1.) RACIAL WAR WITHIN THE JUDICIARY OF ILLINOIS FORMER STATES ATTORNEY, CHIEF JUDGE TIMOTHY CALVIN EVANS, ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL KWAME RAOUL, JUDGE IRIS Y. CHIVIRA, FRANCOISE LOUISE BARBARA HIGHTOWER-BELMER, GOVERNOR PRITZKER, COOK COUNTY PRESIDENT TONI PRECKWINKLE, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND THE STATE AGENCY LABOR BOARD AND ITS MEMBERS, STATE POLICE ALL RECEIVED A COPY OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEC. 4, 2023.
2.) THE MAIN AUTHORS RESPONSIBLE FOR RESPONDING BY OBJECTING OR DENYING ANY OF THE PLEADINGS WERE THE CHIEF JUDGE, STATES ATTORNEY OR ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL, PAGE 13 WAS SEEKING $50 MILLION DOLLARS AS PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
3.) SURPRISINGLY NOT ONE BLACK PERSON OBJECTED TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE MANY KNEW THE PLEADINGS WERE IN FACT TRUE.
4.) SO, THE MOTION WAS SUPPORTED WITH A FEDERAL LEGAL PRECEDENT IN RELATION TO SECTION 1983 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BECAUSE THE ENTIRE MUNICIPALITY WAS CULPABLE IN A PLETHORA OF VIOLATIONS RELATING TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTE.
A- Local Rule 56.1 The rule is very clear that "all material facts set forth in the statement required of the moving party will be deemed admitted unless controverted by the statement of the opposing party." Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B).
Seventh Circuit Overturns $44.7 Million
Jury Verdict Against City in Shooting Incident
Wednesday,
February 24, 2021 Julie
Tappendorf
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned a
jury verdict against the City of Chicago awarding $44.7 million in damages
relating to a shooting involving an off-duty police officer. First Midwest Bank as Guardian v. City of Chicago.
According to the court opinion, the plaintiff claimed that
a Chicago police officer shot his friend during an argument when the two had
been drinking. The friend suffered traumatic brain and other injuries. The
friend sued the City of Chicago seeking damages for the shooting, arguing that
the City was responsible for the officer's conduct. Specifically, the plaintiff
claimed that the City's failure to have an "early warning system" to
identify officers who might engage in misconduct, failure to adequately investigate
and discipline officers who engage in misconduct, and the "code of
silence" among police officers contributed to the shooting incident. The
City argued that the officer was off duty and not acting under "color of
state law" at the time of the shooting, so the City was not liable under
Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. The case made its way to a jury which
found the City of Chicago liable and awarded $44.7 million in damages to the
plaintiff. The jury found that two of the City's policies - its failure to
maintain an adequate early warning system and failure to adequately investigate
and discipline officers - caused the officer to shoot his friend.
The City appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
which reversed the jury verdict and award. The appeals court found that
although the injuries suffered by plaintiff from the shooting incident were
grievous, the City was not responsible for the officer's actions, where the
officer was acting as a private citizen and not as a City police officer. The
Seventh Circuit noted that Section 1983 imposes
liability only when a municipality has violated a federal
right. Since none of the plaintiff's federal rights were violated, the
court of appeals overturned the jury verdict against the City of Chicago.
5.) FEB. 9, 2024, A DEFAULT WAS FILED AND A RACIST HISPANIC JUDGE MARITZA MARTINEZ ALLEGEDLY WANTING TO BE ACCEPTED ASSUMED THE AUTHORITY OF A JUDGE SEEKING TO SEE IF JUDGE IRIS Y CHIVIRA SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FOR CAUSE BEING A FORMER ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEY DURING THE TIME HER SUPERVISOR KANTAS (LAW LICENSE SUSPENDED FOR ANOTHER COURT MATTER) WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR BACKDATING FRANCOISE'S ADULT DAUGHTER TO THE AGE OF A MINOR AROUND 11 OR 12 YEARS OF AGE.
6.) MARITZA DEMONSTRATED A VERY MASCULINE PERSONA INDIGNANT AS HELL DENIED MY MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CHIVIRA, BUT SHE NEVER HAD JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY, I WAS GIVEN A COURT ORDER WITHOUT THE PRESIDING JUDGES SIGNATURE, SO THE CASE WAS GIVEN BACK TO CHIVIRA (WHICH NEVER LEFT HER BECAUSE MARITZA ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED FALSE INTEL ABOUT MY INTELLECT OF THE LAWS AND ITS APPLICATIONS) JUDGE CHIVIRA ALLEGEDLY SENT THE CASE TO JUDGE ARCE WHO SENT THE CASE TO PRESIDING JUDGE SCANNICCHIO WHO ASSIGNED THE CASE TO ANOTHER JUDGE FROM THE 30TH FLOOR JUDGE FORTI WHO IS THE ALLEGED FIXER IN THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION.
