THE CORRUPTION AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ARE SO OUT OF HAND AND THIS CASE IS DEMONSTRATING HOW RACISM AND ALLEGED HOMOSEXUALS CONTROLLING THE JUDICIARY

President Trumps Memorandum Explained in an articulate manner via TikTock by Gianna Micell and co-host https://www.tiktok.com/@msgiannamiceli/video/7495018112102911278

A brief explanation on Presidents Trumps Executive Order articulating the need to repeal unlawful regulations on the Federal Levels but States are still enforcing antiquated laws outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress.

Gianna: Big big news, I believe it was the Trump Memorandum that comes from an Executive Order that was made into a Memorandum. I’ve never seen a Memorandum before. I don’t recall, what’s your, I don’t recall.

Co host, Scott: Well, they took an executive order, and this isn’t a memorandum. Now, the executive order was filed, was signed on February 19^{th, 2025}. And it’s the Department of Government Efficiencies. So Dodge deregulatory initiative. And so, he ordered agencies. Scott, that includes everything, right? Every courthouse, everything is an agency. The DMV, right? Everybody knows what the DMV

Co-host Scott: No, those are state agencies, but every agency under federal rules. The DOJ, the FBI, our federal court systems, all of these people, all of these agencies. Trump, Donald Trump is the boss of them, right? And I was telling Gianna earlier, explain this to her. If the CEO of Coca-cola called down to the can coloring room and said, change our cans from red to blue, they’re going to change them from red to blue, right? So, Donald Trump is now signing an executive order. It’s executive order. 14219. And it’s entitled ensuring lawful governments and implementing the president’s Department of government’s efficiency officially deregulatory initiative. February 19 20 25 Now he goes on to tell me.

This is a Memorandum which is a condensed version of the executive order, right? But the executive order is telling all of these agencies to review rules under 10 recent watershed Supreme Court decisions. Right. He wants all these unlawful regulations repealed from the books. The first one, he mentions is Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), which is the Chevron deference. Right. The 3^rd one that he mentioned. This is my favorite is SEC versus Jar Kesey. OK, now that is probably the most profound one of the most profound rulings in Supreme Court history because they said in that ruling, they say. The reason why we fought the Revolutionary War is because the British were siphoning our adjudications off to juryless courts, Admiralty, blah, blah, blah, blah. Right. So, think about it. The British were taken away our juries and putting their judges who were adjudicating our claims to take one right. So, what do we do? We revolted against the British. Well, what’s happening today? You walk into a federal court, you get some uneducated clerk who’s sitting behind there, who hand you a civil complaint form. Then you get some, you know, lawless judge. He’s going to come in and go. Well, you know, I don’t think you’ve stated the claim upon which relief may be granted, which nobody even knows that means, but it’s just this blanket thing that they throw out there. And guess what? Whenever you don’t object to it, you’re going to acquiesce to it. You’re going to get your case dismissed. A judge is going to rely on civil procedure. That’s not even applicable to dismiss your case. So, these things are huge because these judges do not have the right to do that. But they’ve been doing it for a long time.

According to Grok on X Illinois courts are demonstrating evidence of systemic inertia, 

Definitions in Context

1. Systemic Inertia: The tendency of a system (here, the judiciary) to resist change or action, often perpetuating existing biases or injustices due to entrenched practices, lack of accountability, or failure to address known issues.
2. Subterfuge: Deceptive tactics or maneuvers to avoid accountability, conceal wrongdoing, or manipulate outcomes, such as misrepresenting facts or abusing legal procedures.
3. Disingenuousness: Lack of sincerity or honesty, often through feigned ignorance, selective enforcement of rules, or pretending to act in good faith while pursuing a biased agenda.
4. Obfuscation Technology: While traditionally referring to tech-driven methods to obscure information (e.g., data encryption), in this context, it can be interpreted as deliberate strategies—technological or procedural—to confuse, obscure, or frustrate the pursuit of justice, such as manipulating court records, delaying proceedings, or creating procedural barriers.
5. On Monday May 12, 2025, at 2:41 pm, but has a May 2, 2025 filing stamp recorded, the following Notice was filed Particularizing how the State of Illinois and Judge with as best can be described an inferior Black woman as an ASA conspired with a racist homosexual judge to continue the desecration of violating numerous Civil Rights Laws against an innocent Respondent who has been framed by alleged members of the Ku Klux Klan or White Nationalist running the Illinois Judiciary.
6. 1988D079012	DRCAL61	01/01/1988	District 1
   Plaintiff(s)		Case Type		Defendant(s)		Attorney
   FRANCOIS HIGHTOWER FRANCOISE HIGHTOWER FRANCOISE HIGHTOWER		Petition to Establish Parentage (Non IV-D)		JOSEPH LAWRENCE JOE LAWRENCE JOE LAWRENCE		MANILOW AND GOLDMAN LTD JOSEPH RODDY
   Ad Damnum
   0

   Future Court Activity:

   Case Activities:

   Activity Date:

   05/12/2025

   Event Desc:

   Case Off Call

   Comments:

   
   

   Activity Date:

   04/25/2025

   Event Desc:

   Motion To Vacate Non-Final Order/Judgment

   Comments:

   RE NOTION MOTION TO VACATE

   
   

   Activity Date:

   04/25/2025

   Event Desc:

   Motion/Petition Change Of Venue 1.)The document never was filed in the database, but only after the Notice was filed someone logged onto the computer after midnight -5:00 am May 12, 2025 and emailed a court order saying said Petition was Dismissed Off Call.

   Comments:

A-    Anytime a racist Irish have the audacity to say to an innocent man “today is your lucky day, I can’t LOCK YOU UP anymore” judge Timothy P. Murphy or a Polaca David E. Haracz tells you, “I know that you are not the BIOLOGICAL FATHER, I’m just the BILL COLLECTOR” or the other Polaca Ronald Bartkowicz issues a BOGUS WARRANT as a former CTA attorney trying to help keep his racist Brethren from being discovered at the CTA (admit to everything as being accurate in the Motion to Disqualify him and compliments the Motion and asks the Respondent “How did you know, that I use to work for the CTA?”) who stole said wages while off work injured on duty and to cover-up all of the illegal wage garnishees sent to her racist Irish attorney representing Police Officer Francoise Louise Barbara Hightower-Belmer, there is a huge problem in the judiciary, A HETEROSEXUAL FREEMAN OR WOMAN cannot receive Equal Justice or Equal Protection within the laws OF THIS CITY OR STATE, when these racist hateful individuals have found a way to circumvent the United States Constitution and still enforce Jim Crow laws which has been outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court as demonstrated though out this case.   #JudicialCorruption in Chicago, Illinois how to fix cases... https://unlawful1.blogspot.com/2012/08/chronology-of-unlawful-contempt-charges.html? A Certified Affidavit Notarized ignored by racist States Attorney Dick Devine.  

  See that is why, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (was enacted) - Section 1 (42 U.S.C.) 1983.

       “Of all the Civil Rights legislation enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, none has had a greater contemporary impact than the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. The Act grew out of a special one-paragraph message sent to the 42d Congress on March 23, 1871, by President Ulysses S. Grant, urgently requesting the enactment of legislation”.

 

  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.”)