Cook County Judges

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

Archive for the ‘Cook County Courts’ Category

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 »


This complaint was filed in August 2017.

It exposes incompetence and corruption of. cook County Judges, court clerks, Asst. states Attorneys & Sheriff staff regarding:

Civil rights

Bail

Americans with Disabilities Act rights

Fitness and insanity issues

Due Process

It started with 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 an putrageous and unconstitutional $300,000.

Come to next court date Dec 1st, 2017 room 506 2600 S California, Chicago IL at 10 am 4 pre-trial hearing battery case.

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.

 

Advertisements

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.

 

 

Support activist’s claim IL battery statutes unconstitutional-touching officer not crime

with one comment


UPDATE: Next court date Dec 1, 2017, 10 am RM 506, 2600 S California, Chicago

On 12/9/16 an escapee bumped into Shelton in Hall, causing aggravation of chronic pain & musclespasms + PTSD flashbacks as officers dashing around induced flashback since she felt they would again falsely arrest her for battery for bumping an officer with walker when chasing officer brushed against coat hanging from walker. Asst States Attorney and judge now threatening contempt charge for disability assistant who informed Judge Cannon that Shelton traumatized & hearing needed continuence as well as threatening contempt against Shelton for writing memorandum of fact explaining what happened, providing education about PTSD, and explaining how she developed PTSD.

Judge has refusd to allow Shelton to finish argument on her motion to strike case for States Attorney’s fraud on grand jury and refused to sign order correcting judge’s error on previous order denying motion to declare part of battery statute unconstitutional so that Shelton can appeal this order. Thus judge denying due process in impeding appeal and motion hearing.

Stand up for civil rights Come to next court date 12/1/17 at 10 am rm 506. 2600 S California, Chicago, for argument that indictment should be stricken for fraud upon the grand jury by the State’s Attorney in failing to present fact that alleged act of “touching an officer’s ear” was induced/triggered by the Sheriff Courtroom Deputies violating ADA accommodations for disabled Shelton in that they pushed her, causing her to lose balance, and triggered a PTSD flashback, causing her to cower and waive her hands around her head believing she was being attacked.

Update 12/9/16: UPDATE – On 12/9/16 Judge Cannon granted Motion to rewrite the order denying Motion to Declare Battery statute unconstitutional so that Shelton can immediately appeal it; however, when a crazy detainee bolted and ran into Shelton trying to escape on 12/9/16 Shelton was slightly injured and hearing rescheduled for 1/20/17 when order will be written and Shelton will finish her argument that charges are void due to prosecutor’s fraud upon the grand jury.

Update 7/13/16: she denied motion to declare battery statute unconstitutional – next motion claims charge  void as fraud on grand jury & ADA violated when officers used disability to trigger harmless “criminal act” of touching officer’s ear charged as felony  battery with up to 14 yr sentence

On July 13, 2016 Judge Diane Cannon will announce her written opinion concerning Dr. Shelton’s motion to declare the Illinois battery and aggravated battery statutes unconstitutional concerning de minimus, minor, or no harm with alleged crime of touching or raking contact with a person or officer. Help fight injustice in Illinois by coming to court at 10 am 7/13/16 room 506 at 2600 S. California Ave (no cell phones or electronic devices allowed in courthouse).

Shelton’s argument is that charging a disabled tremulous, spastic person with felony battery for touching an officer due to their spasticity or due to an officer purposely inducing a PTSD flashback where a person unintentionally touches an officer  without harming them is abusive and unconstitutional.

It is particularly abusive and unconstitutional as it violates the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) in that in this case against Shelton the Court Disability Coordinator, Melissa Pacelli, had been given written documentation by a psychiatrist and other physicians that Shelton suffers from PTSD (post-traumatic-stress disorder) due to having been previously beaten by Sheriff and Chicago police officers and during flashbacks triggered by specific actions of officers as a result of the PTSD she “misperceives ongoing events” (becomes confused believing she is being attacked by officers) and that male officers should not yell at her and grab her, but should “back-off” if a flashback occurs as Shelton is “inherently non-violent”, as well as because she cowers, is fearful, and crys, as well as may defensively waive her arms around her head thinking she is defending herself or may reach out suddenly to prevent herself from mis-perceived falling during flashbacks if pushed as she suffers from congenital and acquired severe balance problems requiring the use of a walker and if pushed she grabs out involuntarily to keep from falling. Thus, they should wait until the flashback is over and she understands what is going on when one occurs, rather than rush her, grab her, and push her. Such actions by officers will cause Shelton to unintentionally touch officers and this fact is sufficient to be an outrageous reason to charge Shelton with felony battery that has as a sentence a possibility of as much as 14 years in prison.

As intent is a required element of the crime of battery, during flashbacks, Shelton is unable to form intent to harm an officer due to the PTSD and balance issues if she is pushed, particularly by loud and aggressive male officers, and the criteria for felony battery is unconstitutional according to Shelton due to the fact that a disabled person without intent can be charged with felony battery merely for touching an officer under such a circumstance.

For more information about the aggravated battery case against Shelton for “touching an officer’s ear” see this post.

Recently a grandmother, Ms. Tina Hunt plead guilty of aggravated battery for kicking an officer in a courtroom when she got mad and received a one year sentence – she could have received a mandatory six year sentence if she went on trial before a jury. This would have been a harsher sentence than a sentence for sticking a knife into an officer or throwing acid in a person’s face. This is outrageous abuse of criminal law. That is why Shelton has argued that the statute is unconstitutional.

Written Motion to Declare Battery Statute Unconstitutional

States Written Response to Shelton’s Motion to Declare Battery Statute Unconstitutional

Shelton’s Written Reply to States Written Response to Shelton’s Motion to Declare Battery Statute Unconstitutional

Oral argument by Shelton

After Shelton’s oral argument in May 2016, Judge Cannon gave the State another two weeks to prepare their oral argument. The State’s response was as follows:

State’s Argument essentially was “we stand on our written pleading” – [apparently they had no rational argument to counter Shelton’s pleadings and statements.]

The judge then gave herself six weeks to consider the arguments and come up with a written decision. Judge Cannon’s written decision will be announced on July 13, 2016.

UPDATE: Her decision was a two sentence statement without ANY explanation: “The defendant’s motion to declare the Aggravated Battery Statute unconstitutional is respectfully denied. This is a final order. Dated July 13, 2016 by Judge Diane Cannon.

Appeal will be filed, but in Illinois it likely won’t be filed until the end of the case because the higher courts have no jurisdiction on pretrial motions [known as interlocutory motions] until ALL issues in the case are final or until IL Supreme Court Rule 304(a) is followed. Shelton is filing a motion to rewrite the order properly, but it probably will be denied on 12/9/16. UPDATE – On 12/9/16 Judge Cannon granted Motion to rewrite the order, however, when a crazy detainee bolted and ran into Shelton trying to escape on 12/9/16 Shelton was slightly injured and hearing rescheduled for 1/20/17 when order will be written. This rule states as follows:

Supreme Court Rule 304(a) provides as follows:

ll Parties or Claims — Necessity for Special Finding. If multiple parties or multiple claims for relief are involved in an action, an appeal may be taken from a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the parties or claims only if the trial court has made an express written finding that there is no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal. Such a finding may be made at the time of the entry of the judgment or thereafter on the court’s own motion or on motion of any party. The time for filing the notice of appeal shall run from the entry of the required finding. In the absence of such a finding, any judgment that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not enforceable or appealable and is subject to revision at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims, rights, and liabilities of all the parties.” (87 Ill.2d R. 304(a).)

_______________________________________________________________

It is without common sense, but the Illinois Appellate Court said that using the word “final” does not comply with Illinois Supreme Court rule 304(a).

According to the Illinois Appellate Court 1st District an interlocutory order that states that a pretrial order  is “final and appealable” is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the appellate court. Until the final disposition of all issues in the case the statutory terms “there is no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal” are required to confer jurisdiction of the Appellate Court from a pretrial order of the local Circuit Court. Greer v. Yellow Cab Co., 582 N.E.2d 1292, 221 Ill. App.3d 908, 164 Ill.Dec. 348, (1991) IL App (1) 1-89-1548

Who will help disabled and elderly whose estates are stolen by forgery & fraud?

with one comment


Who is willing to publicize this? All the evidence will be provided to anyone who requests it – it is voluminous so there will be numerous emails.

Which lawyers are willing to take this case and do class actions about this?

What government agencies will walk the walk on this issue and not just talk the talk?  So much is said that help is available, but in reality it is not!!

If anyone wants to help, then I will meet with them and give you all the evidence on a silver platter!

Also sent to the FBI tip line as follows:

I sent this to HUD.gov

I sent the following Email to Fannie Mae about  a disabled  person who inherited a lot of money and a home that should have gone into a special needs trust and a land trust with a life-time interest in it. However corrupt lawyers in league with corrupt officials including several local police conspired to steal the estate by forging a deathbed trust by manipulating a mentally ill sister of the disabled person – then bribing a judge to ignore the proof of forgery and fraud, as well as proof of the intention of the deceased (transcripts from court in another case explain decedent’s concerns & prove sister mentally ill and unable to manage his affairs) and the testimony in court of the mentally ill sister that she was unable to handle the affairs of the deceased.  No trial or due process evidentiary hearing ever was allowed.

Then these corrupt attorneys stole the estate of the deceased by charging exorbitant attorney fees ($1 million dollars). This is a scheme they are using throughout the Cook Co IL area to steal estates from elderly and disabled persons. Can you help me find an attorney to help and get the FBI and US Attorney to investigate? 

I already sent the evidence and info to the U.S. DOJ Disability section and have not even received any acknowledgement that they received it.  I am scared that the disabled person will be evicted and homeless and the criminals will get away with their crimes.

EMAIL TO FANNIE  MAE’s SERVICER = SETERUS 4-15-16

I am a disabled beneficiary of a trust. A bunch of corrupt attorneys influenced a mentally ill family member to forge a deathbed trust for my father and bribed a judge to ignore transcripts of what my father said and the family member testifying they are too mentally ill to manage anything and ignore proof of the  forgery.

Then they made false domestic violence complaint later dropped to jail me so they could have court proceedings without me and steal my inheritance and home as well as evict me.

Even the forged trust said the first thing they must pay off was a mortgage on a condo they put me in after they evicted me from the home I should have inherited and stole my property.

Now I find out you have started foreclosure proceedings on the condo where I don’t want to live because these criminal did not pay the mortgage so I will be homeless.

I would like to join forces with you to get criminal charges against these  criminals and sue the law firms to get damages and my $500,000 inheritance  which was supposed to go into a special needs trust and the and cost of the home they sold that I should have inherited which was supposed to go into a land trust where I have a life-time interest in living in it.

The law firms took advantage of my mentally ill sister and essentially stole a $1.5 million estate with excessive and unnecessary fees. I need help from a big time law firm as these are top attorneys with political connections to corrupt officials in Illinois including the attorney general.

The local police were influenced to refuse to take criminal complaints from me. 

I reported this to the FBI but they have not contacted me as to whether they even received my complaints. It took me several years to gather the evidence to prove all the above.

Would you be willing to join with me as co-Plaintiff to recover the damages? I really need assistance as I have been reduced to poverty while disabled. I will give you all the evidence you need if you can help find a law firm to take this case.

These corrupt lawyers are doing this with a lot of elderly or disabled people in order to steal estates.

Judge agrees with motion that Illinois bail statute unconstitutional

leave a comment »


Shelton’s next court date Sept 27, 2017 10am room 506 2600 S California, Chicago.

 Sheriff Dart doing a little far too late about unconstitutional cash bonds. He has no power but is trying to get publicity. He jumps on publicity wagon only when large outcry. He presides over torture at Cook County Jail and gross violation of civil rights including denying access to courts to detainees at Cook County Jail and denial of adequate medical care.

Civil rights group has filed a class action suit for failing to set bond according to ability to pay as required by IL Constitution and U.S. Constitution. download here

On Sept 30, 2015 Judge Cannon in wrongful prosecution case against Dr. Linda Shelton for “touching an officer’s ear and hair” (charged as felony battery with possible 3-14 year sentence), still pending, stated that she agreed with her motion to declare the bail retention clause of the IL bail statute unconstitutional. For details about the case read here.

BUT – Then Judge Cannon illegally stated she was entering and continuing this motion until the end of the case because she said Shelton had no standing to question the statute until the 10% of bond was actually withheld by the court clerk.

The statute is unconstitutional because the court clerk in order to extort money from all defendents, innocent and guilty, charges 10% of the bond (or 1% of the bail) as a fee for the service of processing and holding the money from a bond check. This means the clerk commits fraud by charging vastly disparate amounts for the SAME service. If bail is $300,000, then the clerk’s charge is $3,000, while if the bail is $1000, the clerk’s charge is $10, collected at the time the case is over and bond is returned – minus 10%. [Note: to get out of jail on bond in IL under a “D-bond”, the defendant pays 10% of the bail]

In any other service business, if the business charged different amounts for the same service, this would be criminal fraud.

Then Judge Cannon illegally stated she was entering and continuing this motion until the end of the case because she said Shelton had no standing to question the statute until the 10% of bond was actually withheld by the court clerk.

This is nonsense as the bond $30,000 bond (10% of outrageous $300,000 bail) has already been paid, which means the clerk must withhold 10% of the bond when it is returned at the end of the case.

This holding the decision prevents the state from appealing it directly to the IL Supreme Court until after the case is over.

Read the motion here.

Note: the new bail statute in IL that states in counties where the population is greater than 3 million, then the clerk’s charge can be no larger than $100, the statute is still unconstitutional because there is no fixed rate to bond handling charge. It is unfair to charge $10 to one person and $100 to another for the same service of handling a check and paperwork. That is denial of equal  protection in taking property under different procedures for different people.

 

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.

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: https://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com/?s=court and   https://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com/?s=court

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 picepil@aol.com 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

%d bloggers like this: