Not everyone has equal access to justice. Let’s change that.

March 2, 2014 § Leave a comment


Not everyone has equal access to justice. Let’s change that.

By Andrew Mead, Special to the BDN
Posted Feb. 28, 2014, at 5:31 a.m.

Justice Andrew Mead serves on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

Contributed photo
Justice Andrew Mead serves on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

The final phrase of the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance is a simple and elegant expression of the core values that have inspired and directed our society since the dawn of our Republic: “With liberty and justice for all.”

The Declaration of Independence introduced the world to the utterly revolutionary concept that all citizens are equal before the law. In the centuries that followed, we have made enormous strides in the effort to make these lofty aspirations a reality. We can take pride in our accomplishments, but this undeniable fact remains: We still have a great distance to go to truly bring the founding fathers’ bold vision to full fruition.

Law brings order to society. In the failed governments of the world, the collapse of the rule of law condemns its citizens to a living hell. With no resort to courts or other legal authorities, violence becomes the only means to resolve disputes. The contender with the greatest ability to impose violence upon others emerges the victor.

As citizens of the United States and the state of Maine, we are confident that our institutions of justice will apply and enforce the rule of law. We are assured that our conflicts and disputes will be resolved peaceably by our courts, in which all citizens may obtain equal justice before the law.

Unfortunately our vision does not always line up with reality.

In order to obtain justice, one must know what the law is and have access to the courts. The law can be daunting, and an average person can easily be discouraged by its breadth and complexity. The prospect of going to court without a firm knowledge of the law or court procedures can be downright overwhelming. It is the assistance of a lawyer that truly makes the process accessible to all.

Unfortunately, many of our residents have no ability to secure the assistance of a lawyer to help them with legal matters. For these individuals, the inability to gain legal assistance produces, for all practical purposes, a denial of access to justice.

We are fortunate to have civil legal service organizations that have strived to offer legal assistance to the disenfranchised in the past. These organizations’ efforts to provide access to justice have produced tangible, widespread benefits for Maine’s families, children, employers, schools and communities.

In addition, as a recent study in North Carolina concluded, the local economy reaps an across-the-board positive impact when access to justice initiatives are undertaken. Sadly, draconian cuts to the funding of civil legal service organizations over the last two decades have threatened to eliminate them altogether.

As a society dedicated to justice for all, we cannot allow that to happen.

The Justice Action Group, a coalition of legal service providers and dedicated institutions and individuals, will sponsor “Access to Justice Day” in Maine on Tuesday, March 4. Events will take place at the State House in Augusta to showcase civil legal service organizations and to reaffirm our commitment to the important goal of access to justice for all.

Please join us, and encourage your legislators to support access to justice in Maine.

Justice Andrew Mead serves on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.


Similar articles:


The appearance that his tears didn’t go for all the money driven kids,Fake tears–for his OWN kids & grandkids

February 28, 2014 § Leave a comment

‘Kids for Cash’ ex-judge is in tears–for his OWN kids & grandkids

Seeded by Verge of PurgeVIEW ORIGINAL ARTICLE:The Philadelphia Inquirer
Seeded on Wed Feb 5, 2014 3:32 PM

DISCUSS: 33 9 !

Article Photo

For years, Ciavarella, a former Luzerne County Court judge, had defiantly fought charges that he took kickbacks to sentence thousands of young offenders to private juvenile detention centers.

During a moment of reflection while awaiting sentencing for corruption in 2011, Ciavarella broke down, imagining how his own grandchildren would perceive him.

“I would hope that they understand that their grandfather screwed up big-time,” he said, tears welling in his eyes. “And couldn’t be in their life because of it. Kind of tough, if what they get to know is that their grandfather was a scumbucket.”

The conviction of Ciavarella and his fellow Judge Michael T. Conahan ended an infamous chapter in Pennsylvania judicial history, one that led to a wave of changes in the juvenile justice system.

His emotional moment – a rarity for a man proud of his hardened persona – is an equally unrivaled moment, captured in Kids for Cash, a documentary on the scandal directed by Robert May, which will premiere Wednesday at the Kimmel Center. [Performing Arts Center in Philadelphia]

Ciavarella’s remarks come from one of more than a dozen original interviews in the film, offering a nuanced and detailed portrait of those caught up in the scandal that unraveled in 2008.

The film includes interviews with juvenile defendants and their parents; the cofounders of the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, which worked on behalf of many defendants; Luzerne County’s chief public defender; a reporter from the Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader; and the superintendent of the Wilkes-Barre School District.

But the biggest coup, May concedes, was persuading Ciavarella and Conahan to appear on camera.

Both spoke without telling their lawyers, May said – even as Ciavarella was mounting a defense in federal court, and as Conahan was working on a plea deal that ended with his being sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Ciavarella was eventually found guilty of racketeering as well and sentenced to 28 years in prison. He is serving his sentence in Illinois; Conahan is at a Florida prison.

At the time May approached them, around 2009, Ciavarella and Conahan had not been convicted, but they were publicly disgraced – accused of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars each from the developer of two private juvenile facilities, then concealing the payments in elaborate money-laundering schemes.

Ciavarella, who oversaw Luzerne County’s juvenile court, sent thousands of children to those facilities during his time on the bench, at a rate higher than any other juvenile court judge in the state.

Thus, the scandal became known as “Kids for Cash,” and public outrage swirled nationwide.

May’s approach to the judges was that the media coverage had been “one-sided,” he said in an interview. He told Ciavarella and Conahan that he wanted to hear their side of the story as well.

The result is a 102-minute film that crisscrosses between juveniles and judges – or, as May puts it, “victims and villains.”

Though many families express resentment about the way they were treated by Ciavarella, the former judge is generally unapologetic – accepting fault for concealing payments from the developer, but saying they had no impact on his sentencing decisions.

Conahan, too, says the only issue in his situation was accepting compensation as a judge.

But there are emotional moments for both in the film – Ciavarella while considering what his grandchildren will think, Conahan while discussing why he agreed to his plea deal.

May hopes that footage adds nuance to the overall story and provides audiences with a fuller perspective of all the characters involved.

Marsha Levick, cofounder of the Juvenile Law Center, who fought on behalf of defendants from Ciavarella’s courtroom, was uninspired by the former judges’ words.

She said the film simply demonstrated the continued need to pay great attention to juvenile justice.

“This is a system,” she said, “that can potentially affect all of our children.”


[from The Philadelphia Inquirer May 27, 2010:]

….a contractor who built the two juvenile detention centers – PA Child Care in Luzerne, and Western PA Child Care in Butler County – funneled more than $2.9 million to the judges between 2003 and 2006. ////

Prosecutors say Mericle paid $997,600 to Ciavarella in 2003 as a finder’s fee for getting him the contract to build the Luzerne detention center. They say Ciavarella told him to give the money to Powell, who in turn wired it in two chunks to the judges.

Thanks to the judges, prosecutors say, the detention centers got a steady flow of business – so Powell and his partner, Zappala, decided to build a second center in Western Pennsylvania. When Mericle won the contract for that facility, prosecutors say, he gave the judges an additional $1 million. The money was wired to a business the judges controlled, Pinnacle Group of Jupiter, Fla., in 2005.

In 2006, Mericle won a third contract, to put an expansion on the original juvenile jail – and the judges got an additional $150,000, prosecutors say.


February 18, 2014 § Leave a comment

02-18-2014 12:04 am – Liz Klimas – The Blaze
The last time Lou Pelletier spoke with his 15-year-old daughter was Feb. 14 — Valentine’s Day. For this father of four, though, the day held a different meaning for his youngest valentine: It marked one year since she was taken and placed in a psychiatric ward against her parents’ will.

“We need help,” Lou Pelletier told TheBlaze in an exclusive interview, explaining why he made the decision to break a judge’s gag order and talk about the situation.

“I’m trying to save my daughter’s life,” he said.

“While still being able to live,” Jessica, one of Justina’s older sisters, added.

For more than a year, Justina Pelletier has been the center of a battle between her parents, the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families and Boston Children’s Hospital, and two controversial medical diagnoses. After her family began speaking out last November about their fight against these major institutions in court, they were placed under a gag order.

Justina’s parents, Linda and Lou, have been fighting against Boston Children’s Hospital and the state’s Department of Children and Families for more than a year, as they believe she needs to be treated for mitochondrial disorder, a diagnosis some doctors disagree with.

Beyond little snippets given outside of court on the many hearings they’ve had, little has been heard from the parents who believe their daughter has mitochondrial disease and the medical facility that says she doesn’t, saying it’s a psychosomatic disorder instead.

But now the Pelletiers are speaking out.


When the Pelletiers brought Justina to a Connecticut hospital in February 2013, she was suffering from the flu. As her sister Jessica explained it, people with mitochondrial disease are affected by illnesses, like the flu, in a more pronounced way.

Jessica, 25, is the second-oldest of the Pelletiers’ daughters and has mitochondrial disease herself. The disease can manifest itself in various ways, but at its root, results from a defect in the mitochondria, an organelle inside cells that produces energy. Jessica’s diagnosis was established medically through analysis of the cells of her muscle tissue.

In Justina’s case, a doctor evaluated her symptoms, considered her family history — mitochondrial disease can be inherited — and gave her a clinical diagnosis of the disorder. Under the care of physicians at Tufts Medical Center, Justina was treated for mitochondrial disease.

But when she got the flu and her parents were told she should be transferred to Boston Children’s Hospital, things changed.

As Lou Pelletier explained it, Justina was supposed to be transferred in an ambulance, for insurance purposes, to the Boston hospital, and brought through the emergency room but seen by a gastrointestinal doctor. Instead, upon arriving, he said she was stopped and evaluated by a neurologist, who, Pelletier said, didn’t look at her medical history or contact her other doctors. This doctor, according to Justina’s father, said he thought the illness was all in Justina’s head — that it was somatoform disorder.

The physicians at Boston Children’s Hospital disagreed with her diagnosis of mitochondrial disorder and wanted to take a different approach to her treatment. At first, Lou Pelletier said, “we were game to try a new approach.” But when the hospital laid out their plan to take Justina off all of her mitochondrial and pain medication, her parents balked.

That was Feb. 13, 2013. The next day — Valentine’s Day 2013 — Justina’s parents went to Boston Children’s Hospital with a couple of advocates intending to have her discharged and brought to Tufts. Instead, they were met with security guards and served a 51A, a report of alleged physical or emotional abuse.

Lou said when he saw security showing up, he called 911, thinking that things were not about to go in their favor.

“I told them ‘my daughter is about to be kidnapped by Boston Children’s Hospital,’” he said.

The Pelletiers were accused of overmedicalizing their daughter. Lou Pelletier pointed out that he doesn’t see how having a congenital band removed, her tonsils taken out, procedures to help her have bowel movements — a reoccurring issue for Justina — and following doctor’s orders for prescriptions for mitochondrial disease can be considered overmedicalizing.

Justina was transferred to Boston Children’s Hospital’s Bader 5 psychiatric unit on April 9, 2013. There she was treated for somatoform disorder. According to a document from Boston Children’s given to the Pelletiers, Justina’s treatment included a “behavioral plan […] formulated with input from all relevant disciplines which will day schedule, feeding and functioning plans with a therapeutic approach.” Physical therapy was included as well.

Another measure on the “Guidelines for Care of Justina Pelletier” included that “no diagnostic tests and no new consultations are to be requested unless Justina develops a new or acute process as observed and assessed by the medical team.”

The Pelletier family isn’t necessarily alone in their experience with the hospital. After their case made national headlines, other families began speaking out about the hospital threatening to get DCF involved. Complaints that have been filed since against Bader 5 prompted the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to launch an investigation.


Lou Pelletier told TheBlaze he used to play “20 questions” on the phone to learn from Justina what was going on in the psych ward on the days they were scheduled to call. Justina also used to sneak little notes to her family in cards she wrote them.

Jessica Pelletier demonstrated how she would fold a flap in cards and write messages in small handwriting underneath. Lou Pelletier said if Justina got caught doing this “she would get tortured,” which he said the hospital called “behavioral modification.”

“That’s what Kim Jong Il’s doing in North Korea, behavior modification. … No, no, no, no. It’s torture,” he said.

The Pelletiers don’t get cards anymore. All they get from Justina now are 20 minutes on the phone every Tuesday, one-hour visits each Friday, and her bracelets, which show her preferences for the colors blue and green. Both Lou and Jessica Pelletier sported several of Justina’s beaded or artistically twisted rubber band bracelets on their wrists.

After several court dates, Justina was moved from Boston Children’s Hospital to another facility in Massachusetts. At the time, Lou Pelletier said “justice maybe prevailed.” But in the hearing following this decision two weeks later, things seemed more grim from the Pelletiers’ perspective. Lou Pelletier said it is not a medical facility. He said it’s a temporary place where she is being held until her treatment going forward can be agreed upon in court.

“Now we go back the 24th, a week from today, and I want to have all my guns blazing. We’re not going to make it much more,” Lou Pelletier said.

“Our family,” Jessica Pelletier said, “I don’t know how we survived this long.”

And they’re not just talking about the “heartbreak” of Justina. The yearlong fight to bring the decisions regarding her medical care back to her parents has taken a toll on the Pelletier family.



Financially, they’re trying to make ends meet with expensive legal fees. The Pelletiers have a PayPal account connected to for those wishing to donate to her family’s cause. PLEASE HELP!!!!!!


If the decisions regarding Justina’s care are returned to her parents, Lou thinks she needs total rehabilitation, saying that he worries her current state could be “irreversible.”

“She needs physical therapy. She needs to be back on the vitamin cocktail. She needs to be treated for the goddamn diagnosis she had from the beginning,” Lou said. ”I need to save my daughter. If we don’t do something, she is going to die.”


On the Glenn Beck Program Monday night, Lou Pelletier said he and his wife, Linda, continue telling Justina to hang in there.

“I never thought of all my daughters that she would be my hero,” Lou said on TheBlaze TV, telling Beck that he has been amazed by his daughter’s strength, even as he has seen her condition deteriorate. “She needs to be this country’s hero.”
– See more at:

The Appearance of machine in action and what a response.

January 26, 2014 § Leave a comment

Wednesday, June 12, 2013


Here is a man who authored and orchestrated every Civil Rights Act perpetrated by Judges and engineered Treason offenses violating every provision of the KU KLUX KLAN ACT of 1871 at an innocent man of color.

Alderman Edward Burke has utilized every member of the Democratic Party to help him frame an innocent man of impregnating a woman who was in fact impregnated by her natural biological father who was a Police Officer, this was the second daughter he impregnated;

Alderman Edward Burke used African American Judge R. Morgan Hamilton as she perjured and falsified court documents aided and abbeted in a criminal conspiracy as Burke had a CTA attorney in Ronald Bartkowicz manufactured a warrant against CTA employee Badge 26115 saying he was not an employee to prevent CTA from paying him back wages resulting from his work-related injury because members under the Daley administration stole his wages while off injured on duty;

Because R. Morgan Hamilton was a good servant for her Messiah in Ed Burke he made her a permanent Associate Judge never to be voted for retention on the bench.

William Stewart Boyd was perhaps the slickest deceptive manipulator ever to wear a robe negotiated an Associate judge position out of Edward Burke because he knew I never owed child support and was aware of all criminal acts of the parties who was responsible for framing me kept his mouth shut.

Alderman Edward Burke had appointed legal aid attorney who was the former Senior attorney in legal aid refused to provide me any legal representation saying their were too many judges involved, Burke assigned him to my case where he placed me in Contempt of Court for Allegedly owing child support.

Alderman Edward Burke had access to medical records of my families medical history where therapy was being provided had Donald Jonker to assist him the same DCFS attorney who was responsible helping him take an African American child from her mother.

Alderman Edward Burke orchestrated DCFS to manufacture abuse charges against myself as my daughters therapist (Marcia Ward) provided altered medical records impersonating a Doctor and not a therapist.

Alderman Edward Burke has made it his mission to destroy me and my family at all costs had my sick brother arrested and placed in Cook County jail because the United States Attorney refused to prosecute my brother for allegedly spitting on President Obama’s Secret Service, hew was transported to St. Bernard Hospital spent 2-3 weeks hospitalized, he was not out 3-4 days before he was arrested name placated all over the media.

Rosemary Higgins was in Juvenile court where DCFS lodged bogus charges against my mother for child Lock-out which was not true a lot of irregularities had took place in that case but Judge Higgins ignored them never provided her with a court order, as for myself I had been before her Aunt Lauretta Higgins who refused to address the wrongful Acts of Perjury Fraud etc., Judge Higgins said she had no jurisdiction., the matter was appealed before the 1st Division where her husband Warren D. Wolfson was the Judge Denying every motion presented before the courts.

Rosemary Higgins became the Judge in my brothers case had him locked up for 6 months behind a cell in prison on June 6, 11 two Doctors testified he was unfit to stand trial, initially Public defender was removed from the case, a Shelli Blair (Air Head Public Defender) was assigned when I suggested that a Motion be filed substituting Judges Monday June 10, 2013, her reply, you guys had a lot of bad luck with judges or misfortunes but I assure you she is not with Warren D. Wolfson anymore, my reply, don’t care.

Tuesday June 11, 2013, Theresa Nelson was back on the case, the States Attorney was arguing my brother was unfit for trial mentally, but the Public Defender was arguing he was fit; needless to say Judge Higgins agreed with the States Attorney finding him unfit mentally very smart but the Doctors testimony was to compelling.

Under the present administration of Democrats with the Political Machine they find ways to oppress people of color by whatever means necessary so as to generate revenue for all white attorneys as blacks and Hispanics are used as a means of income for Terrorist running the City.

No white person under any magnitude is subjected to this level of Terrorist treatment in this city.


                                                   FIRST DISTRICT
                         FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
                                               CHANCERY DIVISION
Joe Louis Lawrence                                      )
                                                                     )                     Trial Court No. 12 M 718911
                 Plaintiff-Appellant                         )                     General No. 13-0058
                                                                     )                     Division No. 1
                                           V.                      )
Craig Fulton                                                  )                      Hon. Leonard Murray
                Defendant- Appellee                     )
         Now comes Plaintiff-Appellant, Heterosexual, United States Citizen, born and raised Joe Louis Lawrence respectfully moves this court to allow Appellant’s Motion to Supplement Record/Remand et al, in the above entitled cause.
         Reasons in support of this motion are set forth in the attached affidavit.
                                                                                      Respectfully Submitted,
                                                                                         Joe Louis Lawrence
                                                                                         Joe Louis Lawrence
                                                                                            Counsel Pro Se
COUNTY OF COOK         )
Joe Louis Lawrence being first duly sworn on oath deposes and states as follows:
1.)    I am Joe Louis Lawrence, Counsel Pro Se.
2.)    That on June 2, 3 Craig Fulton was witnessed by neighbors and Police in the neighborhood stealing Appellant’s personal effects from home (10058 South Vernon) where a U haul truck was involved.
3.)    Monday June 4, 2013, Appellant attempted to file a Police report but was informed by the desk Sergeant in order for a crime to be established, Appellant had to first contact the landlord and request all personal effects because he could have moved the possessions into storage;
A.)  Sergeant reviewed Appellant’s court documents and said he had no right removing any of your “sh*t” but before a crime is established, he have to refuse to return all of your possessions;
B.)  Pursuant to the Sergeant’s directive said Notice was texted to Craig Fulton “Craig Fulton consider this proper notice seeking all personal property effects at 10058 South Vernon, You are to inform me where and when to pick up all my property and effects immediately, you have never responded to any pleadings or filed an appearance in the Appellate Court”. Respectfully submitted, Joe Louis
4.)    That Craig Fulton never responded a Police Report was filed (RD# HW 305160) said officers said the court was to be notified and that Detectives would be in contact with the Appellant within 5 days of filing the report;
5.)    That on January 18, 2013, near and around the hours 10:00am and 10:30am Cook County Sheriff were witnessed by Police personnel and neighbors using a Battering Ram forcibly entering the residence of 10058 South Vernon, locking him out of said home with all noticeable personal effects visible;

6.) That because Craig Fulton never legally owned the property but has been very successful with incredible support induced reliance on a number of entities could not access the authority of a licensed and bonded locksmith, to enter the residence  had the Sheriff to act outside their jurisdiction by committing a felony (breaking and entering into a home);

7.)    That this is not the only time judges within the Cook County have acted outside their jurisdiction Judge Bartkowicz (former workman’s compensation attorney with CTA) appointed to case 88 D 079012  issued a Bogus warrant primarily to prevent Appellant from returning back to work with the CTA from a work-related injury, to prevent him from receiving back wages see, Post 7-23-2012 how both judges corroborated their roles in a Criminal Terrorist Civil Rights Conspiracy;
8.)    That Appellant never owed CHILD SUPPORT but certain judges without jurisdiction noted in said Chronology of Unlawful Contempt Charges, see, Post 8-30-2012, how Judges engaged in a plethora of Racist Civil Rights Acts unlawfully incarcerating Appellant for standing up to Racial Injustice;
9.)    That certain Cook County judges, State Judges do not honor the State or Federal laws but exercise fraternal laws of their order demonstrating above the law tactics used their influence and intimidating tactics against certain CTA administrators making sure they did not reinstate Appellant back to work from a work-related injury, see Post 8-9-2012, said Post gives a meticulous account on the heinous deceptive practices Powerful Corrupt white men exhaust oppressing an innocent Appellant simply because of his ethnicity;
10.)    That because Alderman Edward Burke (it is no secret!) is the orchestrator and manipulator of all judges assigned where the Appellant is concerned has manifested a vengeance against him for standing up to the Democratic Political Machine;
11.)    That allegedly under the authority of Alderman Edward Burke Judge George Sculley, Jr.and Leonard Murray ignored every document Appellant has presented to the court demonstrating “FRAUD” “TERRORISM” “CORRUPTION” “TREASON” allowed Craig Fulton and all related Terrorist conspirators to do whatever they desired against an innocent Appellant;
12.)    That on March 5, 2013, Appellant’s Affidavit recorded “That Appellant has been many times denied and ignored by the likes of judge Thomas Hoffman et al., see April 11, 2012 Post how certain judges ignore the laws and act outside their jurisdiction”.
13.)    That Judges under Alderman Edward Burkes control do not honor the laws of the United States Constitution as they engage in Tyranny Acts of Mass Destruction they are America’s Al Qaeda as they commit Acts of Terrorism wearing robes; 
C.)       Properly alleged facts within an affidavit that are not contradicted by counter affidavit are taken as true, despite the existence of contrary averments in the adverse party’s pleadings. Professional Group Travel, Ltd. v. Professional Seminar Consultants Inc., 136 ILL App 3d 1084, 483 N.E. 2d 1291; Buzzard v. Bolger, 117 ILL App 3d 887, 453 N.E. 2d 1129 et al.
D.)       The above is Basic State Law—Alderman Ed Burke lacked an intelligent understanding of Constitutional law; thereby, engaging in a plethora of corrupt Civil Rights violations so as to prove his KINGSHIP over the Democratic Political Machine and cover-up where they are intellectually challenged in the laws!
14.)    Judges under Alderman Burkes authority  openly with vicious arrogance for the laws ignored the United States Constitution violated all of the following federal Laws of  Section 1983 of U.S.C.S. contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the Unconstitutional Application of a Law by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell v. Saunders (CA 5 F 1A) 372 F 573, especially if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect, where an action is for a conspiracy to interfere with Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1985 (3), or for the depravation of such rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect and plaintiff was thereby deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States Constitution and Laws, the gist of the action may be treated as one for the depravation of rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, Lewis v. Brautigam (CA 5 F 1a) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505, John W. Strong, 185, 777-78 (4 the ed. 1992).
A.)   Jennings v. Patterson, 488 F. 2d 442, equal access to public facilities. The court found that the plaintiffs had been “denied the right to hold and enjoy their property on the same basis as white citizens.” Jennings suggests the potential usefulness of the equal benefit clause in guaranteeing full and equal enjoyment of public property and public services.” Developments in the Law section 1981, 15 Harv. Civ. Rts. —- Civ. Lib. L. Rev 29, 133 (1980).
B.)   Scott, 377 Mass. 364, 386 N.E. 2d 218, 220 (1979) See Lopez-Alexander, Unreported Order No. 85-279 (Colo. May 3, 1985) (Judge removed for, inter alia, a persistent pattern of abuse of the contempt power. The Mayor of Denver accepted the findings of the Denver County Court Judicial Qualification Commission that the judge’s conduct could not be characterized as mere mistakes or errors of law and that the conduct constituted willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute). Canon Ethics where there is a pattern of disregard or indifference, which warrant discipline.
C.)  That all Judges complicit with Alderman Ed Burke has further violated other legal Constitutional citations of the laws, The Supreme Court of Georgia removed a judge from office for disregarding defendant’s Constitutional rights, including refusing to set appeal bonds for two defendant’s in timely fashion, issuing bench warrants without probable cause, and forcing a defendant to enter a guilty plea in the absence of Counsel. The Court stated, that the judge’s “cavalier disregard of these defendants’ basic and fundamental constitutional rights exhibits an intolerable degree of judicial incompetence, and a failure to comprehend and safeguard the very basis of our constitutional structure Id at 735 See also In re Hammel, 668 N.E. 2d 390 (N.Y. 1996). (Judge removed for improperly jailing defendants for their alleged failure to pay fines and make restitution which the judge had imposed, disregarding the defendant’s basic constitutional rights).
D.)  That because every Judge who has signed orders against Appellant denying him relief falls outside their judicial authority and because they have committed “FRAUD” the following law is applicable here Adoption of E.L.. “A VOID JUDGEMENT OR ORDER” is one that is entered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacking the inherent power to enter the particular order of judgment or where the ORDER was procured by “FRAUD”.
 .  A judge’s disrespect for the rules of court demonstrates disrespect for the law. Judges are disciplined under Canon 2A for violating court rules and procedures. Judged ignored mandated witness order in attempt to accommodate witnesses’ schedules; Citing Canon 2A the court noted, “[a] court’s indifference to clearly stated rules breeds disrespect for and discontent with our justice system. Government cannot demand respect of the laws by its citizens when its tribunals ignore those very same laws”)
As a non – white man this is how members of the Democratic Political Machine have infiltrated the Democratic Party waging war and committing genocide on innocent Free Born & raised United States Citizens in the aforementioned.
                                       FURTHER AFFIANTH SAYETH NAUGHT
Under penalties as provided by law 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 believe the same to be true.
                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,
                                                                                                   Joe Louis Lawrence
                                                                                                     Counsel Pro Se
                                                   FIRST DISTRICT
                         FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
                                             CHANCERY DIVISION
Joe Louis Lawrence                                      )
                                                                     )                     Trial Court No. 12 M 718911
                 Plaintiff-Appellant                         )                     General No.
                                                                     )                     Division No. 1
                                           V.                      )
 Craig Fulton                                                 )                      Hon. Leonard Murray
                Defendant- Appellee                     )
                                                      DRAFT ORDER
    This matter having come on to be heard on Motion to Supplement Record/Remand et al.,  due notice having been given, the court having jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and being fully advised in the premises;
   It is HEREBY ORDERED that Motion is GRANTED INSTANTER case is reassigned to another division via computer generation.
                                                                              Justice Joy V. Cunningham
                                                                              Justice Mathias W. Delort
                                                                              Justice Thomas E. Hoffman
Joe Louis Lawrence
Counsel Pro Se                                                      ________________________________
P.O. Box 490075                                                   Justice Mary K. Rochford
Chicago, Illinois 60649-0075
(312) 927-4210

The appearance to level the playing field to see children without the financial tormentor other parent

January 1, 2014 § Leave a comment


House Sponsors
Rep. Josh Harms – Jil Tracy – Chad Hays – Naomi D. Jakobsson – Michael J. ZalewskiLinda Chapa LaViaJohn M. CabelloMonique D. DavisJim SaciaRaymond PoeLou LangAnn WilliamsElgie R. Sims, Jr.Dennis M. Reboletti and André M. Thapedi

Senate Sponsors
(Sen. Ira I. Silverstein – Steven M. LandekJohn M. SullivanJohn G. MulroeJason A. Barickman,Kirk W. DillardMichael E. HastingsDaniel BissLinda HolmesMelinda BushMichael NolandMartin A. SandovalToi W. HutchinsonPamela J. AlthoffChapin Rose and Napoleon Harris, III)

Last Action

Date Chamber  Action
  8/16/2013 House Public Act . . . . . . . . . 98-0462

Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance

750 ILCS 5/602.3 new

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Provides that if the court finds that it is in the best interest of the child and awards joint custody or visitation rights, the court shall find that both parties have the right of first refusal to care for the minor children if the absence of either party is necessary during the party’s normal parenting time. Provides that the use of baby-sitters, family members, or subsequent spouses is secondary to the right of first refusal. Provides that “right of first refusal” means that in the event that either parent intends to leave the minor children for a period of 4 hours or longer, that parent shall first offer the other parent an opportunity for additional time with the children before making other arrangements for the temporary care of the children. Contains provisions concerning the setting of parameters regarding distance, transportation, and time constraints which may make the offering of additional parenting time impractical and therefore not required. Provides that the parent leaving the children with the other parent or with a temporary child care provider shall notify the other parent of the duration of the parenting time or temporary care of the children by other persons. Contains procedural requirements regarding the offering and acceptance of additional parenting time. Provides that the parent exercising additional parenting time shall provide the necessary transportation unless the parties agree otherwise. Provides that the new provisions are enforceable under the Section of the Act concerning visitation abuse. Provides that the right of first refusal shall be terminated upon the termination of custody or visitation rights.

House Floor Amendment No. 1
Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Provides that if the court awards joint custody or visitation rights, the court may consider, consistent with the best interest of the child, whether to award to one or both of the parties the right of first refusal to provide child care for the minor child or children during the other parent’s normal parenting time, unless the need for child care is attributable to an emergency. Provides that “right of first refusal” means that if a party intends to leave the minor child or children with a substitute child-care provider for a significant period of time, that party must first offer the other party an opportunity to personally care for the minor child or children. Provides that the parties may agree to a right of first refusal, but if they do not and the court determines that a right of first refusal is in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider an make provisions in its order for specified considerations relating to the right of first refusal. Provides that the new provisions are enforceable under the Section of the Act concerning visitation abuse. Provides that the right of first refusal are terminated upon the termination of custody or visitation rights.


Date Chamber  Action
  2/26/2013 House Filed with the Clerk by Rep. Josh Harms
  2/26/2013 House First Reading
  2/26/2013 House Referred to Rules Committee
  3/7/2013 House Assigned to Judiciary
  3/8/2013 House Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Jil Tracy
  3/8/2013 House Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Chad Hays
  3/8/2013 House Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Naomi D. Jakobsson
  3/8/2013 House Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Michael J. Zalewski
  3/8/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia
  3/8/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Ron Sandack
  3/13/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. John M. Cabello
  3/13/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Monique D. Davis
  3/15/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Jim Sacia
  3/15/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Raymond Poe
  3/19/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Lou Lang
  3/19/2013 House Removed Co-Sponsor Rep. Ron Sandack
  3/20/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Ann Williams
  3/20/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Elgie R. Sims, Jr.
  3/20/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Dennis M. Reboletti
  3/20/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. André M. Thapedi
  3/20/2013 House Do Pass / Short Debate Judiciary; 016-000-000
  3/20/2013 House Placed on Calendar 2nd Reading – Short Debate
  3/21/2013 House House Floor Amendment No. 1 Filed with Clerk by Rep. Josh Harms
  3/21/2013 House House Floor Amendment No. 1 Referred to Rules Committee
  3/28/2013 House House Floor Amendment No. 1 Rules Refers to Judiciary
  4/10/2013 House House Floor Amendment No. 1 Recommends Be Adopted Judiciary; 011-000-000
  4/10/2013 House Second Reading – Short Debate
  4/10/2013 House House Floor Amendment No. 1 Adopted
  4/10/2013 House Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading – Short Debate
  4/12/2013 House Third Reading – Short Debate – Passed 104-000-000
  4/12/2013 Senate Arrive in Senate
  4/12/2013 Senate Placed on Calendar Order of First Reading April 16, 2013
  4/12/2013 Senate Chief Senate Sponsor Sen. Ira I. Silverstein
  4/16/2013 Senate First Reading
  4/16/2013 Senate Referred to Assignments
  4/23/2013 Senate Assigned to Judiciary
  4/26/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. John M. Sullivan
  4/30/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. John G. Mulroe
  4/30/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Jason A. Barickman
  5/1/2013 Senate Do Pass Judiciary; 010-000-000
  5/1/2013 Senate Placed on Calendar Order of 2nd Reading May 2, 2013
  5/2/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Kirk W. Dillard
  5/2/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Michael E. Hastings
  5/3/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Daniel Biss
  5/7/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Chief Co-Sponsor Sen. Steven M. Landek
  5/8/2013 Senate Second Reading
  5/8/2013 Senate Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading May 9, 2013
  5/9/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Linda Holmes
  5/9/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Melinda Bush
  5/9/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Michael Noland
  5/9/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Martin A. Sandoval
  5/20/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Toi W. Hutchinson
  5/20/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Pamela J. Althoff
  5/20/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Chapin Rose
  5/22/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Napoleon Harris, III
  5/22/2013 Senate Third Reading – Passed; 057-000-000
  5/22/2013 House Passed Both Houses
  6/19/2013 House Sent to the Governor
  8/16/2013 House Governor Approved
  8/16/2013 House Effective Date January 1, 2014
  8/16/2013 House Public Act . . . . . . . . . 98-0462

How To Deal With A Bad Judge Revealing Many Ways For Dealing With Bad Judges

December 19, 2013 § Leave a comment

How to deal with bad judges
How To Deal With A Bad Judge

Revealing Many Ways For Dealing With Bad Judges

This page is informational. We are NOT lawyers and nothing on this page should be construed as legal advice!

“I can state with certainty that if you go against the status quo in Rhode Island and point out wrongdoing of the judiciary they will ruin your legal practice and make it impossible for you to win a case.”
–Quoted by a well known lawyer who was discussing the Rhode Island Judiciary

You should consider a Judge bad only if they show a pattern of behaving or ruling in a manner that is:

  • preventing or hindering you from receiving full, fair, impartial hearings or the full, fair, impartial administration of justice or
  • you have seen evidence which would lead a reasonable person to believe they could be prevented or hindered from receiving full, fair, impartial hearings or the full, fair, impartial administration of justice.

The criteria used in deciding if a judge is bad is NOT how they handle a high profile case or people of influence, but how they handle the poor, prosecutorial misconduct and the unrepresented.  Regardless of how bad a Judge is, they will undoubtedly make SOME correct decisions.  We consider a Judge bad if they do not FAITHFULLY and CONSISTENTLY adhere to their oath of office and aggressively pursue justice for ALL.   Anything less is unacceptable and is the definition of a bad judge.  Also see the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law and the article on dismissals of Government cases.

Bad Judges exist.  We all know they do.  [See Judges as Criminals?]  Very few practicing lawyers are willing or able to expose Bad Judges publicly, for they are at great risk when they must later appear again before the exposed Bad Judge.  Exposure of rotten judicial apples offends and embarrasses the entire judiciary.  When a lawyer, in diligent pursuit of his client’s interests, dares stand up to Bad Judges, the “system” locks arms, and seeks to punish or suppress the iconoclastic lawyer.  The system’s resistance to admitting the existence of a bad judge can be astounding.  Yet someone must stand up to challenge this cancer within the Judiciary.  Bad Judges need to be weeded out.  It is to the fair, competent judges that the following is dedicated.

Before you go before a Judge, try to learn the Judge’s record!

  • Check Caught! to see if complaints or comments are on file.  [Rhode Island]
  • Courtroom Monitoring
  • Case Research [try researching decisions by topic and judge]
  • Investigation [Newspaper Databases, Law Library etc.]
  • Ask local practitioners
  • Ask national court reform advocacy groups
  • For new Judges with no track record, listen to other cases in their courtrooms before losing your right to disqualify

To Change A Judge Before The Trial:

    Note: In Rhode Island it is customary for a judge to recuse himself if there is a complaint pending with the state’s Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline.  Check your area and jurisdiction.  There are 2 factors to consider.  First, once a Judge starts to stink it usually always gets worse.   Second, the grass might NOT be greener on the other side.

    Now, according to Congress, U.S. Supreme Court case law and Rhode Island’s canons of judicial ethics, a judge must bow out of hearing any case in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.  The Rhode Island Canons of Judicial Conduct say that judges must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety.
    “The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.”
    Use this wording when moving for recusal.  Also, requests for recusal MUST be in the form of a motion.

    • Res Judicata
    • No Jurisdiction
    • Sham, Frivolous, Meritless pleadings

If It Is Impossible To Change A Judge Before Trial:

Dealing With A Judge After A Bad Ruling

Serve Society By Taking Action To Get A Bad Judge Off The Bench.
Identify And Publicly Expose Biased, Prejudiced And Corrupt Judges!

Related References

Graphic Line
Graphic Line

They never follow the statue they go over the right of the protected to enrich their coffers.

December 14, 2013 § Leave a comment

    (705 ILCS 405/2-17) (from Ch. 37, par. 802-17) 
    Sec. 2-17. Guardian ad litem. 
    (1) Immediately upon the filing of a petition alleging that the minor is a person described in Sections 2-3 or 2-4 of this Article, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor if: 
        (a) such petition alleges that the minor is an abused
or neglected child; or
        (b) such petition alleges that charges alleging the
commission of any of the sex offenses defined in Article 11 or in Sections 11-1.20, 11-1.30, 11-1.40, 11-1.50, 11-1.60, 12-13, 12-14, 12-14.1, 12-15 or 12-16 of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012, have been filed against a defendant in any court and that such minor is the alleged victim of the acts of defendant in the commission of such offense.
    Unless the guardian ad litem appointed pursuant to this paragraph (1) is an attorney at law he shall be represented in the performance of his duties by counsel. The guardian ad litem shall represent the best interests of the minor and shall present recommendations to the court consistent with that duty. 
    (2) Before proceeding with the hearing, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor if 
        (a) no parent, guardian, custodian or relative of the
minor appears at the first or any subsequent hearing of the case;
        (b) the petition prays for the appointment of a
guardian with power to consent to adoption; or
        (c) the petition for which the minor is before the
court resulted from a report made pursuant to the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act.
    (3) The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor whenever it finds that there may be a conflict of interest between the minor and his parents or other custodian or that it is otherwise in the minor's best interest to do so.
    (4) Unless the guardian ad litem is an attorney, he shall be represented by counsel. 
    (5) The reasonable fees of a guardian ad litem appointed under this Section shall be fixed by the court and charged to the parents of the minor, to the extent they are able to pay. If the parents are unable to pay those fees, they shall be paid from the general fund of the county. 
    (6) A guardian ad litem appointed under this Section, shall receive copies of any and all classified reports of child abuse and neglect made under the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act in which the minor who is the subject of a report under the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act, is also the minor for whom the guardian ad litem is appointed under this Section. 
    (7) The appointed guardian ad litem shall remain the child's guardian ad litem throughout the entire juvenile trial court proceedings, including permanency hearings and termination of parental rights proceedings, unless there is a substitution entered by order of the court. 
    (8) The guardian ad litem or an agent of the guardian ad litem shall have a minimum of one in-person contact with the minor and one contact with one of the current foster parents or caregivers prior to the adjudicatory hearing, and at least one additional in-person contact with the child and one contact with one of the current foster parents or caregivers after the adjudicatory hearing but prior to the first permanency hearing and one additional in-person contact with the child and one contact with one of the current foster parents or caregivers each subsequent year. For good cause shown, the judge may excuse face-to-face interviews required in this subsection. 
    (9) In counties with a population of 100,000 or more but less than 3,000,000, each guardian ad litem must successfully complete a training program approved by the Department of Children and Family Services. The Department of Children and Family Services shall provide training materials and documents to guardians ad litem who are not mandated to attend the training program. The Department of Children and Family Services shall develop and distribute to all guardians ad litem a bibliography containing information including but not limited to the juvenile court process, termination of parental rights, child development, medical aspects of child abuse, and the child's need for safety and permanence. 
(Source: P.A. 96-1551, eff. 7-1-11; 97-1150, eff. 1-25-13.)

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with BAD RULING ON A JUDGE at Will County Pro-se.