ANOTHER GROUP OF COOK COUNT JUDGES TRYING TO TERRORIZE A WOMAN AS THEY TRESPASSED UPON THE LAWS ENGAGED IN TREASON KEEPING HER FROM HAVING CUSTODY OF HER CHILD.
THE EX HUSBAND HAD HIS ATTORNEY TO CIRCUMVENT A JUDGES COURT ORDER BY FILING BOGUS MOTIONS AS THE JUDGE OVERTURNED ANOTHER JUDGES COURT ORDER RETURNING THE SON BACK TO THE MOM.
THIS FEDERAL JUDGE DID NOT ACT COWARDLY OR TURN HER BACK ON HER JURISDICTION LIKE HER COLLEAGUE SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN, SHE EXPEDITIOUSLY ENTERED AN ORDER WITHIN 7 DAYS WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED SEEKING 6.9 MILLION DOLLARS SETTING A STATUS DATE FOR JAN OF 2018.
EVERY COMPLAINT FILED BY PROSE LITIGANTS THAT IS FILED NAMING CORRUPT RACIST WHITE MEN FRATERNALLY CONNECTED "ORGANIZED IN ANY CONSPIRACY" THE DEMOCRATIC JUDGES FIND ALL TYPE OF WAYS TO TRESPASS UPON THE LAWS ENGAGE IN TREASON BY DISMISSING ANY AND COMPLAINTS THAT INVOLVES SAID DEMOCRATIC WHITE MEN VALIDATING THE VERITY OF JIM CROW LAWS STILL BEING ENFORCED IN ILLINOIS COURTS.
DEMOCRATS DEMONSTRATE THEIR RACIAL HATRED FOR PERSONS OF COLOR IN HOW THEY ENFORCED THE LAWS AGAINST THEM PRETENDING TO EMBRACE EQUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS WHEN IT IS A FARCE.
DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS FOR YEARS NOT ONE OF THEM HAD THE LEGAL APTITUDE TO KNOW THAT THEY WERE COMMITTING TREASON.
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
April Redeaux Civil Action #17-cv-08060
Hon: Virginia M. Kendall
Plaintiff
Magistrate: Judge Susan E. Cox
V
Karen Bowes, Gordon Nelson, Steve Wasko
Clarence Parker, Grace Dickler, Debra B. Walker
Gregory Emmett Ahern, Jr.
Defendants
NOTICE OF
PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE REMANDING DEBRA B. WALKER 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, April Redeaux, 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
Nov. 30, 2017, Plaintiff shall present this Motion at 9:00 am before Honorable Virginia
Kendall or any judge sitting in her stead in room 2319, 219 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, IL. 60604;
To Karen Bowes 50 West
Washington, Chg, IL 60601 Room 1902 ;
Gordon Nelson 100 N. LaSalle, Suite 800,
Chicago, IL 60602,
Steve Wasko 1440 Renaissance Dr. Suite
230, Park Ridge, IL. 60068;
Clarence Parker, 205 Atwood, Dr.
HollySprings NC, 27540
Grace Dickler 50 West Washington, Chg,
IL 60601 Room 1905;
Gregory E. Ahern, Jr. 50 West
Washington, Chg IL 60601 Room 1508
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on November 21, 2017 A Petition for Rule
to Show Cause et al have been filed with all attachments before the United
States District Courts.
Respectfully
Submitted
_______________________
April Redeaux
1414
W. Welland Court
Roselle, IL 60172
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.
______________________
April
Redeaux
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
April Redeaux Civil Action #17-cv-08060
Hon: Virginia M. Kendall
Plaintiff
Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox
V
Karen Bowes, Gordon Nelson, Steve Wasko
Clarence Parker, Grace Dickler, Debra B. Walker
Gregory Emmett Ahern, Jr.
Defendants
NOTICE
OF
PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
REMANDING DEBRA B. WALKER 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
Now comes April Redeaux., Pro Se in this
cause respectfully represents to this court her Petition for Rule to Show Cause
Remanding Debra Walker 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
_______________________
April
Redeaux
1414 W. Welland Court
Roselle,
IL 60172
AFFIDAVIT
{Pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. 1446 (a)}
I April Redeaux. being first duly sworn on oath
depose and states in support of Petition for Rule to Show Cause Remanding Judge
Debra Walker 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 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;
3.) That on June 11, 2017,
judge Debra B. Walker certified said court order, ordering the “That A. shall remain in North Carolina with
the Petitioner until July 31, 2017, where he shall be returned to Illinois ---at
the expense of Mr. Parker”
4.) That the Petitioner with
vexatious contempt for the judges court order had his attorney to circumvent
said directive by filing a frivolous untimely motion, hereto attached Ex A, file stamped July 28, 2017;
A- That attorney Gordon
Nelson Induced Reliance upon the court engaging in “Fraudulent Acts”
filed an Emergency Motion to Vacate July 10, 2017 Order in Part;
B- That attorney Gordon
Nelson methodically had his client to submit an affidavit not notarized but the
Plaintiff has properly certified her documents with a Notary;
A-
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.
B-
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.
5.) That
allegedly Plaintiff’s ex-husband paid off certain judges so as to receive favor
from them in that he has been able to use his money and influence to try and harass
and punish the Plaintiff for not being in his life, because of the judges
ability to “trespass upon the laws and Deny every legally sufficient Motion
with Affidavits filed in the courts validates their removal from the bench; 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.
A- Plaintiff has not seen her son due to
controlling Ex-husband ablity to buy and control judges’ influence and do
whatever it takes to try and hurt her.
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).
6.) 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;
7.) 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.
8.)
In that, Judge Debra B. Walker, Karen J. Bowes, Steve
Wasko, Gordon Nelson and Gregory E. Ahern, Jr. Grace Dickler has admitted
engaging in “Trespassing upon the
Laws” committing “Treason”
when they received Notice and Knowledge of the Motion for Disqualification
of judge for “Cause” et al. hereto attached, as Gr Ex A, when they colluded with one another and Denied said
Motion.
9.)
In that, Plaintiff’s cousin a retired FBI agent
informed her mother to notify the States Attorney of the noted allegations,
hereto attached, Gr Ex B, Oct 18, 2017
letter to Kim Foxx States Attorney she never replied to any of the allegations.
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 Debra B. Walker and a
plethora of other Democratic Terrorist judges in the political 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 a “Nullity” 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 Debra B. Walker
et al. have corroborated/admitted beyond all legal standards of the law
engaging in an “Organized Criminal Conspiracy” “Trespassing upon the Laws”
engaging in “Treason” closing their eyes to the plethora of “terrorist acts” of
many judges engaging in destroying families stealing homes and extorting homes
in the guise of foreclosure.
A-
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 Debra
B. Walker 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 additional charges;
3.) Order
the Removal of every Public Official named and ignored the Oath and
Constitution of their duties as an elected/appointed official in this matter,
who has “trespassed upon the laws”;
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 or
women 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
_______________________
April Redeaux
Notary
