Cook County Judges

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

Posts Tagged ‘4th Amendment

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Chiampas suspends 6th Amendment right to compulsory process and speedy trial, violates Illinois Statutes for Substitution of Judge – in acts of treason

with 2 comments


Shelton has filed an United States Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Mandamus against Circuit Court of Cook County Judge Peggy Chiampas for ordering denial of compulsory process, denial of speedy trial, and violation of statutes for substitution of judge for cause.

Judge Chiampas even issued a warrant on a case that Shelton won a year ago and set bail for this misdemeanor of $25,000. She also arrested Shelton for going out into the hall when she was ill, violating the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, she issued two bails on one case and has issued excessive bails.  Judge Chiampas is not fit to be a judge as she has no understanding of basic constitutional rights.

Judge Chiampas is incompetent, narcissitic, rude, and dangerous to the public. She needs to be immediately removed from the bench and subjected to mental health evaluation. Presiding Judge Wright and Chief Judge Evans should be held accountable for allowing this nut case to remain on the bench. She is only concerned about railroading people through her court in a rush to judgment so she can clear the calender that has been loaded up with so many cases due to misconduct of other judges. The chief and presiding judges have placed her on this call to clear the calender and have paid no attention to her incompetence and misconduct. Her courtroom is nothing more than a Salem Witch trial. Please help get this nutcase off the bench.

Judge Peggy Chiampas is so ignorant of the law that she doesn’t  understand that she cannot strike a motion for substitution of judge for cause.  She had the gall to tell Shelton that she was considering allowing her to refile the motion. Shelton on June 13th, 2012, told Chiampas in court that she had not jurisdiction, that she lost it when Shelton had her courier file a Motion for SOJ Chiampas for Cause.  Shelton said she didn’t need her leave to refile it as Chiampas’ order to strike it was VOID ab initio according to higher court case law.  Chiampas then said she was granting leave to file. Shelton said she no longer recognized Chiampas as the judge on the case and every order she makes is VOID and without jurisdiction.

See Shelton’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus to U.S. Supreme Court here and her petitions for writ of habeas corpus here (will be scanned in shortly).

See Shelton’s 1st Supplement to Petition for Writ of Mandamus to U.S. Supreme Court here.

See Shelton’s Motion for Stay of Cook County Court Proceedings in 09 MC1 223774 pending U.S. Supreme Court rulings here.

_____________

UPDATE:

Shelton made a motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause, because of Judge Chiampas history of lawlessness, and it was filed by a courier on May 29, 2012.  Judge Chiampas said it was stricken on May 29, 2012, a day Shelton did not come to court because Chiampas refused to transfer the case to the presiding judge and had ordered Shelton to come to court on May 29, 2012 and submit to a trial that day, but Chiampas had ordered that Shelton could not have witnesses (Chiampas had stricken motions to compel Clerk Brown and Sheriff Dart to produce evidence – names of witnesses. Both Brown and Dart are deliberately ignoring the subpoenas, which is a criminal act). On June 13, 2012 Shelton was in court, in custody after she had surrendered at the FBI buildling on June 8, 2012. Shelton had taken this extra time and not shown up in court so she could write a Petiton for Writ of mandamus to the US Supreme Court and file Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus to have these bogus cases dismissed and to order a fair trial – force the judge to be replaced and force compliance with subpoenas as well as force the court to follow speedy trial laws and the constitution  concerning compulsory process of witnesses and other laws.

The jail staff have purposely and maliciously in the past when Shelton was illegally incarcerated prevented her from having paper and pen and access to the courts, so that she had to make sure any motions were written before she surrendered.  These legal filings by Shelton apparently were noticed by Presiding Muncipal 1 Judge Wright who ordered that Judge Harmeling would hear the SOJ for Cause Motion, despite Judge Chiampas striking it.  Judge Chiampas on June 13, 2010 also ordered the states attorney to meet with Shelton who showed them that two of the case numbers were the same case and Clerk Brown had made one of her numerous clerical errors – so the state dropped one of the cases. Then Chiampas ordered Dart and Brown to have their lawyers in court on June 20 and ordered them on June 20th to comply with the subpoenas.  This is AFTER Judge Chiampas had stricken with prejudice (can’t be reinstated), on March 21, 2012, Shelton’s motion to compel Dart and Brown to comply with subpoenas. Chiampas must have read the US Supreme Court Motion which asked the court to compel Chiampas to follow the Bill of Rights and compel witnesses to comply with subpoenas.

On June 28, 2012 Shelton informed the court through an attorney that she could not appear to hear Judge Harmeling’s ruling on the Motion for SOJ Chiapas for cause that Shelton argued on June 20, 2012, because Shelton was ill and due to her multiple chronic illnesses and the extreme heat index, as well as a stomach flu with fever, she could not appear in court.  The next hearing was postponed until July 2, 2012 as a result.

Shelton, on June 13, 2012 told Judge Chiampas that it was illegal for her to strike the motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause.  Judge Chiampas said that presiding Judge Wright had ordered another Judge to hear the motion and that she was allowing the motion to be re-instated (she had no power to strike or re-instate as the only power she has after a motion for substitution of Judge is written and filed is to transfer the case to the presiding Judge).  Judge Harmeling was assigned to hear the motion and he appeared in court on June 20, 2012.

Judge Harmeling heard the Motion for SOJ for Cause against Judge Chiampas on July 2, 2012 and totally igored the higher court precedent on the topic that Shelton had written in her Motion for SOJ for Cause (see it here), as well as the law, fraudulently stating that Shelton was just angry at Judge Chiampas’ rulings and that was not a reason to substitute judge. He then denied the motion and transferred it back to Judge Chiampas. Judge Chiampas then ordered a status hearing on August 3, 2012 to check on whether discovery was complete from the subpoenas issued to Clerk Dorothy Brown and Sheriff Dart.

Shelton on July 2, 2012 filed several motions including a motion 2nd Motion for SOJ for cause

Judge Kenneth J. Wadas illegally dismisses habeas petition – an act of treason

with one comment


Judge Kenneth J. Wadas, as acting presiding criminal court judge, on May 8, 2010 illegally dismissed a petititon for writ of habeas corpus without reading it or hearing any argument, stating that only the Defendant’s attorney could file it. Next friend Linda Shelton filed it on behalf of Annabel Melongo who is being held at CCDOC without probable charge on a bogus charge. Evidence is attached to the petition proving lack of probable cause. It is the responsibility of the judge (Brosnahan) to dismiss the case after indictment if the judge is presented with evidence that there was never any probable cause. Judge Brosnahan is refusing even to hear the motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause.

Judge Wadas has violated Article X of the Code of Civil Procedure in Illinois which specifically states that another person on behalf of the petitioner may file a habeas petition.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that when a judge purposely violates a statute or the constitution, then he is “waring” on the constitution and commits an act of treason.

For details and case law see full article.

Judge Mary Margaret Brosnahan suspends habeas laws

with one comment


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The law states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cook County Circuit Court Rule 15.2

 (c) Petitioner without funds and without attorney.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judicial Trespassers of the law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Violation of judge’s oath of office

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Treason by a judge

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information see: 

SALF Exposed

%d bloggers like this: