Kevin McClanahan Federal District Judge

CIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART
----------------------------------------------------------X
KENMORE ASSOCIATES, L.P. & : Index # 071507/07 & HOUSING & SERVICES INC. & Norris : Index # 52851/06
McLaughlin & Marcus :
Petitioner, : 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: That the Court (The Honorable Kevin McClanahan), Hearing

Officer or not (see Att. Met Council v. Crosson), has releases itself from Judicial Immunity by

operating outside its Jurisdiction (Federal) as well as without Personal Jurisdiction over

Respondent. Bias was evidenced in both appearances (see Transcripts) and see following:

"Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction." Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872). Pulliam v. Allen (1984) 466 U.S. 522, the Supreme Court Justices held:
There is little support in the common law for a rule of judicial
immunity that prevents injunctive relief against a judge. There is
even less support for a conclusion that Congress intended to limit the
injunctive relief available under § 1983 in a way that would prevent
federal injunctive relief against a state judge.
In Pierson v. Ray, 386 US 547, 18 L Ed 2d 288, 87 S Ct 1213
(1967), the Court found no indication of affirmative congressional
intent to insulate judges from the reach of the remedy Congress provided
in Section 1983. Nothing in the legislative history of § 1983 or
in this Court’s subsequent interpretations of that statute supports a
conclusion that Congress intended to insulate judges from prospective
collateral injunctive relief.
Congress enacted § 1983 and its predecessor, § 2 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat 27, to provide an independent avenue for
protection of federal constitutional rights. The remedy was considered
necessary because “state courts were being used to harass and
injure individuals, either because the state courts were powerless to
stop deprivations or were in league with those who were bent upon
abrogation of federally protected rights.” Mitchum v Foster, 407 US 42
225, 240, ... (every member of Congress who spoke to the issue assumed
that judges would be liable under Ԥ 1983).
Subsequent interpretations of the Civil Rights Acts by this Court
acknowledge Congress’ intent to reach unconstitutional actions by
all state actors, including judges. ... Judicial immunity is no bar to
the award of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Citing Pulliam v. Allen (1984) 466 U.S. 522, the Ninth Circuit held in
Dykes v. Hosemann, 743 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. 1984):
It is clear that a judge who acts in the absence of subject matter
jurisdiction may be held liable for his judicial acts. Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Bradley v.
Fisher, 13 Wall.335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872). ... The rationale for this
limitation on judicial immunity is set out in Bradley v. Fisher and reiterated
in Stump v. Sparkman: “Where there is clearly no jurisdiction
over the subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority,
and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction
is known, no excuse is permissible.”
An absence of personal jurisdiction may be said to destroy “all
jurisdiction” because the requirements of subject matter and personal
jurisdiction are conjunctional. Both must be met before a court
has authority to adjudicate the rights of parties to a dispute.
If a court lacks jurisdiction over a party, then it lacks “all jurisdiction”
to adjudicate that party’s rights, whether or not the subject
matter is properly before it. See, e.g., Kulko v. Superior Court, 436
U.S. 84 ... [i]t has long been the rule that a valid judgment imposing
a personal obligation or duty in favor of the plaintiff may be entered
only by a court having jurisdiction over the person of the defendant”)
(citations omitted) ... Because the limits of personal jurisdiction
constrain judicial authority, acts taken in the absence of personal
jurisdiction do not fall within the scope of legitimate decision
making that judicial immunity is designed to protect. See Gregory v.
Thompson, 500 F.2d at 63. We conclude that a judge who acts in the
clear and complete absence of personal jurisdiction loses his judicial
immunity.
Because the issues of whether Judge Hosemann knew he lacked
personal jurisdiction or acted in the face of clearly valid statutes or
case law expressly depriving him of jurisdiction are matters for initial
determination in the district court, we reverse the order dismissing
the claim against Judge Hosemann and remand to the district
court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
The issue raised in the instant action, that also requires a jury trial,
is whether the defendants knew that they, and the lower court judges,
that they were (1) acting without jurisdiction; and (2) whether they
knew that they, and the other judges they protected, were acting in
the face of clearly valid statutes, case law, and federal question
rights. A jury trial is required on this basis alone.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy against rights of citizens. If two or
more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in
the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised
the same; ... They shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both;

Additional relevant Law and Case Law:
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343,Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title 42 USC § 1985, 28 U.S.C. § 144
28 U.S.C. § 455, United States v. Gigax, 605 F.2d 507 (10th Cir. 1979), Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2, New York Judiciary Law §14, State and Federal due process rights to a neutral and detached jurist, to a fair hearing, and to the right to confront the witnesses against them (see, NY Const, art I, § 6; US Const 6th, 14th Amends), Johnson v. District Court, 674 P.2d 952 (1984), Rules of the Chief Administrator §100.3(E) (a) (i) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party;

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

(see Att. Motion to Stay) and it is within the power of a Just Court to grant Trial on the Instant

Motion (CPLR §2218).

As to Motion to Recuse, the obvious bias by the court (Hon. Kevin McClanahan), on the record,

("He's really weird FOR A TENANT (lines 3 etc.)) show a hatred for tenants in general and this

Respondent in particular, either for reasons of Race, Ethnicity, Creed, Sex, Age and/or (partial

(Photophobia & Myopia)) Disability. Judge and/or Hearing Officer McClanahan is perhaps

unaware that this Court has no Jurisdiction over Federal Constitutional Claims, Federal Law, or

Federally owned property, which was not disputed by petitioner. Pending Complaint before the

Commission on Judicial Conduct and issues before Appellate Term, First Department are

additional grounds for Mandated Recusal of the Court.

As to Motion to Clarify Hearing Officer versus Judicial Authority see attached (Met Council v. Crosson 84 N.Y.2d 328, 642 N.E.2d 1073, 618 N.Y.S.2d 617 (1994).

As to Motion to Dismiss for violation of CPLR § 2214, petitioner failed to respond to lawfully

served original Omnibus Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice in a timely manner and thus was/is in

default. As to Defective Petition, It was not signed, as all Court Papers are required to be (CPLR § 2101 (see Boyd v. Kellman, 225 5th LLC v Fiori Fiori Inc., NYLJ, Feb. 16, 2005, at 22, col 3 (Civ Ct, NY County, Gesmer, J.).). Petitioner was noticed of this defect within two days of improper

service as required (see att.).

As to Motion to Dismiss for failure to include other Parties (CPLR § 3221(a)10), due to Section

8 status (att.), agreement between petitioner and HUD and Section 8 "lease rider". No

Certification procedure compliance (see the Williams consent decree).

As to Motion to Renew/Reargue Respondent again points to lack of Personal and Actual

(Federal) Jurisdiction over this case. Case # 52651/06 is still active and not off calendar. Plaintiff

failed to answer Omnibus Motion in unsigned "affirmation" in Opposition or in Court and thus

must be deemed stipulated to (see Motion to Stay). Respondent believes Vacatur of lawful

Stipulation (July 5, 2007) between parties lacks legal Authority and/or reason.

As to Motion to Dismiss for defective Predicate Notice, it was not signed by "landlord" or

petitioners counsel but by petitioners Debt Collector (see 8201 Realty Assoc. v. Navas).

As to Motion to Compel, Respondent, in the Interest of Justice and Federal and State Due

Process Rights, Demands sufficiently before trial to prepare, Plaintiff(RICO)'s witness list, any

Documentary and/or other evidence to be introduced at trial, and a Reply to Lawfully served

Answer.

As to Motion for Change of Venue, Respondent Demands that case(s) be moved to SDNY

Federal Court , as Court of Proper Jurisdiction, at Petitioner's expense. This need is evidenced by

all Federal Laws, U.S. Constitutional Defenses, and Unrebutted Federal Ownership Allegation

included in all respondents papers.

Respondent realizes there exists as much chance of winning any Motion in this Biased Court

(unless a Virtual Person) as Appalachian St. has of beating Michigan, and as a Subway

Motorman, Respondent is aware of being Railroaded. Nevertheless, without options, hope

springs eternal, and Respondent prays for Remedy/Relief aforesaid.

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

dismissing petitioner's Petition in its entirety, and for all such and further relief that this

Court may deem just and appropriate.



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



Sworn Before me on the
12th Day of September, 2007

Kevin McClanahan Crooked Hearing Officer

CIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART
----------------------------------------------------------X
KENMORE ASSOCIATES, L.P. & : Index # 071507/07 & HOUSING & SERVICES INC. & Norris : Index # 52851/06
McLaughlin & Marcus :
Petitioner, : OMNIBUS
v. : MOTION TO
: DISMISS WITH
: PREJUDICE II
: JURY DEMAND
Tenant, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of ____________

Tenant, Respondent, sworn to on the 12th day of September, 2007, and upon

all exhibits & papers annexed hereto, the undersigned (respondent) will move this

Court at a Motion term held before Room 1162(b) at the New York County (Civil)

Courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, on the 20th day of September, 2007 at

9:30 A.M. , for an order: (1) That SPECIAL APPEARANCE be granted to

challenge lack of PERSONAL JURISDICTION Book Review, New York Civil Practice, Vol.112 U.Pa.L.Rev. pp. 1222, 1230 (1963)(CPLR § 3211).

(2) That JURY TRIAL be granted for instant motion (CPLR §2218).

(3) Motion to Recuse Judge Kevin McClanahan ("The Court") "in the clear absence of jurisdiction", and for Bias.

(5) Motion as to whether Court is operating under Authority (Rules and Law) of Hearing Officer or Judge.

(6) Motion to Dismiss for violation of CPLR § 2214 and Defective Petition.

(7) Motion to Dismiss for failure to include DHPD and/or NYCHA and/or HUD as parties (CPLR §3211).

(8) Motion to Renew/Reargue Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and Vacatur of Stipulation.

(9) Motion to Dismiss for defective Predicate Notice (no "landlords" signature).

(10) Motion to Compel production of witness list, any evidence for Trial and Reply to Answer.

(11) Motion for Change of Venue to SDNY Federal District Court at Plaintiff's Cost, if not Moot.

WHEREFORE, respondent prays for the granting of an Order from the Court

dismissing petitioner's Notice of Petition & Petition in its entirety, granting

respondent's Motion(s) and for all such and further relief that this Court may deem

just and appropriate.
________________________
Tenant, Respondent pro se
145 east 23rd street
Petitioners counsel: New York, NY, 10010
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A.
875 Third Avenue Fl 18
New York, NY 10022

Dated September 12, 2007

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"