|
However,
regarding the prosecution of criminal violation of 41 CFR 102-74.385 and
41 CFR 102.74.390(a), federal courts normally prosecute such violations
using objective corroborating evidence, such as closed-circuit cameras,
telephonic and other media to memorialize the crime, thereby eliminating
the possibility of collusion and outright lies, to prevent federal
employees from filing false reports, and to prosecute them when they do.
In
the case United States of America v. Cheryl D. Uzamere, 1:08-cr-001-14, I
left a series of angry telephone messages with U.S. Department of
Homeland Security’s attorney Rachel McCarthy, under great duress because
I was a victim of a green card marriage fraud scam that left me pregnant
with green card fraudster Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere’s child Tara A.
Uzamere, my son David Paul Walker, broke and very much alone. I
implicated my husband’s immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey
Shapiro for setting me up to be used as an unwitting client for my
ex-husband’s green card whoredom. In desperation and anger, I called and
left a series of angry messages with Rachel McCarthy. Ms. McCarthy, a
seasoned federal attorney, then contacted the U.S. Attorneys’ office for the
State of Vermont, where more seasoned attorneys filed a false information
against me claiming that I assaulted her.
My
attorney, Elizabeth Mann of the Federal Defenders of Vermont,
investigated the complaint by reviewing all the telephonic messages I
made. After reviewing all information, Ms. Mann filed a motion to dismiss
and concluded the following:
“The defendant does not
concede that any threat to injure was made in the matter now under
consideration by his court. However, even if such a threat were made,
requisite present ability to execute such a threat was wholly lacking in
that Ms. Uzamere was in Brooklyn, New York. The two individuals were
separated by more than 260 miles.
The information is defective
in that it omits the essential element of forcible action required for a
violation of 18 USC §111(a)(1). Moreover, Ms. Uzamere has undertaken no
forcible actions, she has made no attempt to inflict injury on another
person, and she has made no threats to inflict injury upon another
person. Even if her remarks could be construed as threatening to inflict
injury (a substantial reach), she was without the requisite present
ability to act.
I
allege that the U.S. Attorneys’ Office for the State of Vermont’s use of
the angry telephone messages that I left with U.S. Department of Homeland
Security attorney Rachel McCarthy was a violation of 18 USC §1951, the
Hobbs Act, to stop me from filing complaints against Allen Kaye and
Harvey Shapiro. However, seeing that my attorney correctly used the same
telephone messages to prove that I was more than 260 miles away
established proof that U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s rendition
of accounts was defective on its face as it failed to state a cognizable
offense. The U.S. Attorneys’ office subsequently “dismissed” (withdrew)
their own case.
I
respectfully ask this Court to review cases United States v. Shabbaz and
the U.S. Attorney’s press release entitled “Social Security
Administration Security Guard Pleads Guilty to Creating a False
Incident... attached to my Demand for Discovery and Inspection. In both
cases, the Social Security Administration district office relied on their
closed-circuit cameras to confirm or deny the events that were reported
by their own or contracted personnel.
In
this instance, the Government’s own records reflect that I went to the
Social Security Administration’s district offices and exercised my First
Amendment right to petition the government for a list of grievances as a
crime victim to report the theft of my SSDI payments by Affinity Federal
Credit Union. Later on, I amplified my complaint by filing the theft
of my SSDI funds as a RICO that includes Affinity Federal Credit Union,
Metavante Corporation, the Social Security Administration, the U.S.
Department of the Treasury, Verizon, New York City Housing Authority and
U.S. Department of Homeland Security with the National Credit Union
Administration. Like the complaint filed against me by Denis McGowan,
former Regional Director of the Threat Assessment Branch of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (also attached to my Demand for Discovery
and Inspection) it is based on a contrived incident that can never be
corroborated by the objective and unquestionable of honest federal
witnesses whose reports are further corroborated by surveillance
equipment like cameras and telephones because they never happened.
The
Government omits the objective and unquestionable, unaltered evidence
gathered by its own surveillance cameras – in their entirety,
unaltered, and with both picture and sound -- that should have been
working on the day in question, December 19, 2017, as well as its own
telephonic records regarding the Social Security Administration employees
with whom I spoke from December 11, 2017 to January 10, 2018, including
the conversation I had with the Social Security Administration employee
and that I videotaped and uploaded
to Youtube (Paypal Confirms that SSA Sent Two 2 Test
Checks to Confirm My Routing and Account #s2, https://youtu.be/Dq1uy7kugq8; My
Conversation with Inconsiderate SSA Employee trimmed, https://youtu.be/v2J4OrG3AXY and Federal
Law Enforcement at the House, https://youtu.be/jeFbWolohmU), and later,
my complaint to the National Credit Union Administration regarding the
Social Security Administration’s preemptive strike in filing its petty
offense violations against me to detract from its involvement in the
illegal withholding of my check, the physical assault on my person by
extorting my cooperation in paying Verizon a bill that was already paid
by holding my SSDI funds and forcing me to go hungry and not able to pay
my rent for 7 days.
Vindictive
Prosecution, Legal Sufficiency and Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
The
burden of proof regarding to the commission of a crime rests with the
prosecution. This high standard ensures that the life, liberty of which I
am in possession is not taken from me at a whim and ensures that when the
Government files a criminal violation, summons, information or indictment
against an individual, the Government is on guard against bringing cases
to court for which the Government can be charged with vindictive
prosecution.
Can
a reasonable person, upon examination of the Government’s past and current
interaction with me, conclude that it has dealt with me fairly? A careful
examination of the evidence I submitted with my Amended Demand for
Discovery and Inspection of the Government’s own records irrefutably
establishes over 10 years of vindictive prosecution by the Government, up
to and including the day that Government’s witness Federal Protective
Service Office D. Gregg, Shield 298, publicly revealed a confidence that
was disseminated to him by employees of the Social Security
Administration regarding an incident involving me, the Social Security
Administration, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal
Protective Service agent and Bellevue Hospital. During that incident in
August 2004, the Government’s placed me in a mental institution while I
was petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances as a crime
victim of green card marriage fraudster, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, who hired
Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro. All of them tricked me into
signing the green card application, after which my ex-husband abandoned
me while I was carrying his daughter, Tara A. Uzamere.
During
the exchange with Government witness, Officer Gregg, he mentioned the
incident – the Government’s psychiatric intervention in August 2004, in
which I was criminalized while trying to exercise my First Amendment
right to petition the Government to help me find my former husband,
Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, who exposed my heart, my nakedness, left
me alone, pregnant and prey to Governmental wolves who continue to abuse
me as prey as the same Government abused my children and stood in my way
for several years as I fought to get my children out of foster care.
The
doctrine of sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case places the burden
of proof on the prosecution. It requires the prosecution to present the
law and facts of a case to the court in a manner that causes the jury to
see that the evidence presented to them establishes that the defendant is
guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt (Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307 (1979).
The
decision goes on to state:
It is axiomatic that a
conviction upon a charge not made or upon a charge not tried constitutes
a denial of due process. Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U. S. 196, 333 U. S. 201; Presnell v.
Georgia, 439 U. S. 14. These standards no more
than reflect a broader premise that has never been doubted in our
constitutional system: that a person cannot incur the loss of liberty for
an offense without notice and a meaningful opportunity to
defend. E.g., Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409, 167 U. S. 416-420. Cf. Boddie v.
Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371, 401 U. S. 377-379. A meaningful
opportunity to defend, if not the right to a trial itself, presumes as
well that a total want of evidence to support a charge will
conclude the case in favor of the accused. Accordingly, we held in
the Thompson case that a conviction based upon a record wholly
devoid of any relevant evidence of a crucial element of the offense
charged is constitutionally infirm. See also Vachon v. New
Hampshire, 414 U. S. 478; Adderley v.
Florida, 385 U. S. 39; Gregory v.
Chicago, 394 U. S. 111; Douglas
v. Buder, 412 U. S. 430. The "no
evidence" doctrine of Thompson v. Louisville thus secures
to an accused the most elemental of due process rights: freedom from a
wholly arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
The
only possible “proof” that the Government can present regarding its
spurious claims against me must be based on the sufficiency of evidence
supported by the Government’s presentation of the entire record of CCN
PA7005329 and CCN PA7005330. I believe these number belong to the
closed-circuit camera that recorded the event.
Threats
of what might be seen and heard on these cameras does not frighten me, no
more than it would frighten a victim of a brutal attack who runs into a
building seeking refuge and unwilling to leave for fear of being further
victimized. This alone destroys the Government’s ability to present a
cognizable offense because as far as I know, it is not illegal for a
person who is a victim of a crime cognizable and prosecutable by the U.S.
Government to seek refuge as a crime victim with a federal agency.
However, misprision of felony, especially when the act of misprision
involves federal employees who have been made aware of bank fraud
committed by banks – agencies under the supervision of federal agencies,
is a crime. The crime of misprision of felony is one of many cognizable
federal offenses that I leveled against every judge in the Court of
Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in my lawsuit Cheryl D. Uzamere v. The United
States, Case No. 1:2013-CV-00505. However, the Government, by its federal
judicial employees of the 2nd Circuit, failed in its duty to address my
allegation of misprision of felony, along with every other
federally-cognizable crime that the Government committed against me and
my children.
Here
is an excerpt that come from my lawsuit Cheryl D. Uzamere v. the United
States of America:
Factual Analysis
Also, please refer to https://web.archive.org/web/20170902085030/http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net:80/uzamere_v_usa.html
133) Since
Plaintiff relies on federal criminal law with regard to RICO,
Plaintiff specifically identifies the racketeering-influenced corrupt
organizations of which Plaintiff speaks. Since 1979, the RICO has done
business with the Plaintiff and her family with dirty hands.
134) The
Defendants reentered their legal relationship with the Plaintiff and her
children with dirty hands. Defendants' failed relationship with the
Plaintiff and her children as providers of honest, unbiased government-funded
services has existed since 1979, and as a direct result of Defendants
State of New York, City of New York, Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro,
Esq. and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere act of aggravated identity and theft and
immigration fraud have never provided Plaintiff and her daughter Tara
with monies that Plaintiff is still owed from Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere. Because of the acts of aggravated identity theft that was
facilitated by Defendants the State of New and the City of New York, and
committed by Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro., and Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere Plaintiff was subjected to a worsening of her preexisting mental
illness and a distancing from normal society. Because of the acts of
aggravated identity theft that was facilitated by Defendants State of New
York and City of New York, and committed by Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey
Shapiro, Esq., and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Plaintiff's children were
forced to remain in Defendant State of New York's foster care system for
nearly all of their lives. David P. Walker, the older child,
suffers from dysthymia and bulimia. Tara A. Uzamere, child of the
marriage, is mentally high functioning, but she lacks the maternal and
paternal care and companionship from which she and her brother were
deprived all of their lives. Plaintiff suffers from constant
shame from never having been a good parent to her children, who, in
spite of Plaintiff's failure as a parent, are amazingly well-behaved
and believers of Jehovah God. The racketeering-influenced corrupt organizations
Defendants the United States of America, State of New York, City of New
York and those Jews having both positions of power and money, pay bribes
to unsuspecting, greedy Gentile Americans who do not realize that their
acceptance of bribes from Jews makes, not just those who accepted the
bribes, but all Gentile Americans slaves to the Jews forever without the
ability to enforce their Constitutional rights. Plaintiff emphatically
states that the force that unifies the more powerful Jewish Defendants is
Judaism, with its emphasis on the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian
Talmud provides the religious rationalization for the Jewish Defendants
to enslave both the Plaintiff and the Gentile Defendants to engage in
conduct which is not in the constitutional interests of the Gentile
Defendants – like the doctrine Law of the Moser, that now requires
Gentile slaves to obey their Jewish master counterparts and keep silent
regarding the crimes committed by other Jews. Understandably, those
corrupt Jewish Defendants who engage in bribing governmental employees
feel a sense of entitlement based both on Jews having paid money for
services, and for the Jewish religion that teaches that Gentiles are
meant to be enslaved by Jews. In the article entitled Come and Hear,
under the subtitle “Coexistence?”, it says: “What does the future hold?
Can the Jews ever co-exist with the rest of humanity? The answer is
“yes” provided the rest of humanity accepts the role designed
for them by Jewish leadership. If Gentiles do not accept enslavement,
there will be conflict.” In the subtitle US vs. Talmud Law, it says: “. .
.Talmud law insists on unequal justice under law. Talmudic law holds
there is one law for Jews, and one for Gentiles. This is not inconsistent
with the Old Testament in which LORD God decrees that Jews should not
enslave other Jews: Gentiles are the proper slaves of Jews. See newspaper
article from Crains, sealed complaint regarding USA vs. Kruger, et
al and articles entitled Come and Hear, attached as Exhibit T.
135) Defendant
United States of America, by its employee Defendant McCarthy, Bar Counsel
for Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security, provided Plaintiff
with a report detailing the two Uzamere18 files
A35 201 224 and A24 027 764, going so far as to indicate that Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, having obtained a visa as an unmarried student
under 21 years of age and having been sponsored by his brother and
sister-in-law, fraudulently applied for permanent residence as
Plaintiff's husband “Godwin E. Uzamere”, and over the age of 21.
Defendant McCarthy referenced the fingerprints in the two files which
Plaintiff understood to mean were the same. Defendant U.S. Department of
Homeland Security's employee T. Diane Diane Cejka, former
Director of the FOIA/PA Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Service in Lee Summit, Missouri provided the Plaintiff with even more
irrefutable documentation, including the two (2) immigration number A35
201 224 and A24 027 764 to establish that Plaintiff's ex-husband
filed for residence under two (2) different immigration number.
136)....Years
later, after several attempts by Defendant judges Jewish judges Michael
Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack and Nicholas G. Garaufis
and the powerful, racist Jewish criminal newspaper publisher and editor
Mortimer Zuckerman to prevent Plaintiff from filing criminal complaints
against corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey
Shapiro and Jack Gladstein by publicly declaring Plaintiff's incredible
based on her status of having mentally ill with violent tendencies have
all but blown up in their faces, Defendant Garaufis has embarked on yet
another equally unoriginal course of conduct – by saying “I didn't do
it!” Plaintiff has responded to that stunt by filing a criminal complaint
against Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel and the Daily News,
LP for their commission of aggravated identity theft.
137) Defendant
Garaufis' game plan now is to stop Plaintiff's reliance on the continuing
criminal violations doctrine in its tracks. Defendant Garaufis has attempted
to do this by being willfully blind of his extortionate
psychiatric/criminal “shakedown” of the Plaintiff, and instead, to say
that Plaintiff's mental illness (lacking the threat of violence this
time) caused her to falsely claim that Defendants Garaufis; “John Doe” #1
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; LifeNet of the Mental
Health Association of New York City; “John Doe” #2 of the U.S. Marshals
Service for Eastern District of New York; “John Doe” #3 of the U.S.
Marshals Service for Eastern District of New York; “Jane Doe” of the U.S.
Marshals Service for the Eastern District of New York; Bridget Davis of
the New York State Office of Mental Health; “Dr. John Doe” of Brookdale
Hospital and Medical Center; Samuel Sarpong of the East New York Diagnostic
and Treatment Center, Assertive Community and Treatment Team; and Dr.
Scott A. Berger of the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center,
Assertive Community and Treatment Team never said that Plaintiff
threatened any federal employee. Defendant Garaufis' attempt is lacking
in commonsense because Plaintiff, who was within the State of New York at
the time of the telephone call, availed herself of New York State's
one-party law with regard to recording in-person or in-telephone
conversations, by giving herself permission to record the conversation
with Defendant Bridget Davis, who was also within the State of New York
at the time of the recording. Plaintiff subsequently uploaded the
recorded telephone call to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.htmland
noted, among other things, that Defendant Davis said that Plaintiff
threatened others, that there were others federal agencies that thought
Plaintiff was a danger to others. Plaintiff gave herself permission to
record her conversation with “John Doe” #1 of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, who, during the aforesaid conversation, extorted Plaintiff
not to file any complaint against anyone Jewish or she would call
Plaintiff's daughter, visit Plaintiff's apartment and (by inference)
report Plaintiff's argument to her psychiatric care providers, which he
did. Plaintiff also gave herself permission to record the conversation
and upload it to her web page
http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/uzamere_v_obama.html. In
addition, the same falsified criminal allegations that are contained in
the telephone conversation that Plaintiff uploaded to her web page is
written down in Defendant McGowan's correspondence dated August 18, 2011
and Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation psychiatric
treatment plan dated February 26, 2012. And in spite of several
years of unconstitutional treatment at the hands of Defendant Chief Judge
Jonathan Lippman's judicial subordinates, no subordinate judge, starting
from Defendant Lippman, has ever allowed Plaintiff to file any complaint
that makes reference to the aggravated identity theft that was committed
by corrupt Jews Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer
Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Osato
Eugene Uzamere.
138) Defendant
McCarthy made no attempt to warn immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye,
Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato E. Uzamere to stop holding out
“Godwin E. Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as two (2) different people
even after Plaintiff warned Defendant McCarthy that Defendants Allen E.
Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and the Daily News were still
holding out “Godwin Uzamere” as a real person, and even after Plaintiff
provided Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and
Osato E. Uzamere proof that Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and “Godwin E. Uzamere”
are the same the person. In addition, no employee of Defendant U.S.
Department of Homeland Security ever made any attempt to investigate and
then arrest Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein for
their commission of aggravated identity theft. Worse still, in spite
of black letter law that requires federal judges and attorneys to
report the commission of wrongdoing by fellow judges and attorneys, not
one of the defendants, upon receiving irrefutable proof of corrupt
immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's and
Osato E. Uzamere's commission of aggravated identity theft, filed a
complaint with any law enforcement agency. Plaintiff's Verified Complaint
speaks to, not only separate criminal acts of the Defendants, but of a
pattern of behavior that is indicative of an anti-U.S. Constitution,
pro-Talmud, pro-Jew, anti-Gentile, anti-schvartzebias that permeates
every court in New York's Second Circuit and the New York State Unified
Court System. Defendant judges, in violation of 18 USC §4, misprision of
felony and the code of conduct for federal and New York State judges that
require judges to report the crimes of attorneys to pertinent law
enforcement agencies, Plaintiff's complaints regarding the commission of
aggravated identity theft go ignored, as well as Plaintiff's complaints
regarding those acts of fraud with regard to the false criminal
accusation made against Plaintiff by Defendant Judge Garaufis, Defendant
“John Doe” #1 of the U.S. Marshals Service for the Eastern District of
New York, and/or “John Doe” #2, of the U.S. Marshals Service for the
Eastern District of New York, and/or “Jane Doe” #3 of the U.S. Marshals
Service for the Eastern District of New York, and Defendant Denis P.
McGowan of Defendant the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and
Defendant Bridget Davis of Defendant the New York State Office of Mental
Health, and Defendants Samuel Sarpong and Dr. Scott A. Berger of the New
York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The aforementioned
Defendants accused Plaintiff of committing 18 USC §115, threatening
a federal employee, something that Plaintiff never did. On or around
January 30, 2013, Plaintiff received correspondence from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services. The correspondence indicated all the telephone calls
that Plaintiff made to the call center, and that Plaintiff made no
threatening telephone calls. However, where Plaintiff's innocence is
concerned, it does not matter. Plaintiff holds that there is a specific hierarchy
where the Defendants are concerned. Plaintiff strongly alleges that the
Gentile Defendants' most important responsibility is not enforcement of
the U.S. Constitution, but their ability to worship the Jewish community
as their gods, to serve the Jews as their obedient slaves, and to ensure
that any judicial decision that is rendered is rendered, not according to
the U.S. Constitution, but according to what makes the Jewish community
happy. See correspondence from CMS attached as Exhibit S.
139) Plaintiff
has had difficulty in explaining, well enough for this Court to
understand, that there is a pervasive attitude that fosters and
encourages the courts' bestowing on Jews certain understood, but not
mentioned, favors associated with being white and Jewish. This
clandestinely understood right, known as “white skin privilege”, was
openly requested by members of the website http://www.jewishdefense.org. The site
stated: “Contact Stewart Judge: No
White Skin Privilege For Lynne” and: “Click Here For
Printer Friendly Suggested Letter To Judge Koeltl Asking Him Not To Treat
Lynne Stewart Differently Than Her Co-defendants.” Combine these racist
statements with Jewish doctrines about black-skinned people in the
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate 108b, and footnote 34; Midrash Rabbah, page 293;
Legends of the Jews, Vol. 1, page 169, Artsot Ha-Hayyim, pages
52a and 52b, and the Defendants' continued commission of 18 USC §4,
misprision of felony with regard to their recalcitrance by not reporting
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's, Osato Eugene Uzamere's, Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey
Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's Mortimer Zuckerman's and
Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft,
Plaintiff has a justiciable reason not to trust Judge Koeltl or any other
judge in the eastern district, southern district or the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. See internet article regarding
Lynne Stewart attached as Exhibit W.
140) Plaintiff
restates and realleges that Defendants committed the following offenses
and constitutional torts: misprision of felony, 18 USC §4; fraud, 18 USC
§1001; identity theft, 18 USC §1028; aggravated identity fraud, 18 USC
§1028A; deprivation of rights under color of law (including being
kidnapped, unlawfully imprisoned and blacklisted), 18 USC §242/42 USC
§1985; extortion, 18 USC §872§, blackmail, 18 USC §873; violation of
Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act; violation of the Federal
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
Title VI, §601; violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First
Amendment; violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment;
violation of the Petition Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; violation of
the Notice Clause of the Sixth Amendment; violation of the Assistance of
Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment; violation of Plaintiff's right of
privacy with regard to the illegal dissemination of her psychiatric
records, Plaintiff marriage history, Plaintiff married name, and the
non-content information associated with Plaintiff's internet and
telephone accounts; violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, intentional misuse of national security letters
(NSLs) or some manner in which Defendants obtained non-content
information illegally.
141) Plaintiff
alleges that although all the Defendants actively participated in
preventing Plaintiff from filing complaints against Allen E. Kaye, Esq.,
Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, the heart of the conspiracy are the
following persons: Defendant Garaufis, (authorized NSLs/unauthorized
telephone investigations that were used to rationalize dismissal of
Plaintiff's civil rights action Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 and
11-2713-cv; Plaintiff's psychiatric hospitalization in Brookdale Hospital
based on threats that Plaintiff never made); “John Doe” #1 of Defendant
FBI (threatened psychiatric hospitalization after Plaintiff insisted on
filing complaint against Jews who violated Plaintiff's rights,
conversation uploaded to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/uzamere_v_obama.html;
“John Doe” #2, “John Doe #3” and “Jane Doe” of Defendant U.S.
Marshals Service (conversation in which Bridget Davis stated that the
Marshals said that Plaintiff threatened the (federal) Medicaid Office,
uploaded to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit);
Denis P. McGowan of Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (sent
secret letter to Samuel Sarpong in which Plaintiff was accused of
threatening employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services'
call center); Dr. Scott A. Berger of Defendant New York City Health and
Hospitals Corporation; New York State Judge Michael Gerstein; New York
State Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine and New York State Justice Arthur M.
Schack, Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Jack Gladstein,
Mortimer Zuckerman of the Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel of
the Daily News, LP. In spite of the aforesaid Defendants'
accusation/diagnosis that I threatened Defendant Garaufis, other judges
and employees of CMS, none of the Defendants made any attempt to bring
their allegations to trial, thereby providing Plaintiff with the
opportunity to confront her accusers and prove her innocence.
142) Defendants'
engaged in the misprision of Defendants Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey
Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, NYS Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine, NYS
Justice Arthur M. Schack, Mortimer Zuckerman and federal Judge Nicholas
G. Garaufis' act of identity theft of the name “Mrs. Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere,” so that the child of the marriage Tara A. Uzamere was
subsequently deprived of her right by consanguinity to bear her father,
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's name; that Plaintiff and child of the
marriage Tara A. Uzamere and David P. Walker, stepson of Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere were deprived of the legal, social and financial benefits
of bearing the proud African/Nigerian/Edo/Bini name of Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere; that Defendants continue to engage in misprision of
felony to hide Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's misuse of the social
security numbers XXX-XX-2291, the fictitious social security number under
which the entity “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” was searched by the New York
City Department of Social Services' Bureau of Child Support Enforcement;
XXX-XX-7854, the number under which Ehigie Edobor Uzamere owes a student
loan (this may be George Uzamere's social security number); and
XXX-XX-1205, the number under which “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” actually
filled out a filled out an application for a social card is prima facie
evidence that governmental agencies viewed “Godwin Uzamere” and “Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere” as two different persons.
143) Plaintiff
asks this Court to do something that this Court has probably never done
before: to review the facts regarding the Jewish
Defendants wholistically. This means rendering a judgment, not just
based on what they've done, but based on what they intend to do because
of their religion. The Plaintiff asks this Court not to be tricked
by the fraudulent statement that the Jewish Defendants and other Jews who
have committed crimes against Gentiles had different intentions.
This is a boldfaced lie. The criminal acts of the Jewish Defendants and
the crimes committed against Gentiles by other Jews may be different but
there is only mind. The intention is always the same because the mindset
is the same: preventing anti-Semitism in order to save the
Jewish nation at all cost, and to prevent anti-Semitism by enslaving
Gentiles at all cost.
144) In
Plaintiff's Appellate Affidavit in Support of Judicial Recusal of
Defendant Garaufis for the lawsuit Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al,
1:2011-2713-cv, Plaintiff stated the following:
“I allege that Judge Garaufis'
bias is an act of malice; however, I allege that Judge Garaufis' act of
malice is secondary to the terror and rage that he and many of Israel's
adult children continue to suffer as a result of the Roman
government's/Catholic Church's 2,000-year holocaust to eradicate the
memory of the Jewish Nation from the planet Earth, starting with the
destruction of Jerusalem's 2nd temple in 70 C.E., where 1,100,000
innocent Jews were slaughtered and 97,000 were taken captive, and
culminating with the slaughter of 6,000,000+ innocent Jews in
Catholic-controlled Nazi Germany. I allege that based on Judge Garaufis'
various knee-jerk reactions to my lawsuit, like so many of the adult
children of European Jews, he is terrified that yet
another goy is going to hurt him and the Jewish Defendants. I
make this allegation, not to challenge the learning and experience of
psychoanalytical and psychiatric professionals, but because I am
suffering something akin to post traumatic stress disorder, so I
understand and sympathize with Judge Garaufis and European Jews' terror
and rage at being oppressed again by non-Jews.
While I sympathize with the
terrors that Israel's children suffered and continue to suffer at the
hands of unscrupulous non-Jews, this Court, in its wisdom, must not allow
Judge Garaufis' legitimate fear of anti-Semitism to be used as a
rationalization to excuse the tortious and criminal conduct of the
Defendants, or to continue to hurt me or my children. Defendant law firm
Allen E. Kaye, PC mounted an unprovoked attack on me and my children on
November 30, 1979 by facilitating my ex-husband's commission of
immigration fraud and identity fraud, preventing us from obtaining money
from my ex-husband to live. I had to put my children in foster care. In
2008, a year after I filed my divorce from my-husband, Defendant law firm
Uzamere and Associates, PLLC, its owner being a blood relative of my
ex-husband, was then enlisted to discredit my story as the rantings of an
insane woman. In 2009, the following year, Defendant law firms Allen E.
Kaye, PC, the Law Offices of Harvey Shapiro and Gladstein and Messinger,
knowing my ex-husband's true identity, submitted fraudulent affirmations
falsely holding my ex-husband out to be “Godwin Uzamere” even after the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service and the New York State Unified
Court Systems' Second Judicial Department held that Senator Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere was my husband and is the father of our daughter, Tara. Judge
Garaufis' attempts to come to the rescue of fellow Jewish Defendants to
save them from the machinations of an anti-Semitic litigant are more than
misplaced. They are now malicious. I am not Hitler, and if Defendant
Allen E. Kaye, PC had not engaged in its original criminal act by
tricking me for the sole purpose of helping his client get a green card,
thereby denying me and my daughter the right to be identified by my
ex-husband's and Tara's father African name and to receive money from him
for our care, I would not be litigating against the Jewish Defendants. My
litigation against the Defendants has no basis in anti-Semitism. The
Defendants broke the law. Judge Garaufis' use of the term “frivolous and
malicious” is truthful – but his use of the term does not have its basis
in the Federal Rules of Civil Practice. I allege that it is in Judge
Garaufis' culture to rule that Jews must defend themselves from the
anti-Semitic machinations of non-Jews at all costs – even if it means
violating the legal rights of a non-Jew. Judge Garaufis' decision is
therefore an act of bias that has its basis in my ethnicity as a member
of the goyim.”
145) In
the criminal case of People of the State of New Jersey vs. Jesse
K. Timmendequas, during the death penalty phase, an “August 1995
videotape – made during an interview at their mother's South Carolina
trailer – came as the defense sought to show that the childhood years of
Jesse Timmendequas were so horrific that he should not be
sentenced to death for the sexual assault and murder of 7-year-old
Megan Kanka. New Jersey's state court abolished the death penalty in
2007, converted to a life sentence with no possibility of parole and
uphold his life sentence for kidnapping Megan Kanka. The court did
not render its decision based on mercy because
Mr. Timmendequas was sexually victimized by in father when he
was young boy. See http://articles.philly.com/1997-06-11/news/25526762_1_sexual-assault-jesse-james-sexual-abuse.
146) This
Court must now differentiate between the complaints of a person who is
being victimized now between the complaints of a bully whose forebears
were crime victims but he himself is not. If this Court treats the
Defendants holistically, it will see a pattern of behavior indicative of
a predator who has thrown moral, social and legal convention to the wind
and preys on Gentiles with impunity. Examples of such predatory behavior
by members of the Jewish community include the following:
The lawsuit Stephen Unterberg
v. Jimmy Carter, Case 1:11-cv-00720-TPG; said the following on page 2: “.
. .In truth, however, the book is filled with demonstrable falsehoods,
omissions, and knowing misrepresentations intended to promote carter's
agenda of anti-Israel propaganda. . .According to John Turley's article
entitled “A Basis for Damages or Sanctions? Jimmy Carter Sued Over His
Book on Palestine, he says: “Former President Jimmy Carter has been named
in a disturbing and clearly frivolous lawsuit over his representations on
the Israeli-Palestinian Apartheid.” The five plaintiffs are seeking $5
million, but, in my view, should be held by Rule 11 sanctions in filing a
vexatious and frivolous lawsuit. See http://jonathanturley.org/2011/02/16/jimmy-carter-sued-over-his-book-on-palestine/
Common use of the term
“nigger” that white-skinned Jews used to address Ethiopian
Jews. See http://www.irinnews.org/report/94819/israel-the-tribulations-of-being-an-ethiopian-jew.
Jewish laws that teach the
following doctrines:
1. The murder of Gentile is less severe than the murder
of a Jew;
2. Ban on returning a Gentile's lost item if the reason
for returning it is sympathy for the Gentile;
3. If a Gentile accidentally overpays a Jew, the Jew does
not have to give the money back;
4. One who kills a Gentile is exempt; one who kills a Jew
is put to death;
5. A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for
compensation or damages;
6. Only Jews can rule over Jews, not Gentiles, not even a
Jewish convert;
7. The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may
hate a Gentile; see http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/so-daat-emet/index.html;
8. According to Babylonian Talmud, Tractate
Baba Kamma, folio 113A, when a lawsuit occurs between a Jew and a
Gentile, a Jew can use deceit (subterfuge) against the Gentile to fool
him/him;
9. There is no equality between Jews and Gentiles;
10. Gentiles
are the proper slaves of Jews;
11. In
Jewish law, Jews are hard to convict; Gentiles are easy to
convict;
Law Licensing Statuses:
The Jew-controlled judiciary
will not reinstate the law license of African-American C. Vernon Mason,
who was never convicted or even accused of a crime, and has been
disbarred for 18 years; however there is a petition signed by over 70,000
Jews to release convicted Jewish spy Jonathan Pollard, who admitted on
spying on the United States government for
Israel; see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Vernon_Mason;
also see http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/freepollard;
Alton H. Maddox, Jr., who
never was convicted or even accused of a crime, has been disbarred since
1990; see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alton_Maddox;
Jewish Solomon Wachtler,
Esq., who was convicted and imprisoned for stalking his former lover, had
his law license reinstated; seehttp://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/10/03/sol-wachtler-got-his-law-license-back;
Jewish Eliot Spitzer, Esq.,
who committed adultery (NYS Pen. Law §255.15, Bigamy is a class B
misdemeanor) by paying a prostitute for sex (isn't paying for sex illegal
all over the United States?), currently running for Mayor of New York;
Jewish Anthony Weiner, having
admitted to recently uploading more pictures to the internet
(see attached internet photo of him sitting on the toilet with his
penis exposed; currently running for Mayor of New York;
Law of the Moser:
See http://theawarenesscenter.blogspot.com/2012/12/attack-against-rabbi-nuchem-rosenberg.html regarding
Rabbi Nuchum Rosenberg. A member of the ultra-orthodox Jewish
community threw bleach or some other chemical in Rosenberg's face. Rabbi
Rosenberg has since been labeled a moser by members of his
community;
Reverend
Israel Dwek renounces his son, Shlomo Dwek as
a moser because he reported several lawbreaking Jews to the
secular
authorities; seehttp://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_XezdmX81B2uEHc6euKYWFP;
See Exhibit W1 for exhibits also listed as websites;
The brokering and sale of body
parts by Jews;
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2009/07/butchers-hidden-truth-about-israels.html.
Rabbi Levy Izhak Rosenbaum of Brooklyn was accused by the FBI
of conspiring to broker the sale of human kidney for a transplant.
According to the complaint, Rosenbaum said he has been brokering the sale
of kidneys for 10 years.
147) There
is a major similarity between the illegal acts committed by the
Defendants and by the Jews in those aforementioned acts. That
similarity is intent. In the case of all the individuals, their intent
is: 1) to allow the unconstitutional encroachment of the Jewish religion;
2) to devalue and dehumanize Gentiles as a means to rationalize Jews'
illegal acts; 3) to rely on the Talmudic doctrine Law of the
Moser to ensure that Jews do not report the illegal acts of
lawbreaking Jews to the secular (Gentile) authorities, and to ensure that
those Gentiles who attempt to report the illegal acts of lawbreaking Jews
are stopped by fellow Jews; and 4) to hold uncooperative Gentiles out as
anti-Semites deserving of a social death or as close to a real death as
possible. The Jew-controlled New York State judiciary will never allow C.
Vernon Mason and Alton Maddox to retain their law licenses, even in front
of the glaring acts of crimes of sexual dysfunction by Jews Sol Wachtler,
Eliot Spitzer and Andrew Weiner, who, as the Court considers Plaintiff's
lawsuit, is running for Mayor of New York and electronically sending out
photos of his penis while he is sitting on the toilet at the same time.
There is the lawsuit that members of the Jewish community filed against a
former U.S. President for having what amount to be an opposing opinion
about Israel. There is the case of brave Rabbi NuchumRosenberg's who
has suffered mightily because his legal stance against the Talmudic
doctrine Law of the Moser, at the expense of vision in his left eye,
being shot in his head by a BB gun, and being shunned by members of his
community for reporting acts of child abuse to the secular authorities
Lastly, also mentioned are various halachic doctrines that hold Gentiles
out to be worthless, not on equal standing with Jews legally, socially or
in any way that allows Gentiles to be considered “men.”
148) ....The
sum total of Plaintiff's living in an atmosphere where predatory Jews
make fraudulent reference to real acts of anti-Semitism that took place
in the past in order to hide their illegal predation of Plaintiff and her
children, based on the encroachment of racist Jewish religious doctrines
Curse of Dark Skin and Law of the Moser, has caused thirty-four (34)
years of deprivation of Plaintiff and her family's constitutional, civil,
marital, parental, social and financial rights. The Defendants have
staunchly refused to overtly acknowledge the legal relationship between
Plaintiff, her children, and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and have
instead, referred to the same, tired, old excuse of anti-Semitism to hide
their crimes and to continue to prey on Plaintiff and her children. For
thirty-four (34) years, Plaintiff and her children were condemned to the
same Jewish religious generational curse that condemned millions of
enslaved Africans to the permanent loss of their parents' proper African
names, languages and customs associated with those names, and the wealth
and social status that would have passed on to African children had they
been able to bear their African forefathers' names. Because of the
Defendants' determination to stop Plaintiff from reporting the original
crimes that were perpetrated by those Defendants who helped Plaintiff's
ex-husband commit fraud and aggravated identity theft, Plaintiff and her
children are now victims in a hateful, racist environment that forgives
and gives second chances to lawbreaking Jews, forever condemns the
descendants of African slaves for being dark-skinned, and like the
pedophile Jesse Timmendaguas, use past incidents of anti-Semitism to
rationalize their abusive, hateful, predatory behavior towards Gentiles.
149) By
reason of the foregoing irrefutable allegations, Plaintiff asserts that
there exists a justiciable controversy with respect to which Plaintiff is
entitled to the relief prayed for herein.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
First Amendment Mandate --
Separation of Church and State
\
150) Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
151) With
regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against
them individually and in their official capacities.
152) Plaintiff
is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness.
Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
major life activities.
153) Plaintiff
is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. §12131(2).
154) Plaintiff
is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose
sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the ability
to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears; and
having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right
from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, as does Tara A. Uzamere, the adult child of the
marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and blood
heir with the legal right to bear, and for her progeny to bear the
correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere.
155) Defendants
owed Plaintiff and her family the duty, pursuant to 5 USC §3331, to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegiance to the
same; to take said obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and to well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which Defendants entered. This requires the Defendants to
establish a clear separation of church and state, and to distance
themselves from the Talmudic Law of the Moser in their
application and enforcement of the law. Defendants owed Plaintiff and her
children the duty to give themselves over to the transparency of U.S.
law, and not the secrecy of the Talmudic Law of the Moser.
156) Defendants
failed in their duty to meet their legal obligations as detailed by the
First Amendment mandate regarding the separation of church and state.
Defendants, at the behest of Defendant Garaufis and other Jewish
judiciary Defendants have conspired to force the tenets of the Talmud and
other Jewish religious dogma on the Plaintiff based on the Talmud's
viewpoint of the Plaintiff's as a gentile/non-Jewish,
African-American/schvartze slave to prevent Plaintiff from filing
civil and criminal complaints against corrupt immigration attorneys Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.
157) Plaintiff
suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under attack
by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of Defendants Judge
Garaufis, Judge Schack, Judge Sunshine and Judge Gerstein, have continued
the same government-wide hostile environment that Plaintiff complained
about in her prior lawsuits, Uzamere vs. Uzamere (Plaintiff's
divorce action) and Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv.
Plaintiff has been forced by Defendant Garaufis to obey the Talmud,
Tractate Abodah Zarah, folio 26b, Tractate Sanhedrin, folio
108b and footnote 34; Jewish doctrine Law of the Moser, the doctrine
that prohibits anyone from reporting the crimes of Jews to secular,
Gentile authorities; and the Curse of Black Skin, the doctrine that
requires people of dark-skinned African descent to be obedient to Jews
and white people because dark-skinned Africans are meant to be slaves. In
Plaintiff's prior lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al Case Nos.
11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv, Plaintiff provided Defendant Garaufis with proof
that employees of Defendant New York State conspired with Defendant Shifrel of
Defendant Daily News, LP , to defame the Plaintiff as an “anti-Semitic
wacko”, to illegally publicize Plaintiff's psychiatric and marital
information to give their false publicized statement regarding
Plaintiff's ex-husband being “Godwin Uzamere” believability. Defendant
Garaufis violated Plaintiff's rights in the same manner by relying on the
Talmud, Tractate Abodah Zarah, folio 26b and the Talmudic
doctrine Law of the Moser, not the U.S. Constitution to prevent the
Plaintiff from reporting the commission of aggravated identity theft by
corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack
Gladstein.
158) The
courts of Defendant United States of America recognize excessive
entanglement of religion as an injury. In the case Lemon v.
Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that government
may not “excessively entangle” with religion. The case involved two
Pennsylvania laws: one permitting the state to “purchase” services in
secular fields from religious schools, and the other permitting the state
to pay a percentage of the salaries of private school teachers, including
teachers in religious institutions. The Supreme Court found that the
government was “excessively entangled” with religion and invalidated the
statutes in question.
159) Plaintiff
submits that Defendants' violation of the First Amendment's Mandate to
keep church and government separate also violates the Due Process Clause
of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC §1985, conspiracy to interfere with
civil rights, such that Plaintiff's Verified Complaint rises to the level
of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 with regard to those Defendants
who are natural persons. Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme Court's
application of Bivens to natural persons and its refusal to
extend Bivens to agencies.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendants Violated the
Americans With Disabilities Act Mandate
160) Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
161) With
regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against
them individually and in their official capacities.
162) Plaintiff
is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness.
Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
major life activities.
163) Plaintiff
is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. §12131(2).
164) Plaintiff
is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose
sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the
ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears;
and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right
from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained by Tara
A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere., and for her progeny to bear the correct
Edo/Bini name and culture associated with of Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere.
165) Defendants
owed Plaintiff the duty, pursuant to Title II of the Americans With
Disabilities Act, to prohibit the practice of disability discrimination.
As public entities, Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to comply with
Title II regulations by the U.S. Department of Justice. These regulations
cover access to all programs and services offered by the entity. Access
includes physical access described in the ADA Standards for Accessible
Design and programmatic access that might be obstructed by discriminatory
policies or procedures of the entity.
166) Defendants
failed in their duty to meet the obligations as detailed in Title II of
the Americans With Disabilities Act. Defendants continue to discriminate
against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff's status of having a mental
illness because Plaintiff will not stop filing complaints against corrupt
Jews immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack
Gladstein.
167) Plaintiff
suffered and continues to suffer injury because Plaintiff is still under
attack by all the Defendants who, at the clandestine behest of Defendant
Garaufis, Judge Schack, Judge Sunshine and Judge Gerstein, have continued
the same government-wide hostile environment that Plaintiff complained
about in her prior lawsuit, Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al,
11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv. Defendants continue to discriminate against
Plaintiff by using Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness to
falsely and to publicly hold out that judicial Defendants will not allow
Plaintiff to file criminal and civil complaints against corrupt Jewish
Defendants corrupt immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro
and Jack Gladstein because Plaintiff's complaints are unintelligible
based on her status of having a mental illness.19, 20, 21.
Defendants New York State, New York State Office of Mental Health, New
York City, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Brookdale
Hospital Medical Center and their employees intentionally misdiagnosed
Plaintiff as psychotic and violent so as to deprive Plaintiff
of her right to due process and equal protection under the law.
Defendants accused Plaintiff of the commission of 18 USC §115,
threatening a federal employee and discriminated against the Plaintiff by
using her status of having a mental illness as an excuse to deprive her
of the right to defend herself in criminal court against said criminal
charges. Proof of Defendant New York State's and New York City's
continued conspiracy to attack the Plaintiff based on her status of
having a mental illness is at http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-11-05/local/17938323_1_supreme-court-judge-criminal-court;
and http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435221996&slreturn=20120729115138; see Daily
News article dated November 5, 2009 in which staff writer
Scott Shifrel publicly defames Plaintiff as a “wacko.”
168) The
courts of Defendant the United States of America recognize discrimination
based on disability as an injury. The Supreme Court held in Olmstead
v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), that “[u]njustified isolation . .
. is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability,” observing
that “institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from
community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so
isolated are incapable of or unworthy of participating in community
life.” 527 U.S. at 597, 600.
169) Plaintiff
submits that Defendants' violation of the Title II, Americans With
Disabilities Mandate to integrate Plaintiff also violates the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC §1985, conspiracy to
interfere with civil rights, such that Plaintiff's Verified Complaint
rises to the level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 with regard to
those Defendants who are natural persons. Plaintiff understands the
U.S. Supreme Court's application of Bivens to natural persons and its
refusal to extend Bivens to agencies.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendants Violated Sixth
Amendment Mandate
170) Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
171) With
regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against
them individually and in their official capacities.
172) Plaintiff
is an American citizen with a serious, persistent mental illness.
Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
major life activities…
173) Plaintiff
is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. §12131(2).
174) Plaintiff
is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose
sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the
ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears;
and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right
from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained by Tara
A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and for her progeny to bear the correct
Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere.
175) On
or around June 22, 2011, Defendant Garaufis rendered in decision for
Plaintiff's civil rights action which said the following:
“Plaintiff's most recent
Complaint—one of at least five she has filed with this court—is 89-pages
long and is accompanied by 589 pages of exhibits. Plaintiff has also sent
at least 60 pages of faxes directly to chambers, purporting to be in
connection with her most recent action. The substance of Plaintiffs
Complaint—if one can be discerned—concerns, among other things, her
divorce from Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; a defamation claim filed against the
Daily News; a Departmental Disciplinary Committee complaint filed against
the attorney representing the Daily News; and other state court actions,
including a state court action against the attorneys who represented her
former husband. (Compi. at 27-45.) Plaintiff has a long, tired history of
vexatious litigation in this court. See Uzamere v. State of New
York, No. 09-cv-2703 (E.D.N.Y. July 9, 2009).”
Defendant Garaufis' judgment
regarding Plaintiff's civil rights action was biased. It did not address
the acts of fraud, identity theft or aggravated theft perpetrated by
corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein
that Plaintiff proved in her civil rights action, nor did Defendant
Garaufis' address Plaintiff's contentions regarding the Court's
discrimination against Plaintiff based on her having a mental illness.
Defendant Garaufis' judicial commentary did not address most of the
issues Plaintiff discussed in her civil rights action (“. . .a unanimous
Supreme Court has admonished that pro se in forma pauperis complaints
must be read with tolerance: Dismissal is impermissible unless the court
can say “with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se
complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff
can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him
to relief.'” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594,
595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), reaffirmed in
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. at 292.) The judgment condemned the
Verified Complaint's number of pages and the numbers of complaints
Plaintiff filed with the Court (“. . .but a complaint filed in forma
pauperis is not subject to dismissal simply because the plaintiff is
litigious. The number of complaints a poor person files does not
alone justify peremptory dismissal. In each instance, the
substance of the impoverished person's claim is the appropriate
measure. Crisafi v. Holland, et al, 655 F2d 1305) Defendant
Garaufis admits that he has difficulty in understanding the substance of
Plaintiff's complaint based on his statement: “The substance of
Plaintiff's Complaint – if one can be discerned. . .” Defendant Garaufis'
displayed even more mean-spirited bias with regard to all of Plaintiff's
actions when he said in his statement: “Plaintiff has a long, tired
history of vexatious litigation in this court. Defendant Garaufis engaged
in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal
facilitation of aggravated identity theft by rendering an FRCP-lacking,
memorandum-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al,
11-CV-2831 for the sole purpose of: 1) advancing the Talmudic
doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) not filing a criminal complaint
against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration
attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their
fraudulent commission of 3) trick Plaintiff into believing that
a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative
function – was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render
harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's,
Jack Gladstein's, and Mortimer Zuckerman's and
Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft – a
wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of
double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never tried;
and, 4) Defendant Bloom's commission of misprision of felony
racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated
identity theft and fraud upon the court as well.
176) Defendants
owed Plaintiff the duty, pursuant to the Sixth Amendment, to provide
Plaintiff with defense counsel and witnesses in Plaintiff's favor. More
importantly, Defendants owed Plaintiff the right to confront
Defendants' adversarial witnesses in order to prevent Plaintiff
from being prosecuted based on what turned out to be the falsified
hearsay of the Defendants.
177) Defendants
failed to meet the obligations as detailed in the Sixth Amendment. Defendants
accused Plaintiff of the commission of 18 USC §111(a), simple assault and
18 USC §115, threatening federal employees and then deprived Plaintiff of
her Sixth Amendment rights to notice of accusation, witnesses and
appointment of defense counsel even though Defendants' criminal
accusation against the Plaintiff required them to file a criminal
complaint pursuant to 18 USC §4, misprision of felony. Plaintiff strongly
alleges that Defendant Garaufis, in orchestrating the conspiracy with
Defendant U.S. Marshal Service, Defendant Denis P. McGowan of Defendant
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and defendants of the New York
State and New York City mental health agencies, has opened the means
by which, at any of the Defendants can accuse Plaintiff of any crime and
prevent Plaintiff from speaking to an attorney. Plaintiff alleges that
the only way that Plaintiff can avoid Defendants' intimidation, false
criminal allegations and Defendants ' use of psychiatric inpatient
hospitalization as a substitute for prison is by keeping silent and not
filing papers against corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye,
Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.
178) Plaintiff
has suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under
attack by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of Defendant
Garaufis, have continued the same government-wide hostile environment
that Plaintiff complained about in her prior lawsuit, Uzamere vs.
Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv. Defendants continue to wrongfully
accused Plaintiff of the commission of 18 USC §115, threatening federal
employees; nor have the Defendants sent correspondence apologizing for
wrongfully accusing Plaintiff of a crime she did not commit; however,
Defendants continue to deprive Plaintiff of the right to be informed in
writing of the nature and cause of the criminal accusation Defendants
raised against Plaintiff, to allow Plaintiff to confront adversarial
witnesses and witnesses in Plaintiff's defense, and to have the
assistance of counsel. In Plaintiff's prior lawsuit Uzamere vs.
Cuomo, et al Case Nos. 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv, Plaintiff provided
Defendant Garaufis with proof that Defendant New York State conspired
with Defendant Daily News, by Defendant former staff writer
Scott Shifrelto defame Plaintiff as a “wacko”, to hold Plaintiff out
at a violent criminal for a crime or which Plaintiff was eventually
declared not guilty – as she was declared not guilty when Defendant
McCarthy – a federal attorney – falsely accused Plaintiff of committing
18 USC §111(a), simple assault – while Plaintiff was 260 miles away in
Brooklyn, New York. Defendant Garaufis and the other Defendants – most of
whom are Jews, have revisited the same act of fraud for the same reason –
to enforce the Jewish religious doctrine Law of the Moser to
prevent Plaintiff from filing complaints against corrupt Jewish attorneys
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, who hid and continue to
hide their aggravated identity theft on behalf of their client, Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, thereby depriving Plaintiff and her daughter Tara
of the right to bear Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's name.
179) The
courts of Defendant United States of America recognizes a poor
defendant in a criminal case that does not have counsel as an injury.
proceeding In Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), the
Supreme Court ruled that in all federal cases, counsel would have to be
appointed for defendants who were too poor to hire their own.
180) The
courts of Defendant the United States of America recognize that a
criminal defendant not having been given a notice of accusation an
injury. Individuals who have been accused of a serious federal offense
have the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Carll,
105 U.S. 611 (1881) that “in an indictment ... it is not sufficient to set
forth the offense in the words of the statute, unless those words of
themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or
ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense
intended to be punished.” In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S.
36 (2004), the Supreme Court increased the scope of the Confrontation
Clause by ruling that “testimonial” out-of-court statements are
inadmissible if the accused did not have the opportunity to cross-examine
that accuser and that accuser is unavailable at trial.
181) Plaintiff
submits that Defendants' violation of the Sixth Amendment's mandate to
provide the accused Plaintiff with witnesses, and with an attorney for
her defense also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and 42 USC §1985, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights,
such that Plaintiff's Verified Complaint rises to the level of an action
in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 with regard to those Defendants who are
natural persons. Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme Court's
application of Bivens to natural persons and its refusal to
extend Bivens to agencies.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Civil Rights Act of 1964,
Title VI, §601
Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs
182) Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
183) With
regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against
them individually and in their official capacities.
184) Plaintiff
is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness.
Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
major life activities.
185) Plaintiff
is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. §12131(2).
186) Plaintiff
is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose
sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the
ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears;
having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Plaintiff now retains the
right from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained
by Tara A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and for her progeny to bear the correct
Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere.
187) Defendants
owed Plaintiff the duty, pursuant to the Civil Act of 1964, §601, to
ensure that no person in the United States, including the Plaintiff,
shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated
against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
188) Defendants
failed to meet the obligations as detailed in the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Defendants discriminated and continue to discriminate against
Plaintiff based on the Talmudic view of Gentiles in general,
and blacks in particular. Plaintiff's ethnicity as a gentile/African-American/schvartze. See documentation
regarding the Curse of Dark Skin and Law of the Moser attached
as Exhibit Q. In addition, while refusing to accept from the Plaintiff
irrefutable proof of Jews Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's,
Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and
Scott Shifrel's commission of misprision of felony, fraud,
identity theft, aggravated identity theft, racketeering, obstruction of
justice and extortion/blackmail, Defendant Barack H. Obama, Andrew
Weissman, General Counsel for Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation,
James X. Dempsey, Defendant, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
Board; Elisebeth Collins Cook, Defendant, Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board; David Medine, Chairman, Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board; Rachel L. Brand, Privacy and Civil Liberties
Oversight Board; and Patricia M. Wald, Defendant, Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board; Keith B. Alexander, General, National Security
Agency; Rajesh De, General Counsel, National Security Agency; Eric H.
Holder; U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; Charles
Schumer, Senate Judiciary Committee; Dianne Feinstein, Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence Chairperson; Senator Saxby Chambliss, Patrick
Leahy, Senator Judiciary Chairman, Hon. Goodlatte, Chairman, U.S. House
Judiciary Chairman, Mike Rogers, House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, U.S. Marshals Service Director Charles Dunne, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Protection Service, Threat
Assessment Branch employee Denis P. McGowan, FBI Assistant Director in
Charge, George Venizelos and Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis engaged in
overseeing a criminal, unconstitutional system of government that
specifically discriminated against the law-abiding, psychiatric-treatment-compliant,
mentally disabled Gentile/Schvartze/African American Plaintiff by
allowing Defendant Judge Garaufis and other Jews to fraudulently use the
PATRIOT Act to spy on non-criminal, constitutionally-protected telephone
calls regarding Plaintiff's HIPAA-protected mental health and other
HIPAA-protected issues; that said telephone calls were spied on at the
behest of Defendant Judge Garaufis and other Jews, not based on the
belief that the Plaintiff had violated the law, but to enslave the Plaintiff
by extorting/blackmailing her; by using Plaintiff's confidential,
non-content information regarding Plaintiff's telephone calls to her
outpatient psychiatric care provider that maybe embarrassing or shameful
if publicly disseminated; to fraudulently accuse the Plaintiff of the
commission of a crime and to associate the fraudulent criminal allegation
with Plaintiff's confidential non-content information; to frighten the
Plaintiff by publicizing embarrassing or shameful information associated
with Plaintiff's psychiatric non-content information for the sole purpose
of forcing the Plaintiff not to petition the government for a redress of
grievances with regard to Plaintiff's First Amendment right to report the
activities of lawbreaking Jews to the secular/Gentile law enforcement
authorities; that those Jews' violation of Plaintiff's and other
Gentiles' right to privacy is based on the Talmudic doctrine for Jews to
enslave Gentiles, with an emphasis on the enslavement of people who are
dark-skinned or considered by Jews to be Africans, Cushites, Hamites
and Canaanites. See Exhibit Q. In the meantime, Defendants
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman and
Scott Shifrel, who engaged in illegally obtaining and publicly
disseminating information regarding the crime (for which Plaintiff was
falsely accused, for which Defendants never had any intention of
confronting Plaintiff in any court of laws and that was eventually
dismissed), Plaintiff's mental illness and her marriage and who are still
engaging in misprision of felony, fraud, identity theft, aggravated
identity theft, racketeering, obstruction of justice and
extortion/blackmail have never been investigated for the continued
commission of their crimes.
189) Plaintiff
suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under attack
by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of Defendant
Garaufis, have continued the same government-wide hostile environment
that Plaintiff complained about in her prior lawsuit, Uzamere vs.
Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv. Defendants continue to deprive
Plaintiff of her civil rights because Plaintiff is a gentile/schvartze.
In the case of disruptive Jewish litigant Rebecca Gloria Yohalem,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jewish judge Joanna Seybert accepted the
Jewish litigant's virtually unintelligible lawsuit. In Defendant Boyle's
order regarding the disruptive, Jewish litigant, he said:
“The pro se plaintiff appeared
in court today for an initial conference, after having failed to appear
at two prior initial conferences. Her action purports to be one under 42
U.S.C. §1983, based on assault, kidnapping and other various general
allegations that allegedly occurred at one or more mental health
facilities in New York.
The pro se plaintiff is
virtually deaf and it is therefore difficult for her to participate in
any meaningful way in this litigation - whether it involves interaction
with opposing counsel or the Court. As a result ofthis severe
limitation, the plaintiff’s conduct was invariably nonresponsive, which
undoubtedly led to her frustration at the conference, which, in turn, led
to her disruptive behavior in the courtroom after the initial conference
was concluded.
For the foregoing reasons, the
Court strongly recommends that the pro se plaintiff seek counsel by
contacting William M. Brooks, Professor of Law at the Touro College Jacob
D. Fuchsberg Law Center. Touro Law Center has been designated,
along with other organizations, as an ombudsperson by the State of New
York, under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental
Illness program (“PAIMI”), to represent patients and former patients at
mental hospitals in the State of New York. These duties are apparently
carried out by the Law Center through the Civil Rights Litigation Clinic,
which is primarily responsible for patients in the Long Island area, and
of which Professor Brooks is the director. He may be contacted by
telephone at (631) 761-7086.”
190) Defendant
Boyle was even able to “purport” a cause of action from the mentally
disabled Jewish plaintiff's difficult-to-read complaint. In yet another
act of pro-Jew favoritism, the court, at the behest of Defendant Jewish
judge Joanna Seybert, the Jewish litigant was allowed to appear
– for the third initial conference after missing the first two. During
the third initial conference, the Jewish litigant became
disruptive. See Complaint of Rebecca
Gloria Yohalem attached as Exhibit O.
191) However,
although the African-American Plaintiff went to college to become a
paralegal and made the Dean's List twice, has shown the ability to teach
herself federal procedural law (FRCP/FRAP/Rules of the Supreme Court),
federal statutes, Constitutional law, appellate case law and to apply
them to her Verified Complaint on her own and in spite of her mental
illness, the only reactions that Plaintiff has received from corrupt,
racist Defendant Garaufis and the other Defendants is their mistreatment
of the Plaintiff both as a Gentile and as the descendant of African
slaves. See Plaintiff's Dean's List certificates attached
as Exhibit P.
192) The
courts of Defendant the United States of America recognize that
discrimination based on race is an injury. Discrimination based on race
violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2,
1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that
outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national
and religious minorities, and women. It ended unequal application of
voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the
workplace and by facilities that served the general public.
193) Plaintiff
submits that Defendants' violation of Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI,
§601 because Plaintiff's is an “inferior”
gentile/African-American/schvartze who continues to file complaints
against corrupt “superior” Jews immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye,
Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein also violates the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC §1985, conspiracy against civil rights
such that Plaintiff's Verified Complaint rises to the level of an action
in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 with regard to those Defendants who are
natural persons only. Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme Court's
application of Bivens to natural persons and its refusal to extend Bivens
to agencies.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendants are a Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organization
194) Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
195) With
regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against
them individually and in their official capacities.
196) Plaintiff
is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness.
Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
major life activities.
197) Plaintiff
is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. §12131(2).
198) Plaintiff
is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose
sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the
ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears;
and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right
from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained by Tara
A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and for her progeny to bear the correct
Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere.
199) Defendants
owed Plaintiff the duty not to engage in racketeering behavior for the
purpose of making Plaintiff a victim of honest services fraud at the
hands of the Defendants, thereby preventing Plaintiff and her daughter,
Tara from retaining the correct African name that they should have
received from Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, based on Defendant New
York City's and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's recognition of
Plaintiff's and her daughter Tara's relationship with Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere through marriage and bloodline.
200) Defendants
failed to meet their obligation by not engaging in those behaviors that
are indicative of a racketeering-influenced, corrupt organization as
detailed in 18 USC 18 USC §§1961–1968. Defendants engaged in racketeering
for the sole purpose of 1) advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of
the Moser so as to prevent Plaintiff from filing her complaint
against corrupt, Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey
Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, thereby forever depriving Plaintiff and her
daughter Tara of their right to bear the African name of Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere. Plaintiff alleges that the only way that Plaintiff can
avoid Defendants' racketeering is by keeping silent and not filing papers
against corrupt Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack
Gladstein.
201) Plaintiff
suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under attack
by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of Defendant
Garaufis, have continued the same government-wide hostile environment
that Plaintiff complained about in her prior lawsuit, Uzamere vs.
Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv. Plaintiff holds that Defendant
Garaufis and rest of the Defendants engaged in racketeering by engaging
in the following acts, to wit:
a) that
Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato Eugene
Uzamere engaged in racketeering in that they committed 18 USC §1028,
thereby 1) knowingly and without lawful authority, produced a false
identification document knowing that such document was produced without lawful
authority; 2) knowingly possessed a false identification document with
the intent that such document be used to defraud the United States; 3)
knowingly transferred the fraudulent affirmations to Defendant the New
York State Unified Court System without lawful authority; 4) transferred
a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or
to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that
constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony
under any applicable State or local law; with all the Defendants' goal to
complete their act of racketeering by ensuring that Plaintiff and her
daughter Tara never be able to file her complaint against corrupt Jewish
immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein,
and thereby forever be deprived of their right to bear Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere's correct African name.
b) that
Defendants Garaufis, Schack, Sunshine, Cutrona and Gerstein
engaged in racketeering in that they committed 18 USC §1512 in that they
used physical force and the threat of physical force with the intent to:
1) prevent Plaintiff's testimony against corrupt Jewish immigration
attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein; 2) that the
aforesaid defendants caused Plaintiff to withhold her testimony against
corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and
Jack Gladstein; 3) that the aforesaid defendant – especially Defendant
Schack forced Plaintiff to be absent from an official proceeding to which
that person has been summoned by legal process; 4) That the
aforementioned defendants knowingly uses intimidation, threats, and
corruptly persuaded the New York City Police Department and the New York
City Fire Department, with the intent to prevent Plaintiff from giving
testimony regarding the commission of aggravated identity theft by
corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and
Jack Gladstein conspiracy.
c) that
Defendant Osato E. Uzamere engaged in racketeering in that he committed
18 USC §1543, false use of passport. Defendant Osato E. Uzamere falsely
made a copy of an instrument purporting to be the passport of Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, with intent that the same may be used in court by
Defendant Sunshine as a means to pretend to identify Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. See copies of passport bearing the
number A0588053 but bearing no name is attached as Exhibit C;
d) that
Defendant Osato E. Uzamere engaged in racketeering in that he committed
18 USC 1028A, false use of a social security number. Defendant Osato E.
Uzamere falsely made a copy of an instrument bearing the number
XXX-XX-1205 purporting to be the social security number of “Godwin
Uzamere”, a fictitious identity that was used to defraud the
Plaintiff. See copy of instrument bearing false social security
number attached as Exhibit C.
202) The
courts of Defendant the United States of America recognize that
obstruction of justice caused by racketeering influenced, corrupt
organizations as an injury. RICO laws were successfully cited in NOW
v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 114 S. Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed. 2d 99
(1994), a suit in which certain parties, including the National
Organization for Women, sought damages and an injunction against pro-life
activists who physically block access to abortion clinics. Amazingly, the
Court held that a RICO enterprise does not need an economic motive, and
that the Pro-Life Action Network could therefore qualify as a RICO
enterprise. In the federal lawsuit against judges Michael Conahan and
Mark Ciavarella, federal grand jury in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania handed down a 48-count indictment against former Luzerne
County Court of Common Pleas Judges Michael Conahan and
Mark Ciavarella. The judges were charged with RICO after allegedly
committing acts of wire fraud, mail fraud, tax evasion, money laundering,
and honest services fraud. The judges were accused of taking kickbacks
for housing juveniles, that the judges convicted for mostly petty crimes,
at a private detention center. The incident was dubbed by many local and
national newspapers as the “Kids for cash scandal”. On February 18, 2011,
a federal jury found Michael Ciavarella guilty of racketeering
because of his involvement in accepting illegal payments from
Robert Mericle, the developer of PA Child Care, and Attorney Robert
Powell, a co-owner of the facility. Ciavarella is facing 38
other counts in federal court.
203) Plaintiff
submits that Defendants' commission of racketeering violates the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC §1985, conspiracy
against civil rights such that Plaintiff's Verified Complaint rises to
the level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 with regard to those
Defendants who are natural persons only. Plaintiff understands the U.S.
Supreme Court's application of Bivens to natural persons and
its refusal to extend Bivens to agencies.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fraud upon the Court
204) Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
205) With
regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against
them individually and in their official capacities.
206) Plaintiff
is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness.
Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
major life activities.
.
207) Plaintiff
is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. §12131(2).
208) Plaintiff
is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose
sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the
ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears;
and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right
from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained by Tara
A. Uzamere, blood heir and the adult child of the marriage between
Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and for her progeny to
bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.
209) Defendants
owed Plaintiff the duty to provide her with honest judicial services,
free from fraud. Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to render decisions
in her lawsuits that were reflective of their recognition of the
aggravated identity theft committed by Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey
Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato E. Uzamere. Defendants owed Plaintiff
the duty to file a criminal instrument against the aforementioned
attorney, and to not allow their own Talmudic bias to affect their
obligation to support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; to take said obligation freely, without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and to well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which Defendants entered. Defendants owed
Plaintiff the duty to establish a clear separation of church and state,
and to distance themselves from the Talmudic Law of the
Moser in their application and enforcement of the law. Defendants
owed Plaintiff and her children the duty to give themselves over to the
transparency of U.S. law, and not the secrecy of the Talmudic Law of
the Moser – a stupid law that is stupid for Defendants to enforce
since the Defendants actively keep said law secret from Gentiles. It is
stupid for Defendants to force Plaintiff – and the public at large – to
obey a law that they do not know they are supposed to obey and is not
transparently included in any normal law code.
210) Defendants
failed to meet the obligations as detailed in Bulloch v. United
States. Defendant judges engaged rendering fraudulent decisions, and then
commenced a extortionate shakedown from the judicial positions of
Defendants Garaufis, Schack, Sunshine and Gerstein for the sole purpose
of advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser so as to
prevent Plaintiff from filing her complaint against corrupt, Jewish
immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein,
thereby forever depriving Plaintiff and her daughter Tara of their right
to bear the African name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. Plaintiff
alleges that the only way that Plaintiff can avoid Defendants'
intimidation, false criminal allegations and Defendants' racial discrimination
against her is by keeping silent and not filing papers against corrupt
Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.
211) Plaintiff
suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under attack
by all the Defendants judges has have rendered biased decisions designed
to hide Defendant judges' commission of misprision of felony with
regard to Defendants Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's,
Jack Gladstein's and Osato E. Uzamere's commission of aggravated
identity theft. Defendants, at the clandestine behest of Defendant
Garaufis, have continued the same government-wide hostile environment
that Plaintiff complained about in her prior lawsuit, Uzamere vs. Cuomo,
et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv. In every single case in which Plaintiff
presented irrefutable proof that immigration attorney Allen E. Kaye,
Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein engaged in criminally facilitating the
immigration fraud and identity fraud of Plaintiff's ex-husband, the
Defendant judge in that case would render a decision that would ignore
Defendant attorneys of any criminal liability, or worse, they conspired
with other Defendants to accuse Plaintiff of being too mentally disabled
and violent to use the court system. The defendant judges acted, not as
judges, but as Talmudic attorneys for the corrupt, Jewish immigration
attorneys, leaving the position of judge unfilled by a U.S.
Constitution-obeying, unbiased judge. Their actions stink of fraud upon
the court, which under the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Seventh and
Tenth Circuit, renders any decision rendered by them null and void.
Lastly, Defendant Jewish judges rendered fictitious decision to their
true motive – to Talmud-based decisions against the Plaintiff because she
is Gentile, because she is black-skinned, and because of the Talmudic
doctrine Law of the Moser that prohibits the Defendants from
directly or indirectly filing complaints against corrupt Jewish
immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein. See Defendant
Daily News article dated November 5, 2009, attached as Exhibit R.
212) The
courts of Defendant the United States of America recognize that fraud
upon the court is an injury. 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 is an injury because it
deprives a litigant of the court's most valuable “commodity” – justice.
213) Plaintiff
submits to this Court that Defendant Judge Garaufis' commencement and
orchestration to defame Plaintiff as psychotic and violent to stop her
from filing her appeal against his FRCP-lacking, memorandum-lacking
decision are irrefutable proof that his decision in Plaintiff's
lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al was biased, and is an act of fraud
upon the court the violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and 42 USC §1985, conspiracy against civil rights such that
Plaintiff's Verified Complaint rises to the level of an action in the
manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 with regard to those Defendants who are natural
persons only. Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme Court's application
of Bivens to natural persons and its refusal to
extend Bivens to agencies.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendants' Blacklisting of
Plaintiff Violates 42 U.S.C. §1983, §1985
214) Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
215) With
regard to all Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually
and in their official capacities.
216) Plaintiff
is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness.
Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one of more
major life activities.
217) Plaintiff
is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose
sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the
ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears;
and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right
from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained by Tara
A. Uzamere, blood heir and the adult child of the marriage between
Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and for her progeny to
bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.
218) Defendants
owed Plaintiff the duty to not blacklist Plaintiff in the Jewish
Defendants' continued attempts to stop filing criminal complaints against
Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Defendants
owed Plaintiff the duty to make their federally-financed outpatient
mental health and other programs available to the Plaintiff program free
from fraud. Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to recognize Plaintiff's
complaints against the aforementioned attorneys as true, and
not trick Plaintiff into believing that Defendants' blacklisting were
legitimate acts brought on by wrongful acts by the Plaintiff. Defendants
owed Plaintiff the duty not to render Plaintiff persona non
grata based on the Jewish Defendants' desire to enforce the Talmudic
doctrine Law of the Moser, that prohibits Jews from indirectly or
directly filing complaints against fellow Jews who have violated secular
law.
219) Defendants
failed to meet the obligations as detailed in 42 USC §1983, 1985.
Defendant judges engaged in blacklisting the Plaintiff from the New York
State courts, from the federal courts, and from receiving outpatient
mental health services, in order to engage in
racketeering/obstruction of justice for the sole purpose of advancing the
Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser, that prohibits Jews from
indirectly or directly reporting the wrongdoings of fellow Jews to the
secular/gentile authorities. Plaintiff alleges that the only way that
Plaintiff can avoid Defendants' blacklisting, intimidation, false
criminal allegations and Defendants' racial discrimination against her is
by keeping silent and not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt
Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.
220) Plaintiff
suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under attack
by all the Defendants like FEGS, Inc., who still have Plaintiff listed
as persona non grata for life. Defendant judges Eileen
A. Rakower and Nicholas Garaufis have come to Defendant FEGS
aid, by allowing FEGS to blacklist Plaintiff because Plaintiff used
Defendant FEGS, Inc Services for complaining against Defendants Allen E.
Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein's commission of
aggravated identity theft. See Defendant Daily News article
dated November 5, 2009, attached as Exhibit R.
221) The
courts of Defendant the United States of America recognize that
blacklisting is an injury – and a constitutional tort as well. Mr.
Justice Black in his concurring opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 144-145,
71 S.Ct. 624, 634 (1951): stated: “Our basic law, however, wisely
withheld authority for resort to executive. . .condemnations and
blacklists as a substitute for imposition of legal types of penalties by
courts following trial and conviction in accordance with procedural
safeguards of the Bill of Rights.”
222) Plaintiff
submits to this Court that the Defendants – especially the Jewish
Defendants' orchestration of a hostile environment to exclude Plaintiff
from government-financed judicial, legal, and medical services to prevent
Plaintiff from reporting the aforesaid Jewish immigration attorneys'
commission of aggravated identity theft to the appropriate law
enforcement authorities, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and 42 USC §1983 and §1985, conspiracy against civil rights
such that Plaintiff's Verified Complaint rises to the level of an action
in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 with regard to those Defendants who are
natural persons only. Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme Court's
application of Bivens to natural persons and its refusal to extend Bivens
to agencies.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendants Invaded Plaintiff's
Privacy Based on Intentional Misuse of NSL
or Based on Obtaining Non-NSL, Non-Content Information Illegally
223) Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
224) With
regard to all Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually
and in their official capacities.
225) Plaintiff
is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness.
Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one of more
major life activities.
.
226) Plaintiff
is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose
sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the
ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears;
and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right
from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained by Tara
A. Uzamere, blood heir and the adult child of the marriage between
Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and for her progeny
to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.
227) Defendants
owed Plaintiff the duty not to invade Plaintiff's privacy by using the
non-content information regarding Plaintiff's telephone calls to psychiatric
service providers and to government healthcare providers to accuse
Plaintiff of crimes that were used to illegally rationalize Defendant
Garaufis' dismissal of Plaintiff's civil rights action. Defendants owed
Plaintiff the duty not to invade Plaintiff's privacy by using the
non-content information regarding Plaintiff's telephone calls to
psychiatric care providers and government healthcare providers to
illegally rationalize extortionate/threatening telephone calls and visits
to Plaintiff's home. Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty not to invade
Plaintiff's privacy by using the non-content information regarding
Plaintiff's telephone calls to psychiatric service providers and
government healthcare providers to accuse Plaintiff of crimes that were
used to kidnap Plaintiff and unlawfully imprison/illegally misdiagnose
Plaintiff for crimes that she never committed.
228) Defendants
failed to meet the obligations as detailed in 18 USC §2709
and Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). Defendants, in
their haste to libel Plaintiff as a violent, lawbreaking “wacko” to make
Plaintiff's complaint against them appear to be unbelievable, Defendant
judges conspired with Defendants Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman
and Jewish staff writer Scott Shifrel of the Daily News, LP to
disseminate confidential, nonpublic information regarding Plaintiff's
mental illness and her marriage on paper and in the internet – with the
internet still disseminating the false story regarding the Plaintiff. Plaintiff
is still being attacked by several members of the Jewish community to
prevent her from successfully filing her complaint against the
original lawbreaking attorneys, corrupt immigration attorneys Allen E.
Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.
229) Plaintiff
suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under attack
by all the Defendants. See Defendant Daily News article dated
November 5, 2009, attached as Exhibit R.
230) The
courts of Defendant the United States of America recognize the
intentional misuse of an NSL as an injury – and a constitutional tort as
well. Mr. Justice Black in his concurring opinion in the U.S. Supreme
Court case Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S.
123, 144-145, 71 S.Ct. 624, 634 (1951): stated: “Our basic law, however,
wisely withheld authority for resort to executive. . .condemnations and
blacklists as a substitute for imposition of legal types of penalties by
courts following trial and conviction in accordance with procedural
safeguards of the Bill of Rights.”
231) Plaintiff
submits to this Court that the Defendants – especially the Jewish
Defendants' orchestration of a hostile environment to exclude Plaintiff from
government-financed judicial, legal, and psychiatric services to prevent
Plaintiff from reporting the aforesaid Jewish immigration attorneys'
commission of fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft to the
appropriate law enforcement authorities, violates the Due Process Clause
of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC §1983 and §1985, conspiracy against
civil rights such that Plaintiff's Verified Complaint rises to the level
of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 with regard to those Defendants
who are natural persons only. Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme
Court's application of Bivens to natural persons and its
refusal to extend Bivens to agencies.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Congressional Defendants
Engaged in Campaign Bribery to Advance the Talmudic
Law of the Moser; Congressional Defendants Deprived Plaintiff and
Gentiles of Honest Services
232) Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
233) With
regard to all Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually
and in their official capacities.
234) Plaintiff
is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness.
Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one of more
major life activities.
235) Plaintiff
is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose
sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the
ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears;
and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right
from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained by Tara
A. Uzamere, blood heir and the adult child of the marriage between
Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and for her progeny to
bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.
236) Defendant
Jeffries and his congressional staff, owed Plaintiff the duty,
pursuant to 18 USC §4, to report the crimes that Plaintiff reported to
him to the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security and other Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Jeffries and his congressional staff had, in de
jure, thana de facto responsibility to the Plaintiff to ensure
that Plaintiff's criminal complaint would be investigated or would be
presented to Defendants U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security for investigation.
237) Defendant
Jeffries, his congressional staff and Jews who contributed financially to
Defendant Jeffries' congressional campaign owed Plaintiff the duty to
ensure that they not engage in quid pro quo campaign contributions that
were provided/accepted with the understanding that the aforementioned
were bribes used to require Defendant Jeffries and his staff to engage in
activities that would advance Jewish religion and culture, including the
Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser, at the expense of violating the
civil rights of Gentile constituents, especially the Due Process and
Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
238) Defendant
Jeffries, his congressional staff and Jews who contributed financially to
Defendant Jeffries' congressional campaign owed Plaintiff the duty to
allow her the same type of free access to call and visit Defendant
Jeffries' offices as the Jews who contributed money to Defendant
Jeffries' congressional campaign, and to not conspire to blacklist the
Plaintiff based on her insistence to obtain help from Defendant Jeffries
to report those Defendants – especially those Defendants who are Jewish,
for Defendants' commission of misprision of felony,
fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to
interfere with civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice,
extortion/blackmail, blacklisting and violation of the PATRIOT Act.
239) Defendant
Jeffries and his congressional staff, failed in their duty, pursuant to
18 USC §4, to report the crimes that Plaintiff reported to him, to the
U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and
other Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jeffries and his
congressional staff failed in de jure, or de facto responsibility to the
Plaintiff to ensure that Plaintiff criminal complaint would be
investigated or would be presented to Defendants U.S. Department of
Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for investigation.
240) Defendant
Jeffries, his congressional staff and Jews who contributed financially
failed in their duty to ensure that they not engage in qui pro
quo campaign contributions that were provided/accepted with the
understanding that the aforementioned were bribes used to require Defendant
Jeffries and his staff to engage in activities that would advance Jewish
religion and culture, including the Talmudic doctrine Law of the
Moser, the prohibits Jews from reporting crimes of fellow Jews to the
secular/Gentile authorities, at the expense of violating the civil rights
of Gentile constituents, especially the Due Process and Equal Protection
clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
241) Defendant
Jeffries, his congressional staff and Jews who contributed financially to
Defendant Jeffries' congressional campaign failed in their duty to allow
Plaintiff the same type of free access to call and visit Defendant
Jeffries' offices as the Jews who contributed money to Defendant
Jeffries' congressional campaign; that Defendant Jeffries, his congressional
staff and Jews who contributed financially to Defendant Jeffries'
congressional campaign failed in their duty not to conspire to blacklist
the Plaintiff based on her insistence to obtain help against those Jews
whom Plaintiff has proven committed misprision of felony, fraud,
deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with
civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail
and blacklisting.
242) Plaintiff
suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under attack
by all the Defendants. See Defendant Daily News article dated
November 5, 2009, attached as Exhibit R.
243) The
courts of Defendant the United States of America recognize the acceptance
of a bribe by a public servant as an injury cognizable in
law.
244) Plaintiff
submits to this Court that the Defendants – especially the Jewish
Defendants' orchestration of a hostile environment to exclude Plaintiff
from government-financed judicial, legal, and psychiatric services to
prevent Plaintiff from reporting the aforesaid Jewish immigration
attorneys' commission of fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity
theft to the appropriate law enforcement authorities, violates the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC §1983 and §1985,
conspiracy against civil rights such that Plaintiff's Verified Complaint
rises to the level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 with
regard to those Defendants who are natural persons only. Plaintiff
understands the U.S. Supreme Court's application of Bivens to
natural persons and its refusal to extend Bivens to agencies.
This Court Must Enforce
28 USC §455, 28 USC §1404, 28
USC §1654 and 28 USC §144
to Protect Pro Se Plaintiff's Right to Self-Representation
245) 28
USC §144 says: “Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court
makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before
whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either
against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no
further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such
proceeding.”
246) 28
USC §455 says: “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United
States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify
himself in the following circumstances: (5) He or his spouse, or a person
within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse
of such a person.”
247) 28
USC §1404(a) says: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the
interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to
any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any
district or division to which all parties have consented.”
248) 28
USC §1654 says: “In all courts of the United States the parties may plead
and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of
such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes
therein.”
249) Plaintiff
alleges that if any judge in the Eastern District or Southern District of
New York gets his/her hands on Plaintiff's lawsuit, even though he/she is
a defendant, he/she will violate 28 USC §455, 28 USC §1404, 28 USC §1654
and 28 USC §144, and make a ruling dismissing Plaintiff's case based on:
1) halachic law's mandate not to report the crimes of corrupt Jews Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman and
Scott Shifrel to the secular authorities, 2) judicial nepotism
based on their desire to save Defendant Garaufis from being prosecuted;
and, 3) their ability to hide any act of fraud upon the court on
Plaintiff's being an inexperienced, mentally disabled pro se litigant. If
Plaintiff appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Second Circuit,
even though its judges are also defendants presently engaged in the
commission of several federal offenses, they will violate 28 USC §455, 28
USC §1404, 28 USC §1654 and 28 USC §144, and make an unexplained ruling
dismissing Plaintiff's case based on: 1) halachic law's mandate not to
report the crimes of corrupt Jews Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack
Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel to the secular
authorities; judicial nepotism based on their desire to save Defendant
Garaufis from being prosecuted; and, 3) their ability to hide any act of
fraud upon the court on Plaintiff's being an inexperienced, mentally
disabled pro se litigant. Defendant Garaufis will also depend on law
enforcement agencies like the FBI to illegally monitor Plaintiff and to
hospitalize Plaintiff for any action that can be misconstrued as
warranting long-term psychiatric hospitalization so that Plaintiff can be
“jailed” for having a mental illness without the benefits of a notice of
accusation, a defense attorney and a chance to confront adversarial
witnesses. When Plaintiff last checked, an employee of Defendant FBI
contacted Plaintiff's psychiatric treatment provider to tell them that
Plaintiff had an argument with them about her rights to file criminal
complaints against Jewish persons who violated federal law, treating
Plaintiff's insistence as mental instability. Defendant Garaufis also set
in motion Plaintiff's being falsely accused of committing 115,
threatening Defendant Garaufis with bodily harm, other federal judges,
and employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services call
center with death. Defendant Garaufis instigated the violation of Plaintiff's
Sixth Amendment rights (Plaintiff was able to confront the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services. They confirmed that Plaintiff did not
threaten anyone). Lastly, Defendant Garaufis set in motion the kidnapping
and unlawful imprisonment of Plaintiff in a mental institution for a
federal offense/psychiatric diagnosis which Plaintiff did not commit.
This Court, pursuant to 4, misprision of felony owes both the Plaintiff
and the Constitution of the United States to enforce the law.
250) Defendant
United States' statutes have justly made arrangements to ensure
that any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States
disqualifies himself/herself in any proceeding in which a judge's
impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In the interest of justice
and mercy, federal statutes, along with case law, have arranged that a
district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or
division where it might have been brought or to any district or division
to which all parties have consented – in the best interest of justice.
However, while U.S. Constitutional law ensures that any decision in any
court of the U.S. States reflect that the Due Process Clause and the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are
incorporated in all U.S. judges' decisions, sometimes dishonest federal
judges can intentionally misconstrue federal statutes in a way that
allows the meritless dismissal of a pro se litigant's cases, simply
because a pro se litigant's cases are automatically viewed as lacking
merit, or worse, because the pro se litigant's case has merit but
addresses legal issues against which the judge has a bias.
251) In
the case of the pro se Plaintiff, Plaintiff alleges that any
Defendant judge against whom her action is filed has already conspired
with defendants' attorneys not to enter into any stipulation
with the Plaintiff to transfer her lawsuit to an unbiased venue/venue
that does not have a Jewish majority. Furthermore, none of the defendants
have reported or will report attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Jack Gladstein, Osato Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere for their
commission of aggravated identity theft. Plaintiff alleges that a
disproportionate percentage of the second district's federal judges will
adjudicate Plaintiff's lawsuit in favor of those members of the judiciary
and defendants who are adherents of Talmudic doctrines such as: 1) Law of the Moser;23 2) Curse of Dark Skin;24 3) Judaism, American's New
Government Religion;25 4) Only a Jew Can Rule Over Jews;26 5) Gentiles, rightful slaves of
Jews;27 6) Use of Subterfuge to Trick
Goyim During Lawsuits;28 and,
7) A Gentile's Lost Item Must Not Be Returned if Based
on Compassion.29 Because
of the Second Circuit's religious imbalance of power, non-adherent
judges, who Judaic law does not benefit, in attempts to keep their jobs
and social standing, participate in rendering decisions that honor and
due obeisance to Judaism. In the Second Circuit, Plaintiff's attempts to
have the court enforce 28 USC §455, 28 USC §1404, 28 USC §1654 and 28 USC
§144 are a death knell for Plaintiff's lawsuit. Most of the judges are
Jews. Plaintiff does not understand how the Second Circuit was able to
hire in such a manner as to hire a Jewish majority, or at least a disproportionately
high percentage of Jews.
252) This
court must display the legal, moral and constitutional fortitude to
assist the pro se Plaintiff to enforce 28 USC §455, 28 USC §1404, 28 USC
§1654 and 28 USC §144. Judicial Defendants' district – essentially
a beth din where pro se litigants are concerned, must not be
allowed to secretly enforce halachic doctrines by relying on the
presumed naivéte of pro se litigants who have meritorious
claims that corrupt, federal and New York State judges ignore because of
judges' own personal, unconstitutional biases. Decisions rendered by the
Second Circuit's Talmud-biased federal judges, which have been discarded
by such terms as “not for publication” or “mandate,” but make absolutely
no mention of the meritorious issues in the pro se litigant's
appeal should be noticed by a trained and unbiased judicial eye as an act
of fraud upon the court. This Court must ensure that the pro se Plaintiff
can rely on its unbiased services to enforce 28 USC §455, 28 USC §1404,
28 USC §1654 and 28 USC §144. See Liteky v. U.S., 114
S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994); Liljeberg v. Health Services
Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988); (what matters is
not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United
States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a)
"is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not
the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the
Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants
from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence
in the impartiality of the judicial process."); “Section 455(a)”
requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her
impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v.
O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989); Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456
F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), “It is important that the litigant not only
actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received
justice.” “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); 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."
Federal Judges Are Required to
Construe Pro Se Litigant's Pleadings Liberally
253) In
the U.S. Supreme Court case Haines V. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519 (1972),
Petitioner Menard, a person convicted by the State of Illinois as a felon
– and an individual deemed by the State of Illinois to be unworthy of
living with law-abiding citizens of Illinois, commenced an action against
the Governor of Illinois and other state officers and prison officials
under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and 28
U.S.C. §1343(3), seeking to recover damages for claimed injuries and
deprivation of rights while incarcerated. The dismissed Mr. Menard's
complaint and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed
the court's decision. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, decided against
the Federal District's and U.S. Court of Appeals' decisions. The U.S.
Supreme Court stated in its decision that “Whatever may be the limits on
the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of
prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however
inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer
supporting evidence. . .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.”
There Is No Constitutional or
Statutory Rationale to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
254) In
the past, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Garaufis has fraudulently
misused reasons in the Federal Rules of Civil Practice to illegally
dismiss Plaintiff's Verified Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Garaufis' primarily relies on the religious doctrine Law of the
Moser to prevent Plaintiff from reporting corrupt Jewish immigration
attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Plaintiff
believes that the following FRCP reasons for dismissal do not apply to
Plaintiff's Verified Complaint: (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;
(2) lack of personal jurisdiction; (4) insufficient process; (5)
insufficient service of process; (6) failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted; and (7) failure to join a party under Rule 19.
Plaintiff advises this Court that if Defendant Garaufis receives this
case, even though he is a defendant, he will rule on it. If the judges of
the Second Circuit get it, they will rule on it, even though they are
also Defendants. Plaintiff asks this Court to place her lawsuit in
abeyance until such time that the Defendants stipulates this court as the
venue for Plaintiff's action pursuant to 28 USC §455 and 28 USC §1404,
and if not, to be courageous and make new law that the Plaintiff can
proudly present to the Supreme Court of the United States.
255) Plaintiff
reminds this Court that even if Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, Plaintiff would still have the legal right
to require this Court to point out Plaintiff's mistakes and allow
Plaintiff to make necessary changes to ensure that Plaintiff’s amended
Verified Complaint states a claim on which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff reminds this Court of the inartfully drawn, virtually
incomprehensible complaint of the disruptive, mentally disabled Jewish
litigant Rebecca Gloria Yohalem and demands the same wide
literal latitude – especially since Plaintiff's Verified Complaint is a
lot easier for this Court to read and understand. See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) page 138.
Plaintiff's Request for Review
of Her Allegations Satisfies
the “Good Faith” Requirement of Coppedge v. United States
256) According
to Coppedge v. United States, “The requirement that an appeal
be taken "in good faith" is satisfied when the defendant seeks.
. . review of any issue that is not frivolous. Pp. 369 U. S. 444-445.
257) According
to Coppedge vs. United States, “If, with such aid, the
applicant then presents any issue for the court's consideration which is
not clearly frivolous, leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be
granted. P. 369 U. S. 446. . .P. 369 U. S. 448.”
258) Farley
v. United States, 354 U.S. 521, 77 S.Ct. 1371, 1 L.Ed.2d 1529 defines how
the U.S. Supreme Court applies the “good faith” standard. It states that
“In the absence of some evident improper motive, the applicant's good
faith is established by the presentation of any issue that is not plainly
frivolous. The good-faith test must not be converted into a requirement
of a preliminary showing of any particular degree of merit.
Unless the issues raised are so frivolous that the appeal would be
dismissed in the case of a nonindigent litigant . . .the request of an
indigent for leave to appeal in forma pauperis must be allowed.
259) Plaintiff's
alleges that her Verified Complaint addresses issues that are not frivolous
issues. At the very least, it questions the judicial Defendants' refusal
to treat the Plaintiff and her daughter fairly in the face of allegations
that Plaintiff has established are irrefutable. It demands a final answer
to the question of the identity of Plaintiff's former husband and father
of Tara A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage. It accuses the
Defendants – especially the judicial Defendants of criminal behavior,
beginning with 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, up to and including 18 USC
§1962, RICO/racketeering, based upon judicial Defendants obstruction of
justice with regard to commencing a criminal investigation against
immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and
Osato E. Uzamere for their commission of fraud, identity theft, and
aggravated identity theft. Plaintiff's Verified Complaint is
well-written, well-researched and well-documented. Plaintiff is legally
entitled to be enveloped by the gossamer wings of the Fourteenth
Amendment's Equal Protection extension intended for people who are
disabled –– Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act
and Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), which states that
“[u]njustified isolation . . . is properly regarded as
discrimination based on disability,” observing that “institutional
placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings
perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are
incapable of or unworthy of participating in community life.” 527 U.S. at
597, 600. The “integration mandate” of Title II of the American with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §791 et seq., as expressed in federal
regulations and Olmstead, requires that when a state provides services to
individuals with disabilities, it must do so “in the most integrated
setting appropriate to their needs.” The “most integrated setting,”
according to the federal regulations, is “a setting that enables
individuals with disabilities to interact with non-disabled persons to
the fullest extent possible.” 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d); 28 C.F.R. pt. 35 app.
A.
During
the time that I was trying to obtain help from the Government-financed
foster care system, my son David was forced to eat feces while a client
with Edenwald in Pleasantville, New York. David was given
several psychotropic drugs
including Benedryl, Melloril, Tegratol, Haldol, Haldol and
Cogentin.
While
my daughter Tara was a client with Angel Guardian
Home, she was sexually assaulted by other children in the home where she
was living. She was about six years old at the time of her assault. She
was taken to Kings County Hospital, where she was put to sleep to have
foreign matter removed from her vagina.
On
February 3, 1993, while I was trying to have my children returned to me,
the Government-financed foster care system placed me in St. Vincent’s
Hospital from February 3, 1993 to February 19, 1993. This is the first
instance in which the Government’s Ashkenazi-controlled leadership placed
me in a mental institution while I was exercising my First Amendment
right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Since
that time, every single occasion in which I have been accused of some
crime, jailed and later had the charges dismissed involved a member of
Ashkenazi leadership whose interests were stymied based on my exercise of
my First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of
grievances. Nearly every inpatient psychiatric intervention in which I
was victimized was instigated by a member of Ashkenazi leadership. It is
a miracle of Jehovah God, that my children are productive, employed
members of society, and that while I am still a victim of this Court’s
Ashkenazi-judge majority, I speak four (4) different languages; I am
legally well-trained, both civilly and criminally, and in both federal
and New York State law; I am known in my neighborhood as someone who has
helped others obtain governmental services and have given of my time and
money to help others. Most importantly, with Jehovah God’s help, I am
still alive, with a strong mind and with relatively good health, although
I am nearly sixty (60) years old.
The
Government omits its own records that establishes that my visit to the
Social Security Administration office was nothing more than the exercise
of my First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of
grievances as the victim of bank fraud. The Ashkenazi-controlled
Government has criminalized my family for nearly 40 years. The
sufficiency of evidence that I now present irrefutably establishes the
Government’s failure to state a cognizable offense in this instance, just
as it has done in every instance in which a member of Ashkenazi
leadership used the Government to enforce Ashkenazi Jews’ religion that
advocates hatred of people of African descent and enforcement of Law of
Moser.
Since
the Government has failed to state to a cognizable offense, as it has in
the past, the Government’s complaints against me must be dismissed as a
matter of law.
CHERYL
D. UZAMERE
FORCED
TO APPEAR PRO SE
1209
Loring Avenue
Apt.
6B
Brooklyn,
NY 11208
Tel.:
(718) 535-7628
Fax:
(303) 943-4403
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net
|
![Jew whipping slave[6]](chapter_5_united_states_v_uzamere_files/image130.png)
![WTC Falling Death2[3]](chapter_5_united_states_v_uzamere_files/image198.png)
![Jew whipping slave[6]](chapter_5_united_states_v_uzamere_files/image294.png)
