Thursday, November 29, 2007
Dean M Roberts-criminal
CIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART
----------------------------------------------------------X
KENMORE ASSOCIATES, L.P. & : Index # 071507/07 &
HOUSING & SERVICES INC. & Norris : Index # 52851/06
McLaughlin & Marcus :
Petitioner, : AFFIDAVIT
: JURY DEMAND
Tenant, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
State of New York)
(County of New York)
SS: I,____________________, (Tenant ), Respondent in this Action, being duly
sworn, hereby depose and state: That the Court (The Honorable Kevin McClanahan), Hearing
Officer or not (see Att. Met Council v. Crosson), has releases itself from Judicial Immunity by
operating outside its Jurisdiction (Federal) as well as without Personal Jurisdiction over
Respondent. Bias was evidenced in both appearances (see Transcripts) and see following:
"Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction."
Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872).
Pulliam v. Allen (1984) 466 U.S. 522, the Supreme Court Justices held:
There is little support in the common law for a rule of judicial
immunity that prevents injunctive relief against a judge. There is
even less support for a conclusion that Congress intended to limit the
injunctive relief available under § 1983 in a way that would prevent
federal injunctive relief against a state judge.
In Pierson v. Ray, 386 US 547, 18 L Ed 2d 288, 87 S Ct 1213
(1967), the Court found no indication of affirmative congressional
intent to insulate judges from the reach of the remedy Congress provided
in Section 1983. Nothing in the legislative history of § 1983 or
in this Courts subsequent interpretations of that statute supports a
conclusion that Congress intended to insulate judges from prospective
collateral injunctive relief.
Congress enacted § 1983 and its predecessor, § 2 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat 27, to provide an independent avenue for
protection of federal constitutional rights. The remedy was considered
necessary because “state courts were being used to harass and
injure individuals, either because the state courts were powerless to
stop deprivations or were in league with those who were bent upon
abrogation of federally protected rights.” Mitchum v Foster, 407 US 42
225, 240, ... (every member of Congress who spoke to the issue assumed
that judges would be liable under § 1983).
Subsequent interpretations of the Civil Rights Acts by this Court
acknowledge Congress intent to reach unconstitutional actions by
all state actors, including judges. ... Judicial immunity is no bar to
the award of attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Citing Pulliam v. Allen (1984) 466 U.S. 522, the Ninth Circuit held in
Dykes v. Hosemann, 743 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. 1984):
It is clear that a judge who acts in the absence of subject matter
jurisdiction may be held liable for his judicial acts. Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Bradley v.
Fisher, 13 Wall.335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872). ... The rationale for this
limitation on judicial immunity is set out in Bradley v. Fisher and reiterated
in Stump v. Sparkman: “Where there is clearly no jurisdiction
over the subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority,
and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction
is known, no excuse is permissible.”
An absence of personal jurisdiction may be said to destroy “all
jurisdiction” because the requirements of subject matter and personal
jurisdiction are conjunctional. Both must be met before a court
has authority to adjudicate the rights of parties to a dispute.
If a court lacks jurisdiction over a party, then it lacks “all jurisdiction”
to adjudicate that partys rights, whether or not the subject
matter is properly before it. See, e.g., Kulko v. Superior Court, 436
U.S. 84 ... [i]t has long been the rule that a valid judgment imposing
a personal obligation or duty in favor of the plaintiff may be entered
only by a court having jurisdiction over the person of the defendant”)
(citations omitted) ... Because the limits of personal jurisdiction
constrain judicial authority, acts taken in the absence of personal
jurisdiction do not fall within the scope of legitimate decision
making that judicial immunity is designed to protect. See Gregory v.
Thompson, 500 F.2d at 63. We conclude that a judge who acts in the
clear and complete absence of personal jurisdiction loses his judicial
immunity.
Because the issues of whether Judge Hosemann knew he lacked
personal jurisdiction or acted in the face of clearly valid statutes or
case law expressly depriving him of jurisdiction are matters for initial
determination in the district court, we reverse the order dismissing
the claim against Judge Hosemann and remand to the district
court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
The issue raised in the instant action, that also requires a jury trial,
is whether the defendants knew that they, and the lower court judges,
that they were (1) acting without jurisdiction; and (2) whether they
knew that they, and the other judges they protected, were acting in
the face of clearly valid statutes, case law, and federal question
rights. A jury trial is required on this basis alone.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy against rights of citizens. If two or
more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in
the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised
the same; ... They shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both;
Additional relevant Law and Case Law:
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343,Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title 42 USC § 1985, 28 U.S.C. § 144
28 U.S.C. § 455, United States v. Gigax, 605 F.2d 507 (10th Cir. 1979), Code of Judicial Conduct
Canon 2, New York Judiciary Law §14, State and Federal due process rights to a neutral and
detached jurist, to a fair hearing, and to the right to confront the witnesses against them (see, NY
Const, art I, § 6; US Const 6th, 14th Amends), Johnson v. District Court, 674 P.2d 952 (1984),
Rules of the Chief Administrator §100.3(E) (a) (i) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice
concerning a party;
Respondent continues to deny Personal Jurisdiction due to Specific Denial of Receipt and
Demands continued Special and/or Limited Appearance status. Jury Trial Demand is as of Right
(see Att. Motion to Stay) and it is within the power of a Just Court to grant Trial on the Instant
Motion (CPLR §2218).
As to Motion to Recuse, the obvious bias by the court (Hon. Kevin McClanahan), on the record,
("He's really weird FOR A TENANT (lines 3 etc.)) show a hatred for tenants in general and this
Respondent in particular, either for reasons of Race, Ethnicity, Creed, Sex, Age and/or (partial
(Photophobia & Myopia)) Disability. Judge and/or Hearing Officer McClanahan is perhaps
unaware that this Court has no Jurisdiction over Federal Constitutional Claims, Federal Law, or
Federally owned property, which was not disputed by petitioner. Pending Complaint before the
Commission on Judicial Conduct and issues before Appellate Term, First Department are
additional grounds for Mandated Recusal of the Court.
As to Motion to Clarify Hearing Officer versus Judicial Authority see attached (Met Council v.
Crosson 84 N.Y.2d 328, 642 N.E.2d 1073, 618 N.Y.S.2d 617 (1994).
As to Motion to Dismiss for violation of CPLR § 2214, petitioner failed to respond to lawfully
served original Omnibus Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice in a timely manner and thus was/is in
default. As to Defective Petition, It was not signed, as all Court Papers are required to be (CPLR
§ 2101 (see Boyd v. Kellman, 225 5th LLC v Fiori Fiori Inc., NYLJ, Feb. 16, 2005, at 22, col 3 (Civ
Ct, NY County, Gesmer, J.).). Petitioner was noticed of this defect within two days of improper
service as required (see att.).
As to Motion to Dismiss for failure to include other Parties (CPLR § 3221(a)10), due to Section
8 status (att.), agreement between petitioner and HUD and Section 8 "lease rider". No
Certification procedure compliance (see the Williams consent decree).
As to Motion to Renew/Reargue Respondent again points to lack of Personal and Actual
(Federal) Jurisdiction over this case. Case # 52651/06 is still active and not off calendar. Plaintiff
failed to answer Omnibus Motion in unsigned "affirmation" in Opposition or in Court and thus
must be deemed stipulated to (see Motion to Stay). Respondent believes Vacatur of lawful
Stipulation (July 5, 2007) between parties lacks legal Authority and/or reason.
As to Motion to Dismiss for defective Predicate Notice, it was not signed by "landlord" or
petitioners counsel but by petitioners Debt Collector (see 8201 Realty Assoc. v. Navas).
As to Motion to Compel, Respondent, in the Interest of Justice and Federal and State Due
Process Rights, Demands sufficiently before trial to prepare, Plaintiff(RICO)'s witness list, any
Documentary and/or other evidence to be introduced at trial, and a Reply to Lawfully served
Answer.
As to Motion for Change of Venue, Respondent Demands that case(s) be moved to SDNY
Federal Court , as Court of Proper Jurisdiction, at Petitioner's expense. This need is evidenced by
all Federal Laws, U.S. Constitutional Defenses, and Unrebutted Federal Ownership Allegation
included in all respondents papers.
Respondent realizes there exists as much chance of winning any Motion in this Biased Court
(unless a Virtual Person) as Appalachian St. has of beating Michigan, and as a Subway
Motorman, Respondent is aware of being Railroaded. Nevertheless, without options, hope
springs eternal, and Respondent prays for Remedy/Relief aforesaid.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to CPLR §2214(b) Time for service of notice
and affidavits. A notice of motion and supporting affidavits shall be served at least eight days
before the time at which the motion is noticed to be heard. Answering affidavits shall be served at
least two days before such time.
To: Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A. Dated & sent by fax June 10, 2007 by:
875 Third Avenue
18th Floor 145 east 23rd street #4R
New York, NY 10022 NY, NY 10010
Phone:(212) 808-0700
Fax: (212) 808-0844
To whom it may concern:
Attached "Notice of Petition & Petition" taped to my door Friday morning (June 8, 2007) is/are
defective, without required signature. I ________________, respondent in proposed
action, request cure of NoP&P defects and correct legal service. Thank you.
Sincerely,
______________
, Tenant
145 east 23rd street #4R
New York, NY, 10010
Rule 2101. Form of papers. (a) Quality, size and legibility. Each
paper served or filed shall be durable, white and, except for summonses,
subpoenas, notices of appearance, notes of issue, orders of protection,
temporary orders of protection and exhibits, shall be eleven by eight
and one-half inches in size. The writing shall be legible and in black
ink. Beneath each signature shall be printed the name signed. The
letters in the summons shall be in clear type of no less than
twelve-point in size. Each other printed or typed paper served or filed,
except an exhibit, shall be in clear type of no less than ten-point in
size.
(c) Caption. Each paper served or filed shall begin with a caption
setting forth the name of the court, the venue, the title of the action,
the nature of the paper and the index number of the action if one has
been assigned. In a summons, a complaint or a judgment the title shall
include the names of all parties, but in all other papers it shall be
sufficient to state the name of the first named party on each side with
an appropriate indication of any omissions.
(d) Indorsement by attorney. Each paper served or filed shall be
indorsed with the name, address and telephone number of the attorney for
the party serving or filing the paper, or if the party does not appear
by attorney, with the name, address and telephone number of the party.
(e) Copies. Except where otherwise specifically prescribed, copies,
rather than originals, of all papers, including orders, affidavits and
exhibits may be served or filed. Where it is required that the original
be served or filed and the original is lost or withheld, the court may
authorize a copy to be served or filed.
(f) Defects in form; waiver. A defect in the form of a paper, if a
substantial right of a party is not prejudiced, shall be disregarded by
the court, and leave to correct shall be freely given. The party on whom
a paper is served shall be deemed to have waived objection to any defect
in form unless, within two days after the receipt thereof, he returns
the paper to the party serving it with a statement of particular
objections.
(g) Service by electronic means. Each paper served or filed by
electronic means, as defined in subdivision (f) of rule twenty-one
hundred three, shall be capable of being reproduced by the receiver so
as to comply with the provisions of subdivisions (a) through (d) of this
rule.
Dean M Roberts
CIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART
----------------------------------------------------------X
KENMORE ASSOCIATES, L.P. & : Index # 071507/07 & HOUSING & SERVICES INC. & Norris : Index # 52851/06
McLaughlin & Marcus :
Petitioner, : OMNIBUS
v. : MOTION TO
: DISMISS WITH
: PREJUDICE II
: JURY DEMAND
Tenant, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of ____________
, Respondent, sworn to on the 12th day of September, 2007, and upon
all exhibits & papers annexed hereto, the undersigned (respondent) will move this
Court at a Motion term held before Room 1164(b) at the New York County (Civil)
Courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, on the 20th day of September, 2007 at
9:30 A.M. , for an order: (1) That SPECIAL APPEARANCE be granted to
challenge lack of PERSONAL JURISDICTION Book Review, New York Civil Practice, Vol.112 U.Pa.L.Rev. pp. 1222, 1230 (1963)(CPLR § 3211).
(2) That JURY TRIAL be granted for instant motion (CPLR §2218).
(3) Motion to Recuse Judge Kevin McClanahan ("The Court") "in the clear absence of jurisdiction", and for Bias.
(5) Motion as to whether Court is operating under Authority (Rules and Law) of Hearing Officer or Judge.
(6) Motion to Dismiss for violation of CPLR § 2214 and Defective Petition.
(7) Motion to Dismiss for failure to include DHPD and/or NYCHA and/or HUD as parties (CPLR §3211).
(8) Motion to Renew/Reargue Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and Vacatur of Stipulation.
(9) Motion to Dismiss for defective Predicate Notice (no "landlords" signature).
(10) Motion to Compel production of witness list, any evidence for Trial and Reply to Answer.
(11) Motion for Change of Venue to SDNY Federal District Court at Plaintiff's Cost, if not Moot.
WHEREFORE, respondent prays for the granting of an Order from the Court
dismissing petitioner's Notice of Petition & Petition in its entirety, granting
respondent's Motion(s) and for all such and further relief that this Court may deem
just and appropriate.
________________________
Tenant Respondent pro se
145 east 23rd street #4R
Petitioners counsel: New York, NY, 10010
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A.
875 Third Avenue Fl 18
New York, NY 10022
Dated September 12, 2007
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART
----------------------------------------------------------X
KENMORE ASSOCIATES, L.P. & : Index # 071507/07 & HOUSING & SERVICES INC. & Norris : Index # 52851/06
McLaughlin & Marcus :
Petitioner, : OMNIBUS
v. : MOTION TO
: DISMISS WITH
: PREJUDICE II
: JURY DEMAND
Tenant, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of ____________
, Respondent, sworn to on the 12th day of September, 2007, and upon
all exhibits & papers annexed hereto, the undersigned (respondent) will move this
Court at a Motion term held before Room 1164(b) at the New York County (Civil)
Courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, on the 20th day of September, 2007 at
9:30 A.M. , for an order: (1) That SPECIAL APPEARANCE be granted to
challenge lack of PERSONAL JURISDICTION Book Review, New York Civil Practice, Vol.112 U.Pa.L.Rev. pp. 1222, 1230 (1963)(CPLR § 3211).
(2) That JURY TRIAL be granted for instant motion (CPLR §2218).
(3) Motion to Recuse Judge Kevin McClanahan ("The Court") "in the clear absence of jurisdiction", and for Bias.
(5) Motion as to whether Court is operating under Authority (Rules and Law) of Hearing Officer or Judge.
(6) Motion to Dismiss for violation of CPLR § 2214 and Defective Petition.
(7) Motion to Dismiss for failure to include DHPD and/or NYCHA and/or HUD as parties (CPLR §3211).
(8) Motion to Renew/Reargue Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and Vacatur of Stipulation.
(9) Motion to Dismiss for defective Predicate Notice (no "landlords" signature).
(10) Motion to Compel production of witness list, any evidence for Trial and Reply to Answer.
(11) Motion for Change of Venue to SDNY Federal District Court at Plaintiff's Cost, if not Moot.
WHEREFORE, respondent prays for the granting of an Order from the Court
dismissing petitioner's Notice of Petition & Petition in its entirety, granting
respondent's Motion(s) and for all such and further relief that this Court may deem
just and appropriate.
________________________
Tenant Respondent pro se
145 east 23rd street #4R
Petitioners counsel: New York, NY, 10010
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A.
875 Third Avenue Fl 18
New York, NY 10022
Dated September 12, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus
CIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART
----------------------------------------------------------X
KENMORE ASSOCIATES, L.P. & : Index # 071507/2007 &
HOUSING & SERVICES INC. & : Index # 52851/2006
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus :
Petitioner, : AFFIDAVIT & CROSS-MOTION
v. : REPLY TO OPPOSITION
: PRE-ANSWER
, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
(State of New York)
(County of New York)
SS: I,____________________, ( ), Respondent in this Action, being duly
sworn, hereby depose and state: The plea of RES JUDICATA is reiterated. The case,
index #071507/07, is an IDENTICAL CAUSE OF ACTION with IDENTICAL PARTIES to
index #52851/06 (exhibit A (att.)). In plaintiff's UNSIGNED and UNDATED (CPLR §2101
& §2106) affirmation?, without claimed (and without foundation) exhibit? attached,
petitioner claimed THE HONORABLE MARIA MILIN wished (by order?) to prospectively
dismiss case (#52851/06) after 90 days if without response by either party. This "order"
was NEVER SERVED ON THE PARTIES OR THE COURT and the CASE IS NOT
DISMISSED (i.e. current (see exhibit A)). Obviously, JUDGE MILIN, upon review of
relevant law, CPLR §3216, §3404, Uniform Rule 202.27 (22 NYCRR 202.27) and
NYCRR §208.14[c]), saw that sufficient time (one year) has not elapsed. Case
#52851/06 was never marked off calendar by agreement of both parties.
OMNIBUS MOTION TO DISMISS, in exhibit(1), shows MOTION ORDER by THE
HONORABLE JEAN T SCHNEIDER demanding reply, by petitioner, by August
21, 2006. Despite parties appearing before THE HONORABLE KEVIN C
MCCLANAHAN on 08/21/06 due to respondent's OPPOSITION TO CROSS-
MOTION return date, and petitioners acknowledgment, on the record, of
outstanding ORDER, petitioner has, like with stipulation, failed to comply. Due to
petitioners failure to REPLY to respondent's OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MOTION,
JUDGE SCHNEIDER and/or JUDGE MILIN felt justifiably unable to rule on
respondent's two outstanding OMNIBUS MOTION(s) TO DISMISS (included as
exhibits in OMTDWP) on the merits and are presumably still waiting.
Respondent requests (A) MOTION TO REARGUE/RENEW courts vacatur of
stipulation. Petitioner (RICO (USC Title 18 Part I Chapter 96 §1961-1968)) by
counsel/Consiglieri's ongoing predicate Felony Perjury, Obstruction of Justice
(see exhibits), Fraud etc. as well as breach of Stipulation constitute grounds for
disbarment and/or incarceration. Barring Consiglieri/"House Counsel" as well as
substantial Fines under 22 NYCRR §130-1 are demanded as relief.
(B) MOTION TO DISMISS for willful and purposeful violation of respondent's
CPLR §2214 Motion demand within instant OMNIBUS MOTION TO DISMISS
WITH PREJUDICE.
(1) Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief of
the truth of the allegation that individual who refers to himself as "Dean M.
Roberts" is an attorney at all but agrees he should be prosecuted under "penalties
of Perjury" etc.. Respondent agrees that RICO "law firm" (see exhibit) NM&M is a
party to RICO case and past and future counterclaims. "Paper" submitted by
Consiglieri/"House Counsel" does not constitute "Affirmation" under CPLR
§2106, §2101 or any other rule as it is unsigned and undated.
(2) This proceeding commenced in 2006 under index #52851 and is ACTIVE.
No "rent" has been paid to RICO or the People of the United States (the actual
owner (see Amended Answer)). Upon information and belief and documentary
evidence (att. exhibit B) RICO petitioner has received "section 8" payments for
relevant apartment over said period, constituting additional Fraud. Respondent will
request, during discovery, relevant vendor and voucher numbers for Comptroller's
investigation and thorough forensic accounting, paid by petitioner.
(3) Petitioner (RICO) is apparently stipulating to "Section 8" Fraud (2921
Associates v. Willis, Title 24 CFR: Ch VII HUD Part 792) as it is not answered.
Admittedly RICO puts no value on Stipulations unless it is for dispossession of
Enemy (Chattel(Tenant (see Amended Answer))).
(4) Respondent claims the existence of a CURRENT "non-payment" (and RICO)
proceeding (index #52851/06).
(5) Respondent submitted attached (to OMTDWP) motions to HONORABLE
JEAN T SCHNEIDER (see OMTDWP exhibit A). Alleged proposed?
"decision" (not attached) was not served on parties or the court and is not in
effect. Case, index #52851, is not dismissed (see attached exhibit A) and
petitioner (RICO) need only Reply to Opposition a year late, or serve a Motion
to Renew or Motion for Accelerated Judgment, similar to the previous Fake
Motion for Accelerated Oral Argument served to respondent in previous
(dismissed) case between parties and stop continual Perjury and Obstruction
of Justice.
(6) "We did not discovery[sic] the decision" is apparently a stipulation to
respondent's discovery requests.
(7) Perjury and Obstruction of Justice and lack of Due Diligence (again
(ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct)).
(8) RICO Consiglieri apparently has not read and/or cannot readattached "fact"
though has not informed parties or court as to any reasonable accommodation
needs (dyslexia?). The Amended Answer and/or other attached and admitted
papers are the "fact" RPAPL §743 The answer may contain any legal or equitable defense, or counterclaim. The court may render affirmative judgment for the amount found due on the counterclaim.
(9) Jury fees have been paid into and accepted by court in instant (index
#52851/06) case. Respondent requests Jury Trial pursuant to CPLR §2218. Trial of issue raised on motion. The court may order that an issue of fact raised on a motion shall be separately tried by the court or a referee. If the issue is triable of right by jury, the court shall give the parties an opportunity to demand a jury trial of such issue. Failure to make such demand within the time limited by the court, or, if no such time is limited, before trial begins, shall be deemed a waiver of the right to trial by jury. An order under this rule shall specify the issue to be tried.
for all motions.
(10) This has been answered extensively in attached (to OMTDWP) AFFIDAVIT
IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS pages 6-8. RICO "house counsel" has not supplied
(forged) papers RICO allegedly refers to (see CPLR §2221(c) "Only papers served in accordance with the provisions of this rule shall be read in support of, or in opposition to, the motion,").
(11) Respondent requests that all MOTIONS not answered by RICO petitioner
be deemed stipulated to. In consideration of prior RICO Frauds by petitioner's
Consiglieri (see attached); for 22 NYCRR §130-1 relief Respondent requests of
Court that $1,000,000 Fine/Damages be levied Jointly & Severely against Dean
Roberts/Mia Falls, Norris McLaughlin & Marcus and/or Kenmore Associates a.k.a
Housing & Services Inc. a.k.a. Kenmore Housing Corp. a.k.a. Kenmore Housing
Development Fund Corp. and/or any other related Shell Corporations/Money
Laundering Organizations (not John Z. Delorean Front).
(12) Respondent continues to deny proper personal (service RPAPL §735) or court
jurisdiction or petitioner RICO's standing (see all papers). Additionally Petition for
Possession of Real Property is defective (unsigned and undated (RPAPL §741)).
These issues are apparently stipulated to by RICO as they have again gone
unanswered.
WHEREFORE, respondent prays for the granting of an Order from the Court
dismissing petitioner's Petition in its entirety, and for all such and further relief that this
Court may deem just and appropriate.
______________________________
, Respondent Pro-Se
145 east 23rd street #4R
New York, NY10010
Sworn Before me on the
9th Day of August, 2007
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART
----------------------------------------------------------X
KENMORE ASSOCIATES, L.P. & : Index # 071507/2007 &
HOUSING & SERVICES INC. & : Index # 52851/2006
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus :
Petitioner, : AFFIDAVIT & CROSS-MOTION
v. : REPLY TO OPPOSITION
: PRE-ANSWER
, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
(State of New York)
(County of New York)
SS: I,____________________, ( ), Respondent in this Action, being duly
sworn, hereby depose and state: The plea of RES JUDICATA is reiterated. The case,
index #071507/07, is an IDENTICAL CAUSE OF ACTION with IDENTICAL PARTIES to
index #52851/06 (exhibit A (att.)). In plaintiff's UNSIGNED and UNDATED (CPLR §2101
& §2106) affirmation?, without claimed (and without foundation) exhibit? attached,
petitioner claimed THE HONORABLE MARIA MILIN wished (by order?) to prospectively
dismiss case (#52851/06) after 90 days if without response by either party. This "order"
was NEVER SERVED ON THE PARTIES OR THE COURT and the CASE IS NOT
DISMISSED (i.e. current (see exhibit A)). Obviously, JUDGE MILIN, upon review of
relevant law, CPLR §3216, §3404, Uniform Rule 202.27 (22 NYCRR 202.27) and
NYCRR §208.14[c]), saw that sufficient time (one year) has not elapsed. Case
#52851/06 was never marked off calendar by agreement of both parties.
OMNIBUS MOTION TO DISMISS, in exhibit(1), shows MOTION ORDER by THE
HONORABLE JEAN T SCHNEIDER demanding reply, by petitioner, by August
21, 2006. Despite parties appearing before THE HONORABLE KEVIN C
MCCLANAHAN on 08/21/06 due to respondent's OPPOSITION TO CROSS-
MOTION return date, and petitioners acknowledgment, on the record, of
outstanding ORDER, petitioner has, like with stipulation, failed to comply. Due to
petitioners failure to REPLY to respondent's OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MOTION,
JUDGE SCHNEIDER and/or JUDGE MILIN felt justifiably unable to rule on
respondent's two outstanding OMNIBUS MOTION(s) TO DISMISS (included as
exhibits in OMTDWP) on the merits and are presumably still waiting.
Respondent requests (A) MOTION TO REARGUE/RENEW courts vacatur of
stipulation. Petitioner (RICO (USC Title 18 Part I Chapter 96 §1961-1968)) by
counsel/Consiglieri's ongoing predicate Felony Perjury, Obstruction of Justice
(see exhibits), Fraud etc. as well as breach of Stipulation constitute grounds for
disbarment and/or incarceration. Barring Consiglieri/"House Counsel" as well as
substantial Fines under 22 NYCRR §130-1 are demanded as relief.
(B) MOTION TO DISMISS for willful and purposeful violation of respondent's
CPLR §2214 Motion demand within instant OMNIBUS MOTION TO DISMISS
WITH PREJUDICE.
(1) Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief of
the truth of the allegation that individual who refers to himself as "Dean M.
Roberts" is an attorney at all but agrees he should be prosecuted under "penalties
of Perjury" etc.. Respondent agrees that RICO "law firm" (see exhibit) NM&M is a
party to RICO case and past and future counterclaims. "Paper" submitted by
Consiglieri/"House Counsel" does not constitute "Affirmation" under CPLR
§2106, §2101 or any other rule as it is unsigned and undated.
(2) This proceeding commenced in 2006 under index #52851 and is ACTIVE.
No "rent" has been paid to RICO or the People of the United States (the actual
owner (see Amended Answer)). Upon information and belief and documentary
evidence (att. exhibit B) RICO petitioner has received "section 8" payments for
relevant apartment over said period, constituting additional Fraud. Respondent will
request, during discovery, relevant vendor and voucher numbers for Comptroller's
investigation and thorough forensic accounting, paid by petitioner.
(3) Petitioner (RICO) is apparently stipulating to "Section 8" Fraud (2921
Associates v. Willis, Title 24 CFR: Ch VII HUD Part 792) as it is not answered.
Admittedly RICO puts no value on Stipulations unless it is for dispossession of
Enemy (Chattel(Tenant (see Amended Answer))).
(4) Respondent claims the existence of a CURRENT "non-payment" (and RICO)
proceeding (index #52851/06).
(5) Respondent submitted attached (to OMTDWP) motions to HONORABLE
JEAN T SCHNEIDER (see OMTDWP exhibit A). Alleged proposed?
"decision" (not attached) was not served on parties or the court and is not in
effect. Case, index #52851, is not dismissed (see attached exhibit A) and
petitioner (RICO) need only Reply to Opposition a year late, or serve a Motion
to Renew or Motion for Accelerated Judgment, similar to the previous Fake
Motion for Accelerated Oral Argument served to respondent in previous
(dismissed) case between parties and stop continual Perjury and Obstruction
of Justice.
(6) "We did not discovery[sic] the decision" is apparently a stipulation to
respondent's discovery requests.
(7) Perjury and Obstruction of Justice and lack of Due Diligence (again
(ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct)).
(8) RICO Consiglieri apparently has not read and/or cannot readattached "fact"
though has not informed parties or court as to any reasonable accommodation
needs (dyslexia?). The Amended Answer and/or other attached and admitted
papers are the "fact" RPAPL §743 The answer may contain any legal or equitable defense, or counterclaim. The court may render affirmative judgment for the amount found due on the counterclaim.
(9) Jury fees have been paid into and accepted by court in instant (index
#52851/06) case. Respondent requests Jury Trial pursuant to CPLR §2218. Trial of issue raised on motion. The court may order that an issue of fact raised on a motion shall be separately tried by the court or a referee. If the issue is triable of right by jury, the court shall give the parties an opportunity to demand a jury trial of such issue. Failure to make such demand within the time limited by the court, or, if no such time is limited, before trial begins, shall be deemed a waiver of the right to trial by jury. An order under this rule shall specify the issue to be tried.
for all motions.
(10) This has been answered extensively in attached (to OMTDWP) AFFIDAVIT
IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS pages 6-8. RICO "house counsel" has not supplied
(forged) papers RICO allegedly refers to (see CPLR §2221(c) "Only papers served in accordance with the provisions of this rule shall be read in support of, or in opposition to, the motion,").
(11) Respondent requests that all MOTIONS not answered by RICO petitioner
be deemed stipulated to. In consideration of prior RICO Frauds by petitioner's
Consiglieri (see attached); for 22 NYCRR §130-1 relief Respondent requests of
Court that $1,000,000 Fine/Damages be levied Jointly & Severely against Dean
Roberts/Mia Falls, Norris McLaughlin & Marcus and/or Kenmore Associates a.k.a
Housing & Services Inc. a.k.a. Kenmore Housing Corp. a.k.a. Kenmore Housing
Development Fund Corp. and/or any other related Shell Corporations/Money
Laundering Organizations (not John Z. Delorean Front).
(12) Respondent continues to deny proper personal (service RPAPL §735) or court
jurisdiction or petitioner RICO's standing (see all papers). Additionally Petition for
Possession of Real Property is defective (unsigned and undated (RPAPL §741)).
These issues are apparently stipulated to by RICO as they have again gone
unanswered.
WHEREFORE, respondent prays for the granting of an Order from the Court
dismissing petitioner's Petition in its entirety, and for all such and further relief that this
Court may deem just and appropriate.
______________________________
, Respondent Pro-Se
145 east 23rd street #4R
New York, NY10010
Sworn Before me on the
9th Day of August, 2007
Kenmore Housing Corp
CIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART
----------------------------------------------------------X
KENMORE ASSOCIATES, L.P. & : Index # 071507/07 & HOUSING & SERVICES INC. & Norris : Index # 52851/06
McLaughlin & Marcus : PRE-ANSWER
Petitioner, : OMNIBUS
v. : MOTION TO
: DISMISS WITH
: PREJUDICE
: JURY DEMAND
, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of ,
Respondent, sworn to on the 13th day of June, 2007, and upon all exhibits &
papers annexed hereto, the undersigned (respondent) will move this Court at a
Motion term held before Civil Clerk Room 225 at the New York County (Civil)
Courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, on the 5th day of July, 2007 at 9:30 A.M. ,
for an order: (1) That SPECIAL APPEARANCE be granted to challenge lack of
PERSONAL JURISDICTION Book Review, New York Civil Practice, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1222, 1230 (1963)
(2) That JURY TRIAL be granted for instant motion (CPLR §2218).
(3) That instant case be dismissed due to IDENTICAL CAUSE OF ACTION (Res
Judicata) in prior (and current) case before Honorable Jean Schneider
(index #52851/06(see att.)).
(4) That $1,000,000.00 fine and/or punitive and compensatory damages be levied
against plaintiff's for reasons of VEXATIOUS & FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION, ABUSE
OF PROCESS, JUDGE/FORUM SHOPPING and BARRATRY.
(5) That "House Counsel" of RICO petitioner, Dean M. Roberts esq. and Mia Falls
esq., be immediately DISBARRED for same as well as MALFEASANCE,
INCOMPETENCE and lack of DUE DILIGENCE (ABA Model Rules of Professional
Conduct).
(6) That #52851/06 (actual) case be dismissed for violating FEDERAL FAIR DEBT
COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1692).
(7) That #52851/06 (actual) case be dismissed for violating FEDERAL CONSENT
JUDGMENT ( Williams v. NewYork City Hous. Auth., 975 F. Supp. 317, 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (hereinafter the "Williams Consent Judgment').
(8) That #52851/06 case be dismissed for "landlord" SECTION 8 FRAUD
(additional Predicate RICO Felonies) and pending INDEPENDENT SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR motion be expanded to review same (see att.).
(9) That violations of FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT (31 U.S.C. § 3729) be added
as additional defense in actual case.
(10) That pending discovery motion expand to include Request for Information on
RICO's Section 8 and other FRAUDS for Due Process Defense if not moot.
(11) That Special Federal Grand Jury be impaneled to examine and INDICT
plaintiff and others for RICO ACTs and POLITICAL CORRUPTION (see att.).
(12) That plaintiff's be Barred from initiating further legal actions as VEXATIOUS
LITIGANTS.
(13) That First Counterclaim in actual case be raised to $100,000,000.
(14) That RICO lacks Standing and Jurisdiction (Federal(see Att.)).
Under CPLR 2214 (b) Answering affidavits shall be served at least seven days before such time if a notice of motion served at least twelve days before such time so demands;
WHEREFORE, respondent prays for the granting of an Order from the Court
dismissing petitioner's Notice of Petition & Petition in its entirety, granting
respondent's Motion and for all such and further relief that this Court may deem just
and appropriate.
________________________
, Respondent pro se
145 east 23rd street #4R
Petitioners counsel: New York, NY, 10010
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A.
875 Third Avenue Fl 18
New York, NY 10022
Dated June 12, 2007
K
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART
----------------------------------------------------------X
KENMORE ASSOCIATES, L.P. & : Index # 071507/07 & HOUSING & SERVICES INC. & Norris : Index # 52851/06
McLaughlin & Marcus : PRE-ANSWER
Petitioner, : OMNIBUS
v. : MOTION TO
: DISMISS WITH
: PREJUDICE
: JURY DEMAND
, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of ,
Respondent, sworn to on the 13th day of June, 2007, and upon all exhibits &
papers annexed hereto, the undersigned (respondent) will move this Court at a
Motion term held before Civil Clerk Room 225 at the New York County (Civil)
Courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, on the 5th day of July, 2007 at 9:30 A.M. ,
for an order: (1) That SPECIAL APPEARANCE be granted to challenge lack of
PERSONAL JURISDICTION Book Review, New York Civil Practice, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1222, 1230 (1963)
(2) That JURY TRIAL be granted for instant motion (CPLR §2218).
(3) That instant case be dismissed due to IDENTICAL CAUSE OF ACTION (Res
Judicata) in prior (and current) case before Honorable Jean Schneider
(index #52851/06(see att.)).
(4) That $1,000,000.00 fine and/or punitive and compensatory damages be levied
against plaintiff's for reasons of VEXATIOUS & FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION, ABUSE
OF PROCESS, JUDGE/FORUM SHOPPING and BARRATRY.
(5) That "House Counsel" of RICO petitioner, Dean M. Roberts esq. and Mia Falls
esq., be immediately DISBARRED for same as well as MALFEASANCE,
INCOMPETENCE and lack of DUE DILIGENCE (ABA Model Rules of Professional
Conduct).
(6) That #52851/06 (actual) case be dismissed for violating FEDERAL FAIR DEBT
COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1692).
(7) That #52851/06 (actual) case be dismissed for violating FEDERAL CONSENT
JUDGMENT ( Williams v. NewYork City Hous. Auth., 975 F. Supp. 317, 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (hereinafter the "Williams Consent Judgment').
(8) That #52851/06 case be dismissed for "landlord" SECTION 8 FRAUD
(additional Predicate RICO Felonies) and pending INDEPENDENT SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR motion be expanded to review same (see att.).
(9) That violations of FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT (31 U.S.C. § 3729) be added
as additional defense in actual case.
(10) That pending discovery motion expand to include Request for Information on
RICO's Section 8 and other FRAUDS for Due Process Defense if not moot.
(11) That Special Federal Grand Jury be impaneled to examine and INDICT
plaintiff and others for RICO ACTs and POLITICAL CORRUPTION (see att.).
(12) That plaintiff's be Barred from initiating further legal actions as VEXATIOUS
LITIGANTS.
(13) That First Counterclaim in actual case be raised to $100,000,000.
(14) That RICO lacks Standing and Jurisdiction (Federal(see Att.)).
Under CPLR 2214 (b) Answering affidavits shall be served at least seven days before such time if a notice of motion served at least twelve days before such time so demands;
WHEREFORE, respondent prays for the granting of an Order from the Court
dismissing petitioner's Notice of Petition & Petition in its entirety, granting
respondent's Motion and for all such and further relief that this Court may deem just
and appropriate.
________________________
, Respondent pro se
145 east 23rd street #4R
Petitioners counsel: New York, NY, 10010
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A.
875 Third Avenue Fl 18
New York, NY 10022
Dated June 12, 2007
K
Kenmore Housing Development Corp
CIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART
----------------------------------------------------------X
KENMORE ASSOCIATES, L.P. & : Index # 071507/2007 &
HOUSING & SERVICES INC. & : Index # 52851/2006
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus :
Petitioner, : AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
v. : OF MOTION TO DISMISS
: PRE-ANSWER
, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
(State of New York)
(County of New York)
SS: I,____________________, ( ), Respondent in this Action, being duly
sworn, hereby depose and state: That plaintiff's "Collateral Attack" on respondent's
FIFTH AMENDMENT and Due Process Civil Rights is a Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation (SLAPP). The RICO's CRIMINAL BARRATRY is retaliation for
respondent's attempt to obtain REMEDY & SEVENTH AMENDMENT rights. Petitioner's
UNLAWFUL OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE of the Honorable Jean Schneider's LAWFUL
AUTHORITY is grounds in and of itself for DISBARMENT and INDICTMENT. Notice of
Petition & Petition were defective and unlawfully served. Petition to Recover Possession
of Real Property is UNSIGNED (att. fax to NM&M) and NoP&P was not sent by certified/
registered and regular mail and no attempts at personal service were made.
The RICO, in "both" cases, violated FDCPA by having their "Debt Collector" sign
Predicate Notice, without required Validation Notice. If this is disputed (not stipulated to)
respondent will require appearance of both "debt collectors"at trial (Romea v. Heiberger & Assoc., 989 F.Supp. 712 (SDNY 1997).
Petitioner (RICO) due to SECTION 8 status of respondent (even if induced by
"Landlord"Fraud) is required to follow Federal "Williams Consent Judgment" (Quesada
v. Hernandez, 5 Misc 3d 1028 (A)[NY Sup. 2004]). In "both" cases petitioner failed to
include or Serve or Notice NYCHA or DHPD. Upon Information and Belief (see att.),
RICO is receiving (unlawful) Section 8 subsidy, negating any need for "rent".
Respondent requests of Court that $1,000,000 Fine/Damages be levied Jointly &
Severely against Dean Roberts/Mia Falls, Norris McLaughlin & Marcus and/or
Kenmore Associates a.k.a Housing & Services inc. a.k.a. Kenmore Housing Corp. a.k.a.
Kenmore Housing Development Fund Corp..
Plaintiff's five cases against respondent (3 dismissed) and well over 400 Housing
Cases against tenants in stolen government property (only 320 apartments) in the last
10 years constitute Vexatious and Frivolous Litigation, Abuse of Process and the Courts.
WHEREFORE, respondent prays for the granting of an Order from the Court
dismissing petitioner's Petition in its entirety, and for all such and further relief that this
Court may deem just and appropriate.
______________________________
, Respondent Pro-Se
145 east 23rd street #4R
New York, NY 10010
Sworn Before me on the
13th Day of June, 2007
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART
----------------------------------------------------------X
KENMORE ASSOCIATES, L.P. & : Index # 071507/2007 &
HOUSING & SERVICES INC. & : Index # 52851/2006
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus :
Petitioner, : AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
v. : OF MOTION TO DISMISS
: PRE-ANSWER
, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
(State of New York)
(County of New York)
SS: I,____________________, ( ), Respondent in this Action, being duly
sworn, hereby depose and state: That plaintiff's "Collateral Attack" on respondent's
FIFTH AMENDMENT and Due Process Civil Rights is a Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation (SLAPP). The RICO's CRIMINAL BARRATRY is retaliation for
respondent's attempt to obtain REMEDY & SEVENTH AMENDMENT rights. Petitioner's
UNLAWFUL OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE of the Honorable Jean Schneider's LAWFUL
AUTHORITY is grounds in and of itself for DISBARMENT and INDICTMENT. Notice of
Petition & Petition were defective and unlawfully served. Petition to Recover Possession
of Real Property is UNSIGNED (att. fax to NM&M) and NoP&P was not sent by certified/
registered and regular mail and no attempts at personal service were made.
The RICO, in "both" cases, violated FDCPA by having their "Debt Collector" sign
Predicate Notice, without required Validation Notice. If this is disputed (not stipulated to)
respondent will require appearance of both "debt collectors"at trial (Romea v. Heiberger & Assoc., 989 F.Supp. 712 (SDNY 1997).
Petitioner (RICO) due to SECTION 8 status of respondent (even if induced by
"Landlord"Fraud) is required to follow Federal "Williams Consent Judgment" (Quesada
v. Hernandez, 5 Misc 3d 1028 (A)[NY Sup. 2004]). In "both" cases petitioner failed to
include or Serve or Notice NYCHA or DHPD. Upon Information and Belief (see att.),
RICO is receiving (unlawful) Section 8 subsidy, negating any need for "rent".
Respondent requests of Court that $1,000,000 Fine/Damages be levied Jointly &
Severely against Dean Roberts/Mia Falls, Norris McLaughlin & Marcus and/or
Kenmore Associates a.k.a Housing & Services inc. a.k.a. Kenmore Housing Corp. a.k.a.
Kenmore Housing Development Fund Corp..
Plaintiff's five cases against respondent (3 dismissed) and well over 400 Housing
Cases against tenants in stolen government property (only 320 apartments) in the last
10 years constitute Vexatious and Frivolous Litigation, Abuse of Process and the Courts.
WHEREFORE, respondent prays for the granting of an Order from the Court
dismissing petitioner's Petition in its entirety, and for all such and further relief that this
Court may deem just and appropriate.
______________________________
, Respondent Pro-Se
145 east 23rd street #4R
New York, NY 10010
Sworn Before me on the
13th Day of June, 2007
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus P.A.
CIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART
----------------------------------------------------------X
KENMORE ASSOCIATES, L.P. & : Index # 071507/07 & HOUSING & SERVICES INC. & Norris : Index # 52851/06
McLaughlin & Marcus : PRE-ANSWER
Petitioner, : OMNIBUS
v. : MOTION TO
: DISMISS WITH
: PREJUDICE
: JURY DEMAND Tenant, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of ,
Respondent, sworn to on the 13th day of June, 2007, and upon all exhibits &
papers annexed hereto, the undersigned (respondent) will move this Court at a
Motion term held before Civil Clerk Room 225 at the New York County (Civil)
Courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, on the 5th day of July, 2007 at 9:30 A.M. ,
for an order: (1) That SPECIAL APPEARANCE be granted to challenge lack of
PERSONAL JURISDICTION Book Review, New York Civil Practice, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1222, 1230 (1963)
(2) That JURY TRIAL be granted for instant motion (CPLR §2218).
(3) That instant case be dismissed due to IDENTICAL CAUSE OF ACTION (Res
Judicata) in prior (and current) case before Honorable Jean Schneider
(index #52851/06(see att.)).
(4) That $1,000,000.00 fine and/or punitive and compensatory damages be levied
against plaintiff's for reasons of VEXATIOUS & FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION, ABUSE
OF PROCESS, JUDGE/FORUM SHOPPING and BARRATRY.
(5) That "House Counsel" of RICO petitioner, Dean M. Roberts esq. and Mia Falls
esq., be immediately DISBARRED for same as well as MALFEASANCE,
INCOMPETENCE and lack of DUE DILIGENCE (ABA Model Rules of Professional
Conduct).
(6) That #52851/06 (actual) case be dismissed for violating FEDERAL FAIR DEBT
COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1692).
(7) That #52851/06 (actual) case be dismissed for violating FEDERAL CONSENT
JUDGMENT ( Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth., 975 F. Supp. 317, 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (hereinafter the "Williams Consent Judgment').
(8) That #52851/06 case be dismissed for "landlord" SECTION 8 FRAUD
(additional Predicate RICO Felonies) and pending INDEPENDENT SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR motion be expanded to review same (see att.).
(9) That violations of FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT (31 U.S.C. § 3729) be added
as additional defense in actual case.
(10) That pending discovery motion expand to include Request for Information on
RICO's Section 8 and other FRAUDS for Due Process Defense if not moot.
(11) That Special Federal Grand Jury be impaneled to examine and INDICT
plaintiff and others for RICO ACTs and POLITICAL CORRUPTION (see att.).
(12) That plaintiff's be Barred from initiating further legal actions as VEXATIOUS
LITIGANTS.
(13) That First Counterclaim in actual case be raised to $100,000,000.
(14) That RICO lacks Standing and Jurisdiction (Federal(see Att.)).
Under CPLR 2214 (b) Answering affidavits shall be served at least seven days before such time if a notice of motion served at least twelve days before such time so demands;
WHEREFORE, respondent prays for the granting of an Order from the Court
dismissing petitioner's Notice of Petition & Petition in its entirety, granting
respondent's Motion and for all such and further relief that this Court may deem just
and appropriate.
________________________
, Respondent pro se
145 east 23rd street
Petitioners counsel: New York, NY, 10010
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A.
875 Third Avenue Fl 18
New York, NY 10022
Dated June 12, 2007
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : HOUSING PART
----------------------------------------------------------X
KENMORE ASSOCIATES, L.P. & : Index # 071507/07 & HOUSING & SERVICES INC. & Norris : Index # 52851/06
McLaughlin & Marcus : PRE-ANSWER
Petitioner, : OMNIBUS
v. : MOTION TO
: DISMISS WITH
: PREJUDICE
: JURY DEMAND Tenant, :
:
Respondent. :
---------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of ,
Respondent, sworn to on the 13th day of June, 2007, and upon all exhibits &
papers annexed hereto, the undersigned (respondent) will move this Court at a
Motion term held before Civil Clerk Room 225 at the New York County (Civil)
Courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, on the 5th day of July, 2007 at 9:30 A.M. ,
for an order: (1) That SPECIAL APPEARANCE be granted to challenge lack of
PERSONAL JURISDICTION Book Review, New York Civil Practice, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1222, 1230 (1963)
(2) That JURY TRIAL be granted for instant motion (CPLR §2218).
(3) That instant case be dismissed due to IDENTICAL CAUSE OF ACTION (Res
Judicata) in prior (and current) case before Honorable Jean Schneider
(index #52851/06(see att.)).
(4) That $1,000,000.00 fine and/or punitive and compensatory damages be levied
against plaintiff's for reasons of VEXATIOUS & FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION, ABUSE
OF PROCESS, JUDGE/FORUM SHOPPING and BARRATRY.
(5) That "House Counsel" of RICO petitioner, Dean M. Roberts esq. and Mia Falls
esq., be immediately DISBARRED for same as well as MALFEASANCE,
INCOMPETENCE and lack of DUE DILIGENCE (ABA Model Rules of Professional
Conduct).
(6) That #52851/06 (actual) case be dismissed for violating FEDERAL FAIR DEBT
COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1692).
(7) That #52851/06 (actual) case be dismissed for violating FEDERAL CONSENT
JUDGMENT ( Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth., 975 F. Supp. 317, 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (hereinafter the "Williams Consent Judgment').
(8) That #52851/06 case be dismissed for "landlord" SECTION 8 FRAUD
(additional Predicate RICO Felonies) and pending INDEPENDENT SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR motion be expanded to review same (see att.).
(9) That violations of FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT (31 U.S.C. § 3729) be added
as additional defense in actual case.
(10) That pending discovery motion expand to include Request for Information on
RICO's Section 8 and other FRAUDS for Due Process Defense if not moot.
(11) That Special Federal Grand Jury be impaneled to examine and INDICT
plaintiff and others for RICO ACTs and POLITICAL CORRUPTION (see att.).
(12) That plaintiff's be Barred from initiating further legal actions as VEXATIOUS
LITIGANTS.
(13) That First Counterclaim in actual case be raised to $100,000,000.
(14) That RICO lacks Standing and Jurisdiction (Federal(see Att.)).
Under CPLR 2214 (b) Answering affidavits shall be served at least seven days before such time if a notice of motion served at least twelve days before such time so demands;
WHEREFORE, respondent prays for the granting of an Order from the Court
dismissing petitioner's Notice of Petition & Petition in its entirety, granting
respondent's Motion and for all such and further relief that this Court may deem just
and appropriate.
________________________
, Respondent pro se
145 east 23rd street
Petitioners counsel: New York, NY, 10010
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A.
875 Third Avenue Fl 18
New York, NY 10022
Dated June 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)