8.) JUDGE FORTI IS NOT ONLY A RACIST BUT VERY MESSY AND IS FILLED WITH OVERT BIAS AND HATE, HE ACTS LIKE THE HOMOSEXUAL VERSION OF RAUL VEGA OMG THIS JUDGE HAD FEMALE ATTORNEYS CRYING ON THE ELEVATOR FEARING GOING IN HIS COURT, TRUST ME SOME MEXICAN JUDGES ARE JUST AS WORSE AS BLACKS IF YOU HAVE TO GO BEFORE THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO BE IDENTIFIED AS A MEXICAN ONLY A CAUCASIAN.
AS I DIGRESS, I FILED A MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE FORTI:
RESPONDENT’S
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE MICHAEL A.
FORTI INSTANTER FOR “CAUSE” PERJURY & VACATE SEPTEMBER 19, 2024 COURT ORDER
DUE TO HATE BIAS PREJUDICE PURSUANT to S.H.A.
735 ILCS 5/2 ---1001 (a) (2,3) TRYING TO COVER-UP THE STATES ATTORNEY IS AND
HAS BEEN REPRESENTING A POLICE OFFICER ILLEGALLY ON A CASE RICHARD J. DALEY
DISMISSED SEPT 17, 1987 WITH TOTAL CORROBORATION OF DEMOCRATIC JUDGES IN COOK
COUNTY NOT FOLLOWING ANY RULES OF ILLINOIS CIVIL PROCEDURES OR IN ACCORDANCE TO
ILLINOIS STATUTES BUT AS “PRIVATE
CITIZENS”, HE IS ENGAGING IN A PRIMAE FACIE SHOWING ENGAGING IN AN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS “FRAUD” TRESPASSING
UPON THE LAWS ENGAGING IN TREASON OFFENSES BY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS IN HIS
ORDER SAYING FRANCOISE HIGHTOWER IS SELF-REPRESENTING HERSELF WHEN THE RECORD
AND COURT ORDERS SHOW THAT THE STATES ATTORNEY IS REPRESENTING SAID POLICE
OFFICER AND RESPONDENT “DID NOT FILE PROPER MOTIONS BUT RATHER NOTICES” MAKING HIS
ORDER VOID/NULLITY AND IS USING HIS
UNLAWFUL AUTHORITY TRYING TO PROTECT HIS FRIEND AND COLLEAGE MARITZA MARTINEZ
AS JUDGE STATED, HE WAS NOT GOING TO TOUCH THE MOTION TO VACATE HER MARCH 27TH
COURT ORDER BUT FAILED TO RECUSE HIMSELF ON THE GROUNDS OF CONFLICT OF
INTEREST NOW CRIMINAL COVER-UP CONSPIRACY, DUE TO PETITIONER & ASSISTANT
STATES ATTORNEYS ADMITTING/CORROBORATING THEIR ROLES IN SAID CONSPIRACY AND
JUDGE CHAVIRA BEING A FORMER ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEY USED HER UNLAWFUL
AUTHORITY WITH FORMER ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEY THOMAS KANTAS IN COVERING-UP
CRIMES OF OTHER ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEYS UNLAWFUL INVOLVEMENT IN
MANUFACTURING DOCUMENTS CAUSING AN EMANCIPATED ADULT TYCEE HIGHTOWER TO APPEAR
AS A MINOR SO AS TO EXTORT MONEY FROM THE RESPONDENT JUDGE NEVER HAD
JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY TO PRESIDE OVER CASE TO DISQUALIFY CHAVIRA AND THE
ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEY IS SHOWING AS A CAUCASIAN SHE CAN VIOLATE ANY LAWS
WHERE RESPONDENT IS CONCERNED AND ADMITTED REPRESENTING CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER
DUE TO BLACK DEMOCRATS HAVING NO AUTHORITY OVER CERTAIN CAUCASIANS & HAVE
THE CLERK OF THE COUNTY, IRIS Y MARTINEZ TRANSFER THIS MATTER AWAY FROM COOK
COUNTY & APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR INSTANTER DUE TO DEMOCRATIC JUDGES
KNOWING RESPONDENT HAS BEEN FRAMED BUT BECAUSE OF THE HIM BEING A COLORED
HETEROSEXUAL FREEMAN SAID JUDGES ARE DEMONSTRATING HOW THEY CAN “TRESPASS UPON
THE LAWS AND DO WHATEVER THEY WANT ENGAGING IN JIM CROW APPLICATIONS BASED UPON
RACIST OR ALLEGED HOMOSEXUAL FRATERNAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENT AS A HETEROSEXUAL
FREEMAN NO COOK COUNTY JUDGE WILL RULE IN RESPONDENT’S MANNER AND RULE TO SHOW
CAUSE REMANDING ALL PARTIES INTO CUSTODY INSTANTER W /BODY ATTACHEMENT w/AFFIDAVIT
9.) THE CASE WAS SENT TO ANOTHER JUDGE ON THE 30TH FLOOR WHO DENIED THE ABOVE MOTION SAYING THAT THE STATES ATTORNEY WAS NOT ON THE CASE AND IT WAS A MISTAKE OF FACT.
10.) THAT EVERY JUDGE WHO ARE RACIST AS A FUCK HAVE CERTAIN BLACKS ACTING AS THEIR PERSONAL SELLOUTS OR POLITICAL SLAVES WHO WILL DO ANYTHING TO DESTROY THEIR OWN ETHNIC GROUPS TO SAVE THE TERRORISTS COMMITTING GENOCIDE ON BLACK AND COLORED GROUPS ALONG WITH THE SENIOR CITIZENS.
THE RACIST JUDGES HAVE TEAMED UP TOGETHER WITH HELP FROM SOME OF THE WORSE BLACKS BY DESTROYING THEIR OWN PEOPLE SO AS TO BE ACCEPTED BY THESE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAS NO RESPECT FOR BLACK OR BROWN PERSONS IN AUTHORITY.
SO FORTI IS LETTING EVERY BLACK PERSON IN AUTHORITY, THE FBI AND ANYONE ELSE READING THIS MIDDLE FINGER TO ALL OF YOU---SO THE MESSAGE IS CLEAR IF A BLACK OR BROWN PERSON IN AUTHORITY DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OPEN YOUR MOUTHS AND CHECK ANY JUDGE RACIST OR OTHERWISE DO NOT NEED TO BE IN OFFICE AND PEOPLE TO WAKE UP AND NOT VOTE FOR BLACKS OR PEOPLE FROM ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLES WHO DO NOT RESPECT YOU BECAUSE YOU MAY NOT BE IN THEIR SEXUALITY OR FRATERNITY.
Tue, May 13 at 9:00 AMAttention Presiding Judge/Chief Judges of the Judicial Council/Federal Officials et al.Upon filing the aforementioned Notice all Clerks received the Respondent professionally and recorded what was being done and the case was looked up because Yolanda Simmons have never emailed a court order and the Clerk stated no orders were entered for May 9, 2025, but the computer reflects the case is OFF CALL!If Homosexuals, bisexuals are using their sexuality to conspire with racist or hateful judges and cover-up their crimes simply because they sleep with each other is a sickness and an Executive Order from President Trump forbidding said individuals from being in the judiciary needs to be implemented Instanter at least alleged heterosexual Caucasian judges admitted that my pleadings were true, I am just the wrong skin color to make allegations against white men that's how it is up here and that you are intelligent enough to possibly change this.Please find corroborating documents establishing the veracity Judge Forti and other judges violating the Civil Rights of litigants surpassing human imagination; thereby, further particularizing Federal Rule 8 and 9.1.) That Page 5, Par 13 of the Summary Judgment is an admission demonstrating Blacks, Negros, Colored etc. have no authority over Anglo Saxon judges within the judiciary.That Pursuant to Vigus V. O’Bannon, 1886 8 N.E 788, 118 ILL 334. Hazelton V. Carolus, 1907 132 ILL. App. 512. here are other cases of Fraud2.) US Bank et al vs Monzella Johnson et al. 2008 CH 33616 case vacated HOW A CERTIFIED COURT ORDER (OCT. 29, 2024) OF JUDGE PAMELA GILLESPIE VACATING FORECLOSURE JUNE 10, 2010, AND AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE COURT 5TH DIVISION DEC. 30, 2011, whereby, attorneys emailed Judge Derico with instructions on how to construct a court order so as to unlawfully evict senior citizens from their home of 64 years before Thanksgiving 2024, Black or certain Latino judges are only appointed to the bench or state agencies to fulfill the doctrines of hate and racial oppression on their own ethnic groups no other group.3.) In Re M. G.W Case #2020 D 79452 a case very similar to the 88 D 079012 is fraught with fraud and corruption where former judge David Haracz signed an Allocation Order refusing a trial and signed the court order without any of the parties or their attorneys and Judge Forti is using that fraudulent document to remove the child from the mother unlawfully, furthermore demonstrating his untouchable status as a homosexual terrorizing a Black woman because nobody Black or of competent authority can admonish him, said orders are a Nullity/Void and needs to be vacated instanter.There is a 18 month Rule which can be extended if both parties agree in writing, or if the court finds "good cause" for an extension, even without agreement if Hon Edward Jordan was still around and presided over this matter this woman would not be experiencing this mess.Judge Forti has demonstrated a Prima Facie showing of Racism, Bias against a Black woman by immediately signing the court orders and they were recorded same day, but he refuses to sign court orders in a matter where he is not able to bully or intimidate a Pro se litigant, by recusing himself on a case where Abbey Romanek was still the judge and it's ironic the very Black women Clerks who were outspoken about the improprieties on how he had the case last year are no longer in judge Forti's court a new younger woman Ebony and a Caucasian female.That Fed Rule Civ P. 8 and 9 require plaintiffs to particularize their allegations of "fraud on the court" in as short, plain, and direct a way as is reasonable. To comply with these rules, the Court instructed plaintiffs to set out each judicial proceeding complained of, allege specific facts that make those proceedings "fraudulent" or otherwise improper, and name the particular judges and other individuals involved and the extent of their involvement in each claim of "fraudulent" or otherwise improper conduct.
The hate, racism and alleged homosexuality or fraternal memberships in this judiciary makes it impossible for a Heterosexual Freeman or woman or senior citizens to receive justice in this "Criminal Enterprise"Self-Hate is a form of mental slavery, that results in poverty, ignorance, and crime—When you don’t feel good about yourself, it is hard to feel good about anything for anyone else Acts of Faith, Iyana Vanzant .
In the 20th century, the Supreme Court began to overturn Jim Crow laws on constitutional grounds. In Buchanan v. Warley 245 US 60 (1917), the court held that a Kentucky law could not require residential segregation. The Supreme Court in 1946, in Irene Morgan v. Virginia ruled segregation in interstate transportation to be unconstitutional, in an application of the commerce clause of the Constitution. It was not until 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 347 US 483 that the court held that separate facilities were inherently unequal in the area of public schools, effectively overturning Plessy v. Ferguson, and outlawing Jim Crow in other areas of society as well. This landmark case consisted of complaints filed in the states of Delaware (Gebhart v. Belton); South Carolina (Briggs v. Elliott); Virginia (Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County); and Washington, D.C. (Spottswode Bolling v. C. Melvin Sharpe). These decisions, along with other cases such as McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Board of Regents 339 US 637 (1950), NAACP v. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958), and Boynton v. Virginia 364 US 454 (1960), slowly dismantled the state-sponsored segregation imposed by Jim Crow laws.
As the color line itself solidified at the turn of the nineteenth century, Jim Crow imposed on black people clear tactical disadvantages: restricted economic possibilities, narrow educational opportunities, inadequate housing options, high rates of death and disablement, persistent unemployment, and unrelenting poverty. Inasmuch as Jim Crow represented the race problem described by Gunnar Myrdal (1898–1987) in his 1944 treatise The American Dilemma, it was Jim Crow that created the race quandary; whites constructed the obstacles African Americans confronted, while also blaming them for their conditions, denying them access to the resources of problem solving, and daring them—under threat of violence—to complain, protest, or advance.
Finally, protests or challenges to Jim Crow often proved futile, given law enforcement’s complicity in the structure. From emancipation to the turn of the century, the Ku Klux Klan operated as a paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party in the South. The Klan, nightriders, red shirts, and other white terrorists intimidated African Americans with personal attacks, school burnings, and lynchings. African Americans rarely served as policemen, sheriffs, or deputies before the late 1940s. During the 1950s and 1960s, the connections between municipal and state governments, law enforcement, and racial violence were well known by officials and citizens alike. White officers were known to harass black people, disrupt black neighborhoods, and assault black women. Arrested for inflated charges, denied satisfactory counsel, and serving harsh sentences, African Americans were further disadvantaged in the courtroom. Rarely did they receive good counsel, nor could they serve on juries. When black lawyers could appear in the courtroom to argue cases, white judges and juries rarely listened. All-white juries decided against black defendants, even in the most obvious cases of innocence, but rarely convicted white defendants, despite evidence of guilt. African Americans—including the innocent—suffered the harsher punishments of extended jail time, forced farm labor, and peonage. Even women could be placed on the chain gangs working the roads and tracks across the SouthThe 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.”
1.) “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. 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.”
2.) 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”)
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].
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)
Respectfully submitted,Joe Louis LawrenceCounsel Pro se
No comments:
Post a Comment