|
________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Cheryl D. Uzamere Civil
Action No.: 12-CV-
Plaintiff, VERIFIED
COMPLAINT
- against
-
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED | The Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York; Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Individually
and in Her Official Capacity as Clerk of Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Charles Dunne,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as U.S. Marshal for the U.S. Marshal Service for the Eastern District of New York;
Janet Napolitano, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Ivan
K. Fong, Individually and in His Official Capacity as General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Charles
K. Edwards, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Inspector General of U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Denis
P. McGowan, Individually and in His Office Capacity as Chief, Threat Management Branch, Federal Protective Service of the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Robert Moore, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Senior Special Agent, Threat
Management Branch, Federal Protective Service of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of New York; Ann Pfau in Her Official Capacity as Chief
Administrative Judge for the New York State Unified Court System; Michael Gerstein, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Judge of the Criminal Court, Brooklyn, New York for the New York State Unified Court System; Jeffrey S. Sunshine,
Individually, and in His Official Capacity as Justice of the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County for the New York State
Unified Court System; Arthur M. Schack, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as Justice of the New York State Supreme
Court, Kings County for the New York State Unified Court System; the Honorable Michael F. Hogan, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health; The Honorable Nirav R. Shah, M.D., M.P.H., Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health; Sherrill Spatz, Individually and
in Her Official Capacity as Inspector General for the New York State Office of Court Administration/Unified Court System;
the Honorable Michael Bloomberg, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of New York; the Honorable
Charles Hynes, Individually and in His Office Capacity as District Attorney for the County
of Kings; the Honorable Alan D. Aviles, Individually and in His Official Capacity as President of the New York City Health and Hospital Corporation; Dr. Scott A. Berger, Psychiatrist, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Psychiatrist for the New York City Health and
Hospitals Corporation; Giselle Stolper, Individually and in Her Official Capacity
as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Mental Health Association of New York City; U.S. Marshal Service; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; State of New York, the New York
State Unified Court System; New York State Office of Mental Health; New York State
Department of Health; New York State Office of Court Administration/Unified Court
System; City of New York and the New York City Health and Hospital Corporation;
Mental Health Association of New York City; the Daily News, LP; Osato Eugene Uzamere, Esq.;
Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Jack Gladstein Gladstein and Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere x
Defendants.
_______________________________________________ |
x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1)..... At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere is a natural person,
and was and still resides at 1209 Loring Avenue, Apt. 6B, Brooklyn, New York, 11208. ..........2).....Defendant Nicholas
G. Garaufis is a natural person, and is employed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman
Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York, 11201. ..........3)..... Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe is a natural person, and is employed at the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007. ..........4)..... Defendant Charles Dunne is a natural person, and is employed by the U.S. Marshal Service, U.S.
Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza, Brooklyn, NY 11201. ..........5)..... Defendant Andrew M. Cuomo is a natural person, and is employed at the New York State Capitol
Building, Albany, New York, 12229. ..........6)..... Defendant Michael F. Hogan is a natural person, and is employed at the New York State Office
of Mental Health, located at 44 Holland Avenue, Albany, New York 12229. ..........7)..... Defendant Nirav R. Shah is a natural person, and is
employed by the New York State Department of Health, located at the Corning Tower, Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York, 12237. ..........8)..... Defendant Michael
Bloomberg is a natural person, and is employed at the offices of the City of New York, located at City Hall, New York, New
York, 10007. ..........9).....
Defendant Alan D. Aviles is a natural person, and is employed by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, located
at 125 Worth Street, Room 519, New York, New York, 10013. ..........10)..... Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere, an American citizen of African decent and a constituent of federally-
and state-funded mental health services, appearing on her own behalf, sues the Defendants and alleges: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT First Amendment
..........11)..... “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .” Fifth
Amendment ..........12).....
“No person shall be . . .deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . .” Correctional
Services Corporation, v. John E. Malesko 534 U. S. _ (2001), page 5. Sixth
Amendment ..........13).....
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury
of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained
by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to
have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”
See Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965); Fourteenth
Amendment ..........14).....
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” See Tennessee V. Lane (02-1667) 541 U.S. 509 (2004)
315 F.3d 680, affirmed. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601
Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs
..........15).....
“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 plaintiff 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 the agency because Congress had waived sovereign immunity 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, plaintiffs
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.” Americans With Disabilities Act ..........16)..... 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.” ..........17)..... In the decision regarding Disability Advocates,
Inc. vs. Paterson, et al, the Honorable Nicholas G. 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. ..........18)..... 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). ..........19)..... 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.” ..........20)..... Judge Garaufis further stated in the aforementioned decision that Title II of the ADA applies
to “any State or local government” and “any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality
of a State or States or local government.” 42 U.S.C. §12131(1). Accordingly, all governmental Defendants in this
action are subject to Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act.” 42
USC §1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
42 USC §1985 - Conspiracy to
Interfere with Civil Rights
..........21)..... “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage,
of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States
or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding
for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s
judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. . .If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any
party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein,
freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended
or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to
injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by
him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering,
obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any
citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce,
the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws. . .the party so injured or deprived may
have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.”
See Haddle V. Garrison et al, 525 U.S. 121 (1998). Implied
Cause of Action ..........22).....
“For the reasons set forth below, I am of the opinion that federal courts do have the power to award damages for violation
of 'constitutionally protected interests' and I agree with the Court that a traditional judicial remedy such as damages is
appropriate to the vindication of the personal interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.” See Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999; 29 L. Ed. 2D 619; 1971 U.S. Lexis
23; At 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 plaintiff 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 plaintiff'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 plaintiff who lacked any alternative
remedy for harms caused by an individual officers unconstitutional conduct.” Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
Wrongful Disclosure Of Individually
Identifiable Health Information
..........23)..... “(a) Offense – A person who knowingly and in violation of this part -- (1) uses or
causes to be used a unique health identifier; (2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual;
or (3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person, shall be punished as provided in subsection
(b). (b) Penalties – A person described in subsection (a) shall -- (1) be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not
more than 1 year, or both; (2) if the offense is committed under false pretenses, be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned
not more than 5 years, or both; and (3) if the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable
health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned
not more than 10 years, or both.” See United States of America v. Huping Zhou, 2:08-cr-01356-AJW-1. ..........24)..... This action is
brought in furtherance of those mandates. The Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to protect her right to receive criminal
and civil services by agencies, officials and employees responsible for the care and treatment of people with mental illness
equally and in the same manner as people who have not been diagnosed as mentally disabled. However, rather than comply with
the aforesaid laws, the Defendants engaged in a course of conduct that: ...............a)..... violated Plaintiff's right to due process to receive
a notice of accusation and to be advised by a criminal attorney pursuant to the Sixth Amendment based on Plaintiff's ethnicity
(goy/gentile); race (African American/schvartze); and Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness; ...............b)..... violated Plaintiff's right to due
process to privacy by obtaining HIPAA-protected information regarding where Plaintiff receives psychiatric care, Plaintiff's
diagnosis and other HIPAA-protected information without due process, based on fraudulent criminal information that was placed
in Plaintiff's psychiatric records and intentionally misrepresented as a psychiatric diagnosis based on Plaintiff's ethnicity
(goy/gentile); race (African American/schvartze); and Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness; ...............c)..... violated Plaintiff's due process
right by conspiring to monitor the Plaintiff without a court order so as to ascertain Plaintiff's plan to file more lawsuits
so as to prevent the Plaintiff from filing any lawsuits based on Plaintiff's ethnicity (goy/gentile); race (African American/schvartze);
and Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness; ...............d)..... violated Plaintiff's due process right by creating fraudulent documentation to pretend that Plaintiff
was being monitored by federal law enforcement agencies based on Plaintiff's ethnicity (goy/gentile); race (African American/schvartze);
and Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness; ...............e)..... violated Plaintiff's due process right by attempting to stop Plaintiff from appealing the decision
that was illegally rendered by Defendant Judge Nicholas Garaufis in the case Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al based on Plaintiff's
ethnicity (goy/gentile); race (African American/schvartze); and Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness; ...............f)..... violated Plaintiff's
due process right by publicly disseminating that Plaintiff threatened Defendant Judge Nicholas Garaufis with bodily harm,
and that Plaintiff is mentally unstable and violent so that Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al appears to be unbelievable
to the public who reads it or hears about it based on Plaintiff's ethnicity (goy/gentile); race (African American/schvartze);
and Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness; ...............g)..... violated Plaintiff's due process rights by forcing Plaintiff into an inpatient psychiatric facility
based on commission of a serious federal crime that Plaintiff did not commit based on Plaintiff's ethnicity (goy/gentile);
race (African American/schvartze); and Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness; ...............h)..... violated Plaintiff's due process right by conspiring
to deprive Plaintiff of her civil rights by effectively blacklisting the Plaintiff from accessing unbiased judicial services
from the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals based on her ethnicity (goy/gentile) race (African American/schvartze)
and status of having a mental illness; ...............i)..... violated Plaintiff's due process right by subjecting Plaintiff to defamation of character by
conspiring to tell others that Plaintiff threatened Defendant Judge Nicholas Garaufis and other federal employees with bodily
harm, something that Plaintiff never did, based on Plaintiff's ethnicity (goy/gentile); race (African American/schvartze);
and Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness; ...............j)..... violated Plaintiff's due process right by preventing her from defending herself in court against
to defend herself in criminal court based on Plaintiff's ethnicity (goy/gentile); race (African American/schvartze); and Plaintiff's
status of having a mental illness; ...............k)..... violated Plaintiff's due process right by unnecessarily and illegally hospitalizing Plaintiff
as a psychiatric inpatient for making threats of bodily harm to federal judges and other federal employees, something that
Plaintiff never did; prevented Plaintiff from attending more integrated psychiatric programs based on a falsified document
that was created using the letterhead and insignia1 of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; placed the contents of the aforesaid falsified government document
in Plaintiff's psychiatric treatment plan so as to intentionally misdiagnose Plaintiff as psychotic and violent, based on
Plaintiff's ethnicity (goy/gentile); race (African American/schvartze); and Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness; ...............l)..... violated Plaintiff's
due process right by sending back Plaintiff's appellate brief and other appellate material; by withhold the names of the appellate
judges who rendered their illegal decision in Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, so as to protect those
defendants in Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al who are Jewish based on the Talmud, Tractate
Abodah Zarah, folio 26b, and the Jewish religious doctrine Law of the Moser (see document entitled Informing
on Jews Who Commit Crimes, attached as Exhibit A), in order to hide the fact that judiciary Defendants
knew that Plaintiff never threatened any judge; in order to use Defendant Judge Nicholas Garaufis' false criminal charge against
Plaintiff as an excuse to hide his illegal, biased decision with regard to Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere and Cuomo, et al,
and to hide the identity of appellate judges who rendered their illegal and biased decision against the Plaintiff. Continuing Violations Doctrine ..........25)..... 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. . .The district court's reliance on Galloway was mistaken. This court has never
adopted a strict notice requirement as the litmus test for application of the continuing violation doctrine; in fact, in Fiedler
v. UAL Corp., 218 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2000), we explicitly rejected such an approach from the Fifth Circuit. See id. at
987 n.10. Fiedler examined Berry v. Board of Sup'rs of L.S.U., 715 F.2d 971 (5th Cir. 1983), a case which
involved equal pay based upon gender discrimination, where the Fifth Circuit created a multi-factor test for determining whether
discrete acts of harassment are closely related enough to satisfy the continuing violation theory. The Berry court's final
factor, "perhaps of most importance," asked whether the harassing act "should trigger an employee's awareness
of and duty to assert his or her rights.” Berry, 715 F.2d at 981. We rejected the Berry analysis, holding that
test was not “applicable in determining the continuation of a hostile environment.” Fiedler, 218 F.3d
at 987 n.10. ..........26).....
In tort law, if a defendant commits a series of illegal acts against another person, or, in criminal law, if someone commits
a continuing crime (which can be charged as a single offense), the period of limitation begins to run from the last act in
the series. 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. In the case Douglas v. California Department of Youth Authority, 271 F.3d 812, Dossey Douglas
was denied employment by the California Youth Authority because a vision test indicated that he was color-blind. Douglas brought
suit against CYA for its failure to hire him under Title I of the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment to CYA
on the ground that Douglas' claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Douglas argued on appeal that his
claims are timely under the continuing violations doctrine because the CYA's discriminatory policy was on-going. The U.S.
Court of Appeals stated the following: “Applying the continuing violations doctrine to these facts, we are guided by
two earlier Ninth Circuit decisions. In Domingo v. New England Fish Co., 727 F.2d 1429 (9th Cir. 1984), amended 742
F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1984), we considered a class action suit against a cannery operator involving allegations of discrimination
on the basis of race in hiring and promotions. The plaintiffs argued that their claims were saved from the time bar by the
fact that the discriminatory hiring and promotion polices continued until the plaintiffs brought suit. Id. at 1443. We required
the plaintiffs to demonstrate that because of the discriminatory policy, they were either discriminated against or “exposed
to discrimination” during the limitations period. Id. Almost a decade later, we again addressed the issue whether a
case was timely under a continuing violations theory based on an alleged systemic discrimination in hiring. EEOC v. Local
350, Plumbers and Pipefitters, 998 F.2d 641, 643 (9th Cir. 1993). The EEOC filed an Age Discrimination in Employment
Act suit on behalf of union members who were excluded from hiring lists on the ground that they received pension benefits.
Id. at 643. We noted that the union's policy that excluded retirees from the hiring lists applied to the class members as
early as 1984, five years earlier. Id. at 644. We found that the action was not barred by the relevant statute of limitations,
because the discriminatory policy prohibiting retirees from joining the hiring lists continued. Id. ("Here, Local 350's
allegedly discriminatory policy was in effect when [the plaintiff] first encountered [the policy] in 1984 and remains in force
today. Thus, under the continuing violations doctrine, relief for [the plaintiff ] is not barred."). Although we did
not cite Domingo in our analysis in Local 350, the two decisions are consistent. In Local 350, the plaintiffs, as union members,
continued to be “exposed” to the discriminatory hiring policies of the union.” The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit finally decided that “. . .With respect to the ADA claim. . .We REVERSE the district court's grant
of summary judgment on both the Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims because we conclude that the claims were timely filed under
the continuing violations doctrine.” Jurisdiction ..........27)..... This Court has
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, federal question, which states that “The district courts
shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
..........28).....
This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1343, Civil Rights and elective franchise, which states
that “(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced
by any person: (1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or
privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of
Title 42; (2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section
1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent; (3) To redress the deprivation, under color
of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or secured by the Constitution
of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction
of the United States. . .” ..........29)..... This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, Civil action for
deprivation of rights, which states that “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,
or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United
States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding
for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s
judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall
be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”
..........30)..... This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. §1985(2)(3), Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror, Depriving a person of rights or
privileges, which states that “If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation,
or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter
pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of
his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in
any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully
assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding,
hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny
to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to
enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws. . .If two or more persons in any
State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving,
either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges
and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory
from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more
persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his
support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for
President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property
on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged
therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his
person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party
so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any
one or more of the conspirators.” ..........31)..... This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). “For the reasons set forth below, I am of the opinion that federal courts do have the power to
award damages for violation of 'constitutionally protected interests' and I agree with the Court that a traditional judicial
remedy such as damages is appropriate to the vindication of the personal interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.”
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Brennan, laid down a rule that it will imply a private right of action for monetary damages
where no other federal remedy is provided for the vindication of a Constitutional right, based on the principle that for every
wrong, there is a remedy.” ..........32)..... Declaratory and injunctive relief are sought against all Defendants under 28 U.S.C. §2201(a),
Creation of remedy, which states that “In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction. . .any court of the
United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested
party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force
and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.” ..........33)..... Monetary damages are sought against
all Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Bivens. Plaintiff respectfully reminds this Court that the allegations
against Defendants Nicholas G. Garaufis and Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe are based in their commission of constitutional torts
that were administrative acts, not judicial acts.2 34) Venue
in the Eastern District of New York is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2), which states that “A civil action wherein
jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in.
. .a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial
part of property that is the subject of the action is situated. . .” PARTIES Role of Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere
35) The Plaintiff is an American citizen of African descent and a recipient of federally- and state-funded psychiatric services.
Plaintiff's responsibility is to ensure that she is compliant with psychiatric treatment so that she can rehabilitate so as
not to continue to be a burden to society. The Role of Defendant Federal
District Court Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis
36) Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis, in his capacity as United States District Judge, concentrates
on managing the overall caseload, supervising trials, and writing opinions in response to important motions for the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. He is sued individually and in his official capacity.3 The Role of Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolf 37)
Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, in her capacity as Clerk of the Court for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, is an officer of the court whose responsibilities include maintaining the records of the court. She also administers
oaths to witnesses, jurors, and grand jurors. The clerk of court is also custodian of the court's seal, which is used to authenticate
copies of the court's orders, judgments and other records. The clerk of court is a critical safeguard for in oaths to witnesses,
jurors, and grand jurors. The clerk of court is also custodian of the court's seal, which is used to authenticate copies of
the court's orders, judgments and other records. The clerk of court is a critical safeguard for integrity of the courts. In
most courts, only the clerk, but not a judge, is the keeper of the Seal of the Court. The clerk of court is required to attest
or authenticate judicial records. She is sued individually and in her official capacity.4 38) The
federal courts are recipients of federal funds.
39) The federal courts are covered by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Role of Defendants Charles Dunne
and the U.S. Marshal Service for the Eastern
District of New York
40) Defendant Charles Dunne
is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of New York. His duties include:
protecting federal judges from harm; preventing the transfer of threatening and other inappropriate documents to federal judges;
the transfer of federal inmates to appropriate federal penitentiaries; service of process of federal complaints to Defendants
in federal lawsuits and the search and apprehension of suspects of federal offenses. He is sued individually and in his official
capacity.5 41) Defendant
the U.S. Marshal Service is a recipient of federal funds.
42) Defendant the U.S. Department of Justice is covered by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities
Act. The Role of Defendants Janet Napolitano/the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security
43) Defendant Janet Napolitano, is the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
In her capacity as secretary, she oversees the absorption of various federal agencies that deal with domestic defense, including
the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol, the Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Secret Service, and
the Transportation Security Administration. She also oversees the exploration of ways to respond to terror attacks and working
to better coordinate intelligence about terrorist threats. She also implements much of the National Strategy for Homeland
Security, the domestic security plan unveiled by President Bush in July 2002.6 She is sued individually and in her official capacity.
44) The U.S. Department of Homeland is a recipient of federal funds. 45) The U.S. Department of Homeland
is covered by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Role
of Defendants Ivan K. Fong and Charles K. Edwards and the
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
46)
As attorneys, Defendants are charged, most importantly with protecting the U.S. Constitution, and with interpreting
and enforcing federal law as it pertains to domestic defense, including the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol, the Customs Service,
the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Secret Service, and the Transportation Security Administration. Defendants
are also responsible for interpreting and enforcing laws as they deal with the exploration of ways to respond to terror attacks
and working to better coordinate intelligence about terrorist threats.
47) The U.S. Department of Homeland is a recipient of federal funds. 48) The U.S. Department of Homeland
is covered by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Role
of Defendants Denis P. McGowan and Robert Moore 49) Defendant Denis P. McGowan
is the Chief of the Threat Management Branch, Federal Protective Service of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Defendant
Robert Moore is the Senior Special Agent for the unit. Defendants address site, structural, interior and system security to
enhance protection at government buildings.7 They are sued individually and in their official capacities. Role
of Defendants Andrew M. Cuomo and the New York State Government
50) Defendant Andrew M. Cuomo is the Governor of the State of New York, a public entity covered
by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. 42. U.S.C. §12131(1). He is ultimately responsible for ensuring that
New York State operates its service systems in conformity with the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation
Act. He is sued individually and in his official capacity.
51) The State of New York York is covered by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Role of Defendants Ann Pfau and the NYS Unified Court System 52) Defendant New York State
Unified Court System (“NYSUCS”), Defendant New York State's judicial branch of government is responsible for hearing
cases of its litigants and for rendering unbiased decisions based on New York State State Constitution, and other laws of
New York State. NYSUCS's Office of Court Administration (“OCA”) is the administrative arm of the New York State
Unified Court System, under the direction of the Chief Administrative Judge. OCA's Division of Administrative Services provides
a wide range of support services to OCA units and to the trial courts, including oversight of Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. All courts in New York State are covered under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. 53) OCA's
Division of Court Operations is responsible for addressing inquiries regarding concerns under the Americans with Disabilities
Act. It assists the courts in assuring access to services and reasonable accommodations for court users and employees who
qualify under the ADA. Each courthouse has an ADA liaison responsible for implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act. 54) Defendant
Ann Pfau is the Chief Administrative Judge of the trial courts of New York State. On behalf of the Chief Judge, the Chief
Administrative Judge supervises the administration and operation of the State's trial courts. In that capacity, she oversees
the administration and operation of the Statewide court system with a $2 billion budget, 3,600 State and locally paid judges
and over 15,000 nonjudicial employees in over 300 locations around the State. Defendant Pfau is sued in her official capacity. Role of Defendants Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Arthur M. Schack 55)
Defendants Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Arthur M. Schack are required, based on Title Twenty-Two of the
New York Codes Rules and Regulations, Chapter I, Standards and Administrative Policies, Subchapter C, Rules of the Chief Administrator
of the Courts, Part 100, to: a) participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct, and personally
observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved; b) be faithful to the law
and maintain professional competence in it; c) perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice against or in favor of any
person. A judge in the performance of judicial duties shall not, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice, including
but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin,
disability, marital status or socioeconomic status; d) not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties,
nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity; e) take appropriate action when a judge receives information indicating
a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a substantial violation of this Part; f) take appropriate action
when a judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a substantial violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility; g) with regard to a judge's discharge of disciplinary responsibilities to attorneys,
act as a judge in the following judicial duties, ensure that a lawyer does not: i) violate a Disciplinary Rule of the New
York Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility; ii) circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through actions of another; iii) engage
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and, iv) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice. Role of Defendants
Michael F. Hogan and the NYS Office of Mental Health
56) Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health (“OMH”) is the agency responsibility
for providing outpatient psychiatric services to the Plaintiff, who has a serious and persistent mental illness. 57) OMH
shares the responsibility for protecting the rights of mentally ill constituents with DOH. 58) OMH also operates state
psychiatric facilities and is responsible for discharge planning, placement and follow-up for individuals residing in such
facilities. Additionally OMH funds privately-operated psychiatric hospitals for clients of the public mental health system
and is responsible for developing standards for discharges from these hospitals.
59) OMH is charged by statute with “the responsibility for seeing that mentally ill persons
are provided with care and treatment, that such care, treatment and rehabilitation is of high quality and effectiveness, and
that the personal and civil rights of persons receiving care, treatment and rehabilitation are adequately protected.”
Mental Hygiene Law §7.07(c).
60) Defendant Michael F. Hogan is the Commissioner of OMH. He is responsible for the operation
and administration of OMH, including its activities regarding state psychiatric facilities and the overall planning, programs
and services for the mental health system in New York State. He is sued individually and in his official capacity. 61) OMH
is a recipient of federal funds.
62) OMH is a program of state government.
63) OMH psychiatric facilities are covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996. 64) OMH is covered by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities
Act. Role of Defendants Nirav R. Shah and the NYS Department of Health 65) Defendant
New York State Department of Hea1th (“DOH”) is the agency created by the State of New York that licenses, supervises
and enforces the laws and regulations applicable to adult homes, and is responsible for protecting Plaintiff's rights. 66) Defendant
Nirav R. Shah is the Commissioner of DOH. He is responsible for the operation and administration of DOH. He is sued individually
and in his official capacity.
67) DOH is a recipient of federal funds.
68) DOH facilities are covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996. 69)
DOH is a public entity covered by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Role of Defendant Sherrill Spatz and the
New York State Office of Court Administration/Unified Court
System
70) Sherrill Spatz is the Inspector General for the New York State Office of Court Administration,
New York State Unified Court System. As the Inspector General, she is responsible for the investigation and elimination of
infractions of disciplinary standards, criminal activities, conflicts of interest, misconduct, misfeasance and incompetence
on the part of nonjudicial employees of the UCS, and persons or corporations doing business with the UCS, with respect to
their dealings with the courts. For these purposes, the Inspector General receives complaints and information from the public
and other sources about nonjudicial employees and takes appropriate action on such complaints; undertakes investigations or
studies of the functions, accounts, personnel or efficiency of any court unit and acts as liaison with federal, state and
local law enforcement and regulatory agencies on matters that fall within the scope of these responsibilities. She is sued
individually and in her official capacity.
71) DOH is a recipient of federal funds.
72) DOH is a public entity covered by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Role of Defendants Michael Bloomberg and the City of New York 73)
Defendant Michael Bloomberg is the mayor of the City of New York. In his official capacity, he is head of the executive
branch of New York City's government. The mayor's office administers all city services, public property, police and fire protection,
most public agencies, and enforces all city and state laws within New York City.8 He is sued individually and in his official capacity.
74) The City of New York is a recipient of federal funds.
75) The
City of New York is covered by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Role of Charles Hynes
District Attorney for Kings County
76)
As District Attorney for Kings County, Defendant Charles Hynes is responsible for the bureaus, units and divisions of
the Kings County District Attorney’s Office. Each bureau, unit and division specialize in various areas of law and crime.
Each bureau includes attorneys, investigators and paralegals that gather evidence, analyze information and prepare as well
as present cases for prosecution. Equally important are the many complementary bureaus that support the agency's objectives
in law enforcement, community development and the improvement of quality of life for Brooklyn residents. 77) The Kings County District
Attorney's office is a recipient of federal funds.
78) The Kings County District Attorney's Office is covered by Title II of the Americans With
Disabilities Act. Role of Defendants Alan D. Aviles and the
New York
City Health and Hospital Corporation
79) Defendant Alan D. Aviles
is the president of the New York City Health and Hospital Corporation (HHC). In his official capacity, he oversees a $6.7
billion integrated healthcare delivery system with its own 400,000 member health plan, MetroPlus, and is the largest municipal
healthcare organization in the country. HHC serves 1.3 million New Yorkers every year and more than 475,000 are uninsured.
HHC provides medical, mental health and substance abuse services through its 11 acute care hospitals, four skilled nursing
facilities, six large diagnostic and treatment centers and more than 70 community based clinics. HHC Health and Home Care
also provides in-home services for New Yorkers. HHC was the 2008 recipient of the National Quality Forum and The Joint Commission's
John M. Eisenberg Award for Innovation in Patient Safety and Quality.9 He is sued individually and in his official capacity.
80) The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation is a recipient of federal funds. 81) The
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation is covered by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Role of Defendant Dr. Scott A. Berger, Psychiatrist for the
New York City Health
and Hospitals Corporation
82) Defendant Scott A. Berger is the supervising psychiatrist for HHC's East New York Diagnostic
Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team. In his official capacity, he oversees the diagnoses of at-risk mentally disabled
outpatients. Utilizing the criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM IV)
and the expertise of the ACT Team, Defendant Scott A. Berger, as the ACT Team's only medical doctor, is responsible for providing
accurate, unbiased diagnoses and psychotropic medication to assist in the alleviation and/or amelioration of the ACT Team's
outpatients' mental illnesses in order to help treatment-compliant outpatients become self-reliant and ready to attend more
integrated psychiatric care programs. He is sued individually and in his official capacity. Role of Defendants Giselle Stolper/Mental Health Association of New York City 83) Mental Health Association
of New York City (MHA-NYC) is a nonprofit organization that addresses mental health needs in New York City and across the
nation. It is a local organization with national impact and has a three-part mission of services, advocacy and education.
MHA-NYC identifies unmet needs and develops culturally sensitive programs to improve the lives of individuals and families
affected by mental illness while promoting the importance of mental health. With statistics reporting that an unprecedented
one in every five people will need mental health care during their lives, MHA-NYC is a resource to many families and individuals
in New York City and throughout the country, serving as a link to mental health and wellness. MHA-NYC program LifeNet is the
leading call center for support, information, and referrals to treatment for mental health and substance use issues and is
staffed exclusively by trained mental health professionals. It is New York City's only toll-free, multilingual, multi-cultural,
confidential crisis and referral service available 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. LifeNet manages nine different hotline
access numbers, and has served over one million callers since its inception in 1996. She is sued individually and in her official
capacity. Role of Defendant Daily News, LP 84) Defendant Daily News is
a new-gathering and new-disseminating corporation. It is the fifth most-widely circulated daily newspaper in the United States
with a daily circulation of 632,595, as of June 13, 2009. The Plaintiff asserts that, although Defendant Daily News is a private
entity, it can be sued in federal court based on the lawsuit Gugliara vs. Daily News, et al, case number 1:2008-CV-00912,
filed on February 28, 2008 with the Federal District Court, Eastern District of New York in front of Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis
and magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, based on 28 U.S.C. §1331, federal question, jury trial demanded. Role of Defendant ALM, Inc./Law.com
85) Law.com, ALM’s award-winning flagship online brand, is the leader in online news and
information for the financially powerful and highly influential members of the legal community. Law.com connects legal professionals
to more than thirteen award-winning national and regional legal publications online, delivers top legal news electronically
twice daily on the Newswire, and provides a gateway to all ALM products, including research, books, newsletters and events. Role of Osato Eugene Uzamere, Esq.
86) Defendant Osato Eugene Uzamere provide legal advice and representation with regard to matrimonial
and immigration issues. Role of Defendant Allen E. Kaye, Esq. 87) Defendant
Allen E. Kaye, Esq. provides legal advice and representation to individuals regarding immigration issues. Role of Defendant Harvey Shapiro, Esq.
88) Defendant Harvey Shapiro, Esq. exclusively provides legal advice and representation regarding
immigration issues.
Role of Defendant Jack
Gladstein, Esq.
89) Defendant Jack Gladstein, Esq. is a law firm that provides legal representation to individuals
seeking divorces and legal advice and representation regarding immigration issues. Role
of Defendant Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
90) Defendant Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, as the Plaintiff's former husband, had the duty
to present himself to courts and other governmental agencies based upon his true and correct identity, in order to make himself
available to provide his family with financial assistance as required by federal, New York State and New York City law. Limitations of Time With Regard to 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985 91) In
the U.S. Supreme case Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478 (1980), the Court held that “Congress did not
establish a statute of limitations or a body of tolling rules applicable to actions brought in federal court under 1983 –
a void which is commonplace in federal statutory law. When such a void occurs, this Court has repeatedly “borrowed”
the state law of limitations governing an analogous [446 U.S. 478, 484] cause of action. Limitation borrowing was adopted
for civil rights action filed in federal court as early as 1914, in O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 . . . In 42
U.S.C. 1988, Congress 'quite clearly instructs [federal courts] to refer to state statutes' when federal law provides no rule
of decision for actions brought under 1983. Robertson v. Wegmann, supra. See [446 U.S. 478, 485] also Carlson
v. Green, ante, at 22, n. 10. As we held in Robertson, by its terms, 1988 authorizes federal courts to disregard
an otherwise applicable state rule of law only if the state law is "inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the
United States.” 92)
Chief Justice Stevens, in delivering his unanimous decision regarding U.S. Supreme Court case Hardin v. Straub,
490 U.S. 536, stated, inter alia that “In enacting 42 U.S.C. 1988 Congress determined that gaps in federal civil rights
acts should be filled by state law, as long as that law is not inconsistent with federal law. See Burnett v. Grattan,
468 U.S. 42, 47- 48 (1984). Because no federal statute of limitations governs, federal courts routinely measure the timeliness
of federal civil rights suits by state law. Id., at 49; Chardon v. Fumero Soto, 462 U.S. 650, 655 - 656 (1983);
Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 464 (1975). This tradition of borrowing analogous limitations
statutes, cf. O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 (1914), is based on a congressional decision to defer to 'the State's judgment on the proper balance between the policies
of repose and the substantive policies of enforcement embodied in the state cause of action.' Wilson v. Garcia, [490
U.S. 536, 539] 471 U.S. 261, 271 (1985). 'In virtually all statutes of limitations the chronological length of the limitation
period is interrelated with provisions regarding tolling, revival, and questions of application.' Johnson, supra, at 464.
Courts thus should not unravel state limitations rules unless their full application would defeat the goals of the federal
statute at issue. See, e. g., Wilson, supra, at 269; Chardon, supra, at 657.” Limitations of Time With Regard to the American With Disabilities Action 93) 42 U.S.C. §1988's requirement
for a federal court to adopt the statute of limitations in the case where the action accrued also applies to the Americans
With Disabilities Act. In the case Soignier v. American Board of Plastic Surgery, 92 F.3d 547, Judge Manion, speaking
for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated, inter alia, that “The ADA, like many federal civil rights
statutes, does not contain a specific statute of limitations. Thus, the most appropriate state limitations period applies.
42 U.S.C. §1988(a); Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-67, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 1941-42, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985).
Wilson dictates a three-step borrowing analysis. . .Under step 2, courts are to select the statute of limitations of the state
cause of action "most appropriate" or "most analogous" to the plaintiff's claim . . .” New York State Statute of Limitations
94) New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 214(5) allows within three (3) years
to transpire with regard to “an action to recover damages for a personal injury. . .” Issues With Regard To Defendants' Claim Of Sovereign Immunity 95) The Eleventh Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution says that “The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit
in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or
Subjects of any Foreign State.” This means that generally, a sovereign state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune
from civil suit or criminal prosecution. This legal doctrine, however, is refuted when a governmental entity engages in conduct
that violates U.S. Constitutional law.
96) In the U.S. Supreme Court case United States vs. Georgia, et al, quoting verbatim: “Goodman, petitioner in No. 04–1236, is a paraplegic who sued respondent state
Defendants and others, challenging the conditions of his confinement in a Georgia prison under, inter alia, 42 U. S. C. §1983
and Title II of the Americans with Disability Act of 1990. As relevant here, the Federal District Court dismissed the §1983
claims because Goodman’s allegations were vague, and granted respondents' summary judgment on the Title II money damages
claims because they were barred by state sovereign immunity. The United States, petitioner in No. 04–1203, intervened
on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment as to the Title II claims, but reversed the §1983
ruling, finding that Goodman had alleged facts sufficient to support a limited number of Eighth Amendment claims against state
agents and should be permitted to amend his complaint. This Court granted certiorari to decide the validity of Title II’s
abrogation of state sovereign immunity.”
97) Justice Scalia, giving the opinion of the Court, stated the following: “We consider whether a disabled inmate in a state prison may sue the State for money
damages under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 104 Stat. 337, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12131
et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. II). Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall,
by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities
of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” §12132 (2000 ed.). A “ ‘qualified
individual with a disability’ ” is defined as “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable
modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or
the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or
the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.” §12131(2). The Act defines “ ‘public
entity’ ” to include “any State or local government” and “any department, agency, … or
other instrumentality of a State,” §12131(1). We have previously held that this term includes state prisons. See
Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998).
Title II authorizes suits by private citizens for money damages against public entities that
violate §12132. See 42 U.S.C. § 12133 (incorporating by reference 29 U.S.C. §794a).
Once Goodman’s complaint is amended, the lower courts will be best situated to determine
in the first instance, on a claim-by-claim basis, (1) which aspects of the State’s alleged conduct violated Title II;
(2) to what extent such misconduct also violated the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) insofar as such misconduct violated Title
II but did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether Congress’s purported abrogation of sovereign immunity as to
that class of conduct is nevertheless valid. The judgment of the Eleventh Circuit is reversed, and the suit is remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
98) In
United States vs. Georgia, et al, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state abrogates sovereign immunity when it violates
both Title II, ADA and the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff asserts that her Verified Complaint will show that the Defendants
violated Title II, ADA and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by conspiring to: 1) publicly hold Plaintiff
out to be violent with psychotic features; 2) deny Plaintiff's constitutional right to a a notice of accusation and access
to an attorney to prove her innocence based solely on Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness; 3) willfully place themselves
in a position not to hear Plaintiff's complaints by using Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness as an excuse to say
that Plaintiff's allegations are delusional and without merit;10 4) deny Plaintiff access to more socially integrated outpatient psychiatric program so as to forcibly steer
Plaintiff into an inpatient setting; and, 5) intentionally misdiagnose Plaintiff as violent and psychotic so as to discredit
Plaintiff's complaints as the unbelievable rantings of a psychotic, violent person.
99) Plaintiff holds that, based on the above, Defendants' violation of Plaintiff's Title II,
ADA and Fourteenth Amendment rights are abrogations of sovereign immunity, and that as such, Plaintiff's lawsuit rises to
the level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) with regard to those
Defendants who are natural persons. Background 100) In most of the lawsuits
that Plaintiff presented to Defendant Judge Nicholas Garaufis, he included a FRCP-based memorandum in his judgment: a)
On March 27, 2007, the Honorable Lois Bloom, Magistrate Judge, working with Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis, rendered
her Memorandum and Order regarding the lawsuit Cheryl D. Uzamere vs. New York City Housing Authority, 07-CV-1194
(NGG) (LB). Judge Bloom remanded Plaintiff's complaint to the Civil Court of the City of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447(c)
because the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
b) On July 6, 2007, Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis rendered his Memorandum and Order regarding
the lawsuit Cheryl D. Uzamere vs. John Doe, et al. , 07-CV-2471 (NGG). Judge Garaufis dismissed Plaintiff's complaint
because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). c) On
April 9, 2008, Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis rendered his Memorandum and Order regarding the lawsuit Cheryl D. Uzamere
v. George W. Bush, et al. When Defendant Judge Garaufis dismissed Plaintiff's lawsuit, he referenced Plaintiff's previous
lawsuit Cheryl D. Uzamere vs. John Doe, et al. , 07-CV-2471, and that the previous lawsuit was dismissed because
the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). However, Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis
did not reference the FRCP in dismissing Cheryl D. Uzamere v. George W. Bush, et al. d) On
August 11, 2009, Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis rendered his memorandum-lacking Order regarding the lawsuit Cheryl D.
Uzamere v. The State of New York, et al 09-CV-2703 (NGG). Judge Garaufis dismissed Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice
to give Plaintiff a chance to produce proof of her allegations regarding her having been falsely arrested by the Metropolitan
Transit Authority's Police Department. e) On October 21, 2009, Defendant Nicholas
G. Garaufis rendered his Memorandum and Order regarding the lawsuit Cheryl D. Uzamere v. The United States Postal Service
09-CV-3709 (NGG). Defendant Judge Garaufis dismissed Plaintiff's complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Facts 101) On November 30, 1979, after
Plaintiff married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Defendant Uzamere went with the Plaintiff to the law office of Defendant
Allen E. Kaye, Esq. While there, Defendant Harvey Shapiro, Esq. gave the Plaintiff form I-130 to sign so as to sponsor the
Defendant for a green card under the fictitious name "Godwin Ehigie Uzamere" and fictitious birthday "June
1, 1955. Neither attorney required Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to produce his passport to establish proof of his identity.
At the time of Plaintiff's signing the I-130 relative sponsorship form, Plaintiff did not know that Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere had applied and been found eligible for permanent residence under his real name via sponsorship by other family members. 102) On
or around February 10, 1984, Plaintiff received correspondence from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service which
stated that “I have considered the reason (child support proceedings) you gave in your request for the address of Mr.
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and I have determined that the overriding public interest for disclosure outweighs
Mr. Uzamere's right to privacy”, thereby recognizing Plaintiff's husband as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. 103) On or around October
1, 2003, Plaintiff received correspondence from Jack Gladstein holding Plaintiff's ex-husband out to be “Godwin Uzamere.” 104)
On or around October 8, 2008, Defendant Uzamere and Associates, by its employee attorney Eugene Uzamere, hand-delivered
an affirmation and a fraudulent, unauthenticated,11 unnotarized counter-affidavit from Nigeria which stated that “The plaintiff who has openly professed
her mental illness is also delusional and outlandish in her claims”; and “I have before now, ignored the Plaintiff's
outburst but her claim to be married to my cousin who was not in the United States at the time of our marriage is a new twist
to this sad tale. . .Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged”
in defiance of the administrative decision rendered by the INS regarding Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity. In addition, Justice
Sunshine refused to commission a diplomatic or consular officer for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the fraudulent
foreign document that was presented to him by attorney Osato Uzamere on behalf of his uncle, Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian
senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. From then until the present, Justice Sunshine has never made any attempt
to arrest Osato Uzamere for committing perjury.12 See fraudulent affirmation and fraudulent foreign counter-affidavit Exhibit B. 105) On
January 12, 2009 Justice Sunshine rendered a decision in which he stated that “Moreover, the opposition submitted by
defendant raises a genuine issue as to whether or not plaintiff and defendant were married in the first instance”, in
defiance of INS' administrative decision that recognized the names “Godwin E. Uzamere” and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
as belonging to Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and that Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was married to the Plaintiff. Page 9 of Justice Sunshine's
decision and order dated January 12, 2009 is attached as Exhibit C. 106) On January 20, 2009,
the Plaintiff forwarded a complaint to former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria Robin Renee Sanders regarding Justice Sunshine's
planned act of identity fraud. The Plaintiff received a response from the U.S. Embassy on January 30, 2009. E-mfail to former
U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria Robin Renee Sanders and e-mail from the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria are attached as Exhibit
D. 107)
On May 12, 2009, Justice Sunshine rendered his decision and order that states that “Today at 10:35 am. defendant
was declared in default for failure to appear at the hearing. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss this action upon
the grounds that he is not the husband of the plaintiff is denied in its entirety. The defendant is the husband in conformity
with the parties marriage on November 21, 1979. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order and serve
and file a note of issue, forthwith, with proof of mailing by regular international mail and overnight international mail
for a trial on all issues within this matrimonial action to be held before this court on July 7, 2009. at 9:30 a.m. This shall
constitute the decision and order of the court.”
108) On July 7, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an action for fraud against her ex-husband and against
Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein based on aforementioned Defendant's defiance of INS' administrative
decision rendered 30 years earlier that recognizes Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as Plaintiff's husband, and based on the aforementioned
Defendants' facilitation of Plaintiff's ex-husband commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud. 109) On
or around October 20, 2009, Plaintiff called Defendant New York State Office of Court Administration's Inspector General's
Office to file a complaint against Justice Sunshine.13 Plaintiff spoke with Defendant Spatz' subordinate Marianne Byrne. Plaintiff complained throughout the telephone
call because no one would help her hold Justice Sunshine and Plaintiff's ex-husband's attorney criminally responsible for
Justice Sunshine's acceptance of her ex-husband's attorney's act of perjury. Sometime after Plaintiff's telephone call, Defendant
Byrne, at the behest of Defendant Sherrill Spatz, fraudulently filed a complaint in which Plaintiff was accused of threatening
Justice Sunshine with death.
110) On or near October 28, 2009, employees for Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro
and Jack Gladstein submitted fraudulent affirmations to the court holding “Godwin Uzamere” to be the Plaintiff's
husband, in defiance of INS' administrative order rendered 30 years earlier that recognizes Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as the Plaintiff's
husband and the father of Tara A. Uzamere, the child of the marriage, and in defiance of Justice Sunshine's Decision and Order
that held Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be Plaintiff's husband. During the month of October 2009, the Plaintiff contacted
Defendant Charles Hynes of the Kings County Attorney's Office and faxed copies of the fraudulent affirmation and fraudulent
counter-affidavit for which Defendant Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine held Defendant Osato Eugene Uzamere criminally liable for
committing perjury. Charles Hynes, by his employee David Casona, refused to investigate the Plaintiff's complaint, and gave
no reason for his refusal. Defendant law firms' employees' fraudulent affirmations are attached as Exhibit E. 111) On
November 3, 2009, letter than a week after Plaintiff's ex-husband's attorneys filed their fraudulent affirmations Plaintiff
was falsely arrested and stayed in jail for 33 days. Because Plaintiff was remanded and was not able to leave, Plaintiff was
coerced into accepting the plea as mentally unfit, and employees of Defendant New York State Office of Court Administration/Unified
Court System intentionally avoided appearing before court to explain their false charge against the Plaintiff. See complaint
from New York State Unified Court System's Office of the Inspector General and correspondence from Rikers Island, attached
as Exhibit F.
112) Near November 5, 2009, Defendants Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine Arthur M. Schack, on
their own and/or by courthouse employees that were under said Defendants' care, control and supervision at the time of the
incident, illegally commented on and provided nonpublic information regarding Plaintiff's cases Kings County Criminal Court
Case Docket No. 2009KN087992, Kings County Supreme Court Index No. 18012-2009 and Kings County Supreme Index No. 26332-2007
to Daily News staff writer Scott Shifrel in violation of 22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(8), (11), that “a judge shall not make
any public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court within the United States or its territories. The judge
shall require similar abstention on the part of court personnel...” and that “a judge shall not disclose or use,
for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity”; that said nonpublic
information was provided to the Daily News, by staff writer Scott Shifrel, who did knowingly, fraudulently and with malice
aforethought, publish the newspaper article that illegally disclosed Plaintiff's nonpublic information that was acquired by
the Defendants during their adjudication of Plaintiff's cases including Plaintiff's photo; Plaintiff's name; Plaintiff's age;
Plaintiff's mental illness; Plaintiff's psychiatric diagnosis; symptoms of Plaintiff's mental illness; the courts where Plaintiff's
cases were adjudicated; the town where Plaintiff's lives and the name of the hospital that treated Plaintiff; that Daily News
staff writer Scott Shifrel, on behalf the Defendants, charged Plaintiff with the halachic/Jewish religious crime of anti-Semitism
by saying “Cheryl Uzamere, 50, known around courthouse circles for her anti-Semitic screeds, was declared mentally unfit
and taken to Bellevue Hospital for observation”; and, that “...she's a smart person and she really know how to
use the system, said one courthouse source...she comes in here and files all these papers and threatens people. Uzamere was
in a Criminal Court holding cell when she started stripping and screaming about her “senator” husband in Nigeria
loud enough to be heard in the courtroom. The senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according
to an affidavit he filed in Supreme Court. . .”; and that “the senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband,
Godwin Uzamere, according to affidavit filed in Supreme Court”; and “Her obsession with his destruction has taken
her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged, Godwin Uzamere said. . .” On the following day, the
company ALM.com, by its website Law.com, published an article entitled N.Y. Arrested for Threatening Judge; that
said nonpublic information was provided to the Law.com, by staff writer Mark Fass who did knowingly, fraudulently and with
malice aforethought, publish the internet article that illegally disclosed Plaintiff's nonpublic information that was acquired
by the Defendants during their adjudication of Plaintiff's cases.
113) On December 24, 2009, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant NYSUCS' judicial employee the Honorable
Anthony Cutrona of Kings County Supreme Court's Mental Hygiene Court.
114) On January 15, 2010, Defendant NYSUCS' judicial employee Justice Arthur M. Schack contacted
Defendant OMH's psychiatrist Dr. Marie Bauduy of the Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility and ordered her not to produce the Plaintiff
for court. In his decision dated January 25, 2010, Justice Schack stated that “The Court is concerned that plaintiff
UZAMERE is unfit to proceed. . .Therefore, the instant matter is adjourned to Friday, March 19, 2010. . .” 115) During
the beginning of February, 2010, Plaintiff was discharged by Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility. 116) On or near February 23,
2010, while the Plaintiff was in her apartment faxing letters of complaint to various governmental agencies, a social worker
from Brookdale Hospital contacted the management office of New York City Housing Authority's Louis H. Pink Houses, the New
York City Police Department and the New York City Fire Department. An employee of the New York City Housing Authority opened
the Plaintiff's apartment door, and Plaintiff was taken out of her apartment by force and hospitalized by Defendant OMH'S
Kingsboro Psychiatric Center.
117) Petitioner asserts that on May 14, 2010, Matthew A. Kaufman, did knowingly, fraudulently
and with malice aforethought, present himself to the New York State Supreme Court, County of Kings, for the purpose of giving
false testimony regarding the identity of Petitioner's ex-husband on behalf of his clients, Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro,
Esq., and Jack Gladstein, Esq., based on Mr. Kaufman's statement that “I stand on my papers” in which his clients
falsified the identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband.
118) On July 13, 2010, Justice Arthur M. Schack rendered his decision, holding among other things,
that “Godwin Uzamere” is Plaintiff's husband, in defiance of both the administrative decision of the U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Service that holds Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be Plaintiff's husband, and the decisions of Justice Jeffrey S.
Sunshine and Justice Matthew D'Emic that hold Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be Plaintiff's husband and the father of the
Tara A. Uzamere, the child of the marriage.
119) On or around June 25, 2011, two (2) days after Judge Garaufis rendered his FRCP-lacking,
memorandum-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-CV-2831 (NGG) at the behest of Defendant Judge
Garaufis three (3) marshals from the U.S. Marshal Service for Defendant the Eastern District of New York banged on Plaintiff's
apartment door, shaming Plaintiff within earshot of her neighbors. When the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of New York
identified themselves, Plaintiff asked them if she had committed a crime. The marshals stalled for a few seconds, and then
said that Plaintiff had not committed any crimes. When Plaintiff asked the U.S. Marshals why they were there, the U.S. Marshal
that banged on Plaintiff's door said “I'm gonna annoy you like you annoyed Judge Garaufis.” When Plaintiff told
them that she would not open the door, the one banging on the door said “then I'm gonna keep bangin”, and for
another 1.5 minutes continued to bang on Plaintiff's door. He also asked Plaintiff “is your daughter Tara home?”,
to find out if Plaintiff was home alone. Within minutes of Plaintiff telling them that her daughter Tara was there, they left. 120) On
July 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed her appeal for the lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al. 121) On
or around July 6, 2011, employees of the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of New York contacted Defendant Mental Health
Association of New York City and said that threatened Defendant Garaufis with bodily harm.14 On or around July 7, 2011, psychiatric nurse Agnes Flores and psychologist Martin Bolton, employees of Defendant
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation came to Plaintiff's apartment, speaking about Plaintiff's psychiatric issues
in the hallway and shaming Plaintiff within earshot of her neighbors. Agnes Flores and Martin Bolton said that Defendant U.S.
Marshal told them that Plaintiff contacted LifeNet and made threats to Judge Garaufis. Plaintiff told them that had she done
such a thing, the U.S. Marshal Service would have arrested her when they visited her and given her an attorney, which would
have forced the attorney to examine her civil claims.15 122)
On July 7, 2011, at the behest of Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, the United Parcel Service returned Plaintiff's
appellate brief, all of Plaintiff's motions, Appendix A and Appendix B that Plaintiff served on the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit on July 4, 2012. Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe did not include correspondence explaining why Plaintiff's
appellate documents were returned. Included in the documents that were returned to the Plaintiff was an appellate decision
for Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. State of New York, et al 09-cv-2703/09-3197-cv. When Plaintiff checked the PACER
system, the system fraudulently recorded Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis decision as a memorandum and order, even though
Defendant Garaufis never provided an FRCP-based memorandum. It has been corrected since then. See copies of UPS envelopes
for Plaintiff's appellate documents and documents for Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. State of New York, et al 09-cv-2703/09-3197-cv,
attached as Exhibit G.16 123)
In July 2011, Bridget Davis, an intensive case worker who is an employee of Defendant New York State Office of Mental
Health, said that Defendant U.S. Marshal Service told her that Plaintiff had threatened others and that she threatened Defendant
Judge Nicholas Garaufis, something that Plaintiff did not do. Plaintiff took the liberty of recording the conversation in
its entirety. Plaintiff uploaded the conversation to her website: http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html. 124)
On or around July 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed her appellate brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 125) The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered its decision dismissing the appeal for Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere
vs. Cuomo, et al 11-2713-CV. Sometime thereafter, the Plaintiff received papers that did not include the name of the
appellate judges that rendered the decision on Plaintiff's appeal.
126) Soon thereafter, the Plaintiff called Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
for U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and asked why the appellate judges' names were not indicated on the U.S.
Court of Appeals' decision. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe indicated that the judges' names were left out because Plaintiff had threatened
federal judges, something that Plaintiff never did.
127) In the month of August, 2011 Bridget Davis contacted Samuel Sarpong, an employee of Defendant
HHC for the purpose of forcing Plaintiff to go to Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, where Plaintiff was hospitalized as an
inpatient for threatening Defendant Judge Garaufis, something that Plaintiff never did. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center
then terminated its psychiatric services to the Plaintiff and transferred Plaintiff to the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment
Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team in order to pretend that Plaintiff was being monitored by the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security. Also, on or around August 18, 2011, Defendant HHC's ACT Team received correspondence on U.S. Department
of Homeland Security original letterhead bearing “Denis P. McGowan, Chief, Threat Management Branch.” The letter
stated: “On July 06, 2011, Federal Protective Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made by CHERYL UZAMERE
to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid call center. The threat consisted of HER stating: since SHE did not get the job,
SHE was going to "COME DOWN THERE AND KILL EVERYBODY. Since FPS has investigated UZAMERE multiple times for similar behavior,
we are well aware of HER mental health history. Based on that information, a referral was made to LifeNet for mental health
intervention on July 07 2011. Subsequently, UZAMERE's Intensive Case Manager (ICM) Bridgett Davis of the New York State Office
of Mental Health has advised that UZAMERE's treatment has been transferred to the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program.
We were informed that CHERYL D. UZAMERE is being treated as a patient by your program and we would like to keep you abreast
of this situation as it evolves. We also request that we be notified as HER status changes in particular any change from in-patient
to out-patient treatment and in the case of the latter any refusal of treatment. In addition, please notify FPS of any relapses
or deterioration of HER condition that may pose a risk to life or property.” See letter from Denis P. McGowan, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security attached as Exhibit H.
128) On February 26, 2012, Defendant HHC's ACT Team where Samuel Sarpong is employed prepared
a psychiatric treatment plan. Under the title “Alerts”, the treatment plan states “. . . H/O threats to
judges and Center for Medicaid and Medicare, patient is being monitored by Homeland Security.” Under the title “Discharge
Plan”, it says “Patient is not being considered for discharge at this time, she was transferred to the program
6 months ago after she made a threat to the Medicare and Medicaid call center and is being monitored by the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security.” Under the title “Patient/Family Statement”, it says that “She reported not
being aware of being monitored by Homeland Security. . .” (see Plaintiff's psychiatric treatment plan from the East
New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team, attached as Exhibit I). 129)
In the month of May, 2012, Plaintiff received a call from Defendant HHC's East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's
ACT Team, informing Plaintiff that she could come to the office to review the correspondence that came from Denis P. McGowan
of Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security.17 130)
On May 15 and 24, 2012, the Plaintiff faxed a FOIA/FOIL request to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the New
York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, the New York State Office of Mental Health and the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in order to obtain information regarding Defendants' allegation
that Plaintiff made threats to federal judges and federal employees (see Plaintiff's FOIA/FOIL correspondence attached as
Exhibit J).
131) In June 2012 Plaintiff visited the ACT Team to sign an authorization for a transfer of her psychiatric records to SPOA
(Single Point of Access). Plaintiff asked ACT Team supervisor Dr. Scott A. Berger and Samuel Sarpong for a copy of the letter
that appeared to come from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Dr. Berger refused to allow Samuel Sarpong to give Plaintiff
a copy of the letter. Later on, Plaintiff also filed complaints against the licenses of OMH employee Samuel Gant, and HHC
employees Agnes Flores, Martin Bolton, Jean Barry and Dr. Scott A. Berger because they misdiagnosed Plaintiff as having threatened
Judge Garaufis, other federal judges and federal employees, something that Plaintiff never did. See
Plaintiff's complaints against OMH and HHC employees attached as Exhibit K. 132) On July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff
contacted the call center for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid to find
out if the call center kept telephone logs, and if so, if there was a phone call that was logged in which the Plaintiff threatened
employees of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid with death. Plaintiff also contact CMS call center several times during
the month of July to obtain written proof of an alibi with regard to the false criminal charge that Defendants Roger Moore
and Denis P. McGowan leveled against the Plaintiff. On one (1) occasion, a lady at the call center informed the Plaintiff
that the call center's log stated that Plaintiff made calls on the following days: 1) June 14, 2010; 2) June 1, 2011; 3) July
8, 2011; and, 4) May 18, 2012, and that there was no incident logged in which the Plaintiff threatened any federal employee.
As of Tuesday, July 17, 2012, Plaintiff spoke with Ms. Jackson, a supervisor employed at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services. Ms. Jackson confirmed that Plaintiff never engaged in any telephonic threats, and that no threats or harassing telephone
calls were recorded in the call center's telephone log. Plaintiff sent an e-mail to Defendant Marilyn Tavenner showing a copy
of the fraudulent letter from Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security that was sent to President Barack H. Obama. See
e-mail to President Obama, Defendant Tavenner and others attached as Exhibit L. 133) On July 4, 2012, Plaintiff
appeared at the Hampton Inn Manhattan Times Square to give congressional testimony for the film Lawless America. As part of
Plaintiff's testimony, Plaintiff reported Defendant Judge Garaufis' orchestration of Defendant U.S. Marshal Service fraudulent
report to Plaintiff's psychiatric providers that she threatened Judge Garaufis with bodily harm, and that Defendant Judge
Garaufis' goal was to prevent Plaintiff from filing an appeal against his illegal decision that Plaintiff filed against the
Jewish attorneys who facilitated her ex-husband's crime of identity fraud. See Lawless America page concerning Cheryl D. Uzamere
and family attached as Exhibit M.
134) On July 10, 2012, the Plaintiff called Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe to find out if
said defendant could provide a written reason why there was a ban orchestrated by the judiciary defendants in which their
names would not be allowed to be shown on decisions regarding Plaintiff's appeals. The woman with whom Plaintiff spoke said
she did not have an answer.
135) On July 19, 2012, Plaintiff received a telephone call from a “Lucy” of U.S.
Department of Health and Human Service's Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Lucy called in response to Plaintiff's
request for the telephone log containing Plaintiff's telephone calls to CMS. Lucy gave Plaintiff the telephone number (410)
786-3213 to resend the documents that Plaintiff faxed to CMS FOIA office; however, the telephone number was Lucy's office
number and not a fax number so that Plaintiff was not able to resend her FOIA request at that time. The following day, Plaintiff
resent a copy of the fax she sent on July 17, 2012, the affirmation/declaration and a copy of her driver's permit to Lucy.
As Plaintiff stated, CMS telephone logs did not contain any mention of Plaintiff engaging in rude, threatening or harassing
telephone calls. 136)
On July 23, 2012, the Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendants Denis P. McGowan and Robert Moore to ascertain whether
either of them had written the letter from U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Plaintiff left messages with Denise McGowan,
but Defendant McGowan did not return Plaintiff's calls. Plaintiff also contacted Defendant Robert Moore to ascertain whether
he or his supervisor wrote the letter. Defendant Robert Moore would not give Plaintiff any information, saying instead that
Plaintiff has a pending lawsuit against his agency and was informed by his agency's attorney not to give the Plaintiff any
information. Neither defendant denied writing the letter. The following day, Plaintiff faxed a complaint to various law enforcement
agencies based on her belief that Defendants were blackmailing her. See correspondence faxed to Defendants McGowan and Moore,
and correspondence faxed to Charles A. Hynes, Kings County District Attorney, Joseph Paterno, Assistant Attorney General of
New York State, Michael A. Cardozo, New York City Law Department, Janice K. Fedarcyk, Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attorney, Eastern
District of New York Preetinder Bharara, U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York and Ivan K. Fong, General Counsel, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security. See correspondence to law enforcement attorneys and Defendants McGowan and Moore attached
as Exhibit N.
137) By July 28, 2012, employees of CMS call center advised Plaintiff to write a letter requesting
a copy of the telephone log to the Medicare Beneficiary Contact Center, P.O. 39, Lawrence, Kansas, 66044. Plaintiff previously
filed FOIA requests with Michael Marquis, FOIA Officer and Chief FOIA Liaison of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
on May 17, 2012 and May 24, 2014. See Exhibit O.
138) By August 13, 2012, Defendant Charles K. Edwards decided that with regard to Defendants
Denis P. McGowan's and Robert Moore's refusal to identify the individual who claimed that Plaintiff called the CMS call center
and made threats of bodily harm, and Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment right to face her accuser, receive a notice of accusation,
a speedy trial and ability to face witnesses, Plaintiff's FOIA request “for expedited processing is denied because you
do not qualify for either category. Clearly the lack of expedited treatment in this case will not pose an imminent threat
to the life or physical safety of an individual. In addition, you are not primarily engaged in the dissemination of information
to the public. You have not shown that you have the ability to educate the public, nor have you detailed with the requisite
specificity why you feel there is an urgency to inform, or that there is a significant public interest in this matter. Finally,
it is also well established that a FOIA requester cannot rely upon his or her status as a private party litigant -in either
civil or criminal litigation -to claim an entitlement to greater FOIA access than would be available to the average requester.
FOIA "is largely indifferent to the intensity of a particular requester's need." See EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 86
(1973).” See correspondence from Defendant Charles K. Edwards attached as Exhibit P. Synopsis
139) Plaintiff has shown that many years ago, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
established her ex-husband's true and correct identity as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. Plaintiff states that in spite of Plaintiff
successfully establishing her ex-husband's true identity, that Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine, who is Jewish, made several attempts
to adjudicate Plaintiff's divorce action in a manner that hid the fact that Plaintiff's ex-husband's immigration attorneys
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, who are Jews, and Plaintiff's ex-husband's nephew Osato Eugene Uzamere criminally
facilitated Plaintiff's ex-husband's commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud. Plaintiff further states that Defendant
Sherrill Spatz, who is also Jewish, while making the attempt to have Plaintiff arrested, made no attempt to advise Plaintiff
on how to file a complaint against Justice Sunshine, who is Jewish, and for whom Plaintiff produced proof of Judge Sunshine's
subornation of perjury. Meanwhile, during Plaintiff's action for fraud, immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro
and Jack Gladstein submitted affirmations that fraudulently held Plaintiff's husband to be “Godwin Uzamere” even
though the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Citizenship and Immigration Service, Justice Jeffrey
S. Sunshine and Justice Matthew D'Emic adjudged that Plaintiff's husband was Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. 140) From June 2011 until June
2012, Plaintiff remained tolerant and quiet with regard to acts of Jew-oriented bias by Defendant Garaufis, who failed to
adjudicate the lawsuit as a unbiased judge, but instead, litigated the lawsuit as the defendants' attorney. Defendant Garaufis,
who is Jewish, defamed Plaintiff by causing her to be misdiagnosed as psychotic and violent, even though Plaintiff never threatened
any judge or any federal employee. In spite of Plaintiff's initial attempts not to complain about Defendant Garaufis' acts
of bias, the instances in which Defendants defamed the Plaintiff by misdiagnosing her as psychotic and violent and by accusing
her of the commission of 18 USC §115 escalated, even though no federal law enforcement agency ever made any attempt to
arrest Plaintiff or serve Plaintiff with a notice of accusation so that Plaintiff could obtain an attorney or face her accusers.
