You are on page 1of 21



PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY (Krichevsky), Pro Se, Sui Juris hereby making a Special Appearance under Protest and under Threat, Duress and Coercion in the above-named action to challenge legality of action, jurisdiction of court and authority of corrupt public officers and servants John Fasone and his corrupt supervising and administrative judges Ann Elizabeth O'shea, Jeanette Ruiz, Edwina RichardsonMendelson and supervising court attorney Michelle Rubin. Threat, Duress and Coercion are spelled out in the Affidavit attached to this notice below. Paragraph for paragraph rebuttals to this affidavit, Notice and Demands, mandatory judicial notice of facts in this affidavit, request for admission and interrogatories (all attached to this notice below) are to be served upon the undersigned by all wrongdoers listed above at the address stated below within 30 days from receipt of these pleadings. Krichevsky, hereby waives oral argument and demands that all communications and rebuttals with memorandums be in writing. "> Dated: Brooklyn, New York February 16-24,2014

Michael Krichevsky 4221 Atlantic Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11224 TO: Elena Svenson 2620 Ocean Pkwy., Apt. 3K Brooklyn, NY 11235 Judge Ann Elizabeth O'shea Kings County Family Court 330 Jay St., Brooklyn, NY 11201 Judge Jeanette Ruiz Kings County Family Court 330 Jay St., Brooklyn, NY 11201

Michelle Rubin, Esq. Kings County Family Court 330 Jay St., Brooklyn, NY 11201 Judge Edwina Richardson-Mendelson New York City Family Court, 11th Floor 60 Lafayette St., NY 10013 FBI 26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10278-0004 E-mail: NY State Attorney General 120 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10271.


Michael Krichevsky (Krichevsky) Naive Respondent in error, Pro Se, Sui Juris with clean hands, Federal Witness under penalty of perjury says: "It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."; "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure." Boydv. United States, 116 US 616 - Supreme Court 1886


I am the former naive father and taxpayer in this illegal action against me and the facts

stated in this affidavit are within my personal first-hand knowledge, and if called on as a witness, I could competently testify thereto. DURESS AND COERCION 2. I make this affidavit in support of my jurisdictional challenge to Kings County Family

Court, Kings County Child Support Collection Unit and both their corrupt, fraudulent and coercive ultra vires administrative proceedings against me where I am treated as pawn and scapegoat This proceeding can only be described as judicial assault and battery, or domestic

war and terrorism against me. 3. Whereas, Kings County Family Court or Kings County Child Support Collection Unit, or

both are for profit corporations collecting billions of dollars in Federal grants from Social Security Title IV-D funding by placing names of taxpayers like me on their "deadbeat father" bills submitted to Federal government; and 4. with undisclosed shareholders and beneficiaries violating their corporate charters -

CRIMINAL FRAUD IN COMMERCE - in violation of federal and state False Claims and RICO Acts and statutes. 5. Whereas, from the court's employees practicing law without a license, which produced

this petition with no stated facts, I do not understand the nature of charges, to wit: 6. what is the legal definition of vague "fail to obey" in Family Court as I only know this

term from Motor Vehicle Law that was lectured to me, such as "fail to obey the STOP SIGN." Whereas, it was visible, my breaks were functional, and all I had to do is press the brake pedal, but I did not. Whereas, if I pressed the brake pedal, but did not stop - that would be - breaks failed me. Beyond this understanding, my ordinary intelligence fails me; 7. 8. 9. or 10. am I accused by the petitioner having the first-hand personal knowledge, under penalty of am I charged with violation of John Fasone's lawful order, or am I charged with violation of John Fasone's unlawful order and required to perform, or am I charged with violation of any law or statute, which is not negated by any exception;

perjury, having admissible evidence that I am able, but willfully violating any law, statute or lawful order, and 11. what damage or injury does the petitioner suffered as a result of alleged violation, which

may be remedied by the relief requested. 12. Whereas, it is the foundation of jurisprudence - if there is no damage (Corpus Delicti) -

there is no case, hence no jurisdiction to adjudicate non-existing controversy. 13. Whereas, in 2008 and 2011 petitioner filed 2 false family offense petitions, thereby

creating controversy in this court, which were dismissed. 14. Whereas, in 2010 petitioner filed frivolous and fraudulent petition for criminal contempt,

falsely alleging that I have ability to pay and comply with John Fasone's lawful child support order, asking for my incarceration. 15. Whereas, said petition was regretfully dismissed in 2011, by John Fasone, commenting

on the record that the petition dismissed without prejudice, giving petitioner legal advice and invitation to file a new one. 16. Whereas, in response to my last petition for modification of child support amount due to

loss of unemployment insurance in 2013, John Fasone directed petitioner to go on the 11th floor of Kings County Family Court building, where the sister agency child support collection unit is located - to get legal advice and assistance in filing instant criminal action. 17. Whereas, in 2008 petitioner created controversy in family court, committed larceny and

extortion, committed fraud and perjury against me with deliberate assistance of John Fasone. 18. Whereas, petitioner does not have probable cause, or standing, or clean hands, or all of

the above to prosecute this action. 19. Whereas, petitioner assigned void for fraud upon the court debt and claim against my

TRUST to the STATE OF NEW YORK corporation or its subsidiaries, the necessary parties and does not have standing to bring this action. 20. Whereas, the STATE OF NEW YORK Legislature created numerous laws to corner the

job market and prevent taxpayers like me to qualify for a job, to wit: unfair credit reporting, revocation or denial of professional and driver licenses, or denial of government job if taxpayer owes a child support. 21. Whereas, as result of the above, STATE OF NEW YORK collects profit from Title IV-D

Federal funding for keeping taxpayers like me unemployed, harassed and/or imprisoned and hypocritically calling taxpayers like me "deadbeat fathers." 22. 23. Whereas, if petitioner is entitled to a fair trial -1 am entitled to a fair trial. Whereas, fair trial is impossible due to conflict of interests between CREDITOR

STATE OF NEW YORK - interested party represented by its employee John Fas one on one hand, and John Fasone's personal interests in brazen violation of his fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to me on the other hand, or he is not competent, or biased against me, or all of the above. "Because the motion court did not disclose its interest in Chase to the parties, I agree with the majority that under the express terms of Judiciary Law 14 it was without power to hear the case and the orders appealed from are null and void. DeRosa v. Chase, NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. 2004 24. Whereas, I have a constitutional and statutory right to choose a competent and unbiased

tribunal over John Fasone and a trial by jury of my pears - deadbeat fathers. 25. Whereas, this INFERIOR court does not have competent subject matter jurisdiction to

hear and determine affirmative defenses, counter-claims that I had in my counter-claim in 2010, and have in my cross-claim now. In The State of Rhode Island v. The State of Massachusetts, 37 US 657 - Supreme Court (1838) the court stated: "But as this Court is one of limited and special original jurisdiction, its action must be confined to the particular cases, controversies, and parties over which the constitution and laws have authorized it to act; any proceeding without the limits prescribed, is coram non judice, and its action a nullity."[Emphasis added]

"However late this objection has been made, or may be made in any cause, in an inferior or appellate court of the United States, it must be considered and decided, before any court can move one further step in the cause; as any movement is necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction." 26. Whereas, due to the above, I timely removed the Case number F-28901-08/13F to federal

court to hear and determine all causes. 27. Whereas, petitioner did not move for remand, and is in default for ignoring my answer

and counterclaims served in federal court. 28. Whereas, the Case number F-28901-08/13F and others pending in family court are a

complete nullity pending the written offer of proof and satisfaction of demand on the court record and to me of the foregoing notices and demands BEFORE OR AT PRE-TRIAL HEARING: I. NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF COPY OF LAW







FDCPA. 29. Whereas, Article III, 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America says that

judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices "during good behavior" and shall at stated times received compensation for services. Thereby, anyone without a law degree can see that the Constitution has restricted those who hold public office under compensation how these offices are to be held. Any acts of treason, felony, misdemeanors, bribery, high crimes or bad behavior are enough cause to require removal from a public office. 30. I demand removal of John Fasone from his public office for cause - treason, felony,

fraud, official misconduct and bad behavior. 31. Whereas, the 7th Amendment of Constitution of United States of America guarantees me

a trial by jury for any offense of $20 or more - but said Family Court does not have authority and does not hold jury trials therefore no jurisdiction over me. Procedural history and facts 32. The procedural history is bazaar, long,, complex and should shock conscious and insult

intelligence of the reader. It spans from 2008 until present. I will mention the key facts, which

were never rebutted by John Fasone or Svenson, and therefore admitted by them. 3 3. Whereas, on February 32010 John Fasone held a Star Chamber hearing without parties

notified and present. On that day, he denied my discovery motion filed by my attorney in September of 2009 - 5 months before this denial. 34. Whereas, on February 3 2010, while discovery was not complete and said discovery

motion was pending, John Fasone held a Star Chamber hearing without parties notified and present. With deliberate indifference to New York CPLR and evidence on the record, he ordered me to pay more child support than I could earn - contrary to maxims of law and the evidence in the court record of my ability to pay. 35. Whereas, contrary to petitioner's attorney Levoritz 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. The evidence also shows that my mortgage payments were more than my gross income and I was depleting my savings. 36. Whereas, additionally to approximately $2800 monthly child support ordered, John

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. 37. Whereas, it was foreseeable or intended, or both by John Fasone that I will not be able to

comply with above said order. 38. Whereas, John Fasone or his law clerk, or both sabotaged my appeal of said wrongful

order by not mailing this order to me. 39. Whereas, child support collection unit immediately sent the garnishment order to my

employer, leaving me with no money to meet my living expenses or pay for appeal. 40. Whereas, John Fasone refused to review for errors his wrongful order in defiance of

United States v. Agurs, 427 US 97 - Supreme Court 1976: "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.. .hi 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." 41. Whereas, John Fasone and attorney Yonatan Levoritz "corrupted truth-Seeking

function of the trial process" to wit: denied above mentioned discovery motiorj conspired with each other to railroad me through defamation, and held on February 3, 2010 finajl hearing without notice to me and me present. Said act constitutes prohibited trial by ambush and rush to judgment in order to prevent me from offering further evidence and/or filing interlocutory appeal. 42. Whereas, on February 3, 2010 John 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 reader now presumes that John Fasone was tired of waiting for me to appear. 43. Whereas, afterwards John Fasone or his law clerk, or both manufacture'd 2nd wrongful

order with false affidavit of service after I raised the issue of not receiving his first child I | support order by mail. Because I was not notified of his final order and could ncjt get it from the court file, I filed ASAP my "blind" objection one-day late. In it, I requested acceptance of my objection in the interest of Justice. 44. Whereas, relying on said false affidavit of service, Judge Paula Hepner, with deliberate

indifference to evidence and merits of 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 my objection on "procedural grounds." As adminis-xative judge with the law degree and duty to investigate wrongdoings of her colleagues, she was aware of the wellsettled law that void order can be attacked at any time directly or collaterally. Said legislated denial constitutes treason and official oppression. 45. Whereas, due to harassment of my employer by the petitioner, her attorney Levoritz and

Family Court, I was fired from my job. 46. Whereas, I timely filed petition to modify said wrongful child support oi[der due to a

change of circumstances prompted by loss of the job. 47. Whereas, petitioner and her attorney, Levoritz, being notified of my job .oss, failed to

object and reply to my modification petition. 48. Whereas, John Fasone refused to read or decide my post trial motions - Jin violation of

New York CPLR and New York Rules of Judicial Conduct. 49. 50. Whereas, a month or two later, I filed petition for custody and visitation. Whereas, in reply to my custody and visitation petition, petitioner's attorney Levoritz

served me with petition for contempt in court 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. 51. 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 did - criminal extortion. 52. Whereas, in reply to petitioners' said frivolous petition to hold me in contempt, I served

her with cross-motion for sanctions for frivolous litigation, to which her attorney Levoritz failed

to object and reply. 53. Whereas, in reply to petitioners' said frivolous petition to hold me in contempt, I served

her with answer to petition, counterclaim and discovery demands, to which her attorney Levoritz failed to object and reply. 54. Whereas, New York CPLR proscribes that if averments are not rebutted - they deem

admitted and failure to object or rebut deems an agreement. 55. Whereas, John Fasone falsified court record by stating in his dismissal of said motion for

sanctions that there was a hearing and Krichevsky was heard. Thereafter, he issued an order 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. 56. "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'I Airline, 22 AD 2d 16- NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. (1964). Kings County Family Court lost its subject matter and personal jurisdiction over 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 family court. 57. Whereas, John Fasone acting in the dual capacity of prosecutor and judge attempted to

incarcerate me for contempt of his void order by conspiring with Levoritz and preventing discovery. 58. Whereas, said persecution by John Fasone and Levoritz shocked my conscience and as

result of which I suffered a stroke. 59. Whereas, above said is now self evident upon the PATTERN of egregious misconduct,

derived from the entire record of procedural facts starting from 2008 - through present. The pattern shows that John Fasone intended to violate the law and procedure, and intentionally denied my God given and constitutional rights by acting as tyrant and charlatan. 60. Whereas, when I discovered that John Fasone is acting as tyrant and charlatan, I filed a

motion to recuse John Fasone, which he refused to read and issue denial - more of tyranny and sadism by mental torture. 61. Whereas, after numerous other motions that I filed in court, which John Fasone refused to

address, I filed yet another objection to such misconduct and judge Paula Hepner, finally, set aside John 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." 62. Whereas, failure and refusal of John Fasone to comply with above mentioned "set aside"

