Re: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE

More | Report Post

The court system is so corrupt.

On 6/11/03, diverdan wrote:
> PETITION FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE
> FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(3)
> o the Honorable Timothy Evans, Presiding Judge of the
> Domestic Relations
> Division, Circuit Court of Cook County
>
> The above named Respondent, EUGENE ALPERN, herein the
> Petitioner, petitions
> for a change of judge for cause as provided for by 735 ILCS
> 5/2-1001(a)(3).
>
> 1. Petitioner is the respondent in the above titled case.
>
> 2. The Petitioner fears and believes that he will not
> receive a fair and
> impartial hearing and determination of any and all matters
> concerning the
> above cause in court if the cause is heard and determined
> by the Honorable
> Veronica B. Mathein, one of the judges of this court,
> because of her
> violations for the willful misconduct while in office, for
> her persistent
> failure to perform her duties, for her conduct that is
> prejudicial to the
> administration of justice and which brings the Illinois
> judiciary into
> disrepute, for her engaging in unlawful and criminal acts,
> and for her
> engaging in acts in violation of federal law.
> 3. Petitioner states that this belief is founded upon the
> following facts:
> CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
>
> According to the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct:
>
> Rule 62(A). 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.
>
> Rule 63(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities
> A judge does not have any discretion, but a duty, to know
> the law and to
> comply with the law, when the law has been ruled upon by a
> higher court.
> People v. Gersch, 135 Ill.2d 384, 553 N.E.2d 281 (1990);
> Agricultural
> Transp. Ass'n. v. Carpentier, 2 Ill.2d 19, 116 N.E.2d 863
> (1963). Any act
> contrary to the above would be an action without lawful
> authority, a
> violation of the Constitution and of the judge's oath. A
> judge has no
> discretion to engage in a war against the Constitution.
> Cooper v. Aaron,
> 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). The judge would be acting
> without
> subject-matter jurisdiction, and as stated below, would be
> engaged in an
> act of treason.
> A judge does not have discretion on whether to follow
> Supreme Court Rules
> ("SCR"); a judge has a duty to follow SCR. People v. Gersh,
> 135 Ill.2d 384
> (1990). Apparently Judge Mathein has no respect for judges
> of higher
> courts; she prefers to rule by the rule of man/woman,
> rather than the rule
> of law.
>
> If judges have no respect for the law or for other judges,
> then one must
> question why judges expect the public to have any respect
> for judges.
>
> Rule 63(B)(3) states: "A judge having knowledge of a
> violation of these
> canons on the part of a judge or a violation of Rule 8.4 of
> the Rules of
> Professional Conduct on the part of a lawyer shall take or
> initiate
> appropriate disciplinary measures." Will Judge Mathein
> comply with this
> Rule based upon the "fraud upon the court" stated below?
>
> Judge Mathein has engaged in actions in violation of the
> Code of Judicial
> Conduct.
> TREASON
>
> Under the Supreme Law of the Land, whenever a judge acts
> when the judge
> does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, the judge is
> engaged in an act
> of treason. 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).
>
> A 1997 Appellate Court, in People v. Lambert, stated that a
> judge's
> "failure to enforce the law invites anarchy." The
> Respondent suggests that
> the failure of Judge Mathein to follow the law and the
> public policy of the
> State of Illinois involves her engaging in actions of
> inviting anarchy.
>
> Since subject-matter jurisdiction was never lawfully
> conferred upon the
> court, no judge has lawful authority to act in case no. 91-
> D-5122, Judge
> Mathein has engaged in an act of treason.
> LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
>
> As a matter of law, there is no presumption of subject-
> matter jurisdiction
> in a statutory proceeding, such as in divorce. Subject-
> matter jurisdiction
> has been denied in this case. Until and unless the original
> Petitioner
> proves that subject-matter jurisdiction in all of its
> elements and in all
> situations have been met, and at the proper time, the court
> is devoid of
> any subject-matter jurisdiction.
>
> The original Petitioner has not, and can not prove, that
> the 91-D-5122
> trial court ever held subject-matter jurisdiction.
>
> Subject-matter jurisdiction has never been lawfully
> conferred upon the
> Circuit Court of Cook County in case no. 91-D-5122.
>
> CONFLICT OF INTEREST
>
> On information and belief, Judge Mathein is married to Glyn
> Rostoker of
> Mathein and Rostoker. It is presumed that Judge Mathein
> does not inform any
> parties who appear before her in court that she is married
> to Glyn
> Rostoker.
>
> While a person has a right to operate under any lawful
> name, when that
> party is a judge and where there is the possibility of a
> conflict of
> interest, it should be a requirement that a judge makes a
> full disclosure
> of any and all possible conflicts of interest, and not
> hide, even if not
> intentional, any possible conflicts of interest, such as
> here, being
> married to a person with another surname.
>
> This Respondent is involved in an action pertaining to Glyn
> Rostoker, and
> Judge Mathein should be disqualified because of a conflict
> of interest.
> JUDICIAL INQUIRY BOARD COMPLAINT
>
> The Petitioner is currently writing a complaint against
> Judge Mathein to be
> filed with the Judicial Inquiry Board relative to her
> violations of the
> Code of Judicial Conduct. After filing said complaint with
> the Judicial
> Inquiry Board, said complaint will be filed in the record
> of case no.
> 91-D-5122 and published on the internet's World Wide Web.
> VIOLATION OF CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
> ust as the rules in the Code of Judicial Conduct are
> Supreme Court Rules,
> the rules in the Illinois Code of Professional
> Responsibility are Supreme
> Court Rules, and are the public policy (the law) in the
> State of Illinois.
> Judges have no lawful authority to act in violation of the
> law.
>
> Attorney James J. Reagan of James J. Reagan, P.C.
> purportedly appeared
> before Judge Mathein on November 25, 1997 without notice to
> the Petitioner,
> on his purported Motion to Withdraw. James J. Reagan, P.C.
> had filed as
> attorney of record in the above titled case. As a judge,
> Judge Mathein
> should have known the law relative to withdrawal, including
> by not limited,
> to SCR 13, and IRPC (SCR) 1.16.
>
> Reagan could not have provided any evidence to Judge
> Mathein that this
> Respondent had been served pursuant to law, since this
> Respondent has never
> been served with any Notice to Withdraw pursuant to law.
>
> Reagan did not comply with SCR 1.16(d) [Illinois Rules of
> Professional
> Conduct Rule 1.16(d)] which states, in pertinent part,
> that "In any event,
> a lawyer shall not withdraw from employment until the
> lawyer has taken
> reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the
> rights of the
> client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing
> time for
> employment of other counsel, delivering to the client all
> papers and
> property to which the client is entitled, and complying
> with applicable
> laws and rules." Although a demand has been made upon
> Reagan to deliver to
> this Respondent all papers and property of the Respondent
> in his care,
> custody, and control, Reagan has not delivered such papers
> and documents.
> This Supreme Court Rule requires this section to be
> completed before
> attempting to withdraw.
> By not requiring James J. Reagan, P.C. to comply with the
> law, Judge
> Mathein has interfered with this Respondent's proper and
> lawful access to
> the Court, did not protect this Respondent's interests, and
> has damaged
> this Respondent.
>
> Although Reagan had been terminated on November 12, 1997 an
> attorney still
> must obtain the Court's permission to withdraw and the
> attorney must fully
> comply with all applicable laws and rules before withdrawal
> is granted. An
> attorney must make full disclosure to the court or be
> engaged in a "fraud
> upon the court". In re Eugene Lee Armentrout et al., 99
> Ill.2d 242, 75
> Ill.Dec. 703, 457 N.E.2d 1262 (1983).
>
> Further, Reagan did not comply with the purported Order of
> Withdrawal in
> that he did not deliver to this Respondent a copy of the
> purported Order,
> pursuant to law. Reagan committed a fraud upon the court,
> and Judge Mathein
> allowed such fraud to occur, and to harm this Respondent.
>
> As a matter of law, Reagan is still the attorney of record
> in the above
> titled cause, has not returned the Respondent's property,
> and has harmed
> this Respondent, all due to Judge Mathein's failure either
> to know and
> apply the law, or to her actions to intentionally harm this
> Respondent.
>
> If Judge Mathein were the judge in this cause, she would
> act to protect
> herself and not apply the law. She would be acting in a
> conflict of
> interest between this Respondent/Petitioner and herself.
> Before issuing any Order, Judge Mathein has a duty to first
> determine if
> she has subject-matter jurisdiction to issue any Order. In
> the cause at
> bar, subject-matter jurisdiction has been denied, the
> original Petitioner
> has the burden to prove, and has not proved, that the
> Circuit Court of Cook
> County had subject-matter jurisdiction at any time.
>
> All Orders issued without subject-matter jurisdiction are
> void ab initio,
> all orders based on a void order are void ab initio, all
> orders obtained
> through fraud upon the court are void ab initio, all orders
> obtained
> without proper service are void ab initio, as well as all
> orders obtained
> under other circumstances which have been stated in caselaw
> to be void, are
> void ab initio. The purported Order of Withdrawal issued by
> Judge Mathein
> was, and is, void ab initio.
> INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE
>
> The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has previously ruled
> that whenever any
> judge unlawfully interferes with a person's right to
> conduct interstate
> commerce, the judge is guilty of interference with
> interstate commerce.
> This Respondent's right to conduct interstate commerce
> without any
> restriction has been interfered with by Judge Mathein not
> complying with
> Illinois law.
> CONCLUSION
>
> The Respondent truly believes that Judge Mathein cannot act
> impartially in
> this matter. She has a conflict of interest, has acted
> unlawfully, both
> under Illinois and Federal law, and would act to protect
> her previous
> unlawful decisions.
>
> The Respondent requests that an order of substitution of
> judge for cause be
> issued, and this case be assigned to a judge who knows and
> complies with
> the law, who does not have a conflict of interest, and a
> judge who will act
> impartially.
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
>
> _____________________________
> Eugene Alpern
>
> Eugene Alpern
> P.O. Box 672
> Morton Grove, IL 60053-0672
>
>
>