Cook County Judges

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

Posts Tagged ‘suspension clause

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

with one comment


The U.S. Supreme Court refused to uphold their own holdings in denial of Shelton’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Dr. Linda Shelton was unlawfully convicted of  contempt of court and summarily sentenced to 16 months in jail with no trial or due process because she followed Illinois law that allows a person other than the defendant to file a next-friend petition for writ of habeas corpus on “behalf of another”. Judge McHale held that it was illegal for Shelton to file this petition on behalf of Annabel Melongo when Shelton was not an attorney.  Melongo was released after 20 months when the Illinois eavesdropping law was declared unconstitutional. Melongo had been denied hearing on Shelton’s petition for her in an illegal act by Cook County judges who refused to hear this petition. Thus they violated the U.S. Constitution Suspension Clause that says that habeas may not be suspended except in times of war.  READ THE FOLLOWING!! (Transcript where Shelton appeared before Judge McHale asking for him to assign judge to represent Melongo on Shelton’s next-friend petition for writ of habeas corpus on her behalf on May 11, 2010 – NOTE: habeas corpus is the highest right a person has in the U.S. written in the constitution to protect against unlawful incarceration yet few Americans are educated to know what this means!)

Shelton alleges Judge McHale (substituting for Judge Biebel – presiding judge of the Cook County Criminal Court) illegally and in an act of felony federal treason and conspiracy to violate rights under color of law, after stating he would not hear her petition (i.e. admitted she was before him on an administrative matter and not with him acting as a judge) in retaliation for Shelton’s whistle blowing about judicial corruption in the Circuit Court of Cook County (she had given the FBI and U.S. Attorney extensive evidence about this corruption and published it on Internet blogs), in May through November, 2010, summarily convicted her of three (3) “cases” which should have been three (3) “counts” of criminal contempt for the legal act of filing a next-friend habeas petition ,as a NON-ATTORNEY, on behalf of Annabelle Melongo, a dual Haitian/Cameroonian citizen with language difficulties and who was confusing English and Roman law, and then telling the judge that his act of ruling that a non-attorney filing was “illegal” was a violation of his oath of office to follow the law as well as a criminal act. The conviction was not only illegal, but it was retaliatory.

The fact that he stated he would not hear the petition meant that there was no case before him when he charged me with contempt and this occurred after I asked for SOJ as a right, which also means that his orders are void as he did not follow the law on SOJ.

Shelton alleges Judge McHale’s consecutive SUMMARY sentences of 4, 6, and 6 months (total of 16 months) in CCDOC with good time jail credits quashed by order of Judge McHale, were in:

A) violation of IL Substitution of Judge (“SOJ”) as Right Statutes, 735 ILCS 5/2-1001 which make all orders given after denial of this SOJ as a right void, Jiffy Lube International, Inc. v. Agarwal,2 77 Ill.App.3d 722,727, 214 Ill.Dec. 609,661 N.E.2d 463 (1996); Curtis v. Lofy, 394 Ill. App..3d 170, 176 (2009);

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

C) violation of IL Appellate Court holding that requires a full due process jury trial if contempt sentence is summarily imposed on a day other than the day in which the contemptuous act occurred In re Marriage of Betts, 200l ll.App.3d 26 (1990); Winning Moves, Inc., v. Hi! Baby, Inc., 238 Ill. App.3d 834 (1992); Kaeding v. Collins, 28I Ill.App3d 919 (1996)

D) violation of IL sentencing statutes requiring concurrent sentences for the same conduct or acts occurring during the same state of mind, 720 ILCS 5/3-3; and

E) violation of IL statute where habeas petition must be heard quickly before the chief judge of the division, Habeas statutes, 735 ILCS 5/10-119, and the rules of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Rule 15.2(d); and

F) violation of the U.S. Supreme Court holdings and IL Court holdings which:

1) require jury trial if sentences exceed 6 months aggregate for contempt, In re Marriage of Betts, 200 lll.App.3d 26 (1990), Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 (1966); Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506, 513, 94 S.Ct. at 2692 (1974); Taylor v. Hayes, supra, 418 U.S. at 495, 94 S.Ct. at 2701;

2) forbid sentencing for more than one count of contempt during one trial or case, People v. Brown, 235 Ill.App.3d 945 (1992);

3) forbid removal of automatic statutory good time jail credits by a judge  – Good Time Jail Allowance statute, 730 ILCS 130, gives jurisdiction for such credits to the county sheriff and not the judge, also violation of Codispoti v. Pennsylvannia 418 U.S. 506 (1974); and

4) specifically state it is legal for a non-attorney to file a next-friend petition for writ of habeas corpus, U.S. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 76 S.Ct 1 (1955) and Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 128 S.Ct 2229 (2008); 735 ILCS Article X.

The Illinois Appellate Court in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 298 and Smith v. Bennett and Marshall v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 81  S.Ct. 895 (1961) denied my indigence petition , thus denied my appeal illegally.

The Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Shelton s Federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus regarding these three convictions, ACC 100083-01, 93-01, & 94-01, falsely stating that Shelton did not exhaust state remedies. Judge Hart ignored and violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in the line of cases Neirsheimer, Regan, and Loftus. People v. Loftus, 400 Ill. 432, 81 N.E.2d 495 (1948), (in response to order of Court in Loftus v. People of State of Illinois, 334 U.S. 804, 68 S.Ct 1212 (1948)); Woods v. Neirsheimer, 328 U.S. 211, 66 S.Ct. 996 (1946); White v. Ragen and Lutz v. Same, 324 U.S. 760, 65 S.Ct. 978 (1945); Young v. Ragen, 337 U.S. 235, 69 S.Ct. 1073 (1949).

There may be an exception to the exhaustion bar for cases involving colorable claims of actual innocence. See, e.g., House v. Bell, 47 U.S. 518, 522 (2006). This case also involves this is as since there is no possibility that filing a next-friend habeas petition is illegal or that complaining, as a litigant to a judge that he is violating the law, when he is violating the law, is illegal, there is no possibility that Shelton is actually guilty of contempt.

These sentences by Judge McHale were acts of felony treason, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §2381, punishable by a sentence of 20 yrs. to life, per previous holdings and/or dicta of the United States Supreme Court including:

1) that the judges in U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980) affirmed the statement of Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) that it is “treason on the constitution” when a judge “usurps [the jurisdiction] that which is not given”; and

2) that it is a “war on the constitution” when a judge violates his oath of office to support it [including supporting statutes of a state = due process], Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401(1958).

Judge McHale’s knowing violation of the statutes concerning petitions for writ of habeas corpus, SOJ as a right, good conduct jail credits; concurrent sentencing for the same act; violation of case law concerning right to trial if sentence is > 6 mo, right to trial if sentence for contempt is given out on day other than day of contempt incidence, ban on more than one count of contempt during one case or trial; and violation of U.S. Supreme Court holdings/dicta in U.S. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 76 S.Ct 1 (1955) and Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 128 S.Ct 2229 (2008) that a non-attorney may file a next-friend habeas petition prove Judge McHale illegally found Linda Shelton in contempt three times, illegally sentenced her, and knowingly did this in an act of treason, violating Shelton’s constitutional rights to be free of arrest and imprisonment without due process and in violation of law, denied her father’s need for her caretaker, companion, and executive assistant services and love in his final days in an act of cruelty and lawlessness, and denied Shelton’s need for medical care and proper diet.

In addition, Annabelle Melongo’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed by Shelton, has been ignored by Judges McHale, (Brosnahan, Wadas, Kazmierski – to whom Plaintiff presented habeas filing prior to presenting it to Judge McHale and all of whom refused to hear it stating that they have no jurisdiction to hear filings from a non-attorney on behalf of another, despite Plaintiff reading the IL habeas statute to them), and Judge Biebel and she is still in jail a year later! All these judges have therefore committed treason. This is a grotesque and extremely serious violation of the Constitution of the United States – suspension clause (Article I, section 9) which states that the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus may not be suspended except in time of war.

Judge McHale was fully informed in open court by Plaintiff of the case law, code, and constitutional issues stated herein and therefore cannot claim mistake or unintentional error. Plaintiff therefore now petitions the U.S. Attorney and U.S. Justice Department to pursue the violations of 18 U.S.C §241 AND 18 U.S.C §242, as well as 18 U.S.C. §2381 that are clearly documented in this document and attachments, under the jurisdiction as permitted by the Presentment Clause of the Constitution and under 18 U.S.C. §3332 – which specifically states, as is supported by case law, that a citizen with evidence of federal crimes may petition a judge to present this evidence to a special grand jury . I ask that the Justice Department bring this cause before a judge for an indictment against Judge McHale for corruption.

Judge McHale ILLEGALLY AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY IN VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW incarcerated Shelton for 16 month summary sentence for which she served six months and during that time DISCRIMINATED AGAINST DR. SHELTON’S DYING FATHER, ALLAN LORINCZ, BY ILLEGALLY JAILING SHELTON, SNUBBING HER REQUEST FOR HOUSE ARREST TO CARE FOR HER FATHER, AND PREVENTING HER FROM CARING FOR HIM IN HIS LAST DAYS AS HE REQUESTED RESULTING IN HIS DEATH from self-starvation and dehydration due to depression over his loss of his caretaker and companion, Shelton and his progressing Parkinson’s disease.  By turning a deaf ear, HE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST DISABLED SHELTON IN IGNORING HER DISABILITY NEEDS WHILE UNLAWFULLY JAILED BY HIM, in that he refused to order the Sheriff to provide her appropriate medications and food for her conditions. He, IN RETALIATION FOR HER WHISTLE BLOWING AND COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES AND SHERIFF STAFF, ILLEGALLY JAILED HER knowingly and willingly suspended her right to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, violated at least four U.S. Supreme Court holdings by unlawfully convicting her of contempt and summarily sentencing her to 16 mo. in jail, and trashed Shelton’s due process constitutional rights, as well as numerous Illinois statutes and Supreme Court and Cook County Court rules. Finally, he ordered a fitness exam when there was no reason to, in order to help justify his illegal conduct but ignored Shelton’s attorney’s motion that a person cannot be found in contempt if the judge questions their fitness as contempt requires intent and allegation of lack of fitness precludes concept of intent.

 

____________________________________________________

See the following criminal cases, appeals, motions for habeas & mandamus – which are explained in the following:

Cook County Court Habeas Petition: 09 CH 12736 – renumbered after transfer from Chancery division to criminal division to 09MR00025 (Shelton’s next friend habeas petition for Maisha Hamilton – allowed and Hamilton assigned a pro bono attorney); 10 HC 0006 & 7 (Shelton’s next-friend habeas petitions for Melongo – Judge McHale refused to hear, told Shelton filing it was criminal); 10 HC 00008 & 12 (Shelton habeas petition – Judge Porter summarily denied)

Cook County Criminal Contempt Cases: ACC 1000083-01, ACC 1000093-01, ACC 1000094-01 (Unconstitutional & Illegal against Shelton – summary total sentence of 16 months for filing next-friend habeas petitions for Melongo and defending her right to do so)

Cook County Criminal Cases: 10CR8092 (Melongo’s criminal eavesdropping case – declared unconstitutional eavesdropping law – this was upheld by IL Supreme Court) 08CR1050201 (Melongo’s computer tampering case which she later won as State committed fraud)

U.S. Supreme Court Complaint for Leave to File Mandamus: 12-6561 (Shelton pro se filing, granted in forma pauperis but denied leave to file brief)

Illinois Appellate Court: 10-3342, 10-3344, 10-3345 (Shelton’s appeal of contempt cases dismissed when denied in forma pauperis and demanded back payment for previous cases as well as $25 payment for each of these cases)

_______________________________________

NOTE: the following case law

CONTEMPT

Sacher et al. v. United States, 343 U.S. 1, 72 S.Ct. 451, 96 L.Ed. 717 (1950)

Courage does not equal contempt.

An attorney has the right to make a fearless, vigorous argument

It is the right of counsel for every litigant to press his claim, even if it appears farfetched and untenable to obtain the trial court’s considered ruling. Full enjoyment of that right, wit due allowance for the heat of controversy, will be protected by appellate courts when infringed by trial courts. At 9

Men who make their way to the bench sometimes exhibit vanity, irascibility, narrowness, arrogance, and other weaknesses [ignorance] to which human flesh is heir. Most judges, however, recognize and respect courageous, forthright lawyerly conduct. They rarely mistake overzeal or heated words of a man fired with a desire to win, for the contemptuous conduct which defies rulings and deserves punishment. They recognize that our profession necessarily is a contentious one and they respect the lawyer who makes a strenuous effort for his client. At 12

Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, Footnote 4, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 .Ed.2d 522 (1968)

The court has long recognized the potential for abuse in exercising the summary power to imprison for contempt—it is an ‘arbitrary’ power which is ‘liable to abuse.’ Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 313, 9 S.Ct. 77, 82, 32 L.Ed. 405 (1888). ‘(I)ts exercise is a delicate one, and care is needed to avoid arbitrary or oppressive conclusions.’ Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 539, 45 S.Ct. 390, 396, 69 L.Ed. 767 (1925).4

Footnote 4. ‘That contempt power over counsel, summary or otherwise, is capable of abuse is certain. Men who make their way to the bench sometimes exhibit vanity, irascibility, narrowness, arrogance, and other weaknesses to which human flesh is heir.’ Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1, 12, 72 S.Ct. 451, 456, 96 L.Ed. 717 (1952). See also Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U.S. 378, 39 S.Ct. 337, 63 L.Ed. 656 (1919); Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33, 61 S.Ct. 810, 85 L.Ed. 1172 (1941); Cammer v. United States, 350 U.S. 399, 76 S.Ct. 456, 100 L.Ed. 474 (1956).

United States v. Seale, 461 F.2d 345 (7th Cir. 1972).

[T]he conduct so personally involved the trial judge that the contempt hearing should be presented before another judge. “Attorneys have a right to be persistent, vociferous, contentious, and imposing, even to the point of appearing obnoxious, when acting in their client’s behalf.” In the matter of Dellinger, 461 F.2d 389, 400 (7th Circ. 1972)

Sentences more than six months either separate or aggregate require a jury trial:

When the aggregate punishments for a particular course of criminally contemptuous conduct committed in the presence of a judge exceed the parameters of punishments normally imposed for misdemeanors and the punishments are not imposed immediately after occurrence of the contemptuous conduct, the contemnor is entitled to a jury trial as to the contempt charges. The traditional test for determining whether or not a charged offense is a misdemeanor is whether the penalties exceed $500 or six months imprisonment. Where, as with criminal contempt in Illinois, no maximum punishment is prescribed for an offense, courts look to the penalty actually imposed to determine whether an offense is so serious that a jury trial was required. Some decisions suggest that in the context of contempt proceedings, the $500 fine component.., is subject to upward adjustment based on the contemnor’s financial resources and inflationary trends. In re Marriage of Betts,  200 Ill. App. 3d 26, 50, 558 N.E.2d 404 (4th Dist. 1990).

The following are holdings in Maita v. Whitmore, 508 F.2d 143 (9th Cir. 1975):

[Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct. 2697, 41 L.Ed.2d 897, and Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506, 94 S.Ct. 2687, 41 L.Ed.2d 912.]

First: The rules as to whether an ordinary criminal offense is ‘petty,’ thus not requiring a jury trial, or ‘serious,’ thus requiring a jury trial, also apply to charges of criminal contempt. Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, supra, 418 U.S. at 513, 94 S.Ct. at 2692; Taylor v. Hayes, supra, 418 U.S. at 495, 94 S.Ct. at 2701.

Second: ‘Crimes carrying more than six month sentences are serious crimes and those carrying less are petty crimes.’ (Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, supra, 418 U.S. at 512, 94 S.Ct. at 2691; Taylor v. Hayes, supra, 418 U.S. at 495, 94 S.Ct. at 2701.

Third: ‘Judgment about the seriousness of the crime is normally heavily influenced by the penalty authorized by the legislature.’ Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, supra, 418 U.S. at 511, 94 S.Ct. at 2691. Indeed, if the penalty authorized by the legislature exceeds six months, there is a right to a jury trial, even though the judge could impose a sentence of six months or less. Baldwin v. New York, 1970, 399 U.S. 66, 68-69, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 26 L.Ed.2d 437, and cases there cited.

Fourth: Where the legislature has not prescribed a penalty, as is often the case when the charge is criminal contempt, the actual sentence imposed determines whether the offense is ‘serious’ or ‘petty.’ Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, supra, 418 U.S. 512, 94 S.Ct. 2687 at 2691; Taylor v. Hayes, supra, 418 U.S. at 495, 94 S.Ct. at 2701. In such a case, when multiple contempts are tried together, the imposition of consecutive sentences aggregating more than six months makes the offenses ‘serious’ and requires a jury trial. Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, supra, 418 U.S. at 516-518, 94 S.Ct. at 2693-2694. On the other hand, where there are convictions for several contempts but the aggregate sentence does not exceed six months because the sentences are concurrent, jury trial is not required. Taylor v. Hayes, supra, 418 U.S. at 496, 94 S.Ct. at 2702. Moreover, it makes no difference that the trial judge at first imposes consecutive sentences totalling more than six months, if he afterward reduces them to six month sentences to be served concurrently; jury trial is not required. Id. at 496, 94 S.Ct. at 2702.

U.S. Supreme Court approves elimination of right to petition for habeas corpus, right to have witnesses at trial, and other Constitutional rights in Cook County

with 5 comments


Today the U.S. Supreme Court denied my motion for rehearing of a petition for writ of mandamus against the Cook County Circuit Court, U.S. Supreme Court case number 11-10814, and Dishonorable Judge Peggy Chiampas. Therefore they have approved the following criminal acts done by Judge Chiampas which amount to violation of her oath of office and therefore acts of treason per  U.S. Supreme Court case law and gross misconduct of a judge, as well as criminal acts of corrupt Sheriff staff including Assistant Chief William J. Nolan. When the high court refuses to hear a case, this act therefore upholds the acts of the court below that made the rulings which the litigant is challenging in the high court.

There is no legal right to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court or even the Illinois Supreme Court. The courts changed this right to by permission only.  Even though the high court is the supervisor of all courts in the land, they are not required to do so.  Therefore, in order to limit their cases to no more than about 80 per year out of about 6,000 to 8,000 submitted they ignore many cases where laws and the constitution are violated by police, lower courts, and officials.

American justice is therefore a myth.

If, as in Illinois the appellate court is corrupt and controlled by the corrupt officials then anyone who criticizes judges, police, or public officials will be made to lose their case regardless of the law. Any lawyer who supports them will have a difficult time making a living in Cook County. In Cook County the courts including the IL Appellate Court and the Federal District Court and 7th Circuit Court’s Chief judges as well as many other judges, and also the state’s attorney, U.S. Attorney, FBI Chicago Director and the Sheriff are controlled by a cabal of corrupt Democratic and Republican officials. These officials include:

1)  the former Gov. of IL Jim Thompson who was also Director of the U.S. CIA oversight committee under Pres Bush I and a member of the 911 Commission under Pres Bush II, as well as the top corrupt official in the cabal;

2) IL Supreme Court Justice Ann Burke and her husband Chicago Alderman Burke – who requires that judicial candidates pay the machine $10,000 in order to guarantee their election by buying signs to post on property of state employees from the Sheriff’s and Secretary of State’s offices – thus forcing lawyers to contribute to the judges election campaign committee; forcing state, county and city employees in order to get promotions or keep supervisory positions or even keep a job to sell a certain number of fundraising tickets for election campaign committees; and ensuring that all contracts for government work include a bribe of 15 % of the amount the company earns into the campaign election committees for officials like Speaker of the House Michael Madigan and his daughter IL Atty Gen Lisa Madigan (who with two years in the peace corps and a few years as a State Senator certainly was NOT qualified to be the IL AG);

3)the Daley brothers – John a Cook County Board member who actually controls the County no matter who is the President of the Board, previously his brother Richard who was Mayor of Chicago, and their other brother who is Midwest Director of Chase Bank and that is why they now  have the State contracts for processing property tax checks.

The cabal is now preparing to have Lisa Madigan run for Governor vs. the Daley brother to run for  Gov. so they can keep tight reigns on the State as well as the county and the city.  All other (“inherited Lordships”) elected positions in the Cook County Board, the City Council and State Government are controlled by the cabal so that only a handful of people run the State behind the scenes.

The agencies are controlled through their assistant directors who have been in their positions through several administrations and know the ropes and are controlled behind the scenes by Jim Thompson, the Burkes, the Daleys and other top dogs. They used to control things by taking out opponents with mafia operated machine guns.  Now they take out opponents and whistle blowers with false criminal charges, defamation of character, and false allegations of mental illness.

The law firm of Vrdolyak and other mafia lawyers make sure everything is done right and none of these people can be directly tied to the corruption.  For example, I was told through intermediaries that “if I paid $10,000 to Madigan (through their election campaign committee) then I  could have a meeting with Michael Madigan and all my issues would be resolved.  “Business” is conducted behind closed doors. I am being destroyed because of these blogs, my constant criticism and complaints about corrupt government over the past 10 years and my refusal to pay the bribe.

The machine is sort of like the story “Robin Hood”, with Jim Thompson being the evil king, States Attorney Devine now Alvarez being the high cardinal executioner, Sheriff Sheahan now Dart (the one that arranged for Obama’s election) being the evil Sheriff of Nottingham and enforcer of the evilo dictates of the King, and everyone else being an inherited Lordship that cow tows to the King’s whim.  In Cook County no  one gets on the Democratic ballot without Burke’s approval and Burke arranges for fake Republicans to run in a token manner. There essentially is no Republican party in Cook  County any more.

Huge numbers of  public employees in the Sheriff’s Office, the Secretary of State’s  office and all state, county, and city offices are filled by relatives of elected and appointed officials.  If the relatives pay their due into political campaign committees (which are also used to launder money from illegal activities) then they will get a steady job with a huge pension.  That is partly why Illinois has  one of the worst economies in the country with the highest pension debt!  How Special! This system ensures a huge patronage army and is a system, along with the 15 % bribes required for government contracts that is called “pay-to-play”. Most government employees are expected to contribute 3% of their salary to election campaign committees. If you want to trace the corruption, you need to trace the family names of elected and appointed officials, the money trail through their campaign committees and the law firms, agencies, and phony foundations that donate to the campaign committees.

This is why we need term limits, transparency of all actions of the state, county, and city comptroller and treasurer, and public oversight, as well as appointed and not elected judges, appointed not by government officials but by committees of experts with term limits such as law school professors with foundation directors and randomly picked members of the public with at least a college education. I don’t believe our founding fathers understood how easy it would be to corrupt our government.

Please read about the following extensive felony criminal acts of Sheriff staff and judges against Dr. Linda Shelton in the following and here also as well as the criminal and unconstitutional acts of Dishonorable Judge Chiampas at the links in the end of this post:

1) Refusal for a court clerk to file or a presiding judge to hear a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case.  This is the highest right a citizen has in the United States and this now has been eliminated in Cook County. (The right is found in the “Suspension Clause” of the United States Constitution) and the U.S. Supreme Court in a 2008 case called Boumedience v. Bush ruled that even prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have the right to have a non-attorney file a next-friend petition for writ of habeas corpus to have examined by a senior judge if they are being held legally with probable cause.  Apparently they have these rights but I do not, nor does anyone who has been charged with a misdemeanor crime in Cook County!

2) Arrest of a defendant for getting sick in the courtroom. Refusal to write an order to force the Sheriff to allow an ill defendant to bring special food or drink into the courthouse or to be allowed to take necessary breaks during the trial, which are violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

3) Denial of speedy trial right under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

4) Denial of right to compulsory process (Judge Chiampas refused to enforce my subpoenas for contact information from Court Clerk Dorothy Brown’s office for her employees who were witnesses in my favor) under the Sixth Amendment.

5) Denial of right to call witnesses who can impeach the state witnesses, including Kent Law School Professor T. Coyne, who witnessed Judge McHale violated my civil rights and jail me for filing a next-friend habeas petition (a legal act allowed by statute), especially as I filed one in 2009 resulting in his appointment by Judge Biebel as an attorney for the defendant Maisha Hamilton, who also has been falsely arrested in order to cover-up the corruption she is a witness to in Cook County and Illinois government.  If you defame witnesses, they are useless against you!

Prof. Daniel T. Coyne also is a witness to the fact that a social worker (Robinson) at the jail called me and asked me to pick up the property of an inmate that was transferred (six bags).  I came but could only pick up three so I came back a few days later and the jail staff refused to give me the other bags and arrested me for insisting that they cannot keep them and steal them. I then asked Mr. Coyne to pick  up Maisha Hamilton’s other 3 bags of legal documents and he did. I then went and retrieved them from him.

Prof. Coyne, lied in the court today and told the judge that I didn’t ask him to pick up the bags or come get them from him.  He apparently is working with these corrupt judges to defame and destroy me.  Judge Chiampas then barred him as a witness and indicated she was barring all my witnesses.  None of them showed up – they are sheriff staff and court clerk staff and have ignored my subpoenas.  So the Sixth Amendment guarantee of right to call witnesses no longer exists in C[r]ook County for defendants that the judges want to destroy.

6) Denial of right to have an unbiased judge (Judges orders are void if they fail to transfer a motion for substitution of judge for cause [bais] to another judge). Judge Chiampas refused to do this for more than 5 months, then a corrupt junior Judge Edward S. Harmening denied this motion despite the above facts that cause Judge Chiampas to clearly be revealed as biased and violating the constitution against me.  He apparently had his marching orders. She then quashed my second motion for SOJ also and it has not been transferred to another judge.

7) Denial of right not to be arrested and tried without probable cause. The charges against me are not legally sufficient.  I am charged with trespass to real property which does not apply in a public building and the charge said I entered the Daley Center after being given notice by the owner or occupant not to enter.  Yet the documents say I refused to leave the Sheriff’s office public waiting area where I went to complain that a clerk stole my personal court file. Therefore, the charge is not legal. Judge Chiampas is holding me for trial without probable cause a violation of the constitutiuon.

The second charge is disorderly conduct and again the charge is legally insufficient stating tthat I refused to leave the building. For a charge of disorderly conduct to be legal you have to claim the person disturbed the public order and name people who were doing something that was disturbed. They name no one so the charge is not legal and must be dismissed.

You can read more details about this in my U.S. Supreme Court pleadings at the end of this post.

Therefore, law does not apply in Cook County. The Constitution does not apply in Cook County.  Judges are GOD in Cook County, can ignore law, make law, arrest you, convict you and jail you for doing legal things like asking for a supervisor at the Daley Center when a Sheriff staff member violates the law or complaining about harassment by corrupt officials or police. Police can arrest you without legal charges and get you jailed if they are mad that you are criticizing them or exposing their corrupt acts. Retaliation is encouraged.  You have no rights in court in Cook County.  Excessive bail is the norm so that the courts can rip off even innocent defendants. They keep 10 % of all bonds whether you are innocent or guilty no matter how large the bond, despite the fact it takes the same amount of work to process a $1 million bond (they keep $100,000 even if you are innocent) as it does a $100 bond (they keep $10).

The FBI, U.S. Attorney, State Police, Chicago Police, Chief Judge Timothy Evans, Presiding First Municipal District Judge E. Kenneth Wright Jr, Illinois Appellate Court, Illinois Supreme Court, Federal District Court, and now the U.S. Supreme Court condone the above.  Therefore we live in a totalitarian police state and we have no recourse. The First Amendment right to redress of grievances no longer exists.  U.S. Supreme Court rulings are toothless and the court refuses to enforce its orders or the Constitution.

This leaves us no choice but 1) suicide, 2) armed revolt (suicide by cop), 3) flee the country, or 4) kiss ass, shut up, do as your told and submit to the corruption while accepting crumbs. What will you choose when this happens to you?

I (Shelton) have appealed to the U.S. Attorney in Washington and several different divisions there, Congressment, Senators in Washington and Springfield, elite lawyers throughout the country, foundations including the ACLU, Constitution Society, etc., and hundreds of lawyers including the National Lawyer’s Guild to no avail.  Several told me that they were threatened that if they help me they won’t have a job.  Some told me the FBI has only 25 or so agents actually investigation government corruption throughout the country and they won’t prosecute any case unless the government can collect at least $20 million and there are no more than 3 offenders.  Top dogs suggest that to make changes requires the help of the press and change can only be done through the legislature or Congress.  Since the cabal controls Springfield, change requires federal intervention.  I don’t know how much the Obama administration is beholding to the cabal but I do know that when Pres. Obama was a Senator he sat next to Lisa Madigan on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  I believe to get real change we need several constitutional amendments including term limits and a rule that no more than a third of a body (house or senate) may include one profession such as lawyers.  Right now the fox is watching the hen house.

The following documents give the evidence that proves the above:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/97209985/U-S-Supreme-Court-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus-against-the-Circuit-Court-of-Cook-County-and-Judge-Peggy-Chiampas

Appendix (Exhibits) being scanned into computer – will add later

First supplement to Petition  for Writ of Mandamus: http://www.scribd.com/doc/99850182/Supplement-to-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus-to-U-S-Supreme-Court

Appendix (Exhibits) being scanned into computer – will add later

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102019943/United-States-Supreme-Court-Motion-for-Stay-of-Criminal-Court-Proceedings

Appendix (Exhibits) being scanned into computer – will add later

2nd Supplement and its appendix being scanned into computer – will add later

http://www.scribd.com/doc/106402283/United-States-Supreme-Court-3rd-Supplement-to-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus-Against-Circuit-Court-of-Cook-County-and-Judge-Peggy-Chiampas

http://www.scribd.com/doc/106477344/United-States-Supreme-Court-3rd-Supplement-Appendix-to-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus-against-Cook-County-and-Judge-Peggy-Chiampas

http://www.scribd.com/doc/111917145/U-S-Supreme-Court-Motion-to-Add-Two-Additional-Questions-to-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus-10-2012

http://www.scribd.com/doc/111917983/U-S-Supreme-Court-Rule-44-Petition-for-Rehearing-10-2012

Appendix (Exhibits) to SCR 44 Petition for rehearing being scanned into computer – will add later

http://www.scribd.com/doc/111922293/U-S-Supreme-Court-Motion-to-Consolidate-several-cases-concerning-lawlessness-of-Cook-County-Courts-10-2012

%d bloggers like this: