Anzaldi v. Cannon et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 9/12/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

SHARON ALICIA BURKE ANZALDI,
Plaintiff,
v.
RACHEL MARIE CANNON, et al.,
Defendants.1

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 12 C 2987

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Unsuccessful in her effort to wreak vengeance against judicial officers and the prosecutor
who are involved in the federal criminal case against her -- an effort that is clearly in retaliation
for their performance of their assigned roles in her prosecution on those criminal charges -Sharon Alicia Burke Anzaldi ("Anzaldi") has now turned (perhaps predictably) to launching
ad hominem attacks against this Court for doing its job in addressing her groundless Complaint
filed against those federal targets. Because Anzaldi's September 7 filing has permitted more than
Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 59(e)'s nonextendable 28 day time limit to elapse following this Court's
August 7, 2012 dismissal of her action, that Rule is unavailable to her -- and she has shown no
basis for relief under Rule 60(b).
This Court will not retaliate in kind against the base canards contained in Anzaldi's
current "Motion To Void Judgment/Memorandum For Violations of Civil Rights, Due Process of
Law and Malicious Conduct Unbecoming a Federal Judge," even by cataloging the outright
1

This is the correct case caption, although the current motion lists the "United States of
America" as defendant. That may be a Freudian slip, because the underlying Complaint and
many of plaintiff's filings read as though she is indeed at war with the United States.

falsehoods included in her statement.2 Instead, because the bulk of Anzaldi's current filing
reconfirms the bizarre world in which she seems to function, and because this Court's dismissal
order was entirely appropriate, her current motion is denied.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: September 12, 2012

2

Objective evidence, such as the transcripts of in-court proceedings, would put the lie
to the various distorted versions offered up by Anzaldi. And as another example of revisionist
history, it is flat-out false for Anzaldi to say in Motion ¶ 4 that this Court "stack[ed] the court
room with 7-8 enforcement personnel" -- where she got that idea is a total mystery.
-2-