1. “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)”.
2. 
   
1. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK WAS ONE OF THE JUDGES WHO AUTHORED THE AFOREMENTIONED PRECEDENT COOK COUNTY IS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE

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.    

Federal appeals court upholds ex-Speaker Michael Madigan's corruption conviction: 'Not politics as usual'

Joining Scudder on the panel that considered Madigan’s appeal was Judge Frank Easterbrook, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan’s; and Judge Nancy Maldonado, an appointee of President Joe Biden’s. Scudder was appointed by President Donald Trump.

The Madigan panel heard arguments April 9. Scudder and Maldonado seemed skeptical of Madigan’s position, but Easterbrook remained tight-lipped. He had no questions for Madigan’s lawyer nor for a prosecutor. But in the end, the panel rejected Madigan’s claims.

THE SAME COURT OF APPEALS READING THE CORRUPTION AND EGREGIOUS EXTORTION IN THE CHILD SUPPORT STATE AGENCY WAS ALLEGEDLY DENIED AND IGNORED BY THE VERY JUDGES DENYING AFFIRMING THE JURY CONVICTION OF MICHAEL MADIGAN.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

1. This matter arises out of long‑standing Domestic Relations Case 1988 D 079012, in which Petitioner has repeatedly weaponized the judicial process, resulting in wrongful remands, fraudulent enforcement actions, and the deprivation of Respondent’s employment and liberty.

 

 

2. Petitioner served Certified Mail  at her last known address and States Attorney Kim Foxx, Chief Judge Timothy Calvin Evans, Gov. JB Pritzker, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul  was properly served via Electronic delivery (email) with Respondent’s filings seeking damages, sanctions, and relief related to the wrongful enforcement actions.

 

3. Despite proper service, Petitioner and the State has failed to file an Appearance, failed to file any responsive pleading, and has wholly failed to participate in these proceedings.

 

         A- That Assistant States Attorneys are appearing before certain judges denying their involvement and is expecting that judge to frivolously prolong this matter in an attempt to wear down the Respondent.

 

          B- That the States Attorney never had legal jurisdiction to bring the Respondent before any court, he was never SERVED Notice of the State Reopening the 1985 D 068184 matter or they had enjoined with the 1988 D 079012 of which Respondent was never served in any matter. 

 

4. 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.

PETITION TO SUPPLEMENT PANEL REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC3

Yahoo/Sent

• 

  by SimpleScan Station. Thank you

  Wed, Apr 15 at 1:23 PM
• 

  Joe Louis 

  From:joelouis565@yahoo.com

  To:Camille Nicodemus,Hope Blankenberger,Rodney Lewis,Kevin Hogan,Stephen D. Lozier

  Cc:contact@caarpr.org,Estefania Dominguez (Chief Judge's Office),Kenneth Ditkowsky,Dipakbhai Patel (Circuit Court),James Shapiro (Judiciary)

  Bcc:pepperpo@wied.uscourts.gov,attorney_general@atg.state.il.us,Inspectorsgeneral Info,brady_chambers@innd.uscourts.gov,deana_brinkley@ilsd.uscourts.gov

  Wed, Apr 15 at 2:46 PM

  Attention Hon Chief Judge Charles Beach & Hope Blankenberger & Other Counselors, Judges:

  
  

  Please find Petition to Supplement Panel Rehearing And Rehearing En Banc

  (INCLUDING NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE) & RULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR ANY ATTORNEY COMMITTING FRAUD ON THE COURT.

  
  

  THIS CASE IS A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF JUDICIAL RACISM, CORRUPTION & A PLETHORA OF ATTORNEYS WHO LACK BASIC UNDERSTANDINGS OF LEGAL RULES AND PROTOCOLS.

  
  

  I HAVE HAD SEVERAL ATORNEYS AND LAW FIRMS ON THIS PATERNITY CASE NOBODY SPOKE UP FOR ME OR DID WHAT WAS RIGHT (WILLIAM STEWART BOYD, WAS MY ATTORNEY AND WAS AWARE OF WHAT JUDGE RONALD BARTKOWICZ DID TO ME NEVER FILED ANY DOCUMENTS RECUSING HIMSELF FROM THE CASE AND BECAME A JUDGE---ANYBODY HAVE MY PERMISSION TO DISCUSS MY CASE WITH HIM.

  
  

  WHEN HE BECAME A JUDGE, HE PRETENDED LIKE HE DIDN'T KNOW ME ON THE PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION, AND REMOVED MY SON FROM MY CUSTODY UNLAWFULLY, JUDGE EDWARD JORDAN RETURNED MY SON BACK TO ME WHEN JUDGE BOYD REFUSED TO RECUSE HIMSELF OFF OF THE DIVORCE MATTER IN THE SAME WAY JUDGE SILVA IS DOING, HON JORDAN TOLD ME NOT TO WORRY ABOUT JUDGE BOYD.

  
  

  IT'S CLEAR JUSTICE LIES WITHIN THE COURT OF THE BEHOLDER AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE TO ANY LAWS INVOLVING CIVIL RIGHTS OR ANY EQUAL RIGHTS.

  
  

                                 COOK COUNTY IS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE, the very judge who wrote that very ruling or was a part of it's precedent is FRANK EASTERBROOK who is still in the Seventh Circuit.

  
  

  Respectfully submitted,

  
  

  Joe Louis Lawrence 

  
  

  
  

  ----- Forwarded Message -----

  
  

  From: "joelouis565@yahoo.com" <joelouis565@yahoo.com>

  Cc: "pirahana1@gmail.com" <pirahana1@gmail.com>

  Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 at 01:23:48 PM CDT

  Subject: PETITION TO SUPPLEMENT PANEL REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC

Court Order Transferred to Preliminary Judge Calendar E Judge Powers

Yahoo/Sent

• 

  Joe Louis 

  From:joelouis565@yahoo.com

  To:ccc.domrelcr1603@cookcountyil.gov

  Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 12:11 PM

  Attention Court Coordinator:  Estefania Dominguez

  
  

  On August 11, 2025 Judge Fallon signed a court order 88 D 079012 Recusing herself from the matter and transferring it to judge Powers on the first page of 3 orders the 3rd order, I am not able to identify;

  
  

  The record reflects Order Change of Venue By Right Allowed. 8/11/2025.

  
  

  The database is only reflecting one court order and the Clerks reassigned this matter back to Calendar 54 when she has recused herself.

  
  

  Can you ascertain for me Judge Powers court orders acknowledging receipt in order that this matter be transferred outside of Cook County?

  
  

  Thank you,

  
  

  Respectfully submitted

  
  

  Joe Louis Lawrence

  
  

  Case Number	Calendar	Date Filed	Division
  1988D079012	DRCAL54	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:

  Court Date:

  10/27/2025

  Hearing Type:

  Post Decree Motions (Judicial Officer:Calendar, 54,Fallon, Patricia M.)

  Time:

  9:30 AM

  Location:

  Court Room CL 11,Richard J Daley Center

  Case Activities:

  Activity Date:

  08/12/2025

  Event Desc:

  Exhibits Filed

  Comments:

  
  

  Activity Date:

  08/12/2025

  Event Desc:

  Notice Of Motion Filed

  Comments:

  
  

  Activity Date:

  08/12/2025

  Event Desc:

  Affidavit Filed

  Comments:

  
  

  Activity Date:

  08/12/2025

  Event Desc:

  Motion Filed

  Comments:

  
  

  Activity Date:

  08/12/2025

  Event Desc:

  Notice Of Motion Filed

  Comments:

  
  

  Activity Date:

  08/11/2025

  Event Desc:

  Order Change Of Venue By Right - Allowed

  Comments:

 

Judge Posner publicly stated that he attempted to personally review such memoranda in order to ensure meaningful judicial consideration of pro se appeals but that his colleagues declined to allow him to assume that role.

    “The basic thing is that most judges regard these people as kind of trash not worth the time of a federal judge.”

So, on Feb 11, 2026, the following was filed in the Seventh Circuit but a Clerk with initials CAG recorded that,  7 pgs Jurisdictional memorandum filed by Appellant Joe Louis Lawrence. [4] [7504067] 26-1226 (CAG) [Entered: 02/11/2026 09:46 AM]

1.)  WHY WOULD HE OR SHE GASLIGHT HIS COLLEAGUES AND JUDGES INTO BELIEVING THAT, ANOTHER JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT HAD BEEN FILED?

NOT SINCE THE Dred Scott decision, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on March 6, 1857, ruled (7–2) that a slave (Dred Scott) who had resided in a free state and territory (where slavery was prohibited) was not thereby entitled to his freedom; that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States; and that the Missouri Compromise (1820), which had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30′, was unconstitutional. The decision added fuel to the sectional controversy and pushed the country closer to civil war.

APPELLANT HAS BEEN BORN A FREEMAN IN THESE UNITED STATES BUT THE STATE COURTS AND FEDERAL COURTS ARE TREATING HIM AS A SLAVE AND NOT ENTITLED TO HIS FREEDOM OF EQUAL PROTECTION IN THE COURTS.

 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF

(28 U.S.C. § 1651(a))

---

 

Petitioner respectfully seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate the January 6, 2026 order and reassign the case to a different judge.

 

I. JURISDICTION

This Court has authority under the All-Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
Mandamus is appropriate where judicial conduct threatens structural fairness and no adequate remedy exists. In re United States, 572 F.3d 301 (7th Cir. 2009).

• Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law – 18 U.S.C. § 242
• Conspiracy Against Rights – 18 U.S.C. § 241

·         False arrest and unlawful imprisonment

·         Denial of due process under color of law

·         Judicial misconduct and misuse of legal authority

·         Retaliation for protected complaints against a police officer

·         Fabrication or misuse of an order of protection

·         Civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

·         Potential collusion between law enforcement and judicial officers

•  

---

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS (SUMMARY)

• Defendant was in default
• Defendant filed a non-noticed motion during a federal holiday closure
• The district court granted ex parte relief
• The same judge denied recusal and vacatur
• Proceedings continue despite unresolved structural defects

·         That Pursuant to Vigus V. O’Bannon, 1886 8 N.E 788, 118 ILL 334. Hazelton V. Carolus, 1907 132 ILL. App. 512. here are other cases of Fraud

• US Bank et al vs Monzella Johnson et al. 2008 CH 33616 case vacated HOW A CERTIFIED COURT ORDER (OCT. 29, 2024) OF JUDGE PAMELA GILLESPIE VACATING FORECLOSURE JUNE 10, 2010, AND AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE COURT 5^TH DIVISION DEC. 30, 2011, whereby, attorneys emailed Judge Derico with instructions on how to construct a court order so as to unlawfully evict senior citizens from their home of 64 years before Thanksgiving 2024, Black or certain Latino judges are only appointed to the bench or state agencies to fulfill the doctrines of hate and racial oppression on their own ethnic groups no other group.
• No Democratic Cook County Judge has jurisdiction on said matter because the States Attorney never had jurisdiction or any reasons to appear before any court because the case was DISMISSED September 17, 1987 by former States Attorney Richard J. Daley and the case was refiled without Defendant’s knowledge and a law firm was created pretending to represent the Defendant which was never true (Manigold) and a DEFAULT was entered May 18, 1988 never ordering child support payments and was never VACATED, but was Remanded five times for allegedly owing child support on Void Court Orders.
• Jan 14, 2026, Cook County Judge Rosa Silva recused herself from the case but no Court Order has ever been entered on a void case under Prove-Up Default.

·         In Re M. G.W Case #2020 D 79452 a case very similar to the 88 D 079012 is fraught with fraud and corruption where former judge David Haracz signed an Allocation Order refusing a trial and signed the court order (November 4, 2021) without any of the parties or their attorneys and Judge Forti is using that fraudulent document to remove the child from the mother unlawfully, furthermore demonstrating his untouchable status as a homosexual terrorizing a Black woman because nobody Black or of competent authority can admonish him, said orders are a Nullity/Void and needs to be vacated instanter. 

• Defendant has not seen her daughter since she has been unlawfully removed from Indiana Public School where she is a resident, Judge Forti as a former Corporation Chief Counsel defending Police Officers presiding over said matter as a Homosexual and racist is demonstrating he and judge Blakey can do whatever they want to Black or Colored People and nothing is going to happen to them because of the concerted hate the fraternity of like-minded judges have for said ethnic groups.

---

III. ARGUMENT

A. CLEAR AND INDISPUTABLE RIGHT TO RELIEF

Ex parte adjudication benefiting a defaulted party violates:

• Fifth Amendment Due Process
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, 6, 55
• 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)
• Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court denies Plaintiff's motion for a stay pending appeal or for mandamus,68 and strikes the 2/4/26 Notice of Motion date. Mandamus constitutes "a drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes"; "only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy." United States v. Henderson, 915 F.3d 1127, 1132 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004)). 

A reasonable observer would question impartiality. Cherry, 330 F.3d at 665.

Jan 2, 2026, MOTION by Defendant Verizon Communications Inc. for leave to file Verizon Wireless Service, LLC's Motion for Leave to File Answer Out of Time (Kelly, Matthew)

---

B. NO ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY

Post-judgment appeal is inadequate where:

• The injury is ongoing
• The judge whose neutrality is questioned continues to preside

In re Hatcher, 150 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 1998).

---

C. MANDAMUS IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT JUDICIAL INTEGRITY

The writ is warranted to:

• Preserve public confidence
• Halt compounding due process violations
• Enforce § 455’s mandatory recusal standard

---

IV. RELIEF REQUESTED

Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Issue a writ directing vacatur of the January 6, 2026 order;
2. Order reassignment to a different district judge;
3. Stay district court proceedings pending resolution.
4. Order Federal Mandate into ongoing corruption involving cases Dismissed as Void Orders are steady being drafted allowing attorneys to profit off of the Criminal Enterprise of Injustices within the judiciary.

---