Cook County Judges

Send your comments to (see about for guidelines)

Archive for the ‘Bail and Bond’ Category

Why Chief Cook County Court Judge Evans should be removed

leave a comment »


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.

No justice; no peace – police Officer Servin gets away with murder, disabled activist charged with felony battery for “touching officer’s ear”, innocent grandmother convicted of murder of officer while confused in a seizure after being battered by officer

with one comment

This blog and other blogs by Shelton are devoted to uncovering and exposing the methods  of incompetence and corruption and the systemic lawlessness of our injustice system in Illinois, particularly Cook County. Click the links on your right to see my other blogs.

UPDATE: next court date 7/20/2017 rm 506 2600 S California 10am

Oppose $300,000 bail for indigent disabled defendant charged with accidentally “touching an officer’s ear”

Support argument that charge of felony battery for “touching an officer’s ear” when the officers violated the ADA in inducing PTSD flashback and balance issue by ignoring doctors’ statements, given to Court Disability Coordinator Pacelli, that defendant has balance issues and may flail arms and grab out if pushed + PTSD due to having been beaten by officers – so that when rushed by dog pack-like group of large male officers yelling at her she goes into PTSD flashback and “misperceives ongoing events” believing she is being attacked, falls to floor, cowers, loudly verbally defends self and or flails arms around head believing she is defending herself against a beating.

Oppose unlawful arrests in retaliation for civil rights advocacy – helping poor fight in divorce to keep kids, opposing unlawful evictions, advocacy against police brutality

Oppose abuse of disabled by police & judges

Fill court gallery 7/20/17 RM 506 crim court building at 10 am  Chicago and show support for activist arguing that charge aggravated battery for “accidentally touching ear” is illegal charge against activist

UPDATE: Judge denied motion and issued inadequate order to impede immediate appeal. Watch argument 12/9/16 requesting judge strike order & issue proper order that is immediately appealable on 12/9/16

COME TO COURT, view from court gallery Judge Cannon’s announcement of written decision concerning Shelton’s argument that IL battery statute is unconstitutional on 7/13/16 rm 506 2600 S California at 10 am, Chicago, IL

Until justice is served, Chicago should have no peace.

Alvarez has continued to systemically target me by prosecuting me for now nearly 40 cases of unlawful and unconstitutional arrests over the last 15 years in retaliation for being a whistle blower against corrupt judges and corrupt Sheriff staff and police officers from Chicago, Evergreen Park, and Oak Lawn.

Help me (Shelton) now by showing up to court hearings (NEXT one 7/20/17 room 506 10 AM 2600 S California – though judge hears others first and waits until gallery empty so there will be no witnesses to her illegal rulings), giving Shelton support in pending case: click here

Enough is enough!!  Vote out Clerk Brown and vote NO on every judge on judicial retention ballot!! Replace any candidate or Alderman who refuses to commit to investigation of the Cook County Court system, Cook County police including Chicago Police, Suburban Police, and especially the Cook County Sheriff including their Courtroom Services Division and Correctional Officers.

Its time for Chicagoans to stand up against police, prosecutorial, and judicial corruption in consistent, constant, recurring, protests until the Cook County Board, Chicago City Council, the FBI and U.S. Attorney, Illinois legislature, and U.S. Congress change training of police to de-escalate and not shoot unarmed or those with knives or bats, as well as judicial, oversight to remedy the following:

The killing of 22-year-old Rekia Boyd  by off duty Chicago police officer Dante Servin when he shot backward over his shoulder towards a group of people is clear murder as well as is involuntary manslaughter because he clearly meant to shoot someone in that direction although he may not have meant to shoot Boyd specifically.  So it is both a voluntary act of shooting someone without premeditation (murder) and an involuntary act of killing someone he did not specifically target. You can be sure that if he was a civilian he would have been charged with murder and there are examples of such in the Court Clerk’s records.

Cook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez knows this and purposely undercharged him in my opinion as she always favors the police and covers up for their crimes and errors. She was in charge of the division in the State’s Attorney’s office under SA Devine which was responsible for prosecuting government corruption for a decade and essentially shut down that office. She has for decades had a history of reckless disregard for the rights of citizens, which corrupt and incompetent officials have violated.

(Shelton – and , , and

Alvarez at the same time has continued to systemically target me by prosecuting me for now nearly 40 cases of unlawful and unconstitutional arrests over the last 15 years in retaliation for being a whistle blower against corrupt judges and corrupt Sheriff staff and police officers from Chicago, Evergreen Park, and Oak Lawn.

Help me (Shelton) now by showing up to court hearings (NEXT one 7/20/17 room 506 10 AM 2600 S California – though judge hears others first and waits until gallery empty so there will be no witnesses to her illegal rulings), giving Shelton support in pending case: click here

I mostly defended myself successfully but the two cases for which I was convicted are just unjust wrongful  convictions or meatballs that stuck when the spaghetti plate was thrown. Three contempt convictions with a summary (NO TRIAL = illegal sentence) sentence of 16 months later changed to 12 months consecutive were clearly unconstitutional and malicious by Judge McHale. See here description and case law.

One wrongful felony conviction for “bumping an officer with my wheelchair” = felony aggravated battery for “causing an abrasion” and resulting in a two year outrageous sentence was also unlawful, never happened, and due to falsification of records and perjury by Officer Anthony Salemi (see appeal here).

The denial of appeal by the Appellate Court was unlawful and based on an ad hominem attack by Appellate Justice Levin that ignored the arguments and case law in appeal brief. See outrageous opinion here where Judge Levin quotes defamatory rumors about my behavior in courts, which have no basis – here).

The misdemeanor conviction for “bumping an officer with my walker” was again perjury by Courtroom Services Deputy Sheriff  Ateca. She lied and said I was sitting and pushed my walker against her causing no injury. She actually walked in front of me when I was walking to the elevator and slowed down suddenly so I would accidentally bump into her. Her partner is aiding and abetting this perjury by not speaking up.

The judge fixed the case by not allowing me to take my medication for chronic pain, vertigo, and PTSD so that I was so distraught and unable to properly question the witness as my own attorney and too sick to testify so I chose not to that I appeared crazy to the jury and confused so they ignored me and convicted me. This was an unlawful trial as I was denied American with Disability Act required accommodations (medications) during my trial as well as access to my legal documents while jailed during the trial.

It’s a violation of civil rights to impede a self-represented person from access to her court documents, pen and paper, during a trial.

There is a pattern of under-trained officers who disregard the rights of defendants and abuse the disabled, especially the mentally ill, as well as purposely lawless judges who cover-up for criminal acts of police, retaliate against whistle blowers, and are biased against poor and minorities or uneducated.

The public defender’s budget is minuscule compared to the prosecutor’s budget so that the public defenders do not have the time or resources to properly defend anyone.  The gun (officer’s weapon) used by Robin Johnson was not checked for her fingerprints and no medical experts or doctors were called as witnesses in her defense for example.

Judge Porter is a cunning politician who never should have found Servin not guilty of involuntary manslaughter, despite the lack of the more appropriate murder charge. I suspect that Alvarez and Porter conspired to do this so that Alvarez can say she charged him, but Porter would have an excuse to find him not guilty – thus protecting the officer.

Judge Gainer wrongfully convicted Robin Johnson of murder of an officer in 2013, when Chicago police committed perjury – they shot their own man, by illegally refusing to allow testimony that Johnson was in a standing seizure (confused), had a long history of such seizures that were not controlled well and was often found wandering at night at bus stops, had a grand mal seizure in her bathroom at home that morning, that it took five years pretrial while she was in jail to mostly control her seizures, that she had been repeatedly bashed while in a head lock against a bus by her head by the deceased officer, and Johnson had no experience with guns or training in attacking others or defending herself.

So how does a 5′ tall grandmother with no criminal history disarm a 6′ tall seasoned Sargent and shoot him in the head – with a large gun that is really too large for her tiny hand to hold and handle  this weapon while in a confused state of mind due to a seizure?

She clearly could have no intent if she was in a seizure and confused so the charge is void and the public defender refused to argue this defense. The state had multiple videos but the moments where she allegedly held the gun were missing for “unknown reasons”! The gun was lost for a period of time, which per the U.S. Supreme Court decision means that the case automatically should have been dismissed due to tampering with evidence.

The state made up a baloney theory that her motive was that she was an “angry person” out to kill a cop! They didn’t let her children (including a daughter studying to be an attorney) and grandchildren, relatives and friends testify that she was not a violent, aggressive, or “angry” person.

Notably, Gainer should have recused himself because his close relative was former top cop in the U.S. – Terrance Gainer who had at retirement been Chief of the Capital police in Washington, D.C., had long record of being chief of several departments and president of the American Society of Police Chiefs!  He is often “randomly” assigned to cases involving police officers as victims or plaintiffs by “coincidence.”

She is now serving a wrongful life sentence while her husband is dying for something she didn’t do in order for Alvarez to cover-up the shooting of the officer by police. Johnson barely survived 22 wounds when officers arriving on the scene emptied their guns against her, even though by then the videos show her unarmed and down. That’s attempted murder.

robin johnson

Robin Johnson = innocent person

Serving life sentence for shooting officer

The FBI and U.S. Attorney should arrest Servin for criminal violation of civil rights under color of law and convict him in that manner.

Mayor Emmanuel should denounce this officer and criticize Alvarez but he has no guts to stand for the right.

Supt. Johnson should call the kettle black and fire Servin for official misconduct due to clear violation of his oath of office to uphold the law and control his gun.

For 20 years I have been supporting the minority populations in Cook County as a physician standing up for my patients in court when no other doctor would do so, writing these blogs to expose corruption and providing the FBI and U.S. Attorney information about corruption and abuse at the jail and in the courts. I won a suit for mandamus, in the public interest, against the Sheriff in 2004-5 for violating the freedom of information act and not giving me a copy of their compliance plan for the Americans with Disabilities Act regarding accommodating disabled at courthouses. They were forced to admit that for more than a decade they were in violation of federal law by failing to have a compliance plan.

I have been repeatedly unlawfully arrested usually for trespass, resisting arrest, or battery of ONLY officers in courthouses usually with only police witnesses (!!) for falsely alleged “bumping them with my walker or wheelchair” and personally beaten by the Chicago Police and Cook County Sheriff staff.

My mouth was covered with duct tape during an asthma attack – which could have killed me except a Sgt. ordered it removed. My pony tail was grabbed and my head banged against a wall despite major neck spine surgery – which could have caused death like with Freddie Grey, held on the floor by Correctional officers Ruiz and Levy and kicked with their boots (see pictures). I was beaten by a Chicago Police Detention Aid Shell (see picture 1 & 2) for taking my medication for severe pain and vertigo after it was handed to me while in the police station during a release from unlawful custody. I had my shoulder severely strained and mildly dislocated by Correctional officer Charles Johnson in Dec. 2006 confirmed by an orthopedic surgeon. I was body slammed when C/O Johnson grabbed by handcuffed in front hands and swung them up and slammed me down against a row of chairs with arms causing contusions on my back especially near my surgery site – resulting in temporary paralysis and shock – then slamming me onto the floor where I laid outside the jail ER mocked by officers for hrs and temporarily unable to move without medical care – then a “nurse” looked at me and said nothing was wrong while ignoring the 5″ scar on the back of my neck from surgery, passed out from cardiac arrhythmia and severe neurocardiogenic syncope in the jail Cermak ER and ignored on the floor for hrs, suffered ischemia of the heart and a brief respiratory arrest when exposed to tobacco smoke in 2001 after a false arrest even though I told them I could not tolerate tobacco smoke – then when returned from the ER the medical staff failed to do the cardiac enzyme tests needed over 24 hrs to be sure I did not suffer a heart attack (I have the medical records).

I have been in 2013-2014 jailed for one year without bail for “touching an officer’s ear” during a PTSD flashback induced by Courtroom Services Sheriff’s Officers who misused information I gave to the Court Disability Coordinator Pacelli to trigger the flashback – then they failed to back off when I began to “misperceive ongoing events” crumbled to the floor and swung my hands around my head to block misperceived blows (due to flashback which is like reliving the nightmare in a daytime dream like altered state of consciousness) as well as grabbed out involuntarily to steady myself when pushed and picked up by them (due to my neurological disease and resulting balance issues). For more information see this link here.

I have now challenged the constitutionality of the Illinois battery statutes for making touching an officer a felony crime. Come to court at 2600 S California, room 506, Chicago on 7/13/16 at 10 am and hear Judge Cannon’s decision on this motion.  For more info about this motion read here.

“This is the first time I’ve ever seen (a) judge let a criminal go because he was improperly charged,” said Frank Chapman. “I have never seen that before,” confirming the intellectual, intentional misconduct of Judge Porter in refusing to convict on involuntary manslaughter because “it was voluntary” and he should have been charged with murder.

Chapman believes the state’s attorney’s office and the police department have too close of a relationship to look at cases like these objectively.  They say Servin is the first Chicago police officer in 20 years to be charged with killing someone.

Shelton alleges Judge Dianne Cannon mentally incompetent and disabled versus maliciously corrupt

with one comment

UPDATE: 3-14-15 Judge Wadas quashed all Shelton’s subpoenas for witnesses concerning Judge Cannon’s misconduct and bias. He then cut off Shelton’s argument for substitution of Judge Cannon for cause (inability to remember discussions with court disability coordinator, violation of bail law, violation of fitness law, violation of due process in pervasive fashion, ignoring higher court precedent, quashing Shelton’s subpoenas for witnesses and discovery of documents needed for defense, etc) and essentially summarily denied Shelton’s Motion for substitution of judge for cause.

Please standup for civil rights and against pervasive violation of due process, habeas, right to compulsory process, etc., and against excessive force, officer’s false statements, violation of Americans with Disabilities act against a person suffering from PTSD and appear at every court hearing and trial for Shelton – next court date Aug 11, 2015 room 502, 2600 S. California in Chicago, IL. Then when he denies second motion for SOJ for Cause the case will instanter return to room 506.

Dr. Linda Shelton is falsely charged with felony aggravated battery to an officer for “touching an officer’s ear” during a  PTSD flashback in the courtroom, purposely triggered by officers, who were violating a court disability coordinator agreement not to trigger flashbacks and to back-off if one occurred; See: and

Come to court and witness argument and Judge Wadas’ decision on this motion Feb. 20, 2015, 2600 S California, Chicago, rm 502 at 10 am.  Stand-up against judicial incompetence and violation of due process!! Dr. Linda Shelton has filed a motion for substitution of Judge Cannon for cause in her case. This is the initial summary in this motion. For full motion see: M for SOJ for cause 11-22-14 . For exhibits contact Shelton by email at to arrange to view them or obtain copies. For information about Shelton’s case read the motion and/or read this blog post here.

  1. Judge Cannon, continually over two years, except for the ten months of her absence, has conducted this case with such overwhelming and pervasive violation of statutes, violation of due process rights, violation of constitutional rights, and biased as well as irrational statements that she cannot be considered to have the capability to proceed in a fair manner. Her recent statements are so full of falsehood and confabulation that a case can be made that she is not fit to serve on the bench and should be examined by a psychiatrist for mental disability.
  2. Judge Cannon’s inability to remember discussing ADA accommodations with Court Disability Coordinator (“CDC”) Milissa Pacelli[1], inability to understand that Elgin Mental Health Center never treated Shelton for a mental disorder and they found her fit, thus J. Cannon’s continued accusations of unfitness and need for psychotropic medications appear to be bias or confabulation[2], inability to understand that J. Reddick – in her absence – had given Shelton extension of time to subpoena communications between the CDC and Sheriff staff on Oct. 3, 2013[3] , confused and irrational statements about whether Shelton had any medical records or had ever been in the courtroom[4] , false statements and pervasive violation of statutes and due process rights[5], and imaginary rulings by a judge who was never assigned and never appeared in this case[6], could either be knee-jerk confabulation due to early dementia or malicious misconduct. She has been very ill for months and it may be possible that she has not recovered sufficiently to continue as a judge or that she has unfortunately fallen into the depths of early dementia. The failure of the Assistant State’s Attorney and Assistant Public Defenders to step in and question her extreme, pervasive, and continuing statutory, constitutional, and factual errors is inexcusable misconduct.

[1] See transcript  summary and transcript 11/14/14 pp 24-25  & CDC Pacelli Shelton emails 1-1-13 on Exhibit CD [2] See transcript  summary and transcript 11/14/14 p 5 l 1-7, pp 24-25, EMHC Report of 10/31/13; letter from Dr. Galatzer-Levy; Report from Dr. Rappaport p 24 or Bates #1041; EMHC 10-31-13 report p 4 on Exhibit CD   [3] See transcript summary and transcript of 11/14/14 p 3-4, 12 where J Cannon does not appear to understand the reason for and function of court disability assistance Jeff Gertie, and calls  J Reddick’s orders a “civil case” ; Transcript 10/3/14 p 78-80 on Exhibit CD [4] See transcript summary and transcript of 11/14/14 p 20-22 on Exhibit CD [5] See entire transcript summary and all transcripts on Exhibit CD; See this entire motion. [6]See transcript summary and transcript of 11/14/14 p 6 where J. Cannon states J. Wadas denied Motion for Substitution of Judge In April 2013,  but J. Wadas never appeared on this case on Exhibit CD

Shelton challenges retention of 10 % all bonds by clerk as unconstitutional

with 2 comments

This motion to challenge the bond statute was filed in case 12 CR 22504 where the next hearing is on Aug 11 2015 at 10 AM in courtroom 506 at 2600 S California Ave, in IL. For more information about the case read here, here, and here.

In  Illinois state statutes allow those charged with crimes to pay 10% of their bail to be released from jail pre-trial. Note that this is an incentive for the judges to set hugely excessive bails in Illinois.

This means that the bond processing and holding fee, which is a fixed service whether the bond check is for $100 on a $1000 bail or $10,000 on a $100,000 bail is obviously unfair, as the court clerk would retain $10 and $1,000 respectively for the exact same service of processing the bond check. The $1,000 should be considered a $995 overcharge and that hurts especially if you are poor and innocent.

This ties the type of charge and the whim of the judge in setting bail to a fixed service, which can be considered institutionalized fraud by the State of Illinois and the court clerks, as well as considered exploitation of defendants.

This is a scheme by Cook County to take the profits (from loaning you the money) from bail bondsmen who are banned in IL and give the profits (not a loan but a fixed service) from bail to the courts. If the amount the clerk receives for a fixed service of processing the bond is variable (set by statute at 10 % of the bond or 1% of the bail amount if it is a D-Bond; C-Bond requires you pay 100% of bail and is rarely set; personal recognizance bond allows you to pay no bond for release) and tied to the amount of bail, then the judges are encouraged (actually instructed) to set bails in IL 5-10 times higher than in other states so as to maximize the profits for the clerk/courts/county.  This is discriminatory and violates the constitutional right to be free of excessive bail amounts.

Remember, it doesn’t matter if you are innocent or guilty as all pay this fee IF they can pay their bond, do not choose to pay the entire bail – which means there is no fee for them – and IF they choose to pay the bond instead of sit in jail for the usually year or years it takes to go to trial.

In other areas of law, tying the fee for a fixed service to an unrelated service is considered fraud. For example: When doctors’ billing agents charge by percentage of doctor’s income to process billing instead of charging a flat fee for each bill processed, the U.S. Attorney files charges against the billing agent of Medicaid and Medicare fraud, as the

federal government when paying a surgeon for a $50,000 operation does considers it fraud to pay the billing agent $2500 for processing one surgeon’s bill (if the biller’s fee is 5% of doctor’s income) when they may only charge $5 on a $100 bill (5% to biller) from a doctor to  process one family doctor’s bill. They believe this amounts to a $2,495 overcharge on the biller’s bill processing service for the surgeon (paid for by the government).

I am filing this motion this week in my case. If there is any attorney who wants to consider representing me in this case, please email me at


People of the State of Illinois                          ) Plaintiff                                          ) v.                                            ) No. 12 CR 22504-01 Linda Shelton                                                 ) Defendant                                     ) Judge Reddick ) presiding MOTION TO DECLARE THE ILLINOIS BAIL STATUTE BOND RETENTION CLAUSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL NOW COMES, the Defendant, Linda L. Shelton, Pro Se who respectfully moves as above and in support of states as follows: 1. The Illinois Bail Statute, 725 ILCS 5/110, was written, according to the debate in the legislature, to correct the unfairness of the previous bail bondsman system resulting in impoverishment of innocent defendants. It eliminated bail bondsmen and allows the court clerks to retain 1% of bail as a fee for “bail bond costs”, when bond is returned or before bond is used for payment of court costs, fines, or attorney fees. 2. Processing and keeping a bail bond costs the clerk the same amount of time and the county the same amount financially whether it is a $100 bond or a $1,000 bond. The county, of course, makes a much larger interest income with the larger bond. 3. Therefore, there is an incentive for judges to set excessive bonds due to this system. The judges have an appearance of using a bond chart to set bond according to the offense charged. 4. The present pertinent sections of the bond statute are contained in an endnote of this document. 5. The law requires courts to adhere to stare decisis, that is they must respect and follow the holdings of higher courts. In Illinois, decisions of an Appellate Court are binding precedent on all circuit courts of locale. Therefore, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, an applicable Appellate Court decision must be followed by every circuit court. People v. Carpenter, Garibaldi & Montes-Medina, 228 Ill.2d 250, 888 N.E.2d 105 (2008) (Nos. 103616, 103856 & 103857, 4/17/08) [emphasis added] 6. The law permits the trial courts to consider the constitutionality of statutes pretrial. Under Illinois Supreme Court precedent, the Appellate Court is required to resolve unconstitutional issues and constitutional issues which do not involve the validity of the statute before considering whether a statute is unconstitutional. Thus, in the Carpenter appeal the Appellate Court should have considered defendant’s reasonable doubt and due process arguments before determining that the statute creating the offense was unconstitutional. However, the requirement that the Appellate Court consider unconstitutional issues first does not require that the trial court do the same, especially where the statute creating the offense has been held unconstitutional by a court of superior jurisdiction. The court rejected the State’s argument that in the hope of avoiding a ruling on the constitutionality of the statute, the trial court was required to rule on pretrial motions although the Appellate Court had invalidated the statute creating the offense with which defendant was charged: Under either of these scenarios, the circuit court could have avoided ruling upon the constitutionality of the statute, but at the expense of defendants’ constitutional rights. We cannot emphasize enough: these are individuals charged with felonies. The criminal statutes of this state are not so sacrosanct, nor are our pursuit of judicial economy so preeminent, that we will endorse the trampling of citizens’ rights in pursuit of either. A citizen should not have to endure or defend a felony prosecution premised upon an unconstitutional statute. Our precedents do not hold otherwise. People v. Carpenter, Garibaldi & Montes-Medina, 228 Ill.2d 250, 888 N.E.2d 105 (2008) (Nos. 103616, 103856 & 103857, 4/17/08) [emphasis added] 7. Issues of constitutionality of statutes have been considered by the Illinois Supreme Court, which has stated specific guidelines concerning analysis of constitutionality: Statutes enjoy a presumption of constitutionality.  [People v. Kitch, 239 Ill. 2d 452, 466 (2011);] Conlan, 189 Ill.2d at 291, 244 Ill.Dec. 350, 725 N.E.2d 1237.   The party challenging the validity of a statute bears the burden of clearly establishing the alleged constitutional violation.  People v. Williams, 143 Ill.2d 477, 481, 160 Ill.Dec. 437, 577 N.E.2d 762 (1991).   While this presumption certainly does not mean that statutes are unassailable, neither should courts lightly or cavalierly declare unconstitutional that which the representatives of the people have seen fit to enact.  Conlan, 189 Ill.2d at 291-92, 244 Ill.Dec. 350, 725 N.E.2d 1237.   It is our duty to strike down legislation that plainly violates the constitution.  Williams, 143 Ill.2d at 481, 160 Ill.Dec. 437, 577 N.E.2d 762, quoting People v. Lindner, 127 Ill.2d 174, 184, 129 Ill.Dec. 64, 535 N.E.2d 829 (1989).   This is especially true when the legislation affects an individual’s liberty or constitutional due process rights.   The due process clause provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.   U.S. Const., amend. XIV; Ill. Const.1970, art. I, § 2; In re M.H., 196 Ill.2d 356, 362, 256 Ill.Dec. 297, 751 N.E.2d 1134 (2001), quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719-20, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 2267, 138 L.Ed.2d 772, 787 (1997).   Although the legislature has wide discretion in prescribing penalties for defined criminal offenses, this discretion is limited by the constitutional guarantee that a person may not be deprived of liberty without due process of law.  People v. Reed, 148 Ill.2d 1, 11, 169 Ill.Dec. 282, 591 N.E.2d 455 (1992).   Although our inquiry in this case involves matters of criminal procedure rather than criminal penalties, the importance of protecting constitutional due process rights is not diminished. [emphasis added] People v. Purcell, 2002 IL 92739 8. Judicial notice is given that the constitution gives citizens certain due process rights including the liberty right to be free of arrest and prosecution unless there is probable cause and due process. Fourth Amendment Probable Clause Cause and Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clauses 9. Citizens also have a First Amendment right to challenge the constitutionality of statutes on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others. “Overbreadth is a judicially created doctrine which recognizes an exception to the established principle that a person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied will not be heard to challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others, in other situations not before the court. Under the doctrine, a party being prosecuted for speech or expressive conduct may challenge the law on its face if it reaches protected expression, even when that person’s own activities are not protected by the first amendment. The reason for this special rule in first amendment cases is apparent: an overbroad statute might serve to chill protected speech. A person contemplating protected activity might be deterred by the fear of prosecution. The doctrine reflects the conclusion that the possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech of others may be muted.” Pooh Bah, 224 Ill. 2d at 435-36. 10. Citizens also have a right to challenge a statute based on violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection Clause requires more of a state law than nondiscriminatory application within the class it establishes. It also imposes a requirement of some rationality in the nature of the class singled out. To be sure, the constitutional demand is not a demand that a statute necessarily apply equally to all persons. ‘The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact . . . to be treated in law as though they were the same.’ Hence, legislation may impose special burdens upon defined classes in order to achieve permissible ends. But the Equal Protection Clause does require that, in defining a class subject to legislation, the distinctions that are drawn have ‘some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made’. Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357, 92 S.Ct. 479, 30 L.Ed.2d 502 (1971) quoting Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305, 308-309, 86 S.Ct. 149, 16 L.Ed.2d 577 [emphasis added] 11. For example, in People v. Wick (1985), 107 Ill.2d 62, 89 Ill.Dec. 833, 481 N.E.2d 676, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the former aggravated arson statute was unconstitutional because it (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 20-1.1(a)(3)) violated due process because it did not bear a reasonable relationship to the public interest intended to be protected. (Wick, 107 Ill.2d at 67, 89 Ill.Dec. 833, 481 N.E.2d 676.) The Illinois Supreme Court noted that the purpose of the statute was to subject arsonists to a more severe penalty when their conduct resulted in injury to a fire fighter or police officer. The Illinois Supreme Court found, however, that the statute was not reasonably related to that objective because the statute did not require an unlawful purpose in setting the fires. The statute therefore swept too broadly by punishing innocent as well as culpable conduct in setting fires. Wick, 107 Ill.2d at 66, 89 Ill.Dec. 833, 481 N.E.2d 676. 12. A statute may also be challenged if it violates the proportionate penalties clause of our State constitution. (Ill. Const.1970, art. I, § 11.) In People v. Bailey, 167 Ill.2d 210, 657 N.E.2d 953 (1995), 212 Ill.Dec. 608 the court stated as follows: Moreover, as this court has previously stated, “the availability of different punishments for separate offenses based on the commission of the same acts does not offend the constitutional guarantees of equal protection or due process.” [citations omitted] Accordingly, the trial court erred in concluding that the stalking statute violated the proportionate penalties clause.. . . .All penalties are to be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship. (Ill. Const.1970, art. I, § 11.) While this court has acknowledged that article I, section 11, places some restraint on the right of the legislature to establish penalties for crimes, this court has been reluctant to invalidate penalties prescribed by the legislature, since, institutionally, the legislature is better able to gauge the evils affecting our society and more capable of measuring the seriousness of various offenses than the courts. (Accordingly, this court will only invalidate a penalty when it is “`cruel,’ `degrading’ or `so wholly disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense of the community.'” [citations omitted]. People v. Bailey, 167 Ill.2d 210, 657 N.E.2d 953 (1995), 212 Ill.Dec. 608 [emphasis added] 13. In Bailey, the Illinois Supreme Court stated that if a statute makes the bail amount mandatory it would violate separation of powers: Coyne [the defendant] also argues that section 110-6.3 violates the separation of powers doctrine because it encroaches on the authority of the judiciary to admit persons to bail. We disagree. Section 110-6.3 requires that a court hold a hearing after the State files a petition requesting that the defendant be held without bail. According to the language of the section, following a hearing, the court “may” deny bail if several enumerated factors exist. Thus, we find section 110-6.3 is discretionary, rather than mandatory, in nature and does not curtail a court’s authority to impose bail. Consequently, we find that section 110-6.3 does not impermissibly infringe upon the powers of the court to admit persons to bail. [citations omitted] People v. Bailey, 167 Ill.2d 210, 657 N.E.2d 953 (1995), 212 Ill.Dec. 608 14. The percentage fee retention clause in the Bail Statute makes the percentage fee for bond processing disparate in that it is related to the bail set and therefore, also related to the crime charged – therefore appears to be an act of fraud and extortion against those with high bonds having no relationship, in amount, to the actual act of bond processing by the Clerk’s Office, is discriminatory against a specific class of defendants who can by some means raise the cash to pay 10 % bail charge for bond, on a higher than $500 bail (minimum bail amount), without using stocks, bonds, or real estate or paying the entire bail, and mandatory with absence of due process as there is no pretrial evidentiary hearing prior to its implementation. It violates separation of powers as, being a penalty as it is tied to the offense charged, is set by the legislature and not the court. As a penalty it violates the Bill of Rights in that property is confiscated without due process of law, especially as the amount charged is disparate regarding both different charges and the same charge with different bail amounts dependent upon the order of the judge. 15. Shelton argues that by the Bail Statute causing retainer of 1 % of her bail ($3,000) and not a flat fee for service regardless of ability to pay, regardless if bail is decreased upon motion for reconsideration (for the amount refunded – which the court clerk in Cook County refuses to refund the difference until the final disposition and then still retains the 1 %) as well as guilt or innocence, she is denied of property and liberty (until bail paid) without due process of law (there is no evidentiary due process hearing or trial that justifies the court retaining disproportionate and discriminatory different fees for different defendants). It is not a flat fee that applies equally to all persons using the clerk’s bond processing and holding service. 16. Therefore, Shelton has the right to “challenge the constitutionality of statutes on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others”. She challenges the disparate bond retention statute because it is discriminatory against a class of defendants who can by some means raise the cash to pay a higher than $500 bail, yet do not have the stocks, bonds, or real estate to put up as surety nor can they pay the entire bail amount. Those defendants that are indigent, particularly if innocent and therefore theoretically subject to no fines, fees or penalties, and have set high bails are particularly denied equal protection and due process by targeting them for lack of liberty if they do not forfeit a large sum of money without any evidentiary due process hearing as to their ability to pay or the justice involved in confiscating their funds. They are therefore coerced into giving up their right to retain property unless given a due process hearing in order to secure their pretrial release. This should shock the conscience. 17. Shelton challenges the constitutionality of the disparate fees because this represents fraud in that it charges different fees for the same service and ties the fee not to the service, but to an unrelated criminal charge and the whim of a judge or a judicial bond chart, not unlike the Medicare Fraud federal laws that charge felony fraud when a doctor’s billing agent charges by percentage of a doctor’s income instead of a flat fee for their services thus tying their services to the charges to the federal government for the doctor’s services. Here the county is committing fraud upon the defendants by tying the amount of bail and type of charge to the clerk’s fee. 18. Shelton challenges the constitutionality of the percentage bail retention clause because in violation of proportionality there is clearly no relationship between the amount of the clerk’s fee to process and hold the bond and the purpose of the bail statute or the Illinois Criminal Code. 19. Shelton challenges the constitutionality of the percentage bail retention clause (actually a penalty as the amount is related to the offense charged and whim of the judge and not the actual service) because it violates separation of powers as it is mandatory and unrelated in amount to an actual service of bond processing and holding or the purpose of the Bail or Criminal Statutes. The court is divorced from this bond processing fee penalty upon defendants whether guilty or innocent. Disparate mandatory bail fees encroache on the authority of the judiciary to admit persons to bail as it places the decision on the defendant as to whether to give up their right to property without due process (a decision of judiciary) in order to obtain pretrial release and the legislature which sets the amount of the penalty/alleged fee. 20. The Illinois Supreme Court said it “will only invalidate a penalty when it is “`cruel,’ `degrading’ or `so wholly disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense of the community.'”” [citations omitted] People v. Bailey, 167 Ill.2d 210, 657 N.E.2d 953 (1995), 212 Ill.Dec. 608 The Bail Statute requiring one person to pay $1,000 or even ten times more as a bond processing fee while others pay $10 for the same service does shock the moral sense of the community and is not only disproportionate to the offense, in many different situations, but particularly in this case where defendant is simply charged with “touching an officer’s ear”, especially as the act of bond processing is wholly unrelated to the purpose of the Bail Statute as well as the purpose of the Criminal Statute used to charge aggravated battery for this fraudulently alleged offense. Should a penalty without due process on Shelton be the same or even more than on another defendant who shot an officer with a gun? 21. The U.S. Supreme Court previously ruled that a fee for bail processing services applied equally to both innocent and guilty defendants alike is not a penalty. The U.S. Supreme Court held that: “No due process denial results from retention of the 1% charge, which is an administrative fee (and not a cost of prosecution), imposed on all—guilty and innocent alike—who seek its benefit” (Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357, 92 S.Ct. 479, 30 L.Ed.2d 502 (1971)), but nowhere in their opinion did they consider the disparate nature of the bond processing fee as applied to different cases. They held that: “There is no indication that the personal recognizance system is not used without regard to the economic status of the accused, or that the full-deposit system actually favors the affluent” (Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357, 92 S.Ct. 479, 30 L.Ed.2d 502 (1971)), having stated in their opinion that courts would use personal recognizance for indigent defendants frequently and would consider the financials of defendants before setting bail. However, in this case, defendant is indigent and there was no personal recognizance bond and there was no consideration of Shelton’s financials when bond was set for over 1 ½ years. There was no evidentiary due process hearing with notice to object to the bond retention amount. This is an issue of first impression ignored by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Schilb opinion. 22. As disparate service fees cannot be considered as a true service fee – or this would be an act of fraud and because they appear to be tied to the actual crime charged and bail set, they must be considered a mandatory penalty being charged on the group of defendants whether innocent or guilty who happened to be charged with a criminal offense, yet have the finances, by whatever cash means (their own or borrowed) – except stocks, bonds, or real estate, to pay the bail above and beyond the minimum for any criminal offense. As noted in Bailey and Schilb, there is a violation of both equal protection and proportionality when the penalty is mandatory or has no relationship to the crime and due process was denied. 23. Therefore, although flat fee bond processing fee on all defendants, whether innocent or guilty, who use the clerk’s bond processing service would be constitutional, it is apparent that a percentage of bail, bond service fee is not constitutional. WHEREFORE, Shelton moves for this Court to declare the portion of the bail statute allowing retention of 10 % of the bond by the Clerk (Bond Retention Clause) as unconstitutional. Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/109-1 I certify that the statements set forth herein are true and correct. July 29, 2014 Respectfully submitted, Linda L. Shelton Pro Se Defendant Linda Lorincz Shelton, Ph.D., M.D. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Linda Shelton

July 31, 2014 at 3:28 am

Posted in Bail and Bond

%d bloggers like this: