|
Corruption at Nassau, Kings County Supreme Courts and Nassau and Kings County Clerks' Offices Will Gwendolyn Hatcher of Defendant New York State Attorney General's Office continue the racist oppression
of immigration/identity fraud victim that has been allowed to happen unchallenged by Administrative Judge Hinds-Radix, Administrative
Judge Marano, Kings County Clerk of Court Nancy T. Sunshine and Nassau County Clerk of Court Maureen O'Connell? Admin. Judge Hinds-Radix | Admin. Judge Marano | Nassau County Clerk Maureen O'Connell | Kings County Clerk Nancy Sunshine |
* Oh yeah...it's been 30 days and Defendants Daily
News and Scott Shifrel have failed to interpose an answer and response to immigration/identity fraud victim's * * * * State of New York Court
of Claims ______________________________________ Cheryl D. Uzamere Proposed
Claim
Claimant,
-against- *
Defendant. ______________________________________
I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, being duly sworn, allege the following:
1) That the post office address of the Claimant is 1209 Loring Avenue, Apt.
6B, Brooklyn, New York, 11208. 2)
That this claim arises from the illegal acts and omissions of Defendant State of New York. 3) That the places where Claimant alleges the illegal
acts occurred are as follows: New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, 100 Supreme Court Drive, Mineola, New York, 11501,
Nassau County Clerk's Office 240 Old Country Road, Mineola, New York, 11501, New York State Supreme Court Kings County, 360
Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, County of Kings and Kings County Clerk's Office, 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11201. 4) That Claimant alleges
that Defendant, by its employees at the Nassau County Supreme Court, Nassau County Clerk's Office, Kings County Supreme Court
and Kings County Clerk's office deprived Claimant of her civil and constitutional right to due process and inflicted great
mental and emotional damage on Claimant's person.
5) That Claimant asserts that Defendant's commission of the illegal acts gives rise to the filing
of an implied cause of action in the manner of Brown v. State of New York, 89 N.Y.2d 172, 674 N.E.2d 1129, 652 N.Y.S.2d 223, 65 USLW 2355 (1996) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). BACKGROUND FACTS
6) That on June 1, 2010, Claimant submitted her Poor Person's Order, Amended Summons, Amended Verified
Complaint, Statement of Service by Mail, accompanying Acknowledgment and Notice to Admit; that Defendant's employee(s) stamped
as received the page of Claimant's documents entitled “Poor Person's Order” and the page entitled “Amended
Summons” (see Exhibit A and B).
7) That Claimant asserts that she placed the correct index number on her Poor Person's Order. 8) That on June 4, 2010,
Claimant caused service of process to be effected on defendants Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel (see Exhibit C). 9) That on June 4, 2010,
Claimant served the Nassau County Clerk's Office with affidavits of service for both defendants (see Exhibit D,
front and back and Exhibit E front and back).
10) That the U.S. Postal Service's website reflects that defendants Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel
were served on June 7, 2010 (see Exhibit F and Exhibit G).
11) That from June 7, 2010 until the writing of this Proposed Claim, defendants Daily News, LP, Scott
Shifrel have failed to interpose an answer and response to Claimant's Verified Complaint and Notice to Admit. 12) That on
or around June 24, 2010 Claimant received Defendants' demand to change the place of trial (see Exhibit H). 13) That on Friday, July 2, 2010,
with only five (5) days remaining for defendants Daily News LP and Scott Shifrel to interpose an answer and response
to Claimant's Verified Complaint and Notice to Admit, Claimant received an envelope from the Kings County Clerk's Equity Department
that contained a notice to make corrections and the original affidavits of service that Defendant's employee previously stamped
as received on June 4, 2010 (see Exhibit I and Exhibit J).
14) That Defendant's employee(s) erased the date received stamp on the affidavit of service pertaining
to Scott Shifrel; and that Defendant's employee(s) crossed out the date stamps on the back of both of Claimant's affidavits
of service that Defendant's employee previously stamped as received on June 4, 2010 (see Exhibit D,
back and Exhibit E, back).
15) That Claimant asserts that she has not received any judgments from Defendant's judiciary employee
the Honorable F. Dana Winslow in response to Daily News, LP's and Scott Shifrel's motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR §511(b), nor has Claimant been served by Defendants with any notice of motion or corresponding attorney's affirmation to change venue. 16) That Claimant alleges that
Defendant's employees under the care and control of Administrative Judge Anthony F. Marano, Administrative Judge Sylvia O.
