BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES MARSHALL HAVE NOT EFFECTED SERVICE ON THE PARTIES THE ENTIRE 20 PAGE COMPLAINT WILL NOT BE SHARED AT THIS TIME.
MEMBERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL MACHINE HARBORS A RACIAL HATRED TOWARDS PEOPLE OF COLOR AND INDEPENDENT WHITES SO STRONGLY THEY WILL GO TO ANY LENGTHS SEEKING THE BLACK VOTE AND ANYONE THEY CAN MANIPULATE SO AS TO SEEK ANY OFFICE TO KEEP PEOPLE OF COLOR OPPRESSED AND ANYONE THAT OPPOSES THEIR DOCTRINE
BLACK DEMOCRATS SEEMS TO BE WORSE THAN WHITES THEY CLOSE THEIR EYES TO RACIAL OPPRESSION SO AS TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE RACIST WHITE DEMOCRATS WHO DON'T REALLY LIKE THEM OR RESPECT THEM BUT ONLY TOLERATE THEM FOR THEIR VOTES
HELP IS NEEDED BECAUSE MANY DEMOCRATS IN CHICAGO WHO HAVE FRATERNAL CONNECTIONS TO HATE GROUPS DON'T LIKE PEOPLE OF COLOR OR INDEPENDENT WHITES AND THEY WILL DO ANYTHING NECESSARY TO KEEP THE PUBLIC FROM LEARNING OF THEIR RACIST OPPRESSIVE TACTICS THEY ARE USING AND EXHAUSTING IN THE COURTS AND ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM.
JUSTIA.COM
JUSTIA.COM
Lawrence v. 420 East Ohio et al
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription toPACER is required.
Complaint of Civil
Rights Violations
Unequal Protection of the Laws Violations
Jim Crow Violations
Judicial
Corruption/Public Corruption Conspiracy
Public Officials/Fraud/Conspiracy
To the Honorable Judges of the United States District Court
for the Northern District:
Complainant a United States Citizen, Joe Louis
Lawrence, hereby respectfully represents as Counsel Pro Se shows this court
with corroboration/admissions and affidavit the noted reasons why this matter
should be within this court’s Jurisdiction; {Pursuant to (A) Color (Title V11 of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981)
(B) Race (Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981)
Racial
Discrimination, Racial Retaliation, Racial Hatred, Racial Oppression, Civil
Rights Violations, Unequal Applications of the Laws, and Disparate Treatment on
the basis of race, color or national origin (42 U.S.C. 1981).
This court has Jurisdiction over the statutory
violation alleged as conferred as follows: over Title V11 claims by U.S.C. {1331, 28 U.S.C. {1343 (a) (3), and 42
U.S.C. {2000e-5 (F) (3); over 42 U.S.C. {1981 and {1983 by 42 U.S.C. {1988;
over the A.D.E.A. by 42 U.S.C. {12117}.
In addition, alleged violations of the noted Sections of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
all noted Public Officials with authority closed their eyes to the enumerated
crimes within.
To: Dir.
James Comey, FBI Washington D.C.
FBI
Michael J. Anderson 2111 West Roosevelt Road, Chicago, Ill. 60612
US Attorney, Zachary T. Fardon 219 S. Dearborn, Suite 500
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on July 21, 2016, A Civil Rights Complaint has been filed before the United
States District Court.
Respectfully
Submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence Counsel Pro Se
PO Box 490075
Chicago, Ill. 60649-0075
312 927-4210
@joelouis7
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I
Joe Louis Lawrence, certify that I have
on this day filed said Notice of Civil Complaint and Jurisdictional Statement before
the Northern District Court of Illinois.
Dated
July 21, 2016
_____________________
Joe Louis Lawrence
Counsel Pro Se
CIVIL
RIGHTS COMPLAINT ET AL
Jurisdictional
Statement
Order entered: June 6, 2016 and July 5, 2016
Notice of Civil Rights Complaint: July
21, 2016
Statute: Unequal Protection of the
Laws Violations, Disparate Unequal Protection of the Laws, Civil Rights
Violations, Housing Discrimination, Judicial
Bias, Judges Acting outside of their immunity provisions, Jim Crow Violations, Violations
of the provisions of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, Judicial Abuse of Discretion, Racial Terrorism Conspiracy,
Perjury, Admission of all facts by all Defendants, No Objections by any
Defendants, Public, Political, Fraternal Corruption Conspiracies, Fraud on the
Courts and other Un-Constitutional Lawless Violations.
Plaintiff
is appealing to the United States District
Court, for a reversal and remand with instructions based on the
foregoing stated above:
The United
States District Court 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 District Court 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 District
Court because as a”Pro Se” “Informa Pauper’s“ the admissions recorded in this instrument
demonstrates under the Illinois Legal system Black and Brown lives don’t matter
and the Jim Crow methods still being exercised criminalizing persons of color
for attempting to rise above racial injustice perpetrated on innocent
persons.
Plaintiff is
before the United States District
Court because of the color of his skin all defendants have admitted to
all criminal acts and civil rights violations but the judges have ignored all
admissions affidavits, the Laws and laws 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 political guidelines;
For all of
the aforementioned reasons is why Plaintiff is before the United States District Court for Jurisdiction and Enforcement.
I affirm the
above as being true.
Respectfully Submitted,
Counsel Pro Se
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT
In support of Civil Rights Complaint et al.
{Pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. 1446 (a)}
I Joe Louis Lawrence, Heterosexual Man Born
and Raised a Free MAN Pro Se, HAVE BEEN MANY TIMES DENIED IN ALL COURTS
NEVER TRIED being duly sworn on oath states: That all Defendant’s acted
knowingly, intentionally, willfully and maliciously within the aforementioned,
due to his skin color and non-affiliation to terrorist cells within the
Democratic Political Machine:
1.)
That on June 21,
2016, and pursuant to the clerk’s directive an Amended Certificate of Service
filed June 22, 2016 including Judge Valderrama’s name, Plaintiff filed a Motion
before Illinois Supreme Court, (Motion for Reconsideration & Vacate June 1,
2016 Order absent Certification due to “Fraud” Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
272, hereto attached, Vol. 1, Gr Ex A;
A-
State Law is Clear and unambiguous, Par. 1 and 2 of Ex A were ignored
by the Supreme Court justices, denied the Motion with no signature;
B-
That all Defendants have admitted via State Laws court
transcripts, affidavits and no objections complete admissions but the Illinois
Supreme Court had an insurgent within the membership to mail from Springfield a
Blank Court Order absent a Certified Signature or name Denying the unchallenged
Vol 1 Gr Ex A, Vol. III Gr Ex C, that the Ku
Klux Klan hid their faces to conceal their identities have demonstrated a
similar tactic enforcing Blank Court Orders;
C-
That the Illinois Attorney General, States Attorney,
Judicial Inquiry Board or any person of color within the Democratic Political
Machine denounce any of the aforementioned acts or crimes perpetrated at the
Plaintiff or his family because Black and Brown lives don’t matter living in
Chicago, Illinois;
D-
That Par. 5 A, B and C and Par 8 validates the verity the legal
system is governed and controlled by Domestic Terrorist within the Democratic Political
Machine enforcing Jim Crow laws;
E-
That Group Ex A
of Vol. 1 (2nd Amended
Complaint Request for Review Due to “Fraud” Terrorist Acts Violations”
“Contempt of Court” Perjury & “Criminal Judicial Conspiracy/Cover-up
Conspiracy” “Corruption” Other Irregularities & Impose Sanctions with
Affidavit, presented “Light”
being the Truth on the Blueprint how cases are “Fixed” in Illinois Courts and
how judges act as Weapons of Mass Destruction by colluding with said
Defendants;
F-
That due to the aforementioned recorded within no
Defendant objected or denied any of the facts in the Complaint but the Supreme
Court Judges and other judges ignored all State Laws dismissed said matter from
the courts;
G-
Plaintiff litigiously won a Default of $25 Million Dollars against the Defendants
who were in fact properly served by Cook County Sheriffs and via Certified Mail
they failed to respond, failed to answer and failed to file appearances but
Judge Valderrama and certain judges within the Illinois Supreme Court
exacerbated more harm upon the Plaintiff by keeping him homeless and oppressed
closing their eyes to all Terrorist Civil Rights Violations denied the Motion with no signature;
H-
That the Defendants have been able to successfully
Induce Reliance on the Federal Court assassinating his character, criminalizing
his character simply because of the color of his skin, hereto attached, Ex F of Vol. 1, September 17, 1987 Court Order signed by the late Judge D.
Adolphus Rivers proving that case 85 D 068184 paternity matter was in fact
dismissed against him.
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
2.) That
on May 12, 2016, hereto attached as Vol.
II Gr Ex B, Motion to Supplement
Motion for Issuance of a Supervisory Order Vacating Orders and Recusing Judge
Valderrama for “Cause” due to Bias and or Prejudice Conduct Pursuant to S.H.A.
735 ILCS 5/2 1001 (a) (2,3) (West 2006) to Impose Sanctions Pursuant to Supreme
Ct. Rule 137 w/Affidavit, Sup Ct judge Hon
Freeman Granted said Motion;
A-
That Par 3
is clear Judge Valderrama exhibited Bias
and Prejudice went outside his
judicial discretion and authority, Par 5,
6 demonstrates the updated version
of “Lynching” being exercised in the courts;
B-
That Par 7
said attorneys admitted under oath never filing appearances but the judge allowed
said attorneys to commit so many errors where they have culminated into a
criminal conspiracy;
C-
That Plaintiff filed a Motion Moving for Prove-Up
Entering Default Judgment & Summary judgment w/Affidavit, no attorney
objected or denied said motion, hereto attached, as Vol. II Gr Ex B, Denied
the Motion;
D-
That Judge Valderrama and the Supreme Court Judges
ignored the misrepresentations of a former District Attorney from New York
recorded in Pars 2, 3, et al. of Vol II of Gr Ex C;
E-
That Pages 15,
16 of Vol. II, Gr Ex C clearly
demonstrate District Court Judge Edmond Chang admonishing a City attorney for
hiding evidence et al. but judges on the State level incite and encourage Fraud
and misrepresentations;
3.) That
Plaintiff filed a Motion to proceed informa
pauperis April 27, 2016, it was granted by former Clerk of The Circuit
Court, now Appellate Court Judge Aurelia Pucinski sister Judge Mary Jane Theis hereto attached as Ex I of Vol. 1 Motion Granted.
A- That
when Aurelia Pucinski was Clerk of the Circuit Court she was a real woman of
integrity had her clerks to provide the Plaintiff any copies he needed because
she knew who he was up against and was informed Alderman Edward Burke had his
entire paternity case in his office.
A-
Pursuant to the precedent already established, Carter
v Mueller 457 N.E. 2d 1335 Ill. App. 1 Dist. 1983, The Supreme Court of
Illinois has held that: “The elements of a cause of action for fraudulent
misrepresentation (sometimes referred to as “fraud and deceit” or deceit) are
(1) False statement of material fact; (2) known or believed to be false by
party making it; (3) intent to induce the other party to act; (4) action by the
other party in reliance on the truth of the statement; and (5) damage to the
other party resulting from such reliance;
B-
Pursuant to Brubakker v. Morrison, No. 1-9-1670, 1992 Ill. App. Lexis 2144 (1st
Dist. Dec. 30, 1992). Additionally, the fact that a false statement or
omission is the result to an honest mistake is no defense to entry of a sanction.
Et al.
Pursuant
to Vigus V. O’Bannon, 1886 8 N.E 788,
118 ILL 334. Hazelton V. Carolus, 1907 132 ILL. App. 512.Fraud admissibility great latitude is permitted in proving fraud
C.J.S. Fraud 104 ET Seg. Fraud 51-57. where a question of fraud and deceit is
the issue involved in a case, great
latitude is
No comments:
Post a Comment