Will Judge Schmetterer follow the law, or will he connive with Judge James and attempt to coverup Judge James' taking a bribe? It will be of interest to see if Judge Schmetter becomes an accessory after the fact and a participant in the scheme to bride another judge, and a participant in scheme involving the interference with interstate commerce.
January 24, 2000
Judge Jack B. Schmetterer
Bankruptcy Judge
Northern District of Illinois
219 S. Dearborn - Rm. 682
Chicago, IL 60604
Re: Case no. 93-7643
In re Eugene Alpern
Dear Judge Schmetterer:
In the court hearing on January 5, 2000, you stated that you would review case no. 93-B-7643 before issuing your Order on the bribing of Judge James by Judge Fisher.
During your examination of case no. 93-B-7643, you will find that Judge James had been disqualified, as a matter of clear and well-settled law, on or before December 20, 1993. Case citations can be found in documents filed in this case.
Although Judge James ignored the law on disqualification of judges, he was lawfully disqualified. Therefore all actions taken, and all orders issued since he was first disqualified were issued or taken not in his judicial capacity but in his personal capacity. The actions taken to create the bribing of Judge James by Judge Fisher were taken not in a judicial situation but only under color of law.
Having been disqualified by law, Judge James has not been performing any judicial functions since December 20, 1993 in this case.
In the past, judges like Judge James could, and did, get away with defrauding estates, since only the judge and the lawyers, or the non-represented litigant, knew what was really happening in court. The non-represented litigant had nowhere to go with exposing the corruption occurring in the courts. However, approximately five years ago this situation changed.
Today, thousands of litigants publish their court actions on the Internet. Recently, because of the scheme to defraud my estate, I also have started to publish this case on the Internet. At the current time, my Motion to Disqualify Judge James, heard December 20, 1993, along with three other Motions to Disqualify Judge James, along with multiple affidavits from detached observers as to his appearance of partiality, Memorandums of Law, transcripts of court hearings, letters to judges, etc., filed in and made a part of the record of this case, are now on the Internet.
It is clear and well-settled law that should any judge, like Judge James, give the "appearance of partiality", whether or not he is actually biased, prejudiced, or acts with partiality, he is automatically disqualified and all of his orders issued after the first time he gives the "appearance of partiality" is without legal force or effect, and isvoid. Courts have also held that the judge has the duty, and no discretion, not to sua sponte disqualify himself.
I believe that after you have thoroughly inspected the record of this case, you will agree with me and the other detached observers, who have already filed affidavits and have come to the same conclusion, that Judge James gave the "appearance of partiality" against this non-represented litigant and that Judge James accepted a bribe from Judge Fisher. Further, I believe that those persons who will review Judge James' unlawful actions posted on the Internet will come to the conclusion that Judge James' actions gave the "appearance of partiality".
I believe that you will agree that all orders issued after Judge James gave the first "appearance of partiality" on or before December 20, 1993 were issued without the lawful authority of this court, are null and void, and that you will vacate all such orders.
The Canons of Judicial Conduct holds that a judge should respect the law. Judges Thomas James and Lawrence Fisher did not respect the law - they have used the law to defraud me, to make a mockery of the law and of other judges, including you.
Yours truly,
Eugene W. Alpern
cc: Internet
Copyright 2000 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility®. All rights reserved. email: clr@clr.org