VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., REFUSED TO DELETE A FRAUDULENT REMARK ON MY CREDIT REPORT AND HAS BEEN VERY ARROGANT ABOUT THE UNLAWFUL ENTRY, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, ILLINOIS HAS WITHDRAWN/REVOKED THEIR BUSINESS LICENSE NOV 1, 2000.
FILE #60809879
THE CORPORATION IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION THAT HAS TRANSACTED BUSINESS IN ILLINOIS WITHOUT PROCURING AUTHORITY, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT OF 1983.
EQUIFAX, EXPERIAN AND TRANSUNION ARE APART OF THE FEDERAL LAWSUIT WITH VERIZON
THE FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERED THE CREDIT BUREAUS TO FILE THEIR JOINT STATUS REPORTS BY 12/29/2025 NO ATTORNEY COMPLIED WITH THAT COURT EXCEPT FOR ME
A- PLAINTIFF FILED HIS STATUS REPORT ON VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC DEC 10, 2025, AND HIS INITIAL JOINT STATUS REPORT ON THE CREDIT BUREAUS DEC 12, 2025.
B- PLAINTIFF FILED HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JAN 5, 2026, DUE TO THE CREDIT BUREAUS FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE DEC 29, 2025, COURT ORDER, THE JUDGE NEVER RULED ON THE MOTION TO THIS DATE.
C- PLAINTIFF FILED HIS DEFAULT AGAINST VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. JAN 7, 2026, JUDGE BLAKEY DENIED THE DEFAULT UNLAWFULLY.
D- JUDGE BLAKEY RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM VERIZON'S ATTORNEY JAN 2, 2026, WHILE THE BUILDING WAS CLOSED FOR THE HOLIDAYS AND THE ATTORNEY FILED A DOCUMENT THAT STATED "(MOTION by Defendant Verizon Communications Inc. for leave to file Verizon Wireless Service, LLC's Motion for Leave to File Answer Out of Time (Kelly, Matthew)"
E- JUDGE BLAKEY IMMEDIATELY HONORED AND GRANTED HIS MOTION ON JAN 6, 2026, AND ON THE SAME JAN 6, MATTHEW KELLY FILED HIS ANSWER AND IN THAT ORDER THE JUDGE GAVE ALL OF THE CAUCASIAN ATTORNEYS ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND.
VERIZON HAS ENOUGH MONEY TO ALLEGEDLY PAY OFF ALL SORTS OF FAVORS AT THE EXPENSE OF COLORED AND BLACK PATRONAGE BUT CAN NOT SIMPLY REMOVE NEGATIVE UNWARRANTED REMARKS ON YOUR CREDIT FILE ALONG WITH THE CREDIT BUREAUS.
IN A NUTSHELL THIS IS WHAT IS GOING ON IN FEDERAL COURT IN ILLINOIS NOW BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS.
THE ATTORNEYS ARE SHOWING THE JUDGES IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT IN THE COURTS AND UPHOLD ALL RACIST AND CORRUPT ACTIONS OF THEIR CLIENTS OR COURTS; AFTERALL WHO IS GOING TO STOP THEM?
Ethics
All Illinois lawyers must be familiar with the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, and trail lawyers must be particularly familiar with the rules that apply specially to them.
RPC 3.3, entitled “Conduct Before a Tribunal,” sets forth the standards to be followed by the trial lawyer during “battle.” Section (a) of that rule states:
(a) In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not:
(1) make a statement of material fact or law to a tribunal which the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is false;
(2) fail to disclose to a tribunal a material fact known to the lawyer when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel;
(4) Offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures;
(5) participate in the creation or preservation of evidence when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know the evidence is false ;
(6) counsel or assist the client in conduct the lawyer knows to be illegal of fraudulent;
(7) engage in other illegal conduct or conduct in violation of these Rules;
(8) fail to disclose the identities of the clients represented and of the persons who employed the lawyer unless such information is privileged or irrelevant;
(9) intentionally degrade a witness or other person by stating or alluding to personal facts concerning that person which are not relevant to the case;
(10) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of and accused, but a lawyer may argue, on analysis of evidence, for any position or conclusion with respect to the matter stated herein;
MOTION TO STRIKE APPELLEES’ JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSE FOR MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REQUIRE A CORRECTED RESPONSE
MOTION OF MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS AND PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES AFFECTING JURISDICTION & IMPOSE SANCTIONS
Not at any time in any of the Appellees Responses did they DENY or OBJECT to the APPELLANT being a victim to DOMESTIC TERRORISM well particularized in the Jurisdictional Memorandum. UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
Joe Louis Lawrence }
Appeal from the United
} States District Court for
} the
Northern District of
Plaintiff –Appellant }
Illinois, Eastern Division
V
}
}
No. 26-1226
}
Verizon Communications, Inc et al. }
Defendants-Appellants } Judge Robert Blakey
MOTION
TO STRIKE APPELLEES’ JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSE FOR MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION OR,
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REQUIRE A CORRECTED RESPONSE
Appellant respectfully moves this
Court to strike the Appellees’ response to the Court’s jurisdictional order or,
in the alternative, to require the filing of a corrected response that
accurately reflects the procedural history of the underlying district court
proceedings.
This motion is made to ensure that
the Court’s jurisdictional determination is based on a complete and accurate
record.
I.
Background
On January 2, 2026, (A Certified Holiday Building Closed) Appellees
filed a motion in the district court seeking leave to file an answer after the
expiration of the deadline for responsive pleadings.
At the time of that filing,
Appellees were already out of time and had not filed a timely answer or
responsive pleading.
Critically, Appellant did not
receive proper notice or service of that motion.
On January 6, 2026, the district court entered an order granting Appellees
leave to file their answer. The order appears on a separate docket entry and
was entered without Appellant having notice of the motion or the opportunity to
oppose the requested relief.
Because Appellant was not served
with the motion, Appellant did not participate in the proceedings that resulted
in the order granting Appellees leave to file an untimely answer.
II.
Appellees’ Jurisdictional Response Omits Material Procedural Facts
In responding to this Court’s
jurisdictional order, Appellees reference the January 2, 2026 motion and the
January 6, 2026 order granting leave to file an answer.
However, the response omits the
critical fact that Appellant was not properly served with the motion and
therefore had no opportunity to respond before the district court granted the
requested relief.
These omissions create an incomplete
description of the procedural posture of the case and materially affect the
Court’s ability to assess the jurisdictional issues presently before it.
Attorneys appearing before federal
courts are obligated to maintain candor toward the tribunal and must not omit
material facts necessary to prevent a submission from being misleading. See American
Bar Association Model Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal).
III.
The Omission Impairs the Court’s Jurisdictional Analysis
The procedural irregularities
surrounding the January 2, 2026 motion and the January 6, 2026 order are
directly relevant to the Court’s jurisdictional inquiry.
Appellant’s petition invokes the
Court’s authority under the All Writs Act, which permits appellate
courts to issue writs necessary to protect the integrity of judicial
proceedings.
When a district court grants relief
without notice to an opposing party, the resulting procedural posture may
justify extraordinary appellate intervention.
Because Appellees’ response omits
these material facts, the Court’s jurisdictional review risks being based on an
incomplete understanding of the underlying record.
IV.
Authority to Strike or Require Correction
Federal appellate courts possess
inherent authority to strike filings that contain material misstatements or
that fail to provide a complete and accurate description of the record.
Alternatively, courts may require
the filing party to submit a corrected response that fully and accurately
reflects the procedural posture of the case.
Ensuring the accuracy of filings is
particularly important when the Court has specifically ordered the parties to
address jurisdictional questions.
V.
Wherefore
Appellant Prays That:
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant
respectfully requests that the Court:
- Strike Appellees’ jurisdictional response; or
- In the alternative, order Appellees to file a corrected
jurisdictional response that accurately discloses the procedural
circumstances surrounding the January 2, 2026 motion and the January 6,
2026 order.
Appellant further requests any
additional relief the Court deems appropriate to ensure that the jurisdictional
determination is based upon a complete and accurate record
The Court’s jurisdictional
determination should rest upon a fully accurate account of the procedural
history of the case. Because Appellees’ response omits material facts relating
to notice and service of the motion that resulted in the January 6, 2026 order,
corrective action by the Court is warranted.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Louis Lawrence
Appellant-Plaintiff
PO Box 4353
Chicago, Il. 60680
Joelouis565@yahoo.com
IN THE
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
Joe Louis
Lawrence
}
Appeal from the United
}
States District Court for
} the
Northern District of
Plaintiff –Appellant }
Illinois, Eastern Division
V
}
}
No. 26-1226
}
Verizon Communications, Inc et al. }
Defendants-Appellants } Judge Robert Blakey
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I Joe Louis Lawrence certify that on March.16, 2026 I have
caused proper service to be had on the Defendant’s counsels and noted parties
in the Certificate of Service via electronic/email delivery.
To
Camille
R. Nicodemus, Esq. (IL #2452849)
Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett &
Moser, P.C.
10333 North Meridian Street, Suite 200
Indianapolis, IN 46290
Telephone:
(317) 497-5600, Ext. 601
Fax:
(317) 899-9348
E-Mail:
cnicodemus@qslwm.com
Hope Blankenberger
Counsel for Defendant Trans Union LLC
POLSINELLI PC
By: /s/ Rodney L. Lewis
Rodney L. Lewis
Kevin M. Hogan
Polsinelli PC
150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 3000
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Tel. (312) 819-1900
Fax (312) 819-1910
rodneylewis@polsinelli.com
kmhogan@polsinelli.com
Attorneys for Defendant Equifax
Information Services, LLC
/s/
Stephen D. Lozier
Stephen D. Lozier
Louis J. Manetti, Jr.
Troutman Pepper Locke LLP
111 S. Wacker Dr, Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: (312) 759-3203
stephen.lozier@troutman.com
louis.manetti@troutman.com
Attorneys for Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc
Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, LTD
233 S Wacker Dr. Suite 5500 Chicago, Illinois
60606
Matthew D. Kelly mkelly@msm.com
Attorneys for Verizon Communications, Inc.
Chief
Judge Charles Beach U.S.
Attorney Andrew S. Boutras
ocj.chief@cookcountyil.gov 219 S. Dearborn, Street 5th
floor
Dir.
FBI,
Hon Mayor
Brandon
Special Agent in Charge (FBI) City
Hall 7th floor
Chicago,
IL. 60601
2111
West Roosevelt Road
Chicago, Il 60608
Cook County Clerk, Mariyana Spyropoulos
CCCWebsite@cookcountycourt.com
Attorney General Cook County
States Attorney
Kwame Raoul alexandrina.shrove@ilag.gov Eilene O’Neil
Burke
555 West Monroe Suite
1300 statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov
Chicago, Ill. 60601
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on Feb. 12,
2026 A Motion to Strike Appellees Jurisdictional Response et al. has been filed
in the Seventh Circuit
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Louis Lawrence
Plaintiff, Pro Se
PO Box 4353
Chicago, Illinois 60680
312 965-6455
joelouis565@yahoo.com
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
Joe Louis Lawrence } Appeal from the United
} States
District Court for
} the Northern District of
Plaintiff –Appellant }
Illinois, Eastern Division
V
}
}
No. 26-1226
}
Verizon Communications, Inc et al. }
Defendants-Appellants } Judge Robert Blakey
MOTION OF MATERIAL
MISREPRESENTATIONS AND PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES AFFECTING JURISDICTION &
IMPOSE SANCTIONS
Appellant respectfully submits this
Notice to ensure that the Court has a complete and accurate understanding of
the procedural posture of the underlying proceedings and the jurisdictional
issues presently before the Court.
This Motion is filed in response to
the Appellees’ submission addressing the Court’s jurisdictional inquiry and in
order to clarify material procedural facts omitted from that response that bear
directly on the jurisdictional analysis.
I.
Material Procedural Background
On January 2, 2026, Appellees
filed a motion in the district court seeking leave to file an answer after the
expiration of the applicable deadline. At that time, the Appellees were already
out of time to respond and had not filed a timely answer or responsive
pleading.
Critically, Appellant was not
properly notified of this motion. The record reflects that the motion was filed
and later granted without proper service or notice to Appellant, thereby
depriving Appellant of the opportunity to respond or oppose the requested
relief.
On January 6, 2026, the district
court entered an order granting Appellees leave to file their answer. The order
appears on a separate docket entry that did not provide effective notice to
Appellant.
Because Appellant had no notice of
the motion or the resulting order, Appellant was unable to participate in the
proceedings that resulted in the district court’s ruling.
II.
Failure to Disclose Material Procedural Defects
In their response to this Court’s
jurisdictional order, Appellees reference the January 2, 2026 filing and the
district court’s January 6, 2026 order granting leave to file an answer.
However, Appellees’ response does
not disclose the critical procedural circumstance that Appellant was not
properly served with the motion and had no opportunity to respond before the
district court granted the requested relief.
Attorneys practicing before federal
courts have a duty of candor toward the tribunal, including the obligation not
to omit material facts necessary for the Court to accurately evaluate the
procedural posture of a case. See American Bar Association Model Rule 3.3
(Candor Toward the Tribunal).
The omission of these material facts
affects the Court’s understanding of the procedural record and the fairness of
the underlying proceedings.
III.
Due Process and Service Concerns
The Federal Rules require that
motions and related filings be served upon all parties. See Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 5.
Where a motion is granted without
proper notice to the opposing party, the resulting order raises serious
concerns regarding procedural fairness and the integrity of the adversarial
process.
Because Appellant did not receive
proper notice of the motion seeking leave to file an untimely answer, the order
granting that relief was entered without the benefit of adversarial briefing or
opposition.
IV.
Relevance to the Court’s Jurisdictional Inquiry
These procedural irregularities are
directly relevant to the Court’s jurisdictional inquiry and to Appellant’s
request for extraordinary relief.
Appellant’s petition invokes the
Court’s authority under the All Writs Act, which permits appellate
courts to issue writs necessary to protect the integrity of judicial
proceedings and to correct actions taken without lawful procedural foundation.
The procedural circumstances
described above form part of the basis for Appellant’s position that
extraordinary review is appropriate notwithstanding the absence of a
conventional final judgment.
V.
Request for Judicial Notice
Appellant respectfully requests that
the Court take judicial notice of the relevant docket entries and procedural
history pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, which permits courts
to recognize facts that can be accurately determined from sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, including court records.
Wherefore Appellant Prays That:
Appellant provides this Motion
solely to ensure that the Court has a complete and accurate understanding of
the procedural record relevant to its jurisdictional determination.
Appellant respectfully requests that
the Court consider these procedural circumstances when evaluating the
jurisdictional issues presently before the Court and the pending request for
extraordinary relief.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Louis Lawrence
Appellant-Plaintiff
PO Box 4353
Chicago, Il. 60680
Joelouis565@yahoo.com
IN THE
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
Joe Louis
Lawrence
} Appeal from the United
}
States District Court for
} the Northern District of
Plaintiff –Appellant }
Illinois, Eastern Division
V
}
}
No. 26-1226
}
Verizon Communications, Inc et al. }
Defendants-Appellants } Judge Robert Blakey
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I Joe Louis Lawrence certify that on March.16, 2026 I have
caused proper service to be had on the Defendant’s counsels and noted parties
in the Certificate of Service via electronic/email delivery.
To
Camille
R. Nicodemus, Esq. (IL #2452849)
Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett &
Moser, P.C.
10333 North Meridian Street, Suite 200
Indianapolis, IN 46290
Telephone:
(317) 497-5600, Ext. 601
Fax:
(317) 899-9348
E-Mail:
cnicodemus@qslwm.com
Hope Blankenberger
Counsel for Defendant Trans Union LLC
POLSINELLI PC
By: /s/ Rodney L. Lewis
Rodney L. Lewis
Kevin M. Hogan
Polsinelli PC
150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 3000
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Tel. (312) 819-1900
Fax (312) 819-1910
rodneylewis@polsinelli.com
kmhogan@polsinelli.com
Attorneys for Defendant Equifax
Information Services, LLC
/s/
Stephen D. Lozier
Stephen D. Lozier
Louis J. Manetti, Jr.
Troutman Pepper Locke LLP
111 S. Wacker Dr, Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: (312) 759-3203
stephen.lozier@troutman.com
louis.manetti@troutman.com
Attorneys for Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc
Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, LTD
233 S Wacker Dr. Suite 5500 Chicago, Illinois
60606
Matthew D. Kelly mkelly@msm.com
Attorneys for Verizon Communications, Inc.
Chief
Judge Charles Beach U.S.
Attorney Andrew S. Boutras
ocj.chief@cookcountyil.gov 219 S. Dearborn, Street 5th
floor
Dir.
FBI,
Hon Mayor
Brandon
Special Agent in Charge (FBI) City
Hall 7th floor
Chicago,
IL. 60601
2111
West Roosevelt Road
Chicago, Il 60608
Cook County Clerk, Mariyana Spyropoulos
CCCWebsite@cookcountycourt.com
Attorney General Cook County
States Attorney
Kwame Raoul alexandrina.shrove@ilag.gov Eilene O’Neil
Burke
555 West Monroe Suite
1300 statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov
Chicago, Ill. 60601
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on Feb. 12,
2026 A Motion of Material Misrepresentation et al. has been filed in the
Seventh Circuit
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Louis Lawrence
Plaintiff, Pro Se
PO Box 4353
Chicago, Illinois 60680
312
965-6455
joelouis565@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment