PRESIDENT TRUMP IF YOU ARE SENDING THE NATIONAL GUARDS TO CHICAGO, PLEASE SEND THEM TO THE COURTS SO AS TO REMOVE ALL TREASONERS AND DOMESTIC TERRORISTS FROM THEIR POSITIONS.

THE FOLLOWING MOTION WHERE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM FBI DIRECTOR'S (KASH PATEL) AUTHORITY SENT TO THE SPECIAL AGENT FBI IN CHICAGO 

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED VIA RULE 56.1 ALL PLEADINGS OF THE FOREGOING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ILLINOIS (735 ILCS 5/2-1005) & FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CORROBORRATING THE VERACITY COOK COUNTY JUDGES DO NOT HONOR DUE PROCESS OR CIVIL RIGHTS EQUAL PROTECTION TO IT’S CITIZENS PRO SE OR WITH ATTORNEYS IN ANY OF THE COURT’S w/AFFIDAVIT

AS BEING TRUE IN ITS ENTIRETY.

MANY OF THE DEMOCRATIC JUDGES IN THESE CASES CONDONE AND COVER-UP DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INCEST, SEXUAL VIOLENCE ON MINORS, EXTORTION AND OR PERJURY ETC.

JUDGE FORTI IS THE ALLEGED MASTERMIND AND HOMOSEXUAL LEADER RUNNING THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION NOBODY IS MAN ENOUGH TO SPEAK UP AND SAY WHAT HE IS DOING IS WRONG BECAUSE SO MANY ARE COMPLICIT DESTROYING THE LIVES OF MANY FAMILIES.

READ HOW A NURSE LOST HER DAUGHTER AND JOB ON WELFARE RESULTING FIGHTING TO GET HER BIOLOGICAL CHILD BACK AS HER EX AND THE HOMOSEXUAL JUDGE WENT ALONG WITH EVERY LIE HE SAID TO KEEP THE CHILD.

MOST MEN WHEN THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, THEY PLOT TO KILL THE WOMAN OR CONCOCT VICIOUS LIES ABOUT THE MOTHER BEING ABUSIVE NOT FIT ETC. AS CERTAIN JUDGES TAKE THE CHILDREN FROM THE MOTHERS AND GIVE THEM TO THE FATHERS WHO ARE CORRUPT OR ARE ABLE TO ALLEGEDLY PAY OFF CERTAIN JUDGES.

JUDGES ARE NOT FIXING CASES FOR FREE. 

MANY OF THE BLACK JUDGES ARE PUPPETS AND ARE USED TO HELP BANKS STEAL THE HOMES OF BLACK AND BROWN SENIOR CITIZENS IN ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES, THEY ARE THE ONES WHO SIGN ILLEGAL COURT ORDERS AUTHORIZING THE COOK COUNTY SHERIFFS TO UNLAWFULLY EVICT SENIORS FROM THEIR HOMES.

 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS

DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION

IN RE                                                               )

                                                                         )

 Francoise Hightower                                       )        Judge James Shapiro                  

        Petitioner                                                  )

                                                                         )        Cal 53

          VS                                                          )                                 

                                                                         )        No. 88 D 079012                         

 Joe Louis Lawrence                                      )        

        Respondent                                            )        Room 2103A

              MOTION TO EXPEDITE DEFENDANTS AFFECTED FROM JUDICIAL MALFEANCE & VIOLATIONS OF THE ILLINOIS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FROM THE COOK COUNTY JUDICIARY INSTANTER DUE TO JUDGE PATRICIA FALLON’S COURT ORDER AUGUST 11, 2025, DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST PRIOR ASSOCIATION TO THE STATES ATTORNEY OFFICE WHERE ALLEGED HOMOSEXUAL KENT STEPHEN RAY FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE CTA USED HIS UNLAWFUL JURISDICTION DESTROYING PERSONNEL RECORDS OF RESPONDENT AND ENGINEERED THE FALSIFICATION AND COLLUSION WITH HIS ALLEGED FORMER EX JUDGE FORTI WHO WAS A CORPORATION ATTORNEY IN CITY HALL WHO HAS STALKED THE RESPONDENT SINCE 1994 AIDING AND ABETTING IN RACIAL HATE CONSPIRACIES ON CASE 93 L010772 (JOE LOUIS LAWRENCE VS CTA) AS CHIEF ASST COUNSEL & USED HIS ROBE VIOLATING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT AND SHEMICA TAYLOR ISSUING THE UNLAWFUL ORDER OF PROTECTION AGAINST HER KEEPING HER FROM HER NATURAL BIOLOGICAL DAUGHTER AS LAW FIRMS SOUGHT OUTRAGEOUS LEGAL FEES WHERE JUDGE FORTI IS SEEKING TO REMAND HER INTO CUSTODY ON A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE NOT PAYING AN ALLEGED HOMOSEXUAL CHILD REP- REQUEST FOR RE NOTICE OF RECUSING THE ENTIRE COOK COUNTY JUDICIARY AND APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR PURSUANT TO THE CASE OF 2 EX-COOK COUNTY ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY’S (NICHOLAS TRUTENKO, ANDREW HORVAT) DUE TO FORMER ASSISTANT’S STATES ATTORNEY IRIS Y. CHIVIRA ALLEGEDLY TOOK PART IN THE FALSIFICATION OF BACKDATING RECORDS ET AL.  JUDGE FORTI HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF JUNE 5, 2025 BUT FAILED TO VACATE ANY COURT ORDERS IN SPITE OF HIS CRIMINAL ASSOCIATIONS SIGNING COURT ORDERS FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS ASSOCIATED IN THE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE OF COOK COUNTY, WHERE ALLEGED RACIST, OR HOMOSEXUAL OR PUPPET COLORED ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEYS WILL GO ALONG AND CONTINUOUSLY VIOLATE THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF RESPONDENTS BY ENFORCING VOID ORDERS CAUSING HER REMOVED FROM ANOTHER STATE & RULE TO SHOW CAUSE IF THE ORDER OF PROTECTION AGAINST SHEMICA TAYLOR IS NOT VACATED IN 48 HOURS SEEKING REMANDS INSTANTER WITH BODY ATTACHMENT ON ALL PARTIES FOR THEIR ROLES IN SAID CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE INVOKING THE STATE POLICE, STATE MARSHALL’S, SHERIFF POLICE AND FBI INVOKE JURISDICTION BY INVESTIGATING THE ALLEGATIONS IGNORED BY ALL RESPONSIBLE PARTIES WHERE A  (STATE OF ILLINOIS AFFIDAVIT PROPERLY NOTARIZED ATTESTING TO THIS VERACITY) ASA YOLANDA SIMMONS VIOLATED THE ETHICS OF RPC 3.3 CORROBORATOING HER INVOLVEMENT COLLUDING WITH JUDGE FORTI IN SYSTEMIC CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS VERIFYING SAID JUDGES ARE “PRIVATE CITIZENS” “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES V RAIMONDO, 603 U,S. 369 (2024) TO SECTION 42 USC 1983 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTE, 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 assigned 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.  

