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

FBIconversation - click here.

Will the Supreme Court Make New Law?
U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, federal district courts EDNY, SDNY.
This circuit is satanically corrupt and hateful of black, disabled pro se litigants.
scotusjustices2.jpg
 
Will the Supreme Court allow a change to a new venue based on abject corruption in the original venue? The Supreme Court must enforce 28 USC §455, 28 USC §1404, 28 USC §1654 and 28 USC §144 to protect pro se plaintiff's right to self-representation and ensure the disqualification of satanically-biased judges. 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).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Judge_Dennis_Jacobs.jpg
Chief Judge
Dennis Jacobs
 Judge_Jon_O_Newman.jpg
Circuit Judge
Jon O. Newman
 Judge_Amalya_Kearse.jpg
Circuit Judge
Amalya L. Kearse
 Judge_Ralph_K._Winter.jpg
Circuit Judge
Ralph K. Winter
 JudgeJohnMWalker.jpg
Circuit Judge
John M. Walker
 Judge_Joseph_M._McLaughlin.jpg
Circuit Judge Joseph M. McLaughlin
 Judge_Pierre_Leval.jpg
Circuit Judge
Pierre N. Leval
 Judge_Guido_Calabresi.jpg
Circuit Judge
Guido Calabresi
 Judge_Jos__Cabranes.jpg
Circuit Judge
José Cabranes
 Judge_Chester_Straub.jpg
Circuit Judge
Chester J. Straub
 Judge_Rosemary_Pooler.jpg
Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler
Judge_Robert_D._Sack.jpg 
Circuit Judge
Robert A. Katzmann
 
 Judge_Robert_Katzmann.jpg 
 Judge_Barrington_D._Parker.jpg
Circuit Judge Barrington
D. Parker
 Judge_Reena_Raggi.jpg
Circuit Judge Reena Raggi
Judge_Richard_C._Wesley.jpg
Circuit Judge Richard
C. Wesley
 JudgePeterWHall.jpg
Circuit Judge Peter W.
Hall
 Judge_Debra_Ann_Livingston.jpg
Circuit Judge Debra Ann
Livingston
 Judge_Gerard_Lynch.jpg
Circuit Judge Gerard E.
Lynch
 Judge_Denny_Chin.jpg
Circuit Judge Denny Chin
 Judge_Raymond_Lohier.jpg
Circuit Judge Raymond J. Lohier
 Judge_Susan_L._Carney.jpg
Circuit Judge Susan L.
Carney
 Judge_Christopher_F._Droney.jpg
Circuit Judge Christopher
F. Droney
 
 April 9, 2013



 
Duty Officer
FBI-New York City Office
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY  10278

Subject:  Judge Dennis Jacobs, Judge Garaufis, George Venizelos, others in a conspiracy to ensure that pro se litigants who are Gentile never win lawsuits against lawbreaking Jews.  Listen to Jewish FBI blackmail complainant for filing complaints against law-breaking Jews (click on link to listen to FBI worker's extortionate conversation with Plaintiff at FBIconversation - click here.)

To Whom It May Concern:

        In December, 1977, approximately two (2) years before I met Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Nosayaba (John) Uzamere and his wife Ethel Uzamere (Defendant Uzamere's brother and sister-in-law, not his father and stepmother) filed for IR2 residence for Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. The IR2 visa for Defendant Uzamere was approved on January 28, 1980.

        On November 21, 1979, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered into a fraudulent “green card” marriage with me. On November 30, 1979, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro, Esq. engaged in an act of aggravated identity theft and immigration fraud by giving  me form I-130 to sign so as to sponsor my husband for IR1 residence under the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” and fictitious birthday “June 1, 1955.” In December, 1979, Defendant Uzamere left for Nigeria, abandoning me while I was pregnant with his daughter Tara A. Uzamere. On January 28, 1980, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered the port of New York as a lawful permanent resident.   By 1981 Ehigie Edobor Uzamere’s IR2 residence was revoked because it was  fraudulently obtained.  INS also noted that the fingerprints between the two files are the same.

        On or around October 8, 2008, Eugene Uzamere, engaged in an act of racketeering, aggravated identity theft, violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by hand-delivering a fraudulent affirmation and a fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized counter-affidavit from Nigeria which stated that “The plaintiff who has openly professed her mental illness is also delusional and outlandish in her claims”; and “I have before now, ignored the Plaintiff's outburst but her claim to be married to my cousin who was not in the United States at the time of our marriage is a new twist to this sad tale. . .Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged” in defiance of the administrative decision rendered by the INS regarding Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity. In addition, Justice Sunshine refused to commission a diplomatic or consular officer for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the fraudulent foreign document that was presented to him by attorney Osato Uzamere on behalf of his uncle, Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. From then until the present, Justice Sunshine has never made any attempt to arrest Osato Uzamere for committing perjury. See fraudulent affirmation and fraudulent foreign counter-affidavit Exhibit C. During the same month, Defendant McCarthy and Defendant Cowles gave Plaintiff's criminal attorney Beth Mann a copy of the I-130 immigration sponsorship form that Plaintiff signed on November 30, 1979 and a report explaining the two (2) immigration files having birthdays June 15, 1955 and December 31, 1960 and explaining “IR2 fraudulently obtained because he was married at the time” and “Compare fingerprints between the two files.”

        On or around January 6, 2009, Plaintiff received a notice from Defendant McCarthy in which she said that “This office has completed its review of the complaint of professional misconduct that you filed against Allen E. Kaye, Esquire. The matter is confidential at this stage in accordance with the Rules and Procedures of Professional Conduct for Practitioners (“Rules”), except for necessary disclosures in the course of conducting a preliminary inquiry. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry of complaints of criminal, unethical, or unprofessional conduct in matters before USCIS. In your June 9, 2008 complaint, you allege that Alan E. Kaye “colluded with my husband, the now Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to submit a marriage certificate with the fictitious name "Godwin Uzamere: in order to avoid paying child support. and three years later, in order to hide the 2nd marriage that my husband contracted in the United States.” The acts that you allege constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Practitioner occurred in the course of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye in connection with an immediate relative filed by you with the Immigration and Naturalization (“INS”) in 1979. The New York Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department considered these allegations in 2003 and determined that no further action was warranted. After a careful and thorough review of your complaint I do not find clear and convincing evidence of an ethical violation of the Rules on the part of Mr. Kaye. No further action will be taken with regard to your complaint.”

        On or near October 28, 2009, Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, engaged in racketeering and aggravated identity theft by submitting fraudulent affirmations to the court holding “Godwin Uzamere” to be the Plaintiff's husband based on the fraudulent I-130 immigration sponsorship form that Plaintiff's ex-husband filed with Defendants Kaye and Shapiro. See fraudulent affirmations of Defendants Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein attached as Exhibit G.

        On November 3, 2009, Defendants Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Michael Gerstein, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein committed 18 USC §4, misprision of felony in that they planned and implemented Plaintiff's false arrest for the sole purpose of obtaining an advantage in the action for fraud that Plaintiff filed against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Plaintiff stayed in jail for 33 days. Because Plaintiff was remanded and was not able to leave, Plaintiff was coerced into accepting the plea as mentally unfit, and employees of Defendant New York State Office of Court Administration/Unified Court System intentionally avoided appearing before court to explain their false charge against the Plaintiff, thereby denying me my right to confront those individuals who accused me to threatening Judge Sunshine.

        On November 5, 2009, Daily News staff writer Scott Shifrel engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction by saying:  “Uzamere was in a Criminal Court holding cell when she started stripping and screaming about her “senator” husband in Nigeria loud enough to be heard in the courtroom. The senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to an affidavit he filed in Supreme Court. . .”; and that “the senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to affidavit filed in Supreme Court”; and “Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged, Godwin Uzamere said.”

        On or around June 22, 2011, Defendant Garaufis engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft by rendering an FRCP-lacking, memorandum-lacking decision regarding, 11-CV-2831 for the sole purpose of: 1) advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their fraudulent commission of 3) trick Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative function – was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, and Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft – a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never tried; and, 4) Defendant Bloom's commission of misprision of felony racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft and fraud upon the court as well.

        On or around June 25, 2011, less than thirty (30) after Plaintiff submitted her lawsuit to the court, Defendant Garaufis engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft of at the behest of Defendant Judge Garaufis three (3) marshals from the U.S. Marshals Service for Defendant the Eastern District of New York banged on Plaintiff's apartment door, shaming Plaintiff within earshot of her neighbors. When the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of New York identified themselves, Plaintiff asked them if she had committed a crime. The marshals stalled for a few seconds, and then said that Plaintiff had not committed any crimes. When Plaintiff asked the U.S. Marshals why they were there, the U.S. Marshal that banged on Plaintiff's door said “I'm gonna annoy you like you annoyed Judge Garaufis.” When Plaintiff told them that she would not open the door, the one banging on the door said “then I'm gonna keep bangin”, and for another 1.5 minutes continued to bang on Plaintiff's door. He also asked Plaintiff “is your daughter Tara home?”, to find out if Plaintiff was home alone. Within minutes of Plaintiff telling them that her daughter Tara was there, they left.

        On or around July 7, 2011, Defendants psychiatric nurse Agnes Flores and psychologist Martin Bolton, employees of Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation came to Plaintiff's apartment, speaking about Plaintiff's psychiatric issues in the hallway and shaming Plaintiff within earshot of her neighbors. Defendants Flores and Bolton said that Defendant U.S. Marshal Service told them that Plaintiff contacted Defendant Mental Health Association's LifeNet psychiatric helpline and made threats of bodily harm against Defendant Garaufis. Plaintiff told them that had she done such a thing that the U.S. Marshal Service would have arrested her when they visited her and given her an attorney, which would have forced Plaintiff's attorney to examine Plaintiff's civil claims.

        Also, on July 7, 2011, at the behest of Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe, the United Parcel Service returned Plaintiff's appellate brief, all of Plaintiff's motions, Appendix A and Appendix B that Plaintiff served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 4, 2012. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe did not include any correspondence explaining why Plaintiff's appellate documents were returned.

        Some days later while in the month of July 2011, Plaintiff received another visit from Defendants Flores and Bolton. Because Plaintiff was afraid that someone who would enter her apartment and place Plaintiff in a psychiatric hospital against her will, Plaintiff hid in her closet between so that if they came into Plaintiff's apartment, she would appear not be home.

        Some days later during the month of July, 2011, Plaintiff received a call from Defendant Davis, but Plaintiff turned her cell phone off.

        A day or so later, someone knocked on Plaintiff's door but did not announce themselves. Again Plaintiff hid in her closet to feign that she was not home. When Plaintiff went to the door, there was a notice from Woodhull Hospital's psychiatric unit with an appoint to appear at their psychiatric outpatient clinic.

        On July 16, 2011, in terror of forced hospitalization at the behest of Defendant Garaufis, the U.S. Marshal Service and psychiatric facilities over which the New York State Office of Mental Health and the New York State Department of Health have oversight, Plaintiff faxed a copy of Affidavit to Preetinder Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

        Later on in July 2011, Defendant Davis called Plaintiff, frightening Plaintiff by making Plaintiff believe that Plaintiff would be forcibly hospitalized because Defendant U.S. Marshal Service told her that Plaintiff had threatened others at the Medicaid office, something that Plaintiff did not do. Plaintiff took the liberty of recording the conversation in its entirety. Plaintiff uploaded the conversation http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html.

        In the month of August, 2011 Defendant Davis contacted Defendant Sarpong for the purpose of forcing Plaintiff to go to Defendant Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, where Plaintiff was hospitalized as an inpatient for threatening Defendant Garaufis and other judges with bodily harm, and threatening CMS workers with death, something that Plaintiff never did. Plaintiff stayed a few days as an inpatient with Defendant Brookdale because Defendant Dr. “John Doe” and other employees of Defendant Brookdale Hospital Medical Center were told by Defendant Sarpong that Plaintiff threatened Judge Garaufis, other judges and CMS call center workers with death and with bodily harm. Thereafter, Brookdale Hospital Medical Center terminated its outpatient psychiatric services to the Plaintiff and transferred Plaintiff to the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team in order Plaintiff illegally monitor along with Defendant Denis P. McGowan of Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

        On or around August 18, 2011, Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation's East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team received correspondence from U.S. Department of Homeland Security on its original letterhead bearing the name “Denis P. McGowan, Chief, Threat Management Branch.” The letter stated: “On July 06, 2011, Federal Protective Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made by CHERYL UZAMERE to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid call center. The threat consisted of HER stating: since SHE did not get the job, SHE was going to “COME DOWN THERE AND KILL EVERYBODY. Since FPS has investigated UZAMERE multiple times for similar behavior, we are well aware of HER mental health history. Based on that information, a referral was made to LifeNet for mental health intervention on July 07 2011. Subsequently, UZAMERE's Intensive Case Manager (ICM) Bridgett Davis of the New York State Office of Mental Health has advised that UZAMERE's treatment has been transferred to the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program. We were informed that CHERYL D. UZAMERE is being treated as a patient by your program and we would like to keep you abreast of this situation as it evolves. We also request that we be notified as HER status changes in particular any change from in-patient to out-patient treatment and in the case of the latter any refusal of treatment. In addition, please notify FPS of any relapses or deterioration of HER condition that may pose a risk to life or property.” See letter from Denis P. McGowan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security attached as Exhibit M.

        From July 6, 2011, the date in which Plaintiff is alleged to have committed 18 USC §115 against Defendant Garaufis, other federal judges and employees of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services call center, no federal law enforcement agency has made any attempt to arrest the Plaintiff for the aforementioned offenses. According to Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, the judges who rendered decisions on Plaintiff's appeal for her lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv were not indicated on the decision because others unknown to Plaintiff told Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe that Plaintiff threatened Judge Nicholas, other federal judges and Defendant Sunshine.

        On February 26, 2012, Defendant HHC's ACT Team where Defendant Sarpong is employed prepared a psychiatric treatment plan. Under the title “Alerts”, the treatment plan states “. . . H/O threats to judges and Center for Medicaid and Medicare, patient is being monitored by Homeland Security.” Under the title “Discharge Plan”, it says “Patient is not being considered for discharge at this time, she was transferred to the program 6 months ago after she made a threat to the Medicare and Medicaid call center and is being monitored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” Under the title “Patient/Family Statement”, it says that “She reported not being aware of being monitored by Homeland Security. . .”

        On November 28, 2012, based on information and belief, Defendants Raggi, Carney and Kahn of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft by rendering an FRAP-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv for the sole purpose of advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their fraudulent commission of aggravated identity theft, and their own commission of racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity, for their own commission of obstruction of justice by tricking Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative function – was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft – a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never tried. Plaintiff was told the names of Defendant judges Raggi, Carney and Kahn by an unknown employee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe also engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft for the sole purpose of advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their criminal commission of aggravated identity theft. Plaintiff's alleges that Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe left out the names of the judges who rendered their illegal decision on Plaintiff's decision based on defendants' delusion that Plaintiff would either not figure out the judges' identity and would therefore be unable to sue them.

        Soon thereafter, the Plaintiff called Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court for U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and asked why the appellate judges' names were not indicated on the U.S. Court of Appeals' decision. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe indicated that the judges' names were left out because Plaintiff had threatened federal judges, something that Plaintiff never did.

        On or around January 30, 2013, Plaintiff received a letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The letter stated: "Our records show that you placed calls to 1-800-MEDICARE on the dates and times listed below (all times Central). We can confirm that none of these calls contained threatening comments: June 14,2010, 10:38 AM; June 1,2011, 7:39 AM; July 8,2011, 12:56 PM; May 18, 2012, 11:17 AM, 1:29 PM, 3:51 PM; July 2, 2012, 10:47 AM; July 10, 2012, 2:24 PM; July 17, 2012, 1:09 PM; July 18, 2012, 11:14 AM; July 19, 2012, 5:02 PM; July 23, 2012, 2:51 PM; July 24, 2012, 5:21 PM, 5:43 PM, 5:47 PM, 6:05 PM, 9:56 PM; July 26, 2012, 9:39 PM; July 27, 2012, 5:48 PM; September 9, 2012, 4:39 PM; October 18, 2012, 2:26 PM; November 16, 2012 7:38 PM; November 26, 2012, 1:46 PM; December 12, 2012, 11:13AM; December 13, 2012, 4:29 AM, 5:05 PM, 5:09 PM."

        On March 24, 2013, Plaintiff called Defendant FBI New York Office and asked one of its agents if the FBI office would refuse to take Plaintiff's complaints if the person against whom Plaintiff complained was Jewish, as Plaintiff alleges was done to her in the past. True to past behavior, someone hung up the phone. When Plaintiff called back, the person on the phone said that Plaintiff had posed the question to Mr. Stein, hurting his feelings. Plaintiff was then called anti-Semitic, and then subjected to having the telephone hung up. Plaintiff took her three (3) phones and engaged in a blitz phone call session, allowing all of her phones to ring at the same time. When "John Doe" #1 finally answered the phone, Plaintiff got into an argument with Defendant “John Doe” #1 with regard to Plaintiff's right to file a criminal complaint against Jews who had violated federal law. Defendant “John Doe” #1 blackmailed Plaintiff by telling her that he would call Plaintiff's daughter, mentioning Plaintiff's daughter's name (something that generally precedes a threat of psychiatric hospitalization), and then would come to Plaintiff's apartment; however, when asked if Plaintiff had committed a crime and whether Plaintiff would be assigned an attorney, "John Doe" #1 said that Plaintiff would have to obtain an attorney on her own. As it turned out, "John Doe" #1 never came to Plaintiff's apartment, and never contacted Plaintiff's daughter. During Plaintiff's conversation with "John Doe" #1, Plaintiff told the employee that she was recording the conversation. Plaintiff recorded the conversation and uploaded it to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/adl_zuckerman_both_criminals.html (this site, at the link that says FBIconversation - click here).

        The following day, Plaintiff contacted the FBI and spoke with a woman (who sounded black). Plaintiff told the woman that an FBI employee would not allow her to file any complaints if the subject of the complaint is Jewish. Plaintiff also told the woman that she recorded the conversation and uploaded it to her website. The woman asked Plaintiff how Plaintiff knew whether the person with whom Plaintiff spoke was an employee of the FBI. Plaintiff told the woman she was right, and that the person with whom Plaintiff spoke could have been Bozo the Clown. Subsequently, an employee of the FBI called Plaintiff's psychiatric treatment facility and reported that Plaintiff had an argument with an FBI employee; that said argument was indicative that Plaintiff has psychiatric issues that warrant hospitalization. On March 28, 2013, the day of Plaintiff's treatment appointment, Plaintiff was asked by her psychiatrist, Dr. Beaudouin if she had had an argument with anyone. Later, Plaintiff was interviewed simultaneously by Dr. Beaudouin and Ms. Fletcher in an attempt to find reasons to hospitalize the Plaintiff. It was so obvious that Plaintiff asked if they planned to hospitalize her. Plaintiff's psychiatrist and therapist said no; however, Plaintiff's psychiatrist and therapist never disclosed to Plaintiff that they had been contacted by Defendant FBI and requested to act as agents of the police. Plaintiff had committed no crime and has been treatment compliant such that Plaintiff felt double-teamed by Dr. Beaudouin and Ms. Fletcher with their bombardment of questions that were geared, not to help Plaintiff, but as an investigative tool of the FBI to determine whether Plaintiff had any argument with the FBI. Plaintiff alleges that her treatment facility is now being used surreptitiously to ensure that if Plaintiff files a complaint with the FBI against any Jew, that the FBI will contact her psychiatric treatment facility and tell them to hospitalize Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff also alleges that at the continued behest of Defendant Garaufis, “John Doe” #1 of Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation's New York Office illegally obtained information regarding Plaintiff's outpatient psychiatric care provider from Defendants' network of as yet unknown informants from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Office, and/or from the New York State Office of Mental Health, and/or from the New York State Department of Health and/or from the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and/or from the New York City Health and Hospital's Corporation, and/or from the New York City Human Resources Administration.

        I allege that the defendants committed the following offenses: 18 USC §4, misprision of felony; 18 USC §1028A aggravated identity theft; 18 USC §1028, identity theft; 18 USC §1962, RICO; 18 USC §1512, obstruction of justice; 18 USC §242, deprivation of rights under color of law; 42 USC §1985. Civil rights violations committed by the defendants include the following: violation of Title II, ADA, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment; Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause especially).

 

                                                                                              Respectfully,

                                                                                         mysignature2.jpg

                                                                                               Cheryl D. Uzamere

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF_______________

_______________________________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere                                                   PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
                                                                                 EXPEDITED    JUDICIAL     NOTICE  OF 
                                            Plaintiff,                        ADJUDICATIVE   FACTS  PURSUANT TO
                                                                                 FED.   R.   EVID.  RULE  201  AND FOR
        - against -                                                          CONVERSION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
                                                                                 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT
United States of America, et al.                                TO FED. R. CIV. RULE 57
                                                                      
                                           Defendants.                     JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 

          PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the attached Affidavit of Movant, Cheryl D. Uzamere, sworn to on the __th day of ________, 2013, and upon all the exhibits herein attached, Plaintiff will move this Court in the presence of the Honorable ____________, on the __th day of _____ 2013, at 9:30 in the forenoon, or as soon thereafter to pray this Court to do the following:

...............a).....That immediately after the filing of Plaintiff's civil rights action, for this Court to take emergency expedited judicial notice of those adjudicative facts Movant submitted as evidence in her Verified Complaint, to wit:

....................(1).....those facts submitted by Movant that are not subject to reasonable dispute because they are generally known or should have been known within the Defendants' sphere of knowledge, supervision, administration and control, and/or the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction, and because they can be accurately and readily be determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, including those adjudicative facts that are part of public or confidential government record held by and/or under control of the Defendants.

....................(2).....for this Court to judicially notice those facts sua sponte;

....................(3).....on timely request, for this Court to judicially notice those adjudicative issues submitted by the Defendants if the Defendants requests them and if the Defendants supply this Court with the necessary information, including those adjudicative issues that are already part of public or confidential government records held by and/or under control of the Defendants;

....................(4).....for this Court to instruct the jury to accept all judicially noticed facts as conclusive.

...............b) For this Court to convert Movant's emergency motion for expedited judicial notice to a motion for summary judgment as the Movant has already proven that Defendants' public and confidential government records establish that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact so that the Movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

 

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
           July ___, 2013

 

CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE

 


_______________________
        Signature of Plaintiff
 

Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF_______________

 

___________________________________       No.: 13-CV-_________

Cheryl D. Uzamere

                                            Plaintiff,                       AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION 
                                                                                 FOR EXPEDITED MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE OF 
     - against -                                                           ADJUDICATIVE FACTS PURSUANT TO FED. R. EVID.
                                                                                 RULE 201 AND FOR CONVERSION TO PLAINTIFF'S
                                                                                 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO
                                                                                 FED. R. CIV. P. RULE 56
United States of America, et al.                         
                                                                                JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
                                           Defendants.         

 

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT FOR EMERGENCY
EXPEDITED MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

 Introductory Statement

..........1).....Movant Cheryl D. Uzamere, comes before this Court seeking an Emergency Expedited Mandatory Judicial Notice of the facts stated herein, that are known to this Court, or readily provable since the adjudicative facts are a matter of public or confidential government record held by and/or in control of the Defendants.

..........2).....Movant has been severely harmed as she has been physically attacked and had her life and liberty endangered by the ongoing commission of federal offenses and constitutional torts by the Defendants and their hired attorneys, who have terrorized the Movant, a seriously mentally disabled African American citizen and single parent of two (2) adult children who have suffered emotionally as a direct result of the Defendants' criminal conduct.

..........3).....Defendants' original acts of fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft were committed by Defendants Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro. To the best of the Movant's knowledge, the aforementioned offenses were not prosecuted at the time they were committed, nor during the subsequent period of limitations regarding each offense. As of now, more than thirty (30) years later, all of the Defendants have played a role in the misprision of Defendants Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's, Osato E. Uzamere's, Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft. Movant alleges that by the end of June/beginning of July 2011, Defendant Garaufis authorized a national security letter that was sent to Movant's telephone company and internet service provider, Cablevision, giving Defendants Garaufis, the U.S. Marshals Service, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation the ability to obtain non-content information regarding Plaintiff's daughter, Tara A. Uzamere and Movant's psychiatric care providers for the sole purpose of contacting them to give them false criminal/psychiatric reports concerning the Movant, in violation of 18 USC §2709 and 18 USC §3511. Plaintiff alleges this based on her belief that the aforementioned Defendants are not psychic but were able to obtain non-contact information regarding Movant's telephone calls to her daughter, Tara A. Uzamere and to psychiatric care providers from sources other than the Movant.

..........4).....In addition, at the behest of Defendant Garaufis, Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health, by its employee Defendant Bridget Davis told the Movant that the U.S. Marshal Service considers Movant a danger based on their spurious accusation that Movant threatened Defendant Garaufis, other judges and employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' call center. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security's employee Denis P. McGowan specifically stated in his letter dated August 18, 2011 that the Movant made a telephonic threat of murder against CMS employees, using said spurious allegation as an excuse to present Defendant Garaufis with a national security letter for the sole purpose of violating the confidentiality of Movant's psychiatric records to rationalize adding the spurious criminal charge to Movant's psychiatric treatment plan dated February 26, 2012, to illegally rationalize monitoring the Movant at the primary behest of Defendant Garaufis – and worse, to breach the confidentiality of Movant's psychiatric records for crimes that Movant never committed, and for which the Defendants never had any intention of confronting the Movant for the purpose of confirming Movant's innocence or guilt in a court of law.

..........5).....At the behest of the Defendants: 1) Movant was publicly defamed by being labeled an “anti-Semitic wacko” based on having a mental illness and based on having been falsely accused of crimes by the Defendant that Movant never committed, and for which Defendants never had any intention of confronting the Movant for the purpose of confirming Movant's innocence or guilt in a court of law; 2) Movant suffered kidnap, jail, felonious assault and battery (Movant was hit several times in the face and had her hair yanked out while being unlawfully and unnecessarily held by Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health), prosecuted and ultimately found not guilty for every, single offense for which Defendants accused Movant but made no attempt to confront Plaintiff to provide evidence of Defendants' criminal accusations; 3) Defendants illegally breached the confidentiality of Movant's psychiatric and divorce records and disseminated them to the public; 4) Movant was illegally monitored by the court, other federal agencies, New York State agencies and New York City agencies for a crime that Movant never committed; 5) Movant was intentionally misdiagnosed based on crimes that Movant never committed; 6) Movant was forcibly isolated; 7) Movant was subjected to extortionate behavior on the part of Defendants and blackmailed to keep silent and not report the crimes of corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein or else Movant and her children would be attacked by powerful members of the Jewish community; 8) and most importantly, 9) Movant was blacklisted by Defendant judges to prevent Movant from honest use of the federal and New York State court systems. Movant was also blacklisted by New York State Office of Mental Health's various not-for-profit, Jewish-controlled outpatient, psychiatric services, like Defendant FEGS because of Movant's actively disobeying the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser.

..........6).....Defendant judges' do not believe that their most important role is enforcement of the U.S. Constitution; instead they believe that enforcement of the Jewish religious belief that Jews should be feared as gods, for Gentiles to serve Jews as their obedient slaves, and to ensure that all judicial decisions are rendered according to Talmud law. What makes the Defendant Jewish judicial majority happy is the enforcement of the Talmudic Law of the Moser, to ensure that Movant is never able to file any complaint against the aforementioned attorneys based on their commission of, inter alia, fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft that was originally committed around November 30, 1979 and revisited on or around October 28, 2009.

Reasons for Emergency Motion for Expedited Treatment by Court

..........7).....The Pro Se Movant is and has been a crime victim at the behest of some or all of the Defendants for the past 34 years. In addition, Movant is mentally disabled and has been blackmailed by the Defendants such that if Movant files a complaint against any lawbreaking Jewish defendant, Defendants will falsely and publicly accuse her of crimes based solely on her status of having a mental illness so that the Movant's complaints are not believed by the public or in court. The Movant makes this Affidavit in support of her emergency motion for expedited mandatory judicial notice of those exhibits presented in Movant's Verified Complaint of the facts stated herein, that are known to this Court, or are readily provable since the adjudicative facts are a matter of public or confidential record held by and/or in control of the Defendants; and for conversion to a motion for summary judgment based on this Court's expedited mandatory judicial notice of those exhibits submitted by the Movant.

..........8).....In December, 1977, approximately two (2) years before Movant met Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Nosayaba (John) Uzamere and his wife Ethel Uzamere (Defendant Uzamere's brother and sister-in-law, not his father and stepmother) filed for IR2 residence for Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. The IR2 visa for Defendant Uzamere was approved on January 28, 1980. On November 21, 1979, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered into a fraudulent “green card” marriage with the unsuspecting Movant. On or around November 30, 1979, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro, Esq. engaged in an act of fraud, immigration fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft by giving the Movant form I-130 to sign so as to sponsor the Defendant for IR1 residence under the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” and fictitious birthday “June 1, 1955” without requiring Defendant Uzamere to produce his Nigerian passport. In December, 1979, Defendant Uzamere left for Nigeria, abandoning the Movant and leaving her poor and pregnant with his daughter Tara A. Uzamere. On January 28, 1980, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered the port of New York as a lawful permanent resident. The aforementioned lawbreaking Jewish attorneys exacerbated their act of aggravated identity theft by refusing to require Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to produce his passport to establish proof of his identity, and by engaging in willful blindness by pretending not to have knowledge of the existence of Senator Uzamere's passport or of knowledge that Senator Uzamere previously applied under his correct name as an unmarried beneficiary under 21 years of age. At the time of Movant's signing the fraudulent I-130 relative sponsorship form, Movant did not know that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere had applied and been found eligible for permanent residence under his real name via sponsorship by Nosayaba (John) Uzamere and his wife Ethel Uzamere.

..........9).....During subsequent years, the Movant applied for public assistance for herself and her children under file number ADC 4056529-1. Movant started exhibiting symptoms associated with bipolar disorder (first diagnosed by Bedford Stuyvesant Community Mental Health in 1989). Movant placed her children in foster care, where they remained for nearly all their lives. Movant applied for child and spousal support through Defendant New York State's local social services office but never received assistance from Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.

..........10).....On or around October 1, 2003, Jack Gladstein engaged in an act of racketeering, and aggravated identity fraud by mailing to the Movant correspondence falsely holding Movant's ex-husband out to be “Godwin Uzamere” even though the only correct identification that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service holds is for Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, not “Godwin Uzamere.”

..........11).....On or around September 25, 2008, after Movant had engaged in a series of leaving angry telephone calls on Defendant McCarthy's voice mail based on Movant's perception that Defendant McCarthy had engaged in racketeering designed to nullify Movant's complaint against Defendant Kaye and Defendant Shapiro, Defendant McCarthy engaged in an act of racketeering, fraud1, obstruction of justice and blackmail by engaging the U.S. Attorney's Office for Vermont to say that “In or about September 2008, in the District of Vermont, the defendant, Cheryl Uzamere, impeded, intimidated, and interfered with a federal employee, namely an employee of the United States Customs and Immigration Service, while that person was engaged in and on account of that person's performance of official duties.”

..........12).....On or around October 8, 2008, Defendant Eugene Uzamere, engaged in an act of racketeering, aggravated identity fraud, violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by hand-delivering a fraudulent affirmation and a fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized counter-affidavit from Nigeria which stated that the Movant “who has openly professed her mental illness is also delusional and outlandish in her claims”; and “I have before now, ignored [the Movant's”] outburst but her claim to be married to my cousin who was not in the United States at the time of our marriage is a new twist to this sad tale. . .Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged” in defiance of the administrative decision rendered by the INS regarding Movant's ex-husband's identity. In addition, Justice Sunshine refused to commission a diplomatic or consular officer for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the fraudulent foreign document that was presented to him by attorney Osato Uzamere on behalf of his uncle, Movant's ex-husband Nigerian senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.2, 3 From then until the present, Justice Sunshine has never made any attempt to arrest Osato Uzamere for committing perjury.

..........13).....On or around January 6, 2009, Movant received a notice from Defendant McCarthy in which she said that “This office has completed its review of the complaint of professional misconduct that you filed against Allen E. Kaye, Esquire. The matter is confidential at this stage in accordance with the Rules and Procedures of Professional Conduct for Practitioners (“Rules”), except for necessary disclosures in the course of conducting a preliminary inquiry. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry of complaints of criminal, unethical, or unprofessional conduct in matters before USCIS. In your June 9, 2008 complaint, you allege that Alan E. Kaye “colluded with my husband, the now Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to submit a marriage certificate with the fictitious name "Godwin Uzamere: in order to avoid paying child support. and three years later, in order to hide the 2nd marriage that my husband contracted in the United States.” The acts that you allege constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Practitioner occurred in the course of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye in connection with an immediate relative filed by you with the Immigration and Naturalization (“INS”) in 1979. The New York Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department considered these allegations in 2003 and determined that no further action was warranted. After a careful and thorough review of your complaint I do not find clear and convincing evidence of an ethical violation of the Rules on the part of Mr. Kaye. No further action will be taken with regard to your complaint.” Defendant McCarthy's statement “occurred in the course of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye” makes direct reference to Defendant Harvey Shapiro.

..........14).....On January 12, 2009, Defendant Sunshine engaged in an act of racketeering, aggravated identity theft, obstruction of justice and fraud upon the court by rendering a decision in which he stated that “Moreover, the opposition submitted by defendant raises a genuine issue as to whether or not Movant and defendant were married in the first instance”, in defiance of INS' administrative decision that recognized the names “Godwin E. Uzamere” and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as belonging to Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and that Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was married to the Movant. Defendant Sunshine made no attempt to obey commission a consular officer of the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria to verify the authenticity of the unauthenticated counter-affidavit from Nigeria purporting to be from “Godwin Uzamere.”

 ..........15).....On January 20, 2009, the Movant e-mailed a complaint to former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Robin Renee Sanders in which she said that “While I was in court on January 13, 2008, my husband's attorney, Eugene O. Uzamere asked Judge Sunshine if Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, my real husband, along with some Nigerian pretending to be my real husband can be allowed to video-conference their appearance in court. As it is apparent that the level of corruption in my divorce action has reached an all-time new low, it appears that Judge Sunshine will allow this silliness. This would give Eugene the opportunity of paying some poor Nigerian a pittance to engage in identity fraud that would reach a New York State Court. In the likely event that Judge Sunshine allows this silliness, is there some way that your office can ensure that the unknown Nigerian who engages in this video-conference first signs some kind of affidavit that is notarized by your office? That way, your office can check that person's identification to ensure that if he attempts to say that he is my husband, his identification will prove otherwise.” Although Movant had the presence of mind to ask former U.S. Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders to require anyone posing as Movant's husband to produce identification, Defendant Sunshine did not require Defendant Osato E. Uzamere to produce any type of U.S. Embassy-authenticated, color-photograph-bearing government identification of his client, and the only forms of identification that Defendant Osato E. Uzamere produced was a copy of a passport bearing no one's name and social security number 129-64-1205, the fictitious number associated with the fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere.”

..........16).....On May 12, 2009, Defendant Sunshine rendered his decision recognizing the identity of Movant's ex-husband as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere by stating that “Today at 10:35 am. defendant was declared in default for failure to appear at the hearing. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss this action upon the grounds that he is not the husband of the Movant is denied in its entirety. The defendant is the husband in conformity with the parties marriage on November 21, 1979. Movant is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order and serve and file a note of issue, forthwith, with proof of mailing by regular international mail and overnight international mail for a trial on all issues within this matrimonial action to be held before this court on July 7, 2009. at 9:30 a.m. This shall constitute the decision and order of the court.”

..........17).....On July 7, 2009, the Movant filed an action for fraud against her ex-husband and against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. From the year 2009 to 2011, Movant also attempted to engage the judicial assistance of Defendant New York State Unified Court System for the Second Judicial Department with regard to the following appellate cases: 1) Uzamere v Daily News, L.P., 2011 NY Slip Op 52421(U) [34 Misc 3d 1203(A)], Decided on November 10, 2011, Supreme Court, New York County, Rakower, J; 2) Uzamere v Uzamere, 2011 NY Slip Op 08583 [89 AD3d 1013], November 22, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department; 3) Uzamere v Uzamere,2009 NY Slip Op 09214 [68 AD3d 855], December 8, 2009, Appellate Division, Second Department; 4) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2010 NY Slip Op 83241(U), Decided on September 23, 2010, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; 5) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 65346(U), Decided on February 28, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; 6) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 69114(U), Decided on April 6, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; and 7) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 69622(U), Decided on April 11, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision. The following appellate judges presided over the aforementioned cases: Daniel D. Angiolillo; Cheryl E. Chambers; Jeffrey A. Cohen; Mark C. Dillon; Anita R. Florio; Steven W. Fisher; L. Priscilla Hall; John M. Leventhal; Plummer E. Lott; William F. Mastro; Robert J. Miller; A. Gail Prudenti; Reinaldo E. Rivera; Sheri S. Roman; Sandra L. Sgroi and Peter B. Skelos. Movant alleges that just as in the trial courts, Movant provided the appellate courts with the Daily News article and the fraudulent affirmations in which Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein Osato E. Uzamere perjured themselves and stated that “Godwin Uzamere” was Movant's husband. The appellate judges, just as every judge with whom Movant presented the aforementioned testimony as done, ignored Movant's cries for justice, engaged in fraud upon the court and disobeyed 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, the Code of Conduct for Judges and the Code of Lawyers Professional Responsibility with regard to report a judge an attorney who engages in acts of wrongdoing. Movant also filed various complaints with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct against Defendants Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Arthur Schack; the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Department against Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Osato E. Uzamere; and the New York State Grievance Committee for the Second Judicial Department against Jack Gladstein. Movant produced the Daily News article, the fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized, foreign counter-affidavit from Defendant Osato E. Uzamere, and the fraudulent affirmation from Defendants corrupt attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato E. Uzamere that are proof of their act of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft and New York State Penal Law Section 210.15, perjury in the first degree, and proof of the true identity of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere the Movant obtained from Defendant Rachel McCarthy (who can be reached at (802) 660-5043; fax (802) 660-5067). No member of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department or the New York State Grievance Committee for the Second Judicial Department ever reported the aforementioned attorneys for their commission of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft or New York State Penal Law Section 210.15, perjury in the first degree.

..........18).....On or near October 28, 2009, Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, engaged in acts of racketeering and aggravated identity fraud submitted fraudulent affirmations to the court holding “Godwin Uzamere” to be the Movant's husband based on the fraudulent I-130 immigration sponsorship form that Movant's ex-husband filed with Defendants Kaye and Shapiro.

..........19).....On November 3, 2009, Defendants Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Michael Gerstein, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein engaged in an act prohibited by the New York Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility in that, after filing the fraudulent affirmations, they planned and implemented Movant's false arrest for the sole purpose of obtaining an advantage in the action for fraud that Movant filed against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Movant stayed in jail for 33 days. Because Movant was remanded and was not able to leave, Movant was coerced into accepting the plea as mentally unfit, and employees of Defendant New York State Office of Court Administration/Unified Court System intentionally avoided appearing before court to explain their false charge against the Movant.

..........20).....On November 5, 2009, Defendant judges Garaufis, Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack, on their own and/or by courthouse employees that were under said Defendants' care, control and supervision at the time of the incident, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice by illegally commenting on and providing nonpublic information4 regarding Movant's cases Kings County Criminal Court Case Docket No. 2009KN087992, Kings County Supreme Court Index No. 18012-2009 and Kings County Supreme Index No. 26332-2007 to Daily News staff writer Scott Shifrel in violation of 22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(8)(11); that said nonpublic information was provided to the Daily News, by staff writer Scott Shifrel, who did knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought engage in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice by publishing the newspaper article that illegally disclosed Movant's nonpublic information that was acquired by Defendant Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack during their adjudication of Movant's cases including Movant's photo; Movant's name; Movant's age; Movant's mental illness; Movant's psychiatric diagnosis; symptoms of Movant's mental illness; the courts where Movant's cases were adjudicated; the town where Movant's lives and the name of the hospital that treated Movant; that Daily News staff writer Scott Shifrel, on behalf the Defendants, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction by charging Movant with the halachic/Jewish religious crime of anti-Semitism by saying “Cheryl Uzamere, 50, known around courthouse circles for her anti-Semitic screeds, was declared mentally unfit and taken to Bellevue Hospital for observation”; and, that “...she's a smart person and she really know how to use the system, said one courthouse source...she comes in here and files all these papers and threatens people. Uzamere was in a Criminal Court holding cell when she started stripping and screaming about her “senator” husband in Nigeria loud enough to be heard in the courtroom. The senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to an affidavit he filed in Supreme Court. . .”; and that “the senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to affidavit filed in Supreme Court”; and “Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged, Godwin Uzamere said. . .” Scott Shifrel, at the behest of Mortimer Zuckerman and and Defendants Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack, on their own and/or by courthouse employees that were under said Defendants' care, control and supervision at the time of the incident, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice by engaging in aggravated identity theft; said act of identity theft accomplished by publicly holding in the Defendant Daily News that false identity of Movant's ex-husband as “Godwin Uzamere. On the following day, the company ALM.com, by its website Law.com, published an article entitled N.Y. Arrested for Threatening Judge; that said nonpublic information was provided to the Law.com, by staff writer Mark Fass who did knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought, publish the internet article that illegally disclosed Movant's nonpublic information that was acquired by the Defendant judges during their adjudication of Movant's cases.

..........21).....On November 30, 2009, twenty-five (25) days after Defendant Daily News, LP published its article regarding the Movant, Defendant Federation Employment and Guidance Service terminated its mental health services to the Movant. In its discharge summary it stated that “given client's history of anti-Semitic remarks treatment at an FEGS facility is inappropriate for her.”

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

..........23).....On December 24, 2009, Movant was seen by Defendant New York State Unified Court System judicial employee the Honorable Anthony Cutrona of Kings County Supreme Court's Mental Hygiene Court.

..........24).....On January 15, 2010, Defendant Schack engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice, violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act by ordering Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's psychiatrist Dr. Marie Bauduy of the Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility not to produce the Movant for court. In his decision dated January 25, 2010, Justice Schack stated that “The Court is concerned that Movant UZAMERE is unfit to proceed. . .Therefore, the instant matter is adjourned to Friday, March 19, 2010. . .”

..........25).....During the beginning of February, 2010, Movant was discharged by Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility.

..........26).....On or near February 23, 2010, while the Movant was in her apartment faxing letters of complaint to various governmental agencies, Defendants Sunshine, New York State Office of Mental Health and Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice, insofar as they contacted a social worker from Defendant Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center, who then arranged for Movant to be kidnapped and hospitalized by Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center. Defendant Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center caused one of its employees to contact Defendant City of New York's agencies, the New York City Housing Authority's Louis H. Pink Houses, the New York City Police Department and the New York City Fire Department. An employee of the New York City Housing Authority opened the Movant's apartment door, and Movant was taken out of her apartment by force and hospitalized by Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center. During Movant's last week as an inpatient, Kingsboro social worker Laurie Velcimé informed the Movant that she was engaged in aftercare preparation, including locating an outpatient mental health program. The Movant advised Ms. Velcimé that she was interested in attending New York Psychotherapy and Counseling Center (NYPCC) on Hendrix Street, located close to where the Movant lives. After Ms. Velcimé performed a search of NYPCC and other outpatient mental health care providers, she informed the Movant that not only had NYPCC refused to accept Movant as a client, but that virtually all the not-for-profit outpatient mental health facilities that Ms. Velcimé contacted rejected her request to provide Movant with outpatient psychiatric services.

 ..........27).....On July 13, 2010, Justice Arthur M. Schack engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and aggravated identity theft by rendering a decision, holding that “Godwin Uzamere” is Movant's husband and that ORDERED, that the instant complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that Movant CHERYL UZAMERE is hereby enjoined from commencing any future actions in the New York State Unified Court System against SENATOR EHIGIE EDOBOR UZAMERE a/k/a "GODWIN E. UZAMERE," ALLEN E. KAYE, P.C., ALLEN E. KAYE, ESQ., HARVEY SHAPIRO, ESQ., BERNARD J. ROSTANSKI and JACK GLADSTEIN, ESQ., without the prior approval of the appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge; and it is further ORDERED, that any violation of the above injunction by CHERYL UZAMERE will subject CHERYL UZAMERE to costs, sanctions and contempt proceedings. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.”

..........28).....On July 20, 2010, Defendant Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, conspiring with Defendant Arthur M. Schack, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice designed to hide the aforesaid immigration attorneys' commission of aggravated identity theft, and to make the public believe that the Movant's lawsuit against the aforesaid immigration attorneys concerned lawyer malpractice and not criminally-based fraud, publicized an article on the internet entitled Sometimes It Just Wasn't the Attorney in Legal Malpractice. The article says:

One theme that we have considered over the years is whether attorneys get preferential treatment in legal malpractice litigation. Are motions to dismiss granted on too little evidence? Do the attorneys get the benefit of the doubt? Is the fact that legal malpractice law is written mostly by attorneys, is decided upon by attorneys and affects attorneys sometimes dispositive of the outcome? Well, all that aside, sometimes the client just can't help themselves. Here is an example from today's NYLJ: Uzamere v. Uzamere; KINGS COUNTY; Justice Schack. . .”

Shortly thereafter, Defendant Lawline.com published the same article, even going so far as to compare Jewish Defendant Kaye's, Defendant Shapiro's and Defendant Gladstein's monstrous act of aggravated identity theft, including the deprivation of Movant's and her daughter Tara's right to bear the African/Nigerian name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere nothing more than Movant's delusion that it was an act of legal malpractice, and not a crime. Movant respectfully asks this Court to take judicial notice of Defendant Andrew Lavoot Bluestone's internet editorial entitled Sometimes It Just Wasn't the Attorney in Legal Malpractice.”

..........29).....On August 16, 2010, Movant filed lawsuit 2010-cv-555 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit assigned to Defendant judge Christine O.C. Miller. Movant alleges that she provided Defendant Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendant Miller disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Movant into believing that a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud.

..........30).....On August 30, 2010, Movant filed lawsuit 2010-cv-585 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit assigned to Defendants Nancy B. Firestone and John P. Wiese of the U.S. Court of Claims. Movant alleges that she provided Defendants Firestone and Wiese with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendants Firestone and Wiese disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Movant into believing that a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud.

..........31).....On September 1, 2010, Movant filed lawsuit 2010-cv-591 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit was assigned to Defendant judge Christine O.C. Miller of the U.S. Court of Claims. Movant alleges that she provided Defendant Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendant Miller disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Movant into believing that a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud.

..........32).....On or around January 11, 2011, Movant filed a lawsuit against Defendant State of New York with the New York State Court of Claims. As part of Movant's testimony, Movant provided Defendant Scuccimarra with the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt, Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft with regard to Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity. Defendant Scuccimarra never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys' commission of a federal felony.

..........33).....On or around January 19, 2011, Movant filed a lawsuit against Defendant Gerstein, Defendant Sunshine and Defendant Schack with Defendant the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. As part of Movant's testimony, Movant provided Defendant Klonick with the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt, Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft with regard to Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity. Defendant Klonick never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys' commission of a federal felony.

..........34).....On or around April 29, 2011, Movant filed a lawsuit against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein with Defendants the New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department and the New York Grievance Committee for the Second Judicial Department. As part of Movant's testimony, Movant provided Defendants Del Tipico and Gutierrez with the fraudulent affirmations that Defendants Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft at the behest of their client, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. Defendants Del Tipico and Gutierrez never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys commission of a federal felony.

..........35).....In June, 2011, Movant filed the lawsuit Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 with the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

..........36).....On or around June 22, 2011, Defendant Garaufis engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft by rendering an FRCP-lacking, memorandum-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-CV-2831 for the sole purpose of: 1) advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their fraudulent commission of duping Movant into believing that a civil res judicata determination is a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud, and his own and Defendant Bloom's commission of racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity fraud and fraud upon the court as well.

..........37).....On or around June 25, 2011, less than thirty (30) days after Movant submitted her lawsuit to the court, Defendant Garaufis engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft of at the behest of Defendant Judge Garaufis three (3) marshals from the U.S. Marshals Service for Defendant the Eastern District of New York banged on Movant's apartment door, shaming Movant within earshot of her neighbors. When the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of New York identified themselves, Movant asked them if she had committed a crime. The marshals stalled for a few seconds, and then said that Movant had not committed any crimes. When Movant asked the U.S. Marshals why they were there, the U.S. Marshal that banged on Movant's door said “I'm gonna annoy you like you annoyed Judge Garaufis.” When Movant told them that she would not open the door, the one banging on the door said “then I'm gonna keep bangin”, and for another 1.5 minutes continued to bang on Movant's door. He also asked Movant “is your daughter Tara home?”, to find out if Movant was home alone. Within minutes of Movant telling them that her daughter Tara was there, they left.

..........38).....On July 4, 2011, Movant filed her appeal for the lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al., 11-2713-cv. Movant also filed a motion for judicial recusal pursuant to 28 USC §455.

..........39).....On or around July 7, 2011, within days of Movant's request for Defendant Garaufis to recuse himself, Defendant Garaufis commenced a plan to have Defendant mental health employees engaged in an extortionate “shakedown” in which the aforesaid mental health defendants falsely accused Movant of threatening Defendant Garaufis with bodily harm and threatening federal employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' call center with death. Defendants psychiatric nurse Agnes Flores and psychologist Martin Bolton, employees of Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation came to Movant's apartment, speaking about Movant's psychiatric issues in the hallway and shaming Movant within earshot of her neighbors. Defendants Flores and Bolton said that Defendant U.S. Marshal Service told them that Movant contacted Defendant Mental Health Association's LifeNet5 psychiatric helpline and made threats of bodily harm against Defendant Garaufis. Movant told them that had she done such a thing that the U.S. Marshal Service would have arrested her when they visited her and given her an attorney, which would have forced Movant's attorney to examine Movant's civil claims.

..........40).....Also, on July 7, 2011, at the behest of Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe, the United Parcel Service returned Movant's appellate brief, all of Movant's motions, Appendix A and Appendix B that Movant served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 4, 2012. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe did not include any correspondence explaining why Movant's appellate documents were returned. When Movant checked the PACER system, the system fraudulently recorded Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis decision as a memorandum and order, even though Defendant Garaufis never provided an FRCP-based memorandum.

..........41).....Some days later while in the month of July 2011, Movant received another visit from Defendants Flores and Bolton. Because Movant was afraid that someone who would enter her apartment and place Movant in a psychiatric hospital against her will, Movant hid in her closet between so that if they came into Movant's apartment, she would appear not be home.

..........42) Some days later during the month of July, 2011, Movant received a call from Defendant Davis, but Movant turned her cell phone off.

..........43).....A day or so later, someone knocked on Movant's door but did not announce themselves. Again Movant hid in her closet to feign that she was not home. When Movant went to the door, there was a notice from Woodhull Hospital's psychiatric unit with an appoint to appear at their psychiatric outpatient clinic.

..........44).....On July 16, 2011, in terror of forced hospitalization at the behest of Defendant Garaufis, the U.S. Marshal Service and psychiatric facilities over which the New York State Office of Mental Health and the New York State Department of Health have oversight, Movant faxed a copy of Affidavit to Preetinder Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

..........45).....Later on in July 2011, Defendant Davis called Movant, frightening Movant by making Movant believe that Movant would be forcibly hospitalized because Defendant U.S. Marshal Service told her that Movant had threatened others at the Medicaid office, something that Movant did not do. Movant took the liberty of recording the conversation in its entirety. Movant uploaded the conversation http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html6

..........46).....In the month of August, 2011 Defendant Davis contacted Defendant Sarpong for the purpose of forcing Movant to go to Defendant Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, where Movant was hospitalized as an inpatient for threatening Defendant Garaufis and other judges with bodily harm, and threatening CMS workers with death, something that Movant never did. Movant stayed a few days as an inpatient with Defendant Brookdale because Defendant Dr. “John Doe” and other employees of Defendant Brookdale Hospital Medical Center were told by Defendant Sarpong that Movant threatened Judge Garaufis, other judges and CMS call center workers with death and with bodily harm. Thereafter, Brookdale Hospital Medical Center terminated its outpatient psychiatric services to the Movant and transferred Movant to the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team in order Movant illegally monitor along with Defendant Denis P. McGowan of Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

  ..........47).....On or around August 18, 2011, Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation's East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team received correspondence from U.S. Department of Homeland Security on its original letterhead bearing the name “Denis P. McGowan, Chief, Threat Management Branch.” The letter stated: “On July 06, 2011, Federal Protective Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made by CHERYL UZAMERE to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid call center. The threat consisted of HER stating: since SHE did not get the job, SHE was going to "COME DOWN THERE AND KILL EVERYBODY. Since FPS has investigated UZAMERE multiple times for similar behavior, we are well aware of HER mental health history. Based on that information, a referral was made to LifeNet for mental health intervention on July 07 2011. Subsequently, UZAMERE's Intensive Case Manager (ICM) Bridgett Davis of the New York State Office of Mental Health has advised that UZAMERE's treatment has been transferred to the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program. We were informed that CHERYL D. UZAMERE is being treated as a patient by your program and we would like to keep you abreast of this situation as it evolves. We also request that we be notified as HER status changes in particular any change from in-patient to out-patient treatment and in the case of the latter any refusal of treatment. In addition, please notify FPS of any relapses or deterioration of HER condition that may pose a risk to life or property.”

..........48).....From July 6, 2011, the date in which Movant is alleged to have committed 18 USC §115 against Defendant Garaufis, other federal judges and employees of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services call center, no federal law enforcement agency has made any attempt to arrest the Movant for the aforementioned offenses. According to Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, the judges who rendered decisions on Movant's appeal for her lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv were not indicated on the decision because others unknown to Movant told Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe that Movant threatened Judge Nicholas, other federal judges and Defendant Sunshine. 

..........49).....On February 26, 2012, Defendant HHC's ACT Team where Defendant Sarpong is employed prepared a psychiatric treatment plan. Under the title “Alerts”, the treatment plan states “. . . H/O threats to judges and Center for Medicaid and Medicare, patient is being monitored by Homeland Security.” Under the title “Discharge Plan”, it says “Patient is not being considered for discharge at this time, she was transferred to the program 6 months ago after she made a threat to the Medicare and Medicaid call center and is being monitored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” Under the title “Patient/Family Statement”, it says that “She reported not being aware of being monitored by Homeland Security. . .” 

..........50).....From June 6, 2012, Movant sent a number of e-mails to employees Mike J. Fitzpatrick, Katrina Gay, David Levy and Sue Medford of the organization National Alliance for the Mental Ill (NAMI) regarding Defendant Daily News use of the term “wacko” to publicly malign the Movant. None of the employees that Movant contacted made any attempt to speak with the Movant.

..........51).....On November 28, 2012, based on information and belief, Defendants Raggi, Carney and Kahn of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft by rendering an FRAP-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv for the sole purpose of advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their fraudulent commission of aggravated identity fraud, and their own commission of racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity, for their own commission of obstruction of justice by duping Movant into believing that a civil res judicata determination is a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless the legal consequences faced by Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's for their criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. Movant was told the names of Defendant judges Raggi, Carney and Kahn by an unknown employee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe also engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft for the sole purpose of advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. Movant's alleges that Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe left out the names of the judges who rendered their illegal decision on Movant's decision based on defendants' delusion that Movant would either not figure out the judges' identity and would therefore be unable to sue them.

..........52).....Soon thereafter, the Movant called Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court for U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and asked why the appellate judges' names were not indicated on the U.S. Court of Appeals' decision. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe indicated that the judges' names were left out because Movant had threatened federal judges, something that Movant never did.

..........53).....a).....During the month of December, 2012, Movant sent several e-mails containing a copy of the lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 that Movant filed, as well as those lawsuits that Movant will file with the Federal District Court of the Eastern District of New York, along with proof of Movant's ex-husband's identity and the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein filed with the New York State Supreme Court to First Lady Michele Obama, and to all the defendants.

....................b).....During the last days of Movant's amending her Verified Complaint, Movant discovered that four (4) of the Defendants, namely, Agnes Flores, psychiatric nurse, formerly employed by Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Martin Bolton, psychologist, formerly employed by New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Anne Berrill Carroll, General Counsel and Deputy Vice President, formerly employed by Defendant Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel, staff writer, formerly employed by Daily News, LP are no longer employed at their respective places of employment. Movant has had difficulty discovering their forwarding addresses for employment or for residence. Movant considers the disappearance of the aforesaid Defendants an act of obstruction of justice and proof of Defendants' mens rea.

 

 ..........54).....On or around January 30, 2013, Movant received a letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The letter stated: "Our records show that you placed calls to 1-800-MEDICARE on the dates and times listed below (all times Central). We can confirm that none of these calls contained threatening comments: June 14,2010, 10:38 AM; June 1, 2011, 7:39 AM; July 8,2011, 12:56 PM; May 18, 2012, 11:17 AM, 1:29 PM, 3:51 PM; July 2, 2012, 10:47 AM; July 10, 2012, 2:24 PM; July 17, 2012, 1:09 PM; July 18, 2012, 11:14 AM; July 19, 2012, 5:02 PM; July 23, 2012, 2:51 PM; July 24, 2012, 5:21 PM, 5:43 PM, 5:47 PM, 6:05 PM, 9:56 PM; July 26, 2012, 9:39 PM; July 27, 2012, 5:48 PM; September 9, 2012, 4:39 PM; October 18, 2012, 2:26 PM; November 16, 2012 7:38 PM; November 26, 2012, 1:46 PM; December 12, 2012, 11:13AM; December 13, 2012, 4:29 AM, 5:05 PM, 5:09 PM.

..........55).....On March 7, 2013, Movant contacted the New York State Court of Appeals to inform Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of Movant's plans to include him in her lawsuit. Later on, Movant received an e-mail from Richard Reed that said: “This is further to the telephone conversation that you had with the Clerk's Office of the New York State Court of Appeals this morning regarding your proposed federal complaint. Please be advised that the matter has been turned over to Counsel's Office for the Office of Court Administration. They will contact you in due course.” Towards the end of the same day, Movant received a telephone call from Defendant Michael J. Broyde and attempted to tell him of what Movant called a contradiction in term with regard to being both a rabbi and a U.S. attorney. Movant informed the rabbi-attorneys of her plans to file her Verified Complaint against them, and consistent with Movant's stated plans, e-mailed her Verified Complaint and the exhibits to rabbi-attorneys Michael J. Broyde, Esq., Rabbi Michoel Zylberman, Esq., Rabbi Yona Reiss, Esq., Rabbi Shlomo Weissmann, Esq.

..........56).....On March 9, 2013, Movant e-mailed Abraham H. Foxman, Steven M. Freeman, Esq., Steven C. Sheinberg, Esq., Deborah Bensinger, Esq. and David L. Barkey, Esq. of the Anti-Defamation League, Inc. to advise them how Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq., Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel employed their Talmud-fostered racial hatred and hatred of mentally ill goyim to rationalize their commission of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft; their false accusation that Movant harassed Defendant Sunshine; their false accusation that Movant made threats of violence; their violation of Movant's Sixth Amendment insofar as the aforesaid Defendants never had any intention of confronting the Movant; and the Defendants' continued violation of 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, insofar as none of the Defendants have ever made any attempt to file any criminal complaint against Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq., Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel in spite of Movant's irrefutable criminal accusations.

..........57).....On March 15, 2013, Movant sent a a copy of her lawsuit and a her complaint regarding Defendant McCarthy to Defendant the Professional Responsibility Program. Movant explained in her e-mail that Defendant McCarthy violated 18 USC §4, misprision of felony based on Defendant's McCarthy's having knowledge of the actual commission of a Allen E. Kaye's and Harvey Shapiro's aggravated identity theft and her continued refusal to it make known; and her refusal to obey Vermont’s Rules of Professional Conduct's Rule 3.4, Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, which requires attorneys not to: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value; b) not to counsel or assist another person to do any such act; and, c) not to falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law.

..........58).....On March 25, 2013 Movant sent a reply back to Vermont's Professional Responsibility Program with copies of the attorneys' fraudulent affirmations that hold Godwin Uzamere to be Movant's husband.

..........59).....On March 24, 2013, Movant called Defendant FBI New York Office and asked one of its agents if the FBI office would refuse to take Movant's complaints if the person against whom Movant complained was Jewish, as Movant alleges was done to her in the past. True to past behavior, someone hung up the phone. When Movant called back, the person on the phone said that Movant had posed the question to Mr. Stein, hurting his feelings. Movant was then called anti-Semitic, and then subjected to having the telephone hung up. Movant took her three (3) phones and engaged in a blitz phone call session, allowing all of her phones to ring at the same time. When "John Doe" #1 finally answered the phone, Movant got into an argument with Defendant “John Doe” #1 with regard to Movant's right to file a criminal complaint against Jews who had violated federal law. Defendant “John Doe” #1 blackmailed Movant by telling her that he would call Movant's daughter, mentioning Movant's daughter's name (something that generally precedes a threat of psychiatric hospitalization), and then would come to Movant's apartment; however, when asked if Movant had committed a crime and whether Movant would be assigned an attorney, "John Doe" #1 said that Movant would have to obtain an attorney on her own. As it turned out, "John Doe" #1 never came to Movant's apartment, and never contacted Movant's daughter. During Movant's conversation with "John Doe" #1, Movant told the employee that she was recording the conversation. Movant recorded the conversation and uploaded it to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/adl_zuckerman_both_criminals.html (this site, at the link that says FBIconversation - click here). The following day, Movant contacted the FBI and spoke with a woman (who sounded black). Movant told the woman that an FBI employee would not allow her to file any complaints if the subject of the complaint is Jewish. Movant also told the woman that she recorded the conversation and uploaded it to her website. The woman asked Movant how Movant knew whether the person with whom Movant spoke was an employee of the FBI. Movant told the woman she was right, and that the person with whom Movant spoke could have been Bozo the Clown. Subsequently, an employee of the FBI called Movant's psychiatric treatment facility and reported that Movant had an argument with an FBI employee; that said argument was indicative that Movant has psychiatric issues that warrant hospitalization. On March 28, 2013, the day of Movant's treatment appointment, Movant was asked by her psychiatrist, Dr. Beaudouin if she had had an argument with anyone. Later, Movant was interviewed simultaneously by Dr. Beaudouin and Ms. Fletcher in an attempt to find reasons to hospitalize the Movant. It was so obvious that Movant asked if they planned to hospitalize her. Movant's psychiatrist and therapist said no; however, Movant's psychiatrist and therapist never disclosed to Movant that they had been contacted by Defendant FBI and requested to act as agents of the police. Movant had committed no crime and has been treatment compliant such that Movant felt double-teamed by Dr. Beaudouin and Ms. Fletcher with their bombardment of questions that were geared, not to help Movant, but as an investigative tool of the FBI to determine whether Movant had any argument with the FBI. Movant's treatment facility is now being used surreptitiously to ensure that if Movant files a complaint with the FBI against any Jew, that the FBI will contact her psychiatric treatment facility and tell them to hospitalize Movant.

..........60).....By reason of the foregoing irrefutable allegations, Movant asserts that there exists a justiciable controversy with respect to Movant's emergency motion for expedited mandatory judicial notice of her exhibits and conversation to a motion for summary judgment for which Movant is entitled to the relief prayed for herein.

Specific Requests For Expedited Mandatory Judicial Notice

 ..........61).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of correspondence from CMS attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit S.

 ..........62).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of report prepared by Defendant Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, and to accept into evidence as Verified Complaint Exhibit A.

..........63).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of letter bearing the false name of Movant's ex-husband that was presented to Movant by Defendant Jack Gladstein and to accept into evidence as Exhibit B.

..........64).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of documentation regarding USA v. Uzamere, 1:08-cr-114-1 attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit B.

..........65).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of fraudulent affirmation and fraudulent foreign counter-affidavit attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit C.

 ..........66).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of correspondence from Defendant McCarthy dated January 6, 2009 attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit A.

..........67).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of Page 9 of Justice Sunshine's decision and order dated January 12, 2009 is attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit D.

..........68).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take judicial notice of e-mail to former Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders and response from the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit E.

69) Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of fraudulent passport cover and fraudulent social security number attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit C.

..........70).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of Defendant Sunshine's decision attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit F.

..........71).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of fraudulent affirmations of Defendants Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit G.

..........72).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of correspondence from Rikers Island, attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit H

..........73).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of FEGS' discharge summary attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit J1.

..........74).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of interim decision of Defendant Schack attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit I.

..........75).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of interim decision of Defendant Schack's decision dated July 13, 2010 attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit J.

..........76).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of copies of UPS envelopes for Movant's appellate documents attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit K.

..........77).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of documents for Movant's lawsuit Uzamere vs. State of New York, et al 09-cv-2703/09-3197-cv and Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2831-cv and 11-2713-cv attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit L.

..........78).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of letter from Denis P. McGowan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit M.

 

Relief

..........79).....Movant seeks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of each of the specific requests above.

..........80).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that in December, 1977, Nosayaba (John) Uzamere and Ethel Uzamere (brother and sister-in-law, NOT father and stepmother) engaged in immigration fraud by applying for IR2 residence on behalf of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; that said IR2 residence was approved, first in December 1978, and subsequently the accompanying visa was approved on January 28, 1980.

..........81).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on November 20, 1979, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere engaged in fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated theft, racketeering and obstruction of justice by submitting to Defendant City of New York a fraudulent marriage affidavit for license to marry the Movant.

..........82).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on or around November 30, 1979, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere engaged in fraud, immigration fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft, racketeering and obstruction of justice by submitting the fraudulent marriage certificate bearing the fictitious name “Godwin E. Uzamere” to Defendants Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro; that Defendants Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro engaged in fraud, immigration fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft by accepting on behalf of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere the fraudulent marriage certificate and fraudulent I-130 immigration form without requiring their client to produce current Nigerian and/or U.S. photograph-bearing identification; and that Defendants Kaye and Shapiro engaged in fraud, immigration fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft, racketeering and obstruction of justice by employing willful blindness with regard to their knowledge of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's prior application for IR2 sponsorship under his real name and with regard to their own responsibility to require a current passport and/or other proper photo-bearing identification from their client.

..........83).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on April 29, 1980, Judge Philip M. Roache issued an arrest warrant against the fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere”; and that from the aforementioned date until that date that Tara A. Uzamere, the child of the marriage became 21 years of age, Defendants State of New York and the City of New York never made any honest attempt to contact Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to require him to pay child support.

..........84).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on August 12, 1980, Movant filed a complaint with Defendant U.S. Department of Justice's immigration service withdrawing immigration sponsorship based on her belief that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere married her solely to obtain permanent residence; that Movant specifically stated in her complaint to Defendant U.S. Department of Justice that “I believe that he is attending classes at Pratt University in Brooklyn, New York. . .he had been registered there under the name Ehigie Uzamere”; and that at the time that Movant filed the aforementioned complaint, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was a student studying architecture at Pratt University, Brooklyn, New York.

..........85).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that Defendants U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Homeland Security never held Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Esq. and Harvey Shapiro criminally liable for submitting the fraudulent I-130 immigration sponsorship form and fraudulent marriage certificate to them without submitting their client's passport or other proper proof of identity although both Defendant maintained immigration files containing documents confirming the real identity of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.

..........86).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that immigration records were held by Defendant U.S. Department of Justice and are now under the care, supervision and control of Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security under file number A35 201 224 pertain to the true and correct identity of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, born December 31, 1960; that A24 027 764 pertains to the false identity “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere, false date of birth, June 1, 1955; that the aforementioned immigration records have been in the possession of Defendants U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Homeland Security's immigration service for thirty-four (34) years; and that at the behest of President Obama, Defendant United States of America, by its agent U.S. Department of Homeland Security provided Movant with proof of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity by sending Movant correspondence and other documents containing immigration files nos. A35 201 224 (associated with Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, date of birth December 31, 1960) and A24 027 764 (associated with “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere”, date of birth “June 1, 1955”).

..........87).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on or around October 1, 2003, Defendant Gladstein engaged in misprision of felony, fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering and obstruction of justice by mailing fraudulent correspondence to Movant, said correspondence bearing the fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere” to dupe Movant into identifying Movant's husband and to conspire with Defendant the New York State Unified Court System to accept “Godwin Uzamere” as the true and correct identity of Movant's husband; that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere financially retained the aforesaid attorney's legal services without providing true and correct proof of identity (current passport, current driver's license); and that Defendant Gladstein engaged in misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering and obstruction of justice by never requiring Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to provide true and correct proof of his identity by producing current U.S. photo-bearing identification documents.

..........88).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that Osato Eugene Uzamere7 , at the behest of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Defendant Sunshine engaged in misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting fraudulently holding that Movant is insane, thereby illegally defying the administrative decisions rendered by Defendant U.S. Department of Justice nearly thirty (30) years earlier confirming Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity and revoking his IR2 residence based on his subsequent fraudulent application for IR1 residence under the fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere; that Defendant Osato Eugene Uzamere, on behalf of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Defendant Sunshine, engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering and obstruction of justice by hand-delivering to Defendant Sunshine during Defendant Sunshine's adjudication of Movant's divorce action a copy of a Nigerian passport bearing the number A0588053 but not bearing the photograph and name of the passport holder; a fraudulent document from the Social Security Administration bearing the fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere and bearing number 129-64-1205; that Defendants Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Osato Eugene Uzamere and Defendant Sunshine made no attempt to require the submission and submit true and correct photo-bearing identification documents of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; that this is the first extortionate attempt that Defendants made to extort/blackmail Movant publicly or in a court/psychiatric setting, by accusing Movant of being an anti-Semitic, a potentially violent criminal, psychotic or all three in order to frighten Movant into not filing criminal charges against them, and in order to ensure that if Movant's complaint is publicized, that the public – especially the Jewish public, would not believe the Movant; and that Defendants Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's, Osato Eugene Uzamere's and Defendant Sunshine's rationalization for engaging in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortionate/blackmail and blacklisting is based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........89).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that with reference to criminal lawsuit USA v. Uzamere, 1:08-cr-114-1, Defendant Rachel McCarthy of U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Eugenia Cowles of U.S. Department of Justice's U.S. Attorney's Office for the State of Vermont engaged in misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting by falsely accusing Movant of the commission of 18 USC §111(a), simple assault, a crime which Movant did not committed and for which Defendants never had any intention to confront Movant for the purpose of determining her guilt in any court of law in the first instance based on withdrawal of their own case; that Defendants' extortionate allegation was an act of blackmail designed to frighten Movant into not filing complaints against Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro; that his is the second extortionate attempt that Defendants made to blackmail Movant by publicly or in a court/psychiatric setting accusing Movant of being an anti-Semitic, a potentially violent criminal, psychotic or all three in order to prevent Movant from filing criminal charges against them, and in order to ensure that if Movant's complaint is publicized, that that public – especially the Jewish public, would not believe the Movant; and that Defendant McCarthy's and Cowles' rationalization for having engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering and obstruction of justice is based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........90).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was the husband8 of the Movant, is the father of the child of the marriage, Tara A. Uzamere and was the stepfather of David P. Walker; that Movant's divorce action K-26332-2007, including the question of paternity with regard to Tara A. Uzamere, the child of the marriage and the question of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere identity were decided favorably by Defendant Sunshine and Defendant D'Emic, such that the issue of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity is now a matter of New York State case law, Uzamere vs. Uzamere, 2009, NY Slip Op 90214 [68 AD3d 855]; that with reference to the records of Defendant New York State Unified Court System, Index No. 26332-2007 and appellate action Uzamere v. Uzamere, 2009-01119, NY Slip Op 90214 [68 AD3d 855], that the Affidavit of child of the marriage Tara A. Uzamere holding Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be her father is true and correct; that Defendant Judge Sunshine's decision dated May 12, 2009 holding Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be Movant's husband is true and correct; that Defendant Judge D'Emic's decision dated March 15, 2010 holding that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be Movant's husband and the father of Tara A. Uzamere is true and correct; and that Defendant appellate judges Fisher's, Angiolillo's, Lott's and Sgroi's decision December 8, 2009 holding Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be Movant's husband is true and correct.

..........91).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on or around October 28, 2009, Defendants Nicholas G. Garaufis, Arthur M. Schack, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Michael Gerstein, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, engaged in misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting by submitting fraudulent affirmations to the court holding “Godwin Uzamere” to be the Movant's husband based on the same fraudulent I-130 immigration sponsorship form that Defendants Kaye and Shapiro submitted to Defendant United States of Justice almost thirty (30) years earlier; that the aforementioned Defendants did not submit with their fraudulent affirmations any current U.S. photo-bearing identification documents associated with the fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere”; and that Defendants Nicholas G. Garaufis', Arthur M. Schack's, Jeffrey S. Sunshine's, Michael Gerstein's, Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein's rationalization of their commission of misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting is based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........92).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on November 3, 2009, while under the administration, care, supervision and control of Defendants Andrew M. Cuomo as Governor of Defendant State of New York, Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge of the New York State Unified Court System and Mayor Michael Bloomberg as Mayor for Defendant City of New York, Defendants Charles A. Hynes as District Attorney for Kings County, Amy Feinstein as Chief Assistant District Attorney for Kings County District Attorney's Office, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Lisa Schreibersdorf, Timothy Gumkowski and Joyce Kendrick engaged in misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting by conspiring to have the New York City Police Department falsely arrest the Movant for threatening Defendant Sunshine; that thirty-three (33) days later, after having been apprised of Movant's allegations against the Defendants, Defendant Brooklyn Defender Service by its employee Joyce Kendrick told Movant to “let it go” and ended their representation of the Movant without ever representing the Movant in court with reference to her complaint of Defendants' conspiracy to prevent Movant from filing complaints against them; that the aforementioned Defendants conspired to have the charges dropped against Movant without allowing her to confront the individual(s) who filed the false accusation against the Movant; and that while under the administration, care, supervision and control of Defendants Andrew M. Cuomo as Governor of Defendant State of New York and Mayor Michael Bloomberg as Mayor for Defendant City of New York, Defendants Charles A. Hynes as District Attorney for Kings County, Amy Feinstein as Chief Assistant District Attorney for Kings County District Attorney's Office, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Lisa Schreibersdorf, Timothy Gumkowski and Joyce Kendrick rationalized their having engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering and obstruction of justice based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........93).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on November 5, 2009, while under the administration, care, supervision and control of Defendants Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of Defendant State of New York, Eric Schneiderman, Attorney General for the New York State, Michael Bloomberg, Mayor for Defendant City of New York, Defendants Charles A. Hynes as District Attorney for Kings County, Amy Feinstein as Chief Assistant District Attorney for Kings County District Attorney's Office, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Lisa Schreibersdorf, Timothy Gumkowski and Joyce Kendrick engaged in misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting by conspired with Daily News employees Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel to illegally publish as true and correct the fraudulent identity “Godwin Uzamere”, and fraudulent information regarding the unauthenticated, counter-affidavit from Nigeria; that the aforesaid Defendants commented on or illegally allowed the dissemination of Movant's , nonpublic information9 regarding Movant's cases Kings County Criminal Court Case Docket No. 2009KN087992 and Kings County Supreme Court case Index No. K-26332-2007, Movant's action for divorce; that this is the part two of the fourth extortionate attempt that Defendants made to blackmail Movant publicly or in a court/psychiatric setting, by accusing Movant of being an anti-Semitic, a potentially violent criminal, psychotic or all three in order to blackmail Movant into not filing criminal charges against the Defendants, and in order to ensure that if Movant's complaint is publicized, that that public – especially the Jewish public, would not believe the Movant; and that while under the administration, care, supervision and control of Defendants Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of Defendant State of New York and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Mayor for Defendant City of New York, Defendants Charles A. Hynes as District Attorney for Kings County, Amy Feinstein as Chief Assistant District Attorney for Kings County District Attorney's Office, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Lisa Schreibersdorf, Timothy Gumkowski and Joyce Kendrick engaged in misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting rationalized their having engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering and obstruction of justice based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........94).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on November 30, 2009, while under the administration, care, supervision and control of Defendants New York State, the New York State Office of Mental Health and Defendant Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Defendants Roberta Siegal, Assistant Vice President of FEGS, Inc.; Dr. Forster, psychiatrist of FEGS, Inc. and Clifford Nafus, Rehabilitation Technician of FEGS, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Arthur M. Schack, engaged in misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting by conspiring with employees of Defendant Federation Employment and Guidance Service to blackmail Movant by illegally terminating its federally-funded mental health services to the Movant based on the aforementioned Defendant's accusation that Movant made anti-Semitic remarks; that this is the fourth part of the same extortionate attempt that Defendants made to blacklist Movant, publicly or in a court/psychiatric setting, by accusing Movant of being an anti-Semitic, a criminal, psychotic or all three in order to prevent Movant from filing criminal charges against them, and in order to ensure that if Movant's complaint is publicized, that public – especially the Jewish public, would not believe the Movant; that Defendant Federation Employment and Guidance Service and Defendant employees, rationalized terminating the Movant on the basis of anti-Semitism, a violation of Jewish religious law;10 and that Defendants Roberta Siegal, Assistant Vice President of FEGS, Inc.; Dr. Forster, psychiatrist of FEGS, Inc. and Clifford Nafus, Rehabilitation Technician of FEGS, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Arthur M. Schack, rationalized their having engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering and obstruction of justice based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........95).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on December 7, 2009, and on each and every occasion in which Movant was forced to become an inpatient after going to court to file complaints against Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Arthur M. Schack engaged in misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting by conspiring to kidnap the Movant based on Defendants concocting false reports that Movant threatened Defendant Sunshine, a crime Movant did not commit, and for which the accusing Defendants never had any intention of confronting Movant for the purpose of successfully prosecuting Movant in any court of law; and that Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Arthur M. Schack engaged in misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........96).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on December 24, 2009, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine Defendant Cutrona and Arthur M. Schack engaged in misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting by conspiring to unlawfully imprisoning the Movant by fraudulently adjudging Movant to be mentally unfit; said mental unfitness to be used to rationalize that Movant's complaints against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine Defendant Cutrona and Arthur M. Schack had their basis in Movant's mental illness and were not true; that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine Defendant Cutrona and Arthur M. Schack engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering and obstruction of justice by rendering a decision to unlawfully imprison the Movant based on a crime that Movant did not commit, and for which Movant's accuser never had the intention of confronting the Movant in the first instance; that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine Defendant Cutrona and Arthur M. Schack engaged in misprision of felony, fraud, fraud upon the court, racketeering and obstruction of justice by rendering a decision that ignored Movant's complaint that Defendants Arthur M. Schack, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel, Osato Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere engaged in fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft; and that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine Defendant Cutrona and Arthur M. Schack rationalized their commission of misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........97).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on January 15, 2010, Defendant Schack engaged in deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering and obstruction of justice by ordering Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's psychiatrist Dr. Marie Bauduy of the Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility not to produce the Movant for court; and that Defendant Schack rationalization for engaging in misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting is based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........98).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on or near February 23, 2010, while the Movant was in her apartment faxing letters of complaint to various governmental agencies, Defendant Sunshine engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting by ordering that Movant be kidnapped and unlawfully imprisoned with Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center; and Defendant Sunshine rationalized his commission of misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........99).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on July 13, 2010, Defendant Schack engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting by rendering a decision that illegally holds that “Godwin Uzamere” is Movant's husband without requiring Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein to produce current photo-bearing U.S. identity documents to confirm the identity of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere (or “Godwin Uzamere”); that Defendant Schack engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting by illegally rendering said decision as a res judicata decision to dupe Movant into believing that Defendant Schack has the legal authority to prevent the Movant from commencing a new action based on, inter alia, Defendant Schack's illegal act of referring to Movant's husband as “Godwin Uzamere”; and that Defendant Schack rationalized his commission of engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting based solely on based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........100).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on July 20, 2010, Defendant Andrew Lavoot Bluestone engaged in misprision of felony, racketeering and obstruction of justice by publicly disseminating a false statement that Movant filed a malpractice lawsuit for the sole purpose of hiding Defendants Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft.

..........101).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that with reference to lawsuits that Movant filed on August 16, 2010 and September 1, 2010, Defendant Christine O.C. Miller engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, racketeering and obstruction of justice by rendering a decision that ignored Movant's complaint that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel, Osato Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere committed fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated theft; and that Defendant Miller engaged in misprision of felony based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........102).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that with reference to the lawsuit that Movant filed on August 30, 2010, Defendant Nancy B. Firestone and John P. Wiese engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, racketeering and obstruction of justice by rendering a decision that ignored Movant's complaint that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel, Osato Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere committed fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated theft; and that Defendants Firestone and Wiese engaged in misprision of felony based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........103).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that with reference to the lawsuit that Movant filed on or around January 11, 2011, Defendant Scuccimarra engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, racketeering and obstruction of justice by rendering a decision that ignored Movant's complaint that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel, Osato Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere committed fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated theft; and that Defendant Scuccimarra engaged in misprision of felony based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........104).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that with reference to Movant's complaint filed on or around January 19, 2011, Defendants Klonick, along with other members of Defendant New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, racketeering and obstruction of justice by rendering a decision that ignored Movant's complaint that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel, Osato Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere committed fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated theft; and that Defendants Klonick, along with other members of Defendant New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct engaged in misprision of felony based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........105).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that with reference to Movant's complaint filed on or around April 29, 2011, Defendants Jorge Del Tipico of Defendant New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Department, Richard M. Gutierrez of the New York State Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts and unnamed individuals who participated in rendering the decision regarding Movant's complaint, engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, racketeering and obstruction of justice and blacklisting by rendering a decision that ignored Movant's complaint that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel, Osato Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere committed fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated theft; and that Defendants Jorge Del Tipico of Defendant New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Department, Richard M. Gutierrez of the New York State Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts and unnamed individuals who participated in rendering the illegal decision regarding Movant's complaint rationalized their commission of misprision of felony based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........106).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on or around June 25, 2011, at the behest of Defendant Garaufis, “John Doe #2”, “John Doe #3 and “Jane Doe”, employees of Defendant U.S. Marshals Service for the Eastern District of New York engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting by banging on Movant's apartment door, embarrassing Movant within earshot of her neighbors, and extortionately telling Movant that “I'm gonna annoy you like you annoyed Judge Garaufis.”; that Movant asked if she had broken any laws, and that “John Doe #2, “John Doe” #3 and “Jane Doe” told the Movant that she had not; that when Movant told them that she would not open the door, the one banging on the door said “then I'm gonna keep bangin”, and later asked Movant “is your daughter Tara home?”, to find out if Movant was home alone so as to facilitate kidnapping Movant, placing her in an inpatient psychiatric setting and preventing her from filing an appeal against Defendant Garaufis' illegal decision; and that at the behest of Defendant Garaufis, “John Doe #2”, “John Doe #3 and “Jane Doe”, rationalized their commission of misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........107).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on or around July 7, 2011, Defendants psychiatric nurse Agnes Flores and psychologist Martin Bolton, employees of Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting by falsely accusing Movant of contacting Defendant Mental Health Association's LifeNet psychiatric helpline and making threats of bodily harm against Defendant Garaufis; and that Agnes Flores and Martin Bolton rationalized their commission of misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........108).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on July 7, 2011, Defendants Nicholas G. Garaufis and Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting by returning Movant's appellate brief, all of Movant's motions, and Appendix A and Appendix B that Movant hand-delivered to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 4, 2012 with no correspondence explaining Wolfe did not include any correspondence explaining why Movant's appellate documents were returned; and that Defendant Garaufis and Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe rationalized their commission of misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........109).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that in the months of July and August, 2011 Defendant Davis, Defendant Sarpong, Defendant Garaufis, employees of the U.S. Marshal Service, the New York State Office of Mental Health, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and Brookdale Hospital Medical Center engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice and blackmail by reporting that Movant threatened Defendant Garaufis and other judges with bodily harm, that Movant threatened CMS workers with death, and that based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........110).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on or around August 18, 2011, Defendants Nicholas G. Garaufis, Charles Dunne (or other employee of the U.S. Marshals Service), Janet Napolitano, Denis P. McGowan, formerly of the Threat Assessment Branch, Federal Protective Service (or other employee the U.S. Department of Homeland Security), George Venizelos (previous Assistant Director in Charge) Defendant Denis P. McGowan, Threat Assessment Branch of the Federal Protective Service for Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting when Defendant McGowan sent Defendants Davis and Sarpong correspondence in which Defendant McGowan said that “on July 06, 2011, Federal Protective Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made by Cheryl Uzamere to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid call center. The threat consisted of HER stating: since she did not get the job, she was going to “come down there and kill everybody”; that Defendants Garaufis, Charles Dunne (or subordinate of the U.S. Marshals Service), Napolitano (or subordinate of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security), Venizelos (previous Assistant Director in Charge, or subordinate of Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation) conspired to promote Defendant McGowan to a position as Regional Director or other legal position suitable to present a national security letter to Defendant Garaufis for the sole purpose of spying on Movant's internet activity and her telephone calls to find something with which to blackmail the Movant, or to combine Movant's non-content information with a false story about a telephonic threat made by the Movant in violation of 18 USC §2709 and 18 USC §3511; that on February 26, 2012, Defendant Berger, Sarpong and other employees of Defendant New York City Health and Hospital Corporation conspired to indicate in Movant's psychiatric treatment plan that “Non-adherence to psychiatric medications and aftercare treatment, H/O threats to judges and Center for Medicaid” and “Patient is not considered for discharge at this time. She was transferred 6 months ago after she made a threat to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid call center and is being monitored by the U.S. Homeland Security”; and that Defendants Nicholas G. Garaufis, Charles Dunne (or other employee of the U.S. Marshals Service), Janet Napolitano, Denis P. McGowan (or other employee of the Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security), George Venizelos (or previous Assistant Director in Charge) of Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........111).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that with reference to Movant's complaint filed on or around January 19, 2011, Defendants Raggi, Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Defendant Kahn of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York and Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe engaged in engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, racketeering and obstruction of justice by rendering a decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv by rendering a decision that is not based in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any other procedural law; that the aforementioned Defendants ignored Movant's complaint that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel, Osato Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere committed fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated theft by conspiring with Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe to leave out the names of the judges' who rendered the fraudulent decision on Movant's appeal based on their false accusation that Movant threatened federal judges, Defendant Garaufis and Defendant Sunshine, a crime for which Movant was falsely accused and for which the aforesaid Defendants never had any intention of confronting the Movant to allow Movant her Sixth Amendment right to defend herself against hearsay; and, that Defendants Raggi, Carney, Kahn and Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe of New York engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, racketeering and obstruction of justice by ignoring Movant's complaint based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........112).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on or around January 30, 2013, Movant received a letter from Katie Lewis of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that stated: “Our records show that you placed calls to 1-800-MEDICARE on the dates and times listed below (all times Central). We can confirm that none of these calls contained threatening comments.”

..........113).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that Jan Eastman and Michael Kennedy of Defendant Vermont Professional Responsibility Program engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering and obstruction of justice by rendering a decision that ignored Movant's complaint that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel, Osato Eugene Uzamere, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and McCarthy committed fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated theft with regard to the identity of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that Jan Eastman and Michael Kennedy of Defendant Vermont Professional Responsibility Program engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering and obstruction of justice by ignoring Movant's complaint based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

..........114).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on March 24, 2013, Defendant “John Doe” #1, employee of Defendant FBI New York Office engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail, and blacklisting by using the non-content information regarding Movant's telephone calls to her psychiatric care provider Interfaith Medical Center that Defendant “John Doe” #1 obtained from Cablevision threatening Movant with psychiatric hospitalization for filing complaints against lawbreaking Jews during a telephone argument Defendant “John Doe” #1 (Movant recorded the conversation and uploaded to her website); that Defendant “John Doe” #1 threatened to contact Movant's daughter Tara A. Uzamere and embarrass Movant in front of her daughter; that “John Doe” #1 threatened to fabricate a false story with regard to Movant's status of having a mental illness; by threatening that someone from the FBI would come to Movant's apartment to hospitalize her if Movant filed complaint against lawbreaking Jews; by threatening Movant that FBI's involvement would not be criminal such that Movant would not be assigned an attorney to defend herself; that Defendant “John Doe” #1 discarded all of Movant's complaints that were related to the crimes of the Jewish Defendants in Movant's lawsuits; that on or around March 28, 2013 Defendant “John Doe” #1 violated HIPAA by obtaining non-content information regarding Movant's phone calls to her psychiatric care provider Interfaith Medical Center, then contacting Movant's to tell Movant's psychiatrist that Movant had engaged in arguing with him (Really? Isn't arguing covered by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment? Doesn't 18 USC §2709 and 18 USC §3511 prohibit national security letters from being used to prevent activities protected by the First Amendment – like arguing?); and that that Defendant “John Doe” #1 rationalized his commission misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail, and blacklisting based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

 

LEGAL ARGUMENTS 

This Court's Expedited Mandatory Judicial Notice of Defendant Ehigie Uzamere's 

Identity Puts an Immediate End to Talmudic Terrorizing of Movant and Her Family

..........Case Law Establishing Movant's Right to Demand Judicial Notice

..........115).....Judicial notice is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well known, or so authoritatively attested, that it cannot reasonably be doubted. This is done upon the request of the party seeking to rely on the fact at issue. Facts and materials admitted under judicial notice are accepted without being formally introduced by a witness or other rule of evidence, and they are even admitted if one party wishes to lead evidence to the contrary. Judicial notice is frequently used for the simplest, most obvious common sense facts, such as which day of the week corresponded to a particular calendar date.11

..........Judicial notice in the Federal Rules of Evidence

..........116).....In the United States, Article II of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) addresses judicial notice in federal courts, and this article is widely copied by U.S. States. FRE 201(b)) permit judges to take judicial notice of two categories of facts: 1) Those that are "generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court" (e.g. locations of streets within the court's jurisdiction) or 2) Those that are “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned” (e.g. the day of the week on a certain date).

..........117).....The FRE also notes that judicial notice may be permissive or mandatory. If it is permissive, then the court may choose to take judicial notice of the fact proffered, or may reject the request and require the party to introduce evidence in support of the point. If it is mandatory, then the court must take judicial notice of the fact proffered. Although the FRE does not expand upon the kinds of facts that would fall into one category or another, courts have ruled that judicial notice must be taken of federal public laws and treaties, state public laws, and official regulations of both federal and local government agencies.

..........118) During the U.S. Supreme Court's adjudication of the case Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969), the court took judicial notice of another U.S. Supreme Court case, Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967). In explaining the reason for taking judicial notice of the aforementioned case, the court decided that:

The petitioner here was one of the petitioners in the Walker case, in which, just two terms ago, we had before us a record showing many of the “surrounding relevant circumstances” of the Good Friday march. As the respondent suggests, we may properly take judicial notice of the record in that litigation between the same parties who are now before us. 

..........119).....In this case, the court took judicial notice, or accepted as irrefutable fact the uncontradicted testimony that the court learned during its adjudication of the case Walker v. City of Birmingham. It learned that over a week before the Good Friday march, petitioner Shuttlesworth sent a representative to apply for a parade permit. She went to the City Hall and asked “to see the person or persons in charge to issue permits, permits for parading, picketing, and demonstrating.” She was directed to Commissioner Connor, who denied her request in no uncertain terms. “He said, No, you will not get a permit in Birmingham, Alabama to picket. I will picket you over to the City Jail,' and he repeated that twice.”

..........120).....Two days later, petitioner Shuttlesworth himself sent a telegram to Commissioner Connor requesting, on behalf of his organization, a permit to picket “against the injustices of segregation and discrimination.” His request specified the sidewalks where the picketing would take place, and stated that “the normal rules of picketing” would be obeyed. In reply, the Commissioner sent a wire stating that permits were the responsibility of the entire Commission, rather than of a single Commissioner, and closing with the blunt admonition: “I insist that you and your people do not start any picketing on the streets in Birmingham, Alabama and your people do not start any picketing on the streets in Birmingham, Alabama.”

..........121).....In like manner, the issue with regard to Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity is irrefutable, as it was administratively decided by Defendant U.S. Department of Justice thirty-four (34) years ago. At the point that this Court judicially notices the facts surrounding Defendant Ehigie Uzamere's identity, every single offense associated with this lawsuit becomes even more obvious, thereby making every request for judicial notice requested in Movant's affidavit answerable by law. There is no “Godwin Uzamere.” Defendant's identity as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as former husband of the Movant is not just a face, it is now law, and has been for thirty-four (34) years.

..........Case Law Establishing Movant's Right to Demand Conversion to Summary Judgment

..........122).....In law, a summary judgment (also judgment as a matter of law) is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial.

..........123).....A party moving for summary judgment is attempting to avoid the time and expense of a trial when the outcome is obvious. A party may also move for summary judgment in order to eliminate the risk of losing at trial, and possibly avoid having to go through discovery (not Movant's present situation insofar as Movant engaged in discovery of her own and Defendants records, making request for discovery unnecessary), by demonstrating to the judge, via sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material factual issues remaining to be tried. If there's nothing for the fact finder to decide, then the moving party asks rhetorically, why have a trial?12

..........124).....In the lawsuit Global Network Communications, Inc. v. City of New York, et al., 458 F.3d 150 (2005), Circuit Judge Cardamone, for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit explained that in a de novo setting, the court cannot dispense with a complaint unless there is absolutely no facts in the complaint that support's the complaint's allegations. Judge Cardamone stated the following: 

We review de novo a district court's decision to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Allaire Corp. v. Okumus, 433 F.3d 248, 249-50 (2d Cir.2006). On such a motion, we are constrained to accept as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint and draw all inferences in plaintiff's favor. Id. A complaint may not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) unless it appears beyond doubt, even when the complaint is liberally construed, that “the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).

..........125).....Amazingly, the movant in the presently referenced lawsuit was a victim of the district court controverting the facts in much the same way that Movant is a victim of Defendant judiciary's controverting of the facts (especially Defendant Garaufis), to wit:

With these principles in hand, we agree with appellant that the district court committed reversible error when, in ruling that the complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted, it considered matters outside plaintiff's complaint. In particular, the district court found that "Global cannot be expected to pay its obligations to the City in a timely or honest manner." 373 F.Supp.2d at 381. In making that finding, the court relied extensively upon a record that consisted of Massie's trial testimony in an unrelated criminal proceeding and the Department's final determination of March 2005 that conclusively denied Global a franchise, neither of which is part of Global's complaint. See id. at 380. Further, nothing in plaintiff's complaint or its attached exhibits indicates appellant's inability to pay the City in a timely or honest manner, and our posture of review, requiring that all inferences from the complaint be construed in the plaintiff's favor, Allaire, 433 F.3d at 249-50, compels us to conclude that Global would in fact do so. Thus, not only did the district court consider external material in its ruling, it relied on those materials to make a finding of fact that controverted the plaintiff's own factual assertions set out in its complaint. See, e.g., Friedl, 210 F.3d at 84. At the pleadings stage this was error. Instead, the trial court was required to convert the motion into one for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 12(b). 

..........126).....“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit finally decided that “the judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded with instructions to convert defendants' motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment, and to permit the parties to present all materials pertinent to such a motion under Rule 56”; that is, that the circuit court sent the case back to the lower court to require the parties to present those documents relevant to their cases, and then eventually, based on those document that confirm the veracity of the plaintiff's claims, to convert the motion into a motion for summary judgment.

..........127).....Movant begs this honorable Court to take notice of the fact that Second Circuit Judge Stanton, federal district of the aforementioned case controverted the facts as set out in Global Network Communication's complaint the same way that Second Circuit Judge Garaufis controverted the facts in Movant's own Verified Complaint.

..........WHEREFORE, Movant prays for this honorable Court to take emergency expedited judicial notice of those adjudicative facts pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 201 and for conversion to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56, as Movant is presently a crime victim at the hands of the Defendants; and that Movant has shown that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact so that the Movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and for such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

 

Respectfully submitted this __th day of July, 2013

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
           
July __, 2013

 

STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION AND GOOD FAITH CERTIFICATION

 

  ..........I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, certify that I read the above Affidavit in Support and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I certify that I have provided tangible, irrefutable proof of my allegations before this Court; that I researched both facts and relevant law to the best of my ability to ensure truth and accuracy so that my Affidavit in Support is presented to this Court in good faith. I certify before this Court that while this Affidavit will embarrass the Defendants when it goes public, I do not present this Affidavit in Support to embarrass, annoy or defame the Defendants.

..........I certify the foregoing pursuant to the laws for perjury. 

CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE

 

___________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue,
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net

===============================================================

 

118 USC §1001

2New York State Penal Law §210.15 Perjury in the first degree. A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree when he swears falsely and when his false statement (a) consists of testimony, and (b) is material to the action, proceeding or matter in which it is made. Perjury in the first degree is a class D felony. 

322 CFR §92.65 - Depositions to prove genuineness of foreign documents – (a) Authority to execute commission. Under the provisions of section 1 of the act of June 25, 1948, as amended (sec. 1, 62 Stat. 834, sec. 53, 63 Stat. 96; 18 U.S.C. 3492), a diplomatic or consular officer may be commissioned by an United States court to take the testimony of a witness in a foreign country either on oral or written interrogatories, or partly on oral and partly on written interrogatories, for the purpose of determining the genuineness of any foreign document. . .” 

4 22 NYCRR 100.3(8)(11): “. . .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...” and that “a judge shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity.”

5Movant alleges LifeNet suicide/mental health hotline was fraudulently contacted by Defendant U.S. Marshal Service for the Eastern District of New York and told that Movant threatened Defendant Nicholas with bodily harm. That Defendant USMS knew that Movant committed no crime is a clear violation of 18 USC §1001.

6New York Wiretapping Law: New York's wiretapping law is a “one-party consent” law. New York makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05. Thus, if you operate in New York, you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to the conversation or you get permission from one party to the conversation in advance. This serves as a reminder to any defendant that wants to nullify Movant's recorded conversation with Defendant Davis based on the delusion that Movant's doesn't know N.Y. Penal Law §250.00 and §250.05.

7The following is the statements made to Point Blank News by Defendants Osato Eugene Uzamere and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere posing as “Godwin Uzamere”: Most of her commentaries are misguided, and I won't give credence to them. She is basically crazy. I won't give credence to insanity. She is certifiably insane. That is all I have to say. She is crazy.” The fraudulent affirmation and fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized counter-affidavit from Nigeria that Defendant Osato Eugene Uzamere submitted to the court on or around October 8, 2008 states that: “The plaintiff who has openly professed her mental illness is also delusional and outlandish in her claims”; and “I have before now, ignored the Plaintiff's outburst but her claim to be married to my cousin who was not in the United States at the time of our marriage is a new twist to this sad tale. . .Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged.”

8Movant 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.”

9 22 NYCRR 100.3(8)(11): “. . .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...” and that “a judge shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity.”

10The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile. One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment "love your neighbor" applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles. Jewish website Da'at Emet (http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/so-daat-emet/index.html). Jewish website Rabbi Bar-Chayim: “A Jew is called “man.” (http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/so-daat-emet/en_gentiles4.html#f3 ) It is written in the Torah (Leviticus 19:18): "You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord" -- here also the verse yells out "the children of your people." In Torat Cohanim on the portion of Kedoshim, chapter 4, halacha 12: "You shall not avenge nor bear a grudge against the children of your people --but you can avenge and bear a grudge against others" (that is, against Gentiles -- explanation of the Ra'avad). . ."Also, anyone who bears a grudge against a Jew transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall not bear a grudge against the children of your people.'. . .In chapter 6 of The Laws of Mental States, halacha 4 (in the printed edition, halacha 3): "It is a commandment for every person to love each and every Jew as he loves himself, as it says: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'."

11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_notice 

12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment  

 

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
           July ___, 2013

 

CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE

 


_______________________
     Signature of Plaintiff
 

Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118
E-mail:
cuzamere@netzero.net

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF_______________

_____________________________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere                                                  STIPULATION TO TRANSFER PLAINTIFF’S
                                                                                 ACTION TO ANOTHER VENUE PURSUANT
                                            Plaintiff,                       TO   28   USC   1404(a)   AND   TO   REPORT
                                                                                 DEFENDANTS’      FEDERAL      OFFENSES
        - against -                                                         PURSUANT TO 18 USC §4, MISPRISION OF
                                                                                 FELONY
United States of America, et al.                         
                                                                      
                                           Defendants.         

  

 
          IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties and/or their respective counsel(s) that before you refuse to comply with Plaintiff's plan to transfer her civil rights action to Rhode Island, that you must comply with the following conditions:

          1)     That Plaintiff and Defendants stipulate and agree to litigate Plaintiff 's civil rights action at the Federal District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

          2)     That in the event that Defendants refuse to allow the Plaintiff to litigate her civil rights action at the Federal District Court for the District of Rhode Island, the Defendants' attorneys will do the following:

a)     Defendants' attorneys will provide reasons, based in law, justifying his/her refusal to transfer to another venue;

b)     That Defendants Eric H. Holder and Robert S. Mueller must file a subpoena duces tecum with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service to obtain any and all information regarding Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” in immigration file nos. A35 201 224 and A24 027 764; and that Defendants Eric H. Holder and Robert S. Mueller must file a subpoena duces to obtain the affidavit in possession of Defendant Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel; said affidavit referenced in the Daily News article dated November 5, 2009, stating that “The senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to an affidavit he filed in Supreme Court."

c)     That those Defendants' attorneys whose clients publicly held or presented to a court of law that "Godwin Uzamere" is/was Plaintiff's husband must provide their own records that contain proof of the identity of "Godwin E. Uzamere"; said proof must be both past and present U.S. Government or State photograph-bearing identification (past, current passport; past current driver's license;

d)     Attorneys for Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security must provide the Defendant agency's own records pertaining to immigration file nos. A35201224 and A24027764, and social security number 129-64-1205; that said records must contain proof of the identity of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and "Godwin E. Uzamere" including: past and present U.S. Government and State photograph-bearing identification (past and current passport; past and current driver's license; fingerprints; past and current disciplinary actions against litigant (both immigration attorney or immigration beneficiary for fraud or any other offense);

e)     All judicial and legal Defendants must, at the very least, file criminal complaints with Defendant the Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Branch against the following Defendants: a) Joseph Visceglia; b) Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; c) Osato Eugene Uzamere; d) Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis; e) Judge Arthur M. Schack; f) Judge Jeffrey S. Sunshine; g) Allen E. Kaye, Esq., h) Harvey Shapiro; i) Jack Gladstein; and that said Defendants, at the very least, must be charged with the following offenses: 1) commission of misprision of felony, 18 USC §4; 2) fraud, 18 USC §1001; 3) identity theft, 18 USC §1028; 4) aggravated identity fraud, 18 USC §1028A; 4) deprivation of rights under color of law (including being kidnapped, unlawfully imprisoned and blacklisted), 18 USC §242/42 USC §1985; 5) extortion, 18 USC §872§; 6) blackmail, 18 USC §873; 7) violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act; 8) violation of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 9) violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601; 10) violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment; 11) violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; 12) violation of the Petition Clause of the First Amendment; 12) violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; 13) violation of the Notice Clause of the Sixth Amendment; 14) violation of the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment; 15) violation of Plaintiff's right of privacy with regard to the illegal dissemination of her psychiatric records, Plaintiff marriage history, Plaintiff married name; 16) violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 17) intentional misuse of national security letters (NSLs); and, 18) violation of the Hobbs Act; or

e)     That with reference to paragraph d, please provide legal justification as to why you did not file a report against Defendant Denis P. McGowan for filing false charges that Plaintiff threatened employees of the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services after Plaintiff e-mailed you proof that she never engaged in threatening employees of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services;

f)     That with reference to the Plaintiff and her daughter, Tara A. Uzamere, why no Defendant, after having received e-mails from Plaintiff containing her daughter Tara A. Uzamere's affidavit holding Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be her father, and documentation from Plaintiff holding Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be her husband, what is the legal justification for not filing a criminal complaint against Plaintiff and her daughter for identity theft or aggravated identity theft;

g) That the Defendants must file a criminal complaint against Plaintiff and her daughter, Tara A. Uzamere; said criminal complaint must be filed by Eric H. Holder, Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice and Robert S. Mueller, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations that states that based on tangible information obtained from the U.S. Department of Citizenship and Immigration Service that Movant reported regarding immigration file nos. A35 201 224 and A24 027 764, and based on her daughter Tara A. Uzamere's affidavit regarding Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, that Plaintiff and her daughter Tara A. Uzamere committed 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft and 18 USC §1001, fraud, by making fraudulent documents that were used in court to fraudulently establish that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere is Plaintiff's husband and Plaintiff's daughter Tara A. Uzamere's father. If you refuse to comply with 18 USC §4, misprision of felony's mandate to report the aforementioned crimes, you must explain the legal reason for your refusal.

          If you choose not to comply to all demands for no legal reason, your refusal will be accepted as an agreement to transfer Plaintiff's civil rights action to the District of Rhode Island.


Dated:
Brooklyn, New York
           July ___, 2013

 

CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE

 


_______________________
        Signature of Plaintiff
 

Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------X

Cheryl D. Uzamere                                                                         No.: 13-CV-_____________

                                                Plaintiff,                                          PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
        - against -                                                                                JUDICIAL RECUSAL PURSUANT
                                                                                                        TO 28 USC §455(b)(5)(i), 28 USC
United States of America, et al.                                                      §455(b)(1) AND 28 USC §144

                                                Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------X

        PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the attached Affidavit of Plaintiff, Cheryl D. Uzamere, sworn to ________ , 2013, and upon all the exhibits herein attached, the Judicial Defendants will move this Court on the __th day of _____ 2013, at 9:30 in the forenoon, or as soon thereafter to require all the judges of the Second Circuit to recuse themselves pursuant to 28 USC §455(b)(5)(i), 28 USC §455(b)(1) and 28 USC §144, and for such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.


Dated: Brooklyn, NY
           July ___, 2013


CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE

______________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------X

Cheryl D. Uzamere                                                Civil Action No.: 13-CV-_____________

                                                Plaintiff,                  AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
        - against -                                                         PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
                                                                                 DEFENDANT           JUDGES’
                                                                                 RECUSAL PURSUANT TO 28
United States of America, et al.                              USC §455(b)(5)(i),     28   USC
                                                                                §455(b)(1) AND 28 USC §144

                                                Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------X

        I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, being duly sworn, state under the penalties of perjury that:

        1)    I am the Plaintiff in the above entitled action.

        2)    I make this Affidavit in support of my motion for judicial recusal pursuant to 28 USC §455(b)(5)(i), USC §455(b)(1) and 28 USC §144.

Purpose of Motion

        3)    The purpose of my motion is to require that the Defendant judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the Federal District Court for the Southern District New York, and by extension, those judges for the Northern District of New York and the Western District Court to recuse themselves, and to allow a judge who does not have, on their own, or employ at the behest of judges who have, the same bias to be allowed adjudicate my action.

Facts

        4)    By necessity, Plaintiff must recount the events as described in her Verified Complaint that led up to Plaintiff's request for Defendant judges' recusal.

        5)    In December, 1977, approximately two (2) years before Plaintiff met Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Nosayaba (John) Uzamere and his wife Ethel Uzamere (Defendant Uzamere's brother and sister-in-law, not his father and stepmother) filed for IR2 residence for Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. The IR2 visa for Defendant Uzamere was approved on January 28, 1980. On November 21, 1979, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered into a fraudulent “green card” marriage with the unsuspecting Plaintiff. On November 30, 1979, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro, Esq. engaged in an act of aggravated identity theft and immigration fraud by giving the Plaintiff form I-130 to sign so as to sponsor the Defendant for IR1 residence under the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” and fictitious birthday “June 1, 1955.” In December, 1979, Defendant Uzamere left for Nigeria, abandoning the Plaintiff and leaving her poor and pregnant with his daughter Tara A. Uzamere. On January 28, 1980, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered the port of New York as a lawful permanent resident. The aforementioned lawbreaking Jewish attorneys exacerbated their act of aggravated identity theft by refusing to require Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to produce his passport to establish proof of his identity, and by engaging in willful blindness by pretending not to have knowledge of the existence of Senator Uzamere's passport or of knowledge that Senator Uzamere previously applied under his correct name as an unmarried beneficiary under 21 years of age. At the time of Plaintiff's signing the fraudulent I-130 relative sponsorship form, Plaintiff did not know that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere had applied and been found eligible for permanent residence under his real name via sponsorship by other family members. See report prepared by Defendant Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit A.

        6)    On or around October 1, 2003, Jack Gladstein engaged in an act of racketeering, and aggravated identity fraud by mailing to the Plaintiff correspondence falsely holding Plaintiff's ex-husband out to be “Godwin Uzamere” even though the only correct identification that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service holds is for Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, not “Godwin Uzamere.”

        7)    On or September 25, 2008, after Plaintiff had engaged in a series of leaving angry telephone calls on Defendant McCarthy's voice mail based on Plaintiff's perception that Defendant McCarthy had engaged in racketeering designed to nullify Plaintiff's complaint against Defendant Kaye and Defendant Shapiro, Defendant McCarthy engaged in an act of racketeering and fraud1 by engaging the U.S. Attorney's Office for Vermont to say that “In or about September 2008, in the District of Vermont, the defendant, Cheryl Uzamere, impeded, intimidated, and interfered with a federal employee, namely an employee of the United States Customs and Immigration Service, while that person was engaged in and on account of that person's performance of official duties.” Plaintiff emphatically states that she has never been to Vermont, Defendant McCarthy's state of resident, so that it was impossible for Plaintiff to have engaged in any form of simple assault against Defendant McCarthy. See documentation regarding USA v. Uzamere, 1:08-cr-114-1 attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit B.

        8)    On or around October 8, 2008, Defendant Eugene Uzamere, engaged in an act of racketeering, aggravated identity fraud, violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by hand-delivering a fraudulent affirmation and a fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized counter-affidavit from Nigeria which stated that “The plaintiff who has openly professed her mental illness is also delusional and outlandish in her claims”; and “I have before now, ignored the Plaintiff's outburst but her claim to be married to my cousin who was not in the United States at the time of our marriage is a new twist to this sad tale. . .Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged” in defiance of the administrative decision rendered by the INS regarding Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity. In addition, Justice Sunshine refused to commission a diplomatic or consular officer for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the fraudulent foreign document that was presented to him by attorney Osato Uzamere on behalf of his uncle, Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.2, 3 From then until the present, Justice Sunshine has never made any attempt to arrest Osato Uzamere for committing perjury. See fraudulent affirmation and fraudulent foreign counter-affidavit attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit C.

        9)    On or around January 6, 2009, Plaintiff received a notice from Defendant McCarthy in which she said that “This office has completed its review of the complaint of professional misconduct that you filed against Allen E. Kaye, Esquire. The matter is confidential at this stage in accordance with the Rules and Procedures of Professional Conduct for Practitioners (“Rules”), except for necessary disclosures in the course of conducting a preliminary inquiry. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry of complaints of criminal, unethical, or unprofessional conduct in matters before USCIS. In your June 9, 2008 complaint, you allege that Alan E. Kaye “colluded with my husband, the now Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to submit a marriage certificate with the fictitious name "Godwin Uzamere: in order to avoid paying child support. and three years later, in order to hide the 2nd marriage that my husband contracted in the United States.” The acts that you allege constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Practitioner occurred in the course of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye in connection with an immediate relative filed by you with the Immigration and Naturalization (“INS”) in 1979. The New York Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department considered these allegations in 2003 and determined that no further action was warranted. After a careful and thorough review of your complaint I do not find clear and convincing evidence of an ethical violation of the Rules on the part of Mr. Kaye. No further action will be taken with regard to your complaint.” Defendant McCarthy's statement “occurred in the course of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye” makes direct reference to Defendant Harvey Shapiro. See correspondence from Defendant McCarthy dated January 6, 2009 attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit A.

        10)    On January 12, 2009, Defendant Sunshine engaged in an act of racketeering, aggravated identity fraud and fraud upon the court by rendering a decision in which he stated that “Moreover, the opposition submitted by defendant raises a genuine issue as to whether or not plaintiff and defendant were married in the first instance”, in defiance of INS' administrative decision that recognized the names “Godwin E. Uzamere” and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as belonging to Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and that Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was married to the Plaintiff. Defendant Sunshine made no attempt to obey commission a consular officer of the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria to verify the authenticity of the unauthenticated counter-affidavit from Nigeria purporting to be from “Godwin Uzamere.” See Page 9 of Justice Sunshine's decision and order dated January 12, 2009 is attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit D.

        11)    On January 20, 2009, the Plaintiff e-mailed a complaint to former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Robin Renee Sanders in which she said that “While I was in court on January 13, 2008, my husband's attorney, Eugene O. Uzamere asked Judge Sunshine if Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, my real husband, along with some Nigerian pretending to be my real husband can be allowed to video-conference their appearance in court. As it is apparent that the level of corruption in my divorce action has reached an all-time new low, it appears that Judge Sunshine will allow this silliness. This would give Eugene the opportunity of paying some poor Nigerian a pittance to engage in identity fraud that would reach a New York State Court. In the likely event that Judge Sunshine allows this silliness, is there some way that your office can ensure that the unknown Nigerian who engages in this video-conference first signs some kind of affidavit that is notarized by your office? That way, your office can check that person's identification to ensure that if he attempts to say that he is my husband, his identification will prove otherwise.” Although Plaintiff had the presence of mind to ask former U.S. Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders to require anyone posing as Plaintiff's husband to produce identification, Defendant Sunshine did not require Defendant Osato E. Uzamere to produce any type of U.S. Embassy-authenticated, color-photograph-bearing government identification of his client, and the only forms of identification that Defendant Osato E. Uzamere produced was a copy of a passport bearing no one's name and social security number 129-64-1205, the fictitious number associated with the fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere.” See e-mail to former Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders and response from the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit E. See fraudulent passport cover and fraudulent social security number attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit C.

        12)    On May 12, 2009, Defendant Sunshine rendered his decision recognizing the identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere by stating that “Today at 10:35 am. defendant was declared in default for failure to appear at the hearing. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss this action upon the grounds that he is not the husband of the plaintiff is denied in its entirety. The defendant is the husband in conformity with the parties marriage on November 21, 1979. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order and serve and file a note of issue, forthwith, with proof of mailing by regular international mail and overnight international mail for a trial on all issues within this matrimonial action to be held before this court on July 7, 2009. at 9:30 a.m. This shall constitute the decision and order of the court.” See Defendant Sunshine's decision attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit F.

        13)    On July 7, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an action for fraud against her ex-husband and against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. From the year 2009 to 2011, Plaintiff also attempted to engage the judicial assistance of Defendant New York State Unified Court System for the Second Judicial Department with regard to the following appellate cases: 1) Uzamere v Daily News, L.P., 2011 NY Slip Op 52421(U) [34 Misc 3d 1203(A)], Decided on November 10, 2011, Supreme Court, New York County, Rakower, J; 2) Uzamere v Uzamere, 2011 NY Slip Op 08583 [89 AD3d 1013], November 22, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department; 3) Uzamere v Uzamere,2009 NY Slip Op 09214 [68 AD3d 855], December 8, 2009, Appellate Division, Second Department; 4) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2010 NY Slip Op 83241(U), Decided on September 23, 2010, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; 5) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 65346(U), Decided on February 28, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; 6) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 69114(U), Decided on April 6, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; and 7) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 69622(U), Decided on April 11, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision. The following appellate judges presided over the aforementioned cases: Daniel D. Angiolillo; Cheryl E. Chambers; Jeffrey A. Cohen; Mark C. Dillon; Anita R. Florio; Steven W. Fisher; L. Priscilla Hall; John M. Leventhal; Plummer E. Lott; William F. Mastro; Robert J. Miller; A. Gail Prudenti; Reinaldo E. Rivera; Sheri S. Roman; Sandra L. Sgroi and Peter B. Skelos. Plaintiff alleges that just as in the trial courts, Plaintiff provided the appellate courts with the Daily News article and the fraudulent affirmations in which Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein Osato E. Uzamere perjured themselves and stated that “Godwin Uzamere” was Plaintiff's husband. The appellate judges, just as every judge with whom Plaintiff presented the aforementioned testimony as done, ignored Plaintiff's cries for justice, engaged in fraud upon the court and disobeyed 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, the Code of Conduct for Judges and the Code of Lawyers Professional Responsibility with regard to report a judge an attorney who engages in acts of wrongdoing. Plaintiff also filed various complaints with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct against Defendants Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Arthur Schack; the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Department against Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Osato E. Uzamere; and the New York State Grievance Committee for the Second Judicial Department against Jack Gladstein. Plaintiff produced the Daily News article, the fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized, foreign counter-affidavit from Defendant Osato E. Uzamere, and the fraudulent affirmation from Defendants corrupt attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato E. Uzamere that are proof of their act of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft and New York State Penal Law Section 210.15, perjury in the first degree, and proof of the true identity of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere the Plaintiff obtained from Defendant Rachel McCarthy (who can be reached at (802) 660-5043; fax (802) 660-5067). No member of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department or the New York State Grievance Committee for the Second Judicial Department ever reported the aforementioned attorneys for their commission of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft or New York State Penal Law Section 210.15, perjury in the first degree.

        14)    On or near October 28, 2009, Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, engaged in acts of racketeering and aggravated identity fraud submitted fraudulent affirmations to the court holding “Godwin Uzamere” to be the Plaintiff's husband based on the fraudulent I-130 immigration sponsorship form that Plaintiff's ex-husband filed with Defendants Kaye and Shapiro. See fraudulent affirmations of Defendants Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit G.

        15)     On November 3, 2009, Defendants Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Michael Gerstein, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein engaged in an act prohibited by the New York Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility in that, after filing the fraudulent affirmations, they planned and implemented Plaintiff's false arrest for the sole purpose of obtaining an advantage in the action for fraud that Plaintiff filed against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Plaintiff stayed in jail for 33 days. Because Plaintiff was remanded and was not able to leave, Plaintiff was coerced into accepting the plea as mentally unfit, and employees of Defendant New York State Office of Court Administration/Unified Court System intentionally avoided appearing before court to explain their false charge against the Plaintiff. Charges against Plaintiff were dismissed. See correspondence from Rikers Island, attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit H.

        16)     On November 5, 2009, Defendants Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack, on their own and/or by courthouse employees that were under said Defendants' care, control and supervision at the time of the incident, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice by illegally commenting on and providing nonpublic information regarding Plaintiff's cases Kings County Criminal Court Case Docket No. 2009KN087992, Kings County Supreme Court Index No. 18012-2009 and Kings County Supreme Index No. 26332-2007 to Daily News staff writer Scott Shifrel in violation of 22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(8)(11)4; that said nonpublic information was provided to the Daily News, by staff writer Scott Shifrel, who did knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought engage in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice by publishing the newspaper article that illegally disclosed Plaintiff's nonpublic information that was acquired by Defendant Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack during their adjudication of Plaintiff's cases including Plaintiff's photo; Plaintiff's name; Plaintiff's age; Plaintiff's mental illness; Plaintiff's psychiatric diagnosis; symptoms of Plaintiff's mental illness; the courts where Plaintiff's cases were adjudicated; the town where Plaintiff's lives and the name of the hospital that treated Plaintiff; that Daily News staff writer Scott Shifrel, on behalf the Defendants, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction by charging Plaintiff with the halachic/Jewish religious crime of anti-Semitism by saying “Cheryl Uzamere, 50, known around courthouse circles for her anti-Semitic screeds, was declared mentally unfit and taken to Bellevue Hospital for observation”; and, that “...she's a smart person and she really know how to use the system, said one courthouse source...she comes in here and files all these papers and threatens people. Uzamere was in a Criminal Court holding cell when she started stripping and screaming about her “senator” husband in Nigeria loud enough to be heard in the courtroom. The senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to an affidavit he filed in Supreme Court. . .”; and that “the senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to affidavit filed in Supreme Court”; and “Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged, Godwin Uzamere said. . .” Scott Shifrel, at the behest of Mortimer Zuckerman and and Defendants Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack, on their own and/or by courthouse employees that were under said Defendants' care, control and supervision at the time of the incident, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice by engaging in aggravated identity theft; said act of identity theft accomplished by publicly holding in the Defendant Daily News that false identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband as “Godwin Uzamere. On the following day, the company ALM.com, by its website Law.com, published an article entitled N.Y. Arrested for Threatening Judge; that said nonpublic information was provided to the Law.com, by staff writer Mark Fass who did knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought, publish the internet article that illegally disclosed Plaintiff's nonpublic information that was acquired by the Defendant judges during their adjudication of Plaintiff's cases.

        17)    On November 30, 2009, twenty-five (25) days after Defendant Daily News, LP published its article regarding the Plaintiff, Defendant Federation Employment and Guidance Service terminated its mental health services to the Plaintiff. In its discharge summary it stated that “given client's history of anti-Semitic remarks treatment at an FEGS facility is inappropriate for her.” FEGS' discharge summary is attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit J1.

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

        19)    On December 24, 2009, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant New York State Unified Court System judicial employee the Honorable Anthony Cutrona of Kings County Supreme Court's Mental Hygiene Court.

        20)     On January 15, 2010, Defendant Schack engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice, violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act by ordering Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's psychiatrist Dr. Marie Bauduy of the Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility not to produce the Plaintiff for court. In his decision dated January 25, 2010, Justice Schack stated that “The Court is concerned that plaintiff UZAMERE is unfit to proceed. . .Therefore, the instant matter is adjourned to Friday, March 19, 2010. . .” See interim decision of Defendant Schack attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit I.

        21)    During the beginning of February, 2010, Plaintiff was discharged by Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility.

       22)     On or near February 23, 2010, while the Plaintiff was in her apartment faxing letters of complaint to various governmental agencies, Defendants Sunshine, New York State Office of Mental Health and Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice, insofar as they contacted a social worker from Defendant Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center, who then arranged for Plaintiff to be kidnapped and hospitalized by Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center. Defendant Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center caused one of its employees to contact Defendant City of New York's agencies, the New York City Housing Authority's Louis H. Pink Houses, the New York City Police Department and the New York City Fire Department. An employee of the New York City Housing Authority opened the Plaintiff's apartment door, and Plaintiff was taken out of her apartment by force and hospitalized by Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center. During Plaintiff's last week as an inpatient, Kingsboro social worker Laurie Velcimé informed the Plaintiff that she was engaged in aftercare preparation, including locating an outpatient mental health program. The Plaintiff advised Ms. Velcimé that she was interested in attending New York Psychotherapy and Counseling Center (NYPCC) on Hendrix Street, located close to where the Plaintiff lives. After Ms. Velcimé performed a search of NYPCC and other outpatient mental health care providers, she informed the Plaintiff that not only had NYPCC refused to accept Plaintiff as a client, but that virtually all the not-for-profit outpatient mental health facilities that Ms. Velcimé contacted rejected her request to provide Plaintiff with outpatient psychiatric services.

        23)    On July 13, 2010, Justice Arthur M. Schack engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and aggravated identity theft by rendering a decision, holding that “Godwin Uzamere” is Plaintiff's husband and that ORDERED, that the instant complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that plaintiff CHERYL UZAMERE is hereby enjoined from commencing any future actions in the New York State Unified Court System against SENATOR EHIGIE EDOBOR UZAMERE a/k/a "GODWIN E. UZAMERE," ALLEN E. KAYE, P.C., ALLEN E. KAYE, ESQ., HARVEY SHAPIRO, ESQ., BERNARD J. ROSTANSKI and JACK GLADSTEIN, ESQ., without the prior approval of the appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge; and it is further ORDERED, that any violation of the above injunction by CHERYL UZAMERE will subject CHERYL UZAMERE to costs, sanctions and contempt proceedings. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.” See Defendant Schack's decision dated July 13, 2010 attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit J.

        24)    On July 20, 2010, Defendant Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, conspiring with Defendant Arthur M. Schack, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice designed to hide the aforesaid immigration attorneys' commission of aggravated identity theft, and to make the public believe that the Plaintiff's lawsuit against the aforesaid immigration attorneys concerned lawyer malpractice and not criminally-based fraud, publicized an article on the internet entitled Sometimes It Just Wasn't the Attorney in Legal Malpractice. The article says:

“One theme that we have considered over the years is whether attorneys get preferential treatment in legal malpractice litigation. Are motions to dismiss granted on too little evidence? Do the attorneys get the benefit of the doubt? Is the fact that legal malpractice law is written mostly by attorneys, is decided upon by attorneys and affects attorneys sometimes dispositive of the outcome? Well, all that aside, sometimes the client just can't help themselves. Here is an example from today's NYLJ: Uzamere v. Uzamere; KINGS COUNTY; Justice Schack. . .”

Shortly thereafter, Defendant Lawline.com published the same article, even going so far as to compare Jewish Defendant Kaye's, Defendant Shapiro's and Defendant Gladstein's monstrous act of aggravated identity theft, including the deprivation of Plaintiff's and her daughter Tara's right to bear the African/Nigerian name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was nothing more than a question of malpractice and not Plaintiff's delusion that it was a crime.

        25)    On August 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed lawsuit 2010-cv-555 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit assigned to Defendant judge Christine O.C. Miller. Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendant Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendant Miller disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. The decision of this case is null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish defendants.

        26)    On August 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed lawsuit 2010-cv-585 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit assigned to Defendants Nancy B. Firestone and John P. Wiese of the U.S. Court of Claims. Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendants Firestone and Wiese with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendants Firestone and Wiese disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. The decision of this case is null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish defendants.

        27)    On September 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed lawsuit 2010-cv-591 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit was assigned to Defendant judge Christine O.C. Miller of the U.S. Court of Claims. Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendant Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendant Miller disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. The decision of this case is null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish defendants.

        28)    On or around January 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant State of New York with the New York State Court of Claims. As part of Plaintiff's testimony, Plaintiff provided Defendant Scuccimarra with the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt, Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft with regard to Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity. Defendant Scuccimarra never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys' commission of a federal felony.

        29)    On or around January 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant Gerstein, Defendant Sunshine and Defendant Schack with Defendant the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. As part of Plaintiff's testimony, Plaintiff provided Defendant Klonick with the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt, Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft with regard to Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity. Defendant Klonick never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys' commission of a federal felony.

        30)    On or around April 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein with Defendants the New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department and the New York Grievance Committee for the Second Judicial Department. As part of Plaintiff's testimony, Plaintiff provided Defendants Del Tipico and Gutierrez with the fraudulent affirmations that Defendants Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft at the behest of their client, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. Defendants Del Tipico and Gutierrez never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys commission of a federal felony.

        31)    In June, 2011, Plaintiff filed the lawsuit Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 with the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York

        32)    On or around June 22, 2011, Defendant Garaufis engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft by rendering an FRCP-lacking, memorandum-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-CV-2831 for the sole purpose of: 1) advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their fraudulent commission of duping Plaintiff into believing that a civil res judicata determination is a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud, and his own and Defendant Bloom's commission of racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity fraud and fraud upon the court as well.

        33)    On or around June 25, 2011, less than thirty (30) after Plaintiff submitted her lawsuit to the court, Defendant Garaufis engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft of at the behest of Defendant Judge Garaufis three (3) marshals from the U.S. Marshals Service for Defendant the Eastern District of New York banged on Plaintiff's apartment door, shaming Plaintiff within earshot of her neighbors. When the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of New York identified themselves, Plaintiff asked them if she had committed a crime. The marshals stalled for a few seconds, and then said that Plaintiff had not committed any crimes. When Plaintiff asked the U.S. Marshals why they were there, the U.S. Marshal that banged on Plaintiff's door said “I'm gonna annoy you like you annoyed Judge Garaufis.” When Plaintiff told them that she would not open the door, the one banging on the door said “then I'm gonna keep bangin”, and for another 1.5 minutes continued to bang on Plaintiff's door. He also asked Plaintiff “is your daughter Tara home?”, to find out if Plaintiff was home alone. Within minutes of Plaintiff telling them that her daughter Tara was there, they left.

        34)     On July 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed her appeal for the lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al., 11-2713-cv. Plaintiff also filed a motion for judicial recusal pursuant to 28 USC §455.

        35)     On or around July 7, 2011, within days of Plaintiff's request for Defendant Garaufis to recuse himself, Defendant Garaufis commenced a plan to have Defendant mental health employees engaged in an extortionate “shakedown” in which the aforesaid mental health defendants falsely accused Plaintiff of threatening Defendant Garaufis with bodily harm and threatening federal employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' call center with death. Defendants psychiatric nurse Agnes Flores and psychologist Martin Bolton, employees of Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation came to Plaintiff's apartment, speaking about Plaintiff's psychiatric issues in the hallway and shaming Plaintiff within earshot of her neighbors. Defendants Flores and Bolton said that Defendant U.S. Marshal Service told them that Plaintiff contacted Defendant Mental Health Association's LifeNet5 psychiatric helpline and made threats of bodily harm against Defendant Garaufis. Plaintiff told them that had she done such a thing that the U.S. Marshal Service would have arrested her when they visited her and given her an attorney, which would have forced Plaintiff's attorney to examine Plaintiff's civil claims.

        36)    Also, on July 7, 2011, at the behest of Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe, the United Parcel Service returned Plaintiff's appellate brief, all of Plaintiff's motions, Appendix A and Appendix B that Plaintiff served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 4, 2012. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe did not include any correspondence explaining why Plaintiff's appellate documents were returned. When Plaintiff checked the PACER system, the system fraudulently recorded Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis decision as a memorandum and order, even though Defendant Garaufis never provided an FRCP-based memorandum. See copies of UPS envelopes for Plaintiff's appellate documents attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit K. See documents for Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. State of New York, et al 09-cv-2703/09-3197-cv and Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2831-cv and 11-2713-cv attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit L.

        37)    Some days later while in the month of July 2011, Plaintiff received another visit from Defendants Flores and Bolton. Because Plaintiff was afraid that someone who would enter her apartment and place Plaintiff in a psychiatric hospital against her will, Plaintiff hid in her closet between so that if they came into Plaintiff's apartment, she would appear not be home.

        38)    Some days later during the month of July, 2011, Plaintiff received a call from Defendant Davis, but Plaintiff turned her cell phone off.

        39)    A day or so later, someone knocked on Plaintiff's door but did not announce themselves. Again Plaintiff hid in her closet to feign that she was not home. When Plaintiff went to the door, there was a notice from Woodhull Hospital's psychiatric unit with an appoint to appear at their psychiatric outpatient clinic.

        40)    On July 16, 2011, in terror of forced hospitalization at the behest of Defendant Garaufis, the U.S. Marshal Service and psychiatric facilities over which the New York State Office of Mental Health and the New York State Department of Health have oversight, Plaintiff faxed a copy of Affidavit to Preetinder Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

        41)    Later on in July 2011, Defendant Davis called Plaintiff, frightening Plaintiff by making Plaintiff believe that Plaintiff would be forcibly hospitalized because Defendant U.S. Marshal Service told her that Plaintiff had threatened others at the Medicaid office, something that Plaintiff did not do. Plaintiff took the liberty of recording the conversation in its entirety. Plaintiff uploaded the conversation http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html.6

        42)    In the month of August, 2011 Defendant Davis contacted Defendant Sarpong for the purpose of forcing Plaintiff to go to Defendant Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, where Plaintiff was hospitalized as an inpatient for threatening Defendant Garaufis and other judges with bodily harm, and threatening CMS workers with death, something that Plaintiff never did. Plaintiff stayed a few days as an inpatient with Defendant Brookdale because Defendant Dr. “John Doe” and other employees of Defendant Brookdale Hospital Medical Center were told by Defendant Sarpong that Plaintiff threatened Judge Garaufis, other judges and CMS call center workers with death and with bodily harm. Thereafter, Brookdale Hospital Medical Center terminated its outpatient psychiatric services to the Plaintiff and transferred Plaintiff to the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team in order Plaintiff illegally monitor along with Defendant Denis P. McGowan of Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

        43)    On or around August 18, 2011, Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation's East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team received correspondence from U.S. Department of Homeland Security on its original letterhead bearing the name “Denis P. McGowan, Chief, Threat Management Branch.” The letter stated: “On July 06, 2011, Federal Protective Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made by CHERYL UZAMERE to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid call center. The threat consisted of HER stating: since SHE did not get the job, SHE was going to "COME DOWN THERE AND KILL EVERYBODY. Since FPS has investigated UZAMERE multiple times for similar behavior, we are well aware of HER mental health history. Based on that information, a referral was made to LifeNet for mental health intervention on July 07 2011. Subsequently, UZAMERE's Intensive Case Manager (ICM) Bridgett Davis of the New York State Office of Mental Health has advised that UZAMERE's treatment has been transferred to the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program. We were informed that CHERYL D. UZAMERE is being treated as a patient by your program and we would like to keep you abreast of this situation as it evolves. We also request that we be notified as HER status changes in particular any change from in-patient to out-patient treatment and in the case of the latter any refusal of treatment. In addition, please notify FPS of any relapses or deterioration of HER condition that may pose a risk to life or property.” See letter from Denis P. McGowan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit M.

        44)    From July 6, 2011, the date in which Plaintiff is alleged to have committed 18 USC §115 against Defendant Garaufis, other federal judges and employees of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services call center, no federal law enforcement agency has made any attempt to arrest the Plaintiff for the aforementioned offenses. According to Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, the judges who rendered decisions on Plaintiff's appeal for her lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv were not indicated on the decision because others unknown to Plaintiff told Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe that Plaintiff threatened Judge Nicholas, other federal judges and Defendant Sunshine.

        45)    On February 26, 2012, Defendant HHC's ACT Team where Defendant Sarpong is employed prepared a psychiatric treatment plan. Under the title “Alerts”, the treatment plan states “. . . H/O threats to judges and Center for Medicaid and Medicare, patient is being monitored by Homeland Security.” Under the title “Discharge Plan”, it says “Patient is not being considered for discharge at this time, she was transferred to the program 6 months ago after she made a threat to the Medicare and Medicaid call center and is being monitored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” Under the title “Patient/Family Statement”, it says that “She reported not being aware of being monitored by Homeland Security. . .” (see Plaintiff's psychiatric treatment plan from the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team, attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit M).

        46    From June 6, 2012, Plaintiff sent a number of e-mails to employees Mike J. Fitzpatrick, Katrina Gay, David Levy and Sue Medford of the organization National Alliance for the Mental Ill (NAMI) regarding Defendant Daily News use of the term “wacko” to publicly malign the Plaintiff. None of the employees that Plaintiff contacted made any attempt to speak with the Plaintiff.

        47)     On November 28, 2012, based on information and belief, Defendants Raggi, Carney and Kahn of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft by rendering an FRAP-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv for the sole purpose of advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their fraudulent commission of aggravated identity fraud, and their own commission of racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity, for their own commission of obstruction of justice by duping Plaintiff into believing that a civil res judicata determination is a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless the legal consequences faced by Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's for their criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. Plaintiff was told the names of Defendant judges Raggi, Carney and Kahn by an unknown employee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe also engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft for the sole purpose of advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. Plaintiff's alleges that Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe left out the names of the judges who rendered their illegal decision on Plaintiff's decision based on defendants' delusion that Plaintiff would either not figure out the judges' identity and would therefore be unable to sue them.

        48)    Soon thereafter, the Plaintiff called Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court for U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and asked why the appellate judges' names were not indicated on the U.S. Court of Appeals' decision. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe indicated that the judges' names were left out because Plaintiff had threatened federal judges, something that Plaintiff never did.

        49)        a)     During the month of December, 2012, Plaintiff sent several e-mails containing a copy of the lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 that Plaintiff filed, as well as those lawsuits that Plaintiff will file with the Federal District Court of the Eastern District of New York, along with proof of Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity and the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein filed with the New York State Supreme Court to First Lady Michele Obama, and to all the defendants. See one of several e-mails Plaintiff sent the Defendants attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit N.

                       b)    During the last days of Plaintiff's amending her Verified Complaint, Plaintiff discovered that four (4) of the Defendants, namely, Agnes Flores, psychiatric nurse, formerly employed by Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Martin Bolton, psychologist, formerly employed by New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Anne Berrill Carroll, General Counsel and Deputy Vice President, formerly employed by Defendant Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel, staff writer, formerly employed by Daily News, LP are no longer employed at their respective places of employment. Plaintiff has had difficulty discovering their forwarding addresses for employment or for residence. Plaintiff considers the disappearance of the aforesaid Defendants an act of obstruction of justice and proof of Defendants' mens rea.

        50)    On or around January 30, 2013, Plaintiff received a letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The letter stated: "Our records show that you placed calls to 1-800-MEDICARE on the dates and times listed below (all times Central). We can confirm that none of these calls contained threatening comments: June 14,2010, 10:38 AM; June 1,2011, 7:39 AM; July 8,2011, 12:56 PM; May 18, 2012, 11:17 AM, 1:29 PM, 3:51 PM; July 2, 2012, 10:47 AM; July 10, 2012, 2:24 PM; July 17, 2012, 1:09 PM; July 18, 2012, 11:14 AM; July 19, 2012, 5:02 PM; July 23, 2012, 2:51 PM; July 24, 2012, 5:21 PM, 5:43 PM, 5:47 PM, 6:05 PM, 9:56 PM; July 26, 2012, 9:39 PM; July 27, 2012, 5:48 PM; September 9, 2012, 4:39 PM; October 18, 2012, 2:26 PM; November 16, 2012 7:38 PM; November 26, 2012, 1:46 PM; December 12, 2012, 11:13AM; December 13, 2012, 4:29 AM, 5:05 PM, 5:09 PM. See letters from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services attached as Exhibit S.

        51)     On March 7, 2013, Plaintiff contacted the New York State Court of Appeals to inform Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of Plaintiff's plans to include him in her lawsuit. Later on, Plaintiff received an e-mail from Richard Reed that said: “This is further to the telephone conversation that you had with the Clerk's Office of the New York State Court of Appeals this morning regarding your proposed federal complaint. Please be advised that the matter has been turned over to Counsel's Office for the Office of Court Administration. They will contact you in due course.” See e-mail from Richard Reed attached as Exhibit U. Towards the end of the same day, Plaintiff received a telephone call from Defendant Michael J. Broyde and attempted to tell him of what Plaintiff called a contradiction in term with regard to being both a rabbi and a U.S. attorney. Plaintiff informed the rabbi-attorneys of her plans to file her Verified Complaint against them, and consistent with Plaintiff's stated plans, e-mailed her Verified Complaint and the exhibits to rabbi-attorneys Michael J. Broyde, Esq., Rabbi Michoel Zylberman, Esq., Rabbi Yona Reiss, Esq., Rabbi Shlomo Weissmann, Esq.

        52)     On March 9, 2013, Plaintiff e-mailed Abraham H. Foxman, Steven M. Freeman, Esq., Steven C. Sheinberg, Esq., Deborah Bensinger, Esq. and David L. Barkey, Esq. of the Anti-Defamation League, Inc. to advise them how Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq., Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel employed their Talmud-fostered racial hatred and hatred of mentally ill goyim to rationalize their commission of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft; their false accusation that Plaintiff harassed Defendant Sunshine; their false accusation that Plaintiff made threats of violence; their violation of Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment insofar as the aforesaid Defendants never had any intention of confronting the Plaintiff; and the Defendants' continued violation of 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, insofar as none of the Defendants have ever made any attempt to file any criminal complaint against Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq., Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel in spite of Plaintiff's irrefutable criminal accusations.

        53)    On March 15, 2013, Plaintiff sent a a copy of her lawsuit and a her complaint regarding Defendant McCarthy to Defendant the Professional Responsibility Program. Plaintiff explained in her e-mail that Defendant McCarthy violated 18 USC §4, misprision of felony based on Defendant's McCarthy's having knowledge of the actual commission of a Allen E. Kaye's and Harvey Shapiro's aggravated identity theft and her continued refusal to it make known; and her refusal to obey Vermont’s Rules of Professional Conduct's Rule 3.4, Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, which requires attorneys not to: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value; b) not to counsel or assist another person to do any such act; and, c) not to falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law.

        54)    On March 25, 2013 Plaintiff sent a reply back to Vermont's Professional Responsibility Program with copies of the attorneys' fraudulent affirmations that hold Godwin Uzamere to be Plaintiff's husband.

        55)    On March 24, 2013, Plaintiff called Defendant FBI New York Office and asked one of its agents if the FBI office would refuse to take Plaintiff's complaints if the person against whom Plaintiff complained was Jewish, as Plaintiff alleges was done to her in the past. True to past behavior, someone hung up the phone. When Plaintiff called back, the person on the phone said that Plaintiff had posed the question to Mr. Stein, hurting his feelings. Plaintiff was then called anti-Semitic, and then subjected to having the telephone hung up. Plaintiff took her three (3) phones and engaged in a blitz phone call session, allowing all of her phones to ring at the same time. When "John Doe" #1 finally answered the phone, Plaintiff got into an argument with Defendant “John Doe” #1 with regard to Plaintiff's right to file a criminal complaint against Jews who had violated federal law. Defendant “John Doe” #1 blackmailed Plaintiff by telling her that he would call Plaintiff's daughter, mentioning Plaintiff's daughter's name (something that generally precedes a threat of psychiatric hospitalization), and then would come to Plaintiff's apartment; however, when asked if Plaintiff had committed a crime and whether Plaintiff would be assigned an attorney, "John Doe" #1 said that Plaintiff would have to obtain an attorney on her own. As it turned out, "John Doe" #1 never came to Plaintiff's apartment, and never contacted Plaintiff's daughter. During Plaintiff's conversation with "John Doe" #1, Plaintiff told the employee that she was recording the conversation. Plaintiff recorded the conversation and uploaded it to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/adl_zuckerman_both_criminals.html (this site, at the link that says FBIconversation - click here). The following day, Plaintiff contacted the FBI and spoke with a woman (who sounded black). Plaintiff told the woman that an FBI employee would not allow her to file any complaints if the subject of the complaint is Jewish. Plaintiff also told the woman that she recorded the conversation and uploaded it to her website. The woman asked Plaintiff how Plaintiff knew whether the person with whom Plaintiff spoke was an employee of the FBI. Plaintiff told the woman she was right, and that the person with whom Plaintiff spoke could have been Bozo the Clown. Subsequently, an employee of the FBI called Plaintiff's psychiatric treatment facility and reported that Plaintiff had an argument with an FBI employee; that said argument was indicative that Plaintiff has psychiatric issues that warrant hospitalization. On March 28, 2013, the day of Plaintiff's treatment appointment, Plaintiff was asked by her psychiatrist, Dr. Beaudouin if she had had an argument with anyone. Later, Plaintiff was interviewed simultaneously by Dr. Beaudouin and Ms. Fletcher in an attempt to find reasons to hospitalize the Plaintiff. It was so obvious that Plaintiff asked if they planned to hospitalize her. Plaintiff's psychiatrist and therapist said no; however, Plaintiff's psychiatrist and therapist never disclosed to Plaintiff that they had been contacted by Defendant FBI and requested to act as agents of the police. Plaintiff had committed no crime and has been treatment compliant such that Plaintiff felt double-teamed by Dr. Beaudouin and Ms. Fletcher with their bombardment of questions that were geared, not to help Plaintiff, but as an investigative tool of the FBI to determine whether Plaintiff had any argument with the FBI. Plaintiff's treatment facility is now being used surreptitiously to ensure that if Plaintiff files a complaint with the FBI against any Jew, that the FBI will contact her psychiatric treatment facility and tell them to hospitalize Plaintiff.

Factual Analysis

        56)    While Plaintiff holds that all of the Defendants played a role in the misprision of Defendants Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's, Osato E. Uzamere's, Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft, the Defendant judges hold the greatest criminal liability. They interpret law, they apply law and they are the ultimate enforcers of the law. Defendant U.S. Marshals Service by its employees specifically worked with and acted at the behest of the Defendant judiciary. Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health by its employee Defendant Bridget Davis stated that the U.S. Marshal Service told her that Plaintiff is considered a danger based on their spurious accusation that Plaintiff threatened Defendant Garaufis, other judges and employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' call center – something that Plaintiff never did, and something that was accomplished by Defendant U.S. Marshals Service at the behest of the Defendant judiciary. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security by its employee Denis P. McGowan specifically worked with and acted at the behest of the Defendant judges. Defendant Denis P. McGowan said in his letter dated August 18, 2011: “On July 06, 2011, Federal Protective Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made by CHERYL UZAMERE to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid call center. The threat consisted of HER stating: since SHE did not get the job, SHE was going to "COME DOWN THERE AND KILL EVERYBODY. Since FPS has investigated UZAMERE multiple times for similar behavior, we are well aware of HER mental health history. Based on that information, a referral was made to LifeNet for mental health intervention on July 07 2011. Subsequently, UZAMERE's Intensive Case Manager (ICM) Bridgett Davis of the New York State Office of Mental Health has advised that UZAMERE's treatment has been transferred to the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program. We were informed that CHERYL D. UZAMERE is being treated as a patient by your program and we would like to keep you abreast of this situation as it evolves. We also request that we be notified as HER status changes in particular any change from in-patient to out-patient treatment and in the case of the latter any refusal of treatment. In addition, please notify FPS of any relapses or deterioration of HER condition that may pose a risk to life or property.”Under the title “Alerts”, Plaintiff's treatment plan states “. . . H/O threats to judges and Center for Medicaid and Medicare, patient is being monitored by Homeland Security.” Under the title “Discharge Plan”, it says “Patient is not being considered for discharge at this time, she was transferred to the program 6 months ago after she made a threat to the Medicare and Medicaid call center and is being monitored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” Under the title “Patient/Family Statement”, it says that “She reported not being aware of being monitored by Homeland Security. . .” At the behest of Defendant judiciary, Plaintiff's confidentiality of her psychiatric records was breached – and worse, it was breached at the behest of the Defendant judiciary for a crime that Plaintiff never committed. See CMS correspondence dated January 30, 2013 attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit S.

        57)    At the behest of the Defendant judges, Plaintiff has been: 1) publicly defamed; 2) jailed, prosecuted and ultimately found not guilty for crimes which Plaintiff did not commit, and for which the Defendant judicial accusers never had any intention to confront the Plaintiff on three (3) separate occasions; 3) conspired to have Plaintiff kidnapped three (3) times based on accusing Plaintiff of a crime that she did not commit; 4) illegally imprisoned Plaintiff three (3) times based on Defendant judges accusing Plaintiff of crimes that she did not commit; 5) had the confidentiality of Plaintiff's psychiatric and divorce records illegally breached and disseminated to the public; 6) illegally monitored by the court, other federal agencies, New York State agencies and New York City agencies for a crime that Plaintiff never committed; 7) intentionally misdiagnosed Plaintiff based on crimes that Plaintiff never committed; 8) forcibly isolated; 9) subjected to extortionate behavior on the part of Defendant judges and blackmailed to keep silent and not report the crimes of corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein or else Plaintiff and her children would be attacked by powerful members of the Jewish community; 10) and most importantly, 9) blacklisted by Defendant judges to prevent Plaintiff from honest use of the federal and New York State court systems. Plaintiff was also blacklisted by New York State Office of Mental Health's various not-for-profit, Jewish-controlled outpatient, psychiatric services, like Defendant FEGS because of Plaintiff's actively disobeying the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser

        58)    Defendant judges' most important role is not enforcement of the U.S. Constitution, but to enforce that Jews should not earn love and respect as normal humans do, but to be feared as gods; for Gentiles to serve Jews as their obedient slaves, and to ensure that all judicial decisions are rendered according to what makes the Jews happy. What makes the Defendant Jewish judicial majority happy is the enforcement of the Talmudic Law of the Moser, to ensure that Plaintiff is never able to file any complaint against the aforementioned attorneys based on their commission of, inter alia, aggravated identity theft. The original acts of aggravated identity theft that were committed by Defendants Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro have never been adjudicated since November 30, 1979, and later on, from the time that the aforesaid attorneys' commission of aggravated identity theft that took place on or around October 28, 2009 until now. See correspondence from CMS attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit S.

        59)    By reason of the foregoing irrefutable allegations, Plaintiff asserts that there exists a justiciable controversy with respect to Plaintiff's motion for Defendant judges' recusal for which Plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for herein.

LEGAL ARGUMENTS

All Defendant Judges Have Committed Misprision of Felony

        60)    18 USC §4, misprision of felony says: “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

        61)    In the criminal action U.S.A. v. Baumgartner, former Knoxville, Tennessee criminal court judge Richard Baumgartner made material misrepresentations to various officials concerning his paramour Deena Castleman in efforts to conceal her participation in a federal prescription drug trafficking conspiracy. Evidence presented during the trial showed that Baumgartner's motive involved Deena Castleman's continued participation in the conspiracy so she could provide drugs and sexual favors to him. What is telling about this case is that: 1) Baumgartner appears to be Jewish; 2) Baumgartner was a judge when he was indicted; 3) Baumgartner was convicted of five (5) counts of misprision of a felony; and most importantly, Baumgartner was convicted by a federal court. Defendant judges, especially those who are Jews have deluded themselves in their Godlike abilities to magically make the U.S. Constitution disappear and replace it with the Talmud to prevent Plaintiff from reporting the aggravated identity theft committed by corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, their engaging in defaming the Plaintiff, arresting her for crimes that she did not commit and for which they never had plans to confront her as adversarial witnesses, kidnapping her and placing her in an inpatient psychiatric setting for crimes she did not commit. Defendant judiciary continues to deprive Plaintiff and her family of their right to bear the correct African/Nigerian name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.

        62)    Another interesting fact rests with the case Pizzuto v. County of Nassau, 239 F.Supp.2d 301 (2003) in which Defendant Judge Garaufis' states that with reference to Defendant Gary Pincus, in the criminal case presided over by federal district judge Jacob Mishler, that he was convicted of the lesser charge of misprision of felony for failing to report Velazquez and Regnier's criminal assault on prisoner Thomas Pizzuto. In this instance that Defendant Garaufis is familiar with the the meaning of misprision of felony such that his own engaging in misprision of felony to prevent Plaintiff from reporting Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft is very hypocritical.

        63)    In the appeal United States v. Caraballo-Rodriguez, 480 F3d 62, “Former Puerto Rico police officer Osvaldo Caraballo-Rodriguez (Caraballo) seeks on appeal to withdraw his plea of guilty to the crime of misprision of felony, 18 U.S.C. §4. . .The prosecution's allegations were that Caraballo committed misprision by concealing and failing to report an underlying drug crime in which he was involved (1) when he gave accurate information in an anonymous tip to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) about the crime (in which he participated), but refused to provide additional requested information, and (2) when he refused to provide additional information despite his duty as a Puerto Rico police officer to disclose crimes. . . The government agreed to a new charge, brought under 18 U.S.C. §4, of misprision of felony, to which Caraballo agreed to waive indictment and plead guilty. . .Caraballo, who was advised by counsel, not surprisingly agreed to plead guilty to that theory.” In the aforementioned case, after considering Caraballo's refusal to provide some information alongside his participation in a major drug conspiracy and his plea agreement accepting conviction for misprision of felony, the First Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision.

        64)    Based on the foregoing, the Defendant judges must recuse themselves and make way for a judge who is not biased and is not constitutionally compromised.

Recusal of Defendant Judges is Mandatory

        65)    28 USC §445 says:

“Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: 5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: (i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party. . .”

        66)    28 USC §144 says:

“Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.”

“The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.”

        67)    Plaintiff reminds this Court of the following: 1) judiciary defendants have still not reported Defendants Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's, Scott Shifrel's, Osato E. Uzamere's and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's commission of aggravated identity theft; therefore they are still committing 18 USC §4, misprision of felony; and 2) that because said judiciary defendants are still committing misprision of felony, they are defendants in Plaintiff's lawsuit.

        68)    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).

        69)    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 litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”) That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.” 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). Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.

        70)    Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on Section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”)

        71)    Unless the Judicial Defendants file a criminal complaint against Defendants Rachel McCarthy, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman's, Scott Shifrel, Osato Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Ehigie Uzamere for aggravated identity theft and fraud, or, unless the Judicial Defendants arrest me and my daughter Tara for the aforementioned crimes, the Judicial Defendants must recuse themselves pursuant to 28 USC §455 and 28 USC §144.

        WHEREFORE, I respectfully ask this Court to require the Judicial Defendants to recuse itself pursuant to 28 USC §455(b)(5)(i), 28 USC §455(b)(1) and 28 USC §144 and for such other and further relief that this Court deems are just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this __th day of July, 2013


Dated:
  Brooklyn, New York
            July 18, 2013


STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION AND GOOD FAITH CERTIFICATION

        I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, certify that I read the above Affidavit in Support and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I certify that I have provided tangible, irrefutable proof of my allegations before this Court; that I researched both facts and relevant law to the best of my ability to ensure truth and accuracy so that my Verified Complaint is presented to this Court in good faith. I certify before this Court that while this lawsuit will embarrass the Defendants if it goes public, I do not present this Affidavit in Support to embarrass, annoy or defame the Defendants.

        I certify the foregoing pursuant to the laws for perjury.


CHERYL D. UZAMERE
Appearing Pro Se

_____________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue,
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net

====================================================================================== 

 

1 18 USC §1001

2  New York State Penal Law §210.15 Perjury in the first degree. A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree when he swears falsely and when his false statement (a) consists of testimony, and (b) is material to the action, proceeding or matter in which it is made. Perjury in the first degree is a class D felony.

3  22 CFR §92.65 - Depositions to prove genuineness of foreign documents – (a) Authority to execute commission. Under the provisions of section 1 of the act of June 25, 1948, as amended (sec. 1, 62 Stat. 834, sec. 53, 63 Stat. 96; 18 U.S.C. 3492), a diplomatic or consular officer may be commissioned by an United States court to take the testimony of a witness in a foreign country either on oral or written interrogatories, or partly on oral and partly on written interrogatories, for the purpose of determining the genuineness of any foreign document. . .”

4 22 NYCRR 100.3(8)(11): “. . .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...” and that “a judge shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity.”

5  Plaintiff alleges LifeNet suicide/mental health hotline was fraudulently contacted by Defendant U.S. Marshal Service for the Eastern District of New York and told that Plaintiff threatened Defendant Nicholas with bodily harm. That Defendant USMS knew that Plaintiff committed no crime is a clear violation of 18 USC §1001.

6 New York Wiretapping Law: New York's wiretapping law is a “one-party consent” law. New York makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. N.Y. Penal Law §§250.00, 250.05. Thus, if you operate in New York, you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to the conversation or you get permission from one party to the conversation in advance. This serves as a reminder to any defendant that wants to nullify Plaintiff's recorded conversation with Defendant Davis based on the delusion that Plaintiff's doesn't know N.Y. Penal Law §250.00 and §250.05.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ____________

---------------------------------------------------------X

Cheryl D. Uzamere,                                                          No.: 13-CV-___________

                                               
Plaintiff,                             PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO HOLD
                                                                                         ACTION IN ABEYANCE PURSUANT
    
- against -                                                                     TO FED R. CIV. 7(b) AND TO
                                                                                          ENJOIN DEFENDANTS
United States of America, et al.
                                                                                          JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

                                               Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------X

 

 

..........PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the attached Affidavit of Plaintiff, Cheryl D. Uzamere, sworn to on the __th day of ________, 2013, and upon all the exhibits herein attached, Plaintiff will move this Court in the presence of the Honorable ____________, on the __th day of _____ 2013, at 9:30 in the forenoon, or as soon thereafter to pray this Court to do the following:

..........a).....For a stay to await Defendants' attorneys' compliance to sign Plaintiff's stipulation to transfer venue;

..........b).....To enjoin the Defendants from placing Plaintiff in any inpatient hospital setting;

..........c).....To enjoin the Defendants from arresting and holding Plaintiff prisoner during the pendency of Plaintiff's action;

..........d).....For Defendants to immediately advise this Court if Defendants arrest the Plaintiff or if the Defendants cause the Plaintiff to be arrested anyone;

..........e).....For this Court to continue to hold Plaintiff's action in abeyance pending Plaintiff's release and during the pendency of Plaintiff's action.

..........
f).....To enjoin the Defendants to immediately advise this Court when Plaintiff is placed as an inpatient with any facility that is licensed by Defendants New York State Office of Mental Health and New York State Department of Health;

..........g).....To require Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel to confirm file number A35 201 224 and A24 027 764 that Plaintiff holds are proof that Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was Plaintiff's husband and is the father of Tara A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage;

 ..........h)....To forward this Court's findings regarding the identity of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to the appropriate law enforcement agencies so as to facilitate the arrest of Defendant Daily News's employee Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel, Osato Eugene Uzamere, Esq., Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., and Jack Gladstein based their commission of the following: 1) commission of 18 U.S.C. §241, conspiracy based on the Defendant Daily News' website http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-11-05/local/17938323_1_supreme-court-judge-criminal-court and continues to broadcast that “Godwin Uzamere” is the Plaintiff's husband; and 2) commission of 18 U.S.C. §1015(c), False and False Statements, Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry (applies only to Allen E. Kaye, Esq., and Harvey Shapiro, Esq., based on the fraudulent affirmations that they Justice Arthur M. Schack on or around October 28, 2009; said affirmations representing that the I-130 immediate relative sponsorship form they submitted to U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service are true and correct);

..........i).....To assign Plaintiff a guardian ad litem/attorney to assist Plaintiff in proceeding with her civil rights action;

 ..........j).....To enjoin Defendant Daily News and those Defendants who printed also information regarding the Plaintiff to remove the fraudulent news article at their websites, including similar sites that are maintained overtly, covertly, directly and indirectly at their behest in their entirety; and to refrain from publicly referencing or having any person covertly, overtly, directly or indirectly refer to any portion of their article that was used in tandem with the Defendant Daily News' article regarding the Plaintiff;

..........k).....To enjoin Defendants OMH, DOH and Defendant not-for-profit outpatient psychiatric agencies to permanently lift their blacklist against Plaintiff's participation, so that Plaintiff can attend a government-licensed, government-funded continuing day treatment program or psychosocial clubhouses most suitable to her needs.


Dated: Brooklyn, New York
          
July ___, 2013


CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE



_________________

Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF
 ____________                         

---------------------------------------------------------X

Cheryl D. Uzamere,                                                    Civil Action No.: 13-cv_________

                                                   
Plaintiff,                   PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
                                                                                    OF HER MOTION TO HOLD IN HER
                                                                                    ACTION IN ABEYANCE PURSUANT
   - against -                                                                  TO FED. R. CIV. P. 7(b) AND TO
                                                                                    ENJOIN DEFENDANTS
United States of America, et al.
                                                                                    JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
                                                   
Defendants.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

---------------------------------------------------------X

PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE
 .......... Cheryl D. Uzamere, being duly sworn, state under the penalties of perjury that:

 ..........1).....She is the Plaintiff in the above entitled action.

Purpose of Motion

  ..........2).....By this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to move this Court to hold her civil rights action in abeyance until such time that the Defendants entering into Plaintiff's stipulation to transfer Plaintiff's action to this venue; and to commence a criminal action against the Defendants for their commission of the following: 18 USC §4, misprision of felony; 18 USC §1001, fraud; 18 USC §1028, identity theft; 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft; 18 USC §242/42 USC §1985, deprivation of rights under color of law (including being kidnapped, unlawfully imprisoned and blacklisted); extortion, 18 USC §872§, blackmail, 18 USC §873; violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act; violation of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973; violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601; violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the Petition Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; violation of the Notice Clause of the Sixth Amendment; violation of the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment; violation of Plaintiff's right of privacy with regard to the illegal dissemination of her psychiatric records, Plaintiff marriage history, Plaintiff married name, and the non-content information associated with Plaintiff's internet and telephone accounts; violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and intentional misuse of national security letters (NSLs).

..........3).....Plaintiff's also seeks to expose that Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security has had knowledge of the correct identity, and has been in possession of the identification documents for Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere for well over thirty (30) years. Defendants, especially the judicial Defendants, have satisfied themselves to allow the Plaintiff and her daughter Tara to hold onto the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere, DOB June 1, 1955” that Defendants Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, corrupt Jewish immigration Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro, and later, Jack Gladstein, Osato Eugene Uzamere, Mortimer Zuckerman and Shifrel used to hide Plaintiff’s ex-husband’s true identity. Later, aforesaid Defendants went so far as to solicit the assistance of Defendant judges Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Leonard Sands and Nicholas Garaufis to render decisions that ignored the commission of fraud, identity theft and aggravated identify theft committed by the aforementioned defendants. Defendant the United States of America, along with the rest of the Defendants, owed Plaintiff and her children the duty to use the aforementioned documentation regarding Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity to protect Plaintiff and her children from being victims of fraud, immigration fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft and victims of Plaintiff's inability to obtain spousal and children support based on Plaintiff and her son and daughter David P. Walker and Tara A. Uzamere and having the legal right to bear Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's correct name. However, rather than comply with the law, the Defendants, in particular, the Jewish Defendants, engaged in a course of conduct that violated Plaintiff's rights and the rights of her son and daughter, David and Tara, for the sole purpose of preventing Plaintiff from filing complaints against hateful, racist, dishonest, Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Defendants' criminal conduct deprived them then, and continues to deprive Plaintiff and her family of the right to bear Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere correct African name, and continues to condemn Plaintiff and her family to the same deprivation of the knowledge of African bloodline indicators that racist Jews and racist white Christians forced upon Plaintiff's African ancestors.

Facts

 ..........4).....By necessity, Plaintiff must recount the events as described in her Verified Complaint that establishes Plaintiff's request for abeyance of her civil rights actions.

 ..........5).....In December, 1977, approximately two (2) years before Plaintiff met Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Nosayaba (John) Uzamere and his wife Ethel Uzamere (Defendant Uzamere's brother and sister-in-law, not his father and stepmother) filed for IR2 residence for Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. The IR2 visa for Defendant Uzamere was approved on January 28, 1980. On November 21, 1979, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered into a fraudulent “green card” marriage with the unsuspecting Plaintiff. On November 30, 1979, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro, Esq. engaged in an act of aggravated identity theft and immigration fraud by giving the Plaintiff form I-130 to sign so as to sponsor the Defendant for IR1 residence under the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” and fictitious birthday “June 1, 1955.” In December, 1979, Defendant Uzamere left for Nigeria, abandoning the Plaintiff and leaving her poor and pregnant with his daughter Tara A. Uzamere. On January 28, 1980, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered the port of New York as a lawful permanent resident. The aforementioned lawbreaking Jewish attorneys exacerbated their act of aggravated identity theft by refusing to require Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to produce his passport to establish proof of his identity, and by engaging in willful blindness by pretending not to have knowledge of the existence of Senator Uzamere's passport or of knowledge that Senator Uzamere previously applied under his correct name as an unmarried beneficiary under 21 years of age. At the time of Plaintiff's signing the fraudulent I-130 relative sponsorship form, Plaintiff did not know that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere had applied and been found eligible for permanent residence under his real name via sponsorship by other family members. See report prepared by Defendant Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit A.

 ..........6).....On or around October 1, 2003, Jack Gladstein engaged in an act of racketeering, and aggravated identity fraud by mailing to the Plaintiff correspondence falsely holding Plaintiff's ex-husband out to be “Godwin Uzamere” even though the only correct identification that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service holds is for Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, not “Godwin Uzamere.”

 ..........7).....On or September 25, 2008, after Plaintiff had engaged in a series of leaving angry telephone calls on Defendant McCarthy's voice mail based on Plaintiff's perception that Defendant McCarthy had engaged in racketeering designed to nullify Plaintiff's complaint against Defendant Kaye and Defendant Shapiro, Defendant McCarthy engaged in an act of racketeering and fraud1 by engaging the U.S. Attorney's Office for Vermont to say that “In or about September 2008, in the District of Vermont, the defendant, Cheryl Uzamere, impeded, intimidated, and interfered with a federal employee, namely an employee of the United States Customs and Immigration Service, while that person was engaged in and on account of that person's performance of official duties.” Plaintiff emphatically states that she has never been to Vermont, Defendant McCarthy's state of resident, so that it was impossible for Plaintiff to have engaged in any form of simple assault against Defendant McCarthy. See documentation regarding USA v. Uzamere, 1:08-cr-114-1 attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit B.

 ..........8).....On or around October 8, 2008, Defendant Eugene Uzamere, engaged in an act of racketeering, aggravated identity fraud, violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by hand-delivering a fraudulent affirmation and a fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized counter-affidavit from Nigeria which stated that “The plaintiff who has openly professed her mental illness is also delusional and outlandish in her claims”; and “I have before now, ignored the Plaintiff's outburst but her claim to be married to my cousin who was not in the United States at the time of our marriage is a new twist to this sad tale. . .Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged” in defiance of the administrative decision rendered by the INS regarding Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity. In addition, Justice Sunshine refused to commission a diplomatic or consular officer for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the fraudulent foreign document that was presented to him by attorney Osato Uzamere on behalf of his uncle, Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.2, 3 From then until the present, Justice Sunshine has never mad any attempt to arrest Osato Uzamere for committing perjury. See fraudulent affirmation and fraudulent foreign counter-affidavit attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit C.

 ..........9).....On or around January 6, 2009, Plaintiff received a notice from Defendant McCarthy in which she said that “This office has completed its review of the complaint of professional misconduct that you filed against Allen E. Kaye, Esquire. The matter is confidential at this stage in accordance with the Rules and Procedures of Professional Conduct for Practitioners (“Rules”), except for necessary disclosures in the course of conducting a preliminary inquiry. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry of complaints of criminal, unethical, or unprofessional conduct in matters before USCIS. In your June 9, 2008 complaint, you allege that Alan E. Kaye “colluded with my husband, the now Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to submit a marriage certificate with the fictitious name "Godwin Uzamere: in order to avoid paying child support. and three years later, in order to hide the 2nd marriage that my husband contracted in the United States.” The acts that you allege constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Practitioner occurred in the course of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye in connection with an immediate relative filed by you with the Immigration and Naturalization (“INS”) in 1979. The New York Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department considered these allegations in 2003 and determined that no further action was warranted. After a careful and thorough review of your complaint I do not find clear and convincing evidence of an ethical violation of the Rules on the part of Mr. Kaye. No further action will be taken with regard to your complaint.” Defendant McCarthy's statement “occurred I in then course of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye” makes direct reference to Defendant Harvey Shapiro. See correspondence from Defendant McCarthy dated January 6, 2009 attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit A.

 ..........10).....On January 12, 2009, Defendant Sunshine engaged in an act of racketeering, aggravated identity fraud and fraud upon the court by rendering a decision in which he stated that “Moreover, the opposition submitted by defendant raises a genuine issue as to whether or not plaintiff and defendant were married in the first instance”, in defiance of INS' administrative decision that recognized the names “Godwin E. Uzamere” and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as belonging to Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and that Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was married to the Plaintiff. Defendant Sunshine made no attempt to obey commission a consular officer of the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria to verify the authenticity of the unauthenticated counter-affidavit from Nigeria purporting to be from “Godwin Uzamere.” See Page 9 of Justice Sunshine's decision and order dated January 12, 2009 is attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit D.

 ..........11).....On January 20, 2009, the Plaintiff e-mailed a complaint to former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Robin Renee Sanders in which she said that “While I was in court on January 13, 2008, my husband's attorney, Eugene O. Uzamere asked Judge Sunshine if Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, my real husband, along with some Nigerian pretending to be my real husband can be allowed to video-conference their appearance in court. As it is apparent that the level of corruption in my divorce action has reached an all-time new low, it appears that Judge Sunshine will allow this silliness. This would give Eugene the opportunity of paying some poor Nigerian a pittance to engage in identity fraud that would reach a New York State Court. In the likely event that Judge Sunshine allows this silliness, is there some way that your office can ensure that the unknown Nigerian who engages in this video-conference first signs some kind of affidavit that is notarized by your office? That way, your office can check that person's identification to ensure that if he attempts to say that he is my husband, his identification will prove otherwise.” Although Plaintiff had the presence of mind to ask former U.S. Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders to require anyone posing as Plaintiff's husband to produce identification, Defendant Sunshine did not require Defendant Osato E. Uzamere to produce any type of U.S. Embassy-authenticated, color-photograph-bearing government identification of his client, and the only forms of identification that Defendant Osato E. Uzamere produced was a copy of a passport bearing no one's name and social security number 129-64-1205, the fictitious number associated with the fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere.” See e-mail to former Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders and response from the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit E. See fraudulent passport cover and fraudulent social security number attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit C.
 ..........12).....On May 12, 2009, Defendant Sunshine rendered his decision recognizing the identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere by stating that “Today at 10:35 am. defendant was declared in default for failure to appear at the hearing. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss this action upon the grounds that he is not the husband of the plaintiff is denied in its entirety. The defendant is the husband in conformity with the parties marriage on November 21, 1979. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order and serve and file a note of issue, forthwith, with proof of mailing by regular international mail and overnight international mail for a trial on all issues within this matrimonial action to be held before this court on July 7, 2009. at 9:30 a.m. This shall constitute the decision and order of the court.” See Defendant Sunshine's decision attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit F.

 ..........13).....On July 7, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an action for fraud against her ex-husband and against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. From the year 2009 to 2011, Plaintiff also attempted to engage the judicial assistance of Defendant New York State Unified Court System for the Second Judicial Department with regard to the following appellate cases: 1) Uzamere v Daily News, L.P., 2011 NY Slip Op 52421(U) [34 Misc 3d 1203(A)], Decided on November 10, 2011, Supreme Court, New York County, Rakower, J; 2) Uzamere v Uzamere, 2011 NY Slip Op 08583 [89 AD3d 1013], November 22, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department; 3) Uzamere v Uzamere, 2009 NY Slip Op 09214 [68 AD3d 855], December 8, 2009, Appellate Division, Second Department; 4)` Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2010 NY Slip Op 83241(U), Decided on September 23, 2010, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; 5) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 65346(U), Decided on February 28, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; 6) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 69114(U), Decided on April 6, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; and 7) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 69622(U), Decided on April 11, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision. The following appellate judges presided over the aforementioned cases: Daniel D. Angiolillo; Cheryl E. Chambers; Jeffrey A. Cohen; Mark C. Dillon; Anita R. Florio; Steven W. Fisher; L. Priscilla Hall; John M. Leventhal; Plummer E. Lott; William F. Mastro; Robert J. Miller; A. Gail Prudenti; Reinaldo E. Rivera; Sheri S. Roman; Sandra L. Sgroi and Peter B. Skelos. Plaintiff alleges that just as in the trial courts, Plaintiff provided the appellate courts with the Daily News article and the fraudulent affirmations in which Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein Osato E. Uzamere perjured themselves and stated that “Godwin Uzamere” was Plaintiff's husband. The appellate judges, just as every judge with whom Plaintiff presented the aforementioned testimony as done, ignored Plaintiff's cries for justice, engaged in fraud upon the court and disobeyed 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, the Code of Conduct for Judges and the Code of Lawyers Professional Responsibility with regard to report a judge an attorney who engages in acts of wrongdoing. Plaintiff also filed various complaints with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct against Defendants Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Arthur Schack; the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Department against Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Osato E. Uzamere; and the New York State Grievance Committee for the Second Judicial Department against Jack Gladstein. Plaintiff produced the Daily News article, the fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized, foreign counter-affidavit from Defendant Osato E. Uzamere, and the fraudulent affirmation from Defendants corrupt attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato E. Uzamere that are proof of their act of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft and New York State Penal Law Section 210.15, perjury in the first degree, and proof of the true identity of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere the Plaintiff obtained from Defendant Rachel McCarthy (who can be reached at (802) 660-5043; fax (802) 660-5067). No member of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department or the New York State Grievance Committee for the Second Judicial Department ever reported the aforementioned attorneys for their commission of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft or New York State Penal Law Section 210.15, perjury in the first degree.

 ..........14).....On or near October 28, 2009, Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, engaged in acts of racketeering and aggravated identity fraud submitted fraudulent affirmations to the court holding “Godwin Uzamere” to be the Plaintiff's husband based on the fraudulent I-130 immigration sponsorship form that Plaintiff's ex-husband filed with Defendants Kaye and Shapiro. See fraudulent affirmations of Defendants Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit G.

..........15).....On November 3, 2009, Defendants Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Michael Gerstein, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein engaged in an act prohibited by the New York Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility in that, after filing the fraudulent affirmations, they planned and implemented Plaintiff's false arrest for the sole purpose of obtaining an advantage in the action for fraud that Plaintiff filed against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Plaintiff stayed in jail for 33 days. Because Plaintiff was remanded and was not able to leave, Plaintiff was coerced into accepting the plea as mentally unfit, and employees of Defendant New York State Office of Court Administration/Unified Court System intentionally avoided appearing before court to explain their false charge against the Plaintiff. Charges against Plaintiff were dismissed. See correspondence from Rikers Island, attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit H.

 ..........16).....On November 5, 2009, Defendants Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack, on their own and/or by courthouse employees that were under said Defendants' care, control and supervision at the time of the incident, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice by illegally commenting on and providing nonpublic information regarding Plaintiff's cases Kings County Criminal Court Case Docket No. 2009KN0879924; Kings County Supreme Court Index No. 18012-2009 and Kings County Supreme Index No. 26332-2007 to Daily News staff writer Scott Shifrel in violation of 22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(8)(11) that said nonpublic information was provided to the Daily News, by staff writer Scott Shifrel, who did knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought engage in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice by publishing the newspaper article that illegally disclosed Plaintiff's nonpublic information that was acquired by Defendant Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack during their adjudication of Plaintiff's cases including Plaintiff's photo; Plaintiff's name; Plaintiff's age; Plaintiff's mental illness; Plaintiff's psychiatric diagnosis; symptoms of Plaintiff's mental illness; the courts where Plaintiff's cases were adjudicated; the town where Plaintiff's lives and the name of the hospital that treated Plaintiff; that Daily News staff writer Scott Shifrel, on behalf the Defendants, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction by charging Plaintiff with the halachic/Jewish religious crime of anti-Semitism by saying “Cheryl Uzamere, 50, known around courthouse circles for her anti-Semitic screeds, was declared mentally unfit and taken to Bellevue Hospital for observation”; and, that “...she's a smart person and she really know how to use the system, said one courthouse source...she comes in here and files all these papers and threatens people. Uzamere was in a Criminal Court holding cell when she started stripping and screaming about her “senator” husband in Nigeria loud enough to be heard in the courtroom. The senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to an affidavit he filed in Supreme Court. . .”; and that “the senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to affidavit filed in Supreme Court”; and “Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged, Godwin Uzamere said. . .” Scott Shifrel, at the behest of Mortimer Zuckerman and and Defendants Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack, on their own and/or by courthouse employees that were under said Defendants' care, control and supervision at the time of the incident, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice by engaging in aggravated identity theft; said act of identity theft accomplished by publicly holding in the Defendant Daily News that false identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband as “Godwin Uzamere. On the following day, the company ALM.com, by its website Law.com, published an article entitled N.Y. Arrested for Threatening Judge; that said nonpublic information was provided to the Law.com, by staff writer Mark Fass who did knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought, publish the internet article that illegally disclosed Plaintiff's nonpublic information that was acquired by the Defendant judges during their adjudication of Plaintiff's cases.

 ..........17).....On November 30, 2009, twenty-five (25) days after Defendant Daily News, LP published its article regarding the Plaintiff, Defendant Federation Employment and Guidance Service terminated its mental health services to the Plaintiff. In its discharge summary it stated that “given client's history of anti-Semitic remarks treatment at an FEGS facility is inappropriate for her.” FEGS' discharge summary is attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit J1.
 
..........18).....On December 7, 2009, the Plaintiff was placed with Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility.
 
..........19).....On December 24, 2009, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant New York State Unified Court System judicial employee the Honorable Anthony Cutrona of Kings County Supreme Court's Mental Hygiene Court.
 
..........20).....On January 15, 2010, Defendant Schack engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice, violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act by ordering Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's psychiatrist Dr. Marie Bauduy of the Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility not to produce the Plaintiff for court. In his decision dated January 25, 2010, Justice Schack stated that “The Court is concerned that plaintiff UZAMERE is unfit to proceed. . .Therefore, the instant matter is adjourned to Friday, March 19, 2010. . .” See interim decision of Defendant Schack attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit I.
 
..........21).....During the beginning of February, 2010, Plaintiff was discharged by Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility.
 
..........22).....On or near February 23, 2010, while the Plaintiff was in her apartment faxing letters of complaint to various governmental agencies, Defendants Sunshine, New York State Office of Mental Health and Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice, insofar as they contacted a social worker from Defendant Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center, who then arranged for Plaintiff to be kidnapped and hospitalized by Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center. Defendant Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center caused one of its employees to contact Defendant City of New York's agencies, the New York City Housing Authority's Louis H. Pink Houses, the New York City Police Department and the New York City Fire Department. An employee of the New York City Housing Authority opened the Plaintiff's apartment door, and Plaintiff was taken out of her apartment by force and hospitalized by Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center. During Plaintiff's last week as an inpatient, Kingsboro social worker Laurie Velcimé informed the Plaintiff that she was engaged in aftercare preparation, including locating an outpatient mental health program. The Plaintiff advised Ms. Velcimé that she was interested in attending New York Psychotherapy and Counseling Center (NYPCC) on Hendrix Street, located close to where the Plaintiff lives. After Ms. Velcimé performed a search of NYPCC and other outpatient mental health care providers, she informed the Plaintiff that not only had NYPCC refused to accept Plaintiff as a client, but that virtually all the not-for-profit outpatient mental health facilities that Ms. Velcimé contacted rejected her request to provide Plaintiff with outpatient psychiatric services.
 
..........23).....On July 13, 2010, Justice Arthur M. Schack engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and aggravated identity theft by rendering a decision, holding that “Godwin Uzamere” is Plaintiff's husband and that ORDERED, that the instant complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that plaintiff CHERYL UZAMERE is hereby enjoined from commencing any future actions in the New York State Unified Court System against SENATOR EHIGIE EDOBOR UZAMERE a/k/a "GODWIN E. UZAMERE," ALLEN E. KAYE, P.C., ALLEN E. KAYE, ESQ., HARVEY SHAPIRO, ESQ., BERNARD J. ROSTANSKI and JACK GLADSTEIN, ESQ., without the prior approval of the appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge; and it is further ORDERED, that any violation of the above injunction by CHERYL UZAMERE will subject CHERYL UZAMERE to costs, sanctions and contempt proceedings. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.” See Defendant Schack's decision dated July 13, 2010 attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit J.
 
..........24).....On July 20, 2010, Defendant Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, conspiring with Defendant Arthur M. Schack, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice designed to hide the aforesaid immigration attorneys' commission of aggravated identity theft, and to make the public believe that the Plaintiff's lawsuit against the aforesaid immigration attorneys concerned lawyer malpractice and not criminally-based fraud, publicized an article on the internet entitled Sometimes It Just Wasn't the Attorney in Legal Malpractice. The article says:

“One theme that we have considered over the years is whether attorneys get preferential treatment in legal malpractice litigation. Are motions to dismiss granted on too little evidence? Do the attorneys get the benefit of the doubt? Is the fact that legal malpractice law is written mostly by attorneys, is decided upon by attorneys and affects attorneys sometimes dispositive of the outcome? Well, all that aside, sometimes the client just can't help themselves. Here is an example from today's NYLJ: Uzamere v. Uzamere; KINGS COUNTY; Justice Schack. . .” Shortly thereafter, Defendant Lawline.com published the same article, even going so far as to compare Jewish Defendant Kaye's, Defendant Shapiro's and Defendant Gladstein's monstrous act of aggravated identity theft, including the deprivation of Plaintiff's and her daughter Tara's right to bear the African/Nigerian name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere nothing more than Plaintiff's delusion that it was an act of legal malpractice, and not a crime.

..........25).....August 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed lawsuit 2010-cv-555 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit assigned to Defendant judge Christine O.C. Miller. Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendant Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendant Miller disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. The decision of this case is null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish defendants.
 
..........26).....On August 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed lawsuit 2010-cv-585 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit assigned to Defendants Nancy B. Firestone and John P. Wiese of the U.S. Court of Claims. They are Jewish. Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendants Firestone and Wiese with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendants Firestone and Wiese disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. The decision of this case is null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish defendants.

 ..........27).....On September 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed lawsuit 2010-cv-591 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit was assigned to Defendant judge Christine O.C. Miller of the U.S. Court of Claims. She is Jewish Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendant Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendant Miller disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. The decision of this case is null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish defendants.
..........28).....On or around January 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant State of New York with the New York State Court of Claims. As part of Plaintiff's testimony, Plaintiff provided Defendant Scuccimarra with the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt, Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft with regard to Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity. Defendant Scuccimarra never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys' commission of a federal felony.
 
..........29).....On or around January 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant Gerstein, Defendant Sunshine and Defendant Schack with Defendant the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. As part of Plaintiff's testimony, Plaintiff provided Defendant Klonick with the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt, Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft with regard to Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity. Defendant Klonick never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys' commission of a federal felony.
 
..........30).....On or around April 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein with Defendants the New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department and the New York Grievance Committee for the Second Judicial Department. As part of Plaintiff's testimony, Plaintiff provided Defendants Del Tipico and Gutierrez with the fraudulent affirmations that Defendants Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft at the behest of their client, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. Defendants Del Tipico and Gutierrez never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys commission of a federal felony.
..........31).....In June, 2011, Plaintiff filed the lawsuit Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 with the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

..........32).....On or around June 22, 2011, Defendant Garaufis engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft by rendering an FRCP-lacking, memorandum-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-CV-2831 for the sole purpose of: 1) advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their fraudulent commission of duping Plaintiff into believing that a civil res judicata determination is a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud, and his own and Defendant Bloom's commission of racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity fraud and fraud upon the court as well.
 
..........33).....On or around June 25, 2011, less than thirty (30) after Plaintiff submitted her lawsuit to the court, Defendant Garaufis engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft of at the behest of Defendant Judge Garaufis three (3) marshals from the U.S. Marshals Service for Defendant the Eastern District of New York banged on Plaintiff's apartment door, shaming Plaintiff within earshot of her neighbors. When the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of New York identified themselves, Plaintiff asked them if she had committed a crime. The marshals stalled for a few seconds, and then said that Plaintiff had not committed any crimes. When Plaintiff asked the U.S. Marshals why they were there, the U.S. Marshal that banged on Plaintiff's door said “I'm gonna annoy you like you annoyed Judge Garaufis.” When Plaintiff told them that she would not open the door, the one banging on the door said “then I'm gonna keep bangin”, and for another 1.5 minutes continued to bang on Plaintiff's door. He also asked Plaintiff “is your daughter Tara home?”, to find out if Plaintiff was home alone. Within minutes of Plaintiff telling them that her daughter Tara was there, they left.
 
.......... 34).....On July 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed her appeal for the lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al., 11-2713-cv. Plaintiff also filed a motion for judicial recusal pursuant to 28 USC §455.

 ..........35).....On or around July 7, 2011, within days of Plaintiff's request for Defendant Garaufis to recuse himself, Defendant Garaufis commenced a plan to have Defendant mental health employees engaged in an extortionate “shakedown” in which the aforesaid mental health defendants falsely accused Plaintiff of threatening Defendant Garaufis with bodily harm and threatening federal employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' call center with death. Defendants psychiatric nurse Agnes Flores and psychologist Martin Bolton, employees of Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation came to Plaintiff's apartment, speaking about Plaintiff's psychiatric issues in the hallway and shaming Plaintiff within earshot of her neighbors. Defendants Flores and Bolton said that Defendant U.S. Marshal Service told them that Plaintiff contacted Defendant Mental Health Association's LifeNet5 psychiatric helpline and made threats of bodily harm against Defendant Garaufis. Plaintiff told them that had she done such a thing that the U.S. Marshal Service would have arrested her when they visited her and given her an attorney, which would have forced Plaintiff's attorney to examine Plaintiff's civil claims.

 
..........36).....Also, on July 7, 2011, at the behest of Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe, the United Parcel Service returned Plaintiff's appellate brief, all of Plaintiff's motions, Appendix A and Appendix B that Plaintiff served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 4, 2012. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe did not include any correspondence explaining why Plaintiff's appellate documents were returned. When Plaintiff checked the PACER system, the system fraudulently recorded Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis decision as a memorandum and order, even though Defendant Garaufis never provided an FRCP-based memorandum. See copies of UPS envelopes for Plaintiff's appellate documents attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit K. See documents for Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. State of New York, et al. 09-cv-2703/09-3197-cv and Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2831-cv and 11-2713-cv attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit L.
  ..........37).....Some days later while in the month of July 2011, Plaintiff received another visit from Defendants Flores and Bolton. Because Plaintiff was afraid that someone who would enter her apartment and place Plaintiff in a psychiatric hospital against her will, Plaintiff hid in her closet between so that if they came into Plaintiff's apartment, she would appear not be home.

 
 ..........38).....Some days later during the month of July, 2011, Plaintiff received a call from Defendant Davis, but Plaintiff turned her cell phone off.

.......... 
39).....A day or so later, someone knocked on Plaintiff's door but did not announce themselves. Again Plaintiff hid in her closet to feign that she was not home. When Plaintiff went to the door, there was a notice from Woodhull Hospital's psychiatric unit with an appoint to appear at their psychiatric outpatient clinic.
 
..........40).....On July 16, 2011, in terror of forced hospitalization at the behest of Defendant Garaufis, the U.S. Marshal Service and psychiatric facilities over which the New York State Office of Mental Health and the New York State Department of Health have oversight, Plaintiff faxed a copy of Affidavit to Preetinder Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
 
..........41).....Later on in July 2011, Defendant Davis called Plaintiff, frightening Plaintiff by making Plaintiff believe that Plaintiff would be forcibly hospitalized because Defendant U.S. Marshal Service told her that Plaintiff had threatened others at the Medicaid office, something that Plaintiff did not do. Plaintiff took the liberty of recording the conversation in its entirety. Plaintiff uploaded the conversation http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html.6
 
..........42).....In the month of August, 2011 Defendant Davis contacted Defendant Sarpong for the purpose of forcing Plaintiff to go to Defendant Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, where Plaintiff was hospitalized as an inpatient for threatening Defendant Garaufis and other judges with bodily harm, and threatening CMS workers with death, something that Plaintiff never did. Plaintiff stayed a few days as an inpatient with Defendant Brookdale because Defendant Dr. “John Doe” and other employees of Defendant Brookdale Hospital Medical Center were told by Defendant Sarpong that Plaintiff threatened Judge Garaufis, other judges and CMS call center workers with death and with bodily harm. Thereafter, Brookdale Hospital Medical Center terminated its outpatient psychiatric services to the Plaintiff and transferred Plaintiff to the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team in order Plaintiff illegally monitor along with Defendant Denis P. McGowan of Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

 ..........43).....On or around August 18, 2011, Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation's East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team received correspondence from U.S. Department of Homeland Security on its original letterhead bearing the name “Denis P. McGowan, Chief, Threat Management Branch.” The letter stated: “On July 06, 2011, Federal Protective Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made by CHERYL UZAMERE to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid call center. The threat consisted of HER stating: since SHE did not get the job, SHE was going to "COME DOWN THERE AND KILL EVERYBODY. Since FPS has investigated UZAMERE multiple times for similar behavior, we are well aware of HER mental health history. Based on that information, a referral was made to LifeNet for mental health intervention on July 07 2011. Subsequently, UZAMERE's Intensive Case Manager (ICM) Bridgett Davis of the New York State Office of Mental Health has advised that UZAMERE's treatment has been transferred to the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program. We were informed that CHERYL D. UZAMERE is being treated as a patient by your program and we would like to keep you abreast of this situation as it evolves. We also request that we be notified as HER status changes in particular any change from in-patient to out-patient treatment and in the case of the latter any refusal of treatment. In addition, please notify FPS of any relapses or deterioration of HER condition that may pose a risk to life or property.” See letter from Denis P. McGowan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit M.

..........44).....From July 6, 2011, the date in which Plaintiff is alleged to have committed 18 USC §115 against Defendant Garaufis, other federal judges and employees of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services call center, no federal law enforcement agency has made any attempt to arrest the Plaintiff for the aforementioned offenses. According to Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, the judges who rendered decisions on Plaintiff's appeal for her lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv were not indicated on the decision because others unknown to Plaintiff told Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe that Plaintiff threatened Judge Nicholas, other federal judges and Defendant Sunshine. 
 
..........45).....On February 26, 2012, Defendant HHC's ACT Team where Defendant Sarpong is employed prepared a psychiatric treatment plan. Under the title “Alerts”, the treatment plan states “. . . H/O threats to judges and Center for Medicaid and Medicare, patient is being monitored by Homeland Security.” Under the title “Discharge Plan”, it says “Patient is not being considered for discharge at this time, she was transferred to the program 6 months ago after she made a threat to the Medicare and Medicaid call center and is being monitored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” Under the title “Patient/Family Statement”, it says that “She reported not being aware of being monitored by Homeland Security. . .” (See Plaintiff's psychiatric treatment plan from the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team, attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit M).
 
..........46).....From June 6, 2012, Plaintiff sent a number of e-mails to employees Mike J. Fitzpatrick, Katrina Gay, David Levy and Sue Medford of the organization National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) regarding Defendant Daily News use of the term “wacko” to publicly malign the Plaintiff. None of the employees that Plaintiff contacted made any attempt to speak with the Plaintiff.
 
..........47).....On November 28, 2012, based on information and belief, Defendants Raggi, Carney and Kahn of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft by rendering an FRAP-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv for the sole purpose of advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their fraudulent commission of aggravated identity fraud, and their own commission of racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity, for their own commission of obstruction of justice by duping Plaintiff into believing that a civil res judicata determination is a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless the legal consequences faced by Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's for their criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. Plaintiff was told the names of Defendant judges Raggi, Carney and Kahn by an unknown employee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe also engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft for the sole purpose of advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. Plaintiff's alleges that Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe left out the names of the judges who rendered their illegal decision on Plaintiff's decision based on defendants' delusion that Plaintiff would either not figure out the judges' identity and would therefore be unable to sue them.
 
..........48).....Soon thereafter, the Plaintiff called Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court for U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and asked why the appellate judges' names were not indicated on the U.S. Court of Appeals' decision. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe indicated that the judges' names were left out because Plaintiff had threatened federal judges, something that Plaintiff never did.
 
..........49).....a).....During the month of December, 2012, Plaintiff sent several e-mails containing a copy of the lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 that Plaintiff filed, as well as those lawsuits that Plaintiff will file with the Federal District Court of the Eastern District of New York, along with proof of Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity and the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein filed with the New York State Supreme Court to First Lady Michele Obama, and to all the defendants. See one of several e-mails Plaintiff sent the Defendants attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit N.
 
....................b).....During the last days of Plaintiff's amending her Verified Complaint, Plaintiff discovered that four (4) of the Defendants, namely, Agnes Flores, psychiatric nurse, formerly employed by Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Martin Bolton, psychologist, formerly employed by New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Anne Berrill Carroll, General Counsel and Deputy Vice President, formerly employed by Defendant Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel, staff writer, formerly employed by Daily News, LP are no longer employed at their respective places of employment. Plaintiff has had difficulty discovering their forwarding addresses for employment or for residence. Plaintiff considers the disappearance of the aforesaid Defendants an act of obstruction of justice and proof of Defendants' mens rea.
 
..........50).....On or around January 30, 2013, Plaintiff received a letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The letter stated: "Our records show that you placed calls to 1-800-MEDICARE on the dates and times listed below (all times Central). We can confirm that none of these calls contained threatening comments: June 14,2010, 10:38 AM; June 1,2011, 7:39 AM; July 8,2011, 12:56 PM; May 18, 2012, 11:17 AM, 1:29 PM, 3:51 PM; July 2, 2012, 10:47 AM; July 10, 2012, 2:24 PM; July 17, 2012, 1:09 PM; July 18, 2012, 11:14 AM; July 19, 2012, 5:02 PM; July 23, 2012, 2:51 PM; July 24, 2012, 5:21 PM, 5:43 PM, 5:47 PM, 6:05 PM, 9:56 PM; July 26, 2012, 9:39 PM; July 27, 2012, 5:48 PM; September 9, 2012, 4:39 PM; October 18, 2012, 2:26 PM; November 16, 2012 7:38 PM; November 26, 2012, 1:46 PM; December 12, 2012, 11:13AM; December 13, 2012, 4:29 AM, 5:05 PM, 5:09 PM. See letters from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services attached as Exhibit S.

 ..........51).....On March 7, 2013, Plaintiff contacted the New York State Court of Appeals to inform Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of Plaintiff's plans to include him in her lawsuit. Later on, Plaintiff received an e-mail from Richard Reed that said: “This is further to the telephone conversation that you had with the Clerk's Office of the New York State Court of Appeals this morning regarding your proposed federal complaint. Please be advised that the matter has been turned over to Counsel's Office for the Office of Court Administration. They will contact you in due course.” See e-mail from Richard Reed attached as Exhibit U. Towards the end of the same day, Plaintiff received a telephone call from Defendant Michael J. Broyde and attempted to tell him of what Plaintiff called a contradiction in term with regard to being both a rabbi and a U.S. attorney. Plaintiff informed the rabbi-attorneys of her plans to file her Verified Complaint against them, and consistent with Plaintiff's stated plans, e-mailed her Verified Complaint and the exhibits to rabbi-attorneys Michael J. Broyde, Esq., Rabbi Michoel Zylberman, Esq., Rabbi Yona Reiss, Esq., Rabbi Shlomo Weissmann, Esq.

 

..........52).....On March 9, 2013, Plaintiff e-mailed Abraham H. Foxman, Steven M. Freeman, Esq., Steven C. Sheinberg, Esq., Deborah Bensinger, Esq. and David L. Barkey, Esq. of the Anti-Defamation League, Inc. to advise them how Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq., Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel employed their Talmud-fostered racial hatred and hatred of mentally ill goyim to rationalize their commission of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft; their false accusation that Plaintiff harassed Defendant Sunshine; their false accusation that Plaintiff made threats of violence; their violation of Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment insofar as the aforesaid Defendants never had any intention of confronting the Plaintiff; and the Defendants' continued violation of 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, insofar as none of the Defendants have ever made any attempt to file any criminal complaint against Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq., Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel in spite of Plaintiff's irrefutable criminal accusations.

 

..........53).....On March 15, 2013, Plaintiff sent a a copy of her lawsuit and a her complaint regarding Defendant McCarthy to Defendant the Professional Responsibility Program. Plaintiff explained in her e-mail that Defendant McCarthy violated 18 USC §4, misprision of felony based on Defendant's McCarthy's having knowledge of the actual commission of a Allen E. Kaye's and Harvey Shapiro's aggravated identity theft and her continued refusal to it make known; and her refusal to obey Vermont’s Rules of Professional Conduct's Rule 3.4, Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, which requires attorneys not to: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value; b) not to counsel or assist another person to do any such act; and, c) not to falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law.

 

..........54).....On March 25, 2013 Plaintiff sent a reply back to Vermont's Professional Responsibility Program with copies of the attorneys' fraudulent affirmations that hold Godwin Uzamere to be Plaintiff's husband.

 

..........55).....On March 24, 2013, Plaintiff called Defendant FBI New York Office and asked one of its agents if the FBI office would refuse to take Plaintiff's complaints if the person against whom Plaintiff complained was Jewish, as Plaintiff alleges was done to her in the past. True to past behavior, someone hung up the phone. When Plaintiff called back, the person on the phone said that Plaintiff had posed the question to Mr. Stein, hurting his feelings. Plaintiff was then called anti-Semitic, and then subjected to having the telephone hung up. Plaintiff took her three (3) phones and engaged in a blitz phone call session, allowing all of her phones to ring at the same time. When "John Doe" #1 finally answered the phone, Plaintiff got into an argument with Defendant “John Doe” #1 with regard to Plaintiff's right to file a criminal complaint against Jews who had violated federal law. Defendant “John Doe” #1 blackmailed Plaintiff by telling her that he would call Plaintiff's daughter, mentioning Plaintiff's daughter's name (something that generally precedes a threat of psychiatric hospitalization), and then would come to Plaintiff's apartment; however, when asked if Plaintiff had committed a crime and whether Plaintiff would be assigned an attorney, "John Doe" #1 said that Plaintiff would have to obtain an attorney on her own. As it turned out, "John Doe" #1 never came to Plaintiff's apartment, and never contacted Plaintiff's daughter. During Plaintiff's conversation with "John Doe" #1, Plaintiff told the employee that she was recording the conversation. Plaintiff recorded the conversation and uploaded it to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/adl_zuckerman_both_criminals.html (this site, at the link that says FBIconversation - click here). The following day, Plaintiff contacted the FBI and spoke with a woman (who sounded black). Plaintiff told the woman that an FBI employee would not allow her to file any complaints if the subject of the complaint is Jewish. Plaintiff also told the woman that she recorded the conversation and uploaded it to her website. The woman asked Plaintiff how Plaintiff knew whether the person with whom Plaintiff spoke was an employee of the FBI. Plaintiff told the woman she was right, and that the person with whom Plaintiff spoke could have been Bozo the Clown. Subsequently, an employee of the FBI called Plaintiff's psychiatric treatment facility and reported that Plaintiff had an argument with an FBI employee; that said argument was indicative that Plaintiff has psychiatric issues that warrant hospitalization. On March 28, 2013, the day of Plaintiff's treatment appointment, Plaintiff was asked by her psychiatrist, Dr. Beaudouin if she had had an argument with anyone. Later, Plaintiff was interviewed simultaneously by Dr. Beaudouin and Ms. Fletcher in an attempt to find reasons to hospitalize the Plaintiff. It was so obvious that Plaintiff asked if they planned to hospitalize her. Plaintiff's psychiatrist and therapist said no; however, Plaintiff's psychiatrist and therapist never disclosed to Plaintiff that they had been contacted by Defendant FBI and requested to act as agents of the police. Plaintiff had committed no crime and has been treatment compliant such that Plaintiff felt double-teamed by Dr. Beaudouin and Ms. Fletcher with their bombardment of questions that were geared, not to help Plaintiff, but as an investigative tool of the FBI to determine whether Plaintiff had any argument with the FBI. Plaintiff's treatment facility is now being used surreptitiously to ensure that if Plaintiff files a complaint with the FBI against any Jew, that the FBI will contact her psychiatric treatment facility and tell them to hospitalize Plaintiff.

Factual Analysis

..........56).....While Plaintiff holds that all of the Defendants played a role in the misprision of Defendants Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's, Osato E. Uzamere's, Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft, the Defendant judges hold the greatest criminal liability. They interpret law, they apply law and they are the ultimate enforcers of the law. Defendant U.S. Marshals Service by its employees specifically worked with and acted at the behest of the Defendant judiciary. Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health by its employee Defendant Bridget Davis stated that the U.S. Marshal Service told her that Plaintiff is considered a danger based on their spurious accusation that Plaintiff threatened Defendant Garaufis, other judges and employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' call center – something that Plaintiff never did, and something that was accomplished by Defendant U.S. Marshals Service at the behest of the Defendant judiciary. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security by its employee Denis P. McGowan specifically worked with and acted at the behest of the Defendant judges. Defendant Denis P. McGowan said in his letter dated August 18, 2011: “On July 06, 2011, Federal Protective Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made by CHERYL UZAMERE to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid call center. The threat consisted of HER stating: since SHE did not get the job, SHE was going to "COME DOWN THERE AND KILL EVERYBODY. Since FPS has investigated UZAMERE multiple times for similar behavior, we are well aware of HER mental health history. Based on that information, a referral was made to LifeNet for mental health intervention on July 07 2011. Subsequently, UZAMERE's Intensive Case Manager (ICM) Bridgett Davis of the New York State Office of Mental Health has advised that UZAMERE's treatment has been transferred to the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program. We were informed that CHERYL D. UZAMERE is being treated as a patient by your program and we would like to keep you abreast of this situation as it evolves. We also request that we be notified as HER status changes in particular any change from in-patient to out-patient treatment and in the case of the latter any refusal of treatment. In addition, please notify FPS of any relapses or deterioration of HER condition that may pose a risk to life or property.” Under the title “Alerts”, Plaintiff's treatment plan states “. . . H/O threats to judges and Center for Medicaid and Medicare, patient is being monitored by Homeland Security.” Under the title “Discharge Plan”, it says “Patient is not being considered for discharge at this time, she was transferred to the program 6 months ago after she made a threat to the Medicare and Medicaid call center and is being monitored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” Under the title “Patient/Family Statement”, it says that “She reported not being aware of being monitored by Homeland Security. . .” At the behest of Defendant judiciary, Plaintiff's confidentiality of her psychiatric records was breached – and worse, it was breached at the behest of the Defendant judiciary for a crime that Plaintiff never committed. See CMS correspondence dated January 30, 2013 attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit S.
 
..........57).....At the behest of the Defendant judges, Plaintiff has been: 1) publicly defamed; 2) jailed, prosecuted and ultimately found not guilty for crimes which Plaintiff did not commit, and for which the Defendant judicial accusers never had any intention to confront the Plaintiff on three (3) separate occasions; 3) conspired to have Plaintiff kidnapped three (3) times based on accusing Plaintiff of a crime that she did not commit; 4) illegally imprisoned Plaintiff three (3) times based on Defendant judges accusing Plaintiff of crimes that she did not commit; 5) had the confidentiality of Plaintiff's psychiatric and divorce records illegally breached and disseminated to the public; 6) illegally monitored by the court, other federal agencies, New York State agencies and New York City agencies for a crime that Plaintiff never committed; 7) intentionally misdiagnosed Plaintiff based on crimes that Plaintiff never committed; 8) forcibly isolated; 9) subjected to extortionate behavior on the part of Defendant judges and blackmailed to keep silent and not report the crimes of corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein or else Plaintiff and her children would be attacked by powerful members of the Jewish community; 10) and most importantly, 9) blacklisted by Defendant judges to prevent Plaintiff from honest use of the federal and New York State court systems. Plaintiff was also blacklisted by New York State Office of Mental Health's various not-for-profit, Jewish-controlled outpatient, psychiatric services, like Defendant FEGS because of Plaintiff's actively disobeying the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser
 
..........58).....Defendant judges' most important role is not enforcement of the U.S. Constitution, but to enforce that Jews should not earn love and respect as normal humans do, but to be feared as gods; for Gentiles to serve Jews as their obedient slaves, and to ensure that all judicial decisions are rendered according to what makes the Jews happy. What makes the Defendant Jewish judicial majority happy is the enforcement of the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser, to ensure that Plaintiff is never able to file any complaint against the aforementioned attorneys based on their commission of, inter alia, aggravated identity theft. The original acts of aggravated identity theft that were committed by Defendants Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro have never been adjudicated since November 30, 1979, and later on, from the time that the aforesaid attorneys' commission of aggravated identity theft that took place on or around October 28, 2009 until now. See correspondence from CMS attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit S.

 ..........59).....By reason of the foregoing irrefutable allegations, Plaintiff asserts that there exists a justiciable controversy with respect to Plaintiff's motion for Defendant judges' recusal for which Plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for herein.

Legal Provisions

A Tort Committed During a Marriage/Divorce is Not a Domestic Relations Issue

 ..........60).....In a dishonest opinion rendered by Defendant Garaufis, he compared Plaintiff action alleging her ex-husband’s and his attorneys’ commission of fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft as domestic issues, not in the realm of federal courts to adjudicate. However, in the U.S. Supreme Court case Ankenbrandt vs. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992), the Court said: “The domestic relations exception does not permit a district court to refuse to exercise diversity jurisdiction over a tort action for damages. The exception, as articulated by this Court since Barber, encompasses only cases involving the issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree. As so limited, the exception’s validity must be reaffirmed, given the long passage of time without any expression of congressional dissatisfaction and sound policy considerations of judicial economy and expertise. Because this lawsuit in no way seeks a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree, the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the District Court’s invocation of the domestic relations exception. Federal subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to §1332 is proper in this case. Pp. 701–704. The District Court erred in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger doctrine. Although this Court has extended Younger abstention to the civil context, it has never applied the notions of comity so critical to Younger where, as here, no proceeding was pending in state tribunals. Similarly, 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. 704–706.”

 .........61).....The Plaintiff cannot do a better at explaining this than the U.S. Supreme Court did. A tort is a tort. It is not a domestic relations issue.

..........62).....Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants are facilitating the same identity theft that Defendant law firm Allen E. Kaye, PC facilitated when he, by his associate Harvey Shapiro and Plaintiff’s ex-husband tricked her into signing the I-130 immediate relative sponsorship form.

Immigration Fraud is a Crime, Not a Domestic Relations Issue

..........63).....Plaintiff asserts that immigration fraud is a crime, not a domestic relations issue. United States of America v. Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160; United States of America v. Dedhia, 134 F.3d 802; United States of America v. Darif, 446 F.3d 701; United States of America v. Olatunji a/k/a “Femi Olatunji” a/k/a “Olatunji Ademoluyi”, 872 F.2d 1161.

Federal Government is Mandated to Investigate Crimes

  ..........64).....According to the U.S. Department of Justice website, under the title “What's the Department of Justice Doing About Identity Theft and Fraud?”, it says that “The Department of Justice prosecutes cases of identity theft and fraud under a variety of federal statutes. In the fall of 1998, for example, Congress passed the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act. This legislation created a new offense of identity theft, which prohibits knowingly transfer[ring] or us[ing], without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law. 18 U.S.C. §1028(a)(7). This offense, in most circumstances, carries a maximum term of 15 years' imprisonment, a fine, and criminal forfeiture of any personal property used or intended to be used to commit the offense. Schemes to commit identity theft or fraud may also involve violations of other statutes such as identification fraud (18 U.S.C. §1028), credit card fraud (18 U.S.C. §1029), computer fraud (18 U.S.C. §1030), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343), or financial institution fraud (18 U.S.C. §1344). Each of these federal offenses are felonies that carry substantial penalties -- in some cases, as high as 30 years' imprisonment, fines, and criminal forfeiture. Federal prosecutors work with federal investigative agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Secret Service, and the United States Postal Inspection Service to prosecute identity theft and fraud cases.”
 
..........65).....Identity theft is a crime. It is not a domestic relations issue.
 
..........66).....Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants are still engaged in a criminal conspiracy to hide the Defendant law firms' continued facilitation of Plaintiff’s ex-husband's act of identity theft – and using the status of Plaintiff’s having a mental illness to discredit her irrefutable assertions and to isolate her by placing me in an inpatient psychiatric setting.
 
..........67).....“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
 
..........68).....Misprision of felony is also a crime, not a domestic relations issue.  In the case, United States of America, v. Cefalu, 85 F.3d 964, Cefalu was sentenced for his commission of misprision of felony: “Judge Korman offered many reasons for sentencing Cefalu as he did. He thought Cefalu's crime was analogous to misprision of felony because both involve the withholding of information concerning a crime. He also indicated that he thought the guideline range for misprision of felony was a helpful reference. Judge Korman believed that a sentence of thirty-three months was needed to promote respect for the law, to provide for just punishment for the offense, and to deter criminal conduct. This is exactly what 18 U.S.C. §3553(b) instructs judges to do. We see no error in the decision to refer to the misprision of felony guideline . . . While it is true that there may be strong arguments for referring to either the obstruction of justice guideline or the failure to appear by a material witness guideline, neither the government nor the defendant have demonstrated that it was plainly unreasonable for the court to refer to the misprision of felony guideline to determine an appropriate sentence for Cefalu. We have reviewed both parties' claims, cognizant that we must accept the findings of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous and that we must give "due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts." 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)(4) (1994); United States v. Kirsh, 54 F.3d 1062, 1072 (2d Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 330, 133 L.Ed.2d 230 (1995). We see no error in the district court's calculation and imposition of a thirty-three month sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
 
..........69).....The offenses now mentioned are also not domestic relations issues. They are federal offenses that require Plaintiff’s civil case to be held in abeyance to give Defendants’ attorneys time: to enter into a stipulation to transfer venue so that this Court, not the Plaintiff, will commence a criminal investigation against the Defendants; and finally, 2) to follow the criminal investigation through so that the criminal case act as a “rubber stamp”, allowing Plaintiff’s civil rights case to be ancillary to the criminal case. With regard to those offenses that Plaintiff alleges were committed by the Defendants, 18 USC §1961(1)(B) “racketeering activity” means any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1542 (relating to false statement in application and use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to misuse of passport), section 1952 (relating to racketeering). Also, while not mentioned in 18 USC §1961(1)(B), the Defendants committed 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, an offense ancillary to those offenses in which Defendants presented several shows of force in their continued goal to obstruct justice by preventing Plaintiff from reporting the crimes of the Defendants to the secular authorities.
 
..........70).....The courts of Defendant the United States of America recognize that obstruction of justice caused by racketeering influenced, corrupt organizations as an injury. RICO laws were successfully cited in NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 114 S. Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed. 2d 99 (1994), a suit in which certain parties, including the National Organization for Women, sought damages and an injunction against pro-life activists who physically block access to abortion clinics. The Court held that a RICO enterprise does not need an economic motive, and that the Pro-Life Action Network could therefore qualify as a RICO enterprise.

 ..........71).....In the federal lawsuit against judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella, federal grand jury in the Middle District of Pennsylvania handed down a 48-count indictment against former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella. The judges were charged with RICO after allegedly committing acts of wire fraud, mail fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, and honest services fraud. The judges were accused of taking kickbacks for housing juveniles, that the judges convicted for mostly petty crimes, at a private detention center. The incident was dubbed by many local and national newspapers as the “Kids for cash scandal.” On February 18, 2011, a federal jury found Michael Ciavarella guilty of racketeering because of his involvement in accepting illegal payments from Robert Mericle, the developer of PA Child Care, and Attorney Robert Powell, a co-owner of the facility. Ciavarella is facing 38 other counts in federal court.

 ..........72).....Those Defendants who are Jewish are adherents of a Talmudic doctrine named Law of the Moser. One of the Jewish Defendants, Michael J. Broyde, gave a lecture regarding regarding a Jew’s responsibility in the event he/she learns that a Jew committed a crime. According to Defendant Broyde’s lecture entitled Informing on Jews Who Commit Crimes, it says:

“Even though Jewish law expects people to observe the laws of the land, and even imposes that obligation as a religious duty, the Talmud recounts - in a number of places – that it is prohibited to inform on Jews to the secular government, even when their conduct is a violation of secular law and even when their conduct is a violation of Jewish law. While there are a number of exceptions to this prohibition (which are explained further in this section), the essential halacha was that Jewish law prohibits such informing absent specific circumstances. Even is secular government were to incorporate substantive Jewish law into secular law and punish violations of what is, in effect, Jewish law, Jews would still be prohibited from cooperating with such a system. Indeed, classical Jewish law treats a person who frequently informs on others as a pursuer (a rodef) who may be killed to prevent him from informing, even without a formal court ruling.”

 ..........73).....That judges and attorneys who are corrupt participate in misprision of felony and willful blindness to hide the misuse of their judicial and legal powers is nothing new. Nor is it new that judges and attorneys who are Jews are caught, subjected to prosecution and arrest for their crimes something new. When unbiased, U.S. Constitution law is applied to criminal law, both state and federal, Jewish religious doctrines like Law of the Moser are given no weight during adjudication and sentencing.

 ..........74).....For example, in the case United States of America v. Richard Baumgartner, Docket No. 3:12-CR, former Knoxville County Judge Richard Baumgartner “was charged in a seven-count Indictment with misprision of a felony on or about June 2009; October 30, 2009; November 10, 2009; February 8, 2010; May 2010; August 27, 2010; and October 2010. The Indictment alleges that Deena Castleman and others participated in a conspiracy to obtain and distribute quantities of controlled substances of which the Defendant had actual knowledge. [Doc. 3, ¶1]. The Indictment alleges that between June 2009 and October 2010, the Defendant concealed the conspiracy to distribute controlled substances by making material misrepresentations about Deena Castleman to a sitting Anderson County Criminal Court Judge (Counts 1 and 3), the staff at Mercy Medical Center (Count 2), a sitting Knox County General Sessions Court Judge (Count 4), the Transitional Housing Director of the YWCA (Count 5), a sitting Knox County Juvenile Court Magistrate (Count 6), and a Knox Coty Assistant District Attorney General (Count 7). Each count also alleges that the Defendant failed to notify a judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States about the conspiracy.” Former Judge Baumgartner went so far as to file a motion “call[ing] for the dismissal of the Indictment, arguing that the Indictment (1) fails to state an offense because it does not allege that he made material misrepresentations to a federal authority, (2) violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because it prosecutes the Defendant for speaking to state or private citizens, (3) violates the Tenth Amendment because it requires a state judge to report a federal crime to federal authorities or risk federal prosecution, and (4) was obtained through an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.” Judge Shirley denied Richard Baumgartner’s motion, and later, convicted Richard Baumgartner of five counts of misprision of a felony.

..........75).....There is also the example of U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement employee Assistant Chief Counsel Constantine Peter Kallas received a 212-month prison term today or taking nearly $500,000 in bribes from immigrants who were promised benefits allowing them to remain in the United States. "Mr. Kallas has received one of the longest sentences ever seen in a public corruption case,'' U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. said.

..........76).....Edward A. Schneider is yet another former attorney who, along with defendant Hussein “Sam” Nazzal was convicted of, inter alia, preparing false documents. The evidence at trial showed that from 2003 to 2007, Nazzal and Schneider conspired to defraud Fifth Third Bank by using straw buyers, false tax returns, inflated financial statements, and phantom down payments in a series of commercial loan transactions involving Detroit area businesses and gas stations. Nazzal then submitted false and fraudulent payoff letters for mortgages and pre-existing liens when, in fact, none existed, so that he or one of his companies could obtain payouts at the respective closings. Schneider, the treasurer of record for two of Nazzal’s companies, separately obtained closing funds by submitting fraudulent invoices for attorneys’ fees. Nazzal and Schneider were also convicted of paying bribes to Morton, a former vice president at the bank, in connection with the fraudulent loans. Nazzal was also convicted of obstruction of justice by falsifying records in a federal investigation; the evidence showed that at Nazzal’s direction, Morton prepared a series of false documents exonerating Nazzal from any wrongdoing. These fraudulent documents were recovered by federal investigators in a safe at Nazzal’s house during an April 2010 search warrant.

 ..........77).....There is absolutely no evidence that the U.S. government gave any weight in favor of any defendant who is Jewish. The unconstitutionality of the Jewish Defendants’ belief that they should be shown white skin privilege and allowed to get away with committing one crime after another based on the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser is anathema to a non-religious, Constitutionally-run democracy.  Publicly Accusing Plaintiff of Crimes that Plaintiff Didn’t Commit Does Not Satisfy Due Process; Holding Plaintiff’s Action in Abeyance Allows Discovery of Plaintiff’s Allegations that Defendants Continue to Prevent

..........78).....According to Wikipedia.org, trial by jury is “is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law. During high-publicity court cases, the media are often accused of provoking an atmosphere of public hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial nearly impossible but means that regardless of the result of the trial the accused will not be able to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny.”

..........79).....There are other examples as well:

...............a).....Ray Donovan -- In 1987, former United States Secretary of Labor Ray Donovan and six other defendants were indicted by a grand jury for larceny and fraud. On May 25, 1987, he and the other defendants were acquitted, after which Donovan famously asked, "Which office do I go to get my reputation back?"
   .......... b).....Richard Jewell -- In 1996, security guard Richard Jewell who was initially hailed as a hero for spotting a suspicious backpack at the Centennial Olympic Park bombing was soon portrayed by the news media as the presumed culprit. On April 13, 2005, Jewell was exonerated completely when Eric Rudolph pled guilty to carrying out this bomb attack.

 ..........80).....Some of the Defendants have resorted to resulting solely on the media to tell their side of the story that is so false that it is criminal. In the case of Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq. and Jack Gladstein, they relied on their shared yiddishkeit with corrupt Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel to use the Daily News to illegally disseminate following false and confidential information to the public:

...............a).....False statement: “stripping and screaming about her 'senator' husband loud enough to be heard in the courtroom. The senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to an affidavit he filed in Supreme Court.” Senator Uzamere is Plaintiff’s  husband, a fact establish by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1980-1981, and later on by Defendant McCarthy in October, 2008 and January 6, 2009.

 ...............b).....False Statement -- Plaintiff's “obsession with his (Senator Uzamere's) destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged.”

 ...............c).....False statement -- “she comes in here and files all these papers and threatens people.”

 ...............d).....False statement -- “anti-Semitic screeds against judges and others.”

 ...............e).....False statement -- was declared mentally unfit and taken to Bellevue Hospital.” This was also an invasion of privacy.

 ..........81).....According to Defendant Daily News, LP it publicly admitted that it obtained its information, both its false information and its confidential information from “one courthouse source.” Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Daily News' admission regarding the courthouse source to be true insofar as the aforesaid statement was a declaration made against the Defendant's interest because New York State Civil Rights Law §79-h (Shield Law) does not require a news-gathering entity to reveal the identity of its sources. Defendant Daily News' revelation of its courthouse source is proof that Defendant Daily News engaged in the theft of Plaintiff's confidential psychiatric information and proof that Defendant New York State Unified Court System’s judicial and non judicial employees violated 22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(8)(11) which state that “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...” and “A judge shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity.” Defendant Daily News' article and Defendant New York State Unified Court System’s Commission on Public Access to Court Records.

 ...........82).....The Defendants’ use of the media to stifle Plaintiff’s able to invoke the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments can only be met by this Court’s enforcement of Plaintiff’s right to Due Process with reference to the discovery of the following documents:

  ..............a) All immigration records associated with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service’s file nos. A35 201 224 for the name Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, DOB: 12/31/1960 and A24 027 764 for the name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” DOB: June 1, 1955.

  ..............b).....All records held by Judge Schack establishing proof of Plaintiff’s ex-husband, the father of Tara A. Uzamere and the former stepfather of David P. Walker;

...............c).....All records held by Judge Garaufis establishing proof of Plaintiff’s ex-husband identity, the father of Tara A. Uzamere and the former stepfather of David P. Walker;

...............d).....All records held by all judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that establish proof of Plaintiff’s ex-husband, the father of Tara A. Uzamere and the stepfather of David P. Walker; and,

...............e).....any records held by any of the Defendants that establishes proof of Plaintiff’s ex-husband’s identity, the identity of Tara A. Uzamere’s father and the identity of David P. Walker's former stepfather.

 
 ..........83).... Lastly, it lies within the power of each court to determine the best use of stays and abeyances. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936), the Court concluded the following: “The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance. There is power, applicable especially in cases of extraordinary public interest, to stay one suit to abide proceedings in another, although in the two the parties are not the same and the issues not identical; the burden of making out the wisdom and justice of a stay in such cases lies heavily on him who seeks the stay. . .”
 
..........WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays this Court to place an abeyance on this action until such time that the Defendants comply with signing the attached stipulation, and to commence a criminal investigation of the Defendants, and for such other and further relief that this Court deems are just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this __th day of July, 2013

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
           July __, 2013

 

CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE

 

_________________

Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net

1 18 USC §1001

2New York State Penal Law §210.15 Perjury in the first degree. A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree when he swears falsely and when his false statement (a) consists of testimony, and (b) is material to the action, proceeding or matter in which it is made. Perjury in the first degree is a class D felony.

322 CFR §92.65 - Depositions to prove genuineness of foreign documents – (a) Authority to execute commission. Under the provisions of section 1 of the act of June 25, 1948, as amended (sec. 1, 62 Stat. 834, sec. 53, 63 Stat. 96; 18 U.S.C. 3492), a diplomatic or consular officer may be commissioned by an United States court to take the testimony of a witness in a foreign country either on oral or written interrogatories, or partly on oral and partly on written interrogatories, for the purpose of determining the genuineness of any foreign document. . .”

 422 NYCRR 100.3(8)(11): “. . .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...” and that “a judge shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity.”
 
5Plaintiff alleges LifeNet suicide/mental health hotline was fraudulently contacted by Defendant U.S. Marshal Service for the Eastern District of New York and told that Plaintiff threatened Defendant Nicholas with bodily harm. That Defendant USMS knew that Plaintiff committed no crime is a clear violation of 18 USC §1001.
 6New York Wiretapping Law: New York's wiretapping law is a “one-party consent” law. New York makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05. Thus, if you operate in New York, you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to the conversation or you get permission from one party to the conversation in advance. This serves as a reminder to any defendant that wants to nullify Plaintiff's recorded conversation with Defendant Davis based on the delusion that Plaintiff's doesn't know N.Y. Penal Law §250.00 and §250.05.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ______________

 

---------------------------------------------------------X     No.: 13-CV-_____________

Cheryl D. Uzamere, 

                                              Plaintiff,                               PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SPECIAL 

           - against -                                                               APPOINTMENT OF PERSON TO
                                                                                         EFFECT SERVICE OF PROCESS
United States of America, et al.                                           PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P AND
                                                                                          FED. R. CIV. P. 28 USC §1915 
                                              Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------X          JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 

 

..........PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the attached Affidavit of Plaintiff, Cheryl D. Uzamere, sworn to on the __th day of ________, 2013, and upon all the exhibits herein attached, Plaintiff will move this Court in the presence of the Honorable ________________, on the __th day of _____ 2013, at 9:30 in the forenoon, or as soon thereafter to appoint a person to service process in place of the U.S. Marshals Service, that is a defendant, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 4(c)(3) and 28 USC §1915.

 

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
           July ___, 2013

 

 

CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE

 

___________________

 

Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118

 

 
recentinteliussearch.jpg
I-130.jpg
1stletterjackgladstein.jpg
eugeneaffirmationpg1A.jpg
eugeneaffirmationpg2A.jpg
cousinuzamerepg1.jpg

cousinuzamerepg2b1.jpg

cousinuzamerefakessn.jpg

cousinuzamerefakepassportpg1.jpg
cousinuzamerefakepassportpg2.jpg
cousinuzamerefakepassportpg3.jpg
USA_vs._Uzamere_--_Information.jpg
USA_vs._Uzamere_--_Defendant_s_Motion_of_Dismissal.jpg
USA_vs._Uzamere_--_Defendant_s_Motion_of_Dismissal_pg_2.jpg
USA_vs._Uzamere_--_Defendant_s_Motion_of_Dismissal_pg_3.jpg
USA_vs._Uzamere_--_Defendant_s_Motion_of_Dismissal_pg_4.jpg
USA_vs._Uzamere_--_Defendant_s_Motion_of_Dismissal_pg_5.jpg
USA_vs_Uzamere_--_motion_for_dismissal.jpg
emailtorobinsanders.jpg
usembassyemail.jpg
uscisltr06-12-09.jpg
A35.jpg
A35.jpg
letterfrommrsavaUSINS.jpg
rachelmccarthyreport2.jpg
rachelmccarthyletter2.jpg
taraaffpg1.jpg
taraaffpg2.jpg
taraaffpg3.jpg
taraaffexhA.jpg
taraaffexhB1.jpg
taraaffexhB2.jpg

taraaffexhB3.jpg

taraaffexhD1.jpg

taraaffexhD2.jpg

sunshinedecision5-12-09pg1.jpg
sunshinedecision5-12-09pg2.jpg
judgedemicdecpg1.jpg
dailynewsarticle2.jpg
CCF12262010_00000.jpg
CCF12262010_00003.jpg
CCF12262010_00009.jpg
CCF12262010_00010.jpg
CCF12262010_00013.jpg
CCF12262010_00019.jpg
CCF12262010_00020.jpg
CCF12262010_00023.jpg
CCF12262010_00027.jpg
CMSLettertoRobertMoore.jpg
CMSLettertoRobertMoore.jpg
USDHSletter.jpg
psychtreatmentpg1.jpg
psychtreatmentpg2.jpg