A car parked in a parking lot

Description generated with high confidence

 

Home

 

Chapter 1: Forward: Babylonian Talmudic Hatred of Humans -- Are You a Victim of the Worship of Molech

 

 

Chapter 2: Come and Hear:  America’s New Government Church – Death for Christians

 

 

Chapter 3: Come and Hear: Sex with Children by Talmud Rules

 

 

Chapter 4: Come and Hear: Human Sacrifice, the Talmud, and the Moloch Problem

 

 

Chapter 5: United States v. Uzamere

 

Chapter 6: Uzamere v. Various Ashkenazi Leaders and Ashkenazi Judaism as a Hate Group

 

Chapter 7: Chapters of the Original Website

 

Chapter 8: Once Upon a Time

 

Chapter 9: Victim's Statement

 

Chapter 10: My Search for Justice

 

Chapter 11: Descent into Hell

 

Chapter 12: U.S. Laws Violated by Senator Uzamere

 

 

Chapter 13: Nigerian Laws Violated by Senator Uzamere

 

 

Chapter 14: Ignored by Federal Agencies

 

Chapter 15: Ignored by Nigerian Authorities

 

Chapter 16: Victims' Loss of Child Support

 

Chapter 17: The Uzamere Family

 

Chapter 18: Municipal Employees Who Helped Senator Uzamere

 

Chapter 19: John Gray and Non-Profit Legal Community

 

Chapter 20: Hall of Shame

 

Chapter 21: 1st Judicial Blow by African-American Judge Thomas

 

Chapter 22: Law Firm of Allen E. Kaye

 

Chapter 23: Too Many Discrepancies...

 

Chapter 24: Allen E. Kaye And His Diabolical Talmud-Following Minions

 

Chapter 25: Will Sampson Staff Refuse to Help Identity Fraud Victims?

 

Chapter 26:  Law Office of Gladstein and Messinger

 

Chapter 27: Patrick Synmoie's Attempts to Hide

 

Chapter 28: Consulate General of Nigeria

 

Chapter 29: Strange Chat with Senator Ekweremadu

 

Chapter 30: Proof of Legal Marriage

 

Chapter 31: Proof of Illegal Marriage/Identity Fraud

 

Chapter 32: Senator Uzamere's Attempts to Hide Crimes Will Fail

 

Chapter 33: The Proof...

 

Chapter 34: Success -- The Proof Is Finally Here!

 

Chapter 35: Will Senator Uzamere Evade Child Support Again?

 

Chapter 36: Nigeria's New Commitment to Protect Child Abandoned by Sen. Uzamere

 

Chapter 37: Judge Prus -- What Gives?

 

Chapter 38: Back on Track!

 

Chapter 39: Eugene Uzamere -- Third Attorney to Break the Law

 

Chapter 40: Petitioner's Verified Petition

 

Chapter 41: Supplemental Verified Petition

 

Chapter 42: Judge Prus Recuses Himself

 

Chapter 43: Eugene's Failed Attempt to Thwart Justice

 

Chapter 44: Kate Ezomo -- Diabolical Liar

 

Chapter 45: Letters of Complaint Against Kate Ezomo

 

Chapter 46: My Factual Response to Imaginary Cousin Godwin

 

Chapter 47: Federal Action Against Defendant Dismissed

 

Chapter 48: Open Letters to the FBI

 

Chapter 49: Open Letter to All U.S. Judges

 

Chapter 50: Open Letter to Ehigie and Eugene

 

Chapter 51: Tara's Affidavit

 

Chapter 52: $100,000,000.00 Lawsuit Against Corrupt Fiduciaries

 

Chapter 53: Will Fiduciaries Settle?

 

Chapter 54: New York City Defrauds Disabled Schvartze

 

Chapter 55: There Is No Cousin Godwin!

 

Chapter 56: Warning Letter to Governor and Chief Justice of New York State

 

Chapter 57: Deprived of Child Support by Allen Kaye

 

Chapter 58: Can International Agency Help?

 

Chapter 59: Chief Judge Wood's Court

 

Chapter 60: Will NYS' Dept. Disc. Committee and Commission on Judicial Conduct Be Corrupted?

 

Chapter 61: Subpoena Planned for Judge Garaufis

 

Chapter 62: No Negotiations for Justice...Justice is Owed!

 

Chapter 63: Will Attorneys Sign Affirmation?

 

Chapter 64: Am I Finally Being Taken Seriously?

 

Chapter 65: Evidentiary Hearing is Scheduled!

 

Chapter 66: Amy Feinstein Refuses to Prosecute!

 

Chapter 67: Robert Juceam's Useless Excuses

 

Chapter 68: No Justice -- No Peace!

 

Chapter 69: Happy Birthday My Beautiful Angel

 

Chapter 70: Are You a Victim of a Green Card Marriage Scam?

 

Chapter 71: End Green Card Marriage Sponsorship

 

Chapter 72: How to Report an Immigration Scammer and the Attorney

 

Chapter 73: Is the End Finally in Sight?

 

Chapter 74: Will Appellate Division Justices Decide Fairly?

 

Chapter 75: What Will NYSCJC's Response Be?

 

Chapter 76: How Will NYSDDC Respond?

 

Chapter 77: Will Obama's Administration Coerce Helpless Schvartze's Silence

 

Chapter 78: Will U.S. Department of State's Secretary Rise to The Challenge?

 

Chapter 79: Eugene Uzamere Calls It Quits

 

Chapter 80: Bigot Judge Sunshine Continues Courtroom Corruption

 

Chapter 81: Schvartze's Complaints Still Ignored by Appellate Division's White Judiciary

 

Chapter 82: More Talmudic Bias and Anti-Schvartze Racism At SDNY

 

Chapter 83: Senator Uzamere...You Are the Husband!

 

Chapter 84: Will U.S. Solicitor General Office Look on Idly?

 

Chapter 85: What will SCOTUS Do?

 

Chapter 86: Why did they disobey?

 

Chapter 87: Cabranes' Fraud Upon the Court

 

Chapter 88: Is Hinds-Radix Their 'Secret' Weapon?

 

Chapter 89: New York State Lawsuit for Fraud

 

Chapter 90: Judge Sunshine Is a Loser

 

Chapter 91: Judge Sunshine Out of Options

 

Chapter 92: Petitioner Prepares Request for Rehearing

 

Chapter 93: Petition for Rehearing

 

Chapter 94: Loser Sunshine's Last Hurrah

 

Chapter 95: Lawsuit Against Daily News and Scott Shifrel

 

Chapter 96: Mort Zuckerman's Bigoted Tabloid

 

Chapter 97: Corruption at Nassau County Supreme Court and Nassau County Clerk

 

Chapter 98: Judge Scuccimarra Ruling

 

Chapter 99: Defendants Have Defaulted

 

Chapter 100: Judge Parga Accepts Anne Carroll's Drivel

 

Chapter 101: New York Daily News and Anne B. Carroll

 

Chapter 102: Lawsuit Against President

 

Chapter 103: Will Obama Listen?

 

Chapter 104: Open Letter to Al Jazeera, President Obama and Judge Allegra

 

Chapter 105: More Court Shenanigans

 

Chapter 106: Molech-Fomented Anti-Black Racism at Howard University

 

Chapter 107:  Into the fire...

 

Chapter 108: What Will The New York State Division of Human Rights Do?

 

Chapter 109: Housing Court Corruption

 

Chapter 110: Mayor Bloomberg's Finest

 

Chapter 111: FEGS in Criminal Conspiracy

 

Chapter 112: FEGS Gave Victim No Choice

 

Chapter 113: What Will The New York State Supreme Court Do?

 

Chapter 114: What Will Court of Claims Do?

 

Chapter 115: Molech-Worshipers’ Abuse of Religion Not New

 

Chapter 116: How Wicked Are They?

 

Chapter 117: What a Bunch of Lies

 

Chapter 118: Federal Lawsuit

 

Chapter 119: Disastrous Results to Appeal

 

Chapter 120: Judge Garaufis' Discriminatory Decision

 

Chapter 121: Garaufis' Talmudic Shenanigans

 

Chapter 122: FOIA Hiding Evidence

 

Chapter 123: Congressional Testimony

 

Chapter 124: Unintelligible Complaint of Rachel G. Yohalem

 

Chapter 125: Uzamere v. USA

 

Chapter 126: Judicial Whores Willy and Patty

 

Chapter 127: Find an Unbiased Court

 

Chapter 128: U.S. Government Blacklists Own Citizens

 

Chapter 129: Appellate Brief First Circuit

 

Chapter 130: U.S. Government Hides Prosecution

 

Chapter 131: A Molech-Fomented RICO

 

Chapter 132: Molech-Fomented Doctrine -- Law of the Moser

 

Chapter 133: Will African American Victim of Grand Larceny Receive Justice?

 

Chapter 134: Judicial Ethics Hypocrite

 

Chapter 135: Molech-Fomented Shenanigans Involved in Random Selection of Morally Compromised Judge

 

 

Chapter 136: Please save my family!

 

Chapter 137: Psychopathic Defendants

 

Chapter 138: Molech-Fomented Paradigm Puts Molech Worshipers in Positions of Power

 

 

Chapter 139: Pretender Bharara

 

Chapter 140: International Lawsuit against Israel, the United States and Nigeria

 

 

Chapter 141: A Real Man

 

A close up of a mans face

Description generated with very high confidence

 

THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE WORSHIP OF MOLECH AND DSM V’s DIAGNOSIS OF SEXUAL SADISM

 

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses; Sexual Sadism Disorder Diagnostic Criteria 302.84 (F65.52)

 

Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent and intense sexual arousal from the physical or psychological suffering of another person, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors.

 

The individual has acted on these sexual urges with a nonconsenting person, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

 

Diagnostic Features

 

The diagnostic criteria for sexual sadism disorder are intended to apply both to individuals who freely admit to having such paraphilic interests and to those who deny any sexual interest in the physical or psychological suffering of another individual despite substantial objective evidence to the contrary.

 

. . .Examples of individuals who deny any interest in the physical or psychological suffering of another individual include individuals known to have inflicted pain or suffering on multiple victims on separate occasions but who deny any urges or fantasies about such sexual behavior and who may further claim that known episodes of sexual assault were either unintentional or nonsexual. Others may admit past episodes of sexual behavior involving the infliction of pain or suffering on a nonconsenting individual but do not report any significant or sustained sexual interest in the physical or psychological suffering of another individual. Since these individuals deny having urges or fantasies involving sexual arousal to pain and suffering, it follows that they would also deny feeling subjectively distressed or socially impaired by such impulses. Such individuals may be diagnosed with sexual sadism disorder despite their negative self-report. Their recurrent behavior constitutes clinical support for the presence of the paraphilia of sexual sadism (by satisfying Criterion A) and simultaneously demonstrates that their paraphilically motivated behavior is causing clinically significant distress, harm, or risk of harm to others (satisfying Criterion B).

 

"Recurrent" sexual sadism involving nonconsenting others (i.e., multiple victims, each on a separate occasion) may, as general rule, be interpreted as three or more victims on separate occasions. Fewer victims can be interpreted as satisfying this criterion, if there are multiple instances of infliction of pain and suffering to the same victim, or if there is corroborating evidence of a strong or preferential interest in pain and suffering involving multiple victims. Note that multiple victims, as suggested earlier, are a sufficient but not a necessary condition for diagnosis, as the criteria may be met if the individual acknowledges intense sadistic sexual interest.

 

A picture containing indoor, wall

Description generated with high confidenceA picture containing clock, building

Description generated with very high confidenceA close up of a logo

Description generated with high confidence

 

 

What the Babylonian Talmud says about the worship of Molech: Mishnah. He who gives of his seed to Molech incurs no punishment unless he delivers it to Molech and causes it to pass through the fire. If he gave it to Molech but did not cause it to pass through the fire, or the reverse, he incurs no penalty, unless he does both.

 

Gemara. The Mishnah teaches idolatry and giving to Molech. R(abbi) Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the view that Molech worship is not idolatry.

 

Informing on Fellow Jews who Commit Crimes:

Mesira in Modern Times

(Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Abodah Zarah, Folio 26b)

 

Rabbi Michael J. Broyde*

The S. Daniel Abraham &

Ira L. Rennert Torah Ethics Project

The Orthodox Caucus

Toronto, Canada

Netivot HaTorah Day School

October 19, 2001, at 8:00 p.m.

 

Even though Jewish law expects people to observe the laws of the land, and even imposes that obligation as a religious duty, the Talmud recounts - in a number of places - that it is prohibited to inform on Jews to the secular government, even when their conduct is a violation of secular law and even when their conduct is a violation of Jewish law...Even is secular government...incorporate(s) substantive Jewish law into secular law and punish violations of what is, in effect, Jewish law, Jews would still be prohibited from cooperating with such a system. Indeed, classical Jewish law treats a person who frequently informs on others as a pursuer (a rodef) who may be killed to prevent him from informing, even without a formal court ruling.

A person wearing glasses

Description generated with very high confidence

The Harold Wallace Rosenthal Interview 1976 audiobook murdered 30 days after this interview (click on video to hear Youtube interview). In this video, Mr. Rosenthal talked about the Ashkenazi Jewish plan to take over the United States and the world.

Menachem Begin

Ovadia Yusef

Talmud -- Kill the best of the goyim

cid:image085.jpg@01D2D940.D7866850

A group of people around each other

Description generated with high confidence

The Lost Item of a Gentile: “If his intention is that he, and not the faith or Israel, should be praised, or because he loves the Gentile and has mercy on him, it is forbidden [to return the Gentile’s lost item]”)

 

Rabbis Say It’s OK to Kill Goyim: This is not science fiction people. This is not said by some anti-Semitic KKK or Neo-Nazis these are Rabbis saying it’s OK to kill non-Jews including children. I have found most of the most damning information about Jewish crimes comes from Jewish sources not so called anti-Semitic.

A person looking at the camera

Description generated with very high confidence

 

A screenshot of a cell phone

Description generated with very high confidence

http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_2.html

 

cid:image010.jpg@01D3943D.12028FB0

 

Paul Bonacci was one of many children who were taken from Nebraska’s Boys Town foster care/adoption network, brought to the White House and savagely raped. In this video, Mr. Bonacci describes being taken from the White House with Nicholas and an unnamed boy. Paul and Nicholas were forced to rape the boy at gunpoint by the person who filmed the event. Later the unnamed child was sodomized by the person making the video until his anus bled, kicked repeatedly in the head and then shot to death – all after being raped in the White House by Ashkenazi/Jewish and non-Ashkenazi/Jewish politicians and corporate leaders. Also see https://youtu.be/8b61iIQCapY.

 

cid:image015.jpg@01D3943D.12028FB0

 

Editor’s Note:  Donald Gregg, National Security Advisor to George H.W. Bush was tasked with silencing those involved.  He turned to the CIA.   The Franklin Scandal was only one aspect of a much larger “call boy” operation moving children and teenagers, picked up from Boys Town, Catholic orphanages and off the streets, and housed in Washington and New York primarily.

A picture containing clothing

Description generated with high confidence

A person lying on a bed

Description generated with very high confidence

cid:image021.jpg@01D3943D.12028FB0

cid:image023.jpg@01D3943D.12028FB0

cid:image029.jpg@01D3943D.12028FB0

cid:image033.jpg@01D3943D.12028FB0

A vintage photo of a group of people posing for the camera

Description generated with very high confidence

A group of people posing for a photo

Description generated with very high confidence

A close up of a newspaper

Description generated with high confidence

A screenshot of a cell phone

Description generated with very high confidence

A close up of a sign

Description generated with high confidence

A person holding a sign

Description generated with high confidence

A picture containing cake, text, birthday, newspaper

Description generated with very high confidence

A picture containing grass, outdoor, animal, ground

Description generated with very high confidence

A close up of a newspaper

Description generated with very high confidence

A group of people posing for a photo

Description generated with very high confidence

A screenshot of a cell phone

Description generated with very high confidence

http://come-and-hear.com/editor/br_3.html

A group of people posing for the camera

Description generated with very high confidence

 

cid:image098.jpg@01D2D940.D7866850

 

A close up of a person smiling for the camera

Description generated with very high confidence

 

A group of people posing for a photo

Description generated with very high confidence

Click on the two photos above to see video.

israel-white-slaveryweb

cid:image100.jpg@01D2D940.D7866850

White Gentiles Women

Beautiful White Ladies Who Are Victims of Rape in Israel

Angelique Sabag Gautiller -- Israel's first female pimp

White Slave Trade

Israel’s first female pimp, Angelique Sabag Gautiller, Israel's first female pimp and one of many whore houses in Tel Aviv, Israel that Israeli pimps use to force beautiful, delicate White ladies from Russia and Slavic countries who have been tricked and lured with promises of respectable jobs in Israel and then forced to part with their virginity and gang raped every night by sexually perverted Israeli and Arab men.

Sex bar in the old central bus station area, Tel Aviv
These streets are crowded with sex bars, sex shops and sex parlors.

The old central bus station area, Tel Aviv, on the street with the most sex parlors.
Sometimes it's surprising to see who the customers are.

The old central bus station area (also called Neveh Sha'anan) is the red light district of Tel Aviv. Over the years, it became mostly populated with foreign and illegal workers. Several suicide bombing attacks have been carried out here during the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. In the present, it is the worst place in Tel Aviv, a world of prostitution and drugs, with a high crime rate.
Who can rent here a cheap appartment or open up a shop, is considered lucky, since so many people sleep on the streets or in deserted buildings. They have no other place to go to.

At

sleeping_beauties_29

Ira, 23 - Her mother left Russia after the divorce, together with her two daughters, hoping for a better life in Israel. Ira started to take drugs, her mother gave up on her and doesn't let her in the house anymore, scared that her other daughter will take Ira's example. She lives now on the street and works as a prostitute. After a two-day-storm and heavy rain when she slept on the streets, despite all the hot tea and blankets, she was shivering the whole day at the shelter for prostitutes.

sleeping_beauties_20

sleeping_beauties_27

Jasmin waiting for clients on a Friday night.

 

·         How 11 New York City Babies Contracted Herpes Through - Health;

·         Baby Dies of Herpes Virus in Ritual Circumcision in NYC Orthodox ...;

·         Herpes cases among babies linked to ultra-Orthodox Jewish;

·         NYC, Orthodox Jews in talks over ritual after herpes cases - USA Today;

·         11 Babies Infected with Herpes in New York - Sandra Rose;

·         CDC: 11 infants contracted herpes due to controversial Jewish ...;

·         New York Baby Infected with Herpes After Metzitza B'peh;

·         New case of neonatal herpes caused by Jewish ... - New York Post;

·         Orthodox Rabbis Fight NYC's Effort to Warn Parents About Herpes ...

A picture containing indoor, person, baby

Description generated with very high confidence

A person standing in front of a crowd

Description generated with high confidence

A person holding a sign

Description generated with high confidence

A close up of a person

Description generated with high confidence

A picture containing person

Description generated with high confidence

A group of people looking at each other

Description generated with very high confidence

A screenshot of a cell phone

Description generated with very high confidence

Jewish Wisdom: What is a Goy?

 

Talmudic Jews 'Non-Jews Goyim Are Beasts to

Serve Us as Slaves'

cid:image086.jpg@01D2D940.D7866850

One of his Assembly colleagues calls the apology "a beginning" but inadequate.

A person looking at the camera

Description generated with high confidence

Yair Netanyahu’s Night of Debauchery Revealed in Bombshell Recordings: Younger Netanyahu heard asking his friend, a gas tycoon's son, for NIS 400 for strippers, saying he owed him for $20 billion deal advanced by PM (click on photo to hear Yair audiotape)

 

A person looking at the camera

Description generated with very high confidence

“Rachel” (Vicki Polin) on Oprah Winfrey Show Discussing “Rachel’s” Ashkenazi Jewish Parents Introducing Her to Ashkenazi Jewish Ritual Murder and Rape of Children (click on photo to see Youtube video).

peckjewishslaves-tsr1_

cid:image113.jpg@01D3943D.12028FB0

The Ashkenazi Jewish Slave Trade was not primarily for cheap labor. The race of the victims was used as an excuse to cover the real goal. The real reason for Ashkenazi-influenced enslavement of Africans (and all other people since) is demonic torture, sex and murder. The Babylonian Talmud advocates what the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Illnesses, Volume 5 describes as sexual sadism. Unless it is forcibly stopped, this group of people (including non-Ashkenazi members who have aligned themselves with Molech-worshiping members of the Ashkenazim) will not stop torturing, raping and killing. Like the demons who possess them, they are sex addicts. Without Jehovah-approved force, they will not stop. They will continue to use politics, race, financial issues and other irrelevant issues in the same manner that all junkies use excuses to hide their addiction. There are no political, religious, social or other irrelevant issues. They are snuff addicts. Unless they are stopped, they will continue to try to satiate an insatiable appetite for torture, deviant sex and murder – a parasitic appetite that, if left unchecked, will be the undoing of the entire human race. They are snuff addicts. Nothing more – nothing less.

Jew whipping slave[6]

Ashkenazi sexual sadist achieving climax by using a whip to rape a helpless human being to death.

Jews controlled African slavery

A close up of a person

Description generated with high confidence

A group of people posing for the camera

Description generated with very high confidence

https://youtu.be/Mg_13WJ4gDo;

https://youtu.be/MtKBjPxGmyc

Jewish control over American slavery #2

JOWERS, FEDERAL AGENCIES FOUND LIABLE IN MURDERING DR. KING

Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King, III, Bernice King, Dexter Scott King and Yolanda King, Plaintiffs, v. T.D. Loyd Jowers and Other Unknown Co-Conspirators, Defendants.

 

Slave  Sale by Levin

The Ringworm Children- dealings between the US and Israeli_Nazi governments

The Ringworm Children

Tzila Levine and the Ashkenazi who took her

Yemeni child stolen and given to Ashkenazi woman

Tziona Heiman and her biological Yemeni mother

Adult child with biological mother

Israel's Yemeni Baby Scandal

The Lavon Affair

Lavon Affair # 4

Deaths at U.S.S. Liberty

 

Injuries at U.S.S. Liberty

liberty_Main_Blast_Area

U.S.S. Liberty Attacks America

U.S.S. Liberty Gravesites

USS Liberty Crew

A picture containing text, newspaper

Description generated with very high confidence

A screenshot of a social media post

Description generated with very high confidence

A group of people posing for the camera

Description generated with very high confidence

A screenshot of a cell phone

Description generated with very high confidence

A close up of a person

Description generated with high confidence

Israel Abuses Thai Workers

Thai workers in Israel

Israeli False Flag on France #2

Israeli False Flag on France #3

Israeli False Flag on France #4

MH17 -- Israel False Flag

Israel Celebrates Successful 9/11 Operation on Purim Holiday (click on photo to read article)

 

A group of people on a sidewalk

Description generated with high confidence

Israeli schoolchildren dressed up as the burning

Twin Towers. Costume won best prize.

 

Countries that lost citizens on 9/11:

http://brilliantmaps.com/9-11-victims;

 

Israel Did 9/11; Dr. Alan Sabrosky (click on photo

to see Youtube video)

 

A person sitting in front of a television screen

Description generated with very high confidence

 

9/11 Alleged Hijackers Alive and Well (click on

photo to see Youtube video)

 

WTC Destruction of Building

WTC Falling Death4

WTC Falling Death2[3]

WTC Falling Death6

WTC Falling Death

WTC dead hand

Palestinians Killed and Scorned by Jews

Dead Palestinian Children

Palestinian Girl's Brains Blown Out

Palestinian child with guts blown out

Palestinian Princess 3

Palestinian Victime of Jew Kidney Grubbing

Israelis using pepper spray against Palestinians

Ethiopian Women and Depo Provera

Haaretz Story of Ethiopian Women Given Depo Provera

Mike Peled

Rosenbaum-organ-trafficking

Israel-Islamic State Trafficking in Body Parts

From Israel with Kidney

Israeli Kidney Network Busted in Ukraine

Israel Kidney Scandal in UkraineScreen-shot-2012-03-18-at-12.56.25-PM

Israel Steals Kidneys from HaitiEthiopians Go Back to Africa
Baltimore Is Here
Israelizing the Police


cid:247A1ABBA41049E8B4F3AD2FA8DCBACA@CherylHomeOfficeComputer
Amadou Diallo -- 41 Shots

Freddie Gray

Freddie Gray dragged (2)

Freddie Gray in Hospital

funeral-freddie-gray

Sean Bell 50 Shots

Sean Bell Funeral

Rodney King and Police Assault

Eric Garner Alive with Daughter

Eric Garner Chokehold

Eric Garner Dead

Eric Garner Funeral

NYC Settles Garner Death for 5.9 Million

State Trooper who saw Tawana

Nurse who interviewed Tawana

Tawana Brawley in Hospital

Tawana Crying

C._Vernon_Mason (2)

cid:image128.jpg@01D33D6E.244AB8D0

The Crimes of Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere

A picture containing wall, indoor, person, light

Description generated with very high confidence

“Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”

שְׁמַע,יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָהאֱלֹהֵינוּ,יְהוָהאֶחָד

 

            “Jehovah went on speaking to Moses, saying: “…’Any man of Israel and any foreigner who resides in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech should be put to death without fail…I myself will set my face against that man, and I will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to Molech and has defiled my holy place and has profaned my holy name. If the people of the land should deliberately close their eyes to what that man does when he gives his offspring to Molech and they do not put him to death, then I myself will certainly set my face against that man and his family. I will cut off that man from his people along with all who join him in prostituting themselves to Molech.

Talmud -- Kill the best of the goyimJew whipping slave[6]cid:image113.jpg@01D3943D.12028FB0cid:image023.jpg@01D3943D.12028FB0A person lying on a bed

Description generated with very high confidenceA picture containing cake, text, birthday, newspaper

Description generated with very high confidenceA group of people posing for a photo

Description generated with very high confidence

cid:image100.jpg@01D2D940.D7866850A group of people posing for the camera

Description generated with very high confidenceA person looking at the camera

Description generated with very high confidenceA group of people on a sidewalk

Description generated with high confidenceA picture containing indoor, person, baby

Description generated with very high confidenceA close up of a person

Description generated with high confidenceA group of people posing for the camera

Description generated with very high confidence

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5:

 

United States of America v. Cheryl D. Uzamere

 

Below: Eastern District’s Racist Magistrate Ashkenazi Judges

 

Chief Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann

Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom

Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold

Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy

Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke

Magistrate Judge James Orenstein

 

Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky

Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak

Screen grab of Youtube video of U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Protective Service officers (Federal Law Enforcement at the House, https://youtu.be/jeFbWolohmU) – WITHOUT WARRANTS OR PROBABLE CAUSE – prepared to frighten 60-year-old African American woman into opening her door so that they can kill her, and then say: “the crazy nigger/schvartze came at us with a knife so we had to kill the crazy bitch” while Eastern District’s racist Ashkenazi judges refuse to provide the mentally ill nigger bitch with reasonable accommodations for her mental illness pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and wait for the crazy nigger bitch to be killed in her own apartment where she is helpless, alone and bothering no one.

 

What the Majority Eastern District’s Ashkenazi Judges’ Religion Teaches about the Mental State of People of African Descent

 

“[T]he Negroes found in the remote South, and those who resemble them from among them that are with us in these climes. The status of those is like that of irrational animals. To my mind they do not have the rank of men but have among the beings a rank lower than the rank of man but higher than the rank of apes. For they have the external shape and lineaments of a man and a faculty of discernment that is superior to that of the apes.

 

More Proof of Ashkenazi Hatred for Africans and People of African Descent
(
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v15/mj_v15i20.html#CDX)

 

A close up of text on a white background

Description generated with high confidenceA close up of a piece of paper

Description generated with high confidence

 

 

 

 

 

 

A close up of text on a white background

Description generated with very high confidence

 

for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Sterling Johnson, Jr., Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Edward R. Korman, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Kiyo A. Matsumoto, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; William F. Kuntz, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Roslynn R. Mauskopf, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Allyne R. Ross, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Thomas C. Platt, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Joanna Seybert, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Arthur D. Spatt, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Sandra L. Townes, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Eric N. Vitaliano, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Jack B. Weinstein, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Leonard D. Wexler, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New from the above entitled matter under 28 USC Sec. 455, and Marshall v Jerrico Inc., 446 US 238, 242, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1980).

        "The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law."

        The above is applicable to this court by application of Article VI of the United States Constitution and Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976). ". . . federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law."

        In the case Cheryl D. Uzamere v. the United States of America, 1:2013-CV-00505, I charged each and every judge of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York with the following violations: First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Title II of the Americans With Disabilities, Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §60142 USC §1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights, 42 USC §1985 - Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights (blacklisting), RICO, Hobbs Act under color of official right, fraud.

        In addition to the filing of this lawsuit, I filed a complaint with the Americans With Disabilities Act in which I reiterated that there is a RICO among federal judges at U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York who are now blocking my ability to file my case based on false allegations instigated by U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis regarding my mental health issues.  I chronicled the events at my website; however, I allege that at the behest of Judge Garaufis, my original site was taken down, (http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net), but is now in the process of being restored (see Conversion with CMS).

        I attached correspondence that I received from Katie Lewis, Senior Correspondence Representative for the Medicare Beneficiary Contact Center, Center for Medicare and Medicaid, and a letter that U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas Garaufis ordered U.S. Department of Homeland Security employee Denis McGowan to prepare to make me appear to be mentally unstable and violent and in order to use my status of having a mental illness to discredit my complaint.

        Because of this lie that was spread by Judge Garaufis (and other members of the Ashkenazi community), I was recently visited by federal law enforcement officers – without warrants and told that they were there based on counter-terrorism. I allege that the real reason that they came was to trick me into opening my door, killing me inside my apartment, and then reporting that I came at them with a knife or some other weapon in a crazed, mentally disabled state, and then using the media to report the same. Because my security camera was on, I was able to videotape the event and upload it to Youtube (Federal Law Enforcement at the House, https://youtu.be/jeFbWolohmU).

        I further allege that I was placed in an inpatient mental health facility that was used, not to improve my mental state, but as a jail to unlawfully imprison me for having a mental illness. In violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1983, not one judge in this court assisted in providing me with real guardian ad litem to protect my legal interests.  Instead, they violated 18 USC §4 by maintaining silence as Judge Garaufis engaged the participation of fellow Ashkenazi Jewish leadership (please refer to the following):

1)      /http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net:80/uzamere_v_usa.htm;

2)      http://thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/us_government_hides_prosecution.html;

3)      http://thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/jews_demonic_doctrine.html; and,

4)      verified_complaint_to_intl_criminal_court_and_united_nations.html.

        Today, as in the past, judges for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York have again come to the rescue of Judge Garaufis by having court clerks block my ability to file my own papers in yet another attempt to use my status of having a mental illness to obstruct justice and to hide the crimes that Judge Garaufis committed against me, based on something called Law of Moser (see below), that prevents individuals from reporting the crimes of lawbreaking Ashkenazi Jews, and based on the Ashkenazi Jewish doctrine that teaches hate against people of African descent (see attached). However, not one judge has come forward to say that I threaten him or her.

        I allege that because this Court’ judicial majority are disproportionately Ashkenazi judges, there has been a shift to engage the Babylonian Talmudic/Ashkenazi Jewish hatred of humans[1] by using race and ethnicity to feed a monstrous sexual appetite identified by the DSM V as sexual sadism disorder. Sexual sadism disorder, does not always involving the use of sex organs; however, it involves the following:

Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent and intense sexual arousal from the physical or psychological suffering of another person, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors.

 

The individual has acted on these sexual urges with a nonconsenting person, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

 

Diagnostic Features

 

The diagnostic criteria for sexual sadism disorder are intended to apply both to individuals who freely admit to having such paraphilic interests and to those who deny any sexual interest in the physical or psychological suffering of another individual despite substantial objective evidence to the contrary.

 

. . .Examples of individuals who deny any interest in the physical or psychological suffering of another individual include individuals known to have inflicted pain or suffering on multiple victims on separate occasions but who deny any urges or fantasies about such sexual behavior and who may further claim that known episodes of sexual assault were either unintentional or nonsexual. Others may admit past episodes of sexual behavior involving the infliction of pain or suffering on a nonconsenting individual but do not report any significant or sustained sexual interest in the physical or psychological suffering of another individual. Since these individuals deny having urges or fantasies involving sexual arousal to pain and suffering, it follows that they would also deny feeling subjectively distressed or socially impaired by such impulses. Such individuals may be diagnosed with sexual sadism disorder despite their negative self-report. Their recurrent behavior constitutes clinical support for the presence of the paraphilia of sexual sadism (by satisfying Criterion A) and simultaneously demonstrates that their paraphilically motivated behavior is causing clinically significant distress, harm, or risk of harm to others (satisfying Criterion B).

 

"Recurrent" sexual sadism involving nonconsenting others (i.e., multiple victims, each on a separate occasion) may, as general rule, be interpreted as three or more victims on separate occasions. Fewer victims can be interpreted as satisfying this criterion, if there are multiple instances of infliction of pain and suffering to the same victim, or if there is corroborating evidence of a strong or preferential interest in pain and suffering involving multiple victims. Note that multiple victims, as suggested earlier, are a sufficient but not a necessary condition for diagnosis, as the criteria may be met if the individual acknowledges intense sadistic sexual interest.[2]

     

        Furthermore, I allege that all the federal judges for the Eastern District of New York refuse to file any complaint against Judge Garaufis although I have proof of my allegations. Judge Garaufis, for his part, conspired with Web.com to take down my website, but my website can still be found at http://www.archives.org, and I have begun to rebuild the site that Judge Garaufis illegally ordered to be taken down because truth is an instant barrier any charge of defamation.   Archive.org has taken the liberty of archiving my website since 2010.

        I now allege that the District Court’s is refusing to grant me an attorney/guardian ad litem, in spite of this Court’s illegal use of my status of being mentally disabled, forcing me to wait to obtain an attorney who has been ordered to throw my case so that I can go to jail, be killed and have it reported as an act of suicide.  Having U.S. District Court Pro Se Ralph Vega tell me that he would “pass your complaint” without allowing me to file it as a pro se litigant is proof that the court is still engaged in discriminating against me based on the contrived status of being a violent, psychotic mentally ill individual – a fabrication that has no basis in law or fact.

        Furthermore, I allege that the present actions before this Court are acts of blackmail to frighten me into no longer filing charges against this Court’s corrupt judges. In exchange for recanting my charges against members of Ashkenazi Jewish leadership who brutalized my entire family, I will be “allowed” to a guilty plea and a contrived “promise” of no imprisonment (please refer to Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Nedarim, Folio 23A and 23B; Yom Kippur and vows; said “promise will not be kept).  Of worse, I will be falsely arrested and placed in jail where I will be attacked and murdered, and that the murder will be reported as a suicide, and I will be slandered even when I am dead and not able to defend myself. If I am not killed, I allege that my jail sentenced will be continually lengthened not only to destroy what is left of my life, but to obtain the sexual thrill associated with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illness Volume V’s description of sexual sadism disorder.

        The Bible book of Job describes a discussion between Jehovah God and Satan, in which Satan challenges Jehovah by saying: “Everything a man has he will give in exchange for his life.” According to that Biblical account, Satan proceeded to kill all of Job’s children, took his wealth, reduced him to ashes and left him with an infectious disease from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet. The account goes on to describe Job’s faithfulness in not cursing Jehovah. Jehovah accordingly restored Job’s life.

        Knowing this, I take comfort in the fact that I have formed a relationship with Jehovah God during the last days of my life; that Jehovah granted me love, peace and a sense of purpose; that even without a formal education, I have learned enough about the law to learn how to defend myself and to defend others. While I do not want to die, I relish in the fact that I was able to resist this Court’s Ashkenazi bullies until the end; and that if it is Jehovah’s will that I end my life this way, I am safe in the knowledge that Jehovah will remember that I turned my life around and proved myself faithful until death. I will die with the hope that one day Jehovah God will demand an accounting of all individuals who use Law of Moser as the beating drum to silence the cries for justice of those sacrificed to those wicked spirits who are embodied in the alter-ego known as the God Molech.[3]

        For these reasons, I demand that this Court’s judges recuse themselves, pursuant to 28 USC §455.

CHERYL D. UZAMERE

APPEARING PRO SE

1209 Loring Avenue

Apt. 6B

Brooklyn, NY 11208

Tel.: (718) 535-7628

Fax: (718) 535-7628

E-mail:  cuzamere@netzero.net

A drawing of a face

Description generated with high confidence

Cheryl D. Uzamere

 

 

 

A close up of text on a white background

Description generated with high confidence

           7)     All telephonic records of conversations between me and employees from U.S. Department of the Treasury for the period December 11, 2017 to January 10, 2018.

           8)     Records of all documentation associated with my complaint to the National Credit Union Administration, Case No.: 00157220; ref:00DtGyjo.500t8PREQ:refNCUA CAC (see attached).

           9)     All records regarding the letter dated August 18, 2011 by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Threat Management Branch held by U.S. Department of Homeland Security (see attached letter).

           10)   All records that identify the individual or individuals who authorized the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to monitor me.

           11)   Records containing the names of all judges and CMS workers who reported having received threats from me.

           12)   Videos, tape recording, telephonic recordings, and other media that memorialized threats and/or acts of violence by me against any person or property (see psychiatric records attached).

           13)   Records from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services regarding threats or acts of violence that I made.

           14)   Records of all telephonic messages that I left with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security at the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service in Vermont.

           15)   Records of all past and current criminal complaints/psychiatric evaluations that were initiated and/or conducted by employees of the Social Security Administration.

           16)   Records of all past reports of my having engaged in acts of violence against a person or property recorded by any federal agency, videos and/or other media that records any act of violence in which I engaged, and if said acts were adjudicated in any court of competent jurisdiction.

           17)   All records pertaining to U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Immigration Service’s files regarding the identity of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, File No. A35 201 224 and the identity Godwin E. Uzamere, File No. A24 027 764.

           18)   All records pertaining to U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Immigration Service’s files containing complaint made by me regarding the identity and whereabout of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and my request for help from the government for child support.

           19)   All records pertaining to block grants provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies that provided block grants to New York State for child support enforcement services from 1981 to 1994.

           20)   All records of activities of Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere in the case entitled United States of America v. The Contents of Account Number Z44-343021 Held at Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC., Boston, Massachusetts in the Name of Nicholas Aiyegbemi D/B/A Inadinov and Co. OAO and All Assets Traceable Thereto, Case 1:11-cv-10606-RWZ associated with “Ehigie Uzamere’s, laundering of “funds misappropriated by Alamieyeseigha” and Uzamere’s laundering of “money illegally diverted from Bayelsa State Government funds”, facilitating “Alamieyeseigha’s purchase of real property located in Rockville, Maryland, in the name of his shell company, S&P,” in which U.S. Department of Homeland Security Special Agent Cyntlíia A. Coutts investigated my allegations concerning Senator Ehigie E. Uzamere’s act of green card marriage fraud.

           21)   All records pertaining to efforts by the Government to require Ehigie E. Uzamere or Godwin E. Uzamere to pay child support to care for my son David Paul Walker and our daughter, Tara A. Uzamere.

           If you fail to comply with this rule, the court may:

           a)      order that party to permit the discovery or inspection or records and witnesses; specify its time, place, and manner; and prescribe other just terms and conditions;

           b)     grant a continuance;

           c)      grant my motion to dismiss this case pursuant to FRCP Rule 12;

           d)     file a complaint for filing a false form (see attached U.S. Attorney’s report);

           e)      order the arrest of all individuals involved of the suppression of evidence as it pertains to the Government knowledge concerning the identity(ies) of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Godwin E. Uzamere;

enter any other order that is just and proper as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

CHERYL D. UZAMERE

APPEARING PRO SE

1209 Loring Avenue                     

Apt. 6B

Brooklyn, NY  11208

Tel.: (718) 535-7628

Fax: (303) 942-4403

Text Box: _________________________________
	Defendant’s Signature
A drawing of a face

Description generated with high confidence

 

 

 

A screenshot of text

Description generated with very high confidence

 

 

However, regarding the prosecution of criminal violation of 41 CFR 102-74.385 and 41 CFR 102.74.390(a), federal courts normally prosecute such violations using objective corroborating evidence, such as closed-circuit cameras, telephonic and other media to memorialize the crime, thereby eliminating the possibility of collusion and outright lies, to prevent federal employees from filing false reports, and to prosecute them when they do.

In the case United States of America v. Cheryl D. Uzamere, 1:08-cr-001-14, I left a series of angry telephone messages with U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s attorney Rachel McCarthy, under great duress because I was a victim of a green card marriage fraud scam that left me pregnant with green card fraudster Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere’s child Tara A. Uzamere, my son David Paul Walker, broke and very much alone. I implicated my husband’s immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro for setting me up to be used as an unwitting client for my ex-husband’s green card whoredom. In desperation and anger, I called and left a series of angry messages with Rachel McCarthy. Ms. McCarthy, a seasoned federal attorney, then contacted the U.S. Attorneys’ office for the State of Vermont, where more seasoned attorneys filed a false information against me claiming that I assaulted her.

My attorney, Elizabeth Mann of the Federal Defenders of Vermont, investigated the complaint by reviewing all the telephonic messages I made. After reviewing all information, Ms. Mann filed a motion to dismiss and concluded the following:

“The defendant does not concede that any threat to injure was made in the matter now under consideration by his court. However, even if such a threat were made, requisite present ability to execute such a threat was wholly lacking in that Ms. Uzamere was in Brooklyn, New York. The two individuals were separated by more than 260 miles.

 

The information is defective in that it omits the essential element of forcible action required for a violation of 18 USC §111(a)(1). Moreover, Ms. Uzamere has undertaken no forcible actions, she has made no attempt to inflict injury on another person, and she has made no threats to inflict injury upon another person. Even if her remarks could be construed as threatening to inflict injury (a substantial reach), she was without the requisite present ability to act.

 

I allege that the U.S. Attorneys’ Office for the State of Vermont’s use of the angry telephone messages that I left with U.S. Department of Homeland Security attorney Rachel McCarthy was a violation of 18 USC §1951, the Hobbs Act, to stop me from filing complaints against Allen Kaye and Harvey Shapiro. However, seeing that my attorney correctly used the same telephone messages to prove that I was more than 260 miles away established proof that U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s rendition of accounts was defective on its face as it failed to state a cognizable offense. The U.S. Attorneys’ office subsequently “dismissed” (withdrew) their own case.

I respectfully ask this Court to review cases United States v. Shabbaz and the U.S. Attorney’s press release entitled “Social Security Administration Security Guard Pleads Guilty to Creating a False Incident... attached to my Demand for Discovery and Inspection. In both cases, the Social Security Administration district office relied on their closed-circuit cameras to confirm or deny the events that were reported by their own or contracted personnel.

In this instance, the Government’s own records reflect that I went to the Social Security Administration’s district offices and exercised my First Amendment right to petition the government for a list of grievances as a crime victim to report theft of my SSDI payments by Affinity Federal Credit Union. Later on, I amplified my complaint by filing the theft of my SSDI funds as a RICO that includes Affinity Federal Credit Union, Metavante Corporation, the Social Security Administration, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Verizon, New York City Housing Authority and U.S. Department of Homeland Security with the National Credit Union Administration. Like the complaint filed against me by Denis McGowan, former Regional Director of the Threat Assessment Branch of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (also attached to my Demand for Discovery and Inspection) it is based on a contrived incident that can never be corroborated by the objective and unquestionable of honest federal witnesses whose reports are further corroborated by surveillance equipment like cameras and telephones because they never happened.

The Government omits the objective and unquestionable, unaltered evidence gathered by its own surveillance cameras – in their entirety, unaltered, and with both picture and sound -- that should have been working on the day in question, December19, 2017, as well as its own telephonic records regarding the Social Security Administration employees with whom I spoke from December 11, 2017 to January 10, 2018, including the conversation I had with the Social Security Administration employee and that I videotaped and uploaded to Youtube (Paypal Confirms that SSA Sent Two 2 Test Checks to Confirm My Routing and Account #s2https://youtu.be/Dq1uy7kugq8;  My Conversation with Inconsiderate SSA Employee trimmedhttps://youtu.be/v2J4OrG3AXY and Federal Law Enforcement at the Househttps://youtu.be/jeFbWolohmU), and later, my complaint to the National Credit Union Administration regarding the Social Security Administration’s preemptive strike in filing its petty offense violations against me to detract from its involvement in the illegal withholding of my check, the physical assault on my person by extorting my cooperation in paying Verizon a bill that was already paid by holding my SSDI funds and forcing me to go hungry and not able to pay my rent for 7 days.

          Vindictive Prosecution, Legal Sufficiency and Proof Beyond a        Reasonable Doubt

 

The burden of proof regarding to the commission of a crime rests with the prosecution. This high standard ensures that the life, liberty of which I am in possession is not taken from me at a whim and ensures that when the Government files a criminal violation, summons, information or indictment against an individual, the Government is on guard against bringing cases to court for which the Government can be charged with vindictive prosecution.

Can a reasonable person, upon examination of the Government’s past and current interaction with me, conclude that it has dealt with me fairly? A careful examination of the evidence I submitted with my Amended Demand for Discovery and Inspection of the Government’s own records irrefutably establishes over 10 years of vindictive prosecution by the Government, up to and including the day that Government’s witness Federal Protective Service Office D. Gregg, Shield 298, publicly revealed a confidence that was disseminated to him by employees of the Social Security Administration regarding an incident involving me, the Social Security Administration, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Protective Service agent and Bellevue Hospital. During that incident in August 2004, the Government’s placed me in a mental institution while I was petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances as a crime victim of green card marriage fraudster, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, who hired Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro.  All of them tricked me into signing the green card application, after which my ex-husband abandoned me while I was carrying his daughter, Tara A. Uzamere.

During the exchange with Government witness, Officer Gregg, he mentioned the incident – the Government’s psychiatric intervention in August 2004, in which I was criminalized while trying to exercise my First Amendment right to petition the Government to help me find my former husband, Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, who exposed my heart, my nakedness, left me alone, pregnant and prey to Governmental wolves who continue to abuse me as prey as the same Government abused my children and stood in my way for several years as I fought to get my children out of foster care.

The doctrine of sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case places the burden of proof on the prosecution. It requires the prosecution to present the law and facts of a case to the court in a manner that causes the jury to see that the evidence presented to them establishes that the defendant is guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt (Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).

The decision goes on to state:

It is axiomatic that a conviction upon a charge not made or upon a charge not tried constitutes a denial of due process. Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U. S. 196333 U. S. 201Presnell v. Georgia, 439 U. S. 14. These standards no more than reflect a broader premise that has never been doubted in our constitutional system: that a person cannot incur the loss of liberty for an offense without notice and a meaningful opportunity to defend. E.g., Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409167 U. S. 416-420. Cf. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371401 U. S. 377-379. A meaningful opportunity to defend, if not the right to a trial itself, presumes as well that a total want of evidence to support a charge will conclude the case in favor of the accused. Accordingly, we held in the Thompson case that a conviction based upon a record wholly devoid of any relevant evidence of a crucial element of the offense charged is constitutionally infirm. See also Vachon v. New Hampshire, 414 U. S. 478Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U. S. 111Douglas v. Buder, 412 U. S. 430. The "no evidence" doctrine of Thompson v. Louisville thus secures to an accused the most elemental of due process rights: freedom from a wholly arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

 

The only possible “proof” that the Government can present regarding its spurious claims against me must be based on the sufficiency of evidence supported by the Government’s presentation of the entire record of CCN PA7005329 and CCN PA7005330. I believe these number belong to the closed-circuit camera that recorded the event.

Threats of what might be seen and heard on these cameras does not frighten me, no more than it would frighten a victim of a brutal attack who runs into a building seeking refuge and unwilling to leave for fear of being further victimized. This alone destroys the Government’s ability to present cognizable offense because as far as I know, it is not illegal for a person who is a victim of a crime cognizable and prosecutable by the U.S. Government to seek refuge as a crime victim with a federal agency. However, misprision of felony, especially when the act of misprision involves federal employees who have been made aware of bank fraud committed by banks – agencies under the supervision of federal agencies, is a crime. The crime of misprision of felony is one of many cognizable federal offenses that I leveled against every judge in the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in my lawsuit Cheryl D. Uzamere v. The United States, Case No. 1:2013-CV-00505. However, the Government, by its federal judicial employees of the 2nd Circuit, failed in its duty to address my allegation of misprision of felony, along with every other federally-cognizable crime that the Government committed against me and my children.

Here is an excerpt that come from my lawsuit Cheryl D. Uzamere v. the United States of America:

Factual Analysis

 

Also, please refer to https://web.archive.org/web/20170902085030/http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net:80/uzamere_v_usa.html  

 

133)     Since Plaintiff relies on federal criminal law with regard to RICO, Plaintiff specifically identifies the racketeering-influenced corrupt organizations of which Plaintiff speaks. Since 1979, the RICO has done business with the Plaintiff and her family with dirty hands.17

 

134)     The Defendants reentered their legal relationship with the Plaintiff and her children with dirty hands. Defendants' failed relationship with the Plaintiff and her children as providers of honest, unbiased government-funded services has existed since 1979, and as a direct result of Defendants State of New York, City of New York, Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq. and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere act of aggravated identity and theft and immigration fraud have never provided Plaintiff and her daughter Tara with monies that Plaintiff is still owed from Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. Because of the acts of aggravated identity theft that was facilitated by Defendants the State of New and the City of New York, and committed by Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro., and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere Plaintiff was subjected to a worsening of her preexisting mental illness and a distancing from normal society. Because of the acts of aggravated identity theft that was facilitated by Defendants State of New York and City of New York, and committed by Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Plaintiff's children were forced to remain in Defendant State of New York's foster care system for nearly all of their lives. David P. Walker, the older child, suffers from dysthymia and bulimia. Tara A. Uzamere, child of the marriage, is mentally high functioning, but she lacks the maternal and paternal care and companionship from which she and her brother were deprived all of their lives. Plaintiff suffers from constant shame from never having been a good parent to her children, who, in spite of Plaintiff's failure as a parent, are amazingly well-behaved and believers of Jehovah God. The racketeering-influenced corrupt organizations Defendants the United States of America, State of New York, City of New York and those Jews having both positions of power and money, pay bribes to unsuspecting, greedy Gentile Americans who do not realize that their acceptance of bribes from Jews makes, not just those who accepted the bribes, but all Gentile Americans slaves to the Jews forever without the ability to enforce their Constitutional rights. Plaintiff emphatically states that the force that unifies the more powerful Jewish Defendants is Judaism, with its emphasis on the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud provides the religious rationalization for the Jewish Defendants to enslave both the Plaintiff and the Gentile Defendants to engage in conduct which is not in the constitutional interests of the Gentile Defendants – like the doctrine Law of the Moser, that now requires Gentile slaves to obey their Jewish master counterparts and keep silent regarding the crimes committed by other Jews. Understandably, those corrupt Jewish Defendants who engage in bribing governmental employees feel a sense of entitlement based both on Jews having paid money for services, and for the Jewish religion that teaches that Gentiles are meant to be enslaved by Jews. In the article entitled Come and Hear, under the subtitle “Coexistence?”, it says: “What does the future hold? Can the Jews ever co-exist with the rest of humanity? The answer is “yes” provided the rest of humanity accepts the role designed for them by Jewish leadership. If Gentiles do not accept enslavement, there will be conflict.” In the subtitle US vs. Talmud Law, it says: “. . .Talmud law insists on unequal justice under law. Talmudic law holds there is one law for Jews, and one for Gentiles. This is not inconsistent with the Old Testament in which LORD God decrees that Jews should not enslave other Jews: Gentiles are the proper slaves of Jews. See newspaper article from Crains, sealed complaint regarding USA vs. Kruger, et al and articles entitled Come and Hear, attached as Exhibit T.

 

135)     Defendant United States of America, by its employee Defendant McCarthy, Bar Counsel for Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security, provided Plaintiff with a report detailing the two Uzamere18 files A35 201 224 and A24 027 764, going so far as to indicate that Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, having obtained a visa as an unmarried student under 21 years of age and having been sponsored by his brother and sister-in-law, fraudulently applied for permanent residence as Plaintiff's husband “Godwin E. Uzamere”, and over the age of 21. Defendant McCarthy referenced the fingerprints in the two files which Plaintiff understood to mean were the same. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security's employee T. Diane Diane Cejka, former Director of the FOIA/PA Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service in Lee Summit, Missouri provided the Plaintiff with even more irrefutable documentation, including the two (2) immigration number A35 201 224 and A24 027 764 to establish that Plaintiff's ex-husband filed for residence under two (2) different immigration number.

 

136)....Years later, after several attempts by Defendant judges Jewish judges Michael Gerstein, Jeffrey S. Sunshine, Arthur M. Schack and Nicholas G. Garaufis and the powerful, racist Jewish criminal newspaper publisher and editor Mortimer Zuckerman to prevent Plaintiff from filing criminal complaints against corrupt Jewish immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein by publicly declaring Plaintiff's incredible based on her status of having mentally ill with violent tendencies have all but blown up in their faces, Defendant Garaufis has embarked on yet another equally unoriginal course of conduct – by saying “I didn't do it!” Plaintiff has responded to that stunt by filing a criminal complaint against Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel and the Daily News, LP for their commission of aggravated identity theft.

 

137)     Defendant Garaufis' game plan now is to stop Plaintiff's reliance on the continuing criminal violations doctrine in its tracks. Defendant Garaufis has attempted to do this by being willfully blind of his extortionate psychiatric/criminal “shakedown” of the Plaintiff, and instead, to say that Plaintiff's mental illness (lacking the threat of violence this time) caused her to falsely claim that Defendants Garaufis; “John Doe” #1 of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; LifeNet of the Mental Health Association of New York City; “John Doe” #2 of the U.S. Marshals Service for Eastern District of New York; “John Doe” #3 of the U.S. Marshals Service for Eastern District of New York; “Jane Doe” of the U.S. Marshals Service for the Eastern District of New York; Bridget Davis of the New York State Office of Mental Health; “Dr. John Doe” of Brookdale Hospital and Medical Center; Samuel Sarpong of the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center, Assertive Community and Treatment Team; and Dr. Scott A. Berger of the East New York Diagnostic and Treatment Center, Assertive Community and Treatment Team never said that Plaintiff threatened any federal employee. Defendant Garaufis' attempt is lacking in commonsense because Plaintiff, who was within the State of New York at the time of the telephone call, availed herself of New York State's one-party law with regard to recording in-person or in-telephone conversations, by giving herself permission to record the conversation with Defendant Bridget Davis, who was also within the State of New York at the time of the recording. Plaintiff subsequently uploaded the recorded telephone call to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit.htmland noted, among other things, that Defendant Davis said that Plaintiff threatened others, that there were others federal agencies that thought Plaintiff was a danger to others. Plaintiff gave herself permission to record her conversation with “John Doe” #1 of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who, during the aforesaid conversation, extorted Plaintiff not to file any complaint against anyone Jewish or she would call Plaintiff's daughter, visit Plaintiff's apartment and (by inference) report Plaintiff's argument to her psychiatric care providers, which he did. Plaintiff also gave herself permission to record the conversation and upload it to her web page http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/uzamere_v_obama.html. In addition, the same falsified criminal allegations that are contained in the telephone conversation that Plaintiff uploaded to her web page is written down in Defendant McGowan's correspondence dated August 18, 2011 and Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation psychiatric treatment plan dated February 26, 2012. And in spite of several years of unconstitutional treatment at the hands of Defendant Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman's judicial subordinates, no subordinate judge, starting from Defendant Lippman, has ever allowed Plaintiff to file any complaint that makes reference to the aggravated identity theft that was committed by corrupt Jews Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman, Scott Shifrel and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Osato Eugene Uzamere.

 

138)     Defendant McCarthy made no attempt to warn immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato E. Uzamere to stop holding out “Godwin E. Uzamere and Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as two (2) different people even after Plaintiff warned Defendant McCarthy that Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and the Daily News were still holding out “Godwin Uzamere” as a real person, and even after Plaintiff provided Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Osato E. Uzamere proof that Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and “Godwin E. Uzamere” are the same the person. In addition, no employee of Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security ever made any attempt to investigate and then arrest Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein for their commission of aggravated identity theft. Worse still, in spite of black letter law that requires federal judges and attorneys to report the commission of wrongdoing by fellow judges and attorneys, not one of the defendants, upon receiving irrefutable proof of corrupt immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's and Osato E. Uzamere's commission of aggravated identity theft, filed a complaint with any law enforcement agency. Plaintiff's Verified Complaint speaks to, not only separate criminal acts of the Defendants, but of a pattern of behavior that is indicative of an anti-U.S. Constitution, pro-Talmud, pro-Jew, anti-Gentile, anti-schvartze bias that permeates every court in New York's Second Circuit and the New York State Unified Court System. Defendant judges, in violation of 18 USC §4, misprision of felony and the code of conduct for federal and New York State judges that require judges to report the crimes of attorneys to pertinent law enforcement agencies, Plaintiff's complaints regarding the commission of aggravated identity theft go ignored, as well as Plaintiff's complaints regarding those acts of fraud with regard to the false criminal accusation made against Plaintiff by Defendant Judge Garaufis, Defendant “John Doe” #1 of the U.S. Marshals Service for the Eastern District of New York, and/or “John Doe” #2, of the U.S. Marshals Service for the Eastern District of New York, and/or “Jane Doe” #3 of the U.S. Marshals Service for the Eastern District of New York, and Defendant Denis P. McGowan of Defendant the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Defendant Bridget Davis of Defendant the New York State Office of Mental Health, and Defendants Samuel Sarpong and Dr. Scott A. Berger of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The aforementioned Defendants accused Plaintiff of committing 18 USC §115, threatening a federal employee, something that Plaintiff never did. On or around January 30, 2013, Plaintiff received correspondence from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The correspondence indicated all the telephone calls that Plaintiff made to the call center, and that Plaintiff made no threatening telephone calls. However, where Plaintiff's innocence is concerned, it does not matter. Plaintiff holds that there is a specific hierarchy where the Defendants are concerned. Plaintiff strongly alleges that the Gentile Defendants' most important responsibility is not enforcement of the U.S. Constitution, but their ability to worship the Jewish community as their gods, to serve the Jews as their obedient slaves, and to ensure that any judicial decision that is rendered is rendered, not according to the U.S. Constitution, but according to what makes the Jewish community happy. See correspondence from CMS attached as Exhibit S.

 

139)     Plaintiff has had difficulty in explaining, well enough for this Court to understand, that there is a pervasive attitude that fosters and encourages the courts' bestowing on Jews certain understood, but not mentioned, favors associated with being white and Jewish. This clandestinely understood right, known as “white skin privilege”, was openly requested by members of the website http://www.jewishdefense.org. The site stated: “Contact Stewart Judge: No White Skin Privilege For Lynne” and: “Click Here For Printer Friendly Suggested Letter To Judge Koeltl Asking Him Not To Treat Lynne Stewart Differently Than Her Co-defendants.” Combine these racist statements with Jewish doctrines about black-skinned people in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate 108b, and footnote 34; Midrash Rabbah, page 293; Legends of the Jews, Vol. 1, page 169, Artsot Ha-Hayyim, pages 52a and 52b, and the Defendants' continued commission of 18 USC §4, misprision of felony with regard to their recalcitrance by not reporting Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's, Osato Eugene Uzamere's, Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's Mortimer Zuckerman's and Scott Shifrel's commission of aggravated identity theft, Plaintiff has a justiciable reason not to trust Judge Koeltl or any other judge in the eastern district, southern district or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See internet article regarding Lynne Stewart attached as Exhibit W.

 

140)     Plaintiff restates and realleges that Defendants committed the following offenses and constitutional torts: misprision of felony, 18 USC §4; fraud, 18 USC §1001; identity theft, 18 USC §1028; aggravated identity fraud, 18 USC §1028A; deprivation of rights under color of law (including being kidnapped, unlawfully imprisoned and blacklisted), 18 USC §242/42 USC §1985; extortion, 18 USC §872§, blackmail, 18 USC §873; violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act; violation of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973; violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601; violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the Petition Clause of the First Amendment; violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; violation of the Notice Clause of the Sixth Amendment; violation of the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment; violation of Plaintiff's right of privacy with regard to the illegal dissemination of her psychiatric records, Plaintiff marriage history, Plaintiff married name, and the non-content information associated with Plaintiff's internet and telephone accounts; violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, intentional misuse of national security letters (NSLs) or some manner in which Defendants obtained non-content information illegally.

 

141)     Plaintiff alleges that although all the Defendants actively participated in preventing Plaintiff from filing complaints against Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein, the heart of the conspiracy are the following persons: Defendant Garaufis, (authorized NSLs/unauthorized telephone investigations that were used to rationalize dismissal of Plaintiff's civil rights action Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831 and 11-2713-cv; Plaintiff's psychiatric hospitalization in Brookdale Hospital based on threats that Plaintiff never made); “John Doe” #1 of Defendant FBI (threatened psychiatric hospitalization after Plaintiff insisted on filing complaint against Jews who violated Plaintiff's rights, conversation uploaded to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/uzamere_v_obama.html;  “John Doe” #2, “John Doe #3” and “Jane Doe” of Defendant U.S. Marshals Service (conversation in which Bridget Davis stated that the Marshals said that Plaintiff threatened the (federal) Medicaid Office, uploaded to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/federallawsuit); Denis P. McGowan of Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (sent secret letter to Samuel Sarpong in which Plaintiff was accused of threatening employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' call center); Dr. Scott A. Berger of Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation; New York State Judge Michael Gerstein; New York State Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine and New York State Justice Arthur M. Schack, Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Mortimer Zuckerman of the Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel of the Daily News, LP. In spite of the aforesaid Defendants' accusation/diagnosis that I threatened Defendant Garaufis, other judges and employees of CMS, none of the Defendants made any attempt to bring their allegations to trial, thereby providing Plaintiff with the opportunity to confront her accusers and prove her innocence. 

 

142)     Defendants' engaged in the misprision of Defendants Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's, Jack Gladstein's, NYS Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine, NYS Justice Arthur M. Schack, Mortimer Zuckerman and federal Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis' act of identity theft of the name “Mrs. Ehigie Edobor Uzamere,” so that the child of the marriage Tara A. Uzamere was subsequently deprived of her right by consanguinity to bear her father, Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's name; that Plaintiff and child of the marriage Tara A. Uzamere and David P. Walker, stepson of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere were deprived of the legal, social and financial benefits of bearing the proud African/Nigerian/Edo/Bini name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; that Defendants continue to engage in misprision of felony to hide Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's misuse of the social security numbers XXX-XX-2291, the fictitious social security number under which the entity “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” was searched by the New York City Department of Social Services' Bureau of Child Support Enforcement; XXX-XX-7854, the number under which Ehigie Edobor Uzamere owes a student loan (this may be George Uzamere's social security number); and XXX-XX-1205, the number under which “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” actually filled out a filled out an application for a social card is prima facie evidence that governmental agencies viewed “Godwin Uzamere” and “Ehigie Edobor Uzamere” as two different persons. 

 

143)     Plaintiff asks this Court to do something that this Court has probably never done before: to review the facts regarding the Jewish Defendants wholistically. This means rendering a judgment, not just based on what they've done, but based on what they intend to do because of their religion. The Plaintiff asks this Court not to be tricked by the fraudulent statement that the Jewish Defendants and other Jews who have committed crimes against Gentiles had different intentions. This is a boldfaced lie. The criminal acts of the Jewish Defendants and the crimes committed against Gentiles by other Jews may be different but there is only mind. The intention is always the same because the mindset is the same: preventing anti-Semitism in order to save the Jewish nation at all cost, and to prevent anti-Semitism by enslaving Gentiles at all cost. 

 

144)     In Plaintiff's Appellate Affidavit in Support of Judicial Recusal of Defendant Garaufis for the lawsuit Uzamere v. Cuomo, et al, 1:2011-2713-cv, Plaintiff stated the following: 

 

“I allege that Judge Garaufis' bias is an act of malice; however, I allege that Judge Garaufis' act of malice is secondary to the terror and rage that he and many of Israel's adult children continue to suffer as a result of the Roman government's/Catholic Church's 2,000-year holocaust to eradicate the memory of the Jewish Nation from the planet Earth, starting with the destruction of Jerusalem's 2nd temple in 70 C.E., where 1,100,000 innocent Jews were slaughtered and 97,000 were taken captive, and culminating with the slaughter of 6,000,000+ innocent Jews in Catholic-controlled Nazi Germany. I allege that based on Judge Garaufis' various knee-jerk reactions to my lawsuit, like so many of the adult children of European Jews, he is terrified that yet another goy is going to hurt him and the Jewish Defendants. I make this allegation, not to challenge the learning and experience of psychoanalytical and psychiatric professionals, but because I am suffering something akin to post traumatic stress disorder, so I understand and sympathize with Judge Garaufis and European Jews' terror and rage at being oppressed again by non-Jews.

 

While I sympathize with the terrors that Israel's children suffered and continue to suffer at the hands of unscrupulous non-Jews, this Court, in its wisdom, must not allow Judge Garaufis' legitimate fear of anti-Semitism to be used as a rationalization to excuse the tortious and criminal conduct of the Defendants, or to continue to hurt me or my children. Defendant law firm Allen E. Kaye, PC mounted an unprovoked attack on me and my children on November 30, 1979 by facilitating my ex-husband's commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud, preventing us from obtaining money from my ex-husband to live. I had to put my children in foster care. In 2008, a year after I filed my divorce from my-husband, Defendant law firm Uzamere and Associates, PLLC, its owner being a blood relative of my ex-husband, was then enlisted to discredit my story as the rantings of an insane woman. In 2009, the following year, Defendant law firms Allen E. Kaye, PC, the Law Offices of Harvey Shapiro and Gladstein and Messinger, knowing my ex-husband's true identity, submitted fraudulent affirmations falsely holding my ex-husband out to be “Godwin Uzamere” even after the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service and the New York State Unified Court Systems' Second Judicial Department held that Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was my husband and is the father of our daughter, Tara. Judge Garaufis' attempts to come to the rescue of fellow Jewish Defendants to save them from the machinations of an anti-Semitic litigant are more than misplaced. They are now malicious. I am not Hitler, and if Defendant Allen E. Kaye, PC had not engaged in its original criminal act by tricking me for the sole purpose of helping his client get a green card, thereby denying me and my daughter the right to be identified by my ex-husband's and Tara's father African name and to receive money from him for our care, I would not be litigating against the Jewish Defendants. My litigation against the Defendants has no basis in anti-Semitism. The Defendants broke the law. Judge Garaufis' use of the term “frivolous and malicious” is truthful – but his use of the term does not have its basis in the Federal Rules of Civil Practice. I allege that it is in Judge Garaufis' culture to rule that Jews must defend themselves from the anti-Semitic machinations of non-Jews at all costs – even if it means violating the legal rights of a non-Jew. Judge Garaufis' decision is therefore an act of bias that has its basis in my ethnicity as a member of the goyim.”

 

             145)        In the criminal case of People of the State of New Jersey vs. Jesse K. Timmendequas, during the death penalty phase, an “August 1995 videotape – made during an interview at their mother's South Carolina trailer – came as the defense sought to show that the childhood years of Jesse Timmendequas were so horrific that he should not be sentenced to death for the sexual assault and murder of 7-year-old Megan Kanka. New Jersey's state court abolished the death penalty in 2007, converted to a life sentence with no possibility of parole and uphold his life sentence for kidnapping Megan Kanka. The court did not render its decision based on mercy because Mr. Timmendequas was sexually victimized by in father when he was young boy. See http://articles.philly.com/1997-06-11/news/25526762_1_sexual-assault-jesse-james-sexual-abuse.

 

             146)        This Court must now differentiate between the complaints of a person who is being victimized now between the complaints of a bully whose forebears were crime victims but he himself is not. If this Court treats the Defendants holistically, it will see a pattern of behavior indicative of a predator who has thrown moral, social and legal convention to the wind and preys on Gentiles with impunity. Examples of such predatory behavior by members of the Jewish community include the following:

 

The lawsuit Stephen Unterberg v. Jimmy Carter, Case 1:11-cv-00720-TPG; said the following on page 2: “. . .In truth, however, the book is filled with demonstrable falsehoods, omissions, and knowing misrepresentations intended to promote carter's agenda of anti-Israel propaganda. . .According to John Turley's article entitled “A Basis for Damages or Sanctions? Jimmy Carter Sued Over His Book on Palestine, he says: “Former President Jimmy Carter has been named in a disturbing and clearly frivolous lawsuit over his representations on the Israeli-Palestinian Apartheid.” The five plaintiffs are seeking $5 million, but, in my view, should be held by Rule 11 sanctions in filing a vexatious and frivolous lawsuit. See http://jonathanturley.org/2011/02/16/jimmy-carter-sued-over-his-book-on-palestine/ 

 

Common use of the term “nigger” that white-skinned Jews used to address Ethiopian Jews. See http://www.irinnews.org/report/94819/israel-the-tribulations-of-being-an-ethiopian-jew.

 

Jewish laws that teach the following doctrines:

 

·         The murder of Gentile is less severe than the murder of a Jew;

·         Ban on returning a Gentile's lost item if the reason for returning it is sympathy for the Gentile;

·         If a Gentile accidentally overpays a Jew, the Jew does not have to give the money back;

·         One who kills a Gentile is exempt; one who kills a Jew is put to death;

·         A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation or damages;

·         Only Jews can rule over Jews, not Gentiles, not even a Jewish convert;

·         The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile; see http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/so-daat-emet/index.html;

·         According to Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Kamma, folio 113A, when a lawsuit occurs between a Jew and a Gentile, a Jew can use deceit (subterfuge) against the Gentile to fool him/him;

·         There is no equality between Jews and Gentiles;

·         Gentiles are the proper slaves of Jews;

·         In Jewish law, Jews are hard to convict; Gentiles are easy to convict;     

 

Law Licensing Statuses:

·         The Jew-controlled judiciary will not reinstate the law license of African-American C. Vernon Mason, who was never convicted or even accused of a crime, and has been disbarred for 18 years; however there is a petition signed by over 70,000 Jews to release convicted Jewish spy Jonathan Pollard, who admitted on spying on the United States government for Israel; see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Vernon_Mason; also see http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/freepollard;

 

·         Alton H. Maddox, Jr., who never was convicted or even accused of a crime, has been disbarred since 1990; see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alton_Maddox;

·         Jewish Solomon Wachtler, Esq., who was convicted and imprisoned for stalking his former lover, had his law license reinstated; seehttp://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/10/03/sol-wachtler-got-his-law-license-back;

·         Jewish Eliot Spitzer, Esq., who committed adultery (NYS Pen. Law §255.15, Bigamy is a class B misdemeanor) by paying a prostitute for sex (isn't paying for sex illegal all over the United States?), currently running for Mayor of New York;

·         Jewish Anthony Weiner, having admitted to recently uploading more pictures to the internet (see attached internet photo of him sitting on the toilet with his penis exposed; currently running for Mayor of New York;

 

Law of the Moser

 

·         See http://theawarenesscenter.blogspot.com/2012/12/attack-against-rabbi-nuchem-rosenberg.html regarding Rabbi Nuchum Rosenberg. A member of the ultra-orthodox Jewish community threw bleach or some other chemical in Rosenberg's face. Rabbi Rosenberg has since been labeled a moser by members of his community;

 

·         Reverend Israel Dwek renounces his son, Shlomo Dwek as a moser because he reported several lawbreaking Jews to the secular authorities; seehttp://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_XezdmX81B2uEHc6euKYWFP; See Exhibit W1 for exhibits also listed as websites;

 

·         The brokering and sale of body parts by Jews;

 

·         http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2009/07/butchers-hidden-truth-about-israels.html. Rabbi Levy Izhak Rosenbaum of Brooklyn was accused by the FBI of conspiring to broker the sale of human kidney for a transplant. According to the complaint, Rosenbaum said he has been brokering the sale of kidneys for 10 years. 

 

147)     There is a major similarity between the illegal acts committed by the Defendants and by the Jews in those aforementioned acts. That similarity is intent. In the case of all the individuals, their intent is: 1) to allow the unconstitutional encroachment of the Jewish religion; 2) to devalue and dehumanize Gentiles as a means to rationalize Jews' illegal acts; 3) to rely on the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser to ensure that Jews do not report the illegal acts of lawbreaking Jews to the secular (Gentile) authorities, and to ensure that those Gentiles who attempt to report the illegal acts of lawbreaking Jews are stopped by fellow Jews; and 4) to hold uncooperative Gentiles out as anti-Semites deserving of a social death or as close to a real death as possible. The Jew-controlled New York State judiciary will never allow C. Vernon Mason and Alton Maddox to retain their law licenses, even in front of the glaring acts of crimes of sexual dysfunction by Jews Sol Wachtler, Eliot Spitzer and Andrew Weiner, who, as the Court considers Plaintiff's lawsuit, is running for Mayor of New York and electronically sending out photos of his penis while he is sitting on the toilet at the same time. There is the lawsuit that members of the Jewish community filed against a former U.S. President for having what amount to be an opposing opinion about Israel. There is the case of brave Rabbi Nuchum Rosenberg's who has suffered mightily because his legal stance against the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser, at the expense of vision in his left eye, being shot in his head by a BB gun, and being shunned by members of his community for reporting acts of child abuse to the secular authorities Lastly, also mentioned are various halachic doctrines that hold Gentiles out to be worthless, not on equal standing with Jews legally, socially or in any way that allows Gentiles to be considered “men.”

 

148).....The sum total of Plaintiff's living in an atmosphere where predatory Jews make fraudulent reference to real acts of anti-Semitism that took place in the past in order to hide their illegal predation of Plaintiff and her children, based on the encroachment of racist Jewish religious doctrines Curse of Dark Skin and Law of the Moser, has caused thirty-four (34) years of deprivation of Plaintiff and her family's constitutional, civil, marital, parental, social and financial rights. The Defendants have staunchly refused to overtly acknowledge the legal relationship between Plaintiff, her children, and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and have instead, referred to the same, tired, old excuse of anti-Semitism to hide their crimes and to continue to prey on Plaintiff and her children. For thirty-four (34) years, Plaintiff and her children were condemned to the same Jewish religious generational curse that condemned millions of enslaved Africans to the permanent loss of their parents' proper African names, languages and customs associated with those names, and the wealth and social status that would have passed on to African children had they been able to bear their African forefathers' names. Because of the Defendants' determination to stop Plaintiff from reporting the original crimes that were perpetrated by those Defendants who helped Plaintiff's ex-husband commit fraud and aggravated identity theft, Plaintiff and her children are now victims in a hateful, racist environment that forgives and gives second chances to lawbreaking Jews, forever condemns the descendants of African slaves for being dark-skinned, and like the pedophile Jesse Timmendaguas, use past incidents of anti-Semitism to rationalize their abusive, hateful, predatory behavior towards Gentiles.

 

149)     By reason of the foregoing irrefutable allegations, Plaintiff asserts that there exists a justiciable controversy with respect to which Plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for herein.

 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

 

First Amendment Mandate -- Separation of Church and State

\

150)     Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.

 

151)     With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in their official capacities.

 

152)     Plaintiff is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

 

153)     Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).

 

154)     Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears; and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, as does Tara A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and blood heir with the legal right to bear, and for her progeny to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.

 

155)     Defendants owed Plaintiff and her family the duty, pursuant to 5 USC §3331, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; to take said obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and to well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which Defendants entered. This requires the Defendants to establish a clear separation of church and state, and to distance themselves from the Talmudic Law of the Moser in their application and enforcement of the law. Defendants owed Plaintiff and her children the duty to give themselves over to the transparency of U.S. law, and not the secrecy of the Talmudic Law of the Moser.

 

156)     Defendants failed in their duty to meet their legal obligations as detailed by the First Amendment mandate regarding the separation of church and state. Defendants, at the behest of Defendant Garaufis and other Jewish judiciary Defendants have conspired to force the tenets of the Talmud and other Jewish religious dogma on the Plaintiff based on the Talmud's viewpoint of the Plaintiff's as a gentile/non-Jewish, African-American/schvartze slave to prevent Plaintiff from filing civil and criminal complaints against corrupt immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.

 

157)     Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury because she is still under attack by all the Defendants, who, at the clandestine behest of Defendants Judge Garaufis, Judge Schack, Judge Sunshine and Judge Gerstein, have continued the same government-wide hostile environment that Plaintiff complained about in her prior lawsuits, Uzamere vs. Uzamere (Plaintiff's divorce action) and Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv. Plaintiff has been forced by Defendant Garaufis to obey the Talmud, Tractate Abodah Zarah, folio 26b, Tractate Sanhedrin, folio 108b and footnote 34; Jewish doctrine Law of the Moser, the doctrine that prohibits anyone from reporting the crimes of Jews to secular, Gentile authorities; and the Curse of Black Skin, the doctrine that requires people of dark-skinned African descent to be obedient to Jews and white people because dark-skinned Africans are meant to be slaves. In Plaintiff's prior lawsuit Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al Case Nos. 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv, Plaintiff provided Defendant Garaufis with proof that employees of Defendant New York State conspired with Defendant Shifrel of Defendant Daily News, LP , to defame the Plaintiff as an “anti-Semitic wacko”, to illegally publicize Plaintiff's psychiatric and marital information to give their false publicized statement regarding Plaintiff's ex-husband being “Godwin Uzamere” believability. Defendant Garaufis violated Plaintiff's rights in the same manner by relying on the Talmud, Tractate Abodah Zarah, folio 26b and the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser, not the U.S. Constitution to prevent the Plaintiff from reporting the commission of aggravated identity theft by corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein.

 

158)     The courts of Defendant United States of America recognize excessive entanglement of religion as an injury. In the case Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that government may not “excessively entangle” with religion. The case involved two Pennsylvania laws: one permitting the state to “purchase” services in secular fields from religious schools, and the other permitting the state to pay a percentage of the salaries of private school teachers, including teachers in religious institutions. The Supreme Court found that the government was “excessively entangled” with religion and invalidated the statutes in question.

 

159)     Plaintiff submits that Defendants' violation of the First Amendment's Mandate to keep church and government separate also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC §1985, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, such that Plaintiff's Verified Complaint rises to the level of an action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 with regard to those Defendants who are natural persons. Plaintiff understands the U.S. Supreme Court's application of Bivens to natural persons and its refusal to extend Bivens to agencies.

 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

 

Defendants Violated the Americans With Disabilities Act Mandate

 

160)     Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.

 

161)     With regard to all natural Defendants, this claim is brought against them individually and in their official capacities.

 

162)     Plaintiff is an American citizen with a serious and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. 

 

163)     Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).

 

164)     Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans, whose sale was brokered by Jews and kidnapped by whites, forever lost the ability to bear the correct paternal name of her African male forebears; and having married Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, now retains the right from now to eternity to have borne and to bear the name of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that the aforesaid right is retained by Tara A. Uzamere, the adult child of the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere., and for her progeny to bear the correct Edo/Bini name and culture associated with of Defendant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.

 

165)     Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty, pursuant to Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, to prohibit the practice of disability discrimination. As public entities, Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to comply with Title II regulations by the U.S. Department of Justice. These regulations cover access to all programs and services offered by the entity. Access includes physical access described in the ADA Standards for Accessible Design and programmatic access that might be obstructed by discriminatory policies or procedures of the entity.

 

166)     Defendants failed in their duty to meet the obligations as detailed in Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Defendants continue to discriminate against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness because Plaintiff will not stop filing complaints against corrupt Jews immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein. 

 

167)     Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury because Plaintiff is still under attack by all the Defendants who, at the clandestine behest of Defendant Garaufis, Judge Schack, Judge Sunshine and Judge Gerstein, have continued the same government-wide hostile environment that Plaintiff complained about in her prior lawsuit, Uzamere vs. Cuomo, et al, 11-cv-2831/11-2713-cv. Defendants continue to discriminate against Plaintiff by using Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness to falsely and to publicly hold out that judicial Defendants will not allow Plaintiff to file criminal and civil complaints against corrupt Jewish Defendants corrupt immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein because Plaintiff's complaints are unintelligible based on her status of having a mental illness.1920, 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=20120729115138see 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 ofBivens 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 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 committed.

 

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 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 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 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 get 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.

 

During the time that I was trying to obtain help from the Government-financed foster care system, my son David was forced to eat feces while a client with Edenwald in Pleasantville, New York. David was given several psychotropic drugs including Benedryl, Melloril, Tegratol, Haldol, Haldol and Cogentin.

While my daughter Tara was a client with Angel Guardian Home, she was sexually assaulted by other children in the home where she was living. She was about six years old at the time of her assault. She was taken to Kings County Hospital, where she was put to sleep to have foreign matter removed from her vagina.

On February 3, 1993, while I was trying to have my children returned to me, the Government-financed foster care system placed me in St. Vincent’s Hospital from February 3, 1993 to February 19, 1993. This is the first instance in which the Government’s Ashkenazi-controlled leadership placed me in a mental institution while I was exercising my First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Since that time, every single occasion in which I have been accused of some crime, jailed and later had the charges dismissed involved a member of Ashkenazi leadership whose interests were stymied based on my exercise of my First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Nearly every inpatient psychiatric intervention in which I was victimized was instigated by a member of Ashkenazi leadership. It is a miracle of Jehovah God, that my children are productive, employed members of society, and that while I am still a victim of this Court’s Ashkenazi-judge majority, I speak four (4) different languages; I am legally well-trained, both civilly and criminally, and in both federal and New York State law; I am known in my neighborhood as someone who has helped others obtain governmental services and have given of my time and money to help others. Most importantly, with Jehovah God’s help, I am still alive, with a strong mind and with relative good health, although I am nearly sixty (60) years old.

The Government omits its own records that establishes that my visit to the Social Security Administration office was nothing more than the exercise of my First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances as the victim of bank fraud. The Ashkenazi-controlled Government has criminalized my family for nearly 40 years.  The sufficiency of evidence that I now present irrefutably establishes the Government’s failure to state a cognizable offense in this instance, just as it has done in every instance in which a member of Ashkenazi leadership used the Government to enforce Ashkenazi Jews’ religion that advocates hatred of people of African descent and enforcement of Law of Moser.

Since the Government has failed to state to a cognizable offense, as it has in the past, the Government’s complaints against me must be dismissed as a matter of law.

CHERYL D. UZAMERE

FORCED TO APPEAR PRO SE

1209 Loring Avenue

Apt. 6B

Brooklyn, NY  11208

Tel.: (718) 535-7628

Fax: (303) 943-4403

E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net

 

Defendant’s Signature

 

 

 

 
A drawing of a face

Description generated with high confidence

 

EXHIBITS

Marriage License that was falsified by ex-husband Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Joseph Visceglia,
at the behest of corrupt Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro

marriageaffidavitfront.jpgmarriageaffidavitbackpg.jpg

 I-130 Immigration Form that was Falsified by ex-husband Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
and his attorneys, corrupt Jews Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro
 

I-130.jpg

  U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Form
1-214 to Report Immigration Fraud
uscisPage28.gif
USCISPage25.gif
USCISPage26.gif
USCISPage27.gif

 Fraudulent Identity Letter from Jack Gladstein
1stletterjackgladstein.jpg

 This the Divorce Action in Which Corrupt Jewish Attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey
Shapiro Were Implicated for Submitting a Fraudulent I-130 Immigration Sponsorship
Form to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service

verifiedcompg5.jpg

 

 Fraudulent Criminal Lawsuit Charging Plaintiff with Assaulting Rachel McCarthy When
Plaintiff was 260 Miles Away from Rachel on the Day the Criminal Complaint Was Made

USA_vs._Uzamere_--_Information.jpg

  Fraudulent Affirmation, Counter-Affidavit and Exhibits Submitted to
Justice Sunshine by ex-husband's Nephew Osato Eugene Uzamere

 eugeneaffirmationpg1A.jpg
eugeneaffirmationpg2A.jpg
cousinuzamerepg1.jpg
cousinuzamerepg2b1.jpg
cousinuzamerefakepassportpg2.jpg
cousinuzamerefakepassportpg3.jpg

 Child of the Marriage Tara A. Uzamere Identifying
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as her father
taraaffidavitpg1.jpg
taraaffidavitpg2.jpg
taraaffidavitpg3.jpg
taraaffexhB1.jpg
taraaffexhB2.jpg

 Report from Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel, USDHS/USCIS
Regarding the Two Identities of Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
USCISReportbyRachelMcCarthy.jpg

 

 Rachel McCarthy/US Government Withdraw
Their Fraudulent Case against Innocent Plaintiff

USA_vs_Uzamere_--_motion_for_dismissal.jpg

 

  Pages 9 and 12 of Justice Sunshine's Fraudulent Decision
Regarding the Identity of Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
sunshinedecpg9.jpg
judgesunshinedecisionpg12.jpg

E-mails to and from the U.S. Department of State's Embassy in Nigeria Regarding
the Identity of Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere

emailtorobinsanders.jpg
usembassyemail.jpg