TRANSCRIPT HEARING OF JUDGE FORTI RECUSING HIMSELF (May 9, 2025) but had a court order emailed to me 5:05 Dismissing a Petition, but there was no Petition only a Motion for a Default and a Re Notice to Recuse the Cook County Judges, and Re Notice to Vacate Maritza Martinez March 27, 2024, court order.
Respondent Joe Louis Lawrence: The default, your honor, this is what this matter is about, your honor. A re notice for the default and a re notice to recuse the entire Cook County Judiciary.
Judge Forti and that , you know what, Sir I’m going to recuse myself like others but I’m going to apprise Judge Scannicchio of this, because you cannot recuse the entire. Domestic relations division.
Respondent Joe Louis Lawrence: Your honor This is a 40 year old case…..
Judge Forti: That’s all I’m saying at this point. Because I’m going to recuse myself and I don’t have the time today to go into this. So this may be something, Mr. Lawrence that ultimately, as I said, I’m going to bring it up with Judge Scannicchio, so Ms. Simmons, this is off my call right now.
ASA Yolanda Simmons: All right will do your honor.
Judge Forti Sorry, Mr. Lawrence. What else is up?
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
ILLINOIS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
IN RE
)
)
Francoise
Hightower ) Judge Michael A. Forti
Petitioner )
) Cal 61
VS )
) No. 88 D 079012
Joe Louis
Lawrence )
Respondent ) Room 3004
NOTICE
OF JUDGE FORTI HAVING A HEARING MAY 9, 2025 ON THE 11:00AM CALL, (STATE OF
ILLINOIS AFFIDAVIT PROPERLY NOTARIZED) AS ASA YOLANDA SIMMONS NEVER PRODUCED A
COURT ORDER 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.
1.)
President Trump issued a Memorandum April
9, 2025
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, in
particular, 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.
2.)
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)”.
3.)
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”
4.)
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 24, 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 he has recused himself from the matter when he
never was supposed to be on the case in the first place.
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. (7th 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.
5.) The following events are transcribed from the Dec 13, 2024 where
ASA Yolanda never provided a court order
6.) 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..
7.) 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?
8.) Joe Louis Lawrence: That is correct. And I also filed a motion to go to a
different venue
9.) 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.
10.)
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?
11.)
Judge Forti: So
what day?
12.)
ASA: I want to say this
for January 30th. I’m sorry.
January 3rd.
13.)
Judge Forti: is that work, Mr.
Lawrence?
14.)
Joe Louis Lawrence: It’s fine.
15.)
ASA: Can you come back
here at noon?
16.)
Joe Louis Lawrence: Back
to zoom?
17.)
ASA: Yes.
18.)
Joe Yes
19.)
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
20.)
Joe Louis Lawrence: And
for the Cook County Judiciary to be recused as well.
21.)
Judge Forti: That I cannot do.
22.)
Joe Louis Lawrence: And we still have
Maritza Martinez motion that have not been addressed that I paid to $75 for
23.)
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?
24.) 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 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
paying any workman’s compensation while off work injured on duty ( a drunk
police officer totaled his van on my rear bumper while standing still on a CTA
bus)
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:
- Immediate suspension of all enforcement
actions related to the May 8, 1996, order.
- Transfer My Summary Judgment,
Default Judgment & Motion to Recuse the Entire Cook County Judiciary
and Appoint a Special Prosecutor et al. to another venue free of Bias.
- Comprehensive investigation
into the alleged misconduct by the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board and
other appropriate bodies who have ignored all my complaints
- Referral of this matter to
federal authorities for potential civil rights violations.
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:
- Immediate suspension of all
enforcement actions related to the May 8, 1996, order.
- Comprehensive investigation
into the alleged misconduct by the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board and
other appropriate bodies.
- Referral of this matter to
federal authorities for potential civil rights violations.
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.
25.) 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.
Clerk
Coordinator Ebony:
8:55am: I need everyone good morning. Come on good morning, good morning, Emily
and good morning. Good morning, OK. I have a few announcements to make. The
first announcement is, if you are here for a state case or child support case,
where they told you to come on the call at 9:O5 your court call really starts
at 11:00 AM. So you can come back when the states attorneys are here at 11:00
AM to have your case heard. OK, so if you’re here on child support, any child
support expense related issue, or if the state’s attorney told you to come at
9O5 to check in, come. Back at 11:00 AM when the state’s attorney arrives to
have your case heard. But you guys are free to log off. Same information same
everything, Meeting ID password, just at 11:00 AM. Thank you all so much. Thank
you. No problem. Thank you. No problem. See you at 11. Thank you
ASA
Yolanda Simmons: Good
afternoon. This is assistant state attorney Yolanda Simmons. This is the child
support call for calendar 61. Judge Forti. I will call your name as I see it
listed on the screen. I will ask for a phone number to contact you at and I
will call you to have a conference with your case. Okay, alright. Umm, Mr.
Lawrence, please unmute yourself, Give me a number. I can reach you at.
31296565 31296564554 5
Respondent
Joe Louis Lawrence:
Yep.
ASA
Yolanda Simmons: Alright.
Thank you.
Judge
Forti: Ebony are you
there?
Clerk
Coordinator Eboni:
Yes judge, I am here are you ready to go to the last breakout room?
Judge
Forti: Yes. And let
me just while I peer momentarily, folks, are you all here on Carrera?
Fernandez,
Judge
Forti: I’m finishing
up a prove up, and then I’ll be able to deal with you all. I see Mr. Wasco is
here. Are the other parties here on Fernandez?
Attorney
Bridget Obyrne: Good
morning, your honor. I’m here on behalf of Efrain. I’m waiting for a partner in
my firm. And then I think we are waiting for Peter Olson on behalf of the other
party.
Judge
Forti All right,
ebony, when everyone is here for the 12:00 o’clock if you could put them in
another breakout room, because I think Yolanda will still have the main room.
Ebony: OK, awesome. No problem.
Judge
forti: So you’re
putting me into number three? Well, as the court reporter, and I believe Miss
Lillian is free to go. Isn’t she? Don’t we need to? We don’t need her for
number three.
Ebony: No, I already explained to them.
No, I already explained to room 4 what they needed to do. So they’re good to
go.
Judge Forti: what’s next Yolanda?
ASA
Yolanda Simmons: Alright,
Thank you. OK, you have, we have Mr. Lawrence, your honor. This is Lawrence
versus Hightower. Now, this is a old case
Judge
Forti: Now we had
this case for many, many times.
ASA
Yolanda Simmons:
Yes. Now your honor, Mr. Lawrence’s initial pleading was on the state provided
case. He was trying to zero out the arrears. And that motion was ultimately
denied. And that resulted in Mr. Lawrence filing motions trying to have
yourself and other judges removed for prejudice and other issues. Your honor.
And that’s why I’m here today. So technically his motions are here before the
court currently before the court on non-State
issues, but they originated from a state case.
Respondent
Joe Louis Lawrence: But
I think the….
Judge
Forti: Mr. Lawrence
you’ve got dates separate in a part from this. Your SOJ’s have not been looked
upon favorably. So I’m not sure what’s up to day. Miss Simmons, I don’t want to
hear anything other than a state matter today.
Respondent
Joe Louis Lawrence: The
default, your honor, this is what this matter is about, your honor. A re notice
for the default and a re notice to recuse the entire Cook County Judiciary.
Judge
Forti and that , you
know what, Sir I’m going to recuse myself like others but I’m going to apprise
Judge Scannicchio of this, because you cannot recuse the entire. Domestic
relations division.
Respondent
Joe Louis Lawrence:
Your honor This is a 40 year old case…..
Judge Forti: That’s all I’m saying at this
point. Because I’m going to recuse myself and I don’t have the time today to go
into this. So this may be something, Mr. Lawrence that ultimately, as I said, I’m
going to bring it up with Judge Scannicchio, so Ms. Simmons, this is off my
call right now.
ASA
Yolanda Simmons: All
right will do your honor.
Judge
Forti Sorry, Mr.
Lawrence. What else is up?
Finished at
12:36pm
Certain Judges
in Cook County are preferring Zoom and Break out rooms to conceal their corrupt
activities “FIXING” cases in Cook County.
Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-612 Counsel never
Objected to the sufficiency of Petitioners pleadings, Objections to sufficiency
of pleadings either in form or substance must be made In trial court, and if
not so made, they will be considered waived and cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal. People ex rel. Deynes v. Harris, App. 1948, 77 N.E.
2d 439, 333 Ill. App. 280.
This case is
originally over Sept. 17, 1987 by former States Attorney Richard J. Daley, the
only Irish person who followed the laws and respected the Respondent and his
Attorney Robert A. Egan but was illegally bought back without Respondents
knowledge and was Defaulted May 18, 1988 and never vacated, but this has been
admitted to via Summary Judgment and is being ignored as so many are trying to
continuously cover this matter up.
AFFIDAVIT
I Joe Louis Lawrence, Counsel Pro Se being duly sworn on oath
states the aforementioned pleadings enumerated within said motion pursuant to
735 1265 5/1-109, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in
this instrument are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated
to be on information and belief and as to such matters, the undersigned
certifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.
Respectfully
Submitted
Notary
____________________
Joe Louis Lawrence
Counsel Pro Se
I Joe Louis Lawrence, Counsel Pro Se Defendant,
certify that I have on this day deposited said Notice of Judge Forti having a
Hearing May 9, 2025, 9:00 and 11:00 am call to all parties recorded in said
Notice via regular/electronic delivery.
Hon Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit
Governor JB Pritzker gov.casework@illinois.gov
To: Hon Michael A. Forti
CCC.DomRelCR3004@cookcountyil.gov
Hon. Iris Y. Chavira CCC.DomRelCRCL12@cookcountyil.gov
Hon. Andrea Webber CCC.DomRelCRCL06@cookcountyil.gov
Hon Maritza Martinez CCC.DomRelCR3006@cookcountyil.gov
Hon Abbey
Romanek CCC.DomRelCR3008@cookcountyil.gov
sao.csed@cookcountyil.gov Yolanda.simmons@cookcountysao.org
Cook County State’s Attorney Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans
Eilene
O’Neil Burke timothy.evans@cookcountyil.gov
statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov
Cook County Sheriff’s
Tom Dart
email CCSO@ccsheriff.org
The Crusader Newspaper Group
Managing Editor Sharon Fountain
State Police isp.contact@illinois.gov
Illinois State Police
Chicago Police Superintendent, 3510 S. Michigan Ave,
Chicago Ill. 60653
Email CLEARPATH@chicagopolice.org
Dir. FBI,
Hon
Mayor Brandon
Special Agent in
Charge (FBI) City Hall 7th floor
Chicago, IL. 60601
2111 West Roosevelt Road
Chicago, Il 60608
Illinois
Courts Commission
555 West
Monroe, 15th floor
Chicago Ill.
60661
info@IllinoisCourtsCommission.gov
Illinois Court
Commission Members
Justice P.
Scott Neville, Jr. Chairman
Justice Thomas
M. Harris
Justice
Margaret Stanton McBride
Judge Lewis
Nixon
Judge Sheldon
Sobol
Judge Aurora
Abella-Austriaco
Madam Paula
Wolf
Potestivo & Ass., PC
Bryan G. Thompson, Poulami Mal pmal@potestivolaw.com
press@cookcountyil.gov bthompson@potestivolaw.com
ilrb.filing@illinois.gov,
alexandrina.shrove@ilag.gov,
oig.referrals@illinois.gov
rwillis@laboradvocates.com,
jodi.mar@illinois.gov,
helen.j.kim@illinois.gov,
lashonda.channel@illinois.gov,
brianna.klein@illinois.gov,
kimberly.stevens@illinois.gov,
anna.hamburg-gal@illinois.gov,
khill@atu241chicago.org,
frogishtwo65@gmail.com,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby
certifies that the above notice and all attachments were caused to be emailed
to the above parties at the addresses provided before 5:00 pm on May 12, 2025 .
________________________
Respectfully Submitted,
Counsel Pro Se
Joe Louis Lawrenc