order of judge Paula Hepner put him in contempt of the higher court, which continues to present. 63. Whereas, because of this contempt, John Fasone was without jurisdiction to commence

any proceedings and issue any order or judgment over my objection to the breach of his fiduciary duty to me. 64. Whereas, on August 9, 2013, John Fasone denied my jurisdictional challenge 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 brazenly accused me of "refusal to participate in court proceedings in an appropriate manner..." Additionally, he brazenly 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 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. 65. Whereas, because John Fasone's contempt of higher court continues, he is without

jurisdiction on my case - and he, not me, should be adjudged in criminal contempt and go to jail. 66. Whereas, my motion and complaint on September 24, 2013, against John Fasone to

Administrative Judge Edwina Richardson-Mendelson and request to remove John Fasone from ' my case were ignored and no reply was sent to me. 67. Whereas, my motion and complaint against John Fasone to Administrative Judge Jeanette

Ruiz and request to remove John Fasone from my case were ignored and no reply was sent to me. 68. Whereas, my complaint against John Fasone was under review by Court Attorney

Michelle Rubin, Esq. 69. me. 70. Whereas, the latest corrupt act of war against me was perpetrated by Judge Ann Elizabeth and request to remove John Fasone from my case were ignored and no reply was sent to

O'shea, who issued the following order to my objection to recusal refusal by John Fasone, attached to this affidavit as exhibit A. 71. 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"- fraud upon the court by officer of the court.


Judge Hepner, inter alia, proscribed: "ORDERED that support magistrate Fasone explain

the basis of Ms 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." 73. Whereas, because earlier, John Fasone did not issue the written detailed explanation to

my July 26, 2010 motion as to why he refused to recuse himself, Paula Hepner declined to disqualify John Fasone on that ground. This time, I was waiting for this written decision of recusal refusal to attach it to my appeal to Judge Hepner because I did not trust John Fasone and considered him charlatan. I was afraid that he would do more of the same tyranny and fraud he did before, and restore his void order after December 12, 2011 hearing. As the saying goes "full me once, shame on you full me twice, shame on me." The record shows that John Fasone never complied with Judge Hepner3 s order and was in contempt hence my December 12, 2011 objection to his jurisdiction over me and non-consent to participate in his 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; 74. 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" it is fraud upon the court by officer of the court - the opposite is true. I maintained throughout procedural history that John 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 arrival to now VOID ORDER; 75. Whereas, THIRD, Judge O'shea refused and failed to take mandatory judicial notice per

my request of procedural facts and order of Judge Paula Hepner, which, inter alia, set aside John Fasone's VOID final order of child support until he comply with her order - which John Fasone never did. 76. Whereas, FOURTH, Judge O'shea falsely stated in her order that I voluntarily submitted

to the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore consented to it - 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. 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." 77. Whereas, FIFTH, even though I took the Fifth Amendment defense, John 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 child support collection unit. They, in addition to plundering my unemployment benefits 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, John Fasone admitted on the record that I receive unemployment assistance - and sua sponte modified child support amount down to $298 per month. 78. Whereas, SIXTH, now Judge O'sheajoined the ranks of other wrongdoers mentioned

above - all in violation of 18 USC 241,18 U. S. C. 1584, 42 U.S.C. 1994, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986 and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 79. Do these 4 female jurists running the court and supervising John Fasone, have children

and families? 80. Do they have a moral right and qualification to judge from their ordinary parental

experience their conduct and whether what happens to my child, me and other children in this court in the best interest of children and families that they must serve? 81. On the other hand, is their only goal is to create controversies, drag appeals and profit

from them for their own children and families at the expense of others? 82. Whereas, to ensnare me in the web of appeals and conduct this war against me, all

wrongdoers highly educated and paid, receive pension from the State and excellent health care insurance coverage - DRAWN from Federal Social Security Title IV-D finding - money collected from taxpayers like me. 83. Whereas, In 2012 FEMA provided me with grant to cleanup and repair damage done by

Sandy disaster, because my home was flooded, damaged, without electricity and heat. My unemployment insurance was terminated due to said disaster. FEMA and State set up grief counseling facilities.


Whereas, at precisely the same time I needed grief counseling, child support collection

unit instituted harassment proceedings against me, because my employment insurance was terminated due to Sandy disaster. Corrupt and sadistic employees of said unit decided to revoke my driver license under false presumption or accusation that I willfully violate Family Court's order. 85. Whereas, in order not to default on their proceeding, I had to drop the cleaning and travel

to Manhattan to object. I brought with me documentary evidence that I am a Sandy survivor and that my unemployment insurance was terminated because of it. 86. Whereas, employee Israel, told me that they have a policy that once the debt reaches

$100,000, regardless of circumstances the driver license will be revoked. Now, to escape revocation and jail, the man must sign consent judgment, from which Kings County child support collection unit would get a percentage. 87. Whereas, now it is not only obvious, but officially legislated by STATE OF NEW YORK

that Kings County Family Court and Kings County child support collection unit are not public offices or public agencies with fiduciary duties to people, their clients - but rather German Nazis Gestapo-type tyrannical, military tribunals conquering population as enemies of the State. Now, it is legislated that any man would be sent to concentration camp if he would not pay the ransom. FEAR FOR LIFE AND LIBERTY 88. Whereas, on October 1, 2013,1 appeared, without petitioner present, pursuant to hearing

set up in Family Court. The purpose of the hearing was to assign 18B attorney to me by John Fasone. I appeared to notify him that the case is removed to federal court and he has no jurisdiction. While waiting in the Hall of the court to enter the courtroom, a woman called my name and told me that she has been assigned as my attorney and that she is the law professor

from Albany School of Law. At that moment, I sought that if assignment is done before removal, she might help me with my case in federal court. When I told her that I am unemployed and cannot find a job, she went back to the courtroom. Thereafter, she emerged with another woman, who told me that she is from Department of Human Resources. They brought me into the conference room, where this woman told me that she has a "social program" which will give me a job and help me to pay child support. Additionally, my case will be transferred to another support magistrate. I was interested in finding a job. However, when I ask them what kind of program this is and whether they have a flyer describing it, because I am confused and would like to read and understand before accepting or not - she said that there is no flyer. When I asked them if they presume that the $100,000 debt is valid and would give me to sign consent judgment they looked at each other and this woman told me that she cannot help me and that this program is not for me. THE WORDS USED CONSTITUTED A THREAT - THE THREAT WAS KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY MADE 89. Whereas, when I thereafter entered the courtroom, my assigned attorney told John Fasone

that she decline to represent me. In reply, John Fasone told me that "he offered me a good deal, and a chance of another magistrate with the 2n pair of eyes to review my case and I blew it." He told me, "now you on your own" implying that he will retaliate and put me in jail. 90. Whereas, when I told him that the case is removed to federal court, he replied that if I

will not appear for a hearing, he would issue the bench warrant to arrest me and bring to him. 91. Whereas, on November 14, 2013 pursuing to Bankruptcy Court Judge's order, I was

conducting the deposition of petitioner. At first, she played ignorant, confused or mentally retarded to evade straight answers to me. Thereafter, to my line of questioning whether she hired attorneys Nachimovsky and Levoritz to extort from me money or vindicate and harm me, she

brazenly faced took the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer. I had no choice, but interrupt the deposition to ask the court's intervention. 92. Whereas, after court reporter stopped reporting, petitioner in presence of her attorney,

Lorna LaMotte, angrily stated, "we will see what the Family Court judge will do to you" implying John Fasone. 93. Whereas, Bankruptcy Court subpoena was served on John Fasone to appear for

deposition as my witness against petitioner Svenson and authenticate his written orders, which he ignored in contempt of Bankruptcy Court. 94. Whereas, during the deposition in Bankruptcy Court to authenticate documents from

Family Court, petitioner brazenly faced, not looking at any document pronounced, "every document you have is forgery" and refused to look at them. When I told her that she is acting in bad faith instead of trying to settle some issues amicably, she told me, "you will see what will happen in the Family Court." Waiver of oral argument 95. Whereas, I did not fully recover from stroke in 2010 contempt proceedings. Due to the

expected stress from tyranny and mental torture that will be intentionally put on me by John Fasone and his gunmen, I am in fear for my life and health because I may not survive a 2nd stroke or heart attack. If I do not come on February 25, 2014,1 am in fear to be arrested, which will go on my biography record and damage my reputation, which will in turn even more diminish my prospects of finding a job as paralegal or other professional in different state. Having no choice under threat, I will appear but will remain silent and demand that all communications and arguments to my jurisdictional challenge be conducted in writing.

CONCLUSION 96. What is happening to me is not a judicial error or isolated incident, but rather legislated

perpetual treason, extortion, judicial misconduct, legalized slavery, assault and battery on working people. I, Michael Kxichevsky, Pro Se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, under penalty of perjury declare that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: February 16-24, 2014 Brooklyn, New York Submitted with Respect to Justice,

Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se, All rights reserved 4221 Atlantic Ave Brooklyn, New York 11224