***********************************************************************************
..........At all times hereinafter mentioned,
Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere, a natural person, and mother of David P. Walker and Tara A. Uzamere, all of whom are victims
of fraud, identity theft, aggravated identity theft, other federal offenses and civil rights violations committed by the Defendants,
states the following under the penalties of perjury:
PRELIMINARY
STATEMENT
U.S. Constitutional Mandates
First Amendment
..........1).....“Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion. . .or abridging the freedom of speech, . . .and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances ” See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
..........2).....U.S. Supreme
Court Case Law Regarding the Establishment Clause: “In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court decision Everson v. Board of
Education incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). In the
majority decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote: 'The “establishment of religion”' clause of the First Amendment means
at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another . . . in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against
establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must
be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village
School District v. Grumet (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that “government should
not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.”
..........3).....U.S. Supreme Court Case Law Regarding
the Free Speech Clause: In Herndon v. Lowry (1937), the Court heard the case of African American Communist Party
organizer Angelo Herndon, who had been convicted under the Slave Insurrection Statute for advocating black rule in the southern
US. In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed Herndon's conviction, upholding Holmes' "clear and present danger"
test for the first time and arguing that the state of Georgia had not demonstrated that Herndon's actions met this standard
(NSLs should be held to this standard).
.......... 4).....U.S. Supreme Court Case Law Regarding the Petition Clause: “Today this right encompasses
petitions to all three branches of the federal government—the Congress, the executive and the judiciary—and has
been extended to the states through incorporation. According to the Supreme Court, 'redress of grievances' is to be construed
broadly: it includes not solely appeals by the public to the government for the redressing of a grievance in the traditional
sense, but also, petitions on behalf of private interests seeking personal gain. The right not only protects demands for "a
redress of grievances" but also demands for government action. In Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri
(2011), the Supreme Court stated regarding the Free Speech Clause and the Petition Clause: It is not necessary to say that
the two Clauses are identical in their mandate or their purpose and effect to acknowledge that the rights of speech and petition
share substantial common ground. . .Both speech and petition are integral to the democratic process, although not necessarily
in the same way. The right to petition allows citizens to express their ideas, hopes, and concerns to their government and
their elected representatives, whereas the right to speak fosters the public exchange of ideas that is integral to deliberative
democracy as well as to the whole realm of ideas and human affairs. Beyond the political sphere, both speech and petition
advance personal expression, although the right to petition is generally concerned with expression directed to the government
seeking redress of a grievance. The right of assembly was originally distinguished from the right to petition. In United
States v. Cruikshank the Supreme Court held that 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning
Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the National Government,
is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States. The very
idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in
respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances.' Justice Morrison Waite's opinion for the Court carefully
distinguished the right to peaceably assemble as a secondary right, while the right to petition was labeled to be a primary
right.1
Fifth Amendment
..........5).....“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
..........6).....“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).
..........7).....U.S. Supreme Court Case Law regarding the Notice Clause: “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 defence.” In the case United States v. Carll, 105
U.S. 611 (1881)”
..........8).....U.S.
Supreme Court Case Law regarding the Assistance of Counsel Clause: “The Sixth Amendment is a part of what is called
our Bill of Rights. In Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, in which this Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right to
the assistance of counsel is obligatory upon the States, we did so on the ground that 'a provision of the Bill of Rights which
is 'fundamental and essential to a fair trial' is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.' 372 U. S.
at 342. And last Term in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, in holding that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against self-incrimination
was made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, we reiterated the holding of Gideon that the Sixth Amendment's
right-to-counsel guarantee is 'a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial,' and thus was made obligatory on the States
by the Fourteenth Amendment.' 378 U. S., at 6. See also Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U. S. 52. We hold today
that the Sixth Amendment's right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him is likewise a fundamental right and is
made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Fourteenth
Amendment
..........9).....“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.
FEDERAL STATUTES
Title II of the Americans With Disabilities
Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973
..........10).....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.”
..........11).....In the decision regarding Disability Advocates, Inc. vs. Paterson, et al, Defendant Garaufis stated
that “The Supreme Court held in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), that “[u]njustified isolation . . . is
properly regarded as discrimination based on disability,” observing that “institutional placement of persons who
can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable
of or unworthy of participating in community life.” 527 U.S. at 597, 600. The “integration mandate” of Title
II of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.
§791 et seq., as expressed in federal regulations and Olmstead, requires that when a state provides services to individuals
with disabilities, it must do so “in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.” The “most
integrated setting,” according to the federal regulations, is “a setting that enables individuals with disabilities
to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent possible.” 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d); 28 C.F.R. pt. 35 app.
A.
..........12).....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).
..........13).....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.”
..........14).....Defendant Garaufis 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 entities are subject
to Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
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 . . .Congress had waived sovereign immunity [and] was otherwise amenable to suit. 510 U. S., at 484, 486. Our opinion
emphasized that the purpose of Bivens is to deter the officer, not the agency. Id., at 485 (emphasis in original) (citing
Carlson v. Green, supra, at 21). We reasoned that if given the choice, 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.”
42 USC §1983
– Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
42 USC §1985 - Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights
..........16).....“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).
..........17).....Federal
courts recognize blacklisting as a cause of action. In the lawsuit Castillo v. Spiliada Maritime Corporation MV,
937 F. 2d 240, the United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated that “. . .Plaintiffs have offered substantial
evidence that they were coerced into agreeing to the settlements with threats that charges would be filed against them with
the POEA and that they would be blacklisted. As the threats of blacklisting endangered the possibility of future employment
in their established trade, Plaintiffs reasonably could have been intimidated into settling.” In the lawsuit Duckworth
v. Pratt & Whitney, Inc., 152 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit stated
that “As both Duckworth and the Secretary of Labor persuasively argue, the achievement of these objectives would be
frustrated by adopting Pratt & Whitney's interpretation. That interpretation would permit an employer to evade the Act
by blacklisting employees who have used leave in the past or by refusing to hire prospective employees if the employer suspects
they might take advantage of the Act.” The United States Court of Appeal's use of the term “leave” refers
to medical leave. The United States Court of Appeals use of the term “Act” refers to the Family and Medical Act
of 1993. In the case Davis v. Paul, et al, 505 F.2d 1180, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth circuit
stated that “Few things are as fundamental to our legal system as the presumption of innocence until overcome by proof
of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a fair trial. The dissemination of the flier in the case at bar is in the face of the
presumption of innocence, disregards the Due Process Clause and is based on evidence that is not probative of guilt. Condemning
a man to a suspect class without a trial and on a wholly impermissible standard, as in the case at bar, offends the very essence
of the Due Process Clause, i.e., protection of the individual against arbitrary action. Slochower v. Board of Education,
350 U.S. 551, 559, 76 S.Ct. 637, 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956); Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331, 351-352, 75 S.Ct. 790 (1955)
(Douglas, J., concurring.) As said by Mr. Justice Black in his concurring opinion in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee
v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 144-145, 71 S.Ct. 624, 634 (1951): 'Our basic law, however, wisely withheld authority
for resort to executive. . .condemnations and blacklists as a substitute for imposition of legal types of penalties by
courts following trial and conviction in accordance with procedural safeguards of the Bill of Rights.'” The United States
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's, (EEOC) Office of Legal Counsel the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and
the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 overlap, and that where employees are concerned, “ADA Title II covers all public
employers without regard to the number of employees.” By this action, Plaintiff seeks to put an end to New York State's
practice of blacklisting the Plaintiff by refusing to provide her with outpatient psychiatric care and accommodations required
to be provided by the New York State Unified Court System as its courts are covered under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities,
and by ending the corporate defendants' use of the media to encourage members of the not-for-profit psychiatric outpatient
community to blacklist the Plaintiff by publicly denigrating her because of symptoms of her mental illness that were publicized
by government and corporate defendants.
Commission of RICO Crimes
..........18).....“Racketeering
activity” means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing
in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable
under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: (relating to fraud and related activity in connection
with identification documents), Section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant) . . .”
..........19).....“State”
means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or possession
of the United States, any political subdivision, or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof;
..........20).....“enterprise”
includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals
associated in fact although not a legal entity;
..........21).....pattern of racketeering activity” requires at
least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which
occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.
..........22).....Commission
of RICO Crimes – “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in,
or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in
the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
..........23).....Civil
Remedies for RICO Crimes – “The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain
violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, including, but not limited to: ordering any person
to divest himself of any interest, direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions on the future activities
or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor
as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or
reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons.”
..........24).....“Any
person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any
appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including
a reasonable attorney’s fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud
in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of Section 1962. The exception contained in the preceding sentence
does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case
the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final.”
Campaign Contributions and The Hobbs Act and
Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff and Gentile Constituents
of Honest Services
U.S. Supreme Court
Mandate
..........25).....“This
is not to say that it is impossible for an elected official to commit extortion in the course of financing an election campaign.
Political contributions are of course vulnerable if induced by the use of force, violence, or fear. The receipt of such contributions
is also vulnerable under the Act as having been taken under color of official right, but only if the payments are made in
return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act. In such situations
the official asserts that his official conduct will be controlled by the terms of the promise or undertaking. This is the
receipt of money by an elected official under color of official right within the meaning of the Hobbs Act.” McCormick
v. United States, 500 US 257.
..........26).....“The requirement of a quid pro quo means that without pretense of any entitlement to the
payment, a public official violates §1951 if he intends the payor to believe that absent payment the official is likely
to abuse his office and his trust to the detriment and injury of the prospective payor or to give the prospective payor less
favorable treatment if the quid pro quo is not satisfied. The official and the payor need not state the quid pro quo in express
terms, for otherwise the law's effect could be frustrated by knowing winks and nods. The inducement from the official is criminal
if it is express or if it is implied from his words and actions, so long as he intends it to be so and the payor so interprets
it.” Evan v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 1881, 504 U.S. 255, 119 L.Ed.2d 57.
18 USC § 1951 - Interference with Commerce by Threats
or Violence
..........27).....“Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of
any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical
violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”
..........28).....“The
term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual
or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.”
When Is a Campaign Contribution a Bribe?2
..........29).....“The
Supreme Court’s guidance on the issue is thin. In 1991, it ruled that a campaign contribution could be a bribe if prosecutors
proved a quid pro quo — that the contribution was “made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the
official to perform or not to perform an official act.” In a subsequent case, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the quid
pro quo need not be expressly stated.”
Criminal
Resource Manual 2404, Hobbs Act—Under Color of Official Right
..........30).....Some courts have held that a Hobbs
Act violation does not require that the public official have de jure power to perform any official act paid for as long as
it was reasonable to believe that he/she had the de facto power to perform the requested act. See United States v. Nedza,
880 F.2d 896, 902 (7th Cir. 1989) (victim reasonably believed state senator had the ability to impact a local business); United
States v. Bibby, 752 F.2d 1116, 1127-28 (6th Cir. 1985); United States v. Sorrow, 732 F.2d 176, 180 (11th Cir.
1984); United States v. Rindone, 631 F.2d 491, 495 (7th Cir. 1980) (public official can extort money for permit beyond
control of his office, so long as victim has a reasonable belief that he could affect issuance); United States v. Rabbitt,
583 F.2d 1014 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1116 (1979); United States v. Harding, 563 F.2d 299 (6th Cir.
1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1062 (1978); United States v. Brown, 540 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. 1976); United States
v. Hall, 536 F.2d 313 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 919 (1976); United States v. Hathaway, 534 F.2d 386
(1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819 (1976); United States v. Mazzei, 521 F.2d 639, 643 (3rd Cir.) (en banc), cert.
denied, 423 U.S. 1014 (1975); United States v. Price, 507 F.2d 1349 (4th Cir. 1974).
..........31).....Some courts
have held that private persons who are not themselves public officials can be convicted under this provision if they caused
public officials to perform official acts in return for payments to the non-public official. United States v. Margiotta,
688 F.2d 108 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 913 (1983) (court upheld conviction of head of local Republican Party
under color of official right where defendant could be said to have caused, under 18 U.S.C. §2(b), public officials to
induce a third party to pay out money); see United States v. Haimowitz, 725 F.2d 1561, 1572-73 (11th Cir.), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 1072 (1984) (private attorney's conviction of Hobbs Act violation upheld due to complicity with state senator);
United States v. Marcy, 777 F.Supp. 1398, 1399-400 (N.D.Ill. 1991); United States v. Barna, 442 F.Supp.
1232 (M.D. Pa.), aff'd mem., 578 F.2d 1376 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862 (1978). But see United States v. McClain,
934 F.2d 822, 829-32 (7th Cir. 1991) (“we believe that, as a general matter and with caveats as suggested here, proceeding
against private citizens on an 'official rights' theory inappropriate under the literal and historical meanings
of the Hobbs Act, irrespective of the actual 'control' that citizen purports to maintain over
governmental activity”).
..........32).....“The Supreme Court has held
that, when an allegedly corrupt payment masquerades as a campaign contribution, and when there is no evidence that the corpus
of the “contribution” inured to the personal benefit of the public officer in question or was a product of force
or duress, the Hobbs Act requires proof of a quid pro quo agreement between the contributor and the public officer. McCormick
v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991). However, the Court has also held that proof that a quid pro quo agreement existed
in a corruption case brought under the Hobbs Act may be proven circumstantially. Evans v. United States, 504 U.S.
255 (1992). This interpretation of the dimensions of the Hobbs Act in corruption scenarios is consistent with the parameters
of the facts needed to prove the federal crimes of bribery and gratuities under 18 U.S.C. §201.” See United
States v. Brewster, 50-6 F.2d 62 (D.C. Cir. 1972), 9 U.S.A.M. §§85.101 through 85.105, supra.
Fraud Upon
the Court
..........33).....“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.”
..........34).....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. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 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."
..........35).....Fraud upon
the court makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
..........36).....Plaintiff offers as persuasive
authority, laws of the State of Illinois. In Illinois law, “it is also clear and well-settled . . .that any attempt
to commit fraud upon the court vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling,
357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to
judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill.
316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ...”); In
re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”);
Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products
Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation,
362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935). Under Illinois and 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.”
Right to Privacy
..........37).....The Connecticut statute forbidding
use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill
of Rights. Pp. 381 U. S. 481-486. The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras,
formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497,
367 U. S. 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in
the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering
of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy.
The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen
to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the people." The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 630,
as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." We
recently referred in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 367 U. S. 656, to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right
to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully an particularly reserved to the people." See Beaney,
The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup. Ct. Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw. U.L.
Rev. 216 (1960). . .NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U. S. 288, 377 U.S. 307. Would we allow the police to search the sacred
precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions
of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
..........38).....According
to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996's Wrongful Disclosure of Individually Identifiable Health
Information, it says that: “(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.
National Security Letters
..........39).....“The
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at
Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may: (1) request the
name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or
his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that
the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect
against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States
person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United
States; and (2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies
in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought
is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities,
provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected
by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” in the stipulation and order regarding the case Doe
et al. v. Holder, et al it says: “3) Plaintiff John Doe is hereby permitted to identify himself and his company as
the recipient of the NSL that has been the subject of this litigation. Plaintiffs ACLU and ACLU Foundation may publicly disclose
this information as well. In addition, the Government acknowledges that plaintiffs may discuss matters and information that
have been filed without redaction on the public docket in this case; 4) Plaintiffs are also permitted to publicly discuss
plaintiff Doe's personal background, background about his company, the services Doe generally provided to his clients, and
his type of clientele generally, including (a) the information that is redacted in the public filing of the Third Declaration
of John Doe, dated August 21, 2009, Paragraph 1; (b) the information that is redacted in the public filing of the Second Declaration
of John Doe, dated September 8, 2006, Paragraph 4; and (c) the information that is redacted in the public filing of the Second
Declaration of John Doe, dated September 8, 2006, Paragraph 37. . . 6) Nothing in this Stipulation shall affect plaintiff
Doe's right and plaintiffs ACLU and ACLU Foundation's right, if any, to petition in the future under 18 U.S.C. § 3511(b)
('or an order modifying or setting aside the nondisclosure requirement imposed in connection with the NSL served on plaintiff
Doe.” Doe, et al v. Holder, et al, 04 Civ. 2614 (VM)
“Justice Must Satisfy The Appearance of Justice”
..........40).....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.”
..........41).....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."
..........42).....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).
Rights of Crime Victims
..........43).....It has been
the Plaintiff's sad experience that the judicial defendants' complicity with regard to implementation of the horrible Talmudic
Law of the Moser has developed in them a delusion that has made them both arrogant and stupid, as though U.S. law is written
in Greek or Chinese, and the Plaintiff lacks the ability to either research it, or that if she researches it, she cannot understand
it. To force the defendants to divest themselves of said delusion, Plaintiff has chosen to copy and paste federal criminal
law as it pertains to crime victims. The Plaintiff demands that defendants recognize that the following is in English,
and Plaintiff is not a dumb schvartze. Plaintiff can read English – legalese included.
Rights of Crime Victims
..........44).....A crime victim has the following rights:
...............a).....The
right to be reasonably protected from the accused. The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court
proceeding or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
............... b).....The
right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence,
determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.
............... c).....The
right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole
proceeding.
...............
d).....The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.
............... e).....The
right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
............... f)..... The right to proceedings free from unreasonable
delay.
...............g).....The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.
..........45).....18
USC §3771 contains other rights specific to crime victims; Plaintiff trusts, however, that defendants are sufficiently
convinced on Plaintiff's level of intelligence that she does not have waste either ink or paper cutting and pasting the law.
If even after this, the defendants are arrogantly unconvinced, the defendants can visit http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3771 after they facilitate the arrest of corrupt, lying, racist, racketeering Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey
Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their act of fraud and aggravated identity theft by filing their fraudulent affirmations that
criminally hold “Godwin Uzamere” to be Plaintiff's husband and the father of Plaintiff's daughter
without presenting USCIS-issued identification cards or passports for both Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and “Godwin Uzamere.”
Continuing Violations Doctrine
..........46).....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.
..........47).....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.”
Code of Conduct for Judges
and Attorneys
Federal Code of Conduct for Judges
..........48).....A judge should
take appropriate action upon learning of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood that a judge’s conduct contravened
this Code or a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct.
..........49).....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 or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the
third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is . . .a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director,
or trustee of a party.
Code of
Conduct for New York State Judges
..........50).....A judge who receives information indicating a substantial
likelihood that another judge has committed a substantial violation of this Part shall take appropriate action.
..........51).....A
judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a substantial violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility shall take appropriate action.
New York Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility
..........52).....A lawyer
possessing knowledge, (1) not protected as a confidence or secret, or (2) not gained in the lawyer's capacity as a member
of a bona fide lawyer assistance or similar program or committee, of a violation of DR 1-102 [1200.3] that raises a substantial
question as to another lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer shall report such knowledge to a tribunal
or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.
..........53).....A lawyer possessing knowledge or
evidence, not protected as a confidence or secret, concerning another lawyer or a judge shall reveal fully such knowledge
or evidence upon proper request of a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon the conduct of lawyers
or judges.
..........54).....A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges
solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
H.R.
40
Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act
(as it concerns the African Holocaust/The
Maafa)
..........55).....Commonly known as the “African Reparations Bill”, it was promulgated by African-American
Congressman John Conyers “To acknowledge the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in
the United States and the 13 American colonies between 1619 and 1865 and to establish a commission to examine the institution
of slavery, subsequently de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact
of these forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other
purposes.”
Implied Cause of Action
..........56).....“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.”
Issues With Regard to Claims
of Sovereign Immunity
..........57).....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 state engages in conduct that violates U.S. Constitutional law – especially the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment.
..........58).....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.”
..........59).....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.”
..........60).....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. The decision stated:
“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.
Held: Insofar as Title II creates a private cause
of action for damages against States for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Title II validly abrogates
state sovereign immunity. Pp. 5-8. Because this Court assumes that the Eleventh Circuit correctly held that Goodman had alleged
actual Eighth Amendment violations for purposes of §1983, and because respondents do not dispute Goodman's claim that
this same conduct violated Title II, Goodman's Title II money damages claims were evidently based, at least in part, on conduct
that independently violated §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one doubts that §5 grants Congress the power to enforce
the Fourteenth Amendment's provisions by creating private remedies against the States for actual violations of those provisions.
This includes the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity by authorizing private suits for damages against the States.
Thus, the Eleventh Circuit erred in dismissing those of Goodman's claims based on conduct that violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
..........61).....Plaintiff
holds that, based on the above, government Defendants' violation of Plaintiff's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due
process, Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law as an African American citizen who is mentally disabled
is an abrogation of their sovereign immunity, such that Plaintiff's action rises to the level of an action in the manner of
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) for all defendants who are natural persons. Defendants
who are natural person are either attorneys or represented by attorneys; it should not be difficult for Defendants to
understand the concept of abrogation of sovereign immunity.
Change of Venue and Improper Venue
..........62).....Federal Rules for Civil Procedure
Rule 12(b)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6): Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b) for Lack of Jurisdiction, Improper Venue, Insufficient Service
of Process, or Failure to State a Claim. “Relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one
is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion: (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.”
..........63).....Federal Rules for Civil Procedure Rule 41(b): (b) Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. “If the
plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or
any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal
not under this rule—except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19—operates
as an adjudication on the merits.”
..........64).....28 USC §1404(a) says: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest
of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought
or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.”
..........65).....Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.,
487 U.S. 22 (1988) says the following with reference to change to another venue: “Section 1404(a) is sufficiently broad
to control the forum-selection issue. The statute is intended to place discretion in the district courts to adjudicate motions
for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness. A motion to transfer
under §1404(a) calls on the district court to weigh in the balance a number of case-specific factors, and the presence
of a forum-selection clause will figure centrally in the calculus. A forum-selection clause should receive neither dispositive
consideration nor no consideration, but rather the consideration for which Congress provided in §1404(a). Section 1404(a)
must be applied, since it represents a valid exercise of Congress' authority under Article III as augmented by the Necessary
and Proper Clause. In this case, the District Court should determine in the first instance the appropriate effect under federal
law of the parties' forum-selection clause on respondent's §1404(a) motion.” (emphasis added).
..........66).....In
the case Ralls Corporation V. Terna Energy USA Holding Corporation, Civil Action No. 13-0117 (ABJ), the court rendered
the following decision: “Defendant Terna Energy USA Holding Corporation ("Terna") moves to dismiss plaintiff
Ralls Corporation's (“Ralls”) complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Upon consideration of the parties' briefs, the record in this case, and the applicable law, the Court
will grant the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. It does not reach the question of subject
matter jurisdiction. (emphasis added).
Purpose of Plaintiff's Action
..........67).....By this action,
Plaintiff seeks to put an end to Defendants' commission of misprision of felony, 18 USC §4; fraud, 18 USC §1001;
identity theft, 18 USC §1028; aggravated identity fraud, 18 USC §1028A; deprivation of rights under color of law
(including being kidnapped, unlawfully imprisoned and blacklisted), 18 USC §242/42 USC §1985; extortion, 18 USC
§872§, blackmail, 18 USC §873; violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act; violation of the
Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973; violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601; violation of the Free
Speech Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the Petition
Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; violation of the
Notice Clause of the Sixth Amendment; violation of the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment; violation of Plaintiff's
right of privacy with regard to the illegal dissemination of her psychiatric records, Plaintiff marriage history, Plaintiff
married name, and the non-content information associated with Plaintiff's internet and telephone accounts; violation of the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, intentional misuse of national security letters (NSLs) and violation
of the Hobbs Act.
..........68).....Furthermore, Plaintiff's also seeks to expose that Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security
has had knowledge of the correct identity, and has been in possession of the identification documents for Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere for well over thirty (30) years. Defendant the United States of America, along with the rest of the Defendants,
owed Plaintiff and her children the duty to use the aforementioned documentation regarding Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's
identity to protect Plaintiff and her children from being victims of fraud, immigration fraud, aggravated identity theft and
victims of Plaintiff's inability to obtain spousal and children support based on Plaintiff and her daughter having the legal
right to bear Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's correct name. However, rather than comply with the law, the Defendants, in
particular, the Jewish Defendants, engaged in a course of conduct that violated Plaintiff rights and the rights of her daughter,
Tara, for the sole purpose of preventing Plaintiff from filing complaints against hateful, racist, dishonest, Jewish immigration
attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Defendants' criminal conduct deprived them then, and continues
to deprive Plaintiff and her family of the right to bear Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere correct African name, and continues
to condemn Plaintiff and her family to the same deprivation of the knowledge of African bloodline indicators that
racist Jews and racist white Christians forced upon Plaintiff's African ancestors.
Jurisdiction
and Venue
..........69).....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.”
..........70).....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 immunity
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. . .”
..........71).....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.”
..........72).....Venue has its basis in 28 USC §1404(a)(c),
that states:
“For the convenience
of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district
or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented. . . A district
court may order any civil action to be tried at any place within the division in which it is pending.”
..........73).....28 USC §455(b)(5)(i)
says:
“He
shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship
to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a
party.”
..........74).....Plaintiff states that based on 28 USC §455(b)(5)(i), all of the judges employed by the Eastern
District of New York, the Southern District of New York and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are defendants
in Plaintiff's lawsuit, based on Defendants' commission of 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, and their criminal participation
in a religiously- oriented racket, run by a majority-Jewish judiciary, that enforces the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser
by not prosecuting Jews who violate civil or criminal law.
..........75).....28 USC §455(b)(1) says:
He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: Where he has a personal bias or prejudice
concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. . .”
..........76).....Plaintiff states
that based on 28 USC §455 (b)(1), no judge employed by the for the Northern District of New York and the for the Western
District of New York can render a decision of Plaintiff's lawsuit because Plaintiff cannot appeal her lawsuit to judges against
whom she has filed this lawsuit. Plaintiff has deliberately cut off the federal judiciary in the entire State of New York
because it is corrupt. Plaintiff's reliance on 28 USC §1404(a) has its entire basis on Jew-biased corruption.
Lawsuit History
..........77).....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 USC §1447(c) because the District Court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff further states that Plaintiff will not question the veracity of this case's decision with
regard to any act of fraud upon the court by and Defendant Bloom and Defendant Garaufis.
.............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). Plaintiff further states that she will not question the veracity of this case's decision with
regard to any act of fraud upon the court by Defendant Bloom and Defendant and Defendant Garaufis.
...............c).....On April 9, 2008, Defendant 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. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an
act of obstruction of justice. It was a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law
of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative function
– was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey
Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft – a wrongful
act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never
tried; and, 3) Defendant Garaufis' and Defendant Bloom's commission of misprision of felony, racketeering, obstruction of
justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft and fraud upon the court as well. The decision of this case is
null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans
of the Jewish defendants.
...............d).....On April 7, 2009, Defendant Sands rendered his Memorandum and Order regarding the lawsuit Uzamere
vs. Kaye, et al, 09-cv-3506 dismissing Plaintiff's lawsuit. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering
because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance
the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination
– a purely civil adjudicative function – was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless
corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, and Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's
commission of aggravated identity theft – a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double
jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never tried; and, 3) Defendant Sands' commission of misprision of felony,
obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft and fraud upon the court as well. The decision
of this case is null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish
defendants.
...............e).....On
July 22, 2009, Defendants Judge Parker, Judge Barrington and Judge Cedarbaum dismissed Plaintiff's appeal, referring to it
as frivolous. The mandate was issued on November 3, 2009. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because
it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance
the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely
civil adjudicative function – was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish
attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated
identity theft – a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached
because the crime was never tried; and, 3) Defendant Garaufis' and Defendant Bloom's commission of misprision of felony, obstruction
of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft and fraud upon the court as well. The decision of this case
is null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans
of the Jewish defendants.
...............f).....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. Plaintiff further states that she will not question the
veracity of this case's decision with regard to any act of fraud upon the court by Defendant Bloom and Defendant and Defendant
Garaufis.
.............g).....On
October 21, 2009, Defendant 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). The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering
because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic
doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative
function – was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E.
Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, and Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity
theft – a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached because
the crime was never tried; and, 3) Defendant Garaufis' and Defendant Bloom's commission of obstruction of justice, criminal
facilitation of aggravated identity theft and fraud upon the court as well. The decision of this case is null and void.
Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish
defendants.
............... h).....On
August 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed lawsuit 2010-cv-555 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit assigned to Defendant
judge Christine O.C. Miller. Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendant Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's,
Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft, and
that Defendant Miller disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jewish attorneys,
Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act
of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine
Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil
adjudicative function – was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys
Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, and Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated
identity theft – a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never
attached because the crime was never tried. The decision of this case is null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate
any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish defendants.
...............i).....On August 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed
lawsuit 2010-cv-585 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit assigned to Defendants Nancy B. Firestone and John
P. Wiese of the U.S. Court of Claims. Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendants Firestone and Wiese with irrefutable
evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendants
Firestone and Wiese disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys.
The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It
was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick
Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative function – was a permanent
and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's,
and Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft – a wrongful act for which the
correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never tried. The decision
of this case is null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing
shenanigans of the Jewish defendants.
.............j).....On September 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed lawsuit 2010-cv-591 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that
said lawsuit was assigned to Defendant judge Christine O.C. Miller of the U.S. Court of Claims. Plaintiff alleges that she
provided Defendant Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of
aggravated identity theft, and that Defendant Miller disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against
the aforementioned Jewish attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act
of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine
Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative
function – was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E.
Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, and Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity
theft – a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached
because the crime was never tried. The decision of this case is null and void. Plaintiff will no
longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish defendants.
...............k).....With regard
to the lawsuit that Plaintiff filed against Defendant New York State on or around January 11, 2011, Defendant Scuccimarra's
decision was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon
the court, designed to 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; and, 2) trick Plaintiff into believing
that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative function – was a permanent and final
determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's,
and Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft – a wrongful act for which the
correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never tried. The decision of this case is null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering,
justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish defendants.
...............l).....With regard to the lawsuit that Plaintiff filed against Defendants Gerstein, Schack and Sunshine
on or around January 19, 2011, Defendant Klonick's decision was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction
of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser;
2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative function – was
a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's,
Jack Gladstein's, and Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft – a wrongful
act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never
tried. The decision of this case is null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering,
justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish defendants.
...............m).....With regard to the lawsuit that Plaintiff filed against Defendants Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein,
Defendant Klonick's decision was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear
act of fraud upon the court, designed to 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing
that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative function – was a permanent and final determination
to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's
and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft – a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative
function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never tried. The decision of this case is null and void.
Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish
defendants.
...............n).....In
June, 2011, Plaintiff filed the lawsuit Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 with the for the Eastern District of
New York.
...............o).....On
or around June 22, 2011, Defendant Garaufis engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation
of aggravated identity theft by rendering an FRCP-lacking, memorandum-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et
al, 11-CV-2831 for the sole purpose of: 1) advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) not filing
a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey
Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel for their fraudulent commission of aggravated identity theft;
3) trick Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative function
– was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey
Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft – a wrongful
act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never
tried; and, 4) his own and Defendant Bloom's commission misprision of felony, racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal
facilitation of aggravated identity theft and fraud upon the court as well. Also, Plaintiff alleges that during the end of
June, beginning of July, 2011, Defendant Garaufis, “John Doe” #1 of Defendant FBI-New York, “John Doe”
#2, “John Doe” #3, “Jane Doe” of the U.S. Marshals Service of the Eastern District of New York, Denis
P. McGowan of Defendant the U.S. Homeland Security conspired with Jonathan D. Schwartz, Executive Vice President and General
Counsel for Cablevision, Inc. to receive an NSL for the sole purpose of tracking telephone calls made by the Plaintiff and
to use the non-content information of said phone calls to blackmail Plaintiff by accusing her of crimes that she did
not commit, thereby frightening Plaintiff into complying not to file further actions against corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.
...............p).....On or around June 22, 2011, Defendant Garaufis rendered a memorandum-lacking, FRCP-lacking decision
regarding the lawsuit Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al. 11-2831-cv. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering
because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic
doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil
adjudicative function – was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys
Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, and Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated
identity theft – a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached
because the crime was never tried. and, and Defendant Garaufis' and Defendant Bloom's commission of obstruction of justice,
criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft and fraud upon the court as well. The decision of this case is null and
void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans
of the Jewish defendants.
...............q).....On November 28, 2011, based on information and belief, Defendants Judge Raggi, Judge Carney and
Judge Kahn rendered a decision regarding the lawsuit Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al., 11-2713-cv ordering that Plaintiff's motions
be denied and Plaintiff's appeal be dismissed because it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. The mandate was issued on
December 22, 2011. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice.
It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser;
2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative function
– was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey
Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, and Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft –
a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime
was never tried; and, 3) Defendant Garaufis' and Defendant Bloom's commission of misprision of felony, obstruction of justice,
criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft and fraud upon the court as well. The decision of this case is null and
void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of
the Jewish defendants. Also, from 2009 to 2011, Plaintiff to obtain justice from Defendant the New York State Unified Court
System. 1) Uzamere v Daily News, L.P., 2011 NY Slip Op 52421(U) [34 Misc 3d 1203(A)], Decided on November 10, 2011,
Supreme Court, New York County, Rakower, J; 2) Uzamere v Uzamere, 2011 NY Slip Op 08583 [89 AD3d 1013], November 22, 2011,
Appellate Division, Second Department; 3) Uzamere v Uzamere, 2009 NY Slip Op 09214 [68 AD3d 855], December 8,
2009, Appellate Division, Second Department; 4) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2010 NY Slip Op
83241(U), Decided on September 23, 2010, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; 5) Uzamere v Uzamere,
Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 65346(U), Decided on February 28, 2011, Appellate Division,
Second Department, Motion Decision; 6) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip
Op 69114(U), Decided on April 6, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; and 7) Uzamere v Uzamere,
Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 69622(U), Decided on April 11, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department,
Motion Decision. The following appellate judges presided over the aforementioned cases: Daniel D. Angiolillo; Cheryl E.
Chambers; Jeffrey A. Cohen; Mark C. Dillon; Anita R. Florio; Steven W. Fisher; L. Priscilla Hall; John M. Leventhal; Plummer
E. Lott; William F. Mastro; Robert J. Miller; A. Gail Prudenti; Reinaldo E. Rivera; Sheri S. Roman; Sandra L. Sgroi and Peter
B. Skelos. Plaintiff alleges that just as in the trial courts, Plaintiff provided the appellate courts with the Daily News
article and the fraudulent affirmations in which Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein Osato E. Uzamere
committed 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft and New York State Penal Law Section 210.15, perjury in the first
degree, class D felony by stating that “Godwin Uzamere” was Plaintiff's husband. The appellate judges, just as
every judge with whom Plaintiff presented the aforementioned testimony ignored Plaintiff's cries for justice, engaged in fraud
upon the court and disobeyed 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, the Code of Conduct for Judges, 18 USC §1028A,
the New York State Penal Law Section 210.15 and the Code of Lawyers Professional Responsibility with regard to a judge's
and an attorney's responsibility to report a judge and/or an attorney who engages in acts of wrongdoing.
...............r).....Shortly before August 26, 2013, in
the lawsuit Cheryl D. Uzamere v. United States of America, Case No. 1:2013-cv-00505, Defendants William E. Smith
and Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan refused to allow Plaintiff's exhibits to be uploaded to the PACER/ECF system, done
solely to hide from the public proof that the defendants engaged in various designed to prevent the Plaintiff from reporting
the crimes of corrupt Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel;
that on August 26, 2013, Defendant Sullivan stated in her fraudulent Report and Recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff''s Amended
Verified Complaint: “. . .it is inconceivable that venue over this matter could ever be proper in this District”,
without considering Plaintiff's stipulation to change venue pursuant to 28 USC §1404(a), and in violation of the U.S.
Supreme Court's ruling that “A forum-selection clause should receive neither dispositive consideration nor no consideration,
but rather the consideration for which Congress provided in §1404(a) in the case Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh
Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988), ignoring Plaintiff's attempt to stipulate a change of venue pursuant to 28 USC §1404(a);
that according to the federal district court case Ralls Corporation V. Terna Energy USA Holding Corporation, that
“upon consideration of the parties' briefs, the record in this case, and the applicable law, the Court will grant the
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. It does not reach the question of subject matter jurisdiction.
(emphasis added); that Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan engaged in the Hobbs Acts by either accepting bribes or allowing
herself to be extorted/blackmailed by Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman not to file any criminal complaint against Jewish
attorneys anyone Jewish, in violation of 18 USC §4, misprision of felony; the Defendant Sullivan misapplied the res
judicata principle to situations in which Plaintiff clearly established the continuing violations doctrine; and finally,
that Defendant Sullivan's Report and Recommendation is proof of ongoing crimes and civil torts for which Plaintiff can again
apply the continuing violations doctrine.
Facts
..........78).....Plaintiff
prays that this Court rapidly facilitates Plaintiff's emergency motion for expedited judicial notice of adjudicative
facts pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. Rule 201 and for on conversion to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. Rule 56, based on Plaintiff's presentation of the following irrefutable facts:
..........79).....a).....In
December, 1977, approximately two (2) years before the Plaintiff met Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Nosayaba (John) Uzamere
and his wife Ethel Uzamere (Defendant Uzamere's brother and sister-in-law, not his father and stepmother) filed for IR2 residence
for Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. The IR2 visa for Defendant Uzamere was approved on January 28, 1980.
...................b).....On November 20, 1979,
the Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere visited Defendant City of New York's City Clerk's marriage department and
filled out the marriage affidavit form with the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” and the fictitious birthday
“XXXXXX XX, 19XX” without providing his current passport to verify his age and identity. Defendant City Clerk
Joseph Visceglia verified the identification Plaintiff presented to him; however, at the clandestine behest of Defendants
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Defendant Visceglia, made no attempt to obtain Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere's passport. While Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere wrote the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” on
the marriage affidavit form, he inadvertently signed the form with his real name Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.
...................c).....On
November 21, 1979, the Plaintiff unwittingly entered into a “green card” marriage with Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere under the fictitious named “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere, and under the fictitious birthday “XXXXXX XX, 19XX.”
On or after November 30, 1979, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Defendants Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro, Esq. engaged
in an act of aggravated identity theft and immigration fraud by giving the Plaintiff form I-130 to sign so as to sponsor the
Defendant for IR1 residence under the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” and fictitious birthday “XXXXXX
XX, 19XX” ithout requiring their client to produce his current passport.
...................d).....In December, 1979, Defendant Uzamere left for
Nigeria, abandoning the Plaintiff and leaving her poor and pregnant with his daughter Tara A. Uzamere. On January 28, 1980,
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered the port of New York as a lawful permanent resident. The aforementioned attorneys
exacerbated their act of aggravated identity theft by refusing to require Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to produce his passport
to establish proof of his identity, and by engaging in willful blindness by pretending not to have knowledge of the existence
of Senator Uzamere's passport or of knowledge that Senator Uzamere previously applied under his correct name as an unmarried
beneficiary under 21 years of age. At the time of Plaintiff's signing the fraudulent I-130 relative sponsorship form, Plaintiff
did not know that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere had applied and been found eligible for permanent residence under his real
name via sponsorship by Nosayaba Uzamere and Ethel Uzamere. See report prepared by Defendant Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service attached as Exhibit A.
..........80).....On or around October 1, 2003, Jack
Gladstein engaged in an act of racketeering, and aggravated identity theft by mailing to the Plaintiff correspondence falsely
holding Plaintiff's ex-husband out to be “Godwin Uzamere” even though the only correct identification that
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service holds is for Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, not “Godwin Uzamere.”
..........81).....On or September 25, 2008, after Plaintiff had engaged in a series of leaving angry telephone calls
on Defendant McCarthy's voice mail based on Plaintiff's perception that Defendant McCarthy had engaged in racketeering designed
to nullify Plaintiff's complaint against Defendant Kaye and Defendant Shapiro, Defendant McCarthy engaged in an act of racketeering
and fraud3 by engaging the U.S. Attorney's Office for Vermont to say that “In or about September 2008, in the District
of Vermont, the defendant, Cheryl Uzamere, impeded, intimidated, and interfered with a federal employee, namely an employee
of the United States Customs and Immigration Service, while that person was engaged in and on account of that person's performance
of official duties.” Plaintiff emphatically states that she has never been to Vermont, Defendant McCarthy's state
of resident, so that it was impossible for Plaintiff to have engaged in any form of simple assault against Defendant McCarthy.
See documentation regarding USA v. Uzamere, 1:08-cr-114-1 attached as Exhibit B.
..........82).....On
or around October 8, 2008, Defendant Eugene Uzamere, engaged in an act of racketeering, aggravated identity theft, violation
of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by hand-delivering
a fraudulent affirmation and a fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized counter-affidavit from Nigeria4, 5 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. Defendant Osato Uzamere also gave
Defendant Sunshine a copy of a Nigerian passport bearing the number A05588053, but no name; and a copy of a social security
card receipt with the number XXX-XX-1205, with the name and address “Godwin E. Uzamere, 239 Clifton Avenue, Apt. 3,
Brooklyn, New York, 11216.” The unnamed passport copies and the social security receipt were notarized by “Kate
Ezomo, Principal Registrar, Commissioner for Oaths”, in Nigeria. Justice Sunshine refused to commission a diplomatic
or consular officer for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the fraudulent foreign document that was presented
to him by attorney Osato Uzamere on behalf of his uncle, Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. From
then until the present, Justice Sunshine has never made any attempt to arrest Osato Uzamere for committing perjury. See fraudulent
affirmation and fraudulent foreign counter-affidavit Exhibit C. During the same month, Defendant McCarthy
and Defendant Cowles gave Plaintiff's criminal attorney Beth Mann a copy of the I-130 immigration sponsorship form that Plaintiff
signed on November 30, 1979 and a report explaining the two (2) immigration files having birthdays “XXXXXX XX, 19XX”
and XXXXXX XX, 19XX. and explaining “IR2 fraudulently obtained because he was married at the time” and “Compare
fingerprints between the two files.”
..........83).....On or around January 6, 2009, Plaintiff
received a notice from Defendant McCarthy in which she said that “This office has completed its review of the
complaint of professional misconduct that you filed against Allen E. Kaye, Esquire. The matter is confidential at this stage
in accordance with the Rules and Procedures of Professional Conduct for Practitioners (“Rules”), except for necessary
disclosures in the course of conducting a preliminary inquiry. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)
has authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry of complaints of criminal, unethical, or unprofessional conduct in matters
before USCIS. In your June 9, 2008 complaint, you allege that Alan E. Kaye “colluded with my husband, the now Senator
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to submit a marriage certificate with the fictitious name "Godwin Uzamere: in order to avoid paying
child support. and three years later, in order to hide the 2nd marriage that my husband contracted in the United States.”
The acts that you allege constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Practitioner occurred in the course
of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye in connection with an immediate relative filed by you with the Immigration
and Naturalization (“INS”) in 1979. The New York Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Supreme Court, Appellate
Division First Judicial Department considered these allegations in 2003 and determined that no further action was warranted.
After a careful and thorough review of your complaint I do not find clear and convincing evidence of an ethical violation
of the Rules on the part of Mr. Kaye. No further action will be taken with regard to your complaint.” Defendant McCarthy's
statement “occurred in the course of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye” makes direct reference
to Defendant Harvey Shapiro. See correspondence from Defendant McCarthy dated January 6, 2009 attached as Exhibit
A.
..........84).....On
January 12, 2009, Defendant Sunshine engaged in misprision of felony, racketeering, aggravated identity theft and fraud upon
the court by rendering a decision in which he stated that “Moreover, the opposition submitted by defendant raises a
genuine issue as to whether or not plaintiff and defendant were married in the first instance”, in defiance of INS'
administrative decision that recognized the names “Godwin E. Uzamere” and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as belonging to
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and that Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was married to the Plaintiff. Defendant Sunshine made no attempt to
obey commission a consular officer of the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria to verify the authenticity of the unauthenticated
counter-affidavit from Nigeria purporting to be from “Godwin Uzamere.” See Page 9 of Justice Sunshine's decision
and order dated January 12, 2009 is attached as Exhibit D.
..........85).....On January 20, 2009, the Plaintiff e-mailed a complaint
to former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Robin Renee Sanders in which she said that “While I was in court on January 13,
2008, my husband's attorney, Eugene O. Uzamere asked Judge Sunshine if Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, my real husband, along
with some Nigerian pretending to be my real husband can be allowed to video-conference their appearance in court. As it is
apparent that the level of corruption in my divorce action has reached an all-time new low, it appears that Judge Sunshine
will allow this silliness. This would give Eugene the opportunity of paying some poor Nigerian a pittance to engage in identity
fraud that would reach a New York State Court. In the likely event that Judge Sunshine allows this silliness, is there some
way that your office can ensure that the unknown Nigerian who engages in this video-conference first signs some kind of affidavit
that is notarized by your office? That way, your office can check that person's identification to ensure that if he attempts
to say that he is my husband, his identification will prove otherwise.” Although Plaintiff had the presence of mind
to ask former U.S. Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders to require anyone posing as Plaintiff's husband to produce identification,
Defendant Sunshine did not require Defendant Osato E. Uzamere to produce any type of U.S. Embassy-authenticated, color-photograph-bearing
government identification of his client, and the only forms of identification that Defendant Osato E. Uzamere produced was
a copy of a passport bearing no one's name and social security number XXX-XX-1205, the fictitious number associated with the
fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere.” See e-mail to former Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders and response from the U.S.
Embassy in Nigeria attached as Exhibit E. See fraudulent passport cover and fraudulent social security number attached as
Exhibit C.
..........86).....On May 12, 2009, Defendant Sunshine rendered his decision recognizing the identity of Plaintiff's
ex-husband as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere by stating that “Today at 10:35 am. defendant was declared in default for failure
to appear at the hearing. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss this action upon the grounds that he is not the husband
of the plaintiff is denied in its entirety. The defendant is the husband in conformity with the parties marriage on November
21, 1979. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order and serve and file a note of issue, forthwith,
with proof of mailing by regular international mail and overnight international mail for a trial on all issues within
this matrimonial action to be held before this court on July 7, 2009. at 9:30 a.m. This shall constitute the decision
and order of the court.” See Defendant Sunshine's decision attached as Exhibit F.
..........87).....On July 7, 2009,
the Plaintiff filed an action for fraud against her ex-husband and against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack
Gladstein. From the year 2009 to 2011, Plaintiff also attempted to engage the judicial assistance of Defendant New York State
Unified Court System for the Second Judicial Department with regard to the following appellate cases: 1) Uzamere v Daily
News, L.P., 2011 NY Slip Op 52421(U) [34 Misc 3d 1203(A)], Decided on November 10, 2011, Supreme Court, New York County,
Rakower, J; 2) Uzamere v Uzamere, 2011 NY Slip Op 08583 [89 AD3d 1013], November 22, 2011, Appellate Division, Second
Department; 3) Uzamere v Uzamere, 2009 NY Slip Op 09214 [68 AD3d 855], December 8, 2009, Appellate Division, Second
Department; 4) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2010 NY Slip Op 83241(U), Decided on September 23,
2010, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; 5) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion
No: 2011 NY Slip Op 65346(U), Decided on February 28, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision; 6) Uzamere
v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 69114(U), Decided on April 6, 2011, Appellate Division,
Second Department, Motion Decision; and 7) Uzamere v Uzamere, Motion No: 2010-07636, Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip
Op 69622(U), Decided on April 11, 2011, Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision. The following appellate judges
presided over the aforementioned cases: Daniel D. Angiolillo; Cheryl E. Chambers; Jeffrey A. Cohen; Mark C. Dillon; Anita
R. Florio; Steven W. Fisher; L. Priscilla Hall; John M. Leventhal; Plummer E. Lott; William F. Mastro; Robert J. Miller; A.
Gail Prudenti; Reinaldo E. Rivera; Sheri S. Roman; Sandra L. Sgroi and Peter B. Skelos. Plaintiff alleges that just as in
the trial courts, Plaintiff provided the appellate courts with the Daily News article and the fraudulent affirmations in which
Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein Osato E. Uzamere perjured themselves and stated that “Godwin
Uzamere” was Plaintiff's husband. The appellate judges, just as every judge with whom Plaintiff presented the aforementioned
testimony as done, ignored Plaintiff's cries for justice, engaged in fraud upon the court and disobeyed 18 USC §4, misprision
of felony, the Code of Conduct for Judges and the Code of Lawyers Professional Responsibility with regard to report a judge
an attorney who engages in acts of wrongdoing. Plaintiff also filed various complaints with the New York State Commission
on Judicial Conduct against Defendants Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Arthur Schack; the Departmental Disciplinary
Committee for the First Department against Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Osato E. Uzamere; and the New York State Grievance
Committee for the Second Judicial Department against Jack Gladstein. Plaintiff produced the Daily News article, the fraudulent,
unauthenticated, unnotarized, foreign counter-affidavit from Defendant Osato E. Uzamere, and the fraudulent affirmation from
Defendants corrupt attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato E. Uzamere that are proof of their act
of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity theft and New York State Penal Law Section 210.15, perjury in the first degree,
and proof of the true identity of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere the Plaintiff obtained from Defendant Rachel McCarthy (who can be
reached at (802) 660-5043; fax (802) 660-5067). No member of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the New York
State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department or the New York State Grievance Committee for
the Second Judicial Department ever reported the aforementioned attorneys for their commission of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated
identity theft or New York State Penal Law Section 210.15, perjury in the first degree.
..........88).....On or near October 28, 2009, Defendants
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, engaged in racketeering and aggravated identity theft by submitting fraudulent
affirmations to the court holding “Godwin Uzamere” to be the Plaintiff's husband based on the fraudulent I-130
immigration sponsorship form that Plaintiff's ex-husband filed with Defendants Kaye and Shapiro. See fraudulent affirmations
of Defendants Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein attached as Exhibit G.
..........89).....On November 3, 2009, Defendants Jeffrey
S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack, Michael Gerstein, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein engaged in an act prohibited
by the New York Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility in that, after filing the fraudulent affirmations, they planned
and implemented Plaintiff's false arrest for the sole purpose of obtaining an advantage in the action for fraud that Plaintiff
filed against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Plaintiff stayed in jail for 33 days. Because Plaintiff
was remanded and was not able to leave, Plaintiff was coerced into accepting the plea as mentally unfit, and employees of
Defendant New York State Office of Court Administration/Unified Court System intentionally avoided appearing before
court to explain their false charge against the Plaintiff. Charges against Plaintiff were dismissed. See correspondence from
Rikers Island, attached as Exhibit H.
..........90).....On November 5, 2009, Defendants Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack, on their
own and/or by courthouse employees that were under said Defendants' care, control and supervision at the time of the incident,
engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice by illegally commenting on6 and providing nonpublic information regarding Plaintiff's cases Kings County Criminal Court Case Docket No.
2009KN087992, Kings County Supreme Court Index No. 18012-2009 and Kings County Supreme Index No. 26332-2007 to Daily News
staff writer Scott Shifrel in violation of 22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(8)(11); that said nonpublic information was provided to
the Daily News, by staff writer Scott Shifrel, who did knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought engage in an act
of racketeering/obstruction of justice by publishing the newspaper article that illegally disclosed Plaintiff's nonpublic
information that was acquired by Defendant Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack during their adjudication of
Plaintiff's cases including Plaintiff's photo; Plaintiff's name; Plaintiff's age; Plaintiff's mental illness; Plaintiff's
psychiatric diagnosis; symptoms of Plaintiff's mental illness; the courts where Plaintiff's cases were adjudicated; the town
where Plaintiff's lives and the name of the hospital that treated Plaintiff; that Daily News staff writer Scott Shifrel, on
behalf the Defendants, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction by charging Plaintiff with the halachic/Jewish religious
crime of anti-Semitism by saying “Cheryl Uzamere, 50, known around courthouse circles for her anti-Semitic screeds,
was declared mentally unfit and taken to Bellevue Hospital for observation”; and, that “...she's a smart person
and she really know how to use the system, said one courthouse source...she comes in here and files all these papers and threatens
people. Uzamere was in a Criminal Court holding cell when she started stripping and screaming about her “senator”
husband in Nigeria loud enough to be heard in the courtroom. The senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin
Uzamere, according to an affidavit he filed in Supreme Court. . .”; and that “the senator, however, is a cousin
of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to affidavit filed in Supreme Court”; and “Her obsession with
his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged, Godwin Uzamere said. . .”
Scott Shifrel, at the behest of Mortimer Zuckerman and and Defendants Judge Gerstein, Justice Sunshine and Justice Schack,
on their own and/or by courthouse employees that were under said Defendants' care, control and supervision at the time of
the incident, engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice by engaging in aggravated identity theft; said act
of identity theft accomplished by publicly holding in the Defendant Daily News that false identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband
as “Godwin Uzamere. On the following day, the company ALM.com, by its website Law.com, published an article entitled
N.Y. Arrested for Threatening Judge; that said nonpublic information was provided to the Law.com, by staff writer Mark
Fass who did knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought, publish the internet article that illegally
disclosed Plaintiff's nonpublic information that was acquired by the Defendant judges during their adjudication of Plaintiff's
cases, leaving out Jews Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Scott Shifrel's and Mortimer Zuckerman's commission
of misprision of felony, fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft. Around that same period of time, Defendant
Jazmin M. Quary, a paralegal (not an attorney), fraudulently and with malice aforethought, committed misprision of felony,
fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft by conspiring with, at the very least, corrupt Jewish attorney Allen E.
Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and other Defendants to give the impression of being a legal expert, disparagingly criticizing
Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere v. Bush, 08:CV-891 at her website; by stating the following:
“In Uzamere v. Bush, et al., Cheryl D. Uzamere alleged
that her “American” husband Ehigie Edobor a.k.a. "Goodwin" Uzamere was a ringleader in a green card
scam marriage. After filing her complaint with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Office in 1980 Mrs. Uzamere
pursued her allegations in the Federal Court system.
She
claims that her husband, Mr. Uzamere tricked her into signing his immigration paperwork and ultimately abandoned her and their
daughter. She claims that she had no idea his name was fictitious, that he was not a United States citizen and that
he had obtained entrance into the United States illegally. She claims that Mr. Uzamere, a Nigerian Senator, and his immigration
attorneys created this scheme to outsmart someone that had no knowledge of the law or his true origin.
I was beginning to feel sorry for the woman, but then the case took a unusual turn: The funny
part of this case is that in addition to suing the husband and his attorneys she is also going after New York State (yes,
the entire state), New York State Grievance Committee for the 2nd and 11th Departments, City of New York (yes, the entire
city), New York City Police Department, New York City Human Resources Administration/Department of Social Services, Google
Corporation (yes, the entire Google) and YouTube Corporation (same here), Condoleeza Rice (what did she do?), Michael Chertoff,
Julie Myers, The United States Of America, United States Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security,
United States Department of Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Why? Because she thinks that they should have known that he was lying. She believes that they
should have discovered the fraud and uncovered the truth. See the remainder of the complaint here.
There is no surprise that Mrs. Uzamere's complaint was dismissed for not stating a claim as to the Federal government
defendants and for having a frivolous cause. But it sure was entertaining!”7
Plaintiff alleges that as Defendant Quary has publicly held
herself out to be a legal expert, she knew that corrupt Jewish Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein had engaged
in fraud, identity fraud and aggravated identity theft, and that Defendant Quary was illegally influenced to publicly disseminate
Plaintiff's attempts to obtain justice as “funny” and “entertaining”, while holding out corrupt Jewish
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein as not having engaged in any wrongdoing, and being victims, and holding out
Plaintiff's Verified Complaint as being even more false based on the word of a “legal expert” who could not have
any racism toward the Plaintiff because like the Plaintiff, she is African American. While Defendant Quary held out the ridiculousness
of Plaintiff's lawsuit, she made no attempt to negatively critique corrupt Jewish Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack
Gladstein's commission of fraud, identity fraud and aggravated identity theft, and their refusal to check Plaintiff's ex-husband's
passport to verify their client's identity. See negative internet articles concerning Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Verified
Complaint Docket No. 08-CV-891, attached as Exhibit K1. During the time that Plaintiff was unlawfully
imprisoned, Plaintiff explained to her attorneys Timothy Gumkowski and Joyce Kendrick that the Defendants had engaged
in aggravated identity theft with reference to Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity. Defendant Kendrick told Plaintiff to
let it go.
..........91).....On
November 30, 2009, twenty-five (25) days after Defendant Daily News, LP published its article regarding the Plaintiff, Defendant
Federation Employment and Guidance Service terminated its mental health services to the Plaintiff. In its discharge summary
it stated that “given client's history of anti-Semitic remarks treatment at an FEGS facility is inappropriate for
her.” FEGS' discharge summary is attached as Exhibit J1.
.........92).....On December 7, 2009, the Plaintiff
was placed with Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility.
.......... 93).....On December 24, 2009, Plaintiff was
seen by Defendant New York State Unified Court System judicial employee the Honorable Anthony Cutrona of Kings County Supreme
Court's Mental Hygiene Court.
..........94).....On January 15, 2010, Defendant Schack engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice,
violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act by ordering
Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's psychiatrist Dr. Marie Bauduy of the Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility not
to produce the Plaintiff for court. In his decision dated January 25, 2010, Justice Schack stated that “The Court is
concerned that plaintiff UZAMERE is unfit to proceed. . .Therefore, the instant matter is adjourned to Friday,
March 19, 2010. . .” See interim decision of Defendant Schack attached as Exhibit I.
..........95).....During the beginning
of February, 2010, Plaintiff was discharged by Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility.
..........96).....On or near February 23, 2010, while the Plaintiff was
in her apartment faxing letters of complaint to various governmental agencies, Defendants Sunshine, New York State Office
of Mental Health and Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center engaged in an act of racketeering/obstruction of justice,
insofar as they contacted a social worker from Defendant Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center, who then arranged for
Plaintiff to be kidnapped and hospitalized by Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center.
Defendant Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center caused one of its employees to contact Defendant City of New York's
agencies, the New York City Housing Authority's Louis H. Pink Houses, the New York City Police Department and the New York
City Fire Department. An employee of the New York City Housing Authority opened the Plaintiff's apartment door, and Plaintiff
was taken out of her apartment by force and hospitalized by Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro
Psychiatric Center. During Plaintiff's last week as an inpatient, Kingsboro social worker Laurie Velcimé informed
the Plaintiff that she was engaged in aftercare preparation, including locating an outpatient mental health program. The
Plaintiff advised Ms. Velcimé that she was interested in attending New York Psychotherapy and Counseling Center (NYPCC)
on Hendrix Street, located close to where the Plaintiff lives. After Ms. Velcimé performed a search of NYPCC and other
outpatient mental health care providers, she informed the Plaintiff that not only had NYPCC refused to accept Plaintiff
as a client, but that virtually all the not-for-profit outpatient mental health facilities that Ms. Velcimé contacted
rejected her request to provide Plaintiff with outpatient psychiatric services.
..........97).....On July 13, 2010, Justice Arthur M. Schack engaged in
an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and aggravated identity theft by rendering a decision, holding that “Godwin
Uzamere” is Plaintiff's husband and that ORDERED, that the instant complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and it is
further ORDERED, that plaintiff CHERYL UZAMERE is hereby enjoined from commencing any future actions in the New York State
Unified Court System against SENATOR EHIGIE EDOBOR UZAMERE a/k/a "GODWIN E. UZAMERE," ALLEN E. KAYE, P.C., ALLEN
E. KAYE, ESQ., HARVEY SHAPIRO, ESQ., BERNARD J. ROSTANSKI and JACK GLADSTEIN, ESQ., without the prior approval of the appropriate
Administrative Justice or Judge; and it is further ORDERED, that any violation of the above injunction by CHERYL UZAMERE
will subject CHERYL UZAMERE to costs, sanctions and contempt proceedings. This constitutes
the decision and order of the Court.” See Defendant Schack's decision dated July 13, 2010 attached as Exhibit
J:
“One theme that we have considered over the
years is whether attorneys get preferential treatment in legal malpractice litigation. Are motions to dismiss granted on too
little evidence? Do the attorneys get the benefit of the doubt? Is the fact that legal malpractice law is written mostly
by attorneys, is decided upon by attorneys and affects attorneys sometimes dispositive of the outcome?Well, all that aside,
sometimes the client just can't help themselves. Here is an example from today's NYLJ: Uzamere v. Uzamere; KINGS COUNTY; Justice Schack. . .”
..........98).....Shortly thereafter, Defendant Lawline.com published the same article, even going so far as to
compare Jewish Defendant Kaye's, Defendant Shapiro's and Defendant Gladstein's monstrous act of aggravated identity
theft, including the deprivation of Plaintiff's and her laughter Tara's right to bear the African/Nigerian name of
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere nothing more than Plaintiff's delusion that it was an act of legal malpractice, and not a
crime.
..........99).....On
August 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed lawsuit 2010-cv-555 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit assigned to Defendant
judge Christine O.C. Miller. Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendant Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's,
Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendant Miller disobeyed 18 USC
§4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case
was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud
upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing
that a civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any
legal consequences based on corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal
commission of aggravated identity theft. The decision of this case is null and void. Plaintiff
will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish defendants.
..........100).....On
August 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed lawsuit 2010-cv-585 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit assigned to Defendants
Nancy B. Firestone and John P. Wiese of the U.S. Court of Claims. Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendants Firestone
and Wiese with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity
theft, and that Defendants Firestone and Wiese disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing to file a criminal complaint against the
aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of racketeering because it was an act of obstruction
of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the
Moser; 3) trick Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative function
– was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey
Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, and Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft –
a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime
was never tried. The decision of this case is null and void. Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt,
racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish defendants.
..........101).....On September 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed lawsuit 2010-cv-591
with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit was assigned to Defendant judge Christine O.C. Miller of the U.S. Court
of Claims. Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendant Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's
and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft, and that Defendant Miller disobeyed 18 USC §4 by failing
to file a criminal complaint against the aforementioned Jew attorneys. The decision rendered on this case was an act of
racketeering because it was an act of obstruction of justice. It was also a clear act of fraud upon the court, designed
to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata
determination – a purely civil adjudicative function – was a permanent and final determination to nullify and
render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, and Mortimer Zuckerman's and
Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft – a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative
function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never tried. The decision of this case is null and void.
Plaintiff will no longer tolerate any more of the corrupt, racist, racketeering, justice-obstructing shenanigans of the Jewish
defendants.
..........102).....On
or around January 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant State of New York with the New York State Court of
Claims. As part of Plaintiff's testimony, Plaintiff provided Defendant Scuccimarra with the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt,
Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft with regard to
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity. Defendant Scuccimarra never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish
attorneys' commission of a federal felony.
.........103).....On or around January 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant Gerstein, Defendant
Sunshine and Defendant Schack with Defendant the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. As part of Plaintiff's testimony,
Plaintiff provided Defendant Klonick with the fraudulent affirmations that corrupt, Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey
Shapiro and Jack Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft with regard to Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity.
Defendant Klonick never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys' commission of a federal felony.
..........104).....On or around
April 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein with Defendants
the New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department and the New York Grievance Committee
for the Second Judicial Department. As part of Plaintiff's testimony, Plaintiff provided Defendants Del Tipico and Gutierrez
with the fraudulent affirmations that Defendants Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein used to commit aggravated identity theft
at the behest of their client, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. Defendants Del Tipico and Gutierrez never made any attempt
to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys commission of a federal felony.
.......... 105).....In June, 2011, Plaintiff filed the Uzamere v.
Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 with the for the Eastern District of New York.
.......... 106).....On or around June 22, 2011, Defendant Garaufis rendered
in decision for Plaintiff's civil rights action which said the following:
“Plaintiff's
most recent Complaint—one of at least five she has filed with this court—is 89-pages long and is accompanied by
589 pages of exhibits. Plaintiff has also sent at least 60 pages of faxes directly to chambers, purporting to be in connection
with her most recent action. The substance of Plaintiffs Complaint—if one can be discerned—concerns, among other
things, her divorce from Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; a defamation claim filed against the Daily News; a Departmental Disciplinary
Committee complaint filed against the attorney representing the Daily News; and other state court actions, including a state
court action against the attorneys who represented her former husband. (Compi. at 27-45.) Plaintiff has a long, tired history
of vexatious litigation in this court. See Uzamere v. State of New York, No. 09-cv-2703 (E.D.N.Y. July 9, 2009).”
Defendant Garaufis' judicial commentary on Plaintiff's lawsuit was biased. It did not address
the acts of fraud, identity theft or aggravated theft perpetrated by corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro
and Jack Gladstein that Plaintiff proved in her civil rights action Nor did Defendant Garaufis' address Plaintiff's contentions
regarding the Court's discrimination against Plaintiff based on her having a mental illness. Defendant Garaufis' judicial
commentary did not address most of the issues Plaintiff discussed in her civil rights action (“. . .a unanimous Supreme
Court has admonished that pro se in forma pauperis complaints must be read with tolerance: Dismissal is impermissible unless
the court can say “with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts
in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct.
594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d
80 (1957), reaffirmed in Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. at 292.) The commentary condemned the Verified Complaint's number
of pages and the numbers of complaints Plaintiff filed with the Court (But a complaint filed in forma pauperis is not subject
to dismissal simply because the plaintiff is litigious. The number of complaints a poor person files does not alone justify
peremptory dismissal. In each instance, the substance of the impoverished person's claim is the appropriate measure. Crisafi
v. Holland, et al, 655 F2d 1305) Defendant Garaufis admits that he has difficulty in understanding the substance of
Plaintiff's complaint based on his statement: “Plaintiff's most recent Complaint—one of at least five she has
filed with this court—is 89-pages long and is accompanied by 589 pages of exhibits. . .The substance of Plaintiff's
Complaint – if one can be discerned. . .” Defendant Garaufis' displayed even more mean-spirited bias with regard
to all of Plaintiff's actions when he said in his statement: “Plaintiff has a long, tired history of vexatious litigation
in this court. Defendant Garaufis engaged in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated
identity theft by rendering an FRCP-lacking, memorandum-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-CV-2831
for the sole purpose of: 1) advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) not filing a criminal complaint against
corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein
for their fraudulent commission of 3) trick Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination – a
purely civil adjudicative function – was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt
Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, and Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission
of aggravated identity theft – a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy
was never attached because the crime was never tried; and, 4) Defendant Bloom's commission of misprision
of felony racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft and fraud upon
the court as well.
..........107).....On
or around June 25, 2011, less than thirty (30) after Plaintiff submitted her lawsuit to the court, Defendant Garaufis engaged
in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft of at the behest
of Defendant Judge Garaufis three (3) marshals from the U.S. Marshals Service for Defendant the Eastern District of New York
banged on Plaintiff's apartment door, embarrassing 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. Later on, between the end of June and the beginning of July, 2011, under the leadership of President Barack H.
Obama;8 Andrew Weissman, General Counsel for Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation, James X. Dempsey, Defendant,
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Elisebeth Collins Cook, Defendant, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board;
David Medine, Chairman, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Rachel L. Brand, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
Board; and Patricia M. Wald, Defendant, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Keith B. Alexander, General, National
Security Agency; Rajesh De, General Counsel, National Security Agency; Eric H. Holder; U.S. Attorney General, Patrick Leahy,
Senator Judiciary Chairman, Hon. Goodlatte, Chairman, U.S. House Judiciary Chairman, Mike Rogers, House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence, U.S. Marshals Service Director Charles Dunne, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Protection Service,
Threat Assessment Branch employee Denis P. McGowan, FBI Assistant Director in Charge, George Venizelos, their subordinates,
U.S. Department of Justice; Charles Schumer,9 Senate Judiciary Committee; Dianne Feinstein,10 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairperson; Senator Saxby Chambliss,11 and at the direct behest of Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, Plaintiff alleges that a national security
letter (or national security letters) was/were given to Cablevision, Inc. to obtain non-content information regarding Plaintiff's
telephone calls to governmental agencies and outpatient psychiatric care providers for the sole purpose of associating the
non-content information with false reports that Plaintiff had made threatening telephone calls to government employees.
..........108).....On July
4, 2011, Plaintiff filed her appeal for the lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al.
..........109).....From July 6, 2011, the date in
which Plaintiff is alleged to have committed 18 USC §115 against Defendant Garaufis, other federal judges and employees
of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services call center, no federal law
enforcement agency made any attempt to arrest the Plaintiff for the aforementioned offenses. According to Defendant Catherine
O'Hagan Wolfe, the judges who rendered decisions on Plaintiff's appeal for her lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al,
11-2713-cv were not indicated on the decision because others unknown to Plaintiff told Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe that Plaintiff
threatened Defendant Garaufis, other federal judges and Defendant Sunshine.
..........110).....On
or around July 7, 2011, Defendants psychiatric nurse Agnes Flores and psychologist Martin Bolton, employees of Defendant New
York City Health and Hospitals Corporation came to Plaintiff's apartment, speaking about Plaintiff's psychiatric issues in
the hallway and shaming Plaintiff within earshot of her neighbors. Defendants Flores and Bolton said that Defendant
U.S. Marshal Service12 told them that Plaintiff contacted Defendant Mental Health Association's LifeNet psychiatric helpline and
made threats of bodily harm against Defendant Garaufis. Plaintiff told them that had she done such a thing that the
U.S. Marshal Service would have arrested her when they visited her and given her an attorney, which would have forced Plaintiff's
attorney to examine Plaintiff's civil claims. Also, at the behest of Defendant Garaufis, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
O'Hagan Wolfe returned Plaintiff's appellate brief, all of Plaintiff's motions, Appendix A and Appendix B that Plaintiff served
on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 4, 2012. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe did not include any correspondence
explaining why Plaintiff's appellate documents were returned. See copies of UPS envelopes for Plaintiff's appellate documents,
Uzamere vs. State of New York, et al 09-cv-2703/09-3197-cv and Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2831-cv
and 11-2713-cv attached as Exhibit K 13 and Exhibit L.
..........111).....Plaintiff alleges that this is the first time that an accuser was correct about the non-content
information of a phone call she made (but not about the content). At the time the accusation was made, Plaintiff was not able
to tell how Defendants Flores and Bolton discovered the non-content information of her phone call to LifeNet.
..........112).....Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants Agnes Flores and Martin Bolton do not possess the psychic ability to read Plaintiff's thoughts and tell whom
she called. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Agnes Flores and Martin Bolton received non-content information regarding
phone call to LifeNet from an NSL that Defendant Garaufis signed off, or that Defendants Flores and Bolton received non-NSL,
non-content information from an unauthorized source.
..........113).....Some days later while in the month of July 2011, Plaintiff received another visit from Defendants
Flores and Bolton. Because Plaintiff was afraid that someone would enter her apartment and place Plaintiff in a psychiatric
hospital against her will, so Plaintiff hid in her closet so she would not appear to be home. Thereafter, Plaintiff received
a call from Defendant Davis, but Plaintiff did not answer her cellphone.
..........114).....A day or so later, someone knocked on Plaintiff's door
but did not announce themselves. Again Plaintiff hid in her closet to feign that she was not home. When Plaintiff went
to the door, there was a notice from Woodhull Hospital's psychiatric unit with an appoint to appear at their psychiatric outpatient
clinic.
..........115).....On
July 16, 2011, in terror of forced hospitalization at the behest of Defendant Garaufis, the U.S. Marshal Service and psychiatric
facilities over which the New York State Office of Mental Health and the New York State Department of Health have oversight,
Plaintiff faxed a copy of a complaint to U.S. Attorney Preetinder Bharara. However, Defendant Davis called Plaintiff again,
frightening Plaintiff by making Plaintiff believe that Plaintiff would be forcibly hospitalized because Defendant U.S. Marshal
Service told her that Plaintiff had threatened judges and others at the (federal) Medicaid office, something that Plaintiff
did not do. Plaintiff took the liberty of recording the conversation14, 15 in its entirety. Plaintiff uploaded the conversation http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html.
..........116).....Plaintiff
alleges that by the end of June/beginning of July 2011, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Garaufis authorized a national security
letter that was sent to Movant's telephone company and internet service provider, Cablevision, giving Defendants Garaufis,
the U.S. Marshals Service, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation the ability to
obtain non-content information regarding Plaintiff's daughter, Tara A. Uzamere and Movant's psychiatric care providers for
the sole purpose of contacting them to give them false criminal/psychiatric reports concerning the Movant, in violation of
18 USC §2709 and 18 USC §3511. Plaintiff alleges this based on her belief that the aforementioned Defendants are
not psychic but were able to obtain non-contact information regarding Movant's telephone calls to her daughter, Tara A. Uzamere
and to psychiatric care providers from sources other than the Plaintiff. Please refer to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html; and http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/uzamere_v_obama.html. See letter from Cablevision to Plaintiff, letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY to Defendant Judge
Victor Marrero, Memorandum of Law from Defendant Marrero and Stipulation and Order of Dismissal of Action between U.S. Attorney's
Office, SDNY and the American Civil Liberties Union, attached as Exhibit L1.
..........117).....In the month of August, 2011 Defendant
Davis contacted Defendant Sarpong for the purpose of forcing Plaintiff to go to Defendant Brookdale Hospital Medical Center,
where Plaintiff was unlawfully imprisoned as an inpatient for threatening Defendant Garaufis and other judges with bodily
harm, and threatening CMS workers with death, something that Plaintiff never did. Plaintiff stayed a few days as an inpatient
with Defendant Brookdale because Defendant Dr. “John Doe” and other employees of Defendant Brookdale Hospital
Medical Center were told by Defendant Sarpong that Plaintiff threatened Judge Garaufis, other judges and CMS call center workers
with death and with bodily harm. Thereafter, Brookdale Hospital Medical Center terminated its outpatient psychiatric services
to the Plaintiff and transferred Plaintiff to the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive
Community Treatment Team in order Plaintiff illegally monitor along with Defendant Denis P. McGowan of Defendant U.S. Department
of Homeland Security.
..........118).....On
or around August 18, 2011, Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation's East New York Diagnostic and Treatment
Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team received correspondence from U.S. Department of Homeland Security on its original
letterhead bearing the name “Denis P. McGowan, Chief, Threat Management Branch.” The letter stated: “On
July 06, 2011, Federal Protective Service (FPS) was notified of a telephonic threat made by CHERYL UZAMERE to the Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid call center. The threat consisted of HER stating: since SHE did not get the job, SHE was going
to “COME DOWN THERE AND KILL EVERYBODY. Since FPS has investigated UZAMERE multiple times for similar behavior, we are
well aware of HER mental health history. Based on that information, a referral was made to LifeNet for mental health intervention
on July 07 2011. Subsequently, UZAMERE's Intensive Case Manager (ICM) Bridgett Davis of the New York State Office of Mental
Health has advised that UZAMERE's treatment has been transferred to the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program. We were
informed that CHERYL D. UZAMERE is being treated as a patient by your program and we would like to keep you abreast of this
situation as it evolves. We also request that we be notified as HER status changes in particular any change from in-patient
to out-patient treatment and in the case of the latter any refusal of treatment. In addition, please notify FPS of
any relapses or deterioration of HER condition that may pose a risk to life or property.” See letter from Denis P.
McGowan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security attached as Exhibit M.
..........119).....This is the second time that a defendant
was correct about the non-content information of a phone call made by the Plaintiff (but not correct about the content). At
the time the accusation was made, Plaintiff was not able to tell how Defendant McGowan knew that Plaintiff called the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services call center. Further to this, Defendant McGowan became a regional director (someone
with power to issue NSLs) shortly after he revealed the non-content information regarding Plaintiff's
phone call to CMS in the letter that he sent to Samuel Sarpong.
..........120).....Plaintiff alleges that Defendant McGowan does not possess the psychic ability to read Plaintiff's
thoughts and tell whom Plaintiff called. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant McGowan received non-content information
regarding Plaintiff's phone call to CMS from an NSL that he authorized, and Judge Garaufis signed off, or that he received
non-NSL, non-content information from an unauthorized source.
..........121).....On February 26, 2012, Defendant HHC's ACT Team where Defendant Sarpong is employed prepared a
psychiatric treatment plan. Under the title “Alerts”, the treatment plan states “. . . H/O threats to judges
and Center for Medicaid and Medicare, patient is being monitored by Homeland Security.” Under the title “Discharge
Plan”, it says “Patient is not being considered for discharge at this time, she was transferred to the program
6 months ago after she made a threat to the Medicare and Medicaid call center and is being monitored by the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security.” Under the title “Patient/Family Statement”, it says that “She reported not
being aware of being monitored by Homeland Security. . .” (see Plaintiff's psychiatric treatment plan
from the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment Team, attached as Exhibit
M).
..........122).....From
June 6, 2012, Plaintiff sent a number of e-mails to employees Mike J. Fitzpatrick, Katrina Gay, David Levy and Sue Medford
of the organization National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) regarding Defendant Daily News use of the term “wacko”
to publicly malign the Plaintiff. None of the employees that Plaintiff contacted made any attempt to speak with the Plaintiff.
..........123).....On November 26,
2012, Plaintiff sent an e-mail to Hakeem Jeffries regarding the act of fraud of Defendant Denis P. McGowan. Included in the
e-mail was Plaintiff's impending lawsuit against various federal employees, the correspondence from Defendant McGowan and
psychiatric treatment plans of Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporations that reflect Defendant McGowan's
fraudulent statement that Plaintiff threatened judges with bodily harm and employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services call center with murder. Plaintiff received an e-mail from Defendant Jeffries stating that “In order to best
serve you, I have opened a South Brooklyn office in Coney Island and a Central Brooklyn office in Fort Greene. You are cordially
invited to join me, my staff, and your fellow neighbors at an Open House to learn more about what we can do for you. As
far as Plaintiff knows, neither Defendant Jeffries, nor any of his staff made any attempt to contact Defendant U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, the Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation or U.S. Marshals Service.
..........124).....On November 28, 2012, based on
information and belief, Defendants Raggi, Carney and Kahn of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit engaged in an
act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft by rendering an FRAP-lacking
decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv for the sole purpose of advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law
of the Moser by not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration
attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their fraudulent commission of aggravated identity theft, and
their own commission of racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity, for their own
commission of obstruction of justice by tricking Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination –
a purely civil adjudicative function – was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt
Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission
of aggravated identity theft – a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy
was never attached because the crime was never tried. Plaintiff was told the names of Defendant judges Raggi, Carney and Kahn
by an unknown employee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe also engaged in an act
of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft for the sole purpose of advancing
the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering,
racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their criminal commission of aggravated
identity theft. Plaintiff's alleges that Defendant O'Hagan Wolfe left out the names of the judges who rendered their
illegal decision on Plaintiff's decision based on defendants' delusion that Plaintiff would either not figure out the judges'
identity and would therefore be unable to sue them.
..........125).....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.
..........126).....During the month of December, 2012, Plaintiff sent several e-mails containing a copy of the lawsuit
Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 that Plaintiff filed, as well as those lawsuits that Plaintiff will file with the of
the Eastern District of New York, along with proof of Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity and the fraudulent affirmations that
corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein filed with the New York State
Supreme Court to First Lady Michele Obama, and to all the defendants. See one of several e-mails Plaintiff sent the Defendants
attached as Exhibit N.
..........127).....On
or around January 30, 2013, Plaintiff received a letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The letter stated:
"Our records show that you placed calls to 1-800-MEDICARE on the dates and times listed below (all times Central). We
can confirm that none of these calls contained threatening comments: June 14,2010, 10:38 AM; June 1,2011, 7:39 AM; July 8,
2011, 12:56 PM; May 18, 2012, 11:17 AM, 1:29 PM, 3:51 PM; July 2, 2012, 10:47 AM; July 10, 2012, 2:24 PM; July 17, 2012,
1:09 PM; July 18, 2012, 11:14 AM; July 19, 2012, 5:02 PM; July 23, 2012, 2:51 PM; July 24, 2012, 5:21 PM, 5:43 PM, 5:47 PM,
6:05 PM, 9:56 PM; July 26, 2012, 9:39 PM; July 27, 2012, 5:48 PM; September 9, 2012, 4:39 PM; October 18, 2012, 2:26 PM;
November 16, 2012 7:38 PM; November 26, 2012, 1:46 PM; December 12, 2012, 11:13AM; December 13, 2012, 4:29 AM,
5:05 PM, 5:09 PM. See letters from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services attached as Exhibit S.
..........128).....On March
7, 2013, Plaintiff contacted the New York State Court of Appeals to inform Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of Plaintiff's plans
to include him in her lawsuit. Later on, Plaintiff received an e-mail from Richard Reed that said: “This is further
to the telephone conversation that you had with the Clerk's Office of the New York State Court of Appeals this morning regarding
your proposed federal complaint. Please be advised that the matter has been turned over to Counsel's Office for the Office
of Court Administration. They will contact you in due course.” See e-mail from Richard Reed attached as Exhibit U.
Towards the end of the same day, Plaintiff received a telephone call from Defendant Michael J. Broyde and attempted to tell
him of what Plaintiff called a contradiction in term with regard to being both a rabbi and a U.S. attorney. Plaintiff informed
the rabbi-attorneys of her plans to file her Verified Complaint against them, and consistent with Plaintiff's stated plans,
e-mailed her Verified Complaint and the exhibits to rabbi-attorneys Michael J. Broyde, Esq., Rabbi Michoel Zylberman, Esq.,
Rabbi Yona Reiss, Esq., Rabbi Shlomo Weissmann, Esq.
..........129).....On March 9, 2013, Plaintiff e-mailed Abraham H. Foxman, Steven M. Freeman, Esq., Steven C. Sheinberg,
Esq., Deborah Bensinger, Esq. and David L. Barkey, Esq. of the Anti-Defamation League, Inc. to advise them how Jewish Defendants
Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq., Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel employed their Talmud-fostered
racial hatred and hatred of mentally ill goyim to rationalize their commission of 18 USC §1028A, aggravated identity
theft; their false accusation that Plaintiff harassed Defendant Sunshine; their false accusation that Plaintiff made threats
of violence; their violation of Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment insofar as the aforesaid Defendants never had any intention of
confronting the Plaintiff; and the Defendants' continued violation of 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, insofar as
none of the Defendants have ever made any attempt to file any criminal complaint against Allen E. Kaye, Esq.,
Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq., Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel in spite of Plaintiff's irrefutable criminal
accusations.
..........130).....On
March 15, 2013, Plaintiff sent a a copy of her lawsuit and a her complaint regarding Defendant McCarthy to Defendant the Professional
Responsibility Program. Plaintiff explained in her e-mail that Defendant McCarthy violated 18 USC §4, misprision of
felony based on Defendant's McCarthy's having knowledge of the actual commission of a Allen E. Kaye's and Harvey Shapiro's
aggravated identity theft and her continued refusal to it make known; and her refusal to obey Vermont’s Rules of Professional
Conduct's Rule 3.4, Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, which requires attorneys not to: (a) unlawfully obstruct another
party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary
value; b) not to counsel or assist another person to do any such act; and, c) not to falsify evidence, counsel or assist a
witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law. See letters from Vermont's Rules
of Professional Conduct, attached as Exhibit V.
..........131).....On March 24, 2013, Plaintiff called Defendant FBI New
York Office and asked one of its agents if the FBI office would refuse to take Plaintiff's complaints if the person against
whom Plaintiff complained was Jewish, as Plaintiff alleges was done to her in the past. True to past behavior, someone hung
up the phone. When Plaintiff called back, the person on the phone said that Plaintiff had posed the question to Mr. Stein,
hurting his feelings. Plaintiff was then called anti-Semitic, and then subjected to having the telephone hung up. Plaintiff
took her three (3) phones and engaged in a blitz phone call session, allowing all of her phones to ring at the same time.
When "John Doe" #1 finally answered the phone, Plaintiff got into an argument with Defendant “John Doe”
#1 with regard to Plaintiff's right to file a criminal complaint against Jews who had violated federal law. Defendant “John
Doe” #1 blackmailed Plaintiff by telling her that he would call Plaintiff's daughter, mentioning Plaintiff's daughter's
name (something that generally precedes a threat of psychiatric hospitalization), and then would come to Plaintiff's apartment;
however, when asked if Plaintiff had committed a crime and whether Plaintiff would be assigned an attorney, "John Doe"
#1 said that Plaintiff would have to obtain an attorney on her own. As it turned out, "John Doe" #1 never came to
Plaintiff's apartment, and never contacted Plaintiff's daughter. During Plaintiff's conversation with "John Doe"
#1, Plaintiff told the employee that she was recording the conversation. Plaintiff recorded the conversation and uploaded
it to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/uzamere_v_obama.html (this site, at the link that says FBIconversation - click here). The following day, Plaintiff contacted the FBI and spoke with a woman (who sounded black). Plaintiff told
the woman that an FBI employee would not allow her to file any complaints if the subject of the complaint is Jewish. Plaintiff
also told the woman that she recorded the conversation and uploaded it to her website. The woman asked Plaintiff how Plaintiff
knew whether the person with whom Plaintiff spoke was an employee of the FBI. Plaintiff told the woman she was right, and
that the person with whom Plaintiff spoke could have been Bozo the Clown. Subsequently, an employee of the FBI called Plaintiff's
psychiatric treatment facility and reported that Plaintiff had an argument with an FBI employee; that said argument was indicative
that Plaintiff has psychiatric issues that warrant hospitalization. On March 28, 2013, the day of Plaintiff's treatment appointment,
Plaintiff was asked by her psychiatrist, Dr. Beaudouin if she had had an argument with anyone. Later, Plaintiff was interviewed
simultaneously by Dr. Beaudouin and Ms. Fletcher in an attempt to find reasons to hospitalize the Plaintiff. It was so obvious
that Plaintiff asked if they planned to hospitalize her. Plaintiff's psychiatrist and therapist said no; however, Plaintiff's
psychiatrist and therapist never disclosed to Plaintiff that they had been contacted by Defendant FBI and requested to act
as agents of the police. Plaintiff had committed no crime and has been treatment compliant such that Plaintiff felt double-teamed
by Dr. Beaudouin and Ms. Fletcher with their bombardment of questions that were geared, not to help Plaintiff, but as an investigative
tool of the FBI to determine whether Plaintiff had any argument with the FBI. Plaintiff alleges that her treatment facility
is now being used surreptitiously to ensure that if Plaintiff files a complaint with the FBI against any Jew, that the FBI
will contact her psychiatric treatment facility and tell them to hospitalize Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff also alleges
that at the continued behest of Defendant Garaufis, “John Doe” #1 of Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation's
New York Office illegally obtained information regarding Plaintiff's outpatient psychiatric care provider from Defendants'
network of as yet unknown informants from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Office, and/or from the New York State Office of Mental Health, and/or from the New York State Department of Health and/or
from the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and/or from the New York City Health and Hospital's
Corporation, and/or from the New York City Human Resources Administration.
..........132).....On March 25, 2013 Plaintiff sent a reply back to Vermont's
Professional Responsibility Program with copies of the attorneys' fraudulent affirmations that hold Godwin Uzamere to be Plaintiff's
husband.
..........133).....On
April 9, 2013, Plaintiff e-mailed a formal complaint to Defendant Jeffries containing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid
Services confirming that Plaintiff did not threaten anyone during any of the phone calls Plaintiff made to the CMS call center.
Plaintiff sent a copy of the formal complaint to the following e-mail addresses: newyork@fbi.gov; stuart.f.delery@usdoj.gov; tristram.coffin@usdoj.gov; Preet.Bharara@usdoj.gov; loretta.lynch@usdoj.gov; eric.schneiderman@ag.ny.gov; mcardozo@law.nyc.gov; peter_kirchheimer@fd.org; david_patton@fd.org; Lschreib@bds.org; michael.brown@oandb.com; robert.roarke@wilsonelser.com; mdesroches@mhaofnyc.org; mleish@nydailynews.com; RonH@nami.org; support@lawline.com; ALB@Bluestonelawfirm.com; yreiss@yu.edu; mbroyde@emory.edu; sweissmann@bethdin.org; mzylberman@bethdin.org; sfreeman@adl.org; ssheinberg@adl.org; dbensinger@adl.org; dbarkey@adl.org; akaye@kayevisalaw.com; ckawalsky@harveyshapiro.com; gladmessattys@aol.com; info@uzalaw.com ehigieuzamere@yahoo.com; AskDOJ@usdoj.gov; internal.affairs@usdoj.gov; Preet.Bharara@usdoj.gov; info@jeffriesforcongress.com; ogc@dhs; ivan.fong@dhs.gov; firstladycorrespondence@who.eop.gov; William.Schultz@hhs.gov; Suzan_Orlove@schumer.senate.gov; DOJOIG.NewYorkComplaints@usdoj.gov; kathleen.sebelius@hhs.gov. Defendant Jeffries made no attempt to send a written response to Plaintiff's requesting assistance as a crime
victim with irrefutable of the crime.
..........134).....During the month of May, 2013, Plaintiff's made several phone calls and spoke with Patrick Boyle,
Defendant Jeffries with reference to the crimes that were committed against Plaintiff by various members of the Jewish community,
explaining her belief that the reason her complaint is continually ignored is because of the Talmud doctrine Law of the Moser,
that prohibits Jews from reporting the crimes of fellow Jews to the secular/Gentile authorities. On one of the last occasions
in which Plaintiff spoke with Patrick Boyle, he demanded that Plaintiff never call back, without giving Plaintiff a reason
in writing or any explanation as to why Plaintiff was being blacklisted.
..........135).....In
May, 2013, Plaintiff performed an internet research and discovered the following contributors to Defendant Jeffries' congressional
campaign: Mr. Ruslan Agarunov, Bertram Berns, Mr. Norman Bobrow, Mr. Paul Burg, Ms. Vickie Fishman, Mr. Sander Gerber, Mr.
Michael Granoff, Mr. Marvin Israelow, Mr. Alan Levow, Mr. William Russell-Shapiro, Ms. Donna Sternberg, Mr. Marc Spiegel,
Mr. Daniel Tenenblatt, Leslie Topper, Mr. Craig Weiss, World Alliance for Israel PAC, Lee Ziff, President of the World Alliance
for Israel. Based on the number of Jews who contributed money to Defendant Jeffries' campaign, including the World Alliance
for Israel, combined with Defendant Jeffries' refusal to provide Plaintiff with a written why neither he nor anyone else in
his office can contact the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate Plaintiff's complaint or cause it to be investigated,
and Patrick Boyle's demand that Plaintiff not call the office against even though Plaintiff is a constituent, Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant Jeffries and his staff understand that campaign contributions from Jewish contributors are quid pro quo
and will only be provided if Defendant Jeffries and his staff espouse and promulgate Jewish/Talmudic culture, including the
Talmudic doctrine Law of The Moser, that prohibits Jews from reporting the crimes of fellow Jews to the secular/Gentile
authorities, an never participate in the criminal investigation, arrest, indictment, trial, conviction, sentencing and imprisoning
anyone who is Jewish.16 From at least 2012 through and including the present time, in the Eighth Congressional District and elsewhere,
Defendant Jeffries, Patrick Boyle, other members of Congressman Jeffries congressional staff and campaign contributors who
are Jewish, and others known and unknown, unlawfully willfully and knowingly combined, conspired, confederated and agreed
together and with each other to receive bribes masking as campaign contributions from a number of Jewish individuals, in exchange
for advancing the Jewish religion, including the Talmudic doctrine, Law of the Moser, which prevents Jews (and Jew
slaves) from reporting the crimes of fellow Jews to the secular/Gentile authorities in order to make sure that no Gentile's
criminal complaint in which the defendant is Jewish would ever come to legal fruition in any court of law; that in furtherance
of the conspiracy, Defendant Jeffries and his staff ignored Plaintiff's request to investigate and/or cause to be investigated
Plaintiff's criminal complaint by the appropriate law enforcement agency, and to effect the illegal objects thereof, the following
over acts, among others, were committed in the Eighth Congressional District in Brooklyn, New York and elsewhere: 1) Defendant
Jeffries ignored Plaintiff's complaint; 2) Plaintiff refused to respond to the Plaintiff in writing as to whether he would
forward Plaintiff request to the appropriate federal law enforcement agency; 3) more than one of Defendant told Plaintiff
not to call back or would become irritated over the phone when Plaintiff would call; and 4) Defendant Boyle blackmailed Plaintiff
not to call their office anymore, even though Plaintiff is a constituent and voted for Defendant Jeffries.
..........136).....On and before May, 2013, while refusing
to accept from the Plaintiff irrefutable proof of Jews Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's
and Scott Shifrel's commission of misprision of felony, fraud, identity theft, aggravated identity theft, racketeering, obstruction
of justice and extortion/blackmail, Defendant Barack H. Obama, Andrew Weissman, General Counsel for Defendant Federal Bureau
of Investigation, James X. Dempsey, Defendant, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Elisebeth Collins Cook, Defendant,
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; David Medine, Chairman, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Rachel L.
Brand, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; and Patricia M. Wald, Defendant, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
Board; Keith B. Alexander, General, National Security Agency; Rajesh De, General Counsel, National Security Agency; Eric H.
Holder; U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; Charles Schumer, Senate Judiciary Committee; Dianne Feinstein,
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairperson; Senator Saxby Chambliss, Patrick Leahy, Senator Judiciary Chairman, Hon.
Goodlatte, Chairman, U.S. House Judiciary Chairman, Mike Rogers, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Marshals
Service Director Charles Dunne, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Protection Service, Threat Assessment Branch
employee Denis P. McGowan, FBI Assistant Director in Charge, George Venizelos and Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis engaged in overseeing
a criminal, unconstitutional system of government that specifically discriminated against the law-abiding, psychiatric-treatment-compliant,
mentally disabled Gentile/Schvartze/African American Plaintiff by allowing Defendant Judge Garaufis and other Jews to fraudulently
use the PATRIOT Act to spy on non-criminal, constitutionally-protected telephone calls regarding Plaintiff's HIPAA-protected
mental health and other HIPAA-protected issues; that said telephone calls were spied on at the behest of Defendant Judge Garaufis
and other Jews, not based on the belief that the Plaintiff had violated the law, but to enslave the Plaintiff by extorting/blackmailing
her; by using Plaintiff's confidential, non-content information regarding Plaintiff's telephone calls to her outpatient psychiatric
care provider that maybe embarrassing or shameful if publicly disseminated; to fraudulently accuse the Plaintiff of the commission
of a crime and to associate the fraudulent criminal allegation with Plaintiff's confidential non-content information; to frighten
the Plaintiff by publicizing embarrassing or shameful information associated with Plaintiff's psychiatric non-content information
for the sole purpose of forcing the Plaintiff not to petition the government for a redress of grievances with regard to Plaintiff's
First Amendment right to report the activities of lawbreaking Jews to the secular/Gentile law enforcement authorities; that
those Jews' violation of Plaintiff's and other Gentiles' right to privacy is based on the Talmudic doctrine for Jews to enslave
Gentiles, with an emphasis on the enslavement of people who are dark-skinned or considered by Jews to be Africans, Cushites,
Hamites and Canaanites. See Exhibit Q. In the meantime, Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer
Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel, who engaged in illegally obtaining and publicly disseminating information regarding the crime
(for which Plaintiff was falsely accused, for which Defendants never had any intention of confronting Plaintiff in any court
of laws and that was eventually dismissed), Plaintiff's mental illness and her marriage and who are still engaging in misprision
of felony, fraud, identity theft, aggravated identity theft, racketeering, obstruction of justice and extortion/blackmail
have never been investigated for the continued commission of their crimes.
..........137).....On or near August 7, 2013, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
federal Judge John Bates, federal Judge John William E. Smith and federal Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan conspired
with Defendant Jew billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman, speaking on behalf of Jew Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack
Gladstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Arthur M. Schack; that the goal of said conspiracy is: 1) for Defendants federal Judge
John Bates, federal Judge Judge William E. Smith and Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan to engage in misprision of felony
by not reporting the crimes that Plaintiff's exhibits proved occurred; 2) by Defendant Smith and Magistrate Judge Patricia
A. Sullivan committing the requisite affirmative acts of not uploading Plaintiff's exhibits to PACER's Electronic Court Filing
System, the court's more efficient electronic filing system, by not filing Plaintiff's subpoena duces tecum with Defendant
U.S. Department of Homeland Security to leave no doubt regarding the identity of Plaintiff's ex-ex-husband and the father
of Tara A. Uzamere, the child of the marriage; 3) to allow the aforementioned Jew Defendants to leave their criminally fraudulent
statements on the internet regarding Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity to be unchallenged; 4) to deprive Plaintiff of her
First Amendment right to proceed without government's encroachment of the Jewish religion; 5) to deprive Plaintiff of her
right to freedom of speech; 6) to deprive Plaintiff of her right to petition PACER.gov, a government agency, with a redress
of grievances by uploading her exhibits; and, 7) by relying on the U.S. Supreme Court case regarding the legal doctrine “void
for vagueness” by explaining what makes Plaintiff's exhibits are too voluminous, by giving Plaintiff the opportunity
to learn what Defendant Smith means by “too voluminous” so that Plaintiff could make repairs on said exhibits
and upload them to PACER.gov. On August 26, 2013, Defendant Sullivan stated in her fraudulent Report and Recommendation to
dismiss Plaintiff''s Amended Verified Complaint: “. . .it is inconceivable that venue over this matter could ever be
proper in this District”, without considering Plaintiff's stipulation to change venue pursuant to 28 USC §1404(a),
and in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that “A forum-selection clause should receive neither dispositive
consideration nor no consideration, but rather the consideration for which Congress provided in §1404(a) in the case
Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988), ignoring Plaintiff's attempt to stipulate a change of venue
pursuant to 28 USC §1404(a); that according to the federal district court case Ralls Corporation V. Terna Energy USA
Holding Corporation, that “upon consideration of the parties' briefs, the record in this case, and the applicable law,
the Court will grant the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. It does not reach the question
of subject matter jurisdiction. (emphasis added); that Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan engaged in the Hobbs Acts by
either accepting bribes or allowing herself to be extorted/blackmailed by Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman not to file
any criminal complaint against Jewish attorneys anyone Jewish, in violation of 18 USC §4, misprision of felony; the Defendant
Sullivan misapplied the res judicata principle to situations in which Plaintiff clearly established the continuing violations
doctrine; and finally, that Defendant Sullivan's Report and Recommendation is proof of ongoing crimes and civil torts for
which Plaintiff can again apply the continuing violations doctrine. See the following: 1) Daily News article criminally holding
Plaintiff to be mentally unfit and that “Godwin Uzamere” is Plaintiff's husband; 2) page two (2) of Defendant
Garaufis' Order regarding Plaintiff's civil rights lawsuit, Cheryl D. Uzamere v. Andrew M. Cuomo, et al., Case No.
1:2011-cv-2831, enumerating 589 that were uploaded to PACER.gov, attached as Uzamere vs. Cuomo, Memorandum and Order
page two (2); 3) lawsuit Viacom International Inc., et al. v. Youtube, Inc, et al, Case No. 1:07-CV-2103 (LLS) that
explains the conditions associated with what makes exhibits “voluminous”, PACER Monitor statements describing
Plaintiff's exhibits as “too voluminous” but being vague as to why the 245 pages of exhibits are considered too
voluminous, attached as Exhibit R.
Factual
Analysis
..........138).....Since Plaintiff relies on federal
criminal law with regard to RICO, Plaintiff specifically identifies the racketeering-influenced corrupt organization of
which Plaintiff speaks. Since 1979, the RICO has done business with the Plaintiff with dirty hands.17
..........139).....The
Defendants reentered their legal relationship with the Plaintiff and her children with dirty hands. Defendants' failed relationship
with the Plaintiff and her children as providers of honest, unbiased government-funded services has existed since 1979, and
as a direct result of Defendants State of New York, City of New York, Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq. and Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere act of aggravated identity and theft and immigration fraud have never provided Plaintiff and her daughter Tara
with monies that Plaintiff is still owed from Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. Because of the acts of aggravated identity
theft that were facilitated by Defendants the State of New and the City of New York, and committed by Allen E. Kaye, Esq.,
Harvey Shapiro., and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere Plaintiff was subjected to a worsening of her preexisting mental illness and a
distancing from normal society. Because of the acts of aggravated identity theft that was facilitated by Defendants State
of New York and City of New York, and committed by Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Plaintiff's
children were forced to remain in Defendant State of New York's foster care system for nearly all of their lives. David P.
Walker, the older child, suffers from dysthymia and bulimia. Tara A. Uzamere, child of the marriage, is mentally high functioning,
but she lacks the maternal and paternal care and companionship from which she and her brother were deprived all of their lives.
Plaintiff suffers from constant shame from never having been a good parent to her children, who, in spite of Plaintiff's
failure as a parent, are amazingly well-behaved and believers of Jehovah God. The racketeering-influenced corrupt organizations
Defendants the United States of America, State of New York, City of New York and those Jews having both positions of power
and money, pay bribes to unsuspecting, greedy Gentile Americans who do not realize that their acceptance of bribes from Jews
makes, not just those who accepted the bribes, but all Gentile Americans slaves to the Jews forever without the ability to
enforce their Constitutional rights. Plaintiff emphatically states that the force that unifies the more powerful Jewish Defendants
is Judaism, with its emphasis on the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud provides the religious rationalization for the
Jewish Defendants to enslave both the Plaintiff and the Gentile Defendants to engage in conduct which is not in the constitutional
interests of the Gentile Defendants – like the doctrine Law of the Moser, that now requires Gentile slaves to obey their
Jewish master counterparts and keep silent regarding the crimes committed by other Jews. Understandably, those corrupt Jewish
Defendants who engage in bribing governmental employees feel a sense of entitlement based both on Jews having paid money for
services, and for the Jewish religion that teaches that Gentiles are meant to be enslaved by Jews. In the article entitled
Come and Hear, under the subtitle “Coexistence?”, it says: “What does the future hold? Can the Jews ever
co-exist with the rest of humanity? The answer is “yes” provided the rest of humanity accepts the role designed
for them by Jewish leadership. If Gentiles do not accept enslavement, there will be conflict.” In the subtitle US vs.
Talmud Law, it says: “. . .Talmud law insists on unequal justice under law. Talmudic law holds there is one law for
Jews, and one for Gentiles. This is not inconsistent with the Old Testament in which LORD God decrees that Jews should not
enslave other Jews: Gentiles are the proper slaves of Jews. See newspaper article from Crains, sealed complaint regarding
USA vs. Kruger, et al and articles entitled Come and Hear, attached as Exhibit T.
..........140).....Defendant United States of America, by its employee Defendant McCarthy, Bar Counsel for Defendant
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, provided Plaintiff with a report detailing the two Uzamere18 files A35 201 224 and A24 027 764, going so far as to indicate that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, having
obtained a visa as an unmarried student under 21 years of age and having been sponsored by his brother and sister-in-law,
fraudulently applied for permanent residence as Plaintiff's husband “Godwin E. Uzamere”, and over the age of 21.
Defendant McCarthy referenced the fingerprints in the two files which Plaintiff understood to mean were the same. Defendant
U.S. Department of Homeland Security's employee T. Diane Diane Cejka, former Director of the FOIA/PA Division, U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Service in Lee Summit, Missouri provided the Plaintiff with even more irrefutable documentation,
including the two (2) immigration number A35 201 224 and A24 027 764 to establish that Plaintiff's ex-husband
filed for residence under two (2) different immigration numbers.
..........141).....Years later, after several attempts
by Defendant judges Jewish judges Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack and Nicholas G. Garaufis and the
powerful, racist Jewish criminal newspaper publisher and editor Mortimer Zuckerman to prevent Plaintiff from filing criminal
complaints against corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein by publicly declaring
Plaintiff's incredible based on her status of having mentally ill with violent tendencies have all but blown up in their faces,
Defendant Garaufis has embarked on yet another equally unoriginal course of conduct – by saying “I didn't do it!”
Plaintiff has responded to that stunt by filing a criminal complaint against Mortimer Zuckerman,
Scott Shifrel and the Daily News, LP for their commission of aggravated identity theft.
..........142).....Defendant Garaufis' game plan now is
to stop Plaintiff's reliance on the continuing criminal violations doctrine in its tracks. Defendant Garaufis has attempted
to do this by being willfully blind of his extortionate psychiatric/criminal “shakedown” of the Plaintiff, and
instead, to say that Plaintiff's mental illness (lacking the threat of violence this time) caused her to falsely claim that
Defendants Garaufis; “John Doe” #1 of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; LifeNet of the Mental Health Association
of New York City; “John Doe” #2 of the U.S. Marshals Service for Eastern District of New York; “John Doe”
#3 of the U.S. Marshals Service for Eastern District of New York; “Jane Doe” of the U.S. Marshals Service for
the Eastern District of New York; Bridget Davis of the New York State Office of Mental Health; “Dr. John Doe”
of Brookdale Hospital and Medical Center; Samuel Sarpong of the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center, Assertive Community
and Treatment Team; and Dr. Scott A. Berger of the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center, Assertive Community and
Treatment Team never said that Plaintiff threatened any federal employee. Defendant Garaufis' attempt is lacking in commonsense
because Plaintiff, who was within the State of New York at the time of the telephone call, availed herself of New York State's
one-party law with regard to recording in-person or in-telephone conversations, by giving herself permission to record the
conversation with Defendant Bridget Davis, who was also within the State of New York at the time of the recording. Plaintiff
subsequently uploaded the recorded telephone call to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html and noted, among other things, that Defendant Davis said that Plaintiff threatened others, that there were
others federal agencies that thought Plaintiff was a danger to others. Plaintiff gave herself permission to record her conversation
with “John Doe” #1 of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who, during the aforesaid conversation, extorted Plaintiff
not to file any complaint against anyone Jewish or she would call Plaintiff's daughter, visit Plaintiff's apartment and (by
inference) report Plaintiff's argument to her psychiatric care providers, which he did. Plaintiff also gave herself permission
to record the conversation and upload it to her web page http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/uzamere_v_obama.html. In addition, the same falsified criminal allegations that are contained in the telephone conversation that Plaintiff
uploaded to her web page is written down in Defendant McGowan's correspondence dated August 18, 2011 and Defendant New York
City Health and Hospitals Corporation psychiatric treatment plan dated February 26, 2012. And in spite of several years of
unconstitutional treatment at the hands of Defendant Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman's judicial subordinates, no subordinate
judge, starting from Defendant Lippman, has ever allowed Plaintiff to file any complaint that makes reference to the
aggravated identity theft that was committed by corrupt Jews Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman,
Scott Shifrel and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Osato Eugene Uzamere.
..........143).....Defendant McCarthy made no attempt to warn immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Jack Gladstein and Osato E. Uzamere to stop holding out “Godwin E. Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as two (2) different
people even after Plaintiff warned Defendant McCarthy that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and the
Daily News were still holding out “Godwin Uzamere” as a real person, and even after Plaintiff provided Defendants
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato E. Uzamere proof that Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and “Godwin E. Uzamere”
are the same the person. In addition, no employee of Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security ever made any attempt
to investigate and then arrest Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein for their commission of aggravated
identity theft. Worse still, in spite of black letter law that requires federal judges and attorneys to report the commission
of wrongdoing by fellow judges and attorneys, not one of the defendants, upon receiving irrefutable proof of corrupt immigration
attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's and Osato E. Uzamere's commission of aggravated identity theft,
filed a complaint with any law enforcement agency. Plaintiff's Verified Complaint speaks to, not only separate criminal acts
of the Defendants, but of a pattern of behavior that is indicative of an anti-U.S. Constitution, pro-Talmud, pro-Jew, anti-Gentile,
anti-schvartze bias that permeates every court in New York's Second Circuit and the New York State Unified Court System.
Defendant judges, in violation of 18 USC §4, misprision of felony and the code of conduct for federal and New York State
judges that require judges to report the crimes of attorneys to pertinent law enforcement agencies, Plaintiff's complaints
regarding the commission of aggravated identity theft go ignored, as well as Plaintiff's complaints regarding those acts of
fraud with regard to the false criminal accusation made against Plaintiff by Defendant Judge Garaufis, Defendant “John
Doe” #1 of the U.S. Marshals Service for the Eastern District of New York, and/or “John Doe” #2, of the
U.S. Marshals Service for the Eastern District of New York, and/or “Jane Doe” #3 of the U.S. Marshals Service
for the Eastern District of New York, and Defendant Denis P. McGowan of Defendant the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
and Defendant Bridget Davis of Defendant the New York State Office of Mental Health, and Defendants Samuel Sarpong and Dr.
Scott A. Berger of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The aforementioned Defendants accused Plaintiff of
committing 18 USC §115, threatening a federal employee, something that Plaintiff never did. On or around January 30,
2013, Plaintiff received correspondence from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services. The correspondence indicated all the telephone calls that Plaintiff made to the call center, and that Plaintiff
made no threatening telephone calls. However, where Plaintiff's innocence is concerned, it does not matter. Plaintiff holds
that there is a specific hierarchy where the Defendants are concerned. Plaintiff strongly alleges that the Gentile Defendants'
most important responsibility is not enforcement of the U.S. Constitution, but their ability to worship the Jewish community
as their gods, to serve the Jews as their obedient slaves, and to ensure that any judicial decision that is rendered
is rendered, not according to the U.S. Constitution, but according to what makes the Jewish community happy. See
correspondence from CMS attached as Exhibit S.
..........144).....Plaintiff has had difficulty in explaining, well enough for this Court to understand, that there
is a pervasive attitude that fosters and encourages the courts' bestowing on Jews certain understood, but not mentioned, favors
associated with being white and Jewish. This clandestinely understood right, known as “white skin privilege”,
was openly requested by members of the website http://www.jewishdefense.org. The site stated: “Contact Stewart Judge: No White Skin Privilege For Lynne” and: “Click Here For Printer Friendly Suggested Letter To Judge Koeltl Asking
Him Not To Treat Lynne Stewart Differently Than Her Co-defendants.” Combine these racist statements with Jewish doctrines
about black-skinned people in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate 108b, and footnote 34; Midrash Rabbah, page 293; Legends of
the Jews, Vol. 1, page 169, Artsot Ha-Hayyim, pages 52a and 52b, and the Defendants' continued commission of 18 USC §4,
misprision of felony with regard to their recalcitrance by not reporting Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's, Osato Eugene Uzamere's,
Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated
identity theft, Plaintiff has a justiciable reason not to trust Judge Koeltl or any other judge in the eastern district,
southern district or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See internet article regarding Lynne Stewart attached
as Exhibit W.
..........145).....Plaintiff restates and realleges that Defendants committed the following offenses and constitutional
torts: misprision of felony, 18 USC §4; fraud, 18 USC §1001; identity theft, 18 USC §1028; aggravated
identity fraud, 18 USC §1028A; deprivation of rights under color of law (including being kidnapped, unlawfully imprisoned
and blacklisted), 18 USC §242/42 USC §1985; extortion, 18 USC §872§, blackmail, 18 USC §873; violation
of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act; violation of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973; violation of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601; violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the Petition Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; violation of the Notice Clause of the Sixth Amendment; violation of
the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment; violation of Plaintiff's right of privacy with regard to the illegal
dissemination of her psychiatric records, Plaintiff marriage history, Plaintiff married name, and the non-content information
associated with Plaintiff's internet and telephone accounts; violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
intentional misuse of national security letters (NSLs) or some manner in which Defendants obtained non-content information
illegally.
..........146).....Plaintiff
alleges that although all the Defendants actively participated in preventing Plaintiff from filing complaints against Allen
E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, the heart of the conspiracy are the following persons: Defendant Garaufis,
(authorized NSLs/unauthorized telephone investigations that were used to rationalize dismissal of Plaintiff's civil rights
action Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 and 11-2713-cv; Plaintiff's psychiatric hospitalization in Brookdale
Hospital based on threats that Plaintiff never made); “John Doe” #1 of Defendant FBI (threatened psychiatric hospitalization
after Plaintiff insisted on filing complaint against Jews who violated Plaintiff's rights, conversation uploaded to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/uzamere_v_obama.html; “John Doe” #2, “John Doe #3” and “Jane Doe” of Defendant U.S. Marshals Service
(conversation in which Bridget Davis stated that the Marshals said that Plaintiff threatened the (federal) Medicaid Office,
uploaded to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit); Denis P. McGowan of Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (sent secret letter to Samuel Sarpong
in which Plaintiff was accused of threatening employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' call center); Dr.
Scott A. Berger of Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation; New York State Judge Michael Gerstein; New York
State Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine and New York State Justice Arthur M. Schack, Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq.,
Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman of the Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel of the Daily News, LP. In spite of the aforesaid
Defendants' accusation/diagnosis that I threatened Defendant Garaufis, other judges and employees of CMS, none of the Defendants
made any attempt to bring their allegations to trial, thereby providing Plaintiff with the opportunity to confront her accusers
and prove her innocence.
..........147).....Defendants' engaged in the misprision of Defendants Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's,
NYS Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine, NYS Justice Arthur M. Schack, Mortimer Zuckerman and federal Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis'
act of identity theft of the name “Mrs. Ehigie Edobor Uzamere,” so that the child of the marriage Tara A. Uzamere
was subsequently deprived of her right by consanguinity to bear her father, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's name; that Plaintiff
and child of the marriage Tara A. Uzamere and David P. Walker, stepson of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere were deprived of
the legal, social and financial benefits of bearing the proud African/Nigerian/Edo/Bini name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere;
that Defendants continue to engage in misprision of felony to hide Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's misuse of the social
security numbers XXX-XX-2291, the fictitious social security number under which the entity “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere”
was searched by the New York City Department of Social Services' Bureau of Child Support Enforcement; XXX-XX-7854, the number
under which Ehigie Edobor Uzamere owes a student loan (this may be George Uzamere's social security number); and XXX-XX-1205,
the number under which “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” actually filled out a filled out an application for a
social card is prima facie evidence that governmental agencies viewed “Godwin Uzamere” and “Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere” as two different persons.
..........148).....Plaintiff asks this Court to do something that this Court has probably never done before: to review
the facts regarding the Jewish Defendants wholistically. This means rendering a judgment, not just based on what they've done,
but based on what they intend to do because of their religion. The Plaintiff asks this Court not to be tricked by the fraudulent
statement that the Jewish Defendants and other Jews who have committed crimes other Gentiles have different intentions. This
is a boldfaced lie. The criminal acts of the Jewish Defendants and the crimes committed against Gentiles by other Jews may
be different but there is one mind. The intention is always the same because the mindset is the same: preventing anti-Semitism
in order to save the Jewish nation at all cost, and to prevent anti-Semitism by enslaving Gentiles at all costs.
..........149).....In Plaintiff's
Appellate Affidavit in Support of Judicial Recusal of Defendant Garaufis for the lawsuit Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al,
1:2011-2713-cv, Plaintiff stated the following:
“I allege that Judge Garaufis' bias is an act of malice; however, I allege that Judge Garaufis' act of malice
is secondary to the terror and rage that he and many of Israel's adult children continue to suffer as a result of the Roman
government's/Catholic Church's 2,000-year holocaust to eradicate the memory of the Jewish Nation from the planet Earth, starting
with the destruction of Jerusalem's 2nd temple in 70 C.E., where 1,100,000 innocent Jews were slaughtered and 97,000 were
taken captive, and culminating with the slaughter of 6,000,000+ innocent Jews in Catholic-controlled Nazi Germany. I allege
that based on Judge Garaufis' various knee-jerk reactions to my lawsuit, like so many of the adult children of European Jews,
he is terrified that yet another goy is going to hurt him and the Jewish Defendants. I make this allegation, not to challenge
the learning and experience of psychoanalytical and psychiatric professionals, but because I am suffering something akin to
post traumatic stress disorder, so I understand and sympathize with Judge Garaufis and European Jews' terror and rage at being
oppressed again by non-Jews.
While I sympathize with the terrors that Israel's children suffered
and continue to suffer at the hands of unscrupulous non-Jews, this Court, in it wisdom, must not allow Judge Garaufis' legitimate
fear of anti-Semitism to be used as a rationalization to excuse the tortious and criminal conduct of the Defendants, or to
continue to hurt me or my children. Defendant law firm Allen E. Kaye, PC mounted an unprovoked attack on me and my children
on November 30, 1979 by facilitating my ex-husband's commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud, preventing us from
obtaining money from my ex-husband to live. I had to put my children in foster care. In 2008, a year after I filed my divorce
from my-husband, Defendant law firm Uzamere and Associates, PLLC, its owner being a blood relative of my ex-husband, was then
enlisted to discredit my story as the rantings of an insane woman. In 2009, the following year, Defendant law firms Allen
E. Kaye, PC, the Law Offices of Harvey Shapiro and Gladstein and Messinger, knowing my ex-husband's true identity, submitted
fraudulent affirmations falsely holding my ex-husband out to be “Godwin Uzamere” even after the U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Service and the New York State Unified Court Systems' Second Judicial Department held that Senator Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere was my husband and is the father of our daughter, Tara. Judge Garaufis' attempts to come to the rescue of
fellow Jewish Defendants to save them from the machinations of an anti-Semitic litigant are more than misplaced. They are
now malicious. I am not Hitler, and if Defendant Allen E. Kaye, PC had not engaged in its original criminal act by tricking
me for the the sole purpose of helping his client get a green card, thereby denying me and my daughter the right to be identified
by my ex-husband's and Tara's father African name and to receive money from him for our care, I would not be litigating against
the Jewish Defendants. My litigation against the Defendants has no basis in anti-Semitism. The Defendants broke the law.
Judge Garaufis' use of the term “frivolous and malicious” is truthful – but his use of the term does not
have its basis in the Federal Rules of Civil Practice. I allege that it is in Judge Garaufis' culture's rule that Jews must
defend themselves from the anti-Semitic machinations of non-Jews at all costs – even if it means violating the legal
rights of a non-Jew. Judge Garaufis' decision is therefore an act of bias that has its basis in my ethnicity as a member
of the goyim.”
..........150).....In the criminal case of People of the State of
New Jersey vs. Jesse K. Timmendequas, during the death penalty phase, an “August 1995 videotape – made during
an interview at their mother's South Carolina trailer – came as the defense sought to show that the childhood years
of Jesse Timmendequas were so horrific that he should not be sentenced to death for the sexual assault and murder of 7-year-old
Megan Kanka. New Jersey's state court abolished the death penalty in 2007, converted to a life sentence with no possibility
of parole and uphold his life sentence for kidnapping Megan Kanka. The court did not render its decision based on mercy because
Mr. Timmendequas was sexually victimized by in father when he was young boy. See http://articles.philly.com/1997-06-11/news/25526762_1_sexual-assault-jesse-james-sexual-abuse. See also “. . .Begin Viewed Jews As The Master Race”, http://rense.com/general45/master.htm, Exhibit W1.
..........151).....This Court must now must differentiate between the complaints of a person who is being victimized
now between the complaints of a bully whose forebears were crime victims but he himself is not. If this Court treats the
Defendants wholistically, it will see a pattern of behavior indicative of a predator who has thrown moral, social and legal
convention to the wind and preys on Gentiles with impunity. Examples of such predatory behavior by members of the Jewish community
include the following:
The lawsuit Stephen Unterberg v. Jimmy Carter,
Case 1:11-cv-00720-TPG; said the following on page 2: “. . .In truth, however, the book is filled with demonstrable
falsehoods, omissions, and knowing misrepresentations intended to promote carter's agenda of anti-Israel propaganda. . .According
to John Turley's article entitled “A Basis for Damages or Sanctions? Jimmy Carter Sued Over His Book on Palestine,
he says: “Former President Jimmy Carter has been named in a disturbing and clearly frivolous lawsuit over over his
representations on the Israeli-Palestinian Apartheid.” The five plaintiffs are seeking $5
million, but, in my view, should be held by Rule 11 sanctions in filing a vexatious and frivolous lawsuit. See http://jonathanturley.org/2011/02/16/jimmy-carter-sued-over-his-book-on-palestine/
Common use of the term “nigger” that white-skinned Jews used
to address Ethiopian Jews. See http://www.irinnews.org/report/94819/israel-the-tribulations-of-being-an-ethiopian-jew.
Jewish laws that teach the following doctrines:
The murder of Gentile is less severe than the murder
of a Jew;
Ban on returning a Gentile's lost item if the reason
for returning it is sympathy for the Gentile;
If a Gentile accidentally
overpays a Jew, the Jew does not have to give the money back;
One
who kills a Gentile is exempt; one who kills a Jew is put to death;
A
Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation or damages;
Only Jews can rule over Jews, not Gentiles, not even a Jewish convert;
According to Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba
Kamma, folio 113A, when a lawsuit occurs between a Jew and a Gentile, a Jew can use deceit (subterfuge) against the Gentile
to fool him/him;
There is no equality between Jews and Gentiles;
Gentiles are the proper slaves of Jews;
In
Jewish law, Jews are hard to convict; Gentiles are easy to convict;
Law Licensing Statuses:
The Jew-controlled judiciary will
not reinstate the law license of African-American C. Vernon Mason, who was never convicted or even accused of a crime,
and has been disbarred for18 years; however there is a petition signed by over 70,000 Jews to release convicted Jewish
spy Jonathan Pollard, who admitted on spying on the United States government for Israel;see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Vernon_Mason;
also see http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/freepollard; Alton H. Maddox, Jr., who never was convicted
or even accused of a crime, has been disbarred since 1990; see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alton_Maddox;
Jewish Eliot Spitzer, Esq., who committed adultery
(NYS Pen. Law §255.15, Bigamy is a class B misdemeanor) by paying a prostitute for sex (isn't paying for sex illegal
all over the United States?), currently running for Mayor of New York;
Jewish Anthony Wiener, having admitted to recently uploading more pictures to the internet (see attached internet
photo of him sitting on the toilet with his penis exposed; currently running for Mayor of New York;
Law of the Moser:
..........152).....There is a major
similarity between the illegal acts committed by the Defendants and by the Jews in those aforementioned acts. That similarity
is intent. In the case of all the individuals, their intent is: 1) to allow the unconstitutional encroachment of the Jewish
religion; 2) to devalue and dehumanize Gentiles as a means to rationalize Jews' illegal acts; 3) to rely on the Talmudic doctrine
Law of the Moser to ensure that Jews do not report the illegal acts of lawbreaking Jews to the secular (Gentile) authorities,
and to ensure that those Gentiles who attempt to report the illegal acts of lawbreaking Jews are stopped by fellow Jews; and
4) to hold uncooperative Gentiles out as anti-Semites deserving of a social death or as close to a real death as possible.
The Jew-controlled New York State judiciary will never allow C. Vernon Mason and Alton Maddox to retain their law licenses,
even in front of the glaring acts of crimes of sexual dysfunction by Jews Sol Wachtler, Eliot Spitzer and Andrew Wiener, who,
as the Court considers Plaintiff's lawsuit, is running for Mayor of New York and electronically sending out photos of his
penis while he is sitting on the toilet at the same time. There is the lawsuit that members of the Jewish community filed
against a former U.S. President for having what amount to be an opposing opinion about Israel. There is the case of brave
Rabbi Nuchum Rosenberg's who has suffered mightily because his legal stance against the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser,
at the expense of vision in his left eye, being shot in his head by a BB gun, and being shunned by members of his community
for reporting acts of child abuse to the secular authorities. Lastly, also mentioned are various halachic doctrines that hold
Gentiles out to be worthless, not on equal standing with Jews legally, socially or in any way that allows Gentiles to be considered
“men.”
..........153).....The
sum total of Plaintiff's living in an atmosphere where predatory Jews make fraudulent reference to real acts of anti-Semitism
that took place in the past in order to hide their illegal predation of Plaintiff and her children, based on the encroachment
of racist Jewish religious doctrines Curse of Dark Skin and Law of the Moser, has caused thirty-four (34) years of deprivation
of Plaintiff and her family's constitutional, civil, marital, parental, social and financial rights. The Defendants' have
staunchly refused to overtly acknowledge the legal relationship between Plaintiff, her children, and Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere, and have instead, referred to the same, tired, old excuse of anti-Semitism to hide their crimes and to continue to
prey on Plaintiff and her children. For thirty-four (34) years, Plaintiff and her children were condemned to the same Jewish
religious generational curse that condemned millions of enslaved Africans to the permanent loss of their parents' proper African
names, languages and customs associated with those names, and the wealth and social status that would have passed on to African
children had they been able to bear their African forefathers' names. Because of the Defendants' determination to stop Plaintiff
from reporting the original crimes that were perpetrated by those Defendants who helped Plaintiff's ex-husband commit fraud
and aggravated identity theft, Plaintiff and her children are now victims in a hateful, racist environment that forgives and
gives second chances to lawbreaking Jews, forever condemns the descendants of African slaves for being dark-skinned, and
like the murderous pedophile Jesse Timmendaguas, use past incidents of anti-Semitism to rationalize their abusive, hateful,
predatory behavior towards Gentiles.
..........154).....By reason of the foregoing irrefutable 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 RELIEF
First
Amendment Mandate – Separation of Church and State
..........155).....Plaintiff repeats and realleges
the above paragraphs.
..........156).....With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in
their official capacities.
..........157).....Plaintiff is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a
mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
..........158).....Plaintiff is a qualified individual
with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
..........159).....Plaintiff is a descendant victim
of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the ability
to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears; and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains
the right from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, as does Tara A. Uzamere,
the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and blood heir with the legal right
to bear, and for her progeny to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.
..........160).....Defendants owed Plaintiff and her family the duty to report crimes that Plaintiff's exhibits proved
occurred.
..........161).....Defendants owed Plaintiff and her family the duty to uploading Plaintiff's exhibits to PACER's
Electronic Court Filing System, the court's more efficient electronic filing system.
..........162).....Defendants
owed Plaintiff and her family the duty of filing Plaintiff's subpoena duces tecum with Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland
Security so as to leave no doubt regarding the identity of Plaintiff's ex-ex-husband and the father of Tara A. Uzamere, the
child of the marriage.
..........163).....Defendants owed Plaintiff and her family the duty to challenge the Defendants criminally fraudulent
statements in paper and on the internet regarding Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity;
..........164).....Defendants owed Plaintiff and her family her First
Amendment right to proceed without government's encroachment of the Jewish religion to rationalize hiding their crimes.
..........165).....Defendants
owed Plaintiff and her family their rights to freedom of speech by allowing Plaintiff to upload her exhibits on PACER.gov.
166) Defendants owed Plaintiff and her family the right to to petition the government for
a redress of grievances PACER.gov, with by allowing Plaintiff to upload her exhibits to PACER.gov.
..........167).....Defendants owed Plaintiff and
her family their Fifth Amendment right to due process by explaining the criteria of the term “too voluminous to upload”
to give Plaintiff the chance to learn what was wrong with her exhibits, make the need changes and then be given a chance
to upload her exhibits; and,
..........168).....Defendants owed Plaintiff and her family their Fifth Amendment right to due process by relying
on the U.S. Supreme Court legal doctrine “void for vagueness” by explaining what makes Plaintiff's exhibits are
too voluminous, by giving Plaintiff the opportunity to learn what Defendant Smith means by “too voluminous” so
that Plaintiff could make repairs on said exhibits and upload them to PACER.gov.
..........169).....Defendants owed Plaintiff and
her family the duty, pursuant to 5 USC §3331, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; to take said obligation freely, without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and to well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which Defendants
entered. This requires the Defendants to establish a clear separation of church and state, and to distance themselves from
the Talmudic Law of the Moser in their application and enforcement of the law. Defendants owed Plaintiff and
her children the duty to give themselves over to the transparency of U.S. law, and not the secrecy of the Talmudic Law
of the Moser.
..........170).....Defendants
failed in their duty to meet their legal obligations as detailed by the First Amendment mandate regarding the separation of
church and state. Defendants, at the behest of Defendant Garaufis and other Jewish judiciary Defendants have conspired to
force 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 to prevent Plaintiff from
filing civil and criminal complaints against corrupt immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.
..........171).....Plaintiff
suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under attack by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest
of Defendants Judge Garaufis, Judge Schack, Judge Sunshine and Judge Gerstein, 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 doctrine 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 Garaufis with proof that employees of Defendant New York State conspired with Defendant Shifrel
of Defendant Daily News, LP, to defame the Plaintiff as an “anti-Semitic wacko”, to illegally publicize Plaintiff's
psychiatric and marital information to give their false publicized statement regarding Plaintiff's ex-husband being “Godwin
Uzamere” believability. Defendant Garaufis violated Plaintiff's rights in the same manner by relying on the Talmud,
Tractate Abodah Zarah, folio 26b and the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser, not the U.S. Constitution to prevent
the Plaintiff from reporting the commission of aggravated identity theft by corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey
Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.
..........172).....The courts of Defendant United States of America recognize excessive entanglement of religion
as an injury. In the case Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that government may not
“excessively entangle” with religion. The case involved two Pennsylvania laws: one permitting the state to “purchase”
services in secular fields from religious schools, and the other permitting the state to pay a percentage of the salaries
of private school teachers, including teachers in religious institutions. The Supreme Court found that the government
was “excessively entangled” with religion, and invalidated the statutes in question.
..........173).....Plaintiff submits that Defendants'
violation of the First Amendment's Mandate to keep church and government separate also violates the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC §1985, conspiracy
to interfere with civil rights, 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
..........174).....Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
..........175).....With regard
to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in their official capacities.
..........176).....Plaintiff
is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities.
..........177).....Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
.......... 178).....Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose sale was brokered
by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears;
and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the
name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained by Tara A. Uzamere, the adult child of the
marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere., and for her progeny to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and
culture associated with of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.
..........179).....Defendants owed Plaintiff the
duty, pursuant to Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, to prohibit the practice of disability discrimination.
As public entities, Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to comply with Title II regulations by the U.S. Department of Justice.
These regulations cover access to all programs and services offered by the entity. Access includes physical access
described in the ADA Standards for Accessible Design and programmatic access that might be obstructed by
discriminatory policies or procedures of the entity.
..........180).....Defendants failed in their duty to meet the obligations
as detailed in Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Defendants continue to discriminate against Plaintiff based
on Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness because Plaintiff will not stop filing complaints against corrupt
Jews immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.
..........181).....Plaintiff
suffered and continues to suffer injury because Plaintiff is still under attack by all the Defendants,who, at the clandestine
behest of Defendant Garaufis, Judge Schack, Judge Sunshine and Judge Gerstein, 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 by using Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness to falsely and
to publicly hold out that judicial Defendants will not allow Plaintiff to file criminal and civil complaints against corrupt
Jewish Defendants corrupt immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein because Plaintiff's complaints
are unintelligible based on her status of having a mental illness.19, 20, Defendants New York State, New York State Office of Mental Health, New York City, New York City Health and
Hospitals Corporation, Brookdale Hospital Medical Center and their employees intentionally misdiagnosed Plaintiff as psychotic21 and violent so as to deprive Plaintiff of her right to due process and equal protection under the law. Defendants
accused Plaintiff of the commission of 18 USC §115, threatening a federal employee and 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. Proof of Defendant New York State's and New York City's continued conspiracy to attack
the Plaintiff based on her status of having a mental illness is at 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, 2009 in which staff writer Scott Shifrel publicly defames Plaintiff
as a “wacko.”
..........182).....The courts of Defendant the United States of America recognize discrimination based on disability
as an injury. 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.
..........183).....Plaintiff submits that Defendants'
violation of the Title II, Americans With Disabilities Mandate to integrate Plaintiff also violates the Due Process Clause
of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC §1985, conspiracy
to interfere with civil rights, 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.
THIRD
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendants Violated Sixth Amendment Mandate
..........184).....Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
..........185).....With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in
their official capacities.
186) Plaintiff is an American
citizen with a serious, persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
major life activities.
..........187).....Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
..........188).....Plaintiff
is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites,
forever lost the ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears; and having married Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere;
and that the aforesaid right is retained by Tara A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and for her progeny to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere.
..........189).....On or around June 22, 2011, Defendant Garaufis rendered in decision for Plaintiff's civil rights
action which said the following:
“Plaintiff's most recent Complaint—one of at least five she has filed with this court—is
89-pages long and is accompanied by 589 pages of exhibits. Plaintiff has also sent at least 60 pages of faxes directly to
chambers, purporting to be in connection with her most recent action. The substance of Plaintiffs Complaint—if one can
be discerned—concerns, among other things, her divorce from Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; a defamation claim filed against
the Daily News; a Departmental Disciplinary Committee complaint filed against the attorney representing the Daily News; and
other state court actions, including a state court action against the attorneys who represented her former husband. (Compi.
at 27-45.) Plaintiff has a long, tired history of vexatious litigation in this court. See Uzamere v. State of New York, No.
09-cv-2703 (E.D.N.Y. July 9, 2009).”
Defendant Garaufis' judgment regarding Plaintiff's civil rights action was biased. It did not address the acts of
fraud, identity theft or aggravated theft perpetrated by corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein
that Plaintiff proved in her civil rights action Nor did Defendant Garaufis' address Plaintiff's contentions regarding the
Court's discrimination against Plaintiff based on her having a mental illness. Defendant Garaufis' judicial commentary did
not address most of the issues Plaintiff discussed in her civil rights action (“. . .a unanimous Supreme Court has admonished
that pro se in forma pauperis complaints must be read with tolerance: Dismissal is impermissible unless the court can say
“with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim
which would entitle him to relief.'” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d
652 (1972), quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), reaffirmed in
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. at 292.) The judgment condemned the Verified Complaint's number of pages and the
numbers of complaints Plaintiff filed with the Court (“. . .but a complaint filed in forma pauperis is not subject to
dismissal simply because the plaintiff is litigious. The number of complaints a poor person files does not alone justify peremptory
dismissal. In each instance, the substance of the impoverished person's claim is the appropriate measure. Crisafi v. Holland,
et al, 655 F2d 1305) Defendant Garaufis admits that he has difficulty in understanding the substance of Plaintiff's complaint
based on his statement: “The substance of Plaintiff's Complaint – if one can be discerned. . .” Defendant
Garaufis' displayed even more mean-spirited bias with regard to all of Plaintiff's actions when he said in his statement:
“Plaintiff has a long, tired history of vexatious litigation in this court. Defendant Garaufis engaged in an act of
racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft by rendering an FRCP-lacking,
memorandum-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-CV-2831 for the sole purpose of: 1) advancing
the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest, lying, racketeering,
racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their fraudulent commission of 3)
trick Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative function –
was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's,
Jack Gladstein's, and Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft – a wrongful
act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never
tried; and, 4) Defendant Bloom's commission of misprision of felony racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal
facilitation of aggravated identity theft and fraud upon the court as well.
..........190).....Defendants owed Plaintiff the
duty, pursuant to the Sixth Amendment, to provide Plaintiff with defense counsel and witnesses in Plaintiff's favor,
More importantly, Defendants owed Plaintiff the right to confront Defendants' adversarial witnesses in order to prevent
Plaintiff from being prosecuted based on what turned out to be the falsified hearsay of the Defendants.
..........191).....Defendants
failed to meet the obligations as detailed in the Sixth Amendment. Defendants accused Plaintiff of the commission of 18 USC
§111(a), simple assault and 18 USC §115, threatening federal employees and then deprived Plaintiff of her Sixth
Amendment rights to notice of accusation, witnesses and appointment of defense counsel even though Defendants' criminal accusation
against the Plaintiff required them to file a criminal complaint pursuant to 18 USC §4, misprision of felony. Plaintiff
strongly alleges that Defendant Garaufis, in orchestrating the conspiracy with Defendant U.S. Marshal Service, Defendant Denis
P. McGowan of Defendant the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and defendants of the New York State and New York City mental
health agencies, has opened the means by which, at any of the Defendants can accuse Plaintiff of any crime and prevent Plaintiff
from speaking to an attorney. 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 corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.
..........192).....Plaintiff
has suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under attack by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine
behest of Defendant 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 wrongfully accused
Plaintiff of the commission of 18 USC §115, threatening federal employees; nor have the Defendants sent correspondence
apologizing for wrongfully accusing Plaintiff of a crime she did not commit; however, Defendants continue to deprive Plaintiff
of the right to be informed in writing of the nature and cause of the criminal accusation Defendants raised against Plaintiff,
to allow 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
Garaufis with proof that Defendant New York State conspired with Defendant Daily News, by Defendant former staff writer Scott
Shifrel to defame Plaintiff as a “wacko”, to hold Plaintiff out at a violent criminal for a crime or which Plaintiff
was eventually declared not guilty – as she was declared not guilty when Defendant McCarthy – a federal attorney
– falsely accused Plaintiff of committing 18 USC §111(a), simple assault – while Plaintiff was 260 miles
away in Brooklyn, New York. Defendant Garaufis and the other Defendants – most of whom are Jews, have revisited the
same act of fraud for the same reason – to enforce the Jewish religious doctrine Law of the Moser to prevent Plaintiff
from filing complaints against corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, who hid and continue
to hide their aggravated identity theft on behalf of their client, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, thereby depriving Plaintiff
and her daughter Tara of the right to bear Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's name.
..........193).....The courts
of Defendant United States of America recognizes a poor defendant in a criminal case that does not have counsel as an injury.
proceeding In Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), the Supreme Court ruled that in all federal cases, counsel
would have to be appointed for defendants who were too poor to hire their own.
..........194).....The courts of Defendant the United
States of America recognize that a criminal defendant not having been given a notice of accusation an injury. Individuals
who have been accused of a serious federal offense have the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611 (1881) that “in an indictment ...
it is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statute, unless those words of themselves fully, directly,
and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended
to be punished.” In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court
increased the scope of the Confrontation Clause by ruling that “testimonial” out-of-court statements are inadmissible
if the accused did not have the opportunity to cross-examine that accuser and that accuser is unavailable at trial.
..........195).....Plaintiff submits
that Defendants' violation of the Sixth Amendment's mandate to provide the accused Plaintiff with witnesses, and with an attorney
for her defense also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC §1985, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, 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.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601
Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs
..........196).....Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
..........197).....With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is
brought against them individually and in their official capacities.
..........198).....Plaintiff is an American citizen
with a serious and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major
life activities.
..........199).....Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
..........200).....Plaintiff
is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites,
forever lost the ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears; having married Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere, Plaintiff now retains the right from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained by Tara A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff
and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and for her progeny to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.
..........201).....Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty, pursuant to the Civil Act of 1964, §601, to ensure that
no person in the United States, including the Plaintiff, shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise
discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance.
..........202).....Defendants
failed to meet the obligations as detailed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendants discriminated and continue to discriminate
against Plaintiff based on the Talmudic view of Gentiles in general, and blacks in particular. Plaintiff's ethnicity as a
gentile/African-American/schvartze. See documentation regarding the Curse of Dark Skin and Law of the Moser attached
as Exhibit Q. In addition, while refusing to accept from the Plaintiff irrefutable proof of Jews Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey
Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of misprision of felony, fraud, identity
theft, aggravated identity theft, racketeering, obstruction of justice and extortion/blackmail, Defendant Barack H. Obama,
Andrew Weissman, General Counsel for Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation, James X. Dempsey, Defendant, Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board; Elisebeth Collins Cook, Defendant, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; David Medine, Chairman,
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Rachel L. Brand, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; and Patricia M.
Wald, Defendant, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Keith B. Alexander, General, National Security Agency; Rajesh
De, General Counsel, National Security Agency; Eric H. Holder; U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; Charles
Schumer, Senate Judiciary Committee; Dianne Feinstein, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairperson; Senator Saxby
Chambliss, Patrick Leahy, Senator Judiciary Chairman, Hon. Goodlatte, Chairman, U.S. House Judiciary Chairman, Mike Rogers,
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Marshals Service Director Charles Dunne, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Protection Service, Threat Assessment Branch employee Denis P. McGowan, FBI Assistant Director in Charge,
George Venizelos and Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis engaged in overseeing a criminal, unconstitutional system of government that
specifically discriminated against the law-abiding, psychiatric-treatment-compliant, mentally disabled Gentile/Schvartze/African
American Plaintiff by allowing Defendant Judge Garaufis and other Jews to fraudulently use the PATRIOT Act to spy on non-criminal,
constitutionally-protected telephone calls regarding Plaintiff's HIPAA-protected mental health and other HIPAA-protected issues;
that said telephone calls were spied on at the behest of Defendant Judge Garaufis and other Jews, not based on the belief
that the Plaintiff had violated the law, but to enslave the Plaintiff by extorting/blackmailing her; by using Plaintiff's
confidential, non-content information regarding Plaintiff's telephone calls to her outpatient psychiatric care provider that
maybe embarrassing or shameful if publicly disseminated; to fraudulently accuse the Plaintiff of the commission of a crime
and to associate the fraudulent criminal allegation with Plaintiff's confidential non-content information; to frighten the
Plaintiff by publicizing embarrassing or shameful information associated with Plaintiff's psychiatric non-content information
for the sole purpose of forcing the Plaintiff not to petition the government for a redress of grievances with regard to Plaintiff's
First Amendment right to report the activities of lawbreaking Jews to the secular/Gentile law enforcement authorities; that
those Jews' violation of Plaintiff's and other Gentiles' right to privacy is based on the Talmudic doctrine for Jews to enslave
Gentiles, with an emphasis on the enslavement of people who are dark-skinned or considered by Jews to be Africans, Cushites,
Hamites and Canaanites. See Exhibit Q. In the meantime, Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer
Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel, who engaged in illegally obtaining and publicly disseminating information regarding the crime
(for which Plaintiff was falsely accused, for which Defendants never had any intention of confronting Plaintiff in any court
of laws and that was eventually dismissed), Plaintiff's mental illness and her marriage and who are still engaging in misprision
of felony, fraud, identity theft, aggravated identity theft, racketeering, obstruction of justice and extortion/blackmail
have never been investigated for the continued commission of their crimes.
..........203).....Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury because
she is still under attack by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of Defendant 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/schvartze. In the case of disruptive
Jewish litigant Rebecca Gloria Yohalem, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jewish judge Joanna Seybert accepted the Jewish litigant's virtually unintelligible lawsuit. In Defendant Boyle's order regarding the disruptive, Jewish
litigant, he said:
“The pro se plaintiff appeared in court today for an initial conference, after having failed to appear at
two prior initial conferences. Her action purports to be one under 42 U.S.C. §1983, based on assault, kidnapping
and other various general allegations that allegedly occurred at one or more mental health facilities in New York.
The pro se plaintiff is virtually deaf and it is therefore difficult for her to participate
in any meaningful way in this litigation - whether it involves interaction with opposing counsel or the Court. As a
result of this severe limitation, the plaintiff’s conduct was invariably nonresponsive, which undoubtedly led
to her frustration at the conference, which, in turn, led to her disruptive behavior in the courtroom after the initial conference
was concluded.
For the foregoing reasons, the
Court strongly recommends that the pro se plaintiff seek counsel by contacting William M. Brooks, Professor of Law at the
Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center. Touro Law Center has been designated, along with other organizations, as an ombudsperson
by the State of New York, under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness program (“PAIMI”),
to represent patients and former patients at mental hospitals in the State of New York. These duties are apparently carried
out by the Law Center through the Civil Rights Litigation Clinic, which is primarily responsible for patients in the Long
Island area, and of which Professor Brooks is the director. He may be contacted by telephone at (631) 761-7086.”
..........204).....Defendant
Boyle was even able to “purport” a cause of action from the mentally disabled Jewish plaintiff's difficult-to-read
complaint. In yet another act of pro-Jew favoritism, the court, at the behest of Defendant Jewish judge Joanna Seybert, the
Jewish litigant was allowed to appear – for the third initial conference after missing the first two. During the
third initial conference, the Jewish litigant became disruptive. See Complaint of Rebecca Gloria Yohalem attached as
Exhibit O.
..........205).....However, although the African-American Plaintiff went to college to become a paralegal and made
the Dean's List twice, has shown the ability to teach herself federal procedural law (FRCP/FRAP/Rules of the Supreme Court),
federal statutes, Constitutional law, appellate case law and to apply them to her Verified Complaint on her own and in spite
of her mental illness, the only reactions that Plaintiff has received from corrupt, racist Defendant Garaufis
and the other Defendants is their mistreatment of the Plaintiff both as a Gentile and as the descendant of African slaves.
See Plaintiff's Dean's List certificates attached as Exhibit P.
..........206).....The courts
of Defendant the United States of America recognize that discrimination based on race is an injury. Discrimination based on
race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352,
78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms
of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women. It ended unequal application
of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general
public.
..........207).....Plaintiff
submits that Defendants' violation of Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601 because Plaintiff's is an “inferior”
gentile/African-American/schvartze who continues to file complaints against corrupt “superior” Jews immigration
attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC §1985, conspiracy against civil rights
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
Defendants are a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organization
..........208).....Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
..........209).....With regard
to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in their official capacities.
210) Plaintiff is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff
has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
..........211).....Plaintiff
is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
..........212).....Plaintiff
is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites,
forever lost the ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears; and having married Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere;
and that the aforesaid right is retained by Tara A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and for her progeny to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere.
..........213).....Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty not to engage in racketeering behavior for the purpose of making
Plaintiff a victim of honest services fraud at the hands of the Defendants, thereby preventing Plaintiff and her daughter,
Tara from retaining the correct African name that they should have received from Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, based on
Defendant New York City's and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's recognition of Plaintiff's and her daughter
Tara's relationship with Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere through marriage and bloodline.
..........214).....Defendants
failed to meet their obligation by not engaging in those behaviors that are indicative of a racketeering-influenced, corrupt
organization as detailed in 18 USC 18 USC §§1961–1968. Defendants engaged in racketeering for the sole purpose
of 1) advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser so as to prevent Plaintiff from filing her complaint against corrupt,
Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, thereby forever depriving Plaintiff and her
daughter Tara of their right to bear the African name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. Plaintiff alleges that the only
way that Plaintiff can avoid Defendants' racketeering is by keeping silent and not filing papers against corrupt Jewish Defendants
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.
..........
215).....Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under
attack by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of Defendant 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.
Plaintiff holds that Defendant Garaufis and rest of the Defendants engaged in racketeering by engaging in the following acts,
to wit:
...............a).....that
Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato Eugene Uzamere engaged in racketeering in that they
committed 18 USC §1028, thereby 1) knowingly and without lawful authority, produced a false identification document
knowing that such document was produced without lawful authority; 2) knowingly possessed a false identification document with
the intent that such document be used to defraud the United States; 3) knowingly transferred the fraudulent affirmations to
Defendant the New York State Unified Court System without lawful authority; 4) transferred a means of identification of another
person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation
of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law; with all the Defendants' goal to complete
their act of racketeering by ensuring that Plaintiff and her daughter Tara never be able to file her complaint
against corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, and thereby forever be
deprived of their right to bear Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's correct African name.
...............b).....that Defendants Garaufis,
Schack, Sunshine, Cutrona and Gerstein engaged in racketeering in that they committed 18 USC §1512 in that they used
physical force and the threat of physical force with the intent to: 1) prevent Plaintiff's testimony against corrupt Jewish
immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein; 2) that the aforesaid defendants caused Plaintiff
to withhold her testimony against corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein; 3)
that the aforesaid defendant – especially Defendant Schack forced Plaintiff to be absent from an official proceeding
to which that person has been summoned by legal process; 4) That the aforementioned defendants knowingly uses intimidation,
threats, and corruptly persuaded the New York City Police Department and the New York City Fire Department, with the intent
to prevent Plaintiff from giving testimony regarding the commission of aggravated identity theft by corrupt Jewish immigration
attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein conspiracy.
...............c)..... that Defendant Osato E. Uzamere
engaged in racketeering in that he committed 18 USC §1543, false use of passport. Defendant Osato E. Uzamere falsely
made a copy of an instrument purporting to be the passport of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, with intent that the same may
be used in court by Defendant Sunshine as a means to pretend to identify Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. See copies of passport
bearing the number A0588053 but bearing no name is attached as Exhibit C;
...............d).....that Defendant Osato E. Uzamere
engaged in racketeering in that he committed 18 USC 1028A, false use of a social security number. Defendant Osato E. Uzamere
falsely made a copy of an instrument bearing the number XXX-XX-1205 purporting to be the social security number of “Godwin
Uzamere”, a fictitious identity that was used to defraud the Plaintiff. See copy of instrument bearing false social
security number attached as Exhibit C.
..........216).....The courts of Defendant the United
States of America recognize that obstruction of justice caused by racketeering influenced, corrupt organizations as an injury.
RICO laws were successfully cited in NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 114 S. Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed. 2d 99 (1994), a suit in which
certain parties, including the National Organization for Women, sought damages and an injunction against pro-life activists
who physically block access to abortion clinics. Amazingly, the Court held that a RICO enterprise does not need an economic
motive, and that the Pro-Life Action Network could therefore qualify as a RICO enterprise. In the federal lawsuit against
judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella, federal grand jury in the Middle District of Pennsylvania handed down a 48-count
indictment against former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella. The judges were
charged with RICO after allegedly committing acts of wire fraud, mail fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, and honest services
fraud. The judges were accused of taking kickbacks for housing juveniles, that the judges convicted for mostly petty crimes,
at a private detention center. The incident was dubbed by many local and national newspapers as the “Kids for cash scandal”.
On February 18, 2011, a federal jury found Michael Ciavarella guilty of racketeering because of his involvement in accepting
illegal payments from Robert Mericle, the developer of PA Child Care, and Attorney Robert Powell, a co-owner
of the facility. Ciavarella is facing 38 other counts in federal court.
..........217).....Plaintiff submits that Defendants' commission of racketeering
violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
and 42 USC §1985, conspiracy against civil rights 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 RELIEF
Fraud upon the Court
..........218).....Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
..........219).....With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in
their official capacities.
..........220).....Plaintiff is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a
mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
..........221).....Plaintiff is a qualified individual
with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
..........222).....Plaintiff is a descendant victim
of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the ability
to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears; and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains
the right from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid
right is retained by Tara A. Uzamere, blood heir and the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere, and for her progeny to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere.
..........223).....Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to provide her with honest judicial services, free from fraud.
Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to render decisions in her lawsuits that were reflective of their recognition of the aggravated
identity theft committed by Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato E. Uzamere. Defendants owed
Plaintiff the duty to file a criminal instrument against the aforementioned attorney, and to not allow their own Talmudic
bias to affect their obligation to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; to take said obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and to well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which Defendants entered. Defendants
owed Plaintiff the duty to establish a clear separation of church and state, and to distance themselves from the Talmudic
Law of the Moser in their application and enforcement of the law. Defendants owed Plaintiff and her children the duty to give
themselves over to the transparency of U.S. law, and not the secrecy of the Talmudic Law of the Moser – a stupid law
that is stupid for Defendants to enforce since the Defendants actively keep said law secret from Gentiles. It is
stupid for Defendants to force Plaintiff – and the public at large – to obey a law that they do not know they
are supposed to obey and is not transparently included in any normal law code.
..........224).....Defendants failed to meet the obligations as detailed
in Bulloch v. United States. Defendant judges engaged rendering fraudulent decisions, and then commenced a extortionate
shakedown from the judicial positions of Defendants Garaufis, Schack, Sunshine and Gerstein for the sole purpose of advancing
the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser so as to prevent Plaintiff from filing her complaint against corrupt, Jewish immigration
attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, thereby forever depriving Plaintiff and her daughter Tara of their
right to bear the African name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. Plaintiff alleges that the only way that Plaintiff
can avoid Defendants' intimidation, false criminal allegations and Defendants' racial discrimination against her is
by keeping silent and not filing papers against corrupt Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.
..........225).....Plaintiff
suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under attack by all the Defendants judges has have rendered biased
decisions designed to hide Defendant judges' commission of misprision of felony with regard to Defendants Allen E. Kaye's,
Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's and Osato E. Uzamere's commission of aggravated identity theft. Defendants, at the clandestine
behest of Defendant 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. 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 Defendant judge in that case would render a decision
that would ignore Defendant attorneys of any criminal liability, or worse, they conspired with other Defendants to accuse
Plaintiff of being too mentally disabled and violent to use the court system. The defendant judges acted, not as judges, but
as Talmudic attorneys for the corrupt, Jewish immigration attorneys, 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. Lastly, Defendant Jewish judges rendered fictitious decision
to their their true motive – to Talmud-based decisions against the Plaintiff because she is Gentile, because she is
black-skinned, and because of the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser that prohibits the Defendants from directly
or indirectly filing complaints against corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein.
See Defendant Daily News article dated November 5, 2009, attached as Exhibit R.
..........226).....The courts
of Defendant the United States of America recognize that fraud upon the court is an injury. 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
is an injury because it deprives a litigant of the court's most valuable “commodity” – justice.
..........227).....Plaintiff
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 biased, and is an act of fraud upon the court the violates the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC §1985,
conspiracy against civil rights 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.
SEVENTH
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendants' Blacklisting Of Plaintiff Violates
42 U.S.C. §1983, §1985
..........228).....Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
..........229).....With
regard to all Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in their official capacities.
..........230).....Plaintiff
is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially
limits one of more major life activities.
..........231).....Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust
in which Africans, whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the ability to bear the correct paternal
name of her African male forebears; and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right from now to
eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained by
Tara A. Uzamere, blood heir and the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere, and for her progeny to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.
..........232).....Defendants
owed Plaintiff the duty to not blacklist Plaintiff in the Jewish Defendants' continued attempts to stop filing criminal complaints
against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to make their federally-financed
outpatient mental health and other programs available to the Plaintiff program free from fraud. Defendants owed Plaintiff
the duty to recognize Plaintiff's complaints against the aforementioned attorneys as true, and not trick Plaintiff into believing
that Defendants' blacklisting were legitimate acts brought on by wrongful acts by the Plaintiff. Defendants owed Plaintiff
the duty not to render Plaintiff persona non grata based on the Jewish Defendants' desire to enforce the Talmudic
doctrine Law of the Moser, that prohibits Jews from indirectly or directly filing complaints against fellow Jews who have
violated secular law.
..........233).....Defendants failed to meet the obligations as detailed in 42 USC §1983, 1985. Defendant judges
engaged in blacklisting the Plaintiff from the New York State courts, from the federal courts, and from receiving outpatient
mental health services, in order to engage in racketeering/obstruction of justice for the sole purpose of advancing the Talmudic
doctrine Law of the Moser, that prohibits Jews from indirectly or directly reporting the wrongdoings of fellow Jews to the
secular/gentile authorities. Plaintiff alleges that the only way that Plaintiff can avoid Defendants' blacklisting, intimidation,
false criminal allegations and Defendants' racial discrimination against her is by keeping silent and not filing a criminal
complaint against corrupt Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.
..........234).....Plaintiff
suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under attack by all the Defendants like FEGS, Inc., who still
have Plaintiff listed as persona non grata for life. Defendant judges Eileen A. Rakower and Nicholas Garaufis have come to
Defendant FEGS aid, by allowing FEGS to blacklist Plaintiff because Plaintiff used Defendant FEGS, Inc Services for complaining
against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity
theft. See Defendant Daily News article dated November 5, 2009, attached as Exhibit R.
..........235).....The
courts of Defendant the United States of America recognize that blacklisting is an injury – and a constitutional tort
as well. Mr. Justice Black in his concurring opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee
v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 144-145, 71 S.Ct. 624, 634 (1951): stated: “Our basic law, however, wisely withheld
authority for resort to executive. . .condemnations and blacklists as a substitute for imposition of legal types of
penalties by courts following trial and conviction in accordance with procedural safeguards of the Bill of Rights.”
236) Plaintiff submits to this Court that the Defendants –
especially the Jewish Defendants' orchestration of a hostile environment to exclude Plaintiff from government-financed judicial,
legal, and medical services to prevent Plaintiff from reporting the aforesaid Jewish immigration attorneys' commission of
aggravated identity theft to the appropriate law enforcement authorities, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC §1983 and §1985, conspiracy
against civil rights 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.
EIGHTH
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendants Invaded Plaintiff's Privacy Based
on Intentional Misuse of NSL
or Based on Obtaining Non-NSL, Non-Content Information Illegally
..........237).....Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
..........238).....With regard to all Defendants, this claim is brought
against them individually and in their official capacities.
..........239).....Plaintiff is an American citizen
with a serious and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one of more major
life activities.
..........240).....Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose sale was brokered
by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears;
and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the
name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained by Tara A. Uzamere, blood heir and the
adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and for her progeny to bear the correct
Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.
..........241).....Defendants owed Plaintiff the
duty not to invade Plaintiff's privacy by using the non-content information regarding Plaintiff's telephone calls to psychiatric
service providers and to government healthcare providers to accuse Plaintiff of crimes that were used to illegally rationalize
Defendant Garaufis' dismissal of Plaintiff's civil rights action. Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty not to invade Plaintiff's
privacy by using the non-content information regarding Plaintiff's telephone calls to psychiatric care providers and government
healthcare providers to illegally rationalize extortionate/threatening telephone calls and visits to Plaintiff's home. Defendants
owed Plaintiff the duty not to invade Plaintiff's privacy by using the non-content information regarding Plaintiff's telephone
calls to psychiatric service providers and government healthcare providers to accuse Plaintiff of crimes that were used to
kidnap Plaintiff and unlawfully imprison/illegally misdiagnose Plaintiff for crimes that she never commit.
..........242).....Defendants
failed to meet the obligations as detailed in 18 USC §2709 and Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
Defendants, in their haste to libel Plaintiff as a violent, lawbreaking “wacko” to make Plaintiff's complaint
against them appear to be unbelievable, Defendant judges conspired with Defendants Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman and
Jewish staff writer Scott Shifrel of the Daily News, LP to disseminate confidential, nonpublic information regarding Plaintiff's
mental illness and her marriage on paper and in the internet – with the internet still disseminating the false story
regarding the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is still being attacked by several members of the Jewish community to prevent her from
successfully filing her complaint against the original lawbreaking attorneys, corrupt immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye,
Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.
..........243).....Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under attack by all the
Defendants. See Defendant Daily News article dated November 5, 2009, attached as Exhibit R.
..........244).....The courts
of Defendant the United States of America recognize the intentional misuse of an NSL as an injury – and a constitutional
tort as well. Mr. Justice Black in his concurring opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee
v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 144-145, 71 S.Ct. 624, 634 (1951): stated: “Our basic law, however, wisely withheld
authority for resort to executive. . .condemnations and blacklists as a substitute for imposition of legal types of penalties
by courts following trial and conviction in accordance with procedural safeguards of the Bill of Rights.”
..........245).....Plaintiff
submits to this Court that the Defendants – especially the Jewish Defendants' orchestration of a hostile environment
to exclude Plaintiff from government-financed judicial, legal, and psychiatric services to prevent Plaintiff from reporting
the aforesaid Jewish immigration attorneys' commission of fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft to the appropriate
law enforcement authorities, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC §1983 and §1985, conspiracy against civil rights 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.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Congressional
Defendants Engaged in Campaign Bribery to Advance the Talmudic Law of the Moser;
Congressional
Defendants Deprived Plaintiff and Gentiles of Honest Services
..........246).....Plaintiff repeats and realleges
the above paragraphs.
..........247).....With regard to all Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in their official
capacities.
..........248).....Plaintiff is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has
a mental impairment that substantially limits one of more major life activities.
..........249).....Plaintiff
is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites,
forever lost the ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears; and having married Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere;
and that the aforesaid right is retained by Tara A. Uzamere, blood heir and the adult child of the marriage between
Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and for her progeny to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated
with Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.
..........250).....Defendant Jeffries and his congressional staff, owed
Plaintiff the duty, pursuant to 18 USC §4, to report the crimes that Plaintiff reported to him to the U.S. Department
of Justice, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jeffries and
his congressional staff had, in de jure, than a de facto22 responsibility to the Plaintiff to ensure that Plaintiff's criminal complaint would be investigated or would
be presented to Defendants U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for investigation.
..........251).....Defendant
Jeffries, his congressional staff and Jews who contributed financially to Defendant Jeffries' congressional campaign owed
Plaintiff the duty to ensure that they not engage in quid pro quo campaign contributions that were provided/accepted
with the understanding that the aforementioned were bribes used to require Defendant Jeffries and his staff to engage in activities
that would advance Jewish religion and culture, including the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser, at the expense of violating
the civil rights of Gentile constituents, especially the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
..........252).....Defendant
Jeffries, his congressional staff and Jews who contributed financially to Defendant Jeffries' congressional campaign owed
Plaintiff the duty to allow her the same type of free access to to call and visit Defendant Jeffries' offices as the Jews
who contributed money to Defendant Jeffries' congressional campaign, and to not conspire to blacklist the Plaintiff based
on her insistence to obtain help from Defendant Jeffries to report those Defendants – especially those Defendants who
are Jewish, for Defendants' commission of misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy
to interfere with civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail, blacklisting and violation of the
PATRIOT Act.
..........253).....Defendant Jeffries and his congressional staff, failed in their duty, pursuant to 18 USC §4,
to report the crimes that Plaintiff reported to him, to the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security and other Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jeffries and his congressional staff failed in their in
de jure, or de facto responsibility to the Plaintiff to ensure that Plaintiff criminal complaint would be investigated or
would be presented to Defendants U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for investigation.
..........254).....Defendant
Jeffries, his congressional staff and Jews who contributed financially failed in their duty to ensure that they not engage
in qui pro quo campaign contributions that were provided/accepted with the understanding that the aforementioned were bribes
used to require Defendant Jeffries and his staff to engage in activities that would advance Jewish religion and culture, including
the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser, the prohibits Jews from reporting crimes of fellow Jews to the secular/Gentile authorities,
at the expense of violating the civil rights of Gentile constituents, especially the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses
of the U.S. Constitution.
..........255).....Defendant Jeffries, his congressional staff and Jews who contributed financially to Defendant
Jeffries' congressional campaign failed in their duty to allow Plaintiff the same type of free access to to call and visit
Defendant Jeffries' offices as the Jews who contributed money to Defendant Jeffries' congressional campaign; that Defendant
Jeffries, his congressional staff and Jews who contributed financially to Defendant Jeffries' congressional campaign failed
in their duty not to conspire to blacklist the Plaintiff based on her insistence to obtain help against those Jews whom Plaintiff
has proven committed misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with civil
rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting.
..........256).....Plaintiff
suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under attack by all the Defendants. See Defendant Daily News
article dated November 5, 2009, attached as Exhibit R.
..........257).....The courts of Defendant the United
States of America recognize the acceptance of a bribe by a public servant as a injury cognizable in law.
.......... 258).....Plaintiff submits
to this Court that the Defendants – especially the Jewish Defendants' orchestration of a hostile environment to exclude
Plaintiff from government-financed judicial, legal, and psychiatric services to prevent Plaintiff from reporting the aforesaid
Jewish immigration attorneys' commission of fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft to the appropriate law enforcement
authorities, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and 42 USC §1983 and §1985, conspiracy against civil rights 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.
This Court Must Enforce 28 USC §455, 28 USC §1404, 28 USC §1654 and 28
USC §144
to Protect Pro Se Plaintiff's Right to Self-Representation
..........259).....28 USC §144
says: “Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that
the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse
party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.” .....
..........260).....28 USC §455 says: “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States
shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also
disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship
to either of them, or the spouse of such a person.”
..........261).....28 USC §1404(a) says: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest
of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought
or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” .....
..........262) 28 USC §1654 says: “In all courts
of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts,
respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.”
..........263).....Plaintiff alleges that if any judge in the Eastern
District or Southern District of New York gets his/her hands on Plaintiff's lawsuit, even though he/she is a defendant, he/she
will violate 28 USC §455, 28 USC §1404, 28 USC §1654 and 28 USC §144, and make a ruling dismissing Plaintiff's
case based on: 1) halachic law's mandate not to report the crimes of corrupt Jews Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein,
Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel to the secular authorities, 2) judicial nepotism based on their desire to save Defendant
Garaufis from being prosecuted; and, 3) their ability to hide any act of fraud upon the court on Plaintiff's being an inexperienced,
mentally disabled pro se litigant. If Plaintiff appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Second Circuit, even though its
judges are also defendants presently engaged in the commission of several federal offenses, they will violate 28 USC §455,
28 USC §1404, 28 USC §1654 and 28 USC §144, and make an unexplained ruling dismissing Plaintiff's case based
on: 1) halachic law's mandate not to report the crimes of corrupt Jews Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer
Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel to the secular authorities; judicial nepotism based on their desire to save Defendant Garaufis
from being prosecuted; and, 3) their ability to hide any act of fraud upon the court on Plaintiff's being an inexperienced,
mentally disabled pro se litigant. Defendant Garaufis will also depend on law enforcement agencies like the FBI to illegally
monitor Plaintiff and to hospitalize Plaintiff for any action that can be misconstrued as warranting long-term psychiatric
hospitalization so that Plaintiff can be “jailed” for having a mental illness without the benefits of a notice
of accusation, a defense attorney and a chance to confront adversarial witnesses. When Plaintiff last checked, an employee
of Defendant FBI contacted Plaintiff's psychiatric treatment provider to tell them that Plaintiff had an argument with them
about her rights to file criminal complaints against Jewish persons who violated federal law, treating Plaintiff's insistence
as mental instability. Defendant Garaufis also set in motion Plaintiff's being falsely accused of committing 115, threatening
Defendant Garaufis with bodily harm, other federal judges, and employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
call center with death. Defendant Garaufis instigated the violation of Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment rights (Plaintiff was able
to confront the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. They confirmed that Plaintiff did not threaten anyone). Lastly,
Defendant Garaufis set in motion the kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment of Plaintiff in a mental institution for a federal
offense/psychiatric diagnosis which Plaintiff did not commit. This Court, pursuant to 4, misprision of felony owes both the
Plaintiff and the Constitution of the United States to enforce the law.
..........264).....Defendant United States' statutes
have justly made arrangements to ensure that any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States disqualifies himself/herself
in any proceeding in which a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In the interest of justice and mercy, federal
statutes, along with case law, have arranged that a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or
division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented – in the
best interest of justice. However, while U.S. Constitutional law ensures that any decision in any court of the U.S. States
reflect that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are incorporated
in all U.S. judges' decisions, sometimes dishonest federal judges can intentionally misconstrue federal statutes in a way
that allows the meritless dismissal of a pro se litigant's cases, simply because a pro se litigant's cases are automatically
viewed as lacking merit, or worse, because the pro se litigant's case has merit but addresses legal issues against which the
judge has a bias.
..........265).....In
the case of the pro se Plaintiff, Plaintiff alleges that any Defendant judge against whom her action is filed has
already conspired with defendants' attorneys not to enter into any stipulation with the Plaintiff to transfer her lawsuit
to an unbiased venue/venue that does not have a Jewish majority. Furthermore, none of the defendants have reported or will
report attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Osato Eugene Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere for their commission
of aggravated identity theft. Plaintiff alleges that a disproportionate percentage of the second district's federal judges
will adjudicate Plaintiff's lawsuit in favor of those members of the judiciary and defendants who are adherents of Talmudic
doctrines such as: 1) Law of the Moser;232) Curse of Dark Skin;24 3) Judaism, American's New Government Religion;25 4) Only a Jew Can Rule Over Jews;26 5) Gentiles, rightful slaves of Jews;27 6) Use of Subterfuge to Trick Goyim During Lawsuits;28 and, 7) A Gentile's Lost Item Must Not Be Returned if Based on Compassion.29 Because of the Second Circuit's religious imbalance of power, non-adherent judges, who Judaic law does not
benefit, in attempts to keep their jobs and social standing, participate in rendering decisions that honor and due obeisance
to Judaism. In the Second Circuit, Plaintiff's attempts to have the court enforce 28 USC §455, 28 USC §1404, 28
USC §1654 and 28 USC §144 are a death knell for Plaintiff's lawsuit. Most of the judges are Jews. Plaintiff does
not understand how the Second Circuit was able to hire in such a manner as to hire a Jewish majority, or at least a disproportionately
high percentage of Jews.
..........266).....This court must display the legal, moral and constitutional fortitude to assist the pro se Plaintiff
to enforce 28 USC §455, 28 USC §1404, 28 USC §1654 and 28 USC §144. Judicial Defendants' district –
essentially a beth din where pro se litigants are concerned, must not be allowed to secretly enforce halachic doctrines
by relying on the presumed naivéte of pro se litigants who have meritorious claims that corrupt, federal and New York
State judges ignore because of judges' own personal, unconstitutional biases. Decisions rendered by the Second Circuit's Talmud-biased
federal judges, which have been discarded by such terms as “not for publication” or “mandate”, but
make absolutely no mention of the meritorious issues in the pro se litigant's appeal should be noticed by a trained and unbiased
judicial eye as an act of fraud upon the court. This Court must ensure that the pro se Plaintiff can rely on its unbiased
services to enforce 28 USC §455, 28 USC §1404, 28 USC §1654 and 28 USC §144. See Liteky v. U.S.,
114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994); Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988);
(what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d
1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually
biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from
actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process."); “Section
455(a)” requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989); Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), “It
is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
“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); 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."
Federal
Judges Are Required to Construe Pro Se Litigant's Pleadings Liberally
..........267).....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 dismissed Mr. Menard's complaint and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit affirmed the 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.”
There Is No Constitutional
Or Statutory Rationale To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
..........268).....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 alleges that Defendant Garaufis' primarily relies on the religious doctrine Law of the Moser
to prevent Plaintiff from reporting corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.
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; (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. Plaintiff
advises this Court that if Defendant Garaufis receives this case, even though he is a defendant, he will rule on it. If the
judges of the Second Circuit gets it, they will rule on it, even though they are also Defendants. Plaintiff asks this Court
to place her lawsuit in abeyance until such time that the Defendants stipulates this court as the venue for Plaintiff's action
pursuant to 28 USC §455 and 28 USC §1404, and if not, to be courageous and make new law that the Plaintiff can proudly
present to the Supreme Court of the United States.
..........269).....Plaintiff reminds this Court that even if Plaintiff
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Plaintiff would still 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 of the inartfully drawn, virtually
incomprehensible complaint of the disruptive, mentally disabled Jewish litigant Rebecca Gloria Yohalem and demands the
same wide literal latitude –- especially since Plaintiff's Verified Complaint is a lot easier
for this Court to read and understand. 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
..........270).....According to Coppedge v. United States, “The
requirement that an appeal 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.
..........271).....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.”
..........272).....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.
..........273).....Plaintiff's alleges that her Verified Complaint addresses issues that are not frivolous issues.
At the very least, it questions the judicial Defendants' refusal to treat the Plaintiff and her daughter fairly in the face
of allegations that Plaintiff has established are irrefutable. It demands a final answer to the question of the identity of
Plaintiff's former husband and father of Tara A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage. It accuses the Defendants –
especially the judicial Defendants of criminal behavior, beginning with 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, up to and including
18 USC §1962, RICO/racketeering, based upon judicial Defendants obstruction of justice with regard to commencing a criminal
investigation against immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato E. Uzamere for their commission
of fraud, identity theft, and aggravated identity theft. Plaintiff's Verified Complaint is well-written, well-researched and
well-documented. Plaintiff is legally entitled to be enveloped by the gossamer wings of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection
extension intended for people who are disabled –– Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Olmstead
v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), which states 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.
..........WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following:
..........a).....to proceed in forma
pauperis;
..........b).....to
upload all of Plaintiff's lawsuit to PACER – including the exhibits; and to NOT upload or assign Plaintiff's lawsuit
a number until the Court can determine if Plaintiff's 250 pages of exhibits can be uploaded in their entirety. Plaintiff will
not accept partial uploading of her documents because of Defendant Mortimer Zuckerman's use of the media to commit fraud,
identity theft and aggravated identity theft. Plaintiff wishes to the public to see that she is telling the truth, and to
see what the Defendants did to her and to her family.
..........c).....to assign Plaintiff her daughter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2)30
..........d).....to not accept
bribes or extortion from the Defendants – especially corrupt Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman. He will attempt
to pay you off of extort your cooperation. If Plaintiff believes that the court has become criminally biased, the Plaintiff
will report it to the FBI. The Plaintiff will not wait for proof.
..........e).....rapid adjudication of Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Expedited Judicial Notice of Adjudicative
Facts Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. Rule 201 and for Conversion to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. Rule 56.
..........f).....for
a jury trial if the above request is not granted;
..........g).....to hold adjudication of Plaintiff's lawsuit in abeyance until Defendants' attorneys stipulate
to change venue to the District of Rhode Island;
..........h).....for the presiding judge to commence a criminal investigation with the goal of arrest for the following
Defendants: Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; Judge Garaufis; Judge Leonard Sand; New York State Justice Arthur M. Schack; New York State
Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine; New York State Justice Eileen A. Rakower; New York State Justice Paul Wooten; New York State
Justice Donna Mills for their refusal to report immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato
E. Uzamere for their commission of aggravated identity theft; Denis P. McGowan, Regional Director, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; “John Doe” #1, U.S. Marshals Service for the Eastern District of New York; “John Doe”
#2, U.S. Marshals Service for the Eastern District of New York; “Jane Doe”, U.S. Marshals Service for the Eastern
District of New York;
..........i).....for
an order restraining the Defendants from engaging in any form of S.L.A.P.P. litigation;
..........j).....for Defendant Garaufis to established
his innocence by holding the U.S. Marshals Service for the Eastern District of New York criminally liable and Denis P. McGowan
for racketeering/obstruction of justice;
..........k).....to declare Defendant 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;
..........l).....an injunction permanently barring Defendant Garaufis from presiding over any of Plaintiff's lawsuits
in the future;
m) to ensure that if no federal judge ever again makes any statement
that questions Plaintiff's mental state;
..........n).....to establish proof that Plaintiff's appeal with regard to her lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et
al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv 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.
..........o).....for an award of monetary damages in the amount of $58,824 for each of the 34 years that the Defendants
withheld Plaintiff African/Nigerian/Edo/Bini name Mrs. Ehigie Edobor Uzamere for a grand total of $2,000,000,016 (Jewish litigant
Rebecca Gloria Yohalem requested $1,000,000,000 in her complaint).
..........p).....to toll the statute of limitations to give Plaintiff the opportunity to appeal the issue regarding
change of venue based upon a corrupt venue to the United States Supreme Court.
..........q).....issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to
obtain the immigration records of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere so as to put to an end to questions regarding his identity;
..........r)..... Issuance of a
subpoena duces tecum to obtain the national security letter(s) that was sent to Cablevision.
..........s).....for this Court, based on Defendants'
prior discovery of Plaintiff's psychiatric records as disseminated to Defendants Daily News and made public to the New York
State Office of Mental Health, to the New York State Department of Health and to the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation,
do not allow them any further discovery.
..........t).....Issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to obtain any and all NSLs, orders or other demands
to obtain non-content information regarding Plaintiff's telephone calls.
..........u).....Issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for records
containing copies of current U.S. or Nigerian identification documents for “Godwin Uzamere” from the individuals:
Allen E. Kaye, Esq; Harvey Shapiro, Esq.; Jack Gladstein, Esq.; Osato Eugene Uzamere, Esq., NYS Judge Jeffrey S. Sunshine;
NYS Justice Arthur M. Schack; Federal District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis; Charles Dunne of the U.S. Marshals Service
for the Eastern District of New York; Denis P. McGowan; Agnes Flores; Martin Bolton; Bridget Davis; Samuel Sarpong, Mortimer
Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel.
..........v).....Issuance
of a subpoena duces tecum for records of all individuals who contributed money to Defendant Jeffries' congressional
campaign and the amount of money each individual contributed.
..........w).....to dismiss action without prejudice in the event that the Court does not approve Plaintiff's motion
to hold in abeyance;
..........x).....commence
a criminal investigation against the Defendants for refusal to report the crimes committed by Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Jack Gladstein, Scott Shifrel, Mortimer Zuckerman, Judge Sunshine, Judge Schack, Judge Gerstein, Osato Eugene Uzamere and
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere;
..........y).....to
ensure that if Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere does not appear (as in file an answer) that the Court takes expedited judicial
notice of his failure to identify himself and render summary judgment.
..........z).....a public apology;
and for such other and further relief as to this honorable Court deems just and proper.
Dated:.....Brooklyn,
New York
...............September __, 2013