FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS _____________________________________________________ DOCKET NO.

F-28901-08/10A/B ELENA SVENSON, Petitioner, OBJECTION, NOTICE -againstOF MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT Respondent-father. Supervising Judge Paula _____________________________________________________ Hepner Oral argument is not requested COUNSELORS:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed affidavit of MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, sworn to the 1st day of July 2011, and upon all the pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein, the undersigned will move this Court at the Courthouse located at 330 Jay Street, Brooklyn NY:

For an order dismissing all void orders of hearing officer John Fasone pursuant to Sections R5015, 3211 and 3212 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules granting dismissal and/or summary judgment in favor of respondent Krichevsky and against the petitioner, dismissing the petition for criminal non support, for an award of costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney's fees to abide this motion and whole proceedings, and for such other and further relief as to this Court and Interest of Justice may seem Just and proper. The above-entitled actions are for criminal non-support and support order modification.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to Section 2214(b) of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, all answering papers, if any, shall be served at least seven (7) days before the return date of this motion.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York June 28, 2011 ______________________________ Michael Krichevsky, All rights reserved without prejudice 4221 Atlantic Ave Brooklyn, New York 11224 (718) 687-2300

ELENA SVENSON 2620 OCEAN PKWY, APT 3K BROOKLYN, NY 11235

FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS _____________________________________________________ INDEX NO. F-28901-08/10A/B ELENA SVENSON, Petitioner, AFFIDAVIT IN -againstSUPPORTOF OBJECTION, MOTION MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, TO DISMISS AND FOR Respondent. SUMMURY JUDGMENT _____________________________________________________ Supervising Judge Paula Hepner STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ss.:

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Pro Se, without admitting jurisdiction of court except to dismiss in his favor, deposes and says: 1. I make this affidavit in support of this objection, motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. 2. I have personal knowledge of the facts and matters set forth in this affidavit and should I be called upon as a Witness and/or Victim to testify in any court to the same, I can and will testify competently thereto. OBJECTION TO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, CORRUPTION OF COURT PERSONEL, CASE FIXING AND ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION OF JOHN FASONE IN MODIFICATION OF SUPPORT ORDER PROCEEDING MAKING THIS AND ALL OTHER ORDERS VOID. 3. Respondent informs and calls a court attention that the order of Paula Hepner denying his objection to final order of support is VOID on the ground of FRAUD UPON THE COURT. 4. Respondent now in possession of certified documents that support his allegations.

5. Respondent repeats his last years allegation in his reply affidavit to petitioners rebuttal that he: (a) did not receive the final order of support by mail; (b) when in the beginning of Mach, 2010 respondent came to court to get the order, clerks told him that they do not know where the file is; (c) respondent got a copy of order with findings of fact on April 20, 2010. 6. Reading denial order of Judge Hepner, respondent understood that clerk of public officer Fasone is responsible for mailing orders to the parties and their attorneys and stamping the date and to which party this order was sent. 7. Judge Paula Hepner based her denial on the 5th page of support order, which was done by the clerk, and stated that this is the proof that support order was sent on February 25, 2010 to respondent, also stating that objection denied on procedural ground (objection was filed one day late). 8. Respondent invites the court to examine Exhibit A, consisting of copy of objection to reply affidavit of rebuttal, 2 certified copies of different versions of 5th page of the same support order and Judge Paula Hepners order. 9. One copy of 5th page is unique: it was filed in Kings County Supreme Court on April 13, 2011 by petitioners former attorney LEVORITZ as an exhibit in the separate action. 10. The second certified copy of the 5th page was given to respondent by family court clerk in the record room on April 20, 2010. 11. As one can see, they differ. The one that came from LEVORITZ is blank, has no stamped date as opposed to the one that came from family court on April 20, 2010.

12. There was rebuttable presumption with 50/50 chance, that respondent received this order at the same time with petitioner and LEVORITZ since they did receive support order mailed by family court. 13. On the other hand, why would respondent call LEVORITZ in March asking him if he got anything from the court? Noticeably, his answer was that he did not Now he hangs himself through his filing and admission that he did, in fact get this order, but lied to respondent that he did not. 14. Now it becomes perfectly clear why petitioner appeared Pro Se during objection process, while LEVORITZ continued representing petitioner through ghost writing - to avoid his duty as an officer of the court to speak up when silence considered as fraud! 15. This duty would require him, if called as witness, to admit to the court that respondent called him asking for court order, which would draw an inference that respondent did not get anything from the court at that time. Instead, he launched (from the shadow) an attack on respondent and argued dismissal of respondents objection as been late. Winning by any means was his credo. 16. The second version of 5th page is unique as well it was likely manufactured by Mr. Fasones clerk after respondents court visit asking for copy of the order and proof of mailing. That is why clerks could not locate that file, because if they did, they would find the same blank copy of the 5th page that LEVORITZ have gotten and give it to respondent to rebut presumption that he did get that order by mail. 17. In the perfect world, what is the big deal to admit to a clerical error, apologize or not, give respondent a copy of order and let him file objection, counting thirty days from that day,

after all, whos got hurt? Again, it is in the interest of Justice to seek the Truth and Justice and give it to respondent-father! 18. On the other hand, why would Brooklyn Family Court operate in the perfect world environment when they exist on Title IV-D Federal Funding and enforcement incentives? 19. Understandably now, someone did not like a scenario where nobody got hurt! Clerks do not operate in vacuum someone ordered them to do it. 20. Now, it is obvious that they are proactively denying access to the court, obstruct Justice by denying the due process to respondent-father. Now it is obvious that someone is interested in respondents failure on appeal as well. Now, this 50/50 chance rebuttable presumption that respondent got his order by mail disappears like mirage. 21. Now, respondent has the right to draw an inference that public officer Fasone conspired with other public officers to deny respondents constitutional rights and Justice, and not just biased, but also maliciously acting outside of his jurisdiction with intention to hurt respondent. 22. Now, respondent draws an inference that public officer Fasone knowingly and intelligently, deliberately and maliciously made his impossible to comply with final order, which respondent was trying to appeal, and this is why respondent must be prevented from by any means. 23. We are not talking about appealable error or abuse of discretion, which Mr. Fasone implied to respondent and wanted him to believe when he told him to appeal his decision in higher court we are talking about felony and treason. 24. In conclusion, ANY order based on fraudulent evidence is VOID, including Judge Paula Hepners order in this case.

25. Each of the above described elements constitutes fraud upon the court in the U.S., when an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as "fraud upon the court", is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation. 26. A judge is not a court; he is under law an officer of the court, and he must not engage in any action to deceive the court. Trans Aero Inc. v. LaFuerga Area Boliviana, 24 F.3d 457 (2nd Cir. 1994); Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985) (fraud upon the court exists "where the judge has not performed his judicial duties"). 27. "Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that a void order is void at all times, does not have to be reversed or vacated by a judge, cannot be made valid by any judge, nor does it gain validity by the passage of time. The order is void ab initio. Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920). "Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters," Nudd v. Burrows (1875), 91 US 426, 23 Led 286,290; particularly when "a judge himself is a party to the fraud," Cone v. Harris (OkI. 1924), 230 P. 721, 723. Windsor v. McVeigh (1876), 93 US 276, 23 Led 914, 918. 28. At best, this whole issue smells and appearance of inappropriate conduct by Mr. Fasone is not out of question for reasonable observer. The Supreme Court reaffirmed in Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U. S. 1301, 1302 (2000) (REHNQUIST, C. J.) the standard for interpreting and applying this section thus: As this Court has stated, what matters under 455(a) is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance. Liteky v. United States, 510 U. S. 540, 548 (1994). This inquiry is an objective one, made from the perspective of a

reasonable observer who is informed of all the surrounding facts and circumstances. See ibid; In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., 861 F. 2d 1307, 1309 (CA2 1988). 29. Now, respondent moves this court for leave to reargue and renew his recusal motion to disqualify Mr. Fasone from respondents case. 30. On or about May 13, 2010 KRICHEVSKY filed petition for modification of support order, Exhibit B. 31. In it he asked for downward modification of the support order; review, adjustment and/or clearance of arrears; review of medical support order and reimbursement of his attorneys fees. 32. At request of SVENSON, Hearing Officer Fasone adjourned whole proceeding from May 13 until August 2, 2010 without any truthful and valid reason over KRICHEVSKYs objection. SVENSON stated that her lawyer, LEVORITZ, has a celebrity status and is booked for whole summer. 33. One would think that if he was that busy last summer, he should be busy this summer as well. Attached as Exhibit C, LEVORITZs summer of 2011 schedule of all Courts of New York City, according to search of ECourts. As one can see, he has only 3 clients and only 3 appearance dates scheduled between June 29 and August 9, 2011, and there is no future date for whole August and September absolutely not busy and far from been celebrity perjury and fraud upon the court by SVENSON and LEVORITZ, while public officer Fasone failed and refused to take a judicial notice when he granted adjournment. 34. Thereafter, he has adjourned this case numerous times over KRICHEVSKYs objections in total for more than one year. It was done without any real, lawful and discussed with KRICHEVSKY reason, all while public officer Fasones recusal issue was not settled.

During this time, there was no activity on this case, even a conference. 35. Suddenly, for some unknown and undisclosed to KRICHEVSKY reason, Mr. Fasone decides to enter order modifying his previous order without any evidence, hearing or discussion that he will hold a hearing, in violation of section 205.12 of Uniform Family Court Rules. 36. His order and Findings of Fact does not contain any fact as record is devoid of any document submission or hearing on this case. His continuous manner in conversing with KRICHEVSKY can only be described as playing games Ive got a secret I cant tell and catch me If you can. Needles to say that this order is VOID as well on the grounds stated above. ARGUMENT FOR MOTION TO DISMISS AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT 37. On or about June 14, 2010 Petitioner served Respondent with boilerplate Petition to hold him in contempt of court titled: Petition for violation of court order which did not contain any particular allegation or material fact of wrongdoing by respondent and did not contain certified copy of support order, making petition defective and null.(Exhibit D). 38. Her attorney LEVORITZ did not sign The documents herein are hereby certified pursuant to 25 NYCRR 130-1.1-A that it is not frivolous on the blue back of this petition and, accordingly, it is defective and null, as now it considered to be frivolous and must be rejected and dismissed by the court. 39. Respondent cross-moved by motion to dismiss and for sanctions for frivolous litigation, pointing to these defects in petition, thereby giving the plaintiff and the court an opportunity to correct, replead or withdraw this petition. 40. LEVORITZ disregarded this motion by failure to reply to it, while Mr. Fasone, without any

hearing on this motion ratified his failure by declaring that he will treat this cross motion as Respondents answer to petition for contempt. 41. Hypocrisy and evilness of this petition is that, LEVORITZ and FASONE together fixed the child support proceeding against respondent by denying due process, perjury, misconduct and fraud upon the court. Then, FASONE orders respondent to pay more than he makes and then LEVORITZ wants to punish the victim and send him to jail for been the victim of their corruption. 42. Fact, every single motion and petition of respondent was denied by Fasone, who affords no explanation and zero tolerance to pleadings of Pro Se father, while mothers Lawyer is getting sliding scale of tolerance and wink-wink brother lawyer treatment. 43. If support modification proceeding was done by unbiased hearing officer in a timely fashion, all controversies between parties would off been settled, probably, making proceeding for petition for non-support unnecessary and moot; leaving KRICHEVSKY healthy, still willing and able to find a new job to start over. At least that what reasonable Officer of the Court would off though and attempted to do. 44. These adjournments of modification petition was done while KRICHEVSKY challenged Fasones authority and jurisdiction, accusing him, SENSON and her attorney LEVORITZ of corruption, BUT hearing of this issue was never scheduled or discussed. 45. Simultaneously, respondent filed motion to recuse FASONE, which was also denied. 46. FASONESs and LEVORITZs actions intended to and ensnared KRICHEVSKY in the web of family court litigation, which converted into insult of his intelligence, judicial torture and judicial sodomy through tyranny. 47. All of the above resulted in stroke that KRICHEVSKY suffered on or about November 2,

2010, but who cares when Title IV-D enforcement money rolling in courts coffers? . 48. Been not satisfied and confused by the due process and outcome of both FASONEs decisions, respondent produced an answer with counterclaims and cross-claims and demanded a trial by jury in accordance with penal law, CPLR and both US and New York Constitutions. Additionally, respondent demanded discovery through interrogatories, respondents combined demands, bill of particulars, document production and witness disclosure. (Exhibit D). 49. Respondent additionally notified petitioners attorney, LEVORITZ that by law failure to disclose a witness before a trial would prevent him from bringing that witness at trial, as during the conference with Mr. FASONE, LEVORITZ mentioned to him that he wants to bring a witness at the hearing. 50. Petitioner, by her attorney LEVORITZ, again failed to reply to any of the above-mentioned pleadings and demands and is in default. 51. When Respondent called her attorneys office, he spoke with paralegal VICTOR KATKALOV who told respondent that they are not going to produce a thing. 52. Such misconduct by the petitioner and her attorney constitutes frivolous and malicious litigation in violation of Constitution, CPLR, 22 NYCRR Part 130 and attorneys Ethics. 53. Accordingly, respondent objects to petitioners intent to bring undisclosed witness at trial in her and Mr. Fasones attempt to conduct a trial by ambush. 54. Respondent is confident, that he is entitled to summary judgment because no questions of law or fact exist in this action, since there is no violation of VOID order, which respondent affirmatively asserted as defense in his answer, but petitioner failed and refused to rebut. 55. The whole purpose of bringing contempt action by LEVORITZ, is his attempt to coerce

respondent-father to withdraw his timely filed appeal and petition for custody as discussed in respondents numerous motions, which all denied without a hearing by Fasone. 56. In these motions, respondent-father addresses LEVORITZs violation of Code of Professional Responsibility not to file criminal charges for the purpose of gaining advantage in civil matter, which is what child support and custody proceedings are. 57. Proof is in conversation between LEVORITZ and KRICHEVSKY after conference in part 52 in the hall of this court and described in witness affidavit as Exhibit E. 58. Petitioner and her attorneys numerous misconducts during this, respondents petition to modify support order and child support proceeding, which made child support order void per CPLR 5015 (a) (therefore not lawful for the purpose of this proceeding), must be estopped through doctrine of unclean hands from seeking any relief in law or equity as well. 59. If the jury trial is scheduled, and the jury is fully informed of the law and facts of this case, it is unlikely that they will find respondent-father guilty for criminal non-support. 60. In the case of IN THE MATTER OF DE SANCHEZ, 2008 NY Slip Op 50342 - NY: Supreme Court (2008) judge stated, court may relieve an aggrieved party from a judgment "upon the ground of . . . lack of jurisdiction to render the judgment" (CPLR 5015 [a] [4]). Under this subdivision, if the court lacked jurisdiction over a defendant, vacatur is not discretionary (see Cipriano v. Hank, 197 AD2d 295, 298 [1st Dept 1994]; Boorman v. Deutsch, 152 AD2d 48, 51 [1st Dept 1989], appeal dismissed 76 NY2d 889 [1990]; Shaw v. Shaw, 97 AD2d 403, 404 [2d Dept 1983]). A motion to vacate a judgment for lack of jurisdiction may be made at any time (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C5015:3, at 206).

61. The judge further stated, In the context of a motion to set aside a judgment, "extrinsic fraud" has been defined as a "fraud practiced in obtaining a judgment such that a party may have been prevented from fully and fairly litigating the matter'" (Bank of NY v. Lagakos,27 AD3d 678, 679 [2d Dept 2006], quoting Shaw v. Shaw, 97 AD2d 403 [2d Dept 1983]; see also Aguirre v. Aguirre, 245 AD2d 5, 7 [1st Dept 1997]). 62. Mr. Fasone lost his jurisdiction and the party, that may have been prevented from fully and fairly litigating the matter is Mr. Krichevsky, who on numerous occasions through his motions and on the record raised these issues as well and he is respectfully moving this court to take Judicial Notice of Law and Facts and to do Justice!

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that these objection and motions be granted in their entirety, and for such other and further relief as to this Court and Interest of Justice seems just and proper, including the costs of these motions. X________________________________ MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Pro Se All rights reserved without prejudice

Sworn to before me this ___ day of July, 2011 _________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC

FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS _____________________________________________________ ELENA SVENSON, Petitioner, -againstMICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Respondent-father. _____________________________________________________ AFFIDAVIT OF WITNESS INDEX NO. F-28901-08/10A/B

STATE OF NEW YORK SS: COUNTY OF KINGS Semyon Furmanov, being duly sworn, says: 1. I am not a party to the action; I reside at Brooklyn, New York, and I am over 18 years of age. 2. I know Mr. Krichevsky since the year of 2000. 3. On or about June 14, 2010 I came with Mr. Krichevsky at part 52 of Brooklyn Family Court as observer and/or witness at his custody conference as I knew David Svenson since 2000 as well. 4. When conference was over, Mr. Levoritz called Mr. Krichevsky and approached him. 5. I was staying about ten steps from them when Mr. Levoritz started talking to Mr. Krichevsky. 6. Suddenly, Mr. Krichevsky became loud and said, So, you are blackmailing and threatening me with criminal prosecution? You are in breach of lawyers ethics! 7. Mr. Levoritz became also loud and replied, I can do that as lawyer because you are Pro Se!

8. Then Mr. Krichevsky became angry and yelled: You can send me to jail, but I am not going to sell my son!, and left. 9. When Krichevsky reached me, I said to him, What was that for? 10. He replied, That curse word made me an offer I cannot refuse, he wants me to withdraw my petition for custody, drop my appeal and agree to convert my 30 grand of arrears to judgment in exchange for him dropping contempt charges. He watched too many mafia movies. 11. Mr. Krichevsky was and had every right to be angry and upset with this evil conduct. Respectfully submitted on July 1, 2011

______________________________ SEMYON FURMANOV Sworn to before me on July , 2011

_______________________ NOTARY PUBLIC

FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS _____________________________________________________ ELENA SVENSON, Petitioner, -againstMICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Respondent-father. _____________________________________________________ STATE OF NEW YORK SS: COUNTY OF KINGS Semyon Furmanov, being duly sworn, says: 1. I am not a party to the action; I reside at Brooklyn, New York, and I am over 18 years of age. 2. On the ____ day of July, 2011, I served the within Objection, Notice of Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment together with Supporting Affidavits, by depositing true copies thereof, enclosed in a post-paid wrapper, in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service within New York State, addressed to the following at the last known address set forth below: ELENA SVENSON 2620 OCEAN PKWY, #3K Brooklyn, New York 11235 ______________________________ SEMYON FURMANOV Sworn to before me on July , 2011 AFFIDAVIT OF MAIL SERVICE INDEX NO. F-28901-08/10B

_______________________ NOTARY PUBLIC

FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ----------------------------------------------------------------DOCKET # F-28901-08/10A/B ELENA SVENSON, Petitioner,

-against-

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------___________________________________________________

OBJECTION, NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT ___________________________________________________

The documents herein are hereby certified pursuant to 25 NYCRR 130-1.1-A By: ________________________________

Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se 4221 ATLANTIC AVE. Brooklyn, New York 11224 (718) 687-2300