|
|
|
FBIconversation - click here.
Will the Supreme Court
Make New Law? U.S. Court of Appeal
for the Second Circuit, federal district courts EDNY, SDNY. This circuit is satanically corrupt and hateful of black, disabled pro se litigants. Will the Supreme Court allow a change to a new venue based on abject corruption
in the original venue? The Supreme 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 and ensure the disqualification of satanically-biased
judges. 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). Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs | Circuit Judge Jon O. Newman | Circuit Judge Amalya L. Kearse | Circuit Judge Ralph K. Winter | Circuit Judge John M. Walker | Circuit Judge Joseph M. McLaughlin | Circuit Judge Pierre N. Leval | Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi | Circuit Judge José Cabranes | Circuit Judge Chester J. Straub | Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler |
Circuit Judge Robert A. Katzmann | | Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker | Circuit Judge Reena Raggi | Circuit Judge Richard C. Wesley | Circuit Judge Peter W. Hall | Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston | Circuit Judge Gerard E. Lynch | Circuit Judge Denny Chin | Circuit Judge Raymond J. Lohier | Circuit Judge Susan L. Carney | Circuit Judge Christopher F. Droney |
April
9, 2013
Duty Officer FBI-New York City Office 26
Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278 Subject: Judge Dennis Jacobs, Judge Garaufis,
George Venizelos, others in a conspiracy to ensure that pro se litigants who are Gentile never win lawsuits against lawbreaking
Jews. Listen to Jewish FBI blackmail complainant for filing complaints against law-breaking Jews (click on link
to listen to FBI worker's extortionate conversation with Plaintiff at FBIconversation - click here.)
To Whom It May Concern:
In December, 1977, approximately two (2) years before I met Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Nosayaba (John) Uzamere and his
wife Ethel Uzamere (Defendant Uzamere's brother and sister-in-law, not his father and stepmother) filed for IR2 residence
for Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. The IR2 visa for Defendant Uzamere was approved on January 28, 1980. On November 21, 1979, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered
into a fraudulent “green card” marriage with me. On November 30, 1979, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and corrupt Jewish
immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro, Esq. engaged in an act of aggravated identity theft and immigration
fraud by giving me form I-130 to sign so as to sponsor my husband for IR1 residence under the fictitious name “Godwin
Ehigie Uzamere” and fictitious birthday “June 1, 1955.” In December, 1979, Defendant Uzamere left for Nigeria,
abandoning me while I was pregnant with his daughter Tara A. Uzamere. On January 28, 1980, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
entered the port of New York as a lawful permanent resident. By 1981 Ehigie Edobor Uzamere’s
IR2 residence was revoked because it was fraudulently obtained. INS also noted that the fingerprints
between the two files are the same.
On or around October 8, 2008, Eugene Uzamere, engaged in an act of racketeering, aggravated identity theft,
violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by hand-delivering
a fraudulent affirmation and a fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized counter-affidavit from Nigeria which stated that “The
plaintiff who has openly professed her mental illness is also delusional and outlandish in her claims”; and “I
have before now, ignored the Plaintiff's outburst but her claim to be married to my cousin who was not in the United States
at the time of our marriage is a new twist to this sad tale. . .Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment
to a new level which should not be encouraged” in defiance of the administrative decision rendered by the INS regarding
Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity. In addition, Justice Sunshine refused to commission a diplomatic or consular officer for
the purpose of determining the genuineness of the fraudulent foreign document that was presented to him by attorney Osato
Uzamere on behalf of his uncle, Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. From then until the present,
Justice Sunshine has never made any attempt to arrest Osato Uzamere for committing perjury. See fraudulent affirmation and
fraudulent foreign counter-affidavit Exhibit C. During the same month, Defendant McCarthy and Defendant Cowles gave Plaintiff's
criminal attorney Beth Mann a copy of the I-130 immigration sponsorship form that Plaintiff signed on November 30, 1979 and
a report explaining the two (2) immigration files having birthdays June 15, 1955 and December 31, 1960 and explaining “IR2
fraudulently obtained because he was married at the time” and “Compare fingerprints between the two files.” On or around January
6, 2009, Plaintiff received a notice from Defendant McCarthy in which she said that “This office has completed its review
of the complaint of professional misconduct that you filed against Allen E. Kaye, Esquire. The matter is confidential at this
stage in accordance with the Rules and Procedures of Professional Conduct for Practitioners (“Rules”), except
for necessary disclosures in the course of conducting a preliminary inquiry. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)
has authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry of complaints of criminal, unethical, or unprofessional conduct in matters
before USCIS. In your June 9, 2008 complaint, you allege that Alan E. Kaye “colluded with my husband, the now Senator
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to submit a marriage certificate with the fictitious name "Godwin Uzamere: in order to avoid paying
child support. and three years later, in order to hide the 2nd marriage that my husband contracted in the United States.”
The acts that you allege constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Practitioner occurred in the course
of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye in connection with an immediate relative filed by you with the Immigration
and Naturalization (“INS”) in 1979. The New York Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Supreme Court, Appellate
Division First Judicial Department considered these allegations in 2003 and determined that no further action was warranted.
After a careful and thorough review of your complaint I do not find clear and convincing evidence of an ethical violation
of the Rules on the part of Mr. Kaye. No further action will be taken with regard to your complaint.” On or near October 28, 2009, Defendants Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, engaged in racketeering and aggravated identity theft by submitting fraudulent
affirmations to the court holding “Godwin Uzamere” to be the Plaintiff's husband based on the fraudulent I-130
immigration sponsorship form that Plaintiff's ex-husband filed with Defendants Kaye and Shapiro. See fraudulent affirmations
of Defendants Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein attached as Exhibit G. On November 3, 2009, Defendants Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Michael
Gerstein, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein committed 18 USC §4, misprision of felony in that they
planned and implemented Plaintiff's false arrest for the sole purpose of obtaining an advantage in the action for fraud that
Plaintiff filed against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Plaintiff stayed in jail for 33 days.
Because Plaintiff was remanded and was not able to leave, Plaintiff was coerced into accepting the plea as mentally unfit,
and employees of Defendant New York State Office of Court Administration/Unified Court System intentionally avoided appearing
before court to explain their false charge against the Plaintiff, thereby denying me my right to confront those individuals
who accused me to threatening Judge Sunshine.
On November 5, 2009, Daily News staff writer Scott Shifrel engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction
by saying: “Uzamere was in a Criminal Court holding cell when she started stripping and screaming about her “senator”
husband in Nigeria loud enough to be heard in the courtroom. The senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin
Uzamere, according to an affidavit he filed in Supreme Court. . .”; and that “the senator, however, is a cousin
of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to affidavit filed in Supreme Court”; and “Her obsession with
his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged, Godwin Uzamere said.” On or around June 22, 2011, 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, 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.
On or around June 25, 2011, less than thirty (30) after Plaintiff submitted her lawsuit to the court, Defendant
Garaufis engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft
of at the behest of Defendant Judge Garaufis three (3) marshals from the U.S. Marshals Service for Defendant the Eastern District
of New York banged on Plaintiff's apartment door, shaming Plaintiff within earshot of her neighbors. When the U.S. Marshal
for the Eastern District of New York identified themselves, Plaintiff asked them if she had committed a crime. The marshals
stalled for a few seconds, and then said that Plaintiff had not committed any crimes. When Plaintiff asked the U.S. Marshals
why they were there, the U.S. Marshal that banged on Plaintiff's door said “I'm gonna annoy you like you annoyed Judge
Garaufis.” When Plaintiff told them that she would not open the door, the one banging on the door said “then I'm
gonna keep bangin”, and for another 1.5 minutes continued to bang on Plaintiff's door. He also asked Plaintiff “is
your daughter Tara home?”, to find out if Plaintiff was home alone. Within minutes of Plaintiff telling them that her
daughter Tara was there, they left.
On or around July 7, 2011, Defendants psychiatric nurse Agnes Flores and psychologist Martin Bolton, employees
of Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation came to Plaintiff's apartment, speaking about Plaintiff's psychiatric
issues in the hallway and shaming Plaintiff within earshot of her neighbors. Defendants Flores and Bolton said that Defendant
U.S. Marshal Service told them that Plaintiff contacted Defendant Mental Health Association's LifeNet psychiatric helpline
and made threats of bodily harm against Defendant Garaufis. Plaintiff told them that had she done such a thing that the U.S.
Marshal Service would have arrested her when they visited her and given her an attorney, which would have forced Plaintiff's
attorney to examine Plaintiff's civil claims.
Also, on July 7, 2011, at the behest of Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe, the United Parcel Service returned Plaintiff's
appellate brief, all of Plaintiff's motions, Appendix A and Appendix B that Plaintiff served on the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit on July 4, 2012. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe did not include any correspondence explaining why Plaintiff's
appellate documents were returned.
Some days later while in the month of July 2011, Plaintiff received another visit from Defendants Flores
and Bolton. Because Plaintiff was afraid that someone who would enter her apartment and place Plaintiff in a psychiatric hospital
against her will, Plaintiff hid in her closet between so that if they came into Plaintiff's apartment, she would appear not
be home. Some
days later during the month of July, 2011, Plaintiff received a call from Defendant Davis, but Plaintiff turned her cell phone
off. A day
or so later, someone knocked on Plaintiff's door but did not announce themselves. Again Plaintiff hid in her closet to feign
that she was not home. When Plaintiff went to the door, there was a notice from Woodhull Hospital's psychiatric unit with
an appoint to appear at their psychiatric outpatient clinic. On July 16, 2011, in terror of forced hospitalization at the behest of Defendant
Garaufis, the U.S. Marshal Service and psychiatric facilities over which the New York State Office of Mental Health and the
New York State Department of Health have oversight, Plaintiff faxed a copy of Affidavit to Preetinder Bharara, U.S. Attorney
for the Southern District of New York. Later on in July 2011, Defendant Davis called Plaintiff, frightening Plaintiff
by making Plaintiff believe that Plaintiff would be forcibly hospitalized because Defendant U.S. Marshal Service told her
that Plaintiff had threatened others at the Medicaid office, something that Plaintiff did not do. Plaintiff took the liberty
of recording the conversation in its entirety. Plaintiff uploaded the conversation http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html.
In the month of August, 2011 Defendant Davis contacted Defendant Sarpong for the purpose of forcing Plaintiff to go to Defendant
Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, where Plaintiff was hospitalized as an inpatient for threatening Defendant Garaufis and
other judges with bodily harm, and threatening CMS workers with death, something that Plaintiff never did. Plaintiff stayed
a few days as an inpatient with Defendant Brookdale because Defendant Dr. “John Doe” and other employees of Defendant
Brookdale Hospital Medical Center were told by Defendant Sarpong that Plaintiff threatened Judge Garaufis, other judges and
CMS call center workers with death and with bodily harm. Thereafter, Brookdale Hospital Medical Center terminated its outpatient
psychiatric services to the Plaintiff and transferred Plaintiff to the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive
Community Treatment Team in order Plaintiff illegally monitor along with Defendant Denis P. McGowan of Defendant U.S. Department
of Homeland Security.
On or around August 18, 2011, Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation's East New York Diagnostic and Treatment
Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team received correspondence from U.S. Department of Homeland Security on its original
letterhead bearing the name “Denis P. McGowan, Chief, Threat Management Branch.” The letter stated: “On
July 06, 2011, Federal Protective Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made by CHERYL UZAMERE to the Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid call center. The threat consisted of HER stating: since SHE did not get the job, SHE was going
to “COME DOWN THERE AND KILL EVERYBODY. Since FPS has investigated UZAMERE multiple times for similar behavior, we are
well aware of HER mental health history. Based on that information, a referral was made to LifeNet for mental health intervention
on July 07 2011. Subsequently, UZAMERE's Intensive Case Manager (ICM) Bridgett Davis of the New York State Office of Mental
Health has advised that UZAMERE's treatment has been transferred to the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program. We were
informed that CHERYL D. UZAMERE is being treated as a patient by your program and we would like to keep you abreast of this
situation as it evolves. We also request that we be notified as HER status changes in particular any change from in-patient
to out-patient treatment and in the case of the latter any refusal of treatment. In addition, please notify FPS of any relapses
or deterioration of HER condition that may pose a risk to life or property.” See letter from Denis P. McGowan,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security attached as Exhibit M. From July 6, 2011, the date in which Plaintiff is alleged to have committed
18 USC §115 against Defendant Garaufis, other federal judges and employees of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services call center, no federal law enforcement agency has made any attempt to
arrest the Plaintiff for the aforementioned offenses. According to Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, the judges who rendered
decisions on Plaintiff's appeal for her lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv were not indicated on the decision because
others unknown to Plaintiff told Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe that Plaintiff threatened Judge Nicholas, other federal judges and
Defendant Sunshine.
On February 26, 2012, Defendant HHC's ACT Team where Defendant Sarpong is employed prepared a psychiatric treatment plan.
Under the title “Alerts”, the treatment plan states “. . . H/O threats to judges and Center for Medicaid
and Medicare, patient is being monitored by Homeland Security.” Under the title “Discharge Plan”, it says
“Patient is not being considered for discharge at this time, she was transferred to the program 6 months ago after she
made a threat to the Medicare and Medicaid call center and is being monitored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.”
Under the title “Patient/Family Statement”, it says that “She reported not being aware of being monitored
by Homeland Security. . .”
On November 28, 2012, based on information and belief, Defendants Raggi, Carney and Kahn of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated
identity theft by rendering an FRAP-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv for the sole purpose of
advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by 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 aggravated
identity theft, and their own commission of racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity,
for their own commission of obstruction of justice by tricking 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, 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. Plaintiff was told the names of Defendant judges Raggi, Carney and Kahn
by an unknown employee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe also engaged in an act
of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft for the sole purpose of advancing
the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering,
racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their criminal commission of aggravated
identity theft. Plaintiff's alleges that Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe left out the names of the judges who rendered their illegal
decision on Plaintiff's decision based on defendants' delusion that Plaintiff would either not figure out the judges' identity
and would therefore be unable to sue them.
Soon thereafter, the Plaintiff called Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court for U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit and asked why the appellate judges' names were not indicated on the U.S. Court of Appeals'
decision. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe indicated that the judges' names were left out because Plaintiff had threatened federal
judges, something that Plaintiff never did.
On or around January 30, 2013, Plaintiff received a letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The letter stated: "Our records show that you placed calls to 1-800-MEDICARE on the dates and times listed below (all
times Central). We can confirm that none of these calls contained threatening comments: June 14,2010, 10:38 AM; June 1,2011,
7:39 AM; July 8,2011, 12:56 PM; May 18, 2012, 11:17 AM, 1:29 PM, 3:51 PM; July 2, 2012, 10:47 AM; July 10, 2012, 2:24 PM;
July 17, 2012, 1:09 PM; July 18, 2012, 11:14 AM; July 19, 2012, 5:02 PM; July 23, 2012, 2:51 PM; July 24, 2012, 5:21 PM, 5:43
PM, 5:47 PM, 6:05 PM, 9:56 PM; July 26, 2012, 9:39 PM; July 27, 2012, 5:48 PM; September 9, 2012, 4:39 PM; October 18, 2012,
2:26 PM; November 16, 2012 7:38 PM; November 26, 2012, 1:46 PM; December 12, 2012, 11:13AM; December 13, 2012, 4:29 AM, 5:05
PM, 5:09 PM."
On March 24, 2013, Plaintiff called Defendant FBI New York Office and asked one of its agents if the FBI
office would refuse to take Plaintiff's complaints if the person against whom Plaintiff complained was Jewish, as Plaintiff
alleges was done to her in the past. True to past behavior, someone hung up the phone. When Plaintiff called back, the person
on the phone said that Plaintiff had posed the question to Mr. Stein, hurting his feelings. Plaintiff was then called anti-Semitic,
and then subjected to having the telephone hung up. Plaintiff took her three (3) phones and engaged in a blitz phone call
session, allowing all of her phones to ring at the same time. When "John Doe" #1 finally answered the phone, Plaintiff
got into an argument with Defendant “John Doe” #1 with regard to Plaintiff's right to file a criminal complaint
against Jews who had violated federal law. Defendant “John Doe” #1 blackmailed Plaintiff by telling her that he
would call Plaintiff's daughter, mentioning Plaintiff's daughter's name (something that generally precedes a threat of psychiatric
hospitalization), and then would come to Plaintiff's apartment; however, when asked if Plaintiff had committed a crime and
whether Plaintiff would be assigned an attorney, "John Doe" #1 said that Plaintiff would have to obtain an attorney
on her own. As it turned out, "John Doe" #1 never came to Plaintiff's apartment, and never contacted Plaintiff's
daughter. During Plaintiff's conversation with "John Doe" #1, Plaintiff told the employee that she was recording
the conversation. Plaintiff recorded the conversation and uploaded it to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/adl_zuckerman_both_criminals.html (this site, at the link that says FBIconversation - click here). The following day, Plaintiff contacted the FBI
and spoke with a woman (who sounded black). Plaintiff told the woman that an FBI employee would not allow her to file any
complaints if the subject of the complaint is Jewish. Plaintiff also told the woman that she recorded the conversation and
uploaded it to her website. The woman asked Plaintiff how Plaintiff knew whether the person with whom Plaintiff spoke was
an employee of the FBI. Plaintiff told the woman she was right, and that the person with whom Plaintiff spoke could have been
Bozo the Clown. Subsequently, an employee of the FBI called Plaintiff's psychiatric treatment facility and reported that Plaintiff
had an argument with an FBI employee; that said argument was indicative that Plaintiff has psychiatric issues that warrant
hospitalization. On March 28, 2013, the day of Plaintiff's treatment appointment, Plaintiff was asked by her psychiatrist,
Dr. Beaudouin if she had had an argument with anyone. Later, Plaintiff was interviewed simultaneously by Dr. Beaudouin and
Ms. Fletcher in an attempt to find reasons to hospitalize the Plaintiff. It was so obvious that Plaintiff asked if they planned
to hospitalize her. Plaintiff's psychiatrist and therapist said no; however, Plaintiff's psychiatrist and therapist never
disclosed to Plaintiff that they had been contacted by Defendant FBI and requested to act as agents of the police. Plaintiff
had committed no crime and has been treatment compliant such that Plaintiff felt double-teamed by Dr. Beaudouin and Ms. Fletcher
with their bombardment of questions that were geared, not to help Plaintiff, but as an investigative tool of the FBI to determine
whether Plaintiff had any argument with the FBI. Plaintiff alleges that her treatment facility is now being used surreptitiously
to ensure that if Plaintiff files a complaint with the FBI against any Jew, that the FBI will contact her psychiatric treatment
facility and tell them to hospitalize Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff also alleges that at the continued behest of Defendant
Garaufis, “John Doe” #1 of Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation's New York Office illegally obtained information
regarding Plaintiff's outpatient psychiatric care provider from Defendants' network of as yet unknown informants from the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Office, and/or from the New York State Office
of Mental Health, and/or from the New York State Department of Health and/or from the New York State Office of Temporary and
Disability Assistance and/or from the New York City Health and Hospital's Corporation, and/or from the New York City Human
Resources Administration.
I allege that the defendants committed the following offenses: 18 USC §4, misprision of felony; 18 USC §1028A aggravated
identity theft; 18 USC §1028, identity theft; 18 USC §1962, RICO; 18 USC §1512, obstruction of justice; 18
USC §242, deprivation of rights under color of law; 42 USC §1985. Civil rights violations committed by the defendants
include the following: violation of Title II, ADA, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment; Sixth Amendment
(Confrontation Clause especially).
Respectfully,
Cheryl D. Uzamere |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF_______________ _______________________________________
Cheryl
D. Uzamere
PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
Plaintiff, ADJUDICATIVE
FACTS PURSUANT TO
FED. R. EVID. RULE 201 AND FOR
- against -
CONVERSION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT
United States of America, et al.
TO FED. R. CIV. RULE 57
Defendants.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the attached Affidavit of Movant, Cheryl D. Uzamere, sworn to on the
__th day of ________, 2013, and upon all the exhibits herein attached, Plaintiff will move this Court in the presence of
the Honorable ____________, on the __th day of _____ 2013, at 9:30 in the forenoon, or as soon thereafter to pray this
Court to do the following: ...............a).....That immediately after the filing of Plaintiff's
civil rights action, for this Court to take emergency expedited judicial notice of those adjudicative facts Movant submitted
as evidence in her Verified Complaint, to wit: ....................(1).....those facts submitted by Movant
that are not subject to reasonable dispute because they are generally known or should have been known within the Defendants'
sphere of knowledge, supervision, administration and control, and/or the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction, and
because they can be accurately and readily be determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, including
those adjudicative facts that are part of public or confidential government record held by and/or under control of the Defendants. ....................(2).....for this Court to judicially notice those facts sua sponte; ....................(3).....on timely
request, for this Court to judicially notice those adjudicative issues submitted by the Defendants if the Defendants requests
them and if the Defendants supply this Court with the necessary information, including those adjudicative issues that are
already part of public or confidential government records held by and/or under control of the Defendants; ....................(4).....for this Court to instruct
the jury to accept all judicially noticed facts as conclusive. ...............b) For this Court to convert Movant's emergency motion for expedited judicial notice to a motion for summary judgment
as the Movant has already proven that Defendants' public and confidential government records establish that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact so that the Movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Dated: Brooklyn, New
York
July ___,
2013 CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE
_______________________
Signature of Plaintiff
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF_______________ ___________________________________
No.: 13-CV-_________ Cheryl D. Uzamere
Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT
IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION
FOR EXPEDITED MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
- against - ADJUDICATIVE
FACTS PURSUANT TO FED. R. EVID.
RULE 201 AND FOR CONVERSION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO
FED. R. CIV. P. RULE 56
United States of America, et al.
JURY
TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT FOR
EMERGENCY
EXPEDITED MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE Introductory Statement ..........1).....Movant Cheryl D. Uzamere, comes
before this Court seeking an Emergency Expedited Mandatory Judicial Notice of the facts stated herein, that are known to this
Court, or readily provable since the adjudicative facts are a matter of public or confidential government record held by and/or
in control of the Defendants. ..........2).....Movant
has been severely harmed as she has been physically attacked and had her life and liberty endangered by the ongoing commission
of federal offenses and constitutional torts by the Defendants and their hired attorneys, who have terrorized the Movant,
a seriously mentally disabled African American citizen and single parent of two (2) adult children who have suffered emotionally
as a direct result of the Defendants' criminal conduct. ..........3).....Defendants' original acts of fraud, identity
theft and aggravated identity theft were committed by Defendants Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen
E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro. To the best of the Movant's knowledge, the aforementioned offenses were not prosecuted at the
time they were committed, nor during the subsequent period of limitations regarding each offense. As of now, more than thirty
(30) years later, all of the Defendants have played a role in the misprision of Defendants Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere's, Osato E. Uzamere's, Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott
Shifrel's commission of fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft. Movant alleges that by the end of June/beginning
of July 2011, Defendant Garaufis authorized a national security letter that was sent to Movant's telephone company and internet
service provider, Cablevision, giving Defendants Garaufis, the U.S. Marshals Service, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation the ability to obtain non-content information regarding Plaintiff's daughter, Tara
A. Uzamere and Movant's psychiatric care providers for the sole purpose of contacting them to give them false criminal/psychiatric
reports concerning the Movant, in violation of 18 USC §2709 and 18 USC §3511. Plaintiff alleges this based on her
belief that the aforementioned Defendants are not psychic but were able to obtain non-contact information regarding Movant's
telephone calls to her daughter, Tara A. Uzamere and to psychiatric care providers from sources other than the Movant. ..........4).....In addition,
at the behest of Defendant Garaufis, Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health, by its employee Defendant Bridget Davis
told the Movant that the U.S. Marshal Service considers Movant a danger based on their spurious accusation that Movant threatened
Defendant Garaufis, other judges and employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' call center. Defendant
U.S. Department of Homeland Security's employee Denis P. McGowan specifically stated in his letter dated August 18, 2011 that
the Movant made a telephonic threat of murder against CMS employees, using said spurious allegation as an excuse to present
Defendant Garaufis with a national security letter for the sole purpose of violating the confidentiality of Movant's psychiatric
records to rationalize adding the spurious criminal charge to Movant's psychiatric treatment plan dated February 26, 2012,
to illegally rationalize monitoring the Movant at the primary behest of Defendant Garaufis – and worse, to breach
the confidentiality of Movant's psychiatric records for crimes that Movant never committed, and for which the Defendants never
had any intention of confronting the Movant for the purpose of confirming Movant's innocence or guilt in a court of law.
..........5).....At the
behest of the Defendants: 1) Movant was publicly defamed by being labeled an “anti-Semitic wacko” based on having
a mental illness and based on having been falsely accused of crimes by the Defendant that Movant never committed, and for
which Defendants never had any intention of confronting the Movant for the purpose of confirming Movant's innocence or guilt
in a court of law; 2) Movant suffered kidnap, jail, felonious assault and battery (Movant was hit several times in the face
and had her hair yanked out while being unlawfully and unnecessarily held by Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health),
prosecuted and ultimately found not guilty for every, single offense for which Defendants accused Movant but made no attempt
to confront Plaintiff to provide evidence of Defendants' criminal accusations; 3) Defendants illegally breached the confidentiality
of Movant's psychiatric and divorce records and disseminated them to the public; 4) Movant was illegally monitored by the
court, other federal agencies, New York State agencies and New York City agencies for a crime that Movant never
committed; 5) Movant was intentionally misdiagnosed based on crimes that Movant never committed; 6) Movant was
forcibly isolated; 7) Movant was subjected to extortionate behavior on the part of Defendants and blackmailed to keep silent
and not report the crimes of corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein or else Movant and
her children would be attacked by powerful members of the Jewish community; 8) and most importantly, 9) Movant was blacklisted
by Defendant judges to prevent Movant from honest use of the federal and New York State court systems. Movant was also blacklisted
by New York State Office of Mental Health's various not-for-profit, Jewish-controlled outpatient, psychiatric services, like
Defendant FEGS because of Movant's actively disobeying the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser. ..........6).....Defendant
judges' do not believe that their most important role is enforcement of the U.S. Constitution; instead they believe that enforcement
of the Jewish religious belief that Jews should be feared as gods, for Gentiles to serve Jews as their obedient slaves, and
to ensure that all judicial decisions are rendered according to Talmud law. What makes the Defendant Jewish judicial majority
happy is the enforcement of the Talmudic Law of the Moser,
to ensure that Movant is never able to file any complaint against the aforementioned attorneys based on their commission of,
inter alia, fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity
theft that was originally committed around November 30, 1979 and revisited on or around October 28, 2009.
Reasons for Emergency Motion for Expedited Treatment by Court ..........7).....The Pro
Se Movant is and has been a crime victim at the behest of some or all of the Defendants
for the past 34 years. In addition, Movant is mentally disabled and has been blackmailed by the Defendants such that if Movant
files a complaint against any lawbreaking Jewish defendant, Defendants will falsely and publicly accuse her of crimes based
solely on her status of having a mental illness so that the Movant's complaints are not believed by the public or in court.
The Movant makes this Affidavit in support of her emergency motion for expedited mandatory judicial notice of those exhibits
presented in Movant's Verified Complaint of the facts stated herein, that are known to this Court, or are readily provable
since the adjudicative facts are a matter of public or confidential record held by and/or in control of the Defendants;
and for conversion to a motion for summary judgment based on this Court's expedited mandatory
judicial notice of those exhibits submitted by the Movant. ..........8).....In December, 1977, approximately two (2) years before Movant met Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere,
Nosayaba (John) Uzamere and his wife Ethel Uzamere (Defendant Uzamere's brother and sister-in-law, not his father and stepmother)
filed for IR2 residence for Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. The IR2 visa for Defendant Uzamere was approved on January 28,
1980. On November 21, 1979, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered into a fraudulent “green card” marriage with
the unsuspecting Movant. On or around November 30, 1979, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye and Harvey
Shapiro, Esq. engaged in an act of fraud, immigration fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft by giving the Movant
form I-130 to sign so as to sponsor the Defendant for IR1 residence under the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere”
and fictitious birthday “June 1, 1955” without requiring Defendant Uzamere to produce his Nigerian passport.
In December, 1979, Defendant Uzamere left for Nigeria, abandoning the Movant and leaving her poor and pregnant with his daughter
Tara A. Uzamere. On January 28, 1980, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered the port of New York as a lawful permanent resident.
The aforementioned lawbreaking Jewish attorneys exacerbated their act of aggravated identity theft by refusing to require
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to produce his passport to establish proof of his identity, and by engaging in willful blindness
by pretending not to have knowledge of the existence of Senator Uzamere's passport or of knowledge that Senator Uzamere previously
applied under his correct name as an unmarried beneficiary under 21 years of age. At the time of Movant's signing the fraudulent
I-130 relative sponsorship form, Movant did not know that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere had
applied and been found eligible for permanent residence under his real name via sponsorship by Nosayaba (John) Uzamere and
his wife Ethel Uzamere. ..........9).....During subsequent years, the Movant applied for public assistance for herself and her children
under file number ADC 4056529-1. Movant started exhibiting symptoms associated with bipolar disorder (first diagnosed by Bedford
Stuyvesant Community Mental Health in 1989). Movant placed her children in foster care, where they remained for nearly all
their lives. Movant applied for child and spousal support through Defendant New York State's local social services office
but never received assistance from Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. ..........10).....On or around October 1, 2003, Jack Gladstein engaged in an act of racketeering,
and aggravated identity fraud by mailing to the Movant correspondence falsely holding Movant's ex-husband out to be “Godwin
Uzamere” even though the only correct identification that
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service holds is for Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, not “Godwin Uzamere.” ..........11).....On or around
September 25, 2008, after Movant had engaged in a series of leaving angry telephone calls on Defendant McCarthy's voice mail
based on Movant's perception that Defendant McCarthy had engaged in racketeering designed to nullify Movant's complaint against
Defendant Kaye and Defendant Shapiro, Defendant McCarthy engaged in an act of racketeering, fraud1, obstruction of justice and blackmail by engaging the U.S. Attorney's Office for Vermont
to say that “In or about September 2008, in the District of Vermont, the defendant, Cheryl Uzamere, impeded, intimidated,
and interfered with a federal employee, namely an employee of the United States Customs and Immigration Service, while that
person was engaged in and on account of that person's performance of official duties.”
..........12).....On or around October 8,
2008, Defendant Eugene Uzamere, engaged in an act of racketeering, aggravated identity fraud, violation of Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by hand-delivering a fraudulent affirmation
and a fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized counter-affidavit from Nigeria which stated that the Movant “who has
openly professed her mental illness is also delusional and outlandish in her claims”; and “I have before now,
ignored [the Movant's”] outburst but her claim to be married to my cousin who was not in the United States at the time
of our marriage is a new twist to this sad tale. . .Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new
level which should not be encouraged” in defiance of the administrative decision rendered by the INS regarding Movant's
ex-husband's identity. In addition, Justice Sunshine refused to commission a diplomatic or consular officer for the purpose
of determining the genuineness of the fraudulent foreign document that was presented to him by attorney Osato Uzamere on behalf
of his uncle, Movant's ex-husband Nigerian senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.2, 3 From then until the present, Justice Sunshine has never made any attempt
to arrest Osato Uzamere for committing perjury. ..........13).....On or around January 6, 2009, Movant received a notice from Defendant
McCarthy in which she said that “This office has completed its review of the complaint of professional misconduct
that you filed against Allen E. Kaye, Esquire. The matter is confidential at this stage in accordance with the Rules and Procedures
of Professional Conduct for Practitioners (“Rules”), except for necessary disclosures in the course of conducting
a preliminary inquiry. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has authority to conduct a preliminary
inquiry of complaints of criminal, unethical, or unprofessional conduct in matters before USCIS. In your June 9, 2008 complaint,
you allege that Alan E. Kaye “colluded with my husband, the now Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to submit a marriage certificate
with the fictitious name "Godwin Uzamere: in order to avoid paying child support. and three years later, in order to
hide the 2nd marriage that my husband contracted in the United States.” The acts that you allege constitute a violation
of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Practitioner occurred in the course of representation by an attorney associated with
Mr. Kaye in connection with an immediate relative filed by you with the Immigration and Naturalization (“INS”)
in 1979. The New York Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department considered
these allegations in 2003 and determined that no further action was warranted. After a careful and thorough review of your
complaint I do not find clear and convincing evidence of an ethical violation of the Rules on the part of Mr. Kaye. No further
action will be taken with regard to your complaint.” Defendant McCarthy's statement “occurred in the course
of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye” makes direct reference to Defendant Harvey Shapiro. ..........14).....On January
12, 2009, Defendant Sunshine engaged in an act of racketeering, aggravated identity theft, obstruction of justice and fraud
upon the court by rendering a decision in which he stated that “Moreover, the opposition submitted by defendant raises
a genuine issue as to whether or not Movant and defendant were married in the first instance”, in defiance of INS' administrative
decision that recognized the names “Godwin E. Uzamere” and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as belonging to Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere, and that Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was married to the Movant. Defendant Sunshine made no attempt to obey commission a
consular officer of the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria to verify the authenticity of the unauthenticated counter-affidavit
from Nigeria purporting to be from “Godwin Uzamere.” ..........15).....On January 20, 2009, the Movant e-mailed a complaint
to former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Robin Renee Sanders in which she said that “While I was in court on January 13,
2008, my husband's attorney, Eugene O. Uzamere asked Judge Sunshine if Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, my real husband, along
with some Nigerian pretending to be my real husband can be allowed to video-conference their appearance in court. As it is
apparent that the level of corruption in my divorce action has reached an all-time new low, it appears that Judge Sunshine
will allow this silliness. This would give Eugene the opportunity of paying some poor Nigerian a pittance to engage in identity
fraud that would reach a New York State Court. In the likely event that Judge Sunshine allows this silliness, is there some
way that your office can ensure that the unknown Nigerian who engages in this video-conference first signs some kind of affidavit
that is notarized by your office? That way, your office can check that person's identification to ensure that if he attempts
to say that he is my husband, his identification will prove otherwise.” Although Movant had the presence of mind to
ask former U.S. Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders to require anyone posing as Movant's husband to produce identification, Defendant
Sunshine did not require Defendant Osato E. Uzamere to produce any type of U.S. Embassy-authenticated, color-photograph-bearing
government identification of his client, and the only forms of identification that Defendant Osato E. Uzamere produced was
a copy of a passport bearing no one's name and social security number 129-64-1205, the fictitious number associated with the
fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere.” ..........16).....On May 12, 2009, Defendant Sunshine rendered his decision recognizing
the identity of Movant's ex-husband as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere by stating that “Today at 10:35 am. defendant was declared
in default for failure to appear at the hearing. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss this action upon the grounds that
he is not the husband of the Movant is denied in its entirety. The defendant is the husband in conformity with the parties
marriage on November 21, 1979. Movant is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order and serve and file a note
of issue, forthwith, with proof of mailing by regular international mail and overnight international mail for a trial
on all issues within this matrimonial action to be held before this court on July 7, 2009. at 9:30 a.m. This shall constitute
the decision and order of the court.” ..........17).....On July 7, 2009, the Movant filed an action for fraud against her ex-husband and against Defendants
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. From the year 2009 to 2011, Movant also attempted to engage the judicial
assistance of Defendant New York State Unified Court System for the Second Judicial Department with regard to the following
appellate cases: 1) Uzamere v Daily News, L.P., 2011 NY Slip Op 52421(U) [34 Misc 3d 1203(A)], Decided on November 10, 2011,
Supreme Court, New York County, Rakower, J; 2) Uzamere v Uzamere,
2011 NY Slip Op 08583 [89 AD3d 1013], November 22, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department;
3) Uzamere v Uzamere,2009 NY Slip Op 09214 [68 AD3d 855],
December 8, 2009, Appellate Division, Second Department; 4) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2010 NY Slip Op 83241(U), Decided on September 23, 2010, Appellate
Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; 5) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion
No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 65346(U), Decided on February 28, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department,
Motion Decision; 6) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 69114(U), Decided on April 6, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; and 7) Uzamere
v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 69622(U), Decided on
April 11, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision. The following appellate judges presided over the
aforementioned cases: Daniel D. Angiolillo; Cheryl E. Chambers; Jeffrey A. Cohen; Mark C. Dillon; Anita R. Florio; Steven
W. Fisher; L. Priscilla Hall; John M. Leventhal; Plummer E. Lott; William F. Mastro; Robert J. Miller; A. Gail Prudenti; Reinaldo
E. Rivera; Sheri S. Roman; Sandra L. Sgroi and Peter B. Skelos. Movant alleges that just as in the trial courts, Movant provided
the appellate courts with the Daily News article and the fraudulent affirmations in which Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey
Shapiro, Jack Gladstein Osato E. Uzamere perjured themselves and stated that “Godwin Uzamere” was Movant's husband.
The appellate judges, just as every judge with whom Movant presented the aforementioned testimony as done, ignored Movant's
cries for justice, engaged in fraud upon the court and disobeyed 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, the Code of Conduct
for Judges and the Code of Lawyers Professional Responsibility with regard to report a judge an attorney who engages in acts
of wrongdoing. Movant also filed various complaints with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct against Defendants
Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Arthur Schack; the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Department
against Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Osato E. Uzamere; and the New York State Grievance Committee for the Second Judicial
Department against Jack Gladstein. Movant produced the Daily News article, the fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized,
foreign counter-affidavit from Defendant Osato E. Uzamere, and the fraudulent affirmation from Defendants corrupt attorneys
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato E. Uzamere that are proof of their act of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated
identity theft and New York State Penal Law Section 210.15, perjury in the first degree, and proof of the true identity of
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere the Movant obtained from Defendant Rachel McCarthy (who can be reached at (802) 660-5043; fax (802)
660-5067). No member of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee
for the First Judicial Department or the New York State Grievance Committee for the Second Judicial Department ever reported
the aforementioned attorneys for their commission of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft or New York State Penal
Law Section 210.15, perjury in the first degree. ..........18).....On or near October 28, 2009, Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, engaged
in acts of racketeering and aggravated identity fraud submitted fraudulent affirmations to the court holding “Godwin
Uzamere” to be the Movant's husband based on the fraudulent I-130 immigration sponsorship form that Movant's ex-husband
filed with Defendants Kaye and Shapiro. ..........19).....On November 3, 2009, Defendants Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Michael Gerstein, Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein engaged in an act prohibited by the New York Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility
in that, after filing the fraudulent affirmations, they planned and implemented Movant's false arrest for the sole purpose
of obtaining an advantage in the action for fraud that Movant filed against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack
Gladstein. Movant stayed in jail for 33 days. Because Movant was remanded and was not able to leave, Movant was coerced into
accepting the plea as mentally unfit, and employees of Defendant New York State Office of Court Administration/Unified Court
System intentionally avoided appearing before court to explain their false charge against the Movant.
..........20).....On November 5, 2009, Defendant
judges Garaufis, Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack, on their own and/or by courthouse employees that were under
said Defendants' care, control and supervision at the time of the incident, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction
of justice by illegally commenting on and providing nonpublic information4 regarding Movant's cases Kings County Criminal Court Case Docket No. 2009KN087992,
Kings County Supreme Court Index No. 18012-2009 and Kings County Supreme Index No. 26332-2007 to Daily News staff writer
Scott Shifrel in violation of 22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(8)(11); that said nonpublic information was provided to the Daily News,
by staff writer Scott Shifrel, who did knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought engage in an act of racketeering/obstruction
of justice by publishing the newspaper article that illegally disclosed Movant's nonpublic information that was acquired by
Defendant Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack during their adjudication of Movant's cases including Movant's
photo; Movant's name; Movant's age; Movant's mental illness; Movant's psychiatric diagnosis; symptoms of Movant's mental illness;
the courts where Movant's cases were adjudicated; the town where Movant's lives and the name of the hospital that treated
Movant; that Daily News staff writer Scott Shifrel, on behalf the Defendants, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction
by charging Movant with the halachic/Jewish religious crime of anti-Semitism by saying “Cheryl Uzamere, 50, known around
courthouse circles for her anti-Semitic screeds, was declared mentally unfit and taken to Bellevue Hospital for observation”;
and, that “...she's a smart person and she really know how to use the system, said one courthouse source...she comes
in here and files all these papers and threatens people. Uzamere was in a Criminal Court holding cell when she started stripping
and screaming about her “senator” husband in Nigeria loud enough to be heard in the courtroom. The senator, however,
is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to an affidavit he filed in Supreme Court. . .”; and
that “the senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to affidavit filed in Supreme
Court”; and “Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be
encouraged, Godwin Uzamere said. . .” Scott Shifrel, at the behest of Mortimer Zuckerman and and Defendants Judge Gerstein,
Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack, on their own and/or by courthouse employees that were under said Defendants' care, control
and supervision at the time of the incident, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice by engaging in aggravated
identity theft; said act of identity theft accomplished by publicly holding in the Defendant Daily News that false identity
of Movant's ex-husband as “Godwin Uzamere. On the following day, the company ALM.com, by its website Law.com, published
an article entitled N.Y. Arrested for Threatening Judge; that said nonpublic information was provided to the Law.com, by
staff writer Mark Fass who did knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought, publish the internet
article that illegally disclosed Movant's nonpublic information that was acquired by the Defendant judges during their adjudication
of Movant's cases. ..........21).....On
November 30, 2009, twenty-five (25) days after Defendant Daily News, LP published its article regarding the Movant, Defendant
Federation Employment and Guidance Service terminated its mental health services to the Movant. In its discharge summary
it stated that “given client's history of anti-Semitic remarks treatment at an FEGS facility is inappropriate for
her.” ..........22).....On December 7, 2009, the Movant was placed with Defendant New York State Office
of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility. ..........23).....On December 24, 2009, Movant was seen by Defendant New
York State Unified Court System judicial employee the Honorable Anthony Cutrona of Kings County Supreme Court's Mental Hygiene
Court. ..........24).....On January 15, 2010, Defendant Schack engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice,
violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act by ordering
Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's psychiatrist Dr. Marie Bauduy of the Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility not
to produce the Movant for court. In his decision dated January 25, 2010, Justice Schack stated that “The Court is
concerned that Movant UZAMERE is unfit to proceed. . .Therefore, the instant matter is adjourned to Friday, March
19, 2010. . .” ..........25).....During
the beginning of February, 2010, Movant was discharged by Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility. ..........26).....On or near February
23, 2010, while the Movant was in her apartment faxing letters of complaint to various governmental agencies, Defendants Sunshine,
New York State Office of Mental Health and Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction
of justice, insofar as they contacted a social worker from Defendant Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center, who then
arranged for Movant to be kidnapped and hospitalized by Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric
Center. Defendant Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center caused one of its employees to contact Defendant City of New
York's agencies, the New York City Housing Authority's Louis H. Pink Houses, the New York City Police Department and the New
York City Fire Department. An employee of the New York City Housing Authority opened the Movant's apartment door, and Movant
was taken out of her apartment by force and hospitalized by Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro
Psychiatric Center. During Movant's last week as an inpatient, Kingsboro social worker Laurie Velcimé informed the
Movant that she was engaged in aftercare preparation, including locating an outpatient mental health program. The Movant
advised Ms. Velcimé that she was interested in attending New York Psychotherapy and Counseling Center (NYPCC) on Hendrix
Street, located close to where the Movant lives. After Ms. Velcimé performed a search of NYPCC and other outpatient
mental health care providers, she informed the Movant that not only had NYPCC refused to accept Movant as a client,
but that virtually all the not-for-profit outpatient mental health facilities that Ms. Velcimé contacted rejected
her request to provide Movant with outpatient psychiatric services. ..........27).....On July 13, 2010, Justice Arthur
M. Schack engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and aggravated identity theft by rendering a decision,
holding that “Godwin Uzamere” is Movant's husband and that ORDERED, that the instant complaint is dismissed with
prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that Movant CHERYL UZAMERE is hereby enjoined from commencing any future actions in
the New York State Unified Court System against SENATOR EHIGIE EDOBOR UZAMERE a/k/a "GODWIN E. UZAMERE," ALLEN E.
KAYE, P.C., ALLEN E. KAYE, ESQ., HARVEY SHAPIRO, ESQ., BERNARD J. ROSTANSKI and JACK GLADSTEIN, ESQ., without the prior approval
of the appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge; and it is further ORDERED, that any violation of the above injunction
by CHERYL UZAMERE will subject CHERYL UZAMERE to costs, sanctions and contempt proceedings. This constitutes the
decision and order of the Court.” ..........28).....On July 20, 2010, Defendant Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, conspiring with Defendant Arthur M. Schack,
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice designed to hide
the aforesaid immigration attorneys' commission of aggravated identity theft, and to make the public believe that the Movant's
lawsuit against the aforesaid immigration attorneys concerned lawyer malpractice and not criminally-based fraud,
publicized an article on the internet entitled Sometimes It Just Wasn't the Attorney in Legal Malpractice.
The article says:
“One theme that we have considered over the years is whether attorneys get preferential
treatment in legal malpractice litigation. Are motions to dismiss granted on too little evidence? Do the attorneys get the
benefit of the doubt? Is the fact that legal malpractice law is written mostly by attorneys, is decided upon by attorneys
and affects attorneys sometimes dispositive of the outcome? Well, all that aside, sometimes the client just can't help themselves.
Here is an example from today's NYLJ: Uzamere v. Uzamere; KINGS COUNTY;
Justice Schack. . .” Shortly thereafter, Defendant Lawline.com published
the same article, even going so far as to compare Jewish Defendant Kaye's, Defendant Shapiro's and Defendant Gladstein's monstrous
act of aggravated identity theft, including the deprivation of Movant's and her daughter Tara's right to bear the African/Nigerian
name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere nothing more than Movant's delusion that it was an act of legal malpractice, and not
a crime. Movant respectfully asks this Court to take judicial notice of Defendant Andrew Lavoot Bluestone's internet editorial
entitled Sometimes It Just Wasn't the Attorney in Legal Malpractice.” ..........29).....On August 16, 2010, Movant filed
lawsuit 2010-cv-555 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit assigned to Defendant judge Christine O.C. Miller.
Movant alleges that she provided Defendant Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack
Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendant Miller disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file
a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering
because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance
the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Movant
into believing that a civil res judicata determination
was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys
Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. ..........30).....On August
30, 2010, Movant filed lawsuit 2010-cv-585 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit assigned to Defendants Nancy
B. Firestone and John P. Wiese of the U.S. Court of Claims. Movant alleges that she provided Defendants Firestone and Wiese
with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendants Firestone and Wiese disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint
against the aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an
act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine
Law of the Moser; 2) trick Movant into believing that a
civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final
determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey
Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. ..........31).....On September 1, 2010, Movant filed lawsuit 2010-cv-591
with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit was assigned to Defendant judge Christine O.C. Miller of the U.S. Court
of Claims. Movant alleges that she provided Defendant Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's
and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendant Miller disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing
to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of
racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to:
1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick
Movant into believing that a civil res judicata determination
was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys
Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. ..........32).....On or around January 11, 2011,
Movant filed a lawsuit against Defendant State of New York with the New York State Court of Claims. As part of Movant's testimony,
Movant provided Defendant Scuccimarra with the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt, Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey
Shapiro and Jack Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft with regard to Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity.
Defendant Scuccimarra never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys' commission of a federal felony. ..........33).....On or around
January 19, 2011, Movant filed a lawsuit against Defendant Gerstein, Defendant Sunshine and Defendant Schack with Defendant
the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. As part of Movant's testimony, Movant provided Defendant Klonick with the
fraudulent affirmations that corrupt, Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein used to commit aggravated
identity theft with regard to Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity. Defendant Klonick never made any attempt to address
the aforementioned Jewish attorneys' commission of a federal felony. ..........34).....On or around April 29, 2011, Movant filed a lawsuit
against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein with Defendants the New York State Departmental Disciplinary
Committee for the First Judicial Department and the New York Grievance Committee for the Second Judicial Department. As part
of Movant's testimony, Movant provided Defendants Del Tipico and Gutierrez with the fraudulent affirmations that Defendants
Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft at the behest of their client, Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere. Defendants Del Tipico and Gutierrez never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys
commission of a federal felony. ..........35).....In June, 2011, Movant filed the lawsuit Uzamere v. Cuomo, et
al, 11-cv-2831 with the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York. ..........36).....On or around
June 22, 2011, 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 duping Movant into believing that a civil res judicata determination is a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys
Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud, and his own
and Defendant Bloom's commission of racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity fraud
and fraud upon the court as well. ..........37).....On or around June 25, 2011, less than thirty (30) days after Movant submitted her lawsuit to the
court, Defendant Garaufis engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated
identity theft of at the behest of Defendant Judge Garaufis three (3) marshals from the U.S. Marshals Service for Defendant
the Eastern District of New York banged on Movant's apartment door, shaming Movant within earshot of her neighbors. When the
U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of New York identified themselves, Movant asked them if she had committed a crime. The
marshals stalled for a few seconds, and then said that Movant had not committed any crimes. When Movant asked the U.S. Marshals
why they were there, the U.S. Marshal that banged on Movant's door said “I'm gonna annoy you like you annoyed Judge
Garaufis.” When Movant told them that she would not open the door, the one banging on the door said “then I'm
gonna keep bangin”, and for another 1.5 minutes continued to bang on Movant's door.
He also asked Movant “is your daughter Tara home?”, to find out if Movant was home alone. Within minutes
of Movant telling them that her daughter Tara was there, they left. ..........38).....On July 4, 2011, Movant filed her appeal for the lawsuit
Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al., 11-2713-cv. Movant also filed
a motion for judicial recusal pursuant to 28 USC §455. ..........39).....On or around July 7, 2011, within days of Movant's request for Defendant Garaufis to recuse himself,
Defendant Garaufis commenced a plan to have Defendant mental health employees engaged in an extortionate “shakedown”
in which the aforesaid mental health defendants falsely accused Movant of threatening Defendant Garaufis with bodily harm
and threatening federal employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' call center with death. Defendants psychiatric
nurse Agnes Flores and psychologist Martin Bolton, employees of Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation came
to Movant's apartment, speaking about Movant's psychiatric issues in the hallway and shaming Movant within earshot of her
neighbors. Defendants Flores and Bolton said that Defendant U.S. Marshal Service told them that Movant contacted Defendant
Mental Health Association's LifeNet5 psychiatric helpline and made threats of bodily harm against Defendant Garaufis.
Movant told them that had she done such a thing that the U.S. Marshal Service would have arrested her when
they visited her and given her an attorney, which would have forced Movant's attorney to examine Movant's civil claims. ..........40).....Also, on
July 7, 2011, at the behest of Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe, the United Parcel Service returned Movant's appellate brief, all of
Movant's motions, Appendix A and Appendix B that Movant served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July
4, 2012. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe did not include any correspondence explaining why Movant's appellate documents were returned.
When Movant checked the PACER system, the system fraudulently recorded Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis decision as a
memorandum and order, even though Defendant Garaufis never provided an FRCP-based memorandum. ..........41).....Some days later while in the month
of July 2011, Movant received another visit from Defendants Flores and Bolton. Because Movant was afraid that someone who
would enter her apartment and place Movant in a psychiatric hospital against her will, Movant hid in her closet
between so that if they came into Movant's apartment, she would appear not be home. ..........42) Some days later during the month of July, 2011, Movant received a call from Defendant
Davis, but Movant turned her cell phone off. ..........43).....A day or so later, someone knocked on Movant's door but did not announce themselves. Again Movant
hid in her closet to feign that she was not home. When Movant went to the door, there was a notice from Woodhull Hospital's
psychiatric unit with an appoint to appear at their psychiatric outpatient clinic. ..........44).....On July 16, 2011, in terror of forced hospitalization
at the behest of Defendant Garaufis, the U.S. Marshal Service and psychiatric facilities over which the New York State Office
of Mental Health and the New York State Department of Health have oversight, Movant faxed
a copy of Affidavit to Preetinder Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. ..........45).....Later on in July 2011, Defendant
Davis called Movant, frightening Movant by making Movant believe that Movant would be forcibly hospitalized because Defendant
U.S. Marshal Service told her that Movant had threatened others at the Medicaid office, something that Movant did not do.
Movant took the liberty of recording the conversation in its entirety. Movant uploaded the conversation
http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html6 ..........46).....In
the month of August, 2011 Defendant Davis contacted Defendant Sarpong for the purpose of forcing Movant to go to Defendant
Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, where Movant was hospitalized as an inpatient for threatening Defendant Garaufis and other
judges with bodily harm, and threatening CMS workers with death, something that Movant never did. Movant stayed a few days
as an inpatient with Defendant Brookdale because Defendant Dr. “John Doe” and other employees of Defendant Brookdale
Hospital Medical Center were told by Defendant Sarpong that Movant threatened Judge Garaufis, other judges and CMS call center
workers with death and with bodily harm. Thereafter, Brookdale Hospital Medical Center terminated its outpatient psychiatric
services to the Movant and transferred Movant to the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community
Treatment Team in order Movant illegally monitor along with Defendant Denis P. McGowan of Defendant U.S. Department of
Homeland Security. ..........47).....On or around August 18, 2011, Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation's East
New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team received correspondence from U.S. Department
of Homeland Security on its original letterhead bearing the name “Denis P. McGowan, Chief, Threat Management Branch.”
The letter stated: “On July 06, 2011, Federal Protective Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made by CHERYL
UZAMERE to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid call center. The threat consisted of HER stating: since SHE did not get
the job, SHE was going to "COME DOWN THERE AND KILL EVERYBODY. Since FPS has investigated UZAMERE multiple times for
similar behavior, we are well aware of HER mental health history. Based on that information, a referral was made to LifeNet
for mental health intervention on July 07 2011. Subsequently, UZAMERE's Intensive Case Manager (ICM) Bridgett Davis of the
New York State Office of Mental Health has advised that UZAMERE's treatment has been transferred to the Assertive Community
Treatment (ACT) program. We were informed that CHERYL D. UZAMERE is being treated as a patient by your program and we would
like to keep you abreast of this situation as it evolves. We also request that we be notified as HER status changes in particular
any change from in-patient to out-patient treatment and in the case of the latter any refusal of treatment. In addition,
please notify FPS of any relapses or deterioration of HER condition that may pose a risk to life or property.” ..........48).....From July 6, 2011,
the date in which Movant is alleged to have committed 18 USC §115 against Defendant Garaufis, other federal judges and
employees of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services call center, no
federal law enforcement agency has made any attempt to arrest the Movant for the aforementioned offenses. According to Defendant
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, the judges who rendered decisions on Movant's appeal for her lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo,
et al, 11-2713-cv were not indicated on the decision because others unknown to Movant told
Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe that Movant threatened Judge Nicholas, other federal judges and Defendant Sunshine. ..........49).....On February 26,
2012, Defendant HHC's ACT Team where Defendant Sarpong is employed prepared a psychiatric treatment plan. Under the title
“Alerts”, the treatment plan states “. . . H/O threats to judges and Center for Medicaid and Medicare, patient
is being monitored by Homeland Security.” Under the title “Discharge Plan”, it says “Patient is not
being considered for discharge at this time, she was transferred to the program 6 months ago after she made a threat to the
Medicare and Medicaid call center and is being monitored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” Under the title
“Patient/Family Statement”, it says that “She reported not being aware of being monitored by
Homeland Security. . .” ..........50).....From June 6, 2012, Movant sent a number of e-mails to employees Mike J. Fitzpatrick, Katrina Gay,
David Levy and Sue Medford of the organization National Alliance for the Mental Ill (NAMI) regarding Defendant Daily
News use of the term “wacko” to publicly malign the Movant. None of the employees that Movant contacted made
any attempt to speak with the Movant. ..........51).....On November 28, 2012, based on information and belief, Defendants Raggi, Carney and Kahn of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation
of aggravated identity theft by rendering an FRAP-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv for the
sole purpose of advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by 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 aggravated identity fraud, and their own commission of racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation
of aggravated identity, for their own commission of obstruction of justice by duping Movant into believing that a civil res
judicata determination is a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless the legal consequences faced
by Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's for their criminal commission of aggravated identity
fraud. Movant was told the names of Defendant judges Raggi, Carney and Kahn by an unknown employee of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe also engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal
facilitation of aggravated identity theft for the sole purpose of advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by not
filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E.
Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. Movant's alleges that
Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe left out the names of the judges who rendered their illegal decision on Movant's decision based on
defendants' delusion that Movant would either not figure out the judges' identity and would therefore be unable to sue them. ..........52).....Soon thereafter,
the Movant called Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court for U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and asked
why the appellate judges' names were not indicated on the U.S. Court of Appeals' decision. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe indicated
that the judges' names were left out because Movant had threatened federal judges, something that Movant never did. ..........53).....a).....During
the month of December, 2012, Movant sent several e-mails containing a copy of the lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831
that Movant filed, as well as those lawsuits that Movant will file with the Federal District Court of the Eastern District
of New York, along with proof of Movant's ex-husband's identity and the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt Jewish immigration
attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein filed with the New York State Supreme Court to First Lady Michele
Obama, and to all the defendants. ....................b).....During the last days of Movant's amending her Verified Complaint, Movant discovered that four
(4) of the Defendants, namely, Agnes Flores, psychiatric nurse, formerly employed by Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporation, Martin Bolton, psychologist, formerly employed by New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Anne Berrill
Carroll, General Counsel and Deputy Vice President, formerly employed by Defendant Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel, staff
writer, formerly employed by Daily News, LP are no longer employed at their respective places of employment. Movant has had
difficulty discovering their forwarding addresses for employment or for residence. Movant considers the disappearance of the
aforesaid Defendants an act of obstruction of justice and proof of Defendants' mens rea. ..........54).....On
or around January 30, 2013, Movant received a letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The letter stated:
"Our records show that you placed calls to 1-800-MEDICARE on the dates and times listed below (all times Central). We
can confirm that none of these calls contained threatening comments: June 14,2010, 10:38 AM; June 1, 2011, 7:39 AM; July 8,2011,
12:56 PM; May 18, 2012, 11:17 AM, 1:29 PM, 3:51 PM; July 2, 2012, 10:47 AM; July 10, 2012, 2:24 PM; July 17, 2012, 1:09 PM;
July 18, 2012, 11:14 AM; July 19, 2012, 5:02 PM; July 23, 2012, 2:51 PM; July 24, 2012, 5:21 PM, 5:43 PM, 5:47 PM, 6:05 PM,
9:56 PM; July 26, 2012, 9:39 PM; July 27, 2012, 5:48 PM; September 9, 2012, 4:39 PM; October 18, 2012, 2:26 PM; November
16, 2012 7:38 PM; November 26, 2012, 1:46 PM; December 12, 2012, 11:13AM; December 13, 2012, 4:29 AM, 5:05 PM, 5:09
PM. ..........55).....On
March 7, 2013, Movant contacted the New York State Court of Appeals to inform Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of Movant's plans
to include him in her lawsuit. Later on, Movant received an e-mail from Richard Reed that said: “This is further to
the telephone conversation that you had with the Clerk's Office of the New York State Court of Appeals this morning regarding
your proposed federal complaint. Please be advised that the matter has been turned over to Counsel's Office for the Office
of Court Administration. They will contact you in due course.” Towards the end of the same day, Movant received a telephone
call from Defendant Michael J. Broyde and attempted to tell him of what Movant called a contradiction in term with regard
to being both a rabbi and a U.S. attorney. Movant informed the rabbi-attorneys of her plans to file her Verified Complaint
against them, and consistent with Movant's stated plans, e-mailed her Verified Complaint and the exhibits to rabbi-attorneys
Michael J. Broyde, Esq., Rabbi Michoel Zylberman, Esq., Rabbi Yona Reiss, Esq., Rabbi Shlomo Weissmann, Esq. ..........56).....On March 9, 2013,
Movant e-mailed Abraham H. Foxman, Steven M. Freeman, Esq., Steven C. Sheinberg, Esq., Deborah Bensinger, Esq. and David
L. Barkey, Esq. of the Anti-Defamation League, Inc. to advise them how Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro,
Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq., Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel employed their Talmud-fostered racial hatred and hatred
of mentally ill goyim to rationalize their commission of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft; their false accusation
that Movant harassed Defendant Sunshine; their false accusation that Movant made threats of violence; their violation of Movant's
Sixth Amendment insofar as the aforesaid Defendants never had any intention of confronting the Movant; and the Defendants'
continued violation of 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, insofar as none of the Defendants have ever made any
attempt to file any criminal complaint against Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Jack
Gladstein, Esq., Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel in spite of Movant's irrefutable criminal accusations. ..........57).....On March 15, 2013,
Movant sent a a copy of her lawsuit and a her complaint regarding Defendant McCarthy to Defendant the Professional Responsibility
Program. Movant explained in her e-mail that Defendant McCarthy violated 18 USC §4, misprision of felony based on Defendant's
McCarthy's having knowledge of the actual commission of a Allen E. Kaye's and Harvey Shapiro's aggravated identity theft and
her continued refusal to it make known; and her refusal to obey Vermont’s Rules of Professional Conduct's Rule 3.4,
Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, which requires attorneys not to: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access
to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value; b) not
to counsel or assist another person to do any such act; and, c) not to falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify
falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law. ..........58).....On March 25, 2013 Movant sent a reply back to Vermont's
Professional Responsibility Program with copies of the attorneys' fraudulent affirmations that hold Godwin Uzamere to be Movant's
husband. ..........59).....On
March 24, 2013, Movant called Defendant FBI New York Office and asked one of its agents if the FBI office would refuse to
take Movant's complaints if the person against whom Movant complained was Jewish, as Movant alleges was done to her in the
past. True to past behavior, someone hung up the phone. When Movant called back, the person on the phone said that Movant
had posed the question to Mr. Stein, hurting his feelings. Movant was then called anti-Semitic, and then subjected to having
the telephone hung up. Movant took her three (3) phones and engaged in a blitz phone call session, allowing all of her phones
to ring at the same time. When "John Doe" #1 finally answered the phone, Movant got into an argument with Defendant
“John Doe” #1 with regard to Movant's right to file a criminal complaint against Jews who had violated federal
law. Defendant “John Doe” #1 blackmailed Movant by telling her that he would call Movant's daughter, mentioning
Movant's daughter's name (something that generally precedes a threat of psychiatric hospitalization), and then would come
to Movant's apartment; however, when asked if Movant had committed a crime and whether Movant would be assigned an attorney,
"John Doe" #1 said that Movant would have to obtain an attorney on her own. As it turned out, "John Doe"
#1 never came to Movant's apartment, and never contacted Movant's daughter. During Movant's conversation with "John Doe"
#1, Movant told the employee that she was recording the conversation. Movant recorded the conversation and uploaded it to
http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/adl_zuckerman_both_criminals.html (this site, at the link that says FBIconversation - click here). The following day, Movant contacted the FBI and spoke with a woman (who sounded black). Movant told the
woman that an FBI employee would not allow her to file any complaints if the subject of the complaint is Jewish. Movant also
told the woman that she recorded the conversation and uploaded it to her website. The woman asked Movant how Movant knew whether
the person with whom Movant spoke was an employee of the FBI. Movant told the woman she was right, and that the person with
whom Movant spoke could have been Bozo the Clown. Subsequently, an employee of the FBI called Movant's psychiatric treatment
facility and reported that Movant had an argument with an FBI employee; that said argument was indicative that Movant has
psychiatric issues that warrant hospitalization. On March 28, 2013, the day of Movant's treatment appointment, Movant was
asked by her psychiatrist, Dr. Beaudouin if she had had an argument with anyone. Later, Movant was interviewed simultaneously
by Dr. Beaudouin and Ms. Fletcher in an attempt to find reasons to hospitalize the Movant. It was so obvious that Movant asked
if they planned to hospitalize her. Movant's psychiatrist and therapist said no; however, Movant's psychiatrist and therapist
never disclosed to Movant that they had been contacted by Defendant FBI and requested to act as agents of the police. Movant
had committed no crime and has been treatment compliant such that Movant felt double-teamed by Dr. Beaudouin and Ms. Fletcher
with their bombardment of questions that were geared, not to help Movant, but as an investigative tool of the FBI to determine
whether Movant had any argument with the FBI. Movant's treatment facility is now being used surreptitiously to ensure that
if Movant files a complaint with the FBI against any Jew, that the FBI will contact her psychiatric treatment facility and
tell them to hospitalize Movant. ..........60).....By reason of the foregoing irrefutable allegations, Movant asserts that there exists a justiciable
controversy with respect to Movant's emergency motion for expedited mandatory judicial notice of her exhibits and conversation
to a motion for summary judgment for which Movant is entitled to the relief prayed for herein. Specific Requests For Expedited Mandatory Judicial Notice ..........61).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to
take expedited mandatory judicial notice of correspondence from CMS attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit S. ..........62).....Movant respectfully
asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of report prepared by Defendant Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, and to accept into evidence as Verified Complaint Exhibit A. ..........63).....Movant respectfully
asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of letter bearing the false name of Movant's ex-husband that was
presented to Movant by Defendant Jack Gladstein and to accept into evidence as Exhibit B. ..........64).....Movant respectfully
asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of documentation regarding USA v. Uzamere, 1:08-cr-114-1
attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit B. ..........65).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of fraudulent
affirmation and fraudulent foreign counter-affidavit attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit C. ..........66).....Movant respectfully
asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of correspondence from Defendant McCarthy dated January 6, 2009
attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit A. ..........67).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of Page 9 of Justice
Sunshine's decision and order dated January 12, 2009 is attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit D. ..........68).....Movant respectfully
asks this Court to take judicial notice of e-mail to former Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders and response from the U.S. Embassy
in Nigeria attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit E. 69) Movant
respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of fraudulent passport cover and fraudulent social
security number attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit C. ..........70).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited
mandatory judicial notice of Defendant Sunshine's decision attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit F. ..........71).....Movant respectfully
asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of fraudulent affirmations of Defendants Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein
attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit G. ..........72).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of correspondence
from Rikers Island, attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit H. ..........73).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to
take expedited mandatory judicial notice of FEGS' discharge summary attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit J1. ..........74).....Movant respectfully
asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of interim decision of Defendant Schack attached as Verified
Complaint Exhibit I. ..........75).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of interim decision
of Defendant Schack's decision dated July 13, 2010 attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit J. ..........76).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to
take expedited mandatory judicial notice of copies of UPS envelopes for Movant's appellate documents attached as Verified
Complaint Exhibit K. ..........77).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of documents for
Movant's lawsuit Uzamere vs. State of New York, et al 09-cv-2703/09-3197-cv and Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al,
11-2831-cv and 11-2713-cv attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit L. ..........78).....Movant respectfully asks this Court to
take expedited mandatory judicial notice of letter from Denis P. McGowan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security attached as
Verified Complaint Exhibit M. Relief ..........79).....Movant seeks this Court to take expedited mandatory judicial notice of each of the specific requests
above. ..........80).....Movant
specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that in December, 1977, Nosayaba (John) Uzamere and Ethel
Uzamere (brother and sister-in-law, NOT father and stepmother) engaged in immigration fraud by applying for IR2 residence
on behalf of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; that said IR2 residence was approved, first in December 1978, and subsequently
the accompanying visa was approved on January 28, 1980. ..........81).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on November 20,
1979, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere engaged in fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated theft, racketeering and obstruction
of justice by submitting to Defendant City of New York a fraudulent marriage affidavit for license to marry the Movant. ..........82).....Movant specifically
seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on or around November 30, 1979, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
engaged in fraud, immigration fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft, racketeering and obstruction of justice
by submitting the fraudulent marriage certificate bearing the fictitious name “Godwin E. Uzamere” to Defendants
Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro; that Defendants Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro engaged in fraud, immigration fraud, identity
theft and/or aggravated identity theft by accepting on behalf of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere the fraudulent marriage certificate
and fraudulent I-130 immigration form without requiring their client to produce current Nigerian and/or U.S. photograph-bearing
identification; and that Defendants Kaye and Shapiro engaged in fraud, immigration fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated
identity theft, racketeering and obstruction of justice by employing willful blindness with regard to their knowledge of Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's prior application for IR2 sponsorship under his real name and with regard to their own responsibility
to require a current passport and/or other proper photo-bearing identification from their client. ..........83).....Movant specifically seeks this Court
TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on April 29, 1980, Judge Philip M. Roache issued an arrest warrant against the
fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere”; and that from the aforementioned date until that date that Tara A. Uzamere,
the child of the marriage became 21 years of age, Defendants State of New York and the City of New York never made any honest
attempt to contact Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to require him to pay child support. ..........84).....Movant specifically seeks this Court
TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on August 12, 1980, Movant filed a complaint with Defendant U.S. Department of
Justice's immigration service withdrawing immigration sponsorship based on her belief that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
married her solely to obtain permanent residence; that Movant specifically stated in her complaint to Defendant U.S. Department
of Justice that “I believe that he is attending classes at Pratt University in Brooklyn, New York. . .he had been registered
there under the name Ehigie Uzamere”; and that at the time that Movant filed the aforementioned complaint, Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was a student studying architecture at Pratt University, Brooklyn, New York. ..........85).....Movant specifically seeks this Court
TO ORDER AS A FINDING that Defendants U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Homeland Security
never held Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Esq. and Harvey Shapiro criminally liable for submitting the fraudulent I-130 immigration
sponsorship form and fraudulent marriage certificate to them without submitting their client's passport or other proper proof
of identity although both Defendant maintained immigration files containing documents confirming the real identity of Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. ..........86).....Movant
specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that immigration records were held by Defendant U.S.
Department of Justice and are now under the care, supervision and control of Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security
under file number A35 201 224 pertain to the true and correct identity of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, born December 31,
1960; that A24 027 764 pertains to the false identity “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere, false date of birth, June 1, 1955; that
the aforementioned immigration records have been in the possession of Defendants U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department
of Homeland Security's immigration service for thirty-four (34) years; and that at the behest of President Obama, Defendant
United States of America, by its agent U.S. Department of Homeland Security provided Movant with proof of Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere's identity by sending Movant correspondence and other documents containing immigration files nos. A35 201 224
(associated with Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, date of birth December 31, 1960) and A24 027 764 (associated with “Godwin Ehigie
Uzamere”, date of birth “June 1, 1955”). ..........87).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on or around
October 1, 2003, Defendant Gladstein engaged in misprision of felony, fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft,
deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering and obstruction of justice
by mailing fraudulent correspondence to Movant, said correspondence bearing the fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere”
to dupe Movant into identifying Movant's husband and to conspire with Defendant the New York State Unified Court System to
accept “Godwin Uzamere” as the true and correct identity of Movant's husband; that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
financially retained the aforesaid attorney's legal services without providing true and correct proof of identity (current
passport, current driver's license); and that Defendant Gladstein engaged in misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights
under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering and obstruction of justice by never requiring
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to provide true and correct proof of his identity by producing current U.S. photo-bearing
identification documents. ..........88).....Movant
specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that Osato Eugene Uzamere7 , at the behest of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Defendant Sunshine engaged in 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 fraudulently holding that Movant is insane, thereby illegally defying the administrative
decisions rendered by Defendant U.S. Department of Justice nearly thirty (30) years earlier confirming Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere's identity and revoking his IR2 residence based on his subsequent fraudulent application for IR1 residence under the
fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere; that Defendant Osato Eugene Uzamere, on behalf of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and
Defendant Sunshine, engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with
civil rights, racketeering and obstruction of justice by hand-delivering to Defendant Sunshine during Defendant Sunshine's
adjudication of Movant's divorce action a copy of a Nigerian passport bearing the number A0588053 but not bearing the photograph
and name of the passport holder; a fraudulent document from the Social Security Administration bearing the fictitious name
“Godwin Uzamere and bearing number 129-64-1205; that Defendants Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Osato Eugene Uzamere and Defendant
Sunshine made no attempt to require the submission and submit true and correct photo-bearing identification documents of Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; that this is the first extortionate attempt that Defendants made to extort/blackmail Movant publicly
or in a court/psychiatric setting, by accusing Movant of being an anti-Semitic, a potentially violent criminal, psychotic
or all three in order to frighten Movant into not filing criminal charges against them, and in order to ensure that if Movant's
complaint is publicized, that the public – especially the Jewish public, would not believe the Movant; and that Defendants
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's, Osato Eugene Uzamere's and Defendant Sunshine's rationalization for engaging in misprision of felony,
deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice,
extortionate/blackmail and blacklisting is based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title
II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........89).....Movant specifically seeks this Court
TO ORDER AS A FINDING that with reference to criminal lawsuit USA v. Uzamere, 1:08-cr-114-1, Defendant
Rachel McCarthy of U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Eugenia Cowles of U.S. Department of Justice's U.S. Attorney's
Office for the State of Vermont engaged in 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 by falsely accusing
Movant of the commission of 18 USC §111(a), simple assault, a crime which Movant did not committed and for which Defendants
never had any intention to confront Movant for the purpose of determining her guilt in any court of law in the first instance
based on withdrawal of their own case; that Defendants' extortionate allegation was an act of blackmail designed to frighten
Movant into not filing complaints against Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro; that his is the second
extortionate attempt that Defendants made to blackmail Movant by publicly or in a court/psychiatric setting accusing Movant
of being an anti-Semitic, a potentially violent criminal, psychotic or all three in order to prevent Movant from filing criminal
charges against them, and in order to ensure that if Movant's complaint is publicized, that that public – especially
the Jewish public, would not believe the Movant; and that Defendant McCarthy's and Cowles' rationalization for having engaged
in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering
and obstruction of justice is based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans
With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........90).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER
AS A FINDING that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was the husband8 of the Movant, is the father of the child of the marriage, Tara A. Uzamere
and was the stepfather of David P. Walker; that Movant's divorce action K-26332-2007, including the question of paternity
with regard to Tara A. Uzamere, the child of the marriage and the question of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere identity were
decided favorably by Defendant Sunshine and Defendant D'Emic, such that the issue of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity
is now a matter of New York State case law, Uzamere vs. Uzamere, 2009, NY Slip Op 90214 [68 AD3d 855]; that with
reference to the records of Defendant New York State Unified Court System, Index No. 26332-2007 and appellate action Uzamere
v. Uzamere, 2009-01119, NY Slip Op 90214 [68 AD3d 855], that the Affidavit of child of the marriage Tara A. Uzamere holding
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be her father is true and correct; that Defendant Judge Sunshine's decision dated May 12, 2009 holding
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be Movant's husband is true and correct; that Defendant Judge D'Emic's decision dated March
15, 2010 holding that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be Movant's husband and the father of Tara A. Uzamere is true and
correct; and that Defendant appellate judges Fisher's, Angiolillo's, Lott's and Sgroi's decision December 8, 2009 holding
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be Movant's husband is true and correct. ..........91).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER
AS A FINDING that on or around October 28, 2009, Defendants Nicholas G. Garaufis, Arthur M. Schack, Jeffrey S. Sunshine,
Michael Gerstein, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, engaged in 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 by submitting fraudulent affirmations to the court holding “Godwin Uzamere” to be the Movant's
husband based on the same fraudulent I-130 immigration sponsorship form that Defendants Kaye and Shapiro submitted to Defendant
United States of Justice almost thirty (30) years earlier; that the aforementioned Defendants did not submit with their fraudulent
affirmations any current U.S. photo-bearing identification documents associated with the fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere”;
and that Defendants Nicholas G. Garaufis', Arthur M. Schack's, Jeffrey S. Sunshine's, Michael Gerstein's, Allen E. Kaye's,
Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein's rationalization of their 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
and blacklisting is based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans
With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........92).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER
AS A FINDING that on November 3, 2009, while under the administration, care, supervision and control of Defendants
Andrew M. Cuomo as Governor of Defendant State of New York, Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge of the New York State Unified Court
System and Mayor Michael Bloomberg as Mayor for Defendant City of New York, Defendants Charles A. Hynes as District Attorney
for Kings County, Amy Feinstein as Chief Assistant District Attorney for Kings County District Attorney's Office, Allen E.
Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Lisa
Schreibersdorf, Timothy Gumkowski and Joyce Kendrick engaged in 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
by conspiring to have the New York City Police Department falsely arrest the Movant for threatening Defendant Sunshine; that
thirty-three (33) days later, after having been apprised of Movant's allegations against the Defendants, Defendant Brooklyn
Defender Service by its employee Joyce Kendrick told Movant to “let it go” and ended their representation of the
Movant without ever representing the Movant in court with reference to her complaint of Defendants' conspiracy to prevent
Movant from filing complaints against them; that the aforementioned Defendants conspired to have the charges dropped against
Movant without allowing her to confront the individual(s) who filed the false accusation against the Movant; and that while
under the administration, care, supervision and control of Defendants Andrew M. Cuomo as Governor of Defendant State of New
York and Mayor Michael Bloomberg as Mayor for Defendant City of New York, Defendants Charles A. Hynes as District Attorney
for Kings County, Amy Feinstein as Chief Assistant District Attorney for Kings County District Attorney's Office, Allen E.
Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Lisa
Schreibersdorf, Timothy Gumkowski and Joyce Kendrick rationalized their having engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation
of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering and obstruction of justice based solely
on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and
the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........93).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that
on November 5, 2009, while under the administration, care, supervision and control of Defendants Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor
of Defendant State of New York, Eric Schneiderman, Attorney General for the New York State, Michael Bloomberg, Mayor for
Defendant City of New York, Defendants Charles A. Hynes as District Attorney for Kings County, Amy Feinstein as Chief Assistant
District Attorney for Kings County District Attorney's Office, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G.
Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Lisa Schreibersdorf, Timothy Gumkowski and Joyce Kendrick
engaged in 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 by conspired with Daily News employees Mortimer
Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel to illegally publish as true and correct the fraudulent identity “Godwin Uzamere”,
and fraudulent information regarding the unauthenticated, counter-affidavit from Nigeria; that the aforesaid Defendants commented
on or illegally allowed the dissemination of Movant's , nonpublic information9 regarding Movant's cases Kings County Criminal Court Case Docket No. 2009KN087992
and Kings County Supreme Court case Index No. K-26332-2007, Movant's action for divorce; that this is the part two of the
fourth extortionate attempt that Defendants made to blackmail Movant publicly or in a court/psychiatric setting, by accusing
Movant of being an anti-Semitic, a potentially violent criminal, psychotic or all three in order to blackmail Movant into
not filing criminal charges against the Defendants, and in order to ensure that if Movant's complaint is publicized, that
that public – especially the Jewish public, would not believe the Movant; and that while under the administration, care,
supervision and control of Defendants Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of Defendant State of New York and Mayor Michael Bloomberg,
Mayor for Defendant City of New York, Defendants Charles A. Hynes as District Attorney for Kings County, Amy Feinstein as
Chief Assistant District Attorney for Kings County District Attorney's Office, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein,
Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Lisa Schreibersdorf, Timothy Gumkowski and
Joyce Kendrick engaged in 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 rationalized their having engaged
in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering
and obstruction of justice based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans
With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........94).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER
AS A FINDING that on November 30, 2009, while under the administration, care, supervision and control of Defendants
New York State, the New York State Office of Mental Health and Defendant Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Defendants Roberta Siegal,
Assistant Vice President of FEGS, Inc.; Dr. Forster, psychiatrist of FEGS, Inc. and Clifford Nafus, Rehabilitation Technician
of FEGS, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Arthur M. Schack, engaged
in 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 by conspiring with employees of Defendant Federation Employment
and Guidance Service to blackmail Movant by illegally terminating its federally-funded mental health services to the Movant
based on the aforementioned Defendant's accusation that Movant made anti-Semitic remarks; that this is the fourth part of
the same extortionate attempt that Defendants made to blacklist Movant, publicly or in a court/psychiatric setting, by accusing
Movant of being an anti-Semitic, a criminal, psychotic or all three in order to prevent Movant from filing criminal charges
against them, and in order to ensure that if Movant's complaint is publicized, that public – especially the Jewish public,
would not believe the Movant; that Defendant Federation Employment and Guidance Service and Defendant employees, rationalized
terminating the Movant on the basis of anti-Semitism, a violation of Jewish religious law;10 and that Defendants Roberta Siegal, Assistant Vice President of FEGS, Inc.; Dr. Forster, psychiatrist of FEGS,
Inc. and Clifford Nafus, Rehabilitation Technician of FEGS, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Michael Gerstein,
Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Arthur M. Schack, rationalized their having engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights
under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering and obstruction of justice based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of
1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........95).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on December 7,
2009, and on each and every occasion in which Movant was forced to become an inpatient after going to court to file complaints
against Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas
G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Arthur M. Schack engaged in 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 by conspiring to kidnap the Movant based on Defendants concocting false reports that Movant threatened Defendant
Sunshine, a crime Movant did not commit, and for which the accusing Defendants never had any intention of confronting Movant
for the purpose of successfully prosecuting Movant in any court of law; and that Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein,
Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine and
Arthur M. Schack engaged in 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 based solely on Movant's status
of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation
Act of 1973. ..........96).....Movant
specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on December 24, 2009, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine Defendant Cutrona and Arthur M. Schack engaged
in 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 by conspiring to unlawfully imprisoning the Movant by fraudulently
adjudging Movant to be mentally unfit; said mental unfitness to be used to rationalize that Movant's complaints against Defendants
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine Defendant Cutrona
and Arthur M. Schack had their basis in Movant's mental illness and were not true; that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine Defendant Cutrona and Arthur M. Schack engaged
in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering
and obstruction of justice by rendering a decision to unlawfully imprison the Movant based on a crime that Movant did not
commit, and for which Movant's accuser never had the intention of confronting the Movant in the first instance; that Defendants
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine Defendant Cutrona
and Arthur M. Schack engaged in misprision of felony, fraud, fraud upon the court, racketeering and obstruction of justice
by rendering a decision that ignored Movant's complaint that Defendants Arthur M. Schack, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Allen E. Kaye,
Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel, Osato Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere engaged
in fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft; and that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein,
Nicholas G. Garaufis, Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine Defendant Cutrona and Arthur M. Schack rationalized their 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 and blacklisting based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........97).....Movant specifically
seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on January 15, 2010, Defendant Schack engaged in deprivation
of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering and obstruction of justice by ordering
Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's psychiatrist Dr. Marie Bauduy of the Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility not
to produce the Movant for court; and that Defendant Schack rationalization for engaging in 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 is based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........98).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on or near February
23, 2010, while the Movant was in her apartment faxing letters of complaint to various governmental agencies, Defendant Sunshine
engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud
upon the court, fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail
and blacklisting by ordering that Movant be kidnapped and unlawfully imprisoned with Defendant New York State Office of Mental
Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center; and Defendant Sunshine rationalized his commission of misprision of felony, deprivation
of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, identity theft and/or
aggravated identity theft, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting based solely on Movant's
status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........99).....Movant
specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on July 13, 2010, Defendant Schack engaged in misprision
of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud,
identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting
by rendering a decision that illegally holds that “Godwin Uzamere” is Movant's husband without requiring Defendants
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein to produce current photo-bearing U.S. identity documents to confirm the identity
of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere (or “Godwin Uzamere”); that Defendant Schack engaged in misprision of felony,
deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, identity
theft and/or aggravated identity theft, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting by illegally
rendering said decision as a res judicata decision to dupe Movant into believing that Defendant Schack has the legal authority
to prevent the Movant from commencing a new action based on, inter alia, Defendant Schack's illegal act of referring to Movant's
husband as “Godwin Uzamere”; and that Defendant Schack rationalized his commission of engaged in misprision of
felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud,
identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting
based solely on based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........100).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on July 20, 2010,
Defendant Andrew Lavoot Bluestone engaged in misprision of felony, racketeering and obstruction of justice by publicly disseminating
a false statement that Movant filed a malpractice lawsuit for the sole purpose of hiding Defendants Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey
Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated identity theft. ..........101).....Movant specifically seeks this Court
TO ORDER AS A FINDING that with reference to lawsuits that Movant filed on August 16, 2010 and September
1, 2010, Defendant Christine O.C. Miller engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy
to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, racketeering and obstruction of justice by rendering a decision
that ignored Movant's complaint that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel,
Osato Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere committed fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated theft; and that Defendant
Miller engaged in misprision of felony based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II
of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........102).....Movant specifically seeks this Court
TO ORDER AS A FINDING that with reference to the lawsuit that Movant filed on August 30, 2010, Defendant
Nancy B. Firestone and John P. Wiese engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy
to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, racketeering and obstruction of justice by rendering a decision
that ignored Movant's complaint that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel,
Osato Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere committed fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated theft; and that Defendants
Firestone and Wiese engaged in misprision of felony based solely on Movant's status of
having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation
Act of 1973. ..........103).....Movant
specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that with reference to the lawsuit that Movant filed
on or around January 11, 2011, Defendant Scuccimarra engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of
law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, racketeering and obstruction of justice by rendering
a decision that ignored Movant's complaint that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman,
Scott Shifrel, Osato Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere committed fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated theft; and
that Defendant Scuccimarra engaged in misprision of felony based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation
of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........104).....Movant specifically seeks this Court
TO ORDER AS A FINDING that with reference to Movant's complaint filed on or around January 19, 2011, Defendants
Klonick, along with other members of Defendant New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct engaged in misprision of felony,
deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, racketeering
and obstruction of justice by rendering a decision that ignored Movant's complaint that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel, Osato Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere committed fraud, identity
theft and/or aggravated theft; and that Defendants Klonick, along with other members of Defendant New York State Commission
on Judicial Conduct engaged in misprision of felony based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation
of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of
1973. ..........105).....Movant
specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that with reference to Movant's complaint filed on or around April 29,
2011, Defendants Jorge Del Tipico of Defendant New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Department,
Richard M. Gutierrez of the New York State Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts
and unnamed individuals who participated in rendering the decision regarding Movant's complaint, engaged in misprision of
felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud,
racketeering and obstruction of justice and blacklisting by rendering a decision that ignored Movant's complaint that Defendants
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel, Osato Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
committed fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated theft; and that Defendants Jorge Del Tipico of Defendant New York State
Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Department, Richard M. Gutierrez of the New York State Grievance Committee
for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts and unnamed individuals who participated in rendering the illegal
decision regarding Movant's complaint rationalized their commission of misprision of felony based solely on Movant's status
of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation
Act of 1973. ..........106).....Movant
specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on or around June 25, 2011, at the behest of Defendant
Garaufis, “John Doe #2”, “John Doe #3 and “Jane Doe”, employees of Defendant U.S. Marshals
Service for the Eastern District of New York engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy
to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting by banging
on Movant's apartment door, embarrassing Movant within earshot of her neighbors, and extortionately telling Movant that “I'm
gonna annoy you like you annoyed Judge Garaufis.”; that Movant asked if she had broken any laws, and that “John
Doe #2, “John Doe” #3 and “Jane Doe” told the Movant that she had not; that when Movant told them
that she would not open the door, the one banging on the door said “then I'm gonna keep bangin”, and later asked
Movant “is your daughter Tara home?”, to find out if Movant was home alone so as to facilitate kidnapping Movant,
placing her in an inpatient psychiatric setting and preventing her from filing an appeal against Defendant Garaufis' illegal
decision; and that at the behest of Defendant Garaufis, “John Doe #2”, “John Doe #3 and “Jane Doe”,
rationalized their commission of misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with
civil rights, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting based solely on Movant's status
of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation
Act of 1973. ..........107).....Movant
specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on or around July 7, 2011, Defendants psychiatric
nurse Agnes Flores and psychologist Martin Bolton, employees of Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation engaged
in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering,
obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting by falsely accusing Movant of contacting Defendant Mental Health
Association's LifeNet psychiatric helpline and making threats of bodily harm against Defendant Garaufis; and that Agnes Flores
and Martin Bolton rationalized their commission of misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy
to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting based solely
on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and
the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........108).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on July 7, 2011,
Defendants Nicholas G. Garaufis and Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color
of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting
by returning Movant's appellate brief, all of Movant's motions, and Appendix A and Appendix B that Movant hand-delivered to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 4, 2012 with no correspondence explaining Wolfe did not include any
correspondence explaining why Movant's appellate documents were returned; and that Defendant Garaufis and Defendant O'Hagan
Wolfe rationalized their commission of misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere
with civil rights, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting based solely on Movant's
status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........109).....Movant
specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that in the months of July and August, 2011 Defendant
Davis, Defendant Sarpong, Defendant Garaufis, employees of the U.S. Marshal Service, the New York State Office of Mental
Health, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and Brookdale Hospital Medical Center engaged in misprision of felony,
deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice
and blackmail by reporting that Movant threatened Defendant Garaufis and other judges with bodily harm, that Movant threatened
CMS workers with death, and that based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........110).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO
ORDER AS A FINDING that on or around August 18, 2011, Defendants Nicholas G. Garaufis, Charles Dunne (or
other employee of the U.S. Marshals Service), Janet Napolitano, Denis P. McGowan, formerly of the Threat Assessment Branch,
Federal Protective Service (or other employee the U.S. Department of Homeland Security), George Venizelos (previous Assistant
Director in Charge) Defendant Denis P. McGowan, Threat Assessment Branch of the Federal Protective Service for Defendant U.S.
