READ HOW ALDERMAN EDWARD BURKE ALLEGEDLY SUCCESSFULLY RAN AN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE APPOINTING CERTAIN JUDGES TO PROTECT PEDOPHILES AND AN ASSORTMENT OF CRIMINALS
hightower v. Lawrence 88 D 79012
Inbox
| x |
|
Mon, Feb 11, 1:51 PM (1 day ago)
|  | ||
| ||||
Joe,
I think I got the facts in a position that there are understandable.
Briefly, you were involved in a paternity matter in 1987 which was dismissed due to the fact that the test was not conclusive. However, it was refiled in 1988. This 1988 proceeding resulted in judgments etc which you have been fighting for some time.
The problem with the petitions that you filed was the fact that in every situation you filed OUT OF TERM TIME.
You had 30 days to contest before judgment before the Court lost jurisdiction to address the defenses you had. This left you with a remedy that gave you two years from the date of the judgment, but required you to 1) show due diligence, and 2) a valid defense. As your petitions never met the standards of the statute, once again you lost out.
There is a question in your documents - were you ever served with summons for the 2nd proceeding. I do not see this issue raised, but again as you filed appearances to contest the proceedings without limiting you appearance, the law is that you placed yourself within the jurisdiction and as time elapsed the judgments continued to pile up.
Thus, in spite of the wrong that has been done to you, and your many attempts at attempting to obtain justice, from the papers you forwarded to me it appears that not one of the judges had jurisdiction to cure the problem.
However, in the Illinois Constitution there is contained the following provision - Article 1 section 12. l For every wrong there must be a remedy.
I've forwarded a copy of this e-mail to the States Attorney, the Attorney General, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Governor's office because of the inherent lack of justice that you suffered and the fact you had no way to remedy the injustice. I am unfortunately aware of the catch 22 you found yourself in, as when I was practicing I had a client who was beset by a similar problem.
The enforcement of child support decrees is delegated to the State because in so many of these cases of children born out of wedlock the State is providing the actual support and the parents could care less about the well being and pecuniary support of the child. Ergo, State attorneys are delegated to follow thru on the support orders and they are jaundiced. They hear every excuse in the book and then some. Thus, the defendant is treated as a liar and a person who shirks his/her responsibilities. In your situation apparently the Judge saw the catch 22 you were involved and was desperately trying to tell you - get yourself a lawyer - you are getting deeper and deeper into this morase from which there is no escape.
The legislation that brought you into this problem was remedial and therefore is entitled to greatest latitude in the collection aspect.
Of - so much for the prelude - how do you handle the situation?
The answer is the same that you give to a drowning man in the middle of a large lake. I personally do not know. If my analysis of the facts is accurate and correct you got screwed and Article 1 section 12 is a constitutional provision that has little meaning in these circumstances.
That said, I have attempted to copy the States Attorney, the Attorney General, the ACLU, the Governor and the Law fraternity. It is my hope that you might be able to make a settlement with the State. The LAW IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE TRAP. Where it inadvertently becomes such, it is up to the 2nd oldest profession and the corporate structure of the State to CUT THE CRAP and fix the wrong.
To my mind Article 1 Section 12 is a mandate to the Governor, the Attorney General and Law Enforcement in general to do the RIGHT THING even if it is NOT politically correct, emasculates a statute etc. American Law has never been procrustean = it is (or it is supposed to be the 'escape value' of society.
Mr. Lawrence - if indeed you are the father of the child in question - no matter whether you have been properly adjudicated as such or not, it is your obligation to also do EQUITY. American Law was intended to be a two way street and it assumes that each of us will do the right thing regardless of whether or not a human judge makes the right decision or not. The bywords of the Law used to be HONESTY, INTEGRITY and HONOR.
A few more words: In 1961 when I received my law license, I had it drilled into me that right wrong or indifferent I owed a duty to myself to always act in a manner that lent HONOR to me, my profession, my community, and my friends. I further learned that my word was to be my bond if I was to be successful. I not only had to be candid, but when I said I would do something, I was do it.
I tried to live up to the credo. I've certainly tried.
NB. I hope I've analysed your situation accurately. The information I used to make my analysis has been from incomplete lay person documents that were forwarded to me by fax. I prepared this e-mail from only the documents presented in the e-mail, and have not examined the docket or pleadings in the case or cases. It should be noted that the documents that I was furnished were not preparted by a lawyer and in many situations needed creative interpretation. It is entirely possible that I am mistaken as to the facts - THEREFORE I hope that if a government agency is interested in dealing with Mr. Lawrence's problem that they do an INDEPENDENT HONEST INVESTIGATION and do not rely upon any statement or conclusion that I have reached.
Ken
Thank you for your diligent sincere legal analogy.
For starters you have done a better job than about a dozen prominent attorneys most returned my retainers had attempted to do.
1.) I was never served in the 1988 paternity matter.
Before, I delve further let me digress to the 85 D 068184 case the two independent paternity tests excluded me from paternity.
The tests were from Cook County and American Red Cross but someone got to the Doctor's and had them to falsify the tests to reflect, I was the father but left the accurate numbers in fact proving paternity exclusions.
Because, I demanded a jury trial and both paternity tests demonstrated obvious inconsistencies the child on both tests did not have the same markers in her DNA that was presented in my DNA.
According to the Mendelian Laws of Inheritance -- of the ABO blood group antigens (any of a class of substances produced by the body that stimulated production of antibodies) can not occur in a child, if they are not present in the parents; therefore, antigens can not be absent in a child if they are present in both the parents; therefore, the antigen should be transmitted to the child.
The American Red Cross test indicated they were unable to locate a marker in the child, stated undetected.
But the test stated, the likelihood of the alleged father was 7,220 times to be the father. There is evidence for an exclusion of paternity.
The combined paternity index was 7219.9503/72.20%
Relative Chance of Paternity 72.20%
Relative Chance of non-paternity 27.80%
The Cook County test had a marker of 0.7715 leaving the paternity index to be 17,905 making the alleged father unlikely to be the father then any random man.
The combined paternity index was 17906.6280/17.91%
Relative Chance of Paternity 17.91%
Relative Chance of non-paternity
But the Cook County test and American Red Cross tests falsely stated out of the 17,905 paternity is practically proved 99.99% and out of 72.20% paternity is practically proved at 99.98%.
2.) This is information not provided to you as you will be able to glean why.
A- The prior paternity case dismissed September 17, 1987 with the paternity tests was never consolidated via a motion per Judge D Adolphus Rivers directive.
B- Court records will show, I was never served.
C- Joseph V. Roddy had a person from Rock detective agency to falsify an affidavit to reflect, that I was served via a false description of my grandmother and false description of the unit where my grandmother lived.
D- This is what nobody wants an attorney like you to ever know is that they filed an affidavit in court saying, I was served Feb 23, 1988 but my attorney vacated Feb 24, 1988 the wrong fraudulent information.
E- The May 18. 1988 court order absent a judges signature and attorney information indicated Francoise who was a Police Officer gave false testimony to paternity tests never had and, I was never served anything.
3.) Francoise came to my job in her Police uniform and left a letter with one of the clerks who was a lodge brother at the CTA of a court date but no court order.
4.) The same letter Francoise left at 69th and Ashland was mailed to 5950 North Kenmore, I notified my former attorney he had no knowledge of this matter requested that, I give him both letters which I did, but he was not aware of any refiling both letters were copied before he got the documents from me.
5.) During this period a woman or two got on my bus whom, I didn't know confronted me telling me that bitch been in court on you that is not your baby, I was stunned because I really didn't know the woman but they definitely knew me and described Francoise .
6.) So I did some research on my own and was put in touch with Jeanne Sprietsma Supervisor of the Court Reporters and learned that the Court Reporters admitted that Francoise and her attorney's had been coming to court regularly and, I had no knowledge of this.
No judge in Cook County ever had JURISDICTION on me. Every Order was a NULLITY VOID.
- 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 Kettleret.al. v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109 (1870)
Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court "could not hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, - it, had no authority to make that finding." The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928). The judges listed below had no legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear or rule on certain matters before them. They acted without any jurisdiction.
- When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason.
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)
2.) 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).
Had you been provided with all of the FACTS, I am confident the above laws would have been mentioned by you.
That woman's daughter is not my child; furthermore, you can see how Cook County judges acted as "Private Citizens" violating my Civil Rights, subjecting me to their Criminal Enterprise of an "Organized Conspiracy"
“The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court of Cook County is a criminal enterprise. U.S. v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th Cir. 1985)”.
The United States Supreme Court recently acknowledged the judicial corruption in Cook County, when it stated that Judge "Maloney was one of many dishonest judges exposed and convicted through 'Operation Greylord', a labyrinthine federal investigation of judicial corruption in Chicago". Bracey v. Gramley, case No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997).
Since judges who do not report the criminal activities of other judges become principals in the criminal activity, 18 U.S.C. Section 2, 3 & 4, and since no judges have reported the criminal activity of the judges who have been convicted, the other judges are as guilty as the convicted judges.
Thank you Sir for your Wisdom Integrity and Support,
Joe Louis
No comments:
Post a Comment