Follow us!


    Posted by Jennifer stawoney on 10/22/15

    Need to talk to someone about this judge and recent ruling
    this week.

    On 6/11/03, diverdan wrote:
    > FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)
    > 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
    > 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:
    > 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
    > 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.
    > 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
    > 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.
    > 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.
    > 66 L.Ed.2d 392,
    > 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264,
    > 5 L.Ed 257
    > (1821).
    > A 1997 Appellate Court, in People v. Lambert, stated that
    > 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.
    > 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
    > Petitioner
    > proves that subject-matter jurisdiction in all of its
    > elements and in all
    > situations have been met, and at the proper time, the
    > 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.
    > On information and belief, Judge Mathein is married to
    > 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
    > Rostoker, and
    > Judge Mathein should be disqualified because of a conflict
    > of interest.
    > 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.
    > 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
    > 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,
    > 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,
    > 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,
    > has damaged
    > this Respondent.
    > Although Reagan had been terminated on November 12, 1997
    > attorney still
    > must obtain the Court's permission to withdraw and the
    > attorney must fully
    > comply with all applicable laws and rules before
    > 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
    > 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
    > 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
    > obtained
    > without proper service are void ab initio, as well as all
    > orders obtained
    > under other circumstances which have been stated in
    > to be void, are
    > void ab initio. The purported Order of Withdrawal issued
    > Judge Mathein
    > was, and is, void ab initio.
    > 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.
    > The Respondent truly believes that Judge Mathein cannot
    > 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

    Posts on this thread, including this one
  • PETITION FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE, 6/11/03, by diverdan.
  • Re: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE/ diverdan PLEASE READ !!!!, 7/14/03, by Sick of.
  • Re: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE, 10/22/15, by Jennifer stawoney.

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.