MEMORANDUM
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
As per Local Rule 28: Honorable George B. Daniels S.D.N.Y. District Judge ruled on Petitioner/non Removant's letter and/or Sua Sponte Dismissing a Notice of Removal (case # 08 Civ. 02431(GBD)(KNF)) from Defendant/Removant. Removant is appealing this final decision as well as Denied Motion to Renew/Reargue before said Judge. Original "Decision And Order" was filed on July 1, 2008 and timely appeal to the Second Circuit on July 30, 2008. Removant requests to inform the Court that instant case was Not Remanded by Judge Daniel's Order, but Dismissed (see Title 28 § 1447, requirements of Remand).
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Tenant, Respondent/Removant pro-se, brought this action pursuant to Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 89, § 1441(a)-(f). The state (New York) case removed was #071507/07, Kenmore v. Tenant. A decision only on the warrantee of habitability defense was decided by state jury, resulting in 62% abatement. The outstanding counterclaims and twenty five other defenses, for the most part federal, are waiting to be heard in district court. There was no final judgement as that decision was appealed to the Appellate Term, as advised in court by Judge Daniels. The Notice of Removal was served and filed well before the voir dire or the jury trial and the district court was informed by letter of the upcoming trial.
Mitskovski v. Buffalo and Fort Eire Public Bridge Authority
Removant requests review of dismissed removal, Kenmore v. Tenant with regard to Binding Precedent of Mitskovski v. Buffalo 435 F.3d 127, 2005 US App (2nd) 353. The Precedential Desision was argued on Friday, the 23rd of September, 2005 and Decided on January 11, 2006. The Jurisdiction was the Second Circuit. Sitting for the Court were Honorable Appellate Justices Jon O. Newman and Sonia Sotomayor and sitting by designation was Honorable George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Respondent/Removant acknowledges that instant case involves Dismissal, with no reference to Statute Authority or Common Law, nevertheless issues of timeliness of Sua Sponte and by motion Remands are most similar and precedential. Due to the Dismissal, no Remand, this case is by definition and without controversy appealable, unlike in Mitskovski v. Buffalo or James G. Hamilton, v. AETNA LIFE and Casualty Company 5 F.3d 642, 1993 US App (2nd) 390 under 28 U.S.C. .§ 1447(d). As for statement by the Court in Memorandum Decision and Order 08 Civ. 2431(GBD), " This Court neither has jurisdiction over this matter nor was the notice of removal timely filled", Removant understand this is the Courts reference to Respondent's contention in all legal papers to lack of personal jurisdiction over defendant. There was no Traverse hearing and this issue admittedly remains, but no subject matter jurisdiction lack was mentioned in dismissal, logically because of the infinite degree of federal subject matter jurisdiction. To start with, the subject property is owned by the People of the United States- please review UNITED STATES of America v.ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY AND
APPURTENANCES, thereto known as 143-147 East 23rd Street, New York, New York, Listed as Block 879, Lot 27, which includes the Kenmore Hotel, Defendants, Jude Hotel Corporation, Claimant-Appellant.77 F.3d 648. This issue was decided by Honorable Second Circuit Judges Van Graafeiland, Kearse and Miner, granting "All Right, Title and Interest" in subject property to the People, including Land Patents. Please review "A patent is the highest evidence of title and is conclusive as against the government and all claiming under junior patents or titles” U.S. v. Stone 2 US 525. The land patents remain with the People, which is without dispute, and an ongoing attempt to fraudulently convey "color of title" through un-notarized deed without consideration is a 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States offense. See also Morganrogh & Morganroth v. Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.C., 331 F.3d 406 (3d Cir. (N.J.) 2002), wherein Petitioners (RICO) were convicted of unlawful attempt to convey property "color of title" in order to defraud and evade Court Order.
"Synopsis: This is by far the most egregious case of civil conspiracy in the body of law. This case really illustrates the fine line between an attorney giving counsel to a client, and the attorney’s outright illegal and unethical participation. In the case at bar, the plaintiffs, Morganroth & Morganroth, a Michigan law firm, and Mayer Morganroth, sued John DeLorean in a federal court in Michigan for legal services rendered over approximately ten years. The plaintiffs brought the instant suit against Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.C., a New Jersey law firm, as well as Victor S. Elgort and Daniel R. Guadalupe its employees or affiliates, who represent DeLorean. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that they actively, knowingly, and intentionally participated in their client's unlawful efforts to avoid execution on his property. In order to be successful under a claim for civil conspiracy one must look to see if there is an underlying tort to support the conspiracy claim. Mere agreement to do a wrongful act can never alone amount to a tort, whether or not it may be a crime. However, the court in this case held that the behavior of defendant law firm was so egregious that it did rise to the level of conspiracy."
TIMELINESS
Respondent filled Notice of Removal on March 10, 2008, significantly more than 30 days after Plaintiff filled case # 071507/07, as can be seen by the case number itself. It was even less timely regarding the still current Res Judicata, same cause of action and parties, case # 52851/06, which respondent is requesting be joined with instant case. It was also filed well prior to state jury trial and not "after final judgement was entered against the pro se defendant", which was appealed and thus not final. Defendant informed Court by letter sufficiently prior to said jury trial requesting action (removal to District Court). This letter was not acted upon. Judge Daniels signed appealed Order on June 26, 2008, 108 days after served and filled Notice of Removal, thus also untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Please review Mitskovski v. Buffalo and Hamilton, v. AETNA or Air-Shields, Inc. v. Fullam, 891 F.2d 63, 65 (3d Cir.1989).
MOTION
There was no motion or motions filled in District Court in the instant case
by Plaintiff. See Mitskovski v. Buffalo "a motion asserting a procedural defect must be . . . made within 30 days of removal, and a court of appeals may not delay the litigation by reviewing the grant of such a motion. In the same vein, a district court may not act to remand on its own motion more than 30 days after removal in the absence of a party's timely remand motion, and if it does so, a court of appeals may review and correct the improper remand.
The court did not state in appealed order(s) whether or not they were Sua Sponte.
CONCLUSION
While the innumerable Federal Subject Matter issues are admittedly complex, a competent Federal District Jury is requested. The issues before the Court today are simpler. Respondent/Removant is requesting review and reversal of Judge Daniel's Order. This will ensure defendant's Constitutional (Seventh Amendment) and Due Process rights. Reversal will not violate any Statute (see above) or Res Judicata as the District Civil Jury Trial should cover all non warrantee of habitability issues, including substantial counterclaims, non of which have been heard or tried by Triers of Fact. Respondent requests joining of actual Res Judicata, two identical cases filled by the RICO Enterprise, # 071507/07 and #52851/06, which is not dismissed. And for all other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. All rights reserved without prejudice U.C.C. § 1-308.
Dated: December 5, 2008 _________________________
Petitioners counsel: Tenant, Removant Pro se
Dean M. Roberts 145 east 23rd street
Norris Mclaughlin & Marcus New York, NY 10010
875 Third avenue Fl 18
New York, NY 10022
Showing posts with label McLaughlin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McLaughlin. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
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
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Dean M Roberts-Stone Criminal
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,____________________, ( ), 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 of third straight Written Stipulation between parties by RICO Consiglieri
respondent Moves for Dismissal with Prejudice and sanctions. Admittedly RICO Eviction Mill/
Consiglieri has made hundreds of Citizens Destitute/Homeless for alleged Violation(s) of
Stipulation. Nevertheless it reserves to itself the unmitigated "right" to violate all Law and Lawful,
Enforceable Agreements Unilaterally, without Remedy. Respondent requests of Court, as
Remedy, for case(s) to be dismissed with Prejudice and monetary damages against RICO/
Plaintiff and/or the right to Unilaterally Prospectively violate any Law/Agreements between
parties without Remedy, as admittedly Respondent has retrospectively complied. Petitioner
(RICO) was required to, by Agreement, SERVE Opposition to Omnibus Motion II & Answer by
October 9, 2007 (see Attached). This did not occur. Cross-Motion/Opposition was mailed by
First Class Mail on October 9th, 2007 or later and is in perfect violation of CPLR §2103 (b) 2 where a period of time prescribed by law is measured from the service of a paper and service is by mail, five days shall be added to the prescribed period; A stamp may have been purchased (if
not reset) from in-office Pitney Bowes machine on 10/09/07(see att.) and affirmation is dated (no
Notary) on same, nevertheless Respondent believes it was actually mailed on 10/12/07,
nevertheless, it was late and defaulted regardless.
As to Motion for Damages for Perjury, Plaintiff/RICO continues to LIE , Obstruct Justice and
Willfully Misrepresent to the Court all Facts and/or Law. The endless lies would fill Encyclopedia
Britannica. We can start with the Appellate Term Order, wherein only a Motion to Stay was
(temporarily) denied (A Lie in PG. 4 page 2). Next, the RICO LIED in pg. 9 page 3 about Section 8
payments (more Fraud) as Respondent included four Documents showing payments through
2007. Admittedly Respondent never received Section 8 benefits as they were/are sent Directly
to the RICO and Respondent never received receipts, even upon request. Respondent now
again Demands Compelling Section 8 Voucher/Vendor numbers to assist Comptrollers Office
Investigation and Discovery. To Respondent, the most Criminal act(s) by RICO/Consiglieri
involve a so far successful attempt to deprive Respondent of Federal and State Constitutional
Rights to Trial By Jury. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 83 -"The friends and adversaries of the plan of the [constitutional] convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government."Thomas Jefferson's views were much stronger! -"I consider trial by jury the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it's constitution." If you think that Jefferson overlooked the right to elect our representatives, you should consider a second quote of Jefferson, from a letter written in 1789, while serving. as ambassador to France: "Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say that it is better to leave them out of the Legislative." Within Addendum to alleged "lease" are three pages which include pg. 1 (B). Conflict With Other Provisions Of Lease.
In case of any conflict between the provisions of this section of the Lease and any other provisions of the Lease, the provisions of this section shall prevail.
pg. 3 (N) Prohibited Lease Provisions:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Lease, any provision of the Lease which falls within the classifications below shall be inapplicable.
pg. 4 (6) Waiver of Jury trial, Authorization to the Landlord to waive the tenant's right to trial by Jury.
Admittedly these FACTS do not help the RICO due to there (deserved) pathological hatred of
Juries, apparently related to the outstanding unpaid $102,000,000 Judgment against them.
As to the Federal and State BIll of Rights regarding the ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL,
Respondent believes the other party and the Court are or should be aware of this.
Respondent requests review by the Court of any actual Authority, and if so what Statute or
Precedent, is being relied upon for denial of Lawfully Requested Jury Trial for review by Court Of
Appeals.
As to Motion in Limine Respondent requests of the Court prospective and retrospective barring
of Uncertified, Un-notarized, Unverified "documents" without cross-examinable testimony/
evidence as to chain of custody and/or foundation. This includes any alleged "order"s,
"documents" showing no consideration was paid for property etc.. Additionally, Respondent
requests barring any alleged illegal ex parte "order" not served on parties or docketed with Court
Clerk to dispute undisputable Res Judicata CPLR §3211 (4) . There is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action in a court of any state or the United States; .
As to Motion to Stipulate, Respondent requests of Court that RICO/Consiglieri be forced to
Stipulate that their "by far the most egregious case of civil conspiracy in the body of law" Federal
Felony Conviction be considered Predicate RICO Felony under said statute, Title 18, Chapter 96, U.S.C., §1961-§1968.
As to Motion for Change of Venue to Federal Court, under U.S. Code Title 28, Part IV, Chapter
89, §1441. Actions removable generally, Respondent, Due to uncountable Federal Defenses,
Claims, Counterclaims, Constitutional issues, Federal ownership, etc., it is as of Right.
As to Motion to Dismiss & Sanctions for Obstruction of Justice, RICO/Consiglieri's attempt to
insert into record alleged "found" illegal ex parte unserved (admitted) un-docketed "order" in
order to (so far) successfully defeat unarguable (check Court Clerk) Res Judicata amounts to
Obstruction of Justice and must be sanctioned and case(s) Dismissed with Prejudice.
As to Motion to Vacate Alleged Order as Irregular see CPLR §2220 Entry and filing of order; service. (a) Entry and filing. An order determining a motion shall be entered and filed in the office
of the clerk of the court where the action is triable, and all papers used on the motion and any opinion or memorandum in writing shall be filed with that clerk unless the order dispenses with such filing. When a statute or civil practice rule requires such filing and entry in a county other than that in which the order was made, the party prevailing on the motion shall file the order and the papers used on the motion with the proper clerk after receiving them. If a party fails to file any
papers required to be filed under this subdivision, the order may be vacated as irregular, with costs. (b) Service. Service of an order shall be made by serving a copy of the order.
With regard to Defaulted Affirmation pg. 1 Respondent reiterates Opposition is Untimely and in
Violation of Stipulation and must be Struck/Barred.
As to pg.2 the proceedings (plural) commenced in 2006 under index # 52851/06 despite
RICO's admitted "Failure to Prosecute. The RICO is not allowed to have two concurrent cases
with Identical Causes of Action and Parties in order to Judge/Forum Shop.
As to pg. 3, Respondent believes that Judge McClanahan's appointment to the Federal Bench,
while laudable, was not in conformance with U. S. Constitution.
As to pg. 4 there is a pending Motion to Dismiss for Defective Predicate Notice due to lack of
Signature as required by CPLR §2101(a) Beneath each signature shall be printed the name signed. There is again sad and unfortunate Perjury involving Willful Mischaracterization of
Appellate Term Order, which involved only a Motion to Stay Proceedings as Requested Relief.
As to pg. 5 RICO apparently does not believe it is the "Plaintiff" and if so these two cases should be
Dismissed with Prejudice for no Cause of Action, no Relief or Jurisdiction.
As to pg. 6, with continued Perjury, "Plaintiff" (RICO) has supplied the predicted alleged "lease"
which includes the list of PROHIBITED LEASE PROVISIONS Waiver of Jury Trial on
aforementioned pages. This is new evidence. The RICO's outrageous BIG LIE are causing Dr.
Paul Joseph Goebbels to flip in his grave.
As to pg. 7 Respondent is informed this issue may, in fact, be moot.
As to pg. 8 the law is U.S Code Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 89, §1441 and facts are decided by
that bad thing (a "Jury"). Continued Perjury, this time Judge McClanahan's Order, where he
clearly did not say "the claim of a federal issue does not necessarily make it so" and is a brutal
intentional mischaracterization which means nothing. The alleged (un-notarized) "signature" on
Predicate Notice was of Debt Collector, lacking FDCPA Validation Notice and Violating "Williams
Consent Judgement". In an apparent attempt to create "Incompetent Counsel" defense, RICO
Consiglieri pretends to misapprehend RPAPL §743 The answer may contain any legal or equitable defense, or counterclaim. The court may render affirmative judgment for the amount found due on the counterclaim, or is it again Perjury?
As to pg. 9 the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization/Consiglieri slithers around (like the
Serpent) it's Predicate Felony Section 8 Fraud. Simply ignoring admitted evidence previously
supplied, the Virtual Person states "he has not received them since well before January 2005",
which while technically true, is due to the fact that these payments GO DIRECTLY TO THE RICO.
Additionally no receipts have ever been given for these payments. Respondent requests
assistance of the Court to crush this ongoing Fraud and again requests the Independent Special
Prosecutor for the uncountable Felonies.
As to pg. 10 this is nonsensical. RICO/Consiglieri would have quoted any Law or Precedent
supporting this canard but did not as there is none.
As to pg. 11 the Perjury continues as Rico's own copy of Answer shows Service on August 20,2007. RPAPL §743 The answer may contain any legal or equitable defense, or counterclaim. The court may render affirmative judgment for the amount found due on the counterclaim.
As to pg. 12 ?
As to pg. 13 On what grounds?RPAPL §743 The answer may contain any legal or equitable defense, or counterclaim. The court may render affirmative judgment for the amount found due on the counterclaim.
As to pg. 14 This first and second sentence is finally correct, we knew you could do it RICO!
This Lawyers Trick of denying and conceding the same point in the third sentence should be
panegyrized. "These issues" were not addressed in Judge McClanahan's Order.
As to pg. 15 RPAPL §743 The answer may contain any legal or equitable defense, or counterclaim. The court may render affirmative judgment for the amount found due on the counterclaim. Facts are decided by a Jury, please do not continually usurp.
As to pg. 16, additional continual Perjury. Respondent stated in Pre-Answer Omnibus Motion to
Dismiss with Prejudice Affidavit (first paper) " Notice of Petition & Petition were defective and unlawfully served. Petition to Recover Possession of Real Property is UNSIGNED (att. fax to NM&M) and NoP&P was not sent by certified/registered and regular mail and no attempts at personal service were made." A specific denial of proper service under RPAPL §735.
As to pg. 17 " Notice of Petition & Petition were defective and unlawfully served. Petition to Recover Possession of Real Property is UNSIGNED (att. fax to NM&M) and NoP&P was not sent by certified/registered and regular mail and no attempts at personal service were made." Petition
for Possession of Real Property is without ANY SIGNATURE.
As to pg. 18 " Notice of Petition & Petition were defective and unlawfully served. Petition to Recover Possession of Real Property is UNSIGNED (att. fax to NM&M) and NoP&P was not sent by certified/registered and regular mail and no attempts at personal service were made." RPAPL §735; and in addition, within one day after such delivering to such suitable person or such affixing or placement, by mailing to the respondent both by registered or certified mail and by regular first class mail,
As to pg. 19 RICO/Consiglieri is either incompetent or Perjurious as any simple reading of Pre-
Answer OMDWP Affidavit and said RPAPL §735 would contradict this Lie.
As to pg. 20 we have repetition of the BIG LIE that would make Heir Dr. Goebbels proud.
As to pg. 21 the alleged un-notarized, unwitnessed, unverified, uncertified, lack of foundation,
lack of chain of custody "deed" is, upon information and belief, a forged instrument as stated in
Answer. Nevertheless this "document" should be considered by the Trier of Fact as an admission
against interest Re; lack of Consideration, (Nudum Pactum) i.e no contract. "All surplus
Federal Property must be put up for lawful, proper advertised Auction." 40 U.S.C. §484 (a)-(e).
RICO has additionally violated any (Nudum Pactum) "contract" with the People via
Innumerable Criminal Acts.
As to pg. 22 RICO did "delayed in pursuing it rent claims" by FAILURE TO PROSECUTE actual
current (52851/06) case by failing to supply to Court or Party TO THIS DAY its final motion reply
due FOR OVER ONE YEAR. There were additional cases Dismissed/Withdrawn by RICO due to
accusations of (other) Forged Documents Entered into Evidence (by Judge Ernest Cavallo
(075758/05)) and Perjury by alleged server (86806/05 Dismissed by Judge Peter Wendt).
As to pg. 23 RICO commits additional Perjury by its Justice Obstructing Canard Re: "a final
judgement" while acknowledging the existence of an appeal. The document allegedly created by
Judge Milin would be in violation of CPLR §2220. Index #52851/06 is still not dismissed.
As to pg. 24 RICO alleges "document" "was not found until May of 2006" which Respondent is
willing to Stipulate to as it was obviously created by RICO- at whatever time and violates CPLR
§2220. This "document" would violate CPLR §3216, §3404, Uniform Rule 202.27 (22 NYCRR 202.27) and NYCRR §208.14[c]). RICO could still file extremely untimely Reply to Opposition in
case #52851/06 as it gets away with default at every opportunity, without remedy, including
instant Cross-Motion & Reply, instead of having CONCURRENT CASES WITH IDENTICAL
CAUSES OF ACTION AND PARTIES (CPLR 3211(a)4. there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action in a court of any state or the United States; ).
As to pg. 25 Respondent has indeed "indicated a demand for a jury trial" on all papers,
including Pre-Answer Motion, Answer (first and last page" Jury Demand Respondent hereby
demands a Trial by Jury.") etc.. This again continual Goebbels like Perjury to state Jury Demand
is not "expressly requested". There is, of course, additional Perjury involving payment of Jury Fee
as IT WAS ALREADY PAID (see att.) in what Respondent still contends is the ACTUAL CASE
(52851/06). RICO would apparently have Respondent pay Jury fee twice for the SAME CASE
(same cause of action & parties), which respondent is willing to do, if necessary to secure
Constitutional Rights, and with approval by Court.
As to pg. 26, the Perjury continues, like an Amazon River of Lies. Respondent requested, by
Motion and identical to instant motion, that Pre-Answer Omnibus Motion be heard by Jury under
CPLR §2218. This relief was unarguably denied as it was well within the Courts right to do. THE
ISSUE OF A JURY TRIAL FOR THE CASE ITSELF WAS NOT BEFORE THE COURT. THERE
WAS AND IS NO MOTION TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND. THERE IS NO VALID JURY WAIVER.
pg. 1 (B). Conflict With Other Provisions Of Lease.
In case of any conflict between the provisions of this section of the Lease and any other provisions of the Lease, the provisions of this section shall prevail.
pg. 3 (N) Prohibited Lease Provisions:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Lease, any provision of the Lease which falls within the classifications below shall be inapplicable.
pg. 4 (6) Waiver of Jury trial, Authorization to the Landlord to waive the tenant's right to trial by Jury.
As to pg. 27 see above, additionally . Respondent has not "expressly" or in any other way
waived admitted"right to a jury trial". "Occupancy agreement" is undated and again Perjury by
petitioners counsel. The "signature" of signer is different from respondent's signature as seen
on court documents and instead a cheap forgery by the RICO to deny Civil and
Constitutional Rights as enumerated in AMENDED ANSWER pg21. Furthermore at
the bottom of the Unwitnessed, Unnotarized, quoted page effective date is no date
and "lease" was never served on tenant. A similar "rent rider to lease" was signed
by respondent under extreme illegal duress (pg21 Answer) after over eight years
without lease and without consideration. Respondent considers any "lease" signed
to be a renewal lease which as a matter of fact and law must be on the same terms
or better than the original lease (no lease). In the properly dated but apparently
forged "Addendum to lease" page 4 PROHIBITED LEASE PROVISIONS (6)
WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL: AUTHORIZATION TO THE LANDLORD TO WAIVE
THE TENANT'S RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY.
Additionally, in regard to "jury waivers", petitioner must show that alleged "jury
waiver was knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and intentionally made. 407-88
Associates v Sawyer, 83 Misc. 2d 300, 371 N.Y.S.2d 748 (City Civ. Ct. 1975); 1202
Realty Assoc. v. Evans, 126 Misc. 2d 99, 481 N.Y.S.2d 208 (City Civ. Ct. 1984). A
"jury waiver clause" written in small or illegible type or less than eight points in
depth on the Merganthaler scale (as in this case) is unenforceable. CPLR 4544;
Koslowski v. Palmieri, 98 Misc. 2d 885, 414 N.Y.S.2d 599 (App. Term 1979); Old
New York one Corp. v. Szabo, NYLJ 5/26/93, 23:3 (Civ Ct. NY County). Additionally
, the burden of proof that a valid jury waiver exists is on petitioner. Williams v.
Mascitti, 71 A.D.2d 813, 419 N.Y.S.2d 404 (4th Dep't 1979); L. G. J. K. Realty Corp.
v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 48 A.D.2d 670, 367 N.Y.S.2d 564 (2d Dep't 1975).
Additionally, respondents in summary eviction proceedings have a common
law right to trial by jury. NY Const. art. I, § 2; Glass v. Thompson, 51 A.D.2d 69, 379
N.Y.S.2d 427 (2d Dep't 1976). Jury trials in summary eviction proceedings are
authorized in RPAPL "at the time the petition is noticed to be heard, a party
demands a trial by jury, in which case trial shall be by jury." RPAPL § 745(1). There
are situations in which courts have refused to enforce jury trial waivers. Because
the right to trial by jury is so fundamental, courts should indulge every reasonable
presumption against waiver and should strictly construe jury waiver clauses. Aetna
Ins. Co. v. Kennedy to Use of Bogash, 301 U.S. 389, 57 S. Ct. 809, 81 L. Ed. 1177
(1937); Barrow v. Bloomfield, 30 A.D.2d 947, 293 N.Y.S2d 1007 (1st Dep't 1968).
Jury waiver clauses are prohibited for leases in federally assisted housing.
See 24 CFR Part 882, Subpart B, App I (Section 8 Housing); 24 CFR § 966.6(f)
(Public Housing).
As to pg.28 Respondent requests of court collateral estoppel regarding any
MOTION TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND as having been denied by Hon. Judge
Peter Wendt on December 8, 2004.
As to pg. 29 additional continual Perjury with regard to the sophistic "final judgement". If RICO is claiming Collateral Estoppel :
"Applied to a §1324b case before an ALJ, Worton defeats collateral estoppel because, despite McNier’s having pleaded § 1324b in his state case, the California courts necessarily only addressed race discrimination, § 1324b issues being exclusively reserved for the federal forae. Citizenship status discrimination and any cognate retaliation issues are not matters that might or could have been urged in support of the cause of action or claim in litigation in McNier’s state case. None of McNier’s other authorities (including criminal cases which turn essentially on due process considerations) reach the question, as here, of a totally different statutory cause of action the critical element of proof for which, i.e., citizenship status discrimination in violation of § 1324b, could not as a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction have been in play in the state action." McNeir v Wallace 9 OCAHO#1074, Warton v Warton, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1638 (1991)
Iron Workers Local 455 v. Lake Construction & Development Corp., 7 OCAHO no. 964, 632, 658 (1997) “[t]he proponent of collateral estoppel has the burden of showing that the issue in the prior proceeding was identical and decisive”)
Collateral estoppel prevents the parties from re-litigating any issue actually litigated and finally decided in the earlier action. Lucindo v Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341, fn 3; Flynn V Gorton (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1550, 1554.
"The doctrine of collateral estoppel is one aspect of the concept of res judicata. In modern usage, however, the two terms have distinct meanings." (Lucindo v Superior Court, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 341, fn. 3.
Where "issues overlap but are not identical," collateral estoppel cannot be applied. Capital Telephone Co., 451 N.Y.S.2d at 15.
Discussing the right to a jury trial, the Supreme Court held that the district court’s resolution of issues raised by a former employee’s equitable claims did not collaterally estop relitigation of the same issues before a jury in context of the employee’s legal claims, where the district court first resolved the equitable claims solely because it had erroneously dismissed the legal claims. Lytle, 494 U.S. at 555-56.
The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that an identical issue has been previously litigated and decided. Kaufman v. Eli Lilly and Co., 492 N.Y.S.2d 584, 588 (Ct. App. 1985); Capital Telephone Co. v. Pattersonville Telephone Co., 451 N.Y.S.2d 11, 14 (Ct. App. 1982)
In Capital Telephone, supra, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that if a second proceeding is to adjudge the same activity under a different legal standard than the first, no preclusion will occur if that activity could be found lawful under one standard and unlawful under the other. Capital Telephone, 451 N.Y.S.2d at 14
For collateral estoppel to preclude the litigation of a federal civil rights claim "[t]he court in which the first action was brought must have been willing and able to consider the theory that is advanced in the second action." Bottini v. Sadore Management Corp., 764 F.2d 116, 119 (2d Cir. 1985)
the issue must have been "actually determined in the prior proceeding." (Matter of Halyalkar v Board of Regents of State of N. Y., 72 NY2d 261, 268).
Prior litigation by the same parties on a different cause of action has a collateral estoppel effect only as to those issues litigated and determined in the prior action. (7 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (3d ed.1985) Judgment, section 253, p.691.)
The party asserting collateral estoppel has the burden to show from the record of the prior action that the asserted issue was previously litigated and determined. (Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 257-58.)
As to pg. 30 the RICO/Consiglieri, apparently practicing "plausible deniability" with regard to
uncountable ongoing Felonies, pretends to not have read Respondents papers, which would
violate Due Diligence and Model Rules of Conduct. Respondent Stipulates to complying with
2005 Stipulation, unfortunately for Respondent, RICO, of course, did not. That stipulation was, for
the most part, to pay for and ensure repair of outstanding violations by licensed Plumbers,
Electricians and Carpenters, as required by law, which, of course, never happened (see Answer
pg. 20)
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.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 #4R
New York, NY 10010
Sworn Before me on the
17th Day of October, 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,____________________, ( ), 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 of third straight Written Stipulation between parties by RICO Consiglieri
respondent Moves for Dismissal with Prejudice and sanctions. Admittedly RICO Eviction Mill/
Consiglieri has made hundreds of Citizens Destitute/Homeless for alleged Violation(s) of
Stipulation. Nevertheless it reserves to itself the unmitigated "right" to violate all Law and Lawful,
Enforceable Agreements Unilaterally, without Remedy. Respondent requests of Court, as
Remedy, for case(s) to be dismissed with Prejudice and monetary damages against RICO/
Plaintiff and/or the right to Unilaterally Prospectively violate any Law/Agreements between
parties without Remedy, as admittedly Respondent has retrospectively complied. Petitioner
(RICO) was required to, by Agreement, SERVE Opposition to Omnibus Motion II & Answer by
October 9, 2007 (see Attached). This did not occur. Cross-Motion/Opposition was mailed by
First Class Mail on October 9th, 2007 or later and is in perfect violation of CPLR §2103 (b) 2 where a period of time prescribed by law is measured from the service of a paper and service is by mail, five days shall be added to the prescribed period; A stamp may have been purchased (if
not reset) from in-office Pitney Bowes machine on 10/09/07(see att.) and affirmation is dated (no
Notary) on same, nevertheless Respondent believes it was actually mailed on 10/12/07,
nevertheless, it was late and defaulted regardless.
As to Motion for Damages for Perjury, Plaintiff/RICO continues to LIE , Obstruct Justice and
Willfully Misrepresent to the Court all Facts and/or Law. The endless lies would fill Encyclopedia
Britannica. We can start with the Appellate Term Order, wherein only a Motion to Stay was
(temporarily) denied (A Lie in PG. 4 page 2). Next, the RICO LIED in pg. 9 page 3 about Section 8
payments (more Fraud) as Respondent included four Documents showing payments through
2007. Admittedly Respondent never received Section 8 benefits as they were/are sent Directly
to the RICO and Respondent never received receipts, even upon request. Respondent now
again Demands Compelling Section 8 Voucher/Vendor numbers to assist Comptrollers Office
Investigation and Discovery. To Respondent, the most Criminal act(s) by RICO/Consiglieri
involve a so far successful attempt to deprive Respondent of Federal and State Constitutional
Rights to Trial By Jury. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 83 -"The friends and adversaries of the plan of the [constitutional] convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government."Thomas Jefferson's views were much stronger! -"I consider trial by jury the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it's constitution." If you think that Jefferson overlooked the right to elect our representatives, you should consider a second quote of Jefferson, from a letter written in 1789, while serving. as ambassador to France: "Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say that it is better to leave them out of the Legislative." Within Addendum to alleged "lease" are three pages which include pg. 1 (B). Conflict With Other Provisions Of Lease.
In case of any conflict between the provisions of this section of the Lease and any other provisions of the Lease, the provisions of this section shall prevail.
pg. 3 (N) Prohibited Lease Provisions:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Lease, any provision of the Lease which falls within the classifications below shall be inapplicable.
pg. 4 (6) Waiver of Jury trial, Authorization to the Landlord to waive the tenant's right to trial by Jury.
Admittedly these FACTS do not help the RICO due to there (deserved) pathological hatred of
Juries, apparently related to the outstanding unpaid $102,000,000 Judgment against them.
As to the Federal and State BIll of Rights regarding the ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL,
Respondent believes the other party and the Court are or should be aware of this.
Respondent requests review by the Court of any actual Authority, and if so what Statute or
Precedent, is being relied upon for denial of Lawfully Requested Jury Trial for review by Court Of
Appeals.
As to Motion in Limine Respondent requests of the Court prospective and retrospective barring
of Uncertified, Un-notarized, Unverified "documents" without cross-examinable testimony/
evidence as to chain of custody and/or foundation. This includes any alleged "order"s,
"documents" showing no consideration was paid for property etc.. Additionally, Respondent
requests barring any alleged illegal ex parte "order" not served on parties or docketed with Court
Clerk to dispute undisputable Res Judicata CPLR §3211 (4) . There is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action in a court of any state or the United States; .
As to Motion to Stipulate, Respondent requests of Court that RICO/Consiglieri be forced to
Stipulate that their "by far the most egregious case of civil conspiracy in the body of law" Federal
Felony Conviction be considered Predicate RICO Felony under said statute, Title 18, Chapter 96, U.S.C., §1961-§1968.
As to Motion for Change of Venue to Federal Court, under U.S. Code Title 28, Part IV, Chapter
89, §1441. Actions removable generally, Respondent, Due to uncountable Federal Defenses,
Claims, Counterclaims, Constitutional issues, Federal ownership, etc., it is as of Right.
As to Motion to Dismiss & Sanctions for Obstruction of Justice, RICO/Consiglieri's attempt to
insert into record alleged "found" illegal ex parte unserved (admitted) un-docketed "order" in
order to (so far) successfully defeat unarguable (check Court Clerk) Res Judicata amounts to
Obstruction of Justice and must be sanctioned and case(s) Dismissed with Prejudice.
As to Motion to Vacate Alleged Order as Irregular see CPLR §2220 Entry and filing of order; service. (a) Entry and filing. An order determining a motion shall be entered and filed in the office
of the clerk of the court where the action is triable, and all papers used on the motion and any opinion or memorandum in writing shall be filed with that clerk unless the order dispenses with such filing. When a statute or civil practice rule requires such filing and entry in a county other than that in which the order was made, the party prevailing on the motion shall file the order and the papers used on the motion with the proper clerk after receiving them. If a party fails to file any
papers required to be filed under this subdivision, the order may be vacated as irregular, with costs. (b) Service. Service of an order shall be made by serving a copy of the order.
With regard to Defaulted Affirmation pg. 1 Respondent reiterates Opposition is Untimely and in
Violation of Stipulation and must be Struck/Barred.
As to pg.2 the proceedings (plural) commenced in 2006 under index # 52851/06 despite
RICO's admitted "Failure to Prosecute. The RICO is not allowed to have two concurrent cases
with Identical Causes of Action and Parties in order to Judge/Forum Shop.
As to pg. 3, Respondent believes that Judge McClanahan's appointment to the Federal Bench,
while laudable, was not in conformance with U. S. Constitution.
As to pg. 4 there is a pending Motion to Dismiss for Defective Predicate Notice due to lack of
Signature as required by CPLR §2101(a) Beneath each signature shall be printed the name signed. There is again sad and unfortunate Perjury involving Willful Mischaracterization of
Appellate Term Order, which involved only a Motion to Stay Proceedings as Requested Relief.
As to pg. 5 RICO apparently does not believe it is the "Plaintiff" and if so these two cases should be
Dismissed with Prejudice for no Cause of Action, no Relief or Jurisdiction.
As to pg. 6, with continued Perjury, "Plaintiff" (RICO) has supplied the predicted alleged "lease"
which includes the list of PROHIBITED LEASE PROVISIONS Waiver of Jury Trial on
aforementioned pages. This is new evidence. The RICO's outrageous BIG LIE are causing Dr.
Paul Joseph Goebbels to flip in his grave.
As to pg. 7 Respondent is informed this issue may, in fact, be moot.
As to pg. 8 the law is U.S Code Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 89, §1441 and facts are decided by
that bad thing (a "Jury"). Continued Perjury, this time Judge McClanahan's Order, where he
clearly did not say "the claim of a federal issue does not necessarily make it so" and is a brutal
intentional mischaracterization which means nothing. The alleged (un-notarized) "signature" on
Predicate Notice was of Debt Collector, lacking FDCPA Validation Notice and Violating "Williams
Consent Judgement". In an apparent attempt to create "Incompetent Counsel" defense, RICO
Consiglieri pretends to misapprehend RPAPL §743 The answer may contain any legal or equitable defense, or counterclaim. The court may render affirmative judgment for the amount found due on the counterclaim, or is it again Perjury?
As to pg. 9 the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization/Consiglieri slithers around (like the
Serpent) it's Predicate Felony Section 8 Fraud. Simply ignoring admitted evidence previously
supplied, the Virtual Person states "he has not received them since well before January 2005",
which while technically true, is due to the fact that these payments GO DIRECTLY TO THE RICO.
Additionally no receipts have ever been given for these payments. Respondent requests
assistance of the Court to crush this ongoing Fraud and again requests the Independent Special
Prosecutor for the uncountable Felonies.
As to pg. 10 this is nonsensical. RICO/Consiglieri would have quoted any Law or Precedent
supporting this canard but did not as there is none.
As to pg. 11 the Perjury continues as Rico's own copy of Answer shows Service on August 20,2007. RPAPL §743 The answer may contain any legal or equitable defense, or counterclaim. The court may render affirmative judgment for the amount found due on the counterclaim.
As to pg. 12 ?
As to pg. 13 On what grounds?RPAPL §743 The answer may contain any legal or equitable defense, or counterclaim. The court may render affirmative judgment for the amount found due on the counterclaim.
As to pg. 14 This first and second sentence is finally correct, we knew you could do it RICO!
This Lawyers Trick of denying and conceding the same point in the third sentence should be
panegyrized. "These issues" were not addressed in Judge McClanahan's Order.
As to pg. 15 RPAPL §743 The answer may contain any legal or equitable defense, or counterclaim. The court may render affirmative judgment for the amount found due on the counterclaim. Facts are decided by a Jury, please do not continually usurp.
As to pg. 16, additional continual Perjury. Respondent stated in Pre-Answer Omnibus Motion to
Dismiss with Prejudice Affidavit (first paper) " Notice of Petition & Petition were defective and unlawfully served. Petition to Recover Possession of Real Property is UNSIGNED (att. fax to NM&M) and NoP&P was not sent by certified/registered and regular mail and no attempts at personal service were made." A specific denial of proper service under RPAPL §735.
As to pg. 17 " Notice of Petition & Petition were defective and unlawfully served. Petition to Recover Possession of Real Property is UNSIGNED (att. fax to NM&M) and NoP&P was not sent by certified/registered and regular mail and no attempts at personal service were made." Petition
for Possession of Real Property is without ANY SIGNATURE.
As to pg. 18 " Notice of Petition & Petition were defective and unlawfully served. Petition to Recover Possession of Real Property is UNSIGNED (att. fax to NM&M) and NoP&P was not sent by certified/registered and regular mail and no attempts at personal service were made." RPAPL §735; and in addition, within one day after such delivering to such suitable person or such affixing or placement, by mailing to the respondent both by registered or certified mail and by regular first class mail,
As to pg. 19 RICO/Consiglieri is either incompetent or Perjurious as any simple reading of Pre-
Answer OMDWP Affidavit and said RPAPL §735 would contradict this Lie.
As to pg. 20 we have repetition of the BIG LIE that would make Heir Dr. Goebbels proud.
As to pg. 21 the alleged un-notarized, unwitnessed, unverified, uncertified, lack of foundation,
lack of chain of custody "deed" is, upon information and belief, a forged instrument as stated in
Answer. Nevertheless this "document" should be considered by the Trier of Fact as an admission
against interest Re; lack of Consideration, (Nudum Pactum) i.e no contract. "All surplus
Federal Property must be put up for lawful, proper advertised Auction." 40 U.S.C. §484 (a)-(e).
RICO has additionally violated any (Nudum Pactum) "contract" with the People via
Innumerable Criminal Acts.
As to pg. 22 RICO did "delayed in pursuing it rent claims" by FAILURE TO PROSECUTE actual
current (52851/06) case by failing to supply to Court or Party TO THIS DAY its final motion reply
due FOR OVER ONE YEAR. There were additional cases Dismissed/Withdrawn by RICO due to
accusations of (other) Forged Documents Entered into Evidence (by Judge Ernest Cavallo
(075758/05)) and Perjury by alleged server (86806/05 Dismissed by Judge Peter Wendt).
As to pg. 23 RICO commits additional Perjury by its Justice Obstructing Canard Re: "a final
judgement" while acknowledging the existence of an appeal. The document allegedly created by
Judge Milin would be in violation of CPLR §2220. Index #52851/06 is still not dismissed.
As to pg. 24 RICO alleges "document" "was not found until May of 2006" which Respondent is
willing to Stipulate to as it was obviously created by RICO- at whatever time and violates CPLR
§2220. This "document" would violate CPLR §3216, §3404, Uniform Rule 202.27 (22 NYCRR 202.27) and NYCRR §208.14[c]). RICO could still file extremely untimely Reply to Opposition in
case #52851/06 as it gets away with default at every opportunity, without remedy, including
instant Cross-Motion & Reply, instead of having CONCURRENT CASES WITH IDENTICAL
CAUSES OF ACTION AND PARTIES (CPLR 3211(a)4. there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action in a court of any state or the United States; ).
As to pg. 25 Respondent has indeed "indicated a demand for a jury trial" on all papers,
including Pre-Answer Motion, Answer (first and last page" Jury Demand Respondent hereby
demands a Trial by Jury.") etc.. This again continual Goebbels like Perjury to state Jury Demand
is not "expressly requested". There is, of course, additional Perjury involving payment of Jury Fee
as IT WAS ALREADY PAID (see att.) in what Respondent still contends is the ACTUAL CASE
(52851/06). RICO would apparently have Respondent pay Jury fee twice for the SAME CASE
(same cause of action & parties), which respondent is willing to do, if necessary to secure
Constitutional Rights, and with approval by Court.
As to pg. 26, the Perjury continues, like an Amazon River of Lies. Respondent requested, by
Motion and identical to instant motion, that Pre-Answer Omnibus Motion be heard by Jury under
CPLR §2218. This relief was unarguably denied as it was well within the Courts right to do. THE
ISSUE OF A JURY TRIAL FOR THE CASE ITSELF WAS NOT BEFORE THE COURT. THERE
WAS AND IS NO MOTION TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND. THERE IS NO VALID JURY WAIVER.
pg. 1 (B). Conflict With Other Provisions Of Lease.
In case of any conflict between the provisions of this section of the Lease and any other provisions of the Lease, the provisions of this section shall prevail.
pg. 3 (N) Prohibited Lease Provisions:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Lease, any provision of the Lease which falls within the classifications below shall be inapplicable.
pg. 4 (6) Waiver of Jury trial, Authorization to the Landlord to waive the tenant's right to trial by Jury.
As to pg. 27 see above, additionally . Respondent has not "expressly" or in any other way
waived admitted"right to a jury trial". "Occupancy agreement" is undated and again Perjury by
petitioners counsel. The "signature" of signer is different from respondent's signature as seen
on court documents and instead a cheap forgery by the RICO to deny Civil and
Constitutional Rights as enumerated in AMENDED ANSWER pg21. Furthermore at
the bottom of the Unwitnessed, Unnotarized, quoted page effective date is no date
and "lease" was never served on tenant. A similar "rent rider to lease" was signed
by respondent under extreme illegal duress (pg21 Answer) after over eight years
without lease and without consideration. Respondent considers any "lease" signed
to be a renewal lease which as a matter of fact and law must be on the same terms
or better than the original lease (no lease). In the properly dated but apparently
forged "Addendum to lease" page 4 PROHIBITED LEASE PROVISIONS (6)
WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL: AUTHORIZATION TO THE LANDLORD TO WAIVE
THE TENANT'S RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY.
Additionally, in regard to "jury waivers", petitioner must show that alleged "jury
waiver was knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and intentionally made. 407-88
Associates v Sawyer, 83 Misc. 2d 300, 371 N.Y.S.2d 748 (City Civ. Ct. 1975); 1202
Realty Assoc. v. Evans, 126 Misc. 2d 99, 481 N.Y.S.2d 208 (City Civ. Ct. 1984). A
"jury waiver clause" written in small or illegible type or less than eight points in
depth on the Merganthaler scale (as in this case) is unenforceable. CPLR 4544;
Koslowski v. Palmieri, 98 Misc. 2d 885, 414 N.Y.S.2d 599 (App. Term 1979); Old
New York one Corp. v. Szabo, NYLJ 5/26/93, 23:3 (Civ Ct. NY County). Additionally
, the burden of proof that a valid jury waiver exists is on petitioner. Williams v.
Mascitti, 71 A.D.2d 813, 419 N.Y.S.2d 404 (4th Dep't 1979); L. G. J. K. Realty Corp.
v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 48 A.D.2d 670, 367 N.Y.S.2d 564 (2d Dep't 1975).
Additionally, respondents in summary eviction proceedings have a common
law right to trial by jury. NY Const. art. I, § 2; Glass v. Thompson, 51 A.D.2d 69, 379
N.Y.S.2d 427 (2d Dep't 1976). Jury trials in summary eviction proceedings are
authorized in RPAPL "at the time the petition is noticed to be heard, a party
demands a trial by jury, in which case trial shall be by jury." RPAPL § 745(1). There
are situations in which courts have refused to enforce jury trial waivers. Because
the right to trial by jury is so fundamental, courts should indulge every reasonable
presumption against waiver and should strictly construe jury waiver clauses. Aetna
Ins. Co. v. Kennedy to Use of Bogash, 301 U.S. 389, 57 S. Ct. 809, 81 L. Ed. 1177
(1937); Barrow v. Bloomfield, 30 A.D.2d 947, 293 N.Y.S2d 1007 (1st Dep't 1968).
Jury waiver clauses are prohibited for leases in federally assisted housing.
See 24 CFR Part 882, Subpart B, App I (Section 8 Housing); 24 CFR § 966.6(f)
(Public Housing).
As to pg.28 Respondent requests of court collateral estoppel regarding any
MOTION TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND as having been denied by Hon. Judge
Peter Wendt on December 8, 2004.
As to pg. 29 additional continual Perjury with regard to the sophistic "final judgement". If RICO is claiming Collateral Estoppel :
"Applied to a §1324b case before an ALJ, Worton defeats collateral estoppel because, despite McNier’s having pleaded § 1324b in his state case, the California courts necessarily only addressed race discrimination, § 1324b issues being exclusively reserved for the federal forae. Citizenship status discrimination and any cognate retaliation issues are not matters that might or could have been urged in support of the cause of action or claim in litigation in McNier’s state case. None of McNier’s other authorities (including criminal cases which turn essentially on due process considerations) reach the question, as here, of a totally different statutory cause of action the critical element of proof for which, i.e., citizenship status discrimination in violation of § 1324b, could not as a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction have been in play in the state action." McNeir v Wallace 9 OCAHO#1074, Warton v Warton, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1638 (1991)
Iron Workers Local 455 v. Lake Construction & Development Corp., 7 OCAHO no. 964, 632, 658 (1997) “[t]he proponent of collateral estoppel has the burden of showing that the issue in the prior proceeding was identical and decisive”)
Collateral estoppel prevents the parties from re-litigating any issue actually litigated and finally decided in the earlier action. Lucindo v Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341, fn 3; Flynn V Gorton (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1550, 1554.
"The doctrine of collateral estoppel is one aspect of the concept of res judicata. In modern usage, however, the two terms have distinct meanings." (Lucindo v Superior Court, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 341, fn. 3.
Where "issues overlap but are not identical," collateral estoppel cannot be applied. Capital Telephone Co., 451 N.Y.S.2d at 15.
Discussing the right to a jury trial, the Supreme Court held that the district court’s resolution of issues raised by a former employee’s equitable claims did not collaterally estop relitigation of the same issues before a jury in context of the employee’s legal claims, where the district court first resolved the equitable claims solely because it had erroneously dismissed the legal claims. Lytle, 494 U.S. at 555-56.
The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that an identical issue has been previously litigated and decided. Kaufman v. Eli Lilly and Co., 492 N.Y.S.2d 584, 588 (Ct. App. 1985); Capital Telephone Co. v. Pattersonville Telephone Co., 451 N.Y.S.2d 11, 14 (Ct. App. 1982)
In Capital Telephone, supra, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that if a second proceeding is to adjudge the same activity under a different legal standard than the first, no preclusion will occur if that activity could be found lawful under one standard and unlawful under the other. Capital Telephone, 451 N.Y.S.2d at 14
For collateral estoppel to preclude the litigation of a federal civil rights claim "[t]he court in which the first action was brought must have been willing and able to consider the theory that is advanced in the second action." Bottini v. Sadore Management Corp., 764 F.2d 116, 119 (2d Cir. 1985)
the issue must have been "actually determined in the prior proceeding." (Matter of Halyalkar v Board of Regents of State of N. Y., 72 NY2d 261, 268).
Prior litigation by the same parties on a different cause of action has a collateral estoppel effect only as to those issues litigated and determined in the prior action. (7 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (3d ed.1985) Judgment, section 253, p.691.)
The party asserting collateral estoppel has the burden to show from the record of the prior action that the asserted issue was previously litigated and determined. (Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 257-58.)
As to pg. 30 the RICO/Consiglieri, apparently practicing "plausible deniability" with regard to
uncountable ongoing Felonies, pretends to not have read Respondents papers, which would
violate Due Diligence and Model Rules of Conduct. Respondent Stipulates to complying with
2005 Stipulation, unfortunately for Respondent, RICO, of course, did not. That stipulation was, for
the most part, to pay for and ensure repair of outstanding violations by licensed Plumbers,
Electricians and Carpenters, as required by law, which, of course, never happened (see Answer
pg. 20)
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.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 #4R
New York, NY 10010
Sworn Before me on the
17th Day of October, 2007
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus-Fraud
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 III
: JURY DEMAND
Tenant, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of ____________
, Respondent, sworn to on the 17th day of October, 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 25th day of September, 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 Stipulation Violation and Default (No Defense) &
Cross-Motion/Reply be struck for same (untimely).
(4) Motion for Damages under 22 NYCRR §130-1 for continued Perjury and
willful misrepresentation.
(5) Motion to Review Constitutionality of all Laws, Statute and/or Common, stated
or unstated, used to deny Trial by Jury, past, current and prospective.
(6) Motion to Review Constitutionality of Courts Authority to deny Trial by Jury
under State and Federal Constitution.
(7) Motion in Limine preventing Plaintiff/RICO from proffering "documents" lacking
Foundation, Verification, Certification, Notarization and/or Chain of Custody with
Testimony/Proof thereof.
(8) Motion in Limine preventing Plaintiff/RICO from proffering "found", not
Foundation, ex parte "order" regarding Res Judicata at issue (CPLR §3211(a)4).
(9) Motion for Stipulation that Plaintiff/Consiglieri has been convicted of Predicate
RICO Felony (Fraud, Perjury, etc.) Morganrogh & Morganroth v. Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.C., 331 F.3d 406 (3d Cir. (N.J.) 2002) 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 10808,*; 331 F.3d 406. (Att.)
(10) Motion for Change of Venue under U.S Code Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 89, § 1441. Actions removable generally
(11) Motion to Dismiss & Sanctions for Obstruction of Justice regarding alleged
ex parte "order" under U.S. Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments etc..
(12) Motion to Vacate Alleged Index #52851/06 Order as Irregular for violation of
CPLR §2220.
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.
________________________
, 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 October 17, 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 III
: JURY DEMAND
Tenant, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of ____________
, Respondent, sworn to on the 17th day of October, 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 25th day of September, 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 Stipulation Violation and Default (No Defense) &
Cross-Motion/Reply be struck for same (untimely).
(4) Motion for Damages under 22 NYCRR §130-1 for continued Perjury and
willful misrepresentation.
(5) Motion to Review Constitutionality of all Laws, Statute and/or Common, stated
or unstated, used to deny Trial by Jury, past, current and prospective.
(6) Motion to Review Constitutionality of Courts Authority to deny Trial by Jury
under State and Federal Constitution.
(7) Motion in Limine preventing Plaintiff/RICO from proffering "documents" lacking
Foundation, Verification, Certification, Notarization and/or Chain of Custody with
Testimony/Proof thereof.
(8) Motion in Limine preventing Plaintiff/RICO from proffering "found", not
Foundation, ex parte "order" regarding Res Judicata at issue (CPLR §3211(a)4).
(9) Motion for Stipulation that Plaintiff/Consiglieri has been convicted of Predicate
RICO Felony (Fraud, Perjury, etc.) Morganrogh & Morganroth v. Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.C., 331 F.3d 406 (3d Cir. (N.J.) 2002) 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 10808,*; 331 F.3d 406. (Att.)
(10) Motion for Change of Venue under U.S Code Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 89, § 1441. Actions removable generally
(11) Motion to Dismiss & Sanctions for Obstruction of Justice regarding alleged
ex parte "order" under U.S. Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments etc..
(12) Motion to Vacate Alleged Index #52851/06 Order as Irregular for violation of
CPLR §2220.
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.
________________________
, 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 October 17, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)