Cook County Judges

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

Posts Tagged ‘civil rights

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.

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

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

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

Full nearly 100 page 30 count complaint 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.

 

U.S. Supreme Court refuses to uphold its own holdings and due process

with one comment


The U.S. Supreme Court refused to uphold their own holdings in denial of Shelton’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Dr. Linda Shelton was unlawfully convicted of  contempt of court and summarily sentenced to 16 months in jail with no trial or due process because she followed Illinois law that allows a person other than the defendant to file a next-friend petition for writ of habeas corpus on “behalf of another”. Judge McHale held that it was illegal for Shelton to file this petition on behalf of Annabel Melongo when Shelton was not an attorney.  Melongo was released after 20 months when the Illinois eavesdropping law was declared unconstitutional. Melongo had been denied hearing on Shelton’s petition for her in an illegal act by Cook County judges who refused to hear this petition. Thus they violated the U.S. Constitution Suspension Clause that says that habeas may not be suspended except in times of war.  READ THE FOLLOWING!! (Transcript where Shelton appeared before Judge McHale asking for him to assign judge to represent Melongo on Shelton’s next-friend petition for writ of habeas corpus on her behalf on May 11, 2010 – NOTE: habeas corpus is the highest right a person has in the U.S. written in the constitution to protect against unlawful incarceration yet few Americans are educated to know what this means!)

Shelton alleges Judge McHale (substituting for Judge Biebel – presiding judge of the Cook County Criminal Court) illegally and in an act of felony federal treason and conspiracy to violate rights under color of law, after stating he would not hear her petition (i.e. admitted she was before him on an administrative matter and not with him acting as a judge) in retaliation for Shelton’s whistle blowing about judicial corruption in the Circuit Court of Cook County (she had given the FBI and U.S. Attorney extensive evidence about this corruption and published it on Internet blogs), in May through November, 2010, summarily convicted her of three (3) “cases” which should have been three (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/Cameroonian 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. The conviction was not only illegal, but it was retaliatory.

The fact that he stated he would not hear the petition meant that there was no case before him when he charged me with contempt and this occurred after I asked for SOJ as a right, which also means that his orders are void as he did not follow the law on SOJ.

Shelton alleges Judge McHale’s consecutive SUMMARY sentences of 4, 6, and 6 months (total of 16 months) in CCDOC with good time jail credits quashed by order of Judge McHale, 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, Jiffy Lube International, Inc. v. Agarwal,2 77 Ill.App.3d 722,727, 214 Ill.Dec. 609,661 N.E.2d 463 (1996); Curtis v. Lofy, 394 Ill. App..3d 170, 176 (2009);

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

C) violation of IL Appellate Court holding that requires a full due process jury trial if contempt sentence is summarily imposed on a day other than the day in which the contemptuous act occurred In re Marriage of Betts, 200l ll.App.3d 26 (1990); Winning Moves, Inc., v. Hi! Baby, Inc., 238 Ill. App.3d 834 (1992); Kaeding v. Collins, 28I Ill.App3d 919 (1996)

D) 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) violation of IL statute where habeas petition must be heard quickly before the chief judge of the division, Habeas statutes, 735 ILCS 5/10-119, and the rules of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Rule 15.2(d); and

F) violation of the U.S. Supreme Court holdings and IL Court holdings which:

1) require jury trial if sentences exceed 6 months aggregate for contempt, In re Marriage of Betts, 200 lll.App.3d 26 (1990), Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 (1966); Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506, 513, 94 S.Ct. at 2692 (1974); Taylor v. Hayes, supra, 418 U.S. at 495, 94 S.Ct. at 2701;

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

3) forbid removal of automatic statutory good time jail credits by a judge  – Good Time Jail Allowance statute, 730 ILCS 130, gives jurisdiction for such credits to the county sheriff and not the judge, also violation of Codispoti v. Pennsylvannia 418 U.S. 506 (1974); 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); 735 ILCS Article X.

The Illinois Appellate Court in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 298 and Smith v. Bennett and Marshall v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 81  S.Ct. 895 (1961) denied my indigence petition , thus denied my appeal illegally.

The Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Shelton s Federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus regarding these three convictions, ACC 100083-01, 93-01, & 94-01, falsely stating that Shelton did not exhaust state remedies. Judge Hart ignored and violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in the line of cases Neirsheimer, Regan, and Loftus. People v. Loftus, 400 Ill. 432, 81 N.E.2d 495 (1948), (in response to order of Court in Loftus v. People of State of Illinois, 334 U.S. 804, 68 S.Ct 1212 (1948)); Woods v. Neirsheimer, 328 U.S. 211, 66 S.Ct. 996 (1946); White v. Ragen and Lutz v. Same, 324 U.S. 760, 65 S.Ct. 978 (1945); Young v. Ragen, 337 U.S. 235, 69 S.Ct. 1073 (1949).

There may be an exception to the exhaustion bar for cases involving colorable claims of actual innocence. See, e.g., House v. Bell, 47 U.S. 518, 522 (2006). This case also involves this is as since there is no possibility that filing a next-friend habeas petition is illegal or that complaining, as a litigant to a judge that he is violating the law, when he is violating the law, is illegal, there is no possibility that Shelton is actually guilty of contempt.

These sentences by Judge McHale were acts of felony treason, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §2381, punishable by a sentence of 20 yrs. to life, per previous holdings and/or dicta of the United States Supreme Court 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 petitions for writ of habeas corpus, SOJ as a right, good conduct jail credits; concurrent sentencing for the same act; 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, denied her father’s need for her caretaker, companion, and executive assistant services and love in his final days in an act of cruelty and lawlessness, and denied Shelton’s need for medical care and proper diet.

In addition, Annabelle Melongo’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed by Shelton, has been ignored by Judges McHale, (Brosnahan, Wadas, Kazmierski – to whom Plaintiff presented habeas filing prior to presenting it to Judge McHale and all of whom refused to hear it stating that they have no jurisdiction to hear filings from a non-attorney on behalf of another, despite Plaintiff reading the IL habeas statute to them), 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.

Judge McHale was fully informed in open court by Plaintiff of the case law, code, and constitutional issues stated herein and therefore cannot claim mistake or unintentional error. Plaintiff therefore now petitions the U.S. Attorney and U.S. Justice Department to pursue the violations of 18 U.S.C §241 AND 18 U.S.C §242, as well as 18 U.S.C. §2381 that are clearly documented in this document and attachments, under the jurisdiction as permitted by the Presentment Clause of the Constitution and under 18 U.S.C. §3332 – which specifically states, as is supported by case law, that a citizen with evidence of federal crimes may petition a judge to present this evidence to a special grand jury . I ask that the Justice Department bring this cause before a judge for an indictment against Judge McHale for corruption.

Judge McHale ILLEGALLY AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY IN VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW incarcerated Shelton for 16 month summary sentence for which she served six months and during that time DISCRIMINATED AGAINST DR. SHELTON’S DYING FATHER, ALLAN LORINCZ, BY ILLEGALLY JAILING SHELTON, SNUBBING HER REQUEST FOR HOUSE ARREST TO CARE FOR HER FATHER, AND PREVENTING HER FROM CARING FOR HIM IN HIS LAST DAYS AS HE REQUESTED RESULTING IN HIS DEATH from self-starvation and dehydration due to depression over his loss of his caretaker and companion, Shelton and his progressing Parkinson’s disease.  By turning a deaf ear, HE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST DISABLED SHELTON IN IGNORING HER DISABILITY NEEDS WHILE UNLAWFULLY JAILED BY HIM, in that he refused to order the Sheriff to provide her appropriate medications and food for her conditions. He, IN RETALIATION FOR HER WHISTLE BLOWING AND COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES AND SHERIFF STAFF, ILLEGALLY JAILED HER knowingly and willingly suspended her right to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, violated at least four U.S. Supreme Court holdings by unlawfully convicting her of contempt and summarily sentencing her to 16 mo. in jail, and trashed Shelton’s due process constitutional rights, as well as numerous Illinois statutes and Supreme Court and Cook County Court rules. Finally, he ordered a fitness exam when there was no reason to, in order to help justify his illegal conduct but ignored Shelton’s attorney’s motion that a person cannot be found in contempt if the judge questions their fitness as contempt requires intent and allegation of lack of fitness precludes concept of intent.

 

____________________________________________________

See the following criminal cases, appeals, motions for habeas & mandamus – which are explained in the following:

Cook County Court Habeas Petition: 09 CH 12736 – renumbered after transfer from Chancery division to criminal division to 09MR00025 (Shelton’s next friend habeas petition for Maisha Hamilton – allowed and Hamilton assigned a pro bono attorney); 10 HC 0006 & 7 (Shelton’s next-friend habeas petitions for Melongo – Judge McHale refused to hear, told Shelton filing it was criminal); 10 HC 00008 & 12 (Shelton habeas petition – Judge Porter summarily denied)

Cook County Criminal Contempt Cases: ACC 1000083-01, ACC 1000093-01, ACC 1000094-01 (Unconstitutional & Illegal against Shelton – summary total sentence of 16 months for filing next-friend habeas petitions for Melongo and defending her right to do so)

Cook County Criminal Cases: 10CR8092 (Melongo’s criminal eavesdropping case – declared unconstitutional eavesdropping law – this was upheld by IL Supreme Court) 08CR1050201 (Melongo’s computer tampering case which she later won as State committed fraud)

U.S. Supreme Court Complaint for Leave to File Mandamus: 12-6561 (Shelton pro se filing, granted in forma pauperis but denied leave to file brief)

Illinois Appellate Court: 10-3342, 10-3344, 10-3345 (Shelton’s appeal of contempt cases dismissed when denied in forma pauperis and demanded back payment for previous cases as well as $25 payment for each of these cases)

_______________________________________

NOTE: the following case law

CONTEMPT

Sacher et al. v. United States, 343 U.S. 1, 72 S.Ct. 451, 96 L.Ed. 717 (1950)

Courage does not equal contempt.

An attorney has the right to make a fearless, vigorous argument

It is the right of counsel for every litigant to press his claim, even if it appears farfetched and untenable to obtain the trial court’s considered ruling. Full enjoyment of that right, wit due allowance for the heat of controversy, will be protected by appellate courts when infringed by trial courts. At 9

Men who make their way to the bench sometimes exhibit vanity, irascibility, narrowness, arrogance, and other weaknesses [ignorance] to which human flesh is heir. Most judges, however, recognize and respect courageous, forthright lawyerly conduct. They rarely mistake overzeal or heated words of a man fired with a desire to win, for the contemptuous conduct which defies rulings and deserves punishment. They recognize that our profession necessarily is a contentious one and they respect the lawyer who makes a strenuous effort for his client. At 12

Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, Footnote 4, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 .Ed.2d 522 (1968)

The court has long recognized the potential for abuse in exercising the summary power to imprison for contempt—it is an ‘arbitrary’ power which is ‘liable to abuse.’ Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 313, 9 S.Ct. 77, 82, 32 L.Ed. 405 (1888). ‘(I)ts exercise is a delicate one, and care is needed to avoid arbitrary or oppressive conclusions.’ Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 539, 45 S.Ct. 390, 396, 69 L.Ed. 767 (1925).4

Footnote 4. ‘That contempt power over counsel, summary or otherwise, is capable of abuse is certain. Men who make their way to the bench sometimes exhibit vanity, irascibility, narrowness, arrogance, and other weaknesses to which human flesh is heir.’ Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1, 12, 72 S.Ct. 451, 456, 96 L.Ed. 717 (1952). See also Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U.S. 378, 39 S.Ct. 337, 63 L.Ed. 656 (1919); Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33, 61 S.Ct. 810, 85 L.Ed. 1172 (1941); Cammer v. United States, 350 U.S. 399, 76 S.Ct. 456, 100 L.Ed. 474 (1956).

United States v. Seale, 461 F.2d 345 (7th Cir. 1972).

[T]he conduct so personally involved the trial judge that the contempt hearing should be presented before another judge. “Attorneys have a right to be persistent, vociferous, contentious, and imposing, even to the point of appearing obnoxious, when acting in their client’s behalf.” In the matter of Dellinger, 461 F.2d 389, 400 (7th Circ. 1972)

Sentences more than six months either separate or aggregate require a jury trial:

When the aggregate punishments for a particular course of criminally contemptuous conduct committed in the presence of a judge exceed the parameters of punishments normally imposed for misdemeanors and the punishments are not imposed immediately after occurrence of the contemptuous conduct, the contemnor is entitled to a jury trial as to the contempt charges. The traditional test for determining whether or not a charged offense is a misdemeanor is whether the penalties exceed $500 or six months imprisonment. Where, as with criminal contempt in Illinois, no maximum punishment is prescribed for an offense, courts look to the penalty actually imposed to determine whether an offense is so serious that a jury trial was required. Some decisions suggest that in the context of contempt proceedings, the $500 fine component.., is subject to upward adjustment based on the contemnor’s financial resources and inflationary trends. In re Marriage of Betts,  200 Ill. App. 3d 26, 50, 558 N.E.2d 404 (4th Dist. 1990).

The following are holdings in Maita v. Whitmore, 508 F.2d 143 (9th Cir. 1975):

[Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct. 2697, 41 L.Ed.2d 897, and Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506, 94 S.Ct. 2687, 41 L.Ed.2d 912.]

First: The rules as to whether an ordinary criminal offense is ‘petty,’ thus not requiring a jury trial, or ‘serious,’ thus requiring a jury trial, also apply to charges of criminal contempt. Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, supra, 418 U.S. at 513, 94 S.Ct. at 2692; Taylor v. Hayes, supra, 418 U.S. at 495, 94 S.Ct. at 2701.

Second: ‘Crimes carrying more than six month sentences are serious crimes and those carrying less are petty crimes.’ (Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, supra, 418 U.S. at 512, 94 S.Ct. at 2691; Taylor v. Hayes, supra, 418 U.S. at 495, 94 S.Ct. at 2701.

Third: ‘Judgment about the seriousness of the crime is normally heavily influenced by the penalty authorized by the legislature.’ Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, supra, 418 U.S. at 511, 94 S.Ct. at 2691. Indeed, if the penalty authorized by the legislature exceeds six months, there is a right to a jury trial, even though the judge could impose a sentence of six months or less. Baldwin v. New York, 1970, 399 U.S. 66, 68-69, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 26 L.Ed.2d 437, and cases there cited.

Fourth: Where the legislature has not prescribed a penalty, as is often the case when the charge is criminal contempt, the actual sentence imposed determines whether the offense is ‘serious’ or ‘petty.’ Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, supra, 418 U.S. 512, 94 S.Ct. 2687 at 2691; Taylor v. Hayes, supra, 418 U.S. at 495, 94 S.Ct. at 2701. In such a case, when multiple contempts are tried together, the imposition of consecutive sentences aggregating more than six months makes the offenses ‘serious’ and requires a jury trial. Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, supra, 418 U.S. at 516-518, 94 S.Ct. at 2693-2694. On the other hand, where there are convictions for several contempts but the aggregate sentence does not exceed six months because the sentences are concurrent, jury trial is not required. Taylor v. Hayes, supra, 418 U.S. at 496, 94 S.Ct. at 2702. Moreover, it makes no difference that the trial judge at first imposes consecutive sentences totalling more than six months, if he afterward reduces them to six month sentences to be served concurrently; jury trial is not required. Id. at 496, 94 S.Ct. at 2702.

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

with 5 comments


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge David E. Haracz rips off parents enriches child representative David Wessel in domestic relations

with 11 comments


This link reveals evidence of criminal conduct of family court Judge David E. Haracz, Domestic Relations Division, who appears to be purposely violating Illinois statutes concerning divorce cases, in collusion with Child Representative Daved Wessel.  Judge Haracz on a pervasive and systematic basis picks the parent with the perceived greatest income, allows unsubstantiated allegations against them to stand on the record. He denies due process in that he refuses to allow a due process evidentiary hearing where witnesses  and evidence are introduced.  He tampers with records by striking responses from the accused parent. He appoints David Wessel as child representative and allows him to run his court, write orders for the parents, decide the issues, and serve as a representative of not just the children, but also the parent who is   given custody. The law specifically does not allow this. This link gives more details.

This link is an example of a motion to reconsider a final  ruling of Judge Haracz who totally denied due process and gave children to a woman who is a drug addict, borderline personality disorder, who made false unsubstantiated allegations against the father, which were unfounded by child protective services. The father now has been told he can only visit his children for one hour  per week under supervision because he is a “danger” to them, although there has been no evidence whatsoever of any dangerous behavior!

Judge David E. Haracz

We call  for a federal investigation of this “Greylord 2” scheme to rip off Title IV funds, destroy families by dragging out divorce cases, requiring unnecessary supervision of parents, allowing payment of child representatives exorbitant fees without documentation, etc.

Judge David E. Haracz should be impeached, arrested and jailed for these felony crimes.

David Wessel should be arrested for these felony crimes.

Come to national protest August 12, 2011, Daley Center Plaza and  join the protest to hold these creeps and similar corrupt judges and attorneys accountable. FOR THE CHILDREN!!

Note: CPS= child protective services. In Illinois DCFS = Dept. of Children and Family Services = CPS

%d bloggers like this: