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

"A law license is not a license to steal or lie. We are committed to protecting our community from the abuses of fraud."

Racist Jews U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman, Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq., Judge Michael Gerstein, Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Justice Arthur M. Schack are criminals who must be prosecuted for misprision of felony, RICO and obstruction of justice based on their support of the demonic

 

National Institute for Judaic Law and its support of the demonic Jewish doctrine Law of the Moser

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

Prevent the re-enslavement of African Americans -- End the Obama Administration's support and enforcement of Judaic law. Without the U.S. Constitution, Jews will force African people go back to being slaves.  (P.S. None of the individuals mentioned above can or will sue me for defamation of character because I am telling the truth, and because any legal objection from them would  invite an investigation of my allegations -- something that they've been trying to avoid for several years by preventing me from filing my complaints the aforementioned Jewish criminals.

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

Dual citizens of United States and Israel who are also governmental employees of the United States and New York State use kidnapping, defamation, extortion, blackmail, telephonic spying and cyberspying against helpless me and other helpless Gentiles to force Gentiles to obey Law of the Moser to prevent Gentiles from reporting the crimes of lawbreaking Jews. Please visit http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/TBPetitions/Pages/HRTBPetitions.aspx for instruction on how to file a human rights petition with the United Nations. If your name is listed at the bottom of this e-mail/fax, you will be listed as one of the persons the United States and Israeli governments use to violate criminal law and commit human rights violations. 

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

In this correspondence, Scott asks NYS Justice Denise F. Molia not to consider my sister's reply. Justice Molia then rendered two decisions for Scott Mishkin in the case in which Scott Mishkin sued my sister for breach of contract and quantum meruit for not paying him $64,000 for performing "legal work" on her already time-barred case. No Jew hired in law enforcement or their Gentile slaves will facilitate Scott Mishkin's, Mortimer Zuckerman's, Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Judge Gerstein's, Justice Sunshine's and Justice Schack's, arrest, and the Gentiles in law enforcement are being paid off or blackmailed by the Jews not to facilitate the arrest, prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaking Jews mentioned above.
================================================================ 

LetterfromJudgeMolia3.jpg

July 29, 2014



H.E. Madame Navanethem Pillay
Office of the United Nations
  High Commissioner for Human Rights
Palais Wilson
52 rue des Pâquis
CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland
Your Excellency:
 
First, this is to advise those individuals who are listed as having violated U.S. law and United Nations human rights law that once the U.S. Supreme Court's Jewish justices Ruth Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan illegally fix my lawsuit to deny certiorari to my petition, every individual listed in my lawsuit and those listed in this e-mail or fax) will be reported to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as having violated criminal law and United Nations human rights law.
 
Please take notice of the letter to your right. In this letter, corrupt Jewish attorney Scott Michael Mishkin tells New York State justice Denise F. Molia for the following: 
"I received a notification pursuant to my E-Law subscription, that defendant (my sister, Paula F. Guity) has filed a reply affirmation to my reply and I am respectfully requesting that same, which has been forwarded to Your Honor's chambers by the Clerk, not be considering plaintiff's Motion."
Later on, there were two motions that my sister submitted to Justice Molia court. Justice Molia denied both motions. 

In my petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (last document at the bottom) and on my website, I also submitted proof of several crimes that were committed by several members of the United States/Israel RICO on the following web pages:

      1)     United States Government Hides Prosecution;
     2)    
Jews Demonic Doctrine -- Law of the Moser;
     3)    
Uzamere vs. United States of America, et al.;
     4)     United States Blacklists Her Own Citizen

I understand and appreciate your agency's instruction for me to exhaust all domestic remedies to obtain justice in the country in which I reside. However, because of the rampant instances of Judaism-oriented, racist crimes that are forced upon the Gentile public at the hands of Jewish individuals employed by the U.S. and New York State governments and Jews in private industry who either bribe or threaten individuals not to report the crimes committed by Jews to the secular authorities, I respectfully ask that your agency commence an investigation of the individuals that are named in this correspondence as having violated U.S. law and United Nations human rights law.

If your agency cannot accommodate my request, I will obey your instructions and use this e-mail after I have exhausted all domestic remedies in my country.

With regard to the situation of former clients Paula F. Guity, Dr. Thomas Harrington, Michael Rosato, Vincent Valenti, Gary M. Ehrhard and Liz Gross, corrupt Jewish attorney Scott Michael Mishkin defrauded the individuals previously mentioned above by pretending to perform work on their cases, when in fact, the aforesaid clients' cases were already time-barred and therefore too late to be filed with any court.

On November 3, 2009, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Michael Gerstein, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein committed aggravated identity theft (18 USC §1028A) by filing fraudulent affirmations for the purpose of intentionally misidentifying my ex-husband as “Godwin Uzamere”; to identify Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and "Godwin Uzamere" as cousins although the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service has never had any passport, driver's license or any other PATRIOT Act-verifiable information on "Godwin Uzamere; that I was mentally competent at the time I signed the I-130 immigration sponsorship form, but that at the time I became pregnant with my daughter Tara I was so mentally incompetent that I could not tell the difference between Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and "Godwin Uzamere"; and that finally, my daughter, Tara A. Uzamere, a New York State registered nurse does not know father's identity.  The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, the New York State Supreme Court (lower) and the New York State Supreme Court (appellate court) however, properly identified the names Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and "Godwin Uzamere" as my husband. Months later, corrupt Jew U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis facilitated the promotion of U.S. Department of Homeland Security employee Denise McGowen to Regional Director in order have Mr. McGown provide the district court with a NSL (national security letter) to spy on my telephone to find non-content information regarding where I receive psychiatric service that could be used to invent the false story that I threatened judges and employees of the United States government's Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, in violation of 18 USC §2709 and 18 USC §3511 an allegation with which no judge ever made any attempt to charge me, and that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid that stated in writing that I never threatened anyone at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Along with racist Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack, on their own and/or by courthouse employees that were under their 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)6; that said nonpublic information was provided to the Daily News, by staff writer Scott Shifrel, who did knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought engaged 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. 

Some of the crimes/human rights violations committed by employees of the United States government and the New York State government are as follows: 

Misprision of Felony/18 USC §4 -- 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. (Case law: Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552 (1980) and 2) Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 408 U. S. 696 (1972)). 

Hobbs Act/18 USC §1951 -- Interference with commerce by threats or violence   – Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. (Case law: Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992); see United States v. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108, 130 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 913 (1983)).

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)

         a)     18 U.S. Code § 1961, Definitions -- “racketeering activity” "means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) 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). . ."

         b)     18 U.S. Code § 1962 - Prohibited activities -- It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. . .below have violated and are committing the Hobbs Act, either by accepting bribes/being blackmailed to obey the Judaic doctrine Law of the Moser, that is, the Jewish religious doctrine that prohibits individuals from reporting a lawbreaking Jew to the secular law enforcement authorities.

The individuals listed below are some of the individuals who engage in implementing the Judaic doctrine Law of the Moser to prevent the crimes of lawbreaking Jews from being reported to Gentiles, especially those employed by law enforcement agencies:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg; U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer; Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., U.S. Dept. of Justice; Hon. Eric Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General; Barbara Underwood, New York State Attorney General's Office; Preetinder Bharara, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice; Loretta Lynch, U.S. Dept. of Justice; Hon. C. Randall Hinrichs, New York State Unified Court System; Ivan J. Dolowich, Esq., Kaufman, Dolowich, Voluck, LLP; Cornell William Brooks, NAACP; Richard M. Gutierrez, Esq., New York State Grievance Committee for the 2nd , 11th and 13th Judicial Districts; Seth P. Waxman, Wilmer Hale, Inc.; Loretta Lynch, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice; Eric Schneiderman, Esq., New York State Attorney General's Office; Zachary Carter, Esq., New York City Dept. of Law; Thomas A. Klonick, New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct; Scott Michael Mishkin, Esq., Scott Michael Mishkin, P.C.; Michael De Santis, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP; Eric A. Seiff, Lawyers' Fund for Clients' Protection; Hon Fred T. Santucci, New York State Office of Committees on Character and Fitness for Admission for the 2nd, 9th, 10th, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts; Robert A. Green, State of New York Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District; Hon. Kenneth Thompson, Kings County District Attorney; Hon. Thomas J. Spota, Suffolk County District Attorney's Office; Robert McAneney, Kaufman, Dolowich, Voluck, LLP; Ernest J. Collazo, Collazo Florentino & Keil LLP.

Because of the aforementioned individuals' refusal to bring the aforesaid lawbreaking Jews to justice, I have no alternative but to advise the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the human rights violations that were violated by the United States and Israel at the hands of those citizens of the aforementioned countries who are adherents of Law of the Moser.

Thank for your help.
 
Respectfully,

    mysignature2.jpg

Cheryl D. Uzamere

/cdu

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

cherylphoto.jpg
Law of the Moser Victim
Cheryl D. Uzamere
Why Did the New York State Government's Jewish Employees Allow Jewish Attorney Scott Michael Mishkin to Get Away with Stealing Thousands of Dollars from His Gentile Clients?

Why won't U.S. Supreme Court's Criminals Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan bring Jews identity thieves Mortimer Zuckerman, Arthur Schack, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein to justice? Why did Justice Breyer render a decision to reject my request for an enlargement of pages when my case concerned his religion, Judaism? Why did he not recuse himself?

Why won't New York State's criminally-minded racist Jews Eric Schneiderman, NYS Appellate Judge John M. Levanthal, NYS Justice W. Gerard Asher and NYS Justice and Peter H. Mayer

          The names of innocent Gentiles whose money was stolen by Jewish attorney-thief-turned-porn-star-turned-perjurer-turned-racist-shyster Scott Michael Mishkin are listed below. These individuals were tricked by Scott Mishkin, who fraudulently retained Scott's legal services for cases that were already expired and were too old to file with any court (time-barred). The names of the Jewish NYS employees who are helping Scott Mishkin commit grand larceny and preventing others from reporting his crimes are as follows:

          Jewish Attorney Scott Michael Mishkin charged the clients listed above money for litigating their cases. At the time that Scott Mishkin "accepted" the cases, he knew that the cases were time-barred, that is, too old to litigate in court. To get away with filing late causes of action, Scott may have asked the told the court that the client filed the action to his own involvement in filing a frivolous, time-barred lawsuit.

          Below are those government workers who block the complaints of thousands of Gentiles to prevent them from filing complaints against Jews who have broken the law:

 

No.

   Denied by Whom

Case Caption

Year Certiorari Denied

Court Dkt.

1

 




U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer

 

 


Uzamere v. United States. C.A. 1d Cir.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14a21.htm   

Application (14A21) denied by Justice Breyer (Breyer has bias re: subject of petition; Breyer's decision was illegal) 2014

14A21

2

U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan 

 

Uzamere v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/506bv.pdf

Uzamere made complaints against Jews; denied cert at behest of Jewish justices  92-5852 

3

U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan

 

Uzamere, Cheryl D. v. Cuomo, Gov. of NY, et al(http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/031912zor.pdf)

Uzamere made complaints again Jews; denied cert at behest of Jewish justices

11-8206

4

U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan


Uzamere v. Allen E. Kaye, P.C.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/journal/jnl09.pdf   

Uzamere made complaints against Jews; denied cert at behest of Jewish justices 

09-5816

 

 

U.S._Supreme_Court_Judge_Ruth_Ginsburg.jpg
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
U.S._Supreme_Court_Judge_Stephen_G._Breyer.jpg
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer
U.S._Supreme_Court_Judge_Elena_Kagan.jpg
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan
EricSchneiderman2.jpg
NYS Attorney General Eric Schneiderman

John_M._Leventhal.JPG
NYS Appellate Judge John M. Levanthal

WGerardAsher2.jpg
NYS Justice
W. Gerard Asher
PeterHMayer3.jpg
NYS Justice
Peter H. Mayer
Ivan_J._Dolowich.jpg
KDV Partner
Ivan J. Dolowich
rabbi-attorneybroyde.jpg
NIJL Rabbi Michael J. Broyde
 
 
         On November 5, 2002, the Jewish U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Jewish U.S. Supreme Justice Stephen Breyer attended a kosher dinner held at the U.S. Supreme Court to commemorate the opening of the National Institute for Jewish Law, a facility that promotes and tries to make U.S. courts enforce Jewish Law on both the Jewish and Gentile population.
 
          One of the teachers at the National Institute of Judaic Law is Rabbi Michael J. Broyde. One of the Judaic laws taught in a lecture given by Rabbi Broyde is called Law of the Moser. According to Rabbi Broyde's lecture:
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 (also seehttp://nypost.com/2009/07/28/stoolie-is-dead-to-his-daddy/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/nyregion/ultra-orthodox-jews-shun-their-own-for-reporting-child-sexual-abuse.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&)
 
          Respectable African American men U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and attorneys C. Vernon Mason and Alton Maddox are victims of the United States and Israeli citizens religiously-oriented religious tyranny. Mr. Thomas has been threatened with impeachment; Mr. Mason and Mrs. Maddox have been without their licenses to practice law for over 20 years. They have never committed, nor have they been charged with committing any crimes; however, Jewish shyster attorney, porn star and thief Scott Michael Mishkin has been allowed to steal Gentiles' money, steal their personal and confidential information and use it to coerce/blackmail Scott's clients if they do not pay him. Scott also has other Jewish New York State employees employed with the New York State Grievance Committee's Fee Dispute Resolution render decisions in Scott's favor so that they can help Scott keep the money he steals from his Gentile clients. This is the reason why Cheryl D. Uzamere is filing her petition for a writ of certiorari against inter alia, the State of New York and New York State employees engaged in the demonic Judaic doctrine, Law of the Moser  that prevents both Jews and Gentiles from reporting crimes that are committed by Jews.
 
U.S._Supreme_Court_Judge_Clarence_Thomas.jpg
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

C._Vernon_Mason.jpg
Attorney C. Vernon Mason

AltonMaddox.jpg
Attorney Alton Maddox

LPriscillaHall.jpg
NYS Appel. Judge
L. Priscilla Hall

MarkDillon.jpg
NYS Appel. Judge
Mark C. Dillon

CherylChambers.jpg
NYS Appel. Judge
Cheryl E. Chambers

RuthBalkin.jpg
NYS Appellate Judge
Ruth Balkin

JusticeDeniseFMolia.jpg
NYS Justice
Denise F. Molia

holder.jpg
U.S. Atty General
Eric H. Holder
AndrewCuomo2.jpg
New York State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo 

LorettaLynch.jpg
U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch

Thomas_Spota.jpg
Suffolk County District Atty Thomas Spota

HakeemJeffries.jpg
Congressman
Hakeem Jeffries
Kenneth_Thompson.jpg
 Kings County District Attorney Kenneth Thompson
JRobertMacAneney.jpg
KDV Attorney Robert MacAneney
Michael_V_Desantis.jpg
KDV Attorney Michael De Santis
 
          How Scott Mishkin files time-barred and other unmeritorious cases without getting caught: While Scott Mishkin "charges" clients for his fraudulent representation, he files meritless cases -- not under his own name but under his clients' name as pro se litigants. That's why the courts do not question Scott regarding his theft of clients' money and his constantly submission of meritless claims.

          While racist New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and members of New York State's legal and judicial arenas commit subornation of perjury, members of New York State's Jewish legal community watch with pride as fellow Jewish attorney-thief-gay-porn-actor-perjurer Scott Michael Mishkin steals thousands of dollars from helpless Gentiles under the guise that Scott performed legal work on his clients' cases that were time-barred before he ever met them. In anticipation of Scott's not getting paid, getting caught, and being reported, Scott acquires confidential information from his clients to coerces/blackmails them to pay him and not report him pursuant to the horrible Judaic doctrine Law of the Moser.

 

blankface.jpg

     Strange, Scott proudly displays a picture of his legal achievement plaque on the internet; however Scott does not show even one photo of his face on the internet. Why is that? His brother Justin's face is proudly displayed on the internet. Is Scott ashamed of his life as a shyster-attorney-turned-porn-actor? Has Scott stolen so much money from former clients litigating cases he previously knew were time-barred and other unmeritorious cases that he is afraid of the retribution that he rightly deserves? 

PlaqueScottMichaelMishkin.jpg

 http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Mishkin.Scott.Michael.PC.631-234-1154 

A Letter To Scott Michael Mishkin – By Joel Irving

Dear Scott Michael Mishkin: I seriously believe that your involvement in the pornographic film industry as an actor . . . caused you to jump into bed with JP Morgan Chase and then sabotage my case against them. After all, the sexual harasser at Chase was also a porn star working in the same industry as you. Additionally, the secretiveness surrounding your career as a porn star makes you a threat to the public interest. What happens if someone threatens to expose you as a porn star if you do not throw a case? Is that what Chase did? Did they hire a P.I. and discover your secret? Also, remember, someone sent me (anonymously) a copy of your Crossing The Line Video a month into working with you. Whatever, the bottom line is this, I will be reporting you to the Disciplinary Committee and I will be exposing you to the public because your areas of practice require that your clients know that you are vulnerable to blackmail.

Scott's words to God: "Ha Shem, please make the sun stand still like you did for Prophet Joshua so that I finish off my client's already time-barred, unmeritorious case in 30 hours in a 24-hour day."

 
ProphetJoshua.jpg DonaldRoth.jpg
 

How can an attorney record having done 30 hours of legal work
in a 24-hour day on a case that was adjudicated as time-barred?

Scott Mishkin prayed to Ha Shem to make the sun stand still so that he could have six extra hours to do "legal work" on his client's time-barred case, fellow Jewish attorney Donald Roth was being prosecuted for padding his professional bill for services.

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

Recusal of NYS Justice Denise F. Molia

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <ecourts@courts.state.ny.us>
Date: Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:30 AM
Subject: eTrack Supreme: MISCHKIN, SCOTT MICHAEL, P.C. vs. GUITY, PAULA (020263/2013) Updated
To: paulaguity@gmail.com

Index Number: 020263/2013
The following case which you have subscribed to in eTrack has been updated. Changes from the last update are shown in red and are annotated.

Court: Suffolk Civil Supreme
Index Number: 020263/2013
Case Name: MISCHKIN, SCOTT MICHAEL, P.C. vs. GUITY, PAULA
Case Type: Contract
Track: Standard
Upstate RJI Number:
Disposition Date:
Date NOI Due:
NOI Filed:
Calendar Number:
RJI Filed: 11/22/2013
Jury Status:
Justice Name: W. GERARD ASHER --- Information updated

Attorney/Firm for Plaintiff:
SCOTT MICHAEL MISHKIN P.C.
1601 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY-240
ISLANDIA, NY 11749
Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record
Status: Active

Attorney/Firm for Defendant:
PAULA GUITY - Prose

Attorney Type: Pro se
Status: Active

Last Appearance:
Appearance Date: 06/25/2014
Appearance Time:
On For: Motion
Appearance Outcome: Adjourned
Justice: DENISE F. MOLIA
Part: MOTION PART 39
Comments:

Future Appearances:
Appearance Date: 08/12/2014
Appearance Time:
On For: Supreme Trial
Appearance Outcome:
Justice: DENISE F. MOLIA
Part: PART 39
Comments: REL 20990/13

Appearance Date: 07/14/2014 --- Information updated
Appearance Time: --- Information updated
On For: Motion --- Information updated
Appearance Outcome: --- Information updated
Justice: W. GERARD ASHER --- Information updated
Part: MOTION PART 32 --- Information updated
Comments: PIP/PER CHMBRS --- Information updated
Denise F. Molia  RECUSAL --- Information updated
Appearance Date: 07/14/2014 --- Information updated
Appearance Time:
On For: Motion
Appearance Outcome:
Justice: W. GERARD ASHER --- Information updated
Part: MOTION PART 32 --- Information updated
Comments: Denise F. Molia RECUSAL --- Information updated

Appearance Date: 07/11/2014 --- Information updated
Appearance Time: --- Information updated
On For: Motion --- Information updated
Appearance Outcome: Referred To Another Judge --- Information updated
Justice: DENISE F. MOLIA
Part: MOTION PART 39
Comments:

Appearance Date: 07/11/2014
Appearance Time:
On For: Motion
Appearance Outcome: Referred To Another Judge --- Information updated
Justice: DENISE F. MOLIA
Part: MOTION PART 39
Comments: PIP/PER CHMBRS

Older appearances may exist but are not shown.

Motions: Motion Number: 5 --- Information updated
Date Filed: 06/23/2014
Filed By: DEF
Relief Sought: Amend Pleadings
Submit Date:
Answer Demanded: No
Status: Open:

Before Justice: ASHER --- Information updated
Decision: --- Information updated
Order Signed Date: --- Information updated

Motion Number: 4 --- Information updated
Date Filed: 04/04/2014 --- Information updated
Filed By: PLAINT --- Information updated
Relief Sought: Default Judgment --- Information updated
Submit Date: --- Information updated
Answer Demanded: No --- Information updated
Status: Open: --- Information updated

Before Justice: ASHER --- Information updated
Decision:
Order Signed Date:

Motion Number: 3 --- Information updated
Date Filed: 06/23/2014 --- Information updated
Filed By: DEF --- Information updated
Relief Sought: Amend Pleadings --- Information updated
Submit Date: --- Information updated
Answer Demanded: No --- Information updated
Status: Decided: 11-JUL-14 --- Information updated
REFERRED TO ANOTHER JUDGE --- Information updated
Before Justice: MOLIA --- Information updated
Decision: Referral --- Information updated
Order Signed Date: --- Information updated

Motion Number: 2
Date Filed: 04/18/2014
Filed By: DEF
Relief Sought: Extend Time To Answer
Submit Date:
Answer Demanded: No
Status: Decided: 09-MAY-14
MOTION DENIED
Before Justice: MOLIA
Decision: Short Form Order
Order Signed Date: 05/09/2014

Motion Number: 1
Date Filed: 04/04/2014
Filed By: PLAINT
Relief Sought: Default Judgment
Submit Date:
Answer Demanded: No
Status: Decided: 11-JUL-14 --- Information updated
REFERRED TO ANOTHER JUDGE --- Information updated
Before Justice: MOLIA
Decision: Referral --- Information updated
Order Signed Date:

Scanned Decisions:
Motion Number: 100
Scanned On: 05/27/2014

To access this case directly click here.
This is an automated e-mail. If you have questions please e-mail eCourts@courts.state.ny.us

 

===================================================DispositionNotice.jpg

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

30-hour-work-joke.jpg
 
sunshinedecision5-12-09pg1.jpg

 sunshinedecision5-12-09pg2.jpg

 
UzamerevsUzamere--AppellateDecision.gif
 
uscisltr06-12-09.jpg
 USDHSletter.jpg
 CMSLettertoRobertMoore.jpg
 
LettertoRobertMoorepage2.jpg
 
dailynewsarticle.jpg

 allenaffirmations1.gif

allenaffirmations2.gif

allenaffirmations3.gif 

allenaffirmations4.gif 

 allenaffirmations5.gif

 

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

LEGAL SITUATION

I allege that Appellate Division Judges Mark C. Dillon, J.P., Ruth C. Balkin, Cheryl E. Chambers, L. Priscilla Hall, JJ, lower NYS Supreme Court Justices Denise F. Molio, Peter H. Mayer, unnamed members of the State of New York Grievance Committee, unnamed members of the New York State Bar Association are part of a RICO that allows Scott Mishkin Attorney Scott Michael Mishkin purposes seeks out people who are not knowledgeable of the law and have unmeritorious cases (time-barred or intentionally creates cases without stating a claim) so that steal their money by padding their cases with unnecessary work for which he fraudulently charges. He then instigates a bad relationship with his "clients" so that he can then ask to be removed from the case (since there is not much an attorney can do with an unmeritorious case) and tricks the "client" into commencing a "fee dispute." At the "fee dispute" and subsequent appeal, members of his money-stealing RICO rule on his "fee disputes" in Scott Mishkin's favor.

I also allege that the unusual number of time-barred/fee dispute cases that Scott Mishkin litigates establishes the possibility that he uses his legal computer program to purposely search for and find unmeritorious cases that he then uses to stalk out clients from whom to steal.

I allege that the crimes that Scott Mishkin continues to commit along with other members of his RICO are as follows:

I allege that they have committed the following crimes: 1) New York State Penal Law, §155, grand larceny in the third degree; 18 USC §4, misprision of felony (the same as Law of the Moser, Judaic doctrine that prohibit Jews from reporting the crimes of Jews to the secular authorities); fraud, 18 USC §1001; 42 USC §1985, deprivation of rights under color of law; 18 USC extortion, 18 USC §872§, blackmail, 18 USC §873; RICO/racketeering, 18 USC §1961-1968; obstruction of justice, 18 USC §1512, §1513; violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601; 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; abrogation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 USC §; 18 USC RICO/racketeering obstruction; or the New York State law equivalent in law.

Scott Mishkin sent a letter to NYS Justice Denise F. Molia not to read an adversarial litigant's documents so that he can hide his unethical and illegal acts.

I allege that said acts have their basis in the Judaic/Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser that prohibits Jews from reporting the crimes of lawbreaking Jews to the secular authorities, and requires Jews to take an active role in preventing Gentiles from reporting the crimes of lawbreaking Jews to secular authorities.

Scott Mishkin's Tricks of the Fee-Scam Trade
Suffolk Academy of Lawlessness 101

How Scott Scam/Coerces/Blackmails, Then Steals His Clients' Money


The following establishes that NYS Justice Denise F. Molia had constructive and actual notice of attorney Scott Michael Mishkin's illegal activities:

1.   Make sure the client is a member of a protected group that has a low social standing.

2.   Approaches prospective “client” for the sole purpose of stealing client's money to cause him/her to commence filing a fee dispute against the attorney (the term “padding” is inappropriate.

3.   The cases “retained” by the attorneys are meritless so that no contract can legally fit the circumstance. The attorney is not padding, just committing grand larceny).

4.   Charges clients for free consultations.

5.   Mains the same RICO members to implement his fee-dispute scams: Suffolk County Bar Association; State of New York Grievance Committee and NYS Justice Denise F. Molia.

6.   Stalks and cyberstalks his “clients”, especially women to find clients for his and RICO member's fee-dispute scams.

7.   Informs individuals who are part of his fee-stealing RICO that he has a potential client.

8.   Purposely tells client to file unmeritorious claims or claim that appears to need correction (Guity, filing papers that did not contain litigants' names; Limwongse, filing papers that did contain litigants' names) so that he can rationalize performing unnecessary work on cases that are declared res judicata by operation of law or incorrect doing work on the unmeritorious claim or claim needing correction;

9.   Tricks client into providing him with classified information or information that he falsely claims to be defamatory/damaging to the client;

10.   Uses the classified or falsely classified information to coerce/blackmail the client into agreeing to pay the disputed fee (in Guity v. Mishkin, threatens exposure of client's personal business and gives it to those individuals who are part of his RICO; also, blackmails client with leaving);

11.   Defames and then coerces/blackmails “client” by manufacturing false information about the client (the information claimed by the attorney to be damning has not been requested for discovery by any other attorney, and in not legally necessary or even admissible).

