Posted by diverdan on 6/11/03

More | Report Post

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

Re: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE, 10/22/15, by Jennifer stawoney.

Legal Ethics Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST