Source: http://user1562095.sites.myregisteredsite.com/newyorkandannecarroll.html
Timestamp: 2019-08-22 13:18:28
Document Index: 312678607

Matched Legal Cases: ['§320', '§3212', '§3215', '§202', '§320', '§1341', '§1346', '§130', '§130', '§320', '§1341', '§1346', '§241', '§242', '§135', '§135', '§6', '§11', '§455']

Dishonest Bozos State of New York and
Sidekick Anne Carroll, Esq.
Continue to Clown Around With The U.S. Constitution...
Will the Honorable Anthony L. Parga Join Them in their Romp Around the Law?
-against-f
3) That the places where Claimant alleges the illegal acts occurred are as follows: New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, 100 Supreme Court Drive, Mineola, New York, 11501, Nassau County Clerk's Office, 240 Old Country Road, Mineola, New York, 11501.
4) That Claimant alleges that Defendant's employees at the Nassau County Supreme Court, employees at the Nassau County Clerk's Office, Daily News, LP, Scott Shifrel and defendants' attorney Anne B. Carroll conspired to deprive Claimant of her civil and constitutional right to due process by engaging in “judge-shopping” to find a judge who is criminally disposed to ignoring the fact that based on operation of law, defendants have defaulted; and to illegally rule in favor of transferring Claimant's lawsuit to Kings County Supreme Court, in spite of defendants' continued erroneous attempts to persuade a corrupt judge to change the place of trial pursuant to CPLR Rule 511, even though defendants failed to interpose an answer and response to the Claimant's Verified Complaint and Notice to Admit, or to file a Notice of Appearance pursuant to CPLR §320 so that they are in default, making them ineligible to participate in any trial against the Claimant.
5) That Claimant asserts that Defendant's illegal acts give rise to the filing of an implied cause of action in the manner of Brown v. State of New York, 89 N.Y.2d 172, 674 N.E.2d 1129, 652 N.Y.S.2d 223, 65 USLW 2355 (1996) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
6) That Claimant asserts that on June 1, 2010, Claimant submitted her Poor Person's Order, Amended Summons, Amended Verified Complaint, Statement of Service by Mail, accompanying Acknowledgment and Notice to Admit; that Defendant's employee(s) stamped as received the page of Claimant's documents entitled “Poor Person's Order” and the page entitled “Amended Summons” (see Exhibit A and B).
7) That Claimant asserts that on June 4, 2010, Claimant caused service of process to be effected on defendants Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel (see Exhibit C).
8) That Claimant asserts that on June 4, 2010, Claimant served the Nassau County Clerk's Office with affidavits of service for both defendants (see Exhibit D, front and back and Exhibit E front and back).
9) That Claimant asserts that the U.S. Postal Service's website reflects that defendants Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel were served on June 7, 2010 (see Exhibit F and Exhibit G).
10) That Claimant asserts that July 9, 2010 is the 32nd day after the United States Postal Service delivered the Amended Summons, Amended Verified Complaint, Notice to Admit, Statement of Service by Mail and accompanying Acknowledgment to the addresses of defendants Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel such that by operation of law, specifically CPLR §3212, summary judgment, CPLR §3215, default judgment and NYCRR §202.27, default judgment, defendants have defaulted and have therefore lost the lawsuit that the United States Postal Service delivered to defendants on June 7, 2010.
11) That Claimant strongly asserts that defendants' attorney Anne B. Carroll has not provided Claimant with proof that she filed a notice of appearance pursuant to CPLR §320, and pursuant to the Summons that was served on defendants Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel.
12) That Claimant strongly asserts that defendants' attorney Anne B. Carroll has refused to send any legal documents via certified mail, return receipt requested to ensure that Claimant signs for and actually receives mail from the defendants.
13) That Claimant strongly asserts that attorney Anne B. Carroll's boss, and owner of the Daily News, LP is Mortimer Zuckerman.
14) That Claimant strongly asserts that Mortimer Zuckerman is a white male (see Exhibit H).
15) That Claimant strongly asserts that Mortimer Zuckerman is a billionaire (see Exhibit I).
16) That Claimant strongly asserts that Mortimer Zuckerman is an adherent of the Ashkenazi Jewish faith.
17) That Claimant strongly asserts that the Jewish religious book the Talmud, in its Tractate Baba Kamma, Folio 113b, advocates the use of subterfuge to trick non-Jews in legal settings (see Exhibit J).
18) That Claimant strongly asserts that on Thursday, July 8, 2010, Claimant called Nassau County Supreme Court to find out which day of the week the Honorable F. Dana Winslow hears motions so as to place a date on her Notice of Motion for summary judgment, default judgment and money judgment that she prepared in advance.
19) That Claimant asserts that on inquiry, Defendant's court employee told her that there is a “motion for review” and a subjectless motion that defendants Daily News, LP's and Scott Shifrel's attorney filed with the court; and that the judge hearing the motions is the Honorable Anthony L. Parga.
20) That Claimant strongly asserts that Defendant's court employee informed Claimant that the motions would be heard on July 30, 2010, but refused to tell her the subject(s) of the motions.
21) That Claimant asserts that she subsequently called and spoke with the law clerk of the Honorable Anthony L. Parga and attempted to discover the subjects of the motions Defendant's court employees claimed were filed; and that Claimant informed Defendant's court employee that she had not been served with any papers from defendants or defendants' attorney.
22) That Claimant strongly alleges that based on Defendant's employees' reference to the aforesaid the legal papers as “motions” and not “orders to show cause”, that employees under the care and control of Nassau County Clerk Maureen O'Connell allowed defendants Daily News, LP's and Scott Shifrel's to file the motions with improperly effected proof of service; and that the aforesaid defendants and their attorney Anne B. Carroll used yet another scheme/artifice to defraud Claimant by causing Claimant to be deprived of the intangible right to receive honest service from the Defendant State of New York's Nassau County Supreme Court and Nassau County Clerk's office in violation of 18 USC §1341 and 18 USC §1346.
23) That Claimant strongly alleges that Defendant's employees under the care and control of the Honorable Anthony F. Marano, Administrative Judge, the Honorable Anthony L. Parga, Supreme Court Justice and the Honorable Maureen O'Connell, Nassau County Clerk to illegally exhibited bias/preferential treatment toward defendants Daily News, LP, Scott Shifrel by allowing defendants' attorney Anne B. Carroll to file motions on behalf of defendants that the aforesaid attorney knows or should have known contain meritless, academic issues; assert material factual statements that are false and are therefore frivolous and in violation of 22 NYCRR §130-1.1(a)(b)(c)(1)(2)(3) and Matter of Uzamere v Prus, 55 AD3d 842 (2008) (see Exhibit K).
24) That Claimant strongly asserts that the aforementioned employees of Defendant State of New York continue to engage in willful blindness by intentionally refusing to acknowledge that Defendants' continual, unjustified forays into Nassau County Supreme Court have been undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation and to harass and maliciously injure Claimant, in violation of NYCRR §130.1.1(c)(2) and in violation of In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003) (see Exhibit L).
25) That Claimant strongly asserts that defendants Daily News, LP's, Scott Shifrel's and attorney Anne B. Carroll's present scheme to defraud Claimant by not serving her with defendants' motions via certified mail, return receipt requested comes on the heels of defendants' failed attempt to use Kings County Supreme Court's Equity Department letterhead to trick Claimant into believing that her lawsuit had been transferred to the Kings County Supreme Court.
26) That Defendant State of New York's employee's criminal acceptance of defendants' attorney Anne B. Carroll's pretense of using of first class mail to improperly effect service of process on the Claimant is to ensure that Claimant does not receive any mail so that Claimant does not respond to defendants' motions.
27) That Claimant strongly alleges that Defendant State of New York's employee's criminal acceptance defendants' improper service was planned to ensure that Claimant does not come to court on July 30, 2010 or whatever day that the Defendant's employees and Nassau County Clerk's office's employee illegally schedule a date (see Exhibit M).
28) That Claimant strongly alleges that based on Defendant State of New York bias toward the defendants, Claimant will then have to move the court not dismiss Claimant's case because she was not properly served.
29) That Claimant strongly alleges that based on Claimant's belief that Judge Parga, has already been illegally influenced, will allow and rule in favor of defendants' false assertion that they were also not properly served, so that Judge Parga will then illegally transfer Claimant's lawsuit to Kings County Supreme Court.
30) That Claimant strongly alleged in her last claim against Defendant that she cannot obtain a fair trial based on defendants' Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel publishing of a newspaper article that says “Cheryl Uzamere, 50, known around courthouse circles for her anti-Semitic screeds against judges...” (see Exhibit N).
31) That Defendant State of New York is still engaged in, and allowing the defendants to engage in illegally transferring Claimant's lawsuit to the venue where Claimant has always been assigned a judge who is an adherent of the Talmud, and who has always rendered decisions against Claimant although the defendants in Claimant's lawsuits interposed an answer or filed an appearance pursuant to CPLR §320.
32) That Claimant strongly asserts that Defendant continues to violate 18 USC §1341, mail fraud and other fraud offenses; 18 USC §1346, definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”; 18 USC §241, conspiracy against rights; 18 USC §242, deprivation of rights under color of law; New York State Penal Law §135.60, coercion in the second degree; New York State Penal Law §135.65, coercion in the first degree; New York State Constitution §6, due process of law; New York State Constitution §11; equal protection under the law; U.S. Constitution Fifth Amendment, due process of law and U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment, equal protection under the law.
33) That Claimant strongly reasserts that Defendant's commission of the aforesaid illegal acts give rise to an implied cause of action against the Defendant in the manner of Brown v. State of New York, 89 N.Y.2d 172, 674 N.E.2d 1129, 652 N.Y.S.2d 223, 65 USLW 2355 (1996) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
34) That Claimant respectfully prays that if this honorable Court refuses Claimant's request to have her claim adjudicated by a judge who is African American, than in like manner, this honorable Court must not assign a judge to Claimant's claim who is a member of the Jewish faith, as is legally consistent with the spirit of 28 USC §455 that requires the automatic disqualification of a judge under certain circumstances; that while the law refers to federal judges, the best interest of justice would hold that "disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified (Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994)).
35) That Claimant relies on the verbiage of the U.S. Supreme Court case Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); that while this auspicious Court may not intimate any views whatsoever on the merits of Plaintiff's allegations, that this Court justly concludes that the Claimant is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof of her allegations.