The opinions concerning the three (3) petitions for writs of certiorari No. 92-5852,
Uzamere v. United States, No. 11-8206, Cheryl D. Uzamere v. Andrew
v. Cuomo, Governor of New York, et al, and No. 09-5816, Cheryl D. Uzamere v. Allen E.
Kaye, PC., et al. were all denied, and the human rights torts, constitutional torts and federal crimes
that were committed by the Jewish Respondents were all ignored by President Obama,
this Court's Jewish justices, and the judges and justices to whom the Petitioner
presented her criminal complaint. The opinion is reported at Pet. App. Exhibit A,
page 43. Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989) states 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).
The opinion of the Appellant's brief No. 13-2454 is reported at Pet.
App. Exhibit A, page 41. The human rights torts, constitutional
torts and federal crimes that were committed by members of that Court's ethnoreligious
group that were mentioned in Appellant's brief were ignored.
The District Court's opinion is reported at Pet. App. Exhibit A, pages
1 - 39 and is unpublished.
The date on
which the United States Court of Appeals decided Petitioner's case was April 11,
No petition for rehearing was filed in Petitioner's case.
The jurisdiction of this
Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1).
AND CASE LAW PROVISIONS INVOLVED
The U.S. Supreme Court case law provisions on which this Petition is based are
of Felony/18 USC §4
Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552 (1980) and 2) Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.
S. 665, 408 U. S. 696 (1972).
Establishment Clause/First Amendment
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), Everson v. Board of Education,
330 U.S. 1 (1947) and Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School
District v. Grumet 512 U.S. 687 (1994).
Proceeding in forma pauperis
28 U.S.C. §
Discrimination based upon Mental Illness, Title II, ADA
v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999); Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509
Civil Right Act of 1964, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment
v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968), Katzenbach v. McClung,
379 U.S. 294 (1964)
Courts Must Have the Appearance of Impartiality and Disqualification of Judges
28 USC §§144, 455, Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). Taylor v.
O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). 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).
The Petitioner has indicated in the past that the Respondents have ignored her
even though the Petitioner has provided proof of her allegations. The Petitioner
alleges that she has been the victim of a Judaic-law-oriented RICO, and that said laws
come from sources like the National Institute for Judaic Law, an institute that advocates the enslavement of Gentiles,
and especially blacks. Since Petitioner's last criminal complaint, the Jewish
Respondents have committed more human rights violations, more constitutional violations
and more federal felonies against the Petitioner. The Petitioner alleges that this Court's
Jewish justices have treated their denials of certiorari as an excuse for their subsequent denials to enforce
Petitioner's human rights law,1 constitutional law and more federal felonies, including 18 USC §4, misprision of felony based on the
belief that they could trick Petitioner into believing that their denial of Petitioner's
case also means denial of Petitioner's rights as discretionary, which is ridiculous.
Rights are not discretionary. They are only discretionary to this Court's Jewish
justices because Petitioner is mentally disabled, African American.
This Court's Jewish justices played a role in helping to establish the National
Institute of Judaic Law. The NIJL highlights Judaic law. Judaic law teaches that
dark-skinned people are meant to be enslaved; that when Jews are confronted by heathens,
during court proceedings, Jews use subterfuge (deceit, lies, etc.) to circumvent them, and that Jews must not
report the crimes of fellow Jews to Gentiles and to the secular authorities.
Petitioner informs this Court that because of her belief that this Court's corruption has its basis in the encroachment
of the Jewish religion, she will file a petition against the United States, Israel
and Nigeria with the United Nations' Office of the High Commission for Human Rights
and inform it of this Court's Judaic-oriented, anti-black corruption.
OF THE CASE
This case concerns a 35-year-ongoing series of crimes that were committed against
the helpless, disabled, African-American mother and her two (2) adult children
who are still the victims of a Judaic-religiously-oriented RICO, who members have dishonestly treated the hatred of lawbreaking,
Jews as a real crime), while the pedophile-minded-pity-junkie-Judaic-religiously-oriented
RICO – including this court's Jewish justices – are still protecting
anti-black racist Mortimer Zuckerman, who continues to use the Daily News and
the internet to scorn Petitioner's mental illness in order to disseminate the lie regarding the identity of Petitioner's ex-husband
and child of the marriage's father,2 in much the same way that a pedophile makes reference to having been raped as a child in order to obtain public
pity, so that he can avoid prison and rape more children. Said pedophile-minded
RICO's trick is to enforces, among other Jewish religious doctrines, Law of
the Moser. The RICO's sole purpose of Law of the Moser is to ensure that the
Petitioner is forced not to report the crimes that were committed against her and her family by the Jewish
Respondents to the secular law enforcement authorities.
this Court as a 35-year crime victim of the following human rights violations constitutional violations
United Nation Human Rights Violations
Article Five – Petitioner and her children were
subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment at the hands
of the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article Six – Petitioner
and her children's right to recognition as persons before the law was violated by the Respondents and
ignored by this Court; Article Seven – Petitioner
and her children's right to equal protection before the law was violated by the
Respondents and ignored by this Court; Petitioner right not to be publicly insulted and discriminated against as a
“wacko” because she has bipolar disorder, and Plaintiff's right to equal
protection of the law was violated by the Respondents and ignored by this Court;
Article Eight – Petitioner was deprived of the right
to obtain an effective remedy by Government Respondent's competent national tribunals for acts Petitioner was falsely
accused of violating by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article
Nine – Petitioner was subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention
by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article Ten –
Petitioner's right to full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in
the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against
him was violated by the Respondents and ignored by this Court; Article
Eleven – Petitioner's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty after being
charged with various penal offenses was violated by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff's right not to be held
guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute
a penal offense under national or international law was violated by the Respondents
and ignored by this Court; Article Twelve – Petitioner was subjected to arbitrary
interference with her privacy, her family and her home by the Defendants. Plaintiff was
subjected to attacks upon her honor and reputation; Plaintiff's right to the protection
of the law against such interference or attack was violated by the Respondents
and ignored by this Court; Article Thirteen – Petitioner's right to freedom of movement within
Defendants State of New York and City of New York was violated by the Respondents
and ignore by this Court; Petitioner's family's right, as a natural and fundamental
group unit of American society, being entitled to protection by society and the State,
was violated by the Respondents, and ignored by this Court; Petitioner's right to equal access to public service
in his country was violated by the Respondents and ignored by this Court.
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 Petitioner's right of privacy with regard to the illegal dissemination of her psychiatric records, Petitioner
marriage history, Petitioner married name, and the non-content information associated
with Petitioner's internet and telephone accounts; violation of the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, intentional misuse of national security letters
Petitioner also seeks to expose the fact that Respondent U.S. Department of Homeland
Security has had knowledge of the correct identity, and has been in possession
of the identification documents for Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere for well over thirty
(30) years. Respondent the United States of America, along with the rest of the Respondents, owed Petitioner and
her children the duty to use the aforementioned documentation regarding Respondent
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity to protect Petitioner and her children from being
victims of fraud, immigration fraud, aggravated identity theft and victims of Petitioner's inability
to obtain spousal and children support based on Petitioner and her daughter having the legal right
to bear Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's correct name. However, rather than
comply with the law, the Respondents, in particular, the Jewish Respondents, engaged
in a course of conduct that violated Petitioner rights and the rights of her daughter, Tara, for the sole purpose
of preventing Petitioner from filing complaints against hateful, racist, dishonest, Jewish
immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Respondents'
criminal conduct deprived them then, and continues to deprive Petitioner and her
family of the right to bear Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere correct African name, and continues to condemn Petitioner
and her family to the same deprivation of the knowledge of African bloodline indicators
that racist Jews and racist white Christians forced upon Petitioner's African
Judaic Law –
As taught by the National Institute for Judaic Law
for Judaic Law: “But now, with the rise of Judaism in the halls
of power, we are looking at a return to Old Testament state-religion. Particularly,
given the strain of Orthodox Judaism in ascendance, we are looking toward a re-unification
of church and state, with priestly enforcement of Old Testament and Talmudic commandments . . . In November 2002,
the American Orthodox Jewish community held a kosher dinner in the Supreme Court
building to celebrate the establishment of the National Institute for Judaic Law.
The dinner was attended by 200 people, including three Supreme Court Justices. The purpose of the
Institute is to introduce Talmudic laws into the US legal system and law schools. It is thus the
clear civic duty of every American to become intimately acquainted
with the Talmud. (http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html).
Sentence Endorsed Against Christians Today: “The Noahide Laws promise
deadly consequences for Christians. . . Furthermore, Lord God tasked the Jews
to enforce the seven Noahide Commandments, and to enforce them with liberal use of
the death penalty (emphasis added). . .(http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html).
Law of the Moser; Jews Must Not Report the Crimes of Fellow Jews to Gentiles
or Secular Law Enforcement
Informing on Fellow Jews Who Commit Crimes, Rabbi Michael J. Broyde – “.
. .the Talmud recounts - in a number of places - that it is prohibited to inform
on Jews to the secular government, even when their conduct is a violation of secular
law. . .” (http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/moser-broyde/index.html).
Is Dead to His Daddy, New York Post, Kate Sheehy, July 28 2009
– The father, citing “the Talmudic Law of Moser that prohibits
a Jew from informing on another Jew to a non-Jew” — renounced his
son from the pulpit at his synagogue in Deal, NJ, on Saturday, the site said.
Silence and self-rule: Brooklyn's Orthodox child abuse cover-up, Zoë
Blackler, New York, The Guardian, Thursday 29 March 2012 – “When
Mordechai discovered his mentally disabled child was being molested, he reported
the crime to the police. A local man was arrested and charged with repeatedly raping the boy in their synagogue's ritual
bath. When news of the arrest got back to their Brooklyn community, the neighbors
launched a hate campaign. But the object of their anger wasn't the alleged perpetrator,
Meir Dascalowitz, it was the abused boy's father. For the last two years, Mordechai
says he's been hounded by his community. The minute this guy got arrested I started a new life, a life of hell, terror,
threat, you name it. . . As consistent as the tales of cover up are those of community
intimidation, where victims are branded a moser – an informer – excluded
from school, spat on in synagogue, their families threatened and harassed by supporters
of the accused. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/29/brooklyn-orthodox-jews child-abuse-cover-up-feature).”
Gentiles are Inferior to Jews:
Come and Hear:
Death Penalty and Talmud Law, US v. Talmud Law: “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. .
.Gentiles are easy to convict. . .(http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_4.html).
in “Gur Aryeh” on the portion of Matot (page 164 s.v. v'ein ha'goyim)
it is written: "...and this is what they said 'You are called men and the
nations are not called men, “for the difference that exists between the animal
world and man exists within you exceedingly, but the nations are not 'men,' for their souls are immersed in the
material, associated with the materialistic animal world, and this matter is clear.”
http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/so-daat-emet/en_gentiles5.html (emphasis added).
Blacks Are Meant to Be Enslaved
Ha-Hayyim, page 52a, 52b: “In 1992 a book was published by a leading member of the Satmar
community entitled Artsot Ha-Hayyim. On p. 52 he explains, and quotes other rabbis, that the
reason Abraham Lincoln was killed was because he freed the blacks. this is also
the reason why Kennedy was killed, i.e. because he was good to the blacks. He
continues by saying that this will be the fate of any who adopt a progressive attitude towards blacks, because they
are meant to be enslaved. Ham's curse.” http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v15/mj_v15i20.html#CDX.
Legends of the Jews - Ginsburg, Vol. 1, p. 169: “The descendants
of Ham through Canaan therefore have red eyes, because Ham looked upon the nakedness
of his father; they have misshapen lips, because Ham spoke with his lips to his
brothers about the unseemly condition of his father; they have twisted curly hair, because Ham turned and twisted
his head round to see the nakedness of his father; and they go about naked, because
Ham did not cover the nakedness of his father.”
Rabbah (Soncino) Vol. 1, p. 293: “AND HE SAID: CURSED BE CANAAN (Breishit 9:25): (Commentary omitted)...R.
Huna also said in R. Joseph's name: You [i.e. Noah is speaking to Ham) have prevented
me from doing something in the dark [i.e. cohabiting with his wife], therefore
your seed will be ugly and dark-skinned. R. Chiyya said: Ham and the dog
copulated in the Ark, therefore Ham came forth black-skinned while the dog publicly exposed its copulation.”
Use of Subterfuge to Deceive
Gentiles During Court Proceedings: “Where a suit arises between
an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws
of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is our law'; so also if you can justify him
by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] 'This is your law'; but if this can not be done,
we use subterfuges to circumvent him.” (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba
Kamma, Folio 113a, http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_113.html).
Violates African-American Petitioner's 1st Amendment Rights
“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.”
Everson v. Board of Education. This Court's Jewish justices and the Jewish
Respondents enforced the Judaic doctrine Law of the Moser, a doctrine whose very intent is to prevent the reporting
of lawbreaking Jews to the secular authorities.
Talmud Violates African-American Petitioner's
5th Amendment Rights
This Court's Jews and the Jewish Respondents blocked Petitioner's passage to go
to court to prevent Petitioner from filing criminal and civil complaints against
their law-breaking Jewish friends.
Violates African-American Petitioner's 6th Amendment Rights
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.
Violates African-American Petitioner's 14st Amendment Rights
“. . .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.
This Court's Justices and the Jewish Respondents used Petitioner's mental
illness to disparage her criminal and civil complaints to prevent Petitioner's
complaints against the lawbreaking Jews from being believed.
-- Title II of the Americans With Disabilities
Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973
“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.
42 USC §1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
42 USC §1985 - Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights
“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).
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 “. . .Petitioners 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, Petitioners 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, Petitioner seeks to put an end
to New York State's practice of blacklisting the Petitioner 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 Respondents' use of the media to encourage members
of the not-for-profit psychiatric outpatient community to blacklist the Petitioner
by publicly denigrating her because of symptoms of her mental illness that were publicized
by government and corporate Respondents. This Court's Jewish justices and the Jewish Respondents black listed
the Petitioner based on her being a black Gentile.
Commission of RICO Crimes
The courts of Respondent the United States of America recognize that obstruction
of justice caused by racketeering influenced, corrupt organizations is 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.
This Court's Jewish justices and the Jewish Respondents formed a RICO for the
sole purpose to working as a team to ensure that Petitioner is never able to file
any complaint against the lawbreaking Jews.
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) Petitioner 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. Petitioners ACLU and ACLU Foundation may publicly
disclose this information as well. In addition, the Government acknowledges that Petitioners may discuss matters
and information that have been filed without redaction on the public docket in this case;
4) Petitioners are also permitted to publicly discuss Petitioner 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 Petitioner Doe's right and Petitioners 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 Petitioner Doe.” Doe, et al v. Holder, et al, 04
Civ. 2614 (VM). This Court's Jewish justices and the Jewish Respondents order
the non-content-information regarding Petitioner's telephone calls be recorded
in order to take notice of damning calls to my psychiatrist to be used to blackmail the Petitioner
and prevent her from filing complaints against the lawbreaking Jewish Respondents.
Petitioner Case Is Eligible for the Continuing Violations Doctrine
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.
In tort law,
if a Petitioner 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
Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act
(as it concerns the African
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.”
Cause of Action; Persons can Sue Person for Commission of a Constitutional Tort
“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; 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 Petitioner
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 Petitioner'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 Petitioner who lacked any alternative remedy for harms caused by an individual
officers unconstitutional conduct.”
Immunity Based on This Court's Jewish Justices and Government Respondents' Abrogation of Petitioner's
Right to Equal Protection as a Disabled Person
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 Respondents 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.”
Change of Venue and Improper Venue Based on Petitioner's Request to the District Court to Remover Her Case
from a Corrupt, Bias Court to an Impartial Court
Federal Rules for Civil Procedure Rule 41(b): (b) “Unless the dismissal
order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule—except one for
lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19—operates
as an adjudication on the merits.”
With regard to 28 USC §1404(a), the case Stewart Organization, Inc.
v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) says the following with reference to change to another
venue: “Section 1404(a) is sufficiently broad to control the forum-selection issue. The statute is
intended to place discretion in the district courts to adjudicate motions for
transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience
and fairness. A motion to transfer under §1404(a) calls on the district court to weigh in the balance
a number of case-specific factors, and the presence of a forum-selection clause will figure centrally
in the calculus. A forum-selection clause should receive neither dispositive consideration
nor no consideration, but rather the consideration for which Congress provided
in §1404(a) (emphasis added).
In the case Ralls Corporation V. Terna Energy USA Holding Corporation,
Civil Action No. 13-0117 (ABJ), the court rendered the following decision: “Petitioner
Terna Energy USA Holding Corporation ("Terna") moves to dismiss Petitioner
Ralls Corporation's (“Ralls”) complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. Upon consideration of the parties' briefs, the record in
this case, and the applicable law, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. It does not reach the question
of subject matter jurisdiction. (emphasis added).
Documentation Verifying the Identify of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
In December, 1977, approximately two
(2) years before the Petitioner met Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Nosayaba
(John) Uzamere and his wife Ethel Uzamere filed for IR2 residence for Respondent
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. The IR2 visa for Respondent Uzamere was approved on January
28, 1980. The name and immigration number under which he applied for permanent residence was Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, XXXXXXXX
XX, 1960, file number A35 201 224. See correspondence from the U.S. Immigration
and Naturalization Service attached as Pet. App. Exhibit B.
a) Correspondence from Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, dated January 6, 2009,
see Pet. App. Exhibit B;
from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service dated June 12, 2009; see Pet. App. Exhibit B;
c) Report from Rachel McCarthy, Bar
Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (October, 2008); see Pet.
App. Exhibit B;
d) Correspondence from U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service bearing Immigration
File No. A35 201 224 (undated); see Pet. App. Exhibit B;
e) Correspondence from U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service bearing Immigration
File No. A35 201 224 dated February 10, 1984; see Pet. App. Exhibit
f) Correspondence from U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service bearing Immigration
File No. A24 027 764 dated June 15, 1981; see Pet. App. Exhibit B;
g) Decision dated May 12, 2009, in which NYS Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine said: “Today at 10:35 a.m. 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. See Pet. App. Exhibit B.
h) Decision dated May 12, 2009, in which NYS Justice Matthew
D'Emic said: “The parties were married in New York State on November 21,
1979, and the child of the marriage was born on July 7, 1980. At some point between
the wedding and birth the defendant abandoned his family and moved to Nigeria. By filing
a summons with notice, plaintiff commenced this proceeding on July 18, 2007, and service was affected on defendant
in Nigeria in the manner directed by Justice Prus of this court.” See
Pet. App. Exhibit B.
i) Decision Uzamere v Uzamere, 2009 NY Slip Op 09214 [68 AD3d 855] dated
December 8, 2009 in which the New York State Supreme Court for the Appellate Division,
2nd Judicial Department removed a.k.a. “Godwin Uzamere” to Cheryl D. Uzamere to Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.
The decision states: “In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff
appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme
Court, Kings County (Sunshine, J.), dated January 12, 2009, which, inter alia,
denied her motion, among other things, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and for an award
of child support, and directed a hearing on the issue of whether the parties were in
fact married. See Pet. App. Exhibit B.
of the child of the marriage, Tara A. Uzamere in which she swears under oath that Respondent
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere is her father; see Pet. App. Exhibit
from Nigeria confirming that the names Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Godwin Ehigie
Uzamere and Senator Ehigie Uzamere belong to Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. See
Pet. App. Exhibit B.
l) Petitioner requests a subpoena
duces tecum to obtain proof from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service; however
Petitioner know that in this Court's Jewish justices determination to hide their
Jewish friends' crimes, they will not comply. Petitioner invites this Court's
Jewish justices to arrest all parties involved in the making and presenting of the aforementioned documentation if said documentation
is found to be false, or to admit that this Court's Jewish justices' Jewish friends
committed felonies and arrest them as the law requires.
Documentation Used by Respondents to Falsify the Identity of
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
On November 20, 1979, Respondent's Ehigie E. Uzamere filled out a marriage affidavit.
The marriage affidavit indicated that the aforesaid Respondent provided the name
“Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” but did not provide any identification. See
marriage affidavit attached at Pet. App. Exhibit B.
b) On November 21, 1979, the Petitioner unwittingly entered
into a “romance scam” marriage with Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
under the fictitious named “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere, and under the fictitious
birthday “XXXXXX XX, 19XX.” The Petitioner was provided with marriage certificate. He abandoned the Petitioner
on the day of the marriage while she was pregnant. See Pet. App. Exhibit
On or around October 1, 2003, Jack Gladstein mailed to the Petitioner correspondence
falsely holding Petitioner's ex-husband out to be “Godwin Uzamere.”
See Pet. App. Exhibit B.
On or around September 25, 2008, Government Respondent's McCarthy falsely made
the accusation that Petitioner “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.” The
Government Respondent withdrew its case against the Petitioner on December
or around October 8, 2008, Petitioner Eugene Uzamere hand- delivered a fraudulent affirmation
and a fraudulent, unauthenticated,3 unnotarized counter-affidavit from Nigeria. See Pet. App. Exhibit B.
..........Also, during October 2008, Respondent McCarthy
and Respondent Cowles gave Petitioner's criminal attorney Beth Mann a copy of
the I-130 immigration sponsorship form that Petitioner signed on November 30,
1979 and a report explaining the two (2) immigration files having birthdays “June
1, 1955” and December 31, 1960 and explaining “IR2 fraudulently obtained because he was married at
the time” and “Compare fingerprints between the two files.”
See Pet. App. Exhibit B.
or around January 6, 2009, Petitioner received correspondence from Respondent
McCarthy indicating that “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.” See Pet. App.
January 12, 2009, Respondent 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 Respondent raises a genuine
issue as to whether or not Petitioner and Respondent 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. See page 9 of Justice
Sunshine's decision attached as Pet. App. Exhibit B.
..........On May 12, 2009, Respondent Sunshine rendered
his decision recognizing the identity of Petitioner's ex-husband as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere by stating that “Today at
10:35 am. Respondent was declared in default for failure to appear at the
hearing. Accordingly, Respondent's motion to dismiss this action upon the
grounds that he is not the husband of the Petitioner is denied in its entirety. See Justice
Sunshine's dated May 12, 2009 attached as Pet. App. Exhibit B.
..........On or near October 28, 2009 during the adjudication of the case Uzamere
vs. Uzamere, et al, Case No. K-18012/2009, Respondents Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro
and Jack Gladstein submitted fraudulent affirmations to the Government Respondent
falsely holding “Godwin Uzamere” and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be two
(2) different persons. See affirmations of Allen Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq. And Jack Gladstein attached as Pet.
App. Exhibit B.
..........On November 3, 2009 Respondents Jeffrey S. Sunshine,
Arthur M. Schack, Michael Gerstein, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein
and Jewish billionaire and Daily News owner Mortimer Zuckerman conspired to implement the Petitioner's false arrest for
threatening Respondent Justice Sunshine for the sole purpose of obtaining an advantage
in the action for fraud that Petitioner filed against Respondents Allen E. Kaye,
Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, and knowingly, fraudulently and with malice aforethought
publish a newspaper article entitled Hate-spewing Wacko Goes into Fit in Court, that illegally disclosed
Petitioner's nonpublic information that was acquired by the Government Respondent's
court during the adjudication of Petitioner's cases. See Daily News article dated
November 5, 2009 attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C.
November 30, 2009, twenty-five (25) days after Respondent Daily News, LP published its article regarding the
Petitioner, Respondent Federation Employment and Guidance Service terminated its mental
health services to the Petitioner. 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 Pet. App. Exhibit C.
..........On December 7, 2009, the Petitioner was placed
with Respondent New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric
December 24, 2009, Petitioner was seen by Respondent New York State Unified Court
System judicial employee the Honorable Anthony Cutrona of Kings County Supreme Court's Mental
Hygiene Court and ordered to remain in Government Respondent's psychiatric facilities as an inpatient.
..........On January 15, 2010, Government Respondent's employee
Respondent Schack conspired with employees of Government Respondent's employees
at Government Respondent's psychiatric facility Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility
not to produce the Petitioner for court. In his decision dated January 25, 2010, Respondent Schack stated that “The
Court is concerned that Petitioner UZAMERE is unfit to proceed. .
.Therefore, the instant matter is adjourned to Friday, March 19, 2010. .
.” See interim decision of Respondent Schack attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C.
..........On or near February 23, 2010, while the Petitioner
was in her apartment faxing letters of complaint to various governmental agencies, Respondents
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 Respondent Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center, who then arranged
for Petitioner to be kidnapped and hospitalized by Respondent New York State Office of
Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center.
..........During Petitioner's last
week as an inpatient, Government Respondent's employee Ms. Velcimé performed a search of New York Psychotherapy and
Counseling Center and other outpatient mental health care providers, Ms. Velcimé
informed the Petitioner that not only had NYPCC refused to accept Petitioner
as a client, but that virtually all the not-for-profit outpatient mental
health facilities that Ms. Velcimé contacted rejected her request to provide Petitioner with outpatient psychiatric
July 13, 2010, Government Respondent's employee Respondent Schack rendered a decision
falsely holding “Godwin Uzamere” to be is Petitioner's husband; and
further stated that it is “ORDERED, that the instant complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that Petitioner 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.” See Respondent Schack's decision dated July 13,
2010 attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C.
..........On August 16, 2010, Petitioner filed lawsuit
Uzamere v. USA, 2010-cv-555 with the U.S. Court of Claims. Said lawsuit provided
Respondent Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of identity
theft. Respondent Miller rendered her decision designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic
doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) trick Petitioner into believing that a
civil res judicata determination was a permanent and final determination to nullify
and render harmless any legal consequences based on Respondents Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's
criminal commission of identity theft and conspiracy to commit identity theft.
..........On August 30, 2010, Petitioner filed lawsuit Uzamere
v. USA, 2010-cv-585 with the U.S. Court of Claims. Said lawsuit provided Respondents
Nancy B. Firestone and John P. Wiese with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's,
Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of identity theft. Respondents Firestone and Wiese rendered their
decision designed to: 1) advance the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2)
trick Petitioner into believing that a civil res judicata determination was a
permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless any legal consequences based on Respondents
Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's criminal commission of identity
theft and conspiracy to commit identity theft.
..........On September 1, 2010, Petitioner
filed lawsuit Uzamere v. USA, 2010-cv-591 with the U.S. Court of Claims, and that said lawsuit was assigned
to Respondent judge Christine O.C. Miller of the U.S. Court of Claims. Petitioner alleges
that she provided Respondent Miller with irrefutable evidence of Allen E. Kaye's,
Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft,
and that Respondent 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
Petitioner 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.
..........On or around January
11, 2011, Petitioner filed lawsuit Uzamere v. State of New York, 2011-030-531
against Respondent State of New York with Respondent NYS Judge Scuccimarra.
Respondent Scuccimarra never made any attempt to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys' commission of identity
theft and their conspiracy to commit identity theft.
..........On or around January 19,
2011, Petitioner filed a lawsuit against Respondent Gerstein, Respondent Sunshine and Respondent Schack
with Respondent the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Respondent Klonick never made
any attempt to address the aforementioned Respondent judges conspiracy
not to address the Jewish attorneys commission of identity theft or
their conspiracy to commit to hide the identity theft.
or around April 29, 2011, Petitioner filed a lawsuit against Respondents Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein with Respondents the New York State
Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department and the New York
Grievance Committee for the Second Judicial Department. Respondents Del Tipico and Gutierrez never made any attempt
to address the aforementioned Jewish attorneys commission of identity theft.
..........In June, 2011, Petitioner filed
the Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 with the for the Eastern District of New York.
..........On or around June 22, 2011, Respondent Garaufis
rendered his illegal decision, stating irrelevantly that “Petitioner has a long, tired history
of vexatious litigation in this court.” His decision also illegally ignored
the Respondents' commission of identity theft and their conspiracy to prevent
the Petitioner from filing any criminal or civil complaints against any of the Jewish Respondents. Respondent Garaufis
illegally applied a res judicata determination to pretend that his decision has the
legal ability to nullify and render harmless any attempt by the Petitioner to
file a criminal action against Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack
Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission based on their commission of identity theft –
a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative
function of double jeopardy was never attached because the crime was never
or around June 25, 2011, Respondent Garaufis ordered three (3) marshals from the U.S. Marshals Service
to visit the Petitioner's home to intimidate her, and if possible, to catch her
while she alone in order to place her in Government Respondent's psychiatric facility
as an inpatient. One (1) of the marshals banged on Petitioner's apartment door, embarrassing Petitioner within earshot
of her neighbors and frightening the Petitioner. When the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern
District of New York identified themselves, Petitioner asked them if she had committed
a crime. The marshals stalled for a few seconds, and then said that Petitioner
had not committed any crimes. When Petitioner asked the U.S. Marshals why they were there, the U.S. Marshal that banged on
Petitioner's door said “I'm gonna annoy you like you annoyed Judge Garaufis.”
When Petitioner 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 Petitioner's door. He also asked Petitioner “is your daughter Tara home?”, to find
out if Petitioner was home alone. Within minutes of Petitioner telling them that
her daughter Tara was there, they left.
July 4, 2011, Petitioner filed her appeal for the lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo,
et al, 11-2713-CV.
July 6, 2011, the date in which Petitioner is alleged to have committed 18 USC §115
against Respondent 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 Petitioner for the offenses for which Petitioner
still stands accused. According to Respondent Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, the judges
who rendered decisions on Petitioner's appeal for her lawsuit Uzamere
vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-2713-cv were not indicated on the decision because others
unknown to Petitioner told Respondent O'Hagan Wolfe that Petitioner threatened Respondent Garaufis, other federal judges
and Respondent Sunshine.
..........On or around July 7, 2011, Respondents psychiatric
nurse Agnes Flores and psychologist Martin Bolton, employees of Respondent New
York City Health and Hospitals Corporation came to Petitioner's apartment, speaking about
Petitioner's psychiatric issues in the hallway and shaming Petitioner within earshot of her neighbors.
Respondents Flores and Bolton said that Respondent U.S. Marshal Service4 told them that Petitioner contacted Respondent Mental Health Association's LifeNet psychiatric helpline and
made threats of bodily harm against Respondent Garaufis. Petitioner 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 Petitioner's
attorney to examine Petitioner's civil claims. Also, at the behest of Respondent Garaufis, Petitioner alleges
that Respondent O'Hagan Wolfe returned Petitioner's appellate brief, all of Petitioner's
motions, Pet. App. Exhibit C and Pet. App. Exhibit C that Petitioner served on
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 4, 2012. Respondent O'Hagan
Wolfe did not include any correspondence explaining why Petitioner's appellate documents were returned. See copies
of UPS envelopes for Petitioner'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 Pet. App.
Exhibit C and Pet. App. Exhibit C.
June/July 2011, Respondent Garaufis illegally authorized Respondent FBI to authorize
Cablevision to monitor the non-content information of Petitioner's telephone calls
in order to find something that could be used to blackmail the Petitioner, in
violation of 18 USC §2709 and 18 USC §3511. Respondent Garaufis authorized the FBI to use any non-content information
regarding Petitioner's outpatient psychiatric clinic and her government health
insurance providers to create a story that Petitioner threatened Respondent Garaufis,
other federal judges and employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service.
Petitioner faxed a copy of a complaint to U.S. Attorney Preetinder Bharara. Thereafter, Respondent Davis called5, 6 Petitioner again, frightening Petitioner by telling Petitioner that Petitioner would be forcibly hospitalized
because Respondent Garaufis falsely told Respondent U.S. Marshal Service that
Petitioner had threatened judges and other federal employees at the (federal)
Medicaid office. Petitioner uploaded their conversation to her website.
..........In the month of August, 2011 Respondent Davis contacted Respondent Sarpong
for the purpose of forcing Petitioner to go to Respondent Brookdale Hospital Medical Center,
where Petitioner was unlawfully imprisoned as an inpatient for being
falsely accused of threatening Respondent Garaufis and other judges with
bodily harm, and threatening CMS workers with death.
..........On or around August 18, 2011, Respondent 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 FPS7 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 Pet.
App. Exhibit C. Respondent New York City Health and Hospital Corporation's ACT Team prepared
a psychiatric treatment plan. Under the title “Alerts”, the treatment plan falsely
states that “. . . 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 Petitioner's psychiatric
treatment plan from the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's
Assertive Community Treatment Team, attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C).
..........On or around November
28, 2012, Respondents 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 1) advancing the Talmudic doctrine
Law of the Moser by not filing a criminal complaint against Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye,
Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their commission of identity theft, and their own commission
of racketeering, obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity;
and, 2) tricking Petitioner into believing that a res judicata determination
– a purely civil adjudicative function – was a permanent and final determination to nullify and
render harmless Respondents Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, Mortimer Zuckerman's
and Scott Shifrel's commission of identity theft – a criminal act for which
the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached
because the crime was never tried.
or around January 30, 2013, Petitioner 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.” See Pet. App. Exhibit
..........During March, 2013,
Respondent Vermont Professional Responsibility Program refused to filed a complaint
with the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the aforementioned commission of
misprision of felony, identity theft, RICO/racketeering and obstruction of justice. See letters from Vermont's Rules of
Professional Conduct, attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C.
..........On March 24, 2013, Respondent “John Doe”
#1 blackmailed Petitioner by telling her that he would call Petitioner's daughter,
mentioning Petitioner's daughter's name (something that generally precedes a threat
of psychiatric hospitalization), and then would come to Petitioner's apartment; however, when asked if Petitioner had
committed a crime and whether Petitioner would be assigned an attorney, "John
Doe" #1 said that Petitioner would have to obtain an attorney on her own.
As it turned out, "John Doe" #1 never came to Petitioner's apartment, and
never contacted Petitioner's daughter. During Petitioner's conversation with FBI employee "John Doe" #1, Petitioner
told the employee that she was recording the conversation. Petitioner recorded
the conversation and uploaded it to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/uzamere_v_obama.html
(refer to the link FBIconversation - click here).
..........On March 25, 2013 Petitioner sent a reply back to Vermont's Professional Responsibility Program
with copies of the attorneys' fraudulent affirmations that hold Godwin Uzamere
to be Petitioner's husband.
9, 2013, Petitioner e-mailed a formal complaint to Respondent Congressman Jeffries
containing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services confirming that Petitioner did not threaten
anyone during any of the phone calls Petitioner made to the CMS call center; however Respondent Jeffries
made no attempt to respond to Petitioner's cry for help.
..........On or near August 7, 2013,
Respondent Sullivan engaged in the Jewish religious doctrine of Law of the Moser, the criminal
equivalent of misprision of felony by not reporting the crimes that Petitioner's exhibits proved
occurred. Respondent Sullivan committed the requisite affirmative acts by prohibiting
the court's staff from uploading Petitioner's exhibits to PACER's Electronic Court
Filing System, the court's more efficient electronic filing system, and by not allowing the court's staff
to sign Petitioner's subpoena duces tecum in order to: 1) obtain proof of Petitioner ex-husband's
identity from Government Respondent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service so
as to leave no doubt regarding the identity of Petitioner's ex-husband and the
father of Tara A. Uzamere, the child of the marriage; 2) to ensure that the Jewish Respondents are no longer able
to leave their criminally fraudulent statements in the media and on the internet regarding
Petitioner's ex-husband unchallenged; 3) end the violation of Petitioner's and
witnesses civil and human rights; 4) end the Government's Respondents involvement
in the encroachment of the Jewish religion; 5) reestablish Petitioner's right to upload her legal documents to
PACER.gov; 7) end Government Respondent's violation of the U.S. Supreme Court
legal doctrine “void for vagueness” by explaining what makes Petitioner's
exhibits too voluminous, by giving Petitioner the opportunity to learn what Respondent Smith means
by “too voluminous” so that Petitioner could make repairs on said exhibits and upload them
..........On August 26, 2013,
Respondent Sullivan stated in her fraudulent Report and Recommendation to dismiss
Petitioner's Amended Petition “. . .it is inconceivable that venue over
this matter could ever be proper in this District”, even though the federal District Court case Ralls
Corporation V. Terna Energy USA Holding Corporation does not reach the question of
subject matter jurisdiction as it was filed in the wrong venue. (emphasis added);
that Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan engaged in the Hobbs Acts by either
accepting bribes or allowing herself to be extorted/blackmailed by the Jewish Respondents. Respondent Sullivan illegally
misapplied the res judicata principle to situations in which Petitioner
clearly established the continuing violations doctrine; and finally, that Respondent
Sullivan's Report and Recommendation is proof of ongoing crimes and civil torts for which Petitioner
can again apply the continuing violations doctrine. See the following: 1) Daily News article criminally
holding Petitioner to be mentally unfit and that “Godwin Uzamere”
is Petitioner's husband; 2) page two (2) of Respondent Garaufis' Order regarding
Petitioner'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 Petitioner's
exhibits as “too voluminous” but being vague as to why the 245
pages of exhibits are considered too voluminous, attached as Pet. App.
Exhibit C. Also see Magistrate Patricia A. Sullivan's Report and Recommendation
attached as Pet. App. Exhibit C.
of Jew-Caused Injustice and Oppression to Other Gentiles
..........As a result of criminal obstruction by this Court's
Jewish justices, the First Circuit's Jewish judges, and by Rabbi and attorney
Michael J. Broyde, a teacher who works for the National Institute for Judaic Law
and teaches the Judaic doctrine Law of the Moser, there has been a four-month failure to render a decision regarding Petitioner's
request for IFP status, so that no opinion has been made by the lower Court.
engage in a discriminatory, religiously racist and criminal act in rendering her
decision to dismiss Petitioner's case.
American Gentile citizen ___________ reported acts of discrimination against
her school district. The statute of limitations for schools districts in New York State is only one year. ___________
waited too long to file her case before the statute of expiration.
Later on, Jewish Attorney Scott Michael Mishkin, pretending that he had provided ___________ with legal
services, stole $12,000 from P. Quity. New York State Justice Denise Molia, and Ivan J. Dolowich of law firm Kaufman
Dolowich Voluck & Gonzo LLP formed a RICO which Petitioner reported to the FBI.
They are still charging ___________ for legal services even though the statute of
limitation for _________ legal case had expired long before ___________
met Scott Mishkin.
Sussman engaged in harassing the Petitioner and lying with regard to the identity of her ex-husband.rIn
the continued Jewish oppression of the Petitioner, Bernard Sussman used the Youtube.com
site to harass Petitioner by saying the following:
“This woman is claiming to have been married, then abandoned, by
an important Nigerian politician. She has filed at least ten court cases in various places based on this assertion - and
then arguing that there is a Jewish conspiracy controlling all the courts in favor
of that Nigerian politician. But it turns out that her ex-husband has come forward
and made very clear that he is the (poor) cousin of the politician and the politician
has nothing to do with their marriage. Uzamere v. Daily News LLP (NY Cnty Supm Ct, Nov.
10, 2011) 34 Misc.3d 1203(A), 2011 NY Slip Op. 52421(U), 946 NYS2d
REASONS FOR GRANTING
Teachings that Teaches that Gentiles and Black People Are Meant to Be Enslaved
by Jews Violates the U.S. Constitution
..........“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),
Establishment Clause – First
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.
Lemon v. Kurtzman
..........Held: Both statutes are unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment,
as the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes
involves excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Civil Rights Act of 1964,
Title VI, §601
Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs
..........“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 Petitioner 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, Petitioners 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.” This Court's Justices and the Jewish
Respondents made secret reference to Petitioner's race as it pertains to the
Judaic teaching regarding black people to disparage her so as to prevent Petitioner's
complaints against the lawbreaking Jews from being heard.
the case of the Jewish Respondents, because of Judaic-law/religious encroachment,
specifically the encroachment of the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser, this
Court's Jewish justices is the reason for the Government Respondents' refusal to file
criminal complaints against those Respondents. who violated federal law is a fact.
this Court's Jewish justices and the Respondents violated the law by allowing
the encroachment of Law of the Moser to prevent Petitioner from filing criminal
complaints against members of the RICO; and whether this Court's Jewish Justices and the Respondents
violated the law by committing fraud upon the court, Law of the Moser (same as misprision of felony)
by treating romance scam marriage for a green card and identity theft as domestic
issues to be handled by a state court in violation of Ankenbrandt v. Richards.
is Fraud upon the Court?
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.
upon the court has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace
that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or
is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the
usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner
v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512,
¶60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud
upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”
RICO Refused to Sign Subpoena
To Hide Its Commission of
..........Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 45(a)(1)(D)(3) says: “The
clerk shall issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party requesting
it, who shall complete it before service.”
to Local Rules for the U.S. Federal Court for the District of Rhode Island, it
says the following under “Subpoenas”: “Subpoenas, including proofs of service,
shall not be filed with the Court, unless otherwise ordered by the Court or required by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. The parties in possession of such documents shall be responsible
for preserving them and making them available for use at
trial and/or for other purposes required by the Court.”
..........Petitioner never had any intention
of “filing” – that is, requiring the District Court to preserve Petitioner's
subpoena duces tecum in the District Court's permanent records. Petitioner's purpose
for the subpoena duces tecum is now what it was when Petitioner first mailed it
to the District Court – to obtain the Clerk of Court's signature so as to legally serve it on the U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Service. The District Court's response to Petitioner's request
for the Clerk of Court's signature was so illegally uncommon that the Petitioner
has not been able to find even one case where a Federal District Judge required his clerical
staff to violate Fed. R. Civ. P Rule 45(a)(1)(D)(3) and not sign an a subpoena duces tecum.
..........The District Court's decision not to sign Petitioner's subpoena duces
tecum was an act of fraud upon the District Court rendering its decision void
of Felony/Law of the Moser; Same Thing
..........In the case Roberts
v. United States, 445 U.S. 552 (1980); The District Court properly considered, as one factor in
imposing consecutive sentences on petitioner who had pleaded guilty to two counts of using a telephone
to facilitate the distribution of heroin, petitioner's refusal to cooperate with
Government officials investigating a related criminal conspiracy to distribute
heroin in which he was a confessed participant.” Pp. 445 U. S. 556-562. . .In this case, the term “petitioner's
refusal to cooperate with Government officials” meant that the petition
refused to report the crimes of his associates.
of crime has been condemned throughout our history. The citizen's duty to “raise
the hue and cry” and report felonies to the authorities, Branzburg
v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 408 U. S. 696 (1972), was an established tenet of Anglo-Saxon law. . .The first
Congress of the United States enacted a statute imposing criminal penalties upon anyone who,
“having knowledge of the actual commission of [certain felonies,] shall
conceal, and not as soon as may be disclose and make known the same to [the appropriate]
authority. . .” Act of Apr. 30, 1790, §6, 1 Stat. 113. Although the term "misprision of felony"
now has an archaic ring, gross indifference to the duty to report known criminal behavior
remains a badge of irresponsible citizenship. This deeply rooted social obligation
is not diminished when the witness to crime is involved in illicit activities
himself. Unless his silence is protected by the privilege against self-incrimination, see 445 U. S. infra, the criminal defendant,
no less than any other citizen, is obliged to assist the authorities. The petitioner,
for example, was asked to expose the purveyors of heroin in his own community
in exchange for a favorable disposition of his case. By declining to cooperate, petitioner
rejected an "obligatio[n] of community life" that should be recognized before rehabilitation can begin.
See Hart, The Aims of the Criminal Law, 23 Law & Contemp. Prob. 401, 437 (1958).
Moreover, petitioner's refusal to cooperate protected his former partners in crime,
thereby preserving his ability to resume criminal activities upon release. Few facts available
to a sentencing judge are more relevant to "'the likelihood that [a defendant] will transgress no
more, the hope that he may respond to rehabilitative efforts to assist with a
lawful future career, [and] the degree to which he does or does not deem himself
at war with his society.'”
the case United States of America v. Richard Baumgartner, a jury convicted
former Criminal Court Judge Richard Baumgartner, of Knoxville, Tennessee, of five
counts of misprision of a felony with regard to his knowledge of his own and his girlfriends
purchase and illicit use of illegal drugs. Richard Baumgartner was a judge, and quite possibly Jewish. Neither
being a judge nor a Jew gave him the constitutional right to engage in hiding
the commission of a felony from law enforcement agencies. In like manner, the
Jewish Respondents do not have the constitutional right to rely on Law of the Moser to hide their Jewish
friends', their Gentile slaves' or their own crimes as some sort of twisted religious entitlement.
Jewish-religiously-oriented RICO Crimes Are Based in Loyalty and Adherence to Jewish
Law and Jewish Religion
Clause – First Amendment
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).
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.”
..........Lemon v. Kurtzman
..........Held: Both statutes are unconstitutional under
the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, as the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes
involves excessive entanglement between government and religion.
case Lemon v. Kurtzman,8 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (represented through David Kurtzman), which allowed
the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse nonpublic schools
(most of which were Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught secular material in these
nonpublic schools, secular textbooks and secular instructional materials, violated the Establishment Clause
of the First Amendment. The decision also upheld a decision of the First Circuit,
which had struck down the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act providing state
funds to supplement salaries at nonpublic elementary schools by 15%. As in Pennsylvania, most of these funds were
spent on Catholic schools.
..........In the case of the Jewish Respondents, Petitioner's
claim that Jewish religious encroachment, specifically encroachment of the Talmudic
doctrine Law of the Moser is the reason for the Government Respondents' refusal
to file criminal complaints against those Jews who violated federal law is a fact.
Worse still, a horrible precedent has been set by U.S. Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer
and Elena Kagan, who are also Jews. At the Jewish website Come-and-Hear (http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html), it says the following:
Supreme Court Warms to the Talmud: Approximately three years after Nathan and
Alyza Lewin filed the Bryan v. Moore amicus curiae brief — a notable
event in itself — another notable event took place. A kosher dinner was held to
honor the establishment of the National Institute for Judaic Law (NIJL). The dinner was attended by 200 people, including
Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia. Nathan
and Alyza Lewin also attended. The site of the dinner? The United States Supreme
Court Building in Washington, DC. The Jewish Week reported the event in this manner:
..........On the same web page, near the top of the page,
it says: “In contrast, 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.” Another doctrine that is actively taught by Rabbi Michael Broyde,
a professor at the Jewish institute that was attended by two of the U.S. Supreme Court's Jewish justices teaches
the Talmudic doctrine, Law of the Moser (see websites http://www.nijl.org/lecture2.html; http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/moser-broyde/index.html). At Rabbi Broyde's website entitled Informing on Fellow Jews who Commit Crimes: Mesira in Modern Times, Rabbi Broyde says the following:
Even though Jewish
law expects people to observe the laws of the land, and even imposes that obligation
as a religious duty, the Talmud recounts - in a number of places - that it is
prohibited to inform on Jews to the secular government, even when their conduct is a
violation of secular law and even when their conduct is a violation of Jewish law. While there are a number of exceptions
to this prohibition (which are explained further in this section), the essential
halacha was that Jewish law prohibits such informing absent specific circumstances.
Even if secular government were to incorporate substantive Jewish law into secular
law and punish violations of what is, in effect, Jewish law, Jews would still be prohibited from cooperating with such
a system. Indeed, classical Jewish law treats a person who frequently informs
on others as a pursuer (a rodef) who may be killed to prevent him from informing,
even without a formal court ruling.
convince this Court of the unconstitutional nature of the Talmudic doctrine, Law
of the Moser and its violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, one needs only study
the example of a brave Jewish man named Rabbi Nuchum Rosenberg (http://gothamist.com/2013/11/12/ultra-orthodox_sex_abuse_whistleblo.php), a private citizen who was attacked by members of the Satmar community for violating Law of the Moser and
reporting the sexual abuse of Jewish children by Jewish men. The article entitle
Ultra-Orthodox Sex Abuse Whistleblower Describes "Child-Rape Assembly Line”
says the following:
last we heard from ultra-Orthodox sex abuse whistleblower Rabbi Nuchum Rosenberg he was recovering from an assault
involving a cup of bleach tossed in his face on a Williamsburg sidewalk.
Rosenberg, who was nearly blinded, has become anathema in the tightly-knit Satmar
community for exposing perpetrators of sexual abuse. Almost a year after the bleach attack, Vice
checks in on Rosenberg, who of course has more horrifying stories to tell:
On a visit to Jerusalem in 2005, Rabbi Rosenberg entered into a mikvah in one of the holiest
neighborhoods in the city, Mea She’arim. “I opened a door that entered
into a schvitz,” he told me. “Vapors everywhere, I can barely see.
My eyes adjust, and I see an old man, my age, long white beard, a holy-looking man, sitting
in the vapors. On his lap, facing away from him, is a boy, maybe seven years old. And the old man is having
anal sex with this boy.”
Rosenberg paused, gathered himself, and went on: “This boy was speared on
the man like an animal, like a pig, and the boy was saying nothing. But on his face—fear. The old
man [looked at me] without any fear, as if this was common practice. He didn’t stop. I was
so angry, I confronted him. He removed the boy from his penis, and I took the
boy aside. I told this man, ‘It’s a sin before God, a mishkovzucher.
What are you doing to this boy’s soul? You’re destroying this boy!’ He had a sponge on a stick to clean
his back, and he hit me across the face with it. ‘How dare you interrupt
me!’ he said. I had heard of these things for a long time, but now I had
the article entitled Anti-Abuse Rabbi Says He's in Danger (http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new_york/anti_abuse_rabbi_says_he's_danger), Rabbi Nuchum Rosenberg's life was again endangered for being a moser:
“Speaking at a press conference outside the 90th Precinct Police Headquarters in Williamsburg,
Rabbi Rosenberg complained that police were unable to protect him. He pointed
to . . .his forehead to indicate the spot where he was hit. . . Rabbi Rosenberg
said he was actually uncertain just what hit him on the forehead, saying it could have
been a pellet gun or even a rock. “A car flew by as I was walking, and I felt something hit me,”
he told The Jewish Week. “I didn’t see what it was.”
The ad by the 33 rabbis and others signed by the
“Meshmeris Ha’Tznius” denounced Rabbi Rosenberg as a moser, one who endangers a Jewish
community by informing on it to secular authorities.”
Rabbi Nuchum Rosenberg claimed that the threats culminated last month
when he was “shot” on Berry Street, near the Williamsburg Bridge by
New York Post article entitled Stoolie Is Dead to His Daddy says the following:
A lot of people might like to wring his neck, but the sleazy real-estate mogul who ratted out
everyone from politicians to rabbis in a massive corruption case is apparently
already as good as dead to his father.
Israel Dwek — the father of Solomon
“Shlomo” Dwek, who helped the feds nail three New Jersey mayors and
several rabbis in Brooklyn last week — plans to sit shiva for his son because he is so disgusted with his turning
on other Jews, reported the Web site PolitickerNJ.com.
Shiva is the traditional Jewish mourning period held after a family member
The father — citing “the
Talmudic Law of Moser that prohibits a Jew from informing on another Jew to a non-Jew” — renounced
his son from the pulpit at his synagogue in Deal, NJ, on Saturday, the site said.
Israel Dwek is a revered leader of the Sephardic
Jewish community in the wealthy enclave.
..........The Talmudic doctrine, Law of the Moser,
the belief that Gentiles, especially those who are dark-skinned are meant to be enslaved and other racist beliefs are
well-entrenched in Jewish consciousness. As long as the part of the Jewish community
that is employed by the Government Respondent practices its culture privately,
Gentiles will be tolerant of Jews' right to practice their culture. However, the line is clearly drawn
when U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ginsberg and Breyer voluntarily sponsor and attend the opening of
a Judaic institute that promulgates laws that defy the U.S. Constitution, are
racist, or worse, give the appearance of governmental acceptance by using the
U.S. Supreme Court's building to hold a ceremony for the National Institute for Judaic Law, a Jewish religious organization
that openly advocates the Talmud, and harsher judicial treatment to be meted out
against Gentiles. The encroachment of the racist Jewish religion violates the
Establishment Clause, the Free Speech Clause, the Petition Clause, the Due Process Clause
and the Equal Protection Clause of the First, Fifth and Fourteen Amendments. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor
Constitution-savvy Gentiles will tolerate being Jews' slaves because Michael J.
Broyde or some other publicly-exposed-as-dishonest expert of the Talmud received
tacit approval from Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan. Gentiles, as in the past, will
resort to any means necessary before they are forced to be slaves to the Jews and their unconstitutional,
religious and racist whims – including reporting the encroachment and enforcement
the racist Judaism to the United Nations Office of the High Commission for
Human Rights, something the Petitioner has already done.
Court's Jewish Justices and Respondents' Discrimination of Petitioner Because
of Her Race and Her Mental Health Status Violates Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Federal Rehabilitation Act, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and Is an Abrogation
of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
..........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.”
..........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.
..........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).
..........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.”
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601
Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted
“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.
..........This Court's Jewish Justice should recuse themselves because of their religious bias pursuant
to 28 USC §455 and §144.
..........In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that disqualification
is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about
the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and
impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added].
Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
..........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). 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.”
..........Our Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed
the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”,
Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing
Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).
..........“Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support
of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under
the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th
a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the
U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521.
..........F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir.
1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on
the Due Process Clause.”).
Petitioner's Request to Proceed in forma pauperis for Review of Her Allegations
of Respondents Constitutional and Human Rights Violations Satisfies the "Good
Faith” Requirement of Coppedge v. United States
..........According to Coppedge v. United States,
“The requirement that an appeal in forma pauperis be taken “in good faith” is satisfied
when the Respondent seeks appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous.
Pp. 369 U. S. 444-445.
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. If it is the practice of a Court of
Appeals to defer rulings on motions to dismiss paid appeals until the court has
had the benefit of hearing argument and considering briefs and an adequate
record, it must accord the same procedural rights to a person applying for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
P. 369 U. S. 448.”
..........As stated in Coppedge v. 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. Violation of Petitioner's
civil and human rights by the Government Respondents are serious issues. As a
private citizen with bipolar disorder, the Petitioner has the right to sue state
agencies who have abrogated by violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, leaving
states and their agencies with no ability to claim any form of immunity. Coppedge allows
in forma pauperis litigants to file suit for issues that are not
frivolous. Since Petitioner has satisfied Coppedge, this Court must allow
the Petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis.
upon the foregoing, this Court must dispense with the practice of Law of the Moser,
which is, in fact, the commission of misprision of felony. This Court must arrest
the following individuals for their commission of the following crimes: 1) misprision of
felony, racketeering/RICO, obstruction of justice, identity theft and aggravated identity theft; and those other
crimes that Petitioner has proven occurred. This Court must reverse the District
Court’s criminal dismissal of her Verified Complaint and remand the action
to an unbiased judge for a determination of those issue raised pertaining to Respondents' commission
of federal felonies and pertaining to Respondents' violation of Petitioner's civil and human
rights based on the U.S. Government's relationship as a signatory with the United
Nations since 1948.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Fax: (718) 235-1290
1 Artsot Ha-Hayyim, page 52a, 52b: “In 1992 a book was published by a leading member of
the Satmar community entitled Artsot Ha-Hayyim. On p. 52 he explains, and quotes
other rabbis, that the reason Abraham Lincoln was killed was because he freed
the blacks. this is also the reason why Kennedy was killed, i.e. because he was good to
the blacks. He continues by saying that this will be the fate of any who adopt a progressive attitude towards
blacks, because they are meant to be enslaved. His source for this is Ham's curse.”
Legends of the Jews - Ginsburg, Vol. 1, p. 169: “The descendants of Ham
through Canaan therefore have red eyes, because Ham looked upon the nakedness
of his father; they have misshapen lips, because Ham spoke with his lips to his brothers about the unseemly
condition of his father; they have twisted curly hair, because Ham turned and twisted
his head round to see the nakedness of his father; and they go about naked, because
Ham did not cover the nakedness of his father. Thus he was requited, for it is
the way of G-d to mete out punishment measure for measure.” (http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/lginzberg/bl-lginzberg-legends-1-4h.htm).
Rabbah (Soncino) Vol. 1, p. 293: “AND HE SAID: CURSED BE CANAAN (Breishit
9:25): (Commentary omitted)...R. Huna also said in R. Joseph's name: You [i.e.
Noah is speaking to Ham) have prevented me from doing something in the dark [i.e.
cohabiting with his wife], therefore your seed will be ugly and dark-skinned. R. Chiyya said: Ham and the dog
copulated in the Ark, therefore Ham came forth black-skinned while the dog publicly
exposed its copulation.”(http://www.annomundi.com/history/midrash_rabbah_genesis_xxxvi_7.htm)
2 Appellant's divorce is now a matter of New York State case law, Uzamere vs. Uzamere, 2009,
NY Slip Op 90214 [68 AD3d 855] such that Petitioner's ex-husband's identity is
a res judicata matter of law that no other court has a right to question. Mortimer
Zuckerman's use of the Daily New to question an appellate court's decision was racist
and wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court's Jewish Justices' refusal arrest him was wrong to the point of being criminal
and demonic. Any mention of Appellant's divorce are only to establish those torts
that arose during Appellant's litigation of her divorce action. Appellant respectfully
directs this Court's attention to Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992): “
. . . while it is not inconceivable that in certain circumstances the abstention principles developed in Burford
v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, might be relevant in a case involving elements
of the domestic relationship even when the parties do not seek divorce, alimony,
or child custody, such abstention is inappropriate here, where the status of the domestic
relationship has been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying
torts alleged. Pp. 15-16.” No amount of criminal, Jew-biased misapplication
of the aforementioned case will change how it was originally applied by the U.S.
Supreme Court; however, it will instigate a human rights complaint to the United Nations High Commission
for Human Rights, along with an uploading of appellate judges' criminal decision to Appellant's
website http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net and to the e-mails of as many world leaders and/or their attorneys as are willing to listen. 3 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. . .” 4 LifeNet suicide/mental health hotline was fraudulently contacted by Respondent U.S. Marshal
Service for the Eastern District of New York and told that Petitioner threatened
Respondent Nicholas with bodily harm and employees of the Center for Medicare
and Medicaid Service.
5 New York Wiretapping Law: New York's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law.
New York makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on an in-person or telephone
conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. Please visit web
page http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.html to hear Petitioner's conversation with Respondent Davis.
6 18 USC §2709(c): “If the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. . .certifies
that otherwise there may result a danger. . .to the life or physical safety or
any person, no wire or electronic communications service provider, or officer,
employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person. . .that the Federal Bureau of Investigation
has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section.”
7Federal Protection Service. This is a division of Respondent U.S. Department of Homeland Security.