Cook County Judges

Send your comments to (see about for guidelines)

Archive for March 2010

Judge Mary Margaret Brosnahan

with one comment

Letter to Judge Brosnahan from Dr. Shelton & STOP ILLINOIS CORRUPTION

                                                 STOP ILLINOIS CORRUPTION

                                                                            Linda Lorincz Shelton, Ph.D, M.D.
                                                                            Founder and Director

March 25, 2010

Honorable Judge Mary Margaret Brosnahan
2600 S. California Ave., Courtroom 303
Chicago, IL  60608

Dear Hon. Judge Brosnahan:

I am writing you as a public service. We have court watchers who note when judges either intentionally or ignorantly violate the law. Our goal is to provide feedback to judges about what we observe and to educate judges about the statutory, constitutional, and case law which we have witnessed judges violate. It is our hope that this service to the judiciary will help judges who show potential to be great judges due to their demeanor and intellectual abilities to further educate themselves and to sue sponte correct serious mistakes they made in their judicial rulings.

It is within the power of the court to permit our group to write an amicus brief. I personally attempted to do this in one of the cases, but you never heard it. This letter should be considered a “friend of the court” document that is meant to bring up issues about which the court may need clarification and education.  Of course, all our comments should be carefully researched by the court and not acted upon unless the court finds these insights useful and verifies them.

If you prefer, we would be happy to write a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in the following cases and attached the following information as the amicus brief.

We realize that some judges may, due to confirmatory bias and arrogance, ignore our letters. However, our letters are open to the public and in our blogs, noted above; we provide judicial evaluations in the public interest. Judges who refuse to use information contained in these letters to educate themselves are missing an opportunity to grow and develop as a judge. They may continue to make the same mistakes over and over, due to arrogance. We hope this will not be the case with you.

The following gross judicial errors by you, which violated law, were noted by our members to occur in several recent cases:

1)      The IL App Crt in People v. Vasquez, 339 Ill.App.3d 546, 791 N.E.2d 33 (2003) ruled that “appellate court’s dismissal of appeal under the fugitive rule, did not reinvest trial court with jurisdiction to hear the series of motions filed upon defendant’s return.”

In the case of People v. [Dr] Maisha Hamilton [Bennett] who was fraudulently convicted of Medicaid Fraud, 02 CR 16455, her appellate case was dismissed by the IL App Crt under the fugitive rule. Therefore, all actions of Judge Gainer on the case, were void as he had no jurisdiction, until the Appellate Court returns the case to him.

We also noted that Judge Gainer ignorantly and unethically declared her unfit [later withdrawing his ruling] due to the fraudulent statements of Forensic Clinical Services staff Drs. Markos and Lourgos, who are notoriously known to us as incompetent doctors who violate the ethical standards of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (available on line).

Our staff also noted that Judge Gainer, even if he had jurisdiction resentenced Dr. Hamilton to more than six months in jail. Judge Gainer is notorious in our view in violating the law. He should have known that a person CANNOT be sentenced to more than six months in JAIL for a felony per statute.

Judge Gainer and you held Dr. Hamilton in jail for over a year without legal authority as both cases are actually VOID ab initio. You both ignored her well written motions proving the cases are VOID and Judge Gainer ignored the fact he had no jurisdiction due to the pending appeal.

Therefore in the case before you in September 2009 for an alleged perjury against Dr. Hamilton, your ruling that she was unfit based on Judge Gainer’s ruling is VOID. You should immediately withdraw that ruling and correct your error.

2)      Dr. Hamilton’s case before you on the charge of perjury, 05 CR 26027, was brought to you illegally due to fraud upon the court by the State. Dr. Hamilton wrote a number of motions that prove that the case was fraudulent and you had NO jurisdiction. That case is still pending before you despite your erroneous rulings and beliefs for all the reasons stated in Dr. Hamilton’s past and pending motions. You are OBLIGATED under the law to dismiss the case nunc pro tunc as VOID.

We strongly believe it would be in your best interest regarding developing your skills and reputation as a judge to show your judicial abilities and temperament [that you recognize mistakes and are willing to correct them] if you would carefully read all of the motions and hear Dr. Hamilton’s verbal arguments, at an evidentiary hearing that you should sue sponte schedule after sue sponte withdrawing previous erroneous rulings.

3)      In Dr. Hamilton’s case, as she was pre-trial, she had the legal right for a jury trial in your courtroom on the fitness issue. You denied her this right in adopting the VOID ruling of Judge Gainer. You are obligated, under the law, to vacate your ruling adopting Judge Gainer’s finding and either withdraw your request for a fitness hearing or schedule a jury trial on the fitness issue immediately.

4)      In the case of Annabel Melongo, 08 CR 10502, it is crystal clear that you have very little understanding of the fitness statute. We have enclosed some information for you on this topic, as well as on the topic of interacting with intelligent pro se litigants. A judge may NOT legally order a fitness exam without a bona fide doubt of fitness. This doubt must be stated on the record and must be specific and credible. You doubt was neither specific nor credible. We suggest you research the concept of “bona fide doubt” and abide by the rulings of higher courts on this matter.

Ms. Melongo’s web site,, contains all documents in this case and evidentiary documents also. It is clear that she has a rock solid and unusually astute understanding of the laws pertaining to her case and of the evidence.

It is clear that she has a rock solid case proving that there is no probable cause in this case and that the State has committed fraud upon the court. You therefore, have no jurisdiction as fraud vitiates the proceedings. Fredman Brothers Furniture v. Dept. of Revenue,  109 Ill.2d 202, 486 N.E.2d 893 (1985); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.3d 393 (1962).

Witnessing her speaking in court, it is clear to our staff that you do NOT understand what Ms. Melongo is saying and she does not understand you well due to her native language being French and an African dialect and her second language being German. Her accent is very difficult to understand. This difficulty in understanding due to language is NOT a bona fide reason to order a fitness exam.

It would be most appropriate for you to order a French translator whenever she is in court, after admitting that you have difficulty understanding her accent.

She came to court at the last hearing fully prepared to intelligently argue her motions to dismiss, etc. She even had written out and filed what she was going to say, recognizing that you may have difficulty understanding her accent. Her documents have been reviewed by those connected with the legal profession and were found to be done quite well, except for some misunderstanding of how to write subpoenas and what can be subpoenaed. She however has contacted persons connected with the legal profession and now has a much better understanding of this topic.

Yet you didn’t give her the time of day in regards to her motions and instead inappropriately ordered a fitness exam.

It is our hope that you will carefully read her motions and memorandum regarding what she was going to state and that you sue sponte recognize your error and vacate your fitness order. This order is so ridiculous, in view of Ms. Melongo’s quality public web site and written motions, that it brings you discredit and makes all persons question your abilities and ethics as a judge.

5)      It is also remarkable that you order a fitness exam on Ms. Melongo but don’t order a mental exam on the complainant Carol Spirrizza, who has an order of protection against her by her husband in Wisconsin, because she has been ruled to be a pathological liar by the Wisconsin Court and found to be a  paranoid schizophrenic.  Isn’t the issue of Ms. Spirrizza’s mental health already decided by Wisconsin courts? Isn’t this issue res judicata? Doesn’t this mean her statements are unreliable and cannot be presented as evidence?

It is our strong belief, after a review of these cases by a number of our members, several who are related to the legal profession, that all of the above cases are null and void ab initio due to fraud upon the court by the State. This will eventually be the finding in higher courts.

It is our hope that the lower courts will give these cases a FAIR HEARING on the issues the defendants have presented in their motions. As of this date, none of these cases have had a fair hearing on pending motions. The motions have been summarily dismissed or simply ignored or postponed through ignorance of the judges involved.

Thank you for this opportunity to bring to you this educational information. We hope you find it useful and it instigates you to read the above mentioned court files more closely and to carefully think about the errors in your previous rulings.

Most Sincerely,

Linda Lorincz Shelton, Ph.D., M.D.


For more information see:

On voidness resulting in lack of jurisdiction

Ms. Melongo’s web site.

Dr. Hamilton’s case.

%d bloggers like this: