Wikipedia Racial Injustice in Chicago Courts

Search results

Thursday, February 15, 2018


DEMOCRATS CONTROL THE MAYHEM AND TERRORIST ACTS ASSOCIATED IN COOK COUNTY & ILLINOIS COURTS:

RATHER THAN HAVE COOK COUNTY JUDGES/JUDGES IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OR THE STATES ATTORNEY TO RESPOND TO A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ANY OF THE AFOREMENTIONED ISSUES WERE NOT INVESTIGATED OR INDIVIDUALS ADMONISHED FOR TREASON OFFENSES LEE OTIES LOVE, JR. IS UNDER A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY HIS BRIEF WAS NOT PUT BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS.

DOMESTIC TERRORISM IS REAL IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OR EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS FOR ALL CITIZENS.

THIS CASE EXEMPLIFIES HOW JIM CROW LAWS ARE STILL BEING ENFORCED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HERE IN ILLINOIS AND THE THE EXTENT RACIST SEXIST TERRORIST JUDGES ARE WILLING TO EXHAUST TO PROTECT EACH BRETHREN OF THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OPPRESSING ANY ETHNIC GROUP THAT TRIES TO RISE ABOVE OPPRESSION OR FIGHT BACK RIGHTFULLY IN THE COURTS.

                                                           IN THE
                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                         FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                          CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
                                                              17-3489  

              
  Lee Oties Love, Jr.                                              } Appeal from the United     
                                                                               } States District Court for      
  Plaintiff –Appellant                                             } the Northern District of   
                                                                               } Illinois, Eastern Division
    V                                                                        }
                                                                               } No. 1:17-cv-05482
Supreme Court of Illinois, et al.                            }
                                                                               }
 Defendants-Appellees                                          } Sharon Johnson Coleman, Judge


                                                      



              RESPONSE TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR APPELLANT

MOTION TO VACATE (JANUARY 12, 2018) ORDER DUE TO ERROR/FRAUD “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE MAKING THE ORDER VOID A NULLITY w/AFFIDAVIT & REINSTATE MOTION PURSUNT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980

To the Honorable Justices of the Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals and Judicial Council:

    Complainant a United States Citizen, Lee Oties Love, Jr., hereby respectfully represents as Pro Se shows this court with corroboration/admissions and affidavit the noted reasons why this matter should be within this Court’s Jurisdiction; {Pursuant to Fed Rules of Civil Procedure and LR40.1 (b) (d) (e3)} with and transferred to another circuit with Affidavit.

The request for a transfer may be made at any stage of the proceeding before a reference to the Judicial Conference under Rule 20 (b) (1) (C) or 20 (b) (2) or a Petition for Review is filed under Rule 22:

Rule 26, it implements the Breyer Committee’s recommended use of transfers. Breyer Committee Report, 239 F.R.D. at 214-15.

Rule 26 authorizes the transfer of a complaint proceeding to another judicial council selected by the Chief Justice. Such transfers may be appropriate, for example, in the case of a serious complaint where there are multiple disqualifications among the original council, where the issues are highly visible and a local disposition may weaken public confidence in the process, where internal tensions arising in the council as a result of the complaint render disposition by a less involved council appropriate, or where a complaint calls into question policies or governance of the home court of appeals et al.       

 Now comes Lee Oties Love, Jr.. Pro Se Appellant in this cause  files herewith her affidavit as required by Title 28, United States Code, Section 144, to show that the   William J. Bauer, Michael S. Kanne, Diane P. Wood and Diane S. Sykes has a personal bias with compelling evidence demonstrating said judges “Trespassing upon the Laws” against me because of my skin color and where legally sufficient Complaint stating a cause how and why this court has jurisdiction; motions corroborating judicial corruption “fraud” “perjury” and a plethora of “Terrorist Civil Rights Acts” put before the court that the District Court and Court of Appeals judges ignored the criminal acts of the Democratic judges and described them as moot upholding Racism, Terrorism and “Treason as judges Trespassed upon the Laws” in the criminal enterprise known as Cook County courts.

That said judges are demonstrating unequivocally this is how traditional Democrats and racist Republicans of the Political Machine in this era and beyond feels towards persons of color and the necessary steps they and their brethren are willing to sacrifice and enforce keeping persons of color like the Appellant oppressed and treated as a criminal non United States Citizen; and is attempting to cover up the systemic legal applications of racism judicial terrorism that Appellant has diligently put before the courts, where judges and lawyers have participated in said conspiracies and have admitted it pursuant to all laws recorded.    

Based thereon, Plaintiff-Appellant respectfully moves that the “Private Citizen” judges recorded within proceed no further herein and that this Honorable Seventh Circuit invoke jurisdiction assign this matter to the Judicial Council so as to exhaust proper protocol in transferring this ,matter to another judicial circuit to judges that will honor the laws of the United States Constitution and it’s rules; due to members of the Democratic Political Machine seizing control over all courts and certain judges politically appointed because of their racist hatred of ethnic groups they deem inferior to them so as to  enforce the laws pursuant to the United States Constitution who is not Bias and understands how to enforce the laws in accordance to the United States Constitution and according to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to hear this proceeding who is not intimidated or fear reprisals from these individuals.

Now comes Lee Oties Love, Jr. Pro Se Appellant in this cause files herewith her affidavit as required by Title 28, attesting the veracity and accuracy of all statements recorded within.      

                                                                   IN THE
                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                         FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                              219 South Dearborn
                                        CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

                                                   AFFIDAVIT


                          In support of Response to Rule to Show Cause for Appellant & Motion Vacate et al.                                  

                                                In support of Response et al.
To Vacate   Diane Sykes, William J. Bauer, Diane P. Wood and Michael S. Kanne various judges subject to an active Complaint Case # 07-16-90074  Judge of the Northern District of Illinois for Personal Bias or Prejudice “FRAUD” “Trespassing upon the Laws” pursuant to 28 USCA 144, 455 (b) (1) & REINSTATE MOTION PURSUNT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980

I am Lee Oties Love, Jr. being duly sworn on oath states: 


{Pursuant to the Rules of Federal Civil Procedure & U.S. Constitution}
         Section 1983 of U.S.C.S., S.H.A. Criminal Ch. 38, 33-3, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Canon 3D (1) Reporting Judicial Misconduct, 3D (2) Reporting Lawyer Misconduct;

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court   of Cook County is a criminal enterprise. U.S. v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th Cir. 1985).
The United States Supreme Court recently acknowledged the judicial corruption in Cook County, when it stated that Judge "Maloney was one of many dishonest judges exposed and convicted through 'Operation Greylord', a labyrinthine federal investigation of judicial corruption in Chicago". Bracey v. Gramley, case No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997).
Since judges who do not report the criminal activities of other judges become principals in the criminal activity, 18 U.S.C. Section 2, 3 & 4, and since no judges have reported the criminal activity of the judges who have been convicted, the other judges are as guilty as the convicted judges.
A court exercises its law-declaring power when a ruling has an effect on “primary conduct”. See id. (Citing Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 475 (1965) (Harlan, J., concurring) (classifying rules affecting “primary decisions respecting human conduct”) as substantive for purposes of Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).
The criminal activities that the Federal Courts found in the Circuit Court of Cook County still exist, and are today under the care, custody and control of Judge Timothy C. Evans (Chief Judge). The Circuit Court of Cook County remains a criminal enterprise.

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY

Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act, or for their administrative/ 
ministerial duties. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion - he is then not performing a judicial act, he is performing a ministerial act.
Judicial immunity does not exist for judges who engage in criminal activity, for judges who connive with, aid and abet the criminal activity of another judge, or to a judge for damages sustained by a person who has been harmed by the judge's connivance with, aiding and abetting, another judge's criminal activity.
TRESPASSERS OF THE LAW
The Illinois Supreme Court has held that "if the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are trespassers." Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109 (1870)
Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court "could not hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, - it, had no authority to make that finding." The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928). The judges listed below had no legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear or rule on certain matters before them. They acted without any jurisdiction.
When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason (see below).
The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that "not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function. ... It is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse."
When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void, of no legal force or effect.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." [Emphasis supplied in original].
By law, a judge is a state officer or federal officer.
The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).




1.)  That said judges erred and violated the oath of their duties DENIED everything Appellant filed before them corroborating judges engaging in “Treason” “Trespassing upon the Laws” warring against the United States constitution.

A.   That said judges realizing Appellant met her burden within the preponderance of the evidence legal standards, 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).
B.   Ignored the very laws that was created by the Seventh Circuit from briefs.

2.)  In that Appellant filed a proper Motion for Reconsideration et al (Jan. 12, 2018) demonstrating numerous judges Trespassing Upon the Laws et al. Diane P. Wood ignored the laws became a “Private Citizen” because she had no jurisdiction, she “Trespassed upon the Laws” denying said Motion in spite of the foregoing statements validating the verity of Sharon Johnson Coleman and Cook County judges engaging in “Treason”  becoming “Private Citizens” Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)

3.)  That insanity is the repetition “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Appellant realizes that the judges in the Seventh Circuit full of “animus hate” is exercising every opportunity available to them making sure they obstruct any and all documents that validate the verity of any claims going forward against the membership of the “White Nationalist” in the Democratic Party.

4.)  That this is not a questionable legal issue that needs to be briefed or any area of legal ambiguity this is the judges way of trying to wear the Appellant down financially with frivolous non – merited legal citations protecting all judges engaging in Terrorist “Treason Offenses”.

5.)  In that said judges operating in concert acted outside their jurisdiction and created a caption so as to justify and Induce Reliance upon other parties dismissing what was supposed to be the proper motion put before the court; moreover, pursuant to case 18-1051 Motion to Vacate et al. on Jan 24, 2018 an Instanter Order was granted, hereto attached.

6.)  Appellant cannot or any other Pro se individual can receive justice in this present Seventh Circuit because the Democrats control the judges and clerks making sure this case or any other case complaining of “Treason” or judges “Trespassing upon the Laws” stay within the 7th Cir.

7.)  Appellant is now aware that the “Private Citizens” in this circuit trying to protect the members in their “Organized Conspiracy” are going to DENY this Response to Rule to Show Cause et al. warrants the Federal Bureau of Investigations to invoke jurisdiction Instanter because the only way for them to fully get involved Appellant is stepping aside.

A-   Appellant is due-diligently seeking another Circuit pursuant to the aforementioned but said Democrats is operating outside of the parameters of their jurisdiction warring against the United States Constitution trying to protect those judges acting as Terrorist in the Criminal Enterprise of Cook County.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." [Emphasis supplied in original]. By law, a judge is a state officer.  The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).

8.)  Said judges have made sure no attorney respond or address any of the noted allegations out of fear they may admit that Appellant is telling the truth.
A-     Pursuant to {28 USCA 144, 455 (B) (1)} 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), that said judges noted within unequivocally met this burden wholeheartedly  
 
Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980:
The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee
Pursuant to Appendix D 352 (Chapter 16, Title 28, United States Code)

9.)  § 352. Review of complaint by chief judge (a) Expeditious Review; Limited Inquiry.—The chief judge shall expeditiously review any complaint received under section 351(a) or identified under section 351(b). In determining what action to take, the chief judge may conduct a limited inquiry for the purpose of determining— (1) whether appropriate corrective action has been or can be taken without the necessity for a formal investigation; and (2) whether the facts stated in the complaint are either plainly untrue or are incapable of being established through investigation. For this purpose, the chief judge may request the judge whose conduct is complained of to file a written response to the complaint. Such response shall not be made available to the complainant unless authorized by the judge filing the response. The chief judge or his or her designee may also communicate orally or in writing with the complainant, the judge whose conduct is complained of, and any other person who may have knowledge of the matter, and may review any transcripts or other relevant documents.

10.)               The chief judge shall not undertake to make findings of fact about any matter that is reasonably in dispute. Hereto attached Court Order of Jan. 16, 2018,  
A-    That said Chief Judge Diane P. Wood by “Trespassing upon the Laws” by violating her oath and obstructed justice by falsifying admissions why said motion as to why it was denied became a “Private Citizen”

B-    That “Private Citizen” judges violated the provisions of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 and all laws of the United States Constitution further corroborates her role and participation in trying to cover-up all “Treason Offenses.  

C-    That said judges are making it clear to the Appellant, FBI and everyone reading this document as Terrorist likened to Bin Laden imitators, they are going to continue warring against the United States Constitution and “Trespass upon the Laws” demonstrating said Judges are going to continuously enforce Jim Crow Laws outlawed by the United States Supreme Court until the government eradicates all of them from the bench. 

11.)               Section 351(a) authorizes “[a]ny person alleging that a judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, or alleging that such judge is unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability” to “file with the clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit a written complaint containing a brief statement of the facts constituting such conduct.”

Section 351(c) directs the clerk to transmit the complaint to the chief circuit judge (or, if the chief judge is the object of the complaint, to the active judge on the court of appeals who is senior in service) and to the judge complained against. (Complaints against International Trade Court or Federal Claims Court judges are handled by those courts’ chief judges.) Section 351(b) authorizes the chief judge, by written order, to “identify” a complaint (begin the process) on the basis of “information available to the chief judge” and “thereby dispense with filing of a written complaint.”

Disqualification (a) General Rule. Any judge is disqualified from participating in any proceeding under these Rules if the judge, in his or her discretion, concludes that circumstances warrant disqualification. If a complaint is filed by a judge, that judge is disqualified from participating in any consideration of the complaint except to the extent that these Rules provide for a complainant’s participation. A chief judge who has identified a complaint under Rule 5 is not automatically disqualified from considering the complaint. (b) Subject Judge. A subject judge is disqualified from considering a complaint except to the extent that these Rules provide for participation by a subject judge. (c) Chief Judge Disqualified from Considering Petition for Review of Chief Judge’s Order. If a petition for review of the chief judge’s order entered under Rule 11(c), (d), or (e) is filed with the judicial council in accordance with Rule 18, the chief judge is disqualified from participating in the council’s consideration of the petition. (d) Member of Special Committee Not Disqualified. A member of the judicial council who serves on a special committee, including the chief judge, is not disqualified from participating in council consideration of the committee’s report. (e) Subject Judge’s Disqualification After Appointment of Special Committee. Upon appointment of a special committee, the subject judge is disqualified from participating in the identification or consideration of any complaint, related or unrelated to the pending matter, under the Act or these Rules. The disqualification continues Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2E, Ch. 3 Page 52 until all proceedings on the complaint against the subject judge are finally terminated with no further right of review. (f) Substitute for Disqualified Chief Judge. If the chief judge is disqualified from performing duties that the Act and these Rules assign to a chief judge, those duties must be assigned to the most-senior active circuit judge not disqualified. If all circuit judges in regular active service are disqualified, the judicial council may determine whether to request a transfer under Rule 26, or, in the interest of sound judicial administration, to permit the chief judge to dispose of the complaint on the merits. Members of the judicial council who are named in the complaint may participate in this determination if necessary to obtain a quorum of the council. (g) Judicial-Council Action When Multiple Judges Disqualified. Notwithstanding any other provision in these Rules to the contrary, (1) a member of the judicial council who is a subject judge may participate in its disposition if: (A) participation by one or more subject judges is necessary to obtain a quorum of the judicial council; (B) the judicial council finds that the lack of a quorum is due to the naming of one or more judges in the complaint for the purpose of disqualifying that judge or those judges, or to the naming of one or more judges based on their participation in a decision excluded from the definition of misconduct under Rule 3(h)(3); and (C) the judicial council votes that it is necessary, appropriate, and in the interest of sound judicial administration that one or more subject judges be eligible to act.

12.)               That said “Private Citizens” operating as judges have demonstrated they are a threat to National Security and actions are now likened to “War Crimes”    pursuant to C-7 of Ch 4 Complaint against a district judge inadequately investigated and improperly dismissed by chief judge, review petition improperly dismissed by judicial council---- is GERMANE in this unprecedented manner of terrorist corruption conspiracy.
a.       To show fraud upon the court, the complaining party must establish that the alleged misconduct affected the integrity of the judicial process, either because the court itself was defrauded or because the misconduct was perpetrated by officers of the court. Alexander v. Robertson, 882, F. 2d 421,424 (9th Cir. 1989);

b.      A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L, Ed 370.

13.)               In the unlikely event that a quorum of the judicial council cannot be obtained to consider the report of a special committee, it would normally be necessary to request a transfer under Rule 26. Rule 25(h) recognizes that the jurisdictional statement of the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability contemplates consultation between members of the Committee and judicial participants in proceedings under the Act and these Rules. Such consultation should not automatically preclude participation by a member in that proceeding. 26. Transfer to Another Judicial Council In exceptional circumstances, a chief judge or a judicial council may ask the Chief Justice to transfer a proceeding based on a complaint identified under Rule 5 or filed under Rule 6 to the judicial council of another circuit. The request for a transfer may be made at any stage of the proceeding before a reference to the Judicial Conference under Rule 20(b)(1)(C) or 20(b)(2) or a petition for review is filed under Rule 22. Upon receiving such a request, the Chief Justice may refuse the request or select the transferee judicial council, which may then exercise the powers of a judicial council under these Rules.

Initial analysis of the complaint we turn now to describe how the circuit’s process complaints once filed. These descriptions are based on staff interviews and follow-up inquiries in the spring of 2006.

In two regional circuits, the complaint goes directly to the chief judge’s chambers.

In the other ten circuits, a staff person outside the chief judge’s chambers is responsible for at least some initial review of the complaint and, in most cases, preparation of a draft order or a memorandum analyzing the complaint, or both. That task falls to the • circuit executive’s office in five circuits; • clerk’s office in three circuits; • staff attorney’s office in one circuit; and • appellate conference attorney’s office in one circuit. 

Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act ~ September 2006 At least four circuits provide for some review of this staff-prepared material before it goes to the chief judge, usually by another staff person in the same office. Submission to the chief judge. In five of the ten circuits in which the complaint does not go directly to the chief judge’s chambers, the chief judge receives, along with the complaint, a draft order and supporting memoranda. In the other five, the chief judge receives the complaint, the draft order and analysis, and, if appropriate, supporting material that the staff finds relevant and readily available in the public record, such as docket sheets. Chief judges’ told us that the staff typically alerts them to unusual complaints. One said in an interview, for example, that the chief deputy “might alert me that there’s something tricky,” giving as an example one of the high-visibility complaints we discuss in Chapter 4. “In such cases,” the chief judge continued, “we may want an answer from the respondent judge.”

14.)               That all judges in the Seventh Circuit do not recognize or uphold the doctrines of the U.S. Supreme Courts. Precedent already established.
Operation Greylord was an investigation conducted jointly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Chicago Police Department Internal Affairs Division and the Illinois State Police into corruption in the judiciary of Cook County, Illinois (the Chicago jurisdiction). The FBI named the investigation "Operation Greylord" after a local racehorse, judges have learned how to undermine the foregoing legal entities by engaging in Diabolical Treason Offenses.

A-   That said judge (s) in the Seventh Circuit closed their eyes to the legal issues put before them on appeal in affidavits validating the verity of judges committing Treason Trespassing upon the laws of the United States Constitution engaging in “WAR” against the United States Constitution making every order rendered against the Petitioner a Nullity, Void. If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he or she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason;

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”)

15.)               The Court of Appeals actions can be gleaned as acts of Improprieties in an attempt to aid and assist said Defendant’s  named in Suit, In Re Judge No. 93-154, 440 S.E.2d 169 (Ga. 1994), And Deception by falsifying reasons for preventing a legally sufficient Complaint and Motion from being served on Appellee’s, In re Ferrara, 582 N.W. 2d 817 (Mich. 1998),In re Renfer, 493 S.E. 2d 434 (N.C. 1997), In re Kroger, 702 A. 2d 64 (Vt. 1997), Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance, 33 Cal. 3d 359, 657 P. 2d 372, 377, 188 Cal. Rptr. 880 (1983).

a.       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 th ed. 1992);

b.      That said “Private Citizens” acting as judges prematurely and unlawfully dismissed said original motion in an attempt to cover-up the admissions recorded in the attached motion filed separately, motion to supplement et al. court transcript corroborates judge Lyle and other powerfully connected judges intertwined “fixing” said case trying to steal the home of retired police officer and retired Board of Education Teacher as many “Trespassed upon the Laws” thereby invoking the authority of Federal Officials due to active criminal acts of now Federal judges. 

c.       That the Judge erred considerably when it received notice and knowledge of other Judges complicit in a Criminal Conspiracy failed to follow Canon Ethics Leslie W. Abramson, 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 751 (1997). The Judges Ethical Duty to Report Misconduct by Other Judges and Lawyers and its effect on Judicial Independence.

d.      That because many white nationalist have infiltrated the Democratic party and has methodically overturned the legal tribunal recruiting the necessary persons who will keep their mouths shut and continue the terrorist mayhem on innocent citizens fighting injustice in the courts;

DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS ROOTS IN VIOLENCE, RACISM AND BIGOTRY

DECEMBER 18, 2013| BY ROBERT GEHL

History can be an annoying, pernicious thing. Especially for those who try to hide it.
When I read this morning that a high school in the South was going to drop its racist, confederate name, I immediately thought of Democrats Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd, who were Klan members and staunch segregationists.
But no … the school is Nathan B. Forrest High School in Jacksonville, Fla. Forrest was a Confederate General and a leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

I decided to research a little bit into General Forrest and it turns out he was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention. In fact, the KKK was founded by Democrats to terrorize blacks and white Republicans.

The history of the Democratic Party is rooted in racism, violence, lynchings and bigotry. The National Review published an article detailing the racist history of the Democratic Party:
May 22, 1856: Two years after the Grand Old party’s birth, U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R., Mass.) rose to decry pro-slavery Democrats. Congressman Preston Brooks (D., S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years.

July 30, 1866: New Orleans’s Democratic government ordered police to raid an integrated GOP meeting, killing 40 people and injuring 150.

September 28, 1868: Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed nearly 300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper editor.

October 7, 1868: Republicans criticized Democrats’ national slogan: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule.”

April 20, 1871: The GOP Congress adopted the Ku Klux Klan Act, banning the pro-Democrat domestic terrorist group.

October 18, 1871: GOP President Ulysses S. Grant dispatched federal troops to quell Klan violence in South Carolina.

September 14, 1874: Racist white Democrats stormed Louisiana’s statehouse to oust GOP Governor William Kellogg’s racially integrated administration; 27 are killed.

August 17, 1937: Republicans opposed Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D., Al.), a former Klansman who defended Klansmen against race-murder charges.

February 2005: The Democrats’ Klan-coddling today is embodied by KKK alumnus Robert Byrd, West Virginia’s logorrhea U.S. senator and, having served since January 3, 1959, that body’s dean. Thirteen years earlier, Byrd wrote this to the KKK’s Imperial Wizard: “The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.” Byrd led Senate Democrats as late as December 1988. On March 4, 2001, Byrd told Fox News’s Tony Snow:

 “There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I’m going to use that word.” National Democrats never have arranged a primary challenge against or otherwise pressed this one-time cross-burner to get lost.
Contrast the KKKozy Democrats with the GOP. When former Klansman David Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican, national GOP officials scorned him. Local Republicans endorsed incumbent Democrat Edwin Edwards, despite his ethical baggage. As one Republican-created bumper sticker pleaded: “Vote for the crook: It’s important!”

Republicans also have supported legislation favorable to blacks, often against intense Democratic headwinds:

In 1865, Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional. Among Democrats, 63 percent of senators and 78 percent of House members voted: “No.”

In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: “No.”

February 28, 1871: The GOP Congress passed the Enforcement Act, giving black voters federal protection.

February 8, 1894: Democratic President Grover Cleveland and a Democratic Congress repealed the GOP’s Enforcement Act, denying black voters federal protection.

January 26, 1922: The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer’s (R., Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate Democrats killed the measure.

May 17, 1954: As chief justice, former three-term governor Earl Warren (R., Calif.) led the U.S. Supreme Court’s desegregation of government schools via the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. GOP President Dwight Eisenhower’s Justice Department argued for Topeka, Kansas’s black school children. Democrat John W. Davis, who lost a presidential bid to incumbent Republican Calvin Coolidge in 1924, defended “separate but equal” classrooms.
September 24, 1957: Eisenhower deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate Little Rock’s government schools over the strenuous resistance of Governor Orval Faubus (D., Ark.).

May 6, 1960: Eisenhower signs the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.

July 2, 1964: Democratic President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd’s 14-hour filibuster and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats (including Tennessee’s Al Gore, Sr.) failed to scuttle the measure. Illinois Republican Everett Dirksen rallied 26 GOP senators and 44 Democrats to invoke cloture and allow the bill’s passage. According to John Fonte in the January 9, 2003, National Review, 82 percent of Republicans so voted, versus only 66 percent of Democrats.

True, Senator Barry Goldwater (R., Ariz.) opposed this bill the very year he became the GOP’s presidential standard-bearer. However, Goldwater supported the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and called for integrating Arizona’s National Guard two years before Truman desegregated the military. Goldwater feared the 1964 Act would limit freedom of association in the private sector, a controversial but principled libertarian objection rooted in the First Amendment rather than racial hatred.

June 29, 1982: President Ronald Reagan signed a 25-year extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Republican Party also is the home of numerous “firsts.” Among them:
Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican. America’s first black U.S. Representative, South Carolina’s Joseph Rainey, and our first black senator, Mississippi’s Hiram Revels, both reached Capitol Hill in 1870. On December 9, 1872, Louisiana Republican Pinckney Benton Stewart “P.B.S.” Pinchback became America’s first black governor.

August 8, 1878: GOP supply-siders may hate to admit it, but America’s first black Collector of Internal Revenue was former U.S. Rep. James Rapier (R., Ala.).

October 16, 1901: GOP President Theodore Roosevelt invited to the White House as its first black dinner guest Republican educator Booker T. Washington. The pro-Democrat Richmond Times newspaper warned that consequently, “White women may receive attentions from Negro men.” As Toni Marshall wrote in the November 9, 1995, Washington Times, when Roosevelt sought reelection in 1904, Democrats produced a button that showed their presidential nominee, Alton Parker, beside a white couple while Roosevelt posed with a white bride and black groom. The button read: “The Choice Is Yours.”
GOP presidents Gerald Ford in 1975 and Ronald Reagan in 1982 promoted Daniel James and Roscoe Robinson to become, respectively, the Air Force’s and Army’s first black four-star generals.

November 2, 1983: President Reagan established Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a national holiday, the first such honor for a black American.
President Reagan named Colin Powell America’s first black national-security adviser while GOP President George W. Bush appointed him our first black secretary of state.

President G.W. Bush named Condoleezza Rice America’s first black female NSC chief, then our second (consecutive) black secretary of State. Just last month, one-time Klansman Robert Byrd and other Senate Democrats stalled Rice’s confirmation for a week. Amid unanimous GOP support, 12 Democrats and Vermont Independent James Jeffords opposed Rice — the most “No” votes for a State designee since 14 senators frowned on Henry Clay in 1825.

By the way, if we’re going to strip schools of the names of racists, Strom Thurmond High School in South Carolina and Robert C Byrd high school in West Virginia should be at the top of the list.

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 (a).   
VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE
In Illinois, 705 ILCS 205/4 states "Every person admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law shall, before his name is entered upon the roll to be kept as hereinafter provided, take and subscribe an oath, substantially in the following form:
'I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be), that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best of my ability.'"
In Illinois, a judge must take a second oath of office. Under 705 ILCS 35/2 states, in part, that "The several judges of the circuit courts of this State, before entering upon the duties of their office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation, which shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State:
'I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of judge of ______ court, according to the best of my ability.'"
Further, if the judge had enlisted in the U.S. military, then he has taken a third oath. Under Title 10 U.S.C. Section 502 the judge had subscribed to a lifetime oath, in pertinent part, as follows: "I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; ...".
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.
Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below).
If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. 
TREASON
Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)
What is the penalty for treason?
18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016 (2) (J), Sept. 13, 1994108 Stat. 2148.)

Attorney General Sessions: Actions “from racial bigotry and hatred….cannot be tolerated an innocent 32 year old Caucasian woman was killed as white nationalist banded together seeking white supremacy in Charlottesville Virginia. In Chicago any nonwhite person who closes their eyes and jurisdiction to a person of color seeking jurisdiction and protection to the very mayhem of racial hatred is a colored version of the very hate groups that is being denounced in that city is all the reasons why “Jim Crow laws” are still being enforced in the courts of Chicago, Illinois Negroe blacks and certain Hispanic judges as Democrats keep their mouths shut and go along with racial injustice.

  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.”   

Wherefore the foregoing stated within Appellant Respectfully Prays for the Relief:

1.)    That this court vacate Jan. 16, 2018 court order, and all other orders due to judges not having jurisdiction to deny any of the motions and transfer this matter to another circuit Instanter.

2.)    That every judge named in the complaint and has “Trespassed upon the Laws” in the aforementioned manner be recused and that military/special forces be deployed to ascertain and eradicate all judges (Terrorists) warring against the United States Constitution.

3.)    That said members responsible for “Trespassing upon the laws” and who have closed their eyes to these crimes likened to War Crimes be replaced by qualified Republicans and independents not affiliated to this regime temporarily because no Democrat has or will dispensate the laws equitably as noted within.

4.)    That this Honorable Court Invoke any other remedy this courts deems just;

5.)    That any DENIAL of this Motion Corroborates and validates the verity of Federal Bureau of Investigations authority be invoked Instanter because said “Organized Conspirators” within the Democratic Party are not going to adhere to any laws where their members are subject to Terrorist Acts.


I affirm the above as being true.

                                                                     

                                                                                Respectfully Submitted
                                                                                                     
                                                                               _______________________  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                           Lee Oties Love, Jr.
                                                                                              8435 S. Peoria
                                                                              Chicago, IL. 60620
                                                           773 783-5691













                                                           IN THE
                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                         FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                            CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604


  Lee Oties Love, Jr.                                              } Appeal from the United     
                                                                               } States District Court for      
  Plaintiff –Appellant                                             } the Northern District of   
                                                                               } Illinois, Eastern Division
    V                                                                        }
                                                                               } No. 1:17-cv-05482
Supreme Court of Illinois, et al.                            }
                                                                               }
 Defendants-Appellees                                          } Sharon Johnson Coleman, Judge

                                                  
              RESPONSE TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR APPELLANT
                                                                &
MOTION TO VACATE (JANUARY 12, 2018) ORDER DUE TO ERROR/FRAUD “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE MAKING THE ORDER VOID A NULLITY w/AFFIDAVIT & REINSTATE MOTION PURSUNT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
  
 I certify that I have on this day filed said Notice of Response to Rule to Show Cause et al. Before the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals and noted parties.

To: Dir. Chris Wray FBI 601 4th Street Washington D.C. 20535
                 
US Attorney, John R. Lausch, Jr.  219 S. Dearborn, Suite 500

Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial and Disability
Attn: Office of General Counsel
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
One Columbus Circle, NE
Washington, D.C. 20544

        Cook County State’s Attorney            Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans
         Kim Foxx                                              50 West Washington, Suite 2600
         50 West Washington, Suite 500                Chicago, Ill. 60601
         Chicago, Ill. 60601                          
                                            
Supreme Court of Illinois, 200 East Capital Ave. Springfield IL. 62701-1721;
   
      Pamela Elizabeth Loza 50 West Washington, Chicago, IL 60601, Room 3009;
      James P. Murphy 555 West Harrison, Chicago, IL. 60607, Room 402;
       Luciano Panici 16501 South Kedzie Parkway, Markham IL. 60428, Room 105;
       Joshua P. Haid Sears/Willis Tower 233 South Wacker, Chicago IL. 60606 84th floor;                             

                PLEASE BE ADVISED that on February 9, 2018, a Notice of Response to Rule to Show Cause et al. has been filed before the United States Court of Appeals. 


                                                                                Respectfully Submitted

                                                                            _______________________  
                                                                                             
                                                                                             Lee Oties Love, Jr.
                                                                                              8435 S. Peoria
                                                                              Chicago, IL. 60620
                                              773 783-5691








Dated Feb. 9, 2018


No comments:

Post a Comment