Hinds-Radix, Kings County Clerk Nancy T. Sunshine and Nassau County Clerk Honorable Maureen O'Connell illegally exhibited
bias/preferential treatment toward defendant Scott Shifrel by first refusing to properly place a date stamp on the affidavit
of service pertaining to Scott Shifrel; then eventually placing a date received stamp on both affidavits of service; then
falsifying Claimant's affidavits of service by removing the date received stamp that Defendant's employee(s) originally affixed
to the aforesaid documents and finally removing the aforesaid original court documents from the court and sending them back
to Claimant without the date received stamp that Defendant's employee(s) previously placed on Claimant's affidavits of service
on June 4, 2010. 17)
That Claimant alleges that one of Defendant's reasons for returning the falsified affidavits of service is to give the false
impression that Claimant failed to provide the court with proof of service of defendants Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel. 18) That Claimant alleges that
another reason that Defendant returned Claimant's affidavits of service with the dates removed is to hide defendants
Daily News, LP's and Scott Shifrel's failure to interpose an answer and response to Claimant's Verified Complaint and Notice
to Admit in the thirty (30) days required by the Summons that was served on the aforementioned defendants. 19) That Claimant alleges that
Defendant's employees schemed against Claimant by using the color of law/"authority" and Claimant's fear of losing
her case in court as artifices to deprive Claimant of the intangible right of honest service; that Defendant's employees attempted
to dupe Claimant into believing that the notice from Kings County Supreme Court's Equity Department was a “directive”
requiring Claimant to change venue that carries more legal weight than any judgment from Judge F. Dana Winslow. 20) That Claimant's allegation
that Defendant's employee's falsification of Claimant's documents is on point is based on the date stamp that Claimant found
in the back of the affidavit of service pertaining to Scott Shifrel; that Defendant's employee(s) affixed the fictitious date
of June 14, 2010, 4:20 a.m., a time when Defendant's agency is not opened for business to the public. 21) That Claimant alleges that based on the notice that
Claimant received from the Kings County Clerk's Equity Department, Defendant is illegally forcing Claimant to transfer her
action to the Kings County Supreme Court where she cannot obtain a fair trial based on defendants' Daily News, LP and Scott
Shifrel publishing of a newspaper article that says “Cheryl Uzamere, 50, known around courthouse circles for her
anti-Semitic screeds against judges...” (see Exhibit L). 22) That Defendant is illegally forcing Claimant to
return to the venue where Claimant has always been assigned a judge who is an adherent of the Talmud, and who has rendered
decisions against Claimant although the defendants in Claimant's lawsuits have never interposed an answer or filed an appearance
pursuant to CPLR §320. 23) That Claimant
asserts that Defendant violated 18 USC §1341, mail fraud and other fraud offenses; 18 USC §1346, definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud” ; 18 USC §241, conspiracy against rights; 18 USC §242, deprivation of rights under color of law; New York State Penal Law §135.60, coercion in the second degree; New York State Penal Law §135.65, coercion in the first degree; New York State Constitution §6, due process of law; New York State Constitution §11, equal protection under the law; U.S. Constitution Fifth Amendment, due process of law and U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment, equal protection under the law. 24) That Claimant
reasserts that Defendant's commission of the aforesaid illegal acts gives rise to an implied cause of action against the Defendant
in the manner of Brown v. State of New York, 89 N.Y.2d 172, 674 N.E.2d 1129, 652 N.Y.S.2d 223, 65 USLW 2355 (1996) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 25) That Claimant
respectfully prays that if this honorable Court refuses Claimant's request to have her claim adjudicated by a judge who is
African American, than in like manner, this honorable Court must not assign a judge to Claimant's claim who is a member of
the Jewish faith, as is legally consistent with the spirit of 28 USC §455 that requires the automatic disqualification of a judge under certain circumstances; that while the law refers to federal
judges, the best interest of justice would hold that "disqualification is required if an objective observer would
entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state
of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified"
(Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994)). 26) That Claimant
relies on the verbiage of the U.S. Supreme Court case Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); that while this auspicious Court may not intimate any views whatsoever on the merits of Plaintiff's allegations, that this
Court justly concludes that the Claimant is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof of her allegations. 27) This Claim is served and filed within 90 days of
accrual. By reason of the foregoing,
Claimant was damaged in the manner of Brown v. State of New York, 89 N.Y.2d 172, 674 N.E.2d 1129, 652 N.Y.S.2d 223, 65 USLW 2355 (1996) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) such that Claimant's civil and constitutional rights were violated in the amount of $10,000.000.00, and for the intentional
infliction of emotional/mental pain visited upon Claimant by Defendant State of New York; that the Claimant demands judgment
against the Defendant for said amount.  ______________________
Claimant VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss: I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, being duly sworn, deposes and says that Deponent
is the Claimant in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing Claim and knows the contents thereof; that the
same is true to Deponent's own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and
that as to those matters, Deponent believes it to be true.
|
