Cook County Judges

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

Archive for the ‘Judge Joseph Kazmierski’ 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 the Cook County Court, Chancery Division in August 2017.

It regards an unconstitutional felony charge of aggravated battery for touching a officer’s ear against a disabled activist who was in a post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) flashback induced by courtroom deputies, violating a disability accommodation request, causing her to allegedly “touched an officer’s ear.”

Although indigent, bail was set at extremely excessive and unconstitutional $300,000. Dr. Shelton is a behind the scene advocate against corrupt judges, politicians, and police who use excessive force. She advocates for more intensive police training and supervision, with emphasis on de-escalation and understanding of the mentally ill. She is appalled by the death of naked, or knife wielding mentally ill persons by inadequately trained police. In Europe, police will keep people away until back-up arrives with shields and batons. They NEVER kill a knife wielding person unless the person is a direct and immediate threat to others.

Come to next court date Sept 27, 2017 room 506 2600 S California, Chicago IL at 10 am

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 for mandamus and civil rights counts for declaratory and injunctive relief can be found here.

A writ of mandamus is a court  order requiring an official to do something mandatory, like accommodate a disability or set reasonable bail.

Declaratory relief asks for the court to declare previous court orders void as illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of statute regarding extreme excessive bail, lack of disability accommodations, and lack of due process.

This complaint documents why Judge Dianne Gordon Cannon should be removed as a judge due to mental incapacity, incompetence, and/or maliciousness against the defendant..

This is why she should NOT be the judge for the officers charged with aiding and abetting the murder of Laquan McDonald! Fortunately, the States Attornes request to remove her as the judge for the McDonald case was granted. 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’s complaint is about the following pervasive and extensive unconstitutional acts, over a four and one half year period, which precluded or preclude fair pre-trial hearings and pending 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.

 

 

Activists ask U.S. Supreme Court to appoint special master to review and correct lawlessness in Cook County Courts

with one comment


This motion to the United States Supreme Court requests that the high court consolidate the issue of lawlessness (denial of civil rights including right to petition for writ of habeas corpus, due process, compulsory process, trial by jury, right to counsel, speedy trial, substitution of judge for cause [bias] and ADA accommodations) in three cases before the court: 12-6561, 11-10814, and 11-10790. It exposes the pervasive and systemic ignorance, maliciousness, cover-up of corruption, and denial of civil rights by judges throughout the Circuit Court of Cook County.

The cases which the activists, Linda Lorincz Shelto, PhD, MD, and Mr. David Bambic are requesting to be consolidated over the issue of appointing a special master to investigate the Cook County Courts and institute systems of oversight of the judges and judicial education including civilian, non-court related oversight include the following three cases:

Motion to consolidate cases over issue of lawlessness in Cook County Courts exhibited by Judges: Michael McHale, Joseph Kazmierski, David Haracz, Peggy Chiampas, Jorge Alonso, Veronica Mathein, Kathleen Pantle, Marie Kuriakos Ciesil, Mary Margaret Brosnahan, Kenneth J. Wadas, Colleen A. Hyland, Noreen Daly, William D. Maddux, Timothy Evans, and E. Kenneth Wright Jr.

Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus for violating habeas corpus rights and holding persons for trial without probable cause.  Case No 12-6561

Exhibits for above: Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3.

Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus in United States Supreme Court due to Trial Court (Judge  Peggy Chiampas) ignoring due process and civil rights (speedy trial, compulsory process, ADA accommodations, substitution of judge for cause [bias]).  Case No 11-10814

Motion for rehearing of 11-10814 after dismissal without comment.

Motion to add two more questions for rehearing concerning refusal to allow petition for writ of habeas corpus to be filed and heard in 11-10814

Original Petition for Writ of Certiorari (appeal) to U.S. Supreme Court regarding lawlessness (violation of trial rights, compulsory process [discovery], refusal to follow Illinois Statutes, and use of hearsay for decisions) Case No 11-10790

Dr Shelton asks U.S. Supreme Court to appoint special master to remove corruption in Circuit Court of Cook County

with 5 comments


On this site and in their pleadings before the Circuit Court of Cook County, the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court, Dr. Linda Shelton, Dr. Sheila Mannix, David Bambic, Milijana Vlastelica, Frank Epstein, Sandra Padron, Karyn Mehringer, Mic Gerhardt, Maisha Hamilton, Vernon Glass, Naomi Jennings, Annabel Melongo, Davy Cady and many others have shown that the Circuit Court of Cook County has allowed its judges to disregard constitutional rights such as due process, speedy trial, the right to petition for writ of habeas corpus, the right to receive notice and discovery before trial, the right to have enforced state laws as to trial and court procedure, and the right to confront witnesses against them and not have court decision made based on hearsay.

The extreme lawlessness that Shelton has documented on this site is now before the United States Supreme Court in three Petitions for Certiorari and for Mandamus and five more are in preparation. You can read them in the links at the end of this post.

In the pleadings that follow, David Bambic and Linda Shelton are asking the United States Supreme Court to review this extreme lawlessness that has caused wrongful decisions in their cases, but that also is so pervasive that hundreds if not thousands of divorce cases, orders of protection cases, criminal cases, probate cases, and child custody cases must be overturned or retried.

The state of anarchy in Cook County due to judicial ignorance, corruption, misconduct, arrogance, and maliciousness is so extreme, so harmful to children, families, the elderly, and innocent accused of crimes particularly whistle blowers who are being retaliated against, as documented in these three U.S. Supreme Court proceedings that Shelton has requested the U.S. Supreme Court to appoint a special master to review the policies and procedures of the Circuit Court of Cook County and to institute a judicial education and supervision program so that the right to petition for writ of habeas corpus, the right for a speedy trial, the right to compulsory process, the right to notice and discovery before trial, as well as other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights including due process or following the statutes and rules of the state and the federal codes and rules are preserved and no longer violated pervasively.

Shelton now calls for Cook County Board President Tony Preckwinkle to fire Chief Judge Timothy Evans for failure to ensure that the judges in the Circuit Court of Cook County follow the Constitutions of the United States and Illinois and the laws of the State of Illinois and these United States.

We can no longer allow this pervasive, malignant lawlessness to run our courts in Cook County and be steered by the corrupt government officials and police officials that have been doing so.

U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Mandamust concerning refusal to hear petition for writ of habeas corpus and false arrest and conviction for filing a next-friend petition for writ of habeas corpus, as well as summary (no trial) conviction and sentence of 16 mo in jail for criminal contempt for filing the habeas petition as a non-attorney (the judge declared this illegal) despite the fact that Illinois law allows it: 735 ILCS 5/10 et seq.

The links to the Appendices for this petition (3 volumes)  is as follows:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105036484/U-S-Supreme-Court-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus-lawlessness-in-Circuit-Court-of-Cook-County-Appendix-Volume-1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105037752/U-S-Supreme-Court-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus-lawlessness-in-Circuit-Court-of-Cook-County-Appendix-Volume-2
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105042475/United-States-Supreme-Court-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus-lawlessness-Circuit-Court-of-Cook-County-Appendix-Vol-3
 The supplement to this petition that was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court is as follows:
David Bambic’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari concerning a divorce case where he wrongfully, unconstitutionally, and unjustly lost custody of his children and falsely is accused of being dangerous to his children due to lies and hearsay from his drug addicted ex-wife, Catherine Wood, who was given custody, while the court is refusing to acknowledge that the Departmentof Children and Family Services invested the accusations against him by his ex-wife and determined them to be unfounded which proves the judge’s orders for custody and the divorce are illegal and void.

IL courts, Lisa Madigan & State Police officials caught in scheme defrauding federal government of millions

with 4 comments


UPDATE 10-15-14  The IL eavesdropping statute was declared unconstitutional and charges then  had to be dropped against Melongo. Melongo was also found not guilty of the computer tampering charges.

LISA MADIGAN HAS DONE NOTHING ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE CORRUPTION IN THE COURTS WHERE UNNECESSARY COURT APPOINTED EVALUATORS AND CHILD REPS ARE GRANTED HUGE HOURLY FEES OF >$300/HR, RAPING FAMILY ESTATES INCLUDING CHILDREN’S COLLEGE FUNDS, ELDERLY PERSONS’ ESTATES ARE ROBBED BY COURT APPOINTED GUARDIANS,  “NO BAIL” IS ROUTINELY AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ORDERED IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR MINOR CRIMES AND DEFENDANTS ARE DECLARED UNFIT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS (IN ADDITION WASTING GOVERNMENT FUNDS COMMITTING NONVIOLENT ALLEGED OFFENDERS TO A SECURE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY WITHOUT BASIS), THE CORRUPTION OF SAVE-A-LIFE FOUNDATION THAT HAS ILLEGALLY OBTAINED MONEY THROUGH FRAUD FROM THE CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE AND CLEARLY WAS USING FRAUD TO OBTAIN HUGE AMOUNTS OF PUBLIC FUNDS. LISA MADIGAN COVERS UP GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION INSTEAD OF INVESTIGATING IT OR REFERRING IT TO THE U.S. ATTORNEY. READ THE DETAILS ABOUT THE EXTENSIVE CORRUPTION OF THE COURTS IN ILLINOIS HERE AND THROUGHOUT THIS BLOG.

I am calling for an investigation by the Department of Justice of the illegal acts, done willingly and knowingly by the Illinois Supreme and Appellate Court judges as well as the Circuit Court of Cook County judges described as follows, which violate the Constitution, the law, and holdings of the United States Supreme Court.  In addition the Illinois Attorney General and Director of the Illinois State Police were involved in this scheme to discredit whistle blowers against government corruption.

Clearly, when a judge purposely violates law (statutes, U.S. Supreme Court rulings, constitution) he is violating his oath of office and according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron (1958) “waring on the constitution.” This causes his orders to be null and void as a judge has no jurisdiction to make up law, invalidate law without declaring it unconstitutional, or overturn U.S. Supreme Court holdings. To do so willingly is an act of treason per U.S. Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia(1921) [“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.”] An order without jurisdiction is void, a nullity and must be disregarded, United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 (1947).

DETAILS OF CORRUPT ACTS, MANY OF WHICH ARE ACTS OF FELONY FEDERAL TREASON, BY COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES

MCHALE, KAZMIERSKI, BROSNAHAN, WADAS, PORTER, AND BEIBEL – WHICH HAVE DE FACTO SUSPENDED THE RIGHT TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN ILLINOIS – A VIOLATION OF THE HIGHEST RIGHT THAT THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES UNITED STATES CITIZENS

 

Written on April 25, 2011 by Dr Linda Lorincz Shelton:

We have a Judicial Crisis in Cook County because the level of judicial ignorance, incompetence, and blatant disregard for basic constitutional rights including due process is so extreme that one can only say that our courts in Cook County are in a state of lawlessness, where they are destructive of American Ideals and Constitutional rights.

I’m going to relate to you right now the details of a group of cases that illustrate this fact, but remember this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Legal scholars say our highest Constitutional right is the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Suspension Clause found in Article I Section 9 of United States Constitution preventing suspension of this right except in time of war.

Habeas corpus is where you ask a judge to review the reason for your incarceration. The constitution guarantees in the Bill of Rights that you will not be incarcerated without probable cause. If you are despite other safeguards, then the last remedy you have if all others fail is to file for a writ of habeas corpus and schedule a hearing before the presiding criminal court judge. Cook County Circuit Court Rule 15.2 requires that the  presiding criminal court judge must hear any habeas petitions. Our local Cook County Circuit Court rules and the Illinois Habeas Statute combined mandate that when a non-attorney next-friend of the illegally held person files a habeas petition that the presiding criminal court judge must bring the defendant to court and appoint them a lawyer for the habeas  proceedings.

The right to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus has been illegally suspended in Illinois.  I was jailed last year illegally for six (6) months for exercising this Constitutional right on behalf of another person who is being held illegally, now for a year, in Cook County Jail, without probable.

Here is a summary of the two cases against Annabel Melongo, the person being held allegedly without probable cause, and the criminal contempt cases against me for filing a next-friend habeas petition, that demonstrate outrageous judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. Melongo has a web site with documents and lots of details: http://illinoiscorruption.net .

Annabel Melongo is a Cameroonian citizen, and resident of the United States, who is an computer expert. She took a job with a foundation called Save-A-Life  Foundation to manage their computers. Melongo noticed during her work on their computers that SALF applications to the federal government for millions in grants contained fraudulent information. She turned this over to FBI Agent Depooter as a report of fraud upon the government.

At the same time, this foundation was in the middle of being investigated by Chuck Goudie, an Emmy award-winning investigative reporter. In Goudie’s television exposés he interviewed CPS CEO Arne Duncan, who confirmed to Goudie that SALF received $50,000 from the CPS per year but no services training school children in CPR were actually ever provided to the CPS. In total, Goudie documented that SALF obtained greater than $ 8 million from Homeland security, the Illinois Attorney General’s office, and other agencies, but has not provided documentation that this money was actually used to train children and first responders in CPR.

Goudie interviewed the SALF CEO Spizzirri to ask her to provide documentation as to how SALF actually used the grants for CPR training. SALF CEO Spizzirri  literally stopped the interview and ran off.  To this day SALF has not accounted for millions from the federal and state government in grants to train children and other “first responders” in CPR.

Around the time Goudie was interviewing CEO Spizzirri, Spizzirri fired Melongo and went to the police claiming all SALF financial records were accessed by remote computer and erased. She accused Melongo of doing this. Melongo was then indicted for remote computer tampering and the indictment said the SALF financial records were permanently erased, through a criminal act of remote computer tampering by Melongo. How convenient to divert attention from Spizzirri’s inability to account for how she used government grant money, instead to Melongo for alleged computer tampering.

Melongo’s attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss the charges claiming that Schiller Park Det. Martin committed fraud and perjury before the grand jury in obtaining the indictment.  Martin testified to the grand jury that Melongo had remotely changed the passwords to the SALF computers and initiated a cascade that deleted the computer financial files.

This was contrary to Det. Martin’s police reports where he verified that a SALF employee had changed the computer passwords AFTER Melongo left, that the computers were disconnected from the servers so that their connection with the Internet was severed, and that the data was never lost, just was temporarily inaccessible. Det. Martin wrote in his reports that a SALF employee changed the passwords, not Melongo, and in so doing accidentally disabled the computers.

Det Martin also testified that an IL Attorney General’s office computer crime expert assisted the states attorney and in her written report stated Comcast computer IP address was used by Melongo to access the SALF computers, but Martin withheld the fact that Comcast had no record of Melongo being a customer, because she used SBC computer services.

Albukerk alleged that Det. Martin committed perjury and fraud in obtaining the indictment, that the indictment was therefore invalid, and that the case should be dismissed. He presented this motion to the court and Judge Brosnahan summarily denied it without an evidentiary hearing.

So the Illinois Attorney General’s office and the State’s Attorney of Cook County has absolute proof that Melongo never engaged in this alleged computer tampering and that no computer tampering crime was ever committed. Yet they still refuse to dismiss the charges and Melongo has remained in jail awaiting trial for the past year on a $300,000 bail, reduced from $500,000.

Judge Brosnahan set this extremely high and excessive bail on Melongo who has no criminal history because the State’s Attorney insisted that she was a flight risk because she held dual citizenship in Haiti and Cameroon. I have found no law that states that a person is a flight risk because they are a dual citizen. This bail alone was outrageous judicial mis-conduct.

Spizzirri to this day has never released the financial data to Goudie or the public and there has been no public comment by the FBI about SALF or Carol Spizzirri.

I was an acquaintance of Melongo, so like I did for another person who was being held without probable cause in 2009, I filed a next-friend petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Cook County Circuit Court Presiding Criminal Court Judge Biebel.

In 2009 I filed a habeas petition on behalf of this other person utilizing the Illinois Habeas Statute, 735 ILCS Article 10. Presiding Judge Biebel granted it by ordering the defendant brought into court and assigning her an attorney for the habeas petition, as required by Cook County Circuit Court Rule 15.2 – which resulted in the defendant’s later release from jail.

Last April and May, when I filed a next friend habeas petition on behalf of Melongo, Biebel was not available so the Court Clerk sent me to Judge Kazmierski who assigned the case to Judge Brosnahan.

In Illinois the IL Habeas Statute, 735 ILCS 5/10-103, says that a non-attorney can file a petition for writ of habeas corpus “on behalf of another.”

Judge Brosnahan refused to hear the habeas petition saying that non-attorneys can never file any pleadings on behalf of another. Then I went to Judge Kazmierski and he said the same thing. Then I tried again a few days later and a different judge, Judge Wadas, was filling in for Judge Biebel. He said the same thing and refused to hear the habeas petition!

All these judges therefore violated CLEAR Illinois Statutes and Constitutional rights. This is judicial misconduct! The statute even says that if a judge refuses to hear a habeas petition he can be fined $1000 which must be paid to the defendant.

Then I tried a fourth time. This time the petition for writ of habeas corpus was assigned to Judge McHale, sitting in for Judge Biebel. However, Judge Biebel appeared in his chambers half-way through the proceedings.

Judge McHale illegally overturned the IL Habeas Statute from the bench, ruling that filing a habeas petition as a non-attorney was an illegal act. When I stated in open court, in my defense that the suspension clause in the Constitution, Article I section 9, states that habeas cannot be suspended except in time of war, and that the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in Boumedine v Bush in 2008, that even prisoners at Guantanamo Bay had a right to have their father’s file habeas petitions, Judge McHale found me in contempt of court for “interrupting him.”

Defending oneself in court using quotes from the law is not an “interruption”; it is a right.

Judge McHale, without a trial, summarily ruled that I committed three separate acts of contempt by stating this argument three times and found me in contempt of court on these three, what he called, separate contempt cases. He then summarily sentenced me to consecutive jail terms of four (4) months, six (6) months, and six (6) months, a total of 16 months in jail for doing a legal act and then informing him about the law! He then made several related rulings that denied me good time statutory jail credits to ensure that I would suffer from the entire 16 month jail term.

In jail I was denied paper for three months. I was denied access to the law library – they said all those who are in the infirmary cannot go to the law library. The law librarian said she was unable to do any legal research and would only bring me case law or statutes if I give her a complete citation. I had to rely on friends I write to  in order to obtain legal research and case law – which took months. In late July after being sentenced on May 11, 2010, a physician finally gave me some  paper, but I didn’t get any stamps to mail my court pleadings to get them filed with the court for another month and didn’t get a hearing until Oct. 1, 2010. Then the 2nd and 3rd “cases” of contempt were made concurrent and the judge agreed that he had no jurisdiction to deny statutory good time jail credits, thus allowing me to be released after 6 months on Nov. 6, 2010 instead of having to serve the entire 16 months.

I filed motions to overturn this and he eventually granted some of them reducing the jail term to six months by granting some of the good time jail credits and I was released in November after this blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional conviction and wrongful six-month long incarceration for alleged criminal contempt of court. Of course I am appealing this injustice.

Judge McHale knowingly and blatantly violated the Constitution’s suspension clause, rulings of the United States Supreme Court, and the Illinois Habeas statutes and other Illinois Statutes including Good Time Jail Credits and Sentencing statutes that prohibit consecutive sentences for the same act during one case, as well as that require a jury trial for sentences > six (6) months.

The United States Supreme Court in three other cases including a ruling by Chief Justice Marshal held that when a judge knowingly and purposely violates law, and that can include violating the constitution, violating statutes, or violating U.S. Supreme Court rulings, then the judge is “waring on the constitution” in violating his oath of office. Judge Marshal declared that “waring on the constitution” is an act of treason against the United States, punishable by 20 years to life.

The story gets even more exciting because Melongo, prior to her bail being raised to $500,000, read the law and discovered that to be indicted a person must have the charges in a case read against them in open court. She did not remember any of the charges ever being read to her. She thought the court reporter had falsified the court transcript of the alleged arraignment by stating on the transcript that Melongo had been arraigned. Melongo also read the Illinois eavesdropping statutes that said it was a felony crime in Illinois to record a conversation without the other person’s permission. She also read that the law said that if a person has a reasonable suspicion that the person they were recording had committed a crime then it was not illegal to record them, as this was an exception to the law.

Melongo then recorded a conversation with the court reporter’s office staff, where she thought it was probable that they would admit that she was not arraigned, and that they had falsified the transcript which is a crime. Melongo thought this would be reason to throw out the case quickly as arraignment is a requirement and a right before a person can be tried. Melongo then put this recording on her web site which she had posted describing the alleged false arrest for computer tampering.

The States Attorney then arrested Melongo for eavesdropping and now wants to try her and convict her of a felony for recording her conversation with the court reporter without the court reporter’s permission. This is insanity! Where is this a crime? Where is the probable cause?

Judge Brosnahan set Melongo’s bail at $30,000 for felony eavesdropping, and because she was a flight risk due to the fact she holds dual passports, Brosnahan raised the bail on the computer tampering charge for violation of bail from a personal recognizance bond to a $500,000 bail, which Albukerk was able to get later reduced to the present $300,000, clearly outrageous in amount for this case, which should have been dismissed. Who ever heard of raising a bail from a personal recognizance bail to a $1/2 million bail for a non-violent crime without a victim!

This entire situation is out of control and can only be described as lawlessness due to police and judicial misconduct, in total violation of the law.

If four (4) judges, including three (3) senior criminal court judges can so blatantly deny Melongo’s and my most important Constitutional right to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus, as well as deny our constitutional rights to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to be free of arrest without probable cause and jail Melongo without probable cause for a year so far and me for six months after initially sentencing me without a trial to 16 months in jail, then the judges can get away with violating ANY law. The acts of these judges are impeachable. This lawlessness must stop NOW!

I call for an investigation by the FBI and U.S. Attorney into our cases and pray for legal assistance from legal scholars, as well as financial assistance from the public. Finally, I ask the press to investigate this story and bring the details to the light of day.

Shelton has filed a notice of appeal with the Illinois Appellate Court, but the court has issued an order denying her motion for indigency status and waiver of fees. Despite the fact that the U.S. government has declared her indigent and granted her SSI as a disabled person for several years, despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an indigent person must have the fees waived for criminal appeals, Burns v. State of Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 (1959); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956); and Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708 (1961); as well as despite the fact that Illinois Supreme Court rule 298 mandates that fees be waived for indigent litigants receiving government benefits, the Illinois Appellate Court Clerk has been ordered not to accept any court filings from Shelton until she pays all fees. Therefore, Shelton’s constitutionally guaranteed right to appeal, or Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights has been denied. Appeal is on hold until she can pay, which at the moment she cannot. No reason was given by the Illinois Appellate Court to refuse to grant her indigency status.

The same is true for the Illinois Supreme Court which has also ordered that the Clerk not accept any filings from Shelton, thus denying her a right to appeal these wrongful and unconstitutional convictions. Again, no reason has been given for them to violate their own rule 298, the Constitution, or state statutes regarding waiving indigent’s court fees.

Shelton is now filing a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking them to issue a supervisory order to the Illinois courts to enforce their previous holdings which mandate that fees are waived for criminal appeals, as well as asking the U.S. Supreme Court to view the above as exhaustion of state remedies and hear the case as a direct appeal.

Shelton from jail was allowed to mail one document to the federal court and she filed a multipurpose letter in her two civil rights cases that are pending in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 1:09-cv-02353 and 1:09-cv-06413, which are civil rights suits against Cook County Sheriff staff for excessive force, malicious prosecution, willful indifference to medical needs, etc. They have passed the state of motions to dismiss and have a good chance of succeeding. This letter stated that Shelton was denied access to the courts while in jail from May 2010 to November 2010 in that the law librarian refused to do any legal research and because Shelton was denied paper for 4 months, as well as denied access to the law library as the Sheriff has a policy that all prisoners held in the infirmary may not  go to the law library, Shelton was unable to write proper motions. This letter asked Judge Hart and Judge Dow to consider the letter a petition for federal writ of habeas corpus. Judge Hart denied it stating that Shelton had not exhausted state remedies, which is a false statement. Shelton has now written a motion to reconsider this (to be filed), but it is also requested in a motion for enlargement of the discovery period, which Shelton has written is a factual document that for purposes of judicial economy will not be repeated but will be incorporated in all her other motions including the one to vacate dismissal of request for letter to serve as petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for leave to amend and resubmit petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The above is sufficient cause to impeach these judges, at least, without question, Judge McHale.

The purpose of these illegal acts is to defame Dr. Linda Shelton, Dr. Maisha Hamilton, Naomi Jennings and Vernon Glass so as to discredit them as witnesses to corruption as well as to cover-up the criminal acts by public officials like Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan who has committed fraud upon the courts and her staff along with the Illinois State Police’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (IL MFCU) and their administrators in the State Police have defrauded the United States Government and specifically the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services by fraudulently obtaining millions of dollars in funds for illegal use by the IL MFCU. The fraud was that they had made false statements on their application for recertification and funding of the IL MFCU and used these funds to illegally prosecute cases of Medicaid fraud, when there was no Medicaid fraud. The State Police, specifically Investigator William Reibel, even fabricated false billing invoices in order to falsely imprison a whistle blower against government corruption, as well as knowingly prosecuted me without probable cause having in their possession evidence that someone forged my name in order to illegally bill Medicaid. They did this to defame me and discredit me as a witness against corrupt officials, police, and judges.

The applications for federal funding for the IL MFCU were signed by the Director of the Illinois State Police, Sam W. Nolen, through his employee, Don Thorpe, Director of the IL MFCU in 2001. They admit that the IL Attorney General by law has NO JURISDICTION or authority to prosecute Medicaid Fraud and that they must refer such cases to the U.S. Attorney. Yet they prosecuted at least three groups, all of which were innocent of fraud, convicting two, one with invoices fabricated by the Illinois State Police Investigator William Reibel. Legitimate cases of Medicaid Fraud are prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney. Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephan A. Kubiatowski is the head of the Chicago U.S. Attorney task force on Medicaid and Medicare fraud, yet his sister, Illinois Department of Professional Regulation Administrative Law Judge Lucia Kubiatowski was personally involved in making illegal rulings against me in order to suspend my medical license.

For further details see: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/17/936975/-Defendant-Melongo-still-denied-right-to-question-false-arrest-with-habeas-trial-result-in-hung-jury-
________________
Linda Lorincz Shelton, PhD, MD is a civil rights activist, retired physician and retired medical researcher. She specialized in helping multiple disabled children and her patients are in the Guinness Book of World Records, 1997 Ed., as the “lightest set of triplets,” as well as advocating for the poor, the mentally ill, the disabled, and other victims of injustice in our county. She is disabled herself. Shelton has been working to assist the wrongfully convicted over a number of years, even putting herself in harm’s way in order to help, and has been documenting judicial and police incompetence and corruption in Cook County. She is a victim of wrongful conviction and is fighting every day to counter the defamation against her.

She blogs about this corruption, giving details with names, dates and evidence at the following blogs:

https://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com

http://cookcountysheriffdeputies.wordpress.com

http://chicagofbi.wordpress.com

http://prosechicago.wordpress.com

http://illinoispolice.wordpress.com

http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com

http://drlindashelton.wordpress.com

COMMENTS FOR FORUM SPONSORED BY COALITION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUSTICE

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT including:

Violation of Illinois Statutes ] ALL Acts of

Violation of U.S. Supreme Court Rulings ] = Treason

Violation of Oath of Office ] Under Federal Law

Aiding Perjury by Police Officer
____________________________
The case law supporting the above includes:

Shelton alleges Judge McHale’s May 11, 2010 consecutive summary sentences on three separate criminal contempt convictions of 4, 6, and 6 months (total of 16 months) in CCDOC with no good time jail credits, modified on October 1, 2010, to 4 and 6 mo concurrent on cases 1 and 2 and 6 months consecutive on case 3, with good time jail credits granted, were null and void, illegal, unconstitutional as they 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 (Shelton asked for SOJ at the beginning of the hearing and McHale refused – so this means that McHale’s orders after this refusal are void per statute);

B) in violation of Habeas Statutes, 735 ILCS 5/10-103 which allow a person to file an habeas petition on “behalf of another”;

C) in violation of  Good Time Jail Allowance statute, 730 ILCS 130, which gives jurisdiction for such credits to the county sheriff and not the judge, People v. Russel, 237 Ill.Epp.3d 310 (1992); People v. Prater, 158 Ill.App.3d 330 (1987); Kaeding v. Collins, 281 Ill.App.3d 919 (1996),

D) in 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) in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court as well as Illinois Appellate and Supreme Court holdings which:

1) require jury trial if sentences exceed 6 months aggregate for contempt, Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968);

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

3) require jury trial if contempt sentence is summarily imposed on a day other than the day in which the contemptuous act occurred, In re Marriage Betts, 200 Ill.App.3d 26 (1990); Winning Moves,Inc., v. Hi! Baby, Inc. 238 Ill.App.3d 834 (1992); Kaeding v. Collins, 281 Ill.App.3d 919 (1996), 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 (2008);

5) state that defending a contempt charge by vigorously quoting law is not contemptuously insulting the court, Sacher v United States, 343 U.S.1 (1952); People v. Siegel, 68 Ill.Dec. 118; People v. Powell, 187 Ill.Dec. 774; United States v. Oberhellmann, 946 F.2d 50,

6) state that when a judge is embroiled in controversy with litigant he must recuse himself for a contempt trial and be replaced by another judge, Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455 (1971); Kaeding v. Collins, 281 Ill.App.3d 919 (1996);

7) state that a judge may not order denial of statutory good time jail credits, People v. Russel, 237 Ill.App.3d 310 (1992); People v. Prater, 158 Ill.App.3d 330 (1987); Kaeding v. Collins, 281 Ill.App.3d 919 (1996),

8) state that a judge’s orders are void when the orders are made without jurisdiction, United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 (1947).

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 and were in retaliation for Shelton’s whistle blowing against corrupt judges, police, and State officials, 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” – referring to acting outside the law or violating the law including statutes and higher court holdings; 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).

___________________________

Note: The IL MFCU application for recertification from 2001 that I received in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, admits that the IL MFCU is federally funded and that the IL AG has NO JURISDICTION to prosecute Medicaid Fraud and that they refer all such cases to the U.S. Attorney or County State’s Attorney can be seen here. You can read the application, the indictment against me and see the forged signatures on documents allowing billing Medicaid under my name (not my signature and therefore  proof of ID theft and proof they knew there was no probable cause to charge me – I got these documents from AG Madigan in discovery before trial) can be seen here.

Links to articles about Melongo’s cases and the links to evidence proving there is no probable cause against her can be found here.

Details of treasonous acts by Judges McHale, Brosnahan, Wadas, Kazmierski

with 2 comments


Do the following in order to help preserve the Constitution and help stop government corruption in Illinois.

The following is such a serious violation of our Constitution and our Laws that I respectfully ask you all to read this and ACT by reading this IN DETAIL and consider disseminating it through Twitter, Facebook, e-mails, and letters to all citizens concerned about preserving the Constitution, all investigative reporters you know, as well as consider writing letters to federal officials whose addresses are given in the following. Also consider signing the petitions written where links are provided below.

Dear Friends of the Constitution and Justice and Enemies of Government Corruption:

After reading this post please write and ask the following people to investigate this corruption:

Patrick Fitzgerald
US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois
219 S Dearborn, 5th Floor
Chicago IL 60604

S/A Robert Grant
Director Chicago Office FBI
2111 W. Roosevelt Road
Chicago, IL 60608-1128

, and contacting the press or any law school innocence clinic possible.

Thank you for your time!

Annabelle Melongo is an honest person and Information Technology (computer) expert, who discovered that the foundation that she was working for committed fraud on the federal and several state government and obtained millions of dollars fraudulently. Numerous prominent politicians due to lack of due diligence were involved in assisting this foundation in fraudulently obtaining money.

Melongo has been in jail for a year awaiting trial without probable cause and with an outrageously excessive bail charged with remote computer tampering of this fraudulent corporation (yet the States Attorney has evidence she did not remotely access their computer!) and illegally recording a conversation she had on the phone with a Cook County court reporter without the court reporter’s permission – “eavesdropping” (bail $300,000 reduced from $500,000 and $30,000) – yet she is indigent, has no prior record, and the States Atty and IL AG General are FULLY AWARE that all charges against her are fraudulent!

Her petition for writ of habeas corpus has been ignored and the judges are ACTIVELY refusing even to hear it! – in clear violation of the Constitution’s suspension clause and the laws of the State of Illinois. Illinois law dictates that if a judge refuses to hear an habeas petition he can be fined $1000 and the fine paid to the unlawfully held defendent (735 ILCS 5/10-106). The suspension clause in the U.S. Constitution allows a person or his/her friend to petition the court to free a defendant from an unlawful incarceration. The Illinois Habeas statute does the same thing. (735 ILCS 5/10)

The most important Human Right in the Constitution is the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus, written in U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9 (the suspension clause – which says this right can not be suspended except in the time of war) [ Zehariah Chagee, Jr., The Most Important Human Right in the Constitution, 32 B.U. L. Rev. 143, 143, (1952)]  The ONLY time the United States Supreme Court has found a violation of the suspension clause was in their decision in 2008 regarding Boumedine v Bush.

For the full details of the treasonous acts of these judges and all the case law, statutes, codes, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions proving that the judges committed treason see these links:

Examiner.com article about: judges-commit-treason-cover-up-fraud-by-salf-suspend-constitutional-rights-including-habeas-corpus

Dailykos.com diary story: Defendant-Melongo-still-denied-right-to-question-false-arrest-with-habeas-trial-result-in-hung-jury-

Examiner.com article about Melongo’s excessive bail: alvarez-madigan-target-it-specialist-to-cover-up-massive-fraud-500-000-bail-for-eavesdropping

Cincinnatibeacon.com article about how Melongo indicted through perjury of an officer: Attorney for SALF_whistleblower says IL Cop’s fraud and perjury lead to indictment

SIGN THE PETITION HERE to ask the U.S. Attorney to investigate the Melongo case.

The Cook Co State’s Attorney’s office is fully informed that a cop’s fraud and perjury obtained a void indictment yet they are still pursuing the case. They are fully informed that the alleged victim of this fraudulent charge of computer tampering has defrauded the U.S. government out of millions of dollars. So why are Anita Alvarez and Lisa Madigan still continuing this case? PLEASE ASK THEM at:

Anita Alvarez
Cook Co States Attorney
50 W Washington, Rm 500
Chicago IL 60602

AG Lisa Madigan
Illinois Attorney General
100 W Randolph, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601

A concerned friend (me, Linda Shelton) filed a next-friend petition for habeas corpus before the Circuit Court of Cook County per 735 ILCS Article X, the state habeas statute that lets a non-attorney file this petition. I had done this before for another person who was illegally jailed without probable cause and the judge appointed an attorney who gained her release in 2009.

Judge McHale, who was sitting in for the presiding Cook Co IL criminal court Judge Biebel, then illegally and unconstitutionally jailed the petitioner (me) for contempt claiming it was illegal for a non-attorney to file an habeas petition on behalf of another – even though IL statutes specifically allow this.

This is what happened in detail:

Shelton alleges Judge McHale (substituting for Judge Bieble – presiding judge of the Cook Co Criminal Court) illegally and in an act of treason in retaliation for Shelton’s whistle blowing about judicial corruption in the Circuit Court of Cook County summarily convicted her of 3 “cases” which should have been 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/Cameroonean 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.

Shelton alleges Judge McHale’s consecutive summary sentences of 4, 6, and 6 months (total of 16 mo) in CCDOC with no good time jail credits, 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 (a nullity or invalid);

B) in violation of Habeas Statutes, 735 ILCS Art 10 which allow a person to file an habeas petition on “behalf of another”;

C) in violation of Good Time Jail Allowance statute, 730 ILCS 130, which give jurisdiction for such credits to the county sheriff and not the judge;

D) in 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) in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court holdings which:

1) require jury trial if sentences exceed 6 mos aggregate for contempt,

2) forbid sentencing for more than one count of contempt during one trial or case,

3) require jury trial if contempt sentence is summarily imposed on a day other than the day in which the contemptuous act occurred, 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).

These sentences by Judge McHale were acts of felony treason 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 SOJ as a right, good conduct jail credits; 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.

In addition, Annabelle Melongo’s petition for writ of habeas corpus has been IGNORED by Judges McHale, Brosnahan, Wadas, Kazmierski, 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.

EVEN PRISONERS AT GUANTANEMO BAY ARE ALLOWED TO FILE HABEAS PETITIONS!

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please sign the petition, write letters, and contact the press! Send Annabelle Melongo letters of encouragement at:

Annabelle Melongo
2010-0414060
PO Box 089002
Chicago, IL 60608

You can send her a money order for up to $50 if you want to contribute to her commissary fund to ease her suffering a bit.

Judge Mary Margaret Brosnahan suspends habeas laws

with one comment


Habeas corpus is the last defense a citizen has against unlawful arrest without probable cause and wrongful conviction. This “grand writ” (or the most important kind of court order) has long historical roots from pre-colonial days in England. It means that the tables are turned and the State must justify keeping a person in custody.

Originally a feature of English law, the writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action. When the police falsely arrest you, seize you without probable cause, jail you on charges that are not part of the penal code simply to harass and inconvenience or for political reasons, hold you in jail without charging you, refuse to release you once your sentence has been served, convict you when you are actually innocent, then this is when a person needs the “grand writ”.

The United States Constitution,  guarantees a right to habeas corpus – to be brought before the court promptly and the State forced to justify why they are holding you as legal. This was re-inforced recently in the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Guantanemo Bay detainees, Boumediene v. Bush, who had been denied the right to petition for habeas corpus. The U.S. S. Ct ruled that the grand writ cannot be suspended in their case.

The United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in the Suspension Clause, located in Article One, Section 9. It states:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

The right to petition a court for a writ (order) of habeas corpus has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. It has been used to force a prison to release a person when their sentence is over, to force a person’s release after arrest when the State has failed to charge them in a timely fashion, and to protect a person from arbitrary and unjustified arrest and incarceration.

Illinois law mandates that a judge hear a petition for habeas corpus promptly. It can be filed by an attorney, by the prisoner, or by a “person appearing on behalf of another” AKA “next friend” under federal habeas law.  There is no requirement that the prisoner be incapacitated for a next friend to file a petition for habeas corpus under Illinois law.  Habeas corpus is latin and literally means “We command that you have the body [bring the person to the court]”.

The law states:

 “Unless it shall appear from the complaint itself, or from the documents thereto annexed, that the party can neither be discharged, admitted to bail nor otherwise relieved, the court shall forthwith award relief by habeas corpus.” 735 ILCS 5/10-106

This order awarding relief simply means that the Sheriff holding the person in custody must bring them to the court and the state must  provide documents, evidence, and witnesses that justify holding the person in custody. The court must “examine” the reasons for holding the  person in custody to determine if the custody is lawful.

“Upon the return of an order of habeas corpus [bringing the body also known as the defendant to the court], the court shall, without delay, proceed to examine the cause of the imprisonment or restraint, but the examination may be adjourned from time to time as circumstances require.” 735 ILCS 5/10-119

If a judge refuses to hear a petition for habeas corpus or refuses to grant the relief (order the person to be brought before the court) there is a penalty that may be obtained from the judge.

“Any judge empowered to grant relief by habeas corpus who shall corruptly refuse to grant the relief when legally applied for in a case where it may lawfully be granted, or who shall for the purpose of oppression unreasonably delay the granting of such relief shall, for every such offense, forfeit to the prisoner or party affected a sum not exceeding $1,000.” 735 ILCS 5/10-106

The Illinois Attorney General or the State’s Attorney is required by law to prosecute the judge to collect this penalty.

“All the pecuniary forfeitures incurred under this Act shall inure to the use of the party for whose benefit the order of habeas corpus was entered, and shall be sued for and recovered with costs, by the Attorney General or State’s Attorney, in the name of the State, by complaint; and the amount, when recovered, shall, without any deduction, be paid to the party entitled thereto.” 735 ILCS 5/10-133

The Cook County Circuit Court local rule 15.2 states that “a person appearing on behalf of another” who files a petition for habeas corpus must appear “before the presiding judge.” That is how the habeas petition is initiated.

Cook County Circuit Court Rule 15.2

 (c) Petitioner without funds and without attorney.

(i) If the petition states the petitioner is without funds and the petitioner is not represented by an attorney, he shall submit a verified petition to the clerk. The clerk shall docket the petition and place it on the call of the presiding judge.

(ii) If the presiding judge finds that petitioner is without an attorney and without funds, the presiding judge shall appoint an attorney to represent the petitioner.

(d) Petition on behalf of another.A person signing a petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of another shall appear before the presiding judge in open court and may be examined as to his interest in or relation to the person on whose behalf the petition is presented.

On April 20, 2010 Dr. Linda Shelton filed two habeas petitions on behalf of Annabel Melongo, who is being held in county jail on excessive bail without probable cause. Judge Brosnahan has refused to hear motions to quash the charges based on lack of probable cause.

The first habeas petition concerns a charge of computer tampering, where Melongo is accused of accessing the computers of Save-A-Life-Foundation (now closed) and erasing all of their financial records. Computer IP numbers are like telephone numbers and identify the computers dialed from and called. Internet provider records are like telephone company records that prove what IP (v. telephone) numbers were dialed from and called. This is an accurate record.

The forensic computer examiner, Shahna G. Monge, who supposedly worked for the Illinois Attorney General’s office has disappeared. Her report claims that Melongo had an IP address (computer address unique to Internet Service provider) from Comcast. They said that address was used to remotely access the SALF computers. Yet Melongo did not use Comcast. She had an Internet provider contract with SBC.  The Illinois Attorney General’s office and the detectives on the case claim that Monge will not testify.  How do they have a case against Melongo when their “expert” who claims she had evidence against Melongo won’t testify? Where is the evidence?  Melongo has her SBC account bills to prove what she says and Comcast claims they have no records tied to Melongo.

A subpoena to Comcast, which the forensic computer examiner said was the Internet provider which had records of the SALF computer being tampered with produced a report from Comcast that Melongo did not have an IP computer number (address) with them and there was no record she remotely accessed the SALF IP number (address). Therefore, since the police report states that SALF IP number was accessed via Comcast from an IP number registered with Comcast, there is NO possibility that Melongo was the offender. 

Melongo had a contract for Internet services through SBC.  IP addresses unlike telephone numbers are UNIQUE to the Internet provider.  Therefore, there is no probable cause and charging Melongo and keeping her in custody on an outrageous bail is illegal and unconstitutional and violates her civil rights. The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that a person cannot be seized (arrested) without probable cause, nor can they be tried without probable cause.

Melongo has been going to court monthly while out on a $10,000 personal recognizance bail for three years fighting this accusation. The State has still failed to give her discovery (evidence) of the accusation that ties her with tampering with any computer. Statutory criminal procedure has not even been followed. She was at a job interview when she was supposedly arraigned. She confronted the court reporter with this fact and asked them why they falsified the court transcript saying she was there, when the attorney would testify she was not there. The attorney was so inadequate in representation that she fired him and represented herself for the last couple years.

Judge Brosnahan is so biased against Melongo (she is a dual citizen of Cameroon and Hait and has a heavy accent and writes legal papers very professionally and accurately), that she ordered a fitness exam to simply harass her (she has been declared fit after the exam) and has refused to date to have a hearing on Melongo’s motions to dismiss for lack of probable cause and fraud upon the court by the State (in claiming they have evidence when they don’t).

Melongo made a web site that details the charges, the players, and has scanned in all the evidence they gave her and the evidence she has that  proves her innocence. She designed this web site as a professional information technology consultant. She has nothing to hide. The State has lots to hide!

On the web site she has posted the recordings and transcripts of phone conversations she had with the court reporter. She wanted to document what she suspected was their criminal conduct in falsely writing in the transcripts that she was in court when “arraigned” when she actually wasn’t there.

Illlinois has a felony eavesdropping law that makes it a crime to record someone without their permission. There is an exception in that if one thinks they are recording evidence of a crime, they cannot be prosecuted. Melongo wrote on her web site that she thought the court reporters had falsified records and recorded the conversations under this exception to the law. She even states so on her web site.

Now the State has arrested and incarcerate Melongo for an additional charge of eavesdropping, although it is clear the exception applies in this case so there is no probable cause.

On April 20, 2010 after her bail was revoked due to violation of bail (being arrested again) Melongo was brought before Judge Brosnahan. Judge Brosnahan was told that Melongo has no criminal background except for the pending computer tampering charge. She was told Melongo is a dual citizen of Cameroon and Haiti and has a legal visa. She was told that Melongo had diligently appeared in court at all hearings that she was informed about for three years.

The prosecutor claimed she was a huge “flight risk” because she might be illegal and therefore they contacted immigration which put a “hold” on her so they could investigate. The prosecutor said she is “dangerous” because she tampered with a computer.  The defense attorney J. Nicolas Albukerk said this is all ridiculous as she has proven over three years NOT to be a flight risk and having dual citizenship does not make her a danger to anyone.  Albukerk noted that having dual citizenship is not a crime and does not make anyone an illegal immigrant. He noted that none of these alleged acts were crimes of violence and the eavesdropping charge had NOTHING to do with any threats or violence.

Judge Brosnahan in an outrageous act of judicial misconduct set bail at $500,000. This violates the constitution’s requirement that bail be reasonable.  Melongo is not rich. She has almost no resourcs left as no one will hire her over the last three years with a computer tampering charge pending. 

A call has gone out to Camerooneans in America for assistance to fight this injustice. Judge Brosnahan has no jurisdiction in these cases as there is no probable cause. Without probable  cause the charges are not valid and the indictments are void. To be held in jail on a $500,000 bail without probable cause is outrageous, illegal, unconstitutional and reveals that Judge Brosnahan is not fit to be a judge. She is continually violating the constitution and Melongo’s civil rights. She should be removed from the bench.

Judge Biebel was not available to hear the habeas petitions, so the criminal clerk called the Judge filling in for him – Judge Joseph Kazmierski.  In an act of judicial misconduct Judge Kazmierski refused to hear the habeas petition and said it was “not before him” because the case was assigned to Judge Brosnahan.

Shelton went to Judge Brosnahan’s courtroom, following the clerk who brought the files to the judge.  Judge Brosnahan, in an act of judicial misconduct REFUSED to hear the habeas petitions stating “you have no standing . . . only a lawyer or the defendant has standing . . . kick her out of the courtroom.”  Shelton protested, trying to get this rogue and ignorant judge to read the law and follow the law, without success and was kicked out of the courtroom.

Shelton went to Judge Kazmierski and asked him to order Judge Brosnahan to hear the petitions. He refused saying he had no standing to do so. He was derelict in his duties as a judge in refusing to hear the petitions for habeas corpus. The habeas corpus petitions were new civil cases according to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedures and according to Circuit Court Rules he should have heard them and issued a habeas order to bring the defendant to court to determine if she was being legally held.

Both Judge Kazmierski and Judge Brosnahan therefore committed an act of knowingly violating statutory law which the U.S. Supreme Court has declared to be an act of treason.

Judicial Trespassers of the law

The Illinois Supreme Court has held that “if the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are trespassers.” Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109 (1870)

Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is “without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers.” Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)

The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court “could not hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, – it had no authority to make that finding.” The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928). The judges listed below had no legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear or rule on certain matters before them. They acted without any jurisdiction.

When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law,and are engaged in treason (see below).

The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that “not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function. … it is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse.”

When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void, of no legal force or effect.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that “when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution”, he “comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.” [Emphasis supplied in original].

By law, a judge is a state officer.The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).

Violation of judge’s oath of office

In Illinois, 705 ILCS 205/4 states “Every person admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law shall, before his name is entered upon the roll to be kept as hereinafter provided, take and subscribe an oath, substantially in the following form:

‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be), that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best of my ability.'”

In Illinois, a judge must take a second oath of office. Under 705 ILCS 35/2 states, in part, that “The several judges of the circuit courts of this State, before entering upon the duties of their office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation, which shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State:

‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of judge of ______ court, according to the best of my ability.'”

Further, if the judge had enlisted in the U.S. military, then he has taken a third oath. Under Title 10 U.S.C. Section 502 the judge had subscribed to a lifetime oath, in pertinent part, as follows: “I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; …”.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).

Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.

Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below).

If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888)

Violating the constitution includes violating the laws of the state of Illinois as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when a criminal procedure is statutory, then it invokes the due process clause of the 5th amendment. Violation of the statute by the judge is a violation of federal due process. If this is intentional, then it is “waring” on the constitution.

When a judge violates the law, their orders are void, a nullity.

The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal. “Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.” Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,  254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920)

The elements of lack of jurisdiction may include [issues pertinent to case at bar are in brackets]:

  1. Defective petition [indictment in case at bar is legally insufficient, as no probable cause], Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 Ill. 118, 122 (1930).
  2. Fraud committed in the procurement of jurisdiction [detective told grand jury that Melongo had an IP address with Comcast], Fredman Brothers Furniture v. Dept. of Revenue,  109 Ill.2d 202, 486 N.E.2d 893 (1985).
  3. Fraud upon the court [perjury before the grand jury and law fraudulently presented to grand jury in case at bar], In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.3d 393 (1962).
  4. The court exceeded its statutory authority [State Statutes and constitution do not allow a judge to have jurisdiction when there is no probable cause, also violation of 4th Amendment. ], Resenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967).
  5. Where a complaint states no cognizable cause of action against the party [no crime as specified by statute is alleged in the fatally flawed indictment obtained through fraud as there is no probable cause], Charles v. Gore, 248 Ill.App.3d 441, 618 N.E.2d 554 (1st Dist. 1993).
  6. Where the public policy of the State of Illinois is violated [constitution is violated when a person is held for trial without probable cause], Martin-Tregona v. Roderick, 29 Ill.App.3d 553, 331 N.E.2d 100 (1st Dist. 1975).

Therefore, Judge Brosnahan has no jurisdiction to preside over a trial of Melongo for computer tampering or for eavesdropping because there is no probable cause and therefore no jurisdiction for a criminal case.

Treason by a judge

Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)

The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. No judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

The prosecutor is Cook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez with the assistance of the computer crimes division of the Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan.

Of note:  Lisa Madigan was “friends” with the director of SALF, Carol Spizzirri, and assisted her in obtaining grant money from the State of Illinois through Madigan’s father, Speaker of the Illinois House Michael Madigan. They now cannot account for most of the grant money SALF received from donors including the federal grants. Spizzirri is a know liar and commits fraud. She wrote on her applications for federal grants that she is a nurse, yet she is not a nurse. She has been labeled a pathological liar by Wisconsin courts. Her ex-husband has evidence that their now deceased daughter had an order of protection against Spizzirri.

It is thought by Melongo that they are framing her to cover up the fact that the funds from government for SALF were obtained fraudulently and they do not have financial records to account for them. How convenient to blame Melongo for remotely accessing their computers and “erasing” the data. Where’s the money Spizzirra and Madigan?  The FBI has yet to arrest those involved in this fraud.

For more information see: 

SALF Exposed

%d bloggers like this: