new century complaint and third-party complaint against john m fasone, et al

CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF KINGS

INDEX NO. 056717/13NEW CENTURY FINANTIAL SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiffs, S U M M O N S

-against- Third-Party Plaintiffdesignates Kings County as

Michael Krichevsky, the place of trial.Defendant.

"—=— ==__—.—= Third-Party PlaintiffsMichael Krichevsky, Address:

Third Party Plaintiff, 4221 Atlantic AveBrooklyn, New York

-against-The basis of venue is

John Fasone, Yonatan Levoritz, Victor Katkalov, KINGS COUNTY the County in which theCHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION UNIT, Elena Svenson, cause of action arose

Third Party Defendants.

To the above named defendants:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to appear in the Civil Court of the City of New

York, County of Kings at the office of the Clerk of the said Court at 141 Livingston Street,

Brooklyn, New York, in the County of Kings, City and State of New York, within the time

provided by law as noted below and to file your answer in this action with the Clerk; upon your

failure to answer, judgment will be taken against you for the sum over $1,000,000.00 with interest,

together with the costs of this action.

Dated: Brooklyn, New YorkFebruary 25,2014

Michael Krichevsky, Pro SeAttorneys for Defendant4221 Atlantic AveBrooklyn, New York 11224(718)687-2300

THE SYSTEM ISN'TNOTE^ela.providestot BROKEN, IT'S "FIXED"

www.MoveToAmend.org

(a) If this summons is served by its delivery to you personally within the City of New York,

you must answer within TWENTY days after such service; or

(b) If this summons is served by delivery to any person other than, you personally, or is

served outside the City of New York, or by publication, or by any means other than personal

delivery to you within the City of New York, you are allowed THIRTY days after the proof of

service thereof is filed with, the Clerk of this Court within which to appear and answer.

CONSUMER CREDIT TRANSACTIONIMPORTANT I! YOU ARE BEING SUED I!

File # K103458

THIS IS A COURT PAPER - A SUMMONS. DON'T THROW IT.AWAY 1! TALK TO ALAWYER RIGHT AWAY! ! PART OF YOUR PAY CAN BE TAKEN FROM YOU(GARNISHEED) IF YOU DO NOT BRI1JG THIS TO COURT, OR SEE A LAWYER,YOUR PROPERTY CAN BE TAKEN AND [YOUR CREDIT RATING CAN BE HURT! ! YOUMAY HAVE TO PAY OTHER COSTS TOCJ! ! IF YOU CAN'T PAY FOR YOUR OWNLAWYER, BRING THESE PAPERS TO THIS COURT RIGHT AWAY. THE CLERK(PERSONAL APPEARANCE) WILL HELP YOU!!

j

CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW ;YORK - COUNTY OF KINGS^ j

NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES/ INC.Plaintiff, I Index No.

-against- SUMMONS

MIKHAIL KRICHEVSKY

/3

Defendant(s)

Defendant's Residence Address: i120 OCEANA DR W APT 5D jBROOKLYN, NY 112356661 j

To the above named defendant (s);:

Plaintiff's Residence Address110 SOUTH JEFFERSON ROAD SUITE 104WHIPPANY NJ 07981The Basis of this venuedesignated is:Defendant's residence

¥L §S the Civil Court of the City of NewYork , COUNTY OF KINGS , at the; office of the clerk of the said Courtat 141 LIVINGSTON ST in the COUNTY OF KINGS , City and State of NewYork within the time provided by law as noted below and to file youranswer to the annexed complaint1 with the clerk; upon your failure toanswer, judgment will be taken against you for the sum of $3,081.17with interest on the sum of $3,1081.17 from 09/04/13 together with thecosts of this action.Dated: 09/11/13 PRESSLER and PRESSLER, 'LLP

Attorneys for PlaintiffBy|:S/Mitchell E. Zipkin

Mitchell E. Zipkin , Esq.305 Broadway 9th Floor '

! New York, NY 10007'i (516)222-7929

Note the law provides that: ja) If this summons is served by! its delivery to you personally withinthe City of New York, you must appear .£aadv answer within TWENTY DAYSafter such service; orb) If this summons is served by its delivery to any person other titan,you personally, or is served outside the City of New York, or bypublication, or by any means other than personal delivery -to you withinthe City of New York, you are allowed THIRTY DAYS after the proof ofservice thereof is filed with the Clerk of this Court within which toappear and answer.

r T File # K103458TRANSACCION DE CRBDITO DEL CONSUMIDOR1IMPORTANTE1 UD. HA SIDO DEMANDADOi

ESTE ES'UN DOCUMENTO LEGAL - - UNA CITACION !NO LA BOTE1 CONSULTECON SU ABOGADO ENSEGDTDA! LE PUEDEN QUITAR PARTE DE SU SALARIO(EMBARGARLO) . SI UD. NO SE PRESENTA EN LA CORTE CON ESTA CITACIONLE PUEDEN CONFISCAR SUS BIENES (PROPIEDAD) Y PERJUDICAR SU CREDITO11TAMBIEN ES POSIBLE QUE. TENGA QUE PAGAR OTROS GASTOS LEGALES(COSTAS) ! SI UD. NO TIENE DINERO PARA UN ABOGADO TRAIGA ESTOSPAPELES A LA CORTE IMMEDIATAMENTE. VENGA EN PERSONA Y EL SECRETARIODE LA CORTE LE AYUDARA.

CORTE CIVIL DB LA CIDDAD DB NUEVA YORK - CONDADO DE KINGS

NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES,INC.

Demandante, No. del Epigrafe.-Vs- - CITACION

Direccion del Demandante:MIKHAIL KRICHEVSKY

110 SOUTH JEFFERSON ROAD SUITE 104WHIPPANY NJ 07981

Demandado(s) La razon de haber designadoesta Corte es:La Residencia del demandado

Residencia del Demandado(s)12 0 OCEANA DR W APT 5D _ ....BRQOEI>YH7-- -i?l-235 grei==;=:r

Al demandado(s) arriba mencionado(s) :

USTED ESTA CITADO a' comparacer en la Corte Civil de la Cuidad de NuevaYork, Condado de KINGS a la oficina del jefe Principal de dicha Corte en141 LIVINGSTON ST en el Condado de KINGS , Ciudad y Estado de NuevaYork, dentro del tiempo provisto por la ley segun lo indicado abajo y apresentar_su respuesta a la demanda al Jefe de la Corte; si listed nocomparece a contestar, se rendira sentencia contra usted en la suma de$3,081.17 con intereses sobre $3,081.17 en dicha cantidad desde el dia de09/04/13 / incluyendo las costas de esta causa.

Fechado, el dia'de: 09/11/13 PRESSLER and PRESSLER, LLPAbogado(s) del Demandante

Por:S/Mitchell E. ZipkinMitchell E. Zipkin , Esq.305 Broadway 9th FloorNew York, NY 10007

(516)222-7923NOTA: La ley provee gue:(a) Si esta citacion es entregada a listed personalmente en la Ciudadde Nueva York, usted debe comparecer y responder dentro de VEINTE diasdespues de la entrega; o(b) Si esta citacion es entregada a otra persona que no fuera ustedpersonalmente, o si fuera entregada afuera de la Ciudad de Nueva York,o por medio de publicacion, o por otros medios que no fueran entregapersonal a usted en la Ciudad de Nueva York, usted tiene TREINTA diaspara comparecer y responder la demanda, despues de haberse presentadoprueba de entrega de la citacion al Jefe de esta Corte.

File # K103458CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK - COUNTY OF KINGS

NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES,INC.

Plaintiff(s) Index No.-against- COMPLAINT

MIKHAIL KRICHEVSKYDefendant(s)

Plaintiff by its attorney, Pressler and Pressler, LLPcomplaining of the defendant(s) respectfully alleges uponinformation and belief as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION1. Plaintiff, NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., is a

corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of NJand having taken assignment of is owner of CITIBANK, NAaccount number 5410658412089706 and is a debt collectionagency licensed by the New York City Department of ConsumerAffairs license No. 1283973 and is authorized to dobusiness in the State of New York .

2. Defendant(s) resides within the jurisdictional limits ofthis court.

3. The defendant (s) entered into a credit card agreementaccount number 5410658412089706 with CITIBANK, NA whereindefendant(s) agreed to pay CITIBANK, NA all amounts chargedto said account by the authorized_use thereof. - • •

_^_ TJae..- a eeffie3s?b= eot3rta=±irtng "~Ehe 'terms and conditions governingthe use of the charge account, including terms of paymentwas issued to defendant(s}.

5. Thereafter defendant(s) incurred charges by use of the saidaccount in the sum of $3,081.17 .

6. There is now due and owing the plaintiff , as the assigneeof the account from the defendant(s) the agreed sum of$3,081.17 .

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION7. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and reiterates each and every

allegation contained in paragraphs 1-6 as if set forth atlength.

8. Plaintiff's predecessor in interest mailed monthlystatements required by the agreement to the def endant (s)thereby rendering a full just and true account of allunpaid amounts charged by the defendant(s) which are dueand owing, and defendant(s) received, accepted and retainedsame without objection.

9. By reason of tne aforementioned, an account stated wastaken and had between the plaintiff's predecessor ininterest and defendant(s) for the agreed total balance of$3,081.17 .

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant(s) onthe first cause of action for the sum of $3,081.17 plus costsand disbursements of this action and for such further and otherrelief as the Court deems just and proper and on the secondcause of action for the sum of $3,081.17 plus costs anddisbursements of this action and for such further and otherrelief as the Court deems just and proper.

PRESSLER and PRESSLER, LLP305 Broadway 9th FloorNew York, NY 10007(516)222-7929

PRESSLER and PRESSLER, LLPAttorneys for Plaintiff

By: Mitchell E. ZipkinMitchell E. Zipkin , Esq.

THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR. THIS IS AN ATTEMPTTO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FORTHAT PURPOSE.

CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF KINGS

NEW CENTURY FINANTIAL SERVICES, INC., INDEX NO. 056717/13Plaintiff,

-against-Michael Krichevsky,

Defendant.

Michael Krichevsky,Third Party Plaintiff,-against-

John Fasone Esq, Yonatan Levoritz Esq, Victor Katkalov, KINGSCOUNTY CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION UNIT, ElenaSvenson, John Doe 1-100 unidentified persons of court and unit

Third Party Defendants.

ANSWER AND THIRD PARTY COMPLAINTTRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

The defendant Michael Krichevsky (Krichevsky), Pro Se, under penalty of perjury for his

Answer to Complaint, respectfully avers:

1. Admits If 2.

2. Denies allegations in fflf 6 and 9 and demands strict proof.

3. Lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the accuracy, truth or

falsity of the allegations in fflj 3, 4, 5, 8, and demands strict proof. Krichevsky recalls,

however, having a credit card from Citibank in 2008.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

4. Krichevsky incorporates averments above by reference herein.

5. Plaintiff does not have standing to sue Krichevsky because, inter alia, it is not a real party

in interest.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE


7. Plaintiffs alleged predecessor intentionally breached the contract with Krichevsky and,

therefore, has unclean hands.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE


9. Alternatively, Plaintiffs alleged predecessor negligently breached the contract with

Krichevsky and, therefore, comparatively at fault.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE


11. If the court finds in plaintiffs favor and that Krichevsky defaulted on this contract — it was

beyond Krichevsky1 s control and solely due to the 3rd party defendants' tortuous

interference with said contract as will be detailed in Krichevsky's 3rd party complaint

below.

12. Krichevsky used said credit card for the benefit of the whole family. Accordingly, Elena

Svenson should indemnify Krichevsky because she tortuously interfered with said

contract.

THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT

Michael Krichevsky (Krichevsky), Pro Se, under penalty of perjury for his Third-party Complaint

demands trial by jury and respectfully avers:

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

If we desire respect for the law, then we must first make the law respectable."

L. Brandeis, Other People's Money (National Home Library Foundation ed. 1933).

"The America once extolled as the voice of liberty heard around the world no longer is cast in theimage which Jefferson and Madison designed, but more in the Russian image."

Chief Justice Douglas, Laird v. Tatom, 408 U.S. 1 (1972)

We live in the age of scandals, frauds and swindles. This is self-evidenced by unprecedented

economical crisis in the history of America, which they caused. New York State is broke, needs

money - and billions of it. In the search for money, government employees find very lucrative way

to obtain it - by pegging the State to the federal government's Social Security title IY-D finding -

taxpayer's money. The official goal of funding is to enforce and collect child support from fathers

and mothers that do not want to pay it. As every tree has a few bad apples - there are bad fathers

and mothers too - but not most of them, contrary to defendants' false presumptions needed to

obtain billions of dollars from collection business against all of people. Accordingly, New York

State government's employees decide to sacrifice lives of all families for "the sake of greater good

and to protect women" - a doublethink, which term defined below. Statistics show that in America,

we have 50% divorce rate because the government's employees whose duties are to protect peace

and harmony in families become predators by forcing parents into gladiator like fights - and

families become their prey. It is axiomatic that mere is no money in peace and harmony for

bureaucrats and lawyers who thrive only on conflicts. Further, child support courts together with

child support collection units (CSCU) create "customers" who judges would adjudicate and child

support enforcement employees would persecute to justify their offices, jobs and pensions.

Krichevsky's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were shattered by corrupt defendants, who took

the oath of office to uphold and protect people's rights in accordance with constitutions of United

States and State of New York. Taking the oath was condition precedent in order to obtain their law

licenses and jobs as public officials -to do the job right for wages and compensations. Here is how

the whole scheme of frauds and swindles works:

when the woman goes to Family Court, she drags the whole family into the twilight zone described

by George Orwell in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). Here is the definition of

dystopia taken from Wikipedia http://en.wi.kipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia:

"A dystopia is a community or society that is in some important way undesirable orfrightening. It is the opposite of a Utopia. Such societies appear in many artisticworks, particularly in stories set in a future. Dystopias are often characterized bydehumanization, totalitarian governments, environmental disaster, or othercharacteristics associated with a cataclysmic decline in society. Dystopian societiesappear in many sub-genres of fiction and are often used to draw attention toreal-world issues regarding society, environment, politics, economics, religion,psychology, ethics, science, and/or technology, which if unaddressed couldpotentially lead to such a dystopia-like condition."

In his novel, George Orwell coined the word doublethink (excerpts taken from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink), which described as:

"The power of holding two contradictor}' beliefs in one's mind simultaneously,and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing inthem, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when itbecomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it isneeded, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take accountof the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in usingthe word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the wordone admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink oneerases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead ofthe truth.""Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses themeaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g.,"downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing), in which case it isprimarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer tointentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning (for example,naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the natureof the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language""Some schools of psychotherapy such as cognitive therapy encourage people toalter their own thoughts as a way of treating different psychological maladies (seecognitive distortions."

Here are Orwellian doublethinks: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.

By the same token, here is doublethink created by Family Court judges and lawyers — Indigence is

Wealth - that practiced on Krichevsky in addition to doubles-links mentioned above. Using

Orwellian doublethink "to deny the existence of objective reality," the government employees

created the following unjust, false and undisclosed legal presumptions, which used against men in

Family Courts:

a. all men are bad fathers and violent;b. all women are good mothers and victims of menc. men always have moneyd. women are always poore. men are liarsf. women are truth tellers

Additionally, doublethink permits judges to become dictators and suspend Constitutions, New

York Civil Practice Law and Rules, Rules of Evidence, ethics rules, the rules of professional

conduct for attorneys, as well as the rules of judicial conduct - and legislate their own rules at will

without notifying parties during the court proceedings.

Judiciary is the third branch of government. However, mere are no checks and balances, and

because of this, New York State Judiciary and especially Family Courts are in a state of anarchy,

disdain and disrepute. This is self-evidenced by the fact that New York State Governor Cuomo

created commission to investigate public corruption in government and restore public trust. It is

done under the "Moreland Act and Executive Law Section 63(8) to probe systemic corruption and

the appearance of such corruption in state government, political campaigns and elections in New

York State" (details at http://publiccorruption.moreland.ny.gov).

Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge

PART 100. Judicial Conduct

Preamble:

The rules governing judicial conduct are rules of reason. They should be applied consistently with

constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules and decisional law and in the context of all

relevant circumstances.

Kings County Family Court and Child Support Collection Unit are in the state of anarchy and act

in the capacity of Privateers to impoverish parents of the State. Hearing officer John Fasone's

profit driven decisions and conduct during the course of litigation between Svenson and

Ktichevsky legislated Krichevsky out of his constitutional and statutory rights, to wit:

right to meaningful time and opportunity to be heard;right to face his accusers and cross-examine them;right to impeach his accusers;right to bring a witness in his defense;right not to be ambushed during a trial;right not to be rushed to judgment;right to conduct discovery and produce evidence;right to an appeal;right to petition government for redress of grievances;right to competent and unbiased tribunal.

14th amendment of constitution gives equal protection of the law to all people - only in theory -

but not in Kings County Family Court's reality. Nearly to be a man is punishable by slavery or

peonage.

If this lawlessness continuous unchecked somebody in America someday will repeat the

following:

"Kill three million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands." President YahyaKhan.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The third-party plaintiff, Michael Krichevsky (Krichevsky), at all times herein mentioned

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

2. The third-party defendant, Elena Svenson (Svenson), at all times herein mentioned was

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

3. At all relevant times mentioned herein, all defendants did and are conducting trade or

commerce in the County of Kings and the State of New York.

4. At all relevant times mentioned herein all defendants committed torts and crimes against

Krichevsky and his property in the County of Kings and the State of New York.

5. The amount in controversy exceeds $1,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

PARTIES

6. Krichevsky - self-governed law-abiding man - taxpayer. He was gainfully employed from

1988 until 2010. He lost his federally protected job due to corruption and torts committed by all

defendants in concert,

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ' I ' m from thegovernment and I ' m here to help." Ronald Reagan

7. Svenson - was not gainfully employed between 1986 and 2010.

8. Svenson became Krichevsky's business partner and fiduciary when they in 1991 entered

into confidential relationship and started raising a child together. In 2000, they entered into

contract to buy a condominium unit and borrow money from a bank.

9. Since Svenson was in confidential and partnership relationship with Krichevsky, she owed

Krichevsky a fiduciary duty.

10. Any fiduciary owes a duty to partner or client of:

11. care,

12. loyalty,

13. duty to disclose; and

14. duty to act fairly; and

15. duty to account, and

16. duty of good faith and fair dealings.

17. During that whole length of relationship with Svenson, Krichevsky faithfully performed

his duties aid justifiably relied and depended on performance of these duties on Svenson's part.

However, she individually committed., hired and conspired with all other defendants to commit

several criminal acts and torts against Krichevsky, his property and interests.

18. JOHN FASONE (Fasone) is an attorney conducting a trade or commerce as New York

State public officer serving public. At all times mentioned herein, Fasone had and still has his

principal place of business located in County of Kings and the State of New York. As officer of the

court, he should be bonded by State of New York or personally.

19. The defendant, YON ATAN LEVORITZ, Esq. (Levoritz), at all times herein mentioned

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

20. Levoritz, at all tunes mentioned herein was and still is conducting a trade or commerce and

bonded by Zurich Insurance Company in the County of Kings and the State of New York.

21. The defendant, VIKTOR KATKALOV (Katkalov), at all times mentioned herein was and

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

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

times mentioned herein was and still is non-attorney business partner of Levoritz, Esq. and should

be bonded by Zurich Insurance Company.

23. Alternatively, Law office of Yonatan S. Levoritz P.C. is a "front" for Katkalov's illegal

activity. Levoritz revealed this concept acting as an expert witness during the child support

proceedings in Kings County Family Court against Krichevsky. In court, Levoritz testified on

behalf of his client Svenson that in Russian communities it happens that a lawyer used as a "front"

for the non-lawyer owner's illegal activity. Said allegations prompted Krichevsky to do own due

diligence and verify Levoritz' firsthand knowledge. Krichevsky's due diligence revealed that

Katkalov is Russian-speaking non-lawyer and that office located in a Russian community. Further,

Katkalov is acting as "runner" and brings Russian-speaking clients to English-speaking Levoritz

who they both "introduce" to their organized Family Court child support racketeering scheme.

Upon information and belief, mis is the way Svenson found her road to that office.

24. At all times mentioned herein, Law office of Yonatan S. Levoritz P.C. derived substantial

revenue from trade or commerce in the County of Kings and the State of New York.

25. Kings County Child support collection unit (CSCU) conducts a trade or commerce in the

County of Kings and the State of New York. CSCU employees in breach of their fiduciary duties

are engaged in robbery and plunder through conquest of its hypocritically called clients - men.

CSCU employees should be bonded by New York State or personally.

26. John Doe 1-100 unidentified tortfeasors of court and unit - fictitious names that

Krichevsky will add to the case after discovery.

COUNT I: TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CITIBANK CONTRACT


28. "Tortuous interference with contract requires the existence of a valid contract between the

plaintiff and a third party, defendant's knowledge of that contract, defendant's intentional

procurement of the third-party's breach of the contract without justification, actual breach of the

contract, and damages resulting therefrom" (Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 424

[1996])." Beecher v. Feldstein, 8 AD 3d 597 - NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. (2004)

29. At the time of the unlawful acts of Svenson, Krichevsky was a rightful party to a valid

contract with CITIBANK.

30. Svenson either knew of the existence or, with due diligence, should have known of the

existence of that contract. This is so because the credit card was used for years to her benefit too,

and she knew about its existence.

31. Additionally, on or about October 24, 2008 she stole Krichevsky's bills (including credit

card bills) and backup media, looted Krichevsky's apartment leaving the blackmail note to him. To

achieve her goal of extorting money from Krichevsky, Svenson attempted to blackmail him by

threatening to falsely report him and his employer to IRS and FBI, thereby making their life

miserable by being subjected to investigation and attorney's expenses. "I will drive you into

bankruptcy. I'm gonna lose, but you gonna lose much more" — she told Krichevsky.

32. Additionally, during child support proceedings Krichevsky notified all of the defendants

on the record that he has a credit card and that Svenson stole all of his bills - which Svenson

immediately did not deny.

33. In reply to said notice, Fasone condoned her conduct and commented " I don't care.. .let

him go to police."

34. While the fiduciary, Svenson thereafter filed ex parte false family offense petition in Kings

County Family Court and obtained a void for fraud upon the court order of protection. Same day in

10

the afternoon, she took parties son and both came to Krichevsky's employer demanding that

Krichevsky be fired. Additionally, Svenson slandered Krichevsky by telling his employer that 4 -

5 years ago Krichevsky was a partner in medical office making money behind his employer's

back. Even if which is not admitted, and only for the sake of argument, her slander was true - that

information was irrelevant to Krichevsky's employer and her order of protection. Her visit was

designed to damage Krichevsky's reputation in an attempt to get Krichevsky fired.

35. Thereafter, Svenson came with police to the residence of Krichevsky, but he was not home.

Next day, out of fear of been falsely arrested, Krichevsky fled from his home, abandoned it and

became homeless.

36. Krichevsky hired an attorney, paid him $5000 just to defend him during the false family

offense proceeding.

37. Before the hearing started Svenson's attorney Nachimovsky attempted to blackmail

Krichevsky to agree to $2500 in temporary child support monthly payments in order for Svenson

to withdraw family offense petition and begin mediation. Nachimovsky threatened Krichevsky

that Svenson would reveal in open court that Krichevsky allegedly was a partner in medical office

business.

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

hearing it became apparent that Svenson's allegations of fear of Krichevsky is false since she

immediately proceeded to Krichevsky's job to harass and anger him, and to provoke his violence.

39. Before the judge had an opportunity to rule on said petition, Svenson withdrew it and it was

dismissed.

40. After attorney Nachimovsky resigned from the case due to the conflict of interest, Svenson

11

hired Levoritz to act in the capacity of contractual assassin to destroy Krichevsky financially. He

succeeded by fraud upon the court. He deliberately slandered Krichevsky and falsely testified as

unsworn expert witness - knowing that he would not be cross-examined under oath as to his

knowledge and evidence.

41. At all relevant times during the child support proceedings, Svenson and Levoritz caused

false and perjurious financial disclosure affidavits filed in court and falsely testified in court.

42. As a direct and proximate result of the above, the hearing resulted in unjust and void for

fraud upon the court order of support. This caused Krichevsky to work on appeal. That in turn,

coupled with Krichevsky's employer harassment and Krichevsky's diminished performance at

work, prompted Krichevsky's employer to fire Krichevsky.

43. Thereafter, Krichevsky became unemployed with $405 per week payment from

unemployment insurance. Said payments were illegally intercepted by child support collection

unit living Krichevsky $150 per week.

44. Malicious, retaliatory and vexatious litigation conducted by Svenson impacted Krichevsky

fanatically, spiritually, caused stress, loss of memory and concentration. Because he abandoned

his residence, he was not receiving bills and was not paying on time. That in turn, procured

CITIBANK to terminate said contract with Krichevsky.

45. Svenson acted intentionally, as extortioner and out of spite.

46. She had neither legal nor social justification for her actions.

47. Nor such conduct had any reasonable justification or excuse.

48. Accordingly, Svenson intentionally procured CITIBANK to break said contract.

49. By reason of the forgoing Krichevsky was damaged, continue to be damaged and will be

12

damaged in the future.

COUNT II: TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT


51. Before child support litigation started, Krichevsky was a rightful party to a valid contract

with LEON CONTRACTION.

52. All of the defendants knew of the existence of said contract. In the same modus operand!

described above all defendants intentionally participated in harassment of Krichevsky and his

contractors through deposition and the records subpoenas issued by Levoritz.

53. Unidentified woman started making pictures of the construction site and made a shot of

general contractor without his permission.

54. Out of fear of been drugged in costly litigation between Krichevsky and Svenson, and

because of Krichevsky's loss of the job, general contractor terminated contract. Accordingly,

defendants tortuously procured breach of contract.

55. As direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Krichevsky's renovation project failed - it

is incomplete. By reason of the forgoing Krichevsky was damaged, continue to be damaged and

will be damaged in the future.

COUNT III: AID AND ABET TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTS


63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees

63 C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247 "As expressed otherwise, the powersdelegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised on behalf ofthe government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.

[1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch andwhatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people,

13

and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trusteesrelative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts.

[2] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whosebehalf he or she serves.

[3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public.

[4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than thoseof a private individual.

[5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official whotends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights isagainst public policy. Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit-and mis is one of themeanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute.

See United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Girl 985) includes the deliberate concealmentof material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary towardthe public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him and if hedeliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. McNally v UnitedStates 483 U.S. 350 (1987)

officer of the court

"any person who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicialsystem, including judges, the attorneys who appear in court, bailiffs, clerks, and other personnel.As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth, includingavoiding dishonesty or evasion about reasons the attorney or his/her client is not appearing, thelocation of documents and other matters related to conduct of the courts."

57. Svenson, under pretense of seeking to protect the best interest of the child, started extortion

by legal war and hired attorneys-bullies Nachimovsky, Biancanello and Levoritz to commit,

advice, aid and abet her in all further stated acts and criminal activities in order to gain financially

and harm Krichevsky.

"A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than thousand men with guns" -Done Vito Corleone, The Godfather

58. All of the defendants either knew of the existence or, with due diligence, should have

14

known of the existence of said contracts.

59. Levoritz knowingly and willingly accepted employment while he knew that Svenson's

goals to destroy Krichevsky financially are unethical, unlawful and go against the best interest of

the child that he hired to protect.

60. Katkalov knowingly and willingly accepted employment while he knew that Svenson's

goals to destroy Krichevsky financially are unethical, unlawful and go against the best interest of

the child that his partner hired to protect.

61. Levoritz and Katkalov knew, or with due diligence, should have known that Svenson is

lying to them about Krichevsky. That her goals are to extort money and vindicate against

Krichevsky.

62. For starters, from the record of false family offense proceedings, they should have known

and infer mat Svenson is liar, extortionist and motivated by spite.

63. Additionally, they had a duty to contact in good faith Krichevsky's attorney and attempt

negotiation or mediation, and conduct litigation as last resort.

64. Krichevsky offered Svenson mediation at least 6 months before the Family Court's

litigation.

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

financial information and followed Fasone's order to depose Krichevsky.

"There is no system ever devised by mankind that is guaranteed to rip husband and wife orfather, mother and child apart so bitterly than our present Family Court System."

Judge Brian LindsayRetired Supreme Court JudgeNew York, New York

"There is something bad happening to our children in family courts today that is causing

15

them more harm than drags, more harm than crime, and even more harm than childmolestation."

Judge Watson L. WhiteSuperior Court JudgeCobb County, Georgia

66. However, Defendant's fiduciary duties to Krichevsky's family came in conflict with their

own financial interests and self-dealing. They knew or should have known that there will be more

profit for them if they conduct litigation as opposed to negotiation or mediation of controversy.

67. To fuel the fire of litigation, they pretended that Svenson is credible, therefore, the is no

need to do their own due diligence to verify her lies. To justify the cause of litigation they needed

to demonize Krichevsky in order to get on the high horse with the sword of Justice. To demonize

Krichevsky, they came up with defamation and false allegations that Krichevsky uncooperative,

unwilling to pay child support and is hiding his income - hence we need discovery. However, as it

turned later out, discovery is what they didn't want to do because discovery would rebut and

expose their own false and frivolous allegations.

"The days when an attorney's word or even a handshake were good are longgone. The practice of law has become a childish game of who can fool thecourt the longest based on fabricating facts and misrepresenting the law.Now attorneys' stooping so low to testify for the very clients they representby their own conclusory hearsay makes the practice of law just junk." "Thereis no evidence ... except for the attorney trying to win the case for his ...client saying so because, . . .ummm, embarrassingly, because he is an attorneyso we should believe whatever he says to the events that he never was presentat, was never a party to and he has absolutely no personal knowledge about."Susan Ghana Lask, Esq.

68. Levoritz or Katkalov, or both created, substantially assisted, aided and abetted Svenson in

creation and filing of false, fraudulent, perjurious and misleading financial disclosure affidavits

under penalty of perjury in child support proceeding of Brooklyn Family Court.

69. Levoritz or Katkalov, or both coached Svenson how to testify falsely in court.

16

70. Misleading, perjurious written affirmations and testimony of Levoritz resulted in unfair

and void for fraud upon the court child support order against Krichevsky.

71. After Krichevsky was fired from his job in 2010, Krichevsky filed petitions for

modification of child support order and petition for custody and visitation. In retaliatory fashion,

S venson, Levoritz and Katkalov harassed Krichevsky and tempered with him as a witness by filing

frivolous and false contempt petition in Family Court.

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

petition.

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

unopposed and should have been granted by Fasone - but hearing was adjourned for six month and

dismissed - instead of granted by default.

74. The contempt petition was served on Krichevsky in the hall of family court, just before the

first hearing of custody and visitation petition. After that hearing, Levoritz approached Krichevsky

in the hall of Family Court and offered to withdraw Krichevsky's custody and visitation petition,

sign consent judgment to the void child support order in exchange for his withdrawal of contempt

petition.

75. In order to file a contempt petition in Family Court, they had to have Probable Cause that

Krichevsky is in immediate possession of the Job or of the Funds, but Willfully does not comply

with Lawful order.

76. Krichevsky treated such offer as extortion - and refused to give in.

77. Due to the foregoing, Levoritz and Katkalov violated New York criminal law, New York

CPLR and New York Rules of Professional Responsibility - LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS.

17

They participated in unethical and illegal activity instead of withdrawing from such representation.

78. Levoritz and Katkalov conspired with Fasone to violate New York criminal law, New

York CPLR, New York Rules of Professional Conduct and New York Rules of Judicial Conduct

by rigging the child support and contempt proceedings against Krichevsky.

79. At the end of evidentiary hearing on January 6, 2010, Fasone adjourned the hearing and

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

envelope is to notify Krichevsky of the date, which Fasone impliedly would schedule in the future.

However, Fasone held a hearing on February 3, 2010 in the absence of Krichevsky and Svenson

and created a void child support order. The order says that neither Krichevsky, no Svenson is

appearing — but that was intended to happen since Fasone did not notify anybody.

80. After Krichevsky was served with contempt petition, Fasone scheduled first hearing on

July 13, 2010. Krichevsky filed cross-motion for sanctions for frivolous litigation. When

Krichevsky came to Levoritz' office with his friend who served said motion, Katkalov in sarcastic

and torturous manner said "make sure that you gonna be tomorrow at the hearing on time." In the

morning of said hearing, Levoritz and Svenson did not appear at 9:00 AM and send substitute

attorney at 11:00 AM, who asked Krichevsky for an adjournment. Krichevsky and his friend were

outraged by such conduct - not calling Krichevsky in advance to ask for an adjournment. At about

1:00 PM, Levoritz and Svenson appeared. Levoritz, on the record brazenly lied to Krichevsky's

face that he called Krichevsky and asked for an adjournment. When Fasone asked why then

Svenson did not appear at 9:00 AM, Levoritz brazenly lied that there was miscommunication

between him and Katkalov, who by mistake did not notify Svenson. Upon information and belief,

the hearing was adjourned to give a chance to Fasone and Levoritz to figure out what to do with

18

Krichevsky's motion.

81. Upon circumstantial evidence and facts derived from entire record, Levoritz and Fasone

had ex parte communications and acted in concert. Krichevsky believes that Fasone told Levoritz

to never reply to motion for sanctions and Levoritz was in default. However, Fasone during the

next hearing on the record told Krichevsky that he would treat the motion for sanctions as

Krichevsky's answer to contempt petition. That being the case, Krichevsky's motion for sanctions

became an answer with counter and cross-claim that needed reply within 20 days. Levoritz never

replied - was in default - and Fasone never wondered why.

82. Thereafter, Fasone without aiy hearing falsified records by making an order dismissing

Krichevsky's motion for sanctions, which he silently tossed in the court's case jacket.

83. In this denial, Fasone wrote that there was a hearing and that Krichevsky was heard.

84. To make matters worse, Fasone's denial was never served on Krichevsky or otherwise

Krichevsky was timely notified of that decision. Later, going through court's file Krichevsky

discovered Fasone's denial's, which shocked his conscience because he never heard of sua sponte

dismissal of answer or counter and cross-claim without the hearing. Krichevsky immediately

realized that defendants conspired to falsify the record and jail him because Krichevsky would

never get a fair trial with Fasone, who refused to recuse himself. Immediately thereafter,

Krichevsky filed his answer to contempt petition and served discovery demands. Katkalov

brazenly refused to provide any discovery.

85. During the course of this litigation, Levoritz was in contempt of court by disobeying

Fasone's order not to serve subpoenas on third parties. He was allowed by Fasone to serve

subpoenas only on banks and after Krichevsky's deposition.

19

86. Levoritz refused to depose Krichevsky, but served deposition subpoenas on Krichevsky's

contractor and engineer and refused to produce Svenson for deposition per Fasone's order.

87. Circumstantial evidence and facts derived from the entire record, shows that after Fasone

ex parte communicated with Levoritz regarding refusal to conduct depositions of parties, Fasone

legislated knew rule that discovery is not necessary, while revoking his old one proscribing

discovery.

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

deliberately on several occasions during hearings misquoted Fasone and Krichevsky in order to

mislead the court and falsify its audio record.

89. For example, Levoritz testified as unsworn witness that because of Krichevsky's illegal

machinations Svenson was left with $300,000 debt to IRS, while his file contained a letter from

IRS indicating that Svenson owed around hundred thousand dollars. Further, the evidence showed

that Svenson filed her personal income tax in 2000 or 2001 with IRS, but failed to pay the full

amount of the debt owed to IRS even though the money was available. Levoritz deliberately

disregarded this fact and testified in court that Svenson never filed her personal income tax return

and was always Krichevsky's dependent.

90. Circumstantial evidence and facts derived from the entire record, shows that Levoritz was

engaged in a pattern of deliberately misleading testimony and arguments; pattern of misquoting

the court, Krichevsky and documentary evidence. These acts were not justified.

91. Deliberately corrupt and unethical actions of Levoritz resulted in plaintiff s loss of j ob,

income and money. That, coupled with unjustified deposition subpoena and harassment of

Krichevsky's contractors resulted in contactor's breach of contract with Krichevsky and failure of

20

renovation project on 4221 Atlantic Avenue house.

92. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Krichevsky was damaged, continue to be

damaged and will be damaged in the future.

COUNT IV: AID AND ABET BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY


94. Corpus Juris Secundum (CIS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client:

The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, andwherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of thecourt in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.

There was fiduciary relationship between Svenson and Krichevsky as business partners, who were

fiduciaries themselves as parents of their child.

95. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that there was a fiduciary relationship

between Krichevsky and Svenson.

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

care and loyalty to Krichevsky as her business partner, father of her son and income producer.

97. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that by Svenson's tortuous interference

with Krichevsky's job, CITIBANK' contract, aid Krichevsky's contractors she is breaching her

duty of care and loyalty to her own son and Krichevsky.

98. Fasone and Levoritz knew or, with due diligence, should have known that Svenson using

them and court system to extort money and vindicate against Krichevsky.

99. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that they fiduciaries themselves as

officers of the court who hold their offices in public trust.

100. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that their own fiduciary duties of care and

21

loyalty applicable to the whole family.

101. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that Svenson's unlawful conducts of

extortion and harassment of Krichevsky and his employer are adverse to the child's interests,

which they proclaimed they so zealously must protect.

102. Fasone and Levoritz breached their fiduciary duties described in 23 — 28 toward

Krichevsky.

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

Court proceedings in that Fasone did not disclose to Krichevsky that Fasone personally profits

from the unjust outcome of the case and perpetual litigation.

104. Fasone and Levoritz failed to disclose to Krichevsky that Fasone follows New York State

secret rule, custom or policy to ensnare men in the web of debt and litigation. That Krichevsky is

destined to be placed in the "deadbeat father list," using which the State receives billions of dollars

of taxpayer's money from federal government. Fasone and Levoritz failed to disclose mat

Krichevsky will be harassed, persecuted and falsely imprisoned for profit by an army of state

bureaucratic employees - Child Support Collection Unit.

105. Fasone failed to disclose to Krichevsky that he would attempt to incarcerate Krichevsky

because New York City jail receives approximately $137,000 a year in profit per prisoner of

taxpayer's money.

106. Fasone failed to disclose to Krichevsky that such scam Mill utilize Social Security law -

title IV—D federal funding.

107. Fasone failed to disclose to Krichevsky that in Family Court Krichevsky will be presumed

guilty of crime that lacks Corpus Delicti - contrary to the Constitutions of United States of

22

America and the State of New York.

Hewlett v. Rose, 496 US 356 - Supreme Court (1990) "Federal law is enforceable instate courts not because Congress has determined that federal courts wouldotherwise be burdened or that state courts might provide a more convenient forum— although both might well be true •—• but because the Constitution aid lawspassed pursuant to it are as much laws in the States as laws passed by the statelegislature. The Supremacy Clause makes those laws "the supreme Law of theLand," and charges state courts with a coordinate responsibility to enforce that lawaccording to their regular modes of procedure. "The laws of the United States arelaws in the several States, and just as much binding on the citizens and courtsthereof as the State laws are. The two together form one system of jurisprudence,which constitutes the law of the land for the State; and the courts of the twojurisdictions are not foreign to each other, nor to be treated by each other as such,but as courts of the same country, having jurisdiction partly different and partlyconcurrent." Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130,136-137 (1876); see Minneapolis& St. Louis R, Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S. 211, 222 (1916)

108. Fasone failed to disclose to Krichevsky that in Kings County Family Court there is no due

process of law. That this court secretly from Krichevsky assumes criminal jurisdiction and indict

him without a jury and without criminal rules of evidence. That in this court Krichevsky would

have fewer rights than a murderer in criminal court.

109. Fasone failed to disclose to Krichevsky that Fasone will rule by prescription and would

legislate the law and procedure as he goes along.

110. Fasone and Levoritz failed to disclose that when Krichevsky realizes that the case was

rigged against him and he will seek a remedy, they will hide behind absolute immunity.

111. If only Krichevsky knew all that, he would never participate in that fraudulent litigation

scheme.

112. In commerce, there is no immunity for criminal acts, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

113. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that by rigging the court proceedings

against Krichevsky, and hi favor of Svenson's unlawful goals, they are substantially assisting

23

Svenson in her breach of fiduciary duty toward her own son and Krichevsky.

