HOW CAN ANY DEMOCRAT IN CHICAGO COMPLAIN ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP WHEN THE JUDGES ARE ENGAGING IN TREASON TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS?
THIS CASE REVEALS HOW DEMOCRATS TRULY FEEL ABOUT PERSONS OF COLOR AND IF THEIR IS A PERSON OF COLOR IN POWER WHERE A CAUCASIAN HAS PERPETRATED A CRIME THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO IGNORE THE CRIME AND LET THEM GO FREE BUT AFRICAN AMERICANS AND HISPANICS ARE TO PUNISH MEMBERS OF THEIR RACE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAWS AND OPPRESS AND THEIR OWN RACE IF THEY ARE TO MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED FOR LEE OTIES LOVE, JR
I WANT MY TWITTER FAMILY AND FRIENDS RETWEET THIS UNTIL @redbilla IS UNITED WITH HIS DAUGHTER. #1Loveall
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Lee Oties Love, Jr. Civil Action 17 -CV- 05482
Judge: Sharon Johnson Coleman
Plaintiff
Mag. Judge: M. David Weisman
V
Supreme Court of Illinois, Pamela E. Loza,
Luciano Panici, James P. Murphy, Joshua P. Haid
Defendants
NOTICE
OF
PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE REMANDING
CIRCUIT PAMELA E. LOZA et. al. & ATTORNEYS “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS”
CORROBORATION IN AN ORGANIZED CHAIN CONSPIRACY
“TREASON” “FRAUD OF ALL SORTS” /CONTEMPT OF COURT OTHER IRREGULARITIES
REMAND/BODY ATTACHMENT INSTANTER
MANDATORY INJUNCTION PROHIBITING STATE
AND COUNTY COURTS FROM ENTERING ANY JUDGMENTS INSTANTER AND VACATE ALL ORDERS
VOID IN NATURE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF
To the most Honorable Judge of the United States District
Court for the Northern District:
Moving Party, Lee Oties Love, Jr., hereby respectfully
represents as Pro Se shows this court with an affidavit the noted reasons why
this matter should be entertained within this courts Jurisdiction; {Pursuant to
the provisions of the United States Constitution}
That on
August 8, 2017, shall present this Motion at 8:45 am before Honorable Sharon
Johnson-Coleman or any judge sitting in her stead in room 1425, 219 S. Dearborn
Street, Chicago, IL. 60604;
To: Supreme Court of Illinois, 200 East Capital Ave.
Springfield IL. 62701-1721;
Pamela Elizabeth Loza 50 West Washington,
Chicago, IL 60601, Room 3009;
James P. Murphy 555 West Harrison,
Chicago, IL. 60607, Room 402;
Luciano Panici 16501 South Kedzie
Parkway, Markam IL. 60428, Room 105;
Joshua P. Haid Sears/Willis Tower 233
South Wacker, Chicago IL. 60606 84th floor;
PLEASE BE ADVISED that
on August 4, 2017 A Petition for
Rule to Show Cause et al have been filed with all attachments before the United
States District Courts.
Respectfully
Submitted
_______________________
Lee Oties Love, Jr.
8435 S. Peoria
Chicago, IL. 60620
773 783-5691
Certificate of Service
The
undersigned hereby certifies that the above Petition with attachments was
caused to be delivered by regular mail to the above named parties
______________________
Lee Oties Love, Jr.
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Lee Oties Love, Jr. Civil Action 17 -CV- 05482
Judge: Sharon Johnson Coleman
Plaintiff
Mag. Judge: M. David Weisman
V
Supreme Court of Illinois, Pamela E. Loza,
Luciano Panici, James P. Murphy, Joshua P. Haid
Defendants
PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE REMANDING
CIRCUIT JUDGE PAMELA E. LOZA et. al. & ATTORNEYS “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS”
CORROBORATION IN AN ORGANIZED CHAIN CONSPIRACY
“TREASON” “FRAUD OF ALL SORTS” /CONTEMPT OF COURT OTHER IRREGULARITIES
REMAND/BODY ATTACHMENT INSTANTER
MANDATORY INJUNCTION PROHIBITING STATE
AND COUNTY COURTS FROM ENTERING ANY JUDGMENTS INSTANTER AND VACATE ALL ORDERS
VOID IN NATURE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF
IN ACCORDANCE TO THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE:
Now comes Lee Oties Love, Jr., Pro Se in this
cause respectfully represents to this court his Petition for Rule to Show Cause
Remanding Circuit Judge Pamela E Loza et al. & Attorneys “Trespassing upon the Laws” Corroboration
in an Organized Chain Conspiracy “Treason”
“Fraud of all sorts” Contempt of Court other Irregularities, Remand/Body
Attachment Instanter Mandatory Injunction prohibiting State County courts from
entering any judgments Instanter and Vacate all orders Void in nature against
the Plaintiff.
Said reasons are recorded in the attached
affidavit;
Respectfully
Submitted
_______________________
Lee Oties Love, Jr.
8435 S. Peoria
Chicago, IL. 60620
773 783-5691
AFFIDAVIT
{Pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. 1446 (a)}
I Lee Oties Love, Jr. being first duly sworn on
oath depose and states in support of Petition for Rule to Show Cause Remanding
Circuit Judge Pamela E Loza et al. & Attorneys “Trespassing upon the Laws” Corroboration
in an Organized Chain Conspiracy “Treason” “Fraud of all sorts” Contempt of
Court other Irregularities, Remand/Body Attachment Instanter Mandatory
Injunction prohibiting State County courts from entering any judgments
Instanter and Vacate all orders Void in nature against the Plaintiff.
{Pursuant to the Rules of Federal
Civil Procedure & U.S. Constitution}
Section 1983 of U.S.C.S., S.H.A. Criminal Ch.
38, 33-3, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Canon 3D (1) Reporting Judicial Misconduct,
3D (2) Reporting Lawyer Misconduct;
1.) 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;
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, 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).
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).
A-
In addition, 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 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.
That Pursuant to 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— Judges are bound by this rule before their court orders are valid;
Under Section 4 of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871:
The President had additional
power in case of rebellion within a state to suspend the writ of habeas corpus
and to declare and enforce marital law. Cong.
Globe, supra note 1, at 317. With respect to a definition of rebellion,
Section 4 provided;
“Whenever
in any State or part of a State……unlawful combinations……..shall be organized
and armed, and so numerous and powerful as to be able, by violence, to either
overthrow or set at defiance the constituted authorities of such State, or when
the constituted authorities are in complicity with or shall connive at the
unlawful purposes of such powerful and armed combinations; 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….”
2.) Said Judge Loza aided and assisted attorneys
and in an elaborate criminal conspiracy “Trespassing
upon the Laws” using the laws unjustly in which to advance her criminal
agenda;
A-
Plaintiff
was Remanded into custody on a “Void Order” as judges continued “Trespassing upon the Laws” in
violation of Sup Ct Rule 272, that
was not signed by any judge in the Illinois Supreme Court (May 11, 2017, June
6, 2017);
B-
That
Judge Loza having cognizance of the self-hate so many African Americans have
towards one another and the racist disposition so many Caucasians have against
men of color who is fighting against tyranny and racism as in this case was
aware nobody was going to admonish her for the directed acts of “Treason” and “Trespassing upon the laws” because of his skin color;
C- That because of the racist hate true
members of the Democratic Machine have against persons of color, Judge Loza
continued to violate the Plaintiff’s Civil Rights acting as a private
individual not as an officer of the court. Pursuant to Par 7, Page 13 of the
Complaint, said judge ordered a warrant against the Plaintiff and stated, “if Plaintiff dropped his motion against her
for disqualification……””et al. “She would quash the body attachment and forfeit
the bond et al.” “Otherwise, he would go to jail”
D-
That
Judge Loza told the Plaintiff he could bring in his parenting agreement (July
6, 2017) that was not in her possession, this conversation was had off the
record.
3.) Plaintiff faxed her all of the pages
to her chambers because he was feeling ill and learned Judge Loza was absent Judge
Regina Scannicchio allowed attorney Joshua Haid of the law firm Women’s divorce
and family law to withdraw from the case on the next day of Judge Loza’s case
but never informed said Plaintiff they were coming to court demonstrating ex
parte communications;
A-
Said
judge Ordered the attorney to file a petition for attorney fees, but the
Plaintiff is indigent lost everything expending $70,000.00 trying to be in his
daughters life for the last four years and has filed all types of affidavits in
the courts that was never denied or objected to and still has not to this this
day been a part of his daughters life with any type of visitations;
B-
That
to further validate the verity of “Jim
Crow” laws still being enforced and judges “Trespassing upon the Laws” in Chicago courts by members of
the Democratic Machine, hereto attached, Group
Ex A, compilation of news articles where Alderman Edward Burke took an
African American baby in the name of adoption alleging she was on drugs, the
woman never got her own baby back;
C-
That
Plaintiff is the natural biological father of his daughter and is not able to
ascertain a bond or relationship with his daughter because Judges like Loza et al.
do not recognize a man of color as a man or father figure and has demonstrated
how innocent men are terrorized in the courts keeping them oppressed and
disenfranchised from society;
D-
The Law is CLEAR: 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.
That allegedly Judge Loza and other judges learned of the
complaint filed in Federal court on July 26, 2017, issued a warrant against the
Plaintiff in an attempt to have him incarcerated without Legal Jurisdiction and
authority DENIED every legally
sufficient Motion with Affidavits filed in her court; 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.
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 the
ed. 1992).
See that is why, the
Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (was enacted) - Section 1 (42 U.S.C.) 1983.
“Of all the
Civil Rights legislation enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, none has
had a greater contemporary impact than the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. The Act
grew out of a special one-paragraph message sent to the 42d Congress on March
23, 1871, by President Ulysses S. Grant, urgently requesting the enactment of
legislation”.
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 the Ku Klux Klan in this era are not only members
of the Democratic Machine but persons of color black on black crimes on members
of their race being killed or those in power and authority are no different
from the white men who concealed their identities, in that all conspirators are
completely identified demonstrating any ethnicity can now identify as Klansmen;
History shows that it does not matter who is in power... those
who have not learned to do for themselves and have to depend solely on others
never obtain any more rights or privileges in the end than they did in the
beginning.
Here
is a quote from the book: Carter G.
Woodson, 1933.
"When
you control a man's thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. You do
not have to tell him not to stand here or go yonder. He will find his 'proper
place' and will stay in it. You do not need to send him to the back door. He
will go without being told. In fact, if there is no back door, he will cut one
for his special benefit. His education makes it necessary
5.) That
said Judges in the Democratic party and the likes of their kinds cowardly prey
on the helpless, the indigent, and has
legally demonstrated the extent they are willing to exhaust criminalizing
innocent men of color to achieve their goals not respecting any person of color
with authority;
6.) In
Furtherance to the above, said individuals that can best be described as
Organized Terrorists have used their positions and authority to oppress and
destroy other persons lives recorded in said complaint by stealing homes in the
guise of foreclosure, extort monies from men of color in the guise of child
support, due in part to the many components of this facet of Domestic Terrorism,
Exhibits 1, 2 before the Ill. Sup Ct. in violation of Sup. Ct. Rule 272 regarding judges “Trespassing upon the Laws”, Ex 3 before the Ill. Sup Ct in violation of Sup
Ct. Rule 272 regarding judges
stealing a Doctors and ministers home in the name of foreclosure, “Trespassing upon the Laws” where they
had an attorney, Ex’s 4 and 5 a blank court order absent a judges
signature or attorney information said Defendant was locked up 5 times for
allegedly owing child support on a case that was dismissed as Ex 5 with a certified signature, in
that said Democratic Racist in said party hate and resent persons of color with
authority have bypassed and circumvented said judges court order created
another case and destroyed an innocent man’s life framing him for child support
as a means to extort monies from him and they were in fact successful;
7.) In
that, Judge Loza has admitted engaging in “Trespassing
upon the Laws” committing stated, Page
18, (July 5th 2017) of the court transcript, Lines 20-21, “You don’t get my signature hard copy sir. No way no how”
8.) In
furtherance to the above, Judge Loza makes it clear stated, Page 19 of the court transcript, Lines 2-4, “You’re just not supposed to have my signature;
9.) In furtherance to the Seventh Circuit held
that the Cook County Courts were a Criminal enterprise to validate the verity
of said precedent, Page 3, Lines 10-11,
Judge Loza stated, “But you will not get
a copy of my signature for many reasons. People tend to copy it. I don’t like
that.”
Supreme
Court Rule [137] provides in pertinent part:
If a pleading, motion, or other
paper is signed in violation of this Rule, the court, upon motion or upon its
own initiative, may impose upon the person who signed it , a represented party,
or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the
other party or parties the amount of reasonable expenses incurred because of
the filling of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable
attorney fee. Not only will the courts consider an award of sanctions for
active false statements: failures to disclose material facts to the court can
also justify an award of sanctions.
BRUBAKKEN
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 of an honest mistake is no defense to entry of a sanction. ID. To the
extent that an individual lawyer has engaged in sanction able conduct, that
lawyer’s firm can also be jointly and severally liable with the lawyer.
10.) That
because Judge Loza and a plethora of
other Democratic Terrorist judges in the machine are exercising laws outside of
their immunity (oath) and jurisdiction and in accordance to other
Political/Fraternal laws makes every Court order signed by all Judges in this matter,
State levels Void Orders due to “Treason”;
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.
11.)
That Judges in
the Sup Ct and Judge Loza et al. have
corroborated/admitted beyond all legal standards of the law engaging in a
criminal conspiracy and implicating numerous “powerful corrupt white men” in office covering up for the Political machine
operatives; and how they use inferior ethnic groups outside their ethnicity to
enforce their doctrines on innocent non-white men like the Plaintiff as noted
throughout all documents;
A-
That a Federal Court is suppose to view
a complaint’s allegations in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, draws all
reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, and takes as true all
well-pleaded facts and allegations in the complaint. Reger Dev., LLC v. Nat’l City
Bank, 592 F. 3d 759, 764 (7th Cir. 2010). Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” in order to provide the
defendant with fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and the grounds upon which
they rest. Bell Atl. V. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (Twombly). To
survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s claim must be plausible and the
factual allegations of the complaint must be “enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.” Brooks v. Ross, 578 F. 3d 574, 581 (7th
Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
B-
That the defendants have met and
fulfilled the requirements of the aforementioned for the relief being sought;
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;
12.) REPORTING JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
CANON 3D (1)
Under Section 3D (1), a judge who receives information that indicates “a
substantial likelihood that another judge “ has 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.
U. S Sup Court
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
A judge’s disrespect for the rules of court
demonstrates disrespect for the law. Judges are disciplined under Canon 2 A for
violating court rules and procedures. Judged 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 can not demand respect of the
laws by its citizens when its tribunals ignore those very same laws”)
Civil
Rights Act of 1866- first section, enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United
States of America
Wherefore the foregoing stated
within Defendant Respectfully Prays for the Relief:
1.) That
this Most Honorable Court Remand Judge Pamela E. Loza et al, attorneys and all conspirators into custody Instanter
for “Trespassing upon the Laws”;
2.) Order
the Grand Jury to investigate and Indict all other parties associated in said
Conspiracy and the persons responsible for mailing out unsigned court orders;
3.) Order
the Removal of every Public Official named and ignored the Oath and
Constitution of their duties as an elected/appointed official;
4.) Issue
an Injunction Prohibiting the County judges, City or State Officials from
issuing any judgments against the Plaintiff;
5.) Order
Sanctions against all parties and have them to absorb all legal expenses and costs
for the enforcement of this matter;
6.) Order
a Moratorium on all Child Support’ Custody matters ascertaining other men victimized
by the same unjust matters;
7.) Let
the Gavel and Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court Invoke any other remedy this
courts deems just;
FURTHER AFFIANTH SAYETH NAUGHT
Respectfully Submitted
_______________________
Lee Oties Love, Jr.
8435 S. Peoria
Chicago, IL. 60620
773 783-5691
No comments:
Post a Comment