HERE IS A MAN WHO HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SEE AND SPEND TIME WITH HIS NATURAL BIOLOGICAL DAUGHTER FOR 4 YEARS HE HAS SPENT OVER $50,000.00 HAD 5 ATTORNEYS AND NOT ONE ATTORNEY HAS BEEN ABLE TO UNITE HIM WITH HIS DAUGHTER BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF JUDGES THE DEMOCRATIC MACHINE HAS PUT ON THE BENCH.
THE JUDGES IN THIS CASE HAVE #TRESPASSEDUPONTHELAWS COMMITTING TREASON AND BECAUSE THIS IS A MAN OF COLOR NOT ONE PERSON FEARED ADMONISHMENT FROM ANYONE BECAUSE IN THIS CASE A BLACK MAN'S LIFE HAS NO VALUE AND REALLY DON'T MATTER.
THE #DEMOCRATS HAVE RULED THIS WAY AGAINST PERSONS OF COLOR AND INDEPENDENT WHITES IT IS THE TYPICAL NORM IN HOW UNLAWFUL JUSTICE IS DISPENSATED IN CHICAGO AND THE WORSE PART IS THAT BLACK AND HISPANIC SOME JUDGES RULE THE SAME WAY SO AS TO BE ACCEPTED AND MAINTAIN THEIR POSITIONS AS ASSOCIATE JUDGES.
READ IF YOU HAVE THE STOMACH TO INTERNALIZE THE HATRED DECEPTION OF HOW A PERSON HAS BEEN ABLE TO LIE TO DESTROY A MAN'S LIFE SIMPLY FROM KEEPING HIM FROM HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH HIS DAUGHTER.
THIS CASE IS THE VERY REASON WHY CHILDREN ARE KILLING EACH OTHER AND OTHER PEOPLE.
I WANT ALL OF MY #TWITTERFAMILY AND FRIENDS TO TWEET AND RETWEET THIS BLOG UNTIL OTIES HAS BEEN PROPERLY REUNITED WITH HIS DAUGHTER WHOM HE LOVES DEARLY.
+Linda Lee King THANK YOU.
________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
#SUPREMECOURTOFILLINOIS
________________________________________________________________________
#LeeOtiesLove,Jr. ) Appeal from
the Circuit Court of Cook County
) Domestic Relations Division
Plaintiff-Appellee
) Gen No. 13-80423
)
) Hon #PamelaElizabethLoza
)
#NatashaBroomfield )
)
V. )
Defendant- Appellant )
)
)
)
________________________________________________________________________
MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUPERVISORY ORDER VACATING
ORDERS DUE TO DUE TO CRIMINAL ACTS “FRAUD” “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS”
“TREASON” AND RECUSING JUDGES 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/REMANDS
PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 137 S.H.A. CRIMINAL CH. 38, 33-3 W/AFFIDAVIT
_______________________________________________________________________
Now comes Plaintiff-Appellee, Otis
Love, Jr., a United States Citizen by and through himself Pro se respectfully moves this Honorable Court to
enter an Order for a Writ of Mandamus /Issuance of a Supervisory Order Vacating
Orders due to Criminal Acts “Fraud” “Trespassing upon the Laws” “Treason” and
Recusing Judges for “Cause” due to Bias and or Prejudice Conduct Pursuant to S.H.A. 735 ILCS 5/2—1001 (a) (2,3) (West 2006) Impose Sanctions/Remands
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137
S.H.A. Criminal CH. 38, 33-3 with affidavit in the above entitled cause.
Reasons in
support of this motion are set forth in the attached affidavit.
Respectfully Submitted,
By: ____________________________
Lee Oties love, Jr.
Pro Se /Appellee
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
)
COUNTY OF COOK )
AFFIDAVIT
I Lee Otis Love, Jr, being first duly sworn on
oath depose and states as follows:
1.)
Appellant filed for
an Emergency Order of Petition in Cir. Ct. Ref
as Gr Ex A, Court order Ref as
Ex B denying said petition because
it was filed as a retaliation in a vindictive manner where, Appellee had filed
a complaint against her for tax fraud and was found guilty of tax fraud fined
$130,000.00, hereto attached, Ex C
said complaint seeking $4400;
2.)
That Ex B
has never been vacated by any court and is properly signed pursuant to Supreme Ct. Rule 272.
3.)
That Appellant was not satisfied with the judge’s
ruling forum shopped another judge and filed for another Petition for Order of
Protection, Dec. 11, 2014, hereto attached, Gr Ex D, copy of the receipt indicates case no # 2014 OP 77503;
4.)
That throughout the documents Ref in Gr Ex D said case
number 2014 OP 77503
It was scratched out and case #13 D 080423 was
recorded on a note and on the Order of Protection;
5.)
That Judge James Patrick Murphy without authority or
jurisdiction signed Page 3 Ref as Gr Ex E signing the Emergency Order of Protection;
6.)
That the Cir. Ct. acted outside of its judicial
discretion and authority, in that, his jurisdiction was limited within the
scope of case #2014 OP 77503, had he investigated the matter he would
have noticed Judge Lawler had denied the same Petition Ref as Ex B;
7.) Pursuant
to Supreme Court Rule 71, Sufficient
for Removal, conduct which does not constitute a criminal offense maybe
sufficiently violative of the Judicial Canons to warrant removal for cause. Napolitano v. Ward, 457 F 2d 279 (7th
Cir)
8.)
The 7th Cir. Held that the Cook
County Courts were a Criminal enterprise. U.S.
v. Murphy, 768 F. 2d 1518, 1531 where precedent was enacted by Judges Frank H.
Easterbrook, Richard D. Cudahy and former Chief judge Luther Merritt Swygert;
9.)
In furtherance to the above Appellee was never served
that the Appellant had filed for another Emergency Order of Protection and the
judge ignored the errors which have now culminated into an “Organized
Criminal Conspiracy”, in that Judge Loza continued to Trespass upon the
laws and engage in acts outside of her jurisdiction and had a hearing on the
aforementioned where a transcript was had recording all criminal episodes based
upon “Fraud” making it a Void Order,
in that, she continued to demonstrate in her actions as a Democratic judge in
Cook County nobody will admonish her simply because of Appellees ethnicity, in
that Gr Ex L and M are in violation of Supreme Court Rule 272 none of the
orders have signatures. 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.
10.)The aforementioned acts were
premeditated and fully maliciously calculated, in that, these matters were
precipitated out of allegations of alleged sexual abuse on said 4 year old
minor, hereto attached, Gr Ex F;
A- Appellee
was wrongfully charged with Robbery Case #14 600837401, hereto attached,
Ex G and Domestic Battery Class A
15 C 6-60043, hereto attached Gr Ex
H Sentencing order from judge Luciano Panici where a police report was
filed, hereto attached Ex I,
Appellee alleges Appellant has a play uncle working at the Calumet police
Department and Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority sisters she brags about in the court
system that is able to assist her;
B- That
Ex I unequivocally reflect how
calculating said Appellant has been able to deploy some of the most racist
hateful judges in the Democratic Machine as they “FIXED” said case making sure the Appellee never provided evidence
demonstrating allegations of sexual abuse on said minor daughter in Appellants
custody;
C- Appellee
have depleted over $50,000.00 in monies from legal representation defending
himself from these unlawful criminal allegations which has culminated into Civil
Rights violations, attorneys John Fitzgerald Lyke, Jr. former Assistant States
Attorney now an Associate Judge in Cook County and Heather Widell who defended
Appellee against the charges of Robbery the States attorney was trying to give
the Appellee 2-5 years on a charge he never committed on the Appellant robbery
charges were dropped;
D- Appellee
had Ruth Ramirez and Associates, Keith L. Spence and Nick Economics who
prepared said Motion to Vacate and/or Modify Plenary Order of Protection
et al., hereto attached, Ref as Gr Ex J, and an Affidavit Notarized detailing how said judges Loza Murphy
and Panici were trying to compel said Appellee to admit to a crime he never
committed to justify criminalizing him for speaking up and seeking visitation
for his daughter;
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.
E- Appellee
made allegations to the DCFS regarding the allegations of sexual abuse on his
little girl they described the act as “Medical Neglect” hereto attached, Ref as Ex K
11.)That pursuant to Gr Ex J, Counsel erred in that no court
had jurisdiction on the Appellee where said Gr Ex B, L and M
demonstrate said judge became a law unto herself;
A-
Appellant testified on Dec 29, 2014 in open court, Page 25, of the Court transcript, Ref as Gr Ex N by Mr. Haid, Appellants attorney, Line 4 What was in your purse? Appellant my life. My wallet, my
I.D’s and my debit card, personal papers.
B-
While the Appellee was Remanded into custody before
Judge Bowden Ref as Ex G, the States Attorney informed the court they found the Appellants
purse and all of her possessions intact at a dumpster near 13th and
Michigan in Chicago, where the judge released him without posting any
bond;
C-
Appellee lost his residence his jobs because he was
reporting to court ordered anger management classes and court; moreover, he was
on Welfare judge Loza ordered Public Aid to charge him with defrauding welfare
forcing him off, said judge has used her robe to engage in criminal acts of
hatred and vicious authority to engage in racial hatred acting as a terrorist
making sure Appellee remained Oppressed by any means necessary;
D-
Appellee was Remanded into custody Judge Loza had
issued a warrant against Appellee where she never had jurisdiction or authority
12.)That Appellant was able to Induce
Reliance upon certain individuals and some of the judges did not need any
Inducement due to their racial hatred for men of color and no regard for
African American children which is indicative to how the Appellee was treated
trying to protect his daughter;
13.)That Judge Patrick Murphy knowing
said case was in fact a violation of Appellees Civil Rights did not want his
name recorded under the correct captioned case #2014 OP 77503 but instead under
the fabricated case 13 D 80423 where no judge had jurisdiction on the Appellee
for all Civil rights Violations keeping him from seeing his natural biological
daughter;
A-
That because of the above; 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
ordinarily permitted in the introduction of evidence, and courts allow the
greatest liberality in the method of examination and in the scope of inquiry Vigus
V. O’Bannon, 1886 8 N.E 788, 118 ILL 334. Hazelton V. Carolus, 1907 132 ILL.
App. 512.
INDUCING RELIANCE
To prevail in a cause of action for
fraud, plaintiff must prove that defendant made statement of material nature
which was relied on by victim and was made for purposes of inducing reliance,
and that victim’s reliance led to his injury. Parsons V. Winter, 1986, 1 Dist., 491 N.E.
2d 1236, 96 ILL
In Carter V. Mueller 457
N.E. 2d 1335 ILL. App. 1 Dist. 1983 The Supreme
Court 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 the
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.
14.) That many Judges are collectively
acting outside of their discretion and is undermining the very laws installed
to make the jurisprudence of the courts operate with integrity and in an
unbiased manner, justice seems to lie in the court of the beholder not in
accordance to any rules or civil procedure.
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.
A-
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 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;
B-
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.
C-
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 maybe
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 th 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 AFFIANTH SAYETH NOT
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 believe the same to be true.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Lee Otis Love, Jr.
Lee Otis Love, Jr.
8435 S. Peoria
Chicago, IL. 60620
773 783-5691
NOTARY
________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
________________________________________________________________________
Lee Oties Love,
Jr. ) Appeal from
the Circuit Court of Cook County
) Domestic Relations
Division
Plaintiff-Appellee
) Gen No. 13-80423
)
) Hon Pamela Elizabeth Loza
)
Natasha Broomfield )
)
V. )
Defendant- Appellant
)
)
)
)
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUPERVISORY ORDER VACATING
ORDERS DUE TO DUE TO CRIMINAL ACTS “FRAUD” “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS”
“TREASON” AND RECUSING JUDGES 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/REMANDS PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 137 S.H.A. CRIMINAL CH. 38,
33-3 W/AFFIDAVIT
To the
Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.
Now comes Plaintiff –Appellee, Lee Otis Love, Jr, a
United States Citizen through himself
Pro se your Petitioner, the people of the State of Illinois, a citizen,
a resident and an Elector of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, and State of
Illinois, respectfully represents and shows to your Honors the following:
1.)
That said Appellee never received Notice or Knowledge
that Appellant had filed Counsel nor the Defendants have Never received any
Notices of a Sale date or Hearing before the Cir Ct May 10, 2016, ref as Ex
T and Ex U nor have Counsel or the Defendants received any of the Orders
from the Court granting the aforementioned
and that the parties have become a law unto themselves, judges ignored the
laws, became a law unto themselves, acted outside of their discretion and
judicial immunity provisions violating Canon Ethics and all of the Supreme
Court Rules;
2.)
That Ex S
unequivocally demonstrate how Defendant’s home was stolen in an elaborate
scheme with judicial support, file stamped April 25, 2016 and May 2, 2016 for
court appearance May 10, 2016;
A-
That a Clerk in
Dorothy Browns office of Chancery provided a printout, last page of Ex S, 5-10-2016 judge Otto unlawfully
Approved Sale and Order of Possession no signed Court Order was filed, he had
no jurisdiction, engaged in an “Organized Conspiracy” colluding with the
attorneys using his robe stealing Defendant’s home;
B-
That Ex T
and Ex U was absent a certified
signature violating Sup. Ct. Rule 272 but was mailed allegedly; thereby
violating other laws because said order is not in fact LEGAL;
3.)
That said
Plaintiffs have engaged in an elaborate “Organized Conspiracy” so as to
steal Defendants home taking advantage of the fact they were indigent and
elderly, hereto attached Gr Ex
Motion filed in the Cir Ct before
Judge Otto validating the verity of judge colluding in a Criminal Corruption
scheme;
4.) That
Gr. Ex H demonstrates how the
attorneys all have violated Ethics
All Illinois
RPC
3.3, entitled “Conduct Before a Tribunal,” sets forth the
standards to be followed by the trial lawyer during “battle.” Section (a) of
that rule states:
(a) In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a
lawyer shall not:
(1) make a statement of
material fact or law to a tribunal which the lawyer knows or reasonably should
know is false;
(2) fail to disclose to a
tribunal a material fact know to the lawyer when disclosure is necessary to
avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
(3) fail to disclose to the
tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to
be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing
counsel;
(4) Offer evidence that the
lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes
to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures;
(5) participate in the
creation or preservation of evidence when the lawyer knows or reasonably should
know the evidence is false ;
(6) counsel or assist the
client in conduct the lawyer knows to be illegal of fraudulent;
(7) engage in other illegal
conduct or conduct in violation of these Rules;
(8) fail to disclose the
identities of the clients represented and of the persons who employed the
lawyer unless such information is privileged or irrelevant;
(9) intentionally degrade a
witness or other person by stating or alluding to personal facts concerning
that person which are not relevant to the case;
(10) in trial, allude to any
matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not
be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in
issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to
the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a
civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of and accused, but a lawyer may
argue, on analysis of evidence, for any position or conclusion with respect to
the matter stated herein;
5.)
That said judges and attorneys have satisfied the legal
standard Preponderance of the Evidence have exhausted a plethora of unlawful
acts using their robes upholding criminal acts being a part of an “Organized Conspiracy” trying to
steal Defendant’s home;
6.) That
due to “Fraud” Systemic Racism and alleged Political Terrorist Intimidation, Supreme Court Rule 383 is necessary because the Affidavits and Exhibits
attached demonstrates the need for this court to tear down the walls of Injustice,
Corruption and Racism in that those Judges and lawyers who cannot uphold the
integrity of their duties and oath as an attorney and judge need to seek
employment in another profession; alternatively, be remanded into custody.
7.) Where
applicable judges and lawyers who ignore the laws and act outside of the laws
don’t belong in the profession 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.
Vaughn 462 S.E. 2d 728 (Ga. 1995), The Supreme Court of Georgia
removed a judge from office for disregarding defendant’s constitutional rights.
8.) 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.
Lisa L. Milord, The Development of the
ABA,
Judicial
Code 24-25 (1992)
9.) Furthermore,
when testing for the “appearance of impropriety” the Court has a criteria that must be met, Commentary
Canon 2, 2A 2C, this Commentary
in Canon 2C clearly and unequivocally demonstrate the Court’s posture towards
the membership no judge in any of the lower courts were able to lawfully
Dismiss or Deny any of the, Motions presented in a Legally upright manner, in
that, they had to act outside of judicial discretion, and outside of the
judicial immunity provisions afforded to them denying the Defendants claims;
WHEREAS, your petitioner
prays that Writ of Mandamus /Issuance
of a Supervisory Order Vacating Orders due to Criminal Acts Unlawfully
Selling home and Recusing judges for “Cause” due to Bias and or Prejudice
Conduct Pursuant to S.H.A. 735 ILCS
5/2—1001 (a) (2,3) (West 2006)
due to another judge making deliberate Errors not wanting to Recuse said Judge
and Impose Sanctions/Remands Pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 137 S.H.A. Criminal Ch. 38, 33-3 and a Rule to Show Cause be issued
on all attorneys and judges complicit in these acts in the above entitled cause.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Lee Otis Love, Jr.
Lee Otis Love, Jr.
8435 S. Peoria
Chicago, IL. 60620
773 783-5691
________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
________________________________________________________________________
Lee Oties Love, Jr. )
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook
County
) Domestic Relations
Division
Plaintiff-Appellee
) Gen No. 13- D 80423
)
) Hon Pamela Elizabeth
Loza
)
Natasha Broomfield )
)
V.
)
Defendant- Appellant )
)
)
)
MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE
PETITION FOR WRIT
OF MANDAMUS
FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUPERVISORY ORDER VACATING
ORDERS DUE TO DUE TO CRIMINAL ACTS “FRAUD” “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS”
“TREASON” AND RECUSING JUDGES 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/REMANDS PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 137 S.H.A. CRIMINAL CH. 38,
33-3 W/AFFIDAVIT
To the Honorable Justices of the Supreme
Court of the State of Illinois:
Now
comes Plaintiff-Appellee Lee Oties Love, Jr. your Petitioners, being
represented Pro se, the people of the State of Illinois, by the relator herein
Illinois, a Citizen, a Resident and an elector of the City of Chicago, County
of Cook, and State of Illinois, by Lee Oties Love, Jr., respectfully asks leave
of this court to file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus et, al; and that summons
issue as provided by law.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Lee Oties Love, Jr.
Lee Oties Love, Jr.
8435 S. Peoria
Chicago, IL. 60620
773 783-5691
________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
________________________________________________________________________
Lee Oties Love,
Jr. ) Appeal from
the Circuit Court of Cook County
) Domestic Relations
Division
Plaintiff-Appellee
) Gen No. 13- D 80423
)
) Hon Pamela
Elizabeth Loza
)
Natasha Broomfield )
)
V.
)
Defendant- Appellant
)
)
)
)
SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION
Along with
MEMORANDUM
OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE RELIEF REQUESTED
TRESPASSERS
OF THE LAW
The Illinois Supreme Court
has held that "if the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and
those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are
trespassers." Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109 (1870)
Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328,
Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328,
340,
26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court "could not hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, - it had no authority to make that finding." The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928).
When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason (see below).
The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F. Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that "not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function. ... It is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse." When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void, of no legal force or effect.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." [Emphasis supplied in original]. By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court "could not hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, - it had no authority to make that finding." The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928).
When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason (see below).
The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F. Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that "not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function. ... It is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse." When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void, of no legal force or effect.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." [Emphasis supplied in original]. By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
The petition and the procedure in
this case are based upon former proceedings in which this court granted the
writ prayed. People V. Fischer, 303 Ill 430, 135 NE 751 et, al.
The supervisory authority of the
Supreme Court of Illinois: A powerful tool for the court and practitioner
alike. April 2012 Vol. 57, No. 9, Ill State Bar Ass.
In Philip Morris, USA, Inc. v. Byron, 226 Ill.2d 416 (2007), albeit in
dissent, Justice Freeman, joined by now Chief Justice Kilbride, stated that
“[g]enerally this court will not issue a supervisory order absent a finding
that (i) the normal appellate process will not afford adequate relief, (ii) the
dispute involves a matter important to the administration of justice, or (iii)
our intervention is necessary in order to prevent an inferior tribunal from
acting beyond the scope of its authority.” 226
Ill.2d at 422 (citation omitted)
Justice Freeman and Chief Justice
Kilbride thus appear to have treated the lack of adequate appellate relief
situation as an alternative basis for granting a supervisory order rather than
simply a factor modifying the other two bases for granting such an order. This
expanded formulation of the supervisory order standard is a logical extension
given the Rule’s constitutional underpinnings. After all, as noted above, the
Illinois Constitution states that “supervisory authority over all courts is
vested in the Supreme Court” without any reference to the normal appellate
process. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, Sec.
16
Mandamus is an appropriate remedy
to compel compliance with mandatory legal standards. People ex rel. Birkett v. Konetski, 233 Ill.2d 185, 192-93 (2009)
(“Mandamus relief will not be granted unless the petitioner shows a clear right
to the requested relief, a clear duty of the public officer to act, and clear
authority of the public officer to comply with the order.” (Emphasis in
original).
Rule 383 and the
Standards the Court Utilizes in Considering Motions for Supervisory Order:
Rule 383 provides,
at its most basic, that “[a] motion requesting the exercise of the Supreme
Court’s supervisory authority shall be supported by explanatory suggestions and
shall contain or have attached to it the lower court records or other pertinent
material that will fully present the issues.”Rule 383(a) After stating the requirements for service, the Rule
provides a relatively expedited period for objection— seven days when service
of the motion is made by facsimile or 14 days when service is accomplished by
mail or commercial carrier. Rule 383(c) Additionally, the Rule
allows oral argument at the discretion of the court. Rule 383(d)
The formulation of the standard for supervisory orders in
Suria is very broad. Suria provides that a supervisory order may be granted in
any situation where a trial or appellate court acted in excess of its authority
or abused its discretionary authority. Suria,
112 Ill. 2d at 38.
Justice Freeman and former Chief Justice Kilbride thus
appear to have treated the lack of adequate appellate relief situation as an
alternative basis for granting a supervisory order rather than simply a factor
modifying the other two bases for granting such an order. This expanded
formulation of the supervisory order standard is a logical extension given the Rule’s
constitutional underpinnings. After all, as noted above, the Illinois
Constitution states that “supervisory authority over all courts is vested in
the Supreme Court” without any reference to the normal appellate process. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, Sec. 16.
The supervisory authority of the Supreme Court of Illinois:
A powerful tool for the court and practitioner alike By Matthew R. Carter,
Winston & Strawn LLP 2 Trial Briefs | April
2012, Vol. 57, No. 9
As the foregoing analysis reveals,
the court has absolute authority to act when it feels so compelled. Moreover,
the instances where the Supreme Court has issued supervisory orders are so
eclectic that diligent litigators should consider it a tool to achieve timely
relief in critical situations
The petition proceeds in conformity with the instructions of this court
in People
V. Haas, 239 Ill 320, 87 NE 1111, with respect to the
presentation of original petition for Mandamus et al;
The issue presented in this original petition for Mandamus involves a
matter of great public importance in that it concerns the power conferred upon
county judges by the City Election Act to punish judges and clerks as for
contempt because of misbehavior or misconduct in their respective offices.
Petitioner respectfully submits that the court should grant leave to
file the Petition for Writ of Mandamus et al; duly signed and verified and
herewith presented with a petition, and with these suggestions and Memorandum
of Law in support of the relief requested, and that a summons issue in
conformity with the law, to the respondents returnable within a short time to
be fixed by this court, so that in this proceeding the powers of the County
judges under the City Election Act may be definitely and promptly determined.
REPORTING JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
I.
Sup Ct. Rule 71, Sufficient
for Removal, conduct which does not constitute a criminal offense may be
sufficiently violative of the Judicial canons to warrant removal for cause. Napolitano
v. Ward, 457 F 2d 279 (7th Cir.), cert denied, 409
U.S. 1037, 93 S. Ct. 512, 34 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1972).
Sup Ct. Rule 63 (C) (1). S.H.A. 735 ILCS
5/2-----1001 (a) (3);
In Re Marriage of O’Brien 912 N.E. 2d 729 (Ill App. 2 Dist.
2009),
When a party moves for substitution of the trial judge for cause
based upon an alleged violation of rule setting forth mandatory bases for
recusal, the movant need only show the existence of that factor and that an
objective, reasonable person would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might
reasonably be questioned, and need not show actual prejudice.
Canon
3
D (2) Reporting Lawyer Misconduct
Fravel
v. Haughey, 727 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. App. Ct.Illinois
Acts constituting direct, criminal
contempt
A wide variety of acts may constitute a direct, criminal
contempt. And act may be criminal contempt even though it is also an indictable
crime. Beattie v. People, 33 Ill. Ill. Ill.
Official
misconduct is a criminal offense; and a public officer or employee commits
misconduct, punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both, when, in his official
capacity, he intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as
required by law; or knowingly performs an act which he knows he is forbidden by
law to perform; or with intent to obtain a personal advantage for himself or
another, he performs an act in excess of his lawful authority ….S.H.A. Ch 38
33-3.
False statements
Censure was recommended sanction for
attorney who engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, made statement of
material fact or law to tribunal which she knew or reasonably should have known
to be false, and failed to disclose to tribunal a material fact known to her
when disclosure was necessary to avoid assisting criminal or fraudulent at by
client, given that attorney’s misconduct was not result of dishonest or corrupt
motive, but of misguided attempt to accommodate clients. 99 Ill.Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. SH11
Three-year suspension was
recommended sanction for attorney who engaged in conduct involving dishonesty
and fraud, made statement of material fact to tribunal which he knew or
reasonably should have known was false, and offered evidence that he knew to be
false and failed to take reasonable remedial measures. 96 Ill.Atty.Reg. &
Disc.Comm. SH 358.
Disbarment was recommended sanction
for attorney who engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, made false statements
of material fact or law to tribunal which she knew were false and engaged in
conduct which tended to defeat administration of justice. 95 Ill Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. CH 877.
Censure was recommended sanction for
attorney who made statements of material fact or law known was false, and
engaged in conduct which was prejudicial to the administration of justice. 95
Ill Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. CH 504
One-year suspension was recommended sanction for attorney who made
statement of material fact which he knew was false in appearing in professional
capacity before tribunal, made a statement of material fact which he knew to be
false in course of representing client, and engaged in conduct involving
dishonesty. 95 Ill Atty.Reg. &
Disc.Comm. CH 191.
Disbarment was recommended sanction
for attorney who engaged in serious misconduct by making misrepresentation during
his divorce proceedings and who was a recidivist. 94 Ill.Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. SH469
Fraud on court
Two-year suspension, retroactive to beginning of interim
suspension, was recommended sanction for attorney who made statement of
material fact or law to tribunal which lawyer knew or reasonably should have
known to be false, instituted criminal charges as prosecutor when he knew or
reasonably should have known that charges were not supported by probable cause,
committed criminal act that reflected adversely upon lawyer ‘s honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as lawyer, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, engaged in conduct prejudicial to
administration of justice, and engaged in conduct which tended to bring courts
or legal profession into disrepute. 96 Ill.
Jim Crow Laws are still
being enacted and enforced in Chicago, Illinois Courts Black and Brown lives
simply don’t matter and it is clear now in these proceedings being elderly is
worse because the laws are used against said parties to destroy or displaced
them in society unless you are in a position to pay off certain politicians or
abide by their rules and doctrines of Corrupt politicians or Terrorists
operating behind the scenes making sure the events recorded never come to “Light” exposing the truth how
the courts are under siege by so many judges closing their eyes to the
realities of injustice, being perpetrated on the innocent and indigent.
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.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Lee Oties Love, Jr.
Lee Oties Love, Jr.
8435 S. Peoria
Chicago, IL. 60620
773 783-5691
________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
________________________________________________________________________
Lee Oties Love,
Jr. ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County
) Domestic Relations
Division
Plaintiff-Appellee
) Gen No. 13- D 80423
)
) Hon Pamela
Elizabeth Loza
)
Natasha Broomfield )
)
V.
)
Defendant- Appellant )
)
)
)
MOTION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUPERVISORY ORDER VACATING
ORDERS DUE TO CRIMINAL ACTS “FRAUD” “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” “TREASON” AND
RECUSING JUDGES 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/REMANDS
PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 137 S.H.A. CRIMINAL CH. 38, 33-3 W/AFFIDAVIT
DRAFT ORDER
This matter having
come on to be heard on Writ of Mandamus /Issuance of a Supervisory Order
Vacating Orders due to Criminal Acts “Fraud” “Trespassing upon the Laws”
“Treason” and Recusing Judges for
“Cause” due to Bias and or Prejudice Conduct Pursuant to S.H.A. 735 ILCS 5/2—1001 (a) (2,3) (West 2006) and Impose Sanctions/Remands Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137 S.H.A. Criminal Ch.
38, 33-3 and Court being fully advised in the premises;
It is HEREBY Ordered that Writ of Mandamus /Issuance of a Supervisory
Order Vacating Orders and Recusing
Judge for Cause et al is Granted/ Denied
________________________________
Justice
________________________________
Justice
_________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
________________________________________________________________________
Lee Oties Love,
Jr. ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County
) Domestic Relations
Division
Plaintiff-Appellee
) Gen No. 13-80423
)
) Hon Pamela
Elizabeth Loza
)
Natasha Broomfield )
)
V.
)
Defendant- Appellant
)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUPERVISORY ORDER VACATING
ORDERS DUE TO DUE TO CRIMINAL ACTS “FRAUD” “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS”
“TREASON” AND RECUSING JUDGES 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/REMANDS PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 137 S.H.A. CRIMINAL CH. 38,
33-3 W/AFFIDAVIT
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that Petitioner
Appeals to the Illinois Supreme Court, for an Order on Petition for Writ of Mandamus for Mandatory Injunction/Issuance of a
Supervisory Order Vacating Orders due to Criminal Acts “Fraud” “Trespassing
upon the Laws Treason and To Impose
Sanctions et al. , I Oties L. Love, Jr in this cause hereby certify that, I
Have caused the following on said service list to receive the Petition et al.,
and all of it’s attachments by depositing them in a Post Office via regular
mail, or hand delivery May 10th, 2017 to the following:
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Lee Oties Love, Jr.
Lee Oties Love, Jr.
8435 S. Peoria
Chicago, IL. 60620
773 783-5691
Service List:
Courtesy Copies
TO: THE following
By
Mail /Personal Delivery
FBI US
Attorney
2111 S. Roosevelt Rd. 219 S. Dearborn, 5th floor
Chicago, IL. 60612 Chicago, Il. 60604
Judge Pamela Elizabeth Loza Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans
50 West Washington, 3009 50 West Washington, 3000
Chg. IL 60602 Chg. IL 60602
States Attorney Judge James P.
Murphy
Kimberly Foxx
555 West Randolph,
402
50 West Washington, 500 Chg. IL. 60607
Chg. IL. 60602
Judge Luciano Panici Joshua P. Haid
16501 S. Kedzie Pkwy., 105 Sears/Willis Tower
Markham Illinois, 60428 233 S. Wacker, 84th
floor
Chg. IL. 60606
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
believe the same to be true.
_________________________________
_______________________
Oties Love, Jr.
8435 S. Peoria
Chicago, IL. 60620
773 783-5691
Notary
________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
________________________________________________________________________
Lee Oties Love,
Jr. )
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook
County
) Domestic Relations
Division
Plaintiff-Appellee
) Gen No.
13-80423
)
) Hon Pamela
Elizabeth Loza
)
Natasha Broomfield )
)
V.
)
Defendant- Appellant
)
)
)
)
EXHIBIT LIST
1.)
Gr. Ex. A, Petition for Order of Protection, (9-29-2014)
judge Christopher E. Lawler
2.)
Ex. B, Court
Order signed (9-29-2014) judge Lawler
3.)
Gr. Ex. C Complaint
seeking $4400.00 Cir. Ct.
4.)
Gr. Ex D Order
of Protection Receipt 2014 OP 77503 w/ all documents relating to Order of
Protection Petition 16 pages;
5.)
Ex. E, Court
Order Judge signing Court Order with 13 D 80423 scratching out 2014 OP 77503;
6.)
Gr. Ex F, Ingalls
Memorial Hospital Discharge Instructions 9-26-2014.
7.)
Ex G. Recognizance
Bond $20,000.00;
8.)
Gr. Ex. H, Sentencing
Order et al. judge Panici signed Dec. 17, 2015; 4 pages;
9.)
Gr Ex. I, Calumet Police Department (filed Dec 10, 2014);
10.)
Ex J, Motion
to Vacate and or Modify Order of Protection et al;
11.)
Gr. Ex K, Notarized
Affidavit June 7, 2016;
12.)
Gr. Ex L, Court
Order not signed by Judge Loza (Dec 29, 2014,) ordering Appellee to attend
domestic violence counseling, in violation of Sup. Ct. Rule 272
13.) Ex. M, Court Order not signed by Judge
Loza (Dec 29, 2014) in violation of Sup.
Ct. Rule 272
14.)
Ex. N, Court
Transcript capturing judge and attorney as well as Appellant complicit in
unlawful acts Dec. 29, 2014;
15.)
Ex. O, DCFS Notification of a Suspected Child Abuse
and /or Neglect Document; “Medical Neglect”
16.)
Ex. P, Letter from Salvation Army to Officer Lillian
Jackson Cook County Adult Probation re Appellee not being eligible for program;
17.)
Ex. Q, Court Order brazenly signed by Judge Loza (Jan
4, 2017);
18.) Ex. R, Return of Body Attachment Order not signed by
judge Loza (April 17, 2014); In
violation of Sup Ct. Rule 272
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Lee Oties Love, Jr.
Lee Oties Love, Jr.
8435 S. Peoria
Chicago, IL. 60620
773 783-5691
No comments:
Post a Comment