WHY ILLINOIS IS IN NEED OF A SPECIAL UNITED STATES INTERIM PROSECUTOR:

MEMORIAL DAY SPECIAL WEEKEND POST

THIS POST IS DEDICATED TO COUNTLESS MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE SACRIFICED THEIR LIVES IN WARS THAT WAS SENSELESS AND TO THOSE MEN VICTIMIZED BY RACIAL INJUSTICE LOSING THEIR LIVES BEHIND BARS.

SEE THE POST DATED MARCH 29, 2012. (BRIEF)

THE BRIEF CLEARLY GIVES A VIVID DETAILED ACCOUNT on how ORGANIZED the POLITICAL MACHINE is in the COURTS and the extent they are willing to exhaust to FLAUNT their MUSCLE in how they FLAUNT and CONTROL JUDGES and VERDICTS of particular cases.

The FBI & US ATTORNEY have been following this case for quite some time because it was properly presented before the courts legally without any flaws it was probably everyone's disposition finally CORRUPTION and the POLITICAL MACHINE will now have it's day in COURT.

LEGAL ANALYSTS had an inside scoop of JUDGES Ann Claire Williams, Diane Sykes,Kenneth Ripple DISMISSED the BRIEF that was not IMPEACHED by any of the DEFENDANTS or OBJECTED to by any of the DEFENDANTS and did not allow the allow the PLAINTIFF JOE LOUIS LAWRENCE TO ARGUE ANY MERITS OF A WELL PRESENTED BRIEF!

Only after a MOTION was filed (May 22, 2012) Motion for Reconsideration Vacate Orders Dismissing Complaint due to Error, and or Misunderstanding of case before the court, Reset Hearing Date, Appoint Counsel w/Affidavit before Senior Judge Milton Irving Shadur.

A clerk in the Court of Appeals informed the Appellant that a MANDATE coincidentally was entered the day of the phone call after 9:00am (May 25, 2012).

The Clerk identified the names of the judges as mentioned above.

Saturday May 26 a envelope mailed from the Court of Appeals with 3 pages in the envelope first page cover page, 2nd page NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF MANDATE
                                  TO: THOMAS G. BRUTON
                                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                         NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
                                         CHICAGO, ILL 60604-0000

NO: 11-3481   JOE LOUIS LAWRENCE
                        PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
                                     V.
                         RACHEL L. KAPLAN, et al.,
                         DEFENDANT-APPELLEES

ORIGINATING CASE INFORMATION:

DISTRICT COURT NO: 1:11-CV-06887
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN W. DARRAH

HEREWITH IS THE MANDATE OF THIS COURT IN THIS APPEAL, ALONG WITH THE BILL OF COSTS, IF ANY. A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE OPINION/ORDER OF THE COURT AND JUDGMENT, IF ANY, AND ANY DIRECTION AS TO COSTS SHALL CONSTITUTE THE MANDATE.

RECORD ON APPEAL STATUS:                                   NO RECORD TO BE RETURNED



NOTE TO COUNSEL
IF ANY PHYSICAL AND LARGE DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE, THEY ARE


3 PAGE FINAL
TO BE WITHDRAWN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE. EXHIBITS NOT WITHDRAWN DURING THIS PERIOD WILL BE DISPOSED OF.

PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THESE DOCUMENTS ON THE ENCLOSED COPY OF THIS NOTICE.

         __________________________________________________


RECEIVED ABOVE MANDATE AND RECORD, IN ANY, FROM THE CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.

DATE:                                                                      RECEIVED BY:


______________________                                    _________________________


THERE WAS NO COURT ORDER OR JUDGMENT!

IT IS IRONIC JUDGE DIANE SYKES WHO WAS PROPERLY NAMED AND MENTIONED IN AN AFFIDAVIT DISQUALIFYING HER FROM THIS VERY CASE FOR BIAS see the April 26th Post naming all Judges took part in ignoring the LAW as the participated in an ORGANIZED CONSPIRACY;

FOR THIS VERY REASON IMPEACHES JUDGE SYKES AUTHORITY IN THIS MATTER DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND RETALIATORY CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AT THE APPELLANT.

THE ONLY DOCUMENTATION THAT WOULD CORROBORATE SAID JUDGES INVOLVEMENT IN THIS ORGANIZED CHAIN CONSPIRACY THAT IS IF THEIR NAMES ARE IN FACT CERTIFIED IN THEIR HAND WRITING ON A COURT ORDER.
    
23 Questions for Seventh Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes: [Editor's note: The Fall 2004 issue of The Appellate Advocate, the newsletter of the Indiana State Bar Association's Appellate Practice Section, has just been distributed to that section's membership. The newsletter contains an interview that Thomas M. Fisher of the Office of the Indiana Attorney General conducted in writing with Seventh Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes. When the scheduled October 2004 "20 questions" interviewee advised that he was unable to participate shortly after receiving the questions that I had prepared for him, I asked Tom if I could reprint his interview with Judge Sykes in its place. Tom, the newsletter's editor-in-chief, and Judge Sykes have all agreed. With many thanks to all three of them, what follows is a verbatim republication of the interview contained in the Fall 2004 issue of The Appellate Advocate.]


   In your experience, how valuable is oral argument? How do you prepare for oral argument, and how do you use oral argument to help you decide cases? What do you like to hear at oral argument that can change your mind? What causes you to lose faith in an argument?

I generally find oral argument to be helpful. I read the briefs, the parts of the record that are important to the appeal, and the significant governing law prior to oral argument but do not generally prepare specific questions in advance, other than perhaps jotting down certain general areas of inquiry. Oral argument can help test the basic foundation of a party's legal argument and identify its weaknesses and outer limits. I like to hear a straightforward discussion of the legal principles that govern the appeal and how the facts of the case do or do not satisfy those principles. Beyond that, it's important for counsel to think about and be prepared to discuss the broader consequences of a ruling in the client's favor.
Do you typically find amicus briefs to be helpful to the court and a good use of resources, or do you find them to be annoying distractions bound for the circular file?

I don't have a good general answer to this question. In some cases I have found amicus briefs to be very helpful -- sometimes better than the parties' briefs. In other cases the amicus briefs have been simply repetitive.

7. What brief writing techniques do you find most persuasive? What common mistakes should lawyers strive to avoid in writing briefs?

The usual rules about good writing prevail in this context. A good brief will be clear, concise, and well-organized.

Some basic rules: Take the time to identify and state the issues with precision and clarity. Begin the argument section with the legal standards that govern the appeal, and then discuss and resolve the individual issues in the case. Do not overstate case holdings or legal propositions in the case law. Remember to tell the court what you want in terms of a holding -- something more specific than "affirm" or "reverse."

Common mistakes are: weak articulation of the issues; poor organization; too much factual detail; too many block quotes; long headings and subheadings; hyperbole. For other rules, perils, and pitfalls, reread (or read for the first time) Strunk & White's Elements of Style. I return to this classic often. The following admonition from the book is humbling, but time-honored and true:

THE KU KLUX KLAN ACT OF 1871 SECTION 4, STATES "WHENEVER IN ANY STATE OR PART OF A STATE.....UNLAWFUL COMBINATIONS........SHALL BE ORGANIZED AND ARMED, AND SO NUMEROUS AND POWERFUL ET AL..........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........"                      

A LAW ENACTED BY A CIVIL WAR GENERAL 18TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES REPUBUBLICAN. ULYSSES S. GRANT.

IT WAS DURING THIS ERA ON DEMOCRATS ENGAGED IN THESE RACIST HEINOUS ACTS ON PEOPLE OF COLOR. 

BEFORE I PREPARE TO PRESENT THIS TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT MUST EXHAUST ALL LEGAL MANEUVERS.

IT IS CLEAR THE JUDGES HAVE DECLARED A CIVIL WAR ON PEOPLE OF COLOR AND AGAINST  THE UNITED STATES WITH ANARCHY RULINGS!

SO HOW CAN AMERICA GO TO WAR WITH ANY OTHER COUNTRY WE ARE AT WAR WITH OURSELVES SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEXIONS OF OUR SKIN TONES!

POWERFUL WHITE MEN WITH POWER OPPRESSING THE WEAK, THE INNOCENT, THE ELDERLY STEALING INCARCERATING YOUNG MEN SO AS TO FILL UP THE JAILS SO THAT PRIVATE PRISONS CAN GENERATE PROFITS.

APPELLANT FOUGHT BACK AS THE FEDERAL OFFICIALS WAS NEVER OUT OF THE LOOP OF WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE COURTS.

CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED? WHY IS IT NO ONE HAS BEEN INDICTED OR ARRESTED?

A BLACK, A HISPANIC MAN, A LATINO MAN CAN SPEND UP TO 25-35 YEARS OF THEIR LIVES EITHER INCARCERATED FOR RIMES THEY ARE INNOCENT OF OR AS IN THIS CASE ALMOST 27 YEARS TIED UP IN THE COURTS UNLAWFULLY WHILE "POWERFUL CORRUPT WHITE MEN" OF THE POLITICAL MACHINE DRAG THIS SHIT ON AND ON!    

PERFECT EXAMPLE OF MISCOMMUNICATION IN THE COURTS HOW BLACKS PAY AT THE EXPENSE OF THIS LEVEL OF MISCOMMUNICATION.

On Wednesday I appeared on behalf of Alwanna Knight (Godmother) before Judge Milton I. Shadur, Senior District Court Judge, due to her being very ill and could not attend her Hearing;

The Judge was extremely pleasant but did not in anyway reflect a person who described her Complaint as "BLUNDERBUSS" which begs the question DID HE REALLY HER COMPLAINT OR DID ANOTHER JUDGE PRESIDE OVER THE MATTER AS A FAVOR FOR HIM HELPING WITH HIS CASE LOAD--- YOU BE THE JUDGE.

IF A JUDGE IS FAIR I WILL CALL HIM FAIR NOTHING MORE OR LESS, BUT IF HE OE SHE IS ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE CONTRARY YOU WILL READ ABOUT IN MY AFFIDAVITS.

DIRECT STATEMENTS FROM AFFIDAVIT OF Jan 24, 2012 before the United States Court of Appeals, the Judges Remanded it back to the District Court

1)    Appellant is indigent and cannot afford an attorney, the District Court Judge ordered Appellant to pay the $350 filing fee on or before January 25, 2012 needed to gain entry to the federal court house door;      

A-  Said Senior District Court Judge has demonstrated Racism Terrorist control in that, his statement is clear because of Appellant’s skin color, he was capable of  using his robe to deny Appellant any relief in his court; 

B-   Appellant filed her Complaint, Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Motion to proceed Informa  Pauperis (January 3, 2012);

C-    Judge Shadur unlawfully DENIED both the Motion and Informa Pauperis application, Jan. 5, 2012;

  

2)    That Judge Shadur made racist denigrating remarks of the legally sufficient documents, stating “And if that blunderbuss characterization, coupled with a $10 million demand………et al  

A-  Blunderbuss defined in Webster as a noun, 1) An old fashioned, short gun with a large bore and flaring mouth. 2) One who blunders.

B-   Said Judge did not exercise the proper usage of the noun in the context he attempted to ridicule said legal document, and further amplifies, the lack of professional integrity on the bench;

IN THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Alwanna Knight

            Plaintiff                                                              CIVIL ACTION NO 12-CV 00011

                                                                                       Judge Milton I. Shadur                  

            V                                                                          

Aurora Loan Services, LLC

             Defendant   

   

                                                 NOTICE OF MOTON

Please be advised that on May 21, 2012, A Motion for Reconsideration Vacate Orders Dismissing Complaint due to Error, and or Misunderstanding of case before the court, Reset Hearing Date, Appoint Counsel

        

COURTESY COPIES TO THE FOLLOWING:

Plaintiff shall appear present said Motion June 18^th 2012 @9:00am

Dir. Mueller, FBI, Wash. D.C

.

Robert Grant                              U.S. Atty. Pat. Fitzgerald

FBI                                           219 South Dearborn, Suite 500

2111 West Roosevelt Road          Chicago, Ill. 60604

Chicago, Ill. 60612

Madam Dorothy Tucker (Anchorwoman)

Channel 2 News

22 West Washington

Chicago, Ill. 60602

Because the Court has not INVOKED JURISDICTION on Dutton & Dutton, P.C.

                                                                                            10325 W. Lincoln Highway

                                                                                             Frankfort, Il 60423 this Motion was not tendered to them.

                                                                                   

I affirm the above as being true.

                                                                                            Respectfully Submitted

                                                                                              Alwanna Knight

                                                                                              5721 S. Justine

                                                                                             Chicago, Ill. 60636

                                                                                              (773) 430-4387

                                                                                       

IN THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Alwanna Knight

            Plaintiff                                                              CIVIL ACTION NO 12-CV 00011

                                                                                       Judge Milton I. Shadur                  

            V                                                                          

Aurora Loan Services, LLC

             Defendant   

          

MOTON FOR RECONSIDERATION VACATE ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT DUE TO ERROR, AND OR MISUNDERSTANDING OF CASE BEFORE THE COURT, RESET HEARING DATE, APPOINT COUNSEL

           

Now comes Alwanna Knight, Pro Se Appellant in this cause files herewith her affidavit as required by Title 28, attesting the veracity and accuracy of all statements recorded within.      

   Based thereon, plaintiff-appellant respectfully moves this Honorable Court to read the merits of this motion personally so as to recognize its error and enforce the laws in accordance to the United States Constitution and according to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure not to dismiss said matter presented before this court but grant Special Consideration in this matter, due to the unlawful injustices recorded in said Affidavit compelling this court to act in accordance to the Laws of the United States Constitution Instanter to execute jurisdiction over the parties (Aurora Loan Services) involved in this proceeding .

May 21, 2012

                                                                               Respectfully Submitted

                                                                                           Alwanna Knight                                                                                          

                                                               5721 South Justine

                                                               Chicago, Ill. 60636

                                                                (773) 340-4387

 IN THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

                                           AFFIDAVIT

                                         In Support of

 

          MOTON FOR RECONSIDERATION VACATE ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT DUE TO ERROR, AND OR MISUNDERSTANDING OF CASE BEFORE THE COURT, RESET HEARING DATE, APPOINT COUNSEL

I Alwanna Knight, being duly sworn on oath states:

1.)          That Hon. Milton I. Shadur set this matter for Hearing May 16, 2012, due to illness, she was unable to attend;

2.)      That my Godson Joe Louis Lawrence appeared in my behalf and requested said extension, it was gleaned from the matter, that Judge Shadur stated, “Appellant was suing a lot of folks, Judges in particular in that, they have absolute immunity“  which was not true, a court reporter transcribed the entire matter;

3.)      That Joe Louis Lawrence prepared and assisted in all legal matters, in that Judge Shadur is referencing his case on appeal under deliberation, he has State Judges and Circuit Court Judges named in his Complaint, hereto attached, Group Ex A Brief Filed before the United States Court of Appeals, March 26, 2012; (Joe Louis Lawrence V. Sec. of State, Clerk of Cir Court, States Atty.,  Atty Gen., Circuit Court Judges, State Judges, ATU 241, CTA Rachael Kaplan, Kent Stephen Ray)

4.)      That Judge Shadur is very well advanced in years respectfully and has probably forgot more than many of us may remember, but at any rate his demeanor was patient and respectable, it was clear from his delivery he was either misinformed about the case before him or was arguing merits of what is properly briefed in said Group Ex A;

5.)      That Appellant forgot to inform said Godson of Graduations June 8, at 9:00am in the event the case is rescheduled on that date and Joe Louis Lawrence’s son graduate Monday June 11, 2012;

A-   Motions for Reconsideration are designed to bring to the court’s attention newly discovered evidence that was unavailable at time of original hearing, changes in existing law, or errors in court’s application of law. Continental Cas. Co. v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, App. 1 Dist. 1996, 216 Ill. Dec. 314, 279 Ill. App. 3d 815, 665 N.E. 2d 374, appeal dismissed, et al.;

B-    The purpose of a Motion to Vacate is to alert the trial court to errors it has made and to afford an opportunity for their correction. In re Marriage of King, App. 1 Dist. 2002, 270 Ill. Dec. 540, 336 Ill. App. 3d 83, 783 N.E. 2d 115, rehearing denied pending appeal; et al.

 

C-   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 party’s pleadings. Professional Group Travel, Ltd. v. Professional Seminar Consultants Inc., 136 ILL App 3d 1084, 483 N.E. 2d 1291; Buzzard v. Bolger, 117 ILL App 3d 887, 453 N.E. 2d 1129 et al.

6.)      That Chicago is the most Corrupt City in America, Huffington Post, Internet Newspaper, February 23, 2012;

7.)       University of Illinois Professor Dick Simpson, “The two worst crime zones in Illinois are the governor’s mansion…..and the City Council Chambers in Chicago.” Simpson a former Chicago Alderman told the AP “no other State can match us.”

The United States Supreme Court has held that 28 USCA 1915 (e) (1) does not authorize a Federal Court to require an unwilling attorney to represent an indigent litigant in a Civil case; Mallard V. U.S. Dist. Court for Southern Dist. Of Iowa, 490 US 296, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 104 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1989) et al;

          

8.)       The Informa Pauperis Statute requires that the litigant be unable to obtain counsel 28 USCA 1915 (e) (1) before appointment may be considered, so a plaintiff must present evidence that reasonably diligent effort to obtain counsel has been made before the court will favorably consider their application; Nelson V. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F 2d 1003 (8^th Cir 1984) rejected on other grounds by U.S. et al;.

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 in part on an evaluation by a member of the bar that the claim has no merit; Pena V. Choo, 826 F 168 (2d Cir. 1987).

9.)      There are a number of factors which a court may consider in making a determination regarding the propriety of Appointing Counsel including (1) whether the litigants cause of action appears to be meritorious; (2) whether the litigant is financially unable to employ Counsel; (3) whether the litigant, after diligent effort, has been unable to secure counsel, such inability including inability because of financial status, reluctance of local lawyers to take the case , or other reasons; 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 Officers, 802 F 2d 58 (2d Cir 1986).

The timeliness of the request is also a factor; 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; Nelson V. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F 2d.1003 (8^th Cir. 1984) rejected on other grounds by 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 (9^th Cir1986).

                    

      A- Said judges have DENIED every legally sufficient document Appellant has put before the court protecting and upholding corruption and Terrorism in this State, City of Chicago 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. And most important, 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)

   

          10.)   Said judges are cognizant the FBI received Notice and knowledge on the State level ignoring said Civil Rights because  she stood up to Racial Injustice trying to steal her home, Jennings v. Patterson, 488 F. 2d 442, equal access to public facilities. The court found that the plaintiffs had been “denied the right to hold and enjoy their property on the same basis as white citizens.” Jennings suggests the potential usefulness of the equal benefit clause in guaranteeing full and equal enjoyment of public property and public services.” Developments in the Law section 1981, 15 Harv. Civ. Rts. ---- Civ. Lib. L. Rev 29, 133 (1980). Said judges have demonstrated no regard for the FBI or The Laws of the United States Constitution in Appellant’s attempt to obtain Equal Access to the Courts   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.

          11.)   Said judges have demonstrated they are “Above the Law” and has employed tactics validating the veracity they are “Untouchable”  Vaughn 462 S.E. 2d 728 (Ga. 1995), The Supreme Court of Georgia removed a judge from office for disregarding defendant’s constitutional rights.

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 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. RT., 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). 

12.)   To further amplify the heinous depraved double standard of the laws Civil Rights violations,  Court Order signed by Judge Sheila Finnegan appointing an attorney to case #11-cv-5517, a Caucasian woman, with an application to proceed informa pauperis, House worth $235,000.00, income of $750.00, and money in the bank;

A- Federal Judge in an Organized Racist Civil Rights Terrorists Act ORDERED widower, a great-grandmother, a mother, a grand-mother  (Plaintiff) case #12-cv-11,  filed an affidavit with her informa pauperis application with her Complaint, Judge Milton I. Shadur Senior Judge ORDERED her to pay $350 filing fee on or before January 25, 2012 before her case could go forward;

U.S. Supreme 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. 270, 154 L. Ed. 2d 744, on remand 371 F 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.    

 Wednesday April 26, 2006 Page 1, Illinois Political Machines help breed Corruption, Associated press writer Deanna Bellandi states” Illinois is apparently a Petri Dish for corruption. It is a real Breeding ground”

                                                                                           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.         

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. 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).                

                                           FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT 

Wherefore the aforementioned reasons Appellant respectfully requests that Judge Milton I. Shadur reinstate said complaint and invoke jurisdiction on Aurora Loan Services and have the U.S. Marshall’s to effect service on them;

2.)  Reconsideration for appointment of an attorney is enforced instanter.

3.)  Issue aRULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FRAUD & CONTEMPT OF COURT, for any and all parties responsible for the enforcement of this matter;

                                                         Respectfully submitted,

                                                            Alwanna Knight

                                                               Pro Se

                                   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

  

I Alwanna Knight, plaintiff, certify that I have on this day deposited said Notice of Motion and Motion to all parties recorded in said Notice of Motion via regular mail, hand delivery, via fax transmission.

Dated May 21, 2012

                                                                                  _____________________          

                                                                                    Alwanna Knight

                                                                                               Pro Se

                                              CERTIFICATE OF ATTORNEY PRO SE

   I hereby certify that I am the Pro Se Plaintiff-Appellant in the above entitled cause, and as such prepared the above affidavit and is cognizant of the proceedings there is and that such affidavit and application are made in good faith and not for the purpose of hindrance or delay.

                                                                                                                                  Respectfully Submitted

                                                                                                                                      Alwanna Knight

                                                                                                                                       5721 S. Justine

                                                                                                                          Chicago, Illinois 60636  

Monday May 21, 2012