Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Walter Brzowski, Petitioner v. Executive Committee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Supreme Court briefMay 12, 2020

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

fNONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United jzfeies (Kauri of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

SubmittedMarch 13, 2020*

Decided Mardil6, 2020?

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge

/Np7T9^216|'

IN RE: WALTER J. BRZOWSKI,

Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

£Jo. 07TT56T37

Ruben Castillo,

Judge.

ORDER

After Walter Brzowski repeatedly filed federal challenges to his divorce case, the

Executive Committee for the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Illinois restricted him in 2007 from filing new cases without its permission. Brzowski

ignored the requirement, so in May 2019 the Committee renewed the restriction for

another year. Brzowski contests that renewal, arguing that the Committee unlawfully

imposed the restriction to retaliate against him for exercising his First Amendment right

'We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the brief and

the record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would

not significantly aid the court. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

.■*

T- |

No. 19-2167

Page 2

to bring federal challenges to his divorce case. But those challenges were frivolous suits,

not protected speech, so we affirm the Committee's judgment.

Brzowski's ex-wife sued him for divorce in Illinois state court in September 2001.

Dissatisfied with those proceedings, Brzowski came to federal court in 2002 with a suit

asserting that the state court was violating his constitutional rights. He moved for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), but the district court denied

that request. The court construed Brzowski's submission not as a petition for removal

but as a complaint initiating a new suit and dismissed it because it failed to state a claim

and the court lacked jurisdiction to review a state-court proceeding. See D.C. Court of

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416

(1923). Brzowski returned to federal court a year later, submitting another complaint

about his ongoing divorce, along with a petition for removal and a motion for pauper

status. Unsure whether Brzowski intended to remove his state-court case or initiate a

new federal case, the district court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction either way, again

citing Rooker and Feldman, and denied his motion and dismissed the case.

Meanwhile, the divorce proceedings continued in state court. During those

proceedings, Brzowski was arrested for failing to appear in court and for violating a

protective order. He responded in state court by contending that the court lost

jurisdiction when he submitted his purported removal petitions in federal court, so he

could ignore its orders with impunity. The state court rejected these arguments,

dissolved Brzowski's marriage, and granted custody of the children to his ex-wife.

Afterwards, between 2003 and 2007, Brzowski brought nine suits in federal court,

leading to the filing restriction. These suits attacked his divorce case on his theory that,

once he filed what he considered removal petitions, the state court lacked jurisdiction.

The district court dismissed each suit for failure to state a claim or lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction. It also warned Brzowski that state court was the proper venue to challenge

his divorce. Brzowski ignored the warnings, so in September 2007, the Executive

Committee enjoined him from filing new civil actions without its leave. Brzowski did

not initially appeal, but he also did not obey the restriction. Over the course of more

than a decade, he has continued to submit complaints and other documents to the

district court without permission. For that reason, the Committee has kept renewing the

restriction.

Brzowski's current appeal differs slightly from some of his others. In 2009, 2010,

and 2017, Brzowski attempted to appeal the filing restriction after the Committee

renewed it, but each time he failed to pay the filing fee, and we dismissed those

No. 19-2167

Page 4

(quoting Nat'l Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U.S. 118,122-23 (1882)) (reviewing an

appeal from the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, not entertaining a collateral attack).

We have considered Brzowski's other arguments, and none has merit.

/^FFIRMgD?

31N ®HE U.S. COURT <©F APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEDERAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

YlamtlWAppellees

Walter J. Brzowski

Respondent/Appellant

)

Appeal of U.S. Northern Dist. Court,

Eastern Division case no. 07 C-5613

<U.S. APPELLATE NOTl9^2T677

Hon. Ruben Castillo

presiding

NOTICE OF FILING

TO: Federal Executive Committee

Plaintiff/Appellee’s copy

219 South Dearborn Street #2541

Chicago IL. 60604

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE That I, Walter J. Brzowski duly filed with the Clerk of the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2710, Chicago IL.

60604 on March ,2 V , 2020 a: ^PetifiorTfoTPanel ReHearing Against the Flawed March 16,

2020 Affirmance Order", a copy of which is now hereby served upon you.

Walter J. Brzowski

(Respondent)/AppelIant, in Want of Counsel

6431 South Karlov Avenue

Chicago IL. 60629

#(773) 767-XXXX

Walter f. Brzowski

CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY PERSONALLY: OR BY U.S. POSTAL DELIVERY SERVICE

I, Walter J. Brzowski certifies under the Code of Federal Civil Procedure pursuant to Rule 5, that

I served this NOTICE OF FILING, and any attachment hereon to the above mentioned Party on

March 37 <2020 by:

Personally; OR____by and through the U.S. Postal Delivery Service

with affixed first class prepaid postage; OR % by FAX transmission to the recipient’s number

at (312) 554-8512, to whom this Notice is directed thereon

GINO J. AGNELLO, CLERK OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

-5-

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

IN RE: WALTER J. BRZOWSKI

Appellant

✓

)

Appeal of U.S. Northern District

Court of Illinois, No. 07 C-5613

U.S. APP. NO. 19-2167

PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AGAINST THE FLAWED MARCH 16. 21)20

‘AFFIRMANCE ORDER’

NOW COMES the still aggrieved, Appellant, Walter J. Brzowski in pursuant to Federal Rule of

App. Procedure 40(a)(b), does hereby sternly request a retraction of the seriously flawed,

(unpublished): ‘Affirmance Order’ entered by this Federal Appellate Court, (mainly Hon. Frank

H. Easterbrook) on March 16, 2020 upon the following exposed overlooked facts and misappre

hensions of both cited Laws and Facts regarding Case no. 07 C-5613, (as well from two prior

Federal Removal Cases 02 C-6219 and 03 C-2685; and even from Removal case 07 C-1504):

STATEMENTS OF FACTS-ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

Upon close scrutinizing review of this Appellate Court’s [non-precedential] ‘affirmance order’, it

seriously appears that this U.S. Court of Appeals has undermined ‘its’ duty to uphold the Law

and its sworn Oath of Judicial Office, (directed mainly at Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, yob. 1948;

adm. DC. 1975), by wrongfully ‘legislating from the bench’ and violating other held precedents

from the U.S. Supreme Court and other Federal Court of Appeals regarding Federal Statutes 28

USC§ 1446(d) and 28 USC § 1447(c)(d), (Dkt. 110, pp. 12-13), pertaining to the issuance of the

free-standing ‘Certified Copy of Order of Remand’ on June 22, 2005, (No. 03 C-2685 only). By

such strong appearance to undermine the principles of Justice, this U.S. Court of Appeals is

attempting rewrite these Federal Removal and Remand Statutes so as to coexist with the U.S.

Northern District Court’s ‘order’ entered on May 7, 2009, (Hon. James F. Holderman), on case

no. 07 C-5613, which fails miserably to offer any type of due process Justice, and only serves to

~(r

protect their lower colleague District Judges, (Hons. James F. Holderman and Ruben Castillo)

huge blunders on September 9, 2002, (No. 02 C-6219), and on May 5, 2003, (No. 03 C-2685),

that was shown in (Appellant), Walter J. Brzowski’s unopposed: “Brief and Argument for

Appellant” on October 31, 2019. In fact, this latest ‘affirmance order’ borderlines on civil

contempt against Federal Circuit Judges Easterbrook, Rovner and Barrett, because it fails to even

cite Federal Statutes 28 USC § 1446(d) and § 1447(c)(d) by which was adhered to by (movant),

Walter J. Brzowski on August 30, 2002, [September 4, 2002], 1st Federal Removal case no. 02

C-6219, (Hon. Ruben Castillo), (Dkt. 84, p. 9—13); on April 22, 2003, 2nd Federal Removal case

no. 03 C-2685, (Hon. James F. Holderman), (Dkt. 84, pp. 15-21); on March 7, 2007, Removal

case no. 07 C-1288, (Hon. Virginia M. Kendall); and on March 19, 2007, 3rd Federal Removal

no. 07 C-1504, (Hon. Matthew F. Kennedy), which this U.S. private Citizen cannot be so bla

tantly violated of his due process Rights by these three over-reaching Federal Circuit Judges of

the 7th Circuit, regardless of his status as a recognized indigent—poor person, pro se litigant!

This Federal Appellate Court’s ‘affirmance order’ suspiciously ignores those repeatedly cited

Federal Statutes that are totally germane to the main issue of the ENTERED: ‘Certified Remand

Order’ on June 22, 2005, (Dkt. 84, p. 37), that IS procedurally correct in its foundation towards

Federal Statute 28 USC § 1447(c), (Dkt. 112, p. 13), which was entered from a different Federal

Case, (No. 03 C-2685, as appose to No. 07 C-5613), which also CANNOT be discredited and

invalidated by ANY Federal Court pursuant to Federal Statute 28 USC § 1447(d), especially

some FOUR YEARS LATER on May 7, 2009, (Dkt. 33, pp. 1—4), and especially some 15 YEARS

LATER by this U.S. Court of Appeals on March 16, 2020!

-1- 3.

“Once federal district court certifies remand order to state court, it is divested of jurisdiction

and can take no further action on the case”, {Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. Of

California, #837 F.2d 413, (C.A. 9, 1988};

“District court was statutorily precluded from reconsidering order remanding claims to state

court; District court’s sending certified copy of remand order to State circuit court ended district

court’s jurisdiction over lawsuit”, {Hughes v. Gen. Motors Corp. #764 F. Supp. 1231, (W.D. MI.

