Source: http://user1562095.sites.myregisteredsite.com/what_will_their_response_be.html
Timestamp: 2019-08-22 13:32:50
Document Index: 23189721

Matched Legal Cases: ['§92', '§92', '§3492', '§92', '§92', '§92', '§92']

What Will New York State's Commission On Judicial Conduct's Response Be?
1) Exhibit A, Judge Sunshine's Decision and Order, page 9, dated January 12, 2009 states: “the opposition submitted by the defendant raises a genuine issue as to whether or not plaintiff or defendant were married in the first instance” (emphasis added).
2) Exhibit B, the counter-affidavit of “Cousin Godwin Ehigie Uzamere” of Nigeria, an unnotarized foreign document purportedly submitted to defendant's attorney by an individual who is not a party to the act, and therefore a witness. This document that Judge Sunshine refers to as the “opposition submitted by the defendant” is also described in Exhibit A as “genuine.”
3) Exhibit C, 22 C.F.R. §92.65 says: “a diplomatic or consular officer may be commissioned by a United States court to take the testimony of a witness in a foreign country...for the purpose of determining the genuineness of any foreign document...”
4) Exhibit D, 22 C.F.R. §92.31 says: "A notarizing officer taking an acknowledgment should always require the personal appearance of the...person...signed the instrument to be acknowledged...failure to observe this requirement invalidates the notarial act and makes the officer liable to the charge of negligence and of having executed a false certificate...The notarizing officer must be certain of the identity of the parties making an acknowledgment...he should require...some evidence of identity, such as a passport, police identity card, or the like."
5) Exhibit E, Ballentine's Law Dictionary, Legal Assistant Edition, page 217: “genuine, real or original, as opposed to false, fictitious, or counterfeit."
6) Exhibit F, response from U.S. Embassy, Abuja, Nigeria: “Notarial services are executed by a Consular Office and may include documents to be signed before them, statements made under oath...true copies...affidavits...and acknowledgments...the only Notary Public that is recognized by the United States is a U.S. Consular Office at the Embassy.”
Based on the aforementioned federal laws that require the authentication of all foreign documents under penalty of punishment, how did Judge Sunshine conclude that this foreign document – having never been presented to the U.S. Embassy to determine it genuineness for authentication purposes – in violation of the aforementioned laws is, in fact, “genuine?” Is that genuineness based on the genuineness of the money he was paid to decide in the defendant's favor, or the genuineness of his “I-can-do-no-wrong” yiddishkeit?
Your Honor, I don't expect you to do anything to change this obviously illegal situation. Your Talmudic doctrine and the ensuing loyalty that it spawns in followers like you, Allen E. Kaye, Harvey Shapiro, Jack Gladstein, Bernard Rostansky has screwed you so forcefully that quite a few of you are now blinded by the religious/racist jism it has ejaculated in your fellating mouths. My only hope now is that my in forma pauperis request is accepted by a non-Jewish judge in federal court so that I can amend my lawsuit to add you and your law-breaking Jewish friend Judge Sunshine as defendants. I am sure the African Americans/Hamites/Cushites/Canaanites/schvartzes will get a big kick from this letter – and from your response to it.
Tell your Euro-Judaic friend Jeff that I uploaded a copy of this letter and all attachments to http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.com/what_will_their_response_be.html, and remind him that when he used the word “genuine” in reference to that unnotarized foreign counter-affidavit that was submitted by my husband's attorney in violation of federal law, he should have said “genuine piece of crap” instead.
In violation of federal laws 18 USC §3492, 22 C.F.R. §92.31 and 22 C.F.R. §92.65
22 C.F.R. §92.31
“a diplomatic or consular officer may be commissioned by a United States court to take the testimony of a witness in a foreign country...for the purpose of determining the genuineness of any foreign document...”
22 C.F.R. §92.65
“A notarizing officer taking an acknowledgment should always require the personal appearance of the...person...signed the instrument to be acknowledged...failure to observe this requirement invalidates the notarial act and makes the officer liable to the charge of negligence and of having executed a false certificate...The notarizing officer must be certain of the identity of the parties making an acknowledgment...he should require...some evidence of identity, such as a passport, police identity card, or the like."