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
Showing posts with label Criminal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Criminal. Show all posts
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
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The Midas of 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, : OMNIBUS
v. : MOTION TO
: DISMISS WITH
: PREJUDICE IV
: JURY DEMAND
Tenant, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of ____________
Tenant, Respondent, sworn to on the 28th day of November, 2007, 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 6th day of December, 2007 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 Third CPLR §2214 Violation and Default (No Defense) of OMTDWP III
(4) Motion for Damages under 22 NYCRR §130-1 for continued Perjury and willful misrepresentation.
(5) Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum CPLR § 2301-5 for Land Patent(s) for
143-147 East 23rd Street New York, New York a. k. a. Manhattan Block 879, Lot
27, Building Identification Number #1018044,
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.
________________________
Tenant, Respondent pro se
145 east 23rd street #4R Petitioners counsel: New York, NY, 10010 Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A.
875 Third Avenue Fl 18
New York, NY 10022
Dated November 28, 2007
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 IV
: JURY DEMAND
Tenant, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of ____________
Tenant, Respondent, sworn to on the 28th day of November, 2007, 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 6th day of December, 2007 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 Third CPLR §2214 Violation and Default (No Defense) of OMTDWP III
(4) Motion for Damages under 22 NYCRR §130-1 for continued Perjury and willful misrepresentation.
(5) Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum CPLR § 2301-5 for Land Patent(s) for
143-147 East 23rd Street New York, New York a. k. a. Manhattan Block 879, Lot
27, Building Identification Number #1018044,
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.
________________________
Tenant, Respondent pro se
145 east 23rd street #4R Petitioners counsel: New York, NY, 10010 Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A.
875 Third Avenue Fl 18
New York, NY 10022
Dated November 28, 2007
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
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
Friday, September 14, 2007
Kevin McClanahan Crooked Hearing Officer
CIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART
----------------------------------------------------------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 II
: JURY DEMAND
Tenant, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of ____________
Tenant, Respondent, sworn to on the 12th day of September, 2007, and upon
all exhibits & papers annexed hereto, the undersigned (respondent) will move this
Court at a Motion term held before Room 1162(b) at the New York County (Civil)
Courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, on the 20th day of September, 2007 at
9:30 A.M. , for an order: (1) That SPECIAL 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 Recuse Judge Kevin McClanahan ("The Court") "in the clear absence of jurisdiction", and for Bias.
(5) Motion as to whether Court is operating under Authority (Rules and Law) of Hearing Officer or Judge.
(6) Motion to Dismiss for violation of CPLR § 2214 and Defective Petition.
(7) Motion to Dismiss for failure to include DHPD and/or NYCHA and/or HUD as parties (CPLR §3211).
(8) Motion to Renew/Reargue Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and Vacatur of Stipulation.
(9) Motion to Dismiss for defective Predicate Notice (no "landlords" signature).
(10) Motion to Compel production of witness list, any evidence for Trial and Reply to Answer.
(11) Motion for Change of Venue to SDNY Federal District Court at Plaintiff's Cost, if not Moot.
WHEREFORE, respondent prays for the granting of an Order from the Court
dismissing petitioner's Notice of Petition & Petition in its entirety, granting
respondent's Motion(s) and for all such and further relief that this Court may deem
just and appropriate.
________________________
Tenant, 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 September 12, 2007
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART
----------------------------------------------------------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 II
: JURY DEMAND
Tenant, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of ____________
Tenant, Respondent, sworn to on the 12th day of September, 2007, and upon
all exhibits & papers annexed hereto, the undersigned (respondent) will move this
Court at a Motion term held before Room 1162(b) at the New York County (Civil)
Courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, on the 20th day of September, 2007 at
9:30 A.M. , for an order: (1) That SPECIAL 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 Recuse Judge Kevin McClanahan ("The Court") "in the clear absence of jurisdiction", and for Bias.
(5) Motion as to whether Court is operating under Authority (Rules and Law) of Hearing Officer or Judge.
(6) Motion to Dismiss for violation of CPLR § 2214 and Defective Petition.
(7) Motion to Dismiss for failure to include DHPD and/or NYCHA and/or HUD as parties (CPLR §3211).
(8) Motion to Renew/Reargue Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and Vacatur of Stipulation.
(9) Motion to Dismiss for defective Predicate Notice (no "landlords" signature).
(10) Motion to Compel production of witness list, any evidence for Trial and Reply to Answer.
(11) Motion for Change of Venue to SDNY Federal District Court at Plaintiff's Cost, if not Moot.
WHEREFORE, respondent prays for the granting of an Order from the Court
dismissing petitioner's Notice of Petition & Petition in its entirety, granting
respondent's Motion(s) and for all such and further relief that this Court may deem
just and appropriate.
________________________
Tenant, 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 September 12, 2007
Friday, August 31, 2007
Kevin McClanahan Crooked Landlord Judge
TRANSCRIPT #071507/07 & 52851/06 August 9, 2007 12:08-12:25 PM New York City Housing Court Part H Room 1164B Judge Kevin McClanahan. Kenmore V. Tenant
Line 1; For Petitioner: Mia Falls esq,, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus
Line 2; For Respondent:3; NY, NY 10010
Line 4; McClanahan "I have your Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, I have your
Line 5; Affirmation in Opp., and then I have your Affidavit and Cross-motion.
Line 6: Tenant "Your Honor I asked before to to um, there is a page missing, I'm
Line 7; sorry, it is the fourth page, Staples decided to redact my Reply to
Line 8; Opposition, it's the fourth page. I served the..
Line 9; Falls "Yes, I did receive it."
Line 10; Tenant "You can see that, you can tell"
Line 11; McClanahan "Okay, alright, now but there's no cross-motion is there?
Line 12; Falls "I think there might be another motion of his that he named a cross-Line 13; motion but no it's not a cross-motion."
Line 14: McClanahan "This is a cross-motion? No it's not it hasn't been filled with Line 15; the Court and you can't cross-move against your own motion."
Line 16; Tenant "I was cross-moving against their Opposition."
Line 17; McClanahan "You don't cross-move against Opposition. You're Opposing, Line 18; you're just applying, you're saying why what they're saying is wrong."
Line 19; Tenant "Then can I withdraw those motions without prejudice."
Line 20; McClanahan "yea, it's withdrawn without prejudice, now let's deal with
Line 21; your motion. Alright make your argument."
Line 22; Tenant "Your Honor if I could speak first."
Line 23; McClanahan "That's what I'm asking you to do sir."
Line 24; Tenant "You have before you the Omnibus Motion to Dismiss with
Line 25; Prejudice. It's certainly what you can call a substantive and dispositive
Line 26; motion which petitioner did reply to. And I, of course, served my, we
Line 27; appeared in court previously, I guess it was Mr. Dean Roberts, for the
Line 28; petitioner. And obviously I believe their Opposition, did not, if you want to Line 29; review my reply, I believe did not answer any of the motions that I put
Line 30; forward, especially with regard to Section 8 Fraud. They didn't address it Line 31; at all. Obviously the main reason we are here today though is my
Line 32; contention that we have a case of Res Judicata. We have an identical
Line 33; case before, I believe it's actually before Judge Schneider. This case was Line 34; not dismissed. There was an alleged decision, obviously you can see on
Line 35; the front page of my reply, as well as my exhibits. My first exhibit shows
Line 36; that and I was down there at 9:30 this morning, that case is not only on, it Line 37; is not even off calendar."
Line 38; McClanahan "What case are you talking about. Index Number 52851 of
Line 39; 06 or is there another one?"
Line 40; Tenant "No that's the case." Falls "Yes" Tenant "That case is still on."
Line 41; McClanahan "That case is dismissed." Tenant "That's a misinformation."
Line 42; McClanahan "No, that's her Order. Did you read her Order?"
Line 43; Tenant "The Order was never served on the parties or the Court."
Line 44; McClanahan "I don't care were it was served. I know it was written. Judge
Line 45; Maria Milin ruled as follows 'This proceeding and motion sequence
Line 46; numbers 4,5 and 6 are marked off within three months of the date set
Line 47; forth below. If the parties do not move to restore the case or the motions
Line 48; within the time frame set forth above, then the proceeding and the
Line 49; motions shall be respectively dismissed and denied without prejudice. The
Line 50; parties were directed to submit further papers to the court with regard to
Line 51; the disposition of this proceeding by order dated 7/27/06. As of the date Line 52; set forth below no submissions have been made by either side.'"
Line 53; Tenant "Your Honor in that case we appeared before yourself on the 21st
Line 54; of August of last year and Ms. Falls was the representative for the other Line 55; party. They had to do a final reply by order of Judge Schneider. They
Line 56; never did a reply on that date even though they acknowledged on the
Line 57; record that it was due."
Line 58; McClanahan "August of what date? What are you talking about?"
Line 59: Falls "He's still taking about the 2006 case. I believe he is confused about Line 60; what happened." Tenant "This case is the actual case your honor. This
Line 61; case is still on." McClanahan "Sir I need to know if anything happened
Line 62; after December 12th of 06. That's when Maria Milin made her motion,
Line 63; her decision." Tenant "I have no information that there was anything done. Line 64; Your Honor I was never served with this alleged Order. The Court did not Line 65; docket this Order. It is not part of the Record. I don't know were it came Line 66; from." McClanahan "It's in the file sir." Tenant"well it's not in file 52851,
Line 67; which is the one thats allegedly dismissed." McClanahan "Any other
Line 68; arguments sir?" Tenant "Well, your Honor that case is on. You can see that Line 69; attachment here, this was done by a Court Attorney, that this case, the
Line 70; case 52851 has not been dismissed. We have two identical cases with
Line 71; identical cause of action and identical parties. I acknowledge that Ms. Milin Line 72; we did appear before her on two occasions." McClanahan "Sir did you pay Line 73; the rent? "Tenant "I did not pay any rent your Honor." McClanahan "Thank
Line 74 ; you." Falls "Our opposition is that, with regard to the 2006 case the
Line 75; dismissal is not res judicata. Neither one of us actually ended up receiving Line 76; Judge Milin's decision. I guess before she transfered it just wasn't mailed Line 77; to us, but I do acknowledge that it's there. By the time we found the case Line 78; some time has passed, we commenced this action. As you can see by the
Line 79; Order it was deemed dismissed without prejudice. He hasn't paid any rent, Line 80; that's why we brought this now 2007 case." McClanahan "Alright, tell me
Line 81; about your RICO claim." Tenant "Your Honor, they're quite substantive.
Line 82; Obviously, I did serve an Amended Answer in the case that I still contend Line 83; is on and is the relevant case and I'm certainly willing to discuss that case"
Line 84; McClanahan "Tell me how what they are doing violates the RICO statues
Line 85; sir." Tenant "Your Honor, I have approximately thirty pages of information Line 86; on their various violations." McClanahan "I need you to condense it to at Line 87; least five statements." Tenant "Basically, mostly Fraud, but basically
Line 88; Corruption and various Criminal Acts." McClanahan "What are the
Line 89; Criminal Acts sir?" Tenant "Well, False Arrest of Tenants, Corrupting of the
Line 90; Police Department." McClanahan "How does that relate to your rent?"
Line 91; Tenant "Well also actually of course, I did content a violation of the
Line 92; Warranty of Habitability. There's approximately 6 B violations in the
Line 93; apartment. I have twelve defenses in the previous case that I believe is Line 94; still ongoing. And I wanted to point out too that obviously the reason they Line 95; did not reply was, part of the issue was the Jury Demand. I did make
Line 96; substantive arguments with regard to my right to a Jury Demand. They
Line 97; have an alleged Lease, within the lease has a prohibited Lease provision,
Line 98; waiver of jury trial authorization for a landlord to waive" McClanahan "Why
Line 99; is it prohibited?" Tenant "Well this was part of, I was required to sign a
Line 100; lease rider. I had no lease in fact. I was a tenant since 1989. In this
Line 101; apartment since 1992. But for Section 8, they required a lease rider,
Line 102; which I did in fact sign and of course, under the law I consider that a
Line 103; renewal lease. But obviously, in the lease they are going to attempt to,
Line 104; they have not added it to the record yet, I believe they will, it will show on Line 105; page 4" McClanahan "Wait a minute, do I have the agreement? In the
Line 106; papers." Tenant "Was the Lease ever supplied?" McClanahan "It's your
Line 107; motion." Falls "It's your obligation, so you have to supply the document."
Line 108; Tenant "Well actually, in your Opposition it says, you quote the lease."
Line 109; McClanahan "Sir, did you bother to give me a copy of the lease, that's all Line 110; I need to know." Tenant "To be honest with you your Honor, I was never
Line 111; served with a copy of the lease so I am not necessarily sure any of the
Line 112; lease is in effect. I believe at least some of it was perhaps forged or
Line 113; added to. It was done under duress and it was done at a time I was
Line 114; illegally evicted and also it was a renewal lease. It was a lease, I was Line 115; already a tenant. It was without consideration and obviously a renewal
Line 116; lease has to be done on the same terms or better. I consider all aspects Line 117; of any alleged lease, or actual lease, to be in effect only to the extent Line 118; that it improves on my rights under rent stabilization laws." Falls "Your Line 119; Honor just generally, our position is that with regard to his motion to
Line 120; dismiss, he hasn't asserted a basis to dismiss the action. With regard to Line 121; his RICO claim, our position is that it isn't the place for Housing Court.
Line 122; He also hasn't alleged any actual violations. While he's provided a Thirty Line 123; page motion, it's still, nothing is distilled with regard to the RICO claims.
Line 124; He also claimed that we violated the Thirteenth Amendment of the
Line 125; Constitution. Which again we're denying all of the Federal claims. Our
Line 126; position is that there's no place at this Housing Court proceeding as to Line 127; his Affirmative Defenses. That our position is is something to set forth Line 128; at the time of trial." Tenant "Well your Honor I did in the previous case Line 129; asked that it be moved to Federal Court. Obviously I believe that Federal Line 130; Court is the proper venue for a case involving Federal Claims, Federal
Line 131; Constitutional Defenses. I also claimed that the Federal Government is
Line 132; the actual owner of the property. They of course do not have any
Line 133; Standing. There is also no Personal Jurisdiction. I was improperly served Line 134; in this case. Twice in two previous cases, the cases were dismissed for Line 135: improper service. I believe they will be in this case, the one that is before Line 136; you today, which is 071507. And also, so I claim lack of Personal
Line 137; Jurisdiction, Court Jurisdiction, lack of Standing. Obviously I believe
Line 138; there's innumerable Predicate RICO Acts involving as well, the Counsel
Line 139; itself. The law firm of Norris, McLaughlin and Marcus, as you see as
Line 140; exhibit, it says 'This is by far the most egregious case of Civil Conspiracy Line 141; in the body of law.' For Morganroth and Morganroth versus Norris
Line 142; McLaughlin and Marcus wherin they engaged in Felonies involving John Line 143; Z. Delorean, a Convicted Cocaine Drug Trafficker, identical to the
Line 144; claimed landlord in this property, who is also a convicted Drug Trafficker.
Line 145; In this case John Z. Delorean and Norris McLaughlin and Marcus
Line 146; engaged in Conspiracy. They were Convicted of this Conspiracy by the
Line 147; Third Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. And they were
Line 148; involved in this Racketeering enterprise, where Fraudulent Money
Line 149; Laundering was involved. And I believe this is an additional Predicate
Line 150; felony. I had approximately, well I'm just estimating, thirty to forty
Line 151; Predicate Felonies involved by alleged landlord, Kenmore Associates,
Line 152; a.k.a. Housing and Services Incorporated, a.k.a. Kenmore Housing
Line 153; Development Corporation, Kenmore Housing Corporation and any other,
Line 154; I mention any other, Shell Corporations or Money Laundering
Line 155; Organizations involved with. Your Honor, they're a complete Criminal
Line 156; Enterprise, involving all types of Fraud, involving the original stealing
Line 157; of the building from the People of the United States, without
Line 158; Consideration, by Corruption of various individuals, including Civil
Line 159; Servants, I happen to be a Civil Servant myself, as well as, apparently Line 160; Elected Officials. Your Honor these were never answered in the previous Line 161; case and I am sure they will not answer them in this case either.
Line 162; Obviously, I asked for a Federal Grand Jury, an Independent Special
Line 163; Prosecutor and obviously I do believe, upon Information and Belief, that Line 164; it's already being investigated. The previously landlord, Claire Haaga, left Line 165; under suspicious circumstances, a very wealthy woman, for owning
Line 166; these so called non-profits. I believe the government, State, Federal and Line 167; local, as well as other Organizations are being looted by this so called Line 168; nonprofit organization." McClanahan "Alright thank you Mr. Tenant, your Line 169; motion is denied in all respects. Jury trial is waived. The affidavit of
Line 170; service of the Predicate and Petition rebut the claim of lack of personal Line 171; jurisdiction. Trial is set for September, please pick a date, either the 18th Line 172; or the 20th. I also found the that the decision/order of Judge Milin
Line 173; prevents the application of res judicata, as that proceeding was deemed Line 174; dismissed without prejudice. Please pick a date." Falls "Is September
Line 175; 20th okay with you?" Tenant "Your Honor I ask leave for an Interlocutory Line 176; Appeal." McClanahan "I can't grant an Interlocutory Appeal. You can
Line 177; certainly go to the Appellate Term, 60 Centre Street. And if they so
Line 178; chose they can grant that relief. Please pick a trial date in the event that Line 179; they do decline your Interlocutory Appeal." Tenant "Your Honor,
Line 180; Thursdays are always a good day for me." McClanahan "September
Line 181; 20th." Falls "September 20th will be fine." Tenant "September 20th." Falls Line 182; "Mr. Tenant he's going to give you a copy of the decision." Tenant "Your Line 183; honor, you understand I haven't put an answer in this case." Falls "You Line 184; attached it to your motion." Tenant "That was in the former case."
Line 185; McClanahan "You said you filed an Amended Answer." Tenant "I did in the Line 186; previous case, but you said that case is dismissed. " McClanahan "You
Line 187; can't have not filed an Answer, you'd be in default." Tenant "This is a Pre- Line 188; Answer Motion to Dismiss." McClanahan "Answer to be served, ten
Line 189; days." Tenant "So Your Honor, you're denying my Jury Demand before I
Line 190; made the Jury Demand in my Answer?" McClanahan "Yes" Falls "Thank
Line 191; you"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)