HOW THE CTA MANIPULATED THE JUDICIARY AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYEES WHO REFUSED TO FALSIFY HOW THEIR WORK-RELATED INJURIES WAS SUSTAINED.
ALLEGEDLY KENT STEPHEN RAY AND SO MANY OF HIS KIND WHO MAINTAINED EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CTA & STATES ATTORNEY TO DESTROY THE LIVES OF WHOMSOEVER HE DESIRES, THIS MAN USED HIS POSITION TO HARASS MY DAUGHTER AS A BABY AND IS STILL OBSTRUCTING MY SUCCESS BEING REINSTATED WITH HIS DIABOLICAL RACIST CONNECTIONS WORKING WITH HIS KIND IN THE STATES ATTORNEYS' OFFICE.
NOW ASK WHY WOULD A CTA CASE BE CONNECTED TO AN INCEST PATERNITY CASE?
THIS IS HOW INNOCENT BLACK OR BROWN MEN ARE CRIMINALIZED IN THIS CITY TO JUSTIFY UNLAWFUL LITIGATIONS OR MALISCIOUS PROSECUTIONS.
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
PETITION FOR PANEL
REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC
I.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner respectfully seeks panel
rehearing and rehearing en banc following the denial of emergency relief.
A-
Petitioner forwarded an email to the
judiciary April 3, 2026 at 8:30am particularizing the events that transpired
before Judge Silva she nor her clerk or any person in competent authority
responded.
B-
Petitioner called the Presiding
Judge’s office April 8, at 10:43am, 312 603-6300 2 mins 53 sec and spoke with a
clerk who directed him to forward an email to ccc.domrelcr1903@cookcountyil.gov and request a copy of the April 1st Court Order
because they are not showing any transfers in the system.
C- That
pursuant to Rule 60 (a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and
Omissions. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising
from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other
part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or
without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court
and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the
appellate court's leave.
(b) Grounds
for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just
terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2)
newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b) ;
(3)
fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party;
(4)
the judgment is void;
D- 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.
1.)
To show fraud
upon the court, the complaining party must establish that the alleged
misconduct affected the integrity of the judicial process, either because the
court itself was defrauded or because the misconduct was perpetrated by
officers of the court. Alexander v. Robertson;
2.)
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes,
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."
a. A
void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Kalb v. Feuerstein ..
This case presents extraordinary
and ongoing constitutional violations, including repeated deprivation of
liberty arising from a proceeding that is void for lack of jurisdiction,
maintained through procedural irregularities and unaddressed legal
admissions.
This Petition does not seek
review of a state-court judgment, but rather challenges independent and
ongoing unconstitutional conduct. The panel’s denial appears to rest on a
misapprehension of that distinction.
Because this case implicates fundamental
due process rights and the limits of federal jurisdiction, rehearing and En
Banc consideration are warranted.
II. STANDARD FOR
REHEARING
Panel rehearing is appropriate where
the Court has overlooked or misapprehended points of law or fact.
Rehearing En Banc is appropriate
where:
- The proceeding involves a question of exceptional
importance, or
- Necessary to maintain uniformity of the Court’s
decisions.
III.
BASIS FOR PANEL REHEARING
A.
The Petition Raises Independent
Constitutional Violations
The denial appears to rely on
jurisdictional limitations reflected in
Klein v. O’Brien.
However, the Petition does not seek
to overturn a state-court judgment. Instead, it challenges:
- Enforcement actions without any valid underlying
order,
- Proceedings conducted without service of process,
- Continued deprivation of liberty after exclusion
from paternity,
- Government action taken in disregard of binding
legal admissions.
The Supreme Court has made clear
that federal jurisdiction exists where a plaintiff asserts independent
constitutional claims, even if related to prior state proceedings. See
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp..
B.
The Panel Overlooked Critical
Jurisdictional Defects
The record reflects:
- The matter was dismissed in 1987,
- No valid support order exists,
- Petitioner was never properly served,
- Petitioner was excluded from paternity,
- Petitioner has been repeatedly remanded into custody,
- State records contain material inconsistencies,
including entries inconsistent with the age and status of the alleged
child.
A judgment entered without
jurisdiction or service of process is void and cannot support lawful
enforcement. See
Pennoyer v. Neff.
C.
The Panel Failed to Address Ongoing Deprivation of Liberty
This case does not involve a past
injury alone. It involves continuing enforcement actions, including the
threat of incarceration.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly
held that procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be
heard before deprivation of liberty. See
Mathews v. Eldridge.
Where custody is imposed without
jurisdiction or lawful process, the violation is ongoing and subject to federal
review.
IV.
BASIS FOR REHEARING EN BANC
A.
Exceptional Importance: Liberty Deprivation Without Jurisdiction
This case presents the extraordinary
circumstance of:
- Repeated custody,
- In the absence of a valid court order,
- Based on a proceeding lacking jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has emphasized
that due process protects against arbitrary governmental action affecting
liberty interests. See
County of Sacramento v. Lewis.
The issues presented here go to the core
of constitutional protections.
B.
Structural Irregularities Undermining Judicial Integrity
The record reflects:
- Recusal of multiple judges,
- Continued reassignment without resolution of
jurisdictional issues,
- Judges acting on void court orders acting as Private
Citizens not jurists.
- Failure to address dispositive motions and resulting
admissions,
- Proceedings continuing despite unresolved
jurisdictional defects.
Such circumstances raise serious
concerns regarding the integrity of the judicial process, warranting
review by the full Court.
C.
Clarification of Rooker–Feldman Boundaries
This case presents an opportunity to
clarify the distinction between:
- Impermissible review of state-court judgments, and
- Permissible challenges to void proceedings and
ongoing constitutional violations.
The Supreme Court has limited the
scope of jurisdictional bars to cases where a plaintiff complains of injuries caused
by a state-court judgment itself, not where the injury arises from
independent conduct. See
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp..
Clarification is necessary to ensure
consistent application of this principle.
V.
Wherefore Appellant Prays That:
This case involves ongoing
deprivation of liberty, absence of jurisdiction, and unaddressed constitutional
violations.
The Petition does not seek appellate
review of a state-court judgment, but relief from independent and continuing
unlawful conduct.
For the foregoing reasons,
Petitioner respectfully Prays that this Honorable Court:
- Grant panel rehearing;
- Alternatively, grant rehearing En Banc;
- Grant such further relief as justice requires.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Louis Lawrence
Petitioner-Appellant
PO Box 4353
Chicago, Il. 60680
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 April.9, 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 April 9,
2026 A Petition For Panel Rehearing 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 THE STATEMENT
OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
Petitioner submits the following
facts, which are supported by the record and not meaningfully disputed by the States
Attorney, Francoise or any judges in Cook County and is a victim of a
sophisticated Extortion Operation via Child Support Criminal Enterprise
A- The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the
Circuit Court of Cook County is a
criminal enterprise. U.S. v.
Murphy.
1.
Underlying Proceeding and Jurisdictional Defects
- The underlying matter arises from a paternity-related
proceeding initiated in Cook County, Illinois in the late 1980s.
- The matter was dismissed in 1987, and no valid
support order was entered thereafter.
- Petitioner was never properly served with process
in connection with any enforceable support obligation.
- Petitioner was subsequently excluded from paternity,
yet enforcement actions continued despite the absence of a lawful basis.
2.
State Agency
Enforcement Without a Valid Order
Monsell v Department of Social
Services This decision opened the courthouse doors for
ordinary citizens to hold local governments, not just individual officers,
accountable for systemic abuses of power.
- Despite the absence of a valid support order,
Petitioner has been subjected to repeated enforcement proceedings,
including remand into custody.
- These enforcement actions have occurred without
jurisdiction, and without any lawful underlying judgment capable of
enforcement.
Enforcement Without an Underlying
Order
- The record reflects ongoing enforcement actions,
including custody, purportedly based on a support obligation.
- However, the same record reflects:
- No valid support order entered,
- No proper service of process,
- A prior dismissal of the underlying case,
- A determination excluding Petitioner from paternity.
- These facts cannot be disputed:
Enforcement actions are proceeding in the absence of any lawful, enforceable order.
3.
Procedural Irregularities and Record Inconsistencies
- The record contains material inconsistencies,
including entries reflecting a minor child long after the individual
reached adulthood.
- Proceedings have continued based on records that do not
accurately reflect the procedural posture or legal status of the case.
4.
April 1, 2026 Proceedings and Absence of Transfer Order
- On April 1, 2026, during proceedings in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, the County judge stated on the record that
the matter had been transferred to the Presiding Judge for Cause,
to determine if she and judge Powers should be recused regarding the
Motion for Disqualification filed in November 2025.
- On April 8, 2026 at 10:43 a.m. Petitioner contacted
the Clerk in the Presiding judges office
- The Clerk of that office confirmed that no order
reflecting such transfer existed in the system.
- The Clerk directed Petitioner to email the judge’s
clerk to request the order of April 1st, because nothing indicating
that any formal orders had been entered or docketed.
Oral Judicial Directive Without
Entered Order
- The Court stated on the record that she was recusing
herself Jan. 14, 2026 and that an order would be emailed which never took
place and on April 1st Petitioner appeared before the same
judge under Disqualification and she repeated the same verbiage that, the
matter had been transferred to calendar 1 for Cause and that an order
would be email.
- However:
- No written order exists in the court system,
- No docket entry reflects the transfer,
- The Clerk of the Presiding Judges office has no record
of any court orders or transfers.
- These facts cannot be disputed:
A judicial transfer was announced, yet no corresponding order exists to give it legal effect.
5.
Failure to Rule on Dispositive Motions
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Entry of Default for
Failure to Appear and Failure to Plead, pending since January 14,
2026.
- Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion to Enter
Default Nunc Pro Tunc or, in the Alternative, for Immediate Ruling.
- No ruling has been issued on either motion.
- No opposition or responsive pleading has been filed.
- The motions remain pending without explanation.
6.
Judicial Conduct and Case Handling
- Multiple judges have recused themselves from the
matter.
- The case has been reassigned without resolving
jurisdictional defects.
- The currently assigned judge has:
- Has a Motion to Disqualify her and Judge Powers since
Nov. 10, 2025, she would verbally order Petitioner to appear before her
when the States Attorney was present judge Powers would order the Petitioner
not to appear before judge Silva by using her signature stamp to sign the
court order.
- Failed to rule on dispositive motions,
- Continued proceedings knowing that a valid
Disqualification Motion had been filed nullifying jurisdiction,
- Allowed the case to proceed without entered orders
supporting material actions.
- These actions have resulted in ongoing procedural
irregularity and prejudice to Petitioner.
7.
Legal Significance
- Petitioner has complied with applicable procedural
rules in filing dispositive motions and seeking rulings.
- Under
Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher, pro se litigants are presumed to follow and be knowledgeable of procedural requirements. - Despite such compliance, the absence of rulings and the
presence of unresolved jurisdictional defects have resulted in continued
exposure to unlawful enforcement.
CONCLUSION
The undisputed facts establish:
- Enforcement actions proceeding without a valid order;
- Judicial directives lacking corresponding entered
orders;
- Dispositive motions remaining unresolved without
justification;
- A record reflecting material inconsistencies and
procedural breakdown.
·
The
United States Supreme Court 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,
·
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.
These contradictions demonstrate a
proceeding that lacks a reliable jurisdictional foundation and presents ongoing
due process concerns.
Wherefore Appellant Prays That:
For the foregoing reasons,
Petitioner respectfully Prays that this Honorable Court:
- Grant the Statement of Undisputed Facts;
- Alternatively, grant rehearing En Banc; or Reconsider
the March 14, 2026 Court Order by Vacating it pursuant to Fed Rule 60.
- Grant such further relief as justice requires.
- Alternatively, Grant an Appointment of Counsel or legal
clinic due to most judges harboring a hate or bias against unlicensed
attorneys forced to litigate Pro se.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Louis Lawrence
Petitioner-Appellant
PO Box 4353
Chicago, Il. 60680
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 April.9, 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 April 9,
2026 A Motion for 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
