|
Supreme Court of the
State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department ________________________________ Cheryl D.
Uzamere
AFFIDAVIT
Plaintiff-Appellant, Docket No. 2009-011119 - against -
Sup. Ct. Kings County Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, a.k.a.
Index No. 26332-07 "Godwin Uzamere" Defendant-Respondent. ________________________________ STATE
OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF KINGS
) ss:
I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, being duly sworn, depose and say:
1) That I am the Plaintiff in the above entitled action.
2) That I make this Affidavit based on the following allegations:
3) That as Plaintiff in the Kings County Supreme Court case Index No. 26332/07, I am fully familiar with the facts
and circumstances of this matter, as I am the person who commenced the subject action. 4) That my marriage is part of a series of crimes that the
Defendant committed to circumvent U.S. immigration laws, to wit:
(a) United States Code Title 8: Aliens and Nationality – Misrepresentation and Concealment
of facts: Any alien who... (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading
representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined
under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined
under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) United States Code Title 8: Aliens and Nationality – Marriage fraud: Any individual who knowingly
enters into marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than
5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.
(c) New York State Penal Code -- §260.05 -- Non-support of a child in the second degree: A person is
guilty of non-support of a child when, being a parent, guardian or other person legally charged with the care or custody of
a child less than sixteen years old, he fails or refuses without lawful excuse to provide support for such child when he is
able to do so, or becomes unable to do so, when, though employable, he voluntarily terminates his employment, voluntarily
reduces his earning capacity or fails to diligently seek employment. Non-support of a child in the second degree is a Class
A misdemeanor.
(d) New York State Penal Code -- §255.15 – Bigamy: A person is guilty of bigamy when he contracts
or purports to contract a marriage with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living
spouse. Bigamy is a Class E felony.
(e) New York State Penal Code -- §175.35 -- Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree:
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.
(f) New York State Penal Code -- §210.10 Perjury in the second degree: A person is guilty of perjury
in the second degree when he swears falsely and when his false statement is (a) made in a subscribed written instrument for
which an oath is required by law, and (b) made with intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official
functions, and (c) material to the action, proceeding or matter involved. Perjury in the second degree is a class E felony. (g) New York
State Penal Code -- §210.15 Perjury in the first degree: A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree when
he swears falsely and when his false statement (a) consists of testimony, and (b) is material to the action, proceeding or
matter in which it is made. Perjury in the first degree is a class D felony.
5) That according to Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, (802-660-5043,
job, 802-660-5067, fax), Defendant's IR2 residence based on his status as “Ehigie Edobor Uzamere”, date of
birth December 31, 1960, unmarried and under 21 years of age was revoked because he was married to me as “Godwin Ehigie
Uzamere”, date of birth June 1, 1955.
6) That Defendant's attorney, Eugene O. Uzamere, has suborned Defendant's perjury and has himself committed
perjury as it relates to the Defendant's identity; that the Defendant has never appeared in court; that both Defendant
and his attorney have consistently refused to submit Defendant's immigration records; and that it appears that the ultimate
goal of Defendant and the lower court is to deprive me of my Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process as they
pertain to discovery of Defendant's identity and discovery of Defendant's immigration records. 7) That 18 USC §4 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 that every appellate judge who reviews this Affidavit is required
by federal law to obey it. 8)
That I have a pending federal lawsuit with regard to Defendant's commission of the aforementioned crimes; and that further
to this, I have submitted irrefutable proof of same in this Affidavit.
9) That I will exercise my First Amendment right to seek legal redress of my grievances with regard to the handling
of this instant action by amending my federal lawsuit and naming as defendants any appellate judge and responding attorney
of the New York State Attorney General's Office if there are any delays in the adjudication of this instant action, or
if its adjudication is indicative of bias, bribery or any other form of illegal influence. 10) That it would be unjust and illegal for this Court to view my attempts
to defend myself as anything other than legal, just and within the scope of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the U.S. Constitution. 11) That as
the Petitioner of this instant action and the Plaintiff of the divorce action that precipitated its filing, I hereby state
that the following is true and correct: BACKGROUND FACTS 12) That Petitioner submitted a Verified Petition
and Reply to Respondent with regard to her Appellate Division, 2nd Judicial Department motion, Docket No. 2008-9190. 13) That at the time of Petitioner's filing
of the instant action, the Honorable Jeffrey S. Sunshine had not rendered a decision to Petitioner's motions for retroactive
child support and spousal support, default judgment and money judgment.
14) That on January 12, 2008, the lower court rendered its decision, that inter alia, incorrectly denied Petitioner's
request for default judgment; 2) incorrectly denied the Plaintiff's request for retroactive child support and 3) placed
an abeyance of retroactive spousal support pending identification of the Defendant (see Exhibit A). If Court Favors Disposition on The Merits, Court Must Render Default A) Plaintiff Has Sufficiently Established Defendant's
Identity 15) That the lower court's
decision and order in which it states that “the opposition submitted by defendant raises a genuine issue as to
whether or not plaintiff and defendant were married in the first instance” is incorrect. 16) That based on correspondence I received from the New York State Departmental
Disciplinary Committee, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Department, the Defendant's immigration attorney Allen
E. Kaye stated: “I recently talked to John Uzamere (718-345-1931), who informed me that as a U.S. citizen he sponsored
Ehigie E. Uzamere for an immigrant visa and that was how Ehigie became a permanent resident...Somehow, I am being drawn into
a divorce action that Ms. Uzamere would like to file against her husband” (see Exhibit B). 17) That Allen Kaye's letter bears the stamp
of the New York State Departmental Disciplinary, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Department. 18) That the aforesaid agency is administered by the Supreme Court, Appellate
Division; and that Allen Kaye's statements “Ehigie E. Uzamere” and “her husband” are statements
that Mr. Kaye made under oath to employees of a New York State judiciary body.
19) That Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service provided documentation regarding
the Defendant's identity (see Exhibits C and D ).
20) That the Defendant inadvertently identified himself when he signed the marriage affidavit with the name “Ehigie
Uzamere”; and that based on the above, I have sufficiently established the Defendant's identity and proven that
Defendant is my husband (see Exhibit E).
B) Defendant Never Interposed an Answer and Has Therefore Defaulted 21) That the lower court's statement that “...defendant has
failed to interpose an answer” is correct; that the summons states that “within thirty (30) days after the service
is completed...and in case of your failure to appear, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded
in the notice set forth below (see Exhibit F).
22) That although Defendant's place of employment is in close proximity of the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, he
has never notarized even one affidavit for my divorce action. 23) That although Defendant's
attorney claims that my imaginary husband “Cousin Godwin E. Uzamere” lives in Nigeria, like my real husband, the
Defendant, he has made no attempt to notarize his counter-affidavit at the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, where his identity and
signature can be scrutinized and verified by the U.S. Department of State1; that Defendant's attorney used the aforesaid
fraudulent document in open court although the document was not notarized by the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria for use in the United
States (see Exhibit G).
24) That Defendant was served with a copy of the Preliminary Conference order on November 17, 2007 (see Exhibit
H). 25) That the lower
court's statement with regard to the Defendant that “he has submitted opposition to Plaintiff's motion for spousal
and and child support, (has filed his own motion to dismiss, and has participated (through his attorney) in a preliminary
conference” is incorrect. 26) That
is it well settled in Domestic Relations Law that, with reference to stipulations and agreements “Any stipulation or
agreement between the parties which deals with equitable distribution, spousal support, child support, visitation, titles
to real property...must be signed by the parties themselves (not their attorneys) before a Notary Public as an "acknowledgment. 27) That the preliminary conference stipulation
to which the lower court's decision refers is signed by Defendant's attorney, not the Defendant (see Exhibit
J). 28) That Dom. Rel. §236
says that “provision for the amount and duration of maintenance or other terms and conditions of the marriage relationship...provided
that such terms...are not unconscionable at the time of entry of final judgment.” 29) That even if the lower court was able to accept the Defendant's attorney's
signature in place of the Defendant's signature, the unconscionable nature of the preliminary conference stipulation would
preclude the lower court from enforcing it as it denies me the retroactive child support for which I applied in 1980 and 1985;
and it would violate my Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process regarding the preliminary conference request
that was served on Defendant on November 17, 2007. 30)
That Dom. Rel. §236(4) states that with regard to compulsory financial disclosure: “In all matrimonial actions
and proceedings in which alimony, maintenance or support is in issue, there shall be compulsory disclosure by both parties
of their respective financial states. No showing of special circumstances shall be required before such disclosure is ordered.” 31) That in paragraphs 2-9 of my preliminary conference
request, I demanded that the Defendant produce his financial records (see Exhibit I, page 1 and 2). 32) That in paragraphs 20 and 27 of my preliminary
conference request, I demanded that the Defendant produce all immigration revocations and signed FOIA/FOIL disclosure forms,
inter alia, immigration records to ascertain his identity (see Exhibit I, page 3).
33) That even if this Court believes that the Defendant “has participated...in a preliminary conference”,
the form was not signed in front of a notary; and that the Defendant did not provide the most important element of my preliminary
conference request – Defendant's immigration records for proof of identity. Retroactive
Support Due to Plaintiff Based on Discovery of Evidence of Defendant's Act of Fraud 34) That on page 10 of the lower court's decision and order, in which
it states that “plaintiff is not entitled to...retroactive child support in this action inasmuch as his alleged child
was 28 years old when plaintiff first sought this relief...” is incorrect.
35) That I attempted to obtain child support from the Defendant in April 1980 and in July 1985; that New York City's
Child Support Enforcement Bureau conducted a search of the Defendant until the child of the marriage turned 21 years old;
and that in an attempt to circumvent what I believed to be the lower court's bias in favor of the Defendant, I applied
for child support around May 2008 with the Kings County Family Court (see Exhibit K).
36) That the lower court's scheduled“evidentiary hearing” would be biased and farcically named as such
if it is conducted without evidence; that is, the evidence that exists in the Defendant's immigration records to establish
that the Defendant is my husband. 37) Given
that Allen E. Kaye, the Defendant's immigration attorney (212-964-5858(job); 212-608-3734(fax)) and Rachel McCarthy, Bar
Counsel for USCIS ((802) 660-5043(job); (802) 660-5067(fax)) have provided documentation that the Defendant is my husband,
given that I have provided this Court with telephone numbers that a judge or any law enforcement can verify; and given that
18 U.S.C. §4 requires the lower court to conduct, or to have commenced a criminal investigation based on the above, it
should be obvious to this Court that the Defendant and his attorney have perjured themselves and have used whatever means
is at their disposal to try to illegally influence the lower court. Conclusion 38) The entire premise of my divorce action hinges
on whether or not this Court will require the lower court to accept the irrefutable evidence that I have already presented
regarding the identity of the Defendant; or whether this Court will require the lower court to enforce my constitutional right
to due process as it pertains to discovery of the Defendant's identity – which, if this Court grants my request,
will result in the lower court's obeying the words of the summons and declaring that the Defendant has defaulted. 39) That in the spirit of my Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment right to due process via discovery, I have attached Exhibit L, a letter I faxed to Benton J. Campbell, U.S. Attorney
of the Eastern District of New York; and that said correspondence was also faxed to Lev Dassin, U.S. Attorney, Southern District
of New York, Robert Morgenthau, New York County District Attorney, Charles Hynes, Kings County District Attorney, Eugenia
Cowles, Assistant U.S. Attorney for Vermont and Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel for the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Service in Vermont. 40) That in the
spirit of 18 U.S.C. §4, I sent an e-mail to the Honorable Robin Renee Sanders, U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria regarding the
Defendant's act of identity fraud; that said e-mail was sent to various individuals; and that thus far, the following
individuals have actually read the e-mail: The Honorable Robin Renee Sanders; Eugenia Cowles, AUSA, Vermont; Lynden D. Melmed,
USCIS and the Defendant's immigration attorney Allen E. Kaye (see Exhibit M). 41) That in the spirit of my Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment
rights to due process with respect to discovery, I prepared an affidavit for the Defendant, hereby attached as Exhibit
N, based on the affirmation and unnotarized counter-affidavit that Defendant's attorney fraudulently claims
to be from “Cousin Godwin Ehigie Uzamere; that said affidavit and counter-affidavit must be signed by the Defendant
and the imaginary “Cousin Godwin” in the presence of a consular agent of the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria and
notarized by same; and that I am positive that, based on the irrefutable evidence I have already submitted, the Defendant
will not sign it, nor will he appear in court on March 30, 2009 for any "evidentiary hearing." 42) That attached as Exhibit O is my good faith
attempt to ensure the veracity of my allegations regarding the Defendant's identity by faxing a memorandum to the Honorable
Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and also to, among 18 other individuals, Rachel McCarthy,
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Robert E. Juceam and Eugene O. Uzamere, Esq.; from whom I alleged the attached documents emanated. 43) That although Rachel McCarthy was quick to file
federal assault charges against me as shown in Exhibit O, she has yet to file even one charge against
me claiming that I have fraudulently alleged that she admitted to the Defendant being my husband; and that the federal documents
I alleged emanated from her are fraudulent.
44) That although Allen E. Kaye, one of the immigration attorneys whose name is on the I-130 relative sponsorship form
was quick to accuse me of being an anti-Semite as shown in Exhibit O, he has yet to file even
one charge against me in which he claims that I falsed alleged that he admitted that the Defendant is my husband; and
that the document I alleged he sent to Mr. Cahill of the New York State Department Disciplinary Committee 1st Judicial Department
is fraudulent and the signature on it is a forgery.
45) That although I uploaded the I-130 relative sponsorship form that contains Harvey Shapiro's name, Mr.
Shapiro has made no attempt to have me arrested for forging a federal document with his signature; nor has he made any attempt
to sue me for defamation of character. 46)
That although Defendant's present attorney has openly and notoriously swore in his affirmation that “The
facts...as presented by the plaintiff are...fraudulent” and that, “the plaintiff appears to be motivated by her
desire to get money from Senator Uzamere”, he has made absolutely no attempt to have me arrested for the aforesaid “fraudulent”
attempt “to get money from Senator Uzamere” by impersonating his wife.
47) That I can guarantee this Court that none of the individuals named in the fax will file charges of fraud or
defamation of character against me, nor will the lower court willingly require the Defendant to submit himself for DNA testing
to confirm paternity of the child of the marriage because the documents are authentic, and because the aforesaid individuals
openly and notoriously admitted in the attached documents that the Defendant is my husband. WHEREFORE, I pray this that this Court grants me permission
to proceed as a poor person; grants me permission to perfect on the original papers; orders the lower court to declare
that the Defendant has defaulted or, if default is not immediately declared, to enjoin the lower court from granting its scheduled
evidentiary hearing or any other adjournments or continuance unless Defendant produces a signed, original Affidavit with U.S.-government-issued
attachments confirming his identity and the identity of “Cousin Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” that are notarized by a
consular officer of the U.S. Embassy by March 7, 2009; for retroactive, present and future child and spousal support as specified
in the summons and complaint and for such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. 
___________________ Cheryl D. Uzamere
1According to the U.S. Department
of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs, “the consular official must require the personal appearance of the person
requesting the notarial service; establish the identity of the person requesting the service; establish that the person understands
the nature, language and consequences of the document to be notarized; and establish that the person is not acting under duress.”
(22 C.F.R. 92.31). Please refer to http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_2086.html for more information.
|
