UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Cheryl
D. Uzamere
Civil Action No.: 12-CV-
Plaintiff,
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
-
against -
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Nicholas
G. Garaufis, Esq., Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of New York; Dennis Jacobs, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit; Jon O. Newman, in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Amalya
L. Kearse, in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Ralph K. Winter, in His
Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; John M. Walker, Jr., in His Official Capacity
as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Joseph M. McLaughlin, in His Official Capacity as Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Pierre N. Leval, Guido Calabresi, in His Official Capacity as Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; José A. Cabranes, in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Chester J. Straub, in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit; Rosemary S. Pooler, in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit; Robert D. Sack, in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Robert A.
Katzmann, in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Barrington D. Parker, in
His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Reena Raggi, in Her Official Capacity
as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Richard C. Wesley, in His Official Capacity as Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Peter W. Hall, in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit; Debra Ann Livingston, in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit; Gerard E. Lynch, in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Denny Chin,
in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., in His Official
Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Susan L. Carney, in Her Official Capacity as Judge
for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Christopher F. Droney, in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Frederic Block, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of New York; Margo K. Brodie, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of New York; Raymond J. Dearie, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of New York; Sandra J. Feuerstein, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of New York; Nina Gershon, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of New York; I. Leo Glasser, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of New York; Judge William F. Kuntz, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for
the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York; Roslynn R. Mauskopf, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge
for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York; Allyne R. Ross, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge
for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York; Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of New York; Thomas C. Platt, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York; Joanna Seybert, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Judge for
the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York; Arthur D. Spatt, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge
for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York; Jack B. Weinstein, Individually and in His Official Capacity as
Judge for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York; Leonard D. Wexler, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Judge for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York; Steven M. Gold, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Chief Magistrate Judge for the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of New York; Joan M. Azrack; Individually and in His
Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of New York; Lois Bloom; Individually and in His Official Capacity as
Magistrate Judge of the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of New York; Robert M. Levy, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Magistrate Judge of the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of New York; Roanne L. Mann; Individually and in Her
Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge of the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of New York; James Orenstein, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge of the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of New York; Viktor V. Pohorelsky,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge of the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of New York; Judge
Cheryl L. Pollak; Individually and in His Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge of the U.S. Court for the Eastern District
of New York; Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Clerk of Court for the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Karen Greve Milton, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Circuit Executive for
the U.S. Appeals Court for the Second Circuit; Eric H. Holder, Esq., Individually and in His Official Capacity as Attorney
General of the U.S. Department of Justice; Robert S. Mueller, III, Esq., Individually and in His Official Capacity as Director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Sandra Bungo, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Gerald M. Auerbach, Esq.,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Acting General Counsel of the U.S. Marshal Service; Janet Napolitano, Esq., Individually
and in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; William B. Schultz, Esq., Individually
and in His Official Capacity as General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; John Tauriello, Esq.
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Deputy Commissioner and Chief Counsel of the New York State Office of Mental
Health; Bridget Davis, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Intensive Case Worker, New
York State Office of Mental Health; Charles A. Hynes, Individually and in his Official Capacity as District
Attorney for Kings County; Amy Feinstein, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Chief Assistant District Attorney,
Kings County District Attorney's Office; Agnes Flores, Individually and in Her Official Capacity
as Psychiatric Nurse for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation; Martin Bolton, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Psychotherapist for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation; Margaret Thomas, Individually and in Her
Office Capacity as Licensed Practical Nurse for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation; Pauline Amo-Adu, Individually
and in Her Official Capacity as (unlicensed) Master Social Worker for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation;
Mario Blake, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Psychiatric Technician; James Oniwe, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Registered Nurse for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation; Jean Barry, Individually and in Her Official
Capacity as Licensed Clinical Social Worker for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation; Hugette Guilliame Sam,
Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Registered Nurse for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation; Samuel
Sarpong, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Program Manager for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation;
Dr. Scott Andrew Berger, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Psychiatrist for the New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporations; Thomas Merrill, Esq. Individually and in His Official Capacity as General Counsel of the
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; Robert P. Borsody, Esq., Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Secretary of the Mental Health Association of New York City; Lisa Schreibersdorf, Individually and in Her Official Capacity
as Executive Director, Brooklyn Defender Service, Inc., the U.S. Department of Justice; the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
the U.S. Marshal Service; the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the
New York State Office of Mental Health; the Kings County District Attorney's Office; the New York City Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene and the Mental Health Association of New York City, and Brooklyn Defender Service, Inc. |
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Defendants.
Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere, an American citizen of African descent and a constituent of federally- and state-funded mental
health services, appearing on her own behalf, sues the Defendants and alleges:
PRELIMINARY
STATEMENT
First Amendment
1) “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. . .and
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Fifth
Amendment
2) “No person shall be . . .deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
. .” Correctional Services Corporation, v. John E. Malesko 534 U. S. __ (2001), page 5.1
Sixth Amendment
3) “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,
by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defense.” See Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965);
Fourteenth
Amendment
4)
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” See Tennessee V. Lane (02-1667)
541 U.S. 509 (2004) 315 F.3d 680, affirmed (emphasis added).
Americans
With Disabilities Act
5) Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12131, 12132, prohibits
discrimination against individuals with disabilities, including those with mental illness. Similarly, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act, 29 U.S.C. §794, provides that no person with a disability, including those with mental illness, shall: “solely
by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Conspiracy
to Interfere with Civil Rights
6) “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of
any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States
or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding
for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s
judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. . .If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any
party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein,
freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended
or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to
injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by
him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering,
obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any
citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce,
the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws. . .the party so injured or deprived may
have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.”
See Haddle V. Garrison et al, 525 U.S. 121 (1998).
Implied
Cause of Action
7) “For the reasons set forth below, I am of the opinion that federal courts do have the power
to award damages for violation of 'constitutionally protected interests' and I agree with the Court that a traditional judicial
remedy such as damages is appropriate to the vindication of the personal interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.”
See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999; 29 L.
Ed. 2D 619; 1971 U.S. Lexis 23.”
Disqualification of Judges
8) “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: Where he has a personal bias
or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” See
Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994); Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847,
108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985); Taylor v. O'Grady, 888
F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989); Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972); Levine v. United States, 362
U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960); Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954); United States
v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996)
The Freedom of Information
Act,
To Compel Compliance pursuant to 5 USC §552(a)(4)(B)
9) On complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant
resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia,
has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly
withheld from the complainant. In such a case the court shall determine the matter de novo, and may examine the contents of
such agency records in camera to determine whether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld under any of the exemptions
set forth in subsection (b) of this section, and the burden is on the agency to sustain its action. In addition to any other
matters to which a court accords substantial weight, a court shall accord substantial weight to an affidavit of an agency
concerning the agency's determination as to technical feasibility under paragraph (2)(C) and subsection (b) and reproducibility
under paragraph (3)(B).
10) This action is brought in furtherance of those mandates. The Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty
pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and : 1) to allow Plaintiff to speedily gain access
to Defendants' records in order to prove that Plaintiff did not threaten judges and other federal judges as Defendants accused;
2) to allow Plaintiff to know the identities and to face the person(s) accusing Plaintiff of the commission of 18 USC §115;
3) to allow Plaintiff to face adversarial and friendly witnesses to verify whether Plaintiff threatened judges and other federal
employees; 4) to not commit 18 USC §1001 by falsely accusing Plaintiff of any crime that Plaintiff did not commit, and
by not committing 18 USC §1001 by forwarding correspondence containing false information to Plaintiff's psychiatric care
providers; and 5) to not accuse Plaintiff for the same or similar crime in 2012 with which Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland
Security charged Plaintiff in 2008.
11) Instead of obeying the aforementioned constitutional mandates, however, the Defendants engaged
in a course of conduct that:
a) Conspired not to investigate any of Plaintiff's complaints that were made directly or indirectly
about any acts of wrongdoing committed by Jews;
b) Conspired to blackmail Plaintiff to not file any complaints against Jews by rendering an administrative
order barring Plaintiff from knowing the identity of the three (3) Jewish appellate judges who rendered an illegal decision
on Plaintiff's appeal regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2831-cv by falsely stating that Plaintiff threatened
New York State Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine that were filed against Plaintiff by the New York State Office of Court Administration
two (2) years previously to pretend that Plaintiff was presently engaged in the same crime that was illegally released to
federal employees by employees of the New York State Office of Court Administration;
c) Conspired to publicly hold Plaintiff out as a psychotic, violent anti-Semite1 by falsely accusing Plaintiff of committing 18 USC §115, threatening judges and other federal employees,
something Plaintiff never did;
d) Conspired to prevent Plaintiff from obtaining criminally exculpatory evidence from the Defendants
in a timely fashion in response to Plaintiff's requests for records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC §552
so as to prove Plaintiff's innocence with regard to Defendants' accusation that Plaintiff committed 18 USC §115;
e)
Conspired at the behest of Defendant Garaufis to interfere with federal- and New York State-funded mental health programs
to fraudulently misdiagnose Plaintiff as a psychotic, violent and anti-Semitic criminal so as to prevent Plaintiff from successfully
litigating any legal actions against defendants who are Jewish;
f) Conspired to fail to investigate and arrest U.S. Department of Homeland Security employee Denis
P. McGowan for commission of 18 USC §1001, creating the fraudulent document that falsely accused Plaintiff of committing
18 USC §115.
g) Conspired to revisit the same acts of fraud that U.S. Department of Homeland Security employee
Rachel McCarthy committed when she 1) falsely accused Plaintiff of making threats to federal employees; and, 2) withheld documents
that established the identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband, Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and that proved that Jewish attorneys
Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro engaged in fraud with regard to the identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband.
Jurisdiction
12) This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, federal question,
which states that “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States.”
13) This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1343, Civil Rights and elective
franchise, which states that “(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized
by law to be commenced by any person: (1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation
of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in
section 1985 of Title 42; (2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned
in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent; (3) To redress the deprivation,
under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or secured by the Constitution
of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction
of the United States. . .”
14) This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, Civil action for
deprivation of rights, which states that “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,
or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United
States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding
for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s
judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall
be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”
15) This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1985(2)(3), Obstructing
justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror, Depriving a person of rights or privileges, which states that “If two
or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any
court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and
truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified,
or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror
in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being
or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating,
in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection
of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or
class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws. . .If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go
in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any
person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for
the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all
persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by
force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal
manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President,
or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support
or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be
done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived
of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have
an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.”
16) This Court
has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). “For
the reasons set forth below, I am of the opinion that federal courts do have the power to award damages for violation of 'constitutionally
protected interests' and I agree with the Court that a traditional judicial remedy such as damages is appropriate to the vindication
of the personal interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.” The Court, in an opinion by Justice Brennan, laid down
a rule that it will imply a private right of action for monetary damages where no other federal remedy is provided for the
vindication of a Constitutional right, based on the principle that for every wrong, there is a remedy.”
17) Declaratory
and injunctive relief are sought against all Defendants under 28 U.S.C. §2201(a), Creation of remedy, which states that
“In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction. . .any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate
pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not
further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and
shall be reviewable as such.”
18) Monetary damages are sought against all Defendants. Money damages sought against all judges is
based in their commission of constitutional torts that are administrative and criminal in nature.
19) Venue in the Eastern District
of New York is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2), which states that “A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not
founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in. . .a judicial district
in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property
that is the subject of the action is situated. . .”
PARTIES
The Role of Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere
20) The Plaintiff is an American citizen
of African descent and a recipient of federally- and state-funded psychiatric services. Plaintiff's responsibility is to ensure
that she is compliant with psychiatric treatment so that she can rehabilitate so as not to continue to be a burden to society.
21) The federal courts are recipients
of federal funds.
22)
The federal courts are covered by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
The Role of Defendant Dennis Jacobs/U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
23) Defendant Dennis Jacobs, as the
Chief Judge of the circuit’s court of appeals, presides over the circuit’s judicial council, serves as one of
the circuit’s two members on the Judicial Conference of the United States. As Chief Judge of the court of appeals, Defendant
Jacobs presides over whatever three-judge panels he or she is assigned to, and also at en banc hearings. Defendant Jacobs
generally supervises the administration of the court of appeals, assisted by the circuit executive and the clerk of court
and by committees that the various courts of appeals create, and serves as the court’s chief representative to other
components of the federal judicial system and others in the community. The Defendant Jacobs presides over meetings of the
circuit council and, with the assistance of the circuit executive, sees to it that the council’s many responsibilities
are carried out.
The Role of Defendants Circuit Judge/U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit
24) Defendant circuit judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are the intermediate
judges of the United States Federal Court System. Defendant judges decide appeals from the district courts within the second
federal judicial circuit, and in some instances from other designated federal courts and administrative agencies. Honesty
and loyalty to the U.S. Constitution are key in the position of being a judge for the second circuit because the United States
Courts of Appeals is considered among the most powerful and influential courts in the United States. Because of Defendant
judges' ability to set legal precedent in regions that cover millions of people, circuit judges for the United States Courts
of Appeals for the Second Circuit have strong policy influence on U.S. law. Moreover, because the U.S. Supreme Court chooses
to hear fewer than 100 of the more than 10,000 cases filed with it annually, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit serves as the final arbiter on most federal cases.
The Role of
Defendants Nicholas G. Garaufis and U.S. District Judges
25) A district court judge is responsible for hearing all categories of federal cases. This includes
civil and criminal matters that fall under federal jurisdiction. During the course of a trial, district court judges are responsible
for monitoring the testimony of witnesses, ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and settling any disputes that may arise
between defense attorneys and prosecutors. When presiding over a trial, a district court judge may have to establish
new rules if standard procedures do not already exist, according to the law. These judges are also responsible for ensuring
that court proceedings protect the rights of everyone involved in the trial, including witnesses, jurors, and legal professionals.
They must also ensure that all legal proceedings are fair and just.
The Role of Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolf
26) Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, in her capacity as Clerk of the Court for the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, is an officer of the court whose responsibilities include maintaining the records of the court.
She also administers oaths to witnesses, jurors, and grand jurors. The clerk of court is also custodian of the court's seal,
which is used to authenticate copies of the court's orders, judgments and other records. The clerk of court is a critical
safeguard for in oaths to witnesses, jurors, and grand jurors. The clerk of court is also custodian of the court's seal, which
is used to authenticate copies of the court's orders, judgments and other records. The clerk of court is a critical safeguard
for integrity of the courts. In most courts, only the clerk, but not a judge, is the keeper of the Seal of the Court. The
clerk of court is required to attest or authenticate judicial records. She is sued individually and in her official capacity.2
The Role of Defendant Karen Greve Milton
27) Defendant Karen Greve Milton,
in her capacity as Circuit Executive is to perform the administrative operations of the Circuit. As the Secretary to the Circuit
Judicial Council, Defendant Greve Milton serves as the executive officer of the Council, providing such administrative services
as implementing policies, developing programs, organizing and staffing council committees, and performing other duties mandated
by Congress or the U.S. Judicial Conference. Defendant Greve Milson is also responsible for planning and organizing circuit
judicial conferences.
28)
Additionally, Ms. Greve Milton serves as the administrative and management assistant to the Chief Judge of the Circuit. In
this role, the Circuit Executive acts as the principal administrative officer of the circuit, performing a wide range of non-judicial
duties, including space and facilities management and automation oversight. In addition, the Circuit Executive serves as the
Chief Judge’s representative and the circuit’s liaison to many committees.
The Role of U.S. Magistrate Judges
29) The authority Defendants magistrate judges exercises is the jurisdiction of the district court
itself, delegated to the magistrate judge by the district judges of the court under governing statutory authority and local
rules of court. In criminal proceedings, magistrate judges preside over misdemeanor and petty offense cases, and as to all
criminal cases (felony and misdemeanor) may issue search warrants, arrest warrants, and summonses, accept criminal complaints,
conduct initial appearance proceedings and detention hearings, set bail or other conditions of release or detention, hold
preliminary hearings and examinations, administer oaths, conduct extradition proceedings, and conduct evidentiary hearings
on motions to suppress evidence in felony cases for issuance of reports and recommendations to the district judge.
30) In civil
proceedings, Defendants magistrate judges typically manage discovery and other pretrial matters. They are authorized to issue
orders in pretrial matters as long as the order is not dispositive of the case as a whole (such as an order granting summary
judgment). They may also be assigned to write reports and recommendations to the district judge as to dispositive matters.
With the consent of the parties, they may adjudicate civil cases in the same manner as a district judge, including presiding
over jury or non-jury trials.
The Role of Defendant Eric H. Holder/U.S.
Department of Justice
31) Defendant Eric H. Holder, as Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice as head of the
Department of Justice has direction and control of U.S. Attorneys and all other counsel employed on behalf of the United States.
Also vested in the Attorney General is supervisory power over the accounts of U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
32) The mission
of the Office of the Attorney General is to supervise and direct the administration and operation of the Department of Justice,
including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,
Bureau of Prisons, Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals Service, which are all within the
Department of Justice.
33) The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:
a) Represent the United States in legal matters.
b) Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus
that comprise the Department.
c) Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet
and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.
d) Make recommendations
to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S.
Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
e) Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court
of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest
as may be deemed appropriate
f) Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.3
34) The
federal courts are recipients of federal funds.
35) The federal courts are covered by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
The Role of Defendant Robert S. Mueller, III/Federal Bureau of Investigation
36) (a) The
Director of the FBI shall: (1) appoint an FBI Compact officer who shall: (i) administer this Compact within the Department
of Justice and among federal agencies and other agencies and organizations that submit search requests to the FBI pursuant
to Section 10-243(c) of this subtitle; (ii) ensure that Compact provisions and rules, procedures, and standards prescribed
by the Council under Section 10-244 of this subtitle are complied with by the Department of Justice and the federal agencies
and other agencies and organizations referred to in item (i) of this item; and (iii) regulate the use of records received
by means of the III System from party states when such records are supplied by the FBI directly to other federal agencies;
(2) provide to federal agencies and to state criminal history records repositories, criminal history records maintained in
its database for the noncriminal justice purposes described in Section 10-242 of this subtitle including: (i) information
from nonparty states; and (ii) information from party states that is available from the FBI through the III System, but is
not available from the party state through the III System; (3) provide a telecommunications network and maintain centralized
facilities for the exchange of criminal history records for both criminal justice purposes and the noncriminal justice purposes
described in subsection (b)(4) of this section, and ensure that the exchange of such records for criminal justice purposes
has priority over exchange for noncriminal justice purposes; and (4) modify or enter into user agreements with nonparty state
criminal history records repositories to require them to establish record request procedures conforming to those prescribed
in Section 10-243 of this subtitle. (b) Each party state shall: (1) appoint a Compact officer who shall: (i) administer this
Compact within that state; (ii) ensure that Compact provisions and rules, procedures, and standards established by the Council
under Section 10-244 of this subtitle are complied with in the state; and (iii) regulate the in-state use of records received
by means of the III System from the FBI or from other party states; (2) establish and maintain a criminal history records
repository, which shall provide: (i) information and records for the National Identification Index and the National Fingerprint
File; and (ii) the state's III System-indexed criminal history records for noncriminal justice purposes described in Section
10-242 of this subtitle; (3) participate in the National Fingerprint File; and (4) provide and maintain telecommunications
links and related equipment necessary to support the services set forth in this Compact. (c) In carrying out their responsibilities
under this Compact, the FBI and each party state shall comply with III System rules, procedures, and standards duly established
by the Council concerning record dissemination and use, response times, data quality, System security, accuracy, privacy protection,
and other aspects of III System operation. (d) (1) Use of the III System for noncriminal justice purposes authorized in this
Compact shall be managed so as not to diminish the level of services provided in support of criminal justice purposes. (2)
Administration of Compact provisions shall not reduce the level of service available to authorized noncriminal justice users
on the effective date of this Compact.4
37) The
federal courts are recipients of federal funds.
38) The federal courts are covered by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
The Role of Sandra Bungo, Federal Bureau of Investigation
39) Defendant Bungo's mission, as
is the mission of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Office of the Inspector General is to “protect and defend the
United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats; uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States;
and provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners.”
To meet its mission, Defendant Bungo is expected to exemplify the FBI/OIG's core values, which include: 1) uncompromising
personal integrity and institutional integrity; 2) accountability by accepting responsibility for their actions and decisions
and the consequences of their actions and decisions; and 3) leadership, both personal and professional. Defendant Bungo is
familiar with those actions that violate FBI/OIG's standards of conduct and hinder the performance of the FBI’s mission.
As Unit Chief of the FBI/OIG's Initial Processing Unit, Inspection Division, Defendant Bungo is responsible for identifying
the range of discipline she may impose when an employee deviates from these standards and commits misconduct.
The Role of Defendant Gerald M. Auerbach/U.S. Marshal Service
40) Defendant
Gerald M. Auerbach is charged, most importantly with protecting the U.S. Constitution, and with interpreting and enforcing
federal law as it pertains to duties and responsibilities of the U.S. Marshal Service. These duties include: protecting federal
judges from harm; preventing the transfer of threatening and other inappropriate documents to federal judges; the transfer
of federal inmates to appropriate federal penitentiaries; service of process of federal complaints to Defendants in federal
lawsuits and the search and apprehension of suspects of federal offenses. He is sued individually and in his official capacity.
41) The U.S.
Marshal Service is a recipient of federal funds.
42) The U.S. Marshal Service is covered by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Role of Defendant Janet Napolitano/U.S. Department of Homeland Security
43) In carrying
out the functions assigned in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Defendant Napolitano is responsible for coordinating the
overall national effort to enhance the protection of the critical infrastructure and key resources of the United States. The
Secretary shall serve as the principal Federal official to lead, integrate, and coordinate implementation of efforts among
Federal departments and agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector to protect critical infrastructure and
key resources.
a) Consistent with this directive, the Secretary will identify, prioritize, and coordinate the protection
of critical infrastructure and key resources with an emphasis on critical infrastructure and key resources that could be exploited
to cause catastrophic health effects or mass casualties comparable to those from the use of a weapon of mass destruction.
b)
The Secretary will establish uniform policies, approaches, guidelines, and methodologies for integrating Federal infrastructure
protection and risk management activities within and across sectors along with metrics and criteria for related programs and
activities.
c) The Secretary shall coordinate protection activities for each of the following critical infrastructure
sectors: information technology; telecommunications; chemical; transportation systems, including mass transit, aviation, maritime,
ground/surface, and rail and pipeline systems; emergency services; and postal and shipping. The Department shall coordinate
with appropriate departments and agencies to ensure the protection of other key resources including dams, government facilities,
and commercial facilities. In addition, in its role as overall cross-sector coordinator, the Department shall also evaluate
the need for and coordinate the coverage of additional critical infrastructure and key resources categories over time, as
appropriate.
d) The Secretary will continue to maintain an organization to serve as a focal point for the security
of cyberspace. The organization will facilitate interactions and collaborations between and among Federal departments and
agencies, State and local governments, the private sector, academia and international organizations. To the extent permitted
by law, Federal departments and agencies with cyber-expertise, including but not limited to the Departments of Justice, Commerce,
the Treasury, Defense, Energy, and State, and the Central Intelligence Agency, will collaborate with and support the organization
in accomplishing its mission. The organization's mission includes analysis, warning, information sharing, vulnerability reduction,
mitigation, and aiding national recovery efforts for critical infrastructure information systems. The organization will support
the Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies in their continuing missions to investigate and prosecute threats
to and attacks against cyberspace, to the extent permitted by law.
e) The Secretary will work closely with other Federal departments and agencies, State and local governments,
and the private sector in accomplishing the objectives of this directive.
44) The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a recipient of federal funds.
45) The U.S. Department is covered
by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Role of Defendant
William B. Schultz, Acting General Counsel
46) Defendant Schultz is the Acting General Counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services
legal team. The Office of General Counsel provides quality representation and legal advice on a wide range of highly visible
national issues. OGC supports the development and implementation of the Department's programs by providing the highest quality
legal services to the Secretary of HHS and the organization's various agencies and divisions. A team of over 400 attorneys
and a comprehensive support staff, OGC is one of the largest and most diverse and talented law offices in the country. Many
OGC lawyers are heavily involved in administrative and Federal court litigation. In collaboration with the Department of Justice,
OGC attorneys may have primary responsibility for complex district court and appellate litigation, trying cases and arguing
appeals in the initial years of service. The OGC team also reviews proposed regulations and legislation affecting significant
issues of health and human services.
47) The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is a recipient of federal funds.
48) The U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services is covered by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Role of Defendant John V. Tauriello/New York State Department of Mental Health
49) Defendant John Tauriello has been
the Deputy Commissioner and Counsel of the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) since his appointment in 995. In this
role, he is General Counsel for one of the largest public mental health agencies in the world. As General Counsel, he is the
chief administrator and supervisor of eight (8) attorneys plus professional support staff. He advises the Commissioner of
Mental Health and agency staff on a broad range of legal topics including litigation, legislation, regulations, policy, and
fiscal and budgetary issues. Mr. Tauriello joined the OMH in 984 as the legal liaison to the New York State Legislature and
the agency’s Ethics Officer. He was a primary author of the landmark Community Mental Health Reinvestment Act of 993,
as well as Kendra’s Law in 999, which provided the statutory basis for court-ordered mental health treatment in the
community.5
50) The
New York State Department of Mental Health is a recipient of federal funds.
51) The New York State Department of Mental Health is covered by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Role of Defendant Charles A. Hynes, District Attorney for Kings
County
52)
As District Attorney for Kings County, Defendant Hynes is responsible for supervising the following activities, as they relate
to the legal needs of the Plaintiff:
a) The DA's Action Center – Receives and responds to hundreds of inquiries, including complaints
of harassment, bad checks, custodial disputes, drug activity, child abuse, landlord/tenant matters and others. Once the complaint
is reviewed, it is then forwarded to the appropriate bureau for further investigation.
b) The
Rackets Division – Successfully investigates and prosecutes serious and complex crimes in the areas of organized crime,
criminal misconduct by public officials and police officers, gang-related activity, major frauds, arson, narcotics and tax
revenue crimes. The bureaus in the Rackets Division are: 1) Civil Rights and Police Integrity Bureau; 2) Gang Bureau; 3) Major
Frauds and Arson Bureau; 4) Major Narcotics Investigation Bureau; 5) Money Laundering and Revenue Crimes Bureau; 6) Organized
Crime Bureau; and, 7) Political Corruption Investigation Bureau.
c) The Medical/Legal Unit – Works in all phases of prosecution. The unit deciphers, evaluates
and explains the medical evidence as it pertains each individual case. Diagrams for trial and advice on medical/legal issues
are provided. The unit also acts as liaison between the medical community and the District Attorney's Office. The unit chief
is an assistant district attorney and a registered nurse.
d) The Civil Rights and Police Integrity Bureau – Investigates and prosecutes hate crimes (ECG.,
assault, harassment, racist graffiti and other property damage) motivated by a victim's race, religion, ethnicity, national
origin or sexual orientation, including those committed against undocumented immigrants. This bureau also investigates and
prosecutes crimes committed by members of the law enforcement community.
53) The Kings County District Attorney's Office is a recipient of federal funds.
54) The Kings County District Attorney's
Office is covered by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The
Role of Defendant Amy Feinstein/Kings County District Attorney's Office
55)
Defendant Feinstein serves as Chief Assistant District Attorney for Kings County. In that capacity, she oversees all aspects
of the Office’s work and acts in the District Attorney’s place when he is absent.
The Role of Defendants New York State Office of Mental Health and
New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporation Mental Health Employees
56) Defendants mental health employees, in their specific disciplines, coordinate psychiatric services
that include: 1) intensive case management to ensure that mentally disabled patients are treatment-compliant and are actively
involved in ADL skills (Activities of Daily Living); 2) active involvement in patients' medical care to ensure that patients
meet with their primary care physician; 3) weekly home visits to ensure that patients' bills are paid and their places of
residence are clean; 4) putting in place a support system to ensure that patients are not alone and are living successfully
in the community; 5) psychiatric workup to ensure that diagnoses are based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, 4th Edition; 6) prescribe medication to eliminate or at least lessen psychiatric symptoms; and, 7) referral to
outpatient programs to integrate patients as much as possible into the community, jobs or programs that take patients out
of their residences so that patients can interact with others pursuant to the Olmstead mandate which requires that
when a state provides services to individuals with disabilities, it must do so “in the most integrated setting appropriate
to their needs.” The “most integrated setting,” according to the federal regulations, is “a setting
that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent possible.” 28
C.F.R. §35.130(d); 28 C.F.R. pt. 35 app. A.
The Role of Defendant
Robert P. Borsody/
Mental Health Association of New York City
57) As General Counsel of the Mental Health Association of New York City, Defendant Robert P. Borsody
supervises the legal needs of Mental Health Association of New York City (MHA-NYC). MHA-NYC is a nonprofit organization that
addresses mental health needs in New York City and across the nation. It is a local organization with national impact and
has a three-part mission of services, advocacy and education. MHA-NYC identifies unmet needs and develops culturally sensitive
programs to improve the lives of individuals and families affected by mental illness while promoting the importance of mental
health. With statistics reporting that an unprecedented one in every five people will need mental health care during their
lives, MHA-NYC is a resource to many families and individuals in New York City and throughout the country, serving as a link
to mental health and wellness. MHA-NYC program LifeNet is the leading call center for support, information, and referrals
to treatment for mental health and substance use issues and is staffed exclusively by trained mental health professionals.
It is New York City's only toll-free, multilingual, multi-cultural, confidential crisis and referral service available 24
hours a day, 7 days per week. LifeNet manages nine different hotline access numbers, and has served over one million callers
since its inception in 1996. Defendant Borsody is sued individually and in his official capacity.
58) In 2008 the Mental Health Association
received $851,086 from the U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development.
59) In 2008 the Mental Health Association received $962,529 from the New York State Office Of Mental
Health $ 962,529.
60) In
2008 the Mental Health Association received $9,095,444 from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene $9,095,444.
61) The New
York State Department of Mental Health is covered by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Role of Defendant Thomas G. Merrill/
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
62) Thomas Merrill
has been General Counsel to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene since 2006. He has provided legal counsel
to the Department on numerous health and mental health initiatives.
63) The New York City Department of Health and Mental Health is a recipient of federal funds.
64) The New
York City Department of Health and Mental Health is covered by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Role of Defendant Lisa Schreibersdorf/
Brooklyn Defender Service, Inc.
65) Defendant
Schreibersdorf is on the Board of Directors of the New York State Defender's Association. She is also appointed to the Defender
Policy Group of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. Defendant Schreibersdorf has been the Brooklyn Women’s
Bar Association representative on the Democratic Party Judicial Screening Committee for Kings County for the past six years.
66) Ms. Schreibersdorf
has served on the planning committees of the Brooklyn Misdemeanor Treatment Court, the Brooklyn Mental Health Court and other
problem-solving courts in Brooklyn. She is an outspoken advocate for the rights of clients in those courts, advising public
defenders throughout the country on issues of confidentiality and due process in the context of specialty courts.
67) Ms. Schreibersdorf
represents Brooklyn Defender Services and its clients at the Criminal Forum, a gathering of chiefs of the criminal justice
system's agencies and at a numerous other committees and commissions relating to the administration of justice in Brooklyn
and New York State.
Limitations of Time With Regard to 42 U.S.C. §§1983,
1985
68)
In the U.S. Supreme case Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478 (1980), the Court held that “Congress did not establish
a statute of limitations or a body of tolling rules applicable to actions brought in federal court under 1983 – a void
which is commonplace in federal statutory law. When such a void occurs, this Court has repeatedly “borrowed” the
state law of limitations governing an analogous [446 U.S. 478, 484] cause of action. Limitation borrowing was adopted for
civil rights action filed in federal court as early as 1914, in O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 . . . In 42 U.S.C.
1988, Congress 'quite clearly instructs [federal courts] to refer to state statutes' when federal law provides no rule of
decision for actions brought under 1983. Robertson v. Wegmann, supra. See [446 U.S. 478, 485] also Carlson v.
Green, ante, at 22, n. 10. As we held in Robertson, by its terms, 1988 authorizes federal courts to disregard
an otherwise applicable state rule of law only if the state law is "inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the
United States.”
69)
Chief Justice Stevens, in delivering his unanimous decision regarding U.S. Supreme Court case Hardin v. Straub, 490
U.S. 536, stated, inter alia that “In enacting 42 U.S.C. 1988 Congress determined that gaps in federal civil
rights acts should be filled by state law, as long as that law is not inconsistent with federal law. See Burnett v. Grattan,
468 U.S. 42, 47- 48 (1984). Because no federal statute of limitations governs, federal courts routinely measure the timeliness
of federal civil rights suits by state law. Id., at 49; Chardon v. Fumero Soto, 462 U.S. 650, 655 - 656 (1983); Johnson
v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 464 (1975). This tradition of borrowing analogous limitations statutes,
cf. O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 (1914), is based on a congressional decision to defer to 'the State's judgment on the proper balance between
the policies of repose and the substantive policies of enforcement embodied in the state cause of action.' Wilson v. Garcia,
[490 U.S. 536, 539] 471 U.S. 261, 271 (1985). 'In virtually all statutes of limitations the chronological length of the limitation
period is interrelated with provisions regarding tolling, revival, and questions of application.' Johnson, supra,
at 464. Courts thus should not unravel state limitations rules unless their full application would defeat the goals of the
federal statute at issue. See, e. g., Wilson, supra, at 269; Chardon, supra, at 657.”
Limitations of Time With Regard to the American With Disabilities Action
70) 42 U.S.C.
§1988's requirement for a federal court to adopt the statute of limitations in the case where the action accrued also
applies to the Americans With Disabilities Act. In the case Soignier v. American Board of Plastic Surgery, 92 F.3d
547, Judge Manion, speaking for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated, inter alia, that “The ADA,
like many federal civil rights statutes, does not contain a specific statute of limitations. Thus, the most appropriate state
limitations period applies. 42 U.S.C. §1988(a); Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-67, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 1941-42,
85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). Wilson dictates a three-step borrowing analysis. . .Under step 2, courts are to select the statute
of limitations of the state cause of action "most appropriate" or "most analogous" to the plaintiff's
claim . . .”
New York State Statute of Limitations
71) New York
State Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 214(5) allows within three (3) years to transpire with regard to “an action
to recover damages for a personal injury. . .”
Issues With Regard
To Defendants' Claim Of Sovereign Immunity
72) The Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that “The judicial power of the United
States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States
by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” This means that generally, a sovereign
state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. This legal doctrine, however, is
refuted when a governmental entity engages in conduct that violates U.S. Constitutional law.
73) In the U.S. Supreme Court case
United States vs. Georgia, et al, quoting verbatim:
“Goodman, petitioner in No. 04–1236, is a paraplegic who sued respondent state Defendants and others,
challenging the conditions of his confinement in a Georgia prison under, inter alia, 42 U. S. C. §1983 and Title
II of the Americans with Disability Act of 1990. As relevant here, the Federal District Court dismissed the §1983 claims
because Goodman’s allegations were vague, and granted respondents' summary judgment on the Title II money damages claims
because they were barred by state sovereign immunity. The United States, petitioner in No. 04–1203, intervened on appeal.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment as to the Title II claims, but reversed the §1983 ruling,
finding that Goodman had alleged facts sufficient to support a limited number of Eighth Amendment claims against state agents
and should be permitted to amend his complaint. This Court granted certiorari to decide the validity of Title II’s abrogation
of state sovereign immunity.”
74) Justice Scalia, giving the opinion of the Court, stated the following:
“We consider whether a disabled inmate in a state prison may sue the State for money
damages under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 104 Stat. 337, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12131
et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. II).
Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified
individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits
of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”
§12132 (2000 ed.). A “ ‘qualified individual with a disability’ ” is defined as “an individual
with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural,
communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility
requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.”
§12131(2). The Act defines “ ‘public entity’ ” to include “any State or local government”
and “any department, agency, … or other instrumentality of a State,” §12131(1). We have previously
held that this term includes state prisons. See Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206,
210 (1998). Title II authorizes suits by private citizens for money damages against public entities that violate §12132.
See 42 U.S.C. § 12133 (incorporating by reference 29 U.S.C. § 794a). . .
Once
Goodman’s complaint is amended, the lower courts will be best situated to determine in the first instance, on a claim-by-claim
basis, (1) which aspects of the State’s alleged conduct violated Title II; (2) to what extent such misconduct also violated
the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) insofar as such misconduct violated Title II but did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment,
whether Congress’s purported abrogation of sovereign immunity as to that class of conduct is nevertheless valid. The
judgment of the Eleventh Circuit is reversed, and the suit is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
75) In United
States vs. Georgia, et al, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state abrogates sovereign immunity when it violates both
Title II, ADA and the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff asserts that her verified complaint will show that the Defendants violated
Title II, ADA and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by conspiring to: 1) deny Plaintiff's constitutional
right to a a notice of accusation and access to an attorney to prove her innocence based solely on Plaintiff's being a non-Jewish
schvartze and status of having a mental illness publicly held to be psychotic and violent; 2) willfully place themselves in
a position not to hear6 Plaintiff's complaints by using Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness as an excuse to say that Plaintiff's
allegations are delusional and without merit; 3) intentionally misdiagnose Plaintiff as violent and psychotic so as to discredit
Plaintiff's complaints as the unbelievable rantings of a psychotic, anti-Semitic, violent criminal.
76) Plaintiff holds that, based on
the above, Defendants' violation of Plaintiff's Title II, ADA and Fourteenth Amendment rights are abrogations of sovereign
immunity, and that as such, Plaintiff's lawsuit rises to the level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
Federal Lawsuit Specific to the
Plaintiff
77)
Plaintiff submits that she was a litigant in the following federal cases:
U.S. Supreme Court
a)
No. 09–5816. Cheryl D. Uzamere, Petitioner v. Allen E. Kaye, P.C., et al. Petition for writ of certiorari to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
b) No. 11–8206. Cheryl D. Uzamere, Petitioner v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York,
et al. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
U.S. District Court – Eastern District of New York
c) New York City Housing Authority et al
v. Uzamere 1:2007-cv-1194; Filed: March 15, 2007; updated: July 13, 2012 15:01:10; Defendant: Cheryl D. Uzamere; Cause
of Action: Notice of Removal. Plaintiff's action was dismissed based on, inter alia, lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
d)
Uzamere v. John Doe et al 1:2007-cv-2471; Filed: June 18, 2007as Updated: July 13, 2012 14:20:10; Defendants: John
Doe, Yar'adua, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Victor Oyofo and others; Cause Of Action: Federal Question.
Plaintiff's action was dismissed based on, inter alia, lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
e) Uzamere
v. Bush, et al 1:2008-cv-891; Filed: February 22, 2008; updated: July 16, 2012 08:51:37; Defendants: George W. Bush, Condoleeza
Rice, Michael Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Dr. Emilio T. Gonzalez and others; Cause Of Action: Federal Question. Plaintiff's
action was dismissed based on, inter alia, lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
f) Uzamere
v. State of New York et al, 1:2009-cv-02703; Filed: June 18, 2009; updated: July 16, 2012 13:45:27; Defendants: State
of New York, City of New York, Metropolitan Transit Authority, Metropolitan Police Department and New York City Transit Authority;
Cause of Action: Federal Question. Plaintiff's action was dismissed based on, inter alia, lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
g) Uzamere v. United States Postal Service, 1:2009-cv-03709; Filed: August 14, 2009; updated:
July 16, 2012 14:35:39; Defendant: United States Postal Service; Cause of Action: Fed. Question. Plaintiff's action was dismissed
based on, inter alia, lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
h) Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713; Filed: July 6, 2011; updated: July 17, 2012 21:36:28;
Defendants/ Appellees: Andrew M. Cuomo, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New York, Nirav R. Shah, in his
official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, Michael F. Hogan, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health, Ann Pfau, in her official capacity as Chief Administrative Judge
for the New York State Unified Court System, Roy L. Reardon, in his official capacity as Chair of the New York State Departmental
Disciplinary Committee, New York State Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department and others; Cause of Action: Federal
Question. Plaintiff's original action was dismissed based on, inter alia, lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
i)
Uzamere v. Cuomo et al, 1:2011-cv-2831; Filed: June 10, 2011; updated: July 17, 2012 21:13:17; Defendants: Allen
E. Kaye, PC, Andrew M. Cuomo, Daily News, LP, Federation Employment and Guidance Service, Gladstein and Messinger and others;
Cause of Action: Federal Question. Plaintiff's original action was dismissed based on, inter alia, lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
U.S. District Court – Southern District of New York
j) Plaintiff filed Docket Nos. 1:209-CV-1617, 1:2009-CV-3506 and 1:2010-CV-7668. Plaintiff's actions
were dismissed for, inter alia, lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
k) Uzamere v. Allen E. Kaye, P.C et al, 1:2009-cv-01617; Filed: February 23, 2009; updated:
July 16, 2012 12:25:40; Defendants: Allen E. Kaye, P.C, Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq., Bernard J. Rostanski, Uzamere
and Associates, PLLC and others; cause of action: Federal Question.
l) Uzamere v. Allen E. Kaye, P.C. et al, :2009-cv-03506; Filed: April 7, 2009; updated: July
16, 2012 13:17:48; Defendants: Allen E. Kaye, P.C., Uzamere and Associates, PLLC, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson,
LLP, Robert E. Juceam, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq. and others; Cause Of Action: Federal Question: Other Civil Rights.
m)
Uzamere v. The United States Postal Service et al, 1:2010-cv-07668; Filed: October 6, 2010; updated: July 17, 2012
16:50:47.
U.S. Federal Court of Claims
n) Uzamere v. USA, 1:2010-cv-591; filed September 1, 2010; updated: July 17, 2012 14:50:08;
Defendant: USA; cause of action: Tucker Act.
o) Uzamere v. USA, 1:2010-cv-585; filed: August 30, 2010; Updated: July 17, 2012 16:00:17;
Defendant: USA; Cause of Action: Tucker Act.
p) Uzamere v. USA, 1:2010-cv-555; Filed: August 16, 2010; updated: July 17, 2012 15:51:37;
Defendant: USA; cause of action: Tucker Act.
Facts
78) On or around
May 2008, Plaintiff contacted U.S. Department of Homeland Security employee Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel, with regard to an
act of immigration fraud that Plaintiff alleged was committed by immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro.
79) By September
2008, Rachel McCarthy failed to investigate Plaintiff's complaint regarding Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro. Plaintiff, in
turn, engaged in a series of telephone calls in which Plaintiff left angry messages on Rachel McCarthy's voicemail.
80) On or around
September 25, 2008, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, located in Burlington, Vermont charged Plaintiff with simple
assault in that Plaintiff “impeded, 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”; and that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's allegation of simple assault was made while Plaintiff was
still living in Brooklyn, New York, 260 miles away. See the Information regarding United States of America v. Cheryl Uzamere,
1:08-cr-114-1, attached as Exhibit A.
81) On December 11, 2008, after receipt of Plaintiff's defense attorney's Motion to Dismiss, the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, by U.S. Attorney Thomas D. Anderson withdrew the Information against the Plaintiff. See the
Plaintiff's defense attorney's Motion of Dismiss and U.S. Attorney Thomas D. Anderson's Motion to Dismiss attached as Exhibit
B.
82)
On or around June 25, 2011, two (2) days after Defendant Garaufis rendered his FRCP-lacking, memorandum-lacking decision regarding
Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-CV-2831 (NGG), (3) marshals from the U.S. Marshal Service for 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 individual 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's telling them that her daughter Tara
was there, they left.
83) The following week, psychiatric nurse Agnes Flores and psychologist Martin Bolton, employees of
Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation came to Plaintiff's apartment. Agnes Flores and Martin Bolton said
that they were told by LifeNet7 that Plaintiff threatened to inflict bodily harm on Judge Garaufis.8
84) In
July 2011, Bridget Davis, an intensive case worker who is an employee of Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health,
said that Defendant U.S. Marshal Service told her that Plaintiff had threatened others and that she threatened Defendant Judge
Nicholas Garaufis, something that Plaintiff did not do. Plaintiff took the liberty of recording the conversation in its entirety.
Plaintiff uploaded the conversation to her website: http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html.
85)
On or around July 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed her appellate brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Sometime
thereafter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered its decision dismissing the appeal for Plaintiff's lawsuit
Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al 11-2713-cv. The Plaintiff received papers that did not include the name of the appellate
judges that rendered the decision on Plaintiff's appeal. When the Plaintiff called 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, Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe indicated that the judges' names were left out because Plaintiff had threatened
Judge Sunshine, the judge who, accepted fraudulent papers from Plaintiff's ex-husband and his attorney and never held them
criminally liable for perjury. Also, Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe did not say from whom she received the order not to reveal the
names of the appellate judges, nor how long the ban would last.9 Plaintiff alleges that as her supervisor, Defendant Jacobs ordered the ban.
86) On or around February 25, 2012,
Plaintiff received her psychiatric treatment plan from the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community
Treatment Team in which Plaintiff was accused of threatening judges and threatening federal employees of the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services. See psychiatric treatment plan attached as Exhibit C.
87) On or around May 17, 2012 and
May 24, 2012, the Plaintiff send FOIA requests to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, the New York State Office of Mental Health and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation to establish proof
that Plaintiff never threatened anyone. See FOIA correspondence attached as Exhibit D.
88) By July
2012, Plaintiff discovered that someone contacted Defendant Mental Health Association of New York City (LifeNet) and told
them that Plaintiff threatened judges. When Plaintiff LifeNet and asked for the identity of the person who told LifeNet that
Plaintiff threatened Defendant Garaufis, Plaintiff was told that the identity of the person who told Defendant MHA that Plaintiff
threatened Defendant Garaufis is confidential, and failed to give Plaintiff the identity of the individual(s) who accused
Plaintiff of committing 18 USC §115.
89) On or around July 17, 2012, Plaintiff received a fax from Patricia Lockhart of the New York City
Health and Hospitals Corporation. The fax was a letter from Denis P. McGowan of Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
According to the letter, Plaintiff made telephonic threats to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services call center.
See correspondence from U.S. Department of Homeland Security attached as Exhibit E.
90) On August 8, 2012, Plaintiff faxed
and e-mailed a FOIA request to Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security employee Nikki Gramian with regard to the fraudulent
use of USDHS agency’s letterhead by USDHS employees Robert Moore, Senior Special Agent and Denis P. Moore, Chief, Threat
Management Branch, Federal Protective Service. In the attached fax, Plaintiff stated that “It appears to be signed by
one of your agency’s employees, a Mr. Denis P. McGowan. The letter claims that they were contacted (although it does
not say by whom) because I threatened federal employees, of CMS, something I did not do. When I contacted CMS, they gave me
the dates that were recorded in their telephone log: 1) June 14, 2010; 2) June 1, 2011; 3) July 8, 2011; and, 4) May 18, 2012.
Based on their telephone log, there was no incident logged in which I threatened any federal employee. CMS' call center can
be reached at (800) 633-4227 to verify this. . .Mr. Edwards, someone is using your agency’s letterhead, name and insignia
to give the impression that the U.S. government is accusing me of the commission of 18 USC §115, threatening a federal
employee, and that I am psychotic and violent. Is it Denis McGowan? His name is signed on the letter. Use of federal name
and insignia is a crime according to 18 USC §712. If Mr. McGowan had nothing to do with this letter, I will remove your
agency from my lawsuit. I will also apologize to him and to Mr. Moore for any problems I may have caused them. Please find
out if Mr. McGowan wrote the attached letter and inform me of your findings. I never threatened anyone. The letter is fraudulent.”
See correspondence dated August 8, 2012 that Plaintiff sent to Nikki Gramian attached as Exhibit F.
91) By August
13, 2012, Defendant Katherine R. Gallo, at the behest of Defendant Charles K. Edwards decided that with regard to USDHS employees
Denis P. McGowan's and Robert Moore's refusal to identify the individual who claimed that Plaintiff called the CMS call center
and made threats of bodily harm, and that with regard to Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment right to face her accuser, receive a
notice of accusation, receive a speedy trial and ability to face witnesses, Defendant Gallo said that Plaintiff's request
“for expedited processing is denied because you do not qualify for either category. Clearly the lack of expedited treatment
in this case will not pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual. In addition, you are not primarily
engaged in the dissemination of information to the public. You have not shown that you have the ability to educate the public,
nor have you detailed with the requisite specificity why you feel there is an urgency to inform, or that there is a significant
public interest in this matter. Finally, it is also well established that a FOIA requester cannot rely upon his or her status
as a private party litigant -in either civil or criminal litigation -to claim an entitlement to greater FOIA access than would
be available to the average requester. FOIA “is largely indifferent to the intensity of a particular requester's need.”
See EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 86 (1973).” See correspondence from Defendant Charles K. Edwards attached
as Exhibit G.
92) On August 14, 2012, Plaintiff faxed Defendant Gallo a reply proving that her denial of Plaintiff's
request for expedited processing of her FOIA request was wrong. See Plaintiff's reply to Defendant Gallo's denial attached
as Exhibit H.
93) On August 22, 2012, Plaintiff a final letter in reply to the expedition denial reply that she
received from Defendant Gallo. The correspondence said: “The EDS is a PA system of records; therefore, disclosure is
governed by the PA which permits agencies to exempt from first party disclosure, information received or compiled for law
enforcement purposes. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(j)(2) and (k)(2). DHS-OIG has so exempted the EDS records, as release
is not required under the PA (emphasis added). See 74 Federal Register 55569 (Oct. 28, 2009).” Ms. Gallo cited the following
FOIA statutes: 1) 5 USC §552(b)(6); 2) 5 USC §552(b)(7)(c); 3) 5 USC §(j)(2); and, 4) 5 USC §552(a)(k)(2).
94) On or around
September 12, 2012, Plaintiff received a second final letter from Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security which stated
that Plaintiff had not filed a complaint with the Inspector General's office. Thereafter, Plaintiff electronically filed a
complaint with the Inspector General's Office regarding a matter involving the fraudulent letter that was produced by USDHS/FPS
employee Denis P. McGowan regarding his false allegation that Plaintiff threatened CMS call center employees with murder.
See second final letter from USDHS, attached as Exhibit I.
95) On September 13, 2012, Plaintiff received an e-mail in response to the complaint that she filed
against USDHS/FPS employee Denis P. McGowan. The e-mail stated “You recently submitted a complaint to the DHS OIG via
the OIG's online website. Your Complaint number is: C1216678. Complaints received at the OIG are reviewed to determine if
DHS OIG investigation, or referral to a more appropriate entity, is warranted. If the allegation does not fall within the
scope of DHS OIG's jurisdiction, then that information may be forwarded to the appropriate agency or authority for their review.
This notification is not an indication your Complaint will be investigated by the DHS OIG or any other applicable investigating
body. It is suggested you maintain a copy of this message for your records.”
96) On September 10, 2012, the Plaintiff faxed a complaint to Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation
with regard to Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security's employee Denis P. McGowan falsely accusing the Plaintiff of
the commission of 18 USC §115. See fax to Duty Agent, FBI, attached as Exhibit J. On or around
October 1, 2012, Plaintiff received correspondence from a Sandra Bungo, in which she stated that “In your letter, you
reported that Department of Homeland Security employee Denis P. McGowan falsely advised your psychiatrist that you had threatened
to kill employees of the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services call center. You stated that McGowan made these false claims
against you at the behest of Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, and that Judge Garaufis is is now blackmailing you to keep you silent.
You stated that you plan to file a lawsuit against the U. S. Attorney General (Eric Holder) and the FBI (Director Robert S.
Mueller III). The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the IPU/INSD has reviewed your allegations and has determined
that there is no evidence of misconduct on the part of any FBI employee. Therefore, no further action will be taken by this
office.” Plaintiff alleges that, as in the past, Defendant FBI was informed that Plaintiff has a mental illness such
that Plaintiff's complaints are not believable; and that based on Plaintiff's status of having a mentally illness, Defendant
Federal Bureau of Investigation will not investigate Plaintiff's complaint.
97) On September 23, 2012, Plaintiff faxed an letter to Karen Greve Milton, in which Plaintiff stated:
“I respectfully ask that you reply to me in writing. Please tell me which judge(s) gave Ms. O'Hagan Wolfe the permission
to withhold their names from decision rendered against me. Who were the appellate judges who rendered the decision on my lawsuit
Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al, 11-2831-cv? Was a real decision rendered, or is Ms. O'Hagan Wolfe pretending that three
(3) appellate judges saw it when it fact it was seen by no one? How long will I be victim of this ban? Please investigate
Ms. O'Hagan Wolfe. I do not believe that she is being honest. If she is breaking the law, 18 USC §4, misprision of felony
requires you to act.” On or around September 28, 2012, Plaintiff received correspondence from Ms. Milton that stated:
“I am writing in response to your letter of September 23, 2012 regarding the above referenced matter. I do not have
the authority to disclose the names of the Court Panel that decided your appeal. It is the Court's regular practice not to
include Panel information on many of the Court's orders. The Clerk of Court is authorized to sign orders on behalf of the
Court. I assure you that a “real decision” was rendered and that nothing irregular was done in your case. I trust
you find this information helpful.” Ms. Milton's correspondence thereby implies that while the ban on Plaintiff's knowing
the names of the judges in her appeal 11-2713, is not based in any threat Plaintiff made against Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine;
that the ban on knowing the names of the circuit judges who rendered their decision regarding Plaintiff's appeal is arbitrary,
vague10 and based in no reason at all. In addition, Plaintiff researched Justia.com and other legal websites that
cite case law; not only was Plaintiff not able to find even one case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
which withheld the judicial panel's names', Plaintiff was also unable to find “per curiam” case law that did not
list the second circuit judges' names.
98) Toward the end of September, 2012, Plaintiff contacted the Brooklyn Defender Service, the not-for-profit
criminal defense organization that represented Plaintiff in 2009. Plaintiff left a number of messages to speak with Defendant
Schreibersdorf, explaining that she was a former client, and that she was accused of threatening Defendant Garaufis and other
federal employers; however, all of Plaintiff's attempted to speak directly with Defendant Schreibersdorf were rebuffed.
99) On October
14, 2012, Plaintiff faxed FOIL requests to Defendants New York State Office of Mental Health, New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporation and Kings County District Attorney. In Plaintiff's correspondence she explained that she would hold NYSOMH employee
Bridget Davis and NYCHHC employees Agnes Flores, Milton Bolton, Margaret Thomas, LPN, Pauline Amo-Adu, MSW, CASAC, Mario Blake,
James Oniwe, R.N., Jean Barry, LCSW-R, ACSW, CM, Hugette Guilliame Sam, R.N, Samuel Sarpong and Dr. Scott A. Berger, MD criminally
liable for commission of §175.35, Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree if they withheld the identities
of the individuals who falsely reported to them that Plaintiff threatened judges and other federal employees. See correspondence
to Defendants New York State Office of Mental Health, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and Kings County District
Attorney attached as Exhibit K.
100) On October 14, 2012, Plaintiff faxed a copy of the FOIL requests she sent to the New York State
Office of Mental Health and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporations to Defendant Hynes of the Kings County District
Attorney's Office; said FOIL requests explaining that Plaintiff would hold NYSOMH employee Bridget Davis and NYCHHC employees
Agnes Flores, Milton Bolton, Margaret Thomas, LPN, Pauline Amo-Adu, MSW, CASAC, Mario Blake, James Oniwe, R.N., Jean Barry,
LCSW-R, ACSW, CM, Hugette Guilliame Sam, R.N, Samuel Sarpong and Dr. Scott A. Berger, MD criminally liable for commission
of §175.35, Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree if they withheld the identities of the individuals
who falsely reported to them that Plaintiff threatened judges and other federal employees. The following day, Plaintiff asked
to speak with Defendant Feinstein several time; however, Plaintiff's requests to speak directly with Defendant Feinstein were
rebuffed.
101)
On October 23, 2012, Plaintiff received correspondence from the U.S. Department of Justice and the New York State Health and
Hospitals Corporation in response to Plaintiff's FOIA and FOIL requests. The correspondence from the U.S. Department of Justice
indicated that there was no ban prohibiting the placement of judges' names on decisions rendered in the Federal District Court
for the Eastern District of New York or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The correspondence from the New
York Health and Hospitals Corporation indicated that “the Corporation was unable to locate a record(s) responsive to
this inquiry”; that is, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation was unable to find any document that specifically
named any federal employee or private citizen who indicated to Defendants mental health employees in writing that Plaintiff
ever threatened any judge or other federal employee. See correspondence from the U.S. Department of Justice and the New York
State Health and Hospitals Corporation, attached as Exhibit L.
Synopsis
102) As of the submission of this Verified Complaint, none of the Defendants has arrested the Plaintiff
for the commission of 18 USC §115, although Defendants have put their criminal allegations against the Plaintiff in writing
and have memorialized their accusations in their agencies' own records and in the psychiatric records of Plaintiff's mental
health providers. In addition, although the New York State Inspector General's Office has not required the New York State
Supreme Court Appellate Division's Clerk of Court to leave off the names of any appellate judge who renders a decision against
the Plaintiff, Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, at the behest of Defendant Jacobs and Defendant Garaufis, is still using the fraudulent
criminal/psychiatric charge that she received from the New York State Inspector General's Office to withhold the names of
the appellate judges who rendered the unfavorable decision on Plaintiff's appeal concerning the lawsuit Uzamere v. Cuomo,
et al, 11-2831-cv, thereby giving the impression that Defendant Jacobs and Defendant Garaufis are still holding on to
his defamatory criminal/psychiatric charge against the Plaintiff, without offering Plaintiff a chance to appeal said decision
to determine when the ban will end. The Defendants have made no attempt to advise Plaintiff whether or not they plan to go
forward with charging Plaintiff with a crime that has a 5-year statute of limitation pursuant to 18 USC §3282; nor have
Defendants indicated in writing their contrition for having wrongly accused Plaintiff of a crime Defendants know Plaintiff
never committed. NYSOMH employee Bridget Davis and NYCHHC employees Agnes Flores, Milton Bolton, Margaret Thomas, LPN, Pauline
Amo-Adu, MSW, CASAC, Mario Blake, James Oniwe, R.N., Jean Barry, LCSW-R, ACSW, CM, Hugette Guilliame Sam, R.N, Samuel Sarpong
and Dr. Scott A. Berger, MD, while holding that federal law enforcement employees told them that Plaintiff made threats to
judges and other federal employees have refused to respond to Plaintiff FOIL requests for the identity(ies) of the aforesaid
employees, or the identities of the federal employees Plaintiff is alleged to have threatened. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
Schreibersdorf and Feinstein, in an attempt to employ willful blindness, have distanced themselves from knowledge of fellow
Jews' criminal behavior by refusing to speak with the Plaintiff.
103) Plaintiff is now in a position that, no matter where Plaintiff goes to obtain outpatient psychiatric
services, the defamation restarted by Defendant Garaufis follows the Plaintiff. Defendant Garaufis, and employees of Defendants
U.S. Marshal Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Mental Health
Association of New York City have not acceded to Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment right to: 1) provide Plaintiff with a notice
of accusation so that Plaintiff can avail herself of the services of a criminal attorney in order to prove her innocence;
2) allow Plaintiff to face both adversarial and friendly witnesses; and, 3) obtain exculpatory evidence by way of Defendants'
records that establishes that Plaintiff never threatened any judge or any federal employee. Plaintiff is being forced to revisit
yet another attempt by Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security to accuse Plaintiff of a serious federal felony as a
means to hide exculpatory evidence that clears Plaintiff of false criminal charges that Defendants levied against her. Although
all the defendants are attorneys, they have allowed themselves to be influenced by Defendant Garaufis' Talmud-oriented racism
and disdain of mentally ill people in order to rationalize not allowing Plaintiff to obtain records that prove that Plaintiff
never threatened anyone with bodily harm or death. Defendants' message to Plaintiff is clear: If Plaintiff continues to file
complaints against defendants who are Jewish, any outpatient psychiatric service provider from which Plaintiff receives assistance
will label Plaintiff psychotic, violent and anti-Semitic. Defendants continue to engage in coercing,1 blackmailing2 and extorting3 the Plaintiff by using the same spurious criminal charges to threaten Plaintiff with forced hospitalization
if Plaintiff continues to make demands for Defendants' records that show that the Plaintiff never threatened anyone.
104) Lastly,
Plaintiff included U.S. District judges to her lawsuit based on her belief that they are adherents of the Jewish religious
doctrine Law of the Moser, and that if they are called upon to adjudicate Plaintiff's lawsuit, they will commit fraud upon
the court as did Defendant Garaufis in an attempt to prevent Plaintiff from filing any complaint against defendants who are
Jews. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Garaufis' having accused Plaintiff of threatening him with bodily harm by New York
State and New York City mental health employees speaks to a biased environment that is comfortable for the judges of this
district and circuit.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendants Violated The First Amendment Mandate Regarding
Separation of Church and State
105)
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
106) With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in
their official capacities.
107) Plaintiff is a non-Jewish American citizen of African descent with a serious and persistent mental
illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
108) Plaintiff is a qualified individual
with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
109) Plaintiff is under attack by the Defendants, who have created a government-wide hostile environment
that encourages Defendants to violate Plaintiff's First Amendment right to free speech, the separation of church and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances by conspiring to withhold exculpatory evidence that proves that Plaintiff never
threatened any judge or any other federal employee.
110) Defendants have failed to meet the First Amendment's mandate with regard to Plaintiff's right
to free speech, separation of church and state and Plaintiff's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Defendants continue to interfere with Plaintiff's attempts to obtain federally- and New York State-funded mental health assistance
by directing mental health providers to misdiagnose Plaintiff with spurious criminal charges of threatening federal employees;
while at the same time withholding the identity of the federal employees who made the false criminal accusation and withholding
exculpatory evidence that absolves Plaintiff of any criminal liability. Defendants continue to interfere with Plaintiff's
attempts to obtain exculpatory evidence from Defendants U.S. Marshal Service and U.S. Department of Homeland Security's FOIA
departments that can prove that Plaintiff did not threaten any federal employees so that Plaintiff can file the lawsuit that
she uploaded to her web page http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/garaufis_shenanigans.html. Instead of showing Plaintiff the mercy that is epitomized by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Defendant Garaufis has been monstrously rude,
racist and unfair. Defendant Garaufis' lack of mercy for Plaintiff, who is already a pariah based on the lie that Plaintiff
threatened him, is merciless to the point of being demonic. Even serial killers on their last day of life are given a last
meal, a clergyman to pray with them, and then put to death painlessly, with some semblance of mercy. Plaintiff is a mentally
disabled crime victim, but Defendant Garaufis' monstrous lack of mercy is equaled only the mercy he has shown to those others
Defendants who, like him, are Jews who falsely accused Plaintiff of federal felonies.
111) Plaintiff respectfully submits to this Court that Defendants: 1) violated Plaintiff's First Amendment
right to free speech; 2) violated Plaintiff's right not to have Defendant Garaufis' religion forced on her; and, 3) violated
Plaintiff's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, all which violate the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, such that Plaintiff's verified
complaint rises to the level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 and 42 USC §1983 and §1985. See copies of Abodah Zarah 26b, Sanhedrin 108b and footnote 34, Midrash
Rabbah, page 293 and Informing on Jews Whom Commit Crimes, attached as Exhibit M.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendants
Violated The Americans With Disabilities Act Mandate
112) Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
113) With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in
their official capacities.
114) Plaintiff is an American citizen of African descent with a serious and persistent mental illness.
Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
115) Plaintiff is a qualified individual
with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
116) Plaintiff is under attack by the Defendants, who have created a government-wide hostile environment
that directs government-funded mental health providers to discriminate against Plaintiff by falsely charging Plaintiff with
threatening judges and federal employees with bodily harm and death, then misusing FOIA or company law to withhold exculpatory
evidence that establishes that Plaintiff did not engage in threatening anyone.
117) Defendants have failed to meet the obligations of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities
Act. Defendants continue to discriminate against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness by falsely
charging Plaintiff with the commission of a federal crime, then preventing Plaintiff from receiving a notice of accusation,
obtaining an attorney, allow Plaintiff to confront adversarial witnesses and witness in her favor, and allow Plaintiff to
obtain exculpatory evidence from the Defendants so that Plaintiff can prove that she did not commit the crime. Defendants,
at the behest of Defendant Garaufis, have falsely charged Plaintiff with 18 USC §115, but have failed to allow Plaintiff
to access Defendants' records to obtain the name of Plaintiff's accuser and to obtain records that prove that Plaintiff did
not threaten anyone.
118)
Plaintiff respectfully submits to this Court that Defendants' discrimination of Plaintiff based on Plaintiff's status of having
a mental illness by misdiagnosing Plaintiff to be an anti-Semitic, psychotic, violent criminal, while preventing Plaintiff
from obtaining copies of Defendants' records to prove her innocence violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, such that Plaintiff's verified complaint rises to
the level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 and 42 USC §1983 and §1985.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendants Violated Sixth Amendment's Mandate
119) Plaintiff repeats and realleges
the above paragraphs.
120)
With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in their official capacities.
121) Plaintiff
is an American citizen of African descent with a serious, persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities.
122) Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
123) Plaintiff
is under attack by all the Defendants, who have created a government-wide hostile environment that directs Defendants, at
the behest of Defendant Garaufis to fail to arrest Plaintiff for the commission of 18 USC §115, thereby depriving Plaintiff
of the right to be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any criminal accusation against Plaintiff, to confront adversarial
witnesses and witnesses in Plaintiff's defense, and to have the assistance of counsel. Defendant Garaufis is on a campaign
to ensure that, at his clandestine behest, that Defendants coerce, blackmail and extort Plaintiff's silence by falsely charging
Plaintiff with a federal crime, while preventing Plaintiff from obtaining exculpatory evidence from Defendants' records so
that Plaintiff can establish that she never threatened anyone with bodily harm or death.
124) Defendants have failed to meet
the obligations of the Sixth Amendment. Defendants deprived Plaintiff of her Sixth Amendment right to notice of accusation,
witnesses and appointment of defense counsel. Defendant accomplished this by creating false reasons to withhold exculpatory
evidence in their own records that identify the individuals who falsely accused Plaintiff of threatening judges and federal
employees with bodily harm and death, and that establish that Plaintiff threatened no one.
125) Plaintiff respectfully submits
before this Court that Defendants' violation of Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment right to notice of accusation, witnesses and appointment
of defense counsel by preventing Plaintiff from obtaining exculpatory evidence that establishes that Plaintiff never threatened
any federal employee violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment, such that Plaintiff's verified complaint rises to the level of an action in the manner of Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 and 42 USC §1983 and §42 USC §1985.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42
USC §1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
42 USC §1985 – Conspiracy to Interfere with
Civil Rights
126)
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
127) With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in
their official capacities.
128) Plaintiff is an American citizen of African descent with a serious and persistent mental illness.
Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
129) Plaintiff is a qualified individual
with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
130) Plaintiff is under attack by all the Defendants, who have created a government-wide hostile environment
that directs Defendants, at the behest of Defendant Garaufis, to deprive Plaintiff of her civil right to obtain records that
contain the name(s) of those individuals who accused Plaintiff of threatening Defendant Garaufis and other judges with bodily
harm and federal employees with death; and her civil rights to obtain exculpatory evidence that Plaintiff never threatened
any federal employee.
131)
Defendants have failed to meet the obligations as detailed in 42 USC §1983 and §1983. Defendants conspired to deter,
by force, intimidation, or threat, the Plaintiff in a court of the United States from attending such court. Defendants conspired
to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, the Plaintiff or from testifying to matters that were pending before the court
therein, freely, fully, and truthfully. Defendants injured the Plaintiff in her person and her property (the lawsuit) on account
of her having so attended or testified, to influence the verdict and indictment in two federal courts (civil and criminal).
Defendants conspired for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice
in the State of New York, with the intent to deny to Plaintiff, a citizen of the United States, the equal protection of the
laws, and injured her and her property for attempting to enforce her rights to the equal protection of the U.S. Constitution
and relevant federal laws.
132) Plaintiff respectfully submits that Defendants' violation of 42 USC §1983 and §1985
for the sole purpose of preventing Plaintiff from obtaining from the Defendants exculpatory evidence so that Plaintiff can
prove that she never threatened anyone, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, such that Plaintiff's verified complaint rises to the level of an action in
the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 and 42 USC §1983
and §1985.
Pro Se Litigant's Pleadings Are To Be Construed Liberally
133) In the
U.S. Supreme Court case Haines V. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519 (1972), Petitioner Menard, a person convicted by the State
of Illinois as a felon – and an individual deemed by the State of Illinois to be unworthy of living with law-abiding
citizens of Illinois, commenced an action against the Governor of Illinois and other state officers and prison officials under
the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and 28 U.S.C. §1343(3), seeking to recover damages for
claimed injuries and deprivation of rights while incarcerated. The Federal District Court dismissed Mr. Menard's complaint
and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Federal District Court's decision. The U.S. Supreme Court,
however, decided against the Federal District's and U.S. Court of Appeals' decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in its
decision that “Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons,
allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to
offer supporting evidence. . . Accordingly, although we intimate no view whatever on the merits of petitioner's allegations,
we conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof.”
134) Plaintiff begs this Court not to copy Defendant Garaufis' racism, discrimination of the mentally
disabled and disrespect for the U.S. Constitution, but to allow Plaintiff to offer proof of those facts contained in Plaintiff's
verified complaint, even if Plaintiff's lawsuit is inartfully drawn.
There
Is No Constitutional Or Statutory Rationale To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
135) In the past, Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant Garaufis has fraudulently misused reasons in the Federal Rules of Civil Practice to illegally dismiss Plaintiff's
verified complaint. Plaintiff believes that Defendant Garaufis' primarily relies on the religious doctrine Law of the
Moser. Plaintiff respectfully informs this Court that the following FRCP reasons for dismissal do not apply to Plaintiff's
verified complaint: (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) lack of personal jurisdiction; (3) improper venue; (4) insufficient
process; (5) insufficient service of process; (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (7) failure
to join a party under Rule 19.
136) Plaintiff respectfully reminds this Court that even if Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, Plaintiff has the legal right to require this Court to point out Plaintiff's mistakes and allow
Plaintiff to make necessary changes to ensure that Plaintiff’s amended verified complaint states a claim on which relief
can be granted. Plaintiff reminds this Court that Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim can be unfavorably construed
to render Plaintiff's verified complaint as res judicata, thereby preventing Plaintiff from filing this action in
any other court. Plaintiff needs to ensure that this Court obeys the law and allows Plaintiff to make needed changes to her
verified complaint. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) page 138.
137)
Plaintiff states that at her web page is her lawsuit Cheryl D. Uzamere vs. Nicholas G. Garaufis, et al,
http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/garaufis_shenanigans.html. During preparation of Uzamere v. Garaufis, #1, Plaintiff made the attempt to obtain the names of
the individuals who accused Plaintiff of threatening Defendant Garaufis, other judges and employees of CMS' call center. Without
exception, all the entities from which Plaintiff requested exculpatory evidence and the names of the accusers failed to comply
with her requests. Plaintiff is now is a position where she is being misdiagnosed for a serious federal crime that she did
not commit, that the Defendants will not allow her to prove she did not commit. In addition, every mental health provider
that Plaintiff has attempted to visit has been told that Plaintiff is anti-Semitic, psychotic and violent. The mental health
providers accept the false misdiagnosis on face value, and Plaintiff has no way of disproving it. Like Defendant Garaufis,
Defendants have displayed absolutely no mercy for a plight they have restarted, and have allowed to snowball. Without this
Court allowing Plaintiff to effectuate an emergency motion for combined demand and discovery of Defendants' records, Plaintiff
will never be able to go to criminal court to prove that she did not threaten anyone, and Plaintiff will not be able to attend
psychotherapy without being misdiagnosed as an anti-Semitic, psychotic, violent criminal.
Plaintiff's Request for Review of Her Allegations Satisfies
the “Good Faith” Requirement of Coppedge
v. United States
138)
According to Coppedge v. United States, “The requirement that an appeal in forma pauperis be taken "in
good faith" is satisfied when the defendant seeks. . .review of any issue that is not frivolous. Pp. 369 U. S. 444-445.
139) According
to Coppedge vs. United States, “If, with such aid, the applicant then presents any issue for the court's consideration
which is not clearly frivolous, leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be granted. P. 369 U. S. 446. . .P. 369 U. S. 448.”
140) Farley
V. United States, 354 U.S. 521, 77 S.Ct. 1371, 1 L.Ed.2d 1529 defines how the U.S. Supreme Court applies the “good
faith” standard. It states that “In the absence of some evident improper motive, the applicant's good faith is
established by the presentation of any issue that is not plainly frivolous. The good-faith test must not be converted into
a requirement of a preliminary showing of any particular degree of merit. Unless the issues raised are so frivolous that the
appeal would be dismissed in the case of a nonindigent litigant . . . the request of an indigent for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis must be allowed.
141)
Is government Defendants' violation of Title II, ADA to be a non-frivolous issue? It certainly does. In the case Disability
Advocates, Inc., v. David A. Paterson, et al, the District Court stated: “The Supreme Court held in Olmstead
v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), that “[u]njustified isolation . . . is properly regarded as discrimination based
on disability,” observing that “institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings
perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable of or unworthy of participating in community life.”
527 U.S. at 597, 600. The “integration mandate” of Title II of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101
et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §791 et seq., as expressed in federal regulations and Olmstead,
requires that when a state provides services to individuals with disabilities, it must do so “in the most integrated
setting appropriate to their needs.” The “most integrated setting,” according to the federal regulations,
is “a setting that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent
possible.” 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d); 28 C.F.R. pt. 35 app. A.
142)
Not only does the U.S. Supreme Court consider violation of Title II, ADA a non-frivolous matter, it allows private citizens
to file suit for damages against governmental agencies and instrumentalities that violate their rights. According to the U.S.
Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), “Title II, §§12131–12134, prohibits
any public entity from discriminating against “qualified” persons with disabilities in the provision or operation
of public services, programs, or activities. The Act defines the term “public entity” to include state and local
governments, as well as their agencies and instrumentalities. §12131(1). Persons with disabilities are “qualified”
if they, “with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication,
or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, mee[t] the essential eligibility requirements
for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.” §12131(2).
Title II’s enforcement provision incorporates by reference §505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Stat. 2982,
as added, 29 U.S.C. §794a, which authorizes private citizens to bring suits for money damages. 42 U. S. C. §12133.”
Good Faith Certification
143)
I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge; 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 accuracy so that my Verified Complaint is presented to this Court in good faith and not to waste this Court's time.
I certify before this Court that I do not present this Verified Complaint to embarrass, annoy or defame the Defendants pursuant
to the laws for perjury.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following:
a) to proceed in forma pauperis;
b) for this Court to employ Sheriff Edgar A. Domenech and Undersheriff Kyle Williams, 66 John Street,
13th Floor, New York, NY 10038, telephone 212-487-9734, 212-487- 5567/7949 (fax) or other entity in place of the U.S. Marshal
Service to effect service of process;
c) for this Court to require Defendants Eric H. Holder, and/or Robert S. Mueller, III, and/or Gerald
Auerbach, and/or Janet Napolitano, and/or William B. Schultz by their employees and/or Nicholas G. Garaufis to press criminal
charges against the Plaintiff pursuant to 18 USC §4, misprision of felony based on their allegation that Plaintiff committed
18 USC §111 (simple assault) and §115 (threatening a federal employee);
d) for this Court to assign Plaintiff a criminal attorney if Defendants charge Plaintiff with a crime;
e) for this
Court to effect the arrest of the employee(s) of the Defendants who falsely accused Plaintiff of the commission of 18 USC
§§111 and 115 (except for Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis based on Plaintiff's allegation that he instigated this
himself) for fraud (18 USC §1001); for conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law (18 USC
§§241, 242); and, misuse of insignia (18 USC §712) and if the aforementioned Defendants do not press criminal
charges against Plaintiff pursuant to 18 USC §4, misprision of felony;
f) for this Court to grant summary judgment on behalf of the Plaintiff if the aforementioned Defendants
do not arrest the Plaintiff, and/or if the Defendants do not respond to Plaintiff's request for discovery in a timely fashion;
g) to declare
that Plaintiff is entitled to received Defendants' records that identify Plaintiff's accusers and that contain exculpatory
evidence that Plaintiff did not threaten anyone;
h) to enjoin the Daily News from displaying its untrue story about the Plaintiff anywhere.
i) to declare
that Defendant Garaufis' actions to publicly hold Plaintiff out as anti-Semitic, psychotic and violent were either administrative
or criminal in nature, such that his actions cannot be misconstrued as judicial in nature;
j) to declare that Plaintiff has the
right to know the names of the appellate judges that rendered a decision on Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2831-cv;
and to reveal their names;
k) for an injunction permanently barring Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis from presiding over any of
Plaintiff's lawsuits in the future;
l) for an alternative method to serve subpoenas duces tecum on Defendants;
m) to allow Plaintiff's Verified Complaint
to serve to as an emergency motion for combined demands and discovery of Defendants' records if service of subpoenas is not
feasible;
n)
to toll the statute of limitations for Uzamere v. Garaufis, et al #1 in the event that this Court does not require
the Defendants to immediately provide exculpatory evidence establishing Plaintiff's innocence and records identifying the
person(s) who accused Plaintiff of threatening Defendant Garaufis, other judges and federal employees of the Center for Medicare
and Medicaid Services call center until such time that the Defendants either satisfy Plaintiff's discovery demands, or, until
Defendants refuse to provide the information in writing;
o) to consolidate this action (this is Uzamere v. Garaufis, et al #2) with Uzamere v.
Garaufis, et al #1 (#1 will not be filed unless Plaintiff secures discovery in this action);
p) for an award of monetary damages
in the amount of $20,000,000.00 (or for an amount the Court finds reasonable) for the combined actions;
q) and for such other relief that
this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
November___,
2012
CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE
___________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt.
6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495
LORETTA E. LYNCH, ESQ.
United States Attorney
271 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel.: (718) 254-7000
MICHAEL A. CARDOZO, ESQ.
The
City Of New York
Law Department
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007-2601
Tel.: (212) 788-0303
ROBERT P. BORSODY, ESQ.
Mental Health Association of New York
City
50 Broadway
19th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel.: (212) 254-0333
LISA SCHREIBERSDORF, ESQ.
Brooklyn Defender Service, Inc.
177
Livingston Street
5th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel.: (718) 254-0700
1 MentalHelp.net, Is Hating Someone Because They are Different a Mental Illness?, by Bob Livingstone, LCSW,
Updated: May 16th 2012 (http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=47170): “. . .The DSM-IV does not accept that the hatred of someone because they are different as a mental
disorder. According to a recent ABC News article, The American Psychiatric Association (APA) does not list racism in its Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the bible of psychiatrists worldwide. Most psychiatrists believe that racism
is a cultural and social problem, not a matter of individual pathology. . .” It is arrogant and fraudulent to treat
anti-Semitism as a mental illness when the DSM-IV, the bible of psychiatric illness, does not treat anti-Semitism as a mental
illness. It is even more ridiculous for Defendant Garaufis, to “diagnose” Plaintiff based on his desperation/fraud-laced
delusion that his yiddishkeit has turned him into a licensed psychiatric expert or other licensed mental health professional.
Defendant Garaufis is not listed as any type of mental health professional with the New York State Education Department's
License Verification web page. Lastly, the Ninth Amendment's mandate to not deny or disparage those rights not specifically
enumerated prevents any court from adjudging Plaintiff's lawsuit negatively based on the belief that Plaintiff hates Jews.
See Barbara Curley, et al., Plaintiffs v. North American Man Boy Love Association, et.al., 00-10956-GAO.
