CORRUPTION AND DOMESTIC TERRORISM IN ILLINOIS COURTS IS WORSE THAN THE INSURRECTION ACTIVITIES SEIZED ON THE WHITE HOUSE ON JAN 6, 2021
SEE HOW A BLACK FEMALE JUDGE WITH THE SUPPORT OF WHITE NATIONALISTS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS VIOLATING EVERY ASPECT OF HER JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, HELPING US BANK ATTORNEYS STEAL THEIR HOME.
BLACK AND BROWN JUDGES ARE BY FAR THE WORSE PEOPLE ANY PERSON OF COLOR COULD GO BEFORE, SO MANY BLACK AND BROWN JUDGES ACT LIKE THEY WANT TO BE AN ANGLO SAXON, I MEAN THE MOST VILE RACISTS, THEY WILL DO ANYTHING TO DESTROY THEIR OWN ETHNIC GROUP.
IN THIS CASE JUDGE LYLE SEEMS TO BE OF THE IMPRESSION BECAUSE RACISM IS SO WELL TOLERATED AGAINST PERSONS OF COLOR, BLACKS IN AUTHORITY ACT LIKE THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT VIOLATING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF THEIR ETHNICITY.
THE VIOLENCE AND HATE IN OUR STREETS IS BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF BLACKS IN POWER STANDING BY CLOSING THEIR EYES TO INJUSTICES PERPETRATED ON INNOCENT PERSONS OF COLOR AND THE ELDERLY.
THE SAME FEDERAL OFFICIALS THAT IS APPREHENDING EVERY PERSON WHO SEIZED THE WHITE HOUSE ON JAN 6, NEEDS TO COME TO CHICAGO AND APPREHEND EVERY DEMOCRAT ACTING AS THE SAME TYPE OF INSURRECTIONIST DESTROYING PEOPLES LIVES.
THIS CASE IS SUPER CLEAR NO JUDGE IS FOLLOWING ANY LAWS AS EVERY PERSON IN THE POLITICAL MACHINE HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES AS US BANK ATTORNEYS ARE TRYING THEIR HOME AND THE JUDGE IS VIOLATING EVERY LAW HELPING THEM.
THIS IS THE SAME LAW THAT WAS IN EFFECT IN 1988 SHOWING, I NEVER OWED ANY CHILD SUPPORT BUT, THE RACIST DEMOCRATIC KLAN JUDGES IGNORED THE LAWS AND HAD ME LOCKED UP 5 TIMES FOR ALLEGEDLY OWING CHILD SUPPORT, THAT WAS NEVER OWED OR MY CHILD.
EVERY BLACK PERSON IN AUTHORITY KEPT THEIR MOUTHS SHUT, WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION WHY VOTE FOR A BLACK PERSON IF THEY ARE GOING TO ACT LIKE THE SAME RACIST VOTED OUT OF OFFICE?
Good Morning Your Honor:
I am here on my Motion---- For the record we filed the read the motions into the record
RESPONDENT’S REPLY MOTION STRIKING & OBJECTING PETITIONER’S MOTION DUE TO “PERJURY” “FRAUD” & RESPONDENTS BEING VICTIMS OF AN “ORGANIZED CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY” TRYING TO STEAL THE SAID HOME WARRANTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS AND UNITED STATES ATTORNEY INVOKE JURISDICTION INSTANTER PURSUANT TO SAID PARTIES ENGAGING IN TERRORIST ACTS NULLIFYING ALL COURT ORDERS w/AFFIDAVIT
RESPONDENT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT & RULE TO SHOW CAUSE REMANDING ALL PARTIES COMPLICIT IN SAID TERRORIST ACTS TRYING TO STEAL RESPONDENT’S HOME w/AFFIDAVIT
First of all, I OBJECT to anything COUNSEL attempts to assert in this court due to a JUDGMENT of Oct. 29, 2018 being entered by this court and never VACATED!
In each response, Defendants fails to raise any facts that would allow Plaintiff to respond. For example, Defendants cite several statutes and cases which are randomly included in each response that have no bearings on the issue at hand, et al.
1.) For the record your Honor can you explain to me how is it the Seventh Circuit, COURT OF APPEALS has established a legal precedent on what a JUDGMENT IS
KARL KIEFER MACH. CO. v. U.S. BOTTLERS MACHINERY CO. No. 6985. 108 F.2d 469| Dec. 18, 1939.
In determining whether decree or judgment is interlocutory or final, character thereof is important factor to be considered and it should be borne in mind that “decree” or “judgment” is law’s last word in judicial controversy and court’s final consideration and determination on matters submitted to it in action or proceeding.
2.) Also, the Illinois Supreme Court PEOPLE ex rel. Carl M. SCHWARTZ, Commissioner of Highways, Appellee, v.
Albert R. FAGERHOLM, Town Clerk, Appellant, (Woodrow Wood et al, Intervenors-Separate Appellants.) No. 35176. 17 Ill.2d 131 May 22, 1959.
|Rehearing Denied Sept. 22, 1959.
A “judgment” is the official and authentic decision of a court of justice upon the respective rights and claims of the parties to an action or suit therein litigated and submitted to its determination, and it is the expression of the court’s decision that constitutes the rendition of the judgment.
A judgment is the sentence of the law pronounced by the court upon the matter contained in the record. 3 Blackstone’s Com. 395. It is the law’s last word in a judicial controversy and may *86 be defined as the final consideration and determination of a court upon matters submitted to it in an action or proceeding. 15 R.C.L.,
3.) Finally, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division.
PEOPLE EX REL. KLEE ET AL. v. KELLY, MAYOR, ET AL.
Gen. No. 41417. 309 Ill. App. 72 March 11, 1941.
Judgments, 569. A judgment is the judicial act of the court. Dorman v. Usbe Building & Loan Assn, 115 N.J.L. 337, 180 A. 413.
A “judgment” is the sentence of the law
pronounced by the court upon a matter contained
in the record, and is the law’s last word in a
judicial controversy; it may be defined as the
final consideration and determination of the court
upon matters submitted to it in an action or
proceeding, and is the judicial act of the court,
and interest thereon is not an integral part
thereof. S.H.A. ch. 74, § 3.
4.) Now can this attorney overcome the Rule to Show Cause of being REMANDED into CUSTODY BY PRODUCING A VALID CREDIBLE LEGAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED TIMELY AFTER THE OCT 29, 2018 JUDGMENT?
FINALLY ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
5.) The Local Rules provide detailed instructions as to how litigants should approach their summary judgment motions and responses. Local Rule 56.1(a) provides that a motion for summary must include a "statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the moving party to a judgment as a matter of law."
This statement of material facts "shall consist of short numbered paragraphs, including within each paragraph specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon to support the facts set forth in that paragraph." Part (b) of Local Rule 56.1 requires a party opposing summary for judgment to file a concise response to the movant's statement of material facts. That statement is required to include a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement, including in the case of any disagreement, "specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon." The rule is very clear that "all material facts set forth in the statement required of the moving party will be deemed admitted unless controverted by the statement of the opposing party." Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B).
In the matter of Raymond, 442 F. 3d at 606. (7th Cir. 2013) ) The Court, nevertheless, is concerned and considers the prejudice to Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure, particularly because cases should be decided on their merits. Certainly, the failure to file a response to a summary judgment motion can be fatal. See, e.g., id at 611.
6.) It is clear counsel didn’t read the laws or fail to comprehend the established legal precedents already ruled upon defining what constitutes a JUDGMENT and the necessary requirements on how to respond to a SUMMARY JUDGMENT which counsel has repeatedly failed to do on many occasions in the SEVENTH CIRCUIT AND NOW CIRCUIT COURT.
7.) REPEATEDLY ADMITTING TO EVERY ASSERTION, that has been properly plead in this court; thereby validating the verity of us receiving a JUDGEMENT OF $13 MILLION DOLLARS PLUS DAMAGES FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS AND OTHER CRIMINAL ACTS ASSOCIATED IN THIS CASE.
8.) Which is why we have repeatedly Re Noticed said Motion
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE “PRIVATE CITIZEN” FOR “CAUSE” USING HER ROBE ENGAGING IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY & VACATE (February9th 2021) ORDER DUE TO 14th AMENDMENT CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS “FRAUD” TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS MAKING THE ORDER A NULLITY w/AFFIDAVIT
Because it is clear Judge Lyle has favored the Plaintiff’s since the inception of this case and has VIOLATED our CIVIL RIGHTS because of the color of our skin Black Judges or Racist Judges do not rule in favor of Pro se litigants especially if they are African American.
I REST MY CASE !
No comments:
Post a Comment