Substitution of Judge Riley was denied.
IN CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT – PROBATE DIVISION
ESTATE OF ROMEO NANCE-ASHFORD
A Minor
FRED L. NANCE JR., ) Honorable Judge Harrison
Petitioner, ) No. 00 P 1267
v. ) Docket: 282
JULIA JOHNSON, ) Page: 259
Respondent. ) Room 1807
NOTICE OF MOTION
TO: Theresa C. Ceko Attorney Michael Bergmann
Loyola University Community Law Center Chicago Volunteer Legal Services
25 East Pearson, Suite 1400 100 No. LaSalle, Suite 900
Chicago, Illinois 60611 Chicago, Illinois 60602
Genesis Nance
Please be advised on July 25, 2005 at 10:00 am, or soon thereafter as petitioner
may be heard, he shall appear before the Honorable Judge Harrison of the Probate Division presiding in Room 1807 at the Richard J. Daley Center, Chicago, Illinois, and then and there present petitioner’s Motion to find respondent in contempt of court, a copy of which is hereto attached and served upon the parties above.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Fred Nance Jr., pro se petitioner certify that I caused the above Notice and attached motion to be served upon the parties above by hand-delivering to Loyola University Community Law Center and Chicago Volunteer Legal Services; and to Genesis Nance by depositing same in the U.S. Mail on July 19, 2005.
IN CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT – PROBATE DIVISION
ESTATE OF ROMEO NANCE-ASHFORD
A Minor
FRED L. NANCE JR., ) Honorable Judge Harrison
Petitioner, ) No. 00 P 1267
v. ) Docket: 282
JULIA JOHNSON, ) Page: 259
Respondent. ) Room 1807
MOTION TO FIND RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT
NOW COMES, Fred Nance Jr. Pro Se Petitioner in this cause respectfully requesting this Honorable Court to find the respondent in contempt of court for violating the visitation court order of June 27, 2000. The petitioner submits the following to support his motion.
1. On July 15, 2005, petitioner’s motion for recusal of a judge was heard by Judge James Riley.
2. Judge Riley refused to recuse himself and refused to allow evidence presented by the petitioner for his recusal (letter dated January 12, 2001 to the Honorable Judge Henry Budzinski) to the record issuing an order to SOJ the case for a hearing to Presiding Judge Budzinski.
3. Judge Riley allowed courtroom staff, that is, Cook County Sheriff’s deputies to harass and intimidate me, such as surrounding the petitioner in the courtroom during the litigation process with no probable cause or provocation from the petitioner.
4. Petitioner requested Sgt. Vogwill give the names of the deputies that were present in the courtroom. Sgt. Vogwill refused and informed the petitioner that he should ask the deputies for their names.
5. Petitioner asked the Cook County Sheriff deputies for their names. The Cook County Sheriff’s deputies were Sgt. Vogwill (white female), Officers Keblis (white male), Covington (black female), and Olano (white/Hispanic male).
6. When the petitioner asked deputy Olano for his name, he aggressively and with an intimidating gesture requested the petitioner’s name stating he had to make out a report for the petitioner asking him for his name.
7. Sgt. Vogwill acknowledged and affirmed that deputy Olano had to file a report.
8. The petitioner is a black male. The attorneys in this case consist of a white male and two white females.
9. The petitioner complained to Presiding Judge Budzinski.
10. Judge Budzinski placed the case in “Random Electronic Process” and the process reassigned the case to Probate Calendar 01, which is Judge Harrison of the Probate Division in room 1807.
11. Presently, there are three (3) separate issues before this court.
12. Petitioner has two (2) issues before this court, that is, a motion to find respondent in contempt of the June 27, 2000 visitation order (filed on April 8, June 3, & June 20, 2005), and a motion for sanctions against the GAL and respondent’s legal team (filed on June 29, 2005).
13. Petitioner’s daughter, Genesis Nance, has a “Parent’s Petition to Discharge a Guardian” before the court to regain custody of the minor child Romeo Nance-Ashford (filed on April 20, 2005).
14. On June 24, 2005, the GAL filed a motion to terminate visitation and for sanctions against the petitioner, which has not been addressed by the court.
15. Petitioner’s motion to find respondent in contempt of court was presented first to this court, the motion by the petitioner’s daughter Genesis Nance was second, and the motion for sanctions was third.
16. On May 20, 2005, Judge McGury ordered the Cook County Department of Supportive Services (DSS) to conduct a home study of petitioner, respondent, and Genesis Nance.
17. DSS suggest that each person being interviewed during the home study have the minor child present during the process.
18. When Judge McGury suspended petitioner’s visitation, she prevented the petitioner from having the minor child present for the home study process.
19. The respondent and Genesis Nance have had their home study with the minor child present.
20. Due to the actions of Judge McGury, the petitioner has received disparate and indifferent treatment because he will not have the minor child present during his home study process.
21. Judge McGury had no basis of material fact to suspend the petitioner’s visitation rights under the court order of June 27, 2005.
22. On July 15, 2005, Judge Riley stated in open court that if petitioner’s daughter Genesis Nance prevails, petitioner’s motions are moot.
23. Petitioner stated in open court that his motions to find the respondent in contempt of court for violating the visitation court order of June 27, 2000 had nothing to do with petitioner’s daughter Genesis Nance’s motions before the court; and petitioner’s motion to find the respondent in contempt of court for the June 27, 2000 court order should be addressed before the motion of Genesis Nance if it is to determine petitioner’s motions as moot.
24. Petitioner stated in open court that hearing Genesis Nance’s motion to relieve the respondent of temporary custody first is the strategy of opposing counsels to possibly negate the issues of the petitioner and the issues raised by the petitioner with the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and the Judicial Inquiry Board.
25. On July 15, 2005, Judge Riley and opposing counsel, attorney Margaret Benson, acknowledged petitioner’s statements for the strategic move of this court.
26. Judge Riley violates Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63(1)(3)(4)(i)(8)(9).
27. Petitioner suggest if this court does not address his motion to find the respondent in contempt of court for the court ordered visitation dated June 27, 2000 first, separately and completely, it will create Federal questions of due process pursuant to the 14th Amendment, and possible Civil Rights violations.
28. Opposing Counsel has argued that Genesis Nance’s motion and the assignment of the Cook County Department of Supportive Services weighs heavily upon the matters before this court.
29. Petitioner rejects this argument and notion. Genesis Nance’s motion and the assignment of the Cook County Department of Supportive Services has nothing to do with the motion petitioner originally filed in April of 2005 requesting this court find the respondent in contempt of court for violating the visitation order of June 27, 2000.
30. The assignment of the Cook County Department of Supportive Services is a direct response from this court regarding the Guardian ad litem’s report, which has nothing to do with the petitioner’s motion to find the respondent in contempt of court for violating the visitation order of June 27, 2000.
WHEREFORE, petitioner prays (1) this court hold a hearing on July 25, 2005
regarding the motion to find the respondent in contempt of court for violating the visitation order of June 27, 2000, (2) reinstate visitation for petitioner immediately, and/or (3) reinstate visitation for the purpose of DSS; or in the alternative schedule three (3) different dates for each motion filed presently with this court, such as 1st, a date for the motion to find respondent in contempt of court for violating the visitation court order of June 27, 2000; 2nd, a date for Genesis Nance’s motion; and 3rd, a date to hear the motion for sanctions.
