THIS IS HOW ALDERMAN EDWARD BURKE WAS ABLE TO CONTROL AND RUN THE CITY OF CHICAGO CONTROLLING THE JUDGES HE APPOINTED TO THE BENCHES
FACT: NO IRISH OR POLISH JUDGE OF ANY ETHNICITY WILL RULE IN FAVOR OF A PERSON OF COLOR BRINGING CHARGES OR COMPLAINT TO THESE MEN OF THIS ETHNICITY.
FACT: NO BLACK NEGROE AFRICAN AMERICAN OR SOME HISPANIC MEN WILL RULE IN FAVOR OF INDIVIDUALS THEIR ETHNICITY THEY MUST GET PERMISSION OR APPROVAL FROM ALLEGEDLY ALDERMAN EDWARD BURKE.
ALDERMAN BURKE'S BRIGADE OF RACIST INFERIOR UNQUALIFIED INCOMPETENT JUDGES ARE ABLE TO BULLY AND INTIMIDATE SMART QUALIFIED ATTORNEYS BUT MEN AND WOMEN PROCEEDING ON THEIR CASES PRO SE LIKE MYSELF AND SO MANY OTHERS ARE NOT BOUND TO HIM OR WE HAVE NO ALLEGIANCE TO THE DEMOCRATIC MACHINE.
THIS CASE ARTICULATES THE RACIAL HATE THAT HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED AT ME BY ALDERMAN EDWARD BURKE'S ARMY OF COWARDLY PUPPETS THAT IS REAL NOT MADE UP.
THE SAD REALITY FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA APPOINTED THESE FEDERAL JUDGES THOMAS M. DURKIN AND GARY FEINERMAN WHO REFUSED TO READ THE LEGALLY CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS OF RETIRED POLICE OFFICER AND RETIRED TEACHER FROM THE BOARD OF EDUCATION CORROBORATING AND ADMISSIONS OF ATTORNEYS AND DEMOCRATIC JUDGES IN AN ORGANIZED CONSPIRACY CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE TRYING TO STEAL THEIR HOME.
BECAUSE NO ATTORNEY WAS ABLE TO LITIGIOUSLY DEFEAT PRO SE LITIGANTS ATTORNEYS WHO MAY BE COMPLICIT IN THESE CRIMES RELY ON JUDGES IN THE DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL MACHINE TO UNLAWFULLY DENY ANYTHING A PERSON OF COLOR PUTS BEFORE THEM.
JUSSIE SMOLLETT CREATED A STORY OF RACIAL HATRED THIS CASE IS TRUE HATRED IN IT'S REALEST FORM.
IN THE
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
60604
Joe Louis Lawrence }
Appeal from the United
} States
District Court for
Plaintiff –Appellant
} the Northern
District of
} Illinois, Eastern Division
V
}
}
No. 1:19-cv-02668
Francoise Hightower }
}
Defendant-Appellee } Judge Thomas M. Durkin
September 7, 2017
BRIEF
MEMORANDUM
TO: Court of
Appeals
FROM: Joe Louis
Lawrence
CC: All
parties referenced in the Certificate of Service
SUBJECT: Why
this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction:
1.) A federal court
always has the authority to determine its own jurisdiction. A federal court has
the authority to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear a particular
case. United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002) (citing United States v.
Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 291 (1947)). • In re Dairy Mart Convenience
Stores, Inc., 411 F.3d 367, 374 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. United
Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 292 (1947) (“‘[A] court has jurisdiction to
determine its own jurisdiction.’”).
See also Knudsen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 411 F.3d 805, 808
(7th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002))
(“‘[A] federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its own
jurisdiction.’”). In re Bunyan, 354 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing
United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002)) (“A federal court always has
jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.”). 13D Charles Alan Wright,
Arthur R. Miller, Edward H. Cooper, Richard D. Freer, Federal Practice and Procedure
§ 3536, p. 1 (“‘Jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction’ refers to the power of
a court to determine whether it has authority over the parties to and the
subject matter of a suit.”) [here in after 13D Wright & Miller]. 4 B.
Unique Aspects of Jurisdiction in Practice The issue of federal subject matter
jurisdiction “concerns the fundamental constitutional question of the
allocation of judicial power between the federal and state governments.”
2.) Wright &
Miller § 3522, p. 125. Because of these weighty concerns, jurisdiction is a
unique issue in the federal courts. Below, this outline notes five ways that
adjudication of jurisdiction is different than adjudication of substantive
issues. 1. A federal court must generally determine whether it has jurisdiction
at the outset of litigation and must always make this determination before
deciding the merits of a particular case. A court “generally may not rule on
the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction over
the category of claim in the suit (subject-matter jurisdiction) . . . .”
Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430–31
(2007) (declining to address jurisdiction and holding that district court had
authority to dismiss action on forum non conveniens grounds before considering
the merits) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83,
93–102 (1998) (rejecting doctrine of “hypothetical jurisdiction” that would
allow a court to rule on issues of law before adjudicating jurisdiction)). •
Toeller v. Wis. Dep’t of Corrections, 461 F.3d 871, 873 (7th Cir. 2006)
(“Before considering the merits of [the] appeal, we must resolve a preliminary
question of appellate jurisdiction.”). Jurisdiction Upheld • Morrison v. Nat’l
Australia Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2008), aff’d 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010)
(quoting Arar v. Ashcroft, 532 F.3d 157, 168 (2d Cir.2008)) (“‘Determining the
existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry and a claim is
properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b) (1)
when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to
adjudicate it.’”). Jurisdiction Lacking Marley v. United States, 567 F.3d 1030,
1034 (9th Cir. 2008) (“As a threshold matter, we must decide whether we have
jurisdiction . . . .”). • 13 Wright & Miller § 3522, p. 147. See also a.
Exception: In some circumstances (lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non
conveniens) a court can dismiss a case on non-merits grounds before deciding
whether jurisdiction exists.
3.) Although courts
must generally decide a jurisdictional issue before deciding the merits of a
case, “a federal court has leeway ‘to choose among threshold grounds for
denying audience to 5 a case on the merits.’” Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v.
Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007) (quoting Ruhgras AG v.
Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 585 (1999)). So, while a court cannot consider
the merits of a case before deciding a jurisdictional issue, a court can decide
a case on non-merits grounds before deciding whether jurisdiction exists. Id.
The Supreme Court has recognized two “threshold grounds” on which a court can
resolve a case without addressing subject matter jurisdiction: (1) personal
jurisdiction and (2) forum non conveniens. Ruhgras AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526
U.S. 574 (1999) (“Customarily, a federal court first resolves doubts about its
jurisdiction over the subject matter, but there are circumstances in which a
district court appropriately accords priority to a personal jurisdiction
inquiry.”); Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S.
422, 425 (2007) (applying exception to forum non conveniens).
4.) The Ninth
Circuit has held that the personal-jurisdiction exception to the jurisdiction-first
rule is limited to cases where deciding the personal jurisdiction issue would
result in the end of the case. Special Invs., Inc. v. Aero Air, Inc., 360 F.3d
989, 994–95 (9th Cir. 2004). In Special Investments, the court held that it was
improper for the district court to dismiss an action against a defendant when
other defendants remained without first deciding whether it had subject matter
jurisdiction. Id. The D.C. Circuit has provided a test to determine when a
court can decide an issue before adjudicating jurisdiction: a court can decide
an issue before jurisdiction if the issue does not involve “an exercise of a
court’s law-declaring power . . . .” See Kramer v. Gates, 481 F.3d 788 (D.C.
Cir. 2007).
5.) A court
exercises its law-declaring power when a ruling has an effect on “primary
conduct.” See id. (citing Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 475 (1965) (Harlan,
J., concurring) (classifying rules affecting “primary decisions respecting
human conduct” as substantive for purposes of Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304
U.S. 64 (1938)).
A-
That Democratic Judges from the Political Machine have
circumvented every rule of law, every legal precedent from the United States
Supreme Court and every area of the United States Constitution by engaging in Hate
Crimes upholding the “Criminal Enterprise” of Alderman Edward Burke “fixing”
cases in Cook County.
B-
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.
C-
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.
D-
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.
E-
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.
6.) 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.
7.) That said judge violated the oath of his
duties recognizing he had no jurisdiction as he “Trespassed upon the Laws”
by corroborating his role in an “Organized Conspiracy” engaging in “Treason
Offenses” within the “Criminal Enterprise”, 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)
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.”
9.) 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.
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.
The District Court,
Court of Appeals judges closed their eyes to the “VOID ORDERS” entered
against the Appellant-Plaintiff and entered orders described as a Nullities in
an attempt to allegedly protect Alderman Edward Burke and all known Terrorist
associated in said Criminal Conspiracy of the Democratic Political machine.
10.) In that certain Court
of Appeals Democratic Judges have demonstrated their Hate of the Appellant
and overt participation in the “Organized Conspiracy” “Criminal Enterprise”
have rendered Orders of a complete “Nullity”
“Void” in its entirety, in that JUDGES KENNETH RIPPLE, DIANE SYKES ANN C. WILLIAMS HAVE DEMONSTRATED
UNBELIEVABLE CONTEMPT FOR THE LAWS as
they acted as “Private Citizens” losing jurisdiction on the they prepared said order fabricated in its
entirety, In 1987 the State of Illinois
ordered Joe Lawrence to pay child support. He did not comply, and consequently the state revoked his driver's license. He
appealed the revocation to the Secretary of State, but his appeal was
denied. Lawrence also unsuccessfully sued his former employers, International Brands Corporation and the Chicago
Transit Authority, in state and federal court for embezzlement and theft.
A-
Plaintiff never had his Commercial Driver’s
License Suspended which can be verified by the Secretary of State.
B-
Plaintiff was never Terminated or Suspended
from the Chicago Transit authority he was off work due to a work-related injury
Judge Norgle is in receipt of all actual records that has been destroyed in
Cook County that validates the veracity he was never ever DISCHARGED.
C-
Plaintiff was never Terminated from
IBC/Wonder bread, he tore his rotator cuff falling back off the truck and had
surgery repairing it he had to receive welfare and food stamps because someone
was collecting his workman’s compensation, but he had Blue Cross Blue Shield
medical coverage and a medical card for his then wife and children.
D-
Joe Louis Lawrence v IBC/Wonder bread, Chicago
Transit Authority, Chicago Police, Complaint of Civil Rights Violations, Equal
Protection of the Laws Violations, Employment Discrimination/Retaliatory
Harassment, Disparate Treatment, $350 Million, Judge Kennelly case 07-1191 stated, “the
gist of Mr. Lawrence complaint is somewhat difficult to make out” see unlawful1.blogspot.com Post
April 14, 2012, Brief prepared by the Petitioner his very first Dec. 7,
2007, Page 11Statement of the Issues demonstrates a
comprehensible picture of the racist events taking place in the courts as
corrupt white men “Organized in said Conspiracy” not
fearing the laws of any judge because said judges worked for the Democratic
Political Machine”
11.) 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.
12.)
That pursuant to Vol. 1, of the record said pleadings
corroborate and demonstrate how Democratic and Republican judges systematically
remain Organized in said Criminal Conspiracy, as they 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.
13.)
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.
14.)
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
15.)
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.
16.)
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.”
D- 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.
E- 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 to be dealing with, in
that 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.
F- 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 two Democratic Federal
Judges and a Republican judge lied in a court order that Defendant’s drivers’
license was suspended making that court order a “Nullity” “void” in its
entirety.
G- In that every racist hateful judge Appellant
has been before they have ignored and denied everything Appellant has put
before every court under the Daley Administration and Rahm Emmanuel’s
administration not one attorney or law professor representing the CTA denied or
objected to any of the assertions Appellant prepared in his legal documents so
Anglo Saxon Federal judges had to “Trespass upon the laws” and violate his
Civil Rights by fabricating reasons for dismissing his claims using laws from
the Seventh Circuit not germane to the legal facts put before the court.
H- A federal judge in the
Court of Appeals had a clerk to dispatch information to him, the judge said if
Appellant wanted to change the laws in Cook County he was to learn how to
prepare a brief not motions laws are changed with briefs, the judge who issued
that directive was a chess player and admired the Appellant.
I- Appellant prepared a brief
defeating the Cities Corporation Counsels, CTA’s law professors and Wonder
Breads high powered law firm from Saint Louis Missouri (Bioff Finucane &
Coffey) every lawyer lied and committed fraud as well as the Federal judges Diane
Sykes, Ann Claire Williams and Kenneth Ripple resented Appellant’s
academic proficiency of the laws and impressive brief because of his skin color
said judges did not have the legal aptitude of knowing or realizing that order
due to it being induced, due to “FRAUD”, “VOID” a “NULLITY” due to said
judges not following their oath and laws of the United States Constitution.
J- That judge Frank H. Easterbrook denied
Appellant Counsel comparing him to a transsexual prisoner in prison citing
Farmer v Haas, 990 F.2d 319 (1993).
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 is still 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.) 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.
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”.
17.) 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.
“This case is
not about immigration,” Lelling insisted. “It is about the rule of law.”
18.) In
addition, 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-
Pursuant to {28 USCA 144, 455 (B) (1)} Sufficient for Removal, conduct which does not constitute a criminal
offense may be sufficiently violative of the Judicial Canons to warrant removal
for cause. Napolitano v Ward, 457 F 2d 279 (7th Cir.), cert denied, 409
U.S. 1037, 93 S. Ct. 512, 34 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1972), that said District Court judge methodically violated his oath by trying
to help Alderman Edward Burke who is repeatedly named and mentioned in the
document detailing how he “fixed” the 88 D 079012 Paternity and other cases as
he appointed numerous judges in the criminal Enterprise of Cook County as he
allegedly protected a former police officer (William Jenkins Hightower) get
away with sexual crimes on his daughters.
B-
That Case 88 D 079012 is a Bogus
Paternity Case no court or judge in any legal capacity ever had
jurisdiction on the Appellant in spite of Richard J. Daley who was the States
Attorney as an Assistant States Attorney (Richard Cenar) appeared in court on
behalf of Francoise unlawfully as an attorney May 2, 1988 as the Negroe Judge D.
Adolphus Rivers as an inferior male judge in the Democratic party aided and
assisted in a criminal conspiracy “Trespassed upon the Laws” as he and
Alderman Edward Burke’s appointed Machine Judges engaged in “Treason Offenses”
destroying Appellant and other innocent men and women of color lives in the
courts as so many cowardly Anglo Saxon, Negroe Colored puppets tried Bullying
the Appellant for being a Man Heterosexual standing up to the Democratic
Political Machine.
For decades
and decades, Chicago’s City Council has followed a cycle as predictable as the
seasons: scandal, indictments, promises of reform. Scandal, indictments,
promises of reform.
“Council exists in a world
that’s a little bit different than, I think, ordinary citizens. I hope that there
is distress and concern about what the indictment suggests is the way in which
Ald. Burke conducted himself as a matter of course over many, many years,”
Lightfoot said. “And I hope this is a cautionary tale for any alderman,
particularly the newly minted aldermen, that this is not the path they should
go on.”
Since 1972, 30 Chicago
aldermen have gone to prison for various acts of public corruption. The Silver
Shovel series of indictments in the 1990s ensnared six aldermen for pocketing
bribes. And Hired Truck in the 2000s caught city officials trading jobs and promotions
for campaign help.
For Lightfoot, a former
federal prosecutor, Burke’s legal problems helped catapult her from a long-shot
candidate to mayor as she battered better-known opponents with ties to him en
route to winning each of the city’s 50 wards.
“Folks need to get the
message. This is a different day, and we’re not going to stand for people who
compromise themselves, a lack of integrity in the discharge of their responsibilities,”
Lightfoot said. “It’s not going to happen, and I’m going to do everything I can
to stand for a different set of standards and hopefully encourage other elected
officials, other appointed officials, to model this behavior.”
The 59-page indictment against Burke outlined
a series of alleged schemes in which prosecutors say the 50-year alderman
abused his City Hall clout to extort private legal work from companies and individuals
doing business with the city.
According to the indictment,
Burke was meeting with then-Ald. Daniel Solis in October 2017 when he allegedly
expressed his displeasure over the way developers of the old main Chicago post
office had so far failed to throw any business to Burke’s private law firm.
“As far as I’m concerned,
they can go f--- themselves,” Burke told Solis, who was working undercover for
the FBI and secretly recording the conversation, the indictment said.
In addition to the attempted
extortion of the old post office developers, the 14-count indictment accuses
Burke of trying to muscle developers of two smaller projects into hiring his
law firm as well.
Burke has denied wrongdoing.
Speaking about the Burke
indictment, Lightfoot said it “marks another moment of reckoning for us as a
city and us elected officials to think about what it means to be a public servant,
think about what integrity in government means.”
“That indictment is pretty
devastating,” Lightfoot said. “It paints a years long series of criminal
activities that were done as a matter of course.”
Even before prosecutors
unveiled the new allegations, Lightfoot made ethics reform a centerpiece of her
administration, campaigning against Chicago’s reputation for graft and
promising in her inaugural address that “restoring trust in our city’s
government and finally bringing some real integrity to the way this city works”
would be a top priority.
Mayor Lori Lightfoot chats with
new Ald. Daniel La Spata, 1st, left, as they both arrive for their first City
Council meeting in Chicago on May 29, 2019. (Jose M. Osorio/Chicago Tribune)
Already, there’s a rash of
proposals. Lightfoot said this week she wants to pass restrictions to prevent
officials from profiting off their elected positions, strengthen the city
inspector general’s office and raise penalties for ethics violations, all
during her first 100 days.
The Board of Ethics also
proposed banning aldermen from representing clients in Cook County property tax
cases, an expanded nepotism ban and new limits on campaign contributions, among
other measures.
But passing a meaningful
reform package could be a challenge, as some aldermen’s private businesses may
be affected by restrictions on the sort of work they do in their private time,
and not everyone in the City Council shares the former federal prosecutor’s
zeal for criticizing how Chicago works.
Still, several aldermen said
it’s time for meaningful change.
“Words are not enough.
Anything that we can say can only be exercised through action,” said Ald.
George Cardenas, 12th. “Changing our ethics, our rules, and restoring public
integrity is our priority. That’s where we’re at right now. It’s the beginning,
not the end, of those efforts.”
Ald. Michele Smith, 43rd, who
heads the newly created ethics committee under Lightfoot, said the allegations
against Burke “highlight the reasons for many of the ethics reforms that we are
proposing.”
“If proven, this is of course
criminal activity, but we’re committed to working together to change the
reputation of our City Council,” Smith said.
Ald. Scott Waguespack, 32nd,
Lightfoot’s pick to take over as chairman of the Finance Committee that Burke
ran for decades, said the indictment supports Lightfoot in her crusade.
“It’s pretty clear, looking
at the ethics changes Mayor Lightfoot’s pushing and the changes she talked
about at her inauguration that got loud applause from the crowd, that she’s
going in the right direction that Chicagoans are demanding to stamp this kind
of behavior out,” Waguespack said.
Ordinances can’t single-handedly
eliminate corruption, Waguespack said, but they can help make changes in a town
that’s seen dozens of aldermen go to prison in recent decades.
“Maybe you can’t kill the
whole hydra, but you have a responsibility to tighten the rules on lobbying and
conflicts of interest as much as possible,” the alderman said. “Somebody can
always try to find a way to commit these kinds of crimes, but we can try to cut
off as many avenues as we can.”
The indictment against Burke came a day after Lightfoot’s public
tangle with him at her first City Council meeting — when Lightfoot silenced him
during a tense exchange. Burke tried to lodge a complaint about the use of “he”
instead of gender-neutral pronoun constructions in Lightfoot’s proposed package
of City Council rules.
But Lightfoot cut him off.
“Sir, we’ll take your issue under advisement, we’re going to move forward,” she
said.
When Burke tried to make
another point, Lightfoot stopped him short: “Alderman, please. Alderman, I will
call you when I’m ready to hear from you.”
Cardenas said Lightfoot now
carries a more forceful position in the city after the encounter.
“The rules that are so abused
by Ald. Burke, and others perhaps, must be curtailed tremendously and used and
exercised only when it merits,” Cardenas said. “Her hand is strong. At the end
of the day, the public is demanding change, the public is demanding action, and
I think that’s what’s happening.”
New Ald. Byron Sigcho Lopez,
who succeeded Solis after revelations that the powerful former Zoning chair
wore a wire against Burke, said the sort of schemes Burke is alleged to have
tried have repercussions all over Chicago.
“This type of corruption
affects the way small businesses can operate across the city,” Sigcho Lopez,
25th, said. “That’s why I support the efforts of the mayor to try to change the
way the City Council operates. It’s obviously a shame this happened. Now it’s
up to us to try to change it.”
He said reform is “at the top
of my agenda and of many other new members of the council.”
Fellow freshman Ald. Samantha
Nugent, 39th, said she’s eager to serve on the ethics committee to help make
changes.
“I support reform,” Nugent
said. “I want to make sure that we can do our job and that the city can have
confidence in us because they know we’re adhering to a strict moral compass and
following the rules.”
Longtime Ald. Patrick
O’Connor, who lost his re-election campaign in April, said he doesn’t think the
indictment will change much of the council’s dynamic from what it’s been since
Burke was charged in January.
But O’Connor, who had a long
relationship with Burke and served as floor leader for former mayors Rahm
Emanuel and Richard M. Daley added, “I feel bad for the city. I feel bad for
the individuals that are involved, I think it’s just unfortunate all the way around.”
Echoing O’Connor, Ald. Carrie
Austin, 34th, said she was “saddened” to hear the news of her colleague’s
indictment.
“I’m sorry that to hear that
about Ed, because I’ve worked with him for the last 24 years and I’m saddened
that it’s sunk to that because I did have a great amount of respect for him,”
said Austin, the city’s second longest-serving alderman behind Burke. “I’ll say
it like how my mother said: ‘When you’re wrong, wrong will follow you.’ ”
Former Ald. Joe Moore, who in
April’s election lost the seat he’d held for 28 years, said the indictment and
surrounding controversy gives Lightfoot “an upper hand against the City
Council.”
“She’s used Burke’s problems
effectively to basically have the City Council bend to her authority. There’s
been very little pushback on her efforts to rein in so-called aldermanic
prerogative,” Moore said. “I think there’s a good chance that she’ll be able to
use this effectively to rein in their power over zoning.”
Moore said the ongoing
criminal cases and revelations about Solis wearing a wire could heighten
already palpable mistrust among aldermen.
“I think most of my former
colleagues would already be pretty circumspect not only in talking with their
colleagues but with anyone else, for that matter, that they don’t know or even
those they do know,” Moore said. “Frankly, hopefully it scares them into not doing
anything improper. That would be the public benefit to all of this.”
At a news conference Friday
where she reiterated her call for Burke to resign, Lightfoot said the long history
of aldermen going to prison should be enough of a “cautionary tale.”
“But clearly sometimes power
intoxicates people and makes them lose their way and their north star,”
Lightfoot said.
Lightfoot said her
administration will be rolling out more ethics proposals for the City Council
to consider. But Lightfoot, who personally prosecuted corrupt Ald. Virgil Jones
as part of Silver Shovel, acknowledged that change will need more than new ordinances.
“Fundamentally, if somebody
wants to violate the law, and thinks that it’s their right to monetize their
position, there’s not much that we can do, but that’s why we need the FBI and
the U.S. attorney’s office to be diligent,” Lightfoot said. “I don’t want the
FBI and the U.S. attorney’s “I don’t want
the FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office to in effect be our HR manager, but
there is a need for law enforcement, because people aren’t getting the message.”
Pursuant to the United States
Supreme Court Laws and Ku Klux Klan Act Anglo Saxon men within the legal system
of Illinois are just as racist and Hateful now as they were in the 30, 40’s and
50’s said judges are using the laws unlawfully to oppress and Lynch said
Appellant for speaking up against the injustices perpetrated by Anglo Saxon men
in the legal venues.
B. Citing
Canon 2A the court noted, “[a] court’s indifference to clearly stated rules breed
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”)
C. The District Court demonstrating an act of Improprieties
in an attempt to aid and assist said Defendant’s named in Suit, In
Re Judge No. 93-154, 440 S.E.2d 169 (Ga. 1994), And Deception by falsifying
reasons for preventing a legally sufficient Complaint and Motion from being
served on Appellee’s, In re Ferrara, 582 N.W. 2d 817 (Mich. 1998),In re Renfer,
493 S.E. 2d 434 (N.C. 1997), In re Kroger, 702 A. 2d 64 (Vt. 1997), Gonzalez v.
Commission on Judicial Performance, 33 Cal. 3d 359, 657 P. 2d 372, 377, 188
Cal. Rptr. 880 (1983).
D. Section
1983 of U.S.C.S. contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the
Unconstitutional Application of a Law by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell
v. Saunders (CA 5 F 1A) 372 F 573, especially if the conspiracy was
actually carried into effect, where an action is for a conspiracy to interfere
with Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1985 (3), or for the depravation of such
rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, if the conspiracy was actually carried into
effect and plaintiff was thereby deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the United States Constitution and Laws, the gist of the action may
be treated as one for the depravation of rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, Lewis
v. Brautigam (CA 5 F 1a) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505, John
W. Strong, 185, 777-78 (4 th ed. 1992)
E. That the Judge erred considerably
when it received notice and knowledge of other Judges complicit in a Criminal
Conspiracy failed to follow Canon Ethics Leslie W. Abramson, 25 Hofstra
L. Rev. 751 (1997). The Judges Ethical Duty to Report Misconduct by Other
Judges and Lawyers and its effect on Judicial Independence.
F. That because many Anglo
Saxons in the Democratic Party and certain Republicans have infiltrated the
Democratic party and have methodically overturned the legal tribunal recruiting
the necessary persons who will keep their mouths shut and continue the
terrorist mayhem on innocent citizens fighting injustice in the courts but for
the first time Chicago has a Female Mayor (Hon. Lori Lightfoot) of color not
the typical Democrat who sits back like the others and let corrupt Anglo Saxon
or puppet Negroes or Water boy males who goes along with the “Hate” and Racist Acts
perpetrated by these hateful individuals who keeps their mouths shut so as to
be accepted by them;
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.
The
criminal activities that the Federal Courts found in the Circuit Court of Cook
County still exist, and are today under the care, custody and control of Judge
Timothy C. Evans (Chief Judge). The Circuit Court of Cook County remains
a criminal enterprise.
JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
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.
TRESPASSERS OF THE LAW
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)
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 (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.
The judge then acts not as a
judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE
In
Illinois, 705 ILCS 205/4 states "Every person admitted to practice as an attorney
and counselor at law shall, before his name is entered upon the roll to be kept
as hereinafter provided, take and subscribe an oath, substantially in the
following form:
'I do solemnly swear (or affirm,
as the case may be), that I will support the constitution of the United States
and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully
discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best
of my ability.'"
In Illinois, a judge must take a
second oath of office. Under 705 ILCS 35/2 states, in part, that "The several
judges of the circuit courts of this State, before entering upon the duties of
their office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation, which
shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State:
'I do solemnly swear (or affirm,
as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States,
and the constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully
discharge the duties of judge of ______ court, according to the best of my
ability.'"
Further, if the judge had
enlisted in the U.S. military, then he has taken a third oath. Under Title 10
U.S.C. Section 502 the judge had subscribed to a lifetime oath, in pertinent
part, as follows: "I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
...".
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated
that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against
the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” Cooper
v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
Any judge who does not comply with
his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that
Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.
The judge is engaged in acts of treason.
Having taken at least two, if not
three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and
the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation
of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below).
If a judge does not fully comply
with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer,
124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in
an act or acts of treason.
TREASON
Whenever
a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is
engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will,
449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens
v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)
What is the penalty for treason?
18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason
Whoever, owing
allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is
guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than
five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Attorney General Sessions: Actions
“from racial bigotry and hatred….cannot be tolerated an innocent 32 year
old Caucasian woman was killed as white nationalist banded together seeking
white supremacy in Charlottesville Virginia. In Chicago any nonwhite person who
closes their eyes and jurisdiction to a person of color seeking jurisdiction
and protection to the very mayhem of racial hatred is a colored version of the
very hate groups that is being denounced in that city is all the reasons why
“Jim Crow laws” are still being enforced in the courts of Chicago, Illinois
Negroe blacks and certain Hispanic judges as Democrats keep their mouths shut
and go along with racial injustice.
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.”
I affirm the
above as being true.
Respectfully Submitted
Joe
Louis Lawrence
Appellant-Counsel
Pro Se
IN THE
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
60604
Certificate of Service
I
Joe Louis Lawrence, Plaintiff-Appellant, certify that I have on this day
deposited said Memorandum to all parties recorded in said Memorandum via
regular mail/hand delivery.
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
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 Hon Mayor Lori Lightfoot
219 S. Dearborn, Room 2341 City Hall 7th
floor
Chicago, Ill. 60604
Chicago, IL. 60601
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
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”)
How said judges
criminalized the Appellant making sure he remained oppressed and not employed
with the CTA or any employer so as to keep him from possibly affording legal
representation in “Blowing the Whistle” on the names of all associated
participants in said “Organized Terrorist Criminal Conspiracy”
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on June 6, 2019, A Brief Memorandum been filed before the United States Court
of Appeals.
Respectfully Submitted
Joe Louis Lawrence
P. O. Box 490075
Chicago,
Illinois 60649-0075
312 965-6455
Email joelouis565@yahoo.com
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on June 6th, 2019, a Memorandum has been filed before the United States Court of
Appeals.
Dated
June 6th, 2019
Respectfully Submitted
_______________________
Joe Louis Lawrence
PO Box 490075
Chicago, Ill. 60649
312
965-6455
Joelouis565@yahoo.com
@joelouis7
In support to her desire to serve Illinois public as a Judge, Spratt claimed that she “started to hear voices in my ears“telling her to reinvent herself. Of course it was not related to her employer’s merger which would likely leave Spratt out of work.
In In 2014 Patricial Spratt lost her judicial election with merely 22.4 % of votes despite massive support from several Judge Bauer’s cronies, former US Attorney Generals Thompson, Webb, Valucas, Fahner, Skinner who were perfectly aware of Spratt’s 47 years of relationship with Judge Bauer and her unfitness to be a judge.