By June 2011, Defendant U.S. Marshal Service for the Eastern District of New York banged on Plaintiff's door in an attempt
to intimidate Plaintiff into believing that “annoying Judge Garaufis”, that is, leaving Plaintiff's Ha Shem-ordained
position as a lowly, undeserving schvartze to challenge Defendant Garaufis was an actionable offense. By July 2011, an employee
of the U.S. Marshal Service for the Eastern District of New York contacted the Mental Health Association of New York City
and told them that Plaintiff threatened Defendant Garaufis with bodily harm. Defendant OMH's employee Bridget Davis told Plaintiff
that Defendant U.S. Marshal Service said that Plaintiff threatened others. Plaintiff recorded this conversation in its entirety
and uploaded it to her web page http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html. By August 2011, Plaintiff was escorted by force to Brookdale Hospital Medical Center as an inpatient after Defendant OMH's
employee Bridget Davis told Defendant New York City's Police Department that Plaintiff threatened judges. On February 26,
2012, Defendant Dr. Scott A. Berger, who is Jewish, prepared a psychiatric treatment plan that said “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
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid call center and is being monitored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. She has
to learn to resolve her conflicts without threats to other parties involved and have stable mental health over a period of
at least one year. Treatment Plan was discussed with the patient on 2/24/12, she is in disagreement with the Discharge Plan,
feels that she is treatment compliant, that being in the ACT Team is isolating her, that she is lonely and is ready to be
discharged. She reported not being aware of being monitored by Homeland Security. . .” In an attempt to distance herself
from Defendant OMH's defamatory misdiagnosis, Plaintiff changed her ACT Team. When Plaintiff asked her new psychiatrist, Dr.
Hunter what her current diagnosis is, Dr. Hunter indicated that it is based on the diagnosis of the last ACT Team. By July
2012, Plaintiff discovered that someone contacted Defendant Mental Health Association of New York City (LifeNet) and told
them that Plaintiff threatened judges. When Plaintiff attempted to contact Giselle Stolper, who is Jewish, Plaintiff was told
that the person who told Defendant MHA that Plaintiff threatened judges is confidential, and refused to give Plaintiff the
identity of the individual(s) who told Defendant MHA that Plaintiff threatened federal judges. 141) Plaintiff is now in a position
that, no matter where Plaintiff goes to obtain psychiatric treatment, the defamation restarted by Defendants Nicholas G. Garaufis
and the U.S. Marshal Service for the Eastern District of New York will follow the Plaintiff. In addition, Defendants
Denis P. McGowan and Robert Moore have engaged in coercing,18 blackmailing19 and extorting20 the Plaintiff by using a spurious criminal charge to threaten Plaintiff with forced inpatient hospitalization
if Plaintiff continues to file complaints against Defendant Garaufis' Jews friends corrupt Jews immigration attorneys Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, and Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman. Defendant Garaufis' religion prohibits
anyone from reporting the crimes of corrupt Jews to the secular, Gentile authorities, and that Plaintiff, who is a schvartze,
has a God-ordained position of subservience such that she has no right defying anyone who is Jewish. None of the individuals
who have accused Plaintiff of committing 18 USC §115, that is, threatening federal employees with bodily harm will arrest
her and allow her to obtain an attorney; however, at the same time, Defendants will not write any letter to say that Plaintiff
never threatened anyone. Plaintiff in now in a position where she is being misdiagnosed as psychotic and violent for acts
that Plaintiff did not commit. Any psychiatric facility, based on naïveté or fear of losing funding, have failed
to see that the Plaintiff is the victim of a monstrous defamation and blackmail scheme designed Defendant Garaufis to prohibit
her from reporting the crimes of corrupt Jews Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein and to make Plaintiff's complaints
against those Jews appear to be unbelievable and the rantings of a psychotic schvartze. 142) Plaintiff respectfully
submits to this honorable Court that she has provided irrefutable proof that: 1) Defendant U.S. Marshal Service fraudulently
and maliciously visited Plaintiff's apartment; while there, intimidated the Plaintiff to give the appearance that annoying
Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis by leaving Plaintiff's Ha Shem-ordained position as lowly, worthless schvartze was actionable
in a court of law; 2) Defendant U.S. Marshal Service made no attempt to arrest Plaintiff and serve her with a notice of accusation
for commission of 18 USC §115 to enable Plaintiff to obtain an attorney; 3) while visiting Plaintiff's home, Defendant
U.S. Marshal Service inquired as to whether Plaintiff was home with her daughter Tara A. Uzamere; 4) out of fear that she
would be hospitalized and denied the opportunity to file her appeal of Defendant Judge Garaufis' decision regarding Plaintiff's
lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo et al, the Plaintiff lied and told Defendant U.S. Marshal Service that her daughter Tara
was home; 5) Defendant U.S. Marshal Service's inquiry was for the sole purpose of determining if Plaintiff was home alone,
and once determining that Plaintiff was home alone, the U.S. Marshal Service would then contact Defendants OMH and HHC, tell
them that Plaintiff made threats to judges and federal employees so as to hospitalize Plaintiff and prevent her from appealing
Defendant Judge Garaufis' biased, FRCP-lacking, memorandum-lacking decision. Plaintiff submits that Defendant U.S. Marshal
Service, without a court order or authorization from the Plaintiff, obtained HIPAA-protected information regarding Plaintiff's
psychiatric history and where Plaintiff received psychotherapy. Plaintiff submits that Defendants' statements that Plaintiff
threatened judges and federal employees were fraudulent, intentional, discriminatory and were made with malice aforethought.
Plaintiff further submits that Defendants OMH's and HHC's referral of Plaintiff to Brookdale Hospital Medical Center based
on the statements that Plaintiff threatened judges and federal employees were fraudulent, intentional, discriminatory and
were made with malice aforethought. Plaintiff submits that her subsequent transfer to Defendant HHC's East New York Diagnostic
and Treatment Center's Assertive Treatment Team (ACT) and the ACT Team's subsequent misdiagnosis of the Plaintiff based on
Defendant's claim that Plaintiff threatened judges and federal employees were fraudulent, intentional, discriminatory and
were made with malice aforethought. Lastly, the Plaintiff submits that Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis' primary intention
was to publicly defame Plaintiff by giving the impression that Plaintiff's lawsuit, Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al was
the rantings of a psychotic, violent person, and that his FRCP-lacking, memorandum-lacking decision was not biased, discriminatory
and illegal. 143)
By reason of the foregoing allegations, Plaintiff asserts that there exists a justiciable controversy with respect to
which Plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for herein. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEFFirst Amendment Mandate – Separation Of Church And State 144) Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
145) With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually
and in their official capacities.
146) Plaintiff is an American citizen of African descent with a serious and persistent mental
illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. 147) Plaintiff is a qualified
individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
148) Plaintiff is under attack by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of Defendant
Nicholas G. Garaufis, have continued the same government-wide hostile environment that Plaintiff complained about in her prior
lawsuits, Uzamere vs. Uzamere (Plaintiff's divorce action) and Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv.
Plaintiff has been forced by Defendant Garaufis to obey the Talmud, Tractate Abodah Zarah, folio 26b, Tractate Sanhedrin,
folio 108b and footnote 34; Jewish doctrines Law of the Moser, the doctrine that prohibits anyone from reporting
the crimes of Jews to secular, Gentile authorities; and the Curse of Black Skin, the doctrine that requires people of dark-skinned
African descent to be obedient to Jews and white people because dark-skinned Africans are meant to be slaves. In Plaintiff's
prior lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al Case Nos. 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv, Plaintiff provided Defendant Judge Nicholas
G. Garaufis with proof that Defendant New York State conspired with Mortimer Zuckerman-owned Daily News, by its staff writer
Scott Shifrel to defame the Plaintiff as an “anti-Semitic wacko” and illegally publicize Plaintiff's psychiatric
and marital information. Defendant Garaufis has violated Plaintiff's rights in the same manner. Defendant Garaufis continues
to use the Talmud, Tractate Abodah Zarah, folio 26b and the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser to prevent the Plaintiff from
reporting the crimes of corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, who were defendants in
Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al and Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman of the Daily News, LP, who
defamed the Plaintiff and illegally disclosed her psychiatric and marital information to hide Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's
and Jack Gladstein's criminal facilitation of Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's commission of
immigration fraud, identity fraud and child abandonment. Defendant Garaufis is on a campaign to ensure that he enforces –
not the U.S. Constitution, but the tenets of the Talmud to prevent Plaintiff from reporting corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman. Plaintiff strongly alleges that Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis
is insulted that the Plaintiff, a lowlife, socially worthless, mentally disabled schvartze slave has the audacity, not only
to file a complaint against his Jewish brethren, but to challenge his authority as a white, Jewish male, in violation of the
Talmud. Defendant Garaufis' varied attempts to prevent the Plaintiff from filing any more lawsuits against his Jewish friends
include: his use of the U.S. Marshal Service for the Eastern District of New York to visit the Plaintiff's home to bang on
her apartment door, embarrass Plaintiff within earshot of her neighbors, and intimidate the Plaintiff into believing that
“annoying” Defendant Garaufis is actionable in a court of law; Defendant Garaufis' use of Defendants OMH and HHC
and Brookdale to hospitalize Plaintiff for a crime she never committed so as to solidify his Jewish friend Mortimer Zuckerman's
newspaper's public description of the Plaintiff as a psychotic, violent, disobedient anti-Semitic schvartze slave; at Defendant
Garaufis' clandestine behest, the employment of fellow Jew psychiatrist Scott A. Berger to misdiagnose Plaintiff as having
threatened Defendant Garaufis, other judges and other federal employees; and by attempting to trick Plaintiff into believing
that she made a threatening phone call to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service's call center, something that CMS
has consistently held that Plaintiff never did.
149) Defendants have failed to meet the obligations as detailed First Amendment. Defendant Garaufis
used the other Defendants to enforce the tenets of the Talmud and other Jewish religious dogma on the Plaintiff based on the
Talmud's viewpoint of the Plaintiff's as a gentile/non-Jewish, African-American/schvartze slave who has no Talmudic right
to file complaints against Defendant Garaufis' corrupt Jewish friends immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman. Defendants used their fraudulent misdiagnosis of the Plaintiff as psychotic and violent
to hide their clandestine reliance on Jewish dogma in order to rationalize their violation of Plaintiff's right to be free
from practicing a State-sponsored religion. of her Sixth Amendment rights to notice of accusation, witnesses and appointment
of defense counsel. Plaintiff states that 18 USC §4 requires individuals to report the commission of federal crimes,
such that Defendants have no excuse for not reporting that Plaintiff committed 18 USC §115. Plaintiff strongly alleges
that Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, in orchestrating the conspiracy with the U.S. Marshal Service to intimidate Plaintiff
to obey Jewish dogma and keep silent and not file an appeal against his FRCP-lacking, memorandum-lacking decision for Plaintiff's
lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, has opened the means by which, at Defendant Garaufis' behest, without a trial,
have any government agency claim that Plaintiff's mental illness caused her to engage in criminal behavior that renders Plaintiff
ineligible to attend criminal court in order to prevent Plaintiff from speaking to an attorney about her civil lawsuit regarding
Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis' illegal decision in Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al. Plaintiff
alleges that the only way that Plaintiff can avoid Defendants' intimidation, false criminal allegations and Defendants' use
of psychiatric inpatient hospitalization as a substitute for prison is by keeping silent and not filing papers against which
Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis has a religious/racial bias.
150) Plaintiff respectfully submits that Defendants' violation of the First Amendment because
of the Talmud's viewpoint of the Plaintiff as a gentile, African-American/schvartze who filed complaints against corrupt Jews
immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments, and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, such that Plaintiff's verified complaint
rises to the level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 with regard to those Defendants who are natural persons. Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme Court's application of
Bivens to natural persons and its refusal to extend Bivens to agencies. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendants
Violated The Americans With Disabilities Act Mandate
151) Plaintiff repeats and realleges
the above paragraphs. 149) With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is
brought against them individually and in their official capacities.
152) Plaintiff is an American citizen of African descent with a serious and persistent mental
illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. 153) Plaintiff is a qualified
individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2). 154) Plaintiff is under attack
by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis, have continued the same government-wide
hostile environment that Plaintiff complained about in her prior lawsuit, Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv.
Defendants continue to discriminate against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff's ethnicity as a gentile/non-Jewish, her race as
African-American/schvartze and her status of having a mental illness because Plaintiff will not stop filing complaints against
corrupt Jews immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman. Defendants intentionally
misdiagnosed Plaintiff as psychotic and violent so as to deprive Plaintiff of the right to attend more integrated psychiatric
treatment programs, even though Plaintiff is compliant with psychiatric treatment. Defendants have accused Plaintiff of the
commission of 18 USC §115, and have discriminated against the Plaintiff by using her status of having a mental illness
as an excuse to deprive her of the right to defend herself in criminal court against said criminal charges so that Plaintiff
can prove her innocence. In Plaintiff's prior lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al Case Nos. 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv, Plaintiff
provided Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis with proof that Defendant New York State conspired with the Daily News to defame
the Plaintiff as a “wacko” and illegally publicize Plaintiff's psychiatric and marital information.21 Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis has engaged in the same act of fraud. Defendant Nicholas A. Garaufis continues
to use the religious doctrine Law of the Moser to save corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and
Jack Gladstein, who were defendants in Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al and Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman
of the Daily News, LP, who defamed the Plaintiff and illegally disclosed her psychiatric and marital information to hide their
criminal facilitation of Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's commission of immigration fraud,
identity fraud and child abandonment.22 Defendant Garaufis is on a campaign to ensure that he commits any constitutional tort that will prevent Plaintiff
from reporting Jews Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman, who have broken the law, no matter
how illegal his actions are. Defendants, at the behest of Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis, have discriminated against Plaintiff
based on Plaintiff's ethnicity as a gentile/non-Jewish, her race as African-American/schvartze and her status of having a
mental illness by being recalcitrant, discriminatory and racist with regard to the administrative ban that permanently allows
Defendant appellate judges to withhold their names from decisions they render in Plaintiff's appeals. Plaintiff strongly alleges
that Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis has never done this with any litigant who is Jewish. Defendants have discriminated against
Plaintiff based on her status of having a mental illness by using their misdiagnosis that Plaintiff is psychotic and violent
to illegally obtain and exchange Plaintiff's HIPAA-protected information among themselves. Defendants have discriminated against
Plaintiff based on Plaintiff's ethnicity as a gentile/non-Jewish, her race as African-American/schvartze and her status of
having a mental illness by not allowing Plaintiff to have a copy of the documents that they illegally obtained and exchanged
amongst themselves in which Defendants hold Plaintiff to be psychotic and violent. Proof of Defendant New York State's and
New York City's continued conspiracy to attack the Plaintiff by violating her privacy with regard to her psychiatric history
and her marital information still exists at Daily News' website http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-11-05/local/17938323_1_supreme-court-judge-criminal-court; see Daily News article dated November 5, 200923, attached as Exhibit Q, in which staff writer Scott Shifrel publicly defames Plaintiff
as a “wacko”, makes reference to receiving information from Defendant New York State's “courthouse source”;
publicly disseminates nonpublic, confidential psychiatric and marital information that were acquired by Defendant State of
New York during the course of its adjudication of Plaintiff's criminal case and her divorce action; holds as true and correct
a falsified foreign, unauthenticated, unnotarized counter-affidavit that Plaintiff's ex-husband Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
used to hide his real identity and falsely claimed to be “Godwin Uzamere”, even though Plaintiff's ex-husband
was correctly identified and adjudicated by Defendant New York State to be Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere six (6) months earlier
in Defendant New York State' court. See documents regarding the identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband attached as Exhibit
R.
155) Plaintiff is under attack by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of
Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis, have continued the same government-wide hostile environment that Plaintiff complained about
in her prior lawsuit, Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv. Defendants continue to discriminate against
Plaintiff based on Plaintiff's ethnicity as a gentile/non-Jewish, her race as African-American/schvartze and her status of
having a mental illness because Plaintiff will not stop filing complaints against corrupt Jews immigration attorneys Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman. Defendants intentionally misdiagnosed Plaintiff as psychotic
and violent so as to deprive Plaintiff of the right to attend more integrated psychiatric treatment programs, even though
Plaintiff is compliant with psychiatric treatment. Defendants have accused Plaintiff of the commission of 18 USC §115,
and have discriminated against the Plaintiff by using her status of having a mental illness as an excuse to deprive her of
the right to defend herself in criminal court against said criminal charges so that Plaintiff can prove her innocence. In
Plaintiff's prior lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al Case Nos. 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv, Plaintiff provided Defendant
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis with proof that Defendant New York State conspired with the Daily News to defame the Plaintiff
as a “wacko” and illegally publicize Plaintiff's psychiatric and marital information.1 Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis has engaged in the same act of fraud. Defendant Nicholas A. Garaufis continues
to use the religious doctrine Law of the Moser to save corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein,
who were defendants in Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al and Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman of
the Daily News, LP, who defamed the Plaintiff and illegally disclosed her psychiatric and marital information to hide their
criminal facilitation of Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's commission of immigration fraud,
identity fraud and child abandonment.2 Defendant Garaufis is on a campaign to ensure that he commits any constitutional tort that will prevent Plaintiff
from reporting Jews Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman, who have broken the law, no matter
how illegal his actions are. Defendants, at the behest of Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis, have discriminated against Plaintiff
based on Plaintiff's ethnicity as a gentile/non-Jewish, her race as African-American/schvartze and her status of having a
mental illness by being recalcitrant, discriminatory and racist with regard to the administrative ban that permanently allows
Defendant appellate judges to withhold their names from decisions they render in Plaintiff's appeals. Plaintiff strongly alleges
that Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis has never done this with any litigant who is Jewish. Defendants have discriminated against
Plaintiff based on her status of having a mental illness by using their misdiagnosis that Plaintiff is psychotic and violent
to illegally obtain and exchange Plaintiff's HIPAA-protected information among themselves. Defendants have discriminated against
Plaintiff based on Plaintiff's ethnicity as a gentile/non-Jewish, her race as African-American/schvartze and her status of
having a mental illness by not allowing Plaintiff to have a copy of the documents that they illegally obtained and exchanged
amongst themselves in which Defendants hold Plaintiff to be psychotic and violent. Proof of Defendant New York State's and
New York City's continued conspiracy to attack the Plaintiff by violating her privacy with regard to her psychiatric history
and her marital information still exists at Daily News' website http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-11-05/local/17938323_1_supreme-court-judge-criminal-court; and http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435221996&slreturn=20120729115138; see Daily News article dated November 5, 20093, in which staff writer Scott Shifrel publicly defames Plaintiff as a “wacko”, makes reference
to receiving information from Defendant New York State's “courthouse source”; publicly disseminates nonpublic,
confidential psychiatric and marital information that were acquired by Defendant State of New York during the course of its
adjudication of Plaintiff's criminal case and her divorce action; see also see Law.com article dated November 6, 2009 attached
as Exhibit S, ; holds as true and correct a falsified foreign, unauthenticated, unnotarized counter-affidavit
that Plaintiff's ex-husband Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere used to hide his real identity and falsely claimed to be “Godwin
Uzamere”, even though Plaintiff's ex-husband was correctly identified and adjudicated by Defendant New York State to
be Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere six (6) months earlier in Defendant New York State' court. See documents regarding the identity
of Plaintiff's ex-husband attached as Exhibit T. THIRD CLAIM FOR
RELIEF Defendants Violated Sixth Amendment Mandate 157) Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
158) With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually
and in their official capacities.
159) Plaintiff is an American citizen of African descent with a serious, persistent mental illness.
Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. 160) Plaintiff is a qualified
individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
161) Plaintiff is under attack by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of Defendant
Nicholas G. Garaufis, have continued the same government-wide hostile environment that Plaintiff complained about in her prior
lawsuit, Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv. Defendants continue to publicly defame Plaintiff based
on Plaintiff's ethnicity as a gentile/non-Jewish, her race as African-American/schvartze and her status of having a mental
illness because Plaintiff filed complaints against corrupt Jews immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack
Gladstein and corrupt newspaper publisher Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman. Defendants wrongfully accused Plaintiff of
the commission of 18 USC §115, while depriving Plaintiff of the right to be informed in writing of the nature and cause
of any criminal accusation against Plaintiff, to confront adversarial witnesses and witnesses in Plaintiff's defense, and
to have the assistance of counsel. In Plaintiff's prior lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al Case Nos. 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv,
Plaintiff provided Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis with proof that Defendant New York State conspired with the Daily
News, by its staff writer Scott Shifrel to defame the Plaintiff as a “wacko” and illegally publicize Plaintiff's
psychiatric and marital information. Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis has engaged in the same act of fraud. Defendant Nicholas
A. Garaufis continues to use the religious doctrine Law of the Moser to save corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey
Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, who were defendants in Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al and Jewish billionaire
Mortimer Zuckerman of the Daily News, LP, who defamed the Plaintiff and illegally disclosed her psychiatric and marital information
to hide their criminal facilitation of Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's commission of immigration
fraud, identity fraud and child abandonment. Defendant Garaufis is on a campaign to ensure that he commits any constitutional
tort that will prevent Plaintiff from reporting Jews Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman,
who have broken the law, no matter how illegal his actions are. Defendants arrogantly presumed that based on Plaintiff's status
as having a mental illness, Plaintiff would not be able to figure out that Defendants were violating the law; and that if
Plaintiff did figure it out, Defendant would recommence the same acts of intimidation, public defamation of Plaintiff as psychotic
and violent and use of inpatient psychiatric hospitalization as a substitute for prison to coerce/extort Plaintiff's silence. 162) Defendants
have failed to meet the obligations as detailed in the Sixth Amendment. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff based on
Plaintiff's ethnicity as a gentile/non-Jewish, her race as African-American/schvartze and her status of having a mental illness
intentionally misdiagnosed as psychotic and violent as an excuse to force Plaintiff to attend confining ACT Team services
instead of more integrated psychiatric services for which Plaintiff is qualified as an excuse to deprive Plaintiff of her
Sixth Amendment rights to notice of accusation, witnesses and appointment of defense counsel. Plaintiff emphatically states
that 18 USC §4 requires individuals to report the commission of federal crimes, such that Defendants have no excuse for
not reporting that Plaintiff committed 18 USC §115. Plaintiff strongly alleges that Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis,
in orchestrating the conspiracy with the U.S. Marshal Service to intimidate Plaintiff to keep silent and not file an appeal
against his FRCP-lacking, memorandum-lacking decision for Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, has opened
the means by which, at his behest, without a trial, have any government agency claim that Plaintiff's mental illness caused
her to engage in criminal behavior that renders Plaintiff ineligible to attend criminal court, in order to prevent Plaintiff
from speaking to an attorney about her civil lawsuit regarding Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis' illegal decision in Plaintiff's
lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al. Plaintiff alleges that the only way that Plaintiff can avoid Defendants' intimidation,
false criminal allegations and Defendants' use of psychiatric inpatient hospitalization as a substitute for prison is by keeping
silent and not filing papers against which Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis has a bias.
163) Plaintiff
respectfully submits before this Court that Defendants' violation of Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment rights based solely because
Plaintiff's is a gentile/non-Jewish, African-American/schvartze who filed complaints against corrupt Jews immigration attorneys
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, such that Plaintiff's verified complaint rises to
the level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 with regard to those Defendants who are natural persons only. Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme Court's application
of Bivens to natural persons and its refusal to extend Bivens to agencies. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 USC §1983
– Civil Action For Deprivation Of Rights
42 USC §1985 - Conspiracy To Interfere With Civil Rights
164)
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
165) With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually
and in their official capacities.
166) Plaintiff is an American citizen of African descent with a serious and persistent mental
illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. 167) Plaintiff is a qualified
individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
168) Plaintiff is under attack by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of Defendant
Nicholas G. Garaufis, have continued the same government-wide hostile environment that Plaintiff complained about in her prior
lawsuit, Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv. Defendants continue to deprive Plaintiff of her civil rights
because Plaintiff is a gentile/non-Jewish African-American/schvartze with the status of having a mental illness because Plaintiff
filed complaints against corrupt Jews immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman.
In Plaintiff's prior lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al Case Nos. 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv, Plaintiff provided Defendant
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis with proof that Defendant New York State conspired with the Daily News, by its staff writer Scott
Shifrel to defame the Plaintiff as a “wacko” and illegally publicize Plaintiff's psychiatric and marital information.
Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis has engaged in the same act of fraud. Defendant Nicholas A. Garaufis continues to use the religious
doctrine Law of the Moser to save corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, who were defendants
in Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al and Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman of the Daily News, LP,
who defamed the Plaintiff and illegally disclosed her psychiatric and marital information to hide their criminal facilitation
of Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's commission of immigration fraud, identity fraud and child
abandonment. Defendant Garaufis is on a campaign to ensure that he commits any constitutional tort that will prevent Plaintiff
from reporting Jews Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman, who have broken the law, no matter
how illegal his actions are. Plaintiff reiterates and realleges the following acts that are irrefutable proof that Defendants
interfered with and deprived Plaintiff's of her civil rights: 1) publicly defamed Plaintiff by accusing Plaintiff of the commission
of 18 USC §115; 2) deprived Plaintiff of the right to be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any criminal
accusation against Plaintiff; 3) deprived Plaintiff of the opportunity to confront adversarial witnesses and witnesses in
Plaintiff's defense; 4) deprived Plaintiff of the right to assistance of counsel; 5) confined Plaintiff to more confining
ACT Team services instead of more integrated psychiatric program; Defendants arrogantly presumed that based on Plaintiff's
status as having a mental illness Plaintiff would not be able to figure out that Defendants were violating the law; and that
if Plaintiff did figure it out, Defendant would recommence the same acts of intimidation, public defamation of Plaintiff as
psychotic and violent and use of inpatient psychiatric hospitalization as a substitute for prison to coerce/extort Plaintiff's
silence. 169)
Defendants have failed to meet the obligations as detailed in 42 USC §1983 and §1983. Defendants discriminated
against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff's ethnicity as a gentile/non-Jewish, her race as African-American/schvartze and her status
of having a mental illness intentionally misdiagnosed as psychotic and violent as an excuse to force Plaintiff to attend confining
ACT Team services instead of more integrated psychiatric services for which Plaintiff is qualified as an excuse to deprive
Plaintiff of her Sixth Amendment rights to notice of accusation, witnesses and appointment of defense counsel. Plaintiff emphatically
states that 18 USC §4 requires individuals to report the commission of federal crimes, such that Defendants have no excuse
for not reporting that Plaintiff committed 18 USC §115. Plaintiff strongly alleges that Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis,
in orchestrating the conspiracy with the U.S. Marshal Service to intimidate Plaintiff to keep silent and not file an appeal
against his FRCP-lacking, memorandum-lacking decision for Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, has opened
the means by which, at his behest, without a trial, have any government agency claim that Plaintiff's mental illness caused
her to engage in criminal behavior that renders Plaintiff ineligible to attend criminal court in order to prevent Plaintiff
from speaking to an attorney about her civil lawsuit regarding Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis' illegal decision in Plaintiff's
lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al. Plaintiff alleges that the only way that Plaintiff can avoid Defendants' intimidation,
false criminal allegations and Defendants' use of psychiatric inpatient hospitalization as a substitute for prison is by keeping
silent and not filing papers against which Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis has a bias.
170) Plaintiff respectfully submits that Defendants' violation of 42 USC §1983 and §1985
because Plaintiff's is a gentile/non-Jewish, African-American/schvartze who filed complaints against corrupt Jews immigration
attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, such that Plaintiff's verified complaint
rises to the level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 with regard to those Defendants who are natural persons only. Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme Court's
application of Bivens to natural persons and its refusal to extend Bivens to agencies. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Health Insurance Portability
And Accountability Act Of 1996
Wrongful Disclosure Of Individually Identifiable Health Information
171)
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
172) With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually
and in their official capacities.
173) Plaintiff is an American citizen of African descent with a serious and persistent mental
illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. 174) Plaintiff is a qualified
individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
175) Plaintiff is under attack
by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis, have continued the same government-wide
hostile environment that Plaintiff complained about in her prior lawsuit, Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv.
Defendants continue to deprive Plaintiff of her constitutional right to privacy because Plaintiff's is a gentile/non-Jewish,
African-American/schvartze who filed complaints against corrupt Jews immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman; that Defendants intentionally misdiagnosed as psychotic and violent in order to obtain
and exchange between themselves information regarding Plaintiff's mental illness, including where Plaintiff receives psychotherapy
without Plaintiff's authorization and signature and without a court order. Defendants further deprived Plaintiff of her right
to privacy of her HIPAA-protected psychiatric information. In Plaintiff's prior lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al
Case Nos. 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv, Plaintiff provided Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis with proof that Defendant New York
State conspired with the Daily News, by its staff writer Scott Shifrel to defame the Plaintiff as a “wacko” and
illegally publicize Plaintiff's psychiatric and marital information. Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis has engaged in the same
act of fraud. Defendant Nicholas A. Garaufis continues to use the religious doctrine Law of the Moser to save corrupt Jewish
attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, who were defendants in Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo,
et al and Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman of the Daily News, LP, who defamed the Plaintiff and illegally disclosed
her psychiatric and marital information to hide their criminal facilitation of Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian Senator Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere's commission of immigration fraud, identity fraud and child abandonment. Defendant Garaufis is on a campaign
to ensure that he commits any constitutional tort that will prevent Plaintiff from reporting Jews Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman, who have broken the law, no matter how illegal his actions are. Defendants arrogantly
presumed that based on Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness Plaintiff would not be able to figure out that Defendants
were violating Plaintiff's right to privacy with regard to her HIPAA-protected psychiatric information; and that even if Plaintiff
did figure it out, Defendant would recommence the same acts of intimidation, public defamation of Plaintiff as psychotic and
violent and use of inpatient psychiatric hospitalization as a substitute for prison to coerce/extort Plaintiff's silence. 176) Defendants
have failed to meet the obligations as detailed in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Defendants
discriminated against Plaintiff because Plaintiff's is a gentile/non-Jewish, African-American/schvartze who filed complaints
against corrupt Jews immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman; Defendants
used their fraudulent misdiagnosis of the Plaintiff as psychotic and violent as an excuse to delve into Plaintiff's psychiatric
records at the clandestine behest of Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis. Plaintiff strongly alleges that Defendant Judge
Nicholas G. Garaufis, in orchestrating the conspiracy with other Defendants to intimidate Plaintiff to keep silent and not
file an appeal against his FRCP-lacking, memorandum-lacking decision for Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al,
has opened the means by which, at his clandestine behest, and without a trial, have any government agency claim that Plaintiff's
mental illness caused her to engage in criminal behavior and then illegally delve into Plaintiff's psychiatric records. Plaintiff
alleges that the only way that Plaintiff can avoid Defendants' intimidation, false criminal allegations and Defendants' use
of psychiatric inpatient hospitalization as a substitute for prison is by keeping silent and not filing lawsuits against which
Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis has a bias.
177) Plaintiff respectfully submits that Defendants' violation of HIPAA because Plaintiff's
is a gentile/non-Jewish, African-American/schvartze who filed complaints against corrupt Jews immigration attorneys Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, such that Plaintiff's Verified Complaint rises to
the level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 with regard to those Defendants who are natural persons only. Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme Court's application
of Bivens to natural persons and its refusal to extend Bivens to agencies. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEFCivil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601 178) Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
179) With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually
and in their official capacities.
180) Plaintiff is an American citizen of African descent with a serious and persistent mental
illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. 181) Plaintiff is a qualified
individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
182) Plaintiff is under attack by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of Defendant
Nicholas G. Garaufis, have continued the same government-wide hostile environment that Plaintiff complained about in her prior
lawsuit, Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv. Defendants continue to deprive Plaintiff of her civil rights,
and to discriminate against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff's status of her ethnicity as gentile/non-Jewish and as her race,
African-American/schvartze and her status of having a mental illness because Plaintiff will not stop filing complaints against
corrupt Jews immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman. In Plaintiff's prior
lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al Case Nos. 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv, Plaintiff provided Defendant Judge Nicholas G.
Garaufis with proof that Defendant New York State conspired with the Daily News, by its staff writer Scott Shifrel to defame
the Plaintiff as an “anti-Semitic wacko” and illegally publicize Plaintiff's psychiatric and marital information.
Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis has engaged in the same act of fraud. Defendant Nicholas A. Garaufis continues to use the Talmudic
doctrine Law of the Moser to save corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, who were defendants
in Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al and Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman of the Daily News, LP,
who defamed the Plaintiff and illegally disclosed her psychiatric and marital information to hide their criminal facilitation
of Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's commission of immigration fraud, identity fraud and child
abandonment. The same Talmud, of which Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis is an an adherent, advocates
in its Tractate 108b and footnote 34 that black skin is the sign of a curse, as do other Jewish religious literature, and
that blacks are meant to be enslaved. See Babylonian Talmud, 108b, footnote 34; Midrash Rabbah, page 293;
Legend of the Jews, Volume 1, page 169; Artsot Ha-Hayyim, page 52 (A and B) attached at Exhibit
S. Defendant Garaufis is on a campaign to ensure that he commits any constitutional tort that will prevent Plaintiff
from reporting corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman, who have broken
the law, no matter how illegal his actions are. Plaintiff strongly alleges that Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis is insulted
that the Plaintiff, a lowlife, socially worthless, mentally disabled schvartze has the audacity, not only to file a complaint
against his Jewish brethren, but to challenge his authority as a white, Jewish male. Defendant Garaufis' varied attempts to
prevent the Plaintiff from filing any more lawsuits against his Jewish friends include: his use of the U.S. Marshal Service
for the Eastern District of New York to visit the Plaintiff's home to intimidate the Plaintiff into believing that “annoying”
him is actionable in a court of law; his use of Defendants OMH and HHC to hospitalize Plaintiff for a crime she never committed
so as to solidify his Jewish friend Mortimer Zuckerman's newspaper's public description of the Plaintiff as a psychotic, violent
anti-Semitic schvartze; and his conspiring with fellow Jew psychiatrist Scott A. Berger to misdiagnose Plaintiff by attempting
to trick Plaintiff into believing that she made a threatening phone call to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service's
call center, something that CMS has consistently held that Plaintiff never did, is proof of Defendant Garaufis' bigotry, arrogance
and psychopathy associated with his apparent belief that a criminal act is not a criminal act if a Jew violates the rights
of a schvartze, and that violating the rights of a schvartze to ensure that the schvartze is kept in a position of subservience
to a Jew is more of a mitzvah than an illegal act. Lastly, Plaintiff reminds this Court that when Defendant Nicholas A. Garaufis
employed the services of fellow Jew Dr. Scott A. Berger, that Dr. Berger, in intentionally misdiagnosing Plaintiff based on
a crime she never committed, employed the service of the rest of the members of the ACT Team – all of whom are black.
This Court must not buy into the warped belief that the blacks who participated in misdiagnosing the Plaintiff are not responsible
for utilizing Defendants Garaufis' and Dr. Berger's acts of bias because they are non-Jewish blacks like the Plaintiff. They
participated, therefore, they are just as liable for violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI as the Jewish Defendants
who participated. 183)
Defendants have failed to meet the obligations as detailed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601. Defendants
discriminated against because Plaintiff's is a gentile/non-Jewish, African-American/schvartze who filed complaints against
corrupt Jews immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman. Defendants used their
fraudulent misdiagnosis of the Plaintiff as psychotic and violent as an excuse to deprive Plaintiff of her Sixth Amendment
rights to notice of accusation, witnesses and appointment of defense counsel. Plaintiff emphatically states that 18 USC §4
requires individuals to report the commission of federal crimes, such that Defendants have no excuse for not reporting that
Plaintiff committed 18 USC §115. Plaintiff strongly alleges that Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, in orchestrating
the conspiracy with the U.S. Marshal Service to intimidate Plaintiff to keep silent and not file an appeal against his FRCP-lacking,
memorandum-lacking decision for Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, has opened the means by which, at his
behest, without a trial, have any government agency claim that Plaintiff's mental illness caused her to engage in criminal
behavior that renders Plaintiff ineligible to attend criminal court in order to prevent Plaintiff from speaking to an attorney
about her civil lawsuit regarding Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis' illegal decision in Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere
vs. Cuomo, et al. Plaintiff alleges that the only way that Plaintiff can avoid Defendants' intimidation, false criminal
allegations and Defendants' use of psychiatric inpatient hospitalization as a substitute for prison is by keeping silent and
not filing papers against which Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis has a religious/racial bias. 184) Plaintiff respectfully
submits that Defendants' violation of 42 USC §1983, §1985 because Plaintiff's is a gentile/non-Jewish, African-American/schvartze
who filed complaints against corrupt Jews immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer
Zuckerman; violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, such that Plaintiff's verified complaint rises
to the level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 with regard to those Defendants who are natural persons only. Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme Court's application
of Bivens to natural persons and its refusal to extend Bivens to agencies. Judges Garaufis, Schack, Sunshine and Gerstein Committed Fraud Upon The Court
185)
In every single case in which Plaintiff presented irrefutable proof that immigration attorney Allen E. Kaye, Harvey
Shapiro and Jack Gladstein engaged in criminally facilitating the immigration fraud and identity fraud of Plaintiff's ex-husband,
the judge in that case would render a decision that would absolve the attorneys of any criminal or civil liability. The defendant
judges acted, not as judges, but as attorneys for the defendants, leaving the position of judge unfilled by a U.S. Constitution-obeying,
unbiased judge. Their actions stink of fraud upon the court, which under the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Seventh and Tenth
Circuit, renders any decision rendered by them null and void. Defendant Judge Garaufis continued the constitutional violations
of the previous judges by orchestrating Defendant U.S. Marshal Service's visit to Plaintiff's apartment to discover if Plaintiff
was home alone, and then once Plaintiff's being at home alone was established, to have Plaintiff declared psychotic and violent
so as to hospitalize Plaintiff against her will, thereby preventing Plaintiff from filing an appeal against his FRCP-lacking,
memorandum-lacking decision, and ultimately, against the defendant attorneys who criminally facilitated the immigration fraud
and identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband. Defendant Judge Garaufis' act establishes proof that his decision in the case Uzamere
vs. Cuomo, et al was an act of bias that rises to the level of an act of fraud upon the court. In Plaintiff's prior lawsuit
Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al Case Nos. 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv, Plaintiff provided Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis
with proof that the Daily News, by its staff writer Scott Shifrel defamed the Plaintiff and illegally publicized Plaintiff's
psychiatric information. Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis has engaged in the same act of fraud. Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis
continues to use the religious doctrine Law of the Moser to save corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and
Jack Gladstein, who were defendants in Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al and Jewish billionaire Mortimer
Zuckerman of the Daily News, LP, who defamed the Plaintiff and illegally disclosed her psychiatric and marital information
to hide their criminal facilitation of Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's commission of immigration
fraud, identity fraud and child abandonment. Defendant Garaufis is on a campaign to ensure that he commits any constitutional
tort that will prevent Plaintiff from reporting Jews Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman,
who have broken the law, no matter how illegal his actions are. “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.”
“Under . . . Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon
the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.”
186) Plaintiff respectfully submits to this Court that Defendant Judge Garaufis' commencement
and orchestration to defame Plaintiff as psychotic and violent to stop her from filing her appeal against his FRCP-lacking,
memorandum-lacking decision are irrefutable proof that his decision in Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al
was an act of fraud upon the court.
187) In Plaintiff's lawsuit, Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, Defendant Judge Garaufis rendered
a decision that did not incorporate the FRCP, something that is required by federal statute and federal case law. See Crisafi,
v. Holland, et al, 655 F.2d 1305 (1981). Plaintiff filed her appeal, and later on received a one-page decision based
on Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). The decision left out the name of Defendant appellate judges who rendered
their decision. When Plaintiff contacted Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Plaintiff was told that the judges' names were
left out because the Plaintiff had threatened judges. When Plaintiff told her that her statement was not true, Defendant O'Hagan
Wolfe stated that Plaintiff threatened Defendant New York State's judge Jeffrey S. Sunshine, something that is not true. Plaintiff
respectfully submits that Defendant Judge Garaufis is angry that the schvartze Plaintiff will not stop filing complaints against
Defendants who, like him, are corrupt Jews. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Judge Garaufis' anger is also exacerbated
because Plaintiff has become adept enough at mounting a legal defense that Defendant Garaufis is running out of ways to trick
the Plaintiff in a manner that does not appear to be blatantly illegal. Federal
Judges Are Required to Construe Pro Se Litigant's Pleadings Liberally
188) In the U.S. Supreme Court case Haines V. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519 (1972), Petitioner
Menard, a person convicted by the State of Illinois as a felon – and an individual deemed by the State of Illinois to
be unworthy of living with law-abiding citizens of Illinois, commenced an action against the Governor of Illinois and other
state officers and prison officials under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and 28 U.S.C. §1343(3),
seeking to recover damages for claimed injuries and deprivation of rights while incarcerated. The Federal District Court dismissed
Mr. Menard's complaint and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Federal District Court's decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, decided against the Federal District's and U.S. Court of Appeals' decisions. The U.S. Supreme
Court stated in its decision that “Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration
of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity
to offer supporting evidence. . . Accordingly, although we intimate no view whatever on the merits of petitioner's allegations,
we conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof.”
189) Plaintiff requests a jury trial; in fact, Plaintiff made sure to include her request for
a jury trial on the first page of her Verified Complaint.
190) According to Wikipedia.com, it says that “In a jury trial, a jury is the trier of
fact. The jury finds the facts and applies them to the law it is instructed by the judge to use in order to reach its verdict.
Thus, in a jury trial, the findings of fact are made by the jury while the judge makes legal rulings as to what evidence will
be heard by the jury and what law governs the case.” A major question of fact for this Court is whether Defendant Judge
Nicholas G. Garaufis and the U.S. Marshal Service for the Eastern District of New York lied and defamed the Plaintiff by telling
others that Plaintiff threatened Defendant Garaufis with bodily harm. Defendants OMH and HHC say in writing and on telephone
recording that they did. Plaintiff Fears Racial and Collegial Loyalty to
Defendant Garaufis and Racist Hatred of
Plaintiff and Hatred of Plaintiff Based on Her Status of Having a Mental Illness
191)
While this Court has the power to play the racist role and make a fraudulent decision by ruling on the facts, this Court
does not have the legal right to render a decision as to the facts presented in Plaintiff's Verified Complaint. The only way
to determine the facts is by the trier-of-fact, that is, the jury. In addition, as in federal lawsuits where the attorneys
and the Defendant on both sides are Jews, the Court allows each attorney to engage in discovery of each other records. There
is no constitutional rationale that prevents this Court from allowing the Plaintiff to engage in discovery of Defendants'
records. Plaintiff respectfully reminds this Court that Law of the Moser or some other sense of loyalty to Defendant
Garaufis or other Jews is not a constitutional imperative.
192) Plaintiff directs this Court's attention to the website Cornell University Law School's Legal
Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_trial), where is says: “Jury Trial: A type of trial in which a judge determines questions of law and entrusts designated
questions of fact to a panel of jurors.” It also cites Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary: “A trial of a lawsuit
or criminal prosecution in which the case is presented to a jury for final determination of the factual questions.”
Plaintiff reminds this Court: This Court does not have the right to decide on questions of fact. Plaintiff requested a jury
trial on page 1 of her lawsuit. Rendering a decision of fact by this Court's makes its decision null and void as an act of
fraud upon the Court. 193)
Plaintiff begs this Court not to copy Defendant Garaufis' racism, discrimination of the mentally disabled and disrespect
for the U.S. Constitution, but to allow Plaintiff to offer proof of those facts contained in Plaintiff's Verified Complaint,
even if Plaintiff's lawsuit is inartfully drawn. There Is No Constitutional
Or Statutory Rationale To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
194) In the past, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant Garaufis has fraudulently misused reasons in the Federal Rules of Civil Practice to illegally dismiss
Plaintiff's Verified Complaint. Plaintiff believes that Defendant Garaufis' primarily relies on the religious doctrine Law
of the Moser to prevent Plaintiff from reporting the crimes/torts of corrupt Jews attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Jack Gladstein and Mortimer Zuckerman. Plaintiff believes that the following FRCP reasons for dismissal do not apply to Plaintiff's
Verified Complaint: (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) lack of personal jurisdiction; (3) improper venue; (4) insufficient
process; (5) insufficient service of process; (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (7) failure
to join a party under Rule 19.
195) Plaintiff respectfully reminds this Court that even if Plaintiff fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, Plaintiff would have the legal right to require this Court to point out Plaintiff's mistakes
and allow Plaintiff to make necessary changes to ensure that Plaintiff’s amended Verified Complaint states a claim on
which relief can be granted. Plaintiff reminds this Court that Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim can be unfavorably
construed to render Plaintiff's Verified Complaint as res judicata, thereby preventing Plaintiff from filing this
action in any other court. Plaintiff needs to ensure that this Court obeys the law and allows Plaintiff to make needed changes
to her Verified Complaint. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) page 138. Plaintiff's Request for Review of Her Allegations Satisfies
the “Good Faith” Requirement
of Coppedge v. United States
196) According to Coppedge v. United States, “The requirement that an appeal
in forma pauperis be taken "in good faith" is satisfied when the defendant seeks. . .review of any issue that is
not frivolous. Pp. 369 U. S. 444-445.
197) According to Coppedge vs. United States, “If, with such aid, the applicant then presents any issue for
the court's consideration which is not clearly frivolous, leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be granted. P. 369 U. S.
446. . .P. 369 U. S. 448.”
198) Farley V. United States, 354 U.S. 521, 77 S.Ct. 1371, 1 L.Ed.2d 1529 defines how
the U.S. Supreme Court applies the “good faith” standard. It states that “In the absence of some evident
improper motive, the applicant's good faith is established by the presentation of any issue that is not plainly frivolous.
The good-faith test must not be converted into a requirement of a preliminary showing of any particular degree of merit. Unless
the issues raised are so frivolous that the appeal would be dismissed in the case of a nonindigent litigant . . . the request
of an indigent for leave to appeal in forma pauperis must be allowed.
199) Is government Defendants' violation of Title II, ADA to be a non-frivolous issue? It certainly
does. In the case Disability Advocates, Inc., v. David A. Paterson, et al, the District Court stated: “The
Supreme Court held in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), that “[u]njustified isolation . . . is properly regarded
as discrimination based on disability,” observing that “institutional placement of persons who can handle and
benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable of or unworthy
of participating in community life.” 527 U.S. at 597, 600. The “integration mandate” of Title II of the
American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §791
et seq., as expressed in federal regulations and Olmstead, requires that when a state provides services to individuals with
disabilities, it must do so “in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.” The “most integrated
setting,” according to the federal regulations, is “a setting that enables individuals with disabilities to interact
with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent possible.” 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d); 28 C.F.R. pt. 35 app. A. 200) Not
only does the U.S. Supreme Court consider violation of Title II, ADA a non-frivolous matter, it allows private citizens to
file suit for damages against governmental agencies and instrumentalities that violate their rights. According to the U.S.
Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), “Title II, §§12131–12134, prohibits
any public entity from discriminating against “qualified” persons with disabilities in the provision or operation
of public services, programs, or activities. The Act defines the term “public entity” to include state and local
governments, as well as their agencies and instrumentalities. §12131(1). Persons with disabilities are “qualified”
if they, “with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication,
or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, mee[t] the essential eligibility requirements
for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.” §12131(2).
Title II’s enforcement provision incorporates by reference §505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 92 Stat. 2982,
as added, 29 U.S.C. §794a, which authorizes private citizens to bring suits for money damages. 42 U. S. C. §12133.” Jewish Preeminence in the Mental Health Care Arena Continues Defendants'
Blacklisting of
Plaintiff and Violates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act;
A Bastion of Jewish Privilege 201) On
or near February 23, 2010, while the Plaintiff was in her apartment faxing letters of complaint regarding Defendant Sunshine
to various governmental agencies, a social worker from Brookdale Hospital contacted the management office of New York City
Housing Authority's Louis H. Pink Houses, the New York City Police Department and the New York City Fire Department. An employee
of the New York City Housing Authority opened the Plaintiff's apartment door, and Plaintiff was taken out of her apartment
by force and hospitalized by Defendant OMH'S Kingsboro Psychiatric Center. During Plaintiff's last week as an inpatient, Kingsboro
social worker Laurie Velcimé informed the Plaintiff that she was engaged in aftercare preparation, including locating
an outpatient mental health program. The Plaintiff advised Ms. Velcimé that she was interested in attending New York
Psychotherapy and Counseling Center (NYPCC) on Hendrix Street, located close to where the Plaintiff lives. NYPCC is a Jewish-run
outpatient psychiatric care facility. After Ms. Velcimé performed a search of NYPCC and other outpatient mental
health care providers, she informed the Plaintiff that not only had NYPCC refused to accept Plaintiff as a client, but that
virtually all the not-for-profit outpatient mental health facilities that Ms. Velcimé contacted rejected her request
to provide Plaintiff with outpatient psychiatric care. Some of the outpatient psychiatric facilities who have blacklisted
the Plaintiff are as follows: FEGS, Inc.; Interfaith Hospital and Medical Center; New York Psychotherapy and Counseling
Center and the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn.
202) The vast majority of New York City's psychiatric patients are African Americans. However,
the vast majority of the individuals who supervise outpatient psychiatric facilities are Jews. Plaintiff continues to
be a victim of blacklisting by members of the outpatient psychiatric care facilities who are Jewish, even though the facilities
are funded by New York City, New York State and federal governments. The miniscule competition that non-Jewish-run outpatient
psychiatric care facilities pose to Jewish-run outpatient psychiatric care facilities places African American patients in
a position to be forced to observe cultures that Jews require them to practice that African Americans do not know. Worse,
it places any non-Jew who has a disagreement with a member of any Jewish-run outpatient psychiatric care facility in a position
to be forced out by all, in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. New York State's, and by extension, New York City's outpatient
mental health arena have become a bastion of Jew privilege, where the executives are predominately Jews who only hire mostly
Jews, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, while employees of African descent make much lower salaries, and while
the consumers, most of them people of African descent, are used like slaves to feed the high salaries of Jewish executives. 203)
Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act says: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations,
is declared to be illegal." Section 2 says: "Every person
who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any
part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony. . ."
The Jewish community's blacklisting of Plaintiff from so many known and not yet known outpatient psychiatric care facilities
has a negative effect of Plaintiff's ability to obtain adequate psychiatric care, and more importantly, violates Plaintiff's
right to engage in the competitive free trade market. Certain Issues
Presented In Plaintiff's Lawsuit Require Certain
Judges To Disqualify Themselves
204)
Plaintiff quotes the following: “Federal law
requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
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).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance
of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters
is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir.
1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”)
(“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias
in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse
himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O'Grady, 888
F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It
is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that
“justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038
(1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). “Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the
judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O'Grady,
888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge
has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte,
even if no motion or affidavit is filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge
not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality"
which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the
second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of
the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void
as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should
a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United
States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based,
not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).
205) It should be apparent to
those judges who are Jewish that the disqualification requirement applies to them. Plaintiff's lawsuit addresses what Plaintiff
alleges to be the abject encroachment of the Jewish religious doctrines Law of the Moser and the Curse of Black
Skin into the federal court system, and how the encroachment of these doctrines negatively affect the manner in which
Jewish judges render decisions when single, unrepresented litigants file lawsuits in which defendants are Jews. Plaintiff
reminds this Court that she is familiar with the 28 USC §455, and asks the Court not to take advantage of her because
she is a mentally disabled schvartze. Every judge who is Jewish has a constitutional duty to recuse themselves sua sponte
without Plaintiff's having to file a motion to do so. GOOD FAITH CERTIFICATION 206) I,
Cheryl D. Uzamere, certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge; that I have provided tangible,
irrefutable proof of my allegations before this Court; that I researched both facts and relevant law to the best of my ability
to ensure accuracy so that my Verified Complaint is presented to this Court in good faith and not to waste this Court's time.
I certify before this Court that I do not present this Verified Complaint to embarrass, annoy or defame the Defendants pursuant
to the laws for perjury.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following:
a) to proceed in forma pauperis;
b) for a jury trial;
c) appointment of pro bono counsel only to ensure that Plaintiff's Verified
Complaint reaches judicial muster;
d) to employ a disinterested entity of this Court’s choosing to serve process of Plaintiff’s
Verified Complaint;
e) to require this Court to explain in detail its FRCP-based reasons for dismissing Plaintiff's
Verified Complaint; and to give Plaintiff an opportunity to make needed corrections so that Plaintiff can resubmit her Verified
Complaint; f)
for this Court not to declare a judgment that renders Plaintiff's lawsuit res judicata, without a jury trial.
g) to require all judges who are Jewish to disqualify themselves pursuant to Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540 (1993), United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U. S. 563, 58324, 28 USC §455 and the United State Code of Conduct for Judges, Canon (3)(C)(1)(a).25 h) to
limit the production of Plaintiff's psychiatric documents to those specifically related to those days in which the alleged
constitutional torts were specifically recorded in Plaintiff's psychiatric records;
i) for Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Robert Moore and Denis P. McGowan
to produce the name of the person who gave the report; the name of the person who made the accusation against the Plaintiff
and voice recording of Plaintiff making the threat as detailed in Plaintiff's Notice to Admit; j) for all Defendants to produce
proof that Plaintiff made threats to judges and federal employees by producing voice recordings, typed documents or handwritten
documents as specified in Plaintiff's Notice to Admit;
k) for Defendant Garaufis to established his innocence by holding the U.S. Marshal Service for
the Eastern District of New York criminally liable for commission of 18 USC §1001; l) for summary judgment in favor
of the Plaintiff if Defendants refuse to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests; m) to declare Defendant Nicholas
G. Garaufis's decision in Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al an act of fraud upon the court and render
said decision null and void, and to allow Plaintiff to reopen her lawsuit based on Defendant Garaufis' prior act of fraud
upon the court; n)
an injunction permanently barring Defendant Nicholas G. Garaufis from presiding over any of Plaintiff's lawsuits in
the future; o)
to ensure that if any federal judge makes any statement that questions Plaintiff's mental state, that said judge be
required to first evaluate Plaintiff's mental state, then assign Plaintiff an attorney/guardian ad litem pursuant
to FRCP 17(c)(2) if the Court finds that Plaintiff is mentally incompetent.
p) for the Court to notify Plaintiff's daughter Tara A. Uzamere, RN in the event the Court initiates
any forensic examination regarding Plaintiff's mental competence and to allow her to attend any forensic examination as an
expert witness where Plaintiff's presence is required, and to financially compensate her. See Tara A. Uzamere's graduation
photograph and correspondence from the New York State Education Department's Licensing Division bearing Tara's license number
attached as Exhibit T.
q) to establish proof that Plaintiff's appeal with regard to her lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo,
et al was actually reviewed by appellate judges; to reveal the names of the appellate judges who rendered their decision
in Plaintiff's appeal Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al if Plaintiff's appeal was actually reviewed; and to determine if judges
for the 2nd circuit treated lawsuits Uzamere vs. State of New York, et al and Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al as
one and the same lawsuit. r)
if this Court dismisses Defendant U.S. Marshal Service or any other non-person Defendant consistent with Correctional
Services Corporation, v. John E. Malesko, with reference to Bivens, 42 USC §1983 and §1985 or other
statute that does not extend to federal or state agencies, that this Court retain the rest of said action against Defendants
relative to their violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pursuant to Fogg vs. Gonzales against Defendant U.S.
Marshal Service, its employees, and all other Defendants;
s) open up New York State's outpatient psychiatric care arena to allow African-Americans so
that African-Americans psychiatric workers are the supervisors, and are in charge of providing culturally-sensitive care to
African-American outpatient because Jews are not culturally sensitive or culturally knowledgeable to the needs of African-American
(including Caribbean-Americans, Africans from Africa and African-Latinos).
t) for an award of monetary damages in the amount of $20,000,000.00 (or for an amount the Court
finds reasonable) and for such other relief that this Court deems just and proper. Dated:
Brooklyn, New York
September __, 2012 CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING
PRO SE 
_____________________ Cheryl D.
Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue,
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (347) 985-2495 LORETTA E. LYNCH, ESQ. United States Attorney
271
Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel.: (718) 254-7000
JOSEPH PATERNO, ESQ.
New York State Attorney
General's Office
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271
Tel.:
(212) 416-8155
MICHAEL A. CARDOZO
New York City Law Dept.
100 Church Street
New York, NY
10007
Tel.: (212) 788-0303
ROBERT P. BORSODY, ESQ. Mental Health
Association of New York City
50 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel.: (212) 254-0333
ALLEN E. KAYE, ESQ. Allen E. Kaye, P.C.
111 Broadway
13th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel.: (212)
964-5858
HARVEY
SHAPIRO, ESQ.
Law Offices of Harvey Shapiro
250 W. 57th Street
Suite 1720
New York, NY
10107
Tel.: (212) 355-5240
OSATO EUGENE UZAMERE, ESQ. Uzamere
and Associates, PLLC
1851 Watson Avenue
Bronx, NY 10472
(718) 409-3389
JACK GLADSTEIN, ESQ.
Gladstein & Messinger
118-21 Queens Boulevard
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel.: (718) 793-7800
EHIGIE EDOBOR
UZAMERE The National Assembly Complex
3 Arms Zones
P.M.B 141
Abuja FCT
Nigeria
Tel.: (234)(9) 523-2127
 1 18 USC §712 says the following: “Whoever, in the course of collecting or aiding in the collection
of private debts or obligations, or being engaged in furnishing private police, investigation, or other private detective
services, uses or employs in any communication, correspondence, notice, advertisement, or circular the words “national”,
“Federal”, or “United States”, the initials “U.S.”, or any emblem, insignia, or name,
for the purpose of conveying and in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the false impression that such communication
is from a department, agency, bureau, or instrumentality of the United States or in any manner represents the United States,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” 10 In Re: Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643: Willful blindness is knowledge . . . One who, knowing
or strongly suspecting that he is involved in shady dealings, takes steps to make sure that he does not acquire full or exact
knowledge of the nature and extent of those dealings is held to have a criminal intent, United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223, 1228 (7th Cir.1990), because a deliberate effort to avoid guilty knowledge is all that the law requires to establish a guilty
state of mind. United States v. Josefik, 753 F.2d 585, 589 (7th Cir.1985); AMPAT/Midwest, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works Inc., 896 F.2d 1035, 1042 (7th Cir.1990) (to know, and to want not to know because one suspects, may be, if not the same state of mind, the same degree
of fault). 11 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 (any book, paper, statement, record,
account, writing, or other document, or any portion thereof, of whatever character and in whatever form, as well as any copy
thereof equally with the original, which is not in the United States) which it is desired to introduce in evidence in any
criminal action or proceeding in any United States court under the provisions of section 1 of the act of June 25, 1948 (sec.
1, 62 Stat. 945; 28 U.S.C. 1732). Such testimony may also be taken to determine whether the foreign document was made in the
regular course of business and whether it was the regular course of business to make such document. The term business includes
business, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind. (Sec. 1, 62 Stat. 945, 28 U.S.C. 1732.) 12 New York State Penal Law §210.15 Perjury in the first degree. A person is guilty of perjury
in the first degree when he swears falsely and when his false statement (a) consists of testimony, and (b) is material to
the action, proceeding or matter in which it is made. Perjury in the first degree is a class D felony.
13 New York State Criminal Procedure Law §30.10 Timeliness of prosecutions; periods of limitation.
1. A criminal action must be commenced within the period of limitation prescribed in the
ensuing subdivisions of this section.
2. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision three:
(a) A prosecution for a class A felony . . .may be commenced at any time;
(b) A prosecution for any other felony must be commenced within five years after the commission thereof;
(b) A prosecution for any offense involving misconduct in public office by a public servant may be commenced at any time during
the defendant's service in such office or within five years after the termination of such service; provided however, that
in no event shall the period of limitation be extended by more than five years beyond the period otherwise applicable under
subdivision two. 14 Plaintiff makes this allegation because the letter says: “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 (ACT) program”, and because Agnes Flores and Martin Bolton stated that LifeNet told them that
Plaintiff threatened Defendant Garaufis with bodily harm. 15 Plaintiff alleges LifeNet suicide/mental health hotline was fraudulently contacted by Defendant U.S.
Marshal Service for the Eastern District of New York and told that Plaintiff threatened Defendant Nicholas with bodily harm.
That Defendant USMS knew that Plaintiff committed no crime is a clear violation of 18 USC §1001. 18 NYS Penal Law §135.60 Coercion in the second degree: “A person is guilty of coercion
in the second degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to
abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he or she has a legal right to engage, or compels
or induces a person to join a group, organization or criminal enterprise which such latter person has a right to abstain from
joining, by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:
1. Cause physical injury to a person; or 2. Cause damage to property; or 3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime;
or 4. Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him or her; or 5. Expose a secret or
publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule. . .”
23 22 NYCRR §50.1(D) Court employees shall not disclose any confidential information received in the
course of their official duties, except as required in the performance of such duties, nor use such information for personal
gain or advantage.
22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(8) – A judge shall
not make any public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court within the United States or its territories.
The judge shall require similar abstention on the part of court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control. This
paragraph does not prohibit judges from making public statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining
for public information the procedures of the court. This paragraph does not apply to proceedings in which the judge is a litigant
in a personal capacity. 22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(11) A judge shall not disclose
or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity. 24 “. . .applies to § 455(a). It was developed under §144, which requires disqualification
for “personal bias or prejudice.”
25 A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality
might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which. . .the judge has a personal bias or prejudice
concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.
|
