THE CRIMES OF SENATOR EHIGIE EDOBOR A.K.A. "GODWIN" UZAMERE
1. Home2. Once Upon A Time3. Victim's Statement4. My Search for Justice5. Descent into Hell6. U.S. Laws Violated by Senator Uzamere7. Nigerian Laws Violated by Senator Uzamere8. Ignored by Federal Agencies9. Ignored by Nigerian Authorities10. Victims' Loss of Child Support11. The Uzamere Family12. Municipal Employees Who Helped Senator Uzamere13. John Gray and Non-Profit Legal Community14. Hall of Shame15. 1st Judicial Blow By African-American Judge Thomas16. Law Firm of Allen E. Kaye17. Too Many Discrepancies...18. Allen E. Kaye And His Diabolical Talmud-Following Minions19. Will Sampson Staff Refuse To Help Identity Fraud Victims?20. Law Office of Gladstein & Messinger21. Patrick Synmoie's Attempts to Hide22. Consulate General of Nigeria23. Strange Chat with Senator Ekweremadu24. Proof of Legal Marriage25. Proof of Illegal Marriage/Identity Fraud26. Senator Uzamere's Attempts to Hide Crimes Will Fail27. The Proof...28. Success -- The Proof Is Finally Here!29. Will Senator Uzamere Evade Child Support Again?30. Nigeria's New Commitment to Protect Child Abandoned by Sen. Uzamere31. Judge Prus -- What Gives?32. Back on Track!33. Eugene Uzamere -- Third Attorney to Break the Law34. Petitioner's Verified Petition35. Supplemental Verified Petition36. Judge Prus Recuses Himself37. Eugene's Failed Attempt to Thwart Justice38. Kate Ezomo -- Diabolical Liar39. Letters of Complaint Against Kate Ezomo40. My Factual Response to Imaginary Cousin Godwin41. Federal Action Against Defendant Dismissed42. Open Letters to the FBI43. Open Letter to All U.S. Judges44. Open Letter to Ehigie and Eugene45. Tara's Affidavit46. $100,000,000.00 Lawsuit Against Corrupt Fiduciaries47. Will Fiduciaries Settle?48. New York City Defrauds Disabled Schvartze49. There Is No Cousin Godwin!50. Warning Letter to Governor and Chief Justice of New York State51. Deprived of Child Support by Allen Kaye52. Can International Agency Help?53. Chief Judge Wood's Court54. Will NYS' Dept. Disc. Committee and Commission on Judicial Conduct Be Corrupted?55. Subpoena Planned for Judge Garaufis56. No Negotiations for Justice...Justice is Owed!57. Will Attorneys Sign Affirmation?58. Am I Finally Being Taken Seriously?59. Evidentiary Hearing is Scheduled!60. Amy Feinstein Refuses to Prosecute!61. Robert Juceam's Useless Excuses62. Appellate Brief pages 24 to end63. No Justice -- No Peace!64. Happy Birthday My Beautiful Angel65. Are You A Victim of A Green Card Marriage Scam?66. End Green Card Marriage Sponsorship67. How to Report an Immigration Scammer and the Attorney68. Is The End Finally in Sight?69. Will Appellate Division Justices Decide Fairly?70. What Will NYSCJC's Response Be?71. How Will NYSDDC Respond?72. Will Obama's Administration Coerce Helpless Schvartze's Silence73. Will U.S. Department of State's Secretary Rise To The Challenge?74. Eugene Uzamere Calls It Quits75. Bigot Judge Sunshine Continues Courtroom Corruption76. Schvartze's Complaints Still Ignored By Appellate Division's White Judiciary77. More Talmudic Bias and Anti-Schvartze Racism At SDNY78. Senator Uzamere...You Are The Husband!79. Will U.S. Solicitor General Office Look On Idly?80. What will SCOTUS Do?81. Why did they disobey?82. Cabranes' Fraud Upon The Court83. Is Hinds-Radix Their 'Secret' Weapon?84. New York State Lawsuit for Fraud85. Judge Sunshine Is A Loser86. Judge Sunshine Out of Options87. Petitioner Prepares Request for Rehearing...88. Petition for Rehearing89. Loser Sunshine's Last Hurrah90. Lawsuit Against Daily News and Scott Shifrel91. Mort Zuckerman's Bigoted Tabloid92. Corruption at Nassau County Supreme Court and Nassau County Clerk93. Judge Scuccimarra Ruling94. Defendants Have Defaulted95. Will Judge Parga Accepts Anne Carroll's Drivel Because Defendants Are Rich Jews?96. New York and Anne B. Carroll97. Lawsuit Against President98. Will Obama Listen?99. Open Letter to Al Jazeera, President Obama and Judge Allegra100. More Court Shenanigans?101. Howard U. Schmokescreen102. Into the fire...103. What Will The New York State Division of Human Rights Do?104. Housing Court Corruption105. Mayor Bloomberg's Finest106. FEGS in Criminal Conspiracy107. FEGS Gave Victim No Choice108. What Will The New York State Supreme Court Do?109. What Will Court of Claims Do?110. Abuse of Religion Not New111. How Wicked Are They?112. What Lies???113. Federal Lawsuit114. Disastrous Results to Appeal115. Judge Garaufis' Discriminatory Decision116. Garaufis' Talmudic Shenanigans117. FOIA Hiding Evidence118. Congressional Testimony119. Unintelligible Complaint of Rachel G. Yohalem120. Uzamere v. USA, et al121. Judicial Whores Willy and Patty122. Uzamere v. USA123. Find an Unbiased Court124. U.S. Government Blacklists Own Citizens125. Appellate Brief First Circuit126. U.S. Government Hides Prosecution127. A Jewish RICO128. Jews' Demonic Doctrine -- Law of the Moser129. Mishkin Yanks His Own Nuts130. Will African American Victim of Grand Laceny Receive Justice?131. Judicial Ethics Hypocrite132. Jew Shenanigans Involved in Random Selection of Morally Compromised Judge133. Please save my family!134. Psychopaths135. Jewish Paradigm Put Jews on Top136. Pretender Bharara137. Int'l Complaint Against Israel, United States and Nigeria138. Memorial of Impeachment139. Supplemental Complaint140. Appellate Brief to UN and US141. U.S. Supreme Court Petition -- UN and U.S.142. A Real Man

cherylphoto.jpgCheryl D. Uzamere -- Sister of victim of grand larceny and Law of the Moser by attorney/porn actor Scott Michael Mishkin

Will NYS schoolteacher who is a victim of Jewish attorney who robbed her of $12,000 receive justice from Judaic-law-controlled courts at the biased hands of judges Peter H. Mayer, Sandra Feuerstein and Denise F. Molia? Will my little sister become a victim of Law of the Moser like I am now? (Retraction: the Honorable, really, really honorable Paul J. Baisley was added accidentally. Sorry, Your Honor!)

$12,000 was stolen from my sister by greedy Jewish attorney/porn actor Scott Michael Mishkin. Biased judges/justices now, at the behest of greedy Jewish attorney/porn actor, have enforced the demonic Judaic doctrine Law of the Moser to prevent me and my sister from reporting the thieving, cum guzzling Jewish thief so that he and his judicial Gentile slaves are not punished by the secular authorities for their commission of grand larceny, facilitating grand larceny, obstruction, of justice, facilitating a RICO and for attempting insurance fraud.

Larceny applies to a person who, with intent to deprive another of his property, obtains, takes or withholds the property by means of trick, embezzlement, false pretense, false promise, including a scheme to defraud, or other similar behavior. Third degree grand larceny involves property valued over $3,000. It is a class D felony.

Penal Law Article 175 - False Written Statements -- b. §175.10 - Falsifying business records in the first degree includes the elements of the §175.05 offense and includes the intent to commit another crime or conceal its commission. It is a class E felony. 

I allege that racist judges Peter H. Mayer and Denise F. Molia are members of a judicial RICO that was formed  for the sole purpose of enforcing the Judaic doctrine Law of the Moser to prevent my sister from reporting Jewish thief's Scott Michael Mishkin's theft of her $12,000 (please see NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 114 S. Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed. 2d 99 (1994); a RICO enterprise does not need an economic motive.)

Will law enforcement authorities rely on the U.S. Constitution to come to the aid of schoolteacher/African American mother of eight who was defrauded by greedy Jewish thief/porn actor Scott Michael Mishkin, who pretended to litigate his former client's lawsuit although the statute of limitations had expired even before he met the client?

PaulJBaisley.jpg
Hon. Paul J. Baisley

PeterHMayer3.jpgHon. Peter H. Mayer

FederalDistrictJudgeFeuerstein.jpg
Hon. Feuerstein

JusticeDeniseFMolia.jpg
Hon. Denise F. Molia

 GeorgeVenizelos.jpg
George Venizelos
FBI

ThomasSpota.jpg
Thomas Spota
Suffolk County District Attorney

 blankface.jpg
Attorney Scott Michael Mishkin

Those Jew-biased shenanigans were employed by the above-referenced judges to help Scott Michael Mishkin get away with stealing and keeping my sister's $12,000, and requiring my sister to provide her insurance information to facilitate the attorney's ability to steal even more money from her insurance.

Hon. Feuerstein said to my sister: "If you want to give Scott more money, go ahead (although Judge  Feuerstein adjudged that the case was time-barred and by extension, in no need of an attorney); 2) Hon. Paul J. Baisley: IAS justice illegally allowed case to be transferred to a new judge based on the illegal ex-parte request of the Jewish thief/litigant Scott M. Mishkin, although my sister was not given a chance to rebut Scott Mishkin); 3) Justice Molia accepted Scott Mishkin's non-legal, irrelevant insults of ___________ and refused to sanction, punish or discipline Scott for his acts of obstruction of justice.

Instruction for Filing a  Human Rights Complaint against
the United States of America and any other country

 

United-Nations-High-Commissioner.jpg

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

UNPetitionProcedures2jpg.jpg

==========================================================
 Office-UNquestions3.jpg

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

NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK

-----------------------------------------------------X

Scott Michael Mishkin, P.C.                                  Index No.: 13-02063

                                                                          DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ENJOIN
                                       Plaintiff,                      FURTHER ADJOURNMENT PURSUANT
                                                                          TO CPLR §70-a(b)(c) AND FOR AFFIDAVIT
     - against -                                                      IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION
                                                                         FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON
                                                                          RESJUDICATAPURSUANT 
TO                                                                        CPLR RULE 3211(5)

                                         Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------X

           PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the attached Affidavit of Defendant, _____________, sworn to on May __, 2014, and upon all the exhibits herein attached, the Plaintiff will move the Honorable Peter H. Mayer, at the New York State Supreme Court, County of Suffolk, located at 1 Court Street, Riverhead, New York 11901 on the __th day of _________ 2014, at 9:30 in the forenoon, or as soon thereafter for an order for leave to enjoin this Court from making unnecessary, harassing adjournments on behalf of the Defendants pursuant to CPLR §70-a(b)(c), and to be granted summary judgment based on res judicata pursuant to CPLR Rule 3211(5).

Dated: Calverton, New York
          
June 9, 2014

 

APPEARING PRO SE
 

________________


136 Elm Street
Calverton, New York
Tel.: (631) 284-3061

 

 

NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK

-----------------------------------------------------X

Scott Michael Mishkin                                         Index No.: 13-02063

                                                                          AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S
                         Plaintiff,                                    MOTION TO ENJOIN FURTHE ADJOURNMENT
                                                                          PURSUANT TO CPLR §70-a(b)(c) AND
   - against -                                                       AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S
                                                                          MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED
______________                                               ON RES JUDICATA PURSUANT TO CPLR RULE
                                                                          CPLR RULE 3211(5)

-----------------------------------------------------X 

          Affiant _____________ comes before this Court demanding a mandatory summary judgment of the facts stated herein, as they are known to this Court, or readily provable since the adjudicative facts are a matter of public information or confidential government record held by and/or in control of the Defendants.

          Affiant holds the following to be true under the penalties of perjury:

          1)     That Affiant was a client of Defendant Scott Michael Mishkin. At the beginning of Plaintiff's professional relationship with the Defendant Scott Michael Mishkin, the aforesaid attorney engaged in malice aforethought by crying and shows of anger to coerce the Plaintiff into accepting his professional services for her case, for which the statute of limitations had already expired at least two (2) months before the Affiant approached the Plaintiff with her case.

          2)     By the present time, the Plaintiff had defrauded the Affiant out of $12,000.00. The statute of limitation for Affiant's case had already expired before her meeting with Plaintiff.

          3)     That from that time to the present the Defendants has engaged in a course of conduct designed to steal the Plaintiff's money based on the fraudulent pretense that Defendants provided Plaintiff with legal services even though Defendant was informed by a previous court that the statute of limitations for her case had expired. 

This Court Lacks Standing Over The Plaintiff Based on the Non-existence of a Cause
of Action on the Part of the Plaintiff; Without a Legal Cause of Action, This Court's
Jurisdiction Over the Defendant Vanishes

           4)     The question that the Affiant poses to this Court is: What is the Plaintiff's causes of action with respect to this case? The Plaintiff filed a fraudulent complaint that he said was based on duties and responsibilities owed by the Affiant. Said duties and responsibilities  were associated with a case that was presented to a court of competent jurisdiction and found by that court to have been filed past the last day of the statute of limitations, and therefore too late for said court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the individuals who were defendants in the federal case brought by ____________. This case is time-barred.

              5)     How then, does this Court exercise such an abuse of discretion as to display the audacity to ignore the order of a standing court of competent jurisdiction by attempting to adjudicate a res judicata situation in which said standing court found the case that was brought before it to be too late to adjudicate in any courtroom? This court has now become a disobedient bully, and worse, a member with the Plaintiff in a RICO whose goal it is to get away with stealing the $12,000 that was stolen from the Defendant by the Plaintiff.

             6)     In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:

                     a)     The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.

                     b)     The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called “chilling effects” doctrine.

                      c) The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive a portion of any fines collected by the government from their violation of law. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.
                      d) In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will “imminently” be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law.

            Case Law

            7)     “Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as it did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it had standing to commence this action. Where, as here, standing is put into issue by the defendant, the plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]).”

            8)     “Contrary to the appellants' contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied their cross motion to dismiss the complaint, as they did not have standing to assert noncompliance with the subject lender's pooling service agreement.” 

Equity Prevents Plaintiff From Presenting Any Argument
To This Court Because The Plaintiff Is A Thief;
 

          9) The Plaintiffs' demand for quantum meruit requires Defendant to provide a reasonable amount of money for labor and materials furnished, even in the absence of a specific legally enforceable agreement between the parties. Defendant agrees. Defendant respectfully demands this Court to require the Plaintiffs to supply the record for all clients who paid Plaintiffs' money for handling a case that had an expired statute of limitations at the time that Plaintiffs retained Scott Mishkin's services.

          10) The Plaintiffs' complaints for breach of contact is confusing to Defendant as Defendant had never heard or seen an attorney retained for handling a case where the statute of limitation had long expired.

 Res Judicata

           11) Plaintiff respectfully informs this Court that by operation of law this Court must not render any decision on this case other summary judgment because the decision has been rendered res judicata.

           12) The Supreme Court has held that a federal court “must give to a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered.” Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984). In adherence to this rule, the Court of Appeals has previously held that a “New York state court affirmation of the [SDHR's] finding of no probable cause would preclude federal litigation based on the same facts.” Yan Yam Koo v. Dep't of Bldgs. of the City of New York, 218 Fed. Appx. 97, 98 (2007) (Summary Order), affirming Yan Yam Koo v. NYC Dep't of Bldgs., No. 04 Civ. 9628, 2006 WL 963883 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2006) (Summary Order). Therefore, a “judgment pursuant to Article 78 may preclude relitigation of issues already decided in that earlier judgment." LaF-leur v. Whitman, 300 F.3d 256, 272 (2d Cir.2002).

          13)     With regard to the case Wells Fargo Bank NA v Podeswik, 2014 NY Slip Op 01045 [115 AD3d 207] We next address the motion by Roach for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him in action No. 2. Roach argued, and the court (Gall, J.) agreed, that action No. 2 was barred by res judicata. The court therefore granted the motion and sua sponte dismissed the complaint in action No. 2 against all defendants. We note that Peter T. Roach and Associates, P.C. represented Wells Fargo in the foreclosure action and moved for the nunc pro tunc order. Roach has not appeared in this appeal, but Wells Fargo and defendant American Security Insurance Co. (American Security), a defendant in action No. 2, contend that the court's ruling was proper (see generally Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429 [1996]). We reject that contention. “[W]here there is a valid final judgment[,] the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars future litigation between those parties on the same cause of action" (Matter of Hodes v Axelrod, 70 NY2d 364, 372 [1987]). “This doctrine is based on the principle that a 'judgment in one action is conclusive in a later one not only as to any matters actually litigated therein, but also as to any that might have been so litigated, when the two causes of action have such a measure of identity that a different judgment in the second would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first' " (Lot 1555 Corp. v Nahzi, 79 AD3d 580, 580 [2010], quoting Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]). 

Crimes Committed By The Plaintiff While in and
Outside of Civil Court
 

          14)     According to the New York State Penal Law, the following are some crimes that were committed by the Plaintiff, and must be adjudicated in a criminal court:

                   (a)     A person commits a hate crime when he or she commits a specified offense and either:
                            1) intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is committed or intended to be committed in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct, or A “specified offense” is an offense defined by any of the following provisions of this chapter: section 155.40 (grand larceny in the second degree);

                            2)     §155.40 Grand larceny in the second degree. A person is guilty of grand larceny in the second degree when he steals property and when:

                                     a.     The value of the property exceeds fifty thousand dollars; or

                                    b.     The property, regardless of its nature and value, is obtained by extortion committed by instilling in the victim a fear that the actor or another person will (a) cause physical injury to some person in the future, or (b) cause damage to property, or (c) use or abuse his position as a public servant by engaging in conduct within or related to his official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely.

                                     c. Grand larceny in the second degree is a class C felony.

          15)     §210.15 Perjury in the first degree. A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree when he swears falsely and when his false statement (a) consists of testimony, and (b) is material to the action, proceeding or matter in which it is made.

                     Perjury in the first degree is a class D felony.

           16)     
New York State Penal Law §190.65 Scheme to defraud in the first degree.

           17)    A person is guilty of a scheme to defraud in the first degree when he or she: (a) engages in a scheme constituting a systematic ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud ten or more persons or to obtain property from ten or more persons by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, and so obtains property from one or more of such persons; or (b) engages in a scheme constituting a systematic ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud more than one person or to obtain property from more than one person by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, and so obtains property with a value in excess of one thousand dollars from one or more such persons; or (c) engages in a scheme constituting a systematic ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud more than one person, more than one of whom is a vulnerable elderly person as defined in subdivision three of section 260.30 of this chapter or to obtain property from more than one person, more than one of whom is a vulnerable elderly person as defined in subdivision three of section 260.30 of this chapter, by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, and so obtains property from one or more such persons.

           18)     In any prosecution under this section, it shall be necessary to prove the identity of at least one person from whom the defendant so obtained property, but it shall not be necessary to prove the identity of any other intended victim, provided that in any prosecution under paragraph (c) of subdivision one of this section, it shall be necessary to prove the identity of at least one such vulnerable elderly person as defined in subdivision three of section 260.30 of this chapter.

                     Scheme to defraud in the first degree is a class E felony.

            19)    New York State Penal Law §210.40. Making an apparently sworn false statement in the first degree. A person is guilty of making an apparently sworn false statement in the first degree when he commits the crime of making an apparently sworn false statement in the second degree, and when (a) the written instrument involved is one for which an oath is required by law, and (b) the false statement contained therein is made with intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official functions, and (c) such false statement is material to the action, proceeding or matter involved.

                     Making an apparently sworn false statement in the first degree is a class E felony.

          20)     §135.60 Coercion in the second degree. A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he or she has a legal right to engage, or compels or induces a person to join a group, organization or criminal enterprise which such latter person has a right to abstain from joining, by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:

               a)     Cause physical injury to a person; or,

               b)     Cause damage to property; or

               c)      Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or

               d)     Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him or her; or

               e)     Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or

               f)    Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense; or

               g)   Use or abuse his or her position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his or her official duties, or by failing;

               e)   or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely; or

                 Coercion in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

          21)     New York State Penal Law §135.65 Coercion in the first degree. A person is guilty of coercion in the first degree when he or she commits the crime of coercion in the second degree, and when:
               a)   He or she commits such crime by instilling in the victim a fearthat he or she will cause physical injury to a person or cause damage to property; or

                b)     He or she thereby compels or induces the victim to:

                c)     Commit or attempt to commit a felony; or

                d)     Cause or attempt to cause physical injury to a person; or

                e)     Violate his or her duty as a public servant.

              Coercion in the first degree is a class D felony.

          WHEREFORE, Affiant respectfully ask this Court to grant Defendant's demand for summary justice as Plaintiff should be in criminal court for hate crimes committed against the Defendant, for Plaintiff's commission of grand larceny, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: Calverton, New York
          
June 9, 2014

 

________________
APPEARING PRO SE

 

____________________

136 Elm Street
Calverton, New York
Tel.: (631) 284-3061

 
SettlementAgreement.gif
 
SettlementAgreementA2.gif

 SettlementAgreementA3.gif

 
SettlementAgreementA4.gif
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LetterfromJudgeMolia2.jpg
Memorandum-Order1.jpg
Feuerstein-TomlinsonMemorandumandOrder2.gif
Memorandum-Order3.gif
Memorandum-Order4.gif
Guity-Mishkin-Memorandum-Order5.jpg
Feuerstein-Tomlinson-Memorandum-Order6.gif
Feuerstein-Tomlinson-Memorandum-Order7.gif
Feuerstein-Tomlinson-Memorandum-Order-arrows.jpg
Feuerstein-Tomlinson-Memorandum-Order9.gif
Feuerstein-Tomlinson-Memorandum-Order10.gif
Feuerstein-Tomlinson-Memorandum-Order11.gif
Feuerstein-Tomlinson-Memorandum-Order12.gif
Feuerstein-Tomlinson-Memorandum-Order13.gif
Feuerstein-Tomlinson-Memorandum-Order14.gif
Feuerstein-Tomlinson-Memorandum-Order15.gif
Feuerstein-Tomlinson-Memorandum-Order16.gif
Feuerstein-Tomlinson-Memorandum-Order17.gif
Feuerstein-Tomlinson-Memorandum-Order18.gif

 

Docket No.__________ 
Horizontal Divider 30
 
In The
Supreme Court of the United States

______________

Cheryl D. Uzamere

Petitioner,

- vs. -

United States of America, et al

Respondents,

______________

*
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to
the United States Court of Appeal
for the First Circuit
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
 
 
Horizontal Divider 30
 
Cheryl D. Uzamere
Appearing Pro Se
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
 
Horizontal Divider 30 

 

National Institute for Judaic Law and the Demonic Law of the Moser
Will Be Reported to the United Nations Office of the High Commission
for Human Rights against the United States, the State of Israel and the Federal Republic of Nigeria.


          This is a criminal complaint. It started with my corrupt Nigerian ex-husband tricking me into a romance scam marriage, and then his corrupt Jewish attorneys forming a RICO to trick me and my children out of receiving financial support from my ex-husband. How was this accomplished? By using one of the names that belong to my ex-husband and pretending that it belonged to someone else. Since that time, the original attorneys that formed the small RICO to engage in facilitating identity theft has grown into well over 200 people, most of whom are Jewish, with the same goal in mind, to prevent me from reporting Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, and now Jack Gladstein's commission of identity theft to the secular (Gentile) law enforcement agencies. Although my criminal complaint is originally filed against the Jewish Respondents, because of this Court's “discretionary” dismissal of my previous petitions that reported some earlier crimes, this criminal complaint is also filed against this Court's Jewish justices for what I allege is their use of the Judaic Law of the Moser. The demonic spirit that stopped me from obtaining money for my babies and I to eat, to live, to avoid foster care and homelessness, the demonic spirit that exacerbated my mental illness, the demonic spirit that caused the separation of my family and the demonic spirit that encouraged Mortimer Zuckerman's to use the Daily News to publicly humiliate me and lied on me to make the public think that I was mentally unfit and wrong about my ex-husband's identity – even though I had already produced documentation from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, my daughter's affidavit, correspondence and report and documentation from New York State Supreme Court Jeffrey S. Sunshine, New York State Supreme Court Matthew D'emic and finally by New York State Supreme Court Appellate Judges1. In spite of all the proof I produced, corrupt Jews Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, NYS Arthur M Schack produced false affirmations bearing the same fake name, but not producing PATRIOT-Act-acceptable documents to verify the names that were placed in their affirmations and the state court decision. Since that time, ever dirty I had the displeasure to me ignored the decision that was rendered in my favor, and protected the decision that was made to protect the false decision that was rendered by NYS Justice Schack.

          In the likely event that Petitioner's criminal complaint is blocked by members of the Jewish RICO or dismissed as “discretionary” by this Court's Jewish justices, I will redo this complaint and submit it as a human rights complaints with the United Nations Office of the High Commission for Human Rights against the United States, the State of Israel and the Federal Republic of Nigeria. My complaint will include the Government Respondent's dependence and use of the Law of the Moser, an act, when accomplished, is the same as 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, particularly, a crime meant to prevent me from filing criminal complaints against those Jews who conspired with my ex-husband to create a fictitious name and force my daughter and I to bear the false name that my ex-husband created to complete his romance marriage scam and abscond to avoid paying spousal and children support.

          Law of the Moser is taught by Respondent Michael J. Broyde, a professor who is employed by the National Institute for Judaic Law, whose celebration was held at the U.S. Supreme Court and celebrated by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, among others.

          The individuals in this Court against whom I direct my complaint are 1) Ruth Bader Ginsburg; b) Stephen Breyer; and, 3) Elena Kagan.

1Decision Uzamere v Uzamere, 2009 NY Slip Op 09214 [68 AD3d 855] dated December 8, 2009 in which the New York State Supreme Court for the Appellate Division, 2nd Judicial Department removed a.k.a. “Godwin Uzamere” to Cheryl D. Uzamere to Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. The decision states: “In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sunshine, J.), dated January 12, 2009, which, inter alia, denied her motion, among other things, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and for an award of child support, and directed a hearing on the issue of whether the parties were in fact married.

          Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as directed a hearing is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that no appeal lies as of right from an order directing a hearing and leave to appeal has not been granted (see Bernadette Panzella, P.C. v DeSantis, 36 AD3d 734 [2007]); and it is further, Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of her motion which was for an award of child support since the subject child had reached the age of 21 and there was no express agreement to pay such support (see Matter of Winokur v Winokur, 31 AD3d 653 [2006]). The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

 

OPINIONS BELOW

          The opinions concerning the three (3) petitions for writs of certiorari No. 92-5852, Uzamere v. United States, No. 11-8206, Cheryl D. Uzamere v. Andrew v. Cuomo, Governor of New York, et al, and No. 09-5816, Cheryl D. Uzamere v. Allen E. Kaye, PC., et al. were all denied, and the human rights torts, constitutional torts and federal crimes that were committed by the Jewish Respondents were all ignored by President Obama, this Court's Jewish justices, and the judges and justices to whom the Petitioner presented her criminal complaint. The opinion is reported at Pet. App. Exhibit A, page 43. Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989) states that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).

          The opinion of the Appellant's brief No. 13-2454 is reported at Pet. App. Exhibit A, page 41. The human rights torts, constitutional torts and federal crimes that were committed by members of that Court's ethnoreligious group that were mentioned in Appellant's brief were ignored.

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

JURISDICTION

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

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

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

STATUTORY AND CASE LAW PROVISIONS INVOLVED

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

           Misprision of Felony/18 USC §4

           Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552 (1980) and 2) Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 408 U. S. 696 (1972).

            Establishment Clause/First Amendment

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

           Proceeding in forma pauperis

           28 U.S.C. § 1915

           Discrimination based upon Mental Illness, Title II, ADA

           Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999); Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509

           Civil Right Act of 1964, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment

           Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968), Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964)

      Courts Must Have the Appearance of Impartiality and Disqualification of Judges

     28 USC §§144, 455, 
Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).

           The Petitioner has indicated in the past that the Respondents have ignored her even though the Petitioner has provided proof of her allegations. The Petitioner alleges that she has been the victim of a Judaic-law-oriented RICO, and that said laws come from sources like the National Institute for Judaic Law, an institute that advocates the enslavement of Gentiles, and especially blacks. Since Petitioner's last criminal complaint, the Jewish Respondents have committed more human rights violations, more constitutional violations and more federal felonies against the Petitioner. The Petitioner alleges that this Court's Jewish justices have treated their denials of certiorari as an excuse for their subsequent denials to enforce Petitioner's human rights law,1 constitutional law and more federal felonies, including 18 USC §4, misprision of felony based on the belief that they could trick Petitioner into believing that their denial of Petitioner's case also means denial of Petitioner's rights as discretionary, which is ridiculous. Rights are not discretionary. They are only discretionary to this Court's Jewish justices because Petitioner is mentally disabled, African American.

          This Court's Jewish justices played a role in helping to establish the National Institute of Judaic Law. The NIJL highlights Judaic law. Judaic law teaches that dark-skinned people are meant to be enslaved; that when Jews are confronted by heathens, during court proceedings, Jews use subterfuge (deceit, lies, etc.) to circumvent them, and that Jews must not report the crimes of fellow Jews to Gentiles and to the secular authorities.

          Petitioner informs this Court that because of her belief that this Court's corruption has its basis in the encroachment of the Jewish religion, she will file a petition against the United States, Israel and Nigeria with the United Nations' Office of the High Commission for Human Rights and inform it of this Court's Judaic-oriented, anti-black corruption.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

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

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

United Nation Human Rights Violations

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


          Federal Felonies

          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 Petitioner's right of privacy with regard to the illegal dissemination of her psychiatric records, Petitioner marriage history, Petitioner married name, and the non-content information associated with Petitioner's internet and telephone accounts; violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, intentional misuse of national security letters (NSLs).

          Furthermore, Petitioner also seeks to expose the fact that Respondent U.S. Department of Homeland Security has had knowledge of the correct identity, and has been in possession of the identification documents for Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere for well over thirty (30) years. Respondent the United States of America, along with the rest of the Respondents, owed Petitioner and her children the duty to use the aforementioned documentation regarding Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity to protect Petitioner and her children from being victims of fraud, immigration fraud, aggravated identity theft and victims of Petitioner's inability to obtain spousal and children support based on Petitioner and her daughter having the legal right to bear Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's correct name. However, rather than comply with the law, the Respondents, in particular, the Jewish Respondents, engaged in a course of conduct that violated Petitioner rights and the rights of her daughter, Tara, for the sole purpose of preventing Petitioner from filing complaints against hateful, racist, dishonest, Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Respondents' criminal conduct deprived them then, and continues to deprive Petitioner and her family of the right to bear Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere correct African name, and continues to condemn Petitioner and her family to the same deprivation of the knowledge of African bloodline indicators that racist Jews and racist white Christians forced upon Petitioner's African ancestors.

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

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

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

          Law of the Moser; Jews Must Not Report the Crimes of Fellow Jews to Gentiles or Secular Law Enforcement
          Authorities

          Informing on Fellow Jews Who Commit Crimes, Rabbi Michael J. Broyde – “. . .the Talmud recounts - in a number of places - that it is prohibited to inform on Jews to the secular government, even when their conduct is a violation of secular law. . .” (http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/moser-broyde/index.html).

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

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

          Gentiles are Inferior to 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 Jews, and one for Gentiles. This is not inconsistent with the Old Testament, in which LORD God decrees that Jews should not enslave other Jews: Gentiles are the proper slaves of Jews. . .Gentiles are easy to convict. . .(http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_4.html).

          Also in “Gur Aryeh” on the portion of Matot (page 164 s.v. v'ein ha'goyim) it is written: "...and this is what they said 'You are called men and the nations are not called men, “for the difference that exists between the animal world and man exists within you exceedingly, but the nations are not 'men,' for their souls are immersed in the material, associated with the materialistic animal world, and this matter is clear.” http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/so-daat-emet/en_gentiles5.html (emphasis added).

           Blacks Are Meant to Be Enslaved

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

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

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

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

Talmud Violates African-American Petitioner's 1st Amendment Rights

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

Talmud Violates African-American Petitioner's 5th Amendment Rights

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

Talmud Violates African-American Petitioner's 6th Amendment Rights

           In Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, in which this Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right to the assistance of counsel is obligatory upon the States, we did so on the ground that 'a provision of the Bill of Rights which is 'fundamental and essential to a fair trial' is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.' 372 U. S. at 342.

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

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

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

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

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

           “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. . .If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws. . .the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.” See Haddle V. Garrison et al, 525 U.S. 121 (1998).

          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 “. . .Petitioners 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, Petitioners 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.'” The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's, (EEOC) Office of Legal Counsel the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 overlap, and that where employees are concerned, “ADA Title II covers all public employers without regard to the number of employees.” By this action, Petitioner seeks to put an end to New York State's practice of blacklisting the Petitioner by refusing to provide her with outpatient psychiatric care and accommodations required to be provided by the New York State Unified Court System as its courts are covered under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities, and by ending the corporate Respondents' use of the media to encourage members of the not-for-profit psychiatric outpatient community to blacklist the Petitioner by publicly denigrating her because of symptoms of her mental illness that were publicized by government and corporate Respondents. This Court's Jewish justices and the Jewish Respondents black listed the Petitioner based on her being a black Gentile.

Commission of RICO Crimes

          The courts of Respondent the United States of America recognize that obstruction of justice caused by racketeering influenced, corrupt organizations is an injury. RICO laws were successfully cited in NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 114 S. Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed. 2d 99 (1994), a suit in which certain parties, including the National Organization for Women, sought damages and an injunction against pro-life activists who physically block access to abortion clinics. Amazingly, the Court held that a RICO enterprise does not need an economic motive, and that the Pro-Life Action Network could therefore qualify as a RICO enterprise. This Court's Jewish justices and the Jewish Respondents formed a RICO for the sole purpose to working as a team to ensure that Petitioner is never able to file any complaint against the lawbreaking Jews.

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) Petitioner 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. Petitioners ACLU and ACLU Foundation may publicly disclose this information as well. In addition, the Government acknowledges that Petitioners may discuss matters and information that have been filed without redaction on the public docket in this case; 4) Petitioners are also permitted to publicly discuss Petitioner 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 Petitioner Doe's right and Petitioners 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 Petitioner Doe.” Doe, et al v. Holder, et al, 04 Civ. 2614 (VM). This Court's Jewish justices and the Jewish Respondents order the non-content-information regarding Petitioner's telephone calls be recorded in order to take notice of damning calls to my psychiatrist to be used to blackmail the Petitioner and prevent her from filing complaints against the lawbreaking Jewish Respondents.

Petitioner Case Is Eligible for the Continuing Violations Doctrine

          This Court has jurisdiction over the action pursuant to Morgan v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, DBA Amtrak, 232 F.3d 1008 (November 8, 2000) with regard to the continuing violations doctrine, in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision that “the continuing violations doctrine. . .allows courts to consider conduct that would ordinarily be time barred "as long as the untimely incidents represent an ongoing unlawful. . .practice. The district court's reliance on Galloway was mistaken. This court has never adopted a strict notice requirement as the litmus test for application of the continuing violation doctrine; in fact, in Fiedler v. UAL Corp., 218 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2000), we explicitly rejected such an approach from the Fifth Circuit. See id. at 987 n.10. Fiedler examined Berry v. Board of Sup'rs of L.S.U., 715 F.2d 971 (5th Cir. 1983), a case which involved equal pay based upon gender discrimination, where the Fifth Circuit created a multi-factor test for determining whether discrete acts of harassment are closely related enough to satisfy the continuing violation theory. The Berry court's final factor, "perhaps of most importance," asked whether the harassing act "should trigger an employee's awareness of and duty to assert his or her rights.” Berry, 715 F.2d at 981. We rejected the Berry analysis, holding that test was not “applicable in determining the continuation of a hostile environment.” Fiedler, 218 F.3d at 987 n.10.

          In tort law, if a Petitioner commits a series of illegal acts against another person, or, in criminal law, if someone commits a continuing crime (which can be charged as a single offense), the period of limitation begins to run from the last act in the series. In the case of Treanor v. MCI Telecommunications, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit explained that the continuing violations doctrine "tolls the statute of limitations in situations where a continuing pattern forms due to [illegal] acts occurring over a period of time, as long as at least one incident . . . occurred within the limitations period.

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.”

Implied Cause of Action; Persons can Sue Person for Commission of a Constitutional Tort

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

Sovereign Immunity Based on This Court's Jewish Justices and Government Respondents' Abrogation of Petitioner's Right to Equal Protection as a Disabled Person

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

Change of Venue and Improper Venue Based on Petitioner's Request to the District Court to Remover Her Case from a Corrupt, Bias Court to an Impartial Court

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

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

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

Facts

Documentation Verifying the Identify of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          g) Decision dated May 12, 2009, in which NYS Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine said: “Today at 10:35 a.m. defendant was declared in default for failure to appear at the hearing. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss this action upon the grounds that he is not the husband of the plaintiff is denied in its entirety. The defendant is the husband in conformity with the parties marriage on November 21, 1979. See Pet. App. Exhibit B.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ..........d)     On or around September 25, 2008, Government Respondent's McCarthy falsely made the accusation that Petitioner “impeded, intimidated, and interfered with a federal employee, namely an employee of the United States Customs and Immigration Service, while that person was engaged in and on account of that person's performance of official duties.” The Government Respondent withdrew its case against the Petitioner on December 2008.

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

 ..........Also, during October 2008, Respondent McCarthy and Respondent Cowles gave Petitioner's criminal attorney Beth Mann a copy of the I-130 immigration sponsorship form that Petitioner signed on November 30, 1979 and a report explaining the two (2) immigration files having birthdays “June 1, 1955” and December 31, 1960 and explaining “IR2 fraudulently obtained because he was married at the time” and “Compare fingerprints between the two files.” See Pet. App. Exhibit B.

 ..........On or around January 6, 2009, Petitioner received correspondence from Respondent McCarthy indicating that “The acts that you allege constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Practitioner occurred in the course of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye in connection with an immediate relative filed by you with the Immigration and Naturalization (“INS”) in 1979.” See Pet. App. Exhibit B.

 ..........On January 12, 2009, Respondent Sunshine engaged in misprision of felony, racketeering, aggravated identity theft and fraud upon the court by rendering a decision in which he stated that “Moreover, the opposition submitted by Respondent raises a genuine issue as to whether or not Petitioner and Respondent were married in the first instance”, in defiance of INS' administrative decision that recognized the names “Godwin E. Uzamere” and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as belonging to Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. See page 9 of Justice Sunshine's decision attached as Pet. App. Exhibit B.

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

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

 ..........On November 3, 2009 Respondents Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Michael Gerstein, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Jewish billionaire and Daily News owner Mortimer Zuckerman conspired to implement the Petitioner's false arrest for threatening Respondent Justice Sunshine for the sole purpose of obtaining an advantage in the action for fraud that Petitioner filed against Respondents Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, and knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought publish a newspaper article entitled Hate-spewing Wacko Goes into Fit in Court, that illegally disclosed Petitioner's nonpublic information that was acquired by the Government Respondent's court during the adjudication of Petitioner's cases. See Daily News article dated November 5, 2009 attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C.

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

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

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

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

  ..........On or near February 23, 2010, while the Petitioner was in her apartment faxing letters of complaint to various governmental agencies, Respondents Sunshine, New York State Office of Mental Health and Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice, insofar as they contacted a social worker from Respondent Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center, who then arranged for Petitioner to be kidnapped and hospitalized by Respondent New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center.

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

 ..........On July 13, 2010, Government Respondent's employee Respondent Schack rendered a decision falsely holding “Godwin Uzamere” to be is Petitioner's husband; and further stated that it is “ORDERED, that the instant complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that Petitioner CHERYL UZAMERE is hereby enjoined from commencing any future actions in the New York State Unified Court System against SENATOR EHIGIE EDOBOR UZAMERE a/k/a "GODWIN E. UZAMERE," ALLEN E. KAYE, P.C., ALLEN E. KAYE, ESQ., HARVEY SHAPIRO, ESQ., BERNARD J. ROSTANSKI and JACK GLADSTEIN, ESQ., without the prior approval of the appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge; and it is further ORDERED, that any violation of the above injunction by CHERYL UZAMERE will subject CHERYL UZAMERE to costs, sanctions and contempt proceedings.” See Respondent Schack's decision dated July 13, 2010 attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C.

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

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

 ..........On September 1, 2010, Petitioner filed lawsuit Uzamere v. USA, 2010-cv-591 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit was assigned to Respondent judge Christine O.C. Miller of the U.S. Court of Claims. Petitioner alleges that she provided Respondent Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Respondent Miller disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jewish attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Petitioner into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative function – was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, and Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft – a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never tried.

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

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

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

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

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

 ..........On or around June 25, 2011, Respondent Garaufis ordered three (3) marshals from the U.S. Marshals Service to visit the Petitioner's home to intimidate her, and if possible, to catch her while she alone in order to place her in Government Respondent's psychiatric facility as an inpatient. One (1) of the marshals banged on Petitioner's apartment door, embarrassing Petitioner within earshot of her neighbors and frightening the Petitioner. When the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of New York identified themselves, Petitioner asked them if she had committed a crime. The marshals stalled for a few seconds, and then said that Petitioner had not committed any crimes. When Petitioner asked the U.S. Marshals why they were there, the U.S. Marshal that banged on Petitioner's door said “I'm gonna annoy you like you annoyed Judge Garaufis.” When Petitioner told them that she would not open the door, the one banging on the door said “then I'm gonna keep bangin”, and for another 1.5 minutes continued to bang on Petitioner's door. He also asked Petitioner “is your daughter Tara home?”, to find out if Petitioner was home alone. Within minutes of Petitioner telling them that her daughter Tara was there, they left.

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

 ..........From July 6, 2011, the date in which Petitioner is alleged to have committed 18 USC §115 against Respondent Garaufis, other federal judges and employees of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services call center, no federal law enforcement agency made any attempt to arrest the Petitioner for the offenses for which Petitioner still stands accused. According to Respondent Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, the judges who rendered decisions on Petitioner's appeal for her lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv were not indicated on the decision because others unknown to Petitioner told Respondent O'Hagan Wolfe that Petitioner threatened Respondent Garaufis, other federal judges and Respondent Sunshine.

 ..........On or around July 7, 2011, Respondents psychiatric nurse Agnes Flores and psychologist Martin Bolton, employees of Respondent New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation came to Petitioner's apartment, speaking about Petitioner's psychiatric issues in the hallway and shaming Petitioner within earshot of her neighbors. Respondents Flores and Bolton said that Respondent U.S. Marshal Service4 told them that Petitioner contacted Respondent Mental Health Association's LifeNet psychiatric helpline and made threats of bodily harm against Respondent Garaufis. Petitioner told them that had she done such a thing that the U.S. Marshal Service would have arrested her when they visited her and given her an attorney, which would have forced Petitioner's attorney to examine Petitioner's civil claims. Also, at the behest of Respondent Garaufis, Petitioner alleges that Respondent O'Hagan Wolfe returned Petitioner's appellate brief, all of Petitioner's motions, Pet. App. Exhibit C and Pet. App. Exhibit C that Petitioner served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 4, 2012. Respondent O'Hagan Wolfe did not include any correspondence explaining why Petitioner's appellate documents were returned. See copies of UPS envelopes for Petitioner's appellate documents, Uzamere vs. State of New York, et al 09-cv-2703/09-3197-cv and Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2831-cv and 11-2713-cv attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C and Pet. App. Exhibit C.

 ..........In June/July 2011, Respondent Garaufis illegally authorized Respondent FBI to authorize Cablevision to monitor the non-content information of Petitioner's telephone calls in order to find something that could be used to blackmail the Petitioner, in violation of 18 USC §2709 and 18 USC §3511. Respondent Garaufis authorized the FBI to use any non-content information regarding Petitioner's outpatient psychiatric clinic and her government health insurance providers to create a story that Petitioner threatened Respondent Garaufis, other federal judges and employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service. Petitioner faxed a copy of a complaint to U.S. Attorney Preetinder Bharara. Thereafter, Respondent Davis called5, 6 Petitioner again, frightening Petitioner by telling Petitioner that Petitioner would be forcibly hospitalized because Respondent Garaufis falsely told Respondent U.S. Marshal Service that Petitioner had threatened judges and other federal employees at the (federal) Medicaid office. Petitioner uploaded their conversation to her website.

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

 ..........On or around August 18, 2011, Respondent New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation's East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team received correspondence from U.S. Department of Homeland Security on its original letterhead bearing the name “Denis P. McGowan, Chief, Threat Management Branch.” The letter stated: “On July 06, 2011, Federal Protective Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made by CHERYL UZAMERE to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid call center. The threat consisted of HER stating: since SHE did not get the job, SHE was going to “COME DOWN THERE AND KILL EVERYBODY. Since FPS7 has investigated UZAMERE multiple times for similar behavior, we are well aware of HER mental health history. Based on that information, a referral was made to LifeNet for mental health intervention on July 07 2011. Subsequently, UZAMERE's Intensive Case Manager (ICM) Bridgett Davis of the New York State Office of Mental Health has advised that UZAMERE's treatment has been transferred to the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program. We were informed that CHERYL D. UZAMERE is being treated as a patient by your program and we would like to keep you abreast of this situation as it evolves. We also request that we be notified as HER status changes in particular any change from in-patient to out-patient treatment and in the case of the latter any refusal of treatment. In addition, please notify FPS of any relapses or deterioration of HER condition that may pose a risk to life or property.” See letter from Denis P. McGowan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C. Respondent New York City Health and Hospital Corporation's ACT Team prepared a psychiatric treatment plan. Under the title “Alerts”, the treatment plan falsely states that “. . . H/O threats to judges and Center for Medicaid and Medicare, patient is being monitored by Homeland Security.” Under the title “Discharge Plan”, it says “Patient is not being considered for discharge at this time, she was transferred to the program 6 months ago after she made a threat to the Medicare and Medicaid call center and is being monitored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” Under the title “Patient/Family Statement”, it says that “She reported not being aware of being monitored by Homeland Security. . .” (see Petitioner's psychiatric treatment plan from the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team, attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C).

 
..........
On or around November 28, 2012, Respondents Raggi, Carney and Kahn of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft by rendering an FRAP-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv for the sole purpose of 1) advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by not filing a criminal complaint against Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their commission of identity theft, and their own commission of racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity; and, 2) tricking Petitioner into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative function – was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless Respondents Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of identity theft – a criminal act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never tried.

  ..........On or around January 30, 2013, Petitioner received a letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The letter stated: "Our records show that you placed calls to 1-800-MEDICARE on the dates and times listed below (all times Central). We can confirm that none of these calls contained threatening comments.” See Pet. App. Exhibit C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Returns of Jew-Caused Injustice and Oppression to Other Gentiles

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

  ..........Magistrate Sullivan engage in a discriminatory, religiously racist and criminal act in rendering her decision to dismiss Petitioner's case.

  ..........African American Gentile citizen ___________ reported acts of discrimination against her school district. The statute of limitations for schools districts in New York State is only one year.  ___________ waited too long to file her case before the statute of expiration.

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

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

“This woman is claiming to have been married, then abandoned, by an important Nigerian politician. She has filed at least ten court cases in various places based on this assertion - and then arguing that there is a Jewish conspiracy controlling all the courts in favor of that Nigerian politician. But it turns out that her ex-husband has come forward and made very clear that he is the (poor) cousin of the politician and the politician has nothing to do with their marriage. Uzamere v. Daily News LLP (NY Cnty Supm Ct, Nov.

10, 2011) 34 Misc.3d 1203(A), 2011 NY Slip Op. 52421(U), 946 NYS2d 69(t) http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13879595403336403090.

REASONS FOR GRANTING WRIT

POINT I

Jewish Teachings that Teaches that Gentiles and Black People Are Meant to Be Enslaved by Jews Violates the U.S. Constitution


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

Establishment Clause – First Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

POINT II

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

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

..........Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in fraud upon the court. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. . .It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function – thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.
 ..........Fraud upon the court has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”

 RICO Refused to Sign Subpoena To Hide Its Commission of

Immigration Fraud

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

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

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

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

Misprision of Felony/Law of the Moser; Same Thing

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

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

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

Jewish-religiously-oriented RICO Crimes Are Based in Loyalty and Adherence to Jewish Law and Jewish Religion

.........Establishment Clause – First Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

..........Lemon Test 

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

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

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

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

Even though Jewish law expects people to observe the laws of the land, and even imposes that obligation as a religious duty, the Talmud recounts - in a number of places - that it is prohibited to inform on Jews to the secular government, even when their conduct is a violation of secular law and even when their conduct is a violation of Jewish law. While there are a number of exceptions to this prohibition (which are explained further in this section), the essential halacha was that Jewish law prohibits such informing absent specific circumstances. Even if secular government were to incorporate substantive Jewish law into secular law and punish violations of what is, in effect, Jewish law, Jews would still be prohibited from cooperating with such a system. Indeed, classical Jewish law treats a person who frequently informs on others as a pursuer (a rodef) who may be killed to prevent him from informing, even without a formal court ruling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ad by the 33 rabbis and others signed by the “Meshmeris Ha’Tznius” denounced Rabbi Rosenberg as a moser, one who endangers a Jewish community by informing on it to secular authorities.”

Rabbi Nuchum Rosenberg claimed that the threats culminated last month when he was “shot” on Berry Street, near the Williamsburg Bridge by unknown assailants.

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

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

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

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

The father — citing “the Talmudic Law of Moser that prohibits a Jew from informing on another Jew to a non-Jew” — renounced his son from the pulpit at his synagogue in Deal, NJ, on Saturday, the site said.

Israel Dwek is a revered leader of the Sephardic Jewish community in the wealthy enclave.

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

POINT III

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

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

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

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

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

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601

Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs 

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

POINT IV

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

  ..........In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).

  ..........Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).

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

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

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

  ..........Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521.

 ..........F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).

POINT V

Petitioner's Request to Proceed in forma pauperis for Review of Her Allegations of Respondents Constitutional and Human Rights Violations Satisfies the "Good Faith” Requirement of Coppedge v. United States

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
          
May 28, 2014

 

CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE
mysignature2.jpg
_________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY  11208
Tel.: (718) 235-6836
Fax: (718) 235-1290
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net

 =================================================== 
1   Artsot Ha-Hayyim, page 52a, 52b: “In 1992 a book was published by a leading member of the Satmar community entitled Artsot Ha-Hayyim. On p. 52 he explains, and quotes other rabbis, that the reason Abraham Lincoln was killed was because he freed the blacks. this is also the reason why Kennedy was killed, i.e. because he was good to the blacks. He continues by saying that this will be the fate of any who adopt a progressive attitude towards blacks, because they are meant to be enslaved. His source for this is Ham's curse.” (http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v15/mj_v15i20.html#CDX).
 
The Legends of the Jews - Ginsburg, Vol. 1, p. 169: “The descendants of Ham through Canaan therefore have red eyes, because Ham looked upon the nakedness of his father; they have misshapen lips, because Ham spoke with his lips to his brothers about the unseemly condition of his father; they have twisted curly hair, because Ham turned and twisted his head round to see the nakedness of his father; and they go about naked, because Ham did not cover the nakedness of his father. Thus he was requited, for it is the way of G-d to mete out punishment measure for measure.” (http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/lginzberg/bl-lginzberg-legends-1-4h.htm).
 
Midrash Rabbah (Soncino) Vol. 1, p. 293: “AND HE SAID: CURSED BE CANAAN (Breishit 9:25): (Commentary omitted)...R. Huna also said in R. Joseph's name: You [i.e. Noah is speaking to Ham) have prevented me from doing something in the dark [i.e. cohabiting with his wife], therefore your seed will be ugly and dark-skinned. R. Chiyya said: Ham and the dog copulated in the Ark, therefore Ham came forth black-skinned while the dog publicly exposed its copulation.”(http://www.annomundi.com/history/midrash_rabbah_genesis_xxxvi_7.htm)
 
2   Appellant's divorce is now a matter of New York State case law, Uzamere vs. Uzamere, 2009, NY Slip Op 90214 [68 AD3d 855] such that Petitioner's ex-husband's identity is a res judicata matter of law that no other court has a right to question. Mortimer Zuckerman's use of the Daily New to question an appellate court's decision was racist and wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court's Jewish Justices' refusal arrest him was wrong to the point of being criminal and demonic. Any mention of Appellant's divorce are only to establish those torts that arose during Appellant's litigation of her divorce action. Appellant respectfully directs this Court's attention to Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992): “ . . . while it is not inconceivable that in certain circumstances the abstention principles developed in Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, might be relevant in a case involving elements of the domestic relationship even when the parties do not seek divorce, alimony, or child custody, such abstention is inappropriate here, where the status of the domestic relationship has been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying torts alleged. Pp. 15-16.” No amount of criminal, Jew-biased misapplication of the aforementioned case will change how it was originally applied by the U.S. Supreme Court; however, it will instigate a human rights complaint to the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, along with an uploading of appellate judges' criminal decision to Appellant's website http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net and to the e-mails of as many world leaders and/or their attorneys as are willing to listen.
3   22 CFR §92.65 - Depositions to prove genuineness of foreign documents – (a) Authority to execute commission. Under the provisions of section 1 of the act of June 25, 1948, as amended (sec. 1, 62 Stat. 834, sec. 53, 63 Stat. 96; 18 U.S.C. 3492), a diplomatic or consular officer may be commissioned by an United States court to take the testimony of a witness in a foreign country either on oral or written interrogatories, or partly on oral and partly on written interrogatories, for the purpose of determining the genuineness of any foreign document. . .”
4   LifeNet suicide/mental health hotline was fraudulently contacted by Respondent U.S. Marshal Service for the Eastern District of New York and told that Petitioner threatened Respondent Nicholas with bodily harm and employees of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Service.
 
5   New York Wiretapping Law: New York's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. New York makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. Please visit web page http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html to hear Petitioner's conversation with Respondent Davis.
 
6   18 USC §2709(c): “If the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. . .certifies that otherwise there may result a danger. . .to the life or physical safety or any person, no wire or electronic communications service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person. . .that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section.”   
 
7Federal Protection Service. This is a division of Respondent U.S. Department of Homeland Security.