You are on page 1of 37

United States District Court Easter District of New York



Michael Krichevsky,


Michael Krichevsky,

Third Party Plaintiff,


Alan J. Wohlberg, et al

Third Party Defendants.

Civil Action No.




I. Michael Krichevsky, Sui Juris, under penalty of perjury say:

  • 1. I am disabled man, the defendant, counter plaintiff and third party plaintiff in the within

* action. I have requested from the court more time to oppose this motion and Judge Matsumoto

unfairly denied my request without explanation and ordered

reply by November 2, 2018. As such,

I Object and Proceed Under Duress, in Protest with all rights reserved as she prejudiced my action from the beginning. I have first-hand knowledge to make this affidavit in opposition to the within

motion to remand; and if called as a witness I can competently testify as follows below.

  • 2. ' This notice and affidavit with exhibits made in opposition to Alan J. Wohlberg, Esq.

(Wohlberg) motion to remand.

  • 3. Alan J. Wohlberg, Esq., please, take notice that attached exhibits is circumstantial evidence

of corruption in Kings County Supreme Court implicating you personally in cover-up as a member of Supreme Court Committee investigating judicial corruption. These exhibits evidently support

reasons for my Notice of Removal(Docket# 1) this action from state to federal court.

  • 4. I move this Honorable Court to take mandatory judicial notice of media coverage of

corruption scandals in Kings County Supreme Court evidenced by these exhibits, which are New

York Post's series of articles. Exhibit A.


These articles in 2015 start expose of corruptjudge Noah Dear, who was on my state court

action from 2016.

  • 6. Briefly, these articles reveal that this judge was removed from judgeship for his unethical

judicial conduct. Thereafter one ex-con convicted orthodox Jew "helps" this judge get back on his

job through "back door deal," which I read between the lines as by "bribery."

  • 7. Upon information and belief, Wohlberg, as orthodox Jew from the same community as

judge Dear and as a member of Kings County Supreme Court Committee, was and

still is aware of

this corruption.

  • 8. Fact, Wohlberg failed to rebut averments in my Memorandum of Law and


(Docket # 13-15):

"35. Whereas, Wohlberg deliberately fail to disclose to this court and to me that he is a member of New York Supreme Courts Committee and New York Surrogate

Courts Committee, unconstitutional bodies, which supervise all judges in New

York City's 5 Boroughs.

36. Whereas, according to website of Brooklyn Bar Association, Said Committee

"Considers the practical workings of the Supreme Court, Civil and Criminal

Divisions and the Appellate Courts. Also considers and investigates any complaint

against an attache thereof." See Exhibit B."

  • 9. Wohlberg and all Committee members knew or should have known of this scandal.

    • 10. Wohlberg and all Committee members should have investigated this scandal.

    • 11. Wohlberg and

all Committee members should have removed judge Dear from judgeship,

but they have not.

  • 12. Not coincidentally,judge Dear appeared on my state court action in Kings Supreme court.

  • 13. Attached as Exhibit B to this Notice and Affidavit, is my certified letter to judge Dear. In

this letter, I essentially tell judge that alleged bank attorneys filed fabricated documents to start foreclosure after six years statute of limitation expired. I tell him that affidavit of service was fake.

I travelled to the alleged plaintiff US Bank headquarters in Columbus, Ohio with the documents

New York attorneys filed in Kings Supreme court to confirm whether US Bank hired these

attorneys in New York. I tell judge that US Bank representative denied involvement with these

attorneys and I ask him to refer this matter to DA for criminal investigation. New York attorneys failed to rebut all my averments in this letter and other affidavits, but continued their actions by

serving me with this order, Exhibit C. Only mafia feai'lessly can do this.

  • 14. This order constitutes judicial "artful Justice" decision and order on impliedly motion for

summary judgment in violation of my right to defense and discovery. This is the shortest order with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law I have ever seen. It violates every applicable legal

and equitable maxim of law, stare decisis and New York Rules of Judicial Conduct.

  • 15. I believed that current action was "scheduled" to appear on this judge's docket and

removed this case to federal court.

  • 16. Upon

information and belief, Wohlberg influenced this corrupt decision (Exhibit C)as

SLAPP retaliation against me for suing him for redress of grievances in this court.

  • 17. If Wohlberg denies this averment above, then he should publicly show what steps he and

his members of committee have taken to investigate this corrupt judge Dear.

  • 18. Objection, this case is procedural quagmire. All attomeys involved in this court in

concert deliberately failed to rebut averments in my affidavit accusing them in conflicts of

interests, and therefore not allowed to file any paperwork and argue anything, unless they comply

with NYRPC.

  • 19. All attorneys failed to rebut or assure me that the state court is not rigged against me to

violate equal protection law per 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Thus, I infer that all attorneys involved

abandoned any pretence to ethics and honesty in open dialog on the court's record. I infer, they

overtly conspired to violate my due process rights and together with Wohlberg involved in

obstruction ofjustice in this and in state courts.

  • 20. Contrary to all Attorneys' declarations and affidavits filed in this court, another issues of

removal and remand is whether my due process right would be violated in Kings County Supreme

Court where Wohlberg human-trafficked me to lose my rights and property. The evidence shows

that most likely than not my rights would be violated since they were violated there before.


In this court all Attorneys stubbornly ignored procedural rule to rebut ^ 56 and ^ 57, most

enlightening paragraph of my affidavit, which Wohlberg also deliberately ignored to rebut:

"8 I remove this action to the district court of the United States for the Eastern

District of New York pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1443, Civil rights

cases: Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a

State court may be removed by the defendant to the

district court of the United

States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a

right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof;

(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal

rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with

such law."

WHEREFORE,1 respectfully move this Honorable Court to deny Wohlberg's motion to remand

in its entirety, and for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem Just and equitable.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

November 7, 2018

Under duress, all rights reserved, Michael Krichevsky, sui Juris

4221 Atlantic Ave

Brooklyn, NY 11224




Testy" judge sacked

after beer blunder| New York Post

'Testy'judge sacked after beer blunder

By Biaci Hamilton


July 22, 2012 I 4;00am


DIS-ROBED: Judge Noach Dear has been let go from the Brooklyn courts after springing a public beer drinker.




Testy" judge sacked after beer blunder| New York Post

DIS-ROBED: Judge Noach Dear has been let go from the Brooklyn courts after sprlnaing a public beer drinker.(Dennis Caruso)

Judge Noach Dear has Brooklyn Criminal Court a

been booted from

month after his bizarre ruling barred police from ticketing public drinkers unless cops lab-tested their booze.

The ouster comes amid outrage over his June 14 decision, which dismissed a case against a Brooklyn man, Julio Figueroa, who admitted he

was sipping a beer on the street.

The judge concluded that enforcement of laws on drinking in public is racially biased.

Dear, 59. a scandal-scarred ex-city councilman elected to the

bench in 2007 and relegated to hearing low-level debt disputes in recent

years, had volunteered to take criminal cases on the weekends in a bid to get promoted, courthouse insiders said.

"'Somebody here messed up," a court source said."He never should have The state acknowledged that Dear's part-time gig was over.

been given that assignment."

"The judge was, in fact, volunteering on the weekends because of a resource shortage, but at this point his services are no longer needed,"

said courts spokesman David Bookstaver.

Dear's ruling nullified a long-accepted police practice — sniffing a suspect's beverage — and meant police would be required to conduct a

chemical analysis to make their cases stick.

Open-container summonses are a widely used policing tool, resulting in more than 12,000 arrests for other crimes in 2011, by one police

supervisor's estimate. Cops wrote 124,498 drinking tickets during the year.

"I'd say 10 to 15 percent of the time we issue a violation, we find they're wanted for something else," a NYPD source said. Legal experts slammed Dear's ruling for going well beyond the scope of a judge's authority.

"He's legislating from the bench," said legal analyst Arthur Aidala. "He's saying we're not going to enforce the law even though people of

color violate the law. That's ludicrous."

The ruling raised memories of how Dear got his gavel — in a backroom deal orchestrated by Brooklyn Democratic boss Vito Lopez.

Dear, who spent 18 years as a Democratic city councilman before being term-limited out in 2001, was dogged by scandals, many involving

improper overseas junkets paid for by charities. When he ran for Congress in 1998, his staff allegedly forged signatures to duck campaign-

donation laws.

In 2003, after two years as TLC commissioner, he tried to run again for City Council but was knocked off the ballot for accepting campaign

financing from taxi companies.

Because he had nearly defeated Kevin Parker in a state Senate race in 2002, Lopez saw him as a threat to the party's candidates. So the boss backed him for judge — even though Dear was never a practicing lawyer and got a thumbs down from the Brooklyn Bar



Controversial judge Noach Dear should be probed: assemblyman| New York Post

Controversialjudge Noach Dear should be


By Meli-isa Klem

October 15, 2017 I 1:11am

Noach Dear

The state's judicial watchdog should investigate controversial Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Noach

Dear, a top lawmaker said.

The Commission

on Judicial Conduct has "the right to initiate their own

inquiry. I can't envision how they

could be missing this. It's very blatant and it's concerning." said Assemblyman Michael Montesano, the

Controversialjudge Noach Dear is gunning for more


ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee.

The Post has revealed

how an ex-con is a regular in Dear's courtroom and helps steer deadbeat

defendants to lawyers who then get their clients favorable deals before the judge.



Controversial judge Noach Dear should be probed: assemblyman| New York Post

The former felon, Chaim Pinkesz, also worked behind the scenes to help get Dear elected to the state

Supreme Court in 2015, sources told The Post.

Dear, who handled consumer debt cases in Civil Court before his election to the higher bench, managed to get himself back to his old

courtroom on Mondays and Tuesdays to continue to hear those cases. Many involve members of his own Orthodox Jewish community.

"These things are quite disturbing." Montesano told The Post.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct's probes are secret and Its administrator, Robert Tembeckjian, would not comment on Dear.

A spokesman for the state court system said Dear's assignment would be reviewed at the end of the year along with those of other judges.

The court system has maintained that Dear Is helping out In the lower court because It was "strapped for resources."

After a political career dogged by corruption scandals. Dear was elected to the bench In 2007 despite being deemed "not qualified" by

both the Brooklyn and New York bar associations.

His fate Is now squarely In

Gov. Cuomo's hands. Dear has applied for one of the top jobs in the court system — presiding justice of the

Appellate Division Second Department in Brooklyn — and a screening committee made Its recommendations to Cuomo's office earlier this


Cuomo's office did not respond to a

request for comment.







This ex-con is a friend to all debt-rattled deadbeats| New York Post

This ex-con is a friend to all debt-rattled deadbeats

By Melissa Klem

October 8.2017 I 4:52am



I. ^■




  • kv- Sf-JSMU ■


Chaim Pinkesz





A convicted fraudster spends his days in a Brooklyn courtroom steering deadbeats to lavyyers in debt-collection cases that often get favorable rulings by controversial Judge Noach Dear. The Post has learned.

And the ex-con, Chaim Pinkesz. helped put the jurist on the bench, sources said.

Pinkesz. 58, acts as a messiah-like figure in his Orthodox Jewish neighborhood, holding "office hours" in his home for debtors and others

who need lawyers.

Pinkesz is part of the Shmira neighborhood safety patrol, and keeps a scooter parked outside his Borough Park home where he also holds

fund-raisers for political candidates and ran a charity to help single mothers.

But behind the scenes, he has been accused in court papers of threats and harassment.

Lawyer Alan Rubenstein. who is embroiled with Pinkesz in a legal dispute over a $5 million life- insurance policy, alleged in a letter to

Supreme Court Justice Johnny Lee Baynes that "these threats began literally the moment this action was commenced and occurred even in




This ex-con is a

friend to all debt-rattled deadbeats| New York Post

the courtroom itself. His threats ran the gamut and included threatening me with criminal prosecution, disbarment and financial ruination."

Pinkesz, who pled guilty in 1986 to trafficking in counterfeit merchandise like phony Cartier watches, for which he served four months in

federal prison, denied threatening Rubenstein.

In Dear's courtroom, which handles consumer-debt matters, Pinkesz introduces defendants from the Orthodox community to lawyers. Dear is known for routinely dismissing consumer-debt cases or forcing settlements that favor debtors over banks or collection agencies. He

heard the cases for many years as a Brooklyn Civil Court judge before winning a term on the higher Supreme Court in 2015.

But Dear recently managed to get back to Civil Court on Mondays and Tuesdays, when members of the Orthodox community are frequent


On two days last month, Pinkesz darted in and out of the courtroom and was spotted at one point huddled

in a hallway engaging in a

lengthy conversation with a

la\A/yer and a Hasidic defendant.

Pinkesz, who is also known as Edward or Joseph, told The Post he earned his living as an insurance agent and was a "community activist"

who liked to provide moral support to those in court.

"I never take money," he said. "If anybody offers me money, I get very, very upset."

Lawyers can face disbarment if they share fees with non-lawyers.

Pinkesz said he knows Dear "just like everybody else knows him,from the community."

But Pinkesz actively campaigned to win Dear

his Supreme Court seat — a job that pays $194,000 annually and comes with a 14-year term —

according to one Jewish leader.

Pinkesz did political work such as witnessing petition signatures for Ari Kagan, an influentia! Democratic district leader in Brooklyn, in an

attempt to garner Kagan's support for Dear's judicial nomination, the source said.

In 2015, district leaders hammered out a backroom deal between Orthodox Jews

backing Dear and a reformer contingent supporting Civil

Court Judge Debra Silber. Under the agreement brokered

by Kagan and other district leaders, each faction agreed to approve the other's

candidate, The Post previously reported.

Democratic nominees are typically assured victory in New

York City once they are placed on the ballot by a nominating committee.

Pinkesz has donated $18,000 to local political campaigns and committees since 2013, including $750 to Kagan and Kagan's Bay Democrats

political committee.

Kagan said he backed Dear on his merits and did not recall if Pinkesz asked him for any support. Pinkesz claimed ignorance on any


with Kagan about Dear, who through a

court spokesman declined to comment.





Judge in line for NY Supreme Court post amid 'back-room deal"| New York


Judge in line for NY Supreme Court post amid'back

room deal'

By Afitoii Short

September 27. 2015 I 2:11am I Updated

Noach Dear

Civil Court Judge Noach Dear — who was booted from the Criminal Court bench three years ago after making insensitive racial remarks and

head-scratching rulings — is up for a promotion thanks to a back-room political deal.

Brooklyn Democrats voted Thursday night to make Dear a candidate for the higher state Supreme Court in a horse trade between social-

reform and establishment factions of the


Orthodox Jews backing Dear, a Borough Park political fixture for three decades, agreed to drop their opposition to Debra Silber, Brooklyn's

first openly lesbian Civil Court judge, whose term is up, sources said. In return, reformers who had been touting Silber for five years held

their noses

and approved Dear's candidacy, after blocking it a year before.

The deal disgusted some Democrats.




Judge in line for NY Supreme Court post amid 'back-room deal'| New York Post

"The reformers are a bunch of whores. The reformers should be better than this," said one city Dem who believes Dear should not be near a courtroom. "I should just move out of the state now."

The 61-year-old jurist was booted from the Criminal Couri bencii in July 2012 by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman after Dear ruled that cops must prove a beverage contains alcohol through lab tests — rattier than using the sniff test — before handing out open-container tickets, and asserting that he had never arraigned a white person for public drinking.

In August 2012, credit-card companies demanded

his recusal from debt-collection lawsuits in civil court because they said he dismissed

nearly every company claim in favor of alleged deadbeats, saying the creditors couldn't prove the identities of the debtors.


his resume, several hundred party loyalists signed off on Dear and

four other candidates at their judicial convention at St. Francis

College Thursday.

Dear, who skipped the vote, did not return calls seeking comment.

The nomination amounts to a coronation: Brooklyn Republicans also voted Thursday to cross-endorse the Democrats'judicial slate.

As a Supreme Court justice, he would make $167,700 and handle bigger criminal or civil cases, with a term that runs through 2030.

Dear is a political survivor.

As a city councilman in the 1980s. Dear pulled down between $20,000 and $60,000 from a charity he directed that flew his family to Israel,

Europe and the Soviet Union.

Dear was the subject of a federal complaint alleging a six-figure campaign donation from straw donors after mounting two unsuccessful

congressional campaigns in 1998 and 2000.

And he also once organized a junket to South Africa that the whites-only Johannesburg City Council funded, drawing the ire of his

colleagues. County political leaders said

Dear is fit to wear the robes.

"He was recommended by the vast, vast majority and he has done a really decent job," said Brooklyn Democratic Party attorney Frank


Reformers shrugged off Dear's ascension.

"Noach pretty much had the votes no matter what," said


District Leader Josh Skaller."We

might not have gotten Debra without

the package, it was pretty much a calculation."







Noach Dear allows deadbeats to cheat debt; lawyers| New York Post

Noach Dear allows deadbeats to cheat debt:lawyers

By Melissa Klein

September 24.2017 I 12:37am I Updated


Noach Dear

Controversial state Supreme Court Judge Noach Dear managed to give himself a demotion — returning to a lower court two days a week where lawyers say he routinely allows deadbeats to cheat debt.

On Mondays and Tuesdays, Dear sits in the Brooklyn Civil Court room he used to occupy before his election to the state Supreme Court and

doles out his unique brand of justice.

Dear appears to be particularly popular among members of his own Orthodox Jewish community, who disproportionately seem to get their

cases heard before

him instead of other Civil Court Judges.

On three Mondays when Dear was on vacation in August, the courtroom was devoid of Orthodox defendants. But they returned when the

Judge did on Sept. 5.

Since another judge sits Wednesday through Friday,"Orthodox cases before Dear are adjourned to Mondays or Tuesdays — no other

dates," one lawyer said. The Post observed that he also adjourned non-Orthodox cases to his days in court.


Noach Dear allows deadbeats to cheat debt: lawyers| New York Post

Lawyers complain that Dear often throws out cases brought by credit-card companies or small businesses against consumers who haven't

paid their bills or — lawyers say — pushes those plaintiffs to accept lowball settlements.

"Case is dismissed. Have a nice day." he said to one stunned defendant last week.

The woman told The Post she had come to court expecting a battle over her $1,400 credit-card bill. "I didn't have to fight or nothing," said

the thrilled defendant.

It was the lawyers for credit-card and collection companies who celebrated in 2015 when

Dear won the state Supreme Court post, hopeful

they could finally taste legal victory under a replacement judge.

But just nine months after Dear was elected to the higher bench, he returned part-time to his former courthouse to oversee the low-level

debt cases.

After he was elected to Civil Court in 2007, he was so desperate to get a promotion, The Post reported, that he volunteered for a weekend

stint in Criminal Court.

But he was booted after controversially ruling in a 2012 case that cops should lab-test liquids for alcohol before enforcing public-drinking


Dear's election to Supreme Court was thanks to a backroom deal with Brooklyn Dems, The Post reported.

"I've never seen someone resurrect himself from the pits of the Supreme Court like he was able to do," one lawyer told The Post.

Once back in Civil Court, creditors' lawyers say. Dear has continued to treat them like the enemy. He pressures defendants to take settlements that leave banks and other creditors accepting much less then what they claim they're owed, lawyers said.

"It's exactly what he says or nothing. You either take it or you're going to get screwed," said one of five plaintiff's lawyers who spoke to The


Another lawyer said trying a credit case before Dear is a "suicide mission."

During trials. Dear's standard line is that he doesn't find the witness for the credit-card or collection company "credible," lawyers said.

Earlier this month. Dear suggested that a case against a Hasidic man v^ho owed $7,200 be dropped after the man claimed some of the

credit card

charges were fraudulent.

"I think Judge Dear is fair," Joseph Harrison, who represents members of the Orthodox community, told The Post. "I've had worse

experiences with other judges in the building."

He insisted his Orthodox clients do appear before other judges.

Joshua Bronstein, a lawyer who also represents the Orthodox community, has racked up a string of favorable outcomes for his clients in

front of Dear in the last year, including a $15,694 debt settled for $2,000; a $19,992 debt slashed to $3,500; and a $5,612 debt cut by 90

percent to $561, records show.

A half dozen cases were "discontinued" with nothing in the case file to indicate a settlement, likely meaning they were simply dropped. The

vanquished debts ranged from $2,568 to $21,562.

During one of Bronstein's cases that went to trial last November, Discover bank presented a thick file of outstanding bills against a

Connecticut woman who owed $11,148 to retailers like Bloomingdale's, Anthropologie and Saks Fifth Avenue.

Yet Dear ruled against Discover saying it had "failed to prove its case."

Bronstein declined to talk to The Post. Dear did not return a request for comment.

A court system spokesman called Dear's assignment a "mutual decision," contending that the civil court was "strapped for resources."


Noach Dear

allows deadbeats to cheat debt; lawyers| New York Post

"His going over to the lower court is an efficient way to hear the cases." Lucian Chalfen said.





Brooklyn judge wipes out 'millions' in credit card debt| New York Post

Brooklyn judge wipes out'millions' in credit

card debt

By B(ad Hamilton

August 26. 2012 I 4;00am


Brooklyn judge wipes out 'millions' in credit card debt| New York Post

ir'S- s



'V -

.-vj-i I'








PAYLESS: Brooklyn Judge Noach Dear rarely sides with creditors, lawyers told The Post, instead heaping "Twilight Zone"-like windfalls on credit-card


Maxed out your credit cards? No problem. You've got a Dear friend in court.

(Dennis Caruso)

Brooklyn state Civil Court Judge Noach Dear has tossed reams of cases against alleged deadbeats who stiffed Visa, American Express and other creditors, using any excuse to wipe out their debts, say plaintiff lawyers.

Half a dozen attorneys who appear regularly before Dear told The Post they couldn't remember winning any credit-card cases in his court, even when defendants admitted they owed money,

"He literally throws out millions of [dollars] a year that is legitimately owed to direct creditors like Citibank and Discover," said one lawyer.




Brooklyn judge wipes out 'millions' in credit card debt| New York Post

"With Judge Dear, it's dismiss, dismiss, dismiss," said another plaintiff attorney who asked not to be identified. "It's impossible to win a case.

It's like The Twilight Zone.'"

In Dear's sprawling. Ilth-floor courtroom in Downtown Brooklyn, there's no secret whose side he's on.

"I like to fight for the underdog," he once said — adding that he believed 90 percent of credit-card debt to be faulty.

So he routinely dismisses motions by collectors, finds fault with

their records and witnesses and makes quick rulings against them,

sometimes proceeding right to trial the first time a matter is in front of him, lawyers said.

One suit involved Felicia Tancreto, a 55-year-old Bensonhurst resident who was found by another Judge to owe $16,107.12 on her AmEx

platinum Costco card — a debt she'd racked up through personal shopping.

Tancreto appealed the judgment before Dear in April, claiming she contacted the credit-card company sometime in 2010, notifying it that

she was undergoing surgery and couldn't keep up payments.

She said that she asked to have the bills deferred and that the company sued.

Dear ruled in her favor, canceling the entire balance because he deemed the company's key witness, Lisa Salas, a 25-year employee in

accounting, not credible. The judge called her testimony "robo."

The term, coined from a similar and scandalous tactic in the mortgage-fraud crisis, describes a practice in which collectors present mass- produced sworn statements to back their claims.

The problem with the AmEx accountant and documents she presented in support of Trancreto's debt was that Salas did not have "personal"

knowledge of the

charges. Dear argued.

He expected her to remember having sent the bills to Tancreto.

AmEx followed up with an unusual motion: It asked Dear to step aside on its cases, arguing that he'd lost all objectivity as a judge.

Dear showed "prejudice, impropriety, lack of impartiality and bias," said lawyer Anthony Migliaccio.

Critics of the collection industry say it's plagued by abuse, particularly when third parties buy up debt for pennies on the dollar and then hound cardholders, sometimes using shady "robo" tactics.

Often these the agencies have no reliable information about what might be owed.

Dear is not the only judge to go to bat for deadbeats — or to slam collectors for using robo testimony.

Nassau County Judge Michael Ciaffa also makes this claim when holding debt chasers accountable.

Ciaffa recently ruled against Discover in its bid to collect $4,600 from cardholder Patrick Shimer, blasting Discover's account manager,

Stacey Holmes,for lacking knowledge about the charges.

"The affidavit signed by Ms. Holmes has the look

and feel of a robo-signed affidavit that was prepared in blank in advance of knowing who

would sign the affidavit," the jurist wrote.

"Although she purportedly made the affidavit based on her review of the plaintiff's business records, she evidently had no idea when she

signed the affidavit that the last statement showed a $0.00 new balance."

Ciaffa noted that robo signing didn't automatically nullify a debt, but "it gives this court pause."

One lawyer said there was a "big difference between Judge Dear and Judge Ciaffa.

"Ciaffa knows what he's doing, and he's carefully applying the law. He doesn't expect a business- records witness to remember having sent

a bill to a certain cardholder on a certain date.


Brooklyn judge wipes out ■millions' in credit card debt | New York Post

"Also, we've won cases before him."




Controversial judge Noach Dear is gunning for more power| New York Post

Controversialjudge Noach Dear is gunning for

more power

By Melissa Klein and Bruce Golding

October 10, 2017 I 12:18am I Updetec!

Noach Dear

Controversial Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Noach Dear is eager to wield more power — and has applied for a job running the appeals

court that covers the city's outer boroughs and

surrounding suburbs, The Post has learned.

The former pol was interviewed last week in a bid to become presiding justice of the Appellate Division's Second Department in Brooklyn, according to sources familiar with the application process.

A screening committee also met

with several other applicants for the post, then sent a secret list of

recommendations to Gov. Andrew Cuomo,the sources said.


The Post has revealed that Dear, a former Civil Court judge who was elected to the state Supreme Court

in 2015, recently got himself transferred back to Civil Court two days a week to handle consumer debt cases — mainly involving members of his Orthodox Jewish community.



Controversial judge Noach Dear is gunning for more power| New York Post

Cuomo's office didn't return a request for comment. A woman who answered the phone at Dear's house said he wasn't there and hung up.


Noach Dear allows

deadbeats to cheat debt:





Noach dear, again| New York Post

Noach dear,again

By Post Staff Report

June 17. 2012 I 4;00am


Looks like Nicholas Garaufis isn't the only autocratic judge riding a bench in Brooklyn.



Noach dear, again| New York Post

Acting Supreme Court Justice Noach Dear has carried judicial activism to the height of insanity by ruling that cops must prove that a

beverage is alcoholic before issuing a summons for public drinking.

Just smelling it isn't enough, he ruled — now each sample must be lab-tested, or he's going to throw out the summons.

~ Aov&KTiseMeN! —

Which is exactly what he did in one case — even though the person cited actually admitted that he was violating the law.

Dear says that by demanding a higher standard of proof in violations of the open-container law, he's hoping to pretty much end — or at least

reduce — actual enforcement of the statute.

Which is beyond bizarre.

Yes, the NYPD comes down hard on public drinking, issuing more summonses for it last year than for any other violation.

For good reason.

The summons, even with its relatively low fine, allows cops to check the person being ticketed for outstanding warrants.

Indeed, it's the very basis of the so-called broken-windows approach to police work — that small crimes and/or blight, just like a single

broken window in an abandoned building, inevitably lead to chaos and decay if ignored.

It's precisely the approach that reclaimed New York's streets from the thugs and led to historic drops in crime that continue to

this day.

Indeed, this approach rescued New York and made it livable again.

Which is why the NYPD still focuses on seemingly minor quality-of-life offenses.

But Dear either doesn't understand — or doesn't care.

Of course, he's perhaps New York's least likely jurist, never having even practiced law before being elected to Civil Court.

His previous stints as a City Council member and Taxi & Limousine commissioner were undistinguished, to put it mildly, and he was

constantly under one ethical cloud or another.

Now. he's reportedly eyeing a return to electoral politics — where a populist appeal certainly won't hurt.(He did much the same thing by

dismissing debt-collection cases en masse.)

Dear has always been a hack.

Now he's a dangerous hack.


Noach dear, again| New York Post



Michael Krichevsky, Sui Juris

4221 Atlantic Ave

Brooklyn^ NY 11224


Personal & Confidential

Mach 31, 2017 by regular mail and Certified RRR

7015 D^70 DDDl fia'ia 431fl

Noah Dear

969 E 7'" Street

Brooklyn, New York 11230-2705

Re: US Bank v. Krichevsky

Index No. 506127/2016

Greetings Noah Dear:

This letter should not be considered as ex-parte communication per se. I write this letter to

you as a man to man,individually. 1 would like to respectfully remind you of your mandatory duty

under 18 U.S.C. §4: Misprision of Felony. I am a victim ofcrimes by opposing attorneys violating

Donald J. Trump Executive Order regarding human trafficking and violation of Magnitski Act. I would like this letter to serve as Personal Notice and my Loss Prevention Practice. Additionally,

this letter should be used as a sealed information or criminal complaint against opposing attorneys'


There is no penalty for making reasonable mistakes during litigation in good faith.

However, ifone intentionally does harm,then he may be sued. But, before he can be sued, he must

be given a fair opportunity to correct his error. My affidavits gave them that fair opportunity. By it,

they may have sufficient notice to assert proper diligence and inquire further to discover that which

an inquiry pursued in good faith would disclose. I have a reason to believe that if I address this

letter to your place ofbusiness, your court attorneys may not deliver this letter for you to read. I am

alarmed and outraged by conduct of all attorneys involved for the reasons stated below.

As you. Judge, may recall there was a hearing on March 7,2018, which I requested earlier.

My intention was, and I told about it to your court attorney, to make a record ofopposing

attorneys' misconduct, which sabotaged my due process and defense rights, and nothing else.

These rights are not granted by the judge or opposing attorneys, but protected by them to limit pvemmeni's ability to abuse people. Otherwise, they lose jurisdiction. 1 noticed said misconduct in my affidavits and in one attempt to 'meet and confer.' I told your clerk about that misconduct.

Then, your clerk scheduled this hearing. 1 intended to discuss that misconduct and get your

assistance on the record in upholding my rights and due process. I watched how your clerk was whispering something to you right before the hearing, which gave me a feeling that it was

something about my case.

As I suspected, things did not go the way 1 planned and intended. I was rushed tojudgment

under your presumption that 1 fully submitted my opposition for you to make final decision. You may recall that I objected to this presumption or ruling of ^papers fully submitted.' I also had a

feeling that my case was predetermined, hence 'fully submitted' and there is no reason for delay

the award my estate to these criminals.

As I understand the law, I have to agree to the presumption of'fully submitted', have to

feel confident that I indeed had full and fair opportunity to litigate my defense. In addition, I have

to be confident in your presumed intent and ability to render impartial, fair and equitable ruling. At

this moment, 1 am not confident that it will

be you. Judge, personally making a ruling or that your

ruling is not influenced by misleading evidence from opposing attorneys.

Now, I infer that opposing attorneys deliberately failed and later refused to address my

accusations and discovery demands because they knew that they were guilty. Even if they denied

my accusations, that still would be an admission on the record of their knowledge of the issues I

have raised. Instead,they pretended to be blissfully ignorant of my demands and accusations when

they deliberately made'"strawman" arguments described in my last affidavit, which I handed to


I consulted one prominent attorney about these criminals and he advised me to rewrite my affidavit as if I write for a 5 year old so that neitherjudge nor attorneys can argue

misunderstanding. To accomplish this. I decided to travel to the corporate offices of alleged

plaintiff and its alleged witnesses and a)get denial or admission of retainer with opposing

attorneys; and b)denial or admission that US BANK is acting as trustee for non-existent trust. You

see, according to all court filings with witness affidavits by alleged plaintiff, US BANK is acting

as trustee for BANC OF AMERICA FUNDING CORPORATION (alleged TRUST), which is

actually "depositor" as party to Pooling and Servicing Agreement(PSA) by definition. The copy

of this incomplete PSA (15 pages out of210) alleged plaintiffentered into court record as exhibit P of the order of reference. I enclosed it here as courtesy. According to said copy of PSA,the real trust is totally different entity - Banc of America Funding 2006-F Trust(see page 28 ofexhibit P). This trust is neither named, nor mentioned in this case, and therefore is not present here as a

necessary party with standing to start this law suit, at least theoretically. Therefore, whatever

alleged plaintiff and its alleged attorneys claim in their affirmations and affidavits contradict

exhibit P's PSA facts, the theory of securitizalion law and trust law.

In my affidavit, which I handed to you on March 7,2018 hearing, I stated that I would like

to adjourn the proceeding,amend my motion to dismiss as I am going to visit the offices of alleged

Plaintiff and Wells Fargo Bank involved in this matter to verify or impeach opposition. I kept my word. On March 11,2018,1 drove my car at 425 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, Ohio where US Bank

conducts Trust and Custodian Services according to the theory of securitization and PSA. At this

address, there is huge high-rise building likely owned by US Bank. On the 6th floor, indeed there are trust and custodian services of US BANK. I met with several workers there. They all were friendly and tried to help. I presented to them complete motion for order ofreference, together with

the exhibits and asked them if they can identify my property or me in their computer network using information from said documents. I also asked them whether US BANK have any relationship

with the law firm WOODS OVIATT OILMAN,LLP from New York. I explained to them the purpose of my visit and they all looked puzzled and concerned. In about 2 hours that 1 spent there, they all came up with nothing. However, this nothing is something. It is an evidence ofthe lack of

evidence against me and offraud upon the court by WOODS OVIATT OILMAN,LLP, officers of the court. Accordingly, 1 defeated their motion for order of reference that even 5 years old will

understand that this whole case is unauthorized by US BANK filings, which is felony fraud.

Immediately thereafter,! drove at 3476 Statcvicw Boulevard, Fort Mill, SC 29715 where

Wells Fargo Bank*s foreclosure mill is located. To make a long story short, 1 came up with

nothing, which is too something in my favor.

You may recall. Judge Dear, 1 raised the issue ofexhibit P incompleteness and asked

opposing attorney whether it is intentional act and whether they would correct this defect. As of

today, 1 have no evidence that they filed complete PSA into record or sent me a complete copy.

Additionally, exhibit P that they filed in court differs from the one that they sent me with their

motion. The one that is in court has on it page numbering *'151 of 210"" mark, whereas on mine

"151 of 210" is redacted. Accordingly, the act ofredacting this page numbering on exhibit P made

for me is deliberate act of evidence tempering and fraud upon the court by all attorneys involved,

which is felony. Therefore, I infer that filing of incomplete and redacted PSA was deliberate act to mislead the court and me by nondisclosure ofexculpatory evidence.

1 finally obtained complete PSA on my own by wasting two hours and tinkering supplied

by opposition link to Edgar. I read and analyzed it. The most important part of this PSA(156 pages), is its referral to "Prospectus Supplement with PSA (277 pages)." Both documents I

enclosed here as a courtesy. After my

analysis of both documents, 1 concluded in essence that on

June 28,2006 Bank of America made initial public offering of certificates as tradable securities on

Wall Street. This offering talked about future intention of the bank to sell those certificates to

investors and, using raised money, buy notes and/or mortgages secured by real estate. Prospectus

supplement finally talks about Banc of America Funding 2006-F Trust certificates (not a party to

this action). It states on page 1 that"MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,SERIES


2006." Now,this statement totally contradicts fraudulent allegation in alleged Plaintiffs

complaint that I borrowed and money came in December of 2005 from said trust because at that

time trust didnU even exist. 1 don't know about you Judge, but 1 don't believe that alleged Plaintiff

had some kind of time machine to go back in the past and lend me money. This explains why opposing attorneys failed to include these documents and why US Bank workers could not find my

property and 1 in their database, which was not created in 2005 in fact. It also explains why the mortgage and the note attorneys entered into the record deliberately altered to remove any

identifiable information such as loan number.

To hit a final nail in the head, alleged lender on the note and mortgage, Fairmont Funding,

allegedly have sold my alleged note to allegedly Banc of America Funding 2006-F Trust in

June-July 2006 according to attorneys' false and presumptuous allegations. Therefore, no officer

of Fairmont Funding had any authority to sign any assignment of note and/or mortgage in 2009 to Wells Fargo or US Bank for that matter. To add more felonies to this case, Fairmont Finding as

New York entity was closed in 2007. As such, someone forged the signature of the non-existent officer of non-existent entity on the note and/or mortgage in addition to forgeries of my signature and signatures on assignments. I can go on and on and keep pocking holes in opposition's case and

evidence, but 1 think you see the picture.

This letter written in good faith to avoid unnecessary appeals or article 78 complaints, because you,judge maybe unaware of what can transpire some day in your absence and/or sign

some order(s) that would prejudice my rights and cause me damage.

You,judge, have a dut>' to investigate and report these attorneys to the BAR and Second

Department for violation of22 NYCRR Part 130.1, also, request that you Judge refer this case to a

Grand Jury to investigate my facts.

This is why I am not sending to opposition a copy of this letter as 1 am hereby initiating

criminal case under seal. I request that you. Judge, do not let them know about it.

Swom to God, under penalties of Peijury and With Respect to Justice,

Michael Krichevsky, Sui Juris

Michael Krichevsky, Sui Juris

  • 4221 Atlantic Ave

Brooklyn, NY 11224


Public Notice

April 23,2018 by regular mail and Certified RRR

7012 aM70 DDDl

Noah Dear

  • 969 E 7"^ Street

Brooklyn, New York 11230-2705

Partners Woods Oviatt Oilman LLP

  • 700 Crossroads Building

2 State Street

Rochester, NY 14614

Re: US Bank v. Krichevsky

Index No. 506127/2016

Greetings Noah Dear:


This letter is in reply to April 10,2018 unsigned letter from your chambers(copy enclosed)

to my letter addressed to you, personally (original enclosed). In that unsigned letter to me,

somebody wrote that my letter is ex-parte communication, etc. I presume that you read my

enclosed letter to you, directed someone to write this letter and to send my letter back with

enclosures, implying that no criminal referral would be made even if the crime continues. I read

recent news that in Pennsylvania prosecutors and judges often exchange text messages while

prosecuting a case together. Attorney who discovered that entered them into the record. Judge moved to seal these texts, as they will damage reputation ofjudiciary in public view, implying of

12 Presumptions of Court. We live in crazy times -at least I do, is it not?

I would like to try to clarify my position ones again, so even 5 years old would understand.

For starters, I am not a member of the BAR and do not carry title of nobility like Esquiie.

Accordingly, I have no duty to follow any private laws offamily members only, such as NY State

Bar Association. I belong to God's family of men, which follow Golden Rule and Ten

Commandments. However, I have read official New York Rules of Professional Conduct and out

of my decency tried to follow them -only to learn from my personal experience that these are

propaganda tools to bamboozle people into myth of public service and equal justice, thereby

hiding 12 Presumptions ofCourt used on people. I would add that officially these rules designed to

protect people from rogue members of the BAR,and not the other way around. Did your stuff

attorneys ever follow Rule 8.3 - Reporting Professional Misconduct? Nobody did that in my case

from 2013 even though the evidence of misconduct is in every facet ofthis litigation starting from

  • 2009 until today with ever changing law firms,sworn statements and fabrications of documentary

evidence. 1 guess this settles the issue in my favor as victim of attorney's misconduct!

As you may know, there are about 25,000 sealed indictments in federal courts across the

nation with biggest chunks, not surprisingly, in California and New York. This is historically

unprecedented number after election of Trump. Rumor has it that these are mostly indictments of

human traffickers and corrupt government officials as President Trump said,''Human trafficking is a modem form ofthe oldest and most barbaric type ofexploitation. It has no place in our world."

As an example, enclosed herein, is freshly unsealed indictment in Eastem District of New


These people are supporters and big financial contributors to Clinton's Campaign that she lost.

Human trafficking is forced labor, which I currently perform free as hostage in my

defense from

2009, while all involved are earning a lavish lifestyle on my

dime. In common law this crime of

human trafficking called BARRATRY. Naturally, I sent my sealed request to you for referral of

criminal investigation - taking a heed from US DOJ. So, why retum my letter instead of replying

to me personally with your objections? As you may know, there is scandal after scandal going on in Washington about corrupt governmental officials, perjury and fabrication of documents with

leaks of classified intelligence information to our enemies. So, it looks like secrecy and privacy are

things ofthe past, which you or your stuff confirmed to me by leaking my request for criminal

investigation to criminals themselves. This leak enables them to start fabrication of exculpatory

evidence in contemplation of criminal defense litigation. When FBI recently raided office of

attorney Michael Cohen in New York, they seized the whole office and he did not see it coming.

Whatever will happen in my case, I will reject any disclosure of documents, witnesses or

explanations, which were not timely made, as fabrication and lies in contemplation of litigation

and not as business records.

On the other hand, US DOJ and members of Congress last week made public request for criminal prosecution of Comey, McCabe, Lynch and Clinton for, among other things, lying under

oath. I guess I have to live with open, public request for criminal investigation of members of law

firm WOODS OVIATT OILMAN,LLP, process server Woody Dorsonne and Wells Fargo Bank.

Accordingly, I hereby notify them and m^e these letters public.

Again, I respectfully remind you of your oath of office and fiduciary duty to protect our communities across the state as these people not only treat law and justice with contempt, but also hold a grave danger to safety of these communities and to people individually.

Misprision ofa Felony

Misprision of a felony is the offense offailure to inform government authorities of a felony that a

person knows about. A person commits the crime of misprision of a felony if that person:

knows of a crime that the person has witnessed or that has come to the person's

attention, and failed to prevent; or

fails to report it to ajudge or other official such as FBI agent(who is not themselves

involved in the crime). Title 28 U,S,C» §4» Misprision offelony*

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission ofa felony cognizable by a court of the

United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or

other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or

imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

I have done my part of reporting a crime against Communities and State to you,judge. A

federal or state judge,or any other government official, is required as part ofthe judge's mandatory

administrative duties, to receive any oPfer of information ofa federal or state crime. If that judge

blocks such report, that block is a felony under related obstruction ofjustice statutes, and

constitutes a serious offense. Upon receiving such information, the judge is then required to make

it known to a government law enforcement body that is not themselves involved in the crime.

Since 1 started talking about our government and elections, 1 would like to address opposition's argument of my default and/or late answer since they opened the door. Notice, please,

that even though prior firms played dirty. 1 did not default in those cases and

won because Judge

Bunyan was old schooljudge and upheld my due process. 1 did not vote for Donald Trump because

many others like me did not believe that he could win. Many

others like me thought that voting for

Trump would be futile. They and 1 thought of election fraud and believed that Hillary Clinton

would be installed akin all elections done in banana republics(see transcript of Trump's election

speech enclosed herein, which is relevant to the issues I raised). What Comey, McCabe, Lynch,

Holder and Clinton all have in common? They are all corrupt members of New York State BAR and groomed there before moving to Washington. When WOODS OVIATT OILMAN,LLP at the same time brazenly filed a third frivolous foreclosure suit against me, I thought that defending it

would be futile since justice rigged as Trump told us in his speech. At the same time 1 became a

victim offoreclosure defense scam by judge Anna. 1 would

not bore you here with details, but this

scam contributed to my delay in answer. At the same time, I watched militias forming in contemplation of riots, second Civil War and as result the martial law bringing New World Order planned by Clinton. Therefore, 1 started emergency preparations to bug out of the City to save my

life. Then a miracle happened. Trump won elections. This is when 1 realized that nation and I may

have a chance. Now I support Trump. This is why I filed my answer with counterclaims. Also, please, notice that opposition failed to rebut or address the reason for rejecting my answer such as surprise or prejudice. They could not since they have no case to start with. However, they attempted to steer the court and me into arguing a law office failure in my defense. It is an attempt

to distract or divert attention from real issues of crime. As all know, I

have no law office and if 1

took the bait and went that route, 1 would mislead the court and lose. This is why 1 did not do it. In conclusion, by this letter 1 notify the opposition as you suggested by this leak and ready to move forward with criminal investigation of crimes against me.

Sworn to God, under penalties of Perjury and With Respect to Justice,

Michael Krichevsky, Sui Juris

Chambers of the Hon. Noach Dear

Supreme Court of the State of New York Kings County

  • 360 Adams Street

Brooklyn, NY 11201

Michael Krichevsky

4221 Atlantic Avenue

Brooklyn, NY 11224

Dear Mr. Krichevsky,

April 10,2018

We are returning your letter because it is an ex parte communication. Ex parte

communication is any communication with a judge

where opposing counsel is not present or

copied. As such. Justice Dear is unable to consider your letter.


Victoria E. Munian, Esq.

Attorneysfor Plaintiff

Woods Oviatt Oilman LLP

  • 700 Crossroads Building

2 State Street

Rochester, NY 14614


Chambers Staff






- •>

• INDEX NO. 506127/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2018




At an IAS Term, Part FRP-1. of the Supreme Court

of the State of New York, held in and for the

County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at 360 Adams

Street. Brookijn, New York, on the 12"* day of

October 2018.

Inde.xNo.: 506127/2016







Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219 (a), of the papers considered in the review of this



Moving Papers and

Affidavits Annexed













Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order on this Motion is as follows:

j ...


Plaintiff moves for default judgment and an order of reference. Defendant opposes, raising

various arguments, and cross-moves for dismissal.



in an action to foreclose a mortgage, a plaintiff establishes its prima facie case

through the production of the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of default." Dcutsche Bank

Natl. Tnist Co. v. Brewton, 142 A.D.Sd 683,684 (2d DepT 2016)(quoting Plaza Equities, LLC v.

Lamberti, 118 A.D.3d 688, 689(2d Dep't 2014)). Plaintiff has done so.

1 of 2

)UNTY CLERK 10/26/2018 09;03 AMI



' ^ndex no. 506127/2016


Defendant was served with the summons and complaint on .lune 16,2016 via personal service

and filed an answer on March 9, 2017. As Defendant's answer was untimely. Plaintiff rejected it by

notice dated March 17, 2017. Defendant is in default and thus waived the defenses he raises in

opposition to the instant motion.

To vacate his default. Defendant was required to show a reasonable excuse for his delay in

serving an answer. See. e.g., Torres v. Houses R Us, Inc., 182 A.D.2d 684,684 (2d Dep't 1992).

Herein, Defendant denies the allegations against him, asserts that he did not waive his defenses, and

states that he spoke to Plaintiffs counsel on numerous occasions and was unable to obtain

information he requested from her. However, he does not present a reasonable excuse for not timely

appearing or answering in this matter. In light of the foregoing. Defendant is deemed in default.

Plaintitrs motion granted fsee accompanying order). Defendant'.*; croR.«;-motion denied.


Hon. Noach Dear,.I.S.C











2 of 2