WHITE ATTORNEY JOAN S. COLEN ADMITTED ENGAGING IN "FRAUD" AND A PLETHORA OF CRIMINAL OF EXTORTION.
SHE NEVER OBJECTED OR FILED ANY COUNTER-RESPONSES WITH AN AFFIDAVIT VALIDATING THE VERITY EVERYTHING RECORDED IN THIS DOCUMENT AS BEING TRUE.
BECAUSE SHE WAS AWARE NO BLACK JUDGE IN COOK COUNTY HAS ANY AUTHORITY OVER PERSONS WHITE WAS ABLE TO DO WHAT SHE WANTED TO IN HIS COURT BECAUSE "PRIVATE CITIZEN" BOYD WAS GOING TO DO WHAT HE WAS TOLD AND IGNORE WHATEVER MR. KABIR (F.O.I) FILED AND DENY ANYTHING HE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT BECAUSE BOYD KNEW HE WOULD NOT BE ADMONISHED BY ANYONE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BECUASE AS LONG AS HE IS DESTROYING MEN OF COLOR, HE WAS UNTOUCHABLE.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
IN RE MARRIAGE OF )
)
Cazembe Oboi Kabir )
Petitioner
)
) Cal C
VS )
) No. 2018
D 003208
Bernadette Kabir )
Respondent
) Room 1605
MOTION TO REINSTATE PETITIONERS PETITION FOR
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE DUE TO DUE TO “FRAUDULENT” MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE
COURT & ISSUANCE OF A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR SANCTIONS AND OR REMAND
PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 137
Now comes the
petitioner Cazembe Oboi Kabir, Pro Se, respectfully shows this Honorable Court
as follows:
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”)
A-
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.
B-
“A judge is an officer of the court, as are all members of the Bar. A
judge is a judicial officer, paid by the Government to act impartially and
lawfully”. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill. App 3d 477, 410 N.E. 2d 626. “A void judgment is regarded as a
nullity, and the situation is the same as it would be if there were no
judgment. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at
any place….It is not entitled to enforcement. 30A Am Judgments 43, 44,
45. Henderson v Henderson 59 S.E. 2d
227-232
C-
“A Void Judgment from
its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal
efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and
effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in
any manner or to any degree. “A void judgment, order or decree may be attacked
at any time or in any court, either directly or collaterally” Oak Park Nat Bank v.
Peoples Gas Light & Coke Col, 46 Ill. App. 2d 385, 197 N.E. 3d 73, 77, (1st
Dist. 1964)
D-
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);
E-
A void judgment does not create any binding
obligation. Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L, Ed 370.
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).
1.
That on Wednesday July 18, 2018, Petitioner e-filed a
Default Prove-Up confirmation number 1541796 which is the new system verifying
said motion was in fact filed.
2.
That the Petitioner mailed to the Respondent pursuant
to what was attested to in the Notice of Filing a copy that was e-filed July 18,
2018.
3.
Respondent was
served and summons received June 7, 2018 via electronically.
4.
That the Respondent filed an appearance June 13, 2018
but did not answer the Petition for Dissolution; thereby admitting the verity
of all assertions properly recorded.
5.
That the Respondent appeared before the Honorable
Renee G. Goldfarb to have said filing fees waived purportedly providing
documents that validates the verity of her status as a pauper; in that, her
application was approved and certified by the aforementioned judge.
6.
That Respondent after receiving said Notice
retained an attorney 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”
7.
That said Counsel is demonstrating the same level of
deception and “Fraud” as she is attempting to Induce Reliance on this court in
the same like manner as Petitioner experienced in his marriage.
A-
INDUCING RELIANCE
To prevail in a cause of action for
fraud, plaintiff must prove that defendant made statement of material nature
which was relied on by victim and was made for purposes of inducing reliance,
and that victim’s reliance led to his injury. Parsons V. Winter, 1986, 1 Dist., 491 N.E.
2d 1236, 96 ILL Dec. 776, 142 ILL App 3d 354, Appeal Denied.
In Carter V. Mueller 457
N.E. 2d 1335 ILL. App. 1 Dist. 1983 The Supreme
Court has held that: “The elements of a cause of action for fraudulent
misrepresentation (sometimes referred to as “fraud and deceit” or deceit) are:
(1) False statement of material fact; (2) known or believed to be false by the
party making it; (3) intent to induce the other party to act; (4) action by the
other party in reliance on the truth of the statement; and (5) damage to the
other party resulting from such reliance.
8.
That said Counsel has demonstrated in these acts she
has no respect for the judge or any laws primarily because of his ethnicity as
an African American male, she probably would not have tried this on any
Caucasian judge!
9.
That in furtherance to the above, Petitioner
asserts with authority
and based on such information and belief,
demonstrate beyond the Preponderance of the evidence standard that judge
Boyd acted as a “Private Citizen”
and has “Trespassed upon the laws” whom this
cause has pended before, has demonstrated taking part in an “Organized Conspiracy” with said
attorney by assisting her in trying to steal his property that was inherited
not purchased with Respondent.
A-
That
judge Boyd acted as a “Private Citizen” he never had jurisdiction on the Petitioner
to compel him to submit to any laws from his court when he denied said default
motion, the Illinois
Supreme Court has held that "if the magistrate has not such jurisdiction,
then he and those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are
trespassers." Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson, 57
Ill. 109 (1870)
B-
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)
10.
11. In that, said attorney Joan Colen never filed
any document in this court objecting to any of the assertions Petitioner has
filed further demonstrating, he was beneath her to respond to anything filed
because she controlled the outcome of the court’s ruling demonstrating, he was
the victim of a “Criminal Enterprise Conspiracy.”
A- “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)”.
12. That
Respondent’s attorney is demonstrating a racist attempt to demonstrate her
ethnicity is the only qualification needed to come before this court and seek
whatever she desires not that she respects her client or the laws of the court
but is able to do whatever she wants because nobody respects Black or certain
Hispanics in authority.
13. To
further validate the aforementioned, Respondent has defaulted July 7, 2018, she
never asked the court for leave of time to answer late or filed any motion for
additional time.
14. That
Respondent’s attorney has demonstrated being unfit and should be disbarred from
the practice of law for her criminal involvement violating every aspect of
Illinois Ethics.
Ethics
All Illinois lawyers
must be familiar with the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, and trial lawyers
must be particularly familiar with the
rules that apply
specially to them.
RPC 3.3, entitled “Conduct Before a Tribunal," sets forth the standards to be followed by the trial lawyer
during “battle." Section (a) of that rule states:
(a) In appearing in
a professional capacity before
a tribunal, a lawyer shall not:
(1) Make a statement
of material fact or law to a tribunal which the lawyer
knows or reasonably should know is false;
(2) Fail to disclose
to a tribunal a material fact known to the lawyer when
disclosure is necessary
to avoid assisting a criminal
or fraudulent act by the client;
(3) Fail to disclose
to the tribunal legal authority
in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly
adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel;
(4) Offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material
evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures;
Supreme Court
Rule [137] provides in pertinent part:
If a pleading, motion, or other
paper is signed in violation of this Rule, the court, upon motion or upon its
own initiative, may impose upon the person who signed it , a represented party,
or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the
other party or parties the amount of reasonable expenses incurred because of
the filling of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable
attorney fee. Not only will the courts consider an award of sanctions for
active false statements: failures to disclose material facts to the court can
also justify an award of sanctions. BRUBAKKEN v. Morrison, No. 1-9-1670, 1992
Ill App. LEXIS 2144 (1st Dist. Dec. 30, 1992). Additionally, the
fact that a false statement or omission is the result of an honest mistake is
no defense to entry of a sanction. ID. To the extent that an individual lawyer
has engaged in sanction able conduct, that lawyer’s firm can also be jointly
and severally liable with the lawyer.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
IN RE MARRIAGE OF )
)
Cazembe Oboi Kabir )
Petitioner
)
) Cal C
VS
)
) No. 2018 D 003208
Bernadette Kabir )
Respondent
) Room 1605
MOTION TO REINSTATE PETITIONERS PETITION FOR
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE DUE TO DUE TO “FRAUDULENT” MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE
COURT & ISSUANCE OF A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR SANCTIONS AND OR REMAND
PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 137
In Accordance to all of The Cook County
Circuit Court Rules
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE
RELIEF REQUESTED
The
canons of ethic in the Rules of Professional Conduct constitute a safe guide
for professional conduct, and attorneys may be disciplined for not observing
them. In re Himmel, 125 Ill.2d 531,
533 N.E.2d 790, 127 Ill. Dec 708 (1988). Although they represent the best
thoughts of the organized bar, it has been held that these canons are
non-enforceable other than through the disciplinary proceedings. Ettinger v.
Rolewick, 140 Ill.App.3d 295, 488 N.E.2d 598, 94 Ill.Dec.599 (1st
Dist. 1986). Disciplinary proceedings and sanctions are strictly within the
province of the Supreme Court. Reed Yates
Farms, Inc. v. Yates, 172 Ill.App.3d 519, 526 N.E2d 1115, 122 Ill.Dec 576
(4th Dist.), appeal denied,
the Illinois Supreme Court, through its disciplinary arm, the Attorney
Registration and Disciplinary Commission, is the only forum for exacting
such punishment. Beale v. Edgemark
Financial Corp., 297 Ill. App. 3d 999, 697 N.E.2d 820, 232 Ill. Dec. 78 (1st
Dist. 1998). The ultimate authority to regulate and define the practice of law
rests with the Supreme Court. Perto v.
Board of Review, Illinois Department of Employment Security, 274 Ill.
App.3d 485, 654 N.E.2d 232, 210 Ill. Dec. 933 (2d Dist.), appeal denied, 164 Ill. 2d 581 (1995).
Acts constituting direct, criminal
contempt
A wide variety of acts may constitute a direct, criminal
contempt. And act may be criminal contempt even though it is also an indictable
crime. Beattie v. People, 33 Ill. App
651, 1889 WL 2373 (1st Dist. 1889). As is making false
representations to the court. People v.
Katelhut, 322 Ill. App. 693, 54 N.E.2d 590 (1st Dist. 1944).
Misconduct of an officer of the court is punishable as contempt. People ex rel. Rusch v. Levin, 305 Ill.
App. 142, 26 N.E. 2d 895 (1st Dist. 1939).
Official
misconduct is a criminal offense; and a public officer or employee commits
misconduct, punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both, when, in his official
capacity, he intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as
required by law; or knowingly performs an act which he knows he is forbidden by
law to perform; or with intent to obtain a personal advantage for himself or
another, he performs an act in excess of his lawful authority ….S.H.A. Ch 38
33-3.
False statements
Censure was recommended sanction for
attorney who engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, made statement of
material fact or law to tribunal which she knew or reasonably should have known
to be false, and failed to disclose to tribunal a material fact known to her
when disclosure was necessary to avoid assisting criminal or fraudulent at by
client, given that attorney’s misconduct was not result of dishonest or corrupt
motive, but of misguided attempt to accommodate clients. 99 Ill.Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. SH11
Three-year suspension was
recommended sanction for attorney who engaged in conduct involving dishonesty
and fraud, made statement of material fact to tribunal which he knew or
reasonably should have known was false, and offered evidence that he knew to be
false and failed to take reasonable remedial measures. 96 Ill.Atty.Reg. &
Disc.Comm. SH 358.
Disbarment was recommended sanction
for attorney who engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, made false statements
of material fact or law to tribunal which she knew were false and engaged in
conduct which tended to defeat administration of justice. 95 Ill Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. CH 877.
Censure was recommended sanction for
attorney who made statements of material fact or law known was false, and
engaged in conduct which was prejudicial to the administration of justice. 95
Ill Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. CH 504
One-year suspension was recommended sanction for attorney who made
statement of material fact which he knew was false in appearing in professional
capacity before tribunal, made a statement of material fact which he knew to be
false in course of representing client, and engaged in conduct involving
dishonesty. 95 Ill Atty.Reg. &
Disc.Comm. CH 191.
Disbarment was recommended sanction
for attorney who engaged in serious misconduct by making misrepresentation
during his divorce proceedings and who was a recidivist. 94 Ill.Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. SH469
Fraud on court
Two-year suspension, retroactive to beginning of interim
suspension, was recommended sanction for attorney who made statement of
material fact or law to tribunal which lawyer knew or reasonably should have
known to be false, instituted criminal charges as prosecutor when he knew or
reasonably should have known that charges were not supported by probable cause,
committed criminal act that reflected adversely upon lawyer ‘s honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as lawyer, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, engaged in conduct prejudicial to
administration of justice, and engaged in conduct which tended to bring courts
or legal profession into disrepute. 96
Ill. Atty. Reg. & Disc. Comm. CH 118.
WHEREFORE Petitioner prays for the entry
of an Order dissolving the bonds of marriage now existing by and between the
parties.
1. Petitioner Prays that the Court Reinstate
his Petition for Dissolution of Marriage due to “Fraud” on the court;
2. Petitioner Prays that Sanctions be imposed
reimbursing him for all costs for the enforcement of this matter.
3. Petitioner Prays for the Issuance of a Rule
to Show Cause for Remand for Perjury and “Fraud” for all parties complicit in
these matters.
4. 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;
Under
penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 1265 5\1-109, the undersigned
certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and
correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief
and as to such matters, the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily
believes the same to be true.
Respectfully Submitted,
____________________
Cazembe O. Kabir
9429 S. Ada St.
Chicago, Il. 60620
IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
IN RE MARRIAGE OF )
)
Cazembe Oboi Kabir )
Petitioner
)
) Cal C
VS
)
) 2018 D 003208
Bernadette Kabir
)
Respondent
) Room 1605
AFFIDAVIT
I Cazembe Oboi Kabir Pro Se being duly sworn
on oath states the aforementioned pleadings enumerated within said motion
pursuant to 735 1265 5/1-109, the undersigned certifies that the statements set
forth in this instrument are true
and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and
belief and as to such matters, the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he
verily believes the same to be true.
Respectfully Submitted
Notary
____________________
Cazembe Oboi Kabir
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
IN RE MARRIAGE OF )
)
Cazembe Oboi Kabir )
Petitioner
)
) Cal C
VS
)
) No. 2018 D 003208
Bernadette Kabir
)
Respondent
) Room 1605
NOTICE OF
MOTION TO REINSTATE PETITIONERS PETITION FOR
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE DUE TO DUE TO “FRAUDULENT” MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE
COURT & ISSUANCE OF A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR SANCTIONS AND OR REMAND
PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 137
Please be
advised that on November 23, 2018, Petitioner has filed before this Circuit
Court, Motion to Reinstate Petition for Dissolution of Marriage et al.; and
will present said legally sufficient instrument before Judge William Stewart Boyd or any Judge in his stead Dec. ,
at 9:30 am in room 1605.
Joan S. Colen
77 West Washington, #1712
Chicago, Il 60602
Email jsc@joancolenlaw.com
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
The
undersigned hereby certifies that the above notice and all attachments were
caused to be emailed, to the above parties at the addresses provided before
5:00 pm on Nov. 23, 2018.
________________________
Respectfully Submitted
Cazembe O. Kabir
No comments:
Post a Comment