SDNY Judge José
A. Cabranes is in the unenviable position of being a member of a tiny ethnic/racial
minority of judges whose ability to render justice has been overpowered by the
2nd Circuit's larger, stronger, ruthless Talmud-oriented judiciary. Choosing to
strengthen his less powerful social status by cooperating with the more powerful Talmud-oriented
judiciary rather than upsetting the status quo and sacrificing his career,
Judge Cabranes allowed Talmud loyalist Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis to influence
him to render a biased, unconstitutional decision, thereby commiting fraud upon the court.
In the decision
that was handed down by Judge Cabranes, he parrots essentially
the same untrue statement that was made by Judge Garaufis: "the
complainant has filed numerous civil actions in the district court...related to her abandonment by
her ex-husband."
Judge Cabranes' parroting of this statement is a blatant act of fraud upon the court, a criminal act that violates 18 U.S.C. §241, 18 U.S.C. §242, the First Amendment's doctrine of separation of religion and government and the Fifth Amendment's and Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. His behavior appears to be based on the belief that pro
se victims of biased decisions lack the ability of to disseminate the decisions to the
general public public.
In order to
teach this constitutionally-challenged bully a lesson, I have taken the liberty
of uploading Judge Cabranes' decision to my website so that the whole world can see
Judge Cabranes for what he truly is -- a traitor of the U.S. Constitution.
Proof that Judge Cabranes Committed Fraud upon the Court
Point I -- Complainant Knows that Abandonment
of a Spouse is a State Issue, Not a Federal Issue
I know that the issue of abandonment
of a spouse is purely a state issue. Having prepared my own divorce action, I researched New York State Domestic Relations Law. Domestic Relations Law §170(2) says: "An action for divorce may be maintained by a husband or wife to procure a judgment
divorcing the parties and dissolving the marriage
on any of the following grounds...the abandonment of the plaintiff by the defendant
for a period of one or more years."
If I know the aforementioned law well enough to understand that I cannot use legal
grounds based on New York State law in a federal district court, why would I litigate grounds based on New
York State law in a federal court?
The above succinctly shows that Judge Cabranes' fraudulent implication that
I used spousal abandonment as an actionable federal ground in my
lawsuit is untrue and an act of fraud upon the court.
Point II -- Spouse's Abandonment Cannot Be An Issue Because
Spouse is not a Party to the Action
SDNY Judge José A. Cabranes is in the unenviable position
of being a member of a tiny ethnic/racial minority of judges whose ability to render justice has been overpowered by the
2nd Circuit's larger, stronger, ruthless Talmud-oriented judiciary. Choosing to strengthen his less powerful
social status by cooperating with the more powerful Talmud-oriented judiciary rather than upsetting the status
quo and sacrificing his career, Judge Cabranes allowed Talmud loyalist Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis to influence him to render
a biased, unconstitutional decision, thereby commiting fraud upon the court.
In the decision that was handed
down by Judge Cabranes, he parrots essentially the same untrue statement that was made by Judge Garaufis: "the
complainant has filed numerous civil actions in the district court...related to her abandonment by her ex-husband."
Judge Cabranes' parroting of this statement
is a blatant act of fraud upon the court, a criminal act that violates 18 U.S.C. §241, 18 U.S.C. §242, the First Amendment's doctrine of separation of religion and government and the Fifth Amendment's and Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. His behavior appears to be based on the belief that pro
se victims of biased decisions lack the ability of to disseminate the decisions to the general public public.
In order to teach this constitutionally-challenged
bully a lesson, I have taken the liberty of uploading Judge Cabranes' decision to my website so that the whole world can see
Judge Cabranes for what he truly is -- a traitor of the U.S. Constitution.
Proof that Judge Cabranes Committed Fraud upon the Court
Point I -- Complainant Knows that Abandonment of a Spouse is a State
Issue, Not a Federal Issue
I know that
the issue of abandonment of a spouse is purely a state issue. Having prepared my own divorce action, I researched New York State Domestic Relations Law. Domestic Relations Law §170(2) says: "An action for divorce may be maintained by a husband or wife to procure a judgment
divorcing the parties and dissolving the marriage on any of the following grounds...the abandonment
of the plaintiff by the defendant for a period of one or more years."
If I know the aforementioned law well enough to understand that I cannot
use legal grounds based on New York State law in a federal district court, why would I litigate grounds based on New
York State law in a federal court?
The above succinctly shows that Judge Cabranes' fraudulent implication that I used spousal abandonment
as an actionable federal ground in my lawsuit is untrue and an act of fraud upon the court.
Point II -- Spouse's Abandonment Cannot Be An Issue Because
Spouse is not a Party to the Action
My petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court lists the following defendants: Allen E. Kaye, P.C.; Uzamere and Associates,
PLLC; Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP; Allen E. Kaye Esq.; Eugene O. Uzamere, Esq.; Robert E. Juceam, Esq.;
Jack Gladstein, Esq.; Eugenia Cowles, Esq.; Rachel McCarthy, Esq.; Andrew Cuomo, Esq.; Honorable Michael Bloomberg; Honorable
A. Gail Prudenti, Judge of the Appellate Court 2nd Judicial Department; Honorable Abraham Gerges, Judge of the Supreme Court,
Kings County; Honorable Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Judge of Supreme Court Kings County; James Edward Pelzer, Clerk of Appellate
Court 2nd Judicial Department; Joseph Visceglia, Municipal Clerk; Bernard J. Rostansky, Notary Public; State of New York;
City of New York and New York City Clerk's Office.
If one takes notice of the list of defendants, the "ex-husband" mentioned in Judge Cabranes' decision is not
mentioned as a defendant. Why would Judge Cabranes state that this case is "related to her abandonment by
her "ex-husband" when the "ex-husband" is not a party to the action?
The above succinctly shows
that Judge Cabranes' implied reference to my husband as some kind of "secret" party to my federal action when
my husband is not mentioned as a party to my federal complaint/writ of certiorari is dishonest.
Point III -- Falsified Documents Established
that Constitutional Torts is the Ground for Complaint
Listed below are the documents that were falsifed by attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Bernard J. Rostanski:
Marriage affidavit that contains Senator Uzamere's fictitious name at the
top and his real name signed at the bottom;
Marriage certificate with
the fictitious name "Godwin E. Uzamere" that Senator Uzamere used to marry me;
Immigration agency's I-130 immediate relative sponsorship form that was falsified by Senator Uzamere, immigration
attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro, and notary public/attorney Bernard J. Rostanski;
Immigration agency's Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney signed by immigration attorney Harvey Shapiro;
Correspondence from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (now U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Service) containing immigration number A35-201-224 based on real name "Ehigie Edobor Uzamere";
Correspondence from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (now U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Service) containing immigration number A24-027-764 based on fictitious name "Godwin E. Uzamere";
Arrest warrant issued Senator Uzamere for non-payment of child support;
Immigration attorney Allen E. Kaye's letter dated July 22, 2003 admitting that Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere is my husband;
Federal summons for disorderly conduct and
making loud noise; U.S. Attorney dropped the charge (to prevent me from appearing in front of a judge and reporting Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Bernard Rostanski);
Judge Murtha's dismissal
based on U.S. Attorney's withdrawal of Rachel McCarthy charge of simple assault (to prevent me from appearing in
front of a judge and reporting Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Bernard Rostanski);
Report from Rachel McCarthy of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service regarding the two immigration
files of Allen Kaye's and Harvey Shapiro's client;
Rachel
McCarthy's letter dated January 6, 2009;
Subpoena requiring Harvey
Shapiro to come to court;
Subpoena requiring Allen Kaye to come to
court;
Allen Kaye's letter dated March 24, 2009 refusing to comply
with subpoena;
Federal summonses for disorderly conduct and destroying
government property; U.S. Attorney later dropped the charges (to prevent me from appearing in front of a judge and reporting
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Bernard Rostanski);
Judge Sunshine's
Decision and Order determining that Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere is my husband;
Judge Cabranes' decision and order.
It should be obvious to a person of reasonable
intelligence that Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Bernard J. Rostanski's crime of aiding and abetting their
client's use of a fraudulent name and birthday to circumvent immigration law and withhold proof of the
real name and birthday that is now my property, thereby violating my Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment
right not to be deprived property without due process of law is the proximate reason for the filing of my lawsuit.
Spousal abandonment has never been a ground upon which I filed my federal complaint.
The above succinctly shows that Judge Cabranes' refusal to refer
to the falsified documents that I submitted in my complaint of misconduct against Judge Garaufis decision is dishonest.
Point IV -- Judge Cabranes' Misuse
of Anti-Semitism Violates the First Amendment
Personal views of anti-Semitism, while viewed by many as morally wrong, is not addressed by
the U.S. Constitution. However, it is a halakhic issue in Judaism. Paragraph 12 of Gentiles in Halacha states that "The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews, one may hate a Gentile." Paragraph M
entitled You Shall Not Hate states that "Anyone who hates a Jew in his heart transgresses a negative commandment."
The charge of anti-Semitism, other than in situations where federal civil rights and state human rights have been violated
is defamatory and unconstitutional.
In the U.S. District Court case Quigley v. Aronson, et al, the Anti-Defamation used anti-Semitism as a ground to spy on and smear the reputations of William and Dorothy Quigley.
The jury in this case awarded the Quigleys damages, mostly punitive, of $10.5 million.
The Anti-Defamation League was also a defendant in a federal lawsuit
after raids were made by the San Francisco Police Department and the FBI on offices of the ADL in both San Francisco
and Los Angeles, which found that the ADL was engaged in extensive domestic spying operations on a vast number of individuals
and institutions around the country, based on anti-Semitism concerns. Eventually the ADL was found
guilty and forced to pay damages for using spying/smear campaign based on the charge of anti-Semitism against former
Congressman Peter McCloskey.
The above succinctly shows
that Judge Cabranes' inferences to anti-Semitism as a basis for dismissing my complaint against Ashkenazi judges Nicholas
Garaufis (Judge A), Leonard Sand (Judge B) and Miriam Goldman-Cedarbaum (Judge C) are both dishonest and biased.
Point V -- Judge Cabranes Use of
Mistruths and Willful Blindness to Feign Ignorance of Plaintiff Wrongful Arrests
It
is safe to assume that Judge Cabranes is articulate with regard to the use and understanding of the English
language. That being said, why would he give the false impression that I said and meant that I
was a criminal defendant in a case against Judge Cedarbaum, Judge Sand or Judge Garaufis when such was never the case?
Why did Judge Cabranes fail to mention the criminal cases for which I was charged while attempting to exercise my
constitutional right to present my allegations to a federal court? Most important, why did Judge Cabranes
fail to mention that every single charge for which I had to appear in federal court was dropped by the U.S. Attorney?
Judge Cabranes' use of mistruths and willful blindness to
feign ignorance of plaintiff's wrongful arrests while I attempted to exercise my constitutional right to due process succinctly
shows that he is both dishonest and biased.
Point VI -- Rabbi Broyde's Informing on Fellow Jews Who Commit Crimes Was Ignored by Judge Cabranes
In the aforementioned document, Rabbi Michael Broyde (not Louis Farrakhan or any other individual deemed to
be anti-Semitic) stated: "...the Talmud recounts - in a number of places - that it is prohibited to inform
on Jews to the secular government, even when their conduct is a violation of secular law and even when their conduct is a
violation of Jewish law." Is this statement restricted to Rabbi Broyde? Let's see:
-
Moser Solomon Dwek -- "Inside the shops and the Syrian synagogue, few would talk about Solomon Dwek, the man they feel
is a turncoat to his own people. "To do something like that to the community is a disgrace," Syrian community member
Joy Abboud said. Some in the Jewish community in Deal, New Jersey feel burned after five rabbis were...rounded up by
the feds, arrests only possible with Dwek's help...Dwek was a government informant." - Case of Informant Reverberates Through L.A.’s Orthodox Community -- "Indeed, the question of Kasirer — the FBI witness who turned state’s evidence
against the Hasidic rebbe in exchange for a lighter sentence on previous fraud charges stemming from his health care business
— seems to be weighing most heavily on people’s minds, according to Los Angeles rabbis interviewed by the Forward.
In traditional Jewish law, if a Jew reports another Jew to the government, he is deemed a moser, and in some
interpretations, a moser’s actions are punishable by death."
The Spinka money trail—and the informant who brought them down -- "...the case has sparked a fierce debate about the type of behavior that is acceptable for observant
people and what type of religious community Los Angeles would like to be. But there's also debate about the laws of
a moser, an informant, because one person who was not charged was the primary source of information for the federal
case -- though he allegedly started out as one of the perpetrators."- Rambam Nizakin 8:10 -- “It is permissible to murder one who is deemed an informant
anywhere even today that we don’t judge capital cases, and it is even permitted to murder him before he informs by just
hearing him say, “I will inform on said individual with regard to his physical body or his money”. This even applies
for an insignificant amount of money. He thereby has doomed himself to be killed, and we warn him and we tell him “do
not inform”, if he is defiant and he says,”No, I will still inform” it is a Mitzvah to kill him and whoever
seizes the opportunity first to kill him will be rewarded.”
- Rambam Tshuva 3:12, and chovil U’mazik 8:9: -- “there are two kinds of informers, one who delivers his friend to gentiles to
kill or injure him, or one who conveys his friend’s money to the gentiles… neither of these (informers), have
a portion in the world to come”.
- Jewish World/Parents ignore child abuse at rabbi's advice, by Efrat Weiss -- "...ultra-Orthodox parents ignored sexual abuse of their two children
after their rabbi warned filing charges may invoke halachic rule equal to 'din moser'...the mother
reportedly told the investigators that she was "powerless...several neighbors witnessed the suspect molesting the children
in public, but failed to report him. The children's father claimed that he consulted his rabbi, who told him that unless he
witnesses the acts himself, reporting it would be like rendering a "Din Moser." "Din Moser" is
an ancient halachic law pertaining to informants, which according to the austere interpretation of Jewish tradition,
equals a death sentence."
Judge
Cabranes' embarrassingly lame attempt to defame my character by implying that I am an anti-Semite is unconstitutional,
and is an overt attempt to use Talmudic religious doctrine to deprive me of constitutional right to proceed in a lawsuit
against Ashkenazim Allen E. Kaye, Jack Gladstein and Bernard Rostanski, in violation 18 U.S.C. §242, deprivation
of rights under color of law.
Point VII
-- Judge Cabranes Misinterpretation of Federal Disqualification Requirements is Fraud upon the Court
On page 6 of Judge Cabranes' decision, he states
that "the complainant's bald allegation that Judges A, B, and C were biased towards members of their own faith are wholly
conclusory, and are therefore dismissed as "lacking sufficient evidence to raise an inference that midconduct has occurred..."
However, the federal requirements of 28 U.S.C. §455 say something different regarding judicial recusal:
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would
entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality (Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance
of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters
is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section
455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section
455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge
but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant
not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice",
Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14,
75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is in violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice
is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
The above succinctly shows that Judge Cabranes' statement regarding judicial misconduct based on bias is a gross misinterpresation
of 28 U.S.C. §455, such that Judge Cabraness has committed fraud upon the court.
Lastly, the questions that still beg to be answered are: 1) Why have Judge Garaufis, who is an Jewish, Judge Cedarbaum,
who is Jewish and Judge Sand, who is Jewish, made no attempt to review or even mention my allegations regarding the acts of
fraud committed by Allen E. Kaye, who is Jewish, Harvey Shapiro, who is Jewish, Jack Gladstein, who is Jewish and Bernard
J. Rostanski, who is Jewish, although I submitted irrefutable proof of my allegations? 2) Why, in spite of all the times
that federal agencies charged me with petty offenses, have I never been allowed to appear before a judge to present my allegations
against the aforesaid attorneys? 3)Why does each judge who touches my case always change the subject?
Conclusion
I presented government documentation that clearly establishes that my
complaint concerns the violation of my constitutional rights -- not spousal abandonment. I produced irrefutable proof
that both the defendants in my writ of certiorari and the judges who dismissed my action belong to the same religion.
Furthermore, I produced irrefutable evidence the aforesaid individuals are fellow members of the religion that promulgates
the doctrine that reporting the crimes of fellow members is prohibited. Most importantly, I produced irrefutable government
documentation that the fraudulent attempt to illegally circumvent immigration laws by Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Bernard
J. Rostanski caused the violation of my constitutional rights and that no federal judge who had the opportunity to view my
case obeyed 18 U.S.C. §4, misprision of felony and reported the attorneys to the authorities.
Judge Cabranes commited fraud upon the Court based primarily on Talmudic
bias. He committed treason upon the Constitution.
What the...???
