district court of the United States

Eastern District of New York

THE SEA GATE ASSOCIATION

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

Michael Krichevsky ,

Defendant.

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a)and 1446, the above-

captioned action is removed by defendant Michael Krichevsky (Krichevsky)from the New York

State Supreme Court, Kings County to the district court ofthe United States for the Eastern

District of New York, by the filing ofthis Notice of Removal with the Clerk ofthe district court

of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. As grounds, Krichevsky states as

follows:

1. On May 18,2018,1, Michael Krichevsky, learned from complaint laying on the ground of

my property that THE SEA GATE ASSOCIATION started action against me in Kings County

Supreme Court, entitled COMLAINT (the "State Court Action"). A copy ofthe Original

SUMMONS and COMPLAINT, which purportedly constitutes pleadings presumably served

upon me in the State Court Action, is attached as Exhibit A.

2. This Notice of Removal is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) within thirty days

"after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy ofthe initial pleading

setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based," and therefore is

timely, see Murphy Bros. Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing Inc.^ 526 U.S. 344(1999). In that case,

the court also stated "... mere receipt of a complaint unattended by any formal service did not
trigger a defendant's time to remove a case from state court/' Accordingly, the thirty-day period

triggered and started to run on May 18, 2018 when I found it.

3. A copy of the written notice required by 28 U.S.C. §1446(d), addressed to the adverse

party and to New York State Supreme Court, Kings County is attached as Exhibit B and will be

filed in the state court from where this action was removed and forwarded to the plaintiff upon

the filing ofthis Notice of Removal.

4. Venue lies in this district pursuant to Section 1391(b) of Title 28 ofthe United States

Code.

5. I remove this action to the district court of the United States for the Eastern District of

New York pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), on the ground that this Court has

original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

6. This case is about fighting for and preserving natural and human rights already set forth

in our federal constitution. This court has a solemn responsibility and duty to protect the U.S.

Constitution and the rights of the people guaranteed therein. As the United States Supreme Court

stated in ex parte Young,209 US 123(1908):

"It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is
equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the
legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines ofthe
Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts,
with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be
brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise ofjurisdiction
which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would
be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid,
but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our bestjudgment, and
conscientiously perform our duty."(at 143)

7. The claims set forth in the Counterclaim and Third-party Complaint raise questions of

federal law:
 United States Constitution - fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendments - equal
protection, due process;
United Stales Constitution - thirteenth amendment - slavery, peonage;
Federal question jurisdiction pursuant to Article III § 2 of U.S. Const.,28 USC §
1331,28 use § 1343;
18 USC §§ 1341, 1512. 1951. 1952 and 18 USC §§ 1961, 1962, and 1964-
Violation of RICO
15U.S.C. § 1692 violation of the FDCPA;
28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 and All Writs Act- Declaratory and injunctive relief;

8. I remove this action to the district court of the United States for the Eastern District of

New York pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Civil rights cases: Any of the

following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed by

the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the

place wherein it is pending:

(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State
a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United
States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof:
(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal
rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent
with such law.

WHEREFORE,defendant Krichevsky removes the State Court Action from the New York State

Supreme Court, Kings County, to this Court, and moves this Court take jurisdiction of this civil

action to the exclusion of any further proceedings in said state court.

Dated: June 15, 2018

Brooklyn. New York

Respectfully submitted,

4221 Atlantic Ave

Brooklyn, New York 11224
718-687-2300