& DIRECT THIS MATTER BE TRANSFERRED TO THE THIRD MUNICIPAL DISTRICT- ROLLING MEADOWS COURT WHO HAS STATED THEY WILL ACCEPT THIS PATERNITY MATTER AND INFORM THE JUDGE

Courtesy Copy V MOTION TO VACATE IMPROPER DISMISSAL (MAY 12, 2025) (POST RECUSAL TESTIMONY) VOID ORDER AND REQUEST FOR RE NOTICE OF RECUSING THE ENTIRE COOK COUNTY JUDICIARY AND APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR PURSUANT TO THE CASE OF 2 EX-COOK COUNTY ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY’S (NICHOLAS TRUTENKO, ANDREW HORVAT) DUE TO FORMER ASSISTANT’S STATES ATTORNEY IRIS Y. CHIVIRA ALLEGEDLY TOOK PART IN THE FALSIFICATION OF BACKDATING RECORDS ET AL. JUDGE FORTI HAVING A HEARING MAY 9, 2025 ON THE 11:00AM CALL, STATED “you know what, Sir I’m going to recuse myself like others but I’m going to apprise Judge Scannicchio” et al.

 

1.)  That Defendant appeared at the Daley Center and was informed Friday August 8, 2025 312 603-1646, 9:05 am 12 mins 40 sec. via Clerk “he was not to appear in court CL-12 but to report to CL-19”

2.)  Defendant called to ascertain if the case was still on the Calendar because so many judges have been malicious having clerks to misrepresent the facts and have him reporting to court only to learn that the case may be before another judge. 

3.)  Judge Fallon was very professional asked the Defendant if he filed any Notices to appear before her because she had nothing before her?

4.)  Defendant replied Yes Ma’am your Honor, I filed a Motion to Recuse you because of your prior association as an Assistant States Attorney due to conflict of interest et al. June 10, and a Motion for Summary Judgment July 11, 2025 and presented both documents before the computer monitor;

 

5.)  Judge Fallon: stated no need to show the documents because she was going to have her Clerk to go to Odyssey and print out the documents in its entirety.

A-   Defendant had due-diligently emailed the entire judiciary with the impression he had been given Judge Fallon’s correct email two months had elapsed frivolously as someone within the Democratic Party has Obstructed justice making sure the judge never see anything the Defendant emailed to her corroborating the SYSTEMIC HATE DEMOCRATS have against Black or Brown litigants speaking up for themselves against racial injustices in the courts. 

6.)  Judge Fallon: Admitted that she was in fact an Assistant States Attorney in the Civil Division, and upon reading the Motion her facial gestures appeared totally astonished, she requested that Defendant unmute himself and said she was going to interpret his Motion as a “Substitution of Judge as a Matter of Right”.

A-   She was not going to address his Summary Judgment because it was his request she be substituted from the case, but Judge Fallon inadvertently forgot to mention his July 11, 2025 Summary Judgment in her Court Order.

 

B-   That because everybody in the Democratic Party has willfully ignored the egregious hate being perpetrated on Black, Brown people within the Judiciary, hereto attached, Ex A Letter to Federal Authorities on how Police violated her Civil Rights and disrespected a Black woman (Shemica Taylor) trying to ascertain the welfare of her only child kidnapped from her via Judge Forti’s unlawful court orders

7.)  Defendant has properly Noticed the entire Cook County Democratic Judiciary, States Attorney, Illinois Attorney General, Federal Northern District Judicial Council and Federal Authorities no City or State person(s) judge(s) Clerk(s) have ever submitted a counter-affidavit impeaching the veracity of all properly plead facts recorded in Defendant’s two-page Motion particularizing the “Fraudulent egregious racist Civil Rights Acts” pursuant to Fed Rule Civ Pro 8 and 9.  

8.) Hereto attached Gr Ex B, September 11, 1997

State of Illinois
Judicial Inquiry Board
100 W. Randolph St. - 14-500
Chicago, IL 60601

REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
OF JUDGE FRANCIS A. GEMBALA
FOR VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

 

I have information of possible willful misconduct in office, persistent failure to perform his duties, and other conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and that brings both his judicial office and the judiciary into disrepute on the part of Francis A. Gembala of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. A judge should strive to maintain confidence in our judicial system (Preamble to Code of Judicial Conduct), but Judge Gembala's actions destroy confidence in the judicial system. Unless he is severely disciplined or removed from office, he will continue to violate the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that he had conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly engaged in conduct in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land, in violation of his duty under the law, in "fraud upon the court" and to aid and abet others in criminal activity, thus making himself a principal in the criminal activity.

BACKGROUND

A complaint for Declaratory Judgment was filed as case no. 96-CH-5651, EUGENE W. ALPERN v. PHYLLIS ALPERN, ALLEN S. GABE, ROBERT K. BLAIN, and REGINA SCANNICCHIO, and the full and complete record of that case is incorporated as a part of this Complaint. The purpose of the case was to declare a judgment in case no. 91-D-5122 void for reasons stated in the complaint. The 96-CH-5651 case has been concluded, with the issuance of a void judgment due to, among various reasons, fraud upon the court by the defendant's attorneys and by Judge Gembala (see infra). Since fraud upon the court voids the entire proceeding, In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Gilmore, 345 Ill. 28, 177 N.E. 710 (1931), this complaint has nothing to do with the voidness of the purported decision, but on the violations of judicial conduct of Judge Gembala.

In case no. 96-CH-5651, Judge Gembala judgment stated that:

"Thus this court lacks jurisdiction to grant plaintiff the relief he seeks, which amounts to a vacatur of the Judgment of Dissolution. Moreover, this court is aware of no authority which would permit it to vacate an order of the Appellate Court."

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

The Illinois Supreme Court issued the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct as Supreme Court Rules ("SCR"). The Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct is incorporated herein as a part of this Complaint. Supreme Court Rules are law, and must be followed by litigants, attorneys, and all Circuit and Appellate Court judges. Compliance with SCR is not discretionary, but is mandatory. Any noncompliance is unlawful, and judges have no lawful authority to act unlawfully.

The Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 62(A) states: A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself or herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

The Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 63(A) states:

(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities

(1) A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.

INHERENT POWER OF THE COURT

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that every court of lawful jurisdiction has the inherent power to determine subject-matter jurisdiction. Inherent power of a court is not dependent on whether a court has jurisdiction, otherwise it could never have the lawful authority to determine if it had jurisdiction in any matter before it. This inherent power to determine jurisdiction applies not only to determine its own jurisdiction, but the jurisdiction of any other court. People v. Childs, 278 Ill.App.3d 65, 663 N.E.2d 161 (4th Dist. 1996) ("The duty to vacate a void judgment is based on the inherent power of a court to expunge from its records void acts of which it has knowledge."); Evans v. Corporate Services, 207 Ill.App.3d 297, 565 N.E.2d 724 (2nd Dist. 1990) ("A court has inherent authority to expunge void acts from its records.").

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that under the Supreme Law of the Land:

"Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law, and, when that is discerned, it is the duty of the court to follow it. Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law." [Emphasis in original]. Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F.2d 389, 412 (7th Cir. 1972), citing Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat (22 U.S.) 738, 866, 6 L.Ed 204 (1824); U.S. v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that the void judgment brought before him, remains void even if he did not vacate it. Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that the void judgment was not affirmed nor validated by his failure to properly exercise his judicial duty.

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that he had the duty, and had no discretion, to vacate void orders and judgments. Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that he had conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly engaged in conduct in violation of his duty as a judge, and engaged in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.

TREASON

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known that, by his previous allegation that he had no jurisdiction, he committed treason against the Constitution. "We [Judges] have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, then to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution." [clarification added] 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).

Judge Gembala should not have engaged in treason to the Constitution, a Constitution to which he has taken a personal oath to support. VIOLATION OF SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND

All judges have taken an oath to, and their lawful authority depends on their complete and full compliance with, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Supreme Law of the Land.

The Supreme of the Land can be found in the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. In Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907), the Supreme Court ruled that:

"Chief Justice Marshall had long before observed in Ross v. Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 L.ed. 608, 617, that, upon principle, the operation of every judgment must depend on the power of the court to render that judgment. In Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 L.ed. 1170, 1189, it was said to be well settled that the jurisdiction of ANY COURT exercising authority over a subject `may be inquired into in EVERY OTHER COURT when the proceedings in the former are relied upon and brought before the latter by a party claiming the benefit of such proceedings,' and the rule prevails whether `the decree or judgment has been given, in a court of admiralty, chancery, ecclesiastical court, or court of common law, or whether the point ruled has arisen under the laws of nations, the practice in chancery, or the municipal laws of states.'" [Emphasis added].

In Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828), the court stated that "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. This distinction runs through all the cases on the subject; and it proves, that the jurisdiction of ANY COURT exercising authority over a subject, may be inquired into IN EVERY COURT, when the proceedings of the former are relied on and brought before the latter, by the party claiming the benefit of such proceedings." [Emphasis added].

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, the law and the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that ANY COURT and EVERY COURT can vacate a void order. Judge Gembala conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly engaged in conduct in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land, and of Rule 62(A) and Rule 63(A).

VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF ILLINOIS

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, the Illinois Supreme Court decisions that ANY COURT can vacate a void order.

Contrary to Judge Gembala's alleged non-finding, and considering that the writer is a non-lawyer, he found many Illinois Supreme Court and Appellate Court decisions that grant all judges lawful authority to vacate the 91-D-5122 judgment before him. As only a few of the many Illinois citations, the following are presented:

In City of Chicago v. Fair Employment Practices Com., 65 Ill.2d 108, 357 N.E.2d 1154 (1976), the court stated that "A judgment, order or decree entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction of the parties or the subject matter, or which lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, is void, and may be attacked at any time or in ANY COURT, either directly or collaterally." [Emphasis added].

In R.W. Sawant & Co. v. Allied Programs Corp., 111 Ill.2d 304, 309, 489 N.E.2d 1360 (1986), the court stated that "[a] judgment, order or decree entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction of the parties or the subject matter, or which lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, is void, and may be attacked at any time or IN ANY COURT, either directly or collaterally." [Emphasis added].

In Evans v. Corporate Services, 207 Ill.App.3d 297, 565 N.E.2d 724 (2nd Dist. 1990) the court stated that "a void judgment, order or decree may be attacked at any time or in ANY COURT, either directly or collaterally" [Emphasis added].

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that the phrases "ANY COURT", "IN ANY COURT", "IN EVERY COURT" and "EVERY OTHER COURT" found in Court decisions means any court in Cook County, any court in the State of Illinois, or in any court, state or federal, in the United States, as a void order has no legal force or effect, and is not, and could not be, at any time a final judgment.

In People v. Streeper, 12 Ill.2d 204, 145 N.E.2d 625 (1957), the Court stated that "The jurisdiction of the court must be determined as of the commencement of the action. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565".

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that he had to determine the question of subject-matter jurisdiction at the commencement of the 90-D-2724 action in 1970 and the 91-D-5122 action in 1971. Judge Gembala did not comply with the law, and did not determine whether jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Cook County existed at either pertinent times.

Judge Gembala conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly engaged in conduct in violation of Rule 62(A) and Rule 63(A). FRAUD UPON THE COURT

"Fraud upon the court" occurs whenever any officer of the court commits fraud before a tribunal. A judge is not a court; he is under law an officer of the court, and he must not engage in any action to deceive the court. Trans Aero Inc. v. LaFuerga Area Boliviana, 24 F.3d 457 (2nd Cir. 1994); Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985) (fraud upon the court exists "where the judge has not performed his judicial duties").

The Supreme Court, In re Eugene Lee Armentrout et al., 99 Ill.2d 242, 75 Ill.Dec. 703, 457 N.E.2d 1262 (1983), stated that:

"Fraud encompasses a broad range of human behavior, including " ' * * * anything calculated to deceive, * * * whether it be by direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or by silence, by word of mouth or by look or gesture.' " (Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc. (1977), 68 Ill.2d 419, 435, 12 Ill.Dec. 151, 369 N.E.2d 858, citing People ex rel. Chicago Bar Association v. Gilmore (1931), 345 Ill. 28, 46, 177 N.E. 710; In re Alschuler (1944), 388 Ill. 492, 503-04; Black's Law Dictionary 594 (5th ed. 1979).) Too, this court has previously disciplined lawyers even though their fraudulent misconduct did not harm [99 Ill.2d 252] any particular individual. In re Lamberis (1982), 93 Ill.2d 222, 229, 66 Ill.Dec. 623, 443 N.E.2d 549."

The decision by Judge Gembala, in stating that "Moreover, this court is aware of no authority which would permit it to vacate an order of the Appellate Court." either was a statement made to deceive the parties before the court, was contrary to known law, and was a fraud upon the court by Judge Gembala, or was a demonstration of his lack of competency, in violation of Rule 63(A), or was a demonstration of his failure to respect and comply with the law, in violation of Rule 62(A), Judges should not engage in fraud upon the court, issuing decisions that he knew, or should have known, under law were void and in violation of the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct.

JUDGE GEMBALA CANNOT CONFER JURISDICTION ON A COURT THAT LACKS JURISDICTION

Judge Gembala has no lawful authority to confer jurisdiction on any court that does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, yet Judge Gembala has attempted to confer jurisdiction on the Appellate Court upon which no subject-matter jurisdiction was ever conferred by law. Martin v. Schillo, 389 Ill. 607, 60 N.E.2d 392 (1945) ("Jurisdiction of the subject matter is always conferred by law.").

The law in Illinois is stated in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois. Before the Appellate Court could rule on the Appeal, it first had to determine if the lower court held subject-matter jurisdiction. After its finding that there was no Petition in the record of the 91-D-5122 case, according to the prior decisions of the Illinois Supreme Court, as cited below, the only valid decision that it could make was that the trial court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction. Since the trial court was without subject-matter jurisdiction, the Appellate Court held no subject-matter jurisdiction and any ruling, other than to vacate the trial court's order as issued without subject- matter jurisdiction, was void. The Appellate Court's purported finding that the trial court held jurisdiction as to a cause of action was void ab initio since its findings that there was no Petition in the record of the case deprived that court of any subject-matter jurisdiction to issue any order except an order to vacate the trial court's void judgment.

The Appellate Court was bound by the following Supreme Court decisions. In In re Contest of Elections for Governor, 93 Ill.2d 465 (1983), the court stated:

"The petition required to put the court in motion and give it jurisdiction must be in conformity with the statute granting the right and must contain all the statements which the statute says the petition shall state, - and if the petition fails to contain all of these essential elements the court is without jurisdiction. citing Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 Ill. 118 (1930)." [Emphasis added].

"The court derived its jurisdiction to proceed in a matter solely from statute, ordinary presumptions of jurisdiction do not obtain, and every fact necessary to support such jurisdiction must appear from the face of the record." People v. Heizer, 36 Ill.2d 438, 223 N.E.2d 128 (1967) [Emphasis added.]

The trial court in case 91-D-5122 lacked authority to act for want of subject matter jurisdiction. People v. Brewer, 328 Ill. 472, 483 (1928) ("If it could not legally 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.").

In I.C.R.R. Co. v. Hasenwinkle, 232 Ill. 224, 227 (1908), the court stated that "The law presumes nothing in favor of the jurisdiction of a court exercising special statutory powers, such as those given by statute under which the court acted, (Chicago and Northwestern Railway Co. v. Galt, 133 Ill. 657), and the record must affirmatively show the facts necessary to give jurisdiction. The record must show that the statute was complied with".

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that in all courts of limited jurisdiction, such as domestic relations, there is no presumption of subject-matter jurisdiction, People v. R.D.S., 94 Ill.2d 77, 84 (1983); People ex rel. Curtin v. Heizer, 36 Ill.2d 438 (1967), and that subject-matter jurisdiction can only be determined by an inspection of the full and complete record of the case. State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill, 113 Ill.2d 294, 497 N.E.2d 1156 (1986); Herb v. Pitcairn, 384 Ill. 237, 241 (1943). Contrary to law, Judge Gembala presumed subject-matter jurisdiction to have been conferred without an inspection of the full and complete record of the 91-D-5122 action.

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known that three Appellate Court Justices and the Chief Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County inspected the full and complete record of the case, and all four found that no Petition existed in the record of the case. Judge Gembala knew, or should have known that, under Illinois law, Herb v. Pitcairn, 384 Ill. 237, 241 (1943) ("A judgment void upon its face and requiring only an inspection of the record to demonstrate its invalidity is a mere nullity, in legal effect no judgment at all, conferring no right and affording no justification."), the inspection by the four parties substantiated that the record of the 91-D-5122 could not sustain a valid judgment. This finding has never been controverted, and Judge Gembala had no lawful authority to issue any ruling in violation of the law.

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that he did not have any lawful authority to overrule the findings of the Appellate Court Justices, but that under law he must accept their findings. Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that the finding by the Appellate Court that there was no Petition in the record of the case must be accepted by him, and he knew, or should have known, that he must rule based on the law that pertains to cases on which there is no Petition in the record of the case.

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that the Appellate Court acted without lawful authority and he knew, or should have known, that he could not utilize a void order in his decision.

TRESPASSER OF THE LAW

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, the law relative to void orders. Judge Gembala knew, or should have known that under the law in Illinois he was a trespasser of the law. Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109 (1870) ("if the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are trespassers."); Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828).

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that he had no lawful authority to act directly or indirectly in such a manner that allowed a judgment to stand when the judge issuing that judgment had no subject-matter jurisdiction, He knew, or should have known, that he was conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly engaged in conduct supporting a void judgment in violation of the law.

INTERFERENCE WITH LEGAL DUTY OF LITIGANT

Judge Gembala knew, or reasonably should have known that when he interfered with a litigant's legal rights and duty in case no. 96-CH-5651 to address the court, he engaged in actions in violation of the Appellate Courts' requirement that "a litigant has a duty, independent of that of his or her attorney, to follow the progress of the case and TO TAKE ACTION WHEN COUNSEL DOES NOT." [Emphasis added]. Sakun v. Taffer, 268 Ill.App.3d 343, 643 N.E.2d 1271 (1st Dist. 1994); Burton v. Estrada (1986), 149 Ill.App.3d 965, 972, 501 N.E.2d 254, citing Falcon Manufacturing Co. v. Nationwide Brokers, Inc. (1984), 123 Ill.App.3d 496, 499-500, 462 N.E.2d 562; American Consulting Association, Inc. v. Spencer (1981), 100 Ill.App.3d 917, 922-23, 427 N.E.2d 579.

Judge Gembala knew, or reasonably should have known that he conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly engaged in conduct that deprived the litigant of his due process rights, and that he conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly engaged in conduct to interfere with the litigant's legal duty as placed upon the litigant by the Appellate Courts.

FAILURE TO VACATE VOID APPELLATE ORDER

Judge Gembala knew, or reasonably should have known that no reviewing courts have any lawful authority to affirm or validate void judgments or orders. Judge Gembala knew, or reasonably should have known that the Illinois Supreme Court had no lawful authority to review or affirm the void Order of the Illinois Appellate Court. The Supreme Court acted correctly when it refused to hear the appeal of the Appellate Court, as it knew that it had no lawful authority to review an Appellate Court's void order.

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that he not only should have vacated the void order of the 91-D-5122 court based on the Complaint of the Plaintiff in the 96-CH-5651 case, but even has the lawful authority to vacate the void judgment of the 91-D-5122 action and the void judgment of the First District Appellate Court sua sponte on his own motion. People v. Thompson, 231 N.E.2d 605 (1967).

EXCEEDED LAWFUL AUTHORITY

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known that void orders have no legal force or effect. Yet Judge Gembala engaged in conduct that attempted to made a void judgment valid, contrary to any and all known law. COVERUP OF THE UNLAWFUL ACT OF JUDGE-SHOPPING

Judge Gembala knew, or reasonably should have known, that the act of "judge-shopping" had occurred in the procurement of purported jurisdiction which vitiated the lawful authority of the 91-D-5122 judge. FRAUD UPON THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Judge Gembala knew, or reasonably should have known, that he was engaged in the waste of judicial resources. The Respondent suggests that the waste of judicial resources is a fraud upon the State of Illinois.

JUDGE GEMBALA SHOULD NOT AID AND ABET NOR PARTICIPATE IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY

Judge Gembala knew, or reasonably should have known that by his delaying to vacate the void order, any execution on the void order could lead to a criminal act being performed by others, based on the void order, and that no judge should aid and abet criminal actions. Judge Gembala knew, or reasonably should have known that, should anyone execute on the void order and if such execution should interfere with interstate commerce, such as interfering with the Respondent's purchase of any items involved in interstate commerce, United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518 (7th Cir. 1985), then Judge Gembala would become a principal, 18 U.S.C. Section 1, in the interference with interstate commerce.

Extortion is defined in Black's Law Dictionary - 6th Edition as:

"The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right."

Should anyone attempt to execute on the void judgment that Judge Gembala had, under his judicial responsibility, a duty to vacate, or the void judgment issued by Judge Gembala in case no. 96-CH-5651, then he would have personally aided and abetted a scheme of extortion and other criminal activity. Judge Gembala would then be involved in the unlawful act of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1951.

CONNIVANCE WITH THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY IN COVERING UP THE DISAPPEARANCE OF COURT RECORDS

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that there is currently a dispute between the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County and the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County relative to the disappearance of court records. Judge Gembala was informed in the 96-CH-5651 action of the multiple filing of identical actions before the Circuit Court of Cook County and the facts of the missing court files.

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that under the Illinois Constitution, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County had the duty to preserve the full and complete records of all cases. He knew that the records of cases no. 90-D-2724 and 91-D-5122 were not preserved.

Judge Gembala knew, or should have known, that he engaged in, and connived in, actions to support the Clerk of the Circuit Court in her violation of her Constitutional and statutory duties to preserve the records of cases no. 90-D-2724 and 91-D-5122.

CONCLUSION

Judge Francis A. Gembala has no respect for the law, does not comply with the law, does not install public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, is not faithful to the law, and does not maintain professional competence in the law. Further, he conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly: engaged in conduct in violation of his duty as a judge and of the Code of Judicial Conduct, engaged in actions in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land and the law of Illinois, engaged in acts of judicial treason, committed fraud upon the court, engaged in acts as a trespasser of the law, exceeded his lawful authority, engaged in actions to interfere with the litigant's legal duty imposed on the litigant by the Appellate Court, engaged in actions to coverup the unlawful act of judge-shopping, committed fraud upon the State of Illinois, aided and abetted criminal activity, and connived with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County in covering up the disappearance of court records.

I request that a full and complete investigation into the willful violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct by Judge Francis A. Gembala be made by the Judicial Inquiry Board.

Yours truly,
Eugene Alpern

---

On September 17, 1997 Judge Francis A. Gembala recused himself from case no. 91-D-5122. [NOTE: A judge may not recuse himself, under law, unless he is in violation of the Rules of Judicial Conduct. By recusing himself, Judge Francis A. Gembala has admitted that he was acting in violation of the Rules of Judicial Conduct.

Caught also received the following feedback regarding this complaint from CLR.ORG.

A judge may recuse himself to prevent a violation of the Rules of Judicial Conduct. While this may be true before the judge hears a matter, we suggest it is not true during the hearing of a matter and when the judge has already issued void orders.
What should also be taken into account is that there was no subject-matter jurisdiction nor in personam jurisdiction ever conferred upon the trial court at any time. In a statutory proceeding, the law states specifically that a Complaint/Petition that complies strictly with the statute under which the case is filed, must be filed and must be found in the record of the case.
The Appellate Court admits that there is no Petition in the record of the case. Evidence indicates that a valid Petition was never filed. The record of the case also provides no evidence that a valid summons was ever served upon the Respondent, or in fact, if there ever was a valid summons.
There are other reasons why the judge was without jurisdiction at any time. For the reasons stated, Judge Gembella was acting in violation of the law and of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Copyright© 1997 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility®. All rights reserved.
Email: clr@clr.org

 

 

 

9.)  That every Democratic Judge who witnessed and received Notice and Notice associated in the 88 D 079012, 2008 CH 33616, and 2020 D 79452   are GUILTY & COMPLICIT in violating the Code of Judicial Conduct in the same manner of former untouchable judge Francis A Gembala where Regina Scannicchio Presiding Judge was named in the same complaint.

10.)       That when Eileen O’Neil Burke was a judge in the Appellate Court as a TRUE racist Irish woman, she used her robe and position to help all of her people associated in said crimes by DENYING every valid Motion accompanied via Affidavits, transcripts unimpeached by every person in the Cook County or State of Illinois where the Defendant was concerned.

11.)       That because of the Bogus Paternity Case as Democrats sought their kind colluded together as Defendant was held in Contempt of Court while on Public Aid unlawfully and Assistant States Attorney issued a Bogus Warrant against the Defendant totaling five times on a case DISMISSED by former STATES ATTORNEY, RICHARD J. DALEY, September 17, 1987.

12.)       That because Democrats are capable of criminalizing any innocent person and protect or release illegal immigrants or vicious criminals back into the streets like wild animals to rein havoc and mayhem on innocent people, hereto attached, Gr Ex C an Email to  Chicago Police, Aug 9, 2025, Page 1, Par 4 and 5.

“It is most ironic receiving an email from you because Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for a Firearms License for the state of Florida”.

“They learned: Criminal History information received by this Department indicates that on November 17, 2006, in hillside, Illinois you were arrested for or formally charged with CHARGE 1- CONTEMPT OF COURT. "The information obtained by the Department does not contain the final disposition for this offense. The Department needs additional time to obtain information related to the disposition and is actively working to obtain this information"

1.)    That On Dec 4, 2023, 2023, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Default Judgment of $50 million dollars, February 9, 2024 properly served on all parties pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 11 and local rules

2.)    That Petitioner being represented by the States Attorney nor herself failed to file a response or objection. Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 191 and Rule 56, the factual allegations and statements in support of summary judgment were deemed admitted.

3.)    That Judge Michael Forti, presiding over this matter, subsequently recused himself on May 9, 2025 via Hearing where an affidavit was filed May 12, 2025 in the Clerk of Cook County verified said admissions.

4.)    That despite having recused himself, Judge Forti entered an order back dating to May 9, 2025 but entered May 12, 2025 and emailed to Respondent May 13, 2025 at 5:05am dismissing the Petitioner’s Motion, referring to it incorrectly as a “Petition,” and stating that the case is “off call.”

5.)    That it is well-settled law in Illinois that a judge who has recused themselves may no longer take judicial action in a matter. Any such action is beyond their authority and is void ab initio. See In re Marriage of Petersen, 319 Ill. App. 3d 325, 327 (1st Dist. 2001) (“A void order may be attacked at any time.”).

6.)    The judge’s action deprived said Respondent  of due process and constitutes a violation of judicial ethics under Canon 2, Rule 2.11 of the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct.

7.)    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, most importantly to further amplify said veracity the Chief Judge Timothy Calvin Evans whom Judge Forti is subordinate to and laws of the Appellate Court and Supreme Court rules have  vexatiously with “Damnosis” Contempt issued rulings of Bias, Hatred and in a Terrorist manner which is systematic to all Civil Rights Violations, by unlawfully Dismissing a legal Default trying to “FIX” said case in an attempt to save his kind of people caught up in this matter.

 

8.)    INDUCING RELIANCE

To prevail in a cause of action for fraud, plaintiff must prove that defendant made statement of material nature which was relied on by victim and was made for purposes of inducing reliance, and that victim’s reliance led to his injury. Parsons V. Winter, 1986, 1 Dist., 491 N.E. 2d 1236, 96 ILL Dec. 776, 142 ILL App 3d 354, Appeal Denied.

     In Carter V. Mueller 457 N.E. 2d 1335 ILL. App. 1 Dist. 1983 The Supreme Court has held that: “The elements of a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation (sometimes referred to as “fraud and deceit” or deceit) are: (1) False statement of material fact; (2) known or believed to be false by the party making it; (3) intent to induce the other party to act; (4) action by the other party in reliance on the truth of the statement; and (5) damage to the other party resulting from such reliance.

                         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 Fraud

9.)     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 5^TH 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.

10.)           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 (November 4, 2021) 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. 

A-   Fraudulent Allocation Court Order hereto attached, Ex A, How an Allocation should be presented Page 13 AGREED ALLOCATION OF PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND PARENTING PLAN Ex B

B-   Allocation Order violated Illinois: 750 ILCS 5/602.10 (Parenting Plan), Illinois Supreme Court Rule 924

C-   Drafting the Allocation Judgment

Typically, one attorney (often the petitioner’s) drafts the proposed judgment.

D-   Review and Agreement

                    Signature and Filing

E-   Once finalized:

a.       Both parties sign the judgment (or their attorneys if permitted).

b.      Attorneys sign to indicate approval as to form and substance.

F-    The final version is filed with the clerk of the court.

11.)      Respondent has exhausted over $50,000 for legal representation, not one motion was ever adjudicated hereto attached Partial Responses to Complaint to the ARDC #2023 IN02076

 A- The Attorney for the A.R.D.C. Michael Rusch in his Oct 2, 2023 reply Page 2 Par 1, Lines 2-4 Based on conversations with you, Beerman Law requested a full trial before the judge. The court denied that request et al.

 

B-   That Par 2, Line 3-5  “Regarding Beermann Law, you stated that Beermann Law failed to challenge the judge, demand a fair trial, or appeal the judge’s decision et al. further demonstrating the following:

A-   Public Corruption

B-   Abuse of Authority under color of law (18 U. S. C. 242)

C-   Bribery or honest services fraud (18 U.S.C. 1341, 1346, 666)

D-   Civil Rights violations

 

12.)          That because of the Unlawful Court Order Void in its entirety in reference to Par 11 A, Judge Forti has Induced Reliance on an INNOCENT RESPONDENT, predicated from a plethora of fraudulent court orders causing harm to her by illegally signing a COURT ORDER MAY 8, 2025 FOR AN INTERIM ORDER OF PROTECTION ET AL. THE COURT HEREBY FINDS A. SHEMICA HAS ABSCONDED, CONCEALED AND KIDNAPPED THE MINOR CHILD et al.    “RIDICULOUS SLANDER OF A JUDGE”

 

13.)          That a Rule to Show Cause for SHEMICA’S failure to pay CHILD REPRESENTATIVE FEES ET AL.

 

14.)          That #5 of the order states, “This matter is set for return on the Order of Protection for November 12, 2025 et al”. “LITIGIOUSLY PROLONGED SO MANY CAN PROFIT”

 

15.)          That Judge Forti further violated 18 U.S.C. 242 by authorizing the COOK COUNTY SHERIFFS TO SERVE THESE UNLAWFUL DOCUMENTS DUE TO HIS WRECKLESS DISREGARD FOR ANY LAWS.

 

16.)          JUDGE FORTI SIGNED A COURT ORDER MAY 9, 2025, ON A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE: COURT FINDS A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF INDIRECT CIVIL CONTEMPT….FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE CHILD REPRESENTATIVE’S RETAINER, CONTINUED TO AUG 25, 2025.

 

17.)           That on Monday May 19, 2025, Respondent’s daughter was removed from her custody in the State of Indiana where she fled for her safety and has NEVER BEEN UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF COOK COUNTY ONCE JUDGE DAVID E. HARACZ SIGNED THE VOID COURT ORDER OF NOV. 4, 2021.

 

18.)       That an email reply (May 19, 2025) from a retired attorney further articulating the corruption in Cook County Courts ignored, hereto attached, Ex 3 Page 2, Par 2 How does an ordinary citizen in Illinois obtain Justice? ---The answer is simple, he/she just does not.

A-   To further amplify the veracity of the aforementioned claim Judge Forti and other racist judges have used racial hate, Terrorism “Lynching tactics covering up sordid Civil Rights Violations (40 years) on a Paternity case knowing Respondent was framed and not only wasn’t his child but forcing him to pay for an incest matter of a biological Police officer impregnating his daughters, but because of his skin color and being a Heterosexual, they want the FBI and everyone to know that they can Criminalize any innocent person to achieve their satisfaction.

 

B-   That as if the aforementioned isn’t enough to make the average person puke trying to ascertain these demonic acts, Respondent Shemica Taylor a mother with no criminal record, no DCFS record of any sort and due to the alleged Homosexual/Bisexual and racial hatred of her being a loving Heterosexual mother has been criminalized and defamed entirely claiming she kidnapped her own biological child. “sic” “CASE PROLONGED NOW 5 YEARS” 

19.)      The message is clear to all RESPECTABLE MEN OR WOMEN regardless to your skin color, YOUR MOTHER, AUNT OR DAUGHTERS, GRANDMOTHERS ETC CAN BE RAPED ABUSED, EVICTED UNLAWFULLY OR GUARDIANS OF COOK COUNTY and be robbed and get a judge like Forti, Romanek, Derico etc. and the crimes of all perpetrators will be egregiously covered-up demonstrating no justice can ever be had in any COOK COUNTY COURTS.

 MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES #14219

SUBJECT:       DIRECTING THE REPEAL OF UNLAWFUL REGULATIONS

Promoting economic growth and American innovation are top priorities of this Administration.  Unlawful, unnecessary, and onerous regulations impede these objectives and impose massive costs on American consumers and American businesses.  In recent years, the Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions that recognize appropriate constitutional boundaries on the power of unelected bureaucrats and that restore checks on unlawful agency actions.  Yet, despite these critical course corrections, unlawful regulations — often promulgated in reliance on now-superseded Supreme Court decisions — remain on the books.

Consistent with these priorities and with my commitment to restore fidelity to the Constitution, on February 19, 2025, I issued Executive Order 14219 (Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative).  It directed the heads of all executive departments and agencies to identify certain categories of unlawful and potentially unlawful regulations within 60 days and begin plans to repeal them.  This review-and-repeal effort shall prioritize evaluating each existing regulation’s lawfulness under the following United States Supreme Court decisions:

A-   State Agencies and Judges have demonstrated anarchy and chaos in the courts needing Federal intervention because this is a 40 year (“Fixed Incest Paternity case) old case and judges and state agencies have demonstrated how they are able to violate and circumvent the laws of the US Constitution and still enforce Jim Crow Laws outlawed by the US Supreme Court.

20.)          THAT COOK COUNTY JUDGES DO NOT HONOR OR ABIDE BY ANY LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

A-    Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher, 197 Ill. 2d 514, 528 (2001) “Pro Se litigants are presumed to have full knowledge of applicable court rules and procedures”

B-    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)”. 

21.)      That because Judge Forti did not enter a court order into the record from the May 9, 2025, 9:00am Hearing, said State of Illinois Affidavit is being filed, Particularizing all events that transpired in that court corroborating “Fraud” and “Corruption”

22.)          That years ago a Judge of Jewish ethnicity and of impeccable integrity advised me to always obtain a court order from a judge anytime you appear before him and an Irish Judge Patrick McGann told me to never appear in any court on Hearsay information.   

A-   Case 88 D 079012 Aug 3, 1988 vacating wrong date of defective service of Feb 24, not Feb 23, 1988 caused the May 18, 1988 DEFAULT to stand never ordering child support, causing all court orders afterwards to be deemed Void/a Nullity. 

B-   Respondent served Courtesy Copy IV via email April 28, 2025, to Judge Forti and members of the Judiciary as well as the Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit, particularizing the racist hateful terrorist criminal acts of him and all of his kind has participated in and are guilty of.

C-   Because of Respondents skin color and not being intimidated or bullied by him or the state Judge Forti has recused himself from the matter when he never was supposed to be on the case in the first place entering any court orders.

                    A- Forti used City Hall, the States Attorney and State Agencies other judges to help Ken S. Ray, Asst States Atty as they committed Perjury aided and abetted with Francoise Hightower trying to help her EXTORT money from him illegally for child support of a child he was never the father and prevent his Reinstatement back to the CTA due to criminal conspiracies.

1.)    The Summary Judgment was filed Dec 4, 2023 and was ignored and thereby admitted too in its entirety Local Rule 56.1(a) provides that a motion for summary must include a "statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the moving party to a judgment as a matter of law."

            This statement of material facts "shall consist of short numbered paragraphs,    including within each paragraph specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon to support the facts set forth in that paragraph." Part (b) of Local Rule 56.1 requires a party opposing summary for judgment to file a concise response to the movant's statement of material facts. That statement is required to include a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement, including in the case of any disagreement, "specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon." 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).

2.)    That the Default was filed Feb. 9, 2024 and methodically particularized all documents filed with affidavits and never denied or objected to but the judges mistook him as being a pushover simply because of their alleged skin color or alleged homosexual fraternal liaisons.

In the matter of Raymond, 442 F. 3d at 606. (7^th Cir. 2013) )  The Court, nevertheless, is concerned and considers the prejudice to Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure, particularly because cases should be decided on their merits. Certainly, the failure to file a response to a summary judgment motion can be fatal. See, e.g., id at 611. 

23.)      The following events are transcribed from the Dec 13, 2024 where ASA Yolanda never provided a court order

24.)          Joe Louis Lawrence:  So I am. I’m respectfully objecting to the state being involved because judged when Eileen Burke was a judge, she was involved in this matter and denied..

25.)          Judge Forti:  And at the moment, Sir, Sir, this is falling. I’m telling you that you have filed a motion against a variety of parties, including the assistant state’s attorney. You got him. You filed a motion for default. Isn’t that, right?

26.)          Joe Louis Lawrence: That is correct. And I also filed a motion to go to a different venue

27.)          Judge Forti: I am letting him Miss Simmons know that you filed this motion for default. And I want to know what Miss Simmons’s position is now.

28.)          ASA:  At this time, I have received some emails on this case. From Scannicchio Clerk as well as from our own internal policies on how we handle with these cases. Your honor. I’m going to have to set this for brief continuance and get more clarification from my supervised attorney about how we handle these types of cases given the nature of what Mr. Lawrence has filed. So what date?

29.)          Judge Forti:  So what day?

30.)          ASA: I want to say this for January 30^th. I’m sorry. January 3^rd.

31.)          Judge Forti: is that work, Mr. Lawrence?

32.)          Joe Louis Lawrence: It’s fine.

33.)          ASA: Can you come back here at noon?

34.)          Joe Louis Lawrence:  Back to zoom?

35.)          ASA: Yes.

36.)          Joe Yes

37.)          Judge Forti: And the issue is where it where you’re get your getting Miss Simmons is seeking the continuance with respect to the fact that you re noticed your motion for default

38.)          Joe Louis Lawrence: And for the Cook County Judiciary to be recused as well.

39.)          Judge Forti: That I cannot do.

40.)          Joe Louis Lawrence: And we still have Maritza Martinez motion that have not been addressed that I paid to $75 for

41.)          Judge Forti: You need to go back to Miss Judge Martinez I can only handle because I have not recused myself and your effort to get me recused by virtue of the SOJ was denied. So I am. Keeping this case until at least we see what Miss Simmons says on the motion for default anything relating to Judge Romanek or Judge Martinez you have to raise in those courtrooms all right. So Miss Simmons, what do you have Mr. Lawrence’s contact information?

42.)      That ASA Yolanda Simmons never presented any documents impeaching the veracity of any Respondents pleadings but made irrelevant statements in the court and violated the sections of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 3.3…

. Enforcement of a Void Judgment

The May 8, 1996, court order, which has been used to enforce child support obligations against me and, is void ab initio due to the existence of an unvacated prior order dated May 18, 1988. The enforcement of a void judgment violates due process rights, that the original order (1988) superseded everything else.

• “A void judgment is one which, from its inception, is a complete nullity and without legal effect.”

— People v. Wade, 116 Ill. 2d 1, 506 N.E.2d 954 (1987)

• “A judgment is void if it violated due process.”

— Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938)

2. Falsification of Court Records

There is evidence suggesting that Assistant State’s Attorneys and others, along with CTA General Attorney, participated in altering official records to misrepresent Tycee’s age, thereby falsely establishing minor status to justify child support enforcement, The State’s Attorney and others are accused of backdating or altering a birthdate to make someone a minor again, likely to continue child support obligations past their lawful limit are egregious within the laws itself and demonstrates serious criminal allegations being covered up.

• “Fraud upon the court… vitiates the entire proceeding.”

— People v. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354, 192 N.E. 229 (1934)

• “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself.”

— Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985)

Such actions, not only undermine the judicial process but may also constitute criminal offenses under:

• 720 ILCS 5/17-3 – Forgery
• 720 ILCS 5/33-3 – Official Misconduct

3. 

Unlawful Arrest and Retaliation

In 1994, a former CTA attorney in the workman’s compensation division Judge (Ronald Bartkowicz) issued a warrant leading to my arrest and the removal of my CTA badge while I was handcuffed. This action appears to have been retaliatory, stemming from my prior complaints against systemic racism and injustice at the CTA for not receiving any workman’s compensation while off work injured on duty ( a drunk police officer totaled his van on my rear bumper while standing still at a CTA bus stop). Lockwood Chicago.

Police Officer levied a false allegation complaint where an Order of Protection was never served on me and had no knowledge of but was arrested and Remanded into custody.

• “A person has a constitutional right to be free from arrest unless probable cause exists.”

— Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)

• “Retaliation for the exercise of constitutional rights is actionable under § 1983.”

— Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977)

If the arrest was indeed retaliatory, it constitutes a violation of my First and Fourth Amendment rights.

4. 

Denial of Due Process

The persistent handling of my case by certain judges, despite evident conflicts of interest and potential biases, raises concerns about forum shopping and denial of a fair trial. The case is kept in front of certain judges to ensure a predetermined outcome due to racial bias or corruption

• “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.”

— In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955)

• “Due process of law requires that a party be accorded procedural fairness, i.e., given notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

— Fiallo v. Lee, No. 1-04-0440 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)

5. 

Improper Enforcement and Financial Extortion

The enforcement of the 1996 order, despite its void status, has led to unauthorized wage garnishments and financial penalties, effectively amounting to extortion under the guise of legal authority.

• “The knowing use of a void judgment as a basis for legal enforcement can constitute fraud.”

— People ex rel. Brzica v. Village of Lake Barrington, 268 Ill. App. 3d 420 (1994)

Such actions may also violate federal statutes, including:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1341 – Frauds and Swindles
• 18 U.S.C. § 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

6. 

Federal Implications and Need for Oversight

Given the involvement of public officials and potential systemic misconduct, this matter may fall under the purview of federal oversight agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice.

Based on the aforementioned, My Prayer for Relief respectfully requests:

1. Immediate suspension of all enforcement actions related to the May 8, 1996, order.
2. Transfer My Summary Judgment, Default Judgment & Motion to Recuse the Entire Cook County Judiciary and Appoint a Special Prosecutor et al. to Rolling Meadows Municipal District venue free of Bias.
3. Comprehensive investigation into the alleged misconduct by the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board and other appropriate bodies who have ignored all my complaints
4. Referral of this matter to federal authorities for potential civil rights violations.
5. Vacate all Court Orders that Judge Forti unlawfully signed having Respondent Shemica Taylor’s kidnapped daughter RETURNED BACK INTO HER CUSTODY INSTANTER.

Given the involvement of public officials and potential systemic misconduct, this matter may fall under the purview of federal oversight agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice.

 In addition to the above, My Prayer for Relief respectfully requests:

1. Immediate suspension of all enforcement actions related to the May 8, 1996, order.
2. Comprehensive investigation into the alleged misconduct by the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board and other appropriate bodies not addressing any of the issues.
3. Referral of this matter to federal authorities for potential civil rights violations.
4. Rule to Show Cause against all parties complicit in the Criminal Enterprise of Cook County with a Body Attachment Instanter.
5. Vacating all Court Orders in Re Shemica Taylor who have not seen or spoke to her daughter ever since she was kidnapped via Judge  Forti’s unlawful Order of Protection et al.

The actions described herein represent not only personal grievances but also potential systemic failures within our judicial system. Upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice requires that such allegations be thoroughly investigated and addressed.

1.)    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.          

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.  

43.)      Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case that clarified a previous case, Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978), and established that municipalities can be held liable even for a single decision that is improperly made, State Agency colluded with a plethora of other agencies violating the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 and Civil rights Act of 1866 and Mansell v Saunders (CA 5 F 1A) 372 F 2d.

 .