Posts Tagged ‘Circuit Court of Cook County’
Fitness or mental competency to stand trial is a complicated topic. Legal fitness concerns the legal terms of fitness, sanity or temporary sanity, and may or may not be related to mental illness. It can also be related to physical illness or incapacity. This is an up to date and extensive memorandum of law which can be used, after review with an attorney and after addition of any new case law that may apply in any criminal case. The recent decision in People v. Stahl, by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2014 is included. This applies to Illinois law and U.S. Supreme Court case law.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW – FITNESS EXAMS – for Complete document download it here, which has extensive case law and authorities. List of Topics Covered:
- Due Process Clause Prohibits Conviction & Sentencing of Mentally Unfit Defendants – If Bona Fide Doubt of Fitness Present at Any Time Must Examine for Fitness & Hold Fitness Hearing
- Statutes REQUIRE the Judge Shall Inform the Defendant that He/She has the Right to Refuse to Answer Questions at the Fitness Exam
- Bail may NOT be Revoked or Denied Based on Order to Undergo Fitness Examination
- Mental Illness is Determined by a Physician; Fitness is a Legal Term Determined by a Court
- Determining if there is a Bona Fide Doubt of Fitness REQUIRES a Fact Specific Inquiry
- Definitions of terms “psychotic”, “irrational”, “delusional”, “hallucinating”, and “competent”.
- Defendant has a Right to Request and Examination by a Psychiatrist or Psychologist of His/Her Choice, in Addition to the Requirement that the Judge Review Prior Psychiatric Examinations, in Determining Fitness.
- Even though the Defendant is Sane at the Time of Trial, Lack of Sanity at Time of Offense may Result in Finding of Unfit for Trial when Defendant Unable to Testify about Mental State at Time of Offense & Unable therefore to Assist Counsel in His/Her Defense [General Insanity AKA Fitness or CST and Temporary Insanity are Two Different Issues]
- Once an Examiner’s Report is Received by the Court, it Must hold a Fitness Trial (Hearing) within 45 Days.
- If Found Unfit Must Determine Least Restrictive Environment for Treatment and Further Evaluation
- Edward’s Issues and Miscellaneous Concerns
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
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.
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
Do the following in order to help preserve the Constitution and help stop government corruption in Illinois.
The following is such a serious violation of our Constitution and our Laws that I respectfully ask you all to read this and ACT by reading this IN DETAIL and consider disseminating it through Twitter, Facebook, e-mails, and letters to all citizens concerned about preserving the Constitution, all investigative reporters you know, as well as consider writing letters to federal officials whose addresses are given in the following. Also consider signing the petitions written where links are provided below.
Dear Friends of the Constitution and Justice and Enemies of Government Corruption:
After reading this post please write and ask the following people to investigate this corruption:
US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois
219 S Dearborn, 5th Floor
Chicago IL 60604
S/A Robert Grant
Director Chicago Office FBI
2111 W. Roosevelt Road
Chicago, IL 60608-1128
, and contacting the press or any law school innocence clinic possible.
Thank you for your time!
Annabelle Melongo is an honest person and Information Technology (computer) expert, who discovered that the foundation that she was working for committed fraud on the federal and several state government and obtained millions of dollars fraudulently. Numerous prominent politicians due to lack of due diligence were involved in assisting this foundation in fraudulently obtaining money.
Melongo has been in jail for a year awaiting trial without probable cause and with an outrageously excessive bail charged with remote computer tampering of this fraudulent corporation (yet the States Attorney has evidence she did not remotely access their computer!) and illegally recording a conversation she had on the phone with a Cook County court reporter without the court reporter’s permission – “eavesdropping” (bail $300,000 reduced from $500,000 and $30,000) – yet she is indigent, has no prior record, and the States Atty and IL AG General are FULLY AWARE that all charges against her are fraudulent!
Her petition for writ of habeas corpus has been ignored and the judges are ACTIVELY refusing even to hear it! – in clear violation of the Constitution’s suspension clause and the laws of the State of Illinois. Illinois law dictates that if a judge refuses to hear an habeas petition he can be fined $1000 and the fine paid to the unlawfully held defendent (735 ILCS 5/10-106). The suspension clause in the U.S. Constitution allows a person or his/her friend to petition the court to free a defendant from an unlawful incarceration. The Illinois Habeas statute does the same thing. (735 ILCS 5/10)
The most important Human Right in the Constitution is the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus, written in U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9 (the suspension clause – which says this right can not be suspended except in the time of war) [ Zehariah Chagee, Jr., The Most Important Human Right in the Constitution, 32 B.U. L. Rev. 143, 143, (1952)] The ONLY time the United States Supreme Court has found a violation of the suspension clause was in their decision in 2008 regarding Boumedine v Bush.
For the full details of the treasonous acts of these judges and all the case law, statutes, codes, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions proving that the judges committed treason see these links:
Examiner.com article about: judges-commit-treason-cover-up-fraud-by-salf-suspend-constitutional-rights-including-habeas-corpus
Dailykos.com diary story: Defendant-Melongo-still-denied-right-to-question-false-arrest-with-habeas-trial-result-in-hung-jury-
Examiner.com article about Melongo’s excessive bail: alvarez-madigan-target-it-specialist-to-cover-up-massive-fraud-500-000-bail-for-eavesdropping
Cincinnatibeacon.com article about how Melongo indicted through perjury of an officer: Attorney for SALF_whistleblower says IL Cop’s fraud and perjury lead to indictment
SIGN THE PETITION HERE to ask the U.S. Attorney to investigate the Melongo case.
The Cook Co State’s Attorney’s office is fully informed that a cop’s fraud and perjury obtained a void indictment yet they are still pursuing the case. They are fully informed that the alleged victim of this fraudulent charge of computer tampering has defrauded the U.S. government out of millions of dollars. So why are Anita Alvarez and Lisa Madigan still continuing this case? PLEASE ASK THEM at:
Cook Co States Attorney
50 W Washington, Rm 500
Chicago IL 60602
AG Lisa Madigan
Illinois Attorney General
100 W Randolph, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
A concerned friend (me, Linda Shelton) filed a next-friend petition for habeas corpus before the Circuit Court of Cook County per 735 ILCS Article X, the state habeas statute that lets a non-attorney file this petition. I had done this before for another person who was illegally jailed without probable cause and the judge appointed an attorney who gained her release in 2009.
Judge McHale, who was sitting in for the presiding Cook Co IL criminal court Judge Biebel, then illegally and unconstitutionally jailed the petitioner (me) for contempt claiming it was illegal for a non-attorney to file an habeas petition on behalf of another – even though IL statutes specifically allow this.
This is what happened in detail:
Shelton alleges Judge McHale (substituting for Judge Bieble – presiding judge of the Cook Co Criminal Court) illegally and in an act of treason in retaliation for Shelton’s whistle blowing about judicial corruption in the Circuit Court of Cook County summarily convicted her of 3 “cases” which should have been 3 “counts” of criminal contempt for the legal act of filing a next-friend habeas petition as a non-attorney on behalf of Annabelle Melongo, a dual Haitian/Cameroonean citizen with language difficulties and who was confusing English and Roman law, and then telling the judge that his act of ruling that a non-attorney filing was “illegal” was a violation of his oath of office to follow the law as well as a criminal act.
Shelton alleges Judge McHale’s consecutive summary sentences of 4, 6, and 6 months (total of 16 mo) in CCDOC with no good time jail credits, were in:
A) violation of IL Substitution of Judge (“SOJ”) as Right Statutes, 735 ILCS 5/2-1001 which make all orders given after denial of this SOJ as a right void (a nullity or invalid);
B) in violation of Habeas Statutes, 735 ILCS Art 10 which allow a person to file an habeas petition on “behalf of another”;
C) in violation of Good Time Jail Allowance statute, 730 ILCS 130, which give jurisdiction for such credits to the county sheriff and not the judge;
D) in violation of IL sentencing statutes requiring concurrent sentences for the same conduct or acts occurring during the same state of mind, 720 ILCS 5/3-3; and
E) in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court holdings which:
1) require jury trial if sentences exceed 6 mos aggregate for contempt,
2) forbid sentencing for more than one count of contempt during one trial or case,
3) require jury trial if contempt sentence is summarily imposed on a day other than the day in which the contemptuous act occurred, and
4) specifically state it is legal for a non-attorney to file a next-friend petition for writ of habeas corpus, U.S. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 76 S.Ct 1 (1955) and Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 128 S.Ct 2229 (2008).
These sentences by Judge McHale were acts of felony treason punishable by a sentence of 20 yrs to life per previous holdings and/or dicta of the United States Supreme Court including:
1) that the judges in U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980) affirmed the statement of Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) that it is “treason on the constitution” when a judge “usurps [the jurisdiction] that which is not given”; and
2) that it is a “war on the constitution” when a judge violates his oath of office to support it [including supporting statutes of a state = due process], Cooper v. Aaron,358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401(1958).
Judge McHale’s knowing violation of the statutes concerning SOJ as a right, good conduct jail credits; violation of case law concerning right to trial if sentence is > 6 mo, right to trial if sentence for contempt is given out on day other than day of contempt incidence, ban on more than one count of contempt during one case or trial; and violation of U.S. Supreme Court holdings/dicta in U.S. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 76 S.Ct 1 (1955) and Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 128 S.Ct 2229 (2008) that a non-attorney may file a next-friend habeas petition prove Judge McHale illegally found Linda Shelton in contempt three times, illegally sentenced her, and knowingly did this in an act of treason violating Shelton’s constitutional rights to be free of arrest and imprisonment without due process and in violation of law.
In addition, Annabelle Melongo’s petition for writ of habeas corpus has been IGNORED by Judges McHale, Brosnahan, Wadas, Kazmierski, and Judge Biebel and she is still in jail a year later! All these judges have therefore committed treason.
This is a grotesque and extremely serious violation of the Constitution of the United States – suspension clause (Article I, section 9) which states that the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus may not be suspended except in time of war.
EVEN PRISONERS AT GUANTANEMO BAY ARE ALLOWED TO FILE HABEAS PETITIONS!
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please sign the petition, write letters, and contact the press! Send Annabelle Melongo letters of encouragement at:
PO Box 089002
Chicago, IL 60608
You can send her a money order for up to $50 if you want to contribute to her commissary fund to ease her suffering a bit.
Judge Maddux of the Circuit Court of Cook County Law Division runs his division as a criminal enterprise, denying First Amendment Right to Redress of Grievances, to indigent plaintiffs, if he doesn’t like you, thinks you sue too much, or if you have filed suit against corrupt officials in Cook County or the State of Illinois. He uses the Sheriff’s office as a goon squad to harass and falsely arrest those that complain about his scheme and unconstitutional conduct. He should be impeached.
Chief Judge Evans of the Circuit Court of Cook County condones his conduct as does the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Dorothy Brown. Dorothy Brown has announced she is running for the office of President of the Board of Cook County Commissioners. I cannot support her under the circumstances of her misconduct.
I call upon President Stroger to remove Judge Timothy Evans as Chief Judge and replace him with an honest person. He has been Chief Judge too long and is too corrupt to continue in this position. Rumor has it he also participates in pay-to-play demanding 10% contributions to the political fund “Friends of Madigan” for every contract he grants concerning the Circuit Court of Cook County. I also call on the FBI to investigate both Judge Evans and Judge Maddux for RICO violations and corruption.
I also urge voters in Cook County to never againt vote for the ineffective and corrupt Sheriff Dart or for Dorothy Brown. We need leaders with vision, honesty, integrity, who act as professionals, admit mistakes, recognize and correct problems agressively, and are willing to meet with members of the public to solve problems. Status quo is no longer good enough. Change is required from the top down, starting with Todd Stroger, Cook County Board President.
Judge Maddux Dismisses Torts with Dual Court Assignments for Same Case – Hidden “Black Line Trial Call” – RICO Violation?
Judge Maddux Violates Constitutional Rights – Dismisses Torts with Dual Court Assignment for Same Case – hidden “Black Line Trial Call” WITHOUT Notice to Litigant – RICO Violation?
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Law Division Presiding Judge William D. Maddux has devised a system that has been in place for several years that serves to quash cases primarily of pro se and indigent plaintiffs by “dismissing for want of prosecution” (“DWP”) without notice in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rules. Judge Maddux appears to suffer from arrogance, a controlling obsessive-compulsive character where he must micro-manage as many aspects of all cases in his division as possible, narcissism in that he must be involved in every case and grandiose delusions in that he must boost his self-esteem by controlling others in all cases – even to the point of denying civil rights and the law.
This scheme involves assigning each case to two parallel courts. The first is the motion judge and then trial judge. The second is the “Black Line Trial Call.” Litigants are not informed or given notice about the “Black Line Trial Call.” The second parallel court hearings are used to cause DWP without notice.
This scheme that he devised purportedly to move cases along faster, but which actually denies the First Amendment right to redress of grievances, amounts to a RICO violation. Judge Maddux is enriching the courts and clerk’s office or County of Cook by taking money for filing fees and then illegally quashing the cases by DWP in clear violation of law. This makes the Cook County Circuit Court Law Division and the Cook County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office a criminal enterprise used by Judge Maddux, with approval of Chief Judge Timothy Evans and Cook County Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown, essentially influencing this criminal enterprise by influencing through racketeering the outcome of every case in the Law Division. The crimes are fraud in that the Circuit Court appears to permit a person redress of grievances and accepts their filing fee, but instead DWP without notice in an unconstitutional scheme. This is also felony violation of civil rights under color of law and conspiracy to violate civil rights under color of law. As the mails are used in this scheme to inform the plaintiffs that their cases have been dismissed this is also mail fraud. Finally, this is also theft of honest services, as courts are supposed to uphold the constitution, not purposely violate it.
The scheme or conspiracy to wholesale deny civil rights under color of law goes as follows:
The plaintiff files a lawsuit (tort) for damages and pays the filing fee thinking that they will obtain redress of grievances and have a just chance to present their case to court and be made whole by awarding of damages.
The case is assigned by a random system to a motion judge. If it finishes all pre-trial matters, it is then assigned to a different judge for trial. (The ABA recently advised that a case should stay with the same judge from pre-trial through trial as a matter of best practice. The present system is a mess as the motion judges are often changed in the middle of cases and then the judge is totally unfamiliar with the previous motion judge’s rulings and time is wasted and rulings become unfair and confusing because of ignorance of the judge. The trial judges are then also unable to make appropriate rulings through ignorance of previous rulings and this impairs a fair hearing.)
The case is also assigned to an 18 month or 24 month pre-trial “discovery” schedule for purposes of the “Black Line Call.” The plaintiff is NEVER told that the “Black Line Call” system exists and only find out about it by word of mouth, if they read the Circuit Court of Cook County web site in detail, or if they read the Cook County Circuit Court Clerk web site in detail, which contains a link to the Court web site and contains the “Black Line Case Docket”. The majority of pro se litigants who are novices therefore do not know about this second court “system,” to which their case is also assigned.
When the case reaches the 18 mo or 24 mo discovery schedule date, it is assigned to the last number on the “Black Line Call”, a list of cases. The cases are heard about thirty a day without any notice except publication in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin and the case being listed on the Court Clerk’s “Black Line” computer docket. A specific date is NOT given for the hearing, but rather the litigants must guess at the date that the case will move from the end of the line of about 300 cases to the first thirty cases (“above the Black Line”), or read the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin or court computer docket every day after 4:00 p.m.
The plaintiff must appear on that date at 9:00 a.m. or the case is DWP. No continuances of any kind are allowed. No accommodations are made for the disabled or pro se litigants of any kind. Then when the case is DWP, the plaintiff receives a postcard in the mail from the court that their case has been dismissed and the motion judge will refuse to hear it any or receive any motions. The litigant will have to make a motion to vacate the DWP before Judge Maddux within 30 days or make a 1401 petition before Judge Maddux for the case to be re-instated. Judge Maddux refuses to re-instate cases for unknown reasons.
For Judge Maddux’s Law Division rules and orders related to the “Black Line Trial Call: see:
Illinois Supreme Court Rules 104 and 105 require proper notice be given to a litigant before a motion, including a motion of the court under the “Black Line Trial System,” can be heard by the court. Therefore, since all orders for DWP by Judge Maddux or his designee judge were done without proper notice to the litigant, these orders are all null and void. The court fails to make a motion or affidavit or order to hear the case in a hearing before a judge other than the judge assigned for the case and fails to specify that this hearing is ordered by the court, for the purpose of setting a trial date and ordering discovery be finished or closed or extended. A case cannot constitutionally be DWP for failure to appear at a “Black Line” hearing when the plaintiff was not legally notified of the hearing per the following Supreme Court Rules and Illinois Statutes:
“Rule 104. Service of Pleadings and Other Papers; Filing
(a) Delivery of Copy of Complaint. Every copy of a summons used in making service shall have attached thereto a copy of the complaint, which shall be furnished by plaintiff.
(b) Filing of Papers and Proof of Service. Pleadings subsequent to the complaint, written motions, and other papers required to be filed shall be filed with the clerk with a certificate of counsel or other proof that copies have been served on all parties who have appeared and have not theretofore been found by the court to be in default for failure to plead.
(c) Excusing Service. For good cause shown on ex parte application, the court or any judge thereof may excuse the delivery or service of any complaint, pleading, or written motion or part thereof on any party, but the attorney filing it shall furnish a copy promptly and without charge to any party requesting it.
(d) Failure to Serve Copies. Failure to deliver or serve copies as required by this rule does not in any way impair the jurisdiction of the court over the person of any party, but the aggrieved party may obtain a copy from the clerk and the court shall order the offending party to reimburse the aggrieved party for the expense thereof.
Rule 105. Additional Relief Against Parties in Default–Notice
(a) Notice–Form and Contents. If new or additional relief, whether by amendment, counterclaim, or otherwise, is sought against a party not entitled to notice under Rule 104, notice shall be given him as herein provided. The notice shall be captioned with the case name and number and shall be directed to the party. It shall state that a pleading seeking new or additional relief against him has been filed and that a judgment by default may be taken against him for the new or additional relief unless he files an answer or otherwise files an appearance in the office of the clerk of the court within 30 days after service, receipt by certified or registered mail, or the first publication of the notice, as the case may be, exclusive of the day of service, receipt or first publication. Except in case of publication, a copy of the new or amended pleading shall be attached to the notice, unless excused by the court for good cause shown on ex parte application.
(b) Service. The notice may be served by any of the following methods:
(1) By any method provided by law for service of summons, either within or without this State. Service may be made by an officer or by any person over 18 years of age not a party to the action. Proof of service by an officer may be made by return as in the case of a summons. Otherwise proof of service shall be made by affidavit of the server, stating the time, manner, and place of service. The court may consider the affidavit and any other competent proofs in determining whether service has been properly made.
(2) By prepaid certified or registered mail addressed to the party, return receipt requested, showing to whom delivered and the date and address of delivery. The notice shall be sent “restricted delivery” when service is directed to a natural person. Service is not complete until the notice is received by the defendant, and the registry receipt is prima facie evidence thereof.
(3) By publication, upon the filing of an affidavit as required for publication of notice of pendency of the action in the manner of but limited to the cases provided for, and with like effect as, publication of notice of pendency of the action.”
This “Black Line Trial Call” invented and administrated by Judge Maddux in violation of Supreme Court Rules and due process therefore amounts simply to a scheme to quash as many cases as possible without due process by having a dual court system, of which the litigant is not informed about, nor is given notice of hearings. In my opinion this amounts to a RICO violation, in that Judge Maddux with the agreement of Chief Judge Evans, Clerk Dorothy Brown, and Sheriff Dart use the Circuit Court of Cook County and its arm the Clerk’s office as a criminal enterprise to enrich the Clerk’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office by violating laws and depriving pro se, primarily indigent plaintiffs of their constitutional right to redress of grievances and due process. The laws violated are:
1) Constitutional right to redress of grievances;
2) Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments;
3) Violation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law;
4) Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights Under Color of Law;
5) Theft of Honest Services by Judge Maddux and Clerk Dorothy Brown (Acting as a judge yet denying due process and violating constitutional rights, collecting fees knowing that due process will be denied and mailing a postcard verifying that due process was denied);
6) Obstruction of Justice (interfering with First Amendment rights to redress of grievances);
7) Mail Fraud (mailing a postcard to litigant that the case is dismissed [yet the dismissal is void as due process is denied]);
8) Extortion (of original filing fee and fees for service to Sheriff with no intention to actually give plaintiff due process);
9) Extorting money by denying due process in order to enrich a criminal enterprise including the Circuit Court of Cook County through the Office of the Clerk of the Court – filing fees; and through the Office of the Cook County Sheriff – service fees (all fees fraudulently obtained as the “Black Line Trial Call” system or scheme sets up the majority of pro se plaintiffs to have their cases dismissed without notice or due process).
The FBI and United States Attorney should be investigating this, should prosecute the offenders, and should restore constitutional rights to redress of grievances and due process to the citizens of Cook County.
Judge Maddux Runs Law Division Cook County Court as Criminal Enterprise – Dr Linda Shelton Unlawfully Arrested
Circuit Court of Cook County Law Division Presiding Judge William Maddux blatantly violates constitutional rights of litigants and runs the Circuit Court of Cook County Law Division as a criminal enterprise to enrich the County of Cook Circuit Court Clerk’s Office and Sheriff’s Office. He requires indigent plaintiffs to pay-to-play in regards to enforcing their rights to redress of grievances by filing a suit. He illegally denies indigency petitions. He illegally orders his clerks to refuse to give the litigant a copy of the order granting or denying the indigency petition.
Chief Judge Timothy Evans, Sheriff Dart, and Cook County Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown participate in and condone this scheme. It appears that this scheme meets the definition of a criminal enterprise used in racketeering. This is a felony RICO violation.
Dr. Linda Shelton unlawfully arrested by A/C Nolan of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office when she tried to get Sheriff to enforce her right to sue as an indigent person. Sheriff Dart and Court Clerk Dorothy Brown aiding and abetting, or participating in this RICO crime. This is racketeering to enrich a criminal enterprise – the Circuit Court of Cook County and the Cook County Sheriff’s Office. This also illegally denies the right of citizens in Illinois to sue corrupt officials and police in C[r]ook County Illinois and Chicago.
For details see the following link:
If you wish to help fight this corruption please donate to Dr Linda Shelton’s legal fund:
Make checks payable to J. Nicolas Albukerk & Associates
Write on them – “for Dr. Linda Shelton legal fund
C/O J. Nicolas Albukerk and Associates
Dr. Linda Shelton legal fund
3025 W. 26th Street, 2nd floor
Chicago, IL 60623
I filed a Notice of Appeal as a right with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County on March 9, 2009. I was found not guilty of Medicaid vendor fraud because it was a case of ID theft. I am NOT appealing the verdict. I am appealing the issue of jurisdiction both because controversies remain and due to the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.
The Circuit Court loses jurisdiction once the Notice of Appeal is file. The Clerk of the Court is required by law to transmit the Notice of Appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court.
On March 20, 2009 Judge Biebel sue sponte wrote an order barring the Clerk from transmitting the Notice of Appeal or from preparing the record on appeal, illegally declaring that there was “no appeallable order”.
I too the Notice of Appeal to the Illinos Appellate Court and had the case docketed – 09-0949. I also filed the following two motions. Judge Biebel has violated his oath of office by blatantly violating law.
The result of his order would have been to deny the appeal of the jurisdictional issue, which if I win, will set precedent and prove that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and the Illinois State Police Medicaid Fraud Control Unit in conjunction with the Office of Inspector General Federal Dept. of Health and Human Services have been illegally and baselessly prosecuting a number of quality and dedicated providers of mental health services to persons on Medicaid. A win would free Dr. Maisha Hamilton Bennett, overturn her conviction and overturn the conviction of Naomi Jennings and perhaps others I don’t know about, as well as force the prosecution against Vernon Glass to cease.
As explained in the following link AG Madigan and IL Medicaid (started by previous AG Ryan and previous administrations) have a scheme to deny mental health care to persons on Medicaid, use this as a phony claim they are tough on fraud for election purposes, and use this to help balance the IL budget on the backs of the mentally ill. They are claiming that Medicaid will not pay for psychiatric services performed by non-physicians such as licensed drug-addiction counselors and psychologists when billed fee-for-service as employees of physicians. They claim it is felony fraud for a physician to bill Medicaid for services of such licensed employees.
This essentially denies mental health care to persons on Medicaid as > 80 % of mental health care in this country is provided by non-physicians. We need 30,000+ pediatric psychiatrists yet the country has less than 5,000. Failure to provide mental health care increases crime, misery, family disruption, and poverty. It is a disaster to our economy. Judge Biebel is part of the problem, not the solution. He should be impeached. As presiding criminal division judge he should be held to a higher standard and should know better.
For a detailed and exhaustive analysis of the fraudulent nature of the charges and the state scheme see:
For a detailed analysis of why the indictment is legally insufficient and therefore the case is void see:
For a shorter description of the scheme by the state to deny mental health care see:
For detailed discussion of the jurisditional issues in a federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus which was denied and is pending before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine see:
The following is my Motion to the IL Appellate Court to overturn Judge Biebel’s void and illegal order:
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
) of Cook County, Illinois
-vs.- ) No. 04 CR 17571-03
LINDA L. SHELTON )
) Honorable Jorge Alonso
MOTION TO ORDER JUDGE PAUL P. BIEBEL JR. TO VACATE HIS ILLEGAL ORDER FOR CIRCUIT COURT CLERK NOT TO TRANSMIT NOTICE OF APPEAL TO APPELLATE COURT
NOW COMES, Linda Shelton, Defendant, Pro Se, who respectfully moves this Honorable Court to order Presiding Circuit Court of Cook County Criminal Division Judge Paul P. Biebel Jr. to vacate his illegal order for Circuit Court of Cook County Clerk not to transmit Notice of Appeal in above titled case to Illinois Appellate Court. In support of this motion Defendant states as follows:
Defendant, pro se, filed Notice of Appeal (Exhibit A) with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County (“Clerk”) on March 9, 2009 and requested the Clerk to prepare the Record on Appeal.
Defendant, on April 10, 2009, received an order made sue sponte by Judge Paul P. Biebel Jr. instructing the Clerk NOT to transmit the Notice of Appeal to this Appellate Court stating that there was no final appealable order. (Exhibit B)
Notice of Appeal states that Defendant was found not guilty on February 24, 2009, but was appealing NOT THE VERDICT, but the issue of JURISDICTION of the court.
The Illinois Appellate Court, 3rd District in King v. DeDonker, 17 Ill.App.3d 1064, 309 N.E.2d 598 (1974) ruled that a judge’s refusal to enter a finding of not guilty after a not guilty verdict was a final appealable order. The United States Supreme Court in several cases granted certiorari after not guilty verdicts and ruled that issues in cases where there were not guilty verdicts were appealable if they met two tests: 1) there remained a controversy, and 2) when there is no threat of either multiple punishments or successive prosecutions as a result of overturning the decisions of the trial court; in essence that as long as the double jeopardy clause is not offended the appeal is not barred. United States v. Jenkins, 420 U.S. 358, 95 S.Ct. 1006, (1975); Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 95 S.Ct. 1055 (1975); United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 95 S.Ct. 1013 (1975); United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co, 430 U.S. 564, 97 S.Ct 1349 (1977); and United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 98 S.Ct. 1054 (1978)
A case is only moot when it involves no controversy. Hynde v. Hopper, 56 Ill.App.2d 152, 205 N.E.2d 647 (1965)
In the present case there remains a controversy – the issue of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The appeal and decision about this controversy denying Defendant’s multiple motions to dismiss pretrial for lack of jurisdiction was barred until there was a final order of the court (finding of not guilty after not guilty jury verdict). The issue is not moot because a decision on jurisdiction will solve several remaining controversies. There is no limitations on the time to appeal void orders.
First, if the case lacked jurisdiction and was null and void ab initio, then all bail orders are void and the Clerk may not retain the 10% of the bail or $1100, and she must return this money to the Defendant.
Second, if the case was null and void ab initio, then the case must be expunged from Defendant’s criminal record without charge to her and without the requirement that she apply for it to be expunged.
Third, if the case was null and void ab initio, then two findings of criminal contempt found during the precedings would also be null and void and must be vacated and expunged, even IF the defendant had made contemptuous statements or made contemptuous actions during these two hearings which would become nullities. ACC 050087-01 and ACC 070057-01
Fourth and finally, Defendant also claims that the issue of jurisdiction is not moot because if the valid controversy of alleged lack of jurisdiction in this case is resolved in favor of the State’s position that there is jurisdiction, res judicata on this issue would bar any tort action against Judge Pantle and Attorney General Lisa Madigan in federal case number 1:06-cv-04259, a pending civil rights suit against these persons on hold in federal court pending the disposition of this criminal case (now it will be taken off of hold status). The orders of the federal court based on presumed absolute judicial and prosecutorial immunity did not address the merits of the allegation of total lack of jurisdiction of prosecutor or Trial Court and its judge. Therefore, the Federal District Court has NOT decided this jurisdictional issue in the pending case, 1:06-cv-04259. There is no issue of res judicata barring the consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court of the controversy concerning jurisdiction in this case. The Federal Court order removing these two persons from the suit as defendants will be appealed due to their lack of jurisdiction. This order of the Federal District Court in case number 1:06-cv-04259 becomes null and void if this Illinois Appellate Court rules that this criminal case was null and void ab initio, as prosecutors and judges lose absolute immunity ONLY when they are declared to have NO jurisdiction in a case. Therefore a controversy remains as to whether the Illinois Attorney General ever had jurisdiction to indict and prosecute defendant and whether the Trial Court ever had jurisdiction to hear this case, based on the resulting void indictment. The resolution of this controversy has immediate impact on the resolution of the above mentioned federal case and on the convictions of Maisha Hamilton Bennett and Naomi Jennings, as well as on the pending criminal case against Vernon Glass. All these cases involve the same charges and the same issues leading to the conclusion that there was a lack of trial court and prosecutorial jurisdiction or authority as listed in the Notice of Appeal. Therefore, harm will befall defendant and continue to befall Maisha Hamilton Bennett, Naomi Jennings, and Vernon Glass if the issue on this appeal of jurisdiction is not resolved in defendant’s favor.
Therefore, the Illinois Appellate Court is NOT BARRED from hearing this appeal pertaining solely to the jurisdictional issues.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, respectfully moves this Honorable Court to issue an order for Judge Paul P. Biebel Jr. to vacate his order of March 20, 2009 to the Clerk not to transmit the Notice of Appeal to this Honorable Court.
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/109-1 I certify that the statements set forth herein are true and correct.
Dated: April 14, 2009
Linda L. Shelton, Ph.D., M.D. Linda L. Shelton