NOW COMES the Petitioner, EUGENE ALPERN ("EUGENE") and moves this Honorable Court to vacate the void order issued by Judge Veronica B. Mathein on March 10, 1998, and for other relief.

1. The Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct states:
Rule 62(A). A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself or herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Rule 63(A)(1) Adjudicative Responsibilities
"A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it."

Rule 63(A)(3) of the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct provides:
"A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding ... ".

Rule 63(A)(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct asserts:
"A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding ... "

Rule 63 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states:
B. Administrative Responsibilities.
(3) "A judge having knowledge of a violation of these canons on the part of a judge or a violation of Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct on the part of a lawyer shall take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures."

Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 63(C)(1) holds that "A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, ... "

2. EUGENE had filed his "PETITION FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(3)" against Judge Veronica B. Mathein with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County on February 27, 1998.

3. At the next scheduled court hearing before Judge Mathein on March 6, 1998, Theodora Gordon, an attorney and a member of the Judiciary Branch of the Illinois Government, knowing and admitting that she had previously received a copy of EUGENE's "PETITION FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(3)", nevertheless started her argument before Judge Mathein, making irrelevant, inadmissable, and unsupported allegations in order to knowingly and intentionally to prejudice the Court against EUGENE, to knowingly interfere with EUGENE's due process rights, and knowingly ignoring the Petition that was before the Court. Attorney Gordon knew that a Petition for Change of Judge takes precedence over all other matters. Judge Mathein did not allow EUGENE to present his "PETITION FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(3)" to Judge Mathein until after Ms. Gordon had finished making her mendacious allegations.

Without subject-matter jurisdiction, Judge Mathein heard arguements that could not lawfully be presented before a Court, violating EUGENE's due process rights. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 24 (1908).

Judge Mathein's conduct at the hearing unlawfully tolerated Gordon's improper and spurious allegations. Judge Mathein has taken an oath to protect the legal, civil, and Constitutional Rights of all litigants before her; Judge Mathein acted in violation of the law, her oath, and the Supreme Law of the Land.

Attorney Gordon violated EUGENE's due process rights by making such allegations which only purpose was to prejudice this Court. Judge Mathein connived with Gordon by the Judge not protecting EUGENE's due process rights in allowing Gordon to make her false allegations, without prior proof of the validity of the allegations. Judge Mathein did not act impartially; she engaged in acts in violation of the Rule 63(C)(1).

Upon receipt of EUGENE's "PETITION FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(3)", Judge Mathein immediately issued an order on March 6, 1998 transferring the cause to Judge Evans for a hearing on a "change of judge motion for cause made by respondent." [Exhibit A]

4. A change of judge for cause hearing is a new proceeding, between the Petitioner and the Judge charged with cause. Although it is a new proceeding, it continues with the same case number. The only party-litigants in a hearing for change of judge for cause are the Petitioner for the Change of Judge, herein EUGENE, and the Judge, herein Judge Mathein.

The other parties to the underlying cause are not party- litigants to the Change of Judge proceeding. PHYLLIS ALPERN ("PHYLLIS") is not a party-litigant to the change of judge proceeding.

Although attorney Theodora Gordon had no standing in the new proceeding, she appeared before the multiple judges involved in the hearings on the Petition for Change of Judge. Although she signed the purported orders as attorney for the Petitioner, Ms. Gordon had no lawful authority to represent the Petitioner, EUGENE. All purported orders on March 6, 1998 were written by Ms. Gordon, as attorney for the Petitioner (EUGENE). Ms. Gordon made knowing, deliberate, and intentional misrepresentations to the court. Since the only other party to the hearing besides EUGENE was Judge Mathein, Ms. Gordon actually represented Judge Mathein, not the Petitioner EUGENE.

5. EUGENE appeared at Judge Evans' office on March 6, 1998 to schedule a hearing on his "PETITION FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(3)". Although she had no standing in this cause, attorney Gordon also appeared and wrote up the first order from Judge Evans' office transferring the cause to Judge Moshe Jacobius. [Exhibit B]. Ms. Gordon did not give EUGENE a copy of Judge Evans' order assigning the cause to Judge Moshe Jacobius on March 6, 1998. EUGENE did not receive a copy of Judge Evans' first order of March 6, 1998 until April 2, 1998. Although EUGENE requested in writing from attorney Gordon a copy of Judge Evans' first order on March 9, 1998 [Exhibit C], she did not mail it to EUGENE until March 31, 1998.

