RICO

Saturday, August 19, 2006
Affidavit2

Exhibit is respondent's ANSWER & AFFIDAVIT and/or AMENDED ANSWER

&AFFIDAVIT included in court record and duly and properly served upon plaintiff's

counsel. Additionally for MOTION TO RECUSE, respondent is informed and

believes, and upon such information and belief, alleges that plaintiff's counsel

knew and/or should have known and/or had prior knowledge and affirmatively and

unlawfully assisted Crimes, Unlawful Conspiracies, Coverups and Corruption of

various Government Officials in an ongoing manor. As "House Counsel" for

petitioner (RICO) for ten years, petitioner's counsel engaged in Obstruction of

Justice allowing/encouraging/assisting/supporting petitioner in avoiding/quashing

lawful investigations, performing conspiracies and coverups, money laundering,

tax evasion,and violating tenants and others Civil, Constitutional, and other rights

and protections under Law, Precedent, Regulations, Rules and or Charter, Federal

State and City. For precedent see barring of Bruce Cutler as "House Counsel" for

Gambino Crime Family in 1991 case United States v John Gotti.

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

dismissing petitioner's Petition in its entirety, with prejudice, and for all such and

further relief that this Court may deem just and appropriate.

posted by Fin MacCool @ 12:28 PM   0 comments links to this post  
Affidavit

1. As to first MOTION TO DISMISS petitioner's Predicate Notice & Notice of

Petition & Petition were not signed or endorsed by "Landlord" or "Landlords

Counsel" but by a former employee.

2. As to second MOTION TO DISMISS petitioner was required to make as a

party DHPD as required in 'section 8' lease rider and law and agreement between

petitioner and DHPD and Federal Department of Housing and Urban

Development, as to which respondent will require a copy of all records/documents/

emails/memorandums for discovery.

3. Respondent requests and demands that as additional affirmative defenses

that petitioner engaged in systematic discrimination and harassment for reasons of

disability, respondent suffers from Photophobia and Myopia, and age, respondent

is over 40 years old in violation of various Federal, State and City Laws, regulations

and rules and/or Charter. Also that First CounterClaim be adjusted to $10,000,000

4. In the Interest of Justice and Due Process, respondent, acting pro se, requests

and demands in MOTION TO COMPEL sufficiently prior to trial petitioner's witness

list in order to prepare adequate defense.

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

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

this Court may deem just and appropriate.

posted by Fin MacCool @ 12:21 PM   0 comments links to this post  
Omnibus Motion 2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of Respondent,

sworn to on the 6th day of July, 2006, and upon all exhibits & papers annexed hereto, the

undersigned (respondent) will move this Court at a Motion term held before Part A, Room 523 at the

New York County (Civil) Courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, on the 13th day of July, 2006 at

9:30 A.M., or as soon thereafter as practicable, for an order:

1. Granting respondent's MOTION TO DISMISS petitioner's case for defective Predicate Notice &

Notice of Petition & Petition.

2. Granting respondent's MOTION TO DISMISS instant case for failure to include NYC Department

of Housing, Preservation & Development as a party as required.

3. Granting MOTION TO ADD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to respondent's ANSWER & AFFIDAVIT.

4. Granting respondent's MOTION TO COMPEL sufficiently prior to trial, petitioner's witness list.

in attached AFFIDAVIT as well as respondent's ANSWER & AFFIDAVIT and/or AMENDED

ANSWER & AFFIDAVIT.

and all such and further relief that this court may deem just and proper.

posted by Fin MacCool @ 12:19 PM   0 comments links to this post  
Background

Thank you for your interest and investigation of this crime. Our apologies for the delay contacting other parties. The Kenmore Tenants Association (145 east 23rd street ny ny 10010) asks for your help in solving this Felony Forced Entry/ Attempted Murder and Coverup. We are given to understand that these crimes and others (Medicaid Fraud etc.) commited by HSI/Kenmore Associates are Predicate Felonies under federal RICO statutes. Ms. Baghtedjian was severely injured by Kenmore Hall employees attempting an illegal home invasion of Ms. Baghtedjian's lawful home (Apt. 5F) . She was removed by ambulance that day (July 12, 2004) and is now, we are told, in a nursing home in the Bronx, possibly still in a coma. She is apparently visited by a Niece (her legal guardian?). We are unable to obtain the exact Nursing Home (there are 33) in the Bronx were she is being kept/hidden because of the coverup. Obviously Kenmore Hall management does not want to be sued/arrested/prosecuted for their crimes/torts. Kenmore Tenants Association/Tenants Council was given a digital video (identical) copy from a tenant advocate taken by a tenant. This tape was taken minutes befor the crime occured and shows some of the people involved, including the putative Landlord/General Partner of Kenmore Associates, LIlian Mateo, and Linda McAndrews. This shows their attempted illegal entry of another apartment on the 4th floor, their refusal/failure to show grounds under the law or the lease as well as their propensity to misinform and attempt to corrupt the hard working and honorable employees of the NYPD. link http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=kenmore+hall&btnG=Search+Video
We had this video professionally compressed and formated for the web but the original is still higher quality. The first three minutes of video is poor but the last minute shows the players and the audio is fine throughout. If you need a professional transcript, one can be arranged. There is a hall camera pointed at the former apartment of Ms. Baghtedjian (5F) controled and erased by managment as part of the coverup. This Racketter Influenced Corrupt Organization is connected to and corrupts politicians and Civil Servants and since the Manhattan DA investigates (and convicts) Bronx Politicians for Quid Pro Quo Consideration vis-a-vis Non Governmental Organizations perhaps Mr. Johnson would like to return the favor. The tenant advocate shown in the video may have specific information including the exact employees who forced entry and almost killed this elderly woman and the first hospital she was taken to, His name is Salvador Martinez and is in apartment 20 B but he has no email and problems with his phone. If you have more specific requests the KTA will be at your service and are preparing a FOIL request as we speak on this and other matters. If you could inform us or our attorney about Ms. Baghtedjian's exact location or if she is still in a coma, contact information for her Niece or best of all, her attorney we could disclose this video and other information for any Civil case they may care to pursue. If the video link failed you can go to video.google.com and search for "kenmore hall". Ms. Baghtedjian was treated in this manner because she made a complaint against the management at HPD (still on file) and would not go along with their Medicaid scams, and for this she was almost killed in her own home and evicted from her rent stabilised apartment in a prime neighborhood which she couldn't get back at twice the price and lost her rent subsidy. Finally if you could get permission from Ms.Baghtedjian, her Niece/Guardian and/or her attorney we would like to go to the Media on this. Thank You and please email for any help you think we can give. Our attorney on this is Ryan Napoli of MFY 212-417-3700

posted by Fin MacCool @ 12:18 PM   0 comments links to this post  
Motion2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that Respondent, sworn to on the 6th day of July

2006, and upon all exhibits & papers annexed hereto, the undersigned (respondent) will move this

Court at a Motion term held before Part A, Room 523 at the New York County (Civil) Courthouse

located at 111 Centre Street, on the 13th day of July, 2006 at 9:30 A.M., or as soon thereafter as

practicable, for an order:

5. Granting MOTION TO COMPEL petitioner's REPLY to respondent's ANSWER & AFFIDAVIT or

AMENDED ANSWER & AFFIDAVIT or or to stipulate to said facts for joint MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT.

6. Adding tenth Affirmative Defense re: violations of USA PATRIOT Act and 18 U.S.C. § 2331 domestic terrorism means activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

and New York State Anti-Terrorism Laws.
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. 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; whereupon any reply affidavits shall be served at least one day before such time.

and all such and further relief that this court may deem just and proper.

posted by Fin MacCool @ 12:17 PM   0 comments links to this post  
Motion

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of Respondent,

sworn to on the 10th day of August, 2006, and upon all exhibits & papers annexed hereto, the

undersigned (respondent) will move this Court at a Motion term held before Part A, at the

New York County (Civil) Courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, on the 21st day of August, 2006 at

9:30 A.M., or as soon thereafter as practicable, for an order:

1. DISMISSING PETITION for WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE & ATTORNEY MALFEASANCE &

MISCONDUCT & PERJURY.

2. ADDING ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE : As PREDICATE FELONIES (RICO) petitioners

ongoing violations of § 411 & § 412 Illegal Immigration Reform and Control Act and § 274

Immigration and Nationality Act, Executive Order #12989, 61 Fed. Reg. 6091 (Feb. 15, 1996), 8

U.S.C. § 1324, Federal Acquisition Regulation 9.406-2, 46 U.S.C. § 8704, etc.; and injunctive relief.

and all such and further relief that this court may deem just and proper.

posted by Fin MacCool @ 12:15 PM   0 comments links to this post  
Omnibus Motion 1(a)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that Brian Burke, Respondent, the undersigned (respondent) will

move this Court at a Motion term held before Part O at the New York County (Civil)

Courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, on the 29th day of June, 2006 at 9:30 A.M., or as soon

thereafter as practicable, for an order:

1. Granting Jury Trial for pending MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE for improper jurisdiction.

2. Granting Jury Trial for pending MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE for improper standing.

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.

and all such and further relief that this court may deem just and proper.

posted by Fin MacCool @ 12:14 PM   0 comments links to this post  
Omnibus Motion 1

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of Respondent,

sworn to on the 23rd day of June, 2006, and upon all exhibits & papers annexed hereto, the

undersigned (respondent) will move this Court at a Motion term held before Part O, at the

New York County (Civil) Courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, on the 29th day of June, 2006 at

9:30 A.M., or as soon thereafter as practicable, for an order:

1. Granting SPECIAL APPEARANCE status for jurisdictional argument.

2. MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE for improper jurisdiction.

3. MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE for improper standing.

4. MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE to United States District Court if previous motion(s) is/are not granted.

5. MOTION TO RECUSE OR DISQUALIFY OR BARR plaintiff's counsel for reasons of conflict of

interest and/or appearance of conflict of interest (see Bruce Cutler (United States v Gotti)).

6. MOTION TO ALLOW DISCOVERY, if not moot, to allow proper defense (see Smilow v Ulrich).

7. MOTION TO APPOINT INDEPENDENT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR to investigate crimes alleged

in attached AFFIDAVIT as well as respondent's ANSWER & AFFIDAVIT and/or

Kenmore Hall

Reply to Opposition

1. As to MOTION TO DISMISS , on June 8, 2006 the parties (Respondent pro-se &

Dean Roberts, petitioner's counsel) appeared before The Honorable Judge Maria

Milin wherein respondent was ordered to serve ANSWER on petitioner on or

before June 19, 2006, which was complied with, and to appear on June 29, 2006,

before which petitioner was to serve REPLY. Petitioner did not, and on June 23rd

respondent served first OMNIBUS MOTION on petitioner's counsel. On June 29th

the same parties appeared before The Honorable Jean Schneider and

respondent served AMENDED ANSWER (two additional pages) on petitioner and

Court, which was accepted. Petitioner by counsel then requested additional time

and an adjournment to serve OPPOSITION & CROSS-MOTION which was granted,

over respondent's objections, to be served on respondent by July 7, 2006 and for

respondent to REPLY by or on next appearance which was jointly agreed to by

Respondent and Dean Roberts esq. on the record as July 13, 2006. On July 6,

2006 respondent served 2nd OMNIBUS MOTION on petitioner's counsel. On July

13, after receiving no papers from petitioner by counsel, respondent appeared at

Part A room 523 at 9:30 am. After 11:00 am (default time) and no appearance by

petitioner by counsel, the court attorney called Dean Roberts at his office. While not

a party to the call, respondent understands that Mr. Roberts refused to appear

before the court that day or send anyone from his firm, obviously desiring a

DISSMISSAL by default. Over the objections of respondent, Mr. Roberts was

instead put on the record, over the phone, in front of The Honorable Judge Maria

Milin. On the record, as an officer of the court, Mr. Roberts chose to Willfully

Misrepresent & Perjure himself before the Court as to outstanding Court Orders,

stating that July 13, 2006 was for service of papers, when he knew it was for

appearance. Mr. Roberts then stated that petitioner's OPPOSITION & CROSS-

MOTION was "in the mail" which he knew was Affirmative and Outrageous Perjury,

as they were not completed or sent, by mail, until July 26, 2006. Given said

Perjury, an adjournment was granted to petitioner to allow respondent to REPLY

by next Court date of July 27, 2006. Respondent's Oral MOTION TO DISMISS for

reasons of default was denied. On July 21, 2006 respondent again served

petitioner's counsel with 2nd OMNIBUS MOTION (EQ689017332) as it appeared to

have gone unacknowledged by petitioner. On July 27, 2006, after again having

received no papers, respondent appeared at Part A at 9:30 am. Mia Falls esq. for

petitioner and respondent went on the record before The Honorable Judge Jean

Schneider wherein respondent made oral MOTION TO DISMISS for petitioners

failure to comply with Court Orders and Perjury. Ms. Falls possessed a single copy

of petitioner's CROSS-MOTION and admitted that it was sent by regular mail to

respondent only the day before (respondent received it on July 28, 2006) and

further that she had no knowledge of any previous agreements by or Court Orders

to Mr. Roberts. Respondent reiterates that the Court should and must DISMISS

instant case, with or without prejudice, for egregious behavior, failure to comply

with Court Order and Perjury by Dean Roberts, petitioner's counsel, and

appropriate sanctions.

2. As to Eleventh Affirmative Defense, Petitioners continuous, ongoing and

notorious employment of Illegal Aliens (Predicate Felonies) engaged in

Conspiracies, Violent Felonies, Terrorism, etc. against tenants and others.

Respondent REQUESTS and DEMANDS of the court INJUNCTIVE RELIEF i.e.

halting petitioner's current use and/or attempt to use Unqualified, Unlicensed,

Incompetent, Undocumented, Malicious, Criminal, Violent Felon, Illegal Alien

Terrorists to further destroy respondent's apartment and instead Verified, Licensed,

Certified, Master Plumbers, Electricians, and Carpenters as required by New York

Laws (see D.O.B) to cure outstanding violations, as agreed to in outstanding

unperformed stipulation between parties.

3. Petitioner was lawfully served with granted pre-answer MOTION TO DISMISS

which was mailed to lawful and correct address of petitioner's counsel and returned

to respondent "undeliverable" due apparently to interference by counsel's landlord.

4. Petitioner served two different motions on court and respondent, which were

defective as well.

5. Petitioner by counsel apparently considers Murder, Racketeering, Corruption,

Fraud, Forgery, Money Laundering, Tax Evasion, Terrorism, Identity Theft, Home

Invasion, Theft, Harassment and innumerable other Predicate (RICO) Felonies

committed against lawful Tenants and others as irrelevant i.e. not in the interest of

their criminal enterprise to expose.

6. Petitioner fails to state what relief "has already been denied" and is Willful

Misinformation and Perjury. Blithe (1.carefree and lighthearted 2.lacking or

showing a lack of due concern) is what respondent would call petitioner by

counsel's response to and/or aiding and abetting of petitioners Racketeering and

Corrupt Organization.

7. Petitioner failed to dispute and by default affirms respondent's request for jury

trial on jurisdictional motions. Respondent requests and demands of Court that all

Motions not answered be deemed stipulated to.

8. Respondent believes this is and/or will become a Federal Criminal (and Civil)

Case. Facts will be decided with proper discovery.

9. This is again Perjury by petitioner's counsel and willful misinformation stated to

Obstruct Justice. There was no request for discovery but judge approved, duly

served subpoena's duces tecum which were never delivered to court or respondent

or respondent's counsel. If this is a request for collateral estoppel it is petitioners

burden to supply complete record, evidence of respondent's request and court's

denial, none of which exist. Furthermore, as is known to petitioner's counsel,

respondent has duly served and filed lawful NOTICE OF APPEAL. The Validity of

said decision is also being challenged. Some relevant precedents to follow.

10. Petitioner by counsel fails to state why claims are "factually and legal[sic]

defective and improper".

11. If by non-responsive or irrelevant the RICO means not in their interest

respondent would have to agree. If by quoting res judica[sic] the RICO petitioner

means the instant case is an identical cause of action to a previous decision it

should be taken as a dispositive statement against interest and case DISMISSED

with prejudice. If collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) is meant, burden is on

petitioner as to what issues are or would be barred in the non-final, appealed

decision that didn't even preclude respondents affirmative defenses or

counterclaims in that case (other than warranty of habitability (one of grounds for

appeal)).

12. If collateral estoppel, burden of proof from the record is again on petitioner

(Vella v Hudgins). Any Federal Issues could not have been addressed whether

included or not (they were not) as Affirmative Defenses in previous case (McNeir v

Wallace)(Bottini v Sadore)(7Witkin). There was no "final decision" as the case

(61431/03) is being appealed (Lucindo v Superior Court). Validity of said decision

is also being challenged due to, among other reasons, no jury trial after being

awarded right by Honorable Peter Wendt, incompetent, corrupted or conflicted

counsel, lack of subpoenaed documents etc.. Even if all that were not the case

petitioners alleged "prima-facia"[sic] would fail as the same argument could be

used by former owner Trong Dihn Tran who had a non-payment case in 1992

(99325/92) against respondent and "proved" his prima facie and could thus forever

thereafter could bring cases against respondent for rent for a building he does not

own and respondent could not use his non-ownership as a defense and any other

former owner of rental property could sue any tenant previously sued and

ownership could not be challenged as an Affirmative Defense. Respondent has

evidence unlawful "ownership" has changed since service of AMENDED ANSWER

in previous case.

13. Petitioner (RICO) fails again to state why claim is "factually defective and

jurisdicataly(sic(a new word?)) improper" and why "is[sic] would not be a proper

defense". Proper Discovery is needed for more evidence.

14. As previously stated burden of proof in collateral estoppel is on petitioner and

the case is being appealed.

15. Petitioner fails to state why facts are irrelevant or why or what "Statute of

Limitations" apply. Previous statements on collateral estoppel and future citations

apply. Petitioner (RICO) again fails to state why discovery need are "improper and

not relevant".

16. As to "res judicial"[sic] or collateral estoppel respondent again refers to

previous statements and upcoming citations.

17. Petitioner again fails to state why claim is "without out [sic] merit in fact or law

and is improper".

18. As to "res judicata" or collateral estoppel respondent again refers to previous

statements and upcoming citations and precedent.

19. Petitioner served NOTICE OF PETITION & PETITION after one year of

claimed rents. Petitioner should not be allowed to abrogate settled law on doctrine

of laches because they lost and/or withdrew previous cases. Any excess "rents

due" could simply be brought before other civil courts.

20. Petitioner again fails to state why Defense "is simple illogical".

21. As to collateral estoppel respondent again refers to previous statement and

following citations and precedent. Respondent also refers to Forged, Undated,

Unwitnessed, Unnotarized, Uncertified "lease" included in CROSS-MOTION shows

rents to be $215.00 per month and should be considered a dispositive statement

against interest.

22. Petitioner (RICO) again fails to state why Counter-Claims "are simple[sic] a

repetition" "Factually and legally defective" or "merit less"(sic) or why punitive

damages are "without merit in either fact or law".

23. Respondent has had two recent HPD inspections that found additional

violations created willfully by petitioners employees including violations ID

#6205532, 6205533, 6205534, and 6205535, all B violations like the outstanding

VID # 4957755 and 4957757 from 2004 which admittedly pale in comparison to the

buildings 279 open violations including 12 C violations.

24. Finally we can agree and stipulate.

25. Respondent has not "expressly" or in any other way waived admitted"right to a

jury trial". "Occupancy agreement" is undated and again Perjury by petitioners

counsel. The "signature" of signer is different from respondent's signature as seen

on court documents and instead a cheap forgery by the RICO to deny Civil and

Constitutional Rights as enumerated in AMENDED ANSWER pg21. Furthermore at

the bottom of the Unwitnessed, Unnotarized, quoted page effective date is no date

and "lease" was never served on tenant. A similar "rent rider to lease" was signed

by respondent under extreme illegal duress (pg21 AA) after over eight years

without lease and without consideration. Respondent considers any "lease" signed

to be a renewal lease which as a matter of fact and law must be on the same terms

or better than the original lease (no lease). In the properly dated but apparently

forged "Addendum to lease" page 4 PROHIBITED LEASE PROVISIONS (6)

WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL: AUTHORIZATION TO THE LANDLORD TO WAIVE

THE TENANT'S RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY.


26. Additionally, in regard to "jury waivers", petitioner must show that alleged "jury

waiver was knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and intentionally made. 407-88

Associates v Sawyer, 83 Misc. 2d 300, 371 N.Y.S.2d 748 (City Civ. Ct. 1975); 1202

Realty Assoc. v. Evans, 126 Misc. 2d 99, 481 N.Y.S.2d 208 (City Civ. Ct. 1984). A

"jury waiver clause" written in small or illegible type or less than eight points in

depth on the Merganthaler scale (as in this case) is unenforceable. CPLR 4544;

Koslowski v. Palmieri, 98 Misc. 2d 885, 414 N.Y.S.2d 599 (App. Term 1979); Old

New York one Corp. v. Szabo, NYLJ 5/26/93, 23:3 (Civ Ct. NY County). Additionally

, the burden of proof that a valid jury waiver exists is on petitioner. Williams v.

Mascitti, 71 A.D.2d 813, 419 N.Y.S.2d 404 (4th Dep't 1979); L. G. J. K. Realty Corp.

v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 48 A.D.2d 670, 367 N.Y.S.2d 564 (2d Dep't 1975).

27. Additionally, respondents in summary eviction proceedings have a common

law right to trial by jury. NY Const. art. I, § 2; Glass v. Thompson, 51 A.D.2d 69, 379

N.Y.S.2d 427 (2d Dep't 1976). Jury trials in summary eviction proceedings are

authorized in RPAPL "at the time the petition is noticed to be heard, a party

demands a trial by jury, in which case trial shall be by jury." RPAPL § 745(1). There

are situations in which courts have refused to enforce jury trial waivers. Because

the right to trial by jury is so fundamental, courts should indulge every reasonable

presumption against waiver and should strictly construe jury waiver clauses. Aetna

Ins. Co. v. Kennedy to Use of Bogash, 301 U.S. 389, 57 S. Ct. 809, 81 L. Ed. 1177

(1937); Barrow v. Bloomfield, 30 A.D.2d 947, 293 N.Y.S2d 1007 (1st Dep't 1968).

Jury waiver clauses are prohibited for leases in federally assisted housing.

See 24 CFR Part 882, Subpart B, App I (Section 8 Housing); 24 CFR § 966.6(f)

(Public Housing).
28. Respondent requests of court collateral estoppel regarding petitioner's

MOTION TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND as having been denied by Hon. Judge

Peter Wendt on December 8, 2004 (see att.)

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.

"Applied to a § 1324b case before an ALJ, Worton defeats collateral estoppel because, despite McNier’s having pleaded § 1324b in his state case, the California courts necessarily only addressed race discrimination, § 1324b issues being exclusively reserved for the federal forae. Citizenship status discrimination and any cognate retaliation issues are not matters that might or could have been urged in support of the cause of action or claim in litigation in McNier’s state case. None of McNier’s other authorities (including criminal cases which turn essentially on due process considerations) reach the question, as here, of a totally different statutory cause of action the critical element of proof for which, i.e., citizenship status discrimination in violation of § 1324b, could not as a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction have been in play in the state action." McNeir v Wallace 9 OCAHO#1074, Warton v Warton, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1638 (1991)

Iron Workers Local 455 v. Lake Construction & Development Corp., 7 OCAHO no. 964, 632, 658 (1997) “[t]he proponent of collateral estoppel has the burden of showing that the issue in the prior proceeding was identical and decisive”)
Collateral estoppel prevents the parties from re-litigating any issue actually litigated and finally decided in the earlier action. Lucindo v Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341, fn 3; Flynn V Gorton (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1550, 1554.

"The doctrine of collateral estoppel is one aspect of the concept of res
judicata. In modern usage, however, the two terms have distinct meanings." (Lucindo v Superior Court, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 341, fn. 3.

Where "issues overlap but are not identical," collateral estoppel cannot be applied. Capital Telephone Co., 451 N.Y.S.2d at 15.

Discussing the right to a jury trial, the Supreme Court held that the district court’s resolution of issues raised by a former employee’s equitable claims did not collaterally estop relitigation of the same issues before a jury in context of the employee’s legal claims, where the district court first resolved the equitable claims solely because it had erroneously dismissed the legal claims. Lytle, 494 U.S. at 555-56.

The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that an identical issue has been previously litigated and decided. Kaufman v. Eli Lilly and Co., 492 N.Y.S.2d 584, 588 (Ct. App. 1985); Capital Telephone Co. v. Pattersonville Telephone Co., 451 N.Y.S.2d 11, 14 (Ct. App. 1982)

In Capital Telephone, supra, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that if a second proceeding is to adjudge the same activity under a different legal standard than the first, no preclusion will occur if that activity could be found lawful under one standard and unlawful under the other. Capital Telephone, 451 N.Y.S.2d at 14

For collateral estoppel to preclude the litigation of a federal civil rights claim "[t]he court in which the first action was brought must have been willing and able to consider the theory that is advanced in the second action." Bottini v. Sadore Management Corp., 764 F.2d 116, 119 (2d Cir. 1985)

the issue must have been "actually determined in the prior proceeding." (Matter of Halyalkar v Board of Regents of State of N. Y., 72 NY2d 261, 268).

Prior litigation by the same parties on a different cause of action has a collateral estoppel effect only as to those issues litigated and determined in the prior action. (7 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (3d ed.1985) Judgment, section 253, p.691.)

The party asserting collateral estoppel has the burden to show from the record of the prior action that the asserted issue was previously litigated and determined. (Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 257-58.)

WHEREFORE, respondent prays for the granting of an Order from the Court
dismissing petitioner's Motion in its entirety, granting respondent's Motion

Claire Haaga Altman

20. The conditions in Kenmore Hall are so horrendous and egregious as to
constitute additional Predicate Felonies, as well as other violations of Federal,
State, and City Laws, Rules and regulations by petitioner . Literally Hundreds of
open (unfixed) DHPD violations, including two in respondents apartment
(Violations ID # 4957755 & 4957757) since May 2004 and remain willfully
unrepaired as part of harassment and violation of implied Warrant of Habitability.
In the stipulation in a previous court appearance respondent agreed to pay, and
did in fact pay $3,250, if petitioner would would repair violations and other
conditions by Licensed Plumbers & Electricians as required by law (see exhibits F
G). This stipulation was unperformed by the RICO, who at every opportunity
attempted and did in fact use Unlicensed and Undocumented Staff who willfully
destroyed plaintiff's bathroom (Retaliatory Eviction). Staff, instead of making
repairs, created a large hole in respondents bathroom, which was covered with
plastic and became a vector for vermin, as was their desire. After numerous
importunings and many months, a deliberately inept restoration was undertaken
(see photos), which resulted in a grout or cement substance all over said bathroom
and when respondent at that time requested a repair of the leaking toilet it was
instead damaged to were it continuously flushes. Respondent in order to stop
tremendous wast of water and noise keeps toilet float ball raised and flushes toilet
with the water from the tub that will not drain. The same Unlicensed and
Undocumented staff, while snaking a pipe in a different apartment, damaged
respondent's bathroom sink drain, causing a significant leak when used.There is
also considerable lead paint and potentially fatal mold from upstairs leak. The
apartment has not been painted since the Major Capital Improvement of 10 years
ago (the law is every 3 years). Upon information and belief,The RICO interferes
with landline phone service by means of Tap/Tampering/Taping. This was reported
to respondent by Verizon Employee Philip Surachi (VID # 682) on December 23,
2003,who said that two jury rigged illegal taps were on phone line in basement
room assessable only to the RICO staff, causing numerous instances of no dial
tone, up to five days at a time. Respondent neither owns nor possesses a cell
phone. During the most recent phone outage during May-June 2006 (5 days) on
June 6 a Verizon Technician (VID # GIG), visiting said basement room in order to
check for tampering, was bared and told he would need to give at least one days
notice and make an appointment in order to remove illegal devices a priori. No
battery operated smoke detectors have ever been installed in said apartment in
violation of NYC Administrative Code §27-2045, 46, instead a hard wired optical
monitoring device running on alternating current was furnished. During any
blackout or electrical interruption to building or apartment has and will fail and a fire
is presumed more likely at at that time due to possible use of candles matches etc.,
thus the reason for a battery requirement.
d. The occupant of a dwelling unit in which a battery operated smoke detecting device is provided and installed pursuant to this section shall reimburse the owner a maximum of ten dollars for the cost of providing and installing each such device. The occupant shall have one year from the date of installation to make such reimbursement.
Hot water is sporadic (see exhibits).
21. Respondent moved into said building in 1989 and current apartment in 1992,
without a lease i. e. the Rent Stabilization Laws as a lease. In 1996 respondent
was forced to move to a temporary apartment (the current 4th floor lounge) while a
major capital improvement was performed on apartment and a "temporary
relocation agreement " was signed, with no copy given to respondent. On that
move property was stolen by staff. In 1997, at the MCI completion, respondent was
summoned to a building office wherein petitioner confiscated the temporary
apartment keys (constructive eviction). The RICO said that respondent's property
would be moved by staff only again (Threat) and that a multi page "Housing Rider"
by Housing and Urban Development had to be signed in only five minutes (Duress)
. Respondent was told it was a "take it or leave it (meaning apartment)
proposition"and to sign or leave the building and become homeless (Retaliatory
and Constructive Eviction)and have property converted and/or stolen and sold
(duress)(see Rispler v Kenmore). Respondent knew that all renewal leases (as
this was/is) must be made on the same terms or better as well as that the lease
contract was without consideration (Nudum Pactum) and thus null and void, as
respondent was already a Lawful Tenant. In order to prevent additional Looting of
respondent's property respondent signed that contract and was again given no
copy. Respondent considers only the elements and clauses of said contract that
are less restrictive than existing Rent Stabilization Law as being in effect, as a
matter of Law and Precedent.
22. In order to conduct a proper defense, respondent will require the appearance
of all named current and former employees of petitioner at trial, as well as all
named and relevant documents and/or emails, and requests to be informed in reply
as to whether their presence will will require subpoena and if so the named
individuals and documents present location.
First Affirmative Defense : That petitioner has no standing in the instant case to
bring suit as it is not the (proper) owner, but instead the People of the United States
i. e. the Federal government as previously attested to in paragraphs 1, 11 etc. Also
that petitioner (Kenmore Associates a.k.a.Housing & Services Incorporated) is not
an actual legal entity properly registered with the Federal State and Local
government, including the Tax authorities. Also that petitioner has not paid
$102,000,000.00 court judgment against it and thus all assets would revert to
Madigril Rispler. Respondent will require as part of defense all relevant
documents, originals notarized and/or certified as well as chain of custody of said
documents. Petitioner is in violation of any "agreement " with Federal government
(VOID) as well as Nudum Pactum (Naked Contract, no Consideration). All surplus
Federal Property must be put up for lawful, proper advertised Auction. Upon
Information and Belief, Petitioner is a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization as defined by Federal Law.
Second Affirmative Defense : That State Civil Court is not the court of Proper
Jurisdiction, due to Federal Ownership, Federal Questions, Federal Issues and
Federal Laws involved with and as defenses in the instant case. Respondent
moves and/or will move court for a oral MOTION TO DISMISS with prejudice (on
the state court level) and MOVE that the case be transfered to federal court at
petitioners expense or be resubmitted. Respondent asserts that United States
Constitutional Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XIII, XIV will be used as
lawful defense. The Uniform Commercial Code, Housing and Urban Development
Rules and Regulations and all applicable governing Federal Laws, Rules and
Regulations will be used.
Third Affirmative Defense: Due to enumerated acts of Harassment of respondent
as well as other acts by petitioner and conditions of said apartment and building, a
violation of Warranty of Habitability, respondent owes and would owe no "rent"
under laws including Rent Stabilization Code 2525.5 and Real Property Law §
235-a through §235-f. Any use of restrictive clauses and/or covenants in "Housing
Rider" would violate RPL §235-c (Unconscionable Lease or Clause) as well as the
principle of Nadum Pactum (Naked Contract, No Consideration) which is basic
contract law, as well as the settled law that a lease must be renewed on the same
terms or better than the original lease, in this case no lease.
Fourth Affirmative Defense: Due to the petitioner waiting a full year to file case
against respondent, the Doctrine of Laches (estoppel) will be used. This is also
called "stale rent".
Fifth Affirmative Defense: For the reasons previously enumerated (1-22), the
defenses of Constructive Eviction and Retaliatory Eviction as well as Partial
Constructive Eviction as well as Obstruction of Justice will be used.
Sixth Affirmative Defense: That alleged rent amounts are incorrect. Respondents
lawful rent is $215.00 per Month and after building wide Major Capital
Improvement rent was illegally tripled instead of by correct formula. That
$15,000.00 was paid into court for a pending appeal and sum was illegally and
without Due Process converted for petitioners use. That $3,250 paid to petitioner, in
part to effect repairs by Licensed Contractors was also converted for improper use
and should be applied to any amounts owed.
Seventh Affirmative Defense: All other actual and appropriate affirmative
defenses, Federal, State and City, will be used, especially as may arise from Trial
and/or Reply or Motion.
Eighth Affirmative Defense: The Federal Fair Housing Act and Fair Housing
amendments Act (42 U.S. Code § § 3601-3619, 3631) and Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and §109 of title I of
the housing and Community Development Act of 1974 will be used as defenses.
First Counterclaim: That petitioner, reaching back six years before the filling of the
instant suit through present, engaged in such egregious criminal and civil
violations, (as enumerated in #1-#22) of Federal, State and City Laws, Regulations
and Rules including Predicate Felonies covered under RICO act and Harassment,
and Implied Warranty of Habitability, a fine/penalty of $1,000,000 be imposed on
petitioner and awarded to respondent . Further that Injunctive Relief be granted by
court to stop Harassments, Torts, Crimes and unlawful restrictions and Chattel
status.
Second Counterclaim: That for the reasons aforementioned, including but not
limited to ongoing Harassment and violation of Implied Warranty of Habitability and
§2525.5 of Rent Stabilization Code and Predicate Felony RICO (criminal and civil)

act (pgs#1-22) punitive damages be awarded, to be set by court, as well as treble

damages qualified under said Federal RICO act.
Demand For an H.P. Inspection
Respondent demands an H.P. Inspection be made of subject building and unit
#4R prior to commencement of further appearances (or) any Trial Proceedings.
Jury Demand
Respondent hereby demand a Trial by Jury.
WHEREFORE, Respondent demands judgment against petitioner dismissing the
Petition and awarding the respondent the damages asked for in the First & Second
Counterclaims, and for such and further relief that this court may deem just and
proper.

Kenmore Hall Criminal Landlord

Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization

11. Upon Information and Belief, The Organization also known as Kenmore

Associates a.k.a. Housing Services Incorporated is a Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organization (RICO) as defined by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act, Title 18, United States Code, §1961-§1968. "Kenmore

Associates" a.k.a "Housing Services Incorporated" (hereon in referred to as the

Rico or petitioner) claims to have stolen (without consideration (Nudum Pactum) to

taxpayers or the Treasury Department) a $100,000,000.00 building by fraud,

bribery, unlawful past, and future implied and actual considerations to Politicians

and Public Servants and/or Blackmail and Forgery in order to swindle taxpayers of

one of their most valuable properties. Innumerable Predicate Felonies as qualified

under said RICO act were, are and will be committed by the RICO in and on an

ongoing basis. These Predicate Felonies include, but are not limited to, Medicaid

(not even a licensed provider) and virtually every other State, Federal, City and

Private Program, Fraud. As Predicate Felony, the RICO is violating the State and

Federal Constitutional and Civil Rights of Lawful Tenants in the building referred to

as Kenmore Hall. Tenants (including respondent) are treated as Chattel Slaves in

violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Petitioners treating of Tenants as Chattel does not in any way extend to any

responsibility for or interest in their Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Mental or

Physical Health, Quiet Use and Enjoyment, etc, but merely as Objects necessary to

loot innumerable Government and other "programs" (or pograms). As Predicate

Felonies, the RICO, through Blackmail, Intimidation, and Strong Arm Tactics, forces

vulnerable, elderly, differently abled, and/or health compromised Tenants into

Fraudulent Medical Experiments, (see Josef Mengele (Nazi SS-Hauptsturmführer)),

to create unlawful revenues for petitioner, these "experiments" conducted in full

view of other Tenants and the Public in the lobby of said building in order to Harass

and successfully create fear in Tenants and to show that they can. The RICO staffs

the building exclusively, except for two ex detectives, with Violent and Drug Felons

and ex-cons, for obvious reasons.The alleged landlord/managing agent, Lawrence

Oaks is a convicted Drug Trafficker and Amir Elhadide (Building Superintendent)

was convicted of Attempted Murder on a woman. As Predicate Felonies, the RICO

Terrorizes and commits Acts of Terrorism and War on Tenants in violation of

International Law, and Federal, State and City Laws, Regulations, and Rules via

"mysterious deaths" a.k.a. Human Sacrifice/ Capitol Murder which are never

autopsied or investigated, but instead covered up. The Attempted Murder/Home

Invasion and Coverup of Chake Baghtedjian, a petit elderly immigrant, in her

former apartment, 5F, on July 12, 2004, by staff Felons, occurred minutes after

Lilian Mateo/Linda McAndrews admitted to ordering Serial Home Invasions on

tape, in possession of respondent, and on their orders. Ms Baghtedjian was taken

by ambulance by petitioner to one of their facilities in the Bronx, apparently in

coma, Illegally Evicted and kept incommunicado (Kidnaping (Federal Crime)) to

this day except for her Niece, unaware of the Proximate Cause of her Aunt's

Trauma. Admittedly Ms. Baghtedjian made a complaint to HPD resulting in still

open violation #4090511 and refused to participate in the RICO's Criminal

Pograms on Tenants. Nevertheless, to the respondent, this does not seem to reach

the legal threshold to commit said acts on a Lawful Tenant. A FOIL request for

information in this was denied by the NYPD on appeal (#06PL100336).

12. Perhaps, to the respondent, as the grandson of a former Police Captain and

currently employed as a Civil Servant, the most egregious and abominable act(s)

of (Predicate Felony) corruption involves the usurpation and "pimping out" of the

brave and hardworking employees of the New York City Police Department a.k.a.

New York's Finest a.k.a. NYPD. Through deliberate and malicious misinformation

and considerations, past, present and ongoing, the RICO has thwarted

investigations of crimes committed against Tenants by the RICO andeven their

reporting thereof. On June 6, 2005 at 11AM, after respondent arrived home at 7AM

after working at 14 hour day, a fact known to petitioner, Linda McAndrews and

others attempted a Home Invasion/Burglary/Constructive Eviction/Unlawful Entry

without notice, agreement, or legal cause, of respondent's residence. This was

prevented by respondent, though understandably sound asleep and sans apparel,

with the help of metal gates held against the door for that purpose and counterforce

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

On July 11, 2005 respondent, in his Civil Service uniform and on his way to work,

went to the local precinct, Precinct 13, to report the instant crime and was thwarted

by Officer Catherine Weissheier, who apparently has a relationship with and/or

promises and/or conveyance of past, present, and/or future consideration(s) from

Linda McAndrews. This event was reported to the Internal Affairs Bureau of the

NYPD (case #05-16077) and the Civilian Complaint Review Board, who, because

of the egregious nature of the complaint, referred it to the Chief of Department of

the NYPD (case # OCD 200507136) and currently under investigation.

Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

13. False arrests of Tenants and Tenant Leaders occur on an ongoing basis and

are based on the Perjury, deliberate misinformation and Fraudulent Complaints

and for the purpose of denying the Constitutional, Common Law, and Civil Rights

of said Tenants and all Tenants via Unlawful Incarceration and meant to Harass

Oppress, Subjugate and create fear. These False Arrests include, but are in no way

limited to, Tenant Leader Sal Martinez (20i), and Tenants Larry King (17C), Andy

Hall (519), and Xaviere Sinclair (12P), but admittedly not the respondent, as yet,

who has never been arrested. The RICO uses the local Police Precinct (#13) as

their personal private security force, while denying law abiding Tenants any

remedy as to law, especially as to crimes committed by petitioner. The leverage

over the relevant Police Officers and/or Detectives include the promise of and/or

actual hiring of, the promise of and/or delivery of "medals" and/or "awards" by the

RICO and all other possible and actual considerations for these Civil Servants to

do other than their sworn duty. It is well know that the Politicians in the RICO's

pocket, including those, but not limited to, whose names are on the front of said

building, create fear in and performance from said NYPD employees to "do the

right thing" i.e. what the petitioner wants.

14. The subject building was seized lawfully (and is in fact still owned by the

Federal Government) on June 8th 1994 under 21 USC 881 (b) (Asset Forfeiture

Law) due to evidence that then owner Trong Dihn Tran allowed rampant illegal

drug and criminal activity to persist and exist throughout the building. The Main

Case Docket is 94 Civ 4148 of which a copy of the U.S. Marshal's 'Kenmore

directives' is annexed hereto as Exhibit 'A'

15. The Warrant issued for the Lawful Seizure gave all specific details of the

reasoning and causes necessary to support the Government's 'take over',

illustrating numerous actual drug cases and arrests indicative of rampant drug

activity thereat. At the date of the actual Seizure of the Kenmore, eleven (11)

persons were arrested for alleged illegal drug possession/sales, along with a small

cache of drugs and an inoperable gun. Previous to the Seizure there was the tragic

murder of an elderly infirm female Tenant in her apartment, just like with the RICO,

the difference being this case led to justifiable public outrage, the Seizure, and an

arrest. The case of Ms. Baghtedjian was reported to the Authorities (by Tenants)

and is being "investigated" by Detective Reuther of Manhattan South Homicide

Task Force and Lieutenant James Hanvey of Detective Borough Bronx with as yet

no arrest. Harold Williams is the head of "Kenmore Security" and an ex Homicide

Detective with many Detective and/or Homicide Detective Friends, draw your own

conclusions. Former Homicide Detective Williams owns a security company called

Distinguished Gentleman's Investigations (DGI) who's license was revoked by New

York Secretary of State Randy Daniels for reasons including hiring at least six ex-

convicts (for crimes including Rape and Assault), 22 who had their applications

rejected by the State, and 47 who never submitted applications. Many of these

individuals worked at Kenmore Hall and it was reported to the New York Post that

DGI agents brazenly used illegal drugs on the job and threatened tenants if they

reported them (see exhibit c). The other ex-Detective working at Kenmore Hall, Dan

Danaher, formerly worked at the local Precinct (13) and continues to visit that

Precinct on an almost daily basis (see exhibit) while on the clock, presumably

performing some value or consideration for the petitioner. There are over one

hundred Precincts.

16. Claire Haaga Altman, Putative "owner" of the RICO, an Attorney, performs

separate Tax and Government subsidy scams involving the putative "enterprise"

also known as "Olive Leaf" and is considered by respondent as Part and Parcel of

the Instant RICO. Ms. Altman, whose current and/or former husband committed a

Homicide during an Assault, upon information and belief, is currently under

investigation. "Olive Leaf", whose status as a non-profit and/or for-profit could not

be determined (Both?), as well as "Kenmore Associates L.P. and/or Housing

Services Incorporated", upon information and belief, in fact are not duly and/or

properly registered with the appropriate authorities and/or the Internal Revenue

Service as required by Federal, State and City Laws, Rules and Regulations. As

Predicate Felonies, Ms. Altman's "Olive Leaf" occupies prime Commercial Street

Level and other space, including respondent's Lounge, while paying no and/or

radically reduced (subsidy) non-market rents as illegal and Fraudulent transfer of

considerations from non-profit "Kenmore Associates" to privately owned "Olive

Leaf" to the pure and illegal benefit ofMs. Haaga et. al.. This illegal transfer of

considerations, assets, value etc. are not reported to or taxed by the IRS and or

State and City Authorities, as well as innumerable other scams.

Amendment XIV. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
17. As additional Predicate Felonies, on an ongoing, continual and constant
basis, the RICO enforces a "Curfew" on Tenants (11PM-7AM) and reserves and
utilizes the absolute and unmitigated and unremediable right to bar any guest,
relative, friend, or Significant Other etc. at any time. This violates Tenants Federal,
State and City Right to Freedom of Association, By various United States Supreme
Court Precedent (available upon request), as well as Federal, State and City Rights
to Privacy and First Amendment Freedom of Assembly and Speech. Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is the perfect method to Harass the Chattel in the most egregious possible
way. The humiliation of attempting to explain to Relatives, Friends etc. this bar on
visits to ones lawful Rent Stabilized Apartment in the "City that Never Sleeps" is the
RICO's vector into destroying Tenants interpersonal relationships to leave Tenants
more vulnerable and potentially in need of petitioners Fraudulent pograms and/or
to abandon apartment (Constructive eviction). These Jailhouse/ Halfway House/
Parolee rules should be applied to the Criminal RICO staff and the Criminals,
Felons, ex-cons and Addicts the petitioner willfully brings into building (an
additional Crime and Tort against Tenants), not law abiding Tenants, including
respondent, and by precedent and construction, all Tenants. Respondent works the
PM (Evening) shift of various hours, but approximately 3-11 or 4-12 and like most
people would tend to have guests, during the work week, after work and is
effectively barred from having visitors at least five days out of the week (respondent
works weekends). As to days off or mornings when respondent usually sleeps, the
RICO reserves the right to deny any guest at any time for any reason, and is
additionally used to Harass and Humiliate and embarrass "uncooperative"
Tenants. Additionally, if through begging, bribery or propitiousness, a particular
guest is potentially given favor for admission through the august RICO's area of
egress a Rube Goldberg gauntlet of requirements, lectures and orders and
violations of privacy ensue. The RICO, in violation of Federal, State and City
Constitution, Laws, Rules, Regulations and/or Charter, not limited to but including
the Interstate Commerce Clause and The Uniform Commercial Code, bars delivery
of packages etc. to Tenants, including but not limited to UPS, Fed Ex etc.. As
recently as June 31, 2006 RICO staff told a UPS deliveryman that respondent had
moved (see exhibit D). For a number of years respondent had to reroute deliveries
to MailBoxes etc. (see exhibit), causing additional delay and expense to
respondent by petitioner, as was their intent. For these and other enumerated and
unenumerated reasons, respondent has withheld "rent" and made various lawful
entreaties in order to seek remedy, and which respondent believes will only occur
with a duly appointed jury of peers.
Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
18. As additional Predicate Felonies, upon Information and Belief, the RICO and/or
their staff engage in Massive Identity Theft for the primary purposes of profit,
Harassment, and Leverage. Illegal, Unwarranted, Unnecessary, and Dangerous
amounts of Personal, Private information regarding Tenants and their guests is
accumulated and amassed to be used and distributed and sold to the Tenants
detriment. These distribution points include, but are not limited to, the NYPD (for
additional Considerations) and other Government and/or private agencies, and
Criminal individuals and/or Organizations (other than the instant RICO). On two
occasions Housing Bureau Police (Public Housing), while doing a building wide
warrant sweep, at 6AM awoke respondent looking for a Criminal using
respondents name, but of vastly different appearance and finger prints. The source
of the stolen identity was the RICO and/or staff. Petitioner requires, for those guests
it deigns to allow entrance, a specific type of Government Identification that is
demanded and if produced is held for the duration of the visit, during which the
Personal Information is photocopied and kept for various illegal purposes
(Predicate Felony). The Rico "lost" respondent's brother's Drivers License which
was returned over a month later. During previous visit of respondent by
respondents sister, brother-inlaw and 10 month old nephew, two of whom
respondent was meeting for the first time, the RICO bared the visitors from
accessing respondents apartment, for various purported "reasons" such as an
alleged one visiter at a time "rule" and lack of "correct" Government Identification for
nephew, which admittedly was not in their possession. The fourth floor lounge,
ostensibly provided for this very purpose in Certificate of Occupancy, was locked
and/or occupied by "olive leaf". This left the "Medical Experiment Center"/ Public
Lobby to conduct the Private Visit/Introductions. As the final brutal Harassment of
respondent and his relatives, when Finnian Aengus Church started to spit up, as 10
months old are wont to do, the only bathroom in the lobby and thus potentially
assessable to mother and child was affirmatively bared by the RICO, creating a
potential medical emergency and/or deliberate homicide of said child and
immediately ending visit. To this day, respondent's sister is too afraid of the RICO's
staff's barbarous Harassments/Criminal acts against herself and her son to again
visit respondent at his lawful address despite adjurations on respondents behalf.
19. As Predicate Felonies, the necessary means, and/or "business model", of and
for the RICO's ability to execute various 'scams', as a "Poverty Pimp", requires and
installs Criminals, Violent Felons, Crack and other addicted newcomers, ex-
inmates from Prison Early Release Programs etc. , creating horrific conditions and
crime and maximum Fraudulent Gain to petitioner and maximum loss to Lawful and
Law Abiding Original Tenants and Taxpayers. This Gimmick/Tort/Scheme/
Harassment is likely well know to many or most New Yorkers over preceding
decades as an Unlawful Method for Criminal Landlords to empty a building of Rent
Stabilized or Controlled tenants without Due Process of Law (Innumerable Court
Precedents available upon request). The difference in the instant case is that
petitioner found a modus operandi wherein as their appanage they could and
would and have Fraudulently taxed various pograms for the dubious distinction of
bringing their anointed Criminal and/or Incompetent newcomers to New York's and
the Continent's most expensive neighborhood (Gramercy Park). The amount of
Crime and Crime Rate in the building is higher than when owned by Trong Tran
due to the hundreds of Criminal, Violent Drug Addicts, Felons, and other Disorderly
Individuals willfully and purposely brought into the building, whereas Tran was
merely indifferent. A FOIL request on this was blocked but recent crimes on
Tenants by other 'new' tenants (not the RICO but often with connivance,
foreknowledge, license,and in the interest of) in the building include, Murder (of
Henry Midgett by drug dealer Richard Williams, employed by petitioner), loan
sharking, Assault, Robbery, Prostitution, and Drug Dealing.
20. The conditions in Kenmore Hall are so horrendous and egregious as to
constitute additional Predicate Felonies, as well as other violations of Federal,
State, and City Laws, Rules and regulations by petitioner . Literally Hundreds of
open (unfixed) DHPD violations, including two in respondents apartment
(Violations ID # 4957755 & 4957757) since May 2004 and remain willfully
unrepaired as part of harassment and violation of implied Warrant of Habitability.
In the stipulation in a previous court appearance respondent agreed to pay, and
did in fact pay $3,250, if petitioner would would repair violations and other
conditions by Licensed Plumbers & Electricians as required by law (see exhibits F
G). This stipulation was unperformed by the RICO, who at every opportunity
attempted and did in fact use Unlicensed and Undocumented Staff who willfully
destroyed plaintiff's bathroom (Retaliatory Eviction). Staff, instead of making
repairs, created a large hole in respondents bathroom, which was covered with
plastic and became a vector for vermin, as was their desire. After numerous
importunings and many months, a deliberately inept restoration was undertaken
(see photos), which resulted in a grout or cement substance all over said bathroom
and when respondent at that time requested a repair of the leaking toilet it was
instead damaged to were it continuously flushes. Respondent in order to stop
tremendous wast of water and noise keeps toilet float ball raised and flushes toilet
with the water from the tub that will not drain. The same Unlicensed and
Undocumented staff, while snaking a pipe in a different apartment, damaged
respondent's bathroom sink drain, causing a significant leak when used.There is
also considerable lead paint and potentially fatal mold from upstairs leak. The
apartment has not been painted since the Major Capital Improvement of 10 years
ago (the law is every 3 years). Upon information and belief,The RICO interferes
with landline phone service by means of Tap/Tampering/Taping. This was reported
to respondent by Verizon Employee Philip Surachi (VID # 682) on December 23,
2003,who said that two jury rigged illegal taps were on phone line in basement
room assessable only to the RICO staff, causing numerous instances of no dial
tone, up to five days at a time. Respondent neither owns nor possesses a cell
phone. During the most recent phone outage during May-June 2006 (5 days) on
June 6 a Verizon Technician (VID # GIG), visiting said basement room in order to
check for tampering, was bared and told he would need to give at least one days
notice and make an appointment in order to remove illegal devices a priori. No
battery operated smoke detectors have ever been installed in said apartment in
violation of NYC Administrative Code §27-2045, 46, instead a hard wired optical
monitoring device running on alternating current was furnished. During any
blackout or electrical interruption to building or apartment has and will fail and a fire
is presumed more likely at at that time due to possible use of candles matches etc.,
thus the reason for a battery requirement.
d. The occupant of a dwelling unit in which a battery operated smoke detecting device is provided and installed pursuant to this section shall reimburse the owner a maximum of ten dollars for the cost of providing and installing each such device. The occupant shall have one year from the date of installation to make such reimbursement.
Hot water is sporadic (see exhibits).