Motion to Hold Svenson in Contempt of Court

7/30/2019 Motion to Hold Svenson in Contempt of Court

1/14

lynoo A i i i / \ i v d A i N n o o S O N Wp i n ? ^ l ~ i n rFAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS Q3AI303dELENA S V E N S O N , ' DOCKET N O .Petitioner, F-28901-08/10/A/B/C-against-MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, NOTICE OF MOTIONRespondent. TO HOLD IN__ CONTEMPT

H o n . Jeanette RuizCOUNSELORS :PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed petition of Michael Krichevsky, sworn to the18 day of July, 2013, and upon all the pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein, theundersigned will move this C ourt at Part 27, thereof, to be held at the C ourthouse located at 330Jay Street, Brooklyn, New York on the 18th day of July, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. in the forenoo n of thatday or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard:

For an order by the Court:1. adjudging the Petitioner in contempt of this C ourt for perjuring herself under oath;2. adjudging the Petitioner in contempt of this Court for maliciously prosec uting in

this court false Petition to punish Michael Krichevsky in contempt of court based onJohn Fason e's void order an d without pro bab le cause causing Michael Krichevsky tosuffer stroke;

3. referring this matter to district attorney fo r criminal prosecu tion.4. declaring that support order against respondent dated February 3, 2010 by

magistrate John Fason e of Kings Co unty Family C ourt is VOID on the grounds that itwas obtained by Petitioner's actual fraud, fraud upon the court, perjury, attorney'smiscon duct, misrepresentation, witness-tempering, obstruction of justice and inabsence of due process pursuant to CPLR 2002, R5015(a) (3),(4), R5012, and 5019(a).


2/14

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to Section 2214(b) of the Civil Practice Lawand Rules, all answering papers, if any, shall be served at least seven (7) days before the returndate of this motion.

Dated: Brooklyn, New YorkJuly 18, 2013

Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se4221 Atlantic AveBrooklyn, New York 11224(718) 687-2300

ELENA SVENSON2620 Ocean Pkwy, Apt 3KBrooklyn, NY 11223


3/14

FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF KINGSELENA SVENSON, ' DOCKET NO.

Petitioner(s), F-28901-08/10A/B/C-against-MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, PETITION TO HOLDRespondent. IN CONTEMPT OF

COURT

STATE OF NEW YORK ss.:COUNTY OF KINGSMICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Pro Se, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am the Respondent in the action herein.2. I have first-hand knowledge regarding facts set forth below and is competent to testify.3. On April 27, 2012 Petitioner (SVENSON) filed for bankruptcy. In her bankruptcy petition

she revealed for the first time that on or about April 2009 she was working at the homehealth care agency, exhibit A.

4. While working at that agency, on August 6, 2009 at the hearing for child support in thiscourt, SVENSON testified under oath that she is not working, but looking for work. Thehearing was adjourned due to her testimony that in 2 months shewill find some work.

5. After about 2 months, during November 2009 hearing in this court SVENSON testifiedunder oath that she is not employed, was not looking for work, but instead she is going to

medical school to become a nurse. She testified that shewould graduate in 2012.6. From April of 2009 until July 18, 2013 SVENSON and her attorney, Yonatan Levoritz,

deliberately concealed from the court and KRICHEVSKY material fact that she was


4/14

working all this time while claiming that her income is zero and she is going to medicalschool, when she did not.

7. During child support proceeding s from 2008 until 2013 hearing officer John Fasone wasand is involved in covering up that fraud.

8. KRICHEVSKY was ordered to pay SVENSON $31,599.42 rn arrears, petitioner'sattorney fees, about $700 per month for parties' child health plan to pay to his employer inaddition to $2045 in monthly child sup port while getting gross income of $4000 permonth.

9. That order was impo ssible to comply with because after incomplete deduction of som etaxes respondent would have no m ore $3694 per mo nth in disposable income. If he wouldtry to deduct from that amount $3067.50 plus $700 for child health care it would be more(3067.50 + $700 = 3767.50) than $3694 of respondent's disposable income, not tomention that respondent had basic human needs too and no m ore than 65% w ould bepossible legally to deduct pursuant to Consumer C redit Protection Act Limitations onWithholdings for Support (15 U.S.C. 1673 (b))

10. This child support order and others w ere issued by Mr. Fasone in deliberate disregard toKRICHEVSKY's hum an needs, because after KRICHEVSKY was fired, hisunemployment insurance benefits were plundered by child sup port collection unit and hewas left with $150 per week no t counting his housing expenses, utilities, car expenses, etc.

11. This order was issued in violation of Bill of Bights and FDCPA.12 . SVENSON and her attorneys, Yoram Nakhimovsky, Michael Biancanello, and Yonatan

Levoritz, in the name of the parties' child welfare in concert engaged in malicious


5/14

prosecution terrorizing respondent "as hired hit men."13. It started in 2008 with petitioner, at the advice of her attorney, Yoram Nakhimovsky,

stealing respon dent's personal records, files, documents and electronic backup m edia, notto mention her attempts to provok e violence by, inter alia, looting respondent's apartmenton 4 336 M anhattan Avenue in Brooklyn.

14. It con tinued with Family Offence Petition falsely reporting family offence, child abuse andrequest for child support and ex parte order of protection on O ctober 27, 2008.

15. By the end of that day after petitioner obtained this order of protection, she broug htparties' child at respondent's place of work. T hey were so afraid of respondent that theystarted badmouthing respo nden t and harassing his employer, Harlan Wittenstein, Esq., bydemanding that he fires responden t.

16. Petitioner falsified facts in her petition for order of protection and, during hearing, thispetition w as withdrawn by her before the court had any oppo rtunity to rule.

17. Mr. L evoritz and S YE NS O N comm itted fraud upo n the court by filing fraudulent financialdisclosure affidavits with the court. For example, in her family offence petition she statedthat due to Mr. Krichevky's offence she and the child "temporary living in apartmen t h erparents own" at 2620 O cean Parkway in Brooklyn. She intentionally concealed from thecourt that her parents are deceden ts and she owns this apartme nt so that she could "showthe court ho w miserable they are and how atrocious Mr. Krichevsky is." To be consistentin her statements she and her attorney M r. Levoritz intentionally and consistently with herprior statement did not list her 2620 Ocean Parkway cooperative apartment as "Other realestate owned" under H ASSETS: e) of post-father financial disclosure affidavit, and lists


6/14

parties 120 Oceana condominium as "Residence owned" under d). During child supporthearing, she admitted that she does not live therein Oceana, but collects $2825 in rent. Shekept perjuring herself by continuing falsely testifying in court "She and child live in herparent's apartment" rent-free.

18. Testifying in Court that she is getting cash support from her sister from Germany isanother perjury as her sister, Larissa Gaber, is on public assistance there.

19. Her attorney, Mr. Levoritz, obstructed justice through witness tampering by making hersister not to appear in court on January 6, 2010 after she was served with subpoena.

20. In post-father financial affidavit, petitioner and her attorney state that with ZIR.O assetsher income is $2850 per month while expenses are over $4000. This fact was pointed outto magistrate John Fasone, but he "turned a blind eye to this fact."

21. Mr. Levoritz and petitioner spoiled evidence by destroying and/or concealing (it isunknown which) unfavorable to them evidence.

22. Petitioner and her attorney did not deny the fact that Svenson stole these documents andelectronic media from respondent.

23. E3UCHEVSKY reserves his right to supplement this petition with memorandum of law,supplemental affidavit, and exhibits.

WHEJ^EFOPvE, respondent respectfully moves this Court to grant this motion in its entirety,including all costs in these court's proceedings.


7/14

XMICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Pro Se, under duress

Sworn to before me this18th day of July, 2013_

NOTARY

YELENARUV INSKAYAN o t a r y Public, S t a t e o f N e w Y o r kN o . 0 1 R U 6 1 3 8 0 2 4 JQualified in K i n g s C o u n t y /C o m m i s a i o n E x p i r e s D e c e m b e r 12,2Q__


8/14

EXHIBITA


9/14

Case 1-12-43050-ess Doci \-i\eQW-izfirz tmerea 04/2/712 10:13:13

B6I (Official Form 61) (12/07)In re Elena Svenson Case No.Debtors)SCHEDULE I - CURRENT INCOME OFINDIVIDUAL DEBTOR(S)

The column labeled "Spouse" must be completed in all cases filed byjoint debtors and by every married debtor, whether or not a joint petition isfiled, unless the spotlses are separated and a joint petition is not filed. Do not state the name of any minor child. The average monthly incomecalculated on this form may differ from the current monthly income calculated on Form 22A, 22B, or 22C.Debtor's Marital Status:

SingleEmployment:OccupationName of EmployerHow long employedAddress of Employer

DEPENDENTS OF DEBTOR. AM) SPOUSERELATIONSHIP(S): AGE(S):Son . 17 years

DEBTORHome AttendantAssociation for Services for theAged3 years36-36 33rd StreetAstoria, - N Y 11106

SPOUSE

INCOME: (Estimate of average orprojected monthly income at time case filed)1. Monthly gross wages, salary, and commissions (Prorate if not paid monthly)2. Estimate monthly overtime3. SUBTOTAL4.'LESS PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS .a. Payroll taxes and social security

b. Insurancec. Union duesd. Other (Specify): '

$$DEBTOR1,924.650 . 0 0

SPOUSE$ N/AN /As 1,924.65 $ N/As$sss

321.400 . 0 00 . 0 00 . 0 00 . 0 0

S$S$$

N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A

5. SUBTOTAL OFPAYROLL DEDU CTIONS6. TOTAL NET MONT HLY TAKE HOMEPAY7. Regular income from operation ofbusiness or profession or farm (Attach detailed statement)8. Income from real property9. Interest and dividends10. Alimony, maintenance or support payments payable to the debtor for the debtor1 s use or that ofdependents listed above11. Social security or government assistance(Specify): ; .12. Pension or retirement income13. Other monthly income(Specify): ' _

14. SUBTOTAL OFLINES 7 THROUGH 1315. AVERAGE MONTHL Y INCOME (Add amounts shown on lines 6 and 14)16. COMBINED AV ERAG E MONTHLY INCOME: (Combine column totals from line 15)

400.00

0 . 0 00 . 0 00 . 0 0

s'$' 0 . 0 00 . 0 0

S 321.40 S N/A$ 1,603.25 $ N/A$$$

0.000.000.00

$$s

N/A' N/ AN/AN /AN /AN/AN/AN/AN/A

$ 400.00 . $ N/A$ .2,003.25 S N/A

S 2,003.25(Report also on Summary of Schedules and, if applicable, onStatisticalSummary of Certain Liabilities and Related Data)

17 Describe any increase or decrease in income reasonably anticipated to occur within the year following the filing ofthis document


10/14

FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF KINGS

DOCKET NO.KINGS COUNTY SUPPORT COLLECTION UNIT OF KINGS F-28901-08/10COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COCIAL SERVICES on behalf ofELENA SVENSON,

Petitioners, JUDICIAL NOTICE-against-

A __ . 1_T _.TOTTr^ rCT rx r Hon- leanette RuizMICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,Respondent.

Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se, (Hereinafter "Respondent") hereby respectfully moves this Court totake JUDICIAL NOTICE:

The Courts have long held that Pro Se pleadings are to be read liberally and if there isrelief available that they have failed to request, the Courts should be lenient and the Pro Se litigantshould be afforded that available relief.

Moore v.Florida. 703 F.2d 516 (llth Cir. 1983) Reversed andRemanded which held:"[26] 'a court should be particularly careful to ensure propernotice to a pro se litigant.' Herron v. Beck. 693 F.2d at 127. See alsoBarker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107, 1129 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding districtcourt abused its discretion...failing to afford to a pro se civil rightslitigant...""[37] The pleadings of pro se litigants... subject to less stringent rules. '...,however rnartfully drafted, must be held to less rigorous standards than.. .bylawyers.5 Woodall v. Fotl 651 F.2d 268, 271 (5th Cir. 1981); seeRichardson V.Fleming. 651F.2d 366, 368 (5th Cir. 1981)."F.D.I.C. v. Hillcrest Assoc.. 66 F.3d 566 (2d Cir. 1995)"reiterating generalrule and outlining exception for pro se litigants...""We hold pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard than pleadings draftedby attorneys and construe them liberally." Tannenbaum v. United States. 148F.3d 1262, 1263 (llth Cir. 1998)We give a "liberal" reading to pro se filings because those litigants lackformal legal training. See GJR Invs.. 132 F.3d at 1369 ("Courts do andshould show a leniency to pro se litigants not enjoyed by those with thebenefit of a legal education.").


11/14

In Gravdenv. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225 (llth Cir. 09/17/2003) the Court held:"The law does not entertain the legal fiction that every individual has achieved a state of legalomniscience; ... there is no presumption that all of the citizens actually know all of the law all ofthe time. Practically speaking, citizens must educate themselves about the law" See West Covina.525 U.S. at 241, 119 S. Ct. at 682 (noting that an individual "can turn to these public sources tolearn abou t the rem edial procedures available to him"); id. at 242, 119 S. Ct. at 682 (noting that acitizen "could not reasonably be expected to educate himself about the procedures available toprotect his interests"); United States v. Locke. 471 U.S. 84, 108, 105 S. Ct. 1785, 1799-1800

(1985)"Mr. Krichevsky, representing himself, invokes the doctrine of staire decisis and the United

States Supreme Court's Rulings and Rulings of other Appellate and Civil Courts concerning ProSe pleadings an d requests this Hon orable Cou rt take Judicial Notice:

"Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; prose litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards ofperfection as lawyers." Jenkins v. McKeithen. 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959);Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 151 Fed 2nd 240: Pucket v. Cox. 456 2nd233"Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and justsettlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers,which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is imp ortant, butits importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the endof a just judgment." Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co.. 303 U .S. 197 (1938)"Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, theCourt should endeavor to construe Plaintiffs Pleadings without regard totechnicalities." Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway. 151 F.2d. 240, Third CircuitCourt of Appeals"Pro Se parties hav e the right to A ppeal, and submit their briefs on appealeven though they may be inartfully drawn", see Vega v. Johnson, 149 F.3d354 (5th C ir. 1998), "Courts will go to particu lar pains to protect p ro selitigant's consequences of technical errors if injustice would otherwiseresult." U. S. v. Sanchez. 88 F.3d 1243 (B.C. Cir. 1996).Moreover, "the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to determine


12/14

if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory." Bonner v.Circuit Court of St. Louis. 526 E2d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir. 1975) quotingBramletv. Wilson 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1971).The history of bias and prejudice against pro se litigants within the Courts islong. Stephen Elias who had been with Nolo Press, the nation's leadingpublisher of self-help law books, back in 1997, in an article Bias Against ProPer Litigants... stated:"From the moment they first contact the court system, most people whowant to represent themselves, without a lawyer, encounter tremendousresistance. Within the closed universe of the courts, this bias is as perniciousas that based on race, ethnic origins or sex." "People who cannot afforda lawyer are a rebuke to the organized bar's monopoly..., because thatmonopoly is morally-if not legally-justified... the ABA has admitted that100 million Americans can't afford lawyers.""... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights underthe constitution and laws." Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905

"We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we holdto less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears "beyonddoubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him torelief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Burning, 139 F.2D 774(CA2 1944)." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519.

JUDICIAL NOTICE IN REGARD TO RESPONDENT'S CASENEW YORK CPLR Rule 4514. Impeachment of witness by prior inconsistent statement: "Inaddition to impeachment in the manner permitted by common law, any party may introduce proofthat any witness has made a prior statement inconsistent with his testimony if the statement wasmade in a writing subscribed by him or was made under oath. In this case, Petitioner's statement

on Family Offence Petition and two financial disclosure affidavits, as well as her testimony duringhearing are inconsistent and misleading:

a) On post-father disclosure affidavit petitioner claims zero cash and income of $2825per month versus $4245 expense per month.


13/14

b) During hearing she testified that in 2009 she borrowed $10,000 from her sister,Larissa Gaber to pay her lawyers, and paid $ 5000 each to her attorneys Levoritz andBiancanello, while omitting the fact that before them she paid attorney YoramNakhimovsky who worked on her three different lawsuits against respondent forabout six month.

Respondent served petitioner's sister, Larissa Gaber, with witness subpoena. No excuse and/ornotice was given to respondent by adverse party regarding unavailability of her for trial - missingwitness charge and ground fo r MISTRIAL.

Petitioner's attorney m ad e the following statem ent on Page 70 (Exhibit A) line 2-7 of Oc tober 8,2009 hearing: "Your Honor, unfortunately, in certain communities it does happen where non-lawyers actually own law firms, and it's a lawyer that's used as a front". This is defamatory andracially discriminatory statement designed to influence bias and prejudice of court againstrespondent and the ground fo r MISTRIAL.

Hearing was forced before discovery completed, while motion was pending and respondent didnot get his chance to depose petitioner. Violation of due process law, Constitution and ground forMISTRIAL

Supreme Court Decisions on Void Orders - Rulings made in violation of Due Process are void.A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections. The validity of ajudgm ent m ay be affected by a fa ilure to give the constitutionally required due process notice a ndan opportunity to be heard. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. See also Restatements,


14/14

Judgments ' 4(b). Prather v Lloyd, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910. The limitations inherent in therequirements of due process and equal protection of the law extend to judicial as well as politicalbranches of government so that a judgm ent may not be rendered in violation of thoseconstitutional limitations and guarantees. H anson v Denckla, 357 U S 235 , 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 SCt 1228. A void judgm ent is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but m ay beentirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be givento it. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or bindingforce or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to enforcement ... Allproceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. 30A Am JurJudgments " 44, 45. It is a fundamental doctrine of law that a party to be affected by a personaljudgment must have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard. Renaud v. Abbott, 116 US277, 29 L Ed 629, 6 S Ct 1194. Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a courtof law upo n every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicialdecision on the question.Earle v McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398.

CONCLUSIONRespondent is invoking his Rights and Immunities guaranteed him by both the State of

New York Constitution and The Constitution of The United States of America, and respectfullymoves the Court to take Judicial Notice of staire decisis when ruling on respondent's pro sepleadings.

Respectfully submitted, this 18th day of July, 2013,Brooklyn, N ew York

Michel Kiichevsky, PRO SE.

Motion to Hold Svenson in Contempt of Court

Documents

Transcript of Motion to Hold Svenson in Contempt of Court