Notice of Appeal 153554 2017 NYSCEF Cert PDF

Index No.
153554/2017
6.7 & 12
8.8.2
88
1
P age |2
Supreme Court of the State of New York

Appellate Division: First Judicial
J Department
Informational Statement (Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.3 [a]) –
Case Title: Set forth the title of the case as it appears on the summons, notice of petition or order to
show cause by which the matter was or is to be commenced, or as amended NYSCEF Doc.161.
For Court of Original Instance
AND
Date Notice of Appeal Filed

- against – For Appellate Division
MICHAEL FOSTER (Public Person)
Case Type Filing Type
☐ Civil Action√ ☐ CPLR article 78 Proceeding ☐ Appeal√ ☐ Transferred Proceeding

☐ CPLR article 75 Arbitration ☐ Special Proceeding Other ☐ Original Proceedings ☐ CPLR Article 78
☐ Habeas Corpus Proceeding ☐ CPLR Article 78 ☐ Executive Law § 298
Nature of Suit: Check up to three of the following categories which best reflect the nature of the case.
|√Administrative Review ☐ Business Relationships ☐ Commercial |√Contracts

☐ Declaratory Judgment |Domestic Relations ☐ Election Law ☐ Estate Matters
☐ Family Court ☐ Mortgage Foreclosure ☐ Miscellaneous
☐ Real Property ☐ Statutory ☐ Taxation |√Torts
Page | 2
2
P age |3
Appeal
☐ Amended Decree ☐ Determination ☐ √Order (NYSCEF Doc.161) ☐ Resettled Order

☐ Amended Judgement ☐ Finding ☐ Order & Judgment ☐ Ruling
☐ √Amended Order (NYSCEF Doc.197) ☐ Interlocutory Decree ☐ Partial Decree ☐√Other (specify):Moot/Mar.11/20
☐ Decision ☐ Interlocutory Judgment ☐ Resettled Decree interim-Orders: Mar 09, Mar 02, Feb 14,
☐ Decree ☐ Judgment ☐ Resettled Judgment and Orders: Jan 23, Jan 17, 2020
Court: The State of New York Supreme Court County: New York County
Dated: March 09, 2020 Entered: March 09, 2020
Judge (name in full): Hon. Louis L. Nock J.S.C. Index No.: 153554/2017
Stage: ☐ Interlocutory ☐√Final ☐ Post-Final Trial: ☐√Yes ☐ No If Yes: ☐√Jury ☐ Non-Jury
Prior Unperfected Appeal and Related Case Information
Are any appeals arising in the same action or proceeding currently pending in the court? ☐ Yes ☐ √No
If Yes, please set forth the Appellate Division Case Number assigned to each such appeal.
Where appropriate, indicate whether there is any related action or proceeding now in any court of this or any other
jurisdiction, and if so, the status of the case:
Original Proceeding
Commenced by: ☐ Order to Show Cause ☐√Notice of Petition ☐ Writ of Habeas Corpus Date Filed: 04/17/2017
Statue pursuant to: CPRL 5531 and CPLR 5528: Respondent-Appellant MICHAEL FOSTER (all filings) appears Prose, (see page__
__: Statement Affirmation Notarized). And pursuant to CPLR 3024 requiring plaintiff-appellee to amend the stipulation to provide a
more definite statement, or in the alternative revocation of the stipulation pursuant to CPLR 3211(c)or return to trial calendar.
Proceeding Transferred Pursuant to CPLR 7804(g)
Court: Choose Court County: Choose County
Judge (name in full): Order of Transfer Date:
CPLR 5704 Review of Ex Parte Order:
Court: Choose Court County: Choose County
Judge (name in full): Dated:
Description of Appeal, Proceeding or Application and Statement of Issues
Description: This appeal is taken from an order of the Supreme Court, Hon. Louis Nock J.S.C. dated 03/02/2020, entered by
the Clerk on 03/02/2020 and Amended on 03/09/2020 and entered in the office of the New York County Clerk on 03/09/2020
NYSCEF Doc.195 and Doc.197. Issues: Respondent-Appellant’s Motion. Seq.006(Not granted) request to reargue, return to trial
calendar or amend Doc. File:1/17/2020 NYSCEF#161 on the basis of Fraud, over-reaching and the lower court’s unprecedented
conduct during that hearing:1).The Court Denied appellant’s timely request for a Court Reporter twice prior to said hearing.
2).The court’s res judicata by an Order during said hearing that Plaintiff, plaintiff’s attorneys and plaintiff’s witnesses exit the
court thereafter the court seduced and persuaded respondent-appellant into signing a stipulation appellant was unwilling to
pg:64
sign (see page:13&58_and
__) 3). The court’s efforts to entrap prose-appellant throughout the hearing of 02/14/2020 (see Transcript
Cert. Sen. Court Reporter Tal Hahn Page; 21 _full report).(see affirmations: Part 38 Clerk Renee Woody and Court Officer James Sosse page_65__).
Relief Sought: 1).Grant Mot.Seq.006 in part without prejudice and order Plaintiff to state clearly any defamation publication
needs depublication, and 2). Order plaintiff as sole individual thoroughly to said stipulation Doc. 161, and 3). Order Plaintiff
to pay Prose respondent-appellant’s all legal fees equal to that of appropriate value of Counsels in similar like matters. PG:58,88-93
Page | 3
3
P age |4
Issues: 1). Whereas the Respondent-Appellant’s motion 006 should have been granted per Decision/Order dated 01.23.20,
02.14.20, 03.02.20 and 03.09.20 as certain statements issued by the court’s Orders NYSCEF Doc. 161, 195, 197 and the order
21-54
in 1st Motion hearing 02.14.2020(V ia Cert. Sen. Court Reporter Tal Hahn Page; 65_full report) f the Order Request for evidentiary
Hearing 03.11.2020, so ordered moot. Said statements should have been stricken and withdrawn by the court as the court in
said Orders/Statements assumed each statement to be factual finding and was not based on any verified evidence to support
any factual finding. (see: Portions Dispute and Reasons Page; _88).( See also page: 20 and page 58 )
2). Of NYSCEF Doc.186 the court’s interim Order’s Mandate supersedes His Hon. Louis Nock’s seniority. For instance the Part
38 ruled contrary to its authority So Order “Yet to be e-filed” of a Document to the contrary unintended to be filed, albeit as a
pertinent response to an incoherent answer to a letter e-filed by plaintiff-appellee in answers to motion Seq. 006. Say’s The
Court: QUOTE, “This is an e-file part. We do not accept paper submissions” UNQUOTE. (page:53_Via Cert. Sen. Court Reporter Tal
Hahn Page; 6 on lines 20 and 21; The Court erred in its ruling by suggesting an “Impetus” for an on behalf of respondent-appellant,
to the contrary and the court erred res judicata in sensitivity consistent also to appellant’s counterclaims and money damages.
3).Albeit the Court’s err in NYSCEF Doc. 197 Amended Order itself equates to fair unbiased justice by the Appellate Division.
Party Information
Instructions: Fill in the name of each party to the action or proceeding, one name per line. If this form is to be filed for an
appeal, indicate the status of the party in the court of original instance and his, her, or its status in this court, if any. If this
form is to be filed for a proceeding commenced in this court, fill in only the party’s name and his, her, or its status in this
court.
No. Party Name Original Status Appellate Division Status

1 MICHAEL FOSTER RESPONDENT APPELLANT
2 CAROLINA GILDRED PLAINTIFF APPELLEE
3 Thomas Philip Gildred (By Signature Order NYSCEF Doc.161 01.17.20) PLAINTIFF APPELLEE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Page | 4
4
P age |5
Attorney Information
Instructions: Fill in the names of the attorneys or firms for the respective parties. If this form is to be filed with the
notice of petition or order to show cause by which a special proceeding is to be commenced in the Appellate Division,
only the name of the attorney for the petitioner need be provided. In the event that a litigant represents herself or
himself, the box marked “Pro Se” must be checked and the appropriate information for that litigant must be supplied
in the spaces provided.
Attorney/Firm Name: MICHAEL FOSTER |PROSE |

Address: 128 E BWDY UNIT#260
City: NEW YORK State: NEW YORK Zip:10002 Telephone No:212-766-2000
E-mail Address:MICHAEL@MICHAELTANGO.COM
Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government √ProSe √Pro Hac
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): RESPONDENT-APPELLANT
Attorney/Firm Name: RAFKIN ESQ., PLLC
Address: 1201 Sussex Turnpike, Suite 102
City:RANDOLPH State:NJ Zip:07869 Telephone No:973-891-3370
E-mail Address:SRAFKIN@RAFKINESQ.COM
Attorney Type: ☐ √Retained Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): Plaintiff-Appellee
Attorney/Firm Name: Seth A. Rafkin
City: RANDOLPH State:NJ Zip:07869 Telephone No: 973-891-3370
E-mail Address: SRAFKIN@RAFKINESQ.COM
Attorney Type: ☐ √Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above):
Attorney/Firm Name: Jennifer Bogue
City: RANDOLPH State:NJ Zip:07869 Telephone No: 973-891-3370
E-mail Address: JBOGUE@RAFKINESQ.COM
Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assignee ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): Plaintiff Appellee
Attorney/Firm Name:
Address:
City: State: Zip: Telephone No:
E-mail Address:
Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice
Attorney/Firm Name:
Address:
City: State: Zip: Telephone No:
E-mail Address:
Attorney Type: ☐ Retained ☐ Assigned ☐ Government ☐ Pro Se ☐ Pro Hac Vice
Page | 5
5
PAGE “06”
All pages follow in sequence as listed below followed by page "7".
NYSCEF Doc.197
(03.09.20)
The
AMEMDED ORDER
Over-leaf:
OF Page 6.1:. NYSCEF Doc.197, Confirmation Receipt/Notice of Entry 03.09.20
OF Page 6.6:. NYSCEF Doc.162, Letter Correspondence to Amend, revoke or reargue hours after
unprecedented hearing 01.17.20
OF Page 6.7.1,2,3:. NYSCEF Doc.197, THE AMENDED ORDER (FINAL) 03.09.20
OF Page 6.8: RESPONDENT-APPELLANT’S PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
OF Page 6.9.1,2,3:. NYSCEF Doc.195, THE ORDER (NON-FINAL) 03.02.20
OF Page 6.10.:. SO ORDERED “3RD INTERIM ORDER, (OF-FINAL-ORDER) 02.14.20
OF Page 6.11.1- 33:. MR. Tal R. Hahn Senior Court Reporter Certified Record
The lower court erred by representing itself as an attorney to Respondent-Appellant in its request to
opposing parties Counsel and witnesses to exit the Court during the hearing: (See opposing Counsel’s own
th
admission NYSCEF. Doc. No.183 Letter to J. Nock Jan 20 , Page;#2 Paragraph#5 Lines 4&5).:-
OF Page 12.1.2,3:.NYSCEF Doc.No.186 “1st INTERIM ORDER (OF-FINAL-ORDER) 02.14.20

APPELENT'S MOTION Seq. 006 NYSCEF Doc. NO 168 .........................(See pages: i-94b, i-94b2 to i-94b32)
6
INDEX-PAGE ONE
NOTICE_of_APPEAL
-- SUBJECT INDEX --
NOTICE OF APPEAL ……………………………..…PAGE 1-6.……………………………………………………………………….INDEX
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 197 ………………………AMENDED ORDER…………………………IN-DISPUTE……………..PG: 6
AMEND/RESCIND/REARGUE or Return to Calendar……IMMEDIATE-LTTER……………………..PG: i-13/i-14/i-15
NOTICE OF APPEAL ……………………………PRELIMINARY-STATEMENT……………………………………………….PG: i-16
NOTICE OF APPEAL …………………………………ABUSE-of-POWER……………………………………..….PG: i-17/i-18/i-19
NOTICE OF APPEAL …2nd-UNECESSARY-INTERIM-ORDER……Intended to be based on fact finding evidence

………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………….…PG: i-20
NOTICE OF APPEAL …………………FULL-CERTIFIED-STENOGRAPHERS-RECORD………..………….PG: i-21_to_i-53
NOTICE OF APPEAL-PAGE “12”_:………………ABUSE-of-POWER-INTERIM-ORDER………….…….PG: i-54_to_i56
NOTICE OF APPEAL-PAGE “13”_........APPELLANT’S-GENERAL-CONCLUSION………………………………….PG: i-58
NOTICE OF APPEAL:…OVEREACHING-ALBEIT-FRAUDULENT-STIPULATION-AGREEMENT….PG: i-59_to_i-62
NOTICE OF APPEAL ……………………APPELENT’S-AFFIDAVITS-of-CAUSE-CERTIFIED……………..PG: i-63_to_i-64
NOTICE OF APPEAL …………………………………ABUSE-of-POWER……………………………………..….PG: i-17/i-18/i-19
NOTICE OF APPEAL-PAGE “14’_…………….ARGUMENT……..:-supporting-laws…………………………………PG: i-69
NOTICE OF APPEAL-PAGE “15”_….ARGUMENT….Disputes…General-Disputes……Relief-Sought.……PG: i-71
NOTICE OF APPEAL-PAGE “12”_:………………ABUSE-of-POWER-INTERIM-ORDER………….…….PG: i-54_to_i56
NOTICE OF APPEAL................INTRODUCTION……….(res_judicata)……………………………..………………….PG: i-73
NOTICE OF APPEAL ………(What appears-to-be-PLAGERIZED-Rulings: drawn from up to “3” of Her. Hon.

Chief Administrative-Judge: DEBORAH KAPLAN… (MINUS-RES-JUDICATA)………..…………………..….….PG: i-74
NOTICE OF APPEAL:…IDENTIFYING-Mal_Practice_NYSCEF.Doc.No.183…30+False-STATEMENTS…..PG: i-95

…… ………………………………………………………………….…….PG: i-95_to_i-116, i-117_to_i-119, and i-129_to_i-153
Brazen, 30+ false statements confidently ascribed to the attention of Hon.Louis L. Nock in letter of Seth A. Rafkin. So much with disregard, appellee's
counsels obvious actions caused the Court to err by its passive failure to acknowledge each underlying Mal_Practice issues even after per NYSCEF
Doc.188 arose the Court's attention and during oral arguments and such as repeated in Counsel's letter Doc.187 per no other filing Order Doc.186.
NOTICE OF APPEAL.........................................ABUSE-of-PROCESS…….………………………….PG: i-129_to_i-153
NOTICE OF APPEAL:………………………………..TABLES-of-AUTHORITY……………………………….…..PG: i-54_to_i-57
NOTICE OF APPEAL ……………………VEILED-of-BRIBERY…………(Paragraph(1) pg:158-161………………...PG: i-75
NOTICE OF APPEAL……………MALICIOUS-PROSECUTION…………(Paragraph(1)&(4)…………..…………….PG: i-75
NOTICE OF APPEAL.............APPELENT'S MOTION Seq.006 NYSCEF Doc168 PG: i-94b, i-94b2 to i-94b32
INDEX-PAGE ONE
NOTICE_of_APPEAL
INDEX-PAGE TWO
-- SUBJECT INDEX -- NOTICE_of_APPEAL
NOTICE OF APPEAL.............APPELLANT’S-PUBLIC-NOTORIETY-- VS. - PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE'S un-popular Individual Character

…………………………………….…….20+YEARS…(NYTimes/NewsDAY/Am-NY.etc.,……………………..PG:
Authored 2-Books and, i-81_to_i-82
NOTICE OF APPEAL:……DISPUTES….THE-COURT-ERRED-by-EFFORTS-of-ENTRAPMENT..(E3.1).……..PG: i-77
NOTICE OF APPEAL ……………………DISPUTES…………”Res-Judicata”………………………………………………...PG: i-78
NOTICE OF APPEAL:……DISPUTES…………………………POWER-of-ABUSE……….…………………………………..PG: i-79
NOTICE OF APPEAL ……………………DISPUTES…………”RELIEF-SOUGHT”…………………………………………...PG: i-80
NOTICE OF APPEAL:……………………………DISPUTE-BOARD-……….……………………………………………………..PG: i-88
NOTICE OF APPEAL …”Elements-of-FRAUD-per_Stipulation-Agreement”NYSCEF.Doc.161.....PG: i-99-i-104
NOTICE OF APPEAL:……PORTIONS-DISPUTED_vs_REASONS_per_”AMENDED-ORDER”……PG: i-88_to_i-93
NOTICE OF APPEAL ……………………GENERAL-DISPUTE……NYSCEF.Doc.197:-Amended-Order...PG: i-88-i-93
INDEX-PAGE TWO
NOTICE_of_APPEAL
NYSCEF - New York County Supreme Court
Confirmation Notice
The NYSCEF website has received an electronic filing on 03/09/2020 03:39 PM. Please keep this notice
as a confirmation of this filing.
153554/2017
Carolina Gildred - v. - Michael Foster
Assigned Judge: Louis Nock
Documents Received on 03/09/2020 03:39 PM
Doc # Document Type

197 ORDER - OTHER
Filing User
Filed by court user.
E-mail Notifications
An email regarding this filing has been sent to the following on 03/09/2020 03:39 PM:
BRIAN FIGEROUX - bfigeroux@msn.com

Michael Foster - Michael@michaeltango.com
SETH A. RAFKIN - srafkin@rafkinesq.com
NOTE: If submitting a working copy of this filing to the court, you must include as a notification
page firmly affixed thereto a copy of this Confirmation Notice.
Hon. Milton A. Tingling, New York County Clerk and Clerk of the Supreme Court
Phone: 646-386-5956 Website: http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/1jd/supctmanh/county_clerk_operations.shtml
NYSCEF Resource Center, EFile@nycourts.gov

Phone: (646) 386-3033 | Fax: (212) 401-9146 | Website: www.nycourts.gov/efile
Page 1 of 1 7
Confirmation Notice
The NYSCEF website has received an electronic filing on 03/02/2020 09:30 AM. Please keep this notice
153554/2017
Documents Received on 03/02/2020 09:30 AM
Doc # Document Type

195 ORDER - OTHER
Filing User
An email regarding this filing has been sent to the following on 03/02/2020 09:30 AM:


Page 1 of 1 8
Confirmation Notice
153554/2017
Doc # Document Type

166 NOTICE OF MOTION, Motion #006
Laxness Dismissal and/or STRIKE PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT
167 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT, Motion #006
168 AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS, Motion #006

RENEW/REARGUE/RESETTLE
169 EXHIBIT(S) 1oA, Motion #006
Hon Gerald Lebovits wisdom in Thwarts a contingency litigation
170 EXHIBIT(S) ooA, Motion #006
Hon. Louis Nock Settlement Order
Filing User
Michael Foster | Michael@michaeltango.com | 212-757-5626
265 Lafayette Street Apt.9d, New York, NY 10012


Page 1 of 1 9
Confirmation Notice
153554/2017
Doc # Document Type

161 STIPULATION - SO ORDERED
Filing User


Page 1 of 1 10
Confirmation Notice
153554/2017
Doc # Document Type

162 LETTER / CORRESPONDENCE TO JUDGE
Due to the fact of my mothers passing I have become more susceptible to
Delayed Cognitive Thinking.
163 EXHIBIT(S) A23
I Rescind the settlement agreement - Due to medical and other personal and
legal understanding.
Filing User


Page 1 of 1 11
Michael Foster: Prose Defendant GILDRED vs FOSTER 153554/2017
Michael Foster
38 W 31st St Apt.108a
New York, NY 10001
Tel. (212) 766-2000
January 16, 2020

Hon. Judge Louis Nock
Pt. 38 – 111 Centre St. Rm 1166
New York, NY 10013
Re: Gildred v Foster 153554/2017 “Counter Settlement offer” 01/16/2020 9:48PM
Dear Justice Louis Nock

cc: Attention The Honarable Judge Cantanaro, Judge The Hon. Gerald Lebovits, The Hon. Kaplan (Chan)
I have questions about the earlier settlement offer attach as exhibit A23.
of the above named caption. If needs be I would also proposed an immediate reinstatement of Trial Schedule.
I therefore would like with immediate effect to rescind this settlement offer as its in violation of my human rights.
With respect to my Counter Settlement Offer, may I remind the honorable Judge of his promise to read it thoroughly.
With this I add my heart-filled, respect and understanding of the tremendous courtesies I've been clearly in receipt of.
I would like to place my fate at the bequest of the jury we have so long kept in sequestration.
This decision have come in the light of an ongoing general mental health assessment which consist of a diagnosis of
"Delayed Cognitive Thinking" an illness I have had as a child which effectuates "Delayed Emotions" or "Delayed
Emotional Reactions" to incidents otherwise especially related to trauma.
It is no way my perceived intentions is to pervert the order and the Honor of the Judge's chambers but this is a
childhood disability of which I have no control over.
Thank you kindly
__________________
Michael Foster
Prose Litigant Defendant
cc: Plaintiff Attorney Alan Seth Rafkin Esq. (via ECF)
ps: Your Honor if you recall the plaintiff's Attorney Seth Rafkin cautioned that he did not want me to review the agreement
because he's is concerned that I may post it publicly.The public is my domain and the public's opinion is also important to
myself as Prose Defendant in this matter. This is apparently the same agreement plaintiff refuse to give in the presence of
Her Honorable Judge Kaplan (Chan).
12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2020 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 153554/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 197 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2020
13
1 of 3
14
2 of 3
15
3 of 3
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In this Action, Respondent-Appellant Mr. Michael Foster,
appeals, as of right, pursuant to CPLR § 5704 from an Order of the
Supreme Court, New York County, signed by the Honorable Louis L.
Nock on March 02, and Mar 09, 2020 which denied a request seeking,
to amend, rescind or reargue, the stipulation settlement of this action
dated January 17, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 161). Wherein the lower
court erred by denying respondent timely request for court reporter
and its unprecedented actions before and during the hearing in the
forenoon of January 17, 2020 by its request to Plaintiff, its Witnesses,
and Counsels to exit the Court during the hearing. The lower court
further erred by misrepresenting itself and appearing as Counsel to
Respondent-Appellant Mr. Michael Foster.
Rather than grant Respondent-Appellant’s reasonable motion
to amend, reargue or rescind said settlement stipulation in its entirety
or return to Trial Calendar, the Lower Court implode itself with
unreasonably biasness and improperly denied Respondent-Appellant’s
motion after a series of unnecessary interim orders.
Respondent-Appellant’s motion should have been granted in
simple by the lower court.
16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2020 09:30 AM INDEX NO. 153554/2017
17
1 of 3
18
2 of 3
19
3 of 3
PAGE “11”
SO ORDERED
02.14.20
Over-leaf:
Page 1. of 33 Mr. Tal R. Hahn Senior Court Reporter Certified Stenographers
minutes.
THE SECOND/THIRD:
ORDER/INTERIM
Per Certified Stenographer’s Minutes:
Page 32 lines22,23,24,25 and Page 33 lines 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and line 9.
Quote: THE COURT: “Thank you. The Order of the Court is as follows for now:
I am issuing an interim Order. And the interim Order is that the respondent will be
afforded a period - - I will be generous - - a period of two full weeks to - - in
which to subpoena live expert evidence who will be able to inform the Court about
delayed cognitive thinking, and at which point at the end of such - - we will
schedule an evidentiary hearing for that purpose: after which the Court will issue a
further Order at that time based on the evidence.
Thank You. The record is closed.” End-QUOTE.
ALTHOUGH THE RESPONDENT MADE SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS IN COMMUNICATION WITH MULTIPLE
AUTHORITATIVE PROFESSIONAL INDIVIDUALS WHO’D BE WILLING TO HELP THE COURT UNDERSTAND
THE SIMPLICITY OF COGNITIVE THINGING DELAYES IN ADULTS AND CHILDREN – TO RESPONDENT’S
SURPRISE: THE COURT SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED AN AMMENDED ORDER RENOUNCING THE ABOVE
INTERIM ORDER AS MOOT WITHOUT ANY GIVEN EXPLANATION.
20
1
1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK:
2 --------------------------------------------------x
CAROLINA GILDRED,
3
Plaintiff,
4 Index:
-against- 153554/17
5
MICHAEL FOSTER,
6
Defendant.
7 -------------------------------------------------x
New York County Supreme Court
8 111 Centre Street
New York, New York 10013
9 February 14, 2020
10
B E F O R E:
11 HONORABLE LOUIS L. NOCK,
Supreme Court Justice
12
13
A P P E A R A N C E S:
14
15 SETH RAFKIN, ESQ.

Attorney for the Plaintiff
16 1201 Sussex Turnpike, Suite 102
Randolph, New Jersey 07869
17
18
19 MICHAEL FOSTER, Pro Se Defendant
20
21
22
23
24
25 Tal R. Hahn,
Senior Court Reporter
21
2
Proceedings
1 THE COURT: On the record. The matter is
2 Gildred against Foster. This case bears Index Number
3 153554 of 2017. We are here today on what the Court
4 understands to be an application by the defendant for
5 judicial rescission of a settlement agreement entered
6 into by the parties on January 17th of 2020.
7 I am joined by counsel for the plaintiff and
8 by the defendant, pro se. Counsel for the plaintiff,
9 your appearance for the record please.
10 MR. RAFKIN: Good morning, your Honor. Seth
11 Rafkin for plaintiff, Carolina Gildred.
12 THE COURT: Good morning. Mr. Foster, your
13 appearance on the record please. Your name at this
14 time.
15 MR. FOSTER: Michael Foster, pro se. And I
16 just gave my address.
17 THE COURT: Pardon?
18 MR. FOSTER: 120 --
19 THE COURT: What did you just ask me?
20 MR. FOSTER: I just said I gave my address.
21 THE COURT: Go ahead and do so.
22 MR. FOSTER: 126 East Broadway, New York, New
23 York, 10002.
24 THE COURT: Thank you. Gentlemen, you may
25 either remain standing or be seated. It's entirely up
22
3
Proceedings
1 to you.
2 MR. RAFKIN: Thank you, your Honor.
3 THE COURT: For the record, this Court issued
4 a Decision and Order dated January the 22nd. And I am
5 going to read it into the record in full. It is
6 NYSCEF, N-Y-S-C-E-F, document number 186.
7 Whereas the parties entered into a
8 stipulation of settlement of this action dated January
9 17th, 2020, NYSCEF Doc number 161. And whereas
10 defendant has subsequently filed a motion on January
11 20, 2020, sequence number 006, which appears to seek
12 judicial rescission of said stipulation on the stated
13 grounds that, quote, defendant suffers from delayed
14 cognitive thinking, a childhood disability, unquote.
15 NYSCEF Doc number 168, paragraph 7.
16 And, whereas, plaintiff's counsel has
17 responded to said motion by letter dated January 20,
18 2020. NYSCEF Doc number 183. And, whereas, defendant
19 has replied to said letter by letter dated January 22,
20 2020, yet to be e-filed by the defendant. And,
21 whereas, said motion is presently returnable in the
22 paperless submission part of this Court, no appearance
23 required, on January 27, 2020, for calendaring of oral
24 argument before the undersigned at a date and time to
25 be determined by said part.
23
4
Proceedings
1 It is now declared that said motion, sequence
2 number 006, is deemed fully briefed and submitted
3 pending oral argument before the undersigned. And it
4 is ordered that no further filings of any nature
5 whatsoever shall be filed in this matter without
6 expressed permission from the Court except for
7 defendant's said January 22, 2020, letter which shall
8 be e-filed by the defendant forthwith pending oral
9 argument before the undersigned.
10 And it is further ordered that plaintiff, who
11 resides in California, may be represented at oral
12 argument before the undersigned through her counsel of
13 record in this matter. Unquote.
14 I have just read verbatim my Order of January
15 22, 2020. I will begin today's proceedings by asking
16 Mr. Foster two questions.
17 Mr. Foster, my Order directs you to e-file
18 your letter of January 22, 2020. I can't find it in
19 the docket. Did you file that letter pursuant to my
20 expressed Order for you to do so?
21 MR. FOSTER: Yes, your Honor.
22 THE COURT: You did? Have you found it ,
23 counsel, in the docket?
24 MR. RAFKIN: I have not. I note that there
25 was something filed yesterday.
24
5
Proceedings
1 THE COURT: No, I am not talking about
2 yesterday. So maybe Mr. Foster didn't understand me.
3 There is a letter you drafted and you sent to
4 me. It's dated January 22, 2020. I ordered you to
5 e-file it. I will ask you one more time, only once, in
6 case you misunderstood me.
7 Did you file that letter as I directed you to
8 do? Yes or no.
9 MR. FOSTER: Your Honor --
10 THE COURT: Yes or no.
11 MR. FOSTER: The letter was filed, your
12 Honor.
13 THE COURT: I don't see it.
14 MR. FOSTER: The letter was filed.
15 THE COURT: No.
16 MR. FOSTER: On document 188.
17 THE COURT: One moment.
18 (Brief pause.)
19 THE COURT: Sir, document 188, which was
20 filed yesterday, is dated February 12th. I will try
21 this a third time.
22 (Brief pause.)
23 THE COURT: This is the third and last time,
24 sir. I don't see any e-filing of your January 22,
25 2020, letter. I ordered you to do it. By disobeying
25
6
Proceedings
1 my Order, that could fall into the category of contempt
2 of court.
3 I ask you now, sir, did you file your letter
4 of January 22, 2020? Yes or no.
6 THE COURT: Let's try it again. Yes or no.
7 MR. FOSTER: First of all, your Honor --
8 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I am --
9 the record will reflect that I am not getting a
10 straight answer.
11 MR. FOSTER: I didn't even know this Order
12 was issued like that.
13 THE COURT: Sir, sir, your name is listed as
14 an e-filer in this case. What do you mean you didn't
15 know?
16 MR. FOSTER: I didn't receive the e-mail.
17 THE COURT: Sir, there is no e-mail.
18 MR. FOSTER: I didn't have access to my
19 e-mail.
20 THE COURT: This is an e-file part. We do
21 not accept paper submissions.
22 MR. FOSTER: I haven't been to the e-file --
23 THE COURT: Why not?
24 MR. FOSTER: Because I don't know. I don't
25 because -- I haven't been there.
26
7
Proceedings
1 THE COURT: Sir, you are a defendant -- or
2 you were a defendant. This case is settled. You were
3 a defendant. We will talk about that later. You were
4 a defendant in this action. You made a post-settlement
5 motion. You are telling me you haven't looked at the
6 electronic docket in this case?
7 MR. FOSTER: Not in the immediate --
8 THE COURT: Why haven't you looked at the --
9 MR. FOSTER: It was just a few days. I had a
10 lot going on, your Honor. I hadn't had time to go on
11 the internet.
12 THE COURT: Sir, sir, my Order was filed
13 January -- one moment -- January 23rd, 2020. You are
14 telling me that between January 23, 2020, and February
15 the 13th you did not consult the electronic docket in
16 this case where you have a pending motion? Is that
17 what you are telling me?
18 MR. FOSTER: That is not what I am saying to
19 you, your Honor. I am saying that there had been a
20 time lapse between there. When I did saw that letter,
21 and I understood that you referred to the letter, I
22 responded but before I responded I needed to formulate
23 how the response needed to be, because I knew I need to
24 upload the letter, right, but I also --
25 THE COURT: Why haven't you done it? I
27
8
Proceedings
1 ordered you to do it.
2 MR. FOSTER: At that time I did not, your
3 Honor, and I apologize for that.
4 THE COURT: Wait a minute. The Court ordered
5 you to do it. And you didn't do it.
7 THE COURT: That is not permitted.
8 MR. FOSTER: The Court did not give me a
9 specific date to do it, your Honor.
10 THE COURT: Forthwith is what the Order says.
11 MR. FOSTER: I misunderstood the forthwith
12 concept. Or the forthwith term. I didn't understand
13 the forthwith said it has to be done immediately or
14 right away. I don't understand the forthwith to have
15 been --
16 THE COURT: Sir, that's what forthwith means.
17 Let's move on to my second question.
18 The record will reflect that no adequate
19 answer has been provided to my first question to the
20 defendant.
21 MR. FOSTER: I did.
22 THE COURT: Let's move on. Let's move on to
23 my second question to the defendant. My Order further
24 says that no further filings of any nature whatsoever
25 shall be filed in this matter without expressed
28
9
Proceedings
1 permission from the Court, except for defendant said
2 January 22, 2020, which shall be e-filed by defendant
3 forthwith, pending oral argument before the
4 undersigned, unquote.
5 Yet, sir, I see that you violated my Order
6 yet again, second time, by filing the document NYSCEF
7 188. Tell me why you violated my Order, sir.
8 MR. FOSTER: Sir, I apologize. I do not -- I
9 couldn't see that as a violation because it is an
10 answer -- my answer to the obviously the
11 misunderstanding of the forthwith. Because document
12 188 is the document that I wrote as a courtesy to the
13 other judges, and now my understanding is that it
14 should have been installed forthwith per your Order,
15 right, and I apologize for that. I haven't done that
16 because I didn't understand. I do not have a counsel
17 throughout this matter.
18 THE COURT: Why don't you consider hiring a
19 counsel, sir?
20 MR. FOSTER: I have.
21 THE COURT: Tell me about your progress in
22 that regard.
23 MR. FOSTER: Presently there is a counsel
24 from Florida who is willing to -- he volunteered that
25 he wanted to work with me. He --
29
10
Proceedings
1 THE COURT: Is he admitted in the State of
2 New York, if you know?
3 MR. FOSTER: He is.
4 THE COURT: What is his name?
5 MR. FOSTER: I could tell you his name.
6 THE COURT: Take a moment. I want to have an
7 answer to my question.
8 MR. FOSTER: Of course. Of course.
9 (Brief pause.)
10 MR. FOSTER: Mr. -- it's an Indian name.
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 MR. FOSTER: It's someone I know very well.
13 THE COURT: Okay. Do you have that person's
14 phone number?
15 MR. FOSTER: I can get his phone number.
16 THE COURT: Give it to me now. I am assuming
17 the device you are looking into has his name as well.
18 I want his name too.
19 MR. FOSTER: I will find his e-mail he sent
20 me. Absolutely.
21 (Brief pause.)
22 THE COURT: Mr. Foster, we are waiting.
23 MR. FOSTER: Oh, I have it, your Honor.
24 (Brief pause.)
25 THE COURT: Sir, we are waiting.
30
11
Proceedings
1 (Brief pause.)
2 MR. FOSTER: Let me --
3 THE COURT: Here is what we will do. The
4 record will reflect that a few minutes have gone by.
5 The defendant cannot answer my question as to either
6 the name or phone number --
7 MR. FOSTER: The name --
8 THE COURT: I am in the middle of a sentence,
9 sir. I am in the middle of a sentence.
10 The defendant still has not been able to
11 answer my question about the identity of the supposed
12 counsel. Let's move on to a different topic at this
13 time.
15 THE COURT: No. Let's move on to a different
16 topic at this time.
17 First order of business. Mr. Foster, so that
18 it is crystal clear to you, because you know what, I
19 will take you at your word that you didn't understand
20 what the word forthwith means. I don't understand it,
21 but I will grant you that largesse.
22 So let me make it clear to you right now.
23 Within twenty-four hours, and it is now twelve minutes
24 after 11 a.m., you will e-file into the electronic
25 docket of this case your January 22, 2020, letter.
31
12
Proceedings
1 MR. FOSTER: I will do it in five minutes,
2 your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Great. Five minutes is within
4 twenty-four hours which complies with my Order. I will
5 check --
6 MR. FOSTER: But in the meantime --
7 THE COURT: Don't interrupt my sentence.
8 Only one at a time. I will be checking the docket to
9 make sure it's e-filed.
10 Now, Mr. Foster, as I cited in my Order of
11 January 22, 2020, that letter that you still haven't
12 e-filed, but hopefully within twenty-four hours you
13 will, says that you suffer from, quote, delayed
14 cognitive thinking, a childhood disability, unquote. I
15 am giving you a chance now to elaborate on that and
16 tell me what that means.
17 MR. FOSTER: It is happening right now, your
18 Honor. For example, the attorney is not just an
19 attorney. He is also a friend. He is almost a family
20 member. We work together. Himself --
21 THE COURT: But you can't tell me his name.
22 MR. FOSTER: That is what it is, your Honor.
23 Because in the moment, the stress that everything
24 compounds, and as it compounds -- his name is right
25 here. We are that close.
32
13
Proceedings
1 THE COURT: Let me ask you this question,
2 sir.
3 Now, you are seeking rescission of a
4 settlement agreement based on what you tell me is an
5 ailment that you just described. What makes you think
6 that you would then be competent to go forward to
7 trial?
9 THE COURT: Can you answer that question for
10 me?
11 MR. FOSTER: Your Honor, I have been
12 defendant in this case, pro se, for a while. For a
13 number of years.
14 THE COURT: So that you are able to do but
15 the settlement agreement you can't understand? No,
16 sir. I have a question for you. And I understand you
17 to be saying that in your view you have been doing a
18 good job of defending the case.
20 THE COURT: Let me understand it. I need to
21 understand. You are capable enough to do that, but you
22 are telling me you are incapable of settling the case?
23 I need you to explain that for me.
24 MR. FOSTER: Your Honor, this is what it is.
25 I have a track thinking and if you are throwing me off
33
14
Proceedings
1 with the auspices with respectfully your directing me
2 with a certain question, my brain, my mind cannot be
3 directed that way. Since you asked me about the
4 attorney name, I am stuck there, right there.
5 THE COURT: Sir, what makes you think that
6 you are competent enough to proceed --
7 MR. FOSTER: Because --
8 THE COURT: I am not finished with my
9 sentence. You see, my reporter needs to take it down.
10 Only one at a time speaks.
11 What makes you think you will be competent
12 enough then to proceed with this case at trial? Allow
13 me to explain further, sir.
14 Are you familiar with the term guardian ad
15 litem? Yes or no.
16 MR. FOSTER: I have an idea what it is.
17 THE COURT: What is your --
18 MR. FOSTER: Guardian ad litem, probably some
19 legal support, et cetera. I don't know. Again, your
20 Honor --
21 THE COURT: Allow me to explain. One at a
22 time.
23 MR. FOSTER: You asked me a question.
24 THE COURT: You answered it.
25 MR. FOSTER: I didn't complete the answer.
34
15
Proceedings
1 THE COURT: Allow me to explain. A guardian
2 ad litem means someone who would be responsible for
3 handling litigation on behalf of someone who can't do
4 it for him or herself. You are telling me that you
5 have this cognitive problem. And what I am asking you,
6 sir, if you have this cognitive problem and that is why
7 you are asking this Court to rescind the settlement
8 agreement --
9 MR. FOSTER: That is not the only reason.
10 There are other reasons.
11 THE COURT: What are we going to do if we --
12 if I do that, and we proceed to trial and you are still
13 afflicted with this problem -- wait a minute, I am not
14 finished -- I would need to appoint a guardian ad litem
15 over you. Isn't that right?
16 MR. FOSTER: I do not understand the process
17 of appointing a guardian ad litem. But, your Honor,
18 just to complete what I was just trying to say in
19 finishing answering your question as to what I thought
20 I understand about it, although I understand that that
21 is not something that I could acquire in a civil
22 matter, right, but --
23 THE COURT: No, sir. I would appoint one if
24 I would do it. I have the authority -- not at the same
25 time.
35
16
Proceedings
1 MR. FOSTER: Very well.
2 THE COURT: I have the authority to appoint a
3 guardian ad litem who would make all decisions with
4 regard to your defense. Because what you are telling
5 me, Mr. Foster, you have an attention problem.
6 MR. FOSTER: I have to finish telling you
7 what that means, your Honor, respectfully. And if you
8 give me fifteen seconds to twenty-five seconds, then I
9 can do that.
10 THE COURT: I will give you as much time as
11 you want.
12 MR. FOSTER: Good. The cognitive theory is
13 brought on by an emotion. And that emotion is
14 something that would be in a sense of trauma, or trauma
15 gets induced or at that point in time, and it just --
16 and I am stopped at that moment, right? And that is
17 usually because I am being -- something is being
18 imputed on to me or directed on to me. And if
19 something is directed on to me, I have to deal with it
20 precept by precept.
21 THE COURT: Did you say precept by precept?
22 MR. FOSTER: Yes, the theory. I have to
23 respond. I cannot jump from one thing that I am
24 responding to without completing that thing and then
25 jump to the other thing.
36
17
Proceedings
1 THE COURT: Then how will you try the case?
2 MR. FOSTER: Because trying a case is by
3 sequence. You have -- you have your sequential
4 questions and you have a process in which you -- and I
5 am not being imputed or directed theoretically from my
6 mind to jump from one cold thought into a hot -- like,
7 I had to take my mind immediately -- I had no idea that
8 you would request me for this attorney. In fact, I
9 love this attorney. I would get his information, but I
10 can't even think to go into my e-mail because I am
11 being, you know, traumatized with this situation. I
12 have to respect you and pay attention to you.
13 THE COURT: But you feel you would be able to
14 handle the stress -- were I, I didn't say I am going
15 to, but were I to grant your motion and vacate the
16 settlement, you feel confident that the stresses of a
17 trial would be something you could handle in light of
18 what you are describing, sir?
19 MR. FOSTER: Respectfully, your Honor, I
20 think I just answered that question.
21 THE COURT: I still don't understand. Please
22 try it again.
23 MR. FOSTER: What I am saying to you, your
24 Honor, be it an ad litem or whichever you are
25 appointing gratefully, that is definitely appreciated.
37
18
Proceedings
1 THE COURT: No. No.
2 MR. FOSTER: I am --
3 THE COURT: We can't talk at the same time.
4 MR. FOSTER: You are cutting --
5 THE COURT: I didn't say I was appointing a
6 guardian ad litem. I said if I follow your train of
7 thought that might be something I would need to do. Go
8 ahead.
9 MR. FOSTER: I understand the thought process
10 around appointing or not appointing. I am not saying
11 that you are actually going to appoint. And which
12 brings me back to the reason why you may presuppose the
13 idea of having to appoint a guardian per se. But I
14 also just explained, respectfully, your Honor, that
15 that may not be necessary because you just asked me as
16 to how I intend to go ahead with the case, the trial,
17 and I shared with you, that it's a precept upon precept
18 thing.
19 THE COURT: Did you just say again precept
20 upon precept?
21 MR. FOSTER: I could find another term if
22 that doesn't come across properly, your Honor.
23 Basically, the process I see at the trial is
24 a -- it has a process. And that process does not
25 include me being in a position where I am being struck
38
19
Proceedings
1 out of the way of a particular concern or question.
2 Like, for example, what just happened. And believe it
3 or not, I am using eighty-five percent of my mind
4 thinking right now still trying to answer your question
5 as to remembering this -- if I am driving a car and I
6 am in a traffic and I am about to -- it looks like an
7 accident and someone asks me my mother's name I
8 wouldn't know. I would not be able to answer the
9 question. That is what this neurological issue is.
10 It's not a mental issue. It's a neurological issue.
11 It's not something I could control.
12 THE COURT: Sir, have you ever been treated
13 by any physician for this ailment that you are
14 describing?
15 MR. FOSTER: Your Honor, it's a
16 neurological --
17 THE COURT: Answer my question, sir. Have
18 you ever been treated by a medical professional with
19 regard to the condition that you are describing? Yes
20 or no.
21 MR. FOSTER: I have consulted with multiple
22 doctors who are pretty -- who are mostly mental. And
23 they would suggest to me that this is a neurological
24 issue.
25 THE COURT: Sir, have you brought any of
39
20
Proceedings
1 those doctors here today in court to opine with regard
2 to your assertion that, quote, defendant suffers from
3 delayed cognitive thinking, a childhood disability,
4 unquote, and that that affliction is so severe that
5 this Court should take the drastic effort of vacating
6 an agreement in open court entered into by the parties,
7 sir? Did you bring in any expert, any affidavit, any
8 witness, anything to that effect?
9 MR. FOSTER: Respectfully --
10 THE COURT: Did you or did you not?
11 MR. FOSTER: But your Honor --
12 THE COURT: Can you answer a question
13 straightly, sir? Did you or did you not?
14 MR. FOSTER: Your Honor, it's obvious --
15 THE COURT: The record will reflect the
16 defendant wants to answer questions his own way. I am
17 going to let him. Go ahead.
18 MR. FOSTER: Your Honor, you are asking me to
19 prove, or that I should bring someone here today.
20 Right? If you want the auspices of having someone here
21 today --
22 THE COURT: Did you say auspices?
23 MR. FOSTER: Then I would have to --
24 THE COURT: I just want the record to be
25 clear. Tell us what us that word was?
40
21
Proceedings
1 MR. FOSTER: The authority, sir, the
2 authority of a neurosurgeon or someone who has
3 experience, who have spoken to me on the line of my
4 issue, right, and have extended recommendations and
5 they are familiar with this -- with neurological
6 dysfunction versus a mental retardation. And that I
7 could ask them, or subpoena them to come here on my
8 behalf and speak about the experience that I am trying
9 to explain to you.
10 THE COURT: All right. Thank you,
11 Mr. Foster. Let's turn to counsel for the plaintiff.
12 Mr. Rafkin.
13 MR. RAFKIN: Yes, your Honor.
14 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Foster says that
15 it's possible that he might be able to present evidence
16 in support of his assertion that he's not competent to
17 sign a settlement agreement, but he is competent to go
18 to trial. He says that he could produce such expert
19 evidence.
20 Now, you know, it's possible that we could --
21 that we could schedule something. But tell me your
22 thoughts on going forward in that regard.
23 MR. RAFKIN: Yes.
24 THE COURT: In other words, it would be in
25 the nature of an evidentiary hearing. Your client
41
22
Proceedings
1 would not have to come from California, and we would
2 see whether Mr. Foster does or does not produce any
3 independent evidence of this dichotomy; to wit, he says
4 he can't understand the settlement but he can
5 understand how to go forward with a full blown jury
6 trial defending it.
7 Go ahead.
8 MR. RAFKIN: Thank you, your Honor. My
9 reaction on that point is, I have the same viewpoint
10 that it is patently inconsistent to be able to say one
11 is capable to try a case before a jury, to represent
12 oneself for three years or so, and then say I am unable
13 to understand or enter into a settlement agreement with
14 all the benefits of the time that was allotted by the
15 Court, counsel of the Court, et cetera, as reflected in
16 my letter to the Court. I think --
17 THE COURT: And, by the way, you know, many
18 people in commercial life, for example, regret the
19 deals they made yesterday. But they are still deals.
20 They are still contracts. Because as of the moment of
21 contract there was mutual consent. Someone who changes
22 his or her mind after the contract, those are not
23 grounds to vacate the contract.
24 Continue, counsel.
25 MR. RAFKIN: Thank you, your Honor. The
42
23
Proceedings
1 other point I would make is, you know, I have --
2 essentially, tell me, just let me know if I am going
3 broader than you want, but I have two problems with the
4 motion before the Court.
5 MR. FOSTER: Objection, your Honor.
6 THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. I
7 asked you a directed question. And you gave me -- you
8 were in the middle of giving me an answer. I was
9 saying -- you began by saying, Judge, I agree with what
10 puzzles you, how someone tells me they can't understand
11 the settlement because of some condition, but that
12 condition will not get in the way of the riggers and
13 stresses of actually going to trial in a case. I don't
14 understand either. But Mr. Foster says he might be
15 able to produce an independent expert witness who could
16 explain that to us.
17 Now, I turn to you then to say maybe that is
18 what we ought to do, to give Mr. Foster that
19 opportunity. And I am saying, do you want to speak to
20 that? So you began. Now you could finish.
21 MR. RAFKIN: I would oppose that and I would
22 oppose it for the following reason:
23 Mr. Foster has been a pro se litigant. He
24 has been advised by this Court, as well as others, that
25 that means he has to abide by the rules. The rules
43
24
Proceedings
1 say -- first of all, I don't think the motion has been
2 even authorized. There is no authority to say this was
3 a proper motion. If there is a motion, he has the
4 obligation at that point to come forward with
5 admissible evidence. He has not come forward with any
6 admissible evidence to this Court to support what he is
7 saying is an affliction or that he even suffers from.
8 So I think the time for him to submit
9 substantive evidence on the motion has come and gone.
10 And as the Court knows --
11 MR. FOSTER: Objection, your Honor.
12 THE COURT: What is your objection?
13 MR. FOSTER: He is arguing a motion that you
14 said in your Order -- that he admitted in his letter to
15 you after the Order that he is not willing to --
16 THE COURT: First of all, forgive me, sir.
17 Objections are made to offers of evidence. I am going
18 to ask you, if you need to take notes, go ahead. But I
19 will ask you not to interrupt the argument.
20 When he is finished, I will hear you.
21 Continue. Hold the good thought and I will hear you in
22 a moment. Please continue and conclude.
23 MR. RAFKIN: So that is essentially it, your
24 Honor. I think the time has come and gone to submit
25 evidence to support this. And without that substantive
44
25
Proceedings
1 evidence there is no basis to grant it.
2 THE COURT: In other words, what you are
3 saying is, in the first instance, in order to support a
4 motion it's not good enough to just say things, you
5 have to have some supporting evidence; for example, an
6 affidavit from an expert, and then if the Court feels
7 it needs further elucidation it could then work from
8 there to something more expansive, such as an actual
9 evidentiary hearing. But in the absence of the first
10 thing you don't go to the second thing. Is that what
11 you are saying?
12 MR. RAFKIN: Precisely.
13 THE COURT: Thank you. Thank you for your
14 patience. And I will hear you now, Mr. Foster. You
15 said there was something you disagreed with.
16 MR. FOSTER: Yes. I disagree with that.
17 And --
18 THE COURT: Well, tell me why.
19 MR. FOSTER: From the inception of this oral
20 argument, your Honor, and also by your Order, your
21 Honor, you cited in your Order that it's about a --
22 just the apparent, as you termed it, your Honor,
23 delayed cognitive thinking.
24 THE COURT: No, that is your term, sir. It's
25 not my term.
45
26
Proceedings
1 MR. FOSTER: You placed it in the Order as if
2 it's the only reason why I want this stipulation to be
3 rejected.
4 THE COURT: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
5 Wait a minute. The record will reflect that the words
6 "delayed cognitive thinking" is a direct quote from
7 Mr. Foster's papers.
8 Continue.
9 MR. FOSTER: Right. And also my papers state
10 that the stipulation is also fraud. You did not cite
11 that, your Honor. The stipulation also stated that it
12 is far reaching. It's like a menace. It is also --
13 and also in my statements, your Honor, in rejecting the
14 stipulation, I didn't wait a day or two or three or
15 four. Right? I explained why. It was not only
16 delayed cognitive thinking. Remember, it was in the
17 moment of time here I was probably in a more terrible
18 state than I am at this point in time. I got to a
19 point where I found myself asking you, your Honor,
20 respectfully, if you were a member of the NRA and we
21 had a little conversation there. Why would I ask you a
22 question like that? It's because it was implode upon
23 me in such a way that I was --
24 THE COURT: What was that, implode?
46
27
Proceedings
1 THE COURT: Okay.
2 MR. FOSTER: The feeling of what was
3 happening here, your Honor, it put me in a position
4 where I felt that you are the person of authority. I
5 needed to follow your direction. And that is why I
6 signed that agreement. I did not sign that agreement
7 on my own cognizance. And I would never sign that
8 agreement. And he also said that he presented that
9 agreement since last year. If he is presenting that
10 agreement, why did I never have a copy of it?
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 MR. FOSTER: All of a sudden he brought a
13 copy and I am supposed to sign it because I am in that
14 state. Himself and his client knows that I have
15 suffered from cognitive delay. And at that time, at
16 that point in time they seized upon the opportunity. I
17 had no choice but just to be out of here so I could
18 catch myself. When I left here I put also in my
19 answer, your Honor, that I had to go to the hospital.
20 I went to the hospital and they also reverified much of
21 what we are saying here. And I am sure either of them
22 might be able to put a letter or come to court to
23 define that these circumstances exist.
24 THE COURT: The record will reflect that I
25 have no idea what Mr. Foster is talking about when he
47
28
Proceedings
1 says he spoke to me about the NRA. Absolutely no idea.
2 And it's just fantastic to hear him say something --
3 MR. FOSTER: Well, it's --
4 THE COURT: Please don't interrupt me.
5 Please don't. Number 2 -- let me ask you this
6 question, by the way, Mr. Foster.
7 When we were all together last time in court
8 on the 17th of January of this year, were any
9 proceedings, to your recollection, were any proceedings
10 held outside of this courtroom?
11 MR. FOSTER: You have to rephrase that
12 question.
13 THE COURT: Were any proceedings on January
14 17th, 2020, conducted outside of this courtroom on that
15 day?
16 MR. FOSTER: What am I understanding as
17 proceedings, your Honor?
18 THE COURT: Okay. When you were here in
19 court, that day, January 17th, 2020, were we together
20 in this courtroom or in any other place?
21 MR. FOSTER: While we were in here -- if we
22 were in here, your Honor?
23 THE COURT: Yes. Were we in this courtroom?
24 MR. FOSTER: Why is that --
25 THE COURT: Please answer the question.
48
29
Proceedings
1 MR. FOSTER: Of course, yes, your Honor.
2 THE COURT: And when we were in this
3 courtroom, were we in any other place besides this
4 courtroom?
5 MR. FOSTER: You are asking me we?
6 THE COURT: You and me. Were we in any other
7 place besides this courtroom on that day?
8 Yes or no.
9 MR. FOSTER: I cannot speak for everybody
10 else. I can speak for myself.
11 THE COURT: That is all I am asking you to
12 say.
13 MR. FOSTER: I was in this courtroom.
14 THE COURT: With me, right?
15 MR. FOSTER: Yes, until I left. I left you
16 in this courtroom.
17 THE COURT: And in this courtroom were
18 present my officer and my part clerk sitting right
19 here; isn't that right?
20 MR. FOSTER: Yes. Indeed, your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. At all times;
22 isn't that right?
24 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. How much time
25 do you think you will need to have a live witness here
49
30
Proceedings
1 to talk about your delayed cognitive thinking,
2 Mr. Foster?
3 MR. FOSTER: Well, in addition to myself, I
4 would like to -- if I get a letter from -- ordering --
5 THE COURT: No, no, sir. You will have to --
6 you will have to do it yourself; meaning, you will have
7 to subpoena someone or more than someone.
8 Now, if you do, you know, you could ask me to
9 endorse the subpoena. But it would be your subpoena
10 that you would prepare.
11 How much time you need?
12 MR. FOSTER: (No response.)
13 THE COURT: I am offering you the time, sir.
14 How much time you need to produce such a witness to
15 tell us about your delayed cognitive thinking? You are
16 asking this Court to -- for drastic relief, to rescind
17 a settlement agreement.
18 I am giving you the opportunity to bear your
19 burden of proof on this matter. How much time you need
20 to obtain independent live evidence?
21 MR. FOSTER: I --
22 THE COURT: Two weeks?
24 THE COURT: One week?
50
31
Proceedings
1 THE COURT: Two weeks?
2 MR. FOSTER: Respectfully, your Honor, you
3 are directing my thoughts.
4 THE COURT: I am asking you a question, sir.
5 And I am affording you an accomodation.
6 MR. FOSTER: I understand your question. You
7 don't have to -- respectfully, you are directing me to
8 give -- you are directing my thought ahead, your Honor.
9 THE COURT: I am asking you, sir, how much
10 time you need to produce evidence to support your
11 claim?
12 MR. FOSTER: Your Honor, I am willing to
13 produce evidence to support rescinding this
14 stipulation. This is the evidence that I am
15 presenting. And if -- and that will follow the answer
16 to your question. One, I will get in touch with a
17 doctor of authority, whether it be the combination of
18 the mental and neurological. And I would see that we
19 have a documentation to --
20 THE COURT: Good. That is fine.
21 MR. FOSTER: Please. Respectfully, your
22 Honor --
23 THE COURT: No. Wait a minute. I am letting
24 you do that.
25 MR. FOSTER: I --
51
32
Proceedings
1 THE COURT: Sir --
2 MR. FOSTER: Each time you go with the
3 process like this --
4 THE COURT: Sir, sir, how much time do you
5 need? That is all I am asking.
6 MR. FOSTER: Yes, your Honor, but give me an
7 opportunity to make an explanation. And it's not even
8 that --
9 THE COURT: How much time do you need
10 Mr. Foster? That is all I am asking. There is no
11 wrong answer.
12 MR. FOSTER: There is two things in that
13 question, your Honor. You asked me about the question
14 to get this authority, one, but you added to that
15 because I want to rescind this stipulation. I am
16 answering both of them, your Honor. Because when I am
17 entrapped with just answering this little thing it
18 makes us believe that this stipulation is just about
19 delayed cognitive thinking. It's about fraud, your
20 Honor. And I will present evidence to that. And I
21 have. But I will again. The stipulation agreement is
22 fraudulent.
23 THE COURT: Thank you. The Order of the
24 Court is as follows for now:
25 I am issuing an interim Order. And the
52
i- 53
PAGE “12”
NYSCEF Doc.186
SO ORDERED
01.23.20
Over-leaf:
Page 12.1.2,3:.NYSCEF Doc.No.186 “1st INTERIM ORDER (OF-FINAL-ORDER) 02.14.20
ST
The 1 .
ORDER/INTERIM
01.23.20
54
i-
55
1 of 2
i-
56
2 of 2
Confirmation Notice
153554/2017
Doc # Document Type

186 DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION, Motion #006
Filing User


i-
Page 1 of 1 57
PAGE “13”
NYSCEF Doc.161
SO ORDERED
01.17.20
Over-leaf:
Page 13.1.2,3,4:.NYSCEF Doc.No.161 “Stipulation Agreement SO Ordered 01.17.20
Affidavits
Page 13.5,6,7,8
Affidavit of Michael Foster “Delayed Cognitive Thinking” A loose term used in Motion Seq.
006 as Prose tries to explain the instance of an emotional trauma impacted upon defendant as a
result of the Lower Court’s Unprecedented actions on January 17th 2020 and of James Sosse
PART 38 Court officer’s account in acknowledgement of the Lower Court’s Unprecedented
Premeditated actions on case Gildred V Foster (unsigned)and Affidavit of Renee Wood PART
38 Court Clerk’s account in acknowledgement of the Lower Court’s Unprecedented
Premeditated actions on case Gildred V Foster (unsigned).
i-
58
i- 59
1 of 4
i- 60
2 of 4
i- 61
3 of 4
i-
62
4 of 4
January 17,
i- 63
i-64
i- 65
i- 66
67
i- 68
PAGE “14”
MOTION SEQ.006
01.20.20
Over-leaf:
OF Page 14B.1 to 23:. NYSCEF Doc.166, Motion Seq.006 Transcript 01.20.20
OF Page 14C.1 to 27:. NYSCEF Doc.166, Respondent picking apart NYSCEF Doc.183 the Plaintiff’s
Letter of Lies in a correspondence to Hon. Nock in response to Mot.Seq.006 Entry 01.20.20
ARGUMENT
Over-leaf: Introduction, General Argument and Conclusion Page:15
A motion for leave to reargue is based upon matters of fact and law overlooked and misapprehended by
the court " (CPLR 2221[d]. see Foley v. Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1st Dep't 1979]). Whether to grant
reargument is discretionary with the court in the interests of justice (Sheridan v. Very, Ltd, 56 A.D.3d
305 [1st Dept. 2008], citing Sciasca v. Nevins, 130 A.D.2d 649, 650 [2nd Dept. 1987]).
In simple the motion sought to Order pursuant to CPLR 3024 requiring plaintiffs to amend the
stipulation to provide a more definite statement, or in the alternative, for revocation of the stipulation
pursuant to CPLR 3211(c).
The unprecedented notion of appealing to a higher court in a Respondent-Appellant's request to reverse
a decision made by the lower Court solely within it's right and solely on the premise that the lower Court
have selected the most Justifiable conclusion (Though Presupposed), in its consistencies with the
inevitability of A final outcome which now rest albeit in the Appellate Courts decision.
i-
69
Confirmation Notice
153554/2017
Doc # Document Type

166 NOTICE OF MOTION, Motion #006
Laxness Dismissal and/or STRIKE PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT
167 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT, Motion #006
168 AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS, Motion #006

169 EXHIBIT(S) 1oA, Motion #006
Hon Gerald Lebovits wisdom in Thwarts a contingency litigation
170 EXHIBIT(S) ooA, Motion #006
Hon. Louis Nock Settlement Order
Filing User


i-
Page 1 of 1 70
“PAGE 15”
Over-leaf:
OF Page 15.1:. ARGUMENT
OF Page 15.2,3 4:. INTRO
OF Page 15.4,5:. ARGUMENT CONTINUED
OF Page 15.6,7,8:. DISPUTES
OF Page 15.9:. RELIEF SOUGHT
OF Page 15.9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 EXHIBITS
OF Page 15.17-22:. GENERAL DISPUTE: NYSCEF DOC.197 “AMENDED ORDER””
OF Page 15.23:. CONCLUSSION
ARGUMENT
Over-leaf: Introduction, General Argument and Conclusion Page: 15
A motion for leave to reargue is based upon matters of fact and law overlooked and misapprehended by
the court " (CPLR 2221[d]. see Foley v. Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1st Dep't 1979]). Whether to grant
reargument is discretionary with the court in the interests of justice (Sheridan v. Very, Ltd, 56 A.D.3d
305 [1st Dept. 2008], citing Sciasca v. Nevins, 130 A.D.2d 649, 650 [2nd Dept. 1987]).
In simple the motion sought to Order pursuant to CPLR 3024 requiring plaintiffs to amend the
stipulation to provide a more definite statement, or in the alternative, for revocation of the stipulation
pursuant to CPLR 3211(c).
The unprecedented notion of appealing to a higher court in a Respondent-Appellant's request to reverse
a decision made by the lower Court solely within it's right and solely on the premise that the lower Court
have selected the most Justifiable conclusion (Though Presupposed), in its consistencies with the
inevitability of A final outcome which now rest albeit in the Appellate Courts decision.
PAGE “15”
Over-leaf:
OF Page 14B.1 to 23:. NYSCEF Doc.166, Motion Seq.006 Transcript 01.20.20
i-
71
ARGUMENT
i-
72
INTRO
(e1)
In general the faultiness of the Court throughout each hearing 01.17.20 the Stipulation
Agreement to 03.09.20 the Amended Order includes the error of presupposition.
Correlative Divisiveness: Part 38’s avid apparent aversions to protocols already set in the matter
Gildred v Foster Index No.153554/2017 by the part’s senior Supreme Court Justices basic
protocol over a period of about “4’ years, up to 200 filings and 13 hearings. A total of “8” Senior
Justices sat on this case in one instance or another, all consistent with that noticeable veiled of
Malicious Prosecution Abuse of Process, negligence and borderline Malpractice on the path of
the plaintiff (an individual-see page__ i-84
__).to i87. (Plaintiff was nobody prior to partnering with Appellant)
So said, including Her Hon. Chief Administrative Justice Deborah Kaplan’s: per Senior Court
Reporter Diane Kavanaugh’s Certified Stenographer, quote; “I have asked Miss Kass to set aside
the important work that she was doing upstairs to come down here” (Ref. to report of J.H.O.
Miss Irene to improper juror selection process and plaintiff’s attorney of record Seth Rafkin,
attorney Jennifer Bogue (assisting), plaintiff and plaintiff witnesses alleging to have been caught
reviewing, copying, or taking pictures of potential jurors personal information). Quote; “So help
me” etc., attorney“I will report you to the disciplinary committee and consider it a contempt of
my direct order for the conduct of this” and lines 4 of page 3, “Do I Make Myself very clear…?”
Mr. Rafkin’s response was, “yes Your honor”. The impeding rationale (ref. Rafkin’s Esq.,) “I am a
very Good Attorney”. Albeit by Counsel’s very own admissions which conjugate’s the lower
Court’s res judicata wherein the good Counsel to plaintiff correlatively deflects res judicata on
the part of the lower court without implicating himself. (See Page__,__). i141
Nonetheless; the instant “Amended Order” and the “Order” accents negatively to each prior
Senior Supreme Court Justices. (His Honorable Gerald Lebovits, Her Honorable Kaplan CHAN).
His Hon. Cantanaro who advise plaintiff (Pre Trial Hearing 01.14.20) of a reasonable settlement
offer of $75 daily up to 3.5 years, is reasonable compensation to respondent if filing a frivolous
lawsuit and fact evidence shows the Plaintiff Gildred’s profited as result of this matter –sighting
Plaintiff Gildred did profit by Trade marking her name USPTO *87564416* hence a defamation
claim is difficult to prove. The lesser court’s decision seams to cry foul albeit to especially Her,
Senior Administrative Court Justice Hon. Deborah’s identical scolding of Mr. Seth Rafkin Counsel
to Plaintiff on the premise of obvious misconduct. (See: “…for the conduct of this” in lines 4 of
page 3 per court stenographic certified notes.) page__ __).
:i-121 to i-123)
The Part 38 wherewithal’s circumvented at risks its own avid distinctions, though irrelevant,
sought to constitute itself to that of a higher standard to what is perceived as the rule of norms
at the Senior Level Supreme Court 60 Centre St. Benches. Example; The Hon. Judge Cantanaro’s
highlights. (See Respondent’s courtesy letter to each Senior Supreme Court Judge…page__ __). Doc.No.189)
NYSCEF
i-
73
Part 38 (Though ruling Contrary) particularly by its methods, the very wording/paragraph per
page layout, NYSCEF Order Doc.195 is almost plagiaristic of up to 3 of Her Hon. Deborah
Kaplan’s recent rulings. In such as: The Order NYSCEF Doc.195 screams avertedly for the
attention from the Senior Supreme Court Benches, unfortunately at the risk of res judicata.
As for additional documents in this appeal, the Respondent-Appellant affirms herein that the
general precept of the “Order” and “Amended Order” is not in dispute for “2” reasons:
e1). The Court was Subject to Recusal, whereas the basis of the “Order” and “Amended Order”
in dispute by this appeal is theoretical equivalent to an interim ruling to that of what is
intended to be an overall and final ruling by the Appellate Division. Whereas by the Court’s
reputable Distinction may not allow itself to make a ruling upon itself and also execute
disciplinary ruling upon the Plaintiff’s Counsel for having held the court hostage. In a
threatening letter NYSCEF Doc.No.183 in response to Respondents Mot.Seq.006 presupposed
Mot.Seq.006 as “AXIOMATIC”. Unfortunately Counsel by this Letter instigates the lower court
res judicata at the pre Trial hearing of 01.17.2020. Counsel Admits: “Indeed the Court did
Request Counsel, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Witnesses to Exit the Court”. Indefensible the court is
at fault for persuading the respondent into an idea at the time sought to mean an impetus to
the signing a Stipulation Agreement – hours later said Respondent (Prose) through letters, and
Mot.Seq.006 NYSCEF Doc. 162, through 188 and 189 sought to rescind”. (see page__ :i-94_)
to i-116, i-129 t0 i-153)
The applicable Counsel indeed was careful perhaps not to implicate himself at the behest of the
lower court. Counsel even assuage an in the face direct disobedience to the lower court by
issuing a response NYSCEF Doc.184 immediately after the Courts Order “No Further Filing
Whatsoever” NYSCEF Doc.183 final lines. The ubiquitous Counsel asserts a hidden veiled of
malpractice consistently throughout, but remains the only true consequential curator
applicable to the courts presumable res judicata. During a pre-trial argument Counsel wistfully
convince the court to act bias by asserting falsely prior rulings said to have occurred before
senior trial court supreme court Judges on this matter. Respondent was not given the privilege
of obtaining a Court Reporter upon early and timely request to the part on 01.17.20 twice over
the phone and prior to trial commencement. With much adverse to conquer, Counsel did
implicate himself along with the Court, quoted by his own letter correspondence. “Indeed the
Court did Request Counsel, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Witnesses to Exit the Court”. Exhibit:__ __. Letter of Lies)
i-158-i161
Counsel to plaintiff selfishly attributed each account of res judicata to the Part 38.
Nonetheless Respondent have presented the Court with clear evidence (page__ __) which
:i-129-153
reflects each false statement. Of 30 plus false statements Counsel continuously etched remarks
known to be completely false. Of Certain false statements artfully veiled with tiny pieces of fact.
Counsel sought to implicate even The New York Supreme Court’s Senior Administrative Justice
Her Hon. Deborah Kaplan - all of Paragraph “4” of Page 1 of said NYSCEF Doc.183 Counsel
seemed to lack respect that a Certified Court report is available. This appeal is in response to a
denial of Respondent Mot.Seq.006. The Order in dispute also consequently implicates in
contrast Part 38 Justice 111 Centre St. and up to 7 Senior Justices (60 Centre St. (See: Page__ _)
:i-129-153)
By the issuing a letter, Plaintiff Counsel disconcertedly expressed a direct threat to the Hon.
Justice Louis Nock NYSCEF Doc.183 page 3, paragraph 3 in lines 1-4: here: Counsel to plaintiff
i-
74
fraudulently implicates the Part 38. In it lies a thin veiled of bribery as Counsel to plaintiff
directly but flawlessly implicates his Hon. Justice Nock part 38 in partnership to the EXPENSES
per Mr. and Mrs. Gildred. The statement further interstates itself as if in any pre-trial argument
certain factual evidence to that effect was discuss. There is no evidence available to support
Counsel’s statements exuding albeit a reminder to the Court of a perceived financial obligation.
(On monies in relation to plaintiff’s expenses and this case) so much as it would be determine
as Quote: “self-evident to the Court” of particularly “Substantial Expenses” connoted that thin
veiled of albeit bribery. Noticeable (see Page:__ __). Both Counsel and lower court could easily
i-158-161
perceive full-well that at no time during 15 to 20 minutes of pretrial arguments 01.17.20 or

throughout any of plaintiff’s filings. There’s a single document containing expense or written
reports to that effect.
E2)
The Court selected rather to Amend its Order rather that to simple recues itself res judicata.
The Court erred in its lack of sensitivity the nature of the case particularly in definition to the
Respondents Counter Claims.
E2)
Argument Continued:
ARGUMENT Cont…
DEFAMATION LAW
E2).
The unprecedented use of the Court in which to construct an individual’s campaign of:
Defamation, Malicious Prosecution/Abuse of process, Negligence, Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress, Malpractice, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress to success the
Plaintiff of a Breach of Contract in the business of Dance Tango and to escalate the privilege of
the Plaintiff’s husband to which only to appease his (otherwise) bruised ego is characteristically
man-flawed and presents A legal misfit.
DEFAMATION OF A PUBLICLY NOTARIZED CHARACTER PRESENTS ITSELF A TRUE TEST ON

DEFINING THE DEVICIVENESS OF DEFAMATION AT ITS CORE.
Plaintiff Gildred is an individual with an overblown ego obfuscated by a desire to assert chastity.
The histories of Argentine Tango are known to have begun in the brothels of Uruguay.
Ubiquitously the plaintiff claim of chastity is in itself a defamation of the Courts Character, the
respondent character and the character of any witnesses actuated to each of her claims. The
respondent’s very response to the claims defamation of Mrs. Gildred’s Chastity as a result of
intimate tango dancing is destructive also to respondent’s own public character. But unless the
Court could assert a frivolous matter under the laws of Malicious Prosecution albeit abuse of
Process it is left to the hardiness of any public person to respond in appositions which by and
large there can be no opposition to Defamation under Malicious Prosecution. It is therefore up
i-
75
to the Court to defend itself from becoming defamed by the process of res judicata. The Court
and up to 10 justices are currently being defamed because:
Mrs. Gildred
1). An individual who’s considerable Chastity is challenged after she’d spent a fortune on her
personal desires to spend time with a public figure known to have a record of intimate tango
dancing. None of Mrs. Gildred’s filing papers shows any evidence of Defamation or iied.
Mr. Gildred
2). A gentleman who’s corner stone in religious super-personifications have opine to have his
wife’s chastity defined by whether or not the intimacy of dancing the tango is factually based or
whether its irregularly similar coined to that of fox trot, lindy-hop open embrace dancing styles.
Respondent: Michael Foster
3). A public Professional who’s art an Tango have lead respondent into becoming the leader of
one of the largest tango Groups In the State of New York over a period consecutively 20 plus
years from PBS public interview about Dance Tango in NYC 2003 to being broadcast in the
center fold of AM-NY and the Front Page of the Metro Section of The New York Times. The
plaintiff’s Stipulation Order NYSCEF Doc.161 and The Amended Order seek to enforce the
Depublishing of MichaelTango.com, Respondents source of income as one element of an
obviously far reaching Stipulation Agreement. Respondent is established in Los Angeles Dance
programs for 10 plus years latangobar.com, newyorktango.org, dancewithme.org are just a few
of the urls Plaintiff’s fraudulent stipulation agreement is seeking to have Depublished.
Respondent have had an open dance ballroom center in the heart of Times Square NYC
virtualtbs.com and a number of urls consistent with Respondent’s daily livelihood. (See pages__ i-81
___ Public Notoriety)

i-82
The Court:
4). The Court of the County of New York of The State of New York Supreme Court. Here over 8
credible justices have had the cause to oversight what is clear at this juncture to have become
not just a bizarre litigation and have caused an overly zealous litigant and its attorneys (4.1:
Seth A. Rafkin, Rafkin Esq.,PLLC and Counsel Jennifer Bogue) exempt themselves to do
whatever they can to obtain a win in a matter they’d first known it was impossible to win.
Rather in hindsight serves purposefully the right to instigate Malpractice in the strikingly
questionable outcome of res judicata.
The Court allows the Court to Defame the Court as clearly displayed in an ORDER NYSCEF 195 of
an INTERIM ORDER NYSCED Doc.183. of an issue of an ORDER NYSCEF Doc.161 of which said
order the Court part 38 is ambitiously defending is rightly highly unprecedented.
QUESTIONABLE ALBEIT NYSCEF the AMENDED order, needn’t not be amended as its amending
its own res judicata. RESPONDENT REMAINS PROSE.
See Pages Public Notoriety:

Michael Foster:
Authored “2” books:
Giuliani Forsaken New York City (an introductory to New York’s Politically incorrect and You’ve
been Tangoed – a list of New York Top Ten Tango venues commentaries etc.)
Created one of New York’s Most Popular Security Electronics Brand. “MCSI Intelligent Security”.
A sportsman and one known to have written and produced many songs.
i-
76
E3).
DISPUTES
E3). In simple – the Motion Seq.006 defines plaintiff is unable to acknowledge or fact base
evidence whether she did or did not dance the tango as its significance equate the particular
dance to be consistent with the reasonable explanation adverse to her chastity towards her
husband thought the questionable history of intimate close embrace Tango Dancing.
ENTRAPMENT
E3.1). The “Amended Order” Denying Respondents Mot.Seq.006 obligates the Dispute of
Entrapment: The Court enforced multiple unnecessary interim orders, attempted to entrap
respondent as in Contempt. Example the interim Order NYSCEF Doc.183 of which Plaintiff’s
Counsel immediate response was in adverse to said So Ordered of the Interim Order, more so
the Plaintiff’s Counsel is yet still in Contempt by disobeying a Direct Order in Counsel’s Filing of
NYSCEF Doc. 184 without any given expressed permission from the Court).
The Court erred as to enforce a rule itself is not deemed to uphold, that of which per the Senior
Court Certified Notes Page 6 on lines 20 and 21: The COURT: “WE DO NOT ACCEPT PAPER
SUBMISSIONS”.
Further the court sought to enforce a rule otherwise extinct of the Court during the hearing
02.14.20 interim order to upload a file the court otherwise if it were to revoke its own rules
could have very well uploaded at its own cognition but for that, of Respondent Not Filing a
Document, Respondent had had No intention of Filing or filing as an answer per se was reason
for the Court’s entrapment.
Entrapment; Whereas the Court effectuated an additional Interim Order during the hearing of
02.14.20 to further the demise of Respondent measure of consistency in suggesting an option
of (page 14 of lines14 and 15 and on page 15 1,2 and 3) “ad litem” Ordered by the Court,
knowing that the court was not intending to offer any form of assistant is terminal entrapment
of a prose Respondent.
Entrapment: Though not as irresponsive as previous the Court invested a selection of a date
noted “Valentine’s date is but a stretch consistent with unfounded claims per Plaintiff’s false
claims in her files to wit presupposes an affect somewhat veiled with emotional, romantic or
love suspense is fanatic at best but plausible a default of the courts unbiased ability to that of
unbiased wagering of the facts in evidence.
Entrapment: wherein the Court by its said Interim Order and hearing date schedule for 03.11.20
and that Interim Order (page 33 per Certified and true Stenographers report) The Court did err
in witness to introduce an evidentiary hearing and without any form of reasonable and truthful
excused did Amend the Said Order to wit evidentiary hearing 03-11-20 as Moot. (Said caused
Respondent must digress, anxiety and unnecessary stress.
i-
77
wherein the Court further activated a rule res judicata by certifying a letter correspondence
(NYSCEF Doc.188 and 189 confirmation receipt 02.14.20 11 AM, such as forcefully filed per
Interim Orders 01.23.20, 02.14.20, and wrongfully accused respondent of not filing said letter
when in fact Respondent did upload said letter of mal-adjudication NYSCEF Doc.No.189 per
Interim Order 02.14.20 and per Certified Stenographers Record page;12 lines 1,2,3,4 and 5.
Again the Court erred in defining in each of its Order, Interim Orders and even in its Final
“AMENDED ORDER” the Court accuses Respondent as less than forthcoming off the cuff.
Of the root of the final Amended Order is that NYSCEF Doc.161 and the evidence of the
documents Exhibit “A” illegitimacies, even then, Respondent even-handedly cautioned
wherewithal respectfully in favor of the Court Part 38 Hon. Louis Nock, and Respectfully
Respondent usurped to a more simplistic definition exuding the vast res judicata of the court
and suggest a normal Cognitive disjunction and issued proof of such per hearing 03-11-20 now
Moot per Final Amended Order, yet in respondent near illusion of exactly too much (to be blunt
– part 38, 1166 rulings) not right, leading up and during the course of the Pre-Trial hearing
especially 01.17.20 admitted the term lax as it may have seemed but at no point in time
throughout each hearing, Respondent became totally interdependent to His Hon. Louis Nock’s
rather intricate Orders and Interim Order, Respondent continued to reflect on the Volume of
the unified Court System and continues to do so to this day and throughout the result of this
appeal.
The entire AMENDED ORDER is inter-attested on the premise of that said courtesy
correspondence letter respectfully addressed to all Justices (Doc.189) Respondent found to
have been wrongfully name and or referred to albeit, falsely in Counsel’s letter of severe
Malpractice NYSCEF Doc.183.
Entrapment: additionally expressed in page 1 through 33 of Senior Court Reporter’s Certified
record of the Hearing on 02.14.20 of which hadn’t if been for an extension Phone transfer from
Her Hon. Senior Administrative Judge Deborah Kaplan’s Chambers, hadn’t that call properly
transferred from a Senior Admin at the New York Supreme Court the very likelihood of no
appearance of a Court Reporter could have existed for a second Part 38 hearing as noticeably
neither Counsel or the Court sought such an important final Order Stipulation Agreement and
hearing settlement per se especially considering the history of this matter and up to 8 avidly
more Senior Justice attempts to side un-biasness in the said matter that the part 38 might at
minimal be the first to summoned a Court Reporter?
E32).
THE DISPUTE ASSERTS “RES JUDICATA’

E3.2). The dispute of “res judicata” is mostly internal the unified Court System:- res judicata is
by extension consistent with two wavering distant extremes. In this dispute to appeal a denial
of mot.Seq.006. In Simple a request to reargue for clarity the fraudulent elements of a
stipulation order only hours after it was signed under extreme unprecedented circumstances.
EXAMPLE: Prose Respondent was astounded and felt stricken by the Courts denial to admit to
allowing a Court Reporter at the morning of the hearing. Respondent was in shock especially
seeing that the Court was determined at length in its wit to convince Respondent to sign a
settlement to a point of agreeing to Counsel’s elf-fusing the course of the hearing enough so
i-
78
much to have Hon. Justice Louis Nock stood still and allow Counsel to exit room 1166 along
with assistant attorney Jenifer Bogue, Mr. Tom Gildred, The plaintiff Carolina absent of the
court during a hearing. Respondent was dumfounded by each developmental stage to the
extent of signing a stipulation outside of Respondents own cognitive thinking.
On the other extreme it is Respondent perfectionism approach to the acquired knowledge and
the History of The State of New York Supreme Court and especially the County of New York that
in all, the Interim would suffice each perceived even unprecedented res judicata occurrences.
Respondents acknowledged layers of Counsel’s letter NYSCEF Doc. No.183 to be consistent with
statements veiled with layers of bribery so much that Respondent would attribute each layer if
successful should be at minimal continued to become double or quadruple and not just a mere
gasps of “Thank You” expressed by Hon. Nock to Counsel’s perspective persuasion of that
perceptive numerical number. But to hold Counsel to some degree of responsibility consistent
with a fraudulent stipulation which is the root of this appeal now before the appellate division.
The part 38 at room 1166 111 Center St. New York, New York 10013 hold a humble attendance
consistent of its confident Court Clerk, a visionary Court Officer James Sosse and clearly a
humbled Hon. Louis L. Nock J.S.C. A justice who in Respondents opinion appears to have
tremendous foresight not withstanding asserts in Respondents opinion to be an obvious fan of
Her Hon. Senior Administrative Justice Deborah Kaplan. (Seen by the layout of most of Hon.
Nock’s filings and Orders). Granted The Order NYSCEF Doc.195 and the Amended Order of
NYSCEF Doc.197 is that a striking difference in the particulars of the Order Amended whereas,
etc., whereas and whereas are the only sequence of “Order Amended” consistent in respect to
ordinance of the latest of Her Senior Administrative Justices Orders, none of which are
Amended Orders and for this added reason Respondent respectfully submits this appeal.
Respondent is a New Yorker by birth, of a fist birth to 20 years elsewhere, but Respondent is
fear in fate towards The Unified Judicial System of New York State. Respondent acknowledged
most Justices were lawyers who decided to serve as Justices and are subjected to prudential
manipulation by experience attorneys to the likeness of Alan Seth Rafkin of Rafkin Esq., PLLC.
Who without given notice by applicability on 01.17.20 the order of the court may warrant the
excuse of res judicata. But by this Appeal Respondent submits that the Pros could not outweigh
the Cons, hence Respondents appeal to the appellate division this date.
E3.3).
The Dispute of “Abuse of Power”

E3.3:- The dispute of apparent “Abuse of Power” is rained down upon Respondent as this
appellate division could clearly interpret through filings NYSCEF Doc. 161 through Doc.197,
filings consistent with this appeal, and most importantly the Courts own admission is
reasonable interpreted as certain levels of possible abuse of power do exist drawn from
references throughout pages 1 into 33 per Mr. Tal Hahn’s Senior Court Reporter Certified Notes
of 02.14.20. (see pages__ _).
:i-21-i53
i-
79
E
RELIEF SOUGHT
“GRANT MOTION SEQ.006 WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
E1). Order the plaintiff and the plaintiff assignees per stipulation order NYSCEF Doc.161 to state
with specificity what defamation publication needs redacted or worthy of depublication and to
verify ownership of all listings to be reviewed per stipulation exhibit “A”. and per AMENDED
ORDER page 2 on 2nd to last line “solely in exchange for his removal of certain material from the
public domain”, that said statement be rectified and defined as “what material” and “Which
Public Domain” and keeping an observation on the terms “Public Domain”. To Order plaintiff
and its assignees to define with specificity what is needed.
E2). Order plaintiff as Sole Individual and none other to this matter as Moot and ascribe
respondents Counterclaims to include Plaintiff and each of plaintiff’s assignees per NYSCEF
Doc.No.161 to be Amended Stipulation Agreement.
E3). Order Plaintiff and its assignees to pay Respondents legal fees associated with this appeal,
so much as equates to that of Plaintiff or its assignees in this matter per amended stipulation
and such payments must equate to that of plaintiff’s Counsel or any legal firms normal fees.
E4). And any other relief this court sees fit. (Example Court Stenographer’s fees)
EXHIBITS
MICHAEL FOSTER
(PUBLIC PERSON)
i-
80
i-
81
i-
82
i-
83
CAROLINA GILDRED
(AN INDIVIDUAL)
(An individual with mutually trusted responsibility as a Business Dance Partner and Manager of
a Dance Partnership all expenses, bookings and productions. These documents truthfully
asserts Mrs. Carolina Hernandez Gildred’s contractual responsibilities with Michael Foster).
i-
84
i-
85
i-
86
i-
87
I ~ wofIQ1'~
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/20/2020
06/05/2018 07:25
09:10 AM
PM INDEX NO. 153554/2017
0'
LY NYSCEF DOC. NO. 174
87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/20/2020
06/05/2018
J 't i, r
(
),' T
I,.[
f ILI I Pr ~ i-87b
(- ~.wi,'
~l.,-;--
~1..~l / uS
'fg
h,)
»I ~ facR4M(a ue4~
$/I
)~QFg.n
el
'
g f &/'
(,
if& + ~~'+, 6 i-
<+> oa (/4T g&
' ~C. ~ A4,M fi CCa+4TCq
h'sr~ > 7.
ulcc~j
{ ftyl
4:
4 tl g (g ICE
fe.Ós
>.-c,Ást,,P•MSf5s
I I'.. p,
I ~ f +~ $ „~ W. ~
~~4CMS'
~ M -f p Af
~S ULÂsfNtmPf
~ <Qjkt ~
fjcIC ~ /' - >
~~<~++ /t'C
r
I S l * J>
~h>~~+(~f
'
a -c/T,~. ~W ~ lA . $- C '>c ~ "(S
5.~ C~ Seg C ~c' J

1
ere «rr f~pc.~~~s ~i fIi

I"<-~< ~r 4 <~m .z ( (u~
~(or/
j~'
w(i'(..u~
...
. ~ p,,~~ ply.~~ &
(Q 4A ~-c <+
/)c'.T'c
F c.
' ! &wr-dt r-f dJ2•/f gV+ck
~(, 'li 4 M
p) st,c. <Ca
W,
rM r. ~-V4 / Wy~/ A‰tmu¾>Ws
Z~~~ n, þa. i4. e'r- 5lr ~ne'+
~CC7 {i
qC g
~ -n~ gc~p4f<
p c t
H
C- -b~
C~ - ! O
i
L ' '
',
<' i'~Cd~i P y r,~ yp.¬
~ I
...eL .gg.
. n ~ g~
~
5.
„
you
+r-~
',+'
('.r) AI II
lgghfkm f/ C Ar
lhrkr «me~i~~hf&
' ' e'-~l~ Cat' I"«<
~~+
( .
p rang%
Y /,I
'%
I /+ p~ 4A
E)
was
)'"~ ~
r )C f
pJ-
~ju~+ ~ (+
.AC e c' P 4 C4
g,DC MW
f)c)g + p tj, i(
+ k p ,' py
~gp5 ~
~+~V-'
O~~p
~
Wji.P
i +
ui~ c',
~~per~~c m~
;pc.
pe~ I.
P,~'~.'"."
L 7 <.
~
m f ~~~~.~~+ +>Aft ~~'
c'.c
,.'ac g).
n ' t~g ~4JW<t
lace i4 g m% NG I< <o >g
g
'
~ ~ ~ Lkrl
v~k~<WP~ lig~p ir fa
~C
( 1 P. C
+- tP
(P + +~>'~ f LJW
NV<p.]W+4 pl <rC g ' 2 f~ I' E<s'
IP/ ( /' ~ ~ ~ .'( l
0 p - 4 i ~f Pl 8'g
' pe~ n~ .',/0( >a+ q(,'l)A 7
8.„r'-
C~( t ( l g,
~1 ~44~&~ +-
9( t ~Gc7W~. I Q
{ I~
g. ~~ r~(
(~~
~(~M ~r ~~+
f<AI ~~s<+i fr >
I
~ Q g ' . ~g
g j'
~» cl 4~
p'g('
~
P
(~„C~Ãl~< /.r~:
r
c ~~'+A<a
~~ g.~~'~-p ~~
'l..i«.,fez..
~l<
~. Q~~ e
(,,T„,
tnfny t pip
.-'>~~ ~Mgj
"+~4 +.l ~ Y'Wl~Vc.
~RE&~ 7".
SA~&iWC4.
P p} a,>th ~ g~ ) j~
t.+
4 r, ' ' <<
f~~w 4 r~'r ~ruivri-z~im ~c a.
)
~lr4 l 'Qr
~ JFw-'< ~C~ fl <c-'A
(
t cd~ L'g ~ n
7
~ E~'~
~ n
~ mc .
f
"f~"
pPCAA '
~~
Si&A~ T.n.fe‰yER J-~
~
m h r"P
)
g.)M>'
•t.
lg i
I ~
~
~~ cg
).n..- >~ ="

5~AC
C
i-87b
~~4
r
., gtr(
DISPUTES
(White Board Draft)

Throughout Respondent-Appellants entire 32 page Mot.Seq.006 there are affirmations of facts,
sufficient for the Court at minimal schedule a hearing that will focus on fraud element of the
stipulation agreement Order NYSCEF Doc.No.161 of 01-17-2020.
1).By issuing an Interim Order NYSCEF Doc.No.182 the Court erred by avoiding the selection of
affirmative terms and statements respondent made in the said motion. Example: Respondents
was clear to the court in highlighting the elements of Fraud and misrepresentation of the true
i-99 to
facts (see mot.Seq.006 pages 13-17 page__ i-103_). Respondent highlighted the element of Fraud
throughout the mot.Seq.006 pleadings with sufficient reason for the rescission. (see NYSCEF
Doc.No.168 page__ _). pages:17 through 27 Appellants Motion 006 Affidavit of Facts.
i-94-sec.2
GENERAL DISPUTE: NYSCEF DOC.197 “AMENDED ORDER”

of THE PORTIONS: TO BE DELINEATED OR REVISED and REASONS GIVEN BY RESPONDENT
P = Portions: Delineated or Revised R = REASONS
P1). The words “Delayed Cognitive Thinking” a R1). Respondent moreover explained said
childhood disability, a term loosely used by theory to which the Court did not dispute
Respondent was not intended authoritative of during the hearing of 02.14.20 and per Senior
a medical authority Doc.195 page1, line 7, Court Reporter’s Certified notes page 16 on
i-
88
page 2, lines 16,17, 18, 23, 24 and of Doc.197 lines 12 to 17.
page 1 lines 7 on page 2 lines 15-17 and 21. R2). The term was used For lack of better
These words should be replaced with words or words. Everyone in some ways do suffer
sentences to the effect EXAMPLE: Fraud, or temporary cognitive inability both in adults
“Two broad a demand” consistent with and children. The court erred by its
respondents Notice of Mot.Doc.166 page 6 interpretation of respondents statement as
Argument, page 6 last paragraph, page 7,8,910, citing a medical authority.
and page 11 lines 1 to 13 – (see mot.Seq.006
‘Stipulation Review” (page__ _).
i-94-i116) and pg: i-94-i116)
P2). Doc.195 and 197 page 1, line 11 and page R1). At no point throughout respondents
2 lines 2 and 3. filings in this matter did respondent sought to
Doc.195 and 197 page 2, lines 9 and 10 and extend a written reply to Plaintiff’s Counsel’s
lines 11 and 12. letter NYSCEF. Doc.183. the Court erred by
Doc.195 page 2: lines 20 inventing the instrument of this statement
into its Order.
R2). Even if this statement were to be true, it
would become inadmissible evidence as The
Court part 38 is an e-file part and cannot
ascertain said document as officially filed by
respondent per the courts own admission per
senior Court reporter Certified Transcript of
page: 6 on lines 20 and 21. “This is an e-file
part. We do not accept paper submissions”
Therefore this statement “Defendant have
replied by letter” and “yet to be efiled by
Defendant” should be deleted.
P3). Page 2 lines 12 “This Court…-13- …14- R3). This statement is incorrect per senior
February 20, 2020 should be strike and Court Reporter’s Certified Record. Page 9 lines
removed from the Order. 8 to 17 and by the Courts own admission page
11 on lines 22 to 25 and page 12 lines 22 to 25
and page 12 lines 1,2 to line 12. The Court part
38 Hon. Judge Louis L. Nock have since days
before issuing said Order did retrieve a copy of
the Senior Court Reporter’s Record to which
extent the Court must have known what it did
or did not say.
The Court erred by disproportionately
instituting such statements in its order while
knowing it before hand to be less than forth
coming. This is “Abuse of Power” (c2).
P4). The term or those terms expressed in R4). Throughout Mot. Seq.006 Respondent
i-
89
Doc.195 and Doc.197 of the Order and the complaint pages 27 to 31 highlighted the laws
“Amended Order” that term “Judicial sounding off respondent’s motion to Reargue.
Rescission” to be replace with “Reargue”. The Court Erred in its appropriation of the less
relevant argument by translating respondent’s
motion to: Quote “What appears to be Judicial
Rescission”.
P5). The court use of those words R5). The court erred in its terminology
“Incompetency” Doc.No.195 and 197 page 2 in adjudicating that respondent is “Incompetent”
lines 16 and 19. twice the Court escalates to sounding off
Disparaging statements albeit unwarranted as
such attributed to respondent character. The
court erred by its negligence to respondent
especially under the circumstances which
includes filings with substantial evidentiary
facts in support of respondents Counterclaims
for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
Defamation, Abuse of Process, Malpractice
and malicious prosecution. Bearing: Cognitive
declines because of an instance of trauma,
abuse of power respondent became
overwhelm with a sense of entrapment,
whereas respondent request the court in
motion to reargue only hours after reality sets
in on the malpractice does not mean
respondent is “Incompetent”.
P6). NYSCEF Order Doc.No.195 and NYSCEF R6). The Court erred by its Order enforcing
Amended Order Doc. No.197 page 1 lines 11 Doc. 189 into the record and further the Court
and 12; “Whereas respondent has replied to erred by its conclusion that Doc. 189 is
said letter by letter dated jan.20,etc., respondents response to Plaintiff’s letter
Doc.183. At no time throughout respondent
filings did respondent stated to the Court or
anyone that said letter was prepared in so
much as (e-file or not) as in response to
plaintiff doc.183.
The Court further erred by its own admission
per senior Court Reporter’s Certified Record
on page 6 lines 20 and 21; Quote; “The
COURT: This is an e-file part. We do not accept
paper Submissions”. Closed Quote.
If the Court were to reargue on this statement
certain yet to be e-file documents will have to
be taken into account as already e-filed.
i-
90
P7). The Order Doc.195 and the Amended R7). The Court erred by ignoring plaintiff’s
Order Doc. 197 page 2 line 1 and line 2; letter e-filed NYSCEF per confirmation receipt
“Ordered that no further filings of any nature only days after The Order, presence the Court
whatsoever shall be filed in this matter”. with proof of a Direct disobedience to a direct
Order. Yet the Court erred by overlooking this
malpractice error on the path of plaintiff’s
Counsel is prejudicial to respondent.
P8). Of the order NYSCEF Doc. 195 and the R8). The Court erred by Example; res judicata;
Amended Order NYSCEF Doc.No.197 on page During oral argument of February 14, 2020,
2 lines 8 through lines 18 and 19 The Court per senior Court reporter’s record throughout
Curtailed oral argument to Respondents of page 1 of 33 pages the Court did not
Mot.Seq.006 to a matter outside of the Court address the actual reasons for respondent’s
and the parties. motion, though respondents motion (see
page__:i-29_), Clearly interprets the factual
evidence why NYSCEF Doc.161 Order
Stipulation is otherwise unenforceable on the
basis of far reaching, fraudulent and failing to
be specific.
P9). Of the Order Doc.195 and the Amended R9). The Court erred in its efforts to enforcing
Order Doc.197 page 2, on lines 17,18 and 19 a term used loosely by respondent to wit the
of words “Permitting Subpoenas” and Court with prejudice sought to disqualify
“Licensed Professional who Treated Him”, etc, respondents mot.Seq006 on the technicality
of none-existence of medical authority and
the court further ordered respondent to
“Subpoena Live expert who will be able to
inform the court about delayed cognitive
thinking, page 33 lines 3 and 4 and “After
which the Court will issue a further order at
that time based on the evidence” Lines 7 and
8 on page 33 of the senior Court reporter’s
Certified record.
P10). Of the Order NYSCEF Doc. 195 and R10). The Court erred in the use of words
Amended Order Doc. 197 page 2 lines 17 and disproportionately misquoted the truth as per
18 “Permitting respondent to subpoena any the Senior Court Reporter’s Certified Record
licensed professional who treated him” This throughout each page 1 to 33 at no time the
term should be deleted. Court instructed Respondent to “Subpoena
any licensed professional who treated him for
what he claimed was delayed cognitive
thinking and who could speak to his said allege
incompetency” UnQuote. (See full
stenographers certified record page_:i-29
__). Here
i-
91
the Court wrongfully imputed anxiety and
stress upon respondent so much as
respondent did alert 3 professionals to help
the Court understand that delayed in cognitive
thinking does exist to wit the Courts March 11,
2020 evidentiary hearing have become Moot
by NYSCEF Order Doc.197.
P11). So Ordered NYSCEF Doc.195 page 2 on R11). The Court erred in each description
lines 20 and 21, “Whereas” …etc., ..”To Date” entailed in these specific admissions of
…etc.,…and “Continues”., etc., and “Failure to NYSCEF Doc. No.197 the Order and NYSCEF
Comply” etc…(and) “The Orders mandate” Doc.No.197 the Amended Order per Senior
etc., “But Instead” etc., “Continues” etc., (and Court Reporter’s Tal Hahn’s Certified Record
NYSCEF Doc. 197 AMENDED ORDER) page 2 pages 1 through 33.
lines 20, 22 and 23: “Whereas Respondent Further Per court Reporter’s open comments
presented the Court” etc., “which Do Not to respondent thereafter as respondent pays
Included” etc., ..”A licensed Professional who for his certified transcript and upon question if
actually treated respondent” etc., “For any other have requested a copy of said
Delayed Cognitive Thinking”. Each and every minutes. SO Said the court report. The Judge
said Statement is Axiomatic and does not had the courtesy of request and receipt of a
reflect any direct statement of the Court at copy of the minutes days earlier.
any time throughout the entire hearing of Respondent acknowledges the level of res
Feb.14.2020. judicata at the part 38 is indeed ad nauseam.
P12). Of the statement per Order Amended R12). The Court erred by its measure of
and the Order NYSCEF Doc. No. 195 and 197 unprecedented adjusting of the undeniable
page 2 final lines: To wit, “Whereas” etc., fact by its statement NYSCEF Doc.No.197 page
“Stipulation of Settlement” etc., “Which 2, 2nd to last line which states “Removal of
Relinquishes all of plaintiff’s money damages Certain Material”. Wherein the Court have not
claims” etc., “Solely” etc., “In exchange” etc., been furnish with a specific or any specific list
“Of certain Material”. Is in itself significantly containing verifiable material which can be
prejudicial against respondent. Wherefore in determine as published by respondent.
this expression by the Court, which preambles Instead the Court relies on Stipulation NYSCEF
certain terminologies veiled with prejudice Doc.No.161 Exhibit “A” which appears to
against respondent. Said Statement must be randomly crawl the internet for any content
properly revised. containing respondent’s name or any
respondents social handles. The said exhibit
“A” host also a list of unverified links of which
even respondent is unaware of any origins.
P13). Of the Amended Order page 3 lines 1, 2 R13). The Court erred by its own preemptive
and 3 particularly lines 3, etc., “Rational defenses as ascribe per court reporters
Impetus for respondents agreement to said certified record.
Stipulation” etc., is simply false. a).The Court erred by denying respondent the
i-
92
Foot notes: respondent felt prejudice from the right to a court reporter upon request on the
part 38 on Jan, 17 2020. Clearly as twice morning of the hearing 01.17.2020, even after
respondent request for a court reporter was twice respondent by request to part 38 for a
denied. During the hearing of February 14, court reporter to be present at the hearing.
respondent spoke to clerk of only after by b). By this res judicata suggest precedence
extension transfer from Her Honorable Senior given the court unprecedented action during
Administrative Judge Deborah on the the hearing “off the record” as such also ads
summoning of a court reporter for said impetus to the Court to cover up the reasons
hearing. To wit only after a telephonic transfer why A plaintiff was allowed along with its
from Her Honors Line – to wit – the clerk of Counsel and witness to exit the Parts
part 38 responded in the affirmative on chambers during an ongoing hearing while the
respondents request for a court reporter’s court assumes to have the lone attention of a
present during the hearing. prose respondent.
b). The term “Impetus” in itself needs properly
Clearly by the transcript of the entire hearing screening as respondent assumed idiom ,
per Mr. Tal Hahn’s stenograph record assumes no rational for respondents for a
Certified. counterclaim of material evidence the court
it is therefore un-acetic that the content of the incorrectly determines as “Risk of Substantial
report distinctly ascribes to a process during preclusion of evidence” is ,unfortunately subtle
the hearing res judicata. deceptiveness. Bearing; Plaintiff own evidence
had been deemed inadmissible for having not
responded to respondents request for
admissions, first and second interrogations.
(See Page__i-87b_).
CONCLUSSION
A disability is an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity limitations, and participation
restrictions." — World Health Organization,
Wikipedia: Cognition is "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding
through thought, experience, and the senses".[1] It encompasses many aspects of intellectual
functions and processes such as attention, the formation of knowledge, memory and working
memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and "computation", problem solving and decision
making, comprehension and production of language. Cognitive processes use existing
knowledge and generate new knowledge.
Hence "Delayed Cognitive Thinking" is merely the interruption of thoughtful process in a

person’s Thinking or decision making. Defining delay in the cognitive process as a "Disability"
does not negate any authority or equates itself to any Disability as defined for the purposes of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.In fact the term respondent used to
express said hearing before His Hon Justice Louis L. Nock on January 17, 2020
is proper by definition. Mot.Seq.006 request to rescind should be granted.
i-
93
i-94b
page:1 of 32
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------X
CAROLINA GILDRED:
Plaintiff, : INDEX No. 153554/2017
Hon. Justice Gerald Lebovits
vs. . Hon. Justice Louis Nock
Part 38 111 Centre St. Room 1166

MICHAEL FOSTER
New York, NY 10013
NOTICE OF MOTION
Prose Defendant...................:
-------------------------------------- X
Notice of Motion, Affs. & Exs....................................
Briefs: Plaintiff/Petitioner..........................................
Prose Defendant/Prose Respondent.....................
I, Michael Foster, am appearing Prose Defendant in the above-captioned matter. I
provide this affirmation and hereby declare that the following is true and correct and that I could
and would testify competently thereto. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of
Plaintiff's Settlement Offer) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on January 27, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. at
in-
the Motion Submission Part at 60 Centre Street, Room 130, New York, NY 10007, Defendant
the above-captioned .matter will and hereby does move the Court to Reargue, Renew Settlement
Order made with prejudice and retum trial to calendar. A motion for leave to reargue is based
upon matters of fact and law overlooked and misapprehended by the court in determining the
"
prior motion excluding fact offered Stipulation Order previously argued (CPLR 2221[d] [e].
see Foley v. Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1st Dep't 1979]). Whether to grant reargument is
1 of 32
i-94b
page:2 of 32
discretionary with the court in the interests of justice (Sheridan v. Very, Ltd, 56 A.D.3d 305 [1st
Dept. 2008], citing Sciasca v. Nevins, 130 A.D.2d 649, 650 [2nd Dept. 1987])..
19th
Executed this day of January 2020
Michael Foster
$MTE OF NY
COUNTY OF NY
Suycri nd s om to before me,
theid of y
Notary Public
JACKSON LEE
YORK
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW
NO. 01LE6121031
QUALIFIED IN QUEENS COUNTY
COUN
CERTIFICATE FILED IN NEW YORK
COMMISSION EXPIRES JANUARY 3, 20
2 of 32
i-94b
page:3 of 32
Very, Ltd, 56 A.D.3d 305 [1st Dept. 2008], citing Sciasca v. Nevins, 130 A.D.2d
649, 650 [2nd Dept. 1987])..
INTRODUCTION and Background: the procedural problem in this case
began when the Honorable Justice Gerald Lebovits Denied Plaintiffs Motion.
[Justice Lebovits Order and Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion on NYSCEF DOC. NO.
23 09/25/2017]. A True copy of the Decision Order is attached as Exhibit A.
(NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23) The Order states: “THIS COURT CANNOT
ASSCERTAIN WHO IS MOVING FOR WHAT and WHAT THE NON-MOVANT
CONTENDS BY WAY OF OPPOSITION”. Defendants’ affiant answers to plaintiff
initial complaints was as Prose because Plaintiff had allegedly sort to
undermine all viable source of legal representation know to defendant. Plaintiff
had obtained all personal information from defendant in case defendant was to
be in trouble Plaintiff was 2nd to defendant’s personal information and all
defendants’ contacts. Joan Snitzer, Paul Pellicoro etc., Defendant confided in
Plaintiff but Plaintiff motive was disdained from the start. Defendant’s true copy
3 of 32
i-94b
page:4 of 32
of verified answer is annex here as Exhibit A2 Amended answer to Plaintiff
(NYSCEF DOC. NO. 02).
In early 2017 – to defendants best recollection and thereafter to this day
Defendant had not made any attempt to contact with the plaintiff or did the
Defendant pursued any form of relationship, nor did the Defendant intentional
inflict any emotional distresses upon Plaintiff. Defendant now had the plaintiff
constructive innocuous harassment campaign to worry about. Plaintiff made no
attempts to settle this matter throughout because plaintiff was aware of
defendant’s weaknesses and knew exactly what method to use to taunt
Defendant. Defendant’s emotional wounds were fresh and deep. The Defendant
have had cause to fear for my life because of the unexpected harassments
and the Gildred’s innocuous dispossessions of using always a friend of a friend
of sometimes a 3rd friend to inflict emotional distresses upon defendant.
Plaintiff’s believes that Power and money is able to inoculate them from any
direct problem related circumstances or contact with defendant directly.
Defendant never called, spoken to with plaintiff. At this time Defendant realized
4 of 32
i-94b
page:5 of 32
his career have significantly become thwarted and hindered by the sudden
avalanche of circumstances. Defendants had been followed and at one point an
allege miss hit outside defendant’s apartment summoned the police 911 calls.
Defendant would like to subpoena this record from the NYPD as its allege to
have been an attach from a supposedly homeless man from San Diego.
Defendant is not a smoker, alcohol drinking, or drug inducement of any
sort.
From the night of an attempted hit on Defendant, Defendant assuage
himself to a degree of control which allowed him to avoid going out to social
functions after hours and most painfully having to stop promoting and teaching
dance all together.
Defendant became distraught for the pass 4 years suffered tremendously
after being an avid dance instructor building a career for the past 20 years in
NYC of which the Plaintiff was fully aware off. Defendants first encounters with
the Plaintiff at the Lafayette Grill and Bar 54-56 Franklin street in or around
2002. Thereafter Defendant maintained cordiality throughout especially until
5 of 32
i-94b
page:6 of 32
Plaintiff expressed a personal interest in Defendant. Defendant expressly and
affirmatively admitted to the personal development which included traveling to
San Diego several times under the guise of dance lesson to be with Plaintiff.
The “Essence of Amicability” in Judge the Honorable Gerald Lebovits [Order
Preambles] the following: That the court does not excerpt to the conduct of a
Plaintiff, neither is the court likely to expect a defense consistent with any
relevant opposition. The case must have been sort to put to rest by this order
only, but the plaintiff’s attorney did not reverence Judge Lebovits Scholastic
legal statement and Decision Order because Plaintiff’s attorneys’ motive had
already been personal, prejudicial and bias at defendant especially after
defendants jokingly admitted by calling plaintiff’s attorney a “Plumber” or “Pop
Corn” Lawyer who could not find himself a real Case”.
Though Defendant proposed many theories to resolve the case, the
plaintiff’s attorney were irresponsive and continued to barrage the court with a
theory that Defendant is Not acting prose. Defendant was already reminded
that any attorney he’d approach would sell his case to plaintiff’s attorney.
6 of 32
i-94b
page:7 of 32
Defendant decided to launch his own defense to this date. Immediately thereon
defendant continued his life but first by seeking therapy as the initial
circumstances and the lawsuit had began affect defendants health in every
conceivable manner. In December of 2019 Defendant Lost his mother as a
result of the stress brought on by the plaintiff’s legal and out of court tacit
tactic the harass defendant. A true copy of a most recent and the first instance
of therapy sessions related to this case is annexed as Exhibit A3 and Exhibit
A4. Defendant series of therapy treatment came as a result each libelous claim
in Plaintiff’s action. The plaintiff is not interested in any amicable settlement
resolution. Given His Honorable Justice Gerald Lebovits initial Decision Order
– instead the Plaintiff continued to litigate on an extreme borderline litigation
path. Plaintiff’s attorney received a warning from Her Hon. Administrative
Justice on Jan.15.20120 at which Her Honorable Justice M. Chan profusely
expressed a questionable irony on premise and so did promised to personally
to recommend disciplinary actions to the State Bar against the Plaintiff’s
Attorney whether the questionable allegations of juror tampering {true or not}
7 of 32
i-94b
page:8 of 32
were to arise again in this matter. (It Did; Juror Shania a young 24 year old
was overheard discussing with assistant to plaintiff’s attorney of a flight
she’s taken to Florida on Friday Jan.17.2020 at 11AM and one returning on
Monday …[etc content inaudible... I did not report this to JHO but it was
minutes after everyone were exiting the court room].
INCIDENTAL CAUSE FOR DICIPLINARY ACTION AGAINTS
PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY as WARRANTED and sort as other relief in this
motion:
1. On Jan.10.2020, Defendant’s adversary’s attorney appeared before
Justice His Honorable Louis Nock and so did misrepresent the
law, again, as a duly sworn officer of the court. The plaintiff’s
attorneys in oral arguments exercised statements purposefully
and to willfully construe the true facts with intent to deceive and
further mislead the Court and especially His Honorable Justice
Louis Nock.
8 of 32
i-94b
page:9 of 32
2. The plaintiff’s goals were to invoke a particular settlement with
prejudice, with full knowledge of its legally binding effect and its
possible violation of governing laws relative to the WWW World
Wide Web and intellectual property let alone Laws which govern
Free Speech.
3. Counsel to plaintiff brazenly admitted a lie with deceptive intent
compulsory in an oral informal argument that the Prose
Defendant’s evidence must be deemed inadmissible as
“Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiff’s Discoveries and Interrogatories
were never received.
4. The effects of this (3) statement in error preambles an instance of
unbelief from the part of His Hon. Justice Louis Nock as a trial
was approaching where the defense is acting prose.
5. Of The Counsel’s to plaintiff insistency to withhold exculpatory facts
aroused causations at the courtesy of the court and His Hon.
Justice Nock to impute relevance of statutory circumstances to
9 of 32
i-94b
page:10 of 32
That of Prose Defense’s whose evidence to the contrary to be
put forward into evidence exhibits by ways of an Electronic
Presentation at trial is also Deemed Inadmissible”.
6. Defendant did submit Answers to Plaintiff’s Discoveries: Exhibits
D1 (NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87) and In May of 2018 Defendant
answered all plaintiffs demand, posted answers by mail, email
and made live via a website upload link
https://tinyurl.com/th7j7wv (Screenshots Exhibits D1A)
7. Defendant suffers from Delayed Cognitive Thinking (A childhood
disability) not having been able to articulate clear and concise in
the middle of a moment of distress or trauma where as in some
answers to plaintiff’s admissions, or first interrogations and
discoveries may not depict coherent answers but they were
answers and deemed admissible – Defendants express
discoveries and request for admission was not given an answer
from the plaintiff’s side therefore the plaintiff’s evidence is also
10 of 32
i-94b
page:11 of 32
deemed inadmissible. As defendant dealt with the ongoing
trauma of iied’s and constant innocuous harassments from
plaintiff defendant exercised a therapy known as getting it out
and such practice hand writing especially concerns of extreme
trauma.
8. A defendant answer to plaintiffs and defendants demand for
admissions, and interrogatory were administered, were cognitive
and can be review, picked apart and does implement true fact
base conclusions.
9. Plaintiff’s Counsel Refusals to acknowledge receipt and did not
make an inquest on the clarity of content. Plaintiff attorney
insistently avoided and disrespected prose defendant throughout
each phase of its litigation by taking for granted a Prose Status
is in fact legal suicidal.
10. Defendant’s adversary’s attorney’s element of prejudice continued to
further argue that defendant answers to discoveries did not exist.
11 of 32
i-94b
page:12 of 32
Defendant mailed copies to counsel’s attention, and copies of
defendants Interrogatories and Discoveries were also mailed to
multiple individuals by way of certified mail. A true copy of at
least one of the mailed discovery return certified receipt can
found annexed as Exhibit D2 pg2.. {Additional return receipts are
available due to time constraints and the urgency of this motion
finds each take more time].
11. After Receipt of Defendants answers to Discoveries and
Defendants request for answers to Defendant’s interrogatories,
admissions and discoveries, Plaintiff’s Attorney purported that
He’d only received an EMPTY letter in the mail.
12. Counsel to plaintiff was cautioned by the Hon. Judge Gerald
Lebovits Court Attorney that Defendant will issue an immediate
copy during out time at a preliminary conference meeting as
copies were on file NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 & 90 on the first
12 of 32
i-94b
page:13 of 32
floor. There and then plaintiff’s attorney refused to accept these
copies.
13. The plaintiffs’ attorneys also refuse to respond to Defendant’s
request for interrogatories, admissions and Discoveries they’re
also considered and Deemed submitted. At which time a hand
written extract of which a true copy of Defendants request is
annexed as Exhibit D3 also can be found NYSCEF DOC.
NO.#96, #91,#90.
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS
2. Because of the above Sec.1 Falsehood and misrepresentation by the
plaintiff’s attorney of the true facts – The Honorable Justice Louis Nock
addressed the Prose Defendant in an otherwise manner (rather personal with
an effect of relentless courtesies) but good food served on dirty plate defeats
the purpose of a healthy diet.
3. Aside from the content of the Settlement Offer and Decision Order as
a matter of Fact and Law – the plaintiff’s attorney did construe to commit fraud.
13 of 32
i-94b
page:14 of 32
Of the Exhibit A in Plaintiff’s settlement order each element (list of Urls) is
therefore unverifiable and constitutes fraud if and when executed in addition the
document Stipulation Order can be used by the plaintiff to inflict further harm,
harassment, iied, defamation to defendant and associates of the defendant and
also can be used to misrepresent a cause of action on the world wide web.
i.e: theft of Intellectual Property. Defendant owns a number of Trademarks
consistent with url MetroCommuteSecurity.com. Exhibit T1 MCSI Security
trademarks.
4. As a matter of Law in the Cyber World any Judgment Order and
specific Judgment duly sworn to by a Judge of jurisdiction that Order as
annexed Exhibit D4 pg2,3,5&5 can be used to execute a TAKE DOWN of any
url or domain listed in the order Exhibit A by simple validation of the order
without true fact whether or not the allege content in dispute is derogatory,
defames or remotely mentions Jennifer bogue, Seth Rafkin, Tom Gildred,
Carolina Gildred or any of its associates or A Jennifer bogue, a Seth Rafkin, A
tom Gildred, a Carolina Gildred or a any of its associates directly or indirectly
14 of 32
i-94b
page:15 of 32
connected due to the broad spectrum of the order. This is in violation of
multiple intellectual property laws. This makes the execution of such an order
Bias across all domains now and in the distant future whether they may be
owned by the defendant or anyone in the universe.
5. Websites and social media urls are govern by its own source of user
policies and do not condone illegal or unlawful practices. Hence the Settlement
Order should be strike and ReSettle without the element of unlawfully
challenging any public domain especially ones which are media or content
base. i.e most of defendants urls are media content and exercise freedom of
information. Plaintiff could in reargument create a list of suspected defamatory
urls with specificity and the court can implement a new order and if defendant
could confirm them to be under his authority or not at which time defendant
may incur cost to evaluate and assist plaintiff in their Take Down.
ADDITIONAL LAWS
6. Public Domains are susceptible to state local, regional and
international governing laws that are strict and constantly enforce without the
15 of 32
i-94b
page:16 of 32
broader scope of using a personal injury matter to exculpate theories of
evidentiary facts in the WWW arena. Therefore websites are not governed by
state. A url post containing allege defamatory or derogative statements content
only needs a disclaimer, or a Parody statement. Similar to television individuals
and clients can simply switch the channel as an Order to Take Down or
Depublish borders on matters in law unrelated to Plaintiffs allege cause. The
Stipulation Order also violates or gives the plaintiff a weapon that can be used
to violate state agencies Free Speech Laws. It is therefore a misinterpretation
of intellectual property law to Order a TakeDown or Depublishing of a public
Domain solely as the result of a settlement of injury dispute in an unrelated
matter having to do with intellectual property law. A domain therefore could
have a single url but is contingent on many stealth operation from a different
source url at times can be 100% different in name and title.
7. The plaintiff’s attorney further amplifies the nonsensicality of convincing
the honorable Justice Louis Nock to enforce an order Stipulation against
Facebook.com and YouTube.com both are not subject to legal injunction or
16 of 32
i-94b
page:17 of 32
similar Orders in civil disputes. Plaintiff can only subpoena for information and
content leading to verification of subject matter but can never establish an
Order to Depublish, Republish or Take Down intellectual property. The WWW
“World Wide Web” will not be the World Wide Web if the Stipulated Settlement
Order were to be effectuated. For this Defendant request an immediate reversal
of the Order By his Honorable Justice Louis Nock.
8. The Plaintiff’s attorney amplified a conduct worthy of disciplinary
actions by winking with approval of $150,000.00 at which his Hon. Justice
Louis Nock submitted Quote: “THANK YOU” by this measure in it is also
misleading and calls for disciplinary actions by the Court against the plaintiff’s
attorney Seth Alan Rafkin and Jennifer Bogue caused the Honorable Justice
Louis Nock to abnormally step out of an otherwise professional Décor. Exhibit
D5 annexed here the actions of the Court depleted purpose and blurred
normalcy’s as during the probable causation the Defendant felt pressured, was
under immense sufferings, was in a state of “Delayed Cognitive Thinking” and
was at the edge of obtaining an anxiety attack out of shock wherein after the
17 of 32
i-94b
page:18 of 32
Defendant needed to be hospitalized Exhibit D5 and did access quickly check
into the ER and was kept of a lengthy observation by Doctor Daniel Brock
and was only Discharge .
9. The conduct of the plaintiff’s attorneys did not start at the privilege of
the Honorable Justice Louis Nock. On jury selection Day 2 after Defendant left
the Jury Room after a long day of juror selection, The plaintiff Attorney
remained in the juror selection room and forthwith did not follow professional
procedures in Protection of the Private Property of each prospective Juror.
Instead The Plaintiff’s Attorney invited Mr. Tom Gildred the Plaintiff’s Husband,
a person known to own large Technology Firms in New York and California,
one who can use an app on his phone to instantly scanned all the personal
information of the jurors and have their info instantly uploaded against a virtual
server database to be compared with artificial intelligence.
The Honorable Judge M Chan cautioned the plaintiff’s attorney being that it
every heard to happen again the Her Honorable Justice herself will personally
report the plaintiffs attorney to the Bar’s Disciplinary committee.
18 of 32
i-94b
page:19 of 32
10. The lack of reverence to the Honorable Judge Louis Nock’s
courtesies ridicules as plaintiff’s attorney represent himself as only a good
attorney but not the one who have taken a matter of descriptive unintentional
motives or actions by the Defendant and made it into the plaintiff’s attorneys
own personal victory by naming himself and his assistant Jennifer bogue as
part of the miscalculated Settlement Order for this reason the agreement needs
to be renewed.
First Relief Sort: RETURN TRIAL TO CALENDAR and/or RESETTLE
Sec.1: The Order of 01-17-2020 was implemented in a rush, without
proper review, with too much haste as a result of the misleading statements
and the withholding of exculpatory evidence from the side of the plaintiff.
(Sec.11111).
Sec.11: The content of the order “Settlement Statement” Exhibit A needs
resettlement and clarification seeing that it constituted effectuating the laws that
governs free speech and the World Wide Web and was not properly reviewed
by the defendant.
19 of 32
i-94b
page:20 of 32
Sec.111: The content of the Order Settlement Statement and its Exhibit
“A” constitutes unlawful practice, malfeasance, biasness, prejudice and the
plaintiff’s or each individual named in the agreement can used it to defraud
someone or anyone related or unrelated with each urls stipulated in the
agreement – in essence the agreements stipulations are mad and permeates
theft of intellectual property.
Sec.1111: Defendant’s adversary’s attorney’s deceptiveness persuaded
the conduct of the Honorable Justice Louis to be presumed culpable mal
practice for a person in authority under law. Justice Louis Nock simulated a
theory based on the falsehood of Plaintiff’s attorney. The Hon. Justice Nock
vacated chambers chair by sitting closely with defendant, and speaking closely
with defendant, even asking for 100% privacy with defendant as to express
help, support, guide and friendship to defendant. Though willing and good the
incident came as Hon. Justice Louis was made to believe without evidence that
the prose litigant is in need of a friend. Defendant was abhorred in the
20 of 32
i-94b
page:21 of 32
instance of the moment and became in a state of shock similar that of a
childhood seductive abuse.
Sec.V: The Prose Defendant questions, request for time to review the
settlement statement and up to the instant of signatory exchange was
experiencing a mental disorder in anxiety and a childhood disability “Delayed
Cognitive Thinking”.
Sec.V1: as expected reasonably by a judge in resolving a dispute (Sec.1
and Sec.11) between a prose litigant and Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s Attorney Seth Alan
Rafkin, plaintiff’s attorney assistant Counsel Jennifer Bogue and Plaintiff’s chief
Witness Executive and CEO Tom Gildred executed an error filled settlement
agreement which insistently executes the withholding of exculpatory evidence.
Sec.V11: The tacit misleading of the Counsel of Defendant’s adversary
took up the roll of becoming Judge, Jury and Prosecutor by creating an
instance of criminality, as prose litigant tried to state the facts of the case
sighting the plaintiff’s witness Tom Gildred and the plaintiff’s attorneys’ brazen
out of court harassment tactics one of which includes the plaintiff’s attorney
21 of 32
i-94b
page:22 of 32
provocateur actions, holding and pointing a camera recording device into
defendants face, Fist folding cough and shaking his fist at defendant, and the
confronting defendant and calling defendant derogatory names on the public
sidewalk. The defendant have made 2 police reports consistent with the
plaintiff’s, the plaintiff attorneys and the plaintiff’s chief witness Tom Gildred’s
out of court harassment actions though the defendant have not made contact
with the plaintiff well over 3.5 years. Exhibit T2 Defendants police report of
twice in one week Tom Gildred with plaintiff’s attorney confronting the
defendant.
The plaintiff, its attorney of record and its chief witness and its
Counsel assistant to its attorney have been accused of:
a. Scanning Jurors Private and Personal Information (Witness JHO
Irene and found all four individuals seated in a private room
around a desk with all 36 juror application – but the JHO only
got to interrupting after it was reported to her and 22 minutes
22 of 32
i-94b
page:23 of 32
thereafter. The error of juror malpractice had been observed.
While prose litigant was clearly in a state of shock.
b. Pointing and taunting defendant in public twice in one week in the
streets of Manhattan.
c. Pointing a camera and recording device into defendants face
d. Withholding exculpatory evidence and lying about defendants
answers to discoveries.
e. Telling lies about receiving defendant’s interrogations, admissions
and discovery documents in a USPS postal mail that no content
was received.
f. Threatening to destroy defendant’s life to defendants face if
defendant did not sign an agreement without over viewing it
outside the chambers of Her Honorable Kaplan (Chan).
g. Constantly exercising the Cabaceo at Defendant insistently,
indignantly and in a provocative manner, stalking the defendant.
23 of 32
i-94b
page:24 of 32
h. Following the Defendant around or having the defendant followed in
and out of court.
i. Contacting attorneys or friends of attorneys known to defendant
and persuading them not to defend Defendant’s self.
j. Contacting friends and potential witnesses of defendant (Defendant
did not want to disclose its witness list) and discouraging
defendant’s friends and prospective witnesses to DO NOT CALL
or TEXT defendant.
k. Contacting the defendant’s most recent lady friend whom defendant
had been aspiring in an ongoing personal relationship with and
persuading her to AVOID defendant….
l. Contacting witnesses of defendant and turning them against
defendant Paul and John Pellicoro and Joan Snitzer are friends
have been friends of the defendant for more than 20 years.
m. Stating that defendant lied about having a personal intimate or
sexual relationship with plaintiff. Defendant took a polygraph test.
24 of 32
i-94b
page:25 of 32
n. Lying about defendants state of thinking and calling defendant
unhinge in its court filings.
o. Lying to the press in an interview to disparage defendant in a
publication 3,000 miles away.
p. Accusing defendant falsely of extortion and causing its accusation
to be publicize across the internet and among friends and
coworkers of defendant
q. Causing the defendant to be kicked out of his apartment for no
reason except that the landlords suddenly refuse to acknowledge
defendant as a tenant of record.
r. By the attorney’s Jennifer Bogue, Seth Rafkin, Plaintiff Carolina
Gildred and Mr. Tom Philip Gildred’s aligned campaign of
harassment beginning with the conscious provocation of inclement
feelings or emotions arising out of a mistake defendant had
made in allowing plaintiff to sexually seduced him and persuade
him that she was a damsel in distress – Defendants first remarks
25 of 32
i-94b
page:26 of 32
was to plaintiff Go to The Police, plaintiff continued to persuade
defendant of a need for his attention and flew defendant several
times first class airfare to meet with her.
Defendant conscious reality of the demise in the constructive
harassment, defamation, breach of contract and intentional
infliction of emotional distress cause defendant to suffer greatly.
Upon announcement of this lawsuit at which time defendant
faithfully stepped back from having further contact with plaintiff or
follow suit plaintiff’s prior wishes.
s. Defendants simply narrated the content of life experience via
websites and social media as a form of therapy and as these
forums have their own rules what can and cannot be posted and
definitely they are not prone to encouraging defamatory
statements Youtube.com. Facebook.com and others all have been
contacted by plaintiff in an effort to Take Down what Plaintiff
considered to be disparaging.
26 of 32
i-94b
page:27 of 32
Other Relief sort: Laxness Dismissal and/or STRIKE PLAINTIFF
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff purposefully defaulted on the opportunities the court made
available for settlement conferences and defaulted on these dates without
showing any evidence why a Laxness Dismissal is not warranted pursuant to
CPLR 3216, CPLR 3404 and Uniform Rule 202.27 (22 NYCRR 202.27), upon
procedural element the Plaintiff and Its attorneys have made a mockery of
justice prudence and tacitly inflict each causation attributed to defendants
appearance as Prose.
Argument: Defendant’s adversary would have the court to be persuaded
that only the plaintiff’s side of this matter stands to be justified. That the
defendant is simply a Madman with mental illness, or as ascribe in Plaintiff’s
complaints “A dangerous case of “Erotanamia”. To the contrary Hon. Justice
Lebovits Order and Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion on NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23
09/25/2017. The order should have done enough to dissuade plaintiff and its
attorney’s from the continuance persistent in plaintiff’s allegations are factually
27 of 32
i-94b
page:28 of 32
baseless. Sufficed to be plaintiff and its attorneys have embarked on a
personal Endeavor to destroy defendant’s life, professionally, personally and
principally.
Defendant has a good bill of health mentally, psychologically, spiritually
and physically. Defendant has a flawless character without any criminal
background, is not prone to violence in facts spends the greater part of
Defendant’s life disarming violence and the atrocities of violent seekers.
An agreement settlement order was effectuated is by and large to self
inflict a character assassination and came as a result a reason of Delayed
Cognitive Thinking.
Defendant’s mother recent passing, the trauma of plaintiff’s insistent
harassment campaign in and out of court, work related issues and personal
relationship issues all have indeed taken a toll.
In the instance of the moment the Hon. Justice Nock’s comments, not
being aware of the personal circumstance wrongfully imputed upon defendant
Quote: “If you do not take this deal you should commit suicide”.
28 of 32
i-94b
page:29 of 32
Defendant will not commit suicide but defendant remains fearful for his
life. Defendant is a respectable citizen whose character is built on obedience to
his adults and humbled by directional orders from persons in authority; hence
Hon. Louis Nock guided the order to accept and sign a settlement agreement
contrary to the facts in itself was accepted but normally would then be
rejected.
The Order Decision a true copy is annex as Exhibit D7 NYSCEF DOC.
NO. 161 caused immediate trauma and additional desperate attempts to seek
medical and mental help – a true and concise copy of defendants medical
treatment immediately thereafter is annex Exhibit D8.
1. I have known and have witnesses to testify I have known the plaintiff
for the past 17 years – As the once manager of the Lafayette Grill
and Bar Restaurant 54-46 Franklin street original tel# still rings to
Defendant’s cell phone – throughout this time I have never referred to
the plaintiff relative to an expletive or a statement intentional to
defame the plaintiff.
29 of 32
i-94b
page:30 of 32
2. Defendant is not unhinged, did not lie about fidelity as plaintiff sort to
distort and blur the facts from the inception of this matter.
3. Defendant is not persistent out of normalcy after having a personal
[let alone] having been a contributor to an extra marital affair which
Plaintiff continues to deny. Deniability is one thing but plausible
deniability by using the judicial arm of the law is a default which
needs correction.
4. Defendant establish a website as a truth base character measuring
medium of the plaintiff, its attorney and its propagated witnesses and
the defendant’s everyday life style.
5. The defendant is not prone to extortion [Majestic] character witnesses
will affirm this is a true fact in the defendants daily life.
6. The defendant is measured in Quantum emotional relationship status
quo. Exhibit D9 (Defendants past and present relationship includes
Doctors, a lawyer, a persons of higher educational status).
30 of 32
i-94b
page:31 of 32
7. Defendant excerpted to a level of respect and courtesy to plaintiff
base on the Law of Dance “A dance partnership is deeper stronger,
requires more patience, trust than a marriage relationship”.
8. The plaintiff committed verbally and in writing to a dance partner
relationship and understood the criterion prior to engagement with
defendant as a partner in the business of dance.
9. The Plaintiff breach the dance contract and further made multiple
attempts to TAKE DOWN their youtube dance videos and other public
comments about their business in dance a true copy of only a few of
these responses can be found here annexed as:. Exhibit D10 yutube
complaint case results
Except for time given and state of consciousness cognitive to Defendant’s
mental, physical and emotional well being of Defendant’s self as Prose
Defendant, indeed would have added and reserve the right to add additional
facts. Given the severity of emotional trauma, consistent state of anxiety, and
the urgency of the moments extrapolated as a results of an Order Settlement
31 of 32
i-94b
page:32 of 32
Decision by the Hon. Justice Louis Nock, one that’s based on withholding
exculpatory evidence on the plaintiff’s part demanded a timely response as best
to Defendant’s recollection.
I Declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of New
York the foregoing is true and correct
Executed this 19th day of January 2020 ____________________
Michael Foster
MICHAEL FOSTER PRO SE Defendant MICHAEL FOSTER PO Box 260 New York,
New York 10002 (212) 330-7291-Tel. (212) 689-2250-Tel
cc: cc: Plaintiff Attorney Alan Seth Rafkin Esq. (via ECF)
32 of 32
one disparaging statement that was directed to her on a website. And even so what happens if
that statement is planted on another website what should plaintiff do?
My adversaries would have you to believe that as Defendant For example, on September
19, 2016, Defendant sent to Plaintiff and otPlaintiff third parties an email falsely stating, among
otPlaintiff things, that Plaintiff and Defendant had been “making love to each otPlaintiff” and
“yes, having sex.” In the same email, Foster falsely described his relationship with Plaintiff as
“prospective dance partner-sex and otPlaintiff relationship.” Because if in real time an
individual sort to do so much and give so much attention but yet does not resolved to violence
cursing with expletives or attempting to stalked, but wait. Later on in one of plaintiff lies the
plaintiff states that the defendant told her that he is coming at her and that he will teach her
another dance lesson.
My adversaries would have you to believe that as Defendant all of the other remaining
allegations are just as bad as or even worse than the ones we just went through above.
Argument:
Sec.1 Line 1 & 2: Will cause the removal, Depublishing- of "Any and All - Content"
The Causation of Removal of published document/s, image/s, Media-related,
Application/ios/android-related, IP/VPN/Dark-web/Audio/SIP-related, Animated, Virtual,
Augmented, artificial or simulated. Cause for removal Might be possibly. Cause for permanent
removal is virtually Impossible therefore Defendant propose Reargument/Renew/Resettle:
Further Applicants must state clearly what must be removed - doing so the applicant must take
into considerations the rules and any disclaimer associated with each content thread, the time it
have been establish across the world wide web - for example first must be the review of the
content through the archive web. If any copies can and most assuredly will be found That
i-
99
6 of 23
specific piece of Content will forever remain on the WEB.
The material could then be drafted or morphed into a more suitable phrase to one’s liking. One
News paper call Mr, Foster the Dancing Devil. Mr. Foster promoted an even which topped the
headlines “Come Dance with the Devil”. If a specific piece of content is erase, removed, deleted
or taken down it may only suspend its population and limit propagation across the Internet but
the value in each algorithm will not be devalued ever. A simple search of its Key words and the
content will republish itself in the form of a bug or virus.
Content across the web cannot be simply killed especially after years of propagation birth of an
algorithm propagates based on time-line and immediate content released. Less time-line, less
value, but always a base value immediately after registration's birth.
Content in an instant of registration is extremely important to early propagation period.
Therefore the Content of example CarolinaGildred.com does not have anything to do with the
life and times of A Specific Carolina Gildred. Plaintiff can request to remove or take down
perhaps images knowingly A or Any Carolina Gildred from the beginning of time into the future
of anytime unless the theory of Allegory changes. That content usually an image can be removed
or taken down if its an image that was taken without permission and posted without expressed
authority. Still it takes a process in which to take down such material image.
Line 2 depublishing or taking down of content is baseless unless a specific content thread is
ascertained. That thread must then be reviewed before effectuating a takedown. The World Wide
Web is like a television - Don't like a channel? Switch your TV because more and more people
in the world are watching tv in another country than witnessing the activities in their nearest
neighborhoods.
Line #3 He has possession, custody or control. Having access to the Internet is not as having
i-100
7 of 23
possession of safety deposit box to lock away your possession. Scarcely unless an applicant’s is
operating in the Dark Web are the applicant is the virtual embodiment of a virtual coin. An
individual can assume control, influence control or custody the content is not successive to any
of the three orders Possession, Custody or Control. Not even programmable casinos Smart-Slots-
Machines can be easily PCC.
The defendant was right in ascertaining to the judge that defendant is more than happy to assert
influencing PCC content to favor plaintiff. (Plaintiff must be specific).
Line 3 directly or indirectly is absolutely nonsensical in algorithmic terms. There are no possible
ways in which a legal statement could define direct or indirect in a virtually base life of any
content.
Line 3 Concerning a Mr/Mrs or any specifics criteria of an individual or its counterparts is
impossible unless the author is an assertive member or an associate to the person or persons
intended for the content to be concerning. It is best worded concerning index No. 153554/2017
and its particulars and subject to the publishing rules of the NYSCEF .gov servers as web sites
across the web will sync with a .gov to learn and understand its algorithms and follow its laws
and rules accordingly.
An order to take down therefore must be first programmable and uploaded into a real web server
intranet before allowing time to be posted. Made available to internet public web-crawlers or
Bots.
Line 5 through line 6 PLLC is stricken and cannot be associated with an order to influence a any
web-based algorithm.
Line 6 This Obligation, Line & and Line 8 is profusely nonsensical and Unenforceable. If an
aggressive attempt is made to Take down or remove otherwise valuable non impeding content it
i-
101
8 of 23
could only boost attentiveness and overall increase the potential viral publishing of the exact
content in an even alternate or extreme manner. Besides it is illegal as No Websites on the
Internet does not or is not govern by its own private User Policy. At times a single websites url's
privacy policy extend into the privacy policy and terms of use of another and another and many
challenging a takedown of one website may not be the right idea if the content is disparaging or
you just do not like what is on it.
Mr. Mrs Gildred live your life and stay away from the internet. No one is doing the Tango with
her anymore...See? right there. You just got offend.
Sec.2: Line 1,2,3 & 4 up to PLLC is strike and is non applicable to any access or control of web
content by any means a ruling of such can explicitly establish warranties. In fact it is soliciting
the job of hiring the defendant as I have explained above, Only an individual Self-Publisher or
company with a staff or team of workers experience with web Algorithms, both Intranets and
Internets and extranets and (yes) a host of other hosting tiles from virtual to augmented can
actually govern by that being its own algorithm.
Line 4: That in a manner Line 5 This obligation: Be it Known Mr. foster Never ID'd the
Gildred's in anyway. The Gildred's will have continues cause to feel self reliant on facts
surrounding their own inferiority complexes and by the looks of this settlement agreement is
exemplifies inferior complexities and is not having anything to deal with claims of Mr. Fosters
intent on defaming either party or its affiliates or businesses.
If the underlying issues aren't personal inferior complexities the Gildred and Its associates would
have used methods of pride courage and dignity to assuage distraught similar to what Mr, Foster
Did when the Daily News, the New York Post and the San Diego Ready and a host of other
media publications Brandish Mr, Fosters for the term FIRST made public by the Gildreds in
i- 102
9 of 23
which to state Publicly what they thought to be Mr. Foster's unhinge behavior as some statement
having to Mr. Foster Referred to the Genitals of himself. This have been the worst of the worst in
all of its legal rambunctiousness about defamation was statement the defendant made about
himself.
If this theory gets into the internet almost anyone in the future with an issue with These Gildreds
would more certaint to repeat the exact terms. They do not have to have a relation directly with
these gildreds - The intent of this settlement if made to survive will most assuredly discomfort
every other Gildred going on with their lives.
By these alternates Mr,.Foster would be deprive and face his own pain if he would have actually
or intentionally picked on the Gildred then he would have done himself mostly the damages.
The record shows by each algorithm of each thread on all the gildreds names urls that less than
1% of the times used users or even Foster himself spent simulating the names urls. some of the
urls Mr, Foster have never even been for as much as over 10 years tipsonly.com or
NYsupertickets.com or certain facebook or twitter sites aren't frequented by Mr, Fosters. With
less assessment if given the webmasters could determine and in all probability it is likely to fine
more times the Gildred's visiting these urls far enough to the record than any other individualized
gildreds made more attempts to inform media even mainstream than Mr, Foster. Doing an
interview with the San Diego Reader was a huge bid for publicity. The Mr. Foster was striving to
make a living on 99cents pizza all the ways in New York.
For this Sec.2 must be strike as its too broad and attempts to include Media related stories at
which in itself is a violation of the Free Speech Act.
Sec.3: 1, 2, & Lines 3 is need to be simplified. Mr. Foster had not been seen in any form or
manner in contact with the Gildreds but less than Months Ago the Gildreds Both Mr. and Mrs
i-
103
10 of 23
Gildred had a run in with Mr, Foster in the Streets of NYC. As far as the gildred's organizations
are concern the Gildred needs to inform his organization of his desires Not to do business with
Mr, Foster as Mr., Foster himself is an aspiring entrepreneur who've consulted with
organizations much larger that any Gildred corporation or business association these terms must
be strike from the Settlement Stipulations.
Sec.3 Lines $ throughout the end of Sec. 3 is an attempt to use the New York Civil Practice Law
and Rules 3215 (i) to extort future monies from Mr. Foster and if any no monetary value should
be added and if a monetary value be added it must be consistent with a judgment finding of an
actually injury sustained by the plaintiff.
Sec.4 Line 3. Mr. Foster reserves the right to pursue a civil lawsuit against the Gildreds Now that
it is sufficient to decide that all along it was Mr, Gildred's Lawsuit as define by each signature on
this stipulation.
There are multiple other reasons why the Stipulation Settlement needs revision and reformatting:
intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires a Dance Tango to establish "(i)
extreme and outrageous conduct, (ii) an intent to cause — or disregard of substantial probability
of causing — severe emotional distress, (iii) a causal connection between the conduct and the
injury, and (iv) the resultant severe emotional distress." Lau v. S & M Enters., 898 N.Y.S.2d 42,
43 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “The outrageousness element may be satisfied wDance Tangoe
severe mental pain or anguish is inflicted through a deliberate and malicious campaign of
harassment or intimidation." Allam v.
Meyers, 2011 BL 56796, 6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2011) (applying New York state law).
CAUSE OF ACTION “DEFAMATION” SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE COMPLAINANT
FAILED TO SATISFY ANY OF THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS FOR MALICIOUS FALSE
i-104
11 of 23
STATEMENTS 6. THE COMPLAINANTS SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION “DEFAMATION”
SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE COMPLAINANT FAILED TO SATISFY ANY OF
REQUIRED ELEMENTS FOR MALICIOUS OR FALSE STATEMENTS The burden of proof
is upon the complainant, as complainant must meet four requirements: 1) a “real probability of
prevailing on the merits, not merely a remote possibility of doing so;” 2) lesser injury would be
done to the defendant by each intent to defame than would result to Complainant by denying it;
3) that Complainant would suffer irreparable injury unless the allege defamation would cease;
and 4) that the public interest favored the allege defamation would cease. Fogle v. H & G Rest.,
Inc., 337 Md. 441, 455- 57, 654 A.2d 449, 456-57 (1995) (reversing decision to defamatory
intent). The burden of proving facts sufficient to satisfy each of the four required elements rests
on the Complainant, and the “failure to prove the existence of even one of the four factors will
preclude the grant of decision or prayer for [injunctive] relief.” Id. at 456, 654 A.2d at 456.
Complainant failed to meet any of these requirements.
7. NONE OF THE STATEMENTS ALLEGED ARE ACTIONABLE
None of the statements referenced by Complainant are actionable. Complainant’s Complaint,
which sounds in defamation, also asserts related causes of action such as false statements or
allusive admittance to defendants intentionally falsifying, damages and injurious falsehood,
however, these other claims “‘may not stand unless the claim also meets the standards of
defamation.’” See Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. 23, 38, 12 A. 3d 164, 173 (2011) (quoting
Crowley v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 851 F. Supp. 700, 704 (applying Maryland law)). The
elements of the cause of action for defamation in New York and California are well settled. “[I]n
order to make out a prima facie case of defamation the Complainant must allege that (1) the
defendant made a defamatory communication, i.e., that he communicated a statement tending to
i-
105
12 of 23
expose the Complainant to public scorn, hatred, contempt, or ridicule to a third person who
reasonably recognized the statement to be defamatory; (2) that the statement was false; (3) that
the defendant was at fault in communicating the statement; and (4) that the plaintiff suffered
harm.” Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 37, 12 A.3d at 173 (quoting Agora, Inc. v. Axxess,
Inc., 90 F. Supp. 2d 697, 701 (D. Md. 2000) (citing Peroutka v. Streng, 116 Md. App. 301, 311,
695 A.2d 1287, 1293 (1997) and Shapiro v. Masssengill, 105 Md. App. 743, 772, 661 A.2d 202,
216-17 (1995))). As the Piscatelli Court explained, in the context of defamation, a statement is
false only when it is “‘not substantially correct.’” Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 37, 12
A.3d at 173 (quoting Batson v. Shiflett, 325 Md. 684, 726, 602 A.2d 1191, 1212 (1992)). The
question of whether a statement is defamatory is an issue of law that is determined by the court.
Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 37-38, 12 A.3d at 172-73 (citing Chesapeake Publishing v.
Williams, 339 Md. 285, 296, 661 A.2d 1169, 1174 (1995)). Even if a court were to determine
that a particular statement was defamatory, New York law recognizes three defenses that, if
applicable, bar recovery. Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 38, 12 A.3d at 173. First, The law
recognizes the qualified privilege to report upon judicial proceedings. Piscatelli v. Smith, 197
Md. App. at 38, 12 A.3d at 173 (citing Chesapeake Publishing, 339 Md. at 296, 661 A.2d at
1174). Second, The law recognizes the fair comment privilege. Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App.
at 38, 12 A.3d at 173 (citing A.S. Abell Co. v. Kirby, 227 Md. 267, 272, 274, 176 A.2d 340, 343
(1961)). Third, The law recognizes as a defense to defamation that “a person is entitled to
express an opinion without liability if ‘the facts from which a defendant forms his or her opinion
are given or are readily available and those facts cannot be proved false....’” Piscatelli v. Smith,
197 Md. App. at 39, 12 A.3d at 174 (quoting Peroutka, 116 Md. App. at 320, 695 A.2d at 1297)).
i-
106
13 of 23
The statements cited by Complainant are not false or defamatory, and in any event, all three
defenses preclude recovery.
8. NONE OF THE STATEMENTS ARE DEFAMATORY As a matter of law, none of the
statements cited by Complainant are defamatory. See Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 38, 12
A.3d at 173. Every one of the statements alleged by Complainant in its Complaint is from an
independent nonparty source cited above. See supra pp. 2- 13. These are facts that were stated by
courts and other independent nonparty sources. These facts are available in numerous ways,
including through the Internet at the websites cited above. Even if Defendant made any
statement of these facts or expressed any opinion about these facts, the statements are not
defamatory as a matter of law because they are true factual statements or statements of opinion.
Even if one or more of the underlying factual statements were not true, the statements were made
by independent nonparty sources, and thus Defendants did not make any statements that are
defamatory.
9. ACTION COMPLAINANT FAILED TO PROVE LESSER INJURY WOULD BE DONE
TO DEFENDANTS BY GRANTING AN INJUNCTION THAN WOULD RESULT TO
COMPLAINANT BY DENYING IT “DEFAMATION”
The Defense of the Right to Express an Opinion Precludes Recovery. The right to express an
opinion provides another applicable defense to defamation – that “a person is entitled to express
an opinion without liability if ‘the facts from which a defendant forms his or her opinion are
given or are readily available and those facts cannot be proved false.’” See Piscatelli v. Smith,
197 Md. App. at 39, 12 A.3d at 147 (quoting Peroutka, 116 Md. App. at 320, 695 A.2d at 1297)).
Where the defendant makes a factual statement or expresses an opinion based on facts supplied
i-
107
14 of 23
by third parties, the defendant is not liable for the statements if the statement of facts is not
defamatory or if both the defendant and the person receiving the communication assume the
facts stated are true. See Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 39, 12 A.3d at 174 (citing
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 566 Comment c (1976)). Here, Defendant are not even accused
of stating facts known only to Defendants; Complainant complains that it disagrees with the
opinions allegedly expressed by Defendants. The right to express an opinion supersedes
Complainant’s claim. Complainant may not like the characterization of its conduct and integrity,
but “an ordinary person, reading the matter complained of, [would] be likely to understand it as
an expression of [opinion]” and the factual basis for those opinions are readily ascertainable
from the same quotation.” Piscatelli v. Smith, 197 Md. App. at 39, 12 A.3d 174 (quoting A.S.
Abell Co. v. Kirby, 227 Md. at 274, 176 A.2d at 343). Expressing a negative opinion of
Plaintiff’s business practices is clearly an opinion protected by Maryland law. Despite the fact
that complainant’s entire Complaint rests on the defamation allegations, Complainant failed to
cite even a single defamation case anywhere in its voluminous Motion. Complainant lacks even
a remote possibility of prevailing on any defamation claim.
10. ACTION COMPLAINANT' FAILED TO PROVE LESSER INJURY WOULD BE DONE
TO DEFENDANTS BY GRANTING AN INJUNCTION THAN WOULD RESULT TO
COMPLAINANT'S BY DENYING IT Complainant seeks a wholly unwarranted and
unsupported prior restraint on the freedom of speech of Defendants. The Constitutional
magnitude of harm to a defendant presented by a prior restraint on the freedom of speech has
been recognized under the law. See City of Frederick v. Randall Family, LLC, 154 Md. App.
543, 576, 841 A.2d 10, 30 (2004), The First Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” Truthful
i-
108
15 of 23
commercial speech enjoys meaningful First Amendment protection. See Ohralik v. Ohio State
Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447, 456, 98 S.Ct. 1912, 1918, 56 L.Ed.2d 444 (1978). The Court of Special
Appeals further noted that the United States Supreme Court “‘has interpreted these guarantees to
afford special protection against orders that prohibit the publication or broadcast of particular
information or commentary – orders that impose a ‘previous' or ‘prior’ restraint on speech.’”
City of Frederick v. Randall Family, LLC, 154 Md. App. at 576, 841 A.2d 10 (quoting Nebraska
Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 556, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 2801, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976)). As the
Court of Special Appeals explained, because “‘prior restraints on speech and publication are the
most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights,’ any prior restraint
bears a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” City of Frederick v. Randall
Family, LLC, 154 Md. App. at 576, 841 A.2d at 30 (quoting Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427
U.S. at 556 and citing Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419, 91 S.Ct.
1575, 1577-78, 29 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971)). Before a restraint can be deemed Constitutional, the test is
whether “the magnitude of the danger the restraint seeks to prevent, ‘discounted by its
improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.’” 20
City of Frederick v. Randall Family, LLC, 154 Md. App. at 577, 841 A.2d at 30 (quoting United
States v. Dennis, 183 F.2d 201, 212 (2d Cir. 1950) (Hand, J.), aff'd, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S.Ct. 857,
95 L.Ed. 1137 (1951)). Determining the actual truth or falsity of a defendant’s speech is not
appropriate on a cause of action for an injunctive relief. “An injunction is not an adjudication on
the merits, but a device for preserving the status quo and preventing the irreparable loss of rights
before judgment.” Textile Unlimited, Inc. v. A. BMH & Co., 240 F.3d 781, 786 (9th Cir.2001).
Against this clear harm to Defendants, Complainants asserts in conclusory fashion at pages 24-
25 of the Action that J.G. Wentworth’s reputation, good will, and business interests will be
i- 109
16 of 23
irreparably harmed. But Complainant offers no factual support or any citation to the record
supporting this weak claim. All of the facts showing Complainant’s conduct, including facts
supplied by independent nonparties, demonstrate that it is Complainant’s own record and
conduct, and not any particular website, that affects Complainant’s reputation. Indeed, issuing
the unwarranted injunction requested by Complainant will not make the facts of Complainant’s
conduct disappear. Complainant utterly failed to show that any alleged business loss and harm to
Complaint’s interests results from a website as opposed to the reality of Complainant’s conduct.
Because Complainant has not shown that lesser injury would be done to Defendants by granting
the injunction than would result to Complainant by denying it, the Cause Of Action lacks merit
and should be denied for this additional, independent reason.
11. COMPLAINANT FAILED TO PROVE IRREPARABLE HARM
Complainant’s Motion nowhere demonstrates irreparable harm based on any alleged statements
by Defendants. To the contrary, Complainant appears to argue with the independent, sources
(nonparty) that have documented complainant’s conduct. Even assuming Complainant lost of
sleep as a result of potential public learning of Complainant’s record, such a circumstance does
not establish irreparable harm to Complainant. For this reason as well, the Second Cause Of
Action fails as a matter of law.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD BE HARMED
Robust debate on matters of public concern lies at the heart of the right of freedom of speech
recognized by the courts of New York. See, e.g., City of Frederick v. Randall Family, LLC, 154
Md. App. at 576, 841 A.2d at 30. There is no public interest whatsoever in preventing any
member of the community from speaking out on matters of public concern and commenting on
i-
110
17 of 23
facts reported by independent nonparty sources. The Complainant’s allegations are a matter of
public concern. Complainant’s aquavits’ a dubious history is a matter of public record. Issuing a
prior restraint on free speech with regard to this matter of public concern would harm the public
interest. Complainant certainly has not shown that granting the injunction will help the public
interest in any way. Accordingly, this factor also cuts decidedly against the injunction.
13. EVEN IF THIS COURT WERE TO ENJOIN DISPARAGEMENT, ANY SUCH ORDER
SHOULD BE MUTUAL Even if this Court were inclined to enjoin any disparagement during
the pendency of this litigation, any such order should be mutual – it would be inherently unfair
to subject Defendant to an order limiting his freedom of speech and ability to defend himself
against statements by Complainant unless Complainant also was ordered not to disparage
Defendant.
AS AND FOR AN ACCOUNT OF CONTINUED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant in that the defendant was not served
with process within the meaning of the Civil Practice Laws and Rules. AS AND FOR AN
ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5. The Complainant failed to include a necessary party.
AS AND FOR AN ACCOUNT OF CONTINUED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6. The Complaint fails to state a valid cause of action to which relief can be granted.
AS AND FOR AN ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7. The Complainant failed to adequately mitigate damages.
i- 111
18 of 23
AS AND FOR A FIRST COUNTERCLAIM "BREACH OF CONTRACT"
8. The Complainant knowingly, intentionally and maliciously misrepresented the terms of the
alleged contract in the business of dance as dance partner to Defendant and dance business
partner to Defendant, if any, in order to induce the defendant to enter into the agreement,
alluding to its contents by dismissals without sharing its knowledge to defendant, complainant
and spouse Mr. Tom Phillip Gildred therefore have been constructively in "Breach of Contract".
9. The deceptive act of the Complainant and spouse occurred in the course and conduct of the
Complainant and complainants spouse normal course of personal, trade and commerce.
10. The deceptive act of the Complainant and spouse had a broad impact on Defendant and its
consumers at large.
11. The deceptive act of the Complainant and spouse caused actual injury to the defendant.
12. As such, the act of the Complainant and spouse constituted unlawful deceptive act and
practice in violation of General Business Law Section 349.
13. By virtue of the Complainant violation of General Business Law Section 349, the defendant
is claiming damages for Breach of Contract to the sum of Two Million Eight Hundred and
Twenty-Five Thousand ($2, 825,000.00) Dollars.
AS AND FOR A SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
14. Defendant repeats, reiterates and realleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs “1, 2, 3 &
5” through “13” inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
i- 112
19 of 23
15. The Complainant had a duty to disclose material information, such as the decline of
investment interest and the consequences of a deficiency in the dance business partnership
contract, among other things.
16. As such, the acts of the Complainant constituted fraudulent concealment.
17. By virtue of the Complainant’s fraudulent concealment, the defendant has been damaged in a
sum of Two hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand ($225,000.00) Dollars AS AND FOR A
THIRD COUNTERCLAIM
18. Defendant repeats, reiterates and reallege the allegations contained in Paragraphs “1” through
“23” inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
19. The complainant has been unjustly enriched by its wrongful act in that certain provisions in
the contract were improper and the Complainant accepted the training expertise and transferred it
and has received the appropriate and just rewards.
20. By virtue of the Complainant’s unjust enrichment, the defendant is claiming damages to the
sum of Two Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand ($225,000.00) Dollars.
21. Defendant repeats, reiterates and realleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs “y”
through “z” inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
22. The Dance business and dance partnership verbal contract contained clear and there was no
hidden language and there was a mutual balance in the knowledge, understanding as well as
acumen of both parties.
i-
113
20 of 23
23. Complainant further accepted the Dance for business and the business of dance partnership
contract with terms reasonably favorable to the Complainant and there was mutual meaningful
choice on the part of both parties. 24. As such, the acts of the Complainant constituted
unconscionable conduct and the breach contract itself was unconscionable. 25. By virtue of the
Complainant’s unconscionable conduct and the unconscionability of the purported breach of
dance partnership and the business of dance contract, if any, it is yet valid as a matter of equity
and the Complainant has thus yet to stand by each and all of the dance partnership and the
business of dance contract.
CONCLUSSION:
The actions both Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Defamation Cause of Actions
and injunction against defendant should be denied in its entirety. In both Actions Complainant
failed to establish any factors necessary for an injunction. Not a single statement referenced by
complainant is actionable, and none of the claims asserted by Complainant have any merit
whatsoever, Complainant’s request for damages for emotional distress and humiliation or
punitive damages is moot because Complainant's claim have been self inflicted and have already
substantiate the Law on defamation and Intentional Self Infliction of Emotional Distress. Even if
this Court were inclined to enjoin any disparagement during the pendency of this litigation, any
such order should be mutual – it would be inherently unfair to subject Defendant to a prior
restraint on the freedom of speech and the ability to defend himself against statements of
Complainant unless Complainant also was ordered not to disparage Defendant.
WHEREFORE, the defendant, MICHAEL FOSTER, demands judgment that:
i. Dismissing the complaint herein, together with costs and disbursements in this action;
i-
114
21 of 23
ii. On the First Counterclaim in the amount of Two Million Eight Hundred and Twenty-Five
Thousand ($2, 825,000.00) Dollars;
iii. On the Second Counterclaim in the amount of Two Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand
($225,000.00) Dollars;
iv. On the Third Counterclaim in the amount of Two Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand
($225,000.00) Dollars; v. On the Fourth Counterclaim, the plaintiff has forfeited its right
to receive any form of recovery, whether in equity and/or law; and vi. Granting such
other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Executed this 19th day of January 2020 ____________________
Michael Foster
MICHAEL FOSTER PRO SE Defendant MICHAEL FOSTER PO Box 28 New York,
New York 10002 (212) 330-7291-Tel. (212) 689-2250-Tel
i-
115
22 of 23
i-
116
23 of 23
QRC.#1-INTRO:
Michael Foster
38 W 31st St Apt.108a
New York, NY 10001
Tel. (212) 766-2000
February 12th, 2020 Page | 1
Hon. Judge Louis Nock
Pt. 38 - 111 Centre St. Rm 1166
New York, NY 10013
Re: Letter of Defendant Dated January, 22 2020 (e-filed)
Dear Respectful Justice Louis Nock,
"Re."
The Reference captions your Honor, Respectfully. DECISSION + ORDER on MOTION for JUDICIAL
Letter"
RESCISSION OF SETTLEMENT (Doc.NO.186). The said caption "Defendant's (Below QRC.#3)
2nd
referred to as in, and on, Page. 1. in line as "Letter of Defendant Dated January, 22 2020 (as yet
electronically)"
unfiled and Page.2. in lines 4 as "except for defendant's said January 22, 2020, letter,".
Your Honor, This letter was written as a courtesy to include a canonical display of the smears craftily
implanted by Plaintiff's e-filed Doc#183 addressed to Your Honor in response to Defense Letter to
Rescind e-filed the same day. Plaintiff letter is heavily contaminated with over 30 plus lies and numerous
misleading statements. Certain statements misquoted Your Honor and that of Her Honor Justice
Deborah Kaplan and other Justices. (see Below: QRC.#4&5).
In addition Your Honor may have misinterpreted Defendant's said January 22, 2020, letter, which was
Delivered"
rather deduced in replica and "Hand as a courtesy to The Clerk and The Chambers of Her
Honorable Deborah Kaplan, The Clerk and The Chambers of Her Honorable Kaplan (CHAN), The Clerk
and The Chambers of Her Honorable Justice Bluth, The Clerk and The Chambers of His Honorable Justice
Gerald Lebovits (previously assigned to the above caption proceedings) and The Clerk Patrick and The
Chambers of His Honorable Justice Cannataro, and The Clerk and The Chambers of Justice Mendez.
All Justice's whose Names were fictitiously used in her plaintiff's 3 page ramble. Plaintiff , she's not
to answer to any aspect of truth-telling. Instead Plaintiff appears to defend her Fraudulent ill-
willing
Jan.17th
prepared agreement stipulation of So Ordered at the behest of Your Honor's J.S.C.
Respectfully; Those Justice's found to been mentioned therein deserved the courtesy of knowing their
Plaintiffs'
names were used by Plaintiff's in their numerous unfound, disdained aspersions. letter is yet

i-
117
another attempt to defame the character of the Defendant and to use the Court. In so doing she craftily
overlaid her letter with abundant untruthfulness.
Defendants'
As such the letter 01.22.20 was written and hand delivered as a courtesy. A canonical
display of the smears cunningly implanted in Plaintiff's e-filed Doc#183. (30+ lies and misleading Page | 2
statements (Below.QRC.4).
In additions to Plaintiff's new found form of Defamation to the Defense? Plaintiff brazenly quoted Your
Honor's Senior Administrative J.S.C. Her Honorable Judge Kaplan fictitiously. Plaintiffs remarks in its
letter e-filed Doc.183 pg.1.prgh.4.Lines 2 and 3. "Justice Kaplan ..etc., and ...Defendants Conduct,
causing substantial delay, confusing jurors, etc., etc., ALL lies and 100% FALSE. (Below QRC.2 ): The
Court Reporters true and honest transcript of Justice D. Kaplan's fumigated comments directed only to
plaintiff is clearly definitive of an observation of Counsel and its plaintiff's legal misconduct.
You Honor, Counsel continued to assert additional misleading, disdained and disconcerted comments
with certitude as to comments by Justice Bluth. Counsel tortuously insinuates the comments of the
Court Appointed Attorney Ms Kass who actually complemented Defense on his eloquence well
mannered.
She; Plaintiff then by her Counsel implanted vociferous terms declaring Ms Kass, Justice Cannataro,
Justice Kaplan, Justice Kaplan (Chan), Justice Mendez and even appeared at one time to have begun to
speak vociferously on behalf of the Court's Part 38 and Your Honors prudence.
On an ascertained note; plaintiffs compound notations was incorrectly dispelled by ways misinterpreted
in your Honor's Solvent informality on the morning of January 17, 2020 to meant that Your Honor was
ok with what was an Informal almost incognito discussion, suddenly turned into a stipulation agreement
Inclement of fraud, duress, overreaching, undue influence. As such without a doubt as a result of
defendants'
moment of disannulment. Plaintiff is avidly knowledgeable of Defendant's childhood
neurological dysfunction became. Plaintiff of herself has a son with similar disability. The transactional
scene was unfair flat on its face and Defendant response was in a timely manner.
Plaintiff then transformed an informal al be it, discussion, immediately cited to Counsel as she became
aware of Defendants episode of Delayed Cognitive Thinking. (A Neurological Disjunction Not Mental).
Plaintiff, is, rather Axiomatic having been an x-spouse to renowned psychiatrist she's fully aware of
incoming neurosymtoms especially in an individual she once spent many, many hours in close embrace.

i-
118
Plaintiff, al be it, Plaintiff's Counsels are succinctly very well aware of Defendants Childhood Disability as
it's been an element of elaborate discussion during years of their interactions. Plaintiffs fallacious
allegations proves She does not want a Trial, but wants to have her cake and eat it at the same time.
Defendant asserts each affirmation in his prior answers and counter claims in this matter.
Page | 3
Plaintiff in discoveries Never Denied knowledge of defendants Childhood Disabilities or any of
Defendants claims to be factually untruth. Instead plaintiff claims she's never received discoveries or my
interrogatories. (Untrue);.
"30"
Plaintiff's Misleading, Demeanor, false and canonical untruths amount to a minimum of instances
schedule in Counsel's crafted Letter to your Honor e-filed Doc.No.183. (Below.QRC.4)
Defendant never intended to award her the Courtesies of a formal response to her e-filed letter
Doc.No.183. Defendant merely thought its content to be so gross in adverse reflection to the truth, that
it bared an instant burdened upon Defendant. Defendant issued the courtesy letter correspondence in
which Defendant made reference to Counsels aspersions and further delivered it by hand.
letter"
The Said "January 22, 2020, was not in the least a direct answer to Plaintiff's Doc.No.183.
Nonetheless, as of Your Honor's DECISSION + ORDER on MOTION for JUDICIAL RESCISSION OF
SETTLEMENT (Doc.NO.186), Page.1.Lines 13 and 14, wherein your Honor addresses Defendant's January
22,2020 Letter and SO ORDERED to mean much a description in an answer to Plaintiff's and her
Counsel's illogical notes e-filed on January 20, 2020 (Doc.NO.183). To this extent defendant humbly
submit the attach January 22, 2020 letter with reference highlighted assertively redacted, to reflect
what would and could or should have been a direct answer to Plaintiff's and her Counsel's Letter of
January 20,2020.
With Thanks
Michael Foster
Prose Litigant Defendant
PS: Defendant would like to draw the Courts attention to what could sound like a legally binding
Stipulation Agreement. (See Doc. QRC.#7 below)

i-
119
QRC.#1-Notesto Judge:
discrepancies'
The Plaintiff continued Lax, Duress, Plausible deniability, incites to commit Fraud glares
straight in the face of the Court with an open willingness to disdain the Court by her actions. Speaking
Page | 4
falsely on behalf of a Senior Administrative Justice and stating such falsehoods in writing per Court
Reporters Notes QRC.2 and found sharing or publishing jurors questionnaire with Mr,. Gildred the CEO
of FMT Consultants. A who's reputation consist of employing offshore programmers mostly from India
whose decree is not an allegiance to privacy or any American Standards commercial or however and
finally to represent the Court on Jan.17.2020 knowingly within his possession of a document now So
Order Stipulation Agreement fully acquiescence to its Fraudulent Content is taking legal misconduct to
an all new low.
Clearly the picking apart of E-filed Doc.NO 183 above shows substantial cause for a swift and just
penalty in the light of Plaintiff misuse of his legal privileges.
Further as per E-File Doc.NO.186 wherein your Honor make clear under no reason whatsoever any
further in this matter are to be filed,. Counsel disobeyed A direct order after yet another E-
filing filing
file Doc.NO187.
These and other legal misconduct your Honor I ask that it be Consider in Contempt of Your Honor's
Direct Order and forthwith, I request your Honor must Report Counsel Seth A. Rafkin and assistant
Counsel Jenifer Bogue to the disciplinary committee.

i-
120
QRC.#2: Excerpt from Court Reporterfile3 On Seth Rafkin's Legal MisConduct per Justice Deborah Kaplan's Wamings:
Proceedings
1 THE COURT: I m Judge Kaplan
10
12
13
14
15
16 potential juro'rs,
---
17 I will remind 7 ... .....--.--w
18 tgmase
19 You are given questionnaires filled out by the
20 jurors to aid you in your selection to determine whether the
e
21 juror is appropriate. Those are given to ypto aid in that
22 regard. They are not given to

g for t pu ish or
23 s e them with o rs, including pgies, witpes or
24 an e el .
25 If I find out that that has happen
dk
i-
121
3
Proceedings
1 again, so help m I will report
2 to the disciplinary committee and consider it a contempt of
3 my direct order for the conduct of this.
4 Do I make myself very clear t
5 N: Yes, your Honor.
7 it better not
8 happen again.
9 MR. RAFKIN: Understood.
10
12 And I do
14
15 t
. 16
17
18
19 I have asked Miss Kass to set aside the important
20 work that she- was upstairs to come down here. I

doing
21 expect that this jury selection will be concluded
22 expeditiously, fairly
23
24
i-
122
4
Proceedings
8 MR. FOSTER: Thank yo
* * * *
10
11
12 Certified to be a true and accurate transcript of
13 the stenographic minutes taken within.
Senior Court Reporter

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
dk i-
123
QRC.#3- Michaers letter of Courtesy to Justices fraudyge °t!y mentioned in Plaintiffs letter to Judge Louis Nock
9Ajleao
yr
lenilninto I !SetyJLe
I info@1ate!al
1.L@19m§J!dtejJinfo I
MICHAEL FOSTER
1 M2-766-2000
January 22, 2020
Re:
153554_2017_Carolina_Gildred. v_Michael_Foster
Dear C
above;referenced matt
Plaintiff s w tness Mr. Tom Gildred and Counsel Seth A. Rafkin
and Assisting Counsel Jennifer Bogue
The Court established the protocol for a trial commencement but cautioned that it may be
postponed because the Hon. Justice Louis Nock will not be available on Thursday Jan.23rd. The
Hon. Judge Louis Nock preamble the claims to be disposed in the trial and pointed to
"3"
Defendants Counter Claims with specificity and sighted claims, Defamation of Character,
intentional Infliction of Emotional Distresses and Breach of Contract.
The Hon. Louis Nock continued after allcwing Counsel to Plaintiff a -few minutes concerning its
Contract"
witnesses. 'But first the Breach of addressing the defendant as
electronic evidence on the defense side. The Honorable Justice Nock continued with
deciphering defendant's reasons for about 14 Witnesses:
whereabouts, knowledge of Defendant and Plaintiff San Diego July 21/2026 to August 31
2016, and defendants ESl, Discovery and other ESI Transcripts Uber, Liyft, YouTube Takedown
case resolutions, Denials to Plaintiff, Craigslist Death threat email and other ESI Documents.
Counsel to Plaintiff
infused the discrepancy of Defendant's
sighting paragraphs of law
e Honorable Justice Louis acknowledged Counsel to plaintiff with certitude.
hut Defendant acknowledge and continued

respectfully
i-
124
after Inviting both the Plaintiff Council and
Defendant to draw to the bench.
The content of the conversation completed defrosting
as Plaintiff s Counsel introduced for the FIRST timehritten Document.
laintiff's Attorney ddressed the Court on 01/20/20 in a
"3 page filled ramble
ew York City etc., The letter seamed to disdain His onör's Chambers
da
made between its under signatory Mr, Gildred
behest of The Honorable .Iustice Louis Nock's J.S.C. Stamp
Defendant asserted addressing each concerns but all questionings and gestures for attention
was completely ignored
Interrupted). Wait let's get additional copies (Respectfi.dly I felt confined to sign a document I
hadn't reviewed and one that should have been provided long before the sudden defrosting pf
its content. I signed in order to vacate the room. I could only steer at the document and could
not read for shock. His honor attempted to explain what a technology term meant but admitted
He of himself doesn't know -
"Absolutely"
The Plaintiff Wirs Gildred summoned herself (The Only one to Speak at me) as I
hand-juxtaposed "So what about the false Dr, Garcia Erotamania Report
bout me in pnhii
.... .. . .. .-. -.
all honesty the Stipuration Order Was not on
Consent in addition its content does warranty review as a matter of Law.
. -... ....- .----a everyone was chatting in the room
was covered at the door. The instance of circumstance in.the moments lead me into an
immediately cause for an anxiety attack. would not wait
3.5 years to ave no control over an instance of emotional despair
His Honorable Justice
Louis Nock superlatively interposed an Order purely on the influence and misconduct of an
Attorney to Plaintiff who's honestly was not concern of impediñg ramifications if found to be
lying to an Esteem Justice The Honorable Justice Nock.
i-
125
in a matter of
hours I excuse myself and with abundant.respect issued a LETTER / CORRESPONDENCE TO JUDGE
To Rescind the Stipulation Settlement Order and I sighted a number of reasons why.
The Stipulation also ask for Certain info authorizing Depublishing of unverified urls.
Thereafter The Plaintiff's Counsel bypass the law of which is proper to answer a duly-affirmed
to document in motion submissics Part and.to acknowledge the claim wasbrought to the New
York Supreme Court by the Plaintiff and not the Defendant.
The plaintiff claims
should be strike as 99% of its claims are drummed up, carefully choreograph falsehoods.
he caused the vacancy
presumed available of His Honorable Justice Louis Nock's solvent personality to open up.
The Counsel to Plaintiff's aptitude throughout, from the inception Rafkin. S. Filed: 04/17/2017of
it litiga,tion to the conclusion, Rafkin, S. Filed: 01/20/2020 are perceptive of the servitudes
found in that of an Hypnosis, Obtuse Psychiatry Practice that is perhaps influence by portions of
Legal Practice.
Plaintiff's Attorney in its recent
Filed: 01/20/2020 NYSCEF#183 in avoidance to the specificity of responding to
defendants Doc #166
oilowing :
... , Counsel failed to Respect Her Honorable Justice Chan's unprecedented remarks which
permeated a disgust Plaintiff Seth
Rafkin in the matter G ldred V Foster 153554 per court reporter's Notes.
As the stark notoriety
Dismissal of Juror the afternoon of Jan.}4.2020.
certain improprieties. Jennifer Bogue seated with Seth Rafk
The Witness/Plaintiff Carolina Gildred. Standing at the Tab e was Mr. Tom Gildred
i-
126
Defendant did not
enter the room
ss Irene d sm sses a 1Jurors for the afternoon.
The JHO promptly advise that t s not
protoco
a Counsel to p aintiff failed to be truthful and brutally honest
ounsel to plaintiff sort to distract defèndant constantly

with apporticiimêñt to defendants Prose Status and Prose's equality to that of an attorney at
Law. Defendant was struck for time during Ms Kass tenure because there was a confusing
answer on the criminality of one of the juror's questionnaires. Overall Defendant was said to be
- "Eloquent" to CounseFs behavior.
by Mss Kass, Contrary gestures of bad
In CounseFs to Plaintiff's NYSCEF#183 LETTER / TO JUDGE Counsel have
information misleading to the true character of defendant .
mischaracterizing statements and reasons for statements made by His Honorable Judge
Cannataro, of Justice Mender, reasons due for Mss Kass intervention and most CounseFs
incomprehensible retroactive Plausible Deniability in recollection of Her Honorable Justice Chan
on the morning of Sep.18.2019

"Order"
plaintiff's Council to produce a Copy, or mail a copy or email a copy of the attested
. . . None of which compellation Counsel
to plaintiff acquiescence to.
"Apparently There's No Agreement to Review".
uncharacteristically demeaning notions in dispelling a false theory to H s Honorable Justice Louis
the subject matter brings each claim of Lax Demeanor and
borderline Obtuse behavior by the Counsel to Plaintiff 1 Request
the Honorable Judge to imp!êmêñt a fine and further injunctions as the court sees fit against
Plaintiff's Counsels fenriifer Bogue ánd Seth Alan Rafkin, and that to be-an example so that it
won't happen again
d. CounseFs own - if indeed rather

Unwitting by Plaintiff's admissions there was any reasonable
than disdained Settlement Stipulatio ould not Counsel to Plaintiff make it a
compound duty to see that Defendant received a copy long in advance?
ustice Nock continued:
i-
127
Pbegan by explaining why my witness I st was w thheld as at least 2 of my witnesses reported being
contacted directly or indirectly by hich included an
Attorney of his office
(These and other reasons exist why yours truly your honor is and have been acting Prose in this matter).
Lastly, plaintiff's Counsel asserts to avoid responding to a legally and warranted motion which enlisted
multiple facts consistent with content
verifiability which weren't addressed surrounding each Ifst url
listed in the stipulation Order.

-
Plaintiff's letter Filed: 01/20/2020 NYSCEF#183 asserts
addressing His Honorable Justice Louis Nock (J.S.C.) of the whereabouts of Mr. Tom Gildred or Mrs
Carolfna Gildred and having define the Plaintiff status does so exeniplify the abuse of filing a frivolous
lawsuit in the wrong jurisdiction and so doing with plausible deniability.
Yçurs
Sin I
ael Easter
cc: Plaintiff (via ECF)
i-
128
QRC.#4-STATEMENTSOF UNFOUNDAND MISSLEADING, FALSE AND OF QUOTES LEFTED FROM PLAINTIFFGILDRED'S LETTER TO JUCTICE LOUIS NOCK:
QRC.4
"3"
Misleading Statement .in a page rant. Plaintiff's letter to His Honorable Justice attention.
PICKING APART PLAINTIFF ECF.DOC.NO.183.
To 30 PLUS untrue statements

Page | 1
Up Falsehoods, misleading
plaintiffs'
1).of.1:Prghc.2.Lines 4&5 "A Letter Proposing Settlement". The letter merely documented
version of a settlement agreement and made clear why it must rescind. It is clear fraud. Explained only
hours after in Defense Letter Doc.ecf.160 pg3..
The plaintiff bolstered the Stipulation Agreement with forehand knowledge that it is Inclement of fraud,
duress, overreaching, undue influence and unfair on its face.
The fallacy of the Settlement is requesting an admission to something which had happen D I D not h a p
p e n.
Without mentioning the severity of the Fraud the Settlement Stipulation clearly renders Control or
parties'
Takedown of URLs outside of the authority and of certain Additional urls known to be consistent
with providing the upkeep and daily livelihood of the Defendant of which said URLs are in no ways
defendants'
related to this matter. Fraud: y covering and including all online businesses. Fraud: by
making a party other than Plaintiff as an Individual become equal named party Thomas Gildred
Stipulation undersigned. Fraud: Plaintiff's litigation was brought by plaintiff as an individual.
2).pg1.prgh.3 Sequentially False
3).pg1.prgh.3.Lines 2, in 3+4th False.
i-
129
QRC.4
3|n4:_"
4).pg1.prgh.3. Line reference to Judge Chan. False,. Plaintiff prepare settlement offer included a
financial figure back in Sep.18.19 or payment to defendant. Defendant attempt to photo said stipulation
in order to preview it but, plaintiff in the presence of the Court snatch the document from defendant· Page | 2
Judge Kaplan (Chan) then concluded, defendant cannot sign an agreement without reviewing it first.
Justice Kaplan (Chan) further advised both parties that defendants request of Her Honor to Order
Plaintiff to hand over a copy is denied. Plaintiff did not acquiescence to voluntarily providing a copy in
any form. Her Honor Justice Kaplan (Chan).simply concluded and nodded "Apparently there's No
Agreement". The matter was adjourned.
5).pg.1.prgh.3.line#4 Des...into line5, Plaintiff Disdains Justice Kaplan's expression. At no point did
Justice Kaplan express a direct notion far less from the truth. Her justice expressions were to Plaintiff
"You cannot ask Defendant to sign an agreement without reviewing it". Plaintiff statement "Eminently
Reasonable"
is imminently Fraudulent.
it"
6).pg.1.prgh.3. Line 5, "Defendant rejected False. Per Justice Kaplan (Chan), "You cannot sign an
agreement unless you have a copy to review first".
7).pg.1.prgh.3.Line #5 "I further...., & lines 6 and 7 ...of Justice Cannataro at Trial call". False. Justice
Cannataro calculated a settlement value and cautioned Plaintiff that it's very difficult to prove her case
and suggested $75 per day to defendant is reasonable.
8).pg.1.prgh.3.Lines7.."at defendant...behest,. False. Defendants have consecutively maintained.
Awarding Plaintiff the instant removal of any disparaging remarks that is proven defamation. Plaintiff
i-
130
QRC.4
simply needs stating clearly what those urls are and where they exists instead of casting a wide blanket
across the internet and simply picking any domain with names in the plaintiff or defendant.
Reasonable"
9).pg.1.prgh.3.In lines, 7, 8 and 9: (e-file Doc.161..."Exceedingly FALSE. The agreement
Page | 3
defendants'
itself is Inclement of fraud, duress, overreaching, undue influence as a result of moment of
disannulment as a result of a childhood neurological dysfunction known to plaintiff and unfair on its
face. It sets a path for theft of IP. It actualizes IlED and NIED and In itself disparages defendant.
Down"
10).pg.1.prgh.3. In-Lines#9. "Take Perpetuates FRAUD. Plaintiff appears to search the internet
for any url in defendants name or any terms remotely determine to have disparage plaintiff by any one
on the internet and attribute it to Defendant and assume Defendant to be in control or responsible for
Websites"
each posting. And pg.1.prgh.3. In lines 9. "His FALSE. Here Plaintiff defames the defendant by
perpetuating Fraud, Defamation of Defendants Character al be it Legal MissConduct by his Laxness to
"A"
assuming each of the urls listed in exhibit of e-file.Doc.#161 belongs to the Defendant.
11). Pg.1.prgh.3 in lines 9, and other....and lines 10 postings defaming plaintiff. Here Plaintiffs disdain,
tacit negligence of truth simply states postings with no specificity is in itself defamation to the
defendant, as its left up to anyone to assume a most terrible thing is being posted about the plaintiff at
the behest of the defendant.
12).pg.1.prgh.3. Lines 10. "Stop Contacting Her". Plaintiff again continues to Defame Defendants
Character as the only public disparaging of the plaintiff is as a result of plaintiff bringing this lawsuit. Post
Plaintiffs'
plaintiff's claims defendant has had no contact or reason to contact plaintiff. litigation is an
example of her recklessness, her beyond normal intent to inflict severe emotional harm upon defendant
because her husband is unable to manage a bruised ego. Plaintiff claims of mental or emotional distress,
i-
131
QRC.4
ptsd, lost of sleep or defamation without any proof except for saying so is evidential of plaintiffs beyond
all bounds decency and by her extremities and abuse of power.
Family"
13).pdg.prgh.3. Lines 10... "Her FALSE. Plaintiffs family have consequentially made themselves
Page | 4
to participate and have been found to involve with multiple online public social media chat room and
have known to maintain online cyber stalking the defendant.
14). Pg.1.prgh.3. Lines 10 into line 11..."If etc., Payment". FALSE. Plaintiff insinuates the fallacies of
herself being entitled to a payment for bringing to this Court her frivolous lawsuit, libel with unfound
claims for the purpose of harassment, fraud and intimidation. Plaintiffs goals are to be as outlandish as
possible in her bizarre claims so as to institute the claims of defamation and IlED against defendant in
abundance of disbelief in hopes witnesses, the public and this Court will be consumed by the mere
outrageousness of her lawsuit and make a judgments base on the defense being prose.
Rejected"
15). Prgh.3. In lines "11 "Defendant again FALSE. Plaintiff continues to defame the
defendants prose status as not by any stretch intellectually sound. Plaintiff continues to present its case
in callous proportions, unreeling with inflictions of emotional distresses upon the defendant in real time
and right before the Court's eyes. Plaintiff may very well be satisfied if defendant does in fact suffers a
mental breakdown before the court and will have with certainty trample of the Courts precepts into
disputing the reasons other than plaintiffs infliction of emotional distress on the defendant in real time.
16).pg.1.prgh.4.Lines 2 and 3. "Justice Kaplan ..etc., and ...Defendants Conduct, causing substantial
delay, confusing jurors, etc., etc., ALL lies and 100% FALSE. Plaintiffs continues its letter of defamation
to the character of defendant live right before the Court by blatantly falsifying and characterizing,
assertions of true facts and the most disdain mischaracterizing of statements known to be untruth and
said by plaintiff to have been mentioned by Justice Deborah Kaplan.
i-
132
QRC.4
Plaintiff by its Counsel in an effort to continuously defame the defense to the Court in real time futher
imputes contempt of the very Court by including statements as issued by the Court reporter Diane
Kavanaugh's transcript - Justice Deborah's remarks to Plaintiff and its Counsel for an allege legal
Page | 5
misconduct said on pg.3 lines 1 to 8 of the reporters notes., "So help me God (addressing Counsel) as an
attorney I will report you to the disciplinary committee and consider it a contempt for the conduct of
this., It Better Not Happen Again"., per Court reporters Notes in reference to Plaintiff having been
warned of his unfolding legal misconduct in litigating this matter. Plaintiff and its witnesses have been
found to be overview jurors personal information outside of normal protocol is clear legal misconduct -
again- right before the Courts eyes plaintiff and its counsel are the iied and defamation
performing very
they're alleged to be claiming in this matter.
Mendez"
17). Pg1. Prgh.4. in lines 4 Justice was ..etc., Required. etc., etc., again FALSE. Defendant
found Plaintiff or its Counsel to be attempting to do the Job of the Court appointed Attorney Mss Kass.
At which Miss Kass excused plaintiff's Counsel so as to let her do her job.
18). Pg.1.prgh.4. Lines 5 into 6. FALSE. Here Plaintiff through its Counsel asserts additional defamation
statements at the behest of an apparently (in plaintiffs mind) an insane, unhinged, individual of a
defense litigant acting prose. Justice Mendez observed the Order of Justice Blurh to that of which
defendant was only reiterating the set details of the Order at which Justice Mendez assert a conclusion
with reasoning. Throughout each adjournment plaintiff or its counsel sorts to disparage defense or its
prose status from the commencement of its frivolous litigation.
proceed"
19).pg.2.prgh.1. Lines 1 in line 2. FALSE. "Foster would not eyc., "instead"...etc., "A Medical
Appointment"
etc., plaintiff continues his meandering through lines, 3,4,5,&6 in a relentless dispute over
what was a very normal and reasonable objection seeking to postponed the juror selection a few hours
i-
133
QRC.4
for medical reasons. These and other false and misleading statements line by line is evident that either
plaintiff or its Counsels could be concern of the possible ramifications plaintiff legal misconduct could
cause. Statements of relevance or for the record false with irrelevance have become consistent with
Page | 6
plaintiff and its Counsel throughout their litigation of this matter.
2nd
20). Pg.2.prgh.5. Lines 1,2,3,4,5 and 6. Plaintiff meanders on apparently in an effort to fill even a
page with lies and unfound truths - its let alone false statements seamed
meandering rhetorical,
unending. Prhg.6, in its entirety is also totally FALSE.
21). Pg2.prgh.6. lines 1,2,3 through lines 8. FALSE and misleading. Defendant was merely confused
having been constantly pressured consequentially by Plaintiff aptitudes to impute conditionality without
giving reasonable time to properly asses. AT No point during the juror selection Defendant took more
time than expected. Plaintiff suggesting of defendant's request for 1 hour or 90 minutes is completely
False.
22).pg2.prgh7. lines 1, 2, 3 through 5 &^. Also Misleading. Plaintiff and its Counsel throughout its
appearance have tortuously misrepresent the facts and instead have used the Court insistently as a tool
in which to effectuate vociferously its own agenda of infliction of emotional distress and defamation
upon the defendant and so much even to the extent of using the Justice's J.S.C. or the bench to carry
plaintiffs means in an otherwise questionable manner all under the guise of duress but in fact Counsel's
Legal Misconducts have grown quite clear by the falsehoods annotated in reference herein to his very
own legal 3 page letter of misconduct in which was found 30+ lies or misleading statements.
It was quite clear on the morning of Jan,17.2020 Plaintiff did through its Counsels actualize an incident
of informality into that of formality at the behest of His Honorable Justice's subtle vacant but solvent
personality. The instance of appearance cause the plaintiff or its counsel to ceased on it and cunningly,
i-
134
QRC.4
craftily impute the multiple false aspersions of the truth having to do with defendant's evidence,
witnesses'
admissibility. Plaintiff along with its Counsels long aware in admonishments to Defendants
delays in Cognitive thinking disability. Plaintiff also having the profound experience being the wife of
Page | 7
veteran psychiatrists is properly attuned to circumstances in demeanors.
Plaintiff is very much aware of defendants childhood disability as too plaintiff her son also suffers the
similar type disability or an equivalent thereof.
23).pg.2.prgh.9. lines 1 and 2. Egregiously False. Both Plaintiff and its Counsel fully well knew it was
appropriate to ceased upon the moment and induce each presupposed planned relaying of impeding
circumstances. At one point defendant was and had become so delirious as a result of each impeding
circumstance Defendant cause to ask the Justice's a most insidious question "Your Honor are you a
NRA?"
member of the (The very conversation was oblique and of certain calls for revalidations). The
state of defendant's cognizance was completely lost temporarily and plaintiff was very much aware of
the reason why. Defendants recalls in an effort to excuse the already impeding circumstances
defendant reduce himself to confide a personal matter of fact of the hand of and as a reason
unexpected lawsuit wherein the defendant have been the victim of death threats, a miss hit on his life
and hours of daily stalking to and from his home and other place of office or business.
Defendant confesses to the Justice's of a letter threatening and design to invoke suicide arrives at
defendant's inbox. It could not be right being that the authority of the Justice's bench should advise
defendant to kill himself if he's not take this deal.
24). Pg.2 prgh.9 Lines 1 "Defendant asks His Honor to review the Written Agreement and explain the
agreement". Blatantly miss accounted for and FALSE. The statement here by plaintiff is that continued
attempt to insinuate mispokeness as Plaintiff Counsels lower than normal demeanor disconcerts the
Court. Throughout each following statement per Plaintiff's e-file Doc.#183 Page #2 Paragraph 9 and
i-
135
QRC.4
onward, Plaintiff assumes a mea-culpa approach to defending each disdain completely false derivative
of a conundrum of falsehoods.
25). Pg.2.prgh.9. Lines 1 and 2. Plaintiff falsely asserted Justice His Honorable Louis Nocks
Page | 8
terms"
Consideration to ensure that he understood the are false and misleading. Its fraudulent, legal
misconduct by Plaintiff or its Counsel by allowing oneself to speak for and on behalf of His Honor and so
doing Falsely.
Nock" "Graciously" "Obliged"

26). Pg2.prgh 9. Line 2. "The Court Justice etc., etc.,, and in favor of
defendant.
bench"
27). Pg2.prgh.9. Lines 3. FALSE., "At the etc., etc.,and "While Counsel, Plaintiff, and her
Husband seated at the counsel Table". All falsifying statements fashioned only to mislead in Doc.183.
requested" assistant"
28). Pg2. Prgh 9. Lines 3 into 4: "Defendant and "Mss jenifer Boge Counsel and
Gildred" Gildred"
"Witnesses Carolina etc., and "witness Mr, Thomas Philip etc., and "They must stepped
room"
outside the court is clear evidence of the absurdities derived from the plaintiff or its Counsel in
legal the utmost legal misconduct.
Defendant have commission over 1,400 hours of intensive Work, study work-load on preparation in
defenses and counter claims of this Trial. It is acclaimed not to be Defendants longest ever 3.5 year
period. Defendant Lost His Dear Mother Only Weeks Ago as a result of the plaintiff's insidious
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distresses and defamation upon defendant.
By plaintiff's uncalled for and blatantly misleading and scrupulous defamation attacks to defendant in
public, private and in social circles where defendant use to frequent it have become unimaginably
impossible to casually walk and go the same places post plaintiff real time defamation and iied at
defendant.
i- 136
QRC.4
Defendant post plaintiff's or her husband's bruised ego remained an upright citizen, spotless in nature,
plausible a man of character in his communities and among defendants pairs defendants post plaintiff
fictitious claims have hold primary leadership status quo in multiple prestigious and status or ways of life
Page | 9
groups and that to have existed post plaintiffs defamation 20 plus years in good standing.
29). Pg2. Prgh.9. Lines 6,7&8: FALSE and Misleading. Both Plaintiff Mr. Gildred and Mrs Gildred,
Counsel Seth A. Rafkin and Assistant to Seth Rafkin Mrs Bogue are familiar and have had prior
knowledge of Defendants Delayed Cognitive impertinent behavioral. The group litigation commensurate
the entire course of the proceeding in hopes defendant would succeed to the more severe demise or
defendants'
results of dementia outside of plaintiff's knowledge of neurological childhood disability.
addressing" Honor" Rescind"

30). Pg.2.prgh.10. Lines 1,2,&3 "In etc., and "Your and "Porting to etc.,
etc., and Throughout the balance of Paragraphs 11,12, 13, 14 and 15, respectively the Counsel simple
continues with an abundance of plausible deniability in the assumption of the Courts Lax to Duress.
Plaintiff Cease not to deices from withholding exculpatory facts in relation to who is truly suffering from
iied and nied and that the defendant is the one being Defame and so much by and at the hand of the
COURT.
discrepancies'
The Plaintiff continued Lax, Duress, Plausible deniability, incites to commit Fraud glares
of FMT Consultants. A who's reputation consist of employing offshore programmers mostly from India
i-
137
QRC.4
an all new low.
Page | 10
further in this matter are to be filed,. Counsel disobeyed A direct order after yet another E-
filing filing
file Doc.NO187. These and other legal misconduct your Honor I ask that it be Consider in Contempt of
Your Honor's Direct Order and forthwith, I request your Honor must Report Counsel Seth A. Rafkin and
assistant Counsel Jenifer Bogue to the disciplinary committee.
i-
138
QRC.#7- DEFENSE EXHIBIT OF WHAT THE TRUE STIPULATIONAGREEMENT SHOULD REPRESENT:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
............................................................
CAROLINA GILDRED,
Plaintiff, Index No. 153554/2017
-against- STIPULATION SETTLEMENT
MICHAEL FOSTER,
Defense.
...............................................................
The Parties agree to the terms and conditions set forth below:
1. Plaintiff Gildred and Defendant Through an independent intermediary (Mediator), shall
work with each other in an effort to derail derogation statements made with intention,
indirectly or as an influence thereof to which ends in effect promote each individual to
its originally formed character, post plaintiff's litigation procedures. Both parties will
equally finance or pay for the mediation process. Both parties will disclose urls and
contents it's in exclusive control off including social media handles, group chats of family
members in connection to disclosure request by an independent mediator.
2. Defendant is a Public Figure, Therefore Both parties shall in the intermediary process and
thereafter avoid contact with each other and avoid indirect contact with each other whether it
be in business, family, travel or consequences arising remotely under circumstance beyond their
control; Per Se if by an large an event stage publicly or by private invitation both parties will
conclude each listed attendances and cancel thereon, one back on one through an independent
mediator.
3. In the event plaintiff Gildred or defendant fails to comply with these obligations under this
Stipulation of Settlement, then, as permitted under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules
i-
139
3215(i), the party found not to be in default of this order shall be permitted to apply for entry of
judgment in the amount of $500,000.00 against the party in default. Pursuant to Rule 3215(i),
the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment without further notice against the party in default in
said amount upon filing of: this Stipulation of Settlement, an affidavit as to the failure to comply
with the terms thereof, together with a complaint or a concise statement of the facts on which
the claim was based. Said judgment shall include statutory interest accruing 10 days from the
date of the clerks filing. The party which is not in default will be permitted to seek an order
compelling the party in default to comply with each obligation under this stipulation agreement.
4. The Parties understand and agree that this Stipulation of Settlement shall effect a dismissal of
the complainants action with prejudice including all claims asserted against defendant, with the
exception to all counterclaims affirmed by defendant against Counsel, its Client Mr. or Mrs.
Gildred, or Mr. Gildred's professional, business or social organizations or his attorneys Seth
Rafkin or Jennifer Bogue or Ratkin Esq., PLLC, that in any manner otherwise settled by an
amount of $_ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ (Undisclosed) shall be settled and agreed upon in this agreement.
WITNESS, Honorable LOUIS NOCK one of the JUSTICES J.S.C of said Court,
at the day of ,2020.
Hon.
Defense:
Michael Foster 38 W 31st St Apt.108a New York, NY 10001 Tel. (212) 766-2000
/ /
Philip T Gildred:
/ /
Carolina M Gildred:
/ /
i-
140
QRC.#5&6A REDACTEDCOPY AFTER FORENSIC LIFTING OF ALL LIES AND MISSLEADINGSTATEMENTSIN PLAINTIFF GILDRED'S LETTER TO JUDGE LOUIS NOCK
RAFKIN EsQ.
DRC.#5
(What a document looks like when the contents of defamden have
been redacted).
January 20, 2020
Hon. Louis L. Nock

111 Centre Street, Room 1166
Re: Gildred v. Foster Index No. 153554/2017
Dear Your Honor:
Michael Foster
represent himself
The Court
discussed matters such as methods for display of evidence
The Court inquired as to whether Defendant Foster desired to settle the case
I advised the Court
the terms set forth in the Stipulation of Settlemeñt-So Ordered (Doc. #
161) the Court's
expression was eminent
the same again
Justice Cannataro behest
expressed the view (reflected in Doc. #161)

reasonable merely take down websites and
postings stop her family. If
no payment Again
January 15 Justice Kaplan appointed Court attorney Ms. Cass
to supervise Defendant's conduct
, Justice
Mendez
o Despite Foster refused to

Mcndcz'
allow the jurors to leave and Justice intervention was required.
Under Ms. Cass
The parties were directed to return

1201 Sussex Tumpike, Suite 102 SRAFKIN@RAI-ruNt-uu.COM
Randolph, New Jersey 07869 973.891.3370
i-
141
RAFKIN EsQ.
hp Foster would not proceed

P)21 Justice Kaplan
F// a medical appointment.
Page | 2
Kaplan excused toreturnat2:15p.m.
juror questionnaires.
o Ms. Cass
Indeed, 30 minutes
Defendant Foster ñceded 90
With the jury Your Honor for trial,
Your Honor, I advised the Court a
presented
and provided a written
(Doc. #161.)
agreement
theterms. The Courtgraciously obliged
p withundersigned seated onepoint, a request,

I Ms. Bogue stepped outside to allow
b the agreement outside of our presence.
Foster signed it The Court
So
Ordered
on the night
first, filed
"rescind"
to
p Foster filed
'
ÌA]; Motion
Calendar."
an Order to return a Trial to the
1201 Sussex Tumpike, Suite 102 SRAFKIN@RAFKINESQ.COM

i- 142
RAFKIN EsQ.
// settlement filings W no effect. With respect
to motion,
FA a motion to
returned to the Court fortrial.
In short,
Plaintiff
view Foster's filings require no
response
likely self-evident . Mrs. Gildred
in connection
California New York Foster is not free
We seek monetary
In light
Again, Foster
does not comply

Plaintiff will
we note numerous upon
Your Honor, other Justices
Plaintiff do not intend to respond to these fabrications
We appreciate the Court's attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
SethRafkin
cc: Defendant Michael Foster (via ECF)
1201 Sussex Tumpike, Suite 102 SRAFKIN@i¾FNNeuu.COM

i- 143
QRC.4
Misleading Statement .in a “3” page rant. Plaintiff’s letter to His Honorable Justice attention.
Up To 30 PLUS Falsehoods, misleading untrue statements Page | 1
1).Of.1:Prgh.2.Lines 4&5 "A Letter Proposing Settlement". The letter merely documented plaintiffs’
p e n.
Takedown of URLs outside of the parties’ authority and of certain Additional urls known to be consistent
related to this matter. Fraud: y covering and including all defendants’ online businesses. Fraud: by
i-
144
QRC.4
4).pg1.prgh.3. Line 3in4:_" reference to Judge Chan. False,. Plaintiff prepare settlement offer included a
in order to preview it but, plaintiff in the presence of the Court snatch the document from defendant. Page | 2
Reasonable" is imminently Fraudulent.
6).pg.1.prgh.3. Line 5, "Defendant rejected it" False. Per Justice Kaplan (Chan), "You cannot sign an
i-
145
QRC.4
9).pg.1.prgh.3.In lines, 7, 8 and 9: (e-file Doc.161..."Exceedingly Reasonable" FALSE. The agreement

Page | 3
itself is Inclement of fraud, duress, overreaching, undue influence as a result of defendants’ moment of
face. It sets a path for theft of IP. It actualizes IIED and NIED and In itself disparages defendant.
10).pg.1.prgh.3. In-Lines#9. “Take Down” Perpetuates FRAUD. Plaintiff appears to search the internet
each posting. And pg.1.prgh.3. In lines 9. “His Websites” FALSE. Here Plaintiff defames the defendant by
assuming each of the urls listed in exhibit “A” of e-file.Doc.#161 belongs to the Defendant.
11). Pg.1.prgh.3 in lines 9, and other….and lines 10 postings defaming plaintiff. Here Plaintiffs disdain,
12).pg.1.prgh.3. Lines 10. “Stop Contacting Her”. Plaintiff again continues to Defame Defendants
plaintiff’s claims defendant has had no contact or reason to contact plaintiff. Plaintiffs’ litigation is an
i-
146
QRC.4
13).pdg.prgh.3. Lines 10… “Her Family” FALSE. Plaintiffs family have consequentially made themselves
Page | 4
14). Pg.1.prgh.3. Lines 10 into line 11…”If etc., Payment”. FALSE. Plaintiff insinuates the fallacies of
possible in her bizarre claims so as to institute the claims of defamation and IIED against defendant in
15). Prgh.3. In lines “11 “Defendant Rejected” again FALSE. Plaintiff continues to defame the
and right before the Court’s eyes. Plaintiff may very well be satisfied if defendant does in fact suffers a
16).pg.1.prgh.4.Lines 2 and 3. “Justice Kaplan ..etc., and …Defendants Conduct, causing substantial
i-
147
QRC.4
Kavanaugh’s transcript – Justice Deborah’s remarks to Plaintiff and its Counsel for an allege legal
Page | 5
misconduct said on pg.3 lines 1 to 8 of the reporters notes., “So help me God (addressing Counsel) as an
this., It Better Not Happen Again”., per Court reporters Notes in reference to Plaintiff having been
found to be overview jurors personal information outside of normal protocol is clear legal misconduct –
again- right before the Courts eyes plaintiff and its counsel are performing the very iied and defamation
they’re alleged to be claiming in this matter.
17). Pg1. Prgh.4. in lines 4 Justice Mendez” was ..etc., Required. etc., etc., again FALSE. Defendant
At which Miss Kass excused plaintiff’s Counsel so as to let her do her job.
19).pg.2.prgh.1. Lines 1 in line 2. FALSE. “Foster would not proceed” eyc., “instead”…etc., “A Medical
Appointment” etc., plaintiff continues his meandering through lines, 3,4,5,&6 in a relentless dispute over
i-
148
QRC.4
Page | 6
20). Pg.2.prgh.5. Lines 1,2,3,4,5 and 6. Plaintiff meanders on apparently in an effort to fill even a 2nd
page with lies and unfound truths – its meandering rhetorical, let alone false statements seamed
time than expected. Plaintiff suggesting of defendant’s request for 1 hour or 90 minutes is completely
False.
upon the defendant and so much even to the extent of using the Justice’s J.S.C. or the bench to carry
plaintiffs means in an otherwise questionable manner all under the guise of duress but in fact Counsel’s
of informality into that of formality at the behest of His Honorable Justice’s subtle vacant but solvent
i- 149
QRC.4
craftily impute the multiple false aspersions of the truth having to do with defendant’s evidence,
witnesses’ admissibility. Plaintiff along with its Counsels long aware in admonishments to Defendants
Page | 7
circumstance Defendant cause to ask the Justice’s a most insidious question “Your Honor are you a
member of the NRA?” (The very conversation was oblique and of certain calls for revalidations). The
state of defendant’s cognizance was completely lost temporarily and plaintiff was very much aware of
Defendant confesses to the Justice’s of a letter threatening and design to invoke suicide arrives at
defendant’s inbox. It could not be right being that the authority of the Justice’s bench should advise
defendant to kill himself if he’s not take this deal.
24). Pg.2 prgh.9 Lines 1 “Defendant asks His Honor to review the Written Agreement and explain the
agreement”. Blatantly miss accounted for and FALSE. The statement here by plaintiff is that continued
Court. Throughout each following statement per Plaintiff’s e-file Doc.#183 Page #2 Paragraph 9 and
i-
150
QRC.4
Page | 8
Consideration to ensure that he understood the terms” are false and misleading. Its fraudulent, legal
doing Falsely.
26). Pg2.prgh 9. Line 2. “The Court Justice Nock” etc., “Graciously” etc.,, and “Obliged” in favor of
defendant.
27). Pg2.prgh.9. Lines 3. FALSE., “At the bench” etc., etc.,and “While Counsel, Plaintiff, and her
Husband seated at the counsel Table”. All falsifying statements fashioned only to mislead in Doc.183.
28). Pg2. Prgh 9. Lines 3 into 4: “Defendant requested” and “Mss jenifer Boge Counsel assistant” and
“Witnesses Carolina Gildred” etc., and “witness Mr, Thomas Philip Gildred” etc., and “They must stepped
outside the court room” is clear evidence of the absurdities derived from the plaintiff or its Counsel in
period. Defendant Lost His Dear Mother Only Weeks Ago as a result of the plaintiff’s insidious
By plaintiff’s uncalled for and blatantly misleading and scrupulous defamation attacks to defendant in
defendant.
i- 151
QRC.4
Defendant post plaintiff’s or her husband’s bruised ego remained an upright citizen, spotless in nature,
Page | 9
results of dementia outside of plaintiff’s knowledge of defendants’ neurological childhood disability.
30). Pg.2.prgh.10. Lines 1,2,&3 “In addressing” etc., and “Your Honor” and “Porting to Rescind” etc.,
COURT.
The Plaintiff continued discrepancies’ Lax, Duress, Plausible deniability, incites to commit Fraud glares
of FMT Consultants. A who’s reputation consist of employing offshore programmers mostly from India
i-
152
QRC.4
an all new low.

Page | 10
further filing in this matter are to be filed,. Counsel disobeyed A direct order after filing yet another E-
Your Honor’s Direct Order and forthwith, I request your Honor must Report Counsel Seth A. Rafkin and
i-
153
Mal-Practice-Letter-of-Lies
i-153a
RAFKIN EsQ.
SETH RAFKIN
January 20, 2020
Hon. Louis L. Nock

111 Centre Street, Room 1166
Re: Gildred v. Foster Index No. 153554/2017
Dear Your Honor:
On January 16, 2020, following selection of a jury, the above-referenced matter was assigned to
Your Honor for trial. The parties were directed to appear in Pt. 38 at 11:00 a.m. on January 17,
2020. Undersigned consel for Plaintiff, along with his colleague Ms. Bogue, as well as Mrs.
Gildred (Plaintiff) and her husband were present in Pt. 38 at 11:00 a.m. Defendant Michael Foster
was also present, continuing to represent himself Pro Se.
The Court advised that trial would start at 9:30 a.m. on Tucsday, January 21, 2020. The Court also
disenssed matters such as methods for display of evidence, etc. After discussing trial management
issues, I alerted the Court that in the early morning hours of that day, after the jury had been
selected the previous afternoon, Defendant Foster filed a letter addressed to Your Honor proposing
settlement. (Doc. # 160.)
The Court inquired as to whether Defendant Foster desired to settle the case and he indicated
emphatically that he did. I advised the Court of the past settlement discussions, to wit, that Plaintiff
had offered Defendant the terms set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement-So Ordered (Doc. #
161) back in September 2019 when the parties were before Judge Chan. Despite the Court's
expression that the settlement proposed was eminently reasonable, Defendant rejected it. I further
explained that the same terms were proposed to Defendant again on January 13, 2020 before
Justice Cannataro at trial call. At Defendant Foster's behest, settlement was discussed and Justice
Cannataro expressed the view that the terms proposed by Plaintiff (reflected in Doc. #161) were
exceedkgly reasonable as they merely required Defendant to take down his websites and other
posthgs defaming Plaintiff and to stop contacting her and her family. If Defendant would comply,
no payment would be required. Again, however, Defendant rejected the proposal and jury
selection proceeded on January 14, 2020.
By the morning of January 15, 2020, Justice Kaplan appohted Court attorney Ms. Cass as a special
master to supervise jury selection as Defendant's conduct was causing substantial delay and
leaving potential jurors confused and uncomfortable. To take one example, on January 145, Justice
Mendez was required to come to the jury selection room that afternoon simply to dismiss the panel
for the day. Despite the direction from the jury services staff, Defendant Foster refused to
"consent" Mcñdcz'
to allow the jurors to leave and Justice intervention was required.
Under the capable supervision of Ms. Cass, a jury of six was selected by the end of January 16,
2020. The parties were directed to return at 10:30 a.m. on January 17, 2020, to select two
1201 Sussex Turnpike, Suite 102 SRAFKIN@RAFKINESQ.COM

i-153a
i-153b
RAFKIN EsQ.
alternates. when the parties Defendan+ Foster would not proceed with
However, appeared,
selection of the alternates. Instead, he insisted on appearing before Justice Kaplan to ask to be
list"
excused to attend a medical appointment. Defendant claimed that he was on a "waiting for
such appointments and that one had opened up for that morning at 11:00 a.m. Defendant presented
no evidence to support what would seem to be an unusual practice for a medical office. Justice
Page | 2
Kaplan excused Defendant ordering him to return at 2:15 p.m. to select the two alternates.
Selection of the alternates commenced at 2:15 p.m. The parties reached the point of the process
where they were permitted to review the juror questionnaires. At that point, there were six
potential alternate jurors left. Thus, the parties were required to review six one-page
questionnaires. Ms. Cass provided the parties with half an hour to review the questionnaires -
more than sufficient time. (Indeed, 30 miñütes is the time prescribed by the Court to review a full
complement of questionnaires.)
Defendant Foster refused to proceed he needed at least 90 minutes to review the six one-
clai¬i-g
page questionnaires. Again, he insisted on appearing before a Justice. Thus, once again, the
selection process for two alternates ground to a halt. Justice Bluth heard Defendant's application,
which was promptly denied and he was ordered to return to the jury selection room and proceed
with voir dire of the six potential alternates. Following Justice Bluth's order, two alternates were
promptly selected at apprm:=±¹y 4:30 p.m. on January 16, 2020. As noted, the case was then
assigned to Pt. 38 and the parties were directed to appear before Your Honor at 11:00 a.m. on
January 17, 2020.
With the jury finally selected and the matter assigned to Your Honor for trial, Defendant Foster
filed the aforementioned settlement letter in the early morning hours of January 17, 2020. (Doc.
# 160.) When the topic of settlement was raised before Your Honor, I advised the Court that
Plaintiff would still agree to the same terms presented to Dcfcñdañt Foster since September 2019
and provided a written agreemcñt to that effect. The agreement is roughly one page of text
composed of six short paragraphs. (Doc. #161.)
Defendant Foster asked the Court to review the proposed agreement with him to ensure that he
understood the terms. The Court obliged and revicwcd the terms with Dafandant Foster
graciously
at the Bench, with undersigned seated at counsel table. Indeed at one point, at Defendant's request,
I along with Ms. Bogue and Mr. and Mrs. Gildred stepped outside the courtroom in order to allow
Defendant Foster to review the agreement with the Court outside of our presence. Defendant
Foster agreed to the Stipulation of Settlement and signed it in the presence of the Court. The Court
ensured that all parties had a fully executed copy and the Stipulation of Settlement was "So
Ordered"
by the Court and uploaded the ECF system that day.
Beginning on the night of January 17, 2020 and continuing through this morning, Defendant Foster
has filed numerous documents with the Court. The first, filed the night of January 17, 2020, is a
"rescind"
letter to Your Honor purporting to the Stipulation of Settlement. (Doc. # 162 and 163.)
This morning Defendant Foster filed document numbers 166 through and including 182, the
Renew/Reargue/Resettle."
principle document of which (# 166) is styled as a "Notice of Motion
Calendar."
That document seeks "an Order to return a Trial to the

i-153b
i-153c
RAFKIN EsQ.
We are of the view that Daf ndant Foster's post-settlement filings are of no effect. With respect
to Dafand ant's purported motion, we are üñaware of any law or rule permitting a litigant to attempt
"renew/reargue/resettle."
to challenge a settlement via a motion to Further, it is axiomatic that this
case, having been settled, may not be returned to the Court for trial.
In short, Defcñdant entered into a Stipulation of Sett1cment. Under that agreement, Defendant Page | 3
Foster is required to take certain actions on or before February 3, 2020. If he fails to do so, then
Plaintiff is permitted to apply for entry of a stipulated judgment pursuant to NY Civil Practice Law
and Rules 3215(i). It is our view that Dafandant Foster's post-senlemeñt filings require no further
response from the Court or from Plaintiff.
We also note what is likely self-evident to the Court. Mr. and Mrs. Gildred have spent substantial
resources in cannaatian with this case and spent more than a week away from their home in
California to be in New York for trial last week. Defendant Foster is not free to eantinna to impose
on the Court's or the Gildred's resources without justification, particularly after entering into a
Stipulation of Settlcmcñt. We reserve any and all rights to seek monetary sanctions against
Defendant Foster if he continues in this regard.
In light of the foregoing, we respectfully request that the Court order that no further response to
D^S=dan+'s post-settlement filings is required Plaintiff. in the event Dafandant Foster

by Again,
does not comply with his obligations under the Stipulation of Settlement on or before February 3,
2020, Plaintiff will proceed with applying for entry of the stipulated judgment as provided for
under the settlement.
Lastly, we note that Dafandant's post-senlement filings cast numerous unfounded aspersions upon
Your Honor, other Justices of the Court and undersigned counsel. Absent an order from the Court
that a further response from Plaintiff is required, we do not intend to respond to these fabrications
as it will serve simply to impose further on the Court's time and Plaintiff's resources. Again,
should the Court require a further response, we will be happy to do so.
We appreciate the Court's attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Seth Rafkin
cc: Defendant Michael Foster (via ECF)

i-153c
Picking apart the letter of lies
QRC.4 Pages 1 to 10
Misleading Statement .in a “3” page rant. Plaintiff’s letter to His Honorable Justice attention.
Up To 30 PLUS Falsehoods, misleading untrue statements Page | 1
1).Of.1:Prgh.2.Lines 4&5 "A Letter Proposing Settlement". The letter merely documented plaintiffs’
p e n.
Takedown of URLs outside of the parties’ authority and of certain Additional urls known to be consistent
related to this matter. Fraud: y covering and including all defendants’ online businesses. Fraud: by

QRC.4
4).pg1.prgh.3. Line 3in4:_" reference to Judge Chan. False,. Plaintiff prepare settlement offer included a
in order to preview it but, plaintiff in the presence of the Court snatch the document from defendant. Page | 2
Reasonable" is imminently Fraudulent.
6).pg.1.prgh.3. Line 5, "Defendant rejected it" False. Per Justice Kaplan (Chan), "You cannot sign an
QRC.4
9).pg.1.prgh.3.In lines, 7, 8 and 9: (e-file Doc.161..."Exceedingly Reasonable" FALSE. The agreement

Page | 3
itself is Inclement of fraud, duress, overreaching, undue influence as a result of defendants’ moment of
face. It sets a path for theft of IP. It actualizes IIED and NIED and In itself disparages defendant.
10).pg.1.prgh.3. In-Lines#9. “Take Down” Perpetuates FRAUD. Plaintiff appears to search the internet
each posting. And pg.1.prgh.3. In lines 9. “His Websites” FALSE. Here Plaintiff defames the defendant by
assuming each of the urls listed in exhibit “A” of e-file.Doc.#161 belongs to the Defendant.
11). Pg.1.prgh.3 in lines 9, and other….and lines 10 postings defaming plaintiff. Here Plaintiffs disdain,
12).pg.1.prgh.3. Lines 10. “Stop Contacting Her”. Plaintiff again continues to Defame Defendants
plaintiff’s claims defendant has had no contact or reason to contact plaintiff. Plaintiffs’ litigation is an
QRC.4
13).pdg.prgh.3. Lines 10… “Her Family” FALSE. Plaintiffs family have consequentially made themselves
Page | 4
14). Pg.1.prgh.3. Lines 10 into line 11…”If etc., Payment”. FALSE. Plaintiff insinuates the fallacies of
possible in her bizarre claims so as to institute the claims of defamation and IIED against defendant in
15). Prgh.3. In lines “11 “Defendant Rejected” again FALSE. Plaintiff continues to defame the
and right before the Court’s eyes. Plaintiff may very well be satisfied if defendant does in fact suffers a
16).pg.1.prgh.4.Lines 2 and 3. “Justice Kaplan ..etc., and …Defendants Conduct, causing substantial

QRC.4
Kavanaugh’s transcript – Justice Deborah’s remarks to Plaintiff and its Counsel for an allege legal
Page | 5
misconduct said on pg.3 lines 1 to 8 of the reporters notes., “So help me God (addressing Counsel) as an
this., It Better Not Happen Again”., per Court reporters Notes in reference to Plaintiff having been
found to be overview jurors personal information outside of normal protocol is clear legal misconduct –
again- right before the Courts eyes plaintiff and its counsel are performing the very iied and defamation
they’re alleged to be claiming in this matter.
17). Pg1. Prgh.4. in lines 4 Justice Mendez” was ..etc., Required. etc., etc., again FALSE. Defendant
At which Miss Kass excused plaintiff’s Counsel so as to let her do her job.
19).pg.2.prgh.1. Lines 1 in line 2. FALSE. “Foster would not proceed” eyc., “instead”…etc., “A Medical
Appointment” etc., plaintiff continues his meandering through lines, 3,4,5,&6 in a relentless dispute over
QRC.4
Page | 6
20). Pg.2.prgh.5. Lines 1,2,3,4,5 and 6. Plaintiff meanders on apparently in an effort to fill even a 2nd
page with lies and unfound truths – its meandering rhetorical, let alone false statements seamed
time than expected. Plaintiff suggesting of defendant’s request for 1 hour or 90 minutes is completely
False.
upon the defendant and so much even to the extent of using the Justice’s J.S.C. or the bench to carry
plaintiffs means in an otherwise questionable manner all under the guise of duress but in fact Counsel’s
of informality into that of formality at the behest of His Honorable Justice’s subtle vacant but solvent
QRC.4
craftily impute the multiple false aspersions of the truth having to do with defendant’s evidence,
witnesses’ admissibility. Plaintiff along with its Counsels long aware in admonishments to Defendants
Page | 7
circumstance Defendant cause to ask the Justice’s a most insidious question “Your Honor are you a
member of the NRA?” (The very conversation was oblique and of certain calls for revalidations). The
state of defendant’s cognizance was completely lost temporarily and plaintiff was very much aware of
Defendant confesses to the Justice’s of a letter threatening and design to invoke suicide arrives at
defendant’s inbox. It could not be right being that the authority of the Justice’s bench should advise
defendant to kill himself if he’s not take this deal.
24). Pg.2 prgh.9 Lines 1 “Defendant asks His Honor to review the Written Agreement and explain the
agreement”. Blatantly miss accounted for and FALSE. The statement here by plaintiff is that continued
Court. Throughout each following statement per Plaintiff’s e-file Doc.#183 Page #2 Paragraph 9 and
QRC.4
Page | 8
Consideration to ensure that he understood the terms” are false and misleading. Its fraudulent, legal
doing Falsely.
26). Pg2.prgh 9. Line 2. “The Court Justice Nock” etc., “Graciously” etc.,, and “Obliged” in favor of
defendant.
27). Pg2.prgh.9. Lines 3. FALSE., “At the bench” etc., etc.,and “While Counsel, Plaintiff, and her
Husband seated at the counsel Table”. All falsifying statements fashioned only to mislead in Doc.183.
28). Pg2. Prgh 9. Lines 3 into 4: “Defendant requested” and “Mss jenifer Boge Counsel assistant” and
“Witnesses Carolina Gildred” etc., and “witness Mr, Thomas Philip Gildred” etc., and “They must stepped
outside the court room” is clear evidence of the absurdities derived from the plaintiff or its Counsel in
period. Defendant Lost His Dear Mother Only Weeks Ago as a result of the plaintiff’s insidious
By plaintiff’s uncalled for and blatantly misleading and scrupulous defamation attacks to defendant in
defendant.
QRC.4
Defendant post plaintiff’s or her husband’s bruised ego remained an upright citizen, spotless in nature,
Page | 9
results of dementia outside of plaintiff’s knowledge of defendants’ neurological childhood disability.
30). Pg.2.prgh.10. Lines 1,2,&3 “In addressing” etc., and “Your Honor” and “Porting to Rescind” etc.,
COURT.
The Plaintiff continued discrepancies’ Lax, Duress, Plausible deniability, incites to commit Fraud glares
of FMT Consultants. A who’s reputation consist of employing offshore programmers mostly from India
QRC.4
an all new low.

Page | 10
further filing in this matter are to be filed,. Counsel disobeyed A direct order after filing yet another E-
Your Honor’s Direct Order and forthwith, I request your Honor must Report Counsel Seth A. Rafkin and

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Abrahamian v.Tak Chan 33, A.D.3d 947, 949, 824 N.Y.S.2d 117,
119 (2d Dep’t 2006)
Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d
572 (1986)
Campaign v. Barba, 23 A.D.3d 327, 805 N.Y.S.2d 86 (2d Dep’t 2005)
Caprer v. Nussbaum, 36 A.D.3d 176, 825 N.Y.S.2d 55 (2d Dep’t
2006)
Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395, 165 N.Y.S.2d 498, 144
N.E.2d 387 (1957).
Clarkin v. Staten Island University Hosp, 242, A.D.2d 552, 662
N.Y.S.2d 91 (2d Dep’t 1997)
Dinizio and Cook, Inc. v. Duck Creek Marina at Three Mile Harbor,
Ltd., 32 A.D.3d 989, 990, 821 N.Y.S.2d 649, 650 (2d Dep’t 2006)
Dittmar Explosives v. A.E. Ottaviano, Inc., 20 N.Y.2d 498, 501, 285 N.Y.S.2d
55, 231 N.E.2d 756 (1967)
Dorival v. DePass, 74 A.D.3d 729, 901 N.Y.S.2d 528 (2d Dep’t 2010).
Edenwald Contracting Co., Inc. v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957, 459
N.E.2d 164 (1983)
First Trust Nat Ass’n v. Meisels, 234 A.D.2d 414, 651 N.Y.S.2d 121 (2d
Dep’t 1996)
st
Flyer v. Sullivan, 284 A.D.697, 134 N.Y.S.2d 521 (1 Dep’t 1954)
Fryer v. Rockefeller, 18 Sickles 268, 63 N.Y.268 (1875).
GE Capital Mortg. Services, Inc. v. Powell, 18 Misc.3d 228, 845 N.Y.S.2d 722
(N.Y. Sup, Kings Co. 2007)
Agway, Inc. v. Kervin, 188 A.D.2d 1076 (4th Dept. 1992
Cardona v. Aggressive Heating Inc., 180 A.D.2d 572 (1st Dept. 1992
Chaney v. Evans, 2013 WL 2147533 (Sup. Ct. Franklin County 2013
Commonwealth v. Aves, 18 Pick. 193 (Mass. 1836
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 44 Mass. 72 (1841Davis v. Firman,

53 A.D.3d 1101 (4th Dept. 2018DeBolt v. Barbosa,
280 A.D.2d 821 (3d Dept. 2001)…
i
i- 154
Doscher v. Doscher, 54 A.D.3d 890 (2d Dept. 2008Greene v. Supreme Ct State of NY Westchester
County Special Term, Part I, 31 A.D.2d 649 (2d Dept. 1968)…
Hogan v. Culkin, 18 N.Y.2d 330 (1966In re Cecelia,Third Court of Guarantees, Mendoza, Argentina, P-
72.254/15 (Nov 3, 2016In re Jewish Assn for Services for Aged, 19 Misc.3d 1145(A) (Sup. Ct. 2008
th
Gelbard v. Bodary, 270 A.D.2d 866, 706 N.Y.S.2d 801 (4 Dep’t 2000)
Hirschfeld v. Hogan, 60 A.D.3d 728, 874 N.Y.S.2d 585 (2d Dep’t 2009)
HSBC Bank USA V. Miller, 26 Misc.3d 407, 889 N.Y.S.2d 430, 2009
N.Y. Slip Op. 29444 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sullivan Cty 2009)
Kulge v. Fugazy, 145 A.D.2d 537, 536 N.Y.S.2d 92 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Lucido v. Macnuso, 49 A.D.3d 220, 222, 851 N.Y.S.2d 238, 239 (2d
Dep’t 2008)
Merritt v. Batholick, 9 Tiffany 44, 36 N.Y.44 (1867)
Nassi v. Joseph DiLemme Const. Corp., 250 A.D.2d 658, 659, 672
N.Y.S.2d 431, 432 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Pick v. McCombs, 57 A.D.2d 1078, 395 N.Y.S.2d 819 (4th Dep’t 1977)
Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Pataki, 100 N.Y.2d 801,
766 N.Y.S.2d 654, 798 N.E.2d 1047 (2003) cert. denied 540 U.S.
1017, 124 S.Ct. 570, 157 L.Ed.2d 430 (2003).
Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395, 165
N.Y.S.2d 498, 144 N.E.2d 387 (1957)
Slutsky v. Blooming Grove Inn, Inc., 147 A.D.2d 208, 212, 542 N.Y.S.2d
721, 723 (2d Dep’t 1989).
Stein v. Garfield Regency Condominium, 65 A.D.3d
1126, 886 N.Y.S.2d 54 (2d Dep’t 2009)
Taylor v. Village of Ilion, 231 A.D. 923, 648 N.Y.S.2d
th
362 (4 Dep’t 1996)
Village of Pomona v. Town of Ramapo, 41 A.D.3d 837, 838 N.Y.S.2d
653 (2d Dep’t 2007)
Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, Nat. Ass’n v. Mastropaolo, 42 A.D.3d 239,
242, 837 N.Y.S.2d 247, 249 (2d Dep’t 2007)
Winegard v. New York University Medical Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851,
476 N.E.2d 642, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316Jacobs v. Banks Shapiro Gettinger
Waldinger & Brennan, LLP,
9 A.D.3d 299 (1st Dept. 2004)…Leake v. Constellation Brands Inc,
112 A.D.3d 792 (2d Dept. 2013Lemmon v. People,
20 N.Y. 562 (1860
Luppino v. Mosey,
ii
i- 155
103 A.D.3d 1117 (4th Dept. 2013
Mejia v. J Crew Operating Corp,
140 A.D.3d 505 (1st Dept. 2016
Mimassi v. Town of Whitestown Zoning Bd of Appeals,
104 A.D.3d 1280 (4th Dept. 2013
Morton v. Morton,
79 Misc.2d 915 (Family Court 1974
Mroz v. Ace Auto Body And Towing Ltd, 307 A.D.2d 403 (3d Dept. 2003
The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Stanley,

16 N.Y.S.3d 898 (Sup. Ct. 2015
Nova Cas Co v. RPE LLC, 115 A.D.3d 717 (2d Dept. 2014
O'Brien v. Vassar Brothers Hospital,
207 A.D.2d 169 (2d Dept. 1995
Paraco Gas of New York Inc v. Colonial Coal Yard Inc,

20 Misc.3d 1112(A) (Sup. Ct. 2008)…
People ex rel. DeLia v. Munsey, 26 N.Y.3d 124 (2015

People ex rel. Pruyne v. Walts, 77 Sickels 238 (2d Dept. 1890
People ex rel. Sabatino v. Jennings, 246 N.Y. 258 (1927)…
People ex rel. Trainer v. Cooper, 8 How. Pr. 288 (Supr. Ct. 1853)…
People ex rel. Van Buren v. Superintendent of New York State Reformatory for Women at
Bedford,
192 N.Y.S. 511 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1922
People v. Hanna, 3 How. Pr. 39 (Supr. Ct. 1847
People v. Schildhaus,
8 N.Y.2d 33 (1960Peoples v. Vohra,
113 A.D.3d 664 (2d Dept. 2014)…
Phoenix Ins Co v. Casteneda, 287 A.D.2d 507 (2d Dept. 2001
Pittman v. Maher, 202 A.D.2d 172 (1st Dept. 1994
Regal Boy Enterprises Intern VII Inc v. MLQ Realty Management LLC,
22 A.D.3d 738 (2d Dept. 2005Rochester Drug Coop Inc v. Marcott Pharmacy N Corp,
15 A.D.3d 899 (4th Dept. 2005
Rubens v. Fund, 23 A.D.3d 636 (2d Dept. 2005)…
Said v. Strong Mem Hosp,

255 A.D.2d 953 (4th Dept. 1998Schapiro And Reich Esqs v. Fuchsberg,
iii
i- 156
172 A.D.2d 1080 (4th Dept. 1991Smith v. City of Buffalo,
122 A.D.3d 1419 (4th Dept. 2014
South Towns Surgical Associates PC v. Steinig, 165 A.D.3d 1630 (4th Dept. 2018
State v. Floyd Y, 43 Misc.3d 1202(A) (Sup. Ct. 2014Stainbrook v. Colleges of Senecas,

237 A.D.2d 865 (3d Dept. 1997Transportation Microwave Corp. v. Venrock Associates,
91 A.D.2d 913 (1st Dept. 1983
Travelers Indem. Co. of Illinois v. Nnamani, 286 A.D.2d 769 (2d Dept. 2001
Weingarten v. Board of Educ of City School Dist of City of New York, 3 Misc.3d 418 (Sup. Ct. 2004
Zinker v. Zinker, 185 A.D.2d 698 (4th Dept. 1992
Statutes
CPLR 103(b), CPLR 409(b), CPLR 503(a), CPLR 506, CPLR 506(a), CPLR 506(b)
CPLR 510, CPLR 510(1),L CPLR 510(2), CPLR 510(3), CPLR 511, CPLR 2221(a)
CPLR 2221(d), CPLR 2221(d)(2), 2221(f), CPLR 7001, CPLR 7002(b), CPLR 7002(b)(3)
CPLR 7003(a), CPLR 7004(c)., CPLR 7502(a)
Affidavits
Other Authorities
1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., par. 103.05
4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., par. 401.02[
5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., par. 506.01…
David D. Siegal, New York Practice § 549 at 1056 [6th Ed]
Joseph L. Marino, 4 West’s McKinney’s Forms Civil Practice Law and Rules § 10:2 (2015)
Transcript of Motion Seq. oo6 hearing held on February 14, 2020 [last corrective adhered Tal R.
Hahn Senior Court Reporter a request of Copy of Transcript the Hon. Justice Louis Nock]
iv
i-157

Notice of Appeal 153554 2017 NYSCEF Cert PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notice of Appeal 153554 2017 NYSCEF Cert PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Index No.

Supreme Court of the State of New York

For Court of Original Instance

Date Notice of Appeal Filed

MICHAEL FOSTER (Public Person)

Case Type Filing Type

☐ Civil Action√ ☐ CPLR article 78 Proceeding ☐ Appeal√ ☐ Transferred Proceeding

☐ Habeas Corpus Proceeding ☐ CPLR Article 78 ☐ Executive Law § 298

|√Administrative Review ☐ Business Relationships ☐ Commercial |√Contracts

☐ Amended Decree ☐ Determination ☐ √Order (NYSCEF Doc.161) ☐ Resettled Order

No. Party Name Original Status Appellate Division Status

Attorney/Firm Name: MICHAEL FOSTER |PROSE |

OF Page 12.1.2,3:.NYSCEF Doc.No.186 “1st INTERIM ORDER (OF-FINAL-ORDER) 02.14.20

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 197 ………………………AMENDED ORDER…………………………IN-DISPUTE……………..PG: 6

AMEND/RESCIND/REARGUE or Return to Calendar……IMMEDIATE-LTTER……………………..PG: i-13/i-14/i-15

NOTICE OF APPEAL ……………………………PRELIMINARY-STATEMENT……………………………………………….PG: i-16

NOTICE OF APPEAL …………………………………ABUSE-of-POWER……………………………………..….PG: i-17/i-18/i-19

NOTICE OF APPEAL …2nd-UNECESSARY-INTERIM-ORDER……Intended to be based on fact finding evidence

NOTICE OF APPEAL …………………FULL-CERTIFIED-STENOGRAPHERS-RECORD………..………….PG: i-21_to_i-53

NOTICE OF APPEAL-PAGE “12”_:………………ABUSE-of-POWER-INTERIM-ORDER………….…….PG: i-54_to_i56

NOTICE OF APPEAL-PAGE “13”_........APPELLANT’S-GENERAL-CONCLUSION………………………………….PG: i-58

NOTICE OF APPEAL:…OVEREACHING-ALBEIT-FRAUDULENT-STIPULATION-AGREEMENT….PG: i-59_to_i-62

NOTICE OF APPEAL ……………………APPELENT’S-AFFIDAVITS-of-CAUSE-CERTIFIED……………..PG: i-63_to_i-64

NOTICE OF APPEAL …………………………………ABUSE-of-POWER……………………………………..….PG: i-17/i-18/i-19

NOTICE OF APPEAL-PAGE “14’_…………….ARGUMENT……..:-supporting-laws…………………………………PG: i-69

NOTICE OF APPEAL-PAGE “15”_….ARGUMENT….Disputes…General-Disputes……Relief-Sought.……PG: i-71

NOTICE OF APPEAL-PAGE “12”_:………………ABUSE-of-POWER-INTERIM-ORDER………….…….PG: i-54_to_i56

NOTICE OF APPEAL................INTRODUCTION……….(res_judicata)……………………………..………………….PG: i-73

NOTICE OF APPEAL ………(What appears-to-be-PLAGERIZED-Rulings: drawn from up to “3” of Her. Hon.

NOTICE OF APPEAL:…IDENTIFYING-Mal_Practice_NYSCEF.Doc.No.183…30+False-STATEMENTS…..PG: i-95

NOTICE OF APPEAL:………………………………..TABLES-of-AUTHORITY……………………………….…..PG: i-54_to_i-57

NOTICE OF APPEAL ……………………VEILED-of-BRIBERY…………(Paragraph(1) pg:158-161………………...PG: i-75

NOTICE OF APPEAL……………MALICIOUS-PROSECUTION…………(Paragraph(1)&(4)…………..…………….PG: i-75

NOTICE OF APPEAL.............APPELLANT’S-PUBLIC-NOTORIETY-- VS. - PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE'S un-popular Individual Character

NOTICE OF APPEAL:……DISPUTES….THE-COURT-ERRED-by-EFFORTS-of-ENTRAPMENT..(E3.1).……..PG: i-77

NOTICE OF APPEAL ……………………DISPUTES…………”Res-Judicata”………………………………………………...PG: i-78

NOTICE OF APPEAL:……DISPUTES…………………………POWER-of-ABUSE……….…………………………………..PG: i-79

NOTICE OF APPEAL ……………………DISPUTES…………”RELIEF-SOUGHT”…………………………………………...PG: i-80

NOTICE OF APPEAL:……………………………DISPUTE-BOARD-……….……………………………………………………..PG: i-88

NOTICE OF APPEAL …”Elements-of-FRAUD-per_Stipulation-Agreement”NYSCEF.Doc.161.....PG: i-99-i-104

NOTICE OF APPEAL:……PORTIONS-DISPUTED_vs_REASONS_per_”AMENDED-ORDER”……PG: i-88_to_i-93

NOTICE OF APPEAL ……………………GENERAL-DISPUTE……NYSCEF.Doc.197:-Amended-Order...PG: i-88-i-93

Documents Received on 03/09/2020 03:39 PM

Doc # Document Type

BRIAN FIGEROUX - bfigeroux@msn.com

NYSCEF Resource Center, EFile@nycourts.gov

Documents Received on 03/02/2020 09:30 AM

Doc # Document Type

BRIAN FIGEROUX - bfigeroux@msn.com

NYSCEF Resource Center, EFile@nycourts.gov

Documents Received on 01/20/2020 05:22 AM

Doc # Document Type

168 AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS, Motion #006

BRIAN FIGEROUX - bfigeroux@msn.com

NYSCEF Resource Center, EFile@nycourts.gov

Documents Received on 01/17/2020 02:17 PM

Doc # Document Type

BRIAN FIGEROUX - bfigeroux@msn.com

NYSCEF Resource Center, EFile@nycourts.gov

Documents Received on 01/17/2020 06:51 PM

Doc # Document Type

BRIAN FIGEROUX - bfigeroux@msn.com

NYSCEF Resource Center, EFile@nycourts.gov