State of New York Court of Claims ______________________________________ Cheryl D. Uzamere
Claim
Claimant, Affidavit
in Support of Motion for -against-
Permission to File a Late Claim *
Defendant. ______________________________________ STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF KINGS )
ss: * I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, being duly sworn, depose and
say that: 1)
That I am the Claimant in the above entitled action.
2) That I make this Affidavit in support of my motion for permission to file a late claim. 3) That any alleged “failure”
of Claimant's not filing a timely claim was because of circumstances over which Claimant had no control. 4) That the Court of Claims Act §10(6) permits
claimants to file motions late if the delay in filing is excusable and in the interest of justice. 5) That the New York Daily News made its article
public on November 5, 2009; that the aforesaid event took place after any and all incidents for which Claimant filed past
lawsuits with the Eastern District and Southern District courts and for which Defendant State of New York may wish to use
res judicata as an poor excuse to hide the bad acts of its agents, one of whom was described in the aforementioned article
as “a courthouse source” (see Exhibit A).
6) That during Claimant's stay as an inpatient with Defendant agent Kingsboro Psychiatric Center,
Claimant was not permitted to use Kingsboro's notary public to notarize Claimant's handwritten claim or to mail any correspondence
pertaining to Claimant's desire to file a lawsuit against Defendant.
7) That Defendant, either by its agent Kingsboro Psychiatric Center or its judiciary employee Judge
Schack, refused to allow Claimant to go to court; that Defendant's medical employee Dr. Marie Bauduy told Claimant that Defendant's
judiciary employee Judge Schack called Kingsboro and ordered Claimant not to be produced; that Claimant alleges that Defendant's
judiciary employee Judge Schack's goal was to declare Claimant unfit to proceed to trial to hide the fact that the Defendants
never interposed an answer and never filed their appearances; that the events Claimant describes is this paragraph took place
after any and all incidents for which Claimant filed past lawsuits with the Eastern District and Southern District courts
and for which Defendant State of New York may wish to use res judicata as an poor excuse to hide the bad acts of its agents
(Exhibit B pages 1 to 3 and Exhibit C ).
8) That Claimant was released on or around February 5, 2010.
9) That Claimant alleges that on or around February 25, 2010 that she was forcibly removed from her
apartment while faxing a complaint against Defendant's judiciary employee Judge Jeffrey S. Sunshine based on Defendant's claim
that there was an order of protection filed against Claimant by the Defendant. 10)
That Claimant has never seen this order of protection, and that Defendant has refused to show Claimant a copy of the order
of protection. 11)
That Claimant alleges that based on Defendant State of New York's judiciary employee's Judge Jeffrey S. Sunshine's refusal
to arrest Eugene O. Uzamere for submitting the fraudulent counter-affidavit, the document was then illegally submitted to
and published by the New York Daily News by its agent/staff writer Scott Shifrel, after which Claimant was arrested; that
based on the aforesaid allegation that Claimant delay in filing the claim in a timely manner is excusable (Exhibit D). 12) That Claimant alleges
that Defendant State of New York had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim because Defendant State of New York
caused the conditions for which Claimant filed a claim.
13) That Claimant alleges that Defendant State of New York had the opportunity to investigate the
circumstances underlying the claim because Defendant State of New York caused those conditions that created Claimant's claim. 14) That Claimant alleges
that her claim appears to be meritorious based on Claimant's belief that the the newspapers article that made reference to
the fraudulent counter-affidavit is not a prior bad act, but a new bad act that Claimant could not have mentioned in her federal
lawsuits because the event had not taken place; that the publishing of the article containing reference to the fraudulent
counter-affidavit is a new act of fraud upon the court by Defendant's judiciary employee and is illegal; that fraud upon the
court has no statute of limitations; that Claimant alleges that its judiciary employee's refusal to charge the perpetrating
litigant with perjury precipitated yet another separate bad acts for which res judicata does not legally, or logically apply. 15) That Claimant alleges that
any substantial prejudice to Defendant State of New York was caused by its own illegal acts; that any delay preventing Claimant
from filing her claim in a timely manner was caused by crimes Claimant has proven were caused by the Defendant. 16) That considering Defendant's
outright criminal behavior with regarding to its judiciary employees, Claimant alleges that she has no other remedy. 17) That this Court's allowing
Claimant to file her claim does not prejudice the Defendant.. 18)
That Defendant judiciary employee's use of a widely-read newspaper to disseminate a fraudulent document for which Defendant's
judiciary employee failed to make an arrest for perjury while holding Claimant hostage to prevent Claimant from filing complaints
has continued to prejudiced the Claimant and her daughter insofar Defendant's “courthouse source” published a
fictitious name that still remains on the Claimant's daughter's birth certificate (see Exhibits E and F). 19) That Claimant asserts that Defendant has “unclean
hands” with respect to the subject of this claim, and as such, does not have a legal right to demand equity. 20) That Claimant asserts that
based on her limited knowledge of law, that the Defendant, after having Claimant placed in one of its own mental health facilities,
that another one of Defendant's facilities – one that adjudges law – would violate the spirit of Title II, Americans
with Disabilities Act and hold Claimant liable for having a mental dysfunction for which Defendant prevented Claimant from
appearing in court. 21)
That Defendant State of New York has, by its judiciary employees, engaged in fraud upon the court which took place after after
the lawsuits that Claimant filed with the Eastern District and Southern District court such that if Defendant State of New
York uses res judicata to refer to events that could not have been mentioned in Claimant's federal actions because they did
not happen, then Defendant will be engaging in fraud.
22) That Claimant is familiar with the principal in the federal case Weldon v. United States of America,
70 F.3d 1, 64 USLW 2311; that Claimant, believing the law to be consistent, asserts that New York State law also bars fraud
upon the court based on res judicata; that Claimant's desire is to obey the law, that this Court obeys the law and not be
used as a machine to commit fraud or hide fraud for “favored” litigants; that Defendant's desire is not to obey
the law, but to create new law that fixes cases to protect Jewish defendants from non-Jewish plaintiffs based on the Talmud's
Abodah Zarah 26b's doctrine that prevent Jews from telling on other Jews, and based on the Talmud's Baba Kamma's doctrine
that permits Jews to lie to non-Jews in legal settings, so as to make their acts of fraud, if not legal, at least not punishable. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court grants
permission for Claimant to file her claim late and for such other and further relief as to this Court seem just and proper. 
Cheryl D. Uzamere
|
