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

F-28901-08/10/A/B/C Elena Svenson, Petitioner, JUDICIAL NOTICE TO v. THE COURT Michael Krichevsky, Respondent. _____________________________________________________

Notice to the court under the authority of the constitutions of the United States and the State of New York; authority of the United States Supreme Court and Demand for this court to follow the Supreme Law of the Land.

1.

Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se, by special visitation and without submitting to the

jurisdiction of this court hereby puts this court on judicial notice to cease and desist any further unlawful assault against me and my son David Svenson. 2. Michael Krichevsky hereby challenges the jurisdiction of John Fasone and hereby puts

him on judicial notice that the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly established that once jurisdiction has been challenged, it is presumed that the court lacks jurisdiction unless or until the evidentiary sufficiency is provided and submitted to the record. 3. The presumption is that a court lacks jurisdiction on a particular issue until it has been

demonstrated that jurisdiction over the subject matter exists. The facts showing the existence of jurisdiction must be affirmatively in the record. 4. If jurisdiction is challenged, the burden is on the party claiming jurisdiction to

demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. The limits upon jurisdiction

must be neither disregarded nor evaded. The requirement to submit admissible evidence upon the record proving jurisdiction once jurisdiction is challenged is mandatory. 5. The Supreme Court of the United States as well as lower courts have consistently

reaffirmed the requirement that once jurisdiction is challenged those who claim jurisdiction must submit the evidence to prove the validity of the claim. See Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct 14, 24 (1908), Old Wayne Mutual Life Association v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907), Scott v. McNeai, 154 U.S. 34, 14, S.Ct. 1 108 (1894), Pennoyer v.Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733 (1877), Hagen v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, at 533, 39 L.ed. 577, 94 S.Ct/ 1372 (N.Y. March 28, 1974), United States v. Ruger, 23 F. 658 (W.D. Ark. (1885), State of Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 900 S. Ct. 2502 (1980), McNutt v.Geneml Motors Acceptance Corp. of Indiana, Inc. , 298 U.S. 178, 80 L.Ed. 1135, 56 S.Ct 780 (9136), (jurisdiction may never be presumed), Special Indemnify Fund v.Pruitt, 225 F.2d. 308, 201 Okl. 308, (jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown), United States v.Chairito, 69 F. Supp. 3 17 (D. Or. 1946) (jurisdiction cannot be presumed), Standard v.Olesen, 98 L. Ed. 1151, 74 S.Ct. 768 (1954), Garcia v. Dail, 586 S.W. 2d. 524, at 528, (Tex. C.A. 1980) (lack of jurisdiction requires dismissal), Burks v. Laskar, 441 U.S. 471 (1 979) and Title 5 U.S.C. 556 & 558(b). 6. Generally, there is no requirement for one subjected to a "void" judgment to do anything

more than call the trial courts attention to the mistake or fraud with a request to correct its record and order. 7. CPLR 5015(a) provides grounds and procedure for relief in this action. John Fasone had

fiduciary duty to provide justice and relief. 8. John Fasone has failed and refused to provide relief or dispute respondents claims.

9.

Child support hearing was a sham hearing where every attempt by respondent and his

attorney to establish admissible evidence on the record, which would prove fraud and perjury by petitioner, was not allowed by John Fasone. 10. All of respondents and his attorneys pleadings have been ignored. This court is hereby

ordered to cease and desist this unlawful attack in this proceeding and rebut with particularity anything in this pleading that you disagree with which is your duty. 11. In United States v. Prudden, 424 F. 2d 1021 (1970) judge stated: silence can only be

equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. 12. 13. This court should take judicial notice of legal maxim: Silence is Acquiescence. This Court is deprived of subject matter/personam jurisdiction to hear this case because

of the behavior exhibited by John Fasone in these proceedings. 14. Unless, this court has subject matter/personam jurisdiction any order rendered

by John Fasone in this instant case is null and void and has no force of law. 15. Judge Paula Hepner ordered respondent to appear on December 12, 2011 before John

Fasone to reargue this case. 16. 17. Respondent objects to this order and will appear as belligerent claimant under duress. As one anonymous attorney stated: To put it bluntly, why would you ever rely upon

those who have been torturing you for so long to show you the way to find relief from the torture? All they are doing is moving you from the room with the rack to the room with the thumbscrews and the nail pullers. You are still going to be bent over, shafted and tossed onto the dung heap for the dogs to sniff at and pee on while they, once again, laugh all the way to the bank.

THEREFORE, Michael Krichevsky, do hereby declare that this case is null and void as it stands. He demands that this court must establish jurisdiction on the record with verifiable information and documentation that would contradict his above stated FACTS. In the same breath, he demands that this court pursuant to its inability to prove jurisdiction to dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction.

I, Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, under penalty of perjury declare that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: Brooklyn, New York December 1, 2011

_______________________________________________ Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se, without prejudice