Cook County Judges

Send your comments to picepil@aol.com (see about for guidelines)

Search Results

Pervasive incompetence, corruption, & injustice in Cook County IL courts

leave a comment »


Linda Shelton

 

July 9, 2018

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division, Disability Division, & Public Corruption Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Disability Rights – NYAV

Washington, D.C. 20530

REGARDING: Systemic violation of due process rights in Cook County Courts, including ADA rights, habeas rights, right to reasonable bail, right to compulsory process, right to present a defense, as well as abuse of disabled detainees by Judges and Cook County Sheriff Staff.

NOTE: Please refer to evidence on enclosed CDs

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing this in regards to numerous persons mentioned in this document, including myself, as well as numerous unmentioned persons. The enclosed motions, petitions, complaints are just the tip of the iceberg. They include individual complaints as well as complaints concerning classes of litigants and defendants who are abused by the courts in Cook County and Illinois, not just me, but many others in our loosely associated group of citizens who are victims of court corruption (some of this evidence is not in this letter or attachments, but the people I name here have it – as well as many have already given info to the FBI or U.S. Attorney).

These issues include those who are victims of mortgage fraud, those falsely alleged to be unfit for trial and sent to secure mental health facilities without any due process whatsoever, those who are parents falsely alleged to be unfit to parent individually and forced to pay child support, without due process, out of their Social Security Disability income, or those elderly adults who are improperly placed under guardianship so that they are removed from their homes and property and their property sold, without due process, and someone else decides their property and care issues to their detriment , excluding relatives who have done nothing wrongessentially court sanctioned theft of estates by often un-needed court appointed child representatives, counselors, and guardians. If the Bill of Rights means anything, you will carefully review the enclosed and interview everyone mentioned in this document.

Checking your internal FBI database you will see they have FALSELY defamed me using a history of false arrests and lies about my mental health to prevent FBI intake workers from taking me seriously. This is NOT a joke; I am NOT mentally ill contrary to the rumors and false statements made by the Cook County Sheriff, improperly influencing the U.S. Marshals and federal judges– see attached psychiatry reports from top U.S. forensic psychiatrists; this documentary evidence proves what I say and the CD contains medical and psychiatric records proving the rumors about me are FALSE. Do not believe the sensational hearsay you have about me that is being used to defame me and cover-up what I can prove – this defamation is meant to discredit me so you do not review these documents! – As well as meant to be retaliation against me complaining about conditions at the Cook County Jail and judicial corruption – see the many complaints I have already made to your office. You need to investigate and take down the corrupt officers, attorneys, and judges in Cook County, as well as severely reprimand certain U.S. Marshals as well as investigate several federal judges. This is much larger than simply “Greylord 2”.

As you know, since I worked for Orlando Jones (Cook County Board President Stroger Sr’s Godson and major actor in corruption, when our contract group opened Provident Hospital of Cook County, which the FBI raided and confiscated documents), before he committed suicide and therefore, you could not indict him, as well as due to the evidence I gave to AUSA Joan Laser regarding violation of civil and disability rights by Sheriff Staff, I am well informed about Cook County and Illinois government corruption. In addition, over the last many years I have discovered, through insiders in the Cook County Courts, the Court Clerk’s Office, and the Chicago Department of Health, about a lot more corruption.

I document, with evidence on enclosed CD and on enclosed documents, such extensive ignorance/ incompetence and/or corruption of judges, officers, the Illinois Attorney General’s office, Cook County States Attorneys, and Public Defenders in the Cook County court system, of administrators and attorneys at Elgin Mental Health Center and the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, as to make the court system in Illinois, particularly Cook County, either so full of patronage and corruption or a criminal enterprise that on a pervasive, institutionalized basis denies civil, constitutional, and statutory rights of litigants and defendants, in many cases for monetary gain or even just for prestige.

For example:

  1. The ADA is ignored and violated on a systemic basis by Cook County Court Chief Judge, Cook County Court judges, and the Cook County Court Disability Coordinator. The Court Disability accommodation system operates in violation of recommendations of Justice Stephens in his opinion in Lane v. Tennessee (2004). Several people have suffered exacerbation of medical problems and in one case a stroke, when the courts have ignored ADA accommodation requests.
  2. Excessive unconstitutional bail is set by Cook County judges for indigent persons, in violation of Illinois’s bail statute, 725 ILCS 5/110-1, et seq. (“the Statute”), which require courts to set a monetary bail for pretrial arrestees unless there is a meaningful inquiry into the person’s ability to pay and in amounts in excess of what the person is able to pay. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff classes in Cook County Court class action case number 16CH13587complain that this practice violates their rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States and Illinois Constitutions, U.S. Const., amend. XIV, Ill. Const.1970, art. I, § 2, and under the Excessive Bail and Sufficient Sureties Clauses of the United States and Illinois Constitutions respectively, U.S. Const., amend VIII, Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 9. Steps have begun to make bond court come into compliance-though not very effective. YET, States Attorney Foxx is refusing to review the excessive bail already set for those out on bail or even discuss the matter– despite her claims she has fixed this problem. See Motion to Reduce Bail attached.
  3. I clearly document de facto suspension of the right to petition for writ of habeas corpus in Cook County – a violation of the Suspension Clause and Illinois Statute, 735 ILCS Article X (see 9 habeas petitions that have never been heard, – even Chief Judge Evans is refusing to remedy this issue);
  4. I clearly document bribery of Judge Riley by attorneys, so as the control of a $2 million Illinois estate was stolen by a mentally ill person living in New Jersey and converted to attorney fees under the influence of a corrupt law firm in Illinois, Peck Bloom, LLC and their accomplices including attorney Aaron Gole (this appears to be a systemic problem as due process is denied in many cases I have heard about so that estates can be stolen by conversion to widely excessive and unnecessary attorney fees) see case 10 P 6117 and the evidence of huge payment to judicial campaign committees (10% of the total campaign contributions other than from the candidate loaning his campaign money) that appear to be bribes as the judge at the time he received them ignored testimony and proof of bribery, forgery, and fraud upon the court;
  5. I clearly document a policy of denial of the right to a jury in criminal cases involving fitness, thus loss of liberty without due process, as well as denial of the right to compulsory process, the right to an attorney, as well as the right for the litigant to testify (THIS IS SYSTEMIC AND INVOLVES MOST OF THOSE COMMITTED TO ILLINOIS STATE SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES FOR A “FINDING” OF UNFITNESS FOR TRIAL – Illinois Statute and case law require that defendants, who ask for a jury, receive a jury trial that can only be waived by the defendant and not the defendant’s attorney – See on CD Memorandum of Law – Fitness for case law and statutes);
  6. I clearly document that the courts are denying discovery of critical evidence with statements by fiat that the evidence is not relevant to the case, essentially barring legitimate defenses at trial (see case 12 CR 22504 documentation, including federal habeas petition and exhibits on CD – NOTE: this federal judge denied a federal habeas petition stating the litigant did not exhaust state remedies, DESPITE THE FACT that the IL Supreme Court denied a habeas petition in the case);
  7. I clearly document the oppressive fees charged to pay court appointed attorneys, child representatives, and psychologic evaluations, in divorce cases, as well as the federal felony funding fraud by the Illinois Department of Family and Human Services, Child Support Division, who receive money to help receive evidence to calculate child support obligations, but refuse to do this important service.
  8. I clearly document that the corruption is so extreme that it can be said that probate cases, divorce cases, and some criminal cases are being heard without a due process trial – even though this is hard to believe (witnesses stricken, important pretrial motions such as to obtain a HIPAA protective order stricken, and thus evidence barred, litigants illegally sanctioned and not allowed to file motions and memoranda of law or offers of proof – so as to prevent them preserving the record, indigent persons denied preservation of the record for appeal as there are no court reporters provided in Cook County in civil cases – thus denial of access to appeals, as w ell as the Court Clerk losing parts of court files).

Unbelievable as it may seem:

  1. I have even been forced to have the sentencing phase of a wrongful contempt charge held in the lock-up visiting room in a courthouse, thus denying viewing by the public or even friends in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial– the judge eventually came to his senses and had the conviction and allegation “purged”, but ignored motion that purge was not appropriate term and it should be corrected to say stricken (Cook County Circuit Court case no. 11 MC1 6000086-01),
  2. I have been unconstitutionally, in violation of the Suspension Clause and U.S. Supreme Court holdings[1], in violation of many Illinois statutes, sentenced to 16 months for contempt without a trial, been denied statutory good time jail sentence credits, by a judge, without legal authority to do so, who should have recused himself for the contempt trial (on 3 cases, which legally were three charges in one case per 720 ILCS 5/3-3, with the fraudulent allegation by Judge McHale that I violated law [legal act] by filing next-friend habeas petitions[2], Cook County cases nos. 10 HC 00006 & 10 HC 00007, as a NON-attorney and verbally defended my right to do so by telling the judge he was committing a criminal act (See FN 1 and transcripts on CD from 2010) – Cook County Case nos. ACC100083-01, ACC 100093-01, and ACC 100094-01);
  3. I have been fraudulently declared unfit with the state psychiatrist testifying later I was never unfit (although this was later changed to fit) in sham “trials” without any due process of law and sent to a secure mental health facility, which was not the least restrictive situation as required by law, denying me bail for the purpose of the fitness hearing IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW, WITHOUT ANY testimony that I was unfit by any professional or person except the judge, denying my statutory right to be present for the fitness trial and to testify, and denied notice of the fitness trial. This was a PERVASIVE, GROSS VIOLATION OF STATUTE BY THE JUDGE, not even objected to by the State’s Attorney and Public Defender (thus they were both either so ignorant of law or so criminally malicious as to ignore their oath of office to uphold the law and report violations of it to the Judicial Inquiry Board and prosecuting federal authorities) – appointed over my objection again in violation of statute (See “Memorandum of Law – Fitness”, on CD, for case law and statutory authority supporting my statement & transcripts on CD),
  4. I have been denied accommodations for my disabilities including several judges refusing to hear motions for accommodations, refusing to read any medical documents I produce or discuss in detail my need for accommodations, and refusing to sign orders for accommodations in violation of the ADA, as well as refusing to sign orders for a HIPAA protective order, quashing my subpoenas involving the court disability coordinator, so as to prevent me from finding out the names of witness Sheriff Staff she informed about disability accommodations, also as required by federal HIPAA law, thus impeding my defense and in fact prohibiting my defense in violation of law. Read transcripts in 12 CR 22504 on CD – contact me and I will point out the sentences. (See Memoranda of Law – Right to Present a Defense, as well as the motion for HIPAA Protective Order and for Accommodations for Disabilities on CD, as well as court transcripts documenting court orders refusing to hear these motions or refusing to grant HIPAA protective order), and
  5. I have been repeatedly beaten , medically neglected by the guards, medical staff, and nutritional staff at the jail – DESPITE US Attorney’s 2007-8 investigations, findings, and agreements – including my pony tail grabbed and used to bang my head against a wall, my hands handcuffed to a bench and not allowed to use the bathroom so that I would have to pee on the floor, my chin forcibly pushed to my chest despite extensive cervical spine surgery that reconstructed my spine, a knee placed on my chest during an asthma attack, duct tape put on my mouth during an asthma attack, guards falsely told I have HIV and was a “spitter” so that a hood was put on me-despite difficulty breathing and claustrophobia, my asthma medication withheld, held down and kicked by guards with their boots leaving 4 X 6 “ bruising witnessed by my attorney – J. Nicolas Albukerk, and even transferred to an unlawful imprisonment without my medical records and the guards told to tell the prison that I was faking my medical problems so that when I had trouble breathing they put me on the psych unit and withheld very needed medication for cardiac, pulmonary, neurological, and PTSD disease, nearly 8 hours until the jail doctor contacted the prison and asked why they had not called him about severe unusual medical problems. I have notes about all of this so you can find the names of the guards – the worst were Charles Johnson, Ruby Jackson, and a small black female named Levi, and several un-named supervisors – Sgt. Hernandez told me in confidence that Sgt. Salemi (who committed perjury so I would be wrongfully convicted of felony battery for bumping an officer with my broken wheelchair), only attacks women, but he would not testify for me. Most of this was videotaped since 2008, as the senior supervisors at the Cook Co. Jail ordered that whenever I was moved I would be videotaped to protect them against frivolous suits – note that none of my suits were frivolous, despite District Court judge’s rulings that the cases were dismissed – most on technical details.

Due process is denied as a matter of policy and procedure in Cook County Courts and retaliation against complaints is the norm (no trial or sham trials with one party missing in divorce and probate cases, no hearing of habeas petitions in misdemeanor cases and some felony cases, no witnesses, no notice, evidence suppressed, no HIPAA protective orders, no written accommodations of disabilities by order, etc. – REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS WRITTEN ON PAPER, IN COURT WEB SITES, STATED IN NEWS SOURCES, OR STATED BY COURT REPRESENTATIVES OR JUDGES – LOOK AT WHAT THEY DO NOT WHAT THEY SAY!!)

I strongly encourage you to put together a task force who interviews other similarly situated persons and persons I have assisted as a pro bono paralegal named in this document– (follow the trail of money paid court appointees) including:

(1)DB (declared dangerous to his kids and denied unsupervised visitation based on the fact he was an ex-Marine and was therefore “dangerous” and on hearsay – denied a trial; wife CB is a drug addict and addiction counselor who steals drugs from her patients and from a disabled neighbor whose house she had a key for in case of emergency – he has an affidavit from the neighbor, which was included in his court pleadings – the judge refuses to address the addiction issue on the record), as well as ORDERED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT DESPITE SERIOUS INJURY AT WORK, causing him to have $0 INCOME FOR A PROLONGED PERIOD AND NO SAVINGS OR ASSETS,

(2) SM who unlawfully lost custody of her boys (her son finally took pictures of his father’s drug stash to blackmail him into letting him live with his mother, without informing the court – the court had illegally without good cause taken away her custody of her children in retaliation for her whistle blowing and advocacy activities against family court corruption),

(3) JG (the court took away his custody without good cause simply because he is ill with a repaired aortic dissection in violation of his ADA rights, denied a continuance when he became ill resulting in a stroke),

(4)KM (the court extorted huge sums of money from her to pay unnecessary fees from court appointed persons – see slide show presented to IL legislative committee on CD),

(5) SP (court illegally ordered large child support amount from Sandra “because she is a doctor” – despite the fact that she took a leave from her residency to raise the kids while her husband finished an anesthesiology residency – so she is not licensed and he is not just licensed as a physician, but is making a huge income she is now homeless; Sandra has evidence of mortgage fraud by her ex-husband and the court is refusing to consider it and no one is investigating it – court is actually covering it up; she lost custody of kids illegally because now rich ex-husband was able to hire an attorney who snowed and manipulated the court) ,

(6) GB who lost custody of her kids to the really bad father (who helps runs Sexpo Conventions and encourages his daughters to prostitute – per rumor, he has lots of money that he used to obtain a lawyer to fix the case – her kids are seeing her on the sly because the courts won’t let her see them),

(7) CS, and so many others whose names and contact information these persons can give to you to pay outrageous court fees to court appointed unneeded counselors and child representatives ($400-$500 per hr. and sometimes for multiple attorneys at the same time – IL Rep. Lou Lang told me to my face that he will never allow the state to pass a law limiting attorney fees although the state had limited death penalty defense fees to $150 per hr.) who totally disregard the best interest of the children, but do regard the best interest of their wallets in excessive fees and unnecessary prolonging of their services – assisted by donations to judges campaign funds so that their every wish is granted without regard to law. (See slide show on CD “M******* Presentation” – about Cottage Industry corrupting family court and extorting money from families) [NOTE: that the IL House of Representatives is run dictatorially by the Speaker Madigan and a handful of his powerful lieutenants that prevent any bill from reaching the floor without his permission – subverting democracy.]

(8) Non-custodial parents are consistently ordered to pay more child support than allowed by federal law, especially if disabled and receiving social security disability (child support is illegally taken from their social security income or from the children’s college funds)(talk with JG and DB).

(9) With the prosecutor failing to explain why a significant portion of the video tapes were missing, Tiny (5 ft. tall with very tiny hands) grandmother Robin Johnson (who is now very fat in prison due to depression and poor diet, consuming huge quantities of bread and cookies) was wrongfully convicted of wrestling a large gun from an officer (> 6 ft. tall and large), killing him and sentenced to life in prison (during a fugue-like epileptic seizure where the officer grabbed her neck and banged her head against a bus that the court refused to allow her to talk about or present her long-term treating physicians or medical evidence) who was very large and experienced, but HER HAND IS TOO SMALL TO HAVE HANDLED THE GUN, she has no understanding of the working of gun safety switches, and she has no experience or training in self-defense or aggressive physical attack methods that would have allowed her to grab a gun from an officer, remove the safety, and fire it so as to shoot him in the head, while her head was being bashed against a bus by the officer and then she was thrown to the ground by him as testimony verified, in the middle of a fugue like seizure which she had a very long history of suffering from – YOU REALLY NEED TO INVESTIGATE THIS ONE – there is no evidence she held a gun (mysteriously minutes of the videotape are missing) and the gun mysteriously disappeared & reappeared so fingerprints not examined !! –

this was another case of an INNOCENT BLACK PERSON being shot full of holes (Robin was wounded 22 times) by white officers, falsely defamed as an “angry person”, when she’s just an average but very poor nice grandmother – she had 22 bullet wounds (received as she was trying to protect herself by sliding under a car and holding her hands in front of her) and barely survived nearly having an arm amputated – by overzealous officers who likely killed their own officer (I personally examined her hand and asked her non-leading questions about guns – which proved she is extremely naïve and inexperienced and have some experience in forensic pathology about these things as I rotated in forensic pathology as a graduate student for six months and in psychiatry as I was medical director of a psychiatry group practice, in addition to receiving training in psychiatry during my pediatric residency)!

Enclosed is a CD and documents containing a lot of evidence supporting the above statements pertaining to my cases and the case of DB

but this is only the tip of the iceberg.

I have not enclosed evidence concerning most of the other persons mentioned above. Many of them have provided to the Chicago FBI office evidence that appears to be ignored.

Please investigate this information thoroughly.

I am asking under the presentment clause for you

to present as much of this as possible to a grand jury for prosecution.

I believe the information I have sent you and the others I mention have sent you or could provide to you would make this case much bigger than Greylord and if investigated would make a big dent in correcting the corruption in Cook County, by forcing the judges, attorneys, and police to be better educated and supervised, as well as to FOLLOW THE LAW.

If you read my Internet blogs:

https://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com

http://chicagofbi.wordpress.com,

http://prosechicago.wordpress.com,

http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com,

http://cookcountysheriffdeputies.wordpress.com

http://7thcircitcourts.wordpress.com

you will realize that I have no confidence in the FBI or U.S. Attorney in Chicago, who appears to be knowingly covering up the above. I am just writing this letter and sending you this evidence and these complaints to document that you have been fully informed. Should you surprise me and actually investigate, I thank you for your time. Eric Holder pledged to fight government corruption. He clearly has failed to do so. I, along with a dozen of my acquaintances, have been waiting for over eight years to discuss all this personally with high up officials in your office and we and our complaints have been ignored. THE FBI office in Chicago continually refuses to discuss the above with me in detail and refuses to accept my evidence – now several times when I went personally to their office to complain! I complained to the U.S. Marshal inspector general (or similar unit) and was ignored, never receiving a report despite FOIA requests. Why has the Chicago FBI decided to refuse to accept evidence or complaints of federal crimes and misconduct for federal Marshals?

Sincerely,

Linda Shelton

PLEASE contact me directly at picepil@aol.com if you want copies of evidence

Attachment: CDs containing evidence and Numerous documents

Motion to Declare IL Battery Statutes Partially Unconstitutional

Proof Felony Federal Funding Fraud by IL State Police condoned by IL AG Lisa Madigan

[1] A person, including a non-attorney, may file an habeas petition on “behalf of another”. 735 ILCS 5/10-103, U.S. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 76 S.Ct 1 (1955) and Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 128 S.Ct 2229 (2008)

A judge may not order denial of statutory good time jail credits. Jurisdiction for removing Good Time Jail Allowance (credits) lies with the Department of Corrections – or persons appointed by the county sheriff and NOT the court or judge, 730 ILCS 130, People v. Russel, 237 Ill.Epp.3d 310 (1992); People v. Prater, 158 Ill.App.3d 330 (1987); Kaeding v. Collins, 281 Ill.App.3d 919 (1996).

It is forbidden to sentence for more than one count of contempt representing same motive or state of mind during one trial or case. Illinois sentencing statutes require concurrent sentences for the same conduct or acts occurring during the same state of mind in the course of one act or one series of acts – 720 ILCS 5/3-3. You may NOT order separate contempt cases and sentences for each repeated similar act during one trial even on different days or if one hearing is continued over several days. People v Brown, 235 Ill.App.3d 945 (1992)

Sentences exceeding 6 months individually or aggregate for contempt require a jury trial as a constitutional right. You may not sentence a person for contempt several times in one trial and then make the sentences concurrent for more than six months without a trial. A contempt sentence more than six months requires a jury trial. Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968); The Court held that in a contempt case it required a jury trial when the trial judge awaits the conclusion of the proceeding and then imposes separate sentences in which the total aggregated more than six months. Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506 (1974); It was held that when the punishment in a criminal contempt case in federal court is more than the sentence for a petty offense, the Court drew the traditional line at six months, a defendant is entitled to trial by jury. Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 (1966)

A jury trial is a constitutional right if contempt sentence is summarily imposed on a day other than the day in which the contemptuous act occurred, In re Marriage Betts, 200 Ill.App.3d 26 (1990); Winning Moves,Inc., v. Hi! Baby, Inc. 238 Ill.App.3d 834 (1992); Kaeding v. Collins, 281 Ill.App.3d 919 (1996)

Defending a contempt charge by vigorously quoting law is not contemptuously insulting the court, “[T]his Court, if its aid be needed, will unhesitatingly protect counsel in fearless, vigorous and effective performance of every duty pertaining to the office of the advocate on behalf of any person whatsoever.” Sacher v United States, 343 U.S.1 (1952); People v. Siegel, 68 Ill.Dec.118; People v. Powell, 187 Ill.Dec. 774; United States v. Oberhellmann, 946 F.2d 50,

When a judge is embroiled in controversy with litigant he must recuse himself for a contempt trial and be replaced by another judge. Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455 (1971); Kaeding v. Collins, 281 Ill.App.3d 919 (1996), See also Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 U.S. 212 (1971); Holt v. Virginia, 381 U.S. 131 (1965). [Even in the absence of a personal attack on a judge that would tend to impair his detachment, the judge may still be required to excuse himself and turn a citation for contempt over to another judge if the response to the alleged misconduct in his courtroom partakes of the character of ”marked personal feelings” being abraded on both sides, so that it is likely the judge has felt a ”sting” sufficient to impair his objectivity. Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 (1974).]; Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954) [In a situation in which the record revealed that the contumacious conduct was the product of both lack of self-restraint on the part of the contemnor and a reaction to the excessive zeal and personal animosity of the trial judge, the majority felt that any contempt trial must be held before another judge.]; A judge called upon to act in a case of contempt by personal attack upon him, may, without flinching from his duty, properly ask that one of his fellow judges take his place.Cornish v. United States, 299 F. 283, 285 and Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States, 237 F. 986, 988;

[2] The petitions were on behalf of Annabel Melongo who at the time was at the beginning of being jailed for two years on an eavesdropping case, later declared unconstitutional, Cook County Circuit Court no. 10 CR 8092, and remote computer tampering – false allegation by criminal CEO of Save-a-Life Foundation, Carol Spirrizzi, after Melongo was fired from this company, Circuit Court of Cook County case no. 08 CR 10502-01, which Ms. Melongo won, and which had been fraudulently brought against her to cover-up the criminal acts of funding fraud by Save-a-Life Foundation and several politicians who failed to use due diligence in donating public funds to this phony foundation, suggesting money laundering, including Lisa Madigan, Arne Duncan, Jan Shankowski (sp?) and many others, which has been exposed extensively in the news by Emmy award winning reporter, Chuck Goudie, and on the Internet. It is shocking that the U.S. Attorney has not yet indicted Ms. Spirrizzi. FBI Special Agent Depooter testified at Melongo’s eavesdropping trial, which ended in a hung jury, prior to the case being called unconstitutional and dismissed, that Melongo did present some evidence about SALF to the FBI.

Advertisements

Family courts practicing medicine without license results in destroying kids & family finances for profit

with one comment


by M Gerhardt

One of the biggest injustices in the courtroom is the unauthorized practice of medicine.  What I mean by that is that everyone thinks they are mental health experts, although none went to medical school.  Guardian Ad Litems (who are lawyers by statutes – we’ll get to that in future legislation.) have no problem with diagnosing parents and children, even though the GAL/Lawyer has absolutely no training in mental health, nor are licensed to practice medicine.  Hell, every lawyer in the courtroom has no problem with diagnosing the opposing Party’s clients and the children.  Now I know that many of you think that the judges do the same.  No they don’t.  They weigh the evidence (I know, that is arguable), listen to the experts (okay, maybe not) then makes a legal Finding.  I really wish I could bad-mouth judges here, but I can’t.  Well, maybe I can because for them to get to this point they should follow certain rules and procedures regarding evidence and testimony before making a Finding. Being Family Court, they do not.

 

Ignoring most of the above, what does this have to do with HB4113?  It’s that the lawyers of the ISBA and the Family Court judges are calling legislators and telling the legislators that Illinois HB4113 is not in the “best interest” of children.  Hmm, we see boatloads of (real) experts (mental health professionals) saying that shared-parenting is in the “best interest” of children, then we have the legal folks who make tons of money creating fights between parents over children by weighing-in on something they have no knowledge of.

 

Judges and lawyers (ISBA) are not mental health professionals.  Not even close.  “Best interest” is a mental health issue.  So when a judge/ISBA is stating that a certain Bill (HB4113) is not in a child’s best interest, but the parents’ best interest, we should point out that “best interest” is mental health determination, and that neither the judge, lawyers, or ourselves are mental health professionals (unless we are).  And if you are a mental health professional, or have some training (educators?), then say that you have knowledge of the field.

 

As a side note:  My belief is that judges who advocate in support/oppose legislation are in violation of Separations of Powers under the Constitution.  But we already know that Constitutional Issues are ignored in the Family Courts.  So why would we be surprised that judges would ignore the Constitution outside the Courtroom?  Strangely, I rarely hear of non-Family Law judges weighing-in on legislative matters, much less weighing-in as aggressively as Family Law judges do.

 

Complaint for mandamus and/or federal civil rights injunction regarding pervasive, extensive violations of civil rights in Cook County courts – Judge Cannon and others

leave a comment »


Help me ➡Sit in gallery next court date Oct 29 2018,  2600 S California Chicago Room 506 10 am

This complaint was filed in August 2017.

It regards an unconstitutional felony charge of aggravated battery of an officer against a disabled activist who was in a PTSD flashback induced by courtroom deputies because she allegedly “touched an officer’s ear.” Altho indigent bail was set at unconstitutional $300,000.

Come to next court date 04/18/ 2018 room 502 2600 S California, Chicago IL at 10 am 4 pre-trial hearing battery case on Motion to substitute Judge Cannon.

The fact that Judge Cannon has been assigned on the Laquan McDonald murder case against police officers in Chicago has been the impetence for me to post this early before it is actually filed. The public MUST BE INFORMED!

Full nearly 100 page 30 count complaint can be found here.

This complaint documents why Judge Dianne Gordon Cannon should be removed as a judge due to mental incapacity and incompetence. This is why she should NOT be the judge for the officers charged with aiding and abetting the murder of Laquan McDonald! Read the full complaint for all the details. I will be happy to forward to anyone interested in the details all of the exhibits and transcripts.

Plaintiff, Linda Shelton respectfully complains for writ of mandamus regarding the following pervasive and extensive unconstitutional acts, over a four and one half year period, which preclude or precluded fair pre-trial hearings and trial in case no. 12-CR-22504, including:

  1. Defendant Cook County Circuit Court Clerk Brown’s refusal to give a civil habeas number, properly file, and schedule for hearing petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Exhibits AA-C) and/or in the alternative U.S. Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983 (“§1983”)Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, regarding her and from her non-compliance with U.S. Constitution and its Amendments and Illinois Constitution’s Suspension, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses as represented by her non-compliance with the Circuit Court of Cook County Rule 15.2 – Habeas Corpus (“R15.2”) and the Illinois Clerks of Courts Act, 705 ILCS 105/0.01 et seq. (“COCA”);
  2. Defendant Cook County Criminal Division Presiding (Chief Supervisory) Judges Biebel’s, Martin’s, and Porter’s refusal to hear with due process previously filed into criminal file Habeas Petitions, one heard, by Defendant Judge Porter, without due process and two ignored Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus in case 12-CR-22504 (Exhibits A-C), and/or in the alternative §1983 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief respectively regarding their and from their non-compliance with (i) the United States Constitution and its IV, V, VI, VIII and XIV Amendments’ Suspension and Probable Cause, Due Process, Compulsory Process, Speedy Trial, Assistance of Counsel and Reasonable Bail Clauses (including Liberty and equal protection rights), (ii) the Illinois Constitution’s Article One, §§ 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (Liberty, Due Process, Probable Cause, Indictment, Compulsory Process, Assistance of Counsel, Speedy Trial, Bail, and Habeas Clauses), (iii) the Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act(“RA”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, disability discrimination 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.160(a)(1), (b)(1)Codes, (iv) the Illinois Habeas Statutes, 735 ILCS §5/10-101 et seq.(“ILHab”), (v) the Illinois Bail Statutes (“ILBail”), 725 ILCS 5/110-1, et seq., (vi) the Illinois Fitness Statutes (“ILFit statute”), 720 ILCS 5/104-1 et seq., and (vii) precedent from higher courts as described herein in the following;
  3. Defendant Judge Evan’s refusal to follow U.S. Supreme Court ADA recommended guidelines and U.S. and Illinois Constitutions and Statutory habeas rights and usual standards for administrators and supervisors in training and supervising judges and writing court rules and directives pertaining to habeas rights and/or in the alternative §1983 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief from by (i) his non-compliance with standards related to the administrative judge’s role in granting ADA accommodations and (ii) his non-compliance with standards related to his role in defining court rules, as well as educational and supervisory role in training and supervising judges for compliance with the United States Constitution, its Suspension Clause, and its Amendments’ Probable Cause, Due Process, Compulsory Process, Speedy Trial, Assistance of Counsel and Reasonable Bail Clauses (including Liberty and equal protection rights), the Illinois Constitution’s Liberty, Due Process, Probable Cause, Indictment, Compulsory Process, Assistance of Counsel, Speedy Trial, Bail, and Habeas Clauses, the ADA and RA , the ILHab, the ILFit, and the ILBail Statutes, and precedent from higher courts, as described herein;
  4. Refusal of named Defendant Public Defenders (“PD”), Abishi C. Cunningham and Amy Campanelli to follow standard of care of effectiveness and their oath of office in Shelton’s defense and refusal to properly train and supervise the APDs to follow the laws described herein, and/or in the alternative §1983 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, from their refusal to train and supervise their staff to comply with (i) the United States Constitution and its Amendments’ Suspension, Probable Cause, Due Process, Compulsory Process, Speedy Trial, Assistance of Counsel and Reasonable Bail Clauses (including Liberty and equal protection rights), (ii) the Illinois Constitution’s Liberty, Due Process, Probable Cause, Indictment, Compulsory Process, Assistance of Counsel, Speedy Trial, Bail, and Habeas Clauses, (iii) ADA and RA, (iv) ILHab Statutes, (v) ILFit Statutes, and (vi) ILBail Statutes, and (vii) precedent from higher courts, as described herein;
  5. Refusal of named Defendant Assistant Public Defenders (“APD”), Debra Smith, David Gunn, Dawn Sheikh, Erica Soderdahl, Tiana Blakely, Debra E. Gassman, and Richard Paull to follow standard of care of effectiveness and their oath of office in Shelton’s defense, and/or in the alternative §1983 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, from their non-compliance, during Shelton’s representation with (i) the United States Constitution and its Amendments’ Suspension, Probable Cause, Due Process, Compulsory Process, Speedy Trial, Assistance of Counsel and Reasonable Bail Clauses (including Liberty and equal protection rights), (ii) the Illinois Constitution’s Liberty, Due Process, Probable Cause, Indictment, Compulsory Process, Assistance of Counsel, Speedy Trial, Bail, and Habeas Clauses, (iii) ADA and RA, (iv) ILHab Statutes, (v) ILFit Statutes, and (vi) ILBail Statutes, and (vii) precedent from higher courts, as described herein;
  6. Refusal of named Defendant State’s Attorneys (“SA”), Anita Alvarez and Kim Foxx, to follow standards of fairness and ILSC Rule 3.8(a),(b), and (c) (Attorney Rules of Conduct) requiring them to seek justice, obtain indictment only if probable cause is present, and disclose exculpatory evidence, and their oath of office and refusal to properly train and supervise the ASAs regarding the laws as described below and/or in the alternative §1983 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, from their refusal to train and supervise their staff to comply with (i) the United States Constitution and its Amendments’ Suspension, Probable Cause, Due Process, Compulsory Process, Speedy Trial, Assistance of Counsel and Reasonable Bail Clauses (including Liberty and equal protection rights), (ii) the Illinois Constitution’s Liberty, Due Process, Probable Cause, Indictment, Compulsory Process, Assistance of Counsel, Speedy Trial, Bail, and Habeas Clauses, (iii) ADA and RA, (iv) ILHab Statutes, (v) ILFit Statutes, and (vi) ILBail Statutes, and (vii) precedent from higher courts, as described herein; and
  7. Refusal of named Defendant Assistant State’s Attorneys (“ASA”), Erin Antonietti, James Comroe, Jennifer M Hamelly, Joseph Hodal, John Maher, James V Murphy Iii, Mariano Reyna, Sylvie Manaster, Frank Lamas, Jobll Zahr, and Lorraine Murphy, to follow standards of fairness and ILSC Rule 3.8(a),(b), and (c) (Attorney Rules of Conduct) requiring them to seek justice, obtain indictment only if probable cause is present, and disclose exculpatory evidence, and their oath of office and/or in the alternative 1983 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, from their non-compliance with (i) the United States Constitution and its Amendments’ Suspension, Probable Cause, Due Process, Compulsory Process, Speedy Trial, Assistance of Counsel and Reasonable Bail Clauses (including Liberty and equal protection rights), (ii) the Illinois Constitution’s Liberty, Due Process, Probable Cause, Indictment, Compulsory Process, Assistance of Counsel, Speedy Trial, Bail, and Habeas Clauses, (iii) ADA and RA, (iv) ILHab Statutes, (v) ILFit Statutes, and (vi) ILBail Statutes, and (vii) precedent from higher courts as described herein; and
  8. Refusal of named Defendant Judges Israel Desierto, Diane Gordon Cannon, Erica L. Reddick, Sheila McGinnis, and Dennis J. Porter, to follow their oath of offices’ requirement to follow the law as described herein and/or in the alternative §1983 complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief from their non-compliance with (i) the United States Constitution and its Amendments’ Suspension, Probable Cause, Due Process, Compulsory Process, Speedy Trial, Assistance of Counsel and Reasonable Bail Clauses (including Liberty and equal protection rights), (ii) the Illinois Constitution’s Liberty, Due Process, Probable Cause, Indictment, Compulsory Process, Assistance of Counsel, Speedy Trial, Bail, and Habeas Clauses, (iii) ADA and RA, (iv) ILHab Statutes, (v) ILFit Statutes, and (vi) ILBail Statutes, and (vii) precedent from higher courts, as described herein.

Cook County, IL courts destroy whistle blower with false felony conviction for bumping officer with wheelchair violating ADA

leave a comment »


LINDA SHELTON alleges her conviction for felony battery of an officer in 2007 (“bumping and officer with her wheelchair”), Cook County Court case 05 CR 12718, was wrongful, violating precedent and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and that the incident causing the conviction occurred while she was wrongfully jailed on a conviction for contempt which LINDA alleges occurred as follows:  Judge Pantle claimed illegally that stating the Court was illegally holding her for trial and arguing such was contempt, in a Medicaid Fraud case against LINDA, case number 04 CR 17571, where LINDA was eventually found NOT GUILTY by a jury. See proof of lack of jurisdiction and lack of contempt – endnote [1]. NOTE: this case law makes the contempt conviction wrongful: The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that a vigorous defense is not a reason to hold a person in contempt: Sacher v United States, 343 U.S.1 (1952)

 

While illegal jailed for contempt, LINDA testified that she was attacked by Sgt. Salemi in retaliation for prevailing in a suit for injunction against the Sheriff, case number 04 CH 15787, four weeks prior to incident of alleged battery date of 5/16/05, that Salemi falsified his records and said she attacked him, and then Salemi committed perjury at trial in 05 CR 12718. LINDA sued Cook County Sheriff Sheehan in 04 CH 15787 because he under a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request failed to give her the ADA compliance plan for courthouses that the Sheriff was required to maintain. On winning this complaint for injunction, Cook County State’s Attorney Richard Devine, representing Sheriff Sheahan, was forced to admit that he did not have a compliance plan and had been in violation of federal law for more than a decade.

 

Sgt. Anthony Salemi, on May 16, 2005,while LINDA was severely dehydrated and weak, due to a dry hunger strike protest – for not allowing her to phone her father, DR. LORINCZ, and arrange for his care,  in a broken and hard to push wheelchair, sent away a female unit guard and entered LINDA’s cell alone (against CCDOC policy), [and in an act suggesting retaliation for the court case where four (4) weeks before this incident LINDA prevailed in a suit for injunction against Cook County Sheriff Sheahan for violation of the FOIA in regards to releasing information about the court’s ADA compliance plan –they didn’t want to release it because they were in violation of federal ADA law in not having a plan for courthouses- CCCC case # 04 CH 15787], stating “I’m going to make a case so you don’t get out.” Salemi then grabbed LINDA by the neck and attacked her, stumbling and skinning his mid-shin (a vertical superficial abrasion on both shins) because the wheelchair lurched backwards with the force of him lunging at her and grabbing her neck, causing him to slide downward against the wheelchair footrests.

 

Salemi then ripped the wheelchair out from under LINDA while he flipped her onto the floor and attacked her, injuring her as documented in trial transcript of stipulated testimony of a nurse causing huge contusions between and on the back of her thighs and contusions, due to posts for armrests which were missing and on her knee and toes which were caught in the wheelchair footrests.

 

This traumatized LINDA so much, thinking he would kill or rape her, that she developed post-traumatic-stress disorder (“PTSD”), which plagues her to this day, particularly because it rekindled flashbacks (severe frequent nightmares and daytime dreamlike states where she is briefly out of touch with reality) of LINDA’s brother assaulting and terrorizing her repeatedly, when she was 12 yrs. old.

 

Salemi then falsified his records and said while he was staring at LINDA, from a dead stop in the middle of the cell a few feet away from him, LINDA accelerated the wheelchair using her congenitally weak arms and the broken wheelchair, caught him “off guard”[really!!] and “bounced the wheelchair against him” – (inconsistent with his injury of a vertical superficial abrasion at middle of his shins – such an act would have caused a horizontal bruise from the wheelchair footrestsdespite the fact LINDA’s physicians (a cardiologist and neurologist), the only physician witnesses said this was impossible due to LINDA’s weakness and neurological disorder – partially paralyzed right side.

 

A Brady violation occurred as since the secure jail and its staff had possession of the broken wheelchair which they called a weapon and did not preserve it upon a timely request from LINDA, it was not available for trial to prove it was broken and could not be accelerated fast enough to injure Salemi. As it was in the jail, it was insincere for the State to claim they did not control it.

 

In incident report Salemi said LINDA was at the door and pushed her way out and then kicked him with her Right leg in the chest (despite the fact her right leg is impaired and partially paralyzed), but he testified that LINDA, after he entered her cell, raised both legs up and kicked him in the chest (again the neurologist testified this was physically impossible for LINDA to do from a wheelchair due to a long standing spinal cord injury (congenital and acquired).

 

Also, how could she bump him starting from a dead stop a few feet away with weak arms? He claimed no injury from this “kick”, but said he was thrown against the cell door, which her had testified three times was open, thus derailing his testimony and making it unbelievable.

 

SHELTON’S PHYSICIANS, DRS. BRILLER AND VERN, TESTIFIED THAT THIS WAS IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO HER WEAKNESS AND NEUROLOGICAL DISORDER, even without the wheelchair being broken (tread missing from right wheel so metal hitting floor tending to just make wheelchair wheel spin with no traction). THIS TESTIMONY WAS UNREBUTTED BY A PHYSICIAN – SO ACCORDING TO CASE LAW THE COURT WAS REQUIRED TO FIND SHELTON NOT-GUILTY AS COMPETENT MEDICAL EVIDENCE CANNOT BE IGNORED BY THE COURT OR REFUTED BY NONMEDICAL TESTIMONY. In Interest of Ashley K., 212 Ill.App.3d 849, 156 Ill.Dec.925, 571 N.E.2d 905, 930 (Ill. App. 1st Dist.. 1991) Obviously, the Illinois Appellate Court, therefore ignored the law in upholding the conviction, as the State provided no medical expert testimony refuting LINDA’s doctor’s testimony.

 

The Trial Court erroneously refused to allow defense counsel to ask questions about the incident report or present the incident report to the jury to impeach Salemi. Ineffective defense counsel failed to enter incident report as an offer of proof. Defense counsel failed to call to the witness stand key witnesses that could testify that the wheelchair was broken and LINDA was unable to move it with force, or that LINDA had several severe asthma attacks just prior to the incident or that the medical staff had illegally drugged LINDA against her will hours before the alleged incident rendering LINDA even weaker, more uncoordinated and somewhat confused and disinhibited, as well as failed to enter this information as an offer of proof. This was ineffective assistance of counsel and not mere trial strategy.

 

LINDA was illegally convicted of felony battery to an officer due to this perjury, insufficient assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial errors that did not allow LINDA to present all evidence and witnesses.

 

You can read LINDA’s appeal on line at: https://cookcountyjudges.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/appeal-brief-for-publication-6-10-09.doc . The evidence, Salemi’s incident report and ER report describing his injuries, which is inconsistent and contrary to his testimony, making his testimony or his incident report false or perjured, is attached (Exhibit ), and you can read the Illinois Appellate Court opinion proving that the Appellate Court made an outrageous, malicious, unlawful order affirming conviction based on false statements about contempt cases, which were not on the record and ignoring case law and facts presented by Shelton  on the record. You can read the opinion on line at:  https://cookcountyjudges.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/decision-affirmed-5-14-2010.pdf

 

[1] LINDA can now prove that Judge Pantle had no jurisdiction in the Medicaid Fraud case, for which she was found NOT GUILTY. After a FOIA request by LINDA in 2006 that was never answered by the State in violation of the FOIA and felony discovery rules, but was answered by the US-DHHS in May 2010, LINDA received proof from US-DHHS that the prosecutor, AG Madigan, did not have jurisdiction and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction.

 

These documents were received May 2010 regarding 2006 FOIA request for re-certification and funding application to US-DHHS from IL Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (“MFCU”). They were finally received due to executive order from President Obama that agencies must answer FOIA requests, which overturned President Bush’s previous order.

 

The proof is the MFCU application where the State in a sworn statement Illinois State Police Director on behalf of the State Police and IL Attorney General Staff assigned to the State Police in the MFCU, says that IL is one of six states where the State Attorney General has no authority or jurisdiction to prosecute Medicaid fraud and they claim they turn all such prosecution over to the US Attorney.

Yet the IL AG illegally violated what they swore to, thus fraudulently obtaining millions from US-DHHS for such prosecutions, and indicted LINDA in State court for Medicaid fraud and two other legitimate mental health providers in other medical/psychiatric group practices who also were whistle blowers with evidence against corrupt friends of Lisa Madigan. The documents proving all this are available for anyone to see – please contact LINDA. The convictions of the two other persons should therefore be overturned.

 

LINDA was a federal witness against Orlando Jones, Godson of Cook County Board Chairman, John Stroger Sr., who had appointed him to be CEO of the new Provident Hospital when it opened and LINDA was the senior pediatrician in a contract group hired by the County to open the pediatric department at Provident Hospital. Jones was indicted by the U.S. Attorney due to fraud and bribery, but committed suicide before trial. LINDA had witnessed these crimes. LINDA had presented this evidence to the FBI in Chicago and Special Agent Matt Kern had interviewed her at FBI headquarters in Chicago prior to indicting Orlando Jones. LINDA did  not have to testify against Jones, as he committed suicide, on the beach near Mayor Daley’s summer home.

 

 

Why Chief Cook County Court Judge Evans should be removed

leave a comment »


judge-timothy-evans

UPDATE: 11/10/16 Despite Judge Evans corrupt acts described below he was retained by judicial retention ballot because public ignores this part of ballot & leaves it blank. Yet if only  a few hundred to a 1000 people would vote no on each judge we could throw them out! Not ONE judge was removed, even Judge Pantle and others whom bar associations or other groups deemed unqualified.

Who bothers voting on a 2nd large ballot with dozens of judges names? – no one but judges and their lawyer friends.

UPDATE: 9/20/16 Of course Judge Evans was re-elected, just like corrupt Clerk Dorothy Brown won the primary. Please vote NO on all judges on judicial retention ballots. It is the only way we are going to get rid of a LOT of BAD judges (incompetent and/or corrupt)

______________________________________________________________

Cook County Court Chief Judge Evans is up for re-election. However, in Illinois ONLY the JUDGES vote for the Chief Judge. Evans has been Chief Judge for 15 years and has placed his friends and corrupt judges in positions of authority.

Therefore, the election is fixed and he will continue to be the most corrupt Chief Judge in the country, presiding over a pay-to-play system of bribery of judges through contributions to election campaign funds for judges by attorneys.

Please contact your legislators (State Senators and members of Illinois House – legislature) and tell them we need the laws change so that citizens, not judges elect/appoint the chief judge.

He has tolerated a corrupt Black Line Call system for civil law cases, which is illegal as a case cannot legally be in more than one court at the same time and the Black Line System overturns illegally Supreme Court rules. This has resulted in 100s of of pro se plaintiff cases being thrown out on technicalities that actually were  illegal.

He has tolerated de facto suspension of the right to petition for writ of habeas corpus.

He has tolerated abuse of the disabled.

He has allowed family court judges to be ruled by child representatives in divorce cases, when the statutes don’t allow such actions.

He has allowed continued elder abuse and exploitation, where court appointed guardians abuse and exploit elderly or disabled and judges ignore the evidence about this.

He has tolerated corrupt acts of Assistant States Attorneys – testi-lying in court cases when they make their summations to the juries and altering video tape evidence.

He has tolerated gross violation of fitness statutes.

He has tolerated gross abuse of bail laws and bails that are 3-10 times higher than around the country, as well as failure to use personal recognizance bail, which destroys litigants who are poor, in that they remain in jail pretrial due simply to poverty, ending up losing their homes, jobs, and marriages.

He has tolerated bribery of judges – attorneys paying into judges’ campaign funds at the time their cases are before judges in acts of improper influence.

He has failed to update the Circuit Court local rules so that they are out of date and unclear as to basic procedures (for example habeas corpus petitions – who hears them for Municipal Divisions? What is the procedure when the judge refuses to hear them? How do you complain about conduct of a judge?)

I have repeatedly documented on this blog reasons why  Judge Evans should be removed. Summarized here.

I have repeatedly written letters to Judge Evans about misconduct, criminal conduct, and ignorance of Cook County judges and he has refused to act to replace them, place a supervisor judge to teach them,  or re-educate them. Find some of my letters here.

I have evidence of all of the  above acts of misconduct, ignorance, and maliciousness.

U.S. Supreme Court refuses to uphold its own holdings and due process

with one comment


The U.S. Supreme Court refused to uphold their own holdings in denial of Shelton’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Dr. Linda Shelton was unlawfully convicted of  contempt of court and summarily sentenced to 16 months in jail with no trial or due process because she followed Illinois law that allows a person other than the defendant to file a next-friend petition for writ of habeas corpus on “behalf of another”. Judge McHale held that it was illegal for Shelton to file this petition on behalf of Annabel Melongo when Shelton was not an attorney.  Melongo was released after 20 months when the Illinois eavesdropping law was declared unconstitutional. Melongo had been denied hearing on Shelton’s petition for her in an illegal act by Cook County judges who refused to hear this petition. Thus they violated the U.S. Constitution Suspension Clause that says that habeas may not be suspended except in times of war.  READ THE FOLLOWING!! (Transcript where Shelton appeared before Judge McHale asking for him to assign judge to represent Melongo on Shelton’s next-friend petition for writ of habeas corpus on her behalf on May 11, 2010 – NOTE: habeas corpus is the highest right a person has in the U.S. written in the constitution to protect against unlawful incarceration yet few Americans are educated to know what this means!)

Shelton alleges Judge McHale (substituting for Judge Biebel – presiding judge of the Cook County Criminal Court) illegally and in an act of felony federal treason and conspiracy to violate rights under color of law, after stating he would not hear her petition (i.e. admitted she was before him on an administrative matter and not with him acting as a judge) in retaliation for Shelton’s whistle blowing about judicial corruption in the Circuit Court of Cook County (she had given the FBI and U.S. Attorney extensive evidence about this corruption and published it on Internet blogs), in May through November, 2010, summarily convicted her of three (3) “cases” which should have been three (3) “counts” of criminal contempt for the legal act of filing a next-friend habeas petition ,as a NON-ATTORNEY, on behalf of Annabelle Melongo, a dual Haitian/Cameroonian citizen with language difficulties and who was confusing English and Roman law, and then telling the judge that his act of ruling that a non-attorney filing was “illegal” was a violation of his oath of office to follow the law as well as a criminal act. The conviction was not only illegal, but it was retaliatory.

The fact that he stated he would not hear the petition meant that there was no case before him when he charged me with contempt and this occurred after I asked for SOJ as a right, which also means that his orders are void as he did not follow the law on SOJ.

Shelton alleges Judge McHale’s consecutive SUMMARY sentences of 4, 6, and 6 months (total of 16 months) in CCDOC with good time jail credits quashed by order of Judge McHale, were in:

A) violation of IL Substitution of Judge (“SOJ”) as Right Statutes, 735 ILCS 5/2-1001 which make all orders given after denial of this SOJ as a right void, Jiffy Lube International, Inc. v. Agarwal,2 77 Ill.App.3d 722,727, 214 Ill.Dec. 609,661 N.E.2d 463 (1996); Curtis v. Lofy, 394 Ill. App..3d 170, 176 (2009);

B) violation of Habeas Statutes, 735 ILCS Art X which allow a person to file a habeas petition on “behalf of another”;

C) violation of IL Appellate Court holding that requires a full due process jury trial if contempt sentence is summarily imposed on a day other than the day in which the contemptuous act occurred In re Marriage of Betts, 200l ll.App.3d 26 (1990); Winning Moves, Inc., v. Hi! Baby, Inc., 238 Ill. App.3d 834 (1992); Kaeding v. Collins, 28I Ill.App3d 919 (1996)

D) violation of IL sentencing statutes requiring concurrent sentences for the same conduct or acts occurring during the same state of mind, 720 ILCS 5/3-3; and

E) violation of IL statute where habeas petition must be heard quickly before the chief judge of the division, Habeas statutes, 735 ILCS 5/10-119, and the rules of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Rule 15.2(d); and

F) violation of the U.S. Supreme Court holdings and IL Court holdings which:

1) require jury trial if sentences exceed 6 months aggregate for contempt, In re Marriage of Betts, 200 lll.App.3d 26 (1990), Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 (1966); Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506, 513, 94 S.Ct. at 2692 (1974); Taylor v. Hayes, supra, 418 U.S. at 495, 94 S.Ct. at 2701;

2) forbid sentencing for more than one count of contempt during one trial or case, People v. Brown, 235 Ill.App.3d 945 (1992);

3) forbid removal of automatic statutory good time jail credits by a judge  – Good Time Jail Allowance statute, 730 ILCS 130, gives jurisdiction for such credits to the county sheriff and not the judge, also violation of Codispoti v. Pennsylvannia 418 U.S. 506 (1974); and

4) specifically state it is legal for a non-attorney to file a next-friend petition for writ of habeas corpus, U.S. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 76 S.Ct 1 (1955) and Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 128 S.Ct 2229 (2008); 735 ILCS Article X.

The Illinois Appellate Court in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 298 and Smith v. Bennett and Marshall v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 81  S.Ct. 895 (1961) denied my indigence petition , thus denied my appeal illegally.

The Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Shelton s Federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus regarding these three convictions, ACC 100083-01, 93-01, & 94-01, falsely stating that Shelton did not exhaust state remedies. Judge Hart ignored and violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in the line of cases Neirsheimer, Regan, and Loftus. People v. Loftus, 400 Ill. 432, 81 N.E.2d 495 (1948), (in response to order of Court in Loftus v. People of State of Illinois, 334 U.S. 804, 68 S.Ct 1212 (1948)); Woods v. Neirsheimer, 328 U.S. 211, 66 S.Ct. 996 (1946); White v. Ragen and Lutz v. Same, 324 U.S. 760, 65 S.Ct. 978 (1945); Young v. Ragen, 337 U.S. 235, 69 S.Ct. 1073 (1949).

There may be an exception to the exhaustion bar for cases involving colorable claims of actual innocence. See, e.g., House v. Bell, 47 U.S. 518, 522 (2006). This case also involves this is as since there is no possibility that filing a next-friend habeas petition is illegal or that complaining, as a litigant to a judge that he is violating the law, when he is violating the law, is illegal, there is no possibility that Shelton is actually guilty of contempt.

These sentences by Judge McHale were acts of felony treason, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §2381, punishable by a sentence of 20 yrs. to life, per previous holdings and/or dicta of the United States Supreme Court including:

1) that the judges in U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980) affirmed the statement of Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) that it is “treason on the constitution” when a judge “usurps [the jurisdiction] that which is not given”; and

2) that it is a “war on the constitution” when a judge violates his oath of office to support it [including supporting statutes of a state = due process], Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401(1958).

Judge McHale’s knowing violation of the statutes concerning petitions for writ of habeas corpus, SOJ as a right, good conduct jail credits; concurrent sentencing for the same act; violation of case law concerning right to trial if sentence is > 6 mo, right to trial if sentence for contempt is given out on day other than day of contempt incidence, ban on more than one count of contempt during one case or trial; and violation of U.S. Supreme Court holdings/dicta in U.S. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 76 S.Ct 1 (1955) and Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 128 S.Ct 2229 (2008) that a non-attorney may file a next-friend habeas petition prove Judge McHale illegally found Linda Shelton in contempt three times, illegally sentenced her, and knowingly did this in an act of treason, violating Shelton’s constitutional rights to be free of arrest and imprisonment without due process and in violation of law, denied her father’s need for her caretaker, companion, and executive assistant services and love in his final days in an act of cruelty and lawlessness, and denied Shelton’s need for medical care and proper diet.

In addition, Annabelle Melongo’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed by Shelton, has been ignored by Judges McHale, (Brosnahan, Wadas, Kazmierski – to whom Plaintiff presented habeas filing prior to presenting it to Judge McHale and all of whom refused to hear it stating that they have no jurisdiction to hear filings from a non-attorney on behalf of another, despite Plaintiff reading the IL habeas statute to them), and Judge Biebel and she is still in jail a year later! All these judges have therefore committed treason. This is a grotesque and extremely serious violation of the Constitution of the United States – suspension clause (Article I, section 9) which states that the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus may not be suspended except in time of war.

Judge McHale was fully informed in open court by Plaintiff of the case law, code, and constitutional issues stated herein and therefore cannot claim mistake or unintentional error. Plaintiff therefore now petitions the U.S. Attorney and U.S. Justice Department to pursue the violations of 18 U.S.C §241 AND 18 U.S.C §242, as well as 18 U.S.C. §2381 that are clearly documented in this document and attachments, under the jurisdiction as permitted by the Presentment Clause of the Constitution and under 18 U.S.C. §3332 – which specifically states, as is supported by case law, that a citizen with evidence of federal crimes may petition a judge to present this evidence to a special grand jury . I ask that the Justice Department bring this cause before a judge for an indictment against Judge McHale for corruption.

Judge McHale ILLEGALLY AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY IN VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW incarcerated Shelton for 16 month summary sentence for which she served six months and during that time DISCRIMINATED AGAINST DR. SHELTON’S DYING FATHER, ALLAN LORINCZ, BY ILLEGALLY JAILING SHELTON, SNUBBING HER REQUEST FOR HOUSE ARREST TO CARE FOR HER FATHER, AND PREVENTING HER FROM CARING FOR HIM IN HIS LAST DAYS AS HE REQUESTED RESULTING IN HIS DEATH from self-starvation and dehydration due to depression over his loss of his caretaker and companion, Shelton and his progressing Parkinson’s disease.  By turning a deaf ear, HE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST DISABLED SHELTON IN IGNORING HER DISABILITY NEEDS WHILE UNLAWFULLY JAILED BY HIM, in that he refused to order the Sheriff to provide her appropriate medications and food for her conditions. He, IN RETALIATION FOR HER WHISTLE BLOWING AND COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES AND SHERIFF STAFF, ILLEGALLY JAILED HER knowingly and willingly suspended her right to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, violated at least four U.S. Supreme Court holdings by unlawfully convicting her of contempt and summarily sentencing her to 16 mo. in jail, and trashed Shelton’s due process constitutional rights, as well as numerous Illinois statutes and Supreme Court and Cook County Court rules. Finally, he ordered a fitness exam when there was no reason to, in order to help justify his illegal conduct but ignored Shelton’s attorney’s motion that a person cannot be found in contempt if the judge questions their fitness as contempt requires intent and allegation of lack of fitness precludes concept of intent.

 

____________________________________________________

See the following criminal cases, appeals, motions for habeas & mandamus – which are explained in the following:

Cook County Court Habeas Petition: 09 CH 12736 – renumbered after transfer from Chancery division to criminal division to 09MR00025 (Shelton’s next friend habeas petition for Maisha Hamilton – allowed and Hamilton assigned a pro bono attorney); 10 HC 0006 & 7 (Shelton’s next-friend habeas petitions for Melongo – Judge McHale refused to hear, told Shelton filing it was criminal); 10 HC 00008 & 12 (Shelton habeas petition – Judge Porter summarily denied)

Cook County Criminal Contempt Cases: ACC 1000083-01, ACC 1000093-01, ACC 1000094-01 (Unconstitutional & Illegal against Shelton – summary total sentence of 16 months for filing next-friend habeas petitions for Melongo and defending her right to do so)

Cook County Criminal Cases: 10CR8092 (Melongo’s criminal eavesdropping case – declared unconstitutional eavesdropping law – this was upheld by IL Supreme Court) 08CR1050201 (Melongo’s computer tampering case which she later won as State committed fraud)

U.S. Supreme Court Complaint for Leave to File Mandamus: 12-6561 (Shelton pro se filing, granted in forma pauperis but denied leave to file brief)

Illinois Appellate Court: 10-3342, 10-3344, 10-3345 (Shelton’s appeal of contempt cases dismissed when denied in forma pauperis and demanded back payment for previous cases as well as $25 payment for each of these cases)

_______________________________________

NOTE: the following case law

CONTEMPT

Sacher et al. v. United States, 343 U.S. 1, 72 S.Ct. 451, 96 L.Ed. 717 (1950)

Courage does not equal contempt.

An attorney has the right to make a fearless, vigorous argument

It is the right of counsel for every litigant to press his claim, even if it appears farfetched and untenable to obtain the trial court’s considered ruling. Full enjoyment of that right, wit due allowance for the heat of controversy, will be protected by appellate courts when infringed by trial courts. At 9

Men who make their way to the bench sometimes exhibit vanity, irascibility, narrowness, arrogance, and other weaknesses [ignorance] to which human flesh is heir. Most judges, however, recognize and respect courageous, forthright lawyerly conduct. They rarely mistake overzeal or heated words of a man fired with a desire to win, for the contemptuous conduct which defies rulings and deserves punishment. They recognize that our profession necessarily is a contentious one and they respect the lawyer who makes a strenuous effort for his client. At 12

Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, Footnote 4, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 .Ed.2d 522 (1968)

The court has long recognized the potential for abuse in exercising the summary power to imprison for contempt—it is an ‘arbitrary’ power which is ‘liable to abuse.’ Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 313, 9 S.Ct. 77, 82, 32 L.Ed. 405 (1888). ‘(I)ts exercise is a delicate one, and care is needed to avoid arbitrary or oppressive conclusions.’ Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 539, 45 S.Ct. 390, 396, 69 L.Ed. 767 (1925).4

Footnote 4. ‘That contempt power over counsel, summary or otherwise, is capable of abuse is certain. Men who make their way to the bench sometimes exhibit vanity, irascibility, narrowness, arrogance, and other weaknesses to which human flesh is heir.’ Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1, 12, 72 S.Ct. 451, 456, 96 L.Ed. 717 (1952). See also Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U.S. 378, 39 S.Ct. 337, 63 L.Ed. 656 (1919); Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33, 61 S.Ct. 810, 85 L.Ed. 1172 (1941); Cammer v. United States, 350 U.S. 399, 76 S.Ct. 456, 100 L.Ed. 474 (1956).

United States v. Seale, 461 F.2d 345 (7th Cir. 1972).

[T]he conduct so personally involved the trial judge that the contempt hearing should be presented before another judge. “Attorneys have a right to be persistent, vociferous, contentious, and imposing, even to the point of appearing obnoxious, when acting in their client’s behalf.” In the matter of Dellinger, 461 F.2d 389, 400 (7th Circ. 1972)

Sentences more than six months either separate or aggregate require a jury trial:

When the aggregate punishments for a particular course of criminally contemptuous conduct committed in the presence of a judge exceed the parameters of punishments normally imposed for misdemeanors and the punishments are not imposed immediately after occurrence of the contemptuous conduct, the contemnor is entitled to a jury trial as to the contempt charges. The traditional test for determining whether or not a charged offense is a misdemeanor is whether the penalties exceed $500 or six months imprisonment. Where, as with criminal contempt in Illinois, no maximum punishment is prescribed for an offense, courts look to the penalty actually imposed to determine whether an offense is so serious that a jury trial was required. Some decisions suggest that in the context of contempt proceedings, the $500 fine component.., is subject to upward adjustment based on the contemnor’s financial resources and inflationary trends. In re Marriage of Betts,  200 Ill. App. 3d 26, 50, 558 N.E.2d 404 (4th Dist. 1990).

The following are holdings in Maita v. Whitmore, 508 F.2d 143 (9th Cir. 1975):

[Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct. 2697, 41 L.Ed.2d 897, and Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506, 94 S.Ct. 2687, 41 L.Ed.2d 912.]

First: The rules as to whether an ordinary criminal offense is ‘petty,’ thus not requiring a jury trial, or ‘serious,’ thus requiring a jury trial, also apply to charges of criminal contempt. Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, supra, 418 U.S. at 513, 94 S.Ct. at 2692; Taylor v. Hayes, supra, 418 U.S. at 495, 94 S.Ct. at 2701.

Second: ‘Crimes carrying more than six month sentences are serious crimes and those carrying less are petty crimes.’ (Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, supra, 418 U.S. at 512, 94 S.Ct. at 2691; Taylor v. Hayes, supra, 418 U.S. at 495, 94 S.Ct. at 2701.

Third: ‘Judgment about the seriousness of the crime is normally heavily influenced by the penalty authorized by the legislature.’ Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, supra, 418 U.S. at 511, 94 S.Ct. at 2691. Indeed, if the penalty authorized by the legislature exceeds six months, there is a right to a jury trial, even though the judge could impose a sentence of six months or less. Baldwin v. New York, 1970, 399 U.S. 66, 68-69, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 26 L.Ed.2d 437, and cases there cited.

Fourth: Where the legislature has not prescribed a penalty, as is often the case when the charge is criminal contempt, the actual sentence imposed determines whether the offense is ‘serious’ or ‘petty.’ Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, supra, 418 U.S. 512, 94 S.Ct. 2687 at 2691; Taylor v. Hayes, supra, 418 U.S. at 495, 94 S.Ct. at 2701. In such a case, when multiple contempts are tried together, the imposition of consecutive sentences aggregating more than six months makes the offenses ‘serious’ and requires a jury trial. Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, supra, 418 U.S. at 516-518, 94 S.Ct. at 2693-2694. On the other hand, where there are convictions for several contempts but the aggregate sentence does not exceed six months because the sentences are concurrent, jury trial is not required. Taylor v. Hayes, supra, 418 U.S. at 496, 94 S.Ct. at 2702. Moreover, it makes no difference that the trial judge at first imposes consecutive sentences totalling more than six months, if he afterward reduces them to six month sentences to be served concurrently; jury trial is not required. Id. at 496, 94 S.Ct. at 2702.

Mass support for Shelton in court and in letter writing campaign to stop retaliation against whistle blower

leave a comment »


Encourage the press to cover this story of judicial bribery, judicial incompetence or maliciousness, wholesale violation of civil rights in Cook County Courts, and retaliation against a whistle blower.

Come to courtroom 506 2600 S California Ave, Chicago, IL, 10:00 AM on July 20, 2017 and every hearing date after this for case 12 CR 22504, where whistle blower and disabled defendant, Dr. Linda Shelton is on trial, having been illegal charged in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act for allegedly “touching an officer’s ear and pulling hair” during a PTSD flashback where she cowers, is confused, believes she is being beaten up, and swings her arms around her head to try and protect herself.

The officers were informed about her flashbacks and to “back-off” as recommended by her psychiatrist during the flashbacks until she “recovers her equilibrium”, but instead grabbed her, literally lifting her off the ground, and then when she touched the  officer innocently, likely due to her medical problems including serious lack of balance and the PTSD,  Sheriff staff took advantage of the vague and likely unconstitutional Illinois battery statute to charge Shelton with FELONY battery, which could carry a sentence of 3 to 14 years in prison.

For extensive details – Large federal pending habeas petition and 100s of pages of evidence of corruptio of the Sheriff staff and Cook County Court judges – read here

This is outrageous, immoral, and unconstitutional.  A large grass roots effort is needed to challenge this outrage. The following is repeated on Shelton’s Facebook page here. Mass public pressure needed for justice and to fight government corruption and attacks on whistle blower.PLEASE WRITE THE SUGGESTED LETTER TO THE FOLLOWING OFFICIALS! You know that I expose corruption in Illinois and Cook County, particularly family, probate, and criminal courts,  through my web sites including: https://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com, http://chicagofbi.wordpress.com, http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com, and http://prosechicago.wordpress.com.

There has been a ten year attack against me in retaliation for above and I need public support in a huge way.

PLEASE WRITE THESE PEOPLE AND ASK THEM TO INVESTIGATE – SUGGESTED LETTER FOLLOWS:

Asst. US Attorney Zachary T. Fardon United States Attorney’s Office Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division 219 S. Dearborn St., 5th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 353-5300

______________________

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division & Public Corruption Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Disability Rights – NYAV Washington, D.C. 20530

______________________

FBI,Special Agent in Charge – Chicago Robert J. Holley 2111 W. Roosevelt Road Chicago, IL 60608 Phone: (312) 421-6700 Fax: (312) 829-5732/38 E-mail: Chicago@ic.fbi.gov

_________________________

Illinois State Police Hiram Grau, Director 801 South 7th Street Suite 1100 – S Springfield, IL 62703 Email: askisp@isp.state.il.us,

___________________________

Senator Durbin WASHINGTON, D.C. 711 Hart Senate Bldg. Washington, DC 20510 9 am to 6 pm ET (202) 224-2152 – phone (202) 228-0400 Washington DC

___________________

Congressman Lipinsky Washington, D.C. Office 1717 Longworth HOB Washington, DC 20515 P (202) 225 – 5701 P (866) 822 – 5701 F (202) 225 – 1012

And ask them to help me to make an appointment with an investigator in the FBI/US Attorney’s offices to file criminal complaints. I need mass involvement in order to obtain justice.

My property and home, as well as father’s estate for which I am trustee were all stolen to destroy me and shut me up as whistle blower. I live in Oak Lawn, IL.

SUGGESTED LETTER: Please help Linda Shelton to make appointments with the FBI and U. S. Attorney to deal with corrupt judges in Cook County, corrupt peace officers, numerous false arrests in retaliation for her whistle blowing and in violation of the American with Disabilities Act.

Her issues cross state lines and expose corruption at the highest political levels in Illinois.

She has helped many of us in exposing corruption in the family courts, probate courts, and criminal courts and now she needs our help!

She is disabled and her illnesses are making it harder for her to act alone.

The theft of her home and money is outrageous and was done by those who had her falsely arrested to get her out of the way so they could do their evil and illegal acts. The situation involves:

1) forgery and fraud upon the court in making a fraudulent deathbed trust. Illegal eviction without the sheriff using the Oak Lawn Police – who knew they could not evict without the Sheriff in an eviction case which was DISMISSED – while the eviction case was pending – now they won’t let her into her house without threat of arrest and are selling the house

2) Theft of her personal property and a $2 million estate for which she is trustee transferred to a person in New Jersey and to unscrupulous attorneys taking advantage of this mentally ill person in New Jersey to convert it to attorney fees.

3) Bribery of a probate judge to write an order saying they own the property and can evict her – when ONLY a forcible entry and detainer action can evict someone – or it is an unlawful lockout, breaking and entering, trespass, wrongful conveyance, theft, etc. The probate judge made orders in the probate case on the issue of a trust – which was not before him so he had no jurisdiction!!! This is criminal action by that judge.

4) False arrest for “touching an officer’s ear” during a PTSD flashback TRIGGERED PURPOSELY BY SHERIFF STAFF – thus a charge of FELONY battery to an officer where they are seeking a 3-14 yr sentence!

Shelton is disabled and had a court disability coordinator agreement that the officers would not use info given them to trigger a flashback and if there was a flashback, they would back off while Shelton was confused, cried, cowered and appeared terrified. Instead they grabbed her and carried her to jail, charging her with this fraudulent felony.

They are the criminals for violating the agreement.

Battery requires intent and they knew there was no intent during a flashback as she was confused and having an altered state of consciousness consistent with a flashback – where she relives in a dream like state attack against her by police where she went into a respiratory arrest.

She needs an officer to obtain search warrants and recover her property.

Can you ask the FBI and US Attorney to investigate and to assist as it involves a person in New Jersey – thus crime crosses state lines! Shelton has documentary evidence to prove all of the above.

Of course, the Oak Lawn police won’t arrest themselves.

THANK YOU TO ANYONE WHO WRITES, ATTENDS COURT HEARINGS, OR HELPS ME AND OTHERS FIGHTING COURT CORRUPTION IN ANY WAY!

Linda Shelton [ https://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/ardc-claims-contributing-to-judges-campaign-committee-to-influence-a-decision-is-not-bribery-what-do-you-think/ ] [ https://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/better-business-bureau-complaint-against-peck-bloom-llc-law-firm-and-judge-james-riley-for-corruption/ ] [ https://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/shelton-wrongfully-jailed-for-one-year-recently-released/ ] [ http://chicagofbi.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/fbi-ignores-extensive-pervasive-greylord-like-corruption-in-the-circuit-court-of-cook-county/ ] [ https://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/dishonorable-judge-peggy-chiampas-illegally-arrests-defendant-for-getting-sick-in-courtroom/ ] They also arrested her on an invalid warrant on a case she won the year before, despite her showing them the court order quashing the warrant! [ http://illinoispolice.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/oak-lawn-police-kowingly-arrest-shelton-on-invalid-warrants-in-act-of-criminal-contempt-of-court/ ] [http://cookcountysheriffdeputies.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/deputy-rebecca-doran-deputy-maureen-caliendo-sergeant-patricia-mccollum-assistant-chief-kevin-lyons/ ] Shelton’s Advocacy against corrupt county courts includes blog posts like this: https://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/court-abuse-of-parents-and-children-in-child-custody-and-support-cases-please-contact-cook-county-board-now/ https://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/u-s-supreme-court-approves-elimination-of-right-to-petition-for-habeas-corpus-right-to-have-witnesses-at-trial-and-other-constitutional-rights-in-cook-county/ http://prosechicago.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/cook-county-court-clerk-misconduct-and-incompetence-letter-to-cook-county-board-president/

Bias against men in family courts – “Don’t nigggerise me”

with 7 comments


Don’t niggerise me” (“nigger” = an offensive term used in Britain against Asians as well as Blacks – which the writer of the article containing this quote states is essentially what is happening to non-custodial parents, regardless of their race) was the plea of a British fellow regarding corruption in family courts – you will see below is how non-custodial parents are treated IN AMERICA today – reminding me of the status of Blacks in America a 100 years ago!

This corruption is pervasive in American family courts as well – but I believe this applies to women as much as men, regardless of their race, who end up wrongfully as the non-custodial parent instead of as a co-parent with loving relationship with their children – solely due to the corruption of our family courts which is destroying child/parent relationships and teaching our children only greed and materialism, while alienating parents from their children. [all quotes are for emphasis  purposes and are from Dr Linda Shelton written in this article]

I observed for several years now family court cases in Cook County, Illinois.  I find that the judges are abdicating their responsibility to make decisions to the ill-trained and grossly biased child representatives and guardians ad litem.  There is a strong bias towards assuming that one parent is BAD and one parent is GOOD and at all costs vilifying the parent these court-appointed attorneys decide is bad, usually with just hearsay and no actual evidence.

I have seen case after case where literally no evidence was allowed from one side to refute false statements from the other parent that were mere hearsay unsupported by evidence. The judges are therefore pulling  their custody decisions out of thin air on the advice of court-appointed attorneys masquerading as trained evaluators of family interactions (psychologist, psychiatrist, psychiatric social workers, etc).

The family court lawyers for both the parents charge outrageous fees and grossly ignore constitutional rights, as well as grossly ignore federal and state laws (750 ILCS 5/506) that were supposed to encourage joint parenting, mediation, and solving of family arguments so that children are raised in a loving and nurturing instead of hostile, stressful and disruptive environment – which also deplete family funds including their college funds. Many  parents last year testified to these facts in the Illinois House of Representatives. See their testimony here.

I believe that literally billions of dollars have been and are misappropriated in this scheme that is  producing millions of children that are being taught that parents are unimportant and only serve as deep pockets for their every wish.  This is destroying the families in America and encouraging greed, lawlessness, and immorality.

I firmly believe that the family courts and the lawyers and counselors that practice associated with them run a scheme to fill their pockets and pensions with the feuding families’ financial assets and money from the federal government that comes from Social Security Title IV-D and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) funds. I believe the VAWA is faulty in failing to have oversight as to how the funds are used and in being grossly biased against men.  I therefore do NOT support it without safeguards changing it to prevent these abuses. I feel some sympathy with those that believe womens’ shelters increase this bias. I don’t endorse everything said in this link, but much of what is said in the POD1 report supports this corruption as being true and needs remedy.

Two of the alleged worst offenders in violating these state and federal laws are child representatives David Wessel, Mary T. Doheny, and Ralla Klepak, as well as former child representative and now Judge Regina Scannicchio. The worst offending judges who are ignoring the Bill of Rights, the State statutes, and any concern over the childrens’ relationships with both parents include Judge David Haracz, Judge Veronica Mathein (well  known  appearing to hate men), Judge Pamela Loza, Judge Grace Dickler, Judge Fe Fernandez, Judge Debra Walker, Judge Leida J. Santiago, and Judge Paul Vega.

The “POD1″ report from the Illinois House of Representatives Family Law Study Committee seems to support this contention that there is a scheme or what they call development of a “cottage industry” that is supported by misused funds that encourages enrichment of these attorneys instead of the best interests of the children.

The Bill of Rights is trashed in Cook County Domestic Division (family) courts.  Decisions are often made based on hearsay thrown around by these more often than not corrupt court-appointed attorneys. Child representatives totally ignore 750 ILCS 5/506(a)(3) statutes (reproduced at end of this post) that REQUIRE the child representative to act as the gatherer of discovery and present a pre-trial memorandum to both parents as to what are the “evidence-based legal argument” that he/she will present to the court through testimony of others and documents, which cause him/her to promote a specific custody decision.

Normally in civil cases discovery (factual information, proposed witness testimony, and evaluators reports, as well as child representative summaries of interviews with child(ren), teachers, friends, family, clergy, doctors that will be used in the divorce trial) is requested by each party and exchanged. The pre-trial memorandum is supposed to replace discovery to some extent and put the discovery in the hands of a supposedly neutral court-appointed attorney who is supposed to pay attention to the “best  interest of the child[ren]”. However, I have yet to see ANY child representative produce ANY statutory required  “pre-trial memorandum” and I have seen NO JUDGE REPRIMAND ANY child representative for failure to do so.  I have seen NO JUDGE POSTPONE a trial until the child representative produces a pre-trial memorandum and NO JUDGE HOLD a child representative in contempt of court FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW THIS LAW!

As a result divorce trials proceed with hearsay and not discovery – often biased against one side as the other side has not been given legal notice of evidence of it prior to trial. There is no fairness or justice, just a railroading of the vilified parent turning them into a deep-pocket to be used by the other parent, while the vilified parent’s child/parent relationship is de facto severed.

I have seen as many woman as men vilified falsely in this manner totally denying their constitutional right to due process and in the end harming the children, rather than resulting in a decision that is in their best interest. The parent is often rendered penniless and many are now even homeless, due to the violation of the Federal Consumer Protection law that requires that wage garnishment in divorce cases can be more than 60% of a parent’s income.  Judges are routinely ordering parents to pay child support in excess of their income! See:

15 USC § 1671 et seq. Federal Wage Garnishment Law (Title III of the Consumer Protection Act) & corresponding 29 CFR Part 870

When the man is vilified, the bias and defamation is in many ways as bad as the bias against blacks in the South during segregation.  That is why this article:

Don’t niggerise me”

written by an Asian British man regarding what is happening in the UK is relevent all over the world when family courts show bias against men.

Please read it and then read my

letter to the Cook County Board of Commissioners

asking them to investigate the corruption and denial of constitutional rights in the family courts, as well as asking them to pressure the Illinois legislature to change the law so that the courts are forced to encourage instead of discourage equal parenting; discourage instead of encourage vilifying parents; encourage instead of discourage mediation and low-cost counseling instead of excessive appointment of unqualified attorneys who illegally act as psychologists and psychiatrists without a license.  The phone numbers and email addresses to the board members are written below.

PLEASE CONTACT THE BOARD MEMBERS AND ASK THEM TO INVESTIGATE THE ABOVE AND FORCE THE LEGISLATURE AND COUNTY COURTS TO STOP VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS AND

STOP HARMING OUR CHILDREN! ENCOURAGE JOINT PARENTING AND MEDIATION! STOP  IMPOVERISHING FAMILIES TO ENRICH UNNECESSARY COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS! LIMIT FEES FOR DIVORCE ATTORNEYS APPOINTED BY THE COURT TO NO MORE THAN $150/HR CAPPED AT $5,000 PER CASE.  SPECIFY IN COURT ORDERS THAT ONLY OPINIONS OF TRAINED EVALUATORS THAT HAVE INTERVIEWED FAMILY MEMBERS FROM BOTH SIDES, TEACHERS, FRIENDS AND DOCTORS CAN RENDER OPINIONS AS TO WHAT CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT IS BEST!

COOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:

Phone Number

President Toni Preckwinkle

312-603-6400

Robert Steele

312-603-3019

Larry Suffredin

312-603-6383

Earlean Collins

312-603-4566

Timothy O. Schneider

312-603-6388

Jerry Butler

312-603 6391

Elizabeth Doody Gorman

312-603-4215

Joan Patricia Murphy

312-603-4216

Jeffrey R. Tobolski

312-603-6384

Bridget Gainer

312-603-4210

John A. Fritchey

312-603-6380

William M. Beavers

312-603-2065

Gregg Goslin

312-603-4932

Edwin Reyes

312-603-6386

Jesus G. Garcia

312-603-5443

Deborah Sims

312-603 6381

Peter N. Silvestri

312-603-4393

John P. Daley

312-603-4400

Commissioner Email addresses:

r.steele@robertsteele.org

earlean.collins@cookcountyil.gov

jerry.butler@cookcountyil.gov

joan.murphy@cookcountyil.gov

commissioner@bridgetgainer.com

edwin.reyes@cookcountyil.gov

deborah.sims@cookcountyil.gov

john.daley@cookcountyil.gov

larry.suffredin@cookcountyil.gov

tim.schneider@cookcountyil.gov

liz@lizgorman.com

commish@fritchey.com

commissioner.goslin@cookcountyil.gov

Jesus.Garcia@cookcountyil.gov

cookcty9@aol.co

750 ILCS 5/506 Representation of child.

(a) Duties. In any proceedings involving the support, custody, visitation, education, parentage, property interest, or general welfare of a minor or dependent child, the court may, on its own motion or that of any party, appoint an attorney to serve in one of the following capacities to address the issues the court delineates:

(1) Attorney. The attorney shall provide           independent legal counsel for the child and shall owe the same duties of undivided loyalty, confidentiality, and competent representation as are due an adult client.

(2) Guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem shall testify or submit a written report to the court regarding his or her recommendations in accordance with the best interest of the child. The report shall be made available to all parties. The guardian ad litem may be called as a witness for purposes of cross examination regarding the guardian ad litem’s report or recommendations. The guardian ad litem shall investigate the facts of the case and interview the child and the parties.

(3) Child representative. The child representative shall advocate what the child representative finds to be in the best interests of the child after reviewing the facts and circumstances of the case. The child representative shall meet with the child and the parties, investigate the facts of the case, and encourage settlement and the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The child representative shall have the same authority and obligation to participate in the litigation as does an attorney for a party and shall possess all the powers of investigation as does a guardian ad litem. The child representative shall consider, but not be bound by, the expressed wishes of the child. A child representative shall have received training in child advocacy or shall possess such experience as determined to be equivalent to such training by the chief judge of the circuit where the child representative has been appointed. The child representative shall not disclose confidential communications made by the child, except as required by law or by the Rules of Professional Conduct. The child representative shall not render an opinion, recommendation, or report to the court and shall not be called as a witness, but shall offer evidence based legal arguments. The child representative shall disclose the position as to what the child representative intends to advocate in a pre trial memorandum that shall be served upon all counsel of record prior to the trial. The position disclosed in the pre trial memorandum shall not be considered evidence. The court and the parties may consider the position of the child representative for purposes of a settlement conference.

(a 3) Additional appointments. During the proceedings the court may appoint an additional attorney to serve in the capacity described in subdivision (a)(1) or an additional attorney to serve in another of the capacities described in subdivision (a)(2) or (a)(3) on the court’s own motion or that of a party only for good cause shown and when the reasons for the additional appointment are set forth in specific findings.

(a 5) Appointment considerations. In deciding whether to make an appointment of an attorney for the minor child, a guardian ad litem, or a child representative, the court shall consider the nature and adequacy of the evidence to be presented by the parties and the availability of other methods of obtaining information, including social service organizations and evaluations by mental health professions, as well as resources for payment.

In no event is this Section intended to or designed to abrogate the decision making power of the trier of fact. Any appointment made under this Section is not intended to nor should it serve to place any appointed individual in the role of a surrogate judge.

(b) Fees and costs. The court shall enter an order as appropriate for costs, fees, and disbursements, including a retainer, when the attorney, guardian ad litem, or child’s representative is appointed. Any person appointed under this Section shall file with the court within 90 days of his or her appointment, and every subsequent 90 day period thereafter during the course of his or her representation, a detailed invoice for services rendered with a copy being sent to each party. The court shall review the invoice submitted and approve the fees, if they are reasonable and necessary. Any order approving the fees shall require payment by either or both parents, by any other party or source, or from the marital estate or the child’s separate estate. The court may not order payment by the Department of Healthcare and Family Services in cases in which the Department is providing child support enforcement services under Article X of the Illinois Public Aid Code. Unless otherwise ordered by the court at the time fees and costs are approved, all fees and costs payable to an attorney, guardian ad litem, or child representative under this Section are by implication deemed to be in the nature of support of the child and are within the exceptions to discharge in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C.A. 523. The provisions of Sections 501 and 508 of this Act shall apply to fees and costs for attorneys appointed under this Section.

Court abuse of parents and children in child custody and support cases – Please contact Cook County Board NOW!

with 6 comments


PLEASE CALL OR WRITE MEMBERS OF THE COOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR EMAIL THEM,

ASKING WHY THEY HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE FOLLOWING LETTER ABOUT  COURT ABUSE

OF NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS,

COURT CORRUPTION IN CHILD CUSTODY AND CHIILD SUPPORT CASES,

AND THE NEED TO

REWRITE CHILD SUPPORT AND CUSTODY LAWS IN ILLINOIS!

Link to letter (PDF formatted) to Cook County Board of Commissioners about court and lawyer abuse of parents in child custody and child support cases:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/111836499/Letter-to-Cook-County-Board-of-Commissioners-Please-support-investigation-of-and-rewrite-of-Illinois-Child-Support-Enforcement-Statute-It-s-uncon   This letter is also reproduced at end of this post.

This letter was faxed to Board President Preckwinkle’s office and was also individually addressed and sent to each of the Cook County Commissioners. Please feel free to reuse or repost this letter and add your signature.

Please contact Board President Preckwinkle and all the Cook County Board of Commissioners today and urge them to investigate the issues in the attached letter sent to the Cook County Board of Commissioners.

SEE THE FOLLOWING PHONE NUMBERS AND EMAIL ADDRESSES.

 Phone Number

President Toni Preckwinkle

312-603-6400

Robert Steele

312-603-3019

Larry Suffredin

312-603-6383

Earlean Collins

312-603-4566

Timothy O. Schneider

312-603-6388

Jerry Butler

312-603 6391

Elizabeth Doody Gorman

312-603-4215

Joan Patricia Murphy

312-603-4216

Jeffrey R. Tobolski

312-603-6384

Bridget Gainer

312-603-4210

John A. Fritchey

312-603-6380

William M. Beavers

312-603-2065

Gregg Goslin

312-603-4932

Edwin Reyes

312-603-6386

Jesus G. Garcia

312-603-5443

Deborah Sims

312-603 6381

Peter N. Silvestri

312-603-4393

John P. Daley

312-603-4400

Commissioner Email addresses:

r.steele@robertsteele.org

earlean.collins@cookcountyil.gov

jerry.butler@cookcountyil.gov

joan.murphy@cookcountyil.gov

commissioner@bridgetgainer.com

edwin.reyes@cookcountyil.gov

deborah.sims@cookcountyil.gov

john.daley@cookcountyil.gov

larry.suffredin@cookcountyil.gov

tim.schneider@cookcountyil.gov

liz@lizgorman.com

commish@fritchey.com

commissioner.goslin@cookcountyil.gov

Jesus.Garcia@cookcountyil.gov

cookcty9@aol.co

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

             XXXXXXXXXXX Ave.

           XXXXXXX, IL 60XXX

https://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com

                                                                                                                        October 31, 2012

VIA FASCIMILE DELIVERY 312 603-4683

Cook County Board of Commissioners

County Building

Chicago, IL 60602

Dear Board Members:

As you no longer allow public comment, the only way I can get the following statement  of concern to you is by a letter and to the public is by a press release.  There is no point in coming to board meetings anymore as we cannot interact with the board and we can read your minutes on line.

We ask that you consider the following statement and act upon it:

We as concerned parents in Cook County wish to ask the Board to request the Illinois legislature to investigate and rewrite the Illinois DHFS Child Support Enforcement laws as they presently are both:

1)    Unconstitutional as the Separation of Powers Clause in the Constitution forbids the Judiciary from overseeing and administering legislative functions; the Illinois Supreme Court is unconstitutionally “administering” the Administrative Law Courts under under 750 ILCS 25/4-5, the “Expedited Child Support Act of 1990.”

Please note that the Judiciary may not oversee or administer a legislative body, especially because they would then have a conflict of interest when Petitions for Mandamus are filed in courts against this body (the DHFS Child Support Enforcement Administrative Law Courts). Also note that all other administrative law courts under Illinois statutes are administrated and overseen by administrative and not judiciary officer; and

2)    Discriminatory in that they accept cases in Title IV-D program from custodial parents but fail their statutory duty to hear requests from NON-custodial parents for reduction in child support due to change of circumstances (i.e. Hold hearings in DHFS Administrative Law Courts)  as required under 750 ILCS 25/5-2 (“Actions Subject to Expedited Child Support”).

Thus they abdicate their statutory duty for the Administrative Law Court Investigator under Child Support Enforcement Division of DHFS to investigate both parents ‘ financial situation and hold a hearing to recommend to the Trial Court in post-divorce proceedings changes in child support. The courts then usurp this power and refuse even to listen to the defamed NON-custodial parent.

Thus many NON-custodial parents are falsely accused of failing to pay excessive child support which they are unable to pay and DHFS is obtaining federal funds to assist NON-custodial parents in obtaining changes in child support to reasonable amounts, but not using these funds for that purpose. What are they using them for – judges and child reps penions?  Instead the Non-custodial parents are falsely labeled and defamed as “deadbeats.

Two examples of this lawlessness in the Cook County Courts that are affected by the dereliction of this statutory duty by DHFS and lawless rulings by judges are:

1)     Sandie, who stopped her preparation for a board exam in pediatrics and for licensure as a  physician to raise her children, while her ex-husband completed his exams and then after being fraudulently defamed and the custody of her children illegally removed from her due to false statements to the court by her ex-husband and the child representative, then the Trial Court has ordered her to  pay exorbitant child support “because you are a doctor”, while she is actually homeless due to this order and she is NOT a licensed doctor and cannot obtain high paying employment, at the same time that her ex-husband is a highly paid anesthesiologist and her children are being brainwashed against her through typical actions known as parental alienation.  The DHFS has yet to hear her case to reduce child support.

2)    David, who is falsely defamed by his ex-wife as dangerous because he is an ex-Marine, and therefore wrongfully and illegally upon the outrageous order of the Trial Court lost custody of his children. He had a serious injury to his back at work last year – and he therefore has been unemployed for nearly a year. Worker’s compensation has failed to OK his compensation and his union is litigating that issue so his income has been $0 for a year. Yet the Trial Court has ordered him to pay $420 in child support every two weeks for his two children who are in the custody of their mother who is a drug addict. David has NO other assets as his ex-wife was a compulsive spender and threw away over $200,000 of marital income causing them to remortgage their house and lose it in foreclosure. Yet the Trial Court has refused, even after receiving affidavits from others that she is a drug addict to have the mother tested or even examined by psychologists as well as refused to even allow to be filed, let alone hear a motion to reduce child support. Now the judge is threatening to jail David for failure to pay child support.

Please note that the NON-custodial parents then end up with wage garnishment and other orders requiring that they pay > 150 % of their income for child support and they are thrown in jail when they are unable to do this. Their parents and other relatives are then extorted to get them out of jail. Please note that the Federal Consumer  Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1611 and 29 C.F.R Part 870 require that wage garnishment be for no more than 65 % of NET income! These Trial Court orders often say that NON-custodial parents must pay more than 150 % of their gross income for child support. Isn’t this extortion and federal funding fraud?

I hope your committee will strongly consider this suggestion and strongly advocate for investigation of this situation.

Attached is the “Table of Contents” of the Big Divorce Book written by Dr. Shelton and David Bambic which has a summary of the DHFS Child Support Enforcement statutes and the federal Consumer Protection Statutes.

Thank you for your time in reviewing this most important issue. We await your concerned response.

Sincerely,

Linda Lorincz Shelton, PhD, MD

ILLINOIS

 

DIVORCE BIG BOOK

 

ILLINOIS AND FEDERAL STATUTES

 

REGARDING CHILD SUPPORT

 

                                    AN EDUCATIONAL PUBLICATION BY STOP ILLINOIS CORRUPTION

 

                                                  

(A PUBLIC SERVICE CLUB)

 

EDITED BY

 

DAVID BAMBIC and DR. LINDA SHELTON

 

November 4, 2011

 

Copyright 2011

 

 

 

NOTE: Interpretation of Law in Table of Contents has been done by paralegals and lay persons and is not guaranteed as to its accuracy – Please verify any interpretation of law by a licensed attorney – This is the opinion and belief of editors only and not meant to be a definitive interpretation of the law or legal advice – Use this interpretation at your own risk

 

 

NOTE: These laws are applicable the moment an obligee (non-custodial parent) is placed into the State Disbursement Unit (in Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services [HFS]) for collection and distribution of child support and are available to ALL  PARENTS in divorce actions even if they are NOT on  public assistance (Public Aid), upon application by either parent, whereupon the Family Court loses jurisdiction to investigate and hear applications for change in child support unless the parents disagree with the recommendation of the HFS Child Support Unit Administrative Law Court (ALC), after the ALC investigates financial circumstances, holds a hearing and makes a recommendation to the  parties.  Then the parties may go back to the Family Court Judge (Trial Judge) for review of recommendations, evidentiary hearing, and decision on change in child support.

 

NOTE:  All parents may apply to be supervised by the SDU and ALC in the Child Support Services Division (CS) of HFS. Find the address of your local office for the Illinois Child Support Unit in the Department of Healthcare and Family Services at their web site:

 

 


TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR DIVORCE BIG BOOK

Note that these laws were written to be in compliance with federal codes pertaining to Social Security Title IV – 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. & amendments

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   page

  1. Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act – 750 ILCS 5/506

Representation of child………………………….……………………………………………………………….  1-2

“The child representative shall not render an opinion, recommendation, or

 report to the court . . . but shall offer evidence-based [ NOTE NOT HEARSAY]

legal argument.  The child representative shall disclose the position as to what

the child representative intends to advocate in a pre-trial memorandum that

shall be served upon counsel of record prior to the trial. The position disclosed

 in the pre-trial memorandum shall not be considered evidence.” ………………….      1

 

“Any person appointed under this Section shall file with the court within

90 days of his or her appointment, and every subsequent 90 – day period

thereafter during the course of his or her representation , a detailed invoice

 for services rendered with a copy being sent to each party.”………………………….     2

  1. Unified Child Support Services Act” 750 ILCS 24 et seq. …………………………………………    3-6

Plan must be submitted by County State’s Attorney to the [Illinois] Department

of Healthcare and Family Services (“DHFS”) – Section 10 …………………………….      3

Components of a Unified Child Support Services Program” 750 ILCS 24/15……     4-5

“ (1) Accepting applications for child support services from private

Parties or referrals from any state agency [Court]”………………………….……..      4

“(7) Obtaining identified cases that have moved into non-compliance

With obligations [arrears] . . . . “……………………..………………………………………      4

“(16) Marketing the Program within the county in which it is operating

so that potential applicants learn about child support services offered.”.       5

“Child Support Program Responsibilities” – 750 ILCS 24/35 ………………………       5-6

”Operation of a statewide toll free telephone”    – [for the public to

obtain information even if they are not eligible for public aid]………………     5

“(2) Management and supervision of the State Disbursement Unit”

By the DHFS…………………………………………………………………………………………….    6

  1. Expedited Child Support Act of 1990” – 750 ILCS 25 et seq………………………………   7-13

Purpose  750 ILCS 25/2 “. . modification of child support orders …………….      7

Establishment of the Expedited Child Support System” 750
ILCS 25/4………………………………………………………………………………………………………      8

“(1) …The System shall be available to all participants in the IV-D

program, and may be made available to all persons, regardless of

 participation in the IV-D program…” ……………………………………………………       8

“(2) Implementation . . . the Chief Judge of any Circuit shall develop and

Submit to the [Illinois] Supreme Court a Plan for the creation of a System    8

“(5) Implementation. The System shall be administered by Supreme

Court. The Supreme Court may delegate, to the Chief Judge of each

Judicial Circuit, the day-to-day administration of the system in the

County. . . .” ……………………………………………………………………………………………    8

  1. Actions subject to Expedited Child Support Hearings” – 750 ILCS 25/5 ………….       9

“(1) Petitions for child support and for medical support . . . for

post-judgment dissolution and . . where child support or medical

support was reserved or could not be ordered at the time of entry

  • of the judgment  . . .” …………………………………………………………………………..     9

“(2) Petitions for modification of child support and medical support

in post-judgment dissolution of marriage . . . “ ……………………………………     9

“(4) Actions for the enforcement of any existing order for child support

 or medical support in post-judgment dissolution of marriage . . .”……..     9

“(8) Actions brought pursuant to Article X of the Illinois Public Aid

Code”……………………………………………………………………………………………….….     9

“(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this Section,

 if the custodial parent is not a participant in the IV-D program and

maintenance is in issue, the case shall be presented directly to

the court.”………………………………………………………………………………..…………     9

“(c) . . . the System be available in pre-judgment proceedings for

dissolution of marriage, declaration of invalidity of marriage and

 legal separation.”……………………………………………………………………………..      9

  1. Authority of hearing officers (administrative law judges”  and “Expedited Child Support Hearings”  750 ILCS 25/6 & 7……………………………………………….………………..…………   9-11

Administrative law judges [hearing officers] are by statute authorized

to subpoena and collect evidence, review evidence, and make

recommendations to the court as to post-dissolution of marriage

child support issues, modification of child support and health

 insurance  issues for the children.  The Trial Court by statute shall

refer all child support and health insurance issues to the administrative

law court. Only if the parents disagree with the administrative

law judge’s recommendations shall the court intervene in coming

up with its own decisions regarding child support and health

insurance issues for the children post judgment for

dissolution of marriage……………………………………………………………………..     9-11

 

“(b) in any case in which the Obligee is not participating in the

IV-D program or has to applied to participate in the IV-D program,

the Administrative Hearing Officer shall: (1) inform the Obligee of the

existence of the IV-D program and provide applications on request;

and (2) inform the Obligee and the Obligor of the option of

requesting payment to be made through the Clerk of the

Circuit Court.”…………………………………………………………………………………….   10-11

  1. Authority retained by the [trial] court”  750 ILCS 25/8 ………………………………..     12-13

Trail Court retains jurisdiction over all matters not related to child

Support or health insurance [as well as parentage issues] for the

children and must resolve issues when the parents disagree with

the recommendations of the administrative law judge …………………..      12-13

  1. Judicial Hearings  750 ILCS 25/9………………………………………………………………..      13

Defines under what circumstances the Trial Court regains

Jurisdiction over post-judgment child support and child health

Insurance support issues ………………………………………………………………..       13

  1. Child Support Payment Act” 750 ILCS 27 …………………………………………………..       14

Allows obligor to pay child support through a currency exchange ..        14

  1. Income Withholding for Support Act:  750 ILCS 28…………………………………….     15-24

Details the form of notice to be given to the Obligor

(750 ILCS 28/20(b)- p. 17-18),  by the Court Clerk and the payer

by the SDU, Clerk or other public officer (750 ILCS 28/20(g) –

p. 18, 750 ILCS 28/30 – p. 20), or Obligee if the SDU, Clerk or other

public officer is not Ordered  to be involved in support payments

supervision or providing notice to payer (750 ILCS 28/20(b)&(g) –

p.18); details how to deal with delinquency and how to penalize

payers who refuse to withhold……………………………………………………..  15-24

  1. 10.   Illinois Public Aid Code” 305 ILCS 5, “Determination and Enforcement of

Support Responsibility of Relatives” 305 ILCS 5/Article X…………………………………  25-49

The Department of HCFS shall cause to be published and

distributed publications reasonably calculated to inform the

 public that individuals who are not recipients of or applicants

for public aid under this Code are eligible for the child support

enforcement services under this Article X. Such publications shall

set forth the an explanation, in plain language, that the child

support enforcement services program is independent of any

public and aid program under the Code and that the receiving of

 child support enforcement services in no way implies that the

person receiving such services is receiving public aid.”.………………….   25-26

Access to records” 305 ILCS 5/10-9.5…………………………………………….    32

Mandates that both parents have access to all records from

The Clerk, SDU, and DHFS, except if there is an order of

Protection hiding an address or phone number,  then that

Address or phone number may not be revealed………………..    32

Information to State Case Registry” 305 ILCS 5/10-10.5 ………………  37-39

Establishes a section in the Department of HCFS, Public

Aid Division that maintains all records of child support

Payment and enforcement, and requires that both parents

Keep the Department informed of address changes…………  37-39

State Disbursement Unit”  305 ILCS 5/10-26………………………………..  46-47

Establishes the SDU under the supervision of the Illinois

DHFS which is authorized to accept and disburse child support

Payments as well as to inform payers of withholding orders

And penalties for failure to comply …………………………………  46-47

“Notice of child support enforcement services” 305 ILCS 5/10-28..    49

Provides that the SDU may notify the Obligor and payer of

Its services, as well as other parties………………………………….    49

  1. Title III, Consumer Protection Act”  Summary of authority and purpose of

15 USC § 1671 et seq. and 29 CFR Part 870 regarding maximum payments that may

Be withheld under federal law from Obligor …………………………………………….  50-51

  1. 15 USC § 1671 et seq. Federal Wage Garnishment Law (Title III of the Consumer

Protection Act) & corresponding 29 CFR Part 870 …………………………………….  51-56

Mandates that when child support is an issue that federal and

State taxes have priority over child support or other debts.

Provides that child support has priority over other debts except

for taxes. Provides that if the Obligor is not living with and

supporting a spouse or child that no more than a total of

60% of net wages may be withheld from a paycheck and no

more than 65% of net wages may be withheld from a paycheck

if Obligor is more than 12 weeks in arrears ………………………………..   52-54

Written by Linda Shelton

January 11, 2013 at 2:20 pm

Posted in attorney misconduct, child protective service, Child representative, Cook County Courts, David Wessel, family court, Fraud upon the court, government corruptiom, Guardian ad litem, Illinois corruption, Jaquiline Birnbaum, Judge Alfred Levinson, Judge Andrea Schleifer, Judge Barbara Meyeer, Judge Bonita Coleman-John, Judge Carole Karmin Bellows, Judge Celia Gamrath, Judge Daniel Miranda, Judge David E. Haracz, Judge David Haracz, Judge Debra Walker, Judge Dominique Ross, Judge Edward Arce, Judge Elizabeth Rivera, Judge Fe Fernandez, Judge Grace Dickler, Judge Helaine Berger, Judge Hyman Riebman, Judge Jeanne Cleveland Bernstein, Judge Jeanne Reynolds, Judge John Carr, Judge La Quietta Hardy-Campbell, Judge Leida Gonzalez Santiago, Judge Lisa Ruble Murphy, Judge Mark Lopez, Judge Martha Mills, Judge Mary Trew, Judge Marya Nega, Judge Michael Bender, Judge Michele Lowrance, Judge Nancy Katz, Judge Naomi Schuster, Judge Pamela E Loza, Judge Pamela Loza, Judge Patricia Logue, Judge Patrick Murphy, Judge Paul Vega, Judge Regina Scannicchio, Judge Renee Goldfarb, Judge Sharon Johnson, Judge Thomas Kelley, Judge Timothy Murphy, Judge Veronicz B Mathein, Judge William Boyd, Judicial Misconduct, Self-Representation (Pro Se), Stop Corruption

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Corruption at Markham courthouse family court

with one comment


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!! 

http://www.cookcountycourt.org/Portals/0/Media/No%20Electronic%20Devices%20Form.pdf
%d bloggers like this: