)
PHYLLIS ALPERN,                        )
                                       )
                  Petitioner,          )

                                       )
            v.                         )  Case No. 91 D 5122
                                       )
EUGENE ALPERN,                         )

                                       )
                  Respondent.          )
                                       )

To the Honorable Timothy Evans, Presiding Judge of the Domestic Relations Division, Circuit Court of Cook County

The above named Respondent, EUGENE ALPERN, herein the Petitioner, petitions for a change of judge for cause as provided for by 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(3).

1. Petitioner is the respondent in the above titled case.

2. The Petitioner fears and believes that he will not receive a fair and impartial hearing and determination of any and all matters concerning the above cause in court if the cause is heard and determined by the Honorable Veronica B. Mathein, one of the judges of this court, because of her violations for the willful misconduct while in office, for her persistent failure to perform her duties, for her conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and which brings the Illinois judiciary into disrepute, for her engaging in unlawful and criminal acts, and for her engaging in acts in violation of federal law.

3. Petitioner states that this belief is founded upon the following facts:

According to the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct:

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) Adjudicative Responsibilities
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 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.

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

If judges have no respect for the law or for other judges, then one must question why judges expect the public to have any respect for judges.

Rule 63(B)(3) states: "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." Will Judge Mathein comply with this Rule based upon the "fraud upon the court" stated below?

Judge Mathein has engaged in actions in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Under the Supreme Law of the Land, whenever a judge acts when the judge does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, the judge is engaged in an act of 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).

A 1997 Appellate Court, in People v. Lambert, stated that a judge's "failure to enforce the law invites anarchy." The Respondent suggests that the failure of Judge Mathein to follow the law and the public policy of the State of Illinois involves her engaging in actions of inviting anarchy.

Since subject-matter jurisdiction was never lawfully conferred upon the court, no judge has lawful authority to act in case no. 91-D-5122, Judge Mathein has engaged in an act of treason.

As a matter of law, there is no presumption of subject-matter jurisdiction in a statutory proceeding, such as in divorce. Subject-matter jurisdiction has been denied in this case. Until and unless the original Petitioner proves that subject-matter jurisdiction in all of its elements and in all situations have been met, and at the proper time, the court is devoid of any subject-matter jurisdiction.

The original Petitioner has not, and can not prove, that the 91-D-5122 trial court ever held subject-matter jurisdiction.

Subject-matter jurisdiction has never been lawfully conferred upon the Circuit Court of Cook County in case no. 91-D-5122.

On information and belief, Judge Mathein is married to Glyn Rostoker of Mathein and Rostoker. It is presumed that Judge Mathein does not inform any parties who appear before her in court that she is married to Glyn Rostoker.

While a person has a right to operate under any lawful name, when that party is a judge and where there is the possibility of a conflict of interest, it should be a requirement that a judge makes a full disclosure of any and all possible conflicts of interest, and not hide, even if not intentional, any possible conflicts of interest, such as here, being married to a person with another surname.

This Respondent is involved in an action pertaining to Glyn Rostoker, and Judge Mathein should be disqualified because of a conflict of interest.

The Petitioner is currently writing a complaint against Judge Mathein to be filed with the Judicial Inquiry Board relative to her violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. After filing said complaint with the Judicial Inquiry Board, said complaint will be filed in the record of case no. 91-D-5122 and published on the internet's World Wide Web.

Just as the rules in the Code of Judicial Conduct are Supreme Court Rules, the rules in the Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility are Supreme Court Rules, and are the public policy (the law) in the State of Illinois. Judges have no lawful authority to act in violation of the law.

Attorney James J. Reagan of James J. Reagan, P.C. purportedly appeared before Judge Mathein on November 25, 1997 without notice to the Petitioner, on his purported Motion to Withdraw. James J. Reagan, P.C. had filed as attorney of record in the above titled case. As a judge, Judge Mathein should have known the law relative to withdrawal, including by not limited, to SCR 13, and IRPC (SCR) 1.16.

Reagan could not have provided any evidence to Judge Mathein that this Respondent had been served pursuant to law, since this Respondent has never been served with any Notice to Withdraw pursuant to law.

Reagan did not comply with SCR 1.16(d) [Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(d)] which states, in pertinent part, that "In any event, a lawyer shall not withdraw from employment until the lawyer has taken reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, delivering to the client all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and complying with applicable laws and rules." Although a demand has been made upon Reagan to deliver to this Respondent all papers and property of the Respondent in his care, custody, and control, Reagan has not delivered such papers and documents. This Supreme Court Rule requires this section to be completed before attempting to withdraw.

By not requiring James J. Reagan, P.C. to comply with the law, Judge Mathein has interfered with this Respondent's proper and lawful access to the Court, did not protect this Respondent's interests, and has damaged this Respondent.

Although Reagan had been terminated on November 12, 1997 an attorney still must obtain the Court's permission to withdraw and the attorney must fully comply with all applicable laws and rules before withdrawal is granted. An attorney must make full disclosure to the court or be engaged in a "fraud upon the court". In re Eugene Lee Armentrout et al., 99 Ill.2d 242, 75 Ill.Dec. 703, 457 N.E.2d 1262 (1983).

Further, Reagan did not comply with the purported Order of Withdrawal in that he did not deliver to this Respondent a copy of the purported Order, pursuant to law. Reagan committed a fraud upon the court, and Judge Mathein allowed such fraud to occur, and to harm this Respondent.

As a matter of law, Reagan is still the attorney of record in the above titled cause, has not returned the Respondent's property, and has harmed this Respondent, all due to Judge Mathein's failure either to know and apply the law, or to her actions to intentionally harm this Respondent.

If Judge Mathein were the judge in this cause, she would act to protect herself and not apply the law. She would be acting in a conflict of interest between this Respondent/Petitioner and herself.

Before issuing any Order, Judge Mathein has a duty to first determine if she has subject-matter jurisdiction to issue any Order. In the cause at bar, subject-matter jurisdiction has been denied, the original Petitioner has the burden to prove, and has not proved, that the Circuit Court of Cook County had subject-matter jurisdiction at any time.

All Orders issued without subject-matter jurisdiction are void ab initio, all orders based on a void order are void ab initio, all orders obtained through fraud upon the court are void ab initio, all orders obtained without proper service are void ab initio, as well as all orders obtained under other circumstances which have been stated in caselaw to be void, are void ab initio. The purported Order of Withdrawal issued by Judge Mathein was, and is, void ab initio.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has previously ruled that whenever any judge unlawfully interferes with a person's right to conduct interstate commerce, the judge is guilty of interference with interstate commerce. This Respondent's right to conduct interstate commerce without any restriction has been interfered with by Judge Mathein not complying with Illinois law.

The Respondent truly believes that Judge Mathein cannot act impartially in this matter. She has a conflict of interest, has acted unlawfully, both under Illinois and Federal law, and would act to protect her previous unlawful decisions.

The Respondent requests that an order of substitution of judge for cause be issued, and this case be assigned to a judge who knows and complies with the law, who does not have a conflict of interest, and a judge who will act impartially.

                                    Respectfully submitted,



                                     _____________________________
                                     Eugene Alpern


Eugene Alpern
P.O. Box 672
Morton Grove, IL 60053-0672

Copyright © 1998 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility®.


email:  clr@clr.org

February 27, 1998