The 22nd Circuit Court Mchenry County Woodstock Illinois Judicial Violation Of Constitutional Oath of office. U.S.Code Violations, State and Federal Statute, and Supreme Court Rule Woodstock Mchenry County Illinois Illinois

TIME LINE FOR ROBERT G. LASHEFF AND THE 19TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT McHENRY COUNTY ILLINOIS

NOW THE 22ND Judicial Circuit
* Please note much of this Time line was culled from my recently stalled Federal Complaint

Plaintiff= Robert G. Lasheff / Approximately 11 years & counting of Litigation

1) May 1992 Robert G. Lasheff & Catherine E. Huff are married Catherine brings Andrew Huff into the family (4 year old son) from her 1st Marriage. Within the first year of our marriage Catherine ceases her medication and treatment protocol for a long term series of Mental health problems. Catherine indicates to me that the many medications she was taking were to deal with the stressful nature of her first divorce . At the time I had no reason to disbelieve her.

2) In the June of 1995 about the time Andrew would leave for one month to visit his grandparents for his regular summer visitation (This would always greatly upset Catherine) we had what I would consider a mild argument, absolutely nothing more. See comments of LITH Police within Custody Evaluation Jan 1997)This later prompted Catherine to go to the police, have me arrested , have a order of protection made out against me and even though Catherine and I were having many relatively pleasant conversations over the telephone Catherine had the order of protection extended. I was forced to hire a local Waukegan attorney and take this to court at which time at charges were dropped after Catherines statement that maybe she had over reacted. Her mood swings and bizarre behaviors were of great concern for Andrew and I. Often she would be completely shut down and at other times irrational. Then in the late summer of 1996 Catherine filed for divorce based on severe mental cruelty?

3) It is at this point that I discovered through conversations with Catherines family the truth behind her mental health issues and how it had affected her life before I met and eventually married her. (Something that I should have been told back in 1991) Catherine at some point much earlier in her life was diagnosed with Bi-Polar disorder and among other medications she was placed on lithium (standard med at the time to treat Bi-Polar). Another medication that was noted was Navane (identified as an anti- psychotic)Which was believed to treat her tendency toward paranoia. Please understand that Bi-Polar is a life time illness and is Genetic in nature.

Catherine was never able to talk through our differences only to react in an aggressive manor.

Andrew was affected by this with his Attention Deficit disorder and Sleep walking and Elizabeth by her early learning disability & at this point I am uncertain of any further effects upon the children as this information has been denied to me. Catherine was committed to Elgin State Mental hospital by her own family I believe at some point in the mid to late 1980's. and was treated at several other clinics. Much of the above can be supported by statements within the Jan. 1997 Child Custody Evaluation, Mrs. Susan Blechesmidt & Officer John Gadrim both of the Lake in the hills police department and Catherines brother and Sister in Law living in Libertyville Illinois (among other witnesses).

4) July 1996At the time Catherine filed for divorce at the Woodstock court the Legal Office and its attorneys that represented Catherine E. Lasheff The law firm of Riffner, Freeman and Scott Chtd and latter attorney Terrence J. Freeman were never registered with the State Supreme Court
Page 1
to practice law. This was only discovered in December of 2003 Illinois Supreme Court Rule Page 1 721(c) prohibits a corporation from engaging in the practice of law in Illinois... without a certificate of registration issued by this court. A corporation that practices law without a certificate is engaged in unauthorized practice of law. Further, it was discovered that from 8/22/96 to 12/19/96 that Judge Sharon Prather and Catherines council were consolidating, submitting motions and issuing court orders without any notification to me therefore without my presents and without any council. Thus noting in the above no Subject Matter JURISDICTION was ever conferred upon this court and DUE PROCESS was denied.

5)Retained on August 1996 Attorney Daniel L.Weisz was my first council regarding case 96 DV 767. The relationship was short-lived as attorney Weisz only seemed to be working toward one goal and that was to let my ex- spouse have every thing including the Children as if this was some sort of predetermined conclusion. Further, I reported Mr. Weisz to the ARDC sometime in early January 1997 . Please note, That many attorneys that I had interviewed over the period of the first two years of our divorce indicated to me that I would be lucky to even see my daughters to any great degree much less gain custody, this wore heavy on me.

6) It was in the Fall of 1996 that I then retained Maureen P. McIntyre as my council as I was told she was one of the best Attorneys available in the area. However, it was only about two weeks before She came up for a Judgeship and she had to drop me as a client. Mrs. McIntyre apologized and returned my entire retainer . I must say even in the short time we knew each other I was very impressed ( Now Judge M.P. McIntyre McHenry County, Woodstock Court)
7)Late Fall of 1996 My next selection for council was a big mistake. Attorney Terry R. Mohr. Mr. Mohr misrepresented himself as yet another fathers rights advocate and previous council to many other United Airlines employees. It was only after I signed with him that my previous attorney (mentioned that they would not have recommended him)This attorney proceeded to submit his client and his case to more damage then can be attributed to many of the opposing council during this period. This attorneys billing practice's were very intense, confusing & inaccurate. This attorney repeatedly refused to take any appropriate action regarding reported abuses of our children and in fact drew up and filed what can only be considered bizarre motions that in their wording only shed a very poor light on his own client. In addition, when I raised my concerns Mr. Mohr would adamantly refuse to consider any changes. Mr. Mohr was apparently an associate & friend of Attorney Daniel L.Weisz whom Mr. T. Mohr knew I had filed against with the ARDC.

8)Jan 1997 After Attorney Mohr withdrew on Jan. 17th ., Attorney Michael J. DuWaldt entered his appearance on my behalf or should I say on behalf on my former spouse. Mr. DuWaldt did willfully and negligently cause severe damage to this plaintiff and his family as follows; Misrepresented himself as a fathers rights advocate. Permitted a distinct and clear Conflict of Interest to enter into the litigation of Case 96 DV 767 despite his own involvement and his clients protests. Allowed pre-hearing consultations between the presiding Judge and opposing council. Made no effort to address issues of aggressive use of slander and alienation by my former spouse. Made no attempt to place any focus on my wife's Mental Health issues even though they were raised in the Joint Custody Evaluation. Made no attempt to press issues of
Page 2
assaults on this plaintiff by his ex-spouse even when a domestic violence arrest of Catherine was made at plaintiff's address. Proceeded to take credit for the plaintiff's efforts to assemble final joint custody agreement In point of fact Attorney M. DuWaldt through most of the litigation in case 96 DV 767 appeared to be almost in a coma (for lack of more descriptive term) and not even attempting to properly represent his client. And the following finding of the court SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 In re MICHAEL JOHN DUWALDT, Attorney Number 6196805 120 West Eastman, Suite 100 Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004-5948 File information: M.R. 19357, 02 CH 74 Mr. Duwaldt, who was licensed in 1987, was suspended for six months and until further order of the Court. He neglected to complete a settlement in a civil matter, prepared false documents, and made repeated misrepresentations to a client. & for conduct involving dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation and engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. This within the same time frame that attorney DuWaldt represented myself /ARDC report filed Feb 4,2004 .Mr. Duwaldt in this same report was found to be suffering from mental Health problems related to his work.

9)Jan, 1997 It is while I was represented by Attorney DuWaldt that the bulk of the hearings in 96 DV 767 were carried out before Judge Gerald M. Zopp *In his adjudication and administration of state case 96 DV 767 the honorable Judge Gerald M. Zopp Jr. was well aware of a conflict of interest and its distinctive effects on the deliberations within this court. Noting that Judge Zopps spouse ,my former spouse and the wife of my own attorney Michael Duwaldt were at the time of our dissolution all employed in a teaching capacity with McHenry County College in Woodstock. This fact was discussed in open court in a manner as if to brandish this issue before this plaintiff and when I expressed my complaints to my attorney he indicated he would raise my concerns to the Judge which he then failed to do. I latter attempted to raise the issue of conflict of interest on my own and I was ignored. It was very clear to this plaintiff that my ex-wife Catherine Pickar aka Lasheff aka Huff was utilizing every opportunity available to her to include influencing the court thru direct access to a member of Judge Zopps immediate family. This again became very clear in visible ex-parti conversations or statements between my ex-wife's attorney Mr. Freeman (Once again unlicensed to practice law in Illinois) and Judge Zopp or this plaintiff's own attorney Mr. Duwaldt. There appeared to be no attempt to conceal this at all. Judge G. Zopp issued very unequal and even discriminatory rewards in this dissolution.

(Exorbitant Child Support / Maintenance and Disproportionate Property Division one of many examples being- 60% of this plaintiffs employment pension 16+years of service' from less then four years of marriage) which in part was clearly based on information that he had obtained outside of that which should have been a matter of court record.

10)September of 1998 through May of 2001 Judge Michael T. Caldwell * On several occasions in his administration of issues within his court the honorable Judge Michael T. Caldwell demonstrated his discriminatory opinions regarding Inequality of Justice or Double Standards, Domestic Violence and the gender bias's that color these issues. Judge Caldwell was involved in the decision making process on two or more questionable orders of protection, was the Judge of record in a domestic battery charge brought by the State of Illinois against Catherine
Page 3
E. Pickar aka Lasheff case 97 CM 4006 .Of particular note in the proceedings (97 CM 4006 bench trial before Judge Caldwell ,letter of April 20,1998 from Office of the States Attorney in attachment as Exhibit H) that although Catherine was found guilty of the charge of domestic battery and was placed on one year probation Judge Caldwell proceeded to lecture this plaintiff on the fallacy of having any direct communication with my ex-spouse? Now this seemed somewhat out of place considering there was no provocation involved and that we were attempting compliance with a court imposed joint custody agreement which included the basic understanding of open communication. Further, at the completion of this hearing the assistant States attorney Mr. Ronald R. Inderbitzen commented to this plaintiff that he had hoped to press for at least an anger management class as part of Catherine's probation however, he decided not to press this issue as he(Mr. Inderbitzin) had felt Judge Caldwell seemed hard pressed to go as far as he did. Add note,/ case.98 CF 959 the Original Judge assigned to this case, the honorable Thomas A. Schermerhorn makes a statement of his belief in this plaintiffs guilt at the bond hearing in open court? Plaintiff states how does this then comply with the concept of a fair trial.
The honorable Judge Michael T.Caldwell was also the Judge presiding in State of Illinois case.98 CF 959. *(Proceeded as a bench trial with no input from this plaintiff regarding his wishes for a full jury trial)and during this trial which began in September of 1998 through May of 2001 the following was in evidence and witnessed by the plaintiff, members of the plaintiffs family and friends: Numerous violations of plaintiffs rights as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, the State of Illinois Constitution and both state and federal statutes to include but not limited to; Tampering with states evidence, attempted bribery of witness, falsified testimony of alleged witness, conflicting testimony of alleged victim, denial of right to confront or cross examine witness, special interest influence, tampering with official court transcripts, uncontrolled and inaccurate press coverage and clear ineffective assistance of council. Further , the plaintiff states that the truth regarding State of Illinois case.98 CF 959. has never been fully presented to this or any other court of Law in the State of Illinois and although plaintiff has made numerous efforts and expended vast amounts of money to correct this thru the. State of Illinois Legal system, plaintiff no longer has any confidence in a just outcome. The plaintiff also complains that despite the matter of record fact that the alleged victim was not in compliance with her medication protocol (Lithium & Navane), has a long documented history of mental health aberrations, which included suffering from an illness that is a noted common contributor to the very causes and reasons for the dissolution and latter violence. (This illness, Bi-Polar and paranoid personality was re-diagnosed and referenced by medical staff within the January 24, 1997 Child Custody Evaluation in attachment Exhibit E.)Further the defendant Catherine E. Pickar was serving a one year probation ordered by the above named court (19TH Judicial Circuit, Woodstock) (97 CM 4006 bench trial before Judge Caldwell ,letter of April 20,1998 from Office of the States Attorney (2 pages)and 1 page L.I.T.H Police printout noting two Domestic Battery complaints 12/01/1997, 1/02/1998, Excerpt from Jan,1997 custody evaluation page 3 paragraph 6 attachment as Exhibit H) that although Catherine was found guilty of this,
one of several previous assaults on the plaintiff and on this occasion assaults this plaintiff with a deadly weapon while at the plaintiffs address, all of which were in evidence at the time and date that the crime recorded in State case No. 98 CF 959 occurred and noting the many related issues of complaint as referenced in this document; Plaintiff states, * How is it then conceivable
Page 4
that he is then arrested, made to endure approximately two and one half years of malicious prosecution and intense slander without the benefit of proper council nor the benefit of an impartial jury and is even compelled to be a witness against himself, all in complete disregard for the protections inherent in both the V and VI Amendments of the U.S. Constitution? (Note; plaintiff had no prior criminal record of any kind) (emphasis added) Further, Judge Michael T. Caldwell in his summation on the date of the sentizing hearing reads from a falsified written statement of an alleged witness whom was never brought before the court for testimony or cross-examination. This statement made by Judge Caldwell in the presents of at least five witnesses present on behalf of this plaintiff was then not to be found in the court transcripts received by the plaintiff. And finally shortly after this plaintiff was allowed to make his final statement Judge Caldwell immediately prior to handing down his sentence said quote Well he still wants to see them unquote, this in reference to the plaintiffs comment about not being able to see my own biological daughters Plaintiff asks what possible reason or purpose could Judge Caldwell have for making such a comment at this time and place?

.11) May 2001 McHenry County Jail Corrections Staff * The plaintiff also complains that at the conclusion of sentizing in state of Illinois case No. 98 CF 959 petitioner was exposed to negligent and abusive treatment by the corrections personnel of the McHenry county jail. This through the denial of prescription medications, physical assault and drugging to incapacitate the plaintiff which relates directly to injuries sustained and is part of medical diagnoses granting current Disability. ( Damage and deformation of T-12 vertebrae, initial medical finding 7/31/02 by the Arthritis & Internal Medicine Specialists Ltd. Through Bureau of Disability for Social Security Disability. (NOTE Exhibit J) This spinal injury has left the plaintiff with chronic back pain requiring daily medication. ) Further, I Robert G. Lasheff at no time intentionally provoked the correction officers. Please note that I was under an extreme amount of stress and suffering from not having my prescribed medication. Also, I had just been sentenced to 3 years in prison for something I was not guilty of and could think of nothing worse then having my daughters put in the soul custody of a mentally disturbed and now Homicidal Mother and a step brother that had recently been released from a mental institution after a breakdown incurred from experiencing a 2nd broken home and his Mothers continued bizarre behavior .

12) Sept, 1998 Attorney James Schwarzbach This attorney was hired by my younger brother in late September of 1998 to address the criminal allegations filed against me in relation to State of Illinois case.98 CF 959. Before this attorney had even reviewed any of details of this case he indicated to my brother that he could handle the entire case for no more then $4000 dollars ?and what was to follow was even more amazing. It became very evident that this attorney had no concept of ethical or dependable representation. Mr. Swarchbach was rarely on time for any consultation meetings or court hearings and more often then not he was a complete no show with no effort to notify myself or the court .(Emphasis added) of his whereabouts. After a number of these occasions the Judge presiding verbally berated Mr. Schwarzbach in open court and warned
him that if he was late one more time that he would be held in contempt of court and jailed. However, true to his nature he(Mr. Schwarzbach) was almost one hour late for the very next hearing however, nothing was said.. Plaintiff recalls one occasion in particular where after waiting approximately one hour and twenty minutes past a scheduled appointment attorney
Page 5
Schwarzbach appears and after realizing that he did not have his cigarette lighter with him and that his client did not have any matches that it would be best that we should cancel this meeting and re-schedule and despite my protest my attorney left. The plaintiff recalls that on the three or four occasions that Mr. Schwarzbach actually made a timely appearance our trial preparation consults were held in the front seat of my car or in a local public restaurant. This attorney made false and misleading statements to this court regarding his efforts on this plaintiffs behalf and when I attempted to apprise the Judge of my concerns the matter was turned into an issue of my medications and there effects on my abilities. In addition this plaintiff had some issues he wished to address with the DCFS regarding a hearing and while attorney Schwarzbach would relate one set of proposals to myself he in fact related a very different set of intentions to the DCFS and a very important hearing that I had requested and was granted went forward without our presents. After complaining to this attorney regarding the many inconsistences It was attorney Schwarzbach last comment To hell with your kids that finally made it clear that I would be forced to seek new council despite the poor timing in relation to on going litigation. (Reference four pages Motion to Discharge Council ,Notice of Motion & Motion to Continue Filed in said State court on Jun 21, 2000 Case No 98 CF 959 and in attachment
as Exhibit I ) - Compounded Ineffective Assistance of council -
13) July,2002 *Attorney John E. Ridgway This attorney replaced attorney J. Schwarzbach in late June early July of 2000. This plaintiffs bankruptcy attorney Mr. Scott Bentley of Mchenry referenced .Mr. Ridgway and indicated that they would both represent me in State of Illinois case 98 CF 959 if and when I could provide their requested fee. Arranging this new representation so late in the proceedings was extremely stressful however it was very apparent that I had no real alternative. I trusted Mr. Bentley and initially Mr. Ridgway and felt comfortable with their efforts. I was somewhat uncomfortable with the realization that Mr. Bentley had no apparent criminal law experience and was in fact following Mr. Ridgways lead. However, my faith in attorney Ridgways representation only really began to dissipate when he insisted on choreographing every statement I made before the court and this with the often repeated admonishment That we must not appear to be attacking the victim, (Emphasis added) Now this was not easy for me to understand as self defense was at issue here and there were so very many other related events and issues that I had felt had been suppressed far to long already. The plaintiff recalls a conversation with attorney Ridgway regarding his (plaintiffs) belief that the primary reason for the Lake In the Hills Police turning so aggressive in their efforts to prosecute this plaintiff was the simple fact that I had become in their impression an armed threat (imagined) to their officers and that the other problem (Catherine Lasheff aka Pickar) was no longer a problem for them as she now resided outside of their jurisdiction in Woodstock. Attorney Ridgways reply to this impression was that your probably correct but if you cannot prove it you don't dare raise it (Emphasis added) (Note reference to letter dated 02/01/1998 A Sunday morning & attached Lake In the Hills Police report printout of 02/01/1998 in attachment as Exhibit G.) At some point in the latter stages of the trial my council made what I latter
understood to be an abrupt about face and decided to go for a bench trial instead of the jury trial that we had been pushing for up to this point. Plaintiff does not recall ever being asked about not having a jury, nor do I recall ever signing a waver of jury. I remained confused by this decision but in my stressed and depressed state of mind I simply assumed my council knew what he was doing. Page 6

Mr. Ridgway knowing of my concerns about raising my former wives long record of mental health problems, her prior assaults on this plaintiff in the presents of the children and my concerns for the children in general did finally elicit some testimony on these issues however, it was very brief and low keyed and I personally was never provided with the opportunity to bring focus to issues that I felt were extremely relevant and had been all along. It was as if my council was taking great care as to not appear to be attacking the victim (E.A) or offending the ladies of the prosecution. (plaintiffs impression). As the proceedings drew to a close councils intention to prepare and arrange for my witnesses and other planned meetings where not held. Latter at the sentizing hearing when Judge Caldwell read from a long forgotten, untruthful and damaging letter from a doctor Ahmad .(statements that were latter removed from the final transcripts and were not even contained in the initial medical records presented) (Further this alleged witness was never brought before this court for testimony or cross-examination) attorney Ridgway requested a release on bond pending an appeal however , this was not granted. The plaintiff recalls that the Judges determination and sentence came as somewhat of a surprise to many in the court room. But once again recalling the treatment that I had received from the very beginning of our dissolution process back in 1996 and my fears that equality of justice was clearly contested n this court (Emphasis added) this should have been no surprise at all. Attorney Ridgway never filed the appeal he spoke of in court which was also a part of our contract, attorney Ridgway failed to return the $5000 dollars that he indicated in his letter he would return if our case went to a bench trail, which it did and attorney Ridgway never returned this plaintiffs records despite numerous written requests to do so. ( One page letter from plaintiff to Attorney Ridgway, Two page Letter of offer to represent J. E. Ridgway in attachment as EXHIBIT K) It is this plaintiffs impression that attorney John E. Ridgway harbored more allegiance to the media pressure, this court and the growing courtroom sentiment then any obligation he had regarding his client Further, after this plaintiff was compelled to file his own appeal of State of Illinois case 98 CF 959 from the highly restrictive confines of a prison cell with poor to non-existent access to the law library the appellate attorney assigned indicated that attorney Ridgway had left very few opportunities in which an appeal would go forward. Despite many of the issues raised within the context of this document being made available to the appeals court the appeal was only presented as a question of my ability to stand trial which was denied 2nd District Appellate Court Elgin Ill. Once again a great many key issues overlooked or suppressed.

.14) From approx.July 1996 to present *Turning Points Plaintiff wishes to state that from the very onset of this plaintiff involvement with the 19th Judicial Circuit Court in Woodstock Illinois the organization known as Turning Points has been as a matter of record and thru regular contact with Catherine Pickar (this plaintiffs former spouse) involved with State of Illinois case 96 DV 767 and the following State of Illinois case.98 CF 959. It should be noted that Turning Points' has from at least 1996 and continues currently to hold office space within the confines of the Woodstock courthouse. Lake In The Hills police personnel have indicated to this plaintiff that the organization known as Turning Points' had on at least one
occasion been under investigation due to allegations that they Turning Points' were in fact a
special interest group with decidedly anti-male sentiments.(Emphasis added) The public presentations of Turning Points and other supportive agencies as in The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and The office Of Violence Against Women would have the Public
Page 7
believe that women never assault or even murder men in domestic conflicts or that the number of female perpetrators is so infinitely minute that it is not even worth mentioning., Further, it is the perception of many that when a woman strike's a man or boy that this is somehow cute or even funny. These discriminatory concepts, defy current statistics, research and even common sense. Domestic Violence is not and never has been a Gender Specific problem. This should be evident within the context of this complaint and its attachments,(Exhibit H) thru many professional agencies, and readily available statistics. The plaintiff is most assuredly in favor of protections for women, However, simply because the average male is heavier and stronger then the average female should not be grounds for this type of discrimination which over the last decade or so has grown into something that should be considered a Hate Crime. (Data available to this court from plaintiff) In conversations and confrontations with staff members of this group, conversations with staff members of the Lake in the Hills Police dept. past organizers of Turning Points, its apparent connections with federal domestic violence support groups and Turning Points very own public mission statement and other informational data that this agency displays on the internet this petitioner believes that it was very clear that during the years of his involvement within the Woodstock court (1996- current) the staff of Turning Points was fully and openly antagonistic toward this plaintiff, would not return telephone calls, refused requested assistance and its unequal and discriminatory influence (Gender Bias) has no place in a court of law and most definitely should not be allowed to hold office space within said premisses. The initial prosecutor for the State in Illinois case 98 CF 959 assistant States Attorney Donna J. Macky was seen to frequent the office of Turning Points during the proceedings in said case. Title 42 Chapter 94 Subchapter II Sec 8625 Nondiscrimination provisions (a) Prohibitions No person shall on the ground of race, color, national origin , or sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under this subchapter.

15)Summer of 1995 thru May of 2001 Lake in the Hills Police Department involvement came about due to the conflicts my family began having on or about the summer of 1995. Due to Catherines Pickars aka Lasheff's inability to remain in compliance with her treatment protocol part of which was a problem with paranoia wherein relatively minor domestic quarrels were escalated out of any proportion to real events. This escalation being false allegations, arrests and orders of protection. Defendants family was well aware of and experienced with this type of behavior from Catherine however, the family neglected to relate the degree or particulars of her diagnoses prior to or during the four years so of our marriage. Then in the Fall of 1996 a Mrs. Susan Blechesmidt in her capacity as a social worker employed by the Lake in the Hills Police became involved with our family. Mrs. Blechesmidt spent a great deal of time and effort in counciling Catherine, Andrew and this plaintiff in an effort to help with our domestic problems. She also ran interference so to speak' with the Ladies of Turning Points on my behalf through her contacts in this organization and with members of the staff of Centegra Horizons whom had
been contracted to complete our Joint custody evaluation. It is through Mrs. Blechesmidt and latter Officer J. Gadrim also of the L.I.T.H Police that a clear picture of the real source of our families domestic conflicts began to emerge and both Mrs. Blechesmidt and Officer Gadrim gave
witness to their concerns through input into our Joint Custody Evaluation (In Attachment within
Exhibit E Approximately 98 pages.). I trusted this ladies opinions and advice, that is until the latter half of 1998 and the statements reportedly made by Mrs. Blechesmidt to the chief of the Lake in the Hills Police Department regarding the apparent stress level that I was experiencing.
* Mrs. Blechesmidt knew all to well the degree of negligence and disparity that was occurring in court and its highly stressful effects on this plaintiff however, this issue had clearly become more of an imagined threat to the officers of the department and the community when the fact that the plaintiff was a long time collector of military was brought into the picture. (Emphasis added) (Noted inclusion of firearms,

The plaintiff recalls a conversation with his attorney Ridgway regarding his (plaintiffs) belief that the primary reason for the Lake In the Hills Police turning so aggressive in their efforts to prosecute this plaintiff was the simple fact that I had become in their impression an armed threat (imagined) to their officers and that the other problem (Catherine Lasheff aka Pickar) was no longer a problem for them as she now resided outside of their jurisdiction in Woodstock. Attorney Ridgways reply to this impression was that your probably correct but if you cannot prove it you don't dare raise it (Emphasis added) It is this issue that in the opinion of this plaintiff then became the prime Motivation for the Lake In The Hills Police to proceed as they did in case 98 CF 959 hereafter. (Note reference to letter dated 02/01/1998 A Sunday morning & attached Lake In the Hills Police report printout of 02/01/1998, Exhibit G.) It is at this point that the understanding support and assistance that I had been receiving from members of the Lake In The Hills Police came to an abrupt and unnerving end. The officers involved in 98 CF 959 were officers that I had no contact with prior to this point, never attempted to apprise this plaintiff of his rights and persisted in questioning this plaintiff during early morning hours in the hospital, while he was under the influence of medications and recovering from a knife wound. In State of Illinois case.98 CF 959.(Proceeded as a bench trial with no input from this plaintiff regarding his wishes for a full jury trial) and during this trial which began in September of 1998 and proceeded through May of 2001 the following was in evidence and witnessed by the plaintiff, members of the plaintiffs family and friends: Numerous violations of plaintiffs rights as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, the State of Illinois Constitution and both state and federal statutes to include but not limited to; Tampering with states evidence, Also please note that at no time was this plaintiff ever provided with his Miranda Rights prior to ,during or after plaintiffs arrest. Miranda v. Arizona 1966., Also attempted bribery of witness, falsified testimony of alleged witness, falsified testimony of arresting officer, conflicting testimony of alleged victim, denial of right to confront or cross examine witness, tampering with official court transcripts, uncontrolled and inaccurate press coverage (The Lake in the Hills Police as a matter of record made statements of pure assumption in clear opposition to findings of the Court, leading to Libelous media coverage, articles available) and clear ineffective assistance of council.(based on original defense pleading of (Not Guilty by reason of self defense). (Note; plaintiff had no prior criminal record of any kind (Emphasis .Added) This plaintiff has never received a clear answer as to why a report by the Lake in the Hills Police to the DCFS was apparently never made following the

Juvenile Out of Control call on 8/27/96 Exhibit d within Exhibit E (Emphasis .Added) especially noting the horrendous state of both the inside and outside of the home at three Deerpath (Photographs presented) and the matter of record fact that one of the children was taken to a mental institution (Columbia Woodland Hospital Hoffman Estates Illinois) immediately following this incident. (Note medical documents within Exhibit C & E) CITE-18 USC Sec. 2258 Failure to report child abuse STATUTE Further, the plaintiff must now deal with the nightmare of not being fully informed of what his children have been exposed to during this period or the intervening years, one year of unlawful imprisonment, two years of humiliating parole and a life time burden of a felony label, loss of family, loss of home, loss of career, financial devastation, severe damage to his credit, damages to friend and family relationships, loss of children's birthright and petitioners ability to restore same, and *multiple hospitalizations, Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, depression and now physical disability. (Ten year's & counting of unequal, discriminatory and malicious litigation) (Emphasis .Added)

*However, it is very clear to this plaintiff that the most debilitating and painful damage suffered by this plaintiff (Emphasis added) has been the long term separation from his own biological children Elizabeth and Abigail Lasheff, one half of their lives during the most formative years and more so both the short and long term pain, suffering and loss incurred by these complete innocents whom have had absolutely no voice in the direction their lives have been forced into. Plaintiff and soul biological father believes this to be the most Heinous Miscarriage of Justice he can begin to imagine.

16)Assistant States Attorney Charles E. Crouse *Relative to his position with the Illinois States Attorneys Office within the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit court Woodstock Illinois Assistant States Attorney Charles E. Crouse has initiated repeated hearings before the court in relation to a wrongful charge of failure to provide for minor children (motion to vacate on file with State court) and as noted under the previous defendant, alleged child support & alimony arrearage's. Mr. Crouse is fully aware of this plaintiffs appeal with the State Second Judicial Circuit (Brief and Argument filed on May 26, 2004) which brings the entire State case 96 DV 767 into question based on Jurisdictional issues yet, Mr .Crouse has been responsible for most of what has been approximately seven continuances. (Judicial Economy?) and has continued to press for sanctions and further prosecution. On one occasion this plaintiff was in court for the better part of two hours while being represented by a public defender (the court, Mr. Crouse and the public defender being fully apprised of the presents and intentions of the plaintiff) and when this plaintiff excused himself from court on a call of nature(5 min's) returned and sat for approximately another 45 minutes only to realize upon final call of court that his case had been once again continued. No explanation from public defender. Mr. Crouse has presented letters to this plaintiffs former attorney Mr. Wesley Pribla noting intentions for further prosecution based on false information and assumptions and this same inaccurate information has been brought before the court by Attorney Crouse. In re Lamberis (1982), 93 Ill.2d 222, 229, 66 Ill. Dec. 623, 443 N.E.2d 549." "The Court has broadly defined fraud as any conduct calculated to deceive, \ whether it be by direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or silence, by word of mouth, by look, or by gesture. Fraud includes the suppression of the truth, as well as the presentation of false information.
Page 10

When Mr. Crouse was provided with more current information(some of which had been on file with the court for over six months) by plaintiff thru the public defenders office and after the above noted filing of motion to vacate, Mr. Crouse then indicated that he was willing to drop charges pending this plaintiffs agreement to offer him (Mr. Crouse) something in return. This then noted as being the one thousand dollar bond (to be put towards alleged arrearage's) paid after an arrest of this plaintiff on 10/09/03 stemming from the previously mentioned wrongful charge of failure to provide for a minor and this arrest occurring with no previous service or Miranda of any kind. If the acts which the state attorney general(officer of the court) seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer, in proceeding under such enactment, comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. 209 U.S. 123, 159-60 (1908) In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted. Plaintiff wishes this court to know that at no time has he been willfully negligent in his obligation to his biological children . Further, the alleged arrearage's as presented have been arrived at with absolutely no input or lawful representation permitted to this plaintiff. (Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution) On Aug 12, 2004 without this plaintiff being in attendance and without discussion on the merits of this plaintiffs filing in response, the afformentioned $1000 dollar bond is assessed toward alleged arrearage's .Although my NOTICE OF FILING OF Sept 4,03 noting compliance with child support and covering alleged arrearages of almost $20,000 and noting coverage back to and effective from 10/2001 4 pages & my then attorney Mr .Pribla having a copy of and being fully aware of the content of this filing of Sep 4,2003; Yet, I still find myself facing an arrest warrant of 10/9/03 ,an arrest and then the aforementioned $1000 dollar bond NO 03 CM 1833. Further; even though Mr. Crouse was reappraised of the currency of my child support obligation via a letter from the Public defenders office on March 8th 2004 letters from the States Attorneys office of January 06,2004 & May 19th 2004 continue to be filled with misinformation and pure assumptions on the part of the assistant States Attorney Mr. C Crouse . (9 pages, in attachment as Exhibit D) Please note the above issues with the Assistant States Attorney occurred while our appeal with the 2nd Circuit Appellate ,(in question the Jurisdiction of the 19th Judicial Circuit regarding 96 DV 767 )the outcome of which had yet to be decided. And yet, the States Attorney continues to prosecute? What information was the State privy to that I was not?

17) July 2002 Judge Joseph P. Condon * In his adjudication and administration of state case 96 DV 767 the honorable Judge Joseph P. Condon of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Woodstock Illinois has from 1/11/2001 thru the fall of 2004 promoted and supported malicious prosecution of this plaintiff to include but not limited to; signing orders of the court without proper and timely service and without the presents or representation of this plaintiff, (Notable here; If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented
Page 11

litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself),. In addition Judge Condon made frequent use of both physical and psychological threat and intimidation, (plaintiff brought before the bench in cuffs and leg irons in a civil matter?), currently holds a contempt charge and mittimus for six months in county jail over this plaintiff based primarily on false allegations and assumptions which once again is an order emanating without a hearing or representation permitted to this plaintiff. (Order for Defendants Arrest based on Rule to Show cause ordering defendant (this Plaintiff) TO APPEAR in said court on OCT 24,2001. Plaintiff not released from I.D.O.C. until June 14th 2002 ,no writ or notice to I.D.O.C. facility. In attachment as Exhibit A(Also reference letters April 16,2002, Oct 5,2002 & Motion to Continue Hearing on Rule f iled June 4,2002, of T. M. Foley /copies in support of above and in attachment 6 pages as Exhibit A) (Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution), Government official will be denied qualified immunity for having violated clearly established rights when in light of preexisting law, the unlawfulness is apparent, (Burns vs. County of Cambria, PA. #764 F. Supp. 1031 What defendant actually believed or did not is irrelevant to qualified immunity analysis; it is objective reasonableness of defendants actions that governs, and Before court analyzes claim of qualified immunity, it first should determine whether plaintiff has alleged violation of clearly established constitutional rights, (Turiano vs. Scharrs, #904 F. Supp. 400); A further question is raised in what standing does the reason for mental cruelty as grounds for divorce have when the defendant Catherine E. Pickar is on record and on record before this court as having long term Mental Health problems of which she was in denial of and not incompliaince with her medical treatment at the time the filing for divorce before said court. In addition no proof or documentation for defendants claim of mental cruelty was ever presented to this court. In December of 2003 it was discovered the law firms that filed the petition for divorce and that represented Catherine E. Pickar a.k.a. Lasheff a.k.a Huff in the beginning of these proceedings through trial and entry of the judgement of divorce, were not registered with the Illinois Supreme Court to practice law. This non-compliance with rule 721c existed from at least the fall of 1996 through its discovery in December of 2003. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 721(c) prohibits a corporation from engaging in the practice of law in Illinois... without a certificate of registration issued by this court. A corporation that practices law without a certificate is engaged in unauthorized practice of law. Presbrey, Weir and Truemper Jr. 99 Ill.2d 242, 75 Ill. Dec.703, 457 N.E. 2d 1262 (1983). Fraud encompasses a broad range of human behavior, including anything calculated to deceive whether it be by direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or by silence, by word of mouth or by look or gesture. Also noted, verbal abuse from the bench in open court, deliberate and contemptuous denial of this plaintiffs efforts to present his issues or complaints in open court and through motions or petitions filed with this court, complete denial of this plaintiffs rights as a father to his children and the children's right to maintain a relationship with their father again with no hearing as to parental fitness on record. Three arrests with no service or Miranda (regardless of intent to interrogate ) provided, open contempt and ridicule of this plaintiffs efforts as a pro-se litigant, ordering the opposing attorney to take possession of and go through the contents of this plaintiffs personal briefcase without my permission and despite my objection, ordering this plaintiff to present out of pocket money in court to the opposing attorney based on false allegations (Affidavits in attachment as Exhibit B),


Page 12
Judge Condon has been overheard by witness to offer ex-parti advise to opposing council during session of court, has promoted continued financial devastation through alleged and incorrect arrearage's, excessive child support, alimony (upon appeal with the Illinois Division of Child Support Enforcement this matter under investigation).

Judge Condon has denied three petitions to reduce child support for cause, has refused to hear any motions for more frequent and meaningful visitation and has managed to nullify or deny any petitions or motions which would place the other party in a negative light.(Visitation Interference, Alienation of Affections) It rarely seems to be a matter before the court regarding issues of concern to this plaintiff. Further, Judge Condon apparently has no regard for the long term financial damage to this plaintiff and his family resulting in endless and unequal litigation which has reached a point where this plaintiff cannot afford to visit his own children, has had to apply for food stamps or obtain VA meal tickets, borrow money from veterans' assistance and is being pressed into a bankruptcy state for a second time. And perhaps most difficult of all to understand has been this courts complete refusal to recognize the matter of record mental health conflicts of the plaintiffs former spouse, Catherine E. Pickar, her on again ,off again life long battle with manic depressive disorder, her matter of record inability to remain compliant with her treatment and medication and the immense damage this has exposed this plaintiff and their children to which can only be construed as reckless endangerment of the minor children. (Emphasis added) In addition this plaintiffs repeated efforts to present to this court the effects of eight years of completely one sided malicious prosecution, and its effects on not only the plaintiffs pro-se abilities in court (results of prolonged intimidation on plaintiff notable in both court transcripts and medical records) but also its progressive damage to this plaintiffs psychological and physical health all of which is notably during and post divorce in onset and duration (the plaintiff has been taken from this court building on a gurney by emergency medical personal on two occasions 11/13/02 and on 3/3/05 (Billing Letter from Woodstock Fire Rescue service date of 11/13/02 & billing from Centegra Health dated 03/03/05 , 5 (others in record) AEU (Emergency Room) visits North Chicago V.A. Hospital 8/30/2002, 2/03/2003,3/30/2003, 1/13/2004, 2/16/2004). All of which are direct results of actions of opposing council or the court itself; in attachment as Exhibit C) Further, despite the inherent Constitutional protections for parental rights, and despite perhaps 130 or more years of supportive and protective decisions regarding parental rights emanating from the U.S. Supreme Court and lacking any finding of this plaintiff regarding his unsuitability to remain a father to his daughters with no suitability hearing on record with the instant state court, this court continues to unlawfully deny the plaintiffs rights as the soul biological father to Elizabeth & Abigail Lasheff . Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. (emphasis added) 'A penalty offends the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment when it is 'so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.' (In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 424; In re DeBeque (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 241, 248.)There is no time limit for attacking a void Judgement under N. D. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(iv) Eggl v. Fleetguard, Inc. 1998 ND 166, 583 N.W. 2d 812 A Judgement is void if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. A void Judgement is a nullity and may be vacated at any time.
Page 13
261 Kan. At 862 Plaintiff request this court to note that in essence the 19th Judicial Circuit has and continues to Hound this plaintiff into an early grave based on false allegations, misconceptions & extreme gender bias and this has been occurring for the better part of the Ten years previously mentioned. (Letter dated 4/3/01 From doctor George Lutz VA Medical Center written a few days before sentizing hearing in case No. 98 CF 959, Billing letter from Woodstock Fire Rescue service of 11/13/02 & billing from Centegra Health dated 03/03/05, 5
(others in record) AEU (Emergency Room) visits North Chicago V.A. Hospital 8/30/2002, 2/03/2003,3/30/2003, 1/13/2004, 2/16/2004 All of which are direct results of actions of opposing council or the court itself.
18) Fall of 2000 approx. *Attorney Gary M. Foley Law offices of Mark L. Shaw This attorney was hired by my former spouse at some point just prior to my incarceration. Attorney Foley was oblivious to any responsibility regarding due process and was responsible for several significant motions against this plaintiff while he was in the custody of I.D.O.C. and frequently with little to no notification allowing only late to non-excitant representation to this plaintiff. Two notable issues that went before the court and were presented by attorney Foley with absolutely no due process provided to this plaintiff were an action to vacate our Joint Custody Agreement which was granted by Judge J. Condon and a Contempt of Court citation against this plaintiff with no effort made to writ this plaintiff out of confinement to answer charges in court. This plaintiff also complains that he is uncertain even at this point to the extent of damages caused by the unrestrained and void of due process legal actions (Emphasis added) of attorney Gary M. Foley during the period of this plaintiffs confinement. These predations continued unabated until the plaintiffs family was able to provide council for him in April of 2002. Thomas M. Foley (no relation to Gary M. Foley) filed his appearance as council for this plaintiff on April 15th 2002(Note letters April 16,2002, Oct 5,2002 & Filings June 4,2002, of T. M. Foley /copies in support of above & in attachment as Exhibit A) Attorney Gary M. Foley discontinued his representation of my former spouse based on supposed irreconcilable differences between himself and his client however this falling out actually occurred immediately after attorney G. M. Foley made an offer to this plaintiff to reduce the alleged 82,000 dollar child support arrearage's down to 10,000 dollars a sum which also did not exist therefore was not forthcoming Further, the plaintiff would like this court to be clearly aware of the highly traumatic and at one point almost fatal (Emphasis added) indirect effects of attorney Gary M. Foleys aggressive and unopposed litigation during this plaintiffs incarceration. The plaintiff was already in a poor state of affaires and invariably a mailing of legal papers to him from Gary M. Foleys office would require a visit to the prison infirmary. It was while I was on one of these visits to the facility Infirmary that a mistaken diagnoses by a staff Medical doctor in conjunction with a contraindicated prescription caused a full cardiac arrest and a code 3 visit to an outside hospital for this plaintiff. The plaintiff holds attorney Gary M. Foley indirectly responsible for much of the time spent in the facility Infirmary. (Note 3 Pages Medical Records from IDOC dated 12/11/01, 12/13/01 Code 3 status noted ,additional records available. Exhibit C. Also reference letters April 16,2002, Oct 5,2002 & Motion to Continue Hearing on Rule f iled June 4,2002, of T. M. Foley in attachment Exhibit A) The U.S. Constitution's eighth amendment states: 'Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.' A number of state constitutions also contain the same, or similar, provisions. "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to Page 14

"embrace that species of fraud , which does or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication " Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.
19) Attorney Samuel S. Meli of Coonen & Roth Ltd, attorney Meli is this plaintiffs ex-wife's (Catherine E. Pickar aka Lasheff aka Huff) current attorney of record. Attorney Meli has been faced with only my meager pro-si abilities for most of his term of representation and has worked in direct concert with Judge Joseph P. Condon to drive this plaintiff ever deeper into poverty and has aided and abetted Catherine E. Pickars every effort to deny two little girls of their right and desire to have an involved father, this fathers greatest desire. Attorney Meli with the support of the Judge presiding has whitewashed issues of Visitation Interference, Petitions for more frequent & meaningful visitation and has fully ignored this plaintiffs documented concerns for the health and welfare of his children. Attorney Meli ignored the repeated attempts of this plaintiff to make himself and this court fully aware of the effects of eight years of one sided malicious prosecution has had on the in court abilities of this plaintiff preferring to only use this issue to his advantage. Attorney Meli was the attorney that took possession of this plaintiffs briefcase and then rifled through same without this plaintiffs permission and despite his protests under the 4th amendment. Further, Attorney Meli has filed and presented to this court personal medical records concerning this plaintiff from Federal agencies without a release of information authorization signed by this plaintiff ; During a discussion in open court before the honorable Judge Gordon E. Graham no mention of a subpoena for these documents was admitted to, this in violation of 740 ILCS 110 The Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Act. In addition Attorney Meli has all but buried this plaintiff with endless interrogatories and other financial inquiries. Attorney Meli has persisted in pressing a Mittimus for 6 months in jail based on the previously mentioned contempt charge which has already been noted as being void of Due Process. (Order for Defendants Arrest based on Rule to Show cause ordering defendant (this Plaintiff) TO APPEAR in said court on OCT 24,2001 Plaintiff not released from I.D.O.C. until June 14th 2002 ,no writ or notice to I.D.O.C. facility. (Also reference letters April 16,2002, Oct 5,2002 & Motion to Continue Hearing on Rule filed June 4,2002, of T. M. Foley /copies in support of above and in attachment as Exhibit A) Plaintiff asks, how can this be seen as in the best interest of the children? Or for that matter How can any of the above described instances which make up the core of this complaint relate in any way at all to the issue of In the best Interest of the Children When in point of fact they show clear and deliberate Reckless Endangerment of the Minor Children Involved. Update 2006 Attorney Meli continues to commit Fraud before this Court and submits falsified or altered documents.

20) Associate Judge Gordon E. Graham, Becomes presiding Judge in case 96 DV 767 shortly after Associate Judge the Honorable Michael W. Feeterer rightfully recused himself following Judge Condons transfer to the criminal division.19th Judicial Circuit Woodstock Ill. Although I had hoped for some degree of change toward real Justice with the new presiding Judge those hopes where rapidly dashed after the first few proceedings before Judge Graham. Judge Graham has denied all but one of my motions and has continued the long line of Judicial partiality, threat, Page 15

intimidation and insult toward this plaintiff . Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202. Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
21) Clerks of the Court, Ongoing Please note that I have had fairly consistent problems with
this office of the 19th Judicial Circuit. They have refused to accept a lawfully served Federal Summons, Have placed incomplete documents into the record of the court when full record was ordered by myself or council. And have argued over minor issues when I have presented documents for filing, Noting the above and earlier references of altered records on file I have no faith in the accuracy of this Record of the Court in case # 96 DV 767 or case.98 CF 959.
22)IL. Dept of Healthcare & Family Services Division of Child Support Enforcement Springfield This organization continues to threaten and press me for alleged arrearage's in child support, The total sum of which varies from $80,000 dollars down to $10,000 and although it was recently set at approximately $ 38,000 I received a statement this month (Sept) from their office that now Indicates I owe a past due amount of $50, 480.72 .I tried to address and correct this issue on at least a half dozen occasions through, written appeals, personal visits, and phone calls yet they continue to befuddle me and seem to believe I can live on nothing. Note; I am currently living on Social Security Disability, when I was awarded this my children automatically received approx. $20,000 dollars in back support and about $ 365 dollars per child each month(two daughters) In addition the above office has garnished my own S. S. Disability check about $600 additional dollars per month. Also I was made to pay $250 dollars every month out of my own pocket for about three years based on a completely void contempt order from Judge Condon as noted above; This mittimus & contempt order was mysteriously dropped & not vacated after I filed several complaints & I stopped paying this sum($250) within the last year. Which leaves me currently attempting to live on just over $900 dollars per month. The court has also frozen my bank account and taken about $ 670 out of this. The court as previously noted has unlawfully arrested me on a least 3 occasions and each one of these cost me $1000 in bond money that was never returned. Further, I was never allowed a reduction in child support for cause (4 PETITIONS DENIED) after I lost my position with United Airlines in MAY of 2000 Therefore all the payments since May have been based on income I no longer make. The office of child support enforcement seems to have been endowed by our State Government with unlimited powers to obtain funds regardless of whether they are owed or not. And the State Government is prompted to do so by Federal Grant Money. ( Two Bankruptcies Filed )
Note; I have a petition for change of Venue on file (to be heard on Dec 7, 2006) Four Judges have justly Recused themselves from hearing any further litigation in this case.
Page 16
Associate Judge Joseph P. Condon refused to Recuse himself for any reason even though I filed both a petition for change of Judge for cause and by matter of right, latter he was transferred to the Criminal Court. Associate Judge Gordon E. Graham then replaced Judge Condon in our case and an attempt to remove him by petition for cause was denied by Judge Prather. Judge G. Graham was then promptly moved to I believe the Family II Courtroom Further rther, Associate Judge Joseph P. Condon, Associate Judge Gerald M. Zopp Jr.
Circuit Judge Michael T. Caldwell, Associate Judge Gordon E. Graham, Circuit Judge Sharon L. Prather all remain defendants in my Federal Complaint Finally; Please note that I have filed petitions and complaints in State Appellate court 2nd district, State Supreme Court , Federal Court We