CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN WHY AND HOW DEMOCRATIC JUDGES IN CHICAGO DON'T FOLLOW THE LAWS OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OR ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTION OR ILLINOIS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURES OR STATUTES?
JUDGE FALLON RESPECTFULLY REMOVED HERSELF FROM THIS CASE EVERY JUDGE IN COOK COUNTY IS AWARE HOW THEIR COLLEAGUES HELP STEAL HOMES FROM SENIOR CITIZENS IN ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES OR TAKE CHILDREN FROM MOTHERS AND GIVE THEM TO ABUSIVE FATHERS OR IN MY CASE HOW MORE THAN 40 DEMOCRATIC JUDGES TRIED COVERING UP THE FACT A POLICE OFFICER WHEN HE WAS ALIVE IMPREGNATED HIS BIOLOGICAL DAUGHTERS AND TRIED FRAMING ONE OF HIS CHILDREN ON ME.
JUSTICE IS DEFINITELY NOT A PLACE YOU CAN EXPECT IN ANY PARTS OF CHICAGO OR COOK COUNTY IF YOU ARE INNOCENT OR A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, THIS IS A CRIMINALS SANCTUARY.
IT APPEARS SOMEBODY WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC JUDICIARY IS STILL TRYING TO COVER-UP AND PROTECT ALL OF THE CORRUPTION OF JUDGES INVOLVED BY STALLING THIS CASE FROM MOVING OUTSIDE OF COOK COUNTY TO ROLLING MEADOWS BY MAKING SURE JUDGE FALLON KEEP THIS MATTER ON HER CALENDAR, WHETHER SHE HAS RECUSED HERSELF OR NOT.
THE DEMOCRATS RUN CHICAGO LIKE ITS A PLANTATION AND WITH SO MANY PLANTATION BLACKS BEING INFERIOR TO THEIR POLITICAL MASTERS NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE UNTIL A CAUCASIAN NOT OF THIS MINDSET OPEN THEIR MOUTHS AND LET THESE PEOPLE KNOW THEY ARE NOT SLAVES ANYMORE, THEY CAN OPEN THEIR MOUTHS.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
ILLINOIS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
IN RE
)
)
Francoise
Hightower ) Judge
Petitioner )
) Cal
VS
)
) No. 88 D 079012
Joe Louis
Lawrence )
Respondent ) Room
MOTION
TO EXPEDITE DEFENDANTS AFFECTED FROM JUDICIAL MALFEANCE & VIOLATIONS OF THE
ILLINOIS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FROM THE COOK COUNTY JUDICIARY INSTANTER DUE
TO JUDGE PATRICIA FALLON’S COURT ORDER AUGUST 11, 2025, DUE TO CONFLICT OF
INTEREST PRIOR ASSOCIATION TO THE STATES ATTORNEY OFFICE WHERE ALLEGED
HOMOSEXUAL KENT STEPHEN RAY FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE CTA USED HIS UNLAWFUL
JURISDICTION DESTROYING PERSONNEL RECORDS OF RESPONDENT AND ENGINEERED THE
FALSIFICATION AND COLLUSION WITH HIS ALLEGED FORMER EX JUDGE FORTI WHO WAS A CORPORATION
ATTORNEY IN CITY HALL WHO HAS STALKED THE RESPONDENT SINCE 1994 AIDING AND
ABETTING IN RACIAL HATE CONSPIRACIES ON CASE 93 L010772 (JOE LOUIS LAWRENCE VS
CTA) AS CHIEF ASST COUNSEL & USED HIS ROBE VIOLATING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF
RESPONDENT AND SHEMICA TAYLOR ISSUING THE UNLAWFUL ORDER OF PROTECTION AGAINST
HER KEEPING HER FROM HER NATURAL BIOLOGICAL DAUGHTER AS LAW FIRMS SOUGHT
OUTRAGEOUS LEGAL FEES WHERE JUDGE FORTI IS SEEKING TO REMAND HER INTO CUSTODY
ON A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE NOT PAYING AN ALLEGED HOMOSEXUAL CHILD REP- REQUEST FOR
RE NOTICE OF RECUSING THE ENTIRE COOK COUNTY JUDICIARY AND APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR PURSUANT TO
THE CASE OF 2 EX-COOK COUNTY ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY’S (NICHOLAS TRUTENKO,
ANDREW HORVAT) DUE TO FORMER ASSISTANT’S STATES ATTORNEY IRIS Y. CHIVIRA
ALLEGEDLY TOOK PART IN THE FALSIFICATION OF BACKDATING RECORDS ET AL. JUDGE FORTI HAVE RECUSED
HIMSELF JUNE 5, 2025 BUT FAILED TO VACATE ANY COURT ORDERS IN SPITE OF HIS
CRIMINAL ASSOCIATIONS SIGNING COURT ORDERS FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS ASSOCIATED IN
THE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE OF COOK COUNTY, WHERE ALLEGED RACIST, OR HOMOSEXUAL OR
PUPPET COLORED ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEYS WILL GO ALONG AND CONTINUOUSLY
VIOLATE THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF RESPONDENTS BY ENFORCING VOID ORDERS CAUSING HER
REMOVED FROM ANOTHER STATE & RULE TO SHOW CAUSE IF THE ORDER OF PROTECTION
AGAINST SHEMICA TAYLOR IS NOT VACATED IN 48 HOURS SEEKING REMANDS INSTANTER
WITH BODY ATTACHMENT ON ALL PARTIES FOR THEIR ROLES IN SAID CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
INVOKING THE STATE POLICE, STATE MARSHALL’S, SHERIFF POLICE AND FBI INVOKE
JURISDICTION BY INVESTIGATING THE ALLEGATIONS IGNORED BY ALL RESPONSIBLE
PARTIES WHERE A (STATE OF ILLINOIS
AFFIDAVIT PROPERLY NOTARIZED ATTESTING TO THIS VERACITY) ASA YOLANDA SIMMONS VIOLATED
THE ETHICS OF RPC 3.3 CORROBORATOING HER INVOLVEMENT COLLUDING WITH JUDGE FORTI
IN SYSTEMIC CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS VERIFYING SAID JUDGES ARE “PRIVATE
CITIZENS” “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES V RAIMONDO, 603
U,S. 369 (2024) TO SECTION
42 USC 1983 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTE, 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 assigned 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.
& DIRECT THIS MATTER BE
TRANSFERRED TO THE THIRD MUNICIPAL DISTRICT- ROLLING MEADOWS COURT WHO HAS
STATED THEY WILL ACCEPT THIS PATERNITY MATTER AND INFORM THE JUDGE
Courtesy Copy V MOTION TO VACATE IMPROPER DISMISSAL (MAY 12,
2025) (POST RECUSAL TESTIMONY) VOID ORDER AND REQUEST FOR RE NOTICE OF RECUSING
THE ENTIRE COOK COUNTY JUDICIARY AND APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR PURSUANT TO
THE CASE OF 2 EX-COOK COUNTY ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY’S (NICHOLAS TRUTENKO,
ANDREW HORVAT) DUE TO FORMER ASSISTANT’S STATES ATTORNEY IRIS Y. CHIVIRA
ALLEGEDLY TOOK PART IN THE FALSIFICATION OF BACKDATING RECORDS ET AL. JUDGE
FORTI HAVING A HEARING MAY 9, 2025 ON THE 11:00AM CALL, STATED “you know what,
Sir I’m going to recuse myself like others but I’m going to apprise Judge
Scannicchio” et al.
1.)
That Defendant appeared at the Daley Center
and was informed Friday August 8, 2025 312 603-1646, 9:05 am 12 mins 40 sec.
via Clerk “he was not to appear in court CL-12 but to report to CL-19”
2.)
Defendant called to ascertain if the case was still on the
Calendar because so many judges have been malicious having clerks to
misrepresent the facts and have him reporting to court only to learn that the
case may be before another judge.
3.)
Judge Fallon was very professional asked the Defendant if he
filed any Notices to appear before her because she had nothing before her?
4.)
Defendant replied Yes Ma’am your Honor, I filed a Motion to
Recuse you because of your prior association as an Assistant States Attorney
due to conflict of interest et al. June 10, and a Motion for Summary Judgment
July 11, 2025 and presented both documents before the computer monitor;
5.)
Judge Fallon: stated no need to show the documents because she
was going to have her Clerk to go to Odyssey and print out the documents in its
entirety.
A- Defendant
had due-diligently emailed the entire judiciary with the impression he had been
given Judge Fallon’s correct email two months had elapsed frivolously as
someone within the Democratic Party has Obstructed justice making sure the
judge never see anything the Defendant emailed to her corroborating the SYSTEMIC
HATE DEMOCRATS have against Black or Brown litigants speaking up for
themselves against racial injustices in the courts.
6.)
Judge Fallon: Admitted that she was in fact an Assistant States
Attorney in the Civil Division, and upon reading the Motion her facial gestures
appeared totally astonished, she requested that Defendant unmute himself and
said she was going to interpret his Motion as a “Substitution of Judge as a
Matter of Right”.
A-
She was not going to
address his Summary Judgment because it was his request she be substituted from
the case, but Judge Fallon inadvertently forgot to mention his July 11, 2025
Summary Judgment in her Court Order.
B-
That because everybody in
the Democratic Party has willfully ignored the egregious hate being perpetrated
on Black, Brown people within the Judiciary, hereto attached, Ex A Letter
to Federal Authorities on how Police violated her Civil Rights and
disrespected a Black woman (Shemica Taylor) trying to ascertain the welfare of
her only child kidnapped from her via Judge Forti’s unlawful court orders
7.)
Defendant has properly Noticed the entire Cook
County Democratic Judiciary, States Attorney, Illinois Attorney General,
Federal Northern District Judicial Council and Federal Authorities no City or
State person(s) judge(s) Clerk(s) have ever submitted a counter-affidavit
impeaching the veracity of all properly plead facts recorded in Defendant’s
two-page Motion particularizing the “Fraudulent egregious racist Civil Rights
Acts” pursuant to Fed Rule Civ Pro 8 and 9.
8.)
Hereto attached Gr Ex B, September 11, 1997
State of Illinois
Judicial Inquiry Board
100 W. Randolph St. - 14-500
Chicago, IL 60601
REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
OF JUDGE FRANCIS A. GEMBALA
FOR VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
I have information of possible willful misconduct in office,
persistent failure to perform his duties, and other conduct that is prejudicial
to the administration of justice and that brings both his judicial office and
the judiciary into disrepute on the part of Francis A. Gembala of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois. A judge should strive to maintain confidence in
our judicial system (Preamble to Code of Judicial Conduct), but Judge Gembala's
actions destroy confidence in the judicial system. Unless he is severely
disciplined or removed from office, he will continue to violate the Code of
Judicial Conduct.
Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that he had
conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately, intentionally, and
knowingly engaged in conduct in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land, in
violation of his duty under the law, in "fraud upon the court" and to
aid and abet others in criminal activity, thus making himself a principal in
the criminal activity.
BACKGROUND
A complaint for Declaratory Judgment was filed as case no.
96-CH-5651, EUGENE W. ALPERN v. PHYLLIS ALPERN, ALLEN S. GABE, ROBERT K. BLAIN,
and REGINA SCANNICCHIO, and the full and complete record of that case is
incorporated as a part of this Complaint. The purpose of the case was to
declare a judgment in case no. 91-D-5122 void for reasons stated in the
complaint. The 96-CH-5651 case has been concluded, with the issuance of a void
judgment due to, among various reasons, fraud upon the court by the defendant's
attorneys and by Judge Gembala (see infra). Since fraud upon the
court voids the entire proceeding, In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d
393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.");
People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Gilmore, 345 Ill. 28, 177 N.E. 710 (1931),
this complaint has nothing to do with the voidness of the purported decision,
but on the violations of judicial conduct of Judge Gembala.
In case no. 96-CH-5651, Judge Gembala judgment stated that:
"Thus this court lacks jurisdiction to grant plaintiff the
relief he seeks, which amounts to a vacatur of the Judgment of Dissolution.
Moreover, this court is aware of no authority which would permit it to vacate
an order of the Appellate Court."
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
The Illinois Supreme Court issued the Illinois Code of Judicial
Conduct as Supreme Court Rules ("SCR"). The Illinois Code of Judicial
Conduct is incorporated herein as a part of this Complaint. Supreme Court Rules
are law, and must be followed by litigants, attorneys, and all Circuit and
Appellate Court judges. Compliance with SCR is not discretionary, but is
mandatory. Any noncompliance is unlawful, and judges have no lawful authority
to act unlawfully.
The Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 62(A) states: A judge
should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself or herself at
all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary.
The Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 63(A) states:
(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities
(1) A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain
professional competence in it.
INHERENT POWER OF THE
COURT
Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that every court of
lawful jurisdiction has the inherent power to determine subject-matter
jurisdiction. Inherent power of a court is not dependent on whether a court has
jurisdiction, otherwise it could never have the lawful authority to determine
if it had jurisdiction in any matter before it. This inherent power to
determine jurisdiction applies not only to determine its own jurisdiction, but
the jurisdiction of any other court. People v. Childs, 278 Ill.App.3d 65, 663
N.E.2d 161 (4th Dist. 1996) ("The duty to vacate a void judgment is based
on the inherent power of a court to expunge from its records void acts of which
it has knowledge."); Evans v. Corporate Services, 207 Ill.App.3d 297, 565
N.E.2d 724 (2nd Dist. 1990) ("A court has inherent authority to expunge
void acts from its records.").
Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that under the Supreme
Law of the Land:
"Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will
nothing. When they are said to exercise a discretion, it is a mere legal
discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by
law, and, when that is discerned, it is the duty of the court to follow it.
Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will
of the judge; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the
legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law." [Emphasis in original].
Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F.2d 389, 412 (7th Cir. 1972), citing Osborn v. Bank
of the United States, 9 Wheat (22 U.S.) 738, 866, 6 L.Ed 204 (1824); U.S. v.
Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).
Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that the void judgment
brought before him, remains void even if he did not vacate it. Judge Gembala
knew, or should have known, that the void judgment was not affirmed nor
validated by his failure to properly exercise his judicial duty.
Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that he had the duty,
and had no discretion, to vacate void orders and judgments. Judge Gembala knew,
or should have known, that he had conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously,
deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly engaged in conduct in violation of
his duty as a judge, and engaged in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.
TREASON
Judge Gembala knew, or should have known that, by his previous
allegation that he had no jurisdiction, he committed treason against the
Constitution. "We [Judges] have no more right to decline the exercise of
jurisdiction which is given, then to usurp that which is not given. The one or
the other would be treason to the Constitution." [clarification added]
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).
Judge Gembala should not have engaged in treason to the
Constitution, a Constitution to which he has taken a personal oath to support.
VIOLATION OF SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND
All judges have taken an oath to, and their lawful authority
depends on their complete and full compliance with, the Constitution of the
United States of America, and the Supreme Law of the Land.
The Supreme of the Land can be found in the decisions of the
U.S. Supreme Court. In Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27
S.Ct. 236 (1907), the Supreme Court ruled that:
"Chief Justice Marshall had long before observed in Ross v.
Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 L.ed. 608, 617, that, upon principle, the
operation of every judgment must depend on the power of the court to render
that judgment. In Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 L.ed. 1170, 1189, it
was said to be well settled that the jurisdiction of ANY COURT exercising
authority over a subject `may be inquired into in EVERY OTHER COURT when the
proceedings in the former are relied upon and brought before the latter by a
party claiming the benefit of such proceedings,' and the rule prevails whether
`the decree or judgment has been given, in a court of admiralty, chancery,
ecclesiastical court, or court of common law, or whether the point ruled has
arisen under the laws of nations, the practice in chancery, or the municipal
laws of states.'" [Emphasis added].
In Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828),
the court stated that "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. This
distinction runs through all the cases on the subject; and it proves, that the
jurisdiction of ANY COURT exercising authority over a subject, may be inquired
into IN EVERY COURT, when the proceedings of the former are relied on and
brought before the latter, by the party claiming the benefit of such
proceedings." [Emphasis added].
Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, the law and the U.S.
Supreme Court decisions that ANY COURT and EVERY COURT can vacate a void order.
Judge Gembala conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately,
intentionally, and knowingly engaged in conduct in violation of the Supreme Law
of the Land, and of Rule 62(A) and Rule 63(A).
VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF
ILLINOIS
Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, the Illinois Supreme
Court decisions that ANY COURT can vacate a void order.
Contrary to Judge Gembala's alleged non-finding, and considering
that the writer is a non-lawyer, he found many Illinois Supreme Court and
Appellate Court decisions that grant all judges lawful authority to vacate the
91-D-5122 judgment before him. As only a few of the many Illinois citations,
the following are presented:
In City of Chicago v. Fair Employment Practices Com., 65 Ill.2d 108, 357
N.E.2d 1154 (1976), the court stated that "A judgment, order or decree
entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction of the parties or the subject
matter, or which lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order
involved, is void, and may be
No comments:
Post a Comment