|
NEW YORK STATE COURT OF CLAIMS
* Cheryl
D. Uzamere * Claim
No.:_______
Plaintiff, * -against-
VERIFIED CLAIM State of New York
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED *
Defendants.
Claimant Cheryl D. Uzamere, appearing on her own behalf, states and alleges the following: 1) That at all times herein
relevant, the Claimant was a resident of the State of New York, City of Brooklyn and County of Kings. 2) That at all times herein
relevant, Defendant State of New York provided and continues to provide funding to the New York State Office of Mental Health. 3) That
at all times herein relevant, Defendant State of New York, by and through the New York State Office of Mental Health, provided
and continues to provide funds to Federation Employment and Guidance Services, Inc. (hereinafter “FEGS., Inc.), Interfaith
Medical Center Continuing Day Treatment Program, New York Psychotherapy and Counseling Center, Catholic Charities' Flatlands
Guidance Center and Catholic Charities' Open Door Psychosocial Clubhouse.
4) That at all times herein relevant, Claimant is (or was) in receipt of Defendant-funded
mental health rehabilitative services. JURISDICTION NEW YORK STATE CONSOLIDATED LAWS – COURT OF CLAIMS ACT 5) a)
Waiver of immunity from liability. The state hereby waives its immunity from liability and action and hereby assumes liability
and consents to have the same determined in accordance with the same rules of law as applied to actions in the supreme court
against individuals or corporations, provided the claimant complies with the limitations of this article. b) To
hear and determine all matters now pending in the said court of claims.
c) To hear and determine a claim of any person, corporation or municipality against the state for...the torts of its officers
or employees while acting as such officers or employees, providing the claimant complies with the limitations of this article.
d) To render judgment in favor of the claimant...for such sum as should be paid by or to the state. BACKGROUND FACTS
6) Claimant's action arises out of Defendant's recent discovery of Defendant's reason
for discharge of and/or implied consent to discharge Claimant, by and on behalf of Defendant State of New York's Office of
Mental Health for commission of the halachic/Jewish religious crime of anti-Semitism.
7) That Defendant's illegal discharge/implied consent to discharge of Claimant for
the commission of a halachic/Jewish religious crime without informing Claimant of the reason for the aforesaid discharge and
without allowing Claimant to defend herself against the aforesaid charge violates Defendant's Constitution's due process clause. 8) That
Defendant's illegal discharge/implied consent to discharge of Claimant for the commission of a halachic/Jewish religious crime
violates the New York State Constitution's equal protection clause.
9) That Defendant's illegal discharge of Claimant based on the commission of a halachic/Jewish
religious crime violates Defendant's Constitution's freedom to worship clause.
10) That Defendant's use of New York State's taxpayers' money to discharge Claimant
and/or give tacit permission for Claimant to be discharged to promulgate Jewish religious law, when said money should have
been used to provide Claimant with mental health rehabilitative services is a flagrant act of fraud on the part of the Defendant. 11) That
Defendant's use of taxpayer-funded mental health service agencies to intentionally allow their powerful Jewish supervisory
employees to ensure that Claimant is intentionally misdiagnosed as having paranoid schizophrenia, and then to falsely use
the aforesaid misdiagnosis to discredit Claimant's well-founded complaint against corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye,
Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein is a flagrant act of fraud, and an act of demonic cruelty. 12) That
Defendant's use of its Jewish supervisory staff's great power to coerce less powerful non-Jews not to assist Claimant is a
flagrant act of cruelty on the part of Defendant.
13) That Defendant's failure to provide Claimant with mental health services combined
with crime victim services as Claimant is a victim of immigration fraud and identity fraud, and instead combining the power
of Defendant's Office of Mental Health with Defendant's Unified Court System to prevent Claimant from reporting the crimes
of corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein is both an act of fraud
and an act of cruelty. 14)
That violation of Claimant's right to equal protection is an implied cause of action in the manner of Brown v. State of New York, 89 N.Y.2d 172, 674 N.E.2d 1129, 652 N.Y.S.2d 223, 65 USLW 2355 (1996) (citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). CLAIMANT'S ASSERTIONS/ALLEGATIONS 15) Claimant asserts that while
she was (or should have been) in receipt Defendant's government-funded outpatient, mental health rehabilitative services,
Defendant, by and through the New York State Office of Mental Health, terminated and/or tacitly gave permission for the termination
of Claimant based on Defendant's allegation that Claimant committed a halachic/Jewish religious crime against FEGS, to wit: 16) Claimant
asserts that on July 17, 2009, Claimant filed an action for fraud against corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Bernard J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein for their facilitation of Claimant's ex-husband's commission of immigration fraud
and identity fraud (see Exhibit A, pages 1-13).
17) Claimant asserts that on November 5, 2009, less than four (4) months after Claimant
filed her action for fraud against the aforementioned attorneys, Mortimer Zuckerman-owned Daily News, LP and Jewish staff
writer Scott Shifrel published an article libeling Claimant as an anti-Semite wacko” (see Exhibit B). 18) Claimant
asserts that on November 30, 2009, four (4) months after Claimant filed an action for fraud against corrupt Jewish attorneys
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein; and less than a month after the Daily News libeled
Claimant an “anti-Semitic wacko”, Claimant was discharged from receiving FEGS, Inc.'s government-funded services
for committing the Jewish religious crime of anti-Semitism (Exhibit C, pages 1-2). 19) Claimant asserts that on
December 1, 2009, Clifford Nafus, employee of Defendant-funded, Jewish-controlled FEGS, Inc., consented to the aforementioned
psychosocial discharge report statement that “given client's history of making anti-Semitic remarks, treatment at an FEGS facility is inappropriate for her” by signing his name on the aforementioned psychosocial discharge
report. 20)
Claimant asserts that on December 4, 2009, Roberta Siegal, who is Jewish, consented to the aforementioned psychosocial discharge
report by signing her name on the aforementioned report.
21) Claimant asserts that on December 4, 2009, Dr. Howard Forster, who is Jewish,
consented to the aforementioned psychosocial discharge report by signing his name on the aforementioned report. 22) Claimant
asserts that in February 2010, during Claimant' last week with Defendant's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center as an inpatient, Defendant's
employee Laurie Velcimé informed Claimant that except for Brookdale Medical Center's outpatient psychiatric department,
all the not-for-profit outpatient mental health rehabilitative service agencies with which Ms. Velcimé filed a request
for services on behalf of the Claimant turned down Claimant's request.
23) Claimant asserts that while she was an inpatient with Defendant's Kingsboro
Psychiatric Center, she informed its staff that based on her lawsuit against the four (4) Jewish attorneys who facilitated
Claimant's ex-husband's commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud, and based on Claimant's fear of backlash from
members of the Jewish community, Claimant would only accept therapy from therapists who were not Jewish. 24) Claimant alleges that when
she commenced receiving services from Brookdale Medical Hospital's outpatient psychiatry department, she was assigned to a
psychiatrist who was Jewish; and that based on Claimant's fear, Claimant stopped attending Brookdale Medical Center's psychiatric
clinic. 25)
Claimant asserts that in May 2010, during her last week with Defendant' Kingsboro Psychiatric Center as an inpatient, Defendant's
employee Laurie Velcimé informed Claimant that all the not-for-profit outpatient mental health agencies with which
Ms. Velcimé filed a request for services on behalf of the Claimant turned down Claimant's request. 26) Claimant asserts that the
referenced not-for-profit outpatient mental health rehabilitative service agencies include, but are not limited to: 1) Interfaith
Medical Center CDT; 2) Saint Vincent Catholic Medical Center CDT and 3) New York Psychotherapy and Counseling Center. 27) Claimant
asserts that in May 2010, while she was an inpatient with Defendant's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center, she informed its staff
that based on her lawsuit against the four (4) Jewish attorneys who facilitated Claimant's ex-husband's commission of immigration
fraud and identity fraud, and based on Claimant's fear of backlash from members of the Jewish community, Claimant would only
accept therapy from therapists who were not Jewish.
28) Claimant asserts that Defendant's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center's Ward 12 staff
honored Claimant's request by providing Claimant with a psychiatric treatment team that contained no Jews (see Exhibit
D). 29)
Claimant asserts that in September 2010, Defendant's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center's Intensive Management Program's caseworker
Bridget Davis arranged for Claimant to meet with Defendant-funded outpatient mental health service providers Flatlands Guidance
Center and Open Door Psychosocial Club; and that Claimant was made to believe that Defendant's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center
would continue to accede to Claimant's request to ensure that the only individuals who would provide Claimant with therapy
were non-Jews who were culturally sensitive to Claimant's needs as an African American and as a crime victim. 30) Claimant
asserts that on three (3) occasions, Defendant, by its intensive case management caseworker Bridget Davis, tricked Claimant
into divulging sensitive information to Catholic Charities' employees Monica “Doe”, Dr. Sterling and Dr. Partyka,
all of whom attempted to hide the fact that they are Jewish from the Claimant.
31) Claimant asserts that after informing Defendant-funded Flatlands Guidance Center
and Open Door Psychosocial Club that she would only accept therapy from a therapist who was non-Jewish, an unidentified Jewish
male employee informed fellow employees that Claimant is an anti-Semite; and that after weeks of issues with transference,
and continued fear and sadness at being identified as anti-Semitic, Claimant left.
32) Claimant asserts that in November 2010, she requested her psychiatric records
from FEGS, Inc.; that FEGS, Inc., no longer in any logical position, and with no legal reason to defy Defendant's Mental Hygiene
Law by continuing to hide its reason for Claimant's discharge from Claimant, acceded to Claimant's request (see Exhibit
E); and that Claimant immediately commenced preparing her lawsuit against Defendant based on the recent discovery
of Defendant's religious reason for FEGS, Inc.'s discharge of Claimant.
33) Claimant strongly asserts that although she suspected that FEGS, Inc.'s reason
for discharging her was based in the Daily News' public portrayal of her as an “anti-Semitic wacko”, Claimant,
being legally self-trained and familiar with certain aspects of halachic/Jewish religious culture, never
imagined that FEGS, Inc., having a legal department or access to attorneys, would be foolish enough to write down anti-Semitism
as its reason for discharging Claimant; and that Claimant surmises that the only logical reason for FEGS, Inc.'s writing down
anti-Semitism as its reason for discharging Claimant is because of the belief that Claimant would never see the report. 34) Claimant
asserts that Defendant, by and through the New York State Office of Mental Health, made absolutely no attempt, verbally or
in writing, to tell Claimant the reason why she was discharged from its taxpayer-funded outpatient mental health agency; and
that further to this, Defendant, by its agency New York State Office of Mental Health, never gave Claimant an opportunity
to defend herself against the allegation that Claimant committed a halachic/Jewish religious crime. 35) Claimant asserts that Daat
Emet's article entitled Gentiles in Halacha, states the following: “the prohibition to hate only applies to Jews. One
may hate a gentile”; that “one make take revenge against or hold a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise the commandment
“love your neighbor” applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles”; that “anyone who hates a Jew in his heart
transgresses a negative commandment”; that also, anyone who hold a grudge against a Jew transgresses a negative commandment;
and that “it is a commandment for each and every person to love each and every Jew as he loves himself” (see Exhibit
F, pages 1-3). 36)
Claimant asserts that the article Informing on Jews Who Commit Crimes states that “the Talmud recounts – in a
number of places – that is prohibited to inform on Jews to the secular government, when their conduct is a violation
of secular law...” (see Exhibit G).
37) Claimant asserts that based on the above, Claimant's filing of the action for
fraud against corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein with a non-religious,
secular court is the act of anti-Semitism for which Claimant is being punished.
38) Claimant asserts that every judge within the five (5) boroughs of New York City
to whom Claimant has presented her complaint against corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski
and Jack Gladstein has been Jewish; and further to this, the aforesaid Jewish judges have either enjoined Claimant from further
litigation or have required Claimant to pay courts fees (see Exhibit H, pages 1-4). 39) Claimant asserts that having
to pay $340.00 court costs ($80.00 transcript; $210.00, lawsuit against FEGS, Inc.; $50.00 for New York State Court of Claims)
along with rent, internet, ink, toner, paper and other costs necessary to proceed with her cases, Claimant now has no money
for food and must wait until December 12, 2010 for her food stamps (see Exhibit I). 40) Claimant asserts that Defendant's
government has become a incubator and sustains a demonic cartel whose members are at liberty to attack any non-Jew –
man, woman or child at will – but whose judiciary will invoke the Talmud's prohibition on reporting the wrongdoing of
any member of the Jewish community to the secular authorities, and that there is no way for any non-Jew who has no political
clout or money to fight back (see Exhibit J).
41) Claimant asserts that the Defendant's Office of Mental Health is also under
the demonic grip of the aforesaid religious cartel; and that members of the aforementioned cartel who are employed with Defendant's
Office of Mental Health will continue to ensure that Claimant is prohibited from reporting the crimes of corrupt Jewish attorneys
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein until Claimant is dead. 42) That Claimant respectfully
reminds this Court that by the time it is in receipt of this Claim, Claimant will already have forwarded it to the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights based on Claimant's belief that Defendant's Office of Mental Health
receives funding from the aforesaid federal agency, and based on Claimant's assertion that the Defendant has fraudulently
used federal money to advance the cause of Judaism, and to invoke the Talmudic doctrine prohibiting Jews from reporting the
crimes of fellow Jews to secular authorities. VIOLATION OF NEW YORK
STATE CONSTITUTION'S DUE PROCESS , EQUAL PROTECTION FREEDOM
TO WORSHIP CLAUSES AND AS FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 43) Claimant
hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 42 as if fully set forth herein. 44) That
Defendant, by and through the New York State Office of Mental Health, owed Claimant the duty of allowing Claimant to use its
Defendant-funded mental health service agencies, Inc. to receive outpatient mental health services equally as it does with
mentally disabled clients who are Jews.
45) That Defendant, by and through the New York State Office of Mental Health, owed
Claimant the duty of requiring its Defendant-funded mental health service agency to tell Claimant the reason for its discharge
of Claimant so as to give Claimant the same equal protection to appeal Defendant's agency's decision as it does to its mentally
disabled clients who are Jewish. 46)
That Defendant, by and through the New York State Office of Mental Health, owed Claimant the duty to require its Defendant-funded
mental health service agency to limit its description of the Claimant to objective, psychiatric, psychosocial criteria as
outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, and to not describe Claimant based
on Defendant's Jewish cartel's religious laws.
47) That Defendant, by and through the New York State Office of Mental Health, owed
Claimant the duty of protecting Claimant's right to equal protection under the law by ensuring that its Defendant-funded mental
health service agencies prepared Claimant's psychiatric/psychosocial report in a manner consistent with Defendant's laws and
industry criteria; and not with incendiary words that would make readers who are Jewish angry with Claimant, and readers who
are not Jewish feel coerced to agree with employees who are Jewish for fear of being subjected to the same retaliation from
Defendant's Jewish cartel that Claimant now experiences.
49) That Defendant, by and through the New York State Office of Mental Health, owed
Claimant the duty of providing a culturally sensitive, caring environment in which Claimant could talk about the crimes that
were committed against her by corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein;
and not an environment that punished Claimant as an anti-Semite for speaking with therapists about the crimes that were committed
against Claimant's family by the aforesaid attorneys.
50) That Defendant, by and through the New York State Office of Mental Health, owed
Claimant the duty of ensuring that its taxpayer-funded outpatient, mental health service agencies used funds provided by Defendant
to diagnose Claimant based on Defendant's lawful and industry-accepted criteria; and that Defendant owed Claimant the duty
to ensure that taxpayer-funded outpatient, mental health services were not fraudulently used to misdiagnose Claimant based
on the religious desires and retaliatory whims of Defendant's powerful Jewish cartel.
51) That wholly and solely as a result of the tortious acts of Defendant's Office
of Mental Health, Claimant suffered personal injuries by way of violation of Claimant's right to equal protection, violation
of Claimant's right to due process of law, violation of Claimant's right to freedom to worship, public scorn, difficulty in
securing outpatient mental health services and severe mental and emotional distress for which Claimant was damaged in the
amount of $100,000,000.00. AS AND FOR A SECOND SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
CAUSE OF ACTION 52)
Claimant hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 51 as if fully set forth
herein. 53)
That Defendant, by and through the New York State Office of Mental Health, failed in its duty to provide Claimant with taxpayer-funded
mental health service equally, as it does with mentally disabled clients who are Jews. 54) That Defendant, by and through
the New York State Office of Mental Health, failed in its duty to tell Claimant the reason for its discharge of Claimant so
as to give Claimant the same equal protection to appeal Defendant's agency's decision as it does to its mentally disabled
clients who are Jewish. 55)
That Defendant, by and through the New York State Office of Mental Health, failed in its duty to require its taxpayer-funded
mental health service agencies to limit its description of the Claimant based on Defendant's legal criteria, and Defendant's
professional description of Claimant based on objective, psychiatric, psychosocial industry-accepted standards as outlined
by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, and to not describe Claimant based on Defendant's
Jewish cartel's religious laws and retaliatory whims.
56) That Defendant, by and through the New York State Office of Mental Health, failed
in its duty to protect Claimant's right to equal protection under the law by tacitly giving its permission to allow Claimant's
psychiatric/psychosocial report to be prepared in a manner not consistent with Defendant's laws and industry-accepted criteria;
but instead with incendiary words that angered Jewish therapists and made less powerful non-Jewish therapists feel coerced
to agree with employees who are Jewish for fear of being subjected to the same retaliation from Defendant's powerful Jewish
cartel that Claimant now experiences.
57) That Defendant, by and through the New York State Office of Mental Health, failed
in its duty to Claimant by subjecting her to culturally in sensitive, uncaring environment that failed to be empathetic with
Claimant based on the crimes that were committed against her by corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard
J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein; and by subjecting Claimant to an environment that punished Claimant as an anti-Semite for
speaking with therapists about the crimes that were committed against Claimant's family by the aforesaid attorneys. 58) That
Defendant, by and through the New York State Office of Mental Health, failed in its duty to ensure that its taxpayer-funded
outpatient, mental health service agencies used Defendant's funds to diagnose Claimant based on Defendant's lawful and industry-accepted
criteria; and that Defendant, by and through the New York State Office of Mental Health, failed in its duty to ensure that
taxpayer-funded outpatient, mental health services were not fraudulently used to misdiagnose Claimant based on religious laws
and retaliatory whims of Defendant's powerful Jewish cartel.
59) That wholly and solely as a result of Defendants' tortious acts, Claimant suffered
personal injuries by way of violation of Claimant's right to equal protection under the law, violation of Claimant's right
to due process of law, violation of Claimant's right to freedom of worship; public scorn, difficulty in securing outpatient
mental health services and severe mental and emotional distress for which Claimant was damaged in the amount of $100,000,000.00. AS AND FOR A THIRD SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF ACTION 60) Claimant
hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 59 as if fully set forth herein. 61) That
Claimant suffered public scorn because of Defendant's tacit permission to publish Claimant defamatory psychosocial history
to others. 62)
That Claimant suffered public scorn based on Defendant's tacit permission for outpatient mental health service providers to
turn Claimant down based on their belief that Claimant committed the halachic/Jewish crime of anti-Semitism. 63) That
Claimant suffered public scorn based on Defendant's failure to tell Claimant that she was branded by an agency Defendant funds
as an anti-Semite so as to allow Claimant to implement legal procedures established by its Office of Mental Health, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services and its subsidiary the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to
be able to defend against Defendants' defamatory description of Claimant's psychosocial history. 64) That Claimant suffered public
scorn based on Defendants' vague description of Claimant's religious crime; that Jewish supervisors of other outpatient mental
health service providers were left to believe that Claimant “has a history of making anti-Semitic remarks” but
were not told what remarks Claimant made there were anti-Semitic.
65) That Claimant will continue to suffer insofar as the “diagnosis”
anti-Semite” is a lifelong title for which Claimant will never be able to escape; and that will render Claimant persona
non grata with Jewish-controlled outpatient mental health service providers until the day that Claimant dies. 66) That Claimant has suffered public scorn to the
point where Claimant is unable to be found eligible by Jewish-owned/Jewish-controlled outpatient mental health service agencies
based on the Defendant's religiously-oriented defamation of Claimant as “anti-Semitic.” 67) That wholly and solely as
a result of Defendants' tortious acts, Claimant suffered personal injuries by way of violation of Claimant's right to equal
protection under the law; violation of Claimant's right to due process of law; violation to Claimant's right to freedom to
practice her own religion and not be burdened with what Claimant sees is Defendant's state religion; public scorn and severe
mental and emotional distress for which Claimant was damaged in the amount of $100,000,000.00. AS AND FOR A FOURTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF ACTION 68) Claimant hereby repeats
and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully set forth herein. 69) That Defendant, by and through
the New York State Office of Mental Health, gave its tacit permission to defame Claimant and terminate its services to Claimant
based on its taxpayer-funded, outpatient mental health service provider's description of Claimant as an anti-Semitic; and
caused Claimant to be unable to exercise her right to due process of law, and her right to equal protection under the law;
and that Claimant's inability to avail herself of her right to equal protection under Defendant's laws is an injury unto itself,
and gives rise to an implied cause of action in the nature of Brown v. State of New York, 89 N.Y.2d 172 (1996) (citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
70) That loss of reputation based on the stigma of being publicly labeled an anti-Semitic
is an injury that is recognized in law.
71) That the permanent loss of Defendant's mental health rehabilitative services
as controlled by members of Defendant's Jewish cartel, and funded by Defendant's Office of Mental Health in an injury recognized
in law; and that Defendant's refusal to address taxpayer-funded outpatient mental health service providers' fraudulent use
of Defendant's funds is an injury both to the Claimant and to the taxpayers of New York State, and as such is recognized in
law. 72)
That wholly and solely as a result of Defendants' tortious acts, Claimant suffered personal injuries by way of violation of
Claimant's right to equal protection under the law; violation of Plaintiff's right to due process of law; violation of Claimant's
right to freedom to practice her own religion and not be burdened with what Claimants asserts is now the Defendant's official
religion, for which Claimant was damaged in the amount of $100,000,000.00. PRAYER
FOR RELIEF 73)
Claimant respectfully prays for this honorable Court to present Claimant's action for constitutional violations to a jury
for the purpose of holding a trial.
74) Claimant respectfully prays that this Court obeys 22 NYCRR §100.3(E) such that any and all members of Defendant's judiciary who are Jewish be required to disqualify themselves from adjudicating
this action; and that further this, Claimant emphatically states that based on what she believes to be irrefutable evidence
of Defendant's fraudulent use of public funds to allow the promulgation of Judaism, Claimant will present this claim with
a letter of warning to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Right so that the aforesaid federal
agency can see the actions of Defendant's corrupt judiciary as they employ schemes and artifices to defraud the federal government
so as to continue to invoke the Talmudic Law of the Moser to continue to prevent Claimant from reporting the crimes of corrupt
Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein to Defendant. WHEREFORE, Claimant Cheryl D. Uzamere respectfully prays
this Court for a jury trial, and to render judgment against the Defendant in the sum of $100,000.000.00 or a sum that to this
Court is deemed to be just and proper. Dated: Brooklyn, New York December 6, 2011 STATE
OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss: I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, am the Claimant in the within
Verified Claim. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The contents are true to my own knowledge
except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be
true. 
|
