Will Employees of New York State Unified Court System use the libel of Daily News' Scott Shifrel to coerce victim's silence of corrupt attorneys' facilitation of their client's identity and document fraud? State of New York Court of Claims ______________________________________  Cheryl D. Uzamere                                                                   Claim                                       Claimant,                                                                                                                                           Claim No.: 118450        -against- *  State of New York*                                        Defendant. ______________________________________         I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, being duly sworn, state 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 the State of New York.         3)     That the places where the illegal acts occurred are as follows: Kings County Criminal Court, 120 Schermerhorn Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11201; New York State Supreme Court, 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11201; the New York Daily News, 450 W. 33rd Street, New York, 10001; Rose M. Singer Detention Center, 19-19 Hazen Street (Rikers Island), East Elmhurst, New York, 11370; Kingsboro Psychiatric Center, 681 Clarkson Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, 11203, Claimant's address, 1209 Loring Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.         4)     That based on the illegal acts that Defendant State of New York's judiciary employees committed and continue to commit, Claimant alleges that the date of accrual is still pending; that Claimant's recent discovery of acts of fraud by Defendant's judiciary employees gives Claimant the legal right to pray this Court to toll the statute for fraud and to commence an action against the Defendant State of New York for 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         5)     That during the month of April, 2008, Claimant visited Defendant State of New York's Office of the Attorney General to report that she was a victim of immigration and identity fraud by her ex-husband.         6)     That Defendant State of New York Office of the Attorney General Andrew Cuomo refused to meet with the Claimant.         7)     That Claimant staged an act of civil disobedience and refused to leave until Claimant spoke with Defendant's Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.         8)     That Andrew Cuomo assigned Defendant's Forensic Investigator, Robin Womack to assist Claimant in discovering proof of her ex-husband's identity.         9)    That Claimant send one of many faxes to Ms. Womack (see Exhibit A).         10)     That over the space of several months, neither Ms. Womack nor any employee offered Claimant assistance sufficient enough to discover proof of Claimant's ex-husband; that Claimant eventually found sufficient proof of her ex-husband's identity at the New York City Clerk's Office, Marriage License Bureau.         11)    That Defendant State of New York's judiciary employee Justice Schack committed fraud upon the court based on the following: that on January 15, 2010, while Justice Schack presided over Claimant's action for fraud Index No. 18012-09, Justice Schack violated Claimant's constitutional right to be free from practicing halachic/Jewish religious law by slandering Claimant as “anti-Semitic” in open court, although Claimant said nothing anti- Semitic; that said slander was witnessed by an employee of Defendant State of New York's Kingsboro Psychiatric Center who accompanied Claimant on that day.         12)     That anti-Semitism violates halachic/Jewish religious law, not constitutional law (see Exhibit B).         13)     That according to staff writer Scott Shifrel for the New York Daily News, he admitted to conspiring with a “courthouse source” to libel Claimant in its newspaper article dated November 5, 2009 as anti-Semitic, as “wacko” and as being married to “Godwin Uzamere” based on a fraudulent, unauthenticated, unnotarized foreign counter-affidavit that a “courthouse source” provided the New York Daily News; that the newspaper article written by staff writer Scott Shifrel said: “The senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband Godwin Uzamere, according to an affidavit file he filed in Supreme Court...Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should be encouraged”; that the falsified information contained in the aforementioned counter-affidavit was obtained as a result of the falsification of an I-130(E) United States immigration form and a letter that were falsified by Claimant's ex-husband's attorney's Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard Rostanski and Jack Gladstein; and that Claimant has already provided Defendant with government-issued proof of her ex-husband's identity (see Exhibit D to E3 page 3).         14)     That while Justice Schack presided over Claimant's action for fraud, defendants Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, New York State judiciary employee Bernard Rostanski and attorney Jack Gladstein; failed to interpose an answer or file a notice of appearance as required by CPLR Rule 320 (see Exhibit F pages 1 and 2); that Justice Schack filed a sua sponte motion in an attempt to terminate Claimant's action for fraud based on Claimant's status as having a mental illness in violation of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, of Title II, Americans with Disabilities Act, 18 USC §241, Conspiracy against rights, 18 USC §242, Deprivation of Right Under Color of Law, First Amendment, petitioning for a governmental redress of grievance, Fifth Amendment, right to due process under the law and the Fourteenth Amendment, equal protection under the law (Exhibit G, pages 1-3).         15)     That on November 3, 2009, Defendant State of New York, by its judiciary employees violated Claimant's constitutional right to due process of law by committed New York State Penal Law §135.65 Coercion in the First Degree, a Class D felony and New York State Penal Law §135.60, Coercion in the Second Degree, a Class A misdemeanor, by inducing the Claimant not to file criminal complaints against Justice Sunshine; that the Defendant State of New York by its judiciary employee coerced Claimant to abstain from filing criminal complaints against Defendant's judiciary employee Justice Sunshine (Exhibit H pages 1 and 2).         16)     That at the time of Claimant's arrest, the Honorable Jeffrey S. Sunshine presided over Claimant's divorce action.         17)     That by November 13, 2009, Defendant State of New York's judiciary employee Justice Sunshine committed fraud upon the court and violated Claimant's constitutional right to due process of law by requiring Claimant's attendance on the 12th of 19 S.L.A.P.P.-like adjournments, but did not require the attendance of the no-show defendant ex-husband (see Exhibit I pages 1 and 2).         18)     That the only document that defendant ex-husband submitted through his “attorney” Eugene O. Uzamere was the aforementioned fraudulent, unauthenticated counter-affidavit from Nigeria.         19)     That the New York State Unified Court System's country clerk web page correctly reflects that Claimant's divorce was uncontested (see Exhibit J, pages 1 and 2).         20)     That the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts/Web Civil Supreme web page fraudulently reflects that Claimant's divorce was contested although Claimant's ex-husband and his “attorney” Eugene O. Uzamere failed to interpose an answer ; and that Claimant alleges that this newly discovered contradiction is (Exhibit K) an intentional act of fraud upon the court.         21)     That Claimant alleges that Defendant's judiciary employee failed to arrest either ex-husband's attorney for submission of the fraudulent counter-affidavit.         22)     That Judge Sunshine's refusal to arrest the aforesaid attorney for submitting the fraudulent document is an act of fraud upon the court. ILLEGAL ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF DEFENDANT         23)    That the details of said acts or omissions are as follows: that Claimant was falsely arrested by New York City Police Officer Delamo and New York City Police Officer Rall of the 84th Precinct, at the behest of Defendant State of New York's Unified Court System, Office of the Inspector General.         24)     That after Claimant tried to lodge an irrefutable criminal complaint concerning fraud upon the court against Defendant Justice Sunshine with Defendant New York State Unified Court System, Office of the Inspector General, that Claimant was charged with Penal Law §240.30/aggravated harassment.         25)     That Claimant was arrested and kept in dirty cells, given hardened bread to eat, and not allowed to bath for parts of two days.         26)    That Claimant was not allowed to see any judge.         27)    That Claimant was subsequently transported to three different hospitals and then to the Rose M. Singer Detention Center (Rikers Island) for approximately 30 days.         28)    That Claimant was then presented to Kings County Criminal Court where the charges against her were dismissed.         29)    That Claimant was then transported to Kingsboro Psychiatric Center where Claimant was not permitted to use the services of the aforesaid Defendant psychiatric center notary public to notarize any documents pertaining to her plan to file a lawsuit against Defendant State of New York or any other agency of Defendant State of New York.         30)    That Claimant was released 60 days later on February 5, 2010.         31)    That on or around February 23, 2010, while Claimant was at home faxing a letter of complaint regarding Defendant State of New York's judiciary employee Justice Sunshine, Claimant's apartment was invaded by the New York City Police Department and Claimant was pulled out of her apartment .         32)    That Claimant was falsely accused of not taking her psychiatric medication; that Claimant was accused of violating an order of protection by committing New York State Penal Law §240.30, aggravated harassment of Defendant State of New York's judiciary employees by sending them a fax (see Exhibit L pages 1 to 3)         33)    That Defendant State of New York never provided Claimant with a copy of the order of protection Defendant's employee Lieutenant Milo claimed existed.         34)    That Claimant e-mailed Defendant State of New York Senator Sampson, as well as every single member of Defendant State of New York Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Senate Committee on Ethics and Senate Committee on Mental Illness.          35)    That while Senator Sampson's staff have given the impression that Claimant will receive assistance from Mr. Sampson's office, Claimant has never received any help from Mr. Sampson office (Exhibit M pages 1 and 2).         36)    This Claim is served and filed within 90 days of accrual.         37)     That Claimant respectfully prays that if this honorable Courts 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 Jewish or a member of the Jewish faith, as is legally consistent with federal law 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)).         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. Sworn to before me this 25th day of May, 2010                                                                                                                 ______________________           Claimant      ♦  N.Y. Pen. Law §135.65: Coercion in the first degree -- A  person  is  guilty  of  coercion in the first degree when he or she commits the crime of coercion in the second degree, and when:  1. He or she commits such crime by instilling in  the  victim  a  fear that he or she will cause physical injury to a person or cause damage to property; or 2. He or she thereby compels or induces the victim to: (a) Commit or attempt to commit a felony; or (b) Cause or attempt to cause physical injury to a person; or (c) Violate his or her duty as a public servant. Coercion in the first degree is a class D felony. * ♦♦  N.Y. Pen. Law §135.65: Coercion in the second degree -- A  person  is  guilty  of coercion in the second degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has  a legal  right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he or she has a legal right to engage,  or  compels  or induces  a  person  to join a group, organization or criminal enterprise which such latter person has a right to abstain from joining,  by  means of  instilling  in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will: 1. Cause physical injury to a person; or 2. Cause damage to property; or 3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or 4. Accuse some person of a crime  or  cause  criminal  charges  to  be instituted against him or her; or 5.  Expose  a  secret  or  publicize an asserted fact, whether true or   false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt  or  ridicule; or 6.  Cause  a  strike,  boycott  or other collective labor group action injurious to some person's business; except that such a threat shall not be deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or 7. Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense; or 8. Use or abuse his or her position as a public servant by  performing some  act within or related to his or her official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such  manner  as  to  affect some person adversely; or 9.  Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to  his  or  her  health,  safety, business,  calling,  career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships. Coercion in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.                                                                                                                                                    NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF KINGS                                      Cheryl D. Uzamere                                               Index No.:  10-009998                                  Plaintiff,                                VERIFIED COMPLAINT             - against -                                                JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Daily News, L.P. and Scott Shifrel                                Defendants.                          Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere, appearing on her own behalf, states and alleges the following:         1)     That at all times herein relevant, the Plaintiff was a resident of the State of New York, City of Brooklyn and County of Kings.         2)     That Defendant the Daily News and its agent/staff writer Scott Shifrel committed defamation per se, defamation and fraud against Plaintiff, and violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights, to wit:         3)     That on November 5, 2009, Defendants published a newspaper article entitled “Hate-Spewing Wacko Goes Into Fit In Court.”         4)     That in the aforesaid article, Defendants defamed Plaintiff as “wacko.”         5)     That in the aforesaid article, Defendants publicly defamed Plaintiff as “anti-Semitic.”         6)     That in the aforesaid article, Defendants never produced any proof of Plaintiff's “anti-Semitism.”         7)     That in the aforesaid article, Defendants did not state the names of the individual Defendants' article identified as a “courthouse source”, nor did the aforesaid article state the names of any other individual able to corroborate Defendants' charge that Plaintiff is anti-Semitic.         8)     That Defendants defamed Plaintiff as a liar by publishing as true and correct a fraudulent counter-affidavit from Nigeria that Plaintiff's ex-husband criminally submitted during Plaintiff's divorce action to hide his identity during Plaintiff's divorce action.         9)     That Defendants published the following statements with regard to the aforesaid fraudulent counter-affidavit: “The senator, however, is a cousin of her actual ex-husband Godwin Uzamere, according to an affidavit file he filed in Supreme Court...Her obsession with his destruction has taken her mental ailment to a new level which should be encouraged.         10)     That on May 12, 2009, the Honorable Jeffrey S. Sunshine adjudicated that Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere is Plaintiff's husband, thereby rejecting Senator Uzamere's, and now Defendants' attempt to hide Plaintiff's ex-husband's identity; and to hide the acts of immigration fraud and identity fraud that were facilitated by Senator Uzamere's attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard Rostanski and Jack Gladstein.         11)     That based on Defendants' own admission, Defendants obtained the aforesaid fraudulent counter-affidavit from a “courthouse source”; and that the aforesaid admission is proof that Defendants conspired to commit fraud, conspired to aid and abet fraud and conspired to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights.. AND AS FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION         12)     Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 11 as if fully set forth herein.         13)     That Defendants, as professionals who provide the public with news, owed Plaintiff the duty of checking their news sources to ensure that the information they published about Plaintiff would not expose Plaintiff to defamation (see Exhibit A1 to A6).         14)     That Defendants owed the Plaintiff the duty of ensuring that they avoid the commission of fraud when obtaining documents and other sources of news; that Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty of not publishing criminally fraudulent documents about Plaintiff.         15)     That Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty not to conspire with other individuals to publish criminally fraudulent news about Plaintiff.         16)     That Defendants, as professionals who provide the public with news, owed Plaintiff the duty of not conspiring with any member of the court to obtain falsified information.         17)     That Defendants, as professionals who provide the public with news, owed Plaintiff the duty of not violating Plaintiff's constitutional right to due process of law by engaging in “trial by media” to facilitate public and judiciary bias against Plaintiff in a manner that violates Plaintiff's constitutional right to an impartial trial (see Exhibit B1 and B2).         18)     That Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty of not defaming Plaintiff an “anti-Semitic.”         19)     That Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty not to violate Plaintiff's right to freedom of religion; That Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty not to publicly accusing Plaintiff of the halachic crime of anti-Semitism.         20)     That Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty not to defame Plaintiff as having committed the halachic crime of anti-Semitic as a ruse to hide the acts of fraud that Plaintiff charged in her lawsuit against attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard Rostanski and Jack Gladstein, all of whom practice the Jewish faith (see Exhibits C1 through C3).         21)     That Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty of not defaming Plaintiff as a “wacko” by publishing false information regarding Plaintiff's mental illness to hide Plaintiff's lawsuit against the aforementioned attorneys, and to give the public the false impression that Plaintiff is either a liar or out of touch with reality (see Exhibit D).         22)     That Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to not use their positions to intentionally inflicting mental and emotional distress on the Plaintiff.         23)     That Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty not to hold Plaintiff responsible for commiting the halachic/Jewish religious crime of meshira (whistleblowing) by using defamation of character to punish Plaintiff for publicly reporting the commission of acts of fraud by attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard Rostanski and Jack Gladstein, all of whom practice the Jewish faith.         24)     That wholly and solely as a result of Defendants' tortious acts, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries by way of public scorn and severe mental and emotional distress for which Plaintiff was damaged in the amount of $10,000,000.00. AS AND FOR A SECOND SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF ACTION         25)     Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.         26)     That Defendants failed in their duty to Plaintiff to check their news source to ensure that the information they published would not expose Plaintiff to defamation.         27)     That Defendants failed in their duty to Plaintiff to avoid the commission of fraud; that Defendants failed in their duty to Plaintiff not to publish criminally fraudulent information designed to defame Plaintiff.         28)     That Defendants failed in their duty to Plaintiff not to conspire with employees of the New York State Supreme Court Kings County to obtain criminally fraudulent information to defame Plaintiff.         29)     That Defendants failed in their duty not to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights to due process of law by engaging in “trial by media” to facilitate public and judiciary bias against Plaintiff and to violate Plaintiff's constitutional right to an impartial trial by defaming Plaintiff.         30)     That Defendants failed in their duty not to defame Plaintiff as an “anti-Semitic.”         31)     That Defendants failed in their duty to Plaintiff not to violate Plaintiff's right to freedom not to practice another person's religion; that Defendants failed in their duty not to force Plaintiff to practice halachic law by publicly charging Plaintiff with commission of the halachic crimes of anti-Semitism and meshira/whistleblowing.         32)     That Defendants failed in their duty to Plaintiff not to defame Plaintiff as an “anti-Semitic”; that Defendants failed by using defamation of Plaintiff's character as a ruse to prevent Plaintiff from going public with information regarding the acts of fraud that were committed by Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard Rostanski and Jack Gladstein, all of whom practice the Jewish faith.         33)     That Defendants failed in their duty to Plaintiff not to defame Plaintiff as “wacko”; that is, publishing fraudulent information regarding Plaintiff's status of having a mental illness to prevent Plaintiff from exposing the crimes committed by attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Bernard Rostanski and Jack Gladstein.         34)     That Defendants failed in their duty to Plaintiff not to avoid intentionally inflicting mental and emotional distress on the Plaintiff.         35)     That wholly and solely as a result of Defendants' tortious and criminal acts, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries by way of public scorn, and severe mental and emotional distress for which Plaintiff was damaged in the amount of $10,000,000.00. AS AND FOR A THIRD SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF ACTION         36)     Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 35 as if fully set forth herein.         37)     That Plaintiff suffered public scorn because of Defendants' publication of the same fraudulent counter-affidavit that was illegally used by Plaintiff's ex-husband Senator Ehigie Uzamere and the ex-husband's attorney, Eugene O. Uzamere during Plaintiff's divorce action in order to facilitate “trial by media to make it impossible for Plaintiff to obtain justice in court, in order to hide the identity of Plaintiff's ex-husband and in order to hide the crimes of the ex-husband's attorneys.”         38)    That Plaintiff suffered public scorn to the point where Plaintiff is unable to be found eligible by FEGS and other continuing day treatment programs based on the Defendants defaming of Plaintiff as “anti-Semitic.”         39)     That Plaintiff suffered public scorn to the point of having to be hospitalized after Defendants' acts of defamation that Plaintiff accurately detailed at her website http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net, against which Plaintiff states that Defendants have no legal defense.         40)     That wholly and solely as a result of Defendants' tortious acts, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries by way of public scorn and severe mental and emotional distress for which Plaintiff was damaged in the amount of $10,000,000.00. AS AND FOR A FOURTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF ACTION         41)     Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein.         42)     That given that there is a pending case against Defendant New York Daily News for defamation in the recent past by the Honorable Lawrence D. Martin, a Brooklyn Supreme Court justice named in the case Martin v. Daily News, Defendants knew or should have known that the article they published regarding the Plaintiff would subject Plaintiff to public scorn based on Defendants' “trial by media”, and that public scorn is an injury that is recognized in law.         43)     That Defendants knew or should have known that their conspiring with a “courthouse source” obtaining and publicizing violates the Plaintiff's constitutional to due process; that violation of due process is itself an injury recognized by law as giving rise to an implied cause of action.         44)     That loss of reputation based on the stigma of being publicly labeled an anti-Semitic is an injury recognized in law.         45)     That Defendants knew or should have know that Plaintiff would suffer loss of reputation based on Defendants' vilification of Plaintiff as a “wacko.”         46)     That the mental and emotional stress resulting from Defendants tortious acts are recognized in the law.         47)     That Plaintiff's continued inability to obtain a fair trial at the New York State Supreme Court Kings County as a result of Defendants' implementation of “trial by media” in an injury recognized in law.         48)     That Defendants knew or should have known that Defendants' illegal conduct as described inflicted great mental and emotional distress on the Plaintiff.         49)     That wholly and solely as a result of Defendants' tortious acts, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries by way of inability to obtain a fair trial, loss of reputation, violation of Plaintiff' constitutional rights and severe mental and emotional distress for which Plaintiff was damaged in the amount of $10,000,000.00.         50)     That Plaintiff respectfully alleges that if Plaintiff files the lawsuit against the State of New York that Plaintiff uploaded to here website, namely, http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/lawsuitagainstnys.html,  no employee of the New York State Supreme Court Kings County will admit to having conspired to committing such an illegal act; thereby placing Defendants in the position of having defamed other employees of the Kings County Supreme Court beside the Honorable Larry D. Martin; that Kings County Supreme Court employees' denial, or refusal to respond to Defendants' allegations regarding the aforesaid employees involvement would make them liars in the presence of this honorable Court; that this Court must then adjudge Defendants' statements to be untrue and to view Defendants as liars.         51)     That given the seriousness of Defendants' statement regarding the “courthouse source” from whom they obtained falsified information, Plaintiff respectfully prays this Court to allow Plaintiff to file her action at this Court.         52)     That if so pleases this Court, that Plaintiff's legal action be adjudicated by at this courthouse based on Defendants' admitting to publishing a fraudulent document that they obtained from a “courthouse source.”         WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere respectfully prays this Court for a jury trial, for this honorable Court to require Defendants to make a full public retraction of their defamatory, criminal and cruel statements, and to render judgment against the Defendants in the sum of $10,000.000.00.   Dated:  Brooklyn, New York May 20, 2010 _____________________________ Cheryl D. Uzamere Appearing Pro Se 1209 Loring Avenue Apt. 6B Brooklyn, NY 11208 Tel.: (718) 647-1708 Fax: (267) 543-3317 STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF KINGS ss: I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, am the Plaintiff in the within Verified Complaint. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The contents are true to my own knowledge except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. _____________________________ Cheryl D. Uzamere Appearing Pro Se 1209 Loring Avenue Apt. 6B Brooklyn, NY 11208 Tel.: (718) 647-1708 Fax: (267) 543-3317 Fraudulent Affirmation Presented by Eugene O. Uzamere Criminally Accepted by Judge Jeffrey S. Sunshine Fraudulent, Unauthenticated Foreign Counter-Affidavit Criminally Used by Libelous News Writer Scott Shifrel If "Godwin Uzamere" is really my husband according to Scott Shifrel... ...than why would Judge Sunshine say regarding Senator Ehigie Uzamere that "defendant is the husband?" I filed a complaint against Judge Sunshine with the U.S. Department of State... ...and they responded!  I left Judge Sunshine with no options. Oh, yeah, one more thing... I left corrupt, lying lawyer Allen E. Kaye with no (legal) options I did the same thing with corrupt, lying lawyer Harvey Shapiro...I left him with no legal options ...seems like the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (formerly U.S. Naturalization Service) has known for a long time that Ehigie E. Uzamere is my husband See?  If the federal government knows that Ehigie Uzamere is my husband, how does Scott Shifrel have the audacity to imply that I am lying??? (I want to see Scott and the Daily News grovel their way out of this...) One more little thing...as of February 9, 2010, the people search/skip trace engine Intelius.com reports that there is not, nor has there ever been a "Godwin Uzamere" anywhere in the United States. (I want to see you extricate yourself from this)