|
NEW YORK STATE
COURT OF CLAIMS
*
Cheryl D. Uzamere
* Claim
No.: _______
Plaintiff,
*
-against- VERIFIED
CLAIM
State of New
York JURY
TRIAL DEMANDED
*
Defendants.
Claimant Cheryl D. Uzamere, appearing on her own behalf, states and
alleges the following:
1) That at
all times herein relevant, the Claimant was a resident of the
State of New York, City of Brooklyn and County of Kings.
2) That at
all times herein relevant, Defendant State of New York provided
and continues to provide funding to the New York State Office of Mental
Health.
3) That at all times herein
relevant, Defendant State of New York, by and through the New York State
Office of Mental Health, provided and continues to provide funds to Federation
Employment and Guidance Services, Inc. (hereinafter “FEGS., Inc.),
Interfaith Medical Center Continuing Day Treatment Program, New York
Psychotherapy and Counseling Center, Catholic Charities' Flatlands
Guidance Center and Catholic Charities' Open Door Psychosocial Clubhouse.
4) That at
all times herein relevant, Claimant is (or was) in receipt of
Defendant-funded mental health rehabilitative services.
JURISDICTION
NEW YORK STATE
CONSOLIDATED LAWS – COURT OF CLAIMS ACT
5) a)
Waiver of immunity from liability. The state hereby waives its immunity
from liability and action and hereby assumes liability and consents to
have the same determined in accordance with the same rules of law as
applied to actions in the supreme court against individuals or
corporations, provided the claimant complies with the limitations of this
article.
b) To hear and determine all matters now pending in the said court of
claims.
c) To hear and determine a claim of any person, corporation or
municipality against the state for...the torts of its officers or
employees while acting as such officers or employees, providing the
claimant complies with the limitations of this article.
d) To render judgment in favor of the claimant...for such sum as should
be paid by or to the state.
BACKGROUND FACTS
6) Claimant's action arises out
of Defendant's recent discovery of Defendant's reason for discharge of
and/or implied consent to discharge Claimant, by and on behalf of Defendant
State of New York's Office of Mental Health for commission of the
halachic/Jewish religious crime of anti-Semitism.
7) That Defendant's illegal
discharge/implied consent to discharge of Claimant for the commission of
a halachic/Jewish religious crime without informing Claimant of the
reason for the aforesaid discharge and without allowing Claimant to
defend herself against the aforesaid charge violates Defendant's
Constitution's due process clause.
8) That Defendant's illegal
discharge/implied consent to discharge of Claimant for the commission of
a halachic/Jewish religious crime violates the New York State
Constitution's equal protection clause.
9) That Defendant's illegal
discharge of Claimant based on the commission of a halachic/Jewish
religious crime violates Defendant's Constitution's freedom to worship
clause.
10) That Defendant's use of New
York State's taxpayers' money to discharge Claimant and/or give tacit
permission for Claimant to be discharged to promulgate Jewish religious
law, when said money should have been used to provide Claimant with
mental health rehabilitative services is a flagrant act of fraud on the
part of the Defendant.
11) That Defendant's use of
taxpayer-funded mental health service agencies to intentionally allow
their powerful Jewish supervisory employees to ensure that Claimant is
intentionally misdiagnosed as having paranoid schizophrenia, and then to
falsely use the aforesaid misdiagnosis to discredit Claimant's well-founded
complaint against corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Bernard J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein is a
flagrant act of fraud, and an act of demonic cruelty.
12) That Defendant's use of its
Jewish supervisory staff's great power to coerce less powerful non-Jews
not to assist Claimant is a flagrant act of cruelty on the part of
Defendant.
13) That Defendant's failure to
provide Claimant with mental health services combined with crime victim
services as Claimant is a victim of immigration fraud and identity fraud,
and instead combining the power of Defendant's Office of Mental Health
with Defendant's Unified Court System to prevent Claimant from reporting
the crimes of corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Bernard J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein is both
an act of fraud and an act of cruelty.
14) That violation of
Claimant's right to equal protection is an implied cause of action 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) (citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal
Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
CLAIMANT'S ASSERTIONS/ALLEGATIONS
15) Claimant asserts that while
she was (or should have been) in receipt Defendant's government-funded
outpatient, mental health rehabilitative services, Defendant, by and
through the New York State Office of Mental Health, terminated and/or
tacitly gave permission for the termination of Claimant based on
Defendant's allegation that Claimant committed a halachic/Jewish
religious crime against FEGS, to wit:
16) Claimant asserts that on
July 17, 2009, Claimant filed an action for fraud against corrupt Jewish
attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski
and Jack Gladstein for their facilitation of Claimant's ex-husband's
commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud (see Exhibit
A, pages 1-13).
17) Claimant asserts that on
November 5, 2009, less than four (4) months after Claimant filed her
action for fraud against the aforementioned attorneys, Mortimer
Zuckerman-owned Daily News, LP and Jewish staff writer Scott Shifrel published an article libeling Claimant as an
anti-Semite wacko” (see Exhibit B).
18) Claimant asserts that on
November 30, 2009, four (4) months after Claimant filed an action for
fraud against corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard
J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein; and less than
a month after the Daily News libeled Claimant an “anti-Semitic wacko”,
Claimant was discharged from receiving FEGS, Inc.'s government-funded
services for committing the Jewish religious crime of anti-Semitism (Exhibit
C, pages 1-2).
19) Claimant asserts that on
December 1, 2009, Clifford Nafus, employee of
Defendant-funded, Jewish-controlled FEGS, Inc., consented to the
aforementioned psychosocial discharge report statement that “given
client's history of making anti-Semitic remarks, treatment at an
FEGS facility is inappropriate for her” by signing his name on the
aforementioned psychosocial discharge report.
20) Claimant asserts that on
December 4, 2009, Roberta Siegal, who is Jewish, consented to the aforementioned psychosocial discharge report by
signing her name on the aforementioned report.
21) Claimant asserts that on
December 4, 2009, Dr. Howard Forster, who is Jewish, consented to the aforementioned psychosocial discharge report by
signing his name on the aforementioned report.
22) Claimant asserts that in
February 2010, during Claimant' last week with Defendant's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center as an inpatient,
Defendant's employee Laurie Velcimé informed
Claimant that except for Brookdale Medical Center's outpatient
psychiatric department, all the not-for-profit outpatient mental health
rehabilitative service agencies with which Ms. Velcimé
filed a request for services on behalf of the Claimant turned down
Claimant's request.
23) Claimant asserts that while
she was an inpatient with Defendant's Kingsboro
Psychiatric Center, she informed its staff that based on her lawsuit
against the four (4) Jewish attorneys who facilitated Claimant's
ex-husband's commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud, and
based on Claimant's fear of backlash from members of the Jewish
community, Claimant would only accept therapy from therapists who were
not Jewish.
24) Claimant alleges that when
she commenced receiving services from Brookdale Medical Hospital's
outpatient psychiatry department, she was assigned to a psychiatrist who
was Jewish; and that based on Claimant's fear, Claimant stopped attending
Brookdale Medical Center's psychiatric clinic.
25) Claimant asserts that in
May 2010, during her last week with Defendant' Kingsboro
Psychiatric Center as an inpatient, Defendant's employee Laurie Velcimé informed Claimant that all the not-for-profit
outpatient mental health agencies with which Ms. Velcimé
filed a request for services on behalf of the Claimant turned down
Claimant's request.
26) Claimant asserts that the
referenced not-for-profit outpatient mental health rehabilitative service
agencies include but are not limited to: 1)
Interfaith Medical Center CDT; 2) Saint Vincent Catholic Medical Center
CDT and 3) New York Psychotherapy and Counseling Center.
27) Claimant asserts that in
May 2010, while she was an inpatient with Defendant's Kingsboro
Psychiatric Center, she informed its staff that based on her lawsuit
against the four (4) Jewish attorneys who facilitated Claimant's
ex-husband's commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud, and
based on Claimant's fear of backlash from members of the Jewish
community, Claimant would only accept therapy from therapists who were
not Jewish.
28) Claimant asserts that
Defendant's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center's Ward
12 staff honored Claimant's request by providing Claimant with a
psychiatric treatment team that contained no Jews (see Exhibit
D).
29) Claimant asserts that in
September 2010, Defendant's Kingsboro
Psychiatric Center's Intensive Management Program's caseworker Bridget
Davis arranged for Claimant to meet with Defendant-funded outpatient
mental health service providers Flatlands Guidance Center and Open Door
Psychosocial Club; and that Claimant was made to believe that Defendant's
Kingsboro Psychiatric Center would continue to
accede to Claimant's request to ensure that the only individuals who would
provide Claimant with therapy were non-Jews who were culturally sensitive
to Claimant's needs as an African American and as a crime victim.
30) Claimant asserts that on
three (3) occasions, Defendant, by its intensive case management caseworker
Bridget Davis, tricked Claimant into divulging sensitive information to
Catholic Charities' employees Monica “Doe”, Dr. Sterling and Dr. Partyka, all of whom attempted to hide the fact that
they are Jewish from the Claimant.
31) Claimant asserts that after
informing Defendant-funded Flatlands Guidance Center and Open Door
Psychosocial Club that she would only accept therapy from a therapist who
was non-Jewish, an unidentified Jewish male employee informed fellow
employees that Claimant is an anti-Semite; and that after weeks of issues
with transference, and continued fear and sadness at being identified as
anti-Semitic, Claimant left.
32) Claimant asserts that in
November 2010, she requested her psychiatric records from FEGS, Inc.;
that FEGS, Inc., no longer in any logical position, and with no legal
reason to defy Defendant's Mental Hygiene Law by continuing to hide its
reason for Claimant's discharge from Claimant, acceded to Claimant's
request (see Exhibit E); and that Claimant immediately
commenced preparing her lawsuit against Defendant based on the recent
discovery of Defendant's religious reason for FEGS, Inc.'s discharge of
Claimant.
33) Claimant strongly asserts
that although she suspected that FEGS, Inc.'s reason for discharging her
was based in the Daily News' public portrayal of her as an “anti-Semitic
wacko”, Claimant, being legally self-trained and familiar with certain
aspects of halachic/Jewish religious culture, never imagined that
FEGS, Inc., having a legal department or access to attorneys, would be
foolish enough to write down anti-Semitism as its reason for discharging
Claimant; and that Claimant surmises that the only logical reason for
FEGS, Inc.'s writing down anti-Semitism as its reason for discharging
Claimant is because of the belief that Claimant would never see the
report.
34) Claimant asserts that
Defendant, by and through the New York State Office of Mental Health,
made absolutely no attempt, verbally or in writing, to tell Claimant the
reason why she was discharged from its taxpayer-funded outpatient mental
health agency; and that further to this, Defendant, by its agency New
York State Office of Mental Health, never gave Claimant an opportunity to
defend herself against the allegation that Claimant committed a
halachic/Jewish religious crime.
35) Claimant asserts that Daat Emet's article
entitled Gentiles in Halacha, states the following: “the prohibition to
hate only applies to Jews. One may hate a gentile”; that “one make take
revenge against or hold a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise the
commandment “love your neighbor” applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles”;
that “anyone who hates a Jew in his heart transgresses a negative
commandment”; that also, anyone who hold a grudge against a Jew
transgresses a negative commandment; and that “it is a commandment for
each and every person to love each and every Jew as he loves himself”
(see Exhibit F, pages 1-3).
36) Claimant asserts that the
article Informing on Jews Who Commit Crimes states that “the Talmud
recounts – in a number of places – that is prohibited to inform on Jews
to the secular government, when their conduct is a violation of secular
law...” (see Exhibit G).
37) Claimant asserts that based
on the above, Claimant's filing of the action for fraud against corrupt
Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein with a non-religious,
secular court is the act of anti-Semitism for which Claimant is being
punished.
38) Claimant asserts that every
judge within the five (5) boroughs of New York City to whom Claimant has
presented her complaint against corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye,
Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski and Jack
Gladstein has been Jewish; and further to this, the aforesaid Jewish
judges have either enjoined Claimant from further litigation or have
required Claimant to pay courts fees (see Exhibit H, pages 1-4).
39) Claimant asserts that
having to pay $340.00 court costs ($80.00 transcript; $210.00, lawsuit
against FEGS, Inc.; $50.00 for New York State Court of Claims) along with
rent, internet, ink, toner, paper and other costs necessary to proceed
with her cases, Claimant now has no money for food and must wait until
December 12, 2010 for her food stamps (see Exhibit I).
40) Claimant asserts that
Defendant's government has become a incubator
and sustains a demonic cartel whose members are at liberty to attack any
non-Jew – man, woman or child at will – but whose judiciary will invoke
the Talmud's prohibition on reporting the wrongdoing of any member of the
Jewish community to the secular authorities, and that there is no way for
any non-Jew who has no political clout or money to fight back (see Exhibit
J).
41) Claimant asserts that the
Defendant's Office of Mental Health is also under the demonic grip of the
aforesaid religious cartel; and that members of the aforementioned cartel
who are employed with Defendant's Office of Mental Health will continue
to ensure that Claimant is prohibited from reporting the crimes of
corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein until Claimant is dead.
42) That Claimant respectfully
reminds this Court that by the time it is in receipt of this Claim,
Claimant will already have forwarded it to the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights based on Claimant's belief
that Defendant's Office of Mental Health receives funding from the
aforesaid federal agency, and based on Claimant's assertion that the
Defendant has fraudulently used federal money to advance the cause of
Judaism, and to invoke the Talmudic doctrine prohibiting Jews from
reporting the crimes of fellow Jews to secular authorities.
VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION'S
DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION FREEDOM TO WORSHIP CLAUSES
AND AS FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
43) Claimant hereby repeats and
realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs 1 through 42 as if fully set forth herein.
44) That Defendant, by and
through the New York State Office of Mental Health, owed Claimant the
duty of allowing Claimant to use its Defendant-funded mental health
service agencies, Inc. to receive outpatient mental health services
equally as it does with mentally disabled clients who are Jews.
45) That Defendant, by and
through the New York State Office of Mental Health, owed Claimant the
duty of requiring its Defendant-funded mental health service agency to
tell Claimant the reason for its discharge of Claimant so as to give
Claimant the same equal protection to appeal Defendant's agency's
decision as it does to its mentally disabled clients who are Jewish.
46) That Defendant, by and
through the New York State Office of Mental Health, owed Claimant the
duty to require its Defendant-funded mental health service agency to limit
its description of the Claimant to objective, psychiatric, psychosocial
criteria as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fourth Edition, and to not describe Claimant based on
Defendant's Jewish cartel's religious laws.
47) That Defendant, by and
through the New York State Office of Mental Health, owed Claimant the
duty of protecting Claimant's right to equal protection under the law by
ensuring that its Defendant-funded mental health service agencies
prepared Claimant's psychiatric/psychosocial report in a manner
consistent with Defendant's laws and industry criteria; and not with
incendiary words that would make readers who are Jewish angry with
Claimant, and readers who are not Jewish feel coerced to agree with
employees who are Jewish for fear of being subjected to the same
retaliation from Defendant's Jewish cartel that Claimant now experiences.
49) That Defendant, by and
through the New York State Office of Mental Health, owed Claimant the
duty of providing a culturally sensitive, caring environment in which
Claimant could talk about the crimes that were committed against her by
corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein; and not an environment
that punished Claimant as an anti-Semite for speaking with therapists
about the crimes that were committed against Claimant's family by the
aforesaid attorneys.
50) That Defendant, by and
through the New York State Office of Mental Health, owed Claimant the
duty of ensuring that its taxpayer-funded outpatient, mental health
service agencies used funds provided by Defendant to diagnose Claimant
based on Defendant's lawful and industry-accepted criteria; and that
Defendant owed Claimant the duty to ensure that taxpayer-funded
outpatient, mental health services were not fraudulently used to
misdiagnose Claimant based on the religious desires and retaliatory whims
of Defendant's powerful Jewish cartel.
51) That wholly and solely as a
result of the tortious acts of Defendant's Office of Mental Health,
Claimant suffered personal injuries by way of violation of Claimant's
right to equal protection, violation of Claimant's right to due process
of law, violation of Claimant's right to freedom to worship, public scorn,
difficulty in securing outpatient mental health services and severe
mental and emotional distress for which Claimant was damaged in the
amount of $100,000,000.00.
AS AND FOR A SECOND SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF ACTION
52) Claimant hereby repeats and
realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs 1 through 51 as if fully set forth herein.
53) That Defendant, by and
through the New York State Office of Mental Health, failed in its duty to
provide Claimant with taxpayer-funded mental health service equally, as
it does with mentally disabled clients who are Jews.
54) That Defendant, by and
through the New York State Office of Mental Health, failed in its duty to
tell Claimant the reason for its discharge of Claimant so as to give
Claimant the same equal protection to appeal Defendant's agency's
decision as it does to its mentally disabled clients who are Jewish.
55) That Defendant, by and
through the New York State Office of Mental Health, failed in its duty to
require its taxpayer-funded mental health service agencies to limit its
description of the Claimant based on Defendant's legal criteria, and
Defendant's professional description of Claimant based on objective,
psychiatric, psychosocial industry-accepted standards as outlined by the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition,
and to not describe Claimant based on Defendant's Jewish cartel's
religious laws and retaliatory whims.
56) That Defendant, by and
through the New York State Office of Mental Health, failed in its duty to
protect Claimant's right to equal protection under the law by tacitly
giving its permission to allow Claimant's psychiatric/psychosocial report
to be prepared in a manner not consistent with Defendant's laws and
industry-accepted criteria; but instead with incendiary words that
angered Jewish therapists and made less powerful non-Jewish therapists
feel coerced to agree with employees who are Jewish for fear of being
subjected to the same retaliation from Defendant's powerful Jewish cartel
that Claimant now experiences.
57) That Defendant, by and
through the New York State Office of Mental Health, failed in its duty to
Claimant by subjecting her to culturally in sensitive, uncaring
environment that failed to be empathetic with Claimant based on the
crimes that were committed against her by corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski
and Jack Gladstein; and by subjecting Claimant to an environment that
punished Claimant as an anti-Semite for speaking with therapists about
the crimes that were committed against Claimant's family by the aforesaid
attorneys.
58) That Defendant, by and
through the New York State Office of Mental Health, failed in its duty to
ensure that its taxpayer-funded outpatient, mental health service
agencies used Defendant's funds to diagnose Claimant based on Defendant's
lawful and industry-accepted criteria; and that Defendant, by and through
the New York State Office of Mental Health, failed in its duty to ensure
that taxpayer-funded outpatient, mental health services were not
fraudulently used to misdiagnose Claimant based on religious laws and
retaliatory whims of Defendant's powerful Jewish cartel.
59) That wholly and solely as a
result of Defendants' tortious acts, Claimant suffered personal injuries
by way of violation of Claimant's right to equal protection under the
law, violation of Claimant's right to due process of law, violation of
Claimant's right to freedom of worship; public scorn, difficulty in
securing outpatient mental health services and severe mental and
emotional distress for which Claimant was damaged in the amount of
$100,000,000.00.
AS AND FOR A THIRD SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF ACTION
60) Claimant hereby repeats and
realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs 1 through 59 as if fully set forth herein.
61) That Claimant suffered
public scorn because of Defendant's tacit permission to publish Claimant
defamatory psychosocial history to others.
62) That Claimant suffered
public scorn based on Defendant's tacit permission for outpatient mental
health service providers to turn Claimant down based on their belief that
Claimant committed the halachic/Jewish crime of anti-Semitism.
63) That Claimant suffered
public scorn based on Defendant's failure to tell Claimant that she was
branded by an agency Defendant funds as an anti-Semite so as to allow
Claimant to implement legal procedures established by its Office of
Mental Health, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its
subsidiary the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
to be able to defend against Defendants' defamatory description of
Claimant's psychosocial history.
64) That Claimant suffered
public scorn based on Defendants' vague description of Claimant's
religious crime; that Jewish supervisors of other outpatient mental
health service providers were left to believe that Claimant “has a
history of making anti-Semitic remarks” but were not told what remarks
Claimant made there were anti-Semitic.
65) That Claimant will continue
to suffer insofar as the “diagnosis” anti-Semite” is a lifelong title for
which Claimant will never be able to escape; and that will render
Claimant persona non grata with Jewish-controlled
outpatient mental health service providers until the day that Claimant
dies.
66) That Claimant has suffered public scorn to the point where Claimant
is unable to be found eligible by Jewish-owned/Jewish-controlled
outpatient mental health service agencies based on the Defendant's
religiously-oriented defamation of Claimant as “anti-Semitic.”
67) That wholly and solely as a
result of Defendants' tortious acts, Claimant suffered personal injuries
by way of violation of Claimant's right to equal protection under the
law; violation of Claimant's right to due process of law; violation to
Claimant's right to freedom to practice her own religion and not be
burdened with what Claimant sees is Defendant's state religion; public
scorn and severe mental and emotional distress for which Claimant was
damaged in the amount of $100,000,000.00.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF ACTION
68) Claimant hereby repeats and
realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully set forth herein.
69) That Defendant, by and
through the New York State Office of Mental Health, gave its tacit
permission to defame Claimant and terminate its services to Claimant
based on its taxpayer-funded, outpatient mental health service provider's
description of Claimant as an anti-Semitic; and caused Claimant to be
unable to exercise her right to due process of law, and her right to
equal protection under the law; and that Claimant's inability to avail
herself of her right to equal protection under Defendant's laws is an
injury unto itself, and gives rise to an implied cause of action in the
nature of Brown v. State of New York, 89 N.Y.2d 172 (1996) (citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal
Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
70) That loss of reputation
based on the stigma of being publicly labeled an anti-Semitic is an
injury that is recognized in law.
71) That the permanent loss of
Defendant's mental health rehabilitative services as controlled by
members of Defendant's Jewish cartel, and funded by Defendant's Office of
Mental Health in an injury recognized in law; and that Defendant's
refusal to address taxpayer-funded outpatient mental health service
providers' fraudulent use of Defendant's funds is an injury both to the
Claimant and to the taxpayers of New York State, and as such is
recognized in law.
72) That wholly and solely as a
result of Defendants' tortious acts, Claimant suffered personal injuries
by way of violation of Claimant's right to equal protection under the
law; violation of Plaintiff's right to due process of law; violation of
Claimant's right to freedom to practice her own religion and not be
burdened with what Claimants asserts is now the Defendant's official
religion, for which Claimant was damaged in the amount of
$100,000,000.00.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
73) Claimant respectfully prays
for this honorable Court to present Claimant's action for constitutional
violations to a jury for the purpose of holding a trial.
74) Claimant respectfully prays
that this Court obeys 22 NYCRR §100.3(E) such that any and all members of Defendant's judiciary
who are Jewish be required to disqualify themselves from adjudicating
this action; and that further this, Claimant emphatically states that
based on what she believes to be irrefutable evidence of Defendant's
fraudulent use of public funds to allow the promulgation of Judaism,
Claimant will present this claim with a letter of warning to the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Right so that
the aforesaid federal agency can see the actions of Defendant's corrupt
judiciary as they employ schemes and artifices to defraud the federal
government so as to continue to invoke the Talmudic Law of the Moser to continue
to prevent Claimant from reporting the crimes of corrupt Jewish attorneys
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski
and Jack Gladstein to Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Claimant
Cheryl D. Uzamere respectfully prays this Court for a jury trial, and to
render judgment against the Defendant in the sum of $100,000.000.00 or a
sum that to this Court is deemed to be just and proper.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
December 6, 2011
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF KINGS )
ss:
I, Cheryl
D. Uzamere, am the Claimant in the within Verified Claim. I have read the
foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The contents are true
to my own knowledge except as to matters therein stated to be alleged
upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to
be true.
|
![Jew whipping slave[6]](chapter_114_what_will_court_of_claims_do_files/image376.png)
![WTC Falling Death2[3]](chapter_114_what_will_court_of_claims_do_files/image410.png)
![Jew whipping slave[6]](chapter_114_what_will_court_of_claims_do_files/image457.png)
