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, : OMNIBUS
v. : MOTION TO
: DISMISS WITH
: PREJUDICE V
: JURY DEMAND
, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of ____________
Tenant, Respondent, sworn to on the 7rd day of March, 2008, and upon
all exhibits & papers annexed hereto, the undersigned (respondent) will move this
Court at a Motion term held before Room 1164(b) at the New York County (Civil)
Courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, on the 11th day of March, 2008 at
9:30 A.M. , for an order: (1) That SPECIAL APPEARANCE and/or LIMITED
APPEARANCE be granted to challenge lack of PERSONAL JURISDICTION Book Review, New York Civil Practice, Vol.112 U.Pa.L.Rev. pp. 1222, 1230 (1963)(CPLR § 3211).
(2) That JURY TRIAL be granted for instant motion (CPLR §2218).
(3) Motion to Dismiss for Fourth CPLR §2214 Violation and Default (No Defense) of OMTDWP IV.
(4) Motion for Damages under 22 NYCRR §130-1 for continued Perjury and willful misrepresentation.
(5) Motion for Renewal/Reargument of February 21, 2008 Order and relevant
Motions under CPLR § 2221.
(6) Motion for Jury Fees to allow transfer of paid in fees from Index #52851/06
to index #071507/07 or additional payment (see att.).
(7) Motion to add Affirmative Defense(s)/Counterclaim(s) under Title 42 Chapter 21 Subchapter I § 1983, 1985, 28 U.S.C. § 1331,1332, 1343, Title 18 U.S.C. § 241 and numbered Federal Constitutional Defenses & Counterclaims,
separately Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII, IX, X, XI, XIII, XIV.
(8) Motion to add Affirmative Defense/Counterclaim of Diminution of Services.
(9) Motion In Limine to strike Forged, Without Consideration, Undated,
Unwitnessed, Un-Notarized, Unverified, Unserved, No Chain of Custody, No
Foundation, Too Small Print, Under Duress (Illegally Evicted), Renewal "Lease"
as restricting on actual original lease, i.e. no lease.
(10) Motion In Limine to strike same as unconscionable "lease" clause(s) all
that restrict rights under original (no) lease, i.e. Rent Stabilization Laws etc..
(11) Motion To Allow Expert Witness to additionally prove RICO Forgery & small print Violation.
WHEREFORE, respondent prays for the granting of an Order from the Court
dismissing petitioner's Notice of Petition & Petition with prejudice, granting
respondent's Motion(s) and for all such and further relief that this Court may
deem just and appropriate. All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice U.C.C. §1-308.
_______________________
, Respondent pro se
145 east 23rd street Petitioners counsel: New York, NY, 10010 Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A.
875 Third Avenue Fl 18
New York, NY 10022
Dated March 7, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
Satanic Criminal Political Corruption
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
, :
:
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. Respondent states no personal service attempt was made and no Certified
or Registered mailed copy of N. of P. & Petition was received and no regular (First Class) mailed
copy was received to this day. 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 fourth straight CPLR § 2214 Demand Noticed within Omnibus Motion
to Dismiss with Prejudice IV 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 is epic.
Respondent requests sanctions in both concurrent cases between parties based on identical
causes of action.
As to Motion to Renew/Reargue, Respondent must compliment the court for it's thorough and
erudite Order defeating any (prospective?) Motion to Strike Jury Demand. Respondent would
add Collateral Estoppel regarding previous decisions, by Judges Peter M. Wendt and Kevin
McClanahan, with the same award (see papers). The only problem(s) with the Jury Demand
Decision, though not in a way that would reverse or negatively affect that part of the Order, is with
the "Introduction" and "Factual Background". Respondent bases his Right to a Jury on State and
Federal Constitution and Statute and Common Law, not on Forged alleged "lease", which is, at
best, a Renewal Lease, as a Matter of Law, as Defendant was a longstanding tenant in 1997.
Respondent acknowledges signing a "Section 8" Lease Rider and nothing else was signed or
offered. The foregoing explains why and to what extent that "Rider" is in effect. The largest error
on the part of the Court involves ongoing Section 8 Fraud. The RICO, among its other ongoing,
Serial, Predicate Felony Crimes, is committing rampant Section 8 Fraud. Respondent prays the
court is not as indifferent to this merely additional ongoing Predicate RICO Felony(s) as the
instant RICO, and requests referral to appropriate Grand Jury or Investigator. Respondent
suggests review of Predicate Felony "by far the most egregious case of civil conspiracy in the body of law" Conviction (Morganroth & Morganroth v. Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.C., 331 F.3d 406 (3d Cir. (N.J.) 2002)(att.). As in the instant case, rampant Fraud and Forgery of documents
took place by the RICO in order to win cases and make or save money. Respondent has
included into Record four separate Chain of Custody documents evidencing Fraud and which
may have been missed and should be reviewed(att.). There is and will be no contrary evidence
submitted, even though theoretical exculpatory evidence is, or would be, in control of the RICO
by simply opening their books-all their books. In addition they could comply with outstanding
requests for voucher and vendor numbers on "Section 8 " checks received. Respondent does not
believe he and/or the taxpayer should have to pay his (incorrect) rent twice even if it does benefit
criminals(RICO). As to part of Order denying Respondent's OMTDWP III & IV and granting RICO's
Motion to Strike, this is a complete and, Defendant believes, Reversible Error. To strike even one
of Respondent's admittedly numerous defenses prior to trial that an Appellate Court adjudges
could have and should have been allowed will necessitate Dismissal and/or Retrial at
considerable costs to both parties and the Court. Logic would direct the Court to allow all
Defenses, even if the Court adjudges one or more as dubious or unlikely or unusual. The Trier
of Law, after Trial, could strike or instruct Jury as to any Affirmative Defense or Counterclaim that
remains un or insufficiently proven. The Trial Judge would not be usurped and the Appellate
Courts would not have to call for a "Do Over", which is a lose-lose.
Respondent's First Defense includes Improper Service and Reiterates that no attempt at
personal service was made by server and no Certified/Registered Notice of Petition & Petition
was sent or same by regular mail as required. Respondent points out that two previous cases
were dismissed for Improper Service (075758/05 by Honorable Judge Ernest Cavallo &
86806/05 by Honorable Judge Peter M. Wendt). Petitioner(RICO) failed to sign Petition and the
time to do so is defaulted, as well as case. Initial unsigned "affirmation" must be struck and case
again defaulted.
As to Second Affirmative Defense, property was awarded to the United States by Judge Pollak,
one of the Appellate Judges that Convicted RICO (see Att.), and no consideration has been paid
for it and the Land Patents, ultimate Title, remain with The People. RICO has unpaid Court
Judgement of $102 million and if they did own property it would revert to Mr. Rispler. RICO
violated no consideration "agreement" with The People, which is now null and void.
As to Third Affirmative Defense, Respondent reprises position that he is still covered by State
and Federal Constitutions and is disappointed that protections have been stripped (see Dred
Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856).
As to Doctrine of Laches Defense, Petitioner(RICO) waited TWO YEARS TO FILE CASE and
well exceeds time allowed in precedential Case Law. Respondent notes RICO, in concurrent,
identical (parties & cause of action) case #52851/06 FAILED TO PROSECUTE (Unclean Hands)
and should not be rewarded for this default/fault . See Gramford Realty Corp. vs. Valentin 71 Misc 2d 784, Rodriguez v. Torres, NYLJ 1/22/03 22:1, McLaughlin v. Timms, NYLJ 11/30/84 4:3 1st Dept., Airco Alloys Division v. Niagara Mohawk 76 A.D.2d 68, 430 N.Y.S.2d 179 (4th Dep't 1980), 220-55 46th Ave. Owners v. National Ventures NYLJ 3/11/92 25:6, Gabmar Realty Corp v. Titronics NYLJ 8/14/96 27:5 and Glen Cove v. Tillman NYLJ 5/27/77 13:1, City of New York v. BetanCo 79 Misc. 2d 907, 362 N.Y.S.2d 728 (App. Term 1974), Maxwell v. Simons 77 Misc. 2d 184, 353 N.Y.S.2d 589 (NYC Civ Court 1973) wherin the THREE MONTH RULE was
established. RICO offered no reason to strike this defense.
As to Seventh Affirmative Defense, forged alleged "lease" proffered as exhibit by RICO states
"rent" to be $215 per month which Respondent requests the Court take as a Statement Against
Interest. It is nonsensical, at best, to suggest a Defendant may not even raise correct and
stipulated to rent amount as defense and Respondent is at a loss as RICO offered no reason to
strike and the Court offered none as well. Respondent requests this FACT along with all other
facts be adjudged by Triers of Fact.
As to Eighth Affirmative Defense, either the Court will allow Federal Discrimination Claims or it
will not, please see RPAPL § 743 "Any Affirmative Defenses or Counterlaims". RICO offered no
Law or precedent as to why this and/or other Federal Defenses/Counterclaims should not be
allowed and neither did the Court.
Ninth Affirmative Defense is, at this time, moot.
As to Eleventh Affirmative Defense, Section 8 Fraud, the Court will either exalt RICO's ongoing
Satanic Criminal Political Corruption or it will not. Please review aforesaid and attached exhibits.
RICO ignored/ignores these Predicate Felony Acts and is awarded with success.
As to Twelfth Affirmative Defense, the Consiglieri's amount of ongoing Perjury, Malfeasance,
and lack of Due Diligence, should be in Guinness Book of World Records and would necessitate
Encyclopedia Britannica sized documentation. Basically, Consiglieri Roberts is a pathological
liar.
As to Thirteenth Affirmative Defense, FDCPA is an accepted defense and again a Reversible
Error, see Romea v. Heiberger & Assocs., 988 F Supp 715, 716-17 (S.D.N Y 1998). This should
be left for the Trial Judge and Jury. Respondent will require appearance/subpoena of Debt
Collector that signed Predicate Notice.
As to Fourteenth Affirmative Defense, RICO's ongoing Racketeering Fraud and False Claims
violate Federal, State and City Laws and Respondent believes this is evidences by "Section 8 "
Fraud etc.. Just because the Court may see this as a novel defense, it should not automatically
be struck, without comment, creating additional Reversible Error. It should again be left for Trial
Judge/Jury.
As to Fifteenth Affirmative Defense, RICO's willful knowing ongoing use of illegal aliens is/are
additional Predicate Conspiracy Acts and these Criminal Acts should not be imposed on
Respondent in his own home. Respondent is a Civil Servant and should not be forced to violate
Federal Law or be engaged in a conspiracy to cover up same. These illegal aliens are
additionally violating State Licensing laws for Plumbers and/or Electricians etc. and if applauded
by the Court will allow unlicensed illegal alien Lawyers and Doctors-and eventually Hearing
Officers and Judges. Respondent believes obeying the law is always a legitimate defense,
however novel, and in keeping with RPAPL § 743.
As to Sixteenth Affirmative Defense, RICO's ongoing acts of Terrorism against Tenant and
others. Amir El-Hadidy, main actor, is, upon information and belief, a Convicted Violent Criminal,
a member of Muslim Brotherhood, and possibly wanted for questioning in his native Egypt for
acts of Terrorism. RICO profited off of September 11(see Olive Leaf quackery). Again a, possibly
novel, legitimate defense, please leave for trial.
As to Seventeenth Affirmative Defense RICO's ongoing violations of numerous State and City
Rules and Law within instant case constitute grounds for dismissal and thus a legitimate defense.
RICO's violation's of three previous stipulations between parties constitute separate grounds for
dismissal. RICO's not timely, or at all, answering Motions to Dismiss constitute stipulation to
Dismissal. As to Eighteenth Affirmative Defense, RICO's ongoing violations of Building Codes
and Licensing requirements for Plumbers and Electricians etc. impinge upon Respondent and
constitute legitimate defense. This should be left for Trial Judge/Jury.
As to Twentieth Affirmative Defense, Legal Precedent from a higher Court, Weisert v.
Subaqua, from Supreme Court Justice Barbara Kapnick stated Landlord could not sue for
possession of apartment as Tenant was included on blacklist and would not be able to find
another apartment. On on information and belief, Respondent is included on same blacklist. As to
Counterclaims, these are either allowed or not. RPAPL § 743 states "The Answer may contain any legal or equitable defense, or counterclaim. The court may render affirmative judgement for the amount found due on counterclaim." No reasons, from Court or RICO, were given for striking
Counterclaim and burden of proof is on Racketeers.
As to OMTDWP III, the whole motion was not answered, i.e. stipulated to and is new
evidence. Please review "failing to respond" case law on first page.
As to OMTDWP IV, The whole motion was not answered and Respondent considers case
dismissed. See above.
As to Jury Fees, these have already been paid in the original, active, concurrent, identical
cause of action and identical parties case, i.e. index #52851 (see attached exhibit) and
defendant moves that these same fees be considered as paid for instant case, which is in fact the
same case. If the Court, in its wisdom, sees this as unjust, illogical or unlawful, then respondent
moves for leave to again pay fees to Court Clerk for this Identical concurrent case, i.e. 071507/07.
As to Motion to add Affirmative Defense(s)/Counterclaim(s) please review all previous papers
for full context and reasons, especially Answer and Affidavits, to reduce redundant information.
As to Motion to add Diminution of Services as Defense/Counterclaim, Respondent states that
all Crimes/Unconstitutional Acts/Torts/Conspiracies committed ongoing by the RICO constitute
Diminution of Services. Please reference previous papers.
As to Motion In Limine to strike, Respondent reiterates that Undated, Unwitnessed, Un-
Notarized, Unverified, no Chain of Custody ("found?"), Lack of Foundation, No Consideration
"boilerplate lease" was FORGED. This Criminal Conspiracy to deny Respondent Constitutional,
Civil, Rent Stabilization and Common Law Rights are additional reasons to add Federal
Defenses/Counterclaims. Respondent states, under oath, that proffered "boilerplate lease" and
riders were not signed or seen by defendant and that said documents, without consideration as
respondent was already a tenant and by definition a renewal lease, were/are a FORGERY. The
print on the "Boilerplate" forgery violates CPLR § 4544. Respondent requests leave to add
Affidavit from expert stating same. The same "boilerplate lease" states at the top "the Landlord and Tenant agree as of........................................................19........to lease the Apartment as follows"
and thus there is no agreement. .....................................................19......... is not an effective date and
on this basis alone alleged "lease" and all restrictive clauses are null and void. At end of second
page of same the statement "Signatures, effective date Landlord and Tenant have signed this Lease as of the above date. It is effective when Landlord delivers to Tenant a copy signed by all parties." There is no "above date" and no "effective date" which means the date a contract/lease
takes effect, in this case never. The "lease" was never "delivers to Tenant" or "signed by all
parties". The "lease" was not Witnessed, or Notarized, or Verified. Respondent acknowledges
signing, similar to provided, a "Section 8 lease rider" while illegally evicted from temporary
"room(without bathroom)" he was sentenced to during admitted building-wide Major Capitol
Improvement. This criminal act constituted extreme Duress (see Rispler v. Kenmore).
Nevertheless, Defendant acknowledges all aspects of real signed "Section 8 Lease" as in effect
to the extent it equals or exceeds rights under Rent Stabilization and/or other Laws, Statute or
Common and/or Constitutions or Charter. Nevertheless, Respondent stipulates that $215 per
month rent mentioned prominently throughout "lease" is the correct rent.
In addition to the foregoing respondent requests striking of all Unconscionable Lease Clauses
(RPL §235-c), which in the instant context are all that restrict Defendant's Rights under all Law or
Constitutions. Respondent acknowledges the Court has already struck Clause 17 and thus
Counterclaims are allowed. Nevertheless, there is a conflict wherein Defendant's Counterclaims
are apparently struck along with the clause. Respondent again requests the Court restore all
Counterclaims. Respondent again restates that "boilerplate" was never seen or signed, was
without consideration, undated, too small print, etc..
As to Motion for Expert Witness, Respondent requests leave to admit expert Affidavit and/or
Testimony to additionally prove Forgery as well as too small print in "Boilerplate".
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.
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice U.C.C. §1-308.
______________________________
Respondent Pro-Se
145 east 23rd street
New York, NY 10010
Sworn Before me on the
7th Day of March, 2008
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
, :
:
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. Respondent states no personal service attempt was made and no Certified
or Registered mailed copy of N. of P. & Petition was received and no regular (First Class) mailed
copy was received to this day. 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 fourth straight CPLR § 2214 Demand Noticed within Omnibus Motion
to Dismiss with Prejudice IV 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 is epic.
Respondent requests sanctions in both concurrent cases between parties based on identical
causes of action.
As to Motion to Renew/Reargue, Respondent must compliment the court for it's thorough and
erudite Order defeating any (prospective?) Motion to Strike Jury Demand. Respondent would
add Collateral Estoppel regarding previous decisions, by Judges Peter M. Wendt and Kevin
McClanahan, with the same award (see papers). The only problem(s) with the Jury Demand
Decision, though not in a way that would reverse or negatively affect that part of the Order, is with
the "Introduction" and "Factual Background". Respondent bases his Right to a Jury on State and
Federal Constitution and Statute and Common Law, not on Forged alleged "lease", which is, at
best, a Renewal Lease, as a Matter of Law, as Defendant was a longstanding tenant in 1997.
Respondent acknowledges signing a "Section 8" Lease Rider and nothing else was signed or
offered. The foregoing explains why and to what extent that "Rider" is in effect. The largest error
on the part of the Court involves ongoing Section 8 Fraud. The RICO, among its other ongoing,
Serial, Predicate Felony Crimes, is committing rampant Section 8 Fraud. Respondent prays the
court is not as indifferent to this merely additional ongoing Predicate RICO Felony(s) as the
instant RICO, and requests referral to appropriate Grand Jury or Investigator. Respondent
suggests review of Predicate Felony "by far the most egregious case of civil conspiracy in the body of law" Conviction (Morganroth & Morganroth v. Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.C., 331 F.3d 406 (3d Cir. (N.J.) 2002)(att.). As in the instant case, rampant Fraud and Forgery of documents
took place by the RICO in order to win cases and make or save money. Respondent has
included into Record four separate Chain of Custody documents evidencing Fraud and which
may have been missed and should be reviewed(att.). There is and will be no contrary evidence
submitted, even though theoretical exculpatory evidence is, or would be, in control of the RICO
by simply opening their books-all their books. In addition they could comply with outstanding
requests for voucher and vendor numbers on "Section 8 " checks received. Respondent does not
believe he and/or the taxpayer should have to pay his (incorrect) rent twice even if it does benefit
criminals(RICO). As to part of Order denying Respondent's OMTDWP III & IV and granting RICO's
Motion to Strike, this is a complete and, Defendant believes, Reversible Error. To strike even one
of Respondent's admittedly numerous defenses prior to trial that an Appellate Court adjudges
could have and should have been allowed will necessitate Dismissal and/or Retrial at
considerable costs to both parties and the Court. Logic would direct the Court to allow all
Defenses, even if the Court adjudges one or more as dubious or unlikely or unusual. The Trier
of Law, after Trial, could strike or instruct Jury as to any Affirmative Defense or Counterclaim that
remains un or insufficiently proven. The Trial Judge would not be usurped and the Appellate
Courts would not have to call for a "Do Over", which is a lose-lose.
Respondent's First Defense includes Improper Service and Reiterates that no attempt at
personal service was made by server and no Certified/Registered Notice of Petition & Petition
was sent or same by regular mail as required. Respondent points out that two previous cases
were dismissed for Improper Service (075758/05 by Honorable Judge Ernest Cavallo &
86806/05 by Honorable Judge Peter M. Wendt). Petitioner(RICO) failed to sign Petition and the
time to do so is defaulted, as well as case. Initial unsigned "affirmation" must be struck and case
again defaulted.
As to Second Affirmative Defense, property was awarded to the United States by Judge Pollak,
one of the Appellate Judges that Convicted RICO (see Att.), and no consideration has been paid
for it and the Land Patents, ultimate Title, remain with The People. RICO has unpaid Court
Judgement of $102 million and if they did own property it would revert to Mr. Rispler. RICO
violated no consideration "agreement" with The People, which is now null and void.
As to Third Affirmative Defense, Respondent reprises position that he is still covered by State
and Federal Constitutions and is disappointed that protections have been stripped (see Dred
Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856).
As to Doctrine of Laches Defense, Petitioner(RICO) waited TWO YEARS TO FILE CASE and
well exceeds time allowed in precedential Case Law. Respondent notes RICO, in concurrent,
identical (parties & cause of action) case #52851/06 FAILED TO PROSECUTE (Unclean Hands)
and should not be rewarded for this default/fault . See Gramford Realty Corp. vs. Valentin 71 Misc 2d 784, Rodriguez v. Torres, NYLJ 1/22/03 22:1, McLaughlin v. Timms, NYLJ 11/30/84 4:3 1st Dept., Airco Alloys Division v. Niagara Mohawk 76 A.D.2d 68, 430 N.Y.S.2d 179 (4th Dep't 1980), 220-55 46th Ave. Owners v. National Ventures NYLJ 3/11/92 25:6, Gabmar Realty Corp v. Titronics NYLJ 8/14/96 27:5 and Glen Cove v. Tillman NYLJ 5/27/77 13:1, City of New York v. BetanCo 79 Misc. 2d 907, 362 N.Y.S.2d 728 (App. Term 1974), Maxwell v. Simons 77 Misc. 2d 184, 353 N.Y.S.2d 589 (NYC Civ Court 1973) wherin the THREE MONTH RULE was
established. RICO offered no reason to strike this defense.
As to Seventh Affirmative Defense, forged alleged "lease" proffered as exhibit by RICO states
"rent" to be $215 per month which Respondent requests the Court take as a Statement Against
Interest. It is nonsensical, at best, to suggest a Defendant may not even raise correct and
stipulated to rent amount as defense and Respondent is at a loss as RICO offered no reason to
strike and the Court offered none as well. Respondent requests this FACT along with all other
facts be adjudged by Triers of Fact.
As to Eighth Affirmative Defense, either the Court will allow Federal Discrimination Claims or it
will not, please see RPAPL § 743 "Any Affirmative Defenses or Counterlaims". RICO offered no
Law or precedent as to why this and/or other Federal Defenses/Counterclaims should not be
allowed and neither did the Court.
Ninth Affirmative Defense is, at this time, moot.
As to Eleventh Affirmative Defense, Section 8 Fraud, the Court will either exalt RICO's ongoing
Satanic Criminal Political Corruption or it will not. Please review aforesaid and attached exhibits.
RICO ignored/ignores these Predicate Felony Acts and is awarded with success.
As to Twelfth Affirmative Defense, the Consiglieri's amount of ongoing Perjury, Malfeasance,
and lack of Due Diligence, should be in Guinness Book of World Records and would necessitate
Encyclopedia Britannica sized documentation. Basically, Consiglieri Roberts is a pathological
liar.
As to Thirteenth Affirmative Defense, FDCPA is an accepted defense and again a Reversible
Error, see Romea v. Heiberger & Assocs., 988 F Supp 715, 716-17 (S.D.N Y 1998). This should
be left for the Trial Judge and Jury. Respondent will require appearance/subpoena of Debt
Collector that signed Predicate Notice.
As to Fourteenth Affirmative Defense, RICO's ongoing Racketeering Fraud and False Claims
violate Federal, State and City Laws and Respondent believes this is evidences by "Section 8 "
Fraud etc.. Just because the Court may see this as a novel defense, it should not automatically
be struck, without comment, creating additional Reversible Error. It should again be left for Trial
Judge/Jury.
As to Fifteenth Affirmative Defense, RICO's willful knowing ongoing use of illegal aliens is/are
additional Predicate Conspiracy Acts and these Criminal Acts should not be imposed on
Respondent in his own home. Respondent is a Civil Servant and should not be forced to violate
Federal Law or be engaged in a conspiracy to cover up same. These illegal aliens are
additionally violating State Licensing laws for Plumbers and/or Electricians etc. and if applauded
by the Court will allow unlicensed illegal alien Lawyers and Doctors-and eventually Hearing
Officers and Judges. Respondent believes obeying the law is always a legitimate defense,
however novel, and in keeping with RPAPL § 743.
As to Sixteenth Affirmative Defense, RICO's ongoing acts of Terrorism against Tenant and
others. Amir El-Hadidy, main actor, is, upon information and belief, a Convicted Violent Criminal,
a member of Muslim Brotherhood, and possibly wanted for questioning in his native Egypt for
acts of Terrorism. RICO profited off of September 11(see Olive Leaf quackery). Again a, possibly
novel, legitimate defense, please leave for trial.
As to Seventeenth Affirmative Defense RICO's ongoing violations of numerous State and City
Rules and Law within instant case constitute grounds for dismissal and thus a legitimate defense.
RICO's violation's of three previous stipulations between parties constitute separate grounds for
dismissal. RICO's not timely, or at all, answering Motions to Dismiss constitute stipulation to
Dismissal. As to Eighteenth Affirmative Defense, RICO's ongoing violations of Building Codes
and Licensing requirements for Plumbers and Electricians etc. impinge upon Respondent and
constitute legitimate defense. This should be left for Trial Judge/Jury.
As to Twentieth Affirmative Defense, Legal Precedent from a higher Court, Weisert v.
Subaqua, from Supreme Court Justice Barbara Kapnick stated Landlord could not sue for
possession of apartment as Tenant was included on blacklist and would not be able to find
another apartment. On on information and belief, Respondent is included on same blacklist. As to
Counterclaims, these are either allowed or not. RPAPL § 743 states "The Answer may contain any legal or equitable defense, or counterclaim. The court may render affirmative judgement for the amount found due on counterclaim." No reasons, from Court or RICO, were given for striking
Counterclaim and burden of proof is on Racketeers.
As to OMTDWP III, the whole motion was not answered, i.e. stipulated to and is new
evidence. Please review "failing to respond" case law on first page.
As to OMTDWP IV, The whole motion was not answered and Respondent considers case
dismissed. See above.
As to Jury Fees, these have already been paid in the original, active, concurrent, identical
cause of action and identical parties case, i.e. index #52851 (see attached exhibit) and
defendant moves that these same fees be considered as paid for instant case, which is in fact the
same case. If the Court, in its wisdom, sees this as unjust, illogical or unlawful, then respondent
moves for leave to again pay fees to Court Clerk for this Identical concurrent case, i.e. 071507/07.
As to Motion to add Affirmative Defense(s)/Counterclaim(s) please review all previous papers
for full context and reasons, especially Answer and Affidavits, to reduce redundant information.
As to Motion to add Diminution of Services as Defense/Counterclaim, Respondent states that
all Crimes/Unconstitutional Acts/Torts/Conspiracies committed ongoing by the RICO constitute
Diminution of Services. Please reference previous papers.
As to Motion In Limine to strike, Respondent reiterates that Undated, Unwitnessed, Un-
Notarized, Unverified, no Chain of Custody ("found?"), Lack of Foundation, No Consideration
"boilerplate lease" was FORGED. This Criminal Conspiracy to deny Respondent Constitutional,
Civil, Rent Stabilization and Common Law Rights are additional reasons to add Federal
Defenses/Counterclaims. Respondent states, under oath, that proffered "boilerplate lease" and
riders were not signed or seen by defendant and that said documents, without consideration as
respondent was already a tenant and by definition a renewal lease, were/are a FORGERY. The
print on the "Boilerplate" forgery violates CPLR § 4544. Respondent requests leave to add
Affidavit from expert stating same. The same "boilerplate lease" states at the top "the Landlord and Tenant agree as of........................................................19........to lease the Apartment as follows"
and thus there is no agreement. .....................................................19......... is not an effective date and
on this basis alone alleged "lease" and all restrictive clauses are null and void. At end of second
page of same the statement "Signatures, effective date Landlord and Tenant have signed this Lease as of the above date. It is effective when Landlord delivers to Tenant a copy signed by all parties." There is no "above date" and no "effective date" which means the date a contract/lease
takes effect, in this case never. The "lease" was never "delivers to Tenant" or "signed by all
parties". The "lease" was not Witnessed, or Notarized, or Verified. Respondent acknowledges
signing, similar to provided, a "Section 8 lease rider" while illegally evicted from temporary
"room(without bathroom)" he was sentenced to during admitted building-wide Major Capitol
Improvement. This criminal act constituted extreme Duress (see Rispler v. Kenmore).
Nevertheless, Defendant acknowledges all aspects of real signed "Section 8 Lease" as in effect
to the extent it equals or exceeds rights under Rent Stabilization and/or other Laws, Statute or
Common and/or Constitutions or Charter. Nevertheless, Respondent stipulates that $215 per
month rent mentioned prominently throughout "lease" is the correct rent.
In addition to the foregoing respondent requests striking of all Unconscionable Lease Clauses
(RPL §235-c), which in the instant context are all that restrict Defendant's Rights under all Law or
Constitutions. Respondent acknowledges the Court has already struck Clause 17 and thus
Counterclaims are allowed. Nevertheless, there is a conflict wherein Defendant's Counterclaims
are apparently struck along with the clause. Respondent again requests the Court restore all
Counterclaims. Respondent again restates that "boilerplate" was never seen or signed, was
without consideration, undated, too small print, etc..
As to Motion for Expert Witness, Respondent requests leave to admit expert Affidavit and/or
Testimony to additionally prove Forgery as well as too small print in "Boilerplate".
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.
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice U.C.C. §1-308.
______________________________
Respondent Pro-Se
145 east 23rd street
New York, NY 10010
Sworn Before me on the
7th Day of March, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)