114. Fasone and Levoritz knew if they perform their own fiduciary duties and faithfully follow

procedure, law and order of the court - Svenson would be unable to breach her duty of care and

loyalty to her own son and Krichevsky, and none would be harmed.

115. Fasone and Levoritz, as fiduciaries themselves toward Krichevsky - turned against him,

conspired with each other and participated in extortion.

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

continue to be damaged and will be damaged in the future. Krichevsky demands verdict that all of

the defendants jointly, severally and personally liable to him with damages determined at the time

of the trial, including interest, expenses and attorney's fees.

117. In addition, all of the defendants conspired and acted in conceit, unlawfully, maliciously,

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

determined at the time of the trial, including interest, expenses and attorney's fees.

118. Setting aside Svenson's hypocrisy regarding her love and care for the child, she hired

corrupt and malignant attorney Levoritz to vindicate and act as contractual assassin against

Krichevsky, his employer and Krichevsky's assets, which supposedly child inherits.

119. Without conduction of court ordered discovery and due diligence, Levoritz immediately

proceeded to malign Krichevsky and his employer as Svenson's unsworn fact witness in violation

of advocate - witness rule of NYRPC.

120. He refused to depose Krichevsky in violation of the court's order, and instead testified,

inter alia, that Krichevsky is evading taxes and hiding his income from the court and IRS.

121. Upon circumstantial evidence and informed belief, Levoritz had ex parte meetings and/or

24

conversation with hearing officer John Fasone by which they planned as to how to railroad

Krichevsky.

122. Mr. Levoritz during litigation in Family Court breached his fiduciary duty as officer of the

court to the court, to Krichevsky as a member of the public and to the child. He hypocritically

alleged that he is acting in the best interests of the child. However, his actions were malignant

toward the child because Levoritz, directed by Svenson or by his own spite, worked toward

Krichevsky being fired.

123. Even if, which is not admitted and only for the sake of argument, Levoritz believed in all

the horrible "crimes" that he accused Krichevsky was doing, he knew or should have known that

his testimony in that court will lead to termination of Krichevsky's employment.

124. He testified as an expert witness that Krichevsky and his emplo'yer conduct illegal business

activity, yet he demanded that the court order Krichevsky to pay high amount of child support

derived from such an illegal activity. In essence, he demanded that Krichevsky and his employer

were ordered by court to continue conduct of illegal business activity in order to derive high

income from such activity.

125. Even if, which is not admitted and only for the sake of argument, Levoritz believed in his

own testimony he knew or should have known that Krichevsky and his employer would be scared

of this exposure and would stop such illegal activity. Thus, his exposure would lead to

Krichevsky's termination of employment. Krichevsky's position without job and income is hardly

could be considered by honest and reasonable attorney as beneficial for the child that Krichevsky

supposed to support.

126. As concerted by Levoritz and Fasone, Fasone's final child support order essentially

25

ordered Krichevsky's employer to raise Krichevsky's pay, garnish it and send the garnishment to

Child Support Collection Unit. To end such harassment, employer fired Krichevsky.

127. In the contempt petition, Levoritz pretended that he has probable cause and information

that Krichevsky has assets and asked for incarceration. Incarcerated Krichevsky hardly could be

considered by honest and reasonable attorney as beneficial to the child that he represented.

128. In addition, Levoritz conspired with Fasone to incarcerate Krichevsky by denying

Krichevsky's due process and right to competent and unbiased tribunal.

129. He knew or should have known that there is no greater emotional stress to the man in his

50s than loss of the family, job and liberty through Government's tyranny. Due to this great

emotional distress inflicted upon Krichevsky by Svenson, Levoritz, Katkalov and Fasone,

Krichevsky suffered a stroke. Dead or disabled Krichevsky hardly could be considered by honest

and reasonable attorney as beneficial to the child's support that Krichevsky supposed to provide.

130. Given the fact mat whole Levoritz's testimony was false, deliberately misleading,

malignant, slanderous and lacked evidence, Levoritz committed torts against the child and

Krichevsky, which he called representation of the best interest of the child.

131. Personal interests of defendants came into conflict with best interests of the child that they

must zealously represent. Levoritz and Katkalov should have declined to follow Svenson's

extortions and vindictive directives or declined whole representation per New York rales of

Professional Conduct.

132. Alternatively, Levoritz is mentally unstable attorney who caused harm to the child and

Krichevsky. Whichever is true — the so-called zealous representation of best interest of the child

resulted in damage to child, Svenson and Krichevsky.

26

133. In fact, petition to hold Krichevsky in contempt of court was regretfully dismissed by Mr.

Fasone for lack of evidence, which fact is cause of action for malicious prosecution.

134. Reasonable and honest attorney would call such representation - legal malpractice - and

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

COUNT V: PERJURY BY SVENSON


136. Svenson deliberately made under oath, and

137. deliberately allowed her attorney, Levoritz,

138. to make false and deliberately misleading statements to the court.

139. Svenson deliberately signed, and

140. deliberately allowed her attorney, Levoritz,

141. to produce, notarize and file in Family Court false and fraudulent financial disclosure

affidavits.

142. New York criminal statutes relating to false filings and perjury exist to protect people and

the judiciary from fraud.

143. §210.05 states: A person is guilty of perjury in the third degree when he swears falsely.

144. §210.35 states: A person is guilty of making an apparently sworn false statement in the

second degree when (a) he subscribes a written instrument knowing that it contains a statement

which is in fact false and which he does not believe to be true, and (b) he intends or believes that

such instrument will be uttered or delivered with a jurat affixed thereto, and (c) such instrument is

uttered or delivered with a jurat affixed thereto.

145. §175.35 states: A person is guilty of offering a false instalment for filing in the first degree

27

when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, and with

intent to defraud, inter alia, public authority ..., he offers or presents it to a public office, public

servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise

become a part of the records of such public office, public servant, public authority ...

146. § 175.3 0 States: A person is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the second

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

offers or presents it to a public office or public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be

filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office

or public servant.

147. Svenson's family offence petition, financial disclosure affidavits and sworn testimony

during hearings are full of false, fraudulent and deliberately misleading statements that harmed

Krichevsky. For example, she testified in court mat she is going to medical school to become a

nurse in 2012 in order to earn more income to support her child. However, immediately after

obtaining void child support order she went to work as home attendant.

148. Recently, during the deposition in Bankruptcy Court, Svenson admitted that her mother

had a casino in Germany. She also admitted that her mother was bringing amounts in cash equal to

less than $10,000. Thereafter, Svenson would deposit this money into bank accounts and send

checks back to be cashed in Germany. In 2009 Family Court proceedings, she denied money

transfers and having any assets in Germany.

149. As the direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Krichevsky was damaged, continue to

be damaged, will be damaged in the future. Krichevsky demands verdict that Levoritz and

Svenson personally liable to him with exact amount of damages to be determined at the time of the

28

trial, including interest, expenses and attorney's fees.

