Legally Insufficient Indictment-Failure to State Specific Means by Which Alleged Crime Accomplished - Illinois / Destruction of Evidence by Judge

The first thing I do if I am indicted or charged is look at the charging instrument - complaint, information, or indictment. I ask does it include all the elements of the alleged crime? If not, it is legally insufficient and voids the charge and case. There are other reasons it may be insufficient and I will discuss that in later posts. The motion in this post goes over the relevant controlling case law. Please enjoy it! I hope you find it useful. This is my motion in one case where the indictment is constitutionally legally insufficient basically because it fails to state the SPECIFIC MEANS of the alleged crime - in this case the specific allegedly fraudulent invoices, naming the specific dates of service, name of patient, service billed for, provider of the service, provider who is billing, and WHAT SPECIFICALLY is fraudulent about the invoice. It also states there is a “single intention or design” (i.e. scheme) but gives NO CLUE as to what the scheme involves or who are the alleged perpetrators other than me. The US Supreme Court as well as higher courts in Illinois have ruled in similar cases that this is a void indictment and therefore the entire case is void, not just voidable.

This is a case where in 2004 I was charged with felony Medicaid fraud by the Illinois Attorney General with a fraudulent grand jury indictment by an illegally impaneled special grand jury. The trial is still pending. If you want to attend, please e-mail me and I will inform you of the date when scheduled. Contributions to my legal defense fund may also be given to my attorney - made out to: “Shelton Legal Defense Fund” C/O J. Nicolas Albukerk, 3025 W 26th St., Chicago, IL 60623. The IL AG has absolutely no legal authority to indict anyone (with the exception of about six crimes specified by statute giving AG authority) without the invitation, review, and at least minimal participation of the State’s Attorney. This never happened in mycase. The law was mistated to the grand jury, only perjured testimony was given to grand jury, extensive excultpatory evidence was withheld from grand jury. No crime is actually alleged in indictment as act is specifically authorized by the Federal Medicaid Act if one guesses that the alleged crime is billing Medicaid for services of employees who are statutorily qualified to provide services - i.e. psychologists and counselors. I will post all the other motions to dismiss that the court has illegally refused to hear later.

UPDATE: I tried to file this pro se. It is still my position that I am being illegally denied the right to self-representation - more on this later. My attorney is considering adopting this motion and filing it under his name. In the meantime, Judge Alonso refused to hear it because it did not come from my attorney, who is now representing me over my objection. I did this not because he is a bad attorney, he is very good, but I believe at this point I need to represent myself - more on this later. The judge allowed this motion to be filed as an offer of proof only.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CRIMINAL DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) No. 04 CR 17571
)
LINDA SHELTON ) Jorge Alonso
Defendant ) Judge Presiding


MOTION TO DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT INDICTMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AN OFFER OF PROOF

NOW COMES Defendant, Linda Shelton, Pro Se, who respectfully moves this court to dismiss case due to insufficiency of indictment, or in the alternative offer this motion as an offer of proof that the indictment is insufficient and therefore the case is void ab initio. In support of this motion Defendant states as follows:
1. In Illinois, an indictment must be reasonably certain enough to apprise a defendant of the charges against him, enable him to prepare a defense, and permit a conviction or acquittal to serve as a bar to any subsequent prosecution for the same offense. People v. Greico, 255 N.E.2d 897, 898-899 (Ill. 1970)
2. A defendant has a fundamental right to be informed of the “nature and cause” of the charges against him or her. People v. Meyers, 158 Ill. 2d 46, 51 (1994).
3. In Illinois this fundamental right is given substance by statute and incorporated into section 111-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/111–3 (West 1998)). 725 ILCS 5/111‑3 states: “111‑3. Form of charge. (a) A charge shall be in writing and allege the commission of an offense by: . . . . (3) Setting forth the nature and elements of the offense charged;” [emphasis added] See Meyers, 158 Ill. 2d at 51; People v. Davis, 281 Ill. App. 3d 984, 987 (1996). When the sufficiency of a charging instrument is challenged in a pretrial motion, the inquiry upon review is whether the instrument strictly complies with section 111–3. Davis, 281 Ill. App. 3d at 987.
4. When the language of a statute which constitutes a charge against the defendant defines the acts prohibited, no further particularity is necessary. People v. Kamsler, 214 N.E.2d 562, 566 (Ill. 1966)
5. An indictment is not flawed because the overt act could be described in greater detail. City of Chicago v. Powell, 735 N.E.2d 119, 125 (Ill.App.1st Dist, 2000) CITING People v. Meyers, 630 N.E.2d 811 (Ill. 1994). Rather an indictment is sufficient so long that it would enable a defendant to prepare a defense. Id.
6. Ordinarily, the requirements of section 111-3 are met when the counts of a complaint follow the statutory language in setting out the nature and elements of an offense. Davis, 281 Ill. App. 3d at 987. The relevant inquiry is not whether a charging instrument could have described an offense with more particularity, but whether there is sufficient particularity to allow the defendant to prepare a defense. Meyers, 158 Ill. 2d at 54. A charging instrument is a preliminary pleading, and it need not contain more than a cursory statement of the facts. People v. Smith, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 497. However, it must state some facts.
7. If the charging instrument meets the minimum requirements of section 111–3(a) but (combined with any discovery the State furnishes) is insufficient to allow the defendant to prepare a defense, he or she can–and should–seek a bill of particulars. Smith, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 498; People v. Intercoastal Realty, Inc., 148 Ill. App. 3d 964, 971 (1986).
8. An indictment need not state the exact means used in committing a charged offense if that means is not an integral part of the offense. Grieco, 255 N.E.2d 899; SEE People v. Brogan, 816 N.E.2d 643, 654 (Ill.App.1st, 2004) (defendant’s argument that the indictment failed to apprise him of the details of how the overt act was carried out failed because the argument focused on the nature of the proof rather than the nature of the offense.) However, if the means is an integral part of the offense, the indictment needs to state these means.
9. When the language of a statute does not articulate a specific offense, the indictment must articulate a specific overt act. People v. Potter, 125 N.E.2d 510 (Ill. 1995) In Potter, the defendant was charged with reckless driving. The indictment specifically stated that the defendant drove recklessly by speeding. The defendant was therefore not left to question whether the reckless conduct was running a red light, driving at night without his lights on, or one of a myriad of other possibly dangerous driving manners. However, there are numerous cases where the reviewing courts ruled that the indictment did not articulate a specific overt act[1], and therefore, these indictments were fatally defective.
10. In the case at bar, the indictment states defendant is alleged to have “in furtherance of a single intention and design, … by means of false statements and representations, . . . caused false billing invoices to be submitted to the Illinois Department of Public Aid.”
11. The indictment does NOT SPECIFY any details of this “single intention and design” so the Defendant cannot prepare a defense because she must guess at what kind of scheme and with whom she schemed in order to commit the alleged crime. As she is innocent, she has no knowledge of any scheme to which to prepare a defense.
12. The indictment does NOT SPECIFY what false statements or what false representations she is accused of having made. She cannot prepare a defense and is forced to guess that the false statements have something to do with the large amount of different types of information on an invoice (Exhibit A), such as patient name, patient Medicaid number, date of service, type of service, diagnosis, or provider name.
13. Defendant must also guess at which step is fraudulent in a complicated series of steps necessary to submit an invoice, from agreeing to work for the business, to signing the contract with the billing agent, to giving a patient encounter form to the business assistant when a patient is seen in clinic, to the billing agent setting up the business for electronic submission and registering the business and provider for billing, to signing a power of attorney form, electronic partner trading agreement, and alternate payee form, in order to generate an electronic invoice from the patient encounter form, to submitting the invoice over the wire, and to documenting hours worked on chart review and teaching therapist or setting medical policies.
14. She further has to guess which dates of service for which of thousands of patient’s names in remittance advices given to her in discovery by the state, for the large time period of the indictment, June 2000 through April 2002, are involved so she can examine each of these invoices and guess at what is allegedly fraudulent about them.
15. The above involves pulling out each of the thousands of charts in storage, examining each date of service record and comparing them with the invoices, after obtaining access to medical charts not under her control or possession until June 2008. It also involves examining all business and bank records related to billing and payroll, after obtaining access to them, as they were not under her control or possession until June 2008.
16. As Defendant was not owner of the practice and did not have access to these documents after she left the practice in 2003, until June 2008, when she received Power of Attorney over all documents of the practice, at the request of XXXX, the owner, who is now medically incapacitated and dying of XXXXXX, Defendant is supposed to figure all this out and develop a defense using this material in only a couple of months. This is a Herculean task that no one could possibly be expected to accomplish. The Court for four (4) years has negligently and/or willfully interfered with and prevented Defendant from obtaining banking and billing records or compulsory process and prevented Defendant from legitimately seeking details of alleged offense.
17. The State does not specify if Defendant is alleged to have ghost-billed by listing patients and Medicaid numbers of persons who never came to the practice, upcoded by listing a code for a higher degree of service than provided, substitute-billed for a provider who was not eligible to bill, schemed with the business owner, the biller, the office assistants, or whomever, for any of this. In addition, no specific acts (specific patients, specific dates of services, or specific services) are described in indictment, and no specific dates of service or specific services billed for are described in Bill of Particulars.
18. No reasonable person can be expected to prepare a defense under the above circumstances, where the State, in the indictment has utterly failed, as required by law, to specify the overt acts which constitute the alleged criminal acts.
19. The State, in discovery, has provided a list of approximately 54 patients which are family groups with approximately 30 adults. They claim that this discovery material represents the State informing the Defendant of the means of the illegal acts she is alleged to have committed. This, along with a Bill of Particulars, however does not cure the fatally defective and insufficient indictment. The 30 or so adults were provided in a witness list. If each psychiatric patient is seen an average of 20 visits, then these 54 patients represent about 1080 visits. Defendant, without the indictment specifying which patients and which visits are allegedly fraudulent and how they are fraudulent is left to guess about this information for each of these 1080 office visits. The State’s bill of particulars and answer to discovery states that Medicaid received bills for services for these 54 patients and lists inclusive dates of service and total amounts billed for, but does not state specific dates of service and patients for which they claim that services were billed fraudulently or what was fraudulent about the bill, except that the bills were for services “not provided by the physician,” which could mean several different types of overt acts or omissions.
20. Defendant is now in a situation, ordered by this Court, and produced by the State, analogous to someone being indicted and charged with murder, but not being told who she murdered, where and on what continent the murder took place, what was the nature of the alleged weapon, or even what year the murder took place. This is the ultimate injustice and sham proceeding, that should have been dismissed several years ago. This is a continuing four (4) year act of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. There is no specific Who, What, Where, or When! These proceedings are therefore, a travesty of justice and beyond any semblance of legitimate American jurisprudence. This case brings this Court, this State, and its legal system into disrepute based on the unconstitutional, illegal, and unethical actions of this Court and this State against Defendant that run counter to every due process principle guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
21. The State has also provided in discovery thousands of the practice’s “remittance advices” that cover an approximately two year period. Remittance advices are documents generated by Illinois Medicaid sent to the medical provider which list the names of patients billed for, the recipient’s Medicaid number, the date of the service, the code for the service claimed, the invoiced amount, and the amount paid to the provider or alternate payee by Medicaid. Defendant must guess at which of these dates of services and patients may be added to the witness list and what is fraudulent about each and every one of the invoices submitted that Medicaid used to generate the remittance advices. Defendant would have to examine each invoice, if available, examine each chart for each date of service, and determine if there was a scrivener’s error, or a somehow fraudulent invoice and determine what was fraudulent about the invoice, and who was responsible for this act. Only in July 28, 2008, four (4) years after the indictment has this Court began to enforce discovery rules and order the State to clearly identify all witnesses to be used against Defendant, although the Court still has not ordered the State to identify the acts (dates of service and details of invoice that they allege are fraudulent) that constitute the alleged crime.
22. It appears that the State is forcing the Defendant to perform their investigation and figure out what, if anything, she should be charged with concerning these thousands of patient encounters, not just by her, but by every physician and provider in the practice during the broad indictment period, four years after the indictment was handed down.
23. Of note, a bill of particulars does not cure a faulty indictment. People v. Meyers, 158 Ill. 2d 46, 53 (1994). The indictment must stand on its own in stating facts sufficient to support all elements of the offense. The indictment, even with discovery materials, fails to inform Defendant of the alleged means of the crime or the alleged specific acts constituting this crime, four (4) years after indictment.
24. The indictment in this case is fatally insufficient in failing to specify the acts that allegedly constitute the crime charged. Therefore, no crime has been legally charged and the case is null and void ab initio.
25. Under 725 ILCS 5/114-4(e), if the State, due to lack of due diligence, fails to bring Defendant to trial within one (1) year, following the indictment, after one additional hearing scheduled 14 –30 days after this motion is filed, then the case must be dismissed with prejudice for lack of due diligence.
26. Defendant has previously moved for dismissal, 17 months after the indictment, due to lack of due diligence and this has been unconstitutionally denied. Defendant renews her request for dismissal for lack of due diligence. After four years or 48 months post-indictment, the State clearly should have provided the Defendant discovery, including all allegedly fraudulent invoices and a bill of particulars to address the above, even if this court erroneously rules that the indictment is valid.
27. The court has placed Defendant’s subpoenas on hold for several years and denied Defendant counsel for nine (9) months in 2005-2006. The law only requires the billing agent and practice to keep invoices for three (3) years. The billing agent now claims the invoices no longer exist. The State failed to produce any invoices for the indictment period despite repeated specific orders of Judge Pantle several years ago. It claims to have microfiche of some invoices, but these cannot include most of invoices produced by Ms. Moore, as the State only make microfiche of paper claims. State has not admitted to having or denied having in their possession copies of electronic invoices from indictment period, but has failed to produce them (the actual alleged means of the alleged crime) despite orders of the Court in 2006 to do so. Ms. Moore, by law was allowed to destroy all invoices and computer records of them before 2006.
28. In addition, banks are only required to keep records for five (5) years. Due to physical incapacity and lack of funds, Mr. Glass, the sole proprietor of RFOM during the indictment period, has not been able to preserve all his business and bank records. Citizen’s Bank has now informed Defense attorney Albukerk that the practice’s bank records no longer exist as it is now beyond this five (5) year period. The State has failed to ask for, subpoena, or proffer the practice’s bank records in discovery while the case has been pending for four (4) years.
29. Therefore, the Court and State have caused Defendant to be deprived of the “instruments of the alleged crime,” (the allegedly fraudulent electronic and then paper invoices) as well as exculpatory business and bank records, and therefore, materially and intentionally prevented Defendant from preparing a defense. This is not just lack of due diligence by the State. This is active interference with the defense, as well as violation of the judges’ oaths of office.
30. The defense cannot have invoices inspected by an expert for forgery of Defendant’s signature by someone unknown person regarding paper claims, nor inspect the electronic partner trading agreement from the third-party adjudicator, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois (”BC/BS”), which allows BC/BS to accept electronic claims from Medicaid providers, for forgery of Defendant’s signature.
31. These acts of withholding and failing to preserve evidence by the Court and the State, in themselves should cause this case to be immediately dismissed as a sanction against the State and the Court and because it now is more difficult, if not impossible to definitively prove that Defendant did not produce or cause to be produced most of the invoices in question, nor receive most of the money given the practice by Medicaid or have any part in deciding its distribution. This is the main element and the nature of the alleged crime, stated in general terms in indictment, without description of overt acts. With the physical incapacity of Co-Defendant and his written statement that he is invoking the Fifth Amendment and has refused to give a dying declaration, Defendant is put in the impossible position of proving a negative without the help of any evidence.
32. Defendant was UNCONSTITUTIONALLY prohibited by the court from filing any pleadings pro se by a written order of Judge Pantle, dated July 6, 2005, that has not been rescinded, and DENIED at the same time an attorney from May 2005 to January 2006, a period of nine (9) months. All Defendant’s subpoenas were put on hold by the court. Defendant has repeatedly requested to present argument to the court on her many outstanding and fully briefed motions and to represent herself and fire attorneys, initially hired by her family without her consent and then hired by her when it became clear that this court was going to continue its lawlessness and deny her all due process, right to an attorney of her choice, and right to a speedy trial. ALL her reasonable requests have been unconstitutionally denied by outrageous and dishonorable conduct of this court.
33. Denial of her Faretta rights has been baseless, and the reasons stated on the record by Judge Pantle are legally insufficient, lacking details and only conclusory; not properly documented by this court in a manner necessary to deny Faretta rights. Speedy trial has been violated as de facto removing Defendant as pro se counsel between July 6, 2005, when the court prohibited her from filing pleadings, while at the same time denying appointment of an attorney, until Defendant hired an attorney on January 19, 2006, means defense could not have agreed to any continuance during that time and therefore, all continuances during these seven (7) months must be charged to the State, and therefore case must be dismissed for speedy trial reasons.
34. Therefore, Defendant has been unconstitutionally barred from this court from filing or presenting this motion and many other motions, many of which have been fully briefed since February 2005. Attorneys acting on her behalf, against her wishes, have not fully presented all issues stated in Defendant’s pro se pleadings to the court. She therefore, is requesting her attorneys, denied their request to withdraw by the court and forced to continue to represent Defendant, and therefore appointed by the court over her objection, to file a motion to vacate July 6th, 2005 order preventing Defendant from filing pleadings, as well as adopt this motion and enter this motion, or in the alternative let Defendant pro se argue this motion. If the court won’t allow Defendant to argue it, Defendant requests that it be entered as an Offer of Proof, so that on appeal arguments and defenses she would have presented are preserved on the record.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Court to dismiss this case with prejudice for a fatally flawed indictment, or in the alternative for lack of due diligence or speedy trial violation. If this motion is not allowed to be filed for argument, then Defendant requests it be entered as an offer of proof.
Respectfully Submitted,
_______________________
Linda Shelton, Pro Se

Linda Lorincz Shelton, Ph.D., M.D.
Pro Se Defendant

Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct.
__________________________
Linda Shelton, Pro Se

Dated: August 4, 2008
[1] People v. Foxall, 283 Ill. App. 3d 724 (1996): The defendant was charged by information with disorderly conduct based on transmitting a false report of sexual misconduct to the Department of Children and Family Services. Foxall, 283 Ill. App. 3d at 727. The reviewing court held that the information was insufficient because it did not specify the contents of the false report, and basic fairness required the State to identify the allegedly false statements. Foxall, 283 Ill. App. 3d at 727.

Davis: The reviewing court found that the indictment was insufficient when the defendant was charged with official misconduct based on “disseminat[ing] information,” but the indictment did not identify the contents of the alleged communication. Davis, 281 Ill. App. 3d at 990.

People v. Stoudt, 198 Ill. App. 3d 124 (1990): The reviewing court held that a complaint that charged defendant with resisting a police officer was insufficient when the complaint stated that the officer was engaged in the execution of his official duties but did not identify the authorized act the officer was performing. Stoudt, 198 Ill. App. 3d at 128.

People v. Leach, 279 N.E.2d 450 (Ill.App.1st, 1972): The defendant in Leach was charged with resisting or obstructing a police officer. The charging instrument was insufficient because it only stated that the defendant committed the above offense by knowingly obstructing a police officer. Id. at 453-454

United States v. Bobo, 344 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir, 2003): The indictment was insufficient because it failed to specify the nature of the scheme used by the defendant to defraud the State of Alabama and the United States.

United States v. Nance, 533 F.2d 699 (D.C. Cir., 1976): The indictment was insufficient because it failed to apprise the defendant of the nature of the false pretenses by which the defendant gained unauthorized control over money.

People v. Gerdes, 527 N.E.2d 1310 (Ill.App.5th, 1988): The defendant in Gerdes was charged with obstructing justice by giving false information to the police. The charging instrument did not specify the nature of the allegedly false information. The defendant was therefore left to wonder which of many statements to the police the basis for the charge against him was, so the appellate court dismissed the indictment. Id.

THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE ORGANIZED

This is a poem of immense depth and truth that I wish to share with all who read on this site!

It is from: http://therevolutionwillnotbeorganized.org/ . It's author gave me permission to share it with you. Perhaps this will inspire others to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. Talk is cheap. Civil rights and justice are not!

"The Revolution Will Not Be Organized"

The revolution will not be organized,
the revolution will not be organized.com,
the revolution will not be Yahoo Grouped, Meetuped,
downloaded, uploaded, QWERTY'd, or blogged.

The revolution will not be handled by webmasters,
think-tankers, authors of policy position papers,
authors of anti-policy position papers,
secretaries, executives, executive assistants,
insiders, whistle-blowers, informants, counter-informants,
committees or sub-committees.

Your neighbor with excellent leadership qualities
will not lead you into, through, or out of the revolution.
The revolution will not be inspired, instigated, managed
or controlled by him, her, or them.
The revolution will not be organized.

No matter if you eat at McDonald's and can barely walk,
no matter if you drive an S.U.V. and rarely walk,
no matter if you were public school indoctrinated,
vaccinated, humiliated, ostracized, terrorized, minimized,
no matter if you live in a house owned by BofA,
no matter if you eat cat food, dog food,
Puppy Chow for your inner child,
no matter if you shop at Salvation Army, Saks, TJ Maxx,
when the Cold Hand of Power touches you,
it touches revolution.

They will come to chip you, rape you,
tell you you are theirs, imprison you in FEMA camps
because you spoke out,
because you doubted the official story,
because you looked with your own eyes,
spoke from your own heart.
They will come for you in black uniforms, black helmets,
swinging black batons, symbols of the New Authority,
and you will say,
"No, my children and I will not come with you."

You will say no -- not because Charlie Sheen
inspired you one night on FOX News
to look more closely at falling towers.
You will say no -- not because Alex Jones
led you through the darkness with a bullhorn.
You will say no -- not because Howard Zinn
handed you the Book of Truth on a silver platter.
You will say no because you are your own
star of truth shining the way.

At your unique hour, in the dark,
beneath a burning paper currency moon,
the Cold Hand of Power will touch you and revolt you.

At your unique hour,
when they come for you because you asked questions,
because you did not lower your eyes,
because you did not bow down,
at your unique hour,
in your unique circumstance,
you will find yourself in the grip of a courage
you have not known but which you are.
You will stand in front of black helmets with invisible faces,
and you will say,
"No, my children and I will not come with you."

Daughters and sons of revolutionaries,
blood burning for freedom,
eyes set toward tomorrow,
each of you alone in the darkness,
beneath tender constellations burning gold and silver,
each of you will remember the path to take
when the Cold Hand of Power comes for you,
each of you will make your way without direction or encouragement,
as those before you made their way without direction or encouragement,
forging history, embracing destiny.

You will not march in file.
You will not march.
The revolution will not be organized.

In your darkest hour,
beneath the burning moon,
you will pledge allegiance to the truth,
as those before you pledged allegiance to the truth.

The truth cannot be organized.



"The Revolution Will Not Be Organized"
written on September 24, 2008 by
Jock Doubleday

Dr Linda Shelton Remarks after Wrongful Conviction to Corrupt Judge & Prosecutor at Sentencing

STATEMENT OF DR. LINDA LORINCZ SHELTON AT SENTENCING AFTER WRONGFUL CONVICTION – PRIOR TO IMPOSITION OF TWO YEAR SENTENCE - I WENT DOWN STANDING UP AND HOPE OTHERS WILL FOLLOW MY LEAD - HAVE THE COURAGE TO REFUSE PLEA BARGAINS AND REFUSE TO COMPROMISE YOUR PRINCIPLES IF YOUR ARE INNOCENT, DESPITE THE COST - THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO ACHIEVE CHANGE FOR OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN!

THE SENTENCE WAS A VIOLATION OF CUNNINGHAM V CALIFORNIA (US S CT 2007) AND A VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS STATUTES. THE SENTENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROBATION. THE CONVICTION IS ON APPEAL. I WAS RELEASED ON 3/31/08 ON MANDATORY SUPERVISED RELEASE [parole] AFTER SERVING SIX MONTHS OF WRONGFUL INCARCERATION.

FOR EXHAUSTIVE DESCRIPTION OF TRIAL AND NIFONG-LIKE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT BY ANDREW DALKIN AND JOHN MAHER AS WELL AS CRIMINAL AND WILLING JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF DISHONORABLE JUDGE JOSEPH KAZMIERSKI SEE:

THE SALEM WITCH TRIAL AND CONVICTION OF DR. LINDA SHELTON - Part I
"Anatomy of Assassination of Character and Prosecutorial Misconduct in Convicting the Innocent" This narrative is long, but its goal is to provide a complete and true picture of the trial and the injustice system in America. ...
URL: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/108546.

THE SALEM WITCH TRIAL AND CONVICTION OF DR. LINDA SHELTON - Part II
Shelton testified that she did not ram or kick Salemi. She testified that she was at the door pounding on it and asking for a "white shirt" - a...
URL: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/108548.

Barry Goldwater at his acceptance speech as the Republican National Convention candidate for President of the United States in 1964 said:

“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

This is how I stand today when I call the kettle black. I do not wish to be misquoted so I have put this statement to paper to be filed in this case. I speak now for the sole reason of wanting to make a clear record. I am unequivocally innocent of the charges, found guilty wrongfully by extreme Nifong-like prosecutorial misconduct, perjury of Cook County Correctional Sgt. Anthony Salemi, and unconscionable judicial misconduct by Judge Joseph Kazmierski, which trashed my right to a fair trial and trampled the Bill of Rights – all together bringing this court into disrepute and grossly harming me, the Defendant, who in fact, was a victim of a vicious attack by Sgt. Anthony Salemi, as well as harming my family, my patients, and my friends and neighbors!

It is a revolutionary act to tell the truth in a time of deceit
[“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” George Orwell].

That is what I am now doing for the record.

Please note carefully:

With reasonable men I will reason. With honest men I will plead. but with tyrants, I will give no quarter as words are wasted.
[but to tyrants, I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.
William Lloyd Garrison]

My words today are solely to make a record and I realize they will fall on deaf ears today.
I consider tyrants as those with power, including this court, that are lawless, arrogant, incompetent, unfair, unethical and or malicious or with criminal intent, greedy, corrupt, or mentally unfit. I will leave it to higher courts to define the precise tyrannical nature of this court, but I will describe the tyranny.

I therefore will not plead for mercy or leniency. I am innocent – period – and you Judge [Joseph] Kazmierski clearly are aware of this fact. For you to hide behind a jury verdict – resulting from your biased unconstitutional rulings [including withholding evidence] and prosecutorial misconduct and witness perjury is despicable.

I am the victim of a corrupt, sadistic, violently explosive officer, who should be arrested and prosecuted for battery, perjury, obstruction of justice in falsifying records and official misconduct.

At least three other officers privately agreed with this assessment and are aiding and abetting this misconduct and violence by failing to turn in this criminal, who will continue to terrorize female inmates. They will have to live with this despicable choice of aiding and abetting a sadistic, violent and lying officer.

Evil prospers when good men fail to act. [unknown]

Sentencing me as a victim of a brutal attack by Sgt. Salemi is no different than convicting a rape victim of attacking the rapist and then turning her over to the custody of the rapist.

This is a despicable and disgraceful act that brings this court into disrepute and equates this court’s tactics with those of the infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy and with those of the infamous Soviet Secret Police who disappeared those patriots in Budapest in 1956 in a similar police state, after the courage they showed in attempting to break the Iron Curtain chains, which were heavily weighing on the lives and aspirations of my Hungarian ancestors just like corruption weighs down the citizens of Cook County.

I WILL NEVER BOW TO TYRANTS!

As I have said unequivocally – I am innocent. [Cook County Correctional] Sgt. Salemi opened my cell door on May 16, 2005 and said: “I’m going to make a case so you don’t get out,” after admittedly sending away the female officer on the unit.

This was four weeks after I won a summary judgment for injunction against corrupt former Cook County Sheriff Sheahan, who openly had violated the law in failing to reveal that he was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act upon my Freedom of Information Act request. Therefore, Sgt. Salemi’s criminal act of violence against me may be a federal felony offense of retaliation against a potential federal witness and those aiding him are conspirators and accomplices.

Sgt. Salemi opened the cell door [yet male officers are forbidden from entering a female cell along unless it is an emergency] wide enough to lunge in and grab my neck with his strong left hand and tree-trunk like forearm. He lied three times on the stand stating the [cell] door stayed open on its own. There is no way a Sgt. would not be aware that these heavy cell doors close firmly and automatically. [due to heavy door closing hydraulic mechanism present on ALL jail and prison doors] I suggest this judge take a short field trip and examine the doors himself. [he refused to do so]

The wheelchair rolled backwards, to his surprise, due to the physics of momentum, and Sgt, Salemi stumbled on the footrests nearly falling and skinning his shins as he slid down against them. I reflexively balled up unable to scream with his hand firmly around my throat. I grabbed at his tree-trunk like arm to push it off and then wedged my left leg, but weak shoeless foot against his chest frantically trying to stop him from choking me. I was in terror fearing for my life.

He then let go, quickly grabbing my left arm and the armless wheelchair, flipping me off the wheelchair out from under me. The nurse’s description of my injuries agreed to by the State are consistent with this story and inconsistent with Sgt. Salemi’s lies. The violent force of his aggravated battery against me – the victim, caused large contusions on the back and inner thighs and contusion on my left upper arm matching his fingers as well as contusion where I landed on my knee and caught toes in a footrest. [jail staff refused to take pictures] Sgt. Salemi’s fraudulent story would have resulted in contusions on bony prominences such as hips and elbows, which were not present.

Conveniently, despite my requests to nurses and doctors, the investigators failed to document my injuries with photographs. The State even stipulated to the description of my injuries, thus conceding Sgt. Salemi lied – but this court in violation of my rights to a fair trial refused to pay for an expert witness – a forensic pathologist to explain this [to the jury].

The State presented only on witness who stated anything against me – Sgt. Salemi, who impeached himself, was impeached by evidence, and was therefore not credible. Therefore, NOT a shred of credible evidence was presented to sustain a conviction. He lied about the cell door staying open by itself three times, about handcuffing me, about the toilet flooding causing him to come to my cell [my cell floor was dry], about all the wheelchairs at Cermak [Cook County Jail infirmary] being in working order. The aggressor, Sgt. Salemi, told an unbelievable tale about a disabled woman, without even half his strength, on the 6th day of a [dry – no fluids] hunger strike – too weak to stand and therefore too weak to kick, neurologically disabled so she can’t raise her right leg above her waist with force for years, attacking him and raising BOTH legs above her waist and kicking him against the now mysteriously closed door, WHILE the wheelchair was rolling backwards. This defies the laws of physics in this momentum transfer equation. Of course though, this court again denied my rights by refusing to pay for an expert to explain this.

Defense counsel also unfortunately was ineffective in failing to present the unit logs, investigative reports, and medical records to impeach Sgt. Salemi in his lies, but his court also is guilty of violating my rights in improper rulings preventing counsel from presenting some of this through testimony of Cook County Sheriff Investigator Sofus.

The court further enhanced this injustice by causing an automatic mistrial by not permitting offers of proof [evidence presented on the record with jury absent – to preserve it for appeal] when evidence or testimony was disallowed. This injustice was hammered home by this court refusing to allow an evidentiary hearing on post-trial motion for mistrial and by deciding what should be in the post-trial motion without giving Defendant time to properly write it with access to transcripts. The Defendant, not the judge, decides what to write in post-trial motions!
My physicians, one certified as an expert witness by the court, gave unrebutted testimony that it was physically impossible for me to commit the alleged crime due to spinal cord injury and dehydration. Only the false, legally impermissible, unsupported “testimony” by this Nifong-like prosecutor Assistant State’s Attorney Andrew Dalkin, who impermissibly denigrated the expert witness by stating that he did research on sleep meant he was not an expert in neurology, and that the jury should not believe the doctors because they are “friends” [the doctor testified he had NO social relationship with his patient Shelton], and that I could walk with my cane and right leg brace to the witness stand – which had nothing to do with my severely weak condition at the time of alleged offense, as well as implied and false remarks, which this court in a denial of due process used to inflame the jury against me, were used to refute the doctor’s testimony.

The unrebutted assumption, which the court illegally refused to allow me to counter, with description of my civil cases against corrupt officials, my federal testimony against former Illinois Governor and now convict George Ryan, and other corrupt officials, my civil rights actions against the Cook County Sheriff’s Department, and evidence of previous perjury by Cook County Sheriff’s Deputies Rebecca Doran and Maureen Caliendo in a similar case [of aggravated battery case of an officer where the judge pronounced me NOT guilty at the end of the prosecution case in chief because I had thoroughly impeached the witness deputies], that a doctor in jail is a bad person and that my medical license was suspended (itself which was a false statement, forbidden by this court’s order and thus mandating declaration of a mistrial, in that this is a baseless illegal action presently being challenged in court) were illegally allowed without any opportunity for the defense to lesson the extreme bias this introduced to the jury by testimony and evidence.

In the face of such inflammatory false testimony by the State’s Attorney – Chicago’s Nifong – Mr. Dalkin, who should never have proceeded with this case per the Illinois Supreme Court attorney code of conduct, as I early on gave him medical records that prove I was physically unable to commit this crime, along with the unconstitutional, impermissible, and biased rulings of this tyrannical court pretrial and during trial, it was an impossibility for an average jury to bring a finding of not guilty – they simply were denied the facts presented in an unbiased atmosphere.

This tyrannical court’s open disdain for higher court precedent and due process in failing to enforce its rulings to preserve evidence and produce evidence, including paramedic reports in discovery [exculpatory evidence illegally withheld by State], along with its unconstitutional refusal to permit offers of proof, in addition to its grotesque refusal to dismiss the count of ramming the Sgt. with a wheelchair when the State failed to preserve and purposely refused to produce the uniquely broken wheelchair that was the alleged weapon and would have impeached Sgt. Salemi, is the ultimate insult to the American justice system that trashed the Bill of rights in this court, as well as snubbed its nose at higher court precedent regarding State’s failure to preserve “the weapon, “ namely the wheelchair.

Not a shred of credible evidence against me was produced at trial. The State’s own witness impeached himself and was impeached by State’s witness, Nurse Ogale, who said the cell door is never open itself due to the heavy door closing mechanism and by the expert witness for defense doctors whose unrebutted testimony confirmed I was physically unable to commit this alleged crime. Finally, the laws of physics would have to be defied for me, even in a health state to knock a large healthy man like Sgt. Salemi off his feet from a wheelchair rolling backwards. The entire criminal allegation is preposterous and Kafkaesque.

The unbelievable, ludicrous, and truly bizarre motive for the alleged crime fabricated by Chicago’s Nifong – Mr. Dalkin, that I wanted “special treatment” and would do anything to get it is both fraud upon the court because medical care, access to the courts, and a phone call upon being taken into custody are statutory and constitutional civil rights not special treatment and the fact that this claim is a false statement of the law presented to the jury is disgusting and grotesque prosecutorial misconduct that this court is obligated by higher court precedent to declare a mistrial.

I have been unfairly, unconstitutionally, and unethically fraudulently convicted by innuendo, defamation, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, fraud and deceit that inflamed the jury’s passions and instilled bias to such a degree that a guilty verdict was a foregone conclusion.

This court cut off the defense at its knees, held the State above the law, and presided over an unfair, unjust, and unconstitutional Salem-like witch trial. Shame on you!

Judge, you have condoned and now even encouraged the reign of torture, corruption, and terror by a minority of sadistic, lying, and psychopathic correctional officers, many with serious personality disorders, making them unfit to be officers, against inmates, which brings into disrepute and causes disdain for ALL honest and honorable professional correctional officers including my nephew.

You have harmed my patients, my family, most unforgivingly my disabled and rapidly dwindling father, who because of incarceration, if you so order it, I may never see alive again at a time he most depends on me, and destroyed on of the most talented and devoted physicians, known how due to this conviction may never practice medicine again, and civil rights activists the needy in cook County have ever seen. This is atrocious, unforgivable, and despicable. I am a political prisoner attacked in retaliation for my whistle blower activities against your bosses – the corrupt political cabal in Cook County and Illinois that crosses party lines. You are a rubber stamp and lap dog for this corrupt cabal. [I am a federal witness against corrupt Cook County Sheriff Correctional Officers]

I may have lost this skirmish to the corrupt, but I will eventually, with the help of many behind the scenes, win this war and help to bring this corrupt cabal, their puppets, and lap dogs to justice and expose them. However, justice delayed is justice denied and I and my family and patients will never get back what you all have taken away. To deny motion for mistrial or not guilty finding not withstanding the verdict in the face of the facts violates your oath of office to honor the law and defend justice.

Come what may from this mistrial and injustice. I defy evil and spit in the face of this devil. I am a political prisoner and will conduct myself as such. My resolve for principles of justice and the defense of the Bill of Rights is unmovable. I pledge to spend the rest of my days exposing the corrupt, obtaining vindication, compensation, and bringing the real criminals, Sgt. Salemi, Chicago’s Nifong Mr. Dalkin, and Inv. Sofus to justice.

I will never give up the fight to prove my innocence by whatever means necessary and to convict the guilty of battery and misconduct. When all the innocent stand up publicly and confront the corruption of the criminal enterprise known as the Circuit Court of Cook County [a designation during the Graylord investigations leading to imprisonment of numerous corrupt judges and attorneys], then this lawless police state will end and we the people will restore the Bill of Rights. Until then, American justice is a myth, and I will not kneel to it, whatever you do to me.

To Sgt. Anthony Salemi, Investigator Sofus, Assistant State’s Attorneys Andrew Dalkin and John Maher, former Sheriff Sheahan and his lap dog Sheriff Dart, State’s Attorney Richard Devine, and Judge Joseph Kazmierski along with all that aid and abet your incompetence and corruption, may GOD have mercy on your souls.

Linda Lorincz Shelton, Ph.D., M.D. Statement in open court on December 3, 2007

I was released after serving six months in supermax like conditions at first Cook County Jail and then Dwight Correctional Center, classified as maximum security inmate, despite the fact I am a non-violent pacifist, was in a wheelchair and unable to move it myself any large distance, have no prior convictions, and have no gang affiliations. I was placed in segregation for refusing to walk - even though I am physically handicapped and could not. I was tortured and will post my suit for excessive force, cruel and unusual punishment, torture, medical battery, willful indifference to medical need, defamation of character, assault and battery of a handicapped person, violation of civil rights under color of law and conspiracy to violate civil rights.

This was my reward for defending the medically and mentally challenged children of Illinois, for asking for supervisors when State employees didn't do their job, and for vigorously defending myself according to the law! My medical license has now been indefinitely suspended and I have been defamed. It will take years to obtain justice and a reversal of this conviction. Even after one year, the court reporters have failed to produce all the transcripts for appeal and the IL Appellate Court in an act of corruption denied my motion to compel. There is NO JUSTICE IN ILLINOIS.

To contact me use my e-mail address: picepil@aol.com

Donations for legal fund for use in appeal for the now indigent Dr. Linda Shelton and for civil rights suits can be sent to:

Albukerk and Associates
label "Shelton Defense Fund"
3025 W. 26th Street, 2nd Floor
Chicago, IL 60623

Interested attorneys who are willing to help break the corruption in C[r]ook County and wish to provide pro bono services - making Shelton's suits into class actions or defending her should contact me directly at above e-mail.

Sheriff Dart like convict former Gov Ryan - Trying Something Big to Distract from his Crimes

I own[ed] a building in Evergreen Park with my former medical office on 1st flr and former home on 2nd flr. Evergreen Park police illegally in violation of safety codes allowed my neighbor Veterinarian Whalen to brick over the bedroom windows making it a safety hazard and unlivable per the building code (on the other side is a gas station so there would be NO escape from bedroom if there was a fire). By law life and safety codes trump other rights such as building to the property line in a business district. The building had been built as a home 50 years ago.

I owned half and my son own undivided half. Dart gave Joe Varan from GoIn Realty ( a real scumbag company that buys tax and other liens in Sheriff's sales and then without adequate notice to resident or renters evicts them (stealing their property).

Dart gave a fraudulent full deed to the property when Judge Jaffe and then Epstein illegally ordered me to pay $30,000 to Whalen for attorney fees when I filed a complaint for injunction to stop bricking over the windows and lost due to the violation of law by the senile judge at the time, Judge Jaffe. Then my half interest was sold in a lien sale when Whalen put an illegal lien on my property. Varan took this court order specifying that 1/2 interest in the building should be sold and Dr. Shelton should be evicted. I had no property that I owned in the building at the time.

Then Dart allowed Varan to evict my renters (a relative had bought the contents of my office for safe-keeping and a friend was storing her business and personal property there while out of the county). NO NOTICE was given to the renters or to me. If a notice was mailed to me, it was mailed to the building and Varan had stolen my mail and locked me out of the building illegally.

Sheriff Dart and his staff, with the help of Evergreen Park police and Varan stole, knowingly (they had a copy of a letter from Varan's attorney acknowledging that they only owned half of the property, yet the deed was to the whole property) > $ 1 million of property including 2000 children's medical records (I can't give them their shot records now), all my medical books and personal books, drugs, syringes, a $15,000 ring, three fur coats from renter, all of her records of patients as a psychologist, all her personal belongings and family momentos, Elijah Mohammed's violin (she had been his neighbor), priceless documents and historic photos from my father's career as an academic dermatologist, computers, all of my tools of the trade, my sons property, all my business records.

The renter is a potential federal witness who had on her computers not only patient records in psychology in the baby T case, but a lot of evidence of criminal conduct of elected officials to give the FBI, including evidence that Daley's office knew of the bribes to truckers.

There are hundreds of syringes on the streets now due to Dart. The FBI has been informed and has done NOTHING.

Dart is also in charge of a jail where the US Attorney recently released a report documenting murder of inmates by guards, denial of medical care resulting in amputation, and torture. Dart should be jailed for a century. I don't understand why US Atty hasn't indicted anyone. Its no different then investigating a gang and then going to a gang and saying - Oh my you committed murder, rape, drug dealing, prostitution and that's not good so I'm going give you a little time to clean up your act. How unbelievable! We live in a totalitarian police state!

My family trust was the mortgagor. I and my son defaulted on the mortgage. As the first lien holder the family trust has now foreclosed on the property and we should get it back in foreclosure proceedings. I am preparing a suit for wrongful conveyance and will keep hounding the FBI to take criminal actions until they do. I am also filing petitions to void all orders dealing with denying the injuction and ordering me to pay court costs, as well as the lien sale.

If any attorneys wish to assist me pro bono, I would be greatful. Jim DiChristofano from River Law North Law Group is handling the foreclosure.

IL Dept Corrections/Prisoner Review Board - Violate Mental Health Laws/Statutes - Endanger Public

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

LINDA SHELTON, Plaintiff v.
JORGE MONTES, Chairman Illinois Prisoner
Review Board in his official capacity, and ROGER WALKER JR., Director Illinois Department of Corrections in his official capacity, Defendants,

Hon. Rita M. Novak Judge Presiding
08 CH 24471

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION

Parties
1. Plaintiff, during pendency of this complaint, was a resident of the State of Illinois and County of Cook and a person who was wrongfully convicted of aggravated battery of a correctional officer on December 3, 2007 and sentenced to two years in the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”).[1] She completed the minimum prison sentence on March 31, 2008 and was released on mandatory supervised release (“MSR”), which is effective until March 27, 2009. She is actively pursuing an appeal of this wrongful and fraudulent conviction.
2. Defendant Walker, at all times during the pendency of this complaint, was the duly appointed director of the IDOC and the legal custodian of Plaintiff from December 3, 2007 to the present.
3. The Illinois Department of Corrections is a Department in the State of Illinois authorized by Statute to maintain custody of persons lawfully convicted of a felony crime and sentenced to the penitentiary during the pendency of their sentence.
4. Defendant Montes, at all times during the pendency of this complaint, was the duly appointed director of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board (“PRB”).
5. The PRB is an agency in the State of Illinois authorized by Statute to serve as the board of review, independent of the IDOC, for cases involving revocation of prison good conduct credits, or a suspension or reduction in the rate of accumulating such credit; as well as the authority for setting conditions of mandatory supervised release under 730 ILCS Section 5/3-3-7(a)&(b) of the Illinois Code of Corrections, and determining whether a violation of those conditions warrant revocation of MSR or the imposition of other sanctions.
Facts
6. On March 28, 2008, Plaintiff was released from the penitentiary and placed on MSR after serving the minimum sentence minus good conduct credits.
7. On March 28, 2008, while at Dwight Correctional Center, during the release process, Plaintiff was ordered to sign an agreement for mandatory supervised release and related papers. Plaintiff refused to sign such papers because they erroneously listed her mandatory approved residence as a place she had never heard of, “Hardin House, 7528 S Eggleston, Chicago,” when she actually lives at XXXXX and is responsible for assisting her elderly disabled father with his affairs, as well as because Plaintiff was told she was being turned over to the custody of the Cook County Department of Corrections (“CCDOC”), when in fact she had paid a bond on one last pending wrongful criminal charge and was to be released.
8. IDOC staff, at no point, prior to release on March 28, 2008, discussed living arrangements, conditions of MSR, or Plaintiff’s transfer to the CCDOC with Plaintiff. The above erroneous arrangements and ordered mandatory residence were a shock to Plaintiff, and would have perpetuated the extreme hardship on her father.
9. On March 28, 2008, immediately after Plaintiff refused to sign and complained about the erroneous MSR documents, Plaintiff was taken into custody on an alleged charge of violation of parole for “refusing to live at assigned residence, and refusing to sign MSR agreement.”
10. 730 ILCS 5/3-3-9(d) states that MSR may not be revoked without written notice to the offender. Plaintiff was negligently taken into custody on March 28, 2008, because she legitimately refused to sign documents that erroneously said she was going to live at 7528 S. Eggleston in Chicago. Plaintiff was not given any written notice. Nothing related to parole including the place Plaintiff would live and the fact she cared for her disabled elderly father was discussed with her before scheduled release on March 28, 2008.
11. Plaintiff lives at XXXX AND was the caretaker for a disabled father, who had been forced to hire caretakers using his retirement funds due to the illegal and unconstitutional incarceration of his daughter, the Plaintiff.
12. Plaintiff was also told that she was being turned over to CCDOC officers for transport back to the CCDOC, when she had posted bond, and there was absolutely no reason to do anything but release her immediately. Turning her over to the CCDOC officers was illegal.
13. 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(c) states that those persons placed under MSR SHALL be told of special conditions of MSR before release and he SHALL sign a copy of such conditions before release. The document signed by Plaintiff on March 31, 2008 listed no special conditions of MSR, nor has Plaintiff ever received a copy of PRB order for special conditions of MSR, or been asked to sign another MSR agreement document.
14. This mandatory rather than discretionary language means that the PRB may not enlarge or modify conditions of MSR unless there is a due process finding of a violation of conditions of MSR by the PRB.
15. Plaintiff was held until March 31, 2008 in custody, and then released after signing partially corrected MSR documents under duress of threat of continued custody.

A. Enlargement of Statutory Conditions for MSR may NOT be made After Release Without a Finding of Violation of Conditions of MSR in a Due Process Hearing.

16. On information and belief, the PRB at a hearing without the presence of the Plaintiff or her counsel, and without due process, on May 28, 2008, illegally ordered special conditions of MSR for Plaintiff including “CG anger management counseli[ng]” (a form of mental health treatment), as well as “CP outpatient m[e]nt[a]l h[ea]lth cond[itions]” (which has not been defined to Plaintiff). This is quoted from a computer printout, labeled “ PAROLE – PRB HEARING SCHEDULE/RESULTS INQUIRY . . . SPECIAL ORDERS:”, received from Parole Agent Supervisor Dana Travis. Plaintiff has never received this illegal order in writing.
17. 730 ILCS 5/3-3-9(c) states that a person charged with violating a condition of MSR SHALL have a preliminary hearing. Plaintiff never received a preliminary hearing after her MSR was revoked from March 28, 2008 through March 31, 2008. Therefore, it was never determined if there was probable cause to revoke her MSR on March 28, 2008. The IDOC computer printout record for Plaintiff from Parole Agent Supervisor Dana Travis is devoid of a finding of violation of MSR.
18. 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(d) states, only when an offender on MSR is charged with a violation of conditions of MSR, that the PRB may modify or enlarge the (statutory) conditions of MSR after a hearing with due process. Plaintiff was never notified of a hearing or allowed to be present during the hearings held by the PRB on May 28, 2008 and June 16, 2008 regarding her MSR, despite the fact her MSR was revoked from March 28, 2008 through March 31, 2008. Therefore, due process was denied Plaintiff, when special conditions of MSR were placed upon her by the PRB.
19. 730 ILCS 5/3-3-9(e) states that an offender charged with violation of MSR has the RIGHT to 1) appear and answer the charge; and 2) bring witnesses on his behalf. These rights have been denied Plaintiff to date.
20. 730 ILCS 5/3-5-1 states that if the PRB makes a determination that affects the length of confinement, the committed person and his counsel shall be advised of factual information relied upon by the respective Department or Board to make the determination. Plaintiff can be recommitted if she fails to cooperate with the illegal orders for special conditions of MSR, and the PRB decides she violated special conditions of MSR as illegally ordered. Therefore she is entitled to have copies of documents used to make the determination that an order for special conditions was required, as well as a transcript of the hearings during which special conditions of MSR were illegally ordered. She has never been given these documents.

B. Basic Statutory Construction Rules and Plain Language Interpretation in regards to Conflicting Statutes REQUIRE that PRB Requirements for Involuntary Mental Health Evaluation and Treatment SHALL Comply with Mandates of the MHDDC

21. The Illinois Code of Corrections, 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(b), states that, “The Board may in addition to other conditions[agreed to by offender before release per 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(c)] require that the subject: . . (2) undergo medical or psychiatric treatment or treatment for drug addiction or alcoholism.”
22. 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(b) is in CONFLICT with the Illinois Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (“MHDDC”). 405 ILCS 5, SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES DUE PROCESS and a COURT HEARING before a subject is subjected to involuntary treatment, the definition of which includes evaluation. This is because a person has a Fifth Amendment Constitutional liberty interest in being free from involuntary medical treatment.
23. Basic rules of statutory construction provide that when statutes conflict, specific provisions control over the general. Hernon v. E.W. Corrigan Const. Co., 149 Ill. 2d 190, 172 Ill. Dec. 200, 595 N.E.2d 561 (1992); First Bank of Oak Park v. Avenue Bank and Trust Co. of Oak Park, 605 F.2d 372 (7th Cir. 1979). Therefore, 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(b) may not be used to order involuntary mental health evaluation because the more specific 405 ILCS 5 statute is controlling and mandates a court hearing and the right to a jury before ordering involuntary mental health treatment (defined by the MHDDC as including involuntary evaluation) , although it may be used if there is probable cause for order of involuntary drug addiction evaluation, treatment, and case management, as drug addiction in Illinois is not defined as a mental illness by the MHDDC, 405 ILCS 5.
24. The Illinois Administrative Code pertaining to corrections, 20 IAC 470.80, states that the PRB may refer a subject, who is identified as a substance abuser, to an agency for case management and drug testing. Plaintiff has never been identified as a substance abuser. In fact, she has been assessed by multiple experts in psychiatry and psychology as not being a substance abuser, including:
a. Dr. XXXX, a nationally renowned Forensic Psychiatrist from California who did an extensive evaluation of Plaintiff with 14 hrs of home observations and thorough review of medical and legal records in 2004;
b. Dr. XXXX, a nationally renowned Forensic Psychologist and the chief mediator for the U.S. Postal Service at the time, did extensive psychological tests, interviews of collaterals, and direct examination of Plaintiff, as well as reviewed legal and medical records in 2003 and 2004;
c. Plaintiff was involuntarily confined (not committed) at the UIC Psychiatry Ward for 13 days in 2005 by an illegal court order by Judge Pantle and they did extensive testing for organic brain disorder as well as extensive observation for psychiatric illness; and
d. Dr. XXXX, a senior psychiatrist at the Psychoanalytic Institute of Chicago and Northwestern University, has evaluated Plaintiff for the case in which she was wrongfully convicted and in which she was illegally denied the right for her to have him testify, and has provided psychoanalytic therapy in 2007 to help diminish symptoms of PTSD.
25. Plaintiff has never been adjudicated by any court as being subject to involuntary mental health treatment. All above psychiatrists have diagnosed Plaintiff as being unusually mentally stable under stress and suffering from no mental illness or personality disorder except for post-traumatic-stress disorder, exacerbated by the May 16, 2005 attack on her by CCDOC officer Sgt. Anthony Salemi, manifest by nightmares and flashbacks with non-violent symptoms and chronic low level depression without psychosis.
26. IAC Section 1610.80, “Conditions of Release,” states that: “Persons released under … mandatory supervised release . . . are subject to rules of conduct prescribed by the Board and any special conditions deemed appropriate by the Board in individual cases. Said conditions for release to other than discretionary parole will be set without an interview.” This Adminstrative Code does not grant the PRB a license to enlarge conditions of MSR after release without a finding of violation of conditions of MSR in a due process hearing. As noted above this section of the Illinois Administrative Code is in CONFLICT with the MHDDC, 405 ILCS 5, and therefore, due to basic statutory construction rules, is NOT Controlling, as the MHDDC is more SPECIFIC and therefore MUST be followed. This statute is in all other ways valid concerning NON-mental health issues including drug addiction.
27. As the PRB has failed to follow the MHDDC in providing Plaintiff due process, after release of Plaintiff, before enlarging conditions of MSR and illegally ordering involuntary mental health treatment, the PRB orders for special conditions of MSR, are legally NULL AND VOID ab initio.

C. Parole Agent Pork Dockery’s Misinterpretation of Void Orders for Special Conditions of MSR Amounts to Incompetence of Parole Agent and Her Harassment of Plaintiff

28. Parole Agent Victoria Pork Dockery (alias “PA Pork”), on June 25, 2008, ordered Plaintiff to report to “Safer Foundation,” in Chicago, for an “anger management evaluation and mental health evaluation,” by July 3, 2008. The Director of Safer Foundation in downtown Chicago, Ms.XXXX, on July 2, 2008, stated that Safer Foundation is an agency that helps ex-cons, particularly with drug problems, prepare for and obtain jobs, including drug abuse testing and monitoring, GED preparation, assistance with preparing resume and in preparing for interviews, and referrals to job sites, as well as case management concerning drug addiction. As an M.D., Ph.D., who is NOT a drug addict, Plaintiff is not in need of any assistance in this manner. Plaintiff is physically permanently handicapped and is “working” full-time without pay taking care of her disabled elderly father and his affairs, obtaining physical therapy since May 2008, due to her debilitated, emaciated, and weakened condition as a result of wrongful incarceration and medical neglect, scheduling a minor surgical heart procedure (radiofrequency ablation – kind of like an angiogram where they map the heart from within and burn the aberrant pathways), adjusting her medications in conjunction with advice from her numerous physicians to better control her severe unusual type of asthma and severe neurocardiogenic syncope disorders, writing her appeal of the wrongful conviction, litigating several civil rights, malpractice, and toxic torts pro se, as well as preparing for another last trial. It would be HIGHLY inappropriate to order her to get a job. Ms. XXXX told her their agency does not do mental health evaluations and it was not appropriate for the parole agent to refer Plaintiff to this agency. She left a phone message for Parole Agent Pork Dockery relating the same message on July 2, 2008.

D. Special Conditions of MSR Do NOT Comply with Statutory Mandate of Assisting Subject in Leading a Law-Abiding Life

29. There does not appear to be ANY reason whatsoever to have special conditions of MSR put on Plaintiff or to do ANY drug testing of her whatsoever. This would be harassment, intimidation, defamation, humiliation, and gratuitous annoyance with NO PURPOSE whatsoever regarding furthering her “adjustment to society”, or “assisting her in living a productive and law-abiding life,” which are statutorily required reasons for placing a convicted felon on special conditions of MSR. Plaintiff is already an honest, forthright, although outspoken, law-abiding citizen who has been wrongfully convicted, financially destroyed, defamed, and tortured by this corrupt and dysfunctional system of patronage appointees and incompetent and/or ignorant and inadequately trained IDOC staff, and who is 100 % dedicated and uncompromising in seeking vindication, compensation, and justice.

Argument

30. If PRB illegal orders for anger management counseling and mental health conditions are enforced against Plaintiff’s will, Plaintiff will be deprived of her liberty interest in refusing medical evaluation and treatment. If Plaintiff refuses to comply with these illegal orders, Plaintiff will be subjected to further unjustified PRB hearings and sanctions, and deprived of her liberty without due process, while awaiting these hearings.
31. The injury cannot be redressed by an action at law for the reason that a direct appeal of the conviction will take longer than the time to enforce the illegal orders of the PRB. Also, the Plaintiff has already sent multiple letters to the IDOC Director, Deputy Directors, Chief of Parole Department, Parole Agent Supervisor, and Parole Agent, requesting a hearing with the PRB and a stay of the order until due process is granted, without ANY response to date. Therefore, administrative review has been exhausted.
32. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury unless an injunction is issued by this Court because she will irreparably have been denied due process and her liberty rights will have been denied.
33. The continuing policy and practice of the PRB and the IDOC in violating the MHDDC is against the public interest and this Court should grant class action to this complaint because it impacts all those persons released by the IDOC who have been involuntarily ordered to undergo mental health or anger management treatment, including evaluation, and medical or psychotherapy and counseling treatment, including evaluation, by denial of their due process rights that are statutorily guaranteed. All of these persons on MSR are subject to losing their liberty rights without due process. In the alternative, counsel should be appointed in the public interest and leave granted to amend complaint for class action purposes.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that:
1. The Court enter a temporary restraining order pursuant to Paragraph 5/11 101 of Chapter 735, ILCS, [or as the case may be, a preliminary injunction pursuant to Paragraph 5/11-102 of Chapter 735, ILCS] enjoining and restraining Defendants PRB and IDOC and their officers, agents, and employees, and each and all of them, from ordering mental health conditions, evaluation or treatment for Plaintiff and any person on MSR unless the mandates of the MHDDC are strictly followed, pending final determination of this cause and until the further order of this Court. This order will NOT bar VOLUNTARY mental health (including anger management) conditions, evaluation, treatment, or counseling agreed to, without coercion, by persons on MSR.
2. The temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction be granted immediately and without bond.
3. The temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction may be made permanent on final hearing and determination of this cause.
4. Plaintiff receives any other and further, or different, relief the Court may deem equitable and proper.
5. Costs of the action.
6. In the public interest, this Court appoint Attorneys to litigate this complaint as a class action, as a pro se litigant may have no standing to litigate as a class action, or in the alternative allow the Plaintiff to litigate this case as a class action with standby attorneys to be appointed by the Court.
Linda Lorincz Shelton, Ph.D., M.D.

Dated: July 7, 2008

[1] In fact, she had been assaulted and battered by Cook County Department of Corrections Sergeant Salemi on May 16, 2005. He falsified his records, and he knowingly wrongfully filed a criminal complaint against Plaintiff falsely alleging she attacked him, in retaliation for her complaining about the Cook County Department of Corrections violating her civil rights. She was wrongfully convicted because of a biased jury. Biased because of extreme Nifong-like prosecutorial misconduct by Assistant States Attorneys Andrew Dalkin and John Maher, and by outrageous denial of due process and abuse of judicial discretion by Judge Joseph Kazmierski, all of which grossly denied Plaintiff a fair trial. She was illegally sentenced to prison instead of probation, in violation of Cunningham v. California, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007), and the Statutes of the State of Illinois.

IL Dept Corrections Fails to Monitor Parolees/Illegal Contracts

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

LINDA L. SHELTON, Plaintiff v.
ROGER E. WALKER R. in his official capacity as Director of Illinois Department Corrections, Defendant

Hon. Mary K Rochford Judge Presiding

No 08 CH 35707
_____________________________________________

COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS

BACKGROUND, FACTS, AND RELEVENT STATUTES/RULES

3. Plaintiff had been wrongfully convicted and unconstitutionally incarcerated at IDOC until March 31, 2008, when she was discharged on mandatory supervised release (“MSR”).[1] MSR requires that the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) supervise released offenders. The “Department” in the following refers to the IDOC.
20 IAC 470.70(a), (b), and (c): Supervision of Released Offenders
(a) To enhance public safety and to provide a continuum of treatment and program services to assist the offender with successful reintegration into society, released offenders shall be supervised by agents of the Department.
(b) The level of supervision shall be determined by the Department based on such
matters as the offender’s committing offense, propensity towards violence, or leadership or affiliation with security threat groups.
(c) Released offenders shall be monitored for compliance with statutory conditions of
release and applicable special orders issued by the Prisoner Review Board.

4. This IAC is authorized by 730 ILCS 5/3-2-2(1)(E), “To establish a system of supervision and guidance of committed persons in the community.”
5. The IDOC has promulgated rules to implement its statutory mandates, which includes:
Administrative Directive 04.50.105
II. E. Initial Supervision Levels
. . . .
1. All offenders released on parole or mandatory supervised release . . . shall be placed in Level I, except as otherwise provided in the following Paragraph.
. . . .
F. Supervision Standards
1. Level I
Supervision standards for Level I require the releasee to:
. . . .
b. Contact the Department or its agent at a designated number via telephone
once each month.
. .. .
2. Level III
Supervision standards for Level III require the releasee to:
. . . .
a. Contact the Department or its agent at a designated number via telephone
twice each month
G. Level Changes
2. After successful completion of the initial 90 days in Level I or Level II, all
other releasees shall automatically be reduced to Level III unless in his or her discretion the Parole Supervisor determines otherwise.

Plaintiff by law is required therefore, to call a phone number given to her by the parole agent twice a month as of the date of filing of this complaint, until her conviction is overturned on appeal.
6. Plaintiff is required to be on MSR until March 27, 2009. Her parole agent is (“P/A”) Victoria Pork Dockery. The supervising parole agent is “P/A/S” Dana Travis, who as of filing date has been temporarily replaced by P/A/S Farrior.
7. P/A Pork Dockery came to Plaintiff’s home on or about April 1, 2008 and told Plaintiff she was to call the “parole check-in telephone number every Tuesday”. She gave the telephone number as 800 666-6744.
8. This number is maintained and operators are provided by Protocol Services, Inc., an Illinois Corporation registered with the Illinois Secretary of State and incorporated on December 18, 2007, claimed to be owned by a Delaware corporation, Bayside BPO Merger Sub Inc., which incorporated on January 23, 2008 (after the Illinois Corporation was incorporated) and whose name was changed by amendment to Protocol Services Acquisition Corporation on March 17, 2008 by their incorporator Megan L. McCoy, an attorney, who has an office at 77 W. Wacker Dr. Suite 2400, Chicago, IL 60601 and is an attorney with the law firm of GT GreenbergTraunig. Corporate documents giving the name of the owners and officers of the corporation are not yet filed or available in Delaware. Corporate reports have not yet been filed in Illinois. The Delaware Corporation’s Vice-President is listed on the Amendment papers as Javier Cassillas of Sarasota, Florida. Protocol Services, Inc. President is listed in Illinois as Charles Dall’Acqua of Sarasota, Florida, with their secretary listed as George Cardoza of the same address in Sarasota, Florida.
9. Plaintiff attempted every Tuesday to call this number, then after three (3) months, twice a month. However, the vast majority of times the number was busy. When it was eventually answered after up to 30 or so attempts in one day spanning many hours, Plaintiff was put on hold with a recorded message frequently for up to and over an hour.
10. Plaintiff repeatedly wrote and complained about the difficulty using the parolee/releasee check-in number because it was almost always busy to P/A/S Travis, IDOC Parole Division Chief Asst. Dir. Montgomery, IDOC Director Walker Jr., and IDOC attorney Mr. Huntley. Plaintiff wrote over a dozen letters since March 31, 2008 and has received only one vague letter that her letters were received and appreciated by IDOC Asst. Dir. Benos. No one has addressed the issue of this essentially nonfunctional parolee/releasee check-in telephone number.

FACTS ABOUT PAROLEE/RELEASEE CHECK-IN NUMBER NOT FUNCTIONAL OR LEGAL

11. Plaintiff requested through FOIA to Defendant Walker, the contract between IDOC and Protocol Services, Inc. so she could determine if Protocol Services, Inc. was providing services according to their alleged contract. Defendant Walker, in a letter denying the FOIA request dated August 28, 2008, stated that IDOC has NO CONTRACT with Protocol.
12. Plaintiff has confirmed with the Illinois Comptroller that Protocol Services, Inc. is paid 6 million dollars per year by the State of Illinois.
13. Illinois statutes require that all contracts for services must be awarded by competitive bidding. The State may NOT pay for services, in large sums, if there is no contract. 30 ILCS 500/25-15(a). No services provided to the State are legal without a contract obtained via competitive bidding. Therefore, Protocol Services, Inc. is NOT legally providing a check-in parolee/releasee telephone number service. It can therefore be assumed that any knowing participation in or use of this telephone number, amounts to aiding and abetting a criminal enterprise. When Plaintiff discovered these facts in August 2008, she informed officials and staff at IDOC that she would not participate in this criminal activity by anymore attempting to call this number.
14. Plaintiff has informed Defendant Walker, Asst. Dir. Montgomery, P/A/S Travis and P/A Pork Dockery, that she will not call the check-in number 800 666-6744 because it is NOT a LEGAL service, and she does not wish to violate the law by aiding and abetting this criminal enterprise. Plaintiff also stated that she does not believe that she is required under the MSR agreement to stay on the phone for hours redialing a phone number that is constantly busy, especially as the number appears to be to a criminal enterprise and not a legal service for the State.
15. Plaintiff informed Defendant Walker, Asst. Dir. Montgomery, P/A/S Travis, and PA/ Pork Dockery, that because IDOC is violating the law in failing to provide a working parolee/releasee check-in phone number, she will instead check-in with IDOC twice a month via fax from her home telephone addressed to the fax number of Asst. Dir. Montgomery and P/A/S Travis, until such time as IDOC provides to her a legal and working parolee/releasee check-in telephone number, in order to attempt to comply with check-in requirements of the MSR agreement and IDOC Administrative Directives. Plaintiff has consistently checked-in in this manner.
16. P/A/S Farrior called Plaintiff on September 23, 2008 and told her that she must call into the check-intele phone number twice a month. The above information was then relayed to P/A/S Farrior and Asst. Dir. Montgomery both by telephone and by fax on September 23, 2008, by Plaintiff.
17. Plaintiff refuses to comply with this illegal order of the P/A Pork Dockery and now P/A/S Farrior, because she will not condone their criminal conduct. She therefore potentially faces a potential charge of violation of MSR, incarceration, and an increased length of imprisonment at any time, despite her strict adherence to the laws of the State of Illinois. This of course, would be a constitutional due process violation perpetrated against Plaintiff.

ARGUMENT

18. Even if Protocol Services Inc., has a contract and Defendant Walker is mistaken in his August 28, 2008 letter, the fact that the number is always busy means that IDOC has violated the MSR agreement by not providing a working check-in phone number. It is onerous and burdensome for a parolee/releasee to be stuck to their phone all day once a week (or once or twice a month as the IDOC Adminstrative Directive actually requires). Of NOTE: P/A Pork Dockery originally fraudulently told Plaintiff she has to check-in by phone once a week, when the IDOC Administrative Directives for Level I supervision required a phone call only once a month.
19. A Petition for a Writ of Mandamus must contain the following: 1) a clear right to have the requested act performed; 2) every material fact necessary to demonstrate the petitioner’s clear right to the writ; 3) a showing that the requested act is the duty of the respondent to perform; 4) a showing that the requested act is within the power and authority of the respondent; and 5) a showing of a demand and the respondent’s refusal to act. People ex Rel. Endicott v. Huddleston, 34 Ill.App.3d 799 (1975).
20. Plaintiff has met each and every requirement for a Writ of Mandamus to force the IDOC to provide Plaintiff a legal and functional parolee/releasee check-in telephone number so that she and each and every parolee/releasee in the Cook County area can comply with directives of the IDOC regarding checking-in by telephone with IDOC on the specified periodic basis. Of note: Plaintiff cannot be forced to aid and abet a criminal enterprise by IDOC rules and directives. That would be clearly unconstitutional.
21. The Statues, Rules, and Directives cited above give Plaintiff a clear right to have the requested act performed (IDOC maintain a working parolee/releasee telephone number that is answered in a reasonable period of time).
22. The director of the IDOC is appointed by the Governor per 730 ILCS 5/3-2-3 and is responsible by statute for carrying out the duties of the IDOC specified by 730 ILCS 5/3-2-2, including section (1)(e), specifying as noted above, that one of the duties of IDOC is supervision of parolees/releasees. Therefore, the Defendant is responsible to maintain a working parolee/releasee check-in telephone number as required in the IDOC Administrative Directive 04.50.105.
23. In a mandamus action of a public right, the elements of demand and refusal are not required (People v. Kerner, 35 Ill. 2d 33, 219 N.E.2d 617 (1966); Mammolella v. First Bank of Oak Park, 97 Ill.App.3d 579, 423 N.E.2d 204, 53 Ill. Dec. 12 (1st Dist. 1981); Weisberg v. Byrne, 92 Ill.App.3d 780, 416 N.E.2d 298, 48 Ill.Dec. 267 (1st Dist 1981).
24. Therefore, Plaintiff has sufficient cause to request this Honorable Court to order the IDOC in a Writ of Mandamus to provide a legal parolee/releasee check-in telephone number, instead of the dysfunctional telephone number provided to an illegal entity. The public safety is in jeopardy from other violent and psychotic offenders and IDOC is in violation of law, as long as a legitimate parolee/releasee check-in telephone number is not operational. Failure to properly supervise parolees/releasees is a statutory violation regarding the duties of IDOC.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this court order the IDOC in a Writ of
Mandamus to provide a legal parolee/releasee check-in phone number, instead of the dysfunctional telephone number provided to an illegal entity, as well as all other relief deemed appropriate by this Honorable Court in the interest of justice and public safety.
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct.

Linda Shelton
Dated: September 24, 2008

Prepared By:
Linda Lorincz Shelton, Ph.D., M.D.

Plaintiff Pro Se

[1] In fact, she had been assaulted and battered by Cook County Department of Corrections Sergeant Salemi on May 16, 2005. He falsified his records, and he knowingly wrongfully filed a criminal complaint against Plaintiff falsely alleging she attacked him, in retaliation for her complaining about the Cook County Department of Corrections violating her civil rights. He stated when he entered her cell after sending away the female unit officer, Plaintiff attacked him while in a wheelchair and forcing her way through the door by ramming him with her wheelchair “skinning his shins” and then after this knocked him down and he stood up, “kicking him in the chest with her RIGHT leg.”

This is despite the fact that Plaintiff has a partial right hemiparesis with impairment of her leg so that she can not kick it with force above the waist, the wheelchair was broken and difficult to move, she has congenital injury to the spine causing life-long weak arms and shoulders making it difficult to move the wheelchair forcefully, and she was on the sixth day of a dry hunger strike, intensely dehydrated and unable to stand for more than a few moments due to weakness from the dehydration. Her physicians gave unrebutted testimony affirming these facts unrebutted by the State. She was wrongfully convicted because of a biased jury.

The jury became biased because of extreme Nifong-like prosecutorial misconduct by Assistant States Attorneys Andrew Dalkin and John Maher, and by outrageous denial of due process and abuse of judicial discretion by Judge Joseph Kazmierski, all of which grossly denied Plaintiff a fair trial. She was illegally sentenced to two years in prison instead of probation, in violation of Cunningham v. California, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007), and the Statutes of the State of Illinois. Plaintiff was illegally abused and punished for refusing to walk (IDOC staff falsely claiming she was faking her multiple medical conditions and physical handicap) during the reception process, including a life-threatening assault on her with an ammonia inhalant (purportedly given to prove she was faking a collapse and asthma attack), but which exacerbated the attack, caused brief unconsciousness and is contraindicated in asthma, as well as denial of medical care.

The IDOC staff are attempting to conceal the documents about Plaintiff’s reception events at IDOC in order to cover-up their official misconduct and ADA violations, in refusing to release the reception summary to Plaintiff.

U.S. Attorney Press Release about Torture, Medical Neglect, and Excessive Force at Cook County Jail

The press release from July 2007 announcing that the U.S. Attorney had finished their investigation of civil rights violations at CCDOC:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2008/pr0717_01.pdf

The 98 page letter to the Cook County Commissioners which describes in detail the torture, medical neglect, excessive force, and unsanitary conditions:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2008/pr0717_01a.pdf

Why are there no indictments? What is the use of an investigation without teeth? Where are the outraged civil rights activists? Where is the public outrage on this issue? How can we ignore murder of inmates by guards, medical neglect requiring amputations, illegal forced druggings of inmates to shut them up, and this culture of neglect, abuse, and corruption? Where are the hearings before the Cook County Board of Commissioners, the Illinois Senate and House Judiciary Committees, and the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representative's Judiciary Committees? Where is the outrage from Senators Durbin (Chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee), Obama, and McCain? This is an American Abu Ghraib. Where is the press?

Massive Government Corruption in Illinois & Cook County Corrections Departments

As part of the ongoing Operation Safe Roads federal investigation that led to a guilty verdict for former Governor George Ryan, another state official and two state lobbyists were indicted July 19, 2007.

