Cook County Judges

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

Archive for the ‘Mental Competence for Self-Representation’ 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 is going to be filed in the very near future.

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: