Morganrogh & Morganroth v. Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.C., 331 F.3d 406 (3d Cir. (N.J.) 2002)

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

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

Kevin McClanahan Gang-Star

TRANSCRIPT #071507/07 & 52851/06 July 26, 2007 10:15-10:20 a.m. New York City Housing Court Part H Room 1164B Judge Kevin McClanahan. Kenmore V. Tenant
Line 1; Court Attorney, "He was supposed to serve the opposition papers by today,
Line 2; because he didn't, that's why the tenant wants to dismiss the case. Um he's
Line 3; real weird." McClanahan "RICO?" Court Attorney "He's weird for a tenant."
Line 4: McClanahan "I know how that works. I know what to expect." C.A. "I've
Line 5: seen him here before." McClanahan "Yea, he's been here. O and have
Line 6: Mort see him in Part R." C.A. "Go to Trial Part? Really?, mmm"
Line 7: McClanahan "So" C.A. "I tried to conference it." McClanahan "No I
Line 8: understand. I'm just trying to figure out what I got here. So there was
Line 9: another proceeding." C.A. "Yea, but it was just that, what they did, and Line 10: because the landlord admitted, he agreed that he didn't serve it on time.
Line 11: So whatever the Tenant wanted to do, he wanted more time to put in an
Line 12: Answer, and the Tenant what he said is he wanted to dismiss the case."
Line 13: McClanahan "Okay....Court calls the matter of Kenmore Associates
Line 14: against Tenant. Who's here for the Petitioner?" Roberts "Petitioner, your Line 15: Honor, Dean M. Roberts, Norris McLaughlin and Marcus, 875 Third
Line 16: Avenue New York, New York 10022" McClanahan "Who's here for the
Line 17: Respondent?" Tenant "My name is Tenant, Respondent pro-se 145
Line 18: East 23rd Street, New York, New York,10010."
Line 19: McClanahan "Alright, I understand that there's an initial issue.You have a Line 20: Motion to Dismiss pursuant to at least several RICO Statute and other
Line 21: provisions. There was a Stipulation. I gather Opposition was to be served Line 22: by July 17th." Roberts "That's correct your Honor" McClanahan " And
Line 23: when were they served?" Roberts "They weren't. They were prepared.
Line 24: Because of a mistake of my office, which I'll admit fault, it wasn't served on Line 25: Mr. Tenant." McClanahan "Alright" Tenant "Alright, I Move the Court for a Line 26: Motion to Dismiss for a violation of the Stipulation. McClanahan "Alright, Line 27: your application is denied. Court prefers a resolution of the disputes on Line 28: the merits. I will accept the Opposition. If you want more time to time to Line 29: put in a Reply, you can certainly have that. Please serve your adversary."
Line 30: Roberts "Certainly your Honor." McClanahan "Mr. Tenant, do you want time
Line 31: to put in a written reply?" Tenant "A, yes your Honor. Obviously I need
Line 32: adequate time to review this motion that I haven't received yet.
Line 33: So...obviously for a return date, your Honor, Thursdays are very good for Line 33: me. I work for the Transit Authority and I'm not always able to get days Line 33: off." McClanahan "Alright, today is the 26th. The next two weeks will be Line 33: August 9th, which is a Thursday." Tenant "August 9th? That will be
Line 34: acceptable your Honor." McClanahan "And you can bring your Reply into
Line 35: Court." Roberts "Thank you, your Honor" Court Attorney "What
Line 36: happened?" McClanahan "Yea, it went okay. I gave him time to put in a
Line 37: Reply. He's hung." C. A. "Okay, poor chump"

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"

RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION

CIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART H
----------------------------------------------------------X Index # 071507/07 &
KENMORE ASSOCIATES, L.P. & : Index # 52851/2006
HOUSING SERVICES INC. & Norris :
McLaughlin & Marcus Petitioner, :
v. : ANSWER &
: AFFIDAVIT
: JURY DEMAND
:
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
In response to NOTICE of PETITION & PETITION respondent pro se
_________________submits the following ANSWER & AFFIDAVIT:
GENERAL DENIAL
Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in the
PETITION on file herein. Upon information and belief:
1. Respondent denies paragraph #1 that Petitioner is "the landlord" or
"the owner" of 145 east 23rd street or 143-147 east 23rd street NY
NY but instead the Federal Government & People of the United
States.
2. Respondent denies paragraph #2 as Respondent had entered into
possession of said premises pursuant to the terms of Rent
Stabilized Law at a "rent" of $215 to the People of the United States
(owner).
3. Respondent is in Lawful possession of Apartment numbered 4R
at 145 east 23rd street New York, New York
4. Respondent denies paragraph #4 as the court of proper jurisdiction
is the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Due to Federal ownership and Federal Questions of Law and
Constitutionality.
5. Respondent agrees to status as "Statutory Tenant" i.e. no lease
and should be taken as a statement against interest by petitioner
(RICO). "Rent" is $215.
6. Respondent acknowledges no payments to the Department of the
Treasury or to any organization, entity, or individual payments for
period mentioned. Section 8 payments were fraudulently paid for said
apartment.
7. Respondent denies paragraph #6 as to proper service or form of
Three (3) Day Demand.
8. Respondent denies paragraph #7 as so called "Kenmore
Associates" or "Housing Services Incorporated" are not the lawful
landlord of said premises.
9. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief of the truth of the allegations of paragraph #8.
10. Respondent agrees that premises is and/or would be subject to
Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 but denies that petitioner is in
compliance with said law or that premises was properly, correctly, or
lawfully registered by landlord and requested rents are below legal
maximum.
11. Respondent denies paragraph #11 in the entirety, other than
being covered by Chapter 713 of the Laws of 1929, as amended
(NYSMDL).
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES & COUNTERCLAIMS
11. Upon Information and Belief, The Organization also known as Kenmore
Associates a.k.a. Housing Services Incorporated aka Kenmore Housing Corp. aka
Kenmore Housing Development Corp. and Norris Mclaughlin & Marcus is/are a
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) as defined by the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Title 18, Chapter 96, United States Code,
§1961-§1968. Petitioner (hereon in referred to as the Rico or petitioner) claims to
have stolen (without consideration (Nudum Pactum) to taxpayers) a $100,000,000
building by fraud, bribery, unlawful past, and future implied and actual considerations
to Politicians and Public Servants and/or Blackmail and Forgery in order to swindle
taxpayers of one of their most valuable properties. Innumerable Predicate Felonies
as qualified under said RICO act were, are and will be committed by the RICO in and
on an ongoing basis. These Predicate Felonies include, but are not limited to,
Medicaid (not even a licensed provider), Section 8 and virtually every other State,
Federal, City and Private Program, Fraud. As Predicate Felonies, the RICO is
violating the State and Federal Constitutional and Civil Rights of Lawful Tenants in
the building referred to as Kenmore Hall. Tenants (including respondent) are treated
as Chattel Slaves in violation of Amend. XIII to the Constitution of the United States.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject
to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
Petitioners treating of Tenants as Chattel does not in any way extend to any
responsibility for or interest in their Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Mental or
Physical Health, Quiet Use and Enjoyment, etc, but merely as Objects necessary to
loot innumerable Government and other "programs" (or pograms). As Predicate
Felonies, the RICO, through Blackmail, Intimidation, and Strong Arm Tactics, forces
vulnerable, elderly, differently abled, and/or health compromised Tenants into
Fraudulent Medical Experiments, (see Josef Mengele (Nazi SS-Hauptsturmführer)),
to create unlawful revenues for petitioner, these "experiments" conducted in full
view of other Tenants and the Public in the lobby of said building in order to Harass
and successfully create fear in Tenants and to show that they can. The RICO staffs
the building exclusively, except for two ex detectives, with Violent and Drug Felons
and ex-cons, for obvious reasons. The alleged landlord/managing agent, Lawrence
Oaks is a convicted Drug Trafficker and Amir Elhadide (Building Superintendent)
was convicted of Attempted Murder on a woman. As Predicate Felonies, the RICO
Terrorizes and commits Acts of Terrorism and War on Tenants in violation of
International Law, and Federal, State and City Laws, Regulations, and Rules via
"mysterious deaths" a.k.a. Human Sacrifice/Capitol Murder which are never
autopsied or investigated, but instead covered up. The Attempted Murder/Home
Invasion and Coverup of Chake Baghtedjian, a petit elderly immigrant, in her
former apartment, 5F, on July 12, 2004, by staff Felons, occurred minutes after
Lilian Mateo/Linda McAndrews admitted to ordering Serial Home Invasions on
tape, in possession of respondent, and on their orders. Ms. Baghtedjian was taken
by ambulance by petitioner to one of their facilities in the Bronx, apparently in
coma, Illegally Evicted and kept incommunicado (Kidnaping (Federal Crime)) to
this day except for her Niece, unaware of the Proximate Cause of her Aunt's
Trauma. Admittedly Ms. Baghtedjian made a complaint to HPD resulting in still
open violation #4090511 and refused to participate in the RICO's Criminal
Pograms on Tenants. Nevertheless, to the respondent, this does not seem to reach
the legal threshold to commit said acts on a Lawful Tenant. A FOIL request for
information on this was denied by the NYPD on appeal (#06PL100336).
12. Perhaps, to the respondent, as the grandson of a former Police Captain and
currently employed as a Civil Servant, the most egregious and abominable act(s)
of (Predicate Felony) corruption involves the usurpation and "pimping out" of the
brave and hardworking employees of the New York City Police Department a.k.a.
New York's Finest a.k.a. NYPD. Through deliberate and malicious misinformation
and considerations, past, present, and ongoing, the RICO has thwarted
investigations of crimes committed against Tenants by the RICO and even their
reporting thereof. On June 6, 2005 at 11AM, after respondent arrived home at 7AM
after working at 14 hour day, a fact known to petitioner, Linda McAndrews and
others attempted a Home Invasion/Burglary/Constructive Eviction/Unlawful Entry
without notice, agreement, or legal cause, of respondent's residence. This was
prevented by respondent, though understandably sound asleep and sans apparel,
with the help of metal gates held against the door for that purpose and counterforce
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
On July 11, 2005 respondent, in his Civil Service uniform and on his way to work,
went to the local precinct, Precinct 13, to report the instant crime and was thwarted
by Officer Catherine Weissheier, who apparently has a relationship with and/or
promises and/or conveyance of past, present, and/or future consideration(s) from
Linda McAndrews. This event was reported to the Internal Affairs Bureau of the
NYPD (case #05-16077) and the Civilian Complaint Review Board, who, because
of the egregious nature of the complaint, referred it to the Chief of Department of
the NYPD (case # OCD 200507136) and currently under investigation.
Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or
public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
13. False arrests of Tenants and Tenant Leaders occur on an ongoing basis and
are based on the Perjury, deliberate misinformation and Fraudulent Complaints
and for the purpose of denying the Constitutional, Common Law, and Civil Rights
of said Tenants and all Tenants via Unlawful Incarceration and meant to Harass
Oppress, Subjugate and create fear. These False Arrests include, but are in no way
limited to, Tenant Leader Sal Martinez (20i), and Tenants Larry King (17C), Andy
Hall (519), and Xaviere Sinclair (12P), but admittedly not the respondent, as yet,
who has never been arrested. The RICO uses the local Police Precinct (#13) as
their personal private security force, while denying law abiding Tenants any
remedy as to law, especially as to crimes committed by petitioner. The leverage
over the relevant Police Officers and/or Detectives include the promise of and/or
actual hiring of, the promise of and/or delivery of "medals" and/or "awards" by the
RICO and all other possible and actual considerations for these Civil Servants to
do other than their sworn duty. It is well know that the Politicians in the RICO's
pocket, including those, but not limited to, whose names are on the front of said
building, create fear in and performance from said NYPD employees to "do the
right thing" i.e. what the petitioner wants.
14. The subject building was seized lawfully (and is in fact still owned by the
Federal Government) on June 8th 1994 under 21 USC 881 (b) (Asset Forfeiture
Law) due to evidence that then owner Tran Dihn Truong allowed rampant illegal
drug and criminal activity to persist and exist throughout the building. The Main
Case Docket is 94 Civ 4148 of which a copy of the U.S. Marshal's 'Kenmore
directives' is annexed hereto as Exhibit 'A'
15. The Warrant issued for the Lawful Seizure gave all specific details of the
reasoning and causes necessary to support the Government's 'take over',
illustrating numerous actual drug cases and arrests indicative of rampant drug
activity thereat. At the date of the actual Seizure of the Kenmore, eleven (11)
persons were arrested for alleged illegal drug possession/sales, along with a small
cache of drugs and an inoperable gun. Previous to the Seizure there was the tragic
murder of an elderly infirm female Tenant in her apartment, just like with the RICO,
the difference being this case led to justifiable public outrage, the Seizure, and an
arrest. The case of Ms. Baghtedjian was reported to the Authorities (by Tenants)
and is being "investigated" by Detective Reuther of Manhattan South Homicide
Task Force and Lieutenant James Hanvey of Detective Borough Bronx with as yet
no arrest. Harold Williams is the head of "Kenmore Security" and an ex Homicide
Detective with many Detective and/or Homicide Detective Friends, draw your own
conclusions. Former Homicide Detective Williams owns a security company called
Distinguished Gentleman's Investigations (DGI) who's license was revoked by New
York Secretary of State Randy Daniels for reasons including hiring at least six exconvicts
(for crimes including Rape and Assault), 22 who had their applications
rejected by the State, and 47 who never submitted applications. Many of these
individuals worked at Kenmore Hall and it was reported to the New York Post that
DGI agents brazenly used illegal drugs on the job and threatened tenants if they
reported them (see exhibit c). The other ex-Detective working at Kenmore Hall, Dan
Danaher, formerly worked at the local Precinct (13) and continues to visit that
Precinct on an almost daily basis (see exhibit) while on the clock, presumably
performing some value or consideration for the petitioner. There are over one
hundred Precincts.
16. Claire Haaga Altman, Putative "owner" of the RICO, an Attorney, performs
separate Tax and Government subsidy scams involving the putative "enterprise"
also known as "Olive Leaf" and is considered by respondent as Part and Parcel of
the Instant RICO. Ms. Altman, whose current and/or former husband committed a
Homicide during an Assault, upon information and belief, is currently under
Investigation and/or Indictment. "Olive Leaf", whose status as a non-profit and/or forprofit
could not be determined (Both?), as well as "Kenmore Associates L.P. and/or
Housing Services Incorporated", upon information and belief, in fact are not duly and/
or properly registered with the appropriate authorities and/or the Internal Revenue
Service as required by Federal, State and City Laws, Rules and Regulations. As
Predicate Felonies, Ms. Altman's "Olive Leaf" occupies prime Commercial Street
Level and other space, including respondent's Lounge, while paying no and/or
radically reduced (subsidy) non-market rents as illegal and Fraudulent transfer of
considerations from non-profit "Kenmore Associates" to privately owned "Olive
Leaf" to the pure and illegal benefit of Ms. Haaga et. al.. This illegal transfer of
considerations, assets, value etc. are not reported to or taxed by the IRS and or
State and City Authorities, as well as innumerable other scams.
Amendment XIV. All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
17. As additional Predicate Felonies, on an ongoing, continual and constant
basis, the RICO enforces a "Curfew" on Tenants (11PM-7AM) and reserves and
utilizes the absolute and unmitigated and unremediable right to bar any guest,
relative, friend, or Significant Other etc. at any time. This violates Tenants Federal,
State and City Right to Freedom of Association, By various United States Supreme
Court Precedent (available upon request), as well as Federal, State and City Rights
to Privacy and First Amendment Freedom of Assembly and Speech. Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is the perfect method to Harass the Chattel in the most egregious possible
way. The humiliation of attempting to explain to Relatives, Friends etc. this bar on
visits to ones lawful Rent Stabilized Apartment in the "City that Never Sleeps" is the
RICO's vector into destroying Tenants interpersonal relationships to leave Tenants
more vulnerable and potentially in need of petitioners Fraudulent pograms and/or
to abandon apartment (Constructive eviction). These Jailhouse/ Halfway House/
Parolee rules should be applied to the Criminal RICO staff and the Criminals,
Felons, ex-cons and Addicts the petitioner willfully brings into building (an
additional Crime and Tort against Tenants), not law abiding Tenants, including
respondent, and by precedent and construction, all Tenants. Respondent works the
PM (Evening) shift of various hours, but approximately 3-11 or 4-12 and like most
people would tend to have guests, during the work week, after work and is
effectively barred from having visitors at least five days out of the week (respondent
works weekends). As to days off or mornings when respondent usually sleeps, the
RICO reserves the right to deny any guest at any time for any reason, and is
additionally used to Harass and Humiliate and embarrass "uncooperative"
Tenants. Additionally, if through begging, bribery or propitiousness, a particular
guest is potentially given favor for admission through the august RICO's area of
egress a Rube Goldberg gauntlet of requirements, lectures and orders and
violations of privacy ensue. The RICO, in violation of Federal, State and City
Constitution, Laws, Rules, Regulations and/or Charter, not limited to but including
the Interstate Commerce Clause and The Uniform Commercial Code, bars delivery
of packages etc. to Tenants, including but not limited to UPS, Fed Ex etc.. As
recently as June 31, 2006 RICO staff told a UPS deliveryman that respondent had
moved (see exhibit D). For a number of years respondent had to reroute deliveries
to MailBoxes etc. (see exhibit), causing additional delay and expense to
respondent by petitioner, as was their intent. For these and other enumerated and
unenumerated reasons, respondent has withheld "rent" and made various lawful
entreaties in order to seek remedy, and which respondent believes will only occur
with a duly appointed jury of peers.
Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy
shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,
and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court
of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
18. As additional Predicate Felonies, upon Information and Belief, the RICO and/or
their staff engage in Massive Identity Theft for the primary purposes of profit,
Harassment, and Leverage. Illegal, Unwarranted, Unnecessary, and Dangerous
amounts of Personal, Private information regarding Tenants and their guests is
accumulated and amassed to be used and distributed and sold to the Tenants
detriment. These distribution points include, but are not limited to, the NYPD (for
additional Considerations) and other Government and/or private agencies, and
Criminal individuals and/or Organizations (other than the instant RICO). On two
occasions Housing Bureau Police (Public Housing), while doing a building wide
warrant sweep, at 6AM awoke respondent looking for a Criminal using
respondents name, but of vastly different appearance and finger prints. The source
of the stolen identity was the RICO and/or staff. Petitioner requires, for those guests
it deigns to allow entrance, a specific type of Government Identification that is
demanded and if produced is held for the duration of the visit, during which the
Personal Information is photocopied and kept for various illegal purposes
(Predicate Felony). The Rico "lost" respondent's brother's Drivers License which
was returned over a month later. During previous visit of respondent by
respondents sister, brother-inlaw and 10 month old nephew, two of whom
respondent was meeting for the first time, the RICO barred the visitors from
accessing respondents apartment, for various purported "reasons" such as an
alleged one visiter at a time "rule" and lack of "correct" Government Identification for
nephew, which admittedly was not in their possession. The fourth floor lounge,
ostensibly provided for this very purpose in Certificate of Occupancy, was locked
and/or occupied by "olive leaf". This left the "Medical Experiment Center"/ Public
Lobby to conduct the Private Visit/Introductions. As the final brutal Harassment of
respondent and his relatives, when Finnian Aengus Church started to spit up, as 10
months old are wont to do, the only bathroom in the lobby and thus potentially
assessable to mother and child was affirmatively barred by the RICO, creating a
potential medical emergency and/or deliberate homicide of said child and
immediately ending visit. To this day, respondent's sister is too afraid of the RICO's
staff's barbarous Harassments/Criminal acts against herself and her son to again
visit respondent at his lawful address despite adjurations on respondents behalf.
19. As Predicate Felonies, the necessary means, and/or "business model", of and
for the RICO's ability to execute various 'scams', as a "Poverty Pimp", requires and
installs Criminals, Violent Felons, Crack and other addicted newcomers, exinmates
from Prison Early Release Programs etc., creating horrific conditions and
crime and maximum Fraudulent Gain to petitioner and maximum loss to Lawful and
Law Abiding Original Tenants and Taxpayers. This Gimmick/Tort/Scheme/
Harassment is likely well know to many or most New Yorkers over preceding
decades as an Unlawful Method for Criminal Landlords to empty a building of Rent
Stabilized or Controlled tenants without Due Process of Law (Innumerable Court
Precedents available upon request). The difference in the instant case is that
petitioner found a modus operandi wherein as their appanage they could and
would and have Fraudulently taxed various pograms for the dubious distinction of
bringing their anointed Criminal and/or Incompetent newcomers to New York's and
the Continent's most expensive neighborhood (Gramercy Park). The amount of
Crime and Crime Rate in the building is higher than when owned by Tran Dinh
Truong due to the hundreds of Criminal, Violent Drug Addicts, Felons, and other
Disorderly Individuals willfully and purposely brought into the building, whereas Tran
was merely indifferent. A FOIL request on this was blocked but recent crimes on
Tenants by other 'new' tenants (not the RICO but often with connivance,
foreknowledge, license,and in the interest of) in the building include, Murder (of
Henry Midgett by drug dealer Richard Williams, employed by petitioner), loan
sharking, Assault, Robbery, Prostitution, and Drug Dealing.
20. The conditions in Kenmore Hall are so horrendous and egregious as to
constitute additional Predicate Felonies, as well as other violations of Federal,
State, and City Laws, Rules and regulations by petitioner. Literally Hundreds of
open (unfixed) DHPD violations, including eight in respondents apartment
(Violations ID # 4957755, 57, 6205532, 33, 34, & 35, 6224703, 5688584) since May
2004 and remain willfully un-repaired as part of harassment and violation of implied
Warrant of Habitability. In the stipulation in a previous court appearance respondent
agreed to pay, and did in fact pay $3,250, if petitioner would repair violations and
other conditions by Licensed Plumbers & Electricians as required by law (see
exhibits F, G). This stipulation was unperformed by the RICO, who at every
opportunity attempted and did in fact use Unlicensed and Undocumented Staff who
willfully destroyed plaintiff's bathroom (Retaliatory Eviction). Staff, instead of making
repairs, created a large hole in respondents bathroom, which was covered with
plastic and became a vector for vermin, as was their desire. After numerous
importunings and many months, a deliberately inept restoration was undertaken (see
photos), which resulted in a grout or cement substance all over said bathroom and
when respondent at that time requested a repair of the leaking toilet it was instead
damaged to were it continuously flushes. Respondent, in order to stop tremendous
waste of water and noise, keeps toilet float ball raised and flushes toilet with the water
from the tub that will not drain. The same Unlicensed and Undocumented staff, while
snaking a pipe in a different apartment, damaged respondent's bathroom sink drain,
causing a significant leak when used. There is also considerable lead paint and
potentially fatal Toxic Black Mold (allergy) from upstairs leak. The apartment has not
been painted since the Major Capital Improvement of 10 years ago (the law is every 3
years). Upon information and belief, The RICO interferes with landline phone service
by means of Tap/Tampering/Taping. This was reported to respondent by Verizon
Employee Philip Surachi (VID # 682) on December 23, 2003, who said that two jury
rigged illegal taps were on phone line in basement room assessable only to the
RICO staff, causing numerous instances of no dial tone, up to five days at a time.
Respondent neither owns nor possesses a cell phone. During the phone outages of
June 2006 (5 days) (as well as Aug. 07) on June 6 a Verizon Technician (VID # GIG),
visiting said basement room in order to check for tampering, was barred and told he
would need to give at least one days notice and make an appointment in order to
remove illegal devices a priori. No battery operated smoke detectors have ever been
installed in said apartment in violation of NYC Administrative Code §27-2045, 46,
instead a hard wired optical monitoring device running on alternating current was
furnished. During any blackout or electrical interruption to building or apartment has
and will fail and a fire is presumed more likely at at that time due to possible use of
candles matches etc., thus the reason for a battery requirement. Hot water is sporadic
(see exhibits).
21. Respondent moved into said building in 1989 and current apartment in 1992,
without a lease i. e. the Rent Stabilization Laws as a lease. In 1996 respondent
was forced to move to a temporary apartment (the current 4th floor lounge) while a
major capital improvement was performed on apartment and a "temporary
relocation agreement " was signed, with no copy given to respondent. On that
move property was stolen by staff. In 1997, at the MCI completion, respondent was
summoned to a building office wherein petitioner confiscated the temporary
apartment keys (constructive eviction). The RICO said that respondent's property
would be moved by staff only again (Threat) and that a multi page "Housing Rider"
by Housing and Urban Development had to be signed in only five minutes (Duress)
. Respondent was told it was a "Take it or leave it (meaning apartment)
proposition" and to sign or leave the building and become homeless (Retaliatory
and Constructive Eviction) and have property converted and/or stolen and sold
(duress)(see Kenmore V Rispler). Respondent knew that all renewal leases (as
this was/is) must be made on the same terms or better, as well as that the lease
contract was without consideration (Nudum Pactum) and thus null and void, as
respondent was already a Lawful Tenant. In order to prevent additional Looting of
respondent's property respondent signed that contract and was again given no
copy. Respondent considers only the elements and clauses of said contract that
are less restrictive than existing Rent Stabilization Law as being in effect, as a
matter of Law and Precedent.
22. In order to conduct a proper defense, respondent will require the appearance
of all named current and former employees of petitioner at trial, as well as all
named and relevant documents and/or emails, and requests to be informed in reply
as to whether their presence will require subpoena and if so the named individuals
and documents present location.
First Affirmative Defense : Improper service (RPAPL § 735) and defective
(unsigned) Petition and "Affirmation" 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1a, CPLR § 2101, RPAPL
§741.
Second Affirmative Defense : That petitioner has no standing in the instant case to
bring suit as it is not the (proper) owner, but instead the People of the United States
i. e. the Federal government as previously attested to in paragraphs 1, 11 etc.. Also
that petitioner (Kenmore Associates a.k.a.Housing & Services Incorporated) is not
an actual legal entity properly registered with the Federal State and Local
government, including the Tax authorities. Also that petitioner has not paid
$102,000,000 court judgment against it and thus all assets would revert to
Madigril Rispler. Respondent will require as part of defense all relevant
documents, originals notarized and/or certified, as well as chain of custody of said
documents. Petitioner is in violation of any "agreement " with Federal government
(VOID) as well as Nudum Pactum (Naked Contract, no Consideration). All surplus
Federal Property must be put up for lawful, proper advertised Auction. Upon
Information and Belief, Petitioner is a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization as defined by Federal Law.
Third Affirmative Defense: That State Civil Court is not the court of Proper
Jurisdiction, due to Federal Ownership, Federal Questions, Federal Issues and
Federal Laws involved with and as defenses in the instant case. Respondent
moves and/or will move court for a MOTION TO DISMISS with prejudice (on
the state court level) and MOVE that the case be transfered to federal court at
petitioners expense or be resubmitted. Respondent asserts that United States
Constitutional Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XIII, XIV will be used as
lawful defense. The Uniform Commercial Code, Housing and Urban Development
Rules and Regulations and all applicable governing Federal Laws, Rules and
Regulations will be used.
Fourth Affirmative Defense: Due to enumerated acts of Harassment of respondent
as well as other acts by petitioner and conditions of said apartment and building, a
violation of Warranty of Habitability, respondent owes and would owe no "rent"
under laws including Rent Stabilization Code 2525.5 and Real Property Law §
235-b and §235-d and §235-a and §235-c. Any use of restrictive clauses and/or
covenants in "Housing Rider" would violate RPL §235-c (Unconscionable Lease or
Clause) as well as the principle of Nadum Pactum (Naked Contract, No
Consideration) which is basic contract law, as well as the settled law that a lease
must be renewed on the same terms or better than the original lease, in this case
no lease.
Fifth Affirmative Defense: Due to the petitioner waiting over two years to file case
against respondent, the Doctrine of Laches (estoppel) will be used. This is also
called "stale rent".
Sixth Affirmative Defense: For the reasons previously enumerated (1-22), the
defenses of Constructive Eviction and Retaliatory Eviction as well as Partial
Constructive Eviction as well as Obstruction of Justice will be used.
Seventh Affirmative Defense:That alleged rent amounts are incorrect. Respondents
lawful rent is $215.00 per Month and after building wide Major Capital
Improvement rent was illegally tripled instead of by correct formula. That
$15,000.00 was paid into court for a pending appeal and sum was illegally and
without Due Process converted for petitioners use. That $3,250 paid to petitioner, in
part to effect repairs by Licensed Contractors was also converted for improper use
and should be applied to any amounts owed.
Eighth Affirmative Defense: The Federal Fair Housing Act and Fair Housing
amendments Act (42 U.S. Code § § 3601-3619, 3631) and Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and §109 of Title I of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 will be used as defenses.
Respondent is (partially (Photophobia)) disabled and over 40.
Ninth Affirmative Defense: Res Judicata (index #52851/06) and Collateral Estoppel
re. any Motion to Strike Jury Demand.
Eleventh Affirmative Defense; Section 8 Fraud and payments (2921 Associates v.
Willis, Title 24 CFR: Ch VII HUD Part 792) and violation of Federal Consent
Judgment Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth., 975 F. Supp. 317, 319 (S.D.N.Y.
1997) (hereinafter the "Williams Consent Judgment').
Twelfth Affirmative Defense: Perjury, Malfeasance, lack of Due Diligence & Barratry
by RICO Counsel/Consiglieri/Party (ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct).
Thirteenth Affirmative Defense: RICO(petitioner)'s violation of Federal Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692) (Romea v. Heiberger & Assoc., 989
F.Supp. 712 (SDNY 1997). No Validation notice by their debt collector.
Fourteenth Affirmative Defense: Violations of Federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §
3729) & NYSFCA, Article XIII §187-194, NYC Local Law #53/05.
Fifteenth Affirmative Defense: As PREDICATE FELONIES (RICO) petitioners
ongoing violations of § 411 & § 412 Illegal Immigration Reform and Control Act and §
274 Immigration and Nationality Act, Executive Order #12989, 61 Fed. Reg. 6091
(Feb. 15, 1996), 8 U.S.C. § 1324, Federal Acquisition Regulation 9.406-2, 46 U.S.C. §
8704, etc.; and injunctive relief.
Sixteenth Affirmative Defense: violations of USA PATRIOT Act and 18 U.S.C. §
2331: domestic terrorism means activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human
life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear
to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the
policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a
government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur
primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. and New York State Anti-
Terrorism Laws.
Seventeenth Affirmative Defense: Violations of CPLR §2214(b), §2221(c), 22
NYCRR §130-1, CPLR §3216, §3404, Uniform Rule 202.27 (22 NYCRR 202.27)
and NYCRR §208.14[c]) and Stipulation(s).
Eighteenth Affirmative Defense: Violations of Federal, State and City Building
Codes and licensing requirements, including, but not limited to, §27-3016-18, §
[B26-2.0] 26-141-§[B26-2.1] 26-142.
Nineteenth Affirmative Defense: Violation of 9 NYCRR § 2523.1-8.
Twentieth Affirmative Defense: Stare Decisis regarding inclusion on
"Blacklist" (see Weisert v Subaqua, Supreme Court Justice Barbara Kapnick)
Twenty first Affirmative Defense: All other actual and appropriate affirmative
defenses, Federal, State and City, will be used, especially as may arise from Trial
and/or Reply or Motion.
First Counterclaim: That petitioner, reaching back six years before the filling of the
instant suit through present, engaged in such egregious criminal and civil
violations, (as enumerated in #1-#22) of Federal, State and City Laws, Regulations
and Rules including Predicate Felonies covered under RICO act and Harassment,
and Implied Warranty of Habitability and 22 NYCRR §130-1, a fine/penalty of
$100,000,000 be imposed on petitioner and awarded to respondent. Further that
Injunctive Relief be granted by court to stop Harassments, Torts, Crimes and unlawful
restrictions and Chattel status.
Second Counterclaim: That for the reasons aforementioned, including but not
limited to ongoing Harassment and violation of Implied Warranty of Habitability and
§2525.5 of Rent Stabilization Code and Predicate Felony RICO (criminal and civil)
acts (pgs#1-22) punitive damages be awarded, to be set by court, as well as treble
damages qualified under said Federal RICO act.
Demand For an H.P. Inspection
Respondent demands an H.P. Inspection be made of subject building and unit
#4R prior to commencement of further appearances (or) any Trial Proceedings.
Jury Demand
Respondent hereby demands a Trial by Jury.
WHEREFORE, Respondent demands judgment against petitioner dismissing the
Petition with prejudice and awarding the respondent the damages asked for in the
First & Second Counterclaims, and for such and further relief that this court may deem
just and proper.
Dated: August 19, 2006, New York County, NY
-----------------------------------------------
Respondent Pro Se,
145 east 23rd street
New York, NY 10010
To: Norris McLaughlin & Marcus P.A. briantburke@gmail.com
Counsel For Petitioner
875 Third Avenue, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10022
212-732-0606
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART H
----------------------------------------------------------X Index # 071507/07 &
KENMORE ASSOCIATES, L.P. & : Index # 52851/2006
HOUSING SERVICES INC. & Norris :
McLaughlin & Marcus Petitioner, :
v. : Notice of Appeal
:
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the appellant hereby
appeals to the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, first Department, from the
Order by the Honorable Kevin McClanahan, Judge of Housing Court of the City
of New York, entered in the office of the Clerk of said Court on August 9, 2007,
and from each and every part thereof.
Dated August 20, 2007 _____________________________________
Appellant Pro-se
145 east 23rd street

To: Norris McLaughlin & Marcus P.A.
Counsel For Petitioner
875 Third Avenue, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10022
212-732-0606
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. & Marcus : & Index # 52851/06
McLaughlin & Marcus, Petitioner, :
: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
v. :
:
:
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
I, , declare under penalty of perjury that I have served a copy of the
attached Answer & Affidavit & Notice of Appeal & Order upon Dean Roberts, plaintiff's
counsel, by regular mail & Fax, whose address is: 875 Third Avenue, Floor 18, New
York, New York, postal code 10022 on August 19, 2007 CPLR § 2103(b) Upon an
attorney
By: --------------------------------------

respondent pro se
145 EAST 23RD STREET
New York, NY 10010
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus
petitioner's counsel Dated: August 19, 2007
875 Third Avenue Fl18
New York, NY 10022