THE CRIMES OF SENATOR EHIGIE EDOBOR A.K.A. "GODWIN" UZAMERE
1. Home2. Once Upon A Time3. Victim's Statement4. My Search for Justice5. Descent into Hell6. U.S. Laws Violated by Senator Uzamere7. Nigerian Laws Violated by Senator Uzamere8. Ignored by Federal Agencies9. Ignored by Nigerian Authorities10. Victims' Loss of Child Support11. The Uzamere Family12. Municipal Employees Who Helped Senator Uzamere13. John Gray and Non-Profit Legal Community14. Hall of Shame15. 1st Judicial Blow By African-American Judge Thomas16. Law Firm of Allen E. Kaye17. Too Many Discrepancies...18. Allen E. Kaye And His Diabolical Talmud-Following Minions19. Will Sampson Staff Refuse To Help Identity Fraud Victims?20. Law Office of Gladstein & Messinger21. Patrick Synmoie's Attempts to Hide22. Consulate General of Nigeria23. Strange Chat with Senator Ekweremadu24. Proof of Legal Marriage25. Proof of Illegal Marriage/Identity Fraud26. Senator Uzamere's Attempts to Hide Crimes Will Fail27. The Proof...28. Success -- The Proof Is Finally Here!29. Will Senator Uzamere Evade Child Support Again?30. Nigeria's New Commitment to Protect Child Abandoned by Sen. Uzamere31. Judge Prus -- What Gives?32. Back on Track!33. Eugene Uzamere -- Third Attorney to Break the Law34. Petitioner's Verified Petition35. Supplemental Verified Petition36. Judge Prus Recuses Himself37. Eugene's Failed Attempt to Thwart Justice38. Kate Ezomo -- Diabolical Liar39. Letters of Complaint Against Kate Ezomo40. My Factual Response to Imaginary Cousin Godwin41. Federal Action Against Defendant Dismissed42. Open Letters to the FBI43. Open Letter to All U.S. Judges44. Open Letter to Ehigie and Eugene45. Tara's Affidavit46. $100,000,000.00 Lawsuit Against Corrupt Fiduciaries47. Will Fiduciaries Settle?48. New York City Defrauds Disabled Schvartze49. There Is No Cousin Godwin!50. Warning Letter to Governor and Chief Justice of New York State51. Deprived of Child Support by Allen Kaye52. Can International Agency Help?53. Chief Judge Wood's Court54. Will NYS' Dept. Disc. Committee and Commission on Judicial Conduct Be Corrupted?55. Subpoena Planned for Judge Garaufis56. No Negotiations for Justice...Justice is Owed!57. Will Attorneys Sign Affirmation?58. Am I Finally Being Taken Seriously?59. Evidentiary Hearing is Scheduled!60. Amy Feinstein Refuses to Prosecute!61. Robert Juceam's Useless Excuses62. Appellate Brief pages 24 to end63. No Justice -- No Peace!64. Happy Birthday My Beautiful Angel65. Are You A Victim of A Green Card Marriage Scam?66. End Green Card Marriage Sponsorship67. How to Report an Immigration Scammer and the Attorney68. Is The End Finally in Sight?69. Will Appellate Division Justices Decide Fairly?70. What Will NYSCJC's Response Be?71. How Will NYSDDC Respond?72. Will Obama's Administration Coerce Helpless Schvartze's Silence73. Will U.S. Department of State's Secretary Rise To The Challenge?74. Eugene Uzamere Calls It Quits75. Bigot Judge Sunshine Continues Courtroom Corruption76. Schvartze's Complaints Still Ignored By Appellate Division's White Judiciary77. More Talmudic Bias and Anti-Schvartze Racism At SDNY78. Senator Uzamere...You Are The Husband!79. Will U.S. Solicitor General Office Look On Idly?80. What will SCOTUS Do?81. Why did they disobey?82. Cabranes' Fraud Upon The Court83. Is Hinds-Radix Their 'Secret' Weapon?84. New York State Lawsuit for Fraud85. Judge Sunshine Is A Loser86. Judge Sunshine Out of Options87. Petitioner Prepares Request for Rehearing...88. Petition for Rehearing89. Loser Sunshine's Last Hurrah90. Lawsuit Against Daily News and Scott Shifrel91. Mort Zuckerman's Bigoted Tabloid92. Corruption at Nassau County Supreme Court and Nassau County Clerk93. Judge Scuccimarra Ruling94. Defendants Have Defaulted95. Will Judge Parga Accepts Anne Carroll's Drivel Because Defendants Are Rich Jews?96. New York and Anne B. Carroll97. Lawsuit Against President98. Will Obama Listen?99. Open Letter to Al Jazeera, President Obama and Judge Allegra100. More Court Shenanigans?101. Howard U. Schmokescreen102. Into the fire...103. What Will The New York State Division of Human Rights Do?104. Housing Court Corruption105. Mayor Bloomberg's Finest106. FEGS in Criminal Conspiracy107. FEGS Gave Victim No Choice108. What Will The New York State Supreme Court Do?109. What Will Court of Claims Do?110. Abuse of Religion Not New111. How Wicked Are They?112. What Lies???113. Federal Lawsuit114. Disastrous Results to Appeal115. Judge Garaufis' Discriminatory Decision116. Garaufis' Talmudic Shenanigans117. FOIA Hiding Evidence118. Congressional Testimony119. Unintelligible Complaint of Rachel G. Yohalem120. Uzamere v. USA, et al121. Judicial Whores Willy and Patty122. Uzamere v. USA123. Find an Unbiased Court124. U.S. Government Blacklists Own Citizens125. Appellate Brief First Circuit126. U.S. Government Hides Prosecution127. A Jewish RICO128. Jews' Demonic Doctrine -- Law of the Moser129. Mishkin Yanks His Own Nuts130. Will African American Victim of Grand Laceny Receive Justice?131. Judicial Ethics Hypocrite132. Jew Shenanigans Involved in Random Selection of Morally Compromised Judge133. Please save my family!134. Psychopaths135. Jewish Paradigm Put Jews on Top136. Pretender Bharara137. Int'l Complaint Against Israel, United States and Nigeria138. Memorial of Impeachment139. Supplemental Complaint140. Appellate Brief to UN and US141. U.S. Supreme Court Petition -- UN and U.S.142. A Real Man

How Wicked Are They?
(Dis)Honorable Justice Arthur M. Schack, (Dis)Honorable Jeffrey S. Sunshine, various New York State
courthouse employees, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein -- a pitiful host of criminal clowns
conspired to use  identity fraud victim's mental illness and her poverty to hide their continuing, ridiculous acts
of fraud -- but it doesn't work; identity fraud victim's appellate brief and appendix are ready...
 allenkaye.jpgehigiephotobytara.jpg  ArthurMSchack.jpg jackgladstein2.jpg

Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Cell #1: (347) 596-2165
Cell #2: (347) 369-5853
Fax: (347) 227-0118

FAX

Horizontal Divider 30 
Hon. Barack H. Obama
President, USA
Tel.: 202-456-1414
Tel.: 202-456-2461
Honorable Eric Holder
U.S. Attorney General
Tel.: 202-514-2000
Fax: 202-307-6777
Hon. Janet Napolitano
Secretary
U.S. Department of
   Homeland Security
Fax number: 202-282-8000
Phone number: 202-282-8401
Richard L. Skinner
Inspector General
U.S. Department of
  Homeland Security
Tel.: 202-254-4100
Fax: 202-254-4285
Tristram Coffin
U.S. Attorney, Vermont
Tel. (802) 951-6725
Fax: (802) 951-6540
Loretta E. Lynch,
U.S. Attorney, Eastern Dist, NY
Tel.: 718-254-7000
Fax: 718-254-6479
Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel
USCIS/USDHS
Tel.: 802-660-5043
Fax: 802-660-5067
Hon. Richard E. Sise
Presiding Judge
NYS Court of Claims
Phone: 518-432-3435
Fax: 518-432-3428
Hon. Thomas H. Scuccimarra
Judge, NYS Court of Claims
Phone: 914-289-2330
Fax: 914-289-2333
Gwendolyn Hatcher, Asst. Atty. Gen'l
NYS Attorney General's Ofc
Tel.: 212-416-8500
Fax: 212-416-8946
Hon. Charles J. Hynes
District Atty.
Kings County District Atty's Ofc
Tel.: 718-250-2202
Fax: 718-250-2210
Anne Carroll, Deputy VP
Daily News
Tel.: 212-210-2341
Fax: 212-643-7843
Allen E. Kaye, Esq.
Tel.: 212-964-5858
Fax: 212-608-3734
Harvey Shapiro, Esq.
Tel.: 212-935-3550
Jack Gladstein, Esq.
Tel.: 718-793-7800
Fax: 718-793-0524
Osato E. Uzamere, Esq.
Tel.: 718-829-019
Fax 718-504-5326
Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
Tel.: 011-234-9-523-2127

SUBJECT:

USCIS Employee Rachel McCarthy's Misprision of Felony, etc.

DATE:

December 30, 2010

To Whom It May Concern:
*
This is an emergency. I am a crime victim who is being being ignored based on the status of having a mental illness in violation of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Please review.
Horizontal Divider 30
December 30, 2010
*
*
*
Richard L. Skinner
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
245 Murray Drive, SW
Building 410
Washington, D.C. 20538
*
Re: Rachel McCarthy; USCIS/USDHS
Alleged Crimes: Conspiracy (18 USC §371)
Misprision of felony (18 USC §4)
Conspiracy against rights (18 USC §241)
Deprivation, Color of law (18 USC §241)
*
Dear Mr. Skinner:
*
Attached please find a complaint that I tried to fax to Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Also attached are the documents that I received from Rachel McCarthy and T. Diane Cejka of your agency that confirm that my ex-husband's real name is Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, date of birth December 31, 1960.
*
In May 2008, I contacted Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel for your agency regarding an act of immigration fraud and identity fraud that was perpetrated by my ex-husband, Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, and facilitated by immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro. Both of them supplied me with proof of my ex-husband's identity; said proof is enclosed with the complaint I tried to fax to Loretta Lynch.

It is now near the end of 2010. The Daily News and other entities conspired to falsely identify my ex-husband by the fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere”, the name that he and his immigration attorneys used to trick me into signing the I-130 sponsorship form. In addition, attorneys Osato Eugene Uzamere, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Matthew Kaufman supplied with the court with fraudulent affirmations that are still holding out that my ex-husband's name is “Godwin Uzamere.” The affirmations were accepted by New York State Justice Arthur M. Schack.

I tried filing a lawsuit against your agency; some slick attorney may attempt to dismiss my complaint based upon statute of limitations and/or a legal doctrine called res judicata.” I have made preparations for this stunt by attaching relevant laws that pertain to this complaint.

I allege that Rachel McCarthy is part of a group of individuals who wish to continue to refuse to hold Allen Kaye responsible for his continuing attempts to try to pass off his former client as “Godwin Uzamere.” At the very least, Rachel is liable for not holding him responsible for his past act of fraud; and now that Allen Kaye and Harvey Shapiro have submitted affirmations referring to the same fictitious name that they did in the past, this is part of a pattern of continuing violations that render any claims to statute of limitations and res judicata null and void.

I respectfully ask that you investigate Rachel McCarthy and find out why she has done nothing to report Allen Kaye's and Harvey Shapiro's use of the same fictitious name that they used to trick me, when she knows that my ex-husband's real name is Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.

Your job is to investigate USDHS/USCIS employees. Please do your job.

One more thing: I will be sending this by certified mail, return receipt requested to ensure that you receive it.

Respectfully,

mysignature2.jpg

Cheryl D. Uzamere

/cdu

 

December 30, 2010
*
*
The Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
Terence P. McCulley
U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria
Embassy of the United States of America
Plot 1075 Diplomatic Drive
Central District Area
Abuja, Nigeria
*
Subject: Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
               Date of Birth: December 31, 1960
               Immigration File Number:  A35 201 224
               Identity under fraudulent file:  Godwin Ehigie Uzamere
               Fraudulent Date of Birth: June 1, 1955
               2nd Immigration File Number: A24 027 764
*
Dear Mr. Ambassador:
*
This is a complaint of a federal crime that is in progress.  I respectfully invoke 18 USC Section 4, misprision of felony with regard to my reporting the federal crime to you.  I beg your keen sense of justice, kindness and mercy in assisting me to end this crime.
*
I contact you, as I contacted the former Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders in order to stop the identity fraud associated with the subject individual that is still continuing.
*
I took the liberty of providing your office with several contacts, most notably Ms. T. Diane Cejka, Director of the Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Department in Lee Summit, Missouri, and Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel, of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Immigration Service.  Ms. Cejka’s office was instrumental in providing me with proof of my ex-husband’s identity (i.e, only documents that contained his name and my name); whereas Ms. McCarthy, while providing me with a couple of letters with regard to my ex-husband’s immigration attorney Allen E. Kaye, has been unwilling to inform law enforcement agencies of Senator Uzamere’s attorney’s facilitation of his immigration fraud and identity fraud, and has instead declared him innocent of not requiring my ex-husband to provide him with a passport to verify his identity.
*
Last year, I sent former Ambassador Sanders an e-mail complaining of Judge Sunshine’s attempt to assist my ex-husband in videoconferencing a divorce action from Nigeria.  On October 7, 2008, my ex-husband’s attorney, his cousin Osato Eugene Uzamere, hand-delivered a fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized counter-affidavit holding my ex-husband out to be the cousin of my “real” husband, “Godwin Uzamere” (fraudulent counter-affidavit attached).  Judge Sunshine attempted to render a decision based on the fraudulent counter-affidavit, and attempted to make plans to videoconference “Godwin Uzamere” from Nigeria.  Before allowing this silliness to continue further, I contacted former Ambassador Sanders.
*
As a sidebar, I am quite familiar with 18 USC Section 3492, which requires consulate officials to authenticate foreign documents, and 22 CFR Section 92.65, which requires a judge to commission a consular officer to prove the genuineness of foreign documents.  Why didn’t Judge Sunshine do this?  And why did Rachel McCarthy sit quietly and watch the continuation of Ehigie’s identity fraud if she knows Ehigie’s identity and she knows that 18 USC Section 4 requires her to report federal felonies?  She’s an attorney.
*
The complaint seemed to have worked because a few months later, Judge Sunshine rendered a decision and order acknowledging Senator Uzamere as my husband.  The decision is attached.
*
Now, it seems that Judge Sunshine wants a second “bite of the apple” to save face from the scathing report I uploaded about his crime against me to my website http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net.  In his attempt to hide his actions, he has conspired with the Daily News to portray me as an “anti-Semitic wacko” (article attached), along with attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein and Matthew A. Kaufman, to file fraudulent affirmations with the court holding out that “Godwin Uzamere” is my husband (documents attached).  In spite of my having provided the court with proof of my ex-husband’s true identity that I received from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, Judge Schack, the judge in my action for fraud against my ex-husband and the attorneys who helped him ignored my proof as the rantings of a mentally ill individual and accepted the perjured affirmations of my ex-husband’s attorneys.
*
I have never experienced the level of hatred, racism and religious bigotry associated with the aforesaid individuals that I feel now.  I have had to change my telephone number because of crank calls from individuals using my own name and telephone number to mask who they are.  I recorded a phone call from two people pretending to be from the U.S. Department of Homeland security.  You can visit http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/court_of_claims.html to hear the conversation (I am not Nigerian; I am American).
*
I am now forcibly embraced me in a fight to the death to allow them to file fraudulent documents holding out my ex-husband to be “Godwin Uzamere.”  Do you know who I have to thank for this?  Rachel McCarthy.  A very wicked woman who, although knowing that Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was my husband, and although knowing that Ehigie’s request for IR2 benefits (residence based on being under 21 and unmarried) was revoked after USINA discovered that Ehigie applied for IR1 benefits (based on marriage to me) under name the name “Godwin Uzamere.”  Both T. Diane Cejka and Rachel McCarthy can verify this.
*
I admit that I am both mentally disabled and black, but I deserve justice too.  Please help me.
*
Thank you in advance for your kind assistance, and God bless America.
Respectfully,
mysignature2.jpg
Cheryl D. Uzamere
*
/cdu

Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Cheryl D. Uzamere

 

                            Plaintiff-Appellant,

           -against-

 

Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, a/k/a
"Godwin E. Uzamere, Allen E. Kaye, P.C.,
Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq.
Bernard J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein,
Esq.,

                      Respondents-Respondents

*

*

*

Horizontal Divider 30
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

APPELLANT'S BRIEF

Horizontal Divider 30
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

                                                                                        Cheryl D. Uzamere
                                                                                        Appearing Pro Se
                                                                                        1209 Loring Avenue
                                                                                        Apt. 6B
                                                                                        Brooklyn, NY 11208
                                                                                        Tel.: (718) 647-2199
                                                                                        Fax: (347) 227-0118

Horizontal Divider 30

QUESTION PRESENTED

                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?

STATEMENT 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 unfit.”

                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.

                Appellant respectfully 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). A.3.

                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.

ARGUMENT

                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.

LOWER COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY INVOKING

 

                                A) Lower Court's Use of Res Judicata is Fraudulent as
                                     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 finding thereafter.'”

                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.

LOWER 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 limitation.

                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 judicial mechanism.”

                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:

                “Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury...It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”

                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.”

             B) Lying 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.

             C) Lower Court's Acceptance of Respondents' Fraudulent

                 Affirmations is an Illegal Attempt to Sua Sponte “Overturn”
                 a Lateral 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.

             D) Overturning 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
                  Violates 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 being disabled.

                     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.

CONCLUSION

                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

 
On May 14, 2010, after preparing and submitting fraudulent affirmations to corrupt Judge Schack, corrupt attorney Matthew A. Kaufman openly says to Judge Schack "I stand on my papers."
*
Corrupt Mathew Kaufman -- standing on his clients' fraudulent affirmations.
*
Corrupt Judge Schack -- allowing the attorneys to stand on their papers without arresting them for perjury.
*
 Why are these two wicked men standing on the fictitious name "Godwin Uzamere" when Judge Sunshine's Decision and Order dated May 12, 2009 stated that identity  fraud victim was married to Ehigie E. Uzamere, NOT "Godwin Uzamere?"
*
What are Judge Schack and Matthew Kaufman trying to do -- help Judge Sunshine overturn his own decision???
*
Judge Schack and Matthew A. Kaufman --
How wicked are they???

uzamere-v-uzamerepg13.jpg

 
On May 12, 2009, Judge Sunshine decided that Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was my husband...what is he trying to do now -- overturn his own decision???
*
How wicked is he???

sunshinedecision5-12-09pg1.jpg
sunshinedecision5-12-09pg2.jpg

 
On October 28, 2009, Harvey Shapiro perjured himself by notarizing an affirmation that claimed that identity fraud victim was married to the fictitious "Godwin Uzamere."  On May 12, 2009, Judge Sunshine's Decision and Order stated that identity  fraud victim was married to Ehigie E. Uzamere...what is Harvey trying to do -- help Judge Sunshine overturn his own decision???
 *
Harvey Shapiro -- How wicked is he???

CCF12262010_00000.jpg
CCF12262010_00001.jpg
CCF12262010_00002.jpg
CCF12262010_00003.jpg
CCF12262010_00004.jpg
CCF12262010_00005.jpg
CCF12262010_00006.jpg
CCF12262010_00007.jpg
CCF12262010_00008.jpg
CCF12262010_00009.jpg

 
On October 28, 2009, Allen E. Kaye perjured himself by notarizing an affirmation that claimed that identity fraud victim was married to the fictitious "Godwin Uzamere."  On May 12, 2009, Judge Sunshine's Decision and Order stated that identity  fraud victim was married to Ehigie E. Uzamere...what is Allen trying to do -- help Judge Sunshine overturn his own decision???
 *
Allen E. Kaye -- How wicked is he???

CCF12262010_00010.jpg
CCF12262010_00011.jpg
CCF12262010_00012.jpg
CCF12262010_00013.jpg
CCF12262010_00014.jpg
CCF12262010_00015.jpg
CCF12262010_00016.jpg
CCF12262010_00017.jpg
CCF12262010_00018.jpg
CCF12262010_00019.jpg

 
On October 27, 2009, Jack Gladstein perjured himself by notarizing an affirmation that claimed that identity fraud victim was married to the fictitious "Godwin Uzamere."  On May 12, 2009, Judge Sunshine's Decision and Order stated that identity  fraud victim was married to Ehigie E. Uzamere...what is Jack trying to do -- help Judge Sunshine overturn his own decision???
 *
Harvey Shapiro -- How wicked is he???

CCF12262010_00020.jpg
CCF12262010_00021.jpg
CCF12262010_00022.jpg
CCF12262010_00023.jpg
CCF12262010_00024.jpg
CCF12262010_00025.jpg

CCF12262010_00026.jpg

CCF12262010_00027.jpg

 
On October 7, 2008, Osato (Eugene) Uzamere  perjured himself by notarizing an affirmation that claimed that identity fraud victim was married to the fictitious "Godwin Uzamere."  On May 12, 2009, Judge Sunshine's Decision and Order stated that identity  fraud victim was married to Ehigie E. Uzamere.
 *
Osato Uzamere -- How wicked is he???

eugeneaffirmationpg1A.jpg
eugeneaffirmationpg2A.jpg
cousinuzamerepg1.jpg
cousinuzamerepg2.jpg
emailtorobinsanders.jpg
usembassyemail.jpg

 
On November 5, 2009, corrupt staff writer Scott Shifrel tacitly admitted to criminally conspiring with New York State judges and/or their subordinates to disclose nonpublic information to the Daily News that he acquired from various New York State "courthouse sources."
*
According to 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."
*
According to 22 NYCRR 100.3(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."
*
Scott Shifrel -- How wicked (and stupid) is he???

dailynewsarticle3.jpg

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service provided irrefutable proof that Ehigie E. Uzamere was my husband.  Based on Judge Sunshine's receipt documentation from USCIS, and based on my complaint to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, Judge Sunshine concluded that Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere was my husband.  Why do Judge Sunshine, Judge Schack, Scott Shifrel, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein continue to refer to "Godwin Uzamere" as the identity fraud victim's husband.
*
Because they are wicked -- and stupid. 

uscisltr06-12-09.jpg
A35.jpg
rachelmccarthyreport2.jpg