plaintiff and a third party, defendant's knowledge of that contract, defendant's intentional procurement of the third-party's breach of the contract without justification, actual breach of the contract, and damages resulting therefrom" (Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996])." Beecher v. Feldstein, 8 AD 3d 597 - NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept (2004) 170. At the time of the unlawful acts of defendants, I was a rightful party to a valid implied and

express employment contract (contract) with Wittenstein & Associates, P.C. (Wittenstein),.a 3rd party. 171. Above-mentioned defendants knew of the existence of that contract from litigation files

and because Levoritz, Katkalov, Fasone and Svenson numerous tunes accused me, inter alia, of hiding my income, tax evasion with assistance of the owner of Wittenstein, and even being an owner of Wittenstein myself. 172. Additionally, on or about October 24, 2008 Svenson stole my bills, tax returns and W-2

forms from Wittenstein, looted my apartment and left the blackmail note to me. Thereafter she brought stolen staff to her attorneys. To achieve Svenson's goal of extorting money from me, Svenson attempted to blackmail me by threatening to falsely report me and my employer to IRS

31

and FBI, thereby making my life miserable by being subjected to investigation and attorney's expenses. "I will drive you into bankruptcy. I'm gonna lose, but you gonna lose much more; you will not finish your house" - she told Krichevsky. 173. While the fiduciary, Svenson thereafter intentionally filed ex parte false family offense

petition in Kings County Family Court and obtained a void for fraud upon the court order of protection. Same day in the afternoon, she took parties son David and both came to my employer demanding that I be fired. Additionally, Svenson slandered me by telling my employer that 4-5 years ago I was a partner in medical office making money behind his back. The truth was that Svenson was a failed partner who failed that medical office business. 174. Even if, which is vigorously denied, and only for the sake of argument, Svenson's slander

was true—that information was irrelevant for her order of protection and to my employer, since 4 — 5 years ago my employer was satisfied with my work performance. 175. Svenson's visit was designed to anger me, get me violent and damage my reputation in an

attempt to get me arrested and/or fired. 176. Thereafter, Svenson came with police to my residence, but I was not home. Next day, out

of fear of been falsely arrested, I fled from my home, abandoned it and became homeless. 177. I hired an attorney, paid him $5000 just to defend me during the false family offense

proceeding. 178. Before the hearing started Svenson's attorney Nachimovsky attempted to blackmail me to

agree to $2500 in temporary child support monthly payments in order for Svenson to withdraw false family offense petition and begin mediation. Nachimovsky threatened me that Svenson would reveal in open court that I allegedly was a partner in medical office business.

32

179.

Krichevsky refused to give in their extortion and proceeded for hearing. During said

hearing it became apparent that Svenson's allegations of fear of Krichevsky is false since she immediately proceeded to Krichevsky's job to harass and anger him, and to provoke his violence. 180. Before the judge had an opportunity to rale on said petition, S venson withdrew it and it was

dismissed. 181. After I forced attorney Nachimovsky resign from the case due to the conflict of interest,

Svenson hired Levoritz and attorney Michael Biancanello to act in the capacity of contractual assassins to destroy me financially. Levoritz succeeded by fraud upon the court. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. Svenson paid Levoritz and he 1) falsely and misleadingly 2) with intent to harm me 3) testified during hearings as undisclosed and unsworn expert and fact witness 4) knowing that he would not be cross-examined (and he was not) under oath as to

his knowledge, qualification and evidence he had 187. 5) which allowed Fasone to prejudice my case by his unjust and void child support

order, which caused me a lot of damage. 188. Without conducting the court ordered discovery and own due diligence, Levoritz

immediately proceeded to malign me and Wittenstein as Svenson's unsworn fact witness in violation of advocate-witness rule of NYRPC. 189. Even if, which is vigorously denied, and only for the sake of argument, Levoritz believed

in all the horrible "crimes" that he accused I was doing, Levoritz knew or should have known that his false testimony in that court will lead to breach of my contract by Wittenstein.

33

190.

Levoritz falsely testified as unsworn expert witness that my employer and I conduct illegal

business activity, yet he demanded that the court order I to pay high amount of child support derived from such an illegal activity. In essence, Levoritz demanded that my employer and I were ordered by Fasone to continue conduct illegal business activity after such activity has been exposed by Levoritz in order to pay child support - which Fasone ordered. Such order is at par with the definition of Kangaroo court 'might refer to the illogical leaps between "facts" and conclusions, or to the hapless defendant's quick bounce from court to gallows.' 191. Even if, which is vigorously denied and only for the sake of argument, Levoritz believed in

bis own testimony, he knew or should have known that my employer and I would be scared of this 'exposure of truth' and would stop such illegal activity. Thus, Levoritz' exposure would lead to breach of the contract by Wittenstein. 192. Even if, which is vigorously denied and only for the sake of argument, Levoritz believed in

his own testimony - exposure of 'truth' in court was not privileged as necessary or justified for the purpose of obtaining a child support, since I paid before and never refused to pay in the future. As an attorney who acts in the best interest of the child, Krichevsky's employment termination is hardly could be considered by honest and reasonable attorney as beneficial for the child that Krichevsky supposed to support. 193. Personal interests of defendants in conducting vexatious litigation and fraud came into

conflict with best interests of the child that Levoritz supposed to zealously represent. 194. Levoritz should have declined to follow Svenson's vindictive directives or declined the

whole representation per NYPC, which he violated. 195. Alternatively, Levoritz is mentally unstable attorney who caused harm to the child and me.

34

Whichever is true - the so-called zealous representation of best interest of the child resulted in damage to the child and me due to the breach of contract and my inability to pay the child support flowing from it. 196. Given the fact that whole Levoritz's testimony was false, deliberately misleading,

malignant, slanderous and lacked evidence, Levoritz committed torts against the child and me, which cannot be called representation of the best interest of the child. 197. 198. Defendants acted intentionally, as extortioners and/or out of spite. Malicious, retaliatory and vexatious litigation conducted by Svenson from October 2008

until February 2010 affected me spiritually, caused stress, loss of memory and concentration. While I still needed to do my work at Wittenstein, I needed to devote my time to said litigation. Finally, I was tired and distracted by litigation from my 60 — 80 hours a week work. My performance obviously diminished and Wittenstein was not satisfied now. 199. As concerted by Levoritz and Fasone, Fasone's final child support order essentially

ordered my employer to raise my pay, garnish it and send the garnishment to CSCU. 200. All of the above-mentioned acts evidence the pattern of kangaroo court - therefore were

Tortuous. 201. Defendant's denial of service of Justice caused me to work on appeal — signaling my

employer that this vexatious litigation will never end, hence I will not be performing as used to. As the direct or proximate result of the above, and to end such harassment, employer fired me. 202. As the direct or proximate result of the above, I was damaged, continued to be damaged

and will be damaged in the future. 203. By reason of the forgoing Krichevsky was damaged, continue to be damaged and will be

35

damaged in the future. COUNT II: TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CONTRACT 204. 205. Krichevsky incorporates averments above by reference herein. Before the child support litigation started, I was a rightful party to a valid contract with

Internal Revenue Service (IRS). I received a permission from that organization to borrow $ 190,000 from my pension fund (IRA) to finance the renovation of my Seagate house, which they would not treat as a taxable distribution. Upon completion of renovation, I was supposed to refinance and pay that money back into IRA or pay that amount off as loan. 206. Svenson knew how much money Krichevsky had available and that Krichevsky had to

borrow money from his IRA to start his renovation project. 207. Svenson knew about my intention to borrow money from IRS since the purchase of said

property in 2005. hi 2008,1 told Svenson that I did in fact borrowed money and am starting the renovation. 208. Above-mentioned defendants knew of the existence of that contract from court litigation

files, my testimony in court and because Levoritz, Katkalov and Svenson did their due diligence to know. 209. All of the defendants knew of the existence of said contract, hi the same modus operand!

described above all defendants intentionally participated in harassment of Krichevsky and his contractors through deposition and the records subpoenas issued by Levoritz. 210. Unidentified woman started making pictures of the construction site and made a shot of

general contractor without his permission.

36

211.

Out of fear of been drugged hi costly litigation between me and Svenson, and because of

Krichevsky's loss of the job, general contractor terminated contract. Accordingly, defendants tortuously procured breach of contract. 212. As direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Krichevsky' s renovation proj ect failed - it

is incomplete. 213. Further, as direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Krichevsky was unable to perform

by contract with IRS, which caused IRS to declare said loan - a distribution, penalize me and put federal lien on said property. 214. 215. Above said constitutes breach of contract by IRS. By reason of the forgoing Krichevsky was damaged, continue to be damaged and will be

damaged in the future. COUNT III: AID AND ABET TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTS 216. 217. Krichevsky incorporates averments above by reference herein. Svenson, under pretense of seeking to protect the best interest of the child, started extortion

by legal war and hired attorneys-bullies Nachimovsky, Biancanello and Levoritz to commit, advice, aid and abet her in all further stated acts and criminal activities in order to gain financially and harm Krichevsky. "A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than thousand men with guns" - Done Vito Corleone, The Godfather 218. All of the defendants either knew of the existence or, with due diligence, should have

known of the existence of said contracts. 219. Levoritz knowingly and willingly accepted employment while he knew that Svenson's

37

goals to destroy Krichevsky financially are unethical, unlawful and go against the best interest of the child that he hired to protect. 220. Katkalov knowingly and willingly accepted employment while he knew that Svenson's

goals to destroy Krichevsky financially are unethical, unlawful and go against the best interest of the child that his partner hired to protect. 221. Levoritz and Katkalov knew, or with due diligence, should have known that S venson is

lying to them about Krichevsky. 222. Levoritz and Katkalov knew, or with due diligence, should have known that S venson's

goals are to extort money and vindicate against Krichevsky. 223. For starters, from the record of dismissed false family offense proceedings, they should

have known and infer that Svenson is liar, extortionist and motivated by spite. 224. Additionally, they had a duty to contact in good faith Krichevsky's attorney and attempt

negotiation or mediation, and conduct a litigation as last resort. 225. Krichevsky offered Svenson mediation at least 6 months before the Family Court's

litigation. 226. Before filing motions and subpoenas, they could have requested amicable disclosure of

financial information and followed Fasone's order to depose Krichevsky. "There is no system ever devised by mankind that is guaranteed to rip husband and wife or father, mother and child apart so bitterly than our present Family Court System." Judge Brian Lindsay Retired Supreme Court Judge New York, New York "There is something bad happening to our children in family courts today that is causing them more harm than drugs, more harm than crime, and even more harm than child molestation."

38

Judge Watson L. White Superior Court Judge Cobb County, Georgia 227. However, Defendant's fiduciary duties to Krichevsky's family came hi conflict with their

own financial interests and self-dealing. They knew or should have known that there will be more profit for them if they conduct litigation as opposed to negotiation or mediation of controversy. 228. To fuel the fire of litigation, they pretended that Svenson is credible, therefore, the is no

need to do their own due diligence to verify her lies. To justify the cause of litigation they needed to demonize Krichevsky in order to get on the high horse with the sword of Justice. To demonize Krichevsky, they came up with defamation and false allegations that Krichevsky uncooperative, unwilling to pay child support and is hiding his income - hence we need discovery. However, as it turned later out, discovery is what they didn't want to do because discovery would rebut and expose their own false and frivolous allegations. 229. Levoritz or Katkalov, or both created, substantially assisted, aided and abetted Svenson hi

creation and filing of false, fraudulent, perjurious and misleading financial disclosure affidavits under penalty of perjury in child support proceeding of Brooklyn Family Court. 23 0. 231. Levoritz or Katkalov, or both coached Svenson how to testify falsely in court. Misleading, perjurious written affirmations and testimony of Levoritz resulted in unfair

and void for fraud upon the court child support order against Krichevsky. 232. After Krichevsky was fired from his j ob in 2010, Krichevsky filed petitions for

modification of child support order and petition for custody and visitation. In retaliatory fashion, Svenson, Levoritz and Katkalov harassed Krichevsky and tempered with him as a witness by filing frivolous and false contempt petition in Family Court.

39

233.

However, they did not produce a timely reply to Krichevsky's custody and visitation

petition. 234. They did not produce a timely reply to petition for modification. As such, the petition was

unopposed and should have been granted by Fasone - but hearing was adjourned for six month and dismissed - instead of granted by default. 235. The contempt petition was served on Krichevsky in the hall of family court, just before the

first hearing of custody and visitation petition. After that hearing, Levoritz approached Krichevsky in the hall of Family Court and offered to withdraw Krichevsky's custody and visitation petition, sign consent judgment to the void child support order in exchange for his withdrawal of contempt petition. 23 6. In order to file a contempt petition in Family Court, they had to have Probable Cause that

Krichevsky is in immediate possession of the Job or of the Funds, but Willfully does not comply with Lawful order. 237. 23 8. Krichevsky treated such offer as extortion - and refused to give in. Due to the foregoing, Levoritz and Katkalov violated New York criminal law, New York

CPLR and New York Rules of Professional Responsibility - LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS. They participated in unethical and illegal activity instead of withdrawing from such representation. 23 9. Levoritz and Katkalov conspired with Fasone to violate New York criminal law, New

York CPLR, New York Rules of Professional Conduct and New York Rules of Judicial Conduct by rigging the child support and contempt proceedings against Krichevsky. 240. At the end of evidentiary hearing on January 6, 2010, Fasone adjourned the hearing and

asked Krichevsky to provide self-addressed envelope implying that the hearing will continue and

40

envelope is to notify Krichevsky of the date, which Fasone impliedly would schedule in the future. However, Fasone held a hearing on February 3, 2010 in the absence of Krichevsky and Svenson and created a void child support order. The order says that neither Krichevsky, no Svenson is appearing - but that was intended to happen since Fasone did not notify anybody. 241. After Krichevsky was served with contempt petition, Fasone scheduled first hearing on

My 13, 2010. Krichevsky filed cross-motion for sanctions for frivolous litigation. When Krichevsky came to Levoritz' office with his friend who served said motion, Katkalov in sarcastic and torturous manner said "make sure that you gonna be tomorrow at the hearing on time." In the morning of said hearing, Levoritz and Svenson did not appear at 9:00 AM and send substitute attorney at 11:00 AM, who asked Krichevsky for an adjournment. Krichevsky and his friend were outraged by such conduct — not calling Krichevsky in advance to ask for an adjournment. At about 1:00 PM, Levoritz and Svenson appeared. Levoritz, on the record brazenly lied to Krichevsky's face that he called Krichevsky and asked for an adjournment. When Fasone asked why then Svenson did not appear at 9:00 AM, Levoritz brazenly lied that there was miscommunication between him and Katkalov, who by mistake did not notify Svenson. Upon information and belief, the hearing was adjourned to give a chance to Fasone and Levoritz to figure out what to do with Krichevsky's motion. 242. Upon circumstantial evidence and facts derived from entire record, Levoritz and Fasone

had ex parte communications and acted in concert. Krichevsky believes that Fasone told Levoritz to never reply to motion for sanctions and Levoritz was in default. However, Fasone during the next hearing on the record told Krichevsky that he would treat the motion for sanctions as Krichevsky's answer to contempt petition. That being the case, Krichevsky's motion for sanctions

41

became an answer with counter and cross-claim that needed reply within 20 days. Levoritz never replied - was in default - and Fasone never wondered why. 243. Thereafter, Fasone without any hearing falsified records by making an order dismissing

Krichevsky's motion for sanctions, which he silently tossed in the court's case jacket. 244. 245. In this denial, Fasone wrote that there was a hearing and that Krichevsky was heard. To make matters worse, Fasone's denial was never served on Krichevsky or otherwise

Krichevsky was timely notified of that decision. Later, going through court's file Krichevsky discovered Fasone's denial's, which shocked his conscience because he never heard of sua sponte dismissal of answer or counter and cross-claim without the hearing. Krichevsky immediately realized that defendants conspired to falsify the record and jail him because Krichevsky would never get a fair trial with Fasone, who refused to recuse himself. Immediately thereafter, Krichevsky filed his answer to contempt petition and served discovery demands. Katkalov brazenly refused to provide any discovery. 246. During the course of this litigation, Levoritz was in contempt of court by disobeying

Fasone's order not to serve subpoenas on third parties. He was allowed by Fasone to serve subpoenas only on banks and after Krichevsky's deposition. 247. Levoritz refused to depose Krichevsky, but served deposition subpoenas on Krichevsky's

contractor and engineer and refused to produce Svenson for deposition per Fasone's order. 248. Circumstantial evidence and facts derived from the entire record, shows that after Fasone

ex parte communicated with Levoritz regarding refusal to conduct depositions of parties, Fasone legislated knew rule that discovery is not necessary, while revoking his old one proscribing discovery.

42

249.

During the course of this litigation Levoritz, as officer of the court, knowingly and

deliberately on several occasions during hearings misquoted Fasone and Krichevsky in order to mislead the court and falsify its audio record. 250. For example, Levoritz testified as unsworn witness that because of Krichevsky's illegal

machinations Svenson was left with $300,000 debt to IRS, while his file contained a letter from IRS indicating that Svenson owed around hundred thousand dollars. Further, the evidence showed that Svenson filed her personal income tax in 2000 or 2001 with IRS, but failed to pay the full amount of the debt owed to IRS even though the money was available. Levoritz deliberately disregarded this fact and testified in court that Svenson never filed her personal income tax return and was always Krichevsky's dependent. 251. Circumstantial evidence and facts derived from the entire record, shows that Levoritz was

engaged in a pattern of deliberately misleading testimony and arguments; pattern of misquoting the court, Krichevsky and documentary evidence. These acts were not justified. 252. Deliberately corrupt and unethical actions of Levoritz resulted in plaintiffs loss of job,

income and money. That, coupled with unjustified deposition subpoena and harassment of Krichevsky's contractors resulted in contactor's breach of contract with Krichevsky and failure of renovation project on 4221 Atlantic Avenue house. 253. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Krichevsky was damaged, continue to be

damaged and will be damaged in the future.
COUNT IV: AID AND ABET BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

254. 255.

Krichevsky incorporates averments above by reference herein. Corpus Juris Secundum (CIS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client states:

43

The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter. There was fiduciary relationship between Svenson and Krichevsky as business partners, who were fiduciaries themselves as parents of their child. 256. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that there was a fiduciary relationship

between Krichevsky and Svenson. 257. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that Svenson owes a fiduciary duty of

care and loyalty to Krichevsky as her business partner, father of her son and income producer. 258. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that by Svenson's tortuous interference

with Krichevsky's job, CITIBANK' contract, and Krichevsky's contractors she is breaching her duty of care and loyalty to her own son and Krichevsky. 259. Fasone and Levoritz knew or, with due diligence, should have known that Svenson using

them and court system to extort money and vindicate against Krichevsky. 260. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that they fiduciaries themselves as

officers of the court who hold their offices in public trust. 261. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that their own fiduciary duties of care and

loyalty applicable to the whole family. 262. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that Svenson's unlawful conducts of

extortion and harassment of Krichevsky and his employer are adverse to the child's interests, which they proclaimed they so zealously must protect. 263. Fasone and Levoritz breached their fiduciary duties described inffif23 - 28 toward

Krichevsky.

44

264.

Krichevsky was fraudulently induced by defendants to enter rigged Kings County Family

Court proceedings in that Fasone did not disclose to Krichevsky that Fasone personally profits from the unjust outcome of the case and perpetual litigation. 265. Fasone and Levoritz failed to disclose to Krichevsky that Fasone follows New York State

secret rule, custom or policy to ensnare men in the web of debt and litigation. That Krichevsky is destined to be placed in the "deadbeat father list," using which the State receives billions of dollars of taxpayer's money from federal government. Fasone and Levoritz failed to disclose that Krichevsky will be harassed, persecuted and falsely imprisoned for profit by an army of state bureaucratic employees - Child Support Collection Unit. 266. Fasone failed to disclose to Krichevsky that he would attempt to incarcerate Krichevsky

because New York City jail receives approximately $137,000 a year in profit per prisoner of taxpayer's money. 267. Fasone failed to disclose to Krichevsky that such scam will utilize Social Security law -

title IV-D federal funding. 268. Fasone failed to disclose to Krichevsky that in Family Court Krichevsky will be presumed

guilty of crime that lacks Corpus Delicti - contrary to the Constitutions of United States of America and the State of New York. Howlettv. Rose, 496 US 356 - Supreme Court (1990) "Federal lawis enforceable in state courts not because Congress has determined that federal courts would otherwise be burdened or that state courts might provide a more convenient forum •— although both might well be true •—• but because the Constitution and laws passed pursuant to it are as much laws in the States as laws passed by the state legislature. The Supremacy Clause makes those laws "the supreme Law of the Land," and charges state courts with a coordinate responsibility to enforce that law according to their regular modes of procedure. "The laws of the United States are laws in the several States, and just as much binding on the citizens and courts thereof as the State laws are. The two together form one system of jurisprudence,

45

which constitutes the law of the land for the State; and the courts of the two jurisdictions are not foreign to each other, nor to be treated by each other as such, but as courts of the same country, having jurisdiction partly different and partly concurrent." Clqflinv. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130, 136-137 (1876); see Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S. 211,222 (1916) 269. Fasone failed to disclose to Krichevsky that in Kings County Family Court there is no due

process of law. That this court secretly from Krichevsky assumes criminal jurisdiction and indict him without a jury and without criminal rules of evidence. That in this court Krichevsky would have fewer rights than a murderer in criminal court. 270. Fasone failed to disclose to Krichevsky that Fasone will rale by prescription and would

legislate the law and procedure as he goes along. 271. Fasone and Levoritz failed to disclose that when Krichevsky realizes that the case was

rigged against him and he will seek a remedy, they will hide behind absolute immunity. 272. If only Krichevsky knew all that, he would never participate in that fraudulent litigation

scheme. 273. 274. In commerce, there is no immunity for criminal acts, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that by rigging the court proceedings

against Krichevsky, and in favor of Svenson's unlawful goals, they are substantially assisting Svenson in her breach of fiduciary duty toward her own son and Krichevsky. 275. Fasone and Levoritz knew if they perform their own fiduciary duties and faithfully follow

procedure, law and order of the court - Svenson would be unable to breach her duty of care and loyalty to her own son and Krichevsky, and none would be harmed. 276. Fasone and Levoritz, as fiduciaries themselves toward Krichevsky — turned against him,

conspired with each other and participated in extortion.

46

277.

As the direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Krichevsky and his son were damaged,

continue to be damaged and will be damaged in the future. Krichevsky demands verdict that all of the defendants jointly, severally and personally liable to him with damages determined at the time of the trial, including interest, expenses and attorney's fees. 278. In addition, all of the defendants conspired and acted in concert, unlawfully, maliciously,

oppressively and against public policy. Krichevsky demands punitive and treble damages determined at the time of the trial, including interest, expenses and attorney's fees. 279. Setting aside Svenson's hypocrisy regarding her love and care for the child, she hired

corrupt and malignant attorney Levoritz to vindicate and act as contractual assassin against Krichevsky, his employer and Krichevsky's assets, which supposedly child inherits. 280. Without conduction of court ordered discovery and due diligence, Levoritz immediately

proceeded to malign Krichevsky and his employer as Svenson's unsworn fact witness in violation of advocate - witness rule of NYRPC. 281. He refused to depose Krichevsky in violation of the court's order, and instead testified,

inter alia, that Krichevsky is evading taxes and hiding his income from the court and IRS. 282. Upon circumstantial evidence and informed belief, Levoritz had ex parte meetings and/or

conversation with hearing officer John Fasone by which they planned as to how to railroad Krichevsky. 283. Mr. Levoritz during litigation in Family Court breached his fiduciary duty as officer of the

court to the court, to Krichevsky as a member of the public and to the child. He hypocritically alleged that he is acting in the best interests of the child. However, his actions were malignant toward the child because Levoritz, directed by Svenson or by his own spite, worked toward

47

Krichevsky being fired. 284. Even if, which is not admitted and only for the sake of argument, Levoritz believed in all

the horrible "crimes" that he accused Krichevsky was doing, he knew or should have known that his testimony in that court will lead to termination of Krichevsky's employment. 285. He testified as an expert witness that Krichevsky and his employer conduct illegal business

activity, yet he demanded that the court order Krichevsky to pay high amount of child support derived from such an illegal activity. In essence, he demanded that Krichevsky and his employer were ordered by court to continue conduct of illegal business activity in order to derive high income from such activity. 286. Even if, which is not admitted and only for the sake of argument, Levoritz believed in his

own testimony he knew or should have known that Krichevsky and his employer would be scared of this exposure and would stop such illegal activity. Thus, his exposure would lead to Krichevsky's termination of employment. Krichevsky's position without job and income is hardly could be considered by honest and reasonable attorney as beneficial for the child that Krichevsky supposed to support. 287. As concerted by Levoritz and Fasone, Fasone's final child support order essentially

ordered Krichevsky's employer to raise Krichevsky's pay, garnish it and send the garnishment to Child Support Collection Unit. To end such harassment, employer fired Krichevsky. 288. In the contempt petition, Levoritz pretended that he has probable cause and information

that Krichevsky has assets and asked for incarceration. Incarcerated Krichevsky hardly could be considered by honest and reasonable attorney as beneficial to the child that he represented. 289. In addition, Levoritz conspired with Fasone to incarcerate Krichevsky by denying

48

Krichevsky's due process and right to competent and unbiased tribunal. 290. He knew or should have known that there is no greater emotional stress to the man in his

50s than loss of the family, job and liberty through Government's tyranny. Due to this great emotional distress inflicted upon Krichevsky by Svenson, Levoritz, Katkalov and Fasone, Krichevsky suffered a stroke. Dead or disabled Krichevsky hardly could be considered by honest and reasonable attorney as beneficial to the child's support that Krichevsky supposed to provide. 291. Given the fact that whole Levoritz's testimony was false, deliberately misleading.,

malignant, slanderous and lacked evidence, Levoritz committed torts against the child and Krichevsky, which he called representation of the best interest of the child. 292. Personal interests of defendants came into conflict with best interests of the child that they

must zealously represent. Levoritz and Katkalov should have declined to follow Svenson's extortions and vindictive directives or declined whole representation per New York rules of Professional Conduct. 293. Alternatively, Levoritz is mentally unstable attorney who caused harm to the child and

Krichevsky. Whichever is true - the so-called zealous representation of best interest of the child resulted in damage to child, Svenson and Krichevsky. 294. In fact, petition to hold Krichevsky in contempt of court was regretfully dismissed by Mr.

Fasone for lack of evidence, which fact is cause of action for malicious prosecution. 295. Reasonable and honest attorney would call such representation - legal malpractice - and

Levoritz should be joined in this action to indemnify the child and Krichevsky.

COUNT V: PERJURY BY SVENSON
296. Krichevsky incorporates averments above by reference herein.

49

297. 298. 299. 300. 301. 302.

Svenson deliberately made under oath, and deliberately allowed her attorney, Levoritz, to make false and deliberately misleading statements to the court. Svenson deliberately signed, and deliberately allowed her attorney, Levoritz, to produce, notarize and file in Family Court false and fraudulent financial disclosure

affidavits. 3 03. New York criminal statutes relating to false filings and perjury exist to protect people and

the judiciary from fraud. 3 04. 305. §210.05 states: A person is guilty of perjury in the third degree when he swears falsely. §210.35 states: A person is guilty of making an apparently sworn false statement in the

second degree when (a) he subscribes a written instrument knowing that it contains a statement which is in fact false and which he does not believe to be true, and (b) he intends or believes that such instrument will be uttered or delivered with a jurat affixed thereto, and (c) such instrument is uttered or delivered with a jurat affixed thereto. 306. §175.35 states: A person is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree

when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, and with intent to defraud, inter alia, public authority ..., he offers or presents it to a public office, public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become apart of the records of such public office, public servant, public authority ... 307. §175.30 States: A person is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the second

degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, he

50

offers or presents it to a public office or public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office or public servant. 308. Svenson's family offence petition, financial disclosure affidavits and sworn testimony

during hearings are full of false, fraudulent and deliberately misleading statements that harmed Krichevsky. For example, she testified in court that she is going to medical school to become a nurse in 2012 in order to earn more income to support her child. However, immediately after obtaining void child support order she went to work as home attendant. 309. Recently, during the deposition in Bankruptcy Court, Svenson admitted that her mother

had a casino in Germany. She also admitted that her mother was bringing amounts in cash equal to less than $10,000. Thereafter, Svenson would deposit this money into bank accounts and send checks back to be cashed in Germany. In 2009 Family Court proceedings, she denied money transfers and having any assets in Germany. 310. As the direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Krichevsky was damaged, continue to

be damaged, will be damaged in the future. Krichevsky demands verdict that Levoritz and Svenson personally liable to him with exact amount of damages to be determined at the time of the trial, including interest, expenses and attorney's fees. 311. hi addition, Levoritz and Svenson acted in concert with others, unlawfully, maliciously,

oppressively and against public policy. Krichevsky demands punitive and treble damages determined at the time of the trial. COUNT VI: EXTORTION, HARASSMENT AND CONCERTED ACTIONS 312. Krichevsky incorporates averments above by reference herein.

51

When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you. When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice. You may know that your society is doomed." Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", 1957 313. During the evidentiary hearings, my attorney noticed Fasone that Svenson committed

evidence spoliation by theft. In reply to said notice, Fasone condoned S venson's evidence spoliation and harassment conduct and commented "I don't care.. .let him go to police." Said comment was disrespectful toward Krichevsky - and evidenced bias and prejudice. 314. Said comment gave green light for Levoritz to harass my contractors and me by serving

subpoenas on them and ordering them to appear for deposition and document production. 315. Even if, which is vigorously denied, and only for the sake of argument, I was hiding my

income and my employer assisted me - the key to the evidence of said wrongdoing was with my employer and me - not with my contractors, who would be able to testify only to the money amount of the contract going into the future, amount of my savings I put down and how much more money would be necessary to complete the project. 316. Due to the lack of logic in Levoritz' actions, reasonable attorney should presume that

Levoritz intentionally exhibited strategic incompetence by refusing to depose me or my employer - but demanded depositions of my contractors - only with the goal to harass them and me. 317. After numerous motions and failed attempts to directly attack Fasone's void order,

Krichevsky succeeded and Fasone's final order of child support was set aside by supervising judge of Kings County Family Court, Paula Hepner. She ordered and scheduled the new trial, and remanded this case back to Fasone. As condition precedent to new trial, she ordered Fasone to rule on Krichevsky's motions, on which he previously refused to rule and make written decisions. She

52

specifically ordered Fasone to rule in writing on motion to recuse Fasone. In this order, she wrote that thereafter Krichevsky would be able to appeal Fasone's orders to her. However, he, in contempt of higher court, willfully refused to comply. Then he stated new trial without Krichevsky present and again made same unjust and void order of child support. 318. 319. 320. A year ago, Krichevsky lost his unemployment insurance due to Sandy disaster. Krichevsky filed timely petition to modify child support obligation. During the scheduling hearing in Family Court, Fasone abandoned his bench and joined

Svenson as counsel by advising her to file frivolous petition for criminal contempt even though as an advocate he knows there is no probable cause for filing of criminal contempt petition before allowing me to present my evidence. 321. This Petition is a conspiracy between Svenson and Fasone to harass and extort money from

Krichevsky by threatening him with jail. 322. Defendants acting on their own, in agreement between themselves and in concert, created

common scheme to participate and commit the following illegal and unlawful acts, or a lawful acts in an unlawful manner: 3 23. fraud upon the Family Court,

324. fraud upon Department of Motor Vehicles, 325. fraud upon New York State Department of Taxation 326. fraud up on New York State Unemployment Department 327. 328. 329. extortion, harassment. Krichevsky is informed and verily believes that Fasone and Hepner as referees were

53

profit-motivated, biased and were undisclosed parties to the child support proceedings as representatives of the State. Therefore, they were disqualified by law and biased against Krichevsky. Fasone and Hepner were biased toward Krichevsky particularly based on Levoritz' slander and had animosity based on Krichevsky's national origin. 330. Krichevsky is informed and verily believes that in his case he was "labeled as moneyed

party" by all defendants to be railroaded for personal profit and gain. 331. Circumstantial evidence and facts derived from the entire record confirm that, Levoritz and

Svenson having this knowledge fed the-fraud and perjury into the record of this case. 332. Svenson and Levoritz knew how much and where Krichevsky kept his money as she stole

all his personal records (going back to 2002), rncluding latest bank and credit cards statements, and there was no point to serve subpoenas on every bank in New York and later ask that Krichevsky pays the bill. Those subpoenas were served before Krichevsky had an opportunity to make any court ordered disclosures to Levoritz. For a few hundred dollars, private investigator would have located every bank where Krichevsky had money. 333. Svenson knew how much money Krichevsky had available and that Krichevsky had to

borrow money from his IRA account to start his renovation project. 334. As the direct and proximate result of the above, I was damaged, continue to be damaged,

will be damaged in the future. Krichevsky demands verdict that all defendants personally liable to him with exact amount of damages to be determined at the time of the trial, including interest, expenses and attorney's fees. 335. In addition, all defendants acted in concert with others, unlawfully, maliciously,

oppressively and against public policy. Krichevsky demands punitive and treble damages

54

determined at the time of the trial. 336. In fact, petition to hold Krichevsky in criminal contempt of court was regretfully dismissed

without prejudice by Fasone for lack of evidence, which fact is cause of action for malicious prosecution, because as direct or proximate result I suffered a stroke. 337. NYPL § 240.25 Harassment in the first degree: A person is guilty of harassment in the first degree when he or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses another person by engaging in a course of conduct or by repeatedly committing acts which places such person in reasonable fear of physical injury Harassment in the first degree is a class B misdemeanor. 338. § 240.26 Harassment in the second degree A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person: 3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.

339. 340. 341.

COUNT VII: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Krichevsky incorporates averments above by reference herein. At all times mentioned herein, it was the duty of the defendants not to harass me or threaten

me with jail. 342. Solely as a result of the defendants' negligence, carelessness and recklessness, I was caused

to suffer severe and serious personal injuries to mind and body, and further, that I was subjected to great physical pain and mental anguish. 343. The aforesaid occurrence was caused by the negligence of the defendants, without any

culpable conduct on my part.

55

344.

By reason of the foregoing, I was severely injured and damaged, sustained severe nervous

shock and mental anguish, great physical pain and emotional upset, some of which injuries are believed to be permanent in nature and duration, and I will be permanently caused to suffer pain, inconvenience and other effects of such injuries; I incurred and in the future will necessarily incur further hospital and/or medical expenses in an effort to be cured of said injuries; and I will be unable to pursue my usual duties with the same degree of efficiency as prior to this harassment, all to my great damage. 345. CPLR. 346. The defendants' conduct was willful, wanton, reckless, malicious and/or exhibited a gross This action falls within one or more of the exceptions set forth in Section 1602 of the

indifference to, and a callous disregard for human life, safety and the constitutional rights of others, and more particularly, the rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and safety of Krichevsky. 347. Due to defendants' negligence, I am entitled to damages and punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Krichevsky demands: a. declaratory judgment that he as an American tax payer is not a slave to public servant John Fasone and his recusal refusal is unconstitutional; b. declaratory judgment that his constitutional rights were violated in Kings County Family Court by denial of due process c. declaratory judgment that his Constitutional Right to bring a grievance before the . Court was violated in Kings County Family Court

d. judgment awarding damages, punitive and treble damages on each count in the

56

amount to be determined at trial. f. interest, the costs and disbursements of this action, together with such other and further relief as to this Court seems just and proper. Dated: April 3, 2014 Brooklyn, New York Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se 4221 Atlantic Ave Brooklyn, New York 11224 Sworn to before me this Third day of April 2014

no •

•'-ItotKyPuMc-' NO. 010K035017

' Mv'commftibo Euirti

57

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS INDEX NO. 19478/13 MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Plaintiff, -againstYONATAN LEVORITZ, VICTOR KATKALOV, JOHN FASONE, PAULA HEFNER, ROBERT RATANSKY, unknown clerk of JOHN FASONE, ELENA SVENSON, Defendants. INDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK) ) ss.: COUNTY OF KINGS ) MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Pro Se, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the plaintiff in the within action. I have prepared the foregoing Verified Complaint, know the contents thereof, it is not frivolous 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. , x_ ~M1CHAET7KRICHEVSKY, Pro Se Sworn to before me this 3rd day of April, 2014
• ALBA H DIAZ "' 'Notary Public-State oINnr York . .

NO. 01DIS035017 QialHIedlfiKtogj Hy.Commliilon Expire*

-

TARY PUBLIC
/

You're Reading a Free Preview

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