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

What Will SCOTUS Do?
scotusjustices2.jpg 

Did America's Premier Law Enforcement Agency
Enforce the Following Laws:

Federal Statutes violated
Committed by whom? 
Violation addressed?
Uzamere, Kaye, Shapiro
Uzamere, Kaye, Shapiro
Kaye, Shapiro
All defendants
Uzamere, Kaye, Shapiro
Uzamere, Kaye, Shapiro
   __YesRed Bouncing Check Mark__No
   __YesRed Bouncing Check Mark__No
   __YesRed Bouncing Check Mark__No
   __YesRed Bouncing Check Mark__No
   __YesRed Bouncing Check Mark__No
Federal Case Law violated
Committed by whom?
Violation addressed?
all judges in all cases
all judges in all cases
  __YesRed Bouncing Check Mark__No
 __YesRed Bouncing Check Mark__No
 
New York State Law Violated
 
Committed by whom?
 
Violation addressed? 
Uzamere
Uzamere
Uzamere, Kaye, Shapiro
  __YesRed Bouncing Check Mark__No
  __YesRed Bouncing Check Mark__No
  __YesRed Bouncing Check Mark__No
As of now, the U.S. Department of Justice, the New York State Attorney General's Office, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, 2nd Judicial Department have all suspended their continued acts of lawlessness until the Supreme Court of the United States makes a decision on my case.  If it decides against me, it will be criminal business as usual with the State of New York.
***
What will SCOTUS do?
***
I invite the public to keep abreast of the developments that take place in my case.
The world should know if justice really exist for helpless schvartzes in America.
***
***
questionmark.jpg

scotoswritletter.jpg
ussolicitorgeneralwaiverltr.jpg
nysagltrsuter.jpg
nyccorpcounselwaiverltr.jpg

-
Minus Sign 24 Minus Sign 24 Minus Sign 24
Minus Sign 13 Minus Sign 13 Minus Sign 13
*
Docket No. 09-5816 
In The

 Supreme Court of the United States

______________

Cheryl D. Uzamere

Petitioner,

- vs. -

Allen E. Kaye, P.C.; Uzamere and Associates, PLLC; Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP; Allen E. Kaye Esq.; Eugene O. Uzamere, Esq.; Robert E. Juceam, Esq.; Jack Gladstein, Esq.; Eugenia Cowles, Esq.; Rachel McCarthy, Esq.; Andrew Cuomo, Esq.; Honorable Michael Bloomberg; Honorable A. Gail Prudenti, Judge of the Appellate Court 2nd Judicial Department; Honorable Abraham Gerges, Judge of the Supreme Court, Kings County; Honorable Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Judge of Supreme Court Kings County; James Edward Pelzer, Clerk of Appellate Court 2nd Judicial Department; Joseph Visceglia, Municipal Clerk; Bernard J. Rostansky, Notary Public; State of New York; City of New York and New York City Clerk's Office

Respondents,

______________

*
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to
the United States Court of Appeal
for the Second Circuit
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
______________
*
Cheryl D. Uzamere
Appearing Pro Se
1209 Loring Avenue, Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Opposing Counsel on Inside Cover
-
Minus Sign 13 Minus Sign 13 Minus Sign 13
Minus Sign 24 Minus Sign 24 Minus Sign 24

 
Office of the Solicitor General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Counsel for Federal Defendants
Jack Gladstein, Esq
Gladstein & Messinger
118-21 Queens Boulevard
Forest Hills, NY 11375
NYS Office of the
Attorney General
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10278
Counsel for NYS Defendants
Eugene O. Uzamere, Esq.
Uzamere and Associates
1851 Watson Avenue
Bronx, NY 10472

 

New York City Law Dept.
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007-2601
Counsel for NYC Defendants
Allen E. Kaye, P.C.
111 Broadway
13th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver
& Jacobsen, LLP
One New York Plaza
New York, NY
Counsel for Allen Kaye and
Robert Juceam
Bernard J. Rostanski, Esq.
Traffic Violations Bureau
625 Atlantic Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11217

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1) Whether adherent-respondents of the religion that promulgates the Abodah Zarah's “Law of the Moser” violated petitioner's due process and equal protection rights by failing to disqualify themselves; 2) whether petitioner's due process and equal protection rights were violated pursuant to Bivens.

- i -

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
 

Pursuant to Rule 14.1(b), the following list identifies all of the parties appearing here and before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The petitioner and appellant is Cheryl D. Uzamere.

The appellees and respondents below are Allen E. Kaye, P.C.; Uzamere and Associates, PLLC; Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP; Allen E. Kaye Esq.; Eugene O. Uzamere, Esq.; Robert E. Juceam, Esq.; Jack Gladstein, Esq.; Eugenia Cowles, Esq.; Rachel McCarthy, Esq.; Andrew Cuomo, Esq.; Honorable Michael Bloomberg; Honorable A. Gail Prudenti, Judge of the Appellate Court 2nd Judicial Department; Honorable Abraham Gerges, Judge of the Supreme Court, Kings County; Honorable Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Judge of Supreme Court Kings County; James Edward Pelzer, Clerk of Appellate Court 2nd Judicial Department; Joseph Visceglia, Municipal Clerk; Bernard J. Rostansky, Notary Public; State of New York; City of New York and New York City Clerk's Office.


- ii -

OPINIONS BELOW

        The opinion of the Court of Appeals is reported at Appendix A to the Petition (Pet. App. A) and is unpublished. The opinion of the Court of Appeals' regarding petitioner's motion for reconsideration for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order is reported at Pet. App. B and is unpublished.  The opinion of the Court of Appeals regarding petitioner's motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order is reported at Pet. App. C and is unpublished.  The District Court's opinion is reported at Pet. App. D and is unpublished.

JURISDICTION

        The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided petitioner's case was June 22, 2009.

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

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

CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY  AND CASE LAW PROVISIONS INVOLVED

        The constitutional provisions upon which this Petition are as follows: Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.

        The statutory provision upon which this Petition is based is as follows: 18 U.S.C. §4 and 28 U.S.C. §455.

        The case law provisions on which this Petition is based are as follows: Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, Liljeberg  v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988), United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985), Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989),  Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972),   Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954), United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 US 388.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

        A.  Factual Background

         This petition has its basis in several acts of judicial corruption petitioner alleges are still aimed to prevent petitioner from reporting respondent Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and respondent Bernard J. Rostanski's falsification of an I-130 immediate relative sponsorship form, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §4.

        On November 20, 1979, New York City marriage license clerk respondent Joseph Visceglia fraudulently signed his name on petitioner's marriage affidavit, while allowing Allen Kaye's client Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to place the fictitious name Godwin Uzamere on the marriage affidavit without requiring him to verify his identity and date of birth.  The marriage affidavit is reported at Pet. App. E.

        On  November 21, 1979, believing that the name “Godwin E. Uzamere” and  birthday “June 1, 1955” were true and correct, petitioner unwittingly contracted a marriage with Allen Kaye's client, whose real name is Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and whose real birthday is December 31, 1960.

        On or around November 30, 1979, petitioner accompanied Allen Kaye's client  to  the  aforesaid  attorney's  law  office to sign the 1-130 immediate relative sponsorship form, after which Allen Kaye's client abandoned petitioner while petitioner was pregnant with their daughter Tara.  Fraudulent I-130 immediate relative sponsorship form is reported at Pet. App. F.

        During ensuing years, the petitioner filed complaints against Allen Kaye's client and against Allen Kaye with the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and other federal, state and municipal agencies.

        No governmental agency has ever prosecuted Allen Kaye's client Ehigie Edobor Uzamere or Allen Kaye as a result of petitioner's complaints.

         Petitioner filed her divorce action on or around July 13, 2007.

        On page 5, paragraph 2 of petitioner's Verified Complaint, petitioner stated 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.”  Page 5 of petitioner's Verified Complaint is reported at Pet. App. G.

        That by November 11, 2007, Allen Kaye's client Ehigie Edobor Uzamere did not interpose an answer and has defaulted, pursuant to New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules §3215 and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations §202.27.

         Petitioner first appeared before the Honorable Eric I. Prus on December 5, 2007.

        Justice Prus is an adherent of the religion that promulgates the Abodah Zarah's “Law of the Moser, the Talmudic doctrine that prohibits its adherents from reporting the crimes of fellow adherents to secular authorities. Rabbi Michael J. Broyde's Informing on Jews Who Commit Crimes is reported at Pet. App. H.

         From December 5, 2007, the date of Judge Prus' first scheduled preliminary conference until September 2, 2008, the date of Judge Prus' second preliminary conference, Judge Prus adjourned petitioner's divorce action eight (8) times, and  Allen Kaye's client Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere failed to appear for all of them.  New York State Unified Court System's appearance schedule is reported at Pet. App. I.

         That on September 2, 2008, the eighth time petitioner's divorce action was adjourned, respondent Eugene O. Uzamere, claiming to be Allen Kaye's client's attorney, signed the preliminary conference stipulation in place of Allen Kaye's client. Page 2 of preliminary conference stipulation is reported at Pet. App. J.

         That pursuant to New York Codes, Rules and Regulations 202.16(f)(vi), “all parties must personally be present at the time of the conference.”

          That on September 2, 2008, Allen Kaye's client failed to appear.

         That Judge Prus recused himself after petitioner filed appellate division petition Uzamere vs. Prus. New York State Appellate Division's decision is reported at  Pet. App. K.

          That respondent the Honorable Jeffrey S. Sunshine was the next justice to be assigned to preside over petitioner's divorce action.

         That Justice Sunshine is an adherent of the religion that promulgates the Abodah Zarah's “Law of the Moser, the Talmudic doctrine that prohibits its adherents from reporting the crimes of fellow adherents to secular authorities.

         That on October 7, 2008, the ninth time petitioner's divorce action was adjourned, the respondent Eugene O. Uzamere appeared before respondent Justice Sunshine to move the court to dismiss petitioner's divorce action against respondent  Allen  E.  Kaye's  former client Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, based on Mr. Uzamere's submission of a fraudulent counter-affidavit emanating from Nigeria  that  was  not  authenticated by the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria; said counter-affidavit alleging that petitioner is married, not to Allen Kaye's client, but to Allen Kaye's client's cousin; and that Allen Kaye's client and the alleged cousin bear the same name.  Respondent Eugene O. Uzamere's Affirmation and counter-affidavit are reported at Pet. App. L.

         On or November 13, 2008, the eleventh time that petitioner appeared before Respondent Justice to determine the status of her motion, respondent Allen E. Kaye's client Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere failed to appear.

        That on November 17, 2008, four (4) days after petitioner's divorce action was adjourned for the eleventh time without an appearance from Allen Kaye's client, petitioner filed a Bivens action based on, inter alia, violation of petitioner's constitutional rights.

        On January 13, 2009, the twelfth time that petitioner appeared before respondent Justice Sunshine, respondent Allen E. Kaye's client Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere did not appear.

        On the aforesaid date, respondent Justice Sunshine adjourned petitioner's divorce action pursuant to his Decision and Order dated January 12, 2009, that states,  inter alia  that  “...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...those  branches  of  plaintiff's  motion  which  seek  retroactive, present, and future spousal support, injunctive relief, and discovery materials, as well as defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's action are hereby held in abeyance pending an evidentiary hearing on the threshold issue of whether plaintiff and defendant were in fact married...Any requested trial subpoenas shall be submitted no later than January 20, 2009.”  Pages 9 and 12 of respondent Justice Sunshine's Decision and Order dated January 12, 2009 are reported at Pet. App. M1 and M2.

        On January 22, 2009 respondent Justice Sunshine signed subpoenas for, among other individuals, respondent Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro.  Subpoenas for Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro are report at Pet. App. N1 and N2.

        On February 17, 2009, petitioner filed an order to show cause to appeal respondent  Justice  Sunshine's  Decision  and  Order dated January 12, 2009.  New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division 2nd Judicial Department's Order to Show Cause is reported at Pet. App. O1 and O2.

        That respondent Allen Kaye's client did not respond.  Appellate Division's decision dated April 6, 2009 is reported at Pet. App. P.

        That in the affidavit accompanying petitioner's Order to Show Cause, petitioner submitted the following documents as evidence of Allen Kaye's client's identity:

        (a)     Defendant-Appellee Allen E. Kaye's letter in which he refers to petitioner's husband as “Ehigie E. Uzamere” and “her husband.”  Allen Kaye's letter is reported at Pet. App. Q;

        (b)     I-130 immigration form that was falsified by and bears the falsified name of petitioner's husband and the names of Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq. and Bernard J. Rostanski (Pet. App. F);

        (c)     Report by Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel, USCIS regarding Defendant/husband's two identities.  USCIS' report is report at Pet. App. R;

        (d)    Rachel McCarthy's letter dated January 6, 2009 in which she states that “The acts that you allege...occurred in the course of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye in connection with a petition for an immediate relative filed by you with the Immigration and Naturalization Service”  Letter from Rachel McCarthy is reported at Pet. App. S.

        On or around March 24, 2009 petitioner received correspondence from respondent Allen E. Kaye that was addressed to respondent Judge Sunshine in which Mr. Kaye stated his refusal to appear in court.  Allen Kaye's refusal letter is reported at Pet. App. T.

        On March 26, 2009, the thirteenth time the petitioner appeared before respondent Judge Sunshine, respondent Eugene O. Uzamere moved the court to be relieved as counsel for Allen Kaye's client's Senator Uzamere.  Eugene Uzamere's motion is reported at Pet. App. U.

        On April 7, Federal District Judge Leonard B Sand dismissed petitioner's complaint.

        On April 8, 2009, petitioner served Allen Kaye's client with petitioner's appellant brief in opposition to Judge Sunshine's order dated January 12, 2009.

        On May 12, 2009, the fifteenth time that petitioner appeared before respondent Justice Sunshine, 19 days after the date of respondent Allen Kaye's refusal letter, respondent Justice Sunshine adjudged that Allen Kaye's client, Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere is petitioner's husband.  Judge Sunshine's Decision and Order dated May 12, 2009 attached as Pet. App. V).

        As of May 13, 2009, Allen Kaye's client, Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere failed to interpose a reply in rebuttal to petitioner's brief.

        Respondent Justice Sunshine scheduled an adjournment for the sixteenth time to hold a trial to dispose of all issues; and that petitioner appealed the aforesaid “issues” to New York State Supreme Court's Appellate Division, Second Department.

        An oral argument with regard to the appeal in which respondent A. Gail Prudenti is the presiding justice has not been scheduled.

        B.     Proceedings in Court of Appeals

        On May 26, 2009, petitioner filed an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to requirement the disqualification of respondent Justice Sunshine.

        On May 29, 2009,  petitioner's motion was dismissed without comment and was not published (see Pet. App. C).

        On June 8 and 9, 2009, petitioner filed an order to show cause and supporting papers for a reconsideration of her preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.

        On June 22, 2009, petitioner's motion was dismissed without comment and was not published (see Pet. App. B).

REASONS FOR GRANTING WRIT

        I. Court of Appeals Erred in Dismissing Petitioner's Appeal Pursuant To  District Court's Violation of 28 U.S.C. §455

        Disqualification is Mandatory

        The Honorable Leonard B. Sand is listed with the Virtual Jewish Library; and that based on the aforesaid information, the District Court's judge appears to have a bias as he is an adherent of the religion that promulgates the Talmudic prohibition preventing its adherents from reporting the crimes of fellow adherents to secular authorities.  The Honorable Judge Sand's biography is reported at Pet. App. W.

        Attorney Bob Ballew, author of What Causes The Disqualification of Judges, says the following:  “In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994)...Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance  of  partiality.  Liljeberg  v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").

        That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."

        The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).

        Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).

        Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.” 

       Refusal To Recuse Violates Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution

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

        II.     Court of Appeals Erred in Dismissing Petitioner's Appeal Pursuant To Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents

        The Court of Appeals erred in not questioning the decision of the District Court, in which it failed to recognize petitioner's lawsuit as a Bivens action.

        According to Wikipedia.org, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court  ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment freedom   from  unreasonable  search  and  seizures  had  been  violated  by  federal agents. The victim of such a deprivation could sue for the violation of the Amendment itself, despite the lack of any federal statute authorizing such a suit. The existence of a remedy for the violation was implied from the importance of the right violated.  The Court, in an opinion by Justice Brennan, stated that "For the reasons set forth below, I am of the opinion that federal courts do have the power to award damages for violation of "constitutionally protected interests" and I agree with the Court that a traditional judicial remedy such as damages is appropriate to the vindication of the personal interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.”

        By that decision, the Court laid down the rule that it will imply a private right of action for monetary damages where no other federal remedy is provided for the vindication of a Constitutional right, based on the principle that for every wrong, there is a remedy. The Court reasoned based upon a presumption that where there is a violation of a right, the plaintiff can recover whatever he could recover under any civil action, unless Congress has expressly curtailed that right of recovery, or there exist some "special factor counseling hesitation."

CONCLUSION

        For the reasons stated above, petitioner respectfully prays that this Court remands this action to the District Court.

PLEASE HELP ME HELP MY FAMILY

uzamerewalkerfamily.jpg
CherylsFamily.jpg