Cook County Judges

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

Posts Tagged ‘crime and punishment

Cook County Courts Violate ADA, Still use Excessive Bail & Deny Right to Present Defense

leave a comment »


Dr. Linda Shelton a whistle-blower against corrupt Cook County Court Judges, Corrupt and Malicious Sheriff Staff, and Incompetent Corrupt Cook County Assistant State’s Attorneys has been under relentless false charges in retaliation for whistle blowing.

Come to court on December 11, 2019 10 am and show support – 2600 S California Ave, Room 506 Chicago- offer to accompany Shelton or serve as her disability assistant to help if she passes out or suffers a PTSD flashback, plus help her handle papers and take notes.

Sheriff Staff including Assistant Chief Nolan have ordered deputies to harass Shelton and made dozens of false charges against her over 20 years.

Shelton requests the public to show up in court and stand-up against the above injustices. Help those who help you!

Here is her recent plea to the Illinois Supreme Court to stop these injustices including:

  1. Excessive bail of $300,000 now for a case pending for seven years – charged with felony battery of an officer for alleged to have “touched an officer’s ear” without injury during a PTSD flashback, purpose triggered by Sheriff Deputies and when Deputies pushed disabled Shelton who has serious neurologic disease including tremors and spasticity that cause her to reach out and grab anything when she loses balance. Possible sentence 3-14 years.
  2. Violation of Americans with Disability Act in numerous ways described in Shelton’s pleading.
  3. Violation of right to compulsory process and to present a defense. – Judge Cannon has quashed ALL of Shelton’s defense subpoenas needed to prove she has disabilities and that the Sheriff Staff were told not to trigger PTSD flashbacks – the Judge has ruled Shelton cannot use this as a defense.

Shelton’s defenses include:

  1. no probable cause, along the line of cases leading to the United States Supreme Court’s Ruling in Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533-34, 124 S. Ct. 1978, 158 L. Ed. 2d 820 (2004) and its related consent decree in underlying District Court case, that when the state violation of the ADA causes a defendant to commit an offense, then this illegal act by the state does not allow the defendant to be charged (due to due process, equal protection, and other constitutional and affirmative defenses including entrapment, outrageous government conduct, etc.),
  2. no probable cause as shown by no intent possible, a necessary element of the offense, as the state was informed that Shelton was “misperceiving ongoing events” and therefore unable to form conscious intent to commit the offense; state players, i.e. Sheriff Courtroom Deputies, knowing that Shelton swings her arms around her head during a flashback (as informed by the CDC and witnesses to flashbacks and having previously witnesses a flashback) misused this information to trigger a flashback and make sure that officers were in proximity so they would be unknowingly touched by Shelton – the state knowingly caused the offense,
  3. entrapment as the actions of the officers appear to have been willful and planned, knowing that Shelton does not have a propensity to attack anyone, knowing that certain actions trigger PTSD flashbacks which put Shelton in a mental state where she relives a previous attack and believes she is suffering blows from an officer, knowing that she loses balance easily and will reach out to steady herself – presumably caused Shelton to reach out to steady herself as well as swing her arms around her head trying to fend off not present, but “perceived blows” as a result of PTSD flashback,
  4. outrageous government conduct or the due process defense, as the state induced this offense, knowing Shelton was incapable of forming intent during a flashback and by misusing HIPAA protected information (the description of triggers for the flashbacks), caused a situation that shocks the conscience, and
  5. altered mental state at the time of the offense or amnesia for the time around the offense, similar to the recent holding in People v. Stahl, 2014 IL 115804, which means that Shelton is legally unfit for trial as she cannot assist defense counsel in describing what happened at the time of the offense.

These are some of the ways that Shelton has helped the public:

Shelton has testified against the State of Illinois numerous times or provided copious evidence of incompetence or corruption of state officials and court players to the FBI and U.S. Attorney, as well as advocated for litigants abused by the State, for 20 years including, but not exclusively partially as follow:

  1. Against DCFS’ (Illinois child protection) abuse of parents, in class action case Dupuy v. Samuels, 397 F. 3d 493 (7th 2005);
  2. Evidence against Cook County Jail including 30 affidavits from abused detainees that Shelton handed to Assistant U.S. Attorney Joan Laser, regarding Sheriff/Jail systemic civil rights violations and sadistic/illegal/malpractice behavior of Director of Psychiatry at Cook County Jail, resulting in firing of the Director of Psychiatry as well as a 98 page scathing letter to the Cook County Board and Sheriff, dated July 11, 2008 – which eventually resulted in a consent decree (AUSA Laser through now Magistrate Judge Albukerk thanked Shelton for this evidence).
  3. Against Orlando Jones – appointed CEO of Provident Hospital when Shelton served as Chief of the Pediatric Service hired to re-open the Pediatric Dept., the right hand man for corrupt acts on behalf of Cook County Board President John Stronger Sr., – no further actions were taken by federal law enforcement as Mr. Jones committed suicide on a beach near Mayor Daley’s beach home before he could be indicted. Shelton had opened the pediatric department at Provident Hospital of Cook County and had witnessed the criminal acts of CEO Jones, appointed by Stroger, at the time – Shelton turned over her evidence to the FBI.
  4. Against DCFS in a child abuse administrative appeal for a dyslexic mother who was falsely accused of child abuse and had been viciously abused by DCFS, CH case. Shelton served as CH’s “authorized representative” before an administrative law judge on appeal and won the case (SCR # 0852876-A, KT #2001-E-01227, AHU # 52-1516).
  5. Against the Cook County Sheriff for failure to provide a courthouse ADA compliance plan under FOIA, and then for failing to even have a plan, a violation of federal law. (Case 04 CH 15787)

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 »


Help me ➡Sit in gallery next court date Oct 29 2018,  2600 S California Chicago Room 506 10 am

This complaint was filed in August 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illinois law should be changed so that juries can acquit guilty person if they feel it is just

with 8 comments


Jurors have a legal right to vote their conscience and ignore judges instructions if they believe the law is unjust.

Jury nullification is when a jury, despite the State proving all the elements  of a crime and the offender being technically guilty, decides that they will not convict the person because they believe it would be bad for society – either they believe the charge is fraudulent, the law is incorrect, or there is some other reason that the person should not be convicted.

Jury nullification is legal and binding in all states, but all states except New Hampshire prohibit the defense attorney from informing the jury about this option. The jury is just supposed to divine this information by inspiration.

In New Hampshire, a law was passed that allows the court to inform the jury of the jury nullification option.

In New Hampshire, on Friday September 14, 2012, a jury used jury nullification to declare Rastafarian Doug Darrel not guilty of a felony marijuana cultivation charge. The jury believed that punishing him for the offense would be unjust.

Darrel claimed he grew 15 marijuana plants for personal medicinal and religious purposes. His religion permits marijuana for religious purposes.

A little old straight-laced lady on the jury  stated she found him not guilty because she

knew that my community would be poorer rather than better off had he been convicted.

Due to the new jury nullification information law the judge read to the jury the following statement:

Even if you find that the State has proven each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find the defendant not guilty if you have a conscientious feeling that a not guilty verdict would be a fair result in this case.

If this law applied to all states, as marijuana use is widespread and no more harmful than alcohol, with the majority of the population agreeing that it should be legalized, citizens would clearly find all those arrested for marijuana  possession and growing marijuana for medical or personal use not guilty. This would be a method that citizens could use to negate bad laws.  I’m all for it, despite the fact I never use marijuana!

For more information see the web site of the Fully Informed Jury Association here.

%d bloggers like this: