SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF KINGS

INDEX NO. 19478/13MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,

Plaintiff,VERIFIED COMPLAINT

-against-

YONATAN LEVORITZ, VICTOR KATKALO V, JOHNFASONE, PAULA HEFNER, ROBERT RATANSKY, unknownclerk of JOHN FASONE, ELENA SVENSON,

Defendants.

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

The Plaintiff Michael Krichevsky (Krichevsky), Pro Se, under penalty of perjury for his

Verified Complaint, respectfully avers:

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from thegovernment and I'm here to help." Ronald Reagan

At all relevant times mentioned herein, I was and still maliciously prosecuted, financially

ruined and personally injured by all defendants for 'refusal' to pay the child support which I never

refused to pay. In fact, I paid more and offered to pay more in the future, than I was otherwise

lawfully obligated to pay, but defendants did not want me to pay for reasons stated in this lawsuit

below.

Before defendants' actions causing this lawsuit, I was not knowledgeable in Family Court

litigation and was illusioned that in Family Court all of the defendants are driven to serve Justice

and protect the best interests of my child, family, and therefore, unconsciously participated in the

court proceedings. Later on, I learned that these proceedings and defendants drive to serve Justice

were nothing short of a swindle.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends onnot understanding it. " Upton Sinclair

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The plaintiff, Michael Krichevsky (Krichevsky, I, me, my), at all tunes mentioned herein

was and still is a resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York.

2. The defendant, Elena Svenson (Svenson), at all times mentioned herein was and still is a

resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York.

3. At all relevant times mentioned herein, all defendants did and are conducting a trade,

business or commerce in the County of Kings and the State of New York.

4. At all relevant times mentioned herein all defendants committed torts and crimes against

Krichevsky and his property in the County of Kings and the State of New York.

5. The amount in controversy exceeds $1,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

PARTIES

6. Krichevsky - self-governed law-abiding man - taxpayer. He was gainfully employed from

1988 until 2010. He lost his federally protected job due to corruption, conspiracy, criminal acts and

torts committed by all defendants in concert.

7. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Krichevsky was and still is a resident of the County

of Kings and the State of New York.

8. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Krichevsky was conducting a trade, business or

commerce as paralegal and real estate developer in the County of Kings and the State of New

York.

9. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Krichevsky derived his revenue from the County of

Kings and the State of New York.

10. The defendant, YONATAN LEVORITZ, Esq. (Levoritz), at all relevant times mentioned

herein was and still is a resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York.

11. Levoritz, at all times mentioned herein was and still is conducting a trade, business or

commerce, and

12. bonded by Zurich Insurance Company in the County of Kings and the State of New York.

13. 63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees

63 C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, 247 "As expressed otherwise, the powers

delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised on behalf of the

government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.

[1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and

whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people,

and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative

to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts..

[2] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf

he or she serves.

[3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public.

[4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of

a private individual.

[5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official who tends

to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against

public policy. Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit-and this is one of the meanings

that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute.

See United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163,168 (7th Girl985) includes the deliberate conceahnent of

material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the

public, including, hi the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him and if he deliberatelyconceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. McNally v United States 483 U.S.

350 (1987)

14. Officer of the Court

"any person who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicialsystem, including judges, the attorneys who appear hi court, bailiffs, clerks, and other personnel.As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth, includingavoiding dishonesty or evasion about reasons the attorney or his/her client is not appearing, the

location of documents and other matters related to conduct of the courts."

15. As attorney, Levoritz must swear the Oath of Attorney and/or the Oath of Office 'to uphold

and protect Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York' as condition precedent to

be admitted to practice law in the courts of the State of New York.

16. For Levoritz taking the oath 'to uphold and protect Constitution' and 'assist the court with

administration of Justice' are just words with no apparent legal, contractual and moral obligation -just a bureaucratic obstacle or formality on the way to obtain Public Office and profit from it -which is nothing short of a swindle.

17. The defendant, VIKTOR KATKALOV (Katkalov), at all tunes mentioned herein was and

still is a resident of the County of Kings and the State of New York.

18. Upon circumstantial evidence and information gathered by Krichevsky, Katkalov at all

times mentioned herein was and still is non-attorney business partner of Levoritz, Esq. and should

be bonded by Zurich Insurance Company.

19. Alternatively, Law office of Yonatan S. Levoritz P.C. is a 'front' for Katkalov's organized

crime and illegal activity.

20. Levoritz revealed the concept of 'front' by acting as an expert witness during the child

support proceedings in Kings County Family Court against Krichevsky.

21. In that court, Levoritz was unlawfully permitted by defendant JOHN FAS ONE to testify as

UNDISCLOSED EXPERT AND FACT WITNESS ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT Svenson that,

"in Russian communities it happens that a lawyer used as a 'front' for the non-lawyer owner's

illegal activity."

"The days when an attorney's word or even a handshake were good are long gone.The practice of law has become a childish game of who can fool the court thelongest based on fabricating facts and misrepresenting the law. Now attorneys'stooping so low to testify for the very clients they represent by their ownconclusory hearsay makes the practice of law just junk." "There is no evidence ...except for the attorney trying to win the case for his ... client saying sobecause,...ummm, embarrassingly, because he is an attorney so we should believewhatever he says to the events that he never was present at, was never a party to andhe has absolutely no personal knowledge about." Susan Ghana Lask, Esq.

22. Said allegations prompted Krichevsky to do own due diligence and verify Levoritz'

firsthand knowledge and qualification as expert witness. Krichevsky's due diligence revealed that

Katkalov is Russian-speaking non-lawyer and that their office located in the Russian community.

Further, Katkalov is acting as 'runner' and brings Russian-speaking clients to English-speaking

Levoritz who they both 'introduce' to their organized Family Court child support racketeering

scheme described further below. Upon information and belief, this is the way Svenson found her

road to that office.

23. Fact, in 2013 Krichevsky conducted EBT of defendant S VENS ON represented by attorney

Lorna LaMotte in bankruptcy court adversary proceeding. During EBT, Svenson refused to

answer Krichevsky's questions as to how she found her English-speaking attorneys and whether

their job was to harm Krichevsky in Family Court - and pleaded Fifth Amendment defense.24. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Law office of Yonatan S. Levoritz P.C. derived

most of its revenue from trade or commerce derived from Russian community in the City of New

York and particularly in the County of Kings, the State of New York.

25. Levoritz had a duty to know and comply with New York Rules of Civility (NYRC), New

York Rules of Professional Conduct (NYRPC), New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR),

New York Penal Law (NYPL) and other State and Federal Laws, rules and regulations

(thereinafter LAW) - and uphold them during proceedings.

26. Katkalov had a duty to know and comply with New York Rules of Civility (NYRC), New

York Rules of Professional Conduct (NYRPC), New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR),

New York Penal Law (NYPL) and other State and Federal Laws, rules and regulations,

(thereinafter LAW).

27. The defendant, JOHN FASONE (Fasone), at all relevant times mentioned herein was and

still is New York State licensed attorney admitted to practice law in the courts of the State of New

York.

28. At all relevant times mentioned herein Fasone was and still is conducting a trade, business

or commerce as New York State Public Administrative Hearing Officer

29. presumably serving Justice to public, and particularly to families - as evidenced by slogan

in the Entrance Hall of Kings County Family Court - 'Justice to the family is Justice to the

community'.

30. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Fasone had and still has his principal place of

business located in County of Kings and the State of New York.

31. At all times mentioned herein, Fasone derived most of his revenue from County of Kings

and the State of New York.

32. As attorney, Fasone must swear the Oath of Attorney, and

33. the Oath of Office 'to uphold and protect Constitutions of the United States and the State of

New York' as condition precedent to be admitted to practice law in the courts of the State of New

York.

34. After precedent is met, Fasone becomes 'Officer of The Court'.

35. As officer of the court and public officer of the State of New York, Fasone must swear the

Oath of Office to uphold and protect Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York

as condition precedent to obtain this public office in Family Court of The State of New York.

36. As Officer of the Court and Public Hearing Officer of the State of New York, Fasone has a

duty to know and comply with New York Rules of Civility (NYRC), New York Rules of

Professional Conduct (NYRPC), New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), New York

Penal Law (NYPL), New York Rules of Judicial Conduct (NYRJC), New York Judiciary Law

(NYJL), and other applicable State and Federal Laws, Rules and regulations (thereinafter LAW) -

and uphold them during proceedings.

37. For Fasone taking the oath 'to uphold and protect Constitution' are just words with noapparent legal, contractual and moral obligation just a bureaucratic obstacle or formality on the

way to obtain Public Office and profit from it - which is nothing short of a swindle.

3 8. Alternatively, Fasone never took the oath, or never filed it with the state and OCA.

Therefore, he was disqualified from occupying Public Office in Kings County Family Court -

thereby impersonating Public Officer of the State of New York , which he never disclosed to

Krichevsky.

39. As officer of the court, Fasone should be bonded by State of New York or personally.

40. The defendant, PAULA HEPNER (Hepner), at all times mentioned herein was Supervising

Administrative Judge of Kings County Family Court.

41. At all relevant times mentioned herein Hepner was New York State licensed attorney

admitted to practice law in the courts of the State of New York.

42. At all relevant times mentioned herein Hepner was conducting a trade, business or

commerce as New York State Public Administrative Hearing Officer

43. presumably serving Justice to public, and particularly to families - as evidenced by slogan

in the Entrance Hall of Kings County Family Court - 'Justice to the family is Justice to the

community'.

44. At all times mentioned herein, Hepner had her principal place of business located in

County of Kings and the State of New York.

45. At all times mentioned herein, Hepner derived most of her revenue from County of Kings

and the State of New York.

46. As attorney, Hepner must swear the Oath of Attorney, and

47. the Oath of Office 'to uphold and protect Constitutions of the United States and the State of

New York' as condition precedent to be admitted to practice law in the courts of State of New

York.

48. After precedent is met, Hepner becomes 'Officer of The Court'.

49. As officer of the court and public officer of the State of New York, Hepner must swear the

Oath of Office to uphold and protect Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York

as condition precedent to obtain this public office in Family Court of The State of New York.

50. As Officer of the Court and Public Hearing Officer of the State of New York, Hepner had a

duty to know and comply with New York Rules of Civility (NYRC), New York Rules of

Professional Conduct (NYRPC), New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), New York

Penal Law (NYPL), New York Rules of Judicial Conduct (NYRJC), New York Judiciary Law

(NYJL), and other applicable State and Federal Laws, Rules and regulations (hereinafter LAW) -

and uphold them during proceedings.

51. For Hepner taking the oath 'to uphold and protect Constitution' are just words with noapparent legal, contractual and moral obligation -just a bureaucratic obstacle or formality on theway to obtain Public Office and profit from it - which is nothing short of a swindle.

52. Alternatively, Hepner never took the oath, or never filed it with the state and OCA.

Therefore, she was disqualified from occupying Public Office in Kings County Family Court -

thereby impersonating Public Officer of the State of New York -, which she never disclosed to

Krichevsky.

53. As officer of the court, Hepner should be bonded by State of New York or personally.

54. The defendant, ROBERT RATANSKY (Ratansky), at all relevant times mentioned herein

was and still is Clerk of Kings County Family Court.

55. At all relevant tunes mentioned herein Ratansky was New York State licensed attorney

admitted to practice law in the courts of the State of New York.

56. At all relevant times mentioned herein Ratansky was conducting a trade, business or

commerce as New York State Public Officer of the Court

57. presumably serving Justice to public, and particularly to families - as evidenced by slogan

in the Entrance Hall of Kings County Family Court - 'Justice to the family is Justice to the

community'.

58. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Ratansky had his principal place of business

located in County of Kings and the State of New York.

59. At all times mentioned herein, Ratansky derived most of his revenue from County of Kings

and the State of New York.

60. As attorney, Ratansky must swear the Oath of Attorney, and

61. the Oath of Office 'to uphold and protect Constitutions of the United States and the State of

New York' as condition precedent to be admitted to practice law in the courts of State of New

York.

62. After precedent is met, Ratansky becomes 'Officer of The Court'.

63. For Ratansky taking the oath 'to uphold and protect Constitution' are just words with noapparent legal, contractual and moral obligation -just a bureaucratic obstacle or formality on theway to obtain Public Office and profit from it - which is nothing short of a swindle.

64. Alternatively, Ratansky never took the oath, or never filed it with the state and OCA.

Therefore, he was disqualified from occupying Public Office in Kings County Family Court -

thereby impersonating Public Officer of the State of New York -, which he never disclosed to

Krichevsky.

10

65. Ratansky had a duty to know and comply with New York Rules of Civility (NYRC), New

York Rules of Professional Conduct (NYRPC), New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR),

New York Penal Law (NYPL) and other State and Federal Laws, rules and regulations (hereinafter

LAW) - and uphold them during proceedings.

66. As officer of the court, Ratansky should be bonded by State of New York or personally.

67. Defendant "unknown clerk of John Fasone' presumably 'law clerk' of Fasone, who at all

relevant times mentioned herein conspired and participated with all the defendants in the

wrongdoings mentioned in this lawsuit. Her name will be discovered and Krichevsky reserve the

right to amend his complaint to add her name.

68. Svenson - was not gainfully employed between 1986 and present.

69. Svenson became Krichevsky's business partner and fiduciary when they in 1991 entered

into confidential relationship and started raising a child together. In 2000, they entered into

contract to buy a condominium unit and borrow money from a bank.

70. Since Svenson was in confidential and partnership relationship with Krichevsky, she owed

Krichevsky a fiduciary duty of:

71. care,

72. loyalty,

73. duty to disclose; and

74. duty to act fairly; and

75. duty to account, and

76. duty of good faith and fair dealings.

77. During that whole length of relationship with Svenson, Krichevsky faithfully performed

11

his duties and justifiably relied and depended on performance of these duties on Svenson's part.

However, she individually committed, hired and conspired with all other defendants to commit

several criminal acts and torts against Krichevsky, his property and interests.

78. All the defendants herein had contractual or fiduciary, or both duties to and relationship

with Krichevsky as to partner and/or taxpayer, member of public and member of family.

79. All Court Officers herein are sued in their official and individual capacity. It is unknown

without discovery which official and judicial acts, if any, were performed by those defendants.

THE SCHEME OF FRAUDS AND SWINDLES USED ON KRICHEVSKY CAUSING

THIS LAWSUIT

80. We live in the age of scandals, frauds and swindles, which caused today's unprecedented

economical crisis since the beginning history of America. New York State is broke, needs money -

and billions of it. hi the search for money, public servants find very lucrative way to obtain it by

pegging the State to the federal government's Social Security title IV-D finding - taxpayer's

money. The official goal of funding is to enforce and collect child support from fathers and

mothers that do not want to pay it.

81. As every tree has a few bad apples, there are bad fathers and mothers too but not most of

them, contrary to defendants' intentional false presumptions. These presumptions needed to obtain

billions of dollars from collection business against all of the people. Accordingly, New York State

public servants decide to sacrifice lives of all families for 'the sake of greater good and to protect

women and children' - a doublethink, which term defined below.

82. Statistics show that in America, we have 50% divorce rate because public servants, whose

duties are to protect peace and harmony in families become predators by forcing parents into

12

gladiator like fights for children and money - so the families become their prey.

83. It is axiomatic that there is no money in peace and harmony for bureaucrats and lawyers

who thrive only on conflicts. Further, attorneys and Family courts together with Child Support

Collection Units (CSCU) create 'customers' who judges would adjudicate and CSCU employeeswould persecute to justify their offices, jobs and pensions. Krichevsky's life, liberty and pursuit ofhappiness were shattered by mixed civil war started by corrupt defendants, who took the oath of

office to uphold and protect people's rights in accordance with Constitutions of United States and

State of New York. Here is how the whole scheme of frauds and swindles works:

when a woman goes to Family Court, she drags the whole family into the twilight

zone described by George Orwell in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four

(1949). Here is the definition of dystopia taken from Wikipedia

http ://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Dystopia:

"A dystopia is a community or society that is in some important way undesirable or

frightening. It is the opposite of a Utopia. Such societies appear in many artistic

works, particularly in stories set in a future. Dystopias are often characterized by

dehumanization, totalitarian governments, environmental disaster, or other

characteristics associated with a cataclysmic decline in society. Dystopian societies

appear in many sub-genres of fiction and are often used to draw attention to

real-world issues regarding society, environment, politics, economics, religion,

psychology, ethics, science, and/or technology, which if unaddressed could

potentially lead to such a dystopia-like condition."

In his novel, George Orwell coined the word doublethink (excerpts taken from

13

http://en.wiMpedia.org/wiki/Doublethink), which described as:

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously,

and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in

them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it

becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it isneeded, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account

of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using

the word doublethink, it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word

one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one

erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of

the truth."

"Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the

meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g.,

"downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing), in which case it is

primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to

intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning (for example,

naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature

of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language"

"Some schools of psychotherapy such as cognitive therapy encourage people to

alter their own thoughts as a way of treating different psychological maladies (see

cognitive distortions)."

Here are Orwellian doublethinks: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and

14

Ignorance is Strength. By the same token, here is doublethink created by Family

Court judges and lawyers - Indigence is Wealth - that practiced on me in additionto doublethinks mentioned above. Using Orwellian doublethink "to deny the

existence of objective reality," the public servants created the following unjust,intentionally false and undisclosed to men legal presumptions, which used against

men in Family Courts:

all men are bad fathers and violent;

all women are good mothers and victims of men

men always have money

women are always poor

men are liars

women are truth tellers

Additionally, doublethink permits judges to become dictators and suspendConstitutions, New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, Rules of Evidence, ethics

rules, the rules of professional conduct for attorneys, as well as the rules of judicialconduct - and legislate their own rules at will without notifying parties during the

court proceedings.

84. However, women not only maintain their rights, but also are granted a privilege to perjurethemselves without worry of punishment and directed by courts and attorneys to participate hi

sharing the benefits of denying rights to overwhelmingly fathers.

85. For majority of women taking the oath hi court or before the notary 'to tell the truth andnothing, but the truth so help me God' are empty words and promises with no apparent legal,

15

contractual and moral implication -just a bureaucratic obstacle or formality on the way to obtain aprice from perjury contest which is nothing short of a swindle.86. Above stated in If 82 and ^f 83 is statistically evident by the fact that majority of Levoritz'and Katkalov's clients are overwhelmingly women, who usually 'win' these gladiator-like perjury

contests.

87. During the Family Court hearings, Fasone uses presumption that attorneys are always

telling him truth and did the due diligence in verifying facts of the case before appearing in court

per NYRPC.

88. Armed with this 'inside information,' Katkalov's job is to systematically ensure that

parents have enough turmoil and conflicts to drain them out of assets. Katkalov coached Svenson

to perjure herself.89. Armed with this 'inside information,' Levoritz coached Svenson to commit perjury incourt,

90. Alternatively, Levoritz or Katkalov, or both pretended that they believed in lies Svenson

told them, and did not verify them before the court appearance, and when I impeached her,

Levoritz protected her and refused to correct the record, in violation of NYRPC.

91. During the Family Court hearings Fasone pretended that he believed in lies Levoritz and

Svenson told him, and when Krichevsky started impeachment of those lies on the record - Fasone

sabotaged my attorney and me in doing so, thereby protecting Svenson and Levoritz.

92. Judiciary is the third branch of government, of which lawyers is part,. However, there are

no checks and balances, and because of this, New York State Judiciary and especially Family

Courts are in a state of anarchy, disdain and disrepute. This is self-evidenced by the fact that New

16

York State Governor Cuomo created commission to investigate public corruption in government

and restore public trust. It is done under the "Moreland Act and Executive Law Section 63(8) to

probe systemic corruption and the appearance of such corruption hi state government, political

campaigns and elections hi New York State" (details at http://publiccorruption.moreland.ny.gov).

Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge

PART 100. Judicial Conduct

Preamble:

The rules governing judicial conduct are rules of reason. They should be applied consistently with

constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules and decisional law and in the context of allrelevant circumstances.

93. In violation of above said rules of judicial conduct, Kings County Family Court and CS CUare hi the state of anarchy and act in the capacity of Privateers to impoverish parents of the State.

Fasone's profit driven decisions and conduct, adversary to me and my son during the course of

litigation between Svenson and me, legislated me out of my constitutional and statutory rights, to

wit:

94. right to meaningful time and opportunity to be heard;

95. right to face my accusers and cross-examine them;

96. right to impeach my accusers;

97. right to bring a witness in my defense;

98. right not to be ambushed during a trial;

99. right not to be rushed to judgment;100. right to conduct discovery and produce evidence;

17

101. right to an appeal;

102. right to petition government for redress of grievances;

103. right to competent and unbiased tribunal.

"The America once extolled as the voice of liberty heard around the world nolonger is cast in the image which Jefferson and Madison designed, but morein the Russian image."Chief Justice Douglas in Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972)

104. 14th Amendment of Constitution gives equal protection of the law to all people - only in

theory - but not in Kings County Family Court's reality. Nearly to be a man is punishable by

slavery or peonage. If this lawlessness continuous unchecked somebody in America someday will

repeat the following:

"Kill three million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands." President

Yahya Khan.

FAMILY COURT'S PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS

CAUSING THIS LAWSUIT

105. The procedural history is bazaar, long, complex and should shock conscience and insult

intelligence of the reader. It spans as Saga from 2008 until present. I will mention the key facts,

which when I demanded rebuttal in court - were never rebutted by Levoritz, Fasone or Svenson,

and therefore admitted by them as per CPLR, New York Rules of Evidence and common law legal

maxim - Silence Is Acquiescence.

106. On August 6, 2009, all the above-mentioned officers of the court converted Kings County

Family Court into KANGAROO COURT or PRICE COURT striping Family court of subjectmatter jurisdiction (see Black's Law dictionary 8th, page 382, 383):

18

kangaroo court. 1. A self-appointed tribunal or mock court in which the principles of lawand justice are disregarded, perverted, or parodied. 2. A court or tribunal characterized byunauthorized or irregular proceedings, esp. so as to render a fair proceedings impossible. 3.A sham legal proceeding. "Kangaroo" might refer to the illogical leaps between "facts"and conclusions, or to the hapless defendant's quick bounce from court to gallows.

Price court. A court having jurisdiction to adjudicate the captures made at sea in times ofwar.

107. During these court proceedings, Levoritz was leading Fasone, while Fasone led Levoritz.

108. Whereas, on January 6, 2010 Fasone and Levoritz pretended that all discovery issues

necessary to resolve before starting a trial per CPLR are already resolved, and they are conducting

a trial. At the same time, I sought that they are conducting an evidentiary hearings because my

discovery motion was still pending, I did not get any disclosure from Svenson, did not have a

chance to do my own disclosure, and court-scheduled depositions did not yet start.

109. Whereas, on February 3 2010 Fasone held a Star Chamber hearing without parties notified

and present. On that day, Fasone, postfactwn, after pretended trial denied my discovery motion

filed by my attorney in September of 2009 - 5 months prior to Fasone's pretended trial on January

6,2010.

110. Whereas, on February 32010, while discovery was not complete and said discovery

motion was pending, Fasone held a Star Chamber hearing without parties notified and present with

deliberate indifference to and in violation of LAW. Said Star Chamber Hearing and final order of

the child support as a result of said hearing constitutes 'a court or tribunal characterized by

unauthorized or irregular proceedings, esp. so as to render a fair proceedings impossible' and 'a

sham legal proceeding. "Kangaroo" might refer to the illogical leaps between "facts" and

conclusions, or to the hapless defendant's quick bounce from court to gallows.'

111. Because Levoritz was falsely claiming, with no factual basis, that I have a lot of money,

19

Fasone ordered me to pay more child support than I could earn - in disregard of LAW, contrary to

maxims of law and the evidence in the court record of my ability to pay. In fact, he ordered me to

pay not less than 65% of my gross income instead of statutory 17% of my disposable income in

addition to arrears, Levoritz' attorney fees and health insurance. According to Constitution of

USA, such order constitutes cruel and unusual punishment - and therefore void.

112. Whereas, contrary to Levoritz slandered, perjured, unsworn, hearsay testimony, theevidence consisting of my 2009 pay stubs, 2009 W-2 form and affidavit from my employer shows

that I was earning gross income of $56,000 per year.

113. The evidence also shows that my loan payments were more than my gross income in 2009

and I was depleting my lifelong savings.

114. The evidence also shows that additionally to approximately $2800 monthly child support

ordered, Fasone ordered me to pay approximately $20,000 in petitioner's attorney fees and about

$30,000 in arrears, while my financial disclosure affidavit stated that I had only $1700 available in

cash.

115. Whereas, it was foreseeable or intended, or both by Fasone and Levoritz that I will not be

able to comply with above said order.

116. Whereas, Fasone or his law clerk, or both sabotaged my appeal of said unjust, wrongfuland void order by not mailing this order to me as per Family Court's Hepner and Ratansky policy

or practice.

117. Whereas, CSCU were notified by some defendant(s) that I would not be able to comply,

and therefore CSCU immediately sent the garnishment order to my employer before giving me

time to fail on my own. CSCU immediately confiscated my pay and left me with no money to pay

20

for appeal or to meet my everyday living expenses.

118. Said conduct of defendants constitutes violations of Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act, hereinafter "FDCPA" and Consumer Credit Protection Act, hereinafter

"CCPA". CCPA restricts garnishment to no more than 65% from disposable - not gross earnings.

119. Whereas, Fasone immediately refused to review for errors his unjust wrongful order indefiance of United States v. Agurs, 427 US 97 - Supreme Court (1976) where the court stated:

"Court has consistently held that a conviction obtained by the knowing use ofperjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, and must be set aside if there is anyreasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment ofthe jury.. .In those cases the Court has applied a strict standard of materiality, notjust because they involve prosecutorial misconduct, but more importantly becausethey involve a corruption of the truth-seeking function of the trial process."

120. Whereas, Fasone and Levoritz "corrupted truth-seeking function of the trial process"

to wit: denied without notice above mentioned discovery and discovery motion, conspired with

each other and Hepner to railroad me through defamation and held on February 3, 2010 final

hearing without notice to me and me present.

121. Said acts constitute prohibited by LAW trial by ambush and rush to judgment in order toprevent me from offering further evidence and/or filing interlocutory appeal.

122. Whereas, on February 3,2010 Fasone falsely and misleadingly created presumption for the

appellate court that the parties were notified but failed to appear for the hearing. The audio record

of this Star Chamber hearing falsely and misleadingly states, "10 minutes to 5 and no one is

appearing." The finder of fact now presumes that Fasone was tired of waiting for me to appear and

started the hearing since I did not care to show up.

123. Whereas, afterwards Fasone or his law clerk, or both fabricated 2nd wrongful order with

21

1false affidavit of service on me after I raised the issue of not receiving my first child support order

by mail and demanded the proof of service from the court.

124. Because I was not notified about Fasone's final order and could not get it from the court's

record room due to barriers created by Hepner and Ratansky, I filed ASAP my "blind" objectionone day late. In it, I requested acceptance of my objection hi the interest of Justice.125. Whereas, using said fraudulent, perjurious, counterfeit second affidavit of service, Hepner,with deliberate indifference to evidence, merits to my objection, my inability to comply with saidorder, and with deliberate indifference and disregard to my basic human rights and needs for food

and shelter legislated denial of Justice by denial of my objection on 'procedural grounds' as ifher denial would remedy my situation and put me hi compliance with Fasone's absurd void order.

126. As administrative judge with the law degree and statutory duty to serve Justice andinvestigate wrongdoings of her colleagues, she was aware of the well-settled law that a void order

can be attacked at any time directly or collaterally, even on appeal. Said legislated denial

constitutes treason and official oppression contrary to her fiduciary duty to serve Justice to me.

127. Above stated Levoritz', Fasone's and Hepner's acts and refusals to act constitutes official

misconduct:

NYPL 195.00 Official misconductA public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain

a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit:1. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized

exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized; or2. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon

Mm by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.Official misconduct is a class A misdemeanor.

128. Hepner condoned all Levoritz' and Fasone's above-stated offences, which constitutes

Rewarding official misconduct in the second degree:

22

NYPL 200.20 Rewarding official misconduct in the second degreeA person is guilty of rewarding official misconduct in the second degree

when he knowingly confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon a publicservant for having violated his duty as a public servant.

Rewarding official misconduct in the second degree is a class E felony.

129. The above stated misconducts of Levoritz, Hepner and Fasone constitutes conspiracy and

Receiving reward for official misconduct in the first degree:

NYPL 200.27 Receiving reward for official misconduct in the first degreeA public servant is guilty of receiving reward for official misconduct in

the first degree when he solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit fromanother person for having violated his duty as a public servant in theinvestigation, arrest, detention, prosecution, or incarceration of any personfor the commission or alleged commission of a class A felony defined inarticle two hundred twenty of the penal law or the attempt to commit anysuch class A felony.

Receiving reward for official misconduct in the first degree is a class Cfelony.

130. Whereas, due to defamation and harassment of my employer by the Svenson, Levoritz,

Fasone and CSCU, I was fired from my job.131. Whereas, I timely filed petition to modify said wrongful child support order due to a

change of circumstances prompted by loss of the job.132. Whereas, Svenson and Levoritz, being notified of my job loss, failed to object by motion oranswer my modification petition per CPLR 402 and were in default. According to maxim of law

Silence is Acquiescence, Svenson and Levoritz agreed to downward modification of child

support order, and as such, my petition should have been granted by default - but was denied by

Fasone.

133. Whereas, Fasone refused to read or decide my post trial motions - in violation of LAW.

134. Whereas, a month or two after filing modification petition, I filed petition for custody and

visitation.

23

135. Whereas, in reply to my custody and visitation petition, Levoritz served me in court with

petition for criminal contempt for violation of Fasone's void order and same day offered me

settlement. The terms of settlement as follows: I sign consent judgment to arrears and withdrawmy petition for custody and visitation in exchange for him not sending me to jail.

136. Whereas, New York Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits practice by attorney, which

threatens criminal prosecution of defendant in order to gain advantage in civil case - which is

exactly what Levoritz, Fasone, Hepner and Svenson did - criminal extortion.

NYPL 155.05 Larceny; defined

1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent todeprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a thirdperson, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an ownerthereof.

2. Larceny includes a wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding ofanother's property, with the intent prescribed in subdivision one of this section,committed in any of the following ways:(e) By extortion.

A person obtains property by extortion when he compels or induces anotherperson to deliver such property to himself or to a third person by means of instillingin him a fear that, if the property is not so delivered, the actor or another will:

(i) Cause physical injury to some person in the future; or(ii) Cause damage to property; or(iii) Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or(iv) Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be

instituted against him; or(v) Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false,

tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or(vii) Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or

information with respect to another's legal claim or defense; or(viii) Use or abuse his position as a public servant by performing some

act within or related to his official duties, or by failing or refusing to performan official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely; or

(ix) Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefitthe actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially withrespect to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition,reputation or personal relationships.

24

1137. Whereas, in reply to Svenson's said frivolous petition to hold me in criminal contempt, I

filed in court cross-motion for sanctions for frivolous litigation, to which Levoritz failed to objectand reply.

138. Whereas, thereafter Fasone falsified court record by stating in bis dismissal of said motion

for sanctions that there was a hearing and Krichevsky was heard.

139. Said denial order was without findings of fact. To add more insult to the injury, this orderwas never mailed to me - again sabotaging my constitutional right to an appeal.

140. Whereas, in reply to Svenson's said frivolous petition to hold me in criminal contempt, I

replied by answer to petition, counter-claim and discovery demands, which Levoritz ignored.

141. Whereas, New York CPLR proscribes that if averments are not rebutted - they deem

admitted and failure to object or rebut deems an agreement.142. "In fact, to deprive the plaintiff of the opportunity to a hearing upon the relevant issues

"offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" Bryant v. Finnish Nat'l Airline, 22AD 2d 16 - NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. (1964). Accordingly, Fasone lost his subject matter andpersonal jurisdiction over my case and me upon my prior uninformed consent because this courthas shown on the record - it is not the court of "fair play and substantial justice," which isnecessary jurisdictional element of any court in civilized society. To put it bluntlyfraud, forgery,tyranny and sadism practiced on me in that Spanish Inquisition-like 'family court3.

143. Whereas, Fasone, acting in the dual capacity as prosecutor and judge in violation ofJudiciary Law, attempted to incarcerate me for contempt of his void order by conspiring with.

Levoritz and Svenson to prevent discovery.

144. Whereas, said persecution by Fasone, Levoritz and Svenson instilled in me a fear of losing

25

my liberty and shocked my conscience. As result of the foregoing, I suffered a stroke in November

2,2010.

145. Whereas, above said official misconduct of the defendants is now self evident upon the

PATTERN of egregious misconducts, derived from the entire record of procedural violations and

conspiracy starting from 2008 - through present. The pattern shows that Levoritz, Fasone, Hepner,

Ratansky and Svenson intended to violate the law and procedure, and intentionally denied my God

given and constitutional rights by acting as tyrants and charlatans.

146. Whereas, when I discovered that Fasone is acting as tyrant and charlatan, in summer of

20101 filed a motion to recuse Fasone, which he refused to read and issue denial - more of tyranny

and sadism by mental torture.

147. Whereas, after numerous other motions that I filed in court, which Fasone refused to

address, In 20111 filed yet another objection to such misconduct. In that objection, I exposedcriminality of defendants' acts by attached exhibits - showing fraud upon the court. I discovered:

1) original order of Fasone dated February 3,2010, which was never served on me

by unknown clerk of John Fasone, and

2) fabricated, counterfeit February 3, 2010 order with fraudulent affidavit of

service on me by unknown clerk of John Fasone.

148. At that point, Hepner, finally, set aside Fasone's prior order of child support, ordered him

to address every motion that he ignored stating, "... Fasone attempted to curtail the motion

practice" and "currently this case represents procedural quagmire."

149. Whereas, Fasone refused to comply with Hepner's "set aside" order - which put him in

criminal contempt of the higher court. Said contempt continues to present.

26

150. Whereas, because of this contempt, Fasone was without jurisdiction to commence anyproceedings and issue any order or judgment over my objection to the breach of his fiduciary dutytome.

151. Whereas, I filed yet another objection, reporting to Hepner that Fasone in contempt of herorder in the hope that she would remove Fasone from my case. However, Hepner refused to serve

Justice and denied my objection 'on procedural grounds'.152. Whereas, on August 9, 2013, Fasone denied my jurisdictional challenge to him withoutrebuttal of my affidavit in my motion filed on July 17,2013. In this denial without findings of fact,

he consistently, deliberately misquoted my affidavits and requested relief. He accused me hi

"refusal to participate in court proceedings in an appropriate manner..." Additionally, Fasone

stated, "in as much as the undersigned may have inadvertently failed to enter a written decision

on respondent-father's prior motion for recusal such matter is easily remedied..." That false,

misleading statement, nonetheless, is an admission that he was in contempt of higher court's order

when he knowingly conducted December 12,2011 hearing clearly without jurisdiction.153. Whereas, because Fasone's contempt of higher court continues, he is without jurisdictionon my case - and he should be adjudged in criminal contempt and go to jail.154. Whereas, my motion and complaint on September 24, 2013, against Fasone to

Administrative Judge Edwina Richardson-Mendelson and request to remove Fasone from my case

were ignored and no reply was sent to me.

155. Whereas, my motion and complaint against Fasone to Administrative Judge Jeanette Ruiz

and request to remove Fasone from my case were ignored and no reply was sent to me.

156. Whereas, my complaint against Fasone was under review by Court Attorney Michelle

27

Rubin, Esq.

157. and request to remove Fasone from my case were ignored and no reply was sent to me.

158. Whereas, the latest corrupt act of war against me was perpetrated by Judge Ann Elizabeth

O'shea, who issued the following order to my objection to recusal refusal by John Fasone.159. Whereas, FIRST, in her order, she falsified procedural history and facts of my case to wit:

"after petitioner refused to state his name for the record, claimed that the support magistrate had no

jurisdiction over him, moved to the back of the courtroom and ultimately left the courtroom,thwarting the procedure judge Hepner proscribed" - shows fraud upon the court by officer of

the court.

160. Judge Hepner, inter alia, proscribed: "ORDERED that support magistrate Fasone explain

the basis of his entry of a modification of the child support order on June 1, 2011 to $298 per

month under supplemental "A," how he arrived at that amount, and whether it was a temporary

modification;" and "ORDERED that in addition to deciding the respondent's application for

leave to renew and reargue his motion to recuse, the support magistrate is to include a

written decision on respondent's initial motion to recuse from July 26,2010 to complete the

record so it will be clear why he did not grant the application" and "ORDERED . . . Upon

receipt of the final decision determining each of these outstanding issues, respondent might

timely file an objection should he feel aggrieved by the result."

161. Whereas, because earlier, Fasone did not issue the written detailed explanation to my July

26, 2010 motion as to why he refused to recuse himself, Hepner declined to disqualify Fasone on

that ground. This time, I was waiting for this written decision of recusal refusal to attach it to my

appeal to Hepner because I did not trust Fasone with my life and considered him charlatan. I was

28

afraid that he would retaliate, do more of the same tyranny and fraud he did before, and restore his

void order after December 12, 2011 hearing. Moreover, if I appeal thereafter, Fasone would say

that I participated in a meaningful way, consented to his adjudication, and that after careful reviewFasone's decision stays. As the saying goes "full me once, shame on you- full me twice, shame on

me."

162. Because the record shows that Fasone never complied with Hepner's order and was in

contempt - it explains my December 12, 2011 objection to his jurisdiction over my case andnon-consent to participate in his Dog and Pony Justice show - which is fraud upon the court

hearing. Contrary to Judge 0'shea's misleading statement that I "ultimately left the room" - John

Fasone ordered me to leave the courtroom, and I was surrounded by 6 men with guns shows why

our founding fathers invented the 2nd Amendment to Constitution to defend against rogue public

servants or rogue government. Judge O'shea made procedural history and facts deliberately

misleading in order to paint me as incompetent, uncooperative in order to arrive at her corruptly

desired result, denial;

163. Whereas, SECOND, Judge O'shea consistently, deliberately misquoted my affidavits and

requested relief to wit: "on July 17, 2013, petitioner filed a motion seeking: (1) to reopen earlier

proceedings in which he was denied relief based upon his failure to meaningfully participate" -

shows fraud upon the court by officer of the court - the opposite is true. I maintained throughout

procedural history that Fasone prevented me from meaningful participation, which is why his

order is void ab initio, and why I demanded his disqualification. Judge O'shea mislead the reader

in order to allow her 'logical' arrival to now another VOID ORDER;

164. Whereas, THIRD, Judge O' shea refused and failed to take CPLR mandatory judicial notice

29

per my request of procedural facts and order of Judge Paula Hepner, which, inter alia, set aside

Fasone's VOID final order of child support until he comply with Hepner's order - which Fasone

never did.

165. Whereas, FOURTH, Judge 0' shea falsely stated in her order that I voluntarily submitted to

the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore consented to its jurisdiction - contrary to the fact thatfrom day one in that court I was dragged in by false family offense petition and ensnared in the

web of appeals and vexatious litigation by all defendants in concert. I entered appearance on my

latest motions and objections "As Belligerent Claimant," "under duress," Special Appearance andFifth Amendment defense due to contempt petition pending all the time. Judge O'shea with a law

degree knows that objection to jurisdiction cannot be waived and can be raised 'at any time even

on appeal.'

166. Whereas, FIFTH, even though I took the Fifth Amendment defense, Fasone did not need

my 'meaningful participation' by physical presence or oral argument to modify his order since he

had all the necessary evidence of my assets from CSCU. They, in addition to plundering my

unemployment benefits and leaving me with only $150 per week, with deliberate indifference to

my basic Human Rights and needs for food and shelter, plundered my bank account with $150 in

it. In fact, Fasone admitted on the record that I receive unemployment assistance - and sua sponte

temporary modified the child support amount down to $298 per month.

167. Whereas, only after Fasone was served with this lawsuit, he recused himself falsely and

misleadingly stating in his findings of fact, inter alia, that 'I crossed the line and he can no longer

guarantee objectivity' - impliedly insisting on the record that his absurd void order wasobjectively Just, thereby denying that he was in contempt of Hepner's order, which prompted this

30

lawsuit. The real reason he recused himself is Judiciary law 14 - conflict of interest, which

proscribes mandatory self-disqualification. Because New York State is a party in any Family

Court proceeding, Fasone was a party as corporation must be represented by attorney. Also he had

personal interest in the outcome of the casetherefore was disqualified by law from the beginning.

COUNT I: TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

168. Krichevsky incorporates averments above by reference herein.

169. "Tortuous interference with contract requires the existence of a valid contract between the

plaintiff and a third party, defendant's knowledge of that contract, defendant's intentional

procurement of the third-party's breach of the contract without justification, actual breach of thecontract, and damages resulting therefrom" (Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 424

[1996])." Beecher v. Feldstein, 8 AD 3d 597 - NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept (2004)

170. At the time of the unlawful acts of defendants, I was a rightful party to a valid implied and

express employment contract (contract) with Wittenstein & Associates, P.C. (Wittenstein),.a 3rd

party.

171. Above-mentioned defendants knew of the existence of that contract from litigation files

and because Levoritz, Katkalov, Fasone and Svenson numerous tunes accused me, inter alia, of

hiding my income, tax evasion with assistance of the owner of Wittenstein, and even being an

owner of Wittenstein myself.

172. Additionally, on or about October 24, 2008 Svenson stole my bills, tax returns and W-2

forms from Wittenstein, looted my apartment and left the blackmail note to me. Thereafter she

brought stolen staff to her attorneys. To achieve Svenson's goal of extorting money from me,

Svenson attempted to blackmail me by threatening to falsely report me and my employer to IRS

31

and FBI, thereby making my life miserable by being subjected to investigation and attorney'sexpenses. "I will drive you into bankruptcy. I'm gonna lose, but you gonna lose much more; you

will not finish your house" - she told Krichevsky.

173. While the fiduciary, Svenson thereafter intentionally filed ex parte false family offense

petition in Kings County Family Court and obtained a void for fraud upon the court order of

protection. Same day in the afternoon, she took parties son David and both came to my employer

demanding that I be fired. Additionally, Svenson slandered me by telling my employer that 4-5

years ago I was a partner in medical office making money behind his back. The truth was that

Svenson was a failed partner who failed that medical office business.

174. Even if, which is vigorously denied, and only for the sake of argument, Svenson's slander

was truethat information was irrelevant for her order of protection and to my employer, since 4

5 years ago my employer was satisfied with my work performance.

175. Svenson's visit was designed to anger me, get me violent and damage my reputation in an

attempt to get me arrested and/or fired.

176. Thereafter, Svenson came with police to my residence, but I was not home. Next day, out

of fear of been falsely arrested, I fled from my home, abandoned it and became homeless.

177. I hired an attorney, paid him $5000 just to defend me during the false family offense

proceeding.

178. Before the hearing started Svenson's attorney Nachimovsky attempted to blackmail me to

agree to $2500 in temporary child support monthly payments in order for Svenson to withdraw

false family offense petition and begin mediation. Nachimovsky threatened me that Svenson

would reveal in open court that I allegedly was a partner in medical office business.

32

179. Krichevsky refused to give in their extortion and proceeded for hearing. During said

hearing it became apparent that Svenson's allegations of fear of Krichevsky is false since she

immediately proceeded to Krichevsky's job to harass and anger him, and to provoke his violence.180. Before the judge had an opportunity to rale on said petition, S venson withdrew it and it wasdismissed.

181. After I forced attorney Nachimovsky resign from the case due to the conflict of interest,

Svenson hired Levoritz and attorney Michael Biancanello to act in the capacity of contractual

assassins to destroy me financially. Levoritz succeeded by fraud upon the court.

182. Svenson paid Levoritz and he

183. 1) falsely and misleadingly

184. 2) with intent to harm me

185. 3) testified during hearings as undisclosed and unsworn expert and fact witness

186. 4) knowing that he would not be cross-examined (and he was not) under oath as to

his knowledge, qualification and evidence he had

187. 5) which allowed Fasone to prejudice my case by his unjust and void child supportorder, which caused me a lot of damage.

188. Without conducting the court ordered discovery and own due diligence, Levoritz

immediately proceeded to malign me and Wittenstein as Svenson's unsworn fact witness in

violation of advocate-witness rule of NYRPC.

189. Even if, which is vigorously denied, and only for the sake of argument, Levoritz believed

in all the horrible "crimes" that he accused I was doing, Levoritz knew or should have known that

his false testimony in that court will lead to breach of my contract by Wittenstein.

33

190. Levoritz falsely testified as unsworn expert witness that my employer and I conduct illegal

business activity, yet he demanded that the court order I to pay high amount of child support

derived from such an illegal activity. In essence, Levoritz demanded that my employer and I were

ordered by Fasone to continue conduct illegal business activity after such activity has been

exposed by Levoritz in order to pay child support - which Fasone ordered. Such order is at par

with the definition of Kangaroo court 'might refer to the illogical leaps between "facts" and

conclusions, or to the hapless defendant's quick bounce from court to gallows.'

191. Even if, which is vigorously denied and only for the sake of argument, Levoritz believed in

bis own testimony, he knew or should have known that my employer and I would be scared of this

'exposure of truth' and would stop such illegal activity. Thus, Levoritz' exposure would lead to

breach of the contract by Wittenstein.

192. Even if, which is vigorously denied and only for the sake of argument, Levoritz believed in

his own testimony - exposure of 'truth' in court was not privileged as necessary or justified for the

purpose of obtaining a child support, since I paid before and never refused to pay in the future. As

an attorney who acts in the best interest of the child, Krichevsky's employment termination is

hardly could be considered by honest and reasonable attorney as beneficial for the child that

Krichevsky supposed to support.

193. Personal interests of defendants in conducting vexatious litigation and fraud came into

conflict with best interests of the child that Levoritz supposed to zealously represent.

194. Levoritz should have declined to follow Svenson's vindictive directives or declined the

whole representation per NYPC, which he violated.

195. Alternatively, Levoritz is mentally unstable attorney who caused harm to the child and me.

34

Whichever is true - the so-called zealous representation of best interest of the child resulted in

damage to the child and me due to the breach of contract and my inability to pay the child support

flowing from it.

196. Given the fact that whole Levoritz's testimony was false, deliberately misleading,

malignant, slanderous and lacked evidence, Levoritz committed torts against the child and me,

which cannot be called representation of the best interest of the child.

197. Defendants acted intentionally, as extortioners and/or out of spite.

198. Malicious, retaliatory and vexatious litigation conducted by Svenson from October 2008

until February 2010 affected me spiritually, caused stress, loss of memory and concentration.

While I still needed to do my work at Wittenstein, I needed to devote my time to said litigation.

Finally, I was tired and distracted by litigation from my 60 80 hours a week work. My

performance obviously diminished and Wittenstein was not satisfied now.

199. As concerted by Levoritz and Fasone, Fasone's final child support order essentially

ordered my employer to raise my pay, garnish it and send the garnishment to CSCU.

200. All of the above-mentioned acts evidence the pattern of kangaroo court - therefore were

Tortuous.

201. Defendant's denial of service of Justice caused me to work on appeal signaling my

employer that this vexatious litigation will never end, hence I will not be performing as used to. As

the direct or proximate result of the above, and to end such harassment, employer fired me.

202. As the direct or proximate result of the above, I was damaged, continued to be damaged

and will be damaged in the future.

203. By reason of the forgoing Krichevsky was damaged, continue to be damaged and will be

35

damaged in the future.

COUNT II: TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH INTERNAL REVENUE

SERVICE CONTRACT

204. Krichevsky incorporates averments above by reference herein.

205. Before the child support litigation started, I was a rightful party to a valid contract with

Internal Revenue Service (IRS). I received a permission from that organization to borrow

$ 190,000 from my pension fund (IRA) to finance the renovation of my Seagate house, which they

would not treat as a taxable distribution. Upon completion of renovation, I was supposed to

refinance and pay that money back into IRA or pay that amount off as loan.

206. Svenson knew how much money Krichevsky had available and that Krichevsky had to

borrow money from his IRA to start his renovation project.

207. Svenson knew about my intention to borrow money from IRS since the purchase of said

property in 2005. hi 2008,1 told Svenson that I did in fact borrowed money and am starting the

renovation.

208. Above-mentioned defendants knew of the existence of that contract from court litigation

files, my testimony in court and because Levoritz, Katkalov and Svenson did their due diligence to

know.

209. All of the defendants knew of the existence of said contract, hi the same modus operand!

described above all defendants intentionally participated in harassment of Krichevsky and his

contractors through deposition and the records subpoenas issued by Levoritz.

210. Unidentified woman started making pictures of the construction site and made a shot of

general contractor without his permission.

36

211. Out of fear of been drugged hi costly litigation between me and Svenson, and because of

Krichevsky's loss of the job, general contractor terminated contract. Accordingly, defendantstortuously procured breach of contract.

212. As direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Krichevsky' s renovation proj ect failed - it

is incomplete.

213. Further, as direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Krichevsky was unable to perform

by contract with IRS, which caused IRS to declare said loan - a distribution, penalize me and put

federal lien on said property.

214. Above said constitutes breach of contract by IRS.

215. By reason of the forgoing Krichevsky was damaged, continue to be damaged and will be

damaged in the future.

COUNT III: AID AND ABET TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTS

216. Krichevsky incorporates averments above by reference herein.

217. Svenson, under pretense of seeking to protect the best interest of the child, started extortion

by legal war and hired attorneys-bullies Nachimovsky, Biancanello and Levoritz to commit,

advice, aid and abet her in all further stated acts and criminal activities in order to gain financially

and harm Krichevsky.

"A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than thousand men with guns" - Done VitoCorleone, The Godfather

218. All of the defendants either knew of the existence or, with due diligence, should have

known of the existence of said contracts.

219. Levoritz knowingly and willingly accepted employment while he knew that Svenson's

37

goals to destroy Krichevsky financially are unethical, unlawful and go against the best interest of

the child that he hired to protect.

220. Katkalov knowingly and willingly accepted employment while he knew that Svenson's

goals to destroy Krichevsky financially are unethical, unlawful and go against the best interest of

the child that his partner hired to protect.

221. Levoritz and Katkalov knew, or with due diligence, should have known that S venson is

lying to them about Krichevsky.

222. Levoritz and Katkalov knew, or with due diligence, should have known that S venson's

goals are to extort money and vindicate against Krichevsky.

223. For starters, from the record of dismissed false family offense proceedings, they should

have known and infer that Svenson is liar, extortionist and motivated by spite.

224. Additionally, they had a duty to contact in good faith Krichevsky's attorney and attempt

negotiation or mediation, and conduct a litigation as last resort.

225. Krichevsky offered Svenson mediation at least 6 months before the Family Court's

litigation.

226. Before filing motions and subpoenas, they could have requested amicable disclosure of

financial information and followed Fasone's order to depose Krichevsky.

"There is no system ever devised by mankind that is guaranteed to rip husband and wife orfather, mother and child apart so bitterly than our present Family Court System."

Judge Brian LindsayRetired Supreme Court JudgeNew York, New York

"There is something bad happening to our children in family courts today that is causingthem more harm than drugs, more harm than crime, and even more harm than childmolestation."

38

Judge Watson L. WhiteSuperior Court JudgeCobb County, Georgia

227. However, Defendant's fiduciary duties to Krichevsky's family came hi conflict with their

own financial interests and self-dealing. They knew or should have known that there will be more

profit for them if they conduct litigation as opposed to negotiation or mediation of controversy.

228. To fuel the fire of litigation, they pretended that Svenson is credible, therefore, the is no

need to do their own due diligence to verify her lies. To justify the cause of litigation they neededto demonize Krichevsky in order to get on the high horse with the sword of Justice. To demonize

Krichevsky, they came up with defamation and false allegations that Krichevsky uncooperative,

unwilling to pay child support and is hiding his income - hence we need discovery. However, as it

turned later out, discovery is what they didn't want to do because discovery would rebut and

expose their own false and frivolous allegations.

229. Levoritz or Katkalov, or both created, substantially assisted, aided and abetted Svenson hi

creation and filing of false, fraudulent, perjurious and misleading financial disclosure affidavitsunder penalty of perjury in child support proceeding of Brooklyn Family Court.

23 0. Levoritz or Katkalov, or both coached Svenson how to testify falsely in court.

231. Misleading, perjurious written affirmations and testimony of Levoritz resulted in unfairand void for fraud upon the court child support order against Krichevsky.

232. After Krichevsky was fired from his j ob in 2010, Krichevsky filed petitions formodification of child support order and petition for custody and visitation. In retaliatory fashion,

Svenson, Levoritz and Katkalov harassed Krichevsky and tempered with him as a witness by filing

frivolous and false contempt petition in Family Court.

39

233. However, they did not produce a timely reply to Krichevsky's custody and visitation

petition.

234. They did not produce a timely reply to petition for modification. As such, the petition was

unopposed and should have been granted by Fasone - but hearing was adjourned for six month anddismissed - instead of granted by default.

235. The contempt petition was served on Krichevsky in the hall of family court, just before thefirst hearing of custody and visitation petition. After that hearing, Levoritz approached Krichevsky

in the hall of Family Court and offered to withdraw Krichevsky's custody and visitation petition,

sign consent judgment to the void child support order in exchange for his withdrawal of contemptpetition.

23 6. In order to file a contempt petition in Family Court, they had to have Probable Cause that

Krichevsky is in immediate possession of the Job or of the Funds, but Willfully does not comply

with Lawful order.

237. Krichevsky treated such offer as extortion - and refused to give in.

23 8. Due to the foregoing, Levoritz and Katkalov violated New York criminal law, New York

CPLR and New York Rules of Professional Responsibility - LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS.

They participated in unethical and illegal activity instead of withdrawing from such representation.

23 9. Levoritz and Katkalov conspired with Fasone to violate New York criminal law, New

York CPLR, New York Rules of Professional Conduct and New York Rules of Judicial Conduct

by rigging the child support and contempt proceedings against Krichevsky.

240. At the end of evidentiary hearing on January 6, 2010, Fasone adjourned the hearing andasked Krichevsky to provide self-addressed envelope implying that the hearing will continue and

40

envelope is to notify Krichevsky of the date, which Fasone impliedly would schedule in the future.

However, Fasone held a hearing on February 3, 2010 in the absence of Krichevsky and Svenson

and created a void child support order. The order says that neither Krichevsky, no Svenson is

appearing - but that was intended to happen since Fasone did not notify anybody.

241. After Krichevsky was served with contempt petition, Fasone scheduled first hearing on

My 13, 2010. Krichevsky filed cross-motion for sanctions for frivolous litigation. When

Krichevsky came to Levoritz' office with his friend who served said motion, Katkalov in sarcastic

and torturous manner said "make sure that you gonna be tomorrow at the hearing on time." In the

morning of said hearing, Levoritz and Svenson did not appear at 9:00 AM and send substitute

attorney at 11:00 AM, who asked Krichevsky for an adjournment. Krichevsky and his friend wereoutraged by such conduct not calling Krichevsky in advance to ask for an adjournment. At about1:00 PM, Levoritz and Svenson appeared. Levoritz, on the record brazenly lied to Krichevsky's

face that he called Krichevsky and asked for an adjournment. When Fasone asked why thenSvenson did not appear at 9:00 AM, Levoritz brazenly lied that there was miscommunication

between him and Katkalov, who by mistake did not notify Svenson. Upon information and belief,

the hearing was adjourned to give a chance to Fasone and Levoritz to figure out what to do with

Krichevsky's motion.

242. Upon circumstantial evidence and facts derived from entire record, Levoritz and Fasone

had ex parte communications and acted in concert. Krichevsky believes that Fasone told Levoritz

to never reply to motion for sanctions and Levoritz was in default. However, Fasone during the

next hearing on the record told Krichevsky that he would treat the motion for sanctions as

Krichevsky's answer to contempt petition. That being the case, Krichevsky's motion for sanctions

41

became an answer with counter and cross-claim that needed reply within 20 days. Levoritz never

replied - was in default - and Fasone never wondered why.

243. Thereafter, Fasone without any hearing falsified records by making an order dismissing

Krichevsky's motion for sanctions, which he silently tossed in the court's case jacket.244. In this denial, Fasone wrote that there was a hearing and that Krichevsky was heard.

245. To make matters worse, Fasone's denial was never served on Krichevsky or otherwise

Krichevsky was timely notified of that decision. Later, going through court's file Krichevsky

discovered Fasone's denial's, which shocked his conscience because he never heard of sua sponte

dismissal of answer or counter and cross-claim without the hearing. Krichevsky immediately

realized that defendants conspired to falsify the record and jail him because Krichevsky wouldnever get a fair trial with Fasone, who refused to recuse himself. Immediately thereafter,

Krichevsky filed his answer to contempt petition and served discovery demands. Katkalov

brazenly refused to provide any discovery.

246. During the course of this litigation, Levoritz was in contempt of court by disobeying

Fasone's order not to serve subpoenas on third parties. He was allowed by Fasone to serve

subpoenas only on banks and after Krichevsky's deposition.

247. Levoritz refused to depose Krichevsky, but served deposition subpoenas on Krichevsky's

contractor and engineer and refused to produce Svenson for deposition per Fasone's order.

248. Circumstantial evidence and facts derived from the entire record, shows that after Fasone

ex parte communicated with Levoritz regarding refusal to conduct depositions of parties, Fasone

legislated knew rule that discovery is not necessary, while revoking his old one proscribing

discovery.

42

249. During the course of this litigation Levoritz, as officer of the court, knowingly and

deliberately on several occasions during hearings misquoted Fasone and Krichevsky in order to

mislead the court and falsify its audio record.

250. For example, Levoritz testified as unsworn witness that because of Krichevsky's illegal

machinations Svenson was left with $300,000 debt to IRS, while his file contained a letter from

IRS indicating that Svenson owed around hundred thousand dollars. Further, the evidence showed

that Svenson filed her personal income tax in 2000 or 2001 with IRS, but failed to pay the full

amount of the debt owed to IRS even though the money was available. Levoritz deliberately

disregarded this fact and testified in court that Svenson never filed her personal income tax return

and was always Krichevsky's dependent.

251. Circumstantial evidence and facts derived from the entire record, shows that Levoritz was

engaged in a pattern of deliberately misleading testimony and arguments; pattern of misquoting

the court, Krichevsky and documentary evidence. These acts were not justified.252. Deliberately corrupt and unethical actions of Levoritz resulted in plaintiffs loss of job,income and money. That, coupled with unjustified deposition subpoena and harassment of

Krichevsky's contractors resulted in contactor's breach of contract with Krichevsky and failure of

renovation project on 4221 Atlantic Avenue house.

253. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Krichevsky was damaged, continue to be

damaged and will be damaged in the future.

COUNT IV: AID AND ABET BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

254. Krichevsky incorporates averments above by reference herein.

255. Corpus Juris Secundum (CIS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client states:

43

The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, andwherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of thecourt in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.

There was fiduciary relationship between Svenson and Krichevsky as business partners, who were

fiduciaries themselves as parents of their child.

256. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that there was a fiduciary relationship

between Krichevsky and Svenson.

257. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that Svenson owes a fiduciary duty of

care and loyalty to Krichevsky as her business partner, father of her son and income producer.

258. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that by Svenson's tortuous interference

with Krichevsky's job, CITIBANK' contract, and Krichevsky's contractors she is breaching herduty of care and loyalty to her own son and Krichevsky.

259. Fasone and Levoritz knew or, with due diligence, should have known that Svenson using

them and court system to extort money and vindicate against Krichevsky.

260. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that they fiduciaries themselves as

officers of the court who hold their offices in public trust.

261. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that their own fiduciary duties of care and

loyalty applicable to the whole family.

262. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that Svenson's unlawful conducts of

extortion and harassment of Krichevsky and his employer are adverse to the child's interests,

which they proclaimed they so zealously must protect.

263. Fasone and Levoritz breached their fiduciary duties described in ffif 23 - 28 toward

Krichevsky.

44

264. Krichevsky was fraudulently induced by defendants to enter rigged Kings County Family

Court proceedings in that Fasone did not disclose to Krichevsky that Fasone personally profits

from the unjust outcome of the case and perpetual litigation.

265. Fasone and Levoritz failed to disclose to Krichevsky that Fasone follows New York State

secret rule, custom or policy to ensnare men in the web of debt and litigation. That Krichevsky is

destined to be placed in the "deadbeat father list," using which the State receives billions of dollars

of taxpayer's money from federal government. Fasone and Levoritz failed to disclose that

Krichevsky will be harassed, persecuted and falsely imprisoned for profit by an army of state

bureaucratic employees - Child Support Collection Unit.

266. Fasone failed to disclose to Krichevsky that he would attempt to incarcerate Krichevsky

because New York City jail receives approximately $137,000 a year in profit per prisoner oftaxpayer's money.

267. Fasone failed to disclose to Krichevsky that such scam will utilize Social Security law -

title IV-D federal funding.

268. Fasone failed to disclose to Krichevsky that in Family Court Krichevsky will be presumed

guilty of crime that lacks Corpus Delicti - contrary to the Constitutions of United States of

America and the State of New York.

Howlettv. Rose, 496 US 356 - Supreme Court (1990) "Federal lawis enforceable instate courts not because Congress has determined that federal courts wouldotherwise be burdened or that state courts might provide a more convenient forum although both might well be true but because the Constitution and lawspassed pursuant to it are as much laws in the States as laws passed by the statelegislature. The Supremacy Clause makes those laws "the supreme Law of theLand," and charges state courts with a coordinate responsibility to enforce that lawaccording to their regular modes of procedure. "The laws of the United States arelaws in the several States, and just as much binding on the citizens and courtsthereof as the State laws are. The two together form one system of jurisprudence,

45

which constitutes the law of the land for the State; and the courts of the twojurisdictions are not foreign to each other, nor to be treated by each other as such,but as courts of the same country, having jurisdiction partly different and partlyconcurrent." Clqflinv. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130, 136-137 (1876); see Minneapolis& St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S. 211,222 (1916)

269. Fasone failed to disclose to Krichevsky that in Kings County Family Court there is no due

process of law. That this court secretly from Krichevsky assumes criminal jurisdiction and indicthim without a jury and without criminal rules of evidence. That in this court Krichevsky wouldhave fewer rights than a murderer in criminal court.

270. Fasone failed to disclose to Krichevsky that Fasone will rale by prescription and would

legislate the law and procedure as he goes along.

271. Fasone and Levoritz failed to disclose that when Krichevsky realizes that the case was

rigged against him and he will seek a remedy, they will hide behind absolute immunity.

272. If only Krichevsky knew all that, he would never participate in that fraudulent litigation

scheme.

273. In commerce, there is no immunity for criminal acts, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

274. Fasone and Levoritz knew or should have known that by rigging the court proceedings

against Krichevsky, and in favor of Svenson's unlawful goals, they are substantially assisting

Svenson in her breach of fiduciary duty toward her own son and Krichevsky.

275. Fasone and Levoritz knew if they perform their own fiduciary duties and faithfully follow

procedure, law and order of the court - Svenson would be unable to breach her duty of care and

loyalty to her own son and Krichevsky, and none would be harmed.

276. Fasone and Levoritz, as fiduciaries themselves toward Krichevsky turned against him,

conspired with each other and participated in extortion.

46

277. As the direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Krichevsky and his son were damaged,

continue to be damaged and will be damaged in the future. Krichevsky demands verdict that all of

the defendants jointly, severally and personally liable to him with damages determined at the timeof the trial, including interest, expenses and attorney's fees.

278. In addition, all of the defendants conspired and acted in concert, unlawfully, maliciously,

oppressively and against public policy. Krichevsky demands punitive and treble damages

determined at the time of the trial, including interest, expenses and attorney's fees.

279. Setting aside Svenson's hypocrisy regarding her love and care for the child, she hired

corrupt and malignant attorney Levoritz to vindicate and act as contractual assassin against

Krichevsky, his employer and Krichevsky's assets, which supposedly child inherits.

280. Without conduction of court ordered discovery and due diligence, Levoritz immediately

proceeded to malign Krichevsky and his employer as Svenson's unsworn fact witness in violation

of advocate - witness rule of NYRPC.

281. He refused to depose Krichevsky in violation of the court's order, and instead testified,

inter alia, that Krichevsky is evading taxes and hiding his income from the court and IRS.

282. Upon circumstantial evidence and informed belief, Levoritz had ex parte meetings and/or

conversation with hearing officer John Fasone by which they planned as to how to railroad

Krichevsky.

283. Mr. Levoritz during litigation in Family Court breached his fiduciary duty as officer of the

court to the court, to Krichevsky as a member of the public and to the child. He hypocritically

alleged that he is acting in the best interests of the child. However, his actions were malignant

toward the child because Levoritz, directed by Svenson or by his own spite, worked toward

47

Krichevsky being fired.

284. Even if, which is not admitted and only for the sake of argument, Levoritz believed in all

the horrible "crimes" that he accused Krichevsky was doing, he knew or should have known that

his testimony in that court will lead to termination of Krichevsky's employment.

285. He testified as an expert witness that Krichevsky and his employer conduct illegal business

activity, yet he demanded that the court order Krichevsky to pay high amount of child support

derived from such an illegal activity. In essence, he demanded that Krichevsky and his employer

were ordered by court to continue conduct of illegal business activity in order to derive high

income from such activity.

286. Even if, which is not admitted and only for the sake of argument, Levoritz beli