STATE OF ILLINOIS)
SS: COUNTY OF DUPAGE)

			          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
          STATE OF ILLINOIS				                   COUNTY OF DUPAGE
             IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

CITY OF NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS,                      )            CIRCUIT COURT   
				             PLAINTIFF, )           |CASE No. 01 0v 9224
  		          V.                                             )
SCOTT M. HUBER,                                                 )
                                  DEFENDANT.                        )

MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE OR IN
 THE ALTERNATIVE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
                                           
     Defendant Scott M. Huber, Pro Se, Informa Pauperis prays and moves this Court for a change of venue from this county of Dupage for reasons as follows:

1)	Prior experiences in this courthouse have NOT lent themselves to fair, objective, 
Constitutional redress for grievances.
2)	In regard to Judges Lucas and Rathje:
a)	Judge Lucas allowed a continuance SPECIFICALLY for Defendant to further evaluate and get counsel as to whether to proceed with a jury or bench trial.
b)	Judge Rathje sat in on the hearing in follow up to the prior motion for continuance in lieu of Judge Lucas for some reason and denied Defendant the right to a Jury as he was given leave to determine and secure in that follow up hearing.
c)	Defendant was thus railroaded into a bench trial and judgment before Judge Rathje unfairly entered against Defendant.
d)	Same judgment by Judge Rathje also violated, as Defendant understands, the prior granting of his specific motion for change of venue for the presiding of a Christian Judge of which Judge Lucas was identified as being  and assigned to my case as allowed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in that Defendant has the right to practice his religion even while an officer of the court.  
e)	Clear-cut Judicial Bias and abuse of discretion was evident.

3)	In regard to Judges Torulemke , Dwyer and Creswell:
a)	Each Judge in this case showed clear-cut bias to Defendant keeping him from achieving equal rights under the law denying valid arguments and support material cited.
b)	Judge Torulemke: (1997-1998)
1)	This court denied Defendant right to change of venue from Dupage County.
2)	Reasonable courtesies from his court clerk were sidestepped and same was rude especially when she tried and did make scenes before the court to defame Defendant.
3)	This court denied substitution of Public Defenders when it was clear that the Public Defender assigned was not in good faith with Defendant.
4)	This court denied recusal for cause but took a reassignment, a very unusual move.
5)	This court showed specific clear cut Judicial bias and abuse of discretion.
c)	Judge Dwyer: (1998)
1)	This court ordered a psychological evaluation ex parte on ex parte interview with terminated Public Defender who lied to same Judge saying he was representing Defendant as his attorney.
2)	This court initiated the psychological evaluation without proper cause.
3)	This court allowed the States Attorney to reduce penalty from Jail penalties to non Jail penalties thus ending Defendant’s Public Defender Representation and forcing Defendant to represent himself without any prior criminal law experience.
4)	This Judge was recused for cause.
5)	Clear cut Judicial bias and abuse of discretion was evident.
d)	Judge Creswell: (1998-1999)
1)	This Judge allowed the State to, in effect, suppress vital evidence admitted into evidence.
2)	This Judge allowed the Jury to hear Tape Recordings only twice in court wide hearing.: Tapes that were difficult to listen to and would require numerous, at will, review as the Jury had specifically requested and was denied.
3)	This court would not allow duplicate tapes into evidence because it, in fact, did not want to take the time to review both tapes to verify them as identical.
4)	This court refused into evidence verbatim transcripts of the tape recordings admitted into evidence because, in fact, the court did not want to take the time to verify the authenticity of the contents of the transcript with the tape already used as evidence in court. 
5)	The court, due to suppression of evidence clearly proving Defendant’s innocence, thus caused the jury to find Defendant guilty.
6)	The court refused to overturn the verdict on apparent technical procedural grounds in spite of her understood reviewing of the tape and having copy of the transcript and her failure to make sure Defendant was apprised of his rights and purpose of the final comments allowed Defendant by the court after the verdict was read.          
7)	The court failed to enforce Defendant’s equal and realistic access rights to Jail Law Library, which would be commensurate with proper preparation and research time needed to prepare for his defense and bone up on criminal law and court procedure.
8)	The court incarcerated Defendant on flimsy “fear of non-attendance to trial” after twenty to twenty five appearances by Defendant in that case for almost twenty-seven days due to his being late to court with prior notice to her personal secretary of the emergency delay.
9)	Defendant was led to believe by this court that his cause was indefinitely delayed tentatively extending Defendant’s stay in the county Jail by canceling the current trial date and making no new trial date.
10)	Defendant’s trial was then, suddenly without prior warning, notice or anticipation, reinstated on the original trial date thus not allowing Defendant proper preparation time to refresh himself immediately prior to trial.
11)	Defendant was harassed in Jail and instead of the troublemakers being removed Defendant was removed and interviewed by a psychiatrist who wanted to establish a psychiatric record for Defendant by administering psychotropic medicine alleging that Defendant “seemed agitated” instead of getting at the root cause of the troublemaking. 
12)	 Defendant was sued for forcible entry and detainer by his Innkeeper while he was in Jail the approximately twenty-seven days due to lack of payment aggravated by his incarceration.
13)	This court demonstrated clear-cut Judicial bias and abuse of discretion denying Defendant basic constitutional guarantees.
e)	Judge Moy: (1998-1999)
1) Denied Defendant the right to have jury trial in spite of written request submitted to the court.
		2) Denied Defendant the right to bring physical evidence before the court.			3) Denied Defendant the right to present case law before the court.
                        4) Defendant was told by this Court that his case was not important and that other cases were waiting such as insurance settlement cases worth $2,500. My whole estate was in jeopardy.
		5) Defendant was railroaded to trial and judgment resultantly without proper hearing of fact.
6)	Defendant’s life was intimidated and threatened by Plaintiff when she stated that I belonged in a box buried and the court denied sanctions motioned by Defendant.  
7)	This court illegally evicted Defendant without proper notice.
8)	Clear-cut abuse of this Court’s discretion and Judicial bias was prevailing.
f)	Judge Lucas Court: (Presently 2002)
 



4)	County Library has had hostile episodes at critical times preventing much needed research and preparation of cases to meet court deadlines.
5)	Librarian, Judge, Sheriff’s police or court personnel have interfered with defendant when he has properly and diligently been using this courthouse law library or other courthouse environs.
a)	Librarians were over zealous of enforcing computer use and surrender policies such as requiring Defendant to immediately surrender the computer to another user.
b)	A Judge suddenly came in on one occasion, that I am aware, who demanded use of the computer within ten minutes and then he never showed up to use the computer after Defendant had closed out all his work and research. Defendant lost one half hour of work because of that due to waiting that amount of time before using additional non productive time resuming his computer work and reorienting himself online.
c)	Another time Sheriff’s Deputies interfered with Defendant when Defendant did not instantly get off the computer when he had complicated research online and needed to systematically close out the files or lose several hours of research. Defendant was not allowed to explain his circumstances. Deputies and their Supervisor demanded Defendant’s leaving the Courthouse or suffer arrest!
d)	Sheriff’s Deputies followed defendant when he addressed the secretary to the Chief Judge at his office and was told by Deputies when his conversation was finished and told to comply or suffer the consequences.
e)	A number of times Defendant was over zealously searched and detained as a result by Sheriff’s Deputies upon entry or required to wait long periods of time before being searched, such as an hour to and hour and a half so to be searched when entering with electronics gear such as a camera that could not be left at “home” or in the car of which Defendant did not possess or use since Defendant used public transportation.
f)	A number of in Court clerks as well as Circuit Court Clerks in their main offices have been uncooperative, short fused and itching to make a scene or made a scene in the Courtroom or Circuit Clerks Offices in certain of the 1997-1999 Torulemke, Dwyer, Creswell Courtrooms and the 2002 Bart and Lucas Courtrooms thus far.

1)	Attempts and executions of various Courtroom clerks to deliberately mangle the pronunciation of the simple name of HUBER has come up with Hoober, Hubber, Hubert and the like even after they have been politely given the proper pronunciation.
2)	Simple proper questions have been made to look like Defendant was harassing or trying to create a disturbance in the Court Room.
3)	Questions properly placed were ignored and Defendant was told to sit down at times when other parties were not similarly treated.
4)	Defendant’s name was deliberately put at the end of a list of litigants so that he had to wait long periods of time to have his case heard or questions answered.
      6) It is clear that Defendant has been made to feel and be unwelcome and miserable in the Dupage County Courthouse much less effectively prepare for and litigate his cases as provided for my the United States Constitution.

      Therefore, Scott M. Huber Defendant Pro Se Informa Pauperis, due to the above noted issues, moves and prays this Court for a change of Venue to a Venue of greater Constitutional balance outside the County of Dupage or, in the alternative, Defendant moves this court for Injunctive Relief restraining this court from Trial in this cause of action so that a proper venue may be obtained for reasons noted in this motion .  It is clearly apparent that Defendant has NOT been given fair hearings and access to these Courts, Courthouses and environs as a matter of normal course. Resultantly Defendant does NOT believe, for the most part: the odds being clearly negative for Defendant, that he can obtain or has obtained a fair, objective, impartial, lawfully faithful, Constitutionally faithful, unbiased, Hearing or Trial in the confines of this Dupage County Court system.

Scott M. Huber                                                                                   Scott M. Huber
Defendant, Pro Se                                                                              Defendant, Pro Se   
Informa Pauperis                                                                                Informa Pauperis  
C/O 2603 Aurora Ave.                                                                       July 29, 2002
Naperville, Illinois 60540
E-Mail: smail@dr.com
 


































STATE OF ILLINOIS)
COUNTY OF DUPAGE)

			          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
          STATE OF ILLINOIS				                   COUNTY OF DUPAGE
             IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

CITY OF NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS,                      )            CIRCUIT COURT   
				             PLAINTIFF, )           |CASE No. 01 0v 9224
  		          V.                                             )
SCOTT M. HUBER,                                                 )
                                  DEFENDANT.                        )
                                                            AFFIDAVIT
                                                       ***************
I, Scott M. Huber, Defendant Pro Se, a Non-Attorney, on oath State that the facts and allegations stated in his Motion To Change Venue are true to the best of his knowledge and incorporate same motion into this affidavit by reference.  
		
								Scott M. Huber

Signed and Sworn to before me this _____________,2002.

							________________________
Notary Public