First of all, I would like to thank everyone who have expressed an interest in this matter this is the original Brief presented before the United States Court of Appeals.
Many will see Government Corruption was here before the Trayvon matter everyone closed their eyes pretending the aforementioned Jim Crow practices did not exist in this case no attorney in any Government capacity was able to refute or challenge my affidavits put before the courts.
While many men talk eloquently not one I believe can walk in my shoes and attempt Judgment on anyone unless they can demonstrate to the Public, Twitter or any Social Media the necessary steps exhausted to help individuals like myself bring this matter to the media's attention as demonstrated in the Trayvon matter.
Many Black men will leave Chicago and jump on the band wagons and tackle issues in other States before they address the Racial Injustices on their own people in this City and State, I am here taking a stand against the Political Machine not only helping myself but all minorities victimized by Racial Injustice here in this State.
Now read for your self and see why and how Chicago is the most Corrupt City in the nation and that their is not one African, or Hispanic American holding a Government position or elected position with any authority over any member of the Political Machine or any white person, they only have jurisdiction on persons of their own ethnicity or other minorities, they are figureheads protecting the racists white men in charge.
This document explains how the second Brief came into existence in the prior Blog
Again thanks everyone for your support.
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________________________________________
No 07--1191
_________________________________________________________________
Joe Louis Lawrence ) Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff-Appellant ) Court for the Northern District
) Of Illinois
vs )
) JUDGE KENNELLY
Interstate Brands Corporation )
Chicago Police Department )
Defendant-Appellee )
Brief of
Joe Louis Lawrence
Plaintiff-Appellant
vs.
Rachael L. Kaplan, Law Dept.
Corporation Counsels
Myriam Kasper
Nadine Wichern
30 North LaSalle Suite 800
Interstate Brands Corporation/Wonderbread
Attn: Law Dept.
Attorneys for
Defendant-Appellees
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… i
Table of Authorities .……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii
Addedum of Authorities Inadvertently left out......................………………………………26,27
Jurisdictional Statement ……………………………………………………………………………………………………9,10
Statement of the Issues …………………………………………………………………………………………………………11
Statement of the Case ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………12
Statement of the Facts ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………13
Summary of Argument ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………17
Argument ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………22 A Standard of Review ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….22
B The District Court Erred by engaging in a conspiracy citing a case in the law that is non-existent 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.
C The District Court 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 Motion 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)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13, 26, 27
D The District Court 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……………………….26, 27
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………23
Certificate of Compliance with Circuit Rule 31……………………………………………………………… 24
Certificate of Compliance with Circuit Rule 32 (a) (7) (B) …………………………………………28
Certificate of Service …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………25
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES PAGE
1) Adoption of E.L.,
248 Ill. Dec. 171, 733 N.E. 2d 846, 315 Ill.
2) Applications of Miller,
427 F. Supp. 896 (W.D. Tex 1977)…………………………………………………………………………………..16
3) Beatie v. People,
33 Ill.
4) Bozarth,
604 A. 2d 100 (N.J. 1992)……………………………………………………………………………………………………..19
5) Buzzard v. Bolger,
117 Ill.
6) Byrd v. Roadway Express,
687 F. 2d 85, 87 n. 3 29, Fep 1588, (5th Cir. 1982)…………………………………………………..15
7) Canon
3D (1) Reporting Judicial Misconduct
8) Canon
3 D (2) Reporting Lawyer Misconduct
Fravel v. Haughey, 727 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. App. Ct.Illinois
9) Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications,
14 Cal. 3d 678, 537 P. 2d 898, 122 Cal.
10) Carter v. Mueller,
457 N.E. 2d 1335 Ill.
11) Civil Rights Act of 1866,
12) Civil Rights Act of 1964,
703 (a) (1), 42 I.S.C.A. 2000e – 2 (a) (1)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12
13) Commentary Canon 2, 2A 2C…………………………………………………………………………………..18, 19
iii
14) Crawford v. State,
770 N.E. 2d 775 (Ind.
15) Dash,
564 S.E. 2d 672 (S.C. 2002)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18, 19
16) Developments in the Law Section 1981
15 Harv. Civ. Rts.---- Civ. Lib. L. Rev. 29, 133 (1980)…………………………………………………….14
17) D. Louisell & C. Mueller,
Federal Evidence { 70, pp. 568-569…………………………………………………………………………………………12
18) Ettinger v. Rolewick,
140 Ill. App. 3d 295, 488 N.E. 2d 598, 94 Ill.
19) Graham v. Richardson
403 U.S. 365, 91 S. Ct. 1848, 29 L. Ed. 2d 534 (1971)………………………………………………….14
20) Hall v. De Falco, App. 1st Dist. 1988, 127 Ill. Dec. 576, 178 Ill.
21) Halsell v. Kimberly- Clark Corp.,
683 F. 2d 285, 289, 29, FEP 1185 (8th Cir. 1982)……………………………………………………………15
22) Hammel,
668 N.E. 2d 390 (N.Y. 1996)………………………………………………………………………………………………………17
23) Hazelton v. Carolus,
1907 132 Ill.
24) Heldebrand v. Roadmaster Corp.,
25) Himmel,
125 Ill. 2d 531, 533 N.E. 2d 790, 127 Ill.
26) Hodge v. Police Officers,
802 F. 2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986)………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16
27) Howard v. Zack Co.,
264 Ill.
28) Illinois Rockford Corp. v. Kulp,
1968, 242 N.E. 2d 228, 41 Ill.2d 215…………………………………………………………………………….
IV
29) Illinois
RPC 3.3………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13
30) Jennings
488 F. 2d 442……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..14
31) Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.,
392 U.S.
32) John W. Strong, McCormick on evidence ?,
185, at 777-78 (4th ed. 1992)………………………………………………………………………………………………12
33) Kroger Canon 2A,
702 A. 2d 64 (Vt.
34) Lewis v. Brautigam,
(CA 5 F 1 A), 227 F. 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505…………………………………………………………………..12
35) Lisa L. Milord, The Development of the ABA
Judicial Code 24-25 (1992)……………………………………………………………………………………………………16
36) Luckie v. Ameritech Corp.,
389 F. 3d 632 (7th Cir. 2004)…………………………………………………………………………………………12,19
37) Mahone v. Waddle,
564 F. 2d 1018, (3d Cir. 1977), cert denied, 438 U. S.
38) Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court Iowa
490 U.S. 296, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 104 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1989)………………………………………..16
39) Mansell v. Saunders,
(CA 5 F 1A) 372 F 2d 573………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12
40) McCormick, Canon 2A,
639 N.W. 2d 12 (Iowa 2002)…………………………………………………………………………………………………..13
41) McCray v. Maryland
(CA 4 Md.
42) Mississippi
686 So. 2d 1075 (Miss.
43) Mississippi
757 So. 2d 961 (Miss.
V
44) Monroe
365 U. S. 167, 5 L Ed, 2d 492, 81 S. Ct. 473…………………………………………………………….15
45) Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing,
728 F. 2d 1003 (8th Cir. 1984)………………………………………………………………………………………….16
46) Parson v. Winter,
1986 1st Dist., 491 N.E. 2d 1236, 96 Ill.
47) Pena v. Choo,
826 F. 168 (2d Cir. 1987)…………………………………………………………………………………………………….16
48) People v. Hardison,
1985, 911 Dec. 162, 108……………………………………………………………………………………………………….14
49) People v. Mordick,
1981, 50 Ill.
50) People v. Katelhut,
332 Ill.
51) People ex rel. Rusch v. Levin,
305 Ill.
52) Professional Group Travel, Ltd. v. Professional Seminar Consultants Inc.,
136 Ill.
53) Professor Tenbroek,
39 Cal.
54) Puckett v. Cox,
(CA 6 Tenn.
55) Reed Yates Farms, Inc. v. Yates,
172 Ill. App. 3d 519, 526 N.E. 2d 1115, 122 Ill.
56) Resident Advisory Bd. V. Rizzo,
425 F. Supp. 987 (E. D. Pa 1976), modified, 564, F. 2d 126 (3d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435, U. S.
57) Runyon v. McClary,
98 Yale L.J. 565 (1989)……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16
VI
58) Scott, Canon Ethics,
377 Mass. 364, 386 N.E. 2d 218, 220 (1979) See Lopez- Alexander, Unreported Order No. 85-279 (Colo.
59) S.H.A. Criminal,
60) Sherman
272 Ill.
61) Stone v. City of Indianapolis
281 F. 3d 640 (7th Cir.) cert. denied, 537 U. S.
62) St. Mary’s Honor Center
1 Civil Rights under Mcdonnell Douglas scheme Applicable to Title VII……..15
63) Texas
450 U. S. 248, 254, and n. 7, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 1094, and n. 7, 67 L. 2d 207 (1981); F. James & d, Civil Procedure {7,9, p. 327 (3d ed. 1985)……………………12
64) Turner
24 F. Cas. 337 (No. 14247)………………………………………………………………………………………………12, 17
65) U.S. v. 30.64 Acres of Land situated in Klickitat County , State of Wash.
795 F. 2d 796, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 415 (9th Cir. 1986)……………………………………………
66) U.S.
5 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.N.J.)1998……………………………………………………………………………………….13
67) United States
358 F. Supp. 939……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..15
68) U.S.
24 (1) General Conspiracy, U.S. v. Jimenez Recio, 123 S. Ct. 819, 537 U.S.
69) Vaughn,
462 S.E. 2d 728 (Ga.
70) Vigus v. O’Bannon,
1886 N.E. 788, 118 Ill.
71) Whirl v. Kern,
(CA 5 Tex ) 407 F. 2d 781, Cert. Den., 396 U.S. 901, 90 S. Ct. 210……………15
VII
72) W.R. Grace & Co. v. Baker Industries, Inc.,
128 Ill. App. 3d 215, 470 N.E. 2d 577, 83 Ill.
73) Zoarski, Canon 2A
632 A. 2d 1114 (Conn.
42 U.S.C. 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Color)
42 U.S.C. 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Race)
U.S.C.{1331, 28 U.S.C. {1343 (a) (3) and 42 U.S.C. {2000e5 (F) (3) over
U.S.C. {1981 and 1983 by 42 U.S.C. {1988; over the A.D.E.A. by 42 U.S.C. {12117………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12,15
(74) Ferra,
582 N.W. 2d 817 (Mich
(75) Fitzgerald, Unreported determination, Ky.
(76) Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance,
33 cal. 3d 359, 657 P. 2d 372, 377, 188 Cal
(77) Judge,
No. 930154, 440 S.E. 2d 169 (GA. 1994)………………………………………………………………
(78) Leslie W. Abramson,
25 Hofstra L. Rev. 751 (1997). The Judges ethical duty to Report Misconduct by other judges and lawyers and it’s effect on Judicial independence……………….
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Joe Louis Lawrence
VS
CASE No. 07 C 1191
Interstate Brands Corporation
Chicago Police Department
Jurisdictional Statement
Order entered: May 21, 2007
Notice of Appeal filed: June 1, 2007
Statute: Unequal Protection of the Laws Violations, Disparate Unequal Protection of the Laws, Retaliatory Racial Harassment, Civil Rights Violations, Employment Discrimination, Judicial Errors, Judicial Abuse of Discretion, Racial Terrorism Conspiracy, Perjury, Chicanery, Public, Political, Fraternal Corruption Conspiracies, and other Un-Constitutional Lawless Violations.
Plaintiff is appealing to the United States Court of Appeals, for a reversal and remand with instructions based on the foregoing stated above:
The United States Court of Appeals 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 Court of Appeals has the Jurisdiction and Wisdom to recognize when an individual has not been afforded sapiency in accordance to the United States Constitution;
Plaintiff is before the United States Court of Appeals because as a”Pro Se” “Informa Pauper’s“ candidate certain Judges and Certain Courts has allowed said defendants to commit the aforementioned heinous criminal acts, ignoring affidavits, the Laws of the United States Constitution and Plaintiffs Civil Liberties, validating the veracity Plaintiff is a nobody merely because of his skin color, every ruling has been dispensated according to racial guidelines;
Plaintiff has complied with the directives of the F.B.I. and judges clerks in the Court of Appeals by presenting overwhelming legal documentation with affidavits demonstrating how a politically fixed paternity case became connected with the Chicago Transit Authority how they stole wages and destroyed personnel records to cover-up said conspiracies, how I.B.C. wonder bread committed the same illegal acts as CTA embezzled all workman’s compensation monies forced him and family on welfare falsified every record necessary on the State Level to cover up said conspiracy, he is on Welfare now because of the aforementioned.
Plaintiff is before the United States Court of Appeals because his family has been psychologically traumatized bipolar depressed refuses medication, wife is demonstrating signs of suicide, she is totally depressed and has a lung disease lupus, daughter bipolar not on medicine, DCFS is involved, and has charged her with neglect, oldest son in college on honor roll, no money to pay tuition, baby son needs therapy to cope with mom’s illness, baby daughter is responding well to therapy, 2nd oldest son on honor roll depressed but is coping, light bill, phone bill, gas bill pending disconnection. I have no money to support my family.
The defendants have stolen everything from plaintiff and have politically blackballed him from working in this City him and his family suffering beyond human imagination, which is why Plaintiff is before the United States
Page 10
I affirm the above as being true.
Respectfully Submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
Plaintiff-Appellant
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether the District Court “Gregariously” Erred and committed Overt Conspiracy in denying Appellant his legally sufficient Complaint and Motion for Appointment of Counsel/The Alternative Petition For Rule To Show Cause For “Fraud”/ Conspiracy & Irregularities Had on the Courts w/ Affidavit.
Whether the District Court “Gregariously” Erred by not appointing Legal Counsel to Appellant evidence in the record clearly demonstrated he could have benefited, so as to prevent unnecessary vexatious delays benefiting Appellees.
Whether the District Court “Gregariously” Erred or Violated Canon Ethics, demonstrated Bias against plaintiff in the District Court, the court cited 1915 (e) which is no such rule for Dismissing, the Legally Sufficient Claims put before the Court.
Whether the District Court is competent or incompetent, impaired mentally with an illness Canon 3B (3) provides that “A judge who has knowledge that another judge is incapacitated or impaired, raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office;
A- The District Court Erred, stating Pro Se plaintiff Joe Louis Lawrence “has sued Interstate Brands Corp./wonderbread; the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA); the Law firm Wiener & McAuliffe; the Cook County State’s Attorney and (it appears) the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinarian Commission (ARDC), alleging that they discriminated and conspired against him.”
B- Pro Se Plaintiff is not suing the Law firm Wiedner & McAuliffe, or the Cook County States Attorney, or the Attorney Registration & Disciplinarian Commission;
C- The District Court failed to mention the Chicago Police Department whom is a part of the suit;
D- The District Court acknowledged and admitted “the gist of Mr. Lawrence’s Complaint is somewhat difficult to make out.”
Page 11
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The District Court ignored all evidence in Appellant’s Motion with Affidavit detailing Unprecedented acts of Conspiracy(11),the complaint was presented in a
Legally sufficient manner and demonstrated a Prima Facie showing of Civil Rights unlawful acts lodged at appellant (64) and the amazing part is “all” defendant’s have admitted every gregarious Unconstitutional act by not objecting or submitting any counter-affidavits to the courts (52) thereby relying on members of said chain conspiracy to save them and protect them keeping them “above” the Law.
The District Court stated “the gist of Mr. Lawrence’s complaint is somewhat difficult to make out” (11), if the court ignores the law how can any legal issue of merit prevail in the court?
(11)Civil Rights Act of 1866- first section, enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
(64) Turner 24 F. Cas. 337 (No. 14247) C.C.D. Md. Maryland
(52) Professional Group Travel, Ltd. v. Professional Seminar Consultants INC., 136 Ill App. 3d 1084 et al. State Law: Properly alleged facts within an affidavit that are not contradicted by counter-affidavit are taken as true, despite the existence of contrary averments in the adverse parties pleadings,
(39) 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).
Page 12
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Said paternity matter was originally filed under 85 D 068184 before Judge D. Adolphus Rivers for almost 2 years was voluntarily non-suited September 17, 1987, by the States Attorney Office Richard J. Daley was the States Attorney.
In the 85 D 068184 Case someone from the States Attorney’s office paid/intimidated Cook County hospital Dr. Boonlayangoor and Medical Director M. Telischi to falsify the paternity tests results naming Appellant as the father to protect Defendant Francoise Hightower pediphile father who was a Police officer, paid/intimidated American Red Cross hospital Doctors Oscar Behzad Director of Laboratory and Usha Vasa, Medical director to do the same. The Conspirators realized both paternity tests excluded the Appellant.
Hereto attached, Complaint, from Vol. 1, page 3, of the Oct. 13, 1994, Affidavit from the Motion to Disqualify et al asserting Francoise was impregnated by her natural biological father; she never denied that fact.
Hereto attached, Complaint, page 2b “the CTA has admitted having judges under their control, admitted terminating his employment status without his knowledge, perjured themselves in court, falsified all type of documents in the courts,(29) and further demonstrated above the law contempt in the courts (3) and said Judge assisted attorney in the paternity matter by falsifying a body attachment warrant (66) in an attempt for them to unlawfully take from his body “CTA” employment badge while handcuffed to a chair, see page 3c of Affidavit.
Joseph V. Roddy forum shopped a Judge to circumvent the Laws and appellant Civil Rights (1) to unlawfully change another Judges court order to reflect he was the father of said minor at the time. (72)
(29) Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC 3.3), entitled”Conduct Before a Tribunal”sets forth the standards to be followed by the trial lawyer during “battle”. Section (a) of that rule states: (a) In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not:
(3) Beatie v. People, 33 Ill. Ill. Ill.
(66) U.S. Boylan, 5 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.N.J. 1998), Canon 2A, Zoarski, 632 A. 2d 1114 (Conn. 1993), Kroger, 702 A. 2d 64 (Vt.
(1) Although some trial judges may not review the orders of other judges,
by a court lacking jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacking the inherent power to enter the particular order of judgement, or where the order was procured by FRAUD- in re Adoption of E.L., 248 ILL. Dec. 171, 733 N.E. 2d 846, 315 ILL. App. 3d 137- Judgm 7, 16, 375.
(72) W. R. Grace & Co. v. Baker Industries, Inc., 128 ILL. App. 3d 215, 470 N.E. 2d 577, 83 ILL. Dec. 451 (1st Dist. 1984).
Review of the orders of one judge by another in the same case is not consistent with effective judicial administration.
Hereto attached, June 4 th, 2004, Affidavit for the Civil Rights Complaint, page 1 clearly and unequivocally, state “I am informed and believe that Judge David Haracz and Assistant States Attorney have conspired against me”, neither the Judge or Assistant States denied that fact, see par. F, (30) placing appellant in Contempt of Court for Allegedly owing $29,000.00 while on public aid (58) said act alone demonstrated abuse of his powers, (9) said judge and assistant States Attorney acted in concert violating appellant’s Constitutional Rights as a Public Aid recipient, he was entitled to free legal representation (69), due to the intimacy of their acts established conspiracy (28), when said court orders were signed further amplified conspiracy (68), furthermore (48), said individuals were cognizant of all improprieties, see H of the Affidavit, Brian Volkman Assistant States Attorney “said “I bet he regret doing what he did calling the judges Ku Klux Klan, he is lucky I don’t go get them to file charges against him”, this man’s actions demonstrated controlling influence over certain judges (59). Said Assistant States Attorney was in court on behalf of Public Aid representing Francoise Hightower, defendant Police Officer for the child support arrearage, the clerk of the Circuit Court recorded Suspense on said receipts because he owed no arrearage and no money.
(30) Jennings Jennings
(58) Scott, 377 Mass.
(9) Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, 14 Cal. 3d 678, 537 P. 2d 898, 122 Cal.
(69) Vaughn 462 S.E. 2d 728 (Ga.
(28) Illinois Rockford Corp. V. Kulp, 1968, 242 N.E. 2d 228, 41 Ill 2d 215.
(68) 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 S Ct. 819, 537 U.S.
(48) People v. Hardison, 1985, 911 Dec. 162, 108; People v. Mordick, 1981, 50 Ill
(59) S.H.A. Ch 38 33-3, Official misconduct is a criminal offense; and a public officer or employee commits misconduct, punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both, when in his capacity, he intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as required by law; or knowingly performs an act which he knows he is forbidden by law to perform; or with intent to obtain a personal advantage for himself or another, he performs an act in excess of his lawful authority…….
That because the Assistant States Attorneys were having difficulties with keeping the Appellant incarcerated assisting IBC’s and CTA’ s attorneys as they retaliated against him for whistleblowing on the company about the Unfair Labor Practices and Civil Rights Violations filed with the EEOC and Federal Courts;
Said law firm Wieder & McAuliffe was retained and allowed to submit and Amend their Petition three times in child –support court, before Judge Timothy P. Murphy, for Petitioners Request For Adjudication of Indirect Criminal Contempt; Verified Petition For Rule To Show Cause For Indirect Civil Contempt to aid and assist the Assistant States Attorneys and the CTA who was having problems incarcerating Appellant with false documents (25), IBC attorneys retaliated against appellant and demonstrated overt discrimination (62), they forced Appellant on welfare (15) committed numerous counts of Fraud on the Court (70) and made it clear to appellant, in their Racist Fraternal Political Application of unjust laws, that no one on the State Level or any level could invoke jurisdiction over them they were untouchable (24), in that, they invoked Racial Economic Hatred Oppression of all types in addition to retaliation for standing up to the Injustice perpetrated by all conspirators.
(25) Himmel, 125 Ill. 2d 531, 533N.E. 2d 790, 127 Ill. Dec. 708 (1988); Ettinger v. Rolewick, 140 Ill. Ap. 3d 295, 488 N.E. 2d 598, 94 Ill. Dec. 599 (1 st Dist. 1986), Reed Yates Farms, Inc v. Yates, 172 Ill. App. 3d 519, 526 N.E. 2d 1115, 122 Ill.
(62) St. Mary’s Honor Center
(15) Byrd v. Roadway Express, 687 F. 2d 85, 87 n. 3, 29 FEP 1588 (5 th Cir. 1982), Monroe v. Pape, 365 US 167, 5L Ed, 2d 492, 81 S. Ct 473, United States ex. Rel Jones v. Rundle (DCPA) 358 F Supp. 939, Whirl v. Kern (CA 5 Tex) 407 F 2d 781, Cert. Den. 396 US 901, 90 S. Ct. 210.
(70) Vigus v. O’Bannon, 1886 N.E. 788, 118 Ill. 334; Hazelton v. Carolus, 1907 132 Ill. App. 512; Carter v. Mueller 457 N.E. 2d 1335 Ill.
(24) Heldebrand v. Roadmaster Corp., Ill. App. 3d 664, 660 N.E. 2d 1354 (1996) An employer found liable for retaliatory discharge may be assessed punitive damages; Howard v. Zack Co., 264 Ill. App. 3d 1012, 637 N.E. 2d 1183 (1994); Sherman v. Kraft General Foods, Inc., 272 Ill.
Said District Court Erred and demonstrated his part in said conspiracy by closing his eyes to the “Heinous Atrocities” lodged at appellant and his family, (57), in accordance to Canon, (7)(8); rather he ignored other procedures (2) and caused further harassment to Appellant and family because a delay in justice benefits the perpetrators behind the conspiracy and within the conspiracy, (45) and(47).
Due to this courts gregarious Error is what enabled the State Courts and the Racially connected Fraternal Order to use the laws as weapons to Oppress and Economically destroy Appellant and his family without any financial means of independence to provide for himself and family takes away any chance to present legally sufficient claims before any court, due to Depression, Stress and indigent circumstances living below poverty.
In the wake of extensive investigations by Federal Law enforcement authorities revealing widespread corruption in the Illinois court system (“Operation Greylord”) and elsewhere, indicating not only that significant professional misconduct was occurring but also that the requirement to report misconduct was frequently ignored, particularily in the cases of judges with regard to the conduct of other judges. (35)
(57) Kaczorowski, The Enforcement Provisionsof the Civil Rights Act of 1866: A Legislative History in Light of Runyon v. McCrary, 98 Yale L. J. 565, 567-68 (1989). {T}he framers insisted that this Amendment delegated to Congress as much authority to secure the freedom established by its abolition of slavery as Congress previously had possessed to secure the property right of slaveholders in their slaves. The framers specifically relied on the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the constitutional provision that secured the personal property right of slaveholders in their slaves as authority for their view of Congress’ plenary power to secure the personal rights of the slaves emancipated by the thirteenth Amendment. See also Nowak, Federalism and the Civil War Amendments, 23 Ohio
(7,8) Canon 3D (1)(2) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.
(2) Applications of Miller, 427 F. Supp.896 (W.D. Tex 1977), other factors include:A- the plaintiff’s ability to investigate, gather, and present crucial facts; B- the type and complexity of the case; C- the complexity of legal issues; D- whether the case’s factual issues turn on credibility, and the need for the trained presentation of evidence and cross~examination; E- the plaintiff’s apparent ability to present the case, Hodge v. Police (45) Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F 2d 1003 (8th Cir. 1984), U.S. v. 30.64 Acres of Land, more or less, Situated in Klickitat County, State of Wash., 795 F 2d 796, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 415 (9th Cir. 1986). finally the court may also determine that the nature of the litigation is such that the court as well as the plaintiff would benefit from the Assistance of Counsel, Officers, 802 F 2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986); the timeliness of the request is also a factor;
(47) Pena v. Choo, 826 F 168 (2d Cir. 1987), it has been held that a court may deny a plaintiff’s motion for counsel if it concludes that the chances of success are highly dubious, and to reach this conclusion, it may rely on an evaluation by a member of the bar that the claim has no merit.
(35) Lisa L. Milord, The Development of the ABA
Summary of Argument
The District Court gregariously Erred in not appointing counsel for appellant violating his constitutional rights (69), the court having complete knowledge of the “Draconian” Unconstitional Violations perpetrated upon appellant, in the State and other areas as recorded in said “Affidavit”, June 23, 2006, Appellant’s Motion for Disqualification of Judge Due to Bias, Civil Rights Violations and or Prejudice et al., #3A states, “Judge Murphy had knowledge defendant owed no child support, had knowledge the Assistant States Attorneys committed “fraud” on the courts and falsifying numerous documents asserting he owed child support, had knowledge, Judge D. Adolphus Rivers never ordered, the defendant to pay any child support in his Default Judgement and has admitted this fact through various unchallenged “affidavits” put before the Illinois Supreme Courts and Appellate courts by defendant.”
The District Court had knowledge Par. C of the same Affidavit, Tom Foley a Paralegal for Jodi N. Goode, of the Attorney Registration & Disciplinarian Commission, asked defendant at the time, how is it so many Judges got involved in the paternity matter, “YOU” defendant were never served.” (22).
That because of Appellant’s skin color, is the reason the District Court exercised the same presumption an African American Male is not afforded “Equal Access and Equal Treatment of the laws in Ilinois, due to that fact. The court did not afford Appellant any Equal Protection of the Laws in spite of the Laws of the United States Constitution (64). Civil Rights Act in Turner, the law is blatantly clear, Appellant is entitled to all Equal benefits and access of the laws.
Page 17
The District Court having full-cognizance of State Laws (1) where court orders are concerned ignored Judge Murphy’s admission of E, in the Affidavit, which is most important, “was aware the attorneys used this unlawful paternity matter in which to advance their Racial Retaliatory Conspiratory Acts of “Fraud” against the defendant so as to harm him”, demonstrated Racial Hatred Conspiracy,
(69)Vaughn 462 S.E. 2d (GA. 1995)
(22)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).
(64) Turner, 24 F. Cas. 337 (No. 14247).
(1) Adoption of E.L.. “A VOID JUDGEMENT OR ORDER” is one that is entered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacking the inherent power to enter the particular order of judgement or where the ORDER was procured by “FRAUD”.
Prejudice Bias, demonstrated Unequal Treatment of the Laws, demonstrated Disparate Dispensation of the Laws at the defendant due to his skin color, demonstrated how effective they were able to Induce Reliance (42) and (10) on several State Judges and their employees in conspiring against defendant, in that, said individuals of this Secret Fraternal Order Invoked Racial Apartheid, Invoked Genocidal Applications of the laws in accordance to their by-laws of the Fraternity, and total disregard to any laws of the United States Constitution”
A- Appellant has been wrongfully incarcerated many times for child support arrears he does not OWE; and is not allowed to provide for his family;
B- The CTA and IBC/wonderbread employees and attorneys have been able to engage in some of the most treacherous acts of Unconstitutional Terrorists Conspiracies Acts with the assistance of judges ever recorded;
That because State Judges having already admitted and acknowledged their involvement with a Racial Fraternal Organization, how can the District Court state in the short appendix, Appellant was alleging anything?
The District Court failed to follow the laws under Canon 2A and the failure to apply the law to matters that come before them (13) and (15).
The District Court Erred as he violated court rules (14).
The District Court Erred gregariously said judge had an Ethical Duty to Report Misconduct by other Judges (74) but instead elected, to demonstrate Bias and or Overt Conspiracy in dismissing said Complaint and Motion before the Court.
(42) Mississippi Miss. 1996); Mississippi Miss.
(10) Carter V. Mueller 457 N.E. 2d 1335 Ill.
(13) A judges disrespect for the rules of court demonstrates disrespect for the law. Judges are disiciplined under Canon 2 A for violating court rules and procedures. Judged ignored mandated witness order in attempt to accomadate 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”)
(14) Crawford v. State, 770 N.E. 2d 775 (Ind.)
(15) Dash, 564 S.E. 2d 672 (S.C. 2002).
(74) 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.
Said District Court Erred and ignored the June 28th, 2006, Motion with Affidavit that was not challenged 2 D of the Affidavit “Judge Murphy used his authority to protect IBC/wonderbread attorneys by preventing appellant from cross examaninig Thomas Webner because no attorney could handle him litigiously” and while Appellant was in custody Judge Murphy granted IBC Attorneys a Contempt Finding against Appellant and IBC terminated his employment September 8, 2006. Every Court on the State Level ignored every Unconstitutional act perpetrated by the Racial Terrorist Conspirators.
Furthermore, when testing for the “appearance of impropriety” the District Court has a criteria that must be met (13), this Commentary in Canon 2C clearly and unequivocally demonstrate the District Court’s posture towards the membership because the court was unable to lawfully Dismiss the Complaint and Motion in a Legally upright manner, in that, he had to create a law he felt suitable, dismissing Appellant’s claims.
That because the District Court has Erred in so many areas, in that judges have been disciplined for trivializing or disparaging a defendant’s right to counsel. (4) In re Bozarth, the District Court did not follow the laws of the United States Constitution in accordance to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (15)
That the District Court Erred and ignored the facts recorded in Vol. 1 of the Appellate Record; that establishes the CTA engaging in Heinous Racial Retaliatory Discriminatory Violations;
Exhibit B2, B3 removing Appellant from transportation;
Exhibit B4, B5, B6, B7 and B8 stating Appellant was a CTA employee never Discharged, while off work due to a work-related injury sustained on job, CTA officials stole all of his wages accumulated, tried to destroy his personnel file to reflect he did not work for the company;
Exhibit 2, 3, and 5 Appellant due –diligently sought reinstatement seeking the President of Amalgamated Transit Union, Warren S. George who acknowledged appellant as an employee;
(13) Commentary to Canon 2 offers a test for the appearance of impropriety: “whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.” ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Commentary to Canon 2A, paragraph 2 (1990). A reference to the Commentary under 2C alerts one to the fact that the appearance of impropriety can also be created by a judge’s membership in or knowing approval of organizations that engage in invidious discrimination.
(4) 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
(15) Dash, 564 S.E. 2d 672 (S.C. 2002). The District Court failed to follow and apply said laws in an applicable legal manner.
Exhibit 2, 3, and 5 Appellant due –diligently sought reinstatement seeking the President of Amalgamated Transit Union, Warren S. George who acknowledged appellant as an employee;
Exhibit 4, correspondence resubmitted to the President demonstrating Ken S. Ray’s personal involvement and interference reinstating plaintiff back as a bus operator.
Exhibit B1, a letter Ken S. Ray and manager manufactured stating Appellant was Discharged from a department he was not an employee and never received notice or knowledge of said document.
Most important Appellant never withdrew his pension from the company because he was never discharged.
That the District Court ignored the facts Recorded in Vol. 1, that demonstrated Judges along with lawyers engaging in Unconstitutional Civil Rights Violations manufacturing documents in a paternity matter extorting money from Appellant’s wages assisting the CTA;
Exhibit B11 a former CTA attorney Judge Ronald Bartkowicz signed an illegal body attachment warrant against Appellant for an “Order of Protection”
Exhibit B13 While handcuffed the CTA took Appellant’s badge off his body, deputies made them sign what was being removed from his body;
Exhibit B12 Honorable David Delgado criticized the entire paternity matter;
That the District Court ignored the facts, admissions, and corroborations Recorded in Vol. 1, demonstrating Judge Timothy P. Murphy and a host of other Judges engaging in Unprecedented Acts of Civil Rights Violations Lodged at Appellant as it related to the Paternity and IBC/wonder bread matter and CTA;
Exhibit 7 Official Complaint signed for against Assistant States Attorney Brian Volkmann;
Exhibit B15, B16 from Honorable Dorothy Brown Clerk of the Circuit Court demonstrating Appellant owed no money “for child support” zero balance.
June 23, 2006 Affidavit #6 “Judge Murphy violated defendants Civil Rights so as to demonstrate regardless to how well defendant maybe in the knowledge and applications of the laws despite his innocence, despite 15 plus attorneys could not handle him litigiously, he is a criminal and a n****##, what the judge could not say verbally was articulated in his unlawful applications of the laws, his fraternal order oppresses all people of color” the judge nor the States Attorneys denied the above;
A- The Circuit Courts have ignored the fact appellant never was served/Judge vacated the wrong date and never ordered appellant to pay any thing in accordance to the Default Order there was never a Paternity Test;
B- The Circuit Courts have ignored all facts of law where the Assistant States Attorneys have presented this matter before the courts in a “Fraudulent and Unlawful” manner which demonstrates conspiracy extortion;
C- Appellant is indigent beyond ones imagination cannot supply personals, behind in all bills everything is pending disconnection and family is suffering behind all of this, two children are graduating conspirators goal was to destroy him and family;
Page 1, Illinois
Deanna Bellandi states, “Illinois
From the June 2006 Petition for Writ of Mandamus For Mandatory Injunction/Issuance of a Supervisory Order Vacating Order And For Rule To Show Cause for “Fraud” and to Impose Sanctions presented before the Illinois Supreme Court no one objected or denied said assertions recorded;
1.) That due to “fraud” and alleged political intimidation, no Circuit Court Judge/Appellate Court Judge will enter orders in favor of the appellant, thereby violating all laws of Civil Procedure and Rules in accordance to Illinois Supreme Court Rules and in accordance to Precedented legal citations; enforcing a Legal Lynching of the Laws against the Appellant;
2.) The Assistant States Attorneys without the States consent (Illinois Dept. of Public Aid) or authority have unlawfully with incredible political influence fraudulently brought the Appellant before the courts, had him incarcerated, assassinated his character, his wages were stolen from CTA, Wonder bread, Public Aid for child support arrearage he did not owe;
3.) That various clerks under the authority of Dorothy Brown notified appellant he owed no child support due to the May 1988 Court Order;
A- He was instructed to notify the FBI and the Media because someone has a judge in their back pocket;
That the above are taken from Affidavits and unchallenged Motions thereby validating the veracity every assertion recorded is factual.
ARGUMENT
STANDARD OF REVIEW LEGAL ANALYSIS
Appellant has presented to this body of Justices the “BluePrint” on how systemic Racial Dispensation of the Laws are adjudicated and circumvented in the courts to elude the laws and authorities on the STATE LEVEL, and how STATE AGENCIES cooperate in said Conspiracies.
How can a statute be considered a statute and the clock be against an injured party who is unable to bring a claim before the courts, when judges and attorneys are working with criminals violating all sorts of laws obtaining an unfair advantage over parties who have already been harmed by said illegal Fraternal Unconstitutional Conspiracies and Acts;
In that, 42 U.S.C. 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Color) and (Race) U.S.C. {1331, 28 U.S.C. {1343 (a) (3) and 42 U.S.C. {2000e 5 (F) (3) over U.S.C.{1981 and 1983 by 42 U.S.C. {1988; over the A.D.E.A. by 42 U.S.C.{12117.
The above statutes need to be updated, precedents added to include judicial and attorneys violating the laws they were elected or appointed to uphold in office.
Appellant was not nor any family member born or any family members had criminal backgrounds, Father was a self employed Locksmith, mother was a State employee where she later retired from a University.
Appellant did not experience the lifestyle of existing on Welfare, being incarcerated, until all of the aforementioned recorded in said Brief took place;
A- Appellant was Accepted to Attend Northwestern Law school;
B- Appellant was Accepted and Passed the Police Exam;
C- Appellant worked as High School Business instructor/Disciplinarian;
D- Appellant worked as a Bookkeeper with the Cook County Sheriff Dept.
E- Appellant worked as a Truck driver with two bread companies;
F- Appellant is an Academian no Prisoner, Deadbeat dad or any other negative connotation described of a Black, African American Man.
If an individual has no aspiration beyond his present situation, his presence shall remain the same, an individual is in his Heart what he or she thinks himself to be and out of his “heart” flows the issues of life.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant requests that this Honorable Court Reverse the District Court Judgement and not Remand to same District Court due to numerous noted Bias and other noted Irregularities/and or in the alternative the Issuance of a Rule to Show Cause to the CTA and it’s attorneys, IBC attorneys and employees and Francoise Louise Barbera Hightower, Police Officer and all associated Assistant States Attorneys and to whom so ever this Honorable Court deems necessary to answer before this court, for their roles and involvements in “Diabolical Unprecedented Civil Rights Conspiracies and Violations Instanter.”
That because of the number of years Appellant and family has been harmed by said Civil Rights Violations and no one objected to said assertions put before this tribunal, Appellant is seeking a Summary Judgement of the $350 Million Dollars sought for in his complaint, not $9,999,999.00.
Finally, this brief 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”)
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Louis Lawrence
___________________________
Plaintiff-Appellant
Pro Se Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH CIRCUIT RULE 31
I hereby certify that pursuant to Circuit Rule 31 (e), an electronic version of this brief, in Portable Document Format (PDF) has been uploaded to the Court’s website, and that a disk containing a digital version of this brief, in PDF, has been included with the copy of the brief served on Defendant-Appellees. I certify that the items included in the short appendix are not available in non scanned PDF electronic form.
Respectfully submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
_________________________
Plaintiff-Appellant
Pro Se Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 7, 2007, I served a opposing counsel two copies of Plaintiff-Appellant’s Brief, and a disk containing the same PDF format, by depositing it in the United States mail addressed to:
Rachael L. Kaplan, Law Dept.
Corporation Counsels
Myriam Kasper
Nadine Wichern
30 North LaSalle Suite 800
Interstate Brands Corporation/Wonderbread
Attn: Law Dept.
Respectfully submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
_________________________
Plaintiff-Appellant
Pro Se Attorney
VIII
ADDEDUM
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Inadvertently left out
CASES PAGE
29) Illinois
RPC A Lawyer Shall not:………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
(1) make a statement of material fact or law to a tribunal which the lawyer knows or reasonably knows to be false;
(2) fail to disclose to a tribunal a material fact known to the lawyer when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel;
(4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of it’s falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable measures remedial measures;
(5) participate in the creation or preservation of evidence when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know the evidence is false;
(6) counsel or assist the client in conduct the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent;
(7) engage in other illegal conduct or conduct in violation of these rules;
(8) Fail to disclose the identities of the clients represented and of the persons who employed the lawyer unless such information is privileged or irrelevant
(9) Intentionally degrade a witness or other person by stating or alluding to personal facts concerning that person which are not relevant to the case;
(10) In trial, allude to any matters that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge, of facts in issue, except when testifying as a witness.
Or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a Civil litigant, or the guilt or innocence of and accused, but a lawyer may argue, on analysis of evidence, for any position or conclusion with respect to the matter stated herein.
(74) Ferra,
582 N.W. 2d 817 (Mich
(75) Fitzgerald, Unreported determination, Ky.
IX
(76) Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance,
33 cal. 3d 359, 657 P. 2d 372, 377, 188 Cal
(77) Judge,
No. 930154, 440 S.E. 2d 169 (GA. 1994)………………………………………………………………
(78) Leslie W. Abramson,
25 Hofstra L. Rev. 751 (1997). The Judges ethical duty to Report Misconduct by other judges and lawyers and it’s effect on Judicial independence……………….
(79) Markey,
696 N.E. 2d 523 (Mass.
(80) Renfer,
493 S.E. 2d 434 (N.C. 1997)…………………………………………………………………………………………….
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH CIRCUIT RULE 32 (a)(7) (B)
I hereby certify that the preceding Brief complies with Circuit Rule 32 (a) (7) (B). The word processing system utilized to prepare Plaintiff’s Appellant’s Brief Microsoft word 2000, indicates the Brief contains 1,319 words, excluding parts exempted by Fed. Rule App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii) which complies with the type volume limitations of Circuit Rule 32(a)(7)(B).
Respectfully submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
__________________
Plaintiff-Appellant
No comments:
Post a Comment