Wikipedia Racial Injustice in Chicago Courts

Search results

Friday, December 22, 2017

IN ILLINOIS FEDERAL COURTS BLACK FEMALE JUDGES DESTROY AND UPHOLD TERRORIST ACTS OF RACISM PERPETRATED ON INNOCENT BLACK MEN IS LIKENED TO BEING HOUSE NIGGERS ON A PLANTATION

IT IS EASIER FOR A  BLACK MAN TO KILL HIS WIFE BY STABBING HER 40 TIMES AND LEAVING THE KNIFE IN HER MOUTH AND RUN OFF WITH HIS GAY LOVER AND COLLECT $250,000.00 IN LIFE INSURANCE MONEY AND PAY OFF ED BURKE WHO HAND PICKS JUDGES IN THE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE OF CROOK COUNTY THAN FOR A HETEROSEXUAL MAN OR WOMAN INNOCENT RECEIVE JUSTICE IN ILLINOIS COURTS.

IT IS EASIER FOR A POLICEMAN TO IMPREGNATE HIS NATURAL BIOLOGICAL DAUGHTERS AS MINORS AS A PEDOPHILE AND NOT LOSE HIS JOB BY TURNING TO ED BURKE WHO APPOINTED EVERY IRISH OR POLISH RACIST JUDGE IN THE CITY TO TRESPASS UPON THE LAWS AND FRAME AN INNOCENT MAN JOE LOUIS THAN IT IS FOR HIM TO RECEIVE JUSTICE IN CROOK COUNTY CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE.

IN THIS CASE ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS WHO IS IN THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT NO BLACK MAN EVER HAS EVER PRESIDED IN THAT CIRCUIT AND AS LONG AS THE IRISH REMAIN IN POWER NO TRUE INTELLECTUAL HETEROSEXUAL MAN WILL ASCEND TO THOSE POSITIONS IN MY OPINION ONLY INFERIOR WOMEN WHO RULE THE WAY THEY ARE TOLD DESTROYING MEN OF COLOR------Judicial Corruption in Chicago, Illinois how to fix cases: JUDGES DEMONSTRATING TREASON IN F.B.I. FACE CHALLE...: JUDGES DEMONSTRATING TREASON IN F.B.I. FACE CHALLENGING THEIR AUTHORITY JUDGES KENNETH RIPPLE, DIANE SYKES ANN C. WILLIAMS HAVE DEMONSTRAT..

WHEN A PERSON OF ANY ETHNICITY READ THIS DOCUMENT AND HEAR PEOPLE REFERENCE BLACK PEOPLE OF COLOR AS NIGGERS--

   

Urban Dictionary: Nigger

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nigger

Nih/./guh/ n. 1. racist term used to discribed any dark skinned people but generally reserved for those of african descent. 2. n. Term used by incredibly ignorant black people to describe themselves but considered racist when used by non blacks. 3. n. Carte blanc to black people to beat non blacks into a coma when used ...



Nigger | Define Nigger at Dictionary.com

www.dictionary.com/browse/nigger

The term nigger is now probably the most offensive word in English. ... a contemptuous term used to refer to a black person. ... a contemptuous term used to refer to a person of any racial or ethnic origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc

BECAUSE DEMOCRATS IN ILLINOIS BEING CONTROLLED BY THE IRISH HAVE MANAGED TO CIRCUMVENT THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BY RECRUITING THE NECESSARY AFOREMENTIONED TO SIT IN POSITIONS AS THEY ENFORCE ARCHAIC LAWS OF JIM CROW WHICH HAS BEEN OUTLAWED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
'
NO SELF RESPECTING WOMAN OF ANY CALIPER CAN RECEIVE JUSTICE IN ILLINOIS COURTS, IT'S LIKE TRYING TO EAT POTATO SALAD WITH FECES IN IT, YOU CAN NOT, NO MORE THAN A PERSON RECEIVE JUSTICE FROM A JUDGE WHO HAS TRESPASSED UPON THE LAWS.

RACISM SEXISM TERRORISM AND NIGGERCISM HAVE ALL PLAYED A ROLE AS MANY IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION AS JUDGES HAVE ONLY ENDEAVORED IN THAT PROFESSION SO AS TO OPPRESS AND DESTROY THOSE ETHNIC THAT THEY FEEL ARE INFERIOR TO THEM.

WHAT THE DEMOCRATS LACKED ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO SUPPOSEDLY HAD PROFICIENT ACADEMIC CAREERS AS JUDGES WAS AN INTELLIGENT INTERPRETATION OF TREASON OR TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS.

IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE LAW
                                                           IN THE
                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                         FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                            CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604



 Lee Oties Love, Jr.                                                      Civil Action #17-CV-05482

                                                                                      Judge Sharon J. Coleman   
  Plaintiff                                                                       Mag. M. David Weisman

    V

Supreme Court of Illinois, Pamela E. Loza,
Luciano Panici, James P. Murphy, Joshua P. Haid      
                                      
 Defendants


                MOTION DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE--PERSONAL BIAS OR PREJUDICE {28 USCA 144, 455 (B) (1)} VACATE ORDERS  DUE TO ORDERS BEING VOID A NULLITY “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” “TREASON” & TRANSFER THIS MATTER TO ANOTHER CIRCUIT PURSUANT TO RULE 26
                                                     
To the Honorable Justices of the Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals and Judicial Council:

    Complainant a United States Citizen, Lee Oties Love, Jr., hereby respectfully represents as Pro Se shows this court with corroboration/admissions and affidavit the noted reasons why this matter should be within this Court’s Jurisdiction; {Pursuant to Fed Rules of Civil Procedure and LR40.1 (b) (d) (e3)} with and transferred to another circuit with Affidavit.

The request for a transfer may be made at any stage of the proceeding before a reference to the Judicial Conference under Rule 20 (b) (1) (C) or 20 (b) (2) or a Petition for Review is filed under Rule 22:

Rule 26, it implements the Breyer Committee’s recommended use of transfers. Breyer Committee Report, 239 F.R.D. at 214-15.

Rule 26 authorizes the transfer of a complaint proceeding to another judicial council selected by the Chief Justice. Such transfers may be appropriate, for example, in the case of a serious complaint where there are multiple disqualifications among the original council, where the issues are highly visible and a local disposition may weaken public confidence in the process, where internal tensions arising in the council as a result of the complaint render disposition by a less involved council appropriate, or where a complaint calls into question policies or governance of the home court of appeals et al.        

 Now comes Lee Oties Love, Jr., Pro Se Appellant in this cause  files herewith his affidavit as required by Title 28, United States Code, Section 144, to show that the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman, William J. Bauer, Michael S. Kanne and Diane S. Sykes, has a personal bias with compelling evidence demonstrating said judges “Trespassing upon the Laws” against him because of his skin color and where legally sufficient Complaint stating a cause how and why this court has jurisdiction; motions corroborating judicial corruption “fraud” “perjury” and a plethora of “Terrorist Civil Rights Acts” put before the court that the District Court and Court of Appeals judges ignored the criminal acts of the Democratic judges and described them as moot upholding Racism, Terrorism and “Treason as judges Trespassed upon the Laws” in the criminal enterprise known as Cook County courts.

That said judges are demonstrating unequivocally this is how traditional Democrats of the Political Machine in this era and beyond feels towards persons of color and the necessary steps they and their brethren are willing to sacrifice and enforce keeping persons of color like the Plaintiff oppressed and treated as a criminal non United States Citizen; and is attempting to cover up the systemic legal applications of racism judicial terrorism that Appellant has diligently put before the courts, where judges and lawyers have participated in said conspiracies and have admitted it pursuant to all laws recorded.    

Based thereon, Plaintiff-Appellant respectfully moves that the Private Citizens Sharon Johnson Coleman, William J. Bauer, Michael S. Kanne and Diane S. Sykes proceed no further herein and that this Honorable Seventh Circuit invoke jurisdiction assign this matter to the Judicial Council so as to exhaust proper protocol in transferring this ,matter to another judicial circuit to judges that will honor the laws of the United States Constitution and it’s rules; due to members of the Democratic Political Machine seizing control over all courts and certain judges politically appointed because of their racist hatred of ethnic groups they deem inferior to them so as to  enforce the laws pursuant to the United States Constitution who is not Bias and understands how to enforce the laws in accordance to the United States Constitution and according to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to hear this proceeding who is not intimidated or fear reprisals from these individuals.

Now comes Lee Oties Love, Jr. Pro Se Appellant in this cause files herewith his affidavit as required by Title 28, attesting the veracity and accuracy of all statements recorded within.      




                                                             
                                                           IN THE
                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                         FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                            CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604


 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
  
                          U.S. Attorney
                       John R. Lausch, Jr.
                      219 South Dearborn Suite 500
                      Chicago, Ill 60605

        Cook County State’s Attorney            Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans
         Kim Foxx                                              50 West Washington, Suite 2600
         50 West Washington, Suite 500                Chicago, Ill. 60601
         Chicago, Ill. 60601                          
                                                                       
        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, Markham IL. 60428, Room 105;
       Joshua P. Haid Sears/Willis Tower 233 South Wacker, Chicago IL. 60606 84th floor;   

                PLEASE BE ADVISED that on December 20, 2017, a Motion to Disqualify judges et al. been filed before the United States Court of Appeals/Judicial Council. 


                                                                                Respectfully Submitted

                                                                            _______________________  
                                                                                            Lee Oties Love, Jr.
                                                                                              8435 S. Peoria
                                                                              Chicago, IL. 60620
                                                           773 783-5691
                                                             IN THE
                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                         FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                            CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

                                                     AFFIDAVIT

                              In support of Motion to Disqualify et al.                                 

                                                In support of Motion
To Disqualify Sharon Johnson Coleman, William J. Bauer, Michael S. Kanne and Diane Sykes Judge of the Northern District of Illinois for Personal Bias or Prejudice “FRAUD” pursuant to 28 USCA 144, 455 (b) (1)


{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;


I am Lee Oties Love, Jr., a Heterosexual Man, HAVE BEEN MANY TIMES DENIED and ignored IN ALL COURTS BUT NEVER TRIED being duly sworn on oath states:  

1.)    That on July 18, 2016,  Plaintiff filed his Complaint stating all claims why the Federal Court had jurisdiction on said matter and it was assigned to Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman;

2.)    That Appellant filed a 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.  

3.)    That Appellant appeared before Sharon Johnson Coleman on August 8, 2016;
A-    Judge Coleman became a "Private Citizen” when she only had her Deputy clerk to notify him via telephone reminding him to come to court but never notifying the Defendants;

B-    That because of her being a “Private Citizen” in her rulings Nullified her orders as being Void;  

4.)  Pursuant to the August 8, 2017 Court Transcript, Line 19 Judge Coleman stated, “I need to stop you right there”, Line 23-24, She stated, “Okay, I have read, read some of it. I read you even though it looked like a filing” Page 4, Par 11-12, Judge Coleman stated, “when you dealt with them, were they – they were judges and it was in court, is that correct?” Plaintiff’s reply Line 13, “Yes Ma’am” Lines 14-16, Judge Coleman stated, “All right. Well, they have immunity. You cannot sue them for anything that happened in the case. You can’t sue them personally” Line 18-19 she further stated, “So they cannot---I have dismiss to them out. I have no jurisdiction over them. Do you understand?”   
C-   Judge Coleman stated, Page 6, Par 2 “You understand I answer to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

D-   In that said judge do not answer to the United States Supreme Court in that she has ignored all legal precedents from the laws of the United States Supreme Court corroborating her role as a Trespasser of the Laws engaging in Treason.

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)

5.)    Appellant appealed to the Seventh Circuit demonstrating all of the inconsistencies errors and how judge Coleman corroborated her role as a “Trespassing upon the Laws” engaging in “Treason”

6.)    That on August 31, 2017, an Order was mailed to Appellant Ordering that a brief memorandum stating why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction et al.

7.)    Judges William J. Bauer, Michael S. Kanne and Diane S. Sykes became “Private Citizens” Trespassed upon the Laws”  ignored all areas of the aforementioned judge Trespassing upon the Laws” engaged in the same acts ignoring all legal citations and United States Supreme Court precedents and laws properly filed with claims being clearly articulated in said Sept 7, 2017 Brief Memorandum;

8.)    That on October 3, 2017, the aforementioned “Private Citizens” corroborated their roles in an “Organized Conspiracy” Dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, which is interesting because said judges’ order is a Nullity Void in its entirety.

9.)    That Page 2 of the aforementioned order is quite insidious to phantom “If plaintiff-appellant Lee Oties Love, Jr. wants this court to review the district court’s ruling (s), he should go back to the district judge and get a clear determination from the district judge that the case is at an end—in other word, that no amendment to the complaint will fix the problem that led to dismissal of Love’s case. With such an order (and accompanying Rule 58 judgment) in hand, plaintiff-appellant Lee Oties Love, Jr. may then file a new appeal from that ruling”.

10.)                      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 U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958).
Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.
Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below).
11.)                         If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. 

B.     That said judges are playing games with the Plaintiff-Appellant using the laws against him as Weapons of Mass Destruction keeping him oppressed by any and all means, 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 may be treated as one for the depravation of rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, Lewis v. Brautigam (CA 5 F 1a) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505, John W. Strong, 185, 777-78 (4 th ed. 1992).

12.)                        That pursuant to request Investigate Alderman Edward and Supreme Court Judge Ann Burke, Page 3 Par 2, “In his book, Mr. Cooley stated Ed Burke and Anne Burke along with Attorney Pat Tuite fixed a murder case before judge Maloney. Herbert Cammon’s case was a murder case in which it was alleged that Herbert Cammon, a gay black man, murdered his wife with the help of his gay lover by stabbing her over 40 times and leaving the knife sticking out of her mouth” et al
A-     “When the judge refused to withdraw from the case, he told the judge, “What’s the big deal. It’s only a fucking nigger”

B-     “Anne Burke also requested that the judge withdraw from the case saying”   
       “My husband was the one who put you on the bench”

13.)     That Pursuant to Motion to Reinstate Case Due To Judge Valderrama Trespassing Upon The Laws Committing Treason Making The Order “Void” A “Nullity” Said Judge Presided Over A Case He had No Jurisdiction Acting As A Private Citizen Rule To Show Cause Remanding Him Into Custody w/Affidavit;
A-   Page 2  Par. 2, 3 of the aforementioned Affidavit corroborates and demonstrates Seventh Circuit Court judges as active participants in an “Organized Conspiracy upholding judges engaging in the Criminal Enterprise Trespassing upon the Laws”

14.)  That Pursuant to the November 7th Court Transcript, Page 7 Lines 15-25 states, “I don’t have--- as a District Court—Federal District Court judge I don’t have the jurisdiction to deal with that. I understood your plight. I had empathy for it, and I did it without prejudice even though I didn’t have jurisdiction. The mistake was I should not have done it without prejudice. I can’t change not having jurisdiction. Without prejudice means the person can bring it back in front of me. Since I made the jurisdiction ruling, I should have said with prejudice. Then you could have appealed my decision on whether or not I had jurisdiction in this building to the 27th floor”.    

U. S Sup Court Digest 24(1) General Conspiracy

U.S. 2003. Essence of a conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act.—U.S. v. Jimenez Recio, 123 S. Ct. 819, 537 U.S. 270, 154 L.Ed.2d 744, on remand 371F.3d 1093

  Agreement to commit an unlawful act, which constitutes the essence of a conspiracy, is a distinct evil that exist and be punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues.-Id.
  Conspiracy poses a threat to the public over and above the threat of the commission of the relevant substantive crime, both because the combination in crime makes more likely the commission of other crimes and because it decreases the part from their path of criminality.-Id.

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, Dec. 63

Vaughn 462 S. E. 2d 728 (Ga.1995), The Supreme Court of Georgia removed a Judge from office for disregarding defendant’s Constitutional rights; Hammel, 668 N. E. 2d 390 (N.Y. 1996) (Judge removed for improperly jailing defendants for their alleged failure to pay fines and make restitution which the judge had imposed, disregarding the defendants basic constitutional rights;

B-     That Ex C demonstrates the need for the Justices of another  Court of Appeals outside the Seventh Circuit to invoke jurisdiction in this matter because the present legal system is in the hands of Domestic Terrorists who have infiltrated the Democratic Political Machine and is enforcing Jim Crow laws with their appointed brethren also known as “Good ol Boys” using Afro American Negroes who have allowed themselves to be whored out as prostitutes upholding the criminal acts of said Terrorists while everyone in responsible authority turn their heads and close their eyes to the crimes perpetrated on innocent persons of color and independent whites  as demonstrated in this case and it is alleged many have secret intimate relations with said individuals and will never open their mouths about whatever injustices being perpetrated on innocent persons of color;

The request for a transfer may be made at any stage of the proceeding before a reference to the Judicial Conference under Rule 20 (b) (1) (C) or 20 (b) (2) or a Petition for Review is filed under Rule 22:

Rule 26, it implements the Breyer Committee’s recommended use of transfers. Breyer Committee Report, 239 F.R.D. at 214-15.

Rule 26 authorizes the transfer of a complaint proceeding to another judicial council selected by the Chief Justice. Such transfers may be appropriate, for example, in the case of a serious complaint where there are multiple disqualifications among the original council, where the issues are highly visible and a local disposition may weaken public confidence in the process, where internal tensions arising in the council as a result of the complaint render disposition by a less involved council appropriate, or where a complaint calls into question policies or governance of the home court of appeals et al.        

That said judges in the Seventh Circuit closed their eyes to the legal issues put before them on appeal in affidavits validating the verity of judges committing Treason Trespassing upon the laws of the United States Constitution engaging in “WAR” against the United States Constitution making every order rendered against the Petitioner. If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he or she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason;

Civil Rights Act of 1866- first section, enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of the laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinances, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding, Act of April 9, 1866, Ch. 31, 1, 14 Stat. 27, 42 U.S.C.A. 1981 (a).
 In the 20th century, the Supreme Court began to overturn Jim Crow laws on constitutional grounds. In Buchanan v. Warley 245 US 60 (1917), the court held that a Kentucky law could not require residential segregation. The Supreme Court in 1946, in Irene Morgan v. Virginia ruled segregation in interstate transportation to be unconstitutional, in an application of the commerce clause of the Constitution. It was not until 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 347 US 483 that the court held that separate facilities were inherently unequal in the area of public schools, effectively overturning Plessy v. Ferguson, and outlawing Jim Crow in other areas of society as well. This landmark case consisted of complaints filed in the states of Delaware (Gebhart v. Belton); South Carolina (Briggs v. Elliott); Virginia (Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County); and Washington, D.C. (Spottswode Bolling v. C. Melvin Sharpe). These decisions, along with other cases such as McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Board of Regents 339 US 637 (1950), NAACP v. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958), and Boynton v. Virginia 364 US 454 (1960), slowly dismantled the state-sponsored segregation imposed by Jim Crow laws.
As the color line itself solidified at the turn of the nineteenth century, Jim Crow imposed on black people clear tactical disadvantages: restricted economic possibilities, narrow educational opportunities, inadequate housing options, high rates of death and disablement, persistent unemployment, and unrelenting poverty. Inasmuch as Jim Crow represented the race problem described by Gunnar Myrdal (18981987) in his 1944 treatise The American Dilemma, it was Jim Crow that created the race quandary; whites constructed the obstacles African Americans confronted, while also blaming them for their conditions, denying them access to the resources of problem solving, and daring themunder threat of violenceto complain, protest, or advance.
Finally, protests or challenges to Jim Crow often proved futile, given law enforcements complicity in the structure. From emancipation to the turn of the century, the Ku Klux Klan operated as a paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party in the South. The Klan, nightriders, red shirts, and other white terrorists intimidated African Americans with personal attacks, school burnings, and lynchings. African Americans rarely served as policemen, sheriffs, or deputies before the late 1940s. During the 1950s and 1960s, the connections between municipal and state governments, law enforcement, and racial violence were well known by officials and citizens alike. White officers were known to harass black people, disrupt black neighborhoods, and assault black women. Arrested for inflated charges, denied satisfactory counsel, and serving harsh sentences, African Americans were further disadvantaged in the courtroom. Rarely did they receive good counsel, nor could they serve on juries. When black lawyers could appear in the courtroom to argue cases, white judges and juries rarely listened. All-white juries decided against black defendants, even in the most obvious cases of innocence, but rarely convicted white defendants, despite evidence of guilt. African Americansincluding the innocentsuffered the harsher punishments of extended jail time, forced farm labor, and peonage. Even women could be placed on the chain gangs working the roads and tracks across the South.

The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Wednesday April 26, 2006, Page 1, Illinois Political Machines help breed corruption, Associated Press writer Deanna Bellandi states, “Illinois is apparently a Petri dish for corruption. It is a real breeding ground”.         

That Chicago is the most Corrupt City in America, Huffington Post, Internet Newspaper, February 23, 2012; University of Illinois Professor Dick Simpson, “The two worst crime zones in Illinois are the governor’s mansion…..and the City Council Chambers in Chicago.” Simpson a former Chicago Alderman told the AP “no other State can match us.”   

Turner 24 F. Cas. 337 (No. 14247) C.C.D. Md. 1867) The “equal benefit” clause is cited in what would appear to be the earliest reported case enforcing the section. The plaintiff was an emancipated slave who was indentured as an apprentice to her former master. Although both whites and blacks could be indentured as an apprentice, under the law of Maryland, indentured blacks were not accorded the same educational benefits as whites and, unlike whites, were subject to being transferred to any other person in the same county. Circuit Judge Chase granted a writ of habeas corpus upon finding that the purported apprenticeship was in fact involuntary servitude and a denial under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 of the “full and equal benefit of all laws”.

15.)  That said case demonstrates multiple acts of systemic applications of constitutional violations, in that judges and State Agencies acted as decision makers possessing final authority, Brown v. Bryan County, OKL., 67 F. 3d 1174 (1995), Stokes v. Bullins, 844 F. 2d 269, 275 (5th Cir. 1988), Wassum v. City of Bellaire, Texas, 861 F. 2d 453, 456 (5th Cir. 1988), Benavides v. County of Wilson, 955 F. 2d 968, 972 (5th Cir.) cert. denied,__ U.S.__, 113 S.Ct. 79, 121 L. Ed. 2d 43 (1992), “Liability will accrue for the acts of a municipal official when the official possess “final policymaking authority” to establish municipal policy with respect to the conduct that resulted in a violation of constitutional rights. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483, 106 S. Ct. 1292, 1300, 89 L.Ed. 2d 452
A-    That not one African American, Negroe or anyone in competent authority opened their mouths to admonish anyone associated in these deliberate heinous acts perpetrated by members of the Democratic Political Machine, due to them only being figureheads. 
    
16.)                        That all Defendant-Appellees have properly admitted to all facts and pleadings recorded in said complaint and motions via affidavits.

17.)                        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 can not demand respect of the laws by its citizens when its tribunals ignore those very same laws”)


                                                                       CANON 1
    A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they should comply with the law, as well as provisions of this code. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.       
  

Wherefore the Foregoing Reasons, Plaintiff Prays for the following relief:

1.)   Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court of Appeals accept Jurisdiction and Transfer this matter to another Court of Appeals Circuit where they can Invoke authority Instanter and assign this matter accordingly and or due to the unprecedented Terrorist Civil Rights Acts recorded within.

Finally, this Affidavit is best closed by a jurist who has stated”; Citing Canon 2A the court noted, “[a] court’s indifference to clearly stated rules breeds disrespect for and discontent with our justice system. Government can not demand respect of the laws by its citizens when its tribunals ignore those very same laws”)

Federal Court FEDERAL JUDGE GETTLEMAN: stated, Tuesday March 10, 2009, where he found Superintendent of police Jody Weiss in Contempt of Court and Ordered the City to Pay $100,000.00, “No one is above the Law”, he cited a 1928 decision by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, that said, “If the Government becomes the law breaker, it breeds Contempt for the Law, It invites everyman to become a law unto himself. It invites Anarchy.”            

The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Wednesday April 26, 2006, Page 1, Illinois Political Machines help breed corruption, Associated Press writer Deanna Bellandi states, “Illinois is apparently a Petri dish for corruption. It is a real breeding ground”.         

That Chicago is the most Corrupt City in America, Huffington Post, Internet Newspaper, February 23, 2012; University of Illinois Professor Dick Simpson, “The two worst crime zones in Illinois are the governor’s mansion…..and the City Council Chambers in Chicago.” Simpson a former Chicago Alderman told the AP “no other State can match us.”   
                                         


                                      FURTHER AFFIANTH SAYETH NOT












                                                                                 Respectfully Submitted

                                                                                ______________________           
                                                                                            Lee Oties Love, Jr.
                                                                                              8435 S. Peoria
                                                                              Chicago, IL. 60620

                                                           773 783-5691

No comments:

Post a Comment