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

 
 

Communication January 5, 2013

Horizontal Divider 30

United Nations Office of the
High Commission for Human Rights

 

Horizontal Divider 30

Cheryl D. Uzamere

Appellant-Petitioner 

vs. 

United States of America, et al 

Defendant-Appellees

Horizontal Divider 30
Addendum Submitted with Appellant-Petitioner's
Human Rights Petition
 
Regarding Respondent United States of America's Commission of Identity Theft and Other Crimes in Violation of the United Nations Human Rights Treaty

Horizontal Divider 30
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
 
Horizontal Divider 30

 

Request to the United Nations Office of the High Commission
for Human Rights to Place Petition in Abeyance
 

    Appellant/Petitioner realizes that she has to exhaust all judicial remedies before filing a petition with the U.S. Office of the High Commission for Human Rights. Appellant respectfully informs this Commission that she already filed two (2) petitions for writs of certiorari in which the U.S. Supreme Court justices, and is working on her third appeal bound for the U.S. Supreme Court.

    If the Commission finds that the date in which the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decisions regarding my petitions for a writ of certiorari are more than six (6) months and therefore too late for Appellant/Petitioner to file her petition, the Appellant/Petition respectfully prays for this honorable Commission to hold Appellant/Petitioner's action in abeyance until such time that Respondent's courts has rendered decisions on Appellant's latest appeals.

    Appellant/Petitioner and her daughter Tara are still victims of Respondents commission of identity fraud. The Respondent lacks the ability to police itself such that the Appellant/Petitioner needs help from the Commission.

United Nations' and United States Of America's Responsibility to
End Respondent U.S.A's Commission of Identity Theft

    a)    The first decision with regard to Appellant's ex-husband's identity, was rendered by: 1) the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service's administrative decision in 1981; 2) the New York State lower Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine's decision rendered on May 12, 2009; 3) the New York State lower Supreme Court Justice Matthew D'Emic's decision rendered on March 15, 2010; the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division judges Steven W. Fisher's, Plummer E. Lott's, Sandra L. Sgroi's, Daniel D. Angiolillo's appellate decision rendered on February 10, 2010, Appellant's and Appellant's daughter Tara A. Uzamere The decision holds as true and correct that Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was the husband and is the father of Tara A. Uzamere; and that the names Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and “Godwin E. Uzamere” belong to the same person, namely Appellant's ex-husband Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.

    b)    The other decision regarding Appellant's ex-husband were promulgated under the following set of circumstances:

        1)    That at the time attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein submitted affirmations as identity documents regarding “Godwin Uzamere's” identity: 1) the attorneys never presented the person of “Godwin Uzamere”; 2) the attorneys' affirmations did not contain as attachments PATRIOT-Act-acceptable identification documents, namely, “Godwin Uzamere's” current passport, current driver's license and fingerprints; and, 3) during Appellant's divorce action, the attorneys, having been contacted by the Appellant, made no attempt to contest Appellant's identification of her husband, and waited more than thirty (30) days, so that the time to file an appeal to contest Appellant's identification of her husband expired; and that Osato Eugene Uzamere after having contested the identity of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and “Godwin Uzamere”, which was questioned in a interlocutory decision by the court, was reflected to hold as true and correct that Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was Appellant/Petitioner's husband; 4) that the court to which the attorneys submitted their affirmations regarding the identity of Appellant's ex-husband is a lower Supreme Court presided over by Arthur M. Schack, i.e., a trial court/court of original jurisdiction, and as such, has no appellate power over a court of original jurisdiction; and that as a lower Supreme Court Justice, Arthur M. Schack had no standing to appeal the decisions of the lateral courts presided over by New York State lower Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine, New York State lower Supreme Court Justice Matthew D'Emic, and especially of New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division judges Steven W. Fisher, Plummer E. Lott, Sandra L. Sgroi and Daniel D. Angiolillo. Only litigants of a particular case have standing to appeal said case within the thirty (30) days allotted to them by the CPLR.

        2)    The decision with regard to Appellant's ex-husband's identity, rendered by NYS lower Supreme Court Justice Arthur M. Schack holds that: 1) Ehigie E. Uzamere and “Godwin are two (2) different persons; 2) that the “person” of “Godwin Uzamere”, an immigrant for whom an I-130 sponsorship form was submitted to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service by attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro, lived in the United States without his immigration attorneys ever having submitted a photograph and fingerprints to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service; 3) that the person of “Godwin Uzamere” an immigrant for whom an I-130 sponsorship formed was submitted to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service by attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro, lived in the United States without ever having left a paper trail of evidence of ever having lived or worked anywhere in the United States; 4) that the person of “Godwin Uzamere”, an immigrant for whom an I-130 sponsorship form was submitted to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service by attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro, lived in the United States without ever having created a paper trail with the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service of having traveled into the United States and of having traveled out of the United States; 5) the “person” of “Godwin Uzamere”, an immigrant for whom an I-130 sponsorship form was submitted to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service by attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro, lived in the United States without ever having left a paper trail that can be investigated by any skip trace or Internet people search engine that identifies his having a mother, father, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins or any other relatives; 6) that where the identity of the “person” of “Godwin Uzamere” is concerned, federal district judges Nicholas G. Garaufis and federal magistrate judge Patricia A. Sullivan both ordered their staff not to sign Appellant/Petitioner's subpoena duces tecum to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service to allow Appellant/Petitioner to obtain proof of her ex-husband's identity; but most importantly, 6) the “person” “Godwin Uzamere's” lived in the United States without his attorneys ever having assisted him in acquiring PATRIOT Act-acceptable identification documents like a current passport, citizenship certificate, and/or a current driver's license.

    The U.S. Supreme Court's Jewish contingency, Respondents Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan all decided against rendering any decision in which any of the Jewish Respondents can be held criminally liable for their commission of identity theft and conspiracy to commit identity theft, so the controversy regarding Appellant's ex-husband's identity continues without end and deprives Appellant/Petitioner and her of the right to bear the true and correct African name of our relative.

    Petition and her daughter Tara are still victims of the identity theft that was commenced by and continued by employees and professional associates of the Respondent, the United States of America in 1979. Petitioner reminds this Commission that in its booklet entitled “United Nations Office on Drugs and Identity Crimes” (UNODC), (http://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/Thematic_Programme/Thematic_Programme_on_Corruption_-2012-2015_sept12.pdf) it counts as its responsibility “countering corruption by promoting transparency, integrity and accountability and by advancing equality, justice and development.” Appellant respectfully demands that this Commission lives up to the spirit of the aforementioned message and ensure that the identity theft that the

    Respondent has used to curse Petitioner's family is forcibly ended by this Commission. The Respondents are too wicked to be trusted to obey the law.

    Petitioner further reminds this Commission that her reason for contacting the United Nations is because of Respondent United States' violation of Appellant's civil and human rights as it relates to Respondents' commission of identity theft and crimes committed to hide the identity theft. Appellant reminds this Commission that the Respondents, based on past experience, may engage in the following conduct: 1) malign and/or libel the Appellant in the newspaper and Internet; 2) accuse Appellant of having a violent mental illness so that Respondents can kidnap Appellant and forcibly place her in jail or a mental institution as an inpatient for an indefinite period of time; 3) withhold government-funded services (such as food). Appellant respectfully asks this Commission to hold Appellant's action in abeyance if it finds that it cannot locate the Appellant as Appellant may have been jailed or placed in a mental institution.

Contact Information for Witnesses

    Pursuant to the United Nations' rule regarding human rights petitions, the addresses for the witnesses are as follows:

    David P. Walker lives in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. David's living arrangements are legally private; it will be disclosed to the Commission on request.

    Tara A. Uzamere can be contacted at: 2930 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, 11207, cell phone number: (347) 949-6207, e-mail: tuzamere1@optimum.net;

    Reverend C. Vernon Mason can be contacted care of: Abyssinian Baptist Church, 132 Odell Clark Place (formerly 138th St.) between Lenox Avenue and Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. Blvd., New York, New York, 10030, telephone number: (212) 862-7474, e-mail: info@abyssinian.org;

    Attorney Alton Maddox can be contacted at Committee To Reinstate Attorney Alton Maddox, 16 Court Street, Suite 1901, Brooklyn, New York 11241, telephone number: (718) 834-9034; fax number: (718) 834-1275, e-mail: info@reinstatealtonmaddox.com;

    Colin A. Moore, Esq. can be contacted at: 47 Remsen Street, Apt 2, Brooklyn, NY 11201-4175, telephone number: (718) 643-0285, e-mail address: Colin.Moore@yahoo.com.

Government Respondent's Violation of United Nations Human Rights Treaty

    These are human rights violations as outlined in its treaty to those international states that entered into the United Nations Human Rights treaty, and of which Government Respondent is a participant:

Article Five

    Petitioner, her children, and African American attorneys C. Vernon Mason Alton Maddox and Colin Moore were subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment at the hands of the Respondents.

Article Six

    Petitioner's, her children's and African American attorneys C. Vernon's, Alton Maddox's and Colin Moore's right to recognition as persons before the law was violated by the Respondents.

Article Seven

    Appellant's, her children's and African American attorneys C. Vernon Mason's, Alton Maddox's and Colin Moore's right to equal protection before the law was violated by the Respondents; Appellant's right not to be was publicly discriminated against as a “wacko.” Appellant's right to equal protection was violated by the Respondents.

Article Eight

    Petitioner and African American attorneys C. Vernon, Alton Maddox and Colin Moore were deprived of the right of obtaining an effective remedy by Respondents' competent national tribunals for acts Petitioner was falsely accused of violating the law by the Respondents.

Article Nine

    Petitioner was subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention by the Respondents.

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.

Article Eleven

    Petitioner's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty after being charged with various penal offenses was violated by the Petitioner. Petitioner'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.

Article Twelve

    Petitioner and African American attorneys C. Vernon, Alton Maddox and Colin Moore were subjected to arbitrary interference with their privacy, their families and her home by the Respondents. Petitioner and African American attorneys C. Vernon, Alton Maddox and Colin Moore were subjected to attacks upon her honor and reputation. Petitioner's right to the protection of the law against such interference or attack was violated by the Respondents.

Article Thirteen

    Petitioner's right to freedom of movement within Respondents State of New York and City of New York was violated by the Respondents. 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.

Article Twenty-One

    Petitioner's right to equal access to public service in his country was violated by the Respondents.

CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE


mysignature2.jpg
_____________________

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

 

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

Statement of Verification and Good Faith Certification

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

    I certify the foregoing pursuant to the laws for perjury.

CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE


mysignature2.jpg
_____________________

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

 
 

2013-2454-CV

Horizontal Divider 30

United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit

Horizontal Divider 30

Cheryl D. Uzamere,

Appellant-Petitioner 

vs. 

United States of America, et al
Defendant-Appellees
 

Horizontal Divider 30 
 
2nd  AMENDED APPELLANT'S BRIEF

 Horizontal Divider 30

On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Rhode Island

Horizontal Divider 30
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

 

Horizontal Divider 30

 

 

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

..........Appellant Cheryl D. Uzamere, appearing on her own behalf, submits this brief in support of her appeal from so much of a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island (Hon. Patricia A. Sullivan, U.S.D.J.), criminally dismissing Appellant's Complaint without allowing Appellant's request to subpoena duces tecum for discovery of her ex-husband immigration information under file numbers A35 201 224 and A24 027 764, criminally dismissing Appellant's Complaint without basing its dismissal on the Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12, and dismissing Appellant's Complaints based on the encroachment of the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser that prohibits Jews from reporting and from participating in reporting crimes that fellow Jews have committed to the secular law enforcement authorities, and on personal bias based on illegal influence from corrupt Jew billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman and other corrupt members of the Jewish community employed in positions of authority within the Obama Administration.

..........Appellant asserts that this Court should reverse so much of the District Court’s order and judgment because Magistrate Sullivan engaged in fraud upon the court by not reporting proof of the commission of identity theft and several crimes the Respondents committed to hide the identity theft to Respondent the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Magistrate Sullivan was illegally influenced to criminally dismiss Appellant's Complaint after the Appellant supplied the District Court with irrefutable proof that Respondents Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein engaged in immigration fraud, fraud, identity theft, aggravated identity theft, RICO/racketeering and obstruction of justice, but refused to report the crimes pursuant to 18 USC §4, misprision of felony. In addition, Magistrate Judge Sullivan failed to supply the required memorandum and standard of review upon which a District Court's decision must be based pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12.

..........In addition, this Court should hold that Appellant has established ample proof of her allegations that Respondents violated her constitutional and human rights that she has satisfied the “good faith” requirement of Coppedge v. United States sufficiently to proceed in forma pauperis.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

..........The following are those standards of review that the Appellant respectfully prays this Court to use to consider her appeal:

Abuse of Discretion

..........Appellant asks this Court to use the Abuse of Discretion standard of review.

..........The term “abuse of discretion” is described as “a decision by a court that is so unreasonable in light of the facts of the case or is such an unreasonable deviation from legal precedent that it must be reversed; any action by a government official by which that official renders decisions for a clearly improper purpose.” Under an Abuse of Discretion standard of review, this Court, after having seen proof of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's falsified affirmations that were illegally used as identity documents, Scott Shifrel's and Mortimer Zuckerman's newspaper article Hate-Spewing Wacko Goes into Fit in Court in the Daily News that was used to libel Appellant and to publicize Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and “Godwin E. Uzamere” as two (2) different persons, and several other NYS and federal judges' facilitation of the aforementioned attorneys' commission of immigration fraud, fraud, identity theft, aggravated identity theft, RICO/racketeering and obstruction of justice, must find that the District Court criminally erred. It must rule in Appellant's favor and report the active crime to the Government Respondent's law enforcement agency the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

..........The District Court's dismissal of Appellant's Complaint was more than abuse of discretion. It was demoniacally racist and demoniacally wicked. It violates the United Nations human rights treaty of which the Government Respondent is a participant, and set the Civil Rights Act of 1964 back hundreds of years to a time when white people and Jews can “rape” the African American community with impunity.

..........Appellant reminds this Court that she has already submitted this brief to the United Nations Office of the High Commission for Human Rights.

Arbitrary and Capricious

..........Arbitrary and capricious is a legal ruling wherein an appellate court determines that a previous ruling is invalid because it was made on unreasonable grounds or without any proper consideration of circumstances. This is an extremely deferential standard.

 ..........Under the Arbitrary and Capricious standard of review, although the District Court is not an administrative court, its decision was arbitrary and capricious because the Government Respondent's agency, the U.S. Department of Citizenship and Immigration Service, administratively decided over 30 years ago that the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere”, from immigration file A24 027 764 and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, from immigration file A35 201 224 belong to the same person. Two (2) New York State lower Supreme Court judges and five (5) appellate judges also found that Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was Appellant's husband. In spite of this, the District Court made no attempt to comment on the falsified affirmations that were illegally used as identity documents, the falsified decision that was used as an identity document, and the false news paper article of of Respondents Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Scott Shifrel and Mortimer Zuckerman that was falsely used as an identity document to publicly hold Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and “Godwin E. Uzamere” to be two (2) different people. Lastly, in spite of Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 45(a)(3)1, the District Court forbade the Appellant from filing a subpoena duces tecum with Government Respondent's agency the U.S. Department of Citizenship and Immigration Service to obtain proof of Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity. This court does not have the legal right to render a decision ignoring the Respondents' commission of the aforementioned crimes, or to render a decision based on Judaic law (Law of the Moser) that requires Jews not to report the crimes of fellow Jews to the secular law enforcement authorities. Withholding proof of a federal crime in progress is a felony.

 Substantial Evidence

 ..........Under the "substantial evidence" standard, a finding of fact from a jury, or a finding of fact made by an administrative agency is upheld on appeal unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence. The appellate courts will generally not review such findings unless those findings have no reasonable basis.

 ..........Under the Substantial Evidence standard of review, Appellant provided the District Court with irrefutable proof that Respondents Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein submitted falsified affirmations to the New York State Supreme Court that they illegally used as identity documents in place of Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's PATRIOT-Act accepted identification such as his current passport or his current driver's license. This court does not have the legal right to rule against Appellant's irrefutable proof that the Respondents committed identity theft and other crimes to hide the identity theft. To rule against this proof would be an affirmative act with regard to misprision of felony, and the Appellant would report it to the United Nations Office of the High Commission of Human Rights.

 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

 ..........This is an action for violation of Appellant's constitutional rights, and for violation of Appellant's human rights, with Appellant's human rights petition having already been filed with the United Nations. Jurisdiction in this Court is based upon 28 U.S.C. §1291, in that this is an appeal from a final judgment of the District Court disposing of all claims by all parties. The final judgment was entered on October 25, 2013 and the notice of appeal was filed on November 14, 2013. This appeal is thus timely, F.R.A.P. 4(a)(1)(A). When applied to a person’s real-life situation, the standards contained in international human rights treaties find their most direct application. The resulting body of decisions may guide States, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and individuals in interpreting the contemporary meaning of the treaties concerned.” Appellant believes that she and her children can be considered “anyone” based on the way that said word is used. Appellant also believes that she has sufficiently established that the Respondents committed human rights violations against Appellant and her children.

 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

  ..........Whether the District Court abused its discretion by committing misprision of the Respondents felonies.

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

  ..........Whether Appellant's request to proceed in forma pauperis for review of her allegations of Respondents' constitutional and human rights violations satisfies the "good faith" requirement of Coppedge v. United States.

  ..........Whether this or any court of the United States has the legal right to render any decision based on Law of the Moser or any other doctrine of Jewish religion.

 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

 ..........This appeal has its basis in the Government Respondent's Jewish employees and their professional associates use of a Talmudic doctrine called Law of the Moser, a Judaic law that prohibits Jews from reporting or taking part in reporting to the secular law enforcement authorities crimes that were committed by fellow Jews. Where the Appellant is concerned, Appellant alleges that the Government Respondent abrogated its Fourteen-Amendment duties and responsibilities when it failed to equally protect Appellant from being discriminated against and attacked as a mentally disabled American citizen because of the Government Respondent's Jewish employees and its associates' insistence to force Appellant to obey the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser in order to prevent the Appellant from filing complaints regarding identity theft against the Respondents, in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

 ..........In Appellant's brief, Case No. 11-2713-CV, Appellant explained:

 ..........This appeal has its basis in Defendants' violations of Appellant's Fourteenth-Amendment right to equal protection under the law, and Defendants' violation of Appellant's right to protection as a mentally-disabled American pursuant to Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Appellant asserts that said constitutional and statutory violations arose during Appellant's litigation of the case Uzamere vs. Uzamere, 2009, NY Slip Op 09214 [68 AD3d 855]2 a year after the Appellant filed her divorce action that identified Defendant law firm Allen E. Kaye, PC as the law firm that facilitated her ex-husband's commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud. Appellant asserts that after she filed her divorce action that identified Allen E. Kaye, Esq. and Harvey Shapiro as facilitating Ehigie Uzamere's commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud, Defendants, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42 U.S.C. §1985 engaged in a criminal conspiracy designed to blacklist the Appellant to prevent her from filing complaints against Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro and later Jack Gladstein so as to prevent the Appellant from receiving honest services from Title II, ADA-covered State courts and Title II, ADA-covered not-for-profit outpatient psychiatric facilities based on Defendant Daily News' public “diagnosis” of Appellant as an “anti-Semitic wacko”; to deprive Appellant of more integrated outpatient psychiatric programs first, by arresting Appellant as a criminally-minded, insane anti-Semite so as to railroad Appellant into an inpatient psychiatric setting. Appellant asserts that Defendants' goal was and still is to use the media, government Defendants' judicial system, and government Defendants' mental health system to illegally disclose Appellant's Title II, ADA-protected psychiatric information to misdiagnose Appellant as an “anti-Semitic wacko” as a legal substitute for filing an action for defamation against the Appellant to disprove Appellant's allegations, and to discredit the truth of Appellant's allegations based solely on the existence of Appellant's mental illness.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 ..........In December, 1977, approximately two (2) years before the Appellant 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.

 ..........On November 20, 1979, Government Respondent's marriage clerk Joseph Visceglia was illegally influenced by Respondents Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro not to obtain PATRIOT Act-acceptable identification, namely his passport and driver's license. Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere wrote down the fictitious name and birthday “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” and the fictitious birthday “XXXXXX XX, 19XX” without ever providing his current passport or driver's license to verify his age and identity.

 ..........On November 21, 1979, the Appellant unwittingly entered into a “green card” marriage with Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere under the fictitious named “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere, and under the fictitious birthday “XXXXXX XX, 19XX.”

 ..........On or after November 30, 1979, Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Respondents Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro, Esq. engaged in an act of aggravated identity theft and immigration fraud by giving the Appellant form I-130 to sign so as to sponsor the Respondent for IR1 residence under the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” and fictitious birthday “XXXXXX XX, 19XX” without requiring their client to produce his current passport.

 ..........In December, 1979, Respondent Uzamere left for Nigeria, abandoning the Appellant and leaving her pregnant with his daughter Tara A. Uzamere. On January 28, 1980, Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered the port of New York as a lawful permanent resident.

..........Between 1980 and 1981, the Government Respondent revoked Ehigie's IR2 immigration benefits because in 1977, Ehigie applied for IR2 immigration benefits as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, single, unmarried and under 21 years of age under immigration file number A35 201 224; and that two (2) years later, Ehigie tricked the Appellant into applying for IR1 benefits using the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere”, changing his immigration status to married to the Appellant and over twenty-one (21) years of age under immigration file number A24 027 764. See report prepared by Respondent Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit A.3

 ..........On or around October 1, 2003, Jack Gladstein mailed to the Appellant correspondence falsely holding Appellant's ex-husband out to be “Godwin Uzamere.”

..........On or around September 25, 2008, Government Respondent's employee McCarthy falsely made the accusation that Appellant “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 Appellant in  December 2008. See documentation regarding USA v. Uzamere, 1:08-cr-114-1 attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit B.

 ..........On or around October 8, 2008, Defendant Eugene Uzamere hand-delivered a fraudulent affirmation and a fraudulent, unauthenticated,4, 5 unnotarized counter-affidavit from Nigeria which stated that “The plaintiff who has openly professed her mental illness is also delusional and outlandish in her claims”; and “I have before now, ignored the Plaintiff's outburst but her claim to be married to my cousin who was not in the United States at the time of our marriage is a new twist to this sad tale. . .Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged.” Respondent Eugene Uzamere produced fraudulent a copy of a Nigerian passport bearing the number A05588053, but no name; a copy of a social security card receipt with the number XXX-XX-1205, with the name and address “Godwin E. Uzamere, 239 Clifton Avenue, Apt. 3, Brooklyn, New York, 11216.” The unnamed passport copies and the social security receipt were notarized by “Kate Ezomo, Principal Registrar, Commissioner for Oaths”, in Nigeria. Respondent Uzamere did not produce any PATRIOT Act-acceptable identification, namely, a current passport or a driver's license. Government Respondent's employee Respondent Sunshine did not contact the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria to commission a diplomatic or consular officer for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the fraudulent foreign document that was presented to him by attorney Osato Uzamere on behalf of his client, Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. See fraudulent affirmation and fraudulent foreign counter-affidavit Verified Complaint Exhibit C.

 ..........Also, during October 2008, Respondent McCarthy and Respondent Cowles gave Appellant's criminal attorney Beth Mann a copy of the I-130 immigration sponsorship form that Appellant 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.”

 ..........On or around January 6, 2009, Appellant 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 correspondence from Respondent McCarthy dated January 6, 2009 attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit A.

 ..........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 Appellant 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 and order dated January 12, 2009 is attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit D.

 ..........On January 20, 2009, the Appellant e-mailed a complaint to former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Robin Renee Sanders regarding Justice Sunshine's fraudulent decision regarding her ex-husband's identity. Ten (10) days later, the Appellant received documentation from the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria confirming that anyone using authentication services must produce authenticate identification. See e-mail to former Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders and response from the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit E. See fraudulent passport cover and fraudulent social security number attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit C.

 ..........On May 12, 2009, Respondent Sunshine rendered his decision recognizing the identity of Appellant'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 Appellant is denied in its entirety. The Respondent is the husband in conformity with the parties marriage on November 21, 1979. See Respondent Sunshine's decision attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit F.

 ..........On July 7, 2009, the Appellant filed an action for fraud against her ex-husband and against Respondents Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. From the year 2009 to 2011, Appellant engaged Government Respondent's court to address the Jewish attorneys actions of identity theft. All of them rendered decisions preventing the Appellant from filing any criminal complaint against the Jewish Respondents.

 ..........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 fraudulent affirmations of Respondents Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit G.

 ..........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 Appellant's false arrest for threatening Respondent Justice Sunshine for the sole purpose of obtaining an advantage in the action for fraud that Appellant filed against Respondents Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. The false charges against  Appellant were dismissed. See correspondence from Rikers Island, attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit H.

