The following document was filed with the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court on November 10, 1999, and a courtesy copy delivered to Judge Schmetterer on that date.

On November 15, 1999 Judge Schmetterer ordered that a copy of this filed document be delivered to the purported trustee in question, Lawrence Fisher, and to the Assistant U.S. Trustee, Dean C. Harvalis.

A copy of this filed document was mailed on November 17, 1999 to the U.S. Attorney, Scott Lassar.

Eugene W. Alpern
P.O. Box 672
Morton Grove, IL 60053


November 8, 1999
 
 
 

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer
Bankruptcy Court
Northern District of Illinois
219 S. Dearborn Street - Rm. 682
Chicago, IL 60604

    Re: Case No. 93-B-7643
        In re Eugene Alpern

Dear Judge Schmetterer:

I have recently been informed that the above bankruptcy action is still in progress.

I have received no notice of any activity since 1997, including but not limited to, the transfer of this action to Judge Joan H. Lefkow and then to you.

Since the bankruptcy court is a court governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, I have been informed that, just as in any court governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, there is no presumption of jurisdiction in this court. Jurisdiction is established only by an inspection of the record of the bankruptcy case.

An inspection of the record of case no. 93-B-7643 will show that this court is without subject-matter jurisdiction, by the record showing, among other things:

    1.    That the trustee Lawrence Fisher, of the law firm of Gardner Carton & Douglas, gave a $6,700. bribe to Judge Thomas James, and that Judge Thomas James accepted said bribe (1),

          This Court is requested to take Judicial Notice that the bribing of a Federal Judge is a Federal Crime.

          This Court is requested to take Judicial Notice that all persons who know of the bribing of a Federal Judge are engaged in a Federal Crime.

    2.    That Judge James charged EUGENE's Bankruptcy estate for Judge James' personal legal fees.

    3.    That trustee, Lawrence Fisher, took personal property from the residential property of the debtor, Eugene Alpern's estate, to his own personal home without any accounting of the property taken and without the prior permission of any court. See memorandum entitled "Theft of Estate Property by Trustee Lawrence Fisher" filed on October 27, 1999 in this court.

          This Court is requested to take Judicial Notice that the conversion of estate property to personal use in connection with a bankruptcy is a Federal Crime. [18 U.S.C. 654].

    4.    That court decisions that had previously been overruled by the United States Supreme Court were used to support Judge Thomas James' rulings, Judge James may not war against the United States. See record of the case.

    5.    That Fisher, as trustee, engaged in conspiracy with, in collusion with, and connived with, the creditors in Fisher's acceptance of void judgments as valid claims against the estate,

          This Court is requested to take Judicial Notice that the filing of false and fraudulent statements in connection with a bankruptcy is a Federal Crime. [18 U.S.C. 152]

          This Court is requested to take Judicial Notice that aiding and abetting, and engaging in actions to, assisting the filing of false and fraudulent statements in connection with a bankruptcy is a Federal Crime.

    6.    That Judge Thomas James had been disqualified under the Supreme Law of the Land, and as a matter of law, could not issue any valid orders, At least four(4) affidavits of the appearance of partiality were filed in the Bankruptcy Court [copies of three(3) such affidavits are enclosed]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994).

          The Supreme Law of the Land holds that "Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14(1954), and other citations in Liteky. The enclosed affidavits evidence that members of the public are not satisfied that justice had taken place in that Judge James gave the appearance of partiality. Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct. 2697 (1974); In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 625 (1955) ("due process requires that a party be before judges who must have no bias and who must do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties").

    7.    That Judge Thomas James engaged in multiple ex-parte communications with Fisher, and that hearings were held without any notice to me. Courts have held that orders issued without legal notice are void. See record of case.

    8.    That during the pendency of the Bankruptcy action, judicial proceedings against the debtor and his property were occurring in Illinois courts in violation of the Automatic Stay [11 U.S.C. 362(a)] and such void orders were accepted by Fisher and presented to this Court by officers of the court who were creditors. All orders issued in violation of the Automatic Stay are void ab initio. In re Garcia, 109 B.R. 335 (N.D. Illinois, 1989) ("Acts in violation of the automatic stay imposed by §362(a) are void ab initio".) No court has authority to validate a void order. In re Garcia, 109 B.R. 335 (N.D. Illinois, 1989).

          Trustee Fisher and the other officers of the court knew, or should have known, that the orders presented to the Bankruptcy Court were void orders. They knowingly, deliberately, and intentionally engaged in acts of fraud upon this Court and upon the Bankruptcy estate.

    9.    That the creditors' attorneys have engaged in "fraud upon the court", and have engaged in conspiracy with, collusion with, and connived with, Lawrence Fisher in filing void judgments before the court. See record of the case.

    10.   That Judge Thomas James denied, deprived, and violated the debtor's rights, as established by the Supreme Law of the Land, and of the public policy of the Seventh Circuit. See the "Memorandum on Some of the Court's Duties towards Non-Represented Litigants", "Non-Represented Litigant's Notice to Court", and "Debtor's Notice to Court" previously filed with this court.

          Your inspection of the record of this case will provide evidence that the legal requirements that the law guarantees non-represented litigants were never applied by the court to EUGENE. The failure to provide the legal guarantees violates EUGENE' s due process rights. Whenever any judge engages in any act which is in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land, the judge has lost jurisdiction. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S.458, 58 S.Ct. 1019 (1938).

    11.   That Eugene was denied, deprived of his Right to an adequate, complete, effective, fair, full, meaningful and timely access to the court. See "Memorandum on Some of the Court's Duties Towards Non-represented Litigants" for citations.

    12.   That the voidness of Judge Thomas James rulings are not limited to the above.

          The orders issued by Judge Thomas James are void ab initio, and are not voidable orders. A void order is void even before reversal. Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920).

          Officers of the court have a fiduciary duty to the court to review all orders and not filing any order that may be void. If there is a question as to the validity of any order, the officers of the court have a fiduciary duty to request the Court to rule on the validity of any order.

          Officers of the court have a fiduciary duty to the law to determine that a judge has jurisdiction by inspection of the record of the case and of cases before the court, and not accepting a judge's allegations of, or assuming that a judge has, jurisdiction.

          Having bribed Judge James, and having engaged in "fraud upon the court", which is evidenced by an inspection of the record of the 93-B-7643 action, Fisher has made void the proceedings before Judge James.

          I have been informed by other attorneys that void orders are never valid, cannot be made valid by any court, and that a void order is void ab initio, can be challenged by any person, at any time, even years later, and in any court. Under such principle, the prrevious rulings of this court are void, even should the bankruptcy court enter a discharge. In such an instance as this action is, this Bankruptcy action is never over.

          I suggest that, after your review of the record of this case, you vacate all of the orders previously issued, as they are tainted by a bribe, were issued in violation of the Supreme Law of this Land that disqualified Judge Thomas James, were based on void orders, are void orders, and which violated my Constitutional Right to due process.

          The actions of Judge James, and Lawrence Fisher, has made the bankruptcy court an embarrassment. Both attorneys and non-attorneys have seen the record of this case, and they have universally agreed that both "fraud upon the court" and "fraud upon the estate" occurred and the court should be embarrassed by the actions taken in this case.

          I suggest it is time for the embarrassment of this court by officers of the court to cease, and the law properly applied.

Yours truly,
 

Eugene Alpern

Encl: (3)

cc: Court file

bcc:


1. Eugene Alpern had filed a Petition for Mandamus against Judge Thomas James. Trustee Lawrence Fisher filed an appearance in the Mandamus action on behalf of the defendant, Judge Thomas James. While Judge James could legally be represented by himself, by the U.S. Attorney, or by a private attorney, either paid by Judge James or acting without payment, he could not be legally represented by any person involved in this Bankruptcy action.

After representing Judge James, Fisher filed for attorney fees for legal services performed for Judge James, before Judge James, requesting that payment of Fisher's legal fees be paid by this Bankruptcy estate. Judge James approved the legal fees for his legal representation to be paid by this Bankruptcy estate.

Not only was this a conflict of interest, a payment of a bribe to Judge James, but also a "fraud upon the court" and a "fraud upon the estate" by Fisher.

Further, Judge James received a personal benefit from the estate. Both Fisher and Judge James received a personal benefit from the estate.

Proof of the above can be found in the record of this case, in the Mandamus & other actions. 

Copyright 1999-2000 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility®.
                    All rights reserved.

    email: clr@clr.org
Created November 10, 1999