WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DOMESTIC TERRORISM AND JUDICIAL CORRRUPTION?
A SIMPLE PATERNITY CASE INVOLVING AN ALLEGED FATHER WAS EXCLUDED TWICE BY TWO INDEPENDENT MEDICAL LABS BUT BECAUSE IT INVOLVED ALLEGATIONS OF A POLICE OFFICER POSSIBLY IMPREGNATED HIS SECOND DAUGHTER, WHERE HE WAS ARRESTED FOR ALLEGEDLY IMPREGNATING HER BUT WAS ALLOWED TO RETURN BACK TO HIS POLICE DUTIES.
EVERY COOK COUNTY JUDGE IS AWARE OF THESE FACTS BUT ANY JUDGE WHO MAY POSSIBLY RULE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE LAWS ARE EXCLUDED FROM BEING ASSIGEND OR ARE RECUSING THEMSELVES DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTERESTS, THE ONLY JUDGES BEING SOUGHT ARE FORMER STATES ATTORNEYS OR THOSE INVOLVED WITH TRANSPORTATION WITH THE CITY OR CTA.
1.) SEE EXHIBT A ATTACHED JUDGE ROSA SILVA ACCORDING TO THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT ENTERED A COURT ORDER NOV 5, 2025, IDENTIFYING 41 YEAR OLD TYCEE HIGHTOWER AS A CHILD, ORDERING THE DEFENDANT TO PAY $228.00 IN ARREARAGE CHILD SUPPORT.
JUDGE ROSA IS THE FIRST AND ONLY JUDGE (SINCE JUDGE ELIZABETH RIVERA WHO KNEW THE ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEYS WAS IN FACT REPRESENTING POLICE OFFICER FRANCOISE ON THIS BOGUS PATERNITY MATTER) WHO MANAGED TO GET ASA RHONDA HAWKINS-LYKE TO ADMIT ON THE RECORD THE STATE WAS INVOLVED ON THIS MATTER.
2.) ASA RHONDA HAWKINS-LYKE NEGRO PREPARED A FALSE COURT ORDER (MOST NEGRO WOMEN IN CHILD SUPPORT WILL PREPARE AND FALSIFY ANY FALSE COURT ORDERS AGAINST BLACK AND BROWN MEN FOR RACIST JUDGES TO DEPICT SAID MEN IN A NEGATIVE IMAGE.
SO MANY ATTORNEYS RACIST OR OTHERWISE REALIZE NEGROS IN AUTHORTY HAVE SO MUCH SELF-HATE FOR THEMSELVES DON'T FEAR THEIR AUTHORITY OR HAVE RESPECT FOR PERSONS OF COLOR SO IT CAUSED ATTORNEY MATTHEW D. KELLY, FROM THE LAW FIRM: Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, LTD 233 S Wacker Dr. Suite 5500 Chicago, Illinois 60606
A- MATTHEW D. KELLY COMMITTED FRAUD IN FEDERAL COURT REPRESENTING VERIZON BY EMAILING A MOTION TO THE COURT WHILS THE BUILDING WAS CLOSED FOR THE HOLIDAYS JAN 2, 2026., THAT DOCUMENT IS REFERENCED AS EXHIBIT B.
B- THE FEDERAL JUDGE NEVER HAD A HEARING ON THE FRAUDULENT MOTION, RULED ON IT MON JAN 5, 2026, GRANTING SAID MOTION.
C- JUDGE MACKEY THREATNED TO SANCTION AND DISMISS SAID COMPLAINT IF, I DIDN'T GO ALONG WITH HIS ORDERS WHICH IS FRAUGHT WITH ALLEGED CORRUPTION OR TERRORIST'S ACTS.
3.) ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2025, THE VERY DAY ASA RHONDA HAWKINS-LYKE ADMITTED THE STATES ATTORNEY WAS REPRESENTING FRANCOISE TO JUDGE ROSA DIDN'T SEEM TO SIT WELL HER SO SHE PREPARED THE COURT ORDER TO REFLECT THAT, THE STATE WAS REPRESENTING ME AND THAT FRANCOISE WAS THE RESPONDENT.
A- READ THE COURT ORDER VERBATIM IT SAYS "RESPONDENT MOTION" RESPONDENT AND STATES ATTORNEY ONLY APPEARING AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO NOV 5, 2025.
B- THIS ORDER WAS NEVER RECTIFIED TO REFLECT THE EGREGIOUS INCONSISTENCIES; THEREBY, DEMONSTRATING IT'S DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE MY INTELLIGENCE.
4.) SEPTEMBER 5, 2025, HON JAMES SHAPIRO RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE CASE, SEE THE ATTACHED COURT ORDER OF THE JUDGE RETURNING THE CASE BACK TO CALENDAR E IN HOW HE RECEIVED IT.
5.) AUGUST 11, 2025, HON PATRICIA M. FALLON RECUSED HERSELF FROM THE CASE PREPARING A 2 PAGE COURT ORDER, HERETO ATTACHED RETURNING THE CASE BACK TO CALENDAR E IN HOW SHE RECEIVED THE CASE.
6.) MAY 12, 2025, HON MICHAEL FORTI RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE CASE, JUDGE FORTI KNEW OF ME WHEN CORPORATION COUNSEL SUSAN B SCHER WAS AT CITY HALL HELPING CTA KEN S RAY OF THE CTA FIGHT ME IN COOK COUNTY COURT 93 L10772 WHEN, I WAS SUING THE CTA FOR $33 MILLION DOLLARS FOR WRONFUL DISCHARGE ON HEARSAY BEFORE PATRICK MCGANN,
A- A COOK COUNTY JUDGE ORDERED ME TO STOP PURSUING THE CASE AND LET A SPONSOR NOT ME, I AM NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SAYING THESE ALLEGATIONS, HE SAID EVERYTHING, I HAVE ASSERTED IS CORRECT BUT THE UNION OR SOMEONE OTHER THAN ME IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE THESE ASSERTIONS.
B- PRIOR KENT STEPHEN RAY ACTED LIKE A WHITE VERSION OF RUPAUL IN A GRAND STYLE MANNER HANDS ALL OVER THE PLACE TELLING THE JUDGE, I HAD NO PROOF OF ANY DISCHARGE AND THAT, I WAS PART OF A UNION SHOP AND DID NOT BELONG IN COOK COUNTY COURT.
7.) JUNE 10, 2025, PRESIDING JUDGE TEAM LEAD REGINA SCANNICCHIO SIGNED A 2 PAGE COURT ORDER REASSIGNING THE CASE TO JUDGE PATRICIA M. FALLON.
IT IS CLEAR CERTAIN CAUCASIANS REFUSED TO TAKE PART IN EGREGIOUS RACIAL HATE TERRORISM CORRUPTION AGAINST ME ON THIS FRAUDULENT PATERNITY CASE BUT THE SAD REALITY IS THAT IT SEEMS ONLY CERTAIN BLACKS OR HISPANICS WILL GO ALONG THINKING THEY WILL BE SAVED SINCE THEIR CRIMINAL ACTS ARE ON PEOPLE OF COLOR.
CRIMINALS, THUGS, MURDERERS OF ALL ETHNIC BACKGROUNDS GO TO JAIL AND RETURN BACK TO SOCIETY EVEN CONVICTED ALDERMEN BUT FOR SOME REASON MANY HATEFUL JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS HAVE FOUND A WAY TO PROFIT OFF OF THE INJUSTICES INNOCENT LITIGANTS SO FOR OVER 30 YEARS MANY HAVE SOARED OFF OF THE BACKS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE AND BY WAY OF OVERT CORRUPTION.
EVERY ATTORNEY ASSIGNED ON THE FEDERAL CASE INVOLVING VERIZON IS ABLE TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES AND TRAVEL BUT THE PLAINTIFF IS HAVING TO FIGHT FOR HIS FREEDOM AND EQUAL RIGHTS TO WHAT IS DUE TO HIM BECAUSE OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM OR JUDICIAL CORRUPTION.
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT SAID COOK COUNTY IS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
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 TO SUPPLEMENT PANEL REHEARING AND REHEARING
EN BANC
(INCLUDING NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE) & RULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR ANY ATTORNEY COMMITTING
FRAUD ON THE COURT
I.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner respectfully seeks
Petition to Supplement Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc following the
Court’s denial of relief.
This case presents ongoing
constitutional violations, including repeated deprivation of liberty
arising from a proceeding that is void for lack of jurisdiction,
compounded by newly discovered evidence confirming that enforcement activity
continues into 2025.
This Petition does not seek
review of a state-court judgment, but instead challenges independent and
ongoing unconstitutional conduct. The panel’s denial appears to rest on a
misapprehension of that distinction.
Because the record now reflects continuing
state action unsupported by any valid order, rehearing and full Court
review are warranted.
The
record further demonstrates most attorney’s state or otherwise do not follow
the Rules of Law or any Ethics
All
Illinois lawyers must be familiar with the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct,
and trail lawyers must be particularly familiar with the rules that apply
specially to them.
RPC 3.3,
entitled “Conduct Before a
Tribunal,”
II.
STANDARD FOR REHEARING
Panel rehearing is appropriate where
the Court has overlooked or misapprehended material facts or controlling law.
Rehearing En Banc is warranted
where:
- The matter presents a question of exceptional
importance, or
- Necessary to ensure uniformity of decisions.
III.
BASIS FOR PANEL REHEARING
A.
The Petition Challenges Ongoing Conduct, Not a State Judgment
The Court’s denial appears to rely
on jurisdictional principles reflected in
Klein v. O’Brien.
However, Petitioner does not seek
appellate review of a state-court judgment. Instead, this case challenges:
- Enforcement actions taken without a valid underlying
order,
- Proceedings conducted without service of process,
- Continued deprivation of liberty after exclusion
from paternity,
- Ongoing conduct confirmed by newly discovered evidence.
- That on April 14, 2026, at 11:15am Petitioner received
a Jan 2, 2026 envelope from Segal McCambridge, attorney Matthew D. Kelly,
hereto attached Ex B.
- That documents are dated filed 01-02-2026 while the
building was closed due to holiday.
The Supreme Court has clarified that
federal jurisdiction is not barred where claims arise from independent
conduct rather than the state-court judgment itself. See
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp..
B.
Newly Discovered Evidence Confirms Ongoing Enforcement Activity
After filing, Petitioner received
official correspondence from a state child support agency stating that a Cook
County judge entered a court order on November 5, 2025 related to the
matter at issue.
This evidence is significant
because:
- It asserts the existence of a recent order in a
case previously dismissed,
- It involves a matter concerning an individual long
since emancipated,
- It confirms that state enforcement activity is
ongoing, not historical.
Assertion of a 2025 Order vs.
Absence of Lawful Foundation
The record reflects:
- A prior dismissal of the underlying case,
- No valid support order entered,
- No proper service of process,
- Exclusion from paternity.
Yet, the newly received
correspondence asserts a November 5, 2025 court order, Ref as Ex A.
These facts cannot be reconciled:
A new “order” is being asserted in a matter that lacks a lawful
jurisdictional foundation.
C.
The Panel Overlooked Jurisdictional Defects
A judgment entered without
jurisdiction or service is void and cannot support enforcement. See
Pennoyer v. Neff.
The continued assertion of
authority—now extending into 2025—confirms that the injury arises from ongoing
unlawful conduct, not from a past judgment.
D.
Ongoing Deprivation of Liberty
Petitioner has been repeatedly
subjected to custody and enforcement actions tied to the challenged proceeding.
The Supreme Court has held that due
process requires lawful procedure before deprivation of liberty. See
Mathews v. Eldridge.
The risk of continued enforcement
based on a purported 2025 order heightens the urgency of relief.
IV.
BASIS FOR REHEARING EN BANC
A.
Exceptional Importance: Continuing State Action Without Jurisdiction
This case now involves:
- Alleged enforcement extending into 2025,
- Assertions of new judicial orders without clear
foundation,
- Ongoing risk of deprivation of liberty.
Such circumstances implicate
fundamental constitutional protections and warrant full Court review.
B.
Structural Irregularities in Judicial Process
The record reflects:
- Recusal of multiple judges,
- Proceedings continuing without resolution of
jurisdictional defects,
- Failure to rule on dispositive motions,
- Judicial actions not reflected in entered orders.
The newly discovered evidence
reinforces a pattern of procedural irregularity and inconsistency.
C.
Need for Clarification of Jurisdictional Limits
This case presents an opportunity to
clarify the boundary between:
- Impermissible review of state-court judgments, and
- Permissible challenges to ongoing unconstitutional
conduct and void proceedings
under Supreme Court precedent,
including
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp..
V.
CONCLUSION
The newly discovered evidence
confirms that the challenged conduct is ongoing and escalating,
including the assertion of a 2025 court order in a matter lacking a lawful
foundation.
This case presents:
- Ongoing deprivation of liberty,
- Absence of jurisdiction,
- Material contradictions in the record.
For these reasons, Petitioner
respectfully Prays that the Court:
- Grant panel rehearing;
- Alternatively, grant rehearing en banc;
- Consider the newly submitted evidence;
- Grant such further relief as justice requires.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Louis Lawrence
Petitioner-Appellant
PO Box 4353
Chicago, Il. 60680
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.15, 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 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 April 15,
2026 A Motion to Supplement 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
| Case Number | Calendar | Date Filed | Division | ||||
| 1988D079012 | DRCAL54 | 01/01/1988 | District 1 | ||||
| Plaintiff(s) | Case Type | Defendant(s) | Attorney | ||||
| FRANCOIS HIGHTOWER FRANCOISE HIGHTOWER FRANCOISE HIGHTOWER | Petition to Establish Parentage (Non IV-D) | JOSEPH LAWRENCE JOE LAWRENCE JOE LAWRENCE | MANILOW AND GOLDMAN LTD JOSEPH RODDY | ||||
| Ad Damnum | |||||||
| 0 | |||||||
Future Court Activity:
| Court Date: | 10/27/2025 | Hearing Type: | Post Decree Motions (Judicial Officer:Calendar, 54,Fallon, Patricia M.) | Time: | 9:30 AM | Location: | Court Room CL 11,Richard J Daley Center |
Case Activities:
| Activity Date: | 08/12/2025 | Event Desc: | Exhibits Filed | Comments: |
| Activity Date: | 08/12/2025 | Event Desc: | Notice Of Motion Filed | Comments: |
| Activity Date: | 08/12/2025 | Event Desc: | Affidavit Filed | Comments: |
| Activity Date: | 08/12/2025 | Event Desc: | Motion Filed | Comments: |
| Activity Date: | 08/12/2025 | Event Desc: | Notice Of Motion Filed | Comments: |
| Activity Date: | 08/11/2025 | Event Desc: | Order Change Of Venue By Right - Allowed | Comments: |
