PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINIG THAT ICE AGENTS ARE VERY HARSH AND VIOLENT ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BUT WE HAVE JUDGES IN THE FEDERAL COURTS AND IN COOK COURTS WHO HAVE BEEN FAR MORE VICIOUS AND HATEFUL WITH THEIR UNLAWFUL RULINGS AGAINST BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE AND NOBODY SAID A WORD BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT ILLEGAL.
PLEASE FIND THREE SEPERATE DOCUMENTS FILED IN FEDERAL COURT TUESDAY JAN 20, BEFORE 10:00AM
I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF FRAUD AND CORRUPTION IN THE DALEY CENTER FILES DELETED FROM THE RECORDS, OR DATABASE ETC. BUT NEVER HAVE I EXPERIENCED WHERE WHEN A COURT IS CLOSED FOR THE HOLIDAYS AN ATTORNEY UNLAWFULLY FILES A MOTION WHO IS IN DEFAULT AND ASKS THE JUDGE IN FEDERAL COURT TO GRANT THEM MORE TIME TO ANSWER BECAUSE THEY AR OUT OF TIME.
SOON AS COURT OPENS JAN 6, 2026, THE JUDGE IMMEDIATELY GRANTS THE MOTION BUT IGNORES MY SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED ON JAN 5, 2026, WHERE THREE LAW FIRMS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH HIS COURT ORDER OF DEC 29, 2025, TO SUBMIT A STATUS REPORT.
THE JUDGE IS IGNORING ALL LAWS AND RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE NOW CAN ANYONE UNDERSTAND WHY?
THE FOLLOWING MOTIONS ADDRESSES HIS BIAS DISPOSITION TOWARDS ME IN FEDERAL COURT.
1.) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND RECUSE THE DISTRICT JUDGE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) AND (b)(1) DUE TO A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF BIAS & PREDJUDICE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF
2.) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE JANUARY 6, 2026, VOID ORDER/AND ANY OTHER ORDER ENTERED IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
3.) PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Plaintiff,
) Civil case # 25
CV-12239
) Judge Robert
Blakey
) Magistrate Judge
Albert Berry III
V.
) Random / Cal 2
Room 1203
1. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC )
2. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES,
L.L.C. )
Successor in interest to EQUIFAX
CREDIT )
INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., )
3. EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., )
4. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SERVICES,
INC., )
5. TRANS UNION L. L. C., )
Defendants.
)
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO DISQUALIFY AND RECUSE THE DISTRICT JUDGE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) AND
(b)(1) DUE TO A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF BIAS &
PREDJUDICE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff respectfully moves for disqualification and recusal of the District
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and § 455(b)(1) et al., and
in support states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
This motion arises from the Court’s January 6, 2026 ex parte order
granting substantive relief to a defendant who was in default, based on
a non-noticed motion, filed during a federal holiday closure, and
granted outside the Court’s regular motion call, without affording
Plaintiff notice or an opportunity to be heard.
The cumulative procedural irregularities give rise to an objective
appearance of partiality, undermine the adversarial process, and constitute
a denial of due process, thereby mandating disqualification under 28
U.S.C. § 455(a).
II. GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD
A. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) — Appearance of
Partiality
A judge must disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, United States v. Orr, 969 F.3d
732, 736 (7th Cir. 2020)
“The question is not whether
the judge is actually biased, but whether a reasonable person would question
the judge’s impartiality.” Actual bias need not be shown. Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition
Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988).
The standard is objective:
Whether a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would
question the judge’s impartiality.
The Court’s Standing Orders require that motions be
properly noticed, served, and presented in accordance with Local Rule 78.1,
with responses due before ruling unless the Court declares an emergency. No
such emergency was declared here, and no deviation applicable to all parties
was announced. The departure from standard motion practice benefitted only the Defendant.
B. 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1) — Personal
Bias or Prejudicial Conduct
Disqualification is also required where judicial conduct demonstrates prejudgment,
one-sided procedural favoritism, or abandonment of neutrality.
That on December
2, 2025, This Honorable Court issued an Order, “Extends the deadline for the
parties joint status report to 12/29/2025” and Ordered the Plaintiff, “The Court
previously Ordered Plaintiff to file a status report concerning service on
Verizon by 12/ 3/ 25, and hereby extends that deadline to 12/19/25. “If
Plaintiff declines to participate in the preparation and filing of a joint
status report, the Court will dismiss the case for failure to comply with a
court order and failure to prosecute”.
For the Record, Plaintiff never
received any Court Order prior to December 2, 2025 and no Clerk in the Northern
District of Illinois were able to locate such an order.
Plaintiff filed his Status Report on
Service of Verizon Communications, Inc. Dec 10, 2025 and his Initial
Joint Status Report Dec 12, 2025 in response to the Courts Directive
without any hesitation demonstrating respect and a moral compass to the rules
of FRCP and this court.
Defendant’s
failed to comply with the District Judges order of Dec 29, 2025, Plaintiff
filed his Summary Judgment (Jan. 5, 2026) unabated by three competent Power
House Fortune 500 Law firms.
District Judge
Entered an Order Jan. 9, 2026, Denied Plaintiff’s Default, filed Jan 7, 2026,
Plaintiff never received the following “Minute entry before the Honorable
John Robert Blakey: The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment57
and request for default59 and strikes the 1/7/26 notice of motion date ( which
in any event fails to comply with this Court’s standing orders). Defendants
have responded to the complaint, and Plaintiff’s requests lack merit. The
parties’ 1/28/26 status report deadline stands”.
The
District Judge resents the Plaintiff and
it is egregiously reflected in his rulings
·
The judge favors the defendants and is holding the Plaintiff at a higher
standard within the laws than licensed attorneys.
· The judge abandoned neutrality.
· The judicial process is unfair to
the Plaintiff.
III. FACTUAL BASIS FOR
DISQUALIFICATION
1. Ex Parte Grant of Substantive
Relief
On January 6, 2026, the Court granted Defendant’s motion without
notice to Plaintiff, in violation of:
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)
- Canon 3(A)(4), Code of Conduct
for U.S. Judges
The motion was never served, never noticed, and never set for briefing or
hearing.
The Standing Orders further prohibit ex parte
communications concerning substantive matters, yet the January 6, 2026 order
adjudicated Defendant’s rights without adversarial participation.
2. Improper Relief Granted to a Party
in Default
At the time relief was granted:
- Defendant was in procedural
default
- Defendant Admitted to the judge
in their filing they were out of time.
- No motion under Rule 55(c)
or Rule 60(b) was filed
- No showing of excusable
neglect under Rule 6(b)(1)(B) was made Granting relief
to a defaulted party without vacating default and without a Rule 6(b)
showing constitutes reversible procedural error. Black, 22 F.3d at 1407; Pretzel,
28 F.3d at 45.
Granting time extensions to a defaulted party without vacating default
constitutes procedural advocacy, not neutral adjudication.
Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1407 (7th Cir. 1994)
Defaulted parties are not entitled to merits-based relief absent proper
procedure.
Pretzel & Stouffer v. Imperial Adjusters, 28 F.3d 42, 45 (7th Cir. 1994)
Extensions after deadline require excusable neglect.
3. Denial of Due Process
Plaintiff was deprived of:
- Notice
- Opportunity to respond
- A neutral decision-making process
- Where an
order is entered in violation of due process, it is void and must be
vacated as a matter of law. Indoor Cultivation, 55 F.3d at
1317; Price,
505 F.3d at 631.
In violation of the Fifth Amendment and established federal
precedent.
4. Electronic Filing / Holiday Closure
Although CM/ECF permits electronic filing during court closures, the
Standing Orders do not authorize substantive rulings on non-emergency,
non-noticed motions during such closures where one party is effectively
deprived of a meaningful opportunity to respond.
This avoids any CM/ECF counterargument.
4. Irregular Holiday / Closure
Advantage
The motion was filed during a federal building closure, when
Plaintiff had no practical ability to respond, yet the Court acted immediately
upon reopening, before the regular motion call.
This unequal procedural access reinforces the appearance of favoritism.
5. Departure from NDIL Local Rules
The Court ruled:
- Outside the Wednesday motion call
- Without a briefing schedule
- Without findings or legal
analysis
- Court denied Plaintiff’s Summary
Judgment filed January 5, 2026 even when the three law firms received a
court order to respond by Dec 29, 2025 and no attorney complied or asked
for additional time.
Deviation from procedural norms benefiting only one party supports
recusal.
IV. CUMULATIVE APPEARANCE OF
PARTIALITY
While any single irregularity may be argued as “harmless,” their
cumulative effect establishes:
- Structural unfairness
- One-sided rule deviations
- Loss of public confidence in
judicial neutrality
- Illinois courts have
held that in such circumstances, actual prejudice has been required to
FORCE REMOVAL of a judge from a case, that is, either prejudicial trial
conduct or personal bias. Rosewood Corp. n Transamerica Insurance Co.,
57 Ill 2d 247, 311 N.E. 2d 673.
Federal courts recognize cumulative procedural defects as sufficient
grounds for recusal.
The cumulative procedural defects here rise to the level of
structural errors, undermining confidence in the integrity of the proceedings. Atwood, 941 F.3d
at 885.
V. APPELLATE PRESERVATION STATEMENT
Plaintiff expressly preserves all objections under:
- 28 U.S.C. § 455
- Fifth Amendment Due Process
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, 6, 7, 55, and
60
- Structural error doctrine
Plaintiff further preserves the record for interlocutory review,
mandamus, and post-judgment appeal, including but not limited to arguments
that the January 6, 2026 order is void ab initio.
VI. RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
- Disqualify and recuse the District
judge
- Reassign this matter to a
different judge
- Vacate all orders entered as a
result of the ex parte motion
- Grant any further relief deemed
just and proper
- Plaintiff
expressly preserves the right to seek mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. §
1651 should reassignment be denied, as well as interlocutory review of any
order entered by a judge whose impartiality has been reasonably
questioned. See Hook v. McDade, 89 F.3d 350 (7th Cir. 1996).
DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Executed on: ______________________ 2026
City & State: ______________________________
________________________________________
JOE LOUIS LAWRENCE
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Notary
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Joe
Louis Lawrence,
)
Plaintiff,
) Civil case # 25
CV-12239
) Judge Robert
Blakey
) Magistrate Judge
Albert Berry III
V.
) Random / Cal 2
Room 1203
1. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC )
2.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, L.L.C. )
Successor in interest to EQUIFAX
CREDIT )
INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., )
3.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., )
4.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., )
5. TRANS
UNION L. L. C., )
Defendants.
)
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY AND RECUSE THE DISTRICT JUDGE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) AND
(b)(1) DUE TO A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF BIAS & PREDJUDICE AGAINST THE
PLAINTIFF
Please be advised that
on, Plaintiff has filed before this District Court, January 20, 2026 Motion to
Disqualify and Recuse the District Judge et al; and will present said legally
sufficient instrument before Judge Blakey or any judge in his
stead Jan 28, 2026 in his
stead , at 11:00 am in room 1203..
I
Joe Louis Lawrence Plaintiff,
certify that I have on this day deposited said Notice and Motion to all parties
recorded in said Notice via mail/Email Transmission..
To
Camille R. Nicodemus, Esq. (IL #2452849)
Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C.
10333 North Meridian Street, Suite 200
Indianapolis, IN 46290
Telephone:
(317) 497-5600, Ext. 601
Fax:
(317) 899-9348
E-Mail: cnicodemus@qslwm.com
Hope Blankenberger
Counsel for Defendant
Trans Union LLC
POLSINELLI PC
By: /s/ Rodney L. Lewis
Rodney L. Lewis
Kevin M. Hogan
Polsinelli PC
150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 3000
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Tel. (312) 819-1900
Fax (312) 819-1910
rodneylewis@polsinelli.com
kmhogan@polsinelli.com
Attorneys for Defendant Equifax Information
Services, LLC
/s/ Stephen D.
Lozier
Stephen
D. Lozier
Troutman
Pepper Locke LLP
111
S. Wacker Dr, Suite 4100
Chicago,
Illinois 60606
Telephone:
(312) 759-3203
stephen.lozier@troutman.com
Attorneys
for Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc
Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney,
LTD 233 S Wacker Dr. Suite
5500 Chicago,
Illinois 60606
Matthew D. Kelly mkelly@msm.com
Attorneys for Verizon Communications, Inc.
Respectfully, Submitted,
__________________________
Plaintiff, Pro Se
PO Box 4353
Chicago, Illinois 60680
312 965-6455
joelouis565@yahoo.com
Joe Louis Lawrence
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Plaintiff,
) Civil case # 25
CV-12239
) Judge Robert
Blakey
) Magistrate Judge
Albert Berry III
V.
) Random / Cal 2
Room 1203
1. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC )
2. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES,
L.L.C. )
Successor in interest to EQUIFAX
CREDIT )
INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., )
3. EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., )
4. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SERVICES,
INC., )
5. TRANS UNION L. L. C., )
Defendants.
)
Plaintiff moves to vacate the Court’s January 6, 2026 order as void
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4).
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A judgment or order is void where entered:
- Without jurisdiction
- In violation of due process
- Without notice or opportunity to
be heard
Void orders must be vacated as a matter of law.
II. THE ORDER IS VOID FOR MULTIPLE
INDEPENDENT REASONS
A. Lack of Notice (Rule 5 / Due
Process)
The motion was never served or noticed.
Orders entered without notice violate the Fifth Amendment.
B. Defendant Lacked Standing to Seek
Relief
Defendant was in default and had not moved to vacate default under Rule
55(c).
The Court therefore lacked authority to grant discretionary relief.
C. No Rule 6(b) Findings
No showing of excusable neglect was made or found.
D. Ex Parte Relief Outside Authorized
Circumstances
No emergency was declared.
No legal authority cited.
III. VOID ORDERS HAVE NO LEGAL EFFECT
A void order:
- Is a nullity
- Confers no rights
- May be attacked at any time
·
Void Orders (Rule 60(b)(4))
·
United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip., 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir.
1995)
A judgment entered in violation of due process is void.
·
Price v. Wyeth Holdings Corp., 505 F.3d 624, 631 (7th Cir. 2007)
Void judgments must be vacated; discretion does not apply.
·
Where an order is entered in violation of due process, it is void and
must be vacated as a matter of law. Indoor Cultivation, 55 F.3d at 1317;
Price, 505 F.3d at 631.
IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
- Vacate the January 6, 2026 order
in its entirety
- Reinstate Defendant’s default
posture
- Restore Plaintiff’s procedural
rights
DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Executed on: ______________________ 2026
City & State: ______________________________
________________________________________
JOE LOUIS LAWRENCE
Plaintiff, Pro Se
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Joe
Louis Lawrence,
)
Plaintiff,
) Civil case # 25
CV-12239
) Judge Robert
Blakey
) Magistrate Judge
Albert Berry III
V.
) Random / Cal 2
Room 1203
1. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC )
2.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, L.L.C. )
Successor in interest to EQUIFAX
CREDIT )
INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., )
3.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., )
4.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., )
5. TRANS
UNION L. L. C., )
Defendants.
)
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE
THE JANUARY 6, 2026, VOID ORDER/AND ANY OTHER ORDER ENTERED IN VIOLATION OF DUE
PROCESS
Please be advised that
on, Plaintiff has filed before this District Court, January 20, 2026 Motion to Vacate
the January 6, 2026 Court Order et al; and will present said legally sufficient
instrument before Judge Blakey or any judge in his stead Jan
28, 2026 in his stead , at 11:00
am in room 1203..
I
Joe Louis Lawrence Plaintiff,
certify that I have on this day deposited said Notice and Motion to all parties
recorded in said Notice via mail/Email Transmission..
To
Camille R. Nicodemus, Esq. (IL #2452849)
Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C.
10333 North Meridian Street, Suite 200
Indianapolis, IN 46290
Telephone:
(317) 497-5600, Ext. 601
Fax:
(317) 899-9348
E-Mail: cnicodemus@qslwm.com
Hope Blankenberger
Counsel for Defendant
Trans Union LLC
POLSINELLI PC
By: /s/ Rodney L. Lewis
Rodney L. Lewis
Kevin M. Hogan
Polsinelli PC
150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 3000
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Tel. (312) 819-1900
Fax (312) 819-1910
rodneylewis@polsinelli.com
kmhogan@polsinelli.com
Attorneys for Defendant Equifax Information
Services, LLC
/s/ Stephen D.
Lozier
Stephen
D. Lozier
Troutman
Pepper Locke LLP
111
S. Wacker Dr, Suite 4100
Chicago,
Illinois 60606
Telephone:
(312) 759-3203
stephen.lozier@troutman.com
Attorneys
for Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc
Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney,
LTD 233 S Wacker Dr. Suite
5500 Chicago,
Illinois 60606
Matthew D. Kelly mkelly@msm.com
Respectfully, Submitted,
__________________________
Joe Louis Lawrence
Plaintiff, Pro Se
PO Box 4353
Chicago, Illinois 60680
312 965-6455
joelouis565@yahoo.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Plaintiff,
) Civil case # 25 CV-12239
) Judge Robert Blakey
) Magistrate Judge Albert Berry III
V. ) Random / Cal 2 Room 1203
1. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC )
2. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES,
L.L.C. )
Successor in interest to EQUIFAX
CREDIT )
INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., )
3. EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., )
4. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SERVICES,
INC., )
5. TRANS UNION L. L. C., )
Defendants.
)
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE
OF DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS
Plaintiff files this Notice to formally preserve constitutional
objections for the record.
I. NOTICE
Plaintiff hereby provides notice that:
- Plaintiff was deprived of notice
and opportunity to be heard
- Ex parte relief was granted to a
defaulted defendant
- The Court acted outside regular
motion procedures
- Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment
rights were violated
Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655, 679 (7th Cir. 1981)
Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before adverse
judicial action.
United States v. Ligas, 549 F.3d 497, 501 (7th Cir. 2008)
Ex parte judicial action affecting substantive rights violates due process.
Orders entered without notice or opportunity to respond violate the Fifth
Amendment and are void. Simer, 661 F.2d at 679; Ligas, 549 F.3d
at 501.
Where an order is entered in violation of due process, it
is void and must be vacated as a matter of law. Indoor Cultivation, 55 F.3d at
1317; Price, 505 F.3d
at 631.
II. PURPOSE OF NOTICE
This Notice is filed to:
- Preserve constitutional
objections
- Prevent waiver
- Ensure appellate review
Plaintiff does not consent to, waive, or acquiesce in any procedural
irregularities.
III. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Plaintiff expressly reserves all rights to seek:
- Vacatur
- Reassignment
- Mandamus
- Appellate relief
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Louis Lawrence
DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Executed on: ______________________ 2026
City & State: ______________________________
________________________________________
JOE LOUIS LAWRENCE
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Notary
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Joe
Louis Lawrence, )
Plaintiff,
) Civil case # 25 CV-12239
) Judge Robert Blakey
) Magistrate Judge Albert Berry III
V. ) Random / Cal 2 Room 1203
1. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC )
2.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, L.L.C. )
Successor in interest to EQUIFAX
CREDIT )
INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., )
3.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., )
4.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., )
5. TRANS
UNION L. L. C., )
Defendants.
)
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS
Please be advised that
on, Plaintiff has filed before this District Court, January 20, 2026 his Notice
of Due Process Violations; and will present said legally sufficient instrument
before Judge Blakey or any judge in his stead Jan 28, 2026
in his stead , at 11:00 am in
room 1203..
I
Joe Louis Lawrence Plaintiff,
certify that I have on this day deposited said Notice and Motion to all parties
recorded in said Notice via mail/Email Transmission..
To
Camille R. Nicodemus, Esq. (IL #2452849)
Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C.
10333 North Meridian Street, Suite 200
Indianapolis, IN 46290
Telephone:
(317) 497-5600, Ext. 601
Fax:
(317) 899-9348
E-Mail: cnicodemus@qslwm.com
Hope Blankenberger
Counsel for Defendant
Trans Union LLC
POLSINELLI PC
By: /s/ Rodney L. Lewis
Rodney L. Lewis
Kevin M. Hogan
Polsinelli PC
150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 3000
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Tel. (312) 819-1900
Fax (312) 819-1910
rodneylewis@polsinelli.com
kmhogan@polsinelli.com
Attorneys for Defendant Equifax Information
Services, LLC
/s/ Stephen D.
Lozier
Stephen
D. Lozier
Troutman
Pepper Locke LLP
111
S. Wacker Dr, Suite 4100
Chicago,
Illinois 60606
Telephone:
(312) 759-3203
stephen.lozier@troutman.com
Attorneys
for Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc
Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney,
LTD 233 S Wacker Dr. Suite 5500 Chicago, Illinois
60606 Matthew
D. Kelly mkelly@msm.com
Attorneys for Verizon Communications, Inc.
Respectfully, Submitted,
__________________________
Joe Louis Lawrence
Plaintiff, Pro Se
PO Box 4353
Chicago, Illinois 60680
312 965-6455
joelouis565@yahoo.com
