UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Cheryl D. Uzamere
Civil Action No.: 1:2013-CV-00505
Plaintiff,
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
- against -
JURY
TRIAL DEMANDED
United States of America -and- The Honorable Barack H. Obama, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as President of the United States of America; the Honorable Judge John D. Bates, Individually
and in His Capacity as Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; the Honorable William E. Smith, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the Federal District Court, District of Rhode Island; the Honorable William E. Smith,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the Federal District Court, District of Rhode Island; the Honorable
Patricia A. Sullivan, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the Federal District Court, District
of Rhode Island; the Honorable Keith B. Alexander, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Director of the National
Security Agency; Rajesh De, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as General Counsel for the National Security Agency;
National Security Agency; Andrew Weissman, Individually and in His Official Capacity as General Counsel for the Federal Bureau
of Investigation; James X. Dempsey, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
Board; Elisebeth Collins Cook, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
Board; David Medine, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chairman, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Rachel
L. Brand, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Patricia M. Wald,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, N icholas G. Garaufis, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Dennis Jacobs, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Jon O. Newman, Individually and in
His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Amalya L. Kearse, Individually and in
Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Ralph K. Winter, Individually and in
His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; John M. Walker, Jr., Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Joseph M. McLaughlin, Individually
in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Pierre N. Leval, Individually in His
Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Guido Calabresi, Individually and in His
Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; José A. Cabranes, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Chester J. Straub, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Rosemary S. Pooler, Individually and
in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Robert D. Sack, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Robert A. Katzmann, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Barrington D. Parker, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Reena Raggi, Individually and
in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Richard C. Wesley, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Peter W. Hall, Individually and in
His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Debra Ann Livingston, Individually and
in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Gerard E. Lynch, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Denny Chin, Individually and in His
Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Susan L. Carney, Individually and
in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Christopher F. Droney, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Carol Bagley Amon, Individually
and in Her Official Capacity as Chief Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Frederic Block,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Joseph
F. Bianco, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York; Margo K. Brodie, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York; Brian M. Cogan, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York; Raymond J. Dearie, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York; Sandra J. Feuerstein, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York; Nina Gershon, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S.
Court for the Eastern District of New York; I. Leo Glasser, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York; John Gleeson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Denis R. Hurley, Individually and in His Official Capacity as
Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Dora L. Irizarry, Individually and in Her Official
Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Sterling Johnson, Jr., Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Edward R. Korman, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Kiyo A. Matsumoto,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; William
F. Kuntz, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York;
Roslynn R. Mauskopf, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York; Allyne R. Ross, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York; Thomas C. Platt, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York; Joanna Seybert, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York; Arthur D. Spatt, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Sandra L. Townes, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge
for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Eric N. Vitaliano, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Jack B. Weinstein, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Leonard D. Wexler, Individually and in
His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Ronnie Abrams, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Harold Baer, Individually
and Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York;
Deborah A. Batts, Individually and in Her Southern District of New York; Richard M. Berman, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Vincent L. Briccetti, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Naomi Reice Buchwald,
Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Andrew
L. Carter, Jr., Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York; P. Kevin Castel, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York; Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York; Denise L. Cote, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York; Paul A. Crotty, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York; George B. Daniels, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge
for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Kevin T. Duffy, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Paul A. Engelmayer, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Katherine B Forrest, Individually and
in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Jesse M. Furman, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Paul G. Gardephe,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Thomas
P. Griesa, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York; Charles S. Haight, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York; Alvin K. Hellerstein, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York; Lewis A. Kaplan, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York; Kenneth M. Karas, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York; John F Keenan, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York; John G. Koeltl, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Victor Marrero, Individually and in His Official Capacity as
Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Colleen McMahon, Individually and in Her Official
Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Alison J. Nathan, Individually and in
His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; J. Paul Oetken, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Richard Owen, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Robert P. Patterson,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; William
H. Pauley, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York; Loretta A. Preska, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Chief Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York; Jed S. Rakoff, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York; Edgardo Ramos, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York; Leonard B Sand, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York; Shira A. Scheindlin, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Cathy Seibel, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge
for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Louis L. Stanton, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Sidney H. Stein, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Richard J Sullivan, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Laura Taylor Swain, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Robert W. Sweet,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Kimba
M. Wood, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York;
Steven M. Gold, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chief Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York; Joan M. Azrack, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York; Lois Bloom, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; E. Thomas Boyle, Individually and in His Official Capacity as
Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Gary R. Brown, Individually and in His
Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Marilyn D. Go, Individually
and in Her Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Robert
M. Levy, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York; Arlene R. Lindsay, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York; Roanne L. Mann; Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; James Orenstein, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Magistrate
Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Viktor V. Pohorelsky; Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Cheryl L. Pollak, Individually
and in Her Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Vera M.
Scanlon, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York; A. Kathleen Tomlinson, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York; William D. Wall, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; James L. Cott, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Magistrate
Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Paul E. Davison, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Michael H. Dolinger, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Ronald
L. Ellis, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York; Kevin N. Fox, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chief Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York; James C. Francis, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Debra Freeman, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as
Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Gabriel W. Gorenstein, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Frank Maas,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York; Sarah Netburn, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York; Andrew J. Peck; Individually and in His Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York; Henry Pitman, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Lisa Margaret Smith, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Individually and George A. Yanthis,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York; Martin R. Goldberg, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York; Lawrence E. Kahn, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York; José Linares, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the
District of New Jersey; Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Clerk of Court for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Nancy B. Firestone, in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the United States Court
of Claims; Christine O.C. Miller, in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the United States Court of Claims; John P. Wiese,
in His Official Capacity as Judge for the United States Court of Claims;
the Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee; the
Honorable Charles Schumer, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee; the Honorable
Dick Durbin, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Amy Klobuchar, Individually
and in Her Official Capacity as Member, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Al Franken, Individually and in His
Official Capacity as Member, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Christopher A. Coons, Individually and in His
Official Capacity as Member, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Richard Blumenthal, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Member, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Mazie Hirono, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Member, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Chuck Grassley, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member,
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S.
Senate Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Jeff Sessions, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. Senate
Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Lindsey Graham, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. Senate Judiciary
Committee; the Honorable John Cornyn, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee;
the Honorable Michael S. Lee, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee; the Honorable
Ted Cruz, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Jeff Flake,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Jim Sensenbrenner, Jr., Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Howard Coble, Individually and in His
Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Lamar Smith, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Steve Chabot, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Spencer Bachus, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member,
U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Darrell Issa, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House
Judiciary Committee; the Honorable J. Randy Forbes, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary
Committee; the Honorable Steve King, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee;
the Honorable Trent Franks, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable
Louie Gohmert, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Jim Jordan,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Ted Poe, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Hon. Jason Chaffetz, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Tom Marino, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Hon. Trey Gowdy, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Mark Amodei, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member,
U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Raul Labrador, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House
Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Blake Farenthold, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary
Committee; the Honorable George Holding, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee;
the Honorable Doug Collins, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable
Ron DeSantis, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable John Conyers,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Bobby Scott, Individually and in His
Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Mel Watt, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Member,
U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Jackson Lee, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House
Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Steve Cohen, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary
Committee; the Honorable Hank Johnson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee;
the Honorable Pedro Pierluisi, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable
Judy Chu, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Ted Deutch, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Karen Bass, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Cedric Richmond, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Suzan DelBene, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member,
U.S. House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Joe Garcia, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House
Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, U.S. House Judiciary
Committee; the Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Chairperson, Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence; the Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence; the Honorable Ron Wyden, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence; the Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Member, Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence; the Honorable Mark Udall, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence; the Honorable Mark Warner, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence;
the Honorable Martin Heinrich, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence;
the Honorable Angus King, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; the
Honorable Saxby Chambliss, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence;
the Honorable Richard Burr, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence;
the Honorable James E. Risch, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence;
the Honorable Daniel Coats, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence;
the Honorable Marco Rubio, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; the
Honorable Susan Collins, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Member, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; the
Honorable Tom Coburn, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; the Honorable
Mike Rogers, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; the
Honorable Mac Thornberry, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence;
the Honorable Jeff Miller, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence;
the Honorable Mike Conaway, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence;
the Honorable Peter King, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence;
the Honorable Frank LoBiondo, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence;
the Honorable Devin Nunes, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence;
the Honorable Lynn Westmoreland, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence; the Honorable Michele Bachmann, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence; the Honorable Thomas J Rooney, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence; the Honorable Joe Heck, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence; the Honorable Mike Pompeo, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member, House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence; the Honorable C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Member,
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; the Honorable Mike Thompson, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; the Honorable Jan Schakowsky, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; the Honorable Jim Langevin, Individually and in His
Official Capacity as Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Hon. Adam Schiff, Individually and in His
Official Capacity as Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Hon. Luis Gutierrez, Individually and in His
Official Capacity as Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Hon. Ed Pastor, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Hon. Jim Himes, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Hon. Terri Sewell, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Mr. Ruslan Agarunov, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Campaign Contributor to Congressman Hakeem Jeffries; Bertram Berns, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Campaign
Contributor to Congressman Hakeem Jeffries; Mr. Norman Bobrow, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Campaign Contributor
to Congressman Hakeem Jeffries; Mr. Paul Burg, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Campaign Contributor to Congressman
Hakeem Jeffries; Ms. Vickie Fishman, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Campaign Contributor to Congressman Hakeem
Jeffries; Mr. Sander Gerber, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Campaign Contributor to Congressman Hakeem Jeffries;
Mr. Michael Granoff, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Campaign Contributor to Congressman Hakeem Jeffries; Mr.
Marvin Israelow, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Campaign Contributor to Congressman Hakeem Jeffries; Mr. Alan
Levow, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Campaign Contributor to Congressman Hakeem Jeffries; Mr. William Russell-Shapiro,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Campaign Contributor to Congressman Hakeem Jeffries; Ms. Donna Sternberg, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Campaign Contributor to Congressman Hakeem Jeffries; Mr. Marc Spiegel, Individually and in
His Official Capacity as Campaign Contributor to Congressman Hakeem Jeffries; Mr. Daniel Tenenblatt, Individually and in His
Official Capacity as Campaign Contributor to Congressman Hakeem Jeffries; Leslie Topper, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Campaign Contributor to Congressman Hakeem Jeffries; Mr. Craig Weiss, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Campaign Contributor to Congressman Hakeem Jeffries; World Alliance for Israel PAC, Individually and in Its Official Capacity
as Campaign-Contributor to Congressman Hakeem Jeffries; Lee Ziff, Individually and in His Official Capacity as President of
the World Alliance for Israel; the Honorable Eric H. Holder, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Attorney General
for the United States; Thomas Perez, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Assistant Attorney General, Disability Right
Section for the U.S. Department of Justice; Michael E. Horowitz, Individual and His in Official Capacity as Inspector General
for the U.S. Department of Justice; the U.S. Department of Justice; the Honorable Robert Swan Mueller, Individually and in
His Official Capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; George Venizelos, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Assistant Director in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Branch; the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
Mr. Stein, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; “John Doe”
#1, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Honorable Janet Napolitano,
Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; John Morton, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Director for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Daniel Ragsdale, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Deputy Director for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Radha Sekar, Individually and
in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Associate Director for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; James Dinkins,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Executive Associate Director for the U.S. Homeland Security Investigations, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Gary Mead, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Executive Associate Director
for the Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Peter S. Vincent, Individually and in
His Official Capacity as Principal Legal Adviser for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;Timothy Moynihan, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Assistant Director, Office of Professional Responsibility U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Tamara Kessler, Individually and in Her Official
Capacity as Acting Officer for the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties; Rachel McCarthy, Individually and Her Official
Capacity as Bar Counsel for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Rand Beers, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Under Secretary for the Homeland Security for National Protection and Programs; Denis P. McGowan, Individually and in His
Official Capacity as Regional Director, Federal Protection Service, National Protection and Programs Directorate for the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Gayle Worthy, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as FOIA Officer/Public Liaison
for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Ivan K. Fong, Individually and in His Official Capacity as General Counsel of
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Charles K. Edwards, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Inspector General
of U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Stacia Hylton, Individually and in Her
Official Capacity as Director of the U.S. Marshal Service; Gerald Auerbach, Individually and in His Official Capacity as General
Counsel for the U.S. Marshals Service; Charles Dunne, Director, 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; “John Doe #3, U.S. Marshals Service
for the Eastern District of New York; “Jane Doe”, U.S. Marshals Service for the Eastern District of New York;
the U.S. Marshals Service; Kathleen Sebelius, Individually and in
Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; William B. Schultz, Individually in
His Official Capacity as General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services; Marilyn Tavenner, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Acting Administrator Chief Operating Officer,
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Office; Eric Schneiderman,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as New York State Attorney General, New York State Attorney General's Office; Eric
Adams, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as Member, New York Senate Judiciary Committee; John J. Bonacic, Individually,
and in His Official Capacity as Member, New York Senate Judiciary Committee; Neil D. Breslin, Individually, and in His Official
Capacity as Member, New York Senate Judiciary Committee; John A. DeFrancisco, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as
Member, New York Senate Judiciary Committee; Martin Malavé Dilan, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as Member,
New York Senate Judiciary Committee; Adriano Espaillat, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as Member, New York Senate
Judiciary Committee; John J. Flanagan, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as Member, New York Senate Judiciary Committee;
Charles J. Fuschillo Jr., Individually, and in His Official Capacity
as Member, New York Senate Judiciary Committee; Kemp Hannon, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as Member, New York
Senate Judiciary Committee; Ruth Hassell-Thompson, Individually, and in Her Official Capacity as Member, New York Senate Judiciary
Committee; Brad Hoylman, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as Member, New York Senate Judiciary Committee; Andrew
J Lanza, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as Member, New York Senate Judiciary Committee; Kenneth P. LaValle, Individually,
and in His Official Capacity as Member, New York Senate Judiciary Committee; Betty Little, Individually, and in Her Official
Capacity as Member, New York Senate Judiciary Committee; Michael F. Nozzolio, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as
Member, New York Senate Judiciary Committee; Thomas F. O'Mara, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as Member, New York
Senate Judiciary Committee; Bill Perkins, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as Member, New York Senate Judiciary
Committee; Michael H. Ranzenhofer, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as Member, New York Senate Judiciary Committee;
John L. Sampson, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as Member, New York Senate Judiciary Committee; Diane J. Savino,
Individually, and in His Official Capacity as Member, New York Senate Judiciary Committee; Malcolm A. Smith, Individually,
and in His Official Capacity as Member, New York Senate Judiciary Committee; Toby Ann Stavisky, Individually, and in His Official
Capacity as Member, New York Senate Judiciary Committee; Lee
M. Zeldin, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as Member, New York Senate Judiciary Committee; Andrew M. Cuomo, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of New York; the State of New York; Jonathan Lippman, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Chief Judge for the New York State Unified Court System; John W. McConnell, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Counsel to the Chief Administrative Judge, for
the New York State Unified Court System; Daniel D. Angiolillo, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Appellate Judge
for the New York State Unified Court System; Second Judicial Department; Cheryl E. Chambers, Individually and in Her Official
Capacity as Appellate Judge for the New York State Unified Court System; Second Judicial Department; Jeffrey A. Cohen, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Appellate Judge for the New York State Unified Court System; Second Judicial Department; Mark
C. Dillon, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Appellate Judge for the New York State Unified Court System; Second
Judicial Department; Anita R. Florio, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Appellate Judge for the New York State
Unified Court System; Second Judicial Department; Steven W. Fisher, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Appellate
Judge for the New York State Unified Court System; Second Judicial Department; L. Priscilla Hall, Individually and in Her
Official Capacity as Appellate Judge for the New York State Unified Court System; Second Judicial Department; John M. Leventhal,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Appellate Judge for the New York State Unified Court System; Second Judicial
Department; Plummer E. Lott, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Appellate Judge for the New York State Unified
Court System; Second Judicial Department; William F. Mastro, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Appellate Judge
for the New York State Unified Court System; Second Judicial Department; Robert J. Miller, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Appellate Judge for the New York State Unified Court System; Second Judicial Department; A. Gail Prudenti, Individually
and in Her Official Capacity as Appellate Judge for the New York State Unified Court System; Second Judicial Department; Reinaldo
E. Rivera, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Appellate Judge for the New York State Unified Court System; Second
Judicial Department; Sheri S. Roman, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Appellate Judge for the New York State Unified
Court System; Second Judicial Department; Sandra L. Sgroi, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Appellate Judge for
the New York State Unified Court System; Second Judicial Department; Peter B. Skelos, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Appellate Judge for the New York State Unified Court System; Second Judicial Department; Thomas Scuccimarra, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Justice for the New York State Unified Court System; Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Individually and
in His Capacity as Justice, New York State Unified Court System; Nancy Tegtmeier Sunshine, Individually and in her Official
Capacity as Chief Clerk of Court for the New York State Unified Court System; Lara J. Genovesi, Individually and in Her Official
Capacity as Court Attorney for the New York State Unified Court System; Antonio Diaz, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Borough Chief Clerk for the New York State Unified Court System; Arthur M. Schack, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Justice of the New York State Unified Court System; Ronald
D. Bratt, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Law Clerk for the New York State Unified Court System; Barbara Guida,
Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Secretary for the New York State Court System; Yolanda Jennings, Individually
and in Her Official Capacity as Part Clerk for the New York State Unified Court System; Kalisha Evans, Individually and in
Her Official Capacity as Officer for the New York State Unified Court System; Eileen A. Rakower, Individually and in Her Official
Capacity as Justice for the New York State Unified Court System; Donna Mills, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as
Justice for the New York State Unified Court System; Matthew D'Emic, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Justice
for the New York State Unified Court System; Michael Gerstein, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Justice for the
New York State Unified Court System; New York State Unified Court System; Anthony Cutrona, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Justice for the New York State Unified Court System; New York State Unified Court System; Thomas A. Klonick, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Chair of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct; the New York State Commission
on Judicial Conduct; Jorge Del Tipico, Individually and in His Capacity as Chair for the New York State Departmental Disciplinary
Committee for the First Department; New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Department; Richard M.
Gutierrez, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chair for the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth
Judicial Districts; Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts; The Honorable Nirav R.
Shah, M.D., M.P.H., Individually and in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health;
New York State Department of Health; Kristin M. Woodlock, RN, MPA, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Acting Commissioner
for the New York State Office of Mental Health; John Tauriello, Esq. Individually and in His Official Capacity as Deputy
Commissioner and Chief Counsel of the New York State Office of Mental Health; Samuel Gant, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as Director of the Intensive Case Management Program, Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility, New York State Office of Mental
Health, Bridget Davis, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Intensive Case Worker for the Intensive Case Management
Program, New York State Office of Mental Health; New York State Office of Mental Health; Kristin M. Proud, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the New York State
Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance; Maria T. Vidal, Individually and in Her Official Capacity
as General Counsel for the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance; Robert Doar, Individually and in
His Official Capacity as Administrator and Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources
Administration; Roy A. Esnard, Individually and in His/Her Official Capacity as General Counsel of the New York City Human
Resources Administration; the New York City Human Resources Administration; the New York City Human Resources Administration; Michael Bloomberg, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of New York; the City of New York; Michael Cardozo, Individually and in
His Official Capacity as Corporation Counsel for the City of New York; Charles A. Hynes, Individually and in his Official
Capacity as District Attorney for Kings County; Amy Feinstein, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Chief Assistant
District Attorney, Kings County District Attorney's Office; Kings County District Attorney's Office; Salvatore J. Russo, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as General Counsel for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation; Agnes Flores, Individually
and in Her Former Official Capacity as Psychiatric Nurse for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation; Martin Bolton,
Individually and in Former His Official Capacity as Psychotherapist for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation;
Margaret Thomas, Individually and in Her Office Capacity as Licensed Practical Nurse for the New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporation; Pauline Amo-Adu, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as (unlicensed) Master Social Worker for the New York
City Health and Hospitals Corporation; Mario Blake, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Psychiatric Technician; James
Oniwe, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Registered Nurse for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation;
Jean Barry, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Licensed Clinical Social Worker for the New York City Health and
Hospitals Corporation; Hugette Guilliame Sam, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Registered Nurse for the New York
City Health and Hospitals Corporation; Samuel Sarpong, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Program Manager for the
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation; Dr. Scott Andrew Berger, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Psychiatrist
for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation; New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation; Joseph Visceglia,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as City Clerk for the Office of the City Clerk; Office of the City Clerk, Marriage
License Bureau; City of New York; Dr. “John Doe” #4, Psychiatrist, Brookdale Hospital Medical Center; Brooklyn
Hospital Medical Center; Giselle Stolper, President and CEO, Mental Health Association of New York City; Robert P. Borsody,
Esq., Secretary of the Mental Health Association of New York City; Mental Health Association of New York City; Sean Bolser,
Esq., Federal Defender, Federal District of New York; Heidi C. Cesare, Esq, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York;
Randi L. Chavis, Esq, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Deirdre von Dornum, Esq, Federal Defenders, Federal
District of New York; Tracey E. Gaffey, Esq, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Michelle A. Gelernt, Esq., Federal
Defenders, Federal District of New York; Lisa Hoyes, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Len H. Kamdang, Federal
Defenders, Federal District of New York; Peter Kirchheimer, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; David A. Lewis,
Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Douglas G. Morris, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Michael
P. Padden, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; David Patton, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York;
Jan A. Rostal, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Michael K. Schneider, Federal Defenders, Federal District
of New York; Chase A. Scolnick, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Kannan Sundaram, Federal Defenders, Federal
District of New York; Michael D. Weil, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Mildred M. Whalen, Federal Defenders,
Federal District of New York; Robert M. Baum, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Sarah Baumgartel, Federal Defenders,
Federal District of New York; Susanne Brody, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Jennifer Brown, Federal Defenders,
Federal District of New York; Martin Cohen, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Peggy Cross-Goldenberg, Federal
Defenders, Federal District of New York; Christopher Flood, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Julia Gatto,
Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Mark Gombiner, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Jonathan
Marvinny, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Annalisa Mirón, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New
York; David Patton, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Sabrina Shroff, Federal Defenders, Federal District of
New York; Roland Thau, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Jerrod Thompson-Hicks, Federal Defenders, Federal
District of New York; Philip Weinstein, Federal Defenders, Federal District of New York; Federal Defenders, Federal District
of New York; Leonardo Aldridge, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Mary Beth Anderson, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Michael
Arthus, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Adam Axel, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Betty Baez Melo, Esq., Brooklyn Defender
Service; Elyse Bataller Schneider, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Michael F. Baum, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Whitney
Z. Bernstein, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Sarah Boyette, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Michael Brown, Esq., Brooklyn
Defender Service; Joyce Brunwasser, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Jamie Burke, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Sarah M.
Burleson, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Amos Cohen, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; George Cooke, Esq., Brooklyn Defender
Service; Virginia Curry, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Edward Daniels, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Chad Dauman, Esq.,
Stephen Dean, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Christina M. Dieckmann, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Sara Feinberg, Esq.,
Juan Fiol, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Molly Gallivan, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Tim Gumkowski, Esq., Brooklyn
Defender Service; Amanda Hamann, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Le'Shera Hardy, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Scott
Hechinger, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Shannon Heery, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Nyasa Hickey, Esq., Brooklyn Defender
Service; Linda Hoff, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Dorothy Hughes, Esq., Joseph Indusi, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service;
Amanda Jack, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Joyce Kendrick, Esq., Elizabeth Kilstein, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Ashley
Kloepfer, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Jared Kneitel, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Dara Kristt, Esq., Brooklyn Defender
Service; Summer Lacey, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Richard M. LaFontaine, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Elizabeth
Latimer, Esq., Yung-Mi Lee, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Thomas Leith, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Hela Levi, Esq.,
Brooklyn Defender Service; Paul Lieberman, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Jacob Lipsky, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service;
Cary London, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Ruben Loyo, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Alyssa Mack, Esq., Brooklyn Defender
Service; Harvey Mandelcorn, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Marie Mark, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Ed Mayr, Esq., Brooklyn
Defender Service; Cameron Mease, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Becca Miller, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Susan Mitchell,
Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Jillian Modzeleski, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Benjamin Moore, Esq., Brooklyn Defender
Service; Lauren Nakamura, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Anders Nelson, Esq., Sarah Nolan, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service;
Hemangi S. Pai, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Sydney Peck, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Talia Peleg, Esq., Brooklyn
Defender Service; Christopher Perks, Esq., Alex Perlin, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Guy Raimondi, Esq., Brooklyn Defender
Service; Danielle Regis, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Robert Riether, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Alan Rosenberg,
Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Scott Ruplinger, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Laura Saft, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service;
Lisa Salvatore, Esq., Iliana Santiago, Esq., Josh Saunders, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Lisa Schreibersdorf, Esq., Brooklyn
Defender Service; Amanda Scioscia, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; David Secular, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Renee
Seman, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Marissa Sherman, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Joseph P. Sieger, Esq., Brooklyn
Defender Service; Debora Silberman, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Arielle Simon, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Angad
Singh, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Shari Stein, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Sonia Tate-Cousins, Esq., Brooklyn Defender
Service; Sarah Vendzules, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; C. Randall Walker, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Emilie Williams,
Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Ken Womble, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Aminie Woolworth, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service;
Brooklyn Defender Service; Marianne C. Yang, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Brooklyn Defender Service; Iris Ying, Esq.,
Brooklyn Defender Service; Benjamin Zeman, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Service; Lauren Zimmerman, Brooklyn Defender Service,
Brooklyn Defenders Service, Inc.; Mortimer Zuckerman, Individually and in His Official Capacity
as Editor, Publisher and Owner of the Daily News, LP; Mortimer Zuckerman, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Editor,
Publisher and Owner of the Daily News, LP; Scott Shifrel,
former Staff Writer of the Daily News, LP; the Daily News, LP; Rupert Murdoch, New York Post, New York Post; Mark Fass, Staff
Writer, ALM.com; ALM.com; Jazmin M. Quary, Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Executive
Director for NAMI, Inc.; NAMI, Inc.; Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, Esq., Roberta Siegal, Individually in Her Official Capacity
as Assistant Vice President of Federation Employment and Guidance Services, Inc.; Dr. Forster, in His Official Capacity as
Psychiatrist of Federation Employment and Guidance Services, Inc.; Clifford Nafus, in His Official Capacity as Rehabilitation
Technician of Federation Employment and Guidance Services, Inc.; Federation Employment and Guidance Services, Inc.; Rabbi
Michael J. Broyde, Esq., Rabbi Michoel Zylberman, Esq., Rabbi Yona Reiss, Esq., Rabbi Shlomo
Weissmann, Esq.; Abraham H. Foxman, Individually and in His Capacity as Executive Director of the Anti-Defamation League,
Inc.; Steven M. Freeman, Esq., Anti Defamation League, Inc.; Steven C. Sheinberg, Esq., Anti-Defamation League, Inc.; Deborah
Bensinger, Esq., Anti-Defamation League, Inc.; David L. Barkey, Esq., Anti-Defamation League, Inc.; Allen E. Kaye, P.C.; Jan
Eastman, Esq., Chair, Vermont Professional Responsibility Program, Office of Bar Counsel; Michael Kennedy, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as Bar Counsel for the Vermont Professional Responsibility Program, Office of Bar Counsel; Vermont
Professional Responsibility Program, Office of Bar Counsel; George Wachtel, Esq.; Jonathan D. Schwartz, Individually and in
His Official Capacity as Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Cablevision, Inc.; Cablevision, Inc.; Ruslan Agarunov, Campaign Contributor, Bertram Berns, Campaign, Norman Bobrow, Campaign Contributor, Paul Burg, Campaign
Contributor; Vickie Fishman, Campaign Contributor; Sander Gerber; Sander Gerber; Michael Granoff; Campaign Contributor; Sander
Gerber, Michael Granoff, Marvin Israelow, Alan Levow, Mr. William Russell-Shapiro, Marc Spiegel, Donna Sternberg, Mr. Daniel
Tenenblatt, Leslie Topper, Craig Weiss, Alan Wildes, World Alliance for Israel PAC, Lee
Ziff, Allen E. Kaye, Esq. Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Law Office of Harvey Shapiro;
Jack Gladstein, Esq., Law Office of Jack Gladstein and Messinger, Osato Eugene Uzamere, Esq., Uzamere and Associates, PLLC
and Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere Defendants. |
********************************************************************************** .......... ..........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 U.S. 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). 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. ..........44).....Rights
of Crime Victims.— 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) .....
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.” Purpose of Plaintiff's Action ..........57).....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. ..........58).....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. Issues With Regard to Claims of Sovereign Immunity ..........59).....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. ..........60).....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.
..........61).....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.”
..........62).....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.
..........63).....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. Jurisdiction and Venue ..........64).....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.” ..........65).....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. . .” ..........66).....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.” ..........67).....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.”
..........68).....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.”
..........69).....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. ..........70).....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. . .”
..........71).....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 ..........72).....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. Facts ..........73).....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: ..........74).....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” without 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. ..........75).....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.” ..........76).....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. ..........77).....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.” ..........78).....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. ..........79).....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. ..........80).....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. ..........81).....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. ..........82).....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. ..........83).....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. ..........84).....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. ..........85).....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
on 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)6; 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 Kl. 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. ..........86).....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. .........87).....On December 7, 2009, the Plaintiff was placed with Defendant
New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility. ..........88).....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. ..........89).....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. .........90).....During
the beginning of February, 2010, Plaintiff was discharged by Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility. ..........91).....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. ..........92).....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. . .”
..........93).....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 daughter 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. ..........94).....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. ..........95).....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. ..........96).....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. ..........97).....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. ..........98).....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. ..........99).....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. ..........100).....In
June, 2011, Plaintiff filed the Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 for the Eastern District of New York. ..........101).....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: “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. ..........102).....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. .........103).....On
July 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed her appeal for the lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al. ..........104).....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. ..........105).....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. ..........
106).....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. .........107).....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. ..........108).....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. .......... 109).....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. .......... 110).....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 in its entirety. Plaintiff uploaded the conversation http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html. ..........111).....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. 15 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. .......... 112).....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. ..........
113).....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. ..........114).....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. ..........115).....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. .......... 116).....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). .......... 117).....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 Mental 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. .......... 118).....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. ..........
119).....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.
.........120).....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. .........121).....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. .........122).....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. .........123).....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. .........124).....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.
.........125).....On March 15, 2013, Plaintiff sent 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. .......... 126).....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. .......... 127).....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. .......... 128).....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. .......... 129).....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. .......... 130).....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. ..........131).....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. ..........132).....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 or were extorted/blackmailed by the Jewish Defendants who used the Daily News and
other internet news articles to commit 18 USC §1001, fraud; 18 USC §1028, identity theft and 18 USC §1028A,
aggravated identity theft; namely, 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. 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 ..........133).....Since Plaintiff
relies on federal criminal law with regard to RICO, Plaintiff specifically identifies the racketeering-influenced corrupt
organizations of which Plaintiff speaks. Since 1979, the RICO has done business with the Plaintiff and her family with dirty
hands.17 ..........134).....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 was 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. ..........135).....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. ..........136)....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. ..........137).....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. ..........138).....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. ..........139).....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. ..........140).....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. ..........141).....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. ..........142).....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. ..........143).....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 against Gentiles had 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 only 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 cost. ..........144).....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 its 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 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 to 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.”
..........145).....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. ..........146).....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.
..........147).....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 Weiner, 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.” ..........148).....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 pedophile Jesse Timmendaguas, use past incidents of anti-Semitism to rationalize their abusive, hateful, predatory behavior
towards Gentiles. ..........149).....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 ..........150).....Plaintiff repeats
and realleges the above paragraphs. ..........151).....With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in
their official capacities. ..........152).....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. ..........153).....Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2). ..........154).....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. ..........155).....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. ..........156).....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. ..........157).....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. ..........158).....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. ..........159).....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 ..........160).....Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs. ..........161).....With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in
their official capacities. ..........162).....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. .........163).....Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2). .........164).....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. ..........165).....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. ..........166).....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. ..........167).....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, 21. 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 psychotic
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.” ..........168).....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. .........169).....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 .........170).....Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs. ..........171).....With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is
brought against them individually and in their official capacities. ..........172).....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. ..........173).....Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2). ..........174).....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. ..........175).....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. ..........176).....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. ..........177).....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. ..........178).....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. ..........179).....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. ..........180).....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. ..........181).....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 ..........182).....Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs. .......... 183).....With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in
their official capacities. .......... 184).....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. .......... 185).....Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2). .......... 186).....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. .......... 187).....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. .......... 188).....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. .......... 189).....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.”
..........
190).....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. .......... 191).....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. ..........
192).....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. ..........
193).....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 .......... 194).....Plaintiff repeats and realleges the
above paragraphs. .......... 195).....With
regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in their official capacities. .......... 196).....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. .......... 197).....Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2). .......... 198).....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. .......... 199).....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. ..........
200).....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. .......... 201).....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. ..........202).....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. .......... 203).....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 ..........204).....Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs. .......... 205).....With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim
is brought against them individually and in their official capacities. ..........
206).....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. .......... 207).....Plaintiff is a qualified individual
with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2). ..........
208).....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. .......... 209).....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. ..........210).....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. ..........211).....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. .......... 212).....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. ..........213).....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 .......... 214).....Plaintiff repeats
and realleges the above paragraphs. .......... 215).....With regard to all Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in their official
capacities. .......... 216).....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. .......... 217).....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. .......... 218).....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. .......... 219).....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. ..........
220).....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. ..........
221).....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.” .......... 222).....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 ..........223).....Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs. ..........224).....With regard to all Defendants, this claim is brought
against them individually and in their official capacities. ..........225).....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. ..........226).....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. .......... 227).....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. .......... 228).....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. ......... .229).....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. .......... 230).....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.” .......... 231).....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 .......... 232).....Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs. ........
233).....With regard to all Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually
and in their official capacities. .......... 234).....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. .......... 235).....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. .......... 236).....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. .......... 237).....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. .........238).....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. .......... 239).....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. .......... 240).....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. .......... 241).....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. .......... 242).....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. .......... 243).....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. ..........
244).....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 .......... 245).....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.” .......... 246).....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.” .......... 247).....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.” .......... 248).....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.” .......... 249).....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. .......... 250).....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. .......... 251).....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;23 2) 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. .......... 252).....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 .......... 253).....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 .......... 254).....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. .......... 255).....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 ..........
256).....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. ..........257).....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.” ..........
258)..... 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. .......... 259).....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 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
...............August __, 2013  STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION AND GOOD FAITH CERTIFICATION
I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, certify that I have read the above Complaint and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
I certify that I have provided tangible, irrefutable proof of my allegations before this Court; that I researched both facts
and relevant law to the best of my ability to ensure accuracy so that my Verified Complaint is presented to this Court in
good faith. I certify before this Court that I do not present this Verified Complaint to embarrass, annoy or defame the Defendants. I certify the foregoing pursuant to the laws for perjury
of the United States of America. CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING
PRO SE ______________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue,
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.:
(347) 985-2495
Fax: (347) 227-0118
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net Plaintiff Appearing
Pro Se STUART F. DELERY, ESQ.
U.S. Department of Justice
50 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Phone: (202) 514-3301
Fax: (202) 514-8071
E-mail:
stuart.f.delery@usdoj.gov Attorney for Defendants
Federal agencies/employees
in Washington, D.C TRISTRAM J. COFFIN, ESQ.
P.O. Box 570
Burlington, VT 05402
Phone: 802-951-6725
Fax: 802-951-6540
E-mail: tristram.coffin@usdoj.gov; Attorney for Defendants
U.S.
Department of Homeland Security,
Rachel McCarthy
in
the State of Vermont PREETINDER BHARARA, ESQ.
One St. Andrews Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Phone: 212-637-2200
Fax: 212-637-2685
E-mail: Preet.Bharara@usdoj.gov;
Attorney for Defendants
Federal agencies and employees in the
Southern District of the State New York LORETTA LYNCH, ESQ.
271 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: 718-254-7000
Fax: 718-254-6479
E-mail: loretta.lynch@usdoj.gov;
Attorney for Defendants
Federal agencies and employees in the
Eastern District of the
State of New York ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN,
ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
New York State Attorney's Office
120 Broadway
24th Floor
New
York, NY 10271
eric.schneiderman@ag.ny.gov Attorney for Defendants
Agencies
and employees of the
State of New York MICHAEL
CARDOZO, ESQ.
Corporation Counsel
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10013
Phone: 212-788-0303
Fax:
212-788-0367
E-mail: mcardozo@law.nyc.gov; Attorney for Defendants
Agencies
and employees o
the City of New York PETER KIRCHHEIMER, ESQ.
Attorney-in-Charge of the
Eastern District
Office
Federal Defenders, Inc.
One Pierrepont Plaza
16th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: 718-330-1200
E-Mail: peter_kirchheimer@fd.org Attorney for Defendant
Federal Defenders, Inc. for the
Eastern District
of the State of New York DAVID PATTON, ESQ.
Executive
Director and Attorney-in-Chief
Federal Defender, Inc.
52 Duane Street
10th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: 212-417-8700
E-mail: david_patton@fd.org Attorney for Defendant
Federal
Defenders, Inc.
Southern District of the State of New York LISA SCHREIBERSDORF, ESQ.
Executive Director
Brooklyn Defender Services
177 Livingston Street, 5th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (718) 254-0700
Fax: (718) 254-0897
E-mail: Lschreib@bds.org Attorney for Defendant
Brooklyn Defenders, Inc. MICHAEL D. BROWN, ESQ.
Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP
1010 Franklin Avenue
2nd Floor
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: 516-535-4403
Fax: 516-873-8912
E-mail: michael.brown@oandb.com
Attorneys for Defendants
Dr. “John Doe” and
Brookdale
University Hospital &
Medical Center, Inc. ROBERT F. ROARKE, ESQ.
Regional
Managing Partner
Wilson, Elser,
Moskowitz,
Edelman & Dicker LLP
150 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
Tel.:(212) 490-3000
Fax: (212) 490-3038
E-mail: robert.roarke@wilsonelser.com
Attorneys for Defendant
Federation Employment
and Guidance Services
ROBERT P. BORSODY, ESQ.
Mental Health Association
of New York City
50 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel.: (212)
254-0333
Fax: (212) 785-1910;
(212)-964-7302
E-mail: mdesroches@mhaofnyc.org;
Attorney for Defendant
Mental
Health Association of New York
MATTHEW LEISH, ESQ.
Daily News,
LP
4 New York Plaza
New York, NY 10004
Phone:
(212) 210-2341
Fax: (212) 643-7843
E-mail: mleish@nydailynews.com Attorney for Defendants
Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel
and the Daily News,
LP RONALD S. HONBERG, J.D., M.Ed
Director of Policy and Legal Affairs
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill
3803 N. Fairfax Dr., Ste. 100
Arlington, VA
22203
Phone: (703) 516-7972
Fax: (703) 524-9094
E-mail: RonH@nami.org Attorney for Defendant
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill HERALD PRICE FAHRINGER, ESQ.
Lawline.com
CLE Inc.
61 Broadway
Suite 1105
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (877) 518-0660
E-mail: support@lawline.com Attorney for Defendant
Lawline.com CLE Inc.
STEVEN
M. FREEMAN, ESQ.
Anti-Defamation League
605 Third Avenue
New York, NY
10158-3560
Telephone: (212) 885-7700
Fax: (212) 885-5882
E-mail: sfreeman@adl.org Attorney for Defendant ADL, Inc. STEVEN C. SHEINBERG, ESQ.
Anti-Defamation League
605 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10158-3560
Telephone: (212) 885-7700
Fax:
(212) 885-5882
E-mail: ssheinbere@adl.org
Attorney for Defendant ADL, Inc.
DEBORAH BENSINGER,
ESQ.
Anti-Defamation League
605 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10158-3560
Telephone: (212) 885-7700
Fax: (212) 885-5882
E-mail: dbensinger@adl.org
Attorney for Defendant ADL, Inc.
DAVID L. BARKEY,
ESQ.
Anti-Defamation League
605 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10158-3560
Telephone: (212) 885-7700
Fax: (212) 885-5882
E-mail: dbarkey@adl.org
Attorney for Defendant ADL, Inc.
ANDREW LAVOOTT
BLUESTONE, ESQ.
Law Office of Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
233 Broadway
Suite
2702
New York, NY 10279
Phone: (212) 791-5600
Fax: (212) 513-7206
E-mail: ALB@Bluestonelawfirm.com Defendant Appearing Pro Se
RABBI MICHAEL
JAY BROYDE, ESQ.
The Center for the Study of Law
and Religion at Emory University
Gambrell Hall
Suite 310
1301 Clifton
Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30322-2770
Phone: 404-712-8710
Fax: 404-712-8605
Email: mbroyde@emory.edu Defendant Appearing Pro Se
RABBI YONA REISS, ESQ.
305
Seventh Avenue
12th Floor
New York, NY 10001-6008
Phone: (212) 807-9042
Fax: (212) 807-9183
E-mail: yreiss@yu.edu;
Defendant Appearing Pro Se RABBI SHLOMO WEISSMANN, ESQ.
305 Seventh Avenue
12th Floor
New York, NY 10001-6008
Phone: (212) 807-9042
Fax: (212) 807-9183
E-mail: sweissmann@bethdin.org; Defendant Appearing Pro Se RABBI MICHOEL ZYLBERMAN, ESQ.
305 Seventh Avenue
12th Floor
New York, NY 10001-6008
Phone: (212) 807-9042
Fax: (212)
807-9183
E-mail: mzylberman@bethdin.org
Defendant Appearing Pro Se MR. NORMAN BOBROW
18106 Tudor Rd
Jamaica, NY 11432-1447
Attorney Not Yet Known MR. SANDER GERBER
44 E End Ave
Apt 9A
New York, NY 10028-7977
Attorney Not Yet Known
MR. RUSLAN
AGARUNOV
122 Meridian Blvd
Arverne, NY 11692-2027
Attorney Not Yet Known
MR.
PAUL BURG
161 E 71st St
New York, NY 10021-4322
Attorney Not Yet Known
MR. MICHAEL
GRANOFF
59 Bliss Ave
Tenafly, NJ 07670-3036
Attorney Not Yet Known
BERTRAM BERNS
1831 Booksin Ave
San Jose, CA 95125-4502
Attorney Not Yet Known
MS. VICKIE FISHMAN
2163 Royal Lodge Dr
Falls Church, VA 22043-3061
Attorney Not Yet Known
MR. MARVIN ISRAELOW
835
Hardscrabble Rd
Chappaqua, NY 10514-3011
Attorney Not Yet Known
MR. ALAN LEVOW
2891
Howell Mill Rd NW
Atlanta, GA 303271333 Attorney Not Yet Known
Mr. WILLIAM RUSSELL-SHAPIRO
100 1st Street
Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94105-4631 Attorney
Not Yet Known MR. MARC SPIEGEL
26 Balboa Cvs
Newport Beach, CA 92663-3226 Attorney Not Yet Known
MS. DONNA STERNBERG
PO Box 98100
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 708989100
Attorney Not Yet Known
MR. DANIEL TENENBLATT
608 N Beverly Dr
Beverly Hills, CA 90210-3320 Attorney Not Yet Known
LESLIE TOPPER
1045 Park Ave
Apt 3A
New York, NY 10028-1030 Attorney Not Yet Known
MR. CRAIG WEISS
6387 Ronald
Rd
Memphis, TN 38120-3208
Attorney Not Yet Known
WORLD ALLIANCE FOR ISRAEL PAC
8306 Wilshire Blvd
Suite 1579
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2382 Attorney Not Yet Known
MR. LEE ZIFF
439 N Canon Dr.
Suite 300
Beverly Hills, CA 90210-3909
Attorney Not Yet Known
ALLEN E. KAYE, ESQ.
Allen E. Kaye, P.C.
111 Broadway, 13th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel.: (212) 964-5858
Fax: (212) 68-3734
akaye@kayevisalaw.com
Attorney Not Yet Known HARVEY SHAPIRO, ESQ.
Law Offices of Harvey
Shapiro
250 W. 57th Street
Suite 1720
New York, NY 10107
Tel.: (212) 355-5240
E-mail: ckawalsky@harveyshapiro.com; Attorney Not Yet Known
JACK GLADSTEIN, ESQ.
Gladstein
& Messinger
118-21 Queens Boulevard
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel.: (718) 793-7800
Fax: (718) 793-0524
E-mail: Gladmessattys@aol.com Attorney Not Yet Known
OSATO EUGENE
UZAMERE, ESQ.
Uzamere and Associates, PLLC
1851 Watson Avenue
Bronx, NY 10472
(718) 409-3389
(718) 504-5326
E-mail: info@uzalaw.com Attorney Not Yet Known SENATOR
EHIGIE EDOBOR UZAMERE
Nigerian Senate
The National Assembly
Complex,
3 Arms Zone
PMB 141 Abuja FCT, Nigeria
Phone: (234) (9) 523-2127
E-mail:
ehigieuzamere@yahoo.com
Attorney Not Yet Known 1 Wikipedia.org,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States, credit for subparagraphs 1(a), (b), and (c). 5 22 CFR §92.65 - Depositions to prove genuineness of foreign documents –
(a) Authority to execute commission. Under the provisions of section 1 of the act of June 25, 1948, as amended (sec. 1,
62 Stat. 834, sec. 53, 63 Stat. 96; 18 U.S.C. 3492), a diplomatic or consular officer may be commissioned by an United
States court to take the testimony of a witness in a foreign country either on oral or written interrogatories, or partly
on oral and partly on written interrogatories, for the purpose of determining the genuineness of any foreign document.
. .” 6
22 NYCRR 100.3(8)(11): “. . .a judge shall not make any public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in
any court within the United States or its territories. The judge shall require similar abstention on the part of court personnel...”
and that “a judge shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired
in a judicial capacity.” New York State Civil Rights Law §79-h (Shield Laws) affords members of the media to
keep their news sources confidential. According to Wikipedia.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States), however, “currently the U.S. federal government has not enacted any
national shield laws. . .” Please refer to Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), in which reporter Paul
Branzburg of the Louisville Courier-Journal, in the course of his reporting duties, witnessed people manufacturing and using
hashish. He was ordered to name his sources. Earl Caldwell, a reporter for the New York Times, interviewed leaders of
the Black Panthers, and Paul Pappas, a Massachusetts television reporter who also reported on the Black Panthers, were called
to testify before separate grand juries about illegal actions they might have witnessed. They refused, citing privilege
under the Press Clause, and were held in contempt. In a fiercely split decision, the Court ruled 5-4 against the existence
of reportorial privilege in the Press Clause of the First Amendment. 7 Plaintiff respectfully reminds this
court of the continuing violations doctrine. 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. See paragraphs 46 and 47. 8 Law
of Agency, Wikipedia.org, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency: The common law principle in operation is usually represented in the Latin phrase, qui facit per alium,
facit per se, i.e. the one who acts through another, acts in his or her own interests and it is a parallel concept
to vicarious liability and strict liability in which one person is held liable in criminal law or tort for the acts or omissions
of another. Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985): “As for those things which a servant may do on
behalf of his master, they seem all to proceed upon this principle, that the master is answerable for the act of his servant,
if done by his command, either expressly given, or implied: “nam qui facit per alium, facit per se.” 9 18
USC § 2709(e) - Counterintelligence Access to Telephone Toll and Transactional Records, Requirement That Certain Congressional
Bodies Be Informed.— On a semiannual basis the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall fully inform
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence
of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of
the Senate, concerning all requests made under subsection (b) of this section. Hobbs Act: 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) 10
“It’s called protecting America,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, saying that the secret
court order which Britain’s Guardian newspaper posted online Wednesday night is a routine three-month renewal and
proves that the program is carefully overseen by federal judges. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/6/white-house-defends-phone-snooping/#ixzz2VcmQgulO. 11
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican, said the surveillance has “proved meritorious, because we have gathered
significant information on bad guys, but only on bad guys, over the years.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/6/white-house-defends-phone-snooping/#ixzz2VcmQgulO. 12 Plaintiff alleges LifeNet suicide/mental health hotline was fraudulently contacted
by Defendant U.S. Marshal Service for the Eastern District of New York and told that Plaintiff threatened Defendant Nicholas
with bodily harm. That Defendant USMS knew that Plaintiff committed no crime is a clear violation of 18 USC §1001. 13
Plaintiff's lawsuit Cheryl D. Uzamere vs. The State of New York, The City of New York, The Metropolitan Police
Department and the New York City Transit Authority Case Nos. 09-cv-2703/09-3197-cv dealt with issues pertaining to
defendants' refusal to provide Plaintiff with a half fare Metrocard. The issues raised in that lawsuit had nothing to do
with Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al Case Nos. 1:2011-cv-02831/11-2713-cv, which dealt with, inter
alia, Plaintiff's being blacklisted from more integrated psychiatric service providers in violation of Title II of
the Americans With Disabilities Act. Defendant Wolfe should have been able to see the glaring differences between the two
cases. Plaintiff therefore alleges that Defendant Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe's return of Plaintiff's appeal was an act of fraud
upon the court done solely to prevent Plaintiff from filing her appeal against Defendant Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis' FRCP-lacking,
memorandum-lacking decision in Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al. 16 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 17
Wikipedia.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_hands) Unclean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine or the dirty hands doctrine, is an equitable defense
in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that
the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is,
with “unclean hands. The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The
doctrine is often stated as “those seeking equity must do equity” or “equity must come with clean hands.”
2. The maxim "he who comes into equity must come with clean hands" closes the doors of a court of equity to
one tainted with inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which he seeks relief, however improper may have
been the behavior of the defendant. P. 324 U. S. 814. 3. The "clean hands" doctrine is rooted in the historical
concept of a court of equity as a vehicle for affirmatively enforcing the requirements of conscience and good faith.
P. 324 U.S. 814. 4. While equity does not require that its suitors shall have led blameless lives as to other matters,
it does require that they shall have acted without fraud or deceit as to the matter in issue. P. 324 U. S. 814. Where a suit
in equity concerns the public interest as well as the private interests of the litigants, the "clean hands" doctrine
assumes greater significance, for if the equity court in such case properly applies the maxim to withhold its assistance,
it not only prevents a wrongdoer from enjoying the fruits of his transgression, but averts an injury to the public. P. 324
U. S. 815. Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Co. 324 U.S. 806 (1945) 18 When
Defendant Ehigie E. Uzamere's brother Nosayaba and his wife Ethel sponsored Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Nosayaba and
Ethel applied as his father and mother-in-law. Sponsorship as a beneficiary's parents takes less time than sponsorship as
a beneficiary's brother and sister-in-law (IR2 sponsorship). Sponsorship as a spouse of a U.S. citizen takes even less time
(IR1 sponsorship). 19
Daily News article dated November 5, 2009. 20 See pages from attorneys' fraudulent affirmations falsifying Plaintiff's ex-husband's
identity as “Godwin Uzamere”; fraudulent 1-130 that was falsified by attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro,
documents from Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel and T. Diane Cejka, Director, FOIA/PA, U.S. Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Services and Daily News article dated November 5, 2009. 21 22 NYCRR §50.1(D) Court employees shall not disclose any confidential
information received in the course of their official duties, except as required in the performance of such duties, nor use
such information for personal gain or advantage. 22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(8) – A judge shall not make any public comment
about a pending or impending proceeding in any court within the United States or its territories. The judge shall require
similar abstention on the part of court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control. This paragraph does not
prohibit judges from making public statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining for public information
the procedures of the court. This paragraph does not apply to proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal
capacity. 22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(11) A judge shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic
information acquired in a judicial capacity. 22 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). 29
http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/so-daat-emet/index.html 30 Minor or incompetent person. Without a Representative. A minor
or an incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem. The
court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person
who is unrepresented in an action.
|
