Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
Cheryl D. Uzamere App.
Div. Docket No.: 2009-01119
Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere a.k.a.“Godwin E. Uzamere"
OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss:
I, Cheryl D. Uzamere,
being duly sworn, depose and say that:
1) I am the Plaintiff-Appellant in the above entitled action.
2) I respectfully remind this honorable Court that writ of certiorari docket number 09-5816 is pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, in which I presented irrefutable evidence of Judge Sunshine's violation
of my Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, his violation of 18 U.S.C. §241 and 242, and his violation of federal case
law as it pertains to fraud before the court, and for which attorneys for the New York City, New York State and the U.S. Solicitor
General waived their right to respond (see attached as Government Exhibits 1-3).
3) That if I am granted an audience, my first order of business will be to see to the arrest of Judge
Sunshine based on his violation of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, his commission of 18 U.S.C.
§241 and §241, and his act of fraud upon the court, in violation of federal case law (Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968).
4) I make
this Affidavit in support of my Order to Show Cause based on the following statements:
5) That the issues as presented in Judge Sunshine's
Memorandum and Order dated September 8, 2009 are in blatant violation of the aforesaid federal laws.
6) That the following issues as presented in Judge
Sunshine's Memorandum and Order dated September 8, 2009 are already on appeal, or will be handled by the appeal:
a) Correspondence dated June 12, 2009 from T. Diane Cejka, Director of the Freedom of Information
office of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Service regarding the Defendant-Respondent,
hereby attached as Exhibit A.
York City Human Resources Administration agreement for Plaintiff-Appellant to return child support payments that Plaintiff-Appellant
signed as a prerequisite to receiving public assistance, hereby attached as Exhibit B.
c) That attached to the aforesaid correspondence is HRA's notice of status of application in
which Plaintiff-Appellant is listed as an “ADC” (Aid to Dependent Children) recipient, hereby attached as Exhibit
d) That attached to the aforesaid correspondence is an arrest warrant for non-payment of child
support against Defendant-Respondent issued under the fictitious name “Godwin E. Uzamere”, hereby attached as
e) That attached to the aforesaid correspondence are two letters addressed to Plaintiff-Appellant
from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service bearing immigration file number A35-201-224; said file number issued
based upon Defendant-Respondent's real name, hereby attached as Exhibit E and Exhibit F.
f) That attached to the aforesaid correspondence is a letter from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service bearing immigration file number A24-027-764; said file number issued based upon Defendant-Respondent's fictitious
name “Godwin E. Uzamere”, hereby attached as Exhibit G.
on October 7, 2008, Eugene O. Uzamere, Esq., submitted a falsified counter-affidavit from Nigeria that was not authenticated
by the U.S. Department of State's Embassy in Nigeria, alleging that Plaintiff-Appellant was married to Defendant-Respondent's
cousin, hereby attached as Exhibit H.
h) That in October 2008, Plaintiff-Appellant received correspondence concerning Defendant-Respondent
from Eugenia Cowles, Assistant U.S. Attorney in Vermont and Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security's Citizenship and Immigration Service in Vermont in which Rachel McCarthy stated that “IR2 fraudulently obtained
because he (defendant) was married at the time”, hereby attached as Exhibit I.
That in Judge Sunshine's Decision and Order dated January 12, 2009 he stated that “...plaintiff is not entitled to...retroactive
child support”; and “...there is conflicting evidence regarding whether plaintiff was married to defendant, or
his alleged cousin “Godwin Uzamere...this threshold issue involving the very existence of the marriage must be resolved
before the court can rule on questions of spousal support and economic discovery since this matters will be be relevant if
it is ultimately determined that plaintiff and defendant were married”, hereby attached as Exhibit J.
That on January 20, 2009, Plaintiff-Appellant sent an e-mail to the Honorable Robin Renee Sanders, U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria
and to the FBI's Legal Attaché in Nigeria to prevent Defendant-Respondent and Judge Sunshine from allowing an unknown
individual to videotape himself from Nigeria, hereby attached as Exhibit K.
on January 30, 2009, Plaintiff-Appellant received an e-mail from the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria that stated that “notarial
services are available to all U.S. passport holders and to foreign nationals for documents destined to be used in the United
States...the only notary public in Nigeria that is recognized in the United States is a U.S. Consular
Office at the Embassy”, hereby attached as Exhibit L.
l) That on May 12, 2009, Judge Sunshine stated in his Decision and Order that “the defendant
is the husband in conformity with the parties marriage on November 21, 1979” and that “defendant is declared in
default for failure to appear at the hearing”, hereby attached as Exhibit M.
7) That Judge Sunshine held an illegal “trial”
of all issues on July 7, 2009, in spite of his Decision and Order declaring Defendant-Respondent in default, in which Defendant-Respondent
did not appear.
although Plaintiff-Appellant submitted the arrest warrant for nonpayment of child support that was issued against Defendant-Respondent,
Judge Sunshine refuses to openly acknowledge Plaintiff-Appellant's due process right to receive retroactive child support.
9) That although Judge Sunshine
declared that Defendant-Respondent has defaulted, Judge Sunshine refuses to render any decision with regard to Plaintiff-Appellant's
request for present and retroactive child and spousal support.
10) That although Judge Sunshine declared that Defendant-Respondent “is the husband in conformity with
the parties' marriage on November 21, 2009,” Judge Sunshine refuses to render any decision with regard to Plaintiff-Appellant's
request for retroactive child and spousal support.
11) That although Plaintiff-Appellant's U.S. Supreme Court writ of certiorari, docket number 09-5816 in Judge
Sunshine knows he is a defendant, Judge Sunshine has refused to recuse himself.
12) That Judge Sunshine is a member of a religion that advocates the Talmudic belief that Jews should not
report each others' crimes to non-Jews, hereby attached as Exhibit N.
13) That the U.S. Department's of Justice's meaning of domestic
violence is defined as “a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain
power and control over another intimate partner”; and describes economic abuse, that is, “withholding one's access
to money” as a form of domestic violence.
14) That H.R. 3402-20 Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, Section 105
entitled “Violence Against Women Act Court Training and Improvements states that its purpose is for, inter alia: “...to
award grants to improve court responses...practices, and procedures...education for court-based and court-related personnel
on issues relating to victims’ needs, including...safety, security...economic independence.
15) That the New York State Unified Court System, Committee
on Matrimonial Practice, of which Judge Sunshine is an active member, states that “the Committee on Matrimonial Practice
is an advisory group...which...assesses the need for...the development of practices to assist litigants...in the timely and
productive management of matrimonial matters.”
16) That Judge Sunshine has flagrantly, and without remorse violated: 1) Plaintiff-Appellant's Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of and equal protection under the law; 2) H.R. 3402-20 regarding violence against
women; 3) 22 C.F.R. §92.65 regarding the court's duty to commission a U.S. consular officer to establish the genuineness
of foreign documents; 4) 18 U.S.C. §1001(a)(1)(2)(3) regarding “the use of matter within the jurisdiction of the
executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States” by accepting a fraudulent foreign
document as genuine; 5) NYCRR §202.16 regarding preliminary conferences by fraudulently stating that Defendant participated
in a preliminary conference when he did not; 6) CPLR §3215 and NYCRR §202.27 regarding default judgments by holding
a “trial” for the Defendant although declaring that the Defendant had defaulted; 7) PEN §175.35 regarding
the submission of false instruments for filing with a public office by accepting fraudulent documents to be used and accepted
as genuine in a New York State court; and has, in violation of his duties as a member of New York State's Matrimonial Committee,
failed to develop practices to assist Plaintiff-Appellant in the “timely and productive management” of her divorce
17) That based on Plaintiff-Appellant's
irrefutable proof of Judge Sunshine's “failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated
by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying; reckless disregard
for safety of self or others and lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated,
or stolen from another”; Judge Sunshine's behavior fits the American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders' diagnosis for antisocial personality disorder (also known as psychopath/sociopath),
such that, nearly two years and seventeen (17) adjournments later -- for which Defendant-Respondent never interposed an answer
and never appeared -- Plaintiff-Appellant believes that Judge Sunshine lacks the empathy, moral fiber and respect for law
to render a final judgment in Plaintiff-Appellant's case; and that his status as an adherent of the Talmudic prohibition against
reporting the crimes of fellow Jews to the secular authorities further exacerbates his recalcitrance and rationalizes his
mistreatment of Plaintiff-Appellant, who Judge Sunshine perceives as a worthless schvartze with no (Talmudic) rights that
any self-respecting Jewish judge is bound to respect.
18) That in spite of Plaintiff-Appellant's cries for help, Judge Sunshine has failed to enforce Plaintiff-Appellant's
rights to due process and equal protection so that Plaintiff-Appellant can receive the child and spousal support she never
received as a result of Defendant's continued acts of fraud; and that Judge Sunshine's commission of the aforesaid constitutional
torts continue to force Plaintiff-Appellant and her children to be victims of domestic violence, for which Plaintiff-Appellant
is now a mental health patient, and for which Plaintiff-Appellant filed her writ of certiorari docket.
19) That Plaintiff-Appellant knows that New York's divorce statute directs
courts to consider certain acts of misconduct as "so egregious or uncivilized as to bespeak of a blatant disregard of
the marital relationship; misconduct that shocks the conscience of the court, thereby compelling it to invoke its equitable
power to do justice between the parties; and that Judge Sunshine refuses to openly acknowledge that Defendant-Appellee's marriage
of Plaintiff-Appellant with a false name for the sole purpose of illegally circumventing U.S. immigration law, Defendant-Appellee's
abandonment of Plaintiff-Appellant when she was pregnant with their daughter and his 30-year refusal to pay even one penny
in child support renders both Defendant-Appellee's and Judge Sunshine's conduct as egregious.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff desperately begs this honorable Court's mercy to grant leave for Plaintiff-Appellant
to proceed as a poor person, to grant preference to hear Plaintiff-Appellant's case expeditiously, to vacate Judge Sunshine's
illegal Decision and Order and to consolidate all issues so that Plaintiff-Appellant's 30-year-green-card-oriented marriage
and the resultant economic and emotional reign of terror that Defendant-Respondent and Judge Sunshine have inflicted on Plaintiff-Appellant
and her children can finally come to an end.
Dated: August 14, 2009
Cheryl D. Uzamere