BLACK HISTORY FACT IN CHICAGO ILLINOIS! BLACK and BROWN PEOPLE ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT---MANY INFERIOR BLACKS IN POWER DON'T WANT THIS INFORMATION OUT BECAUSE IT DEMONSTRATES THEM AS ONLY FIGUREHEADS.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, has generated more lawsuits than any other provision of the U.S. Constitution. Section 1 of the amendment has been the centerpiece of most of this litigation. It makes "All persons born or naturalized in the United States"citizens of the United States and citizens of the state in which they reside. This section also prohibits state governments from denying persons within their jurisdiction the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizenship, and guarantees to every such person due process and equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court has ruled that any state law that abridges Freedom of Speech, freedom of religion, the right to trial by jury, the Right to Counsel, the right against Self-Incrimination, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the right against cruel and unusual punishments will be invalidated under section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This holding is called the Incorporation Doctrine.
BLATANT CORRUPTION & ORGANIZED CONSPIRACY
| 8:28 AM (58 minutes ago) |  | ||
| ||||
ILLINOIS WORKER’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION 2/12/2021
COMMISSION REVIEW BOARD COMPLAINT FORM
Official Email to Arbitrator Doherty et al. detailing a plethora of criminal Civil Rights Violations
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tina McDaniel Date: Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 12:28 PM Subject: Missing Information... To: Doherty, Carolyn Cc: Schooley, Justin T. Arbitrator Doherty: Regarding case 18 WC 25010 their appears to be information missing from the database germane to this case not noted or deliberately withheld from being properly recorded in the computer system. For Example: (1) David Martay allegedly filed a Motion to withdraw as attorney which, I never received a file stamp that you continued said matter until October 1, 2020.
(2) Your email (August 17, 2020, 6:27 pm) unequivocally stated, I would ask all parties to appear on October 1 via WEBEX using my WEBEX contact information to call in.....Nothing will occur on this matter during the status call so there is no need to call in before the 11 am special set time with regard to this matter. In the meantime, I would ask that all parties refrain from further discussion on this matter via email. I will hear arguments on October 1 and all parties will be given ample time to express their positions.
(3) That on September 22, 2020, I have a file stamped Motion Petitioners Motion Striking & Objecting Respondent's Motion to Withdraw due to "Perjury" "Fraud" & Misrepresentations to this Commission Petitioner being a Victim of an Elaborate Organized Criminal Conspiracy" w/Affidavit---The Motion was well articulated detailing a plethora of "Fraudulent Acts" he never DENIED or OBJECTED to any of the assertions, due to its veracity. THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT IN THE RECORD CAN YOU ASCERTAIN WHY THIS INFORMATION IS NOT RECORDED?
(4) That on October 1, 2020, you acknowledged receiving the aforementioned Motion and made it clear to me that you OVERRULED my Motion in a very harsh tone there is an Affidavit alluding to the temperament and veracity of what transpired on this day.
Moreover, you signed your name on a document FILE STAMPED April 16, 2020 11:23 am --- it says on July 1, 2020 (which is typed) and you’re handwriting with an arrow writing continued to 10/1/20 and at the bottom of the ORDER it says The Motion is Granted and written by you Granted over Petitioner's Objection, 10/1/20. THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT IN THE RECORD CAN YOU ASCERTAIN WHY THIS INFORMATION IS NOT RECORDED?
(5) Now what is in the record and quite disturbing and corroborates you as an Arbitrator using your position as an Insurrectionist to aid in an ELABORATE INSURANCE FRAUD CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE, said Notice of Motion and Order of April 16, 11:23 am, on July 1, 2020 Withdrawal of attorney Motion Granted by Charles M. Watts, what is so diabolical about this particular matter is that David Martay falsified my name on FEDERAL documents pretending that he provided me Notice which he never did. CAN YOU ASCERTAIN FOR ME HOW ANYONE THOUGHT THEY WERE ABOVE THE LAWS AND BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF MY SKIN FIGURED DESECRATING MY CIVIL RIGHTS as a BLACK WOMAN nobody would question or care about this matter only because of my skin color?
(6) The Commission Remanded this case back to you (Arbitrator Doherty) seemingly unaware of opposing counsel filing Response to and Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Review and Motion for Summary Judgment (filed Nov 5,2020 9:25 am), their motion corroborates Arbitrator engaging in noted "Fraudulent Acts" in Par 1, of the aforementioned motion.
That Par 5 of the aforementioned motion states, "In her Motion for Summary Judgment, Petitioner raises issues the Commission does not have jurisdiction to address"
That said parties are making it clear that because of their diabolical connections to State and other Insurrectionist no Arbitrator of Anglo-Saxon descent is going to rule in any favor of not only any African American Pro Se litigant but said parties are going to complicitly Induce Reliance on any party necessary to achieve their terrorist goal in the aforementioned manner.
Furthermore, due to the Commission or Arbitrators not having any Contempt Powers for the egregious criminal Civil Rights Violations, said conspirators are using their influence to further wear down any person litigiously as noted in this case. CAN YOU ASCERTAIN WHY SAID MOTION IS NOT NOTED IN THE DATABASE AS IT IS TRULY GERMANE TO THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE REMANDED?
(7) That most importantly, Petitioner filed a Notice of Motion & Order (11/19/2020) PETITIONERS MOTION OBJECTING & STRIKING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITIONERS PETITION FOR REVIEW AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DUE TO ADMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENT NOT IMPEACHING OR DENYING ANY OF THE PLEADINGS PURSUNT TO LOCAL RULE 56.1 W/AFFIDAVIT
The case was Noticed for Feb. 18, 2021 at 10:00 am sent to you email, the clerk in the State of Illinois Building provided the date, but the Commission Remanded the case without having all of the information which seems to have been deliberately omitted, in an attempt to undermine any State employee Commissioner with integrity.
Can you ascertain why none of the aforementioned documents are noted in the record or database?
Because the case was set for Status on Feb. 18, 2021 at 10:00 am and because the Commission never had received any of the above information, they set the case for April 1st, so how are we going to proceed with the plethora of well noted "Fraudulent Irregularities"?
Respectfully submitted,
Tina McDaniel,
pro se 773.656.1502 –
Cellphone 773.233.7764 - Home #
8.) That Commissioner Portela as an alleged Racist State employee Insurrectionist to aid and assist all fraternal members as noted taking over the WHITE HOUSE, ignored all Criminal Civil Rights Violations noted in the Affidavits by corroborating beyond the Preponderance of the Evidence, that Illinois State Agencies are under seize by numerous Insurrectionists.
9.) That because of the Commissioner’s authority and ability to circumvent the laws of the United States Constitution, said Attorney forwarded the following email to his alleged fraternal member Arbitrator Doherty -
Per the Commission Special Circumstance Procedures effective June 1, 2020, attached please find respondent’s Request for Hearing for your April 1, 2021 status call. Should you desire any additional information, please let us know.
JUSTIN T. SCHOOLEY | Partner
10.) The most compelling acts of State Employees acting as Insurrectionists is the following:
----CASE MOTIONS----
Type | Date Filed | By | Hearing Date | By | Decision | Motion Desc | Oper |
0000 | 04/16/2020 | P | 00/00/0000 | 000 | MOTION-FILED | SEE NARRATIVE | HT |
3073 | 04/16/2020 | P | 07/01/2020 | 075 | MOTION-GRANTED | TO WITHDRAW AS ATTY | HT |
0000 | 01/14/2021 | C | 00/00/0000 | 000 | MOTION-FILED | SEE NARRATIVE | YC |
5021 | 01/14/2021 | C | 01/14/2021 | 049 | MOTION-GRANTED | REMAND ARBITRATION | YC |
A- Portela knowingly granted said Motion of Remand, stating Motion -Granted for Jan 14, 2021, there was never any Motion of any sort requiring her to Remand anything making her Order a Nullity, Void in its entirety.
B- Respondent’s have admitted to every assertion noted in this matter and ignored the Summary Judgment because they knew they had members in the State Government willing to sacrifice their careers upholding White Nationalists doctrines protecting all fraternal members as noted in this and other cases where they have been guilty of atrocious Terrorists Crimes against persons of color.
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)
ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ARBITRATION DECISION
RIDER
PETITIONERS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DUE TO “FRAUD” “CORROBORATION OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY OF ALL PARTIES WITH ADMISSIONS” w/AFFIDAVIT
EXHIBIT LIST
i. Ex A IWCC Case Docket 18 WC 25010
ii. Gr Ex B Petitioner’s Medical Statement of Disability (Aug. 20, 2018)
iii. Gr Ex C IME Medical Report (Oct 16, 2018)
iv. Gr Ex D Email to Martay (Aug. 8, 2019) re: cancellation of medical benefits.
v. Gr Ex E IME Addendum Report (May 19,2020).
vi. Gr Ex F a Nov 17, 2018 Email Petitioner due-diligently sent to Martay.
vii. Gr Ex G, Page 1 Par 3 said government medical physicians stated, the claimant is alleging disability since July 10, 2018;
viii. Gr Ex H, Martay filed a 19(b) Petition Nov 27, 2019 without his signature.
ix. Gr Ex I, Petitioner with due-diligence emailed Martay Dec. 23, 2019.
x. Gr Ex J, Petitioner with due-diligence emailed Martay Dec. 24, 2019.
xi. Ex K an Affidavit of March 28, 2020 Teresa Collins witness for Petitioner.
xii. Gr Ex K2 Martay engaging in what purports to be “fraudulent”, “deceptive legal acts” his email states “Dec. 24 Subject Settlement”
xiii. Gr Ex L Dec. 24, 2019 Letter of settlement contract Martay emailed.
xiv. Gr Ex M Page 2, David Martay emailed Petitioner Sun Jan. 5, 2020.
xv. Gr Ex N Martay’s email reply Aug. 17, 2020.
xvi. Gr Ex O 07-2287, In the matter of Joe Louis Lawrence v IBC Wonder bread et al. an affidavit involving David Martay “Fraudulent” representations of former client Joe Louis Lawrence.
WHEREFORE the aforementioned reasons Petitioner respectfully Prays for the Relief
- For an Order Denying Respondent’s Motion to Withdraw, so as to compel him to file the necessary documents because no attorney will get involved because of his reputation and numerous errors involved.
- For an Order Ordering said Attorney to file the 19 (b) 19 (k) 19 (L) Imposing Sanctions on all attorneys and Insurance Carrier for all “Fraudulent Acts” in this matter.
- For an Order Invoking the Jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigations/United States Attorney Instanter for judges “Trespassing upon the Laws” in this “Organized Criminal Enterprise”;
- For an Order Pursuant to Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 35 103 S. Ct. 1625, 1629, 75 L Ed 2d 632 (1983) Justice Brennen “The threshold standard for allowing punitive damages for reckless or callous indifference applies even in a case, such as here, where the underlying standard of liability for compensatory damages because is also one of recklessness. There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that actual malicious intent should be the standard for punitive damages because the deterrent purposes of such damages would be served only if the threshold for those damages is higher in every case than the underlying standard for liability in the first instance. The common-law rule is otherwise, and there is no reason to depart from the common-law rule in the context of {1983} of $2 Million Dollars covering the number of years Petitioner being disabled with no TTD payments or medical coverage;
- For the entry of an Order awarding to your Petitioner for such other relief and any other relief necessary as equity may require of which this court may deem overwhelmingly just;
OFFICIAL COMPLAINT AGAINST ALLEGED CORRUPTION AND RACISM
IN THE ILLINOIS INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION RE STATE EMPLOYEES,
ARBITRATORS, COMMISSIONERS
February 11, 2021
Honorable Special Agent Emmerson Buie, Jr.
Dear Sir:
Please find email communication detailing insurance fraud in the Industrial
Commission in relation to case #19 WC 13788
1.) On February 8, 2021, the aforementioned email was sent to State of
Illinois employee (Arbitrator Jessica Hegarty) detailing a plethora of
Fraudulent Civil Rights Violations.
2.) On February 8, 2021, Arbitrator Jessica Hegarty responded to
aforementioned email by saying she was going to recuse herself from the
case, never denying or addressing the noted assertions.
3.) That on February 10, 2021, the Case Docket for the IWCC was reviewed
and learned Arbitrator Hegarty recused herself from the case Feb 8, on
the Case Docket Motion Calendar it states, “Motion Granted” see
narrative; “Motion Granted” To Recuse Arbitrator.
4.) That on February 10, 2021, an email was submitted to Arbitrator Paul
Cellini, hereto attached, was of an admonishing contemptuous demeanor
because the case number was not attached; notwithstanding the fact, said
arbitrator received the case against the jurisdiction of the Commission.
A- Said Arbitrator asked, “What is it you are seeking from me?”
5.) Petitioner followed up with an email reply, Pursuant to the very email
directed to Arbitrator Hegarty February 8, 2021, I am now directing the
same email to you et al. hereto attached.
6.) Furthermore, said Arbitrator stated, “I do not know what you mean by the
rules not being followed or the motions not being in the database………It
has been transferred to me, and “I have no knowledge of anything that
has occurred previously other than what is attached to your email. Based
on a reading of what you sent below, the only current motion that is
pending is a Petition for Fees from Attorney Martay. Until we have our
electronic filing system in place, there is no database for previously filed
motions.” He asked, “What other motion is currently pending other Mr. Martay’s?
7.) Paul Cellini and David Martay are alumni from John Marshall Law School
and Arbitrator Cellini is demonstrating beyond the preponderance of the
laws his vexatious contempt for the laws and is demonstrating himself as
an Insurrectionist.
8.) That everything recorded by this arbitrator is “Fraudulent” and Criminal upholding every unlawful act in accordance to Section 25.5 WORKMAN’S COMPENSATION FRAUD Summary and Purpose of Rulemaking: The amendment addresses an audit finding set forth by Auditor General William Holland in the audit directed pursuant to House Resolution 131 of the 97th General Assembly. Specifically, the audit found that the current version of Section 7030.30 conflicts with the changes of Public Act 97-18. Public Act 97-18 provided that the Canons of Judicial Conduct as adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court apply to the hearing and non-hearing conduct of the Arbitrators and Commissioner. Thus, these changes to Section 7030.30 align the bases for disqualification and also the remittal of a disqualification by and Arbitrator or Commissioner with the provisions of Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Conduct. In addition, the amendment creates a formalized process for the filing of a Petition for Substitution of an Arbitrator or Commissioner. There is one published Appellate Court opinion that calls on the Commission to promulgate such a rule, Preston v. Industrial Comm'n, 332 Ill. App. 3d 708 (3rd Dist. 2002). In that case, a Commissioner who was subject to a petition to disqualify sat on the panel that ruled on the petition. While the majority found no error in the hearing process, the Court recommended that the Commission promulgate a rule to address the procedural handling of petitions to disqualify Commissioners.
Summary a: The amendments address an audit finding set forth by Auditor General William Holland in the audit directed pursuant to House Resolution 131 of the 97th General Assembly. Specifically, the audit stated that the Commission Review Board has failed to comply with Section 7500.10 of the Commission's rules, which requires the Commission Review Board to call a meeting within 15 days after receipt of any complaint against an Arbitrator or Commissioner.
9.) That all parties associated as State of Illinois employees have deemed
themselves as UNTOUCHABLE INSURECTIONISTS using their positions
and authority to aid and assist all fraternal members using their ethnicity to
oppress and violate the Civil Rights of any person(s) that attempts to rise
up against them or challenge them in any venue.
A- That because of all of the noted “Fraudulent” entries in the State
database, it is a FACT, Arbitrator Hegarty did in fact sign an ORDER
RECUSING HERSELF from Petitioners Motion for Disqualification of
Arbitrator due to “FRAUD” Objection to Counsel Receiving any
Legal Fees due to Corroboration of a Criminal Conspiracy
Requesting State/Federal Investigation of all Parties Instanter
w/Affidavit.
B- Petitioner never received any Motion from Martay Requesting any
Legal Fees and there is no record of any Motion being filed in any
database; further, demonstrate the EXTORTION attempts being
exercised for TERMINATING him from said case because he never
did a thing!
Respectfully Submitted,
Teresa Collins, pro se
CC:
Honorable Mayor Lightfoot
States Attorney Kim Foxx
Aides keep Martin Luther King Jr. down to protect against further attacks after he was hit by a rock Aug. 5, 1966, in Chicago.
When the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. stepped out of his car on Aug. 5, 1966, in his usual dark suit and polished shoes, he was met by a line of police and a mob of angry white people. His struggle hadn’t gotten easier.
As the 37-year-old civil rights leader strode toward several hundred supporters, a stone sailed through the air and struck King, sending him to one knee. Aides shielded the Nobel laureate from bricks and bottles hurled by the furious crowd.
No comments:
Post a Comment