|
|
|
Chapter
118
Federal
Lawsuit against Andrew M. Cuomo
and
New York State
Davis Conversation -- Click Here
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Cheryl D. Uzamere
Plaintiff,
-
against –
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;
Ann Pfau, in Her Official Capacity as Chief Administrative Judge for the
New York State Unified Court System; Roy L. Reardon, in His Official Capacity
as Chair of the New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New
York State Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department; State of New York;
the New York State Department of Health; the New York State Office Of
Mental Health; the New York State Unified Court System; the Daily News,
LP; Uzamere and Associates, PLLC; Allen E. Kaye, PC; the Law Offices of
Harvey Shapiro; Gladstein and Messenger; Federation Employment And
Guidance
Service, Interfaith Hospital and
Medical Center; New York Psychotherapy and Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn
Defendants.
|
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
|
Civil Action
No.: 11-CV-2831
VERIFIED
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
|
Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere, a
citizen of the United States and a constituent of federally- and
state-funded mental health services, appearing on her own behalf, sues the
defendants and alleges:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Defendants Violated Federal
Laws With Regard to Plaintiff's Disability
1) 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.”
2) In the decision regarding Disability Advocates, Inc. vs.
Paterson, et al, the Honorable Nicholas G. 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.
3) 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) (emphasis
added).
4) 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.”
5) Judge Garaufis further 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 Defendants in this action are
subject to Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act.”
6) This action is brought in furtherance of those mandates.
Rather than comply with these laws, New York State officials and agencies
responsible for the care and treatment of people with mental illness (and
hospitals they license and supervise) engaged in conduct that effectively
blacklisted the Plaintiff from accessing outpatient psychiatric care from
specific not-for-profit outpatient psychiatric care providers, from
accessing unbiased judicial services from New York State trial courts, and
from obtaining accommodations and assistance from all government
defendants.
Defendants Violated
Federal Laws with Regard to Blacklisting
7) 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
flyer 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.'”
8) 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.”
9) By this action, Plaintiff seeks an end to New York
State's practice of blacklisting the Plaintiff by refusing to provide her
with outpatient psychiatric care, 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.
PARTIES
10) The Plaintiff is a recipient of federally- and
state-funded psychiatric services, and is a
plaintiff in various legal actions in trial courts over which Defendant the
Honorable Ann Pfau has oversight. The Plaintiff also has docket number
2010-07636 with the Appellate Division, 2nd Judicial Department; an appeal
to file regarding an unfavorable decision rendered by the New York Court of
Claims; Notice of Appeal already filed with the Appellate Division, First
Judicial Department file regarding an unfavorable decision rendered with
regard to Defendant Federation Employment and Guidance Service, Inc., and
an appeal to file in what Plaintiff predicts to be an unfavorable decision
with regard to Defendant Daily News, LP. Once Justice Wooten renders his
decision in favor of Defendant Daily News, LP, Plaintiff will file her
already-prepared Notice of Appeal, Notice of Motion to proceed as a poor
person and to prosecute her action on the lower court's original records,
nine copies of her Appellate Brief at the same time, if possible.
Role
of Defendants Andrew M. Cuomo and the New York State Government
11) Defendant Andrew M. Cuomo is the Governor of the State of
New York, a public entity covered by Title II of the Americans With
Disabilities Act. 42. U.S.C. §12131(1). He is ultimately responsible for
ensuring that New York State operates its service systems in conformity
with the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. He is
sued in his official capacity.
Role of Defendants
Nirav R. Shah and the NYS Department of Health
12) Defendant New York State Department of Hea1th ("DOH")
is the agency created by the State of New York that licenses, supervises
and enforces the laws and regulations applicable to adult homes, and is
responsible for protecting Plaintiff's rights. DOH is a public entity
covered by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. 42 U.S.C.
12131(1).
13) Defendant Nirav R. Shah is the Commissioner of DOH. He is
responsible for the operation and administration of DOH. He is sued in his
official capacity.
Role of Defendants
Michael F. Hogan and the NYS Office of Mental Health
14) Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health (“OMH”)
is the agency responsibility for providing outpatient psychiatric services
to the Plaintiff, who has a serious and persistent mental illness. OMH is a
public entity covered by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
42 U.S.C. §12131(1).
15) OMH shares the responsibility for protecting the rights of
mentally ill constituents with DOH.
16) OMH also operates state psychiatric facilities and is
responsible for discharge planning, placement and follow-up for individuals
residing in such facilities. Additionally OMH
funds privately-operated psychiatric hospitals for clients of the public
mental health system and is responsible for developing standards for
discharges from these hospitals.
17) OMH is charged by statute with “the responsibility for
seeing the mentally ill persons are provided with care and treatment, that
such care, treatment and rehabilitation is of high quality and effectiveness,
and that the personal and civil rights of persons receiving care, treatment
and rehabilitation are adequately protected.” Mental Hyg.
Law §7.07(c).
18) Defendant Michael F. Hogan is the Commissioner of OMH. He
is responsible for the operation and administration of OMH, including its
activities regarding state psychiatric facilities and the overall planning,
programs and services for the mental health system in New York State. He is
sued in his official capacity.
19) DOH and OMH are recipients of federal funds.
20) DOH and OMH are programs of state government.
Role of Defendants
Ann Pfau and the NYS Unified Court System
21) Defendant New York State Unified Court System (“NYSUCS”),
Defendant New York State's judicial branch of government is responsible for
hearing cases of its litigants and for rendering unbiased decisions based
on New York State State Constitution, and other
laws of New York State. NYSUCS's Office of Court Administration (“OCA”) is
the administrative arm of the New York State Unified Court System, under
the direction of the Chief Administrative Judge. OCA's Division of
Administrative Services provides a wide range of support services to OCA
units and to the trial courts, including oversight of Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. All courts in New York State are covered
under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
22) OCA's Division of Court Operations is responsible for
addressing inquiries regarding concerns under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. It assists the courts in assuring access to services and
reasonable accommodations for court users and employees who qualify under
the ADA. Each courthouse has an ADA liaison responsible for implementing
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
23) Defendant Ann Pfau is the Chief Administrative Judge of
the trial courts of New York State. On behalf of the Chief Judge, the Chief
Administrative Judge supervises the administration and operation of the
State's trial courts. In that capacity, she oversees the administration and
operation of the Statewide court system with a $2 billion budget, 3,600
State and locally paid judges and over 15,000 nonjudicial employees in over
300 locations around the State. Defendant Pfau is sued in her official
capacity.
Role of Defendant Roy
L. Reardon and the NYS Departmental Disciplinary Committee
24) Defendant New York State Departmental Disciplinary
Committee (“the Committee”) for the First Judicial Department is
responsible for protecting the public and the legal profession by ensuring
that lawyers adhere to the ethical standards set forth in the Rules of
Professional Conduct. The Committee protects the public by reviewing and
investigating complaints against lawyers and by recommending sanctions
against those who are proven to have violated the Rules. It protects the
legal profession by enforcing high standards of conduct, while at the same
time ensuring that complaints are dealt with fairly.
25) The Committee has the authority to take the following
actions, depending upon the seriousness of the lawyer's conduct and the
circumstances surrounding it:
l Refer the complaint to a special
Mediation Program, in which a trained volunteer mediator meets with the
lawyer and the client to assist them in resolving the complaint privately;
l Issue a private sanction to the
lawyer (a “Letter or Admonition”);
l Recommend to the Court that the
lawyer receive a public condemnation (“censure”);
l Recommend to the Court that the
lawyer's right to practice law be taken away for a specified period of time (“suspension”); or
l Recommend to the Court that the
lawyer's license to practice law be taken away (“disbarment”).
26) Defendant Roy L. Reardon is responsible for overseeing the
activities of the Commission. Defendant Reardon is sued in his official
capacity.
Role of Defendant
Daily News, LP
27) Defendant Daily News is a new-gathering and
new-disseminating corporation. It is the fifth most-widely circulated daily
newspaper in the United States with a daily circulation of 632,595, as of
June 13, 2009. The Plaintiff asserts that, although Defendant Daily News is
a private entity, it can be sued in federal court based on the lawsuit Gugliara vs. Daily News, et al, case number
1:2008-CV-00912, filed on February 28, 2008 with the Federal District
Court, Eastern District of New York in front of Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis
and magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, based on 28 U.S.C. §1331, federal
question, jury trial demanded.
28) Defendant Uzamere and Associates, PLLC is a law firm that
provides, among other services, legal representation to individuals seeking
uncontested divorces and legal representation to individuals regarding
immigration matters.
Role of Defendant
Uzamere and Associates, PLLC
29) Defendant Uzamere and Associate, PLLC is a law firm that,
among other services, provide legal advice and representation with regard to matrimonial and immigration issues.
Role
of Defendant Allen E. Kaye, PC
30) Defendant Allen E. Kaye, PC is a law firm that exclusively
provides legal advice and representation to individuals regarding
immigration issues.
Role of Defendant Law
Office of Harvey Shapiro
31) Defendant the Law Offices of Harvey Shapiro is a law firm
that exclusively provides legal advice and representation regarding
immigration issues.
Role
of Defendant Gladstein and Messinger
32) Defendant Gladstein and Messinger
is a law firm that provides legal representation to individuals seeking
divorces and legal advice and representation regarding immigration issues.
Role of Defendant
Federation Employment and Guidance Service, Inc.
33) Defendant Federation Employment and Guidance Service
(FEGS) is a not-for-profit human services agency whose mission is to “meet
the needs of the Jewish and broader community through a diverse network of
high quality, cost-efficient health and human services that help each
person achieve greater independence at work, at home, at school and in the
community, and meet the ever-changing needs of business and our society.”
In its annual filing for charitable organizations to the IRS for 2008 FEGS
reported receiving $4,261,036 from the New York City Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene; $1,331,099 from the New York State Department of Mental
Hygiene; $17,236,242 from the New York State Office of Mental Health;
$336,470 from the New York State Department of Health and $9,373,792 from
the New York State Industries for the Disabled (See Exhibit 1).
Role of Defendant
Interfaith Hospital and Medical Center
34) Defendant Interfaith Hospital and Medical Center
(“Interfaith”) is a multi-site community teaching health care system which
provides a wide range of medical, surgical, gynecological, dental,
psychiatric, and pediatric and other services throughout Central Brooklyn,
New York. The institution operates a newly-modernized hospital with 287
beds and ambulatory care network of 16 clinics stretching across the
Central Brooklyn communities of Crown Heights and Bedford-Stuyvesant. Each
year Interfaith Medical Center serves over 250,000 patients, representing
every racial, ethnic and national origin group in Central Brooklyn with the majority of people being Caribbean-Americans and
African-Americans.
35) Defendant Interfaith provides mental health and substance
abuse services that include both inpatient and ambulatory services with
varying levels of intensity to meet the needs of the consumers in our
community. The treatment programs are designed to meet the needs of dual
diagnosis consumers who may have both mental illness and substance abuse
issues or who may be both mentally ill and mentally retarded. Interfaith
Medical Center provides a comprehensive array of outpatient, inpatient and
emergency behavioral health, psychiatric, detoxification and drug
rehabilitation programs, including outpatient mental health services to
thousands of children, adults, geriatric mentally-ill and mentally-retarded
patients. This program has certification from the OMH and the Office of
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disability (OMRDD). In its annual
filing for charitable organizations to the IRS for 2009, Defendant
Interfaith reported receiving $528,175 from the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services and $1,291,652 from the New York State Office of Mental
Health (See Exhibit 2).
Role of Defendant New
York Psychotherapy and Counseling
36) Defendant New York Psychotherapy and Counseling Center
(“NYPCC”) is responsible for examining, diagnosing and treating individuals
with mental and emotional challenges, as well as those suffering behavioral
or emotional disorders; for assisting the culturally diverse communities in
which Defendant operates by assisting individuals with mental and emotional
challenges and their families to meet with their own needs, and thus
improve the quality of their life; for providing quality mental health
services, and using the most up-to-date evidence-based practices to help
our clients become active and productive members of their communities; to
establish and maintain appropriate professional levels of conduct among the
staff; and to monitor and make use of new developments in the examination,
diagnosis and treatment of the mentally ill. In its annual filing for
charitable organizations to the IRS for 2006, 2007 and 2008, Defendant
NYPCC reported receiving no income from any state or federal agency;
however, at its website http://www.nypcc.org/links.php, Defendant NYCPP
states that it works with the National Institute of Mental Health and the
New York State Office of Mental Health (See Exhibit 3).
Role
of Defendant Catholic Diocese/Catholic Charities of Brooklyn and Queens
37) Defendant Catholic Diocese's Catholic Charities of
Brooklyn and Queens (“CCBQ”) provides behavioral health services addresses
issues such as depression, substance abuse, marital problems and other
stress-related conditions. Among the services provided by Defendant's
professional staff are short-term and long-term counseling, stress
management, activities therapy, vocational support and MICA services.
Defendant's community-based mental health clinics offer those with severe
mental illness a broad range of outpatient services, as well as housing
facilities for residents with independent living skills, health management,
counselor visits and educational and recreational opportunities. Defendant
CCBQ has more than 25 behavioral health programs that help individuals
strive for rehabilitation and independence. It provides intensive training
in daily living skills, behavior intervention, counseling, crisis and case
management, socialization, discharge planning, medication management and
support. Defendant did not provide financial information with the New York
State Attorney General's Office; however, Defendant CCBQ receives revenue
for its mental health services from Medicaid. Services financed by Medicaid
are covered under the U.S. Health and Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 (“HIPAA”) (see Exhibit 4).
JURISDICTION
38) 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.”
39) 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. . .”
40) This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1983, Civil action for deprivation of rights, which states that
“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. For
the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to
the District of Columbia shall be considered to be
a statute of the District of Columbia.”
41) This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1985(2), Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or
juror, which states that “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. . .”
42) This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). “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.” The Court, in an opinion by Justice
Brennan, laid down a rule that it will imply a private right of action for
monetary damages where no other federal remedy is provided for the
vindication of a Constitutional right, based on the principle that for
every wrong, there is a remedy.”
43) 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.
44) 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.”
45) Declaratory and injunctive relief are sought against all
defendants under 28 U.S.C. §2201(a), Creation of remedy, it 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.”
46) Monetary damages are sought against all except judiciary
defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1983 and Bivens.
47) Venue in the Eastern District of New York is proper under
28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2), which states that “A civil action wherein
jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except
as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in. .
.a judicial district in which a substantial part
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.
. .”
STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS
48) Plaintiff's Verified Complaint, which speaks to
Defendants' violations of Title II, ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act, and federal civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42
U.S.C. §1985 are timely. According to 42 U.S.C. §1988, Proceedings in
vindication of civil rights, (a) Applicability of statutory and common law,
the statute holds that “The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters
conferred on the district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70
of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United
States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised
and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States . . . but in
all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient . .
.the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes
of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or
criminal cause is held . . .shall be extended to and govern the said courts
in the trial and disposition of the cause . . .” Federal case law that
buttresses Plaintiff's assertion regarding the timeliness of her filing is
as follows:
Limitations of Time with Regard to 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985
a) In the U.S. Supreme case Board of
Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478 (1980), the
Court held that “Congress did not establish a statute of limitations or a
body of tolling rules applicable to actions brought in federal court under
1983 - a void which is commonplace in federal statutory law. When such a
void occurs, this Court has repeatedly “borrowed” the state law of
limitations governing an analogous [446 U.S. 478, 484] cause of action.
Limitation borrowing was adopted for civil rights action filed in federal
court as early as 1914, in O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 . . . In 42
U.S.C. 1988, Congress 'quite clearly instructs [federal courts] to refer to
state statutes' when federal law provides no rule of decision for actions
brought under 1983. Robertson v. Wegmann, supra.
See [446 U.S. 478, 485] also Carlson v. Green, ante, at 22, n. 10. As we
held in Robertson, by its terms, 1988 authorizes federal courts to
disregard an otherwise applicable state rule of law only if the state law
is "inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
b) Chief Justice Stevens, in
delivering his unanimous decision regarding U.S. Supreme Court case Hardin
v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536, stated, inter alia that “In enacting 42 U.S.C.
1988 Congress determined that gaps in federal civil rights acts should be
filled by state law, as long as that law is not inconsistent with federal
law. See Burnett v. Grattan, 468 U.S. 42, 47 - 48 (1984). Because no
federal statute of limitations governs, federal courts routinely measure
the timeliness of federal civil rights suits by state law. Id., at 49;
Chardon v. Fumero Soto, 462 U.S. 650, 655 - 656
(1983); Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 464 (1975).
This tradition of borrowing analogous limitations statutes, cf. O'Sullivan
v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 (1914), is based on a congressional decision to
defer to 'the State's judgment on the proper balance between the policies
of repose and the substantive policies of enforcement embodied in the state
cause of action.' Wilson v. Garcia, [490 U.S. 536, 539] 471 U.S. 261, 271
(1985). 'In virtually all statutes of limitations the chronological length
of the limitation period is interrelated with provisions regarding tolling,
revival, and questions of application.' Johnson, supra, at 464. Courts thus
should not unravel state limitations rules unless their full application
would defeat the goals of the federal statute at issue. See, e. g., Wilson,
supra, at 269; Chardon, supra, at 657.”
Limitations of Time with Regard to the Federal Rehabilitation Action
c) In the case J.S., a Minor, by His
Mother Sharon Duck, v. Isle of Wight County School Board, et al, 402 F.3d
468, one of the issues acknowledged by Judge Duncan of the United State
Court for the Fourth Circuit was issue holding that federal statutes,
lacking a statute of limitations, 'borrowed” the statute of limitations of
the state in the which the action accrued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988. With
reference to the court's decision, Judge Duncan stated, inter alia, that “...the
Rehabilitation Act is a federal civil rights statute, and thus the
three-step framework provided by §1988 governs the selection of appropriate
state law rules to fill deficiencies in the federal statute. See McCullough
v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 35 F.3d 127, 129 (4th Cir.1994); Wolsky v. Medical Coll. of Hampton Rds., 1 F.3d 222,
223 (4th Cir.1993); see also Holmes v. Texas A & M Univ., 145 F.3d 681,
684 (5th Cir.1998) ('The selection of a limitations period applicable to
Rehabilitation Act cases is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a)....')”
Limitations of Time with Regard to the American With Disabilities Action
d) 42 U.S.C. §1988's requirement for a
federal court to adopt the statute of limitations in the case where the
action accrued also applies to the Americans With Disabilities Act. In the
case Soignier v. American Board of Plastic
Surgery, 92 F.3d 547, Judge Manion, speaking for the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit stated, inter alia, that “The ADA, like many federal
civil rights statutes, does not contain a specific statute of limitations.
Thus, the most appropriate state limitations period applies. 42 U.S.C.
§1988(a); Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-67, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 1941-42,
85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). Wilson dictates a three-step borrowing analysis . .
. Under step 2, courts are to select the statute of limitations of the
state cause of action "most appropriate" or "most
analogous" to the plaintiff's claim . . .”
New
York State Statute of Limitations
e) New York State Civil Practice Law
and Rules Section 214(5) with regard to actions
that must be commenced within 3 years, “an action to recover damages for a
personal injury except as provided in sections 214-b, 214-c and 215 . . .”
ISSUES WITH
REGARD TO DEFENDANT NEW YORK STATE'S
SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY
49) The Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that
“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend
to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of
any Foreign State.” This means that generally, a sovereign state cannot
commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution.
This legal doctrine, however, is refuted when a state engages in conduct
that violates Federal law.
50) In the U.S. Supreme Court case, quoting verbatim:
“Goodman,
petitioner in No. 04–1236, is a paraplegic who sued respondent state
defendants and others, challenging the conditions of his confinement in a
Georgia prison under, inter alia, 42 U. S. C. §1983 and Title II of the
Americans with Disability Act of 1990. As relevant here, the Federal
District Court dismissed the §1983 claims because Goodman’s allegations were
vague and granted respondents' summary judgment on the Title II money
damages claims because they were barred by state sovereign immunity. The
United States, petitioner in No. 04–1203, intervened on appeal. The
Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment as to the Title II
claims, but reversed the §1983 ruling, finding that Goodman had alleged
facts sufficient to support a limited number of
Eighth Amendment claims against state agents and should be permitted to
amend his complaint. This Court granted certiorari to decide the validity
of Title II’s abrogation of state sovereign immunity.”
51) Justice Scalia, giving the opinion of the Court, stated
the following:
“We consider whether a disabled
inmate in a state prison may sue the State for money damages under Title II
of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 104 Stat. 337, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. II).
Title II of the ADA provides
that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such
disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of
the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected
to discrimination by any such entity.” §12132 (2000 ed.). A “ ‘qualified
individual with a disability’ ” is defined as “an individual with a
disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules,
policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or
transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services,
meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or
the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.”
§12131(2). The Act defines “ ‘public entity’ ” to
include “any State or local government” and “any department, agency, … or
other instrumentality of a State,” §12131(1). We have previously held that
this term includes state prisons. See Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998). Title II authorizes
suits by private citizens for money damages against public entities that
violate §12132. See 42 U.S.C. § 12133 (incorporating by reference 29 U.S.C.
§ 794a). . .
Once Goodman’s complaint is
amended, the lower courts will be best situated to determine in the first
instance, on a claim-by-claim basis, (1) which aspects of the State’s
alleged conduct violated Title II; (2) to what extent such misconduct also
violated the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) insofar as such misconduct
violated Title II but did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether
Congress’s purported abrogation of sovereign immunity as to that class of
conduct is nevertheless valid. The judgment of the Eleventh Circuit is
reversed, and the suit is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.”
52) The U.S. Supreme Court held, as did the U.S. Court of
Appeals, that a state abrogates sovereign immunity when it violates both
Title II, ADA and the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff asserts that her
Verified Complaint will show that Defendants OMH, DOS and Defendant
government-funded not-for-profit outpatient mental health agencies violated
Title II, ADA and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by
conspiring with other Defendants to: 1) illegally publish Plaintiff's
nonpublic, confidential psychiatric information to publicly hold Plaintiff
out to be psychotic with anti-Semitic tendencies; to prevent Defendant
NYSUCS' judiciary employees from seeing and hearing Plaintiff's complaints
regarding the commission of perjury and facilitation of identity fraud by
employees of Defendant law firms Uzamere and Associate, PLLC, Allen E.
Kaye, PC, Law Office of Harvey Shapiro and Gladstein and Messenger so as to
employ willful blindness; and to deny Plaintiff access to more socially
integrated outpatient psychiatric program so as to forcibly steer Plaintiff
into an inpatient setting, intentionally misdiagnosed as psychotic with
anti-Semite tendencies so as to discredit Plaintiff's criminal complaint as
the rantings of a psychotic patient.
53) Plaintiff holds that, based on the above, government
Defendants' violation of Plaintiff's Title II, ADA and Fourteenth Amendment
rights have caused government Defendant to abrogate sovereign immunity, and
that Plaintiff's action rises to the level of an action in the manner of
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
BACKGROUND FACTS
ADMINISTRATIVE/JUDICIAL
DECISIONS SPECIFIC TO THE PLAINTIFF
54) The following are issues that have already been
adjudicated by an administrative or judiciary agency:
Decision of Federal
Administrative Agencies
U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Service (USCIS)
a) On August 4, 1980 and August 12,
1980, Plaintiff filed a complaint against her ex-husband Senator Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere based on immigration benefit fraud with the U.S. Department
of Justice's Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”). Shortly after
February 10, 1984, Plaintiff received correspondence from INA which stated
that “I have considered the reason (child support proceedings) you gave in
your request for the address of Mr. Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and I have
determined that the overriding public interest for disclosure outweighs Mr.
Uzamere's right to privacy.” In March 2008 Plaintiff filed Freedom of
Information request number NRC 200823721 with USCIS for her ex-husband's
immigration records that also contained Plaintiff's name. In October 2008,
Plaintiff received correspondence from Rachel McCarthy that said that . . .
IR2 fraudulently obtained because he was married at the time.” Shortly
after January 6, 2009, Plaintiff received more correspondence from Rachel
McCarthy that said inter alia, that “The acts that you allege constitute a
violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Practitioner occurred in
the course of representation by an attorney associated with Mr. Kaye in
connection with a petition for immediate relative filed by you with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) 1979.” Plaintiff
subsequently contacted President Obama to expedite the FOIA request she
filed with USCIS. Shortly after June 12, 2009, Plaintiff received
correspondence and exhibits from T. Diane Cejka,
Director of USCIS' Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Office that hold that
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was Plaintiff's husband and is the father of the
child of the marriage, Tara A. Uzamere. Correspondence from the White House
and USCIS documents concerning Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity are
attached as Exhibit 5.
U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (USHHS)
b) On or around November 28, 2010,
Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant FEGS' employees Dr. Howard
Forster, Dr. Clifford Nafus and Roberta Siegal
based on religiously-oriented retaliation against Plaintiff. Plaintiff's
complaint was dismissed without administrative trial or hearing.
Plaintiff's complaint is attached as Exhibit 6.
Decisions by Federal Courts
U.S. Supreme Court
c) No. 09-5816,
Plaintiff's petition for a writ of certiorari was denied. Information
regarding Plaintiff's petition is attached as Exhibit 7.
U.S. District Court
– Eastern District of New York
d) Plaintiff filed Docket Nos.
1:2007-CV-2471, 1:2007-CV-1194, 1:2007-CV-891, 1:2007-CV-2703,
1:2007-CV-3709 were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. Plaintiff's actions were dismissed without ever
having been tried. Information regarding Plaintiff's actions from
Justia.com are attached as Exhibit 8.
U.S. District Court – Southern
District of New York
e) Plaintiff filed Docket Nos.
1:209-CV-1617, 1:2009-CV-3506 and 1:2010-CV-7668. Plaintiff's actions were
dismissed without ever having been tried. Documentation regarding the aforementioned cases is attached as Exhibit 9.
U.S. Federal Court of Claims
f) Plaintiff filed Docket Nos.
1:2010-CV-555, 1:2010-CV-585 and 1:2010-CV-591. Plaintiff's actions were dismissed
without ever having been tried. Documentation regarding the aforementioned cases is attached as Exhibit 10.
Decision of State Administrative
Agency
g) On November 15, 2010, Plaintiff
filed a Verified Complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights
(“Division). The Division dismissed the case finding no probable cause.
Division's decision dismissing Plaintiff's complaints is attached as
Exhibit 11.
New York State Courts
New
York State Supreme Court, County of Kings
h) Plaintiff filed Index No.
26332-2007 divorce action on or near July 2007. Intelius.com's
skiptrace results that hold that there are no
records of “Godwin E. Uzamere” in the United States, Affidavit of Tara A.
Uzamere holding Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be her father, Decision and Order
of the Honorable Jeffrey S. Sunshine dated May 12, 2009 and Decision and
Order of the Honorable Matthew D'Emic dated March
15, 2010 holding that Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was the Plaintiff's
husband and is the father Tara A. Uzamere, the child of the marriage are
attached as Exhibit 12.
i) Plaintiff
filed Index 18012-2009 on July 17, 2009, action for fraud. The Honorable
Arthur M. Schack ruled in favor of defendants Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, Allen E.Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and
Jack Gladstein based on res judicata. Plaintiff appealed Justice Schack's
decision and is awaiting a date for oral argument.
New York State Supreme Court,
County of New York
j) Plaintiff filed Index No.
009998-2010 in May 2010, action for defamation. Plaintiff's case was
transferred to the New York County Supreme Court and assigned Index No.
403205-2010. On May 11, 2011 the Honorable Paul Wooten marked all motions
as submitted. Plaintiff is awaiting a decision. Affidavit of service of
Plaintiff's Notice to Admit, U.S. Postal Service certified mail and return
receipts, Plaintiff's unanswered Notice to Admit and Defendant Daily News'
attorney’s admission of late filing are attached as Exhibit 13.
k) Plaintiff filed Index No. 115748 on
December 3, 2010. Plaintiff's Affidavit of Service of her Notice to Admit,
Plaintiff's unanswered Notice to Admit, Decision and Order of the Honorable
Donna M. Mills dismissing Plaintiff lawsuit for “failing to plead the
elements necessary for the defamation and intentional infliction of
emotional distress” and lack of actionability of Plaintiff's conspiracy
claims and Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal are attached as Exhibit 14.
New
York State Court of Claims
l) Plaintiff filed Claim No. 119244-A
on or around December 6, 2010. Plaintiff filed Claim No.: “None” on an
undetermined dated. Decision and Orders of the Honorable Thomas Scuccimarra
dismissing Claims Nos. 119244-A and “None” in their entirety are attached
as Exhibit 15.
FACTS
55) Sometime after the Plaintiff filed her divorce action in
October 2007, Uzamere and Associates, by its attorney Eugene Osato Uzamere,
told Nigerian news-gathering agency Point Blank News that “Most of her
commentaries are misguided, and I won't give credence to them. She is
basically crazy. I won't give credence to insanity. She is certifiably
insane. That is all I have to say. She is crazy”, in defiance of the
decision rendered by the the former U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), that nearly 30 years
earlier administratively adjudged that INA's file no. A35 201 224, assigned
to Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and file no. A24 027 764 assigned to “Godwin
Uzamere” both belong to Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that based on Rachel
McCarthy, Bar Counsel for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service,
Ehigie Uzamere's IR2 benefits as an unmarried immigrant under 21 years of
age were revoked because he applied for IR1 benefits as “Godwin Ehigie
Uzamere”, married and over 21 years of age. Point Blank News article is
attached as Exhibit 16).
56) During the Plaintiff's litigation of her divorce,
Plaintiff's divorce action was adjourned 19 times, although Plaintiff's
ex-husband never interposed an answer and never appeared. WebCivil Supreme Appearance list is attached as Exhibit
17.
57) On or around October 8, 2008, Defendant Uzamere and
Associates, by its employee attorney Eugene Uzamere, hand-delivered an
affirmation and a fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized
counter-affidavit from Nigeria which stated that “The plaintiff who has
openly professed her mental illness is also delusional and outlandish in
her claims”; and “I have before now, ignored the Plaintiff's outburst but
her claim to be married to my cousin who was not in the United States at
the time of our marriage is a new twist to this sad tale. . .Her obsession
with this destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which
should not be encouraged” in defiance of the administrative decision
rendered by the INS regarding Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity. Fraudulent
affirmation and counter-affidavit are attached as Exhibit 18.
58) By January 13, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained and submitted
to Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine a copy of USCIS attorney Rachel McCarthy's
reporting regarding Plaintiff's ex-husband's commission of immigration
benefits fraud.
59) On January 12, 2009 Justice Sunshine rendered a decision
in which he stated that “Moreover, the opposition submitted by defendant
raises a genuine issue as to whether or not plaintiff and defendant were
married in the first instance”, in defiance of INA's administrative
decision that recognized the names “Godwin E. Uzamere” and Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere as belonging to Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and that Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere was married to the Plaintiff. Page 9 of Justice Sunshine's decision
and order dated January 12, 2009 is attached as Exhibit 19.
60) On January 20, 2009, the Plaintiff forwarded a complaint
to former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria Robin Renee Sanders regarding Justice
Sunshine's planned act of identity fraud. The Plaintiff received a response
from the U.S. Embassy on January 30, 2009. E-mail to former U.S. Ambassador
to Nigeria Robin Renee Sanders and e-mail from the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria
are attached as Exhibit 20.
61) On May 12, 2009, Justice Sunshine rendered his decision
and order that states that “Today at 10:35 am. defendant was declared in
default for failure to appear at the hearing. Accordingly, defendant's
motion to dismiss this action upon the grounds that he is not the husband
of the plaintiff is denied in its entirety. The defendant is the husband in
conformity with the parties’ marriage on November 21, 1979. Plaintiff is
directed to serve a copy of this decision and order and serve and file a
note of issue, forthwith, with proof of mailing by regular international
mail and overnight international mail for a trial on all issues within this
matrimonial action to be held before this court on July 7, 2009. at 9:30
a.m. This shall constitute the decision and order of the court.”
62) On July 7, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an action for fraud
against her ex-husband and against Defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro
and Jack Gladstein based on aforementioned Defendant's defiance of INA's
administrative decision rendered 30 years earlier that recognizes Ehigie
Edobor Uzamere as Plaintiff's husband, and based on the aforementioned
Defendants' facilitation of Plaintiff's ex-husband commission of
immigration fraud and identity fraud.
63) On or near October 28, 2009, employees for Defendants
Allen E. Kaye, PC, the Law Office of Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein
submitted affirmations holding “Godwin Uzamere” to the Plaintiff's husband,
in defiance of INS' administrative order rendered 30 years earlier that
recognizes Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as the Plaintiff's husband and the father
of Tara A. Uzamere, the child of the marriage. Defendants' employees'
fraudulent affirmations are attached as Exhibit 21.
64) On November 3, 2009, the Plaintiff was arrested by the New
York City Police Department for threatening Justice Sunshine. Plaintiff's
letter of incarceration is attached as Exhibit 22.
65) On November 5, 2009, Defendant Daily News, LP, by its
employee Scott Shifrel published a news article
which publicly holds the Plaintiff to be psychotic; and that the symptoms
that Defendant Daily News associated with Plaintiff's psychosis were: 1)
stripping and screaming about her “senator” husband; 2) Plaintiff's “obsession
with his (Senator Uzamere's destruction has taken her mental ailment to a
new level which should not be encouraged”; 3) that “she comes in her and
files all these papers and threatens people”; 4) her “anti-Semitic screeds
against judges and others”; and, 5) that Plaintiff “was declared mentally
unfit and taken to Bellevue Hospital” that Defendant Daily News, LP
published that it obtained its information from “one courthouse source”;
and that the Plaintiff believes Defendant Daily News' admission regarding
the courthouse source to be true insofar as the aforesaid statement was a
declaration made against the Defendant's interest as New York State Civil
Rights Law 79-h (Shield Law) does not requires a news-gathering entity to
reveal its sources; and insofar as the courthouse source so identified
violated 22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(8)(11) which state that “A judge shall not make
any public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court
within the United States or its territories. The judge shall require
similar abstention on the part of court personnel subject to the judge's
direction and control...” and “A judge shall not disclose or use, for any
purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a
judicial capacity.” Defendant Daily News' article is attached as Exhibit
23.
66) On November 30, 2009, twenty-five (25) days after
Defendant Daily News, LP published its article regarding the Plaintiff,
Defendant Federation Employment and Guidance Service terminated its mental
health services to the Plaintiff. In its discharge summary it stated that
“given client's history of anti-Semitic remarks treatment at an FEGS
facility is inappropriate for her.” FEGS' discharge summary is attached as
Exhibit 24.
67) On December 7, 2009, the Plaintiff was placed with
Defendant New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro
Psychiatric Facility.
68) Between December 7, 2009 and January 15, 2009, Plaintiff
was seen by Defendant New York State Justice Anthony Cutrona
of Kings County Supreme Court's Mental Hygiene Court.
69) On January 15, 2009, Defendant New York State Justice
Arthur M. Schack contacted psychiatrist Dr. Marie Bauduy
of New York State Office of Mental Health's Kingsboro
Psychiatric Facility and ordered her not to produce the Plaintiff. In his
decision dated January 25, 2010, Justice Justice
stated that “The Court is concerned that plaintiff UZAMERE is unfit to
proceed. . .Therefore, the instant matter is adjourned to Friday, March 19,
2010. . .” Justice Schack's decision is attached as Exhibit 25.
70) During the beginning of February 2010, Plaintiff was
discharged by Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility.
71) On or near February 23, 2010, while the Plaintiff was in
her apartment faxing letters of complaint to various governmental agencies,
a social worker from Brookdale Hospital contacted the management office of
New York City Housing Authority's Louis H. Pink Houses, the New York City
Police Department and the New York City Fire Department. An employee of the
New York City Housing Authority opened the Plaintiff's apartment door, and
Plaintiff was again hospitalized by Defendant New York State Office of
Mental Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center.
During the Plaintiff's last week as an inpatient, Kingsboro
social worker Laurie Velcimé informed the
Plaintiff that she was engaged in aftercare preparation, including locating
an outpatient mental health program. The Plaintiff advised Ms. Velcimé that she was interested in attending New York
Psychotherapy and Counseling Center (NYPCC) on Hendrix Street, located
close to where the Plaintiff lives. After Ms. Velcimé
performed a search of NYPCC and other outpatient mental health care
providers, she informed the Plaintiff that not only had NYPCC refused to
accept Plaintiff as a client, but that virtually all the not-for-profit
outpatient mental health facilities that Ms. Velcimé
contacted rejected her request to provide Plaintiff with outpatient
psychiatric services. Discharge summary for Plaintiff's second
hospitalization is attached as Exhibit 26.
72) On May 14, 2010, the Plaintiff appeared before Justice
Arthur M. Schack. Plaintiff complained throughout the hearing that she was
not given a chance to talk. Transcript regarding Plaintiff's appearance is
attached as Exhibit 27.
73) In May, 2010 the Plaintiff filed
her lawsuit against Defendant Daily News, LP with the Defendant New York
State Court, County of Nassau. In Plaintiff's Verified Complaint, the
Plaintiff stated that “given the seriousness of Defendants' statement
regarding the “courthouse source” from whom they obtained falsified
information, Plaintiff respectfully prays this Court to allow Plaintiff to
file her action at this Court.” Plaintiff's statement regarding paragraph
20 from her Verified Complaint is attached as Exhibit 28.
74) On June 7, 2010, Defendant Daily News' registered agent
for process accepted service of Plaintiff's Summons and Verified Complaint
for, inter alia, defamation. Defendant's registered agent's Notice of
Service of Process is attached at Exhibit 29.
75) On or around June 21, 2010, Defendant Daily News, LP filed
a demand for transfer to the New York County venue with the Defendant New
York State's Nassau County Supreme Court. Defendant Daily News' demand for
transfer is attached as Exhibit 30.
76) On or near June 30, 2010, while under the supervision,
care and control of Kings County Chief Clerk Nancy Teigtmeier
Sunshine, the wife of the Honorable Jeffrey S. Sunshine, an employee with
the initials “SP” mail the Plaintiff a fraudulent court document labeled
“Kings County Clerk, Equity Department, Window #9, 360 Adams Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11201”, requiring the Plaintiff to refile her lawsuit against
the Daily News with the Kings County Supreme Court. Fraudulent form from
Kings County Clerk's Office is attached as Exhibit 31.
77) On July 13, 2010, Justice Arthur M. Schack rendered his
decision, holding among other things, that “Godwin Uzamere” is Plaintiff's
husband, in defiance of both the administrative decision of the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Service holding Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be
Plaintiff's husband, and the decisions of Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine and
Justice Matthew D'Emic holding that Senator
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was Plaintiff's husband and is the father of the Tara
A. Uzamere, the child of the marriage. Page 1, 5 and 6 of Justice Schack's
decision are attached as Exhibit 32.
78) On or near July 19, 2010, the Defendant New York State's
court employee “Tara S.” of Nassau County Supreme Court's motion department
and the Nassau County Clerk's Office mailed all of Plaintiff's motion
papers back to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff was forced to go to Justice Parga's
chambers to explain to the part clerk that CPLR §20013 allowed for harmless
errors and that CPLR 2102(c)4requires clerks of court to accept papers. The
court subsequently took back all of Plaintiff's motion papers. Nassau
County Supreme Court's motion submission instruction form is attached as Exhibit
33.
79) On or near July 27, 2010, Defendant Daily News' attorney
sent correspondence to the Honorable Anthony L. Parga, Justice for the New
York State Supreme Court, County of Nassau in which she stated that “I now
withdraw both of those motions and am serving today, and will promptly
file, two new motions (identical in every material respect to the withdrawn
motions), returnable on September 1, 2010. The reason for the withdrawal of
the earlier motions is that this past Friday the U.S. Post Office returned
to my office the copies of the motion papers that had been served on
plaintiff, on the basis that they were undeliverable: we had made a
typographical error on the address label, indicating that plaintiffs
apartment number is "68," when in fact it is "6B''”; that
the aforementioned statement is Defendant Daily News' overt admission that
it defaulted insofar as the Respondent did not serve any documents on the
Plaintiff until fifty (50) days after the Daily News's registered agent accepted
service of Defendant's Summons and Verified Complaint. Correspondence from
Defendant Daily News' attorney is attached as Exhibit 34.
80) On August 5, 2010, in accordance with 22 NYCRR §670.3
Plaintiff filed her notice to appeal Justice Schack's decision. Appellant
subsequently filed her brief and three (3) appendices with Defendant New
York State's Appellate Division's 2nd judicial department. Cover page for
Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal, Appellate Division decision dated April 6,
2011 and Appellate Brief are attached as Exhibit 35.
81) On October 29, 2010, Justice Anthony L. Parga granted
Defendant Daily News' motion to transfer Plaintiff's lawsuit to the New
York State Supreme Court, New York County. Justice Parga's short form order
is attached as Exhibit 36.
82) On January 25, 2011, the Plaintiff received a U.S. Postal
Service delivery notice/reminder/receipt bearing article number
70091080000137809641 and bearing Newark, New Jersey zip code 07102.
Plaintiff alleges that this package was mailed by Defendant Daily News.
When Plaintiff checking the article number with the U.S. Postal Service's
online Track and Confirm function, she discovered that the article number
was untraceable. Two (2) days after the Plaintiff refused to accept service
of the process that was mailed from Newark, New Jersey, Plaintiff received
another notice/reminder/receipt from the U.S. Postal Service. The second
notice/reminder/receipt was dated January 27, 2011. It bore the zip code
10458 but had no article number. When Plaintiff contacted the post office,
she was told that the second notice bearing zip code 10458 and no article
number referenced the first notice notice bearing
article number 70091080000137809641 zip code 10458 dated January 27, 2011
referred to the notice/reminder/receipt dated January 25, 2011 bearing the
number 70091080000137809641 and bearing Newark, New Jersey zip code 07102.
U.S. Postal Service forms are attached as Exhibit 37.
83) On March 30, 2011, Defendant Daily News' attorney Anne B.
Carroll appeared before Justice Wooten and stated that she had not been
served with the Notice of Motion to Renew; that Justice Wooten refused to
check or have his staff check the files to see if the files contained
affidavits of services for the documents in question; that Justice Wooten
ordered an adjournment date for oral arguments for May 11, 2011, and that,
as usual, the Plaintiff was not given the opportunity to present her
arguments to the Court. Affidavits of service for Plaintiff's Notice of
Motion to Renew, Affidavit in Support, return receipts signed by Defendants
and Web Civil Supreme Appearance Detail for oral argument schedule for May
11, 2011 scheduled for 2011 are attached as Exhibit 38.
84) On April 5, 2011, the Plaintiff submitted a complaint
against Defendant Daily News' attorney Anne B. Carroll based on violation
of disciplinary rules of the New York Lawyer's Code of Professional
Responsibilities. Plaintiff's complaint is attached as Exhibit 39.
85) On or near April 6, 2011, the Plaintiff faxed Defendant
Daily News' attorney Anne Carroll the Appellate Brief that she prepared in
anticipation of having Justice Wooten render a decision in Defendant Daily
News' favor, although Defendant Daily News file its cross motion on July
27, 2010, fifty (50) days after its registered agent acknowledged receipt
of service and although it failed to respond to Plaintiff Notice to Admit
pursuant to CPLR §§3123, and CVR §79-h(d); although Defendant Daily News'
attorney lied about the identity of Plaintiff ex-husband and although
Defendant Daily News publicly admitted in its news article that it had
obtained confidential information from Defendants' “courthouse sources.”
Plaintiff's Appellant Brief to Defendant Daily News, LP is attached asExhibit 40.
86) On April 20, while Plaintiff was in therapy with Dr. Elio
of Brookdale Hospital, Plaintiff spoke with regard to
her legal problems with Defendant Daily News and made comment regarding its
owner, Mortimer Zuckerman. Dr. Elio stated that Plaintiff sees Mortimer
Zuckerman at the vegetable stand and at every corner, although the
Plaintiff never made such statements.
87) On April 29, 2011, the Plaintiff filed complaints with
Defendant NYSDDC against employees of Allen E. Kaye, PC, the Law Office of
Harvey Shapiro and Gladstein and Messinger based
on their having submitted perjurious affirmations to the court on October
28, 2009 to the New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee.
Complaints are attached as Exhibit 41.
88) On or after April 29, 2011, the Plaintiff received
correspondence from Jorge Dopico, New York State
Departmental Disciplinary Committee stating that it had deactivated
Plaintiff's complaint against Defendant Daily News' attorney, Anne B.
Carroll. Correspondence from the New York State Departmental Disciplinary
Committee is attached as Exhibit 42.
89) On or around May 5, 2011, the Plaintiff received ex-parte correspondence from Defendant Daily News'
attorney Anne B. Carroll in which she stated that “It was my understanding
that the Court anticipated oral argument of plaintiff's motion – as well as
defendants' motion for dismissal of the action – to take place on the same
day. However, when our service attempted to file our opposition papers last
month, the clerk's office declined to accept them, directing that they be
handed up on May 11.” The correspondence indicated “Enclosures”; however,
the envelope in which Defendant Daily News' correspondence was mailed was
postmarked “$.0044 and did not contain the enclosures that the
correspondence indicated were sent to Justice Wooten. Copy of
correspondence and envelope are attached as Exhibit 43.
90) On May 6, 2011, while the Plaintiff was in session with
therapist Emma Smith, the Plaintiff was crying loudly about having been
victimized by her ex-husband and his attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey
Shapiro, and about her inability to obtain justice in the courts. During
the session, several employees of Brookdale Hospital accused the Plaintiff
of engaging in threatening behavior and forced Plaintiff to be
hospitalized. When Plaintiff saw the possibility that she would again be
forced into a long-term hospitalization that would cause her to lose her
ability to appear in court, upon arriving in the emergency room, the
Plaintiff reminded its staff that mental hygiene law required a 24-hour
observation, and that if there was nothing remarkable, the facility would
have to release her. Thereafter the Plaintiff remained silent for
twenty-four (24) hours. Shortly after the 24th hour, Dr. Shawkat Mustafa attempted to interview the Plaintiff
along with a 2nd employee. Plaintiff informed them that she would not allow
them to double-team her. Dr. Mustafa interviewed her and thereafter,
released the Plaintiff. Brookdale Hospital's discharge papers are attached
as Exhibit 44.
91) On May 11, 2011, the Plaintiff appeared in court for her
oral argument at 9:07 am. When she arrived, Justice Wooten's part clerk Mr.
Rubio told the Plaintiff that she could not appear in front of Justice
Wooten. Furthermore, Mr. Rubio explained that he had contacted the
Defendant's attorney to inform her not to appear, and that the motions
would be marked as submitted. Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court to
note that Justice Wooten's decision not to allow Plaintiff to appear before
him were made less than a week after he received Defendant Daily News' ex-parte communication.
92) On or near May 13, 2011, the Plaintiff visited Brookdale
Hospital to speak with its patient's advocate, Ms. Gray. While speaking
with Ms. Gray, the Plaintiff showed Ms. Gray legal papers concerning her
cases in court. The Plaintiff also produced documentation from the
ICSWorld.com website that showed that medical blacklisting, while common,
is a form of discrimination. Documentation from ICSWorld.com is attached as
Exhibit 45.
93) On or near May 16, 2011, the Plaintiff received
correspondence from Jorge Dopico of Defendant the
New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee stating that Defendant
NYSDDC had forwarded Plaintiff concerning Defendant Gladstein and Messinger's employee to the Grievance committee for the
2nd and 11th Judicial Departments. Correspondence from Jorge Dopico is attached as Exhibit 46.
94) During the morning of May 23, 2011, Plaintiff called
several individuals within the Defendant's court system to inquire as to
how to obtain records of the mental health evaluations that were
adjudicated by Defendant's judiciary employee Justice Cutrona.
A courthouse employee whose name Plaintiff does not know directed the
Plaintiff to contact Justice D'Emic, the justice
who adjudicates cases regarding mentally ill criminal defendants and who
adjudicated Plaintiff's divorce. When Plaintiff identified herself, the
receptionist stammered out that she was given orders not to speak with
Plaintiff and abruptly hung up.
95) During the afternoon of May 23, 2011, the Plaintiff
received copies of the decisions of the mental health in response to
Plaintiff's phone request to Taylor Green, the attorney from the New York
State Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Second Judicial Department that was
assigned to litigate Plaintiff's request for release while the Plaintiff
was an inpatient with the Defendant New York State Office of Mental
Health's Kingsboro Psychiatric Facility. Decision
and Orders of the Honorable Anthony J. Cutrona
are attached as Exhibit 47.
96) On May 24, 2011, the Plaintiff e-mailed correspondence to
Defendant Roy L. Reardon, in his official capacity as Chairman of Defendant
New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee. In the e-mailed
Plaintiff stated that “Even if I am psychotic”, that I none of your
agency's business . . .I am entitled to the protection of the U.S.
Constitution and those federal statutes that were promulgated to ensure the
enforcement of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S.
Constitution.” Plaintiff's e-mail to Defendant Roy L. Reardon is attached
as Exhibit 48.
97) On May 25, 2011, at 10:25 am, the Plaintiff e-mailed
Defendant Roy L. Reardon a request to reactive her complaint against
Defendant Daily News attorney Anne B. Carroll. Plaintiff's e-mail to
Defendant Roy L. Reardon is attached as Exhibit 49.
98) On May 27, 2011, the Plaintiff received correspondence
from Defendant NYSDDC acknowledging Plaintiff's e-mail to Defendant Reardon
and treating Plaintiff's e-mail as a request to reconsider Defendant
NYSDDC's deactivation of Plaintiff's complaint against Defendant Daily
News' attorney Anne B. Carroll. Correspondence from Defendant NYSDDC dated
May 26, 2011 is attached at Exhibit 50.
99) By reason of the foregoing 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
DEFENDANTS VIOLATED THE
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT MANDATE TO ADMINISTER SERVICES AND PROGRAMS
IN THE MOST INTEGRATED SETTING
100) Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
101) With regard to the governmental Defendants Andrew M. Cuomo,
Nirav R. Shah, Michael F. Hogan, Ann Pfau and Roy L. Reardon, this claim is
brought against them in their official capacities.
102) With regard to Defendants Federation Employment and Guidance
Service, Inc. Interfaith Hospital and Medical Center, New York
Psychotherapy and Counseling Center and Catholic Diocese of
Brooklyn/Catholic Charities of Brooklyn and Queens, this claim is brought
against them as instrumentalities of governmental Defendants OMH and DOH.
103) With regard to Defendants Daily News, LP and the Defendant
law firms, this claim is brought against them as corporate citizens having
engaged in illegal activity that rises to the level of a federal question
(in much the same way as in the case Gordy v. the Daily News, LP, et al, 95
F.3d 829).
104) Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States with a serious
and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities.
105) Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
106) Plaintiff is under attack by Defendants, who have created a
State-wide hostile environment that encourages Defendants and private
citizens alike to attack Plaintiff as a “anti-Semitic wacko.” Proof of
Defendants' conspiracy to attack the Plaintiff forever exists at Defendant
Daily News' website http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-11-05/local/17938323_1_supreme-court-judge-criminal-court.
Defendant Ann Pfau has a duty as NYSUSC's Chief Administrative Judge, and a
disciplinary duty, pursuant to 22 NYCRR §100.3(D)5 to ensure that Justice
Arthur M. Schack and Justice Paul Wooten are held criminally liable for
their facilitation of the acts of perjury by employees of Defendant law
firms Allen E. Kaye, PC, Law Office of Harvey Shapiro and Gladstein and
Messenger. Defendant Pfau has, however behaved in manner that shows that
she is more influenced with collegial loyalty and Defendant Daily News'
owner Mortimer Zuckerman's power and money than with removing proof that
the agency she supervises illegally disclosed Plaintiff's
federally-protected confidential psychiatric information that was uploaded
to billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman's news corporation's website.
Governmental Defendants' depraved lack of loyalty to the U.S. Constitution
allows them to continue to turn a blind eye while NYSUCS' continues to hold
Plaintiff to be psychotic with anti-Semitic features. Defendants watch with
sadistic glee while NYSUCS' justice Arthur M. Schack continues to hold that
“Godwin E. Uzamere” is the Plaintiff's husband – even while USCIS and
NYSUCS' justices Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Mathew D'Emic
have already adjudged that Plaintiff's ex-husband and the father of the
child of the marriage is Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere. Plaintiff continues
to be negatively impacted because Defendants OMH and DOH continue to allow
their federally- and Defendant-funded not-for-profit mental health
providers to withhold their services from the Plaintiff based on Defendant
Daily News' public dissemination of Plaintiff's mental health information
that was illegally disclosed to Defendant Daily News staff writer Scott Shifrel by Defendant NYSUSC's court personnel – based
on Defendant Daily News' own words. Ever since Defendant Daily News
publicly portrayed Plaintiff as psychotic with anti-Semitic features,
Plaintiff has been unable to access Defendant OMH's not-for-profit
psychiatric continuing day treatment programs. No OMH-funded psychosocial
clubhouse and virtually no OMH-funded not-for-profit outpatient mental
health providers will allow the Plaintiff to become a client. In addition,
Defendant NYSUCS's justices have flouted judicial convention with regard to
New York State's and U.S. Constitution's Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses by allowing Defendant law firms to submit fraudulent affirmations
holding “Godwin Uzamere” to be Plaintiff's husband when both the USCIS, and
Defendant NYSUCS's justices Jeffrey S. Sunshine and Matthew D'Emic rendered administrative and judicial decisions
holding Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere to be Plaintiff's husband and the
father of Tara A. Uzamere, the child of the marriage. Plaintiff is in
continued danger of having Defendant's NYSUCS's justices Arthur S. Schack,
Paul Wooten and NYSUSC's appellate justices continue to render decisions
against Plaintiff, not based on the law, but based on Defendants' continued
conspiracy to blacklist Plaintiff as psychotic with anti-Semitic features
so as to protect Defendant law firms' employees from the legal consequences
of their acts of perjury as they pertain to the identity of Plaintiff's
ex-husband.
107) Serving Plaintiff in a setting which rendered justice to
Plaintiff in spite of her disability can and must
be reasonably accommodated.
108) Defendants Cuomo, Shah and Hogan are responsible for the
operation of public entities covered by Title II of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §§12131(1)(A)
and (B). In addition, it is the responsibility of the government Defendants
to ensure that Defendants' private citizens obey Defendant's Constitution
and its laws, including those that pertain to treatment of the disabled.
109) Title II of the ADA prohibits Defendants from discriminating
against individuals with disabilities in programs and activities. 42.
U.S.C. §§12131, 12132.
110) Title II also requires that “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).
111) Governmental Defendants have failed to meet this obligation.
Defendants have, like other State employees, bowed and scraped to the whims
of the powerful, rich corporate Defendants, to accommodate them in their
quest to silence the Plaintiff's cries for justice by using confidential
psychiatric information stolen by Defendant Daily News, LP, not only to
hold Plaintiff out to be psychotic with anti-Semitic features, but to
ensure Plaintiff's silence – even if it means murdering the Plaintiff. Defendant
NYSUCS flouted federal judicial and statutory convention by disclosing
Plaintiff psychiatric information to Defendant Daily News in violation of
Defendant's own rules.6
SECOND CLAIM
FOR RELIEF
DEFENDANTS VIOLATED THE
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT'S PROHIBITION ON USING METHODS OF
ADMINISTRATION THAT SUBJECT PLAINTIFF TO DISCRIMINATION
112) Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
113) With regard to the governmental Defendants Andrew M. Cuomo,
Nirav R. Shah, Michael F. Hogan, Ann Pfau and Roy L. Reardon, this claim is
brought against them in their official capacities.
114) With regard to Defendants Federation Employment and Guidance
Service, Inc. Interfaith Hospital and Medical Center, New York
Psychotherapy and Counseling Center and Catholic Diocese of
Brooklyn/Catholic Charities of Brooklyn and Queens, this claim is brought
against them as instrumentalities of governmental Defendants OMH and DOH.
115) With regard to Defendants Daily News, LP, and the Defendant
law firms, this claim is brought against them as corporate citizens having
engaged in illegal activity that rises to the level of a federal question
(in much the same way as in the case Gordy v. the Daily News, LP, et al, 95
F.3d 829).
116) Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States with a serious
and persistent mental illness. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities.
117) Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
118) Plaintiff is under attack by Defendants, who have created a
State-wide hostile environment that encourages Defendant's governmental,
private and corporate citizens to attack Plaintiff as a “anti-Semitic
wacko.” Plaintiff is continued risk of not being able to access OMH-funded
continuing day treatment programs, psychosocial clubhouse and other
not-for-profit outpatient mental health care providers because Defendant
NYSUCS illegally disclosed Plaintiff's psychiatric information to Defendant
Daily News, who then publicly held and continues to hold Plaintiff out to
be psychotic with anti-Semitic features.
119) Title II of the ADA prohibits defendants from discriminating
against individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. §§12131, 12132.
120) Regulations implementing Title II of the ADA provide that “a
public entity may not, directly or through contractual or other
arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration (i) That have the effect of subjecting qualified
individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis or disability;
[or] (ii) That have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially
impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the public entity'[s] program
with respect to individuals with disabilities...”
121) Defendants utilize methods of administration that have the
effect of subjecting the Plaintiff to discrimination based on Defendant
NYSUCS having illegally disclosed confidential psychiatric information to
Defendant Daily News, who then publicly held Plaintiff out to be psychotic
with anti-Semitic features. Defendant NYSDDC, who Plaintiff provided with
more than enough proof of Plaintiff's allegations regarding the acts of
perjury by the employees of Allen E. Kaye, PC, the Law Offices of Harvey
Shapiro and Gladstein, has not yet provided Plaintiff with responses from
the aforesaid Defendants. Furthermore, as a result of Defendant NYSUCS' and
Daily News illegal disclosure to the public, Defendants Federation
Employment Guidance Service, Inc, Interfaith Hospital and Medical Center,
New York Psychotherapy and Counseling Center and Catholic Diocese of
Brooklyn' Catholic Charities' of Brooklyn and Queens, have refused to
provide services to the Plaintiff. Governmental Defendant. Plaintiff has
also experience great difficulty in find an OMH-funded continuing day
treatment program or an OMH-funded psychosocial clubhouse that is willing
to accept the Plaintiff.
THIRD CLAIM
FOR RELIEF
DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS ON
DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACTIVITIES
122) Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
123) With regard to the governmental Defendants Andrew M. Cuomo,
Nirav R. Shah, Michael F. Hogan, Ann Pfau and Roy L. Reardon, this claim is
brought against them in their official capacities.
124) With regard to Defendants Federation Employment and Guidance
Service, Inc. Interfaith Hospital and Medical Center, New York
Psychotherapy and Counseling Center and Catholic Diocese of
Brooklyn/Catholic Charities of Brooklyn and Queens, this claim is brought
against them as instrumentalities of governmental Defendants OMH and DOH.
125) With regard to Defendants Daily News, LP, and Defendant law
firms, this claim is brought against them as corporate citizens having
engaged in illegal activity that rises to the level of a federal question
(in much the same way as in the case Gordy v. the Daily News, LP, et al, 95
F.3d 829).
126) Plaintiff is under attack by Defendants, who have created a
State-wide hostile environment that encourages Defendant's governmental,
private and corporate citizens to attack Plaintiff as a “anti-Semitic
wacko.” Plaintiff is continued risk of not being able to access OMH-funded
continuing day treatment programs, psychosocial clubhouse and other
not-for-profit outpatient mental health care providers because Defendant
NYSUCS illegally disclosed Plaintiff's psychiatric information to Defendant
Daily News, who then publicly held and continues to hold Plaintiff out to
be psychotic with anti-Semitic features.
127) Title II of the ADA prohibits defendants from discriminating
against individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. §§12131, 12132.
128) Defendants continue to discriminate against Plaintiff on the
basis of her mental illness in violation of the ADA by failing to take
adequate measures to ensure that Plaintiff can access those
instrumentalities that Defendant OMH and DOH use to provide outpatient mental
health services; and that Defendant NYSUCS failed to take adequate measures
to ensure that Plaintiff can obtain unbiased judgments, and not judgments
to favor corporate Defendants' plan to hold Plaintiff out to be psychotic
with anti-Semitic features so as to hide their acts of perjury regarding
the identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband.
FOURTH CLAIM
FOR RELIEF
DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ADMINISTER
SERVICES IN THE MOST INTEGRATED SETTING APPROPRIATE IN VIOLATION OF THE
REHABILITATION ACT
129) Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
130) This claim against Defendant NYSUCS is for equitable relief
only. Plaintiff understands that judges have immunity for their judicial
acts, even those that are malicious. Plaintiff further understands that
save for what the Plaintiff alleges to be Defendants' commission of 18
U.S.C. §241, conspiracy against rights; 18 U.S.C. §242, deprivation of
rights under color of law; NYS Pen. §105.05, conspiracy, NYS Pen. §115.00,
criminal facilitation with regard to Defendant law
firms' commission of NYS Pen. §210.15, perjury in the first degree and NYS
Pen. §135.65, coercion in the first degree, those issues raised in
Plaintiff's lawsuits with Defendant NYSUCS courts are outside the purview
of this Court's to adjudicate, pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(h)(3).
131) This claim for equitable relief and for damages is brought
against all other defendants.
132) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 US.C. §794,
provides:
No
otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . .
shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from
participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving Federal assistance.
133) Governmental Defendants are recipients of Federal financial
assistance.
134) OMH and DOH are programs receiving Federal financial
assistance.
135) Plaintiff is at continued risk of receiving biased services
by judicial and non-judicial employees of Defendant NYSUCS, who, based on
the very words of Defendant Daily News' article dated November 5, 2009,
discriminated against Plaintiff by illegally disclosing Plaintiff's
psychiatric information to Defendant Daily News. Defendant Daily News then
publicly held Plaintiff out to be psychotic with anti-Semitic features.
Said information, after having been publicly disseminated, was used by
Defendants OMH and DOH to blacklist Plaintiff as psychotic with
anti-Semitic features. Plaintiff now spend the greater part of her time,
alone, lonely and in fear – fear that she will continue her life of
loneliness based on Plaintiff's not meeting new people, and fear that
Plaintiff will meet new people who will recognize her as psychotic with
anti-Semitic features.
136) Serving Plaintiff in more integrated settings can and must
be reasonably accommodated.
137) Defendants violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by
failing to administer services to Plaintiff in the most integrated setting
appropriate for them.
FIFTH CLAIM
FOR RELIEF
DEFENDANTS VIOLATED THE
REHABILITATION ACT'S PROHIBITION ON USING METHODS OF ADMINISTRATION THAT
SUBJECT PLAINTIFF TO DISCRIMINATION
138) Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
139) This claim against Defendant NYSUCS is for equitable relief
only. Plaintiff understands that judges have immunity for their judicial
acts, even those that are malicious. Plaintiff further understands that
save for what the Plaintiff alleges to be Defendants' commission of 18
U.S.C. §241, conspiracy against rights; 18 U.S.C. §242, deprivation of
rights under color of law; NYS Pen. §105.05, conspiracy, NYS Pen. §115.00,
criminal facilitation with regard to Defendant law
firms' commission of NYS Pen. §210.15, perjury in the first degree and NYS
Pen. §135.65, coercion in the first degree, those issues raised in
Plaintiff's lawsuits with Defendant NYSUCS' courts are outside the purview
of this Court's to adjudicate, pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(h)(3).
140) This claim for equitable relief and for damages is brought
against all other defendants.
141) Regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act provide that a “recipient may not, directly or through contractual or
other arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration: (i) That have the effect of subjecting qualified
handicapped persons to discrimination on the basis of disability; [or] (ii)
That have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing
accomplishment of the objectives of the recipient's program with respect to
handicapped persons . . .” 45 C.F.R. §84.4(b)(4).
142) Governmental Defendants are recipients of Federal financial
assistance.
143) OMH and DOH are programs that receive Federal financial
assistance.
144) Defendants utilize methods of administration that have the
effect of subjecting Plaintiff to discrimination. Defendants utilize
methods of administration that perpetuate the Defendants' and the public's
view that Plaintiff is psychotic with anti-Semitic features; and that as
such, Plaintiff is undeserving of justice, mercy and must be isolated at
all costs – even if it means hospitalizing, jailing or murdering the
Plaintiff.
SIXTH CLAIM
FOR RELIEF
DEFENDANTS DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST PLAINTIFF ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF THE
REHABILITATION ACT
145) Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
146) This claim against Defendant NYSUCS is for equitable relief
only. Plaintiff understands that judges have immunity for their judicial
acts, even those that are malicious. Plaintiff further understands that
save for what the Plaintiff alleges to be Defendants' commission of 18
U.S.C. §241, conspiracy against rights; 18 U.S.C. §242, deprivation of
rights under color of law; NYS Pen. §105.05, conspiracy, NYS Pen. §115.00,
criminal facilitation with regard to Defendant law
firms' commission of NYS Pen. §210.15, perjury in the first degree and NYS
Pen. §135.65, coercion in the first degree, those issues raised in
Plaintiff's lawsuits with Defendant NYSUCS' courts are outside the purview
of this Court's to adjudicate, pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(h)(3).
147) This claim for equitable relief and for damages is brought
against all other defendants.
148) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794,
provides:
No
otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . .
shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from
participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
149) Governmental Defendants are recipients of Federal financial
assistance.
150) OMH and DOH are programs receiving Federal financial
assistance.
151) With regard to OMH-funded and DOH-funded not-for-profit
outpatient continuing day treatment programs and psychosocial clubhouses,
Plaintiff is qualified to participate in these settings. Plaintiff types
between 75-80 wpm. Plaintiff has a fair working knowledge of Spanish,
French and Haitian Creole. The Plaintiff has built websites for herself and
others (http://www.uzamerewordprocessing.net; http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net ; http://www.africandiasporalenterprises.net; http://leglisebaptistedeclarteceleste.tripod.com/; http://victoriouschurchofgod.tripod.com). Before
the Plaintiff was arrested and placed in Riker's Island's ward for mentally
disabled inmates at Defendants' behest, Plaintiff taught a computer class
at Defendant Federation Employment and Guidance Center at 199 Jay Street in
Brooklyn, New York. Plaintiff is known in the building where she lives as a
person who enjoys helping others. Plaintiff's former best friend, Yitzkhaak (Robert) Benji. When Plaintiff was a client
as Defendant Federation Employment and Guidance Service at 3312 Surf Avenue
in Brooklyn, New York, the Plaintiff typed program work for Rabbi Yeheskel Lebovic. The
Plaintiff continued to type program documents and documents for Rabbi Lebovic's synagogue after Plaintiff left Defendant
FEGS' Coney Island location. When Plaintiff was with FEGS, she also had
friends of other ethnic groups (see Exhibit 51; DVDs containing phone calls
from Yitzhaak's mother and cousin). The Plaintiff
has a extensive
knowledge with regard to helping citizens obtain government services, and
has used her knowledge to help others obtain services. The Plaintiff offers
services to help others at her website
http://www.uzamerewordprocessing.net/my_brothers_keeper.html. In November, 2010, while Plaintiff was a client with
Catholic Charities' Open Door Psychosocial Clubhouse, she started feeling
the effects of one of Catholic Charities' employees telling other employees
that Plaintiff is an anti-Semite. The Plaintiff subsequently designed the
website http://www.uzamerewordprocessing.net/lookingforaclubhousetocallhome
to enlist Defendants OMH, DOH and their government-funded instrumentalities
to help Plaintiff find another clubhouse. With regard to
Defendant NYSUCS, Plaintiff has displayed a growing knowledge of the law
and has advocated for herself on several occasions. Plaintiff is
well-suited to offer friendship and help to clients and staff alike and to
receive in kind if this Court intercedes and ensures governmental
Defendants' compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
152) Defendants' practice of knowingly placing and maintaining
Plaintiff in socially bankrupt settings, not allowing Plaintiff to use
Defendants OMH's and DOH's government-funded not-for-profit outpatient
psychiatric continuing day treatment programs and their psychosocial
clubhouses isolates the Plaintiff and is the antithesis of the Supreme
Court's decision in the case Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), which
states that “[u]njustified isolation . . . is
properly regarded as discrimination based on disability,” observing that
“institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from
community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so
isolated are incapable of or unworthy of participating in community life.”
527 U.S. at 597, 600.
153) The Plaintiff respectfully informs this Court that the
Plaintiff has greatly borrowed on the lawsuit Disability Advocates, Inc. v.
David Paterson, et al. The Plaintiff also respectfully asks this Court to
realize that, although the aforementioned lawsuit
never used the terms “blacklist” and “continuing violations”, that is
exactly what happened to the Plaintiffs in DAI's action. The plaintiffs
were effectively “blacklisted” from accessing more integrated forms of
housing based on having a mental illness – and according to DAI, it took
place over a period of 25 years. Defendants in Plaintiff's action have done
exactly the same thing, except that in this case,
Defendants were specifically warned by this Court not to do so.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR
RELIEF
DEFENDANTS'
BLACKLISTING OF PLAINTIFF VIOLATES 42 U.S.C. §1983
154) Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
155) This claim against Defendant NYSUCS is for equitable relief
only. Plaintiff understands that judges have immunity for their judicial
acts, even those that are malicious. Plaintiff further understands that
save for what the Plaintiff alleges to be Defendants' commission of 18
U.S.C. §241, conspiracy against rights; 18 U.S.C. §242, deprivation of
rights under color of law; NYS Pen. §105.05, conspiracy, NYS Pen. §115.00,
criminal facilitation with regard to Defendant law
firms' commission of NYS Pen. §210.15, perjury in the first degree and NYS
Pen. §135.65, coercion in the first degree, those issues raised in
Plaintiff's lawsuits with Defendant NYSUCS' courts are outside the purview
of this Court's to adjudicate, pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(h)(3).
156) This claim for equitable relief and for damages is brought
against all other defendants.
157) Federal courts recognize a plaintiff's right to commence a
civil action for deprivation of her rights. The statute provides that
“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.” Plaintiff asserts that Defendants
actions were calculated. The government Defendants conspired – based on
Defendant Daily News' own news article – to illegally disclose Plaintiff's
confidential psychiatric information to Defendant Daily News, have
Defendant Daily News publicly hold Plaintiff out to be psychotic with
anti-Semitic tendencies, and finally, to ensure that only place that
Plaintiff would be able to recount the crimes committed against her by the
Defendant law firms' employees is in the inside of a mental institution as
an inpatient. This level of blacklisting rises to the level of a criminal
conspiracy.
158) It is well-established that judges cannot be sued for
damages based on their judicial acts – even if those acts are malicious.
However, Defendant NYSUCS' acceptance of Defendant law firms' employees'
perjurious affirmations regarding Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity – even
in the face of administrative and judicial decisions rendered by USCIS and
members of Defendant NYSUCS's own judiciary that Senator Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere was Plaintiff's husband and is father of Tara A. Uzamere, the child
of the marriage, rises to violations of criminal law – both State and
federal. Judges are not immune from their criminal acts – only their
judicial acts. Defendant NYSUCS' judiciary acted criminally. Documentation
regarding U.S. Government's conviction of former Judge Michael Walker
(Operation “Broken Gavel”) and former Judge Michael T. Toole are attached
as Exhibit 52.
EIGHTH CLAIM
FOR RELIEF
DEFENDANTS' BLACKLISTING OF
PLAINTIFF FROM PROCEEDING IN NEW YORK STATE COURTS VIOLATE 42 U.S.C.
§1985(2)(3)
159) Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
160) This claim against Defendant NYSUCS is for equitable relief
only. Plaintiff understands that judges have immunity for their judicial
acts, even those that are malicious. Plaintiff further understands that
save for what the Plaintiff alleges to be Defendants' commission of 18
U.S.C. §241, conspiracy against rights; 18 U.S.C. §242, deprivation of
rights under color of law; NYS Pen. §105.05, conspiracy, NYS Pen. §115.00,
criminal facilitation with regard to Defendant law
firms' commission of NYS Pen. §210.15, perjury in the first degree and NYS
Pen. §135.65, coercion in the first degree, those issues raised in
Plaintiff's lawsuits with Defendant NYSUCS's courts are outside the purview
of this Court's to adjudicate, pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(h)(3).
161) This claim for equitable relief and for damages is brought
against all other defendants.
162) The referenced federal statute regarding obstructing
justice, intimidating a party, witness or juror to a legal action says that
“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 . . . If two or more persons in any State or
Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of
another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any
person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal
privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing
or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from
giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal
protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by
force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to
vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in
favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for
President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United
States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such
support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section,
if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in
furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in
his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or
privilege of a citizen of the United States, 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.
163) In the U.S. Supreme Court case Haddle
V. Garrison et al, 525 U.S. 121 (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court held that,
with reference to 42 U.S.C. §1985, the statute proscribes conspiracies to
"deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any. . .witness in any
[federal] court ... from attending such court, or from testifying to any
matter pending therein, ... or to injure [him] in his person or property on
account of his having so attended or testified," § 1985(2), and
provides that if conspirators "do ... any act in furtherance of ...
such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, ...
the party so injured ... may" recover damages, §1985(3) . . . Such
harm has long been, and remains, a compensable injury under tort law, and
there is no reason to ignore this tradition here. To the extent that the
terms "injured in his person or property" refer to such tort
principles, there is ample support for the Court's holding. pp. 124-127. 132
F.3d 46, reversed and remanded.”
164) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants actions were calculated.
The government Defendants conspired – based on Defendant Daily News' own
news article – to illegally disclose Plaintiff's confidential psychiatric information
to Defendant Daily News, have Defendant Daily News publicly hold Plaintiff
out to be psychotic with anti-Semitic tendencies, and finally, to ensure
that the only place that Plaintiff would be able to recount the immigration
fraud and identity fraud that was committed against her by the Defendant
law firms' employees is in the inside of a mental institution as an
inpatient. This level of blacklisting rises to the level of a criminal
conspiracy. Judges cannot not be sued for damages for their judicial acts.
Defendant NYSUCS has rules of appellate procedure in 22 NYCRR Part 670 with
which the Plaintiff has become familiar and has obeyed. However, Plaintiff
obeying all of Defendant's rules with regard to
Defendant NYSUCS' trial and appellate procedures are useless. Governmental
Defendants have become so enamored with the wealth and power of the
corporate Defendants they have flown in the face of New York State law and
federal law as they deal with treatment of the disabled. Defendants NYSOMH,
NYSDOH and NYSUCS – all of whom are covered by Title II of the ADA, have
taken money allotted to make accommodations for the disabled, and have
instead created a “diagnosis” causing the public to pay for Seroquel
although the Plaintiff was diagnosed – not with schizophrenia – but with
bipolar disorder which requires lithium. The first psychiatrist to attempt
to prescribe Seroquel to the Plaintiff was Defendant FEGS' employee Dr.
Howard Forster – the same psychiatrist who blacklisted the Plaintiff from
all of Defendant FEGS' facilities based on being psychotic with
anti-Semitic tendencies.
NINTH CLAIM
FOR RELIEF
DEFENDANTS' VIOLATIONS ARE
VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST, FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS AND GIVE RISE TO A
BIVENS CAUSE OF ACTION
165) Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs.
166) This claim against Defendant NYSUCS is for equitable relief
only. Plaintiff understands that judges have immunity for their judicial
acts, even those that are malicious. Plaintiff further understands that save
for what the Plaintiff alleges to be Defendants' commission of 18 U.S.C.
§241, conspiracy against rights; 18 U.S.C. §242, deprivation of rights
under color of law; NYS Pen. §105.05, conspiracy, NYS Pen. §115.00,
criminal facilitation with regard to Defendant law
firms' commission of NYS Pen. §210.15, perjury in the first degree and NYS
Pen. §135.65, coercion in the first degree, those issues raised in
Plaintiff's lawsuits with Defendant NYSUCS' courts are outside the purview
of this Court's to adjudicate, pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(h)(3).
167) This claim for equitable relief and for damages is brought
against all other defendants.
168) The famous U.S. Supreme Court case Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) recognized a private citizen's right to
sue for damages for commission of constitutional violation. Justice
Brennan, in issuing the the majority decision
stated: “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.”
169) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants actions were calculated.
The government Defendants conspired – based on Defendant Daily News' own
news article – to illegally disclose Plaintiff's confidential psychiatric
information to Defendant Daily News, have Defendant Daily News publicly
hold Plaintiff out to be psychotic with anti-Semitic tendencies, and
finally, to ensure that only place that Plaintiff will be able to recount
the immigration fraud and identity fraud committed against her by the
Defendant law firms' employees is in the inside of a mental institution as
an inpatient. This level of blacklisting rises to the level of a criminal
conspiracy. Judges cannot not be sued for damages for their judicial acts.
Defendant NYSUCS has rules of appellate procedure in 22 NYCRR Part 670 with
which the Plaintiff has become familiar and has obeyed. However, Plaintiff
obeying all of Defendant's rules with regard to
judicial procedure are useless. Governmental Defendants have become so
enamored with the wealth and power of the corporate Defendants they have have flown in the face of New York State law and
federal law as they deal with treatment of the disabled. Defendants NYSOMH,
NYSDOH and NYSUCS – all of whom are covered by Title II of the ADA, have
taken money allotted to make accommodations for the disabled, and have
instead created a “diagnosis” – causing the public to pay for Seroquel
although the Plaintiff was diagnosed – not with schizophrenia – but with
bipolar disorder which requires lithium. The first psychiatrist to attempt
to prescribe Seroquel to the Plaintiff was Defendant FEGS' employee Dr.
Howard Forster – the same psychiatrist who blacklisted the Plaintiff from
all of Defendant FEGS' facilities based on being psychotic with
anti-Semitic tendencies.
REITERATION OF VIOLATIONS
COMMITTED BY DEFENDANTS
170) Wikipedia.org describes the term “due process” as “the legal
principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are
owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient
to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a
government harms a person without following the exact course of the law it
constitutes a due process violation which offends against the rule of law.”
171) Plaintiff reasserts that the Defendants committed the
following violations of due process:
a) That Defendant NYSUCS's judiciary
employees the Honorable Michael Gerstein, the Honorable Jeffrey S. Sunshine
and the Honorable Arthur M. Schack, on their own and/or by courthouse
employees that are under their care and control, illegally commented on and
provided nonpublic information regarding Petitioner's cases Kings County
Criminal Court Case Docket No. 2009KN087992, Kings County Supreme Court
Index No. 18012-2009 and Kings County Supreme Index No. 26332-2007 to Daily
News staff writer Scott Shifrel in violation of
22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(8), (11), that “a judge shall not make any public
comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court within the United
States or its territories. The judge shall require similar abstention on
the part of court personnel...” and that “a judge shall not disclose or
use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information
acquired in a judicial capacity.”; that Defendant's commission of said
violations is based on Defendant law firms' employees' inability to file a
lawsuit against Plaintiff for defamation because Plaintiff's assertions
regarding Defendant law firm employees' facilitation of her ex-husband's
commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud are true; that Defendant
law firm Allen E. Kaye, PC's active conspiracy is based on its employees'
original desire to coerce Plaintiff to be silent based on Plaintiff's
original fear of being publicly shamed as sexually promiscuous and has
having another child without a husband; that Defendants' active conspiracy
is based on their desire to prevent Plaintiff from receiving honest
judicial services to allow Plaintiff to report Defendant law firms' employees'
crimes against her; that Defendants' active conspiracy is based on their
desire to prevent Plaintiff from receiving honest outpatient mental health
services so as to allow Plaintiff to utilize Defendants' outpatient mental
health services as a crime victim; and that Defendants' active conspiracy
is based on their desire to forcibly steer Plaintiff to only report
Defendant law firms' employees' crimes against her in an inpatient
psychiatric setting so as to discredit Plaintiff's irrefutable testimony regarding
attorneys Osato Eugene Uzamere's, Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and
Jack Gladstein's facilitation of Plaintiff's
ex-husband Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's commission of immigration fraud
and identity fraud based on her status of having a mental illness, in
violation of Title II, ADA, Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act,
42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985, 18 U.S.C. §241 and 18 U.S.C. §242.
b) That Defendant NYSUCS' judiciary
employees the Honorable Arthur M. Schack's, the Honorable Jeffrey S.
Sunshine's and the Honorable Eric I. Justice Prus' refused to take
disciplinary actions against Defendant law firms' employees for their
submission of perjurious affirmations, in violation of 22 NYCRR §100.3(D),
which states that (2) A judge who receives information indicating a
substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a substantial violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility shall take appropriate action;
and (3) Acts of a judge in the discharge of disciplinary responsibilities
are part of a judge's judicial duties; Defendant NYSUCS' judiciary
employees the Honorable Justice Arthur M. Schack's, the Honorable Jeffrey S
Sunshine's, the Honorable Eric I. Prus and the Honorable Paul Wooten's
facilitation of Plaintiff's ex-husband's commission of identity fraud and
facilitation of Defendant law firm's attorneys' commission of perjury; that
Defendant's commission of said violations is based on Defendant law firms'
employees' inability to file a lawsuit against Plaintiff for defamation
because Plaintiff's assertions regarding their facilitation of Plaintiff's
ex-husband's commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud are true;
that Defendant law firm Allen E. Kaye, PC's active conspiracy is based on
its employees' original desire to coerce Plaintiff to be silent based on
Plaintiff's original fear of being publicly shamed as sexually promiscuous
and has having another child without a husband; that Defendants' active
conspiracy is based on their desire to prevent Plaintiff from receiving
honest judicial services to allow Plaintiff to report Defendant law firms'
employees' crimes against her; that Defendants' active conspiracy is based
on their desire to prevent Plaintiff from receiving honest outpatient
mental health services so as to allow Plaintiff to utilize Defendants'
outpatient mental health services as a crime victim; and that Defendants'
active conspiracy is based on their desire to forcibly steer Plaintiff to
only report Defendant law firms' employees' crimes against her in an
inpatient psychiatric setting so as to discredit Plaintiff's irrefutable
testimony regarding attorneys Osato Eugene Uzamere's, Allen E. Kaye's,
Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's
facilitation of Plaintiff's ex-husband Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's
commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud based on her status of
having a mental illness, in violation of Title II, ADA, Section 504 of the
Federal Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985, 18 U.S.C.
§241 and 18 U.S.C. §242.
c) That Defendant NYSUCS's judiciary
employee the Honorable Paul Wooten's refused to take disciplinary action
against Defendant Daily News' attorney Anne B. Carroll's commission of
perjury in violation of 22 NYCRR §100.3(D) which states that (2) A judge
who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer
has committed a substantial violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility shall take appropriate action; and (3) Acts of a judge in
the discharge of disciplinary responsibilities are part of a judge's
judicial duties; that Defendant's commission of said violations is based on
Defendant law firms' employees' inability to file a lawsuit against
Plaintiff for defamation because Plaintiff's assertions regarding Defendant
law firm employee's facilitation of her ex-husband's commission of
immigration fraud and identity fraud are true; that Defendant law firm
Allen E. Kaye, PC's active conspiracy is based on its employees' original
desire to coerce Plaintiff to be silent based on Plaintiff's original fear
of being publicly shamed as sexually promiscuous and has having another
child without a husband; that Defendants' active conspiracy is based on
their desire to prevent Plaintiff from receiving honest judicial services
to allow Plaintiff to report Defendant law firms' employees' crimes against
her; that Defendants' active conspiracy is based on their desire to prevent
Plaintiff from receiving honest outpatient mental health services so as to
allow Plaintiff to utilize Defendants' outpatient mental health services as
a crime victim; and that Defendants' active conspiracy is based on their
desire to forcibly steer Plaintiff to only report Defendant law firms'
employees' crimes against her in an inpatient psychiatric setting so as to discredit
Plaintiff's irrefutable testimony regarding attorneys Osato Eugene
Uzamere's, Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's
facilitation of Plaintiff's ex-husband Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's
commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud based on her status of
having a mental illness, in violation of Title II, ADA, Section 504 of the
Federal Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985, 18 U.S.C.
§241 and 18 U.S.C. §242.
d) That Defendant NYSUCS' judiciary
employee the Honorable Donna A. Mills' dismissed Plaintiff's lawsuit based
on a reason that is not based in law; that Defendant's commission of said
violations is based on Defendant law firms' employees' inability to file a
lawsuit against Plaintiff for defamation because Plaintiff's assertions
regarding Defendant law firm employee's facilitation of her ex-husband's
commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud are true; that Defendant
law firm Allen E. Kaye, PC's active conspiracy is based on its employees'
original desire to coerce Plaintiff to be silent based on Plaintiff's
original fear of being publicly shamed as sexually promiscuous and has
having another child without a husband; that Defendants' active conspiracy
is based on their desire to prevent Plaintiff from receiving honest
judicial services to allow Plaintiff to report Defendant law firms'
employees' crimes against her; that Defendants' active conspiracy is based
on their desire to prevent Plaintiff from receiving honest outpatient
mental health services so as to allow Plaintiff to utilize Defendants'
outpatient mental health services as a crime victim; and that Defendants'
active conspiracy is based on their desire to forcibly steer Plaintiff to
only report Defendant law firms' employees' crimes against her in an
inpatient psychiatric setting so as to discredit Plaintiff's irrefutable
testimony regarding attorneys Osato Eugene Uzamere's, Allen E. Kaye's,
Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's
facilitation of Plaintiff's ex-husband Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's
commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud based on her status of
having a mental illness, in violation of Title II, ADA, Section 504 of the
Federal Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985, 18 U.S.C.
§241 and 18 U.S.C. §242.
e) That Defendant NYSUCS' judiciary
employee the Honorable Ann Pfau refused to take disciplinary action in
violation of which states that (1) “A judge who receives information
indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a
substantial violation of this Part shall take appropriate action; that
Defendant's commission of said violations is based on Defendant law firms'
employees' inability to file a lawsuit against Plaintiff for defamation
because Plaintiff's assertions regarding Defendant law firm employee's
facilitation of her ex-husband's commission of immigration fraud and
identity fraud are true; that Defendant law firm Allen E. Kaye, PC's active
conspiracy is based on its employees' original desire to coerce Plaintiff
to be silent based on Plaintiff's original fear of being publicly shamed as
sexually promiscuous and has having another child without a husband; that
Defendants' active conspiracy is based on their desire to prevent Plaintiff
from receiving honest judicial services to allow Plaintiff to report
Defendant law firms' employees' crimes against her; that Defendants' active
conspiracy is based on their desire to prevent Plaintiff from receiving
honest outpatient mental health services so as to allow Plaintiff to
utilize Defendants' outpatient mental health services as a crime victim;
and that Defendants' active conspiracy is based on their desire to forcibly
steer Plaintiff to only report Defendant law firms' employees' crimes
against her in an inpatient psychiatric setting so as to discredit
Plaintiff's irrefutable testimony regarding attorneys Osato Eugene
Uzamere's, Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's
facilitation of Plaintiff's ex-husband Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's
commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud based on her status of
having a mental illness, in violation of Title II, ADA, Section 504 of the
Federal Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985, 18 U.S.C.
§241 and 18 U.S.C. §242.
f) That Defendants New York State,
OMH, DOS and Defendants not-for-profit outpatient mental health agencies
refused to take measures to provide Plaintiff with services in the most
integrated setting appropriate to Plaintiff's needs, and in a setting that
enables the Plaintiff to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest
extent possible; that Defendant's commission of said violations is based on
Defendant law firms' employees' inability to file a lawsuit against
Plaintiff for defamation because Plaintiff's assertions regarding Defendant
law firm employee's facilitation of her ex-husband's commission of
immigration fraud and identity fraud are true; that Defendant law firm
Allen E. Kaye, PC's active conspiracy is based on its employees' original
desire to coerce Plaintiff to be silent based on Plaintiff's original fear
of being publicly shamed as sexually promiscuous and has having another
child without a husband; that Defendants' active conspiracy is based on
their desire to prevent Plaintiff from receiving honest judicial services
to allow Plaintiff to report Defendant law firms' employees' crimes against
her; that Defendants' active conspiracy is based on their desire to prevent
Plaintiff from receiving honest outpatient mental health services so as to
allow Plaintiff to utilize Defendants' outpatient mental health services as
a crime victim; and that Defendants' active conspiracy is based on their
desire to forcibly steer Plaintiff to only report Defendant law firms'
employees' crimes against her in an inpatient psychiatric setting so as to
discredit Plaintiff's irrefutable testimony regarding attorneys Osato
Eugene Uzamere's, Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's facilitation of Plaintiff's ex-husband
Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's commission of immigration fraud and
identity fraud based on her status of having a mental illness, in violation
of Title II, ADA, Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C.
§1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985, 18 U.S.C. §241 and 18 U.S.C. §242.
g) That Defendant Daily News, LP theft
and disclosure of Defendant NYSUCS's Kings County Criminal Court's
nonpublic, confidential psychiatric information concerning Plaintiff's
criminal lawsuit Docket No. 2009KN087992; Defendant Daily News' theft and
disclosure of Defendant NYSUCS's Kings County Supreme Court's nonpublic,
confidential information regarding Plaintiff's divorce Index No.
26332-2007; Defendant Daily News' facilitation of Defendant law firms'
employees' commission of perjury; perjurious that Defendant's commission of
said violations is based on Defendant law employees' inability to file a
lawsuit against Plaintiff for defamation because Plaintiff's assertions
regarding Defendant law firm employee's facilitation of her ex-husband's
commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud are true; that Defendant
law firm Allen E. Kaye, PC's active conspiracy is based on its employees'
original desire to coerce Plaintiff to be silent based on Plaintiff's
original fear of being publicly shamed as sexually promiscuous and has
having another child without a husband; that Defendants' active conspiracy
is based on their desire to prevent Plaintiff from receiving honest
judicial services to allow Plaintiff to report Defendant law firms'
employees' crimes against her; that Defendants' active conspiracy is based
on their desire to prevent Plaintiff from receiving honest outpatient
mental health services so as to allow Plaintiff to utilize Defendants'
outpatient mental health services as a crime victim; and that Defendants' active
conspiracy is based on their desire to forcibly steer Plaintiff to only
report Defendant law firms' employees' crimes against her in an inpatient
psychiatric setting so as to discredit Plaintiff's irrefutable testimony
regarding attorneys Osato Eugene Uzamere's, Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey
Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's facilitation of
Plaintiff's ex-husband Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's commission of
immigration fraud and identity fraud based on her status of having a mental
illness, in violation of Title II, ADA, Section 504 of the Federal
Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985, 18 U.S.C. §241 and 18
U.S.C. §242.
h) That Defendant law firms'
employees' facilitated of Plaintiff's ex-husband Senator Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere's commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud; that
Defendant law firms' employees' committed perjury with respect to the I-130
immediate sponsorship form that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Service held was a falsified document thirty-two years ago; that Defendant
law firm Allen E. Kaye, PC's active conspiracy is based on its employees'
original desire to coerce Plaintiff to be silent based on Plaintiff's
original fear of being publicly perceived as sexually promiscuous and has
having another child without a husband; that Defendants' active conspiracy
is based on their desire to prevent Plaintiff from receiving honest
judicial services to allow Plaintiff to report Defendant law firms'
employees' crimes against her; and that Defendants' active conspiracy is
based on their desire to prevent Plaintiff from receiving honest outpatient
mental health services so as to allow Plaintiff to utilize Defendants'
outpatient mental health services as a crime victim; that Defendants'
active conspiracy is based on their desire to forcibly steer Plaintiff to
only report Defendant law firms' employees' crimes against her in an
inpatient psychiatric setting so as to discredit Plaintiff's irrefutable
testimony regarding attorneys Osato Eugene Uzamere's, Allen E. Kaye's,
Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's
facilitation of Plaintiff's ex-husband Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's
commission of immigration fraud and identity fraud based on her status of
having a mental illness, in violation of Title II, ADA, Section 504 of the
Federal Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985, 18 U.S.C.
§241 and 18 U.S.C. §242.
i) That
Defendant NYSDDC deactivated Plaintiff's complaint against billionaire
owner Mortimer Zuckerman's company Daily News' employee attorney Anne B.
Carroll; that the aforementioned Defendant has made no attempt to contact
Plaintiff with regard to Plaintiff's complaint against Defendant law firms'
employees and attorney Matthew Kaufman; that Defendant law firm Allen E.
Kaye, PC's active conspiracy is based on its employees' original desire to
coerce Plaintiff to be silent based on Plaintiff's original fear of being
publicly shamed as sexually promiscuous and has having another child
without a husband; that Defendants' active conspiracy is based on their
desire to prevent Plaintiff from receiving honest judicial services to
allow Plaintiff to report Defendant law firms' employees' crimes against
her; that Defendants' active conspiracy is based on their desire to prevent
Plaintiff from receiving honest outpatient mental health services so as to
allow Plaintiff to utilize Defendants' outpatient mental health services as
a crime victim; and that Defendants' active conspiracy is based on their
desire to forcibly steer Plaintiff to only report Defendant law firms'
employees' crimes against her in an inpatient psychiatric setting so as to
discredit Plaintiff's irrefutable testimony regarding attorneys Osato
Eugene Uzamere's, Allen E. Kaye's, Harvey Shapiro's and Jack Gladstein's facilitation of Plaintiff's ex-husband
Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's commission of immigration fraud and
identity fraud based on her status of having a mental illness, in violation
of Title II, ADA, Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C.
§1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985, 18 U.S.C. §241 and 18 U.S.C. §242.
SUMMARY
172) Thirty-two years ago, Plaintiff, unbeknownst to her, had an
active sexual addiction. Plaintiff met her ex-husband, and within a month
of meeting him, Plaintiff was pregnant with his daughter – having already
had a nine-month-old son from a previous relationship (see photos of
Plaintiff on a foster care visit with her children, David P. Walker and
Tara A. Uzamere; after Plaintiff's children were released from foster care
and chapter from Plaintiff's website attached as Exhibit 53). While dating
her ex-husband, Plaintiff also had other aberrant “personality”
characteristics that Plaintiff did not know were symptoms of bipolar
disorder. Plaintiff asserts that both her ex-husband and the employees of
Defendant law firm Allen E. Kaye, PC knew or strongly suspected Plaintiff's
aberrant behavior were symptoms of a mental illness, and that the marriage,
subsequent to a two-month courtship between a no-green-card-having
immigrant and a unrepresented, mentally unstable citizen was not equitable.
However, Plaintiff's ex-husband and the Defendant law firms' employees did
not care that Plaintiff was “wacko.” They did not care if Plaintiff had
anti-Semitic features. They did not care that Plaintiff was pregnant,
legally unprotected, alone, and mentally ill. Plaintiff's ex-husband and
Defendant law firms' employees used Plaintiff's mental illness against her
as a weapon to obtain her signature for the I-130 immediate relative
sponsorship to assist their client in obtaining residence.
173) Thirty-two years later, Defendant law firms' employees now
realize that they made a mistake by equating Plaintiff's mental illness
with her intelligence, her ability to learn the law, her persistence – and
her rage. Plaintiff expressed this rage by broadcasting Defendant law
firms' employees' criminal facilitation of their client's act of
immigration fraud and identity fraud on her website,
http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net. With Defendant law firms'
inability to launch a legal defensive by way of an honest action for
defamation against her (like Plaintiff filed against Defendant Daily News,
LP), the only weapon they have is Plaintiff's mental illness, the shame
associated with the publication of Plaintiff's mental illness, originally
associated with Plaintiff's sexual promiscuity and her fear of not having a
husband – and the participation of corrupt government employees and the
corporate Defendants that support their efforts to permanently silence the
Plaintiff.
174) Plaintiff asserts that it is not illegal to have a mental
disorder that makes one crave sex. Plaintiff asserts that it is not illegal
to engage in behaviors that are socially unpleasing. Plaintiff asserts that
is not illegal to have, and to openly express feelings toward specific
groups of people that may be considered abhorrent. See See
Curley v. NAMBLA, No. Civ.A. 00-10956-GAO, 2003 WL
21696547 (D.Mass. March 31, 2003). However,
according to the Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis, it is both abhorrent and
illegal to engage in unjustified isolation of people who have mental
illnesses. In Judge Garaufis' Memorandum and Order regarding Disability
Advocates, Inc. vs. Paterson, et al, 03-CV-3209 Judge Garaufis quoted from
the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999),
stating that 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.”
Documentation regarding the case Curley v. NAMBLA is attached as Exhibit
54.
175) Defendants have shown this Court great contempt with regard to this Court order to integrate individuals
who have mental illness. It has used media corporations like Defendant
Daily News and the New York Post to publicly disagree with this Court
order, going so far as to the this Court's trier
of fact a “dictator” and “in conflict.” However, Defendants have, brazenly
and hypocritically violated Judge Garaufis order, as well as Title II, ADA,
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985, 18
U.S.C. §241 and 18 U.S.C. §242 (see Exhibit 55). David Rosen, former CEO of
Brookdale Hospital, a healthcare facility that receives various government
grants, is reported to have made $1,764,235 for fiscal year 2009 to provide
professional executive services for the government-funded healthcare
facility. According to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District
of New York, however, Mr. Rosen engaged in paying out at least $1,000,000
to two (2) of Defendant New York State's politicians for political favors.
Like Defendant New York State's politicians, governmental Defendants have
made themselves comfortable with billionaire-Mortimer-Zuckerman-owned
Defendant Daily News, said comfort exhibiting itself with Defendant
NYSUSC's employees' illegal disclosure of Plaintiff's confidential
psychiatric information. Defendants have conspired to physically and
socially isolate the Plaintiff from as many of Defendants OMH's and DOH's
government-funded, not-for-profit, outpatient mental health facilities as
possible so as to forcibly steer Plaintiff into a psychiatric inpatient
setting to prevent Plaintiff from reporting the crimes of Defendant law
firms' employees Osato Eugene Uzamere, Esq., Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey
Shapiro, Esq., and Jack Gladstein, Esq. Defendants ignored Plaintiff's
cries for justice and instead harkened to the call of billionaire owner
Mortimer Zuckerman's media company, Defendant Daily News to publish the lie
that Plaintiff is married to “Godwin Uzamere”, and that Plaintiff is
psychotic with anti-Semitic – using Defendant Daily News' public portrayal
of the Plaintiff as psychotic with anti-Semitic features as a weapon
against the Plaintiff in much the same manner that Defendant law firm Allen
E. Kaye, PC's employees used Plaintiff's shame of being sexual promiscuous
and Plaintiff's fear of not having a husband thirty-two years ago.
176) Defendants have also placed the Plaintiff in a position of
great danger. Psychiatry is a branch of medicine. Therapeutic sessions with
psychologists and/or social workers are in tandem with the diagnosis of the
treating psychiatrist. If Defendants can arbitrarily turn Plaintiff down
for one type of medical service without having to honor Plaintiff's right
to an administrative hearing, without this Court's intervention, what
prevents the Defendants from withholding other forms of medical assistance
from the Plaintiff? In the case of Esmin Green,
the mentally ill patient who died of blood clots while waiting for a bed in
Kings County's inpatient psychiatric unit, she died as a direct result of
its staff's withholding life-saving medical assistance from Ms. Green based
on the mistaken belief that Ms. Green was manifesting symptoms of psychosis
– the same type of mental illness which Defendants ascribe to the
Plaintiff. If Kings County's psychiatric staff acted with such nonchalance
toward a woman who was just a private citizen, with no publicly known
persona that would cause anyone to hate her, what would government
Defendants' do with the Plaintiff, who now has a persona, created by
Defendant Daily News, that the public has been taught to hate? Plaintiff
believes that Defendants' isolating is not just to stop her from talking.
Defendants' desire is to stop her from talking permanently, and Plaintiff
is terrified. News article of mentally ill woman Esmin
Green is attached as Exhibit 56.
177) This Court strongly advised Plaintiff not to present it with
frivolous issues, including Plaintiff's former unintentional – but wrong
habit of using irrelevant causes of action to mask legal issues for which
this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has provided this
Court with proof – including proof from Defendant NYSUSC's Appellate
Division's First and Second Judicial Departments, of her due diligent
attempts to obey this Court's order. Plaintiff has gone so far as to read
the Complaint of Disability Advocates, Inc., researching its cited statutes
and case law to determine relevance, if any, to Plaintiff's situation, and
then to copy Disability Advocates, Inc.'s writing style to ensure that
Plaintiff's Verified Complaint achieve judicial muster and does not anger
this Court and waste its limited resources again. Plaintiff strongly
asserts that she has succeeded. Plaintiff prays that this Court's past
experiences with the mentally disabled Plaintiff are not misconstrued as
disrespect on the part of the Plaintiff, but as Plaintiff's desperation to
be treated justly.
178) Not all victims of civil rights violations are equipped to
defend themselves in court. The ultimate victim of civil right violations
is a person who has been murdered. She cannot defend herself; however, out
of respect and honor of the former life that was lost – and out of respect
for the victim's due process rights that were violated, laws are
established to publicly proclaim that the dead victim continues to have
rights that courts must protect and enforce. If the dead victim was also a
party to a divorce, the court that adjudicated her divorce would still have
to seal her records from public view to ensure that the dead victim's right
to privacy of her records is protected and enforced. Why should this Court
not treat as equal the rights of the mentally ill Plaintiff? In the U.S.
Supreme Court case Haines V. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519 (1972), Petitioner
Menard – a person convicted by the State of Illinois as a felon, commenced
this action against the Governor of Illinois and other state officers and prison
officials under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, 42 U.S.C. §
1983, and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), seeking to recover damages for claimed
injuries and deprivation of rights while incarcerated. The Federal District
Court dismissed Mr. Menard's complaint and the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Seventh Circuit's decision. The U.S.
Supreme Court decided against the Federal District's and U.S. Court of
Appeals' decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision that “Whatever
may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal
administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by
petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the
opportunity to offer supporting evidence. . . .
Accordingly, although we intimate no view whatever on the merits of
petitioner's allegations, we conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity
to offer proof.” Plaintiff begs this Court's mercy to allow her to offer
proof of her allegations.
179) The cumulative effect of Defendants' attack on the Plaintiff
is that, except when Plaintiff goes to twice monthly therapy sessions, once
per month sessions with her psychiatrist and weekly visits with her ICM
worker, Plaintiff spends the vast majority of her time alone and afraid
that attempts at making friends will expose her to more negative attention
as psychotic with anti-Semitic features. The Plaintiff is, for the most
part, just as Defendants planned – alone, very lonely with intermittent
feelings of rage, worthlessness and hopelessness, an exacerbation of
Plaintiff's preexisting mentally illness.
180) This Court must enforce its own mandate – and the mandate as
expressed in Olmstead v. L.C. It must find Defendants guilty of civil and
criminal contempt, require the Defendants to obey, and appoint a federal
monitor to ensure government Defendants' compliance. This Court must, as a
matter of law, require the criminal investigation of the Defendants with regard to Defendants' violation of 18 U.S.C. §241,
18 U.S.C. §242, 18 U.S.C. §1341 and 18 U.S.C. §1346 and facilitate their
arrest. Finally, this honorable Court, in its mercy, must expedite
Plaintiff's requests so as to bring Plaintiff's
Defendant-induced nightmare to an end.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following:
a)
Federal monitor to ensure that Defendant
NYSUSC's courts treat Plaintiff fairly;
b) Federal monitor to oversee the federal and New York
State criminal investigation of Defendants with regard to
Defendants' violation of 18 U.S.C. §241, 18 U.S.C. §242; 18 U.S.C. §1341,
18 U.S.C. §1346; NYS Pen. §105.05, conspiracy, NYS Pen. §115.00, criminal
facilitation with regard to Defendant law firms'
commission of NYS Pen. §210.15, perjury in the first degree and NYS Pen.
§135.65, coercion in the first degree; and with regard to
Defendant law firms' employees commission of perjury;
c) to require Defendant Daily News to remove the news
article at its website http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-11-05/local/17938323_1_supreme-court-judge-criminal-court
and similar sites maintained overtly, covertly, directly and indirectly by
Defendant Daily News in their entirety, and to refrain from publicly
referencing or having others covertly, directly or indirectly refer to any
portion of Defendant Daily News' article as Defendant Daily News publicly
admitted that courthouse sources of Defendant New York State Unified Court
System illegally disclosed nonpublic, confidential information concerning
Plaintiff's marriage and Plaintiff's mental illness, in violation of 22
NYCRR §50.1(D), 22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(8) and 22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(11) which
prohibits judges and courthouse personnel from disclosing or using, for any
purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a
judicial capacity, or from publicly commenting on a pending or impending
case, so as to prevent Defendant Daily News from continuing to use its
website to criminally victimize the Plaintiff;
d) an order requiring that Defendants promptly take such
steps as are necessary to enable Plaintiff to receive outpatient services
(including attendance on continuing day treatment programs and psychiatric
clubhouses) in the most integrated setting appropriate to the Plaintiff's
needs so that the Plaintiff does not continue to sit at home alone and
lonely;
e) an order to ensure that governmental Defendants OMH, DOH
and their not-for-profit instrumentalities that receive governmental
funding for the purpose of never against engage in any form of blacklisting
the Plaintiff from any federally- or state-funded outpatient mental health
treatment facility.
f) a federal monitor to ensure that Defendants obey the
law;
g) an award of monetary damages in the amount of
$100,000,000.00 or an amount that is acceptable to this Court to enable the
Plaintiff to relocate.
h) such other relief as to this honorable Court seems just
and proper.
Dated:
Brooklyn, New York
June 6, 2011
CHERYL D. UZAMERE
APPEARING PRO SE
_______________________
By: Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
(347) 985-2495
_______________________
1.
In Re: Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643: Willful
blindness is knowledge . . . One who, knowing or strongly suspecting that
he is involved in shady dealings, takes steps to make sure that he does not
acquire full or exact knowledge of the nature and extent of those dealings
is held to have a criminal intent, United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d
1223, 1228 (7th Cir.1990), because a deliberate effort to avoid guilty
knowledge is all that the law requires to establish a guilty state of mind.
United States v. Josefik, 753 F.2d 585, 589 (7th
Cir.1985); AMPAT/Midwest, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works Inc., 896 F.2d 1035,
1042 (7th Cir.1990) ("to know, and to want not to know because one
suspects, may be, if not the same state of mind, the same degree of fault)
2.
Plaintiff
respectfully asks this Court to note that included in the documents that
USCIS provided Plaintiff regarding Ehigie Edobor Uzamere's identity is
correspondence containing immigration files nos. A35 201 224 (associated
with Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, date of birth December 31, 1960 and A24 027 764
(associated with “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere”, date of birth “June 1, 1955”).
INA's correspondence containing file no. A24 027 764 was forwarded to Allen
E. Kaye, Esq.
3.
CPLR §2001.
Mistakes, omissions, defects and irregularities. At any stage of an action,
including the filing of a summons with notice, summons and complaint or
petition to commence an action, the court may permit a mistake, omission,
defect or irregularity, including the failure to purchase or acquire an
index number or other mistake in the filing process, to be corrected, upon
such terms as may be just, or, if a substantial right of a party is not
prejudiced, the mistake, omission, defect or irregularity shall be
disregarded, provided that any applicable fees shall be paid.
4.
CPLR §2102. A
clerk shall not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented for that
purpose except where specifically directed to do so by statute or rules
promulgated by the chief administrator of the courts, or order of the court.
5.
(D)
Disciplinary Responsibilities.
a.
A judge who
receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge
has committed a substantial violation of this Part shall take appropriate
action.
b.
A judge who
receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has
committed a substantial violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility shall take appropriate action.
c.
Acts of a
judge in the discharge of disciplinary responsibilities are part of a
judge's judicial duties.
d.
22 NYCRR
§50.1(D.) Court employees shall not disclose any confidential information
received in the course of their official duties, except as required in the
performance of such duties, nor use such information for personal gain or
advantage.
e.
22 NYCRR
§100.3(B)(8) – A judge shall not make any public comment about a pending or
impending proceeding in any court within the United States or its
territories. The judge shall require similar abstention on the part of
court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control. This
paragraph does not prohibit judges from making public statements in the
course of their official duties or from explaining for public information
the procedures of the court. This paragraph does not apply to proceedings
in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity.
f.
22 NYCRR
§100.3(B)(11) A judge shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated
to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity.
|
|
|
|