HERE IS A HISPANIC JUDGE RESIGNING BUT MANY WHITE AND BLACK DEMOCRATIC JUDGES WHO HAVE COMMITTED WORSE CRIMES AS THIS JUDGE ARE SITLL ON THE BENCH FREDRENNA LYLE, FRANKLIN U. VALDERRAMA, WILLIAM S. BOYD, ELIZABETH LOZA, DARRYL SIMKO, TIMOTHY P. MURPHY, DAVID E HARACZ, RONALD BARTKOWICZ ETC.
THE ABOVE JUDGES HAVE USED THEIR POSITIONS TO STEAL HOMES IN UNLAWFUL FORECLOSURE MATTER, FIXING DIVORCE CASE EXTORTING MONEY FROM PARTIES FILING DIVORCE, FIXING HOUSING DISCRIMINATION/SOURCE INCOME DISCRIMINATION CASES TRYING TO PROTECT LANDLORDS FROM SUITS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES OF ONLY WANTING CERTAIN ANGLO SAXONS IN THEIR UNITS, JUDGES FIXING PATERNITY CASES FRAMING AN INNOCENT MAN TO KEEP A POLICE OFFICER FROM GOING TO JAIL IMPREGNATING IS BIOLOGICAL DAUGHTERS, HE IS DECEASED BUT DAUGHTER BECAME THE BENEFICIARY AS A POLICE OFFICER AND USED HER POSITION AND AUTHORITY TO EXTORT MONEY FROM THE INNOCENT MAN AS JUDGES USED THEIR POSITIONS AND AND AUTHORITY TO FALSIFY COURT ORDERS TO HELP HER RECEIVE MONEY.
ANOTHER JUDGE AS A CTA ATTORNEY BECAME A JUDGE IN THE BOGUS PATERNITY CASE HELPED THE CTA BY ASSISTING THEM IN ISSUING A BOGUS WARRANT AGAINST THE FRAMED MAN FOR AN ORDER OF PROTECTION ON THE POLICE WOMAN WHOM HE HAD NOT SEEN IN YEARS AS AN EXCUSE TO GET HIM IN COURT SO THAT THE CTA CAN HAVE HIS BADGE AND CTA ID CARD REMOVED FROM HIS BODY TO NOT ONLY KEEP HIM FROM RETURNING BACK TO WORK WITH THE CTA BUT TO HELP THEM AS THEY STOLE HIS WAGES WHILE OFF INJURED ON DUTY.
ANOTHER JUDGE ALLOWED A LAW FIRM MCAULFE & WEIDENER TO GET INVOLVED AND HELP THE CTA ATTORNEYS AND CORRUPT ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEYS MANUFACTURE DOCUMENTS TO HAVE ME REMANDED INTO CUSTODY ON THE BOGUS PATERNITY CASE TO KEEP HIM FROM FIGHTING BACK, IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROTECT ALL OF THE ALLEGED WHITE NATIONALISTS BECAUSE MANY OF THE ATTORNEYS WERE HAVING A HARD TIME BECAUSE OF MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAWS ON WHAT THEY COULD NOT DO SO, THEY ACTED LIKE KU KLUX KLANSMEN ON HORSES BUT WERE WEARING SUITS IN THE COURTS.
THE JUDGES IN THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT HAD NOTICE AND KNOWLEDGE OF ALLJUDGES ENGAGING IN CRIMINAL DIABOLICAL TERRORISTS ACTS RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM ATTORNEY LANRE AMU AND SUSPENDED HIS LICENSE SO AS TO SHOW EVERYONE NOT DEMOCRATIC ANGLO SAXON NOT ONLY DO BLACK LIVES NOT MATTER BUT THAT THEY CONTROL THE CORRUPTIION IN ALL LEGAL VENUES AND NOBODY CAN STOP THEM BECAUSE OF THEIR UNTOUCHABLE DEMAEANOR IN HOW THEY ARE ABLE TO USE PERSONS OF COLOR AS PAWNS OR SHIELDS PROTECTING THEM FROM BEING DISCOVERED.
Dear all:
1. My name is 'Lanre O. Amu – I have personal knowledge of all I say in this letter. If called to testify, I will repeat the same thing till I go to my maker.
2. I am the lawyer who was unlawfully suspended in a yet to be further unraveled and FULLY EXPOSED "Fraud Upon the Court Scandal in Illinois”.
3. Prior to this saga, I never had any dealings or infractions with the Illinois attorney disciplinary body the ARDC.
4. I believe that my case will ultimately go down in the History of Illinois as one of the greatest mockery Justice in Courts of Illinois.
5. I have previously read about the Trial of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the Bible. Never in my life did I think I will experience a mockery of Justice similar in nature to the Trial of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
6. God be my witness that I thought I was doing the right thing and would be vindicated when the justice system takes it normal course. I was mistaken and proved wrong. The very justice system I put my faith in was manipulated against me before my very eyes by agents of the Illinois ARDC. I was arm twisted out of my Constitutional Rights and exposed without any constitutional or legal protection.
7. I was taught in Law School from the Illinois rules of professional conduct that Corrupt Judges and corrupt lawyers must be exposed because of the harm they do to the judicial system and to society at large. The Professors in Law School however never told me about the cost of heeding their teaching on this subject.
8. This is a deeply painful, very traumatic, very destabilizing, and very emotional experience for me. It literally turned my world upside down. I have suffered greatly as a result of this terrible experience at the hands of the Illinois ARDC and the Seven Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court. All of my pleas by way of motion and petitions to the Illinois ARDC and to the Seven Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court have so far been ignored. They have turned deaf ears to me up till now.
9. How can my law license and means of livelihood as a professional, which I earned with years of toil, and finances, be taken away from me when no person on planet Earth took the witness stand to testify under Oath to any wrongdoing by me while I contend strenuously with logical foolproof evidence my innocence from the false charges leveled against me?
1 I am now expected to Petition the Illinois Supreme Court that “I am sorry” I will not do what led to my suspension again. But I am unable to do that as a matter of Principle because to say I am sorry for what I did not do amounts to lying under Oath in the Petition for Reinstatement and I am unable to do that even if it means never getting back the law license.
11. Illinois is the Land of a World Acclaimed Great Legal Giant and President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln once said,” Honesty is the Best Policy”. Abraham Lincoln also WARNED, ”if in your own judgment, you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer.”This is good advise for me also.
12. The Illinois ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court Justices have plunged me into an unfortunate situation in which I shall maintain my Honesty regardless of cost, even if I will not be reinstated as a lawyer as long as I live. It is a terrible price to pay for TRUTH in Illinois Courts.
13. I have however not given up on this Fight for Justice Equity and Fairness. I am hopeful that in not too distant future, the Illinois ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court will be considerate enough to reconsider my case and do what is Right, Morally, Ethically, and Consonant with Good Conscience.Make me Whole for this great loss.
14. The Book of Proverb 17:26 states,” To flog honest officials is not good.” Illinois ARDC and the Seven Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court have however flogged me ever so severely for being Honest and telling the Truth. That is not good and they know it. It was a kangaroo proceeding and a railroad all the way!
15. It is really sad and shameful that the Court system will treat me or any human being for that matter like this, more so as a professional with livelihood at stake!
16. They took my law license saying what I exposed is a lie. But within a year after I was suspended for 3 years+ in 2013, Crain's Chicago Business' Investigative Reporters independently came to the exact same conclusion on what I exposed in their publication in 2014. How can these independent activities of Amu and of Crain's Chicago leading to the exact same conclusion of “Judicial Corruption” be a lie on Amu’s end? No one to my knowledge has ever had cause to accuse the Crain Chicago Business’ Investigative Reporters of lying when they reached the same conclusion as Amu?
17. There is no evidence to justify my suspension since ARDC did not present any person to testify under Oath against me concerning what I exposed at the trial.
18. I was expecting the Illinois ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court Justices to Honor me and elevate me in the legal profession for valor but I was swiftly rubbished as a liar and suspended for 3 years+ from the practice of law until further order of the Court. I was defamed and publicly humiliated. The ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court labeled me a danger to my clients, a danger to the integrity of the entire Court system, and a danger to the legal profession.
19. By so doing, they effectively destroyed the legal practice I spent 15 years to build, and all the pending cases yet to be brought to fruition.
20. My easy entry Attorney ID card into the Courts in Illinois was withdrawn leading to inconvenient heavy duty sheriff searches and monitoring each and every time I am entering any courtroom in Illinois. Appearing before Judges and Justices became a living hell. My logical motions on cases swiftly denied; judgments previously rendered in my favor in some cases were reversed by the same judge without any logical bases stated plunging me into financial crisis. Cases I should have won were rubbished to favor my opponents. It’s a complete mess, humiliation, and a terrible price to pay.
21. If we cannot uphold Honesty, Integrity, Transparency, and Accountability in the Courts where else can we uphold it? on the streets? in the beer parlors?
22. If I made false statements as accused, I will take responsibility and consider the 3-year+ suspension fair and just. But God Knows I DID NOT make false statements.
23. The Illinois ARDC and the Justices of the Supreme Court expediently used me as a scapegoat to cover up very serious problems in our Courts that my revelations brought to the surface. These people forgot that “Truth Crushed to Earth Shall Rise Again”. They also forgot that three things cannot long be hidden: the Sun, the Moon, and the Truth.
24. It is very difficult for me to Petition the Illinois Supreme Court pursuant to SCR 767 to give me back my law license BECAUSE I have no understanding of what grounds they had to lawfully take my law license to begin with. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 767 implies that I engaged in misconduct leading to my suspension (which is false), that I apologize or express remorse for the misconduct, and I now want to be reinstated having acknowledged the misconduct, served the suspension imposed for the misconduct. The dilemma is that telling the Truth is not Misconduct. Integrity and Honesty prevent me from making allegations that are not true. When did it become a crime to tell the Truth in Illinois? It never occurred to me in my wildest dream that what I was doing thinking I was helping to make the legal system better will actually boomerang in my face and terminate my legal career.
25. This is my story.
26. Again, Thanks a Million for your support!
Three things cannot long be hidden: The Sun, the Moon, and the Truth!
Cook County judge resigns after alleged sexual harassment
CHICAGO -- Cook County Circuit Court Judge Mauricio Araujo resigned Thursday, according to the Judicial Inquiry Board. His resignation will take effect on Monday.
Araujo was facing the possibility of removal from the bench after the Illinois Courts Commission found Tuesday that there was "clear and convincing evidence" that he engaged in a pattern of inappropriate and harassing behavior toward women.
The commission of five judges and two members appointed by the governor was set to hand down a sanction next week.
___
The nonprofit news outlet Injustice Watch provided this article to The Associated Press through a collaboration with Institute for Nonprofit News.
___
The decision followed a two-day hearing before the commission, during which three women testified that Araujo had sexually harassed or demeaned them in several incidents between 2011 and 2018. Araujo admitted to making one inappropriate comment about a Cook County assistant state's attorney, but disputed the accounts of a Chicago police officer who said he tried to kiss her and a court reporter who said he propositioned her for sex.
Araujo did not respond to a request for comment. He had been seeking six more years on the bench in the upcoming election. He failed to receive the support of the Cook County Democratic Party and was opposed by the Judicial Accountability PAC, a group of progressive lawyers.
Araujo has been on administrative duty since 2018, when the sexual harassment allegations were first filed with the Judicial Inquiry Board, which reviews allegations of misconduct against judges. The board filed a formal complaint with the Courts Commission in June 2019 and served as the prosecutor in the hearing.
On Monday, Chicago Police Officer Karen Rittorno testified that she went to Araujo's chambers on Aug. 15, 2016, to get a warrant signed. When she entered, he approached her and tried to kiss her on the lips, she said. She instinctively performed a move she learned in the police academy known as a "Back, sir" that creates some distance, she said.
"Aren't you married?" she said she asked him in shock.
"He said, 'Well, yeah,'" she testified. "I said, 'Oh my god.'"
As they were leaving his chambers, Rittorno said, he reached back and grabbed her hand and said, "Touch it."
"Touch what?" she asked.
"Touch my butt," she said he replied.
She said she was in disbelief. Never in her nearly two decades as a female police officer surrounded by male colleagues had she ever been sexually harassed, she testified. She told members of her gang investigation team soon after, and it became a kind of running joke, she said.
"In my profession you have to suck it up," she told the committee, her voice shaking. She vowed never to let herself be alone with Araujo again, even though she and her team continued to request his approval for warrants.
Araujo disputed Rittorno's account of their interaction and denied asking her to touch him. He testified that because he considered Rittorno a friend, he once hugged and kissed her on the cheek as he does with many female friends, including other police officers. Araujo described his gestures of physical affection as part of his Colombian heritage.
But Rittorno said she had no personal relationship with Araujo.
"The judge's testimony that he hugs and kisses male and female officers all the time is just not believable," Judicial Inquiry Board attorney Kevin Fee said in his closing statement.
Rittorno said she came forward after watching coverage of the sexual assault trial of Bill Cosby and hearing that Araujo had made a sexual comment about a Cook County prosecutor.
That comment came on Sept. 11, 2018, after Cook County Assistant State's Attorney Nina Ricci, a law school classmate of Araujo's, appeared in his courtroom on a murder case, according to multiple people's testimony.
Araujo said he was upset after Ricci didn't acknowledge their past. Later, in his chambers, Araujo told Akash Vyas, another assistant state's attorney, "something to the effect of, 'Maybe it was because I didn't have sex with her. Or maybe it was because I did have sex with her,'" Vyas testified.
Araujo testified that his comment was in response to Vyas suggesting that perhaps Ricci didn't recognize him in his judicial robe.
State's Attorney Kim Foxx reported the event to the criminal division's presiding judge, LeRoy Martin Jr., and her office asked to move the case Ricci was handling to a different judge.
Rittorno said she wished she had come forward sooner.
"I thought if I had said something when it happened, I probably would have stopped it from happening to the attorney," Rittorno said.
Court reporter Carolina Schultz described a third set of incidents, from 2011, when she and Araujo were working at the Domestic Violence Courthouse. While the two of them were alone in an elevator, Araujo asked her, "How much?" with an implication that he was offering to pay her for sex, she said. Weeks later, he repeated the proposition, she testified, not bothering to correct her when she pointed out that he was married and she had a boyfriend.
Schultz said after Araujo's comments she avoided taking the elevators alone and transferred to a different courthouse.
Araujo's attorney Mary Robinson pointed out the lack of corroboration of Schultz and Rittorno's allegations. She also suggested that Araujo's comment about Ricci, while inappropriate, was a clumsy response to a misinterpretation of Vyas's comment.
"We don't ask you to reject the testimony of these accusers lightly," Robinson told the commission in her closing statement.
In his own testimony, Araujo described his behavior as "overly casual" and said that, if the commission lets him remain a judge, he will behave in a more formal manner and refrain from hugs and kisses.
"Formality's safest," he said. "My intent is not to make anybody feel uncomfortable."
If the Courts Commission had chosen to remove Araujo from the bench, it would have been just the tenth time in the commission's 50-year history. The last judge to be dismissed was St. Clair County circuit judge Ronald R. Duebbert, who was removed in January after the commission found he had lied to police who were investigating his friend as a suspect in a murder, then lied to the Courts Commission about it.
____
This story was co-published with the Chicago Sun-Times.
Araujo was facing the possibility of removal from the bench after the Illinois Courts Commission found Tuesday that there was "clear and convincing evidence" that he engaged in a pattern of inappropriate and harassing behavior toward women.
The commission of five judges and two members appointed by the governor was set to hand down a sanction next week.
___
The nonprofit news outlet Injustice Watch provided this article to The Associated Press through a collaboration with Institute for Nonprofit News.
___
The decision followed a two-day hearing before the commission, during which three women testified that Araujo had sexually harassed or demeaned them in several incidents between 2011 and 2018. Araujo admitted to making one inappropriate comment about a Cook County assistant state's attorney, but disputed the accounts of a Chicago police officer who said he tried to kiss her and a court reporter who said he propositioned her for sex.
Araujo did not respond to a request for comment. He had been seeking six more years on the bench in the upcoming election. He failed to receive the support of the Cook County Democratic Party and was opposed by the Judicial Accountability PAC, a group of progressive lawyers.
Araujo has been on administrative duty since 2018, when the sexual harassment allegations were first filed with the Judicial Inquiry Board, which reviews allegations of misconduct against judges. The board filed a formal complaint with the Courts Commission in June 2019 and served as the prosecutor in the hearing.
On Monday, Chicago Police Officer Karen Rittorno testified that she went to Araujo's chambers on Aug. 15, 2016, to get a warrant signed. When she entered, he approached her and tried to kiss her on the lips, she said. She instinctively performed a move she learned in the police academy known as a "Back, sir" that creates some distance, she said.
"Aren't you married?" she said she asked him in shock.
"He said, 'Well, yeah,'" she testified. "I said, 'Oh my god.'"
As they were leaving his chambers, Rittorno said, he reached back and grabbed her hand and said, "Touch it."
"Touch what?" she asked.
"Touch my butt," she said he replied.
She said she was in disbelief. Never in her nearly two decades as a female police officer surrounded by male colleagues had she ever been sexually harassed, she testified. She told members of her gang investigation team soon after, and it became a kind of running joke, she said.
"In my profession you have to suck it up," she told the committee, her voice shaking. She vowed never to let herself be alone with Araujo again, even though she and her team continued to request his approval for warrants.
Araujo disputed Rittorno's account of their interaction and denied asking her to touch him. He testified that because he considered Rittorno a friend, he once hugged and kissed her on the cheek as he does with many female friends, including other police officers. Araujo described his gestures of physical affection as part of his Colombian heritage.
But Rittorno said she had no personal relationship with Araujo.
"The judge's testimony that he hugs and kisses male and female officers all the time is just not believable," Judicial Inquiry Board attorney Kevin Fee said in his closing statement.
Rittorno said she came forward after watching coverage of the sexual assault trial of Bill Cosby and hearing that Araujo had made a sexual comment about a Cook County prosecutor.
That comment came on Sept. 11, 2018, after Cook County Assistant State's Attorney Nina Ricci, a law school classmate of Araujo's, appeared in his courtroom on a murder case, according to multiple people's testimony.
Araujo said he was upset after Ricci didn't acknowledge their past. Later, in his chambers, Araujo told Akash Vyas, another assistant state's attorney, "something to the effect of, 'Maybe it was because I didn't have sex with her. Or maybe it was because I did have sex with her,'" Vyas testified.
Araujo testified that his comment was in response to Vyas suggesting that perhaps Ricci didn't recognize him in his judicial robe.
State's Attorney Kim Foxx reported the event to the criminal division's presiding judge, LeRoy Martin Jr., and her office asked to move the case Ricci was handling to a different judge.
Rittorno said she wished she had come forward sooner.
"I thought if I had said something when it happened, I probably would have stopped it from happening to the attorney," Rittorno said.
Court reporter Carolina Schultz described a third set of incidents, from 2011, when she and Araujo were working at the Domestic Violence Courthouse. While the two of them were alone in an elevator, Araujo asked her, "How much?" with an implication that he was offering to pay her for sex, she said. Weeks later, he repeated the proposition, she testified, not bothering to correct her when she pointed out that he was married and she had a boyfriend.
Schultz said after Araujo's comments she avoided taking the elevators alone and transferred to a different courthouse.
Araujo's attorney Mary Robinson pointed out the lack of corroboration of Schultz and Rittorno's allegations. She also suggested that Araujo's comment about Ricci, while inappropriate, was a clumsy response to a misinterpretation of Vyas's comment.
"We don't ask you to reject the testimony of these accusers lightly," Robinson told the commission in her closing statement.
In his own testimony, Araujo described his behavior as "overly casual" and said that, if the commission lets him remain a judge, he will behave in a more formal manner and refrain from hugs and kisses.
"Formality's safest," he said. "My intent is not to make anybody feel uncomfortable."
If the Courts Commission had chosen to remove Araujo from the bench, it would have been just the tenth time in the commission's 50-year history. The last judge to be dismissed was St. Clair County circuit judge Ronald R. Duebbert, who was removed in January after the commission found he had lied to police who were investigating his friend as a suspect in a murder, then lied to the Courts Commission about it.
____
This story was co-published with the Chicago Sun-Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment