Cook County Judges

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

Posts Tagged ‘Lisa Madigan

Details of treasonous acts by Judges McHale, Brosnahan, Wadas, Kazmierski

with 2 comments


Do the following in order to help preserve the Constitution and help stop government corruption in Illinois.

The following is such a serious violation of our Constitution and our Laws that I respectfully ask you all to read this and ACT by reading this IN DETAIL and consider disseminating it through Twitter, Facebook, e-mails, and letters to all citizens concerned about preserving the Constitution, all investigative reporters you know, as well as consider writing letters to federal officials whose addresses are given in the following. Also consider signing the petitions written where links are provided below.

Dear Friends of the Constitution and Justice and Enemies of Government Corruption:

After reading this post please write and ask the following people to investigate this corruption:

Patrick Fitzgerald
US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois
219 S Dearborn, 5th Floor
Chicago IL 60604

S/A Robert Grant
Director Chicago Office FBI
2111 W. Roosevelt Road
Chicago, IL 60608-1128

, and contacting the press or any law school innocence clinic possible.

Thank you for your time!

Annabelle Melongo is an honest person and Information Technology (computer) expert, who discovered that the foundation that she was working for committed fraud on the federal and several state government and obtained millions of dollars fraudulently. Numerous prominent politicians due to lack of due diligence were involved in assisting this foundation in fraudulently obtaining money.

Melongo has been in jail for a year awaiting trial without probable cause and with an outrageously excessive bail charged with remote computer tampering of this fraudulent corporation (yet the States Attorney has evidence she did not remotely access their computer!) and illegally recording a conversation she had on the phone with a Cook County court reporter without the court reporter’s permission – “eavesdropping” (bail $300,000 reduced from $500,000 and $30,000) – yet she is indigent, has no prior record, and the States Atty and IL AG General are FULLY AWARE that all charges against her are fraudulent!

Her petition for writ of habeas corpus has been ignored and the judges are ACTIVELY refusing even to hear it! – in clear violation of the Constitution’s suspension clause and the laws of the State of Illinois. Illinois law dictates that if a judge refuses to hear an habeas petition he can be fined $1000 and the fine paid to the unlawfully held defendent (735 ILCS 5/10-106). The suspension clause in the U.S. Constitution allows a person or his/her friend to petition the court to free a defendant from an unlawful incarceration. The Illinois Habeas statute does the same thing. (735 ILCS 5/10)

The most important Human Right in the Constitution is the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus, written in U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9 (the suspension clause – which says this right can not be suspended except in the time of war) [ Zehariah Chagee, Jr., The Most Important Human Right in the Constitution, 32 B.U. L. Rev. 143, 143, (1952)]  The ONLY time the United States Supreme Court has found a violation of the suspension clause was in their decision in 2008 regarding Boumedine v Bush.

For the full details of the treasonous acts of these judges and all the case law, statutes, codes, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions proving that the judges committed treason see these links:

Examiner.com article about: judges-commit-treason-cover-up-fraud-by-salf-suspend-constitutional-rights-including-habeas-corpus

Dailykos.com diary story: Defendant-Melongo-still-denied-right-to-question-false-arrest-with-habeas-trial-result-in-hung-jury-

Examiner.com article about Melongo’s excessive bail: alvarez-madigan-target-it-specialist-to-cover-up-massive-fraud-500-000-bail-for-eavesdropping

Cincinnatibeacon.com article about how Melongo indicted through perjury of an officer: Attorney for SALF_whistleblower says IL Cop’s fraud and perjury lead to indictment

SIGN THE PETITION HERE to ask the U.S. Attorney to investigate the Melongo case.

The Cook Co State’s Attorney’s office is fully informed that a cop’s fraud and perjury obtained a void indictment yet they are still pursuing the case. They are fully informed that the alleged victim of this fraudulent charge of computer tampering has defrauded the U.S. government out of millions of dollars. So why are Anita Alvarez and Lisa Madigan still continuing this case? PLEASE ASK THEM at:

Anita Alvarez
Cook Co States Attorney
50 W Washington, Rm 500
Chicago IL 60602

AG Lisa Madigan
Illinois Attorney General
100 W Randolph, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601

A concerned friend (me, Linda Shelton) filed a next-friend petition for habeas corpus before the Circuit Court of Cook County per 735 ILCS Article X, the state habeas statute that lets a non-attorney file this petition. I had done this before for another person who was illegally jailed without probable cause and the judge appointed an attorney who gained her release in 2009.

Judge McHale, who was sitting in for the presiding Cook Co IL criminal court Judge Biebel, then illegally and unconstitutionally jailed the petitioner (me) for contempt claiming it was illegal for a non-attorney to file an habeas petition on behalf of another – even though IL statutes specifically allow this.

This is what happened in detail:

Shelton alleges Judge McHale (substituting for Judge Bieble – presiding judge of the Cook Co Criminal Court) illegally and in an act of treason in retaliation for Shelton’s whistle blowing about judicial corruption in the Circuit Court of Cook County summarily convicted her of 3 “cases” which should have been 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/Cameroonean 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.

Shelton alleges Judge McHale’s consecutive summary sentences of 4, 6, and 6 months (total of 16 mo) in CCDOC with no good time jail credits, 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 (a nullity or invalid);

B) in violation of Habeas Statutes, 735 ILCS Art 10 which allow a person to file an habeas petition on “behalf of another”;

C) in violation of Good Time Jail Allowance statute, 730 ILCS 130, which give jurisdiction for such credits to the county sheriff and not the judge;

D) in 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) in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court holdings which:

1) require jury trial if sentences exceed 6 mos aggregate for contempt,

2) forbid sentencing for more than one count of contempt during one trial or case,

3) require jury trial if contempt sentence is summarily imposed on a day other than the day in which the contemptuous act occurred, 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).

These sentences by Judge McHale were acts of felony treason 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 SOJ as a right, good conduct jail credits; 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.

In addition, Annabelle Melongo’s petition for writ of habeas corpus has been IGNORED by Judges McHale, Brosnahan, Wadas, Kazmierski, 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.

EVEN PRISONERS AT GUANTANEMO BAY ARE ALLOWED TO FILE HABEAS PETITIONS!

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please sign the petition, write letters, and contact the press! Send Annabelle Melongo letters of encouragement at:

Annabelle Melongo
2010-0414060
PO Box 089002
Chicago, IL 60608

You can send her a money order for up to $50 if you want to contribute to her commissary fund to ease her suffering a bit.

Advertisements

Sign petition – DOJ should Investigate Corrupt Officials in IL

with one comment


I started a petition to be sent to President Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
 

Free Whistle-Blower – Exposed $8 Million Fraud by Phony Foundation (SALF) – IL Officials Retaliate

It asks that the Department of Justice investigate the following:

1) a the phony Save-A-Life-Foundation that investigative reporter Chuck Goudie uncovered and exposed the fact that numerous prominent politicians, without due diligence assisted SALF fraud and CEO Carol Spizzirri with obtaining $ >8 million in government grants,

2) the cases against Annabelle Melongo who was hired as the IT person for SALF and when she discovered this fraud she took it to Special Agent Depooter in the Chicago FBI office, was fired by SALF and was fraudulently accused by SALF CEO Spizzirri and then indicted by Cook County States Attorney Alvarez’s office with the assistance of the office of the Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan of remote computer tampering (deleting financial records at SALF computers, despite the fact that the computers were disconnected from the Internet), and

3) the perjury before the grand jury by Schiller Park Detective William Martin who claimed he had evidence that Melongo, after she was fired, remotely tampered with the SALF computers, despite having evidence that the computers were disconnected from the Internet and Melongo’s computer address (IP address) was not the computer that had accessed the SALF computers on the date in question .

The cases against Melongo appear to be an effort by persons who want to cover-up the connection between Spizzirri obtaining funds fraudulently and the many prominent politicians who helped her obtain these funds.

To read about the cases click herehere, here, and here.

To read it and then if you want to sign the petition click here.


Petitions by Change.org|Start a Petition »

Judge Mary Margaret Brosnahan suspends habeas laws

with one comment


Habeas corpus is the last defense a citizen has against unlawful arrest without probable cause and wrongful conviction. This “grand writ” (or the most important kind of court order) has long historical roots from pre-colonial days in England. It means that the tables are turned and the State must justify keeping a person in custody.

Originally a feature of English law, the writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action. When the police falsely arrest you, seize you without probable cause, jail you on charges that are not part of the penal code simply to harass and inconvenience or for political reasons, hold you in jail without charging you, refuse to release you once your sentence has been served, convict you when you are actually innocent, then this is when a person needs the “grand writ”.

The United States Constitution,  guarantees a right to habeas corpus – to be brought before the court promptly and the State forced to justify why they are holding you as legal. This was re-inforced recently in the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Guantanemo Bay detainees, Boumediene v. Bush, who had been denied the right to petition for habeas corpus. The U.S. S. Ct ruled that the grand writ cannot be suspended in their case.

The United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in the Suspension Clause, located in Article One, Section 9. It states:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

The right to petition a court for a writ (order) of habeas corpus has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. It has been used to force a prison to release a person when their sentence is over, to force a person’s release after arrest when the State has failed to charge them in a timely fashion, and to protect a person from arbitrary and unjustified arrest and incarceration.

Illinois law mandates that a judge hear a petition for habeas corpus promptly. It can be filed by an attorney, by the prisoner, or by a “person appearing on behalf of another” AKA “next friend” under federal habeas law.  There is no requirement that the prisoner be incapacitated for a next friend to file a petition for habeas corpus under Illinois law.  Habeas corpus is latin and literally means “We command that you have the body [bring the person to the court]”.

The law states:

 “Unless it shall appear from the complaint itself, or from the documents thereto annexed, that the party can neither be discharged, admitted to bail nor otherwise relieved, the court shall forthwith award relief by habeas corpus.” 735 ILCS 5/10-106

This order awarding relief simply means that the Sheriff holding the person in custody must bring them to the court and the state must  provide documents, evidence, and witnesses that justify holding the person in custody. The court must “examine” the reasons for holding the  person in custody to determine if the custody is lawful.

“Upon the return of an order of habeas corpus [bringing the body also known as the defendant to the court], the court shall, without delay, proceed to examine the cause of the imprisonment or restraint, but the examination may be adjourned from time to time as circumstances require.” 735 ILCS 5/10-119

If a judge refuses to hear a petition for habeas corpus or refuses to grant the relief (order the person to be brought before the court) there is a penalty that may be obtained from the judge.

“Any judge empowered to grant relief by habeas corpus who shall corruptly refuse to grant the relief when legally applied for in a case where it may lawfully be granted, or who shall for the purpose of oppression unreasonably delay the granting of such relief shall, for every such offense, forfeit to the prisoner or party affected a sum not exceeding $1,000.” 735 ILCS 5/10-106

The Illinois Attorney General or the State’s Attorney is required by law to prosecute the judge to collect this penalty.

“All the pecuniary forfeitures incurred under this Act shall inure to the use of the party for whose benefit the order of habeas corpus was entered, and shall be sued for and recovered with costs, by the Attorney General or State’s Attorney, in the name of the State, by complaint; and the amount, when recovered, shall, without any deduction, be paid to the party entitled thereto.” 735 ILCS 5/10-133

The Cook County Circuit Court local rule 15.2 states that “a person appearing on behalf of another” who files a petition for habeas corpus must appear “before the presiding judge.” That is how the habeas petition is initiated.

Cook County Circuit Court Rule 15.2

 (c) Petitioner without funds and without attorney.

(i) If the petition states the petitioner is without funds and the petitioner is not represented by an attorney, he shall submit a verified petition to the clerk. The clerk shall docket the petition and place it on the call of the presiding judge.

(ii) If the presiding judge finds that petitioner is without an attorney and without funds, the presiding judge shall appoint an attorney to represent the petitioner.

(d) Petition on behalf of another.A person signing a petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of another shall appear before the presiding judge in open court and may be examined as to his interest in or relation to the person on whose behalf the petition is presented.

On April 20, 2010 Dr. Linda Shelton filed two habeas petitions on behalf of Annabel Melongo, who is being held in county jail on excessive bail without probable cause. Judge Brosnahan has refused to hear motions to quash the charges based on lack of probable cause.

The first habeas petition concerns a charge of computer tampering, where Melongo is accused of accessing the computers of Save-A-Life-Foundation (now closed) and erasing all of their financial records. Computer IP numbers are like telephone numbers and identify the computers dialed from and called. Internet provider records are like telephone company records that prove what IP (v. telephone) numbers were dialed from and called. This is an accurate record.

The forensic computer examiner, Shahna G. Monge, who supposedly worked for the Illinois Attorney General’s office has disappeared. Her report claims that Melongo had an IP address (computer address unique to Internet Service provider) from Comcast. They said that address was used to remotely access the SALF computers. Yet Melongo did not use Comcast. She had an Internet provider contract with SBC.  The Illinois Attorney General’s office and the detectives on the case claim that Monge will not testify.  How do they have a case against Melongo when their “expert” who claims she had evidence against Melongo won’t testify? Where is the evidence?  Melongo has her SBC account bills to prove what she says and Comcast claims they have no records tied to Melongo.

A subpoena to Comcast, which the forensic computer examiner said was the Internet provider which had records of the SALF computer being tampered with produced a report from Comcast that Melongo did not have an IP computer number (address) with them and there was no record she remotely accessed the SALF IP number (address). Therefore, since the police report states that SALF IP number was accessed via Comcast from an IP number registered with Comcast, there is NO possibility that Melongo was the offender. 

Melongo had a contract for Internet services through SBC.  IP addresses unlike telephone numbers are UNIQUE to the Internet provider.  Therefore, there is no probable cause and charging Melongo and keeping her in custody on an outrageous bail is illegal and unconstitutional and violates her civil rights. The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that a person cannot be seized (arrested) without probable cause, nor can they be tried without probable cause.

Melongo has been going to court monthly while out on a $10,000 personal recognizance bail for three years fighting this accusation. The State has still failed to give her discovery (evidence) of the accusation that ties her with tampering with any computer. Statutory criminal procedure has not even been followed. She was at a job interview when she was supposedly arraigned. She confronted the court reporter with this fact and asked them why they falsified the court transcript saying she was there, when the attorney would testify she was not there. The attorney was so inadequate in representation that she fired him and represented herself for the last couple years.

Judge Brosnahan is so biased against Melongo (she is a dual citizen of Cameroon and Hait and has a heavy accent and writes legal papers very professionally and accurately), that she ordered a fitness exam to simply harass her (she has been declared fit after the exam) and has refused to date to have a hearing on Melongo’s motions to dismiss for lack of probable cause and fraud upon the court by the State (in claiming they have evidence when they don’t).

Melongo made a web site that details the charges, the players, and has scanned in all the evidence they gave her and the evidence she has that  proves her innocence. She designed this web site as a professional information technology consultant. She has nothing to hide. The State has lots to hide!

On the web site she has posted the recordings and transcripts of phone conversations she had with the court reporter. She wanted to document what she suspected was their criminal conduct in falsely writing in the transcripts that she was in court when “arraigned” when she actually wasn’t there.

Illlinois has a felony eavesdropping law that makes it a crime to record someone without their permission. There is an exception in that if one thinks they are recording evidence of a crime, they cannot be prosecuted. Melongo wrote on her web site that she thought the court reporters had falsified records and recorded the conversations under this exception to the law. She even states so on her web site.

Now the State has arrested and incarcerate Melongo for an additional charge of eavesdropping, although it is clear the exception applies in this case so there is no probable cause.

On April 20, 2010 after her bail was revoked due to violation of bail (being arrested again) Melongo was brought before Judge Brosnahan. Judge Brosnahan was told that Melongo has no criminal background except for the pending computer tampering charge. She was told Melongo is a dual citizen of Cameroon and Haiti and has a legal visa. She was told that Melongo had diligently appeared in court at all hearings that she was informed about for three years.

The prosecutor claimed she was a huge “flight risk” because she might be illegal and therefore they contacted immigration which put a “hold” on her so they could investigate. The prosecutor said she is “dangerous” because she tampered with a computer.  The defense attorney J. Nicolas Albukerk said this is all ridiculous as she has proven over three years NOT to be a flight risk and having dual citizenship does not make her a danger to anyone.  Albukerk noted that having dual citizenship is not a crime and does not make anyone an illegal immigrant. He noted that none of these alleged acts were crimes of violence and the eavesdropping charge had NOTHING to do with any threats or violence.

Judge Brosnahan in an outrageous act of judicial misconduct set bail at $500,000. This violates the constitution’s requirement that bail be reasonable.  Melongo is not rich. She has almost no resourcs left as no one will hire her over the last three years with a computer tampering charge pending. 

A call has gone out to Camerooneans in America for assistance to fight this injustice. Judge Brosnahan has no jurisdiction in these cases as there is no probable cause. Without probable  cause the charges are not valid and the indictments are void. To be held in jail on a $500,000 bail without probable cause is outrageous, illegal, unconstitutional and reveals that Judge Brosnahan is not fit to be a judge. She is continually violating the constitution and Melongo’s civil rights. She should be removed from the bench.

Judge Biebel was not available to hear the habeas petitions, so the criminal clerk called the Judge filling in for him – Judge Joseph Kazmierski.  In an act of judicial misconduct Judge Kazmierski refused to hear the habeas petition and said it was “not before him” because the case was assigned to Judge Brosnahan.

Shelton went to Judge Brosnahan’s courtroom, following the clerk who brought the files to the judge.  Judge Brosnahan, in an act of judicial misconduct REFUSED to hear the habeas petitions stating “you have no standing . . . only a lawyer or the defendant has standing . . . kick her out of the courtroom.”  Shelton protested, trying to get this rogue and ignorant judge to read the law and follow the law, without success and was kicked out of the courtroom.

Shelton went to Judge Kazmierski and asked him to order Judge Brosnahan to hear the petitions. He refused saying he had no standing to do so. He was derelict in his duties as a judge in refusing to hear the petitions for habeas corpus. The habeas corpus petitions were new civil cases according to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedures and according to Circuit Court Rules he should have heard them and issued a habeas order to bring the defendant to court to determine if she was being legally held.

Both Judge Kazmierski and Judge Brosnahan therefore committed an act of knowingly violating statutory law which the U.S. Supreme Court has declared to be an act of treason.

Judicial Trespassers of the law

The Illinois Supreme Court has held that “if the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are trespassers.” Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109 (1870)

Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is “without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers.” Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)

The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court “could not hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, – it had no authority to make that finding.” The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928). The judges listed below had no legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear or rule on certain matters before them. They acted without any jurisdiction.

When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law,and are engaged in treason (see below).

The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that “not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function. … it is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse.”

When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void, of no legal force or effect.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that “when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution”, he “comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.” [Emphasis supplied in original].

By law, a judge is a state officer.The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).

Violation of judge’s oath of office

In Illinois, 705 ILCS 205/4 states “Every person admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law shall, before his name is entered upon the roll to be kept as hereinafter provided, take and subscribe an oath, substantially in the following form:

‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be), that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best of my ability.'”

In Illinois, a judge must take a second oath of office. Under 705 ILCS 35/2 states, in part, that “The several judges of the circuit courts of this State, before entering upon the duties of their office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation, which shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State:

‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of judge of ______ court, according to the best of my ability.'”

Further, if the judge had enlisted in the U.S. military, then he has taken a third oath. Under Title 10 U.S.C. Section 502 the judge had subscribed to a lifetime oath, in pertinent part, as follows: “I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; …”.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).

Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.

Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below).

If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888)

Violating the constitution includes violating the laws of the state of Illinois as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when a criminal procedure is statutory, then it invokes the due process clause of the 5th amendment. Violation of the statute by the judge is a violation of federal due process. If this is intentional, then it is “waring” on the constitution.

When a judge violates the law, their orders are void, a nullity.

The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal. “Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.” Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,  254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920)

The elements of lack of jurisdiction may include [issues pertinent to case at bar are in brackets]:

  1. Defective petition [indictment in case at bar is legally insufficient, as no probable cause], Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 Ill. 118, 122 (1930).
  2. Fraud committed in the procurement of jurisdiction [detective told grand jury that Melongo had an IP address with Comcast], Fredman Brothers Furniture v. Dept. of Revenue,  109 Ill.2d 202, 486 N.E.2d 893 (1985).
  3. Fraud upon the court [perjury before the grand jury and law fraudulently presented to grand jury in case at bar], In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.3d 393 (1962).
  4. The court exceeded its statutory authority [State Statutes and constitution do not allow a judge to have jurisdiction when there is no probable cause, also violation of 4th Amendment. ], Resenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967).
  5. Where a complaint states no cognizable cause of action against the party [no crime as specified by statute is alleged in the fatally flawed indictment obtained through fraud as there is no probable cause], Charles v. Gore, 248 Ill.App.3d 441, 618 N.E.2d 554 (1st Dist. 1993).
  6. Where the public policy of the State of Illinois is violated [constitution is violated when a person is held for trial without probable cause], Martin-Tregona v. Roderick, 29 Ill.App.3d 553, 331 N.E.2d 100 (1st Dist. 1975).

Therefore, Judge Brosnahan has no jurisdiction to preside over a trial of Melongo for computer tampering or for eavesdropping because there is no probable cause and therefore no jurisdiction for a criminal case.

Treason by a judge

Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)

The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. No judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

The prosecutor is Cook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez with the assistance of the computer crimes division of the Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan.

Of note:  Lisa Madigan was “friends” with the director of SALF, Carol Spizzirri, and assisted her in obtaining grant money from the State of Illinois through Madigan’s father, Speaker of the Illinois House Michael Madigan. They now cannot account for most of the grant money SALF received from donors including the federal grants. Spizzirri is a know liar and commits fraud. She wrote on her applications for federal grants that she is a nurse, yet she is not a nurse. She has been labeled a pathological liar by Wisconsin courts. Her ex-husband has evidence that their now deceased daughter had an order of protection against Spizzirri.

It is thought by Melongo that they are framing her to cover up the fact that the funds from government for SALF were obtained fraudulently and they do not have financial records to account for them. How convenient to blame Melongo for remotely accessing their computers and “erasing” the data. Where’s the money Spizzirra and Madigan?  The FBI has yet to arrest those involved in this fraud.

For more information see: 

SALF Exposed

Corrupt Judges Jorge Alonso and Kathleen Pantle kill innocent defendant Vernon Glass

with one comment


Corrupt Judges Jorge Alonso & Kathleen Pantle cause death of innocent defendant Psychological Counselor Vernon Glass. Read about it here.

Judge Paul P. Biebel Jr. Violates Constitutional Right & Illegally Withdraws Notice of Appeal

with one comment


I filed a Notice of Appeal as a right with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County on March 9, 2009. I was found not guilty of Medicaid vendor fraud because it was a case of ID theft. I am NOT appealing the verdict. I am appealing the issue of jurisdiction both because controversies remain and due to the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.

The Circuit Court loses jurisdiction once the Notice of Appeal is file. The Clerk of the Court is required by law to transmit the Notice of Appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court.

On March 20, 2009 Judge Biebel sue sponte wrote an order barring the Clerk from transmitting the Notice of Appeal or from preparing the record on appeal, illegally declaring that there was “no appeallable order”.

I too the Notice of Appeal to the Illinos Appellate Court and had the case docketed – 09-0949. I also filed the following two motions. Judge Biebel has violated his oath of office by blatantly violating law.

The result of his order would have been to deny the appeal of the jurisdictional issue, which if I win, will set precedent and prove that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and the Illinois State Police Medicaid Fraud Control Unit in conjunction with the Office of Inspector General Federal Dept. of Health and Human Services have been illegally and baselessly prosecuting a number of quality and dedicated  providers of mental health services to persons on Medicaid. A win would free Dr. Maisha Hamilton Bennett, overturn her conviction and overturn the conviction of Naomi Jennings and perhaps others I don’t know about, as well as force the prosecution against Vernon Glass to cease.

As explained in the following link AG Madigan and IL Medicaid (started by previous AG Ryan and previous administrations) have a scheme to deny mental health care to persons on Medicaid, use this as a phony claim they are tough on fraud for election purposes, and use this to help balance the IL budget on the backs of the mentally ill. They are claiming that Medicaid will not pay for psychiatric services performed by non-physicians such as licensed drug-addiction counselors and psychologists when billed fee-for-service as employees of physicians. They claim it is felony fraud for a physician to bill Medicaid for services of such licensed employees.

This essentially denies mental health care to persons on Medicaid as > 80 % of mental health care in this country is provided by non-physicians. We need 30,000+ pediatric psychiatrists yet the country has less than 5,000. Failure to provide mental health care increases crime, misery, family disruption, and poverty. It is a disaster to our economy. Judge Biebel is part of the problem, not the solution. He should be impeached. As presiding criminal division judge he should be held to a higher standard and should know better.

For a detailed and exhaustive analysis of the fraudulent nature of the charges and the state scheme see:

http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com/2009/02/judge-jorge-alonso-overturns-federal.html

For a detailed analysis of why the indictment is legally insufficient and therefore the case is void see:

http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com/2008/10/legally-insufficient-indictment-failure.html

For a shorter description of the scheme by the state to deny mental health care see:

http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com/2008/10/criminal-scheme-of-il-attorney-general.html

For detailed discussion of the jurisditional issues in a federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus which was denied and is pending before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine see:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9708949/Shelton-Federal-Petition-for-Writ-Habeas-Corpus-Vendor-Fraud-2008

The following is my Motion to the IL Appellate Court to overturn Judge Biebel’s void and illegal order:

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS       )           Appeal from the Circuit Court

                                                                        )           of Cook County, Illinois

            Plaintiff-Appellee                                  )

                                                                        )

-vs.-                                                     )           No. 04 CR 17571-03

                                                                        )

LINDA L. SHELTON                                     )

                                                                        )           Honorable Jorge Alonso

            Defendant-Appellant                             )           Judge Presiding

 

MOTION TO ORDER JUDGE PAUL P. BIEBEL JR. TO VACATE HIS ILLEGAL ORDER FOR CIRCUIT COURT CLERK NOT TO TRANSMIT NOTICE OF APPEAL TO APPELLATE COURT

 

            NOW COMES, Linda Shelton, Defendant, Pro Se, who respectfully moves this Honorable Court to order Presiding Circuit Court of Cook County Criminal Division Judge Paul P. Biebel Jr. to vacate his illegal order for Circuit Court of Cook County Clerk not to transmit Notice of Appeal in above titled case to Illinois Appellate Court. In support of this motion Defendant states as follows:

            Defendant, pro se, filed Notice of Appeal (Exhibit A) with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County (“Clerk”) on March 9, 2009 and requested the Clerk to prepare the Record on Appeal.

            Defendant, on April 10, 2009, received an order made sue sponte by Judge Paul P. Biebel Jr. instructing the Clerk NOT to transmit the Notice of Appeal to this Appellate Court stating that there was no final appealable order. (Exhibit B)

            Notice of Appeal states that Defendant was found not guilty on February 24, 2009, but was appealing NOT THE VERDICT, but the issue of JURISDICTION of the court.

            The Illinois Appellate Court, 3rd District in King v. DeDonker, 17 Ill.App.3d 1064, 309 N.E.2d 598 (1974) ruled that a judge’s refusal to enter a finding of not guilty after a not guilty verdict was a final appealable order. The United States Supreme Court in several cases granted certiorari after not guilty verdicts and ruled that issues in cases where there were not guilty verdicts were appealable if they met two tests: 1) there remained a controversy, and 2) when there is no threat of either multiple punishments or successive prosecutions as a result of overturning the decisions of the trial court; in essence that as long as the double jeopardy clause is not offended the appeal is not barred. United States v. Jenkins, 420 U.S. 358, 95 S.Ct. 1006, (1975); Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 95 S.Ct. 1055 (1975); United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 95 S.Ct. 1013 (1975); United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co, 430 U.S. 564, 97 S.Ct 1349 (1977); and United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 98 S.Ct. 1054 (1978)

            A case is only moot when it involves no controversy. Hynde v. Hopper, 56 Ill.App.2d 152, 205 N.E.2d 647 (1965)

            In the present case there remains a controversy – the issue of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The appeal and decision about this controversy denying Defendant’s multiple motions to dismiss pretrial for lack of jurisdiction was barred until there was a final order of the court (finding of not guilty after not guilty jury verdict). The issue is not moot because a decision on jurisdiction will solve several remaining controversies. There is no limitations on the time to appeal void orders.

            First, if the case lacked jurisdiction and was null and void ab initio, then all bail orders are void and the Clerk may not retain the 10% of the bail or $1100, and she must return this money to the Defendant.

            Second, if the case was null and void ab initio, then the case must be expunged from Defendant’s criminal record without charge to her and without the requirement that she apply for it to be expunged.

            Third, if the case was null and void ab initio, then two findings of criminal contempt found during the precedings would also be null and void and must be vacated and expunged, even IF the defendant had made contemptuous statements or made contemptuous actions during these two hearings which would become nullities. ACC 050087-01 and ACC 070057-01

Fourth and finally, Defendant also claims that the issue of jurisdiction is not moot because if the valid controversy of alleged lack of jurisdiction in this case is resolved in favor of the State’s position that there is jurisdiction, res judicata on this issue would bar any tort action against Judge Pantle and Attorney General Lisa Madigan in federal case number 1:06-cv-04259, a pending civil rights suit against these persons on hold in federal court pending the disposition of this criminal case (now it will be taken off of hold status). The orders of the federal court based on presumed absolute judicial and prosecutorial immunity did not address the merits of the allegation of total lack of jurisdiction of prosecutor or Trial Court and its judge. Therefore, the Federal District Court has NOT decided this jurisdictional issue in the pending case, 1:06-cv-04259.  There is no issue of res judicata barring the consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court of the controversy concerning jurisdiction in this case. The Federal Court order removing these two persons from the suit as defendants will be appealed due to their lack of jurisdiction. This order of the Federal District Court in case number 1:06-cv-04259 becomes null and void if this Illinois Appellate Court rules that this criminal case was null and void ab initio, as prosecutors and judges lose absolute immunity ONLY when they are declared to have NO jurisdiction in a case. Therefore a controversy remains as to whether the Illinois Attorney General ever had jurisdiction to indict and prosecute defendant and whether the Trial Court ever had jurisdiction to hear this case, based on the resulting void indictment. The resolution of this controversy has immediate impact on the resolution of the above mentioned federal case and on the convictions of Maisha Hamilton Bennett and Naomi Jennings, as well as on the pending criminal case against Vernon Glass. All these cases involve the same charges and the same issues leading to the conclusion that there was a lack of trial court and prosecutorial jurisdiction or authority as listed in the Notice of Appeal. Therefore, harm will befall defendant and continue to befall Maisha Hamilton Bennett, Naomi Jennings, and Vernon Glass if the issue on this appeal of jurisdiction is not resolved in defendant’s favor.

            Therefore, the Illinois Appellate Court is NOT BARRED from hearing this appeal pertaining solely to the jurisdictional issues.

 

            WHEREFORE, Defendant, respectfully moves this Honorable Court to issue an order for Judge Paul P. Biebel Jr. to vacate his order of March 20, 2009 to the Clerk not to transmit the Notice of Appeal to this Honorable Court.

           

            Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/109-1 I certify that the statements set forth herein are true and correct.

Dated: April 14, 2009                                                  

                                                                                    Respectfully Submitted,

                                                                                    ___________________

Linda L. Shelton, Ph.D., M.D.                          Linda L. Shelton

Judge Jorge Alonso Overturns Federal Medicaid Code – Denies Mental Health Care to Illinoisans on Medicaid!

leave a comment »


Dr Linda Shelton, who has devoted her life to service of others and particularly to providing medical and mental health services to the poor, although found innocent on a wrongful charge of Illinois Medicaid Fraud, simply for trying to help people on Medicaid obtain mental health care, has suffered a civil death of defamation and destruction of her career and Illinoisans on Medicaid are still largely denied mental health care. Please read the following and help any way possible. I thank anyone who will help me.

This is a story epitomizing government corruption and greed, retaliation against whistle blowers, and gross government incompetence brought on by decades of fraud, patronage, and nepotism in Illinois.

Judge Jorge Alonso ruled on my  criminal case where I am charged with Medicaid fraud that “substitute billing is illegal”. This is where a doctor sends a bill to the insurance company for services performed by his employee such as the service of a nurse administering a vaccine or a psychologist administering a psychological test, or a cast technician applying a cast. In my case the Illinois Attorney General claims that if a doctor bills Medicaid for counseling (for drug addiction, post-traumatic-stress disorder after rape, obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression, dementia, etc.) if the counseling or psychological testing was done by an employee and not directly by the physician then it is a felony crime.

If substitute, also known as incident to, billing is illegal than ALL doctors in Illinois are guilty of a felony crime of fraud! God Help Us! Judge Alonso is so eager to railroad me and convict me that he is violating his oath of office to uphold the laws of the land and the constitution. Due process, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights REQUIRES that he follow the law. He is BLATANTLY violating the law, either maliciously or ignorantly due to his arrogance, incompetence, bias to run and support the alleged prosecutor AG Lisa Madigan, or his ego.

Physicians are NOT trained to do psychological testing for personality disorders or mental illness. Psychologists at the master’s and Ph.D level are trained to do so. These tests are invaluable in helping determine the right diagnosis and the right course of treatment. Judge Alonso has ruled that those on Medicaid are not eligible for this type of evaluation and treatment as a result of his illegal and unconstitutional ruling.

Many non-physicians are licensed in Illinois and all states to provide Psychiatric & Psychological Services:

1. nurses 225 ILCS 65,
2. clinical psychologists 225 ILCS 15,
3. licensed social workers 225 ILCS 20,
4. licensed clinical professional counselor 225 ILCS 107,
5. licensed marriage and family therapist 225 ILCS 55 and 68 ILAC 1283

Judge Alonso’s illegal ruling denies all of these people the RIGHT to practice their profession and denies the citizens of Illinois on Medicaid the Right under the Federal Medicaid Act to access to care equivalent to the care provided in the community.

Federal Judge Joan Lefkow ruled in August 2004, at the end of a 12 year civil rights class action suit that “Illinois Medicaid Policies and Procedures are in Violation of the Federal Medicaid Code because they Deny Access to Care” to children on Medicaid. This ruling is applicable to all Medicaid patients but the ruling only applies to children. It needs to be expanded to cover all Medicaid patients.

The Federal Medicaid Code, 42 U.S.C. 1396A(a)(30)(A), [regarding adults and children covered under Medicaid and the EPSDT program] REQUIRES any State Medicaid program funded by the federal government to provide care equivalent to that obtainable from private insurers in the community to Illinois Medicaid clients.

Therefore, Judge Alonso’s ruling is unconstitutional, unfair, illegal, and amounts to his ruling to overturn the Federal Medicaid Code as well as Illinois Statutes licensing non-physician providers of mental health services. As > 80 % of mental health services are provided by non-physicians this essentially shuts out mental health services to all but a few in Illinois who are poor.

The Federal Court and U.S. Attorney should intervene as this is illegal and also a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act in terms of discrimination.

As to my case, I am charged with billing for mental health services never done and substitute billing for mental health services between June 2000 and April 2002 while “working” at Right Frame of Mind & Associates (RFOM). Over the last six months when I obtained access to the old business records for RFOM I discovered the fact is that the year before I started working for a group practice called RFOM, part-time providing chart review for quality, consultation about medical and psychiatric policies and procedures, and limited patient care, two woman, who were partners with the CEO and without the knowledge of the CEO, in 2000 fabricated hundreds of patient encounter forms (filled out by doctors or therapists as to what patient they saw, the diagnosis, and what service was provided), that are later translated into bills or invoices by the billing agent, for services they never did. These two women, Itadel Shalabi and Nareman Taha never met me as they were fired before I started working there in 2001.

I had major neurosurgery in July 2000 due to a congenital spinal problem that was crushing my spinal cord and leading progressively towards quadraplegia. I was incapacitated for six months and heavily sedated with narcotics and other drugs for much of that time. I had agreed in early 2000 at the request of the CEO to be one of a dozen or more part-time medical directors to oversee quality of care, screen for medical disorders mimicking psychiatric disorders, help train the counselors to write better notes (many were foreigners with good counseling skills but a little difficulty with English writing), advise the CEO on best medical practices and standard of care, and provide physician services to patients needing medications.

I or my staff while I was in hospital gave the CEO my Medicaid provider number and other necessary documents so that the company’s billing agent Louise Moore of Data Medical Works could sign me up with Medicaid as a provider for the group so that they could bill for my services when I began to work, if I recovered, in 2001.

Ms. Moore I never met at the time was a sweet lady who is ignorant of a lot of things. She held herself out to be a expert at medical billing and she signed a contract with the CEO in early 2000 to set the group up legally to bill Medicaid. Nothing she did was actually proper, but it was not her own fault. She failed to tell the CEO he would be paid more if he had his group certified as a community mental health center. She was totally ignorant of the concept of community mental health centers (or the drug addiction and alcohol treatment centers – another center with its own enabling State Statue).

Under the Community Mental Health Service Act mental health groups that become certified bill Medicaid under the Center’s name and not under the doctor’s name. They also contract with the Illinois prisons, and/or DCFS (Illinois Child Welfare) or other agencies to provide comprehensive mental health services. They must have at least one medical director, but the director is an administrator and doesn’t have to see patients. Ph.D. psychologists or doctors or licensed mental health providers can supervise non-physician mental health service providers and bills can be sent in to Medicaid under the center’s name for all these services.

Ms. Moore ignorantly thinking (falsely) that her contract allowed her to sign the names of Right Frame of Mind employees on to any form signed my name in August and December 2000, without my or the CEO’s knowledge or consent, on a power of attorney form, an alternate payee form, and a blue cross/blue shielf electronic partner trading agreement form, which are all required to allow her to translate the patient encounter form to an electronic invoice and send it over the wire to BC/BS for adjudication, who then sends it to Medicaid, who then pays abut 30-40 cents on the dollar to the Alternate Payee (in this case RFOM).

Ms. Moore had spoken to the Medicaid Provider Service Unit about how to register the non-physician providers to bill Medicaid. She was told that non-physicians cannot bill Medicaid, was NOT told that a better way to bill was as a community mental health center or how to sign the group up as a community mental health center, and told that all bills (invoices) had to have a doctor’s name as the provider.

Then Ms. Moore, without my or the CEO’s knowledge changed the provider name in preparing invoices from Itadel Shalabi’s and Nareman Taha’s fraudulent patient encounter forms to my name so she could bill under my Medicaid Provider Number. I don’t believe that Ms. Moore had ANY knowledge of the fraudulent nature of the Patient Encounter Forms made by these two women.

Therefore the ghost billing charge is a result of ID Theft, resulting from both fraud by these two women and a comedy of errors by incompetent people advising Ms. Moore in the Medicaid Provider Service Unit, as well as her own blundering ignorance. I am totally innocent having not participated in any way in generating these bills or in receiving or using the money paid for them by Medicaid.

Ms Moore unfortunately is also guilty of mass fraud in all the work she has done in the past decade or more. It is illegal for an insurance biller to bill Medicaid based on a contract where they are paid by the percentage of funds received form Medicaid by the provider. Ms. Moore charged around 8% of all billings. This is illegal and considered fraud as it ties the billers service, which has nothing to do with the medical care provided, with the doctor’s service. Therefore, if she billed for a $100,000 procedure by a heart surgeon she would be paid $8,000 for sending in one bill, while when a family doctor bills $100, she would be paid $8. Providers of services to doctors are NOT ALLOWED to tie their services to the income from the actual medical provider. She MUST BILL ONLY by the piece of work such as $8 per bill. However, she has not been indicted for Medicaid Fraud and has not been sued by RFOM for Fraud in holding herself out to be an expert on billing when she was not.

The second aspect of the charge is substitute billing. I signed a Power of Attorney Form and Alternate Payee Agreement in August 2001. I was informed by the CEO sometime in late 2001 or early 2002 that the group was told by Ms. Moore that the counselors’ and psychologists’ services had to be billed under a doctor’s name so that bills on patients I had seen, but for dates of service when they were seen by a non-physician were being billed under my name. I had assumed that the billing agent was competent and doing the billing properly. I had assumed that substitute billing for employees services in mental health care was as legal as billing Medicaid for my nurse giving a patient a vaccine. I had no idea at the time that anyone considered substitute billing illegal. I had no knowledge that Ms. Moore had actually sent in tens of thousands of dollars worth of bills under my name before August 1, 2001 based on documents she forged and the fraudulent patient encounter forms from the above two women. Therefore, I told the CEO that was fine. I was not involved in billing or administration of the group except to fill out patient encounter forms when I saw a patient. I had a good faith belief that all was well.

I had also had an agreement that being part-time the business would limit my patient panel to 200 patients as I did not feel that part-time doctors should supervise the care of any more patients than this number.

Since Judge Alonso has unconstitutionally and illegally ruled that substitute billing is illegal I will be found guilty and likely sentence to prison for 4-15 years, as well as forever lose my medical license and reputation, along with my livelihood, future, friends, health as medical care is inadequate in prison and I am disabled with several serious medical disorders, and will to live. I have informed the U.S. Attorney, FBI, at the time Senator Obama, Senator Durbin, and now Senator Burris along with a lot of Congressmen and other Sentators and State legislators. I am receiving no assistance to solve this problem and restore mental health care in Illinois to those on Medicaid.

In late 2001 Ms. Lovett, Ms. Collins and others from the Office of Inspector General Medicaid contacted the RFOM and claimed that they needed to review some charts as a “standard review of a new practice to help us comply with the rules”. We completely complied and Ms. Lovett came out in 2001. She told the CEO the charts were well done and she would give us a report in 90 days. The CEO was actually very happy about this review because he wanted to make sure that our group practiced with the highest quality and had the best quality charting in the business. They never gave us a report or any feedback and their only response was to initiate a felony prosecution which culminated in the indictment of selectively me (and not one other of the dozen or so medical directors doing the same job – perhaps because only the CEO and I were whistle blowers about Illinois Governement Corruption and mistreatment of children in foster care and on Medicaid by the State) and the CEO.

After a number of months with NO feedback and strange comments from the Illinois State Police Medicaid Fraud Unit (part of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office), where the CEO had gone to inform them that he was concerned abut the integrity of our medical records because he had fired Itadel Shalabi and Nareman Taha for other administrative misconduct and inappropriate behavior with patients and they stole a hundred or so medical records (eventually returning parts of them) I began my own investigation of the rules of Medicaid. The State Police have not arrested them yet.

The CEO, I had learned over about a year was much more naive than I thought about running the business. I had assumed that he was qualified as an administrator and found out he was not. Finding out about the stolen charts and the lack of feedback from the OIG-Medicaid on this “routine review” concerned me. I was also concerned because in April 2002 the CEO told me that Ms. Collins at OIG-Medicaid had informed him to talk to Mr. Brown at Medicaid because there was a problem with the way our group was set up. Mr. Brown told the CEO that RFOM could not be a proper alternate payee under their rules and he apologized for misleading the CEO when the group was originally set up in 2000. He told the CEO that Medicaid could not continue to pay the group unless it was owned by the doctors. The group was the sole proprietorship of the CEO a master degreed psychologist. The CEO said OK, hired an attorney, and asked several of the doctors to be the officers of the group as it changed to corporate status. The corporation was set up so that the doctors would not actually profit from the corporation but were only paid by the hour for their work. The CEO was going to make a profit from managing the corporation. However, no profit was ever made as all the income went to overhead, particularly paying the counselors and doctors their salary and/or hourly rate. The CEO actually put in $100,000 of his own money to meet payroll before he closed the business as no viable financially. My total income from the group was about $5000 over all the time I worked there from 2001 to 2003. I always told the CEO to pay the other employees first and my work was only very limited and part-time.

Beginning in 2002, I researched the Federal and State Medicaid rules, policies, and laws so that I would be able to meet my fiduciary duty to participate in running the corporation at least from an advisory point of view. I discovered the following and this is why I told the CEO in mid 2002 and maintain this belief, that substitute billing is perfectly legal and actually REQUIRED by the Federal Medicaid Code as well as NOT PROHIBITED by Illiniois Statutes or Illinois Adminstrative Rules:

Federal and State Medicaid laws are extensive, complex, and immensely confusing. The State of Illinois is misusing them to indict doctors, psychologists, administrators of psychiatric and psychological practices for “Medicaid Fraud” when they are actually following federal law and providing needy services including counseling, drug treatment, suicide prevention, etc. Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Jim Ryan before her have targeted especially those groups run by whistle blowers, in order to falsely claim they are tough on fraud, to prevent Illinois from paying the bill for mental health services for the poor and needy on Medicaid, and reduce the bottom line.

A claim of “tough on fraud” will help AG Lisa Madigan win election as Governor. Failure to provide mental health care including drug addiction and alcoholism treatment leads to increased crime as drug addicts, alcoholics, and those that are so out of touch and mentally ill find alternatives to legitimate work to feed their habits or survive. Failure to provide adequate mental health care at the front end leads to much higher costs in the long run.

Code of Federal Regulations 42 CFR 414.34 states:
“Payment for services and supplies incident to a physician’s service”
“(b) Services of non[-]physicians that are incident to a physician’s service. Services of non physicians that are covered as incident to a physician’s service are paid as if the physician had personally furnished the service.

United States Code42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a)(5)(A)
requires reimbursement for “physicians’ services furnished by a physician.”

Code of Federal Regulations 42 C.F.R. § 440.50
The HHS rule implementing the Medicaid Act defines “physician services” to include services provided:
“(a) within the scope of practice of medicine or osteopathy as defined by State law; and
(b) by or under the personal supervision of an individual licensed under State law to practice medicine or osteopathy.”

United States Code42 U.S.C. §1396a(a)(32)(C)
Congress further authorized substitute billing under Medicaid for services furnished:
“by, or incident to the services” of another physician

Federal Regulation66 Fed. Reg. 55268
HHS makes clear in its preamble to this rule that it does not restrict the type of auxiliary personnel who may perform a given “incident to” service: “We deliberately used the term any individual so that the physician (or other practitioner), under his or her discretion and license, may use the service of anyone ranging from another physician to a medical assistant.”

Code of Federal Regulations42 CFR 411.15
“Particular services exclude from coverage” specifically states that:
“(m) (3) Exceptions. The following services are not excluded from coverage:

•(iii) Nurse practitioner and clinical nurse specialist services…

•(v) Qualified psychologist services,”

FEDERAL PREEMPTION SUSTAINED BY FEDERAL 2ND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL
•A Federal suit for a psychiatrist against the New York Medicaid Program based on its refusal to approve Medicaid was agreed to for reimbursement for services provided by his employees under his supervision. Yapalater v. Bates, 494 F. Supp. 1349 (S.D.N.Y. 1980), aff’d, 644 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 908, 102 S. Ct. 1255 (1982).
The court determined that the federal Medicaid rule at 42 C.F.R. §440.50 defining “physician services” unquestionably included supervisees other than the physician, just as the same rule must apply here to vacate Plaintiffs’ indictments. Id. at 1363-64.

State Medicaid must Provide Services 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)30(A)
•Federal Code clearly mandates that State Medicaid plans must provide services to recipients of Medicaid and payment to their service providers equivalent to care and services provided to the general population by private insurers
•Private insurance pays for psychiatric services provided by counselors and psychologists
•RFOM CEO and other employees, besides the physicians were licensed counselors, nurses, psychological therapist, or social workers, per CEO

42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)30(A)
A State plan for medical assistance must
Provide such methods and procedures relating to the utilization of, and the payment for, care and services available under the plan . . . to assure that payments are … sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan … at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area“,

Ambiguous State Laws Must be Interpreted to Conform to Fed Law
•The Federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has also construed ambiguous state regulations to conform to federal Medicaid requirements,
•an approach worth revisiting here with respect to Sections 140.411 and 140.413 of the Illinois Administrative Code.
•See Evanston Hosp. v. Hauck 1 F.3d 540 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1091 (1994).

I (SHELTON) CONTINUES HER OWN INVESTIGATION OF BILLING PRACTICES – 2002-2005

•Shelton discovers that Physician Medicaid Manual has inconsistencies, in one place stating bills for employees billed under doctor’s name, and in another place stating that no psychiatric services can be billed for non-physicians, yet in another place stating that non-physicians may provide psychiatric services and Medicaid may be billed. She also discovered the Illinois Community Mental Health Center Code.

Illinois Administrative Code (IAC)
89 IAC 140.12

“Services Not Covered by Physician”
DOES NOT MENTION psychiatric services by non-physicians

Illinois Administrative Code
89 IAC 140.400(a)
“Payment to Practitioners”
“2) A practitioner may bill only for services he or she personally provides or which are provided under his or her direct supervision in his or her office by his or her staff.”

Illinois Administrative Code
89 IAC 140.411

“Covered Services by Physicians”
“The Department shall pay physicians for the provision of services not otherwise excluded which are:
. . .
c) Provided by the physician or by a member of the physician’s staff under the physician’s direct supervision

Illinois Administrative Code
89 IAC 140.413

“Limitations on Physician Services”
that “limitations” on physician’s services include that psychiatric services will be paid for if they are “. . . provided by a physician . . .” [It does not exclude non-physician services and it is a reasonable inference to conclude the definition of “physician” include the services of non-physician employees, under the doctor’s supervision as defined in 89 IAC 140.400 & 411]

How does this negate previous definition of “physician services” which include incident services by his employees?

UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE CLAIM
State falsely claims use of word “physician” in 89 IAC 140.413 negates definition of
“physician services”, which includes incident services by physician’s employees as defined in 89 IAC 140.400(a), 89 IAC 140.411

State falsely claims that federal law does not apply and statutory construction rules don’t apply
Judge Alonso previously illegally ruled that the Federal Medicaid Code does not apply in this case despite the fact the Illinois Medicaid is a joint federal/state program partially funded by the Federal Medicaid Code!

IAC TOO VAGUE
•Criminal Laws are invalid if too vague to understand (“void for vagueness doctrine”)
•Illinois Administrative Code too vague in sections:
89 IAC 140.12,
89 IAC 140.400,
89 IAC 140.411, and
89 IAC 140.413
Illinois Administrative Code
•Why should 89 IAC 140.413 have more weight than 89 IAC 140.12?
•Why should the definitions of physician services in and 140.411 not apply to the term “physician” in 89 IAC 140.413?

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION RULES REQUIRE (Regarding interpretation of conflictin State Statutes)
Specific Controls over General
•89 IAC 140.400 & 89 IAC 140.411
more specific “physician services” includes non-physician employee services
•89 IAC 140.413 general word “physician” with no definition of what services this includes cannot by exclusion negate previous more specific definition of services provided by physician

Federal Law Rules
42 CFR 414.34
Services by Physician’s staff are billed as IF the Physician Performed the Services Himself

If State and Federal Law conflicts, Federal Law Rules
Due to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution

FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES PAYMENT FOR EPSDT SERVICES
•The Federal Medicaid Code requires that State Medicaid programs pay for periodic mental health screening and treatment of any defects in mental health for children under 21:
• 42 USC 1396d “Definitions For purposes of this chapter
• (r) Early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services

•The term ‘early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services’ means the following items and services:
• (1) Screening services –
• (A) which are provided –
•(ii) at such other intervals, indicated as medically necessary, to determine the existence of certain physical and mental illnesses or conditions;
• . . .
•(5) Such other necessary health care, diagnostic services, treatment, and other measures described in subsection (a) of this section to correct or ameliorate defects and physical and mental illnesses and conditions discovered by the screening services, whether or not such services are covered under the State plan.”

STATE LAW REQUIRES PAYMENT FOR EPSDT SERVICES
•89 IAC 140.485 states:
•“Healthy Kids Program
•Program Description
–The Healthy Kids Program is the Early and Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment Program [EPSDT] mandated by the Social Security Act (see 42 U.S.C. 1396a(43), 1396d(4)(B)(Supp. 1987)). The goals of the program are to:
•Improve the health status of Medicaid-eligible children ages birth through 20 years through the provision of preventive medical care and early diagnosis and treatment of conditions threatening the child’s health
•…
•8) Treatment. The Department shall pay for necessary medical care (see Section 140.2), diagnostic services [i.e. psychological testing], treatment or other measures medically necessary … to correct or ameliorate defects, physical or mental illnesses….”,
•The Illinois Public Aid Code [AKA Medicaid Act], 305 ILCS 5/19(f) requires that EPSDT screening and mental health treatment be provided to children in the Medicaid program:
•“5/19. Healthy Kids Program
•(f) Covered Medical Services. The Illinois Department shall provide coverage for all necessary health care, diagnostic services, treatment and other measures to correct or ameliorate defects, physical and mental illnesses, and conditions whether discovered by screening services or not for all children eligible for Medical Assistance under Article V of this Code.”

Dr Shelton was a Medicaid Registered EPSTD Provider

Therefore ANY REASONABLE person would conclude that the law permits substitute billing for mental health services whether it be another physician covering for the doctor, or a non-physician supervised by the doctor or her colleagues. If you don’t agree than the void for vagueness doctrine should clearly negate and prevent any criminal charges for substitute billing.

I am innocent and destroyed. I was found not guilty by jury verdict on February 24, 2009, but I have still suffered a civil death of defamation and loss of career due to this illegal attack on me by corrupt IL Atty Gen Madigan, corrupt State Police Medicaid Fraud Control Unit Investigator William Reibel, and incompetent, arrogant, malicious judges Kathleen Pantle and Jorge Luis Alonso. This is my reward for devoting my life to service particularly of the poor and needy. If you want to help reverse this civil death and obtain mental health care for those on Mediciad, contact the Illinois Reform Committee and flood them with letters. Contact the U.S. Attorney and FBI and flood them with letters. Contact your legislators and Congressmen and flood them with letters asking for congressional and legislative hearings. Contact the press. Donate to my legal fund anything possible to help reduce the more than $40,000 debt. I need tens of thousands of dollars. Shelton Legal Fund, C/O Albukerk & Associates, 3025 W. 26th St. 2nd Floor, Chicago, IL 60623. Thank you if you help.

Illegal Political Trials (Hits) – Alive and Well in Illinois

leave a comment »


Protecting Defendants Charged for Political Reasons

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE DOUGLAS IN 1970 – “Does the answer to the problem of political trials involve defining the procedure for conducting political trials or does it involve the designing of constitutional methods for putting an end to them? . . . . It will be time enough to resolve those weighty problems when a political trial reaches this Court for review.”

THE TIME MAY BE NOW!

The State of Illinois through first Attorney General Jim Ryan and now Attorney General Lisa Madigan along with incompetent, ignorant, and/or corrupt officials in Illinois Medicaid including Bill Bradley, Investigator Reibel in the State Police, and Patrick Keenan in the State Police Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, with tacit approval by many other corrupt officials in the State of Illinois, have perpetrated a scheme for ten years to deny mental health services for persons on Medicaid in violation of the Federal Medicaid Code. See my other posts on Medicaid at:
http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com/2008/10/criminal-scheme-of-il-attorney-general.html.

In order to falsely advertise that she is “tough on fraud” so that she can advance her personal political ambitions, Lisa Madigan continues to fraudulently and without legal authorization indict outstanding providers of mental health services to Medicaid patients. Judges Schultz, Fox, Pantle, Alonso, and others have participated in these void and illegal prosecutions and done great harm to the citizens of Illinois in their illegal acts of violation the United States Constitution, in aiding and abetting this violation of federal law and civil rights.

I have been one of the persons illegally indicted and defamed, presently awaiting trial over a period of four long years. The harm to me, my patients, and my family is immeasurable and painful. I have persistly legally and appropriately through the legal process of at first representing myself and filing scholarly motions proving that higher court precedence (stare decisis) does NOT PERMIT this kind of persecution for political gain, and that my case is null and void ab initio (from the start).

I have been punished for vigorously advocating for my constitutional rights to redress of grievances and due process (including the right not to be tried for something that is not a crime) for four years with four incarcerations for contempt (two thrown out by the Illinois Appellate Court – pepetrated by Dishonorable Judge Pantle), one presently before Hon. Judge Coar in federal district court on a habeas corpus petition (asking the court to vacate and expunge the conviction on the basis of violation of constitutional rights and voidness – pepetrated by Dishonorable Judge Pantle), and one in limbo – dismissed for want of prosecution, but potentially can reinvigorate the appeal later (perpetrated by Dishonorable Judge Alonso).

I have been beaten, tortured, and medically neglected during these incarcerations and when I protested, a correctional officer, Sgt. Anthony Salemi, came into my cell and committed assault and battery against me. He falsified his records and I was charged and convicted of aggravated battery to an officer for allegedly “ramming him with my wheelchair” causing a skinned shin, and “kicking him in the chest with my RIGHT leg” causing soreness. This was impossible for me to do do to a partial RIGHT hemiparesis and extreme weakness secondary to dehydration caused by mendical neglect. I was sentenced to two years despite no criminal record and was released from Dwight penitentiary after being tortured on March 31, 2008. I was punished and placed in solitary confinement for 6 months because I refused to walk (I was unable to due to my disability) and forced to swim in my diarrhea on a 2 inch mattress with no sheets or clothes for days, except for a roughly quilted velcro smock and blanket, without toilet paper, without water (I was too week to get myself up to the water fountain at the sink or the toilet). The United States Attorney has been informed and so far has done NOTHING! My weight dropped from 171 lbs to 127 lbs and by the time I was released I couldn’t even sit up because of severe dehydration, and electrolyte imbalance. I was immediately taken to an emergency room and treated. The incompetent and barbaric sadists and psychopaths in Dwight’s medical department had insisted I was faking my medical problems.

Due to my protests, all reasonable and responsible and polite, I have been illegally and immoraly denied self-representation by Judges Pantle and now Alonso without legal authority in violation of my constitutional rights. I am being prosecuted for political reasons as a whistle blower. I testified against now convict and ex-Governor George Ryan in a class action suit for illegally denying 73 million dollars in funds for the care of handicapped children. I have won suits against Sheriff Sheahan in C[r]ook County for violating the American with Disabilities Act. I have won suits against the State of Illinois for failing to investigate barbaric and illegal abuse of mental health patients/inmates at Cook County Jail, and I have numerous pro se civil rights, mandamus, and injuctive suits pending in federal and state court against these corrupt officials. I am a target of the corrupt cabal in Illinois and C[r]ook County.

Justice Douglas in Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S.337 wrote the following in a concurring opinion, which is very much on point. My case is ripe for Hon. Juge Coar to address in this manner in the federal district court. It is a political case! This quote, by Justice Douglas in his opinion, about Penn is fascinating and you everyone should enjoy it!.

HOWEVER IT IS SAD THAT IN THE 21ST CENTURY IN ILLINOIS, CITIZENS WHO ARE DOING NOTHING BUT PROVIDING MUCH NEEDED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES TO THE NEEDY, WHO HAVE DEVOTED THEIR LIVES TO SERVICE, AND WHO VALUE OUR CONSTITUTION, ARE STILL THE TARGET OF POLITICAL ATTACKS IN A MOST VICIOUS AND BRUTAL MANNER!

THIS IS WHY I ASK FOR THE HELP OF THE PUBLIC TO FUND MY DEFENSE AND TO HELP ME CONTINUE TO HELP OTHERS DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. See link at the right on this blog if you wish to help.
________________________________________________________________________
QUOTED FROM CONCURRING OPINTION BY JUSTICE DOUGLAS IN ILLINOIS V. ALLEN, 397 U.S. 337 (1970):

Our real problems of this type lie not with this case, but with other kinds of trials. First are the political trials. They frequently recur in our history, [Footnote 2/2] and, insofar as they take place in federal courts, we have broad supervisory powers over them. That is one setting where the question arises whether the accused has rights of confrontation that the law invades at its peril.

In Anglo-American law, great injustices have at times been done to unpopular minorities by judges, as well as by prosecutors. I refer to London in 1670, when William Penn, the gentle Quaker, was tried for causing a riot when all that he did was to preach a sermon on Grace Church Street, his church having been closed under the Conventicle Act:

“Penn. I affirm I have broken no law, nor am I Guilty of the indictment that is laid to my charge, and to the end the bench, the jury, and myself, with these that hear us, may have a more direct understanding of this procedure, I desire you would let me know by what law it is you prosecute me, and upon what law you ground my indictment.”

“Rec. Upon the common law.”

“Penn. Where is that common law?”

“Rec. You must not think that I am able to run up so many years, and over so many adjudged cases, which we call common law, to answer your curiosity.”

“Penn. This answer I am sure is very short of my question, for if it be common, it should not be so hard to produce.”

“Rec. Sir, will you plead to your indictment?”

“Penn. Shall I plead to an Indictment that hath no foundation in law? If it contain that law you say I have broken, why should you decline to produce that law, since it will be impossible for the jury to determine, or agree to bring in their verdict, who have not the law produced by which they should measure the truth of this indictment, and the guilt, or contrary of my fact? ”

“Rec. You are a saucy fellow; speak to the Indictment.”

“Penn. I say, it is my place to speak to matter of law; I am arraigned a prisoner; my liberty, which is next to life itself, is now concerned: you are many mouths and ears against me, and if I must not be allowed to make the best of my case, it is hard, I say again, unless you shew me, and the people, the law you ground your indictment upon, I shall take it for granted your proceedings are merely arbitrary.”

“Rec. The question is whether you are Guilty of this Indictment?”

“Penn. The question is not whether I am Guilty of this Indictment, but whether this Indictment be legal. It is too general and imperfect an answer, to say it is the common law unless we knew both where and what it is. For where there is no law, there is no transgression, and that law which is not in being is so far from being common that it is no law at all.”

“Rec. You are an impertinent fellow, will you teach the court what law is? It is ‘Lex non scripta,’ that which many have studied 30 or 40 years to know, and would you have me to tell you in a moment?”

“Penn. Certainly, if the common law be so hard to be understood, it is far from being very common; but if the lord Coke in his Institutes be of any consideration, he tells us, That Common Law is common right, and that Common Right is the Great Charter-Privileges”

“Rec. Sir, you are a troublesome fellow, and it is not for the honour of the court to suffer you to go on. ”

“Penn. I have asked but one question, and you have not answered me; though the rights and privileges of every Englishman be concerned in it.”

“Rec. If I should suffer you to ask questions till tomorrow morning, you would be never the wiser.”

“Penn. That is according as the answers are.”

“Rec. Sir, we must not stand to hear you talk all night.”

“Penn. I design no affront to the court, but to be heard in my just plea: and I must plainly tell you that, if you will deny me Oyer of that law, which you suggest I have broken, you do at once deny me an acknowledged right, and evidence to the whole world your resolution to sacrifice the privileges of Englishmen to your sinister and arbitrary designs.”

“Rec. Take him away. My lord, if you take not some course with this pestilent fellow to stop his mouth, we shall not be able to do anything tonight.”

“Mayor. Take him away, take him away, turn him into the bale-dock. [Footnote 2/3]”

The Trial of William Penn, 3 How.St.Tr. 951, 958-959.

The panel of judges who tried William Penn were sincere, law-and-order men of their day. Though Penn was acquitted by the jury, he was jailed by the court for his contemptuous conduct. Would we tolerate removal of a defendant from the courtroom during a trial because he was insisting on his constitutional rights, albeit vociferously, no matter how obnoxious his philosophy might have been to the bench that tried him? Would we uphold contempt in that situation?

Problems of political indictments and of political judges raise profound questions going to the heart of the social compact. For that compact is two-sided: majorities undertake to press their grievances within limits of the Constitution and in accord with its procedures; minorities agree to abide by constitutional procedures in resisting those claims.

Does the answer to that problem involve defining the procedure for conducting political trials or does it involve the designing of constitutional methods for putting an end to them? This record is singularly inadequate to answer those questions. It will be time enough to resolve those weighty problems when a political trial reaches this Court for review.
_______________________________________________
[Footnote 2/2]
From Spies v. People, 122 Ill. 1, 12 N.E. 865, involving the Haymarket riot; In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, involving the Pullman strike; Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, involving the copper strikes of 1917; Commonwealth v. Sacco, 255 Mass. 369, 151 N.E. 839, 259 Mass. 128, 156 N.E. 57, 261 Mass. 12, 158 N.E. 167, involving the Red scare of the 20’s; to Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494, involving an agreement to teach Marxism.

As to the Haymarket riot resulting in the Spies case, see 2 J. Commons and Associates, History of Labour in the United States 386 et seq. (1918); W. Swindler, Court and Constitution in the Twentieth Century, cc. 3 and 4 (1969).

As to the Pullman strike and the Debs case, see L. Pfeffer, This Honorable Court 215-216 (1965); A. Lindsey, The Pullman Strike, cc. XII and XIII (1942); Commons, supra, at 502-508.

As to the Mooney case, see the January 18, 1922, issue of The New Republic; R. Frost, The Mooney Case (1968).

As to the Sacco-Vanzetti case, see Fraenkel, The Sacco-Vanzetti Case; F. Frankfurter, The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti (1927).

As to the repression of teaching involved in the Dennis case, see O. Kirchheimer, Political Justice 132-158 (1961).

[Footnote 2/3]
At Old Bailey, where the William Penn trial was held, the baledock (or baildock) was “a small room taken from one of the corners of the court, and left open at the top, in which, during the trials, are put some of the malefactors.”

Oxford Eng. Dict.

%d bloggers like this: