Injustice contre un citoyen tchadien aux USA : Rapport préliminaire de la Cour D'Appel de Illinois

RAPPORT PRELIMINAIRE A LA COUR D'APPEL DE ILLINOIS, CHICAGO.

Case No. 13 -3248

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ALAIN GUILINGTCHAI, )
) Appeal from the Circuit Court of
Plaintiff – Appellant ) Cook County, County Department ) Law Division v. )
) Circuit Court No. 13L4821
AT&T MIDWEST DIVISION ) ) Defendant – Appellee ) Hon. Judge Ronald F. Bartkowicz )

PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT, ALAIN GUILINGTCHAI’S STATUS REPORT

Plaintiff – appellant, Alain Guilingtchai pro se, files this report and states as follow:

1 This report is required by the appellate order of January 17, 2014, remanding this case to the Circuit Court (1) “for the limited purpose of conducting a hearing on the merits of defendant ’s motion filed on October 18, 2013, to vacate the Judgment of September 20, 2013. The Circuit Court shall issue a ruling within 45 days” The order further read (2) “ The Appellate Court retains jurisdiction of this matter.”And (3) “The parties are ordered to file a status report within 60 days.”
2 This report is also a succinct reiteration and description of the records on appeal and of the records at the Appellate level; and is so deemed necessary to establish a context so as to allow the public to have a full appreciation of the content of this report. It will be comprehensive but incomplete due to supreme rules limiting the number of pages to 20. However, plaintiff will make a full and complete report in his future book.
Case No: 13L4821 Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
3 On February 13, 2013, a door-to-door AT&T sales agent offered cable service to plaintiff with 30 day free trial period. “try our service for 30 days. If you like it, keep it. If you don’t like it cancel before the 30 days expiration and owe us nothing,” said the sales agent. “This promotion is offered by AT&T MIDWEST DIVISION for the entire Midwest region,” sales agent continued.
4 Plaintiff accepted the offer because of sales agent’s statements above.
5 On February 26, 2013, plaintiff called Defendant AT&T to express dissatisfaction with the said cable service, and cancelled. Defendant instructed plaintiff to take service equipments to the nearest UPS office for return.
6 On March 4, 2013, plaintiff returned all equipments to defendant through UPS per defendant’s instruction with return receipt.
7 On March 5, 2013, Defendant received all equipments with proof of delivery.
8 On April 12, 2013, defendant AT&T illegally withdrew $101.67 from Plaintiff’s TCF Bank account, causing account to reach negative status and being assessed $37.00 Insufficient Bank Fee.
9 At the same time, Plaintiff was sick with severe Cold and went to the Bank to withdraw money to buy over the Counter Cold medicine. Plaintiff discovered his account then to be negative. Upon inquiry, he found out through Bank officials that Defendant AT&T had withdrawn plaintiff’s Money.
10 For the next several days, plaintiff called Defendant several times a day as articulated in all his complaints to ask for refund and Defendant never refunded the Money.
11 On April 15, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint with Office of Illinois Attorney general Lisa Madigan. The Office of the Attorney was falsely told by the Secretary of AT&T’s office of the president, Beverley Shockley, that steps were taken to address plaintiff’s complaint.
12 On May 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant at the Circuit Court of Cook County, County Department for Consumer Fraud seeking $1,000,000.00 in the form of relief for the Inconveniences associated with the illegal taking of his money, of the $37 Insufficient Bank fee imposed by plaintiff’s Bank, the refusal by Defendant to refund plaintiff’s money in a timely manner for personal use and the emotional distress resulting from it all. Essentially, not only was plaintiff’s property taken without due process but he was denied right to access to his property ( money).
13 On the first hearing date of July 1st, 2013, defendant failed to appear (C00010).
14 On July 16, 2013, Defendant was properly served with Summons and complaint through the Cook County Sheriff (C00001 - C00009 and C00011).
15 On the second Court hearing of August 21, 2013, Defendant again failed to appear; and plaintiff introduced a Motion for Default judgment (C00013).
16 On the next Court hearing day of September 5, 2013, defendant again failed to appear, and Plaintiff’s motion for default was granted (C00014) and prove – up on damages was scheduled for September 20, 2013.
17 Defendant has acknowledged receipt of the Motion for Default “one day ” after it was entered (C00020), and did not contest.
18 On September 20, 2013, the Court ordered a default judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $5,187,67 representing plaintiff’s actual money taken, plus the insufficient fee, plus 5% interest, and punitive damages in the amount of $5,000.00. In doing so, the trial Court has failed to grant plaintiff the relief prayed for in initial complaint in a case decided by default proceeding.
19 In the United of America, a default Judgment is entered by the Court of Law when the allegations contained in the pleadings have not been defended against by a Defendant who, after having been properly served with summons and complaint (C00001 – C00009 and C00013) fails to plead and respond, or otherwise appear in Court; giving the moving party right to relief prayed in initial complaint as a matter of Law pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure 735 ILCS 5/2 – 1301 (d) and the Federal Code of Civil Procedure 54 (c). In Pertinent part, the Federal Code of Civil Procedure 54 (C) states:
“Judgment by default shall not be different in kind from or exceed in amount that prayed for in the demand for judgment”.

20 On October 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed in the Circuit Court a Notice of Appeal (C00029) to seek the $1,000,000.00 relief prayed in initial complaint as a matter of law pursuant to the Federal Code of Civil Procedure 54 (c).
21 On October 18, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion to vacate the default Judgment of September 20, 2013 on several grounds among which are the arguments that (1) Service of process was not complete because summons and complaint were delivered to an uneducated subcontractor by the name of Dennis Kabela, and that with such status, he was not authorized to accept service of process; (2) that AT&T MIDWEST DIVISION was not a legal entity and that the correct entity was Illinois Bell Telephone Company.
22 Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s first argument by asking the Court to simply review the summons which was addressed to AT&T MIDWEST DIVISION known by defendant’s admission (C00020) to conduct business at the address of 2000 W AT&T Center Dr, Hoffman Estates, Illinois. Because the summons was addressed to AT&T located at AT&T known place of business and delivered at the said address, the service of process was therefore complete, plaintiff contented.
23 Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s second argument by reminding the Court of Defendant’s sales agent’s statement at the time of offer of service during which she stated “try our service for 30 days. If you like it, keep it. If you don’t like it cancel before the 30 days expiration and own us nothing. This promotion is offered by AT&T MIDWEST DIVISION for the entire Midwest region,” sales agent continued. Plaintiff also provided to the court correspondences from the Office of the President of AT&T in which the secretary reiterated sales agent’s description of the company offering service to plaintiff. The secretary’s signature read as below:
Thank you,
Beverly Shockley
Midwest Region
AT&T Office of the President

Here again, plaintiff argued: AT&T MIDWEST DIVISION or REGION is an entity that counsel for defendant claims is not a legal entity, and yet is associated with Office of the President of the Company. Defendant’s argument is nothing more than a corroboration of the Fraudulent nature of the Defendant in the Conduct of business where Defendant claims free trial during offer and turns around and takes money from its unsuspecting victim. It is further an affirmation of plaintiff’s claim of fraud against Defendant where It (defendant) claims one identity during sales and then claims another identity in the Court of Law for the sole purpose of avoiding legal responsibility to an unsuspecting victim of consumer fraud.
24 At the hearing of October 28, 2013 at the Circuit Court regarding Defendant motion to vacate default, plaintiff argued that the Notice of Appeal filed on October 15, 2013 attaches instanter, and removed the case from Trial Court’s jurisdiction.
25 Defendant responded with a request for supplemental authority which the Court granted.
26 At the hearing of November 15, 2013, Plaintiff stood firm in his argument of the perfection of Notice of Appeal, and the issue of Court jurisdiction thereafter.
27 On December 5, 2013, the Trial Court ruled that the Notice of Appeal, filed before Defendant’s motion to vacate default vests the appellate Court with jurisdiction over the case, and Defendant’s motion was stricken down.
28 When Defendant filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County its Motion to vacate Default on October 18, 2013, Plaintiff also filed in the Court of Appeal a Motion to stay Judgment pending Appeal. In support of his motion, plaintiff argued that pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303(a)(2), the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to order STAY pending appeal as a matter of protecting the rights of an appellant who has filed a Notice of Appeal before post trial motion was introduced as held in John G. Phillips & Assoc. v. Brown, 197 Ill. 2d. 337 (2001).
29 Although Plaintiff’s Motion to STAY was uncontested by Defendant, the Appellate Court denied the Motion without any legal ground.
30 On December 17, 2013, plaintiff filed at the Appellate Court the Records on Appeal which unlawfully included Defendant’s Motion to vacate default although that motion was filed after the notice of appeal was perfected. The Inclusion of Defendant Motion to vacate default in initial records on appeal stands in direct conflict with the Supreme Court ruling in Wolcott v. Village of Lombard, 387 Ill. 621. Here, the Supreme Court held that the Reviewing Court does not possess jurisdiction to review proceedings of the lower Court which happened after the Notice of Appeal was filed.
This was so purposely done so as to serve as a stepping stone for the systematic administration of injustice against Plaintiff in his just cause at the appellate level. Although the Circuit Court included Defendant’s motion to vacate in the Records on Appeal, it conveniently left out the Circuit Court’s ruling of December 5, 2013 in which Defendant’s Motion to vacate was denied and all other orders after Notice of Appeal.
31 On December 30, 2013, Defendant filed, in the Appellate Court a Notice of Cross – Appeal and the Notice of Filing of Cross – Appeal, appealing the Default judgment of September 20, 2013 and the Circuit Order of December 5, 2013 denying Defendant’s motion to vacate.
32 On January 3, 3014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Cross – Appeal. In support of his Motion, Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s Cross – Appeal was not in Conformity with Law pursuant to Rule 303 (a)(3). Pertinently, the rules states:
If a timely Notice of Appeal is filed and served by a party, any other party, within 10 days after service upon him or her, or within 30 days from the entry of the judgment or order being appealed, or within 30 days of the entry of the order disposing of the last pending postjudgment motion, whichever is later, may join in the appeal, appeal separately, or cross – appeal by filing a notice of appeal, indicating which type of appeal is being taken.

Here, the law is clear, plaintiff argued. The law is only applicable when postjudgment matters are by law, under the trial Court’s jurisdiction. However, when a Notice of Appeal is filed, the Appellate Court becomes, immediately, vested with jurisdiction over the matter as held in Farwell Construction v. Ticktin, 84 Ill. App. 3d 791 (1980). Therefore, any action taken by Defendant, be it Motion to vacate default or Cross – Appeal must be predicated upon the perfection of the Notice of Appeal of October 15, 2013; and, under the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Defendant’s Cross Appeal of December 30, 2013 is untimely and not withstanding. In fact, it is 45 days late pursuant to Rule 303 (a)(3) governing Appeals and Cross – Appeal.
33 Acting in full consideration of Defendant’s unlawful Cross – Appeal, the Appellate Court issued an order remanding the case to the lower Court for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the merits of Defendant motion to vacate default; in Violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights to be equally protected under the law. Furthermore, the order by the Appellate Court remanding the case to lower court to be heard on Issue raised after a Notice of Appeal stood in Direct conflict with the Supreme Court ruling in Wolcott v. Village of Lombard, 387 Ill. 621 which held that the reviewing Court does not have jurisdiction to consider matters raised in the Lower Court after a Notice of Appeal is perfected. This is clearly an indication that the actions of the Appellate Court are not guided by Law.
34 On the order of the Appellate Court remanding the case, the Lower Court, at the hearing of January 30, 2014 vacated the default judgment of September 20, 2013 on Defendant’s argument that Illinois Bell Telephone Company ought to replace AT&T in the Court of law when AT&T is in fact the Company that took money from Plaintiff’s Bank account as shown in (C00004). Plaintiff’s Bank statement (C00004) from TCF Bank denotes AT&T as the entity that took money from plaintiff and not Illinois bell Telephone Company. In spite of Defendant not providing a single document linking plaintiff to Illinois Bell Telephone Company and the Plaintiff providing several evidences linking Him (Plaintiff to AT&T Midwest Division / Region), the Trial Court vacated the default. In addition, when plaintiff reminded the Court that Defendant has admitted receiving the Notice of Default “one day” after it was issued and yet did contest, the Trial Court did not want to hear that reminder. Lastly, when plaintiff attempted to provide legal authorities in support of his argument that AT&T MIDWEST DIVISION is correctly sued, Judge, Ronald Bartkowicz got up out of his seat and walked away, refusing to hear Plaintiff’s argument. The Judge’s order vacating the default not only amounts to gross injustice, but stands in direct Conflict with the Supreme Court ruling of the cases Pennsylvania Co v. Sloan, 125 Ill. 72; Pond v. Ennis, 69 Ill. 341. In both of these cases, the Supreme held that where summons is served, and the circumstances are such that the entity summoned is the entity to be sued, then the entity is subject to the judgment, even if the process and the judgment do not refer to it by the correct name.
35 In this case, it is not that Plaintiff Alain Guilingtchai has referred to Defendant AT&T MIDWEST DIVISION by the wrong name. Plaintiff has become a victim of fraudulent advertisement in which he was offered cable service with 30 days free trial by AT&T MIDWEST DIVISION only to find out later that the 30 days free trial was in fact a scheme to commit fraud. Furthermore, the entity AT&T MIDWEST DIVISION/REGION not only is linked to local office where sales agent originated to sell Plaintiff service, but appear in official correspondences emanating from the Office of the President of AT&T. This is an indication that the schemes to defraud customers by defendant are of cultural, organizational and structural proportion.
36 At the hearing of February 28, 2014 at Circuit Court, Judge Ronald Bartkowicz unexpectedly issued an order transferring the case to the Municipal district for a new Trial. When Plaintiff attempted to argue that the Court did not have jurisdiction to transfer the case to the municipal District, Judge Ronald Bartkowicz again go up out of his seat and walked away from the proceeding, refusing to hear Plaintiff’s argument.
37 This matter is not for the municipal district to try. The Appellate Court is yet to issue an opinion on this matter determining whether the default judgment of September 20, 2013 in the amount of $5, 187.67 is in conformity with the rules of civil procedures elaborated above and the laws of default in a case in which Defendant was (1) properly served (C00002 – C00009 and C00011 – C00012) but failed to plead an answer and respond, or otherwise appear in Court; and (2) in a case in which defendant admitted receiving the Notice of default “one day” after it was issued (C00020), and yet did not contest the Notice.
Case No:13L01061: Intentional Tort civil Action

38 When the default judgment of September 20, 2013 was issued, essentially closing the case at the Circuit level, Plaintiff on September 24, 2013 filed an Intentional Law suit against Defendant AT&T MIDWEST DIVISION.
39 In this second lawsuit, plaintiff has argued pertinently that Defendant has deliberately acted in a way that endangered plaintiff’s life when plaintiff called Defendant’s several times a day begging for his money to be refunded so as to allow him to purchase vital life medicine as the time when plaintiff’s bank account had reached negative status due to Defendant’s fraudulent billing. Plaintiff has established beyond any shadow of a doubt the presence willful and Wanton conduct by Defendant, and prayed for a relief of monetary nature in the amount $1,000,000.00.
40 Plaintiff has submitted to the Court photos that show plaintiff’s lips covered with Cold soar buttons because he was unable to purchase Cold medicine because defendant refused to refund his rightful money.
41 Plaintiff has for example explained to the Circuit Court how on April 16, 2013, he called Defendant AT&T MIDWEST DIVISION 5 times, pleading with Defendant to refund his money to allow him to purchase medicine:
• At 10 AM, talked to Representative Jennifer Jacob
• At 11AM, called and spoke to TINA with AT&T ID# TC577V
• At 11:45AM, called and talked to Customer Representative Penny Smith
• A few moment later called and talked to Keshena with AT&T ID# 459
• And lastly called before the end of the day to speak with supervisor Sarah Jones with AT&T ID# EL500.
42 With each and every call, Plaintiff let Defendant know that he was very sick, that his bank account was negative; and, that he required his money to be refunded to allow him to purchase medicine. Defendant never refunded plaintiff’s money.
43 For the next several days, plaintiff had near death experience due to lack of his money to allow him to purchase Cold medicine.
44 On November 14, 2013, Defendant Filed a Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s intentional Tort Lawsuit on 735 ILCS 5/2 -619(a)(3) ground.
45 Plaintiff initially replied to Defendant’s motion to dismiss on December 2, 2013 with 735 ILCS 5/2-1301(a) which states that “More than two judgment may be obtained for the same cause.”
46 At the hearing of December 11, 2013, Plaintiff requested to file supplemental argument to his initial response. It was due on January 22, 2014.
47 On December 16, 2013, plaintiff filed his supplement argument and law source arguing that Case No: 13L4821 is filed under the violation of Illinois Consumer fraud Act; and Case No: 13L010601 establishing the presence of willful and wanton conduct by Defendant, and that the two actions are not the same cause, but the result of two separate violations of not only Illinois statutes, but plaintiffs rights giving rise to the two distinct, separate, and legitimate lawsuits.
48 Defendant’s response to plaintiff’s supplemental was due on February 5, 2014.
49 AT the hearing of February 10, 2014, Judge John H. Ehrlich dismissed plaintiff’s Lawsuit with prejudice without providing any legal explanation.
50 In fact during the hearing, plaintiff was not allowed to make any statement. Judge John Ehrlich declared to plaintiff:” I don’t allow oral argument in my Court room.” Conveniently enough, almost all hearings involving Plaintiff Alain Guilingtchai’s two law suits have been schedule to be heard last, with only the Defendant and plaintiff not being employees of the Court at the time of hearing.
51 Whereas, in each and every case that was called before plaintiff Alain Guilingtchai cases, plaintiff could observe others make their arguments.
52 And yet, the order of February 10, 2014 dismissing plaintiff’s intentional Tort lawsuit read that “This cause coming to be heard on Illinois Bell Telephone Company’s 2-619 Motion to dismiss… and the Court being fully advised in the premises; It is hereby ordered that: The Motion is granted. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

53 The Odd thing in this ruling is that Judge John Ehrlich said he does not allow oral argument, and yet the order said “This cause coming to be heard…”
54 When Plaintiff forced himself to make the following statement “ I will appeal this ruling” which was the only statement plaintiff made without the Judge’s authorization, his (judge’s) reply was automatic. And he said: “go ahead and Appeal. Your Appeal will be dismissed before it reaches the appellate Court, and it will make your head spin really well.”
55 Plaintiff was shocked that Judge John H. Ehrlich would make such statement to a plaintiff who has stood before him, less than 45 seconds. In fact, the entire hearing lasted about 30 seconds, and the Defendant did not utter a word during this hearing.
56 This action of denying plaintiff the right to make his case was in response to a posting plaintiff made on facebook.com in which he denounced tricks by Judge Ronald Bartkowicz in previous hearings. During a hearing for example, Judge Ronald would speak, and the Counsel for defendant would also be allowed to make an argument. When it is plaintiff’s turn to present his argument, the judge would abruptly interrupt plaintiff, or change the issue being discussed.
57 And so Plaintiff took to facebook.com and denounced these tricks designed to confuse the process to plaintiff’s detriment.
58 And so was the order of February 10, 2014 dismissing case No 13L010601 during a Court hearing that was in fact not a hearing by any standard of civil procedure.
59 The actions, languages, rulings, and orders of this Court of Justice, from the Circuit level to the Appellate demonstrate that the two cases in which this plaintiff in Pro se, Alain Guilingtchai has been a party have not been subjected to the Code of Civil procedures. Neither have they been subjected to the application and rule of Law.
60 The following statements than, stand as a recognition by the plaintiff of the unorthodox improvised rules under which plaintiff has been denied full and equal justice under law.
61 Plaintiff is a victim of political persecution from the United Federal Government because of his harsh criticism of the United States’ foreign and domestic policies which at times appear selfish, if not downright evil.
62 On the foreign front, plaintiff has been a strong critic of the Iraq war, the U.S. involvement in Libya, and in the Syrian conflict, conflicts which have seen hundreds of thousands of innocents men, women, and specially children negatively affected at best, or killed at worst.
63 Plaintiff’s view is that poor people should not have to die, or see what they have worked all their lives to earn destroyed to satisfy a very few greedy and evil individuals.
64 On the domestic front, plaintiff has harshly criticized and condemned the grave injustices and discrimination that have been imposed on Minority communities, especially African Americans. From his experiences, having been friend to several African American, plaintiff has come to notice that African American have no faith in the American Law enforcement system. At the sight of any police officer, an ordinary African American becomes instantly terrified of the prospect of being profiled and harassed.
65 Plaintiff has not made his criticism of the U.S. government a secret. His facebook account where most of his criticisms are posted is under the control of the U.S. federal government.
66 For example, plaintiff’s posts on facebook mysteriously disappear if they criticize Obama, or any high level Government official, or any federal government agency.
67 Posts about the U.S. Secret Service sex scandals article, the U.S. military sex scandals, or the story of a New Jersey Judge who imposed stiff and long jail sentences against young black men in return for Kick backs (all of which have appeared on yahoo.com) have all been removed from Plaintiff’s facebook timeline.
68 When Plaintiff posted an article about story of a Black man who was incarcerated for decades for crimes he did not commit when it has now been determined he happened to be at the wrong place, and was pick up by police, charged and declared guilty by reason of his race, plaintiff harshly criticized the U.S. justice system.
69 When plaintiff again posted the story of President Obama’s young brother living in slums, thereby calling Obama not only a hypocrite but useless, it too got removed among many others posts.
70 This plaintiff has been denied justice under Law as a retribution for his Freedom of Speech, and for his criticism of some U.S. policies (Foreign and domestic) he deems inhumane, unjust, if not downright diabolical.
71 Plaintiff has also been denied access to Legal Counsel by the United States Federal Government. With his internet activities, his phones calls, and every other move under the eyes of the U.S. federal Government, plaintiff has been denied access, not only to legal Counsel, but to Justice as described in his rapport.
72 This political persecution has not been limited to the denial of access to legal Counsel and justice, but to TV Cable services.
73 There have been times when Plaintiff has been denied access to Russia TV channel. On several occasions, a message “Scheduled Maintenance” would appear on plaintiff’s R.T. Channel as a response to plaintiff’s criticism of the U.S. government, for hours or days depending on the severity of the Criticism.
74 If Plaintiff makes a nice Comment about Russia, as was in the case of praising Putin for his effort to bring diplomatic solution to the issue of Syria’s Chemical weapons, the R.T. channel which plaintiff watches regularly was suspended for over 24 hours with the message “scheduled maintenance.
75 It is then clear that the U.S. government has used denial of access to legal counsel and justice as a political retribution against this plaintiff for his criticism of U.S. policies and exercising his freedom of speech.
76 The systematic application of injustice against this plaintiff does not deter him of ever criticizing this U.S. government or any other government whose policies may be deemed unjust, inhumane, or cruel by this plaintiff.
77 This Plaintiff has big faith in God Almighty and he believes that the injustices decreed against him by the judges and justices of the States of Illinois, do not in any way affect his faith in God. He believes, even in the presence of grave injustice, that God is still on the throne, and when all is said and done in the court of law, God will have the final say.
78 And so, it is really not important what type of injustice Judge Ronald Bartkowicz, judge John Ehrlich both of the Circuit Court of Cook County, County Department, Law Division, and Justice Terrence Lavin of the Illinois Court of Appeal First Judicial District administer against this Plaintiff who is a Child of God almighty.
79 Jesus Christ the son of God almighty was born in a barn while mortal humans were being born in palaces. Jesus’ place of birth doesn’t negate the fact that God was still God, and “sovereignly” sitting on his throne.
80 It would have been easier for Jesus Christ to heal his Beloved friend Lazarus than having to raise him from the Death, but he (Jesus Christ) chose the latter.
81 Plaintiff still puts his Trust in God that Justice will be done to this plaintiff in his just causes of civil actions.
82 Plaintiff is rather dismayed by the actions of the judges and justices who have denied him righteous justice.
83 Plaintiff is afraid that this Government of the United States is still guided by its old demons; demons that institutionalized and normalized slavery; legalized racial discrimination, demons that denied emancipated African Americans right to vote, demons that segregated whites from blacks.
84 The actions of Judge Ronald Bartkowicz, John Ehrlich, and Justice Terrence Lavin do in fact confirm plaintiff’s fear as elaborated above.
85 Injustice has been systematically administered against this Plaintiff because the judges, justices, clerks of the court, and federal partners involved feel as though they can do so.
86 This plaintiff, however, declares that the ability to do wrong and evil; and the willingness to do so without the slightest hesitation are the marks of common and ordinary men; for, any common man or woman, if asked to, can do evil and wrong against any person in his just cause.
87 For this reason, plaintiff is not in any way impressed by the judges and justices who have conducted themselves in such common manners.
88 It takes more than the ability to expressly deny justice to be an honorable man, or judge, or justice. An honorable judge is HE or SHE who is able to elevate himself or herself above prejudice and feelings to apply Law as a mark of superior reason and judgment. Judges Ronald Bartkowicz, John Ehrlich, and Justice Terrence Lavin have proven that they belong to a class lower than that of honorable human beings and civil servant; for the failed to ask the most basic questions concerning this plaintiff: Does he have the right to freely express his political view without the fear of injustice, especially in the United States of America? Is he entitled to freedom of speech?
89 This plaintiff who is a believer in God, understands, however, that the human soul can be perverted with the ability and willingness to do evil and wrong as demonstrated in the actions of Judge Ronald Bartkowicz, John Ehrlich, and Justice Terrence Lavin.
90 Proper justice for plaintiff in these two lawsuits, at this moment, is as realistic as an 18th century black slave asking for a right to vote or to attend white a school. The actions of the judges of the Court of law of Illinois have said it all. This tell us that whenever a victim of wrong and evil has had faced an evil force in the search for redress, he or she has always met a brutal, unjust, and savage reprisal. This has been in the quest for freedom from slavery, in the quest for civil rights for African American in the 20th century American. And, it has also been true in the quest for freedom against apartheid in the South Africa. All of these quests for redress and justice have, as explained above, at first been denied and brutally reprimanded. This has also been the case against this plaintiff.
91 However, we now know and accept as a matter of fact that justice has always been denied where the quest for redress was the result of unspeakable evil. We also know, as a matter of fact that Truth, to paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, may be momentarily smashed to the ground, but it will rise again undaunted. This has been the case in all examples cited above.
92 This plaintiff will be praying that Judge Ronald Bartkowicz, John Ehrlich, Justice Terrence Lavin and their soulless partners of the United Federal Government find Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. This would be a more satisfying justice for this Plaintiff than righteous judgment in which the relief sought was of monetary nature.
93 Finally, plaintiff rejoice over the fact that he has introduced Jesus – Christ to people who think evil, breath evil, plan evil, implement evil, manifest evil and rejoice over evil deeds. May God shine his grace and mercy on them so that they can be free from their evil ways as they meet Jesus – Christ as Lord and savQior.
Respectfully submitted,

Alain Guilingtchai