CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN HOW CAN AN INNOCENT PERSON OF COLOR RECEIVE JUSTICE IN COOK COUNTY OR ILLINOIS IF RACISM OR CORRUPTION CONTROLS THE NARRATIVE?
----- Forwarded Message -----From: "unlawful1.blogspot.com" <no-reply@blogger.com>To: "joelouis565@yahoo.com" <joelouis565@yahoo.com>
Former States Attorney Anita Alvarez never went along with the racist acts of trying to suspend his driver's license unlawfully
Former States Attorney Kim Fox did not go along with the racists acts of
Kim Foxx’s Illinois law license was suspended on December 1, 2024, because she failed to meet the state’s Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirements CWB Chicago+1.
According to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC), attorneys whose last names begin with “F” must report completed MCLE credits by June 30 in even-numbered years. If they do not complete or report them, they are given an extension until November 30. However, by December 1, any attorney without an online transcript showing compliance is removed from the master roll of attorneys for non-compliance CWB Chicago+1.
Foxx’s term as Cook County State’s Attorney ended on December 1, 2024, the same day her license was suspended. Reports indicate she allowed prosecutors in her office to file legal documents under her name on that date despite being told her license would lapse CWB Chicago+1. The ARDC and MCLE Board have stated that to regain authorization, she would need to complete the required credits, provide a valid exemption, report compliance, and pay a reinstatement fee CWB Chicago+1.
conclude that a “substantial issue” has been raised that a
violation has occurred, Mass. Comm. On Judicial Ethics, Op. 2002-04 (2002)
“Appropriate action” may include direct
communication with the judge who has committed the violation and reporting the
violation to the appropriate or other agency or body. See Commentary to Canon
3D (1). “Appropriate authority” is the authority with responsibility for
initiation of disciplinary proceedings with respect to the violation reported.
Some jurisdictions’ rules specify to whom a judge must report misconduct. For
instance, Massachusetts Rule 3D (1) provides that if a judge becomes aware of
another judge’s unprofessional conduct he must report his knowledge to the
Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the court of which the
judge in question is a member.
Note that the term “knowledge”, as defined
in the Terminology Section, denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question
and as such, a person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances. In
drafting Section 3D (1), the Committee rejected the suggestion that the
criteria of raising substantial question as to honesty or trustworthiness be
applied in the context of reporting judicial misconduct as well, on the grounds
that those criteria are implicit in the present criterion of raising a
substantial question as to a judge’s fitness for office.
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 (a).
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.
II. CHRONOLOGY OF PROCEDURAL EVENTS DiLeo v. Ernst &Young, 901 F. 2d 624, 627(7th
Cir. 1990)
- On January 2, 2026, counsel for the Appellee (Verizon
et al.) filed a Motion for Leave to File an Answer Out of Time.
- Appellant did not receive the Motion before the Court
ruled.
- On January 6, 2026, the District Court granted the Motion.
- Because the ruling occurred before Appellant had Notice
and an opportunity to respond, Appellant was unable to object to the
requested extension.
- On January 5, 2026, Appellant filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure w/Affidavit
& objecting any Requests for Extension of Time and Noticed the Motion
for January 14, 2026.
- On January 7, 2026, Appellant filed a Motion for
Default against one Appellee.(Verizon et al)
- The District Court Denied Appellant's Default Motion
and Extended the time for all Appellees pursuant to his January 6th
court order.
- The Motion for Summary Judgment noticed for January
14, 2026 remains unresolved.
- Appellant subsequently sought Disqualification of the District
judge, filed Jan 20, 2026.
- No opposition to
the Disqualification Motion and Recuse the District Court Judge Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 455(a) and (b) (1) Due to a Prima Facie Showing of Bias &
Prejudice Against the Plaintiff was filed by any Attorney accompanied with
an Affidavit.
- The Motion for Disqualification was Denied, Jan 27,
2026, The Court denies Plaintiff's motion to
disqualify63 and his motion seeking to vacate this Court's
order allowing Defendant to file its answer 64 because Plaintiff failed to notice them for
presentment and because they lack merit. The parties' 1/28/26 status
report deadline stands.
- Appellant filed a Motion for a Stay/Injunction Pending
an Appeal or Mandamus, Jan 28, 2026 Unopposed by all attorneys.
- On Jan. 30, 2026, The Court immediately Denied
Appellants Motion 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)). Here, the Court
denied Plaintiff's motions for default and allowed Defendant Verizon to
answer the complaint based upon the record, including Plaintiff's
submissions regarding service. Those rulings remain well supported
factually and legally, and Plaintiff's disagreement with them remains
insufficient to merit a writ of mandamus. If Plaintiff persists in
pressing frivolous arguments, he may be subject to sanctions. Likewise, if
Plaintiff persists in his refusal to meet and confer with Defendants to
prepare a joint status report, as ordered, he may be subject to sanctions.
See 67 at 1 (Defendants' joint status report, which notes
that Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants' meet and confer efforts).
The Court once again orders the parties to meet and confer and orders them
to file an updated status report by 2/6/26, using the model template set
forth in this Court's standing order regarding Initial Status Conferences.
If Plaintiff fails to participate in the meet and confer process, the
Court will dismiss this case for failure to prosecute and failure to
comply with this Court's orders.
- That on Feb 6, 2026, Appellant filed a Motion to
Proceed Informa Pauperis and Appointment of Counsel.
- That on Feb. 11, 2026, as Appellant as a Welfare
Recipient due to a Cook County judge as a former CTA attorney in the same
Workman’s Compensation Division issued a bogus warrant on him using a
Paternity case that excluded him from Paternity from two independent
medical labs and dismissed under former States Attorney Richard J. Daley
Sept. 17, 1987 and refiled without his knowledge and was never served
where a Default was Entered never Vacated May 18, 1988.
A-
The CTA never Reinstated the
Appellant due to the judges involvement but kept the Appellant in the books as
a CTA employee with a Retirement date for 2026.
B-
The Court
denies as moot Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
because he already paid the filing fee. The Court also denies Plaintiff’s
motion for an attorney representation, hereto attached Court Order as Ex A.
C-
The Court denied him Appointment of
Counsel, “he is also a college graduate and has demonstrated an ability to initiate
this lawsuit and file motions”
- Appellee filed a Motion in the District Court June 5,
2026, Opposed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Appellee Experian et al
Stephen D. Lozier with another law firm appearing Nicole E. Stoelton, Venable
LLP.
- Louis J. Manetti, Jr. is the attorney from the same law
firm (Troutman, Pepper & Locke LLP) as Stephen D. Lozier who filed a reply in
the Court of Appeals March 12, 2026 on behalf of all Appellees, there is no
mentioning of him withdrawing in the Court of Appeals.
- District Court stated in the Feb 11, 2026 Court
Order “He also has not demonstrated indigence; his application indicates that
he remains employed” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3):
"This rule does not limit a
court's power to ... set aside a judgment for fraud on the court."
Oxxford Clothes XX, Inc. v.
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., 127 F.3d 574, 578 (7th Cir. 1997) recognized that fraud on the court is an extraordinary
doctrine reserved for corruption of the judicial process itself, not merely
perjury or ordinary litigation misconduct.
A-
March 9th
#11 on the Dkt. Affidavit Accompanying Motion et al filed in the District
Court, Motion For Entry of Default for Failure to Appear, Failure
to Plead, and for Setting of Prove-Up Hearing on Monetary Damages et al filed
in the Cir Court filed Feb. 6, 2026. “Judge Easterbrook explained: Rule 9(b)
requires the plaintiff to plead the circumstances of fraud with
particularity---the “who, what, when, where, how.”
B-
Appellant
satisfied Fed Rule (9b) in the entire Motion accompanied with the Affidavit.
C-
Ex B, Retirement Plan for CTA Employees where Appellant’s retirement
date is listed as 04-01-2026 but all starting dates, Job title has been fraudulently
redacted from the document.
D-
Ex C, An Unlawful
Warrant Cook County Judge Ronald Bartkowicz Engineered for the CTA and Joseph
V. Roddy, Ex C1 the judge put his initials on the court order See Motion.
E-
Ex D, To Whom it May Concern, Michael Cook Personnel Manager, “HE
WAS NEVER DISCHARGED”
F-
State of
Illinois, Department of Human Services, Letter Snap Work Requirement Notice
showing Appellant’ indigent status.
G-
The States Attorney and Cook County
judges and certain CTA employees were aiding former Police Officer Extort money
from the Appellant unlawfully.
- That Page 86, 02/24/1993 of the Cook County
Database Ex B where Ronald Bartkowicz engineered the bogus
warrant, Return of Service N.S. ORDER OF PROTECT
- That Page 85, 03/25/1994 of the Cook
County Database SUMMONS Retd N.S., 04/14/1994 ALIAS SUMMONS -Retd.-
N.S. States Atty Child Support
- That Pursuant to Par 18 D, the attached Motion
for Disqualification of Judge due to Bias et al. filed Oct. 13, 1994.Ex
C
- That Judge Lester Bonaguro Ordered the Respondent to
continue his efforts to find gainful employment and continue his efforts
to be reinstated by the CTA, 2.) That Respondent cooperate with Petitioner’s
attorneys in that he is ordered to produce all names and documents which
may help the court determine his employment status with the CTA hereto
attached, Ex D
- That on Jan 10, 1995, Notice of Formal Communication
Detailing Status as That of a Chicago Transit Authority Employee in
Response to the December 20, 1994 Court Order and Noticeable Acts of
Public Corruption and Civil Rights Violations Conspiracy Had in Both Cases
(CTA and Paternity Matter), Ex E
- Case 11-3481
Judge Sykes, Ripple and Williams In 1987 the
State of Illinois ordered Joe Lawrence to pay child support. He did not comply, and consequently the state revoked his driver's license. He
appealed the revocation
to the Secretary of State, but his appeal
was denied. Lawrence also unsuccessfully sued his former employers, International Brands
Corporation and the Chicago Transit Authority, in state and federal court
for embezzlement and theft. Supreme
Court Authority on Fraud on the Court,
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) The
Supreme Court recognized the inherent power of federal courts to set aside
judgments procured by fraud upon the court. United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 47 (1998) The Court noted that independent actions for relief
from judgment are available only to prevent a "grave miscarriage of
justice."
- That Appellants license has never been Suspended, and
was never Ordered to pay any child support, See the Driving Abstract from
the Secretary of State, Ex F and Email to Director Whitehorn and all Child
Support Divisions, June 5, 2026, 20 Pages of documents.
A-
That document 13 out of 20 is the
August 3, 1988 Court Order DELETED from the Cook County Database
B-
That Page 118-120 as Ex H
of the Cook County Database the Court Order has been Certified by the Clerk of
Cook County but is not on the system.
C-
The State is Trying to Suspend
Appellant’s Drivers License when in fact May 18, 1988 states Judgment for
Defendant.
D-
That Page 120 01/25/1988
SUMMONS—Retd N.S.
- That former Chief
judge Frank H. Easterbrook No. 07-2287 Denied Appellant
Appointment of Counsel as a pauper being indigent as a result to this same
case citing Farmer v Haas, Judge Richard Posner established a core
question that judges must ask when an indigent person requesting a lawyer
is forced to proceed pro se (representing themselves).
- Case 07-1191 Appellant
presented a Brief and denied an attorney being indigent on welfare where
he was up against Bioff, Finucane & Coffey from Kansa City, Mo, City
of Chicago, Corp Counselors, Nadine Wichern, Myriam Kasper, . The District Court acknowledged and admitted
“the gist of Mr. Lawrence’s Complaint is somewhat difficult to make
out.”
A- Posner:
ABA Journal (September 11, 2017) Most
judges regard pro se litigants as 'kind of trash not worth the time'
Posner, 78, told
the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin last week that he decided
to retire because of conflicts with his colleagues over the treatment of pro se
litigants, who represent themselves. In a new interview with
the New York Times, Posner elaborated on his concerns about
the treatment of such litigants.
B- “The basic thing is that most judges regard these people as
kind of trash not worth the time of a federal judge,” Posner said.
In the 7th Circuit, staff
lawyers review appeals from pro se litigants, and their recommendations are
generally rubber-stamped by judges, he noted.
Posner wanted to give the
pro se litigants a better shake by reviewing all of the staff attorney memos
before they went to the panel of judges. Posner had approval from the director
of the staff attorney program. “But the judges, my colleagues, all 11 of them,
turned it down and refused to give me any significant role. I was very
frustrated by that,” Posner said. Posner has written about the pro se issue in
an upcoming book, and its publication “would be particularly awkward” if he
remained on the court because it “implicitly or explicitly” criticizes the
other judges, he said.
III. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL CONCERNS
Appellant further notes the
following matters for preservation purposes:
a. Multiple motions were filed by
the Appellant were denied without oral hearing.
b. Appellant sought opportunities to
appear before the Court which were denied.
c. Certain rulings were entered
before Appellant received notice of the underlying motions.
d. Appellant has identified
instances in which docket activity and service records appear inconsistent.
e. Questions concerning notice and
timing have been repeatedly raised by the Appellant.
IV. DUE PROCESS CONCERNS
The Supreme Court has recognized
that due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before the
deprivation of protected interests.
See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank
& Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950);
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319
(1976).
Section
1983 of U.S.C.S. contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the
Unconstitutional Application of a Law by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell v.
Saunders (CA 5 F 1A) 372 F 573, especially if the conspiracy was actually
carried into effect, where an action is for a conspiracy to interfere with
Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1985 (3), or for the depravation of such rights
under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect and
plaintiff was thereby deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the United States Constitution and Laws, the gist of the action maybe
treated as one for the depravation of rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, Lewis
v. Brautigam (CA 5 F 1a) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505, John W.
Strong, 185, 777-78 (4 th ed. 1992).
Appellant Respectfully submits that
the foregoing chronology raises substantial concerns regarding notice,
opportunity to respond, and the appearance of procedural fairness.
V. PURPOSE OF THIS FILING
Appellant submits these matters
solely to demonstrate that certain
judges in the Federal Circuit read
evidence of Cook County judges violating the RICO ACT, the 7th
Cir. Held that the Cook County Courts were a Criminal enterprise. U.S. v. Murphy, 768 F. 2d 1518, 1531
where precedent was enacted by Judges Frank H. Easterbrook, Richard D. Cudahy
and former Chief judge Luther Merritt Swygert;
- And to particularize all matters Pursuant to 9(b) demonstrating
Appellant has never received Due Process or Equal Protection as a United
States Citizen in any court;
- And to ensure that the Appellate review is based upon a
complete procedural history.
WHEREFORE, Appellant Respectfully Requests that this Court accept
this Motion Objecting Withdrawal of Attorney et al. and grant such other relief
as justice requires.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Louis Lawrence
Appellant, 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
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I Joe Louis Lawrence certify that on June.8, 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.
Nicole E Stoelton
nestoelton@Venable.com.
Venable, LLP
227 West Monroe, Suite 1900
Chicago, Illinois 60606
312 820-3400
Attorneys for Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
Chief
Judge Charles Beach U.S.
Attorney Andrew S. Boutras
ocj.chief@cookcountyil.gov 219 S. Dearborn, Street 5th
floor
Dir.
FBI,
Hon Mayor
Brandon
Special Agent in Charge (FBI) City
Hall 7th 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 June 8,
2026 A Motion to Supplement the Record et al. has been filed in the Seventh
Circuit
Respectfully submitted,
Appellant,
Pro Se
PO Box 4353
Chicago, Illinois 60680
312 965-6455
joelouis565@yahoo.com
