Cook County Judges

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

Archive for the ‘Mental Competence for Self-Representation’ Category

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

leave a comment »


Linda Shelton

July 9, 2018

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division, Disability Division, & Public Corruption Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Disability Rights – NYAV

Washington, D.C. 20530

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

NOTE: Please refer to evidence on enclosed CDs

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

For example:

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

Unbelievable as it may seem:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but this is only the tip of the iceberg.

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

Please investigate this information thoroughly.

I am asking under the presentment clause for you

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

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

If you read my Internet blogs:

https://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com

http://chicagofbi.wordpress.com,

http://prosechicago.wordpress.com,

http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com,

http://cookcountysheriffdeputies.wordpress.com

http://7thcircitcourts.wordpress.com

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

Sincerely,

Linda Shelton

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

Attachment: CDs containing evidence and Numerous documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

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

leave a comment »


This complaint was filed in August 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with one comment


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

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

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

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

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

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

Confirmatory Bias by Judges – Shelton Judges Manual Part II

with one comment


Confirmatory Bias by Judges Against Pro Se Litigants, [In]Justice Extremes

Judges in the Circuit Court of Cook County should all be charged with practicing medicine without a license. They are very arrogant and end up being quite unfair due to their confirmatory bias. Confirmatory bias is when a person has preconceived ideas. In this case their ego will not allow them to acknowledge a non-attorney quoting cases or statutes which they either are not aware of or do not understand. They fail to acknowledge to themselves that they are NOT omnipotent repositories of all law, that they are ignorant of much law and rely on the attorneys to educate them on areas where they are weak through motions quoting case law. This is why they “defend” their egos and arrogance with “shoot-from-the-hip” irrational and unconstitutional rulings in fits of unconscious emotion. They unconsciously, through arrogance, ignorance, and inexperience, selectively listened and absorbed only misinterpreted facts and unverified hearsay that support this bias. This is the nature of the beast called confirmatory bias.

MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE JUDGES IS TO BACK OFF, TAKE A DEEP BREATH, AND QUESTION WHETHER YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES OF THE CASE OR ARE SUBJECT TO EMOTION AND CONFIRMATORY BIAS WHEN CONFRONTED WITH A VERBOSE, EMOTIONAL, INTELLECTUAL, OVERLY ENTHUSIASTIC DEFENDANT. MAYBE HE HAS SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO SAY BUT YOU CAN’T SEE THE FOREST AMONG ALL THE TREES HE IS POINTING OUT TO YOU. IT IS YOUR JOB AS A JUDGE TO TAKE CONTROL OF AND CLARIFY THIS EXCEEDINGLY (TO YOU) ANNOYING SITUATION.

There is a great mismatch between the style of judges/attorneys and physicians, as well as many other educated professionals. Judges/attorneys are taught to narrow the issues and make statements using the least words. Decisions are based on as few issues as possible. Physicians are taught to cover every issue (don’t miss a possible diagnosis in their differential and see the global health of the person). When physicians are wronged they tend to mix together the two issues of criminal law and civil law. In a criminal case they will try to discuss every irrelevent but connected issue so, as they perceive, the “court” will understand motive and circumstance. They are not aware that the “court” doesn’t care about motive and circumstance in all its details but just wants to limit the testimony and discovery to issues concerning elements of a crime. They are not aware that criminal courts are not the place to litigate torts or air grievances.

Judges/attorneys falsely believe that every pro se litigant is a rambling, irrational, incoherent nut. Therefore, they don’t even try to listen to or read the pleadings of a pro se physician or self-taught, ragged, and, to the uninformed and unwilling to listen, seemingly confused “legal expert” no matter how factual and accurate their statements and arguments may be. It is simply too much for their inflated egos to handle. Instead through confirmatory bias the judge will immediately order a fitness exam and ignore the defendant. Judges simply do not comprehend the fact that many defendants are “normal” but on the fringe in terms of extremely adamant positions on social and civil rights issues. For example: Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Ghandhi, anti-war protesters, civil rights activists are not all mentally ill. They are just determined, passionate, and adamant. Failure to accommodate these people in the courts, treating them like raving maniacs, harassing them and defaming them is a great injustice. The courts should have RESPECT and TOLERANCE for defendants with extreme and adamant social viewpoints.

Fitness for trial has a very low bar. All that is needed is an understanding of the players (what is a judge, jury, etc., and what do they do), the charge, the possible sentences, and the consequences of conviction, as well as an ability to interact with his attorney or tell the story and answer questions in some meaningful but minimal fashion. The defendant can be florridly psychotic, but if he meets these criteria he is legally “fit” although mentally ill. It is not necessary to make this basic determination to have a full mental health evaluation.

In fact it is a gross waste of resources to constantly refer defendants who are clearly fit to forensic clinical services (a department with notoriously incompetent and arrogant psychiatrists who blanketly deny even the defendants’s request to tape record or write down the interview on paper, which denies the defendant a record of the interview to have another psychiatrist of his choosing review for accuracy of the diagnosis – even the Supreme Court has implied through dicta that it is not unreasonable to record the interview – and professional psychiatric organization ethical rules do not bar such a recording).

For the judges to constantly defer to Dr. Markos’ innane rule barring any recording and other psychiatrist’s self-serving (to prevent proof of their malpractice, which shouldn’t be a concern as they have total immunity from malpractice torts) rule of not even allowing note-taking by the defendant is obscene in my view and firmly denies the write to confrontation when informaton from the interview is used against a person regarding sanity.

I recommend that judges when faced with a verbose, overly intense and emotional intellect in a defendant, especially a physician, should satisfy their curiosity about defendant’s fitness by asking some simple question and making the following statement to inform the person that courts are apples compared to the oranges in the practice of medicine (or other professional field) in the way they approach issues.

“I am going to give you some basic instruction about courtroom procedure and how attorneys and judges approach the practice of law to make your hearings run smoothly. I am not here to solve your personal issues regarding retaliation against you or harassment of you by rightful or wrongful conduct of others against you. The purpose of this court is to decide if you committed a crime. A crime is defined by elements. For example with the crime of trespass the State only has to prove you were told to leave a place and you refused to leave. Any arguments between you and the owner of the place are irrelevant to the determination of you innocence or guilt. They may however later be introduced at the sentencing hearing if you are found guilty as mitigating or aggravating factors. For the same reason, this court will find irrelevant and not allow the introduction at trial of any factors that occurred before or after this incident of an alleged crime as irrelevent. The issues in criminal court are narrowed to the elements of the crime and I will not allow this court’s time to be wasted or the court to be distracted by irrelevant materials. The court does recognize that under unusual circumstances factors that may superficially seem irrelevant may actually relevant. Therefore, for purposes of efficiency and judicial economy I ask both sides to put these issues in writing in a motion for leave to present them at trial.”
This would be a start in ending the war between pro se litigants who are not nuts (physicians, self taught “legal experts”, etc.) and moving cases along more efficiently and rationally.

It is my hope that this web site and the companion sites:

http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com/ and
http://prosechicago.wordpress.com/
will be used both by judges/attorneys and the public (particularly pro se community) to reduce tempers, calm nerves, bring understanding, encourage justice, and move cases along more efficiently and less traumatically for all involved.

Confirmatory Bias and Harassment of Intelligent, Intense, Activists, and Pro Se Litigants – Shelton Judge’s Manual Part I

with one comment


Judges in the Circuit Court of Cook County have great difficulty understanding how to interact with very intelligent, overly enthusiastic, self-made “legal experts”, activists, and pro se litigants. They tend to make irrational knee-jerk assumptions about such litigants and order knee-jerk fitness exams will nilly, and often illegally, without basis. Perhaps some judges should be charged with practicing medicine without a license.

They are very arrogant and end up being quite unfair due to their confirmatory bias. Confirmatory bias is when a person has preconceived ideas that taint their interaction with the person. In this case their ego will not allow them to acknowledge a non-attorney quoting cases or statutes which they either are not aware of or do not understand. They fail to acknowledge to themselves that they are NOT omnipotent repositories of all law, that they are ignorant of much law and rely on the attorneys to educate them on areas where they are weak through motions quoting case law. This is why they “defend” their egos and arrogance with “shoot-from-the-hip” irrational and unconstitutional rulings in fits of unconscious emotion. They unconsciously, through arrogance, ignorance, and inexperience, selectively listen to and absorb only misinterpreted facts and unverified hearsay that support this bias. This is the nature of the beast called confirmatory bias. Once a judge recognizes and understands this, he is better able to keep it in check.

MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE JUDGES IS TO BACK OFF, TAKE A DEEP BREATH, AND QUESTION WHETHER HE REALLY UNDERSTANDS THE ISSUES OF THE CASE OR ARE SUBJECT TO EMOTION AND CONFIRMATORY BIAS WHEN CONFRONTED WITH A VERBOSE, EMOTIONAL, INTELLECTUAL, OVERLY ENTHUSIASTIC DEFENDANT. MAYBE HE HAS SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO SAY BUT THE JUDGE CAN’T SEE THE FOREST AMONG ALL THE TREES THE DEFENDANT IS POINTING OUT. IT IS THE JUDGE’S JOB AS A JUDGE TO TAKE CONTROL OF AND CLARIFY THIS EXCEEDINGLY (TO THE JUDGE) ANNOYING SITUATION.

There is a great mismatch between the style of judges/attorneys and physicians. Judges/attorneys are taught to narrow the issues and make statements using the least words. Decisions are based on as few issues as possible. Physicians are taught to cover every issue (don’t miss a possible diagnosis in their differential and see the global health of the person). Self-taught legal experts tend to have difficulty with prioritizing issues and consider everything exceedingly relevant. When physicians are wronged they tend to mix together the two issues of criminal law and civil law. In a criminal case they will try to discuss every irrelevent but connected issue so, as they perceive, the “court” will understand motive and circumstance. They are not aware that the “court” doesn’t care about motive and circumstance in all its details but just wants to limit the testimony and discovery to issues concerning elements of a crime. They are not aware that criminal courts are not the place to litigate torts or air grievances.

Judges/attorneys falsely believe that every pro se litigant is a rambling, irrational, incoherent nut. Therefore, they don’t even try to listen to or read the pleadings of a pro se physician or self-taught, ragged, and, to the uninformed and unwilling to listen, seemingly confused “legal expert” no matter how factual and accurate their statements and arguments may be, hidden among the chaffe. It is simply too much for their inflated egos to handle. Instead through confirmatory bias the judge will immediately order a fitness exam and ignore the defendant.

Judges simply do not comprehend the fact that many defendants are “normal” but on the fringe in terms of extremely adamant positions on social and civil rights issues. For example: Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Ghandhi, anti-war protesters, civil rights activists are not all mentally ill. They are just determined, passionate, and adamant. Failure to accommodate these people in the courts, treating them like raving maniacs, harassing them and defaming them is a great injustice. The courts should have RESPECT and TOLERANCE for defendants with extreme and adamant social viewpoints.

Fitness for trial has a very low bar. All that is needed is an understanding of the players (what is a judge, jury, etc., and what do they do), the charge, the possible sentences, and the consequences of conviction, as well as an ability to interact with his attorney or tell the story and answer questions in some meaningful but minimal fashion. The defendant can be florridly psychotic, but if he meets these criteria he is legally “fit” although mentally ill. A full mental health evaluation is not necessary to make this basic determination regarding fitness.

In fact it is a gross waste of resources to constantly refer defendants who are clearly fit to forensic clinical services (a department with notoriously incompetent and arrogant psychiatrists who blanketly deny even the defendants’s request to tape record or write down the interview on paper, which denies the defendant a record of the interview to have another psychiatrist of his choosing review for accuracy of the diagnosis – even the Supreme Court has implied through dicta that it is not unreasonable to record the interview – and professional psychiatric organization ethical rules do not bar such a recording).

For the judges to constantly defer to the Director of Forensic Clinical Services in Cook County’s Dr. Markos’ innane rule barring any recording and other psychiatrist’s self-serving (to prevent proof of their malpractice, which shouldn’t be a concern as they have total immunity from malpractice torts) rule of not even allowing note-taking by the defendant is obscene in my view and firmly denies the write to confrontation when information from the interview is used against a person regarding sanity.

I recommend that judges when faced with a verbose, overly intense and emotional intellect in a defendant, especially a physician, should satisfy their curiosity about defendant’s fitness by asking some simple question and making the following statement to inform the person that courts are apples compared to the oranges in the practice of medicine (or other professional field) in the way they approach issues.

“I am going to give you some basic instruction about courtroom procedure and how attorneys and judges approach the practice of law to make your hearings run smoothly. I am not here to solve your personal issues regarding retaliation against you or harassment of you by rightful or wrongful conduct of others against you. The purpose of this court is to decide if you committed a crime. A crime is defined by elements. For example with the crime of trespass the State only has to prove you were told to leave a place and you refused to leave. Some crimes require that the element called intent also be proven such as in the crime of criminal contempt. Any arguments between you and the owner of the place on a trespass charge are irrelevant to the determination of you innocence or guilt. They may however later be introduced at the sentencing hearing if you are found guilty as mitigating or aggravating factors. For the same reason, this court will find irrelevant and not allow the introduction at trial of any factors that occurred before or after this incident of an alleged crime. The issues in criminal court are narrowed to the elements of the crime and I will not allow this court’s time to be wasted or the court to be distracted by irrelevant materials. Many pro se defendants have difficulty understanding the concept of relevance, and the concept of elements of a crime. Please think about these issues carefully and how your defenses will address them when you present evidence or witness testimony. The court does recognize that under unusual circumstances factors that may superficially seem irrelevant may be actually relevant. Therefore, for purposes of efficiency and judicial economy, I ask both sides to put these issues in writing in a motion for leave to present them at trial.”

This would be a start in ending the war between pro se litigants who are not nuts (physicians, self taught “legal experts”, etc.) and moving cases along more efficiently and rationally. Careful thought by the judges about the above issues may reduce bias and allow cases to proceed more efficiently and smoothly.

It is my hope that this web site and the companion sites:

http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com/ and

http://prosechicago.wordpress.com/

will be used both by judges/attorneys and the public (particularly pro se community) to reduce tempers, calm nerves, bring understanding, encourage justice, and move cases along more efficiently and less traumatically for all involved.

%d bloggers like this: