|
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU
X Cheryl D. Uzamere X
Index No. 10-009998 X Plaintiff,
AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION -
against -
TO DEFENDANTS' DEMAND X Daily News, LP and Scott Shifrel X
Defendants.
X STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF
NASSAU ) ss:
I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, being duly sworn, depose and say that:
1) I am the Plaintiff in the above entitled action.
2) I make this Affidavit in opposition to Defendant's demand to change the venue of Plaintiff's action. 3) That Plaintiff asserts that
Defendants were properly served (Exhibit A pages 1 to 7).
4) That Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Daily News, LP signed for receipt of Plaintiff's legal documents
on June 7, 2010 (see Exhibit A6).
5) That Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff's legal papers were delivered to Defendant Scott Shifrel's
place of business (see Exhibit A5).
6) That Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Scott Shifrel refused to sign for receipt of Plaintiff's
Verified Complaint and Notice to Admit.
7) That Defendant Scott Shifrel made no attempt to inform Plaintiff of Defendant Scott Shifrel's refusal
to sign Plaintiff's legal papers. 8)
That Plaintiff asserts that U.S. Postal Service claims that it has no record of Defendant Scott Shifrel's signed return receipt
card. 9) That
in spite of Plaintiff's due diligence with regard to Plaintiff's attempt to effect service of process upon Defendant Scott
Shifrel, the aforesaid Defendant illegally evaded receipt of Plaintiff's Verified Complaint and Notice to Admit. 10) That Plaintiff filed
a federal lawsuit in the nature of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) against the U.S. Postal
Service and Defendant Scott Shifrel based on Defendants' commission of 18 USC §1341, 18 USC §1346, 18 USC 18 §241,
18 USC §242, and violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights (see Exhibit B). 11) That within days of Plaintiff's
realization of Defendants' refusal to interpose an answer to Plaintiff's Verified Complaint and a response to Plaintiff's
Notice to Admit, and within days of Defendant Scott Shifrel's refusal to accept service of process in a manner that assigns
blame to the U.S. Postal Service, Plaintiff received a demand for change of venue by Defendants' attorney. 12) That Defendants failed to interpose an answer to
Plaintiff's Verified Complaint. 13)
That Defendants failed to interpose a response to Plaintiff's Notice to Admit.
14) That Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a logical reason why they have not interposed
an answer or a response. 15)
That Defendants' attorney refused to acknowledge receipt of the legal papers that were sent to Defendant Scott Shifrel, even
though proof of Defendant Scott Shifrel's receipt of Plaintiff's legal documents is irrefutable. 16) That in addition to Defendants' and their attorney's
blatant schemes to defraud Plaintiff of her constitutional right to due process and equal protection under the law, Defendants
now ask this Court to believe that Defendants' desire to transfer Plaintiff's lawsuit to the court in New York County is an
honest desire based solely on CPLR 511 (a) and (b). POINT ONE CPLR RULE 511 REQUIRES THAT A MOTION FOR CHANGE OF PLACE OF TRIAL SHALL BE MADE WITHIN A “REASONABLE” TIME AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION
17) That Plaintiff
asserts that Defendants' demand is unreasonable, based, not only on the length of time already expended by Defendants, but
primarily on Defendants' dishonest use of time to avoid getting caught for their various acts of fraud. 18) That Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' use of time
is solely to implement various artifices to defraud both the court and the Plaintiff.
19) That Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' dishonesty stems from an act of facilitation of immigration
fraud and identity committed by attorneys Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro and Bernard Rostanski whose crimes Defendants used
the newspaper to try to hide so that Plaintiff is unable to obtain justice (Exhibits C to Exhibit E page 4). 20) That Defendants' demand to
the honorable Court is essentially “Your Honor, can I please go to a court where it is easier for me to cheat?” 21) That Plaintiff asserts that
any request for additional time on behalf of Defendants' is precluded by the doctrine of “unclean hands: "those
seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands”; and that Defendants' hands are not
clean. POINT TWO DEFENDANTS'
LIBEL OF PLAINTIFF AS “ANTI-SEMITIC” CREATED AN ATMOSPHERE WHERE PLAINTIFF CANNOT GET JUSTICE 22) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants'
paper, the New York Daily News is widely read in all five boroughs including New York County. 23) Plaintiff asserts that the Supreme Courts in all
five boroughs, including New York County Supreme Court have justices who are Jewish.
24) That this honorable Court should see that based on Defendants' refusal to interpose an answer
and response to Plaintiff's Verified Complaint and Plaintiff's Notice to Admit, that the only reason for their request to
go to the New York County Supreme Court is because Defendants' attorney and an as yet unknown justice have fixed this case
to circumvent Plaintiff's right to due process by ensuring that the Defendants do not interpose an answer or response. 25) That for this court to accede
to Defendants' request would be an act of fraud upon the court, for which Plaintiff would quickly file a federal action in
the nature of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.
26) That Plaintiff recently filed such an action that includes Scott Shifrel as a defendant. 27) That Plaintiff asserts that
for the aforesaid reasons, Defendants' demand to be go to the New York Supreme Court should be rejected.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court reject Defendants' demand in its entirety and allows Plaintiff
to proceed in this honorable Court. 
Cheryl D. Uzamere
|
