Case Name: In re the Marriage of Dominique Ward and Micah Berkley

Case Number: 2021D079057

Comes now, Micah Berkley, pro se, and moves this Court to dismiss the current action against him for egregious abuse of process and a systematic denial of his due process rights, which have irrevocably prejudiced his ability to participate in this case and defend his fundamental parental rights.

Introduction:

This Court faces a critical juncture, a decision point where the very integrity of the justice system hangs in the balance. This case is not simply about a contentious child support dispute; it is a stark and disturbing example of how a parent, aided by a lawyer seemingly operating with impunity, can manipulate legal procedures to silence a father and unjustly sever his bond with his children. For over three years, Mr. Berkley has endured a relentless campaign of procedural errors, misrepresentations, and deliberate obstructions orchestrated by Dominique Ward and her lawyer, Lindsay Nathan. This Court, obligated to be a bastion of fairness and due process, must recognize the irreparable harm caused by these abuses and dismiss this action.

1. Unequal Application of Judge Substitution Rights (735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(2))

The law, in its pursuit of fairness, grants each party the right to one substitution of judge without cause. However, the record in this case reveals a blatant disregard for this statutory right, demonstrating a clear bias in favor of Ms. Ward and a systemic failure to protect Mr. Berkley's due process.

• Evidence:
  • Multiple Judge Substitutions by Mother: While Mr. Berkley has never been afforded the opportunity to exercise his statutory right, the court has repeatedly granted Ms. Ward and Ms. Nathan's requests for new judges. Judge [Previous Judge's Name] was replaced on June 17, 2022, following a hearing where the judge granted Mr. Berkley time to respond to a petition. [Document: Order 6-8-22.pdf]. The pattern of judge shopping continued when Judge [Previous Judge's Name] was replaced on January 30, 2023, after indicating a willingness to consider Mr. Berkley's arguments for visitation. [Document: Court calendar logs and orders for judge changes] This pattern demonstrates a clear intent to manipulate the system and avoid judges who might rule favorably towards Mr. Berkley.
  • Denial of Your Motion for Change of Judge: Despite formally filing a Motion to Continue on November 13, 2023, requesting a new judge based on reasonable apprehension of bias and explicitly citing the unequal application of judge substitution rights [Document: Motion_Continue_Approved (1).pdf], the court denied his request. This denial further highlights the court's complicity in creating a skewed and unfair legal landscape.

2. Deliberate Delay Tactics and Violation of Statutory Time Limits (735 ILCS 5/413(a)):

Justice delayed is justice denied. This adage rings true in Mr. Berkley’s case, where the court, despite clear statutory deadlines, has failed to enter a final Allocation Judgment or Parenting Plan for over a year since the last evidentiary hearing. This inordinate delay, with no justification provided, exposes a blatant disregard for procedural efficiency and Mr. Berkley’s right to a timely resolution.

• Evidence:
  • Last Evidentiary Hearing on January 30, 2023: The court calendar logs confirm that no final judgment has been entered since the January 30, 2023 hearing where evidence was presented. This delay of over a year directly violates the statutory requirement for judgment entry within 60 days of the close of proofs, as stipulated in 735 ILCS 5/413(a). [Document: Court calendar logs and transcripts from January 30, 2023]
  • Continued Delays and Case Inaction: The court has allowed this case to languish for years, with multiple status hearings and motions filed, but no definitive resolution reached. This inaction demonstrates a profound disregard for the timely and efficient administration of justice, further exacerbating the prejudice suffered by Mr. Berkley.

3. Coerced In-Person Appearances and Deliberate Default Tactics:

Ms. Ward and Ms. Nathan have engaged in a calculated strategy of exploiting Mr. Berkley's geographic location, knowing he resides in Florida and faces significant financial constraints in traveling to Chicago. They have repeatedly demanded in-person hearings, coupled with last-minute filings and inadequate notice, effectively ambushing Mr. Berkley and forcing him into default judgments.

• Evidence:
  • Multiple Default Orders: The court calendar log starkly reveals that Mr. Berkley was found in default on November 15, 2022, February 6, 2024, and March 7, 2024. [Document: Court Calendar Log] These defaults were not due to willful disregard of the court's authority, but rather a direct consequence of his inability to attend in-person hearings. This Court, instead of protecting his right to due process, has repeatedly penalized him for circumstances beyond his control.
  • Motion to Move Pretrial Date: On October 8, 2021, Mr. Berkley, demonstrating his commitment to participating in the proceedings, filed a Motion to Move Pretrial Date to accommodate a scheduling conflict. [Document: Filed Ward Motion to Move Date.pdf] Ms. Ward refused to agree to a change, and the court, despite knowing Mr. Berkley could not attend in person, proceeded with the hearing, effectively forcing him into default. This scenario exemplifies the court's consistent disregard for Mr. Berkley's efforts to participate remotely and its willingness to enable Ms. Ward and Ms. Nathan's manipulative tactics.
  • Amended Notice of Motion: The Amended Notice of Motion filed by Ms. Nathan on January 29, 2023, mere hours before a scheduled hearing, demonstrates a blatant disregard for procedural fairness. [Document: To file-Amended Notice Ward (1).pdf] This document, drastically altering the hearing's details, was sent via email, providing insufficient time for Mr. Berkley to adjust his schedule and participate. This last-minute maneuvering is not an isolated incident, but part of a consistent pattern, evident in numerous other motions and amendments filed close to hearing dates, effectively denying Mr. Berkley the opportunity to prepare and respond adequately. [Document: [List other specific instances with supporting documents, particularly those leading to default judgments.]
• False Representation Regarding Court Order: Ms. Nathan has repeatedly claimed that a court order barred Mr. Berkley from posting pictures of his daughters. However, a thorough review of all court orders issued in this case reveals no such restriction. This misrepresentation, used to extend a plenary order of protection against Mr. Berkley, demonstrates Ms. Nathan's willingness to mislead the court to achieve her client's objectives. [Document: All court orders, including those related to orders of protection.]

4. Unresolved Body Attachment and Judge Recusal – A Culmination of Injustice:

The current state of this case, marked by an unresolved body attachment and a judge’s recusal without reassignment, reveals the depths of procedural chaos and injustice that Mr. Berkley has been subjected to. Judge [Previous Judge's Name] issued a body attachment against him on February 6, 2024, based solely on his inability to attend an in-person hearing. [Document: Ward Order to Submit 2.6.24 (1).pdf] This order, which threatens his freedom and ability to seek employment, has been left hanging over his head for months.