THE CRIMES OF SENATOR EHIGIE EDOBOR A.K.A. "GODWIN" UZAMERE
1. Home2. Once Upon A Time3. Victim's Statement4. My Search for Justice5. Descent into Hell6. U.S. Laws Violated by Senator Uzamere7. Nigerian Laws Violated by Senator Uzamere8. Ignored by Federal Agencies9. Ignored by Nigerian Authorities10. Victims' Loss of Child Support11. The Uzamere Family12. Municipal Employees Who Helped Senator Uzamere13. John Gray and Non-Profit Legal Community14. Hall of Shame15. 1st Judicial Blow By African-American Judge Thomas16. Law Firm of Allen E. Kaye17. Too Many Discrepancies...18. Allen E. Kaye And His Diabolical Talmud-Following Minions19. Will Sampson Staff Refuse To Help Identity Fraud Victims?20. Law Office of Gladstein & Messinger21. Patrick Synmoie's Attempts to Hide22. Consulate General of Nigeria23. Strange Chat with Senator Ekweremadu24. Proof of Legal Marriage25. Proof of Illegal Marriage/Identity Fraud26. Senator Uzamere's Attempts to Hide Crimes Will Fail27. The Proof...28. Success -- The Proof Is Finally Here!29. Will Senator Uzamere Evade Child Support Again?30. Nigeria's New Commitment to Protect Child Abandoned by Sen. Uzamere31. Judge Prus -- What Gives?32. Back on Track!33. Eugene Uzamere -- Third Attorney to Break the Law34. Petitioner's Verified Petition35. Supplemental Verified Petition36. Judge Prus Recuses Himself37. Eugene's Failed Attempt to Thwart Justice38. Kate Ezomo -- Diabolical Liar39. Letters of Complaint Against Kate Ezomo40. My Factual Response to Imaginary Cousin Godwin41. Federal Action Against Defendant Dismissed42. Open Letters to the FBI43. Open Letter to All U.S. Judges44. Open Letter to Ehigie and Eugene45. Tara's Affidavit46. $100,000,000.00 Lawsuit Against Corrupt Fiduciaries47. Will Fiduciaries Settle?48. New York City Defrauds Disabled Schvartze49. There Is No Cousin Godwin!50. Warning Letter to Governor and Chief Justice of New York State51. Deprived of Child Support by Allen Kaye52. Can International Agency Help?53. Chief Judge Wood's Court54. Will NYS' Dept. Disc. Committee and Commission on Judicial Conduct Be Corrupted?55. Subpoena Planned for Judge Garaufis56. No Negotiations for Justice...Justice is Owed!57. Will Attorneys Sign Affirmation?58. Am I Finally Being Taken Seriously?59. Evidentiary Hearing is Scheduled!60. Amy Feinstein Refuses to Prosecute!61. Robert Juceam's Useless Excuses62. Appellate Brief pages 24 to end63. No Justice -- No Peace!64. Happy Birthday My Beautiful Angel65. Are You A Victim of A Green Card Marriage Scam?66. End Green Card Marriage Sponsorship67. How to Report an Immigration Scammer and the Attorney68. Is The End Finally in Sight?69. Will Appellate Division Justices Decide Fairly?70. What Will NYSCJC's Response Be?71. How Will NYSDDC Respond?72. Will Obama's Administration Coerce Helpless Schvartze's Silence73. Will U.S. Department of State's Secretary Rise To The Challenge?74. Eugene Uzamere Calls It Quits75. Bigot Judge Sunshine Continues Courtroom Corruption76. Schvartze's Complaints Still Ignored By Appellate Division's White Judiciary77. More Talmudic Bias and Anti-Schvartze Racism At SDNY78. Senator Uzamere...You Are The Husband!79. Will U.S. Solicitor General Office Look On Idly?80. What will SCOTUS Do?81. Why did they disobey?82. Cabranes' Fraud Upon The Court83. Is Hinds-Radix Their 'Secret' Weapon?84. New York State Lawsuit for Fraud85. Judge Sunshine Is A Loser86. Judge Sunshine Out of Options87. Petitioner Prepares Request for Rehearing...88. Petition for Rehearing89. Loser Sunshine's Last Hurrah90. Lawsuit Against Daily News and Scott Shifrel91. Mort Zuckerman's Bigoted Tabloid92. Corruption at Nassau County Supreme Court and Nassau County Clerk93. Judge Scuccimarra Ruling94. Defendants Have Defaulted95. Will Judge Parga Accepts Anne Carroll's Drivel Because Defendants Are Rich Jews?96. New York and Anne B. Carroll97. Lawsuit Against President98. Will Obama Listen?99. Open Letter to Al Jazeera, President Obama and Judge Allegra100. More Court Shenanigans?101. Howard U. Schmokescreen102. Into the fire...103. What Will The New York State Division of Human Rights Do?104. Housing Court Corruption105. Mayor Bloomberg's Finest106. FEGS in Criminal Conspiracy107. FEGS Gave Victim No Choice108. What Will The New York State Supreme Court Do?109. What Will Court of Claims Do?110. Abuse of Religion Not New111. How Wicked Are They?112. What Lies???113. Federal Lawsuit114. Disastrous Results to Appeal115. Judge Garaufis' Discriminatory Decision116. Garaufis' Talmudic Shenanigans117. FOIA Hiding Evidence118. Congressional Testimony119. Unintelligible Complaint of Rachel G. Yohalem120. Uzamere v. USA, et al121. Judicial Whores Willy and Patty122. Uzamere v. USA123. Find an Unbiased Court124. U.S. Government Blacklists Own Citizens125. Appellate Brief First Circuit126. U.S. Government Hides Prosecution127. A Jewish RICO128. Jews' Demonic Doctrine -- Law of the Moser129. Mishkin Yanks His Own Nuts130. Will African American Victim of Grand Laceny Receive Justice?131. Judicial Ethics Hypocrite132. Jew Shenanigans Involved in Random Selection of Morally Compromised Judge133. Please save my family!134. Psychopaths135. Jewish Paradigm Put Jews on Top136. Pretender Bharara137. Int'l Complaint Against Israel, United States and Nigeria138. Memorial of Impeachment139. A Real Man

IntlDecadeforAfricansBanner.jpg

 
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights


Cheryl D. Uzamere, et al


Plaintiff,

v.

The State of Israel, the United States of America and the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, et al


Defendants.

███████████████████████████████████████

Verified Complaint

███████████████████████████████████████

Cheryl D. Uzamere
Appearing Pro Se
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B

Brooklyn, NY  11208

Tel.: 718-235-6836

Fax: 718-235-2804

E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net



    paragraphendingdesign.jpg


   

CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (718) 235-6836
Fax: (718) 235-2408
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net

 

 United Nations Office of the High Commission for Human Rights
(after exhausting all other appeals)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
_________________DISTRICT OF
_________________

 

Cheryl D. Uzamere

 

           - against -

 

The State of Israel, The United States of America,
The Federal Republic of Nigeria, 

 

  - and -

 

 

VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL

BASIS OF VENUE: Plaintiff's Place of Residence

BASIS OF JURISDICTION: 
Violation of the following:


REQUEST TO PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS

Procedural Law:

28 USC §1331: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
28 USC §1343: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:
To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42;
To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;
To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;
To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote;
 
28 USC§1361:  The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
 

United Nations Human Rights International Conventions:

Article 1: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

Article 2: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;

Article 4: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

Article 9: Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;

Article 11: Opitional Protocol to the Convention of the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography;

Constitutional, Civil and Other Legal Rights:
Constitutional Violations:
 
First Amendment:  Separation of religion and government;
 
Fifth Amendment: Due process (as it pertains to blacklisting); Fourteenth Amendment: Due process; equal protection (as it pertains to blacklisting;
 
Sixth AmendmentAccused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury . . .the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” See Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965)
 
Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property , without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” See Tennessee V. Lane (02-1667) 541 U.S. 509 (2004) 315 F.3d 680, affirmed.
 
U.S. Supreme Court and Other Case Law:

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972): Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 355 U. S. 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944).

Accordingly, although we intimate no view whatever on the merits of petitioner's allegations, we conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Coppedge v. United States, 69 U.S. 438 (1962): 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.

“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."

Crisafi v. E Holland, 655 F. 2d 1305: But a complaint filed in forma pauperis is not subject to dismissal simply because the plaintiff 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.

 Violation of Federal Law:
 
Criminal Law:

18 USC §1962, 18 USC §1964, civil remedies (for RICO); 18 USC §1961-§1968; Hobbs Act, 18 USC §1951; misprision of felony, 18 USC §4; fraud, 18 USC §1001; identity theft, 18 USC §1028; aggravated identity fraud, 18 USC §1028A; deprivation of rights under color of law, 18 USC §242/42 USC §1985; extortion, 18 USC §872§, blackmail, 18 USC §873.
 
Civil Law:
 
42 U.S.C. §1983; §1985; §42 U.S.C. Code §1986 - Action for neglect to prevent.

 

 *****At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere, a natural person, and mother of David P. Walker and Tara A. Uzamere, all of whom are victims of fraud, identity theft, aggravated identity theft, other federal offenses and civil rights violations committed by the Defendants, states the following under the penalties of perjury:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Human Rights Violations

 

*****Plaintiff respectfully informs this Court of her past and continuing attempt to file an international complaint with the United Nations. Said 

*****Article 1: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CrimeOfGenocide.aspx;

*****Article 2: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx;

*****Article 4: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx;

*****Article 9: Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx);

*****Article 11: Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/OPSCCRC.aspx).

 U.S. Constitutional Mandate


First Amendment


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

*****U.S. Supreme Court Case Law Regarding the Establishment Clause: “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.”

U.S. Supreme Court-Sponsored National Institute for Judaic Law/Babylonian Talmud-Influenced
Ashkenazi-Fomented Hatred of African Descent and Other Gentiles Violates Plaintiff's First Amendment

*****“The establishment of religion”' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.” Everson v. Board of Education. The Israeli Respondents enforced the Judaic doctrine Law of the Moser, a doctrine whose very intent is to prevent the reporting of lawbreaking Israeli citizens to the secular authorities.

BoysRapedattheWhiteHouse7.jpgBoysRapedattheWhiteHouse4.jpgBoysRapedattheWhiteHouse3.jpgIsraelSexSlaves.jpg

Fifth Amendment

*****“No person shall be . . .deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . .” Correctional Services Corporation, v. John E. Malesko 534 U. S. __ (2001), page 5.

Talmud Violated Plaintiff's 5th Amendment Rights

******The Defendants blocked Plaintiff's passage to go to court to prevent Plaintiff from filing criminal and civil complaints against their lawbreaking Israeli friends.

Sixth Amendment

*****“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” See Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965)

*****U.S. Supreme Court Case Law regarding the Notice Clause: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” In the case United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611 (1881)”

Talmud Violates Plaintiff's 6th Amendment Rights

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

Fourteenth Amendment

*****“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property , without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” See Tennessee V. Lane (02-1667) 541 U.S. 509 (2004) 315 F.3d 680, affirmed.

Talmud Violates African-American Plaintiff's 14th  Amendment Rights

*****“. . .nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” See Tennessee V. Lane (02-1667) 541 U.S. 509 (2004) 315 F.3d 680, affirmed. The Defendants used Plaintiff's mental illness to disparage her criminal and civil complaints as untrue to prevent Plaintiff's complaints against lawbreaking Israeli citizens from being believed.

FEDERAL STATUTES

Title II of the Americans With Disabilities
Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973


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

*****In the decision regarding Disability Advocates, Inc. vs. Paterson, et al, Defendant Garaufis stated that “The Supreme Court held in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), that “[u]njustified isolation . . . is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability,” observing that “institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuate 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.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601
Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs


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

42 USC §1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
42 USC §1985 - Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights


*****Federal courts recognize blacklisting as a cause of action. In the lawsuit Castillo v. Spiliada Maritime Corporation MV, 937 F. 2d 240, the United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated that “. . .Plaintiffs have offered substantial evidence that they were coerced into agreeing to the settlements with threats that charges would be filed against them with the POEA and that they would be blacklisted. As the threats of blacklisting endangered the possibility of future employment in their established trade, Plaintiffs reasonably could have been intimidated into settling.” In the lawsuit Duckworth v. Pratt & Whitney, Inc., 152 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit stated that “As both Duckworth and the Secretary of Labor persuasively argue, the achievement of these objectives would be frustrated by adopting Pratt & Whitney's interpretation. That interpretation would permit an employer to evade the Act by blacklisting employees who have used leave in the past or by refusing to hire prospective employees if the employer suspects they might take advantage of the Act.” The United States Court of Appeal's use of the term “leave” refers to medical leave. The United States Court of Appeals use of the term “Act” refers to the Family and Medical Act of 1993. In the case Davis v. Paul, et al, 505 F.2d 1180, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth circuit stated that “Few things are as fundamental to our legal system as the presumption of innocence until overcome by proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a fair trial. The dissemination of the flier in the case at bar is in the face of the presumption of innocence, disregards the Due Process Clause and is based on evidence that is not probative of guilt. Condemning a man to a suspect class without a trial and on a wholly impermissible standard, as in the case at bar, offends the very essence of the Due Process Clause, i.e., protection of the individual against arbitrary action. Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U.S. 551, 559, 76 S.Ct. 637, 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956); Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331, 351-352, 75 S.Ct. 790 (1955) (Douglas, J., concurring.) As said by Mr. Justice Black in his concurring opinion in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 144-145, 71 S.Ct. 624, 634 (1951): 'Our basic law, however, wisely withheld authority for resort to executive. . .condemnations and blacklists as a substitute for imposition of legal types of penalties by courts following trial and conviction in accordance with procedural safeguards of the Bill of Rights.'”

Commission of RICO Crimes

*****“Racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents), Section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant) . . .”

The Hobbs Act and Conspiracy
to Deprive Plaintiff and Gentile Constituents of Honest Services


*****“The requirement of a quid pro quo means that without pretense of any entitlement to the payment, a public official violates §1951 if he intends the payor to believe that absent payment the official is likely to abuse his office and his trust to the detriment and injury of the prospective payor or to give the prospective payor less favorable treatment if the quid pro quo is not satisfied. The official and the payor need not state the quid pro quo in express terms, for otherwise the law's effect could be frustrated by knowing winks and nods. The inducement from the official is criminal if it is express or if it is implied from his words and actions, so long as he intends it to be so and the payor so interprets it.” Evan v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 1881, 504 U.S. 255, 119 L.Ed.2d 57.

18 USC §1951 -- Hobbs Act
Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence


*****“Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”

*****“The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.”

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 . . . 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 affected.”

*****Fraud upon the court has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 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."

*****Fraud upon the court makes void the orders and judgments of that court.

Right to Privacy

*****The Connecticut statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Pp. 381 U. S. 481-486. The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 367 U. S. 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 630, as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." We recently referred in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 367 U. S. 656, to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully an particularly reserved to the people." See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup. Ct. Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw. U.L. Rev. 216 (1960). . .NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U. S. 288, 377 U.S. 307. Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

*****According to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996's Wrongful Disclosure of Individually Identifiable Health Information, it says that: “(a) Offense – A person who knowingly and in violation of this part -- (1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier; (2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or (3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). (b) Penalties – A person described in subsection (a) shall -- (1) be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both; (2) if the offense is committed under false pretenses, be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; and (3) if the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.” See United States of America v. Huping Zhou, 2:08-cr-01356-AJW-1.

National Security Letters

*****“The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may: (1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and (2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” in the stipulation and order regarding the case Doe et al. v. Holder, et al it says: “3) Plaintiff John Doe is hereby permitted to identify himself and his company as the recipient of the NSL that has been the subject of this litigation. Plaintiffs ACLU and ACLU Foundation may publicly disclose this information as well. In addition, the Government acknowledges that plaintiffs may discuss matters and information that have been filed without redaction on the public docket in this case; 4) Plaintiffs are also permitted to publicly discuss plaintiff Doe's personal background, background about his company, the services Doe generally provided to his clients, and his type of clientele generally, including (a) the information that is redacted in the public filing of the Third Declaration of John Doe, dated August 21, 2009, Paragraph 1; (b) the information that is redacted in the public filing of the Second Declaration of John Doe, dated September 8, 2006, Paragraph 4; and (c) the information that is redacted in the public filing of the Second Declaration of John Doe, dated September 8, 2006, Paragraph 37. . . 6) Nothing in this Stipulation shall affect plaintiff Doe's right and plaintiffs ACLU and ACLU Foundation's right, if any, to petition in the future under 18 U.S.C. § 3511(b) ('or an order modifying or setting aside the nondisclosure requirement imposed in connection with the NSL served on plaintiff Doe.” Doe, et al v. Holder, et al, 04 Civ. 2614 (VM).

*****On May 5, 2015, in the United States Circuit Court for the Second Circuit, in the case American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York Civil Liberties Union, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, v. James R. Clapper; case number #14-42, the following decision was rendered with regard to the issues regarding the gathering of non-content information obtained from internet accounts and telephone accounts, which includes federal district Nicholas Garaufis' authorizing Denis McGowan to obtain Plaintiff's non-content information regarding her internet and telephone calls to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and associated falsified content information to non-content information that was, according to 18 USC §2709 and 18 USC §3511 protected by Plaintiff's First Amendment's free speech and her First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
 
*****For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court erred in ruling that §215 authorizes the telephone metadata collection program, and instead hold that the telephone metadata program exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized and therefore violates §  215.  Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint and REMAND the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York Civil Liberties Union, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, v. James R. Clapper;  https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/clapper-ca2-opinion.pdf. 

H.R. 40

Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act
(as it concerns the African Holocaust/The Maafa)


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

Laws of Israel and the Detrimental Effect Has on Africans and the Descendants of African Slaves


*****The Laws of Israel, which have been forced on U.S. citizenry has had, and continues to have a detrimental effect on Gentiles, but especially on Africans and the descendants of African slaves. The Ashkenazim continue to refusal to participate in or allow the memorialization, publication for posterity and for historical purposes evidence of their direct and continued involvement in the slander and libel of Africans and their Descendants. The Ashkenazim continue to refuse to admit their past and continued involvement in the defamation of Africans and their Descendants, and they outrightly attack of individuals who expose Ashkenazi Hatred and enslavement of Africans and the descendants, while making films and other electronic media that portrays Gentiles as the originators of the enslavement of Africans and their descendants instead of the Ashkenazim, whose religion has portrayed Africans and their descendants as "ugly and dark-skinned", liars, thieves and depraved."

*****Come and Hear, a website that expounds on the Talmudic Laws of Israel, states and identifies the U.S. Supreme Court-backed National Institute for Judaic Law and Israel’s right and responsibility to enforce the Talmudic Law all over the world against all Gentiles:

*****Title: Death Penalty and Talmud Law, Part 4: US v. Talmud Law
*****URL: http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_4.html
*****http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_4.html

*****In Sentence and Execution (Part 1 of "Death Penalty and Talmud Law") we watched the US Supreme Court create a precedent by accepting for consideration a brief based wholly on Talmud law (http://www.jlaw.com/Briefs/capital1.html; http://www.jlaw.com/Briefs/capital2.html). We watched as Israeli and American legal experts recommended that, on the issue of humanitarianism and the death penalty, that the US should use Talmud law as the exemplar.

*****What was missing from this presentation? The Orthodox Jewish advocates failed to mention that US and Talmud law are fundamentally incompatible.

*****Over the cornice of the Supreme Court building are etched these words: Equal Justice Under Law.

*****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.

 


*****Title: Death Penalty and Talmud Law, Part 4: US v. Talmud Law
*****URL: http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_4.html
*****Version: August 12, 2010

*****While the United States of America renounced and outlawed slavery with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no mechanism in Judaism that could vacate or cancel the Old Testament or Talmud slavery laws.  And they have not been canceled. Those laws are the Word of God.

*****The Unrescinded 613 Commandments
*****http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/gentile.html

*****For any who have lingering doubts about the place of the Gentile in Judaism and the New America, notice that Jewish leadership is actively promoting the highly discriminatory Noahide Laws. (See America's New Government Church, which embody these core Judaic doctrines.

*****Co-existence?

*****What does the future hold? Can the Jews ever co-exist with the rest of humanity? The answer is "yes," provided the rest of humanity accepts the role designed for them by Jewish leadership. If Gentiles do not accept enslavement, there will be conflict.

Come and Hear: Death Penalty and Talmud Law
US v. Talmud Law
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_4.html

In Sentence and Execution (Part 1 of "Death Penalty and Talmud Law") we watched the US Supreme Court create a precedent by accepting for consideration a brief based wholly on Talmud law. We watched as Israeli and American legal experts recommended that, on the issue of humanitarianism and the death penalty, that the US should use Talmud law as the exemplar.

What was missing from this presentation? The Orthodox Israeli advocates failed to mention that US and Talmud law are fundamentally incompatible.

Over the cornice of the Supreme Court building are etched these words: Equal Justice Under Law.

In contrast, Talmud law insists on unequal justice under law. Talmudic law holds there is one law for Israeli citizens, and one for Gentiles. This is not inconsistent with the Old Testament, in which LORD God decrees that Israeli citizens should not enslave other Israeli citizens: Gentiles are the proper slaves of Jews.

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.

Coming from Where We've Never Been

The Israeli Week explains more of the NIJL project. In the following paragraph, macher is a Yiddish word meaning "big shot," a person with access to authorities.

According to Gurary, the group, which has hired two researchers to compile reports, will focus initially on the issue of business ethics. Eventually, the goal is to compile a library and database in Washington that will offer Israeli law insights into a host of contemporary issues and to help create courses on the subject at law schools nationwide.

Report: Netanyahu Promises Talmud Will Be Israeli Law
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/180440#.Vl1a6r_HmAo

Netanyahu also promised that "we will define in the law the Gemara as a basis for the Israeli legal system," referencing the Israeli legal text analyzing the Mishnah, a legal work of the Israeli sages, which together form the Talmud.

Law of the Moser; Israeli citizens Must Not Report Crimes of Fellow Israeli citizens to Secular Law Enforcement Authorities

“. . .the Talmud recounts - in a number of places - that it is prohibited to inform on Israeli citizens to the secular government, even when their conduct is a violation of secular law. . .” http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/moser-broyde/index.html.

Inferiority of Sub-Saharan Africans and Their Descendants:

Artsot Ha-Hayyim, pages 52a, 52b: In 1992 a book was published by a leading member of the Satmar community entitled Artsot Ha-Hayyim. On p. 52 he explains, and quotes other rabbis, that the reason Abraham Lincoln was killed was because he freed the blacks. this is also the reason why Kennedy was killed, i.e. because he was good to the blacks. He continues by saying that this will be the fate of any who adopt a progressive attitude towards blacks, because they are meant to be enslaved.

The Legends of Ham/Canaan - Ginsburg, Vol. 1, p. 169: "The descendants of Ham through Canaan therefore have red eyes, because Ham looked upon the nakedness of his father; they have misshapen lips, because Ham spoke with his lips to his brothers about the unseemly condition of his father; they have twisted curly hair, because Ham turned and twisted his head round to see the nakedness of his father; and they go about naked, because Ham did not cover the nakedness of his father. Thus he was requited, for it is the way of G-d to mete out punishment measure for measure."

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

Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin (Soncino), p. 745, 108b: "Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished - the dog, the raven and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his mate's mouth], and Ham was smitten in his skin." (This is footnoted and the footnote reads: "i.e., from him was descended Cush (the negro), who is black-skinned."

Plan to Force Judaism on United States Government and the World

“But now, with the rise of Judaism in the halls of power, we are looking at a return to Old Testament state-religion. Particularly, given the strain of Orthodox Judaism in ascendance, we are looking   toward   a   re-unification   of church   and   state,    with    priestly enforcement of Old Testament and Talmudic commandments . . .” (http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html).

Gentiles are Inferior to Jews

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

Israeli citizens' Talmudic Right to Deceive Gentiles

"Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is our law'; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] 'This is your law'; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him."

The Israeli Encyclopedia states (See Exhibit 269): "The Mishnah … declares that if a Gentile sued an Israelite, the verdict is for the defendant [the Jew]; If the Israelite is the plaintiff, he obtains full damages."

Right to Wage War, Kill Gentiles with Impunity

On murder of Gentiles (Exhibit 57); also http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_57.html:   "For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred: but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty."

Rabbi Simon ben Yohai's edict is: "The best among the Gentiles deserves to be killed."

In Judaism Non-Israeli citizens — No Property Rights

"Is it permitted to take from a Gentile?" the owner asked. Ashi's evasive answer is given with the explanation that: "In truth Ashi coincided with the opinion of the authority stated above: namely, that …  Gentile … property is considered public property, like unclaimed land in the desert." (See Exhibit 270)

The Talmudic authority which holds that Gentile property is like unclaimed land in the desert is the Talmud Book of Baba Bathra, Folio 54b, there cited. The passage actually appears on page 222 of the Soncino edition: "Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The property of a heathen is on the same footing as desert land; whoever first occupies it acquires ownership."

Death Sentence Endorsed Against Christians Today

“The Noahide Laws promise deadly consequences for Christians. . . (http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html).

One of the requirements needed to make the claim of "war crimes" is "Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party." The other is "committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."  How does this Court view Defendants' use of the internet to publicly scorn the Plaintiff as having committed the "crime" of being mentally unfit, and rendering any complaint renders against any Israel citizen not believable.

The Talmudic Laws of Israel have always had a deleterious effect on anyone who is not Israeli-Israeli, especially individuals who are perceived to be sub-Saharan Africans. Whether it be sub-Saharan Africans, individuals referred to as "illegal aliens", the Thai workers in Israel or Russian, Slavic and other ladies of Europe, Israeli citizens have NEVER treated Gentiles in accord with secular laws. While they have convinced people that Israel belongs to them because of some covenant/contractual relationship with Jehovah God, they have instead disobey they God they claim to serve and treated Gentiles in a manner that one treats toilet paper. Everywhere Israeli citizens go, Gentiles die or suffer some form of being used and discarded. The Talmud's view of Gentiles is wasteful of human life, something that the God of the Torah Pentateuch, Jehovah, does not support.

Please review the following Talmudic Laws of Israel. You will see how Judaic laws have contributed to the increase of murders, rapes, war deaths -- both U.S. soldiers and the death of those against whom U.S. military is at war, judicial corruption, human trafficking and loss of justice in settings where Gentiles have locked horns with Israeli litigants, biased Israeli judges and obsequious Gentile judges who supplant the U.S. Constitution with the Laws of Israel.

*****Israeli citizens in U.S. Government Positions Violate U.S. Laws Regarding Treason, Seditious Conspiracy, Misprision of Treason, Misprision of Felony and Aggravated Identity Theft/Fraud and Defy 42 USC §1986 by Treating Plaintiff's Complaint Indifferently Based on Libelous Claims that Plaintiff is Mentally Unfit and that Israel-Controlled Court Discounts the Veracity of Truth When the Plaintiff is  Mental Illness, Constituting Defendants' Act of War by Deception, a Crime against Humanity and a Violation of Plaintiff's Human Rights

*****The Daily New published a story concerning Israeli attorney and former New York State Chief judge Sol Wachtler. Sol Wachtler was convicted of  blackmailing wealthy Israeli socialite Joy Silverman. Sometime after his release from prison, the Jew-controlled State of New York reinstated Sol Wachtler's law license. On no occasion did Mortimer Zuckerman of the Daily News or anyone from the State of New York question his mental health status, in spite of his erratic behavior in the Joy Silverman fiasco. His mental competence was automatically accepted as fact by the racist Jew-controlled State of New York.

*****While the Daily News, under the care and control of racist Jew Mortimer Zuckerman, however, did not malign Sol Wachtler with regard to his having bipolar disorder, not only did it lambasted the Plaintiff as “wacko” and “mentally unfit, but implied that both the Plaintiff and child of the marriage Tara A. Uzamere were liars or “wackos” for holding that Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was Plaintiff's husband and is Tara's father, a fact that was decided by NYS Justices Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Matthew D'Emic and NYS Appellate Judges Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott and Sgroi.

*****The same racist Jew-controlled New York State government still refuses  to  reinstate  African-American  attorneys  Cecil Vernon Mason and Alton Maddox. This racist Israeli attitude is consistent with Israeli literature that teaches that blacks are meant to be slaves to Israel and her citizenry.

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

Purpose of Plaintiff's Action



*****By this action, Plaintiff seeks to put an end to Defendants' commission of the following: 18 USC §2381, treason; 18 USC §2382, misprision of treason; seditious conspiracy, 18 USC §2385; misprision of felony, 18 USC §4; fraud, 18 USC §1001; identity theft, 18 USC §1028; aggravated identity fraud, 18 USC §1028A; deprivation of rights under color of law (including being kidnapped, unlawfully imprisoned and blacklisted), 18 USC §242/42 USC §1985; extortion, 18 USC §872§, blackmail, 18 USC §873; violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act; violation of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973; violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601; violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the Petition Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; violation of the Notice Clause of the Sixth Amendment; violation of the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment; violation of Plaintiff's right of privacy with regard to the illegal dissemination of her psychiatric records, Plaintiff marriage history, Plaintiff married name, and the non-content information associated with Plaintiff's internet and telephone accounts; violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, intentional misuse of national security letters (NSLs) and violation of the Hobbs Act.

*****Furthermore, Plaintiff's also seeks to put to an end the Israel-controlled media's acts of war by deception of Israel as a friend of the United States and of Gentiles when the Talmud-based Law of Israel preaches pure hate toward and enslavement of Gentiles; hate toward and enslavement of sub-Saharan Africans; the Israeli-controlled media's acts of treason by employing the Law of Israel's Law of the Moser to refuse to allow Plaintiff to expose the crimes committed against her and her children by Israeli Mortimer Zuckerman; and by refusing to allow Plaintiff to expose Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security knowledge of the correct identity, and has been in possession of the identification documents for Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere for well over thirty (30) years. Defendant the United States of America, along with the rest of the Defendants, owed Plaintiff and her children the duty to use the aforementioned documentation regarding Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity to protect Plaintiff and her children from being victims of fraud, immigration fraud, aggravated identity theft and victims of Plaintiff's inability to obtain spousal and children support based on Plaintiff and her daughter having the legal right to bear Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's correct name. However, rather than comply with the law, the Defendants, in particular, the Israeli Defendants, engaged in a course of conduct that violated Plaintiff rights and the rights of her daughter, Tara, for the sole purpose of preventing Plaintiff from filing complaints against hateful, racist, dishonest, Israeli immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Defendants' criminal conduct deprived them then, and continues to deprive Plaintiff and her family of the right to bear Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere correct African name, and continues to condemn Plaintiff and her family to the same deprivation of the knowledge of African bloodline indicators that racist Israeli citizens forced upon Plaintiff's African ancestors.

Factual Events On Which Lawsuit Is Based

*****Please refer to http://thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/verified_complaint_to_intl_criminal_court_and_united_nations.html for all exhibits.

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

*****On November 20, 1979, the Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere visited Defendant City of New York's City Clerk's marriage department and filled out the marriage affidavit form with the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” and the fictitious birthday “XXXXXX XX, 19XX” without providing his current passport to verify his age and identity. Defendant City Clerk Joseph Visceglia verified the identification Plaintiff presented to him; however, at the clandestine behest of Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Defendant Visceglia, made no attempt to obtain Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's passport. While Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere wrote the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” on the marriage affidavit form, he inadvertently signed the form with his real name Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.

*****On November 21, 1979, the Plaintiff unwittingly entered into a “green card” marriage with Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere under the fictitious named “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere, and under the fictitious birthday “XXXXXX XX, 19XX.” On or after November 30, 1979, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Defendants Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro, Esq. engaged in an act of aggravated identity theft and immigration fraud by giving the Plaintiff form I-130 to sign so as to sponsor the Defendant for IR1 residence under the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” and fictitious birthday “XXXXXX XX, 19XX” without requiring their client to produce his current passport.

*****In December, 1979, Defendant Uzamere left for Nigeria, abandoning the Plaintiff and leaving her poor and pregnant with his daughter Tara A. Uzamere. On January 28, 1980, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered the port of New York as a lawful permanent resident. The aforementioned attorneys exacerbated their act of aggravated identity theft by refusing to require Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to produce his passport to establish proof of his identity, and by engaging in willful blindness by pretending not to have knowledge of the existence of Senator Uzamere's passport or of knowledge that Senator Uzamere previously applied under his correct name as an unmarried beneficiary under 21 years of age. At the time of Plaintiff's signing the fraudulent I-130 relative sponsorship form, Plaintiff did not know that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere had applied and been found eligible for permanent residence under his real name via sponsorship by Nosayaba Uzamere and Ethel Uzamere. See report prepared by Defendant Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service attached as Exhibit A.

*****On November 5, 2002, at the behest of  Israeli-Americans U.S. Supreme Court’s justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, Rabbi Noson Gurry 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.

“Under circumstances that are not explained, Justice Scalia developed a correspondence with Rabbi Noson Gurary (a disciple of the late Rabbi Schneerson). During this exchange, Scalia mentioned his "fascination with Israeli law." That prompted Rabbi Garary to found the National Institute for Judaic Law (NIJL). (45) The Institute promotes courses on Talmud-based law in American law schools and otherwise injects Talmud-based law into American society.
 
The founding of NIJL was celebrated by a gala kosher dinner on November 5, 2002. Justice Scalia and two other Supreme Court judges were among 200 dinner guests. Where was the dinner held? In the Supreme Court building.

*****Site of Kosher Banquet
 
*****This remarkable event was not reported contemporaneously by either The Washington Post or The Washington Times. Missing from The Jerusalem Post coverage was the role Scalia may have played in securing the use of the Supreme Court building as a banquet hall for Rabbi Gurary.

Why a devout Catholic like Justice Scalia would promote Talmud-based law is not clear. The Talmud classifies Christians as idolaters, and the Noahide regulations require that idolaters — devout Catholics, for example, people exactly like Justice Scalia — be put to death. Could it be that Rabbi Gurary did not tell Justice Scalia about the Noahide provisions to execute people like Scalia?”

*****For the sakes of helping this honorable Court understand the level of traitorous involvement exists with Israeli-American attorneys and Israel, the Plaintiff begs this Court to review the following information:

Mr. Lewin was president of the American Section of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists from 1992 to 1997. Between 1982 and 1984 he served as President of the Jewish Community Council of Greater Washington, which speaks for approximately 220 Jewish organizations and synagogues in the Greater Washington area.

*****Her clients include individuals and corporations under investigation by the Department of Justice, individuals who have been denied a security clearance, and government employees who are the subject of inquiries relating to their official duties. In addition, together with her father, Ms. Lewin represents (and has represented) a host of individuals and organizations including:

Menachem Zivotofsky and his parents who seek the enforcement of a Congressional statute which provides that Menachem (who was born in Jerusalem) may list his place of birth on his U.S. passport as “Israel.” The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument on the Zivotofsky case on November 7, 2011

Sholom Rubashkin – the manager of Agriprocessors, once the largest kosher meat-packaging plant in the United States. Lewin & Lewin handled Rubashkin’s appeal to the 8th Circuit and will be filing a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Agudas Chasidei Chabad (the umbrella organization for the international Chabad-Lubavitch movement) in its efforts to obtain release from Russia and control over the library held by the Fifth Rebbe and an archive of manuscripts unlawfully seized by the Soviet army after World War II.

The Boim family in its landmark civil tort litigation which established the right of American victims of terror to obtain damages under American law against organizations that knowingly provide financial support to international terrorist groups.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (“AIPAC”) in a federal criminal investigation and prosecution of two AIPAC employees charged with unlawfully disclosing classified information.

The Bigio family in its lawsuit against Coca-Cola for its exploitation and trespass on property in Egypt that was illegally confiscated from the family by the Nasser government because the family is Jewish ( ).

Prior to establishing Lewin & Lewin in May 2002, Ms. Lewin worked at Wilmer Cutler and Pickering (now Wilmer Hale) and at Miller Cassidy Larroca and Lewin. Ms. Lewin began her law career in Israel where she clerked on the Supreme Court for Deputy President Justice Menachem Elon.

In December 2011, Ms. Lewin was elected President of the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (“AAJLJ”). In January 2012, Ms. Lewin was named by the Washington Jewish Week as one of D.C.’s “Ten Most Interesting Jews.”

Ms. Lewin served on the Board of Directors of the Jewish Community Council of Greater Washington from 2001-2007. She served on the Board of Directors of the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia from 2001-2004.

Ms. Lewin is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia, in New York, and in the Supreme Court of the United States. She received her B.A. from Princeton University in 1988 and a J.D. from New York University School of Law in 1992. She is married to Eliezer M. Halbfinger and has four children.

Death Penalty and Talmud Law
Sentence and Execution
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_1.html

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

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

*****On or around October 8, 2008, Defendant Eugene Uzamere, engaged in an act of racketeering, aggravated identity theft, violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by hand-delivering a fraudulent affirmation and a fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized counter-affidavit from Nigeria which stated that “The plaintiff who has openly professed her mental illness is also delusional and outlandish in her claims”; and “I have before now, ignored the Plaintiff's outburst but her claim to be married to my cousin who was not in the United States at the time of our marriage is a new twist to this sad tale. . .Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged” in defiance of the administrative decision rendered by the INS regarding Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity. Defendant Osato Uzamere also gave Defendant Sunshine a copy of a Nigerian passport bearing the number A05588053, but no name; and 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. Justice Sunshine refused to commission a diplomatic or consular officer for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the fraudulent foreign document that was presented to him by attorney Osato Uzamere on behalf of his uncle, Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. From then until the present, Justice Sunshine has never made any attempt to arrest Osato Uzamere for committing perjury. See fraudulent affirmation and fraudulent foreign counter-affidavit Exhibit C. During the same month, Defendant McCarthy and Defendant Cowles gave Plaintiff's criminal attorney Beth Mann a copy of the I-130 immigration sponsorship form that Plaintiff signed on November 30, 1979 and a report explaining the two (2) immigration files having birthdays “XXXXXX XX, 19XX” and XXXXXX XX, 19XX. and explaining “IR2 fraudulently obtained because he was married at the time” and “Compare fingerprints between the two files.”

*****On or around January 6, 2009, Plaintiff received a notice from Defendant McCarthy in which she said that “This office has completed its review of the complaint of professional misconduct that you filed against Allen E. Kaye, Esquire. The matter is confidential at this stage in accordance with the Rules and Procedures of Professional Conduct for Practitioners (“Rules”), except for necessary disclosures in the course of conducting a preliminary inquiry. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry of complaints of criminal, unethical, or unprofessional conduct in matters before USCIS. In your June 9, 2008 complaint, you allege that Alan E. Kaye “colluded with my husband, the now Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to submit a marriage certificate with the fictitious name "Godwin Uzamere: in order to avoid paying child support. and three years later, in order to hide the 2nd marriage that my husband contracted in the United States.” The acts that you allege constitute a violation of the

Babylonian Talmud-Influenced, Ashkenazi-Fomented Hatred of Plaintiff Continues

  

What effect did the events have on the life of the victim and others around him/her?
Describe physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, harm to reputation, economic loss and/or damage to property or any other kind of harm

*****The plaintiff continues to suffer Judaic/Talmud-oriented defamation of the plaintiff, and being blacklisted from federally-funded, not-for-profit mental health facilities that are controlled by Israeli citizens. Social stagnation based on hatred from members of Israeli community; continued inability to file criminal complaints against Israeli lawbreakers because of the Law of the Moser Doctrine; publicly identified as anti-Semite (which, in and of itself does not bother me because I am), but the publicity, along with my inability to prove that the term “anti-Semitism” is related, not to my feelings, but to the Israeli citizens projecting their hatred of Gentiles onto the Plaintiff.

TheSergeant001: (8:58 AM) Damn, njide chukwumezie You're an ugly Son of A bitch! I down Loaded your picture, will posted on the wall of my barn to scare off the rats! Ha Ha Ha LMAO
TheSergeant001: (8:59 AM) Ha Ha Ha I took a closer look at your picture, Damn you are an ugly bitch!
My lawsuit is listed here:
http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/verified_complaint_to_intl_criminal_court_and_united_nations.html.

Website:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpuRplCpX0U.

My petition is listed here: https://www.change.org/p/int-l-criminal-court-u-n-ofc-high-comm-for-human-rights-israel-usa-nigeria-petition-to-end-judaism-s-encroachment-in-u-s-government.

Duke Lewis:  You better remove that igbo name from your name. fuck you and your child. you are a bad woman. Nigeria is not America. there is no child support. if you want a man to support your child you be good to him. period. you can fuck around and think a man will be around you and your child.that shit is white man's law. No man forsakes a good woman. so if you are good to him. you would have have him.

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

Website:  http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/eugene_third_attorney.html.

“Pointblanknews.com further quoted the younger Uzamere thus: 'Most of her commentaries are misguided, and I won’t give credence to them. She is basically crazy. I won’t give credence to insanity. She is certifiably insane. That is all I have to say. She is crazy."
But what Eugene failed to disclose to pointblanknews.com included whether his elder brother and the lady in question were ever married; if the distinguished senator abandoned his wife and daughter as Cheryl claims, and if indeed he has been paying child support.
There are many instances of gang-stalking and cyberstalking. Use search term “Cheryl D. Uzamere.
Website:  http://www.google.com/#q=cheryl+uzamere

"Wacko goes into fit in court starts screaming, ripping off clothes “Cheryl Uzamere, 50, known around courthouse circles for her anti-Semitic screeds, was declared mentally unfit and taken to Bellevue Hospital for observation”; and, that “she's a smart person and she really know how to use the system, said one courthouse source.she comes in here and files all these papers and threatens people. Uzamere was in a Criminal Court holding cell when she started stripping and screaming about her “senator” husband in Nigeria loud enough to be heard in the courtroom. The senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to an affidavit he filed in Supreme Court. . .”; and that “the senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to affidavit filed in Supreme Court”; and “Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged, Godwin Uzamere said. . .”
Website: http://nypost.com/2009/11/11/clouded-woman-threaten-judge-sunshine/

Clouded Woman Threatens Judge Sunshine
A woman in a muddled divorce case against a Nigerian senator was arrested and sent to psychiatric  evaluation after she threatened the life of the Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge overseeing divorce proceedings.Officials said that Cheryl Uzamere allegedly called the Inspector General’s office of New York County and threatened to “put on a disguise and shoot Judge Jeffrey Sunshine in the head” according to the New York Law Journal, which first broke the story.Uzamere, who has detailed her litigation woes on her website http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.com/,  is also accused of leaving 10 threatening voice mails and sending three frightening faxes to Judge Sunshine’s chambers, officials said.Uzamere surrendered to authorities on November 3.On her website, she accuses Judge Sunshine of “adjourning divorce action nine times for no-show defendant; denied child support; accepted fraudulent, unauthenticated foreign counter-affidavits and rendering falsified decisions in favor of no-show defendant and no-show defendant’s immigration attorneys.”There are five other judges listed with Sunshine on the “Hall of Shame” section of Uzamere’s website. All of her comments stem from her bitter divorce and custody battle with Nigerian Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, who reportedly didn’t come back to the U.S. to attend any of the court proceedings.
Website:  http://workitoutmom.blogspot.com/2011/06/woman-sues-federal-government-for-not.html

Woman Sues Federal Government For NOT Deporting her Husband

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/fegs_conspiracy.html.  

Private psychiatric facilities are owned by Israeli citizens; Plaintiff blacklisted from using them based on being anti-Semitic.

Statement from Diagnostic Report: “Client remains incarcerated at this time and given client's history of anti-Semitic remarks treatment at a FEGS facility is inappropriate for her.”

Website:  http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/uzamere_v_usa.html

Affidavit of Child of the Marriage Tara A. Uzamere, Holding Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to Be Her Father.

*****I, Tara A. Uzamere, being duly sworn, depose and say that: I am the daughter of the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the above entitled action. I make this Affidavit based on the following facts:
*****That the Plaintiff has always told me that Defendant is my father since I was a child.That I met the Defendant for the first time at JFK Airport in Jamaica, New York around the year 2004 to the best of my recollection.
*****That I took a photograph of the Defendant during the aforesaid visit; photograph taken at JFK Airport is hereby attached as Exhibit A.
*****That on the day that I first met the Defendant at JFK Airport, I called my friend Eusi Patterson on the cell phone that I used to take a photograph of the Defendant.
*****That on the aforesaid day the Defendant openly and notoriously introduced himself to Eusi as my father.
*****That while I was a resident in Freeport, New York, I experienced a car accident, and that George Uzamere and the Defendant openly and notoriously sent checks to pay the rest of my car note to Drive Financial, a financing company based in Dallas, Texas.
Website: http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/davisconversation.mp3

Racist federal district court-fomented audio conversation in which Ms. Davis falsely accused Plaintiff of making threats to Medicaid (actually Center for Medicare and Medicaid) that Plaintiff never made.
Website:  http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/FBIconversation.mp3

Appellate brief; Audio conversation in which plaintiff was blackmailed by FBI agent with mental health hospitaliztion
Website:  http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/find_unbiased_court.html

Letter from U. S.  Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Our records show that you placed calls to 1-800-MEDICARE1-800-MEDICARE FREE 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, 11:13 AM; December 13, 2012, 4:29 AM, 5:05 PM, 5:09 PM.
Website:  http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/find_unbiased_court.html

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

*****Plaintiff alleges that the level of oppression by members of the Israeli community is so bad that her ability to go back to work, to make money, to develop a social reputation have all been ruined because of the Israeli community's determination enforce Law of the Moser to stop plaintiff from filing complaints against lawbreaking Israeli citizens.


 **** Abagond
*****https://abagond.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/unarmed-black-americans-killed-by-police-in-2015/
*****Unarmed Black Americans killed by police in 2015
*****Tue 11 Aug 2015 by abagond

*****Killed so far this year: 68
*****Last update: November 26th 2015.

*****Here is a somewhat complete list of unarmed Black people killed by police in the U.S. in 2015. So far.

*****Unarmed Black Americans are five times more likely to be killed by police than unarmed White Americans. Unarmed Native Americans too are killed by police at about the same rate as Blacks. Everyone else is killed at a way lower rate, even Latinos.

 

Latinos.

 

Unarmed African-American Men Who Were Killed by Police in 2015

Date Killed

Name of Victim

Age

Town and City

Cause of Death

1. Jan. 1, 2015

Matthew Ajibade

22

Savannah GA

Death in Custody

  • Jan. 5, 2015

Frank Smart

39

Pittsburgh PA

Death in custody

  • Jan. 6, 2015

Brian Pickett

26

Los Angeles CA

Taser

  • Jan. 7, 2015

Andre Murphy Sr

42

Norfolk NE

Death in custody

  • Jan. 8, 2015

Artago Howard

36

Strong AR

Gunshot

  • Jan. 26, 2015

Alvin Haynes

57

San Francisco CA

Death in custody

  • Feb. 3rd 2015

Natasha McKenna

37

Fairfax VA

Taser

  • Feb. 5, 2015

Jeremy Lett

28

Tallahassee FL

Gunshot

  • Feb. 21, 2015

Terry Price

41

Tulsa OK

Taser

  • Feb. 22, 2015

Calvon Reid

39

Coconut Creek FL

Taser

  • Mar. 1, 2015

Thomas Allen Jr

34

St Louis MO

Gunshot

  • Mar. 1, 2015

Charly ‘Africa’ Keunang

43

Los Angeles CA

Gunshot

  • Mar. 1, 2015

Darrell ‘Hubbard’ Gatewood

47

Oklahoma City OK

Taser

  • Mar. 6, 2015

Tony Robinson

19

Madison WI

Gunshot

  • Mar. 6, 2015

Naeschylus Vinzant

37

Aurora CO

Gunshot

  • Mar. 6, 2015

Bernard Moore

62

Atlanta GA

Struck by vehicle

  • Mar. 9, 2015

Anthony Hill

27

Chamblee GA

Gunshot

  • Mar. 10, 2015

Terrance Moxley

29

Mansfield OH

Taser

  • Mar. 12, 2015

Jonathan Paul

42

Arlington TX

Death in custody

  • Mar. 17, 2015

Askari Roberts

35

Rome GA

Taser

  • Mar. 19, 2015

Brandon Jones

18

Cleveland OH

Gunshot

  • Mar. 22, 2015

Denzel Brown

21

Bay Shore NY

Gunshot

  • Mar. 30th 2015

Dominick Wise

30

Culpeper VA

Taser

  • Mar. 31, 2015

Phillip White

32

Vineland NJ

Death in custody

  • Apr. 2, 2015

Donald Dontay’ Ivy

39

Albany NY

Taser

  • Apr. 2, 2015

Eric Harris

44

Tulsa OK

Gunshot

  • Apr. 4, 2015

Walter Scott

50

North Charleston SC

Gunshot

  • Apr. 12, 2015

Freddie Gray

25

Baltimore MD

Death in custody

  • Apr. 15, 2015

Frank Trey’ Shephard III

41

Houston TX

Gunshot

  • Apr. 16, 2015

Darrell Brown

31

Hagerstown MD

Taser

  • Apr. 19, 2015

Norman Cooper

33

San Antonio TX

Taser

  • Apr. 21, 2015

Samuel Harrell

30

Beacon NY

Death in custody

  • Apr. 22, 2015

William Chapman II

18

Portsmouth VA

Gunshot

  • Apr. 25, 2015

David Felix

24

New York NY

Gunshot

  • Apr. 28, 2015

Bryan Overstreet

30

Sylvester GA

Struck by vehicle

  • May 6, 2015

Brendon Glenn

29

Los Angeles CA

Gunshot

  • May 6, 2015

Nuwnah Laroche

34

Ridgefield Park NJ

Struck by vehicle

  • May 6, 2015

Jason Champion

41

Ridgefield Park NJ

Struck by vehicle

  • May 8, 2015

Sam Holmes

31

Fridley MN

Gunshot

  • May 13th 2015

Lorenzo Hayes

37

Spokane WA

Death in custody

  • May 31, 2015

Richard Davis

50

Rochester NY

Taser

  • Jun. 8, 2015

Ross Anthony

25

Dallas TX

Taser

  • Jun. 13th 2015

Alan Williams

47

Greenville SC

Struck by vehicle

  • Jun. 15, 2015

Kris Jackson

22

South Lake Tahoe CA

Gunshot

  • Jun. 16, 2015

Jermaine Benjamin

42

Vero Beach FL

Death in custody

  • Jun. 20th 2015

Kevin Bajoie

32

Baton Rouge LA

Taser

  • Jun. 25, 2015

Spencer McCain

41

Owings Mills MD

Gunshot

  • Jul. 1, 2015

Kevin Judson

24

McMinnville OR

Gunshot

  • Jul. 8, 2015

Jonathan Sanders

39

Stonewall MS

Death in custody

  • Jul. 11, 2015

George Mann

53

Stone Mountain GA

Taser

  • Jul. 12, 2015

Salvado Ellswood

36

Plantation FL

Gunshot

  • Jul. 17, 2015

Darrius Stewart

19

Memphis TN

Gunshot

  • Jul. 19, 2015

Samuel Dubose

43

Cincinnati OH

Gunshot

  • Aug. 6, 2015

Troy Robinson

33

Decatur GA

Taser

  • Aug. 7, 2015

Christian Taylor

19

Arlington TX

Gunshot

  • Aug. 14, 2015

Asshams Manley

30

District Heights MD

Gunshot

  • Aug. 28, 2015

Felix Kumi

61

Mount Vernon NY

Gunshot

  • Aug. 31, 2015

James Carney III

48

Cincinnati OH

Taser

  • Sept. 5, 2015

India Kager

28

Virginia Beach VA

Gunshot

  • Sept. 7, 2015

Wayne Wheeler

41

Detroit MI

Other

  • Sept. 23rd 2015

Keith McLeod

19

Reisterstown MD

Gunshot

  • Sept. 28, 2015

Junior Prosper

31

North Miami FL

Gunshot

  • Oct. 17, 2015

Paterson Brown Jr

18

Midlothian VA

Gunshot

  • Oct. 17, 2015

Rayshaun Cole

30

Chula Vista CA

Gunshot

  • Oct. 27, 2015

Anthony Ashford

29

San Diego CA

Gunshot

  • Nov. 11, 2015

Michael Marshall

50

Denver CO

Death in custody

  • Nov. 15, 2015

Jamar Clark

24

Minneapolis MN

Gunshot

  • Nov. 19, 2015

Nathaniel Pickett

29

Barstow CA

Gunshot

 

  • Jan. 23rd 2015

Demaris Turner

29

Lauderhill FL

Gunshot

  • Feb. 25, 2015

Glenn Lewis

37

Oklahoma City OK

Gunshot

  • Mar. 6, 2015

Andrew Williams

48

Putnam Hall FL

Gunshot

  • May 12, 2015

DaJuan Graham

40

Silver Spring MD

Taser

  • May 20th 2015

Markus Clark

26

Fort Lauderdale FL

Unknown

Notice that Sandra Bland does not make the list – because her death is officially counted a suicide Nor does Andre Green who was killed Aug. 10, because a vehicle counts as a “weapon” Nor likewise would Walter Scott or Sam Dubose if there were no video.





*****That during the course of Defendants' illegal conduct as demonstrated above, the Defendants kept secret from the public their subjecting the Plaintiff to acts of war by deception and crimes against humanity, including the illegal imprisonment of the Plaintiff.  While the Defendants publicized and continue to publicize Israeli citizens' experiences in Nazi Germany in the news, the Defendants' still withhold from the public their acts of war by deception in which they still engage in immigration fraud, identity theft/fraud; withholding of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's true identity to avoid paying spousal support, that Defendants still use the internet (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cheryl+uzamere;  http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/woman-suing-husband-arrested-threatening-judge-starts-ripping-clothes-courtroom-article-1.416793; see Plaintiff's Youtube videos at this website) to publicly defame Plaintiff as a violent "wacko" to disparage Plaintiff's complaint against the Defendants and kidnapping Plaintiff and imprisoning her in jail and in mental institutions to give the impression that Plaintiff's complaint is without merit based solely on Plaintiff's having a mental disability; withholding from the public historical information regarding Israeli attorney Scott Milkin's charging Gentile clients money to be represented by him when said clients' cases were time-barred and outside of the statute of limitations for filing with any court; withholding from the public historical information regarding the African Holocaust in which Israeli citizens enslaved sub-Saharan Africans; withholding from the public historical information regarding Israel's trickery and enslavement of white Gentile women from Europe; withholding from the public historical information regarding Israel's enslavement by tyranny of Thai workers; withholding from the public information regarding Israel's suspected involvement in the bombing and controlled demolition of Buildings 1, 2 and 7 of the former World Trade Center; withholding from the public historical information regarding Israel's bombing of the U.S.S. Liberty and murder of thirty-four U.S. serviceman; withholding from the public historical information regarding Israel's bombing of U.S. civil and military installations during the Lavon Affair; that Defendants' withholding of said information are acts of war by deception to hide Israel's and Israeli citizens obedience to the Laws of Israel's mandate to engage in predation against Gentiles in a manner that violates both national and international law; and that the following Defendants actively  prevent these issues and Israel's and her citizens' war-like predation  of Gentiles from being discussed in by the Israeli-controlled media, namely: Gerald Levin, in His Official Capacity as Chief Executive Officer and Director of AOL Time Warner; Michael Eisner, in His Official Capacity as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Walt Disney Company; Edgar Bronfman, head of Universal Studios; Sumner Redstone/Rothstein, in His Official Capacity as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CBS, Inc.; Dennis Dammerman, in His Official Capacity as Vice Chairman of General Electric; Peter Chernin, in His Official Capacity as President and Co-Chief Operating Officer of News Corporation Limited; Jeffrey L. Bewkes, in His Official Capacity as Chairman and Chief Executive Office, Time Warner; Philippe Dauman, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Walt Disney Company; Robert A. Iger, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Walt Disney Company; Leslie Moonves, President and Chief Executive Officer, CBS, Inc.; NBC Universal, Brian L. Roberts, Chairman, NBC Universal; Stephen B. Burke, Chief Executive Officer, NBC Universal; Mortimer Zuckerman, President and Chief Executive Office, Daily News, LP; Michael Bloomberg, Bloomberg News; Scott Shifrel, former Staff Writer of the Daily News, LP; the Daily News, LP; Rupert Murdoch, New York Post, New York Post.

Analysis

Defendants' Reliance on the Laws of Israel Encourage Genocide against the Descendants of Sub-Saharan Africans; Acts of War by Deception and Crimes Against Humanity and Have Abolished, Suspended and Rendered Inadmissible in Defendants' Courts of Law the Rights and Actions of Plaintiff and Gentiles as Hostile Parties

***** The intent of Israel and its citizenry is, and has been enslavement under tyranny, as is directed by the Talmudic Laws of Israel. As Plaintiff's reference to Israel's bombing of the United States during the Lavon Affair, Israel's bombing of the U.S.S. Liberty and the murder of 34 faithful servicemen; Israel's suspected insurance scam turned false flag controlled demolition of the World Trade Center; Israel's enslavement of Thai workers, Israel's involvement in human sex trafficking, and Israel's citizens immigration fraud and  identity theft/identity fraud committed against the Plaintiff and her daughter Tara, Israel's is and has always been is: 1) to allow the unconstitutional encroachment of the Talmud Laws of Israel; 2) to devalue and dehumanize Gentiles as a means to rationalize Israeli citizens' illegal acts; 3) to rely on the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser to ensure that Israeli citizens do not report the illegal acts of lawbreaking Israeli citizens to the secular (Gentile) authorities, and to ensure that those Gentiles who attempt to report the illegal acts of lawbreaking Israeli citizens are stopped by fellow Israeli citizens; and 4) to hold uncooperative Gentiles out as anti-Semites deserving of a social death or as close to a real death as possible.

*****The sum total of Plaintiff's living in an atmosphere where predatory Israeli citizens make fraudulent references to anti-Semitism  in order to hide their illegal predation of Plaintiff and her children, based on the encroachment of racist Israeli religious doctrines Curse of Dark Skin and Law of the Moser, has caused thirty-four (34) years of deprivation of Plaintiff and her family's constitutional, civil, marital, parental, social and financial rights. The Defendants' have staunchly refused to overtly acknowledge the legal relationship between Plaintiff, her children, and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and have instead, referred to the same, tired, old excuse of anti-Semitism to hide their crimes and to continue to prey on Plaintiff and her children. For thirty-four (34) years, Plaintiff and her children were condemned to the same Israeli religious generational curse that condemned millions of enslaved Africans to the permanent loss of their parents' proper African names, languages and customs associated with those names, and the wealth and social status that would have passed on to African children had they been able to bear their African forefathers' names. Because of the Defendants' determination to stop Plaintiff from reporting the original crimes that were perpetrated by those Defendants who helped Plaintiff's ex-husband commit fraud and aggravated identity theft, Plaintiff and her children are now victims in a hateful, racist environment that forgives and gives second chances to lawbreaking Israeli citizens, forever condemns the descendants of African slaves for being dark-skinned, and like the pedophile Jesse Timmendaguas, use past incidents of anti-Semitism to rationalize their abusive, hateful, predatory behavior towards Gentiles.

****That the Defendants plan to perpetrate the same inhumane enslavement against the Plaintiff that they have already perpetrated against her is borne out of the fact that, while conversation about Israeli citizens' experiences in Nazi Germany are openly discussed in the news, the Defendants' still withhold from the public their acts of war by deception in which they still engage in immigration fraud, identity theft/fraud; withholding of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's true identity to avoid paying spousal support, that Defendants still use the internet (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cheryl+uzamere;  http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/woman-suing-husband-arrested-threatening-judge-starts-ripping-clothes-courtroom-article-1.416793; see Plaintiff's Youtube videos at this website) to publicly defame Plaintiff as a violent "wacko" to disparage Plaintiff's complaint against the Defendants and kidnapping Plaintiff and imprisoning her in jail and in mental institutions to give the impression that Plaintiff's complaint is without merit based solely on Plaintiff's having a mental disability; withholding from the public historical information regarding the African Holocaust in which Israeli citizens enslaved sub-Saharan Africans; withholding from the public historical information regarding Israel's trickery and enslavement of white Gentile women from Europe; withholding from the public historical information regarding Israel's enslavement by tyranny of Thai workers; withholding from the public information regarding Israel's suspected involvement in the bombing and controlled demolition of Buildings 1, 2 and 7 of the former World Trade Center; withholding from the public historical information regarding Israel's bombing of the U.S.S. Liberty and murder of thirty-four U.S. serviceman; withholding from the public historical information regarding Israel's bombing of U.S. civil and military installations during the Lavon Affair; that Defendants' withholding of said information are acts of war by deception to hide Israel's and Israeli citizens obedience to the Laws of Israel's mandate to engage in predation against Gentiles in a manner that violates both national and international law; and that the following Defendants actively  prevent these issues and Israel's and her citizens' war-like predation  of Gentiles from being discussed in by the Israeli-controlled media, namely: Gerald Levin, in His Official Capacity as Chief Executive Officer and Director of AOL Time Warner; Michael Eisner, in His Official Capacity as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Walt Disney Company; Edgar Bronfman, head of Universal Studios; Sumner Redstone/Rothstein, in His Official Capacity as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CBS, Inc.; Dennis Dammerman, in His Official Capacity as Vice Chairman of General Electric; Peter Chernin, in His Official Capacity as President and Co-Chief Operating Officer of News Corporation Limited; Jeffrey L. Bewkes, in His Official Capacity as Chairman and Chief Executive Office, Time Warner; Philippe Dauman, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Walt Disney Company; Robert A. Iger, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Walt Disney Company; Leslie Moonves, President and Chief Executive Officer, CBS, Inc.; NBC Universal, Brian L. Roberts, Chairman, NBC Universal; Stephen B. Burke, Chief Executive Officer, NBC Universal; Mortimer Zuckerman, President and Chief Executive Office, Daily News, LP; Michael Bloomberg, Bloomberg News; Scott Shifrel, former Staff Writer of the Daily News, LP; the Daily News, LP; Rupert Murdoch, New York Post, New York Post.



*****By reason of the foregoing irrefutable allegations, Plaintiff asserts that there exists a justiciable controversy with respect to which Plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for herein.


CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE

 Cheryl's Signature

______________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue,
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (718) 235-6836
Fax: (718) 235-2408
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net



 

Marriage License that was falsified by ex-husband Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Joseph Visceglia, at the behest of corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro

marriageaffidavitfront.jpgmarriageaffidavitbackpg.jpg

 I-130 Immigration Form that was Falsified by ex-husband Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and his attorneys, corrupt Jews Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro 

I-130.jpg

  U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Form
1-214 to Report Immigration Fraud

uscisPage28.gif
USCISPage25.gif
USCISPage26.gif
USCISPage27.gif

 Fraudulent Identity Letter from Jack Gladstein
1stletterjackgladstein.jpg

 This the Divorce Action in Which Corrupt Jewish Attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro Were Implicated for Submitting a Fraudulent I-130 Immigration Sponsorship Form to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service

verifiedcompg5.jpg

 

 Fraudulent Criminal Lawsuit Charging Plaintiff with Assaulting Rachel McCarthy When
Plaintiff was 260 Miles Away from Rachel on the Day the Criminal Complaint Was Made

USA_vs._Uzamere_--_Information.jpg

  Fraudulent Affirmation, Counter-Affidavit and Exhibits Submitted to
Justice Sunshine by ex-husband's Nephew Osato Eugene Uzamere

 eugeneaffirmationpg1A.jpg
eugeneaffirmationpg2A.jpg
cousinuzamerepg1.jpg
cousinuzamerepg2b1.jpg
cousinuzamerefakepassportpg2.jpg
cousinuzamerefakepassportpg3.jpg

 Child of the Marriage Tara A. Uzamere Identifying
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as her father

taraaffidavitpg1.jpg
taraaffidavitpg2.jpg
taraaffidavitpg3.jpg
taraaffexhB1.jpg
taraaffexhB2.jpg

 Report from Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel, USDHS/USCIS
Regarding the Two Identities of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere

USCISReportbyRachelMcCarthy.jpg


 

 Rachel McCarthy/US Government Withdraw
Their Fraudulent Case against Innocent Plaintiff

USA_vs_Uzamere_--_motion_for_dismissal.jpg

 

  Pages 9 and 12 of Justice Sunshine's Fraudulent Decision
Regarding the Identity of Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere

sunshinedecpg9.jpg

judgesunshinedecisionpg12.jpg

E-mails to and from the U.S. Department of State's Embassy in Nigeria Regarding the Identity of Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
emailtorobinsanders.jpg
usembassyemail.jpg

 

 Correspondence from Rachel McCarthy Regarding Harvey
Shapiro's Involvement in Immigration and Identity Fraud

rachelmccarthyletter2.gif
Justice Sunshine's Decision Holding Senator Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere to Be Plaintiff's Husband

sunshinedecision5-12-09pg1.jpg
sunshinedecision5-12-09pg2.jpg

 

FOIA Response from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service/
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Regarding Senator
Uzamere's Identity

uscisltr06-12-09.jpg
A35_201_224.jpgA24_027_764.jpg
 

  Justice D'Emic's Decision Holding Senator Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere to Be Plaintiff's Husband

judgedemicdecpg1.jpg
 

 Justices' Fisher, Angiolillo, Lott and Sgroi's Decision Holding
Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to Be Plaintiff's Husband

UzamerevsUzamere--AppellateDecision.gif
 

 Attorneys' Fraudulent Affirmation That Identify
Plaintiff's Ex-Husband as "Godwin Uzamere"
CCF12262010_00000.jpg
CCF12262010_00003.jpg
CCF12262010_00009.jpg
CCF12262010_00010.jpg
CCF12262010_00013.jpg
CCF12262010_00019.jpg
CCF12262010_00020.jpg
CCF12262010_00023.jpg

 

Daily News Article in Which Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel
Fraudulently Holds that Plaintiff's Ex-Husband is "Godwin Uzamere"

 dailynewsarticle2.jpg

 

FEGS Ends Its Mental Health Services Based on
Plaintiff's Being "Anti-Semitic" and "Mentally Unfit"

 FEGSpsychosocialpg1.jpg
FEGSpsychosocialpg2.jpg

 

Fraudulent Criminal Case against Plaintiff Dismissed

FaxfromJoyceKendrick.jpg

 

Plaintiff Kidnapped and Placed in Mental Institute to Prevent
Her From Reporting Lawbreaking Jewish Attorneys
 

LetterofIncarceration.gif

 

Interim Decision by Justice Arthur M. Schack Prevent Plaintiff from Going to Court
JudgeSchackInterimDecisionpg1.gif
JudgeSchackInterimDecisionpg2.gif
JudgeSchackInterimDecisionpg3.gif

 Mental Institution in Which Plaintiff was Force to Stay to Make Plaintiff's
Complaint against Lawbreaking Jewish Attorney Appear to Be Untrue


KingsboroDischargeSummary1.gif
KingsboroDischargeSummary2.gif
KingsboroDischargeSummary3.gif
KingsboroDischargeSummary4.gif

 Fraudulent Decision in Which Justice Arthur M. Schack Held that Service of Process to Lawbreaking Jewish Attorneys was Improper, that "Godwin Uzamere" Is Plaintiff's Ex-Husband,Then Rendered Decision over Case in Which He Had No Jurisdiction
JusticeSchackDecisiondatedJuly132010pg1.gif
JusticeSchackDecisiondatedJuly132010pg4.gif
JusticeSchackDecisiondatedJuly132010pg20.gif
JusticeSchackDecisiondatedJuly132010pg21.gif

Letter in Which Denis McGowan of USDHS Falsely Accuses Plaintiff of Threatening Employees of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services with Death

USDHSletter.jpg

Psychiatric Report Falsely Holding That Plaintiff
Made Death Threats to Employees of CMS

psychtreatmentpg1.jpg
psychtreatmentpg2.jpg

Letter in Which Employees of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Confirm that Plaintiff Did Not Threaten Anyone
CMSLettertoRobertMoore.jpg LettertoRobertMoorepage2.jpg