|
PETITION FOR REHEARING
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. GROUNDS FOR REHEARING
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.
I. REHEARING IS WARRANTED INSOFAR AS STATE AND MUNICIPAL
DEFENDANTS WITHHELD PROOF OF PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS *
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 * II. REHEARING IS APPROPRIATE EVEN
IF OTHER GROUNDS SUFFICE
TO JUSTIFY THE COURT DISPOSITION * A. This Court's denial to rehearing
petition should not preclude this * 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 * 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 (http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.com), 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. Conclusion 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. 
A Marriage of Convenience: Federal Abstention in Domestic Relations Cases by Kate Swift, (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1194693
|
