*At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere, a
natural person, and mother of David P. Walker and Tara A. Uzamere, all of whom are victims of fraud,
identity theft, aggravated identity theft, other federal offenses and civil rights violations committed
by the Defendants, states the following under the penalties of perjury:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT *****Plaintiff respectfully requires that this Court, based on
the dangers faced by the Plaintiff and members of her race, combined with the apparent refusal of U.S. courts to justly address
both the ancient cause and continued abuse caused by the 1,000+ murderous stigma associated with the hatred of Africans, Plaintiff
must ensure that she receives justice by introducing the issue with which the United Nations is slightly aware, and provide
information to ensure that the United Nations becomes fully aware to that it can play its most important role -- publicizing
the cause and Afrophobia and working to making it internationally illegal as hate speech for which the only goal of said speech
is to cause obstruction of justice that allows non-Africans to be abused, raped, murdered, underpaid and brutalized based
on the ancient cause of Afrophobia. Report of the Working Group
of Experts on People of African Descent on its mission to the United States of America
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G16/183/30/PDF/G1618330.pdf?OpenElement
At the invitation of the Government
of the United States of America, the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent undertook a visit to the United
States from 19 to 29 January 2016. The members of the delegation were Mireille Fanon Mendès - France, Sabelo Gumedze
and Ricardo Sunga III. The Working Group visited Washington, D.C.; Baltimore, Maryland; Jackson, Mississippi;
Chicago, Illinois; and New York City. The Working Group met with representatives of several government departments and offices, including the Department
of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Health and
Human Services, the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Working Group
also met with officials of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in Washington, D.C. In Baltimore, the Working Group met with the Maryland federal
judges. In Jackson, the Working Group met with officials of the Office of the Mayor and the Office of the Attorney General
of the State of Mississippi. In Chicago, the Working Group met with the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and with
representatives of the Office of the Mayor of the City of Chicago and the Chicago Police Department. In New York City, the
Working Group met with the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York. The Working Group also met with officials
of the White House working on African American issues and with staff of the congressional black caucus and interacted with
a member of the United States Senate. In all the cities that the Working Group visited, it also met with hundreds of African
Americans from communities with a large population of people of African descent living in the suburbs, as well as with lawyers,
academics and representatives of non-governmental organizations.
Human Rights Violations
*****Plaintiff
respectfully informs this Court of her past and continuing attempt to file an international complaint with the United Nations.
Plaintiff's Verified Complaint has its basis in the Defendants' violation of the following international conventions:
*****Article
1: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CrimeOfGenocide.aspx:
Article
I *****The
Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international
law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
*****In
the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part,
a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing
serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent
births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. *****The following acts shall
be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to
commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.
PART I Article 1 *****1.
In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference
based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing
the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political,
economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. *****2. This Convention shall
not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens
and non-citizens. *****3. Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in
any way the legal provisions of States Parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization, provided that such
provisions do not discriminate against any particular nationality. *****4. Special measures taken
for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such
protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights
and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a
consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued
after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved. Article 2 1. States
Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating
racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races, and, to this end: (a) Each State Party
undertakes to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions
and to en sure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this
obligation; (b) Each State Party undertakes not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any persons or
organizations; (c) Each State Party shall take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies,
and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination
wherever it exists; (d) Each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropriate means, including
legislation as required by circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group or organization; (e) Each
State Party undertakes to encourage, where appropriate, integrationist multiracial organizations and movements and other
means of eliminating barriers between races, and to discourage anything which tends to strengthen racial division. 2.
States Parties shall, when the circumstances so warrant, take, in the social, economic, cultural and other fields, special
and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging
to them, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. These
measures shall in no case en tail as a con sequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial
groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved. Article 3 States
Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices
of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction. Article 4 States Parties
condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of
persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any
form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such
discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia: (a) Shall declare an offence punishable
by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well
as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin,
and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof; (b) Shall declare
illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial
discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;
(c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.
Article 5 In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2
of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to
guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before
the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights: (a) The right to equal treatment before the tribunals
and all other organs administering justice; (b) The right to security of person and protection by the State against
violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or institution; (c)
Political rights, in particular the right to participate in elections-to vote and to stand for election-on the basis of
universal and equal suffrage, to take part in the Government as well as in the conduct of public affairs at any level
and to have equal access to public service; (d) Other civil rights, in particular: (i) The right to freedom
of movement and residence within the border of the State; (ii) The right to leave any country, including one's own,
and to return to one's country; (iii) The right to nationality; (iv) The right to marriage and choice of spouse;
(v) The right to own property alone as well as in association with others; (vi) The right to inherit;
(vii) The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; (viii) The right to freedom of opinion and expression;
(ix) The right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; (e) Economic, social and cultural rights,
in particular: (i) The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work,
to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration; (ii) The right
to form and join trade unions; (iii) The right to housing; (iv) The right to public health, medical care,
social security and social services; (v) The right to education and training; (vi) The right to equal participation
in cultural activities; (f) The right of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public, such
as transport hotels, restaurants, cafes, theatres and parks. Article 6 States Parties
shall assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies, through the competent national tribunals
and other State institutions, against any acts of racial discrimination which violate his human rights and fundamental
freedoms contrary to this Convention, as well as the right to seek from such tribunals just and adequate reparation or
satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination. Article 7
States Parties undertake to adopt immediate and effective measures, particularly in the fields of teaching, education,
culture and information, with a view to combating prejudices which lead to racial discrimination and to promoting understanding,
tolerance and friendship among nations and racial or ethnical groups, as well as to propagating the purposes and principles
of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Declaration on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and this Convention. 2. This Convention shall not apply to distinctions,
exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens.
3. Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way the legal provisions of States Parties concerning
nationality, citizenship or naturalization, provided that such provisions do not discriminate against any particular nationality.
4. Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups
or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment
or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that
such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that
they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved. Article 2 1.
States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy
of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races, and, to this end: (a)
Each State Party undertakes to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons
or institutions and to en sure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity
with this obligation; (b) Each State Party undertakes not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any persons
or organizations; (c) Each State Party shall take effective measures to review governmental, national and local
policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating
racial discrimination wherever it exists; (d) Each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropriate
means, including legislation as required by circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group or organization;
(e) Each State Party undertakes to encourage, where appropriate, integrationist multiracial organizations and movements
and other means of eliminating barriers between races, and to discourage anything which tends to strengthen racial division. 2.
States Parties shall, when the circumstances so warrant, take, in the social, economic, cultural and other fields, special
and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging
to them, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. These
measures shall in no case en tail as a con sequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial
groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved. Article 3 States
Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices
of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction. Article 4 States Parties
condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of
persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any
form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such
discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia: (a) Shall declare an offence punishable
by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well
as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin,
and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof; (b) Shall declare
illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial
discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;
(c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.
Article 5 In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2
of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to
guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before
the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights: (a) The right to equal treatment before the tribunals
and all other organs administering justice; (b) The right to security of person and protection by the State against
violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or institution; (c)
Political rights, in particular the right to participate in elections-to vote and to stand for election-on the basis of
universal and equal suffrage, to take part in the Government as well as in the conduct of public affairs at any level
and to have equal access to public service; (d) Other civil rights, in particular: (i) The right to freedom
of movement and residence within the border of the State; (ii) The right to leave any country, including one's own,
and to return to one's country; (iii) The right to nationality; (iv) The right to marriage and choice of spouse;
(v) The right to own property alone as well as in association with others; (vi) The right to inherit;
(vii) The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; (viii) The right to freedom of opinion and expression;
(ix) The right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; (e) Economic, social and cultural rights,
in particular: (i) The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work,
to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration; (ii) The right
to form and join trade unions; (iii) The right to housing; (iv) The right to public health, medical care,
social security and social services; (v) The right to education and training; (vi) The right to equal participation
in cultural activities; (f) The right of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public, such
as transport hotels, restaurants, cafes, theatres and parks. Article 6 States Parties
shall assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies, through the competent national tribunals
and other State institutions, against any acts of racial discrimination which violate his human rights and fundamental
freedoms contrary to this Convention, as well as the right to seek from such tribunals just and adequate reparation or
satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination. Article 7 States Parties undertake to
adopt immediate and effective measures, particularly in the fields of teaching, education, culture and information, with
a view to combating prejudices which lead to racial discrimination and to promoting understanding, tolerance and friendship
among nations and racial or ethnical groups, as well as to propagating the purposes and principles of the Charter of the
United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination, and this Convention. *****Article
4: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx; *****Article
9: Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx); *****Article
11: Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child
pornography (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/OPSCCRC.aspx).
U.S. Constitutional Mandate
First Amendment
*****“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)
*****U.S. Supreme Court Case Law Regarding the Establishment Clause: “In
1947, the U.S. Supreme Court decision Everson v. Board of Education incorporated the Establishment Clause
(i.e., made it apply against the states). In the majority decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote: 'The “establishment
of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal
Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or
prefer one religion to another . . . in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against
establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State'
... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. In the
Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority,
concluded that “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.”
U.S. Supreme Court-Sponsored National Institute for Judaic Law/Babylonian Talmud-Influenced
Ashkenazi-Fomented Hatred of African Descent and Other Gentiles Violates Plaintiff's First Amendment
*****“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. The
Israeli Respondents enforced the Judaic doctrine Law of the Moser, a doctrine whose very intent is
to prevent the reporting of lawbreaking Israeli citizens to the secular authorities.
   
Fifth Amendment
*****“No person shall be . . .deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law. . .” Correctional Services Corporation, v. John E. Malesko 534 U. S. __ (2001),
page 5.
Talmud Violated Plaintiff's 5th Amendment Rights
******The
Defendants blocked Plaintiff's passage to go to court to prevent Plaintiff from filing criminal and
civil complaints against their lawbreaking Israeli friends.
Sixth Amendment
*****“In
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial
jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” See Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965)
*****U.S. Supreme Court Case Law
regarding the Notice Clause: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall
have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” In the case
United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611 (1881)”
Talmud Violates Plaintiff's 6th Amendment Rights
*****In Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, in which this
Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right to the assistance of counsel is obligatory upon the States,
we did so on the ground that 'a provision of
the Bill of Rights which is 'fundamental and essential to a fair trial' is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth
Amendment.'
Fourteenth Amendment
*****“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property , without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.” See Tennessee V. Lane (02-1667) 541 U.S. 509 (2004) 315 F.3d 680, affirmed.
Talmud Violates African-American Plaintiff's
14th 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. The Defendants used Plaintiff's mental
illness to disparage her criminal and civil complaints as untrue to prevent Plaintiff's complaints
against lawbreaking Israeli citizens from being believed.
FEDERAL STATUTES
Title II of the Americans With Disabilities
Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973
*****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 perpetuate 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.
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 plaintiff who lacked any alternative remedy for harms caused by an individual officers
unconstitutional conduct.” However, in the same case, the Court said: “Most recently, in FDIC v. Meyer, we unanimously
declined an invitation to extend Bivens to permit suit against a federal agency, even though . . .Congress had waived sovereign
immunity [and] was otherwise amenable to suit. 510 U. S., at 484, 486. Our opinion emphasized that the purpose of Bivens
is to deter the officer, not the agency. Id., at 485 (emphasis in original) (citing Carlson v. Green,
supra, at 21). We reasoned that if given the choice, plaintiffs would sue a federal agency instead
of an individual who could assert qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. To the extent aggrieved
parties had less incentive to bring a damages claim against individuals, the deterrent effects of the
Bivens remedy would be lost. 510 U.S. at 485. Accordingly, to allow a Bivens claim against federal
agencies would mean the evisceration of the Bivens remedy, rather than its extension. 510 U. S., at 485.”
42 USC §1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
42 USC §1985 - Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil
Rights
*****Federal courts recognize blacklisting as
a cause of action. In the lawsuit Castillo v. Spiliada Maritime Corporation MV, 937 F. 2d 240, the
United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated that “. . .Plaintiffs have offered
substantial evidence that they were coerced into agreeing to the settlements with threats that charges
would be filed against them with the POEA and that they would be blacklisted. As the threats of blacklisting
endangered the possibility of future employment in their established trade, Plaintiffs reasonably could have been intimidated
into settling.” In the lawsuit Duckworth v. Pratt & Whitney, Inc., 152 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998), the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit stated that “As both Duckworth and the Secretary of Labor persuasively argue,
the achievement of these objectives would be frustrated by adopting Pratt & Whitney's interpretation. That interpretation
would permit an employer to evade the Act by blacklisting employees who have used leave in the past or by refusing to
hire prospective employees if the employer suspects they might take advantage of the Act.” The
United States Court of Appeal's use of the term “leave” refers to medical leave. The United
States Court of Appeals use of the term “Act” refers to the Family and Medical Act of 1993.
In the case Davis v. Paul, et al, 505 F.2d 1180, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
circuit stated that “Few things are as fundamental to our legal system as the presumption of innocence
until overcome by proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a fair trial. The dissemination of the flier in the case
at bar is in the face of the presumption of innocence, disregards the Due Process Clause and is based
on evidence that is not probative of guilt. Condemning a man to a suspect class without a trial and
on a wholly impermissible standard, as in the case at bar, offends the very essence of the Due Process
Clause, i.e., protection of the individual against arbitrary action. Slochower v. Board of Education,
350 U.S. 551, 559, 76 S.Ct. 637, 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956); Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331, 351-352, 75
S.Ct. 790 (1955) (Douglas, J., concurring.) As said by Mr. Justice Black in his concurring opinion in Joint Anti-Fascist
Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 144-145, 71 S.Ct. 624, 634 (1951): 'Our basic law, however, wisely withheld
authority for resort to executive. . .condemnations and blacklists as a substitute for imposition
of legal types of penalties by courts following trial and conviction in accordance with procedural
safeguards of the Bill of Rights.'”
Commission
of RICO Crimes
*****“Racketeering
activity” means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery,
bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical
(as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law
and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions
of title 18, United States Code: (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents),
Section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant) . . .”
The Hobbs Act and Conspiracy
to Deprive Plaintiff and Gentile Constituents of Honest Services
*****“The requirement of a quid pro quo means that without pretense of
any entitlement to the payment, a public official violates §1951 if he intends the payor to believe
that absent payment the official is likely to abuse his office and his trust to the detriment and injury of the
prospective payor or to give the prospective payor less favorable treatment if the quid pro quo is not satisfied. The
official and the payor need not state the quid pro quo in express terms, for otherwise the law's effect
could be frustrated by knowing winks and nods. The inducement from the official is criminal if it
is express or if it is implied from his words and actions, so long as he intends it to be so and the
payor so interprets it.” Evan v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 1881, 504 U.S. 255, 119 L.Ed.2d
57.
18 USC §1951 -- Hobbs Act
Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence
*****“Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement
of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens
physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”
*****“The term “extortion”
means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual
or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.”
Fraud Upon the Court
*****“Whenever any
officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in fraud upon
the court. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud
upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties
or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. . . It is where the court or a member is . . . 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 affected.”
*****Fraud upon the court has been defined by the 7th Circuit
Court of Appeals to embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or
is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its
impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p.512, ¶ 60.23.
The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence
a decision at all, and never becomes final."
*****Fraud upon the court makes void the orders and judgments of that
court.
Right to Privacy
*****The Connecticut statute forbidding use
of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees
of the Bill of Rights. Pp. 381 U. S. 481-486. The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights
have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.
See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 367 U. S. 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create
zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one,
as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in
any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy.
The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination
Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender
to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Fourth
and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 630, as protection
against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." We
recently referred in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 367 U. S. 656, to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right
to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully an particularly reserved to the people."
See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup. Ct. Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be
Let Alone, 55 Nw. U.L. Rev. 216 (1960). . .NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U. S. 288, 377 U.S. 307. Would we
allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use
of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.”
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
*****According
to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996's Wrongful Disclosure of Individually
Identifiable Health Information, it says that: “(a) Offense – A person who knowingly and
in violation of this part -- (1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier; (2) obtains
individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or (3) discloses individually
identifiable health information to another person, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). (b) Penalties –
A person described in subsection (a) shall -- (1) be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more
than 1 year, or both; (2) if the offense is committed under false pretenses, be fined not more than
$100,000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; and (3) if the offense is committed with intent
to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal
gain, or malicious harm, be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”
See United States of America v. Huping Zhou, 2:08-cr-01356-AJW-1.
National
Security Letters
*****“The Director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant
Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated
by the Director, may: (1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing
records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic
communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service,
and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international
terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United
States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment
to the Constitution of the United States; and (2) request the name, address, and length of service
of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service
provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation
to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that
such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities
protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” in the stipulation
and order regarding the case Doe et al. v. Holder, et al it says: “3) Plaintiff John Doe is hereby
permitted to identify himself and his company as the recipient of the NSL that has been the subject of this litigation.
Plaintiffs ACLU and ACLU Foundation may publicly disclose this information as well. In addition,
the Government acknowledges that plaintiffs may discuss matters and information that have been filed
without redaction on the public docket in this case; 4) Plaintiffs are also permitted to publicly discuss
plaintiff Doe's personal background, background about his company, the services Doe generally provided
to his clients, and his type of clientele generally, including (a) the information that is redacted in
the public filing of the Third Declaration of John Doe, dated August 21, 2009, Paragraph 1; (b) the information that
is redacted in the public filing of the Second Declaration of John Doe, dated September 8, 2006,
Paragraph 4; and (c) the information that is redacted in the public filing of the Second Declaration
of John Doe, dated September 8, 2006, Paragraph 37. . . 6) Nothing in this Stipulation shall affect
plaintiff Doe's right and plaintiffs ACLU and ACLU Foundation's right, if any, to petition in the
future under 18 U.S.C. § 3511(b) ('or an order modifying or setting aside the nondisclosure requirement
imposed in connection with the NSL served on plaintiff Doe.” Doe, et al v. Holder, et al, 04 Civ. 2614
(VM).
*****On May 5, 2015, in the United States Circuit
Court for the Second Circuit, in the case American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties
Union Foundation, New York Civil Liberties Union, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, v. James
R. Clapper; case number #14-42, the following decision was rendered with regard to the issues regarding
the gathering of non-content information obtained from internet accounts and telephone accounts, which includes
federal district Nicholas Garaufis' authorizing Denis McGowan to obtain Plaintiff's non-content information
regarding her internet and telephone calls to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Center
for Medicare and Medicaid Services and associated falsified content information to non-content information
that was, according to 18 USC §2709 and 18 USC §3511 protected by Plaintiff's First Amendment's
free speech and her First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. *****For
the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court erred in ruling that §215 authorizes
the telephone metadata collection program, and instead hold that the telephone metadata program exceeds
the scope of what Congress has authorized and therefore violates § 215. Accordingly,
we VACATE the district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint and REMAND the case to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties
Union Foundation, New York Civil Liberties Union, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, v. James
R. Clapper; https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/clapper-ca2-opinion.pdf.
H.R. 40
Commission
to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act
(as
it concerns the African Holocaust/The Maafa)
*****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.”
Laws of Israel and the Detrimental Effect Has on Africans and the Descendants of African Slaves
*****The Laws of Israel, which have been forced on U.S. citizenry has had, and continues
to have a detrimental effect on Gentiles, but especially on Africans and the descendants of African slaves. The Ashkenazim continue to refusal to participate in or
allow the memorialization, publication for posterity and for historical purposes evidence of their direct and continued
involvement in the slander and libel of Africans and their Descendants. The Ashkenazim continue to refuse to admit their
past and continued involvement in the defamation of Africans and their Descendants, and they outrightly attack of individuals
who expose Ashkenazi Hatred and enslavement of Africans and the descendants, while making films and other electronic media
that portrays Gentiles as the originators of the enslavement of Africans and their descendants instead of the Ashkenazim,
whose religion has portrayed Africans and their descendants as "ugly and dark-skinned", liars, thieves and depraved."
*****Come and Hear, a website
that expounds on the Talmudic Laws of Israel, states and identifies the U.S. Supreme Court-backed
National Institute for Judaic Law and Israel’s right and responsibility to enforce the Talmudic
Law all over the world against all Gentiles:
*****Title: Death
Penalty and Talmud Law, Part 4: US v. Talmud Law
*****URL: http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_4.html
*****http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_4.html
*****In
Sentence and Execution (Part 1 of "Death Penalty and Talmud Law") we watched the US Supreme
Court create a precedent by accepting for consideration a brief based wholly on Talmud law (http://www.jlaw.com/Briefs/capital1.html;
http://www.jlaw.com/Briefs/capital2.html). We watched as Israeli and American legal experts recommended
that, on the issue of humanitarianism and the death penalty, that the US should use Talmud law as the
exemplar.
*****What
was missing from this presentation? The Orthodox Jewish advocates failed to mention that US and Talmud
law are fundamentally incompatible.
*****Over the cornice of the Supreme Court building are etched these words: Equal Justice Under
Law.
*****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.
*****Title:
Death Penalty and Talmud Law, Part 4: US v. Talmud Law
*****URL: http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_4.html
*****Version: August 12, 2010
*****While the United
States of America renounced and outlawed slavery with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, there
is no mechanism in Judaism that could vacate or cancel the Old Testament or Talmud slavery laws.
And they have not been canceled. Those laws are the Word of God.
*****The
Unrescinded 613 Commandments
*****http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/gentile.html
*****For any who have lingering doubts about the place of the Gentile in Judaism and
the New America, notice that Jewish leadership is actively promoting the highly discriminatory Noahide
Laws. (See America's New Government Church, which embody these core Judaic doctrines.
*****Co-existence?
*****What does the future hold? Can the
Jews ever co-exist with the rest of humanity? The answer is "yes," provided the rest of
humanity accepts the role designed for them by Jewish leadership. If Gentiles do not accept enslavement,
there will be conflict.
Come and Hear: Death Penalty and Talmud Law
US v. Talmud Law
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_4.html
In Sentence and Execution (Part 1 of "Death Penalty
and Talmud Law") we watched the US Supreme Court create a precedent by accepting for consideration
a brief based wholly on Talmud law. We watched as Israeli and American legal experts recommended that,
on the issue of humanitarianism and the death penalty, that the US should use Talmud law as the exemplar.
What was missing from this presentation? The Orthodox Israeli advocates failed to mention that
US and Talmud law are fundamentally incompatible.
Over the cornice of the Supreme Court building
are etched these words: Equal Justice Under Law.
In contrast, Talmud law insists on unequal
justice under law. Talmudic law holds there is one law for Israeli citizens, and one for Gentiles. This is not
inconsistent with the Old Testament, in which LORD God decrees that Israeli citizens should not enslave other
Israeli citizens: Gentiles are the proper slaves of Jews.
US 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.
Coming from Where We've Never Been
The Israeli
Week explains more of the NIJL project. In the following paragraph, macher is a Yiddish word meaning
"big shot," a person with access to authorities.
According to Gurary, the group,
which has hired two researchers to compile reports, will focus initially on the issue of business ethics.
Eventually, the goal is to compile a library and database in Washington that will offer Israeli law
insights into a host of contemporary issues and to help create courses on the subject at law schools nationwide.
Report: Netanyahu Promises Talmud Will Be Israeli Law
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/180440#.Vl1a6r_HmAo
Netanyahu also promised that "we will define in the law the Gemara as a basis for the Israeli legal system,"
referencing the Israeli legal text analyzing the Mishnah, a legal work of the Israeli sages, which
together form the Talmud.
Law of the Moser; Israeli citizens Must Not Report Crimes of Fellow Israeli citizens
to Secular Law Enforcement Authorities
“. . .the Talmud recounts - in a number of places - that it is prohibited
to inform on Israeli citizens 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.
Inferiority of Sub-Saharan
Africans and Their Descendants:
Artsot Ha-Hayyim, pages 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.
The Legends of Ham/Canaan - 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."
Midrash 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.
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin (Soncino), p. 745, 108b: "Our
Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished - the dog, the raven and Ham.
The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his mate's mouth], and Ham was
smitten in his skin." (This is footnoted and the footnote reads: "i.e., from him was descended
Cush (the negro), who is black-skinned."
Plan to Force Judaism on United States Government and
the World
“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 . . .” (http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html).
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 Israeli
citizens, and one for Gentiles. This is not inconsistent with the Old Testament, in which LORD God
decrees that Israeli citizens should not enslave other Israeli citizens: Gentiles are the proper
slaves of Israeli citizens. . .Gentiles are easy to convict. . .(http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_4.html)
Israeli citizens' Talmudic Right to Deceive Gentiles
"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."
The
Israeli Encyclopedia states (See Exhibit 269): "The Mishnah … declares that if a Gentile sued an Israelite,
the verdict is for the defendant [the Jew]; If the Israelite is the plaintiff, he obtains full damages."
Right to Wage War, Kill Gentiles with Impunity
On murder of Gentiles (Exhibit 57);
also http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_57.html: "For murder, whether
of a Cuthean by a Cuthean or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred: but of a Cuthean
by an Israelite, there is no death penalty."
Rabbi Simon ben Yohai's edict is: "The best among the
Gentiles deserves to be killed."
In Judaism Non-Israeli citizens — No
Property Rights
"Is it
permitted to take from a Gentile?" the owner asked. Ashi's evasive answer is given with the explanation that:
"In truth Ashi coincided with the opinion of the authority stated above: namely, that …
Gentile … property is considered public property, like unclaimed land in the desert."
(See Exhibit 270)
The Talmudic authority
which holds that Gentile property is like unclaimed land in the desert is the Talmud Book of Baba Bathra,
Folio 54b, there cited. The passage actually appears on page 222 of the Soncino edition: "Rab
Judah said in the name of Samuel: The property of a heathen is on the same footing as desert land;
whoever first occupies it acquires ownership."
Death
Sentence Endorsed Against Christians Today
“The Noahide Laws promise deadly consequences for Christians. . . (http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html).
One of the requirements needed to make the claim of "war
crimes" is "Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights
and actions of the nationals of the hostile party." The other is "committing outrages upon
personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." How does this Court view Defendants'
use of the internet to publicly scorn the Plaintiff as having committed the "crime" of being
mentally unfit, and rendering any complaint renders against any Israel citizen not believable.
The Talmudic Laws of Israel have always had
a deleterious effect on anyone who is not Israeli-Israeli, especially individuals who are perceived to be sub-Saharan
Africans. Whether it be sub-Saharan Africans, individuals referred to as "illegal aliens",
the Thai workers in Israel or Russian, Slavic and other ladies of Europe, Israeli citizens have NEVER
treated Gentiles in accord with secular laws. While they have convinced people that Israel belongs
to them because of some covenant/contractual relationship with Jehovah God, they have instead disobey
they God they claim to serve and treated Gentiles in a manner that one treats toilet paper. Everywhere
Israeli citizens go, Gentiles die or suffer some form of being used and discarded. The Talmud's view of Gentiles is
wasteful of human life, something that the God of the Torah Pentateuch, Jehovah, does not support.
Please review the following Talmudic Laws
of Israel. You will see how Judaic laws have contributed to the increase of murders, rapes, war deaths -- both
U.S. soldiers and the death of those against whom U.S. military is at war, judicial corruption, human trafficking
and loss of justice in settings where Gentiles have locked horns with Israeli litigants, biased Israeli
judges and obsequious Gentile judges who supplant the U.S. Constitution with the Laws of Israel.
*****Israeli citizens
in U.S. Government Positions Violate U.S. Laws Regarding Treason, Seditious Conspiracy, Misprision of Treason,
Misprision of Felony and Aggravated Identity Theft/Fraud and Defy 42 USC §1986 by Treating Plaintiff's
Complaint Indifferently Based on Libelous Claims that Plaintiff is Mentally Unfit and that Israel-Controlled
Court Discounts the Veracity of Truth When the Plaintiff is Mental Illness, Constituting Defendants'
Act of War by Deception, a Crime against Humanity and a Violation of Plaintiff's Human Rights
*****The Daily New published a story
concerning Israeli attorney and former New York State Chief judge Sol Wachtler. Sol Wachtler was convicted
of blackmailing wealthy Israeli socialite Joy Silverman. Sometime after his release from prison,
the Jew-controlled State of New York reinstated Sol Wachtler's law license. On no occasion did Mortimer
Zuckerman of the Daily News or anyone from the State of New York question his mental health status,
in spite of his erratic behavior in the Joy Silverman fiasco. His mental competence was automatically accepted
as fact by the racist Jew-controlled State of New York.
*****While the Daily News, under the care and control
of racist Jew Mortimer Zuckerman, however, did not malign Sol Wachtler with regard to his having
bipolar disorder, not only did it lambasted the Plaintiff as “wacko” and “mentally unfit, but implied
that both the Plaintiff and child of the marriage Tara A. Uzamere were liars or “wackos”
for holding that Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was Plaintiff's husband and is Tara's father, a fact
that was decided by NYS Justices Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Matthew D'Emic and NYS Appellate Judges Fisher,
J.P., Angiolillo, Lott and Sgroi.
*****The
same racist Jew-controlled New York State government still refuses to reinstate
African-American attorneys Cecil Vernon Mason and Alton Maddox. This racist Israeli attitude
is consistent with Israeli literature that teaches that blacks are meant to be slaves to Israel and
her citizenry.
*****In
the U.S. Supreme Court case United States vs. Georgia, et al, quoting verbatim: “Goodman, Plaintiff
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 USC §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,
Plaintiff 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.”
Purpose of Plaintiff's Action
*****By this action, Plaintiff seeks
to put an end to Defendants' commission of the following: 18 USC §2381, treason; 18 USC §2382,
misprision of treason; seditious conspiracy, 18 USC §2385; misprision of felony, 18 USC §4;
fraud, 18 USC §1001; identity theft, 18 USC §1028; aggravated identity fraud, 18 USC §1028A;
deprivation of rights under color of law (including being kidnapped, unlawfully imprisoned and blacklisted),
18 USC §242/42 USC §1985; extortion, 18 USC §872§, blackmail, 18 USC §873;
violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act; violation of the Federal Rehabilitation Act
of 1973; violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601; violation of the Free Speech Clause of
the First Amendment; violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the
Petition Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments; violation of the Notice Clause of the Sixth Amendment; violation of the Assistance of
Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment; violation of Plaintiff's right of privacy with regard to the
illegal dissemination of her psychiatric records, Plaintiff marriage history, Plaintiff married name, and the non-content
information associated with Plaintiff's internet and telephone accounts; violation of the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, intentional misuse of national security letters (NSLs) and violation
of the Hobbs Act.
*****Furthermore,
Plaintiff's also seeks to put to an end the Israel-controlled media's acts of war by deception of
Israel as a friend of the United States and of Gentiles when the Talmud-based Law of Israel preaches
pure hate toward and enslavement of Gentiles; hate toward and enslavement of sub-Saharan Africans;
the Israeli-controlled media's acts of treason by employing the Law of Israel's Law of the Moser to
refuse to allow Plaintiff to expose the crimes committed against her and her children by Israeli Mortimer
Zuckerman; and by refusing to allow Plaintiff to expose Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security knowledge
of the correct identity, and has been in possession of the identification documents for Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere for well over thirty (30) years. Defendant the United States of America, along
with the rest of the Defendants, owed Plaintiff and her children the duty to use the aforementioned
documentation regarding Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity to protect Plaintiff and her children
from being victims of fraud, immigration fraud, aggravated identity theft and victims of Plaintiff's inability
to obtain spousal and children support based on Plaintiff and her daughter having the legal right to bear
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's correct name. However, rather than comply with the law, the Defendants,
in particular, the Israeli Defendants, engaged in a course of conduct that violated Plaintiff rights
and the rights of her daughter, Tara, for the sole purpose of preventing Plaintiff from filing complaints
against hateful, racist, dishonest, Israeli immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and
Jack Gladstein. Defendants' criminal conduct deprived them then, and continues to deprive Plaintiff and
her family of the right to bear Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere correct African name, and continues to condemn Plaintiff
and her family to the same deprivation of the knowledge of African bloodline indicators that racist
Israeli citizens forced upon Plaintiff's African ancestors.
Factual Events On Which Lawsuit Is Based
*****Please refer to http://thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/verified_complaint_to_intl_criminal_court_and_united_nations.html
for all exhibits.
*****In
December, 1977, approximately two (2) years before the Plaintiff met Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere,
Nosayaba (John) Uzamere and his wife Ethel Uzamere (Defendant Uzamere's brother and sister-in-law,
not his father and stepmother) filed for IR2 residence for Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. The IR2 visa for Defendant
Uzamere was approved on January 28, 1980.
*****On November 20, 1979, the Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere visited Defendant City of New York's City Clerk's marriage department and filled out the marriage affidavit
form with the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” and the fictitious birthday “XXXXXX
XX, 19XX” without providing his current passport to verify his age and identity. Defendant City
Clerk Joseph Visceglia verified the identification Plaintiff presented to him; however, at the clandestine
behest of Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Defendant Visceglia,
made no attempt to obtain Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's passport. While Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere wrote the fictitious name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” on the marriage affidavit form,
he inadvertently signed the form with his real name Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.
*****On November 21, 1979, the Plaintiff
unwittingly entered into a “green card” marriage with Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
under the fictitious named “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere, and under the fictitious birthday “XXXXXX XX, 19XX.”
On or after November 30, 1979, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Defendants Allen E. Kaye and Harvey
Shapiro, Esq. engaged in an act of aggravated identity theft and immigration fraud by giving the
Plaintiff form I-130 to sign so as to sponsor the Defendant for IR1 residence under the fictitious
name “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” and fictitious birthday “XXXXXX XX, 19XX” without
requiring their client to produce his current passport.
*****In December, 1979, Defendant Uzamere left for Nigeria,
abandoning the Plaintiff and leaving her poor and pregnant with his daughter Tara A. Uzamere. On January
28, 1980, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere entered the port of New York as a lawful permanent resident.
The aforementioned attorneys exacerbated their act of aggravated identity theft by refusing to require Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to produce his passport to establish proof of his identity, and by engaging
in willful blindness by pretending not to have knowledge of the existence of Senator Uzamere's passport
or of knowledge that Senator Uzamere previously applied under his correct name as an unmarried beneficiary
under 21 years of age. At the time of Plaintiff's signing the fraudulent I-130 relative sponsorship
form, Plaintiff did not know that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere had applied and been found eligible
for permanent residence under his real name via sponsorship by Nosayaba Uzamere and Ethel Uzamere. See report prepared
by Defendant Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service attached as Exhibit
A.
*****On
November 5, 2002, at the behest of Israeli-Americans U.S. Supreme Court’s justices Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, Rabbi Noson Gurry 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.
“Under
circumstances that are not explained, Justice Scalia developed a correspondence with Rabbi Noson Gurary
(a disciple of the late Rabbi Schneerson). During this exchange, Scalia mentioned his "fascination
with Israeli law." That prompted Rabbi Garary to found the National Institute for Judaic Law
(NIJL). (45) The Institute promotes courses on Talmud-based law in American law schools and otherwise injects
Talmud-based law into American society.
The founding of NIJL was celebrated by a gala kosher dinner on November
5, 2002. Justice Scalia and two other Supreme Court judges were among 200 dinner guests. Where was
the dinner held? In the Supreme Court building.
*****Site of Kosher Banquet
*****This
remarkable event was not reported contemporaneously by either The Washington Post or The Washington
Times. Missing from The Jerusalem Post coverage was the role Scalia may have played in securing the
use of the Supreme Court building as a banquet hall for Rabbi Gurary.
Why a devout Catholic like Justice Scalia would
promote Talmud-based law is not clear. The Talmud classifies Christians as idolaters, and the Noahide
regulations require that idolaters — devout Catholics, for example, people exactly like Justice
Scalia — be put to death. Could it be that Rabbi Gurary did not tell Justice Scalia about the
Noahide provisions to execute people like Scalia?”
*****For the sakes
of helping this honorable Court understand the level of traitorous involvement exists with Israeli-American
attorneys and Israel, the Plaintiff begs this Court to review the following information:
Mr. Lewin was president of the American Section of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers
and Jurists from 1992 to 1997. Between 1982 and 1984 he served as President of the Jewish Community
Council of Greater Washington, which speaks for approximately 220 Jewish organizations and synagogues
in the Greater Washington area.
*****Her clients include individuals
and corporations under investigation by the Department of Justice, individuals who have been denied a security
clearance, and government employees who are the subject of inquiries relating to their official duties.
In addition, together with her father, Ms. Lewin represents (and has represented) a host of individuals
and organizations including:
Menachem Zivotofsky and his parents who seek the enforcement
of a Congressional statute which provides that Menachem (who was born in Jerusalem) may list his place
of birth on his U.S. passport as “Israel.” The United States Supreme Court heard oral
argument on the Zivotofsky case on November 7, 2011
Sholom Rubashkin – the manager of Agriprocessors,
once the largest kosher meat-packaging plant in the United States. Lewin & Lewin handled Rubashkin’s
appeal to the 8th Circuit and will be filing a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Agudas Chasidei Chabad (the umbrella organization for the international Chabad-Lubavitch movement)
in its efforts to obtain release from Russia and control over the library held by the Fifth Rebbe
and an archive of manuscripts unlawfully seized by the Soviet army after World War II.
The
Boim family in its landmark civil tort litigation which established the right of American victims of terror
to obtain damages under American law against organizations that knowingly provide financial support to international
terrorist groups.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (“AIPAC”) in
a federal criminal investigation and prosecution of two AIPAC employees charged with unlawfully disclosing
classified information.
The Bigio family in its lawsuit against Coca-Cola for its exploitation
and trespass on property in Egypt that was illegally confiscated from the family by the Nasser government
because the family is Jewish ( ).
Prior to establishing Lewin & Lewin in May 2002,
Ms. Lewin worked at Wilmer Cutler and Pickering (now Wilmer Hale) and at Miller Cassidy Larroca and Lewin. Ms. Lewin
began her law career in Israel where she clerked on the Supreme Court for Deputy President Justice Menachem
Elon.
In December 2011, Ms. Lewin was elected President of the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists
(“AAJLJ”). In January 2012, Ms. Lewin was named by the Washington Jewish Week as one of
D.C.’s “Ten Most Interesting Jews.”
Ms. Lewin served on the Board of Directors of the Jewish
Community Council of Greater Washington from 2001-2007. She served on the Board of Directors of the
Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia from 2001-2004.
Ms. Lewin is admitted to practice in
the District of Columbia, in New York, and in the Supreme Court of the United States. She received
her B.A. from Princeton University in 1988 and a J.D. from New York University School of Law in 1992. She is
married to Eliezer M. Halbfinger and has four children.
Death Penalty and Talmud Law
Sentence
and Execution
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_1.html
*****On or
around October 1, 2003, Jack Gladstein engaged in an act of racketeering, and aggravated identity theft
by mailing to the Plaintiff correspondence falsely holding Plaintiff's ex-husband out to be “Godwin
Uzamere” even though the only correct identification that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Service holds is for Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, not “Godwin Uzamere.”
*****On
or September 25, 2008, after Plaintiff had engaged in a series of leaving angry telephone calls on
Defendant McCarthy's voice mail based on Plaintiff's perception that Defendant McCarthy had engaged in
racketeering designed to nullify Plaintiff's complaint against Defendant Kaye and Defendant Shapiro, Defendant McCarthy
engaged in an act of racketeering and fraud by engaging the U.S. Attorney's Office for Vermont to
say that “In or about September 2008, in the District of Vermont, the defendant, Cheryl Uzamere,
impeded, intimidated, and interfered with a federal employee, namely an employee of the United States
Customs and Immigration Service, while that person was engaged in and on account of that person's
performance of official duties.” Plaintiff emphatically states that she has never been to Vermont, Defendant
McCarthy's state of resident, so that it was impossible for Plaintiff to have engaged in any form of simple
assault against Defendant McCarthy. See documentation regarding USA v. Uzamere, 1:08-cr-114-1 attached
as Exhibit B.
*****On or around October 8, 2008, Defendant Eugene
Uzamere, engaged in an act of racketeering, aggravated identity theft, violation of Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by hand-delivering
a fraudulent affirmation and a fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized counter-affidavit from Nigeria which stated
that “The plaintiff who has openly professed her mental illness is also delusional and outlandish
in her claims”; and “I have before now, ignored the Plaintiff's outburst but her claim
to be married to my cousin who was not in the United States at the time of our marriage is a new twist
to this sad tale. . .Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level
which should not be encouraged” in defiance of the administrative decision rendered by the INS regarding
Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity. Defendant Osato Uzamere also gave Defendant Sunshine a copy of a Nigerian
passport bearing the number A05588053, but no name; and a copy of a social security card receipt
with the number XXX-XX-1205, with the name and address “Godwin E. Uzamere, 239 Clifton Avenue,
Apt. 3, Brooklyn, New York, 11216.” The unnamed passport copies and the social security receipt
were notarized by “Kate Ezomo, Principal Registrar, Commissioner for Oaths”, in Nigeria.
Justice Sunshine refused to commission a diplomatic or consular officer for the purpose of determining the genuineness
of the fraudulent foreign document that was presented to him by attorney Osato Uzamere on behalf of
his uncle, Plaintiff's ex-husband Nigerian senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. From then until the present,
Justice Sunshine has never made any attempt to arrest Osato Uzamere for committing perjury. See fraudulent
affirmation and fraudulent foreign counter-affidavit Exhibit C. During the same month, Defendant McCarthy
and Defendant Cowles gave Plaintiff's criminal attorney Beth Mann a copy of the I-130 immigration
sponsorship form that Plaintiff signed on November 30, 1979 and a report explaining the two (2) immigration
files having birthdays “XXXXXX XX, 19XX” and XXXXXX XX, 19XX. and explaining “IR2 fraudulently
obtained because he was married at the time” and “Compare fingerprints between the two
files.” *****On or around January 6, 2009, Plaintiff received
a notice from Defendant McCarthy in which she said that “This office has completed its review
of the complaint of professional misconduct that you filed against Allen E. Kaye, Esquire. The matter
is confidential at this stage in accordance with the Rules and Procedures of Professional Conduct for Practitioners
(“Rules”), except for necessary disclosures in the course of conducting a preliminary
inquiry. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has authority to conduct
a preliminary inquiry of complaints of criminal, unethical, or unprofessional conduct in matters before
USCIS. In your June 9, 2008 complaint, you allege that Alan E. Kaye “colluded with my husband,
the now Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to submit a marriage certificate with the fictitious name "Godwin Uzamere:
in order to avoid paying child support. and three years later, in order to hide the 2nd marriage that
my husband contracted in the United States.” The acts that you allege constitute a violation
of theBabylonian Talmud-Influenced,
Ashkenazi-Fomented Hatred of Plaintiff Continues
What effect did the events have on the life of the victim and others
around him/her?
Describe physical or mental
injury, emotional suffering, harm to reputation, economic loss and/or damage to property or any other
kind of harm *****The plaintiff continues
to suffer Judaic/Talmud-oriented defamation of the plaintiff, and being blacklisted from federally-funded,
not-for-profit mental health facilities that are controlled by Israeli citizens. Social stagnation
based on hatred from members of Israeli community; continued inability to file criminal complaints
against Israeli lawbreakers because of the Law of the Moser Doctrine; publicly identified as anti-Semite
(which, in and of itself does not bother me because I am), but the publicity, along with my inability to prove
that the term “anti-Semitism” is related, not to my feelings, but to the Israeli citizens projecting
their hatred of Gentiles onto the Plaintiff. TheSergeant001: (8:58 AM) Damn, njide chukwumezie You're an ugly
Son of A bitch! I down Loaded your picture, will posted on the wall of my barn to scare off the rats!
Ha Ha Ha LMAO TheSergeant001: (8:59
AM) Ha Ha Ha I took a closer look at your picture, Damn you are an ugly bitch!
But what Eugene failed to disclose to pointblanknews.com
included whether his elder brother and the lady in question were ever married; if the distinguished
senator abandoned his wife and daughter as Cheryl claims, and if indeed he has been paying child
support. There are many instances of gang-stalking and
cyberstalking. Use search term “Cheryl D. Uzamere. Website: http://www.google.com/#q=cheryl+uzamere
"Wacko goes into fit in court starts screaming, ripping off clothes “Cheryl Uzamere, 50, known around
courthouse circles for her anti-Semitic screeds, was declared mentally unfit and taken to Bellevue
Hospital for observation”; and, that “she's a smart person and she really know how to use
the system, said one courthouse source.she comes in here and files all these papers and threatens people. Uzamere
was in a Criminal Court holding cell when she started stripping and screaming about her “senator”
husband in Nigeria loud enough to be heard in the courtroom. The senator, however, is a cousin of
her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to an affidavit he filed in Supreme Court. . .”;
and that “the senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according
to affidavit filed in Supreme Court”; and “Her obsession with his destruction has taken
her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged, Godwin Uzamere said. . .”
A woman in a muddled divorce case against a Nigerian senator
was arrested and sent to psychiatric evaluation after she threatened
the life of the Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge overseeing divorce proceedings.Officials said that Cheryl
Uzamere allegedly called the Inspector General’s office of New York County and threatened to “put
on a disguise and shoot Judge Jeffrey Sunshine in the head” according to the New York Law Journal,
which first broke the story.Uzamere, who has detailed her litigation woes on her website http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.com/, is also accused of leaving 10 threatening voice mails and sending three frightening faxes to Judge Sunshine’s
chambers, officials said.Uzamere surrendered to authorities on November 3.On her website, she accuses
Judge Sunshine of “adjourning divorce action nine times for no-show defendant; denied child
support; accepted fraudulent, unauthenticated foreign counter-affidavits and rendering falsified decisions
in favor of no-show defendant and no-show defendant’s immigration attorneys.”There are
five other judges listed with Sunshine on the “Hall of Shame” section of Uzamere’s
website. All of her comments stem from her bitter divorce and custody battle with Nigerian Senator Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere, who reportedly didn’t come back to the U.S. to attend any of the court proceedings.
"Mrs. Uzamere should've read the fine print. In Uzamere
v. Bush, et al., Cheryl D. Uzamere alleged that her "American" husband Ehigie Edobor
a.k.a. "Goodwin" Uzamere was a ringleader in a green card scam marriage. After filing her
complaint with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Office in 1980 Mrs. Uzamere pursued
her allegations in the Federal Court system. She claims that her husband, Mr. Uzamere tricked her into signing his immigration
paperwork and ultimately abandoned her and their daughter. She claims that she had no idea his name
was fictitious, that he was not a United States citizen and that he had obtained entrance into the United States
illegally. She claims that Mr. Uzamere, a Nigerian Senator, and his immigration attorneys created
this scheme to outsmart someone that had no knowledge of the law or his true origin.
I
was beginning to feel sorry for the woman, but then the case took a unusual turn:The funny part
of this case is that in addition to suing the husband and his attorneys she is also going after
New York State (yes, the entire state), New York State Grievance Committee for the 2nd and 11th Departments, City of
New York (yes, the entire city), New York City Police Department, New York City Human Resources Administration
/ Department of Social Services, Google Corporation (yes, the entire Google) and YouTube Corporation
(same here), Condoleeza Rice(what did she do?), Michael Chertoff, Julie Myers, The United States
Of America (ok, wow), United States Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security,
United States Department of Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement. Why? Because she thinks that they should have known that he was lying. She believes that they
should have discovered the fraud and uncovered the truth. See the remainder of the complaint here.
There is no surprise that Mrs.
Uzamere's complaint was dismissed for not stating a claim as to the Federal government defendants
and for having a frivolous cause. But it sure was entertaining!" Website: http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/fegs_conspiracy.html.
Private psychiatric facilities are owned by Israeli citizens; Plaintiff
blacklisted from using them based on being anti-Semitic.
Statement from Diagnostic Report: “Client
remains incarcerated at this time and given client's history of anti-Semitic remarks treatment at
a FEGS facility is inappropriate for her.”
Website: http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/uzamere_v_usa.html
Affidavit of Child of the Marriage Tara A. Uzamere, Holding Senator Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere to Be Her Father. *****I,
Tara A. Uzamere, being duly sworn, depose and say that: I am the daughter of the Plaintiff and the
Defendant in the above entitled action. I make this Affidavit based on the following facts:
*****That
the Plaintiff has always told me that Defendant is my father since I was a child.That I met the
Defendant for the first time at JFK Airport in Jamaica, New York around the year 2004 to the best of my recollection.
*****That
I took a photograph of the Defendant during the aforesaid visit; photograph taken at JFK Airport is
hereby attached as Exhibit A. *****That on the day that I first met the Defendant at JFK Airport, I called
my friend Eusi Patterson on the cell phone that I used to take a photograph of the Defendant.
*****That
on the aforesaid day the Defendant openly and notoriously introduced himself to Eusi as my father.
*****That
while I was a resident in Freeport, New York, I experienced a car accident, and that George Uzamere and the Defendant
openly and notoriously sent checks to pay the rest of my car note to Drive Financial, a financing
company based in Dallas, Texas.
Our records
show that you placed calls to 1-800-MEDICARE 1-800-MEDICARE FREE
on the dates and times listed below (all times Central). We can confirm that none of these calls contained
threatening comments: June 14,2010, 10:38 AM; June 1,2011, 7:39 AM; July 8, 2011, 12:56 PM; May
18, 2012, 11:17 AM, 1:29 PM, 3:51 PM; July 2, 2012, 10:47 AM; July 10, 2012, 2:24 PM; July 17, 2012,
1:09 PM; July 18, 2012, 11:14 AM; July 19, 2012, 5:02 PM; July 23, 2012, 2:51 PM; July 24, 2012,
5:21 PM, 5:43 PM, 5:47 PM, 6:05 PM, 9:56 PM; July 26, 2012, 9:39 PM; July 27, 2012, 5:48 PM; September
9, 2012, 4:39 PM; October 18, 2012, 2:26 PM; November 16, 2012 7:38 PM; November 26, 2012, 1:46 PM; December 12,
2012, 11:13 AM; December 13, 2012, 4:29 AM, 5:05 PM, 5:09 PM. On or around August 18, 2011, Defendant New York City Health
and Hospitals Corporation's East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center's Assertive Community Treatment
Team received correspondence from U.S. Department of Homeland Security on its original letterhead bearing the name
“Denis P. McGowan, Chief, Threat Management Branch.” The letter stated:
“On July 06, 2011, Federal Protective Service (FPS) was
notified of a telephonic threat made by CHERYL UZAMERE to the Centers for Medicare & Medi-caid
call center. The threat consisted of HER stating: since SHE did not get the job, SHE was going to
“COME DOWN THERE AND KILL EVERYBODY. Since FPS has investigated UZAMERE multiple times for similar
behavior, we are well aware of HER mental health history. Based on that information, a referral was made
to LifeNet for mental health intervention on July 07 2011. Subsequently, UZAMERE's Intensive Case Manager (ICM)
Bridgett Davis of the New York State Office of Mental Health has advised that UZAMERE's treatment
has been transferred to the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program. We were informed that CHERYL
D. UZAMERE is being treated as a patient by your program and we would like to keep you abreast of
this situation as it evolves. We also request that we be notified as HER status changes in particular
any change from in-patient to out-patient treatment and in the case of the latter any refusal of treatment.
In addition, please notify FPS of any relapses or deterioration of HER condition that may pose a risk to
life or property.” *****Plaintiff
alleges that the level of oppression by members of the Israeli community is so bad that her ability
to go back to work, to make money, to develop a social reputation have all been ruined because of
the Israeli community's determination enforce Law of the Moser to stop plaintiff from filing complaints
against lawbreaking Israeli citizens. ***** Abagond
*****https://abagond.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/unarmed-black-americans-killed-by-police-in-2015/
*****Unarmed Black Americans killed by police in 2015
*****Tue
11 Aug 2015 by abagond
*****Killed so far this year: 68
*****Last update: November 26th 2015.
*****Here
is a somewhat complete list of unarmed Black people killed by police in the U.S. in 2015. So far.
*****Unarmed Black Americans are five times more likely to be
killed by police than unarmed White Americans. Unarmed Native Americans too are killed by police at
about the same rate as Blacks. Everyone else is killed at a way lower rate, even Latinos. | Unarmed African-American Men Who Were Killed by Police in 2015 | | Date
Killed | Name of Victim |
Age
| Town and City | Cause of Death
| | 1. Jan. 1, 2015 | Matthew Ajibade
| 22 | Savannah GA | Death in Custody | | | Frank Smart | 39
| Pittsburgh
PA | Death in custody | | | Brian Pickett | 26
| Los Angeles CA | Taser
| | |
Andre Murphy
Sr | 42 | Norfolk NE | Death
in custody | | | Artago Howard | 36 | Strong
AR | Gunshot | | | Alvin Haynes
| 57
| San Francisco
CA | Death in custody | | | Natasha McKenna
| 37 | Fairfax VA | Taser
| | | Jeremy Lett
| 28
| Tallahassee FL | Gunshot
| |
| Terry Price
| 41
| Tulsa OK
| Taser | |
| Calvon Reid | 39
| Coconut
Creek FL | Taser | | | Thomas Allen Jr
| 34
| St
Louis MO | Gunshot | | | Charly ‘Africa’ Keunang
| 43
| Los Angeles CA | Gunshot
| |
| Darrell ‘Hubbard’
Gatewood | 47 | Oklahoma City OK
| Taser | | | Tony Robinson | 19
| Madison
WI | Gunshot | | | Naeschylus Vinzant
| 37 | Aurora CO | Gunshot
| | | Bernard Moore
| 62
| Atlanta GA | Struck by vehicle
| | |
Anthony Hill
| 27
| Chamblee
GA | Gunshot | | | Terrance Moxley | 29
| Mansfield OH | Taser
| |
| Jonathan Paul
| 42
| Arlington
TX | Death in custody | | | Askari Roberts
| 35 | Rome GA | Taser
| | | Brandon Jones
| 18
| Cleveland OH | Gunshot
| |
| Denzel Brown
| 21
| Bay
Shore NY | Gunshot | | |
Dominick Wise
| 30 | Culpeper VA | Taser
| |
| Phillip White
| 32
| Vineland
NJ | Death in custody | | | Donald Dontay’ Ivy
| 39
| Albany NY | Taser
| | | Eric Harris | 44
| Tulsa OK | Gunshot
| |
| Walter Scott
| 50
| North Charleston
SC | Gunshot | | | Freddie Gray | 25
| Baltimore MD | Death in custody
| | |
Frank Trey’ Shephard III
| 41
| Houston TX | Gunshot
| |
| Darrell Brown
| 31
| Hagerstown
MD | Taser | | | Norman Cooper | 33
| San Antonio TX | Taser
| |
| Samuel Harrell
| 30
| Beacon
NY | Death in custody | | | William Chapman II
| 18
| Portsmouth VA | Gunshot
| |
| David Felix
| 24
| New
York NY | Gunshot | | | Bryan Overstreet |
30
| Sylvester GA | Struck by vehicle
| | |
Brendon Glenn
| 29 | Los Angeles CA | Gunshot
| |
| Nuwnah Laroche
| 34
| Ridgefield
Park NJ | Struck by vehicle | | | Jason Champion
| 41 | Ridgefield Park NJ | Struck by
vehicle | | | Sam Holmes | 31
| Fridley
MN | Gunshot | |
| Lorenzo Hayes | 37
| Spokane
WA | Death in custody | | | Richard Davis | 50
| Rochester NY | Taser
| |
| Ross Anthony
| 25
| Dallas
TX | Taser | | | Alan Williams
| 47
| Greenville SC
| Struck by vehicle | | | Kris Jackson | 22 | South Lake Tahoe CA
| Gunshot | | | Jermaine Benjamin | 42 | Vero Beach FL
| Death in custody | |
| Kevin Bajoie |
32
| Baton
Rouge LA | Taser | | | Spencer McCain | 41
| Owings Mills
MD | Gunshot | | | Kevin Judson
| 24
| McMinnville
OR | Gunshot | |
| Jonathan Sanders |
39
| Stonewall MS | Death in custody
| | |
George Mann
| 53
| Stone
Mountain GA | Taser | | | Salvado Ellswood | 36
| Plantation FL | Gunshot
| |
| Darrius Stewart
| 19
| Memphis
TN | Gunshot | |
| Samuel Dubose | 43
| Cincinnati
OH | Gunshot | | | Troy Robinson
| 33
| Decatur
GA | Taser | | | Christian Taylor |
19
| Arlington TX | Gunshot
| |
| Asshams Manley
| 30
| District
Heights MD | Gunshot | | | Felix Kumi | 61
| Mount Vernon NY | Gunshot
| |
| James Carney
III | 48 | Cincinnati OH
| Taser
| |
| India Kager
| 28
| Virginia Beach VA | Gunshot
| |
| Wayne Wheeler
| 41
| Detroit
MI | Other | | | Keith McLeod
| 19
| Reisterstown MD
| Gunshot | | | Junior Prosper | 31 | North Miami FL | Gunshot
| |
| Paterson Brown
Jr | 18 | Midlothian
VA | Gunshot | | | Rayshaun Cole | 30
| Chula Vista
CA | Gunshot | |
| Anthony Ashford | 29
| San
Diego CA | Gunshot | | | Michael Marshall
| 50
| Denver CO
| Death in custody | | | Jamar Clark | 24
| Minneapolis
MN | Gunshot | | | Nathaniel Pickett
| 29
| Barstow
CA | Gunshot | | | | | Demaris
Turner | 29 | Lauderhill
FL | Gunshot | | | Glenn Lewis | 37
| Oklahoma
City OK | Gunshot | | | Andrew Williams | 48
| Putnam Hall FL | Gunshot
| |
| DaJuan Graham
| 40
| Silver
Spring MD | Taser | | | Markus Clark | 26
| Fort Lauderdale FL | Unknown | | Notice that
Sandra Bland does not make the list – because her death is officially counted a suicide Nor
does Andre Green who was killed Aug. 10, because a vehicle counts as a “weapon” Nor
likewise would Walter Scott or Sam Dubose if there were no video. |
*****That
during the course of Defendants' illegal conduct as demonstrated above, the Defendants kept secret
from the public their subjecting the Plaintiff to acts of war by deception and crimes against humanity,
including the illegal imprisonment of the Plaintiff. While the Defendants publicized and continue
to publicize Israeli citizens' experiences in Nazi Germany in the news, the Defendants' still withhold
from the public their acts of war by deception in which they still engage in immigration fraud, identity
theft/fraud; withholding of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's true identity to avoid paying spousal support,
that Defendants still use the internet (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cheryl+uzamere; http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/woman-suing-husband-arrested-threatening-judge-starts-ripping-clothes-courtroom-article-1.416793;
see Plaintiff's Youtube videos at this website) to publicly defame Plaintiff as a violent "wacko"
to disparage Plaintiff's complaint against the Defendants and kidnapping Plaintiff and imprisoning
her in jail and in mental institutions to give the impression that Plaintiff's complaint is without
merit based solely on Plaintiff's having a mental disability; withholding from the public historical
information regarding Israeli attorney Scott Milkin's charging Gentile clients money to be represented
by him when said clients' cases were time-barred and outside of the statute of limitations for filing with
any court; withholding from the public historical information regarding the African Holocaust in which Israeli
citizens enslaved sub-Saharan Africans; withholding from the public historical information regarding
Israel's trickery and enslavement of white Gentile women from Europe; withholding from the public
historical information regarding Israel's enslavement by tyranny of Thai workers; withholding from
the public information regarding Israel's suspected involvement in the bombing and controlled demolition
of Buildings 1, 2 and 7 of the former World Trade Center; withholding from the public historical information regarding
Israel's bombing of the U.S.S. Liberty and murder of thirty-four U.S. serviceman; withholding from
the public historical information regarding Israel's bombing of U.S. civil and military installations
during the Lavon Affair; that Defendants' withholding of said information are acts of war by deception
to hide Israel's and Israeli citizens obedience to the Laws of Israel's mandate to engage in predation
against Gentiles in a manner that violates both national and international law; and that the following
Defendants actively prevent these issues and Israel's and her citizens' war-like predation of Gentiles
from being discussed in by the Israeli-controlled media, namely: Gerald Levin, in His Official Capacity
as Chief Executive Officer and Director of AOL Time Warner; Michael Eisner, in His Official Capacity
as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Walt Disney Company; Edgar Bronfman, head of Universal
Studios; Sumner Redstone/Rothstein, in His Official Capacity as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
of CBS, Inc.; Dennis Dammerman, in His Official Capacity as Vice Chairman of General Electric; Peter
Chernin, in His Official Capacity as President and Co-Chief Operating Officer of News Corporation Limited; Jeffrey L.
Bewkes, in His Official Capacity as Chairman and Chief Executive Office, Time Warner; Philippe Dauman,
President and Chief Executive Officer, The Walt Disney Company; Robert A. Iger, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, The Walt Disney Company; Leslie Moonves, President and Chief Executive Officer,
CBS, Inc.; NBC Universal, Brian L. Roberts, Chairman, NBC Universal; Stephen B. Burke, Chief Executive
Officer, NBC Universal; Mortimer Zuckerman, President and Chief Executive Office, Daily News, LP;
Michael Bloomberg, Bloomberg News; Scott Shifrel, former Staff Writer of the Daily News, LP; the Daily News, LP;
Rupert Murdoch, New York Post, New York Post.AnalysisDefendants' Reliance on the
Laws of Israel Encourage Genocide against the Descendants of Sub-Saharan Africans; Acts of War by
Deception and Crimes Against Humanity and Have Abolished, Suspended and Rendered Inadmissible in Defendants'
Courts of Law the Rights and Actions of Plaintiff and Gentiles as Hostile Parties***** The intent of Israel and its
citizenry is, and has been enslavement under tyranny, as is directed by the Talmudic Laws of Israel.
As Plaintiff's reference to Israel's bombing of the United States during the Lavon Affair, Israel's
bombing of the U.S.S. Liberty and the murder of 34 faithful servicemen; Israel's suspected insurance
scam turned false flag controlled demolition of the World Trade Center; Israel's enslavement of Thai workers, Israel's
involvement in human sex trafficking, and Israel's citizens immigration fraud and identity theft/identity
fraud committed against the Plaintiff and her daughter Tara, Israel's is and has always been is: 1)
to allow the unconstitutional encroachment of the Talmud Laws of Israel; 2) to devalue and dehumanize
Gentiles as a means to rationalize Israeli citizens' illegal acts; 3) to rely on the Talmudic doctrine
Law of the Moser to ensure that Israeli citizens do not report the illegal acts of lawbreaking Israeli
citizens to the secular (Gentile) authorities, and to ensure that those Gentiles who attempt to report the illegal
acts of lawbreaking Israeli citizens are stopped by fellow Israeli citizens; and 4) to hold uncooperative
Gentiles out as anti-Semites deserving of a social death or as close to a real death as possible.*****The sum
total of Plaintiff's living in an atmosphere where predatory Israeli citizens make fraudulent references to anti-Semitism
in order to hide their illegal predation of Plaintiff and her children, based on the encroachment of
racist Israeli religious doctrines Curse of Dark Skin and Law of the Moser, has caused thirty-four
(34) years of deprivation of Plaintiff and her family's constitutional, civil, marital, parental,
social and financial rights. The Defendants' have staunchly refused to overtly acknowledge the legal
relationship between Plaintiff, her children, and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and have instead, referred to
the same, tired, old excuse of anti-Semitism to hide their crimes and to continue to prey on Plaintiff and
her children. For thirty-four (34) years, Plaintiff and her children were condemned to the same Israeli
religious generational curse that condemned millions of enslaved Africans to the permanent loss of
their parents' proper African names, languages and customs associated with those names, and the wealth
and social status that would have passed on to African children had they been able to bear their African
forefathers' names. Because of the Defendants' determination to stop Plaintiff from reporting the original crimes
that were perpetrated by those Defendants who helped Plaintiff's ex-husband commit fraud and aggravated
identity theft, Plaintiff and her children are now victims in a hateful, racist environment that
forgives and gives second chances to lawbreaking Israeli citizens, forever condemns the descendants
of African slaves for being dark-skinned, and like the pedophile Jesse Timmendaguas, use past incidents
of anti-Semitism to rationalize their abusive, hateful, predatory behavior towards Gentiles.****That the Defendants plan to perpetrate the same inhumane
enslavement against the Plaintiff that they have already perpetrated against her is borne out of the
fact that, while conversation about Israeli citizens' experiences in Nazi Germany are openly discussed
in the news, the Defendants' still withhold from the public their acts of war by deception in which they still engage
in immigration fraud, identity theft/fraud; withholding of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's true
identity to avoid paying spousal support, that Defendants still use the internet (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cheryl+uzamere;
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/woman-suing-husband-arrested-threatening-judge-starts-ripping-clothes-courtroom-article-1.416793;
see Plaintiff's Youtube videos at this website) to publicly defame Plaintiff as a violent "wacko"
to disparage Plaintiff's complaint against the Defendants and kidnapping Plaintiff and imprisoning
her in jail and in mental institutions to give the impression that Plaintiff's complaint is without
merit based solely on Plaintiff's having a mental disability; withholding from the public historical
information regarding the African Holocaust in which Israeli citizens enslaved sub-Saharan Africans;
withholding from the public historical information regarding Israel's trickery and enslavement of white Gentile
women from Europe; withholding from the public historical information regarding Israel's enslavement by tyranny
of Thai workers; withholding from the public information regarding Israel's suspected involvement
in the bombing and controlled demolition of Buildings 1, 2 and 7 of the former World Trade Center;
withholding from the public historical information regarding Israel's bombing of the U.S.S. Liberty
and murder of thirty-four U.S. serviceman; withholding from the public historical information regarding
Israel's bombing of U.S. civil and military installations during the Lavon Affair; that Defendants' withholding
of said information are acts of war by deception to hide Israel's and Israeli citizens obedience to the
Laws of Israel's mandate to engage in predation against Gentiles in a manner that violates both national
and international law; and that the following Defendants actively prevent these issues and Israel's
and her citizens' war-like predation of Gentiles from being discussed in by the Israeli-controlled
media, namely: Gerald Levin, in His Official Capacity as Chief Executive Officer and Director of
AOL Time Warner; Michael Eisner, in His Official Capacity as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Walt
Disney Company; Edgar Bronfman, head of Universal Studios; Sumner Redstone/Rothstein, in His Official Capacity
as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CBS, Inc.; Dennis Dammerman, in His Official Capacity as
Vice Chairman of General Electric; Peter Chernin, in His Official Capacity as President and Co-Chief
Operating Officer of News Corporation Limited; Jeffrey L. Bewkes, in His Official Capacity as Chairman
and Chief Executive Office, Time Warner; Philippe Dauman, President and Chief Executive Officer, The
Walt Disney Company; Robert A. Iger, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Walt Disney Company;
Leslie Moonves, President and Chief Executive Officer, CBS, Inc.; NBC Universal, Brian L. Roberts, Chairman, NBC Universal;
Stephen B. Burke, Chief Executive Officer, NBC Universal; Mortimer Zuckerman, President and Chief
Executive Office, Daily News, LP; Michael Bloomberg, Bloomberg News; Scott Shifrel, former Staff
Writer of the Daily News, LP; the Daily News, LP; Rupert Murdoch, New York Post, New York Post.
*****By reason of the foregoing irrefutable
allegations, Plaintiff asserts that there exists a justiciable controversy with respect to which Plaintiff
is entitled to the relief prayed for herein.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF First Amendment Mandate Separation of Church
and State ..........150).....Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs. ..........151).....With
regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in their official capacities. ..........152).....Plaintiff is an American citizen with a serious and
persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. ..........153).....Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2). ..........154).....Plaintiff
is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites,
forever lost the ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears; and having married Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere, as does Tara A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
and blood heir with the legal right to bear, and for her progeny to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated
with Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. ..........155).....Defendants
owed Plaintiff and her family the duty, pursuant to 5 USC §3331, to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; to take said obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and to well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office
on which Defendants entered. This requires the Defendants to establish a clear separation of church and state, and to distance
themselves from the Talmudic Law of the Moser in their application and enforcement of the law. Defendants owed
Plaintiff and her children the duty to give themselves over to the transparency of U.S. law, and not the secrecy of the
Talmudic Law of the Moser. ..........156).....Defendants
failed in their duty to meet their legal obligations as detailed by the First Amendment mandate regarding the separation
of church and state. Defendants, at the behest of Defendant Garaufis and other Jewish judiciary Defendants have conspired
to force the tenets of the Talmud and other Jewish religious dogma on the Plaintiff based on the Talmud's viewpoint of
the Plaintiff's as a gentile/non-Jewish, African-American/schvartze slave to prevent Plaintiff from filing civil and
criminal complaints against corrupt immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. ..........157).....Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury
because she is still under attack by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of Defendants Judge Garaufis, Judge
Schack, Judge Sunshine and Judge Gerstein, have continued the same government-wide hostile environment that Plaintiff complained
about in her prior lawsuits, Uzamere vs. Uzamere (Plaintiff's divorce action) and Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al,
11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv. Plaintiff has been forced by Defendant Garaufis to obey the Talmud, Tractate Abodah Zarah, folio
26b, Tractate Sanhedrin, folio 108b and footnote 34; Jewish doctrine Law of the Moser, the doctrine that prohibits
anyone from reporting the crimes of Jews to secular, Gentile authorities; and the Curse of Black Skin, the doctrine
that requires people of dark-skinned African descent to be obedient to Jews and white people because dark-skinned Africans
are meant to be slaves. In Plaintiff's prior lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al Case Nos. 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv,
Plaintiff provided Defendant Garaufis with proof that employees of Defendant New York State conspired with Defendant Shifrel
of Defendant Daily News, LP , to defame the Plaintiff as an “anti-Semitic wacko”, to illegally publicize Plaintiff's
psychiatric and marital information to give their false publicized statement regarding Plaintiff's ex-husband being “Godwin
Uzamere” believability. Defendant Garaufis violated Plaintiff's rights in the same manner by relying on the Talmud,
Tractate Abodah Zarah, folio 26b and the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser, not the U.S. Constitution
to prevent the Plaintiff from reporting the commission of aggravated identity theft by corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E.
Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. ..........158).....The
courts of Defendant United States of America recognize excessive entanglement of religion as an injury. In the case Lemon
v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that government may not “excessively entangle”
with religion. The case involved two Pennsylvania laws: one permitting the state to “purchase” services in secular
fields from religious schools, and the other permitting the state to pay a percentage of the salaries of private school
teachers, including teachers in religious institutions. The Supreme Court found that the government was “excessively
entangled” with religion, and invalidated the statutes in question. ..........159).....Plaintiff submits that Defendants' violation of the First Amendment's Mandate to keep church
and government separate also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC §1985, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, such that Plaintiff's
Verified Complaint rises to the level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 with regard to those Defendants who are natural persons. Plaintiff understands
the U.S. Supreme Court's application of Bivens to natural persons and its refusal to extend Bivens to agencies. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Defendants Violated
The Americans With Disabilities Act Mandate ..........160).....Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs. ..........161).....With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in
their official capacities. ..........162).....Plaintiff
is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities. .........163).....Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2). .........164).....Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust
in which Africans, whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the ability to bear the correct
paternal name of her African male forebears; and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right from
now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained
by Tara A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere., and for her progeny
to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. ..........165).....Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty, pursuant to Title
II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, to prohibit the practice of disability discrimination. As public entities, Defendants
owed Plaintiff the duty to comply with Title II regulations by the U.S. Department of Justice. These regulations cover access
to all programs and services offered by the entity. Access includes physical access described in the ADA
Standards for Accessible Design and programmatic access that might be obstructed by discriminatory policies or
procedures of the entity. ..........166).....Defendants
failed in their duty to meet the obligations as detailed in Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Defendants
continue to discriminate against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness
because Plaintiff will not stop filing complaints against corrupt Jews immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro
and Jack Gladstein. ..........167).....Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury
because Plaintiff is still under attack by all the Defendants,who, at the clandestine behest of Defendant Garaufis, Judge
Schack, Judge Sunshine and Judge Gerstein, have continued the same government-wide hostile environment that Plaintiff complained
about in her prior lawsuit, Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv. Defendants continue to discriminate
against Plaintiff by using Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness to falsely and to publicly hold out that judicial
Defendants will not allow Plaintiff to file criminal and civil complaints against corrupt Jewish Defendants corrupt immigration
attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein because Plaintiff's complaints are unintelligible based on her
status of having a mental illness.19, 20, 21. Defendants New York State, New York State Office of Mental Health, New York City, New York City Health
and Hospitals Corporation, Brookdale Hospital Medical Center and their employees intentionally misdiagnosed Plaintiff as
psychotic and violent so as to deprive Plaintiff of her right to due process and equal protection under the law. Defendants
accused Plaintiff of the commission of 18 USC §115, threatening a federal employee and discriminated against the Plaintiff
by using her status of having a mental illness as an excuse to deprive her of the right to defend herself in criminal
court against said criminal charges. Proof of Defendant New York State's and New York City's continued conspiracy to attack
the Plaintiff based on her status of having a mental illness is at http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-11-05/local/17938323_1_supreme-court-judge-criminal-court; and http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435221996&slreturn=20120729115138; see Daily News article dated November 5, 2009 in which staff writer Scott Shifrel publicly defames
Plaintiff as a “wacko.” ..........168).....The courts of Defendant the United States of America recognize discrimination based on disability
as an injury. The Supreme Court held in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), that “[u]njustified isolation
. . . is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability,” observing that “institutional placement of
persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated
are incapable of or unworthy of participating in community life.” 527 U.S. at 597, 600. .........169).....Plaintiff submits that Defendants' violation of the
Title II, Americans With Disabilities Mandate to integrate Plaintiff also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC §1985, conspiracy to interfere
with civil rights, such that Plaintiff's Verified Complaint rises to the level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 with regard to those Defendants who are natural persons.
Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme Court's application of Bivens to natural persons and its
refusal to extend Bivens to agencies. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Defendants
Violated Sixth Amendment Mandate .........170).....Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs. ..........171).....With
regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in their official capacities. ..........172).....Plaintiff is an American citizen with a serious, persistent
mental illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. ..........173).....Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2). ..........174).....Plaintiff
is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites,
forever lost the ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears; and having married Defendant Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained by Tara A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff
and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and for her progeny to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. ..........175).....On
or around June 22, 2011, Defendant Garaufis rendered in decision for Plaintiff's civil rights action which said the following: “Plaintiff's most recent Complaint—one
of at least five she has filed with this court—is 89-pages long and is accompanied by 589 pages of exhibits. Plaintiff
has also sent at least 60 pages of faxes directly to chambers, purporting to be in connection with her most recent action.
The substance of Plaintiffs Complaint—if one can be discerned—concerns, among other things, her divorce from
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; a defamation claim filed against the Daily News; a Departmental Disciplinary Committee complaint
filed against the attorney representing the Daily News; and other state court actions, including a state court action against
the attorneys who represented her former husband. (Compi. at 27-45.) Plaintiff has a long, tired history of vexatious litigation
in this court. See Uzamere v. State of New York, No. 09-cv-2703 (E.D.N.Y. July 9, 2009).”
Defendant
Garaufis' judgment regarding Plaintiff's civil rights action was biased. It did not address the acts of fraud, identity
theft or aggravated theft perpetrated by corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein that
Plaintiff proved in her civil rights action Nor did Defendant Garaufis' address Plaintiff's contentions regarding the Court's
discrimination against Plaintiff based on her having a mental illness. Defendant Garaufis' judicial commentary did not address
most of the issues Plaintiff discussed in her civil rights action (“. . .a unanimous Supreme Court has admonished that
pro se in forma pauperis complaints must be read with tolerance: Dismissal is impermissible unless the court can say “with
assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers, it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
would entitle him to relief.'” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652
(1972), quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), reaffirmed in
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. at 292.) The judgment condemned the Verified Complaint's number of pages and the numbers
of complaints Plaintiff filed with the Court (“. . .but a complaint filed in forma pauperis is not subject to dismissal
simply because the plaintiff is litigious. The number of complaints a poor person files does not alone justify peremptory
dismissal. In each instance, the substance of the impoverished person's claim is the appropriate measure. Crisafi v.
Holland, et al, 655 F2d 1305) Defendant Garaufis admits that he has difficulty in understanding the substance of Plaintiff's
complaint based on his statement: “The substance of Plaintiff's Complaint – if one can be discerned. . .”
Defendant Garaufis' displayed even more mean-spirited bias with regard to all of Plaintiff's actions when he said in his
statement: “Plaintiff has a long, tired history of vexatious litigation in this court. Defendant Garaufis engaged
in an act of racketeering, obstruction of justice and criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft by rendering an
FRCP-lacking, memorandum-lacking decision regarding Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-CV-2831 for the sole purpose
of: 1) advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser; 2) not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt, dishonest,
lying, racketeering, racist Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their fraudulent
commission of 3) trick Plaintiff into believing that a res judicata determination – a purely civil adjudicative
function – was a permanent and final determination to nullify and render harmless corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E.
Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, and Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity
theft – a wrongful act for which the correct criminal adjudicative function of double jeopardy was never attached
because the crime was never tried; and, 4) Defendant Bloom's commission of misprision of felony racketeering,
obstruction of justice, criminal facilitation of aggravated identity theft and fraud upon the court as well. ..........176).....Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty, pursuant to the
Sixth Amendment, to provide Plaintiff with defense counsel and witnesses in Plaintiff's favor, More importantly, Defendants owed Plaintiff the right to confront Defendants' adversarial witnesses in order to prevent Plaintiff from being
prosecuted based on what turned out to be the falsified hearsay of the Defendants. ..........177).....Defendants failed to meet the obligations as detailed in the Sixth Amendment. Defendants accused
Plaintiff of the commission of 18 USC §111(a), simple assault and 18 USC §115, threatening federal employees and
then deprived Plaintiff of her Sixth Amendment rights to notice of accusation, witnesses and appointment of defense counsel
even though Defendants' criminal accusation against the Plaintiff required them to file a criminal complaint pursuant to
18 USC §4, misprision of felony. Plaintiff strongly alleges that Defendant Garaufis, in orchestrating the conspiracy
with Defendant U.S. Marshal Service, Defendant Denis P. McGowan of Defendant the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and
defendants of the New York State and New York City mental health agencies, has opened the means by which, at any of the
Defendants can accuse Plaintiff of any crime and prevent Plaintiff from speaking to an attorney. Plaintiff alleges that
the only way that Plaintiff can avoid Defendants' intimidation, false criminal allegations and Defendants ' use of psychiatric
inpatient hospitalization as a substitute for prison is by keeping silent and not filing papers against corrupt Jewish immigration
attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. ..........178).....Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under attack by all
the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of Defendant Garaufis, have continued the same government-wide hostile environment
that Plaintiff complained about in her prior lawsuit, Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv. Defendants
continue to wrongfully accused Plaintiff of the commission of 18 USC §115, threatening federal employees; nor have
the Defendants sent correspondence apologizing for wrongfully accusing Plaintiff of a crime she did not commit; however,
Defendants continue to deprive Plaintiff of the right to be informed in writing of the nature and cause of the criminal
accusation Defendants raised against Plaintiff, to allow Plaintiff to confront adversarial witnesses and witnesses in Plaintiff's
defense, and to have the assistance of counsel. In Plaintiff's prior lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al Case Nos.
11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv, Plaintiff provided Defendant Garaufis with proof that Defendant New York State conspired with Defendant
Daily News, by Defendant former staff writer Scott Shifrel to defame Plaintiff as a “wacko”, to hold Plaintiff
out at a violent criminal for a crime or which Plaintiff was eventually declared not guilty – as she was declared
not guilty when Defendant McCarthy – a federal attorney – falsely accused Plaintiff of committing 18 USC §111(a),
simple assault – while Plaintiff was 260 miles away in Brooklyn, New York. Defendant Garaufis and the other Defendants
– most of whom are Jews, have revisited the same act of fraud for the same reason – to enforce the Jewish religious
doctrine Law of the Moser to prevent Plaintiff from filing complaints against corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E.
Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, who hid and continue to hide their aggravated identity theft on behalf of their
client, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, thereby depriving Plaintiff and her daughter Tara of the right to bear Defendant
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's name. ..........179).....The
courts of Defendant United States of America recognizes a poor defendant in a criminal case that does not have counsel as
an injury. proceeding In Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), the Supreme Court ruled that in all federal cases,
counsel would have to be appointed for defendants who were too poor to hire their own. ..........180).....The courts of Defendant the United States of America
recognize that a criminal defendant not having been given a notice of accusation an injury. Individuals who have been accused
of a serious federal offense have the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The Supreme
Court held in United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611 (1881) that “in an indictment ... it is not sufficient
to set forth the offense in the words of the statute, unless those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without
any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished.”
In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court increased the scope
of the Confrontation Clause by ruling that “testimonial” out-of-court statements are inadmissible if the accused
did not have the opportunity to cross-examine that accuser and that accuser is unavailable at trial. ..........181).....Plaintiff submits that Defendants' violation of the
Sixth Amendment's mandate to provide the accused Plaintiff with witnesses, and with an attorney for her defense also violates
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and
42 USC §1985, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, such that Plaintiff's Verified Complaint rises to the level
of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 with regard to those Defendants who are natural persons. Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme Court's application
of Bivens to natural persons and its refusal to extend Bivens to agencies. FOURTH
CLAIM FOR RELIEF Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601
Nondiscrimination in
Federally Assisted Programs ..........182).....Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs. ..........
183).....With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually
and in their official capacities. .......... 184).....Plaintiff
is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities. .......... 185).....Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2). .......... 186).....Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust
in which Africans, whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the ability to bear the correct
paternal name of her African male forebears; having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Plaintiff now retains the right
from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right
is retained by Tara A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere,
and for her progeny to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. .......... 187).....Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty, pursuant to the
Civil Act of 1964, §601, to ensure that no person in the United States, including the Plaintiff, shall
be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin
under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. ..........
188).....Defendants failed to meet the obligations as detailed in the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. Defendants discriminated and continue to discriminate against Plaintiff based on the Talmudic view of Gentiles
in general, and blacks in particular. Plaintiff's ethnicity as a gentile/African-American/schvartze. See documentation
regarding the Curse of Dark Skin and Law of the Moser attached as Exhibit Q. In addition,
while refusing to accept from the Plaintiff irrefutable proof of Jews Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's,
Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of misprision of felony, fraud, identity theft, aggravated identity
theft, racketeering, obstruction of justice and extortion/blackmail, Defendant Barack H. Obama, Andrew Weissman, General
Counsel for Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation, James X. Dempsey, Defendant, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
Board; Elisebeth Collins Cook, Defendant, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; David Medine, Chairman, Privacy and
Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Rachel L. Brand, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; and Patricia M. Wald, Defendant,
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Keith B. Alexander, General, National Security Agency; Rajesh De, General Counsel,
National Security Agency; Eric H. Holder; U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; Charles Schumer, Senate Judiciary
Committee; Dianne Feinstein, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairperson; Senator Saxby Chambliss, Patrick Leahy,
Senator Judiciary Chairman, Hon. Goodlatte, Chairman, U.S. House Judiciary Chairman, Mike Rogers, House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Marshals Service Director Charles Dunne, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Protection
Service, Threat Assessment Branch employee Denis P. McGowan, FBI Assistant Director in Charge, George Venizelos and Judge
Nicholas G. Garaufis engaged in overseeing a criminal, unconstitutional system of government that specifically discriminated
against the law-abiding, psychiatric-treatment-compliant, mentally disabled Gentile/Schvartze/African American Plaintiff
by allowing Defendant Judge Garaufis and other Jews to fraudulently use the PATRIOT Act to spy on non-criminal, constitutionally-protected
telephone calls regarding Plaintiff's HIPAA-protected mental health and other HIPAA-protected issues; that said telephone
calls were spied on at the behest of Defendant Judge Garaufis and other Jews, not based on the belief that the Plaintiff
had violated the law, but to enslave the Plaintiff by extorting/blackmailing her; by using Plaintiff's confidential, non-content
information regarding Plaintiff's telephone calls to her outpatient psychiatric care provider that maybe embarrassing or
shameful if publicly disseminated; to fraudulently accuse the Plaintiff of the commission of a crime and to associate the
fraudulent criminal allegation with Plaintiff's confidential non-content information; to frighten the Plaintiff by publicizing
embarrassing or shameful information associated with Plaintiff's psychiatric non-content information for the sole purpose
of forcing the Plaintiff not to petition the government for a redress of grievances with regard to Plaintiff's First Amendment
right to report the activities of lawbreaking Jews to the secular/Gentile law enforcement authorities; that those Jews'
violation of Plaintiff's and other Gentiles' right to privacy is based on the Talmudic doctrine for Jews to enslave Gentiles,
with an emphasis on the enslavement of people who are dark-skinned or considered by Jews to be Africans, Cushites, Hamites
and Canaanites. See Exhibit Q. In the meantime, Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel, who engaged in illegally obtaining and publicly disseminating information
regarding the crime (for which Plaintiff was falsely accused, for which Defendants never had any intention of confronting
Plaintiff in any court of laws and that was eventually dismissed), Plaintiff's mental illness and her marriage and who are
still engaging in misprision of felony, fraud, identity theft, aggravated identity theft, racketeering, obstruction of justice
and extortion/blackmail have never been investigated for the continued commission of their crimes. .......... 189).....Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury
because she is still under attack by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of Defendant Garaufis, have continued
the same government-wide hostile environment that Plaintiff complained about in her prior lawsuit, Uzamere vs. Cuomo,
et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv. Defendants continue to deprive Plaintiff of her civil rights because Plaintiff is a gentile/schvartze.
In the case of disruptive Jewish litigant Rebecca Gloria Yohalem, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jewish judge Joanna Seybert
accepted the Jewish litigant's virtually unintelligible lawsuit. In Defendant Boyle's order regarding the disruptive, Jewish
litigant, he said: “The pro se plaintiff appeared in court today
for an initial conference, after having failed to appear at two prior initial conferences. Her action purports
to be one under 42 U.S.C. §1983, based on assault, kidnapping and other various general allegations that allegedly
occurred at one or more mental health facilities in New York. The pro se plaintiff is virtually deaf
and it is therefore difficult for her to participate in any meaningful way in this litigation - whether it involves interaction
with opposing counsel or the Court. As a result of this severe limitation, the plaintiff’s conduct was invariably
nonresponsive, which undoubtedly led to her frustration at the conference, which, in turn, led to her disruptive behavior
in the courtroom after the initial conference was concluded. For the foregoing reasons, the Court strongly
recommends that the pro se plaintiff seek counsel by contacting William M. Brooks, Professor of Law at the Touro College
Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center. Touro Law Center has been designated, along with other organizations, as an ombudsperson
by the State of New York, under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness program (“PAIMI”),
to represent patients and former patients at mental hospitals in the State of New York. These duties are apparently carried
out by the Law Center through the Civil Rights Litigation Clinic, which is primarily responsible for patients in the Long
Island area, and of which Professor Brooks is the director. He may be contacted by telephone at (631) 761-7086.”
.......... 190).....Defendant Boyle was even able to “purport”
a cause of action from the mentally disabled Jewish plaintiff's difficult-to-read complaint. In yet another act of pro-Jew
favoritism, the court, at the behest of Defendant Jewish judge Joanna Seybert, the Jewish litigant was allowed to appear
– for the third initial conference after missing the first two. During the third initial
conference, the Jewish litigant became disruptive. See Complaint of Rebecca Gloria Yohalem attached as Exhibit
O. .......... 191).....However,
although the African-American Plaintiff went to college to become a paralegal and made the Dean's List twice, has shown
the ability to teach herself federal procedural law (FRCP/FRAP/Rules of the Supreme Court), federal statutes, Constitutional
law, appellate case law and to apply them to her Verified Complaint on her own and in spite of her mental illness, the
only reactions that Plaintiff has received from corrupt, racist Defendant Garaufis and the other Defendants is
their mistreatment of the Plaintiff both as a Gentile and as the descendant of African slaves. See Plaintiff's Dean's
List certificates attached as Exhibit P. .......... 192).....The courts of Defendant the United States of America recognize that discrimination based on
race is an injury. Discrimination based on race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United
States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and
women. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace
and by facilities that served the general public. .......... 193).....Plaintiff submits that Defendants' violation of Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601
because Plaintiff's is an “inferior” gentile/African-American/schvartze who continues to file complaints against
corrupt “superior” Jews immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein also violates
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and
42 USC §1985, conspiracy against civil rights such that Plaintiff's Verified Complaint rises to the level of an action
in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 with regard to
those Defendants who are natural persons only. Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme Court's application of Bivens to natural
persons and its refusal to extend Bivens to agencies. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Defendants
are a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization .......... 194).....Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs. ..........
195).....With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually
and in their official capacities. .......... 196).....Plaintiff
is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities. .......... 197).....Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2). .......... 198).....Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust
in which Africans, whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the ability to bear the correct
paternal name of her African male forebears; and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right from
now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained
by Tara A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and for her progeny
to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. .......... 199).....Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty not to engage
in racketeering behavior for the purpose of making Plaintiff a victim of honest services fraud at the hands of the Defendants,
thereby preventing Plaintiff and her daughter, Tara from retaining the correct African name that they should have received
from Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, based on Defendant New York City's and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's
recognition of Plaintiff's and her daughter Tara's relationship with Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere through marriage
and bloodline. .......... 200).....Defendants failed to meet their obligation by not engaging in those behaviors that are indicative
of a racketeering-influenced, corrupt organization as detailed in 18 USC 18 USC §§1961–1968. Defendants engaged
in racketeering for the sole purpose of 1) advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser so as to prevent Plaintiff
from filing her complaint against corrupt, Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein,
thereby forever depriving Plaintiff and her daughter Tara of their right to bear the African name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere. Plaintiff alleges that the only way that Plaintiff can avoid Defendants' racketeering is by keeping silent and
not filing papers against corrupt Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. .......... 201).....Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury
because she is still under attack by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of Defendant Garaufis, have continued
the same government-wide hostile environment that Plaintiff complained about in her prior lawsuit, Uzamere vs. Cuomo,
et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv. Plaintiff holds that Defendant Garaufis and rest of the Defendants engaged in racketeering
by engaging in the following acts, to wit: ...............a).....that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato Eugene Uzamere engaged
in racketeering in that they committed 18 USC §1028, thereby 1) knowingly and without lawful authority, produced
a false identification document knowing that such document was produced without lawful authority; 2) knowingly possessed
a false identification document with the intent that such document be used to defraud the United States; 3) knowingly transferred
the fraudulent affirmations to Defendant the New York State Unified Court System without lawful authority; 4) transferred
a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful
activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law;
with all the Defendants' goal to complete their act of racketeering by ensuring that Plaintiff and her daughter Tara
never be able to file her complaint against corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro
and Jack Gladstein, and thereby forever be deprived of their right to bear Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's correct African
name. ...............b).....that Defendants
Garaufis, Schack, Sunshine, Cutrona and Gerstein engaged in racketeering in that they committed 18 USC §1512 in that
they used physical force and the threat of physical force with the intent to: 1) prevent Plaintiff's testimony against corrupt
Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein; 2) that the aforesaid defendants caused Plaintiff
to withhold her testimony against corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein;
3) that the aforesaid defendant – especially Defendant Schack forced Plaintiff to be absent from an official proceeding
to which that person has been summoned by legal process; 4) That the aforementioned defendants knowingly uses intimidation,
threats, and corruptly persuaded the New York City Police Department and the New York City Fire Department, with the intent
to prevent Plaintiff from giving testimony regarding the commission of aggravated identity theft by corrupt Jewish immigration
attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein conspiracy. ...............c)..... that Defendant Osato E. Uzamere engaged in racketeering in that he committed 18 USC §1543,
false use of passport. Defendant Osato E. Uzamere falsely made a copy of an instrument purporting to be the passport of
Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, with intent that the same may be used in court by Defendant Sunshine as a means to pretend
to identify Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. See copies of passport bearing the number A0588053 but bearing no name
is attached as Exhibit C; ...............d).....that Defendant Osato E. Uzamere engaged in racketeering in that he committed 18 USC 1028A, false
use of a social security number. Defendant Osato E. Uzamere falsely made a copy of an instrument bearing the number XXX-XX-1205
purporting to be the social security number of “Godwin Uzamere”, a fictitious identity that was used to defraud
the Plaintiff. See copy of instrument bearing false social security number attached as Exhibit C. ..........202).....The courts of Defendant the United States of America
recognize that obstruction of justice caused by racketeering influenced, corrupt organizations as an injury. RICO laws were
successfully cited in NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 114 S. Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed. 2d 99 (1994), a suit in which certain
parties, including the National Organization for Women, sought damages and an injunction against pro-life activists who physically
block access to abortion clinics. Amazingly, the Court held that a RICO enterprise does not need an economic motive, and
that the Pro-Life Action Network could therefore qualify as a RICO enterprise. In the federal lawsuit against judges Michael
Conahan and Mark Ciavarella, federal grand jury in the Middle District of Pennsylvania handed down a 48-count indictment
against former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella. The judges were charged with
RICO after allegedly committing acts of wire fraud, mail fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, and honest services fraud.
The judges were accused of taking kickbacks for housing juveniles, that the judges convicted for mostly petty crimes, at
a private detention center. The incident was dubbed by many local and national newspapers as the “Kids for cash scandal”.
On February 18, 2011, a federal jury found Michael Ciavarella guilty of racketeering because of his involvement in accepting
illegal payments from Robert Mericle, the developer of PA Child Care, and Attorney Robert Powell, a co-owner
of the facility. Ciavarella is facing 38 other counts in federal court. ..........
203).....Plaintiff submits that Defendants' commission of racketeering violates the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC
§1985, conspiracy against civil rights such that Plaintiff's Verified Complaint rises to the level of an action in
the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 with regard to
those Defendants who are natural persons only. Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme Court's application of Bivens
to natural persons and its refusal to extend Bivens to agencies. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fraud upon the Court ..........204).....Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs. ..........
205).....With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually
and in their official capacities. .......... 206).....Plaintiff
is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities. .......... 207).....Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2). .......... 208).....Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust
in which Africans, whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the ability to bear the correct
paternal name of her African male forebears; and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right from
now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained
by Tara A. Uzamere, blood heir and the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere,
and for her progeny to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. .......... 209).....Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to provide her
with honest judicial services, free from fraud. Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to render decisions in her lawsuits that
were reflective of their recognition of the aggravated identity theft committed by Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Jack Gladstein and Osato E. Uzamere. Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to file a criminal instrument against the aforementioned
attorney, and to not allow their own Talmudic bias to affect their obligation to support and defend the Constitution of
the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; to take said
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and to well and faithfully discharge the duties
of the office on which Defendants entered. Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to establish a clear separation of church
and state, and to distance themselves from the Talmudic Law of the Moser in their application and enforcement of
the law. Defendants owed Plaintiff and her children the duty to give themselves over to the transparency of U.S. law, and
not the secrecy of the Talmudic Law of the Moser – a stupid law that is stupid for Defendants to enforce
since the Defendants actively keep said law secret from Gentiles. It is stupid for Defendants to force Plaintiff
– and the public at large – to obey a law that they do not know they are supposed to obey and is not transparently
included in any normal law code. ..........210).....Defendants
failed to meet the obligations as detailed in Bulloch v. United States. Defendant judges engaged rendering fraudulent
decisions, and then commenced a extortionate shakedown from the judicial positions of Defendants Garaufis, Schack, Sunshine
and Gerstein for the sole purpose of advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser so as to prevent Plaintiff
from filing her complaint against corrupt, Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein,
thereby forever depriving Plaintiff and her daughter Tara of their right to bear the African name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere. Plaintiff alleges that the only way that Plaintiff can avoid Defendants' intimidation, false criminal allegations
and Defendants' racial discrimination against her is by keeping silent and not filing papers against corrupt Jewish Defendants
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. ..........211).....Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under attack by all the
Defendants judges has have rendered biased decisions designed to hide Defendant judges' commission of misprision of felony
with regard to Defendants Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's and Osato E. Uzamere's commission of aggravated
identity theft. Defendants, at the clandestine behest of Defendant Garaufis, have continued the same government-wide hostile
environment that Plaintiff complained about in her prior lawsuit, Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv. In every
single case in which Plaintiff presented irrefutable proof that immigration attorney Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack
Gladstein engaged in criminally facilitating the immigration fraud and identity fraud of Plaintiff's ex-husband, the Defendant
judge in that case would render a decision that would ignore Defendant attorneys of any criminal liability, or worse, they
conspired with other Defendants to accuse Plaintiff of being too mentally disabled and violent to use the court system.
The defendant judges acted, not as judges, but as Talmudic attorneys for the corrupt, Jewish immigration attorneys, leaving
the position of judge unfilled by a U.S. Constitution-obeying, unbiased judge. Their actions stink of fraud upon the court,
which under the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Seventh and Tenth Circuit, renders any decision rendered by them null and void.
Lastly, Defendant Jewish judges rendered fictitious decision to their their true motive – to Talmud-based decisions
against the Plaintiff because she is Gentile, because she is black-skinned, and because of the Talmudic doctrine Law
of the Moser that prohibits the Defendants from directly or indirectly filing complaints against corrupt Jewish immigration
attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein. See Defendant Daily News article dated November 5, 2009, attached
as Exhibit R. .......... 212).....The
courts of Defendant the United States of America recognize that fraud upon the court is an injury. In Bulloch v. United
States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to
the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.
. .It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed
his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
Fraud upon the court is an injury because it deprives a litigant of the court's most valuable “commodity” –
justice. ..........213).....Plaintiff
submits to this Court that Defendant Judge Garaufis' commencement and orchestration to defame Plaintiff as psychotic and
violent to stop her from filing her appeal against his FRCP-lacking, memorandum-lacking decision are irrefutable proof that
his decision in Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al was biased, and is an act of fraud upon the court the
violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
and 42 USC §1985, conspiracy against civil rights such that Plaintiff's Verified Complaint rises to the level of an
action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 with regard
to those Defendants who are natural persons only. Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme Court's application of Bivens
to natural persons and its refusal to extend Bivens to agencies. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Defendants'
Blacklisting Of Plaintiff Violates 42 U.S.C. §1983, §1985 ..........
214).....Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs. .......... 215).....With regard to all Defendants, this claim is brought
against them individually and in their official capacities. .......... 216).....Plaintiff is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has
a mental impairment that substantially limits one of more major life activities. ..........
217).....Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans,
whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the ability to bear the correct paternal name of her
African male forebears; and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right from now to eternity to
have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained by Tara A.
Uzamere, blood heir and the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere,
and for her progeny to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. .......... 218).....Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to not blacklist
Plaintiff in the Jewish Defendants' continued attempts to stop filing criminal complaints against Defendants Allen E. Kaye,
Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to make their federally-financed outpatient mental
health and other programs available to the Plaintiff program free from fraud. Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to recognize
Plaintiff's complaints against the aforementioned attorneys as true, and not trick Plaintiff into believing that Defendants'
blacklisting were legitimate acts brought on by wrongful acts by the Plaintiff. Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty not to
render Plaintiff persona non grata based on the Jewish Defendants' desire to enforce the Talmudic doctrine Law
of the Moser, that prohibits Jews from indirectly or directly filing complaints against fellow Jews who have violated
secular law. .......... 219).....Defendants
failed to meet the obligations as detailed in 42 USC §1983, 1985. Defendant judges engaged in blacklisting the Plaintiff
from the New York State courts, from the federal courts, and from receiving outpatient mental health services, in order
to engage in racketeering/obstruction of justice for the sole purpose of advancing the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser,
that prohibits Jews from indirectly or directly reporting the wrongdoings of fellow Jews to the secular/gentile authorities.
Plaintiff alleges that the only way that Plaintiff can avoid Defendants' blacklisting, intimidation, false criminal allegations
and Defendants' racial discrimination against her is by keeping silent and not filing a criminal complaint against corrupt
Jewish Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. ..........
220).....Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under
attack by all the Defendants like FEGS, Inc., who still have Plaintiff listed as persona non grata for life. Defendant
judges Eileen A. Rakower and Nicholas Garaufis have come to Defendant FEGS aid, by allowing FEGS to blacklist Plaintiff
because Plaintiff used Defendant FEGS, Inc Services for complaining against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey
Shapiro and Jack Gladstein's commission of aggravated identity theft. See Defendant Daily News article dated
November 5, 2009, attached as Exhibit R. .......... 221).....The courts of Defendant the United States of America recognize that blacklisting is an injury
– and a constitutional tort as well. Mr. Justice Black in his concurring opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case Joint
Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 144-145, 71 S.Ct. 624, 634 (1951): stated: “Our basic law,
however, wisely withheld authority for resort to executive. . .condemnations and blacklists as a substitute for imposition
of legal types of penalties by courts following trial and conviction in accordance with procedural safeguards of the Bill
of Rights.” .......... 222).....Plaintiff
submits to this Court that the Defendants – especially the Jewish Defendants' orchestration of a hostile environment
to exclude Plaintiff from government-financed judicial, legal, and medical services to prevent Plaintiff from reporting
the aforesaid Jewish immigration attorneys' commission of aggravated identity theft to the appropriate law enforcement authorities,
violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
and 42 USC §1983 and §1985, conspiracy against civil rights such that Plaintiff's Verified Complaint rises to the
level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 with regard to those Defendants who are natural persons only. Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme Court's application
of Bivens to natural persons and its refusal to extend Bivens to agencies. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Defendants
Invaded Plaintiff's Privacy Based on Intentional Misuse of NSL
or Based on Obtaining Non-NSL, Non-Content Information
Illegally ..........223).....Plaintiff
repeats and realleges the above paragraphs. ..........224).....With
regard to all Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in their official capacities. ..........225).....Plaintiff is an American citizen with a serious and
persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one of more major life activities. ..........226).....Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust
in which Africans, whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the ability to bear the correct
paternal name of her African male forebears; and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right from
now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained
by Tara A. Uzamere, blood heir and the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and for her progeny to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere. .......... 227).....Defendants
owed Plaintiff the duty not to invade Plaintiff's privacy by using the non-content information regarding Plaintiff's telephone
calls to psychiatric service providers and to government healthcare providers to accuse Plaintiff of crimes that were used
to illegally rationalize Defendant Garaufis' dismissal of Plaintiff's civil rights action. Defendants owed Plaintiff the
duty not to invade Plaintiff's privacy by using the non-content information regarding Plaintiff's telephone calls to psychiatric
care providers and government healthcare providers to illegally rationalize extortionate/threatening telephone calls and
visits to Plaintiff's home. Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty not to invade Plaintiff's privacy by using the non-content
information regarding Plaintiff's telephone calls to psychiatric service providers and government healthcare providers to
accuse Plaintiff of crimes that were used to kidnap Plaintiff and unlawfully imprison/illegally misdiagnose Plaintiff for
crimes that she never commit. .......... 228).....Defendants
failed to meet the obligations as detailed in 18 USC §2709 and Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
Defendants, in their haste to libel Plaintiff as a violent, lawbreaking “wacko” to make Plaintiff's complaint
against them appear to be unbelievable, Defendant judges conspired with Defendants Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman
and Jewish staff writer Scott Shifrel of the Daily News, LP to disseminate confidential, nonpublic information regarding
Plaintiff's mental illness and her marriage on paper and in the internet – with the internet still disseminating the
false story regarding the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is still being attacked by several members of the Jewish community to prevent
her from successfully filing her complaint against the original lawbreaking attorneys, corrupt
immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. .........
.229).....Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under
attack by all the Defendants. See Defendant Daily News article dated November 5, 2009, attached as Exhibit
R. .......... 230).....The
courts of Defendant the United States of America recognize the intentional misuse of an NSL as an injury – and a constitutional
tort as well. Mr. Justice Black in his concurring opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee
Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 144-145, 71 S.Ct. 624, 634 (1951): stated: “Our basic law, however, wisely
withheld authority for resort to executive. . .condemnations and blacklists as a substitute for imposition of legal types
of penalties by courts following trial and conviction in accordance with procedural safeguards of the Bill of Rights.” .......... 231).....Plaintiff submits to this Court that the Defendants
– especially the Jewish Defendants' orchestration of a hostile environment to exclude Plaintiff from government-financed
judicial, legal, and psychiatric services to prevent Plaintiff from reporting the aforesaid Jewish immigration attorneys'
commission of fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft to the appropriate law enforcement authorities, violates
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and
42 USC §1983 and §1985, conspiracy against civil rights such that Plaintiff's Verified Complaint rises to the
level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 with regard to those Defendants who are natural persons only. Plaintiff understands
the U.S. Supreme Court's application of Bivens to natural persons and its refusal to extend Bivens to agencies. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Congressional Defendants
Engaged in Campaign Bribery to Advance the Talmudic
Law of the Moser; Congressional
Defendants Deprived Plaintiff and Gentiles of Honest Services .......... 232).....Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs. ........ 233).....With regard to all Defendants, this claim is brought
against them individually and in their official capacities. .......... 234).....Plaintiff is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has
a mental impairment that substantially limits one of more major life activities. ..........
235).....Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans,
whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the ability to bear the correct paternal name of her
African male forebears; and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right from now to eternity to
have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained by Tara A.
Uzamere, blood heir and the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and
for her progeny to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. .......... 236).....Defendant Jeffries and his congressional staff, owed
Plaintiff the duty, pursuant to 18 USC §4, to report the crimes that Plaintiff reported to him to the U.S. Department
of Justice, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jeffries and his congressional staff had, in de jure, than a de facto22 responsibility to the Plaintiff to ensure that Plaintiff's criminal complaint would be investigated or would
be presented to Defendants U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for investigation. .......... 237).....Defendant Jeffries, his congressional staff and Jews
who contributed financially to Defendant Jeffries' congressional campaign owed Plaintiff the duty to ensure that they not
engage in quid pro quo campaign contributions that were provided/accepted with the understanding that the aforementioned
were bribes used to require Defendant Jeffries and his staff to engage in activities that would advance Jewish religion
and culture, including the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser, at the expense of violating the civil rights of
Gentile constituents, especially the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. .........238).....Defendant Jeffries, his congressional staff and Jews
who contributed financially to Defendant Jeffries' congressional campaign owed Plaintiff the duty to allow her the same
type of free access to to call and visit Defendant Jeffries' offices as the Jews who contributed money to Defendant Jeffries'
congressional campaign, and to not conspire to blacklist the Plaintiff based on her insistence to obtain help from Defendant
Jeffries to report those Defendants – especially those Defendants who are Jewish, for Defendants' commission of misprision
of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere with
civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail, blacklisting and violation of the PATRIOT Act. .......... 239).....Defendant Jeffries and his congressional staff,
failed in their duty, pursuant to 18 USC §4, to report the crimes that Plaintiff reported to him, to the U.S. Department
of Justice, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jeffries
and his congressional staff failed in their in de jure, or de facto responsibility to the Plaintiff to ensure that Plaintiff
criminal complaint would be investigated or would be presented to Defendants U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security for investigation. .......... 240).....Defendant
Jeffries, his congressional staff and Jews who contributed financially failed in their duty to ensure that they not engage
in qui pro quo campaign contributions that were provided/accepted with the understanding that the aforementioned were bribes
used to require Defendant Jeffries and his staff to engage in activities that would advance Jewish religion and culture,
including the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser, the prohibits Jews from reporting crimes of fellow Jews to the
secular/Gentile authorities, at the expense of violating the civil rights of Gentile constituents, especially the Due Process
and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. .......... 241).....Defendant Jeffries, his congressional staff and Jews who contributed financially to Defendant
Jeffries' congressional campaign failed in their duty to allow Plaintiff the same type of free access to to call and visit
Defendant Jeffries' offices as the Jews who contributed money to Defendant Jeffries' congressional campaign; that Defendant
Jeffries, his congressional staff and Jews who contributed financially to Defendant Jeffries' congressional campaign failed
in their duty not to conspire to blacklist the Plaintiff based on her insistence to obtain help against those Jews whom
Plaintiff has proven committed misprision of felony, fraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to interfere
with civil rights, racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion/blackmail and blacklisting. .......... 242).....Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury
because she is still under attack by all the Defendants. See Defendant Daily News article dated November 5, 2009, attached
as Exhibit R. .......... 243).....The
courts of Defendant the United States of America recognize the acceptance of a bribe by a public servant as a injury cognizable
in law. .......... 244).....Plaintiff
submits to this Court that the Defendants – especially the Jewish Defendants' orchestration of a hostile environment
to exclude Plaintiff from government-financed judicial, legal, and psychiatric services to prevent Plaintiff from reporting
the aforesaid Jewish immigration attorneys' commission of fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft to the appropriate
law enforcement authorities, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC §1983 and §1985, conspiracy against civil rights such that Plaintiff's
Verified Complaint rises to the level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 with regard to those Defendants who are natural persons only. Plaintiff understands the
U.S. Supreme Court's application of Bivens to natural persons and its refusal to extend Bivens to agencies. This Court Must Enforce 28 USC §455, 28 USC §1404, 28 USC §1654 and 28 USC §144
to Protect Pro Se Plaintiff's Right to Self-Representation .......... 245).....28 USC §144 says: “Whenever a party to
any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter
is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed
no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.” .......... 246).....28 USC §455 says: “(a) Any justice,
judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might
reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (5) He or his spouse,
or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person.” .......... 247).....28 USC §1404(a) says: “For the convenience
of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district
or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” .......... 248).....28 USC §1654 says: “In all
courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules
of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” .......... 249).....Plaintiff alleges that if any judge in the
Eastern District or Southern District of New York gets his/her hands on Plaintiff's lawsuit, even though he/she is a defendant,
he/she will violate 28 USC §455, 28 USC §1404, 28 USC §1654 and 28 USC §144, and make a ruling dismissing
Plaintiff's case based on: 1) halachic law's mandate not to report the crimes of corrupt Jews Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel to the secular authorities, 2) judicial nepotism based on their desire
to save Defendant Garaufis from being prosecuted; and, 3) their ability to hide any act of fraud upon the court on Plaintiff's
being an inexperienced, mentally disabled pro se litigant. If Plaintiff appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Second
Circuit, even though its judges are also defendants presently engaged in the commission of several federal offenses, they
will violate 28 USC §455, 28 USC §1404, 28 USC §1654 and 28 USC §144, and make an unexplained ruling
dismissing Plaintiff's case based on: 1) halachic law's mandate not to report the crimes of corrupt Jews Allen E. Kaye,
Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel to the secular authorities; judicial nepotism based
on their desire to save Defendant Garaufis from being prosecuted; and, 3) their ability to hide any act of fraud upon the
court on Plaintiff's being an inexperienced, mentally disabled pro se litigant. Defendant Garaufis will also depend on law
enforcement agencies like the FBI to illegally monitor Plaintiff and to hospitalize Plaintiff for any action that can be
misconstrued as warranting long-term psychiatric hospitalization so that Plaintiff can be “jailed” for having
a mental illness without the benefits of a notice of accusation, a defense attorney and a chance to confront adversarial
witnesses. When Plaintiff last checked, an employee of Defendant FBI contacted Plaintiff's psychiatric treatment provider
to tell them that Plaintiff had an argument with them about her rights to file criminal complaints against Jewish persons
who violated federal law, treating Plaintiff's insistence as mental instability. Defendant Garaufis also set in motion Plaintiff's
being falsely accused of committing 115, threatening Defendant Garaufis with bodily harm, other federal judges, and employees
of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services call center with death. Defendant Garaufis instigated the violation of
Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment rights (Plaintiff was able to confront the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. They
confirmed that Plaintiff did not threaten anyone). Lastly, Defendant Garaufis set in motion the kidnapping and unlawful
imprisonment of Plaintiff in a mental institution for a federal offense/psychiatric diagnosis which Plaintiff did not commit.
This Court, pursuant to 4, misprision of felony owes both the Plaintiff and the Constitution of the United States to enforce
the law. .......... 250).....Defendant
United States' statutes have justly made arrangements to ensure that any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United
States disqualifies himself/herself in any proceeding in which a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In
the interest of justice and mercy, federal statutes, along with case law, have arranged that a district court may transfer
any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which
all parties have consented – in the best interest of justice. However, while U.S. Constitutional law ensures that
any decision in any court of the U.S. States reflect that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are incorporated in all U.S. judges' decisions, sometimes dishonest federal judges can intentionally
misconstrue federal statutes in a way that allows the meritless dismissal of a pro se litigant's cases, simply because a
pro se litigant's cases are automatically viewed as lacking merit, or worse, because the pro se litigant's case has merit
but addresses legal issues against which the judge has a bias. ..........
251).....In the case of the pro se Plaintiff, Plaintiff alleges that any Defendant
judge against whom her action is filed has already conspired with defendants' attorneys not to enter into any stipulation
with the Plaintiff to transfer her lawsuit to an unbiased venue/venue that does not have a Jewish majority. Furthermore,
none of the defendants have reported or will report attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Osato Eugene
Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere for their commission of aggravated identity theft. Plaintiff alleges that a disproportionate
percentage of the second district's federal judges will adjudicate Plaintiff's lawsuit in favor of those members of the
judiciary and defendants who are adherents of Talmudic doctrines such as: 1) Law of the Moser;23 2) Curse of Dark Skin;24 3) Judaism, American's New Government Religion;25 4) Only a Jew Can Rule Over Jews;26 5) Gentiles, rightful slaves of Jews;27 6) Use of Subterfuge to Trick Goyim During Lawsuits;28 and, 7) A Gentile's Lost Item Must Not Be Returned if Based on Compassion.29 Because of the Second Circuit's religious imbalance of power, non-adherent judges, who Judaic law does
not benefit, in attempts to keep their jobs and social standing, participate in rendering decisions that honor and due obeisance
to Judaism. In the Second Circuit, Plaintiff's attempts to have the court enforce 28 USC §455, 28 USC §1404, 28
USC §1654 and 28 USC §144 are a death knell for Plaintiff's lawsuit. Most of the judges are Jews. Plaintiff
does not understand how the Second Circuit was able to hire in such a manner as to hire a Jewish majority, or at least
a disproportionately high percentage of Jews. .......... 252).....This court must display the legal, moral and constitutional fortitude to assist the pro se Plaintiff
to enforce 28 USC §455, 28 USC §1404, 28 USC §1654 and 28 USC §144. Judicial Defendants' district –
essentially a beth din where pro se litigants are concerned, must not be allowed to secretly enforce halachic doctrines
by relying on the presumed naivéte of pro se litigants who have meritorious claims that corrupt, federal and New
York State judges ignore because of judges' own personal, unconstitutional biases. Decisions rendered by the Second Circuit's
Talmud-biased federal judges, which have been discarded by such terms as “not for publication” or “mandate”,
but make absolutely no mention of the meritorious issues in the pro se litigant's appeal should be noticed by a
trained and unbiased judicial eye as an act of fraud upon the court. This Court must ensure that the pro se Plaintiff can
rely on its unbiased services to enforce 28 USC §455, 28 USC §1404, 28 USC §1654 and 28 USC §144. See
Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994); Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847,
108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988); (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri,
779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the
judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to
protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial
process."); “Section 455(a)” requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality
might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989); Pfizer Inc. v. Lord,
456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes
that he has received justice.” “Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” Levine v. United States,
362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954);
United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) "The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice
is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause." Federal
Judges Are Required to Construe Pro Se Litigant's Pleadings Liberally ..........
253).....In the U.S. Supreme Court case Haines V. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519 (1972),
Petitioner Menard, a person convicted by the State of Illinois as a felon – and an individual deemed by the State of
Illinois to be unworthy of living with law-abiding citizens of Illinois, commenced an action against the Governor of Illinois
and other state officers and prison officials under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and
28 U.S.C. §1343(3), seeking to recover damages for claimed injuries and deprivation of rights while incarcerated. The
dismissed Mr. Menard's complaint and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the court's decision. The
U.S. Supreme Court, however, decided against the Federal District's and U.S. Court of Appeals' decisions. The U.S. Supreme
Court stated in its decision that “Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal
administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient
to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. . .Accordingly, although we intimate no view whatever on
the merits of petitioner's allegations, we conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof.” There
Is No Constitutional Or Statutory Rationale To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint .......... 254).....In the past, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Garaufis
has fraudulently misused reasons in the Federal Rules of Civil Practice to illegally dismiss Plaintiff's Verified Complaint.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Garaufis' primarily relies on the religious doctrine Law of the Moser to prevent
Plaintiff from reporting corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. Plaintiff
believes that the following FRCP reasons for dismissal do not apply to Plaintiff's Verified Complaint: (1) lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction; (2) lack of personal jurisdiction; (4) insufficient process; (5) insufficient service of process; (6) failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (7) failure to join a party under Rule 19. Plaintiff advises this
Court that if Defendant Garaufis receives this case, even though he is a defendant, he will rule on it. If the judges of
the Second Circuit gets it, they will rule on it, even though they are also Defendants. Plaintiff asks this Court to place
her lawsuit in abeyance until such time that the Defendants stipulates this court as the venue for Plaintiff's action pursuant
to 28 USC §455 and 28 USC §1404, and if not, to be courageous and make new law that the Plaintiff can proudly
present to the Supreme Court of the United States. ..........
255).....Plaintiff reminds this Court that even if Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, Plaintiff would still have the legal right to require this Court to point out Plaintiff's mistakes
and allow Plaintiff to make necessary changes to ensure that Plaintiff’s amended Verified Complaint states a claim
on which relief can be granted. Plaintiff reminds this Court of the inartfully drawn, virtually incomprehensible complaint
of the disruptive, mentally disabled Jewish litigant Rebecca Gloria Yohalem and demands the same wide literal latitude
– especially since Plaintiff's Verified Complaint is a lot easier for this Court to read and understand. See
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) page 138. Plaintiff's Request for Review
of Her Allegations Satisfies
the “Good Faith” Requirement of Coppedge v. United States .......... 256).....According to Coppedge v. United States,
“The requirement that an appeal be taken "in good faith" is satisfied when the defendant seeks. . . review
of any issue that is not frivolous. Pp. 369 U. S. 444-445. ..........257).....According to Coppedge vs. United States, “If, with such aid, the applicant then presents
any issue for the court's consideration which is not clearly frivolous, leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be granted.
P. 369 U. S. 446. . .P. 369 U. S. 448.” .......... 258)..... Farley v. United States, 354 U.S. 521, 77 S.Ct. 1371, 1 L.Ed.2d 1529 defines how the
U.S. Supreme Court applies the “good faith” standard. It states that “In the absence of some evident improper
motive, the applicant's good faith is established by the presentation of any issue that is not plainly frivolous. The good-faith
test must not be converted into a requirement of a preliminary showing of any particular degree of merit. Unless the issues
raised are so frivolous that the appeal would be dismissed in the case of a nonindigent litigant . . .the request of an
indigent for leave to appeal in forma pauperis must be allowed. ..........
259).....Plaintiff's alleges that her Verified Complaint addresses issues that are not
frivolous issues. At the very least, it questions the judicial Defendants' refusal to treat the Plaintiff and her daughter
fairly in the face of allegations that Plaintiff has established are irrefutable. It demands a final answer to the question
of the identity of Plaintiff's former husband and father of Tara A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage. It accuses
the Defendants – especially the judicial Defendants of criminal behavior, beginning with 18 USC §4, misprision
of felony, up to and including 18 USC §1962, RICO/racketeering, based upon judicial Defendants obstruction of justice
with regard to commencing a criminal investigation against immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein
and Osato E. Uzamere for their commission of fraud, identity theft, and aggravated identity theft. Plaintiff's Verified
Complaint is well-written, well-researched and well-documented. Plaintiff is legally entitled to be enveloped by the gossamer
wings of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection extension intended for people who are disabled –– Title
II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), which states that “[u]njustified
isolation . . . is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability,” observing that “institutional placement
of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated
are incapable of or unworthy of participating in community life.” 527 U.S. at 597, 600. The “integration mandate”
of Title II of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,
29 U.S.C. §791 et seq., as expressed in federal regulations and Olmstead, requires that when a state provides services
to individuals with disabilities, it must do so “in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.”
The “most integrated setting,” according to the federal regulations, is “a setting that enables individuals
with disabilities to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent possible.” 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d);
28 C.F.R. pt. 35 app. A. ..........WHEREFORE,
Plaintiff prays for the following: ..........a).....to
proceed in forma pauperis; ..........b).....to
upload all of Plaintiff's lawsuit to PACER – including the exhibits; and to NOT upload or assign Plaintiff's lawsuit
a number until the Court can determine if Plaintiff's 250 pages of exhibits can be uploaded in their entirety. Plaintiff
will not accept partial uploading of her documents because of Defendant Mortimer Zuckerman's use of the media to commit
fraud, identity theft and aggravated identity theft. Plaintiff wishes to the public to see that she is telling the truth,
and to see what the Defendants did to her and to her family. ..........c).....to assign Plaintiff her daughter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2)30 ..........d).....to not accept bribes or extortion from
the Defendants – especially corrupt Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman. He will attempt to pay you off of extort
your cooperation. If Plaintiff believes that the court has become criminally biased, the Plaintiff will report it to the
FBI. The Plaintiff will not wait for proof. ..........e).....rapid
adjudication of Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Expedited Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.
Rule 201 and for Conversion to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Rule 56. ..........f).....for a jury trial if the above request is not granted; ..........g).....to hold adjudication of Plaintiff's lawsuit in abeyance
until Defendants' attorneys stipulate to change venue to the District of Rhode Island; ..........h).....for the presiding judge to commence a criminal investigation
with the goal of arrest for the following Defendants: Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; Judge Garaufis; Judge Leonard Sand; New York
State Justice Arthur M. Schack; New York State Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine; New York State Justice Eileen A. Rakower; New
York State Justice Paul Wooten; New York State Justice Donna Mills for their refusal to report immigration attorneys Allen
E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato E. Uzamere for their commission of aggravated identity theft; Denis P.
McGowan, Regional Director, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; “John Doe” #1, U.S. Marshals Service
for the Eastern District of New York; “John Doe” #2, U.S. Marshals Service for the Eastern District of New
York; “Jane Doe”, U.S. Marshals Service for the Eastern District of New York; ..........i).....for an order restraining the Defendants from engaging
in any form of S.L.A.P.P. litigation; ..........j).....for
Defendant Garaufis to established his innocence by holding the U.S. Marshals Service for the Eastern District of New York
criminally liable and Denis P. McGowan for racketeering/obstruction of justice; ..........k).....to declare Defendant Garaufis's decision in Plaintiff's lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al
an act of fraud upon the court and render said decision null and void, and to allow Plaintiff to reopen her lawsuit based
on Defendant Garaufis' prior act of fraud upon the court; ..........l).....an injunction permanently barring Defendant Garaufis from presiding over any of Plaintiff's lawsuits
in the future; m) to ensure that if no federal judge ever again makes any statement that questions
Plaintiff's mental state; ..........n).....to
establish proof that Plaintiff's appeal with regard to her lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv was actually
reviewed by appellate judges; to reveal the names of the appellate judges who rendered their decision in Plaintiff's appeal
Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al if Plaintiff's appeal was actually reviewed; and to determine if judges for the 2nd circuit
treated lawsuits Uzamere vs. State of New York, et al and Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al as one and the same lawsuit. ..........o).....for an award of monetary damages in the amount of $58,824
for each of the 34 years that the Defendants withheld Plaintiff African/Nigerian/Edo/Bini name Mrs. Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
for a grand total of $2,000,000,016 (Jewish litigant Rebecca Gloria Yohalem requested $1,000,000,000 in her complaint). ..........p).....to toll the statute of limitations to give Plaintiff
the opportunity to appeal the issue regarding change of venue based upon a corrupt venue to the United States Supreme Court. ..........q).....issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to obtain
the immigration records of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere so as to put to an end to questions regarding his identity; ..........r)..... Issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to obtain
the national security letter(s) that was sent to Cablevision. ..........s).....for this Court, based on Defendants' prior discovery of Plaintiff's psychiatric records as disseminated
to Defendants Daily News and made public to the New York State Office of Mental Health, to the New York State Department
of Health and to the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, do not allow them any further discovery. ..........t).....Issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to obtain any and
all NSLs, orders or other demands to obtain non-content information regarding Plaintiff's telephone calls. ..........u).....Issuance of a subpoena duces for records containing
copies of current U.S. or Nigerian identification documents for “Godwin Uzamere” from the individuals: Allen
E. Kaye, Esq; Harvey Shapiro, Esq.; Jack Gladstein, Esq.; Osato Eugene Uzamere, Esq., NYS Judge Jeffrey S. Sunshine; NYS
Justice Arthur M. Schack; Federal District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis; Charles Dunne of the U.S. Marshals Service
for the Eastern District of New York; Denis P. McGowan; Agnes Flores; Martin Bolton; Bridget Davis; Samuel Sarpong, Mortimer
Zuckerman and Scott Shifrel. ..........v).....Issuance
of a subpoena duces tecum for records of all individuals who contributed money to Defendant Jeffries' congressional campaign
and the amount of money each individual contributed. ..........w).....to dismiss action without prejudice in the event that the Court does not approve Plaintiff's motion
to hold in abeyance; ..........x).....commence
a criminal investigation against the Defendants for refusal to report the crimes committed by Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro,
Jack Gladstein, Scott Shifrel, Mortimer Zuckerman, Judge Sunshine, Judge Schack, Judge Gerstein, Osato Eugene Uzamere and
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; ..........y).....to
ensure that if Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere does not appear (as in file an answer) that the Court takes expedited judicial
notice of his failure to identify himself and render summary judgment. ..........z).....a public apology; and for such other and further relief as to this
honorable Court deems just and proper. Dated:.....Brooklyn, New York
...............August
__, 2013 CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE
Cheryl's Signature
______________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue,
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY
11208
Tel.: (718) 235-6836
Fax: (718) 235-2408
E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net |
U.N. says ‘racial terrorism’ against black
people in the U.S. endures, calls for reparations
