• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 1
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
Case No. XXXXXXIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
DAVID X. XXXXX )Movant ) 383 Motion for Supervisory Order )v. ))HON. JUDGE DAVID HARACZ, JULIE ) Re: Circuit Court of Cook CountyHAMOS, in her official capacity as Director)Case No. 09-D-XXXXXXof DHFS and PAM LOWERY, in her official)In Re: Marriage of David X. XXXXXcapacity as Director of Division of Child)and Catherine XXXXSupport Services DHFS)Respondents) 
383 MOTION FOR SUPERVISORY ORDERS
 Movant David XXXXX (“DAVID”), Pro Se, moves this Honorable Court to use itssupervisory powers to vacate:(1) the 1/30/12 decision/orders of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family ServicesChild Support Division (“DHFS-CSD”) Director who is representing its
Administrative LawCourt
(“ALC”) in refusing to hear requests for change in child support (SCA
1
A [written order never received], G, V); and(2) numerous orders of the Trial Court, regarding child support and children’s health insuranceissues, which totally violate constitutional due process rights, federal codes, and statutorymandates, as well as which represent administrative and judicial misconduct in acts of lawlessness – including:(A) 1/21/11 order [abating payment of health insurance which is mandated by federallaw] (SCA B);
1
SCA = Supreme Court Appendix for 383 Motion for Supervisory Order 
 
(B) 9/30/11 order [requiring payment to Northwestern Family Institute for supervisedvisitation, not affordable by DAVID and to increase child support without anyevidentiary hearing, while DAVID’s income now $0] (SCA F pp 1A-C);(C) 11/15/11 order (SCA C1) [denying Motion for Leave to File (SCA C2-4):(1) 1401(f) Petition to Vacate Order to Reserve maintenance for CatherineXXXXX (SCA C5A-C);(2) Petition to Vacate January 21, 2011 Order for Petitioner to Cease payment for Health Insurance for Children . . . [federal law violation] (SCA C5D-23), and(3) Motion for Rule to Show Cause Against David Wessel – a child rep] (SCAC24-26);(D) 12/7/11 order (SCA D2) [denying Motion for Leave to File (SCA D3-5):(1) Petition to Compel Child Rep to Immediately Arrange (previously ordered)Two-Hour Visitation per Week for David XXXXX with XXXXXX XXXXX andXXXXXX XXXXX (SCA D6-17);(2)1401(f) Petition to Vacate Trial Findings Due to DCFS Determining TrialFindings were Unfounded (SCA D18-20); and(3) Emergency Petition to Approve Visitation paid by Insurance for Counseling[instead of through Northwestern Family Institute which DAVID cannot afford,as well as affidavit from court watcher on 12/7/12 in lieu of transcript] (SCAD21-23).In addition, DAVID requests that this Honorable Court after ordering the replacement of the Trial Judge David Haracz due to judicial misconduct which brings the courts into disrepute,order the Trial Court to either invalidate all trial orders and orders following trial with order for a
 
new trial, or in the alternative promptly consider all motions and petitions filed between April29, 2011 and the present, regarding child support and child health insurance issues as well as provide evidentiary hearings that may be required in these matters. In support of this motionMovant states as follows:
Brief Summary of Reasons for Supervisory Order
Supervisory attention is needed to vacate trial and post-trial Court orders and replace thetrial judge because of Judge Haracz’ extreme violation of his oath of office including systematiclawlessness and injustice as follows - his: (1)
REFUSAL
to hear all issues in case, despitemotions requesting hearing and action of leaving maintenance “on reserve”, thus preventingappeal, of anything except custody [see previously filed and pending Motion for Leave to Appeal – case no. 113760] as there is no final appealable order; (2)
REFUSAL
to allow presentation of evidence or witnesses at trial or post-trial; (3)
REFUSAL
to compel discovery (750 ILCS 5/506required pre-trial memorandum); (4)
REFUSAL
to allow presentation of DCFS reports (throughwitnesses) and testimony that all allegations by Catherine XXXX (“CATHERINE”), which wereused by Trial Court to deny custody to DAVID were “
unfounded
”; and (5) pre- and post- trial
REFUSAL
to allow DAVID to file motions or hear any oral argument by DAVID regardingissues related to child support, including presentation of financials to the Trial Court and requeststo increase or decrease child support, as well as requests to continue child health insurancethrough DAVID’s work.The Trial Court only heard and is willing to hear CATHERINE and not DAVID,considers her legally insufficient motions (SCA E), and totally shuts out DAVID in his attemptsto represent himself before the Trial Court (SCA C, D, F [transcripts for 9/30/11 (see pp 11-13,
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
factfather

THEY DID THIS TO ME TOO. WHY? THEY ALL PROFIT FROM THIS JUDICIAL TORTURE. CHECK SOCIAL SECURITY LAW §666. (666 IS NOT COINCIDENCE)

reply04 / 10 / 2012
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...