12.   Does not file original papers himself; tricks or coerces client to file meritless or procedurally-defective claim (without litigants' names, time-barred, or other procedural defects) in order to rationalize and trick client into believing that the attorney is performing real work when the claim is, in fact, meritless.

13.   Presents himself wearing a yarmulke and talks about his religion to gain the naïve client's trust;

14.   Favors scamming members of protected classes (including individuals who are considered not be to favored by the courts or society, and people who are viewed to be low by the attorney's religion);

15.   Speaks poorly of individuals with whom “client” may speak with about his/her case to create distrust and alienate “client” from relevant individuals. Uses the USPS to conduct business with other RICO members in violation of 18 USC §1341 and §1346;

16.   Orchestrate an untenable situation so that the clients would have no choice but to “breach” the “contract.”

17.   As part of his scam, attorney used judges who have participated in other scams.

18.   To hide Scott Mishkin's filing of time-barred and other unmeritorious cases, so that he can steal money from his clients, Mishkin, while fraudulently representing a client, under color of law and with the permission of the judge and/or other members of his RICO handling Mishkin's, case, has a member of the court file the unmeritorious case, naming Mishkin's client as a pro se litigant.

Case Law – New York State


Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York; Thomas Harrington, etc., et al., v. County of Suffolk, et al.; Decided: January 30, 2013; http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court/1622252.html 

Case time-barred Before It Was “Retained” by Scott Michael Mishkin

Mark C. Dillon, J.P., Ruth C. Balkin, Cheryl E. Chambers, and L. Priscilla Hall, JJ. Scott Michael Mishkin, P.C., Islandia, N.Y. (Kyle T. Pulis of counsel), for appellants. Paul J. Margiotta, Acting County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Susan A. Flynn of counsel), for respondents.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), dated August 8, 2011, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, inter alia, as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs are the parents of a man who, on October 6, 2006, at age 19, was killed in a motor vehicle accident. They commenced the instant action alleging, inter alia, that they sustained emotional injuries as a result of the negligent manner in which the investigation of the fatal accident was conducted.

In support of their motion to dismiss the complaint, the defendants met their initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the causes of action were time-barred, in that the action was not commenced within 1 year and 90 days after the “happening of the event” upon which the plaintiffs' claims were based (General Municipal Law § 50–i[1]; see Greco v. Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 66 AD3d 836, 836–837). In response, the plaintiffs failed to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or otherwise inapplicable, or whether they actually commenced the action within the applicable limitations period (see Williams v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 84 AD3d 1358, 1359; Rakusin v. Miano, 84 AD3d 1051). The “event” upon which the claims were based was the allegedly “shoddy investigation,” which took place on the date of the accident, and the plaintiffs' contention that the investigation amounted to a continuing wrong so as to toll the limitations period is without merit (see Klein v. City of Yonkers, 53 N.Y.2d 1011, 1013; Sandpebble Bldrs., Inc. v. Mansir, 90 AD3d 888, 889; Greco v. Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 66 AD3d at 836–837; Jensen v. City of New York, 288 A.D.2d 346, 347; Porcaro v. Town of Beekman, 15 AD3d 377, 378). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the complaint as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5). The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

Case Law – Federal


United States District Court Eastern District Of New York; 09-Cv-977 (JFB) (ARL); Vincent Valenti V. Massapequa Union Free School District, et al., Memorandum And Order, March 28, 2012; http://Docs.Justia.Com/Cases/Federal/District-Courts/Newyork/Nyedce/2:2009-cv-00977/289771/52/0.Pdf?1333035804

Case time-barred Before It Was “Retained” by Scott Michael Mishkin

As a threshold matter, defendants argue that the Court lacks subject matter over certain incidents in the complaint because they were not specifically identified in the Notice of Claim. However, the Court concludes that the Notice of Claim requirement is satisfied with respect to the alleged conduct in the complaint because they all arise from the same theories of liability that are mentioned in the Notice of Claim – namely gender discrimination and retaliation. In addition, defendants argue that the state law claims against the School District are governed by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Education Law § 3813, and are time barred. Plaintiff counters that the claims are timely filed because his charge of discrimination with the EEOC, which tolled the limitations period. However, the Court need not decide this issue because it concludes, as discussed infra, that the state law claims cannot survive summary judgment even if they are timely.


United States District Court, S.D. New York, 232 F.Supp.2d 58 (2002), Liz Gross v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc., Frank Accarino, David Schmerler, Bill McLoughlin, Leslie Harris, Neal Shapiro, Marc Rossenwasser, and Set Etmekjian, No. 00 Civ. 5776(SAS), July 9, 2002; Gross' Title VII Claims Arising More Than 300 Days Before the Filing of Her Administrative Charge Are Time-Barred

Case Time-barred Before It Was “Retained” by Attorney Scott Michael Mishkin

In New York, Title VII claims must be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act. See 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(e)(1); see also Butts v. City of New York Dep't of Hous. Preservation & Dev., 990 F.2d 1397, 1400 (2d Cir.1993). The law is clear: "[w]hen a plaintiff fails to file a timely charge with the EEOC, the claim is time-barred. “Butts, 990 F.2d at 1401; Lambert, 10 F.3d at 53. Here, Gross filed her initial administrative complaint (“Charge”) with the New York State Division of Human Rights and the EEOC on July 1, 1999. See Complaint ¶11: see also Charge of Discrimination, Ex. H to Sandak Aff. Accordingly, all federal claims arising before September 1, 1998 (i.e., 300 days before Gross filed her Charge) are time-barred and must be dismissed, including claims relating to: Gross's initial compensation; Gross's assignment to the Day of Air unit in March 1996; NBC's denial of her request for a personal services contract in April 1996; and any claim of inequitable compensation prior to September 1, 1998.

Gross's NYSHRL Claims Arising More Than Three Years Before She Filed Her Complaint Are Time-Barred

Claims under the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) must be filed in court within three years of the alleged discriminatory act. See Lightfoot, 110 F.3d at 906. Claims arising outside the three-year period are time-barred and must be dismissed. See id. Gross filed her Complaint on August 3, 2000. Accordingly, all New York state claims arising before August 3, 1997 (i.e., three years before Gross filed her Complaint) are time-barred, including claims relating to: Gross's initial compensation; Gross's assignment to the Day of Air unit in March 1996; NBC's denial of her request for a personal services contract in April 1996; and any claim of inequitable compensation prior to August 3, 1997.

United States District Court, S.D. New York., Michael Rosato, v. New York County District Attorney's Office, John P. Wolfstaetter, Esq., William Mahoney, Esq., Nancy Ryan, Esq., Mr. Levey, Esq., John Doe, Esq., (sued in their individual and official capacities), Defendants, 09 Civ. 3742(Dlc). (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2009); https://casetext.com/case/rosato-v-new-york-county-district-attorneys-office#.U8-yXfldUk6

Case time-barred Before It Was “Retained” by Attorney Scott Michael Mishkin

The complaint states that plaintiff's §1983 claims are based on the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff's complaint does not, however, appear to state a claim for false arrest or false imprisonment, and plaintiff's brief does not argue that the complaint should be so interpreted. In any event, to the extent that plaintiff attempts to state a claim for false imprisonment, such a claim must be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. A §1983 claim based on false imprisonment accrues once a detainee is held pursuant to legal process, for example when he is bound over by a magistrate or arraigned on charges. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 389-90(2007). Any claim of false imprisonment therefore accrued sometime between plaintiff's arrest on April 20, 2005 and his indictment by the grand jury on June 14, 2005. Because New York has a three-year statute of limitations for false imprisonment, see N.Y. C.P.L.R. §214(5), and plaintiff did not file his complaint until April 9, 2009, any claim for false imprisonment is time-barred.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.Gary M. Ehrhard, v. The Honorable Raymond H. Lahood, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Defendant, March 28, 2012;
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020120330901

Case time-barred Before It Was “Retained” by Attorney Scott Michael Mishkin 

Plaintiff Gary M. Ehrhard (“Ehrhard” or “plaintiff”) brought this civil rights action against his employer, the Honorable Raymond H. Lahood, the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation (“Lahood,” “Department” or “defendant”) alleging the following: (1) employment discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended (“Title VII”); and (2) unlawful retaliation for engaging in activities protected by the aforementioned statute. In particular, plaintiff, who is an air traffic controller, asserts that female air traffic controllers were entitled to special arrangements for requesting leave for child care purposes, and such arrangements were not made available to him even when he requested and was denied leave for child care in June and August 2007. Moreover, plaintiff contends that, when he complained about this disparate treatment, he was retaliated against in a number of ways including, inter alia, the following: (1) the denial of leave in August 2007; (2) being required to provide a medical certificate for sick leave; (3) being temporarily charged AWOL in October 2007; (4) having his annual leave cancelled in November and December 2007; (5) the failure to investigate a co-worker's verbal assault; (6) failure to investigate plaintiffs claims of vandalism; and (7) being sent home for violations of the dress code (which, according to plaintiff, was not enforced against other employees). Plaintiff seeks actual, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees and other costs.

The defendant now moves for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, defendant is entitled to summary judgment for the gender discrimination claim based upon the June 27, 2007 denial of leave because such claim is time-barred and because plaintiff elected an administrative remedy. However, the defendant's motion is denied in all other respects. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, plaintiff has pointed to sufficient evidence to create a disputed issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff was subject to gender discrimination in connection with his August 2007 leave request, and whether he was subject to retaliation for complaining about gender discrimination in connection with leave requests.

Chase Manhattan Bank; http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/chase-manhattan-bank-c15660.html


“. . .Additionally, I believe that Scott Mishkin, in collusion with Chase Manhattan Bank and its agent Stacey L. Davidson were engaged in a calculated scheme to perpetrate fraud upon the court.”

“On or about October 13, 1997, Scott Mishkin called to tell me that he would be making a motion to the court for a pretrial conference. Immediately after he informed me about his motion to the court he went on to say, “Joel, Stacey (Stacey L. Davidson) said that you had sex with someone who works for the bank.” My reply to him was, “And, who might that be?” Then he said, “She didn’t say.” And my reply to him was, “So, what is your point?” He did not respond to my question, however, he go on to say, “Tell me Joel, how big is the guy who rubbed his penis up against you?” My reply to him was, “What do you mean?” And then he said, “The judge will want to know how big his penis is (He laughed as he made his statement) it is important to your case.” Annoyed, feeling ridiculed by my lawyer, I told him that I would talk to him later and then I hung up the phone.”

“. . .On or about June 9, 1998, I received a copy of the letter motion that Scott Mishkin submitted to Senior Judge, Leonard D. Wexler asking him to be relieved as counsel. I opened the envelope and read his letter motion and to my shock and disbelief he used this letter motion to assassinate my character, prejudice my case, and perpetrate a fraud upon the court. His letter motion served as an instrument to poison the mind of any judge who would read it. His letter motion became part of the official court record, and it was used to prejudice my case giving the defendant an unfair advantage. Based upon information or belief, Scott Mishkin in collusion with the defendant, Chase Manhattan Bank and its agent Stacey L. Davidson, participated in a calculated scheme to perpetrate a fraud upon the court by sabotaging my civil action. Additionally, I believe that his actions were motivated by the promise of some kind of kickback, future consulting fee or legal assignment from the defendant, Chase Manhattan Bank and its agent Stacey L. Davidson. In other words, my attorney, Scott Mishkin, sold me out to the highest bidder. All of his unnecessary delays in the litigation processes were part of a calculated scheme that he participated in with Chase Manhattan Bank and its agent Stacey L. Davidson, and part of that scheme was to discourage me from proceeding with my legal action against the defendant, Chase Manhattan Bank. Scott Mishkin even presented the threat of criminal prosecution to me as a way to get me to drop my case. He ignored my lawful request, when it came to him giving the bank additional time to answer my civil complaint, I told him no, do not give the bank anymore time to answer the complaint and yet, he failed to seek my lawful objectives in the matter.

“. . .Scott Mishkin revealed my confidences and my secrets to the judge and opposing counsel, he did this in an attempt to prejudice my civil action against the defendant, Chase Manhattan Bank. Scott Mishkin was using my confidence or secrets to my disadvantage. He was using my confidence and secrets for the advantage of a third party, Chase Manhattan Bank and its agent, Stacey L. Davidson. His statements succeeded in casting me in an unfavorable light with the court.”

Petitioner alleges that this is another of Mr. Miskin's attempts at coercion/extortion/blackmail, predation on Gentiles and general disregard for the judicial process.

Bad Attorney – Porn Makes Him Dishonest, by Anonymous

Malpractice - I will never hire him again and would not recommend him to anyone. His only concerned was his own "CHECK" not your interest. His malpractice cause me financial damage. Google him, you may see some of his terrible work.

Porn Makes Him Dishonest – by Phoenix

Mr. Mishkin's involvement in the pornographic film industry as an actor and a director hinders his ability to be objective when representing a victim of sexual harassment on the job. His lack of success when it comes to representing victims of sexual harassment on the job speaks for itself. Moreover, there is a preponderance of evidence to support the allegation that he takes payments from the defendants to throw his clients' cases.

Bad Service

I would not recommend him to anyone, when I hired him to represent me in a lawsuit against a major financial institution I used to work for he refused to listen to any of my concerns and he was more concerned with pleasing the financial institution that he was supposed to be suing on my behalf. You can read about my experience with him at:
http://joel031.vox.com/. And I rate his services with a ZERO!

Internet Complaints by former Clients of Attorney Scott M. Mishkin; http://reviews2.getlegal.com/mishkin-scott-michael-pc-908753344:

MISFILES EMPLOYMENT CASE, forgot to put people into case . . . Walked after he made non stop errors, I applied for Bankruptcy Chapter 13, he was paid most of the case. . .he walked. I was told by the other attorney he knew I was not lying but there was nothing he could do to help me.

Abused by LPN that I supervised, locked in office with her standing in front of the door so I couldn't get out. . .There was no way to lose the lawsuit, but he misfiled and then walked. . . AVVO write this up, if were not the truth I wouldn't put my name on paper.

With intent this untrustworthy lawyer killed my case and took my money, and I was trying to stop wrongdoing at LIPA Keyspan (2004) that would have made the changes at the utility which would have given us all on long island a better result after superstorm Sandy and Irene. He could not have worked any harder to sabotage any chance at success for all ratepayers. Wrongdoing was in the multimillions Mishkin pals had more cash then me. More to come very soon. A woman named Michele Bracco who died after Sandy (Nov. 5th) would be alive today if Mishkin had not done his dirty deeds. This guy is not jiggy with do no harm oath. He finds who u r in conflict with and its who is the highest bidder. BEWARE OF THIS MONSTER.

 

 

No._________


In the

Supreme Court of the United States


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



Cheryl D. Uzamere


 Petitioner,


vs.

United States of America, et al

Respondents



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

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to

the United States Court of Appeal

for the First Circuit

 

Cheryl D. Uzamere
Appearing Pro Se
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY  11208
Tel.: 718-235-6836
Fax: 718-235-1290
E-mail:
cuzamere@netzero.net

 

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

 

 




 

OPINIONS BELOW

 ..........The opinions concerning the three (3) petitions for writs of certiorari No. 92-5852, Uzamere v. United States, No. 11-8206, Cheryl D. Uzamere v. Andrew v. Cuomo, Governor of New York, et al, and No. 09-5816, Cheryl D. Uzamere v. Allen E. Kaye, PC., et al. were all denied. The opinion is reported at Pet. App. Exhibit A. The opinion of the Appellant's brief No. 13-2454 is reported at Pet. App. Exhibit A, page 41.

 ..........The District Court's opinion is reported at Pet. App. Exhibit A, pages 1 - 39 and is unpublished. 

JURISDICTION

 ..........The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided Petitioner's case was April 11, 2014.

 ..........No petition for rehearing was filed in Petitioner's case.

 ..........The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1).

STATUTORY AND CASE LAW PROVISIONS INVOLVED

 ..........The U.S. Supreme Court case law provisions on which this Petition is based are as follows:

 ..........Misprision of Felony/18 USC §4Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552 (1980) and 2) Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 408 U. S. 696 (1972).

 ..........Establishment Clause/First AmendmentLemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) and Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet 512 U.S. 687 (1994).

 ..........Proceeding in forma pauperis28 U.S.C. §1915.

 ..........Discrimination based upon Mental Illness, Title II, ADAOlmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999); Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509.

 ..........Civil Right Act of 1964, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth AmendmentNewman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968), Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).

 ..........Courts Must Have the Appearance of Impartiality and Disqualification of Judges – 28 USC §§144, 455, Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). 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).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

 ..........This case concerns a 35-year-ongoing series of crimes that were committed against the helpless, disabled, African-American mother and her two (2) adult children who are still the victims of a Judaic-religiously-oriented RICO, who members have dishonestly treated the hatred of lawbreaking, Jews as a real crime), while the pedophile-minded-pity-junkie-Judaic-religiously-oriented RICO – including this court's Jewish justices – are still protecting anti-black racist Mortimer Zuckerman, who continues to use the Daily News and the internet to scorn Petitioner's mental illness in order to disseminate the lie regarding the identity of Petitioner's ex-husband and child of the marriage's father, in much the same way that a pedophile makes reference to having been raped as a child in order to obtain public pity, so that he can avoid prison and rape more children. Said pedophile-minded RICO's trick is to enforces, among other Jewish religious doctrines, Law of the Moser. The RICO's sole purpose of Law of the Moser is to ensure that the Petitioner is forced not to report the crimes that were committed against her and her family by the Jewish Respondents to the secular law enforcement authorities.

 ..........Petitioner approaches this Court as a 35-year crime victim of the following human rights violations constitutional violations and crimes:

United Nation Human Rights Violations

 ..........Article Five – Petitioner and her children were subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment at the hands of the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article Six – Petitioner and her children's right to recognition as persons before the law was violated by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article Seven – Petitioner and her children's right to equal protection before the law was violated by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Petitioner right not to be publicly insulted and discriminated against as a “wacko” because she has bipolar disorder, and Plaintiff's right to equal protection of the law was violated by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article Eight – Petitioner was deprived of the right to obtain an effective remedy by Government Respondent's competent national tribunals for acts Petitioner was falsely accused of violating by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article Nine – Petitioner was subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article Ten – Petitioner's right to full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him was violated by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article Eleven – Petitioner's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty after being charged with various penal offenses was violated by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff's right not to be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense under national or international law was violated by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article Twelve – Petitioner was subjected to arbitrary interference with her privacy, her family and her home by the Defendants. Plaintiff was subjected to attacks upon her honor and reputation; Plaintiff's right to the protection of the law against such interference or attack was violated by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article Thirteen – Petitioner's right to freedom of movement within Defendants State of New York and City of New York was violated by the Respondents and ignore by this Court; Petitioner's family's right, as a natural and fundamental group unit of American society, being entitled to protection by society and the State, was violated by the Respondents, and ignored by this Court; Petitioner's right to equal access to public service in his country was violated by the Respondents and ignored by this Court.

 ..........Federal FeloniesMisprision of felony, 18 USC §4; fraud, 18 USC §1001; identity theft, 18 USC §1028; aggravated identity fraud, 18 USC §1028A; deprivation of rights under color of law (including being kidnapped, unlawfully imprisoned and blacklisted), 18 USC §242/42 USC §1985; 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 Petitioner's right of privacy with regard to the illegal dissemination of her psychiatric records, Petitioner marriage history, Petitioner married name, and the non-content information associated with Petitioner's internet and telephone accounts; violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, intentional misuse of national security letters (NSLs).

Judaic Law – As taught by the National Institute for Judaic Law

 ..........Plan for Judaic Law – “But now, with the rise of Judaism in the halls of power, we are looking at a return to Old Testament state-religion. Particularly, given the strain of Orthodox Judaism in ascendance, we are looking toward a re-unification of church and state, with priestly enforcement of Old Testament and Talmudic commandments . . . In November 2002, the American Orthodox Jewish community held a kosher dinner in the Supreme Court building to celebrate the establishment of the National Institute for Judaic Law. The dinner was attended by 200 people, including three Supreme Court Justices. The purpose of the Institute is to introduce Talmudic laws into the US legal system and law schools. It is thus the clear civic duty of every American to become intimately acquainted with the Talmud. (http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html).

 ..........Death Sentence Endorsed Against Christians Today: “The Noahide Laws promise deadly consequences for Christians. . . Furthermore, Lord God tasked the Jews to enforce the seven Noahide Commandments, and to enforce them with liberal use of the death penalty (emphasis added). . .(http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html).

 ..........Law of the Moser; Jews Must Not Report the Crimes of Fellow Jews to Gentiles or Secular Law Enforcement AuthoritiesInforming on Fellow Jews Who Commit Crimes, Rabbi Michael J. Broyde – “. . .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. . .” (http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/moser-broyde/index.html). 

 ..........Stoolie Is Dead to His Daddy, New York Post, Kate Sheehy, July 28 2009 – The father, citing “the Talmudic Law of Moser that prohibits a Jew from informing on another Jew to a non-Jew” — renounced his son from the pulpit at his synagogue in Deal, NJ, on Saturday, the site said. 

  ..........Silence and self-rule: Brooklyn's Orthodox child abuse cover-up, Zoë Blackler, New York, The Guardian, Thursday 29, March 2012 – “When Mordechai discovered his mentally disabled child was being molested, he reported the crime to the police. A local man was arrested and charged with repeatedly raping the boy in their synagogue's ritual bath. When news of the arrest got back to their Brooklyn community, the neighbors launched a hate campaign. But the object of their anger wasn't the alleged perpetrator, Meir Dascalowitz, it was the abused boy's father. For the last two years, Mordechai says he's been hounded by his community. The minute this guy got arrested I started a new life, a life of hell, terror, threat, you name it. . . As consistent as the tales of cover up are those of community intimidation, where victims are branded a moser – an informer – excluded from school, spat on in synagogue, their families threatened and harassed by supporters of the accused.

(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/29/brooklyn-orthodox-jews child-abuse-cover-up-feature ).”

 ..........Gentiles are Inferior to JewsCome and Hear: Death Penalty and Talmud Law, US v. Talmud Law: Talmud law insists on unequal justice under law. Talmudic law holds there is one law for Jews, and one for Gentiles. This is not inconsistent with the Old Testament, in which LORD God decrees that Jews should not enslave other Jews: Gentiles are the proper slaves of Jews. . .Gentiles are easy to convict. . .(http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_4.html. 

Blacks Are Meant to Be Enslaved

 ..........Artsot Ha-Hayyim, page 52a, 52b – “In 1992 a book was published by a leading member of the Satmar community entitled Artsot Ha-Hayyim. On p. 52 he explains, and quotes other rabbis, that the reason Abraham Lincoln was killed was because he freed the blacks. this is also the reason why Kennedy was killed, i.e. because he was good to the blacks. He continues by saying that this will be the fate of any who adopt a progressive attitude towards blacks, because they are meant to be enslaved. Ham's curse.” http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v15/mj_v15i20.html#CDX. 

..........The Legends of the Jews - Ginsburg, Vol. 1, p. 169 – “The descendants of Ham through Canaan therefore have red eyes, because Ham looked upon the nakedness of his father; they have misshapen lips, because Ham spoke with his lips to his brothers about the unseemly condition of his father; they have twisted curly hair, because Ham turned and twisted his head round to see the nakedness of his father; and they go about naked, because Ham did not cover the nakedness of his father.”

 ..........Midrash Rabbah (Soncino) Vol. 1, p. 293: “AND HE SAID: CURSED BE CANAAN (Breishit 9:25): (Commentary omitted)...R. Huna also said in R. Joseph's name: You [i.e. Noah is speaking to Ham) have prevented me from doing something in the dark [i.e. cohabiting with his wife], therefore your seed will be ugly and dark-skinned. R. Chiyya said: Ham and the dog copulated in the Ark, therefore Ham came forth black-skinned while the dog publicly exposed its copulation.”

 ..........Use of Subterfuge to Deceive Gentiles During Court Proceedings: “Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is our law'; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] 'This is your law'; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him.” (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Kamma, Folio 113a, http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_113.html ).

Talmud Violates Petitioner's 1st Amendment Rights

.........."The establishment of religion”' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.” Everson v. Board of Education. This Court's Jewish justices and the Jewish Respondents enforced the Judaic doctrine Law of the Moser, a doctrine whose very intent is to prevent the reporting of lawbreaking Jews to the secular authorities. 

Talmud Violated Petitioner's 5th Amendment Rights
 

 ..........This Court's Jews and the Jewish Respondents blocked Petitioner's passage to go to court to prevent Petitioner from filing criminal and civil complaints against their law-breaking Jewish friends.

 

Talmud Violates Petitioner's 6th Amendment Rights
 

 .........."In Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, in which this Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right to the assistance of counsel is obligatory upon the States, we did so on the ground that 'a provision of the Bill of Rights which is 'fundamental and essential to a fair trial' is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.'

Talmud Violates African-American Petitioner's 14st Amendment Rights

 ..........". . .nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” See Tennessee V. Lane (02-1667) 541 U.S. 509 (2004) 315 F.3d 680, affirmed. This Court's Justices and the Jewish Respondents used Petitioner's mental illness to disparage her criminal and civil complaints to prevent Petitioner's complaints against the lawbreaking Jews from being believed. 

Federal Statutes -- Title II of the Americans With Disabilities

Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973
 

 ..........The Supreme Court held in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), that “[u]njustified isolation . . . is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability,” observing that “institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable of or unworthy of participating in community life.” 

42 USC §1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

42 USC §1985 - Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights
 

.......... "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law. . .” See Haddle V. Garrison et al, 525 U.S. 121 (1998).

 ..........Justice Black in his concurring opinion in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 144-145, 71 S.Ct. 624, 634 (1951): “Our basic law, however, wisely withheld authority for resort to executive. . .condemnations and blacklists as a substitute for imposition of legal types of penalties by courts following trial and conviction in accordance with procedural safeguards of the Bill of Rights.”

Commission of RICO Crimes

 ..........The courts of Respondent the United States of America recognize that obstruction of justice caused by racketeering influenced, corrupt organizations is 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). In addition, the Court held that a RICO enterprise does not need an economic motive.

National Security Letters

..........18 USC §2709, 18 U.S. Code § 2709 – Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records says:The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. . .” 

Petitioner Case Is Eligible for the Continuing Violations Doctrine

 ..........This Court has jurisdiction over the action pursuant to Morgan v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, DBA Amtrak, 232 F.3d 1008 (November 8, 2000) with regard to the continuing violations doctrine, in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision that “the continuing violations doctrine. . .allows courts to consider conduct that would ordinarily be time barred "as long as the untimely incidents represent an ongoing unlawful. . .practice.

 ..........In the case of Treanor v. MCI Telecommunications, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit explained that the continuing violations doctrine "tolls the statute of limitations in situations where a continuing pattern forms due to [illegal] acts occurring over a period of time, as long as at least one incident occurred within the limitations period.

H.R. 40

African Holocaust/The Maafa
.......... 

 ..........The “African Reparations Bill”, was promulgated by African-American Congressman John Conyers “To acknowledge the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the 13 American colonies between 1619 and 1865 and to establish a commission to examine the institution of slavery, subsequently de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes.”

Implied Cause of Action 

 ..........According to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999; 29 L. Ed. 2D 619; 1971 U.S. Lexis 23; Correctional Services Corporation, v. John E. Malesko, it says: “In the decade following Bivens, we recognized an implied damages remedy under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Davis v. Passman, 442 U. S. 228 (1979), and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14 (1980). In both Davis and Carlson, we applied the core holding of Bivens, recognizing in limited circumstances a claim for money damages against federal officers who abuse their constitutional authority. In Davis, we inferred a new right of action chiefly because the Petitioner lacked any other remedy for the alleged constitutional deprivation. 442 U. S., at 245 (For Davis, as for Bivens, it is damages or nothing). In Carlson, we inferred a right of action against individual prison officials where the Petitioner's only alternative was a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the United States. 446 U. S., at 18. 23. We reasoned that the threat of suit against the United States was insufficient to deter the unconstitutional acts of individuals. Id., at 21. (Because the Bivens remedy is recoverable against individuals, it is a more effective deterrent than the FTCA remedy). We also found it crystal clear that Congress intended the FTCA and Bivens to serve as parallel and complementary sources of liability. 446 U.S., at 19.20...In 30 years of Bivens jurisprudence we have extended its holding only twice, to provide an otherwise nonexistent cause of action against individual officers alleged to have acted unconstitutionally, or to provide a cause of action for a Petitioner who lacked any alternative remedy for harms caused by an individual officers unconstitutional conduct.” 

Sovereign Immunity Based on This Court's Jewish Justices and Government Respondents'

Abrogation of Petitioner's Right to Equal Protection as a Disabled Person
 

 ..........In the U.S. Supreme Court case United States vs. Georgia, et al, quoting verbatim: “Goodman, petitioner in No. 04–1236, is a paraplegic who sued respondent state Respondents and others, challenging the conditions of his confinement in a Georgia prison under, inter alia, 42 U. S. C. §1983 and Title II of the Americans with Disability Act of 1990. As relevant here, the Federal District Court dismissed the §1983 claims because Goodman’s allegations were vague, and granted respondents' summary judgment on the Title II money damages claims because they were barred by state sovereign immunity. The United States, petitioner in No. 04–1203, intervened on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment as to the Title II claims, but reversed the §1983 ruling, finding that Goodman had alleged facts sufficient to support a limited number of Eighth Amendment claims against state agents and should be permitted to amend his complaint. This Court granted certiorari to decide the validity of Title II’s abrogation of state sovereign immunity.”

Change of Venue and Improper Venue Based on Petitioner's Request to the

District Court to Remover Her Case from a Corrupt, Bias Court to an Impartial Court
 

 ..........Federal Rules for Civil Procedure Rule 41(b): (b) “Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule—except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19—operates as an adjudication on the merits.”

 ..........With regard to 28 USC §1404(a), the case Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) says the following with reference to change to another venue: “Section 1404(a) is sufficiently broad to control the forum-selection issue. The statute is intended to place discretion in the district courts to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness. A motion to transfer under §1404(a) calls on the district court to weigh in the balance a number of case-specific factors, and the presence of a forum-selection clause will figure centrally in the calculus. A forum-selection clause should receive neither dispositive consideration nor no consideration, but rather the consideration for which Congress provided in §1404(a) (emphasis added).

 ..........In the case Ralls Corporation V. Terna Energy USA Holding Corporation, Civil Action No. 13-0117 (ABJ), the court rendered the following decision: “Petitioner Terna Energy USA Holding Corporation ("Terna") moves to dismiss Petitioner Ralls Corporation's (“Ralls”) complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Upon consideration of the parties' briefs, the record in this case, and the applicable law, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. It does not reach the question of subject matter jurisdiction. (emphasis added). 

Factual Background

Documentation Verifying the Identify of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
 

 ..........In December, 1977, approximately two (2) years before the Petitioner met Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Nosayaba (John) Uzamere and his wife Ethel Uzamere filed for IR2 residence for Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. The IR2 visa for Respondent Uzamere was approved on January 28, 1980. The name and immigration number under which he applied for wpermanent residence was Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, XXXXXXXX XX, 1960, file number A35 201 224. See correspondence from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service attached as Pet. App. Exhibit B.

 ....................a) Correspondence from Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, dated January 6, 2009, see Pet. App. Exhibit B;

 ....................b) Correspondence from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service dated June 12, 2009; see Pet. App. Exhibit B;

 ....................c) Report from Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (October, 2008); see Pet. App. Exhibit B;

 ....................d) Correspondence from U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service bearing Immigration File No. A35 201 224 (undated); see Pet. App. Exhibit B;

 ....................e) Correspondence from U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service bearing Immigration File No. A35 201 224 dated February 10, 1984; see Pet. App. Exhibit B;

 ....................f) Correspondence from U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service bearing Immigration File No. A24 027 764 dated June 15, 1981; see Pet. App. Exhibit B;

 ....................g) Decision dated May 12, 2009, in which NYS Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine said: “Today at 10:35 a.m. 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. See Pet. App. Exhibit B.

 ....................h) Decision dated May 12, 2009, in which NYS Justice Matthew D'Emic said: “The parties were married in New York State on November 21, 1979, and the child of the marriage was born on July 7, 1980. At some point between the wedding and birth the defendant abandoned his family and moved to Nigeria. By filing a summons with notice, plaintiff commenced this proceeding on July 18, 2007, and service was affected on defendant in Nigeria in the manner directed by Justice Prus of this court.” See Pet. App. Exhibit B.

 ....................i) Decision Uzamere v Uzamere, 2009 NY Slip Op 09214 [68 AD3d 855] dated December 8, 2009 in which the New York State Supreme Court for the Appellate Division, 2nd Judicial Department removed a.k.a. “Godwin Uzamere” to Cheryl D. Uzamere to Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. The decision states: “In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sunshine, J.), dated January 12, 2009, which, inter alia, denied her motion, among other things, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and for an award of child support, and directed a hearing on the issue of whether the parties were in fact married. See Pet. App. Exhibit B.

 ....................j) Affidavit of the child of the marriage, Tara A. Uzamere in which she swears under oath that Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere is her father; see Pet. App. Exhibit

 ....................k) Documentation from Nigeria confirming that the names Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Godwin Ehigie Uzamere and Senator Ehigie Uzamere belong to Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. See Pet. App. Exhibit B.

 ....................l) Petitioner requests a subpoena duces tecum to obtain proof from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service; however Petitioner know that in this Court's Jewish justices determination to hide their Jewish friends' crimes, they will not comply. Petitioner invites this Court's Jewish justices to arrest all parties involved in the making and presenting of the aforementioned documentation if said documentation is found to be false, or to admit that this Court's Jewish justices' Jewish friends committed felonies and arrest them as the law requires.

 .......... ..........Documentation Used by Respondents to Falsify the Identity of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere

 ....................a) On November 20, 1979, Respondent's Ehigie E. Uzamere filled out a marriage affidavit. The marriage affidavit indicated that the aforesaid Respondent provided the name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” but did not provide any identification. See marriage affidavit attached at Pet. App. Exhibit B.

 ....................b) On November 21, 1979, the Petitioner unwittingly entered into a “romance scam” marriage with Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere under the fictitious named “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere, and under the fictitious birthday “XXXXXX XX, 19XX.” The Petitioner was provided with marriage certificate. He abandoned the Petitioner on the day of the marriage while she was pregnant. See Pet. App. Exhibit B.

.................... c) On or around October 1, 2003, Jack Gladstein mailed to the Petitioner correspondence falsely holding Petitioner's ex-husband out to be “Godwin Uzamere.” See Pet. App. Exhibit B.

 ....................d) On or around September 25, 2008, Government Respondent's McCarthy falsely made the accusation that Petitioner “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.” The Government Respondent withdrew its case against the Petitioner on December 2008. (Uzamere v. United States of America).

...........On or around October 8, 2008, Petitioner Eugene Uzamere hand- delivered a fraudulent affirmation and a fraudulent, unauthenticated,3 unnotarized counter-affidavit from Nigeria. See Pet. App. Exhibit B.

...........Also, during October 2008, Respondent McCarthy and Respondent Cowles gave Petitioner's criminal attorney Beth Mann a copy of the I-130 immigration sponsorship form that Petitioner signed on November 30, 1979 and a report explaining the two (2) immigration files having birthdays “June 1, 1955” and December 31, 1960 and explaining “IR2 fraudulently obtained because he was married at the time” and “Compare fingerprints between the two files.” See Pet. App. Exhibit B (includes Uzamere v. United States, U.S. gov't falsely charged Petitioner with violation of 18 USC. 111(a). On or around January 6, 2009, Petitioner received correspondence from Respondent McCarthy indicating that “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.” See Pet. App. Exhibit B.

 ..........On January 12, 2009, Respondent Sunshine engaged in misprision of felony, racketeering, aggravated identity theft and fraud upon the court by rendering a decision in which he stated that “Moreover, the opposition submitted by Respondent raises a genuine issue as to whether or not Petitioner and Respondent 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. See page 9 of Justice Sunshine's decision attached as Pet. App. Exhibit B.

 ..........On May 12, 2009, Respondent Sunshine rendered his decision recognizing the identity of Petitioner's ex-husband as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere by stating that “Today at 10:35 am. Respondent was declared in default for failure to appear at the hearing. Accordingly, Respondent's motion to dismiss this action upon the grounds that he is not the husband of the Petitioner is denied in its entirety. See Justice Sunshine's dated May 12, 2009 attached as Pet. App. Exhibit B.

 ..........On or near October 28, 2009 during the adjudication of the case Uzamere vs. Uzamere, et al, Case No. K-18012/2009, Respondents Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein submitted fraudulent affirmations to the Government Respondent falsely holding “Godwin Uzamere” and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be two (2) different persons. See affirmations of Allen Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq. And Jack Gladstein attached as Pet. App. Exhibit B.

 ..........On November 3, 2009 Respondents Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Michael Gerstein, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Jewish billionaire and Daily News owner Mortimer Zuckerman conspired to implement the Petitioner's false arrest (Uzamere v. State of New York, 2009KN087992) for threatening Respondent Justice Sunshine for the sole purpose of obtaining an advantage in the action for fraud that Petitioner filed against Respondents Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, and knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought publish a newspaper article entitled Hate-spewing Wacko Goes into Fit in Court, that illegally disclosed Petitioner's nonpublic information that was acquired by the Government Respondent's court during the adjudication of Petitioner's cases. See Daily News article attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C.

 ..........On November 30, 2009, twenty-five (25) days after Respondent Daily News, LP published its article regarding the Petitioner, Respondent Federation Employment and Guidance Service terminated its mental health services to the Petitioner. 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 Pet. App. Exhibit C.

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

 ..........On December 24, 2009, Petitioner was seen by Respondent New York State Unified Court System judicial employee the Honorable Anthony Cutrona of Kings County Supreme Court's Mental Hygiene Court and ordered to remain in Government Respondent's psychiatric facilities as an inpatient.

 ..........On January 15, 2010, Government Respondent's employee Respondent Schack conspired with employees of Government Respondent's employees at Government Respondent's psychiatric facility Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility not to produce the Petitioner for court. In his decision dated January 25, 2010, Respondent Schack stated that “The Court is concerned that Petitioner UZAMERE is unfit to proceed. . .Therefore, the instant matter is adjourned to Friday, March 19, 2010. . .” See interim decision of Respondent Schack attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C.

 ..........On or near February 23, 2010, while the Petitioner was in her apartment faxing letters of complaint to various governmental agencies, Respondents 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 Respondent Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center, who then arranged for Petitioner to be kidnapped and hospitalized by Respondent New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center.

 ..........During Petitioner's last week as an inpatient, Government Respondent's employee Ms. Velcimé performed a search of New York Psychotherapy and Counseling Center and other outpatient mental health care providers, Ms. Velcimé informed the Petitioner that not only had NYPCC refused to accept Petitioner as a client, but that virtually all the not-for-profit outpatient mental health facilities that Ms. Velcimé contacted rejected her request to provide Petitioner with outpatient psychiatric services.

 ..........On July 13, 2010, Government Respondent's employee Respondent Schack rendered a decision falsely holding “Godwin Uzamere” to be is Petitioner's husband; and further stated that it is “ORDERED, that the instant complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that Petitioner 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.” See Respondent Schack's decision dated July 13, 2010 attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C.

 ..........On August 16, 2010, Petitioner filed lawsuit Uzamere v. USA, 2010-cv-555 with the U.S. Court of Claims. Said lawsuit provided Respondent Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of identity theft. Respondent Miller rendered her decision designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Petitioner into believing that a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on Respondents Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of identity theft and conspiracy to commit identity theft.

 ..........On August 30, 2010, Petitioner filed lawsuit Uzamere v. USA, 2010-cv-585 with the U.S. Court of Claims. Said lawsuit provided Respondents Nancy B. Firestone and John P. Wiese with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of identity theft. Respondents Firestone and Wiese rendered their decision designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Petitioner into believing that a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on Respondents Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of identity theft and conspiracy to commit identity theft.

 ..........On September 1, 2010, Petitioner filed lawsuit Uzamere v. USA, 2010-cv-591 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit was assigned to Respondent judge Christine O.C. Miller of the U.S. Court of Claims. Petitioner alleges that she provided Respondent Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Respondent Miller disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jewish 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 Petitioner 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.

 ..........On or around January 11, 2011, Petitioner filed lawsuit Uzamere v. State of New York, 2011-030-531 against Respondent State of New York with Respondent NYS Judge Scuccimarra. Respondent Scuccimarra never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys' commission of identity theft and their conspiracy to commit identity theft.

 ..........On or around January 19, 2011, Petitioner filed a lawsuit against Respondent Gerstein, Respondent Sunshine and Respondent Schack with Respondent the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Respondent Klonick never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Respondent judges conspiracy not to address the Jewish attorneys commission of identity theft or their conspiracy to commit to hide the identity theft.

 ..........On or around April 29, 2011, Petitioner filed a lawsuit against Respondents Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein with Respondents the New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department and the New York Grievance Committee for the Second Judicial Department. Respondents Del Tipico and Gutierrez never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys commission of identity theft.

..........In June, 2011, Petitioner filed the Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 with the for the Eastern District of New York.

 ..........On or around June 22, 2011, Respondent Garaufis rendered his illegal decision, stating irrelevantly that “Petitioner has a long, tired history of vexatious litigation in this court.” His decision also illegally ignored the Respondents' commission of identity theft and their conspiracy to prevent the Petitioner from filing any criminal or civil complaints against any of the Jewish Respondents. Respondent Garaufis illegally applied a res judicata determination to pretend that his decision has the legal ability to nullify and render harmless any attempt by the Petitioner to file a criminal action against Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission based on their commission of identity theft – a wrongful act for which the correct criminal  adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never tried.

 ..........On or around June 25, 2011, Respondent Garaufis ordered three (3) marshals from the U.S. Marshals Service to visit the Petitioner's home to intimidate her, and if possible, to catch her while she alone in order to place her in Government Respondent's psychiatric facility as an inpatient. One (1) of the marshals banged on Petitioner's apartment door, embarrassing Petitioner within earshot of her neighbors and frightening the Petitioner. When the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of New York identified themselves, Petitioner asked them if she had committed a crime. The marshals stalled for a few seconds, and then said that Petitioner had not committed any crimes. When Petitioner asked the U.S. Marshals why they were there, the U.S. Marshal that banged on Petitioner's door said “I'm gonna annoy you like you annoyed Judge Garaufis.” When Petitioner 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 Petitioner's door. He also asked Petitioner “is your daughter Tara home?”, to find out if Petitioner was home alone. Within minutes of Petitioner telling them that her daughter Tara was there, they left.

 ..........On July 4, 2011, Petitioner filed her appeal for the lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-CV.

 ..........From July 6, 2011, the date in which Petitioner is alleged to have committed 18 USC §115 against Respondent 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 made any attempt to arrest the Petitioner for the offenses for which Petitioner still stands accused. According to Respondent Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, the judges who rendered decisions on Petitioner's appeal for her lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv were not indicated on the decision because others unknown to Petitioner told Respondent O'Hagan Wolfe that Petitioner threatened Respondent Garaufis, other federal judges and Respondent Sunshine.

 ..........On or around July 7, 2011, Respondents psychiatric nurse Agnes Flores and psychologist Martin Bolton, employees of Respondent New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation came to Petitioner's apartment, speaking about Petitioner's psychiatric issues in the hallway and shaming Petitioner within earshot of her neighbors. Respondents Flores and Bolton said that Respondent U.S. Marshal Service4 told them that Petitioner contacted Respondent Mental Health Association's LifeNet psychiatric helpline and made threats of bodily harm against Respondent Garaufis. Petitioner 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 Petitioner's attorney to examine Petitioner's civil claims. Also, at the behest of Respondent Garaufis, Petitioner alleges that Respondent O'Hagan Wolfe returned Petitioner's appellate brief, all of Petitioner's motions, Pet. App. Exhibit C and Pet. App. Exhibit C that Petitioner served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 4, 2012. Respondent O'Hagan Wolfe did not include any correspondence explaining why Petitioner's appellate documents were returned. See copies of UPS envelopes for Petitioner's appellate documents, 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 Pet. App. Exhibit C and Pet. App. Exhibit C.

 ..........In June/July 2011, Respondent Garaufis illegally authorized Respondent FBI to authorize Cablevision to monitor the non-content information of Petitioner's telephone calls in order to find something that could be used to blackmail the Petitioner, in violation of 18 USC §2709 and 18 USC §3511. Respondent Garaufis authorized the FBI to use any non-content information regarding Petitioner's outpatient psychiatric clinic and her government health insurance providers to create a story that Petitioner threatened Respondent Garaufis, other federal judges and employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service. Petitioner faxed a copy of a complaint to U.S. Attorney Preetinder Bharara. Thereafter, Respondent Davis called 5, 6 Petitioner again, frightening Petitioner by telling Petitioner that Petitioner would be forcibly hospitalized because Respondent Garaufis falsely told Respondent U.S. Marshal Service that Petitioner had threatened judges and other federal employees at the (federal) Medicaid office. Petitioner uploaded their conversation to her website.

 ..........In the month of August, 2011 Respondent Davis contacted Respondent Sarpong for the purpose of forcing Petitioner to go to Respondent Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, where Petitioner was unlawfully imprisoned as an inpatient for being falsely accused of threatening Respondent Garaufis and other judges with bodily harm, and threatening CMS workers with death.

 ..........On or around August 18, 2011, Respondent 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 FPS7 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 Pet. App. Exhibit C. Respondent New York City Health and Hospital Corporation's ACT Team prepared a psychiatric treatment plan. Under the title “Alerts”, the treatment plan falsely states that “. . . 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 Petitioner's psychiatric treatment plan from the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team, attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C).

.......... On or around November 28, 2012, Respondents 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: 1) advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by not filing a criminal complaint against Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their commission of identity theft, and their own commission of racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity; and, 2) tricking Petitioner into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative function – was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless Respondents Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of identity theft – a criminal act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never tried.

  ..........On or around January 30, 2013, Petitioner 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.” See Pet. App. Exhibit C.

 ..........During March, 2013, Respondent Vermont Professional Responsibility Program refused to filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the aforementioned commission of misprision of felony, identity theft, RICO/racketeering and obstruction of justice. See letters from Vermont's Rules of Professional Conduct, attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C.

 ..........On March 24, 2013, Respondent “John Doe” #1 blackmailed Petitioner by telling her that he would call Petitioner's daughter, mentioning Petitioner's daughter's name (something that generally precedes a threat of psychiatric hospitalization), and then would come to Petitioner's apartment; however, when asked if Petitioner had committed a crime and whether Petitioner would be assigned an attorney, "John Doe" #1 said that Petitioner would have to obtain an attorney on her own. As it turned out, "John Doe" #1 never came to Petitioner's apartment, and never contacted Petitioner's daughter. During Petitioner's conversation with FBI employee "John Doe" #1, Petitioner told the employee that she was recording the conversation. Petitioner recorded the conversation and uploaded it to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/uzamere_v_obama.html  (refer to the link FBIconversation - click here).

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

 ..........On April 9, 2013, Petitioner e-mailed a formal complaint to Respondent Congressman Jeffries containing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services confirming that Petitioner did not threaten anyone during any of the phone calls Petitioner made to the CMS call center; however Respondent Jeffries made no attempt to respond to Petitioner's cry for help.

 ..........On or near August 7, 2013, Respondent Sullivan engaged in the Jewish religious doctrine of Law of the Moser, the criminal equivalent of misprision of felony by not reporting the crimes that Petitioner's exhibits proved occurred. Respondent Sullivan committed the requisite affirmative acts by prohibiting the court's staff from uploading Petitioner's exhibits to PACER's Electronic Court Filing System, the court's more efficient electronic filing system, and by not allowing the court's staff to sign Petitioner's subpoena duces tecum in order to: 1) obtain proof of Petitioner ex-husband's identity from Government Respondent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service so as to leave no doubt regarding the identity of Petitioner's ex-husband and the father of Tara A. Uzamere, the child of the marriage; 2) to ensure that the Jewish Respondents are no longer able to leave their criminally fraudulent statements in the media and on the internet regarding Petitioner's ex-husband unchallenged; 3) end the violation of Petitioner's and witnesses civil and human rights; 4) end the Government's Respondents involvement in the encroachment of the Jewish religion; 5) reestablish Petitioner's right to upload her legal documents to PACER.gov; 7) end Government Respondent's violation of the U.S. Supreme Court legal doctrine “void for vagueness” by explaining what makes Petitioner's exhibits too voluminous, by giving Petitioner the opportunity to learn what Respondent Smith means by “too voluminous” so that Petitioner could make repairs on said exhibits and upload them to PACER.gov.

 ..........On August 26, 2013, Respondent Sullivan stated in her fraudulent Report and Recommendation to dismiss Petitioner's Amended Petition “. . .it is inconceivable that venue over this matter could ever be proper in this District”, even though the federal District Court case Ralls Corporation V. Terna Energy USA Holding Corporation does not reach the question of subject matter jurisdiction as it was filed in the wrong venue. (emphasis added); that Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan engaged in the Hobbs Acts by either accepting bribes or allowing herself to be extorted/blackmailed by the Jewish Respondents. Respondent Sullivan illegally misapplied the res judicata principle to situations in which Petitioner clearly established the continuing violations doctrine; and finally, that Respondent Sullivan's Report and Recommendation is proof of ongoing crimes and civil torts for which Petitioner can again apply the continuing violations doctrine. See the following: 1) Daily News article criminally holding Petitioner to be mentally unfit and that “Godwin Uzamere” is Petitioner's husband; 2) page two (2) of Respondent Garaufis' Order regarding Petitioner's civil rights lawsuit, Cheryl D. Uzamere v. Andrew M. Cuomo, et al., Case No. 1:2011-cv-2831, enumerating 589 that were uploaded to PACER.gov, attached as Uzamere vs. Cuomo, Memorandum and Order page two (2); 3) lawsuit Viacom International Inc., et al. v. Youtube, Inc, et al, Case No. 1:07-CV-2103 (LLS) that explains the conditions associated with what makes exhibits “voluminous”, PACER Monitor statements describing Petitioner's exhibits as “too voluminous” but being vague as to why the 245 pages of exhibits are considered too voluminous, attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C. Also see Magistrate Patricia A. Sullivan's Report and Recommendation attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C. 

Returns of Jew-Caused Injustice and Oppression to Other Gentiles

  ........As a result of criminal obstruction by this Court's Jewish justices, the First Circuit's Jewish judges, and by Rabbi and attorney Michael J. Broyde, a teacher who works for the National Institute for Judaic Law and teaches the Judaic doctrine Law of the Moser, there has been a four-month failure to render a decision regarding Petitioner's request for IFP status, so that no opinion has been made by the lower Court.

 ........Magistrate Sullivan engage in a discriminatory, religiously racist and criminal act in rendering her decision to dismiss Petitioner's case. African American Gentile citizen P. Guity reported acts of discrimination against her school district. The statute of limitations for schools districts in New York State is only one year. P. Guity's waited too long to file her case before the statute of expiration.

 ........Later on, Jewish Attorney Scott Michael Mishkin, pretending that he had provided P. Guity with legal services, stole $12,000 from P. Quity. New York State Justice Denise Molia, and Ivan J. Dolowich of law firm Kaufman Dolowich Voluck & Gonzo LLP formed a RICO which Petitioner reported to the FBI. They are still charging Mrs. Guity for legal services even though the statute of limitation for Mrs. Guity's legal case had expired long before Ms. Guity met Scott Mishkin.

  .....Bernard Sussman engaged in harassing the Petitioner and lying with regard to the identity of her ex-husband.rIn the continued Jewish oppression of the Petitioner, Bernard Sussman used the Youtube.com site to harass Petitioner by saying the following:

"This woman is claiming to have been married, then abandoned, by an important Nigerian politician. She has filed at least ten court cases in various places based on this assertion - and then arguing that there is a Jewish conspiracy controlling all the courts in favor of that Nigerian politician. But it turns out that her ex-husband has come forward and made very clear that he is the (poor) cousin of the politician and the politician has nothing to do with their marriage. Uzamere v. Daily News LLP (NY Cnty Supm Ct, Nov. 10, 2011) 34 Misc.3d 1203(A), 2011 NY Slip Op. 52421(U), 946 NYS2d 69(t) http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13879595403336403090.
 

REASONS FOR GRANTING WRIT

 POINT I 

This Court's Jewish Justices' use of the teachings that Gentiles and black people are meant to be enslaved by Jews violates the Establishment Clause of the First Commandment, the 13th Amendment, the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment and the Civil Rights of 1964.


.........“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or abridging the freedom of speech . . .and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances ” See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971),

Establishment Clause – First Amendment

“In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court decision Everson v. Board of Education incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). In the majority decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote: 'The “establishment of religion”' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.

Lemon v. Kurtzman

..........Held: Both statutes are unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, as the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes involves excessive entanglement between government and religion.

 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601

Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs
 

 ..........“No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Fogg v. Gonzales, Nos. 05-5439, 05-5440 says the following: “In the case Correctional Services Corporation, v. John E. Malesko, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “In 30 years of Bivens jurisprudence we have extended its holding only twice, to provide an otherwise nonexistent cause of action against individual officers alleged to have acted unconstitutionally, or to provide a cause of action for a Petitioner who lacked any alternative remedy for harms caused by an individual officers unconstitutional conduct.” However, in the same case, the Court said: “Most recently, in FDIC v. Meyer, we unanimously declined an invitation to extend Bivens to permit suit against a federal agency, even though . . .Congress had waived sovereign immunity [and] was otherwise amenable to suit. 510 U. S., at 484, 486. Our opinion emphasized that the purpose of Bivens is to deter the officer, not the agency. Id., at 485 (emphasis in original) (citing Carlson v. Green, supra, at 21). We reasoned that if given the choice, Petitioners would sue a federal agency instead of an individual who could assert qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. To the extent aggrieved parties had less incentive to bring a damages claim against individuals, the deterrent effects of the Bivens remedy would be lost. 510 U.S. at 485. Accordingly, to allow a Bivens claim against federal agencies would mean the evisceration of the Bivens remedy, rather than its extension. 510 U. S., at 485.” This Court's Justices and the Jewish Respondents made secret reference to Petitioner's race as it pertains to the Judaic teaching regarding black people to disparage her so as to prevent Petitioner's complaints against the lawbreaking Jews from being heard.

..........In the case of the Jewish Respondents, because of Judaic-law/religious encroachment, specifically the encroachment of the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser, this Court's Jewish justices is the reason for the Government Respondents' refusal to file criminal complaints against those Respondents. who violated federal law is a fact.

POINT II 

This Court's Jewish justices and the Respondents violated the law by allowing the encroachment of Law of the Moser to prevent Petitioner from filing criminal complaints against members of the RICO; and whether this Court's Jewish Justices and the Respondents violated the law by committing fraud upon the court, Law of the Moser (same as misprision of felony) by treating romance scam marriage and identity theft as domestic issues to be handled by a state court in violation of Ankenbrandt v. Richards.
 

..........Whether this Court's Jewish justices and the Respondents violated the law by allowing the encroachment of Law of the Moser to prevent Petitioner from filing criminal complaints against members of the RICO; and whether this Court's Jewish Justices and the Respondents violated the law by committing fraud upon the court, Law of the Moser (same as misprision of felony) by treating romance scam marriage for a green card and identity theft as domestic issues to be handled by a state court in violation of Ankenbrandt v. Richards.

  ..........What is Fraud upon the Court?

..........Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in fraud upon the court. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. . .It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function – thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.

  ..........Fraud upon the court has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”

RICO Member Refused to Sign Subpoena To Hide

Its Commission of Immigration Fraud
 

..........Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 45(a)(1)(D)(3) says: “The clerk shall issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party requesting it, who shall complete it before service.”

..........According to Local Rules for the U.S. Federal Court for the District of Rhode Island, it says the following under “Subpoenas”: “Subpoenas, including proofs of service, shall not be filed with the Court, unless otherwise ordered by the Court or required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties in possession of such documents shall be responsible for preserving them and making them available for use at trial and/or for other purposes required by the Court.”

  ..........Petitioner never had any intention of “filing” – that is, requiring the District Court to preserve Petitioner's subpoena duces tecum in the District Court's permanent records. Petitioner's purpose for the subpoena duces tecum is now what it was when Petitioner first mailed it to the District Court – to obtain the Clerk of Court's signature so as to legally serve it on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. The District Court's response to Petitioner's request for the Clerk of Court's signature was so illegally uncommon that the Petitioner has not been able to find even one case where a Federal District Judge required his clerical staff to violate Fed. R. Civ. P Rule 45(a)(1)(D)(3) and not sign an a subpoena duces tecum.

  ........The District Court's decision not to sign Petitioner's subpoena duces tecum was an act of fraud upon the District Court rendering its decision void ab initio. 

Misprision of Felony/Law of the Moser; Same Thing

  ........In the case Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552 (1980); The District Court properly considered, as one factor in imposing consecutive sentences on petitioner who had pleaded guilty to two counts of using a telephone to facilitate the distribution of heroin, petitioner's refusal to cooperate with Government officials investigating a related criminal conspiracy to distribute heroin in which he was a confessed participant.” Pp. 445 U. S. 556-562. . .In this case, the term “petitioner's refusal to cooperate with Government officials” meant that the petition refused to report the crimes of his associates.

  ........“Concealment of crime has been condemned throughout our history. The citizen's duty to “raise the hue and cry” and report felonies to the authorities, Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 408 U. S. 696 (1972), was an established tenet of Anglo-Saxon law. . .The first Congress of the United States enacted a statute imposing criminal penalties upon anyone who, “having knowledge of the actual commission of [certain felonies,] shall conceal, and not as soon as may be disclose and make known the same to [the appropriate] authority. . .” Act of Apr. 30, 1790, §6, 1 Stat. 113. Although the term "misprision of felony" now has an archaic ring, gross indifference to the duty to report known criminal behavior remains a badge of irresponsible citizenship. This deeply rooted social obligation is not diminished when the witness to crime is involved in illicit activities himself. Unless his silence is protected by the privilege against self-incrimination, see 445 U. S. infra, the criminal defendant, no less than any other citizen, is obliged to assist the authorities. The petitioner, for example, was asked to expose the purveyors of heroin in his own community in exchange for a favorable disposition of his case. By declining to cooperate, petitioner rejected an "obligatio[n] of community life" that should be recognized before rehabilitation can begin. See Hart, The Aims of the Criminal Law, 23 Law & Contemp. Prob. 401, 437 (1958). Moreover, petitioner's refusal to cooperate protected his former partners in crime, thereby preserving his ability to resume criminal activities upon release. Few facts available to a sentencing judge are more relevant to "'the likelihood that [a defendant] will transgress no more, the hope that he may respond to rehabilitative efforts to assist with a lawful future career, [and] the degree to which he does or does not deem himself at war with his society.'”

  ........In the case United States of America v. Richard Baumgartner, a jury convicted former Criminal Court Judge Richard Baumgartner, of Knoxville, Tennessee, of five counts of misprision of a felony with regard to his knowledge of his own and his girlfriends purchase and illicit use of illegal drugs. Richard Baumgartner was a judge, and quite possibly Jewish. Neither being a judge nor a Jew gave him the constitutional right to engage in hiding the commission of a felony from law enforcement agencies. In like manner, the Jewish Respondents do not have the constitutional right to rely on Law of the Moser to hide their Jewish friends', their Gentile slaves' or their own crimes as some sort of twisted religious entitlement.

 .........“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... or abridging the freedom of speech, . . .and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances ” See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

..........“In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court decision Everson v. Board of Education incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). In the majority decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote: 'The “establishment of religion”' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another . . . in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.”

..........Lemon v. Kurtzman

 ..........Held: Both statutes are unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, as the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes involves excessive entanglement between government and religion.

  ..........In the case Lemon v. Kurtzman,8 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (represented through David Kurtzman), which allowed the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse nonpublic schools (most of which were Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught secular material in these nonpublic schools, secular textbooks and secular instructional materials, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The decision also upheld a decision of the First Circuit, which had struck down the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act providing state funds to supplement salaries at nonpublic elementary schools by 15%. As in Pennsylvania, most of these funds were spent on Catholic schools.

..........Lemon Test

  • The government's action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion (Entanglement Prong);
  • If any of these prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

  ..........In the case of the Jewish Respondents, Petitioner's claim that Jewish religious encroachment, specifically encroachment of the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser is the reason for the Government Respondents' refusal to file criminal complaints against those Jews who violated federal law is a fact. Worse still, a horrible precedent has been set by U.S. Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, who are also Jews. At the Jewish website Come-and-Hear (http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html), it says the following:

  ..........US Supreme Court Warms to the Talmud: Approximately three years after Nathan and Alyza Lewin filed the Bryan v. Moore amicus curiae brief — a notable event in itself — another notable event took place. A kosher dinner was held to honor the establishment of the National Institute for Judaic Law (NIJL). The dinner was attended by 200 people, including Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia. Nathan and Alyza Lewin also attended. The site of the dinner? The United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC. The Jewish Week reported the event in this manner:

     On the same web page, near the top of the page, it says: “In contrast, Talmud law insists on unequal justice under law. Talmudic law holds there is one law for Jews, and one for Gentiles. This is not inconsistent with the Old Testament, in which LORD God decrees that Jews should not enslave other Jews: Gentiles are the proper slaves of Jews.” Another doctrine that is actively taught by Rabbi Michael Broyde, a professor at the Jewish institute that was attended by two of the U.S. Supreme Court's Jewish justices teaches the Talmudic doctrine, Law of the Moser (see websites http://www.nijl.org/lecture2.html; http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/moser-broyde/index.html). At Rabbi Broyde's website entitled Informing on Fellow Jews who Commit Crimes: Mesira in Modern Times  , Rabbi Broyde says the following:

     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 aviolation 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 if 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. 

To convince this Court of the unconstitutional nature of the Talmudic doctrine, Law of the Moser and its violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, one needs only study the example of a brave Jewish man named Rabbi Nuchum Rosenberg (http://gothamist.com/2013/11/12/ultraorthodox_sex_abuse_whistleblo.php), a private citizen who was attacked by members of the Satmar community for violating Law of the Moser and reporting the sexual abuse of Jewish children by Jewish men. The article entitle Ultra-Orthodox Sex Abuse Whistleblower Describes "Child-Rape Assembly Line” says the following:

     The last we heard from ultra-Orthodox sex abuse whistleblower Rabbi Nuchum Rosenberg he was recovering from an assault involving a cup of bleach tossed in his face on a Williamsburg sidewalk. Rosenberg, who was nearly blinded, has become anathema in the tightly knit Satmar community for exposing perpetrators of sexual abuse. Almost a year after the bleach attack, Vice checks in on Rosenberg, who of course has more horrifying stories to tell:

     On a visit to Jerusalem in 2005, Rabbi Rosenberg entered into a mikvah in one of the holiest neighborhoods in the city, Mea She’arim. “I opened a door that entered into a schvitz,” he told me. “Vapors everywhere, I can barely see. My eyes adjust, and I see an old man, my age, long white beard, a holy-looking man, sitting in the vapors. On his lap, facing away from him, is a boy, maybe seven years old. And the old man is having anal sex with this boy.

     Rabbi Rosenberg paused, gathered himself, and went on: “This boy was speared on the man like an animal, like a pig, and the boy was saying nothing. But on his face—fear. The old man [looked at me] without any fear, as if this was common practice. He didn’t stop. I was so angry, I confronted him. He removed the boy from his penis, and I took the boy aside. I told this man, ‘It’s a sin before God, a mishkovzucher. What are you doing to this boy’s soul? You’re destroying this boy!’ He had a sponge on a stick to clean his back, and he hit me across the face with it. ‘How dare you interrupt me!’ he said. I had heard of these things for a long time, but now I had seen.” 

  ..........In the article entitled Anti-Abuse Rabbi Says He's in Danger (http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new_york/anti_abuse_rabbi_says_he's_danger), Rabbi Nuchum Rosenberg's life was again endangered for being a moser:

 

     "Speaking at a press conference outside the 90th Precinct Police Headquarters in Williamsburg, Rabbi Rosenberg complained that police were unable to protect him. He pointed to . . .his forehead to indicate the spot here he was hit. . . Rabbi Rosenberg said he was actually uncertain just what hit him on the forehead, saying it could have been a pellet gun or even a rock. “A car flew by as I was walking, and I felt something hit me,” he told The Jewish Week. “I didn’t see what it was.”

     The ad by the 33 rabbis and others signed by the “Meshmeris Ha’Tznius” denounced Rabbi Rosenberg as a moser, one who endangers a Jewish community by informing on it to secular authorities.”  Rabbi Nuchum Rosenberg claimed that the threats culminated last month when he was “shot” on Berry Street, near the Williamsburg Bridge by unknown assailants.  

 

A New York Post article entitled Stoolie Is Dead to His Daddy says the following:

     A lot of people might like to wring his neck, but the sleazy real-estate mogul who ratted out everyone from politicians to rabbis in a massive corruption case is apparently already as good as dead to his father.

      Israel Dwek — the father of Solomon “Shlomo” Dwek, who helped the feds nail three New Jersey mayors and several rabbis in Brooklyn last week — plans to sit shiva for his son because he is so disgusted with his turning on other Jews, reported the Web sitePolitickerNJ.com.

      Shiva is the traditional Jewish mourning period held after a family member dies.

     The father — citing “the Talmudic Law of Moser that prohibits a Jew from informing on another Jew to a non-Jew” — renounced his son from the pulpit at his synagogue in Deal, NJ, on Saturday, the site said. Israel Dwek is a revered leader of the Sephardic Jewish community in the wealthy enclave.


  ..........The Talmudic doctrine, Law of the Moser, the belief that Gentiles, especially those who are dark-skinned are meant to be enslaved and other racist beliefs are well-entrenched in Jewish consciousness. As long as the part of the Jewish community that is employed by the Government Respondent practices its culture privately, Gentiles will be tolerant of Jews' right to practice their culture. However, the line is clearly drawn when U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ginsberg and Breyer voluntarily sponsor and attend the opening of a Judaic institute that promulgates laws that defy the U.S. Constitution, are racist, or worse, give the appearance of governmental acceptance by using the U.S. Supreme Court's building to hold a ceremony for the National Institute for Judaic Law, a Jewish religious organization that openly advocates the Talmud, and harsher judicial treatment to be meted out against Gentiles. The encroachment of the racist Jewish religion violates the Establishment Clause, the Free Speech Clause, the Petition Clause, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the First, Fifth and Fourteen Amendments. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor Constitution-savvy Gentiles will tolerate being Jews' slaves because Michael J. Broyde or some other publicly-exposed-as-dishonest expert of the Talmud received tacit approval from Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan. Gentiles, as in the past, will resort to any means necessary before they are forced to be slaves to the Jews and their unconstitutional, religious and racist whims – including reporting the encroachment and enforcement the racist Judaism to the United Nations Office of the High Commission for Human Rights, something the Petitioner has already done.

POINT III 

This Court's Jewish Justices and Respondents' Discrimination of Petitioner Because of Her Race and Her Mental Health Status Violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Federal Rehabilitation Act, the Establishment Clause of  the First Amendment and Is an Abrogation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. 

  ..........Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12131, 12132, prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, including those with mental illness. Similarly, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794, provides that no person with a disability, including those with mental illness, shall: “solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

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

 ..........Further, Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act requires that “a public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.” See 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d).

 ..........In the landmark decision Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court held that these provisions of law are violated when a state places people with mental illness in “unjustified isolation,” and that a person with mental illness may sue the state for failing to place him or her “in the most integrated setting appropriate to [his or her] needs.”

 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601

Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs

 .........."No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Fogg v. Gonzales, Nos. 05-5439, 05-5440.

POINT IV

..........Whether this Court's Jewish justice should recuse themselves because of their religious bias pursuant to 28 USC §455 and §144

 .........This Court's Jewish Justice should recuse themselves because of their religious bias pursuant to 28 USC §455 and §144.

 ..........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.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).

 .........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.”).

 .........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.”

 .........Our 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).

..........Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the 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.”)

POINT V

Petitioner's Request to Proceed in forma pauperis for Review of Her Allegations of Respondents

Constitutional, Human Rights and Criminal Violations Satisfies the "Good Faith” Requirement of

Coppedge v. United States

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

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

.........As stated in Coppedge v. United States, “If, with such aid, the applicant then presents any issue for the court's consideration which is not clearly frivolous, leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be granted. Violation of Petitioner's civil and human rights by the Government Respondents are serious issues. As a private citizen with bipolar disorder, the Petitioner has the right to sue state agencies who have abrogated by violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, leaving states and their agencies with no ability to claim any form of immunity. Coppedge allows in forma pauperis litigants to file suit for issues that are not frivolous. Since Petitioner has satisfied Coppedge, this Court must allow the Petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis.

CONCLUSION

..........Based upon the foregoing, this Court must dispense with the practice of Law of the Moser, which is, in fact, the commission of misprision of felony. This Court must arrest the following individuals for their commission of the following crimes: 1) misprision of felony, racketeering/RICO, obstruction of justice, identity theft and aggravated identity theft; and those other crimes that Petitioner has proven occurred. This Court must reverse the District Court’s criminal dismissal of her Verified Complaint and remand the action to an unbiased judge for a determination of those issue raised pertaining to Respondents' commission of federal felonies and pertaining to Respondents' violation of Petitioner's civil and human rights based on the U.S. Government's relationship as a signatory with the United Nations since 1948.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
June 24, 2014

CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE


_________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (718) 235-6836
Fax: (718) 235-1290
E-mail:
cuzamere@netzero.net


Footnotes:

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

1 Artsot Ha-Hayyim, page 52a, 52b: “In 1992 a book was published by a leading member of the Satmar community entitled Artsot Ha-Hayyim. On p. 52 he explains, and quotes other rabbis, that the reason Abraham Lincoln was killed was because he freed the blacks. this is also the reason why Kennedy was killed, i.e. because he was good to the blacks. He continues by saying that this will be the fate of any who adopt a progressive attitude towards blacks, because they are meant to be enslaved. His source for this is Ham's curse.” (http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v15/mj_v15i20.html#CDX).

The Legends of the Jews - Ginsburg, Vol. 1, p. 169: “The descendants of Ham through Canaan therefore have red eyes, because Ham looked upon the nakedness of his father; they have misshapen lips, because Ham spoke with his lips to his brothers about the unseemly condition of his father; they have twisted curly hair, because Ham turned and twisted his head round to see the nakedness of his father; and they go about naked, because Ham did not cover the nakedness of his father. Thus he was requited, for it is the way of G-d to mete out punishment measure for measure.” (http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/lginzberg/bl-lginzberg-legends-1-4h.htm).

Midrash Rabbah (Soncino) Vol. 1, p. 293: “AND HE SAID: CURSED BE CANAAN (Breishit 9:25): (Commentary omitted)...R. Huna also said in R. Joseph's name: You [i.e. Noah is speaking to Ham) have prevented me from doing something in the dark [i.e. cohabiting with his wife], therefore your seed will be ugly and dark-skinned. R. Chiyya said: Ham and the dog copulated in the Ark, therefore Ham came forth black-skinned while the dog publicly exposed its copulation.”(http://www.annomundi.com/history/midrash_rabbah_genesis_xxxvi_7.htm)

2 Appellant's divorce is now a matter of New York State case law, Uzamere vs. Uzamere, 2009, NY Slip Op 90214 [68 AD3d 855] such that Petitioner's ex-husband's identity is a res judicata matter of law that no other court has a right to question. Mortimer Zuckerman's use of the Daily New to question an appellate court's decision was racist and wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court's Jewish Justices' refusal arrest him was wrong to the point of being criminal and demonic. Any mention of Appellant's divorce are only to establish those torts that arose during Appellant's litigation of her divorce action. Appellant respectfully directs this Court's attention to Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992): “ . . . while it is not inconceivable that in certain circumstances the abstention principles developed in Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, might be relevant in a case involving elements of the domestic relationship even when the parties do not seek divorce, alimony, or child custody, such abstention is inappropriate here, where the status of the domestic relationship has been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying torts alleged. Pp. 15-16.” No amount of criminal, Jew-biased misapplication of the aforementioned case will change how it was originally applied by the U.S. Supreme Court; however, it will instigate a human rights complaint to the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, along with an uploading of appellate judges' criminal decision to Appellant's website http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/ and to the e-mails of as many world leaders and/or their attorneys as are willing to listen.

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 LifeNet suicide/mental health hotline was fraudulently contacted by Respondent U.S. Marshal Service for the Eastern District of New York and told that Petitioner threatened Respondent Nicholas with bodily harm and employees of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Service.

5 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. Please visit web page http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html to hear Petitioner's conversation with Respondent Davis.

6 18 USC §2709(c): “If the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. . .certifies that otherwise there may result a danger. . .to the life or physical safety or any person, no wire or electronic communications service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person. . .that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section.”

7 Federal Protection Service. This is a division of Respondent U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

9 The Legends of the Jews - Ginsburg, Vol. 1, p. 169: “The descendants of Ham through Canaan therefore have red eyes, because Ham looked upon the nakedness of his father; they have misshapen lips, because Ham spoke with his lips to his brothers about the unseemly condition of his father; they have twisted curly hair, because Ham turned and twisted his head round to see the nakedness of his father; and they go about naked, because Ham did not cover the nakedness of his father. Thus he was requited, for it is the way of G-d to mete out punishment measure for measure.” (http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/lginzberg/bl-lginzberg-legends-1-4h.htm).

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

H.E. Madame Navanethem Pillay
Office of the United Nations
  High Commissioner for Human Rights
Palais Wilson
52 rue des Pâquis
CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland
Tel.: +41 22 917 9220
E-mail:
registry@ohchr.org

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.
Solicitor General of the United States
U. S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Telephone: 202-514-2217/2218
E-mail: supremectbriefs@usdoj.gov

Barbara Underwood
New York State Solicitor General
New York State Attorney General's Office
120 Broadway
24th Floor
New York, NY 10271
Telephone: 212-416-8020
E-mail: nyoag.nycpdf@ag.ny.gov;

Preetinder Bharara, Esq.
One St. Andrews Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Phone: 212-637-2200
Fax: 212-637-2685
E-Mail: preet.bharara@usdoj.gov

The Honorable C. Randall Hinrichs
District Administrative Judge's Office
John P. Cohalan, Jr. Court Complex
400 Carleton Avenue
P.O. Box 9080
Central Islip, NY 11722-9080
Phone: 631-853-5368
Fax: 631-853-7741

Ivan J. Dolowich, Esq.
Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP
135 Crossways Park Dr.
Suite 201
Woodbury, New York 11797
Main: (516) 681-1100
Direct: (516) 283-8709
Fax: (516) 681-1101
Cell :(516) 655-8340
E-mail: 
idolowich@kdvlaw.com  

Cornell William Brooks
National Headquarters
NAACP
4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore MD 21215
Local: (410) 580-5777
Toll Free: (877) NAACP-98
Phone: (202) 463-2940
Fax: (202) 463-2953
washingtonbureau@naacpnet.org
beresfo940@aol.com
millerjean10@yahoo.com
rapearson1@verizon.net
jordankwilson@aol.com
radioislam152@yahoo.com

Richard M. Gutierrez, Esq.
Chair
NYS Grievance Committee for
the 2nd, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts
335 Adams Street
Suite 2400
Brooklyn, NY, 11201
Tel.: (718) 923-6300

Seth P. Waxman
Chair, Appellate and
  Supreme Court Litigation
  Practice Group
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Tel.: 202 663 6800
Fax: 202 663 6363
seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com

Loretta Lynch, Esq.
271 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: 718-254-7000
Fax: 718-254-6479
E-mail: loretta.lynch@usdoj.gov

Eric Schneiderman, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
New York State Attorney's Office
120 Broadway
24th Floor
New York, NY 10271
Tel.: 212-416-8050
E-mail: Eric.Schneiderman@ag.ny.gov

E-mail: civil.rights@ag.ny.gov   

Zachary Carter, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10013
Phone: 212-788-0303
Fax: 212-788-0367
E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov

Thomas A. Klonick
Chairman
New York State Commission
of Judicial Conduct
New York City Office
61 Broadway
12th Floor
New York NY 10006
Phone: 646-386-4800
Fax: 646-458-0037

Scott Michael Mishkin, Esq.
Scott Michael Mishkin, P.C.
1 Suffolk Sq # 240
Islandia, NY 11749
Tel.: (631) 234-9702
Tel.: 631-234-1154
E-mail: mishkinesq@optonline.net;

Michael De Santis
Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP
135 Crossways Park Dr., Suite 201
Woodbury, NY 11797
Main: (516) 681-1100
Direct: (516) 283-8718
Cell: (516) 749-7943
Fax :(516) 681-1101
E-mail:
mdesantis@kdvlaw.com

Eric A. Seiff
Chairman
Lawyers' Fund for Clients' Protection
Scoppetta Seiff Kretz & Abercrombie
444 Madison Avenue, 30th Floor
New York, New York 10022 
Tel.: 212-371-4500
Fax: 212-371-6883

Hon Fred T. Santucci
Executive Director
Office of Committees on
  Character and Fitness
  for Admission for the
  2nd, 9th, 10th, 11th
  and 13th Judicial Districts
335 Adams Street
Suite 2404
Brooklyn, NY, 11201
(718) 923-6360

Robert A. Green
Chief Counsel
State of New York Grievance
Committee for the Tenth Judicial District
150 Motor Parkway, Suite 102
Hauppauge, NY 11788
(631) 231-3775
Tel.: (631) 231-3775
Fax: (631) 231-4005

Scott Harris
Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Tel.: (202) 479–3014
Fax: 202-479-3032
E-mail:
dmcnerney@supremecourt.gov E-mail: sharris@supremecourt.gov

Stuart F. Delery, Esq.
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Phone: (202) 514-3301
Fax: (202) 514-8071
E-mail:
stuart.f.delery@usdoj.gov

The Honorable Kenneth Thompson
Kings County District Attorney
350 Jay Street
Brooklyn, NY  11201-2908
Tel.: 718-250-2340
Fax: 718-250-2210

The Honorable Thomas J. Spota
Suffolk County District Attorney
North County Complex
Building 77
Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel.: 631-853-4161
Tel.: 631-853-2608
E-mail:
infoda@suffolkcountyny.gov;

Robert McAneney
Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP
60 Broad Street
36th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Tel.: :(212) 485-9600
Fax :(212) 485-9700
Cell: (212) 767-9565
Email:
rmacaneney@kdvlaw.com

Dr. Thomas Gregory Harrington
373 Route 111
Suite 7
Smithtown, NY, 11787
Tel.: (631)360-7450
Fax: (631) 360-7455

Ernest J. Collazo
Chairman
Collazo Florentino & Keil LLP
747 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017-2803
61 Broadway
2nd Floor
New York, NY  10006
Tel.: 212-401-0800
Fax: 212-401-0810
Tel.: 212-758-7600
Fax: 212-758-7609
E-mail 
ejcollazo@cfk-law.com

Hon. Samantha Power
United States Ambassador to the
  United Nations
Press and Public Diplomacy Section
United States Mission to the United Nations
799 United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017