Cook County Judges

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

Posts Tagged ‘excessive charges

Support activist’s claim IL battery statutes unconstitutional-touching officer not crime

with one comment


UPDATE: Next court date Sept 27, 2017, 10 am RM 506, 2600 S California, Chicago

On 12/9/16 an escapee bumped into Shelton in Hall, causing aggravation of chronic pain & musclespasms + PTSD flashbacks as officers dashing around induced flashback since she felt they would again falsely arrest her for battery for bumping an officer with walker when chasing officer brushed against coat hanging from walker. Asst States Attorney and judge now threatening contempt charge for disability assistant who informed Judge Cannon that Shelton traumatized & hearing needed continuence as well as threatening contempt against Shelton for writing memorandum of fact explaining what happened, providing education about PTSD, and explaining how she developed PTSD.

Judge has refusd to allow Shelton to finish argument on her motion to strike case for States Attorney’s fraud on grand jury and refused to sign order correcting judge’s error on previous order denying motion to declare part of battery statute unconstitutional so that Shelton can appeal this order. Thus judge denying due process in impeding appeal and motion hearing.

Stand up for civil rights Come to next court date 1/20/17 at 10 am rm 506. 2600 S California, Chicago, for argument that indictment should be stricken for fraud upon the grand jury by the State’s Attorney in failing to present fact that alleged act of “touching an officer’s ear” was induced/triggered by the Sheriff Courtroom Deputies violating ADA accommodations for disabled Shelton in that they pushed her, causing her to lose balance, and triggered a PTSD flashback, causing her to cower and waive her hands around her head believing she was being attacked.

Update 12/9/16: UPDATE – On 12/9/16 Judge Cannon granted Motion to rewrite the order denying Motion to Declare Battery statute unconstitutional so that Shelton can immediately appeal it; however, when a crazy detainee bolted and ran into Shelton trying to escape on 12/9/16 Shelton was slightly injured and hearing rescheduled for 1/20/17 when order will be written and Shelton will finish her argument that charges are void due to prosecutor’s fraud upon the grand jury.

Update 7/13/16: she denied motion to declare battery statute unconstitutional – next motion claims charge  void as fraud on grand jury & ADA violated when officers used disability to trigger harmless “criminal act” of touching officer’s ear charged as felony  battery with up to 14 yr sentence

On July 13, 2016 Judge Diane Cannon will announce her written opinion concerning Dr. Shelton’s motion to declare the Illinois battery and aggravated battery statutes unconstitutional concerning de minimus, minor, or no harm with alleged crime of touching or raking contact with a person or officer. Help fight injustice in Illinois by coming to court at 10 am 7/13/16 room 506 at 2600 S. California Ave (no cell phones or electronic devices allowed in courthouse).

Shelton’s argument is that charging a disabled tremulous, spastic person with felony battery for touching an officer due to their spasticity or due to an officer purposely inducing a PTSD flashback where a person unintentionally touches an officer  without harming them is abusive and unconstitutional.

It is particularly abusive and unconstitutional as it violates the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) in that in this case against Shelton the Court Disability Coordinator, Melissa Pacelli, had been given written documentation by a psychiatrist and other physicians that Shelton suffers from PTSD (post-traumatic-stress disorder) due to having been previously beaten by Sheriff and Chicago police officers and during flashbacks triggered by specific actions of officers as a result of the PTSD she “misperceives ongoing events” (becomes confused believing she is being attacked by officers) and that male officers should not yell at her and grab her, but should “back-off” if a flashback occurs as Shelton is “inherently non-violent”, as well as because she cowers, is fearful, and crys, as well as may defensively waive her arms around her head thinking she is defending herself or may reach out suddenly to prevent herself from mis-perceived falling during flashbacks if pushed as she suffers from congenital and acquired severe balance problems requiring the use of a walker and if pushed she grabs out involuntarily to keep from falling. Thus, they should wait until the flashback is over and she understands what is going on when one occurs, rather than rush her, grab her, and push her. Such actions by officers will cause Shelton to unintentionally touch officers and this fact is sufficient to be an outrageous reason to charge Shelton with felony battery that has as a sentence a possibility of as much as 14 years in prison.

As intent is a required element of the crime of battery, during flashbacks, Shelton is unable to form intent to harm an officer due to the PTSD and balance issues if she is pushed, particularly by loud and aggressive male officers, and the criteria for felony battery is unconstitutional according to Shelton due to the fact that a disabled person without intent can be charged with felony battery merely for touching an officer under such a circumstance.

For more information about the aggravated battery case against Shelton for “touching an officer’s ear” see this post.

Recently a grandmother, Ms. Tina Hunt plead guilty of aggravated battery for kicking an officer in a courtroom when she got mad and received a one year sentence – she could have received a mandatory six year sentence if she went on trial before a jury. This would have been a harsher sentence than a sentence for sticking a knife into an officer or throwing acid in a person’s face. This is outrageous abuse of criminal law. That is why Shelton has argued that the statute is unconstitutional.

Written Motion to Declare Battery Statute Unconstitutional

States Written Response to Shelton’s Motion to Declare Battery Statute Unconstitutional

Shelton’s Written Reply to States Written Response to Shelton’s Motion to Declare Battery Statute Unconstitutional

Oral argument by Shelton

After Shelton’s oral argument in May 2016, Judge Cannon gave the State another two weeks to prepare their oral argument. The State’s response was as follows:

State’s Argument essentially was “we stand on our written pleading” – [apparently they had no rational argument to counter Shelton’s pleadings and statements.]

The judge then gave herself six weeks to consider the arguments and come up with a written decision. Judge Cannon’s written decision will be announced on July 13, 2016.

UPDATE: Her decision was a two sentence statement without ANY explanation: “The defendant’s motion to declare the Aggravated Battery Statute unconstitutional is respectfully denied. This is a final order. Dated July 13, 2016 by Judge Diane Cannon.

Appeal will be filed, but in Illinois it likely won’t be filed until the end of the case because the higher courts have no jurisdiction on pretrial motions [known as interlocutory motions] until ALL issues in the case are final or until IL Supreme Court Rule 304(a) is followed. Shelton is filing a motion to rewrite the order properly, but it probably will be denied on 12/9/16. UPDATE – On 12/9/16 Judge Cannon granted Motion to rewrite the order, however, when a crazy detainee bolted and ran into Shelton trying to escape on 12/9/16 Shelton was slightly injured and hearing rescheduled for 1/20/17 when order will be written. This rule states as follows:

Supreme Court Rule 304(a) provides as follows:

ll Parties or Claims — Necessity for Special Finding. If multiple parties or multiple claims for relief are involved in an action, an appeal may be taken from a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the parties or claims only if the trial court has made an express written finding that there is no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal. Such a finding may be made at the time of the entry of the judgment or thereafter on the court’s own motion or on motion of any party. The time for filing the notice of appeal shall run from the entry of the required finding. In the absence of such a finding, any judgment that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not enforceable or appealable and is subject to revision at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims, rights, and liabilities of all the parties.” (87 Ill.2d R. 304(a).)

_______________________________________________________________

It is without common sense, but the Illinois Appellate Court said that using the word “final” does not comply with Illinois Supreme Court rule 304(a).

According to the Illinois Appellate Court 1st District an interlocutory order that states that a pretrial order  is “final and appealable” is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the appellate court. Until the final disposition of all issues in the case the statutory terms “there is no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal” are required to confer jurisdiction of the Appellate Court from a pretrial order of the local Circuit Court. Greer v. Yellow Cab Co., 582 N.E.2d 1292, 221 Ill. App.3d 908, 164 Ill.Dec. 348, (1991) IL App (1) 1-89-1548

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: