Archive for the ‘family court’ Category
For too long now, the corrupt in government have been trashing the Constitution and de facto eliminating our Constitutional rights. The 1 % and greedy are abusing the rest of us getting richer while making us poorer, denying education to the masses, denying health care, denying access to knowledge, denying the freedom to speak our mind and the justice of the courts. Multinational corporations now control our governments. Our Constitution has no weight. Our U.S. Supreme Court even refuses to enforce its own rulings. When the courts trash our rights, we no longer have remedy.
ANONYMOUS – a secret society of hackers around the world dedicated to a free and open Internet [able to hack into anything], in response to the murder of Aaron Swartz , an Internet genius and proponent of free access to knowledge paid for by taxpayer dollars, has now decided to use their last resort and act. The line has now been drawn in the sand. They have reluctantly decided to act as a last resort due to the tyrany we now experience.
The Internet War against government corruption has now been unleashed. They have launched the first missile.
I support it. I also ask ANONYMOUS to help us by publicizing the systemic lawlessness of the courts in Cook County and Illinois that I have revealed on this web site.
Please view the video in this link that announces the beginning of the Internet War to reform our corrupt government.
May God Help us! Tyrants in the Cook County Courts and in our government must be exposed, removed, and reform must occur. There is no other option.
We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us
This is my response to the death of Aaron Swartz [an Internet and computer genius who invented RSS at the age of 14 and founded Reddit, who worked tirelessly for Internet freedom]:
Aaron’s death has devastated me. I and many others before and presently have tried to improve the world by working to right the wrongs that we bump into so annoyingly. Aaron in terms of Internet access to knowledge that our taxes paid for; me to make our courts transparent and information in our court system open to all so that we can bring to the light of day the corruption that is destroying us, most of all destroying children, elderly, families, and those of us who are working so hard, sacrificing so much, and mostly caring about others especially our children’s futures as well as the many before us and after us that will do the same. Yet our own government is used to destroy us in order to keep knowledge, justice, and freedom in the hands of the 1%, as well as in the hands of the corrupt, instead of in the hands of the people. I have also been arrested on fraudulent and excessive charges apparently in efforts to try to shut me up and shut down my blogs. I know exactly how Aaron felt. The hopelessness and despair are hard to fight. I pray that all those who knew Aaron and heard of him will help continue what is a fight, in the case of Aaron and likely soon in my case to the death. I hope his friends will pursue his cause with a vengeance, as well as try to help others, like me and our group of whistle blowers and activists who are seeking to bring more transparency and justice to the world, as well as stop the cover-up of the corruption that is lining the pockets of the corrupt, the connected, and the exclusive 1%, at the expense of the 99%.
If corruption in family courts described in this blog is not enough including diverting funds from VAMA and Social Security Title IV-D to enrich judges, court-appointed attorneys, and court-appointed evaluators, now ADA accommodations are also at risk in the courts, pro se litigants are being deprived of equal protection in the courts, and we are being thrown back into the stone age in Cook County by new rules from Chief Judge Evans. Please remember to demand fix to VAMA funding being diverted for corrupt purposes before passage. Many of our legislators are totally ignorant of what is actually happening with VAMA funds.
Chief Judge Evans enters order which prohibits cell phones in courthouses where criminal matters are heard is acting like Hitler.
Now defendants cannot contact their attorneys when their attorneys are late, cannot contact their families, cannot have their electronic calendars with them when they are representing themselves. The latest Illinois Supreme Court ruling requiring Court Clerks to allow the use of rolling scanning devices to allow persons to avoid huge page copy charges in the Clerk’s offices and in Court libraries are at risk with the bar on bringing in electronic devices. The disabled who need assistance of electronic devices will have to ask for special permission to bring them into court buildings including palm pilots and cell phones. Many disabled persons take public transportation and need to have cell phones with them at all times to contact their doctors or others for assistance. Now they will have to pay $3.00 to put them in tiny lockers at courthouses, but the courthouses don’t have enough little pay lockers to hold all the phones that people will have to lock up, that will no longer be allowed in courthouses.
In domestic and civil matters pro se litigants and their witnesses will be at a disadvantage. This applies in courthouses where there are eviction cases, divorce cases and every other kind of civil case.
If they ban pro se litigants from having these devices, then they should ban the attorneys and judges from having them too so pro se litigants are not at a disadvantage. If judges wants to go back to the stone age, then let everyone do this. Their computer system is already in the stone age so that it is impossible to query so that the courts can cover up their corruption!
Help make a massive protest about this!! Hitler reigns in Cook County. First the right to petition for habeas corpus has been denied, perjury by sheriff deputies is rampant, and my right to notice for a criminal trial, right to have dismissed legally insufficient complaints, right to speedy trial, right to compulsory process, and right to have access to my court file and pen and paper during trial has been eliminated - now this!! See my new post coming soon about my recent misdemeanor conviction where all these rights were denied!
Help spread the word!
Released On 12/12/2012
Chief Judge Evans December 17, 2012, interview with CBS 2 Chicago on cell phone ban.
Circuit Court of Cook County Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans today announced beginning January 14, 2013, the public will not be permitted to bring cell phones and other electronic devices into any Circuit Court of Cook County courthouse facility except for the Richard J. Daley Center Courthouse. The ban will affect only those courthouse facilities in which criminal matters are heard.*
- The George N. Leighton Criminal Court Building at 2600 S. California Ave., Chicago
- The Cook County Juvenile Center, 1100 West Hamilton Ave., Chicago
- The Domestic Violence Courthouse, 555 West Harrison St., Chicago
- The Second Municipal District Skokie Courthouse, 5600 Old Orchard Road
- The Third Municipal District Rolling Meadows Courthouse, 2121 Euclid Road
- The Fourth Municipal District Maywood Courthouse, 1500 Maybrook Drive
- The Fifth Municipal District Bridgeview Courthouse, 10220 S. 76th Ave.
- The Sixth Municipal District Markham Courthouse, 16501 S. Kedzie Parkway
- 5555 W. Grand Ave., Chicago (First Municipal District criminal branches 23 and 50)
- 2452 W. Belmont Ave., Chicago (First Municipal District criminal branches 29 and 42)
- 155 W. 51st St., Chicago (First Municipal District criminal branches 34 and 48)
- 727 E. 111th St., Chicago (First Municipal District criminal branches 35 and 38)
- 3150 W. Flournoy St., Chicago (First Municipal District criminal branches 43 and 44)
See “Justice for Livia”s web site here: http://justiceforlivia.wordpress.com/about/
Judge Coglin, now retired, has destroyed families by giving numerous children to male abusers, many with political connections who cover-up the abuse of their children. Professionals including teachers have lost custody of their children due to his illegal rulings that also destroy family income. The problem of judicial corruption is systemic in Illinois especially C[r]ook County Illinois.
VAMA and Social Security Title IV-D funds are being diverted to enrich judges, court-appointed attorneys, and court-appointed evaluators. Demand fix to VAMA funding before passage.
Now the Presiding Judge of Markham Courthouse Judge Marjorie C. Laws, sister of Public Defender (ret) Judge Cunnngham has banned all electronic devices in Markham courhouse – including all cell phones, laptops, ipods, palm pilots, electronic calenders, etc. So witnesses and pro se individuals cannot even bring their electronic calenders into the courthouse!!!! She is stacking the cards against citizens and the innocent and making sure that what goes on in courthouses is kept quiet with no witnesses, no recordings, no court watchers, etc.
The county already does not provide court reporters in family court so the poor have no record of corrupt acts by judges and lose appeals because “they did no [pay court reporters] to preserve the record”!
Totalitarian Hitler like tactics are now being used by Judge Laws to keep the corruption quiet and out of the press!!
Write a protest letter to the press, the U.S. Attorney, your senators and representatives, the Governor, Chief Judge Timothy Evans (Rm 2600 Daley Center at 50 W Washington, Chicago 60602) and anyone else you can think of!!
Activists ask U.S. Supreme Court to appoint special master to review and correct lawlessness in Cook County Courts
This motion to the United States Supreme Court requests that the high court consolidate the issue of lawlessness (denial of civil rights including right to petition for writ of habeas corpus, due process, compulsory process, trial by jury, right to counsel, speedy trial, substitution of judge for cause [bias] and ADA accommodations) in three cases before the court: 12-6561, 11-10814, and 11-10790. It exposes the pervasive and systemic ignorance, maliciousness, cover-up of corruption, and denial of civil rights by judges throughout the Circuit Court of Cook County.
The cases which the activists, Linda Lorincz Shelto, PhD, MD, and Mr. David Bambic are requesting to be consolidated over the issue of appointing a special master to investigate the Cook County Courts and institute systems of oversight of the judges and judicial education including civilian, non-court related oversight include the following three cases:
Motion to consolidate cases over issue of lawlessness in Cook County Courts exhibited by Judges: Michael McHale, Joseph Kazmierski, David Haracz, Peggy Chiampas, Jorge Alonso, Veronica Mathein, Kathleen Pantle, Marie Kuriakos Ciesil, Mary Margaret Brosnahan, Kenneth J. Wadas, Colleen A. Hyland, Noreen Daly, William D. Maddux, Timothy Evans, and E. Kenneth Wright Jr.
Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus in United States Supreme Court due to Trial Court (Judge Peggy Chiampas) ignoring due process and civil rights (speedy trial, compulsory process, ADA accommodations, substitution of judge for cause [bias]). Case No 11-10814
Motion for rehearing of 11-10814 after dismissal without comment.
Original Petition for Writ of Certiorari (appeal) to U.S. Supreme Court regarding lawlessness (violation of trial rights, compulsory process [discovery], refusal to follow Illinois Statutes, and use of hearsay for decisions) Case No 11-10790
Dr Shelton asks U.S. Supreme Court to appoint special master to remove corruption in Circuit Court of Cook County
On this site and in their pleadings before the Circuit Court of Cook County, the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court, Dr. Linda Shelton, Dr. Sheila Mannix, David Bambic, Milijana Vlastelica, Frank Epstein, Sandra Padron, Karyn Mehringer, Mic Gerhardt, Maisha Hamilton, Vernon Glass, Naomi Jennings, Annabel Melongo, Davy Cady and many others have shown that the Circuit Court of Cook County has allowed its judges to disregard constitutional rights such as due process, speedy trial, the right to petition for writ of habeas corpus, the right to receive notice and discovery before trial, the right to have enforced state laws as to trial and court procedure, and the right to confront witnesses against them and not have court decision made based on hearsay.
The extreme lawlessness that Shelton has documented on this site is now before the United States Supreme Court in three Petitions for Certiorari and for Mandamus and five more are in preparation. You can read them in the links at the end of this post.
In the pleadings that follow, David Bambic and Linda Shelton are asking the United States Supreme Court to review this extreme lawlessness that has caused wrongful decisions in their cases, but that also is so pervasive that hundreds if not thousands of divorce cases, orders of protection cases, criminal cases, probate cases, and child custody cases must be overturned or retried.
The state of anarchy in Cook County due to judicial ignorance, corruption, misconduct, arrogance, and maliciousness is so extreme, so harmful to children, families, the elderly, and innocent accused of crimes particularly whistle blowers who are being retaliated against, as documented in these three U.S. Supreme Court proceedings that Shelton has requested the U.S. Supreme Court to appoint a special master to review the policies and procedures of the Circuit Court of Cook County and to institute a judicial education and supervision program so that the right to petition for writ of habeas corpus, the right for a speedy trial, the right to compulsory process, the right to notice and discovery before trial, as well as other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights including due process or following the statutes and rules of the state and the federal codes and rules are preserved and no longer violated pervasively.
Shelton now calls for Cook County Board President Tony Preckwinkle to fire Chief Judge Timothy Evans for failure to ensure that the judges in the Circuit Court of Cook County follow the Constitutions of the United States and Illinois and the laws of the State of Illinois and these United States.
We can no longer allow this pervasive, malignant lawlessness to run our courts in Cook County and be steered by the corrupt government officials and police officials that have been doing so.
U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Mandamust concerning refusal to hear petition for writ of habeas corpus and false arrest and conviction for filing a next-friend petition for writ of habeas corpus, as well as summary (no trial) conviction and sentence of 16 mo in jail for criminal contempt for filing the habeas petition as a non-attorney (the judge declared this illegal) despite the fact that Illinois law allows it: 735 ILCS 5/10 et seq.
Attorneys who are prominent in divorce court in Cook County, David J. Grund, Marvin J. Leavitt, and Grund & Leavitt, P.C., lost their appeal of a case where they were found in contempt of court for representing a woman, after having a consultation with her husband to represent her. This is a violation of Illinois Supreme Court Article VIII – Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.9 regarding conduct of attorneys in the case of conflict of interests. They were also ordered to forfeit the $245,000 in fees they were charging the woman.
Beware of Gund & Leavitt, P.C. as attorneys in divorce cases, as they have already proven that money is more important to them than ethics and have been reprimanded by the court for their unethical conduct.
The following is part of the Illinois Appellate Court decision on the appeal by Gund & Leavitt, P.C. of their contempt conviction.:
Case Number 09-0683
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.
In re The MARRIAGE OF David NEWTON, Petitioner–Appellee, and Hadley Newton, Respondent (David J. Grund, Marvin J. Leavitt, and Grund & Leavitt, P.C., Contemnors–Appellants
Nos. 1–09–0683, 1–09–0684, 1–09–0685.
June 30, 2011.
“Petitioner, David Newton, and respondent, Hadley Newton, were divorced pursuant to a judgment for dissolution of marriage entered on March 8, 2010. In the underlying divorce proceedings, David filed an emergency motion to disqualify Hadley’s attorney, Grund, and the law firm of Grund & Leavitt, pursuant to [Illinois Supreme Court Article VIII Rules of Professional Conduct] Rule 1.9 (Ill. S.Ct. Rs. of Prof. Conduct, R. 1.9 (eff. Aug. 1, 1990)), due to Grund’s former representation of David in the same proceeding. On August 9, 2007, the circuit court entered a preliminary injunction order prohibiting Grund and Leavitt from representing Hadley while the motion to disqualify was pending. Hadley filed her response to the motion to disqualify on July 27, 2007. A hearing was held on September 4, 2007. The court heard testimony by David, Grund, and Hadley. However, upon questioning of Grund regarding his conversation with David, David’s counsel objected based on attorney-client privilege. Although there was an offer of proof, the circuit court barred Grund’s testimony on the basis of the attorney-client privilege. David testified that he met alone with Grund in Grund’s office for between 1 1/2 and 2 hours. They discussed information and issues related to his marriage and impending divorce from Hadley, including issues regarding the children and his financial situation, and Grund took notes.
Hadley testified, upon questioning by Grund, that she learned that there was a conflict with Grund representing her because Grund himself told her there was a conflict when she came in to see him. However, he entered into a retainer agreement with her and represented her. The court found that Grund and Leavitt were disqualified from representing Hadley.
. . . .
“[Illinois Supreme Court Article XIII Rules of Professional Conduct] ]Rule 1.9. Conflict of Interest: Former Client
(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:
(1) represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client, unless the former client consents after disclosure; or
(2) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client, unless:
(A) such use is permitted by Rule 1.6; or
(B) the information has become generally known.” Ill. Rs. of Prof’l Conduct, R. 1.9 (eff. Aug. 1, 1990).
. . . .
Although Grund and Leavitt argue that they should be entitled to fees incurred before they were disqualified by the court’s order, Grund violated Rule 1.9 at the moment he agreed to meet with Hadley knowing he had a conflict. Grund knew from the initial consultation with Hadley that there was a conflict of interest. The testimony by Hadley at trial was that Grund told her of the conflict. Notably, this testimony was unrebutted by Grund and Leavitt. As the court clearly stated, it is inexplicable that Hadley made it past screening and that Grund agreed to represent her. Grund was clearly prohibited by Rule 1.9 from entering into a retainer agreement with Hadley. As noted earlier in our analysis, “[a]n attorney/client relationship can be created at the initial interview between the prospective client and the attorney.” Nuccio v. Chicago Commodities, Inc., 257 Ill.App.3d 437, 440, 195 Ill.Dec. 670, 628 N.E.2d 1134 (1993) (citing Herbes v. Graham, 180 Ill.App.3d 692, 129 Ill.Dec. 480, 536 N.E.2d 164 (1989)). Therefore, Grund is barred from any earlier fees based on either ground we have discussed: (1) the retainer agreement was unenforceable under section 508(c)(3) of the Act; or (2) the retainer agreement was void ab initio as against public policy.
. . . .
Contempt of court can result from a party’s failure to comply with the terms of a court order. People v. Coupland, 387 Ill.App.3d 774, 777, 327 Ill.Dec. 120, 901 N.E.2d 448 (2008). Persons subject to the order of a court having jurisdiction must obey the order until it is reversed by a reviewing court or set aside or modified. Busey Bank v. Salyards, 304 Ill.App.3d 214, 217, 238 Ill.Dec. 197, 711 N.E.2d 10 (1999) (citing People v. Graves, 74 Ill.2d 279, 284–85, 24 Ill.Dec. 153, 384 N.E.2d 1311 (1979), quoting Faris v. Faris, 35 Ill.2d 305, 309, 220 N.E.2d 210 (1966)). “[E]xposing oneself ‘to a finding of contempt is an appropriate method of testing the validity of a court order.’ ” In re Marriage of Rosenbaum–Golden, 381 Ill.App.3d 65, 82, 319 Ill.Dec. 27, 884 N.E.2d 1272 (2008) (quoting In re Marriage of Beyer, 324 Ill.App.3d 305, 321, 257 Ill.Dec. 406, 753 N.E.2d 1032 (2001)). “ ‘[W]hether a party is guilty of contempt is a question of fact for the trial court, and * * * a reviewing court will not disturb the finding unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence or the record reflects an abuse of discretion.’ ” Killion v. City of Centralia, 381 Ill.App.3d 711, 715, 319 Ill.Dec. 519, 885 N.E.2d 1199 (2008) (quoting In re Marriage of Logston, 103 Ill.2d 266, 286–87, 82 Ill.Dec. 633, 469 N.E.2d 167 (1984))
We note the well-established rule that where a “ ‘refusal to comply with a trial court’s order constitutes a good-faith effort to secure an interpretation of [an issue without direct precedent], it is appropriate to vacate a contempt citation on appeal.’ ” Mueller Industries, Inc. v. Berkman, 399 Ill.App.3d 456, 482, 340 Ill.Dec. 55, 927 N.E.2d 794 (2010) (quoting Cangelosi v. Capasso, 366 Ill.App.3d 225, 230, 303 Ill.Dec. 767, 851 N.E.2d 954 (2006)). However, under the facts of this case, we find that Grund and Leavitt’s refusal to comply with the circuit court’s order denying them fees did not constitute a good-faith effort to secure an interpretation without direct precedent. Rule 1.9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct is clear that representing clients with conflicts of interest is prohibited. Precedent is clear that fees for such prohibited representation are barred. It is unrebutted that Grund knew of the conflict before he agreed to represent Hadley and yet undertook to represent her anyway, thus paving his own road to the denial of fees. Therefore, the court’s adjudication of civil contempt was well founded and not against the manifest weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion.
Further, we note that in this very case Grund had previously been found in direct civil contempt in an order dated June 30, 2008, in which the court found: “Grund’s verbal outbursts obstructed and embarrassed the court and constituted a direct defiance of a court order before a judge in open court and Grund is found to be in direct contempt of court. It is ordered that contemnor David Grund will pay to the Clerk of the Circuit Court a fine of $500.00 forthwith. Grund is remanded to the custody of the Cook County Sheriff and released upon payment of the fine. Mittimus stayed 48 hours—10:40 am 7/2/08” s/Judge Jordan.”
The fact that the order states that Grund and Leavitt were found in direct contempt “for their failure to obey the court’s disqualification order” indicates that the court was attempting to coerce compliance with its order denying Grund and Leavitt’s fees. The order stated that paying the fine would purge the contempt.
We note that our distinguished colleagues in the Fourth District take a different approach. In re Marriage of Samuel, 394 Ill.App.3d 398, 333 Ill.Dec. 750, 915 N.E.2d 821 (2009), is instructive. In In re Marriage of Samuel the circuit court entered a civil contempt order imposing a fine and ordering an apology. The appellate court found that the trial court’s imposition of a fine was a punishment for improper behavior. In re Marriage of Samuel, 394 Ill.App.3d at 402, 333 Ill.Dec. 750, 915 N.E.2d 821. However, the apology “implie[d] an admission of past conduct” and was “easily construed as a promise not to engage in similar behavior in the future,” and to that extent, it was coercive and permissible as a sanction for civil contempt. In re Marriage of Samuel, 394 Ill.App.3d at 402, 333 Ill.Dec. 750, 915 N.E.2d 821.
We find that the purging provision which would allow Grund and Leavitt an opportunity to purge the contempt by paying the $100 fine was well within the court’s discretion in the selection of a purging provision and was remarkably restrained, given the entire record of this case.”