FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS

ELENA SVENSON, Docket NO.

Petitioner, F-28901-08/13F

-against- NOTICE OF SPECIAL

APPEARNCE UNDER
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, - PROTEST AND THREAT.
Naive Respondent in error, DURESS AND COERCION

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

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

February 16-24,2014

A
Michael Krichevsky
4221 Atlantic Ave.
Brooklyn, NY 11224

TO:
Elena Svenson
2620 Ocean Pkwy., Apt. 3K
Brooklyn, NY 11235

Judge Ann Elizabeth O'shea

Kings County Family Court
330 Jay St., Brooklyn, NY 11201

Judge Jeanette Ruiz

Kings County Family Court
330 Jay St., Brooklyn, NY 11201
Michelle Rubin, Esq.
Kings County Family Court
330 Jay St., Brooklyn, NY 11201

Judge Edwina Richardson-Mendelson

New York City Family Court, 11th Floor
60 Lafayette St., NY 10013

FBI
26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10278-0004
E-mail: nyl@ic.fbi.gov

NY State Attorney General

120 Broadway, 24th Floor,
New York, NY 10271.
FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS

Docket NO.
ELENA SVENSON, F-28901-08/13F
Petitioner,
AFFIDAVIT OF THREAT.
-against- DURESS AND COERCION

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,
Naive Respondent in error.,

Michael Krichevsky (Krichevsky) Naive Respondent in error, Pro Se, Sui Juris with clean hands,

Federal Witness under penalty of perjury says:

"It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and

against any stealthy encroachments thereon."; "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in

its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their

first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal

modes of procedure." Boydv. United States, 116 US 616 - Supreme Court 1886

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

stated in this affidavit are within my personal first-hand knowledge, and if called on as a witness,

I could competently testify thereto.

DURESS AND COERCION

2. I make this affidavit in support of my jurisdictional challenge to Kings County Family

Court, Kings County Child Support Collection Unit and both their corrupt, fraudulent and

coercive ultra vires administrative proceedings against me where I am treated as pawn and

scapegoat This proceeding can only be described as judicial assault and battery, or domestic
war and terrorism against me.

3. Whereas, Kings County Family Court or Kings County Child Support Collection Unit, or

both are for profit corporations collecting billions of dollars in Federal grants from Social

Security Title IV-D funding by placing names of taxpayers like me on their "deadbeat father"

bills submitted to Federal government; and

4. with undisclosed shareholders and beneficiaries violating their corporate charters -

CRIMINAL FRAUD IN COMMERCE - in violation of federal and state False Claims and

RICO Acts and statutes.

5. Whereas, from the court's employees practicing law without a license, which produced

this petition with no stated facts, I do not understand the nature of charges, to wit:

6. what is the legal definition of vague "fail to obey" in Family Court as I only know this

term from Motor Vehicle Law that was lectured to me, such as "fail to obey the STOP SIGN."

Whereas, it was visible, my breaks were functional, and all I had to do is press the brake pedal,

but I did not. Whereas, if I pressed the brake pedal, but did not stop - that would be - breaks

failed me. Beyond this understanding, my ordinary intelligence fails me;

7. am I charged with violation of John Fasone's lawful order, or

8. am I charged with violation of John Fasone's unlawful order and required to perform, or

9. am I charged with violation of any law or statute, which is not negated by any exception;

or

10. am I accused by the petitioner having the first-hand personal knowledge, under penalty of

perjury, having admissible evidence that I am able, but willfully violating any law, statute or

lawful order, and

11. what damage or injury does the petitioner suffered as a result of alleged violation, which
may be remedied by the relief requested.

12. Whereas, it is the foundation of jurisprudence - if there is no damage (Corpus Delicti) -

there is no case, hence no jurisdiction to adjudicate non-existing controversy.

13. Whereas, in 2008 and 2011 petitioner filed 2 false family offense petitions, thereby

creating controversy in this court, which were dismissed.

14. Whereas, in 2010 petitioner filed frivolous and fraudulent petition for criminal contempt,

falsely alleging that I have ability to pay and comply with John Fasone's lawful child support

order, asking for my incarceration.

15. Whereas, said petition was regretfully dismissed in 2011, by John Fasone, commenting

on the record that the petition dismissed without prejudice, giving petitioner legal advice and

invitation to file a new one.

16. Whereas, in response to my last petition for modification of child support amount due to

loss of unemployment insurance in 2013, John Fasone directed petitioner to go on the 11th floor

of Kings County Family Court building, where the sister agency — child support collection unit is

located - to get legal advice and assistance in filing instant criminal action.

17. Whereas, in 2008 petitioner created controversy in family court, committed larceny and

extortion, committed fraud and perjury against me with deliberate assistance of John Fasone.

18. Whereas, petitioner does not have probable cause, or standing, or clean hands, or all of

the above to prosecute this action.

19. Whereas, petitioner assigned void for fraud upon the court debt and claim against my

TRUST to the STATE OF NEW YORK corporation or its subsidiaries, the necessary parties and

does not have standing to bring this action.

20. Whereas, the STATE OF NEW YORK Legislature created numerous laws to corner the
job market and prevent taxpayers like me to qualify for a job, to wit: unfair credit reporting,

revocation or denial of professional and driver licenses, or denial of government job if taxpayer

owes a child support.

21. Whereas, as result of the above, STATE OF NEW YORK collects profit from Title IV-D

Federal funding for keeping taxpayers like me unemployed, harassed and/or imprisoned and

hypocritically calling taxpayers like me "deadbeat fathers."

22. Whereas, if petitioner is entitled to a fair trial -1 am entitled to a fair trial.

23. Whereas, fair trial is impossible due to conflict of interests between CREDITOR

STATE OF NEW YORK - interested party represented by its employee John Fas one on

one hand, and John Fasone's personal interests in brazen violation of his fiduciary duties of

care and loyalty to me on the other hand, or he is not competent, or biased against me, or

all of the above.

"Because the motion court did not disclose its interest in Chase to the parties, I
agree with the majority that under the express terms of Judiciary Law § 14 it was
without power to hear the case and the orders appealed from are null and void.
DeRosa v. Chase, NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. 2004

24. Whereas, I have a constitutional and statutory right to choose a competent and unbiased

tribunal over John Fasone and a trial by jury of my pears - deadbeat fathers.

25. Whereas, this INFERIOR court does not have competent subject matter jurisdiction to

hear and determine affirmative defenses, counter-claims that I had in my counter-claim in 2010,

and have in my cross-claim now. In The State of Rhode Island v. The State of Massachusetts, 37

US 657 - Supreme Court (1838) the court stated:

"But as this Court is one of limited and special original jurisdiction, its action
must be confined to the particular cases, controversies, and parties over which the
constitution and laws have authorized it to act; any proceeding without the limits
prescribed, is coram non judice, and its action a nullity."[Emphasis added]
 "However late this objection has been made, or may be made in any cause, in an
inferior or appellate court of the United States, it must be considered and decided,
before any court can move one further step in the cause; as any movement is
necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction."

26. Whereas, due to the above, I timely removed the Case number F-28901-08/13F to federal

court to hear and determine all causes.

27. Whereas, petitioner did not move for remand, and is in default for ignoring my answer

and counterclaims served in federal court.

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

complete nullity pending the written offer of proof and satisfaction of demand on the court

record and to me of the foregoing notices and demands BEFORE OR AT PRE-TRIAL

HEARING:

I. NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF COPY OF LAW

ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED.

II. NOTICE AND DEMAND TO PRODUCE JOHN FASONE'S OATH OF

ATTORNEY, OATH OF OFFICE AND OFFICIAL BOND as per 63C Am. Jur. 2d Public

Officers and Employees.

III. NOTICE AND DEMAND TO PRODUCE NAMES OF LAW CLERK AND

BADGE NUMBERS OF GUNMEN THAT WILL SUROUND ME ON FEBRUARY 25,

2014 IN PART 27 OF KINGS COUNTY FAMILY COURT BEFORE I CAN ENTER THE

COURTROOM - FEAR OF BEEN FALSELY ARRESTED OR SHOT.

IV. NOTICE OF ULTRA VIRES, NON-CONSENT AND DEMAND TO SHOW

i

AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE THIS MATTER BY JOHN FASONE AGAINST MY

CONSENT IN FAVOR OF THE CREDITOR STATE OF NEW YORK -

UNDISCLOSED, NECESSARY AND INTERESTED PARTY.

V. NOTICE OF ULTRA VIRES, NON-CONSENT AND DEMAND TO SHOW

COERCIVE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A BENCH WARRANT TO ARREST ME AND

ADJUDICATE THIS MATTER BY JOHN FASONE AGAINST MY CONSENT IN

FAVOR OF THE CREDITOR STATE OF NEW YORK - UNDISCLOSED,

NECESSARY AND INTERESTED PARTY - AFTER I REMOVED THIS MATTER TO

FEDERAL COURT AND SUBPENED JOHN FOSONE AS MY WITNESS.

VL 30 DAY VALIDATION NOTICE AND DEMAND TO VERIFY DEBT PER

FDCPA.

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

judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices "during good behavior"

and shall at stated times received compensation for services. Thereby, anyone without a law

degree can see that the Constitution has restricted those who hold public office under

compensation how these offices are to be held. Any acts of treason, felony, misdemeanors,

bribery, high crimes or bad behavior are enough cause to require removal from a public office.

30. I demand removal of John Fasone from his public office for cause - treason, felony,

fraud, official misconduct and bad behavior.

31. Whereas, the 7th Amendment of Constitution of United States of America guarantees me

a trial by jury for any offense of $20 or more - but said Family Court does not have authority and

does not hold jury trials — therefore no jurisdiction over me.

Procedural history and facts

32. The procedural history is bazaar, long,, complex and should shock conscious and insult

intelligence of the reader. It spans from 2008 until present. I will mention the key facts, which
were never rebutted by John Fasone or Svenson, and therefore admitted by them.

3 3. Whereas, on February 32010 John Fasone held a Star Chamber hearing without parties

notified and present. On that day, he denied my discovery motion filed by my attorney in

September of 2009 - 5 months before this denial.

34. Whereas, on February 3 2010, while discovery was not complete and said discovery

motion was pending, John Fasone held a Star Chamber hearing without parties notified and

present. With deliberate indifference to New York CPLR and evidence on the record, he ordered

me to pay more child support than I could earn - contrary to maxims of law and the evidence in

the court record of my ability to pay.

35. Whereas, contrary to petitioner's attorney Levoritz perjured, unsworn, hearsay testimony

the evidence, consisting of my 2009 pay stubs, 2009 W-2 form and affidavit from my employer,

shows that I was earning gross income of $56,000 per year. The evidence also shows that my

mortgage payments were more than my gross income and I was depleting my savings.

36. Whereas, additionally to approximately $2800 monthly child support ordered, John

Fasone ordered me to pay approximately $20,000 in petitioner's attorney fees and about $30,000

in arrears, while my financial disclosure affidavit stated that I had only $1700 available in cash.

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

comply with above said order.

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

order by not mailing this order to me.

39. Whereas, child support collection unit immediately sent the garnishment order to my

employer, leaving me with no money to meet my living expenses or pay for appeal.

40. Whereas, John Fasone refused to review for errors his wrongful order in defiance of
United States v. Agurs, 427 US 97 - Supreme Court 1976:

"Court has consistently held that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of
perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, and must be set aside if there (is any
reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of
the jury.. .hi those cases the Court has applied a strict standard of materiality, not
just because they involve prosecutorial misconduct, but more importantly because
they involve a corruption of the truth-seeking function of the trial process."

41. Whereas, John Fasone and attorney Yonatan Levoritz "corrupted truth-Seeking

function of the trial process" to wit: denied above mentioned discovery motiorj conspired with

each other to railroad me through defamation, and held on February 3, 2010 finajl hearing

without notice to me and me present. Said act constitutes prohibited trial by ambush and rush to

judgment in order to prevent me from offering further evidence and/or filing interlocutory

appeal.

42. Whereas, on February 3, 2010 John Fasone falsely and misleadingly created presumption
I

for the appellate court that the parties were notified but failed to appear for the hearing. The

audio record of this Star Chamber hearing falsely and misleadingly states, "10 minutes to 5 and

no one is appearing." The reader now presumes that John Fasone was tired of waiting for me to

appear.

43. Whereas, afterwards John Fasone or his law clerk, or both manufacture'd 2nd wrongful

order with false affidavit of service after I raised the issue of not receiving his first child
I
|
support order by mail. Because I was not notified of his final order and could ncjt get it from the

court file, I filed ASAP my "blind" objection one-day late. In it, I requested acceptance of my

objection in the interest of Justice.

44. Whereas, relying on said false affidavit of service, Judge Paula Hepner, with deliberate

indifference to evidence and merits of my objection, my inability to comply with said order, and
with deliberate indifference and disregard to my basic human rights and needs for food and

shelter - legislated denial of my objection on "procedural grounds." As adminis-xative judge with

the law degree and duty to investigate wrongdoings of her colleagues, she was aware of the well-

settled law that void order can be attacked at any time directly or collaterally. Said legislated

denial constitutes treason and official oppression.

45. Whereas, due to harassment of my employer by the petitioner, her attorney Levoritz and

Family Court, I was fired from my job.

46. Whereas, I timely filed petition to modify said wrongful child support oi[der due to a

change of circumstances prompted by loss of the job.

47. Whereas, petitioner and her attorney, Levoritz, being notified of my job .oss, failed to

object and reply to my modification petition.

48. Whereas, John Fasone refused to read or decide my post trial motions - Jin violation of

New York CPLR and New York Rules of Judicial Conduct.

49. Whereas, a month or two later, I filed petition for custody and visitation.

50. Whereas, in reply to my custody and visitation petition, petitioner's attorney Levoritz

served me with petition for contempt in court and same day offered me settlement. The terms of

settlement as follows: I sign consent judgment to'arrears and withdraw my petition for custody

and visitation in exchange for him not sending me to jail.

51. Whereas, New York Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits practice by attorney, which

threatens criminal prosecution of defendant in order to gain advantage in civil case — which is

exactly what Levoritz did - criminal extortion.

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

her with cross-motion for sanctions for frivolous litigation, to which her attorney Levoritz failed
to object and reply.

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

her with answer to petition, counterclaim and discovery demands, to which her attorney Levoritz

failed to object and reply.

54. Whereas, New York CPLR proscribes that if averments are not rebutted - they deem

admitted and failure to object or rebut deems an agreement.

55. Whereas, John Fasone falsified court record by stating in his dismissal of said motion for

sanctions that there was a hearing and Krichevsky was heard. Thereafter, he issued an order

without findings of fact. To add more insult to the injury, this order was never mailed to me -

again sabotaging my constitutional right to an appeal.

56. "In fact, to deprive the plaintiff of the opportunity to a hearing upon the relevant issues

"offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" Bryant v. Finnish Nat'I Airline,

22 AD 2d 16- NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. (1964). Kings County Family Court lost its subject

matter and personal jurisdiction over me upon my prior uninformed consent because this court

has shown on the record - it is not the court of "fair play and substantial justice," which is

necessary jurisdictional element of any court in civilized society. To put it bluntly — fraud,

forgery, tyranny and sadism practiced on me in that family court.

57. Whereas, John Fasone acting in the dual capacity of prosecutor and judge attempted to

incarcerate me for contempt of his void order by conspiring with Levoritz and preventing

discovery.

58. Whereas, said persecution by John Fasone and Levoritz shocked my conscience and as

result of which I suffered a stroke.

59. Whereas, above said is now self evident upon the PATTERN of egregious misconduct,
derived from the entire record of procedural facts starting from 2008 - through present. The

pattern shows that John Fasone intended to violate the law and procedure, and intentionally

denied my God given and constitutional rights by acting as tyrant and charlatan.

60. Whereas, when I discovered that John Fasone is acting as tyrant and charlatan, I filed a

motion to recuse John Fasone, which he refused to read and issue denial - more of tyranny and

sadism by mental torture.

61. Whereas, after numerous other motions that I filed in court, which John Fasone refused to

address, I filed yet another objection to such misconduct and judge Paula Hepner, finally, set

aside John Fasone's prior order of child support, ordered him to address every motion that he

ignored stating, "... Fasone attempted to curtail the motion practice" and "currently this

case represents procedural quagmire."

62. Whereas, failure and refusal of John Fasone to comply with above mentioned "set aside"

order of judge Paula Hepner — put him in contempt of the higher court, which continues to

present.

63. Whereas, because of this contempt, John Fasone was without jurisdiction to commence

any proceedings and issue any order or judgment over my objection to the breach of his fiduciary

duty to me.

64. Whereas, on August 9, 2013, John Fasone denied my jurisdictional challenge without

rebuttal of my affidavit in my motion filed on July 17, 2013. In this denial without findings of

fact, he consistently, deliberately misquoted my affidavits and requested relief. He brazenly

accused me of "refusal to participate in court proceedings in an appropriate manner..."

Additionally, he brazenly stated, "in as much as the undersigned may have inadvertently failed

to enter a written decision on respondent-father's prior motion for recusal such matter is easily
remedied..." That false statement, nonetheless, is an admission that he was in contempt of higher

court's order when he knowingly conducted December 12, 2011 hearing clearly without

jurisdiction.

65. Whereas, because John Fasone's contempt of higher court continues, he is without

jurisdiction on my case - and he, not me, should be adjudged in criminal contempt and go to jail.

66. Whereas, my motion and complaint on September 24, 2013, against John Fasone to

Administrative Judge Edwina Richardson-Mendelson and request to remove John Fasone from '

my case were ignored and no reply was sent to me.

67. Whereas, my motion and complaint against John Fasone to Administrative Judge Jeanette

Ruiz and request to remove John Fasone from my case were ignored and no reply was sent to

me.

68. Whereas, my complaint against John Fasone was under review by Court Attorney

Michelle Rubin, Esq.

69. and request to remove John Fasone from my case were ignored and no reply was sent to

me.

70. Whereas, the latest corrupt act of war against me was perpetrated by Judge Ann Elizabeth

O'shea, who issued the following order to my objection to recusal refusal by John Fasone,

attached to this affidavit as exhibit A.

71. Whereas, FIRST, in her order, she falsified procedural history and facts of my case to

wit: "after petitioner refused to state his name for the record, claimed that the support magistrate

had no jurisdiction over him, moved to the back of the courtroom and ultimately left the

courtroom, thwarting the procedure judge Hepner proscribed"- fraud upon the court by

officer of the court.

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

the basis of Ms entry of a modification of the child support order on June 1, 2011 to $298 per

month under .supplemental "A," how he arrived at that amount, and whether it was a temporary

modification;" and "ORDERED that in addition to deciding the respondent's application

for leave to renew and reargue his motion to recuse, the support magistrate is to include a

written decision on respondent's initial motion to recuse from July 26,2010 to complete the

record so it will be clear why he did not grant the application" and "ORDERED ... Upon

receipt of the final decision determining each of these outstanding issues, respondent might

timely file an objection should he feel aggrieved by the result."

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

my July 26, 2010 motion as to why he refused to recuse himself, Paula Hepner declined to

disqualify John Fasone on that ground. This time, I was waiting for this written decision of

recusal refusal to attach it to my appeal to Judge Hepner because I did not trust John Fasone and

considered him charlatan. I was afraid that he would do more of the same tyranny and fraud he

did before, and restore his void order after December 12, 2011 hearing. As the saying goes "full

me once, shame on you — full me twice, shame on me." The record shows that John Fasone never

complied with Judge Hepner3 s order and was in contempt — hence my December 12, 2011

objection to his jurisdiction over me and non-consent to participate in his fraud upon the court

hearing. Contrary to Judge 0'shea's misleading statement that I "ultimately left the room" -

John Fasone ordered me to leave the courtroom, and I was surrounded by 6 men with guns —

shows why our founding fathers invented the 2nd Amendment to Constitution to defend

against rogue public servants or rogue government. Judge O'shea made procedural history

and facts deliberately misleading in order to paint me as incompetent, uncooperative in order to

arrive at her corruptly desired result, denial;

74. Whereas, SECOND, Judge O'shea consistently, deliberately misquoted my affidavits and

requested relief to wit: "on July 17, 2013, petitioner filed a motion seeking: (1) to reopen earlier

proceedings in which he was denied relief based upon his failure to meaningfully participate"—

it is fraud upon the court by officer of the court - the opposite is true. I maintained throughout

procedural history that John Fasone prevented me from meaningful participation, which is

why his order is void ab initio, and why I demanded his disqualification. Judge O'shea mislead

the reader in order to allow her arrival to now VOID ORDER;

75. Whereas, THIRD, Judge O'shea refused and failed to take mandatory judicial notice per

my request of procedural facts and order of Judge Paula Hepner, which, inter alia, set aside John

Fasone's VOID final order of child support until he comply with her order - which John Fasone

never did.

76. Whereas, FOURTH, Judge O'shea falsely stated in her order that I voluntarily submitted

to the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore consented to it - contrary to the fact that from day

one in that court I was dragged in by false family offense petition and ensnared in the web of

appeals and vexatious litigation. I entered appearance on my latest motions and objections "As

Belligerent Claimant," "under duress," Special Appearance and Fifth Amendment defense due to

contempt petition pending all the time. Judge O'shea with a law degree knows that objection to

jurisdiction cannot be waived and can be raised "at any time even on appeal."

77. Whereas, FIFTH, even though I took the Fifth Amendment defense, John Fasone did not

need my "meaningful participation" by physical presence or oral argument to modify his order

since he had all the necessary evidence of my assets from child support collection unit. They, in

addition to plundering my unemployment benefits leaving me with only $150 per week, with
deliberate indifference to my basic Human Rights and needs for food and shelter, plundered my

bank account with $150 in it. In fact, John Fasone admitted on the record that I receive

unemployment assistance - and sua sponte modified child support amount down to $298 per

month.

78. Whereas, SIXTH, now Judge O'sheajoined the ranks of other wrongdoers mentioned

above - all in violation of 18 USC §241,18 U. S. C. § 1584, 42 U.S.C. § 1994, 42 U.S.C. §

1983, 1985, 1986 and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

79. Do these 4 female jurists running the court and supervising John Fasone, have children

and families?

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

experience their conduct and whether what happens to my child, me and other children in this

court in the best interest of children and families that they must serve?

81. On the other hand, is their only goal is to create controversies, drag appeals and profit

from them for their own children and families at the expense of others?

82. Whereas, to ensnare me in the web of appeals and conduct this war against me, all

wrongdoers highly educated and paid, receive pension from the State and excellent health care

insurance coverage - DRAWN from Federal Social Security Title IV-D finding - money

collected from taxpayers like me.

83. Whereas, In 2012 FEMA provided me with grant to cleanup and repair damage done by

Sandy disaster, because my home was flooded, damaged, without electricity and heat. My

unemployment insurance was terminated due to said disaster. FEMA and State set up grief

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

unit instituted harassment proceedings against me, because my employment insurance was

terminated due to Sandy disaster. Corrupt and sadistic employees of said unit decided to revoke

my driver license under false presumption or accusation that I willfully violate Family Court's

order.

85. Whereas, in order not to default on their proceeding, I had to drop the cleaning and travel

to Manhattan to object. I brought with me documentary evidence that I am a Sandy survivor and

that my unemployment insurance was terminated because of it.

86. Whereas, employee Israel, told me that they have a policy that once the debt reaches

$100,000, regardless of circumstances the driver license will be revoked. Now, to escape

revocation and jail, the man must sign consent judgment, from which Kings County child

support collection unit would get a percentage.

87. Whereas, now it is not only obvious, but officially legislated by STATE OF NEW YORK

that Kings County Family Court and Kings County child support collection unit are not public

offices or public agencies with fiduciary duties to people, their clients - but rather German Nazis

Gestapo-type tyrannical, military tribunals conquering population as enemies of the State. Now,

it is legislated that any man would be sent to concentration camp if he would not pay the ransom.

FEAR FOR LIFE AND LIBERTY

88. Whereas, on October 1, 2013,1 appeared, without petitioner present, pursuant to hearing

set up in Family Court. The purpose of the hearing was to assign 18B attorney to me by John

Fasone. I appeared to notify him that the case is removed to federal court and he has no

jurisdiction. While waiting in the Hall of the court to enter the courtroom, a woman called my

name and told me that she has been assigned as my attorney and that she is the law professor
from Albany School of Law. At that moment, I sought that if assignment is done before removal,

she might help me with my case in federal court. When I told her that I am unemployed and

cannot find a job, she went back to the courtroom. Thereafter, she emerged with another woman,

who told me that she is from Department of Human Resources. They brought me into the

conference room, where this woman told me that she has a "social program" which will give me

a job and help me to pay child support. Additionally, my case will be transferred to another

support magistrate. I was interested in finding a job. However, when I ask them what kind of

program this is and whether they have a flyer describing it, because I am confused and would

like to read and understand before accepting or not - she said that there is no flyer. When I asked

them if they presume that the $100,000 debt is valid and would give me to sign consent judgment

— they looked at each other and this woman told me that she cannot help me and that this

program is not for me.

THE WORDS USED CONSTITUTED A THREAT - THE THREAT WAS

KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY MADE

89. Whereas, when I thereafter entered the courtroom, my assigned attorney told John Fasone

that she decline to represent me. In reply, John Fasone told me that "he offered me a good deal,

and a chance of another magistrate with the 2n pair of eyes to review my case — and I blew it."

He told me, "now you on your own" implying that he will retaliate and put me in jail.

90. Whereas, when I told him that the case is removed to federal court, he replied that if I

will not appear for a hearing, he would issue the bench warrant to arrest me and bring to him.

91. Whereas, on November 14, 2013 pursuing to Bankruptcy Court Judge's order, I was

conducting the deposition of petitioner. At first, she played ignorant, confused or mentally

retarded to evade straight answers to me. Thereafter, to my line of questioning whether she hired

attorneys Nachimovsky and Levoritz to extort from me money or vindicate and harm me, she
brazenly faced took the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer. I had no choice, but interrupt

the deposition to ask the court's intervention.

92. Whereas, after court reporter stopped reporting, petitioner in presence of her attorney,

Lorna LaMotte, angrily stated, "we will see what the Family Court judge will do to you"

implying John Fasone.

93. Whereas, Bankruptcy Court subpoena was served on John Fasone to appear for

deposition as my witness against petitioner Svenson and authenticate his written orders, which he

ignored in contempt of Bankruptcy Court.

94. Whereas, during the deposition in Bankruptcy Court to authenticate documents from

Family Court, petitioner brazenly faced, not looking at any document pronounced, "every

document you have is forgery" and refused to look at them. When I told her that she is acting in

bad faith instead of trying to settle some issues amicably, she told me, "you will see what will

happen in the Family Court."

Waiver of oral argument

95. Whereas, I did not fully recover from stroke in 2010 contempt proceedings. Due to the

expected stress from tyranny and mental torture that will be intentionally put on me by John

Fasone and his gunmen, I am in fear for my life and health because I may not survive a 2nd stroke

or heart attack. If I do not come on February 25, 2014,1 am in fear to be arrested, which will go

on my biography record and damage my reputation, which will in turn even more diminish my

prospects of finding a job as paralegal or other professional in different state. Having no choice

under threat, I will appear but will remain silent and demand that all communications and

arguments to my jurisdictional challenge be conducted in writing.

 CONCLUSION

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

perpetual treason, extortion, judicial misconduct, legalized slavery, assault and battery on

working people.

I, Michael Kxichevsky, Pro Se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, under penalty of perjury declare
that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: February 16-24, 2014

Brooklyn, New York

Submitted with Respect to Justice,

Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se, All rights reserved

4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, New York 11224