Illinois Courts are a Halloween nightmare!
Many of the judges are wearing robes as costumes not as officers of the United States Constitution.
Judges are making on an average of $200,000.00 a year and that is not enough they allegedly are being paid off to "FIX" cases in a manner worse than the Greylord scandal when Ronald Reagan was president.
Read this case in it's entirety look at how Judge Valderrama violated every aspect of his oath helping out white Defendants guilty of racism, housing discrimination, source income discrimination along with an assortment of other Civil Rights Violations.
Many of the black judges who happen to have alleged intimate relations with many of the powerful white men engulfed in these "Organized Conspiracies" act as if they are untouchable enforcing "Jim Crow" laws satisfying their alleged lovers as many "Trespass upon the Laws" committing "Treason" thinking they are untouchable.
It is not only in the courts but the Public Schools (Principals) as well this species of black men in power are some of the worse anyone in the public can turn to because they won't take a stand against anything unjust!
Not one person Gay straight transgender or super gender opened their mouths denouncing these heinous Halloween antics except Judge Neil Cohen who expressed integrity and apologized to me for the injustices perpetrated in the paternity court where racist judges Irish and of Polish ethnicity went along with Alderman Edward Burke's directive of locking me up not once but 5x's for a child that did not belong to me but belonged to her natural biological father who happened to be a policeman when this crime was committed.
Anyone wondering who is in charge of our government read my posts because I am a Heterosexual Man Born & Raised a Free Man this is how we are treated, this city is full of males not enough Men which makes a difference.
A lot of these males have wives and children and they like boys nobody is at all what they appear to be!
What a male decides to do with his life is his business and not mine but because I took a stand against what was not right or against racial injustice is when everyone decided to come out of the closet and deny my claims.
_____________________________________________________________________
IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT
OF
COOK
COUNTY, ILLiNOIS
CHANCERY
DIVISION
)
In Re
Racial Discrimination
)
2015
CH 01670
/Source
Income Violations
)
Housing
Matters:
)
Hon.
F. U. Valderrama
Joe Louis Lawrence
)
Room
2305
Petitioner )
)
V
)
420 East
Ohio, Chicago Housing Authority )
345 East
Ohio, City of Chicago,Commission)
On Human
Relations
)
Respondents
)
________________________________________________________________________
MOTION TO REINSTATE DEFAULT & SUMMARY JUDGMENT DUE TO JUDGE
VALDERRAMA TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS COMMITTING TREASON MAKING THE ORDER “VOID”
A “NULLITY” w/AFFIDAVIT
Now
comes Petitioner, Joe Louis Lawrence, Counsel Pro Se in this cause respectfully
represents to this court the reasons and files herewith his Affidavit in
support of Motion for Reinstate Default judgment et al;
Respectfully Submitted,
By:
_________________
Joe
Louis Lawrence
Counsel
Pro Se
P.
O. Box 490075
312
965-6455
joelouislaw@yahoo.com
@joelouis7
STATE OF
ILLINOIS )
)
COUNTY OF
COOK )
AFFIDAVIT
IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REINSTATE DEFAULT & SUMMARY JUDGMENT DUE TO JUDGE
VALDERRAMA TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS COMMITTING TREASON MAKING THE ORDER “VOID”
A “NULLITY”
1.
I am Joe Louis Lawrence, Counsel Pro Se, Petitioner in this cause,
being first duly sworn on oath deposes and states, as follows;
2.
That Defendants having admitted to all facts recorded in said Complaint
et al. via affidavit and Court Transcripts;
A-
Court having no jurisdiction to Dismiss valid Prove up Default
& Summary Judgment March 30, 2015, due to Judge Valderrama corroborating
his role engaging in “Treason” “Trespassing upon the Laws” hereto
attached , March 30, 2015 Court Order.
B-
To show fraud upon the court, the complaining party must establish
that the alleged misconduct affected the integrity of the judicial process,
either because the court itself was defrauded or because the misconduct was
perpetrated by officers of the court. Alexander v. Robertson, 882, F. 2d
421,424 (9th Cir. 1989);
C-
A void judgment does not create any binding obligation.
Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L, Ed 370.
1.
That judge Valderrama has demonstrated an unknown interest in this
matter which encouraged unlawful motives and opportunity in adjudicating the
merits of this matter, due to the aforementioned; Sup Ct. Rule 63 (c) (1)
(d) mandates disqualification where the judge has an interest in the
proceeding. (eff. April 16, 2007).
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)
2. 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).
3. Judge Valderrama acted as a Private
Citizen and not as a State Officer as he colluded with the Defendants in
using his robe and unlawful authority violating Plaintiffs’ Civil rights.
Chronology of Facts: Plaintiff with due-diligence filed Motions to
Disqualify Judge Valderrama for “Cause” due to “Fraud” et al. Judge Neil Cohen
and Judge Mary Lane Mikva Denied Plaintiffs’ Motion; Deeming said Orders a
Nullity Void.
Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate
Court where Judges James F. Smith, Cynthia Y. Cobb, David Ellis and Nathaniel
J. Howse, Jr. Denied Plaintiffs Motion corroborating “Fraud” and Domestic
Terrorism in the courts. Deeming said Order a Nullity Void.
Plaintiff appealed the Sup. Ct. of Ill. For A Writ of Madamus/Supervisory Order
someone corrupt as hell mailed to Plaintiff a blank court Order Denying said
Motion. Deeming said Order a Nullity Void.
Plaintiff Appealed to the
Appellate Court where Honorable Rodolfo Garcia, Thomas Hoffman, John Owen
Steele, Patrick J. Quinn former Governor Pat Quinn’s brother, Themesis
Karnezis, Mary K. Rochford, Warren D. Wolfson who is related to Loretta
Higgins- Wolfson, Mathias W. Delort, Bertina Lampkin, Sebastian Patti, Shelvin
Louise Marie Hall, Joy Cunningham, Mary Jane Theis, who had a father convicted
in the Greylord sting as a judge, Michael Murphy all were complicit in
covering-up criminal Civil Rights violations of a “Bogus” paternity case 88 D
079012, said judges ignored every unchallenged affidavit issued orders outside
of their provisions of judicial immunity, Deeming all Orders a Nullity Void;
Plaintiff received specific instructions from
the FBI to ascertain corroboration how the CTA, Paternity and IBC cases were
connected they did not want one or two judges but all of them, Plaintiff had to
demonstrate how all judges were involved without wearing a wire they were providing
him full protection.
The FBI asked the Plaintiff how did he plan on
going forward? The reply simply take the law to them.
Plaintiff having full cognizance that Alderman
Edward Burke controlled many judges so the objective was to get before those
judges with valid claims and get them to Deny them so as to demonstrate how Democratic
judges are “Trespassing upon the Laws”
engaging in “Treason”
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). The judges listed below had no
legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear or rule on certain matters before them.
They acted without any jurisdiction.
4. 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.
A- “The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held
that the Circuit Court of Cook County
is a criminal enterprise. U.S.
v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518,
1531 (7th Cir. 1985)”.
5.
The
United States Supreme Court recently acknowledged the judicial corruption in
Cook County, when it stated that Judge "Maloney was one of many dishonest
judges exposed and convicted through 'Operation Greylord', a labyrinthine
federal investigation of judicial corruption in Chicago". Bracey
v. Gramley, case No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997).
Since
judges who do not report the criminal activities of other judges they become
principals in the criminal activity, 18 U.S.C. Section 2, 3 & 4, and since
no judges have reported the criminal activity of the judges who have been
convicted, the other judges are The criminal activities that the Federal Courts found in the
Circuit Court of Cook County still exist, and are today under the care, custody
and control of Judge Timothy C. Evans (Chief Judge). The Circuit Court
of Cook County remains a criminal enterprise.
JUDICIAL
IMMUNITY
Judges
have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges
have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving
with others who perform a criminal act, or for their administrative/
ministerial duties. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion - he is then not performing a judicial act, he is performing a ministerial act.
ministerial duties. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion - he is then not performing a judicial act, he is performing a ministerial act.
Judicial immunity does not exist
for judges who engage in criminal activity, for judges who connive with, aid
and abet the criminal activity of another judge, or to a judge for damages
sustained by a person who has been harmed by the judge's connivance with,
aiding and abetting, another judge's criminal activity.
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). The judges listed below had no
legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear or rule on certain matters before them.
They acted without any jurisdiction.
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).
6. Plaintiff
never complained about the number of attorneys levied at him Christian Novay former District Attorney
from New York, Thomas B. King, Maria
Sewell Joseph, General Counsel, CHA, , Stephan R. Patton, Mary E. Reuther, Rey
Phillips Santos has worked for the City of Chicago’s Department of Law since
2006. He earned a juris doctor from Chicago-Kent College of Law with a
Certificate in Energy and Environmental Law and a Master of Science in
Environmental Management from the Stuart Graduate School of Business. Rey has
also been a member of the Chicago Bar Association’s Environmental Law committee for ten years.
SeyFarth & Shaw Anne D.
Harris, Jeffrey K. Ross, Kyle A Petersen Sara Eber Fowler and Meredith Oliver, Gordon & Rees Goli Rahimi,
Christian Novay; Cary G. Schiff Mr. Schiff is not only a landlord attorney but
also a regular speaker and author on the subject of Property Management Law and
those issues that are ancillary to property management practice. Cary G. Schiff & Associates is one
of the largest firms in Illinois as measured by volume of Forcible Entry and
Detainer Actions filed. Over the last twenty years, the firm has
initiated and prosecuted with some of the Chicagoland area's most publicized
and controversial eviction battles.
Mr. Schiff is regularly called upon by industry
leaders in Chicago and Nationwide to extrapolate economic data relative to the
Chicagoland area apartment and commercial markets and sub-markets based upon
volume of eviction cases filed.
Mr. Schiffs attorney associates
Christopher R. Johnson, Yuleida Joy
7. Plaintiff
never complained about the number of attorneys levied at him Christian Novay former District Attorney
from New York, Thomas B. King, Maria Sewell Joseph, General Counsel, CHA, ,
Stephan R. Patton, Mary E. Reuther, Rey Phillips Santos has worked for the City of
Chicago’s Department of Law since 2006. He earned a juris doctor from
Chicago-Kent College of Law with a Certificate in Energy and Environmental Law
and a Master of Science in Environmental Management from the Stuart Graduate
School of Business. Rey has also been a member of the Chicago Bar Association’s
Environmental Law committee for ten years. SeyFarth
& Shaw Anne D. Harris, Jeffrey K. Ross, Kyle A Petersen Sara Eber
Fowler and Meredith Oliver, Gordon &
Rees Goli Rahimi, Christian Novay; Cary G. Schiff Mr. Schiff is not
only a landlord attorney but also a regular speaker and author on the subject
of Property Management Law and those issues that are ancillary to property
management practice. Cary G.
Schiff & Associates is one of the largest firms in Illinois as measured
by volume of Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions filed. Over the
last twenty years, the firm has initiated and prosecuted with some of the
Chicagoland area's most publicized and controversial eviction battles.
Mr. Schiff is regularly called upon by industry
leaders in Chicago and Nationwide to extrapolate economic data relative to the
Chicagoland area apartment and commercial markets and sub-markets based upon
volume of eviction cases filed.
Mr. Schiffs attorney associates
Christopher R. Johnson, Yuleida Joy
8.
CERTIFIED
MAIL ISSUED by the Clerk of Cook County, January 30th 2015;
9.
SUMMONS ISSUED AND RETURNED SERVED ON ALL PARTIES;
10.
NO DEFENDANT
ANSWERED OR FILED AN APPEARANCE ON OR BEFORE MARCH 9TH, 2015;
11. That
pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/3-101, et seq.
420 East Ohio, ZRS Management, Tracking Numbers 7014-0150-0001-5043-5130 was served via certified mail Feb 6, 2015, 10:57 am, Attorney Anne
D. Harris admitted in open court Feb. 27, 2015, “They were in fact served”
12. Law
firm Seyfarth & Shaw filed an
appearance timely never answered, or responded 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) “{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. 3d 56, 298 Ill. Dec.
302, 839 N. E. 2d 625 (1st Dist. 2005), a default was filed for
failure to answer although an appearance had been filed;
13. That
pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/3-101, et seq.
345 East Ohio Tracking Numbers 7014-0150-0001-5043-5154
was served via certified mail Feb. 6, 2015, 1:18 pm Frank Fiorentino signed.
14. Law
firm Gordon & Rees never
filed an appearance timely never answered, or responded 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)
“{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. 3d 56, 298 Ill. Dec.
302, 839 N. E. 2d 625 (1st Dist. 2005), a default was filed for
failure to answer or file an appearance;
15. That
pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/3-101, et seq.
City of Chicago, Commission on Human Relations 7014-0150-0001-5043-5147 was served via certified mail Feb 5th
2015, 2:12 pm Jeffrey Wilson signed.
16. Law
firm City of Chicago, Corporation Counsels
never filed an appearance timely never answered, or responded 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) “{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. 3d 56, 298
Ill. Dec. 302, 839 N. E. 2d 625 (1st Dist. 2005), a default was
filed for failure to answer or file an appearance;
A- That
because Judge Franklin U. Valderrama “Trespassed
upon the Laws” engaging in an “Organized
Conspiracy” committing “Treason”
unlawfully Denied Plaintiff’s valid Motion for Default & Summary
Judgment March 30, 2015 validating the
verity said judge was acting as a PRIVATE CITIZEN AND NOT A STATE OFFICER;
B- That
Judge Valderrama acting as a PRIVATE
CITIZEN for the Defendants “Trespassed
upon the Law” signed an order for the City of Chicago after the fact
allowing the Defendant City of Chicago to Vacate the Technical Default (April
3, 2015, hereto attached) making the order a “NULLITY” VOID IN IT’S ENTIRETY;
C-
That Judge Valderrama acting as a PRIVATE CITIZEN for the Defendants “Trespassed upon the Laws” signed an Order for K2 Apartments
Dismissing Plaintiffs Motion (October 20, 2016, hereto attached,) making the
order a “NULLITY VOID IN IT’S ENTIRETY;
17. That
pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/3-101, et seq. Chicago
Housing Authority General Counsels 7014-0150-0001-5043-5123
was served via certified mail Feb 6th 2015, 12:35 pm Armstrong C signed.
18. Law
firm Chicago Housing Authority General Counsels never filed an appearance
timely never answered, or responded 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) “{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. 3d 56, 298 Ill. Dec. 302, 839 N. E. 2d 625 (1st
Dist. 2005), a default was filed for failure to answer or file an
appearance;
19. That
pursuant to K2 Management being
represented by Cary G. Schiff,
attorneys Yuleida Joy, Christopher R. Johnson received Notice and knowledge of
said matter being before the court where Cook County Sheriff served the Law
firm via Christopher R. Johnson personally.
20. Law
firm Cary G. Schiff never filed an appearance timely never answered, or
responded 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) “{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. 3d 56, 298
Ill. Dec. 302, 839 N. E. 2d 625 (1st Dist. 2005), a default was
filed for failure to answer or file an appearance;
21. Sheriff
#01712556 Served CHA via
corporation 3-11-2015, 10:17 am they served them copies of the Amended Request
for Review et al. Counsel never Objected or Responded to the $25 Million Dollar
Demand;
22. Sheriff
#01712558 Served Christian
Novay 3-9-2015, 11:21 am they served him
copies of the Amended Request for Review et al. Counsel never Objected or
Responded to the $25 Million Dollar Demand;
23. Sheriff
#01712557 Served Rahm Emanuel via
corporation 3-12-2015, 10:00 am they served him copies of the Amended Request
for Review et al. Counsel never Objected or Responded to the $25 Million Dollar
Demand;
24. Sheriff
#01712560 Served Christopher R.
Johnson personal service 3-12-2015,
10:20 am they served him copies of the Amended Request for Review et al.
Counsel never Objected or Responded to the $25 Million Dollar Demand, and they
Defaulted on a $3 Million Dollar Default before the Human Relations Commission;
25. Sheriff
#01722070 Served Seyfarth & Shaw via corporation 3-16-2015, 12:30 am
they served them copies of the Amended Request for Review et al. Counsel never
Objected or Responded to the $25 Million Dollar Demand;
26.
From the March 17th, 2016 Court
Transcript, Lines 19-21 Page 14, Ms. Joa
representing K2 states, “One more
question, no one from my firm has filed an appearance on behalf of K2
Apartments.”
A- Mr.
Novay representing 345 East Ohio
Village Green states, Lines 22-24
Page 15 and Line 1 Page 16, “If the court pleases, in that case then, we
are in a different situation and we are in the situation where we likewise
never filed an appearance nor have we had any intention.”
27. Pursuant
to Illinois Civil Procedure Rules, failure to file an answer, where an answer
is required, results in the admission of the allegations of the complaint, Ill. S. Ct. R. 286 (a) Pinnacle Corp. v. Village of Lake in the
Hills, 258 Ill. App. 3d 205, 196 Ill. Dec 567, 630 N.E. 2d 502 (2d Dist. 1994).
28. Pursuant
to the Nov. 13, 2015 Court Order deemed VOID a NULLITY signed by Judge Valderrama as he “Trespassed upon the Laws” engaging in “Treason” stated, A- Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants’
attorneys have committed fraud on the court, specifically when they informed
the Court on February 27, 2015 that their clients had not received proper
service of process; B- The Court
finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendants’ attorneys
committed fraud on the court when they informed the Court on February 27, 2015
that their clients had not received proper service of process. Specifically,
the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendants had in fact received proper service of process prior to
February 27, 2015. Additionally, the Court notes that the Court’s Order dated
February 27, 2015 reflects that the Court found that Defendants’ had not
received proper service of process as of that date.
29.
Pursuant
to the Court Transcript of Feb. 27, 2015, Lines 23-24 Page 4 and Lines 1-6 Page 5, Judge Valderrama stated, “No. The clerk’s office doesn’t serve anybody certified mail. Let me
back up”. When I say service, I don’t mean mailing anything. When I say service
I mean providing a copy of the complaint and summons on the entity that you
have named in your complaint, 420 East Ohio, the housing authority, 345 East
Ohio and it looks like the City of Chicago and Commission on Human Relations”
30.
Pursuant to
735 ILCS 5/3-105 quote “service of
summons, summons issued in any action to review the final administrative
decision of any administrative agency shall be served by registered or
certified mail on the administrative agency and on each of the other defendants except
in the case of a review of a final administrative decision of the regional
board of school trustees, regional superintendent of schools, or state
superintendent of education et al”.
31.
Service on the administrative agency shall be made by the
clerk of the court by sending a copy of the summons addressed to the agency at
its main office in the state. The
clerk of the court shall also mail a copy of the summons to each of the other
defendants, addressed to the last known place of residence or principal place
of business of each defendant.
32.
That a decision is considered served
which requires that every action to review a final administrative decision
shall be commenced by defiling of a complaint and the issuance of summons
within 35 days from the date that a copy of the decision sought to be reviewed
was served upon the party affected by the decision when it is deposited in the
U.S. mail. Nudell vs. Forest Preserve dist. Of Cook County, App. 1
Dist. 2002, 267 Ill. Dec. 343, 333 Ill. App. 3d 518, 776 N. E. 2d 715, appeal
allowed 272 Ill. Dec. 343, 202 Ill. 2d 614, 787 N. E. 2d 158.
33.
For purposes of statute provided that action to review
final administrative decision shall be commenced by filing of complaint within
35 days from date copy of decision was served upon party, decision is
considered served when it is deposited in the U.S. mail. Lutheran
General healthcare system vs. Department of Revenue, App. 1 Dist. 1992, 172
Ill. Dec. 544, 231 Ill. App. 3d 652, 595 N. E. 1214, appealed denied 176 Ill.
Dec. 802, 146 Ill. 2d 631, 602 N. E. 2d 456.
34. 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.
A- Hereto attached Gr Ex A, In the matter of Lee Oties Love, Jr. v. Sup. Ct. of
Ill. et al. Page 6, Par.4 Judge Thomas Panici had charged
Plaintiff with a DUI case et al…….Plaintiff never appeared before this judge and
he does not drink.
B-
Page 7 Par.
D “That because many are aware Chief judge being a Negroe realized he had no
real authority caused many ethnic groups to come along and “Trespass upon the Laws” destroy black and brown families, use the
laws as Ropes and Water hoses as they “Lynched” innocent
men or women who stood up to their Terrorist Acts of injustices in the courts;”
C-
That Pages
11, 12 demonstrates how Judge Lyle taking part in helping a bank steal the home
of a retired Chicago Board of Education teacher and Retired Police Officer and
other judges in the Domestic Relations Division unlawfully taking children from
mothers helping child rep attorneys accrue fees in this extortion operation.
All Illinois lawyers must be familiar with the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, and trail lawyers must be
particularly familiar with the rules that apply specially to them.
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 known 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;
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.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT
Joe
Louis Lawrence
__________________
Counsel
Pro Se
P.
O. Box 490075
312
965-6455
joelouislaw@yahoo.com
@joelouis7
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
Counsel
Pro Se
P.
O. Box 490075
312
965-6455
joelouislaw@yahoo.com
@joelouis7
WHEREFORE the aforementioned
reasons Plaintiff respectfully Prays for the Relief
1.
For an Order Reinstating the Default Prove-up and Summary
Judgment due to all court orders entered after that date deemed a Nullity void;
2.
For an Order Reinstating
Voucher #9727767 that was unlawfully taken from the Plaintiff;
3.
For the entry of an Order awarding to your Petitioner for
such other relief and any other relief necessary as equity may require of which
this court may deem overwhelmingly just;
____________________________________________________________________
IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT
OF
COOK
COUNTY, ILLNOIS
CHANCERY
DIVISION
)
In Re
Racial Discrimination
)
2015
CH 01670
/Source
Income Violations
)
Housing
Matters:
)
Hon.
F. U. Valderrama
Joe Louis Lawrence
)
Room
2305
Petitioner )
)
V
)
420 East
Ohio, Chicago Housing Authority )
345 East
Ohio, City of Chicago,Commission)
On Human
Relations
)
Respondents
)
________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE OF
MOTION TO REINSTATE DEFAULT & SUMMARY JUDGMENT DUE TO JUDGE
VALDERRAMA TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS COMMITTING TREASON MAKING THE ORDER “VOID”
A “NULLITY” w/AFFIDAVIT
Please be
advised that on, October 30, 2017 Plaintiff
has filed before this Circuit Court,
Motion for Reinstatement et al; and will present said legally sufficient
instrument before Judge Valderrama or any Judge in his stead November 10, 2017, at am
in room 2305.
Commander
& Chief
Attorney
General of United States
President
Donald Trump
Jeff Sessions
The White House
U.S. Department of Justice
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500 Washington, DC 20530-0001
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500 Washington, DC 20530-0001
Chicago
Housing Authority
Wilson
Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Office of
the General Counsel
Christian
T. Novay
Asst
Gen Counsel
55
West Monroe, Street, Suite 3800
Maria
Sewell Joseph
Chicago,
Il 60603
60 East
Van Buren
Chicago,
Ill 60605
Seyfarth & Shaw
Jeffrey K. Ross, Kyle A. Petersen & Anne Harris
131
S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
Chicago,
Ill. 60603
TO AAG
Tyler Roland Chief
Judge Timothy Evans, Daley Center, Chg., Ill. 60601
General
Law Bureau Presiding Judge Jacobius,
Daley Center, Chg. Ill. 60601
100
West Randolph Street Suite 1300
Chicago,
Ill. 60601 Clerk of Circuit Court Dorothy Brown, Suite
1001, Chg. Ill.
Judge
M. L. Mikva Daley Center, Chg. Il 60601
States
Attorney, Anita Alvarez, Daley Center,
Chg. Ill. 60601
Atty
Gen Lisa Madigan, 100 West Randolph, Suite 1300 Chg. Ill. 60601
Sec of
State
Asst
Deputy Dir Candace Cheffin
Asst
Gen Counsel Terrence McConville
60 East Van Buren, 8th floor
100 West
Randolph, Suite 500
Chicago,
Ill. 60601
Chicago,
Ill. 60601
CHA
Mobility
CHA
Mobility, HCP Counselors
Chris
Klepper, Executive Dir
Tracey
Robinson/Joann Harris
28 East
Jackson Blvd.
4859
S. Wabash, Suite 2nd Floor
Chicago,
Ill 60604
Chicago,
Ill. 60615
CHA
Mobility, Real Estate Specialist
Jessie
McDaniel
4859 S.
Wabash
Chicago,
Ill. 60615
City
of Chicago, Department of Buildings
Christopher
Lynch
121 North
LaSalle, Room 900
Chicago,
Ill. 60601
Cary
G. Schiff & Associates Gordon
& Rees LLP
Christopher
R. Johnson
Lindsay
Watson, Christian T. Novay
Yuleida
Joy
1
North Franklin, Suite 800
134 N.
LaSalle Street, Suite 1720
Chicago,
Illinois 60606
Chicago,
Ill. 60602
Courtesy
Copies:
US
Attorney
FBI Dir.
Joel
R. Levin 2111
West Roosevelt Road
219 S.
Dearborn, 5th floor
Chicago, Ill. 60612
Chicago,
Ill. 60604
Governor
Hon
Mark Kirk
Bruce
Rauner
607 East Adams, Suite 1520
100 West
Randolph, Suite
Springfield,
Ill. 62701
Chicago,
Ill. 60601
Mayor
Deputy
Regional Adm., Field Office Dir.
Rahm
Emanuel
Beverly
E. Bishop
City Hall
77
West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago,
Ill. 60601
Chicago,
Ill. 60604
Hon
Dick Durbin
Judge
525 South
8th St.
Frederick
Bates
Springfield,
Ill. 62703
50
West Washington
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Cook
County President
Cook
County Sheriff
Toni
Preckwinkle
Thomas
J. Dart
118 N.
Clark, Room 517 Richard
J. Daley Center, Room 701
Chicago,
Ill. 60602
Chicago,
Ill. 60602
PLEASE
BE ADVISED that on Oct 30, 2017, A Motion for Reinstatement of
Default & Summary judgment et al,
has been filed with the Chancery Circuit Court of Cook County and said copies
being served on said applicable parties via hand delivery or regular mail;
Respectfully, Submitted,
Joe
Louis Lawrence
Counsel Pro Se
Chicago, Ill 60649
312 927-4210
@joelouis
No comments:
Post a Comment