THIS CASE ARTICULATES THE BLUEPRINT WHY CERTAIN BLACKS AND HISPANICS ARE SELECTED AND APPOINTED TO POSITIONS OF POWER BECAUSE SO MANY OF THEM ARE EASY TO MANIPULATE AND SELL OUT THEIR ETHNIC GROUPS SO AS TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE DEMOCRATIC MACHINE
WHAT THE INFERIOR BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE DON'T KNOW IS THAT NO IRISH OR WHITE NATIONALIST IN THE DEMOCRATIC MACHINE WOULD DO IS TURN ON THEIR OWN TO HELP ANY PERSON OF ANY COLORED RACE IN THAT THIS IS HOW THEY HELP THEIR RACIAL GROUP MAINTAIN RACIAL SUPREMACY BY LYING COMMITTING FRAUD INCITE CONTINUOUS TERROR AND GENOCIDE KEEPING PERSONS OF COLOR OPPRESSED BY CRIMINALIZING THE INNOCENT USING THE LAWS AS A WEAPON.
WHITE AND BLACK DEMOCRATS HARBOR A HATE TOWARDS ANY PERSON OF COLOR WITH ANY TYPE OF INTEGRITY OR KNOWLEDGE AND IS INDEPENDENT WHO THINKS FOR THEMSELVES.
WHITE AND BLACK DEMOCRATS INCITE FEAR AND MAYHEM ON PEOPLE OF COLOR MAKING SURE THE DEMOCRATIC MACHINE WHITES MAINTAIN THEIR CAREERS KEEPING COLORED PEOPLE OPPRESSED SURPASSING HUMAN IMAGINATION.
THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRATS DO TO A MAN OF COLOR WHO IS A HETEROSEXUAL MAN BORN AND RAISED A FREEMAN WHO IS GOD FEARING STANDING IN A SQUARE CIRCLE OF INTEGRITY.
IN THE
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Joe
Louis Lawrence } Appeal from the United
} States District Court for
} The Northern District of
Plaintiff-Appellant } Illinois,
Eastern Division
}
V
}
No. 18-2305 }
} No. 16 CV 7434
420 East Ohio,
Chicago Housing Authority }
345 East Ohio, K2
Apartments, City of Chicago, }
Commission on Human
Relations Supreme Court }
of Illinois, Alderman Edward Burke, }
Franklin U. Valderrama, Mary Lane
Mikva } Robert
M. Dow, Jr
} Judge
Defendants
June 18, 2018
JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Court of
Appeals
FROM:
CC: All
parties referenced in the Certificate of Service
SUBJECT: Why
this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction:
1.) A federal court
always has the authority to determine its own jurisdiction. A federal court has
the authority to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear a particular
case. United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002) (citing United States v.
Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 291 (1947)). • In re Dairy Mart Convenience
Stores, Inc., 411 F.3d 367, 374 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. United
Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 292 (1947) (“‘[A] court has jurisdiction to
determine its own jurisdiction.’”).
See also Knudsen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 411 F.3d 805, 808
(7th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002))
(“‘[A] federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its own
jurisdiction.’”). In re Bunyan, 354 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing
United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002)) (“A federal court always has
jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.”). 13D Charles Alan Wright,
Arthur R. Miller, Edward H. Cooper, Richard D. Freer, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 3536, p. 1 (“‘Jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction’ refers to the
power of a court to determine whether it has authority over the parties to and
the subject matter of a suit.”) [here in after 13D Wright & Miller]. 4 B.
Unique Aspects of Jurisdiction in Practice The issue of federal subject matter
jurisdiction “concerns the fundamental constitutional question of the
allocation of judicial power between the federal and state governments.”
2.) Wright &
Miller § 3522, p. 125. Because of these weighty concerns, jurisdiction is a
unique issue in the federal courts. Below, this outline notes five ways that
adjudication of jurisdiction is different than adjudication of substantive
issues. 1. A federal court must generally determine whether it has jurisdiction
at the outset of litigation and must always make this determination before
deciding the merits of a particular case. A court “generally may not rule on
the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction over
the category of claim in the suit (subject-matter jurisdiction) . . . .”
Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430–31
(2007) (declining to address jurisdiction and holding that district court had
authority to dismiss action on forum non conveniens grounds before considering
the merits) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83,
93–102 (1998) (rejecting doctrine of “hypothetical jurisdiction” that would
allow a court to rule on issues of law before adjudicating jurisdiction)). •
Toeller v. Wis. Dep’t of Corrections, 461 F.3d 871, 873 (7th Cir. 2006)
(“Before considering the merits of [the] appeal, we must resolve a preliminary
question of appellate jurisdiction.”). Jurisdiction Upheld • Morrison v. Nat’l
Australia Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2008), aff’d 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010)
(quoting Arar v. Ashcroft, 532 F.3d 157, 168 (2d Cir.2008)) (“‘Determining the
existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry and a claim is
properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b) (1)
when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to
adjudicate it.’”). Jurisdiction Lacking Marley v. United States, 567 F.3d 1030,
1034 (9th Cir. 2008) (“As a threshold matter, we must decide whether we have
jurisdiction . . . .”). • 13 Wright & Miller § 3522, p. 147. See also a.
Exception: In some circumstances (lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non
conveniens) a court can dismiss a case on non-merits grounds before deciding
whether jurisdiction exists.
3.) Although courts
must generally decide a jurisdictional issue before deciding the merits of a
case, “a federal court has leeway ‘to choose among threshold grounds for
denying audience to 5 a case on the merits.’” Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v.
Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007) (quoting Ruhgras AG v.
Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 585 (1999)). So, while a court cannot consider
the merits of a case before deciding a jurisdictional issue, a court can decide
a case on non-merits grounds before deciding whether jurisdiction exists. Id.
The Supreme Court has recognized two “threshold grounds” on which a court can
resolve a case without addressing subject matter jurisdiction: (1) personal
jurisdiction and (2) forum non conveniens. Ruhgras AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526
U.S. 574 (1999) (“Customarily, a federal court first resolves doubts about its
jurisdiction over the subject matter, but there are circumstances in which a
district court appropriately accords priority to a personal jurisdiction
inquiry.”); Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S.
422, 425 (2007) (applying exception to forum non conveniens).
4.) The Ninth
Circuit has held that the personal-jurisdiction exception to the
jurisdiction-first rule is limited to cases where deciding the personal
jurisdiction issue would result in the end of the case. Special Invs., Inc. v.
Aero Air, Inc., 360 F.3d 989, 994–95 (9th Cir. 2004). In Special Investments,
the court held that it was improper for the district court to dismiss an action
against a defendant when other defendants remained without first deciding
whether it had subject matter jurisdiction. Id. The D.C. Circuit has provided a
test to determine when a court can decide an issue before adjudicating
jurisdiction: a court can decide an issue before jurisdiction if the issue does
not involve “an exercise of a court’s law-declaring power . . . .” See Kramer
v. Gates, 481 F.3d 788 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
5.) 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)).
6.) FACT:
This court erred in the application of the rule stating, “The Notice of Appeal,
of course, is untimely” court order was dated May 9, 2018, and June 9, 2018 was
on a Saturday no Federal buildings are open on the weekends.
7.) FACT:
This court erred in not Noticing or READ the Jurisdictional Statement “Order Entred” 5-9-2018 and “Notice
of Appeal filed June 11, 2018”.
8.) That said judge violated the oath of his
duties recognizing he had jurisdiction as he “Trespassed upon the Laws”
by corroborating his role in an “Organized Conspiracy” engaging in “Treason”
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
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.) That said
May 9, 2018 order is in fact a Nullity, Void “without authority” Judge Dow
became a “Private Citizen” by subornation of perjury with a Federal
clerk by backdating a court order for the judge for April 3, 2018 when in fact
the court order was entered after April 24, 2018.
A- To authenticate the veracity of this
assertion, hereto attached, the actual order properly certified by Susan V.
Kelley, U. S. Bankruptcy Judge, April 24, 2018 demonstrating Judge Dow had
helped from a Federal Clerk engaging in criminal acts well known in the Cook
County Clerks’ office of clerks destroying records or helping corrupt attorneys
for a nominal fee by recording documents filed late placed in the data system
as corroborated in this case.
B- That because these are Democrats
involved Chief Judge Diane P. Woods, Chief Judge of the Seventh Circuit
corroborated her role as a “Private Citizen” engaged in Terrorist Acts
in an attempt to protect and condone the “Criminal Enterprise” by dismissing a
valid complaint articulating the aforementioned facts, which states “Complainant has filed a misconduct
complaint against the judge assigned to his case. This is complainant’s third
complaint against a judge. The first two were dismissed as frivolous and this
one is no different. Complainant alleges the judge is biased based on his
adverse ruling. Nothing in this court record establishes judicial misconduct”
C- That said court order is not signed
pursuant to Appendix D Section 352 (b) Review of complaint by Chief Judge
states, “Action by a Chief judge
following a review----After expeditiously reviewing a complaint under
subsection (a), the chief judge by written order stating his or her reasons…..”
D-
How is it a judge appointed to know the laws and rules violate every rule
within the laws expect Pro Se litigants to abide by the laws and receive any vindication
of the laws in their courts whereby; judges are only on the bench to “Trespass
upon any and all laws” so as to protect their membership in the Democratic
Machine?
E- That because Plaintiff-Appellant has
defeated every attorney representing the Appellees said “Private Citizens”
perpetrating as judges have to violate their oaths to deny any and every valid
document Plaintiff-Appellant have put before them so as to demonstrate to
everyone following this case this is how Democrats operate within the
jurisprudence of the laws who happens to lack the legal aptitude in defeating
their opponents litigiously or whom may be politically connected who is unqualified
to be judges but because of their political contributions they are judges.
F- The aforementioned demonstrates how
valid cases are dismissed unlawfully, thereby forcing Pro Se litigants to
frivolously exhaust laws filing briefs so as to wear them down financially and
psychologically likened to “war
crimes”.
The District
court and Chief judge closed their eyes to the Mayhem of Democratic judges as “Private
Citizens” perpetrating acts of “Treason” entering “VOID ORDERS” entered against the Plaintiff-Appellant
for standing up to racial terrorism validating the verity of the aforementioned
order as an order described as a nullity on all accounts.
9.) In addition, 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.
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 District Court judge methodically violated his oath by stating
Pursuant to Sup Ct. Rule 272 “if at
the time of announcing final judgment
the judge requires the submission of a form of written judgment to be
signed by the judge et al” the judgment becomes final only when the signed
judgment is filed— Judges are bound by this rule before their court
orders are valid;
B. 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”)
C. The
District Court and certain Democratic judges in the Seventh Circuit
demonstrating many acts of Improprieties in an attempt to aid and assist said
Defendant’-Appellee 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).
D. 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)
E. 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.
F. 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;
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.
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.
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.
The judge then acts not as a
judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
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. 807; Pub. L.
103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2) (J), Sept.
13, 1994, 108 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
due to their inferior disposition.
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.”
I affirm the
above as being true.
Respectfully Submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
Plaintiff-Counsel Pro Se
IN THE
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Certificate of Service
I Joe Louis Lawrence, certify that I have on
this day filed said Notice of Jurisdictional Memorandum before the Seventh
Circuit United States Court of Appeals and noted parties.
Please be
advised that on June 18, 2018
Plaintiff has filed before this Seventh Circuit, Jurisdictional Memorandum.
Chicago
Housing Authority
Wilson
Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Office of
the General Counsel Christian
T. Novay
Asst
Gen Counsels
55
West Monroe, Street, Suite 3800
Maria
Sewell Joseph T.B. King
Chicago,
Il 60603
60 East
Van Buren
Chicago,
Ill 60605
Seyfarth & Shaw
Jeffrey K. Ross, Kyle A. Petersen & Anne Harris
Willis/Sears
Tower
Chicago,
Ill. 60603
Stephan R.
Patton, Mary E. Reuther, Rey A. Phillip Santos, S. Atty. Martha Diaz
Corp Counsel, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Asst Corp Counsel
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 800
Chicago, Ill 60602
Cary
G. Schiff & Associates Gordon
& Rees LLP
Christopher
R. Johnson
Goli
Rahimi
Yuleida
Joy 1
North Franklin, Suite 800
134 N.
LaSalle Street, Suite 1720
Chicago,
Illinois 60606
Chicago,
Ill. 60602
Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
Christian
Novay
550 West Adams Street, Suite 300
Chicago, IL. 60661
Chief Judge
Timothy C. Evans, Daley Center, Chg., Ill. 60601
Presiding
Judge Moche Jacobius, Room 2403, Daley Center, Chg. Ill. 60601
Assc.
Judge Franklin U. Valderrama, Room 2402, Daley Center, Chg. Ill. 60601
Clerk
of Circuit Court Dorothy Brown, Suite 1001, Chg Ill. 60601
States
Attorney, Kim Foxx, Room 500 Daley Center,
Chg. Ill. 60601
Atty
Gen Lisa Madigan, 100 West Randolph, Suite 1300 Chg. 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
Courtesy
Copies:
US
Attorney
FBI Dir. Chris Wray
John
R. Lausch, Jr. 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 Room
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Judge
Celia C. Gamrath Judge
50 West
Washington Room 2508 Neil Cohen
50
West Washington Room 2308
Alderman
David Moore
Alderman Ed Burke
Alderwoman Carrie Austin
Alderwoman Emma Mitts
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 June 18, 2018, A Jurisdictional Memorandum has
been filed with the Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit and said copies being
served on said applicable parties via hand delivery or regular mail;
Respectfully, Submitted,
Joe Louis Lawrence
Counsel Pro Se
Chicago,
Ill 60649
312 965-6455
@joelouis
No comments:
Post a Comment