Judge Loza destroys black fathers

Here is another example of judicial misconduct and denial of due process in family courts in Cook County that destroy children’s relationship with their parents. http://unlawful1.blogspot.com/2015/12/judges-police-hate-african-american-men.html?spref=tw

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

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 (7^th 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.

Family court judge Haracz gives kids to drug-addict who threatened to take them out with her if discovered, ex-Marine dad frantic to protect them, ISBA attorneys had vowed to retaliate for his lobbying to lower their pay

In a dissolution of marriage case the mother, Catherine, is known to the community as a drug-addict, who a severely disabled neighbor on narcotics for severe pain has signed an affidavit stating that Catherine has threatened to kill herself and take her two kids with her  if the neighbor turned her in when she was caught by the neighbor red-handed stealing narcotics (Vicodin).  The neighbor had given Catherine a key to the house in case she needed help. The neighbor also said she admitted she was addicted and stated she failed a drug test at work, but ran to a doctor that day to get a prescription for Vicodin to cover-up that fact.

The neighbor only recently, after two years, reported Catherine to authorities because she feared for the lives of the children and only after Judge Haracz was given documents under  seal so he could quickly act to protect the children, age 9  and  14.  Judge Haracz failed to act.  An emergency motion was made to the Illinois Appellate  court and they refused to act. Clearly Judge Haracz and the Illinois Appelalte Court don’t give a darn about the best interest of the children, public safety, or drug abuse.

The father, David has also signed an affidavit that during the marriage he caught his ex-wife using narcotics, found empty pill bottles with the patients’ names on them (Catherine is a drug addiction counselor), and despite all his efforts, she refused to get help, so she still is a user.  He says she admitted she failed a drug test at work, however she ran to a doctor that day to get a prescription for Vicodin to cover-up her habit. He also states that he didn’t report her because she threatened to commit suicide and take the kids with her.

After Catherine escalated in verbal abuse of David, ran up $60,000 in credit cards twice – forcing David to re-mortgage the house, which has now been lost in foreclosure because David has not been able to make as a big an income with the downturn in the economy as a general contractor and due to on the job injuries, and starting physically abusing David in front of the children (hitting him), David filed for divorce in 2009.

Shortly thereafter, Catherine filed a false statement for an order of protection stating that David was dangerous to the family as an ex-Marine and martial artist. She claimed he didn’t flush the  toilet, sprayed perfume around the home, pulled up bushes and endangered a daughter by helping her climb through a window when the family was locked out.

Haracz has allowed NO due process and gave the house and almost everything in it to Catherine.  Catherine threw out tons of work material that David was storing in the garage as a general contractor.  She gave away his belongings through freecycle or into the garbage – even personal family things and his  pictures of his children. I wonder why – maybe to support her drug habit?

Judge Haracz over the last two years has waged a campaign against David, using the false statements of child representative David Wessel, who has utterly failed to properly investigate the family circumstances. Wessel has not interviewed David’s parents  or six siblings and large numbers of nephews and nieces which form a large and well-respected family support system.  Wessel has not interviewed Catherine’s sisters, one who is a banker and handles a family trust which is supposed to pay for the kids’ college, and this information has been withheld by Catherine from the court. It is likely she is not reporting to the court income from the trust and is misusing the income for her drug habit. Catherine’s sister likely does not know the extent of Catherine’s misdeeds and drug abuse. Her sister administers a large family trust which Catherine has hidden the extent of from the court.

DCFS investigated Catherine’s complaints and they were determined to be UNFOUNDED.  So when Catherine took the stand at trial in April and only testified that David is “dangerous” because of these unfounded complaints, (there were no other witnesses and the only other evidence was an alleged letter from a 13 yr old daughter purported to affirm some of what Catherine said but never given to David and the  child was not put on the stand – so the letter was inadmissible hearsay) and the child rep and Catherine refused to inform Judge Haracz and Judge Haracz ignored David’s statement that the allegations were determined by a state investigative agency, DCFS, to be unfounded, Catherine committed felony  perjury and child rep Wessell aided and abetted it perjury, suborned this perjury, and committed contempt of court because he failed to do what he was appointed by the court to do – look after the best interests of the children by investigating the situation.

Judge Haracz has FAILED to order a drug test for Catherine who claims to be able to hide drug abuse and circumvent urine drug test with the use of certain herbs.  He has failed to have her examined by a psychiatrist for drug abuse. Catherine is known to order large quatity of “herbs” from foreign countries.

David is worried sick about what will happen to the kids – a bad result is likely due to the drug addiction and Catherine’s lies. Will they be hurt in an auto accident when the mother drives high?  Will she neglect the kids in a drug stupor during a crisis? Is Catherine harming rather than helping her patients? They will be evicted soon – will she decompensate?

Please write Cook County Board President Tony Preckwinkle and ask her to fire Chief Judge Evans.  This is NOT a solitary incident.  This writer has investigated and this type of handling of divorce cases is common practice and pattern in Cook County!?!?

David Wessel and Judge Haracz have failed to inquire who was taking care of the children before the divorce – it was David as Catherine didn’t know how to cook, so he cooked.  It was David because Catherine was so absorbed in her careers as a counselor and addict that she could not attend to the  needs of the children.

Judge Haracz simply has been rubber stamping Catherine’s “fantastical” false statements under the guidance of child representative David Wessel who appears to be running Haracz’ courtroom. He is getting paid to be an incompetent creep who should be disbarred and who appears to be obtaining Title IV-D Social Security money fraudulently.

This writer has observed the proceedings recently, reviewed the court file, talked to David’s family members and finds that Judge Haracz and David Wessel are clearly aiding and abetting felony drug theft by failing to test Catherine and turn her in to authorities. They are endangering the lives of the children.  The older daughter likely is babysitting the younger daughter as a mother on drugs sleeps so deeply that she can’t attend to her children.

Catherine is a danger to the community, her patients, her children and everyone on the road when she drives.  Reportedly she had another traffic accident recently.

This writer has gotten to know David and his family over the last six months, I find it criminal and an insult to our military to say he is dangerous to his family because he is an ex-Marine, treasonous for a judge to blatantly ignore law and openly trash the constitution in willingly and pervasively denying due process, and criminal for the child representative to take sides before even seeing the kids (he told David upon meeting him that David needs to realize he won’t have his kids) – fail to do his job, and obtain  payment without even giving the parents the statutory required detailed invoice for his unwanted services!

This writer has learned by following a half-dozen family court cases that Judge Haracz and  other family court judges allow one parent to be wrongfully vilified, without regard to who really is a danger to the children, usually the  parent that had been making the most money, which drags out the divorce,  causes the Public Aid Department to be involved in terms of the State Disbursement Unit that Judge Haracz FALSELY tell the parents MUST receive and distribute child support payments (the parents can save money if they amicably agree to payments directly between them) and therefore the courts and the State obtain a huge amount of Title IV-D Social Security money, some of which goes to enrich child reps and guardian ad litems.

David Wessel stated to David outside the courtroom that attorney Jacqueline Birnbaum who had attended a meeting with the Illinois State Bar Association where they discussed that they would fight a bill to limit pay of child representatives and guardian ad litems agreed with him that they  would target David for lobbying to limit their pay. He said that since David is lobbying a state senator to introduce a bill to limit pay of child representatives and guardian ad litems to $150  per hour that they would retaliate against David and Wessel did by misleading the trial court and causing David to wrongfully lose equal parenting and custody.  The ISBA objected to this change saying it was unconstitutional. Birnbaum’s law firm obtains more than two million  per year from the parents and  Social Security Title IV-D money each year in divorce cases. This is an illegal penalty on David’s exercise of his constitutional rights and reveals that the depth of Cook County’s corruption is greater than anyone has imagined and reaches into the ISBA. Someone tell this writer how it is justified to pay these court appointed attorneys $300 – $1200 (bundled including services of staff) per hour when attorneys for murder defendants in Illinois are paid at the most only about $150 per hr.

This is clearly a RICO enterprise which is defrauding the Social Security Title IV-D program in misusing billions of dollars in acts of wire fraud and misuse of government funds, while it enriches the courts, the department of public aid  in Illinois that runs administrative law courts that are supposed to provide services to take requests to change in child support orders after the dissolution of a marriage – even if not on public aid, and runs the state disbursement unit.

Where is the FBI and US Attorney?!?!  When are we as a nation going to stop the abuse of our own citizens by the courts?!?!

Join govabuse.org now.  Join occupy wall street and occupy Chicago.  March in the streets and protest!?!?  Write Cook County Board President Tony Preckwinckle and ask her to fire Chief Judge Evans and replace him with a judge who will follow the law and replace all judges like Haracz who violate it.  Write Patrick Fitgerald, the US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and demand an in depth investigation of abuses in family and probate court by corrupt judges. (the  same thing is happening in probate court where elderly persons are kidnapped, held hostage whether or not they are mentally disabled, and their estates are raped and confiscated by court appointed guardians, who prevent family members from having contact with their loved ones and intervening – see the story of producer Gloria Sykes and how her mother is being held hostage!?!?).

Read David’s appeal brief for his divorce case which was judge filed with the Illinois Appellate Court this week here.

Cook County Board President Tony Preckwinkle
118 N. Clark Street Room 537
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 603-6400
Fax: (312) 443-4397

Mayor Rahm Emanuel
City Hall
121 N. LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60602
By Phone:
Dial 311 (within Chicago)
If calling from outside of Chicago, call: 312.744.5000

US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald
United States Attorney’s Office
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
219 S. Dearborn St., 5th Floor
Chicago, IL  60604
Phone: (312) 353-5300

Submit a tip to the FBI hotline on the crimes perpetrated by the family courts: https://tips.fbi.gov/

Write the Illinois State Bar Association and tell them how you are appalled that they would allow their members to be so unethical!

Illinois Bar Center
424 S. Second Street
Springfield, IL 62701-1779
217-525-1760
800-252-8908

Suggested letter:

Your name
Your address

Dear Director ISBA [or Chairman Preckwinckle, Mayor Emanuel, US Attorney’s Patrick Fitzgerald]:

I am writing you to ask you to investigate the following and use whatever resources you have to affect change ASAP. Our economy is suffering and our families are being destroyed because of the following. When parents’ assets are destroyed and their reputations ruined, they will not be able to contribute much to society in terms of taxes. More people end up on public assistance. This kind of family stress and wrongful vilification of parents has life-long effects on the mental health of the children.

This web site, https://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com, courageously reveals how the entire family court system in Cook County and perhaps other counties is grossly corrupted by money grabbing unethical child representatives and guardians ad litem, who are aided and abetted by the judges, that use the  parents’ assets and Social Security Title IV-D money to enrich themselves while destroying families. The judges seem to just rubber-stamp their contemptuous and illegal acts.

It appears as if the CRs and GALs pick the parent with the most perceived income to vilify, withholding exculpatory evidence, aiding and abetting the presentation of fraudulent accusations and hearsay, wrongfully causing one parent to lose custody and require supervised visitation, which certainly is NOT in the best interests of the child. The judges violate the law and hold hearings on changes in child support post dissolution of marriage when they have no jurisdiction to do so when the parents, even if not on public aid, by federal and state law must  petition the Illinois Public Aid department administrative law court to change child support when they are in the State Disbursement Unit for payment of child support.

See: http://prosechicago.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/the-big-divorce-book-little-known-illinois-and-federal-divorce-laws/ – this table of contents from a pro se filing gives all the state and federal laws and summarizes them regarding changes in child support.

It appears as if there is a conspiracy  involving the courts and lawyers to retaliate against  persons who exercise their constitutional rights, to keep the details of this scheme which blatantly violates law hidden from the public, and to assassinate the characters of anyone who tries to stop it.

The following is an appeal  which describes in detail this scheme and how it has tragically affected one family:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/69795901/Child-Custody-Appeal-Cook-County-Illinois-2011

This is just the tip of the iceberg and our loosely associated activist group has dozens of examples similar to this and worse where families are being destroyed without due process in open violatio of law by the lawyers and judges.

When is the ISBA [County, City, US Attorney’s Office] going to clean itself up and start fighting to change this corrupt system, start working with David Bambic, Gwendolyn Shavers, Gloria Sykes, Sheila Mannix, Karyn Mehringer and others to hold the criminals accountable, preserve families, look after the best interests of children, and make the actions of the family courts transparent to the public?

Sincerely,

Your name

Court hired psychological evaluators have phoney diplomas – unqualified; kids for cash court scheme

This video exposes that many of the court psychological and home environment evaluators in divorce, child custody, child abuse and elder abuse cases are phoney and have worthless “diplomas”. Courts rely on these fraudulent evaluators and these crooks are influencing courts and causing children to be removed from parents and elderly persons to be kidnapped and isolated from their families while the court appointed guardians steal their estates. Legitimate evaluators are often denied work with the courts as the courts have contracts with these swindlers/imposters. There is no oversight and the records of payments to these swindler/imposters is hidden and unavailable to the public. This is an outrage.

Billions of dollars of Social Security Title IV D funds are used to enrich these court appointed evaluators and public guardians who are committing fraud upon the U.S. taxpayers and the courts, many of whom receive $50,000 to $100,000  PER CASE! See the story here. Billions more are taken from the families, the disabled, and the elderly, even from the kid’s college funds, and from elder’s retirement funds, impoverishing the families to pay these evaluators and court appointed guardians. More documentation here.

Join the nationwide protest against court abuse of American Families on August 12, 2011 – find the protest site in your city here.

“The world is a dangerous place to live,
not because of the people who are evil,
but because of the people who don’t do
anything about it”.
-Albert Einstein

Please write the U.S. Attorney and ask for an immediate investigation.

U.S. Attorney Eric Holder
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

e-mail = ffetf@usdoj.gov

Office of the Attorney General of the United States
(202) 514-2001

Corrupt Judge Noreen Daly commits felony crimes

Judge Noreen Daly committed felony conspiracy to violate my civil rights and felony retaliation against a federal witness, as well as violated her oath of office and the Illinois Judicial Code of Conduct (Rule 61-67). She like many other judges grossly retaliates against whistle blowers – especially against corrupt judges, those that rightfully complain that their constitutional rights are violated, and those that point out corruption in the courts and state agencies. I believe her motivation is partially simple arrogant incompetence. She can’t stomach a self-represented litigant telling her facts about the law that she should know. She has to retaliate – consciously or unconsciously (known in psychology as “confirmatory bias“)

Dr. Linda Shelton was in court on another bogus trespass case, case no. 09 MC 5 007690. (The four charges police abuse most in making false reports and exaggerating incidents, to retaliate against whistle blowers and persons they dislike are:  trespass, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and battery of police.)

Dr. Shelton showed Judge Daly, through a motion she filed to sanction the States Attorney and Evergreen Park police by dismissing the case, the police incident and arrest report which PROVED that the complainant admitted he NEVER warned Shelton not to come on the property. The law requires that to charge someone with trespass the “owner or occupant” of the property must tell the offender to leave the property or not come on the property.

The police report reveals the ignorant, malicious, and incompetent Evergreen Park Police called a different Linda Shelton (there are six in Cook County) and told her not to come back on the property not this Linda Shelton. That LS told them she never was in Evergreen Park. The phone number listed on the police report is NOT my phone number!

Therefore the case is WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE and therefore it is VOID and the Judge was REQUIRED to immediately dismiss it according to the Judicial Code of Conduct and my constitutional due process rights (5th and 14th Amendments), as well as according to her oath of office.

In order to HARASS Shelton in retaliation for her published documentation of judicial misconduct of other judges at the same Bridgeview Courthouse including Judge Hyland (cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com), which is felony violation of federal law (felony harassment of a federal witness – Shelton is a witness against several judges and sheriff officers; illegal penalty on the exercise of constitutional rights; felony conspiracy to violate civil rights) she refused to rule on Shelton’s motion to dismiss and ordered a mental fitness exam to see if Shelton was too crazy to represent herself.

This is PURE AND UNADAULTERATED HARASSMENT AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT. As Shelton has cases pending in the Illinois Appellate Court and Federal District Court where she represent herself, as well as have won over 20 criminal cases against her by representing herself, brought in retaliation for her whistle-blower activities, as well as won several injunctions and mandamus actions against the State and Cook County, it is GROSS JUDICIAL MALICIOUS MISCONDUCT TO SAY THAT IN THIS ONE CASE SHELTON IS NOT ABLE TO REPRESENT HERSELF!! Shelton is obviously turning this evidence of corruption and retaliation over to the FBI and US Attorney. 

All the judges orders are invalid as when there is no probable cause, the case is legally void (a nullity as if it never happened) from the beginning (ab initio) and the judge has NO jurisdiction (authority under the law).

The judges as well as the police are clearly ganging up against Shelton, violating the law, and being lawless and corrupt. Shelton hopes that the US Attorney and the public, through elections which should defeat these creeps, will put them in their place, which includes indictments and convictions to put these corrupt judges behind bars! If these judges would wise up, to save their skins in the coming new scandal to be called “Greylord 2” they would march over to the FBI on 2111 S. Roosevelt Road, confess their crimes and plead for mercy if they cooperate to take down the corrupt judges and officials pressuring them to be corrupt.

Bail in Illinois is Fraud & Supports a Criminal Enterprise

The Circuit Court of Cook County is a criminal enterprise with judges doing illegal acts to support this enterprise. Part of the corruption is ingrained in unconstitutional Illinois statutes written so that the judges could abuse them – surely written under the influence of Cook County corrupt officials. These are the statutes about bail.

The scheme goes like this: Bail laws state that the Cook County Circuit Court Clerk can keep 10 % of bond posted even when one is innocent as a fee for processing the bail. This means if you are innocent and the bail is $1000, the court keeps $10.  If the bail is $1 million, the court keeps $10,000 FOR THE SAME SERVICE!!  This is fraud under federal law. This denies equal protection under the law as a person loses their property (money) under fraudulent circumstances (clerk charges different people different amounts for same service of processing bond) without due process of law – and the judges have an incentive to set outrageous bail amounts. 

For example when a medical biller ties their fee to send in a medical bill to the doctor’s fee by charging by percentage (say 10%) of the doctor’s income, instead of charging per piece of service (per bill say $10) this causes the medical biller to be paid FOR THE DOCTOR’S work. So if the biller works for a surgeon whose average bill is $3,000, they get $300 every time they send in a bill and for the same amount of work if they send in a bill for a psychiatrist of $200, they only keep $20. The US Attorney has convicted medical billers of this fraud upon the State as Medicaid is essentially paying 10 % of the payments to the doctors for their services to the medical biller. The correct thing to do is for the biller to charge a standard fee for each bill no matter how large the bill.

Therefore, through fraud and essentially extortion of defendants, both innocent and guilty, the court clerk funds her office. Then Illinois banned bail bondsmen to make it easier for the clerk to quarantee this fraudulent income.

That is why bail is set so high in Illinois. It is usually exorbitant in order to fund the County office of the Court Clerk. With the present downturn in the economy the bails seem to be increasing!  I have proof that an innocent victim of corruption was wrongfully charged of kicking an officer in the chest with a disabled leg (physically impossible for her) from her wheelchair. She had no prior convictions and is indigent. Bail was set at $100,000.  I also have evidence that bail on several misdemeanor trespass charges was set at $25,000.  We need a federal investigation.

Illinois surely is a criminal enterprise!  Where are the feds?

Circuit Court of Cook County a Criminal Enterprise

Judge Maddux of the Circuit Court of Cook County Law Division runs his division as a criminal enterprise, denying First Amendment Right to Redress of Grievances, to indigent plaintiffs, if he doesn’t like you, thinks you sue too much, or if you have filed suit against corrupt officials in Cook County or the State of Illinois. He uses the Sheriff’s office as a goon squad to harass and falsely arrest those that complain about his scheme and unconstitutional conduct. He should be impeached.

Chief Judge Evans of the Circuit Court of Cook County condones his conduct as does the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Dorothy Brown. Dorothy Brown has announced she is running for the office of President of the Board of Cook County Commissioners. I cannot support her under the circumstances of her misconduct.

I call upon President Stroger to remove Judge Timothy Evans as Chief Judge and replace him with an honest person. He has been Chief Judge too long and is too corrupt to continue in this position. Rumor has it he also participates in pay-to-play demanding 10% contributions to the political fund “Friends of Madigan” for every contract he grants concerning the Circuit Court of Cook County. I also call on the FBI to investigate both Judge Evans and Judge Maddux for RICO violations and corruption.

I also urge voters in Cook County to never againt vote for the ineffective and corrupt Sheriff Dart or for Dorothy Brown. We need leaders with vision, honesty, integrity, who act as professionals, admit mistakes, recognize and correct problems agressively, and are willing to meet with members of the public to solve problems. Status quo is no longer good enough. Change is required from the top down, starting with Todd Stroger, Cook County Board President.

See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16862379/IL-S-Ct-Motion-for-Supervisory-Order-Stop-Violation-Law-by-Judge-Maddux-and-Court-Clerk-Dorothy-Brown-Shelton-2009

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16904369/IL-Supreme-Crt-Motion-for-Supervisory-Order-Stop-Crt-Corruption-Shelton-2009

Judge James L. Rhodes Finds Deputies Not Credible

SHERIFF DEPUTIES COMMIT PERJURY

Cook County Sheriff Deputies Rebecca Doran and Maureen Caliendo, with the full encouragement of Assistant Chief Lyons and the Cook County State’s Attorney falsely arrested Dr. Shelton, maliciously prosecuted Dr. Shelton, for aggravated battery, but Dr. Shelton was found not guilty by a responsible and honest, intelligent judge, Honorable Judge James L. Rhodes, who found the deputies’ testimony “not credible”.

http://cookcountysheriffdeputies.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/deputy-rebecca-doran-deputy-maureen-caliendo-sergeant-patricia-mccollum-assistant-chief-kevin-lyons/

During trial, Hon. Judge Rhodes was fair, listened intently to both sides, weighed the evidence carefully, was intellectually honest, exhibited an impressive ability to see the whole picture, displayed an excellent fund of knowledge about the law, had a calm and reassuring demeanor, kept excellent control of the trial and his courtroom, and asked appropriate questions of the witnesses even when the State or defense failed to ask such questions, in order to clarify the facts. His instructions and speech were clear, polite, and easy to understand.

I highly recommend him as a judge and believe he should be promoted to a position of authority. I believe it is unlikely that he would become corrupt.

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

Judge Maddux Violates Constitutional Rights – Dismisses Torts with Dual Court Assignment for Same Case – hidden “Black Line Trial Call” WITHOUT Notice to Litigant – RICO Violation?

 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Law Division Presiding Judge William D. Maddux has devised a system that has been in place for several years that serves to quash cases primarily of pro se and indigent plaintiffs  by “dismissing for want of prosecution” (“DWP”) without notice in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rules. Judge Maddux appears to suffer from arrogance, a controlling obsessive-compulsive character where he must micro-manage as many aspects of all cases in his division as possible, narcissism in that he must be involved in every case and grandiose delusions in that he must boost his self-esteem by controlling others in all cases – even to the point of denying civil rights and the law.

 

This scheme involves assigning each case to two parallel courts. The first is the motion judge and then trial judge. The second is the “Black Line Trial Call.” Litigants are not informed or given notice about the “Black Line Trial Call.”  The second parallel court hearings are used to cause DWP without notice.

 

This scheme that he devised purportedly to move cases along faster, but which actually denies the First Amendment right to redress of grievances, amounts to a RICO violation. Judge Maddux is enriching the courts and clerk’s office or County of Cook by taking money for filing fees and then illegally quashing the cases by DWP in clear violation of law. This makes the Cook County Circuit Court Law Division and the Cook County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office a criminal enterprise used by Judge Maddux, with approval of Chief Judge Timothy Evans and Cook County Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown, essentially influencing this criminal enterprise by influencing through racketeering the outcome of every case in the Law Division. The crimes are fraud in that the Circuit Court appears to permit a person redress of grievances and accepts their filing fee, but instead DWP without notice in an unconstitutional scheme. This is also felony violation of civil rights under color of law and conspiracy to violate civil rights under color of law. As the mails are used in this scheme to inform the plaintiffs that their cases have been dismissed this is also mail fraud. Finally, this is also theft of honest services, as courts are supposed to uphold the constitution, not purposely violate it.

 The scheme or conspiracy to wholesale deny civil rights under color of law goes as follows:

 The plaintiff files a lawsuit (tort) for damages and pays the filing fee thinking that they will obtain redress of grievances and have a just chance to present their case to court and be made whole by awarding of damages.

 The case is assigned by a random system to a motion judge. If it finishes all pre-trial matters, it is then assigned to a different judge for trial. (The ABA recently advised that a case should stay with the same judge from pre-trial through trial as a matter of best practice. The present system is a mess as the motion judges are often changed in the middle of cases and then the judge is totally unfamiliar with the previous motion judge’s rulings and time is wasted and rulings become unfair and confusing because of ignorance of the judge. The trial judges are then also unable to make appropriate rulings through ignorance of previous rulings and this impairs a fair hearing.)

 The case is also assigned to an 18 month or 24 month pre-trial “discovery” schedule for purposes of the “Black Line Call.” The plaintiff is NEVER told that the “Black Line Call” system exists and only find out about it by word of mouth, if they read the Circuit Court of Cook County web site in detail, or if they read the Cook County Circuit Court Clerk web site in detail, which contains a link to the Court web site and contains the “Black Line Case Docket”.  The majority of pro se litigants who are novices therefore do not know about this second court “system,” to which their case is also assigned.

 When the case reaches the 18 mo or 24 mo discovery schedule date, it is assigned to the last number on the “Black Line Call”, a list of cases. The cases are heard about thirty a day without any notice except publication in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin and the case being listed on the Court Clerk’s “Black Line” computer docket. A specific date is NOT given for the hearing, but rather the litigants must guess at the date that the case will move from the end of the line of about 300 cases to the first thirty cases (“above the Black Line”), or read the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin or court computer docket every day after 4:00 p.m.

 The plaintiff must appear on that date at 9:00 a.m. or the case is DWP. No continuances of any kind are allowed. No accommodations are made for the disabled or pro se litigants of any kind. Then when the case is DWP, the plaintiff receives a postcard in the mail from the court that their case has been dismissed and the motion judge will refuse to hear it any or receive any motions. The litigant will have to make a motion to vacate the DWP before Judge Maddux within 30 days or make a 1401 petition before Judge Maddux for the case to be re-instated. Judge Maddux refuses to re-instate cases for unknown reasons.

 For Judge Maddux’s Law Division rules and orders related to the “Black Line Trial Call: see:

 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.