RACISM-CORRUPTION-FRAUD-SCANDAL

A LOOK AT HOW LAWYERS PROFIT OFF OF RACISM, INJUSTICE AND JUDICIAL BIAS A SIMPLE FRAUDULENT CASE INVOLVING VERIZON THAT ESCALATED INTO DIABOLICAL HATEFUL ACTS.

THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING VERIZON FAILED TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT TIMELY SO THEY E FILED THE JUDGE JAN 2, 2026 WHILE THE BUILDING WAS LEGALLY CLOSED AND THE FEDERAL JUDGE GRANTED THEIR OUT OF TIME MOTION.

THE JUDGE DENIED EVERY SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MY DEFAULTS FORCED ME TO FILE A BRIEF ASSUMING BASED UPON THE COLOR OF MY SKIN DOING A BRIEF IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY FOR ANYONE SHARING MY ETHNICITY

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois

No. 1:25-cv-12239

The Honorable John Robert Blakey, Judge Presiding

 

BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

JOE LOUIS LAWRENCE

 

Joe Louis Lawrence, Pro se

 PO Box 4353 Chicago, Illinois 60680

312 965-6455

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                           i

                                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………..……. i

 

Table of Authorities.………………………………………………………………….…… iii

 

Jurisdictional Statement .................................................................................................Page 1

Statement of the Issues Presented for Review .........................................................Page 15

Statement of the Case ....................................................................................................Page 18

Statement of Facts ......................................................................................................... Page 21

Summary of the Argument ...........................................................................................Page 25

Standard of Review ........................................................................................................Page 26

Procedural Record...........................................................................................................Page 32

I.                    The dismissal must be reviewed under Rule 41(b) and the full record to determine how the Dist. Ct. became a law unto himself violated all Canon Acts, and Rules when the attorneys conceded to all of Plaintiff’s Pleadings never opposing or objecting to his factually plead pleadings .

 

II. The January 6 order (See Appx A, Pg 34) and Rule 6(b) independently establish that the dismissal was a void judgment, due to bias/prejudice hate at  the Plaintiff and in violation of Structural Due Process Violations Affecting the Integrity of the Proceedings. ”Canon Ethics and Plaintiff’s Civil Rights. The cumulative procedural defects here rise to the level of structural errors, undermining confidence in the integrity of the proceedings……………………………….. (8)(13)(38).

II.                 The June 22, 2026 orders and opportunity to participate must be evaluated from the record, Appellant filed, 2/11/2026, (See Appx B, Pg 34) Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Other Appropriate Relief. (28 U.S.C. 1651 (a)), but it was “fraudulently” recorded from the  (7^th Cir. Dkt., 4), Jurisdictional memorandum filed by Appellant Joe Louis Lawrence, Appellant’s Jurisdictional memorandum was file stamped February 2, 2026, in the 7^th Cir. Appellant’s Objection filed June 8, 2026, (See Appx C, Pg 34) (7^th Cir. Dkt 27) not on Dist. Ct Dkt. But the Minute Order, June 11, 2026, (See Appx D) (D. Ct. Dkt.91) “Plaintiff’s unfounded objection”………………..(25) (6)(7)(10)(13)(20).

 

 

                                                              ii     

 

III.              The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly recognized that due process is violated not only by actual bias but also by structural circumstances that create a serious risk of bias or prejudgment.  Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)   Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954). (ii)(59)(60)(61).

 

IV.              Former Seventh Circuit judge Richard A. Posner publicly acknowledged concerns regarding the treatment of pro se litigants within the circuit, stating that many judges regard such litigants as “not worth the time of a federal judge.”

 

V.                 The December filings are relevant and demonstrate compliance with the court’s directive but the June 2026 order proceedings are events demonstratable of an “Organized Conspiracy” involving Federal Clerks and attorneys against the Plaintiff where slander, fraud, overt racism and corrupt acts took place to undermine Plaintiff’s legal understanding and compliance to all rules of the court’s directive ……....................................... (30)(16).

 

VI.              Judicial-bias allegations require record support and are germane for the reversal analysis ...............................(3)(35)(44)(45)(46)

 

VII.          Per (7^th Cir Order Dkt 13 8/11/2026), If this appeal proceeds to briefing and appellant Joe Lawrence wishes to renew his requests, he should do so in his brief on the merits not in a motion. Appellant filed Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts, Notice of Structural Due Process Violations, and Request that the Court Consider the District Court’s Denial of Impartial Adjudication & Seek the Jurisdiction of the FBI to determine Public Corruption Allegations Due to this case no longer being Personal Civil Involving the Appellant, (See Appx I, Pg 35).                                                  

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................Page 32

Certificate of Compliance ......................................................................................... Page 33

Appendix………………………………………………….…………..……………….Page 34

Certificate of Compliance with the type volume-limitations…………………..Page 36

Certification of Compliance with Circuit Rule 30(d)…………………………….Page 37 Certificate of Service………………………………………………………………....Page 38

                                                               iii

                                                    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES                                                                                                                                 PAGE

1.)    Arbaugh v. Y & amp; H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006)…………………..……............26

2.)    Ball v. City of Chicago, 2 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 1993) ...................................................22.

 

3.)    Black v. Lane , 22 F3d 1395, 1407 (7^th Cir 1994)…………………………..…...….3, 25

 

4.)    Bozarth, 604A. 2d 100 (N.J. 1992) ………………..……………….………….18, 22, 25

 

5.)    Canon, 3D (1) Reporting Judicial Misconduct

Mass. Comm. On Judicial Ethics, Op. 2002-04 (2002)…………..……..…7, 17, 18, 5

 

6.)    Canon 3(A)(4), Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges……………………(i), 2, 5, 6, 7, 18

 

7.)    Carter v. Mueller 457 N.E. 2d 1335 Ill. App. 1 Dist. 1983…………3, 5, 7, 16, 18, 27

 

8.)    Civil Rights Act of 1866, Ch. 31, 1, 14 Stat. 27…………………5, 7, 8, 12, 16, 17, 18

 

9.)    Civil Rights Act of 1964, 703 (a) (1), 42 I.S.C.A. 2000e – 2 (a) (1)……………...7, 18

 

10.)                        Commentary Canon 2, 2A 2C…………………….…….5, 7, 10, 16, 17, 18, 24

 

11.)                        Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications,

           14 Cal. 3d 678, 537 P. 2d 898, 122 Cal. Rptr. 778 (1975)…….(i), (ii), 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22.

 

12.)                        Dash, 564 S.E. 2d 672 (S.C. 2002)…………………………………………1, 22

 

13.)                        Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)…(i), 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22.

14.)                        Ferrara, 582 N.W. 2d 817 (Mich. 1998)…………………………………....1, 13

 

15.)                        Fitzgerald, Unreported Determination (Ky. Comm’n 1986…14, 16, 18, 22

 

16.)                        Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance,

17.)                         33 cal. 3d 359, 657 P. 2d 372, 377, 188 Cal Rptr. 880 (1983)…….13, 17, 18, 19

 

                                                                iv

 

18.)                        Hazelton v. Carolus, 1907 132 Ill. App. 512…………………..……..3, 27

 

19.)                        Holder, 74 N.J. 581, 379 A. 2d 220 (1977)……….12, 13, 14, 15,16, 17, 22

 

20.)                        Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 3.3………7, 15, 16, 17, 25

 

21.)                        In Re Judge No. 93-154, 440 S.E.2d 169 (Ga. 1994)…………………..2, 13

 

22.)                        John W. Strong, McCormick on evidence, 185, at 777-78 (4th ed. 1992)……………………………………………………………………………….15, 17

 

23.)                        Kasalo v. Harris & amp; Harris, Ltd., 656 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2011) .....................................

 

24.)                        Kroger Canon 2A, 702 A. 2d 64 (Vt. 1997)………………………………  13

 

25.)                        Leslie W. Abramson, 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 751 (1997). The Judges ethical duty to Report Misconduct by other judges and lawyers and its effect on Judicial independence……………………………………………….……5, 7, 12, 15, 17, 22, 25

 

 

26.)                        Lewis v. Brautigam, (CA 5 F 1 A), 227 F. 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505………12, 27

 

27.)                        Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) ..............................................22

 

28.)                        Lisa L. Milord, The Development of the ABA,………………6, 7, 12, 15, 17

 

29.)                        Judicial Code 24-25 (1992)

 

30.)                        Mansell v. Saunders, (CA 5 F 1A) 372 F 2d 573……  ……………12, 17, 25

 

31.)                        Matter of Markey, 696 N.E. 2d 523 (Mass.1998)…………………………...22

 

32.)                        Mississippi Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Fletcher, 686 So. 2d 1075 (Miss. 1996) ………………………………………………………………………….1, 16

33.)                        Mississippi Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Byers, 757 So. 2d 961 (Miss. 2000)…………………………………………………………………………………16, 22

 

                                                             v

 

34.)                        Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) .......................................................................................................................................26

 

35.)                        Pretzel & Stouffer v. Imperial Adjusters, 28 F. 3d 42, 45 (7^th Cir. 1994)…………………………………………………………..……………………….3

 

36.)                        Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc) ...........................

 

37.)                        Renfer, 493 S.E. 2d 434 (N.C. 1997)………………………………………..2, 15

 

38.)                        Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888)…………………………………...……… .6, 10, 26

 

39.)                        Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)…………..10, 12

 

40.)                        Turner 24 F. Cas. 337 (No. 14247) C.C.D. Md. 1867)……………………………..10

 

41.)                        United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010)……..26

 

42.)                        Vigus v. O’Bannon, 1886 N.E. 788, 118 Ill. 334………………………….3 27

 

43.)                        U.S. Sup. Court Digest, 24 (1) General Conspiracy, U.S. v. Jimenez Recio, 123    S. Ct. 819, 537 U.S. 270, 154 L. Ed 2d 744, on remand 371 F. 3d 1093………………12

 

44.)                        U.S. V. Orr, 969 F3d 732 (7^th Cir 2020)….. ………………………………..(i), 2

 

45.)                        Liljeberg v. Health Servs Acquisition Corp, , 486 U.S. 847 (1988)……….2.

 

46.)                        Atwood, , 941 F.3d at 885.

 

47.)                        Simer, 661 F.2d at 679; Ligas, 549 F.3d at 501………………………………18

 

 

Statutes

48.)                        15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. and 1681i (Fair Credit Reporting Act) .........................................................................................................................................1

                                                                 vi

 

49.)                        28 U.S.C. § 1291 .................................................................................................1

                                                            

50.)                        28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................................................... 4

51.)                        28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1) ....................................................................................11

 

52.)                        42 U.S.C.S. 1985………………………………………..……….(i)(ii)

Sect. 1983 of U.S.C.S. 1985 contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the Unconstitutional Application of a Law by conspiracy or otherwise…..                                                                

Rules

53.)                        Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a) .................................................................................................................................2.

54.)                        Fed, R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B)………………………………………..……….2

 

55.)                        Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) ..........................................................................2

 

56.)                        Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)………………………………………………………..2

 

57.)                        Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) .................................................................................. 8–9

 

58.)                        Fed. R. App. P. 32 ..........................................................................................

 

59.)                        Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009)………………. ii,

 

60.)                        Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)………………………………. ……. ii,

 

61.)                         Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954). …………………………… ii,