Complaint of Crimes Facilitated by the Obama Administration
St. John's Weak Episcopal Church Will Not Try to Dissuade from or Report President Obama
for Facilitating Identity Theft and Other Crimes Including Withholding Victims' Correct African Name from African
Helpless African American Victims of President Obama's
facilitation of federal crimes committed by Jews
Russian President Putin has
more respect for secular law like the United Nations Human Rights Treaty and the U.S. Constitution than the crime-facilitating
Dear President Putin: The president of my country does
not tell the truth. If you listen to him, people in your country and Ukraine will be hurt. Mr. Obama has allowed U.S. Supreme
Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan to conspire to fire a Gentile justice so that they can
lower the amount of Gentiles who are justices and increase the number of Jews who are justices. Please do not believe President
Obama. He is a liar and a person who facilitates crimes that are committed by Jews. His administration is demonic and illegal.
I am willing to go public to tell the public what I said. You are a strong man. Please protect your people and the Ukrainians
from Barack Obama, his demonic administration and the Jews. Do not allow your people to end up like U.S. citizens who are
enslaved by demonic Talmudic law. Stand strong against this yarmulke-wearing president and do not sell your people's
freedom or the Ukrainian people's freedom to the Jews.
Russian President Putin,
you are a strong man. You do not allow Talmudic law to rule over secular law in your country, like President
Obama, a spineless man who allows U.S. Supreme Court justices who are Jewish to fire Gentile justices so they can hire
more Jewish justices and set up institutes to teach Jewish law. If you are not careful, what the Jews do in the United
States, they will do in your country.
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.
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.
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
..........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
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.
..........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.
..........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
..........Whether the District Court abused its discretion by failing to certify
its reasons in writing for dismissing Appellant Complaint.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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
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
..........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.
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.
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:
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
December 7, 2009, the Appellant was placed with Respondent New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric
..........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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
June, 2011, Appellant filed the Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 with the for the Eastern District of New York.
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.
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).
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
“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.”
..........On or around June 4, 2007, the Appellant contacted the Nigerian Consulate
to inform them of Senator Uzamere's act of bigamy. See Joint Appendix, Part 1.
..........Appellant contacted January 11, 2014, the Appellant
discovered a web page entitled Two Edo Senators, Uzamere and Obende, Wanted in U.S. Over Alamieyeseigha's Loot. See Joint
Appendix, Part 2. The article states:
A competent source in the US department of justice(DOJ) exclusively told ireports-ng.com that a
Peoples Democratic Party, PDP senator,Uzamere Ehigie Edobor and Action Congress of Nigeria, ACN senator, Obende Domingo Alaba
are wanted in the US for allegedly serving as money laundering channels for a convicted former governor of oil rich but poor
Bayelsa state in Nigeria's Niger Delta region. Diepreye Alamieyeseigha between 2003 and early 2005.
Ireports-ngcom gathered that the decision to go after the two high ranking lawmakers
followed a discovery by the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) of the U.S. Department of Justice, which
is investigating Alamieyeseigha's assets in the US, that the bank accounts of the two senators had been used to move some
of the funds in millions of dollars used to purchase some of the properties being investigated by the AFMLS.
..........To verify the report from
Nigeria, Appellant researched the internet. The Appellant discovered an affidavit that was prepared for the lawsuit United
States of America v. The Contents of Account Number Z44-343021 Held at Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC., Boston, Massachusetts
in the Name of Nicholas Aiyegbem D/B/A Inadinov and Co. OAO and All Assets Traceable Thereto, Case 1:11-cv-10606-RWZ
by Cynthia A. Coutts, Special Agent of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Homeland Security Investigations, the same agency for which Denis P. McGowan, Regional Director, NPPD, is employed, and the
same person who falsely accused Appellant of threatening federal employees after Appellant reported, inter alia, Senator Uzamere's
acts of passport fraud and identity theft. The lawsuit was under the judicial supervision, care and control of federal district
judges Rya W. Zobel and Roger W. Titus, and under the executive supervision, care and control of Mythili Raman, Assistant
Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice's Criminal Division, whom Appellant alleges were informed of Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's laundering of the money that former Bayelsa State Governor Diepreye Solomon Peter Alamieyeseigha's
stole from the Nigerian government. Special Agent Coutts made the following statement in her affidavit:
The Defendant Property also constitutes or is derived from proceeds
traceable to passport fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1543 and 1544, and therefore is subject to forfeiture pursuant
to U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). Section 1543 prohibits the use of any “false, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered
passport or instrument purporting to be a passport”. Section 1544 prohibits the willful or knowing use or attempted
use of a “passport issued or designed for the use of another.” See Joint Appendix E, Part 3, page 3,
On April 3, 2006, account no. Z44-343021 was opened in the name of Nicholas Aiyegbemi d/b/a Inadinov
and Co. OAO at Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC., Boston, Massachusetts. The person opening the Fidelity account presented
a passport purportedly issued by Great Britain in the name of “Nicholas Aiyegbemi” with the number 702466006.
U.S. entry records associate that passport number with another name and do not report anyone using the name Aiyegbemi entering
the country. U.K. passport records do not show the number of the passport presented to be registered to someone named Nicholas
Aiyegbemi. Joint Appendix E, Part 3 page 10, paragraph 50.
. . .Ehigie Uzamere, had a financial interest in contracts with Bayelsa State, has admitted to helping
Alamieyeseigha cover up his corrupt conduct, and is deeply involved in Alamieyeseigha’s laundering of diverted Bayelsa
State assets in the United States. Uzamere’s account at JP Morgan Chase in New York was the primary source of funds
into Alamieyeseigha’s account at Bank of America, an account which Alamieyeseigha failed to disclose as required under
Nigerian law. The monies deposited into Alamieyeseigha’s Bank of America account were transferred, in violation of a
U.K. restraining order, to the Defendant Fidelity account, which was opened with a fraudulent passport. There the monies have
remained without substantial account activity since their deposit due to a prior restraint action. Joint Appendix
E, Part 3, page 10, paragraph 55.
..........In the case U.S. v. Alamieyeseigha, adjudicated by federal
district judge Roger W. Titus, the court was made aware that Ehigie Uzamere was a claimant in the lawsuit, and that his purpose,
based on the affidavit of Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent Cynthia Coutts, was to use a fake passport and open
accounts through which to lander money that was stolen from Nigeria. The United States has both constructive and actual notice
of Ehigie Uzamere's criminal activities; however, they ignored the Appellant's complaints that Ehigie Uzamere the Defendants
engaged in identity theft and other crimes to facility the identity theft.
..........Appellant respectfully directs this Court's attention to
page 13 of Appellant's Brief, where Appellant's states the following:
Respondent Eugene Uzamere produced a fraudulent a copy of a Nigerian passport bearing
the number A05588053, but no name. . .The unnamed passport copies and the social security receipt were notarized by “Kate
Ezomo, Principal Registrar, Commissioner for Oaths”, in Nigeria.
The U.S. Department of Justice also had actual notice that, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere assisted
in laundering Nigerian money for Diepreye Solomon Peter Alamieyeseigha. See Joint Appendix F, Part 4.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Court's Refusal to Sign Subpoena – First Act of Fraud Upon the Court
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.”
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.
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.
District Court Abused Its Discretion by Failing to Certify Its Reasons for Dismissing Appellant's Complaint in Writing
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.
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.
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."
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.”
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,
..........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.
The District Court Abused Its Discretion By Rendering
Its Decision Based Solely on the Jewish Religion
Establishment Clause –
..........“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.
..........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
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.
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
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.”
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.
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.
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
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
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
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
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.”