|
In
The United States Court of Federal Claims _________________________________ Cheryl D. Uzamere
Plaintiff, No.:______________ -against- JURY
TRIAL DEMANDED United States of America
Defendant. _________________________________ COMPLAINT
1) At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff was and still is a resident of the City of Brooklyn, County of Kings and
State of New York. JURISDICTION 2) This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 USC §1491, which says that “The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim
against the United States founded...upon the Constitution...”
3) This Court has jurisdiction over this action as it is an implied cause of action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). PARTIES
4) Defendant is the United States. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO DEFENDANT 5) Plaintiff alleges that in the past, lawsuits
that Plaintiff attempted to mail were mishandled by employees of the United States Postal Service in a manner that rendered
the packages untraceable (see Exhibit A); so that in order to protect herself, Plaintiff has mailed
a copy of her lawsuit to the Honorable Barack H. Obama and the Honorable Eric H. Holder via certified mail, return receipt
requested (see Exhibit B).
6) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant the United States, by and through employee Hazel C. Keahey, Clerk of Court for the United
States Court of Federal Claims, interfered with or assisted in interfering with the random judiciary selection process so
that the Honorable Christine O. C. Miller or a judge who is a member of the Ashkenazim would be the only judges selected to
adjudicate Plaintiff's lawsuit, number 10-555C. 7) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant the United States,
by and through its employee the Honorable Christine O. C. Miller, refused to self-disqualify from adjudicating Plaintiff's
lawsuit pursuant to 28 USC §455, although Plaintiff's lawsuit concerns the encroachment of the Talmudic doctrine Law
of the Moser into judicial affairs, and although Judge Miller is Jewish; that had Plaintiff not sent her notice of voluntary
dismissal by priority mail and overnight mail (see Exhibit C), Judge Miller
would have attempted to adjudicate Plaintiff's lawsuit in a manner to ensure that Plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice
(see Exhibit D).
8) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant the United States, by and through Hazel C. Keahey violated Plaintiff's First Amendment
right to petition the government for a redress of grievance by refusing to accept a faxed copy of her notice for voluntary
dismissal, even though Plaintiff informed Hazel C. Keahey of Plaintiff's intent to mail the notice to voluntarily dismiss
her lawsuit. 9) Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant the United States, by and through the Honorable Christine O.C. Miller attempted to violate Plaintiff's First Amendment
right with reference to Plaintiff's right to be free from the establishment of a state religion by attempting to adjudicate
Plaintiff's lawsuit by invoking the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser to prevent Plaintiff's lawsuit from being heard fairly
and impartially. 10) Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant the United States, by and through the Honorable Christine O. C. Miller violated the Fourteenth Amendment with
regard to Plaintiff's right to equal protection under the law by attempting to adjudicating Plaintiff's lawsuit for the sole
purpose of rendering a decision in favor of defendants who are Ashkenazi Jewish, and in favor of members of the Ashkenazim
to whom Plaintiff's lawsuit makes reference.
11) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's judicial system has become a dictatorship that allows members of the Ashkenazim to
violate the U.S. Constitution and the constitutional rights of non-Ashkenazim with impunity; that the aforesaid individuals'
violations are based on their enforcement of the Ashkenazim's Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser, a Jewish religious doctrine
that prohibits Ashkenazim from reporting the wrongdoings of Ashkenazim to secular authorities. 12) Plaintiff alleges that the United States Department of Justice's job,
as it pertains to Ashkenazi judges, is not to prosecute Ashkenazi judges who violate the U.S. Constitution, but to prosecute
individuals who challenge Ashkenazi judges' unconstitutional acts; and that whether the aforesaid acts are based on the recalcitrant
refusal of Defendant's Ashkenazi judiciary to obey the law, or based in Defendant's non-Ashkenazi judiciary's inability to
enforce the law, American citizens who are victimized by members of the Ashkenazim are no longer safe because they will no
longer be treated as equal to the Ashkenazim by Defendant's Ashkenazi judiciary.
13) Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff's lawsuit 10-555C concerns judicial acts of fraud upon the court resulting from Ashkenazi
judges' enforcement of the Talmudic religious doctrine the Law of the Moser in judicial settings (see E,
pages 63-65). 14) Plaintiff
asserts that the current lawsuit addresses the recent acts of Talmud-oriented fraud upon the court committed by Hazel C. Keahey,
Clerk of Court for the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the Honorable Christine O.C. Miller, judge of the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims during Judge Miller's failed attempt to adjudicate Plaintiff's lawsuit, number 10-555C. 15) Plaintiff alleges that the United States, by and through Defendants
Hazel C. Keahey and the Honorable Christine O.C. Miller committed the following: 1) violation of 28 USC §455, disqualification
of judges; 2) violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment right to freedom of speech; 3) violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment
right to be free from the establishment of a government-sponsored religion; 4) violation of Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment right
to due process of law; and, 5) violation of Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.
16) That Plaintiff alleges that Defendant the United States, by and through Defendant Hazel C. Keahey will continue to violate
Plaintiff's rights by following the instructions of the Honorable Christine O.C without question; that Judge Miller will render
a biased decision against Plaintiff insofar as the Judge Miller, who is Ashkenazi, will adhere to the Talmudic imperative
not to report of the crimes of fellow Jews to non-Jewish secular authorities; that Plaintiff will lose this lawsuit and appeal
it; and that when Plaintiff appeals it, the only judges who will have control (e.g. whose opinions will count) are the following
judges: the Honorable Judge Daniel M. Friedman; the Honorable Judge Pauline Newman; the Honorable Haldane Robert Mayer; the
Honorable Judge S. Jay Plager and the Honorable Alvin A. Schall – all of whom Plaintiff alleges are Jewish – and
will follow Judge Miller's lead and render a decision that is biased in favor of the Talmudic imperative not to directly or
indirectly report the crimes of fellow Ashkenazim to secular authorities. BACKGROUND
FACTS 17) Plaintiff asserts
that Defendant, the United States, by and through employees Hazel C. Keahey and the Honorable Christine O.C. Miller violated
Plaintiff's constitutional rights, to wit:
18) Plaintiff asserts that on or around August 16, 2010, Plaintiff contacted the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to see if her
lawsuit was received. 19) Plaintiff
asserts that Hazel C. Keahey told Plaintiff that her lawsuit was received and was assigned to the Honorable Christine O.C.
Miller. 20) Plaintiff asserts that
Plaintiff panicked based on her belief that Judge Miller is a member of the Ashkenazim; and that based on the aforesaid belief,
informed Ms. Keahey that she wished to withdraw her lawsuit.
21) That Plaintiff asserts that she explained to Ms. Keahey that her lawsuit concerned the encroachment of the Talmud in judicial
settings, and that Judge Miller was violating 28 USC §455 because she refused to disqualify herself. 22) That Plaintiff contacted the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division
to ascertain whether Plaintiff's lawsuit was received. COUNT I –
AS AN FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION DEFENDANT OWED PLAINTIFF
THE DUTY TO SELF-DISQUALIFY
) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant owed Plaintiff the duty to
) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to perform the duty to )
Plaintiff asserts that as a result of Defendant's failure to perform the aforesaid duty, Plaintiff suffered____________ ) Plaintiff asserts that as the victim of the deprivation
of Plaintiff's _______ Amendment right, Plaintiff can sue for the violation of the Amendment itself; and that the existence
of a remedy for the violation is implied because of the the importance of the right violated. COUNT II – AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION DEFENDANT
OWED PLAINTIFF THE DUTY TO PROTECT HER RIGHT TO EXERCISE FREE SPEECH ) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant owed Plaintiff the duty to ) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to perform
the duty to ) Plaintiff asserts that
as a result of Defendant's failure to perform the aforesaid duty, Plaintiff suffered____________ ) Plaintiff asserts that as the victim of the deprivation of Plaintiff's
_______ Amendment right, Plaintiff can sue for the violation of the Amendment itself; and that the existence of a remedy for
the violation is implied because of the the importance of the right violated. COUNT III – AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION DEFENDANT OWED PLAINTIFF THE DUTY TO PROTECT HER RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM A GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED RELIGION ) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant owed Plaintiff
the duty to ) Plaintiff asserts that
Defendant failed to perform the duty to
) Plaintiff asserts that as a result of Defendant's failure to perform the aforesaid duty, Plaintiff suffered____________ ) Plaintiff asserts that as the victim of the deprivation
of Plaintiff's _______ Amendment right, Plaintiff can sue for the violation of the Amendment itself; and that the existence
of a remedy for the violation is implied because of the the importance of the right violated. COUNT IV – AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION DEFENDANT
OWED PLAINTIFF THE DUTY TO ENFORCE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS OF LAW
) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant owed Plaintiff the duty to
) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to perform the duty to
) Plaintiff asserts that as a result of Defendant's failure to perform the aforesaid duty, Plaintiff suffered____________ ) Plaintiff asserts that as the victim of the deprivation
of Plaintiff's _______ Amendment right, Plaintiff can sue for the violation of the Amendment itself; and that the existence
of a remedy for the violation is implied because of the the importance of the right violated. COUNT IV – AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION DEFENDANT OWED PLAINTIFF THE DUTY TO ENFORCE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW ) Plaintiff asserts that
Defendant owed Plaintiff the duty to
) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to perform the duty to
) Plaintiff asserts that as a result of Defendant's failure to perform the aforesaid duty, Plaintiff suffered____________ ) Plaintiff asserts that as the victim of the deprivation
of Plaintiff's _______ Amendment right, Plaintiff can sue for the violation of the Amendment itself; and that the existence
of a remedy for the violation is implied because of the the importance of the right violated. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere respectfully prays
that this Court grants a jury trial, and for this Court to render judgment against the Defendant in the sum of $10,000,000.00
for the first, second, third, fourth and fifth causes of action herein, together with the costs and disbursement of this action,
and for such other, further, and additional relief as to this Court may seem just and proper.  Cheryl D. Uzamere
|
