affidavit in support of order to show cause to strike

7/22/2019 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO STRIKE

1/16

CIVIL COURT O F THE CITY OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF KINGSINDEXN O. 056717/2013NEW CENTURY FINANTIAL SERVICES, INC,Plaintiffs, FFID VIT IN-against- SUPPORT

Michael Krichevsky,, Defendant.

MichaelK richevsky,Third Party Plaintiff,r-o

-against- ~JohnFasone, Yonatan Levoritz,Esq.,Victor Katkalov, KINGS -


2/16

4. All exhibits herein I use asOf fer ofProofand move this Honorable Court toenterthem inevidence.5. Thisaffidavitused to supplement my complaint for the purpose of defendants' motion todismissfor failure to state aa larm and averments in it should be presumed as true.6. B ecauseI amdisableddue to stroke. I am aslow typistand bythis paragraphInotifythisHonorable Courtandother defendants thatIwill supplementthisaffidavitlatertoaddresstheirmotionsto dismiss.7. Thisaffidavitis another of my failed attempts to report Federal Crimes of Treason andMisprisionofTreasonto thejudge,aswellas aviolationsofCodeofJudicial Conductand NewYork RulesofProfe ssionalConductto NewYork TribunalperRule8.3 -Reporting ProfessionalMisconduct.

INTRODUCTIONWhenanhonestman,honestlymistaken,comes face-to-face with undeniableandirrefutabletruth, he isfacedwith oneoftw choices, he must either cease beenmistakingorcease beinghonest. AmicusSolo

8. About 6 years ago, defendants started maliciously prosecuting me for not paying my childsupport,whichInever refusedtopay. When these defendants engagedin theconflict betweendefendantSvensonandme-therewas apresumptionthattheyarehonest men.Whenmyattorney,Daniel Singer, during family court litigation approached them with undeniable and irrefutabletruthofdocumentary evidence-they destroyed their honesty presumptionandviolatedNYRPCrule4.4 byneedlesslyviolatingmy rights,causing embarrassmentandharm to me.9. During this Family Court proceedings, defendants bamboozled my attorney and me andcastaspellovermyfatherhood which turnednowintomycurse- whereI amdamnedifIpay


3/16

childsupport- and I amdamnedif I don'tThiswassummarily donehydefendant Fasoneknowingly orderingme to paymore child support thatI wasable. Thisnon-dischargeable inbankruptcy debt piledupinto about$110,000,whichIneverbeabletorepay- andthatwas hisgoal.Itallows Fasoneandchild support collection unit(CSCU), for aslongas I owe the childsupport, both collect grantsf romFederaltitleIV- Dfinding(taxpayer'smoney) enrichingthemselvesbygetting commensurablepayforruiningmylifeandharassingme -underpretextofchild support enforcement. CSCU restricted mydriver'slicense for no legitimate andlogicalreason.NowafterIstarted instant litigation, CSCU begun harassingmewith threatthat theygoingtoput alienon myproperty thatis inforeclosure. BeingInjuredbydefendants disabledandunemployedbydefendants3tortsandcriminal activity againstme, I'mfalsely Imprisonedindebtor's prison.Mycellis myhomeoffice.There,day andnight,I amworkingonfindingalegalremedytobreak defendant's spelland get myshatteredlifeback.10. Whatdefendantsdidto medescribedin thebook The ImportanceofBeingHonest byLawProfessor Steven Lubet (availableatAMAZON).InChapter 31 Stupid JudgeTricks onpage174Professor relates, InCalifornia,Judge Gregory Caskeywaspublicly admonished forsendingthefollowing e-mailto anattorney:

I amconsidering summarily rejecting [opposingcounsel's]requests.Do youwantme to let[opposing counsel] haveahearingonthis,or do we cut[opposingcounsel] offsummarilyand run the risk[of]the[CourtofAppeals] reversing? Isayscrew [theotherparty]andlet'scut[opposing counsel] offwithout hearing.OJL?By theway, this message will self-destructin fiveseconds.TherecipientofCaskey5smessage repliedasfollows:Your Honor,Idon'tfeelcomfortablerespondingex-parte[sic] onhowyoushouldruleonapendingcase.Byreturn e-mailthejudge sentaone-word response,stating,'chicken'.

SUMMARY OFMATERIALFACTS


4/16

11. These causesofaction startedinthebeginningof2008, when whileI wasworking60 - 80hoursaweek at lawoffice paralegaljob,unemployedforlifegold digger Svensonwas workinghard at my home going through my personal tax records, bank accounts and ownership records.12. Whenshe hasstolen everythingshe needed, shequietlyfiled for anorderofprotectionandimmediatelyattempted to incarcerate me byprovokingsome kind of violence on my part byvisitingmyemployertobadmouthme.That attempthasfailed,but Ihadtoabandonmyapartmentinordertoavoid arrestbypolice when police cametoarrestme, butmissedme.Thereafter,Svenson withdrew her petition for order of protectionbeforethe judge had any opportunity toruleonit,Exhibit A.13. At thesametime, shebrought stolen documentsto herlawyersand filed for child support.14. Eventhoughthelawyershadevery stolen docum ent they neededfor the child supportproceedings,they engagedin theharassmentandextensive discovery alleging thatI amhidingassets.15. During scheduling conferenceinFamilyCourt,Fasoneon therecord specificallyprohibitedLevoritzfrom doing third-party discovery, and only authorized subpoenas on banksafter depositionof Plaintiff andnormal discovery.16. Avoiding normal, court ordered discovery process see ExhibitB 4afterB1-B3 wherepartiesjustexchange documentsandbills,having depositions, etc., defendants LevoritzandKatkalovrefusedto depose me, but imm ediately started broadcasting 16non-party depositionsubpoenas to every possible ban k in New Y ork and my contractors who were doing renovation ofmy house.17. Because those werenotinf ormation subpoenas,butdeposition subpoenas, whichmy


5/16

attorney would havetoattend- weknew that thiswasharassmentandchurningof Levoritzattorney's feesincontemptofFasone's order.18. Additionally,they started demandingfromme for the last 5 years the very same documentsthatSvensonhas stolenfromme.19. Inreply,onSeptember8 ,2009myattorneyfiledOrdertoShow Cause withTRO to QuashSubpoenas and for Sanctions, ExhibitsB1-B3.20. Svenson also attempted extortion by blackmail with the documents thatshehas stolen fromme,whichisself evidentfromherblackmail note, exhibitC.hithis note, Svenson writesinrustyRussian that shewentto lawyersandtheytoldherthat my employerandI doing money-launderingusinglaw office.21. While I was waiting for decision on that OSC to continue discovery and evidentiaryhearing,defendant Fasone scheduled a trial without any notice to parties. On February3,2010Fasone convened akangaroocourt without parties present. Transcript of this kangaroo court isattached as Exhibit D. Using above described by Professor Lubet "StupidJudgeTrick,"Fasone"screwedme" by summarily cuttingo ffmy discovery and trial.Afterhe created hisvoidfor fraudupon thecourt child support order,hefalsifiedthecourt recordbydenying thisOSCstatincrthatthere was a hearingscheduled,but nobody appeared. That there was anobjectionto someproffered documents, Exhibit E. I believe that this order was not done by Fasone, because thecontentoftheorder soundscrazy- itsays thatthe"motion"was filed byYoramNachimovsky formerSvenson'sattorney). aminform edand verily believethatFasoneusesFasoms-robosigners(court's employees) to fabricate orders. In addition to this egregious conduct, this order was nevermailed to me and I discovered that order about a year later when I was reviewing thecourt'sfile


6/16

Needless tosay,thatbythistime theappealofthat orderwasm oot because I wasalreadyscrewed.22. Before Ihad achancetodisobey Fasone'svoid order or appealit,onMarch 1,2010 CSCUseizedall myearnings, ExhibitF23. Now in the answer, defendan ts Levoritz and Katkalov deny that they possessed mydocuments from 2002 until 2008, deny sending harassing subpoenas to m y contractors, and denyeventhat theyknew about my contracts and contractors.ARGUMENT I: Plaintiff objectsto be screwed by resjudicataandcollateral estoppel24. Theissuesof this litigation boils down to premises: a) defendants corrupt aggressionusingState police power against me and my contractors caused meaharm in violation of New YorkRules of Professional Conduct rule 4.4 by needlessly violating plaintiffs rights, causingembarrassment and harm to me; b) to succeed, a ttorney and client lied to court, causing me harm.25.. ABB TEB ALKAN COLAVITA &CONTINIspecializeindefense ofcorrupt lawyerssuchasLevoritz when they sued.Iwould like to putthis H onorable Courtonnotice thatI amworkingon the motion to disqualify Mr. Nunberg and his firm as whole. Therefore,jurisdictionally this court should decide my cross-motion to disqualify as first sequential p riority inorderto obtain jurisdiction and determine whether M r. Nunberg and his firm was authorized bylaw torepresent defendants LevoritzandKatkalov andprepare their answer, sinceI am Mr.Nunberg'sform er client and objected from 2010 that he proceeds adversely against me.Additionally, Iwill callMr. Nunberg, Ms. Ratner and other attorneys of Ms firm as-witnessesagainsthisclientsLevoritzandKatkalov on theissue of resjudicataandcollateral estoppelinthiscase.


7/16

26. The facts set in all defendan tsfrivolousm otio ns to dismiss clearly indicate that allparticipating attorneys have conspiredto screw Plaintiffandexpectthatthis judgewill cutPlaintiff offwithout hearing by sum marily dismissing my complaint withprejudiceas done bydefendant Fasone, corruptJudge Bernadette Bayne and corrupt attorney Noa hNu nberg in priorFamily and SupremeCourtcases. Judge Be rnadette Bayne essentially repeatedafterFasone thetrickdescribed by LawProfessorLu bet abov e. Thereafter, Judge Bernadette Bay ne ruledthatm ycross-motions fordefaultjudgment againstLevoritzand todisqualify NoahNunberg aremoot Whatreally happened described in m ycertifiedmail letter to attorneys and the judge BernadetteBayne (ExhibitG),whichstillunrebutted,andthereforetacitly admitted. Acco rdingly,this letterisprima facie evidence and myOffer ofProofdescribing events of that litigation. Therefore, no resjudicataorcollateral esto ppel exists becauseI did nothaveachancefullyandfairlylitigatetheissuesin thecou rt ofrecord,Law and Equity. Accordingly, this court should not givefullfaith andcreditto the orderofBernadette Bayne.27. Judge'sBernadette Bayne orderisVO IDbecauseof her ando ther participatingattorneys'no tkosherdueprocessanddealingsagainstPro SePlaintiff hiRoss v.BvereadyIns.Co., 156 AD2d 657 - NYAppellate Div.,2ndDept (1989)thecou rt explained:

Contraryto the determination of the Su preme Co urt, thedefendant'sm otion tovacatethejudgment pursuant to C PLR 5015 (a) (4) was notuntimely.The judgment, which wasentered w ithout acquiring personal jurisdiction overthedefendant,was anullityand didnot bind it(see,McM ullen vArnone 79 AD2d496,499).Thus, thedefendantwasfreeto ignorethejudgment,resistit orassertitsinvalidityat any and a lltimes (McMullen vArnone supra,at499; emphasis supplied);thedefendantwas not Aboundtoappeal from[the]voidjudgment 1(Hughesv Cuming,165N.Y.91, 94,quotingKamp y Kamp 59NY212,215).

28. The oldattorney's maximgoes, If youcan't beat your o pponentwith thefacts,beatthem


8/16

withthelaw.Ifyoucan't beat them withthelaw- discredit them. Inf3ofNoahNunberg'saffirmationunder penalty ofperjuryin the instant case, he writes that my Third-party Complaint isfrivolous because Levoritz and Katkalov denied material allegations of my complaint,(ExhibitH,pages2 & 3 ofaffirmation .Nunberg's argumentisthis, ifLevoritz denied avermentsinthecomplaint,then Levoritz didn't do anything wrong to me. This argument by prominent superlawyer insultsmy intelligence. He goes on totestifyunder penalty ofperjuryabout mattersbeyondhispersonal knowledgeon behalfofhisclients that I amdisgruntled plaintiffwhodoesn'twantto pay thechildsupport... as if hisbiased opinionisfact.InFrittsv.Krug 92 NW 2d 604(1958)SupremeCourtof Michigan eloquently stated about disgruntled litigant:

A void judgment, as we allknow,grounds no rights,formsnodefenseto actionstakenthereunder,and isvulnerableto anymannerofcollateral attack (thus here,byhabeas corpus). No statuteoflimitations or repose runs on its holdings, the mattersthoughtto besettled therebyare notresjudicata^ andyears later, whenthememories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded asvested,anydisgruntled litigant may reopen the old wound and once more probe its depths. Andit isthenasthough trialandadjudicationhadneverbeen.

29. In thesame spiritof Nunberg'sfalse testimonyandintentionally fallacious arguments,Ishould rebuthisfallacywith mine, BecauseIwantto winthis case,thejudge shouldsidewithme notLevoritz an dKatkalovwhobrazenly deniedmymaterial allegations. Defendants madedenials because they don't wantto pay me for myinjuriesso I can pay mychild support.Therefore.,this courtshould summarily strike their answers. ThenIwillbeableto pay mychildsupportfromthe award I will collectfromthe defendants

3 0. Hereis aeweloflogical fallacybyLevoritzfrom Msaffidavitininstant caseandappealtojudge as brethren member of Bar Association:

Remarkably,afterthe Family Court issued thatruling,Plaintiff contemptuously attemptedtohavetheJudge recused claiming thattheJudgewasbiasedinfavorof Ms.Svenson.


9/16

31. Isplaintiffs motionforrecusalacrime?Isthis mo tion lawfully warrants dismissal ofthisthird-party complaint? Howrelevantisthis statementto theissuesofdefendants' perjuries? Mr.Levoritzissimply saying,wink-wink How dare thispro seslavedemand equal treatmentthatbelongs only to lawyers? Get him Judge.32. Allparticipatinginthis case attorneys expectthisjudgeto cutmeoffwithouthearing andmakeallotherplaintiffsmotions, argumentsandevidence moot.ThePlaintiffs caseiswinning,backed by witnesses and substantiated by multiple documentaryexhibits,which,should be enteredinto evidence.33. I challenge everystatement, affidavit, affirmation and order ofdefendantsas perjury andfraudupon the court. Therefore, anyfacttakenfrom such docum ents exhibited intheir motionsorarguments does not deserve thiscourt'spresumption infavorofdefendantsasperAtlantic CapitalRealty v Cayuga Capital Mgt., LLC (2014NYSlipO p02733):

On a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to C PLR321l(a)(7) for failure tostateacauseof action, thecourt mustafford thepleading aliberal construction,accept allfactsas alleged in the pleading to be true, accord theplaintiff the benefitofevery possible favorable inference,anddetermine only whetherthefactsas'allegedfitwithinan}rcognizable legal theory see Felixv ThomasR . StacheckiGen.Contr., LLC,WAD36 664;Breytmanv O linville Realty,LLC,54AD3d703,703-704).

34. The burdenofproofthat I hadfullandfairopportunity to litigate SupremeCourt'saction isonthedefendants. Duringlasthearing, attorney Ratner attemptedtotestify about what happenedduring Supreme C ourtaction,which was beyond her personal knowledge,and-fherefore shelackedcompetence to testify. All she did, was she showed the Judge the void orderofjudgeBemadetteBayne,whichIchallenge. This voidorder whichRatner calleddocumentaryevidence by itself,


10/16

doesnotconclusively prove thatit is notvoid under requirementofCPLR321l(a)(l).In .AtlanticCapital Realty vCayuga Capital Mgt. , LLC (2014 NY Slip Op 02733) the courtstated:

Amotion pursuanttoCPLR3211(a)(l)todismissacomplainton thegroundthatadefenseis founded on documentary evidence may be appropriately granted only where thedocumentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiffs factualallegations, conclusivelyestablishing adefense as amatter oflaw Parkoffv Stavsky, 109AD3d646,647; seeGoshen vM utual Life Ins , C o .o fKY. , 98 NY2d314,326;BensonvDeutscheBankNatlTrust, Inc . ,109AD3d495,497).

35. IfthisHonorable Court decidestorelyonstatementsandfacts derived from affidavits,affirmations denialsandexhibitsofdefendantsandsummarily dismissmycomplaint1objectanddemand discovery, evidentiary hearing and/ortrialonmotion s issuesfor thepurposeof animpeachmentperCPLR2218.In addition, Ireservemyrighttoamendmycomplaintper CPLR3025based onthediscoveryofevidenceindefendants3 possessionperCPLR2214(c).ARGUMENTII: theanswer, motiontodismiss,affirmation andaffidavitsofdefendantsLevoritzandKatkalovshouldbestrickenforperjury and frauduponthecourt36. Annexed hereto,asExhibitB istheir answer.Torebut their brazen denialsofaverments inmy complaint, IattachedasExhibitI, myFIRST NOTICETOADMIT with exhibits,whichIOffer of Proof of documentaryevidence in support of mythird-party complaint and fullyincorporatebyreference herein.37. Iwillnotbore this Honorable Court with their denials suchasavermentin mycomplaintf24, At alltimes mentionedherein,Lawoffice ofY onatanS.Levoritz P.C. derivedsubstantialrevenue from tradeorcommercein theCountyofKingsand theState o fNewYork. Ifthatwerenottrue however,whywould they keepanofficeinKings County?Orwith myriadoffrivolousdenialsof myaverments that addressedtoother defendants.38. Starting from^\39 defendants deniedanyknowledgeofmehavingacredit card

10


11/16

eventhoughIwenton therecordandtold defendants FasoneandLevoritz thatSvensonhasstolenmycredit card billsandthatI usecredit cardsformyrenovation.Exhibit2 - Subpoenato theCitibank clearly demonstrates my point that the defendants knew about my credit card.

39. Inf32 ofmycomplaintI aver, Additionally, during child support proceedingsKricheyskynotifiedall of thedefendantsontherecord thathe has acredit cardandthat Svensonstoleall of hisbills--which.Svenson immediatelydidnotdeny. Moreover, Fasonedeclared, Idon'tcarelethimgo topolice -while Levoritz confirmedthefactoftheft,butcommentedto Fasone, Judgetheylived together.40. LevoritzandKatkalovdenied 41ofmycomplaint whereIaver, at allrelevanttimesduring the child support proceedings, Svenson and Levoritz causedfalseand penurious financialdisclosure affidavitsfiled in court and falsely testified in court. As can be seenfrommyFIRSTNOTICE TO ADMITandits Exhibits 5 and 6, PRE-FATHERABANDONMENTandPOST-FATHER ABANDONMENT, theseaffidavitsare gross exaggerations, cannotwithstandsimple mathematical scrutinyandlogically fallacious. AccordingtoexhibitJ,Billfrom TRStoSvenson she owes $132,082.60 asofNovember10,2008-approximatelythetime of preparationofher POST-FATHER ABANDONMENT disclosure affidavit However, Levoritz andSvensonlistedinsaid POST-FATHERABANDONMENTaffidavit debtto IRS is$300,000.Thisis not aclericalmistake because Levoritz and Svenson also testified that debt to IRS is$300,000,whichisdue to my financialmachinations.41. Thisiswhatmyattorney, Daniel Singer, eloquently said about defendants'testimonyinreply affirmation,Exhibit B3, page3-4:

Petitioner isagain outright lyingtothis Courtinclaiming that Respondentisspending $178,020.00per year or $14,835.00 permonth

11


12/16

rn

Respondent m akes clearin hisFinancial DisclosureAffidavit (Exhibit A ,hereto) thathe is notspending $14 ,835.00permonth. Rather, thesearemerelyhis m onthly expenses which he is unable to pay on his weekly salary of $1,000.00.More than$10,000.00of these monthly expenses are for mortgage payments whicharenotbeing paiddue toRespondent'sfinancialhardships.Indeed,as aresultofthesemultiple mortgages, Respondenthasliabilities inexcessof1.6million.Contraryto Petitioner'sallegations, Respondentis by nomeanslivingaluxuriouslifestyle.Indeed,foreclosureproceedings hav e been commenced with respect to theparties'property having an address of 120 Oceana DriveWest,Apt 5D,B rooklyn,NewYork(Exhibit B hereto).Moreov er, the bank is repossessing R esponden t's automobile. (See Respondent'sReplyA ffidavit)A s Respondent setsforthin his Financial D isclosureAffidavit in support of hisapplicationforavariancein thestatutory child support percentages,"mydebtis i1.6millionvs.incomelessthan 4Kpermonth.I amtechnicallyabankruptMoreover,your affirrnant isperplexed as to howPetitioner'scounselpossessesasufficient degreeofmisinformation regardingRespondent'sfinances(including misinformation regardinghis purported car andrenovationexpenses)as to setforth samein anaffirmationunder penaltyofperjury,withoutanydocumentary evidenceregardingsameClearly,the motivations of Petitioner and her attorney arenotto determine childsupportRather, as setforthin R espondent's accompanyingaffidavit,they are toharass Respondent.

42. As myattorney, Daniel Singer, demonstrated their testimonyandaffidavits werebaseless,false andthereforeperjury andfrauduponthecourtbyofficers of thecourt. Thesetotalexaggerations were necessaryinordertoconveniently argue thatI amhiding assets.43. Levoritzand Katkalov brazenly deniedknowledgeof f43 where I statedthatIbecameunemployed.IservedonSvenson petitionformodification, whichisdefendants' noticethatIbecame unemployed.44. LevoritzandKatkalov brazenly denied51,52and58whereIstated thatI hadvalidcontract with LEO NCONSTRUCTIONandeven knowledgeofthatcontractExhibits3 and 4 -Subpoenas that defendants servedonLEON CONSTRA CTION and CONSELAENGINEERING, P.C.isproofthatthey perjured themselvesbydenying51, 52 and 58of my

12


13/16

third-party complaint45. Levoritz;andKatkalovbrazenly denied^64 of my complainteventhough onlySvensonhas firsthand knowledge. This paragraph says that IofferedSvensonmediation 6 months beforethelitigation inFirmly C ourt.Atthattime,defendants werenoteven retained.46. Defend ants brazenly denied 72,which stated that theydid notproducea timelyreplytomycustodyandvisitation petitio n-1 challenge themtoproduce their timely replyandenteritintotherecord.47. Defendants brazenly denied 73,whereIstated that theydid notproduceatimelyreplyto'my m odification petition. Ichallenge themtoprodu ce their timely replyandenterItintotherecord.48. However,defendantsfiled petition to punish me for contempt ofFasone svoid order,Exhibit7.49. Inreply,I filedcross-motionforsanctions, Exhibit8,bywhichInotified defendants onceagain thatI lostmyjob,thatIcollect 405perweekinunem ployment insuranceandthatthey havenoprobable causeto filecontem pt petition. Additionally,in mystatement offact,Idescribetheirharassingsubpoenas served on m y contractors, and to deny knowledge that I had contractors isegregious conduct deserving suspensionof the law license.50. Even though defendants, once again, were notified thatIlostm yjobandreceiveunemployment insurance, defendants continued their malicious prosecution. That defendants'egregious conduct caused me tosuffer a stroke on November2,2010.51. Defendant sLevoritzaffidavit insupportof hismotiontodismissmythrrd-partycomplaint,ExhibitK-Is perjury.TodemonstratemypointandimpeachLevoritz, Iwill discuss

13


14/16

the ^ 18 of his perjurious affidavitand Iquote: Inaddition,plaintiffserved, butapparentlydid not file, asanctions motionagainstme in theFamily Court action.

52. This statementisvery telling.I candrawaninference that Levoritz admittedthathe wasserved,but never replied to that cross-motion and that there was never a hearing scheduled inFamily Court. Accordingly, Levoritz and I never appeared for the hearing on saidcross-motion.However,as Idemonstratein myExhibit 8,cross-motion for sanctions-1servedonLevoritzandfiledthat cross-motionincourton My 12,2010.Accordingly, this statementofLevoritzininstantaffidavitisperjuryand onemore proofofconspiracy between FasoneandLevoritztorailroad me.Conspiracy, whichIdescribein mythird-party complaint.53. InreplytoLevoritz contempt petition,Ialso producedandservedonLevoritzmyanswerwithcounterclaimsanddiscoverydemands,Exhibit9. Asusual, defendants ignoredit andsentnoreply to me.54. How did Fasone react to such constant egregious violations ofCPLRandmy constitutionalrightsto due process? He looked the other way and covered it up.55. However, nowhereininstant affidavit ofLevoritz underoath,exceptthehypocrisy thatheis success (thanks to Fasone), has Levoritz stated that he did notHeand information he entered inthose two (Exhibit 5 and 6, PRE-FATHBR and POST-FATHERABANDONMENT affidavitscorrect. Levoritz has not stated that informationin any of his FamilyCourt affirmations correctOverall,thisaffidavitis replete with misinformation instead of rebuttal of facts in my complaint.Forexample, in ^ 19 hewrites:

...To theextentIobtain legalrelieffromthecourt againstMr.Krichevsky,it wasfullyjustified from Mswrongfulbehavior and if he cannot pay hisbillsdue to ajudgment renderedbySupreme Courtof NewYork againsthimthatis not my

14


15/16

problem.56. Nowhereininstantaffidavits oraffirmationsin anycourthasLevoritzstatedfactsbackedupwithanykindofadmissible evidence proving mywrongfulbehavior orstatingwhatexactlyI didwrong.

CONCLUSION57. To read Mr. Nunberg's and Mr. Levoritz' (2 pounds of paper) of logically fallaciousstatementsinsummaryIwouldsay, Sowhat, SvensonandLevoritz lied under penaltyofperjurytoFasone?Sowhat,Fasone pretended thathebelieved their lies? Fasone gave defendantsthelegalrelief againstMr.Krichevskyto fulfillhisduty andtherefore defendants' liesare notlies.And ifthisreliefis notfairtoKrichevsky,it'snotLevoritz'problem1was not hislawyer.Sowhat,Krichevsky cannotpay-it'snot myproblem.I succeeded, thereforeI amhero,andthereforeeverythingI did waskosherand notlies,andthereforeIfulfilledmy Attorney'sdutyto the Court,PublicandKrichevsky'schild.Sowhathischildis notgettingthechild supportIhavewon,becauseI gotKrichevskyfired,gavehimstrokeand hecouldnotsellhishouse?I amimmune.Igotpaid bySvensonto get anorderat anycost,and ifKrichevskycannotpay - screw thechild,KrichevskyandSvenson-nowit'stheirproblem. To put itbluntly,NunbergandLevoritz shamelessly admit- although corruptly, Levoritz succeeded, andthatis theonly thingthat matters, thereforethe plaintiffsthird-party complaint mustbedismissed.58. Defendants' LevoritzandKatkalov answers,affidavitswith misinformation under oathintheir motiontodismissmythird-party complaint, misleading affirmationofMr.Nuiibergunderpenaltyofperjurywith misleading memorandumoflaw, which doesnotapplyto me asaproselitigantand/ortofactsofmythird-party complaintisbrazen attempttobamboozle thisCourtYet,

15


16/16

this is defendants' second attempt to bam boozle the Plaintiff out of remedy-w ithlogicallyfallacious argumentsandlies.

WHEREFORE,it isrespectfully requested that this motionbegrantedin itsentirety andforsuchother andfurtherreliefas to this Court seemsjustand proper, including the costs ofthismotion.

X

Sw orn to before me thisday of May, 2014

NOTARY PUBLIC LICE SHERN O T A R Y PUBLIC,State ofNwYorkNo.D tAS6082200QM tlf d In King* C o u n tyCommitt lon S x p l ra J u l y 30 ,2017

MICHAEL KR ICHEVSKY, PRO SE

affidavit in support of order to show cause to strike

Documents