Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
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.
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
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
2. Lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
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
6. 1 partially admit paragraph 23 that I made payments to plaintiff and add that payments were
8. Denies and rebuts presumption by plaintiff in paragraph 13 that the phrase "dues and
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
9. For this cause of action, I reallege prior paragraph(s) and 24 as being answered before
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
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.
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,
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
28. The court lacks personal jurisdiction due to plaintiffs failure to comply with condition
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.
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
30. When I was discussing the purchase of the property in Sea Gate, real estate agent told me
homeowners. I did not question that statement because it is widely used term describing form of
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
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
34. HOA means that homeowners elect Board of managers, who in turn hire Maintenance
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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.
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."
51. The plaintiffs cause of action may not be maintained because of plaintiffs failure to
52. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs property ownership and easement is not recorded
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.
marketable and/or clear title to the subject matter of the alleged contract sued upon.
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
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
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:
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.
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
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
61. Plaintiff never explained to me why such formula was used, who came up with this idea
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
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
11
65. Upon information and belief derived from city evaluation of my property, its value from
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
68. From 2005, this "dues and charges," allegedly owned, almost doubled, and therefore
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
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
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
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,
77. That the alleged implied agreement herein was not made for good and valuable
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
80. It is one sided, self-served and self-written, vague, and therefore null and void.
81. That ifthe plaintiffsustained any damages as alleged, such damages were caused, in whole
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.
84. The claim sued upon has been extinguished by prior fair amount of payment thereofin full
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.
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
88. The attorney, who allegedly represents plaintiff, knows that he has no delegated authority
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
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
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
92. Accordingly, this alleged debt is unenforceable under State or Federal law in whole or in
93. In conclusion, the money they are suing me for is an advantage, profit, or gain received as
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."
97. That the plaintiff has failed to join a necessary party and this Court should not proceed in
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).
100. According to all Board members' representations during board elections, people were
undisclosed shareholders, with undisclosed bank accounts and assets such as titles to real estate
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
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.
accounting even though the contract between restaurant and a patron implied by consummation of
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
105. The phrase "trust me," which people and I heard many times when asked for accounting is
verification. Regardless, to get a bill with accounting is my Common Law right and, per FDCPA,
statutory right.
Bvlaws
106. Plaintiff contends that Bylaws is contract. In that case, it is void for confusing language.
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.
nuisance
109. By disconnection of my access key, among other acts, plaintiff crated nuisance and as
111. Plaintiff failed to return my numerous deposits for gate entrance key after flood destroyed
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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").
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
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
132. Pursuant to 18 USC § 1964(a) and (c), this District Court has original jurisdiction to
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
(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 §§
136. I bring this suit pursuant to 18 USC § 1341 for an intentional scheme by Defendants to
137. I bring this suit pursuant to 18 USC § 1512 for concealment of records in official
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
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
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
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,
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
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.
as self insured principal and/or employer of third-party defendants who committed torts and
149. Below listed by me men and women are third-party defendants sued in their individual
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,
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
153. Doe 1 -10 are unknown or unidentified shareholders, employees and/or agents of
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
163. Lance Bums is also a member of'"legal" committee and authorized Mr. Wohlberg to file
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.
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"
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
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
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
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
"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
181. Below written statement from complaint against me tells the tale of how I allegedly
"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
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
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
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
187. Accordingly, in By-laws, SEAGATE failed to alert and disclose to others and to me that it
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
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
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
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
The intent, By-laws, Rules and Regulations are not explained and/or justified.
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
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
inducement
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
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
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
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
215. SEAGATE knew that By-laws are silent about its corporate assets, especially its real estate
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,
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.
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
224. As a direct and proximate result ofthe above, I was damaged,continue being damaged and
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.
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
Enterprise
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.
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,
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.
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:
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
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:
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.
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
240. The following racketeering acts, either one of which alone constitutes one racketeering act.
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
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
243. As a direct and proximate result ofthe above, I was damaged,continue being damaged and
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.
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
246. For a declaratory judgment that all alleged by SEAGATE real estate properties belong to
41
248. Per FDCPA,I am consumer.
249. Per FDCPA § 1692 a[5), definition of a Debt is an obligation for money,goods,
250. Alan J. Wohlberg regularly collects consumer debts alleged to be due to another, and
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,
254. Actions of Wohlberg, including participation in "legal" committee were intended and did
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
42
256. I, therefore seek declaratory relief that challenges SEAGATE'S validity, legality and
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
259. Filing RPAPL 15 claim before contacting me and trying to settle dispute out of court
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.
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
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
44
269. As a proximate result of the above. I was damaged, continue being damaged and will be
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.
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
273. I request that this court issue injunctive relief prohibiting third-party defendants to engage
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.
275. Please take notice that defendant and third-party plaintiff demands trial by Jury in this
action.
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.
46