1.) Senior Federal Judge Milton Shadur became upset with this Complaint Denied her equal access to the courts ORDERED her to pay $350 filing fee to access the Federal Courts ignoring the fact she was indigent!
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Alwanna Knight
Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION NO
Honorable Judge
V
Aurora Loan Services, LLC
Jury Demand:
Defendants $10 Million Dollars
Complaint of Civil
Rights Violations
Unequal Protection of the Laws Violations
Judicial Corruption/Conspiracy
Judicial
Fraud/Extortion (Stealing Homes)
Disparate Treatment
To the Honorable Judges of the United States District Court
for the Northern District:
Complainant a United States Citizen, Alwanna
Knight, hereby respectfully represents as counsel Pro Se shows this court with
an affidavit the noted reasons why this matter should be within this courts
Jurisdiction; {Pursuant to(A) Color (Title V11 of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981)
(B) Race (Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981)
Racial
Discrimination, Racial Retaliation, Racial Hatred, Racial Oppression, Civil
Rights Violations, Unequal Applications of the Laws, and Disparate Treatment on
the basis of race, color or national origin (42 U.S.C. 1981).
This court has Jurisdiction over the statutory
violation alleged as conferred as follows: over Title V11 claims by U.S.C. {1331, 28 U.S.C. {1343 (a) (3), and 42
U.S.C. {2000e-5 (F) (3); over 42 U.S.C. {1981 and {1983 by 42 U.S.C. {1988;
over the A.D.E.A. by 42 U.S.C. {12117}.
To the Most Honorable Judge of the United States District
Court for the Northern District:
Complainant, Alwanna Knight, hereby respectfully represents
as counsel Pro Se shows this court with an affidavit the noted reasons why this
matter should be within this courts Jurisdiction and before a Judge of
integrity and not racist;
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: Dutton &
Dutton Chief Judge Timothy Evans,
Daley Center, Chg, Ill. 60601
Barbara
Dutton Presiding Judge
Jacobius, Daley Center, Chg. Ill. 60601
10325 W.
Lincoln Highway Hon. Judge David B.
Atkins, Daley Center, Chg. Ill.
Frankfort
Illinois, Ill. 60423
PLEASE
BE ADVISED that on January 3, 2012,
A Civil Rights Complaint has been filed before the United States District
Courts.
Respectfully Submitted
Alwanna Knight
5721 S. Justine
Chicago, Illinois 60636
773 340-4387
Certificate of Service
I
Alwanna Knight, Defendant, certify that I have on this day deposited said Jurisdictional Statement to all parties recorded
in said Notice via regular mail/hand delivery.
Dated
January 3, 2012
_____________________
Alwanna
Knight
Pro Se
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Aurora Loan Services, LLC
Plaintiff CIVIL
ACTION NO
Honorable Judge
V
Bogus Knight; Alwanna Knight;
Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Homecomings
Financial Network, Inc; Unknown Occupants;
Unknown Owners and Non-Record Claimants,
Defendants
Jurisdictional
Statement
Order entered: October 18, 2011
Statute: Unequal Protection of the
Laws Violations, Disparate Unequal Protection of the Laws, Civil Rights Violations, Reverse Racial
Discrimination, Judicial Extortion, Judge Acting outside of their immunity
provisions, Anarchy, Jim Crowism, Treason, No Jurisdiction on Defendant, Canon
Ethics violations, Judicial Extortion, Judicial Abuse of Discretion, Racial Terrorism Conspiracy,
Perjury, Chicanery, Public, Political, Fraternal Corruption Conspiracies, Perjury,
Fraud on the Courts and other Un-Constitutional Lawless Violations.
Defendant is appealing to the United States District Court, for
a reversal and remand with instructions based on the foregoing stated above:
The United
States District Court has the Jurisdiction, to correct any error,
and establish any precedent in the law where deemed necessary, without fear of
reprisals from any political organization, terrorist fraternal orders, elected
or otherwise, for the mandate of their decision;
The United
States District Court has the Jurisdiction and Wisdom to recognize when
an individual has not been afforded sapiency in accordance to the United States
Constitution;
Defendant is before the United States District Court because as a”Pro Se” “Informa Pauper’s“
candidate certain Judges (white men mighty in power) and Certain Courts on the
State level have allowed said plaintiffs
to commit the aforementioned heinous criminal acts, ignoring affidavits, the
Laws of the United States Constitution and defendant’s Civil Liberties, validating the
veracity Defendant is a nobody merely
because of her skin color, every ruling has been dispensated according to
racial guidelines;
Defendant is before the United States
District Court because her family is being psychologically traumatized
by these heinous events.
The Plaintiff’s and attorneys are stealing
my home and is using the laws unlawfully to justify their criminal actions and
have a Circuit Court Judge in their back pocket going along with this Civil
Rights Violation, hereto attached, Group Ex
A, Notice of Appeal (Nov.
1, 2011) filed against District Court Judge engaging in the same Civil Rights
Violations perpetrated in the State Courts, also hereto attached, Group Ex. B,
Notice of Motion (Nov.
7, 2011) filed for Appointment of
Counsel Rule To Show Cause Remanding Judge Darrah Into Custody Instanter For
Fraud & Contempt of Court.
For all of
the aforementioned reasons is why Defendant is before the United States District Court for Jurisdiction.
I affirm the
above as being true.
Respectfully
Submitted
Alwanna Knight
Defendant
Pro Se
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT
Supporting the Complaint
{Pursuant to(A) Color (Title V11 of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981)
(B) Race (Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981)
Racial
Discrimination, Racial Retaliation, Racial Hatred, Racial Oppression, Civil
Rights Violations, Unequal Applications of the Laws, and Disparate Treatment on
the basis of race, color or national origin (42 U.S.C. 1981).
This court has Jurisdiction over the statutory
violation alleged as conferred as follows: over Title V11 claims by U.S.C. {1331, 28 U.S.C. {1343 (a) (3), and 42
U.S.C. {2000e-5 (F) (3); over 42 U.S.C. {1981 and {1983 by 42 U.S.C. {1988;
over the A.D.E.A. by 42 U.S.C. {12117}.
I Alwanna Knight, Pro Se
being duly sworn on oath states:
1.)
That Defendant Bogus and Alwanna Knight never at any
time failed to make payments they filed bankruptcy in Federal Court, said debt
was discharged by the Honorable Schmetterer of case #09-22799 Bankruptcy Court;
A-
That Joseph Speetjens signed and swore on the
Certificate of Notice sending said bankruptcy information to said Plaintiff,
Aurora Loan Services;
That District Court Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan was cognizant
of all criminal Civil Rights Violations perpetrated at the Defendant Alwanna
Knight took part in the same conspiracy by abusing and violating additional
laws dismissed said claim,
he 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, additionally; 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”)
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.
2.)
That Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan action in this matter
is consistent with all of the “fraudulent” admissions engaged upon by Judge
Darrah recorded in Group Exhibit A&B and has demonstrated the necessary
criminal steps he was willing to exhaust to uphold Domestic Terrorism in his
court;
3.)
That Plaintiff’s were aware Defendant Bogus Knight had
expired in April 2009 and never at any time prior were Defendant’s ever
delinquent with their mortgage
A-
Defendant was informed by a representative of Peter
Frances Geraci who was responsible for the Bankruptcy proceeding that the
Plaintiff’s were notified;
B- Hereto attached, Group Ex C, Defendant’s Reply
Plaintiff’s Motions for Judgment, Motion For Default, Motion for Summary
Judgment, Motion to Dismiss et al w/Affidavit;
4.)
That Defendant Alwanna Knight demonstrated due-diligence
in the State Courts and has exhausted every remedy available to save her home
and sought the assistance of Nacca, Plaintiff along with their attorneys corroborated
their roles in said Conspiracy on the court by withholding specific information
so as to receive favor from the court;
5.)
That in Par. 1 of said Plaintiff’s response,
Referenced as Group Ex D, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s
Motion Objecting/Striking Plaintiff’s Motions for Judgment, Motion for Default,
Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss EtAl, Defendant objected
and denied it entirely in that, Plaintiff’s did
state a legal reason for Striking
Plaintiff’s Motions;
A-
Pursuant to the precedent already established, Carter v
Mueller 457 N.E. 2d 1335 Ill. App. 1 Dist. 1983, The Supreme Court of Illinois
has held that: “The elements of a cause of action for fraudulent
misrepresentation (sometimes referred to as “fraud and deceit” or deceit) are
(1) False statement of material fact; (2) known or believed to be false by party
making it; (3) intent to induce the other party to act; (4) action by the other
party in reliance on the truth of the statement; and (5) damage to the other
party resulting from such reliance;
B-
Pursuant to
Brubakker v. Morrison, No. 1-9-1670, 1992 Ill. App. Lexis 2144 (1st
Dist. Dec. 30, 1992). Additionally, the fact that a false statement or
omission is the result to an honest mistake is no defense to entry of a
sanction. Et al.
C-
Pursuant to Vigus V. O’Bannon, 1886 8 N.E 788, 118 ILL 334.
Hazelton V. Carolus, 1907 132 ILL. App. 512.Fraud admissibility
great latitude is permitted in proving fraud C.J.S. Fraud 104 ET Seg. Fraud
51-57. where a question of fraud and deceit is the issue involved in a
case, great latitude is ordinarily
permitted in the introduction of evidence, and courts allow the greatest
liberality in the method of examination and in the scope of inquiry
6.)
That on the May 13, 2011, Motion Objecting et al., Page 2, 3 of Defendant’s Counter Affidavit
of Indebtedness, a legal reason was stated!
7.) That
in Par. 2 of said Plaintiff’s response, Counsel is misrepresenting the
facts, FACT! Defendant filed bankruptcy, her husband as head of the household
worked diligently together as a family unit;
A- Hereto
attached, Ex A, of Group Ex C, before the United
States Bankruptcy Court et al, records Def. as a Debtor and the other Def. as a
Co Debtor;
B- Hereto
attached, Ex. B, of Group Ex C, Debt Summary where Peter Francis Geraci was
law firm that handled said Bankruptcy legal proceeding;
8.)
That in Par. 3 of said Plaintiff’s response,
Defendant denies and objects to it entirely, she never at any time discussed
with anyone that her husband died “almost
a year ago” Ref. as Ex A of Group Ex
D;
9.)
That in Par. 4, said Ex. B, contradicts the above
Ex. A;
A- That
Ex. C, of Par. 4, Affidavit
of Nicole Wasilewski, employee of Firefly Legal, Inc. states “license #117-001465, “and not party to
the mentioned case”
B-
“I was unable to locate the defendant, Bogus
Knight”
10.)
That Ex. C
validates the veracity of Defendant not having any communication of any sort
with any person or persons regarding the death of her husband, in that, said
Affidavit reflects Nicole ascertained information about Bogus Knight allegedly
through public online and confidential database et al;
A- That
Ex. A, (Elliston Carter) signed a
sworn affidavit Dec. 9, 2009, that Defendant told her” husband died almost a year ago”
B-
That Ex. C,
(Nicole Wasilewski) signed a sworn affidavit, Dec. 7, 2009, that she
ascertained information about the deceased Bogus Knight through public online
and confidential databases et al.;
11.)
That by virtue of the legal standard Preponderance of
the Law one of the above investigators has committed fraud on the Honorable
Court!
12.)
That in Par. 5, of said Plaintiff’s response,
Defendant denies ever receiving the Oct 7, 2010, Motion requesting any
dismissal of Bogus Knight, that in this response is the first time ever seeing
said document;
13.)
That in Par. 6, of Plaintiff’s response
contradicts the April 19, 2011 document filed, in that #3 of said document
states “Certain sums are now due and
owing and accelerated by reason of the default by the mortgagors herein”
(plural)
A-
That Defendant as the wife signed her husbands name
many times and was not aware that she was being swindled and deceived by representatives
of the bank under duress, she signed said documents so as not to lose her home!
B-
That Defendant objects and strikes any document
tendered by the bank through the representation of counsel not endorsed with a
certified signature;
14.)
That Defendant
admits to making payments paying on her mortgage in Par. 7 and denies
any knowledge of the foregoing;
15.)
That Defendant denies Par. 8 and request the
strictest proof thereof;
16.)
That Defendant denies Par’s. 9-13 and objects
and strikes any documents tendered by the bank through the representation of
counsel not endorsed with a certified signature;
A-
That Pursuant to Sup
Ct. Rule 272 “if at the time of
announcing final judgment the judge requires the submission of a form of
written judgment to be signed by the judge et al” the judgment becomes final
only when the signed judgment is filed— Judges are bound by this rule
before their court orders are valid, how can bank officials supersede the
jurisdiction of an arbitrator with contempt power by not endorsing documents in
a court of law?
B-
Where the trial
court requests that a written judgment be prepared, and where the attorney who
obtains the judgment prepares it and submits it to the judge for approval and
entry, the judge’s oral announcement of his decision and the reasons thereof
have no effect; the judgment is not the act of the court until it is signed or
approved and entered of record. In re
Marriage of Dwan, App 1st Dist. 1982, 64 Ill. Dec 340, 108 Ill. App
3d 808, 439 N. E. 2d 1005. Counsel did not in any way have the bank
officials to endorse any documents in an attempt to Induce Reliance upon the
Court committing Fraud bit got caught!
17.)
That Ex. D
of Group Ex D, Plaintiff’s
response #1 Bankruptcy If the
customer was discharged in a Chapter 7 proceeding subsequent to the execution
of the loan Documents, Lender agrees that the Customer will not have personal
liability on the debt pursuant to this agreement” Defendant had a copy of the
same document tried many times communicating that information to Aurora officials
it fell on deaf ears;
18.)
That Par’s 14, 15 validates the very veracity of
what have been properly asserted and corroborated in said affidavit;
19.)
That Plaintiff’s have demonstrated the necessary
procedures exhausted to deceive grieving widows with deceptive legal tactics
trying to steal her property and extort monies while in a grieving state;
20.)
That
on October 18th a Hearing was
had no witnesses for the Plaintiff was produced or any court reporter transcribing
the unlawful events;
A-
Said
record had no signatures on any documents, no sworn affidavits, nothing!
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.
21.)
That Circuit Court Judge David B. Atkins without legal
constitutional authority ignored and disregarded the fact he had no
jurisdiction on the Defendant ignored the Federal document presented to him and
argued at the Hearing, had it stricken knowing fully he had no JURISDICTION on the Defendant or
over said matter, hereto attached as Group
Ex E, Judge Atkins Court order;
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 authorized said attorney to present a court order removing her deceased
husbands name and permitted counsel to present a drafted order never presented
to the Defendant to record Alwanna Knight’s name The Supreme Court of Georgia
removed a judge from office for disregarding defendant’s Constitutional rights,
including refusing to set appeal bonds for two defendant’s in timely fashion,
issuing bench warrants without probable cause, and forcing a defendant to enter
a guilty plea in the absence of Counsel. The Court stated, that the judge’s
“cavalier disregard of these defendants’ basic and fundamental constitutional
rights exhibits an intolerable degree of judicial incompetence, and a failure
to comprehend and safeguard the very basis of our constitutional structure Id
at 735 See also In re Hammel, 668 N.E. 2d 390 (N.Y. 1996). (Judge removed
for improperly jailing defendants for their alleged failure to pay fines and
make restitution which the judge had imposed, disregarding the defendant’s
basic constitutional rights).
22.)
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”)
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
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 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.
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.
A-That certain Judges of the Illinois
Courts and Federal have satisfied by the preponderance of evidence and met the
full criteria’s of Biasness, Prejudice
and Civil Rights Violations, Terrorists acts at Defendant, in that794 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. Cohn,
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. at 401; State ex Rel. Ford Motor Co. V. Hess S.W. 2d 147, 148 (Mo. App1987).
See that is why, the
Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (was enacted) - Section 1 (42 U.S.C.) 1983.
“Of all the
Civil Rights legislation enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, none has
had a greater contemporary impact than the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. The Act
grew out of a special one-paragraph message sent to the 42d Congress on March
23, 1871, by President Ulysses S. Grant, urgently requesting the enactment of
legislation”.
Section 2 (42 U.S.C.)
In the House of Representatives.
“Congressional
Debate of the second section of the Ku Klux Klan Act was more extensive and
enduring than that of Section 1; As originally presented, Sec. 2 made it a felony
for any “two or more persons” to conspire to commit certain enumerated crimes
“in violation of the rights and privileges, or immunities of any person, to
which he is entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
“Throughout the debates, supporters
of the Act made repeated references to the depredations of the Ku Klux Klan;
Victims of these atrocities included not only blacks but white Republicans as
well. The crimes that were perpetrated, therefore, were not viewed as isolated
occurrences, but as part of an “Organized Conspiracy….Political in its origin
and aims”, “crimes perpetrated by concert and agreement, by men in large
numbers acting with a common purpose for the injury of a certain class of
citizens entertaining certain political principles, id, at 457 (remarks of Rep. Coburn). See also e.g., id.
At 437 (remarks of Rep. Cobb) (“None but Democrats belong or can belong to
these societies”) et al.,
“Where
these gangs of Assassins show themselves the rest of the people look on, if not
with sympathy, at least with forbearance. The boasted courage of the South is
not courage in their presence. Sheriffs, having eyes to see, see not; judges,
having ears to hear, hear not; witnesses conceal the truth or falsify it; grand
or petit juries act as if they might be accomplices. In the presence of these
gangs all the apparatus and machinery of civil government, all the processes of
justice, skulk away as if government and justice were crimes and feared
detection. Among the most dangerous things an injured party can do is to appeal
to justice. Of the uncounted scores and hundreds of atrocious mutilations and
murders it is credibly stated that not one has been punished. Cong. Globe,
supra note 2, app. At 78 (remarks of Rep. Perry). (“While murder is
stalking abroad in disguise, while whippings and lynching’s and banishment have
been visited upon unoffending American citizens, the local administrations have
been found inadequate or unwilling to apply the proper corrective”) et al., ….
And the State made no successful effort to bring the guilty to punishment or
afford protection or redress to the outraged and innocent.”)
23.)
Certain
said Judges are not dispensating the laws in accordance to the laws of the United
States Constitution but in accordance to other Political/fraternal laws outside
of the United States Constitution and Illinois Supreme Court rules;
a.
That because Judge Atkins is a Negroe powerful white men mighty
in power can use certain individuals like Atkins to be exploited and violate
any laws necessary while in his Judicial capacity, so as to uphold and protect
Terrorism and any other Criminal Civil Rights Violations as noted throughout
and within;
b.
That
Negroes and Hispanics do not have authority or jurisdiction on white men mighty
in power, they see wrong and racial injustice perpetrated on their own people
turn their backs so as to accepted by those terrorists in Power;
c.
That
the Terrorists and Political Machine Racist only recruit and appoint blacks and
Hispanics that will do their bidding to protect their members of the fraternal
Order;
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.
Under Section 4 of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871:
The President had additional
power in case of rebellion within a state to suspend the writ of habeas corpus
and to declare and enforce marital law. Cong.
Globe, supra note 1, at 317. With respect to a definition of rebellion,
Section 4 provided;
“Whenever in any State or part
of a State……unlawful combinations……..shall be organized and armed, and so
numerous and powerful as to be able, by violence, to either overthrow or set at
defiance the constituted authorities of such State, or when the constituted
authorities are in complicity with or shall connive at the unlawful purposes of
such powerful and armed combinations; and whenever, by reason of either or all
of the causes aforesaid, the conviction of such offenders and the preservation
of the public safety shall become…. Impracticable, in every such case such
combinations shall be deemed a rebellion against the Government of the United
States….”
In the 20th century, the Supreme Court began to
overturn Jim Crow laws on constitutional grounds. In Buchanan v. Warley 245 US 60 (1917), the
court held that a Kentucky law could not require residential segregation. The Supreme Court
in 1946, in Irene Morgan v. Virginia ruled segregation in
interstate transportation to be unconstitutional, in an application of the commerce
clause of the Constitution. It was not until 1954 in Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka 347 US 483 that the court held that separate facilities
were inherently unequal in the area of public schools, effectively overturning Plessy
v. Ferguson, and outlawing Jim Crow in other areas of society as well. This
landmark case consisted of complaints filed in the states of Delaware (Gebhart
v. Belton); South Carolina (Briggs
v. Elliott); Virginia (Davis v. County
School Board of Prince Edward County); and Washington,
D.C. (Spottswode Bolling v. C. Melvin Sharpe).
These decisions, along with other cases such as McLaurin v. Oklahoma State
Board of Regents 339 US 637 (1950), NAACP
v. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958), and Boynton v. Virginia 364 US 454 (1960),
slowly dismantled the state-sponsored segregation imposed by Jim Crow laws.
For
the Foregoing Reasons,
Illinois legal system is still exercising Jim Crowism under the guise of
Political Machine, Defendant requests that this Honorable Court accept
Jurisdiction of this matter;
2.)
Impose Sanctions/Remand any and all parties for Contempt of the United States
Constitution for their crimes against the Defendant/Government;
3.)
Issue an Injunction Ordering the Cook County and State of Illinois not to seize
said property, due to Fraud Criminal Conspiracies Civil Rights Violations by
all applicable parties associated in said matter;
4.)
Order the United States Marshall’s to effect service on all named parties.
That
because of the heinous acts Defendant have been harmed by said Civil Rights
Violations and no one objected to said assertions put before any tribunal, Defendant
is seeking $10 Million Dollars as
punitive damages; Smith
v. Wade,
461 U.S. 30, 35, 103 S. Ct. 1625, 1629, 75 L Ed 2d 632 (1983) Justice Brennen “The threshold standard for
allowing punitive damages for reckless or callous indifference applies even in
a case, such as here, where the underlying standard of liability for
compensatory damages because is also one of recklessness. There is no merit to
petitioner’s contention that actual malicious intent should be the standard for
punitive damages because the deterrent purposes of such damages would be served
only if the threshold for those damages is higher in every case than the
underlying standard for liability in the first instance. The common-law rule is
otherwise, and there is no reason to depart from the common-law rule in the
context of {1983}”
Finally,
this Affidavit is best closed by a jurist who has stated”;
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”)
Most
recently stated in Federal Court 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.”
FURTHER
AFFIANTH SAYETH NOT
Respectfully
Submitted
Alwanna
Knight
Pro Se
5721 South
Justine
Chicago, Ill.
60636
773 340-4387
No comments:
Post a Comment