Cook County Judges

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

Posts Tagged ‘Due Process

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.

Advertisements

Motion to declare Illinois battery statutes unconstitutional

leave a comment »


Come to court and stand-up for Shelton’s argument that the IL battery statutes are unconstitutional and are systematically abusive to defendants. 5/9/16 rm 506 2600 S California, 10 am, Chicago, IL

Malicious charges of felony battery can be charged for touching an officer with a piece of paper, bumping an officer when one is spastic, or minor touching with no injury such as touching a pointed finger against an arm. Outrageous sentences can be give for up to 30 years for such alleged crimes.

Outrageously malicious Cook County State’s Attorney, who refuses to listen to reason or discipline her out of control prosecutors has intensely targeted Shelton to shut her up about her complaints against corrupt judges, police, and attorneys. Shelton needs the public’s support to survive these 15 years of unrelenting attacks against her as a whistle blower with false arrests and malicious prosecutions.

Please, in a short letter, write the U.S. Dept. Of Justice Division on Disabilities here and request their investigation of the Cook County courts and Sheriff’s office for malicious prosecution of whistle blowers, denial of due process and denial of equal protection, as well as failure to follow the Americans with Disabilities Act, abuse of prisoners, and discrimination against minorities, particularly Blacks and Hispanics:

U.S.Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Disability Rights- NYAV
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dr. Shelton, who is spastic, with hereditary intention tremors, severe balance problems where she reaches out and grabs anything involuntarily if pushed, and who suffers from PTSD after she was beaten by officers, is charged with felony battery for “touching an officer’s ear” resulting in no injury, because it was “insulting and provoking conduct.”

The officers purposely triggered the PTSD flashbacks during which she “misperceives ongoing events” due to the dream-like state or “altered state of consciousness” caused by the PTSD, then despite an agreement to accommodate her disabilities and “back-off” until the flashback  passed (during which she is confused, cowers, and is harmless) they jumped at her like a dog pack, picking her up off the floor and carried her to the lock-up. Next court date May 9, 2016, 10 am,  rm 506, 26th & California, Chicago, IL

One woman was recently convicted of kicking an officer in the shin with no injury, but because he claimed “insulting and provoking conduct” and because she has a prior felony conviction, she faces a MANDATORY minimum 6 year sentence! Read the news article here.

Read Dr. Galatzer-Levy’s letter about accommodations needed for Shelton’s psychiatric condition of PTSD (post-traumatic-stress disorder) here.

Shelton faces a possible minimum of 6 yrs for allegedly “touching an officer’s ear” during a court hearing, which the officer claims was “insulting and provoking conduct,” despite the fact the officers purposely triggered a PTSD flashback, for which the Court Disability Coordinator had been told and shown medical records proving Shelton is unaware of her surroundings during PTSD flashbacks and for which a letter from a psychiatrist instructed the court to prevent officers from triggering flashbacks and to back-off if they occur as Shelton would cower, cry, be confused and waive her hands around her head to protect herself against perceived blows (due to flashback symptoms of being attacked by officers-initially triggered by attacks for which she has photographic proof). This is a federal ADA violation because the court and its officers are required to accommodate disabilities and they were aware of and instructed about this PTSD disability. Under the law (court precedent) Shelton should not even be charged as the charges are invalid if caused by the victim violating the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). See: Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533-34, 124 S. Ct. 1978, 158 L. Ed. 2d 820 (2004) and related line of cases; see also Reed v. State of Illinois, 2015 7th Circ. 14-1745.

Click here to download full motion: Motion to declare Illinois battery statute unconstitutional

This motion alleges that the Illinois battery and aggravated battery statutes are unconstitutional because:

(a) they are discriminatory and therefore violate the Americans with Disabilities Act,

(b) they suffer from overbreadth thereby making innocent contact criminal,

(c) they are vague and therefore subject to misuse and impossible to determine if an act is innocent or criminal,

(d) they deny equal protection as there is no rationality as to how they are applied to protect the public interests concerned, and

(e) they deny due process in violating the Proportionate Penalties Clause of our Illinois Constitution (they are cruel, degrading or so wholly disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense of the community in alleging the same act and penalty for touching an officer’s ear [or even for touching an officer’s bullet proof vest with a piece of paper] as for beating an officer so bad he is in critical condition, stabbing a citizen numerous times with a knife, or making a bomb which explodes and harms a person).

These statutes also violate the separation of powers clause in that they de facto give the judiciary the power to legislate, in that the judges, not the legislature decide what conduct is a crime and what sentence a person committing that conduct should receive, out of a vast array of possible conducts, which are both unintentional and intentional, depending upon whom you believe.

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 Maddux Dismisses Torts with Dual Court Assignments for Same Case – Hidden “Black Line Trial Call” – RICO Violation?

leave a comment »


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:

 http://www.cookcountycourt.org/divisions/index.html

 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.

%d bloggers like this: