|
|
THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE WORSHIP OF MOLECH AND DSM V’s
DIAGNOSIS OF SEXUAL SADISM
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses; Sexual
Sadism Disorder Diagnostic
Criteria 302.84 (F65.52)
Over
a period of at least 6 months, recurrent and intense sexual arousal from the
physical or psychological suffering of another person, as manifested by
fantasies, urges, or behaviors.
The
individual has acted on these sexual urges with a nonconsenting person, or
the sexual urges or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or
impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
Diagnostic Features
The
diagnostic criteria for sexual sadism disorder are intended to apply both to
individuals who freely admit to having such paraphilic interests and to those
who deny any sexual interest in the physical or psychological suffering of
another individual despite substantial objective evidence to the contrary.
.
. .Examples of individuals who deny any interest in the physical or
psychological suffering of another individual include individuals known to
have inflicted pain or suffering on multiple victims on separate occasions
but who deny any urges or fantasies about such sexual behavior and who may
further claim that known episodes of sexual assault were either unintentional
or nonsexual. Others may admit past episodes of sexual behavior involving the
infliction of pain or suffering on a nonconsenting individual but do not
report any significant or sustained sexual interest in the physical or
psychological suffering of another individual. Since these individuals deny
having urges or fantasies involving sexual arousal to pain and suffering, it
follows that they would also deny feeling subjectively distressed or socially
impaired by such impulses. Such individuals may be diagnosed with sexual
sadism disorder despite their negative self-report. Their recurrent behavior
constitutes clinical support for the presence of the paraphilia of sexual
sadism (by satisfying Criterion A) and simultaneously demonstrates that their
paraphilically motivated behavior is causing clinically significant distress,
harm, or risk of harm to others (satisfying Criterion B).
"Recurrent"
sexual sadism involving nonconsenting others (i.e., multiple victims, each on
a separate occasion) may, as general rule, be interpreted as three or more
victims on separate occasions. Fewer victims can be interpreted as satisfying
this criterion, if there are multiple instances of infliction of pain and
suffering to the same victim, or if there is corroborating evidence of a
strong or preferential interest in pain and suffering involving multiple
victims. Note that multiple victims, as suggested earlier, is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for diagnosis, as
the criteria may be met if the individual acknowledges intense sadistic
sexual interest.
  
What the Babylonian Talmud says about the
worship of Molech: Mishnah. He
who gives of his seed to Molech incurs no punishment unless he delivers it to
Molech and causes it to pass through the fire. If he gave it to Molech but
did not cause it to pass through the fire, or the reverse, he incurs no
penalty, unless he does both.
Gemara.
The Mishnah teaches idolatry and giving to Molech. R(abbi)
Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the
view that Molech worship is not idolatry.
Informing
on Fellow Jews who Commit Crimes:
Mesira
in Modern Times
(Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Abodah
Zarah, Folio 26b)
Rabbi Michael J. Broyde*
The S. Daniel Abraham &
Ira L. Rennert
Torah Ethics Project
The Orthodox Caucus
Toronto, Canada
Netivot HaTorah
Day School
October 19, 2001, at 8:00 p.m.
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...Even is secular government...incorporate(s)
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.
The Harold Wallace Rosenthal Interview 1976 audiobook
murdered 30 days after this interview (click on video to hear Youtube interview). In this video, Mr. Rosenthal talked
about the Ashkenazi Jewish plan to take over the United States and the world.
The Lost
Item of a Gentile: “If his intention is that he, and not
the faith or Israel, should be praised, or because he loves the Gentile and
has mercy on him, it is forbidden [to return the Gentile’s lost item]”)
Rabbis Say It’s OK to Kill Goyim:
This is not science fiction people. This is not said by some anti-Semitic KKK
or Neo-Nazis these are Rabbis saying it’s OK to kill non-Jews including
children. I have found most of the most damning information about Jewish
crimes comes from Jewish sources not so called anti-Semitic.
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_2.html
Conspiracy of Silence – Banned Documentary: (click on any
photo to see Youtube video)
Conspiracy
of Silence is a powerful, disturbing documentary revealing a U.S. child sex
abuse and pedophilia ring that leads to the highest levels of government.
Featuring intrepid investigator John DeCamp, a
highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and 16-year Nebraska state senator,
Conspiracy of Silence reveals how rogue elements at all levels of government
have been involved in systematic child sex abuse and pedophilia to feed the
base desires of key politicians.
Paul Bonacci: The Murder [1985 --
GRAPHIC! click on photos below to see Youtube
video)
Paul Bonacci was one of many children who were taken from
Nebraska’s Boys Town foster care/adoption network, brought to the White House
and savagely raped. In this video, Mr. Bonacci describes being taken from the
White House with Nicholas and an unnamed boy. Paul and Nicholas were forced
to rape the boy at gunpoint by the person who filmed the event. Later the
unnamed child was sodomized by the person making the video until his anus
bled, kicked repeatedly in the head and then shot to death – all after being
raped in the White House by Ashkenazi/Jewish and non-Ashkenazi/Jewish
politicians and corporate leaders. Also see https://youtu.be/8b61iIQCapY.
Larry King: Overachiever
Editor’s
Note: Donald Gregg, National Security Advisor to George H.W. Bush was
tasked with silencing those involved. He turned to the CIA.
The Franklin Scandal was only one aspect of a much larger “call boy”
operation moving children and teenagers, picked up from Boys
Town, Catholic orphanages and off the streets, and housed in Washington
and New York primarily.
http://come-and-hear.com/editor/br_3.html
Click
on the two photos above to see video.
Israel’s
first female pimp, Angelique Sabag Gautiller, Israel's first female pimp and one of many
whore houses in Tel Aviv, Israel that Israeli pimps use to force beautiful,
delicate White ladies from Russia and Slavic countries who have been tricked
and lured with promises of respectable jobs in Israel and then forced to part
with their virginity and gang raped every night by sexually perverted Israeli
and Arab men.
·
How 11 New York City Babies Contracted Herpes Through - Health;
·
Baby Dies of Herpes Virus in Ritual Circumcision in NYC Orthodox ...;
·
Herpes cases among babies linked to ultra-Orthodox Jewish;
·
NYC, Orthodox Jews in talks over ritual after herpes cases - USA Today;
·
11 Babies Infected with Herpes in New York - Sandra Rose;
·
CDC: 11 infants contracted herpes due to controversial Jewish ...;
·
New York Baby Infected with Herpes After Metzitza
B'peh;
·
New case of neonatal herpes caused by Jewish ... - New York Post;
·
Orthodox Rabbis Fight NYC's Effort to Warn Parents About Herpes ...
Jewish Wisdom: What is a Goy?
Talmudic Jews
'Non-Jews Goyim Are Beasts to
Serve
Us as Slaves'
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.
N.Y. State Lawmaker Apologizes
for
Blackface Costume
By Sonia Kennebeck,
CNN
Tue February 26, 2013
Story Highlights
Brooklyn
Democrat Dov Hikind dressed in blackface for a
Purim party.
He
apologized to "anyone who was offended" but added, "that was
not the intention."
One of his Assembly colleagues calls the apology "a
beginning" but inadequate.
Yair Netanyahu’s Night of
Debauchery Revealed in Bombshell Recordings: Younger Netanyahu heard asking his
friend, a gas tycoon's son, for NIS 400 for strippers, saying he owed him for
$20 billion deal advanced by PM (click on photo to hear Yair
audiotape)
“Rachel” (Vicki Polin) on Oprah Winfrey
Show Discussing “Rachel’s” Ashkenazi Jewish Parents Introducing Her to
Ashkenazi Jewish Ritual Murder and Rape of Children (click on photo to see Youtube video).
The
Ashkenazi Jewish Slave Trade was not primarily for cheap labor. The race of
the victims was used as an excuse to cover the real goal. The real reason for
Ashkenazi-influenced enslavement of Africans (and all other people since) is
demonic torture, sex and murder. The Babylonian Talmud advocates what the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Illnesses, Volume 5 describes as
sexual sadism. Unless it is forcibly stopped, this group of people (including
non-Ashkenazi members who have aligned themselves with Molech-worshiping
members of the Ashkenazim) will not stop torturing, raping and killing. Like
the demons who possess them, they are sex addicts. Without Jehovah-approved
force, they will not stop. They will continue to use politics, race,
financial issues and other irrelevant issues in the same manner that all
junkies use excuses to hide their addiction. There are no political,
religious, social or other irrelevant issues. They are snuff addicts. Unless
they are stopped, they will continue to try to satiate an insatiable appetite
for torture, deviant sex and murder – a parasitic appetite that, if left
unchecked, will be the undoing of the entire human race. They are snuff
addicts. Nothing more – nothing less.
![Jew whipping slave[6]](chapter_102_lawsuit_against_president_files/image374.png)
Ashkenazi
sexual sadist achieving climax by using a whip to rape a helpless human being
to death.
https://youtu.be/Mg_13WJ4gDo;
https://youtu.be/MtKBjPxGmyc
JOWERS, FEDERAL AGENCIES FOUND
LIABLE IN MURDERING DR. KING
Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther
King, III, Bernice King, Dexter Scott King and Yolanda King, Plaintiffs, v.
T.D. Loyd Jowers and
Other Unknown Co-Conspirators, Defendants.
Yemeni
child stolen and given to Ashkenazi woman
Adult
child with biological mother
Israel
Celebrates Successful 9/11 Operation on Purim Holiday (click on photo to read article)
Israeli
schoolchildren dressed up as the burning
Twin
Towers. Costume won best prize.
Countries
that lost citizens on 9/11:
http://brilliantmaps.com/9-11-victims;
Israel
Did 9/11; Dr. Alan Sabrosky (click on photo
to
see Youtube video)
9/11
Alleged Hijackers Alive and Well (click on
photo
to see Youtube video)
![WTC Falling Death2[3]](chapter_102_lawsuit_against_president_files/image408.png)
 
 
|
The Crimes of Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
“Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one
Jehovah.”
שְׁמַע,יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָהאֱלֹהֵינוּ,יְהוָהאֶחָד
“Jehovah went on speaking to Moses, saying: “…’Any man of
Israel and any foreigner who resides in Israel who gives any of his offspring
to Molech should be put to death without fail…I myself will set my face
against that man, and I will cut him off from among his people, because he
has given some of his offspring to Molech and has defiled my holy place and
has profaned my holy name. If the people of the land should deliberately
close their eyes to what that man does when he gives his offspring to Molech
and they do not put him to death, then I myself will certainly set my face
against that man and his family. I will cut off that man from his people
along with all who join him in prostituting themselves to Molech.
 ![Jew whipping slave[6]](chapter_102_lawsuit_against_president_files/image455.png)     
      
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 102:
Lawsuit
against President Obama
Lawsuit Against the United States and
President Obama
*
|
What
is more important -- being a "team player" and breaking the
law, or obeying the U.S. Constitution
|
Corrupt
Judge Schack --he and fellow Ashkenazi judges depend violate the
law; use Talmud to rationalize violating the law
|
*Hint: 28 455,
disqualification of judges.
|
|
|
I would prefer it if
you were to respond to my questionnaire now. If Judge Firestone, Judge
Miller, or some other member of U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Ashkenazi judiciary does not use the Talmud's Law of the Moser to pretend that res judicata applies, I will ask the same questions during
discovery
|
YES
|
NO
|
I'm a team
player. I do what my
team does.
|
|
Question 1:
|
Is it constitutional to file civil charges against a
Jewish person if there is concrete evidence that he/she
violated the law?
|
|
|
|
|
Question 2:
|
It is constitutional for a Jewish judge to
be intentionally and purposely selected to adjudicate a "Non-Ashkenazi
vs. Ashkenazi" case whenever one files a complaint
against a Jewish litigant?
|
|
|
|
|
Question 3:
|
It is constitutional to secretly use the Talmud to
adjudicate "Non-Ashkenazi vs. Ashkenazi" cases?
|
|
|
|
|
Question 4:
|
In a lawsuit where only Ashkenazi judges are
selected to adjudicate "Non-Ashkenazi vs. Ashkenazi" cases,
to which government agency(ies) can the
victim go to file a complaint of fraud upon the court and bias?
|
|
|
|
|
Question 5:
|
Is it lawful for an African-American litigant to demand
and receive an African-American judge?
|
|
|
|
|
Question 6:
|
Is it lawful for an African-American judge to choose to
adjudicate a case based on its litigants
being African-American?
|
|
|
|
|
Question 7:
|
Is it lawful for a Catholic-American litigant to demand
and receive a judge who is Catholic-American?
|
|
|
|
|
Question 8:
|
Is it lawful for a Catholic-American judge to choose to
adjudicate cases based on litigants being Catholic?
|
|
|
|
|
Question 9:
|
Is it lawful for a non-Jewish judge to accept money to
only allow Ashkenazi judges to adjudicate "Non-Ashkenazi vs.
Ashkenazi" cases?
|
|
|
|
|
Question 10:
|
Do I have a right to ask these questions?
|
|
|
|
|
Question 11:
|
Do I have a right to know the answers?
|
|
|
|
|
Question 12:
|
Does the principle of "the law being
transparent" require you (in good conscience) to answer these
questions?
|
|
|
|
|
Question 13:
|
In
your personal opinion does it seem fair for you
to enforce a law against me that you wish not to explain to me?
|
|
|
|
|
Question 14:
|
If a
litigant finds that the judiciary complaint
process fails to address the violation of a litigant's
constitutional rights, save for a lawsuit, what purpose do you and your
agency serve if you/your agency can address fraud committed by a
federal judge? Why are you here?
|
|
|
|
|
Question 15:
|
Is
there are there other agencies beside United States Courts that
addresses a judge' violation of 18
USC 241,
conspiracy against rights?
|
|
|
|
|
|
For RJ to be binding, several factors must be
met: 1) identity in the thing at suit; 2) identity of the cause at
suit; 3) identity of the parties to the action; 4) identity in the
designation of the parties involved; 5) whether the judgment was final;
6) whether the parties were given full and fair opportunity to
be heard on the issue.
Please
do not believe that I didn't see this...I did. No case of
mine was ever tried. I was never heard because every Jewish judge
to whom I presented a lawsuit -- including Judge Miller -- used the
Talmud's Law of the Moser to dismiss my case with
prejudice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the United State
Court of Federal Claims
|
Cheryl D.
Uzamere
Plaintiff,
-
against –
United
States of America
-
and -
Honorable Barack H. Obama, President of the United
States; F. Michael Kelleher, Special
Assistant to the President; Honorable Eric H.
Holder, Jr., Attorney General, United States Department of Justice;
Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division,
United States Department of Justice;
Marc Kappelhoff, Acting Chief, Coordination and Review,
Civil Rights Division,
United States Department of Justice; Rita J. Craig,
Acting Chief, Coordination and Review Section, United States Department of
Justice; Judy
Preston, Acting Chief, Special Litigation Unit, United
States Department of
Justice; Laurie O. Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; Glenn
A. Fine, Inspector General,
United States Department of Justice; Honorable Janet Reno,
Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security; Lynden Melmed,
Chief Counsel, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Rachel McCarthy, Counsel, United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services; Joseph Demarest, Special-Agent-in-Charge,
Federal Bureau of
Investigation; Sandra A. Bungo,
Unit Chief, United States Department of
Justice; Eric A.Johnson,
Special-Agent-in Charge, United
States Department of
Justice; United
States Department of
Justice, the United States
Department of Homeland
Security and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Defendants.
|
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
|
COMPLAINT
|
|
|
1) At all times hereinafter mentioned,
Plaintiff was and still is a resident of the City of Brooklyn, County of
Kings and State of New York.
JURISDICTION
2) This Court has jurisdiction over
this action pursuant to 28 USC 1491, which says that The United
States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment
upon any claim against the United States founded...upon the Constitution...
3) This Court has jurisdiction over
this action as it is an implied cause of action in the manner of Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
PARTIES
4) Defendant is the United States
acting by and through the following employees: Honorable Barack H. Obama;
Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.; Thomas E. Perez; Marc Kappelhoff;
Rita J. Craig, Judy Preston; Laurie O. Robinson; Glenn A. Fine; Honorable
Janet Reno; Lynden Melmed; Rachel McCarthy;
Joseph Demarest; Sandra A. Bungo; Eric A.
Johnson, and those federal agencies for which the aforesaid individuals
are employed, to wit: the United States Department of Justice, the United
States Department of Homeland Security and the United States Department
of Citizenship and Immigration Services.
ASSERTIONS/ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL PARTIES
5) Plaintiff first invokes the
followings laws: 1) Title 18 of
the United States Code, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Section 4,
misprision of felony, that says:
“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony
cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon
as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or
military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both and Title 18 of the
United States Code, Section 3290 that says No
statute of limitations shall extend to any person fleeing from justice.
6) Plaintiff strongly asserts that
she is now familiar with the manner in which Ashkenazi members of a
court's judiciary acts when a litigant against whom charges have been
brought is also a member of the Ashkenazim, and what this Court will do
as soon as it receives Plaintiff's lawsuits: 1) it will employ clerk of
Court Hazel C. Keahey to pretend that the
selection of a Jewish judge is random, when, in fact, the selection of
the aforesaid Ashkenazi judge is purposeful and intentional; 2) the
Ashkenazi judge will render a decision that ensures that the case is
dismissed before it is presented to the jury; 3) if the lawsuit's
decision is appealed, the lawsuit is subsequently presented to a group of
judges, the presiding judge being a member of the Ashkenazim; 4) the case
is dismissed and the non-Ashkenazi litigant's constitutional rights to
petition the government for a redress of grievances, to freedom of
speech, to due process of law and to equal protection under the law are
violated with the litigant having no way out.
7) Plaintiff strongly asserts that
1) every exhibit presented in Plaintiff's complaint is irrefutable; and,
2) that there is no amount of subterfuge any Jewish judge can use to
change that the Jewish judge has lied, and that the evidence Plaintiff
submitted with lawsuit is irrefutable.
8) That Plaintiff asserts that at
the time of the aforesaid individuals' defamation of the Plaintiff,
Plaintiff was litigating Index Number 26332/2007, her divorce action
against her then husband Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Index Number
18012-2009, Plaintiff's action for fraud against Senator Ehigie E.
Uzamere, immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, notary
public/traffic court judge Bernard J. Rostanski
and immigration/divorce attorney Jack Gladstein.
9) That Plaintiff asserts that
during Plaintiff's litigation of her divorce action, Plaintiff's
ex-husband's attorney/nephew, Eugene O. Uzamere submitted a fraudulent
counter-affidavit to the Honorable Jeffrey S. Sunshine for the purpose of
hiding Plaintiff's ex-husband's true identity, and to hide ex-husband's
commission of immigration fraud, identity fraud and non-payment of child
support for which Justice Sunshine never filed a contempt of court order
against the aforesaid attorney's act of perjury; and although during
Plaintiff's divorce action she obtained proof from Defendant's agent the
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services of Plaintiff's
ex-husband's true identity (see Exhibit B, pages 1-4 and Exhibit C, page 1-2).
10) That Plaintiff asserts that
paragraphs 9 and 10 of Daily News' and Scott Shifrel's
newspaper article states that: The senator, however, is a cousin of her
actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to an affidavit he filed in Supreme
Court...Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment
to a new level which should not be encouraged, Godwin Uzamere's affidavit
said'; and that paragraph 10 of the aforesaid newspaper article quotes
verbatim a part of paragraph 10 of Plaintiff's ex-husband's fraudulent
counter-affidavit.
11) That Plaintiff asserts that her
ex-husband's attorney Eugene O. Uzamere acquired the false identity from
the fraudulent I-130 immediate relative sponsorship form that was
falsified by Plaintiff's ex-husband, and by ex-husband's attorneys Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard Rostanski and
Jack Gladstein, and that the false identity is still on the birth
certificate of the child of Plaintiff's marriage (see Exhibit
D, pages 1-3 and Exhibit
E).
12) That Plaintiff strongly asserts
that as of this Court's reading of paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and this Court's
viewing of the accompanying exhibits, that it is obvious that Plaintiff
has sufficiently proven that attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Bernard J. Rostanski, Jack Gladstein and Eugene
O. Uzamere committed acts of immigration fraud, identity fraud and
facilitated fraud upon the court; and that further to this, that the
Defendant, by and through its employees never prosecuted the aforesaid
attorneys for the crimes Plaintiff has successfully proven that the
aforesaid attorneys committed.
13) That Plaintiff asserts that in
paragraphs 1, 2 and 7, Scott Shifrel admits
that he obtained information from New York State court employees based on
his statement that a woman suing her Nigerian husband for millions
started screaming and ripping off her clothes before her arraignment
yesterday on charges of threatening to kill a Brooklyn judge. Cheryl
Uzamere, 50, known around courthouse circles for her anti-Semitic screeds
against judges and others was declared to be mentally unfit...oh, she's a
smart person and she really knows how to use the system, said one
courthouse source.
14) That Plaintiff asserts that after
she tried to lodge complaints concerning fraud upon the court against
Justice Sunshine with Defendant New York State Unified Court System's
Office of the Inspector General, Plaintiff was charged with Penal Law
240.30/aggravated harassment.
15) That Plaintiff asserts that she was
arrested and kept in dirty cells, given hardened bread to eat, and not
allowed to bath for parts of two days.
16) That Plaintiff asserts that she was
subsequently transported to three different hospitals and then to the
Rose M. Singer Detention Center for 33 days.
17) That Plaintiff asserts that she was
then presented to Kings County Criminal Court where the charges against
her were dismissed (see Exhibit F).
18) That Plaintiff asserts that she was
then transported to one of New York State's psychiatric facilities where
Plaintiff was not permitted to use the services of the aforesaid
psychiatric facility's notary public to notarize any documents pertaining
to Claimant's handwritten notice of claim against the State of New York.
19) That Plaintiff asserts that she was
released 60 days later on February 5, 2010.
20) That Plaintiff asserts that on or
around February 23, 2010, while Plaintiff was at home faxing a letter of complaint
regarding judicial corruption in New York State, Plaintiff's apartment
was invaded by the New York City Police Department; that Plaintiff was
then pulled out of her apartment, falsely accused of not taking her
psychotropic medication by a social worker from Brookdale Hospital Center
and was eventually transferred to a New York State psychiatric facility
and hospitalized for nearly three (3) months (see Exhibit
G).
21) That Plaintiff asserts that
although the Kings County Clerk's minutes correctly represent that the
Plaintiff's action for divorce was uncontested because ex-husband never
interposed an answer, never filed a notice of appearance and never
physically appeared although Justice Prus and Justice Sunshine ordered 19
S.L.A.P.P-like, unnecessary adjournments, Justice Sunshine fraudulently
represented that Plaintiff's ex-husband, who is a millionaire, was
present at the preliminary conference in violation of New York Code Rules
and Regulation Section 202.16(f)(1)(vi)(b) that says that Both parties
personally must be present in court at the time of the conference, and
the judge personally shall address the parties at some time during the
conference, and New York Code Rules and Regulations Section 202.16(k)(5)(i) that says that The failure to comply with the
provisions of this subdivision shall be good cause, in the discretion of
the judge presiding...(i) to draw an inference
favorable to the adverse party with respect to any disputed fact or issue
affected by such failure; and that although the aforesaid laws direct
justices to require the present of both spouses at the preliminary
conference, and requires judges to rule in favor of the party who fails
to appear, that Justice D'Emic subsequently
ruled in the no-show ex-husband 's favor; and that Plaintiff received
nothing from her 30-year marriage (see Exhibit
H, pages 1-3).
22) That Plaintiff asserts that she litigated
Index Number 18012-2007, action for fraud (including tolling the statute
of limitations) against ex-husband Ehigie E. Uzamere, Allen E. Kaye,
Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Bernard J. Rostanski,
Esq.; and Jack Gladstein, Esq.; that the aforementioned individuals
failed to interpose an answer or file an appearance; that during Justice
Schack's adjudication of Plaintiff's lawsuit, Justice Schack attempted to
render a decision that Plaintiff was unfit to stand trial against
Plaintiff's no-show ex-husband and the four (4) no-show Jewish attorneys;
and that in spite of Defendants' failure to interpose and answer and
failure to file an appearance, Justice Schack ruled in favor of the
no-show ex-husband and the no-show attorneys (see Exhibit
I).
23) That Plaintiff asserts that she is
presently litigating Index Number 10-00998 at the Nassau County Supreme
Court against the Daily News and Scott Shifrel so as to avoid what Plaintiff alleges to be acts of
Talmud-oriented bias at the Kings County Supreme Court.
24) That Plaintiff asserts that with regard to her action for defamation against the
Daily News and staff writer Scott Shifrel, that
their attorney, Anne B. Carroll, filed a demand to change the venue (see Exhibit
J).
25) That on July 2, 2010, Plaintiff asserts
she received correspondence from the Kings County Clerk's Office; that
the index number that was supposed to be placed on the correspondence was
missing; that the correspondence was entitled Kings County Clerk's
Office, Equity Department, Window 9 in an envelope labeled County Clerk's
Office, County of Kings...mailed from zip code 11201, that although
Plaintiff's action for defamation is in Nassau County; Plaintiff strongly
alleges that attorney Anne B. Carroll enlisted the assistance of New York
State court employees to send the aforesaid document to trick Plaintiff
into believing that her action for defamation was transferred to Kings
County Supreme Court, and to coerce Plaintiff by manipulating her fear
that Plaintiff's action would be transferred to the Kings County Supreme
Court so that Plaintiff would instead allow lawsuit to be transferred to
the New York County Supreme Court where Plaintiff's lawsuit would then be
transferred to the Honorable Judge Shulman who is presently adjudicating
Index Number 100053/2008, lawsuit for defamation between the Honorable
Larry D. Martin, a sitting judge against Defendants the Daily News and
columnist Errol Louis; and based on what Plaintiff alleges was Anne
Carroll's belief that she could manipulate Plaintiff's fear of litigating
her case in Kings County and arrange for Justice Shulman's to render one
decision on the not-legally-knowledgeable Plaintiff that would be
different from Justice Shulman's decision on the rich, powerful judge Exhibit
K, pages 1 and 2).
26) That Plaintiff asserts that on
Friday, July 23, 2010, she received all the motion papers that Nassau
County Supreme Court's employees stamped as having received on July 19,
2010; that Plaintiff's motion papers were accompanied by correspondence
in which Plaintiff was ordered by the court to add the court's address
that was missing on Plaintiff's notices of motion, and then to effect
service on the Daily News and Scott Shifrel
again (see Exhibit L, page 1-5); that New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules
Section 2101(f) says that The party on whom a paper is served shall be
deemed to have waived objection to any defect in form unless, within two
days after the receipt thereof, he returns the paper to the party serving
it with a statement of particular objections; that instead of attorney
Anne Carroll filing an objection regarding the missing court address
(that she already knows) within the two (2) days allotted to her by the
aforesaid law, Anne Carroll instead contacted Nassau County Supreme Court
or the Nassau County Clerk's Office and told one of its clerks to send
Plaintiff the papers to be corrected insofar as Plaintiff informed Ms.
Carroll that she would not accept untimely filed papers from the
Defendants; and that Plaintiff alleges that it was Ms. Carroll's scheme
to defraud Plaintiff of her right to receive a decision from the court in
the least amount of time possible by coercing Plaintiff to believe that
Plaintiff had no other choice but to beg the court to extend the time to
answer; and that if the no-interposing-an-answer-having,
no-reasonable-excuse-meritorious-defense-having Defendants succeeded in
coercing the Plaintiff to request and receive more time, that attorney
Anne Carroll would then engage the court's assistance to employ S.L.A.P.P-like
adjournments until Plaintiff gets so frustrated that Plaintiff gives up.
27) That Plaintiff asserts that with
regard to the proper handling of papers containing mistakes, omissions,
defects and irregularities, she researched New York State Civil Practice
Law and Rules Section 2101(f); New York State Civil Practice Law and
Rules Section 2102(c); New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules
Section 2001 and New York Code Rules and Regulations Section 202.5(d)(1)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(a)(b)(c), and discovered that
based upon the aforesaid laws, Nassau County Supreme Court and Nassau
County Clerk's Office, by their employees, violated the law, thereby
violating Plaintiff's New York State and U.S. constitutional right to due
process.
28) That Plaintiff asserts that July
29, 2010, she received motions and supporting affidavits from attorney
Anne B. Carroll that she falsely claimed she served the first set on
Plaintiff by mail; that on page 9 of Anne Carroll's affirmation, she
states that the applicability of the privilege is a question for this
Court to decide as a matter of law by comparing the judicial or other
official document at issue with the material that plaintiff has put into
controversy...The Article (Daily News article) reports that the Nigerian
senator whom Uzamere claims is (or was) her husband [is] however, a
cousin of her actual ex-husband...a facial comparison of the article with
Godwin Uzamere itself...demonstrates defendants' statements are a fair
and true report of the document (see Exhibit
M, pages 1-2).
29) That Plaintiff asserts that in
spite of Ms. Carroll's illegal attempt to pass off as true and correct
the Daily News and Scott Shifrel's false
statements regarding the fraudulent counter-affidavit to which they
referred, Justice Sunshine rendered a decision dated May 12, 2009 six (6)
months earlier in which he stated that ...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 Exhibit
N, pages 1-2); that based
on Justice Sunshine's decision and Plaintiff's commonsense, New York
State court employees did not have privilege to disseminate a document to
the Daily News and Scott Shifrel known by court
personnel to be fraudulent; and that based on Plaintiff's having provided
Anne Carroll with Justice Sunshine's decision, Ms. Carroll's statements,
including her reference to the counter-affidavit that is not
authenticated by a consular employee or notarized by a duly licensed New
York State notary public, Ms Carroll committed
perjury for which Plaintiff is sure she will not be charged with contempt
and prosecuted because of her having white skin and Jewish defendants.
30) That Plaintiff asserts that she
filed the first of four (4) implied causes of action claims in the manner
of Brown v. State of New York, 89 N.Y.2d 172, 674 N.E.2d 1129, 652
N.Y.S.2d 223, 65 USLW 2355 (1996) for New York State Constitutional
rights violations.
31) That Plaintiff asserts that she
created the website http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/ to chronicle her attempts to
obtain justice; as a means to inform the international public of
Defendant's refusal to bring to justice those alleged by Plaintiff to
have committed crimes against her, and to see if any of Defendant's
employees would read Plaintiff's website, have pity on Plaintiff and
assist her.
32) That Plaintiff asserts that in
response to Plaintiff's attempt to file her complaint regarding fraud
upon the court, judicial corruption and the encroachment of the Talmud
into the New York State Unified Court System Defendant, Defendant's
employee Rita J. Craig, acting at the behest of Mark J. Kappelhoff, sent Plaintiff correspondence that said
that this office will take no further action regarding your letter (Exhibit
O).
33) That Plaintiff asserts that in
response to Plaintiff's attempt to file her complaint regarding fraud
upon the court, judicial corruption and the encroachment of religion into
the New York State Unified Court System, Defendant's employee Sandra A. Bungo stated that there is no evidence of misconduct
on the part of any FBI employee. Therefore, no further action will be
taken by this office (see Exhibit P).
34) That Plaintiff asserts that in
response to Plaintiff's attempt to file her complaint regarding fraud
upon the court, judicial corruption and the encroachment of religion into
the New York State Unified Court System, Defendant's employee Eric A.
Johnson that the matters that you raised are more appropriate for review
by another office or agency (see Exhibit Q).
35) That Plaintiff asserts that in
response to Plaintiff's attempts to file her complaint regarding fraud
upon the court, judicial corruption and the encroachment of the Talmud
into the New York State Unified Court System, Defendant's White House
employee F. Michael Kelleher said that ...due to the separation of powers,
it is not within our authority to become involved in legal matters (see
Exhibit R).
36) That Plaintiff alleges that the
four (4) employees with whom Plaintiff unsuccessfully tried to file
complaints regarding violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights are
not the only ones; that Plaintiff filed many complaints, some of which
are displayed at Plaintiff's website http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net.
37) That Plaintiff asserts that the
pattern of Defendant's employees with reference to Plaintiff's complaints
are: 1) to refuse to handle it; or, 2) to transfer it to another federal
agency, department, division, section or unit where another of Defendant's
employees emulates the same behavior as their predecessors.
38) That Plaintiff alleges that Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski,
Jack Gladstein, Justice Prus, Justice Sunshine, Justice D'Emic and Justice Schack are Ashkenazi Jews.
39) That Plaintiff asserts that the
aforesaid individuals are adherents of the Talmud.
40) That Plaintiff asserts that the
Talmud, Tractate Abodah Zarah,
Folio 26b promulgates the religious doctrine the law of the moser; that the aforesaid religious doctrine
prohibits Jews from reporting the crimes of fellow Jews to non-Jewish
authorities under penalty of shunning, or penalty of death (see
Exhibit S, pages 1-3).
41) That Plaintiff asserts that the
Talmud, Tractate Baba Kamma, Folio 113a
promulgates the religious doctrine of using subterfuge to deceive
heathens (see Exhibit T).
42) That Plaintiff asserts that the
Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, Folio 108b promulgates the religious doctrine
that blacks are cursed and meant to be enslaved (Exhibit
U, pages 1-3).
43) That Plaintiff asserts that this
complaint's exhibits have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that attorneys
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard Rostanski,
Jack Gladstein and Eugene O. Uzamere facilitated the identity fraud of
Plaintiff's ex-husband Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.
44) That Plaintiff asserts that in an
effort to ensure that this Court does not employ the principle of res
judicata or collateral estoppel to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint based on
Plaintiff's previous unsuccessful encounters with both state and federal
judges, Plaintiff concedes that she has litigated cases against the
aforesaid individuals in front of the Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis (who
is Jewish and refused to recuse himself), and the Honorable Leonard B.
Sands (also Jewish and refused to recuse himself) in spite Plaintiff's
allegations that would give rise to Plaintiff's belief that the federal
judges were partial pursuant to 28 USC 455, disqualification of judges.
45) That Plaintiff asserts that on
November 5, 2010, Daily News and Scott Shifrel
revisited the facilitation of identity fraud commenced by attorneys Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard Rostanski,
Jack Gladstein and Eugene O. Uzamere; that attorney Anne B. Carroll's
affirmation containing her statement regarding he ex-husband's identity
and the falsified counter-affidavit also revisited the original
facilitation of identity fraud by the aforesaid attorneys in much the
same way that a rapist sexually assaults a victim once, catches her on
another occasion and violates her again; that this Court must not view
the violations of Defendant's employees as the same crimes that the
aforesaid attorneys perpetrated against Plaintiff; that each act, while
revisiting the original facilitation of identity fraud, is a separate act.
COUNT 1
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LAW
BASED ON DEFENDANT'S EMPLOYEES' MISPRISION OF FELONY
46) Plaintiff hereby repeats and
realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs 1 through 44 as if fully set forth herein.
47) That Plaintiff asserts that
Ballentine's Law Dictionary says that due process is law administered
through courts of justice, equally applicable to all under established
rules that do not violate fundamental principles of fairness; that
Defendant owed Plaintiff the constitutional duty of administering all
rules fairly toward Plaintiff by investigating the aforesaid justices'
acts of fraud upon the court, those acts including, but not limited to:
1) Justice Sunshine's refusal to declare attorney Eugene O. Uzamere in
contempt of court for submitting the fraudulent counter-affidavit to the
court; 2) Justice Sunshine's suggestion to use videoconferencing from
Nigeria to pretend to ascertain the identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband
instead of ascertaining Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity by the
documents that Plaintiff obtained from Defendant's agent the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services; 3) Justice Sunshine's complicity
(stated or implied) in the dissemination of the fraudulent
counter-affidavit to the Daily News and Scott Shifrel;
4) Justice Prus' and Justice Sunshine's complicity in adjourning
Plaintiff's divorce action 19 times, although Plaintiff's ex-husband never
interposed an answer; Justice D'Emic's
complicity for continuing the acts of fraud upon the court and
Talmud-oriented bias commenced by Justice Eric I. Prus and Justice
Jeffrey S. Sunshine by violating New York State Civil Practice Law and
Rules Section 236 regarding the equitable distribution of marital
property such that the disabled Plaintiff was left with nothing so as to
protect Plaintiff's ex-husband, and by extension ex-husband's attorneys
from the consequences of having used Plaintiff to participate in a
green-card marriage; that fraud upon the court has no statute of
limitations; such that, if the law where administered fairly, the
aforesaid justices would be investigated, jailed, impeached and disbarred
or suspended from the practice of law; and that this is not the case
because the justices are adherents of the Talmud's religious doctrine law
of the moser, and as such, will not report the
Jewish attorneys to the non-Jewish authorities.
48) That Plaintiff asserts that
Defendant, by and through its employees, failed to follow the
constitution mandate for due process by honestly investigating
Plaintiff's complaints regarding the attorneys who facilitated the
ex-husband's act of immigration fraud, identity fraud and non-payment of
child support; that Defendant United States, by and through its
employees, failed to follow the constitutional mandate for due process by
discarding Plaintiff's complaints to investigate the aforesaid justices
for rendering decisions in favor of those attorneys who facilitated
Plaintiff's ex-husband commission of immigration fraud, identity fraud
and non-payment of child support.
49) That Plaintiff asserts that because
of Defendant's violation of her right to due process, Plaintiff was
subjected to theft of Plaintiff's reputation/being publicly defamed as a
liar with regard to the identity of Plaintiff's
ex-husband by the Daily News, Scott Shifrel and
their attorney Anne B. Carroll.
50) That Plaintiff asserts that
Defendant's refusal to enforce Plaintiff's constitutional under the law
is an injury that is recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding its
decision in the case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388
(1971).
COUNT 2
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT NOT TO BE FORCED TO OBSERVE
THE TALMUD AND ASHKENAZI JUDAISM AS A STATE RELIGION
51) Plaintiff hereby repeats and
realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs 1 through 49 as if fully set forth herein.
52) That Plaintiff asserts that
Defendant, by and through its employees owed Plaintiff the duty of
ensuring that Plaintiff's constitutional right to enforce Plaintiff's
constitutional right to due process with regard to her attempts to file
criminal complaints with federal law enforcement agencies based on Plaintiff's
allegations regarding the encroachment of the Talmud and the illegal
interference of its adherents who are in positions of great authority.
53) That Plaintiff asserts that
Defendant's violation of Plaintiff's constitutional right to due process
by way of Defendant's failure to investigate Plaintiff's well-founded
complaints regarding those justices at the Kings County Supreme Court who
were randomly assigned to adjudicate Plaintiff's lawsuit were
Jews/adherents of the Talmud were read and discarded; that based on
Plaintiff understanding of the laws of probability, it is impossible for
a random drawing of a judge to a case to end up where the litigants and
the judge are always the same ethnicity and the same religion, but that
when Plaintiff's cases had a Jewish litigant, or a non-Jewish litigant
who was a client of Jewish litigants who violated the law, Plaintiff's
cases were always randomly assigned to a judge who was Jewish; and that
further to this; Plaintiff asserts that in each of her cases where the
litigants did not interpose an answer or file an appearance so that
litigants should have been declared defaulted by natural operation of law
New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 320, appearance of
attorneys; New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 3215;
default judgment and New York Code Rules and Regulations 202.27, default
judgment; the Jewish judges instead rendered decisions in favor of the
no-show Jewish defendant, and Plaintiff lost all her cases.
54) That Plaintiff asserts that
Defendant, by and through its employees, failed in its duty to 1) protect
Plaintiff's constitutional right to due process by refusing to
investigate her well-founded complaints; 2) by refusing to bring to
justice those individuals for whom Plaintiff provided well-founded proof
of their crimes of facilitation of immigration fraud, identity fraud,
non-payment of child support and fraud upon the court in violation of the
following laws: Title 18 of
the United States Code, Section 1341, frauds and swindles; Title 18 of the
United States Code, Section 1346, definition of scheme or artifice to
defraud; violation
of Title 18 of the
United State Code Section 241, conspiracy against rights; Title 18 of
the United States Code, Section 242, deprivation of rights under color of
law; Title 42 of
the United States Code, Section 1981(a)(c) , equal rights under the
law; Title 42 of the
United States Code, Section 1983, civil
action for deprivation of rights under color of law; Plaintiff's First
Amendment right to redress grievances to the government; Plaintiff's
First Amendment right to freedom of speech; Plaintiff's First Amendment
right to freedom from the establishment of a state-sponsored religion;
Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment right to due process under the law; Plaintiff
Fifth Amendment right to Plaintiff Fourteenth right to due process under
the law and Plaintiff's Fourteenth right to equal protection under the
law.
55) That Plaintiff asserts that
Defendant's failed to protect Plaintiff's right to freedom from the
enforcement of a state-sponsored religion; Plaintiff asserts that she has
forever lost the ability to successfully file charges against a litigant
who is Jewish; and that the aforesaid loss is evidence that Defendant, by
and through is employees has allowed itself to become a Talmudic police
state (see Exhibit V, page 2).
COUNT 3
PLAINTIFF'S THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
DEFENDANT VIOLATED PLAINTIFF RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION
UNDER THE LAW
56) Plaintiff hereby repeats and
realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs 1 through 54 as if fully set forth herein.
57) That Plaintiff asserts that
Defendant, by and through its employees, had a duty to ensure that
Plaintiff receives the same the intangible right to honest service that
is guaranteed in Title 18 of the
United States Code, Section 1346; that
Defendant, by and through its employees had the duty of showing
compassion for Plaintiff as a past and current victim of federal crimes
that were orchestrated by Ashkenazi Jews; that Plaintiff offers as proof
of her assertion Exhibit V, page 3 in which Defendant the Honorable Barack H.
Obama visits Israel and bows in respect to those Jews who were cruelly
murdered during the Holocaust; that if Defendant Barack H. Obama can
gracefully bow in respect to those Holocaust victims whose religion has
no business in the affairs of secular government, then Plaintiff can
logically assume that the President of the United States, a 10-year
professor and expert of U.S. Constitutional law, while never needing to
bow before the Plaintiff, owes Plaintiff a duty to treat Plaintiff, who
is a crime victim, with the same compassion with which he treats
present-day Ashkenazi Jews, who are no longer victims of individuals who
promulgated white superiority pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment's
equal protection clause; that all Plaintiff requires of Defendant Obama,
of Defendant United States and of all other employees named as defendants
is for them to obey the U.S. Constitution and do their jobs.
58) That Plaintiff asserts that
Defendant's failure to exercise its duty to provide Plaintiff with equal
protection under that law that it afford Jews, especially those in
positions of financial and government power, has caused Plaintiff to
suffer the following: 1) loss of the Plaintiff's ability to enlist
Defendant's help to enforce Plaintiff's constitutional rights; 2) a great
fear of Ashkenazi Jews; 3) lack of respect for the United States
government; 4) loss of respect for Defendant Barack H. Obama insofar as
Plaintiff voted for him based on her belief that he cared for her and
would keep his word and help her, but has never done so (see Exhibit
W); 5) loss of marital
property based on Justice's D'Emic's biased
decision in favor of no-show ex-huband, leaving
disabled Plaintiff with nothing; 6) the fictitious name Godwin Uzamere is
still on the birth certificate of the child of the marriage, such that
the loss of the right of African slaves and their progeny to bear the
true and full African name of their husbands and fathers, something that
Plaintiff naively believed that Kenyan-descendant Defendant Barack H.
Obama would understand; 7) loss of reputation based on Daily News and
Scott Shifrel's libel of Plaintiff as anti-Semitic
and wacko; that Plaintiff could go on and on, however, Plaintiff strongly
asserts that she has proven her point well.
59) That Plaintiff asserts that
Defendant's failure to exercise its duty to provide Plaintiff with equal
protection under the law, as well as those constitutional rights
previously enumerated by Plaintiff, is the loss of the aforesaid rights
themselves, such that the losses are damages recognized in law; that in
U.S. Supreme Court case Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Honorable William J.
Brennan said that 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..."; that the U.S. Supreme Court laid down a
rule that it will imply a private right of action for monetary damages
where no other federal remedy is provided for the vindication of a
Constitutional right, based on the principle that for every wrong, there
is a remedy.
COUNT 4
PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
DEFENDANT VIOLATED PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO FREE
SPEECH
60) Plaintiff hereby repeats and
realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs 1 through 58 as if fully set forth herein.
61) That Plaintiff asserts that Defendant,
by and through its employees, had a duty enforce Plaintiff constitutional
right to free speech; that Defendant had a duty to ensure that those
employees who are adherents of the Talmud's law of the moser did not overstep their constitutional duties by
censuring Plaintiff's by discarding them and causing Plaintiff to be
ignored;
62) That Plaintiff asserts that
Defendant, by and through its employees, failed in its duty to enforce
Plaintiff's right to free speech, and to establish sufficient to this
Court of Plaintiff's assertion, Plaintiff notes that following: 1) that
Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, who Plaintiff has sufficiently proven
committed immigration fraud, identity fraud and non-payment of child
support, was never arrested for his crime, and that instead, both the
federal district court and the New York State court determined that
Plaintiff can no longer file complaints against Allen E. Kaye
fraudulently based on the principles of res judicata and colleteral estoppel; 2) that Allen E. Kaye, who
Plaintiff has sufficiently proven facilitated the immigration fraud and
identity fraud of his client, ex-husband Senator Ehigie Uzamere, was
never arrested for his crime, and that instead, both the federal district
court and the New York State court determined that Plaintiff can no
longer file complaints against Allen E. Kaye fraudulently based on the
principles of res judicata and collateral
estoppel; and that
for every individual Plaintiff names as having committed crimes against
the Plaintiff falls under the same harsh judgment, although Plaintiff has
sufficiently proven that the aforesaid individuals violated Plaintiff
constitutional rights.
63) That Plaintiff asserts that the
primary damages that were caused by Defendant are the loss of Plaintiff's
ability to enlist Defendant's assistance in enforcing her constitutional
rights when the subject of Plaintiff's complaint is Jewish/adherent of
the Talmud; that based on the U.S. Supreme Court case Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), loss or violation of constitutional
rights is an injury recognized in law; that those damages Plaintiff
alleges are recognized in U.S. Law can be found in paragraphs 48 and 54.
DEMAND FOR AN ACCOUNTING
64) That Plaintiff demands an
accounting from Defendant's employees in person to ascertain their
personal reasons why the United States government never investigated the
crimes of immigration and identity fraud attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey
Shapiro, Bernard Rostanski, Jack Gladstein,
Eugene O. Uzamere, Justice Eric I. Prus, Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine; and
further to this, why the United State of America refused to investigate
Plaintiff's well-documented claims regarding the aforesaid attorneys acts
of fraud, and to make a full disclosure of same.
65) That Plaintiff strongly asserts
that if Ashkenazi Jewish attorney Philip Berg can file lawsuits with
various federal courts to question the citizenship of Defendant Barack H.
Obama, whose mother is a white American citizen and who the U.S.
Government recognizes as an American citizen, then Plaintiff feels
emboldened to file this lawsuit with the hope that there exists a judge
at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims who is not an adherent of the Talmud
and will not allow himself or herself to be illegally influenced and
become a slave to one; and who will adjudicate Plaintiff's lawsuit with
justice and mercy and require an accounting of the Defendant.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
66) Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere
respectfully requests that this Court compels the Defendants to provide
Plaintiff with the aforesaid equitable relief:
a) That Plaintiff respectfully prays
that this honorable Court requires that any justice, judge or magistrate
judge who by religion or culture subscribes to the Talmud disqualifies
him/herself; that pursuant to Liteky v. United States, 114 S.Ct.
1147, 1162 (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; that pursuant to 28 USC 455 any member of this
honorable Court's judiciary who is an interested party in the
aforementioned subject manner recuse him/herself from adjudicating this
claim to ensure that Plaintiff's First Amendment right to be free from
the establishment of a state religion, Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment right
to due process of law, Plaintiff's right to free speech and Plaintiff's
Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law are no
longer compromised or violated by members of the Ashkenazim in their
fervor to implement the Talmudic doctrine law of the moser
to protect fellow Ashkenazi Jews who committed crimes against Plaintiff.
b) That Plaintiff asserts that in
the U.S. Supreme Court case Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) , the court
decided that however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for
the opportunity to offer supporting evidence...Accordingly, although we
intimate no view whatever on the merits of petitioner's allegations, we
conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof; and
that based on the foregoing case law, this Court must allow Plaintiff,
whose exhibits have proven that she is a federal crime victim, to present
evidence of her allegations.
c) That Plaintiff accepts that
Defendants Honorable Barack H. Obama, Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. and
Honorable Janet Reno must delegate duties that are specific to particular
departments, divisions, section and units such that she is willing to
remove them (only) from being Defendants in her lawsuit; however, in
order for Plaintiff not to have to add willful blindness or negligence to
her claim against Defendant, Plaintiff demands she meet with the
aforesaid Defendants personally to acknowledge that Plaintiff and her
daughter are still federal crime victims, to explain why the United
States government never helped Plaintiff and her children, and to
personally ensure that Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Bernard
J. Rostanski, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq.,
Eugene O. Uzamere, the Honorable Eric I. Prus, the Honorable Jeffrey S.
Sunshine, the Honorable Matthew D'Emic and the
Honorable Arthur M. Schack held criminally and/or civilly liable for
their facilitation of immigration fraud, identity fraud, non-payment of
child support, fraud upon and court and religiously-oriented racism
against Plaintiff and her daughter; that if Plaintiff's allegations are
correct (and Plaintiff has proven that they are) that they will lead to
the arrest of the aforesaid individuals; and to ensure that if the
Honorable Anthony Parga in Plaintiff's lawsuit Index Number 10-009998
makes a decision contrary to law, contrary to the facts and in favor of
the never-interposed-an-answer-already-defaulted Jewish defendants, that
based on Plaintiff's complaint against him, that he is investigated,
arrested, tried and convicted for commission of fraud upon the court and
criminal violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
d) That if the aforesaid individuals
refuse to meet with Plaintiff, then Plaintiff demands $10,000,000.00 will
continue to include the aforementioned Defendants
for Defendant's violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere respectfully requests
that this Court renders judgment against Defendant in the sum of
$10,000,000.00 together with the costs and disbursement of this action,
and for such other, further, and additional relief as to this Court may
seem just and proper.
August 28, 2010
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
___________________________
Signature of Plaintiff
Cheryl D. Uzamere
Appearing Pro Se
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (718) 647-1708
Fax: (347) 227-0118
1.
Credits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens
2.
In re Aimster Copyright
Litigation, 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003)
3.
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 USC 2401(d); 28 USC
2675; 28 USC 2675(a); 28 USC 2675(a)
"Fraud on The Court by an Officer of the Court" and
"Disqualification of Judges, State and Federal"
(credits: http://www.ballew.com/bob/htm/fotc.htm)
1. Who is an "officer of the
court"?
2. What is "fraud on the
court"?
3. What effect does an act of
"fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?
4. What causes the
"Disqualification of Judges?"
1. Who is an "officer of the court"?
A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all
attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State
to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial
officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully.
State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must
meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).
2. What is "fraud on 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."
3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the
court" have upon the court proceeding?
"Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and
judgments of that court.
It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit
"fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The
People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192
N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction
into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and
other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336
Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every
transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is
axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896);
Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App.
79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel
v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798
(1935).
Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has
committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of
that court are void, of no legal force or effect.
4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"
Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a
Federal judge under certain circumstances.
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).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a
judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486
U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias
or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri,
779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against
the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually
biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.
455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their
judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the
judicial process.").
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to
recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might
reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th
Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the
Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only
actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received
justice."
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that
"justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v.
United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v.
United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving
a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not
give the appearance of justice.
"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).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there
is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)]
imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte,
even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri,
at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they
are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as
required by law, then the judge has given another example of his
"appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further
disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the
disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an
"appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified
himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been
disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would
appear that they are void as a matter of law and are of no legal
force or effect.
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.").
Should a judge issue any order after he has been
disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her
property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of
"interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in
the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity.
It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more
lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided
that he is not a judge). However, some judges may not follow the
law.
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow
the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an
"appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not
all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the
ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject.
Notice that it states: "disqualification is required" and that
a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.
The Supreme Court has also held that
if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without
jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge
acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is
acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in
criminal acts of treason and may be engaged in extortion and the
interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that
judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and
the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has
immunity to engage in such acts.
|
|
Notice of Appeal Against Corrupt
Judge Schack's Decision Filed
|
|
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
_________________________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere
*
Plaintiff, NOTICE
OF MOTION
*
-against-*
|
Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, also known as Godwin
E. Uzamere, Allen E. Kaye, P.C., Allen E. Kaye, P.C., Allen E. Kaye,
Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Bernard J. Rostanski
and Jack Gladstein, Esq.
|
Defendants.
______________________________________
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF KINGS )
ss:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Cheryl D.
Uzamere, dated the 5th day of August, 2010 and all the papers annexed
thereto, the undersigned will move this court, at the courthouse thereof,
located at 45 Monroe Place, Brooklyn, New York, 11201, on the 20th day of
August, 2010, at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon of that date, for an order
granting the following relief:
1.
For permission to proceed as a poor person;
2.
For permission to perfect on the original papers;
3.
To overturn lower court's decision based on Respondents'
acts of fraud and based on lower court's act of fraud upon the court; or
4.
To overturn the lower court's order based on Respondents'
default;
5.
For leave to refile Appellant's original papers if
improperly served;
6.
For leave to effect service of process by certified mail,
return receipt requested and express mail to Respondent Ehigie E.
Uzamere;
7.
For a statement from this Court that the Respondents engaged
in fraud;
8.
For such other and further relief as to the court may seem
just and equitable.
Yours,
etc.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August 5, 2010
Cheryl D. Uzamere
Appearing Pro Se
1209 Loring Avenue
Tel.: (212) 619-2200
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (718) 647-1708
Fax: (267) 543-3317
TO: Matthew Kaufman,
Esq.
225
Broadway
Suite
1606
New
York, NY 10007
The
Honorable Ehigie E. Uzamere
Senator,
Edo State South
National Assembly Complex
Three
Arms Zone
P.M.B.
141
Abuja,
Nigeria
Tel.:
(011) 234-9-523-2127
NOTE: On the return date all motions are deemed submitted.
Oral argument is not permitted (22 NYCRR 670.5[b]).
|
|
NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
APPELLATE DIVISION:
SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Cheryl D.
Uzamere AFFIDAVIT
IN SUPPORT
Plaintiff, Docket No.:__________
-
against -*
|
Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, also known as Godwin
E. Uzamere, Allen E. Kaye, P.C., Allen E. Kaye, P.C., Allen E. Kaye,
Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Bernard J. Rostanski
and Jack Gladstein, Esq.
|
*********************************************************
*** Defendants.
________________________________________
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF KINGS )
ss:
I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, being
duly sworn, depose and say:
1) That I am the Appellant in the above entitled action.
2) That I make this Affidavit based on the following true
statements:
3) That as Appellant in the New York State Supreme Court,
Kings County case Index No. 18012/2009, I am fully familiar with the facts
and circumstances of this matter, as I am the person who commenced the
subject action.
4) That New York State Penal Law 175.35, Offering a false
instrument for filing in the first degree states that A person is
guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree
when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or
false information, and with intent to defraud the state or any political
subdivision, public authority or public benefit corporation of the state,
he offers or presents it to a public office, public servant, public
authority or public benefit corporation with the knowledge or belief that
it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a
part of the records of such public office, public servant, public
authority or public benefit corporation. Offering a false instrument for
filing in the first degree is a class E felony.
5) That the marriage affidavit, marriage license and
marriage certificate were fraudulent New York State documents that were,
in fact, falsified in Kings County Clerk's Office Marriage License Bureau
by Respondent Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that further to this,
Appellant did not know that the aforesaid documents were fraudulent.
6) That Respondents Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro
knew, or should have known that the marriage certificate was fraudulent.
7) That insofar as the Respondents and their attorney
have provided the lower court with the same fraudulent information as
they provided to the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
in 1979, their requests for equitable relief from the lower court are
illegal and must be dismissed.
BACKGROUND FACTS
8) That Appellant effected service of process upon
Defendant with due diligence, to wit:
9) That on July 31, 2009, Appellant effected service of
the Summons, Verified Complaint, Notice to Admit and exhibits upon the
Respondents by certified mail (see Exhibits A, B and C,
pages 1-5).
10) That on August 2, 2009, Appellant faxed the Verified
Complaint and Notice to Admit to Allen Kaye and Jack Gladstein (see Exhibit
D, pages 1-2 and Exhibit
E, pages 1-4).
11) That on August 2, 2009, Appellant e-mailed the Verified
Complaint and Notice to Admit with website links to the exhibits that
Appellant uploaded to her web page http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/lawsuitforfraud.html to Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro
and Jack Gladstein (see Exhibit F, pages 1-2).
12) That on August 13, 2009, Appellant sent a fax to Benton
Campbell, U.S. Attorney; Charles F. Sanders, New York State Assistant
Attorney General; Alan Friedberg, Esq., New York State Departmental Disciplinary
Committee, First Department; Harvey Shapiro, Esq. and Jack Gladstein,
Esq. entitled Proof that I contacted attorneys Shapiro and Gladstein
regarding the lawsuit I sent to them with regard to the Summons, Verified
Complaint, Notice to Admit and exhibits that were served on the
aforementioned attorneys bearing article numbers 7000 0500 0000 2211 6686
and 7000 0500 0000 2211 6693 that the U.S. Postal Service did not track
as having been delivered (see Exhibit G).
13) That on August 13, 2009, Appellant sent an e-mail
message to President Obama, John Potter, Inspector General, U.S. Postal
Service, Harvey Shapiro, Esq. and Jack Gladstein entitled Violation of
Postal Custom Due Process Rights to ascertain why the U.S. Postal Service
refused to track the aforementioned article
numbers (see Exhibit H).
14) That on August 25, 2009, Appellant sent a second request
e-mail message to President Obama, Elena Kagan, U.S. Solicitor General,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, John Potter, Inspector General, U.S. Post
Office, Beth Mann. Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq. and Harvey Shapiro, Esq.
entitled Fw: 18012/2009, Uzamere v
Uzamere, action for fraud has been sent to you; that the e-mail
message contained the Statement of Service by Mail and Acknowledgment of
Receipt of Summons and Complaint or Summons and Notice pursuant to CPLR
312-a; and that Appellant sent the aforesaid statement and acknowledgment
to ascertain if attorneys Shapiro and Gladstein were in receipt of the
documents that were sent to them and if they desired to be charged with
the expense of service upon themselves (see Exhibit
I).
15) That on August 26, 2009, Appellant received an e-mail
message from the U.S. Postal Service Inspector General's office
acknowledging receipt of Appellant's complaint concerning article numbers
7000 0500 0000 2291 6693 and 7000 0500 0000 2211 6586 (see Exhibit
J).
16) That Appellant uploaded the Summons, Verified Complaint,
Notice to Admit and exhibits to Appellant's website: http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/lawsuitforfraud.html (see Exhibit
K).(2)
17) That during all times before and hereinafter mentioned,
Appellant left several messages with the Respondents informing them that
service of process of the Summons, Verified Complaint, Notice to Admit
and exhibits was effected upon each of them.
18) That in spite of Appellant's diligent efforts to enlist
the cooperation of the Respondents, Appellant received not one telephone
call from them, not one fax from them, not even one e-mail from them or
any other contact from them until October 30, 2009, the day Appellant
received the untimely filed cross-motions from their attorney, Matthew
Kaufman.
19) That the documents that Matthew Kaufman sent to
Appellant did not include an answer from any of the Respondents; that the
documents that Matthew Kaufman sent to Appellant did not contain any
answer to Appellant's Verified Complaint or response to Appellant's
Notice to Admit; and that as of the submission of this Affidavit to this
Court, Respondents have not interposed an answer.
POINT ONE
RESPONDENTS HAVE DEFAULTED PURSUANT TO
CPLR RULE 320, 3215 AND NYCRR 202.27 DEFAULT JUDGMENT
OF RESPONDENTS IS REQUIRED BY OPERATION OF LAW
20) That Appellant asserts that CPLR 3215 says that When a
defendant has failed to appear, plead or proceed to trial of an action
reached and called for trial, or when the court orders a dismissal for
any other neglect to proceed, the plaintiff may seek a default judgment
against him.
21) That Appellant asserts that with regard to defaults,
Appellant asserts that NYCRR 202.27 says that At any scheduled call of a
calendar or at any conference, if all parties do not appear and proceed
or announce their readiness to proceed immediately or subject to the
engagement of counsel, the judge may note the default on the record...
and may grant judgment by default or order an inquest.
22) That Appellant asserts that with regard to the filing of
appearances, CPLR Rule 320 says that The
defendant appears by serving an answer...An appearance shall be made
...within thirty days after service is complete.
23) That Plaintiff asserts that the lower court does not
have the right to rule on any of Respondents' motions because Respondents
failed to interpose answers.
24) That with regard to vacating a
judgment of default, Appellant asserts that "A defendant seeking to
vacate an order entered upon his or her default…must demonstrate both a
reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the motion
and the action" Newell v Hirsch, 65 AD3d 1108, 1109. A
defendant seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default in
opposing a motion must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the
default and a meritorious defense to the motion and the action (see Diamond
Truck Leasing Corp. v Cross Country Ins. Brokerage, Inc., 62
AD3d 745; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389
[2008]; Matter of Gambardella v Ortov
Light., 278 AD2d 494, 495 [2000]; Neuman v Greenblatt, 260
AD2d 616, 617 [1999]).
25) That both Respondents and the lower court acted
fraudulently and maliciously by not advising the Appellant in what manner
Appellant ought to serve them; that as licensed practitioners of law, all
of them should have respected Appellant's attempts to serve them properly
and should have made themselves available for documents that Appellant
attempted to serve on them.
POINT TWO
APPELLANT
MADE SEVERAL DUE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO CONTACT RESPONDENTS
26) That Appellant admits that the first attempt she made to
effect service of process was by certified mail without return receipt
requested because Appellant did not have money to pay for it; that
Appellant did not enclose the Statement of Service by Mail and
accompanying Acknowledgment; however, the second attempt Appellant made
to effect service of process via certified mail contained the
aforementioned documents.
27) That Appellant attempted to contact the Respondents by
fax, by e-mail and left phone messages to discuss equitable arrangements
for them to be charged with the expense of service upon themselves.
28) That the lower court permitted Appellant to effect
service of process of her Order to Show Cause and Affidavit in Support by
certified mail, return receipt request; and that the lower court required
no other attempts to effect service of process on the Respondents.
29) That any errors Appellant made with reference to
effecting service on the Respondents were unintentional and did not
prejudice the Respondents' ability to respond in a timely manner.
POINT THREE
EQUITY
COMES WITH CLEAN HANDS -- RESPONDENTS' UNCOOPERTIVE CONDUCT REGARDING
RECEIPT OF PROCESS RENDER THEM INELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE FROM THIS COURT
30) That Respondents' attorney's untimely filing was an
illegal ploy used to accomplish the following:
a) To detract from Respondents'
failure to interpose answers because they could not contradict
Appellant's Verified Complaint; factually, procedurally and legally,
Appellant's Verified Complaint is insurmountable.
b) To present a fraudulent answer in a manner that would
not give Appellant sufficient time to interpose
a rebuttal.
c) To
coerce Appellant by using her fear of dismissal of her case as a
bargaining chip; thereby bargaining with Respondents such that if
Appellant rejected their cross-motions as untimely, they will use their yiddishkeit to influence the lower court to dismiss Appellant's case
based on improper service or res judicata; and that if Appellant
allows Respondents to submit their untimely, fraudulent cross-motion as a
substitute for not interposing timely answers to Appellant's Verified
Complaint and Notice to Admit, Respondents would, in turn, use
S.L.A.P.P-like unnecessary adjournments to frustrate Appellant until she
got tired and gave up.
31) That in addition to the acts of fraud that Appellant
previously alleged, attorney Matthew Kaufman allowed client, Respondent
Allen E. Kaye to submit the following irrefutable proof that he committed
fraud during the lower court's adjudication of Appellant's lawsuit:
a) Document in which Respondent Kaye refers to Defendant
Uzamere as "Godwin Uzamere" (see Exhibit
L, pages 1-2), although
Respondent Kaye used Respondent Uzamere's proper name in his letter to
the New York State Disciplinary Committee, First Judicial Department
dated July 22, 2003 (see Exhibit M, pages 1-2).
b) Document where Defendant Kaye states ...Plaintiff as
the petitioner...was required to provide Plaintiff's birth certificate,
Plaintiff's U.S. Passport and the marriage certificate to Godwin E.
Uzamere, her husband...
32) That in spite of the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Service's recognition of Respondent Uzamere
as Ehigie E. Uzamere (see Exhibit N, pages 1-2), that in spite Defendant Kaye own recognition and
use of Respondent Uzamere's proper name Ehigie E. Uzamere (see Exhibit
O, page 1 and 2), that in
spite of Respondent Kaye's past refusal to obey a subpoena ad
testificandum to identify his client Respondent Uzamere during
Appellant's divorce action index number (see Exhibit
P, page 1-2), and that in
spite of the court decisions that Respondent Ehigie E. Uzamere was
Appellant's husband (see Exhibit Q, pages 1-2), Respondents have flouted
the law, and have enlisted the help of the lower court to legitimatize
their act of fraud; that Respondents' blatant act of upon fraud, in
tandem with the lower court's blatant act of fraud upon the court should
make obvious to this Court that Respondents and the lower court's trier
of fact are liars; that Appellant strongly suspects that this Court's
Ashkenazi judiciary will follow suit; and that Appellant has prepared
herself for that eventuality by drafting her lawsuits in advance against
the State of New York with the New York State Court of Claims and with
the Federal Court of Claims(4) for federal agencies that refuse to investigate
Appellant's complaint of corruption.3
POINT
THREE
LOWER COURT'S MISAPPLICATION OF RES
JUDICATA/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL VIOLATES APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
PROTECTION RIGHTS
33) Appellant asserts that the federal lawsuits to which the
lower court refers made it appear that the federal court's decisions were
based on federal law (judges in both cases were adherents of the Talmud,
as were some of the defendants), not state law; that their decisions
regarding acts of fraud committed by Respondents were based on
Appellant's use of U.S. Constitutional law and federal law as New York
State Law cannot be adjudicated by a federal court. Appellant asserts
that her New York State constitutional rights regarding due process and
equal protection under the law have always been violated with regard to
filing New York State fraud charges against the Respondents, based on
what Appellant asserts is enormous Talmudic interference designed to
prevent non-Jews from successfully filing criminal charges against
defendants who are Jewish with secular authorities; in
deed, Appellant's primary purpose in enlisting the assistance of
the federal courts and in filing her present lawsuit against the Daily
News and Scott Shifrel in Nassau County Supreme
Court is to avoid the religious bias and stifling encroachment of the
Talmud by Kings County's Ashkenazi judiciary; that Appellant has never
charged Respondents with New York State fraud charges in any New York State
court; and that if Appellant had filed New York State civil fraud charges
in federal court, her lawsuit would have been dismissed by operation of
federal law.
34) Appellant further asserts that, in
matters involving due process, cases that appear to be res judicata may
be re-litigated. An example would be the establishment of a right to
counsel. People who have had liberty taken away (i.e., imprisoned) may be
allowed to be re-tried with a counselor as a matter of fairness.
35) Appellant asserts that there are
limited exceptions to res judicata that allow a party to attack the
validity of the original judgment, even outside of appeals. These
exceptions usually called collateral attacks are typically based on
procedural or jurisdictional issues, based not on the wisdom of the
earlier court's decision but its authority or competence to issue it. A
collateral attack is more likely to be available (and to succeed) in
judicial systems with multiple jurisdictions, such as under federal
governments...
36) Plaintiff asserts that there are many instances when a
defendant, based on specific fact patterns, is
tried for crimes that must be adjudicated in different jurisdictions. For
example, in the case of former police officer Francis X. Livoti, he was found not guilty based on New York
State Penal Law, then found guilty of federal civil rights violations
based on the same set of circumstances.
POINT FOUR
EQUITY COMES WITH CLEAN HANDS RESPONDENTS'
AVOIDANCE OF SERVICE OF PROCESS FACILITATED CONDITIONS TO CREATE ILLUSION
OF IMPROPER SERVICE
37) The website Wikipedia.org, in its explanation of the
legal term unclean hands, says the following: Unclean hands, sometimes
clean hands doctrine or dirty hands doctrine is an equitable defense in
which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain
an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting
unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the
complaint that is, with "unclean hands". The defendant has the
burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The
doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do
equity" or "equity must come with clean hands...A defendant's
unclean hands can also be claimed and proven by the plaintiff to claim other
equitable remedies and to prevent that defendant from asserting equitable
affirmative defenses. In other words, 'unclean hands' can be used
offensively by the plaintiff as well as defensively by the defendant.
38) That Appellant's assertion that Respondents committed
the crime of facilitation of Senator Uzamere's immigration is not in
question, based on the U.S. Government-issued documentation that
establishes Defendant's identity as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, not Godwin
Uzamere.
39) That Appellant asserts that Respondents, who use various
tricks to avoid getting Appellant's documents by mail, and legal threats
to curtail Appellant's attempts to obtain justice, have never employed
the threat of filing a lawsuit against Appellant for defamation of
character even though Appellant's website internationally publishes
Respondents as criminals, because Appellant is telling the truth.
POINT FIVE
LOWER COURT'S DECISION IS CRIMINAL FRAUD
AGAINST THE COURT BASED IN TALMUD'S LAW OF THE MOSER
40) That Appellant reasserts that Respondents committed the
crime of facilitation of Senator Uzamere's immigration is not in
question, based on the U.S. Government-issued documentation that
establishes Defendant's identity as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, not Godwin
Uzamere.
POINT SIX
RESPONDENT KAYE'S REFERENCE TO GODWIN
UZAMERE IN HIS CROSS-MOTION
VIOLATES NYS PEN. LAW 175.35 AND IS A NEW
ACT OF FRAUD FOR WHICH LOWER COURT COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY NOT
CHARGING RESPONDENT KAYE WITH PERJURY
41) That in Respondent Allen E. Kaye's untimely filed
cross-motion, in which he states that this cross-motion for an Order of
Dismissal is submitted on the merits on behalf of both the corporate
business Defendant, Allen E. Kaye, P.C., as well as myself, Respondent
Kaye fraudulently refers to Appellant's ex-husband as Godwin Uzamere;
however, in Respondent Kaye's letter dated July 22, 2003, Respondent Kaye
refers to Appellant's Respondent ex-husband's proper name on page 2 of
the aforesaid document.
42) That the lower court made no attempt to question
Respondent Kaye's blatant act of fraud is irrefutable proof of the lower
court's act fraud upon the court; that based on the U.S. Supreme Court
case Bulloch vs. United States, fraud upon the court vitiates the
lower court's decision, rendering it as having less value than the paper
on which it is written; and that if this Court's Ashkenazi judiciary
renders a decision in favor of the Respondents, Appellant will file a
claim with the New York State Court of Claims; that Appellant will file a
complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice; and that in the
eventuality that the U.S. Department of Justice has an Ashkenazi employee
who refuses to investigate Appellant's complaint of fraud upon this
court, Appellant will then file a complaint with the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims, naming, among other defendants, the Honorable Barack H.
Obama as a defendant to apprise him of this court's acts of Talmud-based
fraud upon the court and to discover why his administration has done
nothing to stop it.
POINT SEVEN
APPELLATE COURT PROHIBITED FROM RULING ON
ISSUES THAT ARE ACADEMIC
43) That Appellant strongly asserts that based on case law
established by the honorable Court as a decision regarding Appellant,
namely Uzamere vs. Prus, 55 AD3d 842, this court is prohibited from
ruling on issues that are academic; that save for Respondents filing a
motion to vacate any default judgment against them based on a reasonable
excuse and meritorious defense, all other motions on the part of the
Respondents are moot, and outside of the purview of this court to
adjudicate (see Exhibit R).
WHEREFORE, Appellant prays this Court: 1) for permission to
proceed as a poor person; 2) for permission to perfect on the original
papers; 3) to overturn lower court's decision based on Respondents' acts
of fraud and based on lower court's act of fraud upon the court; or, 4)
to overturn the lower court's order based on Respondents' default; 5) for
leave to refile Appellant's original papers if improperly served; 6) for
leave to effect service of process by certified mail, return receipt
requested; 7) for a statement from this Court that the Respondents
engaged in fraud, and for such other and further relief as to the court
may seem just and equitable.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August
5, 2010
*
1.
Formerly http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.com/lawsuitforfraud.html;
2.
Formerly http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.com/lawsuitforfraud.html;
3.
Lawsuit with U.S. Court of Federal Claims
to be mail shortly; lawsuit is uploaded to Appellant's website: http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/lawsuit_against_us_president.html;
4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata;
5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata;
6.
State of New York vs. Livota;
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/08/nyregion/judge-assails-but-acquits-officer-in-man-s-choking-death-in-bronx.html?ref=gerald_sheindlin
7.
U.S. A. v. Livoti, no. 196 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir. 1999);
http://openjurist.org/196/f3d/322/united-states-of-america-v-francis-x-livoti
|
|
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (718) 647-1708
Fax: (267) 543-3317
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net
URL:http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net
|
FAX
|
|
To:
|
Office
Number
|
Fax
Number
|
|
Hon. Thomas A. Klonick,
Chair, NYSCJC
Copies
to:
Hon. Barack H. Obama, President, U.S.A
Hon. Eric H. Holder, Attorney General, USDOJ
Hon. A. Gail Prudenti,
Pres. Judge, NYSUCS, Esq.
Allen E. Kaye, Esq.
Harvey Shapiro, Esq.
Jack Gladstein, Esq.
|
1-646-486-4800
*
1-202-456-1414
1-202-514-2001
1-718-875-1300
1-212-964-5858
1-212-335-5240
1-718-793-7800
|
1-646-458-0037
*
1-202-456-2461
1-202-514-4507
1-718-855-2664
1-212-608-3734
1-212-935-6857
1-718-793-0524
|
|
Subject:
|
Cheryl D. Uzamere vs. Hon. Arthur M. Schack;
Lawsuit
against U.S. And President Obama on its way; please make ensure that
your decisions are written as though Mr. Obama will see them because he
may
|
|
Date:
|
August
10, 2010
|
|
Dear Mr. Klonick:
Do you remember Mr. Berg, the
gentleman who continue to advocate that President Obama is
not a U.S. citizen? His silly lawsuit made it all the way to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
I respectfully remind you of this incident
so that you can understand that if a Jewish man can use the courts to
litigate what New York Code Rules and Regulations 130-1.1 would
describe as frivolous, then a schvartze
like me should have the same right to advocate what I believe is right
especially since, unlike Mr. Berg, I have proof of my contentions.
Following this page please find
portions of the appeal for my case Index No. 18012-2009. Do not worry,
I am not asking your agency to adjudicate the merits of my case
-- it should be obvious to you that I know that reviewing the
decision is the job of the Appellate Division, 2nd Judicial Department.
My complaint concerns acts of fraud upon the
court by Justice Arthur M. Schack. Fraud upon the court
violates federal and state laws.
This is also to inform you that
today I mailed my lawsuit against against
President Obama, the United States government and other employees who I
believe have failed to protect my constitutional rights and have
allowed certain judges within the New York State Unified Court System
to use Talmudic doctrines to rule New York State's judicial
system with unbridled power.
If you wish to see the lawsuit,
please visit http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/lawsuit_against_us_president.html.
I take it that Justice Schack will
be contacted with regard to my complaint
regarding his acts of fraud upon the court.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fraudulent Marriage Certificate that was
willfully accepted by corrupt immigration attorneys
Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro
|
|
See the top? It says We searched 'Godwin
Uzamere' and found 0 nationwide.You
think this means that there is no Godwin Uzamere???
|
|
|
|
|
|
While stupid Allen Kaye made
reference to the fictitious name "Godwin Uzamere" in his
equally fraudulent cross-motion...
|
|
|
|
...the jackass forgets that in his letter
dated July 22, 2003, he refers to the same person with the correct name
-- Ehigie E. Uzamere...Allen E. Kaye, Esq...what
a dumb ass!
|
|
|
|
See paragraph 1? His name is Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere per
the U.S. Citizenship & Naturalization
Service
|
|
|
|
Exhibit Q, page 1. See the paragraph? His name is Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere per Justice Sunshine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