150. In addition, Levoritz and Svenson acted in concert with others, unlawfully, maliciously,


determined at the time of the trial.

COUNT VI: EXTORTION, HARASSMENT AND CONCERTED ACTIONS


When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your lawsdon't protect you against them, but protect them against you.When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice.You may know that your society is doomed."Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", 1957

152. After numerous motions and failed attempts to appeal Fasone's void order, Krichevsky

succeeded and Fasone's final order of child support was set aside by supervising judge of Kings

County Family Court, Paula Hepner. She ordered and scheduled the new trial, and remanded this

case back to Fasone. As condition precedent to new trial, she ordered Fasone to rule on

respondent's motions, on which he previously refused to rule and make written decisions. She

specifically ordered Fasone to rule in writing on motion to recuse Fasone. In this order, she wrote

that thereafter Krichevsky would be able to appeal Fasone's orders to her. However, he, in

contempt of higher court, willfully refused to comply. Then he stated new trial without Krichevsky

present and again made same unjust and void order of child support.

153. A year ago, Krichevsky lost his unemployment insurance due to Sandy disaster.

154. Krichevsky filed timely petition to modify child support obligation.

155. During the scheduling hearing in Family Court, Fasone abandoned his bench and joined

Svenson as counsel by advising her to file petition for contempt even though as an advocate he

29

knows there is no probable cause for filing of contempt petition.

156. This Petition is a conspiracy between Svenson, Fasone and CSCU employees to criminally

extort money from Krichevsky.

157. Svenson, Fasone and CSCU acting in agreement between themselves and in concert,

created common scheme to participate and commit the following illegal and unlawful acts, or a

lawful acts in an unlawful manner:

158. fraud upon the Family Court,

159. fraud upon Department of Motor Vehicles,

160. fraud upon New York State Department of Taxation

161. fraud up on New York State Unemployment Department

162. extortion,

163. harassment.

164. Krichevsky is informed and verily believes that Fasone, as referee was/is profit-motivated,

biased and was/is undisclosed party himself to child support proceedings. Therefore, he was

disqualified and biased against Krichevsky. Fasone was biased toward Krichevsky particularly

based on Levoritz' slander and has animosity based on Krichevsky's national origin.

165. Krichevsky is informed and verily believes that in his case he was "labeled as moneyed

party" by Fasone, Levoritz and Katkalov to be railroaded for personal profit and gain.

166. Circumstantial evidence and facts derived from the entire record confirm that, Levoritz and

Svenson having this knowledge fed the fraud and perjury into the record of this case.

167. Krichevsky informed and believes, that Levoritz and Svenson knew and were confident

that Fasone would look the other way when it comes to Levoritz's and Svenson's witness and

30

evidence tampering, fraud and perjury as Fasone is eager to "nail" Krichevsky.

168. Krichevsky is confident that Svenson did not really pay Levoritz as much as $3 00 per hour

in cash to conduct frivolous motion practice and to serve pointless bank subpoenas without

Levoritz' assurance that Krichevsky will pay her for been harassed and churning of legal fees.

169. Svenson and Levoritz knew how much and where Krichevsky kept his money as she stole

all his personal records (going back to 2002), including latest bank and credit cards statements, and

there was no point to serve subpoenas on every bank in New York and later ask that Krichevsky

pays the bill. Those subpoenas were served before Krichevsky had an opportunity to make any

disclosures to Levoritz. For a few hundred dollars, private investigator would have located every

bank where Krichevsky had money.

170. Svenson knew how much money Krichevsky had available and that Krichevsky had to

boiTOW money from his IRA account to start his real estate construction project.

171. Employees of CSCU were notified by Krichevsky, knew or should have known that said

child support order was void.

172. As a debt collectors and investigators of the State of New York, the employees of this

corporation were in possession, had an ability to obtain or should have obtained Krichevsky's

financial information evidencing his income and assets. If they did the foregoing, they would have

concluded that the child support order is unjust and Krichevsky is unable to comply with this

order.

173. Nazi Germany SS murderers "used an excuse "I was following my orders" during

Nuremberg's process of war crimes of the World War II. The court rejected such defense. At all

relevant times, Krichevsky called, wrote and visited CSCU office in an attempt to resolve the

31

injustice done by Fasone. The employees of this corporation acting in the modus operand! of "see

no evil - hear no evil - I'm following the orders" refused to discuss with Krichevsky anything, but

consent judgment under threat that they will restrict his driver license if Krichevsky does not sign

consent j udgment.

174. The ordinary concepts of not been able to pay for groceries and the every-day difficulties of

making ends meet while cleaning after Sandy disaster and looking for a job are simply beyond

their comprehension through ordinary experience.

175. Such Mafia-like attitude constitutes criminal extortion and Krichevsky refused to sign. As

a direct result of the above, unknown to Krichevsky employee falsely prepared paperwork and

submitted it to DMV accusing Krichevsky in failure to pay child support, which resulted in

Krichevsky's false imprisonment through restricted driver license

176. There was no hearing or evidence requested by them from Krichevsky that would allow

them to conclude that Krichevsky willfully not complying with the lawful child support order.

177. Fasone falsified facts contrary to evidence in his findings of fact in order to arrive at

intended result. This is self-evidenced by the fact that Fasone refused to review his orders for any

possible errors.

178. In Krichevsky's numerous post trial motions to set aside and/or modify Fasone's orders of

child support, Krichevsky pointed out to what he unconsciously believed at that time was

mathematical error in calculation of his child support amount.

179. Fasone's order directed Krichevsky to pay over $3000 per month in child support, while he

earned $4000 per months in gross income and had only $1700 available in cash. Krichevsky

argued that Fasone's order evidently was erroneous because it was impossible to comply with.

32

Krichevsky cited maxims of law - "no one is bound to impossibility" and "no one can give what he

doesn't have" - foundations of jurisprudence and logic.

180. As the direct and proximate result of the above, KRICHEVSKY was damaged, continue to

be damaged, will be damaged in the future. Krichevsky demands verdict that all defendants

personally liable to him with exact amount of damages to be determined at the time of the trial,

including interest, expenses and attorney's fees.

181. In addition, all defendants acted in concert with others, unlawfully, maliciously,


determined at the time of the trial.

WHEREFORE, Krichevsky demands:

a. declaratory judgment that he as an American tax payer is not a slave to public

servant John Fasone and his recusal refusal is unconstitutional;

b. declaratory judgment that his constitutional rights were violated in Kings County

Family Court by denial of due process

c. declaratory judgment that his Constitutional Right to bring a grievance before the

Court was violated in Kings County Family Court

d. award damages, punitive and treble damages to be determined at trial.

Dated: January 27, 2014Brooklyn, New York

Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se4221 Atlantic AveBrooklyn, New York 11224(718)687-2300tokrichevskyl @yahoo.com

33

new century complaint and third-party complaint against john m fasone, et al

Documents