Former director of Illinois Department of Corrections' Don Snyder is accused of accepting lobbyists' gifts that may have influenced official decisions. These kickbacks for contracts with those doing business with the Illinois Department of Corrections are illegal. He has now been convicted and sentenced to prison. This is another example of the fact that all contracts with Illinios and C[r]ook County require a 10% kickback (bribe) that goes in the coffers of the corrupt political machine in order to fund re-election and line the pockets of corrupt officials, Democrat and Republican.

Two lobbyists accused of paying the kickbacks also were indicted. John J. Robinson, 59, of Barrington Hills, was Undersheriff of Cook County from 1991 until 2001, and also worked between 1996 and 2003 as a paid consultant and lobbyist for several vendors that did business with IDOC, according to the indictment.

The indictment said Larry Sims, 58, of Pleasant Plains, was a lobbyist for several vendors, including a Pennsylvania health care company awarded millions of dollars in contracts to provide health care services to IDOC inmates during Snyder's tenure. The company received 40 million dollars from the State to provide health services to inmates but did vertially nothing.

The Chicago Office of the US Attorney announced in early 2007 that they had started an investigation of civil rights violations at Cook County Jail in regards to inadequate mental health and medical care as well as excessive force.

In July 2007 I, Dr. Linda Shelton, prevailed in a pro se mandamus action in the Circuit Court of Cook County against the Illinois Human rights authority, a division of the Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission. A mandamus is a complaint asking a court to order an official to perform their statutory mandatory duty. Pro Se means I represented myself, in this case as plaintiff.

I had made a complaint of systemic abuse, medical neglect, torture including illegal use of forced drugs to shut up inmate complaints and illegal use of medical restraints, as well as battery and excessive force in regards to mental health patients. The HRA declared my complaints "not frivolous" but refused to perform their statutory duty and send in a team to investigate these criminal violations of the Illinois Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Act.

The HRA represented by their defense counsel AG Lisa Madigan capitulated in July 2007 and agreed to investigate the jail. This occurred after I filed a response to their motion to dismiss, which was impossible for them to defend against.

I have turned over all the evidence I have to the US Attorney so they can coordinate their investigation with the investigation by the Illinois HRA. This included affidavits from 40 former female inmates who state how they witnessed rape, medical neglect, torture and excessive force, as well as other disgusting acts of a minority of the jail staff that is covered up by the entire jail staff. These affidavits are very hard to read due to their content and were collected by Dr. Maisha Hamilton, also a victim of false criminal charges and a false conviction, due to her whistle blower activities.

Judge Dorothy Kirie Kinnaird, presiding judge of Chancery in the Circuit Court of Cook County, is the assigned judge on this case and she has ordered the AG to provide her in by August 2007 an affidavit by the HRA that states they are proceeding with this investigation and an estimate of how long the investigation will take.

The HRA investigated my complaints and sustained them, finding that CCDOC illegally violates the IL Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Act by forcefully injecting inmates with psychotropic drugs without legal justification.

The U.S. Attorney in Illinois released a report (98 pages) in Illinois after their investigation sustaining complaints of gross medical negligence, excessive force, and unsanitary and barbaric conditions at the CCDOC in violation of civil rights. This report includes grotesque descriptions of beatings by guards resulting in death and medical neglect of an incredible and barbaric level including failing to treat an inmate with an open fracture and a leg in a cast with antibiotics, resulting in massive infection and the need to ambutate the limb in order to save the inmates life.

Yet the U.S. Attorney has failed to indict any staff at CCDOC for murder or felony violation of civil rights. This is like investigating a gang and then going to their leader and stating: We found you are engaged in drug dealing, murder, extortion, and prostitution. We are giving you two months to clean up your act. Please get back to us with a plan.

Are we living in the twighlight zone? Do we have ANY rights? Does the FBI and U.S. Attorney serve any purpose or care about the people?

It is my opinion that the jail should be put under federal supervision and the present Sheriff Dart of Cook County, former Sheriff Sheahan and the top administrators should be held fully accountable for what amounts to many instances of negligent manslaughter in addition to many other crimes.

A civil society should not tolerate abuse of the mentally ill and even the most vile criminal should be treated humanely. A society should be judged not for how they treat their most notable and prominent citizens, but how they treat their most needy and despised citizens. We have a long way to go before we can claim the high ground in this evaluation. As long as torture exists in American, our Constitution and Bill of Rights are in jeopardy.

My letter to the HRA follows:

From: Linda Lorincz Shelton April 10, 2006

Joseph Mengoni, Chairperson
Human Rights Authority
Chicago Region
West Suburban Regional Office
P.O. Box 7009
Hines, IL 60141-7009

Dear Mr. Mengoni:

I am writing to ask you to investigate the systemic violation of the Mental Health and Developmental Disability Code (MHDDC) by Cermak Health Services of Cook County (CHS) at 2700 S. California Ave., Chicago. CHS is part of Cook County Jail (CCJ) and houses inmates on medical and psychiatric tiers. This is compounded by the extreme incompetence of the medical and psychiatric staff and their grotesque malpractice, amounting to outrageous abuse of patients/inmates. You may want to refer this to your intake unit. I know you have the ability to refer your findings to prosecuting authorities. I ask that when you are finished you provide your report to the FBI Civil Rights Division for prosecution, because the ongoing and willful abuse of patients is so grotesque. It clearly is a criminal violation of §5/6-102 and is a pattern of conspiracy to violate rights under color of law (a federal felony) as well as an illegal penalty on the exercise of constitutional rights (a federal crime.).

Just because a person is an inmate at CCJ does not mean that physicians and medical staff at CHS can violate the MHDDC. Medical staff at CHS, under direction of the Director of Psychiatry, Dr. Carrington, use involuntary forced injections of Ativan® repeatedly, on a daily basis, to shut up inmates, silence complaints, punish infractions of jail rules of conduct and in retaliation for complaints. These injections are rarely used because an inmate is a danger to themselves or others. The MHDDC is grossly violated on a regular and sanctioned basis. The Medical Director sanctions its use in this fashion.

I am a civil rights activist and whistleblower. I have been illegally arrested and repeatedly incarcerated at CCJ on the Cermak medical and psychiatric women’s tiers. I have multiple medical problems as described in Exhibit A, a letter from my cardiologist. Please note that I have been evaluated, at my request by a nationally renowned forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Rappaport, a nationally renowned forensic psychologist, Dr. Maisha Hamilton, psychiatrists at the University of Illinois and the chief of clinics at the Psychoanalytic Institute of Chicago, Dr. Leo Weinstein. All agree that I do not suffer from ANY MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER EXCEPT FOR PTSD AND A LOW LEVEL OF DEPRESSION. They are all powerful witnesses in my civil rights and malpractice suits. I would be more than happy to share their reports with you.

I was incarcerated on the women’s medical tier at CHS from 5/10/05 to 5/27/05 and injected at least three times with Ativan®, against my will, to shut me up, on 5/16/05, 5/18/05 and 5/23/05. I had gone on a dry hunger strike, as a protest, and as much as possible loudly complained about violation of my civil rights by pounding on the cell door and throwing water under the door into the hall. The jail staff, in violation of law and my constitutional rights, had denied me a call to an attorney at any time (except collect and attorneys don’t take collect calls from possible new clients); although acting pro se on numerous torts against corrupt State and County officials as well as in several bogus criminal cases, brought in retaliation for my civil rights and whistleblower activities, where I was later found not guilty, denied me access to the law library, pen, paper, grievance forms, a way to file motions or contact opposing counsel, or even a way to notify courts that I was not able to attend hearings and being held incommunicado; denied me medication for asthma, vasospastic angina (cardiac chest pain) and severe neurocardiogenic syncope with episodes of asystole– with the excuse that they believed I was faking my medical problems and having anxiety attacks (endangering my life); and exposed me repeatedly to tobacco smoke and cleaning solutions, to which I have life-threatening sensitivities (they trigger severe asthma attacks). Please note that sedatives such as Ativan® are CONTRAINDICATED in severe asthma attacks and may lead to death.

I was again incarcerated, by a rogue judge issuing illegal orders, from 12/14/05 to 12/30/05 with no bail, on the Cermak women’s acute psychiatric tier (2W) and illegally injected with Ativan®, against my will, to shut me up, on 12/14/05. The Illinois Appellate Court overturned the judges orders and released me on 12/30/05, changing the bail order back to a personal recognizance $10,000, essentially invalidating the incarceration (court documents provided upon request – case # 04 CR 17571-03). I again was incarcerated, by a rogue judge issuing illegal orders, there on 1/6/06 to 1/20/06. The Illinois Appellate Court again invalidated the judge’s orders and freed me (court documents provided upon request). While incarcerated I witnessed repeated mental and physical abuse of inmates by jail staff, medical and psychiatric staff. I was repeatedly physically assaulted, battered and abused. I was denied my usual medications and through the malpractice of jail physicians and mental health workers falsely diagnosed as malingering, faking my medical conditions and suffering from anxiety. The standard method of medical examination and diagnosis by Dr. Nakamoto on 2W is to look at the inmate fully clothed from across the room or across the desk and to diagnose the person that way, assuming what they say is false because they are crazy inmates and just want attention and want to manipulate them. Nurse Johnson, Dr. Nakamoto, Dr. Carrington and mental health worker DeVito were particularly sadistic, incompetent and continually falsely assumed that my asthma attacks, presyncope and severe dehydration were “anxiety” and a “personality disorder.” Of NOTE, when I was released on 1/20/06, I was immediately brought to the University of Illinois Hospital emergency room by my son and admitted for severe dehydration with severe orthostatic vital signs, an inability to stand without assistance, borderline renal failure from severe dehydration, untreated prolonged chest pain and joint injuries from physical abuse. I had dropped in weight from 165 lbs. to 140 lbs. in 14 days, evidence of a life-threatening level of dehydration, which proves CCJ and CHS’s severe malpractice and medical neglect. It took immediate infusion of four liters (one gallon or 8.8 lbs.) of IV solution to stabilize me.

The specific violations, of the MHDDC, include failing to permit patients/inmates to refuse medication, failing to inform patients/inmates that their rights to refuse medication have been denied, failing to prepare the paperwork necessary to document restriction of rights to refuse medications, using forced medication to shut up patients/inmates and punish infractions of jail rules, failure to inform the patient/inmate’s family, regular physician, attorney and the Human Rights Authority, failure to adequately document the reason for forced medication and failure to keep records readily available to HRA concerning the use of forced medication. Of course, since it is a jail there may be a gray area concerning a patient/inmate’s right to call family members and the HRA, as well as their right to be free from restraints. Peneologic considerations may or may not override these rights.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter. I look forward to your thorough investigation and the resulting civil and criminal enforcement of patient/inmates’ civil rights under the MHDDC.

Sincerely,
Attachment Linda Lorincz Shelton, Ph.D., M.D.