Follow us!


    Posted by diverdan on 6/11/03

    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

    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

    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);
    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
    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
    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

    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

    A 1997 Appellate Court, in People v. Lambert, stated that a
    "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 original
    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.


    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

    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.

    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

    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
    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

    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
    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.

    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 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

    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.
The Counsel.Net ChatBoardsm. All Rights Reserved.