United States District Court

Easter District of New York

THE SEA GATE ASSOCIATION; Civil Action No.

Plaintiff, CV18-3408
-against-
Michael Krichevsky,
Defendant.

Michael Krichevsky,
Third Party Plaintiff,
-against-
Alan J. Wohlberg, David Wynn, Manny Papir, Richard Scarpaci,
Pinny Dembitzer, Barbara Garofalo, Solomon Zicherman, Merrie
Starr-Caputo, Bernard Kaufman, Jack Suben, Betty Baranoff.
Jeanne Rice, Tamir Kovach, Ivette Cirino. Vincent Cirino, Irene
Sarafanov, Yuriy Krasner, Lance Bums, Henry Grunbaum, Kurt
Vikki, Jack Weidhom,Doe 1-10 Unknown or unidentified members
and/or agents of SEAGATE,
Third Party Defendant.

VERIFIED ANSWER,COUNTER-CLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS

Trial by Jury Demanded

COUNSELORS:"Our courts should not be collection agencies for crooks." — John

Waihee, Governor of Hawaii, 1986-1994.

Michael Krichevsky, Sui Juris, as and for his Verified Answer to the Unverified Complaint,

respectfully avers under penalty of perjury upon his first hand knowledge and upon information

and believe as follows:

1. Generally denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph numbered 3,6, 7,9,10,

13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21 & 22 of the Complaint upon information and belief, and therefore

demands proof by admissible evidence.

2. Lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

allegations contained in paragraph numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 16, 20 & 23 of the Complaint, and

therefore demands proof by admissible evidence to form a belief.

3. Partially admits paragraph 9 that plaintiff spends some sums of money it calls "dues and

charges,"(1 will call it charges) allegedly owned,to provide some service(s).

4. Denies and rebuts the presumption of legality of plaintiffs contention that homeowners

have duty to pay per By-laws, rules and regulations, self-legislated by private plaintiff, as opposed

to Common Law Contract and Quantum Meruit doctrine knowingly agreed upon by all informed

property owners.

5. Partially admits paragraph 10 that plaintiff and its Attorney collect money, but has no

knowledge what exactly dues and charges mean, and therefore cannot neither admit nor deny

paragraph 10. Accordingly, 1 demand particularity of these terms and/or explanation what

distinguishes dues from charges.

6. 1 partially admit paragraph 23 that I made payments to plaintiff and add that payments were

made from 2005 until 2014.

7. Admit paragraphs 4, 11 & 12.

8. Denies and rebuts presumption by plaintiff in paragraph 13 that the phrase "dues and

charges...relating to Premises" constitute lawful, non-erroneous, fair and equitable apportionment

of expenses jointly paid by all, similarly situated, homeowners to plaintiff. Briefly, I contend that

at least a part of the amount of money plaintiff is suing me for is not related in that sense to

"premises" and constitutes overcharging or overbilling, or illegal taxation and extortion.

ANSWERING THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

9. For this cause of action, I reallege prior paragraph(s) and 24 as being answered before

and/or partially admitted/partially denied/partially without knowledge.

10. Denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph numbered 25,26,27,28,29,30 &

31 of the Complaint, and therefore demands proof by admissible evidence.

11. Lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity ofthe

allegations contained in paragraphs numbered 8, 10, 16, 20 & 23 of the Complaint, and therefore

demands proof by admissible evidence to form a belief.

12. Partially admit paragraph 27 and contend that 1 refused to pay the whole amount demanded

as a form of protest and refusal to perform under harassment and duress because plaintiff and its

agents refused to meet and discuss and/or negotiate in good faith my objections and concerns to the

amount demanded.

ANSWERING THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

13. Repeats every answer heretofore set forth with respect to prior paragraph(s) and 32 ofthe

Complaint.

14. Generally denies each and every allegation contained in paragraphs numbered 33 & 34,

and therefore demands proof by admissible evidence.

15. Partially admits that reasonable value per quantum meruit should be paid, but disagrees

that plaintiffs charges are "reasonable value" per this cause of action. Further, because plaintiff

refused to start discussion of what "reasonable value" is, 1 infer that plaintiff knows that "value"

amount is unreasonable, hence refusal to discuss as in "if you have nothing to say, say nothing."

ANSWERING THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

16. Repeats every answer heretofore set forth with respect to prior paragraph(s) and 35 ofthe

Complaint.
17. Denies each and every allegation contained in paragraphs numbered 36 & 37.

ANSWERING THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18. Repeats every answer heretofore set forth with respect to prior paragraph(s) and 38 ofthe

Complaint.

19. Denies each and every allegation contained in paragraphs numbered 39- 41.

ANSWERING THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

20. Repeats every answer heretofore set forth with respect to prior paragraph(s) and 42 ofthe

Complaint.

21. Denies each and every allegation contained in paragraphs numbered 43-45.

ANSWERING THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

22. Repeats every answer heretofore set forth with respect to prior paragraph(s) and 46 ofthe

Complaint.

23. Denies each and every allegation contained in paragraphs numbered 47 & 48.

ANSWERING THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

24. Repeats every answer heretofore set forth with respect to prior paragraph(s) and 49 of the

Complaint.

25. Denies each and every allegation contained in paragraphs numbered 50, 53, 54 & 55.

26. Lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity ofthe

allegations contained in paragraph(s) numbered 51 & 52 of the Complaint,and therefore demands

proof by admissible evidence to form a belief.

AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - No jurisdiction

27. The court lacks personal jurisdiction due to plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative

remedy before starting this case.

28. The court lacks personal jurisdiction due to plaintiffs failure to comply with condition

precedent per FDCPA before starting this case.

29. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant due to plaintiffs failure to serve

process in accordance with Section 311 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - Fraud in the inducement

The defendant was fraudulently induced to buy the property in Sea Gate and to enter this allegedly

implied agreement by fraud, deceit and nondisclosure. This is so because members of the Board

and employees of corporation knew or should have known about plaintiffs clouded titles and

constant litigation regarding this problem. They failed to clear plaintiffs title, give notice about

easement to real estate agents and prospective purchasers like me.

30. When I was discussing the purchase of the property in Sea Gate, real estate agent told me

that Sea Gate Association is a Home Ownership Association(HOA), which is association of

homeowners. I did not question that statement because it is widely used term describing form of

real estate ownership within the community or condominium project.

31. As this term widely used and understood in New York, HOA is the alter ego of the

constituent property owners and, actually, the association does not own any land within the

community or condominium project.

32. This term also means that streets, sidewalks, parks and even swimming pools with

so-called clubhouses together with parking lots, designated as common areas within community.
33. It means that all these common areas jointly owned by property owners without particular

division of percentages or shares ofcommon areas owned by each individual owner.

34. HOA means that homeowners elect Board of managers, who in turn hire Maintenance

Company to serve the community or project.

35. Quite often, HOA is unincorporated associations of owners within community.

36. In fact, the word "association" implies unincorporated entity as opposed to "Inc,""Corp,"

"Co,""LLC" or "LLP."

37. 1 had no idea that in 1899 nonprofit corporations even existed in America. As such, SEA

GATE ASSOCIATION,as name suggests association, and therefore is deceiving without having

the word "INC" or similar at the end of its name. It implies unincorporated HOA,as alter ego of

homeowners,as opposed to corporation privately owned by undisclosed shareholders, who may or

may not be homeowners.

38. My real estate attorney, upon information and belief, run a title search on my property,

obtained title insurance on my behalf and nobody discovered any easement or that Sea Sate

Association owns all common areas. This means that 1, at the time of purchase, did not get the clear

title to my property, and, in reality, have purchased a privilege from the owner of the street to

access my property rather than the right of way to my property.

39. The right cost more than the privilege. As we all know,the grantor at will can terminate

privilege. Now,1 conclude that Plaintiff is charging all property owners and me a road toll to

access the property and we all have no legal right to challenge the amount oftoll or tax by revision

or even its legality. Now it became abundantly clear why when 1, in 2014, was trying to challenge
the disconnection of my access key, asked to verify or negotiate the amount ofalleged charges,the

male property manager. Many, brazenly told me over the phone,"if you don't like what we do,

move out." I remember that this conversation shocked and pissed me off, but I did not know why

he, as property manager, dared to say this. Such situation usually arises between a landlord and

tenant, where tenant has only one remedy - move out to a different apartment. Since I did not have

my own police (private army)to enforce my right to know,short ofsecond amendment,and since

I perceived such attitude as unlawful and in breach of alleged contract with me,among other

things, I felt that the easiest remedy for me would be to stop paying them, until they become

transparent and friendly.

40. If I knew prior to buying the property that for a million dollars I am getting into a privilege

as opposed to the right of way within community, which run by Mafia and con men,I would never

buy into such community.

AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE -Waiver and Release

41. That prior to the commencement of this action, 1 tendered a good and valuable

consideration to Plaintiff, which would discharge, at that time, the alleged debt. However, plaintiff

rejected this consideration, and according to UCC,plaintiff released me from any and all claims

arising out ofthe matters complained of in this action.

42. By refusing to sit down, be transparent, and in good faith, amicably try to resolve our

differences or concems out of court through accounting, and instead by bulling, harassing and

stalking me by its own police, plaintiff breached the implied mandatory clause of good faith and

fair dealings in alleged implied contract with me and in quantum meruit claim.
43. Plaintiffs employees canceled my, paid for, electronic gate access key. This key was used

to pass-through Neptune Avenue gate designated for homeowners and renters. As result, I was

forced by police, several times a day, to move around and go through Surf Avenue visitor

designated gate and stop there to show police my driver license, for questioning and identification,

which was/is demeaning, humiliating and annoying to me.

44. In addition, plaintiff directed police to stalk my car and write me some parking tickets as if

I am a visitor, who failed to report to police and obtain overnight parking permit from them.

45. If these plaintiffs acts are not acts designed to annoy, humiliate and harass me,then such

thing as harassment does not exist.

46. To avoid getting tickets every night, 1 was forced to build a gate on my property and pay for

concrete pavement in order to park my car inside my property, which is what I am doing ever

since.

47. As such, plaintiff waived and released me from future alleged contractual obligation on the

alleged contract and services, which plaintiff affirmatively refused to provide. As such, plaintiff

forced me to survive on my own and on "my own dime."

AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE No cause of action

48. The complaint in its entirety, and each cause of action contained therein, fail to state a

cause of action as no action arising out of fraud and harassment is enforceable by court.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE No legal capacitv to sue

49. That the plaintiff asserting the causes of action has no legal capacity to sue.
50. Plaintiffs actual legal status is neither non-profit corp., nor unincorporated homeowner's

association, as these two different legal entities should be governed and operated by different

business laws. According to the complaint, plaintiff operates under none of those. For example, it

is common knowledge that corporation, generally, cannot own and operate private, armed police

force (personal army), which is governmental function of The City of New York, unless Sea Gate

community became a cult and knowingly and willingly have chosen to live under fascist form of

government. This would be an absurdity. Last time 1 checked, USA is Republican form of

government. Unfortunately, majority of Sea Gate owners do not understand the difference, do not

even know what their rights are, and this is why all defendants intimidate them and take advantage

of that ignorance. We all know that fascism is well known by its dictatorship, tyranny, oppression

of its own people and lack of accountability. This is what exactly plaintiff is doing as it's admitted

to me modus operandi -"if you don't like what we do, move out."

AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - Statute of Frauds

51. The plaintiffs cause of action may not be maintained because of plaintiffs failure to

comply with the Statute of Frauds.

52. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs property ownership and easement is not recorded

with the City Register.

53. Plaintiffs property and land ownership, upon which it claims a right to grant me easement

is not recorded in my deed or title, and therefore is not with compliance with Statute of Frauds.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE No clear title

54. That the plaintiff has at all times been unable to acquire, and therefore to convey to me

marketable and/or clear title to the subject matter of the alleged contract sued upon.

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Assumption of Risk

55. That the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff were sustained while the

plaintiff was involved in an activity (fraud, harassment, etc.), which was entered into with full

knowledge of the potential hazard thereof, and the inherent risk incident to such activity, and that

such risk and any damages flowing therefrom were expected and assumed upon entering into and

continuing such activity.

56. Plaintiffs and its agents arrogant attitude -"it's our way or no way" toward my concerns

and objections, predictably resulted in my refusal to pay their extortionists charges as the only

logical outcome and remedy available to stand up to them.

AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Unclean hands

57. Plaintiff is using and controlling police not for purposes to uphold peace, law and order.

Instead, plaintiff uses policing for personal profit, egotistical aspirations, bulling, stalking,

retaliation and harassment of those that dare to question plaintiffs legal status, practices and

conduct of"good of boys' club" of cronies. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

"Cronyism is the practice of partiality in awarding jobs and other advantages to

friends, family relatives or trusted colleagues, especially in politics and between
politicians and supportive organizations. For instance, this includes appointing
"cronies" to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications.
Cronyism exists when the appointer and the beneficiary such as an appointee are in
social or business contact. Often, the appointer needs support in his or her own
proposal,job or position of authority, and for this reason the appointer appoints
individuals who will not try to weaken his or her proposals, vote against issues, or
express views contrary to those of the appointer. Politically, "cronyism" is

10
 derogatorily used to imply buying and selling favors, such as: votes in legislative
bodies, as doing favors to organizations, giving desirable ambassadorships to
exotic places, etc."

58. Cronyism is political and fanatical corruption, and therefore must not be upheld by court.

AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - Unjust enrichment

59. Plaintiff is fraudulently and unduly overbilling homeowners and lets board members waste

and/or overbill excess money, or not billing themselves and/or their cronies. Such practice results

in unjust enrichment for them, as unlawful emoluments.

60. Briefly and without boring the court with numbers, according to plaintiffs own admission,

1 paid plaintiff from 2005 until 2014, which totaled in substantial sum of money. The plaintiffs

official explanation of"dues and charges" were based on the percentage of city evaluation and tax

on the property owners.

61. Plaintiff never explained to me why such formula was used, who came up with this idea

and who approved it.

62. As such, 1 concluded that "dues and charges" essentially double property taxation after city

gets its share. Accordingly,"dues and charges," allegedly owned,legislated by private corporation

in its Bylaws without people's informed consent.

63. Plaintiff has no authority to tax property owners and deceive them by calling this tax "dues

and charges."

64. Per plaintiffs own admission, the alleged "dues and charges" are not connected to

percentages of actual expenses, such as payroll among other things, plaintiff allegedly spends on

services, and therefore self-contradictory in nature.

11
65. Upon information and belief derived from city evaluation of my property, its value from

2005 until present is essentially the same.

66. Yet,'"dues and charges" steadily climbed from 2005 until 2014; and until present.

67. This steady climb of"dues and charges," allegedly owned, substantially outpaced the rate

of inflation or payroll raises.

68. From 2005, this "dues and charges," allegedly owned, almost doubled, and therefore

contradicts plaintiffs attorney own, unsworn pleading herein.

69. I paid this "dues and charges," allegedly owned, without verification, which in turn

resulted in substantial overpayment and unjust enrichment to plaintiff and its agents.

70. When I woke up, so to speak, to the double amount of this "dues and charges," allegedly

owned, plaintiff and its agents refused to sit down and explain to me why such a drastic climb in

"dues and charges" demanded from me.

AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - failure to mitigate damages

71. That the plaintiff has failed to use available means to mitigate damages.

72. It failed to use negotiation or proposed mediation to avoid costly litigation and

multiplication of alleged nonpayment of dues and compounding interest.

AS AND FOR A TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - Laches

73. That this action is time-barred due to plaintiffs laches.

74. Plaintiff intentionally waited almost four years for alleged charges to accumulate and

situation to aggravate so that it will qualify to sue me in Supreme Court in order to avoid suing me

under $5,000 jurisdictional limit of Small Claims Court and even $25,000 jurisdictional limit of

12
Civil Court, which will evidently harass me and make litigation for me very costly in Supreme

Court as opposed to Civil or Small Claims courts.

AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE No attomev's fee

75. The alleged provision of the agreement between the parties providing for attorney's fees is

a forfeiture or penalty, or blackmail and extortion and as such, is contrary to law and public policy.

76. In fact, I have never agreed to abide by self-serving, unfair and unconstitutional,

conflicting-attorney's created By-laws and challenged them.

AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Lack of consideration

77. That the alleged implied agreement herein was not made for good and valuable

consideration and is, therefore, of no force and effect.

78. It does not contain provision as to what would happen if plaintiff breaches or fails to

perform. It only says what would happen if the owner breaches contract.

79. They did not write in their By-law that they would not engage in dialog with unhappy

homeowner, but would retaliate and censor by disconnecting access key and use police as

stalker-enforcers for retaliation and harassment.

80. It is one sided, self-served and self-written, vague, and therefore null and void.

AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Comparative Negligence

81. That ifthe plaintiffsustained any damages as alleged, such damages were caused, in whole

or part, by plaintiffs own fault and negligence.

82. Plaintiffaccuses me offailure to pay dues. Plaintiff and its employees failed and refused to

correct its/their actions and/or inactions, which constitutes its own fault and/or negligence

13
83. Accordingly, per CPLR section 1411, damages must be proportionally diminished or

nullified.

AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - Payment

84. The claim sued upon has been extinguished by prior fair amount of payment thereofin full

or in part and must be set off.

85. If alleged dues are reasonable, lawful and verified, the parties should have come to

consensus before plaintiffs bill could be called dues. As it stands right now, no attempt proposed

by me to come to consensus on value and verification ofalleged services was honored by plaintiff.

86. Accordingly, plaintiff used the money that I paid before and stopped providing future

alleged services since I told plaintiff that 1 would no longer require its services.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Abuse of process

87. Based on my above-averred facts, this so-called legal action is political hit, used as

unlawful self-help eviction and aimed at evicting me out ofcommunity,rather than righteous plea

for justice from the court.

88. The attorney, who allegedly represents plaintiff, knows that he has no delegated authority

to represent plaintiff, which evidenced by complaint without attorney client's signature

verification or attorney's verification per New York CPLR. 1 am not waiving this deliberately

created defect by rejecting the complaint. I object, but, simply, do not know ofany other procedure

as to how bring counterclaims and third-party claims and still reject the defective complaint.

14
89. In addition, I believe that Alan J. Wohiberg,Esq. is employee and/or a member of its "legal

committee" of plaintiff, who would then have a conflict of interest, and in which case cannot

represent plaintiff per NYRPC.

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - Illegal action

90. This action, in essence, is strong arm tactic ofthe board of corporation to retaliate against

those that dare to stand up to their self dealings, corruption and cronyism. Several employees

and/or owners and shareholders of plaintiff, upon information and belief, used and still use mafia

like tactics to hide fraud and overbilling by intimidation and harassment as means to get their way

over people's objections. In essence. Board members usurped governmental functions and ceded

them to private, corrupt, money-driven oligarchy.

91. Accordingly, plaintiffs Board members, its employees and police by their joined actions

and/or inactions turned corporation into criminal enterprise, which is illegal. Consequently,

plaintiffs corporate charter became void. Therefore, these people try to enforce their crimes using

the court and, therefore,this action is illegal. It is common knowledge that courts cannot be used to

harass people using attorneys and judges.

92. Accordingly, this alleged debt is unenforceable under State or Federal law in whole or in

part as to principal or interest; and because of the laws relating to usury.

93. In conclusion, the money they are suing me for is an advantage, profit, or gain received as

a result oftheir employment or holding of office, which is extortion or unlawful emoluments

unenforceable by court.

15
AS AND FOR A NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - Unconscionabilitv and estoppel

by conduct.

94. It is well established doctrine ofestoppel by conduct that where one party has, by his or her

word or conduct made to the other a promise or assurance, which was intended to affect the legal

relation between them and to be acted upon accordingly, stands as contract. Therefore, once the

other party has taken him or her at the word, and acted on it, then the one who gave the promise or

assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to the different legal relations as if no such

promise or assurance has been made by that party. That party must accept their legal relation as is

even though that party changed its mind and wants another consideration.

95. The Board members and/or employees of plaintiff in all their representations to people and

me assured that plaintiff and they are subservient to homeowners rather than masters, landlords or

equal partners. They never mentioned any easements or that plaintiff is private, non-profit

corporation contracting with homeowners; that homeowners have no right to audit plaintiffs

books and records; and that plaintiff is not answerable to homeowners' wishes. However,the

moment 1 challenged their actions and representations, and asked for verification, they turned

against me and started acting belligerently as if plaintiff is my landlord. Telling me,"if you don't

like what we do, move out" became their contention "you gotta do what we told ya."

96. Therefore this action cannot stand.

AS AND FOR A TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - Failure to ioin a necessary nartv

97. That the plaintiff has failed to join a necessary party and this Court should not proceed in

the absence of said party.

16
98. Upon information and belief derived from representations of Board members, plaintiff

formed several committees: "legal," "financial" and "police." to name a few. At some point in

time, I applied to become a member ofthese committees in order to learn "what is wrong and how

to fix it." They received me as a threat to their status quo and secrets. They ignored my

applications. This fact made my suspicions that corruption exists even stronger.

99. Additionally, these actors used attorney(s) to advise them,among other things, on business

practice, debt collections and means of harassment. Additionally, they have errors and omissions

insurance policy to hedge their conduct. As such, plaintiff and I have a claim either for legal

malpractice and/or claim against insurance company for subrogation or reimbursement of their

losses. By the way, money for attorney(s) and for premiums came from all homeowners, including

me. Therefore, court cannot proceed without such joined necessary party(s).

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - Breach of Fiduciarv duties

100. According to all Board members' representations during board elections, people were

electing fiduciaries to HOA - not to Board of non-profit. Independent Corporation owned by

undisclosed shareholders, with undisclosed bank accounts and assets such as titles to real estate

property people sought owned by them.

101. Based on the foregoing and other facts averred by me above, plaintiff and its members and

employees breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty to homeowners and me and/or outright acted

in self dealings and criminal fraud.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE- Breach ofimplied covenant

of good faith and fair dealings

17
102. Based on above averred facts, in dealings with defendant, plaintiff and its agents acted in

bad faith thereby breaching contract with defendant. As such, no damages should be awarded to

plaintiff.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - Refusal to provide accounting

103. In a simplest contractual situation of a restaurant visit, a bill always accompanied by

accounting even though the contract between restaurant and a patron implied by consummation of

food. This is Common Law.

104. As this Common Law applicable to this case, when 1 requested accounting from plaintiff,

which 1 never did before, but for the doubling of charges, plaintiffs agent Many told me "to move

out," which is refusal to provide a bill with accounting.

105. The phrase "trust me," which people and I heard many times when asked for accounting is

an insult of intelligence when it comes to millions of dollars charged by plaintiff without

verification. Regardless, to get a bill with accounting is my Common Law right and, per FDCPA,

statutory right.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE- Confusing language in

Bvlaws

106. Plaintiff contends that Bylaws is contract. In that case, it is void for confusing language.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE- Breach of Contract bv

overbilling

107. Plaintiff breached alleged contract by overbilling and thereafter refusal to provide

accounting.

18
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - Breach of Contract bv

harassment

108. Plaintiff breached alleged contract by, among other things, harassing me.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - Breach of Contract bv

nuisance

109. By disconnection of my access key, among other acts, plaintiff crated nuisance and as

result breached alleged contract.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - Conversion

110. Plaintiff converted my property for its own use.

111. Plaintiff failed to return my numerous deposits for gate entrance key after flood destroyed

old gate system in 2012.

112. 1 did not consent to disabling of my, paid for, electronic gate access key in 2914.

113. After plaintiff disabled my electronic gate access key in 2014, it failed to return my

payment fee for 2014, and therefore used my money as its own.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - Discharge of contract

114. Contracts may be discharged by the inability of one of the parties to fulfill its part.

Based on all the facts averred by myself, plaintiff was unable and/or unwilling to perform

by contract and became belligerent toward me. Accordingly, 1 am discharged from contract.

COUNTER CLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS

19
115. Counter-claimant and Third-party Plaintiff, sui juris, sues all defendants and respectfully

alleges upon his firsthand knowledge,except where it stated upon information and belief, or where

it stated that he verily believes it to be true.

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR ALL COUNTER-CLAIMS AND

THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS

116. The complaint against me, which 1 removed to this court, aroused under violation of

federal law. Plaintiff started violation of federal law in 2005 during real estate closing of my

property to wit: Statute of Frauds and RESPA,thereby causing me damages.

117. Upon reading the complaint against me,it hit me as a surprise or precisely as gruesome

discovery that about thirteen years ago I was conned by plaintiffto obtain a million-dollar property

in the gated community with unclear, clouded and unmarketable title to the property.

118. Upon reading the complaint against me,I learned that Plaintiff has a 100 years old

easement(s) against the properties of all homeowners in the Sea Gate community, including my

property.

119. This easement not mentioned on my property title. Exhibit A.

120. Nobody ever notified me about that defect, until now by this complaint.

121. If alleged easement is valid, every property owner of Sea Gate has the same defective title

to the property as I have.

122. If alleged easement is valid, this is a real estate scandal of gigantic proportions and

must be resolved immediately before plaintiff and its agents'fraud and deception by

concealment and non-disclosure will hurt many new buyers.

20
123. Accordingly, my counterclaims and third-party claims arose out ofthe transactions and/or

occurrences that are the subject matter of the plaintiffs complaint against me.

THE SEA GATE ASSOCIATION'S modus operandi is mafia's "shut up; pay up, or else..."

124. I also discovered that, for a century, this gated community essentially run by mafia and its

members human traffic homeowners and me as hostages, servants or slaves, while publically

misleading people to believe and presume that they are getting service from their unincorporated

Home Owners Association, which has no easements against their properties.

125. Between 2010 and 2014, as a man of God, I did what Bereans did in Acts 17:11:"Now the

Bereans ... received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to

see if what Paul said was true." These quotes from the Scripture carry advice and action -trust, but

verify, which I attempted to do by examining fanatical statements.

126. I talked to members ofcommunity and members of the Board, but when it seemed not

right, I refused to be coerced into submission by the Board. As result, I became the target oftheir

retaliation. This lawsuit is one of Board's strategies to intimidate, harass and financially ruin me in

order to submit me to the will of its leader{s), and teach others a lesson of what would happen if

anybody disobeys Board's bosses. Accordingly, my counter and third-party claims aimed to stop

the harm to community and to me by its Board bosses.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

127. This District Court of the United States has original, concurrent and supplemental

jurisdiction over these claims because they involve violations offederal laws and violations of

federally protected rights.

21
128. Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he

judicial Power shall extend to all Cases,in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws

of the United States, and Treaties Made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." "[E]quity is

that portion of the law which was developed by the English and American courts of chancery to

remedy defects in the common law." Howard L. Oleck, Historical Nature of Equity jurisprudence, 20

FORD HAM L. REV. 23,24(1951)(Equity Jurisprudence).

129. This Article III court and has authority to hear questions arising under the Constitution,

Laws and Treaties of the United States, including, but not limited to the Bill of Rights, the Ninth

Amendment,the Eleventh Amendment,the original Thirteenth Amendment,the Fourteenth

Amendment,the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, with Reservations. See the Article VI Supremacy Clause of the

Constitution ofthe United States of America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S.

Constitution").

130. Third-party Plaintiff claims federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC § 1331,28

use § 1343, 18 USC §1965, and 18 USC § 1512 which provides jurisdiction to cases arising

under the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Codes.

131. This Court has well established authority to provide injunctive relief per All Writs Act and

declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202, when

federal law, like Statute of Frauds and RESPA,is violated.

132. Pursuant to 18 USC § 1964(a) and (c), this District Court has original jurisdiction to

prevent and restrain violations of 18 USC §1962:

22
 (a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and
restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders,
including, but not limited to: ordering any person to divest himself of any interest,
direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions on the future
activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting
any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged
in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering
dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights
of innocent persons.
(c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of
Section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefore in any appropriate United States
district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost ofthe
suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee, except that no person may rely upon any
conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of
securities to establish a violation of section 1962. The To obtain relief under
Section 1964(c), a plaintiff must establish that a defendant committed a violation of
the RICO statute, and that such RICO violation was the proximate cause of injury
to the plaintiffs business or property. See, e.g., Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.,
547 U.S.(2006); Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494, 496-503(2000); Holmes v. Sec.
Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268(1992). 2 exception contained in the
preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally
convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute oflimitations shall
start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final.

133. Plaintiffs and third-party defendants* principal offices, and third-party plaintiffs

properties are all located within the Eastern District of New York. Actions, inactions and crimes

averred in this lawsuit have occurred, and continue to occur in this district on said properties.

134. I bring this suit pursuant to 18 USC § 2(a)(b)for aiding, abetting, and willfully causing

offenses violating 18 USC § 2(a)(b), which states;

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands,
induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done, which if directly performed by him or another
would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

135. I bring this suit pursuant to 18 USC §§ 1961,1962, and 1964,for plaintiffs engagement in

"Racketeering Activities" involving frauds and swindles, victim tampering, overbilling and

23
extortion, affecting interstate and foreign commerce, pursuant to and as defined in 18 USC §§

1341, 1512, 1951, and 1952.

136. I bring this suit pursuant to 18 USC § 1341 for an intentional scheme by Defendants to

defraud Plaintiff out of property.

137. I bring this suit pursuant to 18 USC § 1512 for concealment of records in official

proceedings involving interstate and international commerce.

138. 1 bring this suit pursuant to 18 USC § 1951 for the extortion of third-party plaintiffs

property induced under color of official right affecting interstate and foreign commerce.

139. 1 bring this suit pursuant to 18 USC § 1952 for use of the United States Postal Service to

communicate, promote, and establish acts of extortion.

140. I also bring this suit pursuant to 18 USC § 1962(b)for engaging in racketeering activities

and collection of unlawful debt and maintaining control ofan enterprise that has affected interstate

and foreign commerce.

141. 1 further bring this suit pursuant to 18 USC § 1962(c)for persons employed by or

associated with an enterprise affecting interstate and foreign commerce and conducting in and

participating in conduct of the enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activities.

142. Pursuant to 18 USC § 1964, this Court has authority to dissolve or reorganize any

enterprise such us non-profit corporation organized under federal law and provide remedies

innocent people. Plaintiff as an injured person may sue in this US District and recover damages

threefold.

143. Per 18 USC § 1951(b)(2), the term "extortion" means the obtaining of property from

24
another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear,

or under color of official right.

144. I further bring this suit pursuant to 15 USC § 1692 for violation of FDCPA.

145. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs.

PARTIES

146. THE SEA GATE ASSOCIATION is, according to its attorney, Alan J. Wohlberg, is

non-profit, privately held corporation(SEAGATE),located in Kings County, Brooklyn, New

York.

147. SEAGATE collects several millions of dollars in revenue per year from homeowners,

renters, contractors, tourists, vacationers and other sources like dues, fees and fines.

148. SEAGATE sued by me on counterclaims as alter ego of undisclosed shareholders, agents,

as self insured principal and/or employer of third-party defendants who committed torts and

crimes against me.

149. Below listed by me men and women are third-party defendants sued in their individual

capacities as shareholders, rogue agents and/or rogue employees of SEAGATE.

150. David Wynn, Manny Papir, Richard Scarpaci, Pinny Dembitzer, Barbara Garofalo,

Solomon Zicherman, Merrie Starr-Caputo, Bernard Kaufman, Jack Suben, Betty Baranoff, Jeanne

Rice, Tamir Kovach, Ivette Cirino, Vincent Cirino, Irene Sarafanov, Yuriy Krasner, Lance Burns,

Henry Grunbaum, Kurt Vikki, Jack Weidhorn are all third-party defendants one way or another

associated with Corporation THE SEA GATE ASSOCIATION, which is their office and/or place

of abode.

25
151. These people sued by me also as members of"legal" and/or "financial," and/or "police"

committees who legislated and enforced unconstitutional and illegal policies and practices against

me. At this point, I am unable to be more specific without disclosure and/or discovery, however I

believe that most ofthem if not all are members ofthese committees or other committees unknown

to me.

152. These people, at various times, held positions of President, First Vice President,

Second Vice President, Treasurer,Secretary and Board of Directors. At this time, it is

difficult to name exact position(s) of individuals because from 2005 until present,some of

these people rotated these positions into others due to term's limits. Regardless of their

positions they are all cronies per Merriam-Webster Dictionary example of use:" The mayor

rewarded his cronies with high-paying jobs."

153. Doe 1 -10 are unknown or unidentified shareholders, employees and/or agents of

SEAGATE and/or members of its committees.

154. All these people, known or unknown, related to all or some claims that initiated by 2005

purchase of my property and continues until present. Because Board of directors, as cult leaders,

failed and refused to meet and confer with me during my 2010-2014 attempts to figure out what

is going on and who might be responsible or complicit, I sue them personally.

155. I sue them because from that time on SEAGATE and its Board subjected me to retaliation

by humiliation, stalking and harassment, among other acts, and without discovery, I have no

choice, but to name all these people as third-party defendants in order to join all necessary parties.

26
If discovery shows that somebody was not involved in this controversy, I will withdraw my claims

against her or him.

156. Upon information and belief, Alan J. Wohlberg(Wohlberg) is attorney, shareholder,

employee or agent ofSEAGATE and who, 1 believe, is a member of"legal" committee or its legal

advisor and/or mastermind. 1 sue him because, upon information and belief, he aided and abetted

third-party defendants in their torts and crimes against me.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

157. All material times began in 2005 and continue until present; and are relevant to all causes

of action. Accordingly, I will not repeat"At all material times herein" to avoid redundancy in each

claim.

158. Different sources list different population numbers ofSea Gate,ranging between 3,000 and

5,000 people at different times.

159. Below stated facts derived from Alan J. Wohlberg's complaint, presumably based from his

personal knowledge,at least, as a member ofand/or adviser to "legal" committee since he does not

mention "upon information and belief any other source of information.

160. Additionally, I base these facts per my phone conversation with Alan J. Wohlberg in May

2018.

161. In May 2018,1 had a phone conversation, which lasted about an hour, with Lance Bums,

treasurer per his statement.

27
162. In addition to this complaint against me and my personal knowledge of facts, 1 use

information from these two conversations as my due diligence, good faith effort to avoid

accusations that my claims are frivolous per FRCP 11.

163. Lance Bums is also a member of'"legal" committee and authorized Mr. Wohlberg to file

this complaint against me in state court.

164. Lance Burns also stated to me,"1 did not lose any case in court."

165. Lance Burns suggested that I meet him to work out a "payment plan of my debt."

166. I noted that Lance Bums made no offer to meet and verify the "correct and/or fair amount"

of alleged debt, which SEAGATE'S quantum memit claim against me would require.

167. Lance Bums only offered payment plan to pay out the amount alleged in complaint.

168. In reply, again, I stated that I require verification.

169. Then, he essentially replied (I describe his reply briefly) that I have to trust him because he

[Lance Bums]lives in Sea Gate for about 30 years, signs every check, and therefore is honest.

170. I noted that this reply is logical fallacy called "begging the question" or "because I said so"

and attributable to cult leaders or tyrants.,as I explain below.

Proof that SEAGATE unconstitutionally run as oligarchy by its Board of Directors

171. As per Wohlberg's complaint against me:

"The Sea Gate Association ("SGA") is a domestic not-for-profit corporation duly

organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal
place of business located in the County of Kings, City and State of New York."
"Pursuant to SGA's ByLaws and Regulations SGA has the right, duty, and power to
maintain the streets, parks, beaches, and open spaces within Sea Gate, and to
provide community services and facilities for the benefit of property owners in Sea
Gate."

28
 *^SGA owns and has been maintaining and operating Sea Gate and collecting
dues and charges for more than 100 years."[Emphasis mine]

172. Based on above facts derived from complaint, SEAGATE is a privately held corporation

with undisclosed shareholder(s) and assets, which owns and operates community(Hm,slavery

abolished? Where did I read about that before?).

173. Evidently, SEAGATE owners formed ''a pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a

person or group ofpeople that have dictatorial control as oligarchs). Its Board of directors

declared themselves owners and governors of Sea Gate community by creating By-laws and

committees resembling local government of between 3,000 and 5,000 people with the power to

police and tax its presumed citizens as indentured servants.

174. SEAGATE'S committees resemble by names governmental departments.

175. However,there is no "Sea Gate" Court or "court committee" to challenge Board's conduct.

176. Nevertheless, there is executive and legislative, all in one, department called "legal

committee" consisting of oligarchs.

177. This department legislate and proscribe their dictatorial control through Bylaws with Rules

and Regulations, which they enforce using its own Police and fines.

178. These By-laws with Rules and Regulations are dictatorial control because in them,there is

no logical explanation or intent, which a rule is attempting to achieve and there is no public debate

and challenge to these rules. Accordingly, people must blindly follow them (you gotta do what we

told ya).

29
179. To add more insult to the injury, these dictatorial control rules called contract with

presumption of consent. There is no procedure to challenge these rules, which made by design

using self-served, conflicted paid attorney. Look below at self-legislated usury:

"Article VIII, Section 3. b)of the bylaws provides, in pertinent part, that in the
event that unpaid dues and charges shall be referred to an attorney at law for
collection, the delinquent owner shall be liable for legal fees, in an amount not less
than 25% of the unpaid dues and charges, plus other costs of collection, if any."

180. The only remedy against these By-laws and attorneys is to spend a fortune on another

attorney and take SEAGATE to federal court for declaratory judgment. Most people cannot afford

attorney and therein lays dictatorial control of the Board.

Board of Directors of SEAGATE is a corporate board of Private Corporation with conflict

of interest against homeowners, masquerading as Board of Managers of unincorporated
homeowners association.

181. Below written statement from complaint against me tells the tale of how I allegedly

volunteered to be a member of this oligarchy without any proof:

"Defendant(s) took title to the Premises with actual and/or constructive notice of
the By-Laws and Regulations."

182. In my answer, I denied the allegation that I was given actual and/or constructive notice of

By-Laws and Regulations by plaintiff or anyone else.

183. Additionally, I aver that neither before, nor during the closing of premises, these By-Laws,

Rules and Regulations were a part ofor a supplement to complete real estate closing paperwork for

review by my attorney or me, in violation of Statute of Frauds and RESPA.

184. Alternatively,even if, which is not admitted and stated only for the sake of argument,these

By-Laws and Regulations were timely presented to my attorney or to me for review and approval.

30
these By-Laws and Regulations are vague and silent about legal and/or non-profit corporate status

of SEAGATE,in violation of Statute of Frauds and RESPA.

185. In fact, 2016 By-laws state in ARTICLE 1:

SECTION 1. This Association shell be called 'The Sea Gate Association"

186. To be clear and not misleading to ordinary homeowner, SECTION I, at least, should state,

"Corporation shell be called The Sea Gate Association." Then again, it would look absurd and

confusing, but would expose the problem.

187. Accordingly, in By-laws, SEAGATE failed to alert and disclose to others and to me that it

is not unincorporated Home Owners Association.

188. Without such disclosure, people would presume that land with all streets, parks and

common buildings are common areas of property jointly owned by all homeowner of Sea Gate

versus privately held corporation owning land with streets, parks and common buildings and

granting paid privilege to pass-through or use them.

189. Before I allegedly become a member of SEAGATE through alleged contract, my attorney

and I did not expect that after closing I would have to pay for right of way to corporate SEAGATE

or to be taxed, stalked, humiliated and harassed by Police if I disagree with charges.

190. Since SEAGATE is Private Corporation, it has interest adverse to homeowners, by

definition of corporation, to collect as much money as possible for its undisclosed shareholder(s).

191. Additionally, SEAGATE has means and opportunity to overbid the whole community.

31
192. Accordingly, SEAGATE'S profit driven and biased Corporate Board has undisclosed

conflict of interest, which is why it is masquerading as a Board of unincorporated Home Owners

Association in its official By-laws and Regulations.

By-laws, Rules and Regulations are generally vague and confusing.

193. By-laws, in particular, vaguely mention the word easement buried within the text of

By-laws as a small print and require real estate attorney's notice of existence and interpretation

versus understanding by ordinary folks living in Sea Gate, who are intended readers as to what

"easement" is.

194. I, personally,started to pay attention to this word when 1 started reading this complaint,and

thereafter spent about two hours on internet to comprehend what "easement" in Sea Gate is.

195. Then, 1 asked myself who exactly owns the "easement"- Private Corporation or

homeowners combined.

196. In my interpretation, the way "easement" written in By-laws, easement owned by the

homeowners combined, which contradicts the complaint.

The intent, By-laws, Rules and Regulations are not explained and/or justified.

197. In them,an individual's associations, living arrangements,finances, etc., strictly controlled

without explanation of rule's intent.

198. In my case, individual's associations, living arrangements and finances strictly controlled

by Board and Police via gates, passes, stickers and private parking tickets - if"you don't do what

we told ya."

32
199. These parking tickets are not New York City "garden variety" parking tickets, but tickets

legislated by the Board against overnight parking without approval by Police.

200. In addition. Police will control and harass renters if owner is not "in good standing with the

Board."

201. These laws designed to harass and control homeowner finances because renters will

eventually run somewhere else living homeowner without income if"you don't do what we told

ya."

202. This oligarchy deliberately withholds or distorts information, lies, propagandizes, and

limits access to other sources of information. My numerous attempts to be elected to Board and

committees were blocked by Board because they viewed me as threat to their "inner circles" and

potential whistleblower.

203. During numerous public speeches of Board members, I could see through their

intentional bamboozling of people with their "we know better than you what is best for

you" attitude and I was asking some "inconvenient" questions. In replies, they were vague,

evasive, and unresponsive and would rash to the next question of others.

204. While discussing my concerns with others, who also did not like what the Board was

doing, they told me that they are afraid to mess with Board. They said that Board are mafia and

other people who tried to challenge them before failed, but their life in Sea Gate became

problematic with no way out, because people are stack here with mortgages and properties. Now I

understand what Lance Bums was implying to me when he said,"I did not lose any case in court."

33
205. Accordingly, SEAGATE'S Bylaws and Rules are unlawful, unconstitutional and/or its

policy, practice is unlawful and/or unconstitutional as applied.

AS AND FOR A FIRST COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIM - Fraud at the

inducement

206. I adopt every averment above by reference herein.

207. The elements of a cause of action for fraud are that the defendant knowingly

misrepresented or concealed a material fact for the purpose of inducing another party to rely upon

it, and the other party justifiably relied upon such misrepresentation or concealment resulting in

injury.

208. SEAGATE and its owners and agents (jointly SEAGATE)knew that at the time of its

allegedly implied contract with me,SEAGATE owned easement going back a 100 years against all

property owners in Sea Gate.

209. SEAGATE knew that at the time of my purchase of real property in Sea Gate, and

therefore, allegedly implied contract with me, my attorney and I were unaware of said easement

and nobody from SEAGATE was present during closing.

210. SEAGATE knew or should have known that at the time of allegedly implied contract with

me, there was no recording of easement on the title of the property, which 1 was buying.

211. SEAGATE knew or should have known that at the time of allegedly implied contract with

me,there was no recording ofeasement on the title ofthe property, which I was buying, and that if

1 learned about this fact and defect, I may not liked it and may have canceled closing of said

property.

34
212. SEAGATE did agree to be silent about this defect for a century and to be silent during my

purchase of property."

213. SEAGATE knew or should have known that silence amounts to fraud when there is moral

or legal duty to speak and prevent deception and future controversy.

214. SEAGATE knew or should have known that I will be relying on the lack of negative

information on prospective property's title and that my attorney and I will use this information as

material fact in making decision to buy.

215. SEAGATE knew that By-laws are silent about its corporate assets, especially its real estate

properties and easement, which this complaint alleges.

216. It is fraud and deceit by SEAGATE to enter into alleged implied contract with me without

disclosure of easement and non-disclosure that SEAGATE is not HOA as the word "Association"

suggests, but in fact the privately owned corporation with undisclosed shareholder(s), assets,

employees and salaries.

217. These acts or failure to act, constitute fraudulent concealment of material facts.

218. My attorney and I justifiably relied on the lack of negative material facts and proceeded to

closing of property.

219. Accordingly,SEAGATE knowingly misrepresented and/or concealed a material fact(s)for

the purpose of inducing my attorney and me to rely upon incomplete, and therefore false

information.

220. My attorney and I both justifiably relied upon such misrepresentation and/or concealment

resulting in injury.

35
221. If I knew the truth, I would never buy a property in Sea Gate for a million dollars, because

this property with easement and double tax would not be worth such a premium price and would be

unaffordable to maintain.

222. SEAGATE knew or should have known that this alleged easement could have caused some

problems and, as result, costly litigation.

223. In fact, it did cause current controversy as evidenced by this litigation.

224. As a direct and proximate result ofthe above, I was damaged,continue being damaged and

will be damaged in the future.

225. In addition, some or all of the third-party defendants conspired and acted in concert,

unlawfully, maliciously, oppressively and against public policy. Therefore, I demand punitive and

treble damages determined at the time ofthe trial, including interest, expenses and attorney's fees.

WHEREFORE,I demand judgment awarding damages, punitive and treble damages to be

determined at trial by jury.

AS AND FOR A SECOND COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIM - Accounting

226. I adopt every applicable averment above by reference herein.

227. Upon information and belief, from about 2005 until 2014, SEAGATE did not fairly credit

some payments and interest they received from me toward the alleged value of services.

228. Additionally, SEAGATE and/or other unknown actors added unlawful and unfair tax,

charges and fees, late fees and expenses to my account. Around 2014,1 requested verification of

debt and liens they claimed to be correct and lawful, but they refused to verify insisting that I have

to trust them. I believe that amount of debt is fraudulently overstated and, because ofthat, want to

36
settle controversy on the merits. However, 1 lack an adequate remedy at law. As such, an

accounting is required.

WHEREFORE,I demand an order directing SEAGATE to produce all necessary books and

records to calculate and apportion a fair amount of dues.

AS AND FOR A THIRD COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIM - Violation of 18

use § 1962(a)

Enterprise

229. 1 adopt every averment above by reference herein.

230. Upon information and belief, SEAGATE and all third-party defendants ("enterprise") is

non-profit corporation formed under federal law with income tax exempt status. This enterprise,

with members, located in Brooklyn, New York and elsewhere, has engaged in acts of fraud,

nuisance and violence, including harassment, intimidation, extortion, and victim retaliation.

231. The SEAGATE,including its shareholder(s), leadership, employees and associates,

constituted an "enterprise" as defined by Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(4), that is, a

group of individuals associated in fact. The enterprise constituted an ongoing organization whose

members function as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the

enterprise -unlawful enrichment. The enterprise was/is engaged in, and its activities affected,

interstate and foreign commerce.

Purposes of the Enterprise

232. The purposes ofthe enterprise included, but not limited to, the following:

37
 a. Promoting position of authority of the enterprise with respect to general
population of Sea Gate community, real estate agents, contractors; and other
guests, tourists and vacationers.
b. Preserving and protecting the power and ventures of the enterprise through the
use ofintimidation and threats of violence consisting ofstalking and harassment by
Police; and prosecution in court, which would result in victim's financial ruin.
c. Keeping victims and critics humiliated and in fear of the enterprise and its
members and associates.
d. Enriching the members and associates ofthe enterprise through criminal activity,
including fraud, overbilling, extortion and unfair or unlawful fees and fines.
e. Ensuring discipline within the enterprise and compliance with the enterprise's
rules made by members and/or associates through threats of violence consisting of
stalking and harassment by use of Police, attorneys and judges.

Means and Methods of the Enterprise

233. Among the means and methods by which the members and their associates conducted and

participated in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise, at least, were the following:

a. Members of the SEAGATE and their associates conspired, used, committed,

attempted to commit and threatened to commit acts of violence consisting of
stalking and harassment by exercising corrupt control and influence over Police,
which in turn used by SEAGATE as a tool for stalking and harassment.
b. Members of the SEAGATE and their associates conspired, used, committed,
attempted to commit and threatened to commit acts of violence consisting of
stalking and harassments by exercising corrupt control and influence over
attorneys and judges, which in turn used by SEAGATE as a tool for stalking and
harassment.
c. Members of the SEAGATE and their associates conspired, used, committed,
attempted to commit and threatened to commit acts of violence consisting of
stalking and harassment to enhance the enterprise's prestige and protect and
expand the enterprise's criminal operations.
c. Members ofthe SEAGATE and their associates conspired, used, committed,
attempted to commit and threatened to commit acts of violence consisting of
harassment and stalking by use of Police, harassment by use of attorneys and
judges against various individuals, including critics of members of SEAGATE and
members of Sea Gate community who violated the enterprise's rules.
d. Members ofthe SEAGATE and their associates conspired, used, attempted to
use and conspired to use fraud, harassment, nuisance, extortion and overbilling as
means of obtaining unlawful enrichment.

38
RACKETEERING ACTIVITEES COUNT ONE: Violation of 18 USC ^1341 and 18 USC $ 1512

234. On or about and between 2005 and the date of this lawsuit, both dates being approximate

and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York,the SEAGATE and third-party defendants

with others, being persons employed by and associated with SEAGATE,an enterprise engaged in,

and the activities of which affected interstate and foreign commerce, did knowingly and

intentionally conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct ofthe affairs of the

enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined by Title 18, United States Code,

Sections 1961 (1)and 1961(5),(6). The following racketeering acts, either one of which alone

constitutes one racketeering act. These acts set forth below.

RACKETEERING ACTS #1: Conspiracy to Conceal, Concealment and Fraud

235. All or some of the members, together with each other, committed the following acts

during one year. Either one act in one year alone constitutes one Racketeering Act:

A. Conspiracy to Defraud, Fraud by Concealment

236. Starting from 2005 and during each year thereafter until present, members of SEAGATE,

together with each other, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to cause me financial harm by

keeping silence and nondisclosure of the corporate status of THE SEA GATE ASSOCIATION,

thereby concealing, during real estate closing and financing; and later during billing cycle(s) its

corporate status in violation of 18 USC §§ 1341, 1343, 1344, 1961, §1962 and RESPA as an

intentional scheme by members to defraud insurance company,lender and third-party Plaintiff out

of property.

39
B. Conspiracy to Defraud, Fraud by Concealment

237. Starting from 2005 and during each year thereafter until present, members of SEAGATE,

together with each other, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to cause me financial harm by

keeping silence and nondisclosure of a)easement owned by SEAGATE and b)that I do not have

clear title to my property, thereby concealing, during real estate closing, those defects and/or some

documents, in violation of 18 USC §§ 1341, 1343, 1344, 1961 and §1962 as an intentional scheme

by members to defraud title insurance company, lender and third-party Plaintiff out of property.

RACKETEERING ACTS ill: Conspiracy to Overbill, Overbillings

238. Starting from 2005 and during each year thereafter until present, members of SEAGATE,

together with each other, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to fraudulently overstate and

overstated the amounts due by a) overstating its expenses, b) underreporting its profits, and c)

failing to bill and/or collect dues from other members of Sea Gate.

239. Said acts and failures resulted in overbilling causing me financial harm, in violation of 18

USC §§ 1341, 1343, 1344, 1961 and §1962 as an intentional scheme by members to defraud

third-party Plaintiff out of property.

RACKETEERING ACTIVITEES COUNT TWO: Violation of 18 USC § 1951

240. The following racketeering acts, either one of which alone constitutes one racketeering act.

These acts set forth below.

241. Starting from 2005 and during each year thereafter until present, members of SEAGATE,

together with each other, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to extort and extorted money

40
from me, causing me financial harm, induced under color of official right, using harassment and

stalking by use of Police, attorneys and judges in violation of 18 USC § 1951.

242. 18 USC § 1951(b)(2) defines extortion as follows: the term "extortion" means the

obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or

threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

243. As a direct and proximate result ofthe above, I was damaged,continue being damaged and

will be damaged in the future.

244. In addition, some or all of the third-party defendants conspired and acted in concert,

unlawfully, maliciously, oppressively and against public policy. Therefore, I demand punitive and

treble damages determined at the time ofthe trial, including interest, expenses and attorney's fees.

WHEREFORE,I demand judgment awarding damages; punitive and treble damages to be

determined at trial by jury.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIM - RPAPL 15

245. The cause of action here is to quiet title on my property pursuant to RPAPL Article 15, for

a judgment declaring that SEAGATE'S easements are null and void due to statute offrauds, fraud

and/or constructive trust.

246. For a declaratory judgment that all alleged by SEAGATE real estate properties belong to

Sea Gate community as undivided commonly used land and buildings.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIM - Violation of

FDCPA

247. I adopt every averment above by reference herein.

41
248. Per FDCPA,I am consumer.

249. Per FDCPA § 1692 a[5), definition of a Debt is an obligation for money,goods,

insurance, or services for primarily personal, family, or household purposes.

250. Alan J. Wohlberg regularly collects consumer debts alleged to be due to another, and

therefore is "debt collector" as defined by the FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

251. Congress enacted the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act(FDCPA]to stop "the use of

abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors," 15 U.S.C.§

1692[a].

252. This action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that challenges SEAGATE'S policy

and practice of disconnecting gate access keys to humiliate its victim and use of Police for

humiliation, stalking and harassment; and filing harassing lawsuits, as a debt collection

practice.

253. A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass,

oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.

254. Actions of Wohlberg, including participation in "legal" committee were intended and did

humiliate, harass, oppress, and abuse me in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692.

255. A debt collector may not "use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or

means in connection with the collection of any debt," per 15 U.S.C.§ 1692e. Such

prohibition includes the false representation of"the character, amount, or legal status of

any debt," 15 U.S.C.§ 1692e(2](A).

42
256. I, therefore seek declaratory relief that challenges SEAGATE'S validity, legality and

the amount of debt or lien(s) on my property.

257. A debt collector may not "use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt

to collect any debt," per 15 U.S.C.§ 1692f. Filing a lawsuit in state court under RPAPL IS,

which has nothing to do with collection of consumer debt, is unfair and unconscionable

means.

258. Nor may a debt collector "engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which

is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt," 15

U.S.C.§ 1692d. Upon information and belief, Wohlberg, as debt collector, knows,condones and

advices "legal committee" to humiliate, harass, abuse and threaten others and me by use of Police

as an act of violence to collect a debt, in violation of§ 1692 d(l).

259. Filing RPAPL 15 claim before contacting me and trying to settle dispute out of court

is abusive, deceptive and harassing. In common law it is called CRIME OF BARRATRY.

260. By filing RPAPL 15 complaint, Wohlberg,as debt collector,"used false, deceptive, or

misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt," in

violation of 15 U.S.C.§ 1692e.

261. Wohlberg, before filing ofthe above said lawsuit, never sent me initial communication

letter known as a "validation letter" or "initial demand letter," concerning the collection of a

consumer debt.

262. In this letter, he had to advise me of:(a)the amount of the debt owed;(b)the name ofthe

creditor to whom it is owed;(c)that the debtor has thirty days to dispute the validity ofthe debt;(d)

43
that the creditor will obtain verification of the debt, if the debtor makes a dispute in writing within

such 30-day period per §1692g(a). This obligation of written notice has often been referred to in

the collections industry as the ''mini-Miranda" rule. The standard to be applied towards

correspondence with the debtor is the "least sophisticated consumer" standard. See Russell v.

Equifax, 74 F.3d 30(2d Cir. 1996).

263. Wohlberg knew what he was doing when he filed claim on account stated, because this

slick claim lets him avoid requirement to send me initial demand letter, which he never did.

264. As such, I never had opportunity to let Wohlberg know in writing that I dispute this

debt and require from him verification to settle this dispute out of court.

265. Upon information and belief, Wohlberg by filing RPAPL 15 complaint, as adviser of

"legal committee," attempted to mislead state court and me that he is simply involved in collection

of consumer debt per FDCPA law.

266. By filing RPAPL 15 claim, Wohlberg pretended to be blissfully ignorant and in

plausible denial of his knowledge of FDCPA Act and its requirements.

267. Wohlberg filed no documentary proof, signed by man or woman,that 1 owe alleged

debt or the proof that the amount is correct, or that 1 had initial notice of said debt, yet he

falsely claims "account stated," when he knows that the debt is disputed by me a long time

ago.

268. Wohlberg knew that he is collecting a debt in the amount not authorized by the contract

because there is no contract, which act violates FDCPA as unconscionable debt collection, because

those charges not expressly authorized by the terms of the contract.

44
269. As a proximate result of the above. I was damaged, continue being damaged and will be

damaged in the future.

270. In addition, Wohlberg acted in concert with SEAGATE, unlawfully, maliciously,

oppressively and against public policy. Therefore, I demand punitive and treble damages

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

AS AND FOR A SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIM - Declaratorv

Judgment

271. I adopt every averment above by reference herein.

272. I request that this court issue declaratory judgment that above-stated by me third-party

defendants' By-laws, Rules and Regulations, together with policy and practice ofdebt collection is

unconstitutional and/or unconstitutional as applied; and in violation of my Civil Rights.

273. I request that this court issue injunctive relief prohibiting third-party defendants to engage

or continue humiliation, stalking, harassment and nuisance against me.

274. I request that this court issues order to dissolve or reorganize THE SEA GATE

ASSOCIATION us non-profit corporation organized under federal law and provide remedies to

innocent people.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

275. Please take notice that defendant and third-party plaintiff demands trial by Jury in this

action.

WHEREFORE,I respectfully request judgment dismissing the complaint, granting my

counterclaims and third-party claims with declaratory judgments, awarding damages; punitive and

45
treble damages to be determined at trial by jury together with costs and disbursements ofthis

action; and for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper.

VERIFICATION

1, Michael Krichevsky, sui juris, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, under penalty of perjury declare
that 1 personally created the foregoing pleading and that information herein is true and correct to
the best of my knowledge.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

June 20, 2018

Michael Krichevsky, Sui Juris

4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, New York 11224
(718)687-2300
ALAN J. WOHLBERG
2805 Avenue N
Brooklyn, New York 11210

THE SEAGATE ASSOCIATION

3700 Surf Avenue
Brooklyn, New York 11224

46