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!