U.S. District Court's Decision Discriminates against
Mentally Disabled Litigant and her Helpless Schvartze Family
New York State Office of Mental Health uses innocent employees to call plaintiff's home
to bribe/blackmail her with promises of federally-funded services and free food to trick/coerce plaintiff into
not involving the New York State Attorney General's Office.
Garaufis and defendants are trying to litigate plaintiff's action, not based on violation of Title II, ADA law, but as though
plaintiff is an anti-Semitic, Nazi war criminal. A judge who refuses to apply a relevant FRCP 12-based standard
of review and supplants it with a personal, Holocaust-based decision needs to step down and be treated for Holocaust-related post traumatic stress disorder.
Plaintiff is not a Nazi war criminal . . . U.S. Courts
are not Nazi war tribunals and New York State's inpatient psychiatric facilities are meant to rehabilitate people who have
mental illnesses -- not as a means of punishment based on Holocaust-based delusions!
Plaintiff will not take on the European Jewish community's Holocaust-based mental health issues! Plaintiff has her
Litigant demands a federal monitor to ensure that she receives
justice. In the meantime, the fight continues . . .
Judge Garaufis allowed his criminally-biased, FRCP-Rule 12-lacking, memorandum-lacking decision to be fraudulently
referred to as "Memorandum and Order" and denied mentally disabled African-American plaintiff's motion for a guardian ad litem. Less than 48 hours after dismissing plaintiff's motion for a guardian ad litem, Judge Garaufis
orders the U.S. Marshal Service to call an inpatient psychiatric facility over which Defendants New York State
Office of Mental Health has oversight to accuse her of threatening the judge with bodily harm so as to give
Defendants New York State Office of Mental Health and New York State Unified Court System a second opportunity
to declare plaintiff mentally incompetent -- while the government defendants are litigating against her as
One more thing: Litigant publicly charges Judge Garaufis with the following felonies: 18 U.S.C. §241 (conspiracy
against rights), 18 U.S.C. §242 (deprivation of rights under color and 18 U.S.C. §873 (blackmail) based on
his FRCP Rule 12-lacking decision (violates Crisafi v. Holland, et al., 655 F.2d 1305 (1981); and based in Judge Garaufis' dismissal of plaintiff's motion for a guardian ad litem, proceeded by his order
for the U.S. Marshal Service to contact defendant NYSOMH's-licensed psychiatric facility to accuse plaintiff of threatening
him with bodily harm so that plaintiff can be forcibly hospitalized.
18 U.S.C. §1521, Retaliating against a Federal Judge or Federal law enforcement office by false claim or slander of title says:
"Whoever files, attempts to file, or conspires to file, in any public record or in any private record which is generally
available to the public, any false lien or encumbrance against the real or personal property of an individual described in
section 1114, on account of the performance of official duties by that individual, knowing or having reason to know
that such lien or encumbrance is false or contains any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both."
Helpless, mentally disabled
African American plaintiff and her adult children are treated as worthless goyim as Judge Garaufis' decision facilitates
the identity fraud she is has proven New York State Defendants continue to facilitate. Defendant OMH
uses innocent, legally untrained clerical staff to bribe/blackmail impoverised plaintiff with federally-funded services
(including money for food) that plaintiff needs. Why won't the New York State Office of Mental
Health engage the services of the New York State Attorney General's Office to speak with the mentally disabled plaintiff?
Are they so cocksure of U.S. Court of Appeals' eminent decision against plaintiff -- and of their and Judge Garaufis'
plans to hospitalize plaintiff that they don't feel the need to be bothered with proper legal protocol or the plaintiff's
Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective
observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads
a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive
proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually
biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect plaintiffs from
actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice
must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960) , citing Offutt
v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).
"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is
obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).