MARY MITCHELL DID AN ARTICLE JAN. 7, 2018 KENNEDY STOOPS LOW ON BLACK FLIGHT:
She states in her column "But Kennedy's attack is more than sad. Besides disparaging the mayor's efforts to address the disparities that still exist, Kennedy's allegations suggest the stellar lineup of African-American leaders in Emanuel's administration -- not to mention black alderman -- are useless"
While I may not be able to comment on the aforementioned names indicated but I can attest that the majority of black judges Chief judge are mere figureheads absent any real authority.
Jim Crow laws are still being enforced because the White Nationalist controlling the Democratic party only recruit and appoint black and brown individuals who will maintain an inferior disposition and keep their mouths shut.
Kennedy was correct in his articulation of the facts what is sad is that not one black or brown person in this city is standing up to the very issues because nobody wants to be recognized as a house niggers and the very ones in authority would destroy any person of their own ethnic group so as to be accepted and liked by the very racist controlling the Democratic party.
Here is a man Lee Oties Love, Jr. whose only inspiration was to love and be in his daughters life as a father but due to self-hate of the child's mother and puppet blacks not one person opened their mouths to speak up in his behalf other than so many on Twitter it is sinister to phantom so many blacks still act like they are slaves living on a plantation while so many people of color disenfranchised by the very government Dr Martin Luther King lost his life with so many other freedom fighters for the very equal rights none of us have living in Chicago, Illinois.
Alderman Edward Burke to many blacks he is their savior has deployed every racist Irish judge in this city and Federal court to deny every complaint presented describing Section 8 voucher fraud, Housing Discrimination, Child support extortion, unlawful termination at the CTA went ignored and covered up when many other whites refused to align themselves with him to continuously harass me in the courts he found a plethora of useless blacks as judges to fulfill his biddings.
Mexican American judge Pamela Elizabeth Loza realizing their is not a black person in any authority only figureheads unleashed her cartel terrorist racist hatred at an innocent Lee in levying another bogus warrant at him because he was black man standing up to her racist tirades and for the love of his daughter not even Kim Foxx a Black states attorney opened her mouth to defend or question this crazy judge as to why she is still on the bench.
Now Mary Mitchell what is your response to this post?
I challenge you or any reporter to explain why innocent men like us and others are going through these racist terrorist tirades perhaps you can best identify the useful blacks who can handle such a task.
DR MARTIN LUTHER KING SAID "TO IGNORE EVIL IS TO BECOME AN ACCOMPLICE TO IT"
IN THE
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
17-3489
Lee Oties Love, Jr.
} Appeal from the United
} States District Court for
Plaintiff
–Appellant } the
Northern District of
} Illinois, Eastern Division
V
}
} No. 1:17-cv-05482
Supreme Court of Illinois, et al. }
}
Defendants-Appellees }
Sharon Johnson Coleman, Judge
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION VACATE (DECEMBER 22, 2017) ORDER DUE TO
“TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE MAKING THE ORDER VOID A
NULLITY w/AFFIDAVIT & REINSTATE MOTION PURSUNT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980
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, Diane P. Wood, 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 me because of my 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 and racist Republicans 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 Appellant 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 judges recorded within 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 her 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
219 South Dearborn
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
AFFIDAVIT
In support of Motion for Reconsideration et al.
In support of Motion
To Vacate Sharon Johnson
Coleman, Diane P. Wood, Diane Sykes, William J. Bauer, Michael S. Kanne and various judges subject to an active
Complaint Case # 07-16-90074
Judge of the Northern District of
Illinois for Personal Bias or Prejudice “FRAUD” “Trespassing upon the Laws”
pursuant to 28 USCA 144, 455 (b) (1) & REINSTATE MOTION PURSUNT TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980
I am Lee
Oties Love, Jr. being duly sworn on oath states:
{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;
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).
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 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 as guilty as the convicted judges.
A
court exercises its law-declaring power when a ruling has an effect on “primary
conduct”. See id. (Citing Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 475 (1965) (Harlan,
J., concurring) (classifying rules affecting “primary decisions respecting
human conduct”) as substantive for purposes of Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304
U.S. 64 (1938).
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 or federal officer.
The judge then acts not as a
judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
1.)
That
said judge erred and violated the oath of her duties not recognizing she had no
jurisdiction as she “Trespassed upon the Laws” denying said Motion in
spite of the foregoing statements validating the verity of judge Coleman
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)
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).
2.) Plaintiff stated, Page 3, Par 14-18 from
the transcript, “And the reason why I’m
here is that me, the defendant is petitioning rule to show cause remanding
Circuit Court judge Pamela Elizabeth Loza and attorneys are trespassing upon
the law, corroboration in an organized chain conspiracy of treason, fraud of
all sorts..” 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?”
Judge Coleman
stated, Page 6, Par 2 “You understand I
answer to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
The District
court closed her eyes to the “VOID ORDERS” entered against the Plaintiff
and entered an order described as a nullity, and because of the court’s
disposition in this matter has caused judges to engage in Acts of “Treason”, “Trespassing upon the Laws” as if this was a Ebola virus.
3.) 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.
A-
Pursuant to {28 USCA 144, 455 (B) (1)} Sufficient for Removal, conduct which does not constitute a
criminal offense may be sufficiently violative of the Judicial Canons to
warrant removal for cause. Napolitano v Ward, 457 F 2d 279 (7th Cir.), cert denied,
409 U.S. 1037, 93 S. Ct. 512, 34 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1972), that said District Court judge either erred by misinterpreting the laws or
methodically violated her oath by stating said Plaintiff dismissed his own case
when in fact Page 4, Lines 18, 19, Judge Coleman stated, “I have dismiss to them out. I have no
jurisdiction over them. Do you understand?”
B-
That this ambiguity, pursuant to Page
2 of the order from the 7th Cir states, “A dismissal of a case without prejudice, however, normally does not
qualify as an appealable final judgment because the plaintiff is free to
re-file the case. Larken v. Galloway, 266 F. 3d 718, 721 (7th Cir.
2001). That appears to be what the district court intended, and what the
plaintiff understood the case to be here.”
C-
That Page 6, Lines 12-17, Judge
stated, “You have crossed over into the
Federal court, and I deal with national issues. I don’t deal with domestic
relations and child support unless it’s a usually international case or maybe
even people in maybe different states, but usually not someone coming to me
directly from the Circuit Court of Cook County”.
D-
That Page 7, Lines 3-6,
Plaintiff stated, “Which I don’t
understand according to law that they denied my written mandamus. But the thing
about that is it was, it was not signed by a judge”.
E-
That Page 7, Lines 7-8,
10-14 Judge stated, “I’m not the
Illinois Supreme Court.” “And I don’t tell them how ----and usually if they
don’t sign something, and I don’t know if they had a signature on that,
sometimes they issue orders that are not opinions that they can sign. I don’t
know. I’ve never been on the Illinois Supreme Court, and I don’t work for them”.
F-
That from the Complaint captioned Complaint of Civil Rights
Violations, Trespassing of the Laws, Treason et al. said June 6, 2017, Ex’s 1-3 orders from the Sup. Ct. attached as exhibits
corroborating said assertions not signed by any judge but cc’d to all parties.
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, because so many judges are operating in the Cook County
Criminal enterprise “Fixing” cases.
Implementation of the Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act of 1980:
The Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act Study Committee
Pursuant to Appendix D 352
(Chapter 16, Title 28, United States Code)
4.) That
Pamela E. Loza realizing that she was deemed untouchable by any colored
Democrat further advanced her ablity to “Trespass upon the laws” by issuing
another “Bogus Warrant” against the Appellant for his arrest he has attended
all court dates hereto attached.
5.) §
352. Review of complaint by chief judge (a) Expeditious Review; Limited
Inquiry.—The chief judge shall expeditiously review any complaint received
under section 351(a) or identified under section 351(b). In determining what
action to take, the chief judge may conduct a limited inquiry for the purpose
of determining— (1) whether appropriate corrective action has been or can be taken
without the necessity for a formal investigation; and (2) whether the facts
stated in the complaint are either plainly untrue or are incapable of being
established through investigation. For this purpose, the chief judge may
request the judge whose conduct is complained of to file a written response to
the complaint. Such response shall not be made available to the complainant
unless authorized by the judge filing the response. The chief judge or his or
her designee may also communicate orally or in writing with the complainant,
the judge whose conduct is complained of, and any other person who may have
knowledge of the matter, and may review any transcripts or other relevant
documents.
6.) The
chief judge shall not undertake to make findings of fact about any matter that
is reasonably in dispute. Hereto attached Ex
A Court Order of Dec 22, 2017, states “It
is Ordered that the motion is DENIED. The Appellant does not point to
anything warranting recusal or transfer. Unfavorable rulings are very rarely
sufficient to establish judicial bias or misconduct such that recusal is
warranted. Liteky v. United States,
510 U.S. 540 555 (1994); et al.”
A-
That said Chief Judge Diane P. Wood by “Trespassing upon the Laws” by
violating her oath and obstructed justice by falsifying admissions why said
motion as to why it was denied became a “Private
Citizen”
B-
That “Private
Citizen” Wood violated the provisions of the Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act of 1980 and all laws of the United States Constitution
further corroborates her role and participation in trying to cover-up all
“Treason Offenses, hereto attached, Gr
Ex F & D, Petition to Transfer case Diane P. Wood is named in
the complaint did not deny address or object to any of the assertions; Petition
for Review naming 40 judges said “Private
Citizen” is using her position and authority to uphold the uphold the
terrorist acts of members operating within a terrorist cell overturning the
court venue as we know it to be.
C-
That “Private Citizen” Wood in her actions
is further assisting the State by manufacturing a defense as judges in the Cook
County enterprise concoct charges and criminalize an innocent Appellant where
more time is needed to submit a brief, hereto attached, Ex A court order signed by Jesse G. Reyes.
D-
That there is not a Black or Brown person in prominent
authority who will open their mouths and denounce the terrorist racist acts
perpetrated on men of color or any Heterosexual man or woman because many of
the Black and Brown judges or States attorneys are the alleged (puppets) foot
soldiers for the white men and women engaged in said “Organized Conspiracy” protecting them keeping “White
Nationalist” in power.
7.) Section
351(a) authorizes “[a]ny person alleging that a judge has engaged in conduct
prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of
the courts, or alleging that such judge is unable to discharge all the duties
of office by reason of mental or physical disability” to “file with the clerk
of the court of appeals for the circuit a written complaint containing a brief
statement of the facts constituting such conduct.”
Section 351(c) directs the clerk to transmit the complaint
to the chief circuit judge (or, if the chief judge is the object of the
complaint, to the active judge on the court of appeals who is senior in
service) and to the judge complained against. (Complaints against International
Trade Court or Federal Claims Court judges are handled by those courts’ chief
judges.) Section 351(b) authorizes the chief judge, by written order, to
“identify” a complaint (begin the process) on the basis of “information
available to the chief judge” and “thereby dispense with filing of a written
complaint.”
Disqualification (a) General Rule. Any judge is
disqualified from participating in any proceeding under these Rules if the
judge, in his or her discretion, concludes that circumstances warrant
disqualification. If a complaint is filed by a judge, that judge is
disqualified from participating in any consideration of the complaint except to
the extent that these Rules provide for a complainant’s participation. A chief
judge who has identified a complaint under Rule 5 is not automatically
disqualified from considering the complaint. (b) Subject Judge. A subject judge
is disqualified from considering a complaint except to the extent that these
Rules provide for participation by a subject judge. (c) Chief Judge
Disqualified from Considering Petition for Review of Chief Judge’s Order. If a
petition for review of the chief judge’s order entered under Rule 11(c), (d),
or (e) is filed with the judicial council in accordance with Rule 18, the chief
judge is disqualified from participating in the council’s consideration of the
petition. (d) Member of Special Committee Not Disqualified. A member of the
judicial council who serves on a special committee, including the chief judge,
is not disqualified from participating in council consideration of the
committee’s report. (e) Subject Judge’s Disqualification After Appointment of
Special Committee. Upon appointment of a special committee, the subject judge
is disqualified from participating in the identification or consideration of
any complaint, related or unrelated to the pending matter, under the Act or
these Rules. The disqualification continues Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2E,
Ch. 3 Page 52 until all proceedings on the complaint against the subject judge
are finally terminated with no further right of review. (f) Substitute for
Disqualified Chief Judge. If the chief judge is disqualified from performing
duties that the Act and these Rules assign to a chief judge, those duties must
be assigned to the most-senior active circuit judge not disqualified. If all
circuit judges in regular active service are disqualified, the judicial council
may determine whether to request a transfer under Rule 26, or, in the interest
of sound judicial administration, to permit the chief judge to dispose of the
complaint on the merits. Members of the judicial council who are named in the
complaint may participate in this determination if necessary to obtain a quorum
of the council. (g) Judicial-Council Action When Multiple Judges Disqualified.
Notwithstanding any other provision in these Rules to the contrary, (1) a
member of the judicial council who is a subject judge may participate in its
disposition if: (A) participation by one or more subject judges is necessary to
obtain a quorum of the judicial council; (B) the judicial council finds that
the lack of a quorum is due to the naming of one or more judges in the complaint
for the purpose of disqualifying that judge or those judges, or to the naming
of one or more judges based on their participation in a decision excluded from
the definition of misconduct under Rule 3(h)(3); and (C) the judicial council
votes that it is necessary, appropriate, and in the interest of sound judicial
administration that one or more subject judges be eligible to act.
8.) That said “Private Citizen” operating as a Chief
judge dismissed said complaint against the preponderance of the evidence
pursuant to C-7 of Ch 4 Complaint against a district judge inadequately
investigated and improperly dismissed by chief judge, review petition
improperly dismissed by judicial council---- is GERMANE in this unprecedented
manner of terrorist corruption conspiracy.
a.
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);
b.
A void judgment does not create any binding obligation.
Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L, Ed 370.
9.) In
the unlikely event that a quorum of the judicial council cannot be obtained to
consider the report of a special committee, it would normally be necessary to
request a transfer under Rule 26. Rule 25(h) recognizes that the jurisdictional
statement of the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability contemplates
consultation between members of the Committee and judicial participants in
proceedings under the Act and these Rules. Such consultation should not
automatically preclude participation by a member in that proceeding. 26.
Transfer to Another Judicial Council In exceptional circumstances, a chief
judge or a judicial council may ask the Chief Justice to transfer a proceeding
based on a complaint identified under Rule 5 or filed under Rule 6 to the
judicial council of another circuit. 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.
Upon receiving such a request, the Chief Justice may refuse the request or
select the transferee judicial council, which may then exercise the powers of a
judicial council under these Rules.
Initial analysis of the
complaint we turn now to describe how the circuit’s process complaints once
filed. These descriptions are based on staff interviews and follow-up inquiries
in the spring of 2006.
In two regional circuits, the
complaint goes directly to the chief judge’s chambers.
In the other ten circuits, a
staff person outside the chief judge’s chambers is responsible for at least
some initial review of the complaint and, in most cases, preparation of a draft
order or a memorandum analyzing the complaint, or both. That task falls to the
• circuit executive’s office in five circuits; • clerk’s office in three
circuits; • staff attorney’s office in one circuit; and • appellate conference
attorney’s office in one circuit.
Implementation of the Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act ~ September 2006 At least four circuits provide for
some review of this staff-prepared material before it goes to the chief judge,
usually by another staff person in the same office. Submission to the chief
judge In five of the ten circuits in which the complaint does not go directly
to the chief judge’s chambers, the chief judge receives, along with the
complaint, a draft order and supporting memoranda. In the other five, the chief
judge receives the complaint, the draft order and analysis, and, if
appropriate, supporting material that the staff finds relevant and readily
available in the public record, such as docket sheets. Chief judges’ told us
that the staff typically alerts them to unusual complaints. One said in an
interview, for example, that the chief deputy “might alert me that there’s
something tricky,” giving as an example one of the high-visibility complaints
we discuss in Chapter 4. “In such cases,” the chief judge continued, “we may
want an answer from the respondent judge.”
10.)
Hereto attached, Gr Ex F,
hereto attached Directed Evidence
of “Trespassing upon the Laws” and “Treason” in that Judge Diane P. Wood,
Chief Judge is under a Complaint before the Judicial Council naming some other
39 judges.
11.)
That said judge now has become a “Private Citizen” stated “that the motion is Denied. The appellant
does not point to anything warranting recusal or transfer.”
FACT:
12.)
That all judges in the Seventh Circuit do not recognize or uphold
the doctrines of the U.S. Supreme Courts. Precedent already established
A-
That
said judge (s) 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 a Nullity, Void. 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;
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”)
13.)
The District Court’s actions can be gleaned as
acts of Improprieties in an attempt to aid and assist said
Defendant’s named in Suit, In Re Judge No. 93-154, 440 S.E.2d 169
(Ga. 1994), And Deception by falsifying reasons for preventing a legally
sufficient Complaint and Motion from being served on Appellee’s, In re Ferrara,
582 N.W. 2d 817 (Mich. 1998),In re Renfer, 493 S.E. 2d 434 (N.C. 1997), In re
Kroger, 702 A. 2d 64 (Vt. 1997), Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial
Performance, 33 Cal. 3d 359, 657 P. 2d 372, 377, 188 Cal. Rptr. 880 (1983).
a.
That because Judge Loza having no fear of
District Court’s judge Sharon Johnson Coleman’s jurisdiction is continuously “Trespassing upon the Laws” because she is aware Blacks and Hispanics
judges have no real authority over whites only those of their own ethnic
make-up.
b.
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)
c.
That
the Judge erred considerably when it received notice and knowledge of other
Judges complicit in a Criminal Conspiracy failed to follow Canon Ethics
Leslie W. Abramson, 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 751 (1997). The Judges Ethical Duty
to Report Misconduct by Other Judges and Lawyers and its effect on Judicial
Independence.
d.
That because many white nationalist have infiltrated the
Democratic party and has methodically overturned the legal tribunal recruiting
the necessary persons who will keep their mouths shut and continue the
terrorist mayhem on innocent citizens fighting injustice in the courts;
DEMOCRATIC PARTY
HAS ROOTS IN VIOLENCE, RACISM AND BIGOTRY
History can be an annoying, pernicious thing. Especially for those
who try to hide it.
When I read this morning that a high school in the South was going
to drop its racist, confederate name, I immediately thought of Democrats Strom
Thurmond or Robert Byrd, who were Klan members and staunch segregationists.
But no … the school is Nathan B. Forrest High School in
Jacksonville, Fla. Forrest was a Confederate General and a leader of the Ku
Klux Klan.
I decided to research a little bit into General Forrest and it
turns out he was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention. In fact,
the KKK was founded by Democrats to terrorize blacks and white Republicans.
The history of the Democratic Party is rooted in racism, violence,
lynchings and bigotry. The National Review published an article detailing the racist history of the Democratic Party:
May 22, 1856: Two years after the Grand Old party’s birth, U.S.
Senator Charles Sumner (R., Mass.) rose to decry pro-slavery Democrats.
Congressman Preston Brooks (D., S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating
Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his
duties for three years.
July 30, 1866: New Orleans’s Democratic government ordered police
to raid an integrated GOP meeting, killing 40 people and injuring 150.
September 28, 1868: Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed
nearly 300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper
editor.
October 7, 1868: Republicans criticized Democrats’ national
slogan: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule.”
April 20, 1871: The GOP Congress adopted the Ku Klux Klan Act,
banning the pro-Democrat domestic terrorist group.
October 18, 1871: GOP President Ulysses S. Grant dispatched
federal troops to quell Klan violence in South Carolina.
September 14, 1874: Racist white Democrats stormed Louisiana’s
statehouse to oust GOP Governor William Kellogg’s racially integrated administration;
27 are killed.
August 17, 1937: Republicans opposed Democratic President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt’s Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D., Al.), a
former Klansman who defended Klansmen against race-murder charges.
February 2005: The Democrats’ Klan-coddling today is embodied by
KKK alumnus Robert Byrd, West Virginia’s logorrhea U.S. senator and, having
served since January 3, 1959, that body’s dean. Thirteen years earlier, Byrd
wrote this to the KKK’s Imperial Wizard: “The Klan is needed today as never
before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.” Byrd led
Senate Democrats as late as December 1988. On March 4, 2001, Byrd told Fox
News’s Tony Snow:
“There are white niggers.
I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I’m going to use that word.”
National Democrats never have arranged a primary challenge against or otherwise
pressed this one-time cross-burner to get lost.
Contrast the KKKozy Democrats with the GOP. When former Klansman
David Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican, national GOP
officials scorned him. Local Republicans endorsed incumbent Democrat Edwin
Edwards, despite his ethical baggage. As one Republican-created bumper sticker
pleaded: “Vote for the crook: It’s important!”
Republicans also have supported legislation favorable to blacks,
often against intense Democratic headwinds:
In 1865, Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th
Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional. Among Democrats, 63 percent of
senators and 78 percent of House members voted: “No.”
In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House
members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal
protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: “No.”
February 28, 1871: The GOP Congress passed the Enforcement Act,
giving black voters federal protection.
February 8, 1894: Democratic President Grover Cleveland and a
Democratic Congress repealed the GOP’s Enforcement Act, denying black voters
federal protection.
January 26, 1922: The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer’s (R.,
Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate Democrats
killed the measure.
May 17, 1954: As chief justice, former three-term governor Earl
Warren (R., Calif.) led the U.S. Supreme Court’s desegregation of government
schools via the landmark Brown v. Board of
Education decision. GOP President Dwight Eisenhower’s Justice Department
argued for Topeka, Kansas’s black school children. Democrat John W. Davis, who
lost a presidential bid to incumbent Republican Calvin Coolidge in 1924,
defended “separate but equal” classrooms.
September 24, 1957: Eisenhower deployed the 82nd Airborne Division
to desegregate Little Rock’s government schools over the strenuous resistance
of Governor Orval Faubus (D., Ark.).
May 6, 1960: Eisenhower signs the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act
after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.
July 2, 1964: Democratic President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil
Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd’s 14-hour filibuster and the votes
of 22 other Senate Democrats (including Tennessee’s Al Gore, Sr.) failed to
scuttle the measure. Illinois Republican Everett Dirksen rallied 26 GOP
senators and 44 Democrats to invoke cloture and allow the bill’s passage.
According to John Fonte in the January 9, 2003, National Review, 82 percent of
Republicans so voted, versus only 66 percent of Democrats.
True, Senator Barry Goldwater (R., Ariz.) opposed this bill the
very year he became the GOP’s presidential standard-bearer. However, Goldwater
supported the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and called for integrating
Arizona’s National Guard two years before Truman desegregated the military.
Goldwater feared the 1964 Act would limit freedom of association in
the private sector, a controversial but principled libertarian
objection rooted in the First Amendment rather than racial hatred.
June 29, 1982: President Ronald Reagan signed a 25-year extension
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Republican Party also is the home of numerous “firsts.” Among
them:
Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican.
America’s first black U.S. Representative, South Carolina’s Joseph Rainey, and
our first black senator, Mississippi’s Hiram Revels, both reached Capitol Hill
in 1870. On December 9, 1872, Louisiana Republican Pinckney Benton Stewart
“P.B.S.” Pinchback became America’s first black governor.
August 8, 1878: GOP supply-siders may hate to admit it, but
America’s first black Collector of Internal Revenue was former U.S. Rep. James
Rapier (R., Ala.).
October 16, 1901: GOP President Theodore Roosevelt invited to the
White House as its first black dinner guest Republican educator Booker T.
Washington. The pro-Democrat Richmond Times newspaper warned that
consequently, “White women may receive attentions from Negro men.” As Toni
Marshall wrote in the November 9, 1995, Washington Times, when Roosevelt
sought reelection in 1904, Democrats produced a button that showed their
presidential nominee, Alton Parker, beside a white couple while Roosevelt posed
with a white bride and black groom. The button read: “The Choice Is Yours.”
GOP presidents Gerald Ford in 1975 and Ronald Reagan in 1982
promoted Daniel James and Roscoe Robinson to become, respectively, the Air
Force’s and Army’s first black four-star generals.
November 2, 1983: President Reagan established Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr.’s birthday as a national holiday, the first such honor for a black
American.
President Reagan named Colin Powell America’s first black
national-security adviser while GOP President George W. Bush appointed him our
first black secretary of state.
President G.W. Bush named Condoleezza Rice America’s first black
female NSC chief, then our second (consecutive) black secretary of State. Just
last month, one-time Klansman Robert Byrd and other Senate Democrats stalled
Rice’s confirmation for a week. Amid unanimous GOP support, 12 Democrats and
Vermont Independent James Jeffords opposed Rice — the most “No” votes for a
State designee since 14 senators frowned on Henry Clay in 1825.
By the way, if we’re going to strip schools of the names of
racists, Strom Thurmond High School in South Carolina and Robert C Byrd high
school in West Virginia should be at the top of the list.
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).
VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE
In
Illinois, 705 ILCS 205/4 states "Every person admitted to practice as an
attorney and counselor at law shall, before his name is entered upon the roll
to be kept as hereinafter provided, take and subscribe an oath, substantially
in the following form:
'I do solemnly swear (or affirm,
as the case may be), that I will support the constitution of the United States
and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully
discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best
of my ability.'"
In Illinois, a judge must take a
second oath of office. Under 705 ILCS 35/2 states, in part, that "The
several judges of the circuit courts of this State, before entering upon the
duties of their office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or
affirmation, which shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State:
'I do solemnly swear (or affirm,
as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States,
and the constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully
discharge the duties of judge of ______ court, according to the best of my
ability.'"
Further, if the judge had enlisted
in the U.S. military, then he has taken a third oath. Under Title 10 U.S.C.
Section 502 the judge had subscribed to a lifetime oath, in pertinent part, as
follows: "I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign
or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; ...".
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).
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.
TREASON
Whenever
a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is
engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will,
449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens
v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)
What is the penalty for treason?
18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason
Whoever, owing
allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is
guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than
five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L.
103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016 (2) (J), Sept.
13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Attorney General Sessions: Actions
“from racial bigotry and hatred….cannot be tolerated an innocent 32 year
old Caucasian woman was killed as white nationalist banded together seeking
white supremacy in Charlottesville Virginia. In Chicago any nonwhite person who
closes their eyes and jurisdiction to a person of color seeking jurisdiction
and protection to the very mayhem of racial hatred is a colored version of the
very hate groups that is being denounced in that city is all the reasons why
“Jim Crow laws” are still being enforced in the courts of Chicago, Illinois
Negroe blacks and certain Hispanic judges as Democrats keep their mouths shut
and go along with racial injustice.
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.”
Wherefore the foregoing
stated within Appellant Respectfully Prays for the Relief:
1.) That
this court accept jurisdiction reinstate motion and transfer this matter to
another circuit Instanter.
2.) That
every judge named in the complaint and has “Trespassed upon the Laws” in the
aforementioned manner be recused and that military/special forces be deployed
to ascertain and eradicate all judges (Terrorists) warring against the United
States Constitution.
3.) That
said members responsible for “Trespassing upon the laws” and who have closed
their eyes to these crimes likened to War Crimes be replaced by qualified
Republicans and independents not affiliated to this regime temporarily because
no Democrat has or will dispensate the laws equitably as noted within.
4.) That this
Honorable Court Invoke any other remedy this courts deems just;
I affirm the
above as being true.
Respectfully
Submitted
Lee Oties Love, Jr.
Plaintiff-Counsel Pro
Se
IN THE
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Lee Oties Love, Jr.
} Appeal from the United
} States District Court for
Plaintiff
–Appellant }
the Northern District of
} Illinois, Eastern Division
V }
} No. 1:17-cv-05482
Supreme Court of Illinois, et al. }
}
Defendants-Appellees }
Sharon Johnson Coleman, Judge
NOTICE OF
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
VACATE (DECEMBER 22, 2017) ORDER DUE TO “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE MAKING THE ORDER VOID A NULLITY w/AFFIDAVIT & REINSTATE MOTION
PURSUNT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF
1980
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Dir. Chris Wray FBI 601 4th
Street Washington D.C. 20535
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 January 16, 2018, a Motion for Reconsideration et al. has been filed before
the United States Court of Appeals.
Respectfully Submitted
_______________________
Lee Oties Love, Jr.
8435
S. Peoria
Chicago, IL. 60620
773 783-5691
Dated
November 16, 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment