BEFORE ANYONE SET OUT TO VOTE THIS IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW:

THIS BRIEF ARTICULATES HOW THE DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL MACHINE HAS CIRCUMVENTED THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BY EMPLOYING THE VERY INFERIOR BLACKS IN POSITIONS MAKING SURE THEIR OWN ETHNIC GROUPS REMAIN OPPRESSED.

FEW BLACK MEN IN ILLINOIS POLITICS HAVE TRUE AUTHORITY OF THE POSITION THEY MAY HOLD ESPECIALLY JUDGES.

WHILE PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED INTO LAWS A MAN CAN MARRY A MAN ETC. SO MANY JUDGES ARE LIVING DOUBLE LIVES MARRIED WITH A WIFE AND CHILDREN BUT THEY ARE ALSO IN DISCREET  RELATIONSHIPS WITH POWERFUL WHITE MEN IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WHO CONTROLS EVERY DECISION AND MOVE THEY MAKE.

THESE DEMOCRATS WOULD MUCH RATHER JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON AND TALK ABOUT PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP OR GOVERNOR BRUCE RAUNER BUT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW HOW THEY HAVE OVERTURNED THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND HAS INSTALLED DOMESTIC TERRORIST IN PIVOTAL POSITIONS MAKING SURE NO BODY DISCOVERS HOW THEY ARE ABLE TO CONTINUOUSLY ENFORCE "JIM CROW LAWS" KEEPING INFERIOR BLACK AND BROWN JUDGES ON THE FRONT LINES "TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS" ENGAGING IN "TREASON" PROTECTING ALL RACIST WHITE MEN NOTED IN THIS "ORGANIZED CONSPIRACY"

I HAVE BEEN REMINDED LOL NOT TO CONDEMN THE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BECAUSE ALL OF THE MEN DON'T ESPOUSE THE DOCTRINES SO MANY OF THEM DO SHARE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MANY HAVE APPLAUDED AND AGREED WITH MY RHETORIC IN THE BLOGS.

JUDGES LIKE PAMELA LOZA, FRANKLIN ULYSSES  VALDERRAMA, FREDRENNA LYLES AND SO MANY LIKE THEM ARE A DISGRACE TO THE ROBE, THEIR COMMUNITIES AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION NOT ONE DEMOCRATIC JUDGE HAS THE COMPETENCE OR LEGAL APTITUDE TO ATTACK THE MERITS OF THIS BRIEF.

THIS BRIEF IS PRESENTED IN PART IT IS A TOTAL OF 38 PAGES AND IT HAS BEEN FILED TODAY.   

                                                              IN THE

                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                         FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

                                           CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

_________________________________________________________________

                                                          No 11-3481

_________________________________________________________________

 Lee Oties Love, Jr.                                    )   Appeal from the United States District

      Plaintiff-Appellant                               )        Court for the Northern District

         No. 17-3489                                      )           Of Illinois, Eastern Division

               vs.                                                )

                                                                   )

Supreme Court of Ill., et al                         )       JUDGE Sharon Johnson Coleman

                                                                    )

                                                                    )              17 CV-05482

                                                                    )

_________________________________________________________________

                                                           Brief of

                                                 Lee Oties Love, Jr.

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellant

_________________________________________________________________

                                                              vs.

                                               Defendant-Appellees

 Cook County States Attorney                       Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans

 Kim Foxx                                                      50 West Washington, Suite 2600

 50 West Washington, Suite 500                    Chicago, Ill. 60601

 Chicago, Ill. 60601

Pamela Elizabeth Loza                                   James P. Murphy

50 West Washington, Room 3009                555 West Harrison, Room 402

Chicago, Ill. 60601                                         Chicago, Ill. 60607

Supreme Court of Illinois                                Luciano Panici, Room 105

200 East Capital                                            16501 South Kedzie Parkway

Springfield, Ill. 62701-1721                           Markham, Ill. 60428

Joshua P. Haid, Sears/ Willis Tower 84^th fl. 233 South Wacker, Chicago, Il. 60606

                                                                        

  

                                               

                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… i

Table of Authorities .……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii

Jurisdictional Statement ………………………………………………………………….……………………………………….…10

Statement of the Issues ………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………13

Statement of the Case ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15

Statement of the Facts …………………..………………………………………………………………………………………….…18

Summary of Argument ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….… 23

Argument ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…30             A   Standard of Review ……………………………………………………………………………………….…………………….. 30

              B   The District Court Trespassed upon the laws corroborated their role   committing Treason dismissing the matter for lack of jurisdiction (95) (96) that was false and constitutes a failure to follow the Canon laws, “A federal court always has the authority to determine its own jurisdiction”, United States v Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002),……………………………………………………………….…..  2, 12, 24, 25, 30

              C   The District Court violated its oath and Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (91) (92) (93) (94)………………………………………….…...2, 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 30, 32

              D   The District Court demonstrating an act of Improprieties in an attempt to aid and assist said Appellee’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)

(83), (87) (91) (94)………………………………………………………………………………….………2, 3, 74, 76, 77,

              E   The District Court erred in abusing the adversarial process, a fundamental aspect of the adversarial system is that proceedings are to be conducted in open court. Judges have been disciplined for disposing of cases without an adversarial proceeding, In re Fitzgerald, Unreported Determination (Ky. Comm’n 1986); Holder, 74 N.J. 581, 379 A. 2d 220 (1977), (88), (89)… 2, 24,

              F  The District Court Engaged in an organized conspiracy violating Section IV of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, (84), (85)………………………………………….  2, 27

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………34

Certificate of Compliance with Circuit Rule 31………………………………………………………….……36

Certificate of Compliance with Circuit Rule 32 (a) (7) (B) …………………………………………38

Certificate of Service …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………37

                                                                     ii

                                                  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES                                                                                                               PAGE

         

 1)  Adoption of E.L.,

248 Ill. Dec. 171, 733 N.E. 2d 846, 315 Ill. App. 3d 137- …………………………...19, 23, 26

                                                                                                                                                  

2)   Applications of Miller,

427 F. Supp. 896 (W.D. Tex 1977)…………………………………………………………………………………23, 26

3)   Beatie v. People,

33 Ill. App 651, 189 WL 2373 (1st Dist. 1989)……………………………………14, 15, 16, 20, 21

4)   Bozarth,

604 A. 2d 100 (N.J. 1992)…………………………………………………………….……………………………………25, 28

5)   Buzzard v. Bolger,

117 Ill. App. 3d 887, 453 N.E. 2d 1129…………………………………………………………………………23, 25

6)   Byrd v. Roadway Express,

687 F. 2d 85, 87 n. 3 29, Fep 1588, (5th Cir. 1982)….…………………………………………………..21

7)   Canon

3D (1) Reporting Judicial Misconduct

Mass. Comm. On Judicial Ethics, Op. 2002-04 (2002)…………………………13, 23, 24, 26

8)   Canon

3 D (2) Reporting Lawyer Misconduct

Fravel v. Haughey, 727 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. App. Ct. 1999), Illinois Judicial Ethics Op. 2001-06 (2001)…...............................................................................23, 24, 26

9)   Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications,

14 Cal. 3d 678, 537 P. 2d 898, 122 Cal. Rptr. 778 (1975)….…13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 25

10)  Carter v. Mueller,

457 N.E. 2d 1335 Ill. App. (1st Dist.1983)………………..………….………………………13, 21, 24, 26   

                                          .

11)  Civil Rights Act of 1866,

Ch. 31, 1, 14 Stat. 27…………………… ………………………………….……………………………………………13, 14, 24

12)  Civil Rights Act of 1964,

703 (a) (1), 42 I.S.C.A. 2000e – 2 (a) (1)…………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………… ……………………..13, 14, 24

13)  Commentary Canon 2, 2A 2C………………………………………………………….………24, 25, 27, 28

                                                                  Iii

14)  Crawford v. State,

770 N.E. 2d 775 (Ind.)……………………………………………………….……………………………………19, 24, 25, 27

15)  Dash,

564 S.E. 2d 672 (S.C. 2002)……………………………………………………………….20, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29

16)  Developments in the Law Section 1981

15 Harv. Civ. Rts.---- Civ. Lib. L. Rev. 29, 133 (1980)…………………………………….15, 16, 25

17)  D. Louisell & C. Mueller,

Federal Evidence { 70, pp. 568-569…………………………………………………………………………………….…14

18)  Ettinger v. Rolewick,                        

140 Ill. App. 3d 295, 488 N.E. 2d 598, 94 Ill. Dec. 599 (1st Dist. 1986)………………….21

19)  Graham v. Richardson,

403 U.S. 365, 91 S. Ct. 1848, 29 L. Ed. 2d 534 (1971)………………………………………………….29

20)  Hall v. De Falco, App. 1st Dist. 1988, 127 Ill. Dec. 576, 178 Ill. App 3d 408, 533 N.E. 2d 448……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19

  

21)  Halsell v. Kimberly- Clark Corp.,

683 F. 2d 285, 289, 29, FEP 1185 (8th Cir. 1982)………………………………………………………..…19

22)  Hammel,

668 N.E. 2d 390 (N.Y. 1996)………………………………………………………….……………………………24, 26, 31

23)  Hazelton v. Carolus,

1907 132 Ill. App. 512………………………………………………………………………………………………………..… 19, 21

24)  Heldebrand v. Roadmaster Corp.,

Ill. App. 3d 664, 660 N.E. 2d 1354 (1996)…………………………………………………………………….20, 23

25)  Himmel,

125 Ill. 2d 531, 533 N.E. 2d 790, 127 Ill. Dec. 708 (1988)…………………….………20, 21, 25

.

26)  Hodge v. Police Officers,

802 F. 2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986)……………………………………………………………………………………………..………. 26

27)  Howard v. Zack Co.,

264 Ill. App. 3d 1012, 637 N.E. 2d 1183 (1994)…………………………………………………………21, 23

28)  Illinois Rockford Corp. v. Kulp,

1968, 242 N.E. 2d 228, 41 Ill.2d 215……………………………… ………………………………14, 16, 17, 23

                                                                 IV

29)  Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct,

RPC 3.3……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….23, 25

30)  Jennings v. Patterson

488 F. 2d 442………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…14, 15, 16, 20            

31)  Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.,

392 U.S. 409, 424 (1968)……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..29

32)  John W. Strong, McCormick on evidence,

185, at 777-78 (4th ed. 1992)………………………………………………………………………………………………….…16

33)  Kroger Canon 2A,

702 A. 2d 64 (Vt. 1997)………………………………………………………………………………………………..….2, 21, 25

34)  Lewis v. Brautigam,

(CA 5 F 1 A), 227 F. 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505………………………………………………………………….16, 25

35)  Lisa L. Milord, The Development of the ABA,

Judicial Code 24-25 (1992)…………………………………………………………………….……23, 24, 26, 29, 30

36)  Luckie v. Ameritech Corp.,

389 F. 3d 632 (7th Cir. 2004)………………………………………………………………………………………………….

37)  Mahone v. Waddle,

564 F. 2d 1018, (3d Cir. 1977), cert denied, 438 U. S. 904………………………………… 25, 29

38)  Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for Southern Dist. Of Iowa,

490 U.S. 296, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 104 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1989)………………………………………..….29    

39)  Mansell v. Saunders,

(CA 5 F 1A) 372 F 2d 573…………………………………………………… ……………………………..14, 15, 16, 24

40)  McCormick, Canon 2A,

639 N.W. 2d 12 (Iowa 2002)………………………………………………… …………………………………..21, 24, 25

41)  McCray v. Maryland,

(CA 4 Md.) 456 F 2d…………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………20

42)  Mississippi Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Fletcher,

686 So. 2d 1075 (Miss. 1996)………………………………………………………………………………….…24, 25, 26

43)  Mississippi Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Byers

757 So. 2d 961 (Miss. 2000), 462 S.E. 2d 728 (GA 1995)……………………………………25, 26

                                                                   V

44)  Monroe v. Pape,

365 U. S. 167, 5 L Ed, 2d 492, 81 S. Ct. 473…………………………………………………………………….21

45)  Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing,

728 F. 2d 1003 (8th Cir. 1984)……………………………………………………………………………….…23, 24, 26

46)  Parson v. Winter,

1986 1st Dist., 491 N.E. 2d 1236, 96 Ill. App. 3d 354, Appeal Denied……………..….29

47)  Pena v. Choo,

826 F. 168 (2d Cir. 1987)……………………………………………………………………………………………….……23, 26

48)  People v. Hardison,

1985, 911 Dec. 162, 108…………………………………………………………………………………….…14, 16, 17, 25

49)  People v. Mordick,

1981, 50 Ill., Dec. 63…………………..……………………………………………………….…………13, 14, 16, 17, 25

50)  People v. Katelhut,

332 Ill. App. 693, 54 N.E. 2d 590, (1st Dist. 1944)……………………………………………………21, 25

51)  People ex rel. Rusch v. Levin, 

305 Ill. App. 142, 26 N.E. 2d 895, (1st Dist. 1939)…………………………………………………  21, 25

52)  Professional Group Travel, Ltd. v. Professional Seminar Consultants Inc.,

136 Ill. App 3d 1084, 483 N.E. 2d 1291………………….………………………………………14, 15, 16, 25

53)  Professor of Law,

30 Harv..C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 1(1995) …………………………………………………………………………………….……26

54)  Puckett v. Cox,

(CA 6 Tenn.) 456 F. 2d 233………………………………………………………………………………………………..………29

55)  Reed Yates Farms, Inc. v. Yates,

172 Ill. App. 3d 519, 526 N.E. 2d 1115, 122 Ill. Dec. 576 (4th Dist.)………………………..21

56)  Resident Advisory Bd. V. Rizzo,

425 F. Supp. 987 (E. D. Pa 1976), modified, 564, F. 2d 126 (3d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435, U. S. 908 (1978)…………………………………………………………………………………………………….29

57)  Runyon v. McClary,

98 Yale L.J. 565 (1989)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………23, 25

                                                                  VI

58)  Scott, Canon Ethics,

377 Mass. 364, 386 N.E. 2d 218, 220 (1979) See Lopez- Alexander, Unreported Order No. 85-279 (Colo. May 3, 1985…………………………………………………….13, 15, 16, 20, 25

59)  S.H.A. Criminal,

Ch. 38, 33-3…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………13, 14, 16, 17

61)  Stone v. City of Indianapolis Public Utilities Div.,

281 F. 3d 640 (7th Cir.) cert. denied, 537 U. S. 879 (2002)………………………………………..29

62)  St. Mary’s Honor Center, et al.,Petitioners v. Melvin Hicks,

1 Civil Rights under McDonnell Douglas scheme Applicable to Title VII……………….25

63)  Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine,

450 U. S. 248, 254, and n. 7, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 1094, and n. 7, 67 L. 2d 207 (1981); F. James & d, Civil Procedure {7,9, p. 327 (3d ed. 1985)…………………………..…   

64)  Turner

24 F. Cas. 337 (No. 14247)…………………………………………………………………………13, 14, 15, 16, 24

65)  U.S. v. 30.64 Acres of Land situated in Klickitat County, State of Wash.,

795 F. 2d 796, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 415 (9th Cir. 1986)……………………………………………12, 13

66)  U.S. Boyland, Canon 2A,

5 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.N.J.)1998……………………………………………………………………………………………….24

67)  United States ex. Rel Jones v. Rundle (DCPA)

358 F. Supp. 939………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…21

68)  U.S. Sup. Court Digest,

24 (1) General Conspiracy, U.S. v. Jimenez Recio, 123 S. Ct. 819, 537 U.S. 270, 154 L. Ed 2d 744, on remand 371 F. 3d 1093……………………………………………14, 16, 17, 20

69)  Vaughn,

462 S.E. 2d 728 (Ga. 1995)…………………………………………………………….…14, 16, 17, 23, 24, 25

70)  Vigus v. O’Bannon,

1886 N.E. 788, 118 Ill. 334………………………………………………………………………………...21, 24, 25, 31

71)  Whirl v. Kern,

 (CA 5 Tex) 407 F. 2d 781, Cert. Den., 396 U.S. 901, 90 S. Ct. 210…………………….…21

                                                                  VII

72)  W.R. Grace & Co. v. Baker Industries, Inc.,

128 Ill. App. 3d 215, 470 N.E. 2d 577, 83 Ill. Dec. 451 (1st Dist. 1984) .....19, 25

73)  Zoarski, Canon 2A

632 A. 2d 1114 (Conn. 1993)………………………………………………………………….………………………….....13  

42 U.S.C. 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Color)

42 U.S.C. 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Race)

U.S.C.{1331, 28 U.S.C. {1343 (a) (3) and 42 U.S.C. {2000e5 (F) (3) over

U.S.C. {1981 and 1983 by 42 U.S.C. {1988; over the A.D.E.A. by 42 U.S.C. {12117……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………..30

(74)  Ferra,

         582 N.W. 2d 817 (Mich 1998)……………………………………………………2, 14, 16, 17, 24, 25

(75) Fitzgerald, Unreported determination, Ky., Comm’n (1986), Holder, 74 N.J. 581, 379 A. 2d 220 (1977)….………………………………………………………………………………………………...2, 24

      

(76) Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance,

 33 cal. 3d 359, 657 P. 2d 372, 377, 188 Cal Rptr. 880 (1983)………………2, 13, 24, 25

(77) Judge,

 No. 930154, 440 S.E. 2d 169 (GA. 1994)…………………………………………………………….…2, 24, 29  

     

(78) Leslie W. Abramson,

 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 751 (1997). The Judges ethical duty to Report Misconduct by other judges and lawyers and it’s effect on Judicial independence……..………….14, 24

(79) Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871

Section 1, 2, 4……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2, 27

(80) Bolden V. State,

262 Ark 718, 561 S.W. 2d 281 (1978)…………………………………………………………………………………..28 

(81) Farley V. Jester,

257 Ark. 686, 520 S. W. 2d 200 (1975)………………………………………………………………………..……..28

(82) Patterson V. RT.,

301 Ark. 400, 784 S. W. 2d 777 (1990)………………………………………………………………………………..28

(83) Elliot v. Piersol,

1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)………………………………………………………13, 16, 18, 25

                                                          VIII

(84) U. S. v. Murphy,

768 F. 2d 1518, 1531 (7^th Cir 1985)……………………………………………………..2,14, 16, 17, 24, 25

(85) Bracey v Gramley,

No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997)…………………………………………………………………………..…….…2,16, 17, 25

(86) Alexander v. Robertson,

882, F. 2d 421, 424 (9^th Cir 1989)…………………………………………………………………….13, 16, 17, 25

(87) Kalb v. Feuerstein,

308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, L, Ed 370 (1940)………………………………………..13, 16, 17, 24, 25

(88) Scheuer v. Rhodes,

416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct 1683, 1687 (1974)………………….…12, 13. 16, 17, 24, 25, 30, 32 

(89) Title 18, U.S.C.,

Section 242 and 42 1985 (3) (b)…………………………………………………16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 30, 32 

(90) Napolitano v. Ward,

457 F 2d 279 (7^th Cir.), cert denied, 409 U.S. 1037, 93 S. Ct. 512,34 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1972)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………...23

(91) Cooper v. Aaron,

358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)…………………………………………………………………………...12, 24, 32

(92) In Re Sawyer,

124 U.S. 200 (1888)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…12, 24

(93) U.S. v Will,

449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed 2d 392, 406 (1980)……………………..12, 24

(94) Cohens v Virginia,

19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821)……………………………………...12, 24, 25, 32

(95) United States v Ruiz,

536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002)………………………………………………………………………..………    12, 24, 25, 30

(96) Knudsen v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,

411 F. 3d 805, 808 (7^th Cir 2005)……………………………………………………..…………………………………..…12

                                                            IN THE

                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                         FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

                                           CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

_________________________________________________________________

                                                          No 11-3481

_________________________________________________________________

 Lee Oties Love, Jr.                                    )   Appeal from the United States District

      Plaintiff-Appellant                               )        Court for the Northern District

         No. 17-3489                                      )           Of Illinois, Eastern Division

               vs.                                                )

                                                                    )

Supreme Court of Ill., et al                         )       JUDGE Sharon Johnson Coleman

                                                                    )

                                                                    )              17 CV-05482

 _______________________________ _   )_______________________________                 

                                         Jurisdictional Statement

Order entered: 11-07-2017

Notice of Appeal filed: Dec. 6, 2017

Statutes: District Court Judge “Trespassing upon the Laws” Committing Fraud, District Judge aiding and abetting in a Criminal Conspiracy, Condoning Void Orders, District Court Judge committing Unequal Protection of the Laws Violations, District Court Judge engaging in “Treason Like Offenses”, District Court Judge acting outside of the Immunity provisions of her Oath, District Court Judge engaging in “Jim Crowis’m” Laws outlawed by the United States Supreme Court  as she used her robe and jurisdiction to aid and assist Domestic Terrorists in the Democratic party in an attempt to cover-up Criminal Civil Rights Violations, Disparate Unequal Protection of the Laws, and other Un-Constitutional Lawless Violations.

Plaintiff is appealing to the United States Court of Appeals, for a reversal and remand with instructions based on the foregoing stated above:

The United States Court of Appeals has the Jurisdiction, to correct any error, Sanction or admonish any person (s) who engages in an organized Chain Conspiracy and establish any precedent in the law where deemed necessary, without fear of reprisals from any political organization, terrorist fraternal orders, elected or otherwise, for the mandate of their decision;

The United States Court of Appeals has the Jurisdiction and Wisdom to recognize that Negroes African Americans Colored persons or certain Hispanics with no love for their own self or ethnic group will embrace racism or racial hatred and condone any area of segregation so as to be accepted by racist Caucasians’ in power and deny individuals like the Plaintiff access to the courts for their jurisdiction;

Whereby it is going to take independent Caucasians within the Seventh Circuit not affiliated with the Democratic party to preside over this matter and admonish said Caucasians because too many Negroes and persons of color do not see themselves as equal citizens to said individuals but as inferior beings and close their eyes to racial hatred and segregation perpetrated on persons of color.

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.

 Plaintiff is before the United States Court of Appeals because as a”Pro Se” “Informa Pauper’s“ candidate Judge Coleman has maliciously with deliberate depraved indifference for the law has denied Plaintiffs court papers and “LIED” on court documents saying Plaintiff dismissed his complaint when she dismissed said motion and has allowed said defendants to commit the aforementioned heinous criminal acts, with a “void order” ignoring affidavits, the Laws of the United States Constitution and Plaintiffs Civil Liberties, validating the veracity Plaintiff is a nobody merely because of his skin color, said Judge have corroborated and demonstrated her role in this Organized Chain Conspiracy as she and others like herself have sold out their races to aid and assist racist Democrats uphold genocide and a plethora of hate crimes on persons of color and independent whites; 

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.” (88), (91), (92), (93) (94), (95), (96).

Plaintiff is before the United States Court of Appeals because the Democratic Machine has a lot of colored members of the Political Racist Fraternal Order who is willing to do whatever they are told because of their inferior status in society so as to be accepted with the expectation of other racist white judges would save them because there actions are perpetrated on a person of color; in that, pursuant to the aforementioned statement of Judge Coleman Page 6 of Plaintiff’s Rule to Show Cause Remanding Judge Elizabeth Loza et al. Par. 1 is clear The 7^th Cir. Held that the Cook County Courts were a Criminal enterprise. (84) 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;

Rather than uphold the laws of the United States Constitution Judge Coleman said she needed permission from the judges upstairs on whether she had jurisdiction (65)

Plaintiff is before the United States Court of Appeals used her skin color and violated the oath of her duties as she “Trespassed upon the Laws” by corroborating her role in an “Organized Conspiracy” engaging in “Treason” (83) 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)
 

Plaintiff is before the United States Court of Appeals because when Justice was sought on the State and Supreme Court levels, Judges “Trespassed upon the Laws” , in that said individuals share a particular “racial hatred” towards ethnic individuals like the Plaintiff (Pages 9-12 of the Complaint articulates the racial hatred Democrats have against persons of color and how they would stoop to any level necessary to achieve the goals sought as demonstrated in this case which is why Plaintiff is before the United States Court of Appeals.

I affirm the above as being true.

                                                                                            Respectfully Submitted

                                                                                             Lee Oties Love, Jr.

                                                                                          Plaintiff-Counsel Pro Se