Michael Krichevsky, Sui Juris

4221 Atlantic Ave.

Brooklyn, NY 11224
718-687-2300

May 19,2016

Judge Carolyn E. Wade

Kings County Supreme Court Certified RRR 52H6 ^11?
360 Adams Street, Part 84 r'Ui.b b:)ru
Brooklyn, NY 11201

CHARLES SANDERS
Attorney General of The State of New York
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271

Noah Nunberg
L'Abbate Balkan Colavita & Contini, LLP
1001 Franklin Avenue
Garden City, NY 11530

Re: KRICHEVSKY V. LEVORITZ, et al

INDEX#: 19478/13

Dear Judge Carolyn E. Wade:

This letter will serve as a public court record of the controversy that started on March 16,
2016 in part 66, which I will post on the internet as this matter is of great public interest and several
people requested and follow this matter through internet, as there is total media blackout. As a
brief introduction to this saga, I can tell you that I am 60 years old man and since 2008 am on the
treadmill of pursuit of Justice, which was and still is abstracted by Defendants, attorneys and
judges recused. Additionally, per 12 presumptions of the court (attached). Defendants
intentionally put me under condition of slavery and servitude, injured and bankrupted me; and
since 2010, SSA certified me as disabled man.
As you know, I refused to participate in private dealings in chambers of Judge Richard
Velasquez, which would not look like it is a public court - the court of record. In addition, I
suspected that state actors on that day, acting adversely toward me, attempted to lure me into
chambers and assault me there as I was similarly assaulted in Kings County Family court, by court
officers in conspiracy with judge William F. Perry. Here is a brief affidavit of that event. Exhibit
A. I also believe, that AAG Charles F. Sanders sanctioned this assault in retaliation during his
investigation of instant criminal acts against me since it was done during pendency of this
litigation.
Prior to controversy that started on March 16, 2016 in part 66,1 presented to Carol
Horwitz, law clerk, my AFFIDAVIT OF REBUTTAL OF THE TWELVE PRESUMPTIONS
OF COURT(now is part of the record) and caused copies of this affidavit to be personally served
on Charles F. Sanders and Noah Nunberg, unlawfully opposing attorneys. Needless to say, that
under such circumstances I would have no expectation of due process and fairness, and therefore,
will be waving my rights to due process and fairness talked in my AFFIDAVIT OF REBUTTAL
OF THE TWELVE PRESUMPTIONS OF COURT if 1 go in chambers. Evidently, I had a very
compelling reason not to go inside the chambers and asked Ms. Horvitz if she will personally
guarantee my safety and she declined, which I treated as an intention to assault me.

My expectations on that day were that I would introduce myselfto Judge Velasquez,
explain why Judges Bayne and Ash recused themselves and notify him that Noah Nunberg and his
law firm disqualified from this case by operation of law due to egregious conflict of interest
because I am their former client and they are my hostile witnesses in the instant case. As such,
everything that Mr. Nunberg and his firm filed in this case is nullity, unless or until my previously
ignored numerous motions to disqualify are heard by unbiased and competent tribunal and I lose.

As a side note, my AFFIDAVIT OF REBUTTAL OF THE TWELVE

PRESUMPTIONS OF COURT deals exactly with the situation I describe in this letter.

All ofthis prompted me to do my due diligence whetherjudge Velasquez is known violator

of Civil Rights and should not preside over my case. I was not surprised to learn about the case in
United States Court, Eastern District of New York called Moore v. Velasquez, Index No.
1:2015cv06877 that states that defendant is Judge Richard Velasquez. I asked in my letter to him if
he was a defendant. In reply, he recused himself.

On May 23,2016 a hearing scheduled in your part. Judge Wade. Because of the prior
judges' pattern of deliberate indifference in enforcing law and ethics in this case, as well as void
orders, I have so low expectation that the justice will be administered to me,that my expectation is
on the border with miracle. As such, 1 am forced to write this letter in order to create the record of
the following issues:
1. Since Judge Velasquez deliberately failed to address my AFFIDAVIT OF
REBUTTAL OF THE TWELVE PRESUMPTIONS OF COURT,I request that
you,judge Wade,do the job, since evidence shows Civil Practice Law and Rules,
judicial and attorney's ethics are not followed in my case. Instead, those presumptions
are used as form ofPrivate Practice Law and Rules as deception and tyranny against
me,to which I never consented or waived. Judge Velasquez' Silence - is acquiescence
that these 12 presumptions are in force against me. This would require recusal ofjudge.
2. If we can successfully get through ^1,1 would like to address the issue of
disqualification of Mr. Nunberg and his law firm due to egregious conflict of interest
and personal animosity that built between us by their personal insults and attacks
against me.
3. Mr. Sanders is not lawfully authorized to defend defendants for criminal acts and
intentional torts by embezzling taxpayer's money for his personal gain under color of
law and color of office.
4. Next issue, as I understand the law and procedure, the judge is not going to decide
adversary's motions to dismiss since I requested the trial by jury, which should decide
the law and facts. Both, Mr. Senders and Mr. Nunberg, are in contempt of the BAR'
 own rules and procedures, refused to certify that their motions are not frivolous per 22
NYCRR 130-1.1. which evidently by their action are frivolous. Accordingly. I cannot
be compelled to address defective or frivolous paperwork and have a right to treated it
as nullity. Mr. Sanders and Mr. Nunberg are expecting you to repeat violation of due
process and railroad mc. 1 suspect that you desire to cover up institutionalized judicial
corruption of your fraternity that caused my injury in fact. Would you. Judge Wade,
order them to come in compliance with law before 1 can be compelled to address their
motions to dismiss?
5. If any of my contentions are in error, 1 move the court for a hearing to set the law of the
case, which I would follow during a jury trial.
6. Finally, I move the court to schedule preliminary conference for discovery.

Please be advised, that your fiduciary duties as public officer, which you publicly hold that
you are. call for resolution of this controversy and administration ofjustice - not an appearance of
justice, with which priorjudges tried to bamboozle me. If you find that any one of my contentions
in this letter or attached affidavit is in error, please, rebut with proof so that 1 can analyze my
contentions. In the event that I do not get a reply, the following sets in by operation of law:

The common law doctrine of e.stoppel by acquiescence is applied when one party gives
legal notice to a second party of a fad or claim, and the second party fails to challenge or
refute that claim within a reasonable time. The second party is said to have acquiesced to
the claim, and is estopped from later challenging it, or making a counterclaim. The
doctrine is similar to, and often applied with, estoppel by laches.
' 5. No objection made. If one party presents his account to the other, and the latter
makes no objection, it may well be inferred that he is satisfied with and assents to it as
correct. So, if an account be made up and transmitted by one party to the other by mail,
and the latter keeps it for some considerable time without making any objection, he is
held to have acquiesced in it. Slenton v. Jerome, 54 N. (9 Sick.) 480.'' [Taken from A
Treatise Upon Some of(he General Principles ofthe Law written in A.D. 1877 by
William Wail.]

Truly yours.

Michael Krichevsky, Sui Juris

 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, INDEX NO. 19478/13

Plaintiff,

-against- Judge Carolyn E. Wade

YONATAN LEVORITZ, VICTOR KATKALOV,JOHN

FASONE,PAULA HEPNER,ROBERT RATANSKY, unknown
clerk of JOHN FASONE,ELENA SVENSON,
Defendants.

^^Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or
when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." U,S, v. Tweel,550
F.2d 297(1977).

AFFIDAVIT OF REBUTTAL OF THE TWELVE PRESUMPTIONS OF COURT

Common Law Definitions from Black's Law 9th Edition:

sui juris(s[Y)00-l or soo-ee joor-is). [Latin "of one's own right; independent" J (17c)
1. Of full age and capacity.
2. Possessing full social and civil rights.
3. Roman law. Of or relating to anyone of any age, male or female, not in the postestas of another,
and therefore capable of owning property and enjoying private law rights.

bribery, n. (16c) The corrupt payment, receipt, or solicitation of a private favor for official action. -
Bribery is a felony in mostjurisdictions. See Model Penal Code
240.1. Cf. KICKBACK.[Cases: Bribery: l.J bribe, v/>."If money has been corruptly paid and
corruptly received, for the purpose of influencing official action, do we have one crime of which two are
guilty, or two different crimes?
No uniform answer is possible under existing statutes. Under some of the provisions bribery is one
offense and references to (1) giving or offering a bribe, or(2)to receiving or soliciting a bribe, are merely
factual statements in regard to the guilt of one party or the other. Under another plan 'bribery' is employed
as a generic term to cover two different offenses:(1)giving or offering a bribe, and (2)receiving or
soliciting a bribe. A third plan uses the word 'bribery' to indicate the offense ofthe briber and 'receiving a
bribe' for the other side of the transaction." Rollin M. Perkins & Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law 537(3d
ed,1982).

Barratry (bar-;J-tree or hair-), n. (I5c) Vexatious incitement to litigation, esp. by soliciting

potential legal clients. Barratry is a crime in most jurisdictions. A person who is hired by a lawyer to
solicit business is called a capper. See CAPPER (1). [Cases: Champerty and Maintenance ~4(.5), 5(.5),9.]
2. Maritime law. Fraudulent or grossly negligent conduct(by a master or crew)that is prejudicial to
a ship-owner.[Cases: Seamen~14; Shipping~61.J "[SJailing out of port in violation of an embargo, or
without paying the port duties, or to go out of the regular course upon a smuggling expedition, or to be
engaged in smuggling against the consent of the owner, are all ofthem acts of barratry, equally with more
palpable and direct acts of violence and fraud, for they are willful breaches of duty by the master. It
makes no difference in the reason ofthe thing, whether the injury the owner suffers be owing to an act of
the master, induced by motives of advantage to himself, or of malice to the owner, or a disregard of those
laws which it was the master's duty to obey, and which the owner relied upon him to observe. It is, in
either case, equally barratry." 3 James Kent, Commentaries on American Law*305-06(George Comstock
ed., 11th ed. 1866).
3. The buying or selling of ecclesiastical or governmental positions.
4. The crime committed by a judge who accepts a bribe in exchange for a favorable decision.
Cf.
BRIBE.- barratrous (bar'-;Hr;)s), adj.
Champerty (cham-par-tee), n. [fro French champs parti "split field"](15c) 1. An agreement
between an officious intermeddler in a lawsuit and a litigant by which the intermeddler helps pursue
the litigant's claim as consideration for receiving part of any Judgment proceeds; specif., an agreement to
divide litigation proceeds between the owner of the litigated claim and a party unrelated to the lawsuit
who supports or helps enforce the claim. Also termed (archaically) campipartia. Cf. BARRATRY;
MAINTENANCE
Cbampertor (cham-p<:lr-tar), n. (16c) A person who engages in champerty; one who supports and
promotes another person's lawsuit for pecuniary gain. - Also termed (archaically) campiparticeps. Cf.
BARRATOR.

Now,comes Michael Krichevsky, Sui Juris, and under penalty of perjury blows a whistle on

institutionalized corruption and fraud against the public by the New York State BAR and says:

1. I am a live and, per ADA,disabled man,the plaintiff. Federal and State Victim and Witness in the

within action.

2. The facts stated in this affidavit are within my personal, first-hand knowledge, and if called on as a

witness, I could competently testify as follows below.

3. I make this affidavit based upon the facts that from 2008 until present on numerous occasions in

several courts ofthis state my rights and opportunity to be heard were sabotaged by judiciary and no fair

hearing ever took place evidencing crimes of personage and barratry.

4. I make this affidavit based upon the facts that defendants John Fasone, Yonatan Levoritz and Victor

Katkalov, in contempt of bankruptcy court' subpoenas without any notice, a cause or justification did not

show up for deposition as witnesses in matters related to defendant Svenson's bankruptcy; and did not
produce requested information. In such circumstance, this court procedurally takes negative inference and

silent judicial notice as to guilt of above listed defendants in their desire to obstruct justice instead of

assist the court as officers ofthe court and cover up Svenson's wrongdoing.

5. 1 make this affidavit based upon the facts that above captioned defendants and their attorneys, A AG

Charles F. Sanders and Noah Nunberg, conspired to injure and bankrupt me; and achieved their goal.

6. 1 make this affidavit based upon my personal knowledge of the subject transaction(s) and a review of

the defendants' records and tangible evidence discovered between 2008 and 2015 and relating hereto.

7. 1 make this affidavit based upon my personal examination before trial(EBT)of defendant Svenson in

bankruptcy court. Accordingly, 1 am fully familiar with the facts set forth below as per United States v.

Kis,658 F.2d 526,536-37(7th Cir.1981)"'No more than that is necessary to make the primafacie case.

[28]...Affidaviis alone should therefore certainly be sufficient to prove a primafacie case".

8. This affidavit is, also, based upon information and belief derived from the sources listed below.

9. 1 give credit to attorney Melvin Stamper, JD, who publicly disclosed and related the following

information: from the book "Fruit from a Poisonous Tree"(available at Amazon, page 58):

''The scheme also providedfor the control ofthe courts via the 1913 creation ofthe American
Bar Association, whose parent organization was the European International Bar Association,
which was the creation ofRothschild. This allowed the International Bankers to control the
practice oflaw, in that the only ones permitted to practice before the courts were those who were
educated under their brand oflaw, which was only Admiralty and Contract law. Common law of
the people was to be replaced as it gave the natural man manyjurisdictional protectionsfrom
the bankers'legislation."

10. 1 give credit to Anticorruption Society and Cannon Law researcher Frank O'Collins(one-

heaven.org), who ferreted out these presumptions and helped make them available to the general

population. They, also, pointed out that our so-called 'courts' are run by a private guild by the name of the

British Accreditation Regency. See: The BAR Card from www.usa-the-republic.com.

Canon 3228

A Roman Court does not operate according to any true rule of law, but by presumptions of the
law. Therefore, if presumptions presented by the private Bar Guild are not rebutted they become
fact and are therefore said to stand true [Or as "truth in commerce"]. There are twelve(12)key
presumptions asserted by the private Bar Guilds which if unchallenged stand true being Public
Record, Public Service, Public Oath, Immunity, Summons, Custody, Court of Guardians, Court
of Trustees, Government as Executor/Beneficiary, Executor De Son Tort, Incompetence, and
Guilt:

1. The Presumption of Public Record is that any matter brought before a lower
Roman Courts is a matter for the public record when in fact it is presumed by the
members of the private Bar Guild that the matter is a private Bar Guild business matter.
Unless openly rebuked and rejected by stating clearly the matter is to be on the Public
Record, the matter remains a private Bar Guild matter completely under private Bar
Guild rules; and
2. The Presumption of Public Service is that all the members of the Private Bar
Guild who have all sworn a solemn secret absolute oath to their Guild then act as public
agents of the Government, or "public officials" by making additional oaths of public
office that openly and deliberately contradict their private "superior" oaths to their own
Guild. Unless openly rebuked and rejected, the claim stands that these private Bar Guild
members are legitimate public servants and therefore trustees under public oath; and
3. The Presumption of Public Oath is that all members of the Private Bar Guild
acting in the capacity of"public officials" who have sworn a solemn public oath remain
bound by that oath and therefore bound to serve honestly, impartiality and fairly as
dictated by their oath. Unless openly challenged and demanded, the presumption stands
that the Private Bar Guild members have functioned under their public oath in
contradiction to their Guild oath. If challenged, such individuals must recuse themselves
as having a conflict of interest and cannot possibly stand under a public oath; and
4. The Presumption of Immunity is that key members of the Private Bar Guild in
the capacity of"public officials" acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates who
have sworn a solemn public oath in good faith are immune from personal claims of
injury and liability. Unless openly challenged and their oath demanded, the presumption
stands that the members of the Private Bar Guild as public trustees acting as judges,
prosecutors and magistrates are immune from any personal accountability for their
actions; and
5. The Presumption of Summons is that by custom a summons unrebutted stands
and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to accept a position (defendant,juror,
witness) and jurisdiction of the court. Attendance to court is usually invitation by
summons. Unless the summons is rejected and returned, with a copy of the rejection
filed prior to choosing to visit or attend,jurisdiction and position as the accused and the
existence of"guilt" stands; and
6. The Presumption of Custody is that by custom a summons or warrant for arrest
unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to be a thing and
therefore liable to be detained in custody by "Custodians".[This includes the dead legal
fiction non-human "PERSON" that corporate-governments rules and regulations are
written for.*] Custodians may only lawfully hold custody of property and "things" not
flesh and blood soul possessing beings. Unless this presumption is openly challenged by
rejection ofsummons and/or at court, the presumption stands you are a thing and
property and therefore lawfully able to be kept in custody by custodians; and
7. The Presumption of Court of Guardians is the presumption that as you may be
listed as a "resident" of a ward of a local government area and have listed on your
"passport" the letter P, you are a pauper and therefore under the "Guardian" powers of
the government and its agents as a "Court of Guardians". Unless this presumption is
openly challenged to demonstrate you are both a general guardian and general executor
ofthe matter (trust) before the court, the presumption stands and you are by default a
pauper, and lunatic and therefore must obey the rules of the clerk of guardians(clerk of
magistrates court);
8. The Presumption of Court of Trustees is that members of the Private Bar Guild
presume you accept the office of trustee as a "public servant" and "government
employee"just by attending a Roman Court, as such Courts are always for public
trustees by the rules of the Guild and the Roman System. Unless this presumption is
openly challenged to state you are merely visiting by "invitation" to clear up the matter
and you are not a government employee or public trustee in this instance, the
presumption stands and is assumed as one of the most significant reasons to claim
jurisdiction - simply because you "appeared"; and
9. The Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and
Beneficiary is that for the matter at hand, the Private Bar Guild appoint the
judge/magistrate in the capacity of Executor while the Prosecutor acts in the capacity of
Beneficiary of the trust for the current matter. Unless this presumption is openly
challenged to demonstrate you are both a general guardian and general executor of the
matter (trust) before the court, the presumption stands and you are by default the trustee,
therefore must obey the rules of the executor (judge/magistrate); and
10. The Presumption of Executor De Son Tort is the presumption that if the
accused does seek to assert their right as Executor and Beneficiary over their body,
mind and soul they are acting as an Executor De Son Tort or a "false executor"
challenging the "rightful"judge as Executor. Therefore, the judge/magistrate assumes
the role of"true" executor and has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or
forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged by
not only asserting one's position as Executor as well as questioning if the judge or
 magistrate is seeking to act as Executor De Son Tort, the presumption stands and a
judge or magistrate of the private Bar guild may seek to assistance of bailiffs or sheriffs
to assert their false claim; and
11. The Presumption of Incompetence is the presumption that you are at least
ignorant of the law, therefore incompetent to present yourself and argue properly.
Therefore, the judge/magistrate as executor has the right to have you arrested, detained,
fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly
challenged to the fact that you know your position as executor and beneficiary and
actively rebuke and object to any contrary presumptions, then it stands by the time of
pleading that you are incompetent then the judge or magistrate can do what they need to
keep you obedient; and
12. The Presumption of Guilt is the presumption that as it is presumed to be a
private business meeting of the Bar Guild, you are guilty whether you plead "guilty", do
not plead or plead "not guilty". Therefore unless you either have previously prepared an
affidavit of truth and motion to dismiss with extreme prejudice onto the public record or
call a demurrer, then the presumption is you are guilty and the private Bar Guild can
hold you until a bond is prepared to guarantee the amount the guild wants to profit from
you.

11. As to Presumption of Public Record,judges Bayne, Ash and Velasquez who recused themselves

from this case, sabotaged and prevented me from creating a public record of this case, and the record does

not exist- contrary to the Constitution of New York State stating that each State court is a court of record.

As such, I require that a court reporter be present during every oral argument or conference with the judge

for this case to be on the public record.

12. As to The Presumption of Public Service, I have an evidence that Defendants acted against public

interest and used their public office for personal gain. When I confronted Defendants with Constitution,

their oath of office and their fiduciary duties as trustees, they lied to me and denied trusteeship. For

example. Kings County Family Court Supervising support magistrate Michael Milsap in presence of my

witness declared that "Constitution is not germane in Family Court" and that he is not trustee, but a jurist

who will adjudicate me, which sounded like to kill me. As such, this false presumption is rebutted and

rejected. Also, this is the reason I sue defendants for fraud and non-disclosure that they in cahoots with

each other and interested parties in the negative for me outcome of the child support case.
13. As to The Presumption of Public Oath, based on my numerous negative experiences with

Defendants,judges Bayne and Ash; Family Court judges and support magistrates, who continuously

obstructed Justice and covered up each other's wrongdoing, I require that Judge Carolyn E. Wade offer in

evidence her valid public oath of office and assure me on the record that there is no conflict of interest

that would disqualify her by operation of law from presiding over this case and that she will follow her

public oath of office, unless he recuses.

14. As to The Presumption of Immunity, I deny it and remind Judge Carolyn E. Wade that I demanded

a trial by Jury in my complaint. Accordingly, Jury will judge the facts and law. As to Judge, I accept

Judge Carolyn E. Wade's public oath of office and contend that there is fiduciary relationship between

judge and me. As such, common-law torts of breach of fiduciary duty or breach of contract do not contain

immunity as affirmative defense. In case of defendants, they committed crimes, inter alia, of bribery and

extortion. Therefore, there is no immunity as a matter oflaw - contrary to frivolous and malicious defense

of AAG Charles F. Sanders.

15. As to The Presumption of Summons and The Presumption of Custody, 1 did not know about

these secret, undisclosed presumptions and appeared in family court under deception, threat of arrest and

imprisonment; and was falsely imprisoned, which is the reason for this lawsuit.

16. As to The Presumption of Court of Guardians,1 challenged these presumptions in Family Court to

no avail. 1 challenge this presumption now as sui juris, guardian and executor of my soul, mind and body.

17. As to The Presumption of Court of Trustees and The Presumption of Government acting in two

roles as Executor and Beneficiary, 1 challenged these presumptions to no avail, which is why 1 sue the

Defendants.
18. As to The Presumption of Executor De Son Tort, as falsely accused, I was Executor and

Beneficiary over my body, mind and soul, which is why I now sue Defendants for injuries to my body,

mind and soul.

19. As to The Presumption of Incompetence, please see the definition of Sui Juris above. To challenge,

let him or her show cause by admissible evidence or forever hold his or her peace.

20. As to The Presumption of Guilt, I filed numerous motions denying presumption of guilt - all were

ignored and no fair hearing took place, which is why I sue Defendants.

21. In conclusion, if any men or woman has a counter rebuttal of this affidavit, let him or her show cause

within 20 days with admissible evidence, or forever hold his or her peace.

WHEREFORE,Dear Judge Carolyn E. Wade. 1 completed my part of introduction and housekeeping of

this case and the ball is in Judge's court to coniplete judge's part.

Under penalty of perjury

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

May 19, 2016

Michael Krichevsky. Sui Juris

4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11224

L'Abbate Balkan Colavita & Contini, LLP

1001 Franklin Avenue
Garden City, New York 11530

CHARLES F. SANDERS
Attorney General of The State of New York
120 Broadway
New York, New York 10271
EXHIBIT A
 . t

9UFfepMC.<?C5URT*6F-THE STi^'nE'OF NEW'.Y'OS"^'!. ; , ^ ;/

X-PReLAte PIVISIQN: SECO^ J0i)UC7AL'DI-FAk'rMENT'; '> - -
.X

In-tlk Mailer of Michael Krich^vsky. ' , INDEXNO. O-20755-I4

' Falsdy Accused, t'laimahl. ' ;
Appellate Division Docket
-against-' . . . . " . . ' , 'No 2015-01324
, f '

Elena Svensbn . Respondent. ,

NOTICE OF CONSmJGTIVE FRAUD. RICO VIOLA'CIONS AND DUTY TO CURE;

AFFIDAVIT OF MATERIAi. FACi S

''When an honest man, honestly mistaken, comes lacc-to-facc with undeniable and irrefutable
t^th. he is faced with one of two choices, he must either cease been mistaking or cease being
honest." Amicus Solo . . ,

Michael Krichevsky, sui juris, self-governed alive man under protest and duress; by special

appearance to challenge jurisdiction and authority of the State's run Family Coiuf, Attorney

General, other attorneys and acting in seir-defense says: ' '

t

INTRODUCTION

The common law doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence is applied when one part}' gives legal

notice to a second party of a fact or claim, and the second paity fails to challenge or refute tiiat
*

claim within a reasonable time. The second part}', is said to have acquiesced to the claim, and is

estopped from later challenging it. or making a counterclaim. The doctrine is similar to, and

often applied with, estoppel by lachds.

5. No objection made. If one party presents his accoimt to the other, and the latter makes no

objection, it may well be inferred that he is satisfied with and assents to it as correct. So, if an
I '

account be made up and transmitted by one party to the other:by mail, and the latter keeps it for

some considerable time without making'any objection, he is held to have acquiesced in it.

Steiiton v. Jerome, 54 Ai, Y.J9 Sick.) 4H().''' [Taken from .A Treaii.se Upon Some of(he General

Principles of the Law written in A.D. 1877 by William Wait.]

AFFIDAVIT OF MATERIAL FACTS

1. I have firsthand knowledge of the following facts and could competently testily thereto,

except as to those matters, which 1 stated upon information and belief.

2. 1 am not in the militaiy and Itave a status of federal Victim and Federal Witness.

3. !challenge falsely presumed, unlawful continuous jurisdiction offamily court due to

corruption, bias, and harassment: and without consent to an}' of its corrupt administrative

proceedings against me. I aver that no jurisdiction exists, existed over me without my consent

and demand that the STATE finally enters evidence ofjurisdictional facts and elements on the

record.

4. I am Falsely Accused victim in the within simulated, fictitious actions of Barratry,

Personage and Human Traftlcking; and demand the S'I'ATIi and its actors cease and decease its

criminal practice.

5. This notice is another of my numerous failed attempts to report Federal Crimes of

Treason and Misprision of Treason to tlie judge, as well as conspiracy, obstruction of Justice,

witness tampering, violations of Code of Judicial Conduct and New York Rules ofProfessional

Conduct to New York Tribunal per Rule 8.3 - Reporting Professional Misconduct.

6. Attached as Exhibit A is the order of this Honorable Court, which is subject of this

notice and affidavit.

7. Upon information and belief, said order is done siia sponte by the court based on

wrongful, mistaken presumption drawn from void Judge's Maria Arias tmai order(Exhibit B)

that

8. 1 intentionally failed to attend a tinai hearing or trial, and

9. as such I abandoned my claim as Petitioner, which

i 0. resulted in a final order dismissing the action as abandoned -

11. nothing could be further tfoin the truth.

12. Family Court Act 145. Liability ofjudge states:

"Any family court judge who in good faith issues proce.ss in any proceeding under
this act shall not be liable therefore unless it is shown that his actioii in so doing
was malicious or a deliberate abuse of his discretion."

13. 1 will send a copy of this affidavit to .ludge Maria Arias as well so that she will have

opportunity to cure her action or rebut this affidavit point for point.

14. Indeed, this order appears to be done through Judge's Maria Arias role-playing of blissful

ignorance of the fact that her law clerk of Part 9 of Family Court on December 2, 2014

abstracted Justice to me per Judge's Arias order, or per some higher authority order; or per clerks

own volition.

BRIEF RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

15. In 2013, Svenson filed her second false, Iraudulent, perjurious and harassing me petition

to hold me in contempt of court's void child support order. Svenson's first petition to punislvme

for contempt of void child support order was regretfully dismissed by magistrate Fasone for lack

of evidence. That contempt proceeding is cause of action for malicious prosecution in Supreme

Court because it resulted in stroke to me due to stress.

16. This order of support was cormptly established by Fasone on Febmary 3, 2010 without

discovery and tiial.

17. I was never in compliance with this order because it was absurd: with conscious disregard

to evidence and my ability to pay, especially after I became immediately unemployed, and

thereafter disabled in 2010 due to stroke mentioned above.

18. My attempt to appeal this order to Appellate Divisibn failed a) when my request for poor
person status was denied and b)due to subsequent seizure of my last $150 from my bank account

by Child Support Collection Unit.

19. On or about September of 2014,1 filed petition for order of protection against Svenson's

continuous aggravated harassment in second degree and perjury against me in Family Court -

WHICH IS A FAMILY OFFENSE.

20. Said petition was assigned to Judge Maria Arias.

21. At first hearing on September 30, 2014, Judge Arias appeared neutral to me. She

scheduled April 10, 2015 as trial date, suggested that I serve on Svenson a bill of particulars and

said that evidentiary standard will be used - preponderance of evidence.

22. Thereafter, I filed in her Pait 9 ex parte emergency motion (Exhibit C)to proceed as

poor person in order to obtain free copies of the transcripts where Svenson peijured herself.

23. As oftoday, no written order on said motion received by me and, upon information and

belief, none exists.

24. Simultaneously, I filed and served Svenson with emergency motion to consolidate and

restore (consolidation motion)(Exhibit D)Svenson's contempt petition with my petition for

order of protection. One of the reasons I wanted to consolidate those petitions was that I objected

to magistrate Milsap's authority to conduct contempt proceedings because that matter and my

affirmative defenses required ajudge as per Family Court .Act (wnll be addressed in detail

below).

25. During a scheduling conference on said motion, Judge Arias oflcred me a hearing date in

January 2015.

26. I objected to that date and explained that I have the final hearing on Svenson's petition to

hold me in contempt where Svenson continuously peijure herself and that my motion to
consolidate will become moot.

27. Judge Arias expressed understanding of the issue. She scheduled the hearing of said

motion to consolidate on December 2, 2014 and put 9:30 AM as the earliest time so that this

hearing will go before 1 lam hearing scheduled in part 24 on contempt. I left this heai'ing

confident that a fair trial would start in tiiat part.

28. On December 2, 2014 at around 11:00 AM,law clerk of Judge Arias called me in clerk's

office and told me that motion to consolidate hearing is adjourned until January 23, 2015.

29. 1 immediately objected. 1 explained once again that if I do not have a hearing today my

motion to consolidate will be moot.

30. 1 requested explanation as to why my hearing is suddenly rescheduled, but law clerk was

rude and refused to give me explanation.

31. 1 continued to object. I told law clerk that this is conspiracy to abstract justice and I will

not be attending January 23, 2015 hearing on a motion to consolidate since it will be moot.

32. She replied that I can do whatever 1 want.

33. 1 left law clerk's office with clear understanding that she knew what she was doing and

rescheduling of this motion was intentionally done to abstract justice by an order from some

"'Wizard behind the cuitain,'' hence law clerks mdeness and refusal to give a reason why and by

who's authority. Said clerk's behavior shows her mens rea.

34. 1 attended Part's 24 hearing under duress and in tear to be an ested if I would not attend.

Milsap was in violation offCA 453 that states:

" 453. Petition; violation of court order. Proceedings under this part shall be
originated by the filing of a petition containing an allegation that the respondent has
failed to obey a lawful order of this court."[emphasis mine]

35. The petition did not say that, and therefore was defective. However, my, under duress.
motion to dismiss petition was summarily denied by Milsap without a hearing or written order.

36. Milsap was in violation of FCA 439 that states:

"Support magistrates shall not be empowered to hear, detenuine and grant any relief
with respect to issues specified in section four hundred fifty-live ofthis article,
issues of contested paternity involving claims of equitable estoppel, custody,
visitation including visitation as a defense, and orders of protection or exclusive
possession ofthe home, which shall be referred to a judge as provided in
subdivision (b)or(c)of this section"[emphasis mine]

37. In Part 24, Milsap offered me adjournment to hire a lawyer. I replied that I have no

money and requested adjournment of the hearing based on my motion to consolidate cases of

order of protection in Part 9 and contempt proceedings suddenly adjourned until January 23,

2015. Milsap told me,"You can go to Part 14 immediately and ask for consolidation there." In

Part 14, which is across Part 9,the was no people waiting for a hearing. I noticed that there was

no people in Part 9 either (I infer from this fact that my hearing with Judge Arias was canceled).
I asked a court officer of Part 14 what this part is for and what is going to happen at this

proceeding. Court officer told me that someone would come out and explain it to me. In about 30
minutes,that court officer called me inside the courtroom. I came in the courtroom with an

expectation that finally I am going to have a fair hearing scheduled by the neutraljudge, not

magistrate whom I was trying to recuse to no avail. Judge started reading to me something along
the absurd lines of what magistrate Milsap accused me of doing. 1 sought that the judge wanted

to get more details and factual history as well as my version of the case directly from me when
he gave me the floor. However, when 1 just started explanation of my side ofthe case and

Petitioner's peijury, the judge suddenly run out of the courtroom and I could not make my

record. Officers told me to leave and wait in the hallway to be called back. 1 thought that the

judge had some emergency. When 1 came back hoping to continue argument,the judge started
reading his order of commitment, whicli would start one month from the date ofthe order, but

court officers assaulted me. What adds more insult to the injur>' is the fact that Petitioner, starting

from 2010 never replied, denied or rebutted any of my numerous affidavits while magistrates and

judges been willfully blind; in deliberate disregard of my constitutional rights and due process,

continued harassment and perjiuy of their officer's oaths.

38. Milsap recommended my incarceration in willful blindness to lack ofjurisdiction and/or

authority to proceed as prosecutor and a judge, evidence of Svenson's perjury and in conscious

disregard to my rights and due process. This was a kangaroo court or Inquisitorial Star Chamber

hearing abolished in 1215 by Magna Carta. Additionally. Miilsap committed tfaud upon the

court by officer of the court when he told me that I can go to Part 14 and request an immediate

hearing on my motion to consolidate.

39. 1 had an option not to go to part 14, and instead file objection to Milsap's final order or

start an Article 78 petition. However, deceived and misled by Milsap. I immediately went to Part

14 wfecre I was assaulted without a hearing, warrant or order.

m SUMMARY

40.r My suspicion that court employees and Svenson conspired to obstruct Justice with

engineered, predetermined outcome lias merit. Magistrate Milsap offered me adjournment to

obtain an attomev, knowing that 1 have no money, but ret\ised to adjourn on tlie ground that my

motion to consolidate was rescheduled until January 23, 2015.

41. My Family Offence Petition should be reinstated and, for the lack of family court

neutrality, referred or transferred to District Attorney for criminal prosecution of Svenson for

aggravated harassment and peijury.

42. Upon information, belief and circumstantial logical evidence, I aver that on December 2,

2014 morning some ''WizardCs) behind the curtain" was/were coordinating conspiracy between

judge Arias and clerk of Pail 9 to adjourn its hearing with Miisap and his clerk of Part 24 to bait,

switch and lure me to judge William F. Perry and clerk of Part 14 where I was ambushed,

kidnapped, shackled and thrown into dungeon.

43. At about 9:00 PM on December 2, 2014 I was admitted into emergency room of Coney

Island hospital. It is dangerous foi' a man, father to enter family court, because it functions rather

as a pirate ship, where one never know if he will come out alive or unharmed.

\_ J^
Without Prejudice, Michael Krichevsky, Sui Juris

Sworn to before me this

6 day of April. 2015

NOTARY PUBLIC

ALICEASHER
NOTARY PUBLIC, State oi New York
NO.01AS6062200
Qualified in Kings County
Commission Expires July 30, 3017