On March 6, 1998, Judge Jacobius recused himself from the cause and stated in open court that he was assigning the cause to Judge Ponce de Leon. [Exhibit D] [see also Report of Proceedings of Judge Jacobius hearing on March 6, 1998, filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court]. Since Judge Jacobius did not have any lawful authority to assign the cause to Judge Ponce de Leon, and since no specific date and time of hearing was made a part of the purported order, EUGENE intended to later appear before Judge Evans for reassignment of the cause.

6. On April 2, 1998 EUGENE received from attorney Gordon for the first time copies of (1) the March 6, 1998 order from Judge Timothy Evans assigning the cause to Judge Jacobius, (2) the March 6, 1998 order from Judge Jacobius recusing himself and the tampered order [Exhibit D] assigning the cause to Judge Evans for reassignment (in open court and in the Report of Proceedings of the hearing, Judge Jacobius stated that he was assigning the cause to Judge Ponce de Leon, a void order), (3) the second ex-parte purported order of March 6, 1998 from Judge Evans transferring the cause to Judge Ponce de Leon for a secret hearing (a void order, as EUGENE was not served notice of the secret hearing), (4) the ex- parte purported order from Judge Ponce de Leon, dated March 6, 1998 (a void order, as EUGENE had not been noticed of the secret hearing), (5) the third ex-parte purported order from Judge Evans returning the cause to Judge Mathein (a void order, as EUGENE had not been noticed of the secret ex-parte meeting), and (6) the ex- parte purported order from Judge Mathein, dated March 10, 1998 (a void order, since EUGENE had not been noticed of the secret hearing). Since judicial officers Gordon, Judges Jacobius, Evans, Ponce de Leon, and Mathein know that any order issued without notice and an opportunity to be heard violates due process and is void (Goudy v. Hall, 30 Ill. 109, 116 (1863); Wilson v. Moore, 13 Ill.App.3d 632, 301 N.E.2d 39 (1st Dist. 1973) ("an order entered on a motion without notice is void."), their participation in issuing orders without prior proper service to EUGENE made their orders void.

The purported order delivered by mail to EUGENE on April 2, 1998 was changed by attorney Theodora Gordon to assign the cause to Judge Evans from the order of Judge Jacobius, who had assigned the cause in open court to Judge Ponce de Leon. After Judge Jacobius wrote his order of March 6, 1998, Gordon unlawfully tampered with the order. The Report of Proceedings does not record that Judge Jacobius changed his order. Does attorney Gordon have the lawful authority to change a judge's written order? Does the Illinois Courts approve of the unlawful tampering of Judge Jacobius' order by attorney Theodora Gordon?

All secret ex-parte hearings deprive EUGENE of his legal, civil, and Constitutional Right to notice and to the opportunity to be heard under both the Illinois and United States Constitutions, and are in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Not only are any orders issued under said situations null and void, of no legal force or effect, but they further evidence the fact that the judge(s) who participate in secret ex-parte hearings have not acted impartially, have violated their oath of office, and have engaged in a war against the Constitution. The judge(s) holding secret ex-parte hearings have made a of mockery of the Illinois judicial branch of government.

Attorney Gordon engaged in judicial manipulation by not giving EUGENE a copy of the first order by Judge Evans at the time of the issuance of the order. Since Gordon is a judicial officer, her unlawful actions involve, at the least, judicial manipulation. Gordon engaged in actions to violate EUGENE's due process rights to be promptly presented with a copy of any order issued by the court before any hearing.

7. Without prior notice to EUGENE and with no standing in the cause for substitution of Judge Mathein, unless attorney Gordon was representing Judge Mathein, Gordon apparently appeared for a second time ex-parte before Judge Evans on March 6, 1998 (there is a purported ordered prepared and signed by Gordon as the Petitionerþs (þEUGENEþ) attorney, and has the stamp of Judge Evans on it). Since Gordon does not represent EUGENE, the order is without prior notice to EUGENE, and that order is not only void but also constitutes a "fraud upon the court" by attorney Gordon.

EUGENE was not given any notice of Judge Evans' purported order that assigned the cause to Judge Ponce de Leon. Without notice to EUGENE, that order is void.

8. Attorney Theodora Gordon appeared ex-parte before Judge Ponce de Leon on March 6, 1998 without any notice to EUGENE. She prepared an order as attorney for Petitioner (EUGENE) without any lawful authority as she did not represent EUGENE at any time.

Not only was Gordon's appearance before Judge Ponce de Leon ex-parte but the hearing was not scheduled and was without notice to EUGENE, and was therefore a secret hearing. Gordon knew that EUGENE had not been noticed; either Gordon apparently did not inform Judge Ponce de Leon that EUGENE had not been served with notice or Judge Ponce de Leon connived with, engaged in acts in concert with, and conspired with Gordon to issue a void order; an order without any legal force or effect.

9. At no time during March 6, 1998 was a hearing specifically set or scheduled to occur that day or any other day. There was no legal requirement for EUGENE to appear on March 6, 1998, except before Judge Mathein, before any other judge for a hearing on his "PETITION FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(3)" on that day or any other day. EUGENE attended all lawfully set or scheduled hearings for March 6, 1998.

10. Attorney Theodora Gordon appeared on behalf of, and represented, Judge Veronica B. Mathein in the secret, unlawful ex-parte hearing before Judge Ponce de Leon on March 6, 1998. Having appeared for and represented Judge Mathein, Gordon is prohibited from representing PHYLLIS in any action before Judge Mathein. There is a conflict of interest in having an attorney represent Judge Mathein, and in the same case, represent a party- litigant before Judge Mathein.

A judge does not have discretion on whether to follow Supreme Court Rules ("SCR"); a judge has a duty to follow all SCR. People v. Gersch, 135 Ill.2d 384 (1990). Apparently Judge Veronica B. Mathein has no respect for judges of higher courts; she prefers to rule by the rule of Mathein, rather than the rule of law.

It is well settled law that a judge does not have any discretion, but a duty, to know the law and to comply with the law, when the law has been ruled upon by a higher court. People v. Gersch, 135 Ill.2d 384, 553 N.E.2d 281 (1990); Agricultural Transp. Ass'n. v. Carpentier, 2 Ill.2d 19, 116 N.E.2d 863 (1963). Any act contrary to the above would be an action without lawful authority, a violation of the Illinois and the Federal Constitution and of the judge's oath. A judge has no discretion to engage in a war against the Constitution. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). The judge would be acting without subject-matter jurisdiction, and as stated below, would be engaged in an act of treason.

Judge Veronica B. Mathein had a legal duty to be certain that EUGENE had been lawfully served. Although Judge Mathein asked Gordon "Now, does Mr. Alpern know that you are in court today?" (Report of Proceedings, March 10, 1998, pg. 2, line 17). Gordon did not answer her question. Judge Mathein had a legal and fiduciary duty to be certain that EUGENE had been lawfully served. She had no lawful authority to proceed with the ex-parte hearing unless she was certain that EUGENE had been served.

Judge Mathein looked the other way, she winked at EUGENE's rights, she connived with Gordon to violate EUGENE's legal, civil, and Constitutional Rights.

11. Since attorney Theodora Gordon's only standing in the secret ex parte unlawful hearing before Judge Ponce de Leon was on behalf of Judge Mathein, and if Judge Mathein did not pay Gordon to act on her behalf, then Gordon was giving the equivalent of a "bribe" to Judge Mathein. EUGENE presumes that Judge Mathein will include the value of Gordon's representation in her 1998 taxable income. Further Judge Mathein should report Gordon to the appropriate authorities for making the equivalent of a "bribe" to Judge Mathein.

12. On March 10, 1998 Gordon appeared before Judge Mathein without any notice to EUGENE and presented the void orders of Judges Ponce de Leon and Evans. Judge Mathein issued a void order based on the void orders of Judges Ponce de Leon and Evans. It is well settled law that all orders based on a void order are void.

