RACIAL HATE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WITH THE SUPPORT OF BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE ACCEPTING THEIR ROLES AS INFERIOR PEOPLE
FOR 30 YEARS BLACK MEN HAVE AIDED AND ASSISTED RACIST WHITE MEN IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN WHAT MANY HAVE DESCRIBED THIS AS THE MOST DESPICABLE CONTEXT OF RACIAL HATE LIKENED TO A "LEGAL LYNCHING" THEY HAVE EVER SEEN.
BEWARE OF VOTING FOR ANY BLACK OR BROWN MAN IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN CHICAGO IN THIS CASE IT IS EASIER FOR A CORRUPT UNQUALIFIED JUDGE TO MAKE TO THE BENCH THAN IT IS FOR AN INDEPENDENT INTELLIGENT MAN .
SEE HOW A CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER DECEASED NOW WILLIAM JENKINS HIGHTOWER IMPREGNATED HIS NATURAL BIOLOGICAL DAUGHTERS HE WAS ARRESTED FOR IMPREGNATING HIS MINOR DAUGHTER BUT WAS ALLOWED TO RETURN BACK ON THE POLICE FORCE DUE TO HIS HEAVY POLITICAL CONNECTIONS.
HE IMPREGNATED NOT ALLEGEDLY FRANCOISE LOUISE BARBARA HIGHTOWER UNBEKNOWNST TO ME AT THE TIME, I LEARNED YEARS LATER IT WAS ALLEGED THAT IF THIS WOMAN'S CHILD WAS FOUND TO BE HIS CHILD HE WAS GOING TO PENITENTIARY.
I WROTE TO EVERY PROMINENT BLACK DEMOCRAT IN THIS CITY AND HAD SOME PROMINENT ATTORNEYS TO TAKE MY MONEY BUT COULDN'T HELP ME.
SO WILLIAM S. BOYD WAS REFERRED HE FOUND OUT I WAS TELLING THE TRUTH AND ALLEGEDLY NEGOTIATED A JUDGES POSITION OUT OF NOT REVEALING MY INNOCENCE AND BECAME A JUDGE LEAVING ME STRANDED SO HE THOUGHT.
FAST FORWARD JUDGE BOYD IS BY FAR ONE OF THE WORSE BLACK JUDGES ON THE BENCH AS A ENFORCER FOR THE DEMOCRATIC MACHINE HE VALDERRAMA, ARCE AND A HOST OF OTHER JUDGES ARE COGNIZANT OF THE RACIAL HATE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY USES THIS HATE TO THEIR ADVANTAGE BY SHAKING DOWN LITIGANTS AND ATTORNEYS BY USING THE LAWS UNLAWFULLY WEARING DOWN LITIGANTS FINANCIALLY FORCING THEM TO SPEND MONEY THEY DON'T HAVE OR CAN AFFORD BY GOING BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT.
FOR EXAMPLE A PROMINENT BROTHER WORKING FOR THE POST OFFICE IN A ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY FORMERLY WITH THE F.O.I N.O.I FILED FOR DIVORCE WIFE WAS SERVED WENT BEFORE JUDGE GOLDFARB TO HAVE HER FEES WAIVED JUNE 7, 2018.
2. SHE ADMITTED TO THE PLEADINGS NEVER OBJECTED OR RESPONDED OR SOUGHT COUNSEL HE WAS PRO SE SIMPLE DIVORCE RIGHT? WRONG!!!!
3. HE FILED HIS DEFAULT-PROVE UP JULY 17, 2018 BUT THE COURT DATE WAS SCHEDULED FOR JULY 30, 2018.
4. HE GOES BEFORE JUDGE BOYD AND THE JUDGE DENIES HIS DEFAULT A WHITE CORRUPT ATTORNEY APPEARS ON BEHALF OF HIS WIFE AND FILES A COUNTER-PETITION BUT THE BASES OF HER CONTENTION WAS Joan S. Colen who recorded a “Fraudulent admission” in Par 7, Page 2 in violation of Sup Ct. Rule 137 which states “With the exception of Cazembe’s Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in the instant case. Bernadette is unaware of any Petition for Dissolution of marriage pending in this or any other county or state”
5. CAZEMBE PRESENTED HIS MOTION OBJECTING & STRIKING RESPONDENT’S COUNTER-PETITION DUE TO “FRAUDULENT” MISREPRESENTATIONS & ISSUANCE OF A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR SANCTIONS AND OR REMAND PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 137 JUDGE BOYD IGNORED THE MOTION AND DENIED THE MOTION.
6. CAZEMBE PRESENTED HIS MOTION Motion for Disqualification of Judge for Cause Due to “Fraud” (Civil Rights Violations) and Prejudice pursuant to S.H.A. 735 ILCS 5/2 ---1001 (a) (2, 3) and to Vacate all Orders due to “Trespassing upon the Laws” Court never had Jurisdiction Order is “Void” a “Nullity” NOT SURE IF THE COMPUTER GENERATED THE JUDGE IT WAS GIVEN TO JUDGE EDWARD ARCE
7. JUDGE ARCE DID NOT READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT STATED HE DID NOT SEE ANYTHING JUDGE BOYD DID THAT WAS WRONG AND DENIED THE MOTION!!
8. JUDGE BOYD IS ORDERING THE PLAINTIFF TO PAY $1713.00 IN TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE THAT HE CAN NOT AFFORD AND IS ORDERING HIM TO AMEND HIS ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE COMPLAINT WHICH IS CRAZY BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DEFECTIVE IN ANY WAY.
THIS IS THE KIND OF SHIT BLACK AND BROWN MEN IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS DOING TO MEMBERS OF THEIR ETHNIC GROUPS OR INDEPENDENT POOR WHITES NOT POLITICALLY CONNECTED.
OTIES LEE LOVE, JR @redbilla HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE SAME TYPE OF SHIT
A FREE SLAVE HAD A BETTER CHANCE IN COURT WITH REPUBLICANS SEEKING JUSTICE THAN ANY INNOCENT MAN BORN AND RAISED A FREE MAN SEEKING JUSTICE IN THIS DEMOCRATIC PLANTATION COURT SYSTEM.
NOW ASK YOURSELF AFTER READING THIS WHY WOULD ANYONE VOTE FOR ANYBODY DEMOCRATIC?
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
)
)
Joseph L. Lawrence ) Hon Charles R. Norgle, Sr.
Plaintiff )
) 93 CV 01609
VS )
)
Chicago Transit Authority ) $33 Million Dollars
Defendant )
MOTION TO REINSTATE CASE DUE TO DEMOCRATIC JUDGES/ATTORNEYS TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS COMMITTING TREASON ACTING AS PRIVATE CITIZENS MAKING THE DISTRICT COURT ORDER “VOID” A “NULLITY”
: Now comes Plaintiff, Joe Louis Lawrence, Counsel Pro Se in this cause respectfully represents to this court the reasons and files herewith his Affidavit in support of Motion to Reinstate case et al;
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)
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 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 as in this case Federal officers.
The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
1.) That on August 23, 2018, Plaintiff mailed an affidavit to Director of Patricia R. Bellock, (Illinois Dept. of Healthcare and Family Services) it was signed for by D Sisti August 27, 2018 6:32am, hereto attached Ex 1;
2.) That Ex 4 is a “Fraudulent Court Order of May 18, 1988, Lawrence was never served and there were never any paternity tests, Chicago Police Officer at the time Francoise Louise Barbara Hightower was complicit in trying to extort money from the Defendant Joe Lawrence; (Plaintiffs badge was removed off his body while in his CTA uniform handcuffed unlawfully)
A- That because of the aforementioned no judge or attorney ever signed the court order in violation of Supreme Court 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 or if a circuit court rule requires the prevailing party to submit a draft order, the clerk shall make a notation to that effect and the judgment becomes final only when the signed judgment is filed. If no such signed written judgment is to be filed, the judge or clerk shall forthwith make a notation of judgment and enter the judgment of record promptly, and the judgment is entered at the time it is entered of record. Orders and judgments may be prepared, presented, and signed electronically, if permitted by the Supreme Court.
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 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)”.
B- That Ex 5 is the proper legal order certified and signed by Judge D. Adolphus Rivers, Sept. 17, 1987 where there were two independent paternity tests that excluded the Defendant and case Dismissed.
3.) That as a result to the aforementioned “Fraudulent Acts” on the 1988 case Plaintiff was unlawfully handcuffed and Remanded into custody and had his CTA badge removed from his body (uniform).He was criminalized treated as a slave, non-U.S. Citizen, property belonging to the Democrats.
A- In that the worst part is that said judges David E. Haracz, Timothy P. Murphy & Ronald Bartkowicz a former CTA attorney working in workman’s compensation department was appointed as judge to issue an order of protection order against Petitioner on behalf of Chicago Police Officer Francoise Louise Barbara Hightower, the judge was not aware she was a Police officer but was using Public Aid States attorneys representing her and attorney Joseph V. Roddy trying to extort money from him using the child support scheme unlawfully, Roddy was successful in that Petitioners wages were garnisheed to the Law office of Joseph c/o Francoise Hightower the secretary at Reliable School Bus company displayed the cancelled checks to the Petitioner, she said she has processed 100’s of child support payments and never seen anything like this the President of the company questioned the unsigned court order, Petitioner had to receive welfare and food stamps because they garnisheed so much money from the Petitioner, he was not able to provide for his family;
B- Petitioner was Remanded into custody while in his CTA uniform as the judge used his unlawfully authority helping the CTA take his badge off his body, but the Cook County Sheriff made Supervisor (M. Burton) sign on their stationery what they were removing from his body while handcuffed, Roddy or Reynolds Francoise’s attorney was heard saying we need that ID his CTA ID it had a yellow dot on it “Sheriff Beradi told them you know this is not right”!
C- Judge Bartkowicz used his robe unlawfully to help the CTA from paying him his lost wages that the CTA stole while he was off work injured on duty and ordered him to go drive a school bus and threatened him if he was to try and return back to CTA he was going to have him remanded into custody because CTA said “You are not an employee”;
D- That because William S. Boyd was aware of all the judges responsible for “Fixing” Plaintiff’s Joe Louis Lawrence’s Bogus Paternity case 88 D 079012
(as his attorney) when it was Dismissed September 17, 1987, and the CTA case makes him furthermore untouchable by any Cook County Official because of the dirt and credible knowledge he has on all parties as his former attorney not even Timothy C. Evans, Chief Judge, Kim Foxx, States Attorney can touch him in that, he is reining terror in his court with unlawful rulings using the laws wearing down Pro Se litigants or any attorneys that don’t kiss his Ass et al.
E- That because “Private Citizen” Boyd a Negroe judge allegedly negotiated a judge’s position by deceiving the Plaintiff have become an alleged enforcer for the terrorist acts perpetrated by Democratic judges by “fixing” cases against Black and Brown people for the Democratic Machine. See Page 10 of Motion to Supplement Petition for Review that Corroborates Judicial Extortion, Treason Offenses (case #07-18-90039) states “Judge Boyd prepared said Motion to reflect Petitioner was forced to take a low paying job” because Judge Ronald Bartkowicz a former CTA attorney, stated “if Petitioner continued trying to be reinstated to the CTA he was going to lock him up”
In the wake of extensive investigations by Federal Law enforcement authorities revealing widespread corruption in the Illinois court system (“Operation Greylord”) and elsewhere, indicating not only that significant professional misconduct was occurring but also that the requirement to report misconduct was frequently ignored, particularly in the cases of judges with regard to the conduct of other judges.
That under 18 U.S.C. 242 and 42 U.S.C. 1985 (3) (b). A judge does not have the discretion on whether or not to follow Supreme Ct. Rules, but a duty to follow. People v. Gersh, 135 Ill. 2d 384 (1990).
F- Not only is the fact said judge acting outside of his jurisdiction “Trespassing upon the Laws” not one Negroe, African American, colored person with authority in the Democratic Party admonish said judge further corroborating them as “Figureheads” as the racist “White men controlling the Democratic Machine as White Nationalist continuously enforce “Jim Crow laws” outlawed by the United States Supreme Court.
G- That case #07-18-90039 before the Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit Motion to Supplement Petition for Review That Corroborates Judicial Extortion, Treason Offenses, “That Page 9 Par 25 of Gr Ex A states, “That no African American, Latino or otherwise in authority have any real authority over Caucasians in the Democratic party this has already been admitted to throughout said pleadings prepared by the Complainant”;
H- That Black Negroe male judges and certain Hispanics are worse than the racist white judges to appear before because they are cognizant no admonishments will be had on them as long as they are hurting their own
Ethnic groups with racist rulings or treatment in favor of Democratic doctrines.
I- Cook County Sheriff informed the Petitioner that the judge was a former CTA employee and should not be on your case, “Fuck what he said, we run the courts” you are not going to jail, they escorted him home and picked him up for court, they acted as his Bodyguards, and said get all of these “Candy Asses” off the bench;
J- Petitioner filed a Motion Disqualifying Ronald Bartkowicz from the case for Bias and conflict of interest, said judge asked the Petitioner, it is true, and how did you know? He recused himself and the case went to Morgan Hamilton who hated men of color.
K- Morgan Hamilton was the supervising Associate judge never elected helped judge Bartkowicz by falsifying a court order saying “Petitioner left a cloud of mistrust saying he was a CTA employee” the Cook County Sheriff were very vociferous in speaking up in Petitioners behalf about the corruption in the paternity case, so she reassigned the case to David Delgado, he read the warrant, he became adamant and said if he ever found out Petitioner was a CTA employee, he was going to lock up everybody at the CTA;
L- Judge Delgado noticed the warrant was missing a lot of pertinent information, he told Francoise’s attorney, I cannot send him to jail on this it has no return date, no court information, it was basically blank, he said if he was to send Petitioner to jail, he would never come out and be lost in the system an attempt was to made on Petitioner’s life Judge Bartkowicz was heard saying he wanted no part of this and the day Petitioner was supposed to be in jail another person was locked up and hung in the jail cell;
M- The case was reassigned to Judge Lester Bonoguru, see unlawful1.blogspot.com Post Thursday August 30, 2012, Certified Affidavit demonstrating the Chronology of unlawful Contempt Charges.
N- Judge Lester Bonoguru stated, Page 3, Par 10, Post August 30, 2012, unlawful1.blogspot.com, “He was aware who, I was and what was going on he said the problem here is that a lot of men paid a lot of money getting their law school education and you are embarrassing them” et al.
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);
A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L, Ed 370.
4.) The CTA and it’s attorneys stole Plaintiff’s wages while he was off from work injured on duty and they had certain employees to falsify documents, stating he was discharged from employment so as to retaliate against him for filing a workman’s compensation claim against them and not falsify the merits of his injury and apply for Public Aid to absorb the costs of his work-related expenses and cover-up the fact they were stealing money from injured employees.
5.) That because of Ex 4, the “Fraudulent Court Order” precipitated a plethora of unlawful Civil Rights violations by Democratic judges and attorneys engaging in Jim Crow practices:
A- That during and around December 1993 case # 93 L 10772 ($33 Million Dollars) Plaintiff filed a Complaint of Wrongful Discharge based upon hearsay, Kent Stephen Ray CTA’s attorney informed the court, Plaintiff had no proof of any Discharge and that, he was a part of a union shop and this matter should not be up here;
B- The merits of the complaint are articulated within this motion and never denied by CTA or answered;
C- Plaintiff filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Patrick McGann and appeared before Judge Michael J. Hogan, or Judge William Maddux (March 10, 1994) who stated, “Plaintiff was a very bright Kid in that everything, he has said in his Complaint is in fact true but up here we do things differently, he was not supposed to be bringing these issues up here on his own, he needed his union or a sponsor.”
A judge’s disrespect for the rules of court demonstrates disrespect for the law. Judges are disciplined under Canon 2A for violating court rules and procedures. Judge ignored mandated witness order in attempt to accommodate witnesses’ schedules; Citing Canon 2A the court noted, “[a] court’s indifference to clearly stated rules breeds disrespect for and discontent with our justice system. Government cannot demand respect of the laws by its citizens when its tribunals ignore those very same laws”)
D- Plaintiff explained to the judge nobody from the union was doing anything that is why, he was there and that his babies were being
retaliated upon, the judge said he was not going to disqualify Judge McGann and for the Plaintiff to go back to his union and let them speak on these issues not (him) the Plaintiff.
E- That Judge Hogan or Judge Maddux was very professional and demonstrated remarkable integrity knew Plaintiff was telling the truth but because of Plaintiff’s skin color he was not able to receive Equal Protection of the Laws in Cook County Courts and “Trespassing upon the Laws” were the norm.
F- Plaintiff filed a Default Judge McGann Denied everything Plaintiff filed before him because of his skin color demonstrating Unequal Protection of the Laws, “Trespassing upon the Laws” and the continuous enforcement of “Jim Crow Laws”.
Fraud upon the court is a basis for equitable relief. Luttrell v. United States, 644 F. 2d 1274, 1276 (9th Cir. 1980); see Abatti v. C.I.R., 859 F 2d 115, 118 (9th Cir. 1988) “it is beyond question that a court may investigate a question as to whether there was fraud in the procurement of a judgment” Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 66 S. Ct. 1176, 90 L. Ed. 1447. The power of the court to unearth such a fraud is the power to unearth it effectively. See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S. Ct. 997, 88 L. Ed. 1250; Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 1184 and United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. (8 Otto) 61, 25 L. Ed. 93.
6.) Pursuant to a court subpoena Oct. 15, 2009, Judge Edward Jordan Ordered CTA to produce Plaintiff’s employment records:
A- Hereto attached, Employee Clearance Certificate dated 9/28/92, Date Entered service 11-10-89, last day worked 10-31-92, Discharged box checked 4-10-92, Area 605, someone signed Transportation Managers name Samuel Smith;
B- Hereto attached, March 21, 1994, states “This is to advise you that at a recent meeting of the Disability Review Committee, it was confirmed…….., your records will be transferred to Area 605, Personnel Services”;
C- In accordance with Attachment D “605” of the Healy Arbitration Award dated September 26, 1990, you are eligible to remain in an inactive/sick status for a total of 24 months. Records indicate that you entered the sick book on April 10, 1994. Therefore, if still disabled, you may remain in that status until April 10, 1996.” Signed by Thomas W. Czech, Chairperson, and Disability Review Committee.
D- Hereto attached, August 20, 2014, letter to International President Larry Hanley, states “As per my conversation with Javier Perez who
acknowledged familiarity of receiving documents from my attention but never received this fax that Christy acknowledged receiving. States “Please find additional documents that unequivocally demonstrate how the Chicago transit Authority employees colluded unlawfully with certain judges and this Police Officer as a Bogus warrant was issued off of this paternity case of which I am not the father.
E- Hereto attached, August 28, 2014, letter from Lawrence J. Hanley, International President of the Amalgamated Transit Union to Marcellus Barnes, states “As this office is without authority to interject itself into an ongoing grievance at the local union level, I would ask that you contact Mr. Lawrence and advise him of the status of his pending grievance.”
F- Hereto attached, September 30, 2014, letter to International President Larry Hanley, states “As per your August 28, 2014 letter to Marcellus Barnes never at any time communicated an email or attempted to contact me via telephone despite emails of (9-18-2014 and 9-23-2014)”
G- Hereto attached, October 23 2014, letter to International President and Trustee Javier Perez, communication from Javier Perez states, “As per your conversation with me at 2:13 pm Oct 22, 2014, you stated, “You could not understand why the union never addressed my grievance”
Par 4, Javier stated “He has received over 70 pages of documents from me never have, I produced a document saying I was able to return to work during this period and that you were not going to Bullshit me there is not a lot can be done without that information”
H- Hereto attached, Faxed confirmation sheet Jan. 18, 2015 detailing Oct. 23, faxed of medical statement dated Dec 1, 1994 sent and received to the International union office and local union office.
I- Hereto attached, Letter from Michael Cook Manager Personnel, Dates of Employment from 11-10-89, “THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS FURNISHED IN REPLY TO YOUR REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT FROM THE CTA. HE WAS NEVER DISCHARGED” along with a printout from CTA’s database Oct. 20, 1994 time 13:57 Date in Job 05-17-90 but last day worked 3-8-90 no DISCHARGE is recorded on the data base.
“THIS PRINTOUT WAS MISFILED IN ANOTHER JACKET AND IS THE ONLY COPY THAT MAKES SENSE”
J- Hereto attached, Ex L3 CTA’s answer to State of Illinois, Department of Human Rights, Dennis Powell Investigator African American “CTA admits Complainant was hired in March of 1987” CTA also admits that Complainant was discharged from the CTA in April 1992”
K- Hereto attached, Grievance filed by a Caucasian union representative (Richard Stomper) (because Tom Collins former secretary told the Plaintiff if he signed over his back wages they could have him reinstated right away) Dec. 22, 1994, states, “On or about 12-01-1994, the grievant attempted to return to active duty with CTA. He brought a notice from his physician to the Personnel Department indicating his fitness to return to work following an extended absence due to injury. Several days earlier, at the request of Local 241, the grievant and Local 241 had been given documentation by the CTA management indicating that the grievant status was that of an unassigned employee. The grievant was thereby eligible for return to duty with proper medical documentation.
Despite producing the required documentation the grievant was verbally told by CTA management that he had been separated from the company. However, CTA was unable to produce any documentation to substantiate this claim. Currently the grievant is still being denied return to active duty despite the fact that CTA still has not produced any documentary evidence indicating that the grievant was either separated or discharged or whether it was done in person or by mail et al.
L- Hereto attached, September 10, 2014 email sent to Keith Hill where he requested my driver’s license number and he received a vivid description of the overwhelming obstacles experienced trying to be reinstated, his only reply “I haven’t done anything with your number and will not” To this date Email sent to the entire local 241 comprised of African Americans especially Keith Hill August 29th 2018 nobody has responded.
M- Hereto attached, Oct. 30, 2001, letter to Chairman Valerie Jarrett, states, “I am appealing to you for assistance in what maybe the worse conspiracy attempts ever recorded at the Chicago Transit Authority”
N- Hereto attached, Oct. 31, 2001, letter from Valerie B. Jarrett, states “I have forwarded a copy of that letter to Joyce Coleman, CTA’s Vice President of Human Resources, for her review and investigation. You should be hearing from her office in the near future”.
Plaintiff never received any type of communication from Joyce’s office.
7.) That Pars 8-88 is the exact Complaint filed in Circuit Court of Cook County Law Division that the CTA Defaulted on and relied on Judges to continuously “Trespass upon the Laws” and deny any claims filed against the CTA as demonstrated in this case.
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.
When people ask how and why, Did all the judges enter orders against you and you were never served? They did the same thing YOU did ignored Appellant and assumed he was a Typical NIGGA, Passive NIGGA, Ignorant NIGGA, while the laws clearly demonstrate my innocence they say NIGGA you GUILTY, I say I am a CTA employee they say NIGGA you ain’t, I say I work for IBC/Wonder bread they say NIGGA you DISCHARGED, I say I have a wife and 5 children they say NIGGA you don’t have any dependent’s, I say I AM that That I AM somebody they say NIGGA you don’t get it, you don’t exist, I say I am Educated I have spent 12-14 hours a day in the Law Library studying the law and it’s applications, they laugh at me and say NIGGA it ain’t what you know, it is who you know, I say I have applied the laws better than some your best involved in this conspiracy, they say NIGGA you right, because everyone involved is related to someone who is related to someone no one is listening, I say I have proof they say NIGGA there is no such thing as proof I say what do you mean? They say NIGGA we Lie we Destroy we Cheat we Intimidate/Threaten we Undermine anyone necessary to advance our Doctrines, I say my faith is in GOD, they Laugh NIGGA where was your GOD all those years when we Economically Murdered you, NIGGA where was your GOD all those years when we Assassinated your Character, NIGGA where was your GOD all those years when we Buried your ASS left you for DEAD, NIGGA you should be on CRACK/HEROIN, NIGGA you ain’t committed SUICIDE, NIGGA you should’a ROBBED somebody, NIGGA you look GOOD how come you ain’t PIMPIN? NIGGA with your MIND you can be the best DRUG DEALER, wait a minute NIGGA who are you? How come nothing seems to have WORKED? First of All I am no NIGGA the GOD I serve moves me by way of the SPIRIT, When I seek JUSTICE you reward me INJUSTICE, when I seek HELP, you LAUGH at me, when my family and I suffer you CELERBRATE.
COMPLAINT WHERE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES READ AND CTA NEVER RESPONDED TO OR ANSWERED CORROBORATING JIM CROW LAWS ARE STILL BEING ENFORCED IN ILLINOIS COURTS
8.) That on February 8, 1990, plaintiff was involved in a vehicular accident where said CTA bus was rear ended by a van driven by a Chicago Police Officer traveling at high speed where van driven by police was totaled;
9.) That due to the van being totaled a flatbed tow truck had to remove the van;
10.) That on or about March 8, 1990, plaintiff was authorized by defendants Bruce Talaga et al... to return back to work.
11.) That plaintiff had a re-occurrence on the bus and was unable to continue operation of the bus.
12.) That plaintiff was transported to West Suburban Emergency Hospital via Chicago Fire
Department Paramedics.
13.) That upon being discharged, hereto attached, Exhibit A of Vol. 1, hereto attached, plaintiff notified Brian Sheritt of the Merchandise Mart radio dispatch center, and informed him that , he had been seen by the doctor and had been discharged from the hospital.
14.) That plaintiff had been instructed to notify the radio control center after being discharged from the hospital, in order that a supervisor pick up plaintiff and transport him back to his home garage.
15.) That supervisor William Me Lain, badge K-50, arrived at the hospital and notified Brian Sheritt of his arrival at the hospital.
16.) That Brian Sheritt" voiced a racist directive" to William Me Lain, in that, the supervisor was not to take plaintiff to his home garage, and that if plaintiff could • walk" and talk" he could ride the bus.
17.) That Brian Sheritt stated, that if plaintiff did not know how to use public transportation, that supervisor Me Lain was to release plaintiff on Madison & Austin and direct him on how to return
back to the Kedzie garage.
18.) That Brian Sheritt was very articulate voicing said insolent directives over the radio, he informed
Mc Lain that he was to proceed to the Kedzie garage after releasing plaintiff at Madison & Austin
.
19.) That plaintiff notified Kedzie garage Superintendent Grady of the directives Brian Sheritt made on the radio.
20.) That superintendent Grady did not participate in the racial conspiracy and was responsible for ordering that plaintiff be returned to the Kedzie garage via Mc Lain's supervisory vehicle.
.
21.) That defendants at the Chicago Transit Authority deliberately withheld plaintiffs workman's
Compensation benefits, and filed an appeal to prevent and prolong plaintiff’s right to receive workman's compensation.
22.) That defendants at the C.T.A. were cognizant that plaintiff's physician Henry L. Moss, orthopedic surgeon had prescribed therapy and never released plaintiff to return to work
.
23.) That on September 6, 1990, defendant Michael Fezekas, stated to plaintiff that the C.TA did not want to take a chance and provide medical coverage because there is no chance plaintiff could return to work in one month’s time.
24.) That on September 6, 1990, Michael Fezekas informed plaintiff that Victor Shane, ( C.T.A's
Former counsel) stated that plaintiff was eligible for non - occupational insurance, hereto attached, Exhibit B of Vol. 1.
25.) That Victor Shane explained to Michael Fezekas that the medical bills could get very expensive, and that he had orders to take his chances going before an arbitrator, hereto attached, Exhibit C not -- S #3 of Vol. 1.
26.) That Michael Fezekas stated to plaintiff that he was to notify his H.M.O. insurance carrier,
Inform them that he had an injury but was not to let them know that the injury was work- related, see
.Exhibit A of Vol. 1.
27.) That Michael Fezekas was assisting the CTA by trying to encourage the plaintiff to engage in criminal acts of fraud, in order that plaintiff fabricate the accounts of how his said injury was sustained, in order that another insurance carrier absorb work-related medical costs.
28.) That Michael Fezekas stated to plaintiff that he was to lie about how his injury was sustained,
So that, his personal insurance carrier would absorb all of the medical costs for therapy and other expenses.
29.) That Michael Fezekas stated to plaintiff that he should not care who, pays his medical bills as long as they got paid, and plaintiff received therapy.
30.) That defendants at the C.T.A. William Farley et al. were under the impression that plaintiff was going to comply with Michael Fazekas's advice, in that, they advanced $2000.00 from a non- occupational/ or group disability benefits policy, hereto attached, Exhibit D of Vol.1
31.) That plaintiff informed Michael Fezekas that his personal insurance carrier would not absorb any work-related injuries on their claims.
32.) That on December 31, 1990, arbitrator Alvin Cooke issues an order on the following facts, hereto attached, Exhibit F of Vol. 2.
33.) That the defendants at the C.T A Bruce Talaga et al., violated plaintiffs civil rights by filing an appeal in the industrial commission because he would not comply with their wishes by fabricating the accounts in how his injury was sustained, in order that defendants at the C.TA avoid absorbing work-related medical expenses.
34.) That the defendants at the C.T A Bruce Talaga et al., did not want the filing of said appeal to appear obviously racially motivated, so Michael Fezekas conspired with the defendants by creating the necessary mathematical errors in favor of defendants at the C.T.A., Bruce Talaga et al.,.
Requisite mens rea elements of conspiracy are satisfied upon showing of agreement to commit offense with intent that offense be committed; actus reas element is satisfied of acts and in furtherance 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. Hannison, 1985, 911/l Dec 162, 108
People V. Mordick, 1981, 50 Ill Dec. 63, 94.
35.) That Michael Fezekas deliberately withheld submitting the therapy bill of $1317.00 at the arbitration hearing December 17, 1990, but he submitted a duplicate prescription bill of $34.48,
demonstrates a conspiracy, hereto attached, Exhibit F of Vol. 1.
36.) That defendant Kathleen Herrmann have acknowledged not filing an appeal against bus
Operator Robert Charles (white) and bus operator Hermina Rivero (Hispanic), hereto attached, Exhibits L1-L3 of Vol. 2.
37.) That defendant Kathleen Herrmann have not filed an appeal against bus operator Hogan
(White) badge #25232, seniority# 4305 when he was off work near and around February and March
1990, in that he had an alleged shoulder injury.
38.) That Kathleen Herrmann never terminated bus operator Hogan's workman's compensation benefits or Rivero.
39.) That Kathleen Herrmann admitted terminating the plaintiff April 10, 1992, unlawfully to the Human Rights Commission while he was off work injured on duty.
It is illegal for an employer to harass, discharge, and refuse to rehire, or discriminate in any way against an employee for exercising his or her rights under the law. Such conduct by the employer may give rise to a right to file a separate suit for damages in the circuit court.
In 1978, the Illinois Supreme Court created an independent cause of action for employees who are workers’ compensation claimants in the case of Kelsay v. Motorola, 72 Ill.2d 172, 384 N.E.2d 353 (1978).
The court held, “Retaliatory discharge is offensive to the public policy of this state as stated in the Workmen’s Compensation Act. This policy can only be effectively implemented and enforced by allowing a civil remedy for damages, distinct from any criminal sanctions which may be imposed on employers for violating the Act after 1975.” The court held that not only compensatory but also punitive damages are available to plaintiffs who are wrongfully terminated. In awarding punitive damages, the court held, “The imposition on the employer of the small additional
obligation to pay a wrongfully discharged employee compensation would do little to discourage the practice of retaliatory
Discharge, which mocks the public policy of this state as announced in the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In the absence of other effective means of deterrence, punitive damages must be permitted to prevent the discharging of employees for filing workmen’s compensation claims.”
40.) That William Farley et al., C.T A defendants as a self -insured insurance carrier did not provide medical insurance coverage for said work related injury because there is no insurance, and that medical coverage is appropriated based upon an individual’s skin color.
41.) That Bruce Talaga et al C.T.A. filed the appeal in the Industrial Commission and did not show up for oral arguments July 3, 1991; thereby using the laws as a weapon to wear down the plaintiff.
42.) That the Commission stated the overall medical record corroborates plaintiffs (petitioner)
Testimony, defendant (C.T A) offered no conflicting evidence, page 4, par. 2 of Vol. 1, Exhibit G.
43.) That the Commission stated , respondents introduction of a demand for an independent medical examination without evidence showing receipt does not establish petitioners "refusal" to submit to the exam under Section 12 of the act and is.not sufficient basis to terminate temporary total disability benefits, page 4, par. 2 of Vol.1, Exhibit G.
44.) That the Commission stated. the evidence in the record supports petitioner's contention that he is unable to return to work as a bus driver. Respondent has not offered light duty work to petitioner.
45.) That the defendants at the C.TA demonstrated their vexatious disapproval of the Commissions
August 28, 1991 order, they did not pay any of plaintiffs medical expenses.
46.) That the defendant Samuel Smith (forged documents) terminated plaintiff’s employment status
April10, 1992, plaintiff was not working or under the jurisdiction of Samuel Smith or transportation.
47.) That the defendants at the C.T.A. - made WAR" on plaintiffs children his "babies".
48.) That the defendants at the C.T.A removed all of his babies from his insurance to reflect that he had been terminated , in order to justify removing his children from his work related insurance coverage.
49.) That the defendants at the C.T.A. has forged and falsified plaintiffs employment record to reflect that plaintiff had no medical coverage for his children, in that plaintiff was listed in the insurance as an individual and received medical coverage, hereto attached Exhibit, N, N1, 0, of Vol. 3 and Exhibit M of Vol. 2.
Defendants would have been better off appearing at plaintiffs home
Residence –Burning Crosses in hooded outfits, than to use
His children, as a hostage’s reprisal anticipating plaintiff would
"Break-down to their demands by accepting whatever monies being
Offered so as to fabricating the accounts of how said injury
Occurred.
That because of the horrendous unprecedented acts of “draconian” criminal acts of conspiracies, the members of the Terrorist cell Democratic Political Machine have met the legal burden within the Preponderance of the Evidence Pursuant to the
Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (was enacted) - Section 1 (42 U.S.C.) 1983.
“Of all the Civil Rights legislation enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, none has had a greater contemporary impact than the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. The Act grew out of a special one-paragraph message sent to the 42d Congress on March 23, 1871, by President Ulysses S. Grant, urgently requesting the enactment of legislation”.
Section 2 (42 U.S.C.) In the House of Representatives.
“Congressional Debate of the second section of the Ku Klux Klan Act was more extensive and enduring than that of Section 1; As originally presented, Sec. 2 made it a felony for any “two or more persons” to conspire to commit certain enumerated crimes “in violation of the rights and privileges, or immunities of any person, to which he is entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
“Throughout the debates, supporters of the Act made repeated references to the depredations of the Ku Klux Klan; Victims of these atrocities included not only blacks but white Republicans as well. The crimes that were perpetrated, therefore, were not viewed as isolated occurrences, but as part of an “Organized Conspiracy….Political in its origin and aims”, “crimes perpetrated by concert and agreement, by men in large numbers acting with a common purpose for the injury of a certain class of citizens entertaining certain political principles, id, at 457 (remarks of Rep. Coburn). See also e.g., id. At 437 (remarks of Rep. Cobb) (“None but Democrats belong or can belong to these societies”) et al.,
“Where these gangs of Assassins show themselves the rest of the people look on, if not with sympathy, at least with forbearance. The boasted courage of the South is not courage in their presence. Sheriffs, having eyes to see, see not; judges, having ears to hear, hear not; witnesses conceal the truth or falsify it; grand or petit juries act as if they might be accomplices. In the presence of these gangs all the apparatus and machinery of civil government, all the processes of justice, skulk away as if government and justice were crimes and feared detection. Among the most dangerous things an injured party can do is to appeal to justice. Of the uncounted scores and hundreds of atrocious mutilations and murders it is credibly stated that not one has been punished. Cong. Globe, supra note 2, app. At 78 (remarks of Rep. Perry). (“While murder is stalking abroad in disguise, while whippings and lynching’s and banishment have been visited upon unoffending American citizens, the local administrations have been found inadequate or unwilling to apply the proper corrective”) et al., …. And the State made no successful effort to bring the guilty to punishment or afford protection or redress to the outraged and innocent.”)
In the 20th century, the Supreme Court began to overturn Jim Crow laws on constitutional grounds. In Buchanan v. Warley 245 US 60 (1917), the court held that a Kentucky law could not require residential segregation. The Supreme Court in 1946, in Irene Morgan v. Virginia ruled segregation in interstate transportation to be unconstitutional, in an application of the commerce clause of the Constitution. It was not until 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 347 US 483 that the court held that separate facilities were inherently unequal in the area of public schools, effectively overturning Plessey v. Ferguson, and outlawing Jim Crow in other areas of society as well. This landmark case consisted of complaints filed in the states of Delaware (Gebhart v. Belton); South Carolina (Briggs v. Elliott); Virginia (Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County); and Washington, D.C. (Spottswode Bolling v. C. Melvin Sharpe). These decisions, along with other cases such as McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Board of Regents 339 US 637 (1950), NAACP v. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958), and Boynton v. Virginia 364 US 454 (1960), slowly dismantled the state-sponsored segregation imposed by Jim Crow laws.
50.) That Illinois Democrats in the Political Machine have managed to circumvent the aforementioned precedent by recruiting inferior Negroes or Hispanics to oppress deny their own ethnic groups by contributing to the racial mayhem described within so as to be accepted by the Democratic Party, as demonstrated in the local ATU 241 under the Negroe controlled membership, and as demonstrated in Cook County Court under Chief Judge, Timothy Evans etc.
51.) 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.
52.) That the Commission stated the overall medical record corroborates plaintiffs (petitioner)
Testimony, defendant (C.T A) offered no conflicting evidence, page 4, par. 2 of Vol. 1, Exhibit G.
53.) That the Commission stated , respondents introduction of a demand for an independent medical examination without evidence showing receipt does not establish petitioners "refusal" to submit to the exam under Section 12 of the act and is.not sufficient basis to terminate temporary total disability benefits, page 4, par. 2 of Vol.1, Exhibit G.
54.) That the Commission stated. The evidence in the record supports petitioner's contention that he is unable to return to work as a bus driver. Respondent has not offered light duty work to petitioner.
55.) That defendant Samuel Smith had no jurisdiction over plaintiff in that, Geri Tapling (personnel administrator) forwarded communication May 30, 1990, that plaintiff was placed in area 605, hereto attached, Exhibit D of Vol. 2.
56.) That defendant Samuel Smith was cognizant of certain facts, hereto attached, Exhibit B of Vol.
2, letter from Chairperson James E. Marshall.
57.) That because defendant Michael Fezekas was representing the interests of the C.T.A., plaintiff
Never had proper legal representation.
58.) That because Bruce Talaga et al., defendants at the C.T A were cognizant that plaintiff was
steadfast in his position and demonstrated no fear of intimidation, ceased representation of themselves and hired a corporation defense law firm, to continue their racist philosophical doctrines, Querry & Harow
59.) That because of the overwhelming conspiracies had against plaintiff, he had to prosecute his matter before the Industrial Commission as attorney Pro Se, because of Michael Fezekas conspiratory relations with defendants at C.T.A., hereto attached, Exhibit P of Vol. 2.
60.) That because Michael Fezekas never addressed the April 10, 1992 et al., assertions, hereto attached, Exhibit H of Vol. 1.
61.) That because Bruce Talaga et al., C.T.A. defendants scheduled an examination for plaintiff May
7, 1992, proves that they never informed plaintiff that he had been discharged from employment. Hereto attached, Exhibit I of Vol. 1.
62.) That because Michael Fezekas never addressed the May 26, 1992 et al., assertions, hereto
attached, Exhibit J-N May-July 1992 of Vol. 1.
63.) That because Michael Fezekas forwards a July 17, 1992, et al., response to plaintiff’s assertions, hereto attached, Exhibit N of Vol. 1.
64.) That because Bruce Talaga et al., C.T.A. defendants mailed to plaintiff a falsely itemized check, July 20, 1992 et al., assertions hereto attached, Exhibit 0 of Vol. 1, forwarded to Michael Fezekas.
65.) That because Michael Fezekas demonstrated conspiratory relations with Bruce Talaga et al.,
C.T A defendants, in that, he forwarded a notice to plaintiff of examination to be had in Wheeling
Illinois, hereto attached, Exhibit P of Vol. 1.
66.) That because plaintiff had to forward July 31, 1992 et al., assertions, responding to the examination to be had in Wheeling, IIinois, hereto attached, Exhibit Q of Vol. 1.
67.) That because Michael Fezekas forwarded a response in his August 11, 1992 et al., communications, hereto attached, R of Vol. 1.
68.) That because plaintiff responded to Michael Fezekas’s response of July 17, 1992 et al., by submitting August 24, 1992 et al., responses hereto attached, Exhibit S of Vol. 1.
69.) That Bruce Talaga et al., C.TA defendants mailed to plaintiff notice to see Dr. Shermer,
October 1, 1992 at 11:45 am, further proves he was the victim of a racial retaliatory discharge conspiracy, hereto attached, Exhibit T of Vol. 1.
70.) That because plaintiff had to forward October 9, 1992 et al., assertions to Michael Fezekas, re:
His just learned termination status, hereto attached, Exhibit U of Vol. 1.
71.) That because Michael Fezekas withdrew from the case after receiving Exhibit U, in that, he
Never investigated the issues recorded, hereto attached, Exhibit V of Vol. 1 (October 21, 1992, Notice of Withdrawal).
72.) That because plaintiff had to respond to Exhibit U, detailing the inconsistencies, hereto attached, Exhibit V, October 27, 1992 et al., responses and assertions.
73.) That because Michael Fezekas yielded incredible inconsistencies, hereto attached, Exhibit W,
Of Vol. 1, October 28, 1992 et al., responses.
.
74.) That on January 4, 1993, arbitrator Alvin Cooke ordered plaintiff to obtain the check of
$1826.23 from Michael Fazekas's former law firm and had Bruce Talaga et al., C.TA
Defendant’s attorney (Querry & Harow et al.) Mark Vizza to delete the false itemization date of
10/16/91.
75.) That because Bruce Talaga et al., C.T A defendants never complied with the Commission’s order of August 28, 1991, of paying said medical expenses.
76.) That on January 24, 1993, Bruce Talaga et al., C.TA defendant’s attorney (Querry & Harow et al.) Mark Vizza stated that plaintiff would receive some type of therapy and would be allowed to
maintain his relationship of seeing his treating physician (Henry Moss).
77.) That on January 24, 1993, Bruce Talaga et al., C.T.A. defendants attorney ( Queny & Harow et al.,) Mark Vizza informed Arbitratrator Alvin Cooke that he needed a continuance to take plaintiffs physician's deposition, said matter was prolonged, to prevent plaintiff from receiving his arrearage of workman's compensation, that deposition was never had.
78.) That on January 24, 1992, Bruce Talaga et al., C.T A defendants attorney (Querry & Harow et al.) Mark Vizza (had a private conversation outside of arbitrator Alvin Cooke's presence) suggested that plaintiff go and apply for "public aid" and was advised not to accept the money but use the
Green card in order to receive physical therapy.
79.) That same attorney, informed plaintiff that he would get a letter from Bruce Talaga, and that the letter would be worded in this manner, that it is not the C.T.A.'s belief that plaintiff was injured on the job and that he was claiming that he was injured on the job".
80.) That same attorney, advised plaintiff to take the letter to the public aid office where he was to apply and present the letter to the administrator if he was rejected public aid.
81.) That because Bruce Talaga or his attorney never forwarded the said letter, plaintiff never applied for public aid, further proving plaintiff was the victim of overt racial acts.
82.) That on January 1.9,1993, Bruce Talaga informed Dennis Powell ( Investigator ) of the Human
Rights Commission, in plaintiffs presence, at the fact finding conference, that they were in receipt of a medical report where plaintiffs physician had recorded that plaintiff was fit to return to work. (A Horrendous Psychotic LIE)
83.) That on January 19, 1993, Bruce Talaga informed Dennis Powell, in plaintiffs presence, at the
Fact finding conference, that they appeal 90% of all cases, in the Industrial Commission, when there is a judgment entered against them in an arbitration hearing.
84.) That Bruce Talaga never explained why certain white and Hispanic employees had no appeals filed
against them when a judgment was entered against them in an arbitration hearing.
85.) That because Bruce Talaga et al., C.T.A. defendants attorney have acknowledged and admitted telling plaintiff to go and apply for public aid, hereto attached, Exhibit S of Vol. 2, See response #40, #43.
86.) That plaintiff filed a Petition for a 19 L, K and N Hearing in the Industrial Commission seeking penalties #40 states “That on January 24, 1992, “Respondent’s attorney Mark Vizza (had a private conversation outside the arbitrators presence) suggested that petitioner go and apply for “Public Aid” and was advised not to accept the money but to use the green card in order to receive physical therapy”
87.) That because of the color of plaintiff’s skin, he is not afforded Equal Protection of the laws, in that. Bruce Talaga et al., C.T A defendants and their attorney wanted plaintiff to defraud a State Agency ( Public Aid ) in order to receive any type of medical assistance rightfully afforded to him according to State laws where employers are supposed to have insurance covering there injured employees..
88.) That because William Farley et al., C.TA defendants "Have" "and Will 'Falsify" 'Forge" any
document necessary to undermine any State Agency or any Law enforcement’s intelligence, so as to reflect plaintiff was terminated making sure he not receive any equality of the laws due to him not being a white man, in that, plaintiff was never legally terminated.
89.) That on February 18, 1993,plaintiff received a letter from defendants et al., C.T A, where he is listed in a retirement plan for C.T A employees, said pension report does not reflect that plaintiff
have been terminated, hereto attached, Exhibit V1 of Vol. 2.
90.) That on January 27, 1993, plaintiff received a deposit slip from the treasury room. where said
Check stub was for 8 hours, for pay period ending 9\5\92, hereto attached, Exhibit T- T2 of Vol. 2.
91.) That Exhibit T2 of Vol. 2, reflect that plaintiff area placement was 605, an area where injured employees are placed until they are released from their doctors care.
92.) That Exhibit T2 of Vol. 2, reflect that $91.79 was taken out for support, plaintiff has no idea who
Support is for.
93.) That Exhibit U of Vol. 2, is a W2 form where plaintiff is recorded as being in a pension plan and has earned $104.96, in that, he has not received any notice of what said money was for because he has not worked, due to his work-related injury
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.
94.) That Exhibit U of Vol. 2, is a W2 form where plaintiff is recorded as being in a pension plan and has earned $104.96, in that, he has not received any notice of what said money was for because he has not worked, due to his work-related injury
WHEREFORE the aforementioned reasons Plaintiff respectfully Prays for the Relief
1. For an Order Reinstating the Complaint due to all court orders entered deemed a Nullity void;
2. For an Order issuing a Rule to Show Cause Remanding William S. Boyd and all other men and women complicit in this “Organized Conspiracy into Custody Instanter.
3. For an Order appointing a Special Prosecutor who understands the jurisdiction of their profession to investigate and ascertain all other parties complicit in these Terrorist Treason Offenses of all cases noted within case #18 D 003208 Defendant defaulted Judge Boyd allowed a white attorney (Joan S. Colen) to engage in extortion offenses in the disguise as legal work when the Defendants case was over via Default from the Plaintiff (Cazembe O. Kabir);
4. For an Order staying any and all legal enforcements of all parties noted within due to the plethora of Felonies enacted by “Private Citizens” perpetrating roles as judges Trespassing upon the Laws” by all Democratic judges.
5. For an Order on bond be not less than one million dollars for any and all parties charged in these crimes in warring against the United States Constitution.
6. For an Order removing the Chief Judge of Cook County and Presiding judges of all Circuits who as Public Servants failed to investigate remove or report any judge in accordance to their oath and Public Duty.
7. For an Order setting a Hearing Date for all attorneys who sat by in an idle manner and did not exercise his or her duties pursuant to the Ethics of R.P.C 3.3 and speak up or report the terrorist acts perpetrated by “Private Citizens” violating their oaths as judges.
8. For an Order allowing Plaintiff the opportunity to Amend his Complaint so as to meet or comply with this court’s directive in adding additional Defendants.
9. For an Order investigating all members of local 241 so as to ascertain why no union member followed through on Plaintiff’s Grievance but took members money so as to determine if Grand Jury Indictments should be had for alleged Fraud.
10. For the entry of an Order awarding to your Petitioner for such other relief and any other relief necessary as equity may require of which this court may deem overwhelmingly just;
- That because of the number of years Plaintiff and family have been harmed by said Civil Rights Violations and no one objected to said assertions put before this tribunal, Plaintiff is seeking a Summary Judgment of $35 Million Dollars sought for in his complaint.
Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 35, 103 S. Ct. 1625, 1629, 75 L Ed 2d 632 (1983) Justice Brennen “The threshold standard for allowing punitive damages for reckless or callous indifference applies even in a case, such as here, where the underlying standard of liability for compensatory damages because is also one of recklessness. There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that actual malicious intent should be the standard for punitive damages because the deterrent purposes of such damages would be served only if the threshold for those damages is higher in every case than the underlying standard for liability in the first instance. The common-law rule is otherwise, and there is no reason to depart from the common-law rule in the context of {1983}”
Pursuant to Section 4 of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871: the law is clear, “Whenever in any State or part of a State………unlawful combinations…….shall be organized and armed, and so numerous and powerful et al…………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…..”
12. Plaintiff Prays further that this Honorable Judge recognize the Plaintiff as a Freeman Born & Raised in these United States of America and not inferior or less than any man responsible for the incitement of these heinous Hateful Acts.
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)
Turner 24 F. Cas. 337 (No. 14247) C.C.D. Md. Maryland
That no Afro American, Negroe, Black judge or Politician male will step up and admonish whites complicit in said acts, they go along with wrong so as to get along with the wrong doers which is why Chicago is in the apathetic state it is in today can’t blame the white man for everything too many blacks have sold out participating in the genocide and mass incarceration of their own race so as to continuously fulfill the doctrines of the Democratic Party;
Plaintiff is a living testimony and example of the aforementioned as is Homeless living on Welfare because the Democratic Party do not accept or recognize intelligent, independent men of color who don’t accept racial oppression as a way of living.
The Mis education of the Negroe, Carter G. Woodson 1933
History shows that it does not matter who is in power... those who have not learned to do for themselves and have to depend solely on others never obtain any more rights or privileges in the end than they did in the beginning.
Here is a quote from the book:
"When you control a man's thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. You do not have to tell him not to stand here or go yonder. He will find his 'proper place' and will stay in it. You do not need to send him to the back door. He will go without being told. In fact, if there is no back door, he will cut one for his special benefit. His education makes it necessary.
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
)
)
Joe Louis Lawrence ) Hon. Charles R. Norgle, Sr.
Plaintiff )
) 93 CV 01609
VS )
)
Chicago Transit Authority ) $33 Million Dollars
Defendant )
NOTICE OF
MOTION TO REINSTATE CASE DUE TO DEMOCRATIC JUDGES/ATTORNEYS TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS COMMITTING TREASON ACTING AS PRIVATE CITIZENS MAKING THE DISTRICT COURT ORDER “VOID” A “NULLITY”
Please be advised that on, September 19, 2018 Plaintiff has filed before this District Court Motion for Reinstatement et al; and will present said legally sufficient instrument before any Judge in Judge Norgle’s stead Sept. 28, 2018, at 9:30 am in room 2341
General Counsel: Karen G. Seimetz Local Union 241 Amalgamated Transit Union A.F.L.-C.I.O.-C.L.C. President Keith Hill
Chicago Transit Authority 1613 S. Michigan
Law Department Chicago, IL 60613
567 West Lake Street
Chicago, IL 60661
Law Department Chicago, IL 60613
567 West Lake Street
Chicago, IL 60661
Courtesy Copies:
Cook County States Attorney Cook County Sheriff
Kim Foxx Thomas J. Dart
50 West Washington, Room 500 Richard J. Daley Center, Room 701
Chicago, Ill. 60602 Chicago, Ill. 60602
US Attorney FBI Dir. Chris Wray
John R. Lausch, Jr. 2111 West Roosevelt Road
219 S. Dearborn, 5th floor Chicago, Ill. 60612
Chicago, Ill. 60604
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on September 19, 2018, A Motion for Reinstatement et al. has been filed with the Northern District of Illinois and said copies being served on said applicable parties via hand delivery or regular mail;
Respectfully, Submitted,
Joe Louis Lawrence
Counsel Pro Se
Chicago, Ill 60649
312 965-6455
@joelouis
No comments:
Post a Comment