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.