'Lanre O. Amu v. Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission

Whether in light of the public Oaths taken in The Name of God to faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office, the seven Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court are not paying lip service to racial justice in Illinois, and are not tacitly condoning racism, race (black) and national origin (Nigeria) dis­ crimination and xenophobia, against the Petitioner, ‘Lanre 0. Amu, a black African-immigrant attorney, that they suspended from the practice of law since 2013, for filing ethics complaints that in their narrative impugned the integrity of Judge Lynn M. Egan and others, when nobody took an Oath to articulate any wrongdoing by the Petitioner at the “adversarial” attorney disciplinary hearing orchestrated to suspend his law license.

Whether the Respondent, the IARDC, has the authority to commence disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner to gain the upper-hand in their dispute, to discredit the Petitioner, and to get the Petitioner suspended from the practice of law, because the Petitioner refused to go along with the IARDC’s refusal to investigate Petitioner’s July 21, 2011 ethics complaint against IARDC’s cronies, and because Petitioner threatened to sue the IARDC in the federal court and to also report the matter to the U.S. Depart­ ment of Justice, when Crain’s Chicago Business’ March 1, 2014 independent investigative report later confirmed in toto the merits, the sanctity, and the truth of the tip of the iceberg of Petitioner’s July 21, 2011 ethics complaint that IARDC had denied, suppressed, and claimed was false to get Petitioner suspended from the practice of law.