DEMOCRATIC JUDGE PAMELA E. LOZA CORROBORATING HER ROLE TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS ENGAGING IN TREASON OFFENSES IGNORING AND NOT CARING CASE IS BEFORE FEDERAL JUDGE;
LOZA THREATENED MRS. COLBERT IF SHE DID NOT HAVE $100 MONDAY FEBRUARY 27, 2018 SHE WAS REMANDING HER INTO CUSTODY.
Judge Loza’s reply was that “she did not care and that she was here and we are going forward”
COOK COUNTY JUDGES ARE FLEXING AT FEDERAL JUDGES CHALLENGING THEIR AUTHORITY DARING THEM TO DO ANYTHING TO THEM.
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Carlen Colbert Civil Action #17-cv-08467
Hon: Charles R. Norgle, Sr.
Plaintiff
Magistrate: Judge Susan E. Cox
V
Pamela E. Loza, Michael I. Bender, Timothy
C. Evans, Grace Dickler, Anton Colbert, Debra B. Walker
Defendants
NOTICE
OF EMERGENCY MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE REMANDING 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 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, Carlen Colbert, 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
Feb. 23, 2018, Plaintiff shall present this Motion at 9:30 am before
Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Sr. in room 2338A, 219 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, IL. 60604;
To: Dir.
Chris Wray FBI 601 4th
Street Washington D.C. 20535
US Attorney, John R. Lausch, Jr. 219 S. Dearborn, Suite 500
To: Pamela E. Loza 50 West Washington, Chicago,
IL 60601 Room 3009;
Michael I. Bender, 70 West Madison,
Suite 2222 Chg. IL 60602,
Timothy C. Evans 50 West Washington,
Chg. IL. 60601 Room 2600;
Anton Colbert, 140 Percy Julian Sq., Oak
Park, IL. 60302-2619
Grace Dickler 50 West Washington, Chg,
IL 60601 Room 1905;
Debra B. Walker, 50 West Washington,
Chg. Il 60601 Room 2108
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on February 22, 2018 A Emergency Motion to Supplement Petition for Rule to Show Cause et al have been filed with all
attachments before the United States District Courts.
Respectfully
Submitted
_______________________
Carlen Colbert
1805 Jamestown Cir.
Hoffman
Estates, IL. 60169
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.
______________________
Carlen
Colbert
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Carlen Colbert Civil Action #17-cv-08467
Hon: Charles R. Norgle, Sr.
Plaintiff
Magistrate: Judge Susan E. Cox
V
Pamela E. Loza, Michael I. Bender, Timothy
C. Evans, Grace Dickler, Anton Colbert, Debra B. Walker
Defendants
EMERGENCY
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
REMANDING 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
AND COUNTY COURTS FROM ENTERING ANY JUDGMENTS INSTANTER AND VACATE ALL ORDERS
VOID IN NATURE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF
Now comes Carlen Colbert., Pro Se in this
cause respectfully represents to this court her Emergency Motion to Supplement
Petition for Rule to Show Cause Remanding 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.
Said reasons are recorded in the attached
affidavit;
Respectfully Submitted
_______________________
Carlen Colbert
1805 Jamestown Cir.
Hoffman Estates, IL. 60169
AFFIDAVIT
{Pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. 1446 (a)}
I Carlen
Colbert. being first duly sworn on oath depose and states in support of Emergency
Motion to Supplement Petition for Rule to Show Cause Remanding Judge Elizabeth
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.
{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….”
1.) That on Thursday Feb. 22, 2018,
Petitioner appeared before the court on the 10:30am call where judge Loza was
informed that this matter was in federal court and asked why was she here?
Judge Loza’s reply was that “she did not
care and that she was here and we are going forward”
2.) Judge Loza became a “Private Citizen” a
law unto herself entered an unsigned court order placing her in contempt of
court threatening remand Monday Feb. 26 2018 if plaintiff don’t allow herself
to be extorted by former judge bender giving him $100.00 for all unlawful legal
proceedings had against the Plaintiff abducting her child from her;
3.) Hereto attached, Court Order not signed
demonstrating judges in the Democratic party “Trespassing upon the laws
willfully and wantonly, not fearing any admonishment from any federal judges
overseeing this matter.
4.)
That because of the
aforementioned parties colluding in an “Organized
Conspiracy” violating more laws does not seem to phase them one iota, judge
Loza and the other conspirators are going to continue to “Trespass upon the
Laws” until they are stopped with Federal intervention.
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).
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.
A- That
because Judge Pamela Elizabeth Loza 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”;
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 Plaintiff Respectfully Prays for the Relief:
1.) That
this Most Honorable Court Remand Judge Pamela E. Loza et al, attorneys and all conspirators into custody Instanter
for “Trespassing upon the Laws”;
2.) Order
that minor child be returned to the Plaintiff Instanter;
3.) Order
the Grand Jury to investigate and Indict all other parties associated in said
Conspiracy and the persons responsible for additional charges;
4.) 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”;
5.) Issue
an Injunction on the Feb 22, 2018 and all other orders Prohibiting the County
judges, City or State Officials from issuing any judgments against the
Plaintiff;
6.) Order
Sanctions against all parties and have them to absorb all legal expenses and
costs for the enforcement of this matter;
7.) Order
a Moratorium on all Child Support’ Custody matters ascertaining other men or
women victimized by the same unjust matters;
8.) Let
the Gavel and Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court Invoke any other remedy this
courts deems just;
FURTHER AFFIANTH SAYETH NAUGHT
Respectfully Submitted
_______________________
Carlen Colbert
No comments:
Post a Comment