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. D. Gregg, Other Unknown Federal Protective Service Officers and the United States

 

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 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 6:

 

Uzamere v. D. Gregg, Other Unknown Federal Protective Service Officers
and the United States of America, et al.

 

 

 

CHERYL D. UZAMERE

APPEARING PRO SE

Cheryl D. Uzamere

1209 Loring Avenue,

Apt. 6B

Brooklyn, NY 11208

Tel.: (718) 535-7628

Fax: (303) 942-4403

E-mail: cuzamere@netzero.net

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE ____________ DISTRICT OF _________­­__

 

Cheryl D. Uzamere

 

                                                            Plaintiff,

 

            against

 

Affinity Federal Credit Union

 

                                                            Defendants.

 

 

CIVIL ACTION: _______________

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

 

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

 

)           At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere, a victim of civil and criminal offenses perpetrated by the Defendants, states the following under penalty of perjury:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

)           With reference to Plaintiff’s past actions against judicial defendants and other federal employees, Plaintiff states the following:

Retaliating against a Federal Judge or Federal Law Enforcement Officer
by False Claim or Slander of Title (18 U.S. Code § 1521)

 

)           Slander of title is a claim involving real estate in which one entity falsely claims to own another entity’s property. It can also be casting aspersion on someone else’s property business or goods. It can be defined as “a false and malicious statement, oral or written, made in disparagement of a person's title to real or personal property, or of some right of his, causing him special damage." (Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Industries, Inc., 68 So. 2d 180, 181 (Fla. 1953); https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/slander-of-title).

)           “Whoever files, attempts to file, or conspires to file, in any public record or in any private record which is generally available to the public, any false lien or encumbrance against the real or personal property of an individual described in section 1114, on account of the performance of official duties by that individual, knowing or having reason to know that such lien or encumbrance is false or contains any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both” (Added Pub. L. 110–177, title II, § 201(a), Jan. 7, 2008, 121 Stat. 2535.; United States v. Jordan, (5th Cir. Mar. 14, 2017); United States v. Neal, 776 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2015); United States v. Hoodenpyle, No. 10-1457 (10th Cir. Feb. 7, 2012); United States v. Reed, 668 F.3d 978 (8th Cir. 2012); Lundy v. Yost, 405 Fed. Appx. 690 (3d Cir. 2011); Tokoph v. United States (10th Cir. Dec. 23, 2014); United States v. Williamson, 746 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 2014); United States v. Wynn, 827 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2016); Frank v. Schultz, 808 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2015); United States v. Neal, 679 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2012).

Code of Conduct for Judges and Attorneys – Federal Code of Conduct for Judges

)           A judge should take appropriate action upon learning of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood that a judge’s conduct contravened this Code or a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct.

)           A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which . . . the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is . . .a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party.

Disqualification of Judges

)           “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented. . . A district court may order any civil action to be tried at any place within the division in which it is pending.”

)                       28 USC §455(b)(5)(i) says: “He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party.”

)           Plaintiff states that based on 28 USC §455(b)(5)(i), all of the judges employed by the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New York and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are defendants in Plaintiff's lawsuit, based on Defendants' commission of 18 USC §4, misprision of felony, and their criminal participation in a religiously-oriented racket, run by a majority-Jewish judiciary, that enforces the Talmudic doctrine Law of the Moser by not prosecuting Jews who violate civil or criminal law.

)           28 USC §455(b)(1) says:

He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. . .”

Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility

)           A lawyer possessing knowledge, (1) not protected as a confidence or secret, or (2) not gained in the lawyer's capacity as a member of a bona fide lawyer assistance or similar program or committee, of a violation of DR 1-102 [1200.3] that raises a substantial question as to another lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.

)           A lawyer possessing knowledge or evidence, not protected as a confidence or secret, concerning another lawyer or a judge shall reveal fully such knowledge or evidence upon proper request of a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon the conduct of lawyers or judges.

Federal Rules of Conduct Regarding Defense Attorney’s Withdrawal as Counsel

The Code of Professional Responsibility

 

)           Once an attorney has accepted appointment or retention as counsel the attorney client relationship is established and may be terminated by the attorney only upon good cause.[1] The ABA Canons of Professional Ethics state, "The lawyer should not throw up the unfinished task to the detriment of his client except for reasons of honor or self-respect."[2] The Code of Professional Responsibility addresses the problem on two levels. On the first, generalized level, the ethical considerations concerning the second Canon of the Bar state that withdrawal should be made only under "compelling circumstance."[3]  More specifically in Disciplinary Rule (hereinafter referred to as DR) 2-110, the Bar attempts to define circumstances that are sufficiently compelling to require mandatory withdrawal and presumably less compelling circumstances that allow

permissive withdrawal.[4]

Special Considerations in Criminal Cases -- Trial Counsel

)           The decision to allow an attorney to withdraw in a criminal trial will be made within the context of potentially adverse impact on the client. In this regard the court must weigh two potentially competing interests, (1) the cause alleged by the withdrawing attorney, and (2) the rights of the accused. The Constitution does not force a lawyer on a defendant, but the court may inquire into whether the accused comprehends the impact of proceeding without one. Even though an accused may be actually conducting much of the defense on his own, it is not error on the court's part to deny a motion to withdraw.'

)           Two clear examples of courts balancing these competing interests are the cases of Glavin v. United States and People v. Jacob.

)           In Glavin, the accused and a codefendant were represented by the same attorney. On the day set for trial counsel moved to withdraw from representing the named defendant, alleging a conflict of interest and disagreement between himself and his client.  The trial judge remarked that both accused were entitled to a speedy trial, and commenting on the lateness of the motion, observed that the accused had ample opportunity prior to trial to secure new counsel. On appeal the defendant claimed that the denial of the motion to withdraw, thereby requiring both defendants to be represented by the same attorney, deprived them of effective assistance of counsel. The circuit court, citing the Supreme Court opinion in Glasser v. United States, observed that denial of such a motion is reversible error "where there is some possibility that the appellants have divergent interests so that one or both might not receive 'untrammeled and unimpaired' assistance from common counsel." The court observed that the record disclosed no such divergent interests and held the decision of the trial judge to be a proper exercise of discretion.

)           In Jacobs, the accused was on trial for a criminal battery and was represented by an appointed public defender. Prior to trial the accused informed the court that he wanted to dismiss the public defender because of a "major conflict of interest." The alleged conflict of interest was that counsel urged the accused to plead guilty to a crime defendant had supposedly never committed. The matter was battered back and forth through four subsequent hearings in which the accused became increasingly more persistent in his desire to proceed as his own attorney, and the rift between the accused and his lawyer became increasingly wider. Finally, one week prior to trial the public defender asked to be relieved of the case, citing a major disagreement concerning a significant element of the case and an inability to communicate with his client. The trial judge denied the motion just as he had previously denied the motion of the accused to assume his own defense…

)           These cases illustrate what could be properly termed the "constitutional dimension of the question of cause." In other words, the cause alleged by the withdrawing attorney must be (1) sufficiently compelling to overcome any countervailing constitutional protections of the accused (such as the right to speedy trial) or; (2) so compelling that to deny the motion would impair the protected interests of the accused.

U.S. Constitutional Mandates

First Amendment

)           “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .or abridging the freedom of speech. . .and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

)           U.S. Supreme Court Case Law Regarding the Establishment Clause: “In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court decision Everson v. Board of Education incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). In the majority decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote: 'The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another . . . in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.”

)           U.S. Supreme Court Case Law Regarding the Free Speech Clause: In Herndon v. Lowry (1937), the Court heard the case of African American Communist Party organizer Angelo Herndon, who had been convicted under the Slave Insurrection Statute for advocating black rule in the southern U.S. In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed Herndon's conviction, upholding Holmes' "clear and present danger" test for the first time and arguing that the state of Georgia had not demonstrated that Herndon's actions met this standard (NSLs should be held to this standard).

)           U.S. Supreme Court Case Law Regarding the Petition Clause: “Today this right encompasses petitions to all three branches of the federal government—the Congress, the executive and the judiciary—and has been extended to the states through incorporation. According to the Supreme Court, 'redress of grievances' is to be construed broadly: it includes not solely appeals by the public to the government for the redressing of a grievance in the traditional sense, but also, petitions on behalf of private interests seeking personal gain. The right not only protects demands for "a redress of grievances" but also demands for government action. In Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2011), the Supreme Court stated regarding the Free Speech Clause and the Petition Clause: It is not necessary to say that the two Clauses are identical in their mandate or their purpose and effect to acknowledge that the rights of speech and petition share substantial common ground... Both speech and petition are integral to the democratic process, although not necessarily in the same way. The right to petition allows citizens to express their ideas, hopes, and concerns to their government and their elected representatives, whereas the right to speak fosters the public exchange of ideas that is integral to deliberative democracy as well as to the whole realm of ideas and human affairs. Beyond the political sphere, both speech and petition advance personal expression, although the right to petition is generally concerned with expression directed to the government seeking redress of a grievance. The right of assembly was originally distinguished from the right to petition. In United States v. Cruikshank the Supreme Court held that 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances.' Justice Morrison Waite's opinion for the Court carefully distinguished the right to peaceably assemble as a secondary right, while the right to petition was labeled to be a primary right.1

Fifth Amendment

)           No person shall be . . .deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . .” Correctional Services Corporation, v. John E. Malesko 534 U. S. __ (2001), page 5.

Sixth Amendment

)           In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” See Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965)

)           U.S. Supreme Court Case Law regarding the Notice Clause: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” In the case United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611 (1881)”

)           U.S. Supreme Court Case Law regarding the Assistance of Counsel Clause: “The Sixth Amendment is a part of what is called our Bill of Rights. In Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, in which this Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right to the assistance of counsel is obligatory upon the States, we did so on the ground that 'a provision of the Bill of Rights which is 'fundamental and essential to a fair trial' is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.' 372 U. S. at 342. And last Term in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, in holding that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against self-incrimination was made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, we reiterated the holding of Gideon that the Sixth Amendment's right-to-counsel guarantee is 'a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial,' and thus was made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.' 378 U. S., at 6. See also Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U. S. 52. We hold today that the Sixth Amendment's right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him is likewise a fundamental right and is made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Fourteenth Amendment

)           “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” See Tennessee V. Lane (02-1667) 541 U.S. 509 (2004) 315 F.3d 680, affirmed.

FEDERAL STATUTES

Title II of the Americans With Disabilities
Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973

)           Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12131, 12132, prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, including those with mental illness. Similarly, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794, provides that no person with a disability, including those with mental illness, shall: “solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

)           In the decision regarding Disability Advocates, Inc. vs. Paterson, et al, Defendant Garaufis stated that “The Supreme Court held in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), that “[u]njustified isolation . . . is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability,” observing that “institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable of or unworthy of participating in community life.” 527 U.S. at 597, 600. The “integration mandate” of Title II of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §791 et seq., as expressed in federal regulations and Olmstead, requires that when a state provides services to individuals with disabilities, it must do so “in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.” The “most integrated setting,” according to the federal regulations, is “a setting that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent possible.” 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d); 28 C.F.R. pt. 35 app. A.

)           Further, Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act requires that “a public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.” See 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d).

)           In the landmark decision Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court held that these provisions of law are violated when a state places people with mental illness in “unjustified isolation,” and that a person with mental illness may sue the state for failing to place him or her “in the most integrated setting appropriate to [his or her] needs.”

)           Defendant Garaufis stated in the aforementioned decision that Title II of the ADA applies to “any State or local government” and “any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government.” 42 U.S.C. §12131(1). Accordingly, all governmental entities are subject to Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, §601
Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs

)           No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Fogg v. Gonzales, Nos. 05-5439, 05-5440 says the following: “In the case Correctional Services Corporation, v. John E. Malesko, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “In 30 years of Bivens jurisprudence we have extended its holding only twice, to provide an otherwise nonexistent cause of action against individual officers alleged to have acted unconstitutionally, or to provide a cause of action for a plaintiff who lacked any alternative remedy for harms caused by an individual officers unconstitutional conduct.” However, in the same case, the Court said: “Most recently, in FDIC v. Meyer, we unanimously declined an invitation to extend Bivens to permit suit against a federal agency, even though . . . Congress had waived sovereign immunity [and] was otherwise amenable to suit. 510 U. S., at 484, 486. Our opinion emphasized that the purpose of Bivens is to deter the officer, not the agency. Id., at 485 (emphasis in original) (citing Carlson v. Green, supra, at 21). We reasoned that if given the choice, plaintiffs would sue a federal agency instead of an individual who could assert qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. To the extent aggrieved parties had less incentive to bring damages claim against individuals, the deterrent effects of the Bivens remedy would be lost. 510 U.S. at 485. Accordingly, to allow a Bivens claim against federal agencies would mean the evisceration of the Bivens remedy, rather than its extension. 510 U. S., at 485.”

42 USC §1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights


42 USC §1985 - Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights

 

)           Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. . .If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws. . .the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.” See Haddle V. Garrison et al, 525 U.S. 121 (1998).

)           Federal courts recognize blacklisting as a cause of action. In the lawsuit Castillo v. Spiliada Maritime Corporation MV, 937 F. 2d 240, the United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated that “. . .Plaintiffs have offered substantial evidence that they were coerced into agreeing to the settlements with threats that charges would be filed against them with the POEA and that they would be blacklisted. As the threats of blacklisting endangered the possibility of future employment in their established trade, Plaintiffs reasonably could have been intimidated into settling.” In the lawsuit Duckworth v. Pratt & Whitney, Inc., 152 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit stated that “As both Duckworth and the Secretary of Labor persuasively argue, the achievement of these objectives would be frustrated by adopting Pratt & Whitney's interpretation. That interpretation would permit an employer to evade the Act by blacklisting employees who have used leave in the past or by refusing to hire prospective employees if the employer suspects they might take advantage of the Act.” The United States Court of Appeal's use of the term “leave” refers to medical leave. The United States Court of Appeals use of the term “Act” refers to the Family and Medical Act of 1993. In the case Davis v. Paul, et al, 505 F.2d 1180, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth circuit stated that “Few things are as fundamental to our legal system as the presumption of innocence until overcome by proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a fair trial. The dissemination of the flier in the case at bar is in the face of the presumption of innocence, disregards the Due Process Clause and is based on evidence that is not probative of guilt. Condemning a man to a suspect class without a trial and on a wholly impermissible standard, as in the case at bar, offends the very essence of the Due Process Clause, i.e., protection of the individual against arbitrary action. Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U.S. 551, 559, 76 S.Ct. 637, 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956); Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331, 351-352, 75 S.Ct. 790 (1955) (Douglas, J., concurring.) As said by Mr. Justice Black in his concurring opinion in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 144-145, 71 S.Ct. 624, 634 (1951): 'Our basic law, however, wisely withheld authority for resort to executive. . .condemnations and blacklists as a substitute for imposition of legal types of penalties by courts following trial and conviction in accordance with procedural safeguards of the Bill of Rights.'” The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's, (EEOC) Office of Legal Counsel the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 overlap, and that where employees are concerned, “ADA Title II covers all public employers without regard to the number of employees.” By this action, Plaintiff seeks to put an end to New York State's practice of blacklisting the Plaintiff by refusing to provide her with outpatient psychiatric care and accommodations required to be provided by the New York State Unified Court System as its courts are covered under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities, and by ending the corporate defendants' use of the media to encourage members of the not-for-profit psychiatric outpatient community to blacklist the Plaintiff by publicly denigrating her because of symptoms of her mental illness that were publicized by government and corporate defendants.

Civil Remedies for RICO Crimes

)           “The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, including, but not limited to: ordering any person to divest himself of any interest, direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions on the future activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons.”

)           Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of Section 1962. The exception contained in the preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final.”

18 USC § 1951 - Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence

)           Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”

)           Some courts have held that a Hobbs Act violation does not require that the public official have de jure power to perform any official act paid for as long as it was reasonable to believe that he/she had the de facto power to perform the requested act. SeeUnited States v. Nedza, 880 F.2d 896, 902 (7th Cir. 1989) (victim reasonably believed state senator had the ability to impact a local business); United States v. Bibby, 752 F.2d 1116, 1127-28 (6th Cir. 1985); United States v. Sorrow, 732 F.2d 176, 180 (11th Cir. 1984); United States v. Rindone, 631 F.2d 491, 495 (7th Cir. 1980) (public official can extort money for permit beyond control of his office, so long as victim has a reasonable belief that he could affect issuance); United States v. Rabbitt, 583 F.2d 1014 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1116 (1979); United States v. Harding, 563 F.2d 299 (6th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1062 (1978); United States v. Brown, 540 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Hall, 536 F.2d 313 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 919 (1976); United States v. Hathaway, 534 F.2d 386 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819 (1976); United States v. Mazzei, 521 F.2d 639, 643 (3rd Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1014 (1975); United States v. Price, 507 F.2d 1349 (4th Cir. 1974).

)           Some courts have held that private persons who are not themselves public officials can be convicted under this provision if they caused public officials to perform official acts in return for payments to the non-public official. United States v. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 913 (1983) (court upheld conviction of head of local Republican Party under color of official right where defendant could be said to have caused, under 18 U.S.C. §2(b), public officials to induce a third party to pay out money); see United States v. Haimowitz, 725 F.2d 1561, 1572-73 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1072 (1984) (private attorney's conviction of Hobbs Act violation upheld due to complicity with state senator); United States v. Marcy, 777 F.Supp. 1398, 1399-400 (N.D.Ill. 1991); United States v. Barna, 442 F.Supp. 1232 (M.D. Pa.), aff'd mem., 578 F.2d 1376 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862 (1978). See United States v. McClain, 934 F.2d 822, 829-32 (7th Cir. 1991) (“we believe that, as a general matter and with caveats as suggested here, proceeding against private citizens on an 'official rights' theory inappropriate under the literal and historical meanings of the Hobbs Act, irrespective of the actual 'control' that citizen purports to maintain over governmental activity”).

Fraud Upon the Court

)           Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in fraud upon the court. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. . . It is where the court or a member is 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 has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p.512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated: “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."

)           Fraud upon the court makes void the orders and judgments of that court.

“Justice Must Satisfy the Appearance of Justice”

)           Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”

)           In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."

)           The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).

Rights of Crime Victims

)           The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.

)           The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.

)           The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.

)           The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.

)           The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.

)           The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.

)           The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.

)           18 USC §3771 contains other rights specific to crime victims; Plaintiff trusts, however, that defendants are sufficiently convinced on Plaintiff's level of intelligence that she does not have waste either ink or paper cutting and pasting the law. If even after this, the defendants are arrogantly unconvinced, the defendants can visit http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3771 after they facilitate the arrest of corrupt, lying, racist, racketeering Jewish attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein for their act of fraud and aggravated identity theft by filing their fraudulent affirmations that criminally hold “Godwin Uzamere” to be Plaintiff's husband and the father of Plaintiff's daughter without presenting USCIS-issued identification cards or passports for both Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and “Godwin Uzamere.”

Continuing Violations Doctrine

)           This Court has jurisdiction over the action pursuant to Morgan v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, DBA Amtrak, 232 F.3d 1008 (November 8, 2000) with regard to the continuing violations doctrine, in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision that “the continuing violations doctrine. . .allows courts to consider conduct that would ordinarily be time barred "as long as the untimely incidents represent an ongoing unlawful. . .practice. . .The district court's reliance on Galloway was mistaken. This court has never adopted a strict notice requirement as the litmus test for application of the continuing violation doctrine; in fact, in Fiedler v. UAL Corp., 218 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2000), we explicitly rejected such an approach from the Fifth Circuit. See id. at 987 n.10. Fiedler examined Berry v. Board of Sup'rs of L.S.U., 715 F.2d 971 (5th Cir. 1983), a case which involved equal pay based upon gender discrimination, where the Fifth Circuit created a multi-factor test for determining whether discrete acts of harassment are closely related enough to satisfy the continuing violation theory. The Berry court's final factor, "perhaps of most importance," asked whether the harassing act "should trigger an employee's awareness of and duty to assert his or her rights.” Berry, 715 F.2d at 981. We rejected the Berry analysis, holding that test was not “applicable in determining the continuation of a hostile environment.” Fiedler, 218 F.3d at 987 n.10.

)           In tort law, if a defendant commits a series of illegal acts against another person, or, in criminal law, if someone commits a continuing crime (which can be charged as a single offense), the period of limitation begins to run from the last act in the series. In the case of Treanor v. MCI Telecommunications, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit explained that the continuing violations doctrine "tolls the statute of limitations in situations where a continuing pattern forms due to [illegal] acts occurring over a period of time, as long as at least one incident . . . occurred within the limitations period. In the case Douglas v. California Department of Youth Authority, 271 F.3d 812, Dossey Douglas was denied employment by the California Youth Authority because a vision test indicated that he was color-blind. Douglas brought suit against CYA for its failure to hire him under Title I of the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment to CYA on the ground that Douglas' claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Douglas argued on appeal that his claims are timely under the continuing violations doctrine because the CYA's discriminatory policy was on-going. The U.S. Court of Appeals stated the following: “Applying the continuing violations doctrine to these facts, we are guided by two earlier Ninth Circuit decisions. In Domingo v. New England Fish Co., 727 F.2d 1429 (9th Cir. 1984), amended 742 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1984), we considered a class action suit against a cannery operator involving allegations of discrimination on the basis of race in hiring and promotions. The plaintiffs argued that their claims were saved from the time bar by the fact that the discriminatory hiring and promotion polices continued until the plaintiffs brought suit. Id. at 1443. We required the plaintiffs to demonstrate that because of the discriminatory policy, they were either discriminated against or “exposed to discrimination” during the limitations period. Id. Almost a decade later, we again addressed the issue whether a case was timely under a continuing violations theory based on an alleged systemic discrimination in hiring. EEOC v. Local 350, Plumbers and Pipefitters, 998 F.2d 641, 643 (9th Cir. 1993). The EEOC filed an Age Discrimination in Employment Act suit on behalf of union members who were excluded from hiring lists on the ground that they received pension benefits. Id. at 643. We noted that the union's policy that excluded retirees from the hiring lists applied to the class members as early as 1984, five years earlier. Id. at 644. We found that the action was not barred by the relevant statute of limitations, because the discriminatory policy prohibiting retirees from joining the hiring lists continued. Id. (“Here, Local 350's allegedly discriminatory policy was in effect when [the plaintiff] first encountered [the policy] in 1984 and remains in force today. Thus, under the continuing violations doctrine, relief for [the plaintiff] is not barred.”). Although we did not cite Domingo in our analysis in Local 350, the two decisions are consistent. In Local 350, the plaintiffs, as union members, continued to be “exposed” to the discriminatory hiring policies of the union.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit finally decided that “. . .With respect to the ADA claim. . .We REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment on both the Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims because we conclude that the claims were timely filed under the continuing violations doctrine."

H.R. 40
Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act
(as it concerns the African Holocaust/The Maafa)

 

)           Commonly known as the “African Reparations Bill”, it was promulgated by African-American Congressman John Conyers “To acknowledge the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the 13 American colonies between 1619 and 1865 and to establish a commission to examine the institution of slavery, subsequently de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes.”

Implied Cause of Action

)           For the reasons set forth below, I am of the opinion that federal courts do have the power to award damages for violation of 'constitutionally protected interests' and I agree with the Court that a traditional judicial remedy such as damages is appropriate to the vindication of the personal interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.” See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999; 29 L. Ed. 2D 619; 1971 U.S. Lexis 23; at Correctional Services Corporation, v. John E. Malesko, it says: “In the decade following Bivens, we recognized an implied damages remedy under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Davis v. Passman, 442 U. S. 228 (1979), and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14 (1980). In both Davis and Carlson, we applied the core holding of Bivens, recognizing in limited circumstances a claim for money damages against federal officers who abuse their constitutional authority. In Davis, we inferred a new right of action chiefly because the plaintiff lacked any other remedy for the alleged constitutional deprivation. 442 U. S., at 245 (For Davis, as for Bivens, it is damages or nothing). In Carlson, we inferred a right of action against individual prison officials where the plaintiff's only alternative was a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the United States. 446 U. S., at 18. 23. We reasoned that the threat of suit against the United States was insufficient to deter the unconstitutional acts of individuals. Id., at 21. (Because the Bivens remedy is recoverable against individuals, it is a more effective deterrent than the FTCA remedy). We also found it crystal clear that Congress intended the FTCA and Bivens to serve as parallel and complementary sources of liability. 446 U.S., at 19.20...In 30 years of Bivens jurisprudence we have extended its holding only twice, to provide an otherwise nonexistent cause of action against individual officers alleged to have acted unconstitutionally, or to provide a cause of action for a plaintiff who lacked any alternative remedy for harms caused by an individual officer’s unconstitutional conduct.”

Jurisdiction and Venue

)           This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, federal question, which states that “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

)           This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1343, Civil Rights and elective franchise, which states that “(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: (1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42; (2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent; (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. . .”

)           Declaratory and injunctive relief are sought against all Defendants under 28 U.S.C. §2201(a), Creation of remedy, which states that “In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction. . .any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.”

Lawsuit History

(for civil actions only; remove is action is criminal)

)           The following are cases in involving the Plaintiff:

Criminal Cases:

            )           United States v. Cheryl D. Uzamere, 1:08-cr-00114-jgm;

            Civil Cases:

1.      Uzamere v. United States of America et al; Filed: July 2, 2013 as 1:2013cv00505; Defendant: Rajesh De, Keith B Alexander, Barack H Obama and others; Plaintiff: Cheryl D Uzamere; Cause of Action: Civil Rights; Court: First Circuit › Rhode Island › Rhode Island District Court; Type: Civil Rights › Civil Rights: Other; Order of Return Cheryl D. Uzamere; Filed: June 13, 2013 as 1:2013mc00066; Court: First Circuit › Rhode Island › Rhode Island District Court; Type: Other Statutes › Other

 

Uzamere v. US, et al; Filed: November 27, 2013 as 13-2454; Plaintiff - Appellant: Cheryl D. Uzamere; Appellee: United States; Defendant - Appellee: Keith B. Alexander, individually and in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency, Rajesh De, individually and in his official capacity as General Counsel for the National Security Agency, National Security AG and others; Court: First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit; Type: Civil Rights › Other Civil Rights

 

2.      Uzamere v. Cuomo et al, Filed: June 10, 2011 as 1:2011cv02831; Defendant: Federation Employment and Guidance Service, Gladstein and Messinger, Michael F. Hogan and others; Plaintiff: Cheryl D. Uzamere; Cause of Action: Fed. Question; Court: Second Circuit › New York › New York Eastern District Court; Type: Other Statutes › Other Statutory Actions

 

Uzamere v. Cuomo, Filed: July 6, 2011 as 11-2713; Plaintiff - Appellant: Cheryl D. Uzamere; Defendant - Appellee: Andrew M. Cuomo, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New York, Nirav R. Shah, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, Michael F. Hogan, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health and others; Court: Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit; Type: Other Statutes;

 

3.      Uzamere v. The United States Postal Service et al; Filed: October 6, 2010 as 1:2010cv07668; Plaintiff: Cheryl D. Uzamere; Defendant: The United States Postal Service, Scott Shifrel; Cause of Action: Civil Rights Act; Court: Second Circuit › New York › New York Southern District Court; Type: Civil Rights › Other Civil Rights

 

4.      Uzamere v. USA; Filed: September 1, 2010 as 1:2010cv00591; Plaintiff: Cheryl D. Uzamere; Defendant: USA; Cause Of Action: Tucker Act; Court: Federal Circuit United States Federal Claims Court; Type: Other Statutes › Miscellaneous - Damages

 

5.      Uzamere v. USA, Filed: August 30, 2010 as 1:2010cv00585, Plaintiff: Cheryl D. Uzamere; Defendant: USA, Cause of Action: Tucker Act, Court: Federal Circuit United States Federal Claims Court, Type: Other Statutes › Miscellaneous - Damages

 

6.      Uzamere v. USA, Filed: August 16, 2010 as 1:2010cv00555, Plaintiff: Cheryl D. Uzamere, Defendant: USA; Cause of Action: Tucker Act; Court: Federal Circuit United States Federal Claims Court; Type: Other Statutes › Miscellaneous - Damages

 

7.      Uzamere v. United States Postal Service; Filed: August 14, 2009 as 1:2009cv03709; Plaintiff: Cheryl D. Uzamere; Defendant: United States Postal Service; Cause of Action: Fed. Question; Court: Second Circuit › New York › New York Eastern District Court; Type: Other Statutes › Plaintiff

 

8.      Uzamere v. State of New York et al; Filed: June 18, 2009 as 1:2009cv02703; Plaintiff: Cheryl D. Uzamere, Defendant: State of New York, City of New York, Metropolitan Transit Authority and others; Cause of Action: Fed. Question; Court: Second Circuit › New York › New York Eastern District Court; Type: Other Statutes › Plaintiff

 

9.      Uzamere v. Allen E. Kaye, P.C. et al; Filed: April 7, 2009 as 1:2009cv03506; Plaintiff: Cheryl D. Uzamere; Defendant: Allen E. Kaye, P.C., Uzamere and Associates, PLLC, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP and others; Cause of Action: Federal Question: Other Civil Rights; Court: Second Circuit › New York › New York Southern District Court; Type: Civil Rights › Plaintiff

 

10.  Uzamere v. Allen E. Kaye, P.C et al; Filed: February 23, 2009 as 1:2009cv01617; Plaintiff: Cheryl D. Uzamere; Defendant: Allen E. Kaye, P.C, Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq. and others; Cause 0f Action: Federal Question; Court: Second Circuit › New York › New York Southern District Court; Type: Civil Rights › Plaintiff

 

11.  Uzamere v. Bush, et al; Filed: February 22, 2008 as 1:2008cv00891; Defendant: The United States Social Security Administration, United States Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security and others; Plaintiff: Cheryl D. Uzamere; Cause of Action: Fed. Question; Court: Second Circuit › New York › New York Eastern District Court; Type: Other Statutes › Plaintiff

 

12.  Uzamere v. John Doe et al; Filed: June 18, 2007 as 1:2007cv02471; Plaintiff: Cheryl D. Uzamere; Defendant: John Doe, Yar'adua, Federal Republic of Nigeria and others; Cause of Action: Fed. Question; Court: Second Circuit › New York › New York Eastern District Court; Type: Other Statutes › Other Statutory Actions

 

13.  New York City Housing Authority et al v. Uzamere; Filed: March 15, 2007 as 1:2007cv01194; Plaintiff: New York City Housing Authority, Louis H. Pink Houses; Defendant: Cheryl D. Uzamere; Cause of Action: Notice of Removal; Court: Second Circuit › New York › New York Eastern District Court; Type: Other Statutes › Other Statutory Actions

 

Purpose of Plaintiff's (Verified Complaint or Motion to _________)

)           By this action, Plaintiff moves this Court to seeks to put an end to Defendants' commission of the following civil and criminal offenses:

Presentation of Facts

(for Verified Complaint or Motion to _________, based on Appellate/SCOTUS Ruling)

            )          

Factual Analysis

)           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

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS

IN JUSTIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO SUE

 

)           Plaintiff claims the following regarding Defendants’ violation of the _______ Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and/or federal statute (or reasons for motion to ______):

)           Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.

)           This claim is brought against Defendants individually and in their official capacities.

)           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.

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

)           Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans; and that said holocaust is well-documented by the United Nations Working Group for the descendants of African slaves;

)           That the purpose of said enslavement was not for inexpensive labor, but to fuel the Ashkenazi-Babylonian Talmudic inspired trafficking of slaves for the torture, rape and murder of children;

)           That leaders of this ethnoreligious group have a worldwide network dedicated to the sexual enslavement of nonconsenting individuals;

)           That the sexual enslavement, torture, rape and murder of nonconsenting individuals is identified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses Volume V as sexual sadism disorder;

)           That the sexual enslavement, torture, rape and murder of nonconsenting individuals is identified by the World Health Organizations’ International Classification for Diseases Volume 10 as coercive sexual sadism disorder;

)           Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty, pursuant to ___________ 5 USC §3331, to ____________

)           Defendants failed in their duty to meet their legal obligations as detailed by the ____________.

)           Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury as a result of Defendants’ violation of _____________.

)           The injuries that the Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer are also recognized as injuries according to ______________.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS

IN JUSTIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO SUE

 

)           Plaintiff claims the following regarding Defendants’ violation of the _______ Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and/or federal statute (or reasons for motion to ______):

)           Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.

)           This claim is brought against Defendants individually and in their official capacities.

)           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.

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

)           Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans; and that said holocaust is well-documented by the United Nations Working Group for the descendants of African slaves;

)           That the purpose of said enslavement was not for inexpensive labor, but to fuel the Ashkenazi-Babylonian Talmudic inspired trafficking of slaves for the torture, rape and murder of children;

)           That leaders of this ethnoreligious group have a worldwide network dedicated to the sexual enslavement of nonconsenting individuals;

)           That the sexual enslavement, torture, rape and murder of nonconsenting individuals is identified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses Volume V as sexual sadism disorder;

)           That the sexual enslavement, torture, rape and murder of nonconsenting individuals is identified by the World Health Organizations’ International Classification for Diseases Volume 10 as coercive sexual sadism disorder;

)           Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty, pursuant to ___________ 5 USC §3331, to ____________

)           Defendants failed in their duty to meet their legal obligations as detailed by the ____________.

)           Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury as a result of Defendants’ violation of _____________.

)           The injuries that the Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer are also recognized as injuries according to ______________.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS

IN JUSTIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO SUE

 

)           Plaintiff claims the following regarding Defendants’ violation of the _______ Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and/or federal statute (or reasons for motion to ______):

)           Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.

)           This claim is brought against Defendants individually and in their official capacities.

)           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.

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

)           Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans; and that said holocaust is well-documented by the United Nations Working Group for the descendants of African slaves;

)           That the purpose of said enslavement was not for inexpensive labor, but to fuel the Ashkenazi-Babylonian Talmudic inspired trafficking of slaves for the torture, rape and murder of children;

)           That leaders of this ethnoreligious group have a worldwide network dedicated to the sexual enslavement of nonconsenting individuals;

)           That the sexual enslavement, torture, rape and murder of nonconsenting individuals is identified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses Volume V as sexual sadism disorder;

)           That the sexual enslavement, torture, rape and murder of nonconsenting individuals is identified by the World Health Organizations’ International Classification for Diseases Volume 10 as coercive sexual sadism disorder;

)           Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty, pursuant to ___________ 5 USC §3331, to ____________

)           Defendants failed in their duty to meet their legal obligations as detailed by the ____________.

)           Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury as a result of Defendants’ violation of _____________.

)           The injuries that the Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer are also recognized as injuries according to ______________.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS

IN JUSTIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO SUE

)           Plaintiff claims the following regarding Defendants’ violation of the _______ Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and/or federal statute (or reasons for motion to ______):

)           Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.

)           This claim is brought against Defendants individually and in their official capacities.

)           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.

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

)           Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans; and that said holocaust is well-documented by the United Nations Working Group for the descendants of African slaves;

)           That the purpose of said enslavement was not for inexpensive labor, but to fuel the Ashkenazi-Babylonian Talmudic inspired trafficking of slaves for the torture, rape and murder of children;

)           That leaders of this ethnoreligious group have a worldwide network dedicated to the sexual enslavement of nonconsenting individuals;

)           That the sexual enslavement, torture, rape and murder of nonconsenting individuals is identified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses Volume V as sexual sadism disorder;

)           That the sexual enslavement, torture, rape and murder of nonconsenting individuals is identified by the World Health Organizations’ International Classification for Diseases Volume 10 as coercive sexual sadism disorder;

)           Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty, pursuant to ___________ 5 USC §3331, to ____________

)           Defendants failed in their duty to meet their legal obligations as detailed by the ____________.

)           Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury as a result of Defendants’ violation of _____________.

)           The injuries that the Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer are also recognized as injuries according to ______________.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

 

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS

IN JUSTIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO SUE

 

)           Plaintiff claims the following regarding Defendants’ violation of the _______ Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and/or federal statute (or reasons for motion to ______):

)           Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.

)           This claim is brought against Defendants individually and in their official capacities.

)           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.

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

)           Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans; and that said holocaust is well-documented by the United Nations Working Group for the descendants of African slaves;

)           That the purpose of said enslavement was not for inexpensive labor, but to fuel the Ashkenazi-Babylonian Talmudic inspired trafficking of slaves for the torture, rape and murder of children;

)           That leaders of this ethnoreligious group have a worldwide network dedicated to the sexual enslavement of nonconsenting individuals;

)           That the sexual enslavement, torture, rape and murder of nonconsenting individuals is identified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses Volume V as sexual sadism disorder;

)           That the sexual enslavement, torture, rape and murder of nonconsenting individuals is identified by the World Health Organizations’ International Classification for Diseases Volume 10 as coercive sexual sadism disorder;

)           Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty, pursuant to ___________ 5 USC §3331, to ____________

)           Defendants failed in their duty to meet their legal obligations as detailed by the ____________.

)           Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury as a result of Defendants’ violation of _____________.

)           The injuries that the Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer are also recognized as injuries according to ______________.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS

IN JUSTIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO SUE

)           Plaintiff claims the following regarding Defendants’ violation of the _______ Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and/or federal statute (or reasons for motion to ______):

)           Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.

)           This claim is brought against Defendants individually and in their official capacities.

)           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.

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

)           Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans; and that said holocaust is well-documented by the United Nations Working Group for the descendants of African slaves;

)           That the purpose of said enslavement was not for inexpensive labor, but to fuel the Ashkenazi-Babylonian Talmudic inspired trafficking of slaves for the torture, rape and murder of children;

)           That leaders of this ethnoreligious group have a worldwide network dedicated to the sexual enslavement of nonconsenting individuals;

)           That the sexual enslavement, torture, rape and murder of nonconsenting individuals is identified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses Volume V as sexual sadism disorder;

)           That the sexual enslavement, torture, rape and murder of nonconsenting individuals is identified by the World Health Organizations’ International Classification for Diseases Volume 10 as coercive sexual sadism disorder;

)           Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty, pursuant to ___________ 5 USC §3331, to ____________

)           Defendants failed in their duty to meet their legal obligations as detailed by the ____________.

)           Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury as a result of Defendants’ violation of _____________.

)           The injuries that the Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer are also recognized as injuries according to ______________.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

 

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS

IN JUSTIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO SUE

)           Plaintiff claims the following regarding Defendants’ violation of the _______ Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and/or federal statute (or reasons for motion to ______):

)           Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.

)           This claim is brought against Defendants individually and in their official capacities.

)           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.

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

)           Plaintiff is a descendant victim of the African Holocaust in which Africans; and that said holocaust is well-documented by the United Nations Working Group for the descendants of African slaves;

)           That the purpose of said enslavement was not for inexpensive labor, but to fuel the Ashkenazi-Babylonian Talmudic inspired trafficking of slaves for the torture, rape and murder of children;

)           That leaders of this ethnoreligious group have a worldwide network dedicated to the sexual enslavement of nonconsenting individuals;

)           That the sexual enslavement, torture, rape and murder of nonconsenting individuals is identified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses Volume V as sexual sadism disorder;

)           That the sexual enslavement, torture, rape and murder of nonconsenting individuals is identified by the World Health Organizations’ International Classification for Diseases Volume 10 as coercive sexual sadism disorder;

)           Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty, pursuant to ___________ 5 USC §3331, to ____________

)           Defendants failed in their duty to meet their legal obligations as detailed by the ____________.

)           Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury as a result of Defendants’ violation of _____________.

)           The injuries that the Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer are also recognized as injuries according to ______________.

            WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following:

            to proceed in forma pauperis;

            and for such other and further relief as to this honorable Court deems just and proper.

Dated:             Brooklyn, New York
                        March 25, 2018

 

STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION AND GOOD FAITH CERTIFICATION

            I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, certify that I have read the above Complaint and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I certify that I have provided tangible, irrefutable proof of my allegations before this Court; that I researched both facts and relevant law to the best of my ability to ensure accuracy so that my Verified Complaint is presented to this Court in good faith. I certify before this Court that I do not present this Verified Complaint to embarrass, annoy or defame the Defendants.

            I certify the foregoing pursuant to the laws for perjury of the United States of America.

CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE

 

______________________
Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue,
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (718) 535-7628
Fax: (303) 942-4403
E-mail: 
cuzamere@netzero.net

 

 

EXHIBITS

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] 7A C.J.S. Attorney and Client §108 (1980).

[2] ABA Canons of Professional Ethics No. 44.

[3] ABA Code Professional Responsibility (hereinafter referred to as ABA Code, EC 2-32: A decision by a lawyer to withdraw should be made only on the basis of compelling circumstances, and in a matter pending before a tribunal he must comply with the rules of the tribunal regarding withdrawal. A lawyer should not withdraw without considering carefully and endeavoring to minimize the possible adverse effect on the rights of his client and the possibility of prejudice to his client as a result of his withdrawal. Even when he justifiably withdraws, a lawyer should protect the welfare of his client by giving due notice of his withdrawal, suggesting employment of other counsel, delivering to the client all papers and property to which the client is entitled, cooperating with counsel subsequently employed, and otherwise endeavoring to minimize the possibility of harm. . .

[4] (A) In general: (1) If permission for withdrawal from employment is required by the rules of a tribunal, a lawyer shall not withdraw from employment in a proceeding before that tribunal without its permission. (2) In any event, a lawyer shall not withdraw from employment until he has taken reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of his client, including giving due notice to his client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, delivering

to the client all papers and property to which the client is entitled and complying with applicable laws and rules. (B) Mandatory withdrawal: A lawyer representing a client before a tribunal…shall withdraw from employment, and a lawyer representing a client in other matters shall withdraw from employment, if: (2) He knows, or it is obvious that his continued employment will result in violation of a Disciplinary Rule. (C) Permissive withdrawal: If DR 2-llO(B) is not applicable, a lawyer may not request permission to withdraw in matters pending before a tribunal...unless such request or such withdrawal is because: (1) His client: (a) Insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.