Satanic Criminals

CIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART H
----------------------------------------------------------X
KENMORE ASSOCIATES, L.P. & : Index # 071507/07 & HOUSING & SERVICES INC. & Norris : Index # 52851/06
McLaughlin & Marcus :
Petitioner, : AFFIDAVIT
: JURY DEMAND
Tenant, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
State of New York)
(County of New York)

SS: I,____________________, (Tenant), Respondent in this Action, being duly

sworn, hereby depose and state: As to Motions 1 & 2 Respondent continues to deny Personal

Jurisdiction due to Specific Denial of Receipt and Demands continued Special and/or Limited

Appearance status. Jury Trial Demand is as of Right and it is within the power of a Just Court to

grant Trial on the Instant Motion (CPLR §2218).

As to Violation/Default of third straight CPLR § 2214 Demand between parties by RICO,

respondent Moves for Dismissal with Prejudice and sanctions. Motions not answered are

deemed stipulated to. (The law is clear...that 'failing to respond to a fact attested in the moving papers...will be deemed to admit it', Siegel, New York Practice, §281 (1999 ed., p. 442)- citing Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v. Baiden, 36 N.Y.2d 599 (1975), itself citing Laye v. Shepard, 265 N.Y.S.2d 142 (1965), aff'd 267 N.Y.S.2d 477 (1st Dept. 1966) and Siegel, McKinney,s Consolidated Laws of New York Annotated, Book 7F., CPLR §3212:16. 'If a key fact appears in the movant's papers and the opposing party makes no reference to it, he is deemed to have admitted it' id. undenied allegations will be deemed to be admitted. Whitmore v. J. Jungman, Inc., 129 N.Y.S. 776, 777 (S.Ct, Ny Co. 1911)".

As to Motion for Damages, the RICO's continued abuse of the Court and/or respondent due to

its belief that we are under the Rule of Men and not Law("The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.") must be sanctioned. The amount of Perjury/Obstruction of Justice by the RICO

approximates googolplex. Respondent requests sanctions in both concurrent cases between

parties based on identical causes of action.

As to Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum, respondent Demands Land Patent(s) for Real

Property claimed by RICO, which respondent certifies is owned by the People of the United

States. Se: “A patent of the United States…[A]s a deed its operation is that of a quitclaim or rather of a conveyance of such interest as the United States possessed in the land…[T]his record, [the patent] so long as it remains unvacated, is conclusive.” Beard v. Federy, 70 U.S. 478, 3 Wall, 478, 18 L.Ed.88. (1865).

“A patent to land, issued by the United States under authority of law, is the highest evidence of title, something upon which its holder can rely for peace and security in his possession. It is conclusive evidence of title against the United States and all the world. ..” 2 The American Law of Mining, § 1.29 at 357. Nichols v. Rysavy, (S.D. 1985) 610 F. Supp. 1245.

"Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States… and [Congress] [D]eclares the patent the superior and conclusive evidence of legal title." Langdon v. Sherwood, 124 U.S. 74 (1888).

[The patent] “[P]assing whatever interest the United States has in the premises and thereby settling any question of sovereign ownership….” Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Baca (CA10 NM) 844 F2d 708; Whaley v. Wotring (Fla App D1) 225 So 2d 177; Dugas v. Powell, 228 La 748, 84 So 2d 177. [quote at 28 Am. Jur. 2D, F. 2 § 49]. Note: In this case a particular individual assignee.

The "Warranty Deed" is merely a "color of title". Color of Title means: "That which is a semblance or appearance of title, but not title in fact or in law." Howth v. Farrar, C.C.A. Tex.; 94 F.2d 654, 658; McCoy v. Lowrie, 42 Wash. 2d 24, Black's Law Sixth Ed.

In the history of the United States no Land Patent has ever lost an appellate review in the courts. In Summa Corp. v California, 466 US 198 the Supreme Court ruled that the Land Patent would always win over any other form of title. In that case the land in question was tidewater land and California's claim was based on California's constitutional right to all tidewater lands.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to CPLR §2214(b) Time for service of notice
and affidavits. A notice of motion and supporting affidavits shall be served at least eight days
before the time at which the motion is noticed to be heard. Answering affidavits shall be served at
least two days before such time.

WHEREFORE, Respondent prays for the granting of an Order from the Court Granting

Respondent's Motion(s) in full, Dismissing Case(s) with prejudice, denying Plaintiff's Cross-

Motion in full, and for all such and further relief that this Court may deem just and appropriate.




______________________________
Respondent Pro-Se
145 east 23rd street
New York, NY 10010



Sworn Before me on the
28th Day of November, 2007