THE CRIMES OF SENATOR EHIGIE EDOBOR A.K.A. "GODWIN" UZAMERE
1. Home2. Once Upon A Time3. Victim's Statement4. My Search for Justice5. Descent into Hell6. U.S. Laws Violated by Senator Uzamere7. Nigerian Laws Violated by Senator Uzamere8. Ignored by Federal Agencies9. Ignored by Nigerian Authorities10. Victims' Loss of Child Support11. The Uzamere Family12. Municipal Employees Who Helped Senator Uzamere13. John Gray and Non-Profit Legal Community14. Hall of Shame15. 1st Judicial Blow By African-American Judge Thomas16. Law Firm of Allen E. Kaye17. Too Many Discrepancies...18. Allen E. Kaye And His Diabolical Talmud-Following Minions19. Will Sampson Staff Refuse To Help Identity Fraud Victims?20. Law Office of Gladstein & Messinger21. Patrick Synmoie's Attempts to Hide22. Consulate General of Nigeria23. Strange Chat with Senator Ekweremadu24. Proof of Legal Marriage25. Proof of Illegal Marriage/Identity Fraud26. Senator Uzamere's Attempts to Hide Crimes Will Fail27. The Proof...28. Success -- The Proof Is Finally Here!29. Will Senator Uzamere Evade Child Support Again?30. Nigeria's New Commitment to Protect Child Abandoned by Sen. Uzamere31. Judge Prus -- What Gives?32. Back on Track!33. Eugene Uzamere -- Third Attorney to Break the Law34. Petitioner's Verified Petition35. Supplemental Verified Petition36. Judge Prus Recuses Himself37. Eugene's Failed Attempt to Thwart Justice38. Kate Ezomo -- Diabolical Liar39. Letters of Complaint Against Kate Ezomo40. My Factual Response to Imaginary Cousin Godwin41. Federal Action Against Defendant Dismissed42. Open Letters to the FBI43. Open Letter to All U.S. Judges44. Open Letter to Ehigie and Eugene45. Tara's Affidavit46. $100,000,000.00 Lawsuit Against Corrupt Fiduciaries47. Will Fiduciaries Settle?48. New York City Defrauds Disabled Schvartze49. There Is No Cousin Godwin!50. Warning Letter to Governor and Chief Justice of New York State51. Deprived of Child Support by Allen Kaye52. Can International Agency Help?53. Chief Judge Wood's Court54. Will NYS' Dept. Disc. Committee and Commission on Judicial Conduct Be Corrupted?55. Subpoena Planned for Judge Garaufis56. No Negotiations for Justice...Justice is Owed!57. Will Attorneys Sign Affirmation?58. Am I Finally Being Taken Seriously?59. Evidentiary Hearing is Scheduled!60. Amy Feinstein Refuses to Prosecute!61. Robert Juceam's Useless Excuses62. Appellate Brief pages 24 to end63. No Justice -- No Peace!64. Happy Birthday My Beautiful Angel65. Are You A Victim of A Green Card Marriage Scam?66. End Green Card Marriage Sponsorship67. How to Report an Immigration Scammer and the Attorney68. Is The End Finally in Sight?69. Will Appellate Division Justices Decide Fairly?70. What Will NYSCJC's Response Be?71. How Will NYSDDC Respond?72. Will Obama's Administration Coerce Helpless Schvartze's Silence73. Will U.S. Department of State's Secretary Rise To The Challenge?74. Eugene Uzamere Calls It Quits75. Bigot Judge Sunshine Continues Courtroom Corruption76. Schvartze's Complaints Still Ignored By Appellate Division's White Judiciary77. More Talmudic Bias and Anti-Schvartze Racism At SDNY78. Senator Uzamere...You Are The Husband!79. Will U.S. Solicitor General Office Look On Idly?80. What will SCOTUS Do?81. Why did they disobey?82. Cabranes' Fraud Upon The Court83. Is Hinds-Radix Their 'Secret' Weapon?84. New York State Lawsuit for Fraud85. Judge Sunshine Is A Loser86. Judge Sunshine Out of Options87. Petitioner Prepares Request for Rehearing...88. Petition for Rehearing89. Loser Sunshine's Last Hurrah90. Lawsuit Against Daily News and Scott Shifrel91. Mort Zuckerman's Bigoted Tabloid92. Corruption at Nassau County Supreme Court and Nassau County Clerk93. Judge Scuccimarra Ruling94. Defendants Have Defaulted95. Will Judge Parga Accepts Anne Carroll's Drivel Because Defendants Are Rich Jews?96. New York and Anne B. Carroll97. Lawsuit Against President98. Will Obama Listen?99. Open Letter to Al Jazeera, President Obama and Judge Allegra100. More Court Shenanigans?101. Howard U. Schmokescreen102. Into the fire...103. What Will The New York State Division of Human Rights Do?104. Housing Court Corruption105. Mayor Bloomberg's Finest106. FEGS in Criminal Conspiracy107. FEGS Gave Victim No Choice108. What Will The New York State Supreme Court Do?109. What Will Court of Claims Do?110. Abuse of Religion Not New111. How Wicked Are They?112. What Lies???113. Federal Lawsuit114. Disastrous Results to Appeal115. Judge Garaufis' Discriminatory Decision116. Garaufis' Talmudic Shenanigans117. FOIA Hiding Evidence118. Congressional Testimony119. Unintelligible Complaint of Rachel G. Yohalem120. Uzamere v. USA, et al121. Judicial Whores Willy and Patty122. Uzamere v. USA123. Find an Unbiased Court124. U.S. Government Blacklists Own Citizens125. Appellate Brief First Circuit126. U.S. Government Hides Prosecution127. A Jewish RICO128. Jews' Demonic Doctrine -- Law of the Moser129. Mishkin Yanks His Own Nuts130. Will African American Victim of Grand Laceny Receive Justice?131. Judicial Ethics Hypocrite132. Jew Shenanigans Involved in Random Selection of Morally Compromised Judge133. Please save my family!134. Psychopaths135. Jewish Paradigm Put Jews on Top136. Pretender Bharara137. Int'l Complaint Against Israel, United States and Nigeria138. Memorial of Impeachment139. Supplemental Complaint140. Appellate Brief to UN and US141. U.S. Supreme Court Petition -- UN and U.S.142. A Real Man

Tomas Perez adelantó su raza socialmente; ahora puede ignorar los gritos y maltrater los negros en la misma manera como los judios. Si quiere litigar contra un judio, tiene que prestar sus cojones de su esposa judia.
  While Thomas Perez improves his career and social standing by being
married to a Jew, appeal filed against corrupt Jew judge Gaurafis' decision
leads to disastrous results by racist Jew-biased circuit judges

Anti-schvarze, pro-Jew circuit judges and clerk of court initially withhold circuit judges' identities
after rendering illegal decision based solely on appellant's race, mental illness and crime for which
appellate was falsely accused of committing two years earlier by other corrupt, racist Jews; same
Jew-biased court didn't dismiss case of disruptive Jewish plaintiff who missed two court dates
without giving the court a reason
ThomasEPerez.jpgJudgeRaggi.jpgJudgeCarney.jpgJudgeKahn.jpgcatherineohaganwolfe2.jpg
 
blackmanbeingburnedbywhites_jpg_w300h304.jpg 
Eckfordandangrywhitecrowd.jpg
 
 lynchingofnakedblackman.gif
braunwithobamatshirt.jpg
 africanslaveafterbeingbullwhipped3.jpg
blacksbeingwaterhosed.jpg
No Le Pegue a la Negra!
Quiero contarle mi hermano un pedacito de la historia negra, de la
historia nuestra, caballero
I want to tell you mi brother a piece of black history, of our history gentleman

Y dice asi:
and it goes like this
Uhh!
Dice!

En los anos mil seiscientos, cuando el tirano mando
In the 1600s, when the tyrrant ruled
las calles de Cartagena, aquella historia vivio.
the streets of Cartagena, that history it lived
Cuando alli llegaban esos negreros, africanos en cadenas
When there, arrived those ..., with the africans in chains
besaban mi tierra, esclavitud perpetua
they kissed my land, lifelong slavery
Esclavitud perpetua
Esclavitud perpetua

Que lo diga salome y que te de llego, llego, llego

Un matrimonio africano, esclavos de
An african couple, slaves of
un espanol, el les daba muy mal trato
a spanish man, who ill treated them (abused)
y a su negra le pego
and his blacklady struck
Y fue alli, se revelo el ***** guapo, tomo
And it was there were the gutsy black man revealed himself
venganza por su amor y aun se escucha
took revenge for his love and you can still hear him
en la verja, no le pegue a mi negra
on the(fence, or railings?) dont hit my blacklady
No le pegue a la negra
No le pegue a la negra

Oye man!!
No le pegue a la negra
no le pegue a la negra
no, no, no ,no, no, no,
no, no, no, no, no, no
(varias veces)

Oye esa negra se me respeta
hey you respect my lady
Ehh, que aun se escucha, se escucha en la verja,
no, no, no, no, no
no, no, no, no, no
no, no, no, no, no le pegue a la negra

Negra que me dice..

No le pegue a la negra
no le pegue a la negra
no le pegue a la negra
no le pegue

Y con ustedes... chelito de casa

Vamos a ver que le pegue a jeva
lets see what i stuck to jeva
porque el alma, que el alma, que el alma
because the soul., the soul, the soul
que el alma, que el alma se me revienta
the soul the soul is bursting
Ehh, no, no, no, no, no, no le pegue a mi negra
porque el alma se me agita mi prieta
because de soul is agitated my lady
El Chombo lo sabe
ElChombo knows
y tu tambien
and you do too
no le pegue a la negra
dont hit my lady
 

11-2713-CV

Horizontal Divider 30

United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit

Horizontal Divider 30

Cheryl D. Uzamere,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

Horizontal Divider 30

Andrew M. Cuomo, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New York; Nirav R. Shah, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health; Michael F. Hogan, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health; Ann Pfau, in her official capacity as Chief Administrative Judge for the New York State Unified Court System; Roy L. Reardon, in his official capacity as Chair of the New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York State Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department; State of New York; the New York State Department Of Health; the New York State Office Of Mental Health; the New York State Unified Court System; the Daily News, LP; Uzamere & Associates, PLLC; Allen E. Kaye, PC; the Law Offices Of Harvey Shapiro; Gladstein and Messinger; Federation Employment and Guidance Service, Interfaith Hospital and Medical Center; New York Psychotherapy and Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn

Horizontal Divider 30

Defendant-Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York

Horizontal Divider 30

Cheryl D. Uzamere
Appearing Pro Se
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495

Horizontal Divider 30

On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO ORAL ARGUMENT

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

STATEMENT OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENTS

POINT I: The District Court Abused Its Discretion by Failing to Certify Its Reasons in Writing Pursuant to Coppedge vs. United States

POINT II: Appellant's Request for Review of Her Allegations Satisfies the "Good Faith" Requirement of Coppedge v. United States

CONCLUSION

Horizontal Divider 30

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

Due Process (Fifth, Fourteenth Amendments)

U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES

Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992)

Burford v. Sun Oil, 319 U.S. 315

Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926)

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438

Farley v. United States, 354 U.S. 521, 77, S.Ct. Il. Ed.2d 1529

, 541, U.S. 504 (2004) 17

., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) 16, 17

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS CASES

Boyce v. Alizaduh, 595, F2d 948, 951 (4th Cir. 1979) 13

Crisafi v. Holland, et al, 655 F.2d 1305 12, 13, 14

McTeague v. Sosnowski, 617, F2d 1016, 1019 (3rd Circuit, 1980) 13

U.S. DISTRICT COURT CASES

New York City Housing Authority, Managed by Louis H. Pink Houses v. Uzamere, 1:07-cv-01194-NGG-LB

Uzamere v. John Doe, et al 1:07-cv-02471-NGG-LB

Uzamere v. State of New York, 1:09-cv-02703-NGG-LB

Uzamere vs. Bush, et al, 1:08-cv-00891-NGG-LB

Uzamere vs. United States Postal Service, 1:09-cv-03709-NGG-LB 11

FEDERAL STATUTES

28 C.F.R. §35.130(d) 17

28 C.F.R. pt. 35 app. A. 17

28 U.S.C. §1291 2

28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3) 9

28 U.S.C. §1915(d) 13, 14

28 U.S.C. 1331 2

29 U.S.C. §791 1, 16

29 U.S.C. 794a 18

42 U.S.C. §1983 vi, 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 20

42 U.S.C. §1985 vi, 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 20

42 U.S.C.§12101 1, 16

42 U.S.C. §12131(1) 17

42 U.S.C. §12131(2) 18

42 U.S.C. §12131-12134 17

42 U.S.C. §12133 18

92 Stat. 2982 18

F.R.A.P. Rule 4(a)(1)(A) 2

F.R.A.P. Rule 24(a)

Section 504, Rehabilitation Act

Section 505, Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Title II, ADA

NEW YORK STATE CASE COURT CASES

Uzamere vs. Uzamere, 2009, NY Slip Op 09214 [68 AD3d 855]

Cheryl D. Uzamere, Appellant, v Ehigie E. Uzamere, Respondent

NEW YORK STATE STATUTES

22 NYCRR §50.1 19

22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(8) 19

22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(11) 19

OTHER AUTHORITIES

National Alliance for the Mentally Ill,

NAMI Challenger, Spring 18

Horizontal Divider 30

STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO ORAL ARGUMENT

          Cheryl D. Uzamere, appearing on her own behalf, requests oral argument. Oral argument will help the Appellant personalize the trauma she continues to suffer as a results of the Defendants' violation of her rights relating to Title II, ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42 U.S.C. §1985 in ways that an appellate brief never could.

