.         Public Statements of Former Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner

Former Seventh Circuit judge Richard A. Posner publicly described concerns regarding the treatment of pro se litigants within the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit following his retirement from the bench in 2017.

In reporting published by the American Bar Association in the ABA Journal (September 11, 2017), Judge Posner stated:

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

Judge Posner further explained that appeals filed by pro se litigants are frequently screened through staff attorney memoranda which are then presented to judicial panels.

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.

These statements were further discussed in interviews reported by The New York Times following his retirement.

Ex A, New York Times, (9/11/2017) Journalist Adam Liptak: An Exit Interview With Richard Posner, Judicial Provocateur

Ex B, ABA JOURNAL, (9/11/2017) Journalist Debra Cassens Weiss: Most Judges regard pro se litigants as ‘kind of trash not worth the time’.

Ex C, ABA JOURNAL, (9/26/2017) Journalist Debra Cassens Weiss: Posner says he is open to litigating on behalf of pro se litigants, defends book.  

                  HOW DO AN INNOCENT PERSON VICTIMIZED BY RACISM AND RACIAL INJUSTICE RECEIVE VINDICATION OR EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT DEPICTS YOU AS TRASH?

IF YOU FOLLOW THE RULES OF LAW AND CAN NOT AFFORD AN ATTORNEY OR IF A FEDERAL JUDGE DENIES YOU THE RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY BECAUSE YOU ARE A COLLEGE GRADUATE AND INDIGENT.

THE TERM PRO SE NEEDS TO BE ABOLISHED BECAUSE MOST JUDGE HATE PRO SE LITIGANTS ESPECIALLY THE ONES OF COLOR, JUDGE POSNER AT LEAST SPOKE UP AND LEFT THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT BECAUSE OF THIS FACT.

   1-   A FEDERAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED AGAINST VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC ET AL CREDIT BUREAUS. WHO LEVIED FALSE CHARGES ON MY CREDIT REPORT AND NEVER DELETED THE NEGATIVE REMARK WITH DOCUMENTS ATTESTING TO THE VERACITY THEY WERE WRONG.

   2-   THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, RECEIVED BY THE BUSINESS SERVICES DEPARTMENT WAS INVOLVED BECAUSE 

5a. THE CORPORATION'S REGISTERED AGENT CANNOT WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE BE FOUND AT THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF RECORD OF ILLINOIS.

5b. THE CORPORATION HAS FAILED TO APPOINT AND MAINTAIN A REGISTERED AGENT IN ILLINOIS.

5d. THE CORPORATION'S AUTHORITY TO TRANSACT BUSINESS IN ILLINOIS HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN/REVOKED ON NOV 1, 2000.

THE FILE STAMPED COPY DATED DEC 15, 2028, AND WAS RECEIVED DEC 8, 2025.

3.   VERIZON WAS PERSONALLY SERVED AND DID NOT ANSWER TIMELY AND WAS DEEM TO BE IN DEFAULT, THE ATTORNEY MATTHEW ADMITTED BEING OUT OF TIME AND EMAILED AND FILED HIS DEFECTIVE MOTION JAN 2, 2026, WHEN, I REPORTED TO THE FEDERAL BUILDING THAT MORNING THE US MARSHALL'S STATED THAT THE BUILDING WAS CLOSED FOR THE HOLIDAYS COME BACK MONDAY MORNING.

4.   JUDGE ROBERT BLAKEY IMMEDIATELY RULED ON THE ATTORNEY'S MOTION REPRESENTING VERIZON MONDAY JAN 5, 2026, GRANTING HIM PERMISSION ANSWER.

    A- I FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JAN 5, 2026 BECAUSE EQUIFAX, TRANSUNION AND EXPERIAN ATTORNEYS TOTALING ABOUT 10-12 ATTORNEYS INVOLVED WHO FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE JUDGE BLAKEY'S COURT ORDER TO RESPOND BY DEC 29, 2026 NOBODY COMPLIED WITH HIS ORDER.

   B- I FILED A DEFAULT MOTION AGAINST VERIZON JAN 7, 2026, AND NOTICED BOTH MOTIONS FOR JAN 14, AT 11:00AM, THE JUDGE HAS DENIED EVERY MOTION, I HAVE FILED BEFORE THE COURT DATE EXCEPT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

   C- HE DEMONSTRATED A PRIMA FACIA SHOWING OF BIAS WHEN HE GRANTED THE ATTORNEY THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE A LATE REPLY E-FILED ILLEGALLY ON A HOLIDAY.

IN EVERY MOTION AND PETITION FILED IN THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, I HAVE PRESENTED PRECEDENTS FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CORROBORATING RACIAL HATE JUDICIAL CORRUPTION.

FOR REASONS NOT ABLE TO FATHOM, THE JUDGES ARE SYSTEMATICALLY DENYING MOTIONS FILED SHOWING EGREGIOUS RACISM AND CORRUPTION IN COOK COUNTY COURTS IN VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 AND TURNER 

That Fed Rule Civ P. 8 and 9 require plaintiffs to particularize their allegations of "fraud on the court" in as short, plain, and direct a way as is reasonable. To comply with these rules, the Court instructed plaintiffs to set out each judicial proceeding complained of, allege specific facts that make those proceedings "fraudulent" or otherwise improper, and name the particular judges and other individuals involved and the extent of their involvement in each claim of "fraudulent" or otherwise improper conduct. 

5.)  Turner 24 F. Cas. 337 (No. 14247) C.C.D. Md. 1867)The “equal benefit” clause is cited in what would appear to be the earliest reported case enforcing the section. The plaintiff was an emancipated slave who was indentured as an apprentice to her former master. Although both whites and blacks could be indentured as an apprentice, under the law of Maryland, indentured blacks were not accorded the same educational benefits as whites and, unlike whites, were subject to being transferred to any other person in the same county. Circuit Judge Chase granted a writ of habeas corpus upon finding that the purported apprenticeship was in fact involuntary servitude and a denial under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 of the “full and equal benefit of all laws

   6.)  Civil Rights Act of 1866- first section, enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of the laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinances, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding, Act of April 9, 1866, Ch. 31, 1, 14 Stat. 27, 42 U.S.C.A. 1981.

       7.)   a.       Fraud upon the court is a basis for equitable relief. Luttrell v. United States, 644 F. 2d 1274, 1276 (9^th Cir. 1980); see Abatti v. C.I.R. , 859 F 2d 115, 118 (9^th Cir. 1988) “it is beyond question that a court may investigate a question as to whether there was fraud in the procurement of a judgment” Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 66 S. Ct. 1176, 90 L. Ed. 1447. The power of the court to unearth such a fraud is the power to unearth it effectively. See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S. Ct. 997, 88 L. Ed. 1250; Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 1184 and United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. (8 Otto) 61, 25 L. Ed. 93.

Joe Lawrence v. Verizon Communications, Incorporated, et al

Original Case: 1:25-cv-12239

Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Case #:	0:26-cv-01226
Type	civil / private
Nature of Suit	480 Other Statutes - Consumer Credit

Case Filed:

Feb 03, 2026

• Docket
• Parties (6)
• News

Docket last updated: 4 hours ago

Tuesday, April 21, 2026
23		ORDER Re: Petition to Supplement Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. In light of the April 13, 2026, order entered in this case denying appellant Joe Lawrence’s petition for rehearing, the document will be filed without further action. ASG [23] [7519598] 26-1226 (AD) [Entered: 04/21/2026 11:59 AM]
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
22		12 pgs Pro se motion filed by Appellant Joe Louis Lawrence to supplement panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. [22] [7518144] 26-1226 (CAG) [Entered: 04/15/2026 01:07 PM]
Monday, April 13, 2026
21		1 pgs ORDER re: 1. Motion of the statement of undisputed facts. 2. Petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. [20]; [19] The motions are DENIED. ASG [21] [7517358] 26-1226 (CG) [Entered: 04/13/2026 11:52 AM]
Thursday, April 09, 2026
20		13 pgs Pro se motion filed by Appellant Joe Louis Lawrence for reconsideration of denial of emergency relief from 03/24/2026 order. [20] [7516856] 26-1226 (NHV) [Entered: 04/09/2026 04:42 PM]
19		8 pgs Pro se motion of the statement of undisputed facts filed by Appellant Joe Louis Lawrence. [19] [7516852] 26-1226 (NHV) [Entered: 04/09/2026 04:34 PM]
Tuesday, March 24, 2026
18		1 pgs ORDER re: 1. Emergency motion for writ of mandamus. 2. Emergency motion for injunction and stay pending review, or alternatively reinstate case 19-cv-02668 due to being dismissed, the court stating it lacked jurisdiction, or transfer this matter pursuant to Rule 26 Breyer Committee Report, 239 F.R.D. [15] [16] The motions are DENIED. ASG [18] [7512793] 26-1226 (PS) [Entered: 03/24/2026 10:11 AM]
Monday, March 23, 2026
17		8 pgs Emergency pro se motion filed by Appellant Joe Louis Lawrence for injunction and stay pending review, alternatively reinstate case 19-cv-02668 due to being dismissed, court states it lacked jurisdiction or transfer this matter pursuant to Rule 26 Breyer Committee Report, 239 F.R.D... [17] [7512505] 26-1226 (CAH) [Entered: 03/23/2026 11:46 AM]
16		10 pgs Emergency pro se motion filed by Appellant Joe Louis Lawrence for writ of mandamus. [16] [7512503] 26-1226 (CAH) [Entered: 03/23/2026 11:43 AM]
Monday, March 16, 2026
15		6 pgs Pro se motion of material misrepresentation and procedural irregularities filed by Appellant Joe Louis Lawrence. [15] [7511291] 26-1226 (NHV) [Entered: 03/16/2026 03:27 PM]
14		6 pgs Pro se motion filed by Appellant Joe Louis Lawrence to strike appellees' jurisdictional response for material misrepresentation. [14] [7511284] 26-1226 (NHV) [Entered: 03/16/2026 03:22 PM]
Thursday, March 12, 2026
13		7 pgs Filed Response by Appellees Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Trans Union, LLC, Equifax Information Services, LLC and Verizon Communications, Incorporated to Appellant's Jurisdictional Memorandum. [13][7510675] 26-1226 (Manetti, Louis) [Entered: 03/12/2026 04:23 PM]
12		2 pgs Added Attorney Louis Joseph Manetti Jr. for Appellee Experian Information Solutions, Inc., in case 26-1226 per disclosure statement. Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement and Appearance filed by Attorney Louis J. Manetti, Jr. for Appellee Experian Information Solutions, Inc.. [12] [7510629] (L-Yes; E-Yes; R-No) 26-1226 --[Edited 03/12/2026 by MAN to reflect addition of counsel] (Manetti, Louis) [Entered: 03/12/2026 03:24 PM]
Monday, March 09, 2026
11		Pro se motion filed by Appellant Joe Louis Lawrence to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel. [11] [7509680] 26-1226 (CAG) [Entered: 03/09/2026 02:46 PM]
10		21 pgs Pro se motion filed by Appellant Joe Louis Lawrence for judicial notice, request for assignment of visiting circuit judge, out-of-circuit designation, for circulation to active judges of the court and statement of structural due process violations. [10] [7509678] 26-1226 (CAG) [Entered: 03/09/2026 02:45 PM]
Monday, March 02, 2026
9		1 pgs ORDER: Appellees shall file, on or before March 12, 2026, a response to appellant?s jurisdictional memorandum, addressing the jurisdictional issue identified in the court?s order of February 5, 2026. JXK [9] [7508170] 26-1226 (AD) [Entered: 03/02/2026 12:09 PM]
Tuesday, February 24, 2026
8		Filed District Court order DENYING Appellant Joe Louis Lawrence leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Date IFP denied: 02/24/2026. Issued Circuit Rule 3(b) 30 day notice for failure to pay the docketing fee. Fee or IFP forms due on 03/26/2026 for Appellant Joe Louis Lawrence. [7507002] [8] [7507002] 26-1226 (CG) [Entered: 02/24/2026 12:25 PM]
		Att: 1  2 pgs D.C. notice denying IFP filed
		Att: 2  1 pgs C.R. 3(b) Fee Notice
Friday, February 20, 2026
7		Notification from the District Court that a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is pending. [7] [7506352] 26-1226 (CG) [Entered: 02/20/2026 02:47 PM]
Thursday, February 19, 2026
6		ORDER issued TRANSFERRING the motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis on appeal to the clerk of the District Court for ruling in the first instance. JR [6] [7506074] 26-1226 (CG) [Entered: 02/19/2026 04:21 PM]
		Att: 1  21 pgs Motion for IFP
		Att: 2  1 pgs Order to Transfer IFP Motion
5		Pro se motion filed by Appellant Joe Louis Lawrence to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. [5] [7505956] 26-1226 (NHV) [Entered: 02/19/2026 01:06 PM]
Wednesday, February 11, 2026
4		7 pgs Jurisdictional memorandum filed by Appellant Joe Louis Lawrence. [4] [7504067] 26-1226 (CAG) [Entered: 02/11/2026 09:46 AM]
Thursday, February 05, 2026
3		1 pgs ORDER: Appellant shall file, on or before February 19, 2026, a brief memorandum stating why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure will satisfy this requirement. Briefing is SUSPENDED pending further court order. (See order for further details) [7502817] JXK [3] [7502817] 26-1226 (AP) [Entered: 02/05/2026 10:38 AM]
Tuesday, February 03, 2026
2		1 pgs ORDER: A review of the short record reveals that this appeal involves more than one appellee represented by different counsel. Counsel for appellees are encouraged to file a joint brief and appendix or adopt parts of a co-appellee's brief. The parties are reminded that redundant and uncoordinated briefing will be stricken. See United States v. Torres, 170 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 1999); United States v. Ashman, 964 F.2d 596 (7th Cir. 1992). [7502670] JXK [2] [7502670] 26-1226 (AD) [Entered: 02/04/2026 03:36 PM]
1		Private civil case docketed. Fee due. Docketing statement filed. Transcript information sheet due by 02/17/2026. Fee or IFP forms due on 02/17/2026 for Appellant Joe Louis Lawrence. [1] [7502664] 26-1226 (AD) [Entered: 02/04/2026 03:22 PM]
		Att: 1  32 pgs Civil Case
		Att: 2  2 pgs Attorney / Party Notice of Docketing
		Att: 3  1 pgs Notice to District Court
		Att: 4  2 pgs Fee Notice

HOW THE CTA MANIPULATED THE JUDICIARY AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYEES WHO REFUSED TO FALSIFY HOW THEIR WORK-RELATED INJURIES WAS SUSTAINED.

ALLEGEDLY KENT STEPHEN RAY AND SO MANY OF HIS KIND WHO MAINTAINED EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CTA & STATES ATTORNEY TO DESTROY THE LIVES OF WHOMSOEVER HE DESIRES, THIS MAN USED HIS POSITION TO HARASS MY DAUGHTER AS A BABY AND IS STILL OBSTRUCTING MY SUCCESS BEING REINSTATED WITH HIS DIABOLICAL RACIST CONNECTIONS WORKING WITH HIS KIND IN THE STATES ATTORNEYS' OFFICE. 

NOW ASK WHY WOULD A CTA CASE BE CONNECTED TO AN INCEST PATERNITY CASE?

THIS IS HOW INNOCENT BLACK OR BROWN MEN ARE CRIMINALIZED IN THIS CITY TO JUSTIFY UNLAWFUL LITIGATIONS OR MALISCIOUS PROSECUTIONS.

From:joelouis565@yahoo.com

To:Ocj Chief (Chief Judge's Office),Jaime Barcas (Chief Judge's Office),DRDivOrders Cal01 (Circuit Court),DRDivOrders Cal97 (Circuit Court),Courtney Z. Cullar (Circuit Court)

Cc:CCC DomRelCR1602 (Chief Judge's Office),CCC DomRelCR1905 (Chief Judge's Office),CCC DomRelCR1903 (Chief Judge's Office),CCC DomRelCR3006 (Chief Judge's Office),CCC DomRelCR3008 (Chief Judge's Office)

Bcc:Pam Zuckman NBC,pepperpo@wied.uscourts.gov,brady_chambers@innd.uscourts.gov,deana_brinkley@ilsd.uscourts.gov,pratt_crd@insd.uscourts.gov

Fri, Apr 10 at 9:00 AM

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

Please find attached the PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC and MOTION OF THE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

What so many of you don't realize aside from the Paternity case my daughter was two years old (she had an ear infection) in 1991 while, I was off work injured on duty at the CTA with a back injury, I was not receiving any income or workmen's compensation, allegedly Ken S. Ray, Kathleen Herrman, Bruce Talaga all racist CTA attorneys had the employees in personnel to falsify my employment to say, I was not an employee because when, I went to get my babies medication the pharmacist stated, I had no insurance.

Now, i am standing still facing eastbound on Chicago Ave and Lockwood a Police Officer drunk as hell came out speeding and totaled his van on my rear bumper, the CTA told me to falsify how my injury was sustained and get the Public Aid medical card to pay for all of my medical injuries.

Instead Public Aid provided a medical card and food stamps for the family. 

I applied for public aid and explained to them what, I was instructed to do and been on Public Aid ever since.   

I have been fighting racism and injustices for a long time because, I didn't falsify how my injury was sustained which has culminated into a diabolical conspiracy across the board not receiving justice before the obvious ethnic groups. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Joe Louis Lawrence 

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

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

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

Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 at 04:15:47 PM CDT

Subject: PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC & MOTION OF THE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

                                                          IN THE

                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                         FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

                                            CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

 

 Joe Louis Lawrence                                             } Appeal from the United     

                                                                              } States District Court for      

                                                                              } the Northern District of   

       Plaintiff –Appellant                                       } Illinois, Eastern Division

                V                                                           }

                                                                              } No. 26-1226

                                                                              }

 Verizon Communications, Inc et al.                    }

 Defendants-Appellants                                        }  Judge Robert Blakey

 

 PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC

---

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner respectfully seeks panel rehearing and rehearing en banc following the denial of emergency relief.

A-    Petitioner forwarded an email to the judiciary April 3, 2026 at 8:30am particularizing the events that transpired before Judge Silva she nor her clerk or any person in competent authority responded.

 

B-    Petitioner called the Presiding Judge’s office April 8, at 10:43am, 312 603-6300 2 mins 53 sec and spoke with a clerk who directed him to forward an email to ccc.domrelcr1903@cookcountyil.gov and request a copy of the April 1^st Court Order because they are not showing any transfers in the system.

 

C-     That pursuant to Rule 60 (a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave.

(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b) ;

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

 

   D- That Fed Rule Civ P. 8 and 9 require plaintiffs to particularize their allegations of "fraud on the court" in as short, plain, and direct a way as is reasonable. To comply with these rules, the Court instructed plaintiffs to set out each judicial proceeding complained of, allege specific facts that make those proceedings "fraudulent" or otherwise improper, and name the particular judges and other individuals involved and the extent of their involvement in each claim of "fraudulent" or otherwise improper conduct. 

 

1.)     To show fraud upon the court, the complaining party must establish that the alleged misconduct affected the integrity of the judicial process, either because the court itself was defrauded or because the misconduct was perpetrated by officers of the court. Alexander v. Robertson;

2.)    The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."

 

a.       A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Kalb v. Feuerstein ..

This case presents extraordinary and ongoing constitutional violations, including repeated deprivation of liberty arising from a proceeding that is void for lack of jurisdiction, maintained through procedural irregularities and unaddressed legal admissions.

This Petition does not seek review of a state-court judgment, but rather challenges independent and ongoing unconstitutional conduct. The panel’s denial appears to rest on a misapprehension of that distinction.

Because this case implicates fundamental due process rights and the limits of federal jurisdiction, rehearing and En Banc consideration are warranted.

---

II. STANDARD FOR REHEARING

Panel rehearing is appropriate where the Court has overlooked or misapprehended points of law or fact.

Rehearing En Banc is appropriate where:

• The proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance, or
• Necessary to maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions.

---

III. BASIS FOR PANEL REHEARING

A. The Petition Raises Independent Constitutional Violations

The denial appears to rely on jurisdictional limitations reflected in
Klein v. O’Brien.

However, the Petition does not seek to overturn a state-court judgment. Instead, it challenges:

• Enforcement actions without any valid underlying order,
• Proceedings conducted without service of process,
• Continued deprivation of liberty after exclusion from paternity,
• Government action taken in disregard of binding legal admissions.

The Supreme Court has made clear that federal jurisdiction exists where a plaintiff asserts independent constitutional claims, even if related to prior state proceedings. See
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp..

---

B. The Panel Overlooked Critical Jurisdictional Defects

The record reflects:

• The matter was dismissed in 1987,
• No valid support order exists,
• Petitioner was never properly served,
• Petitioner was excluded from paternity,
• Petitioner has been repeatedly remanded into custody,
• State records contain material inconsistencies, including entries inconsistent with the age and status of the alleged child.

A judgment entered without jurisdiction or service of process is void and cannot support lawful enforcement. See
Pennoyer v. Neff.

---

C. The Panel Failed to Address Ongoing Deprivation of Liberty

This case does not involve a past injury alone. It involves continuing enforcement actions, including the threat of incarceration.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before deprivation of liberty. See
Mathews v. Eldridge.

Where custody is imposed without jurisdiction or lawful process, the violation is ongoing and subject to federal review.

---

IV. BASIS FOR REHEARING EN BANC

A. Exceptional Importance: Liberty Deprivation Without Jurisdiction

This case presents the extraordinary circumstance of:

• Repeated custody,
• In the absence of a valid court order,
• Based on a proceeding lacking jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that due process protects against arbitrary governmental action affecting liberty interests. See
County of Sacramento v. Lewis.

The issues presented here go to the core of constitutional protections.

---

B. Structural Irregularities Undermining Judicial Integrity

The record reflects:

• Recusal of multiple judges,
• Continued reassignment without resolution of jurisdictional issues,
• Judges acting on void court orders acting as Private Citizens not jurists.
• Failure to address dispositive motions and resulting admissions,
• Proceedings continuing despite unresolved jurisdictional defects.

Such circumstances raise serious concerns regarding the integrity of the judicial process, warranting review by the full Court.

---

C. Clarification of Rooker–Feldman Boundaries

This case presents an opportunity to clarify the distinction between:

• Impermissible review of state-court judgments, and
• Permissible challenges to void proceedings and ongoing constitutional violations.

The Supreme Court has limited the scope of jurisdictional bars to cases where a plaintiff complains of injuries caused by a state-court judgment itself, not where the injury arises from independent conduct. See
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp..

Clarification is necessary to ensure consistent application of this principle.

---

V. Wherefore Appellant Prays That:

This case involves ongoing deprivation of liberty, absence of jurisdiction, and unaddressed constitutional violations.

The Petition does not seek appellate review of a state-court judgment, but relief from independent and continuing unlawful conduct.

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully Prays that this Honorable Court:

1. Grant panel rehearing;
2. Alternatively, grant rehearing En Banc;
3. Grant such further relief as justice requires.

Respectfully submitted,

 

Joe Louis Lawrence

Petitioner-Appellant

PO Box 4353

Chicago, Il. 60680

Joelouis565@yahoo.com

 

 

 

                                                               IN THE

                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                         FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

                                            CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

 

 Joe Louis Lawrence                                             } Appeal from the United     

                                                                              } States District Court for      

                                                                              } the Northern District of   

       Plaintiff –Appellant                                       } Illinois, Eastern Division

                V                                                           }

                                                                              } No. 26-1226

                                                                              }

 Verizon Communications, Inc et al.                    }

 Defendants-Appellants                                        }  Judge Robert Blakey

 

                                                     

    

---

                                    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

   I Joe Louis Lawrence certify that on April.9, 2026 I have caused proper service to be had on the Defendant’s counsels and noted parties in the Certificate of Service via electronic/email  delivery.

 

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

Louis J. Manetti, Jr.

Troutman Pepper Locke LLP

111 S. Wacker Dr, Suite 4100

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Telephone: (312) 759-3203

stephen.lozier@troutman.com

louis.manetti@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.

 

Chief Judge Charles Beach                  U.S. Attorney Andrew S. Boutras

  ocj.chief@cookcountyil.gov                  219 S. Dearborn, Street 5^th floor                             

 

Dir.  FBI,                                                      Hon Mayor Brandon                         

Special Agent in Charge (FBI)                     City Hall 7^th floor                                  

                                                                       Chicago, IL. 60601                          

 2111 West Roosevelt Road

Chicago, Il 60608                                 

 

Cook County Clerk, Mariyana Spyropoulos

CCCWebsite@cookcountycourt.com

 

 

                      Attorney General                                    Cook County States Attorney

             Kwame Raoul alexandrina.shrove@ilag.gov       Eilene O’Neil Burke

                   555 West Monroe Suite 1300                    statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov        

                 Chicago, Ill. 60601

 

 

 

 

PLEASE BE ADVISED that on April 9, 2026 A Petition For Panel Rehearing et al. has been filed in the Seventh Circuit 

 

                                                                               Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                             

                                                                                 Joe Louis Lawrence

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Plaintiff, Pro Se
                                                                                                PO Box 4353
                                                                                        Chicago, Illinois 60680
                                                                                                312 965-6455
                                                                                       joelouis565@yahoo.com

 

                                                              IN THE

                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                         FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

                                            CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

 

 Joe Louis Lawrence                                             } Appeal from the United     

                                                                              } States District Court for      

                                                                              } the Northern District of   

       Plaintiff –Appellant                                       } Illinois, Eastern Division

                V                                                           }

                                                                              } No. 26-1226

                                                                              }

 Verizon Communications, Inc et al.                    }

 Defendants-Appellants                                        }  Judge Robert Blakey

 

             MOTION OF THE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

Petitioner submits the following facts, which are supported by the record and not meaningfully disputed by the States Attorney, Francoise or any judges in Cook County and is a victim of a sophisticated Extortion Operation via Child Support Criminal Enterprise

A-  The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court   of Cook County is a criminal enterprise. U.S. v. Murphy.

---

1. Underlying Proceeding and Jurisdictional Defects

1. The underlying matter arises from a paternity-related proceeding initiated in Cook County, Illinois in the late 1980s.
2. The matter was dismissed in 1987, and no valid support order was entered thereafter.
3. Petitioner was never properly served with process in connection with any enforceable support obligation.
4. Petitioner was subsequently excluded from paternity, yet enforcement actions continued despite the absence of a lawful basis.

---

2.          State Agency Enforcement Without a Valid Order

Monsell v Department of Social Services This decision opened the courthouse doors for ordinary citizens to hold local governments, not just individual officers, accountable for systemic abuses of power.

5. Despite the absence of a valid support order, Petitioner has been subjected to repeated enforcement proceedings, including remand into custody.
6. These enforcement actions have occurred without jurisdiction, and without any lawful underlying judgment capable of enforcement.

---

Enforcement Without an Underlying Order

7. The record reflects ongoing enforcement actions, including custody, purportedly based on a support obligation.
8. However, the same record reflects:

• No valid support order entered,
• No proper service of process,
• A prior dismissal of the underlying case,
• A determination excluding Petitioner from paternity.

9. These facts cannot be disputed:
   Enforcement actions are proceeding in the absence of any lawful, enforceable order.

---

3. Procedural Irregularities and Record Inconsistencies

10. The record contains material inconsistencies, including entries reflecting a minor child long after the individual reached adulthood.
11. Proceedings have continued based on records that do not accurately reflect the procedural posture or legal status of the case.

---

4. April 1, 2026 Proceedings and Absence of Transfer Order

12. On April 1, 2026, during proceedings in the Circuit Court of Cook County, the County judge stated on the record that the matter had been transferred to the Presiding Judge for Cause, to determine if she and judge Powers should be recused regarding the Motion for Disqualification filed in November 2025.
13. On April 8, 2026 at 10:43 a.m. Petitioner contacted the Clerk in the Presiding judges office  
14. The Clerk of that office confirmed that no order reflecting such transfer existed in the system.
15. The Clerk directed Petitioner to email the judge’s clerk to request the order of April 1st, because nothing indicating that any formal orders had been entered or docketed.

---

Oral Judicial Directive Without Entered Order

16. The Court stated on the record that she was recusing herself Jan. 14, 2026 and that an order would be emailed which never took place and on April 1^st Petitioner appeared before the same judge under Disqualification and she repeated the same verbiage that, the matter had been transferred to calendar 1 for Cause and that an order would be email.
17. However:

• No written order exists in the court system,
• No docket entry reflects the transfer,
• The Clerk of the Presiding Judges office has no record of any court orders or transfers.

18. These facts cannot be disputed:
    A judicial transfer was announced, yet no corresponding order exists to give it legal effect.

---

5. Failure to Rule on Dispositive Motions

19. Petitioner filed a Motion for Entry of Default for Failure to Appear and Failure to Plead, pending since January 14, 2026.
20. Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion to Enter Default Nunc Pro Tunc or, in the Alternative, for Immediate Ruling.
21. No ruling has been issued on either motion.
22. No opposition or responsive pleading has been filed.
23. The motions remain pending without explanation.

---

6. Judicial Conduct and Case Handling

24. Multiple judges have recused themselves from the matter.
25. The case has been reassigned without resolving jurisdictional defects.
26. The currently assigned judge has:

• Has a Motion to Disqualify her and Judge Powers since Nov. 10, 2025, she would verbally order Petitioner to appear before her when the States Attorney was present judge Powers would order the Petitioner not to appear before judge Silva by using her signature stamp to sign the court order.
• Failed to rule on dispositive motions,
• Continued proceedings knowing that a valid Disqualification Motion had been filed nullifying jurisdiction,
• Allowed the case to proceed without entered orders supporting material actions.

27. These actions have resulted in ongoing procedural irregularity and prejudice to Petitioner.

---

7. Legal Significance

28. Petitioner has complied with applicable procedural rules in filing dispositive motions and seeking rulings.
29. Under
    Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher, pro se litigants are presumed to follow and be knowledgeable of procedural requirements.
30. Despite such compliance, the absence of rulings and the presence of unresolved jurisdictional defects have resulted in continued exposure to unlawful enforcement.

---

CONCLUSION

The undisputed facts establish:

• Enforcement actions proceeding without a valid order;
• Judicial directives lacking corresponding entered orders;
• Dispositive motions remaining unresolved without justification;
• A record reflecting material inconsistencies and procedural breakdown.

·         The United States Supreme Court 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,

·         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.   

• Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "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." Elliot v. Piersol.

These contradictions demonstrate a proceeding that lacks a reliable jurisdictional foundation and presents ongoing due process concerns.

 Wherefore Appellant Prays That:

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully Prays that this Honorable Court:

1. Grant the Statement of Undisputed Facts;
2. Alternatively, grant rehearing En Banc; or Reconsider the March 14, 2026 Court Order by Vacating it pursuant to Fed Rule 60.
3. Grant such further relief as justice requires.
4. Alternatively, Grant an Appointment of Counsel or legal clinic due to most judges harboring a hate or bias against unlicensed attorneys forced to litigate Pro se.

Respectfully submitted,

 

Joe Louis Lawrence

Petitioner-Appellant

PO Box 4353

Chicago, Il. 60680

Joelouis565@yahoo.com

 

 

                                                               IN THE

                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                         FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

                                            CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

 

 Joe Louis Lawrence                                             } Appeal from the United     

                                                                              } States District Court for      

                                                                              } the Northern District of   

       Plaintiff –Appellant                                       } Illinois, Eastern Division

                V                                                           }

                                                                              } No. 26-1226

                                                                              }

 Verizon Communications, Inc et al.                    }

 Defendants-Appellants                                        }  Judge Robert Blakey

 

                                                     

    

---

                                    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

   I Joe Louis Lawrence certify that on April.9, 2026 I have caused proper service to be had on the Defendant’s counsels and noted parties in the Certificate of Service via electronic/email  delivery.

 

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

Louis J. Manetti, Jr.

Troutman Pepper Locke LLP

111 S. Wacker Dr, Suite 4100

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Telephone: (312) 759-3203

stephen.lozier@troutman.com

louis.manetti@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.

 

Chief Judge Charles Beach                  U.S. Attorney Andrew S. Boutras

  ocj.chief@cookcountyil.gov                  219 S. Dearborn, Street 5^th floor                             

 

Dir.  FBI,                                                      Hon Mayor Brandon                         

Special Agent in Charge (FBI)                     City Hall 7^th floor                                  

                                                                       Chicago, IL. 60601                          

 2111 West Roosevelt Road

Chicago, Il 60608                                 

 

Cook County Clerk, Mariyana Spyropoulos

CCCWebsite@cookcountycourt.com

 

 

                      Attorney General                                    Cook County States Attorney

             Kwame Raoul alexandrina.shrove@ilag.gov       Eilene O’Neil Burke

                   555 West Monroe Suite 1300                    statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov        

                 Chicago, Ill. 60601

 

 

 

 

PLEASE BE ADVISED that on April 9, 2026 A Motion for et al. has been filed in the Seventh Circuit 

 

                                                                               Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                             

                                                                                 Joe Louis Lawrence

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Plaintiff, Pro Se
                                                                                                PO Box 4353
                                                                                        Chicago, Illinois 60680
                                                                                                312 965-6455
                                                                                       joelouis565@yahoo.com