Department of Homeland Security engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere
with civil rights, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting when Defendant McGowan
sent Defendants Davis and Sarpong correspondence in which Defendant McGowan said that “on July 06, 2011, Federal Protective
Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made by Cheryl Uzamere to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid call center.
The threat consisted of HER stating: since she did not get the job, she was going to “come down there and kill everybody”;
that Defendants Garaufis, Charles Dunne (or subordinate of the U.S. Marshals Service), Napolitano (or subordinate of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security), Venizelos (previous Assistant Director in Charge, or subordinate of Defendant Federal Bureau
of Investigation) conspired to promote Defendant McGowan to a position as Regional Director or other legal position suitable
to present a national security letter to Defendant Garaufis for the sole purpose of spying on Movant's internet activity and
her telephone calls to find something with which to blackmail the Movant, or to combine Movant's non-content information with
a false story about a telephonic threat made by the Movant in violation of 18 USC §2709 and 18 USC §3511; that on
February 26, 2012, Defendant Berger, Sarpong and other employees of Defendant New York City Health and Hospital Corporation
conspired to indicate in Movant's psychiatric treatment plan that “Non-adherence to psychiatric medications and aftercare
treatment, H/O threats to judges and Center for Medicaid” and “Patient is not considered for discharge at this
time. She was transferred 6 months ago after she made a threat to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid call center and is
being monitored by the U.S. Homeland Security”; and that Defendants Nicholas G. Garaufis, Charles Dunne (or other employee
of the U.S. Marshals Service), Janet Napolitano, Denis P. McGowan (or other employee of the Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland
Security), George Venizelos (or previous Assistant Director in Charge) of Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation engaged
in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering,
obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in
violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........111).....Movant specifically
seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that with reference to Movant's complaint filed on or around January
19, 2011, Defendants Raggi, Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Defendant Kahn of the Federal District
Court for the Northern District of New York and Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe engaged in engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation
of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, racketeering and obstruction
of justice by rendering a decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv by rendering a decision that is not based
in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any other procedural law; that the aforementioned
Defendants ignored Movant's complaint that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott
Shifrel, Osato Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere committed fraud, identity theft and/or aggravated theft by conspiring
with Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe to leave out the names of the judges' who rendered the fraudulent decision on Movant's appeal
based on their false accusation that Movant threatened federal judges, Defendant Garaufis and Defendant Sunshine, a crime
for which Movant was falsely accused and for which the aforesaid Defendants never had any intention of confronting the Movant
to allow Movant her Sixth Amendment right to defend herself against hearsay; and, that Defendants Raggi, Carney, Kahn and
Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe of New York engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy
to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the court, fraud, racketeering and obstruction of justice by ignoring Movant's
complaint based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities
Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........112).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER AS A FINDING that on or around
January 30, 2013, Movant received a letter from Katie Lewis of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that stated:
“Our records show that you placed calls to 1-800-MEDICARE on the dates and times listed below (all times Central). We
can confirm that none of these calls contained threatening comments.” ..........113).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER
AS A FINDING that Jan Eastman and Michael Kennedy of Defendant Vermont Professional Responsibility Program engaged
in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering
and obstruction of justice by rendering a decision that ignored Movant's complaint that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel, Osato Eugene Uzamere, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and McCarthy committed fraud,
identity theft and/or aggravated theft with regard to the identity of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that Jan Eastman
and Michael Kennedy of Defendant Vermont Professional Responsibility Program engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation
of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud, racketeering and obstruction of justice by
ignoring Movant's complaint based solely on Movant's status of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans
With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ..........114).....Movant specifically seeks this Court TO ORDER
AS A FINDING that on March 24, 2013, Defendant “John Doe” #1, employee of Defendant FBI New York Office
engaged in misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud
upon the court, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail, and blacklisting by using the non-content
information regarding Movant's telephone calls to her psychiatric care provider Interfaith Medical Center that Defendant “John
Doe” #1 obtained from Cablevision threatening Movant with psychiatric hospitalization for filing complaints against
lawbreaking Jews during a telephone argument Defendant “John Doe” #1 (Movant recorded the conversation and uploaded
to her website); that Defendant “John Doe” #1 threatened to contact Movant's daughter Tara A. Uzamere and embarrass
Movant in front of her daughter; that “John Doe” #1 threatened to fabricate a false story with regard to Movant's
status of having a mental illness; by threatening that someone from the FBI would come to Movant's apartment to hospitalize
her if Movant filed complaint against lawbreaking Jews; by threatening Movant that FBI's involvement would not be criminal
such that Movant would not be assigned an attorney to defend herself; that Defendant “John Doe” #1 discarded all
of Movant's complaints that were related to the crimes of the Jewish Defendants in Movant's lawsuits; that on or around March
28, 2013 Defendant “John Doe” #1 violated HIPAA by obtaining non-content information regarding Movant's phone
calls to her psychiatric care provider Interfaith Medical Center, then contacting Movant's to tell Movant's psychiatrist that
Movant had engaged in arguing with him (Really? Isn't arguing covered by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment? Doesn't
18 USC §2709 and 18 USC §3511 prohibit national security letters from being used to prevent activities protected
by the First Amendment – like arguing?); and that that Defendant “John Doe” #1 rationalized his commission
misprision of felony, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud upon the
court, fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail, and blacklisting based solely on Movant's status
of having a mental illness in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1996 and the Federal Rehabilitation
Act of 1973. LEGAL
ARGUMENTS This Court's
Expedited Mandatory Judicial Notice of Defendant Ehigie Uzamere's Identity Puts an Immediate End to Talmudic Terrorizing of Movant and Her Family ..........Case Law Establishing Movant's Right to Demand Judicial Notice ..........115).....Judicial notice
is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious
or well known, or so authoritatively attested, that it cannot reasonably be doubted. This is done upon the request of the
party seeking to rely on the fact at issue. Facts and materials admitted under judicial notice are accepted without being
formally introduced by a witness or other rule of evidence, and they are even admitted if one party wishes to lead evidence
to the contrary. Judicial notice is frequently used for the simplest, most obvious common sense
facts, such as which day of the week corresponded to a particular calendar date.11 ..........Judicial notice in the Federal Rules of Evidence ..........116).....In the United
States, Article II of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) addresses judicial notice in federal courts, and this
article is widely copied by U.S. States. FRE 201(b)) permit judges to take judicial notice of two categories of facts: 1)
Those that are "generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court" (e.g. locations of streets
within the court's jurisdiction) or 2) Those that are “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources
whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned” (e.g. the day of the week on a certain date). ..........117).....The FRE also notes that judicial notice
may be permissive or mandatory. If it is permissive, then the court may choose to take judicial notice of the fact proffered,
or may reject the request and require the party to introduce evidence in support of the point. If it is mandatory, then the
court must take judicial notice of the fact proffered. Although the FRE does not expand upon the kinds of facts that would
fall into one category or another, courts have ruled that judicial notice must be taken of federal public laws and treaties,
state public laws, and official regulations of both federal and local government agencies. ..........118) During the U.S. Supreme Court's adjudication of the case Shuttlesworth
v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969), the court took judicial notice of another U.S. Supreme Court case, Walker
v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967). In explaining the reason for taking judicial notice of the aforementioned
case, the court decided that: The petitioner
here was one of the petitioners in the Walker case, in which, just two terms ago, we had before us a record showing many of
the “surrounding relevant circumstances” of the Good Friday march. As the respondent suggests, we may properly
take judicial notice of the record in that litigation between the same parties who are now before us.
..........119).....In this case,
the court took judicial notice, or accepted as irrefutable fact the uncontradicted testimony that the court learned during
its adjudication of the case Walker v. City of Birmingham. It learned that over a week before the Good Friday march,
petitioner Shuttlesworth sent a representative to apply for a parade permit. She went to the City Hall and asked “to
see the person or persons in charge to issue permits, permits for parading, picketing, and demonstrating.” She was directed
to Commissioner Connor, who denied her request in no uncertain terms. “He said, No, you will not get a permit in Birmingham,
Alabama to picket. I will picket you over to the City Jail,' and he repeated that twice.” ..........120).....Two days later, petitioner Shuttlesworth
himself sent a telegram to Commissioner Connor requesting, on behalf of his organization, a permit to picket “against
the injustices of segregation and discrimination.” His request specified the sidewalks where the picketing would take
place, and stated that “the normal rules of picketing” would be obeyed. In reply, the Commissioner sent a wire
stating that permits were the responsibility of the entire Commission, rather than of a single Commissioner, and closing
with the blunt admonition: “I insist that you and your people do not start any picketing on the streets in Birmingham,
Alabama and your people do not start any picketing on the streets in Birmingham, Alabama.” ..........121).....In like manner, the issue with regard
to Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity is irrefutable, as it was administratively decided by Defendant U.S. Department
of Justice thirty-four (34) years ago. At the point that this Court judicially notices the facts surrounding Defendant Ehigie
Uzamere's identity, every single offense associated with this lawsuit becomes even more obvious, thereby making every request
for judicial notice requested in Movant's affidavit answerable by law. There is no “Godwin Uzamere.” Defendant's
identity as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as former husband of the Movant is not just a face, it is now law, and has been for thirty-four
(34) years. ..........Case Law Establishing Movant's
Right to Demand Conversion to Summary Judgment ..........122).....In law, a summary judgment (also judgment as a matter of law) is a judgment entered by a court
for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. ..........123).....A party moving for summary judgment is attempting to
avoid the time and expense of a trial when the outcome is obvious. A party may also move for summary judgment in order to
eliminate the risk of losing at trial, and possibly avoid having to go through discovery (not Movant's present situation insofar
as Movant engaged in discovery of her own and Defendants records, making request for discovery unnecessary), by demonstrating
to the judge, via sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material factual issues remaining to be tried. If there's
nothing for the fact finder to decide, then the moving party asks rhetorically, why have a trial?12 ..........124).....In the
lawsuit Global Network Communications, Inc. v. City of New York, et al., 458 F.3d 150 (2005), Circuit Judge Cardamone,
for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit explained that in a de novo setting, the court cannot dispense
with a complaint unless there is absolutely no facts in the complaint that support's the complaint's allegations. Judge Cardamone
stated the following: We review de novo a district court's decision to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Allaire Corp. v.
Okumus, 433 F.3d 248, 249-50 (2d Cir.2006). On such a motion, we are constrained to accept as true the factual allegations
contained in the complaint and draw all inferences in plaintiff's favor. Id. A complaint may not be dismissed pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) unless it appears beyond doubt, even when the complaint is liberally construed, that “the plaintiff can
prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46,
78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).
..........125).....Amazingly, the movant in the presently referenced lawsuit was a victim of the district court controverting
the facts in much the same way that Movant is a victim of Defendant judiciary's controverting of the facts (especially Defendant
Garaufis), to wit: With these principles
in hand, we agree with appellant that the district court committed reversible error when, in ruling that the complaint failed
to state a claim for which relief could be granted, it considered matters outside plaintiff's complaint. In particular, the
district court found that "Global cannot be expected to pay its obligations to the City in a timely or honest manner."
373 F.Supp.2d at 381. In making that finding, the court relied extensively upon a record that consisted of Massie's trial
testimony in an unrelated criminal proceeding and the Department's final determination of March 2005 that conclusively denied
Global a franchise, neither of which is part of Global's complaint. See id. at 380. Further, nothing in plaintiff's complaint
or its attached exhibits indicates appellant's inability to pay the City in a timely or honest manner, and our posture of
review, requiring that all inferences from the complaint be construed in the plaintiff's favor, Allaire, 433 F.3d at 249-50,
compels us to conclude that Global would in fact do so. Thus, not only did the district court consider external material in
its ruling, it relied on those materials to make a finding of fact that controverted the plaintiff's own factual assertions
set out in its complaint. See, e.g., Friedl, 210 F.3d at 84. At the pleadings stage this was error. Instead, the trial court
was required to convert the motion into one for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 12(b).
..........126).....“The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit finally decided that “the judgment of the district court is vacated and the
case is remanded with instructions to convert defendants' motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment, and to permit the
parties to present all materials pertinent to such a motion under Rule 56”; that is, that the circuit court sent the
case back to the lower court to require the parties to present those documents relevant to their cases, and then eventually,
based on those document that confirm the veracity of the plaintiff's claims, to convert the motion into a motion for summary
judgment. ..........127).....Movant
begs this honorable Court to take notice of the fact that Second Circuit Judge Stanton, federal district of the aforementioned
case controverted the facts as set out in Global Network Communication's complaint the same way that Second Circuit Judge
Garaufis controverted the facts in Movant's own Verified Complaint. ..........WHEREFORE,
Movant prays for this honorable Court to take emergency expedited judicial notice of those adjudicative facts pursuant to
the Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 201 and for conversion to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 56, as Movant is presently a crime victim at the hands of the Defendants; and that Movant has shown that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact so that the Movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and for such other
and further relief that this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted this __th day of July, 2013 Dated: Brooklyn, New York
July __, 2013 STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION
AND GOOD FAITH CERTIFICATION ..........I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, certify that I read the above Affidavit
in Support and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I certify that I have provided tangible, irrefutable proof
of my allegations before this Court; that I researched both facts and relevant law to the best of my ability to ensure truth
and accuracy so that my Affidavit in Support is presented to this Court in good faith. I certify before this Court
that while this Affidavit will embarrass the Defendants when it goes public, I do not present this Affidavit in Support to
embarrass, annoy or defame the Defendants. ..........I certify the foregoing pursuant to the laws for perjury. CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE ___________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue,
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net =============================================================== 10The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile. One may take revenge against or bear
a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment "love your neighbor" applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
Jewish website Da'at Emet (http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/so-daat-emet/index.html). Jewish website Rabbi Bar-Chayim: “A Jew is called “man.” (http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/so-daat-emet/en_gentiles4.html#f3 ) It is written in the Torah (Leviticus 19:18): "You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against
the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord" -- here also the verse yells
out "the children of your people." In Torat Cohanim on the portion of Kedoshim, chapter 4, halacha 12: "You
shall not avenge nor bear a grudge against the children of your people --but you can avenge and bear a grudge against others"
(that is, against Gentiles -- explanation of the Ra'avad). . ."Also, anyone who bears a grudge against a Jew transgresses
a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall not bear a grudge against the children of your people.'. . .In chapter 6
of The Laws of Mental States, halacha 4 (in the printed edition, halacha 3): "It is a commandment for every person
to love each and every Jew as he loves himself, as it says: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'." 11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_notice 12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment Dated: Brooklyn, New York
July ___, 2013 CHERYL
D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE
_______________________
Signature
of Plaintiff
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118
E-mail:
cuzamere@netzero.net |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF_______________ _____________________________________
Cheryl
D. Uzamere STIPULATION
TO TRANSFER PLAINTIFF’S
ACTION TO ANOTHER VENUE PURSUANT
Plaintiff, TO
28 USC 1404(a) AND TO REPORT
DEFENDANTS’ FEDERAL OFFENSES
- against - PURSUANT
TO 18 USC §4, MISPRISION OF
FELONY
United States of America, et al.
Defendants.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between
the parties and/or their respective counsel(s) that before you refuse to comply with Plaintiff's plan to transfer her civil
rights action to Rhode Island, that you must comply with the following conditions:
1) That Plaintiff and Defendants stipulate and agree to litigate Plaintiff 's civil rights action
at the Federal District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
2) That in the event that Defendants refuse to allow the Plaintiff to litigate her civil rights action
at the Federal District Court for the District of Rhode Island, the Defendants' attorneys will do the following: a) Defendants' attorneys will provide reasons, based in law, justifying
his/her refusal to transfer to another venue;
b) That Defendants Eric H. Holder and Robert S. Mueller must
file a subpoena duces tecum with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service to obtain any and
all information regarding Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” in immigration file nos.
A35 201 224 and A24 027 764; and that Defendants Eric H. Holder and Robert S. Mueller must file a subpoena
duces to obtain the affidavit in possession of Defendant Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel; said affidavit
referenced in the Daily News article dated November 5, 2009, stating that “The senator, however, is a cousin of her
actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to an affidavit he filed in Supreme Court." c) That those Defendants' attorneys whose clients
publicly held or presented to a court of law that "Godwin Uzamere" is/was Plaintiff's husband must provide their
own records that contain proof of the identity of "Godwin E. Uzamere"; said proof must be both past and present U.S. Government or State photograph-bearing identification (past, current passport; past
current driver's license; d) Attorneys for Defendant
U.S. Department of Homeland Security must provide the Defendant agency's own records pertaining to immigration file nos.
A35201224 and A24027764, and social security number 129-64-1205; that said records must contain proof of the identity of
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and "Godwin E. Uzamere" including: past and present U.S. Government and State photograph-bearing
identification (past and current passport; past and current driver's license; fingerprints; past and current disciplinary
actions against litigant (both immigration attorney or immigration beneficiary for fraud or any other offense); e) All judicial and legal Defendants must,
at the very least, file criminal complaints with Defendant the Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Branch against the
following Defendants: a) Joseph Visceglia; b) Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; c) Osato Eugene Uzamere; d) Judge Nicholas
G. Garaufis; e) Judge Arthur M. Schack; f) Judge Jeffrey S. Sunshine; g) Allen E. Kaye, Esq., h) Harvey Shapiro; i)
Jack Gladstein; and that said Defendants, at the very least, must be charged with the following offenses: 1) commission
of misprision of felony, 18 USC §4; 2) fraud, 18 USC §1001; 3) identity theft, 18 USC §1028; 4) aggravated
identity fraud, 18 USC §1028A; 4) deprivation of rights under color of law (including being kidnapped, unlawfully imprisoned
and blacklisted), 18 USC §242/42 USC §1985; 5) extortion, 18 USC §872§; 6) blackmail, 18 USC §873;
7) violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act; 8) violation of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
9) violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601; 10) violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment;
11) violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; 12) violation of the Petition Clause of the First Amendment;
12) violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; 13) violation of the Notice Clause
of the Sixth Amendment; 14) violation of the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment; 15) violation
of Plaintiff's right of privacy with regard to the illegal dissemination of her psychiatric records, Plaintiff marriage
history, Plaintiff married name; 16) violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;
17) intentional misuse of national security letters (NSLs); and, 18) violation of the Hobbs Act; or e) That with reference to paragraph
d, please provide legal justification as to why you did not file a report against Defendant Denis P. McGowan for filing false
charges that Plaintiff threatened employees of the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services after Plaintiff e-mailed you
proof that she never engaged in threatening employees of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; f) That with reference to the Plaintiff and her daughter, Tara A. Uzamere, why no Defendant,
after having received e-mails from Plaintiff containing her daughter Tara A. Uzamere's affidavit holding Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
to be her father, and documentation from Plaintiff holding Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be her husband, what is the legal justification
for not filing a criminal complaint against Plaintiff and her daughter for identity theft or aggravated identity theft; g) That the Defendants must file a criminal complaint against Plaintiff and her daughter, Tara
A. Uzamere; said criminal complaint must be filed by Eric H. Holder, Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice
and Robert S. Mueller, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations that states that based on tangible information
obtained from the U.S. Department of Citizenship and Immigration Service that Movant reported regarding immigration file
nos. A35 201 224 and A24 027 764, and based on her daughter Tara A. Uzamere's affidavit regarding Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere, that Plaintiff and her daughter Tara A. Uzamere committed 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft and 18 USC
§1001, fraud, by making fraudulent documents that were used in court to fraudulently establish that Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere is Plaintiff's husband and Plaintiff's daughter Tara A. Uzamere's father. If you refuse to comply with 18
USC §4, misprision of felony's mandate to report the aforementioned crimes, you must explain the legal reason for
your refusal.
If you choose not to comply to all demands for no legal reason, your refusal will be accepted as an agreement to transfer
Plaintiff's civil rights action to the District of Rhode Island.
Dated:
Brooklyn, New York
July
___, 2013
CHERYL D.
UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE
_______________________
Signature of Plaintiff
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------X Cheryl D. Uzamere
No.: 13-CV-_____________
Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
- against -
JUDICIAL RECUSAL PURSUANT
TO 28 USC §455(b)(5)(i), 28 USC
United States of America, et al.
§455(b)(1) AND 28 USC §144
Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the
attached Affidavit of Plaintiff, Cheryl D. Uzamere, sworn to ________ , 2013, and upon all the exhibits herein attached, the
Judicial Defendants will move this Court on the __th day of _____ 2013, at 9:30 in the forenoon, or as soon thereafter
to require all the judges of the Second Circuit to recuse themselves pursuant to 28 USC §455(b)(5)(i), 28 USC §455(b)(1)
and 28 USC §144, and for such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: Brooklyn, NY
July
___, 2013
CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING
PRO SE
______________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209
Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118 |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------X
Cheryl D. Uzamere
Civil Action No.: 13-CV-_____________
Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT
IN SUPPORT OF
- against -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
DEFENDANT JUDGES’
RECUSAL PURSUANT TO 28
United States of America, et al.
USC §455(b)(5)(i), 28 USC
§455(b)(1) AND 28 USC §144
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------X
I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, being duly sworn, state under the penalties of perjury that:
1) I am the Plaintiff in the above entitled action.
2) I make this Affidavit in support of my motion for judicial recusal pursuant to 28 USC §455(b)(5)(i),
USC §455(b)(1) and 28 USC §144. Purpose of Motion 3) The purpose of my motion is
to require that the Defendant judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Federal District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, the Federal District Court for the Southern District New York, and by extension, those judges
for the Northern District of New York and the Western District Court to recuse themselves, and to allow a judge who does not
have, on their own, or employ at the behest of judges who have, the same bias to be allowed adjudicate my action. Facts
4) By necessity, Plaintiff must recount the events as described in her Verified Complaint that led up to
Plaintiff's request for Defendant judges' recusal.
5) In December, 1977, approximately two (2) years before Plaintiff met Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere,
Nosayaba (John) Uzamere and his wife Ethel Uzamere (Defendant Uzamere's brother and sister-in-law, not his father and stepmother)
filed for IR2 residence for Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. The IR2 visa for Defendant Uzamere was approved on January 28,
1980. On November 21, 1979, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered into a fraudulent “green card” marriage with
the unsuspecting Plaintiff. On November 30, 1979, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro,
Esq. engaged in an act of aggravated identity theft and immigration fraud by giving the Plaintiff form I-130 to sign so as
to sponsor the Defendant for IR1 residence under the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” and fictitious birthday
“June 1, 1955.” In December, 1979, Defendant Uzamere left for Nigeria, abandoning the Plaintiff and leaving her
poor and pregnant with his daughter Tara A. Uzamere. On January 28, 1980, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered the port
of New York as a lawful permanent resident. The aforementioned lawbreaking Jewish attorneys exacerbated their act of aggravated
identity theft by refusing to require Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to produce his passport to establish proof of his identity,
and by engaging in willful blindness by pretending not to have knowledge of the existence of Senator Uzamere's passport or
of knowledge that Senator Uzamere previously applied under his correct name as an unmarried beneficiary under 21 years of
age. At the time of Plaintiff's signing the fraudulent I-130 relative sponsorship form, Plaintiff did not know that Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere had applied and been found eligible for permanent residence under his real name via sponsorship by other
family members. See report prepared by Defendant Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service attached
as Verified Complaint Exhibit A.
6) On or around October 1, 2003, Jack Gladstein engaged in an act of racketeering, and aggravated identity
fraud by mailing to the Plaintiff correspondence falsely holding Plaintiff's ex-husband out to be “Godwin Uzamere”
even though the only correct identification that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service holds is for Ehigie Edobor Uzamere,
not “Godwin Uzamere.” 7)
On or September 25, 2008, after Plaintiff had engaged in a series of leaving angry telephone calls on Defendant McCarthy's
voice mail based on Plaintiff's perception that Defendant McCarthy had engaged in racketeering designed to nullify Plaintiff's
complaint against Defendant Kaye and Defendant Shapiro, Defendant McCarthy engaged in an act of racketeering and fraud1 by engaging the U.S. Attorney's Office for Vermont
to say that “In or about September 2008, in the District of Vermont, the defendant, Cheryl Uzamere, impeded, intimidated,
and interfered with a federal employee, namely an employee of the United States Customs and Immigration Service, while that
person was engaged in and on account of that person's performance of official duties.” Plaintiff emphatically states
that she has never been to Vermont, Defendant McCarthy's state of resident, so that it was impossible for Plaintiff to have
engaged in any form of simple assault against Defendant McCarthy. See documentation regarding USA v. Uzamere, 1:08-cr-114-1
attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit B.
8) On or around October 8, 2008, Defendant Eugene Uzamere, engaged in an act of racketeering, aggravated
identity fraud, violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act by hand-delivering a fraudulent affirmation and a fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized counter-affidavit from Nigeria
which stated that “The plaintiff who has openly professed her mental illness is also delusional and outlandish in her
claims”; and “I have before now, ignored the Plaintiff's outburst but her claim to be married to my cousin who
was not in the United States at the time of our marriage is a new twist to this sad tale. . .Her obsession with his destruction
has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged” in defiance of the administrative decision
rendered by the INS regarding Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity. In addition, Justice Sunshine refused to commission a diplomatic
or consular officer for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the fraudulent foreign document that was presented to
him by attorney Osato Uzamere on behalf of his uncle, Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.2, 3 From then until the present, Justice Sunshine has never made any attempt to arrest Osato Uzamere for committing
perjury. See fraudulent affirmation and fraudulent foreign counter-affidavit attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit
C. 9)
On or around January 6, 2009, Plaintiff received a notice from Defendant McCarthy in which she said that “This office
has completed its review of the complaint of professional misconduct that you filed against Allen E. Kaye, Esquire. The matter
is confidential at this stage in accordance with the Rules and Procedures of Professional Conduct for Practitioners (“Rules”),
except for necessary disclosures in the course of conducting a preliminary inquiry. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(“USCIS”) has authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry of complaints of criminal, unethical, or unprofessional
conduct in matters before USCIS. In your June 9, 2008 complaint, you allege that Alan E. Kaye “colluded with my husband,
the now Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to submit a marriage certificate with the fictitious name "Godwin Uzamere: in order
to avoid paying child support. and three years later, in order to hide the 2nd marriage that my husband contracted in the
United States.” The acts that you allege constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Practitioner
occurred in the course of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye in connection with an immediate relative
filed by you with the Immigration and Naturalization (“INS”) in 1979. The New York Departmental Disciplinary Committee,
Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department considered these allegations in 2003 and determined that no further
action was warranted. After a careful and thorough review of your complaint I do not find clear and convincing evidence of
an ethical violation of the Rules on the part of Mr. Kaye. No further action will be taken with regard to your complaint.”
Defendant McCarthy's statement “occurred in the course of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye”
makes direct reference to Defendant Harvey Shapiro. See correspondence from Defendant McCarthy dated January 6, 2009 attached
as Verified Complaint Exhibit A.
10) On January 12, 2009, Defendant Sunshine engaged in an act of racketeering, aggravated identity fraud
and fraud upon the court by rendering a decision in which he stated that “Moreover, the opposition submitted by defendant
raises a genuine issue as to whether or not plaintiff and defendant were married in the first instance”, in defiance
of INS' administrative decision that recognized the names “Godwin E. Uzamere” and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as belonging
to Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and that Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was married to the Plaintiff. Defendant Sunshine made no attempt
to obey commission a consular officer of the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria to verify the authenticity of the unauthenticated
counter-affidavit from Nigeria purporting to be from “Godwin Uzamere.” See Page 9 of Justice Sunshine's decision
and order dated January 12, 2009 is attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit D. 11) On January 20, 2009, the Plaintiff e-mailed a complaint
to former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Robin Renee Sanders in which she said that “While I was in court on January 13,
2008, my husband's attorney, Eugene O. Uzamere asked Judge Sunshine if Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, my real husband, along
with some Nigerian pretending to be my real husband can be allowed to video-conference their appearance in court. As it is
apparent that the level of corruption in my divorce action has reached an all-time new low, it appears that Judge Sunshine
will allow this silliness. This would give Eugene the opportunity of paying some poor Nigerian a pittance to engage in identity
fraud that would reach a New York State Court. In the likely event that Judge Sunshine allows this silliness, is there some
way that your office can ensure that the unknown Nigerian who engages in this video-conference first signs some kind of affidavit
that is notarized by your office? That way, your office can check that person's identification to ensure that if he attempts
to say that he is my husband, his identification will prove otherwise.” Although Plaintiff had the presence of mind
to ask former U.S. Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders to require anyone posing as Plaintiff's husband to produce identification,
Defendant Sunshine did not require Defendant Osato E. Uzamere to produce any type of U.S. Embassy-authenticated, color-photograph-bearing
government identification of his client, and the only forms of identification that Defendant Osato E. Uzamere produced was
a copy of a passport bearing no one's name and social security number 129-64-1205, the fictitious number associated with the
fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere.” See e-mail to former Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders and response from the U.S.
Embassy in Nigeria attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit E. See fraudulent passport cover and fraudulent
social security number attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit C. 12) On May 12, 2009, Defendant Sunshine rendered his
decision recognizing the identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere by stating that “Today at 10:35
am. defendant was declared in default for failure to appear at the hearing. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss this
action upon the grounds that he is not the husband of the plaintiff is denied in its entirety. The defendant is the husband
in conformity with the parties marriage on November 21, 1979. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order
and serve and file a note of issue, forthwith, with proof of mailing by regular international mail and overnight international
mail for a trial on all issues within this matrimonial action to be held before this court on July 7, 2009. at 9:30 a.m. This
shall constitute the decision and order of the court.” See Defendant Sunshine's decision attached as Verified
Complaint Exhibit F. 13)
On July 7, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an action for fraud against her ex-husband and against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey
Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. From the year 2009 to 2011, Plaintiff also attempted to engage the judicial assistance of Defendant
New York State Unified Court System for the Second Judicial Department with regard to the following appellate cases: 1) Uzamere
v Daily News, L.P., 2011 NY Slip Op 52421(U) [34 Misc 3d 1203(A)], Decided on November 10, 2011, Supreme Court, New York
County, Rakower, J; 2) Uzamere v Uzamere, 2011 NY Slip Op 08583 [89 AD3d 1013], November 22, 2011, Appellate Division, Second
Department; 3) Uzamere v Uzamere,2009 NY Slip Op 09214 [68 AD3d 855], December 8, 2009, Appellate Division, Second
Department; 4) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2010 NY Slip Op 83241(U), Decided on September
23, 2010, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; 5) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip
Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 65346(U), Decided on February 28, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision;
6) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 69114(U), Decided on April 6, 2011,
Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; and 7) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion
No: 2011 NY Slip Op 69622(U), Decided on April 11, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision. The following
appellate judges presided over the aforementioned cases: Daniel D. Angiolillo; Cheryl E. Chambers; Jeffrey A. Cohen; Mark
C. Dillon; Anita R. Florio; Steven W. Fisher; L. Priscilla Hall; John M. Leventhal; Plummer E. Lott; William F. Mastro; Robert
J. Miller; A. Gail Prudenti; Reinaldo E. Rivera; Sheri S. Roman; Sandra L. Sgroi and Peter B. Skelos. Plaintiff alleges that
just as in the trial courts, Plaintiff provided the appellate courts with the Daily News article and the fraudulent affirmations
in which Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein Osato E. Uzamere perjured themselves and stated that “Godwin
Uzamere” was Plaintiff's husband. The appellate judges, just as every judge with whom Plaintiff presented the aforementioned
testimony as done, ignored Plaintiff's cries for justice, engaged in fraud upon the court and disobeyed 18 USC §4, misprision
of felony, the Code of Conduct for Judges and the Code of Lawyers Professional Responsibility with regard to report a judge
an attorney who engages in acts of wrongdoing. Plaintiff also filed various complaints with the New York State Commission
on Judicial Conduct against Defendants Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Arthur Schack; the Departmental Disciplinary
Committee for the First Department against Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Osato E. Uzamere; and the New York State Grievance
Committee for the Second Judicial Department against Jack Gladstein. Plaintiff produced the Daily News article, the fraudulent,
unauthenticated, unnotarized, foreign counter-affidavit from Defendant Osato E. Uzamere, and the fraudulent affirmation from
Defendants corrupt attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato E. Uzamere that are proof of their act
of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft and New York State Penal Law Section 210.15, perjury in the first degree,
and proof of the true identity of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere the Plaintiff obtained from Defendant Rachel McCarthy (who can be
reached at (802) 660-5043; fax (802) 660-5067). No member of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the New York
State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department or the New York State Grievance Committee for
the Second Judicial Department ever reported the aforementioned attorneys for their commission of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated
identity theft or New York State Penal Law Section 210.15, perjury in the first degree. 14) On or near October 28, 2009, Defendants Allen E.
Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, engaged in acts of racketeering and aggravated identity fraud submitted fraudulent
affirmations to the court holding “Godwin Uzamere” to be the Plaintiff's husband based on the fraudulent I-130
immigration sponsorship form that Plaintiff's ex-husband filed with Defendants Kaye and Shapiro. See fraudulent affirmations
of Defendants Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit G. 15) On November 3, 2009, Defendants Jeffrey S.
Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Michael Gerstein, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein engaged in an act prohibited
by the New York Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility in that, after filing the fraudulent affirmations, they planned
and implemented Plaintiff's false arrest for the sole purpose of obtaining an advantage in the action for fraud that Plaintiff
filed against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Plaintiff stayed in jail for 33 days. Because Plaintiff
was remanded and was not able to leave, Plaintiff was coerced into accepting the plea as mentally unfit, and employees of
Defendant New York State Office of Court Administration/Unified Court System intentionally avoided appearing before court
to explain their false charge against the Plaintiff. Charges against Plaintiff were dismissed. See correspondence from Rikers
Island, attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit H.
16) On November 5, 2009, Defendants Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack, on their
own and/or by courthouse employees that were under said Defendants' care, control and supervision at the time of the incident,
engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice by illegally commenting on and providing nonpublic information regarding
Plaintiff's cases Kings County Criminal Court Case Docket No. 2009KN087992, Kings County Supreme Court Index No. 18012-2009
and Kings County Supreme Index No. 26332-2007 to Daily News staff writer Scott Shifrel in violation of 22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(8)(11)4; that said nonpublic information was provided to the
Daily News, by staff writer Scott Shifrel, who did knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought engage in an act of
racketeering/obstruction of justice by publishing the newspaper article that illegally disclosed Plaintiff's nonpublic information
that was acquired by Defendant Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack during their adjudication of Plaintiff's
cases including Plaintiff's photo; Plaintiff's name; Plaintiff's age; Plaintiff's mental illness; Plaintiff's psychiatric
diagnosis; symptoms of Plaintiff's mental illness; the courts where Plaintiff's cases were adjudicated; the town where Plaintiff's
lives and the name of the hospital that treated Plaintiff; that Daily News staff writer Scott Shifrel, on behalf the Defendants,
engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction by charging Plaintiff with the halachic/Jewish religious crime of anti-Semitism
by saying “Cheryl Uzamere, 50, known around courthouse circles for her anti-Semitic screeds, was declared mentally unfit
and taken to Bellevue Hospital for observation”; and, that “...she's a smart person and she really know how to
use the system, said one courthouse source...she comes in here and files all these papers and threatens people. Uzamere was
in a Criminal Court holding cell when she started stripping and screaming about her “senator” husband in Nigeria
loud enough to be heard in the courtroom. The senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according
to an affidavit he filed in Supreme Court. . .”; and that “the senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband,
Godwin Uzamere, according to affidavit filed in Supreme Court”; and “Her obsession with his destruction has taken
her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged, Godwin Uzamere said. . .” Scott Shifrel, at the behest
of Mortimer Zuckerman and and Defendants Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack, on their own and/or by courthouse
employees that were under said Defendants' care, control and supervision at the time of the incident, engaged in an act of
racketeering/obstruction of justice by engaging in aggravated identity theft; said act of identity theft accomplished by publicly
holding in the Defendant Daily News that false identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband as “Godwin Uzamere. On the following
day, the company ALM.com, by its website Law.com, published an article entitled N.Y. Arrested for Threatening Judge; that
said nonpublic information was provided to the Law.com, by staff writer Mark Fass who did knowingly, fraudulently and with
malice aforethought, publish the internet article that illegally disclosed Plaintiff's nonpublic information that was acquired
by the Defendant judges during their adjudication of Plaintiff's cases.
17) On November 30, 2009, twenty-five (25) days after Defendant Daily News, LP published its article regarding
the Plaintiff, Defendant Federation Employment and Guidance Service terminated its mental health services to the Plaintiff.
In its discharge summary it stated that “given client's history of anti-Semitic remarks treatment at an FEGS facility
is inappropriate for her.” FEGS' discharge summary is attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit J1. 18) On December 7, 2009, the Plaintiff
was placed with Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility. 19) On December 24, 2009, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant
New York State Unified Court System judicial employee the Honorable Anthony Cutrona of Kings County Supreme Court's Mental
Hygiene Court. 20)
On January 15, 2010, Defendant Schack engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice, violation of Title II of
the Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act by ordering Defendant New York State
Office of Mental Health's psychiatrist Dr. Marie Bauduy of the Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility not to produce the Plaintiff
for court. In his decision dated January 25, 2010, Justice Schack stated that “The Court is concerned that plaintiff
UZAMERE is unfit to proceed. . .Therefore, the instant matter is adjourned to Friday, March 19, 2010. . .” See interim
decision of Defendant Schack attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit I. 21) During the beginning of February, 2010, Plaintiff
was discharged by Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility.
22) On or near February 23, 2010, while the Plaintiff was in her apartment faxing letters of complaint
to various governmental agencies, Defendants Sunshine, New York State Office of Mental Health and Brookdale University Hospital
Medical Center engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice, insofar as they contacted a social worker from Defendant
Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center, who then arranged for Plaintiff to be kidnapped and hospitalized by Defendant
New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center. Defendant Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center
caused one of its employees to contact Defendant City of New York's agencies, the New York City Housing Authority's Louis
H. Pink Houses, the New York City Police Department and the New York City Fire Department. An employee of the New York City
Housing Authority opened the Plaintiff's apartment door, and Plaintiff was taken out of her apartment by force and hospitalized
by Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center. During Plaintiff's last week as an inpatient,
Kingsboro social worker Laurie Velcimé informed the Plaintiff that she was engaged in aftercare preparation, including
locating an outpatient mental health program. The Plaintiff advised Ms. Velcimé that she was interested in attending
New York Psychotherapy and Counseling Center (NYPCC) on Hendrix Street, located close to where the Plaintiff lives. After
Ms. Velcimé performed a search of NYPCC and other outpatient mental health care providers, she informed the Plaintiff
that not only had NYPCC refused to accept Plaintiff as a client, but that virtually all the not-for-profit outpatient mental
health facilities that Ms. Velcimé contacted rejected her request to provide Plaintiff with outpatient psychiatric
services. 23) On
July 13, 2010, Justice Arthur M. Schack engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and aggravated identity
theft by rendering a decision, holding that “Godwin Uzamere” is Plaintiff's husband and that ORDERED, that the
instant complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that plaintiff CHERYL UZAMERE is hereby enjoined
from commencing any future actions in the New York State Unified Court System against SENATOR EHIGIE EDOBOR UZAMERE a/k/a
"GODWIN E. UZAMERE," ALLEN E. KAYE, P.C., ALLEN E. KAYE, ESQ., HARVEY SHAPIRO, ESQ., BERNARD J. ROSTANSKI and JACK
GLADSTEIN, ESQ., without the prior approval of the appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge; and it is further ORDERED,
that any violation of the above injunction by CHERYL UZAMERE will subject CHERYL UZAMERE to costs, sanctions and contempt
proceedings. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.” See Defendant Schack's decision dated July 13, 2010
attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit J.
24) On July 20, 2010, Defendant Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, conspiring with Defendant Arthur M. Schack, Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice designed to hide the
aforesaid immigration attorneys' commission of aggravated identity theft, and to make the public believe that the Plaintiff's
lawsuit against the aforesaid immigration attorneys concerned lawyer malpractice and not criminally-based fraud, publicized
an article on the internet entitled Sometimes It Just Wasn't the Attorney in Legal Malpractice. The article says: “One theme that we have considered over the years is whether attorneys get preferential
treatment in legal malpractice litigation. Are motions to dismiss granted on too little evidence? Do the attorneys get the
benefit of the doubt? Is the fact that legal malpractice law is written mostly by attorneys, is decided upon by attorneys
and affects attorneys sometimes dispositive of the outcome? Well, all that aside, sometimes the client just can't help themselves.
Here is an example from today's NYLJ: Uzamere v. Uzamere; KINGS COUNTY; Justice Schack. . .”
Shortly
thereafter, Defendant Lawline.com published the same article, even going so far as to compare Jewish Defendant Kaye's, Defendant
Shapiro's and Defendant Gladstein's monstrous act of aggravated identity theft, including the deprivation of Plaintiff's and
her daughter Tara's right to bear the African/Nigerian name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was nothing more than a
question of malpractice and not Plaintiff's delusion that it was a crime.
25) On August 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed lawsuit 2010-cv-555 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said
lawsuit assigned to Defendant judge Christine O.C. Miller. Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendant Miller with
irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and
that Defendant Miller disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys.
The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also
a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff
into believing that a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render
harmless any legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal
commission of aggravated identity fraud. The decision of this case is null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any
more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish defendants. 26) On August 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed lawsuit 2010-cv-585
with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit assigned to Defendants Nancy B. Firestone and John P. Wiese of the U.S.
Court of Claims. Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendants Firestone and Wiese with irrefutable evidence of Allen E.
Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendants Firestone and Wiese
disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered
on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud
upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing
that a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any
legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission
of aggravated identity fraud. The decision of this case is null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the
corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish defendants. 27) On September 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed lawsuit 2010-cv-591
with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit was assigned to Defendant judge Christine O.C. Miller of the U.S. Court
of Claims. Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendant Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's
and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendant Miller disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing
to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering
because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance
the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a civil res judicata determination
was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys
Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. The decision of this
case is null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing
shenanigans of the Jewish defendants.
28) On or around January 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant State of New York with the
New York State Court of Claims. As part of Plaintiff's testimony, Plaintiff provided Defendant Scuccimarra with the fraudulent
affirmations that corrupt, Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity
theft with regard to Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity. Defendant Scuccimarra never made any attempt to address the
aforementioned Jewish attorneys' commission of a federal felony.
29) On or around January 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant Gerstein, Defendant Sunshine
and Defendant Schack with Defendant the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. As part of Plaintiff's testimony, Plaintiff
provided Defendant Klonick with the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt, Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and
Jack Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft with regard to Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity. Defendant
Klonick never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys' commission of a federal felony. 30) On or around April 29, 2011,
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein with Defendants the New York
State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department and the New York Grievance Committee for the Second
Judicial Department. As part of Plaintiff's testimony, Plaintiff provided Defendants Del Tipico and Gutierrez with the fraudulent
affirmations that Defendants Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft at the behest of their client,
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. Defendants Del Tipico and Gutierrez never made any attempt to address the aforementioned
Jewish attorneys commission of a federal felony.
31) In June, 2011, Plaintiff filed the lawsuit Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 with the Federal
District Court for the Eastern District of New York
32) On or around June 22, 2011, 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 duping Plaintiff into believing that a civil
res judicata determination is a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys
Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud, and his own and Defendant
Bloom's commission of racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity fraud and fraud upon
the court as well. 33)
On or around June 25, 2011, less than thirty (30) after Plaintiff submitted her lawsuit to the court, Defendant Garaufis engaged
in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft of at the behest
of Defendant Judge Garaufis three (3) marshals from the U.S. Marshals Service for Defendant the Eastern District of New York
banged on Plaintiff's apartment door, shaming Plaintiff within earshot of her neighbors. When the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern
District of New York identified themselves, Plaintiff asked them if she had committed a crime. The marshals stalled for a
few seconds, and then said that Plaintiff had not committed any crimes. When Plaintiff asked the U.S. Marshals why they were
there, the U.S. Marshal that banged on Plaintiff's door said “I'm gonna annoy you like you annoyed Judge Garaufis.”
When Plaintiff told them that she would not open the door, the one banging on the door said “then I'm gonna keep bangin”,
and for another 1.5 minutes continued to bang on Plaintiff's door. He also asked Plaintiff “is your daughter Tara home?”,
to find out if Plaintiff was home alone. Within minutes of Plaintiff telling them that her daughter Tara was there, they left. 34) On July 4, 2011, Plaintiff
filed her appeal for the lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al., 11-2713-cv. Plaintiff also filed a motion for judicial
recusal pursuant to 28 USC §455.
35) On or around July 7, 2011, within days of Plaintiff's request for Defendant Garaufis to recuse
himself, Defendant Garaufis commenced a plan to have Defendant mental health employees engaged in an extortionate “shakedown”
in which the aforesaid mental health defendants falsely accused Plaintiff of threatening Defendant Garaufis with bodily harm
and threatening federal employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' call center with death. Defendants psychiatric
nurse Agnes Flores and psychologist Martin Bolton, employees of Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation came
to Plaintiff's apartment, speaking about Plaintiff's psychiatric issues in the hallway and shaming Plaintiff within earshot
of her neighbors. Defendants Flores and Bolton said that Defendant U.S. Marshal Service told them that Plaintiff contacted
Defendant Mental Health Association's LifeNet5 psychiatric helpline and made threats of bodily harm against Defendant Garaufis. Plaintiff told them that had she
done such a thing that the U.S. Marshal Service would have arrested her when they visited her and given her an attorney, which
would have forced Plaintiff's attorney to examine Plaintiff's civil claims.
36) Also, on July 7, 2011, at the behest of Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe, the United Parcel Service returned
Plaintiff's appellate brief, all of Plaintiff's motions, Appendix A and Appendix B that Plaintiff served on the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 4, 2012. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe did not include any correspondence explaining why
Plaintiff's appellate documents were returned. When Plaintiff checked the PACER system, the system fraudulently recorded Defendant
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis decision as a memorandum and order, even though Defendant Garaufis never provided an FRCP-based
memorandum. See copies of UPS envelopes for Plaintiff's appellate documents attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit
K. See documents for Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. State of New York, et al 09-cv-2703/09-3197-cv and Uzamere
vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2831-cv and 11-2713-cv attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit L. 37) Some days later while in the
month of July 2011, Plaintiff received another visit from Defendants Flores and Bolton. Because Plaintiff was afraid that
someone who would enter her apartment and place Plaintiff in a psychiatric hospital against her will, Plaintiff hid in her
closet between so that if they came into Plaintiff's apartment, she would appear not be home. 38) Some days later during the month of July, 2011,
Plaintiff received a call from Defendant Davis, but Plaintiff turned her cell phone off. 39) A day or so later, someone knocked on Plaintiff's
door but did not announce themselves. Again Plaintiff hid in her closet to feign that she was not home. When Plaintiff went
to the door, there was a notice from Woodhull Hospital's psychiatric unit with an appoint to appear at their psychiatric outpatient
clinic. 40) On July
16, 2011, in terror of forced hospitalization at the behest of Defendant Garaufis, the U.S. Marshal Service and psychiatric
facilities over which the New York State Office of Mental Health and the New York State Department of Health have oversight,
Plaintiff faxed a copy of Affidavit to Preetinder Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. 41) Later on in July 2011, Defendant
Davis called Plaintiff, frightening Plaintiff by making Plaintiff believe that Plaintiff would be forcibly hospitalized because
Defendant U.S. Marshal Service told her that Plaintiff had threatened others at the Medicaid office, something that Plaintiff
did not do. Plaintiff took the liberty of recording the conversation in its entirety. Plaintiff uploaded the conversation
http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html.6 42) In the month of August, 2011 Defendant Davis contacted
Defendant Sarpong for the purpose of forcing Plaintiff to go to Defendant Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, where Plaintiff
was hospitalized as an inpatient for threatening Defendant Garaufis and other judges with bodily harm, and threatening CMS
workers with death, something that Plaintiff never did. Plaintiff stayed a few days as an inpatient with Defendant Brookdale
because Defendant Dr. “John Doe” and other employees of Defendant Brookdale Hospital Medical Center were told
by Defendant Sarpong that Plaintiff threatened Judge Garaufis, other judges and CMS call center workers with death and with
bodily harm. Thereafter, Brookdale Hospital Medical Center terminated its outpatient psychiatric services to the Plaintiff
and transferred Plaintiff to the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team in order
Plaintiff illegally monitor along with Defendant Denis P. McGowan of Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 43) On or around August 18, 2011,
Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation's East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community
Treatment Team received correspondence from U.S. Department of Homeland Security on its original letterhead bearing the name
“Denis P. McGowan, Chief, Threat Management Branch.” The letter stated: “On July 06, 2011, Federal Protective
Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made by CHERYL UZAMERE to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid call center.
The threat consisted of HER stating: since SHE did not get the job, SHE was going to "COME DOWN THERE AND KILL EVERYBODY.
Since FPS has investigated UZAMERE multiple times for similar behavior, we are well aware of HER mental health history. Based
on that information, a referral was made to LifeNet for mental health intervention on July 07 2011. Subsequently, UZAMERE's
Intensive Case Manager (ICM) Bridgett Davis of the New York State Office of Mental Health has advised that UZAMERE's treatment
has been transferred to the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program. We were informed that CHERYL D. UZAMERE is being
treated as a patient by your program and we would like to keep you abreast of this situation as it evolves. We also request
that we be notified as HER status changes in particular any change from in-patient to out-patient treatment and in the case
of the latter any refusal of treatment. In addition, please notify FPS of any relapses or deterioration of HER condition that
may pose a risk to life or property.” See letter from Denis P. McGowan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security attached
as Verified Complaint Exhibit M.
44) From July 6, 2011, the date in which Plaintiff is alleged to have committed 18 USC §115 against
Defendant Garaufis, other federal judges and employees of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services call center, no federal law enforcement agency has made any attempt to arrest the Plaintiff for the
aforementioned offenses. According to Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, the judges who rendered decisions on Plaintiff's
appeal for her lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv were not indicated on the decision because others unknown
to Plaintiff told Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe that Plaintiff threatened Judge Nicholas, other federal judges and Defendant Sunshine.
45) On February
26, 2012, Defendant HHC's ACT Team where Defendant Sarpong is employed prepared a psychiatric treatment plan. Under the title
“Alerts”, the treatment plan states “. . . H/O threats to judges and Center for Medicaid and Medicare, patient
is being monitored by Homeland Security.” Under the title “Discharge Plan”, it says “Patient is not
being considered for discharge at this time, she was transferred to the program 6 months ago after she made a threat to the
Medicare and Medicaid call center and is being monitored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” Under the title
“Patient/Family Statement”, it says that “She reported not being aware of being monitored by Homeland Security.
. .” (see Plaintiff's psychiatric treatment plan from the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive
Community Treatment Team, attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit M). 46 From June 6, 2012, Plaintiff sent a number of e-mails
to employees Mike J. Fitzpatrick, Katrina Gay, David Levy and Sue Medford of the organization National Alliance for the Mental
Ill (NAMI) regarding Defendant Daily News use of the term “wacko” to publicly malign the Plaintiff. None of the
employees that Plaintiff contacted made any attempt to speak with the Plaintiff.
47) On November 28, 2012, based on information and belief, Defendants Raggi, Carney and Kahn of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation
of aggravated identity theft by rendering an FRAP-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv
for the sole purpose of advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by 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 aggravated identity fraud, and their own commission of racketeering, obstruction of justice,
criminal facilitation of aggravated identity, for their own commission of obstruction of justice by duping Plaintiff into
believing that a civil res judicata determination is a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless
the legal consequences faced by Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's for their criminal
commission of aggravated identity fraud. Plaintiff was told the names of Defendant judges Raggi, Carney and Kahn by an unknown
employee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe also engaged in an act of racketeering,
obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft for the sole purpose of advancing the Talmudic
doctrine Law of the Moser by not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist
Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their criminal commission of aggravated
identity fraud. Plaintiff's alleges that Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe left out the names of the judges who rendered their illegal
decision on Plaintiff's decision based on defendants' delusion that Plaintiff would either not figure out the judges' identity
and would therefore be unable to sue them.
48) Soon thereafter, the Plaintiff called Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court for U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit and asked why the appellate judges' names were not indicated on the U.S. Court of Appeals'
decision. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe indicated that the judges' names were left out because Plaintiff had threatened federal
judges, something that Plaintiff never did.
49) a) During the month of December, 2012, Plaintiff sent
several e-mails containing a copy of the lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 that Plaintiff filed, as well
as those lawsuits that Plaintiff will file with the Federal District Court of the Eastern District of New York, along with
proof of Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity and the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein filed with the New York State Supreme Court to First Lady Michele Obama, and to
all the defendants. See one of several e-mails Plaintiff sent the Defendants attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit
N.
b) During the last days of Plaintiff's amending her Verified Complaint, Plaintiff discovered that four (4)
of the Defendants, namely, Agnes Flores, psychiatric nurse, formerly employed by Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporation, Martin Bolton, psychologist, formerly employed by New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Anne Berrill
Carroll, General Counsel and Deputy Vice President, formerly employed by Defendant Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel, staff
writer, formerly employed by Daily News, LP are no longer employed at their respective places of employment. Plaintiff has
had difficulty discovering their forwarding addresses for employment or for residence. Plaintiff considers the disappearance
of the aforesaid Defendants an act of obstruction of justice and proof of Defendants' mens rea. 50) On or around January 30, 2013, Plaintiff received
a letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The letter stated: "Our records show that you placed calls
to 1-800-MEDICARE on the dates and times listed below (all times Central). We can confirm that none of these calls contained
threatening comments: June 14,2010, 10:38 AM; June 1,2011, 7:39 AM; July 8,2011, 12:56 PM; May 18, 2012, 11:17 AM, 1:29 PM,
3:51 PM; July 2, 2012, 10:47 AM; July 10, 2012, 2:24 PM; July 17, 2012, 1:09 PM; July 18, 2012, 11:14 AM; July 19, 2012, 5:02
PM; July 23, 2012, 2:51 PM; July 24, 2012, 5:21 PM, 5:43 PM, 5:47 PM, 6:05 PM, 9:56 PM; July 26, 2012, 9:39 PM; July 27, 2012,
5:48 PM; September 9, 2012, 4:39 PM; October 18, 2012, 2:26 PM; November 16, 2012 7:38 PM; November 26, 2012, 1:46 PM; December
12, 2012, 11:13AM; December 13, 2012, 4:29 AM, 5:05 PM, 5:09 PM. See letters from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
attached as Exhibit S.
51) On March 7, 2013, Plaintiff contacted the New York State Court of Appeals to inform Chief Judge
Jonathan Lippman of Plaintiff's plans to include him in her lawsuit. Later on, Plaintiff received an e-mail from Richard Reed
that said: “This is further to the telephone conversation that you had with the Clerk's Office of the New York State
Court of Appeals this morning regarding your proposed federal complaint. Please be advised that the matter has been turned
over to Counsel's Office for the Office of Court Administration. They will contact you in due course.” See e-mail from
Richard Reed attached as Exhibit U. Towards the end of the same day, Plaintiff received a telephone
call from Defendant Michael J. Broyde and attempted to tell him of what Plaintiff called a contradiction in term with regard
to being both a rabbi and a U.S. attorney. Plaintiff informed the rabbi-attorneys of her plans to file her Verified Complaint
against them, and consistent with Plaintiff's stated plans, e-mailed her Verified Complaint and the exhibits to rabbi-attorneys
Michael J. Broyde, Esq., Rabbi Michoel Zylberman, Esq., Rabbi Yona Reiss, Esq., Rabbi Shlomo Weissmann, Esq. 52) On March 9, 2013, Plaintiff
e-mailed Abraham H. Foxman, Steven M. Freeman, Esq., Steven C. Sheinberg, Esq., Deborah Bensinger, Esq. and David L. Barkey,
Esq. of the Anti-Defamation League, Inc. to advise them how Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Jack
Gladstein, Esq., Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel employed their Talmud-fostered racial hatred and hatred of mentally
ill goyim to rationalize their commission of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft; their false accusation that Plaintiff
harassed Defendant Sunshine; their false accusation that Plaintiff made threats of violence; their violation of Plaintiff's
Sixth Amendment insofar as the aforesaid Defendants never had any intention of confronting the Plaintiff; and the Defendants'
continued violation of 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, insofar as none of the Defendants have ever made any attempt
to file any criminal complaint against Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq., Mortimer Zuckerman
and Scott Shifrel in spite of Plaintiff's irrefutable criminal accusations.
53) On March 15, 2013, Plaintiff sent a a copy of her lawsuit and a her complaint regarding Defendant McCarthy
to Defendant the Professional Responsibility Program. Plaintiff explained in her e-mail that Defendant McCarthy violated 18
USC §4, misprision of felony based on Defendant's McCarthy's having knowledge of the actual commission of a Allen E.
Kaye's and Harvey Shapiro's aggravated identity theft and her continued refusal to it make known; and her refusal to obey
Vermont’s Rules of Professional Conduct's Rule 3.4, Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, which requires attorneys
not to: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document
or other material having potential evidentiary value; b) not to counsel or assist another person to do any such act; and,
c) not to falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited
by law. 54) On March
25, 2013 Plaintiff sent a reply back to Vermont's Professional Responsibility Program with copies of the attorneys' fraudulent
affirmations that hold Godwin Uzamere to be Plaintiff's husband.
55) On March 24, 2013, Plaintiff called Defendant FBI New York Office and asked one of its agents if the
FBI office would refuse to take Plaintiff's complaints if the person against whom Plaintiff complained was Jewish, as Plaintiff
alleges was done to her in the past. True to past behavior, someone hung up the phone. When Plaintiff called back, the person
on the phone said that Plaintiff had posed the question to Mr. Stein, hurting his feelings. Plaintiff was then called anti-Semitic,
and then subjected to having the telephone hung up. Plaintiff took her three (3) phones and engaged in a blitz phone call
session, allowing all of her phones to ring at the same time. When "John Doe" #1 finally answered the phone, Plaintiff
got into an argument with Defendant “John Doe” #1 with regard to Plaintiff's right to file a criminal complaint
against Jews who had violated federal law. Defendant “John Doe” #1 blackmailed Plaintiff by telling her that he
would call Plaintiff's daughter, mentioning Plaintiff's daughter's name (something that generally precedes a threat of psychiatric
hospitalization), and then would come to Plaintiff's apartment; however, when asked if Plaintiff had committed a crime and
whether Plaintiff would be assigned an attorney, "John Doe" #1 said that Plaintiff would have to obtain an attorney
on her own. As it turned out, "John Doe" #1 never came to Plaintiff's apartment, and never contacted Plaintiff's
daughter. During Plaintiff's conversation with "John Doe" #1, Plaintiff told the employee that she was recording
the conversation. Plaintiff recorded the conversation and uploaded it to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/adl_zuckerman_both_criminals.html (this site, at the link that says FBIconversation - click here). The following day, Plaintiff contacted the FBI and spoke with a woman (who sounded black). Plaintiff told the woman
that an FBI employee would not allow her to file any complaints if the subject of the complaint is Jewish. Plaintiff also
told the woman that she recorded the conversation and uploaded it to her website. The woman asked Plaintiff how Plaintiff
knew whether the person with whom Plaintiff spoke was an employee of the FBI. Plaintiff told the woman she was right, and
that the person with whom Plaintiff spoke could have been Bozo the Clown. Subsequently, an employee of the FBI called Plaintiff's
psychiatric treatment facility and reported that Plaintiff had an argument with an FBI employee; that said argument was indicative
that Plaintiff has psychiatric issues that warrant hospitalization. On March 28, 2013, the day of Plaintiff's treatment appointment,
Plaintiff was asked by her psychiatrist, Dr. Beaudouin if she had had an argument with anyone. Later, Plaintiff was interviewed
simultaneously by Dr. Beaudouin and Ms. Fletcher in an attempt to find reasons to hospitalize the Plaintiff. It was so obvious
that Plaintiff asked if they planned to hospitalize her. Plaintiff's psychiatrist and therapist said no; however, Plaintiff's
psychiatrist and therapist never disclosed to Plaintiff that they had been contacted by Defendant FBI and requested to act
as agents of the police. Plaintiff had committed no crime and has been treatment compliant such that Plaintiff felt double-teamed
by Dr. Beaudouin and Ms. Fletcher with their bombardment of questions that were geared, not to help Plaintiff, but as an investigative
tool of the FBI to determine whether Plaintiff had any argument with the FBI. Plaintiff's treatment facility is now being
used surreptitiously to ensure that if Plaintiff files a complaint with the FBI against any Jew, that the FBI will contact
her psychiatric treatment facility and tell them to hospitalize Plaintiff. Factual
Analysis 56)
While Plaintiff holds that all of the Defendants played a role in the misprision of Defendants Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's, Osato
E. Uzamere's, Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of
aggravated identity theft, the Defendant judges hold the greatest criminal liability. They interpret law, they apply law and
they are the ultimate enforcers of the law. Defendant U.S. Marshals Service by its employees specifically worked with and
acted at the behest of the Defendant judiciary. Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health by its employee Defendant
Bridget Davis stated that the U.S. Marshal Service told her that Plaintiff is considered a danger based on their spurious
accusation that Plaintiff threatened Defendant Garaufis, other judges and employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services' call center – something that Plaintiff never did, and something that was accomplished by Defendant U.S. Marshals
Service at the behest of the Defendant judiciary. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security by its employee Denis P.
McGowan specifically worked with and acted at the behest of the Defendant judges. Defendant Denis P. McGowan said in his letter
dated August 18, 2011: “On July 06, 2011, Federal Protective Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made
by CHERYL UZAMERE to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid call center. The threat consisted of HER stating: since SHE did
not get the job, SHE was going to "COME DOWN THERE AND KILL EVERYBODY. Since FPS has investigated UZAMERE multiple times
for similar behavior, we are well aware of HER mental health history. Based on that information, a referral was made to LifeNet
for mental health intervention on July 07 2011. Subsequently, UZAMERE's Intensive Case Manager (ICM) Bridgett Davis of the
New York State Office of Mental Health has advised that UZAMERE's treatment has been transferred to the Assertive Community
Treatment (ACT) program. We were informed that CHERYL D. UZAMERE is being treated as a patient by your program and we would
like to keep you abreast of this situation as it evolves. We also request that we be notified as HER status changes in particular
any change from in-patient to out-patient treatment and in the case of the latter any refusal of treatment. In addition, please
notify FPS of any relapses or deterioration of HER condition that may pose a risk to life or property.”Under the title
“Alerts”, Plaintiff's treatment plan states “. . . H/O threats to judges and Center for Medicaid and Medicare,
patient is being monitored by Homeland Security.” Under the title “Discharge Plan”, it says “Patient
is not being considered for discharge at this time, she was transferred to the program 6 months ago after she made a threat
to the Medicare and Medicaid call center and is being monitored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” Under
the title “Patient/Family Statement”, it says that “She reported not being aware of being monitored by Homeland
Security. . .” At the behest of Defendant judiciary, Plaintiff's confidentiality of her psychiatric records was breached
– and worse, it was breached at the behest of the Defendant judiciary for a crime that Plaintiff never committed. See
CMS correspondence dated January 30, 2013 attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit S. 57) At the behest of the Defendant judges, Plaintiff
has been: 1) publicly defamed; 2) jailed, prosecuted and ultimately found not guilty for crimes which Plaintiff did not commit,
and for which the Defendant judicial accusers never had any intention to confront the Plaintiff on three (3) separate occasions;
3) conspired to have Plaintiff kidnapped three (3) times based on accusing Plaintiff of a crime that she did not commit; 4)
illegally imprisoned Plaintiff three (3) times based on Defendant judges accusing Plaintiff of crimes that she did not commit;
5) had the confidentiality of Plaintiff's psychiatric and divorce records illegally breached and disseminated to the public;
6) illegally monitored by the court, other federal agencies, New York State agencies and New York City agencies for a crime
that Plaintiff never committed; 7) intentionally misdiagnosed Plaintiff based on crimes that Plaintiff never committed; 8)
forcibly isolated; 9) subjected to extortionate behavior on the part of Defendant judges and blackmailed to keep silent and
not report the crimes of corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein or else Plaintiff and her
children would be attacked by powerful members of the Jewish community; 10) and most importantly, 9) blacklisted by Defendant
judges to prevent Plaintiff from honest use of the federal and New York State court systems. Plaintiff was also blacklisted
by New York State Office of Mental Health's various not-for-profit, Jewish-controlled outpatient, psychiatric services, like
Defendant FEGS because of Plaintiff's actively disobeying the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser. 58) Defendant judges' most important
role is not enforcement of the U.S. Constitution, but to enforce that Jews should not earn love and respect as normal humans
do, but to be feared as gods; for Gentiles to serve Jews as their obedient slaves, and to ensure that all judicial decisions
are rendered according to what makes the Jews happy. What makes the Defendant Jewish judicial majority happy is the enforcement
of the Talmudic Law of the Moser, to ensure that Plaintiff is never able to file any complaint against the aforementioned
attorneys based on their commission of, inter alia, aggravated identity theft. The original acts of aggravated identity theft
that were committed by Defendants Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro have
never been adjudicated since November 30, 1979, and later on, from the time that the aforesaid attorneys' commission of aggravated
identity theft that took place on or around October 28, 2009 until now. See correspondence from CMS attached as Verified
Complaint Exhibit S. 59)
By reason of the foregoing irrefutable allegations, Plaintiff asserts that there exists a justiciable controversy with respect
to Plaintiff's motion for Defendant judges' recusal for which Plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for herein. LEGAL ARGUMENTS All Defendant
Judges Have Committed Misprision of Felony
60) 18 USC §4, misprision of felony says: “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual
commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the
same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
61) In the criminal action U.S.A. v. Baumgartner, former Knoxville, Tennessee criminal court judge
Richard Baumgartner made material misrepresentations to various officials concerning his paramour Deena Castleman in efforts
to conceal her participation in a federal prescription drug trafficking conspiracy. Evidence presented during the trial showed
that Baumgartner's motive involved Deena Castleman's continued participation in the conspiracy so she could provide drugs
and sexual favors to him. What is telling about this case is that: 1) Baumgartner appears to be Jewish; 2) Baumgartner was
a judge when he was indicted; 3) Baumgartner was convicted of five (5) counts of misprision of a felony; and most importantly,
Baumgartner was convicted by a federal court. Defendant judges, especially those who are Jews have deluded themselves in their
Godlike abilities to magically make the U.S. Constitution disappear and replace it with the Talmud to prevent Plaintiff from
reporting the aggravated identity theft committed by corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein,
their engaging in defaming the Plaintiff, arresting her for crimes that she did not commit and for which they never had plans
to confront her as adversarial witnesses, kidnapping her and placing her in an inpatient psychiatric setting for crimes she
did not commit. Defendant judiciary continues to deprive Plaintiff and her family of their right to bear the correct African/Nigerian
name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.
62) Another interesting fact rests with the case Pizzuto v. County of Nassau, 239 F.Supp.2d 301
(2003) in which Defendant Judge Garaufis' states that with reference to Defendant Gary Pincus, in the criminal case presided
over by federal district judge Jacob Mishler, that he was convicted of the lesser charge of misprision of felony for failing
to report Velazquez and Regnier's criminal assault on prisoner Thomas Pizzuto. In this instance that Defendant Garaufis is
familiar with the the meaning of misprision of felony such that his own engaging in misprision of felony to prevent Plaintiff
from reporting Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft is very hypocritical. 63) In the appeal United States
v. Caraballo-Rodriguez, 480 F3d 62, “Former Puerto Rico police officer Osvaldo Caraballo-Rodriguez (Caraballo)
seeks on appeal to withdraw his plea of guilty to the crime of misprision of felony, 18 U.S.C. §4. . .The prosecution's
allegations were that Caraballo committed misprision by concealing and failing to report an underlying drug crime in which
he was involved (1) when he gave accurate information in an anonymous tip to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) about
the crime (in which he participated), but refused to provide additional requested information, and (2) when he refused to
provide additional information despite his duty as a Puerto Rico police officer to disclose crimes. . . The government agreed
to a new charge, brought under 18 U.S.C. §4, of misprision of felony, to which Caraballo agreed to waive indictment and
plead guilty. . .Caraballo, who was advised by counsel, not surprisingly agreed to plead guilty to that theory.” In
the aforementioned case, after considering Caraballo's refusal to provide some information alongside his participation in
a major drug conspiracy and his plea agreement accepting conviction for misprision of felony, the First Circuit affirmed the
lower court's decision. 64)
Based on the foregoing, the Defendant judges must recuse themselves and make way for a judge who is not biased and is not
constitutionally compromised. Recusal of Defendant Judges is Mandatory 65) 28 USC §445 says: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself
in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 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: (i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party. . .”
66) 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.” “The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall
be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall
be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied
by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.”
67) Plaintiff reminds this Court
of the following: 1) judiciary defendants have still not reported Defendants Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's,
Mortimer Zuckerman's, Scott Shifrel's, Osato E. Uzamere's and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's commission of aggravated identity theft;
therefore they are still committing 18 USC §4, misprision of felony; and 2) that because said judiciary defendants are
still committing misprision of felony, they are defendants in Plaintiff's lawsuit.
68) In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer
would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached
observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” Liteky v. U.S.,
114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). 69)
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of
partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is
not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985)
(Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”)
(“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias
in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”) That Court also
stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably
be questioned.” Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d
532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but
that he believes that he has received justice.” The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice
must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing
Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954) . . .“Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing;
a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated
circumstances.” Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify
himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that
“We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit
is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
70) Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the
U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free
from bias or prejudice is based, not on Section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”) 71) Unless the Judicial Defendants file a criminal complaint
against Defendants Rachel McCarthy, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman's, Scott Shifrel, Osato
Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Ehigie Uzamere for aggravated identity theft and fraud, or, unless the Judicial Defendants arrest
me and my daughter Tara for the aforementioned crimes, the Judicial Defendants must recuse themselves pursuant to 28 USC §455
and 28 USC §144. WHEREFORE,
I respectfully ask this Court to require the Judicial Defendants to recuse itself pursuant to 28 USC §455(b)(5)(i), 28
USC §455(b)(1) and 28 USC §144 and for such other and further relief that this Court deems are just and proper. Respectfully submitted this __th day of July, 2013
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
July
18, 2013
STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION AND GOOD
FAITH CERTIFICATION I, Cheryl
D. Uzamere, certify that I read the above Affidavit in Support and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I certify
that I have provided tangible, irrefutable proof of my allegations before this Court; that I researched both facts and relevant
law to the best of my ability to ensure truth and accuracy so that my Verified Complaint is presented to this Court in good
faith. I certify before this Court that while this lawsuit will embarrass the Defendants if it goes public, I do not present
this Affidavit in Support to embarrass, annoy or defame the Defendants.
I certify the foregoing pursuant to the laws for perjury.
CHERYL D.
UZAMERE
Appearing Pro Se
_____________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring
Avenue,
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net ====================================================================================== 2
New York State Penal Law §210.15 Perjury in the first degree. A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree when
he swears falsely and when his false statement (a) consists of testimony, and (b) is material to the action, proceeding or
matter in which it is made. Perjury in the first degree is a class D felony. 3
22 CFR §92.65 - Depositions to prove genuineness of foreign documents – (a) Authority to execute commission. Under
the provisions of section 1 of the act of June 25, 1948, as amended (sec. 1, 62 Stat. 834, sec. 53, 63 Stat. 96; 18 U.S.C.
3492), a diplomatic or consular officer may be commissioned by an United States court to take the testimony of a witness in
a foreign country either on oral or written interrogatories, or partly on oral and partly on written interrogatories, for
the purpose of determining the genuineness of any foreign document. . .” 4 22 NYCRR 100.3(8)(11): “. .
.a judge shall not make any public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court within the United States or
its territories. The judge shall require similar abstention on the part of court personnel...” and that “a judge
shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity.” 5
Plaintiff alleges LifeNet suicide/mental health hotline was fraudulently contacted by Defendant U.S. Marshal Service for the
Eastern District of New York and told that Plaintiff threatened Defendant Nicholas with bodily harm. That Defendant USMS knew
that Plaintiff committed no crime is a clear violation of 18 USC §1001. 6 New York Wiretapping Law: New York's
wiretapping law is a “one-party consent” law. New York makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on an in-person
or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. N.Y. Penal Law §§250.00, 250.05. Thus,
if you operate in New York, you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to the conversation or you get
permission from one party to the conversation in advance. This serves as a reminder to any defendant that wants to nullify
Plaintiff's recorded conversation with Defendant Davis based on the delusion that Plaintiff's doesn't know N.Y. Penal Law
§250.00 and §250.05. |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR
THE DISTRICT OF ____________ ---------------------------------------------------------X Cheryl D. Uzamere,
No.: 13-CV-___________
Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO HOLD
ACTION IN ABEYANCE PURSUANT
- against -
TO FED R. CIV. 7(b) AND TO
ENJOIN DEFENDANTS
United States of America, et al.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------X ..........PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the attached
Affidavit of Plaintiff, Cheryl D. Uzamere, sworn to on the __th day of ________, 2013, and upon all the exhibits
herein attached, Plaintiff will move this Court in the presence of the Honorable ____________, on the __th
day of _____ 2013, at 9:30 in the forenoon, or as soon thereafter to pray this Court to do the following: ..........a).....For a stay to await Defendants' attorneys' compliance to sign Plaintiff's stipulation to transfer
venue; ..........b).....To enjoin the Defendants from placing Plaintiff in any inpatient hospital setting; ..........c).....To enjoin the Defendants from arresting and holding Plaintiff prisoner during the pendency of
Plaintiff's action; ..........d).....For Defendants to immediately advise this Court if Defendants arrest the Plaintiff or if the Defendants
cause the Plaintiff to be arrested anyone; ..........e).....For this Court to continue to hold Plaintiff's
action in abeyance pending Plaintiff's release and during the pendency of Plaintiff's action.
..........f).....To enjoin the Defendants to immediately advise this Court when Plaintiff is placed
as an inpatient with any facility that is licensed by Defendants New York State Office of Mental Health and New York State
Department of Health; ..........g).....To require Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel to confirm file number A35 201 224 and A24 027 764 that
Plaintiff holds are proof that Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was Plaintiff's husband and is the father of Tara A. Uzamere, the adult
child of the marriage; ..........h)....To forward this Court's findings regarding the identity
of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to the appropriate law enforcement agencies so as to facilitate the arrest of Defendant Daily News's
employee Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel, Osato Eugene Uzamere, Esq., Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., and Jack
Gladstein based their commission of the following: 1) commission of 18 U.S.C. §241, conspiracy based on the Defendant
Daily News' website http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-11-05/local/17938323_1_supreme-court-judge-criminal-court and continues to broadcast that “Godwin Uzamere” is the Plaintiff's husband; and 2) commission of 18 U.S.C.
§1015(c), False and False Statements, Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry (applies only to Allen E. Kaye, Esq.,
and Harvey Shapiro, Esq., based on the fraudulent affirmations that they Justice Arthur M. Schack on or around October 28,
2009; said affirmations representing that the I-130 immediate relative sponsorship form they submitted to U.S. Immigration
and Naturalization Service are true and correct); ..........i).....To assign
Plaintiff a guardian ad litem/attorney to assist Plaintiff in proceeding with her civil rights action; ..........j).....To
enjoin Defendant Daily News and those Defendants who printed also information regarding the Plaintiff to remove the fraudulent
news article at their websites, including similar sites that are maintained overtly, covertly, directly and indirectly at
their behest in their entirety; and to refrain from publicly referencing or having any person covertly, overtly, directly
or indirectly refer to any portion of their article that was used in tandem with the Defendant Daily News' article regarding
the Plaintiff; ..........k).....To enjoin Defendants OMH, DOH and Defendant not-for-profit outpatient psychiatric agencies to
permanently lift their blacklist against Plaintiff's participation, so that Plaintiff can attend a government-licensed,
government-funded continuing day treatment program or psychosocial clubhouses most suitable to her needs.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
July ___, 2013
CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING
PRO SE
_________________
Cheryl
D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net |
|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT
OF ____________
---------------------------------------------------------X Cheryl D. Uzamere,
Civil Action No.: 13-cv_________
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT
IN SUPPORT
OF HER MOTION TO HOLD IN HER
ACTION IN ABEYANCE PURSUANT
- against -
TO FED. R. CIV. P. 7(b) AND TO
ENJOIN DEFENDANTS
United States of America, et al.
JURY
TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ---------------------------------------------------------X PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE
.......... Cheryl D. Uzamere, being duly sworn, state under
the penalties of perjury that: ..........1).....She
is the Plaintiff in the above entitled action. Purpose
of Motion ..........2).....By this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to move this Court to hold her civil rights action in abeyance
until such time that the Defendants entering into Plaintiff's stipulation to transfer Plaintiff's action to this venue; and
to commence a criminal action against the Defendants for their commission of the following: 18 USC §4, misprision of
felony; 18 USC §1001, fraud; 18 USC §1028, identity theft; 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft; 18 USC
§242/42 USC §1985, deprivation of rights under color of law (including being kidnapped, unlawfully imprisoned and
blacklisted); 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 and intentional misuse of national
security letters (NSLs). ..........3).....Plaintiff's
also seeks to expose that Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security has had knowledge of the correct identity, and has
been in possession of the identification documents for Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere for well over thirty (30) years. Defendants,
especially the judicial Defendants, have satisfied themselves to allow the Plaintiff and her daughter Tara to hold onto the
fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere, DOB June 1, 1955” that Defendants Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, corrupt Jewish
immigration Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro, and later, Jack Gladstein, Osato Eugene Uzamere, Mortimer Zuckerman and Shifrel
used to hide Plaintiff’s ex-husband’s true identity. Later, aforesaid Defendants went so far as to solicit the
assistance of Defendant judges Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Leonard Sands and Nicholas Garaufis
to render decisions that ignored the commission of fraud, identity theft and aggravated identify theft committed by the aforementioned
defendants. Defendant the United States of America, along with the rest of the Defendants, owed Plaintiff and her children
the duty to use the aforementioned documentation regarding Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity to protect Plaintiff
and her children from being victims of fraud, immigration fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft and victims
of Plaintiff's inability to obtain spousal and children support based on Plaintiff and her son and daughter David P. Walker
and Tara A. Uzamere and having the legal right to bear Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's correct name. However, rather than
comply with the law, the Defendants, in particular, the Jewish Defendants, engaged in a course of conduct that violated Plaintiff's
rights and the rights of her son and daughter, David and Tara, for the sole purpose of preventing Plaintiff from filing complaints
against hateful, racist, dishonest, Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Defendants'
criminal conduct deprived them then, and continues to deprive Plaintiff and her family of the right to bear Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere correct African name, and continues to condemn Plaintiff and her family to the same deprivation of the knowledge
of African bloodline indicators that racist Jews and racist white Christians forced upon Plaintiff's African ancestors. Facts ..........4).....By necessity, Plaintiff must recount the events as described in her Verified Complaint that establishes
Plaintiff's request for abeyance of her civil rights actions. ..........5).....In December, 1977, approximately two (2) years before Plaintiff met Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere,
Nosayaba (John) Uzamere and his wife Ethel Uzamere (Defendant Uzamere's brother and sister-in-law, not his father and stepmother)
filed for IR2 residence for Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. The IR2 visa for Defendant Uzamere was approved on January 28,
1980. On November 21, 1979, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered into a fraudulent “green card” marriage with
the unsuspecting Plaintiff. On November 30, 1979, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro,
Esq. engaged in an act of aggravated identity theft and immigration fraud by giving the Plaintiff form I-130 to sign so as
to sponsor the Defendant for IR1 residence under the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” and fictitious birthday
“June 1, 1955.” In December, 1979, Defendant Uzamere left for Nigeria, abandoning the Plaintiff and leaving her
poor and pregnant with his daughter Tara A. Uzamere. On January 28, 1980, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered the port
of New York as a lawful permanent resident. The aforementioned lawbreaking Jewish attorneys exacerbated their act of aggravated
identity theft by refusing to require Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to produce his passport to establish proof of his identity,
and by engaging in willful blindness by pretending not to have knowledge of the existence of Senator Uzamere's passport or
of knowledge that Senator Uzamere previously applied under his correct name as an unmarried beneficiary under 21 years of
age. At the time of Plaintiff's signing the fraudulent I-130 relative sponsorship form, Plaintiff did not know that Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere had applied and been found eligible for permanent residence under his real name via sponsorship by other
family members. See report prepared by Defendant Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service attached
as Verified Complaint Exhibit A. ..........6).....On or around October 1, 2003, Jack Gladstein engaged in an act of racketeering, and aggravated
identity fraud by mailing to the Plaintiff correspondence falsely holding Plaintiff's ex-husband out to be “Godwin Uzamere”
even though the only correct identification that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service holds is for Ehigie Edobor Uzamere,
not “Godwin Uzamere.” ..........7).....On or September 25, 2008, after Plaintiff had engaged
in a series of leaving angry telephone calls on Defendant McCarthy's voice mail based on Plaintiff's perception that Defendant
McCarthy had engaged in racketeering designed to nullify Plaintiff's complaint against Defendant Kaye and Defendant Shapiro,
Defendant McCarthy engaged in an act of racketeering and fraud1 by engaging the U.S. Attorney's Office for Vermont to say that “In or about September 2008, in the District
of Vermont, the defendant, Cheryl Uzamere, impeded, intimidated, and interfered with a federal employee, namely an employee
of the United States Customs and Immigration Service, while that person was engaged in and on account of that person's performance
of official duties.” Plaintiff emphatically states that she has never been to Vermont, Defendant McCarthy's state of
resident, so that it was impossible for Plaintiff to have engaged in any form of simple assault against Defendant McCarthy.
See documentation regarding USA v. Uzamere, 1:08-cr-114-1 attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit B. ..........8).....On or around October 8, 2008, Defendant Eugene Uzamere, engaged in an act of racketeering, aggravated
identity fraud, violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act by hand-delivering a fraudulent affirmation and a fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized counter-affidavit from Nigeria
which stated that “The plaintiff who has openly professed her mental illness is also delusional and outlandish in her
claims”; and “I have before now, ignored the Plaintiff's outburst but her claim to be married to my cousin who
was not in the United States at the time of our marriage is a new twist to this sad tale. . .Her obsession with his destruction
has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged” in defiance of the administrative decision
rendered by the INS regarding Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity. In addition, Justice Sunshine refused to commission a diplomatic
or consular officer for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the fraudulent foreign document that was presented to
him by attorney Osato Uzamere on behalf of his uncle, Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.2, 3 From then until the present, Justice Sunshine has never mad any attempt to arrest Osato Uzamere for committing
perjury. See fraudulent affirmation and fraudulent foreign counter-affidavit attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit
C. ..........9).....On
or around January 6, 2009, Plaintiff received a notice from Defendant McCarthy in which she said that “This office has
completed its review of the complaint of professional misconduct that you filed against Allen E. Kaye, Esquire. The matter
is confidential at this stage in accordance with the Rules and Procedures of Professional Conduct for Practitioners (“Rules”),
except for necessary disclosures in the course of conducting a preliminary inquiry. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(“USCIS”) has authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry of complaints of criminal, unethical, or unprofessional
conduct in matters before USCIS. In your June 9, 2008 complaint, you allege that Alan E. Kaye “colluded with my husband,
the now Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to submit a marriage certificate with the fictitious name "Godwin Uzamere: in order
to avoid paying child support. and three years later, in order to hide the 2nd marriage that my husband contracted in the
United States.” The acts that you allege constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Practitioner
occurred in the course of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye in connection with an immediate relative
filed by you with the Immigration and Naturalization (“INS”) in 1979. The New York Departmental Disciplinary Committee,
Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department considered these allegations in 2003 and determined that no further
action was warranted. After a careful and thorough review of your complaint I do not find clear and convincing evidence of
an ethical violation of the Rules on the part of Mr. Kaye. No further action will be taken with regard to your complaint.”
Defendant McCarthy's statement “occurred I in then course of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye”
makes direct reference to Defendant Harvey Shapiro. See correspondence from Defendant McCarthy dated
January 6, 2009 attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit A. ..........10).....On January 12, 2009, Defendant Sunshine engaged in an
act of racketeering, aggravated identity fraud and fraud upon the court by rendering a decision in which he stated that “Moreover,
the opposition submitted by defendant raises a genuine issue as to whether or not plaintiff and defendant were married in
the first instance”, in defiance of INS' administrative decision that recognized the names “Godwin E. Uzamere”
and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as belonging to Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and that Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was married to the Plaintiff.
Defendant Sunshine made no attempt to obey commission a consular officer of the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria to verify the
authenticity of the unauthenticated counter-affidavit from Nigeria purporting to be from “Godwin Uzamere.” See
Page 9 of Justice Sunshine's decision and order dated January 12, 2009 is attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit
D. ..........11).....On
January 20, 2009, the Plaintiff e-mailed a complaint to former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Robin Renee Sanders in which she
said that “While I was in court on January 13, 2008, my husband's attorney, Eugene O. Uzamere asked Judge Sunshine if
Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, my real husband, along with some Nigerian pretending to be my real husband can be allowed to
video-conference their appearance in court. As it is apparent that the level of corruption in my divorce action has reached
an all-time new low, it appears that Judge Sunshine will allow this silliness. This would give Eugene the opportunity of paying
some poor Nigerian a pittance to engage in identity fraud that would reach a New York State Court. In the likely event that
Judge Sunshine allows this silliness, is there some way that your office can ensure that the unknown Nigerian who engages
in this video-conference first signs some kind of affidavit that is notarized by your office? That way, your office can check
that person's identification to ensure that if he attempts to say that he is my husband, his identification will prove otherwise.”
Although Plaintiff had the presence of mind to ask former U.S. Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders to require anyone posing as
Plaintiff's husband to produce identification, Defendant Sunshine did not require Defendant Osato E. Uzamere to produce any
type of U.S. Embassy-authenticated, color-photograph-bearing government identification of his client, and the only forms of
identification that Defendant Osato E. Uzamere produced was a copy of a passport bearing no one's name and social security
number 129-64-1205, the fictitious number associated with the fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere.” See e-mail to
former Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders and response from the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria attached as Verified Complaint
Exhibit E. See fraudulent passport cover and fraudulent social security number attached as Verified
Complaint Exhibit C.
..........12).....On
May 12, 2009, Defendant Sunshine rendered his decision recognizing the identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband as Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere by stating that “Today at 10:35 am. defendant was declared in default for failure to appear at the hearing.
Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss this action upon the grounds that he is not the husband of the plaintiff is denied
in its entirety. The defendant is the husband in conformity with the parties marriage on November 21, 1979. Plaintiff is directed
to serve a copy of this decision and order and serve and file a note of issue, forthwith, with proof of mailing by regular
international mail and overnight international mail for a trial on all issues within this matrimonial action to be held before
this court on July 7, 2009. at 9:30 a.m. This shall constitute the decision and order of the court.” See Defendant Sunshine's
decision attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit F. ..........13).....On July 7,
2009, the Plaintiff filed an action for fraud against her ex-husband and against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro
and Jack Gladstein. From the year 2009 to 2011, Plaintiff also attempted to engage the judicial assistance of Defendant New
York State Unified Court System for the Second Judicial Department with regard to the following appellate cases: 1) Uzamere
v Daily News, L.P., 2011 NY Slip Op 52421(U) [34 Misc 3d 1203(A)], Decided on November 10, 2011, Supreme Court, New York
County, Rakower, J; 2) Uzamere v Uzamere, 2011 NY Slip Op 08583 [89 AD3d 1013], November 22, 2011, Appellate Division,
Second Department; 3) Uzamere v Uzamere, 2009 NY Slip Op 09214 [68 AD3d 855], December 8, 2009, Appellate Division, Second
Department; 4)` Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2010 NY Slip Op 83241(U), Decided on September
23, 2010, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; 5) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion
No: 2011 NY Slip Op 65346(U), Decided on February 28, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; 6) Uzamere
v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 69114(U), Decided on April 6, 2011, Appellate Division,
Second Department, Motion Decision; and 7) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 69622(U),
Decided on April 11, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision. The following appellate judges presided
over the aforementioned cases: Daniel D. Angiolillo; Cheryl E. Chambers; Jeffrey A. Cohen; Mark C. Dillon; Anita R. Florio;
Steven W. Fisher; L. Priscilla Hall; John M. Leventhal; Plummer E. Lott; William F. Mastro; Robert J. Miller; A. Gail Prudenti;
Reinaldo E. Rivera; Sheri S. Roman; Sandra L. Sgroi and Peter B. Skelos. Plaintiff alleges that just as in the trial courts,
Plaintiff provided the appellate courts with the Daily News article and the fraudulent affirmations in which Defendants Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein Osato E. Uzamere perjured themselves and stated that “Godwin Uzamere”
was Plaintiff's husband. The appellate judges, just as every judge with whom Plaintiff presented the aforementioned testimony
as done, ignored Plaintiff's cries for justice, engaged in fraud upon the court and disobeyed 18 USC §4, misprision of
felony, the Code of Conduct for Judges and the Code of Lawyers Professional Responsibility with regard to report a judge an
attorney who engages in acts of wrongdoing. Plaintiff also filed various complaints with the New York State Commission on
Judicial Conduct against Defendants Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Arthur Schack; the Departmental Disciplinary
Committee for the First Department against Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Osato E. Uzamere; and the New York State Grievance
Committee for the Second Judicial Department against Jack Gladstein. Plaintiff produced the Daily News article, the fraudulent,
unauthenticated, unnotarized, foreign counter-affidavit from Defendant Osato E. Uzamere, and the fraudulent affirmation from
Defendants corrupt attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato E. Uzamere that are proof of their act
of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft and New York State Penal Law Section 210.15, perjury in the first degree,
and proof of the true identity of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere the Plaintiff obtained from Defendant Rachel McCarthy (who can be
reached at (802) 660-5043; fax (802) 660-5067). No member of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the New York
State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department or the New York State Grievance Committee for
the Second Judicial Department ever reported the aforementioned attorneys for their commission of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated
identity theft or New York State Penal Law Section 210.15, perjury in the first degree. ..........14).....On or near October 28, 2009, Defendants
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, engaged in acts of racketeering and aggravated identity fraud submitted
fraudulent affirmations to the court holding “Godwin Uzamere” to be the Plaintiff's husband based on the fraudulent
I-130 immigration sponsorship form that Plaintiff's ex-husband filed with Defendants Kaye and Shapiro. See fraudulent affirmations
of Defendants Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit G. ..........15).....On November 3, 2009, Defendants Jeffrey
S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Michael Gerstein, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein engaged in an act prohibited
by the New York Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility in that, after filing the fraudulent affirmations, they planned
and implemented Plaintiff's false arrest for the sole purpose of obtaining an advantage in the action for fraud that Plaintiff
filed against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Plaintiff stayed in jail for 33 days. Because Plaintiff
was remanded and was not able to leave, Plaintiff was coerced into accepting the plea as mentally unfit, and employees of
Defendant New York State Office of Court Administration/Unified Court System intentionally avoided appearing before
court to explain their false charge against the Plaintiff. Charges against Plaintiff were dismissed. See correspondence from
Rikers Island, attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit H. ..........16).....On November
5, 2009, Defendants Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack, on their own and/or by courthouse employees that
were under said Defendants' care, control and supervision at the time of the incident, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction
of justice by illegally commenting on and providing nonpublic information regarding Plaintiff's cases Kings County Criminal
Court Case Docket No. 2009KN0879924; Kings County Supreme Court Index No. 18012-2009 and Kings County Supreme Index No. 26332-2007 to Daily News
staff writer Scott Shifrel in violation of 22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(8)(11) that said nonpublic information was provided to
the Daily News, by staff writer Scott Shifrel, who did knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought engage in an act
of racketeering/obstruction of justice by publishing the newspaper article that illegally disclosed Plaintiff's nonpublic
information that was acquired by Defendant Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack during their adjudication of
Plaintiff's cases including Plaintiff's photo; Plaintiff's name; Plaintiff's age; Plaintiff's mental illness; Plaintiff's
psychiatric diagnosis; symptoms of Plaintiff's mental illness; the courts where Plaintiff's cases were adjudicated; the town
where Plaintiff's lives and the name of the hospital that treated Plaintiff; that Daily News staff writer Scott Shifrel, on
behalf the Defendants, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction by charging Plaintiff with the halachic/Jewish religious
crime of anti-Semitism by saying “Cheryl Uzamere, 50, known around courthouse circles for her anti-Semitic screeds,
was declared mentally unfit and taken to Bellevue Hospital for observation”; and, that “...she's a smart person
and she really know how to use the system, said one courthouse source...she comes in here and files all these papers and threatens
people. Uzamere was in a Criminal Court holding cell when she started stripping and screaming about her “senator”
husband in Nigeria loud enough to be heard in the courtroom. The senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin
Uzamere, according to an affidavit he filed in Supreme Court. . .”; and that “the senator, however, is a cousin
of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to affidavit filed in Supreme Court”; and “Her obsession with
his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged, Godwin Uzamere said. . .”
Scott Shifrel, at the behest of Mortimer Zuckerman and and Defendants Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack,
on their own and/or by courthouse employees that were under said Defendants' care, control and supervision at the time of
the incident, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice by engaging in aggravated identity theft; said act
of identity theft accomplished by publicly holding in the Defendant Daily News that false identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband
as “Godwin Uzamere. On the following day, the company ALM.com, by its website Law.com, published an article entitled
N.Y. Arrested for Threatening Judge; that said nonpublic information was provided to the Law.com, by staff writer Mark Fass
who did knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought, publish the internet article that illegally disclosed Plaintiff's
nonpublic information that was acquired by the Defendant judges during their adjudication of Plaintiff's cases.
..........17).....On
November 30, 2009, twenty-five (25) days after Defendant Daily News, LP published its article regarding the Plaintiff, Defendant
Federation Employment and Guidance Service terminated its mental health services to the Plaintiff. In its discharge summary
it stated that “given client's history of anti-Semitic remarks treatment at an FEGS facility is inappropriate for her.”
FEGS' discharge summary is attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit J1. ..........18).....On December 7,
2009, the Plaintiff was placed with Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility. ..........19).....On December 24,
2009, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant New York State Unified Court System judicial employee the Honorable Anthony Cutrona
of Kings County Supreme Court's Mental Hygiene Court. ..........20).....On January 15, 2010, Defendant Schack
engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice, violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and
Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act by ordering Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's psychiatrist
Dr. Marie Bauduy of the Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility not to produce the Plaintiff for court. In his decision dated January
25, 2010, Justice Schack stated that “The Court is concerned that plaintiff UZAMERE is unfit to proceed. . .Therefore,
the instant matter is adjourned to Friday, March 19, 2010. . .” See interim decision of Defendant Schack attached as
Verified Complaint Exhibit I. ..........21).....During the beginning of February, 2010,
Plaintiff was discharged by Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility. ..........22).....On or near February 23, 2010, while the Plaintiff was
in her apartment faxing letters of complaint to various governmental agencies, Defendants Sunshine, New York State Office
of Mental Health and Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice,
insofar as they contacted a social worker from Defendant Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center, who then arranged for
Plaintiff to be kidnapped and hospitalized by Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center.
Defendant Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center caused one of its employees to contact Defendant City of New York's
agencies, the New York City Housing Authority's Louis H. Pink Houses, the New York City Police Department and the New York
City Fire Department. An employee of the New York City Housing Authority opened the Plaintiff's apartment door, and Plaintiff
was taken out of her apartment by force and hospitalized by Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric
Center. During Plaintiff's last week as an inpatient, Kingsboro social worker Laurie Velcimé informed the Plaintiff
that she was engaged in aftercare preparation, including locating an outpatient mental health program. The Plaintiff advised
Ms. Velcimé that she was interested in attending New York Psychotherapy and Counseling Center (NYPCC) on Hendrix Street,
located close to where the Plaintiff lives. After Ms. Velcimé performed a search of NYPCC and other outpatient mental
health care providers, she informed the Plaintiff that not only had NYPCC refused to accept Plaintiff as a client, but that virtually all the not-for-profit outpatient mental health facilities that Ms. Velcimé contacted rejected
her request to provide Plaintiff with outpatient psychiatric services. ..........23).....On July 13, 2010, Justice Arthur M. Schack
engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and aggravated identity theft by rendering a decision, holding that
“Godwin Uzamere” is Plaintiff's husband and that ORDERED, that the instant complaint is dismissed with prejudice;
and it is further ORDERED, that plaintiff CHERYL UZAMERE is hereby enjoined from commencing any future actions in the New
York State Unified Court System against SENATOR EHIGIE EDOBOR UZAMERE a/k/a "GODWIN E. UZAMERE," ALLEN E. KAYE,
P.C., ALLEN E. KAYE, ESQ., HARVEY SHAPIRO, ESQ., BERNARD J. ROSTANSKI and JACK GLADSTEIN, ESQ., without the prior approval
of the appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge; and it is further ORDERED, that any violation of the above injunction
by CHERYL UZAMERE will subject CHERYL UZAMERE to costs, sanctions and contempt proceedings. This constitutes the decision
and order of the Court.” See Defendant Schack's decision dated July 13, 2010 attached as Verified Complaint
Exhibit J. ..........24).....On July 20, 2010, Defendant Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, conspiring with Defendant Arthur M. Schack,
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice designed to hide
the aforesaid immigration attorneys' commission of aggravated identity theft, and to make the public believe that the Plaintiff's
lawsuit against the aforesaid immigration attorneys concerned lawyer malpractice and not criminally-based fraud, publicized
an article on the internet entitled Sometimes It Just Wasn't the Attorney in Legal Malpractice. The article says: “One theme that
we have considered over the years is whether attorneys get preferential treatment in legal malpractice litigation. Are motions
to dismiss granted on too little evidence? Do the attorneys get the benefit of the doubt? Is the fact that legal malpractice
law is written mostly by attorneys, is decided upon by attorneys and affects attorneys sometimes dispositive of the outcome?
Well, all that aside, sometimes the client just can't help themselves. Here is an example from today's NYLJ: Uzamere v. Uzamere; KINGS COUNTY; Justice Schack. . .” Shortly thereafter, Defendant Lawline.com published the same article, even
going so far as to compare Jewish Defendant Kaye's, Defendant Shapiro's and Defendant Gladstein's monstrous act of aggravated
identity theft, including the deprivation of Plaintiff's and her daughter Tara's right to bear the African/Nigerian name of
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere nothing more than Plaintiff's delusion that it was an act of legal malpractice, and not a
crime.
..........25).....August 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed lawsuit 2010-cv-555 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said
lawsuit assigned to Defendant judge Christine O.C. Miller. Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendant Miller with irrefutable
evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendant
Miller disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision
rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act
of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing
that a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences
based on corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated
identity fraud. The decision of this case is null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist,
racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish defendants. ..........26).....On August 30, 2010,
Plaintiff filed lawsuit 2010-cv-585 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit assigned to Defendants Nancy B. Firestone
and John P. Wiese of the U.S. Court of Claims. They are Jewish. Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendants Firestone and
Wiese with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity
theft, and that Defendants Firestone and Wiese disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the
aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction
of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the
Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination
to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's
and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. The decision of this case is null and void. Plaintiff
will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish defendants.
..........27).....On September
1, 2010, Plaintiff filed lawsuit 2010-cv-591 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit was assigned to Defendant
judge Christine O.C. Miller of the U.S. Court of Claims. She is Jewish Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendant Miller
with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft,
and that Defendant Miller disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew
attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice.
It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser;
2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination
to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's
and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. The decision of this case is null and void. Plaintiff
will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish defendants.
..........28).....On or around January
11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant State of New York with the New York State Court of Claims. As part of
Plaintiff's testimony, Plaintiff provided Defendant Scuccimarra with the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt, Jewish attorneys
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft with regard to Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere's identity. Defendant Scuccimarra never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys' commission
of a federal felony. ..........29).....On or around January 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant Gerstein, Defendant
Sunshine and Defendant Schack with Defendant the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. As part of Plaintiff's testimony,
Plaintiff provided Defendant Klonick with the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt, Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey
Shapiro and Jack Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft with regard to Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity.
Defendant Klonick never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys' commission of a federal felony. ..........30).....On
or around April 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein with
Defendants the New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department and the New York Grievance
Committee for the Second Judicial Department. As part of Plaintiff's testimony, Plaintiff provided Defendants Del Tipico and
Gutierrez with the fraudulent affirmations that Defendants Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity
theft at the behest of their client, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. Defendants Del Tipico and
Gutierrez never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys commission of a federal felony.
..........31).....In June, 2011, Plaintiff filed the lawsuit
Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 with the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
..........32).....On or around
June 22, 2011, 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 duping Plaintiff into believing that a civil res judicata determination is a permanent and final
determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's
criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud, and his own and Defendant Bloom's commission of racketeering, obstruction
of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity fraud and fraud upon the court as well.
..........33).....On
or around June 25, 2011, less than thirty (30) after Plaintiff submitted her lawsuit to the court, Defendant Garaufis engaged
in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft of at the behest
of Defendant Judge Garaufis three (3) marshals from the U.S. Marshals Service for Defendant the Eastern District of New York
banged on Plaintiff's apartment door, shaming Plaintiff within earshot of her neighbors. When the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern
District of New York identified themselves, Plaintiff asked them if she had committed a crime. The marshals stalled for a
few seconds, and then said that Plaintiff had not committed any crimes. When Plaintiff asked the U.S. Marshals why they were
there, the U.S. Marshal that banged on Plaintiff's door said “I'm gonna annoy you like you annoyed Judge Garaufis.”
When Plaintiff told them that she would not open the door, the one banging on the door said “then I'm gonna keep bangin”,
and for another 1.5 minutes continued to bang on Plaintiff's door. He also asked Plaintiff “is your daughter
Tara home?”, to find out if Plaintiff was home alone. Within minutes of Plaintiff telling
them that her daughter Tara was there, they left. .......... 34).....On July 4, 2011,
Plaintiff filed her appeal for the lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al., 11-2713-cv. Plaintiff also filed a motion for
judicial recusal pursuant to 28 USC §455. ..........35).....On
or around July 7, 2011, within days of Plaintiff's request for Defendant Garaufis to recuse himself, Defendant Garaufis commenced
a plan to have Defendant mental health employees engaged in an extortionate “shakedown” in which the aforesaid
mental health defendants falsely accused Plaintiff of threatening Defendant Garaufis with bodily harm and threatening federal
employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' call center with death. Defendants psychiatric nurse Agnes Flores
and psychologist Martin Bolton, employees of Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation came to Plaintiff's
apartment, speaking about Plaintiff's psychiatric issues in the hallway and shaming Plaintiff within earshot of her neighbors.
Defendants Flores and Bolton said that Defendant U.S. Marshal Service told them that Plaintiff contacted Defendant Mental
Health Association's LifeNet5 psychiatric helpline and made threats of bodily harm against Defendant Garaufis. Plaintiff told them that
had she done such a thing that the U.S. Marshal Service would have arrested her when they visited her and given her an attorney,
which would have forced Plaintiff's attorney to examine Plaintiff's civil claims. ..........36).....Also, on July 7,
2011, at the behest of Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe, the United Parcel Service returned Plaintiff's appellate brief, all of Plaintiff's
motions, Appendix A and Appendix B that Plaintiff served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 4, 2012.
Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe did not include any correspondence explaining why Plaintiff's appellate documents were returned. When
Plaintiff checked the PACER system, the system fraudulently recorded Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis decision as a memorandum
and order, even though Defendant Garaufis never provided an FRCP-based memorandum. See copies of UPS envelopes for Plaintiff's
appellate documents attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit K. See documents for Plaintiff's lawsuit
Uzamere vs. State of New York, et al. 09-cv-2703/09-3197-cv and Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2831-cv and
11-2713-cv attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit L.
..........37).....Some
days later while in the month of July 2011, Plaintiff received another visit from Defendants Flores and Bolton. Because Plaintiff
was afraid that someone who would enter her apartment and place Plaintiff in a psychiatric hospital against her will, Plaintiff
hid in her closet between so that if they came into Plaintiff's apartment, she would appear not be home.
..........38).....Some
days later during the month of July, 2011, Plaintiff received a call from Defendant Davis, but Plaintiff turned her cell phone
off.
.......... 39).....A
day or so later, someone knocked on Plaintiff's door but did not announce themselves. Again Plaintiff hid in her closet to
feign that she was not home. When Plaintiff went to the door, there was a notice from Woodhull Hospital's psychiatric unit
with an appoint to appear at their psychiatric outpatient clinic.
..........40).....On July 16, 2011,
in terror of forced hospitalization at the behest of Defendant Garaufis, the U.S. Marshal Service and psychiatric facilities
over which the New York State Office of Mental Health and the New York State Department of Health have oversight, Plaintiff
faxed a copy of Affidavit to Preetinder Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. ..........41).....Later
on in July 2011, Defendant Davis called Plaintiff, frightening Plaintiff by making Plaintiff believe that Plaintiff would
be forcibly hospitalized because Defendant U.S. Marshal Service told her that Plaintiff had threatened others at the Medicaid
office, something that Plaintiff did not do. Plaintiff took the liberty of recording the conversation in its entirety. Plaintiff
uploaded the conversation http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html.6 ..........42).....In the month of August, 2011 Defendant Davis contacted Defendant Sarpong for the purpose of forcing
Plaintiff to go to Defendant Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, where Plaintiff was hospitalized as an inpatient for threatening
Defendant Garaufis and other judges with bodily harm, and threatening CMS workers with death, something that Plaintiff never
did. Plaintiff stayed a few days as an inpatient with Defendant Brookdale because Defendant Dr. “John Doe” and
other employees of Defendant Brookdale Hospital Medical Center were told by Defendant Sarpong that Plaintiff threatened Judge
Garaufis, other judges and CMS call center workers with death and with bodily harm. Thereafter, Brookdale Hospital Medical
Center terminated its outpatient psychiatric services to the Plaintiff and transferred Plaintiff to the East New York Diagnostic
and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team in order Plaintiff illegally monitor along with Defendant
Denis P. McGowan of Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security. ..........43).....On or around
August 18, 2011, Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation's East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's
Assertive Community Treatment Team received correspondence from U.S. Department of Homeland Security on its original letterhead
bearing the name “Denis P. McGowan, Chief, Threat Management Branch.” The letter stated: “On July 06, 2011,
Federal Protective Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made by CHERYL UZAMERE to the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid call center. The threat consisted of HER stating: since SHE did not get the job, SHE was going to "COME DOWN
THERE AND KILL EVERYBODY. Since FPS has investigated UZAMERE multiple times for similar behavior, we are well aware of HER
mental health history. Based on that information, a referral was made to LifeNet for mental health intervention on July 07
2011. Subsequently, UZAMERE's Intensive Case Manager (ICM) Bridgett Davis of the New York State Office of Mental Health has
advised that UZAMERE's treatment has been transferred to the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program. We were informed
that CHERYL D. UZAMERE is being treated as a patient by your program and we would like to keep you abreast of this situation
as it evolves. We also request that we be notified as HER status changes in particular any change from in-patient to out-patient
treatment and in the case of the latter any refusal of treatment. In addition, please notify FPS of any relapses or deterioration
of HER condition that may pose a risk to life or property.” See letter from Denis P. McGowan, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit M. ..........44).....From July 6, 2011, the date in which
Plaintiff is alleged to have committed 18 USC §115 against Defendant Garaufis, other federal judges and employees of
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services call center, no federal law enforcement
agency has made any attempt to arrest the Plaintiff for the aforementioned offenses. According to Defendant Catherine O'Hagan
Wolfe, the judges who rendered decisions on Plaintiff's appeal for her lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv
were not indicated on the decision because others unknown to Plaintiff told Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe that Plaintiff threatened
Judge Nicholas, other federal judges and Defendant Sunshine. ..........45).....On February 26,
2012, Defendant HHC's ACT Team where Defendant Sarpong is employed prepared a psychiatric treatment plan. Under the title
“Alerts”, the treatment plan states “. . . H/O threats to judges and Center for Medicaid and Medicare, patient
is being monitored by Homeland Security.” Under the title “Discharge Plan”, it says “Patient is not
being considered for discharge at this time, she was transferred to the program 6 months ago after she made a threat to the
Medicare and Medicaid call center and is being monitored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” Under the title
“Patient/Family Statement”, it says that “She reported not being aware of being monitored by Homeland Security.
. .” (See Plaintiff's psychiatric treatment plan from the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive
Community Treatment Team, attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit M). ..........46).....From
June 6, 2012, Plaintiff sent a number of e-mails to employees Mike J. Fitzpatrick, Katrina Gay, David Levy and Sue Medford
of the organization National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) regarding Defendant Daily News use of the term “wacko”
to publicly malign the Plaintiff. None of the employees that Plaintiff contacted made any attempt to
speak with the Plaintiff. ..........47).....On November 28, 2012, based on information and belief,
Defendants Raggi, Carney and Kahn of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction
of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft by rendering an FRAP-lacking decision regarding Uzamere
vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv for the sole purpose of advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by 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 aggravated identity fraud, and their own commission
of racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity, for their own commission of obstruction
of justice by duping Plaintiff into believing that a civil res judicata determination is a permanent and final determination
to nullify and render harmless the legal consequences faced by Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack
Gladstein's for their criminal commission of aggravated identity fraud. Plaintiff was told the names of Defendant judges Raggi,
Carney and Kahn by an unknown employee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe also engaged
in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft for the sole purpose
of advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying,
racketeering, racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their criminal commission
of aggravated identity fraud. Plaintiff's alleges that Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe left out the names of the judges who rendered
their illegal decision on Plaintiff's decision based on defendants' delusion that Plaintiff would either not figure out the
judges' identity and would therefore be unable to sue them. ..........48).....Soon thereafter,
the Plaintiff called Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court for U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and
asked why the appellate judges' names were not indicated on the U.S. Court of Appeals' decision. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe indicated
that the judges' names were left out because Plaintiff had threatened federal judges, something that Plaintiff never did. ..........49).....a).....During the month of December, 2012, Plaintiff sent several
e-mails containing a copy of the lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 that Plaintiff filed, as well as those
lawsuits that Plaintiff will file with the Federal District Court of the Eastern District of New York, along with proof of
Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity and the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye,
Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein filed with the New York State Supreme Court to First Lady Michele Obama, and to all the
defendants. See one of several e-mails Plaintiff sent the Defendants attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit N. ....................b).....During the last days of Plaintiff's amending her Verified Complaint, Plaintiff discovered that
four (4) of the Defendants, namely, Agnes Flores, psychiatric nurse, formerly employed by Defendant New York City Health and
Hospitals Corporation, Martin Bolton, psychologist, formerly employed by New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Anne
Berrill Carroll, General Counsel and Deputy Vice President, formerly employed by Defendant Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel,
staff writer, formerly employed by Daily News, LP are no longer employed at their respective places of employment. Plaintiff
has had difficulty discovering their forwarding addresses for employment or for residence. Plaintiff considers the disappearance
of the aforesaid Defendants an act of obstruction of justice and proof of Defendants' mens rea. ..........50).....On or around January 30, 2013, Plaintiff received a letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services. The letter stated: "Our records show that you placed calls to 1-800-MEDICARE on the dates and times listed
below (all times Central). We can confirm that none of these calls contained threatening comments: June 14,2010, 10:38 AM;
June 1,2011, 7:39 AM; July 8,2011, 12:56 PM; May 18, 2012, 11:17 AM, 1:29 PM, 3:51 PM; July 2, 2012, 10:47 AM; July 10, 2012,
2:24 PM; July 17, 2012, 1:09 PM; July 18, 2012, 11:14 AM; July 19, 2012, 5:02 PM; July 23, 2012, 2:51 PM; July 24, 2012, 5:21
PM, 5:43 PM, 5:47 PM, 6:05 PM, 9:56 PM; July 26, 2012, 9:39 PM; July 27, 2012, 5:48 PM; September 9, 2012, 4:39 PM; October
18, 2012, 2:26 PM; November 16, 2012 7:38 PM; November 26, 2012, 1:46 PM; December 12, 2012, 11:13AM; December 13, 2012, 4:29
AM, 5:05 PM, 5:09 PM. See letters from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services attached as Exhibit S. ..........51).....On March 7, 2013, Plaintiff contacted the New York State Court of Appeals to inform Chief Judge
Jonathan Lippman of Plaintiff's plans to include him in her lawsuit. Later on, Plaintiff received an e-mail from Richard Reed
that said: “This is further to the telephone conversation that you had with the Clerk's Office of the New York State
Court of Appeals this morning regarding your proposed federal complaint. Please be advised that the matter has been turned
over to Counsel's Office for the Office of Court Administration. They will contact you in due course.” See e-mail
from Richard Reed attached as Exhibit U. Towards the end of the same day, Plaintiff received a telephone
call from Defendant Michael J. Broyde and attempted to tell him of what Plaintiff called a contradiction in term with regard
to being both a rabbi and a U.S. attorney. Plaintiff informed the rabbi-attorneys of her plans to file her Verified Complaint
against them, and consistent with Plaintiff's stated plans, e-mailed her Verified Complaint and the exhibits to rabbi-attorneys
Michael J. Broyde, Esq., Rabbi Michoel Zylberman, Esq., Rabbi Yona Reiss, Esq., Rabbi Shlomo Weissmann, Esq. ..........52).....On
March 9, 2013, Plaintiff e-mailed Abraham H. Foxman, Steven M. Freeman, Esq., Steven C. Sheinberg, Esq., Deborah Bensinger,
Esq. and David L. Barkey, Esq. of the Anti-Defamation League, Inc. to advise them how Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Esq.,
Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq., Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel employed their Talmud-fostered racial hatred
and hatred of mentally ill goyim to rationalize their commission of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft; their false
accusation that Plaintiff harassed Defendant Sunshine; their false accusation that Plaintiff made threats of violence; their
violation of Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment insofar as the aforesaid Defendants never had any intention of confronting the Plaintiff;
and the Defendants' continued violation of 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, insofar as none of the Defendants have ever
made any attempt to file any criminal complaint against Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq., Mortimer
Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel in spite of Plaintiff's irrefutable criminal accusations. ..........53).....On March 15, 2013,
Plaintiff sent a a copy of her lawsuit and a her complaint regarding Defendant McCarthy to Defendant the Professional Responsibility
Program. Plaintiff explained in her e-mail that Defendant McCarthy violated 18 USC §4, misprision of felony based on
Defendant's McCarthy's having knowledge of the actual commission of a Allen E. Kaye's and Harvey Shapiro's aggravated identity
theft and her continued refusal to it make known; and her refusal to obey Vermont’s Rules of Professional Conduct's
Rule 3.4, Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, which requires attorneys not to: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s
access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value;
b) not to counsel or assist another person to do any such act; and, c) not to falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness
to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law. ..........54).....On
March 25, 2013 Plaintiff sent a reply back to Vermont's Professional Responsibility Program with copies of the attorneys'
fraudulent affirmations that hold Godwin Uzamere to be Plaintiff's husband. ..........55).....On
March 24, 2013, Plaintiff called Defendant FBI New York Office and asked one of its agents if the FBI office would refuse
to take Plaintiff's complaints if the person against whom Plaintiff complained was Jewish, as Plaintiff alleges was done to
her in the past. True to past behavior, someone hung up the phone. When Plaintiff called back, the person on the phone said
that Plaintiff had posed the question to Mr. Stein, hurting his feelings. Plaintiff was then called anti-Semitic, and then
subjected to having the telephone hung up. Plaintiff took her three (3) phones and engaged in a blitz phone call session,
allowing all of her phones to ring at the same time. When "John Doe" #1 finally answered the phone, Plaintiff got
into an argument with Defendant “John Doe” #1 with regard to Plaintiff's right to file a criminal complaint against
Jews who had violated federal law. Defendant “John Doe” #1 blackmailed Plaintiff by telling her that he would
call Plaintiff's daughter, mentioning Plaintiff's daughter's name (something that generally precedes a threat of psychiatric
hospitalization), and then would come to Plaintiff's apartment; however, when asked if Plaintiff had committed a crime and
whether Plaintiff would be assigned an attorney, "John Doe" #1 said that Plaintiff would have to obtain an attorney
on her own. As it turned out, "John Doe" #1 never came to Plaintiff's apartment, and never contacted Plaintiff's
daughter. During Plaintiff's conversation with "John Doe" #1, Plaintiff told the employee that she was recording
the conversation. Plaintiff recorded the conversation and uploaded it to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/adl_zuckerman_both_criminals.html (this site, at the link that says FBIconversation - click here). The following day, Plaintiff contacted the FBI and spoke with a woman (who sounded black). Plaintiff told the woman
that an FBI employee would not allow her to file any complaints if the subject of the complaint is Jewish. Plaintiff also
told the woman that she recorded the conversation and uploaded it to her website. The woman asked Plaintiff how Plaintiff
knew whether the person with whom Plaintiff spoke was an employee of the FBI. Plaintiff told the woman she was right, and
that the person with whom Plaintiff spoke could have been Bozo the Clown. Subsequently, an employee of the FBI called Plaintiff's
psychiatric treatment facility and reported that Plaintiff had an argument with an FBI employee; that said argument was indicative
that Plaintiff has psychiatric issues that warrant hospitalization. On March 28, 2013, the day of Plaintiff's treatment appointment,
Plaintiff was asked by her psychiatrist, Dr. Beaudouin if she had had an argument with anyone. Later, Plaintiff was interviewed
simultaneously by Dr. Beaudouin and Ms. Fletcher in an attempt to find reasons to hospitalize the Plaintiff. It was so obvious
that Plaintiff asked if they planned to hospitalize her. Plaintiff's psychiatrist and therapist said no; however, Plaintiff's
psychiatrist and therapist never disclosed to Plaintiff that they had been contacted by Defendant FBI and requested to act
as agents of the police. Plaintiff had committed no crime and has been treatment compliant such that Plaintiff felt double-teamed
by Dr. Beaudouin and Ms. Fletcher with their bombardment of questions that were geared, not to help Plaintiff, but as an investigative
tool of the FBI to determine whether Plaintiff had any argument with the FBI. Plaintiff's treatment facility is now being
used surreptitiously to ensure that if Plaintiff files a complaint with the FBI against any Jew, that the FBI will contact
her psychiatric treatment facility and tell them to hospitalize Plaintiff.
Factual Analysis ..........56).....While Plaintiff holds that all of the Defendants played
a role in the misprision of Defendants Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's, Osato E. Uzamere's, Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack
Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft, the Defendant judges hold the
greatest criminal liability. They interpret law, they apply law and they are the ultimate enforcers of the law. Defendant
U.S. Marshals Service by its employees specifically worked with and acted at the behest of the Defendant judiciary. Defendant
New York State Office of Mental Health by its employee Defendant Bridget Davis stated that the U.S. Marshal Service told her
that Plaintiff is considered a danger based on their spurious accusation that Plaintiff threatened Defendant Garaufis, other
judges and employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' call center – something that Plaintiff never
did, and something that was accomplished by Defendant U.S. Marshals Service at the behest of the Defendant judiciary. Defendant
U.S. Department of Homeland Security by its employee Denis P. McGowan specifically worked with and acted at the behest of
the Defendant judges. Defendant Denis P. McGowan said in his letter dated August 18, 2011: “On July 06, 2011, Federal
Protective Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made by CHERYL UZAMERE to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
call center. The threat consisted of HER stating: since SHE did not get the job, SHE was going to "COME DOWN THERE AND
KILL EVERYBODY. Since FPS has investigated UZAMERE multiple times for similar behavior, we are well aware of HER mental health
history. Based on that information, a referral was made to LifeNet for mental health intervention on July 07 2011. Subsequently,
UZAMERE's Intensive Case Manager (ICM) Bridgett Davis of the New York State Office of Mental Health has advised that UZAMERE's
treatment has been transferred to the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program. We were informed that CHERYL D. UZAMERE
is being treated as a patient by your program and we would like to keep you abreast of this situation as it evolves. We also
request that we be notified as HER status changes in particular any change from in-patient to out-patient treatment and in
the case of the latter any refusal of treatment. In addition, please notify FPS of any relapses or deterioration of HER condition
that may pose a risk to life or property.” Under the title “Alerts”, Plaintiff's treatment plan states “.
. . H/O threats to judges and Center for Medicaid and Medicare, patient is being monitored by Homeland Security.” Under
the title “Discharge Plan”, it says “Patient is not being considered for discharge at this time, she was
transferred to the program 6 months ago after she made a threat to the Medicare and Medicaid call center and is being monitored
by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” Under the title “Patient/Family Statement”, it says that “She
reported not being aware of being monitored by Homeland Security. . .” At the behest of Defendant judiciary, Plaintiff's
confidentiality of her psychiatric records was breached – and worse, it was breached at the behest of the Defendant
judiciary for a crime that Plaintiff never committed. See CMS correspondence dated January 30, 2013 attached as Verified
Complaint Exhibit S. ..........57).....At the behest of the Defendant judges,
Plaintiff has been: 1) publicly defamed; 2) jailed, prosecuted and ultimately found not guilty for crimes which Plaintiff
did not commit, and for which the Defendant judicial accusers never had any intention to confront the Plaintiff on three (3)
separate occasions; 3) conspired to have Plaintiff kidnapped three (3) times based on accusing Plaintiff of a crime that she
did not commit; 4) illegally imprisoned Plaintiff three (3) times based on Defendant judges accusing Plaintiff of crimes that
she did not commit; 5) had the confidentiality of Plaintiff's psychiatric and divorce records illegally breached and disseminated
to the public; 6) illegally monitored by the court, other federal agencies, New York State agencies and New York City agencies
for a crime that Plaintiff never committed; 7) intentionally misdiagnosed Plaintiff based on crimes that Plaintiff never committed;
8) forcibly isolated; 9) subjected to extortionate behavior on the part of Defendant judges and blackmailed to keep silent
and not report the crimes of corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein or else Plaintiff and
her children would be attacked by powerful members of the Jewish community; 10) and most importantly, 9) blacklisted by Defendant
judges to prevent Plaintiff from honest use of the federal and New York State court systems. Plaintiff was also blacklisted
by New York State Office of Mental Health's various not-for-profit, Jewish-controlled outpatient, psychiatric services, like
Defendant FEGS because of Plaintiff's actively disobeying the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser. ..........58).....Defendant judges' most important role is not enforcement of the U.S. Constitution, but to enforce
that Jews should not earn love and respect as normal humans do, but to be feared as gods; for Gentiles to serve Jews as their
obedient slaves, and to ensure that all judicial decisions are rendered according to what makes the Jews happy. What makes
the Defendant Jewish judicial majority happy is the enforcement of the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser, to ensure
that Plaintiff is never able to file any complaint against the aforementioned attorneys based on their commission of, inter
alia, aggravated identity theft. The original acts of aggravated identity theft that were committed by Defendants Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere and corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro have never been adjudicated since November 30, 1979,
and later on, from the time that the aforesaid attorneys' commission of aggravated identity theft that took place on or around
October 28, 2009 until now. See correspondence from CMS attached as Verified Complaint Exhibit S. ..........59).....By reason of the foregoing irrefutable allegations, Plaintiff asserts that there exists a justiciable
controversy with respect to Plaintiff's motion for Defendant judges' recusal for which Plaintiff is entitled to the relief
prayed for herein. Legal
Provisions A Tort Committed During a Marriage/Divorce is Not a
Domestic Relations Issue ..........60).....In a dishonest opinion rendered by Defendant Garaufis,
he compared Plaintiff action alleging her ex-husband’s and his attorneys’ commission of fraud, identity theft
and aggravated identity theft as domestic issues, not in the realm of federal courts to adjudicate. However, in the U.S. Supreme
Court case Ankenbrandt vs. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992), the Court said: “The domestic relations exception
does not permit a district court to refuse to exercise diversity jurisdiction over a tort action for damages. The exception,
as articulated by this Court since Barber, encompasses only cases involving the issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child custody
decree. As so limited, the exception’s validity must be reaffirmed, given the long passage of time without any expression
of congressional dissatisfaction and sound policy considerations of judicial economy and expertise. Because this lawsuit in
no way seeks a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree, the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the District Court’s
invocation of the domestic relations exception. Federal subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to §1332 is proper in this
case. Pp. 701–704. The District Court erred in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger doctrine. Although
this Court has extended Younger abstention to the civil context, it has never applied the notions of comity so critical to
Younger where, as here, no proceeding was pending in state tribunals. Similarly, while it is not inconceivable that in certain
circumstances the abstention principles developed in Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315, might be relevant in
a case involving elements of the domestic relationship even when the parties do not seek divorce, alimony, or child custody,
such abstention is inappropriate here, where the status of the domestic relationship has been determined as a matter of state
law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying torts alleged. Pp. 704–706.” .........61).....The
Plaintiff cannot do a better at explaining this than the U.S. Supreme Court did. A tort is a tort. It is not a domestic relations
issue. ..........62).....Plaintiff
asserts that the Defendants are facilitating the same identity theft that Defendant law firm Allen E. Kaye, PC facilitated
when he, by his associate Harvey Shapiro and Plaintiff’s ex-husband tricked her into signing the I-130 immediate relative
sponsorship form. Immigration
Fraud is a Crime, Not a Domestic Relations Issue ..........63).....Plaintiff asserts that immigration fraud is a crime, not a domestic relations issue. United
States of America v. Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160; United States of America v. Dedhia, 134 F.3d
802; United States of America v. Darif, 446 F.3d 701; United States of America v. Olatunji a/k/a “Femi
Olatunji” a/k/a “Olatunji Ademoluyi”, 872 F.2d 1161.
Federal Government is Mandated to Investigate Crimes ..........64).....According
to the U.S. Department of Justice website, under the title “What's the Department of Justice Doing About Identity Theft
and Fraud?”, it says that “The Department of Justice prosecutes cases of identity theft and fraud under a variety
of federal statutes. In the fall of 1998, for example, Congress passed the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act. This
legislation created a new offense of identity theft, which prohibits knowingly transfer[ring] or us[ing], without lawful authority,
a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes
a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law. 18 U.S.C. §1028(a)(7).
This offense, in most circumstances, carries a maximum term of 15 years' imprisonment, a fine, and criminal forfeiture of
any personal property used or intended to be used to commit the offense. Schemes to commit identity theft or fraud may also
involve violations of other statutes such as identification fraud (18 U.S.C. §1028), credit card fraud (18 U.S.C. §1029),
computer fraud (18 U.S.C. §1030), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343), or financial
institution fraud (18 U.S.C. §1344). Each of these federal offenses are felonies that carry substantial penalties --
in some cases, as high as 30 years' imprisonment, fines, and criminal forfeiture. Federal prosecutors work with federal investigative
agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Secret Service, and the United States Postal Inspection
Service to prosecute identity theft and fraud cases.” ..........65).....Identity theft
is a crime. It is not a domestic relations issue. ..........66).....Plaintiff asserts
that the Defendants are still engaged in a criminal conspiracy to hide the Defendant law firms' continued facilitation of
Plaintiff’s ex-husband's act of identity theft – and using the status of Plaintiff’s having a mental illness
to discredit her irrefutable assertions and to isolate her by placing me in an inpatient psychiatric setting. ..........67).....“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of
the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or
military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” ..........68).....Misprision of felony is also a crime, not a domestic relations issue. In the case, United
States of America, v. Cefalu, 85 F.3d 964, Cefalu was sentenced for his commission of misprision of felony: “Judge
Korman offered many reasons for sentencing Cefalu as he did. He thought Cefalu's crime was analogous to misprision of felony
because both involve the withholding of information concerning a crime. He also indicated that he thought the guideline range
for misprision of felony was a helpful reference. Judge Korman believed that a sentence of thirty-three months was needed
to promote respect for the law, to provide for just punishment for the offense, and to deter criminal conduct. This is exactly
what 18 U.S.C. §3553(b) instructs judges to do. We see no error in the decision to refer to the misprision of felony
guideline . . . While it is true that there may be strong arguments for referring to either the obstruction of justice guideline
or the failure to appear by a material witness guideline, neither the government nor the defendant have demonstrated that
it was plainly unreasonable for the court to refer to the misprision of felony guideline to determine an appropriate sentence
for Cefalu. We have reviewed both parties' claims, cognizant that we must accept the findings of the district court unless
they are clearly erroneous and that we must give "due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines
to the facts." 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)(4) (1994); United States v. Kirsh, 54 F.3d 1062, 1072 (2d Cir.1995),
cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 330, 133 L.Ed.2d 230 (1995). We see no error in the district court's calculation
and imposition of a thirty-three month sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. ..........69).....The offenses now mentioned are also not domestic relations issues. They are federal offenses that
require Plaintiff’s civil case to be held in abeyance to give Defendants’ attorneys time: to enter into a stipulation
to transfer venue so that this Court, not the Plaintiff, will commence a criminal investigation against the Defendants; and
finally, 2) to follow the criminal investigation through so that the criminal case act as a “rubber stamp”, allowing
Plaintiff’s civil rights case to be ancillary to the criminal case. With regard to those offenses that Plaintiff alleges
were committed by the Defendants, 18 USC §1961(1)(B) “racketeering activity” means any act which is indictable
under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity
in connection with identification documents), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant),
section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1542 (relating to false statement
in application and use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to
misuse of passport), section 1952 (relating to racketeering). Also, while not mentioned in 18 USC §1961(1)(B), the Defendants
committed 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, an offense ancillary to those offenses in which Defendants presented several
shows of force in their continued goal to obstruct justice by preventing Plaintiff from reporting the crimes of the Defendants
to the secular authorities. ..........70).....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. 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.
..........71).....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.
..........72).....Those
Defendants who are Jewish are adherents of a Talmudic doctrine named Law of the Moser. One of the Jewish Defendants, Michael
J. Broyde, gave a lecture regarding regarding a Jew’s responsibility in the event he/she learns that a Jew
committed a crime. According to Defendant Broyde’s lecture entitled Informing on Jews Who Commit
Crimes, it says: “Even though
Jewish law expects people to observe the laws of the land, and even imposes that obligation as a religious duty, the Talmud
recounts - in a number of places – that it is prohibited to inform on Jews to the secular government, even when their
conduct is a violation of secular law and even when their conduct is a violation of Jewish law. While there are a number of
exceptions to this prohibition (which are explained further in this section), the essential halacha was that Jewish law prohibits
such informing absent specific circumstances. Even is secular government were to incorporate substantive Jewish law into secular
law and punish violations of what is, in effect, Jewish law, Jews would still be prohibited from cooperating with such a system.
Indeed, classical Jewish law treats a person who frequently informs on others as a pursuer (a rodef) who may be killed to
prevent him from informing, even without a formal court ruling.”
..........73).....That judges and attorneys who are
corrupt participate in misprision of felony and willful blindness to hide the misuse of their judicial and legal powers is
nothing new. Nor is it new that judges and attorneys who are Jews are caught, subjected to prosecution and arrest for their
crimes something new. When unbiased, U.S. Constitution law is applied to criminal law, both state and federal, Jewish religious
doctrines like Law of the Moser are given no weight during adjudication and sentencing. ..........74).....For example, in the case United States of America v. Richard Baumgartner, Docket No. 3:12-CR, former Knoxville County Judge Richard Baumgartner “was charged in a seven-count Indictment with misprision
of a felony on or about June 2009; October 30, 2009; November 10, 2009; February 8, 2010; May 2010; August 27, 2010; and October
2010. The Indictment alleges that Deena Castleman and others participated in a conspiracy to obtain and distribute quantities
of controlled substances of which the Defendant had actual knowledge. [Doc. 3, ¶1]. The Indictment alleges that between
June 2009 and October 2010, the Defendant concealed the conspiracy to distribute controlled substances by making material
misrepresentations about Deena Castleman to a sitting Anderson County Criminal Court Judge (Counts 1 and 3), the staff at
Mercy Medical Center (Count 2), a sitting Knox County General Sessions Court Judge (Count 4), the Transitional Housing Director
of the YWCA (Count 5), a sitting Knox County Juvenile Court Magistrate (Count 6), and a Knox Coty Assistant District Attorney
General (Count 7). Each count also alleges that the Defendant failed to notify a judge or other person in civil or military
authority under the United States about the conspiracy.” Former Judge Baumgartner went so far as to file a motion “call[ing]
for the dismissal of the Indictment, arguing that the Indictment (1) fails to state an offense because it does not allege
that he made material misrepresentations to a federal authority, (2) violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
because it prosecutes the Defendant for speaking to state or private citizens, (3) violates the Tenth Amendment because it
requires a state judge to report a federal crime to federal authorities or risk federal prosecution, and (4) was obtained
through an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.” Judge Shirley denied Richard Baumgartner’s motion, and later, convicted
Richard Baumgartner of five counts of misprision of a felony. ..........75).....There is also the example of U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement employee Assistant Chief
Counsel Constantine Peter Kallas received a 212-month prison term today or taking nearly $500,000 in bribes from immigrants
who were promised benefits allowing them to remain in the United States. "Mr. Kallas has received one of the longest
sentences ever seen in a public corruption case,'' U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. said. ..........76).....Edward A. Schneider is yet another former
attorney who, along with defendant Hussein “Sam” Nazzal was convicted of, inter alia, preparing false documents.
The evidence at trial showed that from 2003 to 2007, Nazzal and Schneider conspired to defraud Fifth Third Bank by using straw
buyers, false tax returns, inflated financial statements, and phantom down payments in a series of commercial loan transactions
involving Detroit area businesses and gas stations. Nazzal then submitted false and fraudulent payoff letters for mortgages
and pre-existing liens when, in fact, none existed, so that he or one of his companies could obtain payouts at the respective
closings. Schneider, the treasurer of record for two of Nazzal’s companies, separately obtained closing funds by submitting
fraudulent invoices for attorneys’ fees. Nazzal and Schneider were also convicted of paying bribes to Morton, a former
vice president at the bank, in connection with the fraudulent loans. Nazzal was also convicted of obstruction of justice by
falsifying records in a federal investigation; the evidence showed that at Nazzal’s direction, Morton prepared a series
of false documents exonerating Nazzal from any wrongdoing. These fraudulent documents were recovered by federal investigators
in a safe at Nazzal’s house during an April 2010 search warrant. ..........77).....There is absolutely no evidence that the U.S. government
gave any weight in favor of any defendant who is Jewish. The unconstitutionality of the Jewish Defendants’ belief that
they should be shown white skin privilege and allowed to get away with committing one crime after another based on the Talmudic
doctrine Law of the Moser is anathema to a non-religious, Constitutionally-run democracy. Publicly
Accusing Plaintiff of Crimes that Plaintiff Didn’t Commit Does Not Satisfy Due Process; Holding Plaintiff’s Action
in Abeyance Allows Discovery of Plaintiff’s Allegations that Defendants Continue to Prevent ..........78).....According to Wikipedia.org, trial by
jury is “is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and
newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a
verdict in a court of law. During high-publicity court cases, the media are often accused of provoking an atmosphere of public
hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial nearly impossible but means that regardless of the result of
the trial the accused will not be able to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny.” ..........79).....There are other
examples as well: ...............a).....Ray Donovan -- In 1987, former United States Secretary of Labor Ray Donovan and six other defendants
were indicted by a grand jury for larceny and fraud. On May 25, 1987, he and the other defendants were acquitted, after which
Donovan famously asked, "Which office do I go to get my reputation back?" .......... b).....Richard
Jewell -- In 1996, security guard Richard Jewell who was initially hailed as a hero for spotting a suspicious backpack at
the Centennial Olympic Park bombing was soon portrayed by the news media as the presumed culprit. On April 13, 2005, Jewell
was exonerated completely when Eric Rudolph pled guilty to carrying out this bomb attack. ..........80).....Some of the Defendants have resorted
to resulting solely on the media to tell their side of the story that is so false that it is criminal. In the case of Defendants
Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq. and Jack Gladstein, they relied on their shared yiddishkeit with corrupt Jewish
billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel to use the Daily News to illegally disseminate following false and confidential
information to the public: ...............a).....False statement: “stripping and screaming about her 'senator' husband loud enough to be
heard in the courtroom. The senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to an affidavit
he filed in Supreme Court.” Senator Uzamere is Plaintiff’s husband, a fact establish
by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1980-1981, and later on by Defendant McCarthy in October, 2008 and January
6, 2009. ...............b).....False
Statement -- Plaintiff's “obsession with his (Senator Uzamere's) destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level
which should not be encouraged.” ...............c).....False statement -- “she comes in here and files all these papers and threatens people.” ...............d).....False
statement -- “anti-Semitic screeds against judges and others.” ...............e).....False statement -- was declared mentally unfit and
taken to Bellevue Hospital.” This was also an invasion of privacy. ..........81).....According to Defendant Daily News, LP it publicly admitted
that it obtained its information, both its false information and its confidential information from “one courthouse source.”
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Daily News' admission regarding the courthouse source to be true insofar as the aforesaid
statement was a declaration made against the Defendant's interest because New York State Civil Rights Law §79-h (Shield
Law) does not require a news-gathering entity to reveal the identity of its sources. Defendant Daily News' revelation of its
courthouse source is proof that Defendant Daily News engaged in the theft of Plaintiff's confidential psychiatric information
and proof that Defendant New York State Unified Court System’s judicial and non judicial employees violated 22 NYCRR
§100.3(B)(8)(11) which state that “A judge shall not make any public comment about a pending or impending proceeding
in any court within the United States or its territories. The judge shall require similar abstention on the part of court
personnel subject to the judge's direction and control...” and “A judge shall not disclose or use, for any purpose
unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity.” Defendant Daily News' article
and Defendant New York State Unified Court System’s Commission on Public Access to Court Records. ...........82).....The Defendants’ use of the
media to stifle Plaintiff’s able to invoke the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments can only be
met by this Court’s enforcement of Plaintiff’s right to Due Process with reference to the discovery of the following
documents: ..............a) All
immigration records associated with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service’s file nos. A35 201 224 for the name
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, DOB: 12/31/1960 and A24 027 764 for the name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” DOB: June 1, 1955. ..............b).....All records held by Judge Schack establishing proof of Plaintiff’s ex-husband, the father
of Tara A. Uzamere and the former stepfather of David P. Walker; ...............c).....All records held by Judge Garaufis establishing proof of Plaintiff’s ex-husband identity,
the father of Tara A. Uzamere and the former stepfather of David P. Walker;
...............d).....All
records held by all judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that establish proof of Plaintiff’s ex-husband,
the father of Tara A. Uzamere and the stepfather of David P. Walker; and, ...............e).....any records held by any of the Defendants that establishes
proof of Plaintiff’s ex-husband’s identity, the identity of Tara A. Uzamere’s father and the identity of
David P. Walker's former stepfather.
..........83).... Lastly, it lies within the power of each court to determine
the best use of stays and abeyances. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936), the
Court concluded the following: “The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.
How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.
There is power, applicable especially in cases of extraordinary public interest, to stay one suit to abide proceedings in
another, although in the two the parties are not the same and the issues not identical; the burden of making out the
wisdom and justice of a stay in such cases lies heavily on him who seeks the stay. . .”
..........WHEREFORE,
Plaintiff respectfully prays this Court to place an abeyance on this action until such time that the Defendants comply with
signing the attached stipulation, and to commence a criminal investigation of the Defendants, and for such other and further
relief that this Court deems are just and proper. Respectfully submitted this __th day of July, 2013 Dated: Brooklyn, New York
July __, 2013 CHERYL
D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE _________________ Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.:
(347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net 1 18 USC §1001 2New York State Penal Law §210.15 Perjury in the first degree. A person is guilty of perjury in the first
degree when he swears falsely and when his false statement (a) consists of testimony, and (b) is material to the action,
proceeding or matter in which it is made. Perjury in the first degree is a class D felony.
322 CFR §92.65 - Depositions to prove genuineness of foreign documents – (a) Authority to execute
commission. Under the provisions of section 1 of the act of June 25, 1948, as amended (sec. 1, 62 Stat. 834, sec. 53,
63 Stat. 96; 18 U.S.C. 3492), a diplomatic or consular officer may be commissioned by an United States court to take the
testimony of a witness in a foreign country either on oral or written interrogatories, or partly on oral and partly on written
interrogatories, for the purpose of determining the genuineness of any foreign document. . .” 422 NYCRR 100.3(8)(11): “. . .a judge shall not make any public comment about a pending or impending
proceeding in any court within the United States or its territories. The judge shall require similar abstention on the part
of court personnel...” and that “a judge shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties,
nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity.” 5Plaintiff alleges LifeNet suicide/mental health hotline was fraudulently contacted by Defendant U.S. Marshal
Service for the Eastern District of New York and told that Plaintiff threatened Defendant Nicholas with bodily harm. That
Defendant USMS knew that Plaintiff committed no crime is a clear violation of 18 USC §1001. 6New York Wiretapping Law: New York's wiretapping law is a “one-party consent” law. New York makes
it a crime to record or eavesdrop on an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents.
N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05. Thus, if you operate in New York, you may record a conversation or phone call
if you are a party to the conversation or you get permission from one party to the conversation in advance. This serves
as a reminder to any defendant that wants to nullify Plaintiff's recorded conversation with Defendant Davis based on the
delusion that Plaintiff's doesn't know N.Y. Penal Law §250.00 and §250.05.
|
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF ______________ ---------------------------------------------------------X
No.: 13-CV-_____________ Cheryl
D. Uzamere,
Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
SPECIAL
- against -
APPOINTMENT OF PERSON TO
EFFECT SERVICE OF PROCESS United States of America, et al.
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P AND
FED.
R. CIV. P. 28 USC §1915
Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------X
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ..........PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the attached Affidavit of Plaintiff, Cheryl D. Uzamere, sworn to
on the __th day of ________, 2013, and upon all the exhibits herein attached, Plaintiff will move this Court in
the presence of the Honorable ________________, on the __th day of _____ 2013, at 9:30 in the forenoon, or as soon thereafter to
appoint a person to service process in place of the U.S. Marshals Service, that is a defendant, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
Rule 4(c)(3) and 28 USC §1915. Dated: Brooklyn, New
York July
___, 2013 CHERYL D. UZAMERE APPEARING PRO SE ___________________ Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue Apt. 6B Brooklyn,
NY 11208 Tel.: (347) 985-2495 Fax: (347) 227-0118 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
