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

Lawsuit Against the United States and President Obama
*
tonywest.jpg
What is more important -- being a "team player" and breaking the law, or obeying the U.S. Constitution
 ArthurMSchack.jpg
Corrupt Judge Schack --he and fellow Ashkenazi judges depend violate the law; use Talmud to rationalize violating the law

GoddessofJustice.jpg
I would prefer it if you were to respond to my questionnaire now. If Judge Firestone, Judge Miller, or some other member of U.S. Court of Federal Claims Ashkenazi judiciary does not use the Talmud's Law of the Moser to pretend that res judicata applies, I will ask the same questions during discovery 
*******
 YES
 NO 
I'm a team player. I do what my
team does.
Question 1:
Is it constitutional to file civil charges against a Jewish person if there is concrete evidence that he/she violated the law? 
   
Question 2:
It is constitutional for a Jewish judge to be intentionally and purposely selected to adjudicate a "Non-Ashkenazi vs. Ashkenazi" case whenever one files a complaint against a Jewish litigant?
   

Question 3:

It is constitutional to secretly use the Talmud to adjudicate "Non-Ashkenazi vs. Ashkenazi" cases?
   

Question 4:

In a lawsuit where only Ashkenazi judges are selected to adjudicate "Non-Ashkenazi vs. Ashkenazi" cases, to which government agency(ies) can the victim go to file a complaint of fraud upon the court and bias?
   
Question 5:Is it lawful for an African-American litigant to demand and receive an African-American judge?   
Question 6:
Is it lawful for an African-American judge to choose to adjudicate a case based on its litigants being African-American?
   
Question 7:
Is it lawful for a Catholic-American litigant to demand and receive a judge who is Catholic-American?
   
Question 8:
Is it is lawful for a Catholic-American judge to choose to adjudicate cases based on litigants being Catholic?
   
Question 9:
Is is lawful for a non-Jewish judge to accept money to only allow Ashkenazi judges to adjudicate "Non-Ashkenazi vs. Ashkenazi" cases?
   
Question 10:Do I have a right to ask these questions?   
Question 11:Do I have a right to know the answers?   
Question 12:Does the principle of "the law being transparent" require you (in good conscience) to answer these questions?   
Question 13:In your personal opinion, does it seem fair for you to enforce a law against me that you wish not to explain to me?   
Question 14:
If a litigant finds that the the judiciary complaint process fails to address the  violation of a litigant's constitutional rights, save for a lawsuit, what purpose do you and your agency serve if you/your agency can address fraud committed by a federal judge? Why are you here?
   
Question 15:
Is there are there other agencies beside United States Courts that addresses a judge' violation of 18 USC 241, conspiracy against rights?
   
 

For RJ to be binding, several factors must be met: 1) identity in the thing at suit; 2) identity of the cause at suit; 3) identity of the parties to the action; 4) identity in the designation of the parties involved; 5) whether the judgment was final; 6) whether the parties were given full and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue.

Please do not believe that I didn't see this...I did.  No case of mine was ever tried.  I was never heard because every Jewish judge to whom I presented a lawsuit -- including Judge Miller -- used the Talmud's Law of the Moser to dismiss my case with prejudice.
   

informingonjews_2.jpg
 

In the United State Court of Federal Claims

___________________________________

Cheryl D. Uzamere

                                            Plaintiff,

          - against -

United States of America

          - and -

Honorable Barack H. Obama, President of
of  the  United States; F. Michael Kelleher,
Special    Assistant    to    the    President;
Honorable  Eric  H.  Holder,  Jr., Attorney
General,  United  States  Department   of
Department  of  Justice; Thomas E. Perez,
Assistant  Attorney  General,  Civil Rights
Division,  United  States  Department   of
Justice;  Marc  Kappelhoff,  Acting   Chief,
Coordination  and  Review,   Civil   Rights
Division,  United  States  Department   of
Justice;   Rita    J.   Craig,   Acting   Chief,
Coordination     and      Review     Section,
United  States    Department   of   Justice;
Judy  Preston,    Acting     Chief,    Special
Litigation Unit, United States Department
of  Justice;  Laurie  O. Robinson, Assistant
Attorney  General,  United  States Depart-
ment of Justice;  Glenn  A. Fine, Inspector
General,  United  States   Department   of
Justice; Honorable Janet Reno, Secretary,
United  States  Department  of Homeland
Security;  Lynden  Melmed, Chief Counsel,
United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services;   Rachel    McCarthy,    Counsel,
United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services; Joseph Demarest, Special-Agent
-in-Charge, Federal  Bureau  of  Investiga-
tion; Sandra A. Bungo, Unit  Chief, United
States  Department  of   Justice;   Eric   A.
Johnson, Special-Agent-in  Charge, United
States   Department   of   Justice;   United
States  Department  of  Justice, the United
States  Department  of Homeland Security
and  the  United   States   Citizenship   and
Immigration Services
                                            Defendants.
___________________________________

COMPLAINT

        1) At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff was and still is a resident of the City of Brooklyn, County of Kings and State of New York.

JURISDICTION

        2) This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 USC §1491, which says that “The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded...upon the Constitution...”

        3) This Court has jurisdiction over this action as it is an implied cause of action in the manner of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

PARTIES

        3) Defendant is the United States acting by and through the following employees: Honorable Barack H. Obama; Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.; Thomas E. Perez; Marc Kappelhoff; Rita J. Craig, Judy Preston; Laurie O. Robinson; Glenn A. Fine; Honorable Janet Reno; Lynden Melmed; Rachel McCarthy; Joseph Demarest; Sandra A. Bungo; Eric A. Johnson, and those federal agencies for which the aforesaid individuals are employed, to wit: the United States Department of Justice, the United States Department of Homeland Security and the United States Department of Citizenship and Immigration Services.

ASSERTIONS/ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL PARTIES

        4) Plaintiff first invokes the followings laws: 1) Title 18 of the United States Code, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Section 4, misprision of felony, that says “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both” and Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3290 that says “No statute of limitations shall extend to any person fleeing from justice.”

        5) Plaintiff strongly asserts that she is now familiar with the manner in which Ashkenazi members of a court's judiciary acts when a litigant against whom charges have been brought is also a member of the Ashkenazim, and what this Court will do as soon as it receives Plaintiff's lawsuits: 1) it will employ clerk of of Court Hazel C. Keahey to pretend that the selection of a Jewish judge is “random”, when, in fact, the selection of the aforesaid Ashkenazi judge is purposeful and intentional; 2) the Ashkenazi judge will render a decision that ensures that the case is dismissed before it is presented to the jury; 3) if the lawsuit's decision is appealed, the lawsuit is subsequently presented to a group of judges, the presiding judge being a member of the Ashkenazim; 4) the case is dismissed and the non-Ashkenazi litigant's constitutional rights to petition the government for a redress of grievances, to freedom of speech, to due process of law and to equal protection under the law are violated with the litigant having no way out.

        6) Plaintiff strongly asserts that 1) every exhibit presented in Plaintiff's complaint is irrefutable; and, 2) that there is no amount of subterfuge any Jewish judge can use to change that the Jewish judge has lied, and that the evidence Plaintiff submitted with lawsuit is irrefutable.

        7) That Plaintiff asserts that at the time of the aforesaid individuals' defamation of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff was litigating Index Number 26332/2007, her divorce action against her then husband Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere and Index Number 18012-2009, Plaintiff's action for fraud against Senator Ehigie E. Uzamere, immigration attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, notary public/traffic court judge Bernard J. Rostanski and immigration/divorce attorney Jack Gladstein.

        8) That Plaintiff asserts that during Plaintiff's litigation of her divorce action, Plaintiff's ex-husband's attorney/nephew, Eugene O. Uzamere submitted a fraudulent counter-affidavit to the Honorable Jeffrey S. Sunshine for the purpose of hiding Plaintiff's ex-husband's true identity, and to hide ex-husband's commission of immigration fraud, identity fraud and non-payment of child support for which Justice Sunshine never filed a contempt of court order against the aforesaid attorney's act of perjury; and although during Plaintiff's divorce action she obtained proof from Defendant's agent the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services of Plaintiff's ex-husband's true identity (see Exhibit B, pages 1-4 and Exhibit C, page 1-2).

        9) That Plaintiff asserts that paragraphs 9 and 10 of Daily News' and Scott Shifrel's newspaper article states that: “The senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband, Godwin Uzamere, according to an affidavit he filed in Supreme Court...Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should not be encouraged,” Godwin Uzamere's affidavit said'”; and that paragraph 10 of the aforesaid newspaper article quotes verbatim a part of paragraph 10 of Plaintiff's ex-husband's fraudulent counter-affidavit.

        10) That Plaintiff asserts that her ex-husband's attorney Eugene O. Uzamere acquired the false identity from the fraudulent I-130 immediate relative sponsorship form that was falsified by Plaintiff's ex-husband, and by ex-husband's attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard Rostanski and Jack Gladstein, and that the false identity is still on the birth certificate of the child of Plaintiff's marriage (see Exhibit D, pages 1-3 and Exhibit E).

        11) That Plaintiff strongly asserts that as of this Court's reading of paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and this Court's viewing of the accompanying exhibits, that it is obvious that Plaintiff has sufficiently proven that attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski, Jack Gladstein and Eugene O. Uzamere committed acts of immigration fraud, identity fraud and facilitated fraud upon the court; and that further to this, that the Defendant, by and through its employees never prosecuted the aforesaid attorneys for the crimes Plaintiff has successfully proven that the aforesaid attorneys committed.

        12) That Plaintiff asserts that in paragraphs 1, 2 and 7, Scott Shifrel admits that he obtained information from New York State court employees based on his statement that “A woman suing her Nigerian husband for millions started screaming and ripping off her clothes before her arraignment yesterday on charges of threatening to kill a Brooklyn judge. Cheryl Uzamere, 50, known around courthouse circles for her anti-Semitic screeds against judges and others was declared to be mentally unfit...oh, she's a smart person and she really knows how to use the system, said one courthouse source.”

        13) That Plaintiff asserts that after she tried to lodge complaints concerning fraud upon the court against Justice Sunshine with Defendant New York State Unified Court System's Office of the Inspector General, Plaintiff was charged with Penal Law §240.30/aggravated harassment.

        14) That Plaintiff asserts that she was arrested and kept in dirty cells, given hardened bread to eat, and not allowed to bath for parts of two days.

        15) That Plaintiff asserts that she was subsequently transported to three different hospitals and then to the Rose M. Singer Detention Center for 33 days.

        16) That Plaintiff asserts that she was then presented to Kings County Criminal Court where the charges against her were dismissed (see Exhibit F).

        17) That Plaintiff asserts that she was then transported to one of New York State's psychiatric facilities where Plaintiff was not permitted to use the services of the aforesaid psychiatric facility's notary public to notarize any documents pertaining to Claimant's handwritten notice of claim against the State of New York.

        18) That Plaintiff asserts that she was released 60 days later on February 5, 2010.

        19) That Plaintiff asserts that on or around February 23, 2010, while Plaintiff was at home faxing a letter of complaint regarding judicial corruption in New York State, Plaintiff's apartment was invaded by the New York City Police Department; that Plaintiff was then pulled out of her apartment, falsely accused of not taking her psychotropic medication by a social worker from Brookdale Hospital Center and was eventually transferred to a New York State psychiatric facility and hospitalized for nearly three (3) months (see Exhibit G).

        20) That Plaintiff asserts that although the Kings County Clerk's minutes correctly represent that the Plaintiff's action for divorce was uncontested because ex-husband never interposed an answer, never filed a notice of appearance and never physically appeared although Justice Prus and Justice Sunshine ordered 19 S.L.A.P.P-like, unnecessary adjournments, Justice Sunshine fraudulently fraudulently represented that Plaintiff's ex-husband, who is a millionaire, was present at the preliminary conference in violation of New York Code Rules and Regulation Section 202.16(f)(1)(vi)(b) that says that “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 New York Code Rules and Regulations Section 202.16(k)(5)(i) that says that “The failure to comply with the provisions of this subdivision shall be good cause, in the discretion of the judge presiding...(i) to draw an inference favorable to the adverse party with respect to any disputed fact or issue affected by such failure”; and that although the aforesaid laws direct justices to require the present of both spouses at the preliminary conference, and requires judges to rule in favor of the party who fails to appear, that Justice D'Emic subsequently ruled in the no-show ex-husband 's favor; and that Plaintiff received nothing from her 30-year marriage (see Exhibit H, pages 1-3).

        21) That Plaintiff asserts that she litigated Index Number 18012-2007, action for fraud (including tolling the statute of limitations) against ex-husband Ehigie E. Uzamere, Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Bernard J. Rostanski, Esq.; and Jack Gladstein, Esq.; that the aforementioned individuals failed to interpose an answer or file an appearance; that during Justice Schack's adjudication of Plaintiff's lawsuit, Justice Schack attempted to render a decision that Plaintiff was unfit to stand trial against Plaintiff's no-show ex-husband and the four (4) no-show Jewish attorneys; and that in spite of Defendants' failure to interpose and answer and failure to file an appearance, Justice Schack ruled in favor of the no-show ex-husband and the no-show attorneys (see Exhibit I).

        22) That Plaintiff asserts that she is presently litigating Index Number 10-00998 at the Nassau County Supreme Court against the Daily News and Scott Shifrel so as to avoid what Plaintiff alleges to be acts of Talmud-oriented bias at the Kings County Supreme Court.

        23) That Plaintiff asserts that with regard to her action for defamation against the Daily News and staff writer Scott Shifrel, that their attorney, Anne B. Carroll, filed a demand to change the venue (see Exhibit J).

        24) That on July 2, 2010, Plaintiff asserts she received correspondence from the Kings County Clerk's Office; that the the index number that was supposed to be placed on the correspondence was missing; that the correspondence was entitled “Kings County Clerk's Office, Equity Department, Window 9” in an envelope labeled “County Clerk's Office, County of Kings...mailed from zip code 11201”, that although Plaintiff's action for defamation is in Nassau County; Plaintiff strongly alleges that attorney Anne B. Carroll enlisted the assistance of New York State court employees to send the aforesaid document to trick Plaintiff into believing that her action for defamation was transferred to Kings County Supreme Court, and to coerce Plaintiff by manipulating her fear that Plaintiff's action would be transferred to the Kings County Supreme Court so that Plaintiff would instead allow lawsuit to be transferred to the New York County Supreme Court where Plaintiff's lawsuit would then be transferred to the Honorable Judge Shulman who is presently adjudicating Index Number 100053/2008, lawsuit for defamation between the Honorable Larry D. Martin, a sitting judge against Defendants the Daily News and columnist Errol Louis; and based on what Plaintiff alleges was Anne Carroll's belief that she could manipulate Plaintiff's fear of litigating her case in Kings County and arrange for Justice Shulman's to render one decision on the not-legally-knowledgeable Plaintiff that would be different from Justice Shulman's decision on the rich, powerful judge Exhibit K, pages 1 and 2).

        25) That Plaintiff asserts that on Friday, July 23, 2010, she received all the motion papers that Nassau County Supreme Court's employees stamped as having received on July 19, 2010; that Plaintiff's motion papers were accompanied by correspondence in which Plaintiff was ordered by the court to add the court's address that was missing on Plaintiff's notices of motion, and then to effect service on the Daily News and Scott Shifrel again (see Exhibit L, page 1-5); that New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 2101(f) says that “The party on whom a paper is served shall be deemed to have waived objection to any defect in form unless, within two days after the receipt thereof, he returns the paper to the party serving it with a statement of particular objections”; that instead of attorney Anne Carroll filing an objection regarding the missing court address (that she already knows) within the two (2) days allotted to her by the aforesaid law, Anne Carroll instead contacted Nassau County Supreme Court or the Nassau County Clerk's Office and told one of its clerks to send Plaintiff the papers to be corrected insofar as Plaintiff informed Ms Carroll that she would not accept untimely filed papers from the Defendants; and that Plaintiff alleges that it was Ms. Carroll's scheme to defraud Plaintiff of her right to receive a decision from the court in the least amount of time possible by coercing Plaintiff to believe that Plaintiff had no other choice but to beg the court to extend the time to answer; and that if the no-interposing-an-answer-having, no-reasonable-excuse-meritorious-defense-having Defendants succeeded in coercing the Plaintiff to request and receive more time, that attorney Anne Carroll would then engage the court's assistance to employ S.L.A.P.P-like adjournments until Plaintiff gets so frustrated that Plaintiff gives up.

        26) That Plaintiff asserts that with regard to the proper handling of papers containing mistakes, omissions, defects and irregularities, she researched New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 2101(f); New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 2102(c); New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 2001 and New York Code Rules and Regulations Section 202.5(d)(1)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(a)(b)(c), and discovered that based upon the aforesaid laws, Nassau County Supreme Court and Nassau County Clerk's Office, by their employees, violated the law, thereby violating Plaintiff's New York State and U.S. constitutional right to due process.

        27) That Plaintiff asserts that July 29, 2010, she received motions and supporting affidavits from attorney Anne B. Carroll that she falsely claimed she served the first set on Plaintiff by mail; that on page 9 of Anne Carroll's affirmation, she states that “the applicability of the privilege is a question for this Court to decide as a matter of law by comparing the judicial or other official document at issue with the material that plaintiff has put into controversy...The Article (Daily News article) reports that the Nigerian senator whom Uzamere claims is (or was) her husband [is] however, a cousin of her actual ex-husband...a facial comparison of the article with Godwin Uzamere itself...demonstrates defendants' statements are a fair and true report of the document” (see Exhibit M, pages 1-2).

        28) That Plaintiff asserts that in spite of Ms. Carroll's illegal attempt to pass off as true and correct the Daily News and Scott Shifrel's false statements regarding the fraudulent counter-affidavit to which they referred, Justice Sunshine rendered a decision dated May 12, 2009 – six (6) months earlier – in which he stated that “...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” (see Exhibit N, pages 1-2); that based on Justice Sunshine's decision and Plaintiff's commonsense, New York State court employees did not have privilege to disseminate a document to the Daily News and Scott Shifrel known by court personnel to be fraudulent; and that based on Plaintiff's having provided Anne Carroll with Justice Sunshine's decision, Ms. Carroll's statements, including her reference to the “counter-affidavit” that is not authenticated by a consular employee or notarized by a duly licensed New York State notary public, Ms Carroll committed perjury for which Plaintiff is sure she will not be charged with contempt and prosecuted because of her having white skin and Jewish defendants.

        29) That Plaintiff asserts that she filed the first of four (4) implied causes of action claims in the manner of Brown v. State of New York, 89 N.Y.2d 172, 674 N.E.2d 1129, 652 N.Y.S.2d 223, 65 USLW 2355 (1996) for New York State Constitutional rights violations.

        30) That Plaintiff asserts that she created the website http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/ to chronicle her attempts to obtain justice; as a means to inform the international public of Defendant's refusal to bring to justice those alleged by Plaintiff to have committed crimes against her, and to see if any of Defendant's employees would read Plaintiff's website, have pity on Plaintiff and assist her.

        31) That Plaintiff asserts that in response to Plaintiff's attempt to file her complaint regarding fraud upon the court, judicial corruption and the encroachment of the Talmud into the New York State Unified Court System Defendant, Defendant's employee Rita J. Craig, acting at the behest of Mark J. Kappelhoff, sent Plaintiff correspondence that said that “this office will take no further action regarding your letter” (Exhibit O).

        32) That Plaintiff asserts that in response to Plaintiff's attempt to file her complaint regarding fraud upon the court, judicial corruption and the encroachment of religion into the New York State Unified Court System, Defendant's employee Sandra A. Bungo stated that “there is no evidence of misconduct on the part of any FBI employee. Therefore, no further action will be taken by this office” (see Exhibit P).

        33) That Plaintiff asserts that in response to Plaintiff's attempt to file her complaint regarding fraud upon the court, judicial corruption and and the encroachment of religion into the New York State Unified Court System, Defendant's employee Eric A. Johnson that “the matters that you raised are more appropriate for review by another office or agency” (see Exhibit Q).

        34) That Plaintiff asserts that in response to Plaintiff's attempts to file her complaint regarding fraud upon the court, judicial corruption and the encroachment of the Talmud into the New York State Unified Court System, Defendant's White House employee F. Michael Kelleher said that “...due to the separation of powers, it is not within our authority to become involved in legal matters” (see Exhibit R).

        35) That Plaintiff alleges that the four (4) employees with whom Plaintiff unsuccessfully tried to file complaints regarding violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights are not the only ones; that Plaintiff filed many complaints, some of which are displayed at Plaintiff's website http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net.

        36) That Plaintiff asserts that the pattern of Defendant's employees with reference to Plaintiff's complaints are: 1) to refuse to handle it; or, 2) to transfer it to another federal agency, department, division, section or unit where another of Defendant's employees emulates the same behavior as their predecessors.

        37) That Plaintiff alleges that Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard J. Rostanski, Jack Gladstein, Justice Prus, Justice Sunshine, Justice D'Emic and Justice Schack are Ashkenazi Jews.

        38) That Plaintiff asserts that the aforesaid individuals are adherents of the Talmud.

        39) That Plaintiff asserts that the Talmud, Tractate Abodah Zarah, Folio 26b promulgates the religious doctrine “the law of the moser”; that the aforesaid religious doctrine prohibits Jews from reporting the crimes of fellow Jews to non-Jewish authorities under penalty of shunning, or penalty of death (see Exhibit S, pages 1-3).

        40) That Plaintiff asserts that the Talmud, Tractate Baba Kamma, Folio 113a promulgates the religious doctrine of using “subterfuge” to deceive “heathens” (see Exhibit T).

        41) That Plaintiff asserts that the Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, Folio 108b promulgates the religious doctrine that blacks are cursed and meant to be enslaved (Exhibit U, pages 1-3).

        42) That Plaintiff asserts that this complaint's exhibits have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard Rostanski, Jack Gladstein and Eugene O. Uzamere facilitated the identity fraud of Plaintiff's ex-husband Ehigie Edobor Uzamere.

        42) That Plaintiff asserts that in an effort to ensure that this Court does not employ the principle of “res judicata” or collateral estoppel to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint based on Plaintiff's previous unsuccessful encounters with both state and federal judges, Plaintiff concedes that she has litigated cases against the aforesaid individuals in front of the Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis (who is Jewish and refused to recuse himself), and the Honorable Leonard B. Sands (also Jewish and refused to recuse himself) in spite Plaintiff's allegations that would give rise to Plaintiff's belief that the federal judges were partial pursuant to 28 USC §455, disqualification of judges.

        43) That Plaintiff asserts that on November 5, 2010, Daily News and Scott Shifrel revisited the facilitation of identity fraud commenced by attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard Rostanski, Jack Gladstein and Eugene O. Uzamere; that attorney Anne B. Carroll's affirmation containing her statement regarding he ex-husband's identity and the falsified counter-affidavit also revisited the original facilitation of identity fraud by the aforesaid attorneys in much the same way that a rapist sexually assaults a victim once, catches her on another occasion and violates her again; that this Court must not view the violations of Defendant's employees as the same crimes that the aforesaid attorneys perpetrated against Plaintiff; that each act, while revisiting the original facilitation of identity fraud, is a separate act.

COUNT 1 – PLAINTIFF'S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LAW BASED ON DEFENDANT'S
EMPLOYEES' MISPRISION OF FELONY

        44) Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 44 as if fully set forth herein.

        45) That Plaintiff asserts that Ballentine's Law Dictionary says that “due process” is “law administered through courts of justice, equally applicable to all under established rules that do not violate fundamental principles of fairness”; that Defendant owed Plaintiff the constitutional duty of administering all rules fairly toward Plaintiff by investigating the aforesaid justices' acts of fraud upon the court, those acts including, but not limited to: 1) Justice Sunshine's refusal to declare attorney Eugene O. Uzamere in contempt of court for submitting the fraudulent counter-affidavit to the court; 2) Justice Sunshine's suggestion to use videoconferencing from Nigeria to pretend to ascertain the identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband instead of ascertaining Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity by the documents that Plaintiff obtained from Defendant's agent the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; 3) Justice Sunshine's complicity (stated or implied) in the dissemination of the fraudulent counter-affidavit to the Daily News and Scott Shifrel; 4) Justice Prus' and Justice Sunshine's complicity in adjourning Plaintiff's divorce action 19 times, although Plaintiff's ex-husband never interposed an answer; Justice D'Emic's complicity for continuing the acts of fraud upon the court and Talmud-oriented bias commenced by Justice Eric I. Prus and Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine by violating New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 236 regarding the equitable distribution of marital property such that the disabled Plaintiff was left with nothing so as to protect Plaintiff's ex-husband, and by extension ex-husband's attorneys from the consequences of having used Plaintiff to participate in a “green-card” marriage; that fraud upon the court has no statute of limitations; such that, if the law where administered fairly, the aforesaid justices would be investigated, jailed, impeached and disbarred or suspended from the practice of law; and that this is not the case because the justices are adherents of the Talmud's religious doctrine “law of the moser”, and as such, will not report the Jewish attorneys to the non-Jewish authorities.

        46) That Plaintiff asserts that Defendant, by and through its employees, failed to follow the constitution mandate for due process by honestly investigating Plaintiff's complaints regarding the attorneys who facilitated the ex-husband's act of immigration fraud, identity fraud and non-payment of child support; that Defendant United States, by and through its employees, failed to follow the constitutional mandate for due process by discarding Plaintiff's complaints to investigate the aforesaid justices for rendering decisions in favor of those attorneys who facilitated Plaintiff's ex-husband commission of immigration fraud, identity fraud and non-payment of child support.

        47) That Plaintiff asserts that because of Defendant's violation of her right to due process, Plaintiff was subjected to theft of Plaintiff's reputation/being publicly defamed as a liar with regard to the identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband by the Daily News, Scott Shifrel and their attorney Anne B. Carroll.

        48) That Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's refusal to enforce Plaintiff's constitutional under the law is an injury that is recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding its decision in the case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

COUNT 2 – PLAINTIFF'S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT NOT TO BE FORCED TO OBSERVE THE TALMUD AND
ASHKENAZI JUDAISM AS A STATE RELIGION

        49) Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 as if fully set forth herein.

        50) That Plaintiff asserts that Defendant, by and through its employees owed Plaintiff the duty of ensuring that Plaintiff's constitutional right to enforce Plaintiff's constitutional right to due process with regard to her attempts to file criminal complaints with federal law enforcement agencies based on Plaintiff's allegations regarding the encroachment of the Talmud and the illegal interference of its adherents who are in positions of great authority.

        51) That Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's violation of Plaintiff's constitutional right to due process by way of Defendant's failure to investigate Plaintiff's well-founded complaints regarding those justices at the Kings County Supreme Court who were “randomly” assigned to adjudicate Plaintiff's lawsuit were Jews/adherents of the Talmud were read and discarded; that based on Plaintiff understanding of the laws of probability, it is impossible for a random drawing of a judge to a case to end up where the litigants and the judge are always the same ethnicity and the same religion, but that when Plaintiff's cases had a Jewish litigant, or a non-Jewish litigant who was a client of Jewish litigants who violated the law, Plaintiff's cases were always “randomly” assigned to a judge who was Jewish; and that further to this; Plaintiff asserts that in each of her cases where the litigants did not interpose an answer or file an appearance so that litigants should have been declared defaulted by natural operation of law New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 320, appearance of attorneys; New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 3215; default judgment and New York Code Rules and Regulations 202.27, default judgment; the Jewish judges instead rendered decisions in favor of the no-show Jewish defendant, and Plaintiff lost all her cases.

        52) That Plaintiff asserts that Defendant, by and through its employees, failed in its duty to 1) protect Plaintiff's constitutional right to due process by refusing to investigate her well-founded complaints; 2) by refusing to bring to justice those individuals for whom Plaintiff provided well-founded proof of their crimes of facilitation of immigration fraud, identity fraud, non-payment of child support and fraud upon the court in violation of the following laws: Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1341, frauds and swindles; Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1346, definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”; violation of Title 18 of the United State Code Section 241, conspiracy against rights; Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 242, deprivation of rights under color of law; Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1981(a)(c) , equal rights under the law; Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1983, civil action for deprivation of rights under color of law; Plaintiff's First Amendment right to redress grievances to the government; Plaintiff's First Amendment right to freedom of speech; Plaintiff's First Amendment right to freedom from the establishment of a state-sponsored religion; Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment right to due process under the law; Plaintiff Fifth Amendment right to Plaintiff Fourteenth right to due process under the law and Plaintiff's Fourteenth right to equal protection under the law.

        53) That Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's failed to protect Plaintiff's right to freedom from the enforcement of a state-sponsored religion; Plaintiff asserts that she has forever lost the ability to successfully file charges against a litigant who is Jewish; and that the aforesaid loss is evidence that Defendant, by and through is employees has allowed itself to become a Talmudic police state (see Exhibit V, page 2).

COUNT 3 – PLAINTIFF'S THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

DEFENDANT VIOLATED PLAINTIFF RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION
UNDER THE LAW

        54) Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 54 as if fully set forth herein.

        55) That Plaintiff asserts that Defendant, by and through its employees, had a duty to ensure that Plaintiff receives the same “the intangible right to honest service” that is guaranteed in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1346; that Defendant, by and through its employees had the duty of showing compassion for Plaintiff as a past and current victim of federal crimes that were orchestrated by Ashkenazi Jews; that Plaintiff offers as proof of her assertion Exhibit V, page 3 in which Defendant the Honorable Barack H. Obama visits Israel and bows in respect to those Jews who were cruelly murdered during the Holocaust; that if Defendant Barack H. Obama can gracefully bow in respect to those Holocaust victims whose religion has no business in the affairs of secular government, then Plaintiff can logically assume that the President of the United States, a 10-year professor and expert of U.S. Constitutional law, while never needing to bow before the Plaintiff, owes Plaintiff a duty to treat Plaintiff, who is a crime victim, with the same compassion with which he treats present-day Ashkenazi Jews, who are no longer victims of individuals who promulgated white superiority pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause; that all Plaintiff requires of Defendant Obama, of Defendant United States and of all other employees named as defendants is for them to obey the U.S. Constitution and do their jobs.

        56) That Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's failure to exercise its duty to provide Plaintiff with equal protection under that law that it afford Jews, especially those in positions of financial and government power, has caused Plaintiff to suffer the following: 1) loss of the Plaintiff's ability to enlist Defendant's help to enforce Plaintiff's constitutional rights; 2) a great fear of Ashkenazi Jews; 3) lack of respect for the United States government; 4) loss of respect for Defendant Barack H. Obama insofar as Plaintiff voted for him based on her belief that he cared for her and would keep his “word” and help her, but has never done so (see Exhibit W); 5) loss of marital property based on Justice's D'Emic's biased decision in favor of no-show ex-huband, leaving disabled Plaintiff with nothing; 6) the fictitious name “Godwin Uzamere” is still on the birth certificate of the child of the marriage, such that the loss of the right of African slaves and their progeny to bear the true and full African name of their husbands and fathers, something that Plaintiff naively believed that Kenyan-descendant Defendant Barack H. Obama would understand; 7) loss of reputation based on Daily News and Scott Shifrel's libel of Plaintiff as “anti-Semitic” and “wacko”; that Plaintiff could go on and on, however, Plaintiff strongly asserts that she has proven her point well.

        57) That Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's failure to exercise its duty to provide Plaintiff with equal protection under the law, as well as those constitutional rights previously enumerated by Plaintiff, is the loss of the aforesaid rights themselves, such that the losses are damages recognized in law; that in U.S. Supreme Court case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Honorable William J. Brennan said that “I am of the opinion that federal courts do have the power to award damages for violation of 'constitutionally protected interests' and I agree with the Court that a traditional judicial remedy such as damages is appropriate to the vindication of the personal interests protected..."; that the U.S. Supreme Court laid down a rule that it will imply a private right of action for monetary damages where no other federal remedy is provided for the vindication of a Constitutional right, based on the principle that for every wrong, there is a remedy.

COUNT 4 – PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

DEFENDANT VIOLATED PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

        58) Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 58 as if fully set forth herein.

        59) That Plaintiff asserts that Defendant, by and through its employees, had a duty enforce Plaintiff constitutional right to free speech; that Defendant had a duty to ensure that those employees who are adherents of the Talmud's “law of the moser” did not overstep their constitutional duties by censuring Plaintiff's by discarding them and causing Plaintiff to be ignored;

        60) That Plaintiff asserts that Defendant, by and through its employees, failed in its duty to enforce Plaintiff's right to free speech, and to establish sufficient to this Court of Plaintiff's assertion, Plaintiff notes that following: 1) that Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, who Plaintiff has sufficiently proven committed immigration fraud, identity fraud and non-payment of child support, was never arrested for his crime, and that instead, both the federal district court and the New York State court determined that Plaintiff can no longer file complaints against Allen E. Kaye fraudulently based on the principles of “res judicata” and colleteral estoppel; 2) that Allen E. Kaye, who Plaintiff has sufficiently proven facilitated the immigration fraud and identity fraud of his client, ex-husband Senator Ehigie Uzamere, was never arrested for his crime, and that instead, both the federal district court and the New York State court determined that Plaintiff can no longer file complaints against Allen E. Kaye fraudulently based on the principles of “res judicata” and collateral estoppel; and that for every individual Plaintiff names as having committed crimes against the Plaintiff falls under the same harsh judgment, although Plaintiff has sufficiently proven that the aforesaid individuals violated Plaintiff constitutional rights.

        61) That Plaintiff asserts that the primary damages that were caused by Defendant are the loss of Plaintiff's ability to enlist Defendant's assistance in enforcing her constitutional rights when the subject of Plaintiff's complaint is Jewish/adherent of the Talmud; that based on the U.S. Supreme Court case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), loss or violation of constitutional rights is an injury recognized in law; that those damages Plaintiff alleges are recognized in U.S. Law can be found in paragraphs 48 and 54.

DEMAND FOR AN ACCOUNTING

        62) That Plaintiff demands an accounting from Defendant's employees in person to ascertain their personal reasons why the United States government never investigated the crimes of immigration and identity fraud attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard Rostanski, Jack Gladstein, Eugene O. Uzamere, Justice Eric I. Prus, Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine; and further to this, why the United State of America refused to investigate Plaintiff's well-documented claims regarding the aforesaid attorneys acts of fraud, and to make a full disclosure of same.

        63) That Plaintiff strongly asserts that if Ashkenazi Jewish attorney Philip Berg can file lawsuits with various federal courts to question the citizenship of Defendant Barack H. Obama, whose mother is a white American citizen and who the U.S. Government recognizes as an American citizen, then Plaintiff feels emboldened to file this lawsuit with the hope that there exists a judge at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims who is not an adherent of the Talmud and will not allow himself or herself to be illegally influenced and become a slave to one; and who will adjudicate Plaintiff's lawsuit with justice and mercy and require an accounting of the Defendant.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

        64) Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere respectfully requests that this Court compels the Defendants to provide Plaintiff with the aforesaid equitable relief:

                a) That Plaintiff respectfully prays that this honorable Court requires that any justice, judge or magistrate judge who by religion or culture subscribes to the Talmud disqualifies him/herself; that pursuant to Liteky v. United States, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994) , the U.S. Supreme Court held that “disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified;” that pursuant to 28 USC §455 any member of this honorable Court's judiciary who is an interested party in the aforementioned subject manner recuse him/herself from adjudicating this claim to ensure that Plaintiff's First Amendment right to be free from the establishment of a state religion, Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment right to due process of law, Plaintiff's right to free speech and Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law are no longer compromised or violated by members of the Ashkenazim in their fervor to implement the Talmudic doctrine “law of the moser” to protect fellow Ashkenazi Jews who committed crimes against Plaintiff.

                b) That Plaintiff asserts that in the U.S. Supreme Court case Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) , the court decided that “however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence...Accordingly, although we intimate no view whatever on the merits of petitioner's allegations, we conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof”; and that based on the foregoing case law, this Court must allow Plaintiff, whose exhibits have proven that she is a federal crime victim, to present evidence of her allegations.

                c) That Plaintiff accepts that Defendants Honorable Barack H. Obama, Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Honorable Janet Reno must delegate duties that are specific to particular departments, divisions, section and units such that she is willing to remove them (only) from being Defendants in her lawsuit; however, in order for Plaintiff not to have to add willful blindness or negligence to her claim against Defendant, Plaintiff demands she meet with the aforesaid Defendants personally to acknowledge that Plaintiff and her daughter are still federal crime victims, to explain why the United States government never helped Plaintiff and her children, and to personally ensure that Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Bernard J. Rostanski, Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq., Eugene O. Uzamere, the Honorable Eric I. Prus, the Honorable Jeffrey S. Sunshine, the Honorable Matthew D'Emic and the Honorable Arthur M. Schack held criminally and/or civilly liable for their facilitation of immigration fraud, identity fraud, non-payment of child support, fraud upon and court and religiously-oriented racism against Plaintiff and her daughter; that if Plaintiff's allegations are correct (and Plaintiff has proven that they are) that they will lead to the arrest of the aforesaid individuals; and to ensure that if the Honorable Anthony Parga in Plaintiff's lawsuit Index Number 10-009998 makes a decision contrary to law, contrary to the facts and in favor of the never-interposed-an-answer-already-defaulted Jewish defendants, that based on Plaintiff's complaint against him, that he is investigated, arrested, tried and convicted for commission of fraud upon the court and criminal violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

                d) That if the aforesaid individuals refuse to meet with Plaintiff, then Plaintiff demands $10,000,000.00 will continue to include the aforementioned Defendants for Defendant's violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

        WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere respectfully requests that this Court renders judgment against Defendant in the sum of $10,000,000.00 together with the costs and disbursement of this action, and for such other, further, and additional relief as to this Court may seem just and proper.

August 28, 2010
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
                                                                                                
                      mysignature2.jpg
      
                                                                                          ___________________________
                                                                                                           Signature of Plaintiff
Cheryl D. Uzamere
Appearing Pro Se
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (718) 647-1708
Fax: (347) 227-0118

Horizontal Divider 30

2) In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003)
3) Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 USC §2401(d); 28 USC §2675; 28 USC §2675(a); 28 USC §2675(a)

"Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court"
And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal"

1. Who is an "officer of the court"?
2. What is "fraud on the court"?
3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?
4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"


1. Who is an "officer of the court"?

            A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

2. What is "fraud on the court"?

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

3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?

            "Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
            It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
            Under Illinois and 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.

4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"

            Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
            In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
            Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
            That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."
            The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
            "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
            Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
            Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
            Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
            Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
            If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
            However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.
            The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
            Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

Notice of Appeal Against Corrupt
Judge Schack's Decision Filed

noticeofappeal18012.jpg

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS 
_________________________________

Cheryl D. Uzamere
*
                            Plaintiff,                                         NOTICE OF MOTION
*
         -against-*

Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, also known as “Godwin E. Uzamere”, Allen E. Kaye, P.C., Allen E. Kaye, P.C., Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Bernard J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein, Esq.

 

 

 

*********************************************************

***                         Defendants.

______________________________________
STATE OF NEW YORK  )
COUNTY OF KINGS      )    ss:

    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Cheryl D. Uzamere, dated the 5th day of August, 2010 and all the papers annexed thereto, the undersigned will move this court, at the courthouse thereof, located at 45 Monroe Place, Brooklyn, New York, 11201, on the 20th day of August, 2010, at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon of that date, for an order granting the following relief:

  1. For permission to proceed as a poor person;
  2. For permission to perfect on the original papers;
  3. To overturn lower court's decision based on Respondents' acts of fraud and based on lower court's act of fraud upon the court; or
  4. To overturn the lower court's order based on Respondents' default;
  5. For leave to refile Appellant's original papers if improperly served;
  6. For leave to effect service of process by certified mail, return receipt requested and express mail to Respondent Ehigie E. Uzamere;
  7. For a statement from this Court that the Respondents engaged in fraud;
  8. For such other and further relief as to the court may seem just and equitable.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August 5, 2010 
                                                                                      Yours, etc.
                                                                                                                                    mysignature2.jpg
TO:    Matthew Kaufman, Esq.                                          __________________________
          225 Broadway                                                                  Cheryl D. Uzamere
          Suite 1606                                                                        Appearing Pro Se
          New York, NY 10007                                                       1209 Loring Avenue
          Tel.: (212) 619-2200                                                         Apt. 6B
          Brooklyn, NY 11208                                                         Tel.: (718) 647-1708
                                                                                                  Fax: (267) 543-3317
          The Honorable Ehigie E. Uzamere
          Senator, Edo State South                                               
          National Assembly Complex
          Three Arms Zone
          P.M.B. 141
          Abuja, Nigeria
          Tel.: (011) 234-9-523-2127

NOTE: On the return date all motions are deemed submitted. Oral argument is not permitted (22 NYCRR 670.5[b]).

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION:  SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
____________________________________________________

Cheryl D. Uzamere
*
                            Plaintiff,                                         APPELLATE DIVISION
*                                                                                Docket No.:__________
         -against-*

Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, also known as “Godwin E. Uzamere”, Allen E. Kaye, P.C., Allen E. Kaye, P.C., Allen E. Kaye, Esq., Harvey Shapiro, Esq., Bernard J. Rostanski and Jack Gladstein, Esq.

                AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT

 

 

*********************************************************

***                         Defendants.

____________________________________________________
STATE OF NEW YORK  )
COUNTY OF KINGS      )    ss:

STATE OF NEW YORK )

COUNTY OF K1NGS ) ss:

        I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, being duly sworn, depose and say:

        1) That I am the Appellant in the above entitled action.

        2) That I make this Affidavit based on the following true statements:

        3) That as Appellant in the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County case Index No. 18012/2009, I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this matter, as I am the person who commenced the subject action.

        4) That New York State Penal Law §175.35, Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree states that “A person is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, and with intent to defraud the state or any political subdivision, public authority or public benefit corporation of the state, he offers or presents it to a public office, public servant, public authority or public benefit corporation with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office, public servant, public authority or public benefit corporation. Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree is a class E felony.”

        5) That the marriage affidavit, marriage license and marriage certificate were fraudulent New York State documents that were, in fact, falsified in Kings County Clerk's Office Marriage License Bureau by Respondent Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere; and that further to this, Appellant did not know that the aforesaid documents were fraudulent.

        6) That Respondents Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro knew, or should have known that the marriage certificate was fraudulent.

        7) That insofar as the Respondents and their attorney have provided the lower court with the same fraudulent information as they provided to the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1979, their requests for equitable relief from the lower court are illegal and must be dismissed.

BACKGROUND FACTS

        8) That Appellant effected service of process upon Defendant with due diligence, to wit:

        9) That on July 31, 2009, Appellant effected service of the Summons, Verified Complaint, Notice to Admit and exhibits upon the Respondents by certified mail (see Exhibits A, B and C, pages 1-5).

        10) That on August 2, 2009, Appellant faxed the Verified Complaint and Notice to Admit to Allen Kaye and Jack Gladstein (see Exhibit D, pages 1-2 and Exhibit E, pages 1-4).

        11) That on August 2, 2009, Appellant e-mailed the Verified Complaint and Notice to Admit with website links to the exhibits that Appellant uploaded to her web page  http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/lawsuitforfraud.html(1) to Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Jack Gladstein (see Exhibit F, pages 1-2).

        12) That on August 13, 2009, Appellant sent a fax to Benton Campbell, U.S. Attorney; Charles F. Sanders, New York State Assistant Attorney General; Alan Friedberg, Esq., New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee, First Department; Harvey Shapiro, Esq. and Jack Gladstein, Esq. entitled “Proof that I contacted attorneys Shapiro and Gladstein regarding the lawsuit I sent to them” with regard to the Summons, Verified Complaint, Notice to Admit and exhibits that were served on the aforementioned attorneys bearing article numbers 7000 0500 0000 2211 6686 and 7000 0500 0000 2211 6693 that the U.S. Postal Service did not track as having been delivered (see Exhibit G).

        13) That on August 13, 2009, Appellant sent an e-mail message to President Obama, John Potter, Inspector General, U.S. Postal Service, Harvey Shapiro, Esq. and Jack Gladstein entitled “Violation of Postal Custom Due Process Rights” to ascertain why the U.S. Postal Service refused to track the aforementioned article numbers (see Exhibit H).

        14) That on August 25, 2009, Appellant sent a second request e-mail message to President Obama, Elena Kagan, U.S. Solicitor General, Federal Bureau of Investigation, John Potter, Inspector General, U.S. Post Office, Beth Mann. Esq., Jack Gladstein, Esq. and Harvey Shapiro, Esq. entitled “Fw: 18012/2009, Uzamere v Uzamere, action for fraud has been sent to you”; that the e-mail message contained the Statement of Service by Mail and Acknowledgment of Receipt of Summons and Complaint or Summons and Notice pursuant to CPLR §312-a; and that Appellant sent the aforesaid statement and acknowledgment to ascertain if attorneys Shapiro and Gladstein were in receipt of the documents that were sent to them and if they desired to be charged with the expense of service upon themselves (see Exhibit I).

        15) That on August 26, 2009, Appellant received an e-mail message from the U.S. Postal Service Inspector General's office acknowledging receipt of Appellant's complaint concerning article numbers 7000 0500 0000 2291 6693 and 7000 0500 0000 2211 6586 (see Exhibit J).

        16) That Appellant uploaded the Summons, Verified Complaint, Notice to Admit and exhibits to Appellant's website: http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/lawsuitforfraud.html (see Exhibit K).(2)

        17) That during all times before and hereinafter mentioned, Appellant left several messages with the Respondents informing them that service of process of the Summons, Verified Complaint, Notice to Admit and exhibits was effected upon each of them.

        18) That in spite of Appellant's diligent efforts to enlist the cooperation of the Respondents, Appellant received not one telephone call from them, not one fax from them, not even one e-mail from them or any other contact from them until October 30, 2009, the day Appellant received the untimely filed cross-motions from their attorney, Matthew Kaufman.

        19) That the documents that Matthew Kaufman sent to Appellant did not include an answer from any of the Respondents; that the documents that Matthew Kaufman sent to Appellant did not contain any answer to Appellant's Verified Complaint or response to Appellant's Notice to Admit; and that as of the submission of this Affidavit to this Court, Respondents have not interposed an answer.

POINT ONE

RESPONDENTS HAVE DEFAULTED PURSUANT TO CPLR RULE §§320, 3215 AND NYCRR §202.27
DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF RESPONDENTS IS REQUIRED BY OPERATION OF LAW

        20) That Appellant asserts that CPLR §3215 says that “When a defendant has failed to appear, plead or proceed to trial of an action reached and called for trial, or when the court orders a dismissal for any other neglect to proceed, the plaintiff may seek a default judgment against him.”

        21) That Appellant asserts that with regard to defaults, Appellant asserts that NYCRR §202.27 says that “At any scheduled call of a calendar or at any conference, if all parties do not appear and proceed or announce their readiness to proceed immediately or subject to the engagement of counsel, the judge may note the default on the record... and may grant judgment by default or order an inquest.”

        22) That Appellant asserts that with regard to the filing of appearances, CPLR Rule 320 says that “The defendant appears by serving an answer...An appearance shall be made ...within thirty days after service is complete.”

        23) That Plaintiff asserts that the lower court does not have the right to rule on any of Respondents' motions because Respondents failed to interpose answers.

        24) That with regard to vacating a judgment of default, Appellant asserts that "A defendant seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default..must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the motion and the action" Newell v Hirsch, 65 AD3d 1108, 1109. “A defendant seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default in opposing a motion must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the motion and the action (see Diamond Truck Leasing Corp. v Cross Country Ins. Brokerage, Inc., 62 AD3d 745; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389 [2008]; Matter of Gambardella v Ortov Light., 278 AD2d 494, 495 [2000]; Neuman v Greenblatt, 260 AD2d 616, 617 [1999]).

        25) That both Respondents and the lower court acted fraudulently and maliciously by not advising the Appellant in what manner Appellant ought to serve them; that as licensed practitioners of law, all of them should have respected Appellant's attempts to serve them properly and should have made themselves available for documents that Appellant attempted to served on them.

POINT TWO

APPELLANT MADE SEVERAL DUE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO CONTACT RESPONDENTS

        26) That Appellant admits that the first attempt she made to effect service of process was by certified mail without return receipt requested because Appellant did not have money to pay for it; that Appellant did not enclose the Statement of Service by Mail and accompanying Acknowledgment; however, the second attempt Appellant made to effect service of process via certified mail contained the aforementioned documents.

        27) That Appellant attempted to contact the Respondents by fax, by e-mail and left phone messages to discuss equitable arrangements for them to be charged with the expense of service upon themselves.

        28) That the lower court permitted Appellant to effect service of process of her Order to Show Cause and Affidavit in Support by certified mail, return receipt request; and that the lower court required no other attempts to effect service of process on the Respondents.

        29) That any “errors” Appellant made with reference to effecting service on the Respondents were unintentional and did not prejudice the Respondents' ability to respond in a timely manner.

POINT THREE

“EQUITY COMES WITH CLEAN HANDS” -- RESPONDENTS' UNCOOPERTIVE CONDUCT REGARDING RECEIPT OF PROCESS RENDER THEM INELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE FROM THIS COURT

        30) That Respondents' attorney's untimely filing was an illegal ploy used to accomplish the following:

                a) To detract from Respondents' failure to interpose answers because they could not contradict Appellant's Verified Complaint; factually, procedurally and legally, Appellant's Verified Complaint is insurmountable.

                b) To present a fraudulent answer in a manner that would not give Appellant sufficient time to interpose a rebuttal.

                c) To coerce Appellant by using her fear of dismissal of her case as a bargaining chip; thereby “bargaining” with Respondents such that if Appellant rejected their cross-motions as untimely, they will use their yiddishkeit to influence the lower court to dismiss Appellant's case based on improper service or res judicata;(4) and that if Appellant allows Respondents to submit their untimely, fraudulent cross-motion as a substitute for not interposing timely answers to Appellant's Verified Complaint and Notice to Admit, Respondents would, in turn, use S.L.A.P.P-like unnecessary adjournments to frustrate Appellant until she got tired and gave up.

        31) That in addition to the acts of fraud that Appellant previously alleged, attorney Matthew Kaufman allowed client, Respondent Allen E. Kaye to submit the following irrefutable proof that he committed fraud during the lower court's adjudication of Appellant's lawsuit:

                a) Document in which Respondent Kaye refers to Defendant Uzamere as "Godwin Uzamere" (see Exhibit L, pages 1-2), although Respondent Kaye used Respondent Uzamere's proper name in his letter to the New York State Disciplinary Committee, First Judicial Department dated July 22, 2003 (see Exhibit M, pages 1-2).

                b) Document where Defendant Kaye states “...Plaintiff as the petitioner...was required to provide Plaintiff's birth certificate, Plaintiff's U.S. Passport and the marriage certificate to Godwin E. Uzamere, her husband...”

        32) That in spite of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service's recognition of Respondent Uzamere as Ehigie E. Uzamere (see Exhibit N, pages 1-2), that in spite Defendant Kaye own recognition and use of Respondent Uzamere's proper name Ehigie E. Uzamere (see Exhibit O, page 1 and 2), that in spite of Respondent Kaye's past refusal to obey a subpoena ad testificandum to identify his client Respondent Uzamere during Appellant's divorce action index number (see Exhibit P, page 1-2), and that in spite of the court decision's that Respondent Ehigie E. Uzamere was Appellant's husband (see Exhibit Q, pages 1-2), Respondents have flouted the law, and have enlisted the help of the lower court to legitimatize their act of fraud; that Respondents' blatant act of upon fraud, in tandem with the lower court's blatant act of fraud upon the court should make obvious to this Court that Respondents and the lower court's trier of fact are liars; that Appellant strongly suspects that this Court's Ashkenazi judiciary will follow suit; and that Appellant has prepared herself for that eventuality by drafting her lawsuits in advance against the State of New York with the New York State Court of Claims and with the Federal Court of Claims(4) for federal agencies that refuse to investigate Appellant's complaint of corruption.3

POINT THREE

LOWER COURT'S MISAPPLICATION OF RES JUDICATA/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL VIOLATES
APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS

        33) Appellant asserts that the federal lawsuits to which the lower court refers made it appear that the federal court's decisions were based on federal law (judges in both cases were adherents of the Talmud, as were some of the defendants), not state law; that their decisions regarding acts of fraud committed by Respondents were based on Appellant's use of U.S. Constitutional law and federal law as New York State Law cannot be adjudicated by a federal court. Appellant asserts that her New York State constitutional rights regarding due process and equal protection under the law have always been violated with regard to filing New York State fraud charges against the Respondents, based on what Appellant asserts is enormous Talmudic interference designed to prevent non-Jews from successfully filing criminal charges against defendants who are Jewish with secular authorities; in deed, Appellant's primary purpose in enlisting the assistance of the federal courts and in filing her present lawsuit against the Daily News and Scott Shifrel in Nassau County Supreme Court is to avoid the religious bias and stifling encroachment of the Talmud by Kings County's Ashkenazi judiciary; that Appellant has never charged Respondents with New York State fraud charges in any New York State court; and that if Appellant had filed New York State civil fraud charges in federal court, her lawsuit would have been dismissed by operation of federal law.

        34) Appellant further asserts that, “in matters involving due process, cases that appear to be res judicata(5) may be re-litigated. An example would be the establishment of a right to counsel. People who have had liberty taken away (i.e., imprisoned) may be allowed to be re-tried with a counselor as a matter of fairness.”

        35) Appellant asserts that “there are limited exceptions to res judicata that allow a party to attack the validity of the original judgment, even outside of appeals. These exceptions—usually called collateral attacks—are typically based on procedural or jurisdictional issues, based not on the wisdom of the earlier court's decision but its authority or competence to issue it. A collateral attack is more likely to be available (and to succeed) in judicial systems with multiple jurisdictions, such as under federal governments...”

        36) Plaintiff asserts that there are many instances when a defendant, based on specific fact patterns, is tried for crimes that must be adjudicated in different jurisdictions. For example, in the case of former police officer Francis X. Livoti, he was found not guilty(6) based on New York State Penal Law, then found guilty of federal civil rights violations based on the same set of circumstances.(7)

POINT FOUR

EQUITY COMES WITH CLEAN HANDS RESPONDENTS' AVOIDANCE OF SERVICE OF PROCESS
FACILITATED CONDITIONS TO CREATE ILLUSION OF IMPROPER SERVICE

        37) The website Wikipedia.org, in its explanation of the legal term “unclean hands”, says the following: “Unclean hands, sometimes “clean hands” doctrine or “dirty hands” doctrine is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands". The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands...A defendant's unclean hands can also be claimed and proven by the plaintiff to claim other equitable remedies and to prevent that defendant from asserting equitable affirmative defenses. In other words, 'unclean hands' can be used offensively by the plaintiff as well as defensively by the defendant.”

        38) That Appellant's assertion that Respondents committed the crime of facilitation of Senator Uzamere's immigration is not in question, based on the U.S. Government-issued documentation that establishes Defendant's identity as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, not “Godwin Uzamere.”

        39) That Appellant asserts that Respondents, who use various tricks to avoid getting Appellant's documents by mail, and legal threats to curtail Appellant's attempts to obtain justice, have never employed the threat of filing a lawsuit against Appellant for defamation of character – even though Appellant's website internationally publishes Respondents as criminals, because Appellant is telling the truth.

POINT FIVE

LOWER COURT'S DECISION IS CRIMINAL FRAUD AGAINST THE COURT
BASED IN TALMUD'S “LAW OF THE MOSER”

        40) That Appellant reasserts that Respondents committed the crime of facilitation of Senator Uzamere's immigration is not in question, based on the U.S. Government-issued documentation that establishes Defendant's identity as Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, not “Godwin Uzamere.

POINT SIX

RESPONDENT KAYE'S REFERENCE TO “GODWIN UZAMERE” IN HIS CROSS-MOTION
VIOLATES NYS PEN. LAW §175.35 AND IS A NEW ACT OF FRAUD FOR WHICH LOWER COURT
COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY NOT CHARGING RESPONDENT KAYE WITH PERJURY

        41) That in Respondent Allen E. Kaye's untimely filed cross-motion, in which he states that “this cross-motion for an Order of Dismissal is submitted on the merits on behalf of both the corporate business Defendant, Allen E. Kaye, P.C., as well as myself”, Respondent Kaye fraudulently refers to Appellant's ex-husband as “Godwin Uzamere”; however, in Respondent Kaye's letter dated July 22, 2003, Respondent Kaye refers to Appellant's Respondent ex-husband's proper name on page 2 of the aforesaid document.

        42) That the lower court made no attempt to question Respondent Kaye's blatant act of fraud is irrefutable proof of the lower court's act fraud upon the court; that based on the U.S. Supreme Court case Bulloch vs. United States, fraud upon the court vitiates the lower court's decision, rendering it as having less value than the paper on which it is written; and that if this Court's Ashkenazi judiciary renders a decision in favor of the Respondents, Appellant will file a claim with the New York State Court of Claims; that Appellant will file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice; and that in the eventuality that the U.S. Department of Justice has an Ashkenazi employee who refuses to investigate Appellant's complaint of fraud upon this court, Appellant will then file a complaint with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, naming, among other defendants, the Honorable Barack H. Obama as a defendant to apprise him of this court's acts of Talmud-based fraud upon the court and to discover why his administration has done nothing to stop it.

POINT SEVEN

APPELLATE COURT PROHIBITED FROM RULING ON ISSUES THAT ARE ACADEMIC

        43) That Appellant strongly asserts that based on case law established by the honorable Court as a decision regarding Appellant, namely Uzamere vs. Prus, 55 AD3d 842, this court is prohibited from ruling on issues that are academic; that save for Respondents filing a motion to vacate any default judgment against them based on a reasonable excuse and meritorious defense, all other motions on the part of the Respondents are moot, and outside of the purview of this court to adjudicate (see Exhibit R).

        WHEREFORE, Appellant prays this Court: 1) for permission to proceed as a poor person; 2) for permission to perfect on the original papers; 3) to overturn lower court's decision based on Respondents' acts of fraud and based on lower court's act of fraud upon the court; or, 4) to overturn the lower court's order based on Respondents' default; 5) for leave to refile Appellant's original papers if improperly served; 6) for leave to effect service of process by certified mail, return receipt requested; 7) for a statement from this Court that the Respondents engaged in fraud, and for such other and further relief as to the court may seem just and equitable.

Dated:  Brooklyn, New York
            August 5, 2010
**
*
Horizontal Divider 30
*
3) Lawsuit with U.S. Court of Federal Claims to be mail shortly; lawsuit is uploaded to Appellant's website:
7) U.S. A. v. Livoti, no. 196 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir. 1999); http://openjurist.org/196/f3d/322/united-states-of-america-v-francis-x-livoti

Cheryl D. Uzamere
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (718) 647-1708
Fax: (267) 543-3317
     

      FAX

To:

Office Number

Fax Number

Hon. Thomas A. Klonick, Chair, NYSCJC
Copies to:
Hon. Barack H. Obama, President, U.S.A
Hon. Eric H. Holder, Attorney General, USDOJ
Hon. A. Gail Prudenti, Pres. Judge, NYSUCS, Esq.
Allen E. Kaye, Esq.
Harvey Shapiro, Esq.
Jack Gladstein, Esq.
1-646-486-4800
*
1-202-456-1414
1-202-514-2001
1-718-875-1300
1-212-964-5858
1-212-335-5240
1-718-793-7800
1-646-458-0037
1-202-456-2461
1-202-514-4507
1-718-855-2664
1-212-608-3734
1-212-935-6857
1-718-793-0524

Subject:

Cheryl D. Uzamere vs. Hon. Arthur M. Schack;

Lawsuit against U.S. And President Obama on its way; please make ensure that your decisions are written as though Mr. Obama will see them – because he may

Date:

August 10, 2010

Dear Mr. Klonick:

Do you remember Mr. Berg, the gentleman who continue to advocate that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen? His silly lawsuit made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I respectfully remind you of this incident so that you can understand that if a Jewish man can use the courts to litigate what New York Code Rules and Regulations §130-1.1 would describe as “frivolous”, then a schvartze like me should have the same right to advocate what I believe is right – especially since, unlike Mr. Berg, I have proof of my contentions.

Following this page please find portions of the appeal for my case Index No. 18012-2009. Do not worry, I am not asking your agency to adjudicate the merits of my case -- it should be obvious to you that I know that reviewing the decision is the job of the Appellate Division, 2nd Judicial Department. My complaint concerns acts of fraud upon the court by Justice Arthur M. Schack. Fraud upon the court violates federal and state laws.

This is also to inform you that today I mailed my lawsuit against against President Obama, the United States government and other employees who I believe have failed to protect my constitutional rights and have allowed certain judges within the New York State Unified Court System to use Talmudic doctrines to rule New York State's judicial system with unbridled power. If you wish to see the lawsuit, please visit http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/lawsuit_against_us_president.html.

I take it that Justice Schack will be contacted with regard to my complaint regarding his acts of fraud upon the court.

Thank you.

Fraudulent Marriage Certificate that was willfully accepted by
corrupt immigration attorneys
Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro

marriagecertificate2.jpg

 See the top? It says “We searched 'Godwin Uzamere' and found 0 nationwide.”
You think this means that there is no “Godwin Uzamere???”

inteliusgodwinsearch.jpg
proofofservice.jpg
affidavitofservice7-31-09.jpg

While stupid Allen Kaye make reference to the
fictitious name "Godwin Uzamere" in his
equally fraudulent cross-motion...

allenkayeidenticationliepg1.jpg
allenkayeidenticationliepg2.jpg

...the jackass forgets that in his letter dated July 22, 2003,
he refers to the same person with the correct name --
Ehigie E. Uzamere...Allen E. Kaye, esq...what a dumb ass!

allenkayeletter-7-22-03--pg1.jpg
allenkayeletter-7-22-03--pg2.jpg

See paragraph 1? His name is Ehigie Edobor Uzamere per
the U.S. Citizenship & Naturalization Service

uscisltr06-12-09.jpg
A35.jpg

 Exhibit Q, page 1
See paragraph ? His name is Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
per the “Justice” Sunshine

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