Take for example Federal Judge John W. Darrah ignored all of the laws of his oath took part in a Racist Civil rights Conspiracy trying to protect all of the organized corrupt white men involved.
This is an example of Judges engaging in Jim Crow laws outlawed by the United States Supreme Court.
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Joe Louis
Lawrence
Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION NO 11 CV
6887
Honorable
Judge John W. Darrah
V
Room 1203
Secretary of
State, Clerk of Circuit Court,
States
Attorney, Attorney General, Circuit Court Judges
Amalgamated
Trans. Union 241, State Judges Illinois
Kent S. Ray,
Rachael L.Kaplan
Defendants
MOTION FOR –
DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE--PERSONAL BIAS OR PREJUDICE{28 USCA 144, 455 (B) (1)}
VACATE ORDER OF OCT. 21, 2011, DUE TO FRAUD/ERROR
Now comes Joe Louis Lawrence, Counsel Pro Se a United States Citizen
born and raised a freeman by all governing laws of the United States
Constitution, Appellant in this cause files herewith his affidavit as required
by Title 28, United States Code, Section 144 to show that the Honorable John W.
Darrah has a personal bias against the Appellant and have committed egregious
“fraud” with compelling evidence in an attempt to prevent him “equal access” to
the Federal Court’s jurisdiction;
Said Judge John W. Darrah made gross fabrications about the Appellant’s
documents filed before the court which are unfounded, he says “it is impossible
to discern from Plaintiff’s rambling” et al;
Based thereon Appellant respectfully moves that the Honorable John W.
Darrah proceed no further herein vacate all orders against the Appellant and
have this matter reassigned via computer generation to another judge who is not
bias and understands how to dispensate the laws in accordance to the United
States Constitution and in accordance to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
preside over this matter;
October 24, 2011.
Respectfully Submitted
Joe
Louis Lawrence
PO Box 490075
Chicago,
Ill. 60649-0075
Email: joelouislaw@yahoo.com
Phone: 312 927-4210
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT
In support of Motion
To Disqualify John W. Darrah,
Judge of the Northern District of Illinois for Personal Bias or Prejudice
“FRAUD” pursuant to 28 USCA 144, 455 (b) (1)
I Joe Louis Lawrence, Counsel Pro Se being duly sworn
on oath states:
1.) That on the
Court Order Judge Darrah records, “On
October 7, 2011, Joe Louis Lawrence submitted a Complaint with an application
to proceed without paying the customary $350 filing fee…. Et al. hereto
attached, Ex A, September 30, 2011,
Complaint;
A- Said Judge was
cognizant and aware his actions in this matter were in fact unlawful, but
because he shared the same animus racial hatred towards the appellant as
complained of in all documents, he manufactured a date of Oct. 7, 2011, in that,
all other Judges in the State and Circuit Courts lied and committed “fraud” on the courts and
nothing happened to them;
B- Said judge
demonstrated hostile biasness by ignoring the very complaint that provided
various claims as to why the Federal Court have jurisdiction in this matter, he
literately turned his back on the
complaint, closed his eyes to the plethora of Racists Civil Rights violations
perpetrated at the plaintiff;
The judge erred by demonstrating an act of Improprieties in an attempt to aid
and assist said Appellee’s named in Suit,
In Re Judge No. 93-154, 440 S.E.2d 169 (Ga. 1994), And Deception by
falsifying reasons for preventing a legally sufficient Complaint and Petition
for Rule to show Cause et al., from being served on Appellee’s, In re Ferrara, 582 N.W. 2d 817 (Mich.
1998),In re Renfer, 493 S.E. 2d 434 (N.C. 1997), In re Kroger, 702 A. 2d 64
(Vt. 1997), Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance, 33 Cal. 3d 359, 657
P. 2d 372, 377, 188 Cal. Rptr. 880 (1983);
C- Said
Judges
forgot to do what his racist colleagues did on the State level at least when
Court Orders were entered in a fabricating manner, the members of the Political
Machine had the records removed from the court files and the entire Paternity
matter is allegedly under the authority of a powerful City Hall official, Case
#85 D 068185 and 88 D 079012;
D- Said Judge has
demonstrated a norm in how things are done when it involves Racial Injustice on
non-white citizens because Plaintiff is a welfare recipient his expectation is
nobody would take the word of a poor Nigger over his authority and not even
question his authority simply because he is a white man;
E- Judge Darrah was
misinformed in that, Plaintiff is not a NIGGER and is not inferior to any man and
the laws should have been dispensated equally in accordance to the laws of the
United States Constitution and within Federal Rules of Civil Procedures;
F- That Dorothy Tucker
news anchorwoman aired a young man on the news (September 15, 2011) who was
experiencing the exact same plight as the Appellant on he contemplated suicide,
for 21 years he had fighting a paternity matter for which he was not the
father;
G- An unidentified case
worker said “his biggest mistake was not knowing what petition to ask for”
Black and Hispanic minority men
are misrepresented in the courts and under represented a black or Hispanic man
can spend 20-30 years in prison on Death Row or incarcerated for crimes they
did not commit before DNA reveals oops they did not do it, but a man’s life is
descimated behind these racist atrocities’
On the other hand, take men like
the Appellant and the person Dorothy Tucker aired in the news, these racist men
have found another way to oppress and psychologically destroy the minority man
using the Child support system—Corrupt white men have found a lucrative way to
create job security for themselves at the expense of innocent black and brown
men;
2.) That the
aforementioned entry is fabricated entirely said Judge committed “Fraud” on the Court;
A- Said Judge’s
legal entries for dismissing said complaint have been Unconstitutionally
recorded and frivolously applied and questions the judges future tenure as a
Federal Judge for his criminal actions in this matter; the judge erred in abusing the adversarial
process, a fundamental aspect of the adversarial system is that proceedings are
to be conducted in open court. Judges have been disciplined for disposing of
cases without an adversarial proceeding, In
re Fitzgerald, Unreported Determination (Ky. Comm’n 1986); Holder, 74 N.J. 581,
379 A. 2d 220 (1977);
B- Plaintiff was
scheduled to appear before Judge Darrah Tuesday October 25, 2011, at 9:00am,
hereto attached, Ex B, October
11, 2011, Petition for Rule to Show Cause et al.
That the Judge erred
considerably when it received notice and knowledge of other Judges complicit in
a Criminal Conspiracy failed to follow Canon Ethics 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.
3.) Said Judge
records, Lawrence’s Complaint seeks a Rule to Show Cause relating to various
assertions, including: (1) the corroboration of judges and public officials in
an organized chain conspiracy… et al;
The judge erred by engaging in a
conspiracy citing a case in the law that is of no merit in this matter and
constitutes a failure to follow the Canon laws, Matter of Markey, 696 N.E. 2d 523 (Mass.1998), Mississippi Comm’n on Judicial
Performance v. Byers, 757 So. 2d 961 (Miss. 2000)
REPORTING JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
CANON 3D (1)
Under Section 3D (1), a judge who receives information that indicates “a
substantial likelihood that another judge “ has violated the Code of Judicial
“should take appropriate action”. The Canon does not require the judge to hold
a hearing and make a definitive decision that a violation has occurred before
the reporting requirement is triggered and at least one state’s judicial ethics
committee has advised that the reporting requirement is triggered when the
judge has “sufficient information” to 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.
4.) Plaintiff-Appellant
filed a Complaint September 30, 2011, against the Secretary of State, Clerk
of the Circuit Court, States Attorney, Attorney General, Circuit Court Judges,
Amalgamated Transit Union, 241, State Judges, Illinois, Kent S. Ray, Rachael L.
Kaplan as the Defendants;
A- Said Complaint
was captioned Complaint of Civil Rights Violations, Unequal Protection of the
Laws Violations, Wrongful Incarceration/Remand, Disparate Treatment; 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)
5.) Plaintiff-Appellant
filed a Petition for Rule to Show Cause Judges Corroboration in an Organized
Chain Conspiracy Perjury/Contempt of Court & Contempt of the United States
Constitution other Irregularities Remand/Body Attachment Instanter; 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
A- Appellant is being DENIED Equal access to the Laws of
this court due to his SKIN COLOR, the courts have agreed with this
disposition and all attorneys are in concert with the above as well, said
courts have demonstrated systematically, Appellant is not a free man with
Civil Rights he is a Prisoner, a Criminal, despite
his intelligence, he has no intelligence, nor is he able to articulate legal
issues of the Laws simply because he is a “NIGGER”
he is less than any Caucasian with no education, less than the human he thinks
himself to be, and as long as Appellant keeps rising up against the
Injustices, telling on “WHITE FOLKS”
reminding the courts of the wrongs inflicted upon him, as long as there is a RACIST JUDGE in authority, we
the RACIST JUDGES in
authority will do everything in our POWERS
TO DESTROY, DENY JUSTICE, INCITE RACISM, EMBRACE RACISM, COMMIT GENOCIDAL
INJUSTICE TO any NIGGER
like the Pro Se Appellant because white men can do whatever they please to
NIGGERS;
B- Even though Plaintiff-Appellant is in no way, nor does
he espouse any connotations of a “NIGGER” said Judges and everyone involved
have done anything and everything required of them to be accepted by these
Racist Terrorists;
Appellant’s Legal Chronology establishes that
FACTin the Complaint as Ex. A!
A- Said laws have been
used to protect Racism and everyone who has perpetrated a role in said
conspiracy
B- Appellant has been Whipped, Beaten, many times Denied,
Psychologically Traumatized, Economically Murdered, The Laws have been used as Water Hoses to keep him down on his ASS never to look up, the Ropes have been replaced with the DISPENSATION of Unconstitutional
Application of Unjust Laws as many have tried to lynch and torture said
Appellant on paper;
C- No black brown Hispanic, African American
man is free in this State of Illinois, in that Judge Darrah has demonstrated
what men of his era are willing to do to destroy innocent men of color;
Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct
Commentary to Canon 2 (1988) provides that “{A} judge must avoid all
impropriety.” And appearance of impropriety.” Accordingly, “{A} judge should
disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably
be questioned …..”Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3 (C) (1) 1988.
Where a judge exhibits
bias or the appearance of bias, the court will reverse. Patterson v. R.T., 301
Ark. 400, 784 S.W. 2d 777 (1990); Farley v. Jester, 257 Ark. 686, 520 S.W. 2d
200 (1975) “The proper administration of the law requires not only that judges
refrain from actual bias, but also that they avoid all appearances of
unfairness. “Bolden v. State, 262 Ark. 718, 561 S.W. 2d 281 (1978).
6.) That Judge
Darrah has acted outside of the provisions of the immunity clause when he
exercised the duties of his authority outside the laws of the United States
Constitution when he sided with the conspirators DISMISSING Appellant’s legal
documents unlawfully, committing all sorts of “fraud” and having those “frauds” deposited in a Federal
Mailbox which is another criminal act;
a. Said Judge violated all Rules of law Canon Ethics, Code of
Judicial Conduct Rule 62 Scott,
377 Mass. 364, 386 N.E. 2d 218, 220 (1979) See Lopez-Alexander, Unreported
Order No. 85-279 (Colo. May 3, 1985) (Judge removed for, inter
alia, a persistent pattern of abuse of the contempt power. The Mayor of Denver
accepted the findings of the Denver County Court Judicial Qualification
Commission that the judge’s conduct could not be characterized as mere mistakes
or errors of law and that the conduct constituted willful misconduct in office
and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the
judicial office into disrepute). Canon Ethics where there is a pattern of
disregard or indifference, which warrant discipline.
b. Said
Judge committed the same criminal acts every Circuit Court, Appellate Judges
committed in signing court orders unlawfully for each other when no Judge on
the State Level ever had any jurisdiction on him that warranted any judicial
actions against him;
A
judge’s disrespect for the rules of court demonstrates disrespect for the law.
Judges are disciplined under Canon 2A for violating court rules and procedures.
Judge ignored mandated witness order in attempt to accommodate witnesses’
schedules; Citing Canon 2A the court noted, “[a] court’s indifference to
clearly stated rules breeds disrespect for and discontent with our justice
system. Government can not demand respect of the laws by its citizens when its
tribunals ignore those very same laws”)
7.) That Judge
Darrah attempted to save a group of Racist Terrorists by violating the oath of
his office doing whatever necessary to further undermine, oppress,
psychologically torture the Counsel Pro Se Appellant as far as his robe would
allow him by dismissing any and all claims he put before the courts;
Bozarth, 604
A. 2d 100 (N.J. 1992) See also Public Admonishment of Drew (Cal. Comm’n on
Judicial Performance, July 1996) (judge admonished for numerous violations
including denying a defendant his right to appointed counsel on the grounds of
the ability of others to pay for legal representation and the possibility of
future employment
Dash, 564 S.E. 2d 672 (S.C. 2002).
The District Court failed to follow and apply said laws in an applicable legal
manner
CANON
1
A Judge should uphold the INTEGRITY and
independence of the JUDICIARY.
The
integrity and independence of judges depend in turn upon their acting without
fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they should comply with
the law, as well as the provisions of this code. Public confidence in the
impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to
this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this code diminishes public
confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government
under law.
8.) That because
of the horrendous unprecedented acts of “draconian” criminal acts of
conspiracies someone on the Federal level allegedly had someone in the Chicago
Housing Authority to unlawfully obtain Appellant’s credit report unlawfully,
hereto attached, Group Ex C, Oct. 17, 2011, letter sent to Deputy
Director Janice Stewart, acknowledged and received by Sequoya Hudson who hand
delivered it to Sam Balkin her Assistant;
A-
Said
letter demonstrates gross negligence and harassment to further wear down the
Appellant psychologically by withholding basic services as a Federal Chicago
Housing Voucher recipient;
B-
Said
Deputy Director called the Appellant from 312 786-3678, Appellant returned the
call but no communication of any sort establishing who and why his credit
report was obtained unlawfully;
C-
The events
Plaintiff has experienced in this matter are that of “War Like” criminal acts the Terrorists behind these
psychological ills have taken racial hatred to another level;
794 S.W. 2d 692 (Mo.
App. 1990) “No system of justice can function at its best or maintain broad
public confidence if a litigant can be compelled to submit his case in a court
where the litigant sincerely believes the judge is incompetent or prejudicial……
{T}hat is the price to be paid for a judicial system that seeks to free a
litigant from a feeling of oppression”. State ex Rel. McNary v. Jones, 472 S.W.
2d. 637, 639-640 (Mo. App. 1971) Indeed, the right to disqualify a judge is
“one of the keystones of our legal administration edifice“ State ex Rel.
Campbell v. Kohn, 606 S.W. 2d 399-401(Mo. App. 1980). It is vital to public
confidence in the legal system that the decisions of the court are not only
fair, but also appear fair. Thus whether the disqualification of a judge hinges
on a statute or rule in favor of the right to disqualify. A liberal
construction is necessary if we wish to promote and maintain public confidence
in the judicial system. Kohn, 606 S.W. 2d at 401; State ex Rel. Ford Motor Co.
v. Hess S.W. 2d 147, 148 (Mo. App. 1987).
Section 1983 of USCS contemplates the
depravation of Civil Rights through the unconstitutional application of a law
by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell V. Saunders ( CA 5 FLa) 372 F 2d
573,especially if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect and plaintiff
was thereby deprived of any rights privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, the gist of the action may be treated as one for the
depravation of rights under 42 USCS 1983 Lewis V. Brautigam (CA 5 Fla) 227 F 2d
124, 55 Alr 2d 505.
FEDERAL
JUDGE GETTLEMAN: stated, Tuesday March 10, 2009, where he found
Superintendent of police Jody Weiss in Contempt of Court and Ordered the City
to Pay $100,000.00, “No one is above the Law”, he cited a 1928 decision by Supreme
Court Justice Louis Brandeis, that said, “If the Government becomes the law
breaker, it breeds Contempt for the Law, It invites everyman to become a law
unto himself. It invites Anarchy.”
Wherefore the aforementioned reasons recorded within Appellant
moves this Court to grant the Motion in it’s entirety Disqualifying Judge
Darrah from this matter;
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT
Respectfully
Submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
PO Box 490075
Chicago,
Ill. 60649-0075
Email: joelouislaw@yahoo.com
Phone: 312 927-4210
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Joe Louis Lawrence
Plaintiff CIVIL
ACTION NO 11 CV 6887
Honorable John W. Darrah
V Room
1203
Secretary of
State, Clerk of Circuit Court,
States
Attorney, Attorney General, Circuit Court Judges
Amalgamated
Trans. Union 241, State Judges Illinois
Kent S. Ray,
Rachael L. Kaplan
Defendants
NOTICE
OF
MOTION FOR –
DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE--PERSONAL BIAS OR PREJUDICE{28 USCA 144, 455 (B) (1)}
VACATE ORDER OF OCT. 21, 2011, DUE TO FRAUD/ERROR
To the Honorable Judge of the United States District Court
for the Northern District:
Moving Party, Joe Louis Lawrence, hereby respectfully
represents as counsel Pro Se shows this court with an affidavit the noted reasons
why said judge should be Disqualified
from this matter; {Pursuant to the provisions of the United States
Constitution}
To: Dir.
Mueller FBI Washington D.C.
Robert
Grant/Agent Chatto FBI 2111 West Roosevelt Road, Chicago, Ill. 60612
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, 219 S.
Dearborn, Suite 500
TO: AAG Tyler Roland
Chief Judge Timothy Evans, Daley Center, Chg, Ill. 60601
General Law
Bureau Presiding Judge Jacobius,
Daley Center, Chg. Ill. 60601
100 West
Randolph Street Suite 1300
Chicago, Ill.
60601 Clerk of Circuit Court
Dorothy Brown, Suite 1001, Chg. Ill.
Asst. Gen.
Counsel, Sec of State Terrence McConville, 100 West Randolph Chg. Ill.
States
Attorney, Anita Alvarez, Daley Center, Suite 500 Chg. Ill. 60601
Hon. Mary Lane Mikva Amalgamated Transit Union, President
Darrell Jefferson,
Daley Center,
Room 2508 Secretary Michael Simmons, 20 S. Clark Suites 850
Chg.
Ill. 60603
Dorothy Tucker CHA
Channel 2 News Janice Stewart, Deputy
Dir.
22 West
Washington 60 East Van
Buren
Chicago, Ill.
60602 Chicago, Ill.
60605
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on October 28,
2011, Appellant shall appear before
Judge Darrah for the Disqualification from said matter at 9:00am in room 1203;
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I Joe Louis Lawrence
Plaintiff-Counsel Pro Se, certify that I have on this day filed said Motion to
Disqualify Judge John W. Darrah, due to Bias and or Prejudice pursuant to {USCA
144, 455 (B) (1)} Vacate Order of Oct. 21, 2011, with the Clerk of the United
States District Court with all attachments;
Dated
October 24, 2011
Respectfully
Submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
Counsel Pro
Se
P.
O. Box 490075
Chicago,
Illinois 60649-0075
Email:
joelouislaw@yahoo.com
Phone: 312 927-4210
U. S Sup
Court Digest 24(1) General Conspiracy
U.S. 2003. Essence of a conspiracy
is an agreement to commit an unlawful act.—U.S. v. Jimenez Recio, 123 SCt. 819,
537 U.S. 270, 154 L.Ed.2d 744, on remand 371F.3d 1093
Agreement to commit an unlawful act, which
constitutes the essence of a conspiracy, is a distinct evil that exist and be
punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues.-Id.
Conspiracy poses a threat to the public
over and above the threat of the commission of the relevant substantive crime,
both because the combination in crime makes more likely the commission of other
crimes and because it decreases the part from their path of criminality.-Id.
CONSPIRACY
Fraud maybe inferred from nature of acts complained of, individual and
collective interest of alleged conspirators, situation, intimacy, and relation
of parties at time of commission of acts, and generally all circumstances
preceding and attending culmination of claimed conspiracy Illinois Rockford Corp. V. Kulp,
1968, 242 N.E. 2d 228, 41 ILL. 2d 215.
Conspirators to be guilty of
offense need not have entered into conspiracy at same time or have taken part
in all its actions. People V. Hardison, 1985, 911 Dec. 162, 108.
Requisite mens rea elements of conspiracy are satisfied upon showings of
agreement of offense with intent that offense be committed; Actus reas element is satisfied of act in furtherance of agreement People
V. Mordick, 1981, 50 ILL, Dec. 63
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).
FURTHER AFFIANTH SAYETH NAUGHT
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 1265
5\1-109, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this
instrument are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on
information and belief and as to such matters, the undersigned certifies as
aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.
Respectfully Submitted
Joe Louis
Lawrence
Counsel Pro Se
Joe Louis Lawrence
P.O. Box 490075-0075
Chicago, Illinois 60649-0075
joelouislaw@yahoo.com
312 927-4210
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Joe Louis
Lawrence
Plaintiff CIVIL
ACTION NO 11 CV 6887
Honorable
John W. Darrah
V
Room 1203
Secretary of
State, Clerk of Circuit Court,
States
Attorney, Attorney General, Circuit Court Judges
Amalgamated
Trans. Union 241, State Judges Illinois
Kent S. Ray,
Rachael L.Kaplan
Defendants
To the Clerk of the above named Court:
Michael W. Dobbins
219 South Dearborn, 20th Floor
Chicago, Ill. 60604
Application
is hereby made for reasons set forth in the attached affidavit and certification, Motion to
Disqualify Judge due to Bias and or Prejudice that appropriate proceedings be
taken under 28 USCA 144 to assign another Judge to hear the proceeding;
Respectfully submitted,
Joe
Louis Lawrence
Counsel Pro Se
P.O. Box 490075-0075
Chicago, Illinois 60649-0075
joelouislaw@yahoo.com
312 927-4210
No comments:
Post a Comment