Since EUGENE did not appear before Judge Mathein, and since Gordon did not present to Judge Mathein a Notice of Motion set or scheduled for March 10, 1998, Judge Mathein knew that EUGENE had not been served with legal notice. Judge Mathein either connived, acted in concert, or conspired with Gordon to deprive EUGENE of his due process rights, or she was incompetent in the law. In either case, a Judicial Inquiry Board complaint will be filed against Judge Veronica B. Mathein incorporating the additional charge of holding secret, unlawful ex-parte hearings; a copy of this complaint will be filed in the court and will be published on the Internet.

13. Gordon tampered with Judge Jacobius' order of March 6, 1998; the order transferred the cause to Judge Ponce de Leon, as confirmed by the Report of Proceedings1 of March 6, 1998. Gordon changed the Order to Judge Evans. Gordon had no lawful authority to change a judge's order.

Gordon then appeared in ex-parte secret hearings with Judges Evans, Ponce de Leon, and Mathein. Gordon knew that she was placing the judges in a position of engaging in an act in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Gordon acted to bring the legal profession and the courts into disrepute. Gordon knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately engaged in actions in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Gordon has impugned the integrity of the Supreme Court, by attempting to make a mockery of the citations to the Court's decisions. By challenging court decisions and tampering with judge's orders, Gordon apparently considers herself above all judges.

14. Even if Judge Mathein did not connive with, conspire with, and acted in concert with Gordon in holding a secret, unlawful ex-parte hearing on March 10, 1998 with Gordon, Judge Mathein, under the Code of Judicial Conduct, must comply with Rule 63(B)(3) and report both attorney Theodora Gordon and Judge Edmund Ponce de Leon for unethical conduct.

Further Judge Mathein should report Gordon for making the equivalent of a "bribe" to the judge. Gordon should further be sanctioned for her unethical acts.

15. Either Judge Mathein is incompetent, does not know the law, in violation of Rules 62(A) and 63(A)(C) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, or she knowingly, intentionally and deliberately engaged in an action to deprive EUGENE of his legal, civil and Constitutional Rights. Judge Mathein knew that she acted in violation of both the Constitution for the State of Illinois and the Constitution for the United States. Judge Mathein violated her oath of office, acted without subject-matter jurisdiction, acted as a trespasser of the law, Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109 (1870), Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828); In re TIP-PA-HANS Enterprises, Inc., 27 B.R. 780, 783 (1983), and acted in treason, U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980), Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).

The failure of Judge Mathein to report Judge Ponce de Leon for conducting an ex-parte secret hearing on EUGENE's Petition manifests either judicial incompetency or connivance at Gordon's illegal conduct. Either way the result was the same; denial of EUGENE's due process guarantees.

Judge Mathein engaged in acts in violation of SCR4 and Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 63(A)(3) in that "A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding ... ".

16. EUGENE has a due process right to have witnesses appear on his behalf in the proceeding for removal of a judge for cause. EUGENE intends to call as an adverse witness Theodora Gordon, and other persons. Currently EUGENE has been deprived of his legal, civil, and Constitutional Rights to have witnesses on his behalf.

The law imposes a duty upon this Court to vacate/expunge all void orders. Judge Mathein engaged in a secret, unlawful ex-parte hearing and issued a void order. Judge Mathein unlawfully accepted a void order issued by Judge Ponce de Leon. Judge Mathein either connived, conspired, and acted in concert with attorney Theodora Gordon or she acted without knowledge of the law. Judge Mathein should vacate/expunge her void order of March 10, 1998 and should recuse herself from case no. 91-D-5122.

It is reasonable for any person to conclude that, based on her acts, supra, Judge Mathein violated Rule 63(C)(1) in that her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

WHEREFORE, EUGENE prays that this Court will:

A. vacate/expunge the void order of March 10, 1998,

B. report attorney Theodora Gordon for her engaging in actions that bring the courts into disrepute,

C. sanction Theodora Gordon for her unethical conduct,

D. disqualify Judge Mathein from hearing and considering any aspect of case no. 91-D-5122, and

E. grant EUGENE all other relief that this court finds equitable and just.

                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                    ______________________________
                                    Eugene Alpern

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

Copyright © 1998 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility®.

email:  clr@clr.org

        Return to Judges Mathein Pages

        Return to Home Page

April 14 1998