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

Will Appellate Division Justices Judge
Abandoned Wife/Identity Fraud Victim's Case Fairly?
The world is now watching what justices will do
Senator Uzamere's identity proven...he has not interposed an answer


Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division: 2nd Judicial Department 
Cheryl D. Uzamere
                                                                                Docket No. 2009-01119
                                                                                Sup. Ct. Kings County
Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere                                  Index No. 26332-07
a.k.a. "Godwin Uzamere"

        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:


       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 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.


       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 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 for more information.

Exhibit A
Judge Sunshine's Decision and Order, Page 9


Exhibit B
Allen Kaye's statement that Ehigie Uzamere is "her husband"


Exhibit C
Two different files...two fathers names...
two different birthdays...but only one Uzamere


Exhibit D
Rachel McCarthy's letter regarding I-130 filed by attorney associated with Allen Kaye


Exhibit E
Marriage Affidavit in which Ehigie wrote the fake name on top...but signed his correct name on the bottom


Exhibit F
Without the U.S. Embassy's notary stamp, use of this foreign document in the U.S. is illegal


Exhibit F
Without the U.S. Embassy's notary stamp, use of this foreign document in the U.S. is illegal


E-mailed Response From The U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria
The only notary public in Nigeria recognized by the U.S. is the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria


My Years As A Paralegal Student At
New York City Technical College
Professor Mennella -- One of those "concerned" white professors who makes naive blacks
believe that the law is generally fair to schvartzes