          The District Court abused its discretion in determining that Appellant's Complaint had no arguable basis in either fact or law because it did not certify in writing the reasons for its dismissal pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's standard of review, and by exacerbating its indiscretion by having the memorandum-lacking order filed as a Memorandum and Order. By committing such act the District Court violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.

          In Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962), it states that if a litigant who wishes to proceed pro se has not yet received the plenary review of her action, she is entitled to the benefits of presenting either oral argument to the Court of Appeals.

Horizontal Divider 30
 

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

          Appellant Cheryl D. Uzamere, appearing on her own behalf, submits this brief in support of her appeal from so much of a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Hon. Nicholas G. Garaufis, U.S.D.J.), dismissing Appellant's Complaint as lacking any arguable basis in fact or law.

          Appellant asserts that this Court should reverse so much of the district court’s order and judgment because the District Court failed to supply the required memorandum and standard of review upon which a district court's decision must be based pursuant to FRCP Rule 12.

          In addition, this Court should hold that Appellant has established ample proof of her allegations that Defendants violated Title II, ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42 U.S.C. §1985 that she has satisfied the “good faith” requirement of Coppedge v. United States States sufficiently to proceed in forma pauperis.

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

          This is an action for violation of Title II of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §791, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42 U.S.C. §1985. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. Jurisdiction in this Court is based upon 28 U.S.C. §1291, in that this is an appeal from a final judgment of the district court disposing of all claims by all parties. The final judgment was entered on June 22, 2011 and the notice of appeal was filed on June 29, 2011. This appeal is thus timely, F.R.A.P. 4(a)(1)(A).

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

          1)     Whether the District Court abused its discretion by failing to certify its reasons in writing for dismissing Appellant Complaint.

          2)     Whether Appellant's request to proceed in forma pauperis for review of her allegations of Defendants' violations of Title II, ADA, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1985 satisfies the "good faith" requirement of Coppedge v. United states.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

          This appeal has its basis in Defendants' violations of Appellant's Fourteenth-Amendment right to equal protection under the law, and Defendants' violation of Appellant's right to protection as a mentally-disabled American pursuant to Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Appellant asserts that said constitutional and statutory violations arose during Appellant's litigation of the case Uzamere vs. Uzamere, 2009, NY Slip Op 09214 [68 AD3d 855]1 a year after the Appellant filed her divorce action that identified Defendant law firm Allen E. Kaye PC as the law firm that facilitated her ex-husband's commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud. Appellant asserts that after she filed her divorce action that identified Allen E. Kaye, Esq. and Harvey Shapiro as facilitating Ehigie Uzamere's commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud, Defendants, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42 U.S.C. §1985 engaged in a criminal conspiracy designed to blacklist the Appellant to prevent her from filing complaints against Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro and later Jack Gladstein so as to prevent the Appellant from receiving honest services from Title II, ADA-covered State courts and Title II, ADA-covered not-for-profit outpatient psychiatric facilities based on Defendant Daily News' public “diagnosis” of Appellant as an “anti-Semitic wacko”; to deprive Appellant of more integrated outpatient psychiatric programs first, by arresting Appellant as a criminally-minded, insane anti-Semite so as to railroad Appellant into an inpatient psychiatric setting. Appellant asserts that Defendants' goal was and still is to use the media, government Defendants' judicial system, and government Defendants' mental health system to illegally disclose Appellant's Title II, ADA-protected psychiatric information to misdiagnose Appellant as an “anti-Semitic wacko” as a legal substitute for filing an action for defamation against the Appellant to disprove Appellant's allegations, and to discredit the truth of Appellant's allegations based solely on the existence of Appellant's mental illness.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

          On November 21, 1979, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere used the fraudulent name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” and fraudulent birthday “June 1, 1955” to enter into a fraudulent marriage the Appellant. A-1-3.

          On or around November 30, 1979, Allen E. Kaye, PC represented as true and correct Appellant's ex-husband as “Godwin Ehigie” on the I-130 immediate relative sponsorship forms. A-4-5.

          In October 2007, Appellant asserts that she correctly refiled her action for divorce, holding that someone in the law firm's employ presented the marriage license as true and correct. A-6-12.

          In September 2008, Nigerian new-gathering agency Point Blank News published an article in which Defendant law firm Uzamere and Associate's held Appellant to be crazy. A-13-14.

          On October 8, 2008, while defending Appellant's ex-husband in government Defendant's court, Osato Uzamere asked the State court to dismiss Appellant's case as “delusional.” A-15-18.

          By January 2009, Appellant received proof of her ex-husband's identity from Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. Correspondence from Rachel McCarthy is reported at A-19-20.

          By January 12, 2009, Defendant New York State Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine held that “. . .the opposition submitted by defendant raises a genuine issues as to whether or not plaintiff and defendant were married in the first instance.” A-21.

          On January 20, 2009, the Appellant e-mailed a complaint to the former U.S. Embassy regarding Justice Sunshine's attempt to facilitate Appellant's ex-husband's act of identity fraud. A-22-23.

          On May 12, 2009, Justice Sunshine rendered his Decision and Order holding Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be Appellant's husband. A-24-25.

          On or near June 12, 2009, Appellant received additional information from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service establishing Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as her husband and the father of their daughter, Tara A. Uzamere. A-26-36.

          On or around July 17, 2009, with proof of Appellant's ex-husband's and Defendant law firms' act of identity, Appellant filed Index No. 18012/2009, action for fraud against her ex-husband and employees of Defendant law firms Allen E. Kaye, PC, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.

          On October 28, 2009, attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein filed affirmations holding “Godwin Uzamere”, to be Appellant's husband. B-1-28.

          On November 3, 2009, Appellant was arrested by the New York City Police Department for threatening Justice Sunshine. B-29.

          On November 5, 2009, Defendant Daily News, LP, published a news article in print and on the internet that publicly disclosed Appellant's Title II, ADA-protected, confidential psychiatric information including Appellant's name, age, town of residence, psychiatric treatment facility, diagnosis, symptoms associated with Appellant's “psychosis”, and Judge Gerstein's declaration that Appellant is mentally unfit with in a manner that held the Appellant to be psychotic based upon, inter alia, Appellant's “stripping and screaming about her 'senator' husband”, that “Godwin Uzamere” is Appellant's real husband, and that Appellant is an “anti-Semitic wacko.” B-30.

          On November 30, 2009, Federation Employment and Guidance Service terminated its mental health services to the Appellant. B-31-32.

          On December 7, 2009, the Appellant was placed with Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility.

          On December 8, 2009, pursuant to Judiciary Law §431, New York State Reporting Bureau published 2009 NY Slip Op 09214 [68 AD3d 855]. The caption of the case is entitled Cheryl D. Uzamere, Appellant, v Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Respondent. The term “also known as Godwin Uzamere” was removed.

          On December 24, 2009, Appellant was seen by Honorable Anthony Cutrona of Kings County Supreme Court's Mental Hygiene Court. B-33.

          On January 15, 2010, Defendant NYSUCS' judicial employee Justice Arthur M. Schack contacted Defendant OMH's psychiatrist Dr. Marie Bauduy of the Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility and ordered her not to produce the Appellant for court, holding that Appellant to be unfit to proceed. B-34-36.

          During the beginning of February, 2010, Appellant was discharged by Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility.

          On February 23, 2010, Appellant was taken out of her apartment by force and later hospitalized by Defendant OMH'S Kingsboro Psychiatric Center. During Appellant's last week as an inpatient, Kingsboro social worker Laurie Velcimé informed the Appellant that virtually all the not-for-profit outpatient mental health facilities that Ms. Velcimé contacted rejected her request to provide Appellant with outpatient psychiatric services. C-1-4.

          On March 15, 2010, Justice Matthew D'Emic rendered his Decision and Order holding Ehigie E. Uzamere to be Appellant's husband and father of Tara A. Uzamere, the child of the marriage. Exhibit C-5-8.

          On April 18, 2010, Appellant was seen by Honorable Anthony Cutrona of Kings County Supreme Court's Mental Hygiene Court. C-9.

          On May 14, 2010, the Appellant appeared before Justice Arthur M. Schack. During the motion hearing, Appellant complained that the court would not allow her to speak. Appellant also complained about Defendant Daily News. Justice Arthur M. Schack told Appellant to sue the Daily News, and the one of the Zuckerman's has money. C-10-26.

          On July 13, 2010, Justice Arthur M. Schack rendered his decision, fraudulently holding “Godwin Uzamere” to be Appellant's husband. Decision and Order of the Honorable Arthur M. Schack's is reported at C-27-34.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

          The Appellant formally requests this Court to review the District Court's finding that her Complaint lacks any arguable basis in fact or law. The District Court cites 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3) and it case law application, Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) as the sole basis of it decision. It incorporates no procedural law to guide its decision. The question then, is whether Appellant's allegations are frivolous or not frivolous. Appellant's causes of action are based in substantive issues regarding her assertions that Defendants blacklisted her by withholding outpatient psychiatric rehabilitative services and honest judicial services in violation of Title II, ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42 U.S.C. §1985. The District Court bound both itself and this Court by referencing Coppedge v. United States, which says in part that “If the claims made or the issues sought to be raised by the applicant are such that their substance cannot adequately be ascertained from the face of the application, the Court of Appeals must provide the . . . to attempt to make a showing that the District Court's certificate of lack of good faith is erroneous. P. 369 U. S. 446.”

          The District Court abused its discretion by failing to certify in writing its basis for stating that that Appellant's Complaint lacks any arguable basis in fact or law because it failed to supply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's standard of review as it did in Appellant's prior lawsuits. Without Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's standard of review, the District Court's claim that Appellant's complaint lacks an arguable basis in act of law is vague, and in violation of Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926), which says that “A . . . statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to its application lacks the first essential of due process of law. P. 269 U. S. 391.” The Appellant also finds that the District Court's abused its discretion, not only because it failed to provide a memorandum explaining Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's standard of review, but also because on the P.A.C.E.R. website, the District Court's memorandum-lacking order is reported as a memorandum and order.

          The District Court made vague inferences to “Plaintiff's long, tired history of vexatious litigation in this court”, essentially asking this Court to find that “Plaintiff's most recent Complaint . . . must be dismissed as frivolous and malicious because . . . Plaintiff's Complaint's lacks any arguable basis in fact or law.” This statement is erroneous. Irrespective of any personal view regarding Appellant's prior action, the prior cases to which the District Court made reference have memoranda that utilize Federal Rules of Civil Procedure standard of review upon which the District Court's dismissal is based. The District Court did not dismiss them solely because they were “long”, “tired” and “vexatious.”2

          The District Court further abused its discretion by making no attempt to address Appellant's specific allegations that clearly establish that Defendants blacklisted her by withholding not-for-profit, outpatient psychiatric services and honest judicial services based on Appellant's having been diagnosed an “anti-Semitic wacko” in violation of Title II, ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42 U.S.C. §1985. Instead of making specific reference to Appellant's allegations in its memorandum-lacking order, it opted instead to relegate those unmentioned causes of action into the the phrase “other things. . .” Appellant invokes the power of this Court to review those issues that the District Court chose not mention in its memorandum-lacking order.

          For the reasons set forth, the Appellant ask this Court to allow her to proceed in forma pauperis to allow her to present proof that her Complaint was made in good faith.

ARGUMENTS

POINT I

The District Court Abused Its Discretion by Failing to Certify Its Reasons for Dismissing Appellant's Complaint in Writing

          In Crisafi, v. Holland, et al, 655 F.2d 1305 (1981), Salvatore Crisafi, asserted, inter alia, that correction officials arbitrarily curtailed his use of a law library, and denied his requests for writing paper, envelopes, and stamps. The district court granted him leave to file his pro se complaint without prepayment of costs. Simultaneously, the court dismissed the complaint, endorsing on the pleading "Dismissed 28 USC 1915(d)." The court noted in the margin the civil action numbers of six cases Crisafi had filed in the past three years. No further explanation was provided. The district court then denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis, certifying without a statement of reasons that Crisafi's challenge was "frivolous and not taken in good faith.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that “Congress stipulated that a court may dismiss an in forma pauperis proceeding if satisfied that the action is "frivolous or malicious." 28 U.S.C. §1915(d). Section 1915(d), however, provides no basis for “cursory treatment of meritorious complaints.” McTeague v. Sosnowski, 617 F.2d 1016, 1019 (3d Cir. 1980). Discretion to dismiss “may not be exercised arbitrarily and is limited . . . in every case by the language of the statute itself which restricts its application to complaints found to be 'frivolous or malicious.” Boyce v. Alizaduh, 595 F.2d 948, 951 (4th Cir. 1979) . . . The district court did not state on what basis it found Crisafi's complaint frivolous or malicious and did not supply the statement of reasons required by Rule 24(a), Fed.R.App.P., in denying leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. We therefore set out below illustrative situations in which an in forma pauperis pleading properly may be dismissed as "frivolous or malicious," and state why immediate dismissal of Crisafi's complaint was unwarranted . . . a complaint filed in forma pauperis is not subject to dismissal simply because the plaintiff is litigious. The number of complaints a poor person files does not alone justify peremptory dismissal. In each instance, the substance of the impoverished person's claim is the appropriate measure. The Court of Appeals ends its legal rationale by stating that “This case illustrates the value of a clear statement of reasons by the district court when dismissing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915(d). Such a statement serves twin purposes: it ensures that the district court has fully considered the complaint and the applicable law, and it informs the court of appeals and the parties of the grounds on which an action was found 'frivolous or malicious' . . . We do expect . . . that district court judges will endeavor to avoid unnecessary remands by supplying a cogent statement of reasons when the basis for a section 1915(d) dismissal is not evident on the face of the complaint . . . when denying leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.”

          Based on the standards set in Coppedge v. United States – standards which the District Court invoked when it cited the U.S. Supreme Court case, this Court must remand Appellant's case for review.

POINT TWO

Appellant's Request for Review of Her Allegations Satisfies the “Good Faith” Requirement of Coppedge v. United States

          According to Coppedge v. United States, “The requirement that an appeal in forma pauperis be taken "in good faith" is satisfied when the defendant seeks appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous. Pp. 369 U. S. 444-445.

According to Coppedge vs. United States, “If, with such aid, the applicant then presents any issue for the court's consideration which is not clearly frivolous, leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be granted. P. 369 U. S. 446. (k) If it is the practice of a Court of Appeals to defer rulings on motions to dismiss paid appeals until the court has had the benefit of hearing argument and considering briefs and an adequate record, it must accord the same procedural rights to a person applying for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. P. 369 U. S. 448.”

          Farley V. United States, 354 U.S. 521, 77 S.Ct. 1371, 1 L.Ed.2d 1529 defines how the U.S. Supreme Court applies the “good faith” standard. It states that “In the absence of some evident improper motive, the applicant's good faith is established by the presentation of any issue that is not plainly frivolous. The good-faith test must not be converted into a requirement of a preliminary showing of any particular degree of merit. Unless the issues raised are so frivolous that the appeal would be dismissed in the case of a nonindigent litigant . . . the request of an indigent for leave to appeal in forma pauperis must be allowed.

          Is government Defendants' violation of Title II, ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act considered by the District Court to be a non-frivolous issue? It certainly does. In the case Disability Advocates, Inc., v. David A. Paterson, et al, the District Court stated: “The Supreme Court held in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), that “[u]njustified isolation . . . is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability,” observing that “institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable of or unworthy of participating in community life.” 527 U.S. at 597, 600. The “integration mandate” of Title II of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §791 et seq., as expressed in federal regulations and Olmstead, requires that when a state provides services to individuals with disabilities, it must do so “in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.” The “most integrated setting,” according to the federal regulations, is “a setting that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent possible.” 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d); 28 C.F.R. pt. 35 app. A.

          Not only does the U.S. Supreme Court consider violation of Title II, ADA a non-frivolous matter, it allows private citizens to file suit for damages against governmental agencies and instrumentalities that violate their rights. According to the U.S. Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), “Title II, §§12131–12134, prohibits any public entity from discriminating against “qualified” persons with disabilities in the provision or operation of public services, programs, or activities. The Act defines the term “public entity” to include state and local governments, as well as their agencies and instrumentalities. §12131(1). Persons with disabilities are “qualified” if they, “with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, mee[t] the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.” §12131(2). Title II’s enforcement provision incorporates by reference §505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 92 Stat. 2982, as added, 29 U.S.C. §794a, which authorizes private citizens to bring suits for money damages. 42 U. S. C. §12133.”

          National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, an organization well-known for its advocacy of mentally disabled individuals and mental health issues, publishes an article named NAMI Challenger. In its article dated Spring 2005, under the subtitle “Words Can Hurt”, it stated that Words like “crazy”, “cuckoo”, “psycho”, “wacko” and “nutso” are just a few examples of words that keep the stigma of mental illness alive. These words belittle and offend people with mental health problems. Many of us use them without intending any harm. Just as we wouldn’t mock someone for having a physical illness like cancer or heart disease, it is cruel to make fun of someone with a mental illness.” In the section entitled “Mental Illness In The Media” it says “People with mental disorders are, many times, not described accurately or realistically in the media. Movies, television and books often present people with mental illnesses as dangerous or unstable. News stories sometimes highlight mental illness to create a sensation in a news report, even if the mental illness is not relevant to the story. You can help change the way mental illness is talked about in the media by speaking up.”

          Appellant provided the District Court, and now this Court with her exhibit of Defendant Daily New's article entitled “Hate-Spewing Wacko Goes Into Fit in Court.” Defendant's staff writer Scott Shifrel openly admits obtaining the article from “one courthouse source, a clear violation of 22 NYCRR §§50.13, 100.3(B)(8)(11)4 identifies the hospital to which Appellant was sent to receive psychiatric treatment; identifies symptoms of Appellant's illness that could only have been known by someone who was there; and lastly, Defendant Daily News' broadcasting as true and correct a fraudulent counter-affidavit that held “Godwin Uzamere” to be Appellant's husband when the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization found that5 Defendant New York State Unified Court System Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine adjudicated that Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.

          As stated in Coppedge vs. United States, “If, with such aid, the applicant then presents any issue for the court's consideration which is not clearly frivolous, leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be granted. Violation of Title II, ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are more than non-frivolous. They are serious violations that the District Court is in the process of adjudicating with corporate entities and some of the same governmental agencies Defendants that are the Appellant's adversaries. Private citizens have the right to sue for violation of Title II of the Americans With Americans Act. Coppedge allows in forma pauperis litigants to file suit for issues that are not frivolous. Since Appellant has satisfied both criteria, this Court must allow the Appellant to proceed in forma pauperis.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, this Court should reverse the District Court’s dismissal and remand the action for a determination of those issue raised pertaining to Defendants' violation of Title II, ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42 U.S.C. §1985.

Dated: New York, New York
           
July 11, 2011

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Form 6

Certificate of Compliance with Rule 32(a)

Certificate of Compliance With Type-Volume Limitation,

Typeface Requirements and Type Style Requirements

This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed.R.App.P. 32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 5,100 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed.R.App.P.32(a)(7)(B)(iii).

This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed.R.App.P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed.R.App.P. 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 97/2000/XP in 14 point Times New Roman font.


____________________

CHERYL D. UZAMERE
Appearing Pro Se
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495

_________________________________________

1 Appellant's divorce is now a matter of New York State case law, Uzamere vs. Uzamere, 2009, NY Slip Op 90214 [68 AD3d 855]. Any mention of Appellant's divorce are only to establish those torts that arose during Appellant's litigation of her divorce action. Appellant respectfully directs this Court's attention to Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992): “ . . . while it is not inconceivable that in certain circumstances the abstention principles developed in Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, might be relevant in a case involving elements of the domestic relationship even when the parties do not seek divorce, alimony, or child custody, such abstention is inappropriate here, where the status of the domestic relationship has been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying torts alleged. Pp. 15-16.”

2 a) New York City Housing Authority, Managed by Louis H. Pink House v. Uzamere, 1:07-cv-01194-NGG-LB, Standard of Review: FRCP 12(h)(3): lack of subject matter jurisdiction; b) Uzamere v. John Doe, et al 1:07-cv-02471-NGG-LB, Standard of Review, FRCP 12(h)(3), lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (c) Uzamere vs. Bush, et al, 1:08-cv-00891-NGG-LB, Standard of Review: 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (d) Uzamere v. State of New York, 1:09-cv-02703-NGG-LB, Standard of Review: FRCP 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; Standard of Review: lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (e) Uzamere vs. United States Postal Service, 1:09-cv-03709-NGG-LB, Standard of Review: FRCP 12(h)(3), lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

3 22 NYCRR §50.1(D): Court employees shall not disclose any confidential information received in the course of their official duties, except as required in the performance of such duties, nor use such information for personal gain or advantage.

4 (8) A judge shall not make any public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court within the United States or its territories. The judge shall require similar abstention on the part of court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control. This paragraph does not prohibit judges from making public statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining for public information the procedures of the court. This paragraph does not apply to proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity. (11) A judge shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity.

5Information provided by Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel and T. Diane Cejka, Director, FOI/PA of the the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service found that A35 201 224 and A24 027 764 belong to Appellant's ex-husband, Senator Ehigie E. Uzamere. Rachel McCarthy's report indicates that “IR2 fraudulently obtained because he was married at the time.”

A Jewish plaintiff named Rebecca Gloria Yohalem handwrote her complaint. It was handwritten so badly that it could not be used as a template by any pro se plaintiffs. The court ordered her to appear for an initial conference, the wacko Jewish litigant missed two of them. When she finally appeared, at the end of the conference, she became disruptive, but being the Jew she is, Joana Seybert and her goy slave Judge Boyles felt sorry for the Jewish litigant and directed her to obtain an attorney from the New York State Protection and Advocacy Unit.

RebeccaGloriaYohalemvs2.jpg
RebeccaGloriaYohalemvs.jpg

The lawsuits that I uploaded to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html, http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/garaufis_shenanigans.html and http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/foia_hiding_evidence.html. I performed legal research and websites and http://www.supremecourt.gov and http://www.justia.com. Hell, for the few semesters I went to college I made the Dean's List -- twice.  In spite of this, the wacko Jew Rebecca's 19 pages of handwritten garbage satisified the court, by my papers, written by someone who actually went to college to become a paralegal, was tossed asided by dirty, dishonest, satanic Jews.

NewYorkCityTechHonorList1.jpg
NewYorkCityTechHonorList2.jpg