17 - 1410

E-FILED Transaction ID: 1-17-1410 File Date: 9/18/2017 10:05 AM Thomas D. Palella Clerk of the Appellate Court APPELLATE COURT 1ST DISTRICT

APPEAL TO THE FIRST DISTRICT APPELLATE COURT FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS FIRST MUNICIPAL DISTRICT Fred Nance Jr. & Darlene Bouyer-Nance Plaintiff-Appellant

vs

SE CLUSTER FOUR LLC, Jiffy Lube Franchise #2503 Defendant-Appellee

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Appeal from Circuit Court of Cook County Circuit Number: 2016 M1 012579 Trial Judge: Martin Paul Moltz

Calendar/Room: 1307

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

NOW COMES, plaintiff-appellant respectfully requesting a preliminary injunction pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/11-102 to delay/stop the enforcement of Judge Martin Paul Moltz’s (hereinafter, “Judge Moltz”) court order of September 7, 2017, specifically, paragraph 1, 2, & 4 until the Appellate court rules on the merits of this case. To be entitled to a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff is required to show that a "fair question" exists regarding his claimed right and that the court should preserve the status quo until the case can be decided on the merits. Lifetec, Inc. v. Edwards, 377 Ill.App.3d 260, 268, 316 Ill.Dec. 710, 880 N.E.2d 188 (2007). A party seeking a preliminary injunction is required to demonstrate (1) a clearly ascertained right in need of protection, (2) irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, (3) no adequate remedy at law, and (4) a likelihood of success on the merits of the case. In Illinois the plaintiff must “(1) raise a fair question as to the existence of the right claimed, (2) lead the court to believe that he will probably be entitled to the relief prayed for if Page 1 of 7

the proof sustains his allegations, and (3) make it appear advisable that the positions of the parties stay as they are until the court has an opportunity to consider the merits of the case.” Abdulhafedh v. Secretary of State, 161 Ill. App. 3d 413, 417, 514 N.E.2d 563, 565 (2d Dist. 1987). See also Bradford v. Wynstone Prop. Owners’ Ass’n, 355 Ill. App. 3d 736, 739, 823 N.E.2d 1166, 1169 (2d Dist. 2005) (plaintiff must establish all four elements “by a preponderance of the evidence”); Jacob v. C & M Video, Inc., 248 Ill. App. 3d 654, 664, 618 N.E.2d 1267, 1275 (5th Dist. 1993) (Plaintiff must show a “prima facie case that there is a fair question as to the existence of the rights claimed”). Illinois courts considering a preliminary injunction require the plaintiff to show that the balance of the hardships weighs in favor of granting the preliminary injunction. See Delta Med. Sys. v. Mid-America Med. Sys., Inc., 331 Ill. App. 3d 777, 789, 772 N.E.2d 768, 778 (1st Dist. 2002). This technically is not required on a petition for a TRO, although it is sometimes considered. Wilson v. Wilson, 217 Ill. App. 3d 844, 848, 577 N.E.2d 1323, 1326 (1st Dist. 1991). 735 ILCS 5/11-101 et seq. The complaint should set forth clearly and concisely the specific facts that support injunctive relief. Sadat v. Am. Motors Corp., 104 Ill. 2d 105, 115- 16, 470 N.E.2d 997, 1002 (1984); PaineWebber Inc. v. Can Am Fin. Group, Ltd., No. 87 C 6890, 1987 WL 16012, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 1987) Material allegations must be based on facts, not hearsay, speculation, or “information and belief.” Heerey v. Berke, 179 Ill. App. 3d 927, 939, 534 N.E.2d 1277, 1284 (1st Dist. 1989). Illinois courts consistently require a plaintiff to establish four elements with specific facts: (1) a protectable right; (2) irreparable harm; (3) an inadequate remedy at law; and (4) a

Page 2 of 7

likely success on the merits. Murges v. Bowman, 254 Ill. App. 3d 1071, 1081, 627 N.E.2d 330, 337 (1st Dist. 1993). This Appellate Court has jurisdiction in this matter. Jurisdiction over this appeal is pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 301, 303(a)(1)(2)(3)(4) and 304. On June 2, 2016 plaintiffs filed a Verified Complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County alleging Jiffy Lube International Inc., Rob Witwicki, and Sergio Sanchez et al. were negligent and had a duty to assure the oil they replaced in plaintiffs’ 2005 PT Cruiser would not leak and cause the motor to lock up. With leave of court, plaintiffs’ amended their complaint naming the appropriate parties, which are SE CLUSTER FOUR, LLC and Jiffy Lube #2503, et al. On December 27, 2016 and January 30, 2017 plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions on SE CLUSTER FOUR, LLC et al.’s attorney Cheryl L. Garcia. On September 7, 2017 Judge Martin Paul Moltz entered an order stating “…Plaintiffs’ Motion for Substitution of Judge Moltz is denied after hearing on the merits. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions is denied after hearing on the merits. Judgment for Defendant upon direct finding. Plaintiffs are ordered to refrain from contacting attorney Cheryl Garcia’s supervisors at KOPKA PINKUS DOLIN PC or their clients in any way indirectly via facsimile, email, or mail regarding attorney Garcia’s conduct or this litigation, or plaintiffs will be held in contempt of court and face consequences including fines or jail….” The use of the word “indirectly or individually” attacks plaintiffs’ 1st Amendment rights. Attorney Cheryl L. Garcia (hereinafter, “Garcia”) authored the language in this order dated September 7, 2017, and Judge Moltz is culpable by signing it. When plaintiffs and defendants presented themselves in front of Judge Moltz at approximately 10:00 am on September 7, 2017, Judge Moltz started the trial proceedings. Plaintiff Fred Nance Jr. (hereinafter, “Nance”) reminded Judge Moltz he had a motion for substitution of judge for cause, Page 3 of 7

judicial misconduct, abuse of discretion and power pending. Judge Moltz stated “denied”. Nance reminded Judge Moltz he had a motion for sanctions against Garcia pending. Judge Moltz stated “denied”. There was no “hearing on the merits” for plaintiffs’ Motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause, Judicial Misconduct, Abuse of Discretion and Power filed on August 28, 2017. There was no “hearing on the merits” for plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions filed on August 8, 2017. Judge Moltz began the trial after denying both of these motions without a hearing. After Judge Moltz issued his decision in this matter, Garcia told Judge Moltz Nance had sent her employers documents about this case, and that Nance had been admonished by a past judge. Nance responded stating no judge admonished him, and that there is no court order to support this erroneous statement made by Garcia. Nance started to explain why he sent court documents to the employers of Garcia, but Judge Moltz stopped Nance from speaking and would not allow Nance to explain before telling Nance he would be found in contempt of court, jailed or imprisoned if he contacted Garcia’s employers again. At no time, during this litigation, have plaintiffs ever contacted the defendants in this matter. Garcia admits the possibility of guilt to the many motion for sanctions filed against her by plaintiffs when she states in the September 7, 2017 court order, which she authored, “…Plaintiffs are ordered to refrain from contacting attorney Cheryl Garcia’s supervisors at KOPKA PINKUS DOLIN PC or their clients in any way indirectly via facsimile, email, or mail regarding attorney Garcia’s conduct….” Judge Moltz cannot hold a hearing or make a ruling on a motion for substitution of judge for cause when the motion is against him. Plaintiffs 1st Amendment rights are being challenged by Judge Moltz’s September 7, 2017 court order. Plaintiffs have a right to have their 1 st Amendment rights protected by the courts. Plaintiffs cannot present a motion for reconsideration Page 4 of 7

to circuit court because plaintiff Nance was threatened with contempt of court, jail, and incarceration by Judge Moltz. Plaintiffs have a constitutional right to be protected from Judge Moltz’s September 7, 2017 court order. Incarceration for a lie Garcia told the court can cause irreparable injury. There is no adequate remedy at law to protect plaintiffs while this litigation proceeds, due to the court order of September 7, 2017 stating, in part, “…Plaintiffs are ordered to refrain from contacting attorney Cheryl Garcia’s supervisors at KOPKA PINKUS DOLIN PC or their clients in any way indirectly via facsimile, email, or mail regarding attorney Garcia’s conduct or this litigation, or plaintiffs will be held in contempt of court and face consequences including fines or jail….” Garcia has repeatedly told the circuit court she has not received certain documents from the plaintiffs, even though plaintiffs file a notice of filing with the documents identified and not only send them to Garcia by U.S. mail but also by email. How are plaintiffs supposed to assure defendant’s attorney gets all documents filed with the clerk of the court in this matter? When Garcia told Judge Quish she had not received documents by U.S. mail from plaintiffs, and stating an email sent to her from plaintiffs she did receive did not have the document being discussed in court. Nance attempted to show the email from his phone to Judge Quish but she would look at Nance’s iPhone to see the email sent to Garcia. In addition, after this incident in court, Nance started sending copies of everything plaintiffs filed to E. Kenneth Wright, Presiding Judge, via his Administrator Attorney James J. Conlon by U.S. mail and email. Why didn’t Judge Moltz “sanction” Nance with the same threat he provided in his court order of September 7, 2017? What is the difference between sending filed, legal documents to Garcia’s employers and the Presiding Judge E. Kenneth Wright complaining about Judges Moltz, Wool, Quish, and Garcia? Nance is protected by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Page 5 of 7

Nance has a very active Twitter account. Nance has posted all matters in this case, except any and all discovery materials, on his Twitter feed at www.twitter.com/clickforjustice. Measuring this with Garcia’s nefarious and contemptuous motives and actions in this litigation, she could bring false allegations to Judge Moltz seeking Nance to be found in contempt of court, fined, and jailed. Plaintiffs 1st Amendment rights must be protected by this Appellate court. Garcia has lied her way through this litigation process because she knew it was a possibility plaintiffs would likely succeed in this litigation, with the hard and undisputable evidence they have to present to an unbiased and honorable court of law. IMPORTANT!!! On September 15, 2017 plaintiffs filed a motion to amend notice of appeal and an affidavit with the Appellate court, Affidavit dated September 11, 2017, as one of the supporting documents. On page 7 of this Affidavit dated September 11, 2017, paragraph 55, Nance states “…On September 7, 2017 Judge Moltz ruled on and denied plaintiffs motion for substitution of judge for cause, judicial misconduct, and abuse of discretion and power; and plaintiffs motion for sanctions, denying both motions without a hearing.” Nance received a “true” copy of the September 7, 2017 court order, from Garcia, on September 14, 2017 in the mail. Nance had no knowledge of the September 7, 2017 court order reporting “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Substitution of Judge Moltz is denied after hearing on the merits. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions is denied after hearing on the merits.” Nance did not know the court order for September 7, 2017 had these statements reported when he drafted plaintiffs’ affidavit, dated September 11, 2017. Nance reported exactly what happened in court. Garcia authored the language in the court order of September 7, 2017, and she lied reporting “…after hearing on the merits….” Judge Moltz is culpable because he signed it. There was no hearing on plaintiffs’ motions. Page 6 of 7

Wherefore, plaintiffs have met the standard set for a preliminary injunction by demonstrating (1) a clearly ascertained right in need of protection, (2) irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, (3) no adequate remedy at law, and (4) a likelihood of success on the merits of the case. Plaintiffs submit an affidavit in support for their preliminary injunction request; and the Affidavit submitted on September 15, 2017 further demonstrates the likelihood of success on the merits of this case.

Respectfully submitted /s/Fred Nance Jr., Ph.D. Pro se plaintiff

cc:

/s/Darlene Bouyer-Nance Pro se Plaintiff

Social Media

Page 7 of 7

17 - 1410 APPEAL TO THE FIRST DISTRICT APPELLATE COURT FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS FIRST MUNICIPAL DISTRICT Fred Nance Jr. & Darlene Bouyer-Nance Plaintiff-Appellant

vs

SE CLUSTER FOUR LLC, Jiffy Lube Franchise #2503 Defendant-Appellee

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Appeal from Circuit Court of Cook County Circuit Number: 2016 M1 012579 Trial Judge: Martin Paul Moltz

Calendar/Room: 1307

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

STATE OF ILLINOIS COOK COUNTY

) ) )

SS

1. Plaintiff states under oath and pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 191, affirmatively, if sworn as a witness, can testify competently to the matters and facts set forth herein except when those matters and facts are stated on information and belief and, as to those allegations, to the extent permitted by the Rules of Evidence. 2. Plaintiff, Fred Nance Jr. (hereinafter, “Nance”), is pro se and states under oath the following: 3. On September 7, 2017 plaintiffs’ Nance and Darlene Bouyer-Nance (hereinafter, “Darlene”) attended court in case #16-M1-012579 for trial, arriving at approximately 9:25 am for the 9:30 am court call. 4. On September 7, 2017 when Nance and Darlene entered courtroom 1307 (Judge E. Page 1 of 7

Kenneth Wright’s courtroom), there were 4 deputy sheriffs, which one of them was a Sgt. 5. Nance informed Judge Moltz he had to use the bathroom. 6. When Nance returned from the bathroom, he asked Judge Moltz, “why are there 4 deputy sheriffs’ in this courtroom?” 7. Judge Moltz answered stating he was not in charge of how many deputies are assigned to a courtroom. 8. Nance told Judge Moltz he was going to the Sheriff’s office to file a complaint. 9. Nance left the courtroom going to the Sheriff’s office in the basement of the Daley Center. Court was not in session because the defendants had not arrived. 10. At approximately 9:40 am, Judge Moltz had not started the trial because he was waiting on the defendants in the case to arrive in court. 11. Judge Moltz asked attorney Cheryl L.Garcia (hereinafter, “Garcia”) to contact her clients to find out where they are. 12. Garcia was calling her clients when Nance left the courtroom going to the Sheriff’s office, which was in the lower level of the Daley Center. 13. When Nance left the courtroom going downstairs to the Sheriff’s office in the basement of the Daley Center, Darlene called Nance on his cellphone informing Nance one of the deputy sheriffs’ followed him out of the courtroom. 14. Darlene told Nance the deputy sheriff returned to the courtroom telling Judge Moltz Nance did not go to the washroom. 15. Darlene told Nance Judge Moltz talked to court personnel about finding Nance in contempt of court for not being in court. 16. Court was not in session because Judge Moltz was waiting on the defendant’s to arrive. Page 2 of 7

17. Nance approached a Sgt. in the Sheriff’s office, in the lower level hallway of the Daley Center, requesting to speak to a supervisor or manager about 4 deputy sheriffs being in courtroom 1307. 18. Nance described the Sgt. in courtroom 1307. 19. The Sgt. Nance was speaking to in front of the Sheriff’s office in the lower level of the Daley Center told Nance the “white” Sgt. in courtroom 1307 was not the Sgt. assigned to courtroom 1307. 20. This Sgt. told Nance a “black” Sgt. supervises the deputy sheriffs’ in courtroom 1307. 21. This Sgt. radioed the “black” Sgt. in charge of courtroom 1307 to see if she could answer Nance’s question to why there were 4 deputy sheriffs’ in courtroom 1307. 22. After this Sgt. did not get an answer, he told Nance he was going into the lock-up to see if the Sgt. in charge of courtroom 1307 was there and available to speak to him. 23. While Nance was waiting for this Sgt. to return, Darlene called Nance on his cellphone telling him to get up to courtroom 1307 right now because Judge Moltz was talking about holding Nance in contempt of court for not being present in court. 24. When Nance returned to courtroom 1307, Judge Moltz told Nance he was going to hold him in contempt of court if he leaves the courtroom again. 25. Nance informed Judge Moltz he told him (Judge Moltz) where he was going before court began, and Judge Moltz did not say anything. 26. Judge Moltz told Nance he would him in contempt of court if he talks to the Sheriff’s office again. 27. Judge Moltz said Nance had no right to complain to the Sheriff’s office about anything in his (Judge Moltz) courtroom. Page 3 of 7

28. Judge Moltz also admonished the defendants for being late to court, but did not tell them he would hold them in contempt of court. 29. The defendants referred to here are “white”. Nance and Darlene are “black”. 30. During trial, Judge Moltz told Nance all documents filed in the case are inadmissible at trial if the witnesses are not available. 31. Nance attempted to present affidavits to the court. 32. Judge Moltz told Nance his affidavits were no good in a trial. 33. Judge Moltz stated the person has to be in court so they can be questioned. 34. Judge Moltz refused to review the affidavits and letters of Nance’s witnesses. 35. Judge Moltz made his final ruling stating the plaintiffs’ did not prove the defendant’s negligence and duty. 36. Judge Moltz stated plaintiffs’ had 30 days to appeal their case. 37. Nance stated he was going to appeal Judge Moltz’s decision to the appellate court; and that it is going to cost the defendants’ more money when they could have replaced the motor for less. 38. Garcia asked Judge Moltz could she put Nance’s threat in the final court order. 39. Judge Moltz told Garcia no she could not put Nance’s statement about it was going to cost the defendant’s more money in litigation because of the appellate processes. 40. Garcia told Judge Moltz Nance contacted the employers of her law firm about this case. 41. Garcia lied and told Judge Moltz Nance had been previously admonished by a judge in the case about alerting Garcia’s employer on her nefarious actions in court. 42. Garcia offered no evidence for this statement about Nance being admonished by another judge. Page 4 of 7

43. Judge Moltz told Nance he better not write the employers of Garcia’s law firm, and if he (Nance) did, he (Nance) would be held in contempt of court, jailed or imprisoned. 44. Garcia asked Judge Moltz can she put this statement in the court order. 45. Judge Moltz told Garcia she could include the statement in the court order that if Nance contacts the employers of her law firm he will be held in contempt of court, jailed, or imprisoned. 46. Nance informed Judge Moltz he could not restrict or hinder his 1st Amendment rights. 47. Nance told Judge Moltz he would continue posting this case on social media. 48. Nance informed Judge Moltz he could post anything on social media. 49. Judge Moltz stated “I don’t care what you post on social media, but you better not contact the employers of Garcia or you will be found in contempt of court, jailed, or imprisoned….” 50. On September 7, 2017 Judge Moltz began entering an order in favor of defendants, disposing of all remaining claims in this action/matter. 51. On September 7, 2017 plaintiffs’ had to leave court before the order was written, disposing of all claims, because Darlene had to return to work at the Chicago Public School where she is assigned. 52. Plaintiffs requested Garcia send plaintiffs a copy of the September 7, 2017order by U.S. Mail and email as we have been doing throughout this litigation. 53. Judge Moltz agreed stating Garcia would send plaintiffs a copy of the order by U.S. mail and email. 54. Nance never received the court order by email as Judge Moltz reported Garcia would do. 55. Nance received a copy of the September 7, 2017 court order in the U.S. mail on September 14, 2017. Page 5 of 7

56. On September 7, 2017 Judge Moltz ruled on and denied plaintiffs motion for substitution of judge for cause, judicial misconduct, and abuse of discretion and power, filed on August 28, 2017, and plaintiffs motion for sanctions, filed on August 8, 2017, denying both motions without a hearing; and ruled in favor of defendants in this matter. 57. After plaintiffs left the courtroom on September 7, 2017, Judge Moltz entered an order reporting “…Plaintiffs’ Motion for Substitution of Judge Moltz is denied after hearing on the merits. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions is denied after hearing on the merits. Judgment for Defendant upon direct finding. Plaintiffs are ordered to refrain from contacting attorney Cheryl Garcia’s supervisors at KOPKA PINKUS DOLIN PC or their clients in any way indirectly via facsimile, email, or mail regarding attorney Garcia’s conduct or this litigation, or plaintiffs will be held in contempt of court and face consequences including fines or jail….” 58. Plaintiffs’ August 28, 2017 motion for substitution of judge for cause, judicial misconduct, and abuse of discretion and power named Judge Moltz. 59. Judge Moltz ruled on the SOJ for Cause, which named him. 60. Before the court proceedings and trial began on September 7, 2017, Judge Moltz threatened Nance several times about finding him in contempt of court and incarcerating him. 61. Nance had to participate in the trial under duress, intimidation and threats from the Judiciary; and the unprofessional conduct of Garcia, facial and body expressions, prompting her clients answers without appropriate objections. 62. Darlene brought these inappropriate facial and body expressions to the attention of Judge Moltz, to no avail. 63. On September 15, 2017 plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Illinois Attorney General’s

Page 6 of 7

office on S.E. CLUSTER FOUR, LLC, the judges complained of in this case, and attorney Cheryl L. Garcia.

Fred L. Nance Jr. Pro se plaintiff-appellant cc:

Social Media

--4�t'.Wu"'��.

.,- SufiscrJfied anrJ sworn lo tiefo.re ®

j

ttm� · \ k

otcry Public, State of Illinois �mmission Expires April 24, 2018

aay of �sp�:2uQ, at Harvey.. County of Cook, State of Illinois.. '"tarY

W

-orr !CIAL SEAL:' OLt\NDA N. McCRAY

Publi��<;Jf"-\/>i',(c�

Page 7 of 7

Commission No. 800995

FAX COVER SHEET TO:

ILLINOIS JUDICIAL INQUIRY BOARD ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION (JOHN R. CESARIO)

FROM:

DR. FRED NANCE JR.

SUBJ:

JUDGE MARTIN PAUL MOLTZ AND ATTORNEY CHERYL L. GARCIA LYING ON A SIGNED COURT ORDER

DATE:

SEPTEMBER 18, 2017

IJIB FAX NUMBER: 312-814-5719 ARDC FAX NUMBER: 312-565-2320 NUMBER OF COPIES INCLUDING FAX COVER SHEET: 15 COMMENT: PLEASE ADD THESE DOCUMENTS TO THE ARDC AND JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMPLAINTS SENT TO YOU ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2017. THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT HAS WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF ALL ARDC AND JUDICIAL INQUIRY CHARGES FILED AGAINST THE 2 INDIVIDUALS NAMED HERE. THIS FAX COVER SHEET IS ALSO PART OF POSTED DOCUMENTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMUNICATION FROM THE ARDC AND JUDICIAL INQUIRY BOARD REPORTING YOU HAVE RECEIVED THESE DOCUMENTS.

/S/FRED NANCE JR., Ph.D.