WHAT NO NEGROE MALE OR ANGLO SAXON MAN IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY EVER WANT HONORABLE MAYOR LORI LIGHTFOOT TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF IN HOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS GOVERNED AND OPERATED IN THIS STATE OF ILLINOIS
WHILE SO MANY ARE CONDEMNING STATES ATTORNEY KIM FOXX FOR DROPPING THE 16 COUNT INDICTMENTS AGAINST JUSSIE SMOLLETT
NOBODY IS EXPRESSING ANY TYPE OF OUTRAGE NOR IS THERE ANY TYPE OF PUBLICITY TO ALDERMAN EDWARD BURKE "FIXING" A MURDER CASE WHERE A BLACK MAN MURDERED HIS WIFE STABBING HIS WIFE IN THE MOUTH 40 TIMES WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF HIS GAY LOVER FOR THE INSURANCE POLICY OF $250,000.00 AS ANNE BURKE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE OF ILLINOIS WAS COMPLICIT IN TRYING TO MAKE A JUDGE GET OFF THE CASE REMINDING THE JUDGE HER HUSBAND WAS THE ONE WHO PUT YOU ON THE BENCH
I AM A HETEROSEXUAL MAN AN ADVOCATE FOR EVERYONE IN SPITE OF THEIR SEXUALITY AND BECAUSE SO MANY COLORED JUDGES ARE IN FACT IN THE CLOSET UPHOLDING AND PROTECTING EDWARD BURKE AND SO MANY MACHINE MALE DEMOCRATS IN INTIMATE AFFAIRS WITH SO MANY OF THEM WITH WIVES AND CHILDREN MY LEGAL PLEAS AS WELL AS OTHER CITIZENS, PLEAS SOME ARE NAMED IN THIS VERY DOCUMENT OUR PLEAS FOR JUSTICE FELL ON DEAF EARS.
WHAT THE ANGLO SAXON MEN IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DON'T WANT YOU TO READ AND UNDERSTAND IS THIS HERE--IF YOU ARE BRINGING CHARGES TO ANY ANGLO SAXON MAN WHO MAY HAVE PERPETRATED ANY CRIME ON ANY PERSONS OF COLOR, YOU MUST HAVE A ANGLO SAXON PERSON SPEAKING ON YOUR BEHALF; OTHERWISE, READ FOR YOURSELF HOW THESE RACIST WHITE MEN CONTROLLING THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN HOE THEY DICTATE TO COLORED JUDGES HOW THEY ARE TO RULE AGAINST THEIR OWN ETHNIC GROUPS COMMITTING GENOCIDE SO AS TO BE ACCEPTED BY THESE HATEFUL INDIVIDUALS SURPASSING ANY HATE SEEN BY REPUBLICANS.
READ! READ! READ! DEMOCRATS DON'T READ AND DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO READ ANYTHING BECAUSE SO MANY JUDGES AND COLORED PEOPLE ARE EITHER INFERIOR IN NATURE, HOUSE NIGGERS, TRAINED PUPPETS, COWARDLY RACIST OR A BULLY!
THESE TYPE OF INDIVIDUALS HAVE NO RESPECT FOR ANY WOMAN REGARDLESS TO HER SEXUALITY AND DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO ENTANGLE WITH ANY MAN IT APPEARS THAT OF A HETEROSEXUAL MAN.
TO BEST INTIMIDATE A HETEROSEXUAL MAN WITH MORAL PRINCIPLES STANDING ON A SQUARE OF INTEGRITY THIS IS HOW ANGLO SAXON MEN CONTROLLING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ATTEMPT LYNCHING ON INNOCENT MEN OF COLOR WHEN CASES ARE BEING "FIXED" BY INFERIOR NEGROE JUDGES OR HOUSE NIGGER INDIVIDUALS:
JUDGE VALDERRAMA HAD TO #TRESPASS UPON THE LAWS VIOLATED HIS OATH AS A JUDGE AND BECAME A PRIVATE CITIZEN "FIXING" THIS CASE COMMITTING TREASON IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROTECT THE MEMBERS OF THE POLITICAL DEMOCRATIC MACHINE.
BULLYING DONE THE LEGAL WAY AS 12 ATTORNEYS, CITY ATTORNEYS STEPHEN R. PATTON, CORPORATION COUNSEL CITY OF CHICAGO, REY A. PHILLIPS SANTOS,ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL CITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO HOUSING AUTHORITY OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL MARIA SEWELL JOSEPH AND TOM B. KING, FORTUNE 500 INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM, SEYFARTH & SHAW, ANNE D. HARRIS, KYLE A. PETERSEN AND JEFFREY K. ROSS,FORMER ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY FROM NEW YORK, CHRISTIAN NOVAY WHO WAS FORMERLY WITH THE LAW FIRM WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP NOW WITH GORDON & REES, LLP WITH LINDSAY WATSON, CARY G. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, CHRISTOPHER R. JOHNSON, YULEIDA JOY
Cary G. Schiff is a regular speaker and author on the subject of Property Management Law and those issues that are ancillary to property management practice, such as landlord rights and eviction practices. Cary G. Schiff & Associates is one of the largest firms in Illinois as measured by volume of Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions filed. Over the last twenty years, the firm has initiated and prosecuted some of Greater Chicago’s most publicized and controversial eviction battles with a heavy focus on preserving landlord rights.
THERE WAS A TIME WHEN WHITE MEN WERE COVERED WITH WHITE SHEETS OVER THEIR FACES CONCEALING THEIR IDENTITIES AS THEY "LYNCHED" INNOCENT MEN OF COLOR.
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Francoise Hightower ) Judge Thomas M. Durkin
Petitioner
)
VS
)
Joe
Louis Lawrence )
Respondent
)
NOTICE OF
MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION DUE TO JUDICIAL ERROR DISPARATE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS VACATE MAY 9TH ORDER DUE TO
DEMOCRATIC JUDGES ENGAGING IN RACIAL HATE CRIMES ENTERING ORDERS BEING “VOID” A
“NULLITY” CASE BEING “FRAUDULENT” JUDGES “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” ENGAGING
IN TREASON OFFENSES ACTING AS “PRIVATE CITIZENS” ALTERNATIVELY DISQUALIFY JUDGE DUE TO BIAS CONFLICT OF
INTEREST PURSUANT TO {28 USCA 144, 455 (b)
(1)} Canon 3E (1990) JUDGE DURKIN AND EDWARD BURKE
GRADUATED FROM DEPAUL LAW SCHOOL
NOW COMES the Moving Party, Joe Louis
Lawrence (“Defendant”), hereby properly Noticing the Plaintiff’s with this
Motion and all of its attachments to all parties Noticed in the Certificate of
Service {Pursuant to Fed Rules of Civil Procedures}:
That on May 21, 2019, Defendant shall present this Motion at
9:00 am before Honorable Thomas M. Durkin or any judge sitting in his stead in
room 1441, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL. 60604
Respectfully Submitted,
_________________________
Joe
Louis Lawrence
Counsel
Pro Se
PO Box 490075
Chicago, Ill 60649
IN
THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
) No. 19 CV 2668
Francoise Hightower ) Judge Thomas M. Durkin
Petitioner
)
VS
)
Joe Louis Lawrence )
Respondent )
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DUE TO JUDICIAL
ERROR DISPARATE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS VACATE MAY 9TH ORDER DUE TO DEMOCRATIC
JUDGES ENGAGING IN RACIAL HATE CRIMES ENTERING ORDERS BEING “VOID” A “NULLITY”
CASE BEING “FRAUDULENT” JUDGES “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” ENGAGING IN TREASON
OFFENSES ACTING AS “PRIVATE CITIZENS” ALTERNATIVELY
DISQUALIFY JUDGE DUE TO BIAS CONFLICT OF INTEREST PURSUANT TO {28 USCA 144, 455 (b)
(1)} Canon 3E (1990) JUDGE DURKIN AND EDWARD BURKE
GRADUATED FROM DEPAUL LAW SCHOOL
NOW COMES the Removing Party, Joe Louis
Lawrence (“Defendant”), hereby respectfully Moves this court with corroboration,
affidavits with court transcripts her Motion for Reconsideration due to “Fraud”
& Misrepresentations to the court with all attachments {Pursuant to Fed
Rules of Civil Procedures}:
1.) That judge Durkin erred in
his ruling of May 9, 2019, this case was originally assigned to Judge Robert
Gettleman who recused himself according to the Clerk and was reassigned to said
Democratic judge April 23, 2019;
2.) That judge Durkin like
many other Democratic judges have a misinterpretation of the laws when it
involves “Trespassing upon the Laws”
there is no Immunity in a criminal act.
3.) That Alderman Edward Burke
is the author of “Fixing” cases in
Chicago Courts and is a law school graduate of DePaul and so is Judge Thomas
M.Durkin and therefore demonstrates a conflict of interest.
4.) That no Democratic judge
in this state will admonish other Anglo Saxon men in the Democratic Party who
have violated the Civil Rights of any person of color, in that Judge Durkin
ignored the fact that Defendant endured Racial Hate Crimes surpassing any
concocted racial hate allegations Jussie Smollett created.
5.) That Defendant has
experienced over 31 years of Racial Hate crimes by members of the Democratic
Political Machine where he was falsely remanded into custody by racist judges
best described as “Good ol Boys”
Irish brethren under the authority and leadership of Alderman Edward Burke for
allegedly owing child support to (former police offficer Francoise Louise
Barbara Hightower who was impregnated by her natural biological father who was
a police officer at the time.
6.) That because of the systemic
racial hate Anglo Saxon men in the Democratic Party have towards Heterosexual
men of color like the Defendant, Judge Durkin in his bid to aid and assist
other Anglo Saxon men in an attempt to continuously cover-up said racist hate
criminal acts stated, “Mr. Lawrence
appears to allege in his Notice of Removal that Cook County judges engaged in
an “Organized Conspiracy” to frame him for a paternity matter dating back to
1988. To the extent Mr. Lawrence wishes to challenge that decision, these are
issues that must be raised on appeal in state court and over which this court does not have
jurisdiction. See Klein v. O’Brien, 884 F. 3d 754, 756 (7th Cir
2018)”
A- When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does
not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s
orders are void, of no legal force or effect.
The 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].
B-
Judge Durkin further corroborated his misunderstanding of
certain Federal laws as he stated, “Even
if the court had jurisdiction over this case, and to the extent Mr. Lawrence
alleges a cause of action against Cook County judges, the case would be
dismissed because judges have immunity for actions taken in their judicial
capacity” 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.
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.
C- 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 (see below).
The
Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois,
209 F. Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that "not every action by a judge
is in exercise of his judicial function. ... It is not a judicial function for
a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the
courthouse."
When
a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law,
the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void,
of no legal force or effect.
The
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 or Federal Officer.
The
judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
D-
7.) That hereto attached is Volume 1, Notice of Motion for Reconsideration Due to Fraud
& Misrepresentations to the Court Vacate all Judgments Due to Democratic
Judges Entering Orders Being “Void” a “Nullity” Case Being “Fraudulent” “Judges
Trespassing Upon the Laws” “Engaging in “Treason Offenses” Acting as “Private
Citizens” (Filed April 30, 2019)
which corroborates and validate the verity how Democratic judges Appointed by
former President Barack Obama exhaust their racial hatred at persons of color
in the area of the laws using the laws as a weapon of mass destruction
violating every aspect of the United States Constitution and laws of the United
States Supreme Court.
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).
“Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1)
an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously
unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.” Id. (citing Brumark Case 1:07-cv-00644-WDM-KLM Document 158 Filed
08/25/2009 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6 1 Although the Tenth Circuit does not
allow citation to unpublished opinions for precedential value, unpublished
opinions may be cited for persuasive value. 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 3 Corp. v.
Samson Resources Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir. 1995)).
MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canon 3E (1990) [hereinafter CODE]. Although the 1990 version of the
Code of Judicial Conduct is the most recently approved version by the American
Bar Association, most states still follow the original version, which was
adopted in 1972. As of late 1993, judicial codes or canons based in part on the
1990 ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct have been adopted in Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota,
Texas, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the U.S. Judicial Conference. 2. The
language of the Code leaves no doubt that, in the first instance, the recusal process
is to be self-executing, without the need for a judge to wait for a recusal
motion to be filed. [It] is intended to be used by a judge at the start of each
case as a checklist to assist in deciding whether at that point he should
disqualify himself from any participation in the proceedings.. .. [E]ven before
appraising participation in the case under the [Code], the judge should first
consult his own emotions and conscience, and pass an "internal test of
freedom" from disabling conflicts. LESLIE W. ABRAMSON, JUDICIAL
DISQUALIFICATION UNDER CANON 3 OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT 10 (2d ed.
1992). 3. Canon 3 states in part: C. Disqualification (1) A judge should
[shall] disqualify himself [or herself] in a proceeding in which his [or her]
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to
instances where: (a) he [or she] has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding;
The general standard for disqualification states that
a judge should be disqualified in a proceeding in which the judge's
"impartiality might reasonably be questioned." See CODE, supra note
1. Judges and attorneys frequently invoke this general principle when the
factual circumstances underlying the motion do not fit the specific
disqualifying categories in the Code's subsections. Thus, this general language
serves as a "catch-all" or residual provision. Motions containing
allegations of an appearance of partiality should be decided by another judge.
Avoiding the appearance of impropriety is "as important to developing
public confidence in the judiciary as avoiding impropriety itself. United
States v. Hollister, 746 F.2d 420, 425-26 (8th Cir. 1984). Because this
provision "asks what a reasonable person knowing all the relevant facts
would think about the impartiality of the judge, Roberts v. Bailar, 625 F.2d
125, 129 (6th Cir. 1980). See Matter of Mason, 916 F.2d 384, 386 (7th Cir.
1990), in which Judge Easterbrook posed the dilemma of the "appearance of
partiality" standard, the
challenged judge is perhaps the last person who should rule on the motion. The
first of the Code's specific grounds is relatively general: a judge can be
disqualified for having a personal bias toward a party or personal knowledge
about disputed facts. One rationale for the discretionary view is that the
judge knows best his or her own thoughts or feelings. It has been noted that:
[e]ach judge brings to the bench a background with neighbors, friends and
acquaintances, and business and social relations. The results of these
associations and the impressions they create in the judge's mind form a
personality and philosophical disposition toward the world.... In short, a
judge is expected to act according to his values. Indeed, proof that a judge's
mind is a complete tabula rasa demonstrates lack of qualification, not lack of
bias. Abramson, supra note 2, at 24.
Fraud admissibility great
latitude is permitted in proving fraud C.J.S. Fraud 104 ET Seg. Fraud 51-57. where
a question of fraud and deceit is the issue involved in a case, great latitude
is ordinarily permitted in the introduction of evidence, and courts allow the
greatest liberality in the method of examination and in the scope of
inquiry Vigus V. O’Bannon, 1886 8 N.E 788, 118 ILL 334. Hazelton V.
Carolus, 1907 132 ILL. App. 512. Respondent provided cases
attached to the exhibits 18 D 3208 and Emergency Motion filed before Federal
Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr. regarding William Stewart Boyd, case 2015 CH 01670 Re
Franklin Ulysses Valderrama, case 12-M-711552 Leonard Murray, case 2008
CH 33616 US Bank et al. v Monzella Y. Johnson et al.
8.) That pursuant to Vol. 1, said pleadings corroborate and demonstrate how Democratic
judges systematically remain Organized in said Criminal Conspiracy
systematically protect each individual judge acting as “Private Citizens”
engaging in “Treason Offenses” violating the Civil Rights of all persons
of color challenging them in the courts; whereby said Defendant’s filed a
Motion for Reconsideration filed November 4, 2016 judge Yeghiayan became
complicit in an “Organized Conspiracy” by “Trespassing upon the Laws”
using his robe and judicial authority to cover-up the “Treason Offenses”
engaged upon by other Democratic judges and operatives in the Terrorist
Criminal Enterprise in Cook County.
9.) That judge Yeghiayan had his law clerk to call
the Defendant’s on Oct. 24, 2016 at 9:00am telling them to be in court Nov. 3,
2016 at 9:00am.
10.)
That Defendant’s appeared
in court pursuant to the judge’s directive and learned he had dismissed the
case Nov. 2, 2016 remanding the matter back to the Criminal Enterprise of Cook
County.
TO FURTHER AMPLIFY DEMOCRATIC JUDGES
AS “PRIVATE CITIZENS” likened to Judge Durkin, Feinerman is consistent to how YEGHIAYAN’S participation in what is now described as a
Hate Crime corroborating his role in an “Organized Criminal Conspiracy”
aiding and assisting the Plaintiff’s in trying to steal their home
11.)
That Defendant’s filed
the proper Motion Objecting Plaintiff’ Motion for Remand due to Fraud &
Misrepresentations to the Court, in that Pars 1-6 articulates well pleaded-facts that corroborates
Democratic Operatives engaging in an “Organized Criminal Conspiracy”
trying to steal the Defendant’s home it is now in it’s eleventh year and every
Democratic judge has closed their eyes to judges Trespassing upon the laws in
this matter.
12.)
Pursuant to Par 7 of the aforementioned Motion,
hereto attached, Gr Ex A, B, C and D, Corroborate the veracity that
Democratic judges has taken seize of the courts in a Terrorist manner and is
systematically engaging in “Treason Offenses” enforcing Jim Crow Laws
in the courts;
A- Pursuant to Gr Ex A Defendant’s Original
Petition Notice of Removal from State Jurisdiction, filed April 19, 2019
Judge Robert W. Gettleman, 19 CV 02668,
that every Racist Anglo Saxon judge in the Democratic Party unlawfully “Trespassed
upon the Laws” ignored every Affidavit Motions Defendant properly plead
before the courts and Denied every document that corroborated his innocence,
that no court had jurisdiction on him for 31 years. Said woman was allegedly
impregnated by her biological father framed the Plaintiff to keep her father
from going back to jail and losing his Police Officers position.
B- In furtherance to the above, Page 9 of the document Par 10 A, B Page 8 Line 1 Joseph V.
Roddy asked Plaintiff, Did you also file answer interrogatories’ which were
sworn to under oath by you, on April 1986?” Line 2 Francoise’s reply “Yes I did.”
Lines 4-6 And that indicated,
exactly, the time you lived with Mr. Hightower and had intercourse with
defendant, is that correct, Line 7 “Yes, it did”.
C- Pursuant to Gr Ex B 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” filed
September 19, 2018, Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr. case 93 CV 01609, Page 6 Par 5C
“Plaintiff filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Patrick McGann and appeared
before Judge Michael j. Hogan, or 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.”
E- Said judges admitted “Treason
and Trespassing upon the Laws” were in fact a normal practice in Cook
County and implied his skin color was the prohibiting factor granting him any
relief, in that Par E validates the
verity of this assertion.
F- That Judge Mary Lane Mikva
was recruited from the juvenile division to preside over Defendant’s case when
the State was trying to suspend his drivers license saying he owed allegedly
over $68,000.00 because no judge in the Daley Center wanted no part of the
Defendant, in that she tried to appoint a law firm to come and represent the
Defendant, the attorney explained he was doing a better job defending himself,
there was no lawyer going to come in and do a better job than him; besides he
is up against the Good Ol boys which is the worse white men white people don’t
want to deal with them, he said you are getting a taste of who they are,
Defendant asked if they were hillbillies? He smirked and said, You would
probably have a better chance if you were up against one them they are not all
bad but those Irish men and Polocks are something else and they don’t like
brothers especially if you are educated this was a conversation from a Caucasian
attorney.
G- Defendant complied with
Judge Mikva’s directive in trying to get an Anglo Saxon individual to speak on
his behalf and explained everything the lawyer said to him, the Assistant Atty
Gen was Tyler Roland, Defendant chewed him up and spit him out in the court and
won his case his license was never suspended but somehow three Democratic
Federal Judges lied in a court order that Defendant’s drivers license was
suspended making that court order a “Nullity” “void” in it’s entirety.
14.) Pursuant to Gr Ex C
Motion to Supplement Motion that Corroborates Democratic Judges Engaging in an
Active “Organized Conspiracy” “Fraud” “Corruption” In Cook
County Courts w/Affidavits, Page 3 Par 5 states unequivocally, “That it is clear no Hispanic or Black
person described as a Democrat in Cook County have any real authority where it
matters especially as demonstrated in this cause, “Jim Crow” laws are being
enforced by spineless men of color and racist men hiding behind men of color
using them as the Enforcers using the laws as weapons to Terrorize, Bully or
“Lynch” anyone that challenges said Democrats in these unlawful proceedings as
articulated throughout all pleadings and affidavits”
15.) That Judge Norgle still is deliberating
on said matter and because so many judges are racist and filled with hate is
all the reasons why so many lack the aptitude or understanding of Trespassing
upon the Laws because Democratic Judges do not recognize this as a law where
people of color are concerned because people of color will never be considered
equal within the laws of the United States Constitution in Illinois Courts and
has demonstrated this fact in every unlawful ruling against all Defendants
standing up against the Terrorist in the Democratic Political Machine in the
City of Chicago, State of Illinois.
16.) Pursuant to Gr Ex D, Motion for Reconsideration to Reinstate Case 88 D
079012 & Vacate all Judgments due to Orders Being Void A Nullity Case Being
“Fraudulent” Judges “Trespassing upon the Laws” Engaging in “Treason Offenses
Acting as “Private Citizens” Making Misrepresentations to the Court &
Issuance of a Rule to Show Cause for
Sanctions and Remand Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137,
A- Ex 8 A letter from Karyn Mehringer, MA Forensic
Psychology, Requests for Investigation of Justice Ann Burke, and Alderman
Edward Burke, Jan 22, 2008, Page 1
Par 2 “I am co-founder of the non-profit organization known as
Illinois Family Court Accountability Advocates (IFCAA) which was created to
stop the public corruption in the family courts in Illinois that is hurting the
children of Illinois families.
Page 2 Par 3 I have read the book, When Corruption Was
King, by Robert Cooley, and have been in contact with him. Mr. Cooley
is the former criminal attorney who was responsible for the FBI investigation,
Operation Gambat, which resulted in the successful prosecution and conviction
of three judges, one alderman, several attorneys, and multiple other Circuit
Court of Cook County and City of Chicago officials. After reading
Mr. Cooley’s book, I researched other sources regarding the professional and
personal backgrounds of Justice Anne Burke and her husband, Edward, the
longtime alderman from the 14th Ward, and the powerful and influential chairman
of Chicago’s City Council's finance committee and chairman of the
Democratic Party’s judicial slate-making subcommittee, the alleged
“gatekeeper” of who becomes a judge in Chicago’s courts.
I respectfully call your attention to the information and
allegations presented herein as well as to your Oath of Office, and to the
absolute duty to report misconduct of judges and attorneys under Illinois
Supreme Court Rules, which rules mandate an investigation of the
allegations herein. [Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 63 (B)(3)(a) and/or
Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.3(a)&(b); See
Endnotes.] Further, the US District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern District opinion entered on November 1, 2005 in Case No.
05 C 0283, Golden and Golden v. Nadler, Pritikin & Mirabelli, LLC, et al,
stated in pertinent part, “The court notes that Illinois attorneys have an
absolute duty to report misconduct of other attorneys. See Skolnick v.
Altheimer & Gray, 191 Ill.2d 214, 226, 730 N.E.2d 4, 246 Ill. Dec. 324
(2000)”
In Mr. Cooley’s book, he specifically stated that Alderman Ed
Burke contacted Judge Cieslak, recently deceased, regarding at least two murder
cases and tried to influence his decision on those cases. In his
book, that was printed and distributed nationally, Mr. Cooley stated that
Alderman Ed Burke and his wife, Illinois Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke, were
involved in a molestation case that he, himself, was asked to
fix. After these allegations were published, when Alderman Ed Burke
and his wife, Justice Anne Burke, were asked to comment on the allegations,
they stated, “No comment.”
He told me that within the past year, Judge Cieslak gave an
interview to two members of the media in which Judge Cieslak verified that all
the allegations made in Cooley’s book were true. After the judge gave the
interview, the two separate reporters specifically told Mr. Cooley that they
were “not allowed to do the story because it involves Ed Burke.”
Mr. Cooley told me that he has talked to a number of people and
has provided information about Ed and Anne Burke similar to that which resulted
in indictments and convictions in Operation Gambit. He told me that
major newspaper and television entities flat out told him that they could not
do a substantive story on Ed Burke or Anne Burke.
Cammon and Remy Murder Cases
In his book, Mr. Cooley stated Ed Burke and Anne Burke along with
Attorney Pat Tuite fixed a murder case before Judge Maloney. Herbert
Cammon’s case was a murder case in which it was alleged that Herbert Cammon, a
gay black man, murdered his wife with the help of his gay lover by stabbing her
over 40 times and leaving the knife sticking out of her mouth. It
was alleged that he murdered his wife to obtain the proceeds of a $250,000 life
insurance policy. The case was originally assigned to Judge Arthur
Ceilsik. After a mistrial because of a hung jury, Ed Burke approached
Judge Cieslik and told him to withdraw from the case. When the judge refused to
withdraw from the case, he told the judge, “What’s the big
deal. It’s only a fucking nigger.”[1] Ed Burke’s wife, Anne, had filed an
appearance in the case as co-counsel with Pat Tuite. Anne Burke also
requested that the judge withdraw from the case saying, “My husband was the one
who put you on the bench.” [Judge Cieslek lived in the 14th ward.] When
the judge finally withdrew from the case due to media pressure initiated by the
attorneys, the case was assigned to Judge Tom Maloney. Judge Maloney
dismissed the case in a bench trial. Cooley revealed that he was
wearing a wire when the aforementioned events took place such that the FBI was
fully informed. Cooley revealed that he was in communication with
Judge Cieslik and he tried to encourage the judge to not let the case
go. He also reported to the feds that the case would be assigned to
Judge Maloney who would fix the case.
Mr. Cooley revealed that this was the second murder case that Ed
Burke tried to fix before Judge Ceislak. Prior to the Cammon case, Cooley wrote
about a murder case that Ed Burke tried to fix before Judge Cieslik as a favor
to one of the mob bosses, Angelo “The Hook” LaPeitra. This was the Remy murder
case in which some Chicago Police officers beat a black man to death for
smoking on an “L” train. Cooley stated in the book that one of the police
officers was a relative of LaPeitra. He also reported that when Ed
Burke was talking to Attorney Sam Banks, Ed Burke made similar racist statements
as in the Cammon murder case, specifically, “It’s only a fucking nigger. I
can’t see whey the judge is making such a big deal about it.”
17.) The aforementioned allegations corroborated
as being factual by Robert Cooley and Judge Cieslik demonstrate that the
judicial system is under siege by Terrorist by members of the Democratic Political
Machine, in that said judges in the party have found ways to systematically
wear down any person paying for an attorney or individuals representing
themselves Pro se as demonstrated in this matter.
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).
“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)”.
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.
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.
18. That Judge Yeghiayan had evidence
of the following pleadings noted in the Motion objecting Plaintiff’s motion but
stated in his court order described as a “Nullity” “Defendant has filed a response to the instant motion, making various
accusations against the Plaintiff, but Defendant has not shown the removal is
timely.”
A- That Cook County States Attorney Kim Foxx is being
subpoenaed to appear at a hearing on appointment of special prosecutor in
Jussie Smollet case Chicago Tribune April 27, 2019 for releasing Jussie
Smollett but Alderman Edward Burke nor any of the Anglo Saxon judges or States
Attorneys have been investigated for the horrific Terrorist Acts of Hate crimes
perpetrated in Cook County State of Illinois Federal Courts.
Sheila O’Brian, a former
appellate judge, also filed a notice to appear in “an attempt to get Smollett
to attend the hearing Thursday as well, her petition said that Foxx’s actions
created an appearance of impropriety, a perception that justice was not served
here, that Mr. Smollett received special attention”
B-
That it is clear Racism has a lot to do with her being subpoenaed, in
that Alderman Burke can hand pick racist judges or puppet black judges to steal
Defendant’s home frame an innocent man by locking him up not one time but 5
times for allegedly owing child support on a case that was dismissed; and what
is even worse pursuant to Gr Ex C (Cazembe Oboi Kabir) Petitioner
filed a Motion for Reconsideration Vacate (August 27th Order due
to Error “Fraud” Trespassing upon the Laws Making the Order a Nullity “Void”
with Affidavit, had this man unlawfully remanded into custody for not
paying maintenance on a matter where the Defendant had defaulted, but allowed a
white attorney to falsify every document necessary to extort money from his
wages, Cook County Judges are not following the laws and do not fear any judge
in the Federal venue and seems to be laughing at the FBI because so many judges
in the Federal Court are just as Racist and Corrupt as Democratic judges in the
County and State.
C- That No judge or attorney has
been indicted subpoenaed to any Hearings or suspended it’s business as usual
because of the color of our skin, in that Black and Brown judges are profiting
off the mayhem of destroying their own race supporting said Terrorist realizing
they would not be admonished provided they continue genocide on their own ethnic
groups.
19.
That said judge is living up to the doctrines of the Democratic Parties
creed in that it was more important for the Plaintiff’s to try and steal their
home, but said senior citizen women of color had to explain how their Removal
was timely; sic He ignored the following
properly plead assertions 10-20 taken from the Motion Objecting Remand et
al. corroborating Democratic judges and
other Terrorist Operatives engaging in an active “Organized Criminal
Conspiracy” trying to steal Defendant’s home.
20. That it is unfathomable to see where a Black
man murdered his wife stabbing her 40 times in the mouth solicit the services
of Edward Burke and he assigns the case to the right Democratic Irish judge and
Herbert Cammon gets’ away with murder with the assistance of his gay lover for
the life insurance of $250,000.00 corroborating the fact Democrats have
Terrorist control over the legal tribunals in Chicago, Illinois.
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.
21.) That a
clerk in Dorothy Browns office altered government records in the data base at
the Daley Center to reflect that Barbara Dutton was not the attorney who filed
a Complaint without filing an Appearance representing (MERS) Mortgage
Electronic Regis. Hereto attached, Page 1 of 31, dated 1-29-2010
printout.
22.) That
this Honorable Court made his ruling on a document deliberately altered so as
to undermine this courts integrity so as to gain a favorable ruling, in that,
said document names US Bank as a Trustee and attorney Robert Wutscher as the
attorney who filed the initial complaint.
23.) Counsel
is contending duplicity in the application of the laws in justifying their
Criminal Civil Rights violations in misappropriating the laws as a basis why
the case should have been Remanded back to State Court, stating, “Monzella
Johnson removed this state-foreclosure case to this Court eight years after the
case was filed”
24.) Counsel failed to
mention that 1.) The court never had jurisdiction on the Defendant because
Counsel failed to file the proper appearance making all orders VOID; 2.)
That on June 3, 2010, Judge Gillespie entered an Order, “The court
on its own motion vacates the judgment of foreclosure for lack of a proper
affidavit in support of et al.” Gr Ex D of the Petition
for Removal, Page 1, Par 1; 3.) That counsel failed
to mention nobody objected or attempted to vacate said order entered six years
ago;
A- That
because the court never had jurisdiction on the Defendants in the first place,
the clock did not start for the Petition for Removal until after the
Politically Appointed Associate Judge (Pamela Gillespie) denied the admissions
of Gr Ex A Respondent’s Response and Objection to the Order
entered on May 25, 2016 w/Affidavit, Gr Ex C, Respondent’s Response Motion
Striking & Objecting Plaintiff’s Complaint due to “Fraud” and Barred by 5
year Statute of Limitation 735 ILCS 5/13-205 w/Affidavit, Gr Ex D, Respondent’s
Response Motion to Impose Sanctions due to “Fraud” on the Court Pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 137 w/Affidavit;
B- That
the Associate Judge abused her discretion violated all Canon ethics and
Illinois Rules of Civil Procedure and Defendants Civil Rights by denying the
aforementioned Motions proving beyond the Preponderance of the Evidence that
Associate Judges cannot and will not apply the laws in a just and fair manner,
due to how they are appointed;
C- That the
Defendants properly Petitioned the Federal Court for Removal because justice
cannot be had in those courts engaging in what is clear and convincing “Kangaroo
Rulings” better known as “Jim Crow” enforcement
Laws outlawed by the United States Supreme Court but it is clear Illinois don’t
honor those laws as demonstrated in this case;
Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-612 Counsel never
Objected to the sufficiency of Petitioners pleadings, Objections to sufficiency
of pleadings either in form or substance must be made In trial court, and if
not so made, they will be considered waived and cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal. People ex rel. Deynes v. Harris, App. 1948, 77 N.E.
2d 439, 333 Ill. App. 280.
Motions for
Reconsideration are designed to bring to the court’s attention newly discovered
evidence that was unavailable at time of original hearing, changes in existing
law, or errors in court’s application of law. Continental Cas. Co.
v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, App. 1 Dist. 1996, 216 Ill. Dec. 314, 279
Ill. App. 3d 815, 665 N.E. 2d 374, appeal dismissed, et al.;
The purpose of a Motion to Vacate is to alert the trial court to
errors it has made and to afford an opportunity for their correction. In
re Marriage of King, App. 1 Dist. 2002, 270 Ill. Dec. 540, 336 Ill. App. 3d 83,
783 N.E. 2d 115, rehearing denied pending appeal; et al.
25.) Counsel is appealing to
this court to ignore all of the racist Civil Rights diabolical Acts lodged at
the Defendant and grant them anything they request on paper so as to prove
because of Defendants skin color and the fact they are seniors African American
persons do not receive Equal Protection of the Laws in the State of Illinois;
A- Democratic Judges are obviously “Fixing” cases worse than in Grey Lord
Indictments, from the Chicago Tribune article Dec. 19, 1985 the allegations
ranged from fixing drunken-driving cases to more serious felony charges. One
lawyer was caught on tape bragging that "even a murder case can be fixed
if the judge is given something to hang his hat on." By the end of the
decade, nearly 100 people had been indicted, and all but a handful were
convicted. Of the 17 judges indicted, 15 were convicted. The tally of
convictions included 50 lawyers, as well as court clerks, police officers and
sheriff's deputies.
Greylord was not
the first federal investigation of public corruption in Chicago, but it was a
watershed in its use of eavesdropping devices and a mole to obtain evidence
instead of relying on wrongdoers to become government informants.
B- That
Defendants has had their home for more than 61 years longer than many have had
careers and worked hard retiring to earn said property and a bunch of hoodlum
attorneys are using their law degrees to steal from persons they thought they
could intimidate and bully with the help of certain corrupt racist politically
connected judges.
26.) That every
attorney associated in these matters have admitted in their responses taking part in an
“Organized Conspiracy” against the Defendants trying to steal their home using
“Fraudulent Acts” surpassing human imagination, affidavits and transcripts
validate the verity every City attorney, States attorney or General Counsels
from all law firms where each named case is involved were defeated litigiously
in every venue but because every judge in the State Courts now Federal whom
this matter pended before have closed their eyes to every unlawful act known to
man because of Defendant’s skin color; further corroborates the violation of
the 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.
Properly alleged
facts within an affidavit that are not contradicted by counter affidavit are taken
as true, despite the existence of contrary averments in the adverse
party’s pleadings.Professional Group Travel, Ltd. v. Professional
Seminar Consultants Inc., 136 ILL App 3d 1084, 483 N.E. 2d 1291; Buzzard v.
Bolger, 117 ILL App 3d 887, 453 N.E. 2d 1129 et al.
27.) That in spite of the aforementioned legal precedents
recorded within, the Circuit Court politically appointed judges ignored all of
Defendants pleadings arguments and affidavits and denied every Motion against
the Manifest Weight of the Evidence demonstrating the courts are rigged against
the innocent and the just, in spite of the laws, Turner 24 F. Cas. 337 (No. 14247) C.C.D. Md. 1867)The “equal benefit” clause is cited in what
would appear to be the earliest reported case enforcing the section. The
plaintiff was an emancipated slave who was indentured as an apprentice to her
former master. Although both whites and blacks could be indentured as an
apprentice, under the law of Maryland, indentured blacks were not accorded the
same educational benefits as whites and, unlike whites, were subject to being
transferred to any other person in the same county. Circuit Judge Chase granted
a writ of habeas corpus upon finding that the purported apprenticeship was in
fact involuntary servitude and a denial under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 of
the “full and equal benefit of all laws
28.) That
the Defendants are retired Civil servants from respected positions within the
City of Chicago and this is the methodology how these corrupt individuals use
their influence and legal wit to take and steal from hard working individuals.
29.) That the Defendants have been forced
to spend and deplete their savings and earnings to defend against the frivolous
litigations lodged at them by said individuals “organized in this conspiracy”
trying to steal their home in the guise as a foreclosure.
30.) That Ex
1, demonstrates how a Rigged Court system ruined an innocent man’s
life of 29 years, innocent men have been incarcerated by this same type of
rigged system for this many years and later been deemed innocent, he has yet to
see justice and now we are unlawfully enduring the same injustice perpetrated
in Ex 1, now it‘s 2016 beyond the statute of limitations
depleting everything we have earned to finance corrupt white men’s lives at
this rate, we would be homeless and broke demonstrating unequivocally Jim
Crow laws still exist in Illinois and is not outlawed in
accordance to the United States Supreme Court Laws;
31.) That so many attorneys are arrogant
and contemptuous violating the laws because it is such a norm in State Courts
they don’t feel no judge will ever admonish any of them or impose any type of Sanction
on them because persons of color are not deemed citizens of merit or equal in
Illinois, in that Ex 1 validates this verity as a fact!
A- To
further validate the verity of the above, Defendant properly Noticed the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of the filing of the Notice of Removal filed
in Federal Court (September 2, 2016)
B- Said
Law Firm Postestivo & Assc. Along with a person(s) conspired with a Clerk
in the Circuit Court, hereto attached, Ex 2 an unlawful
publication of Defendant’s property placed in three Circuit Court envelopes
from Clerk of the Circuit Court Dorothy Brown Ref as Ex
3, 4;
C- That
it is clear from the aforementioned, that attorneys do not comply with judges
directives they circumvent any and all laws to achieve any unlawful endeavor
demonstrated in this matter and expects this Honorable Court to adhere to all
unlawful acts and continuously deny the Defendants because of their skin color
and age, one can infer because they are seniors, they will not be able to
maintain the necessary resolve to fight and keep their home;
32.)
County and State Judges are not the only Judges “Fixing” cases in said
“Organized Criminal Conspiracy” who are responsible for the Hate Crimes
perpetrated by Federal Judges “Fixing” cases on behalf of brethren in the
Democratic Political Machine, in the matter of Joe Louis Lawrence Robert M.
Dow, Jr. who took over deceased Racist Judge John W. Darrah 16 CV 7434,
ON APRIL 24TH, PLAINTIFF
FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE W/AFFIDAVIT AND SERVED IT ON ALL PARTIES AND NOTICED IT FOR MAY 2ND
AT 9:15 AM, THE CLERKS CHECKED THE CASE 16 CV 7434 MAKING SURE THE CASE WAS
ACTIVE BEFORE ACCEPTING THE MOTION IT WAS VERY ACTIVE AND ALL COPIES WERE FILE
STAMPED.
JUDGE DOW'S CLERK PLACED THE MOTION ON THE 9:15 AM MOTION CALL SHEET FOR MAY 2, 2018.
JUDGE DOW'S CLERK PLACED THE MOTION ON THE 9:15 AM MOTION CALL SHEET FOR MAY 2, 2018.
That said judge
colluded with a Federal Clerk, in that said clerk with initials K.S. improperly
recorded the April 3, 2018 court order into the database when in fact said
order was in fact tendered after Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary
Judgment April 24, 2018.
That on December 18,
2017 Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. entered a “Minute Order” hereto
attached, “Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the case is taken under
advisement. The court will issue a ruling by mail after it has taken an
opportunity to review the motion and the prior history of the case, …..et al.
Notice of motion date of 12/21/2017 is stricken and no appearances are
necessary on that date.” Is the only court order Plaintiff ever
received from the court.
Milchtein v.
Chisholm, 880 F. 3d 895, 897-98 (7th Cir. 2018), THIS CASE WAS FILED
APRIL 24TH 2018.
CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN HOW THIS REPUBLICAN JUDGE WITH ALL OF THESE ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS INCLUDE A LAW FROM THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT PUT IT IN A COURT ORDER FOR APRIL 3RD THAT WAS NOT FILED UNTIL APRIL 24TH? He has not been suspended indicted or admonished for this “Fraudulent Act”.
CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN HOW THIS REPUBLICAN JUDGE WITH ALL OF THESE ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS INCLUDE A LAW FROM THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT PUT IT IN A COURT ORDER FOR APRIL 3RD THAT WAS NOT FILED UNTIL APRIL 24TH? He has not been suspended indicted or admonished for this “Fraudulent Act”.
33.) A
Massachusetts District Court judge has been charged with obstruction of justice
and suspended without pay for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant avoid
federal immigration agents by allowing him to sneak out the back entrance of
the courthouse after a hearing last year.
The
judge, Shelley Richmond Joseph, was indicted by a federal grand jury Thursday,
along with Wesley MacGregor, who retired last month after 26 years as a
Massachusetts Trial Court officer.
U.S.
Attorney Andrew Lelling announced the
indictment at a press conference alongside top officials from the U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement’s Boston field office.
“This
case is not about immigration,” Lelling insisted. “It is about the rule of
law.”
34.) In that here in Federal Court Cook County
Courts or the Appellate Courts the Rule of Law does not apply to people of
color now Judge Gary Feinerman obviously didn’t read anything Defendant’s filed
it is clear Democrats don’t seem to be reading anything Defendant’s have presented
before the courts if they did probably someone would have been man enough to
try to stop this bullying tactics of Racial Hatred of trying to steal their
home.
35.) That
said Democrats are so Corrupt and Nefarious and deem themselves untouchable “Trespassing upon the Laws” engaging in
“Treason Offenses” in that said
Democratic Terrorist are now in violation of the following Act, 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…..”
WHEREFORE DEFENDANT PRAYS that
this Court Reconsider this Motion in its entirety and keep this matter in the
Federal Court and Invoke Jurisdiction on all parties complicit in this
“Organized Conspiracy”:
2.) For an Order imposing Sanctions reimbursing to Defendant all
costs and fees for the enforcement of this matter;
3.) For an Order of Sanctions Remanding any and all parties
complicit in this “Organized Conspiracy” responsible for Remanding Defendant
into court unlawfully;
4.) For an Order allowing the Amendment of this document
to satisfy this court’s requirement for jurisdiction.
5.) For an Order having
these allegations investigated by Federal Officials
6.) For an Order
alternatively transferring this matter out of Illinois away from this District
to a State District where judges follow and adhere to the Rules of Law and not
in accordance to one’s ethnicity, gender or political affiliations.
7.) For the entry of an
Order awarding to your Defendant for such other relief and any other relief
necessary as equity may require of which this court may deem overwhelmingly
just;
Finally, this Motion
is best closed by a jurist who has stated”; 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”)
Federal Court FEDERAL JUDGE GETTLEMAN: stated,
Tuesday March 10, 2009, where he found Superintendent of police Jody Weiss in
Contempt of Court and Ordered the City to Pay $100,000.00, “No
one is above the Law”, he cited a 1928 decision by Supreme
Court Justice Louis Brandeis, that said, “If the Government becomes the law
breaker, it breeds Contempt for the Law, It invites everyman to become a law
unto himself. It invites
Anarchy.”
The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Wednesday April 26, 2006, Page
1, Illinois Political Machines help breed corruption, Associated Press
writer Deanna Bellandi states, “Illinois is apparently a Petri dish
for corruption. It is a real breeding ground”.
That Chicago is the most Corrupt City in America, Huffington
Post, Internet Newspaper, February 23, 2012; University of Illinois Professor
Dick Simpson, “The two worst crime zones in Illinois are the governor’s mansion…..and
the City Council Chambers in Chicago.” Simpson a former Chicago Alderman told
the AP “no other State can match us.”
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Joe Louis Lawrence
Counsel
Pro Se
PO Box 490075
Chicago, Illinois 60649
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I Joe Louis Lawrence,
certify that on May, 16, 2019 I have caused proper service to be had on all
Plaintiff’s via personally delivery or US Mail.
Cook County States Attorney
Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans
Kim Foxx 50 West Washington, Suite 2600
50 West Washington, Suite 500 Chicago, Ill. 60601
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Presiding Judge Grace Dickler
Chicago
Transit Authority Legal Dept. 50 West Washington, Suite 1900
General Counsel Chicago, Ill. 60601
567 West Lake Street Chicago, IL. 60603
Chicago, Ill. 60661-1498
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Dorothy
Brown Attorney General
50 West
Washington, Suite 1001 Kwame Raoul
Chicago, Ill.
60601 100 West
Randolph, Suite 1300
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Asst.
Gen. Counsel, Sec. of State
Amalgamated Transit Union, 241
Terrence McConville
President/Vice-President
100 West Randolph, Suite 500 1613 S. Michigan
Chicago, Ill. 60604 Chicago, Il. 60616
Francoise L.B.
Hightower
Francoise L.B. Hightower
1152 West 102nd
Street
7709 South Cornell
Chicago, Il.
60643-2353
Chicago, Il. 60649-4577
COURTESY COPIES
TO THE FOLLOWING:
Charles R. Norgle, Sr. Case 93
CV01609
219 S. Dearborn, Room 2341
Chicago, Ill. 60604
Dir. FBI,
Jeffrey S.
Sallet U.S.
Atty John R. Laush, Jr.
2111 West
Roosevelt Road 219 South Dearborn,
Suite 500
Chicago, Ill.
60612 Chicago, Ill.
60604
Chicago Tribune Contact Reporter
Megan Crepeau
160 N. Stetson,
Chicago, Il.
60601
Said case
demonstrates within the parameter of the laws how the Illinois legal system is
under siege, as stated in earlier affidavits, the Ku Klux Klan, pursuant to the
act of 1871 Section 1 (42 U.S.C.) Remarks of Rep. Cobb) (“None but Democrats
belong or can belong to these societies”)
PLEASE BE ADVISED that
on May 16, 2019 a Motion for
Reconsideration et al. has been filed in the Northern District of Illinois
Federal Court.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Joe Louis Lawrence
Counsel Pro Se
PO Box 490075
Chicago,
Illinois 60649
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT
I Joe Louis Lawrence, files herewith her
affidavit as required by Title 28, United States Code:
I Joe Louis Lawrence
Counsel Pro Se being duly sworn on oath states that, I have caused the
aforementioned Notice and Motion for Reconsideration, to the noted Plaintiffs
via hand delivery or U.S. May 16, 2019, 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
____________________
Joe Louis Lawrence
PO Box 490075
Chicago, Il 60615
No comments:
Post a Comment