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

U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Rehearing

Petitioner was jailed twice while questioning why racists Cuomo and Bloomberg have refused to enlist their agencies to help her obtain child and spousal support.  Racist employees under their charge have blacklisted Petitioner to prevent other government agencies from helping her, rationalizing their illegal conduct because Petitioner is black and mentally disabled.  Cuomo's and Bloomberg's racist administrations has gone so far as to use New York State Court Officer Milo and New York City Police Officers Rall and Dellamo to threaten to place Petitioner in a mental institution or arrest Petitioner (without an arrest warrant?) to stop her from talking.  Will the Supreme Court give license to Defendants discriminatory acts by denying her petition to rehear her case?
 cuomo2.jpguzamerewalkerfamily.jpg  mayorbloomberg.jpg

Docket No. 09-5816 
Minus Sign 24 Minus Sign 24 Minus Sign 24
In The
Supreme Court of the United States


Cheryl D. Uzamere


- vs -

Allen E. Kaye, P.C., et al



Petition for Rehearing


On Writ of Certiorari to

the Supreme Court of the United States Court

Elena Kagan, Esq.
Solicitor General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
Solicitor General
NYS Attorney General
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10278
Larry A. Sonnenshein, Esq.
Asst. Corporation Counsel
New York City Law Dept.
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Cheryl D. Uzamere
Appearing Pro Se
1209 Loring Avenue
Apt. 6B
Brooklyn, NY 11208
Tel.: (718) 647-1708
Fax: (267) 543-3317


Minus Sign 24 Minus Sign 24 Minus Sign 24


        Cheryl D. Uzamere, appearing pro se, respectfully petitions this Court for a rehearing of its October 13, 2009 decision. Specifically, Petitioner asks for an order (1) granting a rehearing, (2) setting the case for argument and (3) reporting Defendants' criminal acts to the appropriate law enforcement agencies pursuant to 18 USC §4 and 18 USC §3290 so that Defendants can be punished for their crimes against Petitioner and her family.


        Although this Court almost never grants petitions for rehearing, this case meets the rare exception contemplated by Sup. Ct. R. 44.1 and articulated in Ambler v. Whipple, 90 U.S. 278, 282 (1875): "If the omissions...on which the case was heard are material to the decision of the case, it presents a strong appeal for reargument."

        As this Court did not provide a reason for its denial, Petitioner is left with the daunting task of figuring out the mind of the Court and the reason(s) for its denial. One of Petitioner's beliefs is based in her concern that this Court viewed the circumstances explained in Petitioner's writ of certiorari as domestic issues that should be handled by Defendants the State of New York and the City of New York.

        “Courts historically have recognized a jurisdictional bar to hearing domestic relations cases in federal court. This is so even when the parties meet the requirements of the federal diversity statute. In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ankenbrandt v. Richards sought to rein in the so-called domestic relations exception, strictly limiting its use to cases seeking declarations of divorce, alimony, or child custody.” In the case Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 119 L. Ed. 2d 468 (1992), the Court held that Ankenbrandt's action was a tort action, and as such, did not provide a permissible reason for the federal court to invoke the domestic relations exception.

        A similar case, Friedlander v. Friedlander, 149.F.3d, 739 (1998) was a lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress and related torts. While plaintiffs Maris Freed Burton G. Friedlander were husband and wife, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Posner, in stating the opinion of the Court, held that “...the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction did not extend to proceedings that merely arise out of a domestic relations dispute; and any doubt about the validity of that holding was dispelled by Ankenbrandt. Had Mr. Friedlander murdered his former father-in-law, the ensuing suit for wrongful death would not have been conducted by a domestic relations court as an ancillary proceeding to the original divorce case; and it makes no difference that, happily, he did not behave quite so egregiously.” In like manner, Petitioner's lawsuit, while including the egregiously actions of the Defendants during the adjudication of her divorce action, submits information that was withheld by Defendants, to dispel this honorable Court's misgivings regarding Petitioner's lawsuit and to show that Petitioner's lawsuit is in the manner of Bivens, and seeks monetary recovery based on Petitioner's well-founded allegations against Defendants.

        Another of Petitioner's concerns is that her writ of certiorari was viewed by this Court as not compelling. Petitioner asserts that this Court's and the lower Courts' refusal to hear Petitioner's case has already had an deleterious effect on the Petitioner and her daughter and forced them to continue as victims of federal and state crimes at the hands of the Defendants. Petitioner further assets that the deleterious effect on impoverished African American families and their ability to obtain child support enforcement services because of the Bivens-like actions of Defendants New York State and New York City are compelling reasons for this Court to grant Petitioner a rehearing.

        A. Defendants Failed to Comply with Federal Fequirement to Ensure that
             Petitioner Received Child Support

        Less than a year after the pregnant Petitioner was abandoned by her husband, Petitioner sought and was found eligible for public assistance. Although Petitioner managed to secure employment, Petitioner's periods of employment were sporadic, requiring constant reliance on Defendant New York York City's Human Resources Administration (hereinafter "NYCHRA"). When an application for public assistance has children, the recipient has a responsibility to cooperate with NYCHRA by providing as much detailed information as possible regarding the putative parent's income. For each and every occasion for which Petitioner applied for public assistance through Defendant New York City's HRA New York State's Department of Social Services, Petitioner complied with both the letter and the spirit of the law (see attached Petitioner's Agreement to Refund Support Payments).

        Eventually, because Petitioner was not able to obtain Defendants' assistance in securing child support from her husband, Petitioner was forced to place her children in the care of Defendants New York City's and New York State's foster care system (see transcript pages numbered “1” and “62” regarding ). Throughout the few years in which Petitioner had physical custody of her children, Petitioner applied for and received public assistance for herself and her children (see Certificate of (arrest) Warrant, Docket Number F-5076/80, Cheryl Uzamere v. Godwin Uzamere and Petition for Support F-8177/85, Cheryl v. Ehigie Uzamere).

        (under construction -- check back later!)

        Does the rank and file of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the New York City Human Resources Administration plan to tell the tax-paying public that they prefer to allow Judge Sunshine to find Petitioner ineligible for any finances from her former spouse so that Petitioner continues to be a public charge? Did the aforesaid agencies discharge Petitioner's husband from his responsibility to repay them for the care of his wife and daughter? Are the aforesaid agencies' secretaries and commissioners willing to tell the tax-paying public that even now, while Petitioner is presently and has been in receipt of SSI, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps for at least the past 11 years that Defendant Judge Sunshine's decision to grant Petitioner no money from her former husband and to leave Petitioner in the financial care of American taxpayers is legal? If so, then they are accomplices, not only in Defendants' crimes against the Petitioner, but in crimes against U.S. citizenry.

        B.   Defendants Withheld Proof of Petitioner's Attempts to Obtain
               Child Support
        C.   Defendant New York State Allowed Its Courts/Judges to Deprive
               Petitioner of Spousal and Child Support
        D.   Defendants Engaged in Silencing Petitioner by Blacklisting in
               Violation of Federal Whistleblowing Statutes
        A.   This Court's denial to rehearing petition should not preclude this
               Court's responsibility pursuant to 18 USC §4
        B.  This Court must find that Defendants committed federal crimes and
              ensure that they are punished, even if this Court denies rehearing
        C.  This Court must find that Defendants' false arrests and refusal to
              listen to Petitioner were attempts to blacklist and silence Petitioner
              in violation of federal whistle-blowing statutes
        D.  This Court must find that based on Petitioner's allegations of wrongdoing,
              Defendants made themselves fugitives of justice for which there is no
              statute of limitations pursuant to 18 USC §3290  
        E.  This Court must find that Defendants' commission of state law gave rise to
              their commission of federal law; violations of state laws (fraud, etc.) are
              not included as grounds for this petition

        (to be continued)

        Rehearing would promote the law enforcement capability of this Court. This Court could then ensure that those Defendants that committed constitutional violations that resulted in Petitioner's inability to obtain federally-funded child support enforcement services are punished. It would address that which has now become Defendants New York State's and New York City's habit of violating its citizens constitutional violations, knowing that even if the victims appeal to this Court, the likelihood of those victims being heard by this Court is next to impossible, thereby giving those who have been victimized by Defendants the impression that this Court gives its tacit permission.

        U.S. Supreme Court Justice the Honorable Felix Frankfurter said in his opinions regarding Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954) and Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960) that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” This Court would be in violation of its own law if it, in addition to not granting the rehearing, acted in a manner that Defendants would construe, not only as this Court denial to rehear, but as this Court's tacit permission to continue violating the laws, thereby allowing Defendants to be unjustly enriched by receiving federal monies to place children in foster care – children who would ordinary not have be placed in foster care if Defendants actively implemented child support enforcements efforts for which they fraudulently accept federal funding but do not enforce.

        It is frightening to considers that the vast majority of children placed in foster care in the State of New York are African American children from homes led by impoverished single mothers. It is even more frightening to consider that most African American mothers will not use the internet as a tool to disseminate governmental abuse as the Petitioner did (, nor will most African American mothers in the State of New York use the courts to challenge the illegal, racist status quo that renders African children Defendants' largest consumers, as the Petitioner has done. Many, if not most, will quietly take the governmental abuse, while Defendants the State of New York and the City of New York pursue their narrow-minded goal of hoarding federal funds to place impoverished African American children in foster care faster than they would assisting their mothers to obtain child support.

        Such an unjust stance on this Court's part would leave Petitioner with no trust in this Court, abject hatred for American law, despair that she and her children were left in an impoverished state based on the deprivation of her family's constitutional rights by the Defendants; and left to believe that without a show of force like that used by Sengbe and those kidnapped Africans of United States v. Libellants and Claimants of the Schooner Amistad, 40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 518 (1841), Petitioner and her children will also be in position to forever have their constitutional rights violated by the Defendants, whether or not Petitioner violates the law.


        Accordingly, the Petitioner respectfully asks this Court to grant Petitioner's request for rehearing, for this Court to ensure that the Defendants are held criminally liable for their illegal acts against Petitioner and her family, and for the privilege to argue Petitioner's writ of certiorari before this honorable Court.

Minus Sign 24 Minus Sign 24 Minus Sign 24

A Marriage of Convenience: Federal Abstention in Domestic Relations Cases by Kate Swift, (



What To Do When A Police Officer Says:
"I've Have A Warrant For Your Arrest"

Click on either picture to visit site