DOMESTIC TERRORISTS HAVE INFILTRATED THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND IS JUDGES AS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN COMMITTING GENOCIDE AND RACIAL OPPRESSION ON #BLACKANDBROWN PEOPLE FILLING UP THE JAILS AS THE NEW CONCENTRATION CAMPS OR PLANTATIONS CREATING MODERN DAY SLAVES:
DOMESTIC TERRORISTS HAVE FOUND A WAY TO UNDERMINE THE INTEGRITY OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BY OPPRESSING INDEPENDENT WHITES USING THE APPROPRIATES METHODOLOGIES NECESSARY WEARING THEM DOWN FINANCIALLY IN ALL LEGAL ARENAS SO AS TO YIELD THE IMPRESSION, THEIR ISSUES ARE BEING ADDRESSED WHEN IN FACT THEY ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED:
NELSON MANDELA SPENT 26 YEARS OF HIS LIFE BEHIND BARS DUE TO RACIAL APARTHEID BEFORE ANY CHANGES TOOK PLACE FOR THE FREEDOM OF OF OTHER AFRICANS IN HIS COUNTRY:
IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS THIS CITY CAN BEST BE DESCRIBED AS A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY FRONTING AS A CIVILIZED STATE WHERE GUN TOTING HOODLUMS ARE BEST DESCRIBED AS REBELS WHERE MILITARY PERSONNEL SHOULD BE DEPLOYED TO ELIMINATE AND ASCERTAIN ALL PARTIES PROVIDING THEM AMMUNITION TO REIN HAVOC ON THE COMMUNITIES---WHERE THE JUDGES THAT ENGAGES IN CORRUPT INJUSTICE WEARING A ROBE SHOULD BE TREATED AS A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND A THREAT TO ALL CITIZENS OF THE CITY.
THIS CASE GIVES THE ACADEMIC BLUEPRINT ON HOW THE TERRORIST COUP HAVE INFILTRATED GOVERNMENT POSITIONS WEARING ROBES AND HAVE METHODICALLY HIJACKED THE VERY LAWS AND SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT ENFORCING THEIR LAWS OF RACIAL HATRED ON PEOPLE OF COLOR, POOR OR INDEPENDENT WHITES.
APPEAL TO THE
ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT
FIRST DISTRICT
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF COOK COUNTY
CHANCERY DIVISION
________________________________________________________________________
)
Joe
Louis Lawrence
)
) Trial Court No. 15 CH 1670
Plaintiff-Appellant ) General No. 15-1274
) Division No. 4
V. )
)
420 East
Ohio, Chicago Housing Authority) Hon. F. U. Valderrama
345 East
Ohio, City of Chicago, Comm. )
On Human
Relations
)
Defendants- Appellees )
Motion for
Disqualification of Judge Due to Bias Racist Hate Crimes (Civil Rights
Violations) and or Prejudice pursuant to Canon 3(C) (1) and to Vacate (May 26,
2015) Orders where Civil Rights were Violated
Now comes Plaintiff, Counsel Pro Se Joe Louis Lawrence
in this cause, files herewith his affidavit, factually establishing the Bias
(Civil Rights Violations) Prejudice alleged herein, with exhibits, in
accordance to Supreme Court of Illinois and Canon rules in accordance to the
American Jurisprudence and pleadings (rev.) to show that Judge James Fitzgerald
Smith is Racist and has a overt personal bias against the Appellant and have
corroborated beyond the preponderance of the evidence standards by engaging in
a criminal conspiracy assisting the Appellees denying every challenged Motion
accompanied by an affidavit, he had
personal knowledge of undisputed evidentiary facts demonstrating the Appellees
were complicit in an “Organized Conspiracy” used his robe and judicial
authority to operate outside of his judicial immunity provisions and commit “Treason”
like offenses;
Said judge treated Appellant as if
he was a Deportee, Illegal Immigrant or non U.S. citizen ignored all documents
and is attempting to enforce laws outside of his jurisdiction due to “Fraud, Bias,
and Racial Terrorism;
Based
thereon Plaintiff respectfully moves that Judge James Fitzgerald Smith proceed
no further herein and that the Honorable Timothy C. Evans Chief Judge or
Presiding Judge of the Appellate Court Exec. Committee assigns this matter to a
judge without Domestic Terrorist Fraternal affiliations accordingly and
notifies Federal Officials to ascertain other violations of the laws pursuant
to Appellant’s Affidavits and the judges’ actions in this matter.
In
furtherance to the above pursuant to Canon
3 (D1)
REPORTING JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
CANON 3D (1)
Under Section 3D (1),
a judge who receives information that indicates “a substantial likelihood that
another judge” have violated the Code of Judicial “should take appropriate
action”. The Canon does not require the judge to hold a hearing and make a
definitive decision that a violation has occurred before the reporting
requirement is triggered and at least one state’s judicial ethics committee has
advised that the reporting requirement is triggered when the judge has “sufficient
information” to conclude that a “substantial issue” has been raised that a
violation has occurred, Mass. Comm. On Judicial Ethics, Op. 2002-04 (2002)
“Appropriate action” may include direct communication with the judge who
has committed the violation and reporting the violation to the appropriate or
other agency or body. See Commentary to Canon 3D (1). “Appropriate authority”
is the authority with responsibility for initiation of disciplinary proceedings
with respect to the violation reported. Some jurisdictions’ rules specify to
whom a judge must report misconduct. For instance, Massachusetts Rule 3D (1)
provides that if a judge becomes aware of another judge’s unprofessional
conduct he must report his knowledge to the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts
Supreme Court and the court of which the judge in question is a member.
Note that the term “knowledge”, as defined in the Terminology Section,
denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question and as such, a person’s
knowledge may be inferred from circumstances. In drafting Section 3D (1), the
Committee rejected the suggestion that the criteria of raising substantial
question as to honesty or trustworthiness be applied in the context of
reporting judicial misconduct as well, on the grounds that those criteria are
implicit in the present criterion of raising a substantial question as to a
judge’s fitness for office.
Federal Officials should be
summoned to ascertain what other criminal allegations is present that are being
ignored pursuant to the threats Judge Valderrama made in open court at the
Plaintiff, “I didn’t like your motion either and apparently you mistook my
kindness for weakness! Sanctions will be imposed upon you since you want to be
a lawyer you will be treated like a lawyer”!
Furthermore, he never opened his
mouth to admonish any of the attorneys who committed perjury saying they were
never served but told the Plaintiff in a hostile “he better tread lightly”
there were no Sheriff’s in the court room when this took place.
This
is the first motion to recuse in this cause made by the movant,
Respectfully Submitted,
By:
_________________
Joe
Louis Lawrence
Counsel
Pro Se
P. O. Box 490075
312
927-4210
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
)
COUNTY OF COOK )
AFFIDAVIT
In support of Motion to Disqualify
Judge James Fitzgerald Smith for Bias and or Prejudice pursuant to Canon 3 (c)
(1) and to Vacate any Orders where Criminal Conspiracy Civil Rights were
Violated:
1.)
I
am Joe Louis Lawrence, Counsel Pro Se, Plaintiff in this cause, being first
duly sworn on oath deposes and states, as follows;
2.)
I am
informed and believe and based on such information and belief, demonstrate
beyond the Preponderance of evidence standard
that judge James Fitzgerald Smith is a RACIST, whom this cause has pended before, has demonstrated Racist
Hate Crimes, Personal Bias, Prejudice and being in Cahoots with Appellees
engaging in an elaborate “Organized Conspiracy”;
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, particularly in the cases of
judges with regard to the conduct of other judges.
3.)
That because many judges are politically appointed
makes it difficult for an individual to receive Equal Protection of the Laws
because the perpetrators may be “Machine
Democrats” acting as Terrorist violating
the Ku Klux Klan Act which prohibits these very criminal acts.
A-
Said
Judge had knowledge and received affidavits, and court order where Presiding Judge Moche
Jacobius signed a court order granting Appellant to proceed Informa Pauperis
waiving all filing fees in the Circuit Court of Cook County but became a law
unto himself and Denied Appellant’s Motion by upholding Racial Hate Acts by the
Appellees;
Sarah
Bush Lincoln Health Center v. Berlin 268 Ill. App. 4 Dist. 1994, 205 Ill.
Dec. 325, 268; when party is entitled to substitution of judges as matter of right.
pursuant to section 2------1001(a) (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party
is entitled to a substitution of judges as a matter of right if the party has
not entered an appearance in the case and has not been found in default, and
rulings on any substantial issue before the party’s appearance shall not be
grounds for denying an otherwise timely application for substitution of judge
as of right.
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
reasonably 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. R.T., 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).
4.)
The
facts and reasons for the belief that such Racist Bias and or Prejudice with
incredible corroboration and Civil Rights Violations exists, are that, the
following laws were noticeably maliciously violated, said Judge having complete
knowledge and was aware of all “fraudulent”
acts perpetrated by the Appellees but ignored them and engaged in the same
conspiracies demonstrating because of his racist hatred for people of color he
was willing to do whatever it took by obstructing justice in making sure no person
of color receive Equal Protection of the Laws where ever he presides;
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
A-
That
because the judge has committed a series of “Fraudulent Errors” that can best be interpreted as Treason like
offenses an Order Recusing him from this matter Instanter is appropriate
before any other action can take place; said Appellees attorneys needed the judge or
any judge to act outside of their judicial immunity provisions by violating the
laws noted as demonstrated in this matter to help them by aiding and abetting
in the same conspiracy;
B-
Said
Judge violated all Rules of law Canon Ethics, Code of Judicial Conduct Rule
62 Scott, 377
Mass. 364, 386 N.E. 2d 218, 220 (1979) See Lopez-Alexander, Unreported Order
No. 85-279 (Colo. May 3, 1985) (Judge removed for, inter alia, a persistent
pattern of abuse of the contempt power. The Mayor of Denver accepted the
findings of the Denver County Court Judicial Qualification Commission that the
judge’s conduct could not be characterized as mere mistakes or errors of law
and that the conduct constituted willful misconduct in office and conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office
into disrepute). Canon Ethics where there is a pattern of disregard or
indifference, which warrant discipline.
5.)
Said judge acted outside of his jurisdiction where
proper affidavits had accompanied all motions by the Appellant acted as a lone
renegade making sure no other judge in the Division participated in the legal
process because he was cognizant they would not have approved; The judge became
a law unto himself judge and jury! 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).
6.)
Said
judge allowed a plethora of “Fraudulent
Acts to be perpetrated by the Appellees” due to their alleged Racist fraternal
associations because the judge signed
his name on all court orders, validating the veracity and his complicity in all
criminal acts in the aforementioned matter;
7.)
That
because of Judge James Smith role in said Domestic Terrorist Acts, he became an
active conspirator in colluding with Appellees as they committed felonies of
mail fraud, hereto attached, Group Ex A
and City of Chicago, Law Division May 14, 2015;
8.) Appellees sought a Brethren from the Appellate Division to help
them by dismissing this matter by any illegal means necessary and Judge Smith accommodated
every unlawful act assuming because of his white ethnicity would insulate him
from charges; due to his acts, being perpetrated on a person of color because
black and brown lives really don’t matter in Chicago;
9.)
That on May 21, 2015, Appellant received
from his Post Office Box 2 letters post
marked May 19, 2015 from Commission on Human Relations;
10.) Appellees with vexatious Contempt
for the laws continued their Domestic Terrorist Acts of “Fraud” by mailing to
Appellant a court order purportedly by the Chicago Commission on Human
Relations entered May 14, 2015 absent a seal, certification or signature violating
Sup Ct. Rule 272 “if at the time of announcing final
judgment the judge requires the submission of a form of written judgment to be
signed by the judge et al” the judgment becomes final only when the signed
judgment is filed—there is no signed COURT ORDER from the FINAL
JUDGMENT!
11.) Hereto attached, Gr Ex B
Court Order (May 18, 1988) orchestrated by Domestic Terrorist Machine Operatives
absent attorney information or judges signature but Appellant was locked up 5x’s
for allegedly owing child support;
12.) Appellant received specific
instructions from the FBI in ascertaining the needed corroboration of judges
connected in a conspiracy with IBC CTA and the paternity case they made it
clear they did not want 1 or 2 judges they want all of the judges involved;
A- Appellant was to due-diligently
seek reinstatement with the CTA periodically if at any time he was reinstated,
he was to abort this matter and turn over any and all documents to the FBI;
B- Hereto attached, Gr Ex C, Oct. 23, 2014 fax letter sent
to International President and Javier Perez et al ATU;
C- Appellant never at any time
waivered from the objective assigned to him even at the expense of this
operation destroying his family ascertaining the needed corroboration on all
parties involved in this chain conspiracy;
D- The FBI asked the Appellant how he
was going to ascertain the necessary corroboration on all judges. Appellants
reply was to simply take the law to them.
13.) That there is not one Domestic Terrorist
associated in these matters who have alluded Federal jurisdiction, in that
every document filed and presented have been strategically implemented so as to
ascertain the needed corroboration from all active participants in this coup;
A-
Ill. App. (1st Dist. 2000)
“A VOID Judgment 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 judgment 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
Although some trial
judges may not review the orders of other judges, because that would not be
consistent with the orderly administration of justice or with our judicial
system People ex rel. Kelly, Ketting Furth, Lnc. V. Epstein, 61 ILL 2d, 229,
335 N.E. 2d 430 (1974) (Appeal of order as proper remedy); Cruz v. Columbus-Cuneo-Cabrini Medical Center, 194 ILL
App. 3d 1037, 551 N.E. 2d 1345, 141. Dec. 817 (1st Dist. 1990)
ILL. App. (1st Dist. 2000). 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 judgment, 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.
Review of the orders of
one judge by another in the same case is not consistent with effective judicial
administration. 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).
Although the
chancery division of the County Department of the Circuit Court and the
Municipal Department of the Circuit Court have concurrent jurisdiction of
actions to demolish buildings, where the municipal department first acquired
jurisdiction of the subject matter and entered an order of demolition, the
county department could not properly assume jurisdiction and enter an order
preventing municipal departments from entering an order of demolition. Pepin v.
City of Chicago, 79 ILL. App. 2d 295, 224 N.E. 587 (1st Dist. 1967).
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
Despite the United States Constitution and Civil Rights Act Plaintiff
has not been treated as a citizen of the United States in that whites under
this Political System has been able to circumvent the laws and commit treason
like offenses because they are the majority in control in Chicago, Ill.
Political system; Pursuant to Vigus v. O’Bannon is an example of the
“Fraudulent” Racist Acts perpetrated against persons like the Plaintiff
standing up to Racial Injustice and Terrorism!
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 the 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.
14.)That because of
Judge Smith Bias and overt acts of acting outside of the provisions of judicial
immunity demonstrates continuous anarchy in the Appellate Courts; whereby, he
along with other Domestic Terrorist are a part of the coup who have hijacked
the integrity of Justice in Illinois Courts;
15.)That Judge Smith satisfied the Preponderance of Evidence
Standard by taking part in an “Organized
Conspiracy” by signing all of the court orders with his signature;
thereby, validating the veracity of colluding with said Appellees in said Domestic Terrorists Acts and “Perjury”
as reference in Gr Ex A, B;
A judge’s disrespect for the
rules of court demonstrates disrespect for the law. Judges are disciplined
under Canon 2A for violating court rules and procedures. Judge ignored mandated
witness order in attempt to accommodate witnesses’ schedules; Citing Canon 2A
the court noted, “[a] court’s indifference to clearly stated rules breeds
disrespect for and discontent with our justice system. Government cannot demand
respect of the laws by its citizens when its tribunals ignore those very same
laws”)
16.)Jim Crow Laws are still being enacted and enforced in
Chicago, Illinois courts Black and Brown lives simply don’t matter unless you
give your soul to Terrorists and abide by their rules and doctrines;
In the 20th century, the Supreme Court began to
overturn Jim Crow laws on constitutional grounds. In Buchanan v. Warley 245 US 60 (1917), the
court held that a Kentucky law could not require residential segregation. The Supreme Court
in 1946, in Irene Morgan v. Virginia ruled segregation in
interstate transportation to be unconstitutional, in an application of the commerce
clause of the Constitution. It was not until 1954 in Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka 347 US 483 that the court held that separate facilities
were inherently unequal in the area of public schools, effectively overturning Plessy
v. Ferguson, and outlawing Jim Crow in other areas of society as well. This
landmark case consisted of complaints filed in the states of Delaware (Gebhart
v. Belton); South Carolina (Briggs
v. Elliott); Virginia (Davis v. County
School Board of Prince Edward County); and Washington,
D.C. (Spottswode Bolling v. C. Melvin Sharpe).
These decisions, along with other cases such as McLaurin v. Oklahoma State
Board of Regents 339 US 637 (1950), NAACP
v. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958), and Boynton v. Virginia 364 US 454 (1960),
slowly dismantled the state-sponsored segregation imposed by Jim Crow laws.
17.)This is how and why Corruption and Domestic Terrorist have
been able to outsmart Federal Officials because they have infiltrated the very
government and positions designed to protect and uphold citizens civil
liberties;
18.)That any person who is cognizant a document is absent judicial
authority or proper certification and ignores the crime and not report it
becomes an active participant in the conspiracy,
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 SCt. 819,
537 U.S. 270, 154 L.Ed.2d 744, on remand 371F.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.
CONSPIRACY
Fraud maybe inferred from nature of acts complained of, individual and
collective interest of alleged conspirators, situation, intimacy, and relation
of parties at time of commission of acts, and generally all circumstances
preceding and attending culmination of claimed conspiracy Illinois Rockford Corp. V. Kulp,
1968, 242 N.E. 2d 228, 41 ILL. 2d 215.
Conspirators to be guilty of
offense need not have entered into conspiracy at same time or have taken part
in all its actions. People V. Hardison, 1985, 911 Dec. 162, 108.
Requisite mens rea elements of conspiracy are satisfied upon showings of
agreement of offense with intent that offense be committed; Actus reas element is satisfied of act in furtherance of agreement People
V. Mordick, 1981, 50 ILL, Dec. 63
Vaughn 462 S. E. 2d 728 (Ga.1995), The Supreme Court of
Georgia removed a Judge from office for disregarding defendant’s Constitutional
rights; 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 defendants basic constitutional rights;
A-
That
said judge and all Appellees have demonstrated beyond the Preponderance of
Evidence that said acts demonstrates how 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 may be 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 the
ed. 1992).
Finally, this document
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 cannot demand respect of the
laws by its citizens when its tribunals ignore those very same laws”)
Most
recently stated in Federal Court FEDERAL
JUDGE GETTLEMAN: stated, Tuesday March 10, 2009, where he found
Superintendent of police Jody Weiss in Contempt of Court and Ordered the City
to Pay $100,000.00, “No one is above the Law”, he cited a 1928 decision by
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, that said, “If the Government becomes the law breaker, it breeds Contempt for the
Law, It invites everyman to become a law unto himself. It invites Anarchy.”
The Chicago Daily
Law Bulletin, 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”.
That Chicago is the
most Corrupt City in America, Huffington Post, Internet
Newspaper, February 23, 2012; 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.”
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT
Respectfully Submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
Counsel Pro Se
Chicago,
Ill 60649
312 927-4210
WHEREFORE the aforementioned
reasons Appellant respectfully prays that said Judge be recused and all orders
VACATED based upon the reasons cited in this document and noted in the
Affidavits and appropriate Sanctions be imposed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
137:
2.) That
the Chief Judge or Presiding Judge summons Federal authorities to ascertain the
criminal allegations noted to determine what prosecutorial remedies are
afforded in this matter;
3.) That Pursuant to Section
2 (42 U.S.C.) In the House of Representatives.
“Congressional Debate of the second
section of the Ku Klux Klan Act was more extensive and enduring than that of
Section 1; As originally presented, Sec. 2 made it a felony for any “two or
more persons” to conspire to commit certain enumerated crimes “in violation of
the rights and privileges, or immunities of any person, to which he is entitled
under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
“Throughout the debates, supporters
of the Act made repeated references to the depredations of the Ku Klux Klan;
Victims of these atrocities included not only blacks but white Republicans as
well. The crimes that were perpetrated, therefore, were not viewed as isolated
occurrences, but as part of an “Organized Conspiracy….Political in its origin
and aims”, “crimes perpetrated by concert and agreement, by men in large
numbers acting with a common purpose for the injury of a certain class of
citizens entertaining certain political principles, id, at 457 (remarks of Rep. Coburn). See also e.g., id.
At 437 (remarks of Rep. Cobb) (“None but Democrats belong or can belong to
these societies”) et al.
“Where these gangs of Assassins show
themselves the rest of the people look on, if not with sympathy, at least with
forbearance. The boasted courage of the South is not courage in their presence.
Sheriffs, having eyes to see, see not; judges, having ears to hear, hear not;
witnesses conceal the truth or falsify it; grand or petit juries act as if they
might be accomplices. In the presence of these gangs all the apparatus and
machinery of civil government, all the processes of justice, skulk away as if
government and justice were crimes and feared detection. Among the most
dangerous things an injured party can do is to appeal to justice. Of the
uncounted scores and hundreds of atrocious mutilations and murders it is
credibly stated that not one has been punished. Cong. Globe, supra note 2, app.
At 78 (remarks of Rep. Perry). (“While
murder is stalking abroad in disguise, while whippings and lynching’s and
banishment have been visited upon unoffending American citizens, the local
administrations have been found inadequate or unwilling to apply the proper
corrective”) et al., …. And the State made no successful effort to bring the
guilty to punishment or afford protection or redress to the outraged and
innocent.”)
4.) That
Under Section 4 of the Ku Klux Klan
Act of 1871: the law is clear, “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…..”
5.) That all parties complicit in said conspiracies
be charged with Terrorist Acts;
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 1265
5\1-109, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this
instrument are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on
information and belief and as to such matters, the undersigned certifies as
aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.
Respectfully Submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
Counsel Pro Se
Chicago, Ill 60649
312 927-4210
APPEAL TO THE
ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT
FIRST DISTRICT
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF COOK COUNTY
CHANCERY DIVISION
________________________________________________________________________
)
Joe
Louis Lawrence
)
) Trial Court No. 15 CH 1670
Plaintiff-Appellant ) General No. 15-1274
) Division No. 4
V. )
)
420 East
Ohio, Chicago Housing Authority) Hon. F. U. Valderrama
345 East
Ohio, City of Chicago, Comm. )
On Human
Relations
)
Defendants- Appellees )
NOTICE OF FILING
YOU
ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that on May 26, 2015, Plaintiff-Appellant has filed a
Motion to Supplement Record that Corroborates a “Prima Facie” Showing of City
Officials Colluding in Terrorist Acts of Conspiracy w/Affidavit.
Commander
& Chief
Attorney General of United States
President Barack
Obama
Loretta Lynch
The White House U.S. Department of Justice
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500 Washington, DC 20530-0001
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500 Washington, DC 20530-0001
Chief Judge Timothy Evans Judge Moshe
Jacobius
50 West
Washington, Suite 2600
50 West Washington, Suite 2403
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Judge
Mary Lane Mikva Clerk of
Circuit Court, Dorothy Brown
50 West
Washington, Suite 50 West
Washington, Suite 1000
Chicago, Ill
60601
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Atty. Gen, Lisa Madigan Asst. Atty. Gen
Tyler Roland
100 West
Randolph, Suite 1200 100
West Randolph, Suite 1200
Chicago, Ill.
60601
Chicago, Ill. 60601
States Attorney,
Anita Alvarez, Daley Center, Chg. Ill. 60601
Sec of State
Asst Deputy Dir. Candace Cheffin
Asst Gen Counsel Terrence McConville
60 East Van Buren, 8th floor
100 West
Randolph, Suite 500
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Chicago, Ill.
60601
CHA Mobility
CHA Mobility, HCP Counselors
Chris Klepper, Executive
Dir. Tracey Robinson/Joann
Harris
28 East Jackson
Blvd.
4859 S. Wabash, Suite 2nd Floor
Chicago, Ill
60604
Chicago, Ill. 60615
CHA Mobility, Real Estate
Specialist Recorder of
Deeds
Jessie McDaniel
Karen Yarbrough
4859 S.
Wabash
118 N. Clark, Room
120
Chicago, Ill.
60615
Chicago, Ill. 60602
City of Chicago, Department of
Buildings Sabre Investments
Christopher Lynch 120 West Madison Street
121 North
LaSalle, Room 900
Chicago, Ill 60601
Chicago, Ill.
60601
Seyfarth & Shaw
Anne D. Harris,
Jeffrey K. Ross, Kyle A. Petersen, Suite 2400
131 South
Dearborn
Chicago, IL.
60603
Chicago Housing Authority
Office of the
General Counsel, Maria Sewell Joseph, Thomas B. King
60 East Van
Buren
Chicago, IL.
60605
Cary G. Schiff &
Associates Gordon & Rees LLP
Christopher R. Johnson, Yuleida Joy Lindsay Watson, Christian T. Novay
134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1720 1 North Franklin, Suite 800
Chicago, Ill. 60602 Chicago,
Illinois 60606
Stephan R.
Patton, Mary E. Reuther, Rey A. Phillip Santos
Corp Counsel, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Asst
Corp Counsel
30 N. LaSalle
Street, Suite 800
Chicago, Ill
60602
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker LLP
Christian Novay
55 West Monroe,
Street, Suite 3800
Chicago, Ill.
60603
Jessica Mallon, Gen Counsel CHA Roy Martinez Manager 420
East Ohio
60 East Van
Buren
420 East Ohio
Chicago, Ill
60601
Chicago, Ill. 60611
Eve Aywaz,
Sales Consultant Sarah
Aredia, Leasing Consultant
345 East Ohio
420 East Ohio
Chicago, Ill.
60611
Chicago, Ill. 60611
John-Paul
Loseto, Executive Manager
345 East Ohio
Chicago, Ill.
60611
Courtesy Copies:
US Attorney
FBI
Robert J. Holley
Zachary T. Fardon 2111 West Roosevelt Road
219 S. Dearborn, 5th floor Chicago, Ill. 60612
Chicago,
Ill 60604
Hon Judge Neil Cohen
50 West
Washington, Suite 2308
Chicago, Ill
60601
Mayor
Deputy Regional Adm., Field Office Dir.
Rahm Emanuel Beverly E.
Bishop
City Hall 77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Ill.
60601
Chicago, Ill. 60604
Governor
Hon Mark Kirk
525 South 8th St. 607 East
Adams, Suite 1520
Springfield, Ill. 62703 Springfield,
Ill. 62701
Bruce Rauner
100 West Randolph
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Cook County President Cook County
Sheriff
Toni
Preckwinkle Thomas J. Dart
118 N. Clark,
Room 517 Richard
J. Daley Center, Room 701
Chicago, Ill. 60602
Chicago, Ill. 60602
Hon Dick Durbin Hearing
Officer CHA
525 South 8th St.
Frederick Bates
Springfield, Ill. 62703 60 East Van Buren,
Suite 900
Chicago, Ill. 60605
CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that the above notice and
all attachments were caused to be personally delivered, emailed or via
facsimile or deposited in the U.S. mail to the above parties at the addresses
provided before 5:00 pm on May 27, 2015.
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on May 27, 2015 said motion with the
attachments was mailed, emailed hand delivered to all parties recorded in said
notice via regular mail.
_________________________________
Joe
Louis Lawrence, Counsel Pro Se
Name Joe
Louis Lawrence
Attorney
for Pro Se
Address P.O. Box 490075
City,
State Chicago, Illinois 60649-0075
Phone (312) 927-4210
Email joelouislaw@yahoo.com
Twitter @joelouis7
No comments:
Post a Comment