ALDERMAN EDWARD BURKE COULD NOT TALK HIS WAY OUT OF A PAPER BAG IN THIS CASE

FEDERAL JUDGE HAD SAID COMPLAINT BEFORE HIM SINCE APRIL 16, 2013.

IT WAS NOT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 17, 2013, HE DISMISSED THE ENTIRE CASE ONLY BECAUSE JUNE 27, 2013, PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ET AL., WITH AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED DEMONSTRATING ALDERMAN ED BURKE'S CONTROL AND INFLUENCE OVER ALL COURTS;

    A-)   SEPTEMBER 4, 2013, MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE;

    B-)    SAID AFFIDAVITS DEMONSTRATED BEYOND THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE LEGAL STANDARD RACIAL DISCRIMINATION WAS BEING EXERCISED AND LODGED AT THE APPELLANT FOR STANDING UP TO THE DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL MACHINE;

    C-)   SAID JUDGE CITED AN ERRONEOUS CASE ROOKER-FELDMAN AND THAT THE CASE WAS FRIVOLOUS AND THAT JUDGES HAD ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY;

    D-)   THE JUDGES LEGAL CITATIONS WERE IN FACT PROPERLY IMPEACHED ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ET AL;

JUDGE EDMOND E. CHANG IN AN ATTEMPT TO SAVE ALL PARTIES COMPLICIT IN TERRORIST ACTS DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE NO ONE WAS ABLE TO LEGALLY REFUTE ANY OF THE FACTS PUT BEFORE THE COURT;

APPELLANT HAD TO FILE THE PROPER MOTION (OCTOBER 1, 2013) FOR RECONSIDERATION VACATE ORDERS DUE TO CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, TERRORISTS ACTS, BIAS, CORROBORATION OF FRAUD, PERJURY, CONSPIRACY BY STATE & COUNTY DEMOCRATIC JUDGES REMAND/BODY ATTACHMENT INSTANTER ET AL., 
     A-)    COURT DATE WAS SCHEDULED OCTOBER 8, 2013 AT 8:30AM, JUDGE CHANG EXPEDITIOUSLY DENIED THE MOTION SO AS TO PREVENT THE APPELLANT FROM APPEARING BEFORE HIM IN COURT EMBARRASSING ED BURKE AND HIS LEGAL TEAM OF CONFEDERATE TERRORISTS;

     B-)    JUDGE CHANG DISMISSED THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WHICH CLEARLY UNEQUIVOCALLY DEMONSTRATED UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF MAYOR RAHM EMMANUEL, COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS CHARGING 420 EAST OHIO WITH RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND SOURCE OF INCOME DISCRIMINATION;

     C-)     JUDGE CHANG DISMISSED THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WHICH CLEARLY UNEQUIVOCALLY DEMONSTRATED UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF MAYOR RAHM EMMANUEL, COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS CHARGING 345 EAST OHIO WITH SOURCE OF INCOME DISCRIMINATION;
     D-)     SAID JUDGE WAS IN RECEIPT OF BOTH DOCUMENTS WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE MOTION;

THAT ON OCTOBER 3, 2013, JUDGE CHANG DISMISSED SAID MOTION SAYING IT WAS FRIVOLOUS IGNORING THE HUMAN RIGHTS RELATIONS CHARGES;

HERE ARE TWO RACIST IMPLICATIONS:

1.)   IS JUDGE CHANG SAYING APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT IS FRIVOLOUS ONLY BECAUSE OF HIS SKIN COLOR IN THAT WHITE ATTORNEYS WERE AUTHORIZED NEVER TO RESPOND TO THE APPELLANT HE WAS OUT OF THEIR LEAGUES LET THE JUDGES HANDLE HIM" THIS CAME FROM AN IRISH ATTORNEY WHO HAD NO BEEF WITH THE APPELLANT WHO HAD A WIFE AND A MORTGAGE BUT WAS WILLING TO HELP HIM BUT JUST NEVER MENTION HIS NAME";

2.)    IS JUDGE CHANG SAYING RAHM EMMANUEL IS FRIVOLOUS BECAUSE HE IS A JEW? OR HIS ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE THEY DEMONSTRATED INTEGRITY FILING THE PROPER CHARGES WHERE WARRANTED?

3.)     APPELLANT HAS BEEN UP AGAINST ALL OF ED BURKE'S HAND PICKED ATTORNEYS EVEN HIS HAND PICKED LAW PROFESSORS WHEN JUDGE TERRANCE EVANS OF THE 7TH CIRCUIT HAD A CLERK TO INFORM APPELLANT IF HE WANTED TO CHANGE LAWS AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE PRESENT US A BRIEF NOT MOTIONS BRIEFS ARE WHAT CHANGES THE LAWS EVER SINCE APPELLANT PRESENTED SAID BRIEF IN THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT AS LAWYERS LIED THROUGHOUT NO JUDGE HAS EVER ORDERED ANY ATTORNEY TO BRIEF AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN FEDERAL COURT EVER AGAIN.

I AM WONDERING HOW MUCH DID JUDGE CHANG RECEIVE IN DOLLARS TRYING TO "FIX" THIS CASE?

JUDGE CHANG IS WEARING THE JUDGES ROBE MERELY AS A HALLOWEEN COSTUME BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE HOW PRESIDENT OBAMA APPOINTED HIM TO THE BENCH HE LACKS ANY INTEGRITY ASIANS ARE NOTED FOR HAVING.

THIS CASE IS BEING READ IN OVER 64 COUNTRIES CAN "YOU" IDENTIFY WHAT IS WRONG IN THIS CASE?