OPINIONS BELOW
..........The
opinions concerning the three (3) petitions for writs of certiorari No. 92-5852, Uzamere v. United States, No. 11-8206, Cheryl D. Uzamere v. Andrew v. Cuomo, Governor of New York, et al, and No. 09-5816, Cheryl D. Uzamere
v. Allen E. Kaye, PC., et al. were all denied. The opinion is reported
at Pet. App. Exhibit A. The opinion of the Appellant's
brief No. 13-2454 is reported at Pet. App. Exhibit A, page 41.
..........The District Court's opinion is reported at Pet. App. Exhibit A, pages 1 - 39 and is unpublished.
JURISDICTION
..........The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided Petitioner's
case was April 11, 2014.
..........No petition for rehearing was filed in Petitioner's case.
..........The jurisdiction of
this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1).
STATUTORY AND CASE LAW PROVISIONS INVOLVED
..........The U.S. Supreme Court
case law provisions on which this Petition is based are as follows:
..........Misprision
of Felony/18 USC §4 – Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552 (1980) and 2)
Branzburg v. Hayes,
408 U. S. 665, 408 U. S. 696 (1972).
..........Establishment
Clause/First Amendment – Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), Everson v. Board of Education, 330
U.S. 1 (1947) and Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School
District v. Grumet 512 U.S. 687 (1994).
..........Proceeding in forma pauperis – 28 U.S.C. §1915.
..........Discrimination based upon Mental Illness, Title II, ADA – Olmstead
v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999); Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509.
..........Civil Right Act of 1964, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment – Newman
v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968), Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).
..........Courts Must Have the Appearance of Impartiality and Disqualification of Judges – 28 USC §§144, 455, Liteky
v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610,
80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
..........This case concerns a 35-year-ongoing series of
crimes that were committed against the helpless, disabled, African-American mother and her two (2) adult children who are
still the victims of a Judaic-religiously-oriented RICO, who members have dishonestly treated the hatred of lawbreaking, Jews
as a real crime), while the pedophile-minded-pity-junkie-Judaic-religiously-oriented RICO – including this court's Jewish
justices – are still protecting anti-black racist Mortimer Zuckerman, who continues to use the Daily News and the internet
to scorn Petitioner's mental illness in order to disseminate the lie regarding the identity of Petitioner's ex-husband and
child of the marriage's father, in much the
same way that a pedophile makes reference to having been raped as a child in order to obtain public pity, so that he can avoid
prison and rape more children. Said pedophile-minded RICO's trick is to enforces, among other Jewish religious doctrines,
Law of the Moser.
The RICO's sole purpose of Law of the Moser is to ensure that the Petitioner is forced not to report the crimes that were committed against
her and her family by the Jewish Respondents to the secular law enforcement authorities.
..........Petitioner approaches
this Court as a 35-year crime victim of the following human rights violations constitutional violations and crimes:
United Nation Human Rights Violations
..........Article Five – Petitioner and her children were subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment at the hands of the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article Six – Petitioner and her children's
right to recognition as persons before the law was violated by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article Seven – Petitioner
and her children's right to equal protection before the law was violated by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Petitioner
right not to be publicly insulted and discriminated against as a “wacko” because she has bipolar disorder, and
Plaintiff's right to equal protection of the law was violated by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article Eight – Petitioner
was deprived of the right to obtain an effective remedy by Government Respondent's competent national tribunals for acts Petitioner
was falsely accused of violating by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article Nine – Petitioner was subjected
to arbitrary arrest and detention by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article Ten – Petitioner's right to full
equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations
and of any criminal charge against him was violated by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article Eleven – Petitioner's
right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty after being charged with various penal offenses was violated by the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff's right not to be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a
penal offense under national or international law was violated by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article Twelve – Petitioner
was subjected to arbitrary interference with her privacy, her family and her home by the Defendants. Plaintiff was subjected
to attacks upon her honor and reputation; Plaintiff's right to the protection of the law against such interference or attack
was violated by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article
Thirteen – Petitioner's right to freedom of movement
within Defendants State of New York and City of New York was violated by the Respondents and ignore by this Court; Petitioner's
family's right, as a natural and fundamental group unit of American society, being entitled to protection by society and the
State, was violated by the Respondents, and ignored by this Court; Petitioner's right to equal access to public service in
his country was violated by the Respondents and ignored by this Court.
..........Federal
Felonies – Misprision of felony, 18 USC §4; fraud, 18 USC §1001; identity theft, 18 USC §1028; aggravated identity
fraud, 18 USC §1028A; deprivation of rights under color of law (including being kidnapped, unlawfully imprisoned and
blacklisted), 18 USC §242/42 USC §1985; extortion, 18 USC §872§, blackmail, 18 USC §873; violation
of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act; violation of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973; violation of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601; violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the Petition Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; violation of the Notice Clause of the Sixth Amendment; violation of
the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment; violation of Petitioner's right of privacy with regard to the illegal
dissemination of her psychiatric records, Petitioner marriage history, Petitioner married name, and the non-content information
associated with Petitioner's internet and telephone accounts; violation of the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment, intentional misuse of national security letters (NSLs).
Judaic Law – As taught by the National Institute for
Judaic Law
..........Plan for Judaic Law –
“But now, with the rise of Judaism in the halls of power, we are looking at a return to Old Testament state-religion.
Particularly, given the strain of Orthodox Judaism in ascendance, we are looking toward a re-unification of church and state,
with priestly enforcement of Old Testament and Talmudic commandments . . . In November 2002, the American Orthodox Jewish
community held a kosher dinner in the Supreme Court building to celebrate the establishment of the National Institute for
Judaic Law. The dinner was attended by 200 people, including three Supreme Court Justices. The purpose of the Institute is
to introduce Talmudic laws into the US legal system and law schools. It is thus the clear civic duty of every American to
become intimately acquainted with the Talmud. (http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html).
..........Death Sentence Endorsed Against Christians
Today: “The Noahide Laws promise deadly consequences for
Christians. . . Furthermore, Lord God tasked the Jews to enforce the seven Noahide Commandments, and to enforce them with
liberal use of the death penalty (emphasis added). . .(http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html).
..........Law
of the Moser; Jews Must Not Report the Crimes of Fellow Jews to Gentiles or Secular Law Enforcement Authorities – Informing on Fellow
Jews Who Commit Crimes, Rabbi Michael J. Broyde – “. . .the Talmud recounts - in a number of places - that it
is prohibited to inform on Jews to the secular government, even when their conduct is a violation of secular law. . .”
(http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/moser-broyde/index.html).
..........Stoolie Is Dead to His Daddy, New York Post,
Kate Sheehy, July 28 2009 – The father, citing “the Talmudic
Law of Moser that prohibits a Jew from informing on another Jew to a non-Jew” — renounced his son from the pulpit
at his synagogue in Deal, NJ, on Saturday, the site said.
..........Silence and self-rule: Brooklyn's Orthodox child abuse cover-up,
Zoë Blackler, New York, The Guardian, Thursday 29, March 2012 – “When Mordechai discovered his mentally disabled child was being molested, he
reported the crime to the police. A local man was arrested and charged with repeatedly raping the boy in their synagogue's
ritual bath. When news of the arrest got back to their Brooklyn community, the neighbors launched a hate campaign. But the
object of their anger wasn't the alleged perpetrator, Meir Dascalowitz, it was the abused boy's father. For the last two years,
Mordechai says he's been hounded by his community. The minute this guy got arrested I started a new life, a life of hell,
terror, threat, you name it. . . As consistent as the tales of cover up are those of community intimidation, where victims
are branded a moser – an informer – excluded from school, spat on in synagogue, their families threatened and
harassed by supporters of the accused.
(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/29/brooklyn-orthodox-jews child-abuse-cover-up-feature ).”
..........Gentiles are Inferior to Jews – Come and Hear: Death Penalty
and Talmud Law, US v. Talmud Law: “Talmud law insists on unequal
justice under law. Talmudic law holds there is one law for Jews, and one for Gentiles. This is not inconsistent with the Old
Testament, in which LORD God decrees that Jews should not enslave other Jews: Gentiles are the proper slaves of Jews. . .Gentiles
are easy to convict. . .(http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_4.html.
Blacks Are Meant to Be Enslaved
..........Artsot Ha-Hayyim,
page 52a, 52b – “In 1992 a book was published
by a leading member of the Satmar community entitled Artsot Ha-Hayyim. On p. 52 he explains, and quotes other rabbis, that
the reason Abraham Lincoln was killed was because he freed the blacks. this is also the reason why Kennedy was killed, i.e.
because he was good to the blacks. He continues by saying that this will be the fate of any who adopt a progressive attitude
towards blacks, because they are meant to be enslaved. Ham's curse.” http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v15/mj_v15i20.html#CDX.
..........The Legends of the Jews - Ginsburg, Vol. 1, p. 169 – “The descendants of Ham through Canaan therefore have red eyes, because Ham
looked upon the nakedness of his father; they have misshapen lips, because Ham spoke with his lips to his brothers about the
unseemly condition of his father; they have twisted curly hair, because Ham turned and twisted his head round to see
the nakedness of his father; and they go about naked, because Ham did not cover the nakedness of his father.”
..........Midrash Rabbah (Soncino) Vol. 1, p. 293: “AND HE SAID: CURSED BE CANAAN (Breishit 9:25): (Commentary omitted)...R. Huna also
said in R. Joseph's name: You [i.e. Noah is speaking to Ham) have prevented me from doing something in the dark [i.e. cohabiting
with his wife], therefore your seed will be ugly and dark-skinned. R. Chiyya said: Ham and the dog copulated in the Ark, therefore
Ham came forth black-skinned while the dog publicly exposed its copulation.”
..........Use of Subterfuge to Deceive Gentiles During Court Proceedings: “Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former
according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is our law'; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the
heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] 'This is your law'; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to
circumvent him.” (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Kamma, Folio 113a, http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_113.html ).
Talmud Violates Petitioner's 1st Amendment Rights
.........."The
establishment of religion”' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government
can set up a church.” Everson v. Board of Education. This Court's Jewish justices and the Jewish Respondents enforced the Judaic doctrine Law
of the Moser, a doctrine whose very intent is to prevent the reporting of lawbreaking Jews to the secular authorities.
Talmud Violated Petitioner's 5th Amendment Rights
..........This
Court's Jews and the Jewish Respondents blocked Petitioner's passage to go to court to prevent Petitioner from filing criminal
and civil complaints against their law-breaking Jewish friends.
Talmud Violates Petitioner's 6th Amendment Rights
.........."In
Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, in which this Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right to the assistance of counsel is obligatory upon
the States, we did so on the ground that 'a provision of the Bill of Rights which is 'fundamental and essential to a fair trial' is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.'
Talmud Violates African-American
Petitioner's 14st Amendment Rights
..........". . .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. This
Court's Justices and the Jewish Respondents used Petitioner's mental illness to disparage her criminal and civil complaints
to prevent Petitioner's complaints against the lawbreaking Jews from being believed.
Federal Statutes -- Title II of the Americans With Disabilities
Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973
..........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.”
42 USC §1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation
of Rights
42 USC §1985 - Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights
.......... "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. . .” See
Haddle V. Garrison et al, 525 U.S. 121 (1998).
..........Justice Black in his concurring opinion in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S.
123, 144-145, 71 S.Ct. 624, 634 (1951): “Our basic law, however, wisely withheld authority for resort to executive.
. .condemnations and blacklists as a substitute for imposition of legal types of penalties by courts following trial and conviction
in accordance with procedural safeguards of the Bill of Rights.”
Commission of RICO Crimes
..........The courts of Respondent the United States of
America recognize that obstruction of justice caused by racketeering influenced, corrupt organizations is an injury. RICO
laws were successfully cited in NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 114 S. Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed. 2D 99 (1994). In addition, the Court held that a
RICO enterprise does not need an economic motive.
National Security Letters
..........18 USC §2709, 18 U.S. Code § 2709 – Counterintelligence
access to telephone toll and transactional records says: “The Director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters
or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may request the name, address, length of
service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies
in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length
of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect
against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States
person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United
States. . .”
Petitioner Case Is Eligible for the Continuing Violations Doctrine
..........This
Court has jurisdiction over the action pursuant to Morgan v. National
Railroad Passenger Corporation, DBA Amtrak, 232 F.3d 1008 (November
8, 2000) with regard to the continuing violations doctrine, in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision that “the
continuing violations doctrine. . .allows courts to consider conduct that would ordinarily be time barred "as long as
the untimely incidents represent an ongoing unlawful. . .practice.
..........In the case of Treanor v. MCI Telecommunications, Inc., the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit explained that the continuing violations doctrine "tolls the statute of limitations in
situations where a continuing pattern forms due to [illegal] acts occurring over a period of time, as long as at least
one incident occurred within the limitations period.
H.R. 40
African Holocaust/The Maafa
..........
..........The
“African Reparations Bill”, was promulgated by African-American Congressman John Conyers “To acknowledge
the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the 13 American colonies
between 1619 and 1865 and to establish a commission to examine the institution of slavery, subsequently de jure and de facto
racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African-Americans,
to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes.”
Implied Cause of Action
..........According to 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; Correctional
Services Corporation, v. John E. Malesko, it says: “In the decade
following Bivens, we recognized an implied damages remedy under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Davis v. Passman, 442 U. S. 228 (1979),
and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14 (1980). In both Davis
and Carlson, we applied the core holding of Bivens, recognizing in limited circumstances a claim for money damages against federal officers who
abuse their constitutional authority. In Davis, we inferred a new right of action chiefly because the Petitioner lacked any
other remedy for the alleged constitutional deprivation. 442 U. S., at 245 (For Davis, as for Bivens, it is damages or nothing).
In Carlson, we inferred a right of action against individual prison officials where the Petitioner's only alternative was
a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the United States. 446 U. S., at 18. 23. We reasoned that the threat of suit
against the United States was insufficient to deter the unconstitutional acts of individuals. Id., at 21. (Because the Bivens
remedy is recoverable against individuals, it is a more effective deterrent than the FTCA remedy). We also found it crystal
clear that Congress intended the FTCA and Bivens to serve as parallel and complementary sources of liability. 446 U.S., at
19.20...In 30 years of Bivens jurisprudence we have extended its holding only twice, to provide an otherwise nonexistent cause
of action against individual officers alleged to have acted unconstitutionally, or to provide a cause of action for a Petitioner
who lacked any alternative remedy for harms caused by an individual officers unconstitutional conduct.”
Sovereign Immunity Based on This
Court's Jewish Justices and Government Respondents'
Abrogation of Petitioner's Right to Equal Protection as a Disabled Person
..........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 Respondents 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.”
Change of Venue and Improper Venue Based on Petitioner's Request to the
District Court to Remover Her Case
from a Corrupt, Bias Court to an Impartial Court
..........Federal Rules for Civil Procedure Rule 41(b):
(b) “Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under
this rule—except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19—operates
as an adjudication on the merits.”
..........With regard to 28 USC §1404(a), the case Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.,
487 U.S. 22 (1988) says the following with reference to change to another venue: “Section 1404(a) is sufficiently broad
to control the forum-selection issue. The statute is intended to place discretion in the district courts to adjudicate motions
for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness. A motion to transfer
under §1404(a) calls on the district court to weigh in the balance a number of case-specific factors, and the presence
of a forum-selection clause will figure centrally in the calculus. A forum-selection clause should receive neither dispositive
consideration nor no consideration, but rather the consideration for which Congress provided in §1404(a) (emphasis added).
..........In
the case Ralls Corporation V. Terna Energy USA Holding Corporation, Civil Action No. 13-0117 (ABJ), the court rendered the following decision: “Petitioner
Terna Energy USA Holding Corporation ("Terna") moves to dismiss Petitioner Ralls Corporation's (“Ralls”)
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Upon consideration of
the parties' briefs, the record in this case, and the applicable law, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. It does not reach the question of subject matter jurisdiction. (emphasis added).
Factual Background
Documentation Verifying the Identify
of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
..........In December, 1977, approximately two (2) years before the Petitioner
met Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Nosayaba (John) Uzamere and his wife Ethel Uzamere filed for IR2 residence for Respondent
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. The IR2 visa for Respondent Uzamere was approved on January 28, 1980. The name and immigration number
under which he applied for wpermanent residence was Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, XXXXXXXX XX, 1960, file number A35 201 224. See
correspondence from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service attached as Pet. App. Exhibit B.
....................a) Correspondence
from Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, dated January 6, 2009, see Pet. App. Exhibit B;
....................b) Correspondence
from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service dated June 12, 2009; see Pet.
App. Exhibit B;
....................c) Report from
Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (October, 2008); see Pet. App. Exhibit B;
....................d) Correspondence
from U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service bearing Immigration File No. A35 201 224 (undated); see Pet. App. Exhibit B;
....................e) Correspondence
from U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service bearing Immigration File No. A35 201 224 dated February 10, 1984; see Pet. App. Exhibit B;
....................f) Correspondence
from U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service bearing Immigration File No. A24 027 764 dated June 15, 1981; see Pet. App. Exhibit B;
....................g) Decision
dated May 12, 2009, in which NYS Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine said: “Today at 10:35 a.m. defendant was declared in default
for failure to appear at the hearing. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss this action upon the grounds that he is not
the husband of the plaintiff is denied in its entirety. The defendant is the husband in conformity with the parties marriage
on November 21, 1979. See Pet. App. Exhibit B.
....................h) Decision dated May 12, 2009, in which NYS Justice Matthew
D'Emic said: “The parties were married in New York State on November 21, 1979, and the child of the marriage was born
on July 7, 1980. At some point between the wedding and birth the defendant abandoned his family and moved to Nigeria. By filing
a summons with notice, plaintiff commenced this proceeding on July 18, 2007, and service was affected on defendant in Nigeria
in the manner directed by Justice Prus of this court.” See Pet.
App. Exhibit B.
....................i) Decision Uzamere v Uzamere, 2009 NY Slip
Op 09214 [68 AD3d 855] dated December 8, 2009 in which the New York State Supreme Court for the Appellate Division, 2nd Judicial
Department removed a.k.a. “Godwin Uzamere” to Cheryl D. Uzamere to Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. The decision states:
“In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions
of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sunshine, J.), dated January 12, 2009, which, inter alia, denied her motion,
among other things, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and for an award of child support, and directed
a hearing on the issue of whether the parties were in fact married. See Pet. App. Exhibit B.
....................j) Affidavit
of the child of the marriage, Tara A. Uzamere in which she swears under oath that Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere is her
father; see Pet. App. Exhibit
....................k) Documentation
from Nigeria confirming that the names Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Godwin Ehigie Uzamere and Senator Ehigie Uzamere belong
to Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. See Pet. App. Exhibit B.
....................l) Petitioner requests a subpoena duces tecum to obtain proof
from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service; however Petitioner know that in this Court's Jewish justices determination
to hide their Jewish friends' crimes, they will not comply. Petitioner invites this Court's Jewish justices to arrest all
parties involved in the making and presenting of the aforementioned documentation if said documentation is found to be false,
or to admit that this Court's Jewish justices' Jewish friends committed felonies and arrest them as the law requires.
.......... ..........Documentation Used by Respondents to Falsify the Identity of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
....................a) On
November 20, 1979, Respondent's Ehigie E. Uzamere filled out a marriage affidavit. The marriage affidavit indicated that the
aforesaid Respondent provided the name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” but did not provide any identification. See marriage
affidavit attached at Pet. App. Exhibit B.
....................b) On November 21, 1979, the Petitioner unwittingly entered
into a “romance scam” marriage with Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere under the fictitious named “Godwin
Ehigie Uzamere, and under the fictitious birthday “XXXXXX XX, 19XX.” The Petitioner was provided with marriage
certificate. He abandoned the Petitioner on the day of the marriage while she was pregnant. See Pet. App. Exhibit B.
.................... c) On or around October 1, 2003, Jack Gladstein mailed to the Petitioner correspondence falsely
holding Petitioner's ex-husband out to be “Godwin Uzamere.” See Pet. App. Exhibit B.
....................d) On or around September 25, 2008, Government Respondent's McCarthy falsely made the accusation that Petitioner
“impeded, intimidated, and interfered with a federal employee, namely an employee of the United States Customs and Immigration
Service, while that person was engaged in and on account of that person's performance of official duties.” The Government
Respondent withdrew its case against the Petitioner on December 2008. (Uzamere v. United States of America).
...........On or around October 8, 2008, Petitioner Eugene Uzamere
hand- delivered a fraudulent affirmation and a fraudulent, unauthenticated,3 unnotarized counter-affidavit from Nigeria. See
Pet. App. Exhibit B.
...........Also, during October 2008, Respondent McCarthy and Respondent Cowles gave Petitioner's criminal attorney Beth
Mann a copy of the I-130 immigration sponsorship form that Petitioner signed on November 30, 1979 and a report explaining
the two (2) immigration files having birthdays “June 1, 1955” and December 31, 1960 and explaining “IR2
fraudulently obtained because he was married at the time” and “Compare
fingerprints between the two files.” See Pet. App. Exhibit
B (includes Uzamere
v. United States, U.S. gov't falsely charged Petitioner
with violation of 18 USC. 111(a). On or around January 6, 2009, Petitioner received correspondence from Respondent McCarthy indicating that “The
acts that you allege constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Practitioner occurred in the course of
representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye in connection with an immediate relative filed by you with the Immigration
and Naturalization (“INS”) in 1979.” See Pet.
App. Exhibit B.
..........On
January 12, 2009, Respondent Sunshine engaged in misprision of felony, racketeering, aggravated identity theft and fraud upon
the court by rendering a decision in which he stated that “Moreover, the opposition submitted by Respondent raises a
genuine issue as to whether or not Petitioner and Respondent were married in the first instance”, in defiance of INS'
administrative decision that recognized the names “Godwin E. Uzamere” and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as belonging to
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. See page 9 of Justice Sunshine's decision attached as Pet. App. Exhibit B.
..........On May 12, 2009, Respondent Sunshine rendered his decision recognizing the identity of Petitioner's ex-husband
as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere by stating that “Today at 10:35 am. Respondent was declared in default for failure to appear
at the hearing. Accordingly, Respondent's motion to dismiss this action upon the grounds that he is not the husband of the
Petitioner is denied in its entirety. See Justice Sunshine's dated May 12, 2009 attached as Pet. App. Exhibit B.
..........On or near October 28, 2009 during the adjudication of the case Uzamere vs. Uzamere, et al, Case
No. K-18012/2009, Respondents Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein submitted fraudulent affirmations to the Government
Respondent falsely holding “Godwin Uzamere” and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be two (2) different persons. See affirmations
of Allen Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq. And Jack Gladstein attached as Pet. App. Exhibit B.
..........On November 3, 2009 Respondents Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Michael Gerstein, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey
Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Jewish billionaire and Daily News owner Mortimer Zuckerman conspired to implement the Petitioner's
false arrest (Uzamere v. State of New
York, 2009KN087992) for threatening Respondent
Justice Sunshine for the sole purpose of obtaining an advantage in the action for fraud that Petitioner filed against Respondents
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, and knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought publish a newspaper
article entitled Hate-spewing Wacko Goes into Fit in Court, that illegally disclosed Petitioner's nonpublic information that
was acquired by the Government Respondent's court during the adjudication of Petitioner's cases. See Daily News article attached
as Pet. App. Exhibit C.
..........On November 30, 2009, twenty-five (25) days after Respondent Daily News, LP published its
article regarding the Petitioner, Respondent Federation Employment and Guidance Service terminated its mental health services
to the Petitioner. In its discharge summary it stated that “given client's history of anti-Semitic remarks treatment
at an FEGS facility is inappropriate for her.” FEGS' discharge summary is attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C.
..........On December 7, 2009, the Petitioner was placed with Respondent New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro
Psychiatric Facility.
..........On December 24, 2009,
Petitioner was seen by Respondent New York State Unified Court System judicial employee the Honorable Anthony Cutrona of Kings
County Supreme Court's Mental Hygiene Court and ordered to remain in Government Respondent's psychiatric facilities as an
inpatient.
..........On January 15, 2010, Government Respondent's employee
Respondent Schack conspired with employees of Government Respondent's employees at Government Respondent's psychiatric facility
Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility not to produce the Petitioner for court. In his decision dated January 25, 2010, Respondent
Schack stated that “The Court is concerned that Petitioner UZAMERE is unfit to proceed. . .Therefore, the instant matter
is adjourned to Friday, March 19, 2010. . .” See interim decision of Respondent Schack attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C.
..........On or near February 23, 2010, while the Petitioner was
in her apartment faxing letters of complaint to various governmental agencies, Respondents Sunshine, New York State Office
of Mental Health and Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice,
insofar as they contacted a social worker from Respondent Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center, who then arranged
for Petitioner to be kidnapped and hospitalized by Respondent New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric
Center.
..........During Petitioner's last week as an inpatient, Government
Respondent's employee Ms. Velcimé performed a search of New York Psychotherapy and Counseling Center and other outpatient
mental health care providers, Ms. Velcimé informed the Petitioner that not only had NYPCC refused to accept Petitioner
as a client, but that virtually all the not-for-profit outpatient mental health facilities that Ms. Velcimé contacted
rejected her request to provide Petitioner with outpatient psychiatric services.
..........On July 13, 2010, Government Respondent's employee Respondent Schack rendered a decision falsely holding “Godwin
Uzamere” to be is Petitioner's husband; and further stated that it is “ORDERED, that the instant complaint is
dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that Petitioner CHERYL UZAMERE is hereby enjoined from commencing any
future actions in the New York State Unified Court System against SENATOR EHIGIE EDOBOR UZAMERE a/k/a "GODWIN E. UZAMERE,"
ALLEN E. KAYE, P.C., ALLEN E. KAYE, ESQ., HARVEY SHAPIRO, ESQ., BERNARD J. ROSTANSKI and JACK GLADSTEIN, ESQ., without the
prior approval of the appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge; and it is further ORDERED, that any violation of the above
injunction by CHERYL UZAMERE will subject CHERYL UZAMERE to costs, sanctions and contempt proceedings.” See Respondent
Schack's decision dated July 13, 2010 attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C.
..........On
August 16, 2010, Petitioner filed lawsuit Uzamere v. USA, 2010-cv-555 with the U.S. Court of Claims. Said lawsuit provided
Respondent Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of identity
theft. Respondent Miller rendered her decision designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Petitioner into believing that
a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences
based on Respondents Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of identity theft and conspiracy
to commit identity theft.
..........On August 30, 2010, Petitioner filed lawsuit Uzamere v. USA, 2010-cv-585 with the U.S. Court
of Claims. Said lawsuit provided Respondents Nancy B. Firestone and John P. Wiese with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's,
Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of identity theft. Respondents Firestone and Wiese rendered their decision
designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Petitioner into believing that a civil res judicata
determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on Respondents
Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of identity theft and conspiracy to commit identity
theft.
..........On September 1, 2010, Petitioner filed lawsuit Uzamere v. USA, 2010-cv-591 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit was assigned to Respondent judge Christine O.C.
Miller of the U.S. Court of Claims. Petitioner alleges that she provided Respondent Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen
E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Respondent Miller disobeyed
18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jewish attorneys. The decision rendered
on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud
upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Petitioner into believing that a
res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative function – was a permanent and final determination to
nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, and Mortimer Zuckerman's
and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft – a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative
function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never tried.
..........On or around January 11, 2011, Petitioner filed lawsuit Uzamere v. State of New York, 2011-030-531
against Respondent State of New York with Respondent NYS Judge Scuccimarra. Respondent Scuccimarra never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys' commission of identity theft
and their conspiracy to commit identity theft.
..........On or around January
19, 2011, Petitioner filed a lawsuit against Respondent Gerstein, Respondent Sunshine and Respondent Schack with Respondent
the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Respondent Klonick never made any attempt to address the aforementioned
Respondent judges conspiracy not to address the Jewish attorneys commission of identity theft or their conspiracy to commit
to hide the identity theft.
..........On or around
April 29, 2011, Petitioner filed a lawsuit against Respondents Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein with Respondents
the New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department and the New York Grievance Committee
for the Second Judicial Department. Respondents Del Tipico and Gutierrez never made any attempt to address the aforementioned
Jewish attorneys commission of identity theft.
..........In June,
2011, Petitioner filed the Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 with the for the Eastern District of New York.
..........On or around June 22, 2011, Respondent Garaufis rendered his illegal decision, stating irrelevantly that “Petitioner
has a long, tired history of vexatious litigation in this court.” His decision also illegally ignored the Respondents'
commission of identity theft and their conspiracy to prevent the Petitioner from filing any criminal or civil complaints against
any of the Jewish Respondents. Respondent Garaufis illegally applied a res judicata determination to pretend that his decision
has the legal ability to nullify and render harmless any attempt by the Petitioner to file a criminal action against Jewish
attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission based on
their commission of identity theft – a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double
jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never tried.
..........On or around June 25, 2011, Respondent Garaufis ordered three (3) marshals from the U.S. Marshals Service
to visit the Petitioner's home to intimidate her, and if possible, to catch her while she alone in order to place her in Government
Respondent's psychiatric facility as an inpatient. One (1) of the marshals banged on Petitioner's apartment door, embarrassing
Petitioner within earshot of her neighbors and frightening the Petitioner. When the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District
of New York identified themselves, Petitioner asked them if she had committed a crime. The marshals stalled for a few seconds,
and then said that Petitioner had not committed any crimes. When Petitioner asked the U.S. Marshals why they were there, the
U.S. Marshal that banged on Petitioner's door said “I'm gonna annoy you like you annoyed Judge Garaufis.” When
Petitioner told them that she would not open the door, the one banging on the door said “then I'm gonna keep bangin”,
and for another 1.5 minutes continued to bang on Petitioner's door. He also asked Petitioner “is your daughter Tara
home?”, to find out if Petitioner was home alone. Within minutes of Petitioner telling them that her daughter Tara was
there, they left.
..........On July 4, 2011,
Petitioner filed her appeal for the lawsuit Uzamere
vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-CV.
..........From July 6, 2011, the date in which Petitioner is alleged to have committed 18 USC §115 against Respondent
Garaufis, other federal judges and employees of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services call center, no federal law enforcement agency made any attempt to arrest the Petitioner for the offenses
for which Petitioner still stands accused. According to Respondent Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, the judges who rendered decisions
on Petitioner's appeal for her lawsuit Uzamere
vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv were not indicated on the decision because
others unknown to Petitioner told Respondent O'Hagan Wolfe that Petitioner threatened Respondent Garaufis, other federal judges
and Respondent Sunshine.
..........On or around July 7, 2011, Respondents psychiatric nurse
Agnes Flores and psychologist Martin Bolton, employees of Respondent New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation came to
Petitioner's apartment, speaking about Petitioner's psychiatric issues in the hallway and shaming Petitioner within earshot
of her neighbors. Respondents Flores and Bolton said that Respondent U.S. Marshal Service4 told them that Petitioner contacted Respondent
Mental Health Association's LifeNet psychiatric helpline and made threats of bodily harm against Respondent Garaufis. Petitioner
told them that had she done such a thing that the U.S. Marshal Service would have arrested her when they visited her and given
her an attorney, which would have forced Petitioner's attorney to examine Petitioner's civil claims. Also, at the behest of
Respondent Garaufis, Petitioner alleges that Respondent O'Hagan Wolfe returned Petitioner's appellate brief, all of Petitioner's
motions, Pet. App. Exhibit C and Pet. App. Exhibit C that Petitioner served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
on July 4, 2012. Respondent O'Hagan Wolfe did not include any correspondence explaining why Petitioner's appellate documents
were returned. See copies of UPS envelopes for Petitioner's appellate documents, Uzamere vs. State of New York, et al 09-cv-2703/09-3197-cv
and Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2831-cv and 11-2713-cv attached as Pet. App. Exhibit
C and Pet.
App. Exhibit C.
..........In
June/July 2011, Respondent Garaufis illegally authorized Respondent FBI to authorize Cablevision to monitor the non-content
information of Petitioner's telephone calls in order to find something that could be used to blackmail the Petitioner, in
violation of 18 USC §2709 and 18 USC §3511. Respondent Garaufis authorized the FBI to use any non-content information
regarding Petitioner's outpatient psychiatric clinic and her government health insurance providers to create a story that
Petitioner threatened Respondent Garaufis, other federal judges and employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service.
Petitioner faxed a copy of a complaint to U.S. Attorney Preetinder Bharara. Thereafter, Respondent Davis called 5, 6 Petitioner again, frightening Petitioner by
telling Petitioner that Petitioner would be forcibly hospitalized because Respondent Garaufis falsely told Respondent U.S.
Marshal Service that Petitioner had threatened judges and other federal employees at the (federal) Medicaid office. Petitioner
uploaded their conversation to her website.
..........In the month of August,
2011 Respondent Davis contacted Respondent Sarpong for the purpose of forcing Petitioner to go to Respondent Brookdale Hospital
Medical Center, where Petitioner was unlawfully imprisoned as an inpatient for being falsely accused of threatening Respondent
Garaufis and other judges with bodily harm, and threatening CMS workers with death.
..........On or around August 18, 2011, Respondent New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation's East New York Diagnostic
and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team received correspondence from U.S. Department of Homeland Security
on its original letterhead bearing the name “Denis P. McGowan, Chief, Threat Management Branch.” The letter stated:
“On July 06, 2011, Federal Protective Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made by CHERYL UZAMERE to the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid call center. The threat consisted of HER stating: since SHE did not get the job, SHE was
going to “COME DOWN THERE AND KILL EVERYBODY. Since FPS7 has investigated UZAMERE multiple times for similar
behavior, we are well aware of HER mental health history. Based on that information, a referral was made to LifeNet for mental
health intervention on July 07 2011. Subsequently, UZAMERE's Intensive Case Manager (ICM) Bridgett Davis of the New York State
Office of Mental Health has advised that UZAMERE's treatment has been transferred to the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT)
program. We were informed that CHERYL D. UZAMERE is being treated as a patient by your program and we would like to keep you
abreast of this situation as it evolves. We also request that we be notified as HER status changes in particular any change
from in-patient to out-patient treatment and in the case of the latter any refusal of treatment. In addition, please notify
FPS of any relapses or deterioration of HER condition that may pose a risk to life or property.” See letter from Denis
P. McGowan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security attached as Pet.
App. Exhibit C. Respondent New York City Health and Hospital
Corporation's ACT Team prepared a psychiatric treatment plan. Under the title “Alerts”, the treatment plan falsely
states that “. . . H/O threats to judges and Center for Medicaid and Medicare, patient is being monitored by Homeland
Security.” Under the title “Discharge Plan”, it says “Patient is not being considered for discharge
at this time, she was transferred to the program 6 months ago after she made a threat to the Medicare and Medicaid call center
and is being monitored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” Under the title “Patient/Family Statement”,
it says that “She reported not being aware of being monitored by Homeland Security. . .” (see Petitioner's psychiatric
treatment plan from the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team, attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C).
.......... On or around November 28, 2012, Respondents Raggi, Carney and Kahn of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft by rendering
an FRAP-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv for the sole purpose of: 1) advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by not filing
a criminal complaint against Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their commission
of identity theft, and their own commission of racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity;
and, 2) tricking Petitioner into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative function – was a permanent and final
determination to nullify and render harmless Respondents Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's
and Scott Shifrel's commission of identity theft – a criminal act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function
of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never tried.
..........On
or around January 30, 2013, Petitioner received a letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The letter stated:
"Our records show that you placed calls to 1-800-MEDICARE on the dates and times listed below (all times Central). We
can confirm that none of these calls contained threatening comments.” See Pet. App. Exhibit C.
..........During March, 2013, Respondent Vermont Professional Responsibility Program refused to filed a complaint with
the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the aforementioned commission of misprision of felony, identity theft, RICO/racketeering
and obstruction of justice. See letters from Vermont's Rules of Professional Conduct, attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C.
..........On March 24, 2013, Respondent “John Doe” #1 blackmailed Petitioner by telling her that he would
call Petitioner's daughter, mentioning Petitioner's daughter's name (something that generally precedes a threat of psychiatric
hospitalization), and then would come to Petitioner's apartment; however, when asked if Petitioner had committed a crime and
whether Petitioner would be assigned an attorney, "John Doe" #1 said that Petitioner would have to obtain an attorney
on her own. As it turned out, "John Doe" #1 never came to Petitioner's apartment, and never contacted Petitioner's
daughter. During Petitioner's conversation with FBI employee "John Doe" #1, Petitioner told the employee that she
was recording the conversation. Petitioner recorded the conversation and uploaded it to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/uzamere_v_obama.html (refer to the link FBIconversation - click here).
..........On March 25, 2013
Petitioner sent a reply back to Vermont's Professional Responsibility Program with copies of the attorneys' fraudulent affirmations
that hold Godwin Uzamere to be Petitioner's husband.
..........On
April 9, 2013, Petitioner e-mailed a formal complaint to Respondent Congressman Jeffries containing the Center for Medicare
and Medicaid Services confirming that Petitioner did not threaten anyone during any of the phone calls Petitioner made to
the CMS call center; however Respondent Jeffries made no attempt to respond to Petitioner's cry for help.
..........On or near August 7, 2013, Respondent Sullivan engaged in the Jewish religious doctrine of Law of the Moser, the criminal equivalent of misprision of felony by not reporting the crimes that Petitioner's exhibits proved occurred.
Respondent Sullivan committed the requisite affirmative acts by prohibiting the court's staff from uploading Petitioner's
exhibits to PACER's Electronic Court Filing System, the court's more efficient electronic filing system, and by not allowing
the court's staff to sign Petitioner's subpoena duces tecum in order to: 1) obtain proof of Petitioner ex-husband's identity
from Government Respondent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service so as to leave no doubt regarding the identity of Petitioner's
ex-husband and the father of Tara A. Uzamere, the child of the marriage; 2) to ensure that the Jewish Respondents are no longer
able to leave their criminally fraudulent statements in the media and on the internet regarding Petitioner's ex-husband unchallenged;
3) end the violation of Petitioner's and witnesses civil and human rights; 4) end the Government's Respondents involvement
in the encroachment of the Jewish religion; 5) reestablish Petitioner's right to upload her legal documents to PACER.gov;
7) end Government Respondent's violation of the U.S. Supreme Court legal doctrine “void for vagueness” by explaining
what makes Petitioner's exhibits too voluminous, by giving Petitioner the opportunity to learn what Respondent Smith means
by “too voluminous” so that Petitioner could make repairs on said exhibits and upload them to PACER.gov.
..........On
August 26, 2013, Respondent Sullivan stated in her fraudulent Report and Recommendation to dismiss Petitioner's Amended Petition
“. . .it is inconceivable that venue over this matter could ever be proper in this District”, even though the
federal District Court case Ralls Corporation V. Terna Energy USA Holding
Corporation does not reach the question of subject matter jurisdiction
as it was filed in the wrong venue. (emphasis added); that Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan engaged in the Hobbs Acts
by either accepting bribes or allowing herself to be extorted/blackmailed by the Jewish Respondents. Respondent Sullivan illegally
misapplied the res judicata principle to situations in which Petitioner clearly established the continuing violations doctrine; and finally,
that Respondent Sullivan's Report and Recommendation is proof of ongoing crimes and civil torts for which Petitioner can again
apply the continuing violations doctrine. See the following: 1) Daily News article criminally holding Petitioner to be mentally
unfit and that “Godwin Uzamere” is Petitioner's husband; 2) page two (2) of Respondent Garaufis' Order regarding
Petitioner's civil rights lawsuit, Cheryl D. Uzamere v. Andrew M. Cuomo,
et al., Case No. 1:2011-cv-2831, enumerating 589 that were uploaded
to PACER.gov, attached as Uzamere vs. Cuomo, Memorandum and Order page two (2); 3) lawsuit Viacom International Inc., et al. v. Youtube, Inc, et al,
Case No. 1:07-CV-2103 (LLS) that explains the conditions associated with what makes exhibits “voluminous”, PACER
Monitor statements describing Petitioner's exhibits as “too voluminous” but being vague as to why the 245 pages
of exhibits are considered too voluminous, attached as Pet.
App. Exhibit C. Also see Magistrate Patricia A. Sullivan's
Report and Recommendation attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C.
Returns of Jew-Caused Injustice and Oppression to Other Gentiles
........As a result of criminal obstruction by this Court's Jewish justices, the First Circuit's Jewish judges, and
by Rabbi and attorney Michael J. Broyde, a teacher who works for the National Institute for Judaic Law and teaches the Judaic
doctrine Law of the Moser, there has been a four-month failure to render a decision regarding Petitioner's request for IFP
status, so that no opinion has been made by the lower Court.
........Magistrate Sullivan engage in a discriminatory, religiously racist
and criminal act in rendering her decision to dismiss Petitioner's case. African
American Gentile citizen P. Guity reported acts of discrimination against her school district. The statute of limitations
for schools districts in New York State is only one year. P. Guity's
waited too long to file her case before the statute of expiration.
........Later on, Jewish Attorney
Scott Michael Mishkin, pretending that he had provided P. Guity with legal services, stole $12,000 from P. Quity. New York
State Justice Denise Molia, and Ivan J. Dolowich of law firm Kaufman Dolowich Voluck & Gonzo LLP formed a RICO which Petitioner
reported to the FBI. They are still charging Mrs. Guity for legal services even though the statute of limitation for Mrs.
Guity's legal case had expired long before Ms. Guity met Scott Mishkin.
.....Bernard Sussman engaged in harassing the Petitioner and lying with regard to the identity of her ex-husband.rIn the continued Jewish oppression of the
Petitioner, Bernard Sussman used the Youtube.com site to harass Petitioner by saying the following:
"This woman is claiming to have been married, then abandoned,
by an important Nigerian politician. She has filed at least ten court cases in various places based on this assertion - and
then arguing that there is a Jewish conspiracy controlling all the courts in favor of that Nigerian politician. But it turns
out that her ex-husband has come forward and made very clear that he is the (poor) cousin of the politician and the politician
has nothing to do with their marriage. Uzamere v. Daily News LLP (NY Cnty Supm Ct, Nov. 10, 2011) 34 Misc.3d 1203(A), 2011
NY Slip Op. 52421(U), 946 NYS2d 69(t) http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13879595403336403090.
REASONS FOR GRANTING WRIT
POINT I
This Court's Jewish Justices' use of the teachings that
Gentiles and black people are meant to be enslaved by Jews violates the Establishment Clause of the First Commandment, the
13th Amendment, the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment and the Civil Rights of 1964.
.........“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or abridging the
freedom of speech . . .and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances ” See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971),
Establishment Clause – First
Amendment
“In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court decision Everson
v. Board of Education incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e.,
made it apply against the states). In the majority decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote: 'The “establishment of religion”'
clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Lemon v. Kurtzman
..........Held: Both statutes are unconstitutional under the Religion
Clauses of the First Amendment, as the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes involves excessive
entanglement between government and religion.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title
VI, §601
Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs
..........“No
person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Fogg v. Gonzales,
Nos. 05-5439, 05-5440 says the following: “In the case Correctional Services Corporation, v. John E. Malesko, the
U.S. Supreme Court stated that “In 30 years of Bivens jurisprudence we have extended its holding only twice, to provide
an otherwise nonexistent cause of action against individual officers alleged to have acted unconstitutionally, or to provide
a cause of action for a Petitioner who lacked any alternative remedy for harms caused by an individual officers unconstitutional
conduct.” However, in the same case, the Court said: “Most recently, in FDIC v. Meyer, we unanimously declined an invitation
to extend Bivens to permit suit against a federal agency, even though . . .Congress had waived sovereign immunity [and] was
otherwise amenable to suit. 510 U. S., at 484, 486. Our opinion emphasized that the purpose of Bivens is to deter the officer,
not the agency. Id., at 485 (emphasis in original) (citing Carlson
v. Green, supra, at 21). We reasoned that if given the choice, Petitioners
would sue a federal agency instead of an individual who could assert qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. To the
extent aggrieved parties had less incentive to bring a damages claim against individuals, the deterrent effects of the Bivens
remedy would be lost. 510 U.S. at 485. Accordingly, to allow a Bivens claim against federal agencies would mean the evisceration
of the Bivens remedy, rather than its extension. 510 U. S., at 485.” This Court's Justices and the Jewish Respondents
made secret reference to Petitioner's race as it pertains to the Judaic teaching regarding black people to disparage her so
as to prevent Petitioner's complaints against the lawbreaking Jews from being heard.
..........In
the case of the Jewish Respondents, because of Judaic-law/religious encroachment, specifically the encroachment of the Talmudic
doctrine Law of the Moser, this Court's Jewish justices is the reason for the Government Respondents' refusal to file criminal
complaints against those Respondents. who violated federal law is a fact.
POINT II
This Court's Jewish justices and the Respondents violated the law by allowing the encroachment of Law of
the Moser to prevent Petitioner from filing criminal complaints against members of the RICO; and whether this Court's Jewish
Justices and the Respondents violated the law by committing fraud upon the court, Law of the Moser (same as misprision of
felony) by treating romance scam marriage and identity theft as domestic issues to be handled by a state court in violation
of Ankenbrandt v. Richards.
..........Whether this Court's Jewish justices and the Respondents violated the law by allowing the encroachment
of Law of the Moser
to prevent Petitioner from filing criminal complaints against members of the RICO; and whether this Court's Jewish Justices
and the Respondents violated the law by committing fraud upon the court, Law of the Moser (same as misprision of felony) by
treating romance scam marriage for a green card and identity theft as domestic issues to be handled by a state court in violation
of Ankenbrandt v. Richards.
..........What
is Fraud upon the Court?
..........Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during
a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in fraud upon the court. In Bulloch
v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court
stated fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties
or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. . .It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence
is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function – thus where the impartial functions of the
court have been directly corrupted.
..........Fraud upon the court has been defined by
the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself,
or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its
impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968);
7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud
upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”
RICO Member Refused to Sign Subpoena To Hide
Its Commission of Immigration Fraud
..........Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 45(a)(1)(D)(3)
says: “The clerk shall issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party requesting it, who shall complete
it before service.”
..........According to Local Rules for the U.S. Federal Court for the District of Rhode Island, it says
the following under “Subpoenas”: “Subpoenas, including proofs of service, shall not be filed with the Court,
unless otherwise ordered by the Court or required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties in possession of such
documents shall be responsible for preserving them and making them available for use at trial and/or for other purposes required
by the Court.”
..........Petitioner never had any
intention of “filing” – that is, requiring the District Court to preserve Petitioner's subpoena duces tecum
in the District Court's permanent records. Petitioner's purpose for the subpoena duces tecum is now what it was when Petitioner
first mailed it to the District Court – to obtain the Clerk of Court's signature so as to legally serve it on the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Service. The District Court's response to Petitioner's request for the Clerk of Court's signature
was so illegally uncommon that the Petitioner has not been able to find even one case where a Federal District Judge required
his clerical staff to violate Fed. R. Civ. P Rule 45(a)(1)(D)(3) and not sign an a subpoena duces tecum.
........The District Court's decision
not to sign Petitioner's subpoena duces tecum was an act of fraud upon the District Court rendering its decision void ab initio.
Misprision
of Felony/Law of the Moser; Same Thing
........In
the case Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552 (1980); The District Court properly considered, as one factor in imposing consecutive
sentences on petitioner who had pleaded guilty to two counts of using a telephone to facilitate the distribution of heroin,
petitioner's refusal to cooperate with Government officials investigating a related criminal conspiracy to distribute heroin
in which he was a confessed participant.” Pp. 445 U. S. 556-562. . .In this case, the term “petitioner's refusal
to cooperate with Government officials” meant that the petition refused to report the crimes of his associates.
........“Concealment of crime has been condemned throughout our history.
The citizen's duty to “raise the hue and cry” and report felonies to the authorities, Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665,
408 U. S. 696 (1972), was an established tenet of Anglo-Saxon law. . .The first Congress of the United States enacted a statute
imposing criminal penalties upon anyone who, “having knowledge of the actual commission of [certain felonies,] shall
conceal, and not as soon as may be disclose and make known the same to [the appropriate] authority. . .” Act of Apr.
30, 1790, §6, 1 Stat. 113. Although the term "misprision of felony" now has an archaic ring, gross indifference
to the duty to report known criminal behavior remains a badge of irresponsible citizenship. This deeply rooted social obligation
is not diminished when the witness to crime is involved in illicit activities himself. Unless his silence is protected by
the privilege against self-incrimination, see 445 U. S. infra, the criminal defendant, no less than any other citizen, is
obliged to assist the authorities. The petitioner, for example, was asked to expose the purveyors of heroin in his own community
in exchange for a favorable disposition of his case. By declining to cooperate, petitioner rejected an "obligatio[n]
of community life" that should be recognized before rehabilitation can begin. See Hart, The Aims of the Criminal Law,
23 Law & Contemp. Prob. 401, 437 (1958). Moreover, petitioner's refusal to cooperate protected his former partners in
crime, thereby preserving his ability to resume criminal activities upon release. Few facts available to a sentencing judge
are more relevant to "'the likelihood that [a defendant] will transgress no more, the hope that he may respond to rehabilitative
efforts to assist with a lawful future career, [and] the degree to which he does or does not deem himself at war with his
society.'”
........In the case United
States of America v. Richard Baumgartner, a jury convicted former
Criminal Court Judge Richard Baumgartner, of Knoxville, Tennessee, of five counts of misprision of a felony with regard to
his knowledge of his own and his girlfriends purchase and illicit use of illegal drugs. Richard Baumgartner was a judge, and
quite possibly Jewish. Neither being a judge nor a Jew gave him the constitutional right to engage in hiding the commission
of a felony from law enforcement agencies. In like manner, the Jewish Respondents do not have the constitutional right to
rely on Law of the Moser to hide their Jewish friends', their Gentile slaves' or their own crimes as some sort of twisted
religious entitlement.
.........“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion... or abridging the freedom of speech, . . .and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances ”
See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
..........“In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court decision Everson v. Board of Education incorporated the Establishment
Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). In the majority decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote: 'The “establishment
of religion”' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set
up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another . . . in the
words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of
separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.
In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v.
Grumet (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded
that “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.”
..........Lemon
v. Kurtzman
..........Held: Both statutes are unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses
of the First Amendment, as the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes involves excessive
entanglement between government and religion.
..........In the case Lemon v. Kurtzman,8 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Supreme Court of the
United States ruled that Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (represented through David Kurtzman),
which allowed the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse nonpublic schools (most of which were Catholic)
for the salaries of teachers who taught secular material in these nonpublic schools, secular textbooks and secular instructional
materials, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The decision also upheld a decision of the First Circuit,
which had struck down the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act providing state funds to supplement salaries at nonpublic elementary
schools by 15%. As in Pennsylvania, most of these funds were spent on Catholic schools.
..........Lemon
Test
The
government's action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion (Entanglement Prong);
If any of these prongs are violated, the government's
action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
..........In the case of the Jewish Respondents, Petitioner's claim that Jewish
religious encroachment, specifically encroachment of the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser is the reason for the Government
Respondents' refusal to file criminal complaints against those Jews who violated federal law is a fact. Worse still, a horrible
precedent has been set by U.S. Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, who are also Jews.
At the Jewish website Come-and-Hear (http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html), it says the following:
..........US Supreme Court Warms to the Talmud: Approximately three years after Nathan and Alyza Lewin
filed the Bryan v. Moore amicus curiae brief — a notable event in itself — another notable event took place. A kosher dinner
was held to honor the establishment of the National Institute for Judaic Law (NIJL). The dinner was attended by 200 people,
including Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia. Nathan and Alyza Lewin also attended.
The site of the dinner? The United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC. The Jewish Week reported the event in
this manner:
On the same web page, near the top of the page, it says: “In contrast, Talmud law insists on unequal justice under law.
Talmudic law holds there is one law for Jews, and one for Gentiles. This is not inconsistent with the Old Testament, in which
LORD God decrees that Jews should not enslave other Jews: Gentiles are the proper slaves of Jews.” Another doctrine
that is actively taught by Rabbi Michael Broyde, a professor at the Jewish institute that was attended by two of the U.S.
Supreme Court's Jewish justices teaches the Talmudic doctrine, Law of the Moser (see websites http://www.nijl.org/lecture2.html; http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/moser-broyde/index.html). At Rabbi Broyde's website entitled Informing on Fellow Jews who Commit Crimes: Mesira in Modern Times , Rabbi Broyde says the following:
Even though Jewish law expects people to observe the laws of
the land, and even imposes that obligation as a religious duty, the Talmud recounts - in a number of places - that it is prohibited
to inform on Jews to the secular government, even when their conduct is aviolation of secular law and even when their conduct
is a violation of Jewish law. While there are a number of exceptions to this prohibition (which are explained further in this
section), the essential halacha was that Jewish law prohibits such informing absent specific circumstances. Even if secular
government were to incorporate substantive Jewish law into secular law and punish violations of what is, in effect, Jewish
law, Jews would still be prohibited from cooperating with such a system. Indeed, classical Jewish law treats a person who
frequently informs on others as a pursuer (a rodef) who may be killed to prevent him from informing, even without a formal
court ruling.
To convince this Court of the unconstitutional nature of the Talmudic doctrine, Law of the Moser and its violation
of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, one needs only study the example of a brave Jewish man named Rabbi Nuchum
Rosenberg (http://gothamist.com/2013/11/12/ultraorthodox_sex_abuse_whistleblo.php), a private citizen who was attacked by members of the Satmar community for violating Law of the Moser and
reporting the sexual abuse of Jewish children by Jewish men. The article entitle Ultra-Orthodox Sex Abuse Whistleblower Describes
"Child-Rape Assembly Line” says the following:
The last we heard from ultra-Orthodox sex abuse whistleblower Rabbi Nuchum Rosenberg he
was recovering from an assault involving a cup of bleach tossed in his face on a Williamsburg sidewalk. Rosenberg, who was
nearly blinded, has become anathema in the tightly knit Satmar community for exposing perpetrators of sexual abuse. Almost
a year after the bleach attack, Vice checks in on Rosenberg, who of course has more horrifying stories to tell:
On a visit to Jerusalem in 2005, Rabbi Rosenberg
entered into a mikvah in one of the holiest neighborhoods in the city, Mea She’arim. “I opened a door that entered
into a schvitz,” he told me. “Vapors everywhere, I can barely see. My eyes adjust, and I see an old man, my age,
long white beard, a holy-looking man, sitting in the vapors. On his lap, facing away from him, is a boy, maybe seven years
old. And the old man is having anal sex with this boy.
Rabbi Rosenberg paused, gathered himself, and went on: “This boy was speared on the man like an animal, like a pig,
and the boy was saying nothing. But on his face—fear. The old man [looked at me] without any fear, as if this was common
practice. He didn’t stop. I was so angry, I confronted him. He removed the boy from his penis, and I took the boy aside.
I told this man, ‘It’s a sin before God, a mishkovzucher. What are you doing to this boy’s soul? You’re
destroying this boy!’ He had a sponge on a stick to clean his back, and he hit me across the face with it. ‘How
dare you interrupt me!’ he said. I had heard of these things for a long time, but now I had seen.”
..........In the article entitled Anti-Abuse Rabbi Says He's in Danger (http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new_york/anti_abuse_rabbi_says_he's_danger), Rabbi Nuchum Rosenberg's life was again endangered for being a moser:
"Speaking at a press conference outside the 90th Precinct Police Headquarters in Williamsburg,
Rabbi Rosenberg complained that police were unable to protect him. He pointed to . . .his forehead to indicate the spot here
he was hit. . . Rabbi Rosenberg said he was actually uncertain just what hit him on the forehead, saying it could have been
a pellet gun or even a rock. “A car flew by as I was walking, and I felt something hit me,” he told The Jewish
Week. “I didn’t see what it was.”
The ad by the 33 rabbis and others signed by the “Meshmeris Ha’Tznius” denounced Rabbi Rosenberg as a moser,
one who endangers a Jewish community by informing on it to secular authorities.” Rabbi Nuchum Rosenberg claimed
that the threats culminated last month when he was “shot” on Berry Street, near the Williamsburg Bridge by
unknown assailants.
A New York Post article entitled Stoolie Is Dead to His Daddy says the
following:
A lot of
people might like to wring his neck, but the sleazy real-estate mogul who ratted out everyone from politicians to rabbis in
a massive corruption case is apparently already as good as dead to his father.
Israel Dwek — the father of Solomon “Shlomo” Dwek, who
helped the feds nail three New Jersey mayors and several rabbis in Brooklyn last week — plans to sit shiva for his son
because he is so disgusted with his turning on other Jews, reported the Web sitePolitickerNJ.com.
Shiva is the traditional Jewish mourning period held
after a family member dies.
The father — citing “the Talmudic Law of Moser that prohibits a Jew from informing on another Jew to a non-Jew”
— renounced his son from the pulpit at his synagogue in Deal, NJ, on Saturday, the site said. Israel
Dwek is a revered leader of the Sephardic Jewish community in the wealthy enclave.
..........The Talmudic doctrine, Law of the Moser, the belief that Gentiles,
especially those who are dark-skinned are meant to be enslaved and other racist beliefs are well-entrenched in Jewish consciousness.
As long as the part of the Jewish community that is employed by the Government Respondent practices its culture privately,
Gentiles will be tolerant of Jews' right to practice their culture. However, the line is clearly drawn when U.S. Supreme Court
Justices Ginsberg and Breyer voluntarily sponsor and attend the opening of a Judaic institute that promulgates laws that defy
the U.S. Constitution, are racist, or worse, give the appearance of governmental acceptance by using the U.S. Supreme Court's
building to hold a ceremony for the National Institute for Judaic Law, a Jewish religious organization that openly advocates
the Talmud, and harsher judicial treatment to be meted out against Gentiles. The encroachment of the racist Jewish religion
violates the Establishment Clause, the Free Speech Clause, the Petition Clause, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection
Clause of the First, Fifth and Fourteen Amendments. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor Constitution-savvy Gentiles will tolerate
being Jews' slaves because Michael J. Broyde or some other publicly-exposed-as-dishonest expert of the Talmud received tacit
approval from Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan. Gentiles, as in the past, will resort to any means necessary
before they are forced to be slaves to the Jews and their unconstitutional, religious and racist whims – including reporting
the encroachment and enforcement the racist Judaism to the United Nations
Office of the High Commission for Human Rights, something the Petitioner has already done.
POINT III
This Court's Jewish Justices and Respondents' Discrimination of Petitioner Because of Her Race and Her Mental
Health Status Violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Federal Rehabilitation Act, the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment and Is an Abrogation of the 14th Amendment
Equal Protection Clause.
..........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.”
..........In the decision regarding Disability
Advocates, Inc. vs. Paterson, et al, Defendant Garaufis stated that
“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.
..........Further, Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act requires that
“a public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the
needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.” See 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d).
..........In the landmark decision Olmstead
v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court held that these
provisions of law are violated when a state places people with mental illness in “unjustified isolation,” and
that a person with mental illness may sue the state for failing to place him or her “in the most integrated setting
appropriate to [his or her] needs.”
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601
Nondiscrimination in Federally
Assisted Programs
.........."No
person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Fogg v. Gonzales, Nos. 05-5439,
05-5440.
POINT
IV
..........Whether this Court's Jewish justice should recuse themselves because of their
religious bias pursuant to 28 USC §455 and §144
.........This Court's Jewish Justice should recuse themselves
because of their religious bias pursuant to 28 USC §455 and §144.
..........In 1994, the U.S. Supreme
Court held that disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's
impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing
is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky
v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
.........Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice
but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of
partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a),
is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality
of the judicial process.”).
.........Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself
in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. “Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th
Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually
receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
.........Our
Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”,
Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13
(1954).
.........“Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support
of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor
v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
..........Should
a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521., F.2d
842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on
the Due Process Clause.”)
POINT V
Petitioner's Request to Proceed in forma pauperis
for Review of Her Allegations of Respondents
Constitutional, Human Rights and Criminal
Violations Satisfies the "Good Faith” Requirement of
Coppedge v. United States
..........According to Coppedge
v. United States, “The requirement that an appeal in forma pauperis
be taken “in good faith” is satisfied when the Respondent seeks appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous.
Pp. 369 U. S. 444-445.
..........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. If it is the practice of a Court of Appeals to defer rulings on motions to dismiss
paid appeals until the court has had the benefit of hearing argument and considering briefs and an adequate record, it must
accord the same procedural rights to a person applying for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. P. 369 U. S. 448.”
.........As stated in Coppedge v. 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. Violation of Petitioner's civil and human
rights by the Government Respondents are serious issues. As a private citizen with bipolar disorder, the Petitioner has the
right to sue state agencies who have abrogated by violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, leaving
states and their agencies with no ability to claim any form of immunity. Coppedge allows in forma pauperis litigants to file suit for issues that are not frivolous. Since Petitioner has satisfied Coppedge, this Court must allow the
Petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis.
CONCLUSION
..........Based upon the foregoing, this Court must dispense with the practice of Law of the Moser, which is, in fact, the commission of
misprision of felony. This Court must arrest the following individuals for their commission of the following crimes: 1) misprision
of felony, racketeering/RICO, obstruction of justice, identity theft and aggravated identity theft; and those other crimes
that Petitioner has proven occurred. This Court must reverse the District Court’s criminal dismissal of her Verified
Complaint and remand the action to an unbiased judge for a determination of those issue raised pertaining to Respondents'
commission of federal felonies and pertaining to Respondents' violation of Petitioner's civil and human rights based
on the U.S. Government's relationship as a signatory with the United Nations
since 1948.
Dated: Brooklyn,
New York
June 24, 2014
CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE
_________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (718) 235-6836
Fax: (718) 235-1290
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net
Footnotes:
=========================================================================================
1 Artsot Ha-Hayyim, page 52a, 52b: “In 1992 a book was published by a leading member of the Satmar community
entitled Artsot Ha-Hayyim. On p. 52 he explains, and quotes other rabbis, that the reason Abraham Lincoln was killed was because
he freed the blacks. this is also the reason why Kennedy was killed, i.e. because he was good to the blacks. He continues
by saying that this will be the fate of any who adopt a progressive attitude towards blacks, because they are meant to be
enslaved. His source for this is Ham's curse.” (http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v15/mj_v15i20.html#CDX).
The Legends of the Jews - Ginsburg, Vol. 1, p. 169:
“The descendants of Ham through Canaan therefore have red eyes, because Ham looked upon the nakedness of his father;
they have misshapen lips, because Ham spoke with his lips to his brothers about the unseemly condition of his father; they
have twisted curly hair, because Ham turned and twisted his head round to see the nakedness of his father; and they go about
naked, because Ham did not cover the nakedness of his father. Thus he was requited, for it is the way of G-d to mete out punishment
measure for measure.” (http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/lginzberg/bl-lginzberg-legends-1-4h.htm).
Midrash Rabbah (Soncino) Vol. 1, p. 293: “AND
HE SAID: CURSED BE CANAAN (Breishit 9:25): (Commentary omitted)...R. Huna also said in R. Joseph's name: You [i.e. Noah is
speaking to Ham) have prevented me from doing something in the dark [i.e. cohabiting with his wife], therefore your seed will
be ugly and dark-skinned. R. Chiyya said: Ham and the dog copulated in the Ark, therefore Ham came forth black-skinned while
the dog publicly exposed its copulation.”(http://www.annomundi.com/history/midrash_rabbah_genesis_xxxvi_7.htm)
2 Appellant's divorce is now a matter of New York State case law, Uzamere vs. Uzamere, 2009, NY Slip Op 90214
[68 AD3d 855] such that Petitioner's ex-husband's identity is a res judicata matter of law that no other court has a right
to question. Mortimer Zuckerman's use of the Daily New to question an appellate court's decision was racist and wrong. The
U.S. Supreme Court's Jewish Justices' refusal arrest him was wrong to the point of being criminal and demonic. Any mention
of Appellant's divorce are only to establish those torts that arose during Appellant's litigation of her divorce action. Appellant
respectfully directs this Court's attention to Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992): “ . . . while it is not
inconceivable that in certain circumstances the abstention principles developed in Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, might
be relevant in a case involving elements of the domestic relationship even when the parties do not seek divorce, alimony,
or child custody, such abstention is inappropriate here, where the status of the domestic relationship has been determined
as a matter of state law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying torts alleged. Pp. 15-16.” No amount of
criminal, Jew-biased misapplication of the aforementioned case will change how it was originally applied by the U.S. Supreme
Court; however, it will instigate a human rights complaint to the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, along with
an uploading of appellate judges' criminal decision to Appellant's website http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/ and to the e-mails of as many world leaders and/or their attorneys as are willing to listen.
3 22 CFR §92.65 - Depositions to prove genuineness of foreign documents – (a) Authority to execute
commission. Under the provisions of section 1 of the act of June 25, 1948, as amended (sec. 1, 62 Stat. 834, sec. 53, 63 Stat.
96; 18 U.S.C. 3492), a diplomatic or consular officer may be commissioned by an United States court to take the testimony
of a witness in a foreign country either on oral or written interrogatories, or partly on oral and partly on written interrogatories,
for the purpose of determining the genuineness of any foreign document. . .”
4 LifeNet suicide/mental health hotline was fraudulently contacted by Respondent U.S. Marshal Service for the
Eastern District of New York and told that Petitioner threatened Respondent Nicholas with bodily harm and employees of the
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Service.
5 New York Wiretapping Law: New York's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. New York makes
it a crime to record or eavesdrop on an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents.
Please visit web page http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html to hear Petitioner's conversation with Respondent Davis.
6 18 USC §2709(c): “If the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. . .certifies that otherwise
there may result a danger. . .to the life or physical safety or any person, no wire or electronic communications service provider,
or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person. . .that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought
or obtained access to information or records under this section.”
7 Federal Protection Service. This is a division of Respondent U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman
9 The Legends of the
Jews - Ginsburg, Vol. 1, p. 169: “The descendants of Ham through Canaan therefore have red eyes, because Ham looked
upon the nakedness of his father; they have misshapen lips, because Ham spoke with his lips to his brothers about the unseemly
condition of his father; they have twisted curly hair, because Ham turned and twisted his head round to see the nakedness
of his father; and they go about naked, because Ham did not cover the nakedness of his father. Thus he was requited, for it
is the way of G-d to mete out punishment measure for measure.” (http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/lginzberg/bl-lginzberg-legends-1-4h.htm).
======================================================================================================
| H.E. Madame Navanethem Pillay
Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights
Palais Wilson
52 rue des Pâquis
CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland
Tel.: +41 22 917 9220
E-mail: registry@ohchr.org Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.
Solicitor General of the United States
U. S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Telephone: 202-514-2217/2218
E-mail: supremectbriefs@usdoj.gov Barbara Underwood
New York State Solicitor General
New York State Attorney General's Office
120
Broadway
24th Floor
New York, NY 10271
Telephone: 212-416-8020
E-mail: nyoag.nycpdf@ag.ny.gov; Preetinder Bharara, Esq.
One St. Andrews Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Phone: 212-637-2200
Fax:
212-637-2685
E-Mail: preet.bharara@usdoj.gov The Honorable C. Randall Hinrichs
District Administrative Judge's Office
John P. Cohalan, Jr. Court
Complex
400 Carleton Avenue
P.O. Box 9080
Central Islip, NY 11722-9080
Phone: 631-853-5368
Fax:
631-853-7741 Ivan J. Dolowich, Esq.
Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP
135 Crossways
Park Dr.
Suite 201
Woodbury, New York 11797
Main: (516) 681-1100
Direct: (516) 283-8709
Fax: (516)
681-1101
Cell :(516) 655-8340
E-mail: idolowich@kdvlaw.com
Cornell William Brooks
National Headquarters
NAACP
4805 Mt.
Hope Drive
Baltimore MD 21215
Local: (410) 580-5777
Toll Free: (877) NAACP-98
Phone: (202) 463-2940
Fax: (202) 463-2953
washingtonbureau@naacpnet.org
beresfo940@aol.com
millerjean10@yahoo.com
rapearson1@verizon.net
jordankwilson@aol.com
radioislam152@yahoo.com Richard M. Gutierrez, Esq.
Chair
NYS Grievance Committee for
the
2nd, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts
335 Adams Street
Suite 2400
Brooklyn, NY, 11201
Tel.: (718) 923-6300
Seth P. Waxman
Chair, Appellate and
Supreme Court
Litigation
Practice Group
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Tel.: 202 663 6800
Fax: 202 663 6363
seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com | Loretta Lynch, Esq.
271 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: 718-254-7000
Fax: 718-254-6479
E-mail: loretta.lynch@usdoj.gov Eric Schneiderman, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
New York State Attorney's
Office
120 Broadway
24th Floor
New York, NY 10271
Tel.: 212-416-8050
E-mail:
Eric.Schneiderman@ag.ny.gov
E-mail: civil.rights@ag.ny.gov Zachary Carter, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10013
Phone: 212-788-0303
Fax: 212-788-0367
E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov
Thomas A. Klonick
Chairman
New York State Commission
of Judicial Conduct
New York City Office
61 Broadway
12th Floor
New York NY 10006
Phone: 646-386-4800
Fax: 646-458-0037 Scott Michael Mishkin, Esq.
Scott Michael
Mishkin, P.C.
1 Suffolk Sq # 240
Islandia, NY 11749
Tel.: (631) 234-9702
Tel.: 631-234-1154
E-mail:
mishkinesq@optonline.net; Michael De Santis
Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP
135 Crossways Park Dr., Suite 201
Woodbury, NY 11797
Main: (516) 681-1100
Direct: (516) 283-8718
Cell:
(516) 749-7943
Fax :(516) 681-1101
E-mail: mdesantis@kdvlaw.com
Eric A. Seiff
Chairman
Lawyers' Fund for Clients' Protection
Scoppetta Seiff Kretz
& Abercrombie
444 Madison Avenue, 30th Floor
New York, New York 10022
Tel.: 212-371-4500
Fax: 212-371-6883 Hon Fred T. Santucci
Executive Director
Office of Committees
on
Character and Fitness
for Admission for the
2nd, 9th, 10th, 11th
and
13th Judicial Districts
335 Adams Street
Suite 2404
Brooklyn, NY, 11201
(718) 923-6360
Robert
A. Green
Chief Counsel
State of New York Grievance
Committee for the Tenth Judicial District
150 Motor Parkway, Suite 102
Hauppauge, NY 11788
(631) 231-3775
Tel.: (631) 231-3775
Fax: (631)
231-4005 | Scott Harris
Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Tel.:
(202) 479–3014
Fax: 202-479-3032
E-mail: dmcnerney@supremecourt.gov E-mail: sharris@supremecourt.gov
Stuart F. Delery, Esq.
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Phone: (202) 514-3301
Fax: (202) 514-8071
E-mail: stuart.f.delery@usdoj.gov The Honorable Kenneth Thompson
Kings County District Attorney
350 Jay Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201-2908
Tel.: 718-250-2340
Fax: 718-250-2210
The Honorable Thomas J. Spota
Suffolk County District Attorney
North County Complex
Building 77
Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel.: 631-853-4161
Tel.: 631-853-2608
E-mail: infoda@suffolkcountyny.gov; Robert McAneney
Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP
60 Broad Street
36th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Tel.: :(212) 485-9600
Fax :(212) 485-9700
Cell: (212) 767-9565
Email: rmacaneney@kdvlaw.com
Dr. Thomas Gregory Harrington
373 Route 111
Suite 7
Smithtown, NY, 11787
Tel.: (631)360-7450
Fax: (631) 360-7455
Ernest J. Collazo
Chairman
Collazo Florentino & Keil LLP
747 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017-2803
61 Broadway
2nd Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel.: 212-401-0800
Fax:
212-401-0810
Tel.: 212-758-7600
Fax: 212-758-7609
E-mail ejcollazo@cfk-law.com
Hon. Samantha Power
United States Ambassador to the
United Nations
Press
and Public Diplomacy Section
United States Mission to the United Nations
799 United Nations Plaza
New York,
NY 10017 |