 ..........On November 5, 2009, Government Respondent's employees Respondents Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack, on their own and/or by courthouse employees illegally commenting on and providing nonpublic information regarding Appellant'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 Respondents Scott Shifrel and Mortimer Zuckerman in violation of 22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(8)(11); that said nonpublic information was provided to the Daily News, by staff writer Scott Shifrel,6 who did knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought publish a newspaper article entitled Hate-spewing Wacko Goes into Fit in Court, that illegally disclosed Appellant's nonpublic information that was acquired by the Government Respondent's court during the adjudication of Appellant's cases.

 ..........Also on or around November 6, 2009, the company ALM.com, by its website Law.com, published an article entitled New York Woman Arrested for Threatening Judge; that said nonpublic information was provided to the Law.com, by staff writer Mark Fass who did knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought, publish the Internet article that illegally disclosed Appellant's nonpublic information that was acquired by the Respondent judges during their adjudication of Appellant's cases, leaving out Jews Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Scott Shifrel's and Mortimer Zuckerman's commission of misprision of felony, fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft.

 ..........Also around November 6, 2009, Respondent Jazmin M. Quary, a paralegal, fraudulently and with malice aforethought, committed misprision of felony, fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft by conspiring with, at the very least, corrupt Jewish attorney Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and other Respondents by publishing the Internet article Woman Sues Federal Government For NOT Deporting her Husband (http://workitoutmom.blogspot.com/2011/06/woman-sues-federal-government-for-not. html), to give the impression of being a legal expert so as to be believed when publicly disparaging Appellant's lawsuit Uzamere v. Bush, 08:CV-891 at her website; by stating the following:

“In Uzamere v. Bush, et al., Cheryl D. Uzamere alleged that her “American” husband Ehigie Edobor a.k.a. "Goodwin" Uzamere was a ringleader in a green card scam marriage. After filing her complaint with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Office in 1980 Mrs. Uzamere pursued her allegations in the Federal Court system.

She claims that her husband, Mr. Uzamere tricked her into signing his immigration paperwork and ultimately abandoned her and their daughter. She claims that she had no idea his name was fictitious, that he was not a United States citizen and that he had obtained entrance into the United States illegally. She claims that Mr. Uzamere, a Nigerian Senator, and his immigration attorneys created this scheme to outsmart someone that had no knowledge of the law or his true origin.

I was beginning to feel sorry for the woman, but then the case took a unusual turn: The funny part of this case is that in addition to suing the husband and his attorneys she is also going after New York State (yes, the entire state), New York State Grievance Committee for the 2nd and 11th Departments, City of New York (yes, the entire city), New York City Police Department, New York City Human Resources Administration/Department of Social Services, Google Corporation (yes, the entire Google) and YouTube Corporation (same here), Condoleeza Rice (what did she do?), Michael Chertoff, Julie Myers, The United States Of America, United States Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Department of Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Why? Because she thinks that they should have known that he was lying. She believes that they should have discovered the fraud and uncovered the truth. See the remainder of the complaint here.

There is no surprise that Mrs. Uzamere's complaint was dismissed for not stating a claim as to the Federal government Respondents and for having a frivolous cause. But it sure was entertaining!”7 See negative internet articles concerning Appellant and Appellant's Verified Complaint Docket No. 08-CV-891, attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit K1.

 ..........During November 2009, while the Appellant was unlawfully imprisoned, Appellant explained to her criminal attorneys Timothy Gumkowski and Joyce Kendrick that the Respondents had engaged in aggravated identity theft with reference to Appellant's ex-husband's identity. Respondent Kendrick told Appellant to let it go.

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

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

 ..........On December 24, 2009, Appellant 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 Appellant for court. In his decision dated January 25, 2010, Respondent Schack stated that “The Court is concerned that Appellant UZAMERE is unfit to proceed. . .Therefore, the instant matter is adjourned to Friday, March 19, 2010. . .” See interim decision of Respondent Schack attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit I.

  ..........On or near February 23, 2010, while the Appellant 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 Appellant to be kidnapped and hospitalized by Respondent New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center.

   ..........During Appellant'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 Appellant that not only had NYPCC refused to accept Appellant as a client, but that virtually all the not-for-profit outpatient mental health facilities that Ms. Velcimé contacted rejected her request to provide Appellant with outpatient psychiatric services.

 ..........On July 13, 2010, Government Respondent's employee Respondent Schack rendered a decision falsely holding “Godwin Uzamere” to be is Appellant's husband; and further stated that it is “ORDERED, that the instant complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that Appellant 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 Verified Complaint Exhibit J.

 ..........On August 16, 2010, Appellant 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 Appellant 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, Appellant 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 Appellant 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, Appellant 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. Appellant 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 Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Appellant 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, Appellant 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, Appellant 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, Appellant 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, Appellant 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 “Appellant 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 Appellant 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 Appellant 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 Appellant'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 Appellant's apartment door, embarrassing Appellant within earshot of her neighbors and frightening the Appellant. When the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of New York identified themselves, Appellant asked them if she had committed a crime. The marshals stalled for a few seconds, and then said that Appellant had not committed any crimes. When Appellant asked the U.S. Marshals why they were there, the U.S. Marshal that banged on Appellant's door said “I'm gonna annoy you like you annoyed Judge Garaufis.” When Appellant 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 Appellant's door. He also asked Appellant “is your daughter Tara home?”, to find out if Appellant was home alone. Within minutes of Appellant telling them that her daughter Tara was there, they left.

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

 ..........From July 6, 2011, the date in which Appellant 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 Appellant for the offenses for which Appellant still stands accused. According to Respondent Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, the judges who rendered decisions on Appellant's appeal for her lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv were not indicated on the decision because others unknown to Appellant told Respondent O'Hagan Wolfe that Appellant 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 Appellant's apartment, speaking about Appellant's psychiatric issues in the hallway and shaming Appellant within earshot of her neighbors. Respondents Flores and Bolton said that Respondent U.S. Marshal Service8 told them that Appellant contacted Respondent Mental Health Association's LifeNet psychiatric helpline and made threats of bodily harm against Respondent Garaufis. Appellant 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 Appellant's attorney to examine Appellant's civil claims. Also, at the behest of Respondent Garaufis, Appellant alleges that Respondent O'Hagan Wolfe returned Appellant's appellate brief, all of Appellant's motions, Joint Appendix A and Joint Appendix B that Appellant 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 Appellant's appellate documents were returned. See copies of UPS envelopes for Appellant'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 Verified Complaint Exhibit K and Verified Complaint Exhibit L.

 ..........In June/July 2011, Respondent Garaufis illegally authorized Respondent FBI to authorize Cablevision to monitor the non-content information of Appellant's telephone calls in order to find something that could be used to blackmail the Appellant, in violation of 18 USC §2709 and 18 USC §3511. Respondent Garaufis authorized the FBI to use any non-content information regarding Appellant's outpatient psychiatric clinic and her government health insurance providers to create a story that Appellant threatened Respondent Garaufis, other federal judges and employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service. Appellant faxed a copy of a complaint to U.S. Attorney Preetinder Bharara. Thereafter, Respondent Davis called9, 10 Appellant again, frightening Appellant by telling Appellant that Appellant would be forcibly hospitalized because Respondent Garaufis falsely told Respondent U.S. Marshal Service that Appellant had threatened judges and other federal employees at the (federal) Medicaid office. Appellant uploaded their conversation to her website.

 ..........In the month of August, 2011 Respondent Davis contacted Respondent Sarpong for the purpose of forcing Appellant to go to Respondent Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, where Appellant 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 FPS11 has investigated UZAMERE multiple times for similar behavior, we are well aware of HER mental health history. Based on that information, a referral was made to LifeNet for mental health intervention on July 07 2011. Subsequently, UZAMERE's Intensive Case Manager (ICM) Bridgett Davis of the New York State Office of Mental Health has advised that UZAMERE's treatment has been transferred to the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program. We were informed that CHERYL D. UZAMERE is being treated as a patient by your program and we would like to keep you abreast of this situation as it evolves. We also request that we be notified as HER status changes in particular any change from in-patient to out-patient treatment and in the case of the latter any refusal of treatment. In addition, please notify FPS of any relapses or deterioration of HER condition that may pose a risk to life or property.” See letter from Denis P. McGowan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit M.

 ..........On February 26, 2012, 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 Appellant's psychiatric treatment plan from the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team, attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit M).

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

 ..........On March 15, 2013, Appellant sent a copy of her lawsuit and a her complaint regarding Respondent McCarthy to Respondent the Professional Responsibility Program. Appellant explained in her e-mail that Respondent McCarthy violated 18 USC §4, misprision of felony based on Respondent's McCarthy's having knowledge of the actual commission of a Allen E. Kaye's and Harvey Shapiro's identity theft and her continued refusal to it make known; and her refusal to obey Vermont’s Rules of Professional Conduct's Rule 3.4, Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel. See letters from Vermont's Rules of Professional Conduct, attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit V.

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

 ..........On April 9, 2013, Appellant e-mailed a formal complaint to Respondent Congressman Jeffries containing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services confirming that Appellant did not threaten anyone during any of the phone calls Appellant made to the CMS call center; however Respondent Jeffries made no attempt to respond to Appellant'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 Appellant's exhibits proved occurred. Respondent Sullivan committed the requisite affirmative acts by prohibiting the court's staff from uploading Appellant'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 Appellant's subpoena duces tecum in order to: 1) obtain proof of Appellant ex-husband's identity from Government Respondent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service so as to leave no doubt regarding the identity of Appellant'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 Appellant's ex-husband unchallenged; 3) end the violation of Appellant's and witnesses civil and human rights; 4) end the Government's Respondents involvement in the encroachment of the Jewish religion; 5) reestablish Appellant'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 Appellant's exhibits too voluminous, by giving Appellant the opportunity to learn what Respondent Smith means by “too voluminous” so that Appellant 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 Appellant''s Amended Verified Complaint: “. . .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 Appellant 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 Appellant can again apply the continuing violations doctrine. See the following: 1) Daily News article criminally holding Appellant to be mentally unfit and that “Godwin Uzamere” is Appellant's husband; 2) page two (2) of Respondent Garaufis' Order regarding Appellant'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 Appellant's exhibits as “too voluminous” but being vague as to why the 245 pages of exhibits are considered too voluminous, attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit R. Also see Magistrate Patricia A. Sullivan's Report and Recommendation attached as Joint Appendix C.

 ..........On December 7, 2013, Respondent Federal Republic of Nigeria, by its elected official Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere conspired with Esohe Aihie, a private citizen of Nigerian to libel and publicly denigrate the Appellant with yet more unproven, unprovable and untrue statements, by saying the following:

Why is it now you are talking since you claim to know his family leaving with you there in the United States why haven't you contacted them? You too have collected money from his political associates to film this video. If it may interest you to know Senator Uzamere travels to America quiet often why haven't your immigration services accosted him. Your video is filled with animosity there is more to it you have allowed yourself to be caught up in Nigerian politics grow up and stop deforming the man's character your story is not substantiated. If you are saying the truth your embassy would have helped you and other human rights, maybe he has divorced you and now that you know he is rich you are not happy about it we know your types.”

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

  ..........Appellant will establish the following:

  ..........The District Court abused its discretion by committing misprision of the Respondents' felonies. There is established federal case law that requires federal employees, including judges to report the commission of crimes to the appropriate law enforcement agency.

  ..........The District Court abused its discretion by failing to certify its reasons in writing for dismissing Appellant's Complaint. These include subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue. In the case of improper venue, the District Court lacked the discretion to render any substantive decision on Appellant's lawsuit because of its own admission that Appellant's lawsuit was filed in the wrong venue.

  ..........The District Court abused its discretion by preventing Appellant from proceeding in forma pauperis for review of her allegations of Respondents' civil and human rights violations. Coppedge v. United States' view of good faith does not require a pro se litigant's complaint to show any degree of merit.

  ..........The District Court abused its discretion by rendering its decision based on the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

  ARGUMENT

POINT ONE

The District Court Committed Fraud Upon the Court and Abused Its Discretion by Committing Misprision of Felony and by Criminally and Fraudulently Treating Immigration Marriage Fraud 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.”

District Court's Refusal to Sign Subpoena – First Act of Fraud Upon the Court

..........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.”

 ..........Appellant never had any intention of “filing” – that is, requiring the District Court to preserve Appellant's subpoena duces tecum in the District Court's permanent records. Appellant's purpose for the subpoena duces tecum is now what it was when Appellant 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 Appellant's request for the Clerk of Court's signature was so illegally uncommon that the Appellant 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 Appellant's subpoena duces tecum was an act of fraud upon the District Court rendering its decision void ab initio.

Misprision of Felony – District Court's Second Act of Fraud Upon the Court

 ..........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 and 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.

POINT TWO

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

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

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

POINT THREE

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

  ..........According to Coppedge v. United States, “The requirement that an appeal in forma pauperis be taken "in good faith" is satisfied when the 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.”

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

  ..........Is Government Respondents' commission of misprision and their violation of Appellant's civil and human rights a non-frivolous issue? It certainly is. For example, with respect to Appellant's right to equal protection under the law as a mentally disabled individual, Government Respondents' misuse of Appellant's mental health status to denigrate her criminal complaints, kidnap her and place her in an inpatient psychiatric setting violates the Supreme Court's decision held in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), that “[u]njustified isolation . . . is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability,” observing that “institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable of or unworthy of participating in community life.” 527 U.S. at 597, 600. The “integration mandate” of Title II of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §791 et seq., as expressed in federal regulations and Olmstead, requires that when a state provides services to individuals with disabilities, it must do so “in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.” The “most integrated setting,” according to the federal regulations, is “a setting that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent possible.” 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d); 28 C.F.R. pt. 35 app. A.

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

 ..........Appellant provided the District Court, and now this Court with her exhibit of Respondent Daily News' article entitled “Hate-Spewing Wacko Goes Into Fit in Court.” Respondents Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel openly admit obtaining information in the article from “one courthouse source, a clear violation of 22 NYCRR §§50.1(D)12, 100.3(B)(8)(11)13. Respondent Daily News' broadcasted as true and correct a fraudulent counter-affidavit that held Respondent Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and “Godwin Uzamere” to be two (2) different persons although Respondent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service found that14 the names Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” belong to the same person. Respondent New York State Unified Court System Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine adjudicated that Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere on May 12, 2009.

 ..........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 Appellant's civil and human rights by the Government Respondents are serious issues. As a private citizen with bipolar disorder, the Appellant 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 Appellant has satisfied Coppedge, this Court must allow the Appellant to proceed in forma pauperis.

POINT FOUR

The District Court Abused Its Discretion By Rendering Its Decision Based Solely on the Jewish Religion

 
Establishment Clause – First Amendment

 ..........“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,15 403 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 Court's decision in this case established the “Lemon Test”, which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

  • The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose (Purpose Prong);

  • The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion (Effect Prong);

  • 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, Appellant'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 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 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/ultra-orthodox_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 where 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 site PolitickerNJ.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. See Exhibit A (do not misconstrue with Verified Complaint Exhibit A). 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 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 Appellant has already done. See racist literature containing Jewish doctrines attached as Joint Appendix D.

CONCLUSION

          Based upon the foregoing, this Court should 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 Appellant's civil and human rights based on the U.S. Government's relationship as a signatory with the United Nations since 1948.

Dated: January 4, 2013

 

CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE

mysignature2.jpg
________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY  11208
Tel.: (718) 235-6836
Fax: (718) 235-1290

 

 

1   Issued by Whom. The clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it. That party must complete it before service.

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]. 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.” See Appellant's Brief, 11-2713 and Ankenbrandt v. Richards, attached as Joint Appendix B. 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   F.R.A.P. Rule 30(a)(2): Excluded Material. Memoranda of law in the district court should not be included in the appendix unless they have independent relevance. Parts of the record may be relied on by the court or the parties even though not included in the appendix.

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

5   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. . .”

6   22 NYCRR 100.3(8)(11): “. . .a judge shall not make any public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court within the United States or its territories. The judge shall require similar abstention on the part of court personnel...” and that “a judge shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity.” New York State Civil Rights Law §79-h (Shield Laws) affords members of the media to keep their news sources confidential. According to Wikipedia.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States), however, “currently the U.S. federal government has not enacted any national shield laws. . .” Please refer to Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), in which reporter Paul Branzburg of the Louisville Courier-Journal, in the course of his reporting duties, witnessed people manufacturing and using hashish. He was ordered to name his sources. Earl Caldwell, a reporter for the New York Times, interviewed leaders of the Black Panthers, and Paul Pappas, a Massachusetts television reporter who also reported on the Black Panthers, were called to testify before separate grand juries about illegal actions they might have witnessed. They refused, citing privilege under the Press Clause, and were held in contempt. In a fiercely split decision, the Court ruled 5-4 against the existence of reportorial privilege in the Press Clause of the First Amendment.

7   Appellant respectfully reminds this court of the continuing violations doctrine. In tort law, if a Respondent commits a series of illegal acts against another person, or, in criminal law, if someone commits a continuing crime (which can be charged as a single offense), the period of limitation begins to run from the last act in the series. 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. Please see paragraphs 46 and 47.

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

9   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 Appellant's conversation with Respondent Davis.

10 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.”

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

12  22 NYCRR §50.1(D): Court employees shall not disclose any confidential information received in the course of their official duties, except as required in the performance of such duties, nor use such information for personal gain or advantage.

13  22 NYCRR 100.3(8)(11): A judge shall not make any public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court within the United States or its territories. The judge shall require similar abstention on the part of court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control. This paragraph does not prohibit judges from making public statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining for public information the procedures of the court. This paragraph does not apply to proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity. A judge shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity.

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

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

Respondent United States continues to allow Israeli citizens employed in high governmental positions to violate the PATRIOT Act by refusing to require “Godwin Uzamere” to visit Respondent’s government office in person to present PATRIOT Act-accepted proper identification, and to commit misprision of felony, immigration fraud, aggravated identity theft, RICO, obstruction of justice.

Want proof?  See for yourself: http://www.intelius.com; or http://www.knowx.com; or http://www.ussearch.com or any other skip trace search engine. According to any skip trace search engine, “Godwin Uzamere” does not exist. 

obamawearingskullcap.jpg

U.S._Supreme_Court_Judge_Ruth_Ginsburg.jpgU.S._Supreme_Court_Judge_Elena_Kagan.jpgU.S._Supreme_Court_Judge_Stephen_G._Breyer.jpgmort_zuckerman.jpgjudgegaraufis.jpgJudgeWilliamESmith.jpg
JudgeSullivan.jpg
allenkaye.jpg
jackgladstein2.jpgSamanthaPower.jpg

 

Intelius.comproof2.jpg

Corrupt Israeli Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and wannabe-Jew Scalia attended a ceremonial dinner for the opening of National Institute of Judaic Law. One of its professors, Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, teaches that:  “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.” The same Israeli justices used their denial of certiorari as an excuse not to report the crimes of fellow Israeli citizens. 18 USC §4’s requirement to report a felony has nothing to do with whether or not a court grants or denies certiorari. Reporting a felony and granting certiorari is like comparing apples and dog shit.  Also, federal judges are forbidden to attend facilities that engage in discrimination that is forbidden by federal law.  Judaic law discriminates against Gentiles.  Lastly, on two occasions Israelis Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan rendered a decision on two (2) occasions in which a crime that Petitioner irrefutably proven was committed by Israeli attorneys was not reported to secular law enforcement by any of the justices at the behest of the three (3) Israeli justices. Furthermore, the three (3) Israeli justices acted in a way as though the denial of certiorari and their enforcement of the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser, which in fact is misprision of felony were legal acts within the discretion of the court. The court’s decision was criminal because it acted outside of its discretion. 

Israeli Justices said that "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me  under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God.” U.S. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan perjured themselves when they took this oath because their plan was and always has been to force Judaic law on U.S.’ Gentile citizenry. 

Welcome_to_NIJL.gif

 

Michael_J._Broyde_--_Center_for_the_Study_of_Law_and_Religion.gif

informingonJews.jpg

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

Racist Jews Robert Abrams and Jon O. Newman were two (2) of several Israeli citizens in U.S. government positions who orchestrated events to ensure that C. Vernon Mason, Alton Maddox and Colon Moore would never obtain their law licenses, even Mr. Maddox and Mr. Alton’s actions never rose to the level of crimes. However, Appellate Judge Newman, as well as the rest of the appellate judges for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, refused to review the Petitioner’s appellate brief which contained proof that Israeli attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman engaged in, inter alia: 1) misprision of felony; 2) immigration fraud; 3) violation of the PATRIOT Act; 4) fraud; 5) identity theft; 6) aggravated theft; 7) RICO and 8) obstruction of justice.

  

AltonMaddox.jpg

 C._Vernon_Mason.jpgColin_Moore.gif

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

E
higie Edobor Uzamere never produced his passport or any other proper proof of his identity because Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro bribed New York City Clerk Joseph Visceglia to withhold what would have become the petitioner’s and her daughter’s African name had Joseph Visceglia not accepted Allen Kaye’s and Harvey Shapiro’s bribe to allow Ehigie to fill out the forms without producing his passport.  The marriage certificate with the fake name “Godwin E. Uzamere” is a natural consequence of a fake name being put on the marriage affidavit.

marriageaffidavitbackpg.jpg

marriageaffidavitfront.jpg

 MyMarriageCertificate2.jpg

 

==========================================================================================
This is a copy of the falsified I-130 form that petitioner’s ex-husband paid corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro to falsify. All Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro would have had to do to verify petitioner’s ex-husband’s identity was to obtain a copy of his passport. The attorneys chose not to ask him for his passport, relying instead on the marriage certificate, produced by the marriage affidavit for which the corrupt attorneys paid government employee Joseph Visceglia not to ask ex-husband for identification.
 
 I-130.jpg

uscisPage28.gif

USCISPage25.gif

USCISPage26.gif

 USCISPage27.gif

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

Jack Gladstein is the third Israeli citizen with a U.S. position who engaged in not requiring “Godwin Uzamere” to appear in person with PATRIOT Act-accepted proper identification

 

 1stletterjackgladstein.jpg

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

On page 5 of Petitioner’s divorce action, Petitioner said the following:  “That the Defendants presented the marriage license, in its entirety to the law firm of Allen Kaye as a truthful document.  That Allen Kaye, Mr. Shapiro or someone in the law firm’s employ presented the marriage license, in its entirety, to the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service as true and correct for the purpose of the Defendant obtaining permanent residence through sponsorship by the Plaintiff.”  Immediately after the Israeli justice NYS Justice Prus reviewed Petitioner’s divorce action, Israeli interference for the purpose of preventing Petitioner from reporting the crimes of corrupt Israeli attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein increased, and has never stopped from that time until now.

 verifiedcompg5.jpg

 

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

During Petitioner’s divorce, Petitioner submitted the following documents that irrefutably established that Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was her husband and the father of Tara A. Uzamere: 

Tara1.jpg

SenatorUzamere2.jpg 
“Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere is my father. I am willing to submit to a blood test to prove that he is my biological father. Mortimer Zuckerman is lying on my mother and lying on me.” (see Affidavit, page 3, paragraph 22). Why did Mortimer Zuckerman and NYS Justice Arthur M. Schack publish and adjudicate the lie and say that Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere is not Petitioner’s husband and not Tara’s father? Why did they condemn my daughter to the status of bastard child?
taraaffidavitpg1.jpg 

taraaffidavitpg2.jpg

taraaffidavitpg3.jpg

 

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

Prepared by:
Rachel A. McCarthy
Bar Counsel
Department of Homeland Security
US. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Room 103
70 Kimball Avenue
South Burlington, 05403
Tel.: (802) 660-5043
Fax: (802) 660-5067
E-mail:
rachel.mccarthy@dhs.gov

 

USCISReportbyRachelMcCarthy.jpg

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

During Petitioner’s litigation of her divorce action and her attempts to obtain information from Rachel McCarthy by leaving angry telephone messages, Rachel McCarthy falsely accused Petitioner of 18 USC §111(a) (simple assault) with a federal crime. . .and later on dropped the charges when Petitioner chose to face a federal judge to complain.

 

 

USAvs.Uzamere--Information.jpg

 usdismissalorder.jpg

 ==========================================================================================
Do you notice anything about this document from Nigeria that was submitted to a court of Respondent THE UNITED STATES? It was not authenticated by a U.S. Embassy consular office and a U.S. Department of State authentication employee. Why didn’t Israeli Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine have corrupt Nigerian-American attorney Osato Uzamere arrested for presenting fraudulent documents to court? The questions begs to be asked again: Why are the Israeli citizens in U.S. government positions not requiring “Godwin Uzamere” to appear in person to present PATRIOT Act-accepted proper identification?

 

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 (any book, paper, statement, record, account, writing, or other document, or any portion thereof, of whatever character and in whatever form, as well as any copy thereof equally with the original, which is not in the United States) which it is desired to introduce in evidence in any criminal action or proceeding in any United States court under the provisions of section 1 of the act of June 25, 1948 ( sec. 1, 62 Stat. 945; 28 U.S.C. 1732 ). Such testimony may also be taken to determine whether the foreign document was made in the regular course of business and whether it was the regular course of business to make such document. The term “business” includes business, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind. ( Sec. 1, 62 Stat. 945, 28 U.S.C. 1732.)

 

 eugeneaffirmationpg1.jpg
 eugeneaffirmationpg2.jpg

cousinuzamerepg1.jpg 

 
cousinuzamerepg2b1.jpg

==========================================================================================
Page two of the Preliminary Conference Order shows that Petitioner’s ex-husband did not attend. NYCRR 202.16(f)(1)(b) requires the presence of both spouses. In NYC Justice Sunshine’s interim decision, he said that “Here, although defendant has failed to interpose an answer, he has submitted opposition to plaintiff's motion for spousal and child support, has filed his own motion to dismiss, and has participated (through his attorney) in a preliminary conference. As noted above, such actions weigh against a finding of default in matrimonial actions. Moreover, the opposition submitted by defendant raises a genuine issue as to whether or not plaintiff and defendant were married in the first instance. In the court's view, the existence of such a threshold issue further weighs against awarding a default judgment in divorce action. Under the circumstances, plaintiff's motion for a default judgment is denied.” If Senator Uzamere claimed that he is not petitioner’s husband, why would he need to attend a preliminary conference that is meant to be attended by spouses only??? Why would Israeli Sunshine say that Senator Uzamere attend through his attorney if NYCRR §202.16(f)(1)(b) requires the presence of both spouses? The questions begs to be asked again: Why are the Israeli citizens in U.S. government positions not requiring “Godwin Uzamere” to appear in person to present PATRIOT Act-accepted proper identification?

 

NYCRR 202.16(f)(1)(b) Both parties personally must be present in court at the time of the conference, and the judge personally shall address the parties at some time during the conference.

sunshinedecision5-12-09pg1.jpg

 
sunshinedecision5-12-09pg2.jpg
 
judgedemicdecpg1.jpg
 
26332nysappellatedecision.jpg
 

falsepreliminaryconferenceorder.jpg

 sunshinedecpg9.jpg


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

Petitioner’s e-mail to/from Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders of the U.S. Embassy regarding Israeli Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine’s plan to engage in identity theft (please note: Israeli Justice Sunshine never arrested Osato Eugene Uzamere for presenting the fake documents to court)
emailtorobinsanders.jpg 

usembassyemail.jpg 

 

NYS Justices’ Decision (lower court and appellate court) – Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere is Petitioner’s husband and father of the child of the marriage. 

On November 5, 2009, nearly six (6) months after Respondent New York State’s Unified Court System decided that Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, was Petitioner’s husband and father of the child of the marriage, and nearly thirty (30) after the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service decided that Ehigie Edobor Uzamere had committed immigration fraud based on his applying for IR1 benefits in a fake name name while receiving IR2 benefits in his real name, private citizen Israeli Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel, and government-employed Israelis  Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine, Justice Schack and other as yet unnamed Israelis employed by Respondent State of New York conspired to illegally publicize nonpublic information regarding Petitioner's divorce, trumped-up criminal and Petitioner’s fraud cases. They also falsely accused Petitioner of making threats against Israeli Justice Sunshine, charges that were later dismissed. They also conspired to accept as true and correct falsified affirmation that claimed that “Godwin E. Uzamere” was Petitioner’s husband, and to adjudicate said lie to be true, even though the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration and the New York State Unified Court System had already adjudicated Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be petitioner’s husband and the father of Tara A. Uzamere.
 
Twenty-five (25) days after the false charges against the Petitioner were dropped, private citizen (and contributor to FEGS) Israeli Mortimer Zuckerman conspired with government-funded, Israeli-controlled FEGS, Inc. to terminate Petitioner from the programs based on statements that Petitioner made on her website (http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net) that were FEGS, Inc. said were anti-Semitic. 

After Petitioner filed other lawsuits in federal court with government-employed Israeli federal district judge Nicholas Garaufis, Judge Garaufis conspired with Charles Dunne of the U.S. Marshal Service, George Venizelos of the FBI, Denis McGowan of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bridget Davis of the NYS Office of Mental Health, Scott Berger, Samuel Sarpong of NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation and several other government-employed and government-financed Israeli-controlled not-for-profit organizations to authorize a national security letter (NSL) to monitor the non-content information of Plaintiff’s telephone calls. Thereafter the Respondents used the non-content information (Petitioner’s name; name of entity Petitioner contacted; minutes on the phone, etc.) and attached a false story to the non-content information.  Respondents, majority of whom are citizens are Israeli, accused Petitioner of threatening unknown federal judges and employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid; however, no judge ever came forward to challenge the Petitioner, and CMS Senior Correspondence Representative Kathie Lewis said that Petitioner never threatened anyone. To here the conversation in which Petitioner was falsely accused threatening to do bodily harm to judges and murder CMS workers, visit http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/uzamere_v_usa.html; or access the audio directly by clicking the following links: Davis Conversation -- Click Here      FBIconversation - click here    Whole CMS Conversation - click here.

 

 USDHSletter.jpg

psychtreatmentpg1.jpg 

psychtreatmentpg2.jpg 

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

Mortimer Zuckerman said in a news release: “This country has provided me with extraordinary opportunities, and I am glad for the chance to support scientific leadership in a field I believe is so essential to all our lives.”  Really? Mortimer Zuckerman publicly made fun of Petitioner by publicly calling her a “wacko”; then conspired with FEGS’ to render the petitioner persona non grata from FEGS’ outpatient services forever, because petitioner memorialized the same complaints in her website (http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net) that Petitioner memorialized in this petition.  Petitioner was rendered persona non grata from all of FEGS’ mental health programs less than a month after Morty publicized that Petitioner is a “wacko” and mentally unfit.  Years later, Mortimer Zuckerman conspired with the executive leadership of God’s Love We Deliver and Megan Jacobs to render Petitioner persona non grata, and to withhold food from the Petitioner. Please note that God’s Love We Deliver receives government funding. Mortimer Zuckerman conspired with Karen Pearl and Megan Jacobs to withhold food and terminate Petitioner from their food program after Petitioner voiced displeasure over the Jewish employees’ ability to obtain large salaries while they were unable to send Petitioner’s food to her in a timely manner. 

Mortimer Zuckerman’s ridiculous newspaper made the following untrue statements about petitioner: 1) “wacko”; 2) “mentally unfit”; 2) “shoot the judge in the head”; 3) “she’s a smart person and she knows how to use the system” (this is true); 4) “stripping and screaming about her ‘senator’ husband”; 5) “She comes in here and files all these papers and threatens people” (threatens people with legal action; this is true); 6) “The senator, however, is a cousin of her actual husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to an affidavit he filed in Supreme court.” Guess Morty was right in changing the title of his libelous, untrue news article. After all, it would look damn bad for a mental institution to take charitable donations from someone who described an innocent, mentally disabled African American as “hate-spewing wacko."
 
 

uzamerewalkerfamily.jpg 

mort_zuckerman.jpg
 GodsLoveWeDeliver--exhibits5B.jpg meganjacobsB.jpg
 

 GodsLoveWeDeliver--exhibits3B.jpg
 Sasha_Obama_and_others.jpg

==========================================================================================
 
Conclusion: Jews/Israelis must not be allowed to violate the 1st Amendment by superimposing Judaic law over the U.S. Constitution; the public must be warned
 
At the Jewish website http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v15/mj_v15i20.html#CDX, there are number of references that speak to Jews’ hatred of dark-skinned people (people of African and Arab descent, based on the doctrine that dark skin is the sign of God’s curse.  One of those references is Artsot Ha-Hayyim “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.”  This means that no matter how heinous the crime, how egregious the act, the United States government, the New York State government and the New York City government will never violate a Jew’s right to due process of law, right to equal protection the law, nor will they subject lawbreaking Jews to cruel and unusual punishment – but with Gentiles, and especially with dark-skinned Gentiles, the Jew-run U.S. government will be unmerciful and unconstitutional. Consider the religious bias that Jews have against Gentiles, and especially dark-skinned Gentiles, Jewish judges should never sit in judgment of any Gentile – and they should be watched and never trusted.

Artsot Ha-Hayyim, Lands of Life, Written by Dov Ber Schwartz (live in Boro Park, Brooklyn, New York)

ArtsotHa-Hayyim--TitlePage.jpg 
 ArtsotHaHayyim52A2.gif
 ArtsotHaHayyim52B2.gif

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

Rabbi Huna also said in R. Joseph’s name: “You have prevented me from doing something in the dark. . .therefore you seed will be ugly and dark-skinned.

  Informing on Fellow Jews Who Commit Crimes

 

 

informingonJews.jpg

Babylonian Talmud, Tractate 113a:  “Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the law 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; if this cannot be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him (subterfuge:  deception by artifice or strategem in order to conceal, escape, or evade). 

“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.”

“Jewish law:  “You shall not avenge nor bear a grudge against the children of your people – but you can avenge and bear a grudge against others” (that is, against Gentiles. . .It is a commandment for every person to love each and every Jew as he loves himself. . .” 

 Rabbi_Bar-Chayim__A_Jew_Is_Called__Man__-_Part_4__2_.jpg

 

The Encroachment of Jewish Religion Has Had
Deleterious Effects on Gentiles

Dilapidated apartment and building where my mentally disabled adult child was placed. U.S. Navy, Petty Officer 3rd Class, African American Sean Romaine, served his country faithfully for four (4) years and was honorably discharged, but was never told about his veterans’ benefits.

Petitioner’s mentally disabled David Paul Walker was placed in a dilapidated building and apartment by an ICL employee; the landlord was supposed to pay off the ICL worker so that the landlord could make money off the mentally ill clients’ rent to fix up the 37 violations in his building. Yet another scam to get paid by depriving underprivileged Gentiles of their civil rights and human rights.

 

Davidsoldapartment--dilapidatedstairs.jpg

 Davidsoldapartment--flammableproducts.jpg
 Davidsoldapartment--dilapidatedfloorboards.jpg
Davidsoldapartment--hangingwires.jpg

  

N.Y Jew Politician Dov Hikind nigger/schvartze face to make fun of Hamites (dark-skinned Africans); Jackie Mason (Rabbi Yacov Moshe Maza); racism against Ethiopian Jews in Israel

DovHikindinblackface.jpg

 jackie_mason.jpg tribulationsofbeinganEthiopianJew--photoonly.jpg

Jew joke – President Obama performs  fellatio for Arab dignitaries

obamakneelandbob.gif

 Obamaismyslave.jpg

Jew Bully Mortimer Zuckerman commanded one of his Daily News paparazzi slaves to take photos of President Obama’s daughter, Sasha’s derriere in short pants 

DidTheNYDailyNewsGoTooFarByPublishingPhotoofSashaObama.jpg

C. Vernon Mason, Alton Maddox and Colin Moore: Proud African American attorneys who: 1) never solicited the services of a whore; 2) never uploaded pictures of their genitals to the internet while sitting on the toilet, defecating; 3) never stalked a romantic/interest; and 4) never committed treason. Is the United States and New York States Jew-controlled judiciary not restoring their law licenses based on their being convicted? No Sol Wachtler was convicted, but his law license was restored. The same situation exists with Eliot Spitzer, who frequented Gentile whores but was not charged with a crime, and did not lose his law license. Are the Jew-controlled U.S. and New York State judiciaries withholding their law licenses based on the appearance of impropriety? Really? You mean that Mr. Mason and Mr. Alton did something worse than uploading a picture of their penises to the internet while sitting on the toilet, moving their bowels? There is something worse than this? No, logically, that cannot be it.  These two distinguished African American attorneys have been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment for nearly twenty year, not only because they are black, but to ensure that when corrupt Jews have their way with my people, that there are no culturally sensitive African Americans attorneys to help us – in short, to enslave African people, and to have the Jewish community “rape” the African community at will. 

United States Department of Veterans Affairs
                    

DUNCAN, HARRY LEE
SGT   US ARMY
KOREA
DATE OF BIRTH: 12/10/1931
DATE OF DEATH: 06/20/2006
BURIED AT: SECTION M/3 SITE C/25
CALVERTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
210 PRINCETON BOULEVARD RT 25
11933210 PRINCETON BOULEVARD
CALVERTON, NY 11933
(631) 727-5410

Harry_L._Duncan.jpg

 
PalestinePeaceNotApartheid.jpg
 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------x
STEPHEN UNTERBERG;
SUSAN ECKMAN;                  CIV NO.: 11 CIV 0720
RYAN SHUMAN;
DANICA BERNARD;            JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
STEVEN TABAK,
on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly
situated.           

                                         Plaintiffs,

          - against -                       

JIMMY CARTER,

          - and -

SIMON & SCHUSTER, Inc.,

                                         Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------x

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

          Plaintiffs file this class action against the Defendants on their own behalf and as class representatives for all others similarly situated.

INTRODUCTION

          1.     This is an action seeking damages for these Plaintiffs and all others who purchased the book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, written by Defendant JIMMY CARTER, published by Defendant SIMON & SCHUSTER, Inc., and promoted by them both as a work of non-fiction, deserving of special    weight    and   consideration   because  of  Carter's 

 According to the website Politicus USA, “. . . 46 House Democrats mobilized and asked the Judiciary Committee to investigate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for ethics violations. The Democrats’ complaint contends that Thomas’ actions, including those related to his wife’s political activism, raised concerns over potential conflicts of interest in decisions made in cases before the Supreme Court. Led by Earl Blumenaur (D-Ore) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democrats claimed in a letter that, “Public records clearly demonstrate that Justice Thomas has failed to accurately disclose information concerning the income and employment status of his wife, as required by law.” They also questioned whether Justice Thomas accurately reported gifts and inappropriately solicited donations.” It is not strange for an Israeli in a U.S. government position to be able to point out the “crimes” of Gentiles, and especially of African American Gentiles. 

U.S._Supreme_Court_Judge_Clarence_Thomas.jpg

. . .however, it has benefited Israelis who lack  gool morals, and especially those Jews who prey on innocent Gentiles. Jewish politician Anthony Weiner uploaded several photos of his penis, including the one below that appears that he was sitting on the toilet, defecating; however, he was allowed to run for public office.

AnthonyWeiner.jpg

 

ConclusiontoUNPetition6.jpg

Jewish politician Eliot Spitzer cheated on his faithful Jewish wife with a Gentile whore around the same age as his daughters; however, he did not lose his law license (even though soliciting the services of a whore is illegal pretty much everywhere in the United States and, at the very least, gives the appearance of impropriety).

EliotSpitzer.jpg

Former Court of Appeal Judge Sol Wachtler stalked – not just anyone – but a socialite Jew because he wanted to have sex with her, and was convicted of a felony and jailed in a federal prison. However, he was able to get his law license back.

SolWachtler.jpg

Jonathan Pollard, who renounced his U.S. citizenship, was convicted of treason. The Jewish community is now asking the U.S. government – the very government against which Jonathan Pollard committed treason, to allow him to go free. Outside of being a slimy, grimy, unfaithful Jew, Jonathan Pollard has been nothing but a parasite to the United States of America. How dare this arrogant dog act as though he has entitlement based on his nothing other than his being a Jew. Petitioner’s father, Harry Lee Duncan, like Petty Officer, 3rd Class Sean Romaine, was honorably discharged, had 10 children from his one wife,  and worked for the U.S. Postal Service. Petitioner’s father did not receive any special treatment – not even as a veteran. The call for American traitor Jonathan Pollard’s release is a spit in the face of men like petitioner’s father Harry Lee Duncan, who faithfully served in the U.S. Army and received no special dispensation from the U.S. government for himself or his wife and children, in spite of his efforts to keep America free.

Israeli_drumbeat.jpg

Corrupt Israeli-Jewish U.S. Supreme Court Justices – blatantly lead the entire court to commit misprision of felony in order to hide the crimes of their Israeli-American friends.

U.S._Supreme_Court_Judge_Ruth_Ginsburg.jpgU.S._Supreme_Court_Judge_Elena_Kagan.jpgU.S._Supreme_Court_Judge_Stephen_G._Breyer.jpg

 DO YOU BELIEVE ME NOW??? THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND EVERY SUBDIVISION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS UNDER JEWISH RULE.  THERE IS NO WAY THAT I CAN OBTAIN JUSTICE IF THIS HONORABLE COMMISSION SEPARATES THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE NEW YORK CITY GOVERNMENT FROM THE JEWISH COMMUNITY. THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IS NO LONGER JUST A PART OF THE GOVERNMENT – IT IS THE GOVERNMENT.

Who Controls America? Who Controls the White House? The Executive Branch: http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch. Who Controls the White House Staff: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/staff (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/staff