BLUEPRINT HOW COOK COUNTY JUDGES "FIXED" A PATERNITY CASE PROTECTING A PEDOPHILE POLICE OFFICER WHOSE DAUGHTER HE IMPREGNATED CAME AFTER ME FOR CHILD SUPPORT KNOWING THAT I AM NOT HER DAUGHTERS FATHER
SPECIFIC JUDGES AND ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEYS OF CERTAIN ETHNICITY VIOLATED MY CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS BECAUSE OF MY BROWN SKIN COLOR AND HETEROSEXUAL DISPOSITION.
WHEN RACIST JUDGES ARE NOT ABLE TO CONTROL OR INTIMIDATE CERTAIN HISPANIC/LATINO JUDGES THE SYSTEM ALLOWS CERTAIN JUDGES TO MANIPULATE THEIR COURT CALENDAR BY INSERTING A JUDGE OF ANY RACIST HATEFUL MAKEUP TO ASSUME THEIR CALL UNLAWFULLY AND RULE AGAINST PEOPLE OF COLOR BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
AS YOU CAN SEE A CONVOY OF PEOPLE HAVE ISSUES WITH THE STATES ATTORNEYS DISPOSITION AND THEY FILED PETITIONS.
A coalition of attorneys, elected officials, and community groups filed a petition asking the court to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate alleged criminal misconduct by federal immigration agents during “Operation Midway Blitz.”
They argue that Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke has failed to investigate the agents, creating a conflict of interest that warrants a special prosecutor.
The State’s Attorney has opposed the request, calling it legally flawed and arguing that bringing in a special prosecutor could complicate any future prosecutions.
55 ILCS 5/3-9008 — Appointment of Special Prosecutor
This statute allows a court to appoint an outside prosecutor when the elected State’s Attorney cannot or should not handle a case. Below is how it works and why it becomes important in situations like the one involving Eileen O’Neill Burke.
Who Decides the Petition
The request is filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, and a judge will rule on it.
Administrative authority over which judge handles it ultimately rests with Charles S. Beach Jr., the current chief judge.
He may:
-
Decide the matter himself (rare), or
-
Assign it to another judge in the Criminal Division.
Has a conflict of interest
The judge then determines whether the statutory criteria for a special prosecutor are met.
EILEEN BURKE IS A FORMER JUDGE WHO DENIED EVERY MOTION, I PRESENTED WHEN SHE WAS AN APPELLATE JUDGE ON CASE 19-0845 JUDGE EILEEN O'NEIL BURKE, JUDGE ROBERT E. GORDON, JUDGE MARGARET MCBRIDE, JUDGE JESSE G. REYES WERE JUDGES WITH HER GOING ALONG WITH THIS ALLEGEDLY.
MOTION TO ENTER DEFAULT NUNC PRO TUNC OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR IMMEDIATE RULING
Because no qualified good judge can really do their jobs with the Domestic Terrorists controlling the judiciary, I need Judge Powers to use Judge Silvas signature stamp like he has been doing and DENY this Motion so that, I can prepare a Supervisory Order/Mandamus in the hopes that it is denied so that, I can strategically ENJOIN this paternity case with the Verizon Case and Petition the Seventh Circuit to reopen every case, I have been many times denied due to systemic fraud and structured Racism in the courts making every court order Void/a Nullity. Hon Rosa Marie Silva dmpatel@cookcountycourt.com
Hon James Shapiro james.shapiro@cookcountyil.gov
Hon Patrick Powers estefania.dominguez@cookcountyil.gov
Hon Judge Patricia Fallon CCC.DomRelCRCL12@cookcountyil.gov
Hon Judge Patricial Fallon edkouenou@cookcountycourt.com
Hon Michael A. Forti CCC.DomRelCR3004@cookcountyil.gov
Hon Edward Arce Edward.arce@cookcountyil.gov
Hon. Iris Y. Chavira CCC.DomRelCRCL08cookcountyil.gov
Hon. Andrea Webber CCC.DomRelCRCL06@cookcountyil.gov
Hon Maritza Martinez CCC.DomRelCR3006@cookcountyil.gov
Hon Abbey
Romanek CCC.DomRelCR3008@cookcountyil.gov
sao.csed@cookcountyil.gov Yolanda.simmons@cookcountysao.org
Cook County State’s Attorney Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans
Eilene
O’Neil Burke timothy.evans@cookcountyil.gov
statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov
Susan Mendoza Amanda.prentice@illinoiscomptroller.gov
Child Rep Marcellus H. Moore, Jr. 203 N.
LaSalle Street, Suite 2100 marcellus@childadvocatelawgroup.com
Cook County Sheriff’s
Tom Dart
email CCSO@ccsheriff.org
The Crusader Newspaper Group
Managing Editor Sharon Fountain
State Police isp.contact@illinois.gov
Illinois State Police
Chicago Police Superintendent, 3510 S. Michigan Ave,
Chicago Ill. 60653
Email CLEARPATH@chicagopolice.org, CaseManagement@chicagopolice.org
Dir. FBI,
Hon
Mayor Brandon
Special Agent in
Charge (FBI) City Hall 7th floor
Chicago, IL. 60601
2111 West Roosevelt Road
Chicago, Il 60608
Illinois
Courts Commission
555 West
Monroe, 15th floor
Chicago Ill.
60661
info@IllinoisCourtsCommission.gov
Illinois Court
Commission Members
Justice P.
Scott Neville, Jr. Chairman
Justice Thomas
M. Harris
Justice
Margaret Stanton McBride
Judge Lewis
Nixon
Judge Sheldon
Sobol
Judge Aurora
Abella-Austriaco
Madam Paula
Wolf
ilrb.filing@illinois.gov,
alexandrina.shrove@ilag.gov,
oig.referrals@illinois.gov
rwillis@laboradvocates.com,
jodi.mar@illinois.gov,
helen.j.kim@illinois.gov,
lashonda.channel@illinois.gov,
brianna.klein@illinois.gov,
kimberly.stevens@illinois.gov,
anna.hamburg-gal@illinois.gov,
khill@atu241chicago.org,
frogishtwo65@gmail.com,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies
that the above notice and all attachments were caused to be emailed to the
above parties at the addresses provided before 5:00 pm on March 18, 2026 .
Joe
Louis Lawrence
Counsel
Pro Se
Post Office Box 490075
Chicago,
Ill 60649
Joelouis565@yahoo.com
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT—DOMESTIC
RELATIONS
IN RE
)
)
Francoise
Hightower
) Judge
Petitioner
)
) Cal
VS
)
) No. 88 D 079012
Joe Louis
Lawrence
)
Respondent
) Room
MOTION TO ENTER DEFAULT NUNC PRO TUNC OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR IMMEDIATE RULING
Now
Comes Petitioner, Attorney Pro se, Respectfully moves this Court for entry of a
Default Nunc Pro Tunc Order, or alternatively for an immediate ruling on
Petitioner’s previously filed Motion for Entry of Default for Failure to Appear
and Failure to Plead, which has been sitting in limbo since Jan. 14, 2026 and
in support states as follows:
That Pursuant to Steinbrecher
v. Steinbrecher, 197 Ill. 2d 514, 528 (2001) “Pro Se litigants
are presumed to have full knowledge of applicable court rules and procedures”
I. PRIOR FILING OF
DEFAULT MOTION – That has been systematically and structurally ignored
- On or about Feb 9, 2024, Respondent
filed a Motion for Entry of Default for Failure to Appear and Failure
to Plead and for Setting of Prove-Up Hearing on Monetary Damages,
(filed Nov. 25, 2025)
- Said motion asserted that Plaintiff
failed to appear, plead, or otherwise respond to the allegations within
the time allowed by law.
- No written objection or
response to the motion has been filed by Respondent or any party.
- Respondent also filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dec 4, 2023) and a Motion for Default (Feb
9, 2024) Seeking Monetary Damages $50 Million Dollars, and
Petitioner has again failed to respond and the Assistant States Attorneys
tried deleting their representation of her and failed to Deny, Object to
any of Respondent’s Pleadings accompanied with Affidavits. Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-612 Counsel never
Objected to the sufficiency of Petitioners pleadings, Objections to
sufficiency of pleadings either in form or substance must be made In trial
court, and if not so made, they will be considered waived and cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal. People ex rel. Deynes v.
Harris, App. 1948, 77 N.E. 2d 439, 333 Ill. App. 280.
II. CONTINUANCE WITHOUT
RULING
- The motion was set for
hearing before this Court.
- On January 14, 2026, the
matter was continued without entry of a ruling on the motion because Judge
Rosa verbally Recused herself from the case
- As of the filing of this
motion, no order has been entered granting or denying the requested
default.
III. FAILURE TO PLEAD
CONSTITUTES DEFAULT
- Under Illinois civil
procedure, a party who fails to appear or plead within the time required
by law may be found in default.
- When the allegations of a
pleading remain unanswered, those allegations may be deemed admitted for
purposes of default proceedings.
IV. NECESSITY OF A COURT
RULING
- The continued absence of a
ruling on the pending motion prevents the orderly progression of the case
and creates uncertainty regarding the status of the pleadings.
- Entry of default would permit
the Court to proceed to a prove-up hearing regarding damages or other
relief.
V. PRESERVATION OF RECORD
- Petitioner respectfully notes
that the absence of a ruling on the pending motion affects the clarity of
the record and may impede appellate review.
- Entry of an order on the
motion will ensure that the procedural posture of the case is properly
documented.
- This case has been
fraudulently before the court for 38 years.
- The Record Reflects
Respondent was never served, case was Dismissed prior Sept. 17, 1987 by
the States Attorney via Paternity Tests Excluded Paternity from two
Independent Medical Laboratories where ASA Obyrietta Gammett Scott was the
assigned States Attorney (85 D 068184) where a Jury Appearance was filed. .
- The 88 D 079012 was fraudulent
created a Law Firm Manilow & Goldman, LTD was never Respondent’s
attorney.
- Default was entered May 18,
1988, and never Ordered the Def to Pay any child support and was
never Vacated.
- A judge ordered the Def
never to go near the child unless, he had a court order in Nov 1989, same
judge had another order ordering the Def to pay $4300 of her
attorneys legal fees.
- A judge signed an unlawful
arrearage court order in 1995 for alleged monthly charges.
- Defendant has been REMANDED
5’x’s for Contempt of Court for ALLEGEDLY OWING CHILD SUPPORT on a
child not only not his but the record reflects egregious systematic racial
hatred.
- The States Attorney backdated
an adult (Tycee Hightower as a minor) to justify these horrendous Domestic
Terrorists Acts on the Def to Extort money from him while on Public
Aid and is now a victim of Tax Fraud owing $4700 unlawfully because of
this case.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE,
Respondent Respectfully Requests that this Court:
1.).
Enter a Default against the Plaintiff
Nunc Pro Tunc as of the date default first occurred;
2.) In the alternative, issue an immediate ruling
on Respondent’s previously filed Motion
for Entry of Default;
3.) Respondent Respectfully Requests that the Court enter
a Default Nunc Pro Tunc Order as of the date on which the default first
became appropriate based upon Plaintiff’s failure to plead or appear.
4.) A Court Order would reflect the procedural
reality that Plaintiff has been in Default since that time with the States
Attorney representing her.
5.) Respondent Respectfully Prays that this Court issue an
immediate ruling granting the previously filed Motion for Entry of Default so
that the matter may proceed in accordance with Illinois Rules of Civil
Procedures and Supreme Court Precedents and Illinois Laws and Illinois
Constitution.
6.) Grant such other relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
No comments:
Post a Comment