CHICAGO DEMOCRATS OF THE POLITICAL MACHINE DEMONSTRATING RACIAL HATRED & JIM CROW ACTS OUTLAWED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
TAKE AN IN DEPTH LOOK AT HOW PEOPLE OF COLOR ARE DESTROYED "LYNCHED" BY REPLACING THE ROPES AS WE ALL KNOW SO WELL BUT BY UNJUST UNEQUAL APPLICATION OF THE LAWS
PRAYERS DO WORK TWITTER FRIENDS
THE CHICAGO SUN TIMES REPORTERS NEED TO BE APPLAUDED FOR THEIR OBJECTIVE REPORTING TIM NOVACK, CHRIS DUMKE AND RICH HEIN CHRIS FUSCO.
WHEN CHA LEARNED THAT AN AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMAN WAS LIVING IN BRIDGEPORT WHICH HISTORICALLY HATED PEOPLE OF COLOR THEY WOULD GET BEAT BY THE RACIST WHITES IN THAT AREA WHEN GROWING UP POLICE USE TO PICK UP YOUNG MEN OUT PAST CURFEW AND DROP THEM OFF IN THAT AREA SO THAT THEY COULD GET BEAT UP.
LINDA TURPIN HAVE TO MOVE SHE PAYS NO RENT TO LIVE IN A FIVE BEDROOM HOUSE BUT WILL HAVE TO MOVE BECAUSE OF NEW VOUCHER RULES.
BUT THE WHITES MAKING AS MUCH AS $182,000.00 OR $100,000+ LIVING DOWNTOWN OR LIVING IN OPPORTUNITY AREAS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MOVE OR LOSE THEIR VOUCHERS.
THE DEMOCRATS WANT YOU TO KEEP VOTING FOR THEM IN OFFICE SO THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE TO DESTROY ETHNIC GROUPS IN ACCORDANCE TO THE DOCTRINES OF THE REAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT
OF
COOK
COUNTY, ILLNOIS
CHANCERY
DIVISION
)
In Re Racial Discrimination ) 2015 CH 01670
/Source Income Violations )
Housing Matters:
) Hon. F. U. Valderrama
Joe Louis Lawrence ) Room 2305
Petitioner )
)
V
)
420 East Ohio, Chicago Housing Authority )
345 East Ohio, City of Chicago,Commission)
On Human
Relations
)
Respondents )
________________________________________________________________________
Motion to
Supplement
Motion for
Disqualification of Judge for Cause Due to Bias (Civil Rights Violations) and
or Prejudice pursuant to S.H.A. 735 ILCS 5/2 ---1001 (a) (2,3) and or Vacate Nov
2nd & Nov 13th Orders Due to “Fraud” “Organized Conspiracy”
Now comes Plaintiff, Counsel Pro Se Joe Louis Lawrence
in this cause, files herewith his affidavit, factually establishing the Bias
(Civil Rights Violations) Prejudice alleged herein, with exhibits, in
accordance to Supreme Court of Illinois and Canon rules in accordance to the
American Jurisprudence and pleadings (rev.) to show that the Honorable F. U. Valerrama has a Personal
Bias and or Prejudice but has allegedly engaged in an “Organized
Conspiracy” against the Petitioner and have corroborated beyond the
preponderance of the evidence standards by engaging in a criminal conspiracy
assisting the Defendants denying every unchallenged Motion accompanied by an
affidavit, he had personal knowledge of
undisputed evidentiary facts demonstrating the Defendants were in fact served
but ignored the laws and affidavits making the Nov. 2nd & Nov.
13th orders void;
Said judge
treated defendant as if he was a Deportee, Illegal Immigrant or non U.S.
citizen ignored all documents and is attempting to enforce orders absent his
jurisdiction due to “Fraud Bias and
or Prejudice”;
Based
thereon Plaintiff respectfully moves that the aforementioned Motion be
supplemented as additional evidence demonstrating the veracity that the Honorable F. U. Valderrama is Bias and or Prejudice engaging in acts of an alleged “Organized Conspiracy”
prohibiting him from proceeding any further herein; whereby, said orders of
Nov. 2nd and Nov. 13th orders needs to be vacated
Instanter and that the Honorable Timothy C. Evans Chief Judge or Presiding
Judge of Chancery of the Circuit Court of Cook County assign this matter
accordingly to the judge or judges in which this matter is before and notify
Federal Officials to ascertain other violations of the laws pursuant to
Petitioners Affidavits and the judges’ actions in this matter.
Federal Officials should be
summoned to ascertain what other criminal allegations is present that are being
ignored pursuant to the threats Judge Valderrama made in open court at the
Plaintiff, “I didn’t like your motion either and apparently you mistook my
kindness for weakness! Sanctions will be imposed upon you since you want to be
a lawyer you will be treated like a lawyer”!
Furthermore, he never opened his
mouth to admonish any of the attorneys who committed perjury saying they were
never served but told the Plaintiff in a hostile “he better tread lightly”
there were no Sheriff’s in the court room when this took place.
This
is the first Motion to Supplement
but second Motion to recuse this judge for cause Pursuant to S.H.A. 735 ILCS 5/2---1001 (a) (3) in this
cause made by the movant, the party seeking substitution must establish, by a
preponderance of the evidence, actual prejudice and must demonstrate, through
specific allegations supported by affidavit, facts that if true, constitute
actual Prejudice;
Respectfully Submitted,
By:
_________________
Joe
Louis Lawrence
Counsel Pro Se
P. O. Box 490075
312 927-4210
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
)
COUNTY OF COOK )
AFFIDAVIT
In support of Motion to Supplement
Motion to Disqualify Judge F. U. Valderrama for Bias and or Prejudice pursuant
to S.H.A. 735 ILCS 5/2 ---1001 (a) (2,3)
and or Vacate Nov 2, and Nov. 13, 2015 Orders
due to “Fraud” and alleged “Organized Conspiracy” where Criminal Conspiracy
Civil Rights were Violated:
1.)
I
am Joe Louis Lawrence, Counsel Pro Se, Petitioner in this cause, being first
duly sworn on oath deposes and states, as follows;
A- That
on May 8, 2015, City of Chicago, Commission on Human Relations investigator
Albert Roberson received;
B- Hereto
attached, August 3, 2014, email to Team Supervisor “Notice of Official
Complaint Re Racial Discrimination in CHA Voucher Program et al.
C- Hereto
attached, July 11, 2014, email from Chris Klepper stating the rents are to high
etc.
D- Hereto
attached, August 25, 2014, email sent to CHA Ya Quavia Gooden and others re
Voucher Discrimination and Racial Discrimination.
E- Fax
letters sent to CHA Chairman Michael Merchant, September 28, and October 17,
2014 detailing Racial Discrimination in the CHA voucher program.
2.)
That former Hearing Officer now Circuit Court Judge Hon
Fredrick H. Bates ordered the CHA to reinstate Plaintiff’s voucher 9727767 not once but twice they
circumvented his authority and directive by continuously racially harassing him
and still removed him from the voucher program for trying to move into the
Mobility Opportunity areas of the city;
3.)
It has been alleged that vouchers are sold to the
whites for $1500.00 and the only way they can receive the vouchers qualified
persons of color have to be unlawfully removed from the program;
4.)
That Christine Klepper of the Housing Choice Voucher
program stated to the Plaintiff, “YOU
SHOULD CONSIDER SOMETHING LESS EXPENSIVE” CHA did not negotiate rent
for the Plaintiff to rent in the opportunity areas because he was the wrong
skin color;
5.)
That Christine Klepper, Melanie Toney and Jessie
McDaniels stated emphatically no whites ever came through the Mobility program
and that the units Plaintiff applied at did not have African Americans in them
you had to have great credit scores and large security deposits to move in
those units, CHA exercised “Jim Crow” tactics making sure
qualified applicants like the plaintiff did not move into said units;
6.)
That Plaintiff had credit scores of 716 and had 2
professional white Realtors to ascertain units for him 420 East Ohio was
obtained from one Realtor, they took all of money that was placed as a deposit
CHA successfully negotiated the rent, they refused him and kept his money
because he and family was the wrong skin color;
7.)
That Plaintiff had another Realtor to ascertain other
units 345 East Ohio, The
Streeter, 355 East Ohio, 175 North Wacker, K2 Apartments, 365 N. Halsted, Trio Apartments, 660 West Wayman, 121 Chestnut, Amli Management, every building stated they
accepted the Housing Choice Voucher but refused him when his ethnicity was
ascertained and CHA was in cahoots with this Civil Rights Violation;
8.)
That Judge Valderama received an Affidavit accompanied
with the Motion Objecting any Dismissal Due to Fraud et al (filed Oct. 15, 2015
and Re Noticed Nov. 5, 2015) he said Page
5, Par. A Petition for Rule
to show Cause et al (filed Nov. 5, 2015) “that I have facts that is clear you would not have made it this far
without them” “this is not an evidentiary hearing the city is not arguing your
facts that is another matter”
A- The judge had knowledge and was in
fact aware of all Racist Criminal Acts lodged at the Plaintiff in that Group Ex J, Crain’s Business article Poor families use supervouchers to rent in
city’s priciest buildings;
B-
That
Ex K, Page 2 shows no open balances but child support was placed on the
credit report illegally as members of the Democratic Machine has engaged in a
sophisticated organized Extortion operation claiming child support was owed as
an excuse to unlawfully steal wages and monies from the Plaintiff, in that
Alderman Edward Burke allegedly organized and engineered the appointment of his
Irish or Polish ethnic judges to do his bidding in cases that required “FIXING”;
C-
That
Page 4, under 2-20-2014, child
support went down 74% from $68,540.00 to $17,519.00 and shows someone went into
said credit file 45 times;
9.)
That former Congressman Aaron Schock issued a press
release (July 28, 2014) Investigation into Chicago Housing Authority “SuperVoucher” program it was after
this investigation CHA went from negotiating rent from $5000.00 for individuals
living in the Mobility areas to allegedly $3000.00
10.) That CHA Mobility via Melanie Toney advised Plaintiff
to apply at 71 West Hubbard, Amli an attorney (Donte) at
the CHA stopped the process said the rent was too high but the manager had him
to fill out an application said they accepted the voucher but needed something
else from CHA to go with the paperwork;
11.) That
former CEO Michael Merchant received faxes and phone calls describing the CHA
voucher program is a fraud and racist front to house white persons at the
expense of removing qualified applicants of color like the Plaintiff;
A-
Rahm Emmanuel
was in error when he stated, “Tuesday March 15, 2016 from the Sun Times The Chicago Housing Authority’s voucher
program is a well- intentioned policy ‘gone awry’,” hereto attached, Gr Ex A, Sun Times Article;
B-
That if the Mayor believed what he was saying was
correct, he had knowledge of Plaintiff being HOMELESS with a Section 8 Voucher
for 4 years did nothing said nothing and the City is in DEFAULT on a $5 Million
Dollar Administrative Review Complaint and is allegedly seeking the support of
Alderman Edward Burke to work his magic by finding a Racist or Inferior judge
to Dismiss this valid legal claim, that corrupt judges under his authority and
control do so eloquently engaging in “Jim Crow” practices;
C- Hereto
attached, Gr Ex B, Directed
Evidence with a Prima Facie showing CHA officials engaging in Housing
Discrimination, Page 1, Par. 4 from Sun Times article, “Lai says the woman wanted to lease his
three bedroom, three and a half bath home, which has a library and is within
walking distance of Soldier Field and the lakefront”
D-
Hereto attached, Gr
Ex 1, Email sent to 345 East Ohio, Sept. 6, 2013, (Eve Aywaz Sales
Consultant Village Green) and her reply to Plaintiff, she said, “I
just want to update you that a voucher can be used toward rent but we qualify
tenants based off 2.5 times the monthly income to rent ratio. This means that
unit 4409 is $4080 X 12 X 2.5 = $146,000.00 and that is the documentation we
need of suggested income to be approved to live in the building.”
E-
Hereto attached, Gr
Ex 10, hand written note by John Paul Losetto stating, “In order to qualify must make
33% total $182,880.00” with his voucher in order to live at 345
East Ohio attorney Christian T Novay can attest to this veracity.
F-
Plaintiff had a 3 bedroom voucher and has been DENIED to live in every building
in the opportunity area because of Plaintiff’s skin color or alleged inability
to have purchased his voucher for $1500; thereby validating the veracity of all
pleadings properly plead to by all attorneys in this matter as the judge tried
to cover this matter up;
G- Hereto
attached, Gr Ex C, Page 4, Par. 6, Garrison Hearst retired San Francisco Running Back, “He says he was contacted by a real estate
agent who had a prospective tenant with a voucher, he was asking for $3,900 a
month for rent” “CHA agreed to pay $3,406 a month for rent” “with the tenant
paying $884 and the taxpayers picking up $2,522”.
12.) That Separate,
Unequal Ignored by Steve Bogira of the Chicago Reader, hereto
attached, Gr Ex D, Page 2 Par. 1, “The case of “Dorothy Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority, concerned the location of public
housing—projects were being built only in the city’s black ghettos because
white didn’t want blacks in their neighborhoods. But the broader issue, as
judge Austin noted, was residential racial segregation, a matter of much
concern back then”
13.) That the racist administrators of the CHA
and managers of various buildings in the Mobility program have managed to
circumvent the Federal judge Austin’s ruling prohibiting racial segregation in
housing, Page 3, Par 3, In 1971, the Gautreaux case was
still inching along in judge Austin’s courtroom ….the CHA complied with Austin’s
order to plan public housing in white neighborhoods as well as black by listing
235 proposed sites in white neighborhoods. But the sites needed city approval.
Mayor Richard J. Daley quickly called the proposal “detrimental” and said the
units “should not be built”. His Republican opponent, Richard Friedman,
declined to guarantee to block the units if elected, noting open housing was
“the law of the land”. The Independent
Voters of Illinois called Daley “Racist” because of his opposition to the sites.
But Daley knew “racist” was better in
Chicago than “integrationist”. The Tribune observed afterward that
Friedman’s campaign had become a “lost cause” because of his stance on the
housing list”
14.)
Anti Black demonstration in
Chicago in 1959; The young children from this era are still inciting Racist
Hatred from the Democratic Party within the Political Machine.
15.) Chicago, 1957: a couple who moved into an all-white
neighborhood looking at graffiti in front of their home.
16.) That the Defendants along with every attorney
and parties properly Noticed of the up-dated “Lynchings being imposed by the
legal system either using corrupt racist judges or inferior incompetent judges
are not using the ropes to hang persons of color or water hoses against them or
dogs but unjust unlawful applications of the laws, in that everyone is reading
the mayhem inflicted on an innocent because they are Democrats this is the sick
norm many have systematically grown to accept;
17.) That members of the Democratic Political
Machine have demonstrated their Racial hatred against the Plaintiff but will
promise them anything for a vote have deployed 21 Circuit Court judges, 14
Appellate Court Judges and about 4 Supreme Court judges to ignore and close
their eyes to unlawful “Lynchings where Plaintiff was locked up 5 times for
allegedly owing child support for a child that was not his when in fact the
case was properly DISMISSED September 17, 1987, 85 D 068185, both paternity
tests excluded him from paternity but was altered to reflect he was the father.
Richard J. Daley who was the States Attorney did not want any part of this
mess.
Jim
Crow tactics had to be called on and enforced deploying an entire brigade of
corrupt racist inferior judges to do what was required by enforcing a case
where Plaintiff was never served to appear before the court no paternity tests
no signed orders from any judge, like the aforementioned picture many took
great pleasure in Plaintiff’s demise; 
Lynching has taken on a different identity as
demonstrated in this case while groups of whites stand by frolicking at a Black
man hanging from a tree from a rope, racial injustice where several attorneys
are in court trying to Bully and intimidate the Plaintiff as they appear before
an inferior Black man wearing a robe the same level of Democratic Racial Hatred
is still being spewed in a Terrorist fashion as many are still ignoring the
plights of innocent men of color victimized by these acts.
In the wake of extensive investigations by Federal
Law enforcement authorities revealing widespread corruption in the Illinois
court system (“Operation Greylord”) and elsewhere, indicating not only that
significant professional misconduct was occurring but also that the requirement
to report misconduct was frequently ignored, particularly in the cases of
judges with regard to the conduct of other judges.
18.) That
because Associate judges are politically appointed makes it difficult
for an individual to receive Equal Protection of the Laws because the
perpetrators may be “Machine Democrats”
acting as Terrorist violating the
Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, (Page 3,
Par 2A- N of page5 of the 2nd
Amended Complaint properly plead to by all Defendants) which prohibits these
very criminal acts, and demonstrates Bias
and or Prejudiced conduct surpassing the Preponderance of
Evidence legal standard required in this matter; Ill. S. Ct. R. 286 (a) Pinnacle
Corp. v Village of Lake in the Hills, 258 Ill. App 3d 205, “the
failure to respond to an adversary pleadings by standing on a Motion to dismiss
rather than filing an answer, constitutes an admission of all well pleaded
facts”
A- Pursuant
to Page 9, Lines. 6-15, of the Court Transcript, Plaintiff recited the very Supreme Court Rule 286, the judge
exercised Bias and or Prejudiced, Page 9, Line 16-24, Page 10,
Lines 1-5 said ”Okay,. The only issue Mr. Lawrence, I’m not taking issue
any issue with that proposition, et al. Overruled said Objection!
B-
That
judge Michael F. Otto who lost a bid to become a judge in the primary but was
appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court as an Associate judge has used his
unlawful authority to have a bank to steal a ministers home trying to sell the
home expeditiously to cover up the plethora of criminal acts in the foreclosure
proceeding case #12 CH 24000, this is not the first case Plaintiff’s Godmother
Alwanna Knight was before Judge Atkins where she had filed bankruptcy had the
debt discharged in Federal Court but Atkins was without authority none of the
bank attorneys were able to argue meritoriously any defense, judge Atkins was
replaced by a female judge very professional and seemingly articulate in the
laws got on the bench and informed the Plaintiff, she understood what, he was
trying to do for his mother but he did not have his law license yet her home
was taken and sold illegally;
That because of the above; 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.
C-
In Re Marriage of
O’Brien 912 N.E. 2d 729 (Ill App. 2 Dist. 2009),
When a party moves for substitution of the trial judge
for cause based upon an alleged violation of rule setting forth mandatory bases
for recusal, the movant need only show the existence of that factor and that an
objective, reasonable person would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might
reasonably be questioned, and need not show actual prejudice. S.H.A. 735 ILCS
5/2-----1001 (a) (3); Sup. Ct. Rule 63 (C) (1).
D-
The
Judge demonstrated Bias and
or Prejudice conduct stated, “he had no knowledge of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court issuing out Summons in Certified Mail” CHA attorney TB
King, Christian Novay agreed with the judge Feb 27, 2015;
E-
Anne
Harris of Seyfarth & Shaw was the only attorney to admit receiving
certified mail and the summons a court reporter was present and recorded the
entire matter;
F-
Said
Judge had jurisdiction of the case when he unlawfully dismissed the Rule to
Show Cause et al Feb. 27, 2015, but because of Bias and or Prejudice
conduct unlawfully used his
judicious authority to assist the defendants, by dismissing said Amended
Petition for Rule to Show Cause et al. because the defendants were still
claiming they had not been served, March 20, 2015;
735
ILCS 5/2—1001(a)(3) (West 2006). Although the statute does not define
“cause”, Illinois courts have held that in such circumstances, actual prejudice
has been required to FORCE REMOVAL of a judge from a case, that is , either
prejudicial trial conduct or personal bias. Rosewood Corp. n Transamerica Insurance Co., 57 Ill 2d 247, 311 N.E. 2d
673 (1974; In re Marriage of Kozloff, 101 Ill 2d 526, 532, 79 Ill. Dec 165 463
N.E. 2d 719 (1984); see also People v. Vance, 76 Ill. 2d 171, 181, 28 Ill. Dec.
508, 390 N.E. 2d 867 (1979). Moreover, in construing the term “cause” for
purposes of a substitution once a substantial ruling has been made in a case,
Illinois courts have consistently required actual prejudice to be established,
not just under the current statute, but under every former version of the
statute
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
reasonably 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. R.T., 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 law 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).
19.) The facts and reasons for the belief
that such Bias and or Prejudice conduct with incredible corroboration
and Civil Rights Violations exists, are that, the following laws were
noticeably maliciously violated, said Judge having complete knowledge and was
aware of all “fraudulent”
acts perpetrated at the Plaintiff but ignored them and engaged in the same
conspiracy, either ignored Petitioners Motions or Petitions accompanied with
affidavits but granted every frivolous motion defendants filed without any
affidavits;
Turner
24 F. Cas. 337 (No.
14247) C.C.D. Md. 1867) The “equal benefit” clause is cited in
what would appear to be the earliest reported case enforcing the section. The
plaintiff was an emancipated slave who was indentured as an apprentice to her
former master. Although both whites and blacks could be indentured as an
apprentice, under the law of Maryland, indentured blacks were not accorded the
same educational benefits as whites and, unlike whites, were subject to being
transferred to any other person in the same county. Circuit Judge Chase granted
a writ of habeas corpus upon finding that the purported apprenticeship was in
fact involuntary servitude and a denial under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 of
the “full and equal benefit of all laws
A-
That
because the judge has committed a series of “Fraudulent Errors” a Motion for Reconsideration is MOOT
because of the pattern of deliberate “Anarchy” in his rulings trying to protect
the Defendants because they are in DEFAULT
and SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH ORDER WAS
IN FACT PROPER attorneys needed the judge or any judge to act outside of their judicial
immunity provisions by violating the laws as demonstrated in this matter;
B-
That
due to the judges Bias and or
Prejudice conduct pursuant to Sup Ct Rule 71, Sufficient for Removal,
conduct which does not constitute a criminal offense may be sufficiently
violative of the Judicial Canons to warrant removal for cause. Napolitano v Ward, 457 F 2d 279 (7th
Cir.), cert denied, 409 U.S. 1037, 93 S. Ct. 512, 34 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1972).
C-
Said
Judge violated all Rules of law Canon Ethics, Code of Judicial Conduct Rule Scott, 377
Mass. 364, 386 N.E. 2d 218, 220 (1979) See Lopez-Alexander, Unreported Order
No. 85-279 (Colo. May 3, 1985) (Judge removed for, inter alia, a persistent
pattern of abuse of the contempt power. The Mayor of Denver accepted the
findings of the Denver County Court Judicial Qualification Commission that the
judge’s conduct could not be characterized as mere mistakes or errors of law
and that the conduct constituted willful misconduct in office and conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office
into disrepute). Canon Ethics where there is a pattern of disregard or
indifference, which warrant discipline.
20.) Said judge demonstrated Bias and or Prejudice
conduct when he acted outside
of his jurisdiction threatening the Plaintiff to impose Sanctions on him
because he did like his Motion or the fact he respectfully objected to CHA
Attorney giving an oral argument because none of them filed proper appearances
before the court and that oral arguments had no merits where proper affidavits
had accompanied all motions; Most important Judge Valderrama and attorneys knew
of this racial injustice but was trying diligently to keep these facts
suppressed. Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill.
2d 228, 280, 269 Ill. Dec. 80, 779 N. E. 2d 1115 (2002).
21.) That
this is how members of the Democratic Political Machine really feel about
people of color they only want your vote but exercise every means necessary
making sure persons of color are oppressed and DENIED equal opportunities under
the United States Constitution
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).
22.) That the November 2, and November 13, 2015
court orders are fact void:
A-
Ill. App. (1st Dist. 2000)
“A VOID Judgment 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
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 the 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.
23.)That because of
Judge Valderrama’s Bias and
or Prejudice conduct overt acts of acting
outside of the provisions of judicial immunity Dismissed Plaintiff’s Motion for
Default & Summary Judgment with Affidavit and Order March 30, 2015;
A- Plaintiff was articulate and
respectable which made the judge noticeably agitated, he asked the Plaintiff in
his Motion for Summary judgment did he attach service to the Motion? Plaintiff
responded by saying pursuant to my affidavit unchallenged and court files
certified -----The judge interrupted saying didn’t I tell you, I don’t accept
summons in certified mail? In a very angry tone! Trying to provoke the
Plaintiff;
A judge’s disrespect for the
rules of court demonstrates disrespect for the law. Judges are disciplined
under Canon 2A for violating court rules and procedures. Judge ignored mandated
witness order in attempt to accommodate witnesses’ schedules; Citing Canon 2A
the court noted, “[a] court’s indifference to clearly stated rules breeds
disrespect for and discontent with our justice system. Government cannot demand
respect of the laws by its citizens when its tribunals ignore those very same
laws”)
24.)Jim Crow Laws are still being enacted and enforced in
Chicago, Illinois courts Black and Brown lives simply don’t matter unless you
give your soul to Terrorists and abide by their rules and doctrines;
In the 20th century, the Supreme Court began to
overturn Jim Crow laws on constitutional grounds. In
Buchanan v. Warley 245 US 60 (1917), the
court held that a
Kentucky law could not require
residential segregation. The Supreme Court
in 1946, in
Irene Morgan v. Virginia ruled segregation in
interstate transportation to be unconstitutional, in an application of the
commerce
clause of the Constitution. It was not until 1954 in
Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka 347 US 483 that the court held that separate facilities
were inherently unequal in the area of public schools, effectively overturning
Plessy
v. Ferguson, and outlawing Jim Crow in other areas of society as well. This
landmark case consisted of complaints filed in the states of Delaware (
Gebhart
v. Belton); South Carolina (
Briggs
v. Elliott); Virginia (
Davis v. County
School Board of Prince Edward County); and
Washington,
D.C. (
Spottswode Bolling v. C. Melvin Sharpe).
These decisions, along with other cases such as
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State
Board of Regents 339 US 637 (1950),
NAACP
v. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958), and
Boynton v. Virginia 364 US 454 (1960),
slowly dismantled the state-sponsored segregation imposed by Jim Crow laws.
As
the color line itself solidified at the turn of the nineteenth century, Jim
Crow imposed on black people clear tactical disadvantages: restricted economic
possibilities, narrow educational opportunities, inadequate housing options,
high rates of death and disablement, persistent unemployment, and unrelenting
poverty. Inasmuch as Jim Crow represented the race problem described by Gunnar
Myrdal (1898–1987) in his 1944 treatise The
American Dilemma, it was Jim Crow that created the race quandary; whites
constructed the obstacles African Americans confronted, while also blaming them
for their conditions, denying them access to the resources of problem solving,
and daring them—under threat of violence—to complain, protest, or advance.
Finally,
protests or challenges to Jim Crow often proved futile, given law enforcement’s complicity in the
structure. From emancipation to the turn of the century, the Ku Klux Klan
operated as a paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party in the South. The Klan,
nightriders, red shirts, and other white terrorists intimidated African
Americans with personal attacks, school burnings, and lynching’s. African
Americans rarely served as policemen, sheriffs, or deputies before the late
1940s. During the 1950s and 1960s, the connections between municipal and state
governments, law enforcement, and racial violence were well known by officials
and citizens alike. White officers were known to harass black people, disrupt
black neighborhoods, and assault black women. Arrested for inflated charges,
denied satisfactory counsel, and serving harsh sentences, African Americans
were further disadvantaged in the courtroom. Rarely did they receive good
counsel, nor could they serve on juries. When black lawyers could appear in the
courtroom to argue cases, white judges and juries rarely listened. All-white
juries decided against black defendants, even in the most obvious cases of
innocence, but rarely convicted white defendants, despite evidence of guilt.
African Americans—including the innocent—suffered the harsher punishments of extended jail time, forced farm
labor, and peonage. Even women could be placed on the chain gangs working the
roads and tracks across the South.
Jim Crow Laws: Illinois
This
list contains Jim Crow laws and anti-Jim Crow laws. (Please note the source of
this list in the footnotes.)
1865: Barred
residency segregation [Statute]
Repealed 1853 act making it a misdemeanor for a Negro to move to Illinois.
1874: Barred
school segregation [Statute]
Boards of education prohibited from excluding any child on account of color
from the public schools. Penalty: Those who excluded children based on race
would be fined between $5 and $100. Those who threatened a child from attending
a public school were subject to a fine up to $25.
1885: Barred
public accommodation segregation [Statute]
Made inns, restaurants, barber shops, public transportation, theaters and
places of public amusement available to all persons. Penalty: Violators of the
act would be fined between $25 and $500, paid to the victim, and would also be
guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a fine of up to $500.
1896: Barred
school segregation [Statute]
Prohibited school officers from excluding children from public schools on the
basis of color. Penalty: $5 to $100.
1897: Barred
public accommodation segregation [Statute]
1885 law amended to include hotels, soda-fountains, saloons, bathrooms,
theaters, skating-rinks, concerts, cafes, bicycle rinks, elevators, ice cream
parlors, railroads, stages, streetcars and boats.
1903: Barred
public accommodation segregation [Statute]
1885 law extended to include funeral hearses as list of public services
available to all persons.
1911: Barred
public accommodations segregation [Statute]
Amendment to 1885 Civil Rights law stating that cemeteries could not
discriminate based on race the choice of burial plots for burying the dead.
1917: Antidefamation
[Statute]
Unlawful to "manufacture, sell or offer for sale, advertise or publish,
prsent or exhibit in any public place any lithograph, moving picture, play,
drama or sketch, which publication or exhibition portrays depravity,
criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens, of any race,
color, creed or religion...which exposes the citizens of any race, color, creed
or religion to contempt, derision, or obloquy or which is productive of breach
of the peace or riots." Penalty: Misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of
between $50 and $200.
1927: Housing
[Municipal Code]
Chicago adopted racially restrictive housing covenants beginning in 1927,
although other tactics had been used in earlier years to maintain a segregated
city. At one time, as much as 80 percent of the city may have been covered by
restrictive covenants. In 1924, Nathan MacChesney, a prominent Chicago attorney
and a member of the Chicago Planning Commission, drafted an addition to the
Code of Ethics of the National Association of Real Estate Boards that
"forbade realtors to introduce members of any race or nationality"
into neighborhoods where their presence would damage property values. In 1927,
MacChesney drafted a model racial restrictive covenant for the Chicago Real
Estate Board, solely targeting African Americans. The Chicago Real Estate Board
promoted the covenant to YMCAs, churches, women's clubs, PTAs, Kiwanis clubs,
chambers of commerce and property owners' associations. Hyde Park, Woodlawn,
Park Manor, South Shore, and other neighborhoods on Chicago's South Side
adjacent to the so-called "black belt," responded as well as outlying
Chicago neighborhoods and suburbs. Additionally, the University of Chicago was
a strong supporter of the covenant campaign in Washington Park, although they
denied their affiliation for many years. In 1948, the United States Supreme
Court ruled that enforcement of racial restrictive covenants was
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's ruling, however, did not put an end to
the problem of blacks finding adequate housing. Homeowner associations
continued to push for segregation. Shortly after the court decision, the
Woodlawn Property Owners wrote:
If the colored people are convinced that life in Woodlawn would be
unbearable, they would not want to come in. There must be ways and means to
keep whites from selling, causing colored not to want to come in because life
here would be unbearable. We are going to save Woodlawn for ourselves and our
children!
(Deeds
of Mistrust: Race, Housing, and Restrictive Covenants in Chicago, 1900-1950)
1933: Civil
rights protection [Statute]
Outlawed racial discrimination. Penalty: Criminal prosecution and damages.
1933: Barred
employment discrimination [Statute]
Prohibited discrimination and intimidation on account of race or color in
employment under contracts for public buildings or public works. Penalties:
$100 for each offense. Fines up to $500 and or imprisonment up to 30 days.
1953: Housing
[Municipal Code]
In August 1953, the first black family to move into Trumbull Park, an all-white
project of the Chicago Housing Authority, came under attack by nearly fifty
teenagers who hurled stones, bricks and racial slurs at their apartment.
Venturing outside of their home was equally frightening, and required a police
escort. Additionally, blacks traveling through the area now became targets of
violence. As more black families moved into the project, they, too, were
harassed daily. When blacks received a permit to organize a baseball game at
the neighborhood park, tensions intensified. A hostile crowd gathered at the
park. When a firecracker tossed from the crowd hit a player, the police sat
motionless. A player who went to retrieve a foul ball was attacked by the crowd
and a fight broke out. When the police arrested the white who started the
fight, the crowd quickly turned their frustrations on the police. Reactions
intensified after the fight and there was talk among whites to "burn the
dirty bastards out."
Another
disturbing incident occurred in July 1954 when three black women attended mass
at a local Catholic church. After the mass the women waited until most of the
crowd had left and exited from a side door. A crowd of about thirty awaited the
women as they left the church. One white woman was so incensed that she attacked
the black women with her umbrella. Father Michael Commins, the rector of the
church, reproached his parishioners in a bulletin later that month, saying,
"Hissing, hooting and assaulting anyone for going to Mass is very
un-Christian like." Although there was much less violence within Trumbull
Park by the early 1960s, anti-black sentiments were still firmly in place.
Neighborhood taverns featured Members Only signs, African Americans stayed away
from the park, the public swimming pool and local churches. As Arnold R. Hirsch
wrote in a journal article published on Trumbull Park, "The decade of
resistance that prevented all but a token of African American presence
maintained South Deering as a white domain even as King negotiated the
desegregation of Birmingham, Alabama." (Massive Resistance in the Urban
North: Trumbull Park, Chicago, 1953-1966, The Journal of American
History, Sept. 1995)
1956: Barred
health care segregation [Municipal Code]
No hospital to deny to any person admission for care or treatment on account of
race, color, creed or national origin.
1957: Barred
housing segregation [Statute]
Neighborhood redevelopment corporations must not discriminate.
1957: Barred
school segregation [Statute]
No exclusion or segregation in districts of fewer than 1,000 persons. Penalty:
$5 to $100.
1958: Barred
National Guard segregation [Statute]
Prohibited segregation or discrimination within state National Guard.
FOOTNOTES:
"The
History of Jim Crow," n.d., <http://jimcrowhistory.org> (27 November
2009).
25.)That despite a Federal Judges’ ruling in 1969, hereto
attached, Gr Ex E, against the Chicago
Housing Authority, 304 F Supp. 736, United States District Court, N. D.
Illinois Eastern District, CHA officials have blatantly violated this court
order with the assistance of Democrats in the Political Machine as they
continue to enforce “Jim Crow” laws upholding racist doctrines so as to keep
persons of color oppressed and disenfranchised by every means necessary as
demonstrated in this matter;
A- That judges are politically appointed
as Associate judges in return they uphold the racist doctrines outlawed by the
United States Supreme Court;
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
Vaughn 462 S. E. 2d 728 (Ga.1995), The Supreme Court of
Georgia removed a Judge from office for disregarding defendant’s Constitutional
rights; Hammel, 668 N. E. 2d 390 (N.Y.
1996) (Judge removed for improperly jailing defendants for their
alleged failure to pay fines and make restitution which the judge had imposed,
disregarding the defendants basic constitutional rights;
A-
That
Plaintiff has demonstrated beyond the Preponderance of Evidence that said acts
demonstrates how Section
1983 of U.S.C.S. 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 573, especially if the conspiracy was actually
carried into effect, where an action is for a conspiracy to interfere with
Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1985 (3), or for the depravation of such rights
under 42 U.S.C.S. 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 may be
treated as one for the depravation of rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, Lewis
v. Brautigam (CA 5 F 1a) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505, John W.
Strong, 185, 777-78 (4 the ed. 1992).
Finally, this document
is best closed by a jurist who has stated”; Citing Canon 2A the court
noted, “[a] court’s indifference to clearly stated rules breeds disrespect for
and discontent with our justice system. Government cannot demand respect of the
laws by its citizens when its tribunals ignore those very same laws”)
Most
recently stated in Federal Court FEDERAL
JUDGE GETTLEMAN: stated, Tuesday March 10, 2009, where he found
Superintendent of police Jody Weiss in Contempt of Court and Ordered the City
to Pay $100,000.00, “No one is above the Law”, he cited a 1928 decision by
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, that said, “If the Government becomes the law breaker, it breeds Contempt for the
Law, It invites everyman to become a law unto himself. It invites Anarchy.”
The Chicago Daily
Law Bulletin, Wednesday April 26, 2006, Page
1, Illinois Political Machines help breed corruption, Associated Press
writer Deanna Bellandi states, “Illinois
is apparently a Petri dish for corruption. It is a real breeding ground”.
That Chicago is the
most Corrupt City in America, Huffington Post, Internet
Newspaper, February 23, 2012; University of Illinois Professor Dick Simpson, “The two worst crime zones in Illinois are
the governor’s mansion…..and the City Council Chambers in Chicago.” Simpson a
former Chicago Alderman told the AP “no other State can match us.”
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT
Respectfully Submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
Counsel Pro Se
Chicago,
Ill 60649
312 927-4210
WHEREFORE the
aforementioned reasons Plaintiff respectfully prays that said Judge be recused/disqualified
if so at the time of the filing of this document all orders VACATED based upon
the reasons cited in this document and noted in the Affidavits and appropriate
Sanctions Remands be imposed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137 to all
applicable parties for the enforcement of this matter:
2.) That the Chief Judge or Presiding Judge summon
Federal authorities to ascertain the criminal allegations noted to determine
what prosecutorial remedies are afforded in this matter;
3.)
That a Moratorium be imposed on the Chancery Division prohibiting sales
or evictions of any person’s homes in Foreclosure pending the outcome of any
investigation as the Department of Justice is doing in the unlawful shooting of
Laquan McDonald matter;
4.)
That Pursuant to Section 2 (42 U.S.C.)
In the House of Representatives.
“Congressional Debate of the second
section of the Ku Klux Klan Act was more extensive and enduring than that of
Section 1; As originally presented, Sec. 2 made it a felony for any “two or
more persons” to conspire to commit certain enumerated crimes “in violation of
the rights and privileges, or immunities of any person, to which he is entitled
under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
“Throughout the debates, supporters
of the Act made repeated references to the depredations of the Ku Klux Klan;
Victims of these atrocities included not only blacks but white Republicans as
well. The crimes that were perpetrated, therefore, were not viewed as isolated
occurrences, but as part of an “Organized Conspiracy….Political in its origin
and aims”, “crimes perpetrated by concert and agreement, by men in large
numbers acting with a common purpose for the injury of a certain class of
citizens entertaining certain political principles, id, at 457 (remarks of Rep. Coburn). See also e.g., id.
At 437 (remarks of Rep. Cobb) (“None but Democrats belong or can belong to
these societies”) et al.
“Where these gangs of Assassins show
themselves the rest of the people look on, if not with sympathy, at least with
forbearance. The boasted courage of the South is not courage in their presence.
Sheriffs, having eyes to see, see not; judges, having ears to hear, hear not;
witnesses conceal the truth or falsify it; grand or petit juries act as if they
might be accomplices. In the presence of these gangs all the apparatus and
machinery of civil government, all the processes of justice, skulk away as if
government and justice were crimes and feared detection. Among the most
dangerous things an injured party can do is to appeal to justice. Of the
uncounted scores and hundreds of atrocious mutilations and murders it is
credibly stated that not one has been punished. Cong. Globe, supra note 2, app.
At 78 (remarks of Rep. Perry). (“While
murder is stalking abroad in disguise, while whippings and lynching’s and
banishment have been visited upon unoffending American citizens, the local
administrations have been found inadequate or unwilling to apply the proper
corrective”) et al., …. And the State made no successful effort to bring the
guilty to punishment or afford protection or redress to the outraged and
innocent.”)
5.)
That
Under Section 4 of the Ku Klux Klan
Act of 1871: the law is clear, “Whenever in any State or part of a
State………unlawful combinations…….shall be organized and armed, and so numerous
and powerful et al…………and whenever, by reason of either or all of the causes
aforesaid, the conviction of such offenders and the preservation of the public
safety shall become…..Impracticable, in every such case such combinations shall
be deemed a rebellion against the Government of the United States…..”
6.) That all parties complicit in said conspiracies
be charged with terrorist acts;
7.) That Cook County Sheriffs along with Federal
Officials be present until this matter is properly adjudicated.
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 correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on
information and belief and as to such matters, the undersigned certifies as
aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.
Respectfully Submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
Counsel Pro Se
Chicago, Ill 60649
312 927-4210
CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE
Commander & Chief Attorney General of United States
President Barack
Obama
Loretta Lynch
The White House U.S. Department of Justice
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Chief Judge Timothy Evans Judge Moshe
Jacobius
50 West
Washington, Suite 2600 50 West Washington, Suite
2403
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Judge
Mary Lane Mikva Clerk of
Circuit Court, Dorothy Brown
50 West
Washington, Suite 50 West
Washington, Suite 1000
Chicago, Ill
60601
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Atty. Gen, Lisa Madigan Asst. Atty. Gen
Tyler Roland
100 West
Randolph, Suite 1200 100
West Randolph, Suite 1200
Chicago, Ill.
60601
Chicago, Ill. 60601
States Attorney,
Anita Alvarez, Daley Center, Chg. Ill. 60601
Sec of State Asst Deputy Dir. Candace Cheffin
Asst Gen Counsel Terrence McConville
60 East Van Buren, 8th floor
100 West
Randolph, Suite 500
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Chicago, Ill.
60601
CHA Mobility CHA Mobility, HCP Counselors
Chris Klepper, Executive
Dir. Tracey Robinson/Joann
Harris
28 East Jackson
Blvd.
4859 S. Wabash, Suite 2nd Floor
Chicago, Ill
60604 Chicago, Ill. 60615
CHA Mobility, Real Estate
Specialist Recorder of
Deeds
Jessie McDaniel
Karen Yarbrough
4859 S.
Wabash
118 N. Clark, Room 120
Chicago, Ill.
60615
Chicago, Ill. 60602
City of Chicago, Department of
Buildings Sabre Investments
Christopher Lynch
120 West Madison Street
121 North
LaSalle, Room 900
Chicago, Ill 60601
Chicago, Ill.
60601
Seyfarth & Shaw
Anne D. Harris,
Jeffrey K. Ross, Kyle A. Petersen, Sara Eber Fowler Suite 2400
131 South
Dearborn
Chicago, IL.
60603
Chicago Housing Authority
Office of the
General Counsel, Maria Sewell Joseph, Thomas B. King
60 East Van
Buren
Chicago, IL.
60605
Cary G. Schiff &
Associates Gordon & Rees LLP
Christopher R. Johnson, Yuleida Joy Lindsay Watson, Christian T. Novay
134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1720 1 North Franklin, Suite 800
Chicago, Ill. 60602 Chicago,
Illinois 60606
Stephan R.
Patton, Mary E. Reuther, Rey A. Phillip Santos
Corp Counsel, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Asst
Corp Counsel
30 N. LaSalle
Street, Suite 800
Chicago, Ill
60602
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker LLP Father
Michael Pfleger
Christian Novay
St. Sabina Church
55 West Monroe,
Street, Suite 3800
1210 West 78th Pl
Chicago, Ill.
60603
. Chg. Ill. 60620
Jessica Mallon, Gen Counsel CHA Roy Martinez Manager 420 East Ohio
60 East Van
Buren
420 East Ohio
Chicago, Ill
60601
Chicago, Ill. 60611
Eve Aywaz, Sales Consultant Sarah Aredia, Leasing Consultant
345 East Ohio
420 East Ohio
Chicago, Ill.
60611
Chicago, Ill. 60611
John-Paul Loseto, Executive Manager Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
345 East Ohio
550 West Adams Street, Suite 300
Chicago, Ill.
60611
Chg. Il 60661
Christian T. Novay, Julie A. Carillo
Courtesy Copies:
US Attorney FBI
Dir. Michael J. Anderson
Zachary T. Fardon 2111 West Roosevelt Road
219 S. Dearborn, 5th floor Chicago, Ill. 60612
Chicago,
Ill 60604
Hon Judge Neil Cohen Media Personnel
& Journalist
50 West
Washington, Suite 2308
Chicago, Ill
60601
Mayor
Deputy Regional Adm., Field Office Dir.
Rahm Emanuel Beverly E.
Bishop
City Hall
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Ill.
60601
Chicago, Ill. 60604
Governor Hon Mark Kirk
525 South 8th St. 607 East
Adams, Suite 1520
Springfield, Ill. 62703 Springfield,
Ill. 62701
Bruce Rauner Leo
High School
100 West Randolph 7901 S. Sangamon
Chicago, Ill. 60601 Chg. Ill.
60620
Cook County President Cook County
Sheriff
Toni
Preckwinkle
Thomas J. Dart
118 N. Clark,
Room 517 Richard
J. Daley Center, Room 701
Chicago, Ill.
60602
Chicago, Ill. 60602
Hon Dick Durbin Hon. Judge
525 South 8th St.
Frederick Bates
Springfield, Ill. 62703 50 West Washington
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Alderman Edward Burke
Alderman David Moore
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on March 21, 2016, A Motion to Supplement Motion for Disqualification of judge
for Cause et al, has been filed with the
Chancery Circuit Court of Cook County and said copies being served on said
applicable parties via hand delivery or regular mail;
Plaintiff
will present said Motion before Judge Valderrama or any judge in his stead
March 28th at 9:30am.
Respectfully Submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
Counsel
Pro Se
Chicago, Ill 60649
312
927-4210
@joelouis7
