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. A Real Man

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'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
State of New York* 

        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).


        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.





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.

Question to Gwendolyn Hatcher:
Does placing a fake date stamp on a court document qualify
 as an act of fraud upon the court?


Exhibit A


Exhibit B


Exhibit C


Exhibit D (front)


Exhibit D (back)


Exhibit E (front)


Exhibit E (back)


Exhibit F


Exhibit G


Exhibit H


Exhibit I


Exhibit J


Exhibit K


Exhibit L