1990};

Within the highly flawed-subjective ‘order’, (Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook) on March 16, 2020

the Court proclaims: ‘We will put to the side whether Brzowski forfeited this argument.which

can also be asserted against the lower Federal Northern District Court, (Hon. Ruben Castillo and

James F. Holderman) on their challengeable ‘order’ on May 7, 2009, upon the following: ‘if

Judge Holderman stated that Brzowski failed to remove his wife’s divorce case on two separate

occasions in August 2002 and April, 2003 because: 'Brzowski never paid the filing fee nor

obtained pauper status as required for a valid filing’, ‘they’ also would have been barred to

assert this conjecture some four years later after the Certified Remand Order was entered on June

22, 2005 because ‘they’ would have forfeited this impeachable argument due to the lengthy, four

year silence the Federal Executive Committee elected to take! “If’, like asserted in the

Appellant, Walter J. Brzowski’s ‘Brief and Argument for Appellant' on October 31, 2019, the

Federal District Courts operating on these first two Federal Removal cases NEVER directed their

Court clerk, (Michael A. Dobbins) to issue out Invoice Bills on cases 02 C-6219 and 03 C-2685

after September 9, 2002 and May 5, 2003, and (movant), Walter J. Brzowski did in fact, filed:

“Petitions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis” on August 30, 2002 and April 22, 2003, but those

lower U.S. District Court Judges, (Castillo and Holderman) denied them arbitrarily without

-2-3

offering any cogent reason—foundation as to why they did so, which those Federal Courts are

refrained from doing. When a litigant files a: “Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis” revealing

of his or her meek financial income status, the Federal District Court must offer a specific reason

as to why they are denying such filed ‘Petition’, so as to offer the moving litigant such reason

why so he or she can correct that minor problem. Here, there are no such specific offerings from

those two collateral District Courts, and upon no ensuing ‘Court ordered’ invoice bills from their

Clerk onto (movant), Walter J. Brzowski, it clearly shows that the lower U.S. District Court of

Illinois, Eastern Division is clearly overreaching and ‘grasping at straws’ to suspiciously coverup their huge blunders on September 9, 2002 and on May 5, 2003 that DID create jurisdictional

havoc on Walter Brzowski’s baseless Cook County divorce case, no. 01 D-14335!

As by such,

the lower Federal Northern District Court forfeited its ‘Right’ to even offer: “...because

Brzowski never paid the filingfee nor obtained pauper status requiredfor a validfiling” on May

7, 2009, some 6.5 years later on Case no. 02 C-6219, and some four years later on Case no. 03 C2685, which such ‘forfeiting principle’ should ALSO be asserted against the Federal Executive

Committee as well. Such Executive Committee cannot have it both ways when they too are in

forfeiture by remaining silent for such a long duration of time of this: ‘never paid filing fee nor

obtained pauper status ’ topic, (Fact)!

Remember, when (movant), Walter J. Brzowski appeared

before Judge James F. Holderman on April 28, 2005, (Case no. 03 C-2685), by his “Filing” on

April 18, 2005 seeking the ‘Remand Order’, (Dkt. 84, pp. 25—28), Judge Holderman had a

opportunity to inform Walter Brzowski that he had not effectuated the Removal on April 22,

2003 because of this ‘filing fee disparity’, yet the Court Transcripts of that key date discloses NO

such dialogue pertaining to that specific topic, (Dkt. 84, p. 30—35), which then, the District

Court would.have forfeited—waived their argument on this subject, (Fact). Thus this U.S. Court

-<F 1

°f Appeals, (7th Cir.), ‘affirmance order’ fails to promote fair and neutral jurisprudence and

adjudication on March 16, 2020, which now presents a strong hint of favorable prejudicial bias

towards their lower colleague Judges, who are employed within the reigns of the Federal

Executive Committee only as its means to protect and cover-up their huge unconstitutionalism

foisted against this (innocent), Appellant, (U.S. private Citizen), Brzowski since Sept. 20, 2007!

Now upon inspection of this challengeable ‘Order’, it claims: “Brzowski returned to federal

court a year later, submitting another complaint about his ongoing divorce, along with a

petition for removal and a motion for pauperis status” which correlates to the Federal Docketing

statement on April 22, 2003, (No. 03 C-2685): ‘Filed: Petition for Removal; Case from State

Court no. 01 D-14335’, which IS Walter J. Brzowski’s wife’s divorce case, not his! Now with

that said to be correct, invokes Federal Statute 28 USC § 1446(d) at that point on April 22, 2003,

which then instructs the State, (Cook County), Domestic Relations Court to: ‘proceed no further

unless and until the case is remanded’, [pursuant to Federal Title 28 USC § 1447(c], which is a

direct form of: “loss of subject matter jurisdiction on divorce case no. 01 D-14335”! There can

be NO ambiguity or illogical conjectures from the lower Federal District Court and this U.S.

Court of Appeals about these procedurally performed Federal Removal ‘filings’ on August 30,

2002 and April 22, 2003, which would then signify the required, legal need for Court procedural

adherence to Title 28 USC § 1447(c) (Dkt. 112, p. 13), which WAS duly accomplished by the

granting of (movant), Walter J. Brzowski’s: “Motion for Order of Remand Back to State Court”

on April 28, 2005, (No. 03 C-2685), (Dkt. 84, p. 25-28), and its subsequent ‘certification’

thereof by Clerk Dobbins on June 22, 2005, (Dkt. p. 13), which CANNOT be challenged,

appealed, discredited, and/or invalidated by ANY Federal Court of Law, (Fact)!

By the U.S.

Supreme Court’s set precedent stating on: “Where remand order as to removed case is based on

defect in removal procedure or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, review of that order is

-10-5

unavailable no matter how plain the legal error in ordering the remand”, {Kircker v. Putnam

Funds Trust, 126 S.Ct. 2145, (June, 2006}; and other U.S. Court of Appeals declaring: “Court

lacked jurisdiction to review remand order expressly based on lack of subject matter

jurisdiction”, {Rio De Janeiro of the Fed. Rep. of Brazil v. Philip Morris, Inc. 239 F. 3d 714,

(CA5, 2001}; and: “Court lacked jurisdiction to review district court’s order remanding case to

state court pursuant to 28 USCS § 1447(c), since Congress has specifically excluded this type of

remand order from appellate jurisdiction”, {Heaton v. Monogram Credit Card Bank, 231 F. 3d

994, (CA5, 2000}, certainly reveals that District Judge James Holderman and Circuit Judge

Easterbrook are violating both Federal Statute 28 USC § 1447(d) and these superior precedents

by devaluating the procedural correct ‘Certified, free-standing, Remand Order' which ‘they’

cannot do! (Emphasis added).

This U.S. Court of Appeals lacks appellate jurisdiction to discredit the already, procedurally

entered: ‘Certified Copy of Order of Remand”, [that cited: Tack of subject matter jurisdiction’

thereon], which therefore, produces nullification on their attempt to do so on March 16, 2020,

and must be legally discarded and withdrawn due to Stare Decisis precedents;

“Court of Appeals lacked appellate jurisdiction to review district court’s order remanding the

case to State court for lack of jurisdiction”, {Roberts v. BJC Health System, #452 F. 3d 737,

(C.A. 8, 2006};

“Court of Appeals did not have the authority to review decision of district court to remand for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction a State law wrongful death action which had been brought

originally in State court”, {Whittley v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe RR. Co., #395 F.3d

829, (C.A. 8 2005};

~ I (-

There is another discovered set precedent, that another respondent removed his divorce case in

Kansas pursuant to the Removal Statute, but as like the Brzowski two Federal removal cases,

that removed divorce case was also procedurally remanded back to the proper State Court venue

via the: ‘Certified Copy of Order of Remand' in 2005, just like Brzowski’s was in June, 2005;

“District court's order remanding the divorce case back to State court on grounds that it lacked

subject matter jurisdiction and that there had been a defect in removal procedures, was not

reviewable”, {King v. Ziegler, #138 Fed. Appx. 60, (C.A. 10, 2005};

Within that cited Stare precedent, parallels the Brzowski’s: ‘Certified Remand Order' in two

ways, (i) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (ii) ‘if there was a issue upon, (movant),

Brzowski’s ‘failure to pay filing fees’ on August 30, 2002, on April 22, 2003, and on March 19,

2007, that would be well-taken as a: ‘defect in the removal process’, which STILL requires the

Northern District Courts of Illinois to adhere to Title 28 USC § 1447(c), and therefore, validates

the procedurally correct, [free-standing], ‘Certified Remand Orders’ entered on June 22, 2005,

(No. 03 C-2685), and on March 22, 2007, (No. 07 C-1504, and thus sternly rejects this U.S.

Court of Appeals frivolous attempt to ‘review and vilify’ this unappealable Remand Order,

because it conforms to the operations of both Federal Statute and Stare Decisis precedents!

The challengeable and flawed ‘affirmance order’ alleges: "Even if we construed his two

original federal filings as attempted removal petitionSj they did not divest the state court of

jurisdiction because Brzowski never paid the filing fee nor obtained pauper status as required

for a valid filing" that is further in error because upon inspection of (movant), Walter Brzowski’s

second “Petition for Removal” on April 22, 2003, (Case no. 03 C-2685), the Civil Cover Sheet

proclaims the key word of ‘DOCKETED, APR 23 2003’ which shows that such case was indeed

filed and docketed on such date.

Upon the defined word of ‘Docket’, reveals: "(2) a formal

~12~ ~1

abridged record of the proceedings in a legal action”, and "(3] to place on the docket for legal

to mean anything else accept, second Removal Case no. 03 C-2685 was legally filed, and legally

docketed on April 22-23, 2003, which therefore, legally validates the free-standing ‘Certified

Remand order’ on June 22, 2005, that is NOT open to any type of Federal appellate review!

The U.S. Northern District Court(s) operating on cases 03 C-2685 and 07 C-5613 waived their

objections upon this alleged: ‘failure to remit Court filing fees...’ thirty days AFTER August 30,

2002, (No. 02 C-6219), thirty days AFTER April 22, 2003, (No. 03 C-2685) and thirty days after

September 20, 2007, (collateral case no. 07 C-5613), because as the moving sua sponte Courts,

they had to do so in that 30 day time-frame, which upon their failure to timely do so, forfeited

their ‘Right’ afterwards, which strikes and nullifies Circuit Judge Easterbrook’s and District

Judge Holderman’s flawed conjecture on March 16, 2020 and on May 7, 2009;

“[Plaintiff] waived any objection to improvident removal by not making such objection within

30 days after defendant filed notice of removal, as removal without timely consent of all

defendants, while improper, did not deprive Court of subject matter jurisdiction”, {Miller v.

National Brokerage Services, Inc., #782 F.Supp. 1440, (D. Nev. 1991};

In fact, (Appellant), Walter J. Brzowski appeared before (Federal Executive Committee), Judge

James F. Flolderman on April 16, 2009, (No. 07 C-5613), which after a brief discussion about his

prior error to wrongfully choose ‘dismissal over remand’ on May 5, 2003, (No. 03 C-2685),

Judge Holderman states something quite correct: "You are correct that I erred when I dismissed

your case for [lack of], subject matter jurisdiction; 1 should have remanded the case’', which

was also echoed by collateral District Judge Matthew F. Kennedy on April 17, 2007, (No. 07 C1504), [see p. 19, ‘Brief and Argument'; (Dkt. 84, pp. 75—76],

H3- $

Thus by TWO Federal District

Court Judges acknowledging the huge mistake by Judge Holderman on May 5, 2003, it caused

jurisdictional havoc on Cook County divorce case no. 01 D-14335, that BY HELD LAWS, nullifies

the State Domestic Relations Court’s improper judicial actions taken at the very least, between

April 22, 2003 and June 23, 2005, which invalidates the two ‘plenary orders of protections’ on

May 20, 2003 and April 29, 2005, AND the unfounded: ‘Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage’ on

May 20, 2003, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction!, (see Case Law precedents, pp. 15—17,

'Brief and Argument/).

(Understand, you three named Federal Circuit Judges??)

Now upon these two Removal cases themselves, the March 16, 2020 ‘affirmance order’ states:

‘‘Dissatisfied with those proceedings, Brzowski came to federal court in 2002 with a suit

asserting that the state court was violating his constitutional rights'’, which Walter J. Brzowski

subsequently proved he was true and correct about the Cook County divorce Court violating

several of his: ‘Constitutional Rights’ that invokes the charters of 28 USC § 1441 and § 1443!

U.S. Federal Statute 28 USC § 1443(1) states: "Any of the following civil actions or criminal

prosecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the district

court of the United States...(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the

courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the

United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof, which was exactly transpiring

against (defendant), Walter Brzowski in the Cook County State Court upon case no. 01 D-14335,

that gives credence and legal merit to his three Federal Removal cases between August 2002 to

March, 2007! (Movant), Walter J. Brzowski revealed in several of his Federal RemovalsLawsuits between August, 2002 to July, 2007, that the Cook County Domestic Rel. Court

severely violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights to his Constitutionally protected

private property, (Alsip IL. 60803), by awarding (legal wife), Laura A. Brzowski 100% of their

-lH-9

gathered marital property WITHOUT any separate Property Hearing, violating 750ILCS 5/503(b)

(c); and violation against his intact full equal parental Rights towards his two Children, [Brandon

and Eric Brzowski], that IS protected by the First Amendment, which was expressed in his

unopposed: ‘Brief and Argument' on several cited Case Precedents on page 29, by awarding

(legal wife), Laura A. Brzowski 100% full controlling custody of their Children WITHOUT any

separate Custody Hearing as required by 750ILCS 5/606(a) and 5/602(a)(l)(2), that is ALSO a

due process violation!

This U.S. Court of Appeals shrugs off these: ‘violating his constitutional

rights’ as trivial and inconsequential, but “if’ these violations were personally directed towards

Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook’s private property and children, and directed towards District

Judges Ruben Castillo and James F. Holderman’s private properties and children, then ‘they’

would have offered a totally different adjudications on these unconstitutionalism foisted onto

(U.S. private Citizen), Walter J. Brzowski by the biased, Cook County IL. Domestic Court!

Thus when Federal Laws ascertain that when a U.S. private Citizen puts forth filed Legal

information that he, [Brzowski], is being violated of his afforded First, Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendment Rights by highly biased judicial actions from a State Domestic Relations Courts,

(Hons. Young and Figueroa), it would allow such movant to remove the unconstitutional State

Court action into the realm of the U.S. Northern District Court of Illinois, so as to have the

overseeing ‘eye’ of the Federal Court to take the necessary jurisdiction upon these State Court

U.S. Constitutional violations!

“That when a Federal Court is properly appealed to in a case over which it has by law

jurisdiction to settle Constitutional controversies, it is the duty to take jurisdiction; The right to a

party to choose a Federal court when there is a choice, cannot be properly denied”, {England v.

Louisiana State Bd. Of Medical Examiners, #375 U.S. 411,461};

-15-1°

The (Appellant), Walter J. Brzowski has now shown within these 14 previous pages the incorrect

and absurd allegations made on the flawed March 16, 2020 ‘affirmance order’, and the strong

appearance that it attempts to ‘rework legislative Laws’ so as to protect and cover-up the dirty

dealings from their lower colleague Judges within the Federal Executive Committee since

September 20, 2007, and even attempts to ignore Federal Remand Statute 28 USC § 1447(c)(d)

by reviewing and discrediting an already entered, Free-Standing: 'Certified Copy of Remand

Order' on June 22, 2005, [even from another, dissimilar Federal case no. 03 C-2685], which the

superior U.S. Supreme Court does NOT allow!

Such flawed: [unpublished], ‘affirmance order’

was shown that their flimsy basis of: ‘failing to remit Court filing fees and denied In Forma

Pauperis petitions without any offer as to why’ from the lower District Court on September 9,

2002 and May 5, 2003, has NOT been shown effective enough to do so much damage to Walter

Brzowski’s meritorious quest to seek out and obtain substantial Justice here, that cannot promote

the Integrity of this U.S. Court of Appeals, and is repugnant to other cited numerous Stare

Decisis precedents on his ‘Brief’, that this U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit does not

possesses the disdainful audacity to allow their non-precedential order to stand, withdrawing it

instanter. and offer a refurbished-

orrected version as to what was truly argued by him on

October 31, 2019 through that Record on Appeal!

This U.S. private Citizen does NOT have to

tolerate this type of blatant incompetence spewing from Judges who are clearly violating their

sworn Judicial Oaths only as to cover-up their colleague’s previous errors and foisted injustices!

ATTESTATION

1, Walter J. Brzowski, having read and understood the above self-subscribed “Pleading”, certifies it to be

true and correct in content and form, and as to where knowledge of Information provided herein is

deemed truthful to assert in a Court of Law for proper recourse and effect.

AWck 21 3Q3Q

Date

-ao- 15

Ttmidt States (Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

/March 27720207

Before

Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge

Ilana Diamond Rovner, Circuit Judge

Amy C. Barrett, Circuit Judge

/Nohgl67?

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern

Division.

In re: Walter J. Brzowski,

Appellant.

No. 07 C 5613

Ruben Castillo, Judge.

Order

Appellant filed a petition for rehearing on March 23, 2020. All of the judges on the

panel have voted to deny rehearing. The petition for rehearing is therefore/DENIED?

-ai-

3N tKHE U.S. COURT ©F APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEDERAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

PhinUff/Appel/ees

Walter J. Brzowski

Respondent/Appellant

)

Appeal of U.S. Northern Dist. Court,

Eastern Division case no. 07 C-5613

U.S. APPELLATE NO. 19-2167

)

Hon. Ruben Castillo

presiding

NOTICE OF FILING

TO: Federal Executive Committee

Plaintiff/Appellee’s copy

219 South Dearborn Street #2541

Chicago 1L. 60604

TOATSASupreme Court

Clerk Scott S. Harris, and (Jacob C. Travers) copy

Supreme Court Building

Washington D.C. 20543-0001

—

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE That 1, Walter J. Brzowski duly filed with the Clerk of the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2710, Chicago IL.

60604 on April_3—, 2020 a/"Notice- of Intent to Continue Onward~Trito~flTe~U7S7

Supreme

^CouTt^for a~Wrirof'Certiorari/.", a copy of which is now hereby served upon you.

Walter J. Brzowski

(Respondent)/Appellant, in Want of Counsel

6431 South Karlov Avenue

Chicago IL. 60629

#(773) 767-XXXX

Wa$4r J. Brzowski

CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY PERSONALLY: OR BY U.S. POSTAT PFT IVERY SERVICE

I, Walter J. Brzowski certifies under the Code of Federal Civil Procedure pursuant to Rule 5. that

I served this NOTICE OF FILING, and any attachment hereon to the above mentioned Party

April J]_, 2020 by:------Personally; OR _^_by and through the U.S. Postal Delivery Service

with affixed first class prepaid postage; OR___by FAX transmission to the recipient’s number

at (312) 554-8512, to whom this Notice is directed thereon.

Walter J. Brzowski

GINO J. AGNELLO, CLERK OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

31N THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

IN RE: WALTER J. BRZOWSKI

Appellant

Appeal of U.S. Northern District

Court of Illinois, No. 07 C-5613

U.S. APP. NO. 19-2167

NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONTINUE ONWARD INTO THE TI.S. SUPREME COURT

FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AGAINST THE FLAWED: ‘AFFIRMANCE ORDER’

NOW COMES the still aggrieved, Appellant, Walter J. Brzowski in pursuant to Federal Rule of

App. Procedure 41(d)(2)(A), does hereby affords due legal Notice to the U.S. Court of Appeals

that I intend to seek further, superior review of the seriously flawed, (unpublished): ‘Affirmance

Order entered by this Federal Appellate Court on March 16, 2020 upon the following exposed,

overlooked facts and misstatements of both cited Laws and Facts regarding Case no. 07 C-5613,

(as well from two prior Federal Removal Cases 02 C-6219 and 03 C-2685; and even from

Removal case 07 C-1504), into the U.S. Supreme Court for their: ‘Writ of Certiorari’, as to finally

resolve upon and against the pure conjectures discovered within such [non-precedential], ‘affir

mance order’, pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court Rules 11 and 12, (also: Title 28 USC § 2101(e):

1) On March 16, 2020, this U.S. Court of Appeals, (3 panel Circuit Judges), entered a very

disturbing and flawed ‘affirmance order’ that appears to agree with the (silent)/Appellees:

May 7, 2009 ‘denial order’ in unconstitutional case no. 07 C-5613, et al. that wrongfully

alleges: ‘failure of the (movant), Walter J. Brzowski to remit Court filing fees upon

Federal Removal cases nos. 02 C-6219 and 03 C-2685 that tends to invalidate the

already entered Certified Copy of Order of Remand on June 22, 2005’, (Case no. 03 C2685; Brzowski v. Brzowski), repugnant to Federal Title 28 USC § 1447(c)(d);

2) Now as to counter this very irregular ‘affirmance order’, (Appellant), Walter J. Brzowski

timely e-filed a: "Petition for Panel ReHearing Against the Flawed March 16, 2020 Affir-

mance Order” on March 23, 2020, which upon inspection of this 15 page ‘Filing’ clearly

exposes the pure conjectures and misstatements found in that March 16, 2020 ‘order’,

AND also reveals a strong semblance that certain Federal Circuit Judges, (mainly Frank H.

Easterbrook and liana Diamond Rovner), suspiciously legislated from the bench, which a

Federal Judicial Officer of the Court lacks any type of legislating power to do so, (Fact);

3) Within the unopposed e-Filed: “Petition for Panel ReHearing...” from (Appellant), Walter

J. Brzowski, he puts forth A): that both the lower U.S. Northern District Court of Illinois

and this U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit clearly violated Title 28 USC §

1447(d) by wrongfully reviewing and discrediting an already issued ‘Certified Copy of

Order of Remand’ on June 22, 2005, (No. 03 C-2685) upon a dissimilar case, no. 07 C5613, and even some four years later when BOTH Federal Courts lacked their EXPIRED

jurisdictional power to do so, (after 20 days, such: ‘Remand Order' becomes finalized);

4) B) that both the lower U.S. Northern District Court of Illinois and this U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit improperly and absurdly used an insane, frivolous argu

ment that upon movant Walter J. Brzowski failing to pay Court filing fees on August 30,

2002, (No. 02 C-6219), and on April 22, 2003, (No. 03 C-2685), he never perfected those

two Federal Removal cases’, yet both ‘Civil Cover Sheets’ are marked with a file-stamped

Filed and Docketed thereon, (esp. on April 22, 2003), which any layman—rational

Individual would clearly portray that these two prior Federal Removal cases were indeed:

‘FILED’ and ‘DOCKETED’ on such dates;

5) C) that the two lower U.S. Northern District Courts of Illinois, (Hons. Ruben Castillo and

James F. Holderman), arbitrarily denied (movant), Walter J. Brzowski’s collaterally filed:

"In.Pauperis Petitions” on September 9, 2002, (No. 02 C-6219), and on May 5, 2003,

(No. 03 C-2685) without offering any type of legal explanation as to why they took their

denials, that put Walter Brzowski at a loss as to just why Judges Castillo and Holderman

ruled this way when he was financially impoverished, which they CANNOT do;

6) D) that the two lower U.S. Northern District Courts of Illinois never instructed the

Federal District Court clerk, (Michael W. Dobbins) after September 9, 2002, and after

May 5, 2003 to send invoice bills to (movant), Walter J. Brzowski’s Alsip IL. 60803

residence, requiring him to pay these two federal filing fees, which upon their failure to

timely do as such, they ‘waived’ their Right to then use as a ‘gotcha weapon’ against him

some four years later on May 7, 2009, and from another, dissimilar case altogether;

7) E) that the Federal Executive Committee, (Hon. James F. Holderman), clearly overreached its limited judicial authority by acting as an appellate Circuit Judge on May 7,

2009 by reviewing and discrediting another U.S. District Court Judge’s, (Hon. Matthew

F. Kennedy), correct adherence to Title #28 USC § 1447(c) on March 22, 2007, (3rd

Removal case no. 07 C-1504) when Judge Kennedy issued his 'Certified Remand Order'

which no same judicial Dist. Judge can do against another same-plane District Judge;

8) F) that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, completely ignoring the filed

Court Transcripts of what orally transpired between (movant), Walter J. Brzowski and the

U.S. Federal District Court of Illinois, (Hon. Matthew F. Kennedy) on April 17, 2007,

(No. 07 C-1504), that bodes quite favorably for (Appellant) Brzowski’s behalf on these

two Federal Removals argument against the Cook County Domestic Relations Court’s

unlawful movements prior to the issued: ‘Certified Copy of Order of Remand' upon base

less divorce case no. 01 D-14335, (Brzowski v. Brzowski)',

-25-

9) G) that the U.S. Court of Appeals, again completely ignoring the filed Court Transcripts

of the correct judicial actions taken by a collateral Will County pre-Trial Court, (Hon. J.

Jeffrey Allen), on April 4, 2007, (Case nos. 05 CM-3968, 06 CM-103, 06 CM-2579), that

once again, strongly favors (Appellant), Walter J. Brzowski’s Removals argument under

the. one set of Laws principle onto the State County Courts” principle, exposing the

illegal actions taken by the Cook County Domestic Relations Court between April 22,

2003 to June 23, 2005 on unfounded civil divorce case no. 01 D-14335;

10) H) that both the lower U.S. Northern District Court of Illinois and this U.S. Court of

Appeals suspiciously failed to recognize and respect Walter J. Brzowski intact parental

fatherhood Rights towards his two unconstitutionally alienated Children, [Brandon and

Eric Brzowski] for over 16.6 years, through the abuse of the State Court Systems by

(legal wj/e/petitioner). Laura A. Brzowski’s wrongful usage of the ‘petitioner-friendly’

IL. Domestic Violence Act to by-pass IL. Statutes 750ILCS 5/606(a) and 5/602(a)(l) that

was shown to be protected by numerated Constitutional Amendments within several cited

Case Law precedents, which these Courts turned a prejudicial ‘blind-eye and deaf-ear’ to;

11)1) that both Federal District and Appellate Courts repeatedly turned a blind-eye and deaf

ear toward U.S. private Citizen, Walter J. Brzowski’s pleas that he was wrongfully forced

to serve over 2_,350 days in oppressive, Cook and Will County Sheriff jails, and ensuing

IDOC imprisonments upon frivolous criminal cases citing: ‘viol, of order of protection’

when he attempted to express his love and fatherhood guidance onto HIS two private

Children, which (legal vw/e/Complainant), Laura A. Brzowski induced the IL. States

Attorneys Offices, (Cook and Will Counties), to create these absurd-ludicrous cases

-26-

through fatally defective and unfounded ‘Plenary orders of protections’, that should have

never been enforced against him; AND:

12) Finally, J) that both the U.S. Northern District Court of Illinois and the U.S. Court of

Appeals both suspiciously failed to recognize and respect U.S. private Citizen, Walter J.

Brzowski’s repeated and justified assertions that the Cook County Domestic Relations

Court, (Hons. Anthony L. Young and Raymond Figueroa) ‘stole’ his equal share and

stake to the gathered marital property between his (legal wife), Laura A. Brzowski with

out any separate Property Hearing as duly required by 750ILCS 5/503(b)(c), that is also a

violation of Walter Brzowski’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amend. Rights towards his stake

thereof, AND his total reclamation to his non-marital property before he married Laura

A. Stang on February 14, 1998, that was unjustly awarded to her, violating 5/503(a)(2);

13) By and through the above Counts H—J, clearly would show that (movant), Walter J.

Brzowski did indeed possess strong Federal legal standings to create these two Federal

Removal Cases on August 30, 2002, (No. 02 C-6219), and on April 22, 2003, (No. 03 C2685), [and even on March 19, 2007; No. 07 C-1504], because of these repeated viola

tions of his afforded Constitutional Rights at the Cook County Domestic Rel. Courts

arena, which Judges Castillo, Holderman and Kennedy did possess enough subject matter

jurisdiction to reject their errant ‘dismissals—remands’ on September 9, 2002, on May 5,

2003, on June 22, 2005, on March 20th and 22nd, 2007, because Federal Statutes 28 USC

§ 1441 and § 1443 grants the Federal District Court to intervene over the lower State

Court’s unconstitutional actions foisted onto (respondentj/Citizen Walter J. Brzowski;

14) On March 27, 2020, these three named Circuit Judges, Easterbrook, Rovner and Barrett

all arbitrarily entered a suspept ‘denial order’ against (Appellant), Walter J. Brzowski’s

15 page: “Petition for Panel ReHearing...", that fails to resolve key issues of law and

matters of fact stemming from his unopposed, filed: “Brief and Argument” from October

31, 2019, upon these above ten Counts, which certainly cannot be allowed to stand due to

its blatant prejudicial injustice from these three Federal ‘Officers of the Court’ who are

strongly appearing to rewrite Acts of Congress, and legislate from the bench so as to

protect their lower fellow colleague District Court Judges within the Federal Executive

Committee, (Holderman and Castillo; and now Rebecca R. Pallmeyer), mistakes and

overreaching judicial acts (esp. on May 7, 2009, and on May 24, 2019), that fails miser

ably to promote substantial Justice and the Integrity of this Federal Appellate Court!

THEREFORE, (Appellant), Walter J. Brzowski now respectfully places on due Legal Notice

upon these above 14 points hereon, that he intends to seek U.S. Supreme Court intervention for

their Writ of Certiorari to take jurisdiction over App. case no. 19-2167, and reverse the errant

‘affirmance unpublished order’ from March 16, 2020, because of its repugnancy to Federal Laws

and Case law precedents cited in his October 31, 2019 “Brief and Argument” and: "Petition for

Panel ReHearing” on March 23, 2020, that unjustly encroaches upon this private U.S. Citizen’s

quest for Constitutional, due process Justice at the Dirkssen Federal Building, Chicago IL. 60604!

ATTESTATION

I, Walter J. Brzowski, having read and understood the above self-subscribed “Notice”, certifies it to be

true and correct in content and form, and as to where knowledge of Information provided herein is

deemed truthful to assert in a Court of Law for proper recourse and effect.

Walter J. B

Ape.

7, *030

' Date

EihthiJ

CIVIL COVER SHEET

<8s>JS44 (Rev. 3/99)'

The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as regjuired

bv law cxceDt as orovided bv local rules of court This form, approved by the judicial Conference ofthe United States in September 1974, is required ftor the

useoftheGfi^o/court for die purport of initiating the civil d^ket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

DEFENDANTS

(a) PLAINTIFFS

U//V-T£R

f\- I3*2ou/sKi

WURA

%2gWSKl

'lP

Cook

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

County of Residence of First Listed

_______

(IN U.S. PLAJNTFF&fes ONLY) '"‘t

CONDEMNATION CASSS>.05E TH^CATI^OF THE

■■■■

M/crtA£t- T- JptsTAA/O , (7o^)a33'^OC

S20O U>eST ,35™ STR&rr v

HickrsHV Hilts It faQHSl______

in. cmzi

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

(Place an “X” in One Box Only)

SI 3

Federal Question

(U.S. Government Not a Party)

□ 2 U.S. Government

Defendant

O 4

Diversity

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties

c°

m^Ha

OF PRINClP^ci^fRTJ EStPiace

(For Diversity

U.S. Government

Plaintiff

~2s-

<r>

CC5

Attomi

D 1

O I

Citizen of Another State □ 2

□ 3

Citizen of This State

an “X" m One Box for Plaintiff

and One Box for Defendant)

PTF

DEF

Q 4

□4

Incorporated and Principal Place □ 5

of Business In Another State

Foreign Nation

0 6

f/j0ncorporated or Principal Place

4'"*&fBBsipess In This State

in Item Ill)

Citizen or Subject of a

Foreign Country

I V. NATURE OF SUIT

CONTRACT

(Place an “X^.in One Box Only)

TORTS

PERSONAL INJURY

□ 120 Marine

□ 310 Airplane

□ 315 Airplane Product

□ 130 Miller Act

Liability

0 140 Negotiable Instrument

0. 150 Recovery of Overpayment D 320 Assault, Libel Sc

Slander

Sc Enforcement of Judgment

•0 151 Medicare Act

□ 330 Federal Employers’

Liability

0 152 Recovery of Defaulted

□ 340 Marine

Student Loans

□ 345 Marine'Product

(Exd. Veterans)

Liability

0 *’153 Recovery of Overpayment

0 350 Motor Vehicle

of Veteran’s Benefits

□ 355 Motor Vehicle

‘0 160 Stockholders* Soils

Product Liability

0 190 Other Contract

0 195 Contract Product Liability □ 360 Other Personal lnj.

0 (10 Insurance

CIVIL RIGHTS

PRISONER PETITIONS

□ 441 Voting

□ 442 Employment

0 443 Housing/

Accommodations

Q 444 Welfare

Of 440 Other Civil Rights

0 510 Motions to Vacate

Scrttcncc

Habeas Corpus:

0 530 General

0 535 Death Penalty

0 540 Mandamus & Other

0 550 Civil Rights

0 555 Prison Condition

REALPROPERTY

0 210 Land,Condemnation

0 220 Foreclosure

0 230 Rent Lease Sc Ejectment

0 240 Torts to Land

. 0 245 Tort Product Liability

0 290 AJ1 Other Real Property

V. ORIGIN

^ 1

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY

0 362 Personal Injury—

Med. Malpractice

Q 365 Personal Injury —

Product Liability

□ 368 Asbestos Personal

Injury Product

Liability

PERSONAL PROPERTY

0 370 Other Fraud

0 371 Truth m Lending

0 380 Other Personal

Property Damage

□ 385 Property Damage •

Product Liability

□

□ 423 Withdrawal

28 USC 157

PROPERTY RICHTS

0 820 Copyrights

0 830 Patent

0 840 Trademark

SOCIAL SECURITY

LABOR

□

0 861 H!A(1395ff)

710 Fair Labor Standards

0 862 Black Lung (923)

Act

720 Labor/M gmt. Relations O 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))

0 864 SSID Title XVI

730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting 0 865 RSI (405(g))

Sc Disclosure Act

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

740 Railway Labor Act

□

790 Other Labor Litigation

□

791 Empl. Ret. Inc.

□

0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

or Defendant)

0 871 [RS—Third Party

26 USC 7609

Security Act

Appeal to

□3

Remanded from

Appellate Court

Transferred from

□ 4 Reinstated or □ 5 anotha district

Reopened

Tirk a? use $ I3H3 (sir Title

TitJf> 2<S

aag3 ;

VII. REQUESTED IN 0

COMPLAINT:

District

Judge from

□ 7 Magistrate

O 6 Multidistrict

Litigation

in m icr nr ArTiAXi . (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write brief statement of cause.

VI. LAUbMJr ACIliiN

Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.)

0<? ^.T CT/^

>ATE

□ 400 State Reapporttoament

□ 410 Antitrust

□ 430 Banks and Banking

O 450 Commerce/ICC Rates/etc.

Q 460 Deportation.

□ 470 Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations

□ 810 Selective Service

□ 8S0 SecuritiesCommodities/

Exchange

0 875 Customer Challenge

12 USC 3410

□ 891 Agricultural Acts

Q 892 Economic Stabilization Act

0 893 Environmental Matters

0 894 Energy Allocation Act

0 895 Freedom of

Information Act

0 900 Appeal of Fee

Determination Under

Equal Access to Justice

0 -950 Constitutionality of

State Statutes

□ 890 Other Statutory Actions

{PLACE AN “X” IN ONE BOX ONLY)

JO 2/ Removed from

Original

State Court

Proceeding

VIII. This case

OTHER STATUTES

BANKRUPTCY

□ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158

610 Agriculture

620 Other Food & Drug

625 Drug Related Seizure

-of Property 21 USC

630 Liquor Laws

640 R.R. Sc Truck

650 Airline Regs.

660 Occupational

Safety/Heahh

690 Other

Judement

Iri/hri*

uses 22Gij T. tie 28 VSC b 2202,

Ttr/e Ha USQ £ IHT3

□ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

LTNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMANDS

is not a refiling of a previously dismissed action.

is a refiling of case

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND:

Cl Yes

□ No

vKp o#

, previousse? dismjfs&d by Jtudge

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEyf^RKOftD

V/Wo?

'^9 ^ Jr r /t 2 Q Q 9

V-

-'^Gsoaoiq?

PC/CHASER Docket as of 05/6,/03 9:14 pm

Proceedings include all events.

i.:0 3cv2 685 Brzowski v. Brzowski

Printed 01/28/04

Page 1

TERMED

LEVIN

TERMED LEVIN

U.S. District Court

Northern District of Illinois (Chicago)

jCIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 03-CV-2685?

Brzowski v. Brzowski

Assigned to: Hon. James F. Holderman

Demand: $0,000

Lead Docket: None

Dkt # in Circuit-"Court Cook : is 01 D 14 3 3 5!

Cause:

Filed: 05/05/03

Nature of Suit:

440

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

28:1441^Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act?

LAURA A BRZOWSKI,

plaintiff

Laura A Brzowski,

[NTC] [PRO SE]

Michael T. Tristano

8200 West 95th Street

Hickory Hills, IL 60457

(708) 233-4400

WALTER J BRZOWSKI

defendant

Walter J Brzowski

[NTC] [PRO SE]

P. O. Box #934

Worth, IL 60482

- 30-

'.1

• ► «

v»*

PC/CHASER Docket as of 05/6,/03 9:14 pm

Proceedlngs_inclu de all events.

;l:03cv2685 Brzowski v. Brzowskp

Printed 01/28/04

Page 2

TERMED

LEVI]

(j/_22/fi3

/RECEIVED COMPLAINT?with two copies,

[Entry date 04/2~3/03]

4/22/03

CIVIL cover sheet.

[4/22/03

/^PPLICATION by~defendant to proceed in forma pauperis (jmp)

[Entry date 04723/03]

4/22/03

SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT of Walter J. Brzowski of prior

vioiations of rights to affect subject matter jurisdiction

(imp) [Entry date 04/23/03]

4/22/03

SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT of Walter J. Brzowski for legal

recourse of applicable law. (jmp) [Entry date 04/23/03]

4/22/03

PRO SE APPEARANCE by defendant,

4/22/03

MOTION by defendant for appointment of counsel.

[Entry date 04/23/03]

(jmp)

FORWARDED entire case file to Judge Holderman

[Entry date 04/23/03]

(jmp)

4/23/03

(fjmp)

(jmp)

[Entry date 04/23/03]

(jmp)

[Entry date 04/23/03]

5/5/03

MINUTE ORDER of 5/5/03 by Hon. James F. Holderman : This

action is dismissed or lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff's motions to proceed_in forma pauperis [3-1] and

for appointment of counsel As denied~as~mc5oC> [7-1] .

(See

reverse of minute order.) terminatrng-case-Mailed notice

by judge's staff (jmp) [Entry date 05/06/03]

5/5/03

ENTERED JUDGMENT (jmp)

[Entry date 05/06/03]

[END OF DOCKET : <G~03cy2685;]>

([Note: There is nornentioned of the Federal District Court “remanding” this Case back to the

State Court anywhere in this Docketing Sheet, pursuant to Title USC #28 @ 1447 (c)]

“^JS 44 (Rev. 3/99)

CIVIL COVER SHEET Wjff Z?

HOI Q

use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE C)F THE FORM.)

(a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

6P LAURA A- &R20VL&Ki

2 •

County of Residence of First Listed

(e) Attorney's (Firm Name. Address, and Telephone Number)

Attorneys (If Known)

(Place an “X" in One Box Only)

□ J

U.S. Government

Plaintiff

0 3

Federal Question

(U.S. Government Not a Party)

□ 2

U.S. Government

Defendant

O 4

Diversity

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties

in Item IH)

REAL PROPERTY

□ 1

Original

Proceeding

(For Diversity Cases Only)

PTF

Citizen of This State

□ \

DEF

*□ |

Citizen of Another State □ 2

□2

Incorporated and,

of Busi

0 3

O 610 Agriculture

O 620 Other Food St Drug

D 62 5 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC

O 630 Liquor Laws

□ 640 R.R. & Truck

O 650 Airline Regs.

O 660 Occupational

Safety/Health

□ 690 Other

LABOR

BANKRUPTCY

□ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158

□ 423 Withdrawal

28 USC 157

PROPERTY RIGHTS

□ 820 Copyrights

□ 830 Patent

O 840 Trademark

SOCIAL SECU K1TY

Transferred from

another district

(specify)

Remanded from

Appellate Court

□ 4 Reinstated or O 5

Reopened

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CilclheU-S; Civil Statute under which you are filing and write brief statement of cause.

^ f)$T LAu/ § S50

C° n^-*e

statutes unless diversity.)

VIII. This case

FORFE1TURE/PENALTV

PERSONAL INJURY

O 362 Personal Injury—

Med. Malpractice

O 365 Personal Injury —

Product Liability

□ 368 Asbestos Personal

Injury Product

Liability

PERSONAL PROPERTY

D 370 Other Fraud

G 371 Troth in Lending

□ 380 Other Personal

Property Damage

O 385 Property Damage

Product Liability

□ 6

OTHER STATUTES

□ 400 Slate Reapportion mem

□ 410 Antitrust

D 430 Banks and Banking

D 450 Commerce/ICC Raiestac.

D 460 Deportation

□ 470 Racketeer Influenced and •

Corrupt Organizations

D 810 Selective Service

D 850 Securiiies/Commoditics'

Exchange

O 875 Customer Challenge

12 USC 3410

D 891 Agricultural Acts

O 892 Economic Stabilization Act

Q 893 Environmental Matters

Q 894 Energy Allocation Act

O 895 Freedom of

information Act

O 900 Appeal of Fee

Determination Under

Equal Access to Justice

O 950 Constitutionality of

Slate Statutes

G 890 Other Statutory Actions

IN ONE BOX ONLY)

Removed’from?

VII. REQUESTED IN

COMPLAINT:

Forcigt^jStfSn'1

Consrrrunortai

f State Court

Const. Lau j

710 Fair Labor Standards □ 861 HIA <1395ff)

Act

□ 862 Black Lung (923)

O 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations D 863 DIWC/D1WW (405(g))

CIVIL RIGHTS

□ 864 SSID Title XVI

PRISONER PETITIONS

O 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporring □ 865 RSI (405(g))

O 441 Voting

D 510 Motions to Vacate

Sc Disclosure Act

G 442 Employment

Sentence

□ 740 Railway Labor Act

federaltax suits

G 443 Housing/

Habeas Corpus:

Accommodations

O 530 General

G 790 Other Labor Litigation a 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

or Defendant)

□ 444 Welfare

G 535 Death Penafry

B 440 Other Civil Rights . D 540 Mandamus & Other G 791 Emp!. Ret. Inc.

G 871 IRS—Third Party

G 550 Civil Rights

Security Act

26 USC 7609

G 555 Prison Condition

(PLACE AN

® 2

\\l VItPffTCc an-X" in One Box for Plaintiff

and One

Dcfcndam )

DEF

Incorporated'

'lace Q 4

of Busines)

(Place an “X" in One Box Only)

O 110 Insurance

PERSONAL INJURY

O 120 Marine

D 310 Airplane

U 130 Miller Act

D 315 Airplane Product

O 140 Negotiable Instrument

Liability

□ 150 Recovery of Overpayment G 320 Assault. Libel &

& Enforcement ofJudgment

Slander

Q 151 Medicare Act

□ 330 Federal Employers'

□ 152 Recovery of Defaulted

Liability

Student Loans

O 340 Marine

(Exci. Veterans)

□ 345 Marine Product

□ 153 Recovery of Overpayment

Liability

of Veteran's Benefits

□ 350 Motor Vehicle

O 160 Stockholders* Suits

D 355 Motor Vehicle

□ I 90 Other Contract

Product Liability

O 195 Contract Product Liability □ 360 Other Personal Inj.

V. ORIGIN

HI. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPA

TORTS

210 Land Condemnation

220 Foreclosure

230 Rent Lease & Ejectment

240 Torts to Land

245 Tort Product Liability

290 All Other Real Property

:_-

Citizen or Subject of a

Foreign Country

CONTRACT

Cook

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF THE

LAND INVOLVED.

Michael V TXistAa/o

ff2oo tttesr <?sST<7 sttb&T (760)233- WYOO

ritcKofy tf-ilts IL <bQHS7

□

'i.

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Cook

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

IV. NATURE OF SUIT

d f° 'hC

UJalter f. gfizoiuxi

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

O 6 Mullidtsrrici

_____ Litigation

O 7

Appeal to

District

Judge from

Magistrate

Judgment

Denied Constitutional Due Process of

Law by the State Court by arbitrary cause

<}*,

□ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMANDS

is not a refiling of a previously dismissed action.

is a refiling of case

DATE

CHECK YES only if demanded In complaint:

JURY DEMAND:

GVes

□ No'

, previously dismissed by Judge

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

WC C B

Wmo?-32-

07X42009

Coooo 133

PC/CHASER Docket as of 09/10/02 10-28 pm

Proceedinginclude_a 11 events.

- i1: 02cv62

19.- —__________________

Brzowski________

v7~Brzowskil)

Printed 01/28/04

Page 2

TERMED

DENL'

fTTJo/oT] i

fPSippigL

£Gpunty>. Illinois, Case No. 01 D 14435'—(hp)----------—UlJrHSft

[Entry~date'~0 9/03"/02] [Edit date' 09/03/02]

8/30/02

CIVIL cover sheet.

8/30/02

PRO SE APPEARANCE by plaintiff.

(hp)

[Entry date 09/03/02]

(hp)

[Entry date 09/03/02]

QQ/30/0Y] 4

pauperis (hp)

8/30/02

9/3/02

?E«?y date^09/03/02f°r aPP°intment °f counsel

[E^DdatSO^/^?02]Se

9/9/02

'9/9/02

(hp)

t0 ^ C3Still°- (hp)

MINUTE ORDER of 9/9/02 by Hon. Ruben Castillo: After a

r®v;!-ew °f this recently filed pro se complaint

this complaint, is hereby dismissed with prejudice for' the

f°^5win§ refsons: (1) said complaint fails to state a

valid federal cause of action and (2) said complaint

violates the Rooker/Feldman doctrine by seekinq to have a

federal court appropriately review a state court

proceeding, if plaintiff seeks to review a state court

decision he must file a timely appeal to the State

pSSperise[4°lirtand1fintiff'? ™otions to Proceed in forma

?d f?r aPPointment of counsel [5-1] are

(both denied/terminating case. Mailed notice (air)

[Entry-date 09/10/02]

ENTERED JUDGMENT.

[END OF DOCKET [l To 2 c v 6~219?]

(air)

[Entry date 09/10/02]

/[Note: (Again) There is/nomentioned of the Federal District Court “remanding” this Case back

to the State Court anywhere in this Docketing Sheet, pursuant to Title USC #28 @ 1447 (c)]

-3H-

AO 450(Rev. 5/85)Judgment in a Civil Case

__________________ _____

U JRed States District Coifln:

Northern District of Illinois

Eastern Division

BRZOWKSI

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

^a^^NumbViT03rC~2^857

BRZOWKSI

□

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been

tried and the jury rendered its verdict.

■

Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues

have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED/that this case is dismissed for lack of subject

^matteFjuhsdictipn.

ftotBBl

iviay^z

-—jTzgov

Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court

Date: 5/5/2003

J. Smith, Denuty Clerk

-35-

;

RECEIVED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Eastern Division

LAURA A. BRZOWSKI

Plaintiff/Federal Defendant

)

-vs.-

WALTER J. BRZOWSKI

Respondent/Federal Petitioner

/APR. 1 8 2005'

MICHAEL W. DOBBINS

CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT

6aSE NO. #03 C 2685?

NOTICE OF MOTION

TO: Circuit Court of Cook County

Domestic Relations Division #802

50 West Washington Street

Chicago, EL. 60602

A/tfil

2-S:

TO: Mrs. Laura A. Brzowski

Plaintiff/Federal Defendant

11557 South Joalyce Drive

Alsip, IL. 60803

2005 at

rj m. or as soon thereafter as

counsel may be heard, I shall appear before Honorable Judge James F. Holderman, or any judge

sitting in his stead, in Courtroom number #2141 at the Dirksen Federal Building, 219 South

Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL. 60604, and present the attached pleading requesting:

/^Motion For Order of Remand Back to State GourtV1

a copy is now served onto you.

Name: Walter J. Brzowski

Attorney for: Litigant to Case

Address: 4941 West Columbus Drive

City/State/Zip: Oak Lawn, IL. 60453

Telephone: #(708) 423-4810

CERTIFICATE AND AFFIDAVIT OF DELIVERY PERSONALLY, OR BY MAIL

The undersigned hereby certifies under penalties of peijury as provided by law pursuant to #735ILCS 5/1-109, that

the above Notice and any attached pleadings were ___personally delivered OR X placed in the U.S. Mail

at:

________________ , with first class postage prepaid and directed

to all parties of record at the addresses set forth above, on or before 5:00 PM on April [ft 2005

MICHAEL W. DOBBINS, CLERK OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF ILLINOIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Eastern Division

LAURA A. BRZOWSKI

PlaintiffTFederal Defendant

Versus

WALTER J. BRZOWSKI

Respondent/Federal Petitioner

)

CASE NO. #03 C 2685

Judge James F. Holderman, presiding

MOTION FOR ORDER OF REMAND RACK TO STATF, COITRT

NOW COMES Walter J. Brzowski, pursuant to Title U.S.C. #28 @ 1447 (c)

Honorable Federal District Court the following;

V ' now states to this

1) That on April 22, 2003, Walter J. Brzowski filed into the Northern Federal District

M°U* ®

al°ng With 4116 necessary requisites to create Federal Case

No. #03 C 2685; and,

2) That on this date, upon inspection of the filed Civil Cover Sheet, Section V (21

states that the Origin of this Case is removed from State Court, due to violations

arising from Domestic Relations Court matters against Walter J. Brzowski Civil

and Constitutional Rights, (Exhibit 'A'); and,

That when a Federal Court is properly appealed to in a Case over which it has

by law jurisdiction to settle Constitutional controversies, it is the duty

to take

jurisdiction", {England vs. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners

#375

U.S. 411,461}; and,

The right of a Party to choose a Federal Court when there is a choice, cannot be

property denied", {England vs. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners

#375 U.S., 411,461}; and,

5) That upon jurisdictional removals from the State Court to the Federal District

Court affects the State Court from proceeding, until Title USC #28 @ 1447 (c) has

been complied with, this is objectively construed to be legally accurate; and,

6) That on April 22, 2003, Walter J. Brzowski filed with the Illinois State Court Clerk

a: Motion For Subject Matter Jurisdiction Removal to the United States Federal

Court , etc. served on all Parties on this Date, which completes the requisites for

compliancy to Title #28 USC @ 1446, to legally affect such jurisdictional

removals, (Exhibit 'B'); and,

7) Along with the Complaint, Walter J. Brzowski filed

£ „

on April 22, 2003 a:

Supporting Affidavit of Prior Violations of Rights to Affect Subject-Matter

Jurisdiction", and upon review of the incorporated 18 Articles clearly proclaims

that the State Court has lost such jurisdiction due to the numerous violations of

Walter J. Brzowski's Constitutional Rights, (exhibit 'C'); and,

8) That when there is a violation to a United States Citizen's Constitutional Rights

at the State Court level, the Federal Courts become available to such Citizen to

bring forth the issues of such Constitutional encroachments, and adjudicate those

matters in that legal arena, pursuant to Title USC #28 @ 1441 (b); and,

9) Thus, this was the chosen recourse Walter J. Brzowski undertook on April 22,

2003 to bring forth into the Northern Federal District Court, and transfer

jurisdiction from the State Court to the Federal District Court, a legal remedy that

was obtainable to Mr. Brzowski; and,

10) "Once removal proceedings to Federal Court are fulfilled, and requisite notice

accomplished, the State Court loses all jurisdiction in the matter", {Davis vs

Davis, #229 S.E. 2d 847}; and,

11) That on May 5, 2003 a Minute Order originating from the Federal District Court,

[no Judge's endorsement disclosed], dismissed Walter J. Brzowski's filed

Complaint on a jurisdictional question; and,

12) Upon inspection of this Minute Order, it is clearly absent of a Remand Order as

defined in Title #28 @ 1447 (c), which still negates the Illinois State Court from

lawfully proceeding upon Circuit Case No. #01 D 14335; and,

13) That the Federal Clerk, (upon inspection of this Case File on January 28, 2004)

failed to: "attach a certified copy of the order of remand shall be mailed by the

[Federal] Clerk to the clerk of the State Court. The State Court may thereupon

proceed with such case"; and,

14) It is quite evident, by such controlling factors of Law(s) and well understood by

such meanings of legal intents that "A dismissal does not constitute an automatic

remand back to State Court", when such Order of Remand needs to be applied to

in this Federally removed Case; and,

15) If the federal court later decides that you did not have enough reason to try to

remove your case, it is reversible error for the state court to proceed until the case

is [remanded] returned to that state court", supported by: {Echevarria vs.

Silberglitt, #441 F. 2d 225, 2nd Circuit, (1971); Schuman vs. State of Indiana, #236

N.E. 2d 830, (1968); and,

16) That now, there is a clear and distinct indication, due to the fact of the absence of

such Remand Order, the State Court is barred from proceeding lawfully, until

such time compliancy of Title USC #28 @ 1447 (c) is fulfilled; and,

17) State Court may not proceed with case or retain jurisdiction after removal to

Federal District Court is effected, and will not be reinvested with jurisdiction

*•

■

until cause is remanded to State Court", {State vs. Boone Circuit Court, #86 N.E.

2d 75}; and,

18) "When the petition has been filed in the Federal District Court, State Court loses

jurisdiction to proceed further until case is remanded; even if basis of District

Court's remand is that the case was not removable, no action taken by State

Court in interim can stand", {Eastern vs. Canty, #389 N.E. 2d 1160}; and,

19) Even if there is a jurisdictional discrepancy with such removals, Title USC #28 @

1447 (c) still is necessary for compliance, since it addresses the jurisdictiona

question within its confines of definitions for the proper, required acts that

should have been followed henceforth by the Federal District Clerk; and,

20) (Judicial Notice requested): In Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, page

#1034, states: Motion to remand: "In a case that has been removed from state

court to federal court, a party s request that the federal court return the case to

state court, usually because federal court lacks jurisdiction, or because the

procedures for removal were not properly followed", {#28 USCA @ 1447 (c); and,

21) Therefore, Walter J. Brzowski now seeks such: "Certified Copy of a Remand

Order" from the Federal District Clerk to the State Court Clerk, granting the legal

provisions for the State Court to proceed.

WHEREFORE, Walter J. Brzowski now respectfully prays for the following to this Federal

District Court for relief:

A) That this Federal Court issue a: Certified Copy of an Order of

Remand back to the State Court Clerk, (Richard J. Daley Center,

Chgo. IL. 60602, Room #802), pursuant to Title #28 @ 1447 (c).

ATTESTATION

I, Walter J. Brzowski, having read and understood the above self-subscribed “Motion”, certifies that it is

true in content and form, and as to where knowledge of Information is presumed truthful to assert in a

Court of Law for proper recourse.

Walter J.

Date

zow:

-39-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LAURA A. BRZOWSKI,

Plaintiff,

vs.

)

(No. 03 C 2685'

)

WALTER J. BRZOWSKI,

)

Defendant.

Chicago, Illinois

(April 28, 2005

9:00 o'clock a.m.

(TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES F. HOLDERMAN

APPEARANCES:

For the Defendant:

MR. WALTER J. BRZOWSKI, Pro Se

P.O. Box #934

Worth, Illinois 60482

(708) 704-9187

COLLEEN M. CONWAY, CSR, CRR

Official Court Reporter

219 South Dearborn Street, Room 2144-A

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 435-5594

Colleen M. Conway, Official Court Reporter

-HQ-

(Proceedings in open court.)

THE CLERK:

motion for remand.

THE COURT:

03 C 2685, Brzowski versus Brzowski,

All right.

motion.

parties interested will arrive.

No one appears on this

We will call it later in the call, and hopefully the

(Whereupon, the Court heard other matters on his call.)

THE CLERK:

motion for remand.

03 C 2685, Brzowski versus Brzowski,

MR. BRZOWSKI:

Good morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

MR. BRZOWSKI:

Good morning, Your Honor.

Good morning, sir.

Walter Brzowski.

And you are?

11 ve

I am the

respondent and the -- I put myself as the federal petitioner

back in, oh, April of 2003.

got the --

THE COURT:

Right.

As you -- I don't know if you

We called this case earlier, and

I thought you might be arriving, and so we held the case

over

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT:

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT:

Thank you.

-- until you could arrive.

Thank you.

But I need to apprise you that this case

was over two years ago.

MR. BRZOWSKI:

Yes, I know, and there was

and I've

Colleen M. Conway, Official Court Reporter

-•i/-

been checking the files for a remand order, and the duty-

developed on the petitioner in the state court, Laura

Brzowski, by and through her attorney, Michael T. Tristano,

and due to the fact that there -- the absence of a remand

order, checking the files in July of 2003 and back again in

January of 2004 -- and I read the federal -- the titles and

statutes, and it says that the order -- that according to the

titles, it has to be remanded back for the state court to

proceed --

THE COURT:

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT:

Okay.

Well

and

-- what I did in May of 2003 is I

dismissed this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

which automatically causes the matter to be available to the

state court --

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT:

Well

~~ if you wish to revive it.

I entered a

judgment on that on May 5th, 2003, but I will tell you what I

will do.

remand.

I will enter an order today granting your motion to

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT:

Okay.

I don't think I have jurisdiction to do

it, but if the state court somehow believes --

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT:

Yes, that's

-- we need to tell them that they have

Colleen M. Conway, Official Court Reporter

r«-

«*•

itKe\case^baclc-,, I am happy to do that.

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT:

Okay.

I just --

MR. BRZOWSKI:

Because I got the federal statutes

ri-9ht here, and it even says here that — but everything that

you just -- (pT]S£

h -t* say nothing about dismissal equals an-

■€ufomatic remand*.

I got it -- so, I, mean let's

want to tie up all the legal legalities here.

THE COURT:

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT:

- I just

Okay. /B understaucf?

Okay.

Thank you.

All right,

/granted^because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction7,

okay?

MR. BRZOWSKI:

And then can I have a certified copy

or however the

THE COURT:

Sure.

You can speak with my clerk after

the call about getting a certified copy of the minute order

that we are entering today.

MR. BRZOWSKI:

though, would it be prepared?

order to be prepared today?

THE COURT:

Okay.

Basically how long would it,

How long does it take for the

I think she could probably get it done

this morning, maybe before you even leave.

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT:

Okay.

So if you want to just --

Colleen M. Conway, Official Court Reporter

-H3-

MR. BRZOWSKI:

I will be back in about 15, 20

minutes

THE COURT:

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT:

will be done this morning.

Okay.

-- and I will speak to your clerk.

She may not have it done by then, but it

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT:

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT:

MR. BRZOWSKI:

(Proceedings concluded.)

Right, yeah.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Thank you.

Bye-bye.

Colleen M. Conway, Official Court Reporter

CERTIFICATE

I, Colleen M. Conway, do hereby certify that the

foregoing is a complete, true, and accurate transcript of the

proceedings had in the above-entitled case before the

[Honorable JAMES F. HOLDERMAN, one of the judges of said Court,

at Chicago, Illinois,/on April 28, 2005.

^1Uo(oC

Date

Colleen M. Conway, Official Court Reporter

v^uuuu i\jy

Case 1:03-cv-02v. _>

Order Form (01/2005)

_^ocument12

Filed 04/28/2C

^ge 1 of 1

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

CASE NUMBER

James F. Holderman

Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

i' 03 C 2685

DATE

4/28/2005

LAURA A. BRZOWSKI vs. WALTER J. BRZOWSKI

CASE

TITLE

'Vt

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT: “

Defendant Walter J. Brzowski’s motion for order of remand back to state court [10] is granted. Order case

'remanded to state court for lack of subj ect matter jurisdiction.

n^r

■r-

o ‘

c;0

5 ~- ^ r~

r<s

p: —■ D(^§tingjotnI ii notices.

~o '3?

2g no

co —t

I '

(■

A TRUE COPY-ATTRST

MICHAEL W, DOBBINS, CLERIC

f By 4?

-4

it j.

DEPUTY CLERK

\ p. 3. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

UUN 2-2-7005

-i

[^DATE:^__-__ _

mak

Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

03C2685 LAURA A. BRZOWSKI vs. WALTER J. BRZOWSKI

■ i r

s • «. a

■*

C 35age I of 1

_ ^ .artannina

a ».

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINQISoi

DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION

LAURA A. BRZOWSKI

Petitioner

PM 12: 4 4

)

AND

Walter J. Brzowski

U.S. Natural Citizen

CASE

)

cr»,:

cn;.

r_-.

■<i

NOTICE of Fn nar;

TO: Michael A. Lew

Attorney For Petitioner

9700 West 131* Street

Palos Park, IL. 60467

TO: Judge Gerald C. Bender

Courtesy Copy #2801

50 West Washington St

Chicago, IL. 60602

TO: Presiding Judge Moeshe Jacobius

Courtesy Copy

#1901

50 West Washington Street

Chicago, IL. 60602

TO: Chief Judge Timothy Evans

Courtesy Copy #2600

50 West Washington Street

Chicago, IL. 60602

rc ••

r\}

TO: Jujdge Rayma nfcFigueroa

®»rt#gopv“| #3002

50^est£WasEngton St

Chicago? IL. 60602

TO: Clerk of the Circuit Court, IL.

Court Certified Copy #802

50 West Washington Street

Chicago, IL. 60602

N?;TId5 ^ °n.

^-»-200S» 1 ffled with the Clerk of the Circuit Court Cook

County, IL., Domestic Relations Division a: ‘‘Certified Coov of a Fedenri o~~~_-■

Federal Thlee: #28 @ 1447 (c), and @ 144ti

“

Walter J. Brzowski

Pro Se Litigant

4941 West Columbus Drive

Oak Lawn, IL. 60453

#(708)423-4810

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Urtdg penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section #1-109 of the Code of CM Procedural I Walter J

2T' ' —'0R —!»*>»»<* ddraerad NOTICE of FM40

UritedSta?T^l^ S^c?Zil

by plad"g Fir“ Cbss P°sE®! ” «»

DOROTHY BROWN, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

-47-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

(

IN THE MATTER OF:

No. 07 C 5613

WALTER J. BRZOWSKI.

(TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES F. HOLDERMAN

APPEARANCES:

Pro Se:

Chicago., Jllinois

April 16, ‘2009

9:29 o'clock a.m.

MR. WALTER J. BRZOWSKI

6431 South Karlov

Chicago, Illinois 60629

(773) 582-4965

COLLEEN M. CONWAY, CSR, RMR, CRR

Official Court Reporter

219 South Dearborn Street, Room 2524-A

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 435-5594

col 7 een_conway@i Ind. uscourts. gov

Colleen M. Conway, Official Court Reporter

t-'

*■-

(Proceedings in open court.)

THE CLERK:

MR. BRZOWSKI:

Good morning, Your Honor.

morning to the Court.

THE COURT:

Is there anything you want to say, sir?

MR. BRZOWSKI:

Good

Good morning.

Wei1, the first thing is I'm

challenging your authority and the whole Executive Committee's

authority to enter any orders against me.

As I've been listening to this Court, this is -- and

you're pretty much a statue of what the law dictates --

obviously on the removal method back in 2003, you did not

follow the law on that.

case.

Walter J. Brzowski.

(

07 C 5613, In Re:

I have clearly pointed that out in my

You have subsequently corrected that error.

But that

error blends wel1, well in my favor from the State Court

removal, and it affects some subject matter jurisdiction in the

State Court.

Last time I was in court, on March 3rd, 2009, I duly

expressed my whole factual objective statements to this Court

as to this Federal Court's failure to follow the law as well as

the failure to enforce its federal statutes and your own

certified remand order.

I think this case that you've developed on September

20, 2007 is a direct result of me trying to get or invoke this

Colleen M. Conway, Official Court Reporter

IV-

■f

■/

Federal Court to enforce statutes and your remand order against

the State Court actions at the Daley Center, and that's why you

are -- not you, but the Executive Committee unconstitutionally

created case 07 C 5613 as a way to prevent me or bar me from

finding a remedy in the laws, of which I am a United States

citizen, of which I have a right to do.

I have tried numerous times.

(

my wings out at the Western District, and they informed me that

you instructed them to toss my stuff in the garbage can, legal

documents, which was well intent of the law.

(

I even tried to spread

I have subsequently got a lawsuit against you and

your individual -- I got it right here, Walter Brzowski versus

James F. Holderman.

Your Honor, this has got to stop,

This is -- I am --

by your case, 07 C 5613, I am exposed to unconstitutional acts

and avoid constitutional -- avoid orders coming out of the

Domestic Relation court.

Executive Committee's judicial authority, through the writ of

quo warranto, and I would like to have the proper procedures

through the U.S. District Attorney's Office, Patrick

Fitzgerald, to create a quo warranto proceeding, of which now

you will be submitted to testifying, as to why you created this

case or why the Executive Committee created this case, and to

answer questions upon that second removal method.

THE COURT:

Therefore, I am challenging under the

Your motion is denied.

Colleen M. Conway, Official Court Reporter

-50-

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT:

(

determinations based upon the information that has been

developed in this record, your individual conduct in connection

with this matter.

The determinations made in the State Court are

determinations that the State Court is making.

<?ou aTe^correcfTiRat I erred v^rTI'drsmi s^ed"your

• ^I-sKoulirhave^remanded

[theTcase.

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT: /You .are correct? The State Court has

Yes.

made its determinations based upon its evaluation of the

proceedings in the Federal Court.

MR. BRZOWSKI:

The Executive Committee has made its

(

Can I have a legal foundation?

Well, but, Your Honor, stop right

there.

THE COURT:

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT:

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT:

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT:

MR. BRZOWSKI:

THE COURT:

I am -The Appellate --

I have stopped.

Okay.

I am done.

Wait.

There's

That's the basis, sir.

Just one quick question on that.

We will stand in recess.

Colleen M. Conway, Official Court Reporter

— 51 -

£^a

/'■

Afiricle T- Bill 07

diopping devices or other

se, supported by affidavit

he persons or things to be

•ARING

fense unless on indictment

ishment is by fine or by

s of impeachment, and in

re of war or public danger,

ury or further limit its use.

)unishable by death or by

e initial charge has been

. has been given a prompt

e the right to appear and

nature and cause of the

with the witnesses against

ce of witnesses in his or her

irtial jury of the county in

As amended by the Eighth

:r 8,1994, effective Novem-

ve the following rights as

id respect for their dignity

sitings.

•socution.

>urt at sentencing.

-jri.on, sentence, imprisone following the arrest of the

>m the accused throughout

all other court proceedings

is to testify and the court

srially affected if the victim

proceedings, subject to the

on of the victim's choice.

for the enforcement of this

n assessment against con1 under this Section shall be

}

K i^h75

construed as creating a basis for vacating a conviction or a ground for appellate

relief in any criminal case. (Section 8.1 added by the Seventh Amendment to the

Constitution. Approved November 3,1992, effective November 23,1992.)

Section 9. BAIL AND HABEAS CORPUS

All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for the following

offenses where the proof is evident or the presumption great: capital offenses;

offenses for which a sentence of life imprisonment may be imposed as a

consequence of conviction; and felony offenses for which a sentence of imprison

ment, without conditional and revocable release, shall be imposed by law as a

consequence of conviction, when the court, after a hearing, determines that

release of the offender would pose a real and present threat to the physical safety

of any person. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended

except in cases of rebellion or invasion when the public safety may require it.

Any costs accruing to a unit of local government as a result of the denial of

bail pursuant to the 1986 Amendment to this Section shall be reimbursed by the

State to the unit of local government. (As amended by the Fourth Amendment to

the Constitution. Approved November 4,1986, effective November 25,1986.)

Section 10. SELF-INCRIMINATION AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY

No person shall be compelled in a criminal case to give evidence against

himself nor be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.

Section 11. LIMITATION OF PENALTIES AFTER CONVICTION

All penalties shall be determined both according to the seriousness of the

offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship. No

conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate. No person shall

be transported out of the State for an offense committed within the State.

Section 12. RIGHT TO REMEDY AND JUSTICE

Every person shall find a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries and

wrongs which he receives to his person, privacy, property or reputation. He shall

obtain justice by law, freely, completely, and promptly.

"Section 13. TRIAL BY JURY

The right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain-inviolate.

Section 14. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT

No person shall be imprisoned for debt unless he refuses to deliver up his

estate for the benefit of his creditors as provided by law or unless there is a strong

presumption of fraud. No person shall be imprisoned for failure to pay a fine in

a criminal case unless he has been afforded adequate time to make payment, in

installments if necessary, and has willfully failed to make payment.

Section 15. RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN

Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just

compensation as provided by law. Such compensation shall be determined by a

jury as provided by law.

Section 16. EX POST FACTO LAWS AND IMPAIRING CONTRACTS

No ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts or making

an irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed.

Section 17. NO DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND THE SALE OR

RENTAL OF PROPERTY

All persons shall have the right to be free from discrimination on the basis

531

Case: l:07-cv-05613 Document#: 109 Filed: 05/24/19 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #:769

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

In the Matter of

Walter J. Brzowski

)

Civil Action No.

07 C 5613

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER

IT APPEARING That on September 18, 2008, an Executive Committee order was entered, directing the clerk to

destroy any papers submitted either directly or indirectly by or on behalf of Walter J. Brzowski and authorizing

Walter J. Brzowski to submit to this court, no earlier than six months from the date of the order, a motion to

modify or rescind the order, and

IT FURTHER APPEARING That on May 13, 2019, Walter J. Brzowski submitted documents for filing, and

IT FURTHER APPEARING That the Executive Committee has reviewed Mr. Brzowski’s documents, therefore

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED That Mr. Walter J. Brzowski is denied leave to file his documents submitted on

May 13, 2019, and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the order of September 18, 2008 shall remain in force for an additional

twelve months, and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That Walter J. Brzowski is authorized to submit to this court, no earlier than

twelve months from the date of this order, a motion to modify or rescind the restrictions against him, unless he

demonstrates to the Executive Committee by written submission that he is in imminent danger of serious

physical harm, and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That any new complaints filed by Mr. Brzowski and transferred to this Court

from another jurisdiction shall be reviewed by the Executive Committee to determine whether they should be

filed, and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be mailed to Mr. Brzowski at

6431 S. Karlov Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60629, the address given by Mr. Brzowski in the papers submitted on

May 13, 2019. Such mailing shall be by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested.

ENTER:

FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Chief Judge

Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 2- Y day of May, 2019

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.