PLANTATION POLITICS 101 LOOK AT HOW DEMOCRATS IN THE POLITICAL MACHINE RECRUIT THE NECESSARY NEGROES TO DO THEIR DIRTY WORK ENFORCING JIM CROW LAWS;
MANY OF THESE NEGROES IN CHICAGO POLITICAL OFFICES WOULD BE ON THE SOUTH SIDE KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IF THEY HAD NOT ASPIRED TO BEING INFERIOR NEGROES OR AS MY WHITE COLLEAGUES SAYS SO AFFECTIONATELY "HOUSE NIGGERS"
LEE OTIS LOVE A MAN SEEKING THE LOVE AND FATHER RELATIONSHIP OF HIS DAUGHTER IS REALLY NO MATCH TO THE CORRUPT JUDGES HERE IN CHICAGO, THIS CITY IS BIG MISSISSIPPI HELL THE CONFEDERATE FLAG SHOULD BE UP IN THIS CITY THEIR IS NOTHING AMERICAN ABOUT THE RACIST ATROCITIES TAKING PLACE IN THE COURTS.
O LORD MY GOD IS THERE ANY HELP FOR THE W. SON?
________________________________________________________________________
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 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 to Vacate
Feb 25th Orders where Civil Rights were Violated
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 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;
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 an order absent his
jurisdiction due to “Fraud Bias and
or Prejudice”;
Based
thereon Plaintiff respectfully moves that the Honorable F. U. Valderrama
proceed no further herein, 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 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 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 Disqualify
Judge F. U. Valderrama for Bias and or Prejudice pursuant to S.H.A. 735 ILCS 5/2 ---1001 (a) (2,3)
and to Vacate Feb. 25, 2016 any Orders
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;
2.)
I am
informed and believe and based on such information and belief, demonstrate
beyond the Preponderance of evidence standard
that the Honorable F. U. Valderrama is BIAS, and or Prejudiced
whom this cause has pended before, has demonstrated Reverse Racism, Personal
Bias, Prejudice and being in Cahoots with said Defendant’s engaging in an
elaborate criminal conspiracy;
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.
3.)
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
prior, Page 7, Lines 17-24, Page 8, Lines 1-3,
Judge, “Can I see a copy of the motion
telling me you have it set for March 10th? Thank you. The motion is
entitled motion for motion for prove up entering default and summary judgment.
I’m just going to ask because I don’t have time to read this motion right now,
Mr. Lawrence. Is it your position that the defendant’s motion today to dismiss
your complaint that the time has for them to answer or otherwise respond to
your complaint has passed, and that is the essence of your objection? Judge
demonstrated Bias and or Prejudiced conduct by saying he didn’t
have time to read it but never made that statement to the Defendants and is
very adamant about receiving courtesy copies 7 days prior to the motion call;
Plaintiff’s reply, Lines 4-11, Page 8, “That’s correct your
Honor. It has been noted in all of my documents, and that was the same argument
that I presented March 5th, that which you considered when 345 was
in fact present, because the same information that you granted counsel 28 days
to respond, the same defendants in that affidavit as well from the Circuit
Court from the Clerk of the Circuit Court” Judge demonstrated Bias and or Prejudiced conduct closing his eyes to the Defendant’s being
properly served which validates the veracity of his personal involvement “FIXING” the case in said
Defendant’s favor;
C-
That
on Feb. 25, 2016 on the 9:30am call, judge Valderrama heard Petitioners
argument supporting his objection on the Respondents Motion to Dismiss said
complaint;
D-
That
Page 10, Lines 7-24, Page 10 validates the veracity of Bias and or Prejudice conduct being blatantly demonstrated in
the court judge, “All right. What do you need to—since you are dealing with
three motions that are before the court?
E-
Said
Judge requested Petitioners copy, had knowledge and received affidavits,
particularly detailing service on the defendants
“Fraud” “Perjury” and a host of other Civil Rights Violations; Judge Due to
Bias and/or Prejudice ignored Plaintiff’s oral delivery and affidavits
unlawfully went along with fraudulent misrepresentations of the CHA, 420 East
Ohio attorneys and the City claiming they were not served, Judge Ordered said
Petitioner to respond to their Motion to Dismiss complaint, but exercised Bias and or Prejudice conduct did not order the Defendants to respond to
Petitioners Motion for Prove-Up et al.
F-
That
on Feb. 5, 2015, on Petitioners Motion Moving for Prove-Up Entering Default
Judgment and Summary Judgment, had a impromptu Hearing where the judge heard
testimony and oral arguments from 345
East Ohio attorney Ms. Goli Rahimi, from the law firm Gordon & Rees
who didn’t file an appearance but granted them 28 days to respond, that on
March 4th the law firm ignored the court order and didn’t respond
because the judge has demonstrated Bias
and or Prejudice conduct in this case no white attorney
has respected the judge or any orders he has entered;
G-
The
judge accepted into evidence the green card receipt of Frank Fiorietino Manager
for Village Green of 345 East Ohio and Affidavit printout from Clerk of the
Circuit Court Dorothy Brown establishing service of summons and complaint was
in fact served on the entity and they had been in Default since Feb 6, 2015;
H- The judge to no surprise engaged
in Bias and or Prejudice conduct, asked Counsel for 345 East Ohio “so what are you going to do counsel”?
he appeared agitated, he said, “I am about to grant his Motion”! The attorney
became nervous as Hell, he repeated himself and said angrily, I am not going to
tell you what to do! Then she said can I have 28 days? The judge immediately
said GRANTED! I’m like what the Hell!
I-
That
the judge continued his Bias and
or Prejudice conduct had evidence of K2
Management being served by the Cook County Sheriff (#01712560) Mar. 12, 2015 via attorney Christopher R.
Johnson one of the attorneys representing K2, unlawfully giving the Default
entity a continuous when no one was in the court requesting one;
J-
That
the judge admitted and demonstrated
Bias and or Prejudice conduct by not granting the Petitioner his
Default and Summary judgment, he said Lines
18-21, Page 12, “I said okay, that we will continue the
motion as to K2. In other words, I understand you’re correct that you have been
here for, if not all, the majority of the status” et al.
K-
That
Yuleida Joy of Cary G. Schiff or any attorneys ever objected to any of the
pleadings properly asserted in Petitioners 2nd Amended Complaint or
Petitions for Rule to Show Cause or any Motions accompanied with affidavits;
especially, not limited to Page 3, Par 1 of the 2nd Amended
Complaint, the judge is encouraging an unlawful act from counsel in
preparing a Motion to Quash to present March 17, 2016; “Lines 22-24, Page 12,
and Lines 1-6, Page 13, judge “but this case
needs to move. And what I mean by that is, if you have a proof who is saying
that you have been served, then and plaintiff is moving the Court to do
something vis-a-vie in this case K2, then it’s up to you as to what you will
do, in other words, whether you think you have been served or not. There is a
motion before the Court as to you. That’s what I was getting at. So on the 17th,
he is presenting his motion as to K2”
L- Counsel stated, Lines 11-17, Page 13 “And it did so summarily without motions. So
my question is, does the Court—the Court is allowing me to do so, which I’m
ready to do. I have an extra copy. Or does the Court require me to file a
motion to quash service? I’m just trying to avoid the extra added expense that
my client has incurred”
Lines 5-6 Page
14, “Would the Court require me to
file a written motion, which I can do?”
Judge Line 7, Page 14, “I think the latter would be preferred.”
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.
M- That because of Bias and or Prejudice
conduct of judges, hereto attached, Ex A,
In Re Estate of Timothy Lawrence, 2015 P 6209, judge Aicha MacCarthy received a
Notice from Attorney Erna Dzafic filed a Notice of Motion dated Feb. 19, 2016
at 9:41am and appeared before the judge at 10:00 received judgment ordering
Letters of Administration be issued to brothers ex wife Patricia Locke;
N-
That
said attorney in the above committed Fraud & Perjury that Steven M. Cloh,
345 N. Canal Street have not been at this law firm since Oct. 2015, Petitioner
spoke to Steven Sigmond who was the attorney who allowed Steven Cloh to rent
space at this address and has no knowledge of attorneys whereabouts;
O-
That on Feb. 22, 2016, Petitioner’s nephew
Kristopher Mykel Matthews appeared before Judge Kathleen L. O’Malley on a
Emergency Motion Vacating Court Order of Feb. 19th due to Fraud
& a plethora of other unlawful acts w/Affidavit, judge was rude insensitive
claimed to not understand the motion and that said motion appeared to be a
Chancery matter in which she had no jurisdiction but from best she can
understand, Heir Petitioner might want to file an amended petition naming him
the Heir and questioned why the Chief Judge, Judge Jacobius all received notice
don’t notice them properly notice the parties of record, she was not going to
dismiss his motion handed him a list of attorneys, surprisingly after losing
his father he did well speaking up to the judge and was the second person
called in the court;
P-
That
because of Bias and or Prejudice conduct in the Probate Court his sister was
able to falsify an affidavit claiming she was the only Heir making sure her
mother (Patricia Locke) seize his Estate and possessions unlawfully;
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).
Q-
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;
R-
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;
S-
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;
T-
That
because of the judges Bias
and or Prejudice conduct in this matter, he never
had his clerk to pull the case up on the computer to verify the veracity of
their claims of not being served, despite Petitioner presenting a courtesy copy and affidavit
hereto attached,
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
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.
4.)
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.
5.)
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; The judge became venomously agitated and angry,
“Judges, of course are presumed impartial, and the burden of overcoming the
presumption by showing prejudicial trial conduct or personal bias rests on the
party making the charge. Eychaner v.
Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228, 280, 269 Ill. Dec. 80, 779 N. E. 2d 1115 (2002).
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).
6.)
Said
judge demonstrated Bias and or
Prejudice conduct allowed Christian Novay, T.B. King and some
City attorneys to appear before him without filing appearances and justified
this unlawful act saying 420 East Ohio filed their appearance which had nothing
to do with the other defendants which constitutes “Fraud” because the judge
signed his name on all court orders;
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
Although some trial
judges may not review the orders of other judges, because that would not be
consistent with the orderly administration of justice or with our judicial
system People ex rel. Kelly, Ketting Furth, Lnc. V. Epstein, 61 ILL 2d, 229,
335 N.E. 2d 430 (1974) (Appeal of order as proper remedy); Cruz v. Columbus-Cuneo-Cabrini Medical Center, 194 ILL
App. 3d 1037, 551 N.E. 2d 1345, 141. Dec. 817 (1st Dist. 1990)
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.
Review of the orders of
one judge by another in the same case is not consistent with effective judicial
administration. W. R. Grace & Co. v. Baker Industries, Inc., 128 ILL. App.
3d 215, 470 N.E. 2d 577, 83 ILL. Dec. 451 (1st Dist. 1984).
Although the
chancery division of the County Department of the Circuit Court and the
Municipal Department of the Circuit Court have concurrent jurisdiction of
actions to demolish buildings, where the municipal department first acquired
jurisdiction of the subject matter and entered an order of demolition, the
county department could not properly assume jurisdiction and enter an order
preventing municipal departments from entering an order of demolition. Pepin v.
City of Chicago, 79 ILL. App. 2d 295, 224 N.E. 587 (1st Dist. 1967).
Case # 10 CH 23588 Plaintiff
appeared before Hon. Mary Lane Mikva where the Secretary of State was trying to unlawfully suspend said
driver’s license for child support that was never owed but was trumped up by
powerful City Hall and other Terrorist cells involved, Plaintiff prevailed and
the court accepted certified mail sent out by Cook County Clerk Dorothy Brown
where the Assistant Attorney General Tyler Roland was the attorney representing
the State.
Civil Rights Act
of 1866- first section, enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled. That all persons born in
the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not
taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such
citizens of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of
slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State
and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be
parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey
real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of the laws and
proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens,
and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none
other, any law, statute, ordinances, regulation, or custom, to the contrary
notwithstanding, Act of April 9, 1866, ch. 31, 1, 14 Stat. 27, 42 U.S.C.A. 1981
Despite the United States Constitution and Civil Rights Act Plaintiff
has not been treated as a citizen of the United States in that whites under
this Political System has been able to circumvent the laws and commit treason
like offenses because they are the majority in control in Chicago, Ill.
Political system; Pursuant to Vigus v. O’Bannon is an example of the
“Fraudulent” Racist Acts perpetrated against persons like the Plaintiff
standing up to Racial Injustice and Terrorism!
Plaintiff’s license was never
suspended because there was never a signed court order stating he owed any
child support but was locked up 5 times for allegedly owing child support;
A- Plaintiff
Lost his job with Sheriff Department in the Administrative capacity because of
the Bogus Paternity case;
B- Despite
scoring in the top 5-10% on the Police Exam a Commander with the Police
Department could not bring him on the Police department because of some
integrity issues that had to be resolved with the Bogus Paternity case;
C- Plaintiff
lost his job driving a School bus (Reliable who later went out of business)
because someone was forcing them to accept bogus court orders for wage
garnishees where Plaintiff was forced to get on Welfare because of all of the
money extorted from his salary;
D- Plaintiff
was rear ended by drunk Police Officer standing still driving a CTA bus Officer
totaled his van, Plaintiff sustained a back injury while off work injured on
duty allegedly City hall officials and CTA personnel stole his wages and tried
to destroy said personnel records saying Plaintiff was never a CTA employee.
E- Despite
filing a grievance the Union never acted on the matter even up to this date,
but the union Javier Perez called the Plaintiff last year telling them they
never received a letter from his physician stating he was fit to return to
return to work, if he had that letter we could do something about getting you
reinstated, what he did not realize Plaintiff had the information faxed it to
him never heard from him again;
F- Plaintiff
got accepted to Northwestern Law School scored very high on LSAT could not
attend school because of the plethora of Racist Diabolical Obstructions no
white man have to endure living in Chicago, Illinois
G- They have retaliated on Plaintiff’s
children along with a plethora of other “Fraudulent Acts;
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.
7.)
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
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;
8.)
Hereto
attached, Group Ex A, Clerk of the Circuit Court Dorothy Brown
certified a computer printout issuance of summons to all defendants, Pursuant
to 735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq.
9.)
Hereto
attached, Gr Ex B, United States
Postal confirmation return receipts identifying all parties who signed for
345 East Ohio, CHA and the City of Chicago, Human Relations Commission along
with the Sheriffs lookup copies indicating parties served ;
A-
The
judge read all of the documents and handed it back to the Plaintiff and denied
all of his Motions, hereto attached, Group
Ex C Court Orders;
10.)That judge Valderrma satisfied the Preponderance of
Evidence Standard by taking part in an “Organized
Conspiracy” by signing all of the court orders with his signature;
thereby, validating the veracity of colluding with said Defendants in said
conspiracy where “Fraud” and “Perjury” was apparent in reference to Gr Ex A, B;
A-
That
judge Valderrama has demonstrated an unknown interest in this matter which has
blinded his objectivity in adjudicating the merits of this matter, due to the aforementioned;
Sup Ct. Rule 63 (c) (1) (d) mandates
disqualification where the judge has an interest in the proceeding. (eff. April
16, 2007).
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”)
11.)One can infer from the above, said judge was trying to
emulate the Bias and Prejudiced Fraudulent Acts of the
other judges in case #88 D 079012 thinking they would stand behind him
as they did for all of the Irish and Polish judges but what he did not realize
is that none of them signed court orders only the Appellate Court judges signed
orders securing the “FIX” on said case protecting the judges involved.
12.)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.
13.)This is how Corruption has been able to keep a leg up on
Federal Officials you can’t prosecute a person if his name is not on a document
anybody can send a blank document in the mail and say it came from a
commissioner or appear in front of a judge and have a clerk stamp on the court
order but pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
272 it is not legal or valid if it has no judges signature, the reality
here is that many judges don’t follow this law they either initial or still
simply don’t sign orders when cases are being “FIXED”.
A- That case 88 D 079012 where Petitioner
was locked up unlawfully by Irish and Polish judges who knew he was innocent
five times for allegedly owing child support to a woman who was a Police
officer who covered up the fact her child was conceived out of incest her
biological father who was a police officer with incredible connections to City
Hall.
B- Judge Vallderrama and many like him
thought he could emulate the same criminal behavior as his hateful racist
colleagues and get away with the criminal acts because of Petitioners skin
color and he was protecting all of the whites guilty of various Civil Rights
Violations;
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 Defendant respectfully prays that said Judge be recused
and all orders VACATED based upon the reasons cited in this document and noted
in the Affidavits and appropriate Sanctions be imposed pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 137:
2.) That
the Chief Judge or Presiding Judge summons Federal authorities to ascertain the
criminal allegations noted to determine what prosecutorial remedies are
afforded in this matter;
3.) 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.”)
4.) 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…..”
5.) That all parties complicit in said conspiracies
be charged with terrorist acts;
6.) 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
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500 Washington, DC 20530-0001
Chicago Housing
Authority Wilson Elser
Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Office of the General Counsel Christian T. Novay
Asst Gen Counsel 55 West
Monroe, Street, Suite 3800
Maria Sewell Joseph Chicago, Il
60603
60 East Van Buren
Chicago, Ill 60605 Seyfarth &
Shaw
Jeffrey K. Ross, Kyle A. Petersen & Anne Harris
131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
Chicago, Ill. 60603
TO AAG Tyler
Roland Chief Judge Timothy Evans, Daley Center, Chg., Ill. 60601
General Law
Bureau Presiding Judge Jacobius, Daley Center, Chg. Ill. 60601
100 West
Randolph Street Suite 1300
Chicago, Ill.
60601 Clerk of Circuit Court Dorothy Brown, Suite 1001, Chg. Ill.
Judge M. L. Mikva Daley Center, Chg. Il
60601
States Attorney, Anita Alvarez,
Daley Center, Chg. Ill. 60601
Atty Gen Lisa Madigan, 100 West
Randolph, Suite 1300 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
Jessie McDaniel
4859 S. Wabash
Chicago, Ill. 60615
City of Chicago,
Department of Buildings
Christopher
Lynch
121 North LaSalle, Room 900
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Cary G. Schiff &
Associates Gordon
& Rees LLP
Christopher R.
Johnson Lindsay Watson, Christian T. Novay
Yuleida Joy
1 North Franklin, Suite 800
134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1720 Chicago, Illinois 60606
Chicago, Ill. 60602
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
Governor
Hon Mark Kirk
Bruce Rauner 607 East Adams, Suite 1520
100 West Randolph, Suite Springfield, Ill. 62701
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
Hon Dick Durbin Judge
525 South 8th St. Frederick Bates
Springfield, Ill. 62703 50 West Washington
Chicago, Ill. 60601
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
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on March 8, 2016, A 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;
No comments:
Post a Comment