Wikipedia Racial Injustice in Chicago Courts

Search results

Wednesday, September 27, 2017



2 Chicago Police Officers Take a Knee, and Get a Reprimand

By MAGGIE ASTOR
Over the weekend, Aleta Clark, an anti-violence activist in Chicago, walked into two police stations and asked the officers inside to kneel with her for a photo.
In the first station, the officers said no. In the second station, on Chicago’s South Side, they said yes.
“That Moment when you walk into the police station and ask the Men of Color are they Against Police Brutality and Racism & they say Yes...” Ms. Clark wrote on Instagram. “Then you ask them if they support Colin Kapernick... and they also say yes... then you ask them to Kneel.!”
By Tuesday morning, the photo was on the front page of The Chicago Sun-Times, and the officers were penalized for violating Chicago Police Department rules. Anthony Guglielmi, a spokesman for the department, said the officers — whom he would not name — had been reprimanded and given “retraining on applicable policies concerning conduct while on duty and in uniform.” Rule 42 in the department’s conduct guide prohibits uniformed officers from “participating in any partisan political campaign or activity.”
In television interview clips that she posted on Instagram, Ms. Clark praised the officers for kneeling despite the risk to their jobs.
“This is my message to those officers: I stand behind you,” she said. “I’m going to get other people to stand behind you. Anybody watching this should stand behind you because you stood for us. You showed us that even with the shield, even working for the Police Department, that you are still human, and that you still recognize that racism still exists and that police brutality is real. And you stood against that.”
In an email, Mr. Guglielmi said the punishment was consistent with that in “other cases in which officers engaged in potential political activity while on duty and in uniform.” This year an officer was reprimanded for displaying a “Make America Great Again” hat in a squad car, he said.
“Police officers must serve and protect people on both sides of any given issue,” Mr. Guglielmi said. “They can’t effectively do that if they are perceived to take one side over another. So when officers are on duty and wearing the uniform, there are no sides, just service to anyone who needs them.”
Asked whether that meant the officers who posed with Ms. Clark would not have been reprimanded if they had taken the photo while off duty and out of uniform, he said, “Absolutely.”
The photo was particularly resonant in Chicago, a city where the Justice Department found in January that the police had frequently violated civil rights; where civil rights groups filed a lawsuit in June alleging police abuses; where protests erupted over the police shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald; where an officer was convicted in August for shooting two black teenagers in a car that was driving away from him. The city’s police and politicians have been trying in various ways to gain residents’ trust.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel told reporters on Tuesday that he supported the decision to reprimand the officers, and that the Police Department’s policy was consistent. But he acknowledged that the officers “were somewhat betwixt, between two different aspirations”: the desire to follow department rules and the desire to improve relations between the police and the public, The Sun-Times reported.
Kneeling took on popular significance as a form of protest in 2016, when the National Football League player Colin Kaepernick did it during the national anthem. But when President Trump denounced it last week, what had been isolated actions exploded into a national display of defiance, with players from New York to Indianapolis to Los Angeles dropping to their knees on the sidelines of their Sunday games.
In their photo, Ms. Clark and the two officers paired kneeling with another symbol of protest, made famous by the American runners John Carlos and Tommie Smith on the medal podium at the 1968 Summer Olympics: raised fists and, from Ms. Clark, a downward gaze.
“I’m not going to say anything that is going to get those officers in trouble,” Ms. Clark told a television interviewer when asked whether the officers had expressed any awareness that what they were doing was against the rules. “I think that picture speaks volumes, and I think it was enough.”
Follow Maggie Astor on Twitter: @MaggieAstor.

The Mayor of Chicago (RAHM EMMANUEL) did not open his mouth when he received notice and knowledge members of the Chicago Housing Authority and various buildings participating in the Section 8 voucher program were Discriminating against persons of color by keeping them from moving into the buildings. 
It appears the Mayor and many who seems to share his doctrines resent any black or brown man that speaks his mind or take a stand for what is right or wrong they are admonished.
But if you are passive submissive inferior as in the following example you are the perfect house Ni***r.
Their is a racist double standard tolerated in Chicago--- A man of color is not deemed a man or a man entitled to Equal Protection of the Laws, the White Nationalist are hiding behind the very Negroes and Hispanics they control to do they are told to do because they are not respected.
Chicago is the real version of #DjangoUnchained
jUDGE Valderrama is #Stephen   
Whoever allegedly PAID this judge to fix this case need to go back and get your money from him!
 
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”)

A-    Fraud upon the court is a basis for equitable relief. Luttrell v. United States, 644 F. 2d 1274, 1276 (9th Cir. 1980); see Abatti v. C.I.R. , 859 F 2d 115, 118 (9th Cir. 1988) “it is beyond question that a court may investigate a question as to whether there was fraud in the procurement of a judgment” Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 66 S. Ct. 1176, 90 L. Ed. 1447. The power of the court to unearth such a fraud is the power to unearth it effectively. See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S. Ct. 997, 88 L. Ed. 1250; Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 1184 and United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. (8 Otto) 61, 25 L. Ed. 93.

B-    “A judge is an officer of the court, as are all members of the Bar. A judge is a judicial officer, paid by the Government to act impartially and lawfully”. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill. App 3d 477, 410 N.E. 2d 626. “A void judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same as it would be if there were no judgment. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place….It is not entitled to enforcement. 30A Am Judgments 43, 44, 45. Henderson v Henderson 59 S.E. 2d  227-232  

C-    “A Void Judgment from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree. “A void judgment, order or decree may be attacked at any time or in any court, either directly or collaterally” Oak Park Nat Bank v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Col, 46 Ill. App. 2d 385, 197 N.E. 3d 73, 77, (1st Dist. 1964)          

 That under 18 U.S.C. 242 and 42 U.S.C. 1985 (3) (b). A judge does not have the discretion on whether or not to follow Supreme Ct. Rules, but a duty to follow. People v. Gersh, 135 Ill. 2d 384 (1990).

                  1.)   On today's Motion call the judge heard evidence where 345 East Ohio and K2 had been served properly and were in Default, I presented an Affidavit from Dorothy Brown showing 345 East Ohio, CHA, 420 East Ohio and City of Chicago, Commission on Human Relations were served summons personally.

2.)   He also had the green receipt showing Frank Fiorentino signed for the summons at 345 East Ohio the attorney told the judge they thought this was a Civil Suit and not an Administrative Hearing Case------The judge asked me to explain how is it 345 East Ohio was a part of this suit?

  I explained to him 345 East Ohio like 420 East Ohio and K2 management were the subject of Housing Discrimination Complaints filed by the Department of Human Rights Commission of Chicago, there were two other buildings 175 North Wacker and Trio.

  Trio and 345 are part of Village Green management the City had evidence of the units not allowing me to move into the buildings because of my skin color where I had credit scores of 716, they went against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence and presented me a court order with no signature which is the subject of "Fraud" somebody from the City had someone to mail to me that the cases against all these parties were Dismissed, trying to cover up the criminal acts lodged in my complaints where CHA was involved as well; however, when I challenged the veracity of the order purportedly sent by an alleged Human Rights Commissioner it went ignored because they are without Contempt Power to act on the allegation is how this matter made it here before Chancery as an Administrative Matter, furthermore, you are aware just last week an attorney Ms Heinz or Hemp was here last week from 345 and you informed her, she was not a part of this extension and Yuleda Joy representing K2 have always been here claiming they were not served.
       
  This court has the jurisdiction act on the issues presented in the complaint that the City Commission had no jurisdiction on---The City attorney Santos was present and CHA Gen Counsel TB King and 420 had an attorney were in attendance not one person opened their mouths to Object or deny anything, I said in that court, (You could hear a Rat piss on cotton)

  The Judge gestured with an understanding but became noticeably agitated with my response asked the attorney Ms Rahimi how did she know to come to court today since her contention was that they were not served and counsel here, I mean Mr Lawrence has presented me evidence you were in fact served?

   Ms. Rahami said she was not familiar with the name mentioned and that the law firm was receiving service not the building in question we were only coming to court as observers so as to have a legal strategy protecting our clients (This was the worse crock of Shit, I ever heard of), The judge became more agitated said he was about to grant me my motion to her emphatically, asked her in a coaching like manner, "what are you going to do"? she was nervous as HELL! Her reply, can I have 28 days Judge immediately said granted never looking at me asked me how much time do I need to respond? I said 7 days. I'M LIKE WHAT THE FUCK!

   The the judge said he had 3 Motions which, I had no knowledge of and told the judge I was at the mailbox yesterday and there was nothing there from anyone filing anything in the courts, it was a freaking mess nothing happened but it is my understanding, CHA, 420 East Ohio and the City of Chicago Bullshitted the judge did not respond to the 2nd Amended Complaint; thereby again admitting to all facts placing the in DEFAULT---I WONDER HOW MUCH MONEY IS ALLEGEDLY BEING PAID FOR THIS JUDGE TO FIX THIS CASE? 
 
   3.) Last Year, I filed a Motion for Reconsideration (April 21, 2015) with an Affidavit reiterating all of the aforementioned, the judge ignored everything, I said and DENIED my Motion only because of my skin color, for example, Page 6, Par C, Plaintiff responded Page 10, Line 24, Page 11, Lines 1-8 from a court transcript, "No sir, you are incorrect. There were two orders without signatures and without signatures or a stamped seal validating the veracity pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 272, that is the basis of why this matter is brought before this court. And I had challenged the validity of that with the commission. No one signed any orders. As a matter of fact they sent me an order with the wrong date and year.

   4.)  Judge Valderrama acknowledged receiving orders,, Page 12, Lines 10-13 Thank You, I do have----I have seen this, this order denying request for review. And I have read it. Thank You, I am not sure how it ties in though. I've read that document.

   5.)  This judge is demonstrating to everyone how and what he is willing to do to protect and uphold criminal acts in his courtroom not caring who is watching because as a Machine Democrat they are untouchable!

CHICAGO NEEDS MILITARY SUPPORT TO ROOT OUT THIS LEVEL OF TERRORISM IN THE COURTS!           






Embedded image permalink




IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF
COOK COUNTY, ILLNOIS
CHANCERY DIVISION

In Re Racial Discrimination/Source Income Violations
Housing Matters:                                                               
Joe Louis Lawrence                                                               Case # 2015 CH 01670
            Appellant                                                                  HON. F. U. Valderrama       
                                                                                                   Room 2305       
            V
420 East Ohio, Chicago Housing Authority
345 East Ohio, City of Chicago, Commission on Human Relations, K2 Apartments                                                                                             
           Respondents 
                                                                                               
                    MOTION MOVING FOR PROVE-UP ENTERING DEFAULT JUDGMENT & SUMMARY JUDGMENT W/AFFIDAVIT

    Now comes Plaintiff, Joe Louis Lawrence, Counsel Pro Se, in this cause respectfully represents to this Hon Court the reasons for a Prove-up Entering Default judgment & Summary Judgment and files herewith his Affidavit in support for said Motion Moving for Prove-up entering Default et al; Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules & Civil Procedures.    


                                                                                     Respectfully Submitted,    
                                                            Joe Louis Lawrence

                                                            Plaintiff Counsel Pro Se                                                                            
                                                              P.O. Box 490075
                                                                Chicago, Illinois 60649-0075
                                                            312 927-4210
                                                                     joelouislaw@yahoo.com
                                                                                 Twitter @joelouis7












                                         AFFIDAVIT
  
I Joe Louis Lawrence, being duly sworn on oath states:

                     1.) CERTIFIED MAIL ISSUED January 30th 2015
2.)  SUMMONS ISSUED AND RETURNED SERVED ON ALL PARTIES
3.)  NO DEFENDANT ANSWERED OR FILED AN APPEARANCE or ANSWER ON OR BEFORE March 9th 2015;

4.)  That pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/3-101, et seq. 345 East Ohio, Village Green Management same sequence of numbers except for the last four numbers, #5154 was served via certified mail Feb. 6, 2015, 1:18 pm; Frank Fiorentino.

                A-)  Law firm Gordon & Rees never filed an appearance or answered, or responded to Nov. 2, 2015 court order pursuant to 735 5/2 1301 (d) “if he or she fails to appear after being properly served or, having once appeared, fails to file a timely answer, S.H.A. 735 ILCS 5/2-1301 (d), provides that “{j}udgment by default may be entered for want of an appearance or for failure to plead, but the court may, in either case, require proof of the allegations of the pleadings upon which relief is sought .” In Ameritech Pub. Of Illinois, Inc. v. Hadyeh, 362 Ill. App. 3d56, 298 Ill. Dec 302, 839 N.E. 2d 625 (1st Dist. 2005), a default was entered for failure to answer although an appearance had been filed;
             B-)   That on Jan. 28, 2015 an attorney appeared in court on behalf of 345 East Ohio and was informed by the court she was not a part of the orders parties seeking an extension of time. 
       
         9.) That pursuant to K2 Management being represented by Cary G. Schiff, attorneys Yuleida Joy, Christopher R. Johnson received Notice and Knowledge of the 2nd Amended Complaint November 30, 2015 and other subsequent Notices of said matter being before the court where Cook County Sheriff served the law firm via Christopher R. Johnson personally;
              A-)    Law firm Cary G. Schiff never filed an appearance or answered, but made numerous court appearances after receiving notice informing the court that they were observers because they had not been served pursuant to 735 5/2 1301 (d) “if he or she fails to appear after being properly served or, having once appeared, fails to file a timely answer, S.H.A. 735 ILCS 5/2-1301 (d), provides that “{j}judgment by default may be entered for want of an appearance or for failure to plead, but the court may, in either case, require proof of the allegations of the pleadings upon which relief is sought .” In Ameritech Pub. Of Illinois, Inc. v. Hadyeh, 362 Ill. App. 3d56, 298 Ill. Dec 302, 839 N.E. 2d 625 (1st Dist. 2005), a default was entered for failure to answer although an appearance had been filed;

A-    That Group Ex E from the 2nd Amended Complaint an Order from the Defendant City of Chicago, Comm. On Human Relations, states “ORDER TO RESPOND AND NOTICE OF POTENTIAL DEFAULT” K2 was to have responded on or before December 29, 2015, said order was absent a signature;

B-   That Defendants having admitted to all facts properly plead in Gr Ex G and H validates the veracity of the aforementioned recorded above and within;  


   A.)  Sheriff #01712558 Served Christian T. Novay via corporation 3-9-2015, 11:21am copies of the Amended Petition for Rule to Show Cause et al along with an Amended Request for Review et al. Counsel never Objected or responded to the $25 Million Dollar Demand.

    
   B.)  Sheriff #01712560 Served Christopher R. Johnson personal service 3-12-2015, 10:20am, copies of the Amended Petition for Rule to Show Cause et al along with an Amended Request for Review et al. Counsel never objected or responded to the $25 Million Dollar DemandK2 has Defaulted twice on a $3 Million Dollar Default before the Human Relations Commission.


       12.)  That Defendants with vexatious Contempt for the laws did not request leave of the court in which to file a late response and has Defaulted whereby, Summary Judgment is being sought on the claims presented before the court, defendants have not raised any affirmative defenses or responded to any documents filed before the courts due to its veracity.    

Summary Judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, fail to establish a genuine issue of material fact, thereby entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005;Progressive Universal Ins. Co. v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 215 Ill.2d 121, 127-28 (2005). The purpose of summary judgment is not to try a question of fact, but simply to determine whether one exists, Jackson v. TLC Assoc., Inc., 185 Ill. 2d 418, 423 (1998). A trial court is required to construe the record against the moving party and may only grant summary judgment if the record shows that the movant’s right to relief is clear and free from doubt. Id. If disputes as to material facts exist or if reasonable minds may differ with respect to the inferences drawn from the evidence, summary judgment may not be granted.

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.


When the party moving for summary judgment supplies evidentiary facts which, if not contradicted, would entitle him to judgment, the opposing party cannot rely upon his complaint or answer alone to raise issues of material fact. Smith v. St. Therese Hospital, 106 Ill.  App. 3d 268, 270 (2d Dist. 1982). A counter affidavit is necessary to refute evidentiary facts properly asserted by affidavit supporting the motion or else the facts are deemed admitted.Barber-Colman Co. A And K Midwest Insulation Co. 236 Ill.  App. 3d 1065, 1078 (5thDist. 1992).   



                                       FURTHER AFFIANTH SAYETH NAUGHT

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.

                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                          Joe Louis Lawrence

                                                                      Plaintiff/Counsel Pro Se

   
WHEREFORE the aforementioned reasons Plaintiff respectfully Prays for the Relief

1.)  For an Order Entering Judgment Prove-up Defaulting the Defendants Granting Summary Judgment Instanter;

That because of the heinous acts Plaintiff have been harmed by said Civil Rights Violations and no one objected to said assertions put before any tribunal, and the number of City personnel and plethora of other conspirators making sure he did move where he desired and numerous Civil Rights Violations, Plaintiff is seeking Summary Judgment $10 Million Dollars as punitive damages; Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 35, 103 S. Ct. 1625, 1629, 75 L Ed 2d 632 (1983)  Justice Brennen “The threshold standard for allowing punitive damages for reckless or callous indifference applies even in a case, such as here, where the underlying standard of liability for compensatory damages because is also one of recklessness. There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that actual malicious intent should be the standard for punitive damages because the deterrent purposes of such damages would be served only if the threshold for those damages is higher in every case than the underlying standard for liability in the first instance. The common-law rule is otherwise, and there is no reason to depart from the common-law rule in the context of {1983}”
  

2.)  For the entry of an Order awarding to the Plaintiff for such other relief and any other relief necessary as equity may require of which this court may deem overwhelmingly just;

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
                                                                                      Plaintiff                                                         
                                                                                        Counsel Pro se



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)