|
Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: 2nd Judicial Department ________________________________________ Cheryl D. Uzamere
AFFIDAVIT
Plaintiff-Appellant
Docket No. 2009-01119 -against-
Sup. Ct. Kings County Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere
Index No. 26332-07 a.k.a.
"Godwin Uzamere" x Defendant-Respondent. ________________________________________ STATE
OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss:
I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, being duly sworn, depose and say: 1) That I am the Plaintiff in the above entitled action. 2) That I make this Affidavit based
on the following allegations: 3)
That as Plaintiff in the Kings County Supreme Court case Index No. 26332/07, I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances
of this matter, as I am the person who commenced the subject action.
4) That my marriage is part of a series of crimes that the Defendant committed to circumvent U.S. immigration
laws, to wit:
(a) United States Code Title 8: Aliens and Nationality – Misrepresentation and Concealment of facts:
Any alien who... (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation
or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18
or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title
18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) United States Code Title 8: Aliens and Nationality – Marriage fraud: Any individual who
knowingly enters into marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not
more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.
(c) New York State Penal Code §260.05 -- Non-support of a child in the second degree: A person
is guilty of non-support of a child when, being a parent, guardian or other person legally charged with the care or custody
of a child less than sixteen years old, he fails or refuses without lawful excuse to provide support for such child when he
is able to do so, or becomes unable to do so, when, though employable, he voluntarily terminates his employment, voluntarily
reduces his earning capacity or fails to diligently seek employment. Non-support of a child in the second degree is a Class
A misdemeanor.
(d) New York State Penal Code §255.15 – Bigamy: A person is guilty of bigamy when he contracts
or purports to contract a marriage with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living
spouse. Bigamy is a Class E felony.
(e) New York State Penal Code §175.35 -- Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree:
A person is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains
a false statement or false information, and with intent to defraud the state or any political subdivision, public authority
or public benefit corporation of the state, he offers or presents it to a public office, public servant, public authority
or public benefit corporation with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise
become a part of the records of such public office, public servant, public authority or public benefit corporation. Offering
a false instrument for filing in the first degree is a Class E felony.
(f) New York State Penal Code §210.10 Perjury in the second degree: A person is guilty of perjury
in the second degree when he swears falsely and when his false statement is (a) made in a subscribed written instrument for
which an oath is required by law, and (b) made with intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official
functions, and (c) material to the action, proceeding or matter involved. Perjury in the second degree is a class E felony. (g) New
York State Penal Code §210.15 Perjury in the first degree: A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree
when he swears falsely and when his false statement (a) consists of testimony, and (b) is material to the action, proceeding
or matter in which it is made. Perjury in the first degree is a class D felony.
5) That according to Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, (802-660-5043, job,
802-660-5067, fax), Defendant's IR2 residence based on his status as “Ehigie Edobor Uzamere”, date of birth
December 31, 1960, unmarried and under 21 years of age was revoked because he was married to me as “Godwin Ehigie Uzamere”,
date of birth June 1, 1955. 6)
That Defendant's attorney, Eugene O. Uzamere, has suborned Defendant's perjury and has himself committed perjury as
it relates to the Defendant's identity; that the Defendant has never appeared in court; that both Defendant and his attorney
have consistently refused to submit Defendant's immigration records; and that it appears that the ultimate goal of Defendant
and the lower court is to deprive me of my Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process as they pertain to discovery
of Defendant's identity and discovery of Defendant's immigration records.
7) That 18 USC §4 says “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable
by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person
in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three
years, or both”; and that every appellate judge who reviews this Affidavit is required by federal law to obey it. 8) That I have a pending federal lawsuit with
regard to Defendant's commission of the aforementioned crimes; and that further to this, I have submitted irrefutable
proof of same in this Affidavit. 9)
That I will exercise my First Amendment right to seek legal redress of my grievances with regard to the handling of this instant
action by amending my federal lawsuit and naming as defendants any appellate judge and responding attorney of the New York
State Attorney General's Office if there are any delays in the adjudication of this instant action, or if its adjudication
is indicative of bias, bribery or any other form of illegal influence. 10)
That it would be unjust and illegal for this Court to view my attempts to defend myself as anything other than legal, just
and within the scope of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. 11) That as the Petitioner of this instant action and the Plaintiff of the divorce
action that precipitated its filing, I hereby state that the following is true and correct: BACKGROUND FACTS 12)
That Petitioner submitted a Verified Petition and Reply to Respondent with regard to her Appellate Division, 2nd Judicial
Department motion, Docket No. 2008-9190.
13) That at the time of Petitioner's filing of the instant action, the Honorable Jeffrey S. Sunshine had not rendered
a decision to Petitioner's motions for retroactive child support and spousal support, default judgment and money judgment. 14) That on January 12, 2008, the lower court rendered
its decision, that inter alia, incorrectly denied Petitioner's request for default judgment; 2) incorrectly denied
the Plaintiff's request for retroactive child support and 3) placed an abeyance of retroactive spousal support pending
identification of the Defendant (see Exhibit A). If
Court Favors Disposition on The Merits, Court Must Render Default
A) Plaintiff Has Sufficiently Established Defendant's Identity 15) That the lower court's decision and order in which it states that
“the opposition submitted by defendant raises a genuine issue as to whether or not plaintiff and defendant were married
in the first instance” is incorrect.
16) That based on correspondence I received from the New York State Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, 1st Department, the Defendant's immigration attorney Allen E. Kaye stated: “I recently talked to John
Uzamere (718-345-1931), who informed me that as a U.S. citizen he sponsored Ehigie E. Uzamere for an immigrant visa and that
was how Ehigie became a permanent resident...Somehow, I am being drawn into a divorce action that Ms. Uzamere would like to
file against her husband” (see Exhibit B).
17) That Allen Kaye's letter bears the stamp of the New York State Departmental Disciplinary, Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, 1st Department. 18) That the aforesaid
agency is administered by the Supreme Court, Appellate Division; and that Allen Kaye's statements “Ehigie E. Uzamere”
and “her husband” are statements that Mr. Kaye made under oath to employees of a New York State judiciary body. 19) That Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel of the U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Service provided documentation regarding the Defendant's identity (see Exhibits C and D). 20) That the Defendant inadvertently identified himself
when he signed the marriage affidavit with the name “Ehigie Uzamere”; and that based on the above, I have sufficiently
established the Defendant's identity and proven that Defendant is my husband (see Exhibit E). B) Defendant Never Interposed an Answer and Has
Therefore Defaulted 21) That
the lower court's decision's statement that “...defendant has failed to interpose an answer” is correct;
that the summons states that “within thirty (30) days after the service is completed...and in case of your failure to
appear, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the notice set forth below (see Exhibit
F). 22) That although Defendant's
place of employment is in close proximity of the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, he has never notarized even one affidavit
for my divorce action. 23) That although
Defendant's attorney claims that my imaginary husband “Cousin Godwin E. Uzamere” lives in Nigeria, like my
real husband, the Defendant, he has made no attempt to notarize his counter-affidavit at the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, where
his identity and signature can be scrutinized and verified by the U.S. Department of State;1
that Defendant's attorney used the aforesaid fraudulent document in open court although the document was not notarized
by the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria for use in the United States (see Exhibit G). 24) That Defendant was served with a copy of the Preliminary Conference order
on November 17, 2007 (see Exhibit H).
25) That the lower court's statement with regard to the Defendant that “he has submitted opposition to Plaintiff's
motion for spousal and and child support, has filed his own motion to dismiss, and has participated (through his attorney)
in a preliminary conference” is incorrect.
26) That is it well settled in Domestic Relations Law that, with reference to stipulations and agreements “Any stipulation
or agreement between the parties which deals with equitable distribution, spousal support, child support, visitation, titles
to real property...must be signed by the parties themselves (not their attorneys) before a Notary Public as an 'acknowledgment.'" 27) That the preliminary conference stipulation to which
the lower court's decision refers is signed by Defendant's attorney, not the Defendant (see Exhibit J). 28) That Dom. Rel. §236 says that “provision
for the amount and duration of maintenance or other terms and conditions of the marriage relationship...provided that such
terms...are not unconscionable at the time of entry of final judgment.”
29) That even if the lower court was able to accept the Defendant's attorney's signature in place of the Defendant's
signature, the unconscionable nature of the preliminary conference stipulation would preclude the lower court from enforcing
it as it denies me the retroactive child support for which I applied in 1980 and 1985; and it would violate my Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights to due process regarding the preliminary conference request that was served on Defendant on November 17,
2007. 30) That Dom. Rel. §236(4) states
that with regard to compulsory financial disclosure: “In all matrimonial actions and proceedings in which alimony, maintenance
or support is in issue, there shall be compulsory disclosure by both parties of their respective financial states. No showing
of special circumstances shall be required before such disclosure is ordered.”
31) That in paragraphs 2-9 of my preliminary conference request, I demanded that the Defendant produce his financial records
(see Exhibit I, page 1 and 2). 32) That in paragraphs 20 and 27 of my preliminary conference request, I demanded
that the Defendant produce all immigration revocations and signed FOIA/FOIL disclosure forms, inter alia, immigration
records to ascertain his identity (see Exhibit I, page 3).
33) That even if this Court believes that the Defendant “has participated...in a preliminary conference”, the
form was not signed in front of a notary; and that the Defendant did not provide the most important element of my preliminary
conference request – Defendant's immigration records for proof of identity. Retroactive Support Due to Plaintiff Based on Discovery of Evidence of Defendant's Act of Fraud 34) That on page 10 of the lower court's decision
and order, in which it states that “plaintiff is not entitled to...retroactive child support in this action inasmuch
as his alleged child was 28 years old when plaintiff first sought this relief...” is incorrect. 35) That I attempted to obtain child support from the Defendant in April 1980
and in July 1985; that New York City's Child Support Enforcement Bureau conducted a search of the Defendant until the
child of the marriage turned 21 years old; and that in an attempt to circumvent what I believed to be the lower court's
bias in favor of the Defendant, I applied for child support around May 2008 with the Kings County Family Court (see Exhibit
K). 36) That the lower court's
scheduled “evidentiary hearing” would be biased and farcically named as such if it is conducted without evidence;
that is, the evidence that exists in the Defendant's immigration records to establish that the Defendant is my husband. 37) Given that Allen E. Kaye, the Defendant's immigration
attorney (212-964-5858 [job]; 212-608-3734 [fax]) and Rachel McCarthy, Bar Counsel for USCIS (802-660-5043 [job]; 802-660-5067
[fax]) have provided documentation that the Defendant is my husband, given that I have provided this Court with telephone
numbers that a judge or any law enforcement can verify; and given that 18 U.S.C. §4 requires the lower court to
conduct, or to have commenced a criminal investigation based on the above, it should be obvious to this Court that the Defendant
and his attorney have perjured themselves and have used whatever means is at their disposal to try to illegally influence
the lower court. Conclusion 38) The entire premise of my divorce action hinges on whether or not this Court
will require the lower court to accept the irrefutable evidence that I have already presented regarding the identity of the
Defendant; or whether this Court will require the lower court to enforce my constitutional right to due process as it pertains
to discovery of the Defendant's identity – which, if this Court grants my request, will result in the lower court's
obeying the words of the summons and declaring that the Defendant has defaulted.
39) That in the spirit of my Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process via discovery, I have attached Exhibit
L, a letter I faxed to Benton J. Campbell, U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of New York; and that said correspondence
was also faxed to Lev Dassin, U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York, Robert Morgenthau, New York County District Attorney,
Charles Hynes, Kings County District Attorney, Eugenia Cowles, Assistant U.S. Attorney for Vermont and Rachel McCarthy, Bar
Counsel for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service in Vermont.
40) That in the spirit of 18 U.S.C. §4, I sent an e-mail to the Honorable Robin Renee Sanders, U.S. Ambassador
to Nigeria regarding the Defendant's act of identity fraud; that said e-mail was sent to various individuals; and that
thus far, the following individuals have actually read the e-mail: The Honorable Robin Renee Sanders; Eugenia Cowles, AUSA,
Vermont; Lynden D. Melmed, USCIS and the Defendant's immigration attorney Allen E. Kaye (see Exhibit M). 41) That in the spirit of my Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth
Amendment rights to due process with respect to discovery, I prepared an affidavit for the Defendant, hereby attached as Exhibit
N, based on the affirmation and unnotarized counter-affidavit that Defendant's attorney fraudulently claims
to be from “Cousin Godwin Ehigie Uzamere; that said affidavit and counter-affidavit must be signed by the Defendant
and the imaginary “Cousin Godwin” in the presence of a consular agent of the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria and
notarized by same; and that I am positive that, based on the irrefutable evidence I have already submitted, the Defendant
will not sign it, nor will he appear in court on March 30, 2009 for any "evidentiary hearing.” 42) That attached as Exhibit O is my good faith attempt
to ensure the veracity of my allegations regarding the Defendant's identity by faxing a memorandum to the Honorable Janet
Napolitano, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and also to, among 18 other individuals, Rachel McCarthy,
Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Robert E. Juceam and Eugene O. Uzamere, Esq.; from whom I alleged the attached documents emanated. 43) That although Rachel McCarthy was quick to file federal
assault charges against me as shown in Exhibit O, she has yet to file even one charge against me claiming
that I fraudulently alleged that she stated that the Defendant is my husband; and that the federal documents
I alleged emanated from her are fraudulent.
44) That although Allen E. Kaye, one of the immigration attorneys whose name is on the I-130 relative sponsorship form that
I was tricked into signing to sponsor the Defendant for permanent residence, was quick to accuse me of being an anti-Semite
as shown in Exhibit O, he has yet to file even one charge against me claiming that I fraudulently
alleged that he stated that the Defendant is my husband; and that the document I alleged he sent to Mr. Cahill of the
New York State Department Disciplinary Committee 1st Judicial Department is fraudulent and the signature on it is a forgery. 45) That although I uploaded the I-130 relative sponsorship
form that I was tricked into signing onto my website, Harvey Shapiro, the Defendant's other immigration attorney, has
made no attempt to have me arrested for forging a federal document with his signature; nor has he made any attempt to sue
me for defamation of character. 46) That
although Defendant's attorney Eugene O. Uzamere openly and notoriously swore in his affirmation that “the facts...as
presented by the plaintiff are...fraudulent” and that with respect to the aforesaid fraud, “the plaintiff appears
to be motivated by her desire to get money from Senator Uzamere”, he has made absolutely no attempt to have me arrested
for the aforesaid “fraudulent” attempt “to get money from Senator Uzamere” by impersonating his wife. 47) That although the aforesaid individuals
received the documents recently, I can guarantee this Court that none of the individuals named in the fax will file charges
of fraud or defamation of character against me, nor will the lower court willingly require the Defendant to submit himself
for DNA testing to confirm paternity of the child of the marriage because the documents are authentic, and because the aforesaid
individuals openly and notoriously admitted in the attached documents that the Defendant is my husband. WHEREFORE, I pray that this Court grants me permission
to proceed as a poor person; grants me permission to perfect on the original papers; orders the lower court to declare that
the Defendant has defaulted or, if default is not immediately declared, to enjoin the lower court from granting its scheduled
evidentiary hearing or any other adjournments or continuances unless Defendant produces a signed, original Affidavit with
U.S.-government-issued attachments confirming his identity and the identity of “Cousin Godwin Ehigie Uzamere”
that are notarized by a consular officer of the U.S. Embassy by March 7, 2009; and finally, for retroactive, present and future
child and spousal support as specified in the summons and complaint and for such other and further relief as this court deems
just and proper. 
Cheryl D. Uzamere __________________________________________________________ 1According to the U.S. Department of State's Bureau
of Consular Affairs, “the consular official must require the personal appearance of the person requesting the notarial
service; establish the identity of the person requesting the service; establish that the person understands the nature, language
and consequences of the document to be notarized; and establish that the person is not acting under duress.” (22 C.F.R.
92.31). Please refer to http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_2086.html for more information.
|
