Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, a/k/a
"Godwin E. Uzamere, Allen E. Kaye, P.C.,
Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq.
J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein,
Did the lower court abuse its discretion by rendering its decision barring Appellant from litigating against Respondents based
on the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel?
WITH REGARD TO RESPONDENT ROSTANSKI
Appellant is satisfied that Mr. Bernard J. Rostanski's only purpose with regard to his association with Respondents Allen
E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro was to notarize their documents, so that continuing to litigate against Mr. Rostanski would be
unjust. Further references to Respondents in Appellant's Brief will not include Mr. Rostanski.
NATURE OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from a Decision and Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, (Arthur M. Schack, Justice)
entered on July 13, 2010. The lower court's Decision and Order is based on the lower court's act of conspiracy with a lateral court to illegally “overturn” the lateral court's prior decision and order that properly held
that Respondent Uzamere's name is Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and that he was was married to the Appellant.
The first part of the lower court's goal to assist the lateral court in “overturning” the lateral court's decision
occurred when the lower court and the lateral court conspired with the Respondents to submit fraudulent affirmations that
falsely hold that Appellant is married to “Godwin Uzamere”, based on their erroneous belief that Appellant would
not read them.
The second part of the
lower court's plan to assist the lateral court in illegally “overturning” the lateral court's decision and order
dated May 12, 2009 that recognizes Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere as Appellant's husband occurred when the lower court conspired
with staff writer Scott Shifrel of the Daily News to publish that Appellant was married to the fictitious “Godwin Uzamere”,
and that Appellant is an “anti-Semitic wacko” with a mental illness that causes Appellant not to know the difference
between the fictitious “Godwin Uzamere” and the real Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.
The third part of the lower court's and the lateral court's plan to illegally “overturn” the lateral court's decision
occurred when the lower court and the lateral court conspired to arrest Appellant, and later to have her hospitalized as “mentally
The fourth part of the
lower court's and lateral court's plan to illegally “overturn” the lateral court's decision occurred when the
Appellant Division found Appellant ineligible to proceed as a poor person, thereby forcing her to pay for her appeal, based
on the lower court's, the lateral court's and the Respondents' erroneous belief that Appellant would not be able to proceed
with her appeal because of her inability to pay.
The last part of the lower court's and the lateral court's attempt to “overturn” the lateral court's decision
that holds that Respondent Uzamere was Appellant's husband (that is, if the lower court, the lateral court and the Respondents
do not attempt any more acts of fraud), is for this Court to render its decision affirming the lower court's illegal use of
res judicata and collateral estoppel, accompanied with this Court's tacit acceptance of the Respondents' fraudulent documents that hold that Appellant was married
to the fictitious “Godwin Uzamere.”
Appellant respectfully informs this Court that if it renders a decision that refuses to honor the lateral court's prior decision
dated May 12, 2009 and instead honors the fraudulent affirmations submitted by the Respondents' and the lower court's act
of fraud upon the court, Appellant will ask for certiorari from the New York State Court of Appeals.
The goal of the lower court's Decision and Order is to assist the lateral court's judge to save face, and to avenge Appellant's
use of her website http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net to publish what Appellant holds were the lateral court's prior acceptance of Respondent
Uzamere's fraudulent affirmation that falsely held that “Godwin Uzamere” is Appellant's husband and that “Godwin
Uzamere” is Respondent Uzamere's cousin. The lateral court rendered an interim decision and order dated January 12,
2009 that tacitly held out the possibility that Appellant's mental state caused her not to be able to tell if she was married
to “Godwin Uzamere” or Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and that Appellant may not know the identity of the father
of the child of the marriage. Appellant also uploaded to her website the 8 or 9 S.L.A.P.P-like adjournments (out of 19 adjournments) that the lateral court's judge made on behalf of Respondent Uzamere, who
never interposed an answer, never presented a validly notarized affirmation and never filed a notice of appearance.
informs this Court that her allegations have already been forwarded to the New York State Court of Claims, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the Honorable Eric H. Holder, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; Richard Skinner, Inspector, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Tristram Coffin, U.S. Attorney's Office, Vermont; Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attorney's Office Eastern District of New York; John F. Pikus, Special Agent in Charge, FBI, Albany, New York; Janice K. Fedarcyk, Special Agent in Charge, FBI, New York City Office; T. Diane Cejka, Director, FOI/PA Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (she is the person whose office provided proof of Respondent Uzamere's identity); Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; the Honorable F. Sise, Presiding Judge, New York State Court of Claims; Gwendolyn Hatcher, Assistant Attorney General, New York State Attorney General's Office.
Appellant respectfully informs this court that based on the endemic corruption that Appellant has experienced within the New
York State Unified Court System, Appellant is forced to become familiar with the following sets of laws: 1) New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules, Section 1101(d) (with regard to what Appellant believes is this Court's bias against Appellant, based on its arbitrary refusal to allow Appellant
to proceed as a poor person; 2) Title Twenty-Two, New York Code, Subtitle A, Chapter I, Standards and Administrative Policies, Subchapter C, Rules of the
Chief Administrator of the Courts, Part 100, Judicial Conduct; New York State Penal Law, Section 210.15, perjury in the first degree, New York State Penal Law, Section 210.10; perjury in the second degree; New York State Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article I, Section 6, due process of law; New York State Constitution, Bill of Rights, Section 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.
This Court should not see Appellant's informing it of her knowledge of law as arrogant insofar as this Court refused to provide
mentally disabled Appellant with an attorney. Appellant reiterates that by the time this Court receives Appellant's brief,
it will be filed against this Court with the appropriate law enforcement agencies based on past and continuing violations
with regard to bias, fraud upon the court and discrimination against Appellant for having a mental illness.
Except for Respondent Uzamere, the lower court's Decision and Order with regard to Appellant's improper service of Respondents
is no longer at issue.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Appellant asserts that because the lower court's Decision and Order is the latest in a series of new and continuing acts of
fraud designed to illegally “reverse” a lateral court's Decision and Order that recognizes Respondent Ehigie Edobor
Uzamere as Appellant's husband to allow the Respondents and the judge in the lateral court to save face, it is necessary to
include past acts of fraud so that this Court can see that by the preponderance of the evidence, the lower court's use of
res judicata is illegal.
This action originally arises out of a fraudulent marriage that Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere contracted with the unwitting
Appellant for the purpose of obtaining lawful permanent residence, and for which Respondents Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro,
and later Respondent Jack Gladstein offered their green-card-marriage/identity-cover/financial-support-avoidance services.
On November 21, 1979, Appellant, trusting the name and birth date "Godwin Ehigie Uzamere, June 1, 1955" to be true
and correct, unwittingly contracted a marriage with Defendant Uzamere (Appellant's fraudulent marriage certificate). A.1.
On or around November 30, 1979, the Appellant accompanied Respondent Uzamere to the law offices of Respondent Kaye and former
associate Respondent, where she was tricked by the aforesaid Respondent to sign the 1-130 relative sponsorship. At the time
that Appellant signed the I-130 immediate relative sponsorship form, Appellant was pregnant with Respondent Uzamere's daughter
Tara. The Appellant was 20 years old at the time that she was abandoned by Respondent Uzamere (Fraudulent I-130 immediate
relative sponsorship form). A.2.
On or near October 1, 2003, Appellant received correspondence from Respondent Gladstein; the aforesaid correspondence fraudulently
holding out “Godwin Uzamere” as Appellant's husband (Correspondence from Jack Gladstein dated October 1, 2003).
On October 11, 2007, Appellant
served Respondent Uzamere with the Summons, Verified Complaint, Request for Preliminary Conference/Demand for Bill of Particulars
and Net Worth Statement with regard to Appellant's divorce action. By November 20, 2007, Respondent Uzamere defaulted.
On February 22, 2008,
Appellant filed case Docket No. 2008-CV-891 against, among other defendants, Respondents Kaye, Shapiro, Gladstein and Uzamere
for failing to act on Appellant's report that Respondent Ehigie Uzamere entered into a sham marriage with Appellant as “Godwin
Uzamere” and committed bigamy by marrying another woman using Respondent's real name. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District dismissed Appellant's complaint. Appellant's complaint was never
tried by a jury.
On October 7, 2008 Respondent Uzamere's attorney Osato Uzamere personally handed to Judge Jeffrey S. Sunshine on behalf of
Respondent Uzamere a fraudulent counter-affidavit swearing that Appellant was married, not to Respondent Uzamere, but to Respondent
Uzamere's cousin “Godwin Uzamere”, and that Appellant's obsession with “Godwin Uzamere's “destruction
has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged.” Judge Sunshine allowed Respondent
Uzamere to submit the fraudulent counter-affidavit using the fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere”,
and did not hold him liable for perjury (Counter-affidavit of “Godwin Uzamere”, pages 1-2). A.4 – A.5.
On February 23, 2009, Appellant filed case Docket No. 2009-CV-01617 against, among other defendants, Respondents Allen E.
Kaye, P.C, Allen E. Kaye, Esq. and Jack Gladstein Esq. Judge Leonard Sands of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York dismissed Appellant's complaint. The case was never tried by a jury.
On May 12, 2009, approximately four (4) months after Appellant e-mailed a complaint to the former Ambassador to Nigeria Robin
Renee Sanders regarding Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine's and Respondent Uzamere's plan to video-conference an unknown Nigerian
citizen pretending to be “Godwin Uzamere” from Nigeria, Justice Sunshine rendered his Decision and Order that
“Today at 10:35 a.m. 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” (Decision and Order of Jeffrey S. Sunshine dated May 12, 2009, pages 1 – 2). A.6 – A.7.
On or around July 31, 2009 and August 3, 2009, Appellant effected service of process on all Respondents with regard to her
action for fraud, after receiving proof from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service of Respondent's identity on or near October 28, 2008, and on or near June 12, 2009 (Report by Rachel McCarthy, USCIS regarding
Uzamere's identity, received on or near October 28, 2008; correspondence from USCIS regarding Uzamere's identity, and correspondence
from USINA regarding Uzamere's identity, dated February 10, 1984 on or near June 12, 2009; Affidavit
of Service of Summons and Complaint by Express International Mail to Respondent Uzamere). A.8 –
A.11. Appellant effected service of process on Respondent Uzamere by express international mail. Appellant
effected service of process on the remaining Respondents by certified mail; however, personal service
was not effected on any of the Respondents. Respondents failed to interpose an answer.
On September 18, 2009, Appellant effected service of process of her Order to Show Cause on Respondent Uzamere by express international
mail. (Affidavit of Service of Order to Show Cause to Respondent Uzamere). A.12. Appellant effected service on the remaining
Respondents by certified mail.
On or near October 28, 2010, Respondents Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein interposed perjurious, notarized affirmations holding
out “Godwin Uzamere” as Appellant's husband. (Affirmation in Opposition of Respondent Kaye, pages 1 - 10). A.13
– A.22. (Affirmation in Opposition of Respondent Shapiro, pages 1 – 10). A.23 – A.32. (Affirmation in Opposition
of Respondent Gladstein, pages 1-3). A.33 – A.40.
On November 5, 2009, five (5) days after Respondents Kaye, Shapiro and Gladstein filed their perjurious affirmations with
the lower court, the Daily News, by staff writer Scott Shifrel published a newspaper article that falsely
charged Appellant with the halachic/Jewish religious crime of anti-Semitism by saying “Cheryl
Uzamere, 50, known around courthouse circles for her anti-Semitic screeds, was declared mentally unfit and taken to Bellevue
Hospital for observation”; and, that “...she's a smart person
and she really know how to use the system, said one courthouse source...she
comes in here and files all these papers and threatens people...”; and that “the senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to affidavit filed
in Supreme Court”; and “Her obsession with his destruction
has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged, Godwin Uzamere said.”
(Daily News article). A.41.
Appellant asserts that
on November 3, 2009, less than a week after Respondents filed their fraudulent affirmations with the Court, at the behest
of Justice Sunshine, Appellant was jailed and committed to Kingsboro Psychiatric Center; that according to the facility's psychiatrist Dr. Marie Bauduy, Justice Schack personally called and ordered the facility
not to produce the Appellant; that Justice Schack obtained Appellant's history regarding her confinement and mental health
hearing from the Honorable Anthony Cutrona; that Justice Schack rendered a decision and order on January 25, 2010, falsely
making it appear that the psychiatric facility prevented Appellant from appearing in court based on being mentally unfit;
and that on March 19, 2010, while Appellant was in attendance before Respondent Schack to litigate Index 18012-2009, Respondent
Schack accused Appellant of the halachic/Jewish religious crime of anti-Semitism.
On May 14, 2010, Appellant and Respondents' attorney Matthew A. Kaufman appeared before the lower court. Appellant informed
the lower court that Respondents “falsified forms”; however, attorney Matthew A. Kaufman stated “I stand
on my papers” that Respondents falsified. (Uzamere vs. Uzamere, et al, transcript dated
May 14, 2010). A.59.
Plaintiff asserts that on July 13, 2010, Justice Arthur M. Schack, rendered a decision barring Plaintiff from filing further
lawsuits against all Respondents.
This appeal is from so much of the lower court's Decision and Order that stated directly or implied that: 1) the lower court
has the legal right to invoke res judicata on behalf of Respondent Uzamere, although Respondent Uzamere waived res judicata by failing to interpose an answer or filing an appearance; 2) that the lower court has the right to invoke res judicata on behalf of the remaining Respondents for federal lawsuits that were never tried in the presence of a jury; 3) that the
lower court has the right to invoke res judicata in spite of Respondents' new and continuing acts of fraud by conspiring with the Daily News to falsely hold out to the public
that “Godwin Uzamere is Appellant's husband and by submitting perjurious affirmations that falsely holds that Appellant
is married to “Godwin Uzamere” when a lateral court of competent jurisdiction decided that Respondent Ehigie E.
Uzamere was the Appellant's and is the person that Appellant divorced; 4) that the lower court has the right sua sponte tacitly
“overturn” the decision and order of a lateral court; and 5) that the lower court has the right to tacitly discriminate
against Appellant as a mentally disabled litigant by ignoring both the irrefutable documents Appellant presented to the lower
court regarding Respondent Uzamere's identity and a lateral court's decision that rendered a decision acknowledging Respondent
Uzamere to be Appellant's husband, and instead accept the fraudulent affirmations from the Respondents that falsely hold that
the Appellant was married to the fictitious “Godwin Uzamere.”
The lower court's Decision
and Order is arbitrary, capricious and malicious. It is fraudulent. It is illegal. It ignores Appellant's well-established
allegations that Appellant is a victim of Respondents' continued commission of fraud. It attempts to illegally overturn the
decision and order of a lateral court of competent jurisdiction by manipulating nonjudicial events to ram its illegal decision
and order down the Appellant's throat by having the public render an opposing “decision” instead of the court.
It shows no mercy toward the child of the marriage, whose birth certificate still bears the fictitious name “Godwin
Uzamere” nor the Appellant, whose mental illness was exacerbated by the Respondents' continued acts of fraud. The lower
court's Decision and Order greatly facilitates green-card-marriage/identity-cover/financial-support-avoidance
mills that are used by unscrupulous, green-card-seeking immigrants and operated by unscrupulous individuals like the Respondents
who are not loyal to the New York State and U.S. Constitutions. The lower court's fraudulent use of res judicata for Appellant's federal lawsuits that were never tried in the presence of a jury, combined with the lower court's willful
acceptance of the Respondents' perjurious affirmations sets a dangerous precedent for individuals who are victims of green
card marriage fraud. Its Decision and Order serves no useful purpose, and is not supported by good cause.
It creates detriment with no ascertainable benefit and should be vacated.
COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY INVOKING
Appellant's Federal Cases Were Not Tried
Appellant asserts that the lower court's Decision and Order fraudulently implies that the decisions that were rendered in
Appellant's federal lawsuits were rendered based on an examination of facts and a final judgment based on those facts having
been tried by a jury. This is patently false as none of Appellant's federal cases were presented to a jury even though Appellant
requested a jury trial.
Appellant respectfully presents as persuasive authority the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It says that “no
fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of
the common law.” Appellant again respectfully asserts that the federal cases to which the lower court referred were
never presented to a jury and were therefore never tried.
West.net's “Judgment On the Merits” says the following with regard to res judicata: “The requirement that a judgment, to be res judicata, must be rendered "on the merits" guarantees to every plaintiff the right once to be heard on the substance of
his claim. Ordinarily, the doctrine may be invoked only after a judgment has been rendered which reaches and determines "the
real or substantial grounds of action or defense as distinguished from matters of practice, procedure, jurisdiction or form." Appellant again asserts that she was never heard, based on her federal actions having never been tried by a jury.
Under the title Prerequisites for Collateral Estoppel, two of the criteria for invoking collateral estoppel are: (1) the issue must have been actually litigated; and 2) the issue must have been
necessary to the court's judgment. The issue of whether Respondents committed acts of fraud was never litigated by the federal
courts. To put it more succinctly, no federal court ever decided: “the Respondents committed fraud” or “the
Respondents are not guilty of fraud.” One of the issues on which the federal courts made a decision was that Appellant
seeks to relitigate her divorce from Respondent Uzamere however, the causes of action in Appellant's divorce were adultery,
cruel and inhuman treatment and abandonment. Appellant made no attempt to litigate her divorce action against Respondent Uzamere
based on fraud.
In the U.S. Supreme Court case Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322 (1955), it says the following: “The basic distinction between the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, as those terms are used in this case, has frequently been emphasized. [Footnote 6] Thus, under the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment "on the merits" in a prior suit involving the same parties or their privies
bars a second suit based on the same cause of action. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, on the other hand, such a judgment precludes relitigation of issues actually litigated and determined in the prior suit,
regardless of whether it was based on the same cause of action as the second suit. Recognizing this distinction, the court
below concluded that 'No question of collateral estoppel by the former judgment is involved, because the case was never tried,
and there was not, therefore, such finding of fact which will preclude the parties to that litigation from questioning the
Appellant asserts that, based on the foregoing, the lower court fraudulently invoked res judicata/collateral estoppel. None of Appellant's federal actions were ever presented to a jury for the purpose of holding a trial.
B) Res Judicata Must be Invoked by Litigant or it is Waived
There is no issue with
regard to Appellant's properly service of process on Respondent Uzamere, who is domiciled in Nigeria. With regard to service
of process without the state, New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules, Section 313 states that “A person domiciled in the state or subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of
the state under section 301 or 302, or his executor or administrator, may be served with the summons without the state, in
the same manner as service is made within the state, by any person authorized to make service within the state who is a resident
of the state or by any person authorized to make service by the laws of the state, territory, possession or country in which
service is made or by any duly qualified attorney, solicitor, barrister, or equivalent in such jurisdiction. At the U.S. Department
of State's website regarding service of process to the Federal Republic of Nigeria, it says that “Nigeria is not a party to any multilateral agreements on judicial assistance...Nigeria is not a party to the Hague Service Convention. In the absence of any prohibition against it,
service of process in Nigeria may be effected by mail...”
Appellant asserts that insofar there is no issue with regard to the manner in which Respondent Uzamere was served, the only
legal obstacle preventing this Court from rendering a decision in Appellant's favor is whether the lower court' abused its
discretion by invoking res judicata on behalf of Respondent Uzamere, who never interposed an answer and never filed a notice of appearance.
Res judicata and collateral estoppel, as affirmative defenses, must be pleaded in a timely manner by a defendant in order for the court to consider them, or else
they are considered waived by the defendant's failure to assert them. According to New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules, Section 3018(b), it says that “A party shall plead all matters which if not pleaded would be likely to take the adverse party by
surprise or would raise issues of fact not appearing on the face of a prior pleading such as arbitration and award, collateral estoppel, culpable conduct claimed in diminution of damages as set forth in article fourteen-A, discharge in bankruptcy, facts showing
illegality either by statute or common law, fraud, infancy or other disability of the party defending, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, or statute of limitation.” If Respondent Uzamere failed to interpose an answer and failed
to appear, subsequently, by operation of the aforesaid law, he waived his right to present them as affirmative defenses. Futhermore,
there is nowhere in the statute that permits a judge to waive an affirmative defense on behalf of a defendant who failed to
interpose an answer. Defendant Uzamere failed to interpose an answer; therefore the issue of res judicata does not apply to him.
COURT'S ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONDENTS' PERJURED AFFIRMATIONS
A) Lower Court's Biased Decision is an act of Fraud upon the Court
The lower court's acceptance of Respondents' fraudulent affirmations that falsely hold that Appellant's ex-husband's name
is “Godwin Uzamere” is a criminal act, and therefore, an act of fraud upon the court.
“In the U.S., when an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to [the] court so that
the court is impaired in the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as "fraud upon the court",
is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of
Officers of the court include: Lawyers, Judges, Referees, and those appointed; Guardian Ad Litem, Parenting Time Expeditors,
Mediators, Rule 114 Neutrals, Evaluators, Administrators, special appointees, and any others whose influence are part of the
Appellant offers this Court persuasive authority by way of the website entitled Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court" And Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal says the following:
officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”.
In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not
fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury...It is where the court or a member is corrupted
or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial
functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
The article continues by saying that “Fraud upon the court has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers
of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that
are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968). The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision
at all, and never becomes final.”
The aforesaid article
ends by saying that “Fraud upon the court makes void the orders and judgments of that court..under...federal law,
when any officer of the court has committed fraud upon the court, the orders and judgment of
that court are void, of no legal force or effect.”
on a Sworn Statement is an Act of Perjury
New York State Penal Law §210.15, Perjury in the first degree says the following: “A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree when he swears falsely
and when his false statement (a) consists of testimony, and (b) is material to the action, proceeding or matter in which it
is made. Perjury in the first degree is a class D felony.”
New York State Penal Law §210.10 Perjury in the second degree says the following: “A person is guilty of perjury in the second degree when he swears falsely and when his false
statement is (a) made in a subscribed written instrument for which an oath is required by law, and (b) made with intent to
mislead a public servant in the performance of his official functions, and (c) material to the action, proceeding or matter
involved. Perjury in the second degree is a class E felony.”
The lower court's acceptance of Respondents' fraudulent affirmations is a criminal act of bias, and is therefore an act of
fraud upon the court, which, not only vitiates its own Decision and Order, but requires the arrest of the Respondents and
the justice who accepted the fraudulent affirmations as true and correct.
Court's Acceptance of Respondents' Fraudulent
Affirmations is an Illegal Attempt to Sua Sponte “Overturn”
Court's Decision and Order
On May 12, 2009, approximately
four (4) months after Appellant e-mailed a complaint to former Ambassador to Nigeria Robin Renee Sanders regarding Justice
Jeffrey S. Sunshine's and Respondent Uzamere's plan to video-conference an unknown Nigerian citizen pretending to be “Godwin
Uzamere” from Nigeria, Justice Sunshine rendered his Decision and Order that “Today
at 10:35 a.m. 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” (Decision and Order of Jeffrey
S. Sunshine dated May 12, 2009, pages 1 – 2). A.7 – A.8. The lower court's acceptance of Respondents' fraudulent
affirmations that falsely hold out the fictitious “Godwin Uzamere” to be Appellant's husband seeks to illegally
“overturn” the prior lower court's decision.
Based on the doctrine
of stare decisis, the lower court has the responsibility to honor the lateral court's decision that Appellant's husband was Respondent
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and not make chaotic attempts to change it. Wikipedia.org holds the following concerning stare decisis:
“Stare decisis... is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior
decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin
maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed. In a legal context, this is understood
to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb settled matters...The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding
precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the
principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided
by principles from lateral and inferior courts.”
Appellant logically asserts that the lower court has no legally viable reason to overturn the lateral court's decision, which
was rendered based on irrefutable documentation produced by the Appellant, for the sole purpose of illegally supplanting the
prior Decision and Order with a material “fact” that the lateral court discounted as false.
a Decision and Order of a Lower Supreme Court
is the Responsibility of the Appellant and the Appellate Court
The responsibility to have an undesirable decision and order overturned lies with the Appellant, not the lower court. According
to Title Twenty-Two of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, Part 670.3(a), Filing of Notice of Appeal, Request for Appellate Division Intervention, Order of Transfer, it says that
“Where an appeal is taken in a civil action or proceeding, the notice of appeal, or the order of the court of original
instance granting permission to appeal, shall be filed by the appellant in the office in which the judgment or order of the
court of original instance is filed.
E) Lower Court's Refusal to Charge
Respondents with Perjury
22 NYCRR's Rules with regard to Judicial Conduct
According to Title Twenty-Two of the Judiciary Subtitle A. Judicial Administration Chapter I. Standards and Administrative Policies Subchapter
C. Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, Part 100, Judicial Conduct, the lower court's judge had the duty to “establish, maintain and enforce high standards of conduct by all.”
Appellant asserts that the lower court judge failed to observe those standards so that the integrity and of the judiciary
would be preserved. The Decision and Order of the lower court illustrates that its judge failed “to be faithful to the
law and maintain professional competence. Appellant asserts that the lower court's Decision and Order is an act of fraud upon
the court based upon doing the the following:
a) the lower court conspired to deprive Appellant of her constitutional right to privacy by disclosing to the Daily News,
for a purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic, HIPAA-protected information regarding the Appellant that it acquired
in a judicial capacity and divulged under color of authority in violation of Title Eighteen of the United States Code Section 241, conspiracy against rights; Title Eighteen of the United States Code Section 242, deprivation of rights under color of law/authority and of relevant sections of Title Twenty-Two of the New York Codes Rules and Regulations, Chapter I, Standards and Administrative Policies, Subchapter
C, Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, Part 100;
b) the lower court conspired to adjudicate Appellant's case in a manner that makes Appellant appear to be a liar/wacko/anti-Semitic
to falsely validate the Daily News libelous article regarding the Appellant;
c) the lower court conspired to with Scott Shifrel of the Daily News to divulge Appellant's HIPAA-protected, information,
including Appellant's photo, name, age, town of residence, treating hospital, diagnosis and symptoms of Appellant's mental
illness for a member of the public to feel emboldened (by pure hatred or chance to make money) to have Appellant seriously
maimed or killed so as not to get its own hands dirty;
d) the lower conspired to perform judicial duties with bias and prejudice against Appellant based on Appellant's status of
having a mental illness by allowing Respondent Uzamere's attorneys to file affirmations containing the fictitious name “Godwin
Uzamere” in violation New York State Penal Law Section 210.15, perjury in the first degree, and New York State Penal Law 210.10, perjury in the second degree, knowing that Appellant's having been publicly libeled an anti-Semitic wacko would facilitate the aforesaid attorneys' filing
of their fraudulent affirmations, and in violation of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that prohibits institutions that receive federal funding from discriminating against individual based on their status of
e) the lower court failed to perform its duties without bias and without prejudice against Appellant by conspiring with a
lateral court to adjudicate Appellant's action for fraud in a manner that would allow the lateral court to “take another
bite of the apple” by “overturning” its own Decision and Order dated May 12, 2009, that correctly identified
Appellant's ex-husband by the proper name Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and to renew its past failed, illegal attempt to
adjudicate Appellant's action for divorce by illegally excusing Respondent Uzamere's failure to attend the first and second preliminary conferences, in violation of Title Twenty-Two of New York Code Rules and Regulations, Subtitle A, Judicial Administration, Part Two Hundred Two, Section
16(f)(1)(vi)(b) that says “Both parties personally must be present in court at the time of the conference,
and the judge personally shall address the parties at some time during the conference”; and
in order for Respondent Sunshine to falsely validate the fraudulent Decision and Order dated January 12, 2009 in which Respondent
Sunshine stated that “...the opposition submitted by defendant raises a genuine issue as to
whether or not plaintiff and defendant were married in the first instance”; and that falsely
identified Appellant's ex-husband by the fake name “Godwin Uzamere” that Appellant reported to Robin Renee Sanders,
Former Ambassador of the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, U.S. Department of State;
Appellant also asserts
that with regard to a judge's responsibility to take appropriate action when receiving information indicating a substantial
likelihood that a lawyer has committed a substantial violation of the New York Lawyer's Code of Professional Conduct, the lower court, by its Decision and Order allowed the Respondents to:
a) violate a Disciplinary Rule of the New York Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility by submitting fraudulent affirmation to the court;
b) circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through the action of the Daily News, who conspired with the lower court to hold out “Godwin
Uzamere” to be Appellant's husband. Appellant reminds this Court that divorce actions are private, not for public consumption,
so that while the lower court's decision allowing Respondents to misrepresent Appellant's husband as “Godwin Uzamere”
would be public, Appellant's divorce that holds that Respondent Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was Appellant's husband would not be
public, and would therefore feed the lower court's attempt to illegally “overturn” the lateral court's decision
that recognizes Respondent Uzamere as Appellant's husband.
c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by submitting affirmations containing the fictitious
name “Godwin Uzamere.”
d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Unlike other papers that Appellant submitted to this Court that showed Appellant's lack of knowledge of the Appellant Division's
due process responsibility to render a decision for or against a lower court's decision based on reasons that are codified
in New York State Law, Appellant has made a feeble attempt to specify what Appellant believes are relevant laws to preserve
the lower court's right to have its Decision and Order affirmed or overturned based on the law, and not solely based on Appellant's
tears and unsophisticated, inartfully drawn requests that are not recognized in law. Appellant asserts that based on that
understanding, Appellant respectfully quotes from Title Twenty-Two of the New York Codes Rules and Regulations, Chapter I, Standards and Administrative Policies, Subchapter
C, Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, Part 100 to show this Court that the lower court's Decision and Order violates codified law. Appellant asserts that the lower court's
Decision and Order made no attempt to recognize that Appellant and her daughter, Tara are still victims of Respondents'
attempts to deny Appellant and the child of the marriage the right to bear Respondent Uzamere's proper name, and financial
benefits that the Appellant and the child of the marriage lost based on Respondents' past successful attempts to hide Respondent
Uzamere's true identity, and illegally supplant his true identity with the identity “Godwin Uzamere”, a name that
a lateral court of competent jurisdiction accepted from Appellant as fictitious and nonexistent. The Appellant reiterates
that the lower court's Decision and Order serves no useful purpose, and is not supported by good cause. It creates detriment
with no ascertainable benefit and should be vacated.
Appellant prays this Court to vacate that part of the lower court's Decision and Order with regard to barring Appellant from
filing its complaint against Respondents as res judicata and collateral estoppel does not apply; to vacate the lower court's Decision and Order in its entirety as it pertains to Respondent Uzamere and to
find Respondent Uzamere in default for failure to interpose an answer or file an appearance pursuant to CPLR §3215 AND CPLR §320; to render a decision allowing Appellant to refile her actions against Respondent
if service of process is found to be inadequate, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
January 4, 2011