|
|
|
Howard U's Civil Rights Staff Create Schmokescreen; discriminates against
identity fraud victim based on her mental status  | Professor Taslitz: Assuming that you are an Ashkenazi,
please answer the following questions: Do my allegations regarding
the facilitation of immigration and identity fraud by fellow Ashkenazi attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Bernard
Rostanski (see below) appear to be true (especially considering that they have not sued me for defamation per se? If so, and if 18 USC 3290 could be used to prosecute the aforesaid attorneys, would you assist in doing so if you were called on
to do so? Have you ever assisted in the prosecution, indictment, trial and conviction of any member of the Ashkenazim
when the plaintiff was a non-Ashkenazi? If you were called upon to do so, would you assist in the prosecution of an
Ashkenazi if the plaintiff was a non-Ashkenazi? Have you litigated
a case (criminal or civil) in which the defendant is an Ashkenazi, the plaintiff is a non-Ashkenazi, the judge was a
non-Ashkenazi, and the Ashkenazi defendant lost the case? (Calling me "anti-Semitic", "mentally ill" or
other silly names like a menstruating female is a sissified attempt at willness blindness. Whether I am mentally ill, a hater of Jews or any other dumb-assed name that accentuates my social position
over my legal status is not relevant. Either I am telling the truth, or I am not.)
|
" Hell, we're getting
funding from the Ashkenazim, so if we have to keep silent and
let members of the Ashkenazi
community violate the rights of a few niggers, that's
okay with me!...the true words
of not-for-profit, "civil rights" (what a joke!) "funding whores."
Ashkenazim's
Faithful Schvartze Lap Dogs -- with "licenses" -- not to challenge law, but to be obedient to their Ashkenazi funders
-- even if members of that community violate the rights of helpless blacks (remember: it is quite common for an obedient dog
to be associated with a license -- but the license belongs to the owner).
Receipt of Ashkenazi-Jewish
funding is its real reason not to help disabled identity fraud victim oppressed by Ashkenazi
judiciary's determination not to bring corrupt Ashkenazi attorneys Kaye, Shapiro and Rostanski to
justice
Use identity fraud's victim's mental status to pretend that her allegations are not true;
Ashkenazi-Jewish
television and radio news outlets will only report if disabled, non-Ashkenazi identity fraud victim is made
to appear anti-Semitic and corrupt, immigration/identity fraud facilitating Ashkenazi attorneys Kaye, Shapiro and Rostanski
are made to appear to be the victims
(Please
note: It is not illegal or anti-Semitic to bring an Ashkenazi-Jew to justice who has violated the law) |
|
Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility
of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. |
Willful blindness (sometimes called ignorance of law, willful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or
criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which
would render him liable. For example, in a number of cases, persons transporting packages containing illegal drugs have asserted
that they never asked what the contents of the packages were, and therefore lacked the requisite intent to break the law.
Such defenses have not succeeded, as courts have been quick to
determine that the defendant should have known what was
in the package, and exercised criminal recklessness by failing
to find out. A famous example of such a defense being denied occurred in In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643 (7th
Cir. 2003) , in which the defendants argued that their file-swapping technology was designed in such a way that they had no way of monitoring
the content of swapped files, and suggested that their inability to monitor the activities of users meant that they could
not be contributing to copyright infringement by the users. The
court held that this was willful blindness on the defendant's part, and would not constitute a defense to a claim of contributory
infringement. |
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission
of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some
judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than three years, or both. |
|
| Letter of Complaint to Washington Disciplinary Committee |
September 17, 2010 Katherine A.
Mazzaferri Executive Director The
District of Columbia Bar
1101 K Street NW, Suite 200
Washington DC 20005-4210 Dear Ms. Mazzaferri: First,
please allow me to state unequivocally that rage based on my belief that my rights were violated by an attorney at Howard
University is an absolute motivating factor in the preparation of this correspondence. I assure you, however, that in spite
of my rage, I have not, and will not participate in the defamation of any of the attorneys who I believe are responsible for
disobeying federal law, specifically, 18 USC $4, misprision of felony, and for causing the intentional infliction of emotional
distress based on knowingly providing me with legal referrals for which I allege that they knew or should have known that
I am not eligible. Secondly, while I file this complaint
against three attorneys associated with Howard University, two of the attorneys were not actively involved with what I alleged
to be the subordinate attorney's indiscretion in handling my case. With the two supervisory attorneys, I rely on the legal
principle of “respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or,
in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities
of a violator.” In addition, I have uploaded this correspondence to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/husl.net. I did this to give Dean Schmoke, Aberson François and the unidentified employee from HUSL's Civil
Rights Clinic a chance to publicly defend themselves.
On September 16, 2010, I traveled all the way from Brooklyn, New York to Washington, D.C to speak with someone at Howard University
with regard to my being a victim of an ongoing federal crime involving what I allege to be the encroachment of the Ashkenazi-Jewish
religion into judicial affairs. I spoke with a woman at the Civil Rights Clinic whose name I do not now remember. I provided
the woman with several legal documents that establish irrefutable proof of my allegations. The woman refused to offer Howard University's legal services based on her saying that the
school could not offer services to New Yorkers for legal issues stemming from New York – even if the issues are federal
in nature. In addition, the woman, who I allege to be an attorney, provided me with referral information for which I believe
that I am not eligible. That I am a victim of an ongoing
federal crimes is not speculation. I have provided proof of my assertions. I allege that because of one, some or all of Howard
University's funding sources are Ashkenazi Jewish, and that Howard U. in a position where, if a prospective client complaints
that his/her rights were violated by someone who is a member of the Ashkenazi Jewish community, Howard U. will not take the
case. In addition, I believe that with regard to the woman with whom I spoke, I alleged that my attempts to “play attorney”
garnered disrespect and spite that resulted in the attorney's giving me useless legal referrals. As an attorney, she knew
or should have known that the information that she gave me was useless. In “ghetto”, vernacular, she was “bitchy.” The fact is, I do not expect that you will do much – or anything
at all. I expect that, as in other cases, the Ashkenazi-Jewish employees at your office have more power than non-Ashkenazi
employees and will require your absolute obedience in not responding to my complaint, lest you lose your job and your reputation.
The Ashkenazi-Jewish community has that kind of power – and they are ruthless. If you do not believe me, please view
the web page that I mentioned in this correspondence. Among other documents for which Ashkenazi-Jewish immigration attorneys
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Bernard Rostanski facilitated my ex-husband's immigration and identity fraud is my daughter's
birth certificate. My daughter's birth certificate has borne the fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere from her birth until
today. My daughter is 29 years old. The crimes I reported
to Howard U. require persons to obey 18 USC §4 and report federal crimes. The woman against whom I file this report failed
to do so, and her supervisors, Aberson François and Dean Schmoke, failed to ensure that the unknown employee did her
job. While I understand that your agency will in all
probability not do anything, I am not in fear of your lack of participation. Justice always starts with the cry for it, and
just like African Americans cried for justice hundreds of years before they were heard, eventuality they were heard. Do not underestimate my resolve to obtain justice. My website shows
the entire world that I cannot be frightened to stop. I will bother you, the president of the United States and everyone on
the planet earth until someone listens to me. Thank you
for taking time out of your busy schedule to review my complaint.
Respectfully,
Cheryl D. Uzamere /cdu |
Dean Schmoke's and Aberson François' Civil
Rights Clinic's subordinate openly admitted to spending only a brief amount of time reviewing proof of the immigration and
identity fraud that was committed against her. Dean Schmoke and Aberson François subordinate knew or should have
known that: 1) as an individual who is not a defendant in a federal or any other case, identity fraud victim would not
be eligible for services; and 2) that identity fraud victim would not be eligible for services with Universal Legal Services
because she does not live in its catchment area. Why did subordinate viciously refer identity fraud victim
to places where she could not get help? (below are the useless referrals in the subordinate's own handwriting) |
|
HUSL's Civil Rights Division's employee's stupid,
vicious, amoral admission of "briefly reviewing" identity fraud victim's complaints is her tacit admission
of employing willful blindness to refuse to see proof of identity fraud victim's irrefutable assertions. By the way, neither Dean Schmoke,
Aberson François can challenge me with defamation per quod or per se, because truth is an affirmative
defense to the charge of defamation (unless their case is assigned to a corrupt Ashkenazi judge -- who may be one of HUSL's funders). |
|
HUSL's Civil Rights Division's employee's stupid, vicious, amoral admission
of "briefly reviewing" identity fraud victim's complaints is her tacit admission of employing willful blindness to refuse to see proof of identity fraud victim's irrefutable assertions. By the way, neither Dean Schmoke,
Aberson François can challenge me with defamation per quod or per se, because truth is an affirmative
defense to the charge of defamation (unless their case is assigned to a corrupt Ashkenazi judge -- who may be one of HUSL's funders). |
|
HUSL's Civil Rights Division's employee's stupid, vicious, amoral admission
of "briefly reviewing" identity fraud victim's complaints is her tacit admission of employing willful blindness to refuse to see proof of identity fraud victim's irrefutable assertions. By the way, neither Dean Schmoke,
Aberson François can challenge me with defamation per quod or per se, because truth is an affirmative
defense to the charge of defamation (unless their case is assigned to a corrupt Ashkenazi judge -- who may be one of HUSL's funders). |
|
HUSL's Civil Rights Division's employee's stupid, vicious, amoral admission
of "briefly reviewing" identity fraud victim's complaints is her tacit admission of employing willful blindness to refuse to see proof of identity fraud victim's irrefutable assertions. By the way, neither Dean Schmoke,
Aberson François can challenge me with defamation per quod or per se, because truth is an affirmative
defense to the charge of defamation (unless their case is assigned to a corrupt Ashkenazi judge -- who may be one of HUSL's funders). |
|
HUSL's Civil Rights Division's employee's stupid,
vicious, amoral admission of "briefly reviewing" identity fraud victim's complaints is her tacit admission
of employing willful blindness to refuse to see proof of identity fraud victim's irrefutable assertions. By the way, neither Dean Schmoke,
Aberson François can challenge me with defamation per quod or per se, because truth is an affirmative
defense to the charge of defamation (unless their case is assigned to a corrupt Ashkenazi judge -- who may be one of HUSL's funders). |
|
HUSL's Civil Rights Division's employee's stupid, vicious, amoral admission
of "briefly reviewing" identity fraud victim's complaints is her tacit admission of employing willful blindness to refuse to see proof of identity fraud victim's irrefutable assertions. By the way, neither Dean Schmoke,
Aberson François can challenge me with defamation per quod or per se, because truth is an affirmative
defense to the charge of defamation (unless their case is assigned to a corrupt Ashkenazi judge -- who may be one of HUSL's funders). |
|
|
|
|
|
