1.) The Civil Rights Violations that has taken place in the Trayvon matter correlates similarly to the same issues in this matter which has become a norm in the City of Chicago, their is no media exposing the Racial atrocities on people of color the same way it was presented in Germany, Bosnia, Russia and Syria in those countries it was called ethnic cleansing, here in America Ethnic Cleansing is done differently Corrupt white men behind the laws WEARING ROBES, BADGES, SUITS are using the court system to justify cleansing their states and cities of people of color BY INCARCERATING THEM UNLAWFULLY and in extreme cases as demonstrated in the Trayvon matter young men are killed, if caught they just claim self defense, claim they were standing their ground.
The above relates to the Civil Rights Complaint (07 C 1191) filed before Mathew Kennely who Dismissed the case unlawfully cited the wrong citation in the law, and that the case was difficult for him to understand.
2.) Appellant sought appointment of counsel et al., Judge Easterbrook Denied that motion and every motion presented before the courts. from the affidavit, That Judge Easterbrook is aware of the “Systemic” Racial application of Unjust Laws Dispensated against Appellant, where affidavits had been unchallenged and filed before the courts demonstrating he was up against the Ku Klux Klan, attorneys and Judges with racial affiliations, Political Machine operatives with Racial Affiliations with the City etc,. said Judge ignored every unlawful criminal act;
3.) MOTION TO DISQUALIFY FRANK H. EASTERBROOK it was this particular document the Federal Government took heed to the plaintiff directed him to return back to the state courts for the necessary corroboration demonstrating the legal system was under siege by the Ku Klux Klan and other related terrorists in the County and State Courts.
In the next POST Appellant will demonstrate how judges used their robes to commit all sorts of criminal Civil Rights Violations how they used his wife as they falsified court orders manufactured child-support allegations against him and had an attorney to impersonate the position of a Chief Administrative law judge to sign off on subpoenas obtaining medical information on wife and daughter, paid his wife off by giving her WELFARE and a job at Veterans Administration hospital, that POST maybe titled how THE WHITE MAN PIMP THE BLACK WOMAN AGAINST THE BLACK MAN WITH WELFARE!
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Joe Louis
Lawrence
Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION NO________
Honorable
V
IBC/Wonder
bread
Chicago Transit Authority
Chicago Police
Defendant
Judge Presiding
DEMAND: $350 MILLION DOLLARS
Complaint of Civil Rights Violations
Equal Protection of the Laws
Violations
Employment Discrimination/Retaliatory
Harassment
Disparate Treatment
COUNT 1
Now comes
plaintiff, Attorney Pro Se your complainant, a United States citizen states the following.
1. This
is a Complaint for Employment Discrimination/Civil Rights Violations/Retaliatory
Racial Harassment/Disparate Treatment/UnEqual Protection of the Laws
Violations;
2.
That
said plaintiff was the lead plaintiff in a Class Action matter before this
court, it was Dismissed for want of Prosecution in the Court of Appeals;
3.
Plaintiff
is Joe Louis Lawrence of P. O. Box
490075 Chicago, Illinois
60649-0075;
4.
That
defendant (s) is Interstate Brands Corporation Wonder Bread, who resides at 12 East Armour Blvd.,
Kansas City, MO
6411; Chicago Transit Authority, 567
West Lake Street, Chicago, Ill. 60661-1498;
Wiedner & McAuliffe, Ltd, One North Franklin #1900, Chicago, Ill 60606; Cook County States Attorney, 28 North Clark Street,
Suite 300, Chicago, Ill. 60602.
5.
In
that, defendants has discriminated and has retaliated against plaintiff by
incorporating and recruiting the necessary attorneys and judges to inflict and
invoke Racial Disparate Unequal Protection of the laws, Civil Rights
Violations, Racial Harassment, Racial Hatred “Fraud” Conspiracy in the courts
and at work place up until present.
6.
Plaintiff
has informed the Court of Appeals, District Courts and the FBI he was up
against the Racial Terrorist Group Ku Klux Klan and the Illinois Supreme Court with an Affidavit.
7.
It
is the duty of the Illinois Supreme Court to uphold the laws of the State for
all citizens that reside within equally in accordance to the United States
Constitution and all State Laws;
A-
Plaintiff
filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus for Mandatory Injunction/Issuance of a
Supervisory Order Vacating Order and For Rule to Show Cause for “Fraud” and to
Impose Sanctions due to Criminal Corroboration Civil Rights Violations, Case# 102650,
May 2006, the Supreme Court DENIED the unchallenged petition with Affidavit;
B-
Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Reconsideration to Resubmit Petition for Writ of Mandamus et
al , this time the clerk stated, the judges requested said original be
notarized, Affidavit was notarized, no one challenged said petition due to its
veracity, the Supreme Court DENIED the unchallenged petition with notarized
Affidavit;
C-
#6B
of the June 28, 2006 Affidavit before the Illinois Supreme Court, “they have
admitted African American Judges elected or otherwise are without any judicial
authority in this State, they are merely figure heads to satisfy quotas”
8.
The
defendants discriminated against the plaintiff because of the plaintiffs
(A) Color (Title V11 of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981)
(B) Race (Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981)
9.
The Plaintiff is suing the defendants a corporation, City agencies for Racial Discrimination, Racial Retaliation,
Racial Hatred, Racial Oppression, Civil Rights Violations, Unequal Applications
of the Laws, and Disparate Treatment on the basis of race, color or national
origin (42 U.S.C. 1981).
10. Jurisdiction over the statutory violation
alleged is conferred as follows: over Title
V11 claims by U.S.C. {1331, 28 U.S.C. {1343 (a) (3), and 42 U.S.C. {2000e-5 (F)
(3); over 42 U.S.C. {1981 and {1983 by 42 U.S.C. {1988; over the A.D.E.A. by 42
U.S.C. {12117.
COUNT 11
1.
That the Illinois
Supreme Court has admitted enforcing laws outside the United States
Constitution and corroborated every assertion with total veracity of said
affidavits plaintiff has put before the courts;
2.
By
and through the above admissions, the Chicago Transit Authority through Ken S.
Ray has openly admitted having judicial influence and has falsified every
document necessary to cover up a racial conspiracy in how monies were embezzled
against employees like the plaintiff;
3.
Hereto attached, Notice of Formal
Communication that demonstrates “Fraud” Conspiracy surpassing human imagination, where Carole
L. Brown is merely a figure head a voiceless individual, she never responded to
the affidavit;
State Law says: Properly alleged facts within an
affidavit that are not contradicted by counter affidavit by counter-affidavit
are taken as true, despite the existence of contrary averments in the adverse
parties pleadings. Professional Group Travel, Ltd. V. Professional
Seminar Consultants INC., 136 Ill App
3d 1084 et al.
4.
Following
the above Notice of Formal Communication, is the Motion to Disqualify Judge Murphy et al with affidavit,
no one challenged said affidavit to protect the Judge as he was protecting IBC
attorneys in said conspiracies;
In
the case St. Mary’s Honor Center, et al., Petitioners V. Melvin Hicks 1 Civil
Rights 383 under McDonnell Douglas scheme applicable to Title V11
Discriminatory treatment cases Plaintiff must first establish by preponderance
of evidence a “Prima Facie” case of racial discrimination, thus creating
presumption that employer unlawfully discriminated against employee Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 703 (a) (1), 42 I.S.C.A. 2000e -2 (a)
(1).
5.
IBC
attorneys and the Assistant States Attorneys and the Chicago Transit Authority
Attorneys conspired with a Chicago Police Officer Francoise Louise Barbera
Hightower- Belmer who was impregnated by her natural biological father when he
was a police officer;
6.
She
masterminded this scheme to protect her father because he impregnated Danielle
her sister as a minor, was arrested from police force later reinstated, if this
child was found not to be the plaintiff’s, her father was going to Penitentiary
7.
She
falsified child support papers for the attorneys so as to give the attorneys
some type of leverage because despite plaintiff being outnumbered none of the
attorneys were able to outsmart him litigiously in any of the courts;
Conspirators
to be guilty of offense need not have entered into conspiracy at same time or
have taken part in all of its actions. People V. Harmison, 1985
9111 Dec 162, 108.
8.
That
court records reflect plaintiff was never served child support matter was filed
against him and that there was never any paternity tests to establish he was
the father because he was not the father;
Requisite
mens rea elements of conspiracy are satisfied upon showing of agreement to
commit offense with intent that offense be committed; actus reas element is
satisfied of act in furtherance of agreement. People V. Mordick, 1981,
so 111, Dec. 63, 94.
COUNT 111
1.
Brian
Volkman Assistant States Attorney by and through the assistance of IBC
attorneys engineered and orchestrated the falsification of all child support
papers filed in court while a Public Aid recipient;
2.
Hereto
attached, Oct. 13, 2004, a Confidential Memo sent to States Attorney Dick
Devine signed for; detailing Brian Volkman’s part in said conspiracy;
3.
Hereto
attached, Jan 3, 2007, Assistant
States Attorney Amy Bernard part and participation in said conspiracy
w/affidavit; (Chronology of Unlawful Contempt’s)
4.
Hereto
attached, Certified Mail sent to
Carolyn Kennedy Assistant States Attorney demonstrating her part in said
conspiracy;
Official
misconduct is a criminal offense; and a public officer or employee commits
misconduct, punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both, when in his official
capacity, he intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as
required by law; or knowingly performs an act which he knows he is forbidden by
law to perform; or with intent to obtain a personal advantage for himself or
another, he performs an act in excess of his lawful authority…….S. H. A. Ch 38 33-3.
In a suit under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, the plaintiff need not prove that the
defendant acted willfully or with specific intent to deprive the plaintiff of a
Federal Right Monroe V. Pape, 365 US 167, 5L Ed, 2d 492, 81 S Ct 473. Good
Faith is no Defense to a violation of the status, United States ex. Rel Jones V.
Rundle (DCPA) 358F Supp 939. Instead, the ordinary rules applies that makes a
man responsible for the natural consequences of his actions Whirl V. Kern (CA5
Tex) 407 F 2d 781, Cert den 396 US 901, 90 S Ct 210.
COUNT IV
1.
That
said Illinois Supreme Court has
acknowledged in the first May 2006 Petition for Writ of Mandamus et
al., #12 of the Petition “That there is a dual government within the
Democratic Legal System as demonstrated in said matter, the other government
oppresses the weak and indigent and upholds “fraudulent” criminal behavior by
the attorneys, incite disparate dispensation of the laws and undermines anyone
that attempts to uphold the tenements of the U.S. Constitution, as demonstrated
against the appellant; They are not using Ropes, Water hoses or
Concentration Camps”.
2.
Hereto
attached, said Affidavit from the above #’s 2-16 clearly establishes the
veracity of the above, no one challenges these conspirators, or suffer as
plaintiff, they control the Legal System, they control all State Agencies,
Attorney Registration & Disciplinarian Commission etc.;
3.
Jodi
N. Goode Attorney investigating attorneys for the A.R.D.C. ignored all
“Fraudulent” acts recorded by plaintiff in all complaints;
Said actions are illegal
and unlawful, Byrd V. Roadway Express, 687 F. 2d 85, 87 n. 3, 29 FEP 1588 (5th
Cir 1982) (the purpose of the Prima Facie showing is to identify actions taken
by the employer from which discrimination can be inferred);
Halsell V.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 683 F 2d 285, 289, 29, FEP 1185 (8th Cir.
1982) (to establish a Prima Facie case, the plaintiff must produce evidence
supporting an inference of discrimination).
Some courts hold that
negligent conduct, inappropriate circumstances, will support an action under 42
USCS 1983 Puckett V. Cox
(CA
6 Tenn.) 456
F 2d 233.
An action order under 42
USCS 1983 maybe based on negligence when it leads to a deprivation of Rights.
McCray V. Maryland (CA 4
Md.) 456 F 2d
1.
COUNT
V
1.
Defendants
on all accounts have surpassed any and all expectations satisfied the
Preponderant of evidence requirement that Disparate Treatment, Racial Hatred
Retaliation Harassment, Unequal Protection of the Laws, Racial Oppression, and
Mephisto Phelian unlawful discrimination is active on the entire State Courts
and State Agencies, IBC/ wonder bread companies, Chicago Police Department,
Chicago Transit Authority et al.
Section 1983 of USCS
contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the Unconstitutional Application
of a law by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell V. Saunders (CA 5 F 1A) 372 F 2d 573,
especially if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect, where can action
is for a conspiracy to interfere with Civil Rights under 42 USCS 1985 (3), or
for the deprivation of such rights under 42 USCS 1983, if the conspiracy was
actually carried into effect and plaintiff was thereby deprived of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the United States Constitution and Laws,
the gist of the action maybe treated as one for the deprivation of rights under
42 USCS 1983 Lewis V. Brautigam (CA 5 F1A) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505.
2.
Defendants
intimidated and harassed the Teamsters and Amalgamated Transit Union officials
from reinstating plaintiff or taking part in his behalf so as to prevent the
identities of those involved in said conspiracies;
3. That is why plaintiff is on Public
Aid, and not working, they tried the Draconian incarceration approach.
Said Law enforcement
officials stated, stick to what you do best keep writing, with the death of my
grand mother and family related depressive disorders in the families, these
cases has become quite stressful;
John W. Strong,
McCormick on evidence? 185, at 777-78 (4th ed. 1992) defining
“direct” and “circumstantial” evidence).
If the plaintiff Prima
Facie case is supported by a preponderance of the evidence—it must find the
existence of the presumed fact of unlawful discrimination and must; therefore,
render a verdict for the plaintiff. See Texas
Dept. of Community Affairs V. Burdine, 450 U.S.
248, 254, and n. 7, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 1094, and
n. 7, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981); F. James & d, Civil Procedure {7.9, p. 327
(3d ed. 1985); 1D. Louisell & C. Mueller, Federal Evidence {70, pp.
568-569.
Wherefore plaintiff
respectfully demands that this case be tried by a JURY:
A- Order an Appointment of Counsel to
address the irregularities;
B- Order a Rule to Show Cause against the
officials involved and has demonstrated their role in this cause;
C- Wherefore, the plaintiff requests that
this court grant the following relief to the plaintiff;
D- That sanctions against the defendant(s)
and related parties shall issue;
E- Invoke any and all remedies afforded
by the United States Constitution not mentioned this court deems just and
create any Precedent in the law where applicable to prevent any other citizen
Born and Raised a FREE MAN from experiencing a repeat episode of the
aforementioned.
AS CHESS IS TO A GAME CHECKMATE IS THE END OF
THIS GAME
Under penalties as provided by law
pursuant to 735 1265 5/1-109, the undersigned certifies that the statements set
forth in this instrument are true and current, except to matters there in
stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters, the undersigned
certifies as afore said that he verily believe the same thing to be true
Notary
Respectfully Submitted,
Joe Louis Lawrence
I hereby attest that the above
signature is my true and correct signature
Attorney Pro Se
P.O.
Box 490075
Chicago, Illinois
60649
Attorney # 99500
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Joe Louis
Lawrence
Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION NO____________
Honorable
V
IBC/Wonderbread
Chicago Transit Authority
Chicago Police
Defendant
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION REQUESTS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL/THE ALTERNATIVE PETITION FOR RULE TO
SHOW CAUSE FOR “FRAUD”/CONSPIRACY & IRREGULARITIES HAD ON THE COURTS
w/AFFIDAVIT
To: Cook County States Attorney Wiedner & McAuliffe, LTD.
Dick Devine
Thomas W. Weber
28 North Clark Street, Suite 300 One North Franklin,
#1900
Chicago, Ill. 60602 Chicago, Ill. 60606
Chicago
Transit Authority Legal Dept. Chicago
Police Department
Kent S. Ray Phil Cline
567 West Lake Street Chicago,
IL. 60603 3510 South Michigan
Chicago, Ill. 60661-1498 Chicago, Ill. 60616
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on March
1, 2007, A motion has been filed along with a Civil Rights Complaint.
Respectfully Submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
P. O. Box 490075
Chicago, Illinois
60649-0075
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Joe Louis
Lawrence
Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION NO________
Honorable
V
IBC/Wonderbread
Chicago Transit Authority
Chicago Police
Defendant
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REQUESTS FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL/ THE ALTERNATIVE PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR “FRAUD”/
CONSPIRACY & OTHER IRREGULARITIES HAD ON THE COURTS w/AFFIDAVIT
IN ACCORDANCE TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE:
Now comes respondent, Joe Louis Lawrence,
Attorney Pro Se in this cause respectfully represents to this court the reasons
for Appointment of an Attorney
The alternative
Petition for Rule to Show Cause for “Fraud”/ Conspiracy & other
Irregularities on the Courts.
The State Court having already appointed
Gerald P. Nordgren and Discharged him after State dropped the Charges due to
plaintiffs indigent welfare status: HERETO attached, his verified petition.
AFFIDAVIT
I Joe Louis
Lawrence promise and swear the following aforementioned statements establishes
veracity beyond human imagination, said veracity is so upright, IBC/wonder
bread Chicago Transit Authority has retained in excess of 20 reputable
attorneys and Assistant States Attorneys, prominent Law firms Winston &
Strawn, Querry & Harrow, recruited a Law firm from St Louis Missouri Bioff,
Finucane Holland & Hosler, and a host of law professors, City Attorneys and
some Judges to aid and assist each other in the aforementioned cover-up heinous conspiracies to handle an indigent respondent litigiously!;
A- Judge Murphy has stated, in open court to
the Assistant States Attorneys “Respondent’s testimony and statements to the
court are credible, no where has he ever misled the court” and would remind
them, “He sent me courtesy copies of everything filed”.
Feb. 27, 2007, Judge Mosche Jacobius clerk (Nila) reassigned plaintiff’s
motion to Judge Murphy, Judge Murphy stated, he had no jurisdiction to address
the “Fraudulent “ Irregularities stated in plaintiff’s motion, hereto attached,
Court Order from Judge Murphy.
1) Plaintiff
sustained an unchallenged work-related injury where surgery was required,
petitioner engaged in numerous retaliatory acts and intimidation forcing him on
Welfare for now 5 years.
Hereto attached, Exhibit “A1”
$350 Million Class Action Complaint against IBC/Wonder bread where they later
filed Bankruptcy, to prevent paying the class action plaintiffs, prior they
lost a record settlement in San Francisco, the Illinois Class Action was worst!
A- IBC worked strategically with the CTA
attorneys and employees and a number of assistant states attorneys and judges
making sure racial economic oppression was placed on him and his
family.
B- Plaintiff was unaware that his
attorney David Martay had the arbitrator to sign off on an order that
reflected, he had no children, “dependents under age 18, 0” “ did the employee return to his or her
regular job? Yes x” (He did not return
to work) plaintiff was in total arrears said credit report would reflect
that, his lights were turned off; auto was in arrears and repossessed, mother
in debt trying to help, grandmother died trying to help plaintiff financially!
2)
That said Notice of Formal Communication with
all attachments, hereto attached, clearly capsulizes, the motives and opportunity
and communication where respondent was seeking help, O Lord My God was There
any Help for …..,. son, Plaintiff has been many times Denied, never tried on
the issues that was legally sufficient and presented at law.
Fraud admissibility great latitude is permitted in
proving fraud C.J.S. Fraud 104 ET Seg. Fraud 51-57. where a question of fraud
and deceit is the issue involved in a case, great latitude is ordinarily
permitted in the introduction of evidence, and courts allow the greatest
liberality in the method of examination and in the scope of inquiry Vigus
V. O’Bannon, 1886 8 N.E 788, 118 ILL 334. Hazelton V. Carolus, 1907 132 ILL.
App. 512.
- Ken S. Ray Attorney for the Chicago Transit Authority stood before Patrick McGann told the Judge “respondent he has no proof he was Discharged (93L10772) besides this is a workman’s compensation matter, he told the judge I should not be in this court, (Ken demonstrated a flamboyant feminine flair bucking his eyes at the Judge, Judge Mcgann Snapped on me and started hollering at me with rage because Ken was unable to explain, why I was not receiving workman’s compensation, the judge referred to my legal writings as garbage, Ken instigated, telling the Judge, plaintiff was being delusional and thinks that there is some type of great conspiracy against him, Judge Mcgann was later reassigned to traffic court.
- Brain Volkman Hereto attached, Exhibit “7” Official Complaint endorsed against him, Oct. 13, 2004 Hereto attached, Exhibit “B2 “ May 17, 1990 & Exhibit “B3” May 30, 1990 letters demonstrating respondent was removed from the position as bus operator and placed in Area 605.
- Ken S. Ray, Cheryl Cook destroyed some files, Exhibit “B4” September 15, 1992, Exhibit “B5” March 31, 1993 letter, Exhibit “B6” March 21, 1994, Letter endorsed by Thomas W. Czech, stating respondent entered the sick book April 10, 1994, Exhibit “B7” November 23, 1994, letter from the CTA Michael Cook Manager of Personnel stating respondent was never discharged with a (Exhibit “B8”) October 20, 1994 Computer printout that reads Date in job 05-17-90, Last day worked 03-08-90 acknowledging he was a CTA employee.
- Joseph V. Roddy submitted Exhibit “B9” a subpoena to respondent’s grandmother’s bank; Rudy Allen titled “In Re The Marriage of Francoise Hightower V. Joseph Lawrence, jr. ”Respondent and petitioner were never married. Did not bear the clerks seal/did not comply with any rules of law.
3) That because of the infinite
fraudulent irregularities, IBC/Wonder Bread employees has engaged in having the
State of Illinois to absorb
his work-related injury medical expenses and instead of paying workman’s
compensation forced him on Welfare, no Caucasian has ever been subjected to
this dehumanizing treatment;
A- defendants actions in this cause
further amplifies the level of degrading undermining tactics they are willing
to exhaust to demonstrate their above the law Supremacy to any Laws in
accordance to the United States Constitution or any rules in accordance to
Illinois Civil Procedure.
U. S Sup Court Digest 24(1) General
Conspiracy
U.S.
2003. Essence of a
conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act.—U.S. v. Jimenez Recio,; 123 SCt.
819, 537 U.S. 270, 154 L.Ed.2d 744, on remand 371F.3d 1093
Agreement to commit an unlawful act,
which constitutes the essence of a conspiracy, is a distinct evil that exist
and be punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues.-Id.
Conspiracy poses a threat to the public
over and above the threat of the commission of the relevant substantive crime,
both because the combination in crime makes more likely the commission of other
crimes and because it decreases the part from their path of criminality.-Id.
CONSPIRACY
Fraud maybe inferred from nature of acts
complained of, individual and collective interest of alleged conspirators,
situation, intimacy, and relation of parties at time of commission of acts, and
generally all circumstances preceding and attending culmination of claimed
conspiracy Illinois Rockford Corp. V. Kulp, 1968, 242 N.E. 2d 228, 41 ILL. 2d 215.
Conspirators
to be guilty of offense need not have entered into conspiracy at same time or
have taken part in all its actions. People V. Hardison, 1985, 911 Dec. 162, 108.
Requisite mens rea elements of conspiracy are satisfied upon showings
of agreement of offense with intent that offense be committed; Actus reas
element is satisfied of act in furtherance of agreement People V. Mordick, 1981, 50 ILL, Dec. 63
4) That because of the numerous
fraudulent representations made to the courts by Illinois licensed attorneys with unprecedented
corrupt political influence is why these cases are where they are;
5) Joseph V. Roddy, Ken S. Ray had a “Bogus Warrant” hereto attached, Exhibit “B11“ for an order of protection, Hereto attached, Exhibit “B12 “ September 16,
2002, letter to Judge Delgado who criticized the warrant and paternity case,
Hereto attached, Exhibit “B13”
Sheriff Memorandum detailing items removed from respondent while handcuffed!
A-
Respondent
was informed by legal aid attorneys, Bob O’Connor, Jan 22, 2004 (called CARPLS)
said case was assigned a number 14278, they refused to assist the respondent,
told him he stood a better chance representing himself, Hereto attached, Exhibit “B14“
INDUCING RELIANCE
To
prevail in a cause of action for fraud, plaintiff must prove that defendant
made statement of material nature which was relied on by victim and was made
for purposes of inducing reliance, and that victim’s reliance led to his
injury. Parsons V. Winter, 1986, 1 Dist., 491 N.E. 2d 1236, 96 ILL Dec. 776, 142 ILL
App 3d 354, Appeal Denied.
6) Certain Assistant states attorneys,
Kent S. Ray et al CTA employees, IBC/Wonder bread et al employees and attorneys
have been able to induce reliance on certain Judges with a multitude of
fraudulent irregularities surpassing human imagination, serial psychotic
sociopaths would best describe them.
A- Plaintiff was in Contempt of Court,
and not working due to the aforementioned;
B- Plaintiff is on Welfare; in arrears to
all debtors, son in College no money to pay for his books with loans etc.
C- Plaintiff and his entire family are
the victims in this matter.
D- Defendants on all accounts have made a
mockery out of the legal system desecrating plaintiffs Civil Rights, in an
attempt to destroy his family for standing up to the Injustice;
E- Plaintiff can not in any way acquire
or sustain any employment due to the slander and political black ball placed on
his character and intimidating tacticts lodged at any Union Official attempting
to reinstate me to any employment.
In
Carter V. Mueller 457 N.E. 2d 1335 ILL. App. 1 Dist. 1983 The Supreme Court has held that: “The
elements of a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation (sometimes
referred to as “fraud and deceit” or deceit) are: (1) False statement of
material fact; (2) known or believed to be false by the party making it; (3)
intent to induce the other party to act; (4) action by the other party in
reliance on the truth of the statement; and (5) damage to the other party
resulting from such reliance.
7)
Plaintiff on all accounts need an
appointment of an attorney because of the stress this matter has impacted him
and his family, said defendants has successfully undermined the courts “induced
reliance” on certain judges and maintained unity to further protect and assist all
political parties involved in these matters.
A- Any Assistant States Attorney or any
attorney that attempts to stand before any Judge in said court and attempt to
defend their involvement is guilty of Conspiracy, “FRAUD” etc.
B- Assistant States Attorney Brian Volkman did
everything outside his legal authority, forcing plaintiff to seek employment
away from IBC/Wonder bread making him keep a job diary, in an attempt to help
the IBC/wonderbread to oppress him
financially;
C- IBC/
never terminated or legally separated the defendant from employment, until
September 2006, they told Judge Murphy plaintiff was terminated in open court
in and around Sept.-Dec. 2005.
D- Defendants used a Bogus Paternity matter, in an attempt to cover up the fact they
were paying into his pension and health & welfare while someone else
collected his disability checks, while he received welfare; CTA tried to
destroy his employment records to cover up monies stolen and the fact he was
never discharged.
8) That because of the noted aforementioned
irregularities stated within plaintiff’s family has suffered dramatically and
is in family therapy at Rush
Hospital.
Forensic
Psychiatrists stated the events respondent has endured in the courts is
Mentally Bizarre, everyone understood these type of events took place in the
1930’s up until the 60’s but could not believe this was happening now because
there are laws that prohibit this behavior.
Wherefore Plaintiff
respectfully request:
A- Order an Appointment of Counsel to
address the irregularities;
B- Order a Rule to Show Cause against the
officials involved and has demonstrated their role in this cause;
C- Appropiate the necessary injunctions
seizing all records prohibiting defendants from destroying documents any
records, issue a Rule to Show Cause to any defendant/individual committing
Fraud in this Court ;
D- That sanctions against the defendant(s)
and related parties shall issue; Furthermore,
A memorandum in support of the relief requested is attached.
E- Invoke any and all remedies afforded
by the United States Constitution not mentioned this court deems just and
create any Precedent in the law where applicable to prevent any other citizen
Born and Raised a FREE MAN from experiencing a repeat episode of the
aforementioned.
“Like the nursery rhyme
humpty dumpty (I.B.C. wonderbread ) Sat on the wall, and had a great fall, all
the Kings horses (Law firms) and all the kings men (attorneys, assistant states
attorneys) could not put them together again”.
Under penalties as provided by law
pursuant to 735 1265 5/1-109, the undersigned certifies that the statements set
forth in this instrument are true and current, except to matters there in
stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters, the undersigned
certifies as afore said that he verily believe the same thing to be true
Notary
Respectfully Submitted,
Joe Louis Lawrence
I hereby attest that the above
signature is my true and correct signature
Attorney Pro Se
P.O.
Box 490075
Chicago, Illinois
60649
Attorney # 99500
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Joe Louis
Lawrence
Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION NO____________
Honorable
V
IBC/Wonderbread
Chicago Transit Authority
Chicago Police
Defendant
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
REQUESTS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL/THE ALTERNATIVE PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW
CAUSE FOR “FRAUD”/CONSPIRACY & OTHER IRREGULARITIES HAD ON THE COURTS
w/AFFIDAVIT
EXHIBIT
LIST
Judge Murphy Feb. 27, 2007 Court Order
Notice
of Formal Communication W/ all attachments
Exhibit
“A1” - 350 million dollar class action complaint filed in federal court
Exhibit
“A” – July 26 confidential memo faxed to director Mueller/agent James Chatto
Exhibit
“1” – copy of Michael Dishman Business card
Exhibit
“2” – March 3, 2004 letter to the International President local 241 Warren S. George
Exhibit
“3” – March 19, 2004 letter, from the president
Exhibit
“4” – March October 16, 2005 plaintiff forwarded letter to Warren S. George
Exhibit
“5” – October 18, 2005 the president’s response
Exhibit
“6” – September 22, 2005 Appeal to the Department of Public Aid
Exhibit
“B” – September 23, 2005 press release to the media
Exhibit
“B1” – April 10, 1992 letter from bus manager plaintiff never received
Exhibit
“1” official complaint against assistant states Attorney Brain Volkman October
13, 2004
Exhibit
“B2” – May 17, 1990 letter from Chairperson James E. Marshall Disability Review
Committee
Exhibit
“B3” – May 30, 1990 letter from CTA Geri Tapling Personnel Administrator
placing Plaintiff in Area 605
Exhibit
“B4” – Letter from CTA workers compensation September 15, 1992, Carrie E. Smith
to see Dr. Richard Shermer
Exhibit
“B5” – letter from CTA workers compensation March 31, 1993, Carrie E. Smith to
see Dr. Richard Shermer
Exhibit
“B6” – letter from CTA Chairperson Thomas W. Czech Disability Review March 21,
1994
Exhibit
“B7” – letter from the CTA Michael Cook manager of Personnel November 23, 1994 plaintiff
was never discharged
Exhibit
“B8” – computer printout data from the CTA Michael Cook October 20, 1994
plaintiff is a CTA employee
Exhibit
“B9”- Joseph V Roddy sent a subpoena without seals to grandmother’s bank
account June 11, 1991
Exhibit
“B10” – order from Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services
November 9, 2005 to Alpha Baking Seeking $50.00 a month
Exhibit
“B11” - Cook County Sheriff active warrant contempt of CT (scars etc) type
divorce assigned 8-24-94
Exhibit
“B12” – letter to Honorable David Delgado September 16, 2002
Exhibit
“B13” – Sheriff memorandum September 28, 1994 detailing items removed from body.
Exhibit
“B14” – Letter from Robert O’Connor of CARPLS February 12, 2004 no legal aid
clinic would represent plaintiff.
Exhibit
“B15” – Computer Printout from Public Aid Acc Rec. March 14, 1996 zero Balance
Exhibit
“B16” – Computer Printout from Public Aid Acc statement January 26, 2004 zero
Balance
Exhibit
“B17” – Letter from the Clerk of the Circuit Court June 16, 2004 no payments
received under this case number.
Exhibit
“B18” – letter from the Department of Children and Family Services, Kids Hope
United October 14, 2005
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Louis Lawrence
Attorney Pro Se
P.O.
Box 490075
Chicago, Illinois
60649
Atty# 99500
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Joe Louis
Lawrence
Plaintiff CIVIL
ACTION NO____________
Honorable
V
IBC/Wonderbread
Chicago Transit Authority
Chicago Police
Defendant
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
REQUESTS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL/ THE ALTERNATIVE PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW
CAUSE FOR “FRAUD”/ CONSPIRACY & OTHER IRREGULARITIES HAD ON THE COURTS
w/AFFIDAVIT
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE RELIEF REQUESTED
The canons
of ethic in the Rules of Professional
Conduct constitute a safe guide for professional conduct, and attorneys may be
disciplined for not observing them. In re
Himmel, 125 Ill.2d 531, 533 N.E.2d 790, 127 Ill.Dec 708 (1988). Although
they represent the best thoughts of the organized bar, it has been held that
these canons are non-enforceable other than through the disciplinary
proceedings. Ettinger v. Rolewick, 140 Ill.App.3d 295, 488 N.E.2d 598, 94
Ill.Dec.599 (1st Dist. 1986). Disciplinary proceedings and sanctions
are strictly within the province of the Supreme Court. Reed Yates Farms, Inc. v. Yates, 172 Ill.App.3d 519, 526 N.E2d
1115, 122 Ill.Dec 576 (4th Dist.), appeal denied, the Illinois Supreme Court, through its disciplinary
arm, the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, is the only forum for exacting such punishment. Beale v. Edgemark Financial Corp., 297
Ill.App.3d 999, 697 N.E.2d 820, 232 Ill.Dec. 78 (1st Dist. 1998).
The ultimate authority to regulate and define the practice of law rests with
the Supreme Court. Perto v. Board of
Review, Illinois Department of Employment Security, 274 Ill.App.3d 485, 654
N.E.2d 232, 210 Ill.Dec. 933 (2d Dist.), appeal
denied, 164 Ill.2d 581 (1995).
Ethics
All Illinois lawyers must be familiar with the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, and trail lawyers must be
particularly familiar with the rules that apply specially to them.
RPC
3.3, entitled “Conduct Before a Tribunal,” sets forth the
standards to be followed by the trial lawyer during “battle.” Section (a) of
that rule states:
(a) In
appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not:
(1) make a statement of material fact or
law to a tribunal which the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is false;
(2) fail to disclose to a tribunal a
material fact know to the lawyer when disclosure is necessary to avoid
assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal
authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly
adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel;
(4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows
to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its
falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures;
(5) participate in the creation or
preservation of evidence when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know the
evidence is false ;
(6) counsel or assist the client in conduct
the lawyer knows to be illegal of fraudulent;
(7) engage in other illegal conduct or
conduct in violation of these Rules;
(8) fail to disclose the identities of the
clients represented and of the persons who employed the lawyer unless such
information is privileged or irrelevant;
(9) intentionally degrade a witness or
other person by stating or alluding to personal facts concerning that person
which are not relevant to the case;
(10)
in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is
relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal
knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a
personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness,
the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of and accused,
but a lawyer may argue, on analysis of evidence, for any position or conclusion
with respect to the matter stated herein;
Acts constituting direct, criminal contempt
A
wide variety of acts may constitute a direct, criminal contempt. And act may be
criminal contempt even though it is also an indictable crime. Beattie v. People, 33 Ill. App 651, 1889 WL 2373 (1st Dist. 1889). As is making false
representations to the court. People v.
Katelhut, 322 Ill.
App. 693, 54 N.E.2d 590 (1st Dist. 1944). Misconduct of an officer
of the court is . punishable as contempt. People
ex rel. Rusch v. Levin, 305 Ill.App. 142, 26 N.E.2d 895 (1st
Dist. 1939).
Official misconduct is a
criminal offense; and a public officer or employee commits misconduct,
punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both, when, in his official capacity, he
intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as required by
law; or knowingly performs an act which he knows he is forbidden by law to
perform; or with intent to obtain a personal advantage for himself or another,
he performs an act in excess of his lawful authority ….S.H.A. Ch 38 33-3.
False statements
Censure was recommended sanction for
attorney who engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, made statement of
material fact or law to tribunal which she knew or reasonably should have known
to be false, and failed to disclose to tribunal a material fact known to her
when disclosure was necessary to avoid assisting criminal or fraudulent at by
client, given that attorney’s misconduct was not result of dishonest or corrupt
motive, but of misguided attempt to accommodate clients. 99 Ill.Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. SH11
Three-year suspension was
recommended sanction for attorney who engaged in conduct involving dishonesty
and fraud, made statement of material fact to tribunal which he knew or
reasonably should have known was false, and offered evidence that he knew to be
false and failed to take reasonable remedial measures. 96 Ill.Atty.Reg. &
Disc.Comm. SH 358.
Disbarment was recommended sanction
for attorney who engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, made false statements
of material fact or law to tribunal which she knew were false and engaged in
conduct which tended to defeat administration of justice. 95 Ill
Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. CH 877.
Censure was recommended sanction for
attorney who made statements of material fact or law known was false, and
engaged in conduct which was prejudicial to the administration of justice. 95
Ill Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. CH 504
One-year suspension was recommended sanction for attorney who made
statement of material fact which he knew was false in appearing in professional
capacity before tribunal, made a statement of material fact which he knew to be
false in course of representing client, and engaged in conduct involving
dishonesty. 95 Ill Atty.Reg. &
Disc.Comm. CH 191.
Disbarment was recommended sanction
for attorney who engaged in serious misconduct by making misrepresentation
during his divorce proceedings and who was a recidivist. 94
Ill.Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. SH469
Fraud on court
Two-year suspension, retroactive to
beginning of interim suspension, was recommended sanction for attorney who made
statement of material fact or law to tribunal which lawyer knew or reasonably
should have known to be false, instituted criminal charges as prosecutor when
he knew or reasonably should have known that charges were not supported by
probable cause, committed criminal act that reflected adversely upon lawyer ‘s
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as lawyer, engaged in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, engaged in conduct prejudicial
to administration of justice, and engaged in conduct which tended to bring
courts or legal profession into disrepute.
96 Ill.Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm.
CH 118.
ILL. App. (1st
Dist. 2000). A “VOID JUDGEMENT OR ORDER” is one that is entered by a court
lacking jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacking the
inherent power to enter the particular order of judgment, or where the order
was procured by FRAUD- in re Adoption of E.L., 248 ILL. Dec. 171, 733 N.E. 2d
846, 315 ILL. App. 3d 137- Judgm 7, 16, 375.
Section 1983 of USCS
contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the Unconstitutional
Application of a law by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell V. Saunders (CA 5 F
1A) 372 F 2d 573, especially if the conspiracy was actually carried into
effect, where can action is for a conspiracy to interfere with Civil Rights under
42 USCS 1985 (3), or for the deprivation of such rights under 42 USCS 1983, if
the conspiracy was actually carried into effect and plaintiff was thereby
deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States
Constitution and Laws, the gist of the action maybe treated as one for the
deprivation of rights under 42 USCS 1983 Lewis V. Brautigam (CA 5 F1A) 227 F 2d
124, 55 Alr 2d 505.
John W. Strong,
McCormick on evidence? 185, at 777-78 (4th ed. 1992) defining
“direct” and “circumstantial” evidence).
If the plaintiff Prima
Facie case is supported by a preponderance of the evidence—it must find the
existence of the presumed fact of unlawful discrimination and must; therefore,
render a verdict for the plaintiff. See Texas
Dept. of Community Affairs V. Burdine, 450 U.S.
248, 254, and n. 7, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 1094, and
n. 7, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981); F. James & d, Civil Procedure {7.9, p. 327
(3d ed. 1985); 1D. Louisell & C. Mueller, Federal Evidence {70, pp.
568-569.
Respectfully Submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
Attorney Pro Se
Atty. # 99500
P.O. Box
490075
Chicago, Illinois 60649
Certificate of Service
I
Joe Louis Lawrence, plaintiff, certify that I have on this day deposited said
Notice of Motion and Motion to Disqualify Judge Frank H. Easterbrook Chief
Judge and Appointment of Counsel to all parties recorded in said Notice of Motion
via regular mail.
Dated
August 27, 2007
_____________________
Joe Louis Lawrence
IN THE
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
60604
Joe Louis
Lawrence ) Appeal from the United States
Plaintiff-Appellant ) District Court for the Northern
No. 07-2287 VS. ) District of Illinois, Eastern Division
) No. 07 C 1191
Interstate
Brands Corporation )
Chicago Transit Authority )
Chicago
Police Department )
Defendant-Appellee )
NOTICE OF MOTON
Please be
advised that on August 27, 2007, A Motion to Disqualify Frank H. Easterbrook
Chief Judge and for Reconsideration for Appointment of Counsel et al.,has been
filed before the United States Court of Appeals.
:
Cook County States Attorney I.B.C./Wonder bread
Dick Devine 12 East Armour Blvd.
28 North Clark Street, Suite 300 Kansas City,
MO. 64111
Chicago,
Ill. 60602 Legal Dept.
Chicago
Transit Authority Legal Dept. Chicago Police Department
Rachael L. Kaplan Phil
Cline
567 West Lake Street Chicago,
IL. 60603 3510 South Michigan
Chicago, Ill. 60661-1498 Chicago,
Ill. 60616
Standish E. Willis
407 South Dearborn
Chicago,
Ill 60603
I affirm the
above as being true.
Respectfully Submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
P.O. Box
490075
Chicago, Ill.
60649
Plaintiff-Appellant
IN THE
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
CHIEF JUDGE
Frank H. Easterbrook
Joe Louis
Lawrence ) Appeal from the United States
Plaintiff-Appellant ) District Court for the Northern
VS
) District of Illinois,
Eastern Division
No. 07-2287 )
No. 07 C 1191
Interstate
Brands Corporation )
Chicago Transit Authority ) MOTION
TO DISMISS
Chicago
Police Department )
Defendant-Appellee )
MOTON
FOR – DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE- PERSONAL BIAS OR PREJUDICE {28 USCA 144, 455
(b) (1)} AND RECONSIDERATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (STANDISH WILLIS) and
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF
Now
comes Joe Louis Lawrence, Attorney Pro Se Appellant in this cause files herewith his affidavit as required by
Title 28, United States Code, Section 144, to show that the Honorable Frank H.
Easterbrook, Chief Judge has a personal bias with compelling evidence or
prejudice against him because of his skin color and legally sufficient motions
put before the court as a non-licensed attorney and has cited a law relating to
an inmate towards appellant in that this is his view of an African American
male I (we) are criminals; and is attempting to cover up the systemic legal
applications of racism that Appellant has diligently put before the courts,
where certain judges and lawyers have participated in said conspiracies.
Based thereon, plaintiff-appellant respectfully moves that the Honorable
Frank H. Easterbrook, Chief Judge proceed no further herein and that another
Judge who is not Bias and understands how to enforce the laws in accordance to
the United States Constitution and according to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to hear this proceeding who is not intimidated or fear reprisals from
these individuals.
August 27, 2007
Respectfully
Submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
P.O. Box
490075
Chicago, Illinois
60649-0075
IN THE
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
60604
AFFIDAVIT
In Support of Motion
To Disqualify Frank H.
Easterbrook, Chief Judge
For Personal Bias or
Prejudice
{28 USCA 144, 455
(b) (1)}
I Joe Louis Lawrence, being duly sworn on
oath states:
1.)
This
is the second such motion put before this court against Judge Terrance Evans case#03-3359 where he was successfully
recused.
2.) I am informed and
believe and based on such belief with said facts in hand that establishes
veracity, that Judge Easterbrook has
denied legal representation based upon laws applied to prisoners, inmates
behind bars;
A- That because said Judge do not recognize Appellant as a Free man of color, a
United States citizen, regardless to how well or legally sufficient his
pleadings has been presented to the courts, due to said Judges Biasness, and
Prejudice;
B- That Judge
Easterbrook is aware of the “Systemic” Racial
application of Unjust Laws Dispensated against Appellant, where affidavits had
been unchallenged and filed before the courts demonstrating he was up against the Ku Klux Klan, attorneys and Judges with
racial affiliations, Political Machine operatives with Racial Affiliations with
the City etc,. said Judge ignored every unlawful criminal act;
C- That because he was
the architect of the precedented case Farmer
V. Haas, demonstrated Racial Hostile Animus Venomous Retaliation Bias against appellant, by unlawfully denying him counsel so as
to prevent others of learning of the type of Injustice exercised in the courts,
said Judge usurped his powers and authority ignored the United States Supreme
Court and other compelling citations that warranted the Appointment of an
Attorney;
3.) Appellant was
prosecuting the class action law suit against IBC/Wonder bread and Thomas Walker lawsuit in the Court of
Appeals case#03-4066, said Motion for Appointment of Counsel was presented
before Hon. William J. Bauer, Michael S. Kanne, and Ann Claire Williams, they
honored said motion and granted him counsel;
4.) Appellant has been
up against some of the most Racist Lawyers, Judges States Attorneys, Law
firms, they even recruited a Law firm from Kansas City Missouri, City
Attorneys, Law Professors and CTA Attorneys espoused in the practice of Racial
Hatred Genocide and their related philosophies;
A- Appellant defeated
them all litigiously in court;
B- Certain said judges
retaliated with Animus Biasness took
over because said attorneys were ineffective against appellant, they wrongfully
incarcerated him, forced and snatched him off his job, issued Bogus Warrants
against him etc., in that, the message was clear, no one challenges this
Racial Terrorist Order in this City;
C- That because Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans and other
Judges took a stand in Appellants favor granting him an Attorney, the State
Charges were all dropped,(They said this legal system do not
recognize Pro Se litigants) Judge Timothy P. Murphy took part in said
conspiracy and was aware of all unlawful irregularities, told Appellant he had
no jurisdiction over the unlawful irregularities, hereto attached, said court
order;
D- Appellant was
informed by certain clerks that no State Judge want him in their court because
too much attention is brought to any judge involved against him!
5.) That because of the
insurmountable odds Appellant had to exhaust getting back to the Court of
Appeals, the Chief Judge not just any Judge is enforcing laws outside his
Judicial Authority with incredible Bias and Prejudice denying him legal
representation so as to prevent the Public and other Courts not affiliated with
said acts of learning how organized Systemic Racial Disparate Application of
the Laws are Dispensated towards African Americans in this State;
6.) Appellant’s family
has been psychologically traumatized:
A- Said wife has
demonstrated signs of suicide, rage and depression, the children are depressed
and sad their daddy is always working on his case nobody is listening, they are
being deprived a normal life;
B- Appellant has no money, can not borrow any
money, children are unable to attend School there is no money for
transportation, no money for School supplies or any clothes, or any other major
necessities, Light, Gas bills pending disconnection phone disconnected, family
nearly homeless no money for rent;
C- Appellant’s
grandmother has passed away Carrie Boyd entered into an illegal real estate
transaction with a buyer he came in changed the locks on grandmothers property
where his mother can not enter her mothers apartment of 30 years, mother is
distraught by this;
D- Appellant’s three
nephews whom he is helping his mother raise due to younger sister untimely
death of breast cancer, there is no money to provide for them;
E- That due to the
aforementioned stated within said children may not be able to attend School
September 4th.
F- Appellant’s mother
can not pay any of her bills as a retired State Employee due to the
aforementioned biasness and retaliation had on Appellant keeping him from
employment, making his family suffer;
7.) In that, former
appellant Thomas Walker wanted to kill the employees of IBC/wonder bread and
commit suicide, so as to bring attention to the heinous acts of racism and
injustice surrounding this matter, he was earning $70.000.00 yearly, IBC caused
him to lose everything his home and resort to welfare, he could not understand
how Joe Louis did it, and called him General because of the way he kept the
members together in the class action complaint;
A- Appellant filed the
appropriate papers in court protecting him and the adversary (IBC), the F.B.I.
and U.S. Marshall’s took him into custody and into the mental hospital;
B- Thomas Walker’s
estranged wife was in rage because he had no money to provide for his daughter
and her drug habit stabbed him multiple times and tried to burn up his body killed
him;
8.) Appellant’s own
family has suffered a great deal his own daughter tried to attack him, D.C.F.S.
Adm. Law Judge Bruce Lester, and
Order of Protection Judges Aurelia Pucinski and David Haracz the other Judges
are involved, appellant never retaliated by attacking his daughter;
A- Mental illness
depression has understandably taken a toll on the family wife and daughter
Bipolar and not on medication, not having any money has exacerbated their
illness;
B- Psychiatrist,
Therapist and members of Appellant’s family have stated, this court mess is to
overwhelming and stressful to his family and him;
9.)
Appellant has due-diligently earned the right to legal representation,
Judge Easterbrook like his Judicial counter-parts have demonstrated Bias in
that, he has ignored all legal procedures and precedents in the law, how can a Judge, in said position rule
in Appellants favor where a brief is concerned knowing the Racial Injustice he
has been up against and the effects it has impacted on him and family?
Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct Commentary to Canon 2 (1988)
provides that “(A)” judge must avoid all impropriety” And appearance of
impropriety.” Accordingly, (A) judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding
in which his impartiality might be questioned. . . . . . “Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3
(c) (1) 1988.
Where
a judge exhibits bias or the appearance of bias, the court will reverse.
Patterson V. RT., 301 Ark. 400, 784 S. W. 2d
777 (1990); Farley V. Jester, 257 Ark.
686, 520 S. W. 2d 200 (1975) “ The proper Administration of the requires not
only that judges refrain from actual bias, but also that they avoid all
appearances of unfairness. “Bolden V. State, 262 Ark 718, 561 S.W. 2d 281 (1978).
A-Judge
Easterbrook has compromised his integrity and reputation as that of a Chief
Judge with Bias and Prejudice rulings he has dispensated against appellant for
Appointment of an Attorney and is trying to force him to represent himself this
way he can Dismiss the entire case;
B- That appellant’s
family has been psychologically and financially impacted by such Biasness and Prejudice
in part due to said judges part due to the Racial Injustice predicated as aforementioned;
C- Appellant needs an
unprecedented order from this court prohibiting any creditor, debtor, City
Agency whom appellant is indebted to from disconnecting, seizing any property,
or terminating any service as a result to said Bias Terrorist acts, had upon
Appellant and family and his members as retaliation;
CANON
1
A judge should uphold the integrity and
independence of the judiciary.
The
integrity and independence of judges depend in turn upon their acting without
fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they should comply with
the law, as well as provisions of this code. Public confidence in the
impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to
this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this code diminishes public
confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government
under law.
The Miseducation of the Negroe Political
Education Neglected
Carter
G. Woodson, 1933
The opponents of freedom and social
injustice decided to work out a program which would enslave the negroes’ mind
in as much as the freedom of body had to be conceded. It was well understood
that if by teaching of history the white man could be further assured of his
superiority and the negroe could be made to feel that he always been a failure
and that the subjection of his will to some other race is necessary for the
freedman, then, would still be a slave. If you can control a man’s thinking you
do not have to worry about his action. When you determine what a man shall
think you do not have to concern yourself about what he will do. If you make a
man feel that he is inferior, you do not have to compel him to accept an
inferior status, for he will seek it himself. If you make a man think that he
is justly an outcast, you do not have to order him to the back door. He will go
without being told, and if there is no back door, his very nature will demand
one.
D- Judge Easterbrook
just like his counter-parts in this matter who demonstrated Biasness and
Prejudice at appellant, one can easily infer, due to his status and position as
Chief Judge he could deny appellant on any grounds he felt necessary in that
no one would question his intellect against a Pro Se Public Aid Litigant after
all he is an Ivy league legal Scholar.
Section
1983 of USCS contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the
unconstitutional application of a law by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell V.
Saunders (CA 5 Fla) 372 F 2d 573, especially if the conspiracy was actually
carried into effect and plaintiff was thereby deprived of any rights
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the gist of the
action may be treated as one for the depravation of rights under 42 USCS 1983
Lewis V. Brautigam (CA 5 Fla) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505.
E- Judge Easterbrook
has satisfied and met the full criteria’s
of Biasness and Prejudice at appellant in that, Farmer V. Haas is a universal stereotypical analogy how powerful Caucasians
view African Americans especially the men (we) are criminals first before we
are termed as a man, it is clear he and those that embraces his philosophy
oppresses people of color;
794
S.W. 2d 692 (Mo. App. 1990) “No system of justice can function at its best or
maintain broad public confidence if a litigant can be compelled to submit his
case in a court where the litigant sincerely believes the judge is incompetent
or prejudicial …………{T}hat is the price to be paid for a judicial system that
seeks to free a litigant from a feeling of oppression”. State ex Rel. McNary V.
Jones, 472 S. W. 2d 637, 639-640 (Mo. App. 1971) Indeed, the right to
disqualify a judge is “one of the keystones of our legal administration
edifice” State ex Rel. Campbell V. Cohn, 606 S.W. 2d 399-401 (Mo. App. 1980).
It is vital to public confidence in the legal system that the decisions of the
court are not only fair, but also appear fair. Thus whether the
disqualification of a judge hinges on a statute or rule in favor of the right
to disqualify. A liberal construction is necessary if we wish to promote and
maintain public confidence in the judicial system. Kohn, 606 S.W. at 401; State
ex Rel. Ford Motor Co. V. Hess S.W. 2d 147, 148 (Mo. App1987).
Wherefore
the aforementioned reasons recorded
above appellant moves this Honorable court grant the motion in it’s entirety
Disqualifying Frank H. Easterbrook from this matter Grant an Appointment of
Counsel (Standish Willis) and Extension of Time to File Brief.
Further Affiant Sayeth Not
Appellant does not feel as if he is a United
States Citizen a Free man in America, what Injustice and Racial Oppression
Biasness could not do in incarcerating him physically and mentally they
accomplished it in the Legal Forum, corruption was allowed to ravish his
aspirations, his will, his finances, his family so as to continue their
Biasness Prejudicial Doctrine of an African Man’s place in this society.
Respectfully
submitted,
Joe Louis Lawrence
CERTIFICATE
OF ATTORNEY PRO SE
I hereby certify
that I am the Attorney Pro Se plaintiff-appellant in the above entitled cause,
and as such prepared the above affidavit and is cognizant of the proceedings
there is and that such affidavit and application are made in good faith and not
for the purpose of hindrance or delay.
Respectfully Submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
Attorney Pro Se
P.O. Box
490075
Chicago, Illinois 60649-0